ML070650190: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 03/01/2007
| issue date = 03/01/2007
| title = Response to Appeal of Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Denial of Notice of Violation (Report Nos. 05000269-07-007, 05000270-07-007, and 05000287-07-007)
| title = Response to Appeal of Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Denial of Notice of Violation (Report Nos. 05000269-07-007, 05000270-07-007, and 05000287-07-007)
| author name = Travers W D
| author name = Travers W
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/ORA
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/ORA
| addressee name = Hamilton B H
| addressee name = Hamilton B
| addressee affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Power Co
| addressee affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Power Co
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
{{#Wiki_filter:OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
.March 1, 2007EA-06-199
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a   Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
INFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President
DECONTROLLED.
Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway
March 1, 2007
Seneca, SC 29672SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR AWHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
EA-06-199
Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a
  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
ATTN: Mr. B. H. Hamilton
Site Vice President
Oconee Nuclear Station
7800 Rochester Highway
Seneca, SC 29672
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A
WHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)Dear Mr. Hamilton:
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)
This refers to your letter dated December 20, 2006, in which you appealed the NuclearRegulatory Commission's (NRC) Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
This refers to your letter dated December 20, 2006, in which you appealed the Nuclear
Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and
denied the associated Notice of Violation (NOV), both of which were issued under NRC
denied the associated Notice of Violation (NOV), both of which were issued under NRC
Inspection Report 05000269,270,287/2006017, on November 22, 2006.  The NOV identified
Inspection Report 05000269,270,287/2006017, on November 22, 2006.  The NOV identified
non-compliances with Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1 and 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) as they relate
non-compliances with Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1 and 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) as they relate
to the failure of Duke's Oconee Nuclear Station to use adequate procedures to effectively
to the failure of Dukes Oconee Nuclear Station to use adequate procedures to effectively
control maintenance activities (i.e., removal of a CO
control maintenance activities (i.e., removal of a CO2 access cover from standby shutdown
2 access cover from standby shutdownfacility (SSF) flood barrier to facilitate installation of temporary electrical power cables) that
facility (SSF) flood barrier to facilitate installation of temporary electrical power cables) that
could affect safety-related equipment; and therefore, failed to assess and manage the increase
could affect safety-related equipment; and therefore, failed to assess and manage the increase
in risk from external floods for this maintenance activity.  The issue was characterized as White
in risk from external floods for this maintenance activity.  The issue was characterized as White
from a defense-in-depth perspective, in that if the SSF was rendered inoperable by the
from a defense-in-depth perspective, in that if the SSF was rendered inoperable by the
hypothetical external flood scenario it is credited to mitigate, no other event mitigation systems
hypothetical external flood scenario it is credited to mitigate, no other event mitigation systems
would be available to prevent core damage.Your letter indicated that the bases for the appeal was that NRC's significance determinationprocess (SDP) was inconsistent with the applicable SDP guidance and lacked justification.  
would be available to prevent core damage.
Primary points in support of your appeal were:(1)The SDP Phase III analysis was performed in an overly conservative manner and failedto acknowledge key limitations of the analysis such that the results more closely
Your letter indicated that the bases for the appeal was that NRCs significance determination
represent a bounding analysis rather than an expected mean value.  
process (SDP) was inconsistent with the applicable SDP guidance and lacked justification.  
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC2DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
Primary points in support of your appeal were:
.(2)The 1999 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel evaluation of the SSF flood function wasappropriately evaluated in accordance with the provisions of NUMARC 93-01 as
(1)
endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.160 and 1.182.Additionally, your stated basis for denying the NOV was that a violation of regulatoryrequirements did not occur.  Primary points presented in support of this position were:(1)External flooding of the SSF is not part of the Oconee current licensing basis (CLB);therefore Technical Specification (TS) safety-related functions are not affected.(2)The subject electrical cables were routed through an access opening constructed nolower that the original predicted height of an SSF external flood event.(3)The access opening does not meet the limited scope of criteria in 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(4)and therefore procedural controls of the access opening in accordance with TS 5.4.1
The SDP Phase III analysis was performed in an overly conservative manner and failed
were not required.In response to your appeal of the White Finding, and in accordance with Inspection ManualChapter 0609, Attachment 2, an independent appeal panel was convened to evaluate your
to acknowledge key limitations of the analysis such that the results more closely
represent a bounding analysis rather than an expected mean value.
 
