ML14261A107

St. Lucie, Unit 1 - License Renewal One-Time Inspection of Class 1 Small Bore Piping Inspection Plan Submittal

ML14261A107
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/03/2014
From:	Jensen J Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2014-265
Download: ML14261A107 (6)

Text

0 September 3, 2014FPL. L-2014-26510 CFR 54U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDocument Control DeskWashington, D. C. 20555-0001St. Lucie Unit IDocket No. 50-335License Renewal One-Time Inspection of Class 1 Small Bore PipingInspection Plan Submittal

References:

1. Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units I and2, NUREG-1779, September 2003.2. Letter from Joseph Jensen (FPL) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (L-2014-059), "LicenseRenewal One-Time Inspection of Class I Small Bore Piping Revised Commitments," March 19,2014, ADAMS Accession No. 14087A007.3. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2, December 2010.Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) has License Renewal (LR) commitments for St. Lucie UnitsI and 2 to perform a one-time inspection of Class I Small Bore Piping prior to the end of the initialoperating license term. For St. Lucie Unit 1 specifically, this inspection was originally addressed byCommitment 7 listed in Appendix D, Table I of Reference 1. The Unit 1 small bore piping inspectionrequirements were revised in Reference 2, such that this one-time inspection will follow the guidanceprovided in the Reference 3, Section AMP XI.M35, "One-Time Inspection of ASME Code Class I Small-Bore Piping."St. Lucie Unit 1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 18.1.5, Small Bore Class IPiping Inspection, states that a report describing the details of the one-time inspection plan will besubmitted prior to the implementation of the inspection. To comply with UFSAR Section 18.1.5requirements, the one-time Class I Small Bore Piping Program Inspection Plan is provided herein in theAttachment.Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Eric Katzman, Licensing Manager, at 772-467-7734.( y yours,Site Vice PresidentSt. Lucie Plant C--JJ/lrb _ ,O c(Florida Power & Light Company6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 L-2014-26510 CFR 54Page 2 of 2

Attachment:

St. Lucie Unit I One-Time ASME Code Class I Small-Bore Piping Inspection Plan(4 pages)cc: USNRC Regional Administrator, Region IIUSNRC Senior Resident Inspector, St. Lucie Plant L-2014-265AttachmentPage 1 of 4St. Lucie Unit 1 ASME Code Class 1 Small-Bore PipingOne Time Inspection Plan, Revision 0 L-2014-265AttachmentPage 2 of 4Plan DescriptionThis plan augments the requirements in American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI, 1998 edition with Addenda through 2000, and is applicable to small-bore ASME CodeClass 1 piping and systems less than 4 inches nominal pipe size (less than NPS 4) and greater thanor equal to NPS 1. The plan includes pipes, fittings, branch connections, and all full and partialpenetration (socket) welds. This plan was developed using the Generic Aging Lessons Learned(GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 XI.M35; One-Time Inspection of ASME Code Class 1Small-Bore Piping as guidance.A one-time inspection to detect cracking resulting from thermal and mechanical loading, vibration,or intergranular stress corrosion of full penetration welds will be performed by volumetricexamination. A one-time inspection to detect cracking in socket welds will be performed by eithervolumetric or destructive examination. The number of welds to be examined will be on a samplebasis as described in Section 4 of this plan. The sample of welds to be examined will be selectedusing the risk-informed approach as approved by the NRC for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units No. 1and 2 -Fourth 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan Relief Request No. 1 (TAC NO.MD7739)These inspections will provide additional assurance that either aging of small-bore ASME CodeClass 1 piping is not occurring or the aging is insignificant, such that a plant-specific AgingManagement Program (AMP) is not warranted. Should evidence of cracking be revealed by theone-time inspection, a periodic inspection plan will be developed and implemented using a plant-specific AMP.A search of the St. Lucie Corrective Action Program and the ASME Section XI, Repair andReplacement Reports over the operating history of St. Lucie Unit 1 was performed to detennine ifany ASME Code Class 1 Small-Bore Piping greater than or equal to NPS 1 and less than NPS 4 hadexperienced cracking. No instance of cracking of ASME Code Class 1 Small-Bore Piping greaterthan or equal to NPS 1 and less than NPS 4 was identified.Evaluation and Technical Basis1. Scope of Plan: This plan is a one-time inspection of a sample of ASME Code Class 1 pipingless than NPS 4 and greater or equal to NPS 1. This plan includes measures to verify thatdegradation is not occurring, thereby confirming that there is no need to manage age-relateddegradation. The one-time inspection plan for ASME Code Class 1 small-bore piping includeslocations that are susceptible to cracking. The sample of welds will be selected using the risk-informed approach as approved by the NRC for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1 -Fourth 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan Relief Request No. 1 (TAC NOS. MD7739).All ASME Class 1 pipe segments less than 4-inch NPS and greater than equal to 1-inch NPS havethe same Low Safety Significance Risk Ranking and, as such, all welds were given the same levelof consideration.2. Preventive Actions: This plan is a condition monitoring activity independent of methods tomitigate or prevent degradation.3. Parameters Monitored/Inspected: This inspection is intended to detect potential cracking inASME Code Class 1 small-bore piping.

