ML20236F347

Requests for Relief,Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Program, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20236F347
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	09/18/1987
From:	Murphy G OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20236F256	List: ML20236F253 ML20236F284 ML20236F347
References
CON-FIN-F-0001, CON-FIN-F-1 NUDOCS 8711020102
Download: ML20236F347 (31)

Text

?% .

+

c. ,

c:;

r;

.t,'

l s .- ., ,

g

.o

+ y ,_ ,

c; l 1,1 .

, s j

o TECHNICAL' EVALUATION REPORT d

' REQUESTS FOR-RELIEF. n

. PUMP AND VALVE INSERVICE TESTING PROG ARM ,

3 6

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND-2

j DOCKET NOS

:50-3'27/328' ,

.~

y'

\

[. ,

a:/ -g l

2 ..-

1 m 1

.E l.

L 1

l-L x', -

g d

i 1

September 18, 1987 .

George Murphy ,

i a.

(

8711020102 871023 .-

g::

-hDR ADOCK 050003274 P. DR . U l- <

,f7 l ' 1.

Prepared' by-:

i

~

, e

. NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CENTER-OAK RIDGE NAT.IONAL." LABORATORY' . .

1

s. ;

=: OAK' RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37831,  :

< :q FIN F0001 H y -

.9-l

,i '

Fy. '

' ~~

i1

__A______ __m _m1. __

mg , . 7;.

-zz

,e%

, e mm # ,

, y m =n C

(;

y i

5 ,

V

(

g, + ,

ym; 3 p

~~

, s

• s 97 .

I (

i ,.

c n-

..,1 i m.

, s . ,

.lk Introduction r

1;- ,

ll .

Contained;herein11s a?technicalievaluation. report of?21" i L- relief requests'submittediby.;the'TennesseeTValleyzAuthority:- '

0

!'.  :(TVA) for the pumpLand1 valve inservice"testingf(IST)1 program '

1 if or . its: Sequoyah Nuclear. Plant f(SQN) 6 Units?14 a.ndS 2. 1These: >

' relief requests.'were-.identifiedtas? impacting thefstartupiofJ '

SQN. .TVA has' requested =thatJthese; items be addressed;as., , , ,

first priority in order to7 support,their,startup" effort; D

'A Safety Evaluat' ion'. ReportdReference sit "concernirig $the FIST; Program'at SQNLwas' issued" April?5, 1985.,. Thirteen revised lor  ?

additional-relief. requests"and/orideviationsifrom Referencell, e

' i

.were made:in' references 12.:and?3; !Refsrencei51:contains- .

+g additional informationLsubmitted byfTVAJin responsetto.ai e q

request by NRC in Reference!4?forfmore information,onithes'-

H thirteen requests. . Reference-6;containsithree? additional '

g relief requests submitted bylTVA;; Reference 17.. cont'ai_nsl L.L y another five relief requests:fromhTVAl-(Reference.8"containst -

4 ', 'd j..

additional 'inf ormation cfon th'e Lrequests :.containedi inl Ref erence :

m < m'

7. - ,

L .

I The Nuclear Operations AnalysisiCenter1(NOAC)Lat OakiRidge;'

. National Laboratory'(ORNL')iwan contracted *by'NRC to review 1 4 the-SQN IST program in' August,1986. ' NOACEwas? directed to1 first' review the priority items 1 requested by.: TVA toisupporti the restart of SQN'. NOAC performedian-initia11 review and; submitted a preliminary listLof-questions for;TVAL(Reference 5). Additional telepnone conference callisessionsTwith TVA' and.NRC were employed to resolve l minor-questibnslan'd' provide; further clarification ofLthe TVA' relief' requests.. -

2. Summary Each of the 21 relief requests have.beentevaluatedito.

determine iflthe* relief sought.from Code requirements;isL w clearly justified on the basis ofsimpracticalitycorfundue hardship;.and whether the requestfislJin accordance with-applicable sections o'f 10CFR50;55a.

n Enclosure 1'contains evaluationsiofjthe; original %thirteenf . ..

o relief requests contained in References (2i.andf3. Enclosbrei2L '

contains: evaluations ofithreer. additional; relief requests 1 ,

. contained in-Reference 5; Enclosure : 3 L contains ? evaluations of five additional; relief requests contained 41n;Referencej8?

Seventeen of:the'reliefJrequests.have'been7 judged'Jacceptable: fi

~

a'nd relief should- be" granted;HNRC staff has concluded thate one-.(Enclosure l',.No.' 5)-doesJnot falliwithin the: scope 1

. defined in IWV-1100 and need not.be..includednin1the1SQNLIST-prog'am;Eand r threef(Enclo'sure 3,.Nos J1',12m and.4)?doTnot!

contain. adequate justification lforTreliefffromiCode' ,

requirements.

o

1; s

a. m

~

l .; .

l' -

E---- -- ~_:____-.___

^

i t

REFERENCES

1. Letter from Thomas M. Novak, NRC to H.G. Parris, TVA dated April 5, 1985 " Safety Evaluation Report on Sequoyah Inservice Test Program for Pumps and Valves (IST)".

2. Letter from J.A. Domer, TVA to E. Adensam, NRC dated August i 16, 1985.

3. Letter f rom R. Gridley, TVA to B. Youngblood, NRC. dated June 1986.

6, t

4. Letter from B. Youngblood, NRC to S.A. White, TVA' dated l September 18, 1986,.

l 5. Letter from R. Gridley, TVA to B. Youngbloo'd, NRC, dated November 17, 1986, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Inservice Testing Program".

l 6. Letter.from R. Gridley, TVA to B- Youngblood, NRC dated-

! December 12, 1986, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant ~--Additional Relief Requests to Sequoyah Ins'ervice Testing Program".

7. Technical Evaluation-Report (Interim) from G.A. Murphy, ORNL  ;

to James Pulsipher, NRC dated March 17, 1987.

8. Letter from R. Gridley, TVA to U.S. NRC, dated July 2, 1987, l "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Inservice Test Program".

9. Letter from R. Gridley, TVA to U.S. NRC,-dated August 14, l 1987, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Additional Information on l Sequoyah Inservice Test Program".

2

g3 y m. & m' y  ? .n ,

, , y 3 ,

2 Us .

r it -

. ENCLOSURE 1- ,

o SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR. PLANT -HINSERVICE: TEST 1 PROGRAM ~ .

LTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT OF: RELIEF REQUESTSi e 'i

/ .p 4

1. . Diesel' Fuell oil' Transfer Pumos ..

, ,i 4 .

,CodeLReauirement>-; Article?IWP.of the.ASME:Codeirequires~that _ ' '

'l the inlet pressure'and the,differentialLpressu'refacross7a':' ' iq 4 ' pump shall'be measuredi.

, l' Relief Reauest' .The? Licensee hasErequestedJapecificlEe'ldef .

j

- .from the:IWP requirement.toideterminesthelinlet pressurelandi ic differentialJpressure acrosslthe' diesel?fuelloilttransfers >

Pumps. ,

Licensee's Basis'for Reauestina Relief f- LThe(Licensee stat'es' , _

that these pumps doLnot have1provisionsffor.measuringyinlet'

• j and differential. pressure. As an? alternative,ntheLLicensee j

^

has defined an acceptance-criterialforfflow rate 1of;15'gpmi-1 q

which imposes a 300% margintbeyondathe diesel generator normal fuel consumptionLrate of 5.gpm? T Thelsurveillance'  ;

testing will be performed once'perfquartersto monitor' pump 1 vibration and pump flow. . ,~ Flow rateiis1specifiedias the H' measured. parameter which.is-used.to establish pumpL operability and to. trend' pump performance to? meet'thel intent' The' change rate ofothe day 1 tank: fuel *1evelTis!

of.the Code, u used to. calculate pump flow rate; Each pump isJrequired to; exceed the diesel engine fuel oil; consumption rate byxat 1 least.10Tgpm'- twice:the diesel. generator:fueltconsumption '

1 rate of 5'gpm. .Under thisLalternative) pumpjperformance must: ,

decrease by greater than.661 in one; testing interval?before;  ;

it'would fail to meet the minimum-required 1fu'e10 consumption: q rate, l-

-Evaluation - In addition'to other parame'ters, the Code >< I d requires. periodic ~ measurement 1of-pump ~ inlet:and' differential: '

pressure. This1 datalis to be collectsdrand trendedito=

c .1

-predict degradation ofcpump' performance?to< unacceptable <

levels. Obtaining' pump inletLandLdifferentialDpressure?  !

y measurements would be impractical?in1this. case'because'the exist'ing' equipment. configuration doesLnot71ncludefprovisions;  !

H. : for measuring theseLparameters.. TheLLi~censee'sitesting: .- 1 method meets'the11ntent;of the' Code insthatTpump' operability; and performance trending is' accomplished;byttesting the pumps' l 1 and comparing the' flow rate:againstispecifi'edcacceptance criteria;- .The ' criteria is: s' sufficiently 4 conservative to.

Strict compliance"with?

~

. assure an acceptableLlevel:of, safety. '

the. Code-specified requirementsiwould be impracticaliandL ~ >

Limposelan unnecessary hardship withLno:compensatinglincrease

• in theJ1evel.of safetyjor quality. ,

n:, ,

..:- c: .

s Dv

< . + Jv . .. ...t ,

, ,u

a .