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
DPC
2
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
(2)
The 1999 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel evaluation of the SSF flood function was
appropriately evaluated in accordance with the provisions of NUMARC 93-01 as
endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.160 and 1.182.
Additionally, your stated basis for denying the NOV was that a violation of regulatory
requirements did not occur.  Primary points presented in support of this position were:
(1)
External flooding of the SSF is not part of the Oconee current licensing basis (CLB);
therefore Technical Specification (TS) safety-related functions are not affected.
(2)
The subject electrical cables were routed through an access opening constructed no
lower that the original predicted height of an SSF external flood event.
(3)
The access opening does not meet the limited scope of criteria in 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(4)
and therefore procedural controls of the access opening in accordance with TS 5.4.1
were not required.
In response to your appeal of the White Finding, and in accordance with Inspection Manual
Chapter 0609, Attachment 2, an independent appeal panel was convened to evaluate your
contention that our application of the SDP was inconsistent with SDP guidance.  That panel, in
contention that our application of the SDP was inconsistent with SDP guidance.  That panel, in
conjunction with other NRC internal organizations, have also reviewed your denial of the
conjunction with other NRC internal organizations, have also reviewed your denial of the
associated NOV.  I have considered the results of the appeal panel, as well as the information
associated NOV.  I have considered the results of the appeal panel, as well as the information
contained in your letter of December 20, 2006, and the NRC's Final Significance Determination
contained in your letter of December 20, 2006, and the NRCs Final Significance Determination
letter dated November 22, 2006.  After reviewing this information, I have concluded, in
letter dated November 22, 2006.  After reviewing this information, I have concluded, in
consultation with the NRC's Office of Enforcement, that a violation of regulatory requirements
consultation with the NRCs Office of Enforcement, that a violation of regulatory requirements
occurred as stated in the NOV.  In addition, I agree with the review panel's independent
occurred as stated in the NOV.  In addition, I agree with the review panels independent
conclusion that the White Finding, as presented in the NRC's November 22
conclusion that the White Finding, as presented in the NRCs November 22nd letter, was
nd letter, wasappropriately characterized.  The details of the independent appeal panel's review is enclosed.In summary, the appeal panel confirmed that because of the significant uncertainty in themethods and assumptions used in the quantitative evaluation of this finding, the significance
appropriately characterized.  The details of the independent appeal panels review is enclosed.
In summary, the appeal panel confirmed that because of the significant uncertainty in the
methods and assumptions used in the quantitative evaluation of this finding, the significance
determination should consider qualitative as well as quantitative factors.  As mentioned in the
determination should consider qualitative as well as quantitative factors.  As mentioned in the
Final Significance Determination letter and confirmed by the appeal panel's review, the
Final Significance Determination letter and confirmed by the appeal panels review, the
qualitative attributes of the finding, including its impact on defense-in-depth, the significant
qualitative attributes of the finding, including its impact on defense-in-depth, the significant
period of time that the deficiency existed, and the low likelihood that recovery actions would
period of time that the deficiency existed, and the low likelihood that recovery actions would
successfully mitigate the performance deficiency, provide sufficient justification to support a
successfully mitigate the performance deficiency, provide sufficient justification to support a
White finding.
White finding.  
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC3DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
.Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Charles Casto,Director, Division of Reactor Projects, at 404-562-4500.Sincerely,/CAC RA for/William D. TraversRegional AdministratorDocket Nos.:50-269, 50-270, 50-287License Nos.:DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55Enclosure: Appeal Panel Review
cc w/encl: (See page 4)


