ML15238A281
| ML15238A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1996 |
| From: | Labarge D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-M92704, TAC-M92705, TAC-M92706, NUDOCS 9608080256 | |
| Download: ML15238A281 (5) | |
Text
AG UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 lo August 6, 1996 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
CLOSEOUT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 92-01, REVISION 1, SUPPLEMENT 1 FOR THE OCONEE.NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 (TAC NOS.
M92704, M92705, M92706)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
On May 19, 1995, the NRC issued Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 (GL 92-01, Rev. 1, Supp. 1), 'Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity."
In GL 92-01, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, the NRC requested that licensees perform a review of their reactor pressure vessel structural integrity assessments in order "to identify, collect, and report any new data pertinent to [the] analysis of
[the] structural integrity of their reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) and to assess the impact of that data on their RPV integrity analyses relative to the requirements of Section 50.60 of Title. 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.60),
10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 (which encompass pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and upper shelf energy (USE) evaluations), and any potential impact on low temperature overpressure (LTOP) limits or pressure-temperature (P-T) limits."
More specifically, in-GL 92-01, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, the NRC requested that addressees provide the following information in their responses:
(1) a description of those actions taken or planned to locate all data relevant to the determination of RPV integrity, or an explanation of why the existing database is considered complete as previously submitted; (2) an assessment of any change in best-estimate chemistry based on consideration of all relevant data; (3) a determination of the need for the use of the ratio procedure in accordance with the established Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, for those licensees that use surveillance data to provide a basis for the RPV integrity evaluation; and (4) a written report providing any newly acquired.data as specified above and (1) the results of any necessary revisions to the evaluations of RPV integrity in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, 10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and any potential impact on the LTOP and P-T limits in the technical specifications, or (2) a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.
9608080256 960806
,.PDR ADOCK 05000269 NRCFLECENTER COPY P__
PDR NCFECNMCP
J.
August 6, 1996 Revised evaluations and certifications were to include consideration of Position 2.1 of RG 1.99, Revision 2, as applicable, and any new data. The information in Reporting Item (1) was to be submitted within 90 days of the issuance of the GL. The information in Reporting Items (2) -
(4) was to be submitted within 6 months of the issuance of the GL.
The NRC staff has noted that Duke Power Company submitted the information requested in Reporting Item (1) on August 16, 1995, and requested in Reporting Items (2) - (4) on November 16, 1995. Since Duke has submitted the requested information and has indicated that the previously submitted evaluations remain valid, the staff considers the RPV integrity data for the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 to be complete at this time and have closed TAC Nos.
M92704, M92705 and M92706, respectively.
As a separate issue, the staff has noted that the most recent reactor vessel integrity assessment for the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 is covered by the scope of Babcock and Wilcox Topical Evaluation BAW-2257, Revision 1. This topical report was the subject of an April 30, 1996, meeting between the NRC staff and representatives of the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG).
The topical report indicates that all licensees addressed in the report have determined the best estimate copper and nickel contents of their plant's beltline and surveillance welds. The report also indicates that the ratio procedure described in Position 2.1 (pages 1.99-3 and 1.99-4) of RG 1.99, Rev. 2, need not be applied to the PTS assessments and USE assessments of RPV beltline welds made from Linde 80 fluxes.
At a meeting on April 30, 1996, representatives of the BWOG provided the bases for the conclusions in the topical report. The staff informed the BWOG personnel that the information presented was insufficient to support the owners group's proposal.
The BWOG representatives indicated that the owners group would consider performing additional work to address the staff's concerns, and would consider submitting another topical report for NRC review.
The staff does not consider the BWOG proposal to be acceptable at this time.
The topical report also included analyses to demonstrate that application of the ratio procedure would not cause the RT values for the limiting materials in B&W fabricated RPVs to exceed the PTS screening criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.61. However, the report did not address the potential impact of applying the ratio procedure to the development of pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP limits. Therefore, you are requested to provide an assessment of the application of the ratio.procedure, as described in Position 2.1 of RG 1.99, Revision 2 (May 1988), to your pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP limits. This assessment should
J.
August 6, 1996 include an evaluation relative to the margins specified in applicable codes and standards (i.e., Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code).
You are requested to provide this assessment by December 31, 1996. Since this issue is outside the scope of GL 92-01, it is being addressed separately and does not affect the closeout of GL 92-01.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, David E. LaBarge, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 cc:
See next page
J.
August 6, 1996 include an evaluation relative to the margins specified in applicable codes and standards (i.e., Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code).
You are requested to provide this assessment by December 31, 1996. Since this issue is outside the scope of GL 92-01, it is being addressed separately and does not affect the closeout of GL 92-01.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, original signed by David E. LaBarge, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-2.
Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 cc:
See next page Distribution:
WiG ez ill ACRS PUBLIC RCrlenjak, RH PD 11-2 Rdg.
EMerschoff, RH SVarga JZwolinski HBerkow LBerry OGC DMcDonald To receive a copy of this document, Indicate In the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PDII-2/LA
) PDII-2/P
/,C PDI-1/LPM P
NAME LBerry DLaBarg n
DMcDonald
)/ Hqer DATE
$ /
,/96
'5-/1 /96 L5
/le/96
/ L,/96 DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\OCONEE\\0C092704.CL OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Mr. J. W. Hampton Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr.
Ed Burchfield Legal Department (PB05E)
Compliance Duke Power Company Duke Power Company 422 South'Church Street Oconee Nuclear Site.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005
-North Carolina Department of Justice Mr. Robert B. Borsum P. 0. Box 629 B&W Nuclear Technologies Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Mr. G. A. Copp Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 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 Mr. 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 Administrator, 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