1 l

.1..(Cont inued)

Conclusion - Relief should?be' granted'from the<IWP Code  ;

requirement ltoimeasure11nlet and differential pressurefaeross' the diesel fuel. oil transfer? pumps. <The. acceptance. criteria 't specified:by the. Licensee!for pump flow rate.willt. serve 11n' lieu of. periodic measurement.of pump-inletiand differential-The proposed' alternate testing willigive.

L . pressure. -<

reasonable assurance of satisfactory pump' performance;. .

-intended:by.the Code. 1The Code : requirement 'infimpractical Lin-

'this' case and'the alternative. proposed is authorized:by11aw; and will not endanger Llife or: property or the common defense-and security.and is otherwise inithe public interestEgiving' .

due consideration.tofthe burden'bpon the LicenseeLthat'could. <

result if the requirements were; imposed on the facility.

i

?

l l

l l

l l

d' e

a k

'2

.s.

4 -

g

~

~

i e

l >

! Trending of leak rate and corrective action:for containment r

E :2.

' isolation valves-(CIVs) ..

I -Code Raouirement

. Article IWV-3426 requiresLthatLyalve ,

-leakage rate measurements shall;be' compared with~ previous;ified.

! 1 measurements'andJwith the permissible: leakage rates spec

.If leaka'ge rates:

L by the plant Ownerifor a. specific; valve. s: 4 are not specified~by the: Owner,- IWV-3426 specifies- __ . , . .

jl permissible leakage 1 rates.;requirespthat; valves lwith{leakageTrates-Articlef1WV-3427(a) exceeding _either!the: values specifi'ed by<the'Owneri';.orfthose rates given in-IWV-3426 shall befrepaired7or. replaced; l

Article IWV-3427(b) appliesitoivalves16-inchinominaltpipe-l=

L size'and. larger, where ifra leakage rate exceeds the rate-determined by theJprevious testeby:an~amountithat: reduc'es-the' margin:between: measured jeakage rate'and'.theimaximumc h ll' a

_ permissible rate by.50% or~ greater ytheDtestffrequency s a A be doubled; the1 tests shall1bezscheduledito1 coincide with.a' ~

u cold shutdown until ' corrective actionnisttaken,Latfwhich-time the original testLfrequency,shall;befresumed. LIfftests:show:

a leakage, rate increasing with!ti~me,-and a projection based  !

on three or.more--tests indicates"that;the leakage: rate'of-the" next scheduled test will exceed-the maximum permissible.. q leakage. rate by greater than 10%,--the' valveLshall?be(replaced-or repaired, ,

Relief Reauest The' Licensee has requested relief from:thm IWV-3427(b) requirement.for' trending valv% leakage rates.

- Licensee's Basi:s,.hx_Reauestino Relief ~ The -Licensee Imposes- 1 l

a procedural limitation on valve leakage hnd provi' des the-following justification in lieu o'ftthe trending? requirements: d of the Code: 1

- The Licensee's assigned. reference leak' rate for CIVs l's j

~

approximately 1.44D scf-;per day (versus 7.5D'sef'per: day.

specified by*the Code). ~

- Any valve:which exceeds its assigned reference leak rate.would=be~ identified'for corrective action'..toireturn-it-to below its' reference >value.

.Under'the'assignedireference leak l rates,-trending of.

individual valve, leak rates is meaningless 1sinde the:

reference' leak-rate for.eachcof the:207 CIVs is extremely-low (e.g. , . 0225 :sefh f or a- 3/8-inch valve up ito 1.44 scfh for a 24-inch valve.)~ q c

h N A L' 3. -

• 1 x ..

px% *

.s. ,

m 9 y ,  ;

z s' '

, @ a , ,

t s

i 11 1 1h -(Continued),

.It.'is n'ot:possiblelforJtrending.to; serve; asia 7t oolifor 3 ,

corrective' action since; assigned:referenceSleakirates: ,

, provide:conservativeilisitsiforstriggering1 corrective.

action long?beforeftrend:dataLobtained in ace'ordance'wi-thi

~

' Code requirements: would: indicate ialneed Ef or . corrective .

c Jaction; -u 1- In order toLtrendivalvesleakageLrates insaclcordance; L

F with' the- Section' XI? requirements; ittwould require;; ~

l allowingia valve.to leak-inoexcessEof.the" Licensee's.-

t l established reference value.

L

~ Evaluation'- The Licenseetsystatedcacceptanceccriteria_for;

~

32 valve leakage: rates;would',lif~ exceeded,=resultlinicorrective action long.before1trendingiprojections' performed 11n accordance with~ the: Code requirements would' havelindicatedEas needifor-corrective a'ction.1 Under the Licensee's planU-the < ,

' Code requirements'are impractical'and(complianceLwithithe

~

O Code requirements wouldiresultfin.anJunnecessarythardshipj - M with;no' compensating: increase inithe-levelvofisafetyLor,

~

quality.

~

Conclusion Relief should beigran'ted;fromzthe Code E . .

requirement for. trending =and corrective { action *1'n accordance-with IWV-3426 andL-3427. . LThe acceptance criteria;specified by the Licensee.for valve 71eakageiratesnisisufficiently-conservative'to assure the safetyLfunction'of theLCIVs!is not.

compromised and will servetin lieu offtheLtrending and! _

corrective actions. required.by.'Section-XIJof the t Code.1 Thei proposed alternate testing will'givelreasonableMassurance off J

identification and correction'of valve. leakage: rates:Priorato:

h exceedingECode-specifiedilimits. TheLCode/ requirement 11s impractical' int this case and'the ; alternative proposedi:is. '

~

authorized-by law ~andJwill not endangerslife orlpropertyjor..

the' common defenseLand securityjand~isfotherwise11nsther <

public interestLgiving'due consideration 1to?the, burden lupon?

b the' Licensee thaticouldiresult if the? requirements?were:

L imposed.on the facility.

1' s O

,1 f.

1

'4- ,

.,7 q.

S -

g.

gm

1'

~.

.. p

q, p

]

i 2 -

P'

.3. ' Corrective action for valves'failinntexebeisina tests' Code Raouirement - IWV-3427(a)trequires thasival'ves,with: z the W leakage rates; exceeding.eitherlthe owner or the ratesEgiven inEIWV-3426Eshallsbe replaced values specifiedJby;for repaired. LIWV-3427(b)-contains'requirementsiforcincreased-EtestLfrequencies and11eakage trending ~for. valves 6! inches? ~

+

' nominal: pipe' size'and larger.

n Relief ReauestL- TheJLicen'see;has' requested?specificVrel'iefJ from the requirementsLof;IWV-3427.(b)1for pressurefisolation? m" valves'(PIVs) consisting; of . primary and : secondary..and' secondary. check' valves"onu thegemergencyfcoreicoolinglsystem (ECCS) injection! lines', two ipower-operatedivalves'onlth'e 4 upper' head' injection (UHI)1te'tisystem' s piping,-andttwotpower--

operated valves on the re'sidualsheat removalO(RRR) suctiont , ..

line.

Licensee'sBasisfor-RecuestinaRelief.-iThe[LidenseeDstatest that the valves inJquestion are.interconnectedninfalparallel' piping configuration, making it'~impossibleftoitest each valve' ,

individually. Consequently, the-LicenseeLhas;specified"a. ..

combined' leakage rate which is equalLtoitheTmaximum?allowabl'e leakage from one valve. -In' addition,EtheLarrangement of/the leak test system could' introduce.potentiallyLindeterminate contributions to the measured 11eakageirateT LFinally, the' effect of test pressure onLthenmeasuredHleakage rates'is"also.

indeterminate because the valves must be-tested at:200 to 600-psig for safety reasons, where typicalLreactoricoolantl operating pressure is'over 2200'psig.

Evaluation - The Licensees approach is conservative;with- ..

respect to the-Code. The' parallel piping' configuration of the valving addressed by this requestLand the>effect of1the test.

pressure (i.'e.,~200 - 600 psig)1on the-leakErate would make individual valve testing impractical. A: conservative 1

! criteria is applied whereby;thefeumulative leakLrate for L multiple combinations of valves isEused. This, cumulative-L leak rate'is the same as the-rate for a single valve.

l Compliance with the Code requirements:would1 require al L

modification:to the piping ~ configuration: which: wouldmimpose a:

burden on the Licensee without a compensating! increase'in

'safetyfor quality.

Conclusion - The' proposed. alternate; testing'andlacceptance criteria for'the PIVs meets.the intentcof'the? Code. Reliefs should be granted from the IWV-3427 requirements 1because/the; Code requirement is11mpracticalLin this; case and is authorized by law.'and-willEnot endangerflife or property:ori the-common defense and securityLand-is'otherwise in the

~

public interest giving~due. consideration to the1 burden.upon-the Licensee that could. result'if the requirements were imposed on therfacility.

,... , 5 s

? .

c.~ .

l 2_L _ _._ -. --- _ -- _- i

9 L; ' y h y n '

4e ," ,

' e

+

v  : ;

^

4. Testing o f valves creviousiv'outvof' service' ,

Code Requirement . - Article IWV-34161re' quires [f~or -valves "in .