_ML070650190   
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
_OFFICERII:DRPRII:DRPRII:EICSOENRRRII:ORASIGNATUREJHM /RA/CAC /RA/CFE /RA/via teleconvia emailREC RA forNAMEJMoormanCCastoCEvansDSolorioMFranovichVMcCreeDATE02/28/200702/28/200702/28/200702/27/200702/28/200702/28/2007
DPC
E-MAIL COPY?   YESNO     YESNO     YESNO     YESNO     YESNO     YESNO     YESNO   
3
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC4DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
.cc w/encl:B. G. Davenport
INFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Charles Casto,
Director, Division of Reactor Projects, at 404-562-4500.
Sincerely,
/CAC RA for/
William D. Travers
Regional Administrator
Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, 50-287
License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55
Enclosure: Appeal Panel Review
cc w/encl: (See page 4)
 
 
_ML070650190  _
OFFICE
RII:DRP
RII:DRP
RII:EICS
OE
NRR
RII:ORA
SIGNATURE
JHM /RA/
CAC /RA/
CFE /RA/
via telecon
via email
REC RA for
NAME
JMoorman
CCasto
CEvans
DSolorio
MFranovich
VMcCree
DATE
02/28/2007
02/28/2007
02/28/2007
02/27/2007
02/28/2007
02/28/2007
E-MAIL COPY?
    YES
NO     YES
NO     YES
NO     YES
NO     YES
NO     YES
NO     YES
NO   
 
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
DPC
4
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
cc w/encl:
B. G. Davenport
Compliance Manager (ONS)
Compliance Manager (ONS)
Duke Power Company LLC
Duke Power Company LLC
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Electronic Mail Distributioncc w/o encl
Electronic Mail Distribution
:Lisa F. Vaughn
cc w/o encl:
Lisa F. Vaughn
Associate General Counsel
Associate General Counsel
  and Managing Attorney
  and Managing Attorney
Duke Energy Corporation
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church Street-EC 07H
526 South Church Street-EC 07H
Charlotte, NC  28202Kathryn B. NolanSenior Counsel
Charlotte, NC  28202
Kathryn B. Nolan
Senior Counsel
Duke Energy Corporation
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church Street -EC07H
526 South Church Street -EC07H
Charlotte, NC 28202David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP
Charlotte, NC 28202
Electronic Mail DistributionBeverly Hall, Chief RadiationProtection Section
David A. Repka
Winston & Strawn LLP
Electronic Mail Distribution
Beverly Hall, Chief Radiation
Protection Section
N. C. Department of Environmental
N. C. Department of Environmental
   Health & Natural Resources
   Health & Natural Resources
Electronic Mail DistributionHenry J. Porter, Assistant DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
Electronic Mail Distribution
Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director
Div. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and
S. C. Department of Health and
   Environmental Control
   Environmental Control
Electronic Mail DistributionR. Mike GandyDivision of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
Electronic Mail Distribution
R. Mike Gandy
Division of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and
S. C. Department of Health and
   Environmental Control
   Environmental Control
Electronic Mail DistributionCounty Supervisor of Oconee County
Electronic Mail Distribution
County Supervisor of
  Oconee County
415 S. Pine Street
415 S. Pine Street
Walhalla, SC  29691-2145Lyle Graber, LISNUS Corporation
Walhalla, SC  29691-2145
Electronic Mail DistributionR. L. Gill, Jr., ManagerNuclear Regulatory Issues
Lyle Graber, LIS
NUS Corporation
Electronic Mail Distribution
R. L. Gill, Jr., Manager
Nuclear Regulatory Issues
   and Industry Affairs
   and Industry Affairs
Duke Power Company LLC.
Duke Power Company LLC.
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
526 S. Church Street
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC  28201-0006Charles BrinkmanDirector, Washington Operations
Charlotte, NC  28201-0006
Charles Brinkman
Director, Washington Operations
Westinghouse Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Company
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
Rockville, MD 20852Henry BarronGroup Vice President, Nuclear Generation   
Rockville, MD 20852
Henry Barron
Group Vice President, Nuclear Generation   
   & Chief Nuclear Officer
   & Chief Nuclear Officer
PO Box 1006-EC07H
PO Box 1006-EC07H
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)  
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC5DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)
.Letter to Bruce H. Hamilton from William D. Travers dated March 1, 2007SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR AWHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
 
