ML20217K447
| ML20217K447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217K423 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805010219 | |
| Download: ML20217K447 (7) | |
Text
- **to g % UNITED STATES
- }
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. ensas anni SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCI FAR REACTOR REGULATION OF THE SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN ASSOCIATED REQUESTS FOR RFIIEF FOR TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Technical Specifications (TS) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SON), Units 1 and 2 state that the inservice inspection (ISI) of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1,2, and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) and applicable addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g), except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(6)(g)(i). In addition,10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) contains a provision that '
attematives to the requirements of paragraph (g) may be used, when authorized by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), if (i) the proposed attematives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety or (ii) compliance with the specified requirements would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. 4 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4), ASME Code Class 1,2, and 3 components (including supports) shall meet the requirements, except the design and access provisions and the pre- :
service examination requirements, set forth in the ASME Code,Section XI, " Rules for Inservice ;
Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The regulations require that inservice examination of components and system pressure tests conducted during the first 10-ten-year interval and subsequent intervals comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month interval, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The applicable edition of Section XI of the ASME Code for SQN Units 1 and 2 second ten-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval is the 1989 Edition.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if a licensee determines that conformance with an examination requirement of Section XI of the ASME Code is not practical for its facility, information shall be subnntted to the Commission in support of that determination and a request made for relief from the ASME Code requirement. After evaluation of the detern.ination, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), the Commission may grant relief and may impose ENCLOSURE 1
~
9905010219 990427 PDR ADOCK 05000327 G PDR
, s 2
altamative requirements that are determined to be authorized by law, will not endanger life, property, or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed.
By letter dated November 21,1995, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted its second 10-year ISI program plan and associated requests for relief for SQN Units 1 and 2 to the NRC.
At the NRC staffs request, additional information was provided by TVA in its letters dated May 9,1996, September 6,1996, March 4,1997, and August 28,1997 )
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), has evaluated the information provided by TVA in support of its second 10-year ISI program plan and associated requests for relief for SQN.
Based on the results of the review, the staff adopts the contractor's conclusions and recommendations presented in the enclosed Technical Letter Report, with the exception of the f
conclusions regarding Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-1 (Part 1) and 1 ISI-1 (Part 1) in the first paragraph of"Section 4 Conclusion." A typographical error occurred and it should have read that granting relief was recommended for Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-2 (Part 1) and 2-ISI-2 j
(Part 1) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) instead of Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-1 (Part 1) i and 2-ISl-1 (Part 1).
Based on the review of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second 10-Year interval ISI Program Plan, TVA's responses to the NRC's requests for additional information and the I recommendations for granting relief from the ISI examinations that cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified except those noted below and in the contractor'a evaluation of Request for Relief Nos.1-1S1-1,24SI-1,1-ISI-2 (Part 2), 2-ISI-2 (Part 2),1-ISI-3,2-lSI-3, and ISPT-03.
Request for Relief Nos.1-181-2 (Part 1) and 2-181-2 (Part 1): The NRC staff has determined
. that certain inservice examinations cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code. TVA has demonstrated that specific Section XI requirements are impractical for Relief Requests 1-ISI-2 (Part 1) and 2-ISI-2 (Part 1). In addition, TVA's proposed attemative provides reasonable assurance of operational readiness of the subject systems. Therefore, the staff concluded that reliefis granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) as requested. Granting relief will not endanger life, property, or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon TVA that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.
Request for Relief Nos.14814,2-1814,1-1814,2-1814,1181-7,2-181-7, ISPT-02,ISPT44, ISPT-06, ISPT-07, and ISPT48: The staff determined that TVA's proposed attematives contained in Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-5, 2-ISI-5,1-ISI-6,2-ISI-6,1-ISI-7,2-ISI-7, ISPT-02, ISPT-04, ISPT-06, ISPT-07, and ISPT-08: provides an acceptable level of quality and safety.
