ML20006E246

Application for Amend to License NPF-8,revising Tech Spec Table 4.7-3 Re Visual Insp & Surveillance Requirements for Snubbers.Approval of Change Will Permit Operation Until Seventh Refueling Outage W/O Shutdown to Inspect Snubbers

ML20006E246
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	02/08/1990
From:	Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20006E247	List: ML20006E246 ML20006E248
References
NUDOCS 9002220408
Download: ML20006E246 (4)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:r ' ,

 -   t, lk j

j Alabama Power Compny

*" ~ a 40 inverness Conrr Parkw

y  ;

Poo: Othee Box 1295  ; '4 Bemingham Alabama 35201 v " y ,

             .        *. Telephone 205 868-5581                                                                                    l W. G. Heireton, til                                                                                        l

R s senior V6co President l

                         ' Nuclear Operations -                                                 g3h3m3 bef February 8, 1990                the southern doctro system a

p, l f Docket No. 50-364  ; i l, ' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 E ' ATTN: Document Control Desk i Vashington, D. C. 20555- ) i Gentlemen: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 I Snubber Surveillance Requirements Technical Specification Change 3 l On March 30, 1987 the NRC issued' amendments, on a one-time basis, which l modified the Units 1 and~ 2' Technical Specification 4.7.9 and added a new Table 4.7-3 relating to.the' visual inspection requirements for snubbers. , These amendments were granted based on use of a statistical methodology 'I presented by Alabama Power Company which provided a 95% confidence level < that at least 90% of the' snubbers in the plant are operable as determined. by visual examinations. Approval of these amendments was granted by the. i NRC on a one-time only basis due to' ongoing generic NRC efforts in this -' o area. These efforts are anticipated to result in visual inspection relief from the current 1 requirements; however, it is not certain that this generic. =i relief'will be provided in sufficient time to preclude an additional

                         ~ inspection by Alabama' Power Company just prior to its next Unit 2 refueling                      '

outage. A one-time only Technical Specification change is therefore proposed.- A discussion of the Unit 2 visual inspection failure is provided in " Attachment 1. Attachment 2 lists the changed Technical Specification pages  ! and includes the proposed. changed pages. Alabama Power Company has  :

                         = determined that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards                               t consideration. The required analysis, pursuant to 10CFR50.92, is provided                                 I as Attachment 3. 'It should be noted that the enclosed revised Technical Specification Table 4.7-3 is similar to that granted by the NRC on March 30, 1987. Also, the March 30, 1987 approval was based on a conservative                                  :
        ,.                 smallest population size of 200 snubbers. This change request would                                      ,

e effectively be applicable only to the Unit 2 inaccessible snubber  ! hY^ population.which exceeds 400 snubbers. Thus, actual snubber reliability 4 e would' exceed that utilized by the NRC in their March 30, 1987 approval.  : tm$$

        .jRc. ,           It is requested that the NRC approve this change by August 1, 1990. It is g   g also requested that the approval of this change include the application of results to the most recent visual inspection. Thus, approval of this change vill allov Unit 2 operation until the 7th Refueling Outage (Fall
         .P                1990) without the necessity for shutdown for the sole purpose of snubber h            visual inspection. The Plant Operations Review Committee i.as reviewed this                               ,

W m r

          ?'                                                ' ;po/Mrm & C/

pM y ' s w $ 6Tl6 tan

                                                                                   ,   i                                            t

u 4 i lV . I 4

                        -'  U. S. Nuclear Regul0tery Commissi n                                                                                                                                                                                                           ,

b.,: +- Fag) 2-I proposed change-and the Nuclear Operations Review Board will review this-  ! proposed-change at a future meeting. A copy of'this change is being sent  ; to Dr. C. E. Fox, the Alabama State Designoe, in accordance with ' 10CFR50.91(6)(1). l If you have any questions, please advise. t Respectfully submitted,  ; ..n, k);,j,[[ N- - 4 W. G. Hairston, III SVORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME j THIS 20 DAY OF deb . , .1990 ) 11Mu wY0 (/ Notary Public  ; My Commission Expires /52 / 5 ! 9 4 i VGH,III/ JAR:md 13.08 l t- Attachments i cc Mr. S. D. Ebneter j Mr. E. A. Reeves l Mr. G. F. Maxwell l Dr. C. E. Fox .

  .g<

r

• k r

9 b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

r- o i J Attachment 1 Unit 2 Visual Inspection Failure

                           -Inaccessible hydraulic snubber 2HS-R88 was found unsatisfactory during visual inspection because the pivot pin was not engaged in the top ear of the clevis at the pipe side of the snubber. The snubber was functionally tested with both ends pinned, and found to be acceptable. It was not tested in the as found condition for equipment and personnel safety considerations.

An evaluation of the as found condition indicated that in the case of a dynamic event the snubber vould have remained marginally functional, but would not have been capable of carrying its designed load. The evaluation for short term operability was based on an assumption that the snubber was i . unpinned because of the uncertainty of whether or not the vertically oriented pin with the top retaining ring missing would have remained partially engaged had a seismic event occurred. The evaluation concluded that the snubber failure did not adversely affect the short term operability of the related portions of piping and pipe supports. i I JAR:md 13.08

   . j .-

l i

l i

1, . 1 ,; -. ,, [1f, '

-~                               4

' ,. c ) ' r b ..'l p $ e h

                           '&                                                           l i                                                        Attachment 2' f;-

v f( (! x,, 'o l 1 \:.. S Unit 2 Revision o o i .z . Page 3/4 7-20 Replace Page 3/4 7-20a Replace l fI t i:

                                                                                 ' t' i

G. 3i o i. 1 .i

                                                                                  'f
                                                                                     .1 e

I* i ( i a i I 4 h' ( <a i> t

                       +

1. i E ' .i. *;.. i ,

0}}