-j systems ; out c of. - service . that Ethe : valve's1be 1 exerci sed . within 5 30

' days' prior'toreturnofithesystemto~operablefstatus. _1

! Relief -Recuest L- iThe cLicensee ;has ;requestedh reliefI f romLthe- j

30. day requirement.!to' exercise valvesiandi.would' exercise such

q l

valves-within three months! prior ~toireturn"of'the'systemftol .

Joperable' status, Licensee's Basis for' Recuestinh Relief ?-: The? Licensee:nstes an inconsistency in^the code requirements. 'ASME SectioniXI: j

' Article IWV-3416 requiresithatea valve must beTtested;withinj, '

R 30(days before its return'to service. :This;requirementfisi 'f inconsistent with.the three'-month 1 frequency required'byiIWV-: d 3411'. :The inconsistency;betweenLIWV-3411 rand.IWVy3416 n

has; '

d appare'ntly been identified. by ithe ' ASME t and Lis addressed f ini

~

Draft:8.of ANSI /ASMElOM-10-1986, "AmericaniNational Standard,.

In-Service 1 Testing:of' Valves 0 ' SectionL5217:of. Draft'81 ~

corrects theLinconsistency andireads asLfollows:' ;,

"For a valve'iin a system.dsclared-inoperable;orrnot- j required to be operable,1the. exercising testischedulet 1 need not be followed. Within1three.monthsiprior1to placing'the system'incanLop'erable status,:the valves '

shall be exercised,'and the scheduletfollowed11ni accordance with requirements of this Standard."

Evaluation ,There is an inconsistency between IWV-3411 Land?

IWV-3416 which!is being addressedSinLthe-most recentirevision'

~

of the testing. standard. The-additional t'e sting required; t

under the present: Code represents r additionallcosts?and?... H j

unnecessary personnel radiation. exposure. Thus,<thei30-day' testing frequency required by;.IWV-3416Eimposesfa:haidshipEon "

1 the Licensee with'no compensating 11ncrease~in the11evel.of.-

safety or quality.

r Conclusion -.The proposediquarterly testinghin caccordance, with the present versioniof.IWV-3411 provides an;acceptablei

. level!of safety and' quality. ? Relief should:be granted . "

j because of the. inconsistency;in-the' Code"requirementsLandL because the proposed ~ alternative is authorized by lawLand  ;

'will'not endanger' life'or propertyfor the common defenseland" l '

security'and is'otherwise!in thenpublierinterest?giving due? *

' consideration to the burden uponTtheLLicensee:that1could '

o!

l result ifithe requirements wereLimposedfonttheffacility-H i

't

]

, u' 6 -

1 5

% I

b. ,

2

',9

5. Pressurizer auxiliary serav line check valve-62-861'and-

- cower-ocerated auxiliary scrav valve 62-84.

NRC staff ha's concluded thatLthese' valves.are'not required.to perform a specific. function in-shutting'down the? reactor..to, cold shutdown condition or in> mitigating:the consequences of an. accident, and therefore do not fall?within the scope. .

defined in' IWV-1100 and need' not be included 'in;the1SQN..IST 1

- program.

l i

j i

2 .

I

.l i

i

'l 4

• i i

1 l

.3

.f I j I

1 7L p

H

]

3

.. ((

6. Normal charrina line check valve'62-543 ,

Code Requirement - IWV-3521' states that check valves shallLbe 4 ]j exercised at least'once every 3, months, with. exceptions as defined in IWV-3522. In the exceptions,:the Code permits the '

.)

valves to be part stroke-exercised during power operationLor' .

full stroke exercised during cold shutdown. .])

l',

. Relief Recuest - The Licensee has requested' specific 1 relief.

from the IWV-3521 requirement thattvalve 68-543 bie exercise'd - 1 at least once every three' months and will test the. valve.in' '

d l

accordance with IWV-3522, i.e.,cduring coldishutdown; l Licensee's Basis for Reauestina' Relief The Licenseelstates y that quarterly. exercising ofLthe-subject valve during plant operation is not practical since performance of'the closure test requires isolation'of.the normal ~ charging; path. The .

.i Licensee proposes to test'the valve.each cold shutdown notLto l exceed once each quarter in accordance with-IWV-3522.

Evaluation' The. Licensee's proposed testing meets the~

requirements of the Code. Testing the valve in accordance with the' requirements of IWV-3521 is. impractical and would.

place a unnecessary burden on'the Licenseefwithout a compensating increase in safety or quality.-

Conclusion - Relief should be~ granted'for valve.62-543 from.

the'IWV-3321 requirements that check valves be. exercised'at least once every three months'. . Testing performed'in accordance with IWV-3522 of-Section XI.of the Code,'will serve in lieu of the testing required under-IWV-3521. . The proposed alternative is authorized.by law'and will not endanger life or property or the common defense:and security and is otherwise in the public interest givingidue; consideration to the burden upon the Li'ce~nsee that could result if the requirements were imposed on the-facility.

'8-

4 +  ;

.u .., ,

't ' <

, [(g ,

N *$ 5' , i{

a

(' i g

07 ', ,

,3 1 ,

9; 4

o

']

,"Y

< . . . .1:

g

/

4

' .i 5  :

I '

/{ i ,

I a..

, dl 7J.

RCP mem1*in.iection' check' valves,62-560l -56h -562. -563.

. . , , - . . . . . . ~..t. .s N

, Code' Requirement"-DIWV-3521; states.-that; check ' valves tshallD be .

i exercised.at.least'oncelevery'3;mohths,iwith exceptionsJass defined in;IWV-3522;..In.the: exceptions kth'e1 Code,permitsithe i l11 Lvalves to"be.partistrokeTexercised duringSpowerLoperation0or; ,

1 fullistroke exercised'during cold: shutdown. ,

Relief:Recuest"-LThe; Licensee $asrequest'edispesificcrelief/

LfromrtheiIWV-35211and IWV-3522 requirements?thatitheseivalvesl  :

1

,<1

be1part-stroke

exercisedfduring plantLoperationiorffull-t . . . ,

f stroke i exerci sed : at Leol'dL shutdown'. gThe?Licen'seeTproposesLto;U

. test the' valves duringreachirefueling(outagevinJ11eu *o MtheV '

{

abovelrequirements.'

d L

)d

' Licensee's : Basis f or Reauestinn Relief H The1 Licensee stat'es: F

.that in-order:to' test 1the subjectevalves,ethe reactor' coolant h y 1

. system..must beidrained+toJaLlevelfbelowlthe?reactordo'olant?M "

^

pump seals;sthisFis donee:n'ormallyJonlyfduringirefuelingf outages. , .

Evaluation'- Testing?the valvesJin;qusstion;during. operation) s'

• H or cold shutdown intacdordance with the Code 4. requirements is1 impractical'and would;resultiinihardship andTunusuali . ,

n difficulty without a compensating increase in7the11evelLof.

quality or safety. Testing: theLvalv'esidurin'gL ea'ch refueling:

p outage is an acceptableaalternative1to. Code-required" testing.. <

L Concitision -- Relief shoul'd be : grante fromTthe IWN 3521Yandl 1 N

- IWV-3522 requirementsufor testingiduringloperationior.3 cold-

-shutdown. Testing of these? valves?duringieach! refueling' ' . , 1 1

. outage in accordance with Secti'oniXI4willimeet1the.intentiofz

~

-the Code. The' proposed alternative'isnauthorized;by;1awLand: 4 will.not endanger life'or-property;or'the-commonidefense;and.. -

1 security and is otherwise infthe' publics. interest:!givingidue ~

consideration to the burden upon'the" Licensee 1that?could;

-result if the requirements.were imposed.onitherfacility.

L

- d b Q d

e f

i ir- j i

s-j I 1 .I

.s> d

^;

q ii

> <.q L-

4. ,

r 9, 1

. , s,%

yy , , , , , ,

4

. 8. RCS check valve 88-559 to pressurizer' relief-tank.

Code Requirement - IWV-3521 states that~ check valves shall be exercised at least once every 3 months, with exceptions as defined in IWV-3522. In the exceptions, theJCode permits-the l valves.to be part stroke. exercised during power operation or- j l

full stroke exercised during cold' shutdown.

Relief Reauest - The: Licensee has requested specific relief from the IWV-3522 requirement.that valve 68-559 be part- ,

stroke exercised during plant operation'or full-stroke ,

1 exercised at cold-shutdown'on a three-month basis.

Licensee's BaNis for Recuestina Relief - The Licensee states that the subject valve can hot be part-stroke exercised during power. operation'due to personnel < risk and the potentially unsafe system upset conditions that would be <

I required to? accomplish the test. Full-stroke exercising ofL.

the valve at cold-shutdown conditions cannot.be accomplished' due to the abnormal piping configuration required to perform-the test. The valve'is located-in'a. common discharge header-Establishing full flow.

for 14 different relief valves.

through the valve would require disabling at leas, ,wo relief valves and compromising the connected: emergency core cooling systems. Verification of valve position'during-mechanicalf .;

exercise is not possible due to the enclosed design of the valve.

The Licensee proposes to perform an alternate test on the valve. The test includes disassembling. and inspecting valve 68-559 e~very third refueling outage.