- Therefore, the staff concluded that the attematives contained in the above requests for relief are authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
l l
l 3 Request for Relief Nos. ISPT-01, and ISPT-06, Revision 2: The staff has determined for the altamatives contained in Request for Relief Nos. ISPT-01 and ISPT-05, Revision 2, that compliance with the code is a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in safety. Furthermore, TVA's proposed attematives provide reasonable assurance of operational l' readiness of the subject systems. TVA's proposed attematives contained in Request for Relief Nos. ISPT-01 and ISPT-05, Revision 2, are authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).
. Request for Relief Nos.1481-3,2481-3, and ISPT 03: The staff has determined that, based i on multiple requests for relief submitted by TVA to accomplish the same objectives, Request for
- Relief Nos.1-ISl-3,2-ISI-3, and ISPT-03 no longer represent a significant burden and relief is L not required. Therefore, relief is denied for Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-3,2-ISI-3, and ISPT-j' 03 was not required.
Request for Relief Nos.1481-1,2-181-1,1481-2 (Part 2), and 2-181-2 (Part 2): The staff has determined that TVA did not provide sufficient justification to support the determination that the Code requirement is impractical or that compliance with the Code requirement would result in hardship. Therefore, Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-1,2-ISI-1,1-ISI-2 (Part 2), and 2-ISI-2
! (Part 2) are denied.
l '
- Request for Relief Nos.1481-4 and 24814
- By letter dated August 28,1997, TVA withdrew l Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-4 and 2-ISI-4.
?
I-
3.0 CONCLUSION
l j The staff concluded that based on the review of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second 10-Year Interval inservice inspection Program Plan, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified, except those noted above and contained in the NRC Contractor's evaluation of Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-1,2-ISl-1,1-ISI-2 (Part 2),
2-ISI-2 (Part 2),1-ISI-3, 2-ISI-3, and ISPT-03.
The staff has concluded that the Code requirements are impractical for Relief Requests 1-ISI-2 (Part 1) and 2-ISI-2 (Part 1).- In addition, TVA's proposed attematives provide reasonable assurance of operational readiness of the subject systems. Therefore, the staff concluded that relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), as requested. Granting relief will not endanger life, property, or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon TVA that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.
In addition, the staff concluded that TVA's proposed attematives contained in Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-5,2-ISI-5,1-ISI-6,2-1S1-6,1-ISl-7,2-ISl-7, ISPT-02, ISPT-04, ISPT-06, ISPT-07, and ISPT-08, provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, the staff concludes that the alternatives contained in the above requests for relief are authorized pursuant to 10
' CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
The staff has concluded that for the attematives contained in Request for Relief Nos. ISPT-01 and ISPT-05, Revision 2, compliance with the code is a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in safety. Furthermore, TVA's proposed attematives provide reasonable assurance of operational readiness of the subject systems. TVA's proposed
a e
4 attematives contained in Request for Relief Nos. ISPT-01 and ISPT-05, Revision 2, are authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).
The staff has concluded that relief is denied for Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-3,2-ISI-3, and ISPT-03, because the reliefs no longer represent a significant burden and relief is not required.
The staff has concluded for Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-1,2-ISI-1,1-ISI-2 (Part 2), and 2-ISI-2 (Part 2) are denied because TVA did not provided sufficient justification to support the
)
determination that the Code requirement is impractical or that compliance with the Code '
requirement would result in hardship.
By letter dated August 28,1997, WA withdrew Request for Relief Nos.1-ISI-4 and 2-ISI-4.
For detailed technical evaluations, conclusions, and justifications for granting relief or ,
authorizing alternatives or denying WA's requests for relief, refer to the NRC contractor's '
Technical Evaluation Report No. INEEUEXT-97-01185, dated January 1998 ( Enclosure 2).
