ML16266A162
| ML16266A162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1993 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hamton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15222A134 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M84025, TAC-M84026, TAC-M84027, NUDOCS 9308170373 | |
| Download: ML16266A162 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 23, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679
Dear Mr. Hampton:
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION OF THE INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM RELIEF REQUESTS FOR PUMPS AND VALVES - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. M84025, M84026, AND M84027)
By letter dated January 4, 1993, you submitted Revision 20 of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, third ten-year pump and valve inservice testing (IST) program. On November 7, 1984, Duke Power Company (DPC) was allowed an exemption by the Commission such that the third ten-year IST interval start date of July 1, 1992, is common for all three units. This program was developed utilizing the 1986 Edition of the ASME Section XI Code and supersedes all previous submittals. The enclosed safety evaluation (SE) was prepared to provide the results of the staff review of the relief requests contained in this submittal.
For the second ten-year interval, and in response to Generic Letter (GL) 89-04, IST program revisions were provided to the staff in letters dated November 1, 1990, and June 19, 1991; however, an SE was not issued for these IST program relief requests. With the submittal of the updated program for the third ten-year interval which began on July 1, 1992, the second ten-year program is considered complete and, therefore, no SE will be issued for open second interval relief requests. This completes NRC action on TACs M79208, M79209, M79210, M80886, M80887, and M80888.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.55a, requires that inservice testing of certain ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable addenda, except where alternatives are authorized or relief is granted by the Commission pursuant to paragraphs (a)(3)(i),
(a)(3)(ii), or (f)(6)(i). In order to obtain authorization or relief, the licensee must demonstrate that (1) the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, (2) compliance would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, or (3) conformance is impractical for its facility.
Guidance on acceptable alternatives to Section XI requirements was provided by NRC in GL 89-04, Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice Testing Programs, for certain aspects of IST.
9308170373 930723 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR 0
Mr. J. W. Hampton
- 2 In rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.55a effective September 8, 1992 (See 57 Federal Register 34666), the 1989 edition of ASME Section XI was incorporated in paragraph (b) of Section 50.55a. The 1989 edition provides that the rules for IST of pumps and valves shall meet the requirements set forth in ASME Operations and Maintenance Standards Part 6 (OM-6), Inservice Testing of Pumps in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants, and Part 10 (0M-10), Inservice Testing of Valves in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv), portions of editions or addenda may be used provided that all related requirements of the respective editions or addenda are met, and therefore, relief is not required for those inservice tests that are conducted in accordance with OM-6 and OM-10, or portions thereof. Whether all related requirements are met is subject to NRC inspection.
The NRC, with technical assistance from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL),
has reviewed the information concerning the IST program requests for relief submitted for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3. As explained in the enclosed SE, the staff adopts the evaluations and conclusions contained in the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared by BNL, except as noted in SE Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The staff is granting relief'from certain testing requirements that are impractical to perform and authorizing proposed alternatives where compliance would result in a hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety or where the alternative testing provides an acceptable level of quality and safety. A summary of the NRC actions is provided in Table 1 of the SE.
Section 5.0 of the TER and Section 2.1 of the SE identify items that require action.
For relief requests that have been denied (see, for example, TER Section 3.1.9 and Action Item 5.17), testing should comply with the applicable Section XI requirements and GL 89-04 guidelines within 90 days of the date of the SE transmittal letter or any additional information to support the denied requests should be submitted within 90 days of the date of the SE transmittal letter. Subsequent submittals, as well as action on Relief Request Pump No.
3, which is listed as an open item, will be handled as new licensing actions when revised information is submitted. The IST program relief requests discussed in TER Section 5.0 that are not denied in the SE are acceptable for implementation provided (1) the information regarding proposed actions to resolve the items in SE Section 2.1 and TER Section 5.0 is provided to NRC within one year of the date of the SE transmittal letter, and (2) the actions, including program and procedure changes, to resolve the items are completed within one year of the date of the SE transmittal letter, or by the end of the next refueling outage, whichever is later. The granting of relief or authorization of alternatives is based upon the fulfillment of any commitments made by DPC in its basis for each relief request and the alternatives proposed.
Program changes involving new or revised relief requests that meet the positions in GL 89-04, Attachment 1, should be submitted to the NRC but may be implemented provided the guidance in GL 89-04, Section D, is followed. Other new or revised relief requests should not be implemented prior to approval by the NRC.
Program changes that add or delete components from the IST program should also be provided to the NRC.
Mr. J. W. Hampton 3 -July 23, 1993 If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (301) 504-1495. This completes NRC action under TAC Numbers M84025, M84026, and M84027.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
David B. Matthews, 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 DISTRIBUTION:
DMatthews "Docket File LWiens NRC & Local PDRs LBerry PDII-3 R/F OGC, 15B18 SVarga ACRS (10), P-135 GLainas EMerschoff, RHI JPartlow, 12G18 TMurley/FMiraglia, 12G18 ERossi, 9A2 JLieberman, EJordan, MNBB3701 GHill (6), P1-37 OPA, 2G5 OC/LFDCB, MNBB11104 LPlisco, 17G21 K. Dempsey, 7E23 J. Norberg, 7E23 P. Campbell, 7E23
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFFICE p 11-4/LA PDjI-3/PM OGC*
DlPpi_-3 AME L. BERRY L. WIENS:cw J. HULL MATHEWS DATE
-7/f/93 7/,23/93 07/21/93
_7/,__/93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILE NAME: G:\\OCONEE\\0C084025.SER
Mr. J. W. Hampton
- 3 If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (301) 504-1495. This completes NRC action under TAC Numbers M84025, M84026, and M84027.
Si cerely, avid B. Matthews irector 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 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