ML20236F284

Safety Evaluation Supporting 21 Relief Requests,W/Four Exceptions,From ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Ix,Re Inservice Testing Program of Pumps & Valves

ML20236F284
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	10/23/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20236F256	List: ML20236F253 ML20236F284 ML20236F347
References
NUDOCS 8711020081
Download: ML20236F284 (3)

Text

_ - - - _ - - .

y

,_ s ' ,b p ,

y ,

, y, y <

abt ,;\

l

, , 4 s

y, JDa angq y

?'f Jw .

q'o,,(

S.

. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

g, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

...../

0 SAFETY: EVALUATION BY-THE4 0FFICE OF'SPECIAL' PROJECTS. ,

]q

RELATINGETORELIEF'FROMTHEASME'BOIi.ER'ANDLPRESSUREVESSELCODE, ,

LSECTION XI,-RULES FOR' INSERVICE INSPECTION OFI .

y.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COMPONENTS -' DIVISION I"t

, TENNESSEE VALLEY' AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT,:UNITSL1 AND 2 q DOCKET N05.J 50-327 AND 50-328.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

q Section 50.55a', " Codes and. Standards", of 10 CFR Pa' r t?50 requires, in 'part.- '

~

'that certain safety-related pumps and' valves meet the~ requirements of SectionLX.11 of the.American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and-Pressurei j Vessel Code 1 (hereafter "the Code"). In order lto meet the; requirements of thisk i

regulation, the Tennetsee Valley Authority.(TVA) has1 submitted to NRC:its firstJ ten-year Inservice . Testing -(IST) program lon pumps 'and: valves.for the .Sequoyahl Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2:in its letter dated March 3, 1982c The ISTl T program for Sequoyah was-revised in later submittals dated' November ~4, 1982, April 16, 1984, August 16, 1985. June 6,(1986, November 17, 1986, DecemberJ12,-

1986, July 2,1987, and Au9ust 14',?1987, iIn these11etters, TVA requestedt relief from certain Code'Section XI requirements' for specific: pumps and valves-in the Sequoyah Units 1 and 2:IST program. :The staff:1ssued a:SafetyJEvaluationi (SE) concerning the Sequoyah.IST program on April. Sh1985L This SE addressed the relief requests-in the three'submittals. dated March 3',L1982 to Aprile16; 1984. ,

Subsequently,TVAproposedfurtherprogramchangesinits.sixsubmittalsdsted; August 16', 1985 to August 14 1987. The staff was requested.to first' review the:

priority items requested by TVA to support the Sequoyah Unit 2 restart. This

SE is, therefore, limited to 21 relief. requests!from the ASME- Code, Section1XI,: >

that have been identified by TVA as needingl resolution prior to restartLof. the:

Sequoyah plant. TVA has made other relief requests and proposed program.

revisions in addition to the 21 addressed herein, sand these are currently under; review'. These non-restart relief requests will be' addressed in a later.

evaluation.,

Regulation 10'CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1) authorizes the. Commission to grait relikf fromi-these requirements upon making the necessary. findings; . This SE contains1NRC;

staff findings with respect to granting or not granting reliefs submitted!asl ,

,part of the licensee's IST program. .

~ '

y 2.0 EVALUATION-L The staff'has reviewed.the 21 relief requests' considered to require resolution) j before the plant is restarted. The results 'of the: review are provided belowL ,

8711020081 8710236 ,

• o '

?

_pDR.-ADOCK 05000327-

, ?Dn

• a The NRC consultant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has reviewed the licensee's -

21 relief requests and prepared the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER).

The staff has reviewed the evaluation and concurs in its bases and findings.

The granting of relief is based upon the fulfillment of any commitments nade by the licensee in its basis for each relief request and the alternate proposed '

testing.

Relief has been granted from the testing requirements which the staff has  ;

determined to be impractical to perform, would not compromise the safety of the plant, and where testing if implemented, would result in undue hardship, and by determination that the relief requests were evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1).

Of the 21 relief reouests reviewed the following were determined to be accept-able: i

1. Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pumps (pressure measurement).

2. Trending of leak rate and corrective action for containment isolation valves.

3. Corrective action for valves failing exercising tests, l

4. Testing of valves previously out of service.

5. Normal charging line check valve 62-543.

6. RCP seal injection check valves62-560 -561, -562, -563.  !

7. RCS check valve 68-559 to pressurizer relief tank.

8. RV head vent valves FSV-68-396 and -397. .f

9. Post-accident sampling system valves FSV-250, -251 -287, -288, -307,

-309, -310, -317. -318 -319. -325, -341.

l

10. Maximum allowable stroke time for power-operated valves.

l 11. Parallel UHI and SIS check valves.

l

12. Containment pressure transmitter isolation valves FSV-30-134, and -135.

l 13. Testing of safety and relief valves,

14. Pump in-service test procedure.

15. Test equipment - accuracy and range.

16. 10-Minute Minimum Time Requirement.

17. Correlation Procedure Certification.

l The staff has determined that one relief request, the pressurizer auxiliary spray line check valve 62-661 and the power-operated auxiliary spray valve 62-84, does not fall within the scope defined in IVW-1100 of Section XI of the i I

Code and need not be included in the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant IST Program. -

The following relief requests have been judged not to contain adequate justi-fication for relief from Code requirements:

1. Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pumps (bearing temperature measurement).

2. Three-percent criteria.

3. Stabilization of Valve Body Temperature when testing at room ambient conditions.

The following are clarifications of the attached TER: (1) relief request 2, page 3, the Code permissible leakage rate is 5.2 times greater than the TVA I

9 4

permissible leakage rate for the containment isolation valves; (2) relief . ,

request 6,.page 8, the valve number 68-543 is a typographical error and_ sho'uld be 62-543 and the contractor's evaluation statement that "the. licensee's pro-posed testing meets the requirements of the Code" means that the. proposed testing .

meets the requirements.of IWV-3522 of the Code; (3). relief requests 9 ~and 10, pages 12 and 13, the contractor's statement.that the. licensee's proposal

" appears to meet the intent of IWV-3300" means the proposal meets the intent of IWV-3300; (4) relief request 12 . page 16, the "and. full stroke exercised" in the Code Requirement is a typographical error and should. read "or full <-

stroke exercised"; (5) relief request 12, page 16, the SIS /RHR accumulator primary. check valves cannot be full stroke exercised; and (6) relief' request 12, page 16, the 4 primary and 2 secondary UHI check valves' are part. stroked .

during~ each cold shutdown and the 4 primary UHI check valves are manually full.

stroked each refueling outage af ter the spool pieces are removed.

Based on the staff. review of the attached TER, regarding 21 relief requests for l the restart of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, the staff concludes that ,

the licensee's requests for relief from certain-specific requirements of.

Section XI of the ASME Code are acceptable with the exceptions as noted above.

The licensee is required to comply with the IST program defined' above in . i accordance with the relief granted as discussed in the enclosed TER.

Review of the overall IST program is continuing. based upon the submitted l l information. Any additional program changes such as revisions or additional H l relief requests or deletion of any components from the IST program should be l

! submitted for staff review and should not be implemented prior to review and approval by the staff.

3.0 CONCLUSION

Based on the considerations discussed above, the staff concludes (1) that relief may be granted pursuant to paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1) based on our finding.

that certain requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code are impractical, and (2) that granting relief where the Code requirements:  !

are impractical is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden that could result if they were imposed on-the facility.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor: J. Lombardo, J. Donohew Dated: October 23, 1987 t

l i

4

_ _ . . _ _ . . ._.m___._ -___.___._____ __ _._._ m mh.1- ____ _ __.- _ .