Principal contributor: Thomas K. McLellan, ECGB l l
Date: April 27, 1998 i
r
) ) ) )
_ 2 i(
) 7 i
( i(
t 9 ) )
_ f 6 3 3 o f ss eeu
(
)
g n8
/
d) (
d) (
w/2 e ze ut zn (a (a l
1 l d(
4 oqa d e d d a8 n e
g ReS t e t n e e d r(
o o a R m a m i
n h h h e r e e it t u
t u
P D G D D W A A
_ e g
d ea n md ai o md r e d
a en fo st
_ d e la J x er o
_ s f o ew l
ep t nd 9n C
- oe pv t e e n od cA 0e 5n r oi l o
m mo a1 Np o e
p r t Pan lell e s oh sc n9 s er hs hs ar ae r p t e9 em so m VV lt t n1 ac a ete u ns l
sl PP un e0 Cf o x 1 nA RR tr o t i r n5 e e2 c
e ys f o ban fo ' *3 to25 -
dn oo l e5 -
duN f
e m f f i
L s a s eg pA Ct c i
sd n mW ee sexa t r t al e si eu r eI x
ee hs l
Cw Be Bd Ein sle ca Us SC
. d r ed r o f
o no o
_ i c c l a c l
a c uh qet t i
r t
n eb cs u s n u n &ic r e e t ee s t a nn e t
ed i v i v ete
. Ri m u
m u e p um ei qa 3 mc uf a 3 m u
c am lo l fr u S
Vsu o
o e ex T- l r T- lo T V V Rse V V ulo
_ V Sv S
E
_ d s U e m s n d d e n Q i le l e t s
o
_. E m w w y s h s a e t
n cd R x g e S e sel F E n g
n r e m m ldse es w
_ 1 E e ld a la o b e l f f t
a f r h c wud i dn
_ EIL o w o o
w t p a leae L E e d t
- B t a g t-d t
d er m t
a sr s efe AR e n a a Fl ele e d eda TF r a e e a x e vis
- s -
A l
f h h ym e d ono O r o e e r
as s sn l e t it eea Y o t r
u r u h d t
no w t l i mn l
R e le s o
s o ua eb ns ly n z zn A m u
h s lc lc A 4 on l a oom nnr R S pm e
r M l o V V V m a g e VVV WP o x M V P P P t PPP R R R PN Ce n RRR U I
- S .
_ o
_ N 2 0
- m 0 0 0 ? 000 D e 3 4 4 *.0???? 91 1 t
- N i 1 B
1 B
1 B
81 31 23 BBCDDD 335 BBB A
- 1 y r
. S o g
T I e 1
)
b1 t (
N a 0 1 20 U C 2 2
222 222 _
T m 1 1 1 1
- 1 a D CCD -
N x A- A- HKCABC D- F-Al E B A-B B W WWW - - - - - -
BBCDDD B B I I I I La v Pr l e
l e le le Rt e ro ":: s s s s s s 3 s e s s s An e e t dt e E
I m V V V n ne n ,
V LS I
e r re re r re e
n a n 2
r re CI r t
s r; ou r ous ou 3o 2o 1 ou Ua y
S :-
t ca ss t c
a s t
ca ss sp sm sp sm s3 t c s C e er e e s a s -
Ne r ere la o a o lad n ere RP lCC RP RP CC Ca RP H Y-A0 ))
1 1
))
22 Y1 t r f s e t t t t Od eeb PP PP Uno l l
oqm u 1 1
((
22
((
22 33 44 55 66 Qc Ee Reu RN I I SS I I
- - I I SS I I
- - I-SS I I I I SS I I
- I l I SS I I I I SS I I i I SS I I I
SS 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
O -
i) ) ) )
2 t
(
)
3
"(
)
i
(
)
3 i(
)
i) i(
)
)
i(
)
)
i
(
)
)
i
(
)
f 3 3 3 o f ss d )( d( 3 d) (
d )( d( 3 d)(
3 eeu e e )a e t e d )(
e d )(
e 2 Nut oqa zn (a z n( zn (a od ner z (a n
