ML20244D982

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Sser 5 & SALP Input Supporting Util 860528 Request for Relief from Impractical Preservice Insp Requirements. Certain ASME Code Section XI Exams Deemed Impractical
ML20244D982
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date: 06/17/1986
From: Rossi C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Nerses V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20235T530 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-51, RTR-NUREG-0896, RTR-NUREG-896 NUDOCS 8606230500
Download: ML20244D982 (5)
v • d • e


Text

__

JUN 171986 Docket No. 50-443 ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Nerses, Senior Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR Licensing-A I FROM: Charles E. Rossi, Assistant Director Division of PWR Licensing-A

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1, SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT N0. 5 ON PRESERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM The Materials Engineering Section of the Engineering Branch, Division of PWR Licensing-A has prepared the attached SSER input (Attachment 1) to Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6 addressing the Preservice Inspection (PSI) Program for Seabrook Unit 1. By letter dated May 28, 1986, the applicant requested relief from certain impractical preservice inspection requirements. The staff's evalua-tion of the relief requests has detennined that certain ASME Code Section XI examinations defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(3) are impractical; therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), relief from these requirements has been allowed. Our technical evaluation of the relief requests is enclosed as Attachment 2. The staff considers the review of the Preservice Inspection Program for Seabrook Unit 1 to be complete. Our SALP input is enclosed as Attachment 3. 4 This input has previously been provided to you and this memorandum is for purposes of record.

,0ri;1ricipelby Charles E. Rossi, Assistant Director ,

Division of PWR Licensing-A l Attachments: As stated cc: V. Noonan DISTRIBUTION:

R. Ballard Docket File E. Sullivan PAEB Reading File M. Hum PAEB Plant File G. Johnson AD Reading File S. Lee a p

Contact:

ohns 7128 Qgyg

- 7P' PAEB PAEB PAEB b P Slee:wshhy GJohnso ESullivan RLBa ard CERossi 6//6/86 6//(,/86 6//6/86 6/)//86 6////86

- ATTACMENT 1

~

' PUBLIC SERVICE Co. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-443 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPptEMENT ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF PWR LICENSING - A 5.2.4 Reactor coolant Pressure Soundary Inservice Inspection and Testina This section was prepared with t'he technical assistance of 00E contractors from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

5.2.4.3 Evolustion of Como11ance with 10 CFR 50.55afo) for Seabrook oe- ti  !

This evaluation supplements conclusions in this section of NUREE-0896 which addresses the definition of examination requirements and the evaluation of compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(s). NUREG-0896, Supplement 4, previously reported that the staff considered the review of the preservice inspection (PSI) program to be an open issue subject to the Applicant: (1) documenting the effectiveness of the ultrasonic testing procedures and instrumentation for examining the cast stainless steel weldments in the primary piping systems, and ) submitting all relief requests with supporting technical justi cations.

The staff has completed review of the FSAR through Amendment 58 dated April 1986; the Seabrook Unit 1 Balance of Flant (80P) PSI Program, Revision 1, dated January 6,1984; the Seabrook Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel P$! Program Plan, Revision 3, dated March 15, 1984; the Supplemental Examination Program Plan (SEPP) for Seabrook Unit 1 Revision 0, dated November 25, 1985; a letter from the Applicant dated December 20, 1985 responding to the staff concerns in NUREG-0896, Supplement 3; the Sumery Report on Ultrasonic Examinations Performed At Seabrook Station unit 1 On Statically Cast Fitting Te Component Weldsents, submitted May 15, 1986; and a submittal dated May 28,1986 containing requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Applicant has determir.ed to be met y practical for systems and~ components at Seabrook Station Unit 1.

On April 15,1986, the staff met with the Applicant at the seabrook plant site for a specific demonstration to determine the effectiveness of the Applicant's ultrasonic examinations on

- statica11y cast stainless steel usinp the qualified procedures on the Seabrook calibration blocks, mectanical fatigue crack specimens, thermal fatigue crack specimens, and actual plant 1

X welds. The Applicant's examinations, using a 1 MHz,1-inch diameter dual element transducer which produces a 41' nominaj

[l refracted longitudinal wave, were completed from the static;cist fitting side of the welds as the wrought side of the holds had beeDMnTvious1Aexamined for PSI using conventional techniques. [

If indications were found, or significant attenuation changes noted, the 41' refracted longitudinal wave examination was then also completed from the. wrought material side (pipe side) of the weld. All geo'.etric indications 50% DAC or greater were recorded. Root gnometry reflectors were verified by construction radiographs and counterbore reflectors were verified using a longitudinal wave examination performed perperWicular to the pipe surface. Based on the discussions and demonstrations durino the meeting at the plant site, the staff reached the fo? lowing conclusions regarding the preservice ultrasonic exMnation of the cast stainless steel pipe welds:

(1) The examination procedures meet the methodelegy requirements of $cetion XI of the ASME Code, (2) the ultrasound was penetrating the region of the weld subject te examination and produced reflections from inherent geometrical conditions in the pipe that could be interpreted, and (3) the detection of significant construction type efects, if present, was possible with the ultrasonic signal-to-noise

/

)(

ratios observed.