)

j Evaluation - The Licensee's proposed testing appears to be a workable and safe alternative to the Code-required testing, .

i which in this case is impractical. However, the test- l frequency does not conform to Code requirements. IWV-3521 j requires that check valves shall be exercised'at least once j every three months, except as provided by IWV-3522. For valves that cannot be full-stroke exercised during plant j operation, IWV-35-22 calls for exercise during each shutdown for intervals between shutdowns ofLthree months or longer'.

~

l Plant operating conditions cause valve 68-559 to be exercised-and perform its function frequently, thereby.providing continued assurance of' operability. 'Under the circumstances, the interval proposed by the Licensee.(every third refueling outage) is acceptable in meeting the intent of the Code. Disassembly and inspection of the valve every third refueling outage is a reasonable and acceptable alternative.

m

?

10

o e ,

.-l 4

-]

. -8. (Continued)' ,

Cone).usion - Relief should be granted.from the-IWV-3522

- requirement for full-stroke, part-stroke, Tor' mechanical. 3 9

exercisingfof: valve 68-559'. The-Licensee'.s; plan.to

' disassemble'and inspect the:valveievery third refueling-~  !<

- outage will serve in : lieu of. exercising !thef valve 'as: 1

- delineated'in:IWV-3522. The proposed'. alternative 1isi authorized-byflaw and willinot:endangerzlife or' property..ori --

the'conmon defenseLand security:and;is otherwise..in:the

- public. interest giving~due,consi'derationLto thel; burden upon' the' Licensee.'that could result?if-"the requirements were; i; imposed on'the facility'. , ,

'l t

.]

l 1

g i

j i- -

, a I'

l s

u

' f

_____j__ ' _ "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_u_____. ____m_ . _ __m .m.______u____,_

,n .

1

. -)

h

. 9. RV head vent valves'FSV-68-3964 and'-397 l Code Requirement --IWV-3300. requires that valves with remote. 1 position indicators shall be observed at least once everyltwo j 1

years to' verify.that. valve operationLis. accurately indicated,

. Relief Reauest - The Licensee has requested. specific: relief from the IWV-3300 requirement that valves with' remote '

position indicators shall be observed ... to= verify that --

y valve operation is accurately indicated.

Licensee's Basis'for Reauesting Relief

~

TheLLicensee states that these valves.are. totally enclosed solenoid-actuated a valves'and thatLtheir. position or operation cannot be- .

visually observed._The= Licensee proposes to utilize portable' j acoustic monitoring equipment to provide anLindirect'means=of'.

verifying valve position'as.an alternate method of verifying l that. valve' operation 1is accurately indicated. Under the: test:

method, an acoustical " trace"1 is. made for each. valve as :it -

is opened'and' closed. -Valve. position is:noted on the trace

-as a function of time. Valve position is=thereby verified? ,

indirectly by noting the acoustical trace attributable ~to either an open or:a closed 1 valve.

Evaluation - The Licensee hasLdemonstrated that-visual confirmation of valve position, as required by IWV-3300;fis -

not practical due to the totally enclosed design of..the valve. A design change would place a burden on the Licensee without a compensating increase in safety or quality. An acoustical trace test method proposed by the Licensee i provides an indirect means of confirming' valve position which appears to meet the intent of IWV-3300.

q Conclusion - Relief should be-granted for valves'FSV-68-396' 1 and -397 from the IWV-3300.requirementithat valveLoperation be observed because the totally. enclosed. design'of the valve prevents direct observation of valve _ position. The' acoustical trace test method described above,-' performed once every two years in accordance'with Section XI of'the Code, is an acceptable

• alternative and is authorized by law.and will not endanger life or property or the common' defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the Licensee'that could.

result if the requirements were imposed on the' facility.

q 1

1 A graphical recording of noiseLlevel caused byfchanges~in o flow turbulence.

12 _ - . _ _ _

- .w , ,, , .

D .

').' s[l .

'I

.(',.

i I ' .

1 '7,, )_ f 8 ;7,H )

. ;; ;q 4 ;

i 4-, ( s

,f y 5 .

3 m -v ,$ , y3 ,.

i<

, i.

, at ,.e V

N:  ::o , m  ;

1 .,

,3 .

g; .

' Postaccident' 'samel'ina ' system ' alves * ( PASS F FSV-250. :- 2514 E-

1. 10. v s , ..

287. -288.-307.--309. -310.:-317.'-318. -319.'-325. &u-341.

Code Reanirement. >IWV-3300!requiresf:that valv'slwithlremote-J~ e position indicators lshall1.beLobservediat?least once"every two- '

- . years tojverifyLthat valve. operation,i's accuratelyfi'ndicated; ,4 Relief-Raouest -iThejLicensee4has: requested l specific Wellefi H

fromethecIWV-3300! requirement 7 thativalves withtremote',

position'indicatorsLshall;beLobservedT....toLverifyothaty ~

T'

. valve L operationiisf accurately: indicat'ed. <>

Licensee's BaAis for-Recue.sEina' Relief'-KThe. Licensee! states  ?

.thatstheseivalves'areitotally. enc os_e l dcso lenoid-actuated' valves'and that?their: position ~or_ operation"cannot be:

• l visuallyLobserved'.: The c Licensee; proposes Lto L utilize 7 pressure : +

L as M anDindirect means?of verifying'. valve lpositiont ,

.g,

• j I ..f Evaluation -'Thi Licensee';hasVdemonstrate nthat visuali.

j>  ? .

[.

.confirmat ion.o f'.va lve positio'nM asTrequiredLby/IWV93300;;is: ,

C notcpractical dueLto totally? enclosed:designi FA designa' -

change 1would; place ~anfunnecessary.burdentonJtheTLicense'ei ,;,

without aicompensati'ng; increase 2 in safety:oi qtiality.' iThe!

Licensee'^ .ubi m tta l, includes.'a c referencecto SQNLSurveillance:

Instruction:(SI) 166.4;'"RemoteLValve' Position? Indications During Refueling Outage",o(Revision'23)sfor details;of! -

testing the PASS valves... Afreview of SI1166.4cindicates?that! ~

correct performance of<the procedureiwill; provide?ani alternate L means lof : verifying / valve iposition to imeet the intent of-the Code. The test method'.'containedjin the~ ' '

l procedure provides a'n' indirect meansfof confirming valve' Position which appears to meet thefintentLofcIWV-3300. ,

4 l Conclusion-Relief.should-begrantedfromNheIWV-3300>

requirement:that valve?operatt.on be observed for-theLPASS L ~

valves listed above-becauseLtheitotallylenclosedjdesignJof; ~

f1 the valves prevents" direct; observation:ofd alve' position.

The test method described'inithe: procedure; referenced;above, R performed in accordance'withlSection XI1:ofithe'. Code,fwilli serve in lieu of direct visual' observation'.: .: Thissproposed.

alternative is' authorized byLlaw andtwillLnotLendangerilife; .

or' property.or the commonYdefense:andisecurityrand is >

otherwise in the public-interest 1giving due~considerationito the. burden upon. the Licensee: that; couldf result 11f < the L '

L requirements were imposed'on4the faci.lity-.

l: , ,

l

. q .. :

q .

-rp

[ ' <

i. (

'b 1 e .v,.

l

,N <

x , ,

L~

2 13 ' , , , ,,

T

~

. h.

11. Maximum allowable stroke time for power-coerated valves Code Requirement - IWV-3413 requires that the stroke time of all power operated valves shall be measured to the nearest second for stroke times 10 seconds or less.

Relief Reauest - The Licensee has requested. specific relief from the IWV-3413 requirement to measure stroke time to the nearest second for rapid-acting power-operated valves, Rapid-acting valves are defined as those power-operated valves that stroke in two seconds or less, Licensee's Basis for Reauesting Relief - The Licensee states that stroke time data is collected and trended to aid operating personnel in detecting valve degradation and predicting valve failure. Where, valve stroke' times are very short, the testing error may become large enough to-render the data meaningless. For rapid-acting valves there is a significant variance in measured stroke times that is caused-by the difference in reaction time of test personnel. This can lead to false trending that could indicate.either improvement or degradation in performance, Presently, Sequoyah Nuclear Station has 20 rapid-acting power-operated valves in each unit with a designated maximum allowable stroke time of two seconds or less which are subject to ASME Section XI requirements. The maximum allowable stroke time of these valves will not be trended, but corrective action will be initiated if the test stroke time of a valve exceeds two seconds, when measured'to the nearest one' tenth of a second. This treatment will not be extended to any valves other than Category A and-B power-operated valves with maximum allowable stroke times of two seconds'or less.

Evaluation - The NRC Staff position concerning stroke time measurements of power-operated valves is that'the measurements must be trended in accordanc'e with Section XI so the information can be utilized to monitor valve degradation and predict valve failure. Relief from the trending requirements of ASME Section XI [ Paragraph IWV-3417(a), 1980 Edition through Winter 1981 Addenda] presents no safety j concerns for these valves since variations in the stroke.

times may be affected by slight variations in the response time of the personnel performing the tests. However, the staff does require that the Licensee assign a maximum limiting stroke time of two seconds to these valves in order to obtain relief from the requirements of the Code. Where i

l this requirement cannot be met, the Licensee is required to meet the Code requirements, 1

1 ,

l l

- - - - - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ M

j i ; ~ , ., i gi a

'11. - (C' ontinu. 3 i Conclusion - The Licensee's plan;for. initiating corrective' action'1f the,uaasured' stroke time for rapid-acting, power--

operated valves. exceeds'.two seconds'when. measured to the.

nearest one-tenth of.a second'is-consistent.with'the1NRC t

f staff positionion rapid-acting valves and.the-intent of ASME This Section.XI' Para'graphEIWV"3417(a),.1980 Edition.

proposed alternate testing 1will'give reasonable-assurance of'

. detection of valveidegradation.Lintended'by-the. Code,and NRC.