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
DPC
5
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
Letter to Bruce H. Hamilton from William D. Travers dated March 1, 2007
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A
WHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)Distribution w/o encl:L. Reyes, EDOJ. Dyer, NRR
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)
Distribution w/o encl:
L. Reyes, EDO
J. Dyer, NRR
L. Chandler, OGC
L. Chandler, OGC
J. Moore, OGC
J. Moore, OGC

Latest revision as of 02:57, 15 January 2025

Response to Appeal of Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Denial of Notice of Violation (Report Nos. 05000269-07-007, 05000270-07-007, and 05000287-07-007)
ML070650190
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/01/2007
From: Travers W
Region 2 Administrator
To: Brandi Hamilton
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Power Co
References
EA-06-199, IR-07-007, FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML070650190 (6)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000269/2007007

Text

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

March 1, 2007

EA-06-199

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)

ATTN: Mr. B. H. Hamilton

Site Vice President

Oconee Nuclear Station

7800 Rochester Highway

Seneca, SC 29672

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A

WHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE

NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,

05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

This refers to your letter dated December 20, 2006, in which you appealed the Nuclear

Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and

denied the associated Notice of Violation (NOV), both of which were issued under NRC

Inspection Report 05000269,270,287/2006017, on November 22, 2006. The NOV identified

non-compliances with Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1 and 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) as they relate

to the failure of Dukes Oconee Nuclear Station to use adequate procedures to effectively

control maintenance activities (i.e., removal of a CO2 access cover from standby shutdown

facility (SSF) flood barrier to facilitate installation of temporary electrical power cables) that

could affect safety-related equipment; and therefore, failed to assess and manage the increase

in risk from external floods for this maintenance activity. The issue was characterized as White

from a defense-in-depth perspective, in that if the SSF was rendered inoperable by the

hypothetical external flood scenario it is credited to mitigate, no other event mitigation systems

would be available to prevent core damage.

Your letter indicated that the bases for the appeal was that NRCs significance determination

process (SDP) was inconsistent with the applicable SDP guidance and lacked justification.

Primary points in support of your appeal were:

(1)

The SDP Phase III analysis was performed in an overly conservative manner and failed

to acknowledge key limitations of the analysis such that the results more closely

represent a bounding analysis rather than an expected mean value.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

DPC

2

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

(2)

The 1999 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel evaluation of the SSF flood function was

appropriately evaluated in accordance with the provisions of NUMARC 93-01 as

endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.160 and 1.182.

Additionally, your stated basis for denying the NOV was that a violation of regulatory

requirements did not occur. Primary points presented in support of this position were:

(1)

External flooding of the SSF is not part of the Oconee current licensing basis (CLB);

therefore Technical Specification (TS) safety-related functions are not affected.

(2)

The subject electrical cables were routed through an access opening constructed no

lower that the original predicted height of an SSF external flood event.

(3)

The access opening does not meet the limited scope of criteria in 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(4)

and therefore procedural controls of the access opening in accordance with TS 5.4.1

were not required.

In response to your appeal of the White Finding, and in accordance with Inspection Manual

Chapter 0609, Attachment 2, an independent appeal panel was convened to evaluate your

contention that our application of the SDP was inconsistent with SDP guidance. That panel, in

conjunction with other NRC internal organizations, have also reviewed your denial of the

associated NOV. I have considered the results of the appeal panel, as well as the information

contained in your letter of December 20, 2006, and the NRCs Final Significance Determination

letter dated November 22, 2006. After reviewing this information, I have concluded, in

consultation with the NRCs Office of Enforcement, that a violation of regulatory requirements

occurred as stated in the NOV. In addition, I agree with the review panels independent

conclusion that the White Finding, as presented in the NRCs November 22nd letter, was

appropriately characterized. The details of the independent appeal panels review is enclosed.

