ML070650190
| ML070650190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| 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) | |
See also: IR 05000269/2007007
Text
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
.March 1, 2007EA-06-199
Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President
Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway
Seneca, SC 29672SUBJECT: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)Dear Mr. Hamilton:
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
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 Duke's Oconee Nuclear Station to use adequate procedures to effectively
control maintenance activities (i.e., removal of a CO
2 access cover from standby shutdownfacility (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 NRC's significance determinationprocess (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 failedto 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 INFORMATIONDPC2DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
.(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
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
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
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 NRC's Final Significance Determination
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
occurred as stated in the NOV. In addition, I agree with the review panel's independent
conclusion that the White Finding, as presented in the NRC's November 22
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
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
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 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
_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
E-MAIL COPY? YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC4DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED
.cc w/encl:B. G. Davenport
Compliance Manager (ONS)
Duke Power Company LLC
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Electronic Mail Distributioncc w/o encl
- Lisa F. Vaughn
Associate General Counsel
and Managing Attorney
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church Street-EC 07H
Charlotte, NC 28202Kathryn B. NolanSenior Counsel
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church Street -EC07H
Charlotte, NC 28202David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP
Electronic Mail DistributionBeverly Hall, Chief RadiationProtection Section
N. C. Department of Environmental
Health & Natural Resources
Electronic Mail DistributionHenry J. Porter, Assistant DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Electronic Mail DistributionR. Mike GandyDivision of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Electronic Mail DistributionCounty Supervisor of Oconee County
415 S. Pine Street
Walhalla, SC 29691-2145Lyle Graber, LISNUS Corporation
Electronic Mail DistributionR. L. Gill, Jr., ManagerNuclear Regulatory Issues
and Industry Affairs
Duke Power Company LLC.
d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28201-0006Charles BrinkmanDirector, Washington Operations
Westinghouse Electric Company
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
Rockville, MD 20852Henry BarronGroup Vice President, Nuclear Generation
& Chief Nuclear Officer
PO Box 1006-EC07H
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006Distribution w/o encl: (See page 5)
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
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