ML15112A338
| ML15112A338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1998 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812070185 | |
| Download: ML15112A338 (6) | |
Text
December 2, 1998 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated July 6, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3. Exhibit A to the application is the Oconee Nuclear Station License Renewal Technical Information Report (OLRP-1001), which contains the technical information required by 10 CFR Part 54. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in OLRP-1 001 and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed questions are from the Mechanical Engineering Branch regarding OLRP-1001 Section 3.4.3 and from the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch regarding OLRP-1001 Section 4.18.
Please provide a schedule by letter, electronic mail, or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staff's requests for additional information.
Sincerely, Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\SEBROSKY\\RA128.WPD
- See previous concurrence OFFICE LA PM:PDLR PDLR:D NAME LBerry*
JSebrosky CIGrimes DATE 12/1/98 12/ A-'f98 12/ '2/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9812070185-981202 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
7-PDR
December 2, 1998 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Nu6lear Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated July 6, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3. Exhibit A to the application is the Oconee Nuclear Station License Renewal Technical Information Report (OLRP-1001), which contains the technical information required by 10 CFR Part 54. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in OLRP-1001 and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed questions are from the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch regarding OLRP-1001 Section 4.18.
Please provide a schedule by letter, electronic mail, or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staff's requests for additional information.
Sincerely, Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SEBROSKY\\RA128.WPD OFFICE LA PM:PDLR PDLR:D NAME ILBerry JSebrosky ClGrimes DATE 112/
98 12/
/ 98 12/
/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Hard copy Do6-ck-et-Files PUBLIC PDLR RF M. EI-Zeftawy ACRS T2E26 E-mail R. Zimmerman P. Patnaik J. Roe D. Matthews C. Grimes T. Essig G. Lainas J. Strosnider G. Bagchi H. Brammer T. Hiltz G. Holahan S. Newberry C. Gratton L. Spessard R. Correia R. Latta J. Peralta J. Moore R. Weisman M. Zobler E. Hackett A. Murphy T. Martin D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis PDLR Staff M. Banic G. Hornseth H. Berkow D. LaBarge L. Plisco C. Ogle R. Trojanowski M. Scott C. Julian R. Architzel J. Wilson R. Wessman E. Sullivan R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI
2 (c) Detection of aging effects before loss of structure and component intended functions; (d) Monitoring, trending, inspection, testing frequency, and sample size to ensure timely detection of aging effects and corrective actions; (e) Acceptance criteria to ensure structure and component intended functions; and (f) Operating experience that provides objective evidence to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed.
4.18-3 Section 4.18 "Inservice Inspection Plan" states that the period of extended operation will contain the fifth and the sixth inspection intervals. However, the ASME Code,Section XI, addresses up to the fourth inspection interval. Therefore, how will the inspection period, percentage of examination during each period, the extent and frequency of examination be tailored to benefit timely detection of aging effects during the fifth and the sixth inspection intervals to maintain intended function of the components during the extended term of operation? Also, provide your criteria for selection of weld inspection locations for Examination Category B-J "Pressure Retaining Welds in Piping" during the extended term of operation.
4.18-4 What is the aging management program for the flow stabilizers inside the reactor pressure vessel (Refer open item 4.2(2) in the topical report BAW-2251)?
Oconee Nuclear Station (License Renewal) cc:
Paul R. Newton, Esquire Duke Energy Corporation Mr. J. E. Burchfield 422 South Church Street Compliance Manager Mail Stop PB-05E.
Duke Energy Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Anne W. Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice P. 0. Box 629 Mr. Rick N. Edwards Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Framatome Technologies Suite 525 L. A. Keller 1700 Rockville Pike Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Manager, LIS Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Senior Resident Inspector Enironment, Health, and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Natural Resources 7812B Rochester Highway 3825 Barrett Drive Seneca, South Carolina 29672 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II Gregory D. Robison U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy Corporation Atlanta Federal Center Mail Stop EC-12R 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 P. 0. Box 1006 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Virgil R. Autry, Director Robert L. Gill, Jr.
Division of Radioactive Waste Management Duke Energy Corporation Bureau of Land and Waste Management Mail Stop EC-12R Department of Health and P. 0. Box 1006 Environmental Control Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 2600 Bull Street RLGILL@DUKE-ENERGY.COM Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Douglas J. Walters County Supervisor of Oconee County Nuclear Energy Institute Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Washington, DC 20006-3708 P. 0. Box 2006 DJW@NEI.ORG Clayton, GA 30525
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, EXHIBIT A OLRP-1001 Section No.
3.4.3 Reactor Coolant System Piping Note: Question 3.4.3-1 is a duplicate of question 3.4.4-1 that was issued in a November 20, 1998, letter to Duke. The question applies to both Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4. Because it applies to two Sections it is repeated below to ensure that it is clear that the staff is expecting an answer that will address both reactor coolant piping and the pressurizer.
3.4.3-1 Section 3.4.3 of the license renewal application references report BAW-2243A.
Section 3.4.4 references BAW-2244A. These reports do not address specific time limited aging analyses for the reactor coolant system piping or for the pressurizer. It is left up to the individual plant to address this issue. Therefore, for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, we request that you provide a demonstration that the ASME Code Section III cumulative usage factor for all Reactor Coolant System Piping and Pressurizer Class 1 components will be less than or equal to 1.0 for 60 years of plant operation.
4.18 Inservice Inspection Plan 4.18-2 Section 4.18 "Inservice Inspection Plan" as titled, is a subset of an overall inservice inspection plan applicable for management of aging in certain Class 1 components.
Since the examinations under ASME Code,Section XI, are being credited towards detection of aging effects to maintain the intended function of the components during the period of extended operation, please provide the following information:
Are there components or structures within the inservice inspection boundary that are either inaccessible or cannot be examined in accordance with the applicable Code due to geometry and/or physical constraints? The section 4.18.1 "Scope" states that in instances of inaccessiblity of components for examination, an indirect assurance of component integrity shall be made. How will this indirect assurance address aging effects in the component? If the aging management program for the inaccessible areas is an evaluation of the acceptability of inaccessible areas based on conditions found in surrounding accessible areas, please provide information to show that conditions would exist in accessible areas that would indicate the presence of, or result in degradation to, such inaccessible areas. Please provide a summary to address the following elements for the inaccessible areas:
(a) Preventive actions that will mitigate or prevent aging degradation; (b) Parameters monitored or inspected relative to degradation of specific structures and component intended functions; Enclosure