ML20134D551
| ML20134D551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1996 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| TIA-96-024, TIA-96-24, NUDOCS 9702050227 | |
| Download: ML20134D551 (2) | |
Text
h
- p @ @g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
['
REGION 11 o
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 E
ij ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3032H199 bvi d C*
December 13, 1996 U
MEMORANDUM T0:
Herbert Berkow, Director Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Ellis W. Herschoff, Director
[
Division of Reactor Projects
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW 0F ACCEPTABILITY OF LICENSEE PIPING MODIFICATION EVALUATION AT OCONEE (TIA 96 024)
In 1995, the NRC had identified that Duke Power Company did not have a complete fatigue analysis for some RCS piping as described in the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). A deviation was issued in Inspection Report 50-259.260,287/95 09 addressing this issue. Subsequently.
there was additional correspondence between the NRC and the licensee on this issue. The overall result of the correspondence was that by August 31, 1999, analysis would be performed of the existing reactor coolant system (RCS) piping (out to the first isolation valve).
Ins action Report'50-269,270,287/96 13 contained Violation 96 13 10, Failure to )erform an Adequate 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation. The issue involved a modification that had recently been performed on the Unit 2 High Pressure Injection (HPI) piping that directly connected to RCS piping. During preparation and performance of the Unit 2 modification, the licensee had not properly considered cyclic load fatigue issues,' indicating that this analysis was not needed until the August 31, 1999 date. Specific details of the issue were discussed with NRR during inspection and review.
As part of the corrective actions for the deficiency invciving the HPI piping, the licensee revised the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the Unit 2 and Unit 3 HPI piping modifications.
Copies of those evaluations and associated calculations have been mailed to the NRC Project Manager. The evaluations rely on a comparative analysis that the licensee performed to address the effects of the modification.
Region II requests that NRR evaluate the acceptability of the revised evaluations.
Specifically:
1.
Are the calculations and methodology applied in the comparative analysis technically accurate?
2.
Does the licensee *s comparative analysis sufficiently support the conclusions in the revised 50.59 evaluation?
NBC Ft.E CENTER COPY 3" 'o
,. m on A
[ OSG) U dl
~
H. Berkow 2
~
3.
Should the licensee >erform any additional analysis in order to support the conclusions reacled in the safety analysis?
i Oconee Units 2 and 3 have the associated modification installed. Units 2 and i
3 are currently scheduled for startup on January 6 and 31, respectively.
Docket Nos. 50 259, 50 260. 50 287 l
License Nos. DPR 38, DPR 47, DPR-55 i
r cc:
R. W. Coog r. RI i
W. L. Axelson. RIII J. E. Dyer, RIV l
4 R. W. Hernan, NRR L. D. Wert, RII l
R. V. Crlenjak, RII M. A. Scott, RII J. C. Barnes, RII c
k s
a 4
y I
4 1
i~
l I
a k
i l
1 I
_.