In summary, the appeal panel confirmed that because of the significant uncertainty in the

methods and assumptions used in the quantitative evaluation of this finding, the significance

determination should consider qualitative as well as quantitative factors. As mentioned in the

Final Significance Determination letter and confirmed by the appeal panels review, the

qualitative attributes of the finding, including its impact on defense-in-depth, the significant

period of time that the deficiency existed, and the low likelihood that recovery actions would

successfully mitigate the performance deficiency, provide sufficient justification to support a

White finding.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

DPC

3

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Charles Casto,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects, at 404-562-4500.

Sincerely,

/CAC RA for/

William D. Travers

Regional Administrator

Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, 50-287

License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55

Enclosure: Appeal Panel Review

cc w/encl: (See page 4)

_ML070650190 _

OFFICE

RII:DRP

RII:DRP

RII:EICS

OE

NRR

RII:ORA

SIGNATURE

JHM /RA/

CAC /RA/

CFE /RA/

via telecon

via email

REC RA for

NAME

JMoorman

CCasto

CEvans

DSolorio

MFranovich

VMcCree

DATE

02/28/2007

02/28/2007

02/28/2007

02/27/2007

02/28/2007

02/28/2007

E-MAIL COPY?

YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

DPC

4

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

cc w/encl:

B. G. Davenport

Compliance Manager (ONS)

Duke Power Company LLC

d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

Electronic Mail Distribution

cc w/o encl:

Lisa F. Vaughn

Associate General Counsel

and Managing Attorney

Duke Energy Corporation

526 South Church Street-EC 07H

Charlotte, NC 28202

Kathryn B. Nolan

Senior Counsel

Duke Energy Corporation

526 South Church Street -EC07H

Charlotte, NC 28202

David A. Repka

Winston & Strawn LLP

Electronic Mail Distribution

Beverly Hall, Chief Radiation

Protection Section

N. C. Department of Environmental

Health & Natural Resources

Electronic Mail Distribution

Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director

Div. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

S. C. Department of Health and

Environmental Control

Electronic Mail Distribution

R. Mike Gandy

Division of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

S. C. Department of Health and

Environmental Control

Electronic Mail Distribution

County Supervisor of

Oconee County

415 S. Pine Street

Walhalla, SC 29691-2145

Lyle Graber, LIS

NUS Corporation

Electronic Mail Distribution

R. L. Gill, Jr., Manager

Nuclear Regulatory Issues

and Industry Affairs

Duke Power Company LLC.

d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

526 S. Church Street

Charlotte, NC 28201-0006

Charles Brinkman

Director, Washington Operations

Westinghouse Electric Company

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330

Rockville, MD 20852

Henry Barron

Group Vice President, Nuclear Generation

& Chief Nuclear Officer

PO Box 1006-EC07H

Charlotte, NC 28201-1006

Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

DPC

5

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

Letter to Bruce H. Hamilton from William D. Travers dated March 1, 2007

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A

WHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE

NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,

05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)

Distribution w/o encl:

L. Reyes, EDO

J. Dyer, NRR

L. Chandler, OGC

J. Moore, OGC

E. Julian, SECY

D. Decker, OCA

Enforcement Coordinators

RI, RIII, RIV

E. Hayden, OPA

G. Caputo, OI

H. Bell, OIG

C. Carpenter, NRR

R. Pascarelli, NRR

C. Carpenter, OE

L. Trocine, OE

V. McCree, RII

H. Christensen, RII

C. Casto, RII

J. Shea, RII

J. Moorman, RII

D. Rich, RII

S. Sparks, RII

L. Slack, RII

C. Evans, RII

R. Carroll, RII

R. Hannah, RII

K. Clark, RII

PUBLIC

OEMAIL

OEWEB

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML070650190&oldid=5350570"