ML101380067

Fourth Ten Year Inservice Interval Request for Relief No. 08-ON-002 Request for Resumption of Review

ML101380067
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/13/2010
From:	Baxter D Duke Energy Corp
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
08-ON-002
Download: ML101380067 (2)

Text

Duke DAVE BAXTER Pr Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ONO1 VP / 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672 864-873-4460 864-873-4208 fax dabaxter@dukeenergy.com May 13, 2010 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control"Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Docket No: 50-287 Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval Request for Relief No. 08-ON-002 Request for Resumption of Review By letter dated December 29, 2008 (ML090050027), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted Request for Relief No. 08-ON-002 seeking relief, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), from the requirement to examine 100% of the volume specified by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460). Duke received two requests for additional information (RAI) and replied to each (August 7, 2009 ML092250467 and December 2, 2009 ML093410636).

Subsequently, the NRC Project Manager was informed by a telephone call on November 18, 2009 of errors in Relief Request No. 09-MN-006 from Duke Energy's McGuire Nuclear Station.

As a result Of discovery of that error, Duke Energy requested that the NRC place several Duke Energy relief submittals currently under review on hold pending an additional accuracy review by Duke Energy. One of the affected submittals was 08-ON-002.

Duke Energy has completed the additional re-review of our Relief Request 08-ON-002 submittals for accuracy. The review included the original Relief Request dated December 29, 2008 (ML090050027), the first RAI response dated August 7, 2009 (ML092250467), and the second RAI response dated December 2, 2009 (ML093410636).

The only error found was a minor typographical error in the second RAI response, in the last sentence of the response to question 2 for the weld 3HP-365-9C. The sentence currently reads (emphasis added):

"Therefore the 100% coverage obtained in the 10.1" of weld length results in a total coverage of 71.6% coverage (10.1"/14.1" x 100 = 76.1%) from the tee side."

The value "76.1" is the error, and should be "71.6" as indicated earlier in the sentence.

www. duke-energy,com

I -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 13, 2010 Page 2 We do not consider this minor typographical error to be of any significance with respect to the NRC review and approval of the request. Since review of this relief request was placed on hold at the request of Duke Energy, we now request that review be resumed and completed.

If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact Randy Todd at (864) 873-3418.

Sincerely, Da e Baxter, Site Vice President xc: Luis Reyes Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SWW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 John Stang Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555 Andrew Sabisch Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Susan Jenkins, Section Manager Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St.

Columbia, SC 29201