ML20198P945: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20198P945
| number = ML20198P945
| issue date = 01/15/1998
| issue date = 01/15/1998
| title = Forwards SE Granting Relief Request 97-03 for Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program,Requested by 970729 Ltr
| title = Forwards SE Granting Relief Request 97-03 for Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program,Requested by
| author name = Berkow H
| author name = Berkow H
| author affiliation = NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
| author affiliation = NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = TAC-M99359, NUDOCS 9801220298
| document report number = TAC-M99359, NUDOCS 9801220298
| title reference date = 07-29-1997
| package number = ML20198P948
| package number = ML20198P948
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 4
| page count = 4
| project =  
| project = TAC:M99359
| stage = Approval
| stage = Approval
}}
}}
Line 30: Line 31:
==Dear Mr. Peterson:==
==Dear Mr. Peterson:==


By letter dated July 29,1997, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed alternative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boller and Pressure Vessel Code.
By {{letter dated|date=July 29, 1997|text=letter dated July 29,1997}}, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed alternative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boller and Pressure Vessel Code.
The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and                              ;
The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and                              ;
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain i
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain i
Line 57: Line 58:
==Dear Mr. Peterson:==
==Dear Mr. Peterson:==


By letter dated July 29,1997, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed attemative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.                              .
By {{letter dated|date=July 29, 1997|text=letter dated July 29,1997}}, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed attemative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.                              .
The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain inservice examinations cannot be performed to the extent required by the Code at Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. In Request for Relief No. 97-03, Parts 1 and 2, DEC has provided informstlon to support the determination that the Code volumetric examination coverage requirements are impractical. The staff also concluded that the examinations that have been performed provide reasonable assurance of component structuralintegrity of the subject component. Therefnre, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(g)(6)(i). The relief granted is authorized by law, will not er. danger life property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements are imposed on the facility.
The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain inservice examinations cannot be performed to the extent required by the Code at Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. In Request for Relief No. 97-03, Parts 1 and 2, DEC has provided informstlon to support the determination that the Code volumetric examination coverage requirements are impractical. The staff also concluded that the examinations that have been performed provide reasonable assurance of component structuralintegrity of the subject component. Therefnre, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(g)(6)(i). The relief granted is authorized by law, will not er. danger life property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements are imposed on the facility.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,

Latest revision as of 11:06, 8 December 2021

Forwards SE Granting Relief Request 97-03 for Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program,Requested by
ML20198P945
Person / Time
Site: Catawba Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/15/1998
From: Berkow H
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Gordon Peterson
DUKE POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20198P948 List:
References
TAC-M99359, NUDOCS 9801220298
Download: ML20198P945 (4)


Text

_ . __ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ._

  • Mr. Gary R. Pet:rson January 15, 1998 <

I Sit] Vice President Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation '

4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 9635

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - EVALUATION OF REllEF REQUEST  !

NO. 97 03 FOR THE SECOND TEN. YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NO. M99359)

Dear Mr. Peterson:

By letter dated July 29,1997, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed alternative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boller and Pressure Vessel Code.

The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and  ;

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain i

inservice examinati. s cannot be performed to the extent required by the Code at Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. In Request for Relief No. 97 03, Parts 1 and 2, DEC has provided information to support the determination that the Code volumetric examination coverage requirements are impractical. The staff also concluded that the examinations that have been performed provide reasonable assurance of component structuralintegrity of the subject component. Therefore, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(g)(6)(i). The relief granted is authorized by law, will not endanger life, property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements are imposed on the facility.

1 Sincerely, Original signed by D. LaBarge for i Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 112 Division of Reactor Projects 1/ll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50414

Enclosure:

Sa,'ety Evaluation with attachment cc w/ encl: See next page

[k% g*

  • h3, Q f DISTRIBUTION MGamberoni, EDO JJohnson, Ril

/ '

Docket Filoe ACRS /

PUBLIC PD ll 2 Rdg. COgle, Rll GHill(4) BBoger e-mail TLH3 SE only T. McLellan,0 7 H15 OGC the c copy wahout seischmentrenck ure Tj,g** * **pr Of fICE PM POW 2 ,, I LA PD42 I OGC I DjfM2 h l l 84AME PT AM en Kt tine RRY' MYOUNG' DME AK@

DATE l I (198 "\ 1212 tot 1 h4 48 I I f$198 Of f ICLAL Rt. CORD COPY

  • $ee previous concurrence FW 9!r !IIIll.I Illi. !! .

. \

. **  %, UNITED STATES

[ t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5  ! WAEHINGT ON, D. C. 20665 i

\*****. January 15, 1998 i

Mr. Gary R. Peterson i Site Vice President 1 Catawba Nuclear Station l Duke Energy Corporation l 4800 Concord Road l York, SC 29745 9635

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUEST NO. 97 03 FOR THE SECOND TEN YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NO. M99359)

Dear Mr. Peterson:

By letter dated July 29,1997, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requested the NRC staff to approve a proposed attemative to the inspection coverage specified by Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. .

The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), evaluated DEC's submittal and concluded that certain inservice examinations cannot be performed to the extent required by the Code at Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. In Request for Relief No. 97-03, Parts 1 and 2, DEC has provided informstlon to support the determination that the Code volumetric examination coverage requirements are impractical. The staff also concluded that the examinations that have been performed provide reasonable assurance of component structuralintegrity of the subject component. Therefnre, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(g)(6)(i). The relief granted is authorized by law, will not er. danger life property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements are imposed on the facility.

Sincerely,

?

Y Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate ll 2 Division of Reactor Projects- t/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-414 4

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation with attachment cc w/ encl: See ned page

- ' i

. i l

Catawba Nuclear Station l North Carolina Electric Membership  ;

Corporation cc: P. O. Box 27306  !

Mr. M. S. Kitlen Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 l Regulatory Compliance Manager i Duke Energy Corporation - Senior Resident inspector  !

4800 Concord Road ; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . l' York, South Carolina 29745 - 4830 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 .

. Mr. Paul R. Newton . _

Legal Department (PB05E) ,

Regional Administrator, Region ll  :

Duke Energy Corporation - U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 422 South Church Street Atlanta Federal Center Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 61 Forsyth Street,8.W., Suite 23T85 )

p Atlanta, Georgia 30303 J. Michael McGarry, lil, Esquire - _

Winston and Strewn Max Batavia, Chief -  ;

1400 L Street, NW Bureau of Radiological Health  ;

Washington, DC 20005 South Carolina Department of  ;

Health and Environmental Control i North Carolina Municipal Power 2600 Bull Street  !

Agency Number 1 Columbia, South Carolina 29201  ;

1427 Meadowwood Boulevard ,

P. O. Box 29513 Mr. G. A. Copp i Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 Licensing - EC050 Duke Energy Corporation 1 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV 526 South Church Street-Account Sales Manager Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Westinghouse Electric Corporation i Power Systems held Sales Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 7288 P. O. Box 929 Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 County Manager of York County Ms. Karen E. Long *

. York County Courthouse Assistant Attomey General _

l York, South Carolina 29745 North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 l Piedmont Municipal Power Agency-- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i 121 Village Drive .

4 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner >

Division cf Emergency Management 116 West Jorws Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335

(

. .- - . _ . - -- - -. - - -- . w

Catewba Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)

Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745

- Richard M. Fry, Director Dkision of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Erwironment. Health, and Natural Resources ,

3825 Barrett Drke Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721

.. -.. . . . . . ~ . , ., - -