The proposed alternative is. authorized by lawfand will not c

endanger life or property.or'the. common, defense and. security _

and-is otherwise in the public interest giving due /

consideration to the-burden upon the LicenseeLthat<could result if the-requirements:were-imposed on theJfacility.

l 1

l i

1 d

'h u__ __ z_ _2__ ___ _ ___ __ __

-15 .

12. Parallel UHI and SIS ch'eck valves -

Code Requirement - !WV-3421 states that check valves shall be.

exercised at.least once every 3 months, with exceptions as  ;

In the exceptions.. the Code. pennits the: i defined in IWV-3522. -

valves.to be pary stroke exercised during power operation ~

and full stroke exercised during cold shutdown.-

I Relief Request - The Licensee has requested specific relief a _.

from the.lWV-3522 requirement that the: valves in requestion be q

• ' part-stroke exercised during plant operation. The Licensee- -

roposed to only. part-stroke exercise or full-stroke exercise: i as applicable to the specific valves) in parallel combination en a cold-shutdowns (nine-month) b' asis.-

t,1censee's Basis for Recuesting Relief .

The' Licensee states <

that it is impractical to part stroke' exercise the: subject .)

valves during power. operation due to inadequate: letdown..

' capability with the reactor vessel head: installed,-- possible-reactivity transients, and potential. damage to fuel and; j '

vessel internals- :i The Licensee proposes to full stroke exercise the' associated l individual check valves on injection lines:from.the. '

intermediate and high head safety injection. pumps during each -

refueling outage.

For the SIS /RHR accumulator. primary check valves,.the-Licensee proposes to part-stroke exercise each valve during 3 l each refueling outage and to disassemble andmanuallyLful1~

~

stroke' exercise one valve out of four.on.a rotating basis.

J For the low head safety injection 1 system (LHSI), the Licensee I proposes to' meet tr.e part-stroke requirements.of IWV-3522 by

~

j '

verifying that required. flow rate t is attained'under certain plant operating conditions through the LHSI check. valves as i

follows:

l .9

a. Verification of flow greater than 1,988 gpm through each cold $ leg infection line.on.a' cold l shutdown basis (nine months).

b. Verification of flow greater than 500 gym through the hot-leg injection line on a. cold shutdown basis.(nine-months)

'The full-stroke requirements of.IWV-3522.will be met by  !

disassembly.and inspection of one cold-leg LHSI check valve.

and one' hot-leg LHSI check valve each refueling outage on.a-rotating basis. .

4 d

For the four primary UHI check valves ,thel Licensee proposes i to manually full stroke each valve during each refueling outage when the UHI spool pieces are ' removed. For the'two-secondary UHI check valves,-the Licensee proposes to-

. disassemble and manually' full-stroke one valve:each refueling outage on a' rotating basis.

16

.w 12.-(Continued 1 Evaluation - The Licensee's proposed-testing is an acceptable-alternative to the-Code-required testing.

. Conclusion - Relief;shouldibe granted fromLthe.IWV-3522 ~

-requirement for full-stroke,.part-stroke,.orLmechanical exercising of the valvesEin question. .The-Licensee ls plan to

'disassemblesand inspect.the' valves'asLoutlined above'wil1~

servelLn. lieu of exercising the valves as delineated inEIWV-3522 The proposed alternatives;are authorized.by lawiand will not endanger life or., property or'the common: defense and security and is otherwise inithe public interest giving.due consideration to the burden upon1ths Licensee that could result ~if the requirements'were imposed on;the facility, 1 ,

4 i

l.

1 i

L ,

.)

1 1 1

! 1 l .

l

')

, .I i

. .i u

1 9

I i

l

- 17 .i

__, 4___

+. , ,

- r g, ,-

c y

,y qpg

.r ; q iI j 1 -(FSV-30-134 .!

13. Containment'oressure transmitter isolation va'1ves' and -135) l Code Requirement IWV-3300 requires'that valves;with? remote d jft '

position indicators shall~be'observedcatzleastionce7every two: '? ,

years to< verify 1that valve operation'is accurately; indicated, '

o NJ, Relief Reauest -'TheLLicensee has.requestedispesific7 relief- v*

]

from1the.IWV-3300 requirement.that' val'ves;withLremote d Position' indicators 1shall..beLobserved .... tofverifylthatr valve operation is-accurately; indicated.' .

, ,j ,

[{

Licensee's' Basis for Reauestina Relief - The_ Licensee 1 states' '

that-these valvesiare totally'enclosedfsolenoid-actuated 4 ,

j j

valves and that:their position or; operation cannottbei '

. visually . observed. The1 Licenseer proposes l to; utilize L a Lflowf- ,

test as.an alternate-meansrof-verifying;thatJvalve1 operation, is accurately indicated. Theitest method includes monitoring 2 changes in air flow duringivalvefoperationk LAntairtsupply is4

~

connected to.the open-ended'line11nside< containment:andLa-cap' is removed: f r'om' the4 pressure. transmitter 16cated: outside-containment-(in the. annulus)!toiprovide?anlair flo'w 3 path ~. : '

Both valves'are then' opened and'airfflowcis'establishedLinto 'H 1

the annulus. Each valvelis'thenistrokeditoJthe' closed-position and an appropriate change 2in.airiflow.istverified'._

Valve position is'thereby. verified; indirectly byfnoting';the: 3:~ m .

l 1

lack of air flow when the valve is closed. ,-,

Evaluation - The~ Licensee has: demonstrated that visual .

j confirmation of valve position, as required-by IWV-3300,fis -.

not practical due to. totally' enclosed designJofCthe> valve. An. 1 air flow test method proposed by the.LicenseeTprovides'an-indirect meansL.of confirming' valve = position lwhichvappears to meet the intent of IWV-3300.

Conclusion Relief should be granted 1for1 valves FSV-30-134 .

and -135 from the'IWV-3300' requirement 1that valveLoperation D be observed because the1 totally encle' sed?designiof'theethe; '

valves prevents. direct;observationLof valve. position. The 1 air flow test method as described above, performed once everye two years in accordance.with Section XIrof the Code, is an:

acceptable alternative and will fserveiin = lieu of: direct L 1 visual' observation that valve' operation isfaccurately; t

-l '

indicated on remote indicators..The+ proposed alternate'

~

testing is authorized by law?andiwillinot1 endanger-life. ors ,

e property or the:commonEdefense'and securityEand isfothe'rwise  :

in the public-interest ~giving/due consideration'to the burden; H upon the Licensee.that could resultLifithe requirements;Were H

. imposed'on theEfacility. < > . 1 f'

s 4

'l y a r I F , l p , . o

/1

18: ,

h E_ ~

jf. _ lj

_m, _ Au . __  : _ L _

~gq dQg, MW " M y= - o, ,

i ,

[n '

yc

+

s> ~} q 1-

~(

4i 3 .

s. ' ' '

.,, 9 p y:;

• y ,

i

~

j n ENCLOSUREJ2l

. . .. . . u SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR. PLANT:

d i 'Lj

,,j 1ADDITIONALLRELIEF REQUESTS;TOLSQN INSERVICE: TEST PROGRAM: '

s

~

p (Ref erence : 6);

d ij 1. .Testink of safetv and relief ~ valves i T

]

. Code l R'eauirement*- The' Licensee's present require' mental for SQN Unit'.11are. listed in IWV-3510;.;1974l edition,;,.  ;. .g "l, j i i

%b m Summ'er 1975 Addenda, which require :testinacinJaccordance" '

1

'with>ASME: Power Test' Code 25.22-1966; SQNtUnitl2c E ,

md E' 'requirementsLare listed.insIWV-3512'1977fedition? Summer- ,

h 1978lAddendajwhich require testingJin accordance;with: '

Ja h ASME Power Test Code 25,3-197.6'. ,. y,.

a ~-

<x ' gg

,N Relief-RAcuest,.i The'Licenseefhas requested relief (from '

l; ' .

I 1.

F>,W d L

testing. safety'and reliefevalvesLinLaccordance?with theD . .

requirements - listed L in / IWV-3510 / and IWV-3512. f cro units L1 l and ? '

, W 2 respectively. ,

Licensee's Basis' for Raouestinst -Relief :-LThei Licensee 1has. ,

' :;j

-requested to update the. testing' requirements 1to: ANSI /ASME3 .

OM-1-1981 for testingz of L saf ety and: relief ' valves for. units 11 R

?

and:2._ ANSI /ASME.OM-1-1981 provides.cleareriguidance"and.