On May 15, 1986, the Applicant submitted the ' Summary Report on Ultrasonic Examinations Performed at Seabrook Stetton Unit 1 on Statically Cast Fitting to Component Weldments' for staff review. As a result of this review and the plant site -

demonstrations, the staff has determined thtt the fitting and piping welds in the primary coolant system at Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 have sufficiently good acoustical properties to permit a valid ultrasonic examination with state-of-the-art instrumentation.. Therefore, the staff considers the issue of the preservice ultrasonic examination of welds in the primary coolant system to be resolved.

Requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Applicant has determined not practical for systems and components witMn the reactor coolant pressure boundary were submitted on May 28, 1986. These relief requests were supported by information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), therefore, the staff evaluated the ASME Code-required examinations that the Applicant determined to be impractical and determined that the Applicant has demonstrated that either (1) the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety or (ii) compliance with the requirements would result in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. On the basis of review of 2

the Applicant's submittels and t'he granting of relief from these preservice examination requirements, the staff concludes that the preservice inspection program for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(3).

The detailed evaluation supporting this conclusion is provided in Appendix to this report.

The initial inservice inspection program has not been submitted by the Applicant. This program will be evaluated, se a condition to the license, based on 10 CFR 50.55a(s)(4) which requires that the initial 120-month inspection interval shall comply with the requirements in the latest edition and adderda of the Code (

incorporated by reference in paragraph 50.55a(b) on the date i 12 months prior to the date of issuance of the operating I licanse. This program will be evaluated after the app 1tcable ASME Code edition and addenda can be determined and before the first refueling outage when inservice inspection commences, i

6.6 Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Comoonents This section was prepared with the technical assistance of DOE contractors from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

6.6.3 Evolvation of Como11ance with 10 CFR 50.55afel for Seabrook Unit 1 This evaluation supplements conclusions in this section of NUREG-08g6 which addresses the definition of examination requirements and the evaluation of compliance with 10CFR50.55a(g). NUREG-0896, Supplement 4, previously reported I that the staff considered the review of the preservice inspection (PSI) program to be an open issue subject to the Applicant ,

submitting all relief requests with supporting technical justifications.

The staff has completed review of the FSAR through' Amendment 58 dated April 1986; the Seabrook Unit 1 Balance of Plant (50P) PS!

Program, Revision 1, dated January 6,1984; the Supplemental Examination Program Plan (SEPP) for Seabrook Unit 1. Revision 0, dated November 25, 1985; a letter from the Applicant dated December 20, 1985 responding to the staff concerns in NUREG-0896, Supplement 3; and a submittal dated May 28, ig86 containing requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Applicant has determined not practical for systems and components at Seabrook Station Unit 1.

Requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Applicant has determined to be not practical for Class I and Class 3 components were submitted on May 28, 1986.

These relief requests were supported by information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).Therefore, the staff evaluated the ASME Code-required examinations thatj the Applicant determined to be 3

O

l impractical and determined that the Applicant has ilemonstrated that either (1) the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptab1's level of quality and safety or (ii) compliance with l the requirements would result in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. On the basis of review of the Applicant's submittals and the granting of relief from these preservice examination requirements, the staff concludes that the preservice inspection program for loabrook Nuclear Power station, Unit 1 is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(3). The detailed evalut, tion supporting this conclusion is provided in Appendix ,,,, to this report.

The initial inservice inspection program has not been submitted by the Applicant. This program will be evaluated, as a condition to the license, based on 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) which requires that

'the initial 120-month inspection interval shall comply with the ,

requirements in th'a latest edition and addenda of tie Code )

incorporated by reference in paragraph 50.55a(b) on the date i 12 months prio'r to the date of issuance of the operating j license. This program will be evaluated after the applScable ASME Codo edition and addenda can be determined and tefore the first refueling outage when inservice inspection comences.

.e 9

9 E. 's

C.

.. ?. . , V. .'

D t ,

.; ..r . ,.

4

j. ,.. .

I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244D982&oldid=3273148"