ML070650190: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
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
                                              March 1, 2007
Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
EA-06-199
ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President
Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a
Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway
   Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
Seneca, SC 29672SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR AWHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
ATTN: Mr. B. H. Hamilton
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
          Site Vice President
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)Dear Mr. Hamilton:
          Oconee Nuclear Station
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
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
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)       The SDP Phase III analysis was performed in an overly conservative manner and failed
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
          to acknowledge key limitations of the analysis such that the results more closely
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
          represent a bounding analysis rather than an expected mean value.
contention that our application of the SDP was inconsistent with SDP guidance. That panel, in
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
 
DPC                                                  2
                    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
(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
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.
determination should consider qualitative as well as quantitative factors. As mentioned in the
In summary, the appeal panel confirmed that because of the significant uncertainty in the
Final Significance Determination letter and confirmed by the appeal panel's review, 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
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
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
.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
INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
cc w/encl: (See page 4)  
DECONTROLLED.
 
DPC                                              3
                    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
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)
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
 
 
_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


_ML070650190 
DPC                                      4
_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
                    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
E-MAIL COPY?    YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO   
cc w/encl:                                   County Supervisor of
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC4DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION.  WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
B. G. Davenport                               Oconee County
.cc w/encl:B. G. Davenport
Compliance Manager (ONS)                     415 S. Pine Street
Compliance Manager (ONS)
Duke Power Company LLC                       Walhalla, SC 29691-2145
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                  Lyle Graber, LIS
:Lisa F. Vaughn
                                              NUS Corporation
Associate General Counsel
cc w/o encl:                                  Electronic Mail Distribution
  and Managing Attorney
Lisa F. Vaughn
Duke Energy Corporation
Associate General Counsel                     R. L. Gill, Jr., Manager
526 South Church Street-EC 07H
  and Managing Attorney                       Nuclear Regulatory Issues
Charlotte, NC 28202Kathryn B. NolanSenior Counsel
Duke Energy Corporation                         and Industry Affairs
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church Street-EC 07H               Duke Power Company LLC.
526 South Church Street -EC07H
Charlotte, NC 28202                          d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Charlotte, NC 28202David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP
                                              526 S. Church Street
Electronic Mail DistributionBeverly Hall, Chief RadiationProtection Section
Kathryn B. Nolan                              Charlotte, NC 28201-0006
N. C. Department of Environmental
Senior Counsel
Duke Energy Corporation                       Charles Brinkman
526 South Church Street -EC07H               Director, Washington Operations
Charlotte, NC 28202                          Westinghouse Electric Company
                                              12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
David A. Repka                                Rockville, MD 20852
Winston & Strawn LLP
Electronic Mail Distribution                  Henry Barron
                                              Group Vice President, Nuclear Generation
Beverly Hall, Chief Radiation                  & Chief Nuclear Officer
Protection Section                           PO Box 1006-EC07H
N. C. Department of Environmental             Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
   Health & Natural Resources
   Health & Natural Resources
Electronic Mail DistributionHenry J. Porter, Assistant DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
Electronic Mail Distribution                  Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)
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
415 S. Pine Street
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
Walhalla, SC  29691-2145Lyle Graber, LISNUS Corporation
INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
Electronic Mail DistributionR. L. Gill, Jr., ManagerNuclear Regulatory Issues
DECONTROLLED.
  and Industry Affairs
 
Duke Power Company LLC.
DPC                                            5
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
                    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
526 S. Church Street
Letter to Bruce H. Hamilton from William D. Travers dated March 1, 2007
Charlotte, NC  28201-0006Charles BrinkmanDirector, Washington Operations
SUBJECT:         RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A
Westinghouse Electric Company
                WHITE FINDING AND DENIAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
                NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
Rockville, MD 20852Henry BarronGroup Vice President, Nuclear Generation 
                05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)
  & Chief Nuclear Officer
Distribution w/o encl:
PO Box 1006-EC07H
L. Reyes, EDO
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)
J. Dyer, NRR
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC5DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
.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
NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000269/2007007,
05000270/2007007, AND 05000287/2007007)Distribution w/o encl:L. Reyes, EDOJ. Dyer, NRR
L. Chandler, OGC
L. Chandler, OGC
J. Moore, OGC
J. Moore, OGC
Line 113: Line 177:
D. Decker, OCA
D. Decker, OCA
Enforcement Coordinators
Enforcement Coordinators
    RI, RIII, RIV
  RI, RIII, RIV
E. Hayden, OPA
E. Hayden, OPA
G. Caputo, OI
G. Caputo, OI
H. Bell, OIG  
H. Bell, OIG
C. Carpenter, NRR
C. Carpenter, NRR
R. Pascarelli, NRR
R. Pascarelli, NRR
Line 128: Line 192:
D. Rich, RII
D. Rich, RII
S. Sparks, RII
S. Sparks, RII
L. Slack, RII  
L. Slack, RII
C. Evans, RII
C. Evans, RII
R. Carroll, RII
R. Carroll, RII
Line 136: Line 200:
OEMAIL
OEMAIL
OEWEB
OEWEB
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
DECONTROLLED.
}}
}}

Revision as of 08:51, 23 November 2019

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

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.

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

DPC 2

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

(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.

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

DPC 3

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

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)

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

_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

DPC 4

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

cc w/encl: County Supervisor of

B. G. Davenport Oconee County

Compliance Manager (ONS) 415 S. Pine Street

Duke Power Company LLC Walhalla, SC 29691-2145

d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

Electronic Mail Distribution Lyle Graber, LIS

NUS Corporation

cc w/o encl: Electronic Mail Distribution

Lisa F. Vaughn

Associate General Counsel R. L. Gill, Jr., Manager

and Managing Attorney Nuclear Regulatory Issues

Duke Energy Corporation and Industry Affairs

526 South Church Street-EC 07H Duke Power Company LLC.

Charlotte, NC 28202 d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

526 S. Church Street

Kathryn B. Nolan Charlotte, NC 28201-0006

Senior Counsel

Duke Energy Corporation Charles Brinkman

526 South Church Street -EC07H Director, Washington Operations

Charlotte, NC 28202 Westinghouse Electric Company

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330

David A. Repka Rockville, MD 20852

Winston & Strawn LLP

Electronic Mail Distribution Henry Barron

Group Vice President, Nuclear Generation

Beverly Hall, Chief Radiation & Chief Nuclear Officer

Protection Section PO Box 1006-EC07H

N. C. Department of Environmental Charlotte, NC 28201-1006

Health & Natural Resources

Electronic Mail Distribution Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)

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

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

DPC 5

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

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

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT IS

DECONTROLLED.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML070650190&oldid=2180479"