. will allow.using,the samejrequirementstfor both' units; 1

Evaluation - ANSI /ASME OH-1-1981.was'includsd.initheiVinter- j 1985 AddendaHto the 1983 edition of.the ASME Section;XI Code. '

E The.use of;OM-111s;also endorsed by: Revision 5 of; Regulatory-Guide 1.147.under Code Case N-415.'. ANSI /ASME OM-1-1981; . .. 4' provides' uniform' guidance-for both"unitsaand williprovidelthe'~ -

d i

g Licensee with-a more uniform and'Ltimelyn. test program. ,

y

.1 u ~

Conclusion.- Relief should'be granted becaus'e it provides the Licensee with'a'more timely' test program withjuniformf.. _ <Rj The proposed alternativesto Y,

! requirements for both units. s test' safety and'felief valves to.thef. requirements' ofs

~

s d

' ANSI /ASME OM-1-1981 is authorized byllaw'.and'will1not f '

R endanger life or property or.thencommonidefense"andisecurityr H andtis1otherwise in the~public;interentisiving duei ... '

'j

'i; consideration to the' burden:upon theilicensee:thaticould-resultfif'the requirements were. imposed ~on the. facility. . d c

,j

, ,4 '

-l

=

4] a

. y nf 1 [ f r s . 3 '-

Ohb 0,l , ,

e i! ? , , {: ,

4 q' ,.,

-I;f ,' ' ' f.b '

l..,..._,

x-=.

.t !h.! .-_ _ _ _ '_ a_: _ __ __ _ x

x.

w { ;y

, 1 ,

, , , .h (

' -. lV 5  ? ' '

t n

{:

w;,

\

qWs N- v m., ,

w ly p;

' . s 90+ , W: ,

na , s ,y 4. <

,pi q

' ' ' ~n " '; ;}N

?

w

.y. ,

)l:- - ,' ll , ,

7 , ,

2 ';Pume in-serviceit'eht erodeduret '

i ,W4. j!

W ,

Code Requirement H IWP-3100)requiresiadjudting1thefsys I #y resistance;fortinserviceftestings ofdpumps.until"eithe,r j M e?' ,f ' '

dif f erential; pressure or: flow. rate +1s. equal 7 to ' theitofe,:: .n. e. e d

^ - - '

. y

Lyalue.; '

%j

/- . y* y

" ' ,1

'iRelief Recuest Y ThelLicensee hasfrequested/ relief [frc@.x 3 StestingOtherauxiliary feedwatertpumpskcentrifugalil charging, .  :(

- j pumps',. safety.in~jection pumps,oresidual'he'atfresspal1 pumps; [ t" g) n

'andtboricLacid" transfer pumpsSbyNa djusti'ng the?sAstem-resirtance' until: eitherf the dif fmiential' pressurcVorLflow :}6 iH wy

. rate cis eowi toithe' referenced.- j valu'e; y. ,

r m y-q

.A  : ,fs. . - ,s ,. , _. . ,4 4-Licensee's' Basis Qor Recuestina Relief,- The((jicensen, d

J)

~

L presentlyftests5the; auxiliary feedwater pumps, centrifugal:

L' saf ety: Li njection" pumps ,;: residu'allhqat: re bovan

- j

! charging pumps, 3 l

pumps.and the1boricsacid; transfer pumpsibystlingsthe?fiked!: ' '

^ >H resistance of.the? minimum flowi(miniflow):linet :The?Licenshe'. '

L -

a statesLthat'the;fix4d-' resistance 1systemiprovidesfa'nadeQate s 4

evaluation of pump performance;and thet1 throttling ~of1they -

j miniflow1line"is impractical'iand could 70tentially degrade 4

d plant ~ equipment"sinceEtheiminiflowSlineasDrequiredito' bel fully open'to provide pump coolingHflow. These" pump 3 willibe' o

l operated in theirLfixedLresistance?systemVIwhereL:both'

~

differential" pressure'andjflow rateiwill M icompared1to; . ej;

.referenceivalues-as required. r t- ,

I Evaluation - The? intent:of IWP-310011s to evaluate' pump .

perf orman,ce by ' adjusting"the Jsystem resistance 2un'ti1L either<

the differential pressure:or flow rateoisfequalito'the- <

' Ji referenced value '.ThrottlingLofL the miniflow line?is '

m 1

impractical and could potentiallyTdegradelplanh equipmenti .

sincejthe miniflow 1ine:issrequiredsto~beVfully:open to;

~

.p provide. pump coolintcflow. TheiLicenseefskproposalito; test:

C the pumps in'a fixedhresistapce system.andJcompare'both! 2 differential' pressure and flow ratelto: reference values as

• 1 required to evaluate =puti> performance' meets'thelintentiof\the!

Code. 3 Conclusion - Relief should'6e:'grantedTfrom theirequirement;of-M IWP-3100 to use adjustable flow resistanc Cro?evaluatelpumpe U

! performance. - TheLicensee's; proposal 1toTuse$ fixe'd- h resistance system'to'evaluateJpump performance meets the" . .

intent of thercode. It would!beEimpracticahindipotentiallyj"'

T damaging to'the pumps"in question forEthe?LicenseeitoLadjust:

system. resistance. The'propossd1alternativenistauthorizediby, lla9 and'willinot endangerclife or'propertpoor thel common! 1

• delense-and: security:and is otherwise?in(thefpublic" interest * ?W gi giving?due'considerationit'o the"burdenfupon;theslicenseeLthat?

~

could. result if the requirementsLwere imposedDon:the; i  %

) 1 L facility. - f. . ' ' ' m. a o  ;

o / j.

• j l:

t .

N 5 .

I I - t  !

p '

I

'i N ,;  ;;JH , .

,.  ; g-; 5 6, '

= =_

, ;3..

_ . = =

- _x

, _ .~ y 3

<_m__ ___3_.  ; . _

wg.

,; =  ; '- -

w

+ ,

+, ,

-- . m

-. 4

m. i

,-,;D ' ( ', 3 s

~-

pq:- i > s 1e; 1 , :p  ;

• + ' , ,

.u

\

t

'331 g jTest}eauibment accuraev and*ranse. ,

. . . . . .. '~

'I. Summer :1978LAddenda; tCode~' Requirement -vIWP-412011977; edition, x

' > f or, SQN - Unit 42 c and L IWP-4111 .1974 .e'dition ,: l Summerfi975 ~ Addenda / " '

"" ifor'SQN UnitElfrequire:thatLthe4rangelof-each. test; instrument-f ourf times =: the: respectively ref erence Lyaluest N sbeEwithin three~or and'thatiinstrumentlaccuracyishall be:within'theilimits given?

E

-E T <

> ciniTable IWP-4110-1. '

Relief Reauest?-~-ThetLicensee:requestsnreliEf fromcmeeting.' ,

the, range requirements;of IWP-4111.andIIWP .120lfor certainf 4 pressure,0 vibration, temperature, wand 3rpmLmeasurement$

Jdevicest 'The1Licenseefalso requests' relief toJuse2noslowera '

th LthanLa: 15-psig pressure l gauge . fori al1 ~ pumps . tested underfthe ' ~

requirementstoffASME Section XI. . ,

I

Licensee's Ensis for Reauestinn Relief --[The, 3 Licensee 1

proposes to.use. test equipment;-astoutlined:below:

a. Certain pumps have lowLsuction'pressurebrequirements, 1

L such'as:the Boric AcidLTransfer Pumps,EwhereLpressure-as low as 1,5 psig has to.beLrecorded. 1To meet the r e q u i r'e m e n t s' o f ' I W P - 4 1 2 0 'a n d L I W P.- 4 1 1 1', t a l p r e s s u r e . g a u g el.

of 4.5 psig fullLscale or lessLwouldtbe required. 1Thisi is.an impractical requirement'becauselspecially~madeilow, '

range pressure: gauges woul'd have to belpurchased and-installed. Also,'the: maximum allowableLerror;.for'al 4.5 psig gauge-is two' percent of full? scale <or10209 psig.

~

n The' maximum' allowable error for a115-psigJgauge?isttwo. ' s percent of. full scale oriO.30"psig. .TheLO,21 psig;

~

difference in accuracy of the two gauges-is" negligible.'

i -

b. The IWP-4111 and IWP-4120' range lrequirementsLare also~

impractical with regard to vibration' measurement-equipment. Available analog vibrationLmeasuring, devices- ,

3 have: normal' standard' scales-of 0;03 MO,1,.0:,3,41,^2,D3,-

'10, 30, and 100 mils. For a reference value'ofs3.11 mils.-

the IWPi 4120 range requirement'of.3Ltimes'..the' reference- ,

value or less-(9.3)'wouldJnot be possible with;the?

available sciles. .

For. digital, vibration measurement equipment',Jthe devices:

have a single fu111scaleLrange of'0:to 100imils=withsnoL.

intermediate ranges. Therefore, for aLreference'value of

• 3 mils, the digital equipment could.:not meet the threeler four times range: requirement ofc.the' Code. . #

I

c. The Licensee utilizes portab1'e and' panel-installed s digital temperature measuring equipment?to measure'1 .

i > -

bearing temperatures on various0 pumps.t. The device's'h' ave a" single full' scale' range of 0 tol999idegrees:with:^no; intermediate ranges, Therefore, for,a Ereference:valuen f 150' degrees, the IWP-4120 rangelrequirementfofAthree times thetreference'valueT(450rdegrees)?andTthe;IWP-4111; '

4 rangefrequirementcofJfour times:theYreference'value7(600 '

degrees)'-can not be' met'with the available.. scale.

