ML15239A507
| ML15239A507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1993 |
| From: | Plisco L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15239A508 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M83364, NUDOCS 9312290190 | |
| Download: ML15239A507 (3) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-270 December 17, 1993 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - SECOND TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUEST FOR RELIEF NO. 92-08 (TAC NO. M83364)
By letter dated April 27, 1992, Duke Power Company (licensee), submitted Request for Relief No. 92-08 from certain ASME Code requirements that the licensee determined to be impractical to perform at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2, during the second ten-year interval inservice inspection. Relief is requested from the test pressure requirements of IWC-5222(a) for the Low Pressure Injection (LPI) system hydrostatic test of piping between valves 2LP-12 and 2LP-17, and between valves 2LP-14 and 2LP-18. The code-required testing could lead to overpressurization of the decay heat coolers which cannot be isolated from the high test pressure. In addition, the licensee has proposed, as an alternative to the Code requirement, to test the subject lines at a reduced hydrostatic test pressure.
The NRC staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, has reviewed and evaluated the April 27, 1992, submittal and supporting information. The 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 92-08. The staff has also concluded that the licensee's proposed alternative examination will provide reasonable assurance of the structural reliability of the LPI system. The staff's evaluation and conclusions are contained in the enclosed Safety Evaluation. This relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest, given due consideration to the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on your facility.
Sincerely Loren R. Plisco, Acting Director 9312290190 931217 Project Directorate 11-3 PDR ADOCK 05000270 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II P-PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
DISTRIBUTION:
LJCallan, 12G18 Safety Evaluation Docket File SVarga OC/LFDCB NRC/Local PDRs GLainas LBerry cc w/enclosure:
LWiens SKirslis TMurley See next page LPlisco EJordan, MNBB3701 FMiraglia OGC, 15B19 ACRS (10), P-315 ERossi EMerschoff, RII TMcLellan, 7D4 JLieberman OPA GHill (2)
EDO, RH Plants OFFICE PDII-PD"-3PE P
PM OGCZ(g (A)D WNEAL.
B
{L.
BNLISCO DAT l/0/93 I /'&1393 I2)-/- /93 12_f/"I/93 1-tj2
__/9 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILE NAME: G:\\OCONEE\\RR9208.LTR 2100Th RC FM FITRC
REGO UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 17, 1993 Docket No. 50-270 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - SECOND TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUEST FOR RELIEF NO. 92-08 (TAC NO. M83364)
By letter dated April 27, 1992, Duke Power Company (licensee), submitted Request for Relief No. 92-08 from certain ASME Code requirements that the licensee determined to be impractical to perform at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2, during the second ten-year interval inservice inspection. Relief is requested from the test pressure requirements of IWC-5222(a) for the Low Pressure Injection (LPI) system hydrostatic test of piping between valves 2LP-12 and 2LP-17, and between valves 2LP-14 and 2LP-18. The code-required testing could lead to overpressurization of the decay heat coolers which cannot be isolated from the high test pressure. In addition, the licensee has proposed, as an alternative to the Code requirement, to test the subject lines at a reduced hydrostatic test pressure.
The NRC staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, has reviewed and evaluated the April 27, 1992, submittal and supporting information. The 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 92-08. The staff has also concluded that the licensee's proposed alternative examination will provide reasonable assurance of the structural reliability of the LPI system. The staff's evaluation and conclusions are contained in the enclosed Safety Evaluation. This relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest, given due consideration to the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on your facility.
Sincerely Loren R. Plisco, Acting Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosure:
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. G. A. Copp Licensing - ECO50 Senior Resident Inspector Duke Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 1006 Route 2, Box 610 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 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 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621