ML15239A463
| ML15239A463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1992 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M83161, NUDOCS 9206230038 | |
| Download: ML15239A463 (4) | |
Text
June 17, 1992 Doc(et No. 50-270 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29697
Dear Mr. Hampton:
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF RELIEF REQUEST NO. 92 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M83161)
By letter dated March 2, 1992, you forwarded Request for Relief (92-05) from the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1989 Edition (with Addenda through Winter 1980) Article IWA-5211(d) and Article IWC-5210(2), which require that a component repair or replacement shall be hydrostatically tested prior to resumption of service. The components replaced were valves 2CF-20 and 2CF-22, through which Core Flood Tanks A and B can be drained for maintenance.
Hydrostatic testing of the welds associated with the replacement of these valves would require pressurizing the core flood tanks at higher than normal operating pressure. Your request stated it was impractical to perform the required hydrostatic test because "the information gained would not be time, cost, or dose effective."
You proposed an alternate examination:
the welds would be visually inspected at normal operating pressure (600 25 psig) and subjected to dye penetrant testing.
The NRC reviewed and evaluated your relief request and your proposed alternative testing of the welds. We find that the information provided in your letter of March 2, 1992, was not sufficient to determine that the requested relief from hydrostatic testing is justified pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). In the absence of information more clearly demonstrating the impracticality of meeting the ASME Code requirements, your Relief Request No.
92-05 is denied. Since these welds remain in non-compliance with the ASME Code requirements, the required testing should be performed during the next outage of sufficient duration at Oconee Unit 2. However, if additional information is available to more clearly support a determination that this testing is impractical to perform, you may resubmit your request.
Sincerely,
/s/
David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See.next page DISTRIBUTION:
SEE NEXT PAGE
- SEE PRkV OUS CONCURRENCE O
PDII-3:
PDII-3/PE PDII TA':PM EMCB*
OGC*
P D
LBERRY' SKR 1cw WIENS RHERMANN MYOUNG D
THEWS
/1/92
/,/ /09/992 06/15/92
/t /92 9206230038 920617 PDR ADOCK 05000270 i
P PDR
DENIAL OF OCONEE RELIEF REQUEST 92-05 DATED:
June 17, 1992 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC/Local PDRs PDII-3 READING Oconee READING SVarga GLainas DMatthews SKirslis
[Wiens LBerry OGC JWiggins EJordan ACRS LReyes, RII
- ptREG, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055 June 17, 1992 Docket No. 50-270 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29697
Dear Mr. Hampton:
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF RELIEF REQUEST NO. 92 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M83161)
By letter dated March 2, 1992, you forwarded Request for Relief (92-05) from the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1989 Edition (with Addenda through Winter 1980) Article IWA-5211(d) and Article IWC-5210(2), which require that a component repair or replacement shall be hydrostatically tested prior to resumption of service. The components replaced were valves 2CF-20 and 2CF-22, through which Core Flood Tanks A and B can be drained for maintenance.
Hydrostatic testing of the welds associated with the replacement of these valves would require pressurizing the core flood tanks at higher than normal operating pressure. Your request stated it was impractical to perform the required hydrostatic test because "the information gained would not be time, cost, or dose effective."
You proposed an alternate examination:
the welds would be visually inspected at normal operating pressure (600 25 psig) and subjected to dye penetrant testing.
The NRC reviewed and evaluated your relief request and your proposed alternative testing of the welds. We find that the information provided in your letter of March 2, 1992, was not sufficient to determine that the requested relief from hydrostatic testing is justified pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). In the absence of information more clearly demonstrating the impracticality of meeting the ASME Code requirements, your Relief Request No.
92-05 is denied. Since these welds remain in non-compliance with the ASME Code requirements, the required testing should be performed during the next outage of sufficient duration at Oconee Unit 2. However, if additional information is available to more clearly support a determination that this testing is impractical to perform, you may resubmit your request.
Siny David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page
Mr. J. W. Hampton Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esquire Mr. M. E. Patrick 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.
Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Washington, DC 20005 Project Branch #3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert B. Borsum 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Babcock & Wilcox Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Nuclear Power Division Suite 525 Ms. Karen E. Long 1700 Rockville Pike Assistant Attorney General Rockville, Maryland 20852 North Carolina Department of Justice Manager, LIS P. 0. Box 629 NUS Corporation Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Mr. R. L. Gill, Jr.
Licensing Senior Resident Inspector Duke Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 1001 Route 2, Box 610 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621