ML15113A124
| ML15113A124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1984 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A125 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411280557 | |
| Download: ML15113A124 (4) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMSION in the Matter of
)
Dockets Nos. 50-269 50-270 DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
50-287 (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
EXEMPTION I.
The Duke Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 which authorize the operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the facilities),
at reactor power levels not in excess of 2568 megawatts thermal (rated power) for each unit. The facilities are Babcock and Wilcox designed pressurized water reactors located at the licensee's site in Oconee County, South Carolina.
The licenses are subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
II.
10 CFR Part 50.55a requires that piping and components of boiling and pressurized water reactor plants be examined and pressure tested to the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code and that the examinations and tests be completed during each of four (4) ten-year intervals. These ten-year intervals are calculated from the start date of commercial operation of the facility.
9411280557 841107 PDR ADOCK 05000269 ckQ
- PDR,
2 -
7590-01 10 CFR Part 50.55a(g)(4) requires that licensees update their pump and valve inservice inpsection (ISI) and testing (IST) programs to a newer edition of Section XI of the Code each ten years. Since the regulations require these updates based on the 10-year anniversary of facility commercial operation, multi-unit sites often find that each unit has an ISI and IST program
.structured for a slightly different edition of the Code.
III.
By letter dated December 2, 1983, the licensee requested an exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.55a(g)(4) which would allow the use of a common start date for ISI and IST for all three Oconee units and for that date to be at other than 120 months from the date of commercial operation of any one unit.
According to the regulations, the second ten-year interval for the ISI program began or should begin on July 16, 1983, September 10, 1984, and December 17, 1985, for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The licensee has requested a common start date of April 1, 1984. The Commission's staff has reviewed this request and has determined that a common ISI start date for the three units has inherent administrative, technical, and cost saving advantages, both for the licensee and the Commission. The staff has concluded that:
- 1. The same Code edition and addenda, by regulation, can be used as the basis for the ISI program for all three units;
- 2. Since the units are similar in design, only one ISI program would have to be written and submitted by the licensee;
- 3. The Commission's staff would have to review and approve only one submittal instead of three; and
3 -
7590-01
- 4. The change of the ISI start date to April 1, 1984, will not affect the completion of examination and pressure test requirements for the inspection intervals.
The licensee has requested a common IST start date of July 1, 1982. If this exemption request were not granted, Oconee Unit 1 would be required to have an IST program structured to the 1980 Edition of the Code with Addenda through Winter 1980, and Oconee Units 2 and 3 would be required to have their IST programs structured to the 1980 Edition of the Code with Addenda through Winter 1981. Therefore, there would be very little change for the current 10-year update of the IST program.
Since the selected start date of July 1982 is basically one year prior to that which wQuld normally be required by the regulations for Oconee Unit 1, future IST program updates for all three Oconee units will constitute a voluntary update to a newer Code sooner than would normally be required. For Oconee Units 2 and 3, the IST program will be in accordance with a slightly older edition of the Code than would have been required by the regulations, but the Commission's staff concludes that the use of a single IST program for all three Oconee Units is more beneficial in terms of net overall plant safety.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the exemption request should be granted. If a common start date were not established, the ISI and IST programs at Oconee would be accomplished, for some period of time, to two different ASME Codes. Although administratively possible, this situation could contribute to increased personnel errors in the performance of inspection and testing requirements to two different versions of the Code.
This can create a substantial and additional administrative workload for what can be described as only nominal technical differences in the inspection and testing requirements.
4 7590-01 IV.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption requested by the licensee's letter of December 2, 1983, is authorized by law, and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. The Commission hereby grants to the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the issuance of the exemption will have no.significant impact on the environment (49 FR 43822).
This Exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Darre l Ei enhut,irector Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of November 1984