L-2014-265AttachmentPage 3 of 44. Description of Aging Effects: This one-time inspection is designed to provide assurance thataging of ASME Code Class 1 small-bore piping is not occurring, or that the effects of agingare not significant. The one-time inspection to detect cracking in socket welds will be either avolumetric or destructive examination. The inspection to detect cracking resulting fromthermal and mechanical loading, vibration, or intergranular stress corrosion of full penetrationwelds will be a volumetric examination. Volumetric examination will be performed usingdemonstrated techniques from the ASME Code that are capable of detecting the aging effectsin the examination volume of interest. The inspection will be performed at a sufficient numberof locations to ensure an adequate sample. This number, or sample size, is based onsusceptibility, accessibility, dose considerations, operating experience, and limiting locationsof the total population of ASME Code Class 1 small-bore piping inspections.The inspection sample size will be at least 3%, up to a maximum of 10 welds, of each weldtype, for each operating unit using a methodology to select the most susceptible and risk-significant welds from the risk-informed approach as described above. For socket welds,destructive examination may be performed in lieu of volumetric examinations. Because moreinformation can be obtained from a destructive examination than from nondestructiveexamination, credit will be taken for each weld destructively examined equivalent to havingvolumetrically examined two welds.St. Lucie Unit 1Weld Type Approx. 3% Sample SizeNumber (Max 10 Welds Each Type)" Volumetric OR DestructiveSocket 493 15 N/A 5(NPS-2 and smaller)Full Penetration 92 3 3 N/A(Greater than NPS-2 and lessthan NPS-4)5. Monitoring and Trending: This is a one-time inspection to determine whether cracking inASMEE Code Class 1 small-bore piping resulting from stress corrosion, cyclical (includingthermal, mechanical, and vibration fatigue) loading, or thermal stratification and thenrialturbulence (MRP 146 and MRP 146S) is an issue. Evaluation of the inspection results mayindicate the need for additional or periodic examinations (i.e., a plant-specific AMP for Class 1small-bore piping using volumetric inspection methods consistent with ASME Code, SectionXI, Subsection IWB).6. Acceptance Criteria: If flaws or indications exceed the acceptance criteria of ASME Code,Section XI, Paragraph IWB-3400, they are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section L-2014-265AttachmentPage 4 of 4XL, Paragraph IWB-3 131; additional inspections are performed in accordance with ASME Code,Section XI, Paragraph IWB-2430. Evaluation of flaws identified during a volumetricexamination of socket welds will be in accordance with IWB-3600.7. Corrective Actions: The site corrective action program, quality assurance procedures, sitereview and approval process, and administrative controls are implemented in accordance withthe requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. Should evidence of cracking be revealed bythe one-time inspection, a periodic inspection will be developed and implemented, using a plant-specific AMP.8. Confirmation Process: The requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B are used to addressthe confirmation process.9. Administrative Controls: The requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B are used to addressthe administrative controls.10. Operating Experience: This one-time inspection plan uses volumetric inspection techniqueswith demonstrated capability and a proven industry record and/or destructive examinations todetect cracking in piping weld and base material. Currently, an industry proven volumetrictechnique for detection, sizing and performing analytical evaluation of flaws in socket welds hasnot been established; therefore, a destructive examination will be performed.