ML16141B045
| ML16141B045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1996 |
| From: | Labarge D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M94895, TAC-M94896, TAC-M94897, NUDOCS 9608220132 | |
| Download: ML16141B045 (3) | |
Text
August 21, 1996 Mr. J. W. Hampton Distribution:
Vice President, Oconee Site
_Docket File JZwolinski TMcLellan Duke Power Company PUBLIC HBerkow OGC P. 0. Box 1439 PD 11-2 Rdg.
LBerry ACRS Seneca, SC 29679 SVarga DLaBarge EMerschoff, RH RCrlenjak, RH
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - RELIEF REQUEST 96-01 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. M94895, M94896, M94897)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
By letter dated February 27, 1996, you submitted Relief Request No. 96-01 for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. The request would allow Duke Power Company to take credit for limited ultrasonic examinations on pressurizer nozzle-to-vessel welds and steam generator tubesheet-to-shell welds where it was discovered on Unit 1 that the ultrasonic examination coverage would not meet the 90 percent examination coverage requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineer'sSection XI Code.
During our review of the submittal, we have identified that the following additional information is needed before the relief request can be processed:
- 1)
Provide the coverages obtained by each scan performed on the subject welds. Also provide an explanation, including sketches if necessary, describing how the interferences, joint configuration, and piping geometry prevent 100 percent coverage.
- 2)
The justification for this relief includes ultrasonic examination of the welds, including inside radii, to the extent practical within the limits of original design and construction. Are the nozzle inner radius.
sections to be addressed in this relief request? If so, the information requested in question number 1 will be required for the inner radius sections also.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
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 CENT C P To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy O /
OFFICE PDII-2/LA 11 PDII-2/
I PDII NAME LBerry DLaBarge#
HBqfrkW'UI DATE
/
/96 7/,1/9
/2,/96
--OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9608220132 960921 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P '
REG&,9 UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-00o1 AUGUST 21, 1996 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -
RELIEF REQUEST 96-01 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. M94895, M94896, M94897)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
By letter dated February 27, 1996, you submitted Relief Request No. 96-01 for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. The request would allow Duke Power Company to take credit for limited ultrasonic examinations on pressurizer nozzle-to-vessel welds and steam generator tubesheet-to-shell welds where it was discovered on Unit 1 that the ultrasonic examination coverage would not meet the 90 percent examination coverage requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineer'sSection XI Code.
During our review of the submittal, we have identified that the following additional information is needed before the relief request can be processed:
- 1)
Provide the coverages obtained by each scan performed on the subject welds. Also provide an explanation, including sketches if necessary, describing how the interferences, joint configuration, and piping geometry prevent 100 percent coverage.
- 2)
The justification for this relief includes ultrasonic examination of the welds, including inside radii, to the extent practical within the limits of original design and construction. Are the nozzle inner radius sections to be addressed in this relief request? If so, the information requested in question number 1 will be required for the inner radius sections also.
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
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 - EC050 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