't -

1.j, ; ,

s> 1 ,

i

,3

]'? ] ' . I  !

I , - .., ,

f 3:

,i t jp ' '

g d 4

• - 13. (Continued) 3

~d. For rpm measurements.'the Licensee'utilizesfdigital  ?

' tachometers. The devices.have~a single scale.of Of-to 999.. '

I rpm with no intermediate scales. Theref ore',1 f or a .

reference'va3ue of 1800 rpm, the IWP-4120: range .

requirement of threeJtimesLtheLreference:value:(5400 rpm)'

and'the IWP-4111 range requirement"ofTfour times the' ref erence value '(7200 ' rpm) can'not be met:with<the available scale.

Evaluation - ,

a..The Licensee's.proposaltto use O'to'15 psig; gauges in 111eu of specially procured 4.5 psig range { gauges is. "

. considered reasonable forLtesting pumps havingJ1ow . .

suction pressure requirements. The? difference in fullL scale accuracy of the two' scales of: gauges"is'.negligibles j

.and no compromise in1 safety;is:present11fL15.psig. gauges.

are used. .

'l b..For analog vibration. measurement equipment,cthe' .

Licensee's proposal to use devices with the scales listed' above is acceptable. The normal standard scales'on -

available' vibration'measurementuts adequate tommeet' Code' requirements and' assure effective measurement.of machine vibration. amplitude. . .

In the case of ' digital: vibration measurement equipment,-

the O to 100: mils range:is' acceptable provided the' devices meet the instrument accuracy requirements.of-Table IWP-4110-1. The Code:apparently did:notLeonsider the. full scale. resolution inherent in digital ]

instrumentation. .

c. For digital -temperature f measurement equipment,:

J Ithe:.0 to 999 degrees range is acceptable provided'the: devices

~

1 meet'the instrument accuracy requirements 1cfcTable IWP-4110-1.. The Code apparently did noticonsider the full scale resolution inherent.in. digital instrumentation,

d. For digital rpm measurement equipment, the OLto 999 rpm range is acceptable provided'the devices meet the instrument accuracy requirements of Table'IWP-4110-1. 1 The Code apparently did not consider 1the~fulliscale' resolution inherent in-digital instrumentation. ~)

Conclusion The-range' requirements'of'IWP-4111'and'IWP-4120-

' for certain low pressure gauges;are/impracticalJand:the.useL of 15 psig gauges wouldinot compromise safety. For~ digital" vibration, temperature,'and' rpm measurement: instruments,.

their use would not compromise safety norEdegrade-the accuracy of the,needed' data! The 1 Licensee's : proposed alternatives are' authorized'by law and-will.nottendanger life or property or the common defense.and security andLis~

otherwise:. in. the public interest giving due consideration 1to the burden:upon theLlicensee that couldLresult ifethe 1 '

requirements were imposed on'the facility.-

J 4 s

_=_ -_______:______-_______ _ __ _ _f_ td

K 'E,'.'

t r

1 a -

5. '. .

Et . . .

l

- ENCLOSUREi3 I

-SEQUOYAHcNUCLEAR PLANT

?!

. ADDITIONAL RELIEF: REQUESTS TO'.SQN LINSERVICE: TEST PROGRAM - _m o

(References 8 Land 9)-

1. Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pumns- + :l4 Code Requirement Article'IWP-3500(a)/of1the ASME: Code? .

requires that "when measurement of.. bearing'temperatureLisfnotL L c

• required =,'enchDpump?shall-be run:at 1 east-5 minutes under conditionsras stableias the system permits..'At;the"end'of '!

i 9 thisitimeJ at .'leasti oneomeasurement or observationtof: eachtof 1 the quantities specified$2 hall be.made anderecorded." :1 Relief Recuest -LThe Licensee 1hasfrequested; specific z relie[ d from~the IWP requirement.to wait 5 minutes?beforeLperforming' - U the required measurement.or observation.

Licensee's Basis'for Reauestina Relief - TheLicenseestat$s; that these:pumpsiare positive displacement pumpsfand believes '

L that IWP-3500(a) was'intendedifor centrifugal? pumps. Irv  ;

addition, compliance with the 5-minute "waitEtime" would . ..  :!

l result.in decreased. accura'y c of pump flow test data and could l

require the test to be1 conducted with initialiday tankLlevels.

approaching technical, specification limits.

Evaluation - The requirement;IWP-3500(a) is intended for both centrifugal and~displacementitype pumps as? stated by: '

IWP-1100-("This' Subsection.provides1the: rules'and requirements'for inservic'e testingJofsClass;1,J2,fand:3' centrifugal and displacement.typeLpumps...")

The day tank capacity is: stated tobbe 550: gallons,Lwith1a 5 Technical Specification limit of 250Lgallons. 'The1 Licensee-l considers 10 minutes: sufficient timeito performtthe; required

' test after the 5-minute. wait' time. :At:the. stated ~ flow' rate:

~

of 17 gallons pet. minute (gpm)'thisLwould. require B5: gallons u

I of fuel to be pumped.into the' day tank toifulfill.thei required 5-minute " wait' time", then'an' additional 170; gallons l

would be added to perform 1the pump flow test,J makingiaLtotal' o of 255" gallons. Added'to the-250Lgallon limit specifiedoin L SQN Technical" Specification 3,8.1.lk this' totals 505 gallons, 1 '

which provides a 45 gallon margin ofLusable' day tank; '

capacity-to perform.the test.

Conclusion - Relief should not be grantedsfrom thetIWP Code' requirement to'runleach pump at'least.5-'minutesnbefore1 test measurements are'made. The' Code' requirement'is>practicaltini this case andJdoes~not impose a hardship on1the1 Licensee..

I -

1 1 ..

9^ ', y; w -

1j y, ,

e_a_=__

yy

7 4

A

.c 2 '. Three-Percent Criteria Code Requirement % OM-1 paragraph'1.3.4.1.4 states,."For. ,

.those valves tested in accordance with 1.3.4.1.3-(a) and (b)-

which fail to meet.the set pressure acceptance criteria, the1 '

causal effect shall be' evaluated for: determination.of need If those valves exceed the stamped set for additional tests.

pressure criteria by 3%'or greater,.the requirements of 1.3.4.1.5-(b) shall be met."

Relief'Reauest - The Licensee has requested reliefffrom the OM-1~ paragraph'1.3.4.1.4'.requirementsthat if pressure' relief valves exceed'3% of-their stamped set" pressure criteri'a,~the' requirements of 1'3.4.1.5 (b') must be implemented. The

. ~

Licensee'is proposing that the requirement be changed;to 12%

of the stamped set-pressure'(or cold' set; pressure.-as'. ,

applicable) 2r 2 psig, whichever is greater, above the u'pper limit of the valve set pressure acceptance range.

Licensee's Basis for Reauesting Relief - .The1 Licensee statesi a that.many of the Class 2 and 3 valves have a set' pressure.

acceptance criteria of'13% and it is'not' appropriate to' place the 1D? requirement upon th' e se valves ~. 'In addition,-a' valve j with a low set pressure"(e.g. 20 psig) may be allowed a 12-  :

psig set pressure acceptance criteria (iie. 110%).. Applying-l the OM-1 3% criteria to this' example could' identify.the valve; as a significant. failure'and it still1be within'its set.

pressure criteria acceptance. range.

~

l Kygluation - The Licensee's proposed. acceptance' criteria ~of , l 2% above the upper limit of the valve set pressure acceptance criteria exceeds the intent of'the Code and'is sufficiently- H J

conservative to assure an acceptable 1evel of' safety.- j However, the 2 psig or greater above the' upper lim'it of the valve set pressure acceptance criteria is not sufficiently conservative. For low set pressure valves, (e.g. 20 psig),.  :

the acceptance criteria would then be as.high as 20% of the l set pressure, (e.g. 20 12 psig set pressure. acceptance criteria plus 2 bsig is 24 psig). Compliance with the Code-specified requirements is' practical in these cases and does-not impose an unnecessary hardship.

Conclusion - No relief is required to" change'the acceptance: 3 4

L criteria to 2% of the stamped set pressure (or cold set l pressure, as applicable) above the upper'limitLof.the valve '

set pressure acceptance criteria.

Relief should not be granted for the request to use 12'psig- '

above the upper limit of'the valve set pressure acceptance. .;

criteria. The Code requirementois practical in this caseEand' '

does not impose a har.dship on the' Licensee.

