ML19325E329: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 73: Line 73:
A RC-R7                                    !'
A RC-R7                                    !'
RC-RI WP-PSR-7 l                                                                                                                                          '
RC-RI WP-PSR-7 l                                                                                                                                          '
x%[[%
x%((%
g            ,
g            ,
N WP-PSR-9 A WP-PSR-8                                                                    :
N WP-PSR-9 A WP-PSR-8                                                                    :

Latest revision as of 02:36, 16 March 2020

Discusses Visual Insp of Pressurizer Surge Line Conducted, Per Item 1.a of NRC Bulletin 88-011.Continued Operation of Facility Surge Line Acceptable Based on Westinghouse Structural Assessment
ML19325E329
Person / Time
Site: Farley Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 10/26/1989
From: Hairston W
ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
IEB-88-011, IEB-88-11, NUDOCS 8911060246
Download: ML19325E329 (3)


Text

y., -

il Alabama Power Company 40 invement Center Parkway li . Post 6ffee Box 1295

' b, Birmmgham. Alabama 35?01

' f, Telephone P05 866MB1 W. G. Hairston, til Senior Vre President Nuclear Operanons October 26. 1989 Alabama fi>w'er

(, Docket No. 50-348 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washirigton, D. C. 20555 Gent)emert Joseph M. F.triey Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 NRC Bulletin No. 88-11 Pressurizer Surge Lino Thermal Stratification By letter dated May 1, 1989 Alabams Power Company submitted to the NRC a Justification for continued Operation (JCO) for Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. This JC0 was based on an assessment of the Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, pressuriser surge line considering the effects of thermal stratification loading and was performed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code. Since a visual inspection of the Unit 1 pressurizer surge line had not been performed, the assessment included an evaluation of maximum flow stratification and conditions which vere observed during the Unit 2 surge line inspection. As required by NRC Bulletin 88-11, Item 1.a, a vieval inspection was conducted of the Unit 1 pressuriser surge line en September 26 and 27, 1989 by an ASME Code Section XI, VT-3 certified examiner. The inspection was first performed with the insulation installed. One area of insulation of approximately 1 1/2" x 5" vas noted to be dented at support RC-R2 on the pressurizer side (See Attachment 1).

An inspection was then conducted with the insulation removed from the t

surge line. Gaps at the pipe whip restraints were measured and recorded. The surge line was inspected for any indications of contact t with the pipe whip restraints and any evidence of insulation rubbing.

The surge line was in contact with whip restraint WP-PSR-7. On whip restraint VP-PSR-4, a rub mark vas noted on the pipe and whip restraint.

Spring supports RC-R1 and RC-R2 and snubber RC-R7 vere also examined for any evidence of damage. On spring support RC-R1, the cold setting of the spring can was slightly less than the design cold setting. On spring support RC-R2, one side of the spring support was noted to be within one pound of the design cold setting. The opposite spring can of

! RC-R2 was approximately four hundred twenty-four pounds below the design cold setting. On snubber RC-R7, no evidence of damage was noted.

%3 V

A

.L.

I U,. S. NJelear Regulatory Commission October 26, 1989 Page 2 t

The spring can settings vere revieved by Vestinghouse and determined to  !

be acceptable; however, before restart of Unit 1 the spring cans for RC-R1 and RC-R2 vill be set within the design range. ,

As a result of the findings observed in the visual inspection, Vestinghouse performed a structural integrity assessment of the Unit 1  ;

pressurizer surge line based on the fatigue requirements of Section III .

of the ASPE Code. The conclusion of this assessment is that continued '

operation of the Unit I surge line is acceptable and the JC0 submitted i by Alsbama Power Company on May 1, 1989 remains valid.

The information provided herein is true so the best of my knowledge and belief. If you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POVER COMPANY  ;

e8.k. lla e,Y a.1.

V. G. Hairston, III VGH,III/RGVimV.1206  !

Attachment SVORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE MC cc Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. E. A. Reeves THIS M DAY OF [rb / w , 1989 Mr. G. F. Maxwell - ,

) 114 o rs km $$' r

~

+

NftaryPublic

~

in CE.L3is DKiS Cic.151 19t2 My Commission Expires i i

t

}

1

r itearim nt 1 f 4 4

lh* Q-I-Bl9-CCA-!8 E409 PRE 55UR3ZER SURGE LINE I

3 1

i i4* SURGE i Y' WELD #I4 '

i FARL7.Y NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT #1 f i

U-I6997I l D-951114 SH. 2 i D-951054 SH. I  !

l PRE 55URIZER  !

{,OlB91-K001 j l

t r

I4 -WP-PSR-2 WP-PSR-9 -

?

6tDM) s j

  • 5 2 i

i WP-PSR-4 0

(

t

, ,4  % WP-PSR-I l 9 RC-R2 m q j WP-PSR-5 f l

WP-PSR-6 l

q.CCA-18 '

A RC-R7  !'

RC-RI WP-PSR-7 l '

x%((%

g ,

N WP-PSR-9 A WP-PSR-8  :

i

b. I 2 4 '

a E-908 (REF.)

W LOOP NUMBER 2 HOT LEG l

l l ' *

- . - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - ._ _._-.. - .- - , - - _ .