ML15218A120
| ML15218A120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1994 |
| From: | Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15218A121 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M84659, TAC-M84944, NUDOCS 9410060096 | |
| Download: ML15218A120 (3) | |
Text
Mr. J. W. Hampton S
mber 29, 1994 Vice President, Ocone ite Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3 - SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUESTS FOR RELIEF NO. 92-12 AND 92-13 (TAC NOS. M84659 AND M84944)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
By letters dated September 22, 1992, and November 10, 1992, Duke Power Company (DPC) submitted Requests for Relief Nos. 92-12, and 92-13, from certain ASME Code requirements that were determined to be impractical to perform at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, during the second 10-year interval.
Additional information was provided by letters dated February 3 and July 20, 1994. The NRC, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, has reviewed and evaluated your submittals and supporting information. The NRC staff's evaluation and conclusions are contained in the attached Safety Evaluation, Enclosure 1.
The NRC staff has concluded that certain requirements of the Code are impractical and that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), relief may be granted as requested for Request for Relief 92-13, and for Parts A, C, D, and F of Request for Relief 92-12. The NRC staff determined that it is practical to perform the Code-required examinations covered by Part E of Request for Relief 92-12, and therefore this request is denied. The schedule for performance of the required examinations is being addressed as a separate relief request.
For the alternative contained in Request for Relief 92-12 (Part B),
pressurizer Welds B02.012.004 and B02.012.005, your proposed alternative examination is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i). These reliefs are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, given due consideration to the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on your facility.
Sincerely, original signed by Victor Nerses for Herbert N. Berkow, Director 9410060096 940929 Project Directorate 11-3 PDR ADOCK 05000287 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II e
PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-287
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation Report log y
cc w/encl:
See next page DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC SVarga BBoger, RII Docket File PD23 R/F ACRS (10), TWF MSinkule, RII DOCUMENT NAME:
G: \\OCONEE\\OCO84659.LTR p
To receive a copy of this document, Indicate In the box: 'C" = Copy without attachmen enclosge "E' = Copy with attachmentlenclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE LA:PD23:DRPE E PM:PD23:DRP OGC.
D:PD2 INAME CNorswortoy rv-L--
u Lwiens:dt "
I C7-HBerkow2412L DATE
/
/94
/94
/
/94
/
94 OFFICIAV RECORD COPY 04007
AA UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 29, 1994 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3 - SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUESTS FOR RELIEF NO. 92-12 AND 92-13 (TAC NOS. M84659 AND M84944)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
By letters dated September 22, 1992, and November 10, 1992, Duke Power Company (DPC) submitted Requests for Relief Nos. 92-12, and 92-13, from certain ASME Code requirements that were determined to be impractical to perform at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, during the second 10-year interval. Additional information was provided by letters dated February 3 and July 20, 1994. The NRC, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, has reviewed and evaluated your submittals and supporting information. The NRC staff's evaluation and conclusions are contained in the attached Safety Evaluation, Enclosure 1.
The NRC staff has concluded that certain requirements of the Code are impractical and that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), relief may be granted as requested for Request for Relief 92-13, and for Parts A, C, D, and F of Request for Relief 92-12. The NRC staff determined that it is practical to perform the Code-required examinations covered by Part E of Request for Relief 92-12, and therefore this request is denied. The schedule for performance of the required examinations is being addressed as a separate relief request.
For the alternative contained in Request for Relief 92-12 (Part B),
pressurizer Welds B02.012.004 and B02.012.005, your proposed alternative examination is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i). These reliefs are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, given due consideration to the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on your facility.
Sincerely, rbert N. Berkow, Direc or Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-287
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation Report cc w/encl: See next page
Mr. J. W. Hampton Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
A. V. Carr, Esquire Mr. Steve Benesole Duke Power Company Compliance 422 South Church Street Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Ms. Karen E. Long Washington, DC 20005 Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Mr. Robert B. Borsum Justice Babcock & Wilcox P. 0. Box 629 Nuclear Power Division Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Mr. G. A. Copp Rockville, Maryland 20852 Licensing - ECO50 Duke Power Company Manager, LIS 526 South Church Street NUS Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Dayne H. Brown, Director Division of Radiation Protection Senior Resident Inspector North Carolina Department of U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environment, Health and Route 2, Box 610 Natural Resources Seneca, South Carolina 29678 P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Regional Administator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621