! a 1

1 J l-1

.2 s

- -- - -- - 2

,, < 'c 4

-7 ,

4 y..i

.m

!. s W, (q}

, .;, _: , (

Jm < .

a

'.'-i l , , .#p

}'c f

.j

- 3; '10-Minute Minimum Time' Requirement; Code Requirement'-.OM-1 paragraphs.4.1.1.8,34.112.8,14.1.317,; h 3]

8.1.1.8', 8.1.-2.8 and 8.1',3.7.; require that4"a minimum ofJ10L.

of:a-valveL

" l minutes shallielapse-between successive.. openings. ,j m

during testing lof:the set pressure setting.:

n Relief-Recuest - The, Licensee proposes to1 delete theJ10-minute minimum time requirement <between setpointoactuations? H and'allowithe' Licensee to specifyLany minimum wait time's? 1

. based upon(the type ofcvalveibeing tes te d ftestnambient? ' '

.i temperature, etc.- ' lI

<d Licensee's Basis-for Recuestins' Relief - Thei Lic'en'seel states o U

'that'(1) valves tested at room ambient conditions: require no d stabilization time between actuations',?(2)ttestJdata showsh' j

l' little effect:of valve'actuationlupon'.the v'alve,b_odyt

~

, 4 temperature (a typical: wait time'Lof:Sjminutes'between; M actuationsihas been moreLthan; adequate to-stabilizet '

.d temperatures),, (3) OM-1, Revision'11(inithetprocessLof beingi 4

approved) Egives -the owner responsibility lfor; assigningithe. d minimum wait time.between v'alve actuations and! deletes th'e'  !

requirement: for' a 110-minute wait: period, JandL (4); excessive" - l]

wait' times increase' danger to employees in high ambienti j r

" temperature: environments,~ increased radi'ation dosagei -

increased system downtime,.and possible increasedJoutage time:

l with" loss.of generation _ revenues.

r 1

~

The Licensee provided.a' table'of wait times 1(3:to'.5 minutes J

for Main' Steam Safety Valves and: Pressurizer Safety. Valves The- _

and zero minutes for all other safety?or reliefsvalves). a Main Steam Safety Valves are tested lin; place;ithe Pressurizer" 1 Safety Valves are tested by Wyle Laboratories;iandfalltother" i l

safety or relief valves are. bench t'estedtunderJambient- m i conditions,

. sj Evaluation - The. Licensee proposal meets the;intentiof thes +

proposed. changes to OM-1 in'thattthe criteriafi'sTsufficiently- .

conservative to assure an acceptable:levelTof safety. Strict-  ;

compliance-with the current'..OM-1 requirements'would1be' '

impractical and-impose antunnecessary' hardship with-no.'

compensating increase in the level'ofTsafety1oriquality. .j j

Conclusion,- Relief should be granted to allow theiLicenseeL s

j 1 to determine acceptable: wait periods between! valve- _ .. _. .

actuations. 1 The present'0M-1 Requirement'issimpracticalLini J

this case.and the alternative proposedcis authorized"byVlawi

~ '  ;

and"will not endanger life or propertylor.theLeommon_defenser '

and security'and is>otherwiselin the:public' interest'giving.1 ,

d

.-l L

due consideration'to the burden:-upon-the Licensee'that codid: , '

R result if the~ requirements'werel imposed'onEthe: facility.; q t

e f ..

a i

y f3" N Sir , , 'y m_

d

Stabilization of Valve Body Temperature When Testing:at Room 1

. 4; Ambient Conditions 1

Code -Requirement - OM-1 paragraphs , 4.1. 2. 4, :4 > l ' 3. 4, - 8.1; 25. 4, '

and'8.1',3.4' require that "...~theLtemperature-ofnthe valve body:shall.be known and.stabi-lized.;before commencing set

-pressure testing, with.no change in' measure; temperature'of' more than 10*F (-12*C)11n.30: minutes. Valves' insulated in:

service shall-beinsu. lated in like' manner during.. testing". 4.

s Relief Reauest - The Licensee proposes to.deleteLthe; . . 1 requirement for verifying stabilization of the valve body

' temperature when testing at room ambient lconditiens - f or. he!. -

service. media and environments. .:

-Licensee's Encis'for Reauestina Relief - The-Licensee states-that "the intent of OM-1 in the referenced paragraphs is1 to q ensure that valve setpoint is notLadversely.affected by:n21- '

4 1

allowing the valve body to heat up and stabilize when testing i at elevated temperatures" and that "it'is evident that this-is not an issue for testing at room amb'ient conditions.. 1

~

i d

Evaluation - Because changes in either. environmental temperatures'or tested equipment' temperatures.can affect the results of the test, it is prudent to know the1 respective temperatures and know.that the-temperatures'are not. changing:

to ensure accurate data. '

Conclusion . Relief should not be granted f rom the: Code

~

requirement to verify that the valve body temperature'has stabilized before performing the test. The.CodeDrequirement is. practical ~in.this case and does not imposeLa hardship'on' q the Licensee. l

-1 e

e 1

0 j

l 6

^

l l .$

l I

• 'b i

• 2'

]

o y ,

? 3-  : 3 ,

g l4 ,

~

,,+s ,

r

< u.- ,

3:g ;.

+i q

[,.;. ,

11 y

"S. Correiat' ion Procedure' Certification ( ,

.c q

1 Code Reanirement . - !OM-1, paragraphs 18.L1'.' 2.11, U8 5 2. 5,I 8ii*. 3 [i?,o .

1

'8.1.3.5,cand 8.3 require thativalves1be tested under i "'

M operating con ditions if feasible *or.be' tested using-

~a; ,

- j substitute fluids' 'atJ ambienti conditions: ifithe-' valve" cannot ? 1

• ' beitested undervoperating conditions. The~CodeLalso: . .

requires that theoaccuracy of1the=substitutertestingimethodE, be'certifiedDadequate to meet?(1) thel ace'eptancei criteria ;of .d 4

4

. paragraphs: 1.3.3'.114'or'1.3;4.li4,-(2)lthe~numbercof tests' -

>1 required by paragraphsL8ti.1;9, 8.1.2.9, andia.113.8 kandi(3')/

ithe. acceptance. criteria for. seat leakage requiredLbyl n ,

paragraphs :andj 8.2 3. t Relief Reauest n The'Licenseefproposes:t'lus'e o manufacturer'sz d hj published-or writtenLinformation to assign:coldgsetVpressures' '

W f or ~ ASME Section XI Class 2 and l Class 3 'saf ety and relief: . 7 4

on D valves (excluding main. steam safety 1 valves) without;having)toL U comply with'the:correlationcprocedureLeertification~

~~ ~

LE >

1 requirements.

The Licensee also proposes thatino; set pressure; correction bei i j required whenLperforming. room' ambient testingLof valvesifrom i

,j systems'where their ambient-operatingLtemperatureidoesinot; exceed 150*F.

y

~

-Licensee's Basis for Recuesting ' Relief ; The Licens'ee states

~ '

!- j that testing hascbeen. performed.bylthe valvelmanufacturersitol correlate the effects.of system temperature-andibackipressure d on valve set pressure. 'The) manufacturer"for the. majority:ofL l j

valves at SQN-(Crosby) has publishedJcorrelationidataDontthe" j effects of system temperature:ontvalve setipressure+ " Crosby-specifies no set pressure correction lisDrequiredifor' system; '

q temperatures up to-150*F. The J. El. Lonergan5 Comp ~any t

I (manufacturer for the remaining SQNLvalves')[specifiesLa' '

system temperature'up to:270*F withoutfaiset" pressure- <

correction. In addition, testing by TVALand; valve. d manufacturers'has'shown.that'an increaseLin";This ambient. .

. i temperature decreases thervalve setpoint. effect2 adds  :!

l' l

conservatism to the Licensee's proposed 7 approach"in.that1a I slight reducticn:in set pressure'wouldfoccurJat' elevated ambient temperatures'and would not.poseLa'nuclearJsafety concern for the1 valves:in' question.

To meet the Code requirement, the:LicenseeLwould.have t'o-sets R up and operate a, valve set 1 pressure correlationLpro'gramLto'

~

duplicate the' data'already available from:the valve manufacturers.

Evaluation -' The Code requires'that'.the alternate..

correlation method ^to test the1 valves comply 1with-the . ..

acceptance' criteria'of!0M-1.8.3.2-(a)',;;(b),landE(c)1and that: .

,The1 Li'censeel statesi that: they i

the results be: documented!.

have?obtained data'from"the valve manufacturers which .. ,

f,

.provides! alternate correlationocorrectionsLforitheTrelief? , ','

valvescinfquestion..;The manufacturers'? data further/ states ~

S

.that'their valves do:not requir'ercorrelationEbe16wistated' f

1 temperature, levels: 150P F. for Crosby valves 7and%270*LF,. '

t ' '

-.f or, Lonergan . valves.

,, l r

, u. 5s W '

i i ,s y ,

, <, s

-==m so -

I

.,r i

, - .? a : ,

• 15, (Continued)

Conclusion - The Licensee's IST? program:should reference and i

. include-the manufacturers' documentation of the results'of,

. the: tests performed.to verify the. adequacy;-of.theLa1 ternate i test: media correlation. -Relief;should'be granted-to allow 1 the Licensee:to use the manufacturers' correlation data on  ;

j the valves in question,'provided the' Licensee-assures-thati~

thei acceptance - criteria' of' OH-118. 3. 21( a) ,1. (b ) , ..' and ( c ) is- 1 j

met. The Code' requirement.is' impractical in.this. case and.the ~

alternativ'e' proposed isLauthorizediby law and willi

not: 4 endanger life.or-property.:or the1 common. defense and-security '

1 and-Jis'otherwise-in the~public interest giving'due, =l considerationito the burden'-upon'the L-icenseesthat could-,. .3 result if the requirements.were. imposed:on;the, facility.

q

]

.h q

q 1

-d q

r 4

.l 1

l r I

J l i 1 .

j 1 . i

. .)

o .

k i{

'i

. 6 l a __ __.