e z )a n( zne (a iz (a iz (a e
g ReS t o o o fi eu o o o r
o r o
a R ht h h liq h h h h h u t u
t u ee t u t u
t u
t u t u
P A A A RR A A A A A r
2
- r e p d d e2 st s e e e
s b y
e e r u5 -
ee int p
n o nu r
i d d s o
pve d e o o sN l dn g it a
oq b e oi r 4
C r
C f ee r
ps en n6 m 3 ar f r t Pan iu2 e r o o a du :
m3 lui q5 e- p p )
JC md ae
~ 4
_5 a5 alt vo ere rN t 1 1 2
( a x ng
- x - eb et s -
t s - )d ie eNe eN (an s dd ea te6 sl a es e6 no ge a e l
nA 9 t 1 0e eC pk oae u s nn e
c ea e4 r - e4 r - 5 d p le s n a s a no e
i mC uN uN 2 5 a d per t l pr nC iCv e ev L me s se es s se es - 0 Ap mo o s e 2e mo
_ ad xo a r a A9 et s s e f rd eo Tdo gm EC PC r
PC W9 Ut I 1 e EV xT PC VC n
Eer t e m e s e g t
s a d c e c a e 6 r x
e ed r o a t c a k t c 2 ol cf cf r l
la a f a l ihut nur b a nus le b a 5 nu la qs t e sr t s
t e e vg t s
4 N eos e RR eA mo or mr u /o o m m
e or I vb os v i
v og S
l u/d on dy lon d mt elo t
st ys dy S N
mi2 e snu T- mtm Va H Va Rb Ste H elo T A RiV Rb S
E d U e n t n
Q i m e s E a m m m R x e c
ht l e
E s a s i
a t f F
e d e w u s
sy o 1
E b l
e lp e v t s i l ses -
EI L l a n ve _
L E o w s r
v e 2n n no ispy B
t g d n s d n T- o s a n m n n o nuv r t i
n AR e e e a o a pry Vrs opt i o
TF A r t s s h c ma f e h ce c h ehe a p y r g op c O r s ia e n od cnu nn e la Y o m 3 p
e n
n p 1 o oo nt rr n og n n
R e d s r o c
p sb bb aa of n o A m u s d e 2 s c m cdh c M
u t y la ds d
e s lame i f
ha m deo l
d e
l o w r C l em t s a Ct s a tetat r n r
t ux l
M o o l ooo l
V Wie l
l l l l y o U L A t B C As Qe Bbc B S .
o N
2 m 000 0000 D t e * . *. 11 1 3478 _
i 95 1 23 7777 N BC DDD CCCC _
A y
1 -
) )
S 2
( 2
(
T I ^4 )
a )
a
)
a
(
N : 0 0 0
(
2
(
0 -
U C 0 4
5 2
0 4 5 3 2 2 T
m 12 4- 5- 2- 5- 5-a -
A A A A A N x JFF - - - A- H- P- .
Al E BCC D W I
W l C B W I
W I
W La I _
Pr v l e
Rt e r" . s s n s o-c 2 m m s n 2 m An d n e e t n o s d e E
I m a 2s,y
.t 2s y
,t e r n ,t s
LS I
te; s n s e a s 2, Sy s 1 3i r 1S 1 ,S 2o 1 P 1 1 CI r y sg se sp m m s3 s3 se se t3 Ua Ne S
.C m sin lap i st la sy l s
adn s
lad n l sm ao st la sy 2-T l st a sy l s
adn _
CP CS Ca Ca CC CS V CS Ca H Y-A0 .
Y1 t r f se Od eeb ,
Uno eqm Nu 77 1
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
0)2 6
0 7
0 8
0 Qc Ee Reu RN I I SS I I T-P T-P T-P T-P Tv Pe T-P T-P T-P SS 1 2
- - S I
S I
S I
S I
SR I (
S I
S I
S I
l l
ENCLOSURE 2 l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANY, UNITS 1 AND 2 l
DOCKET NUMBERS 50-327 AND 50-328 l
l l
1 I