IR 05000269/2007007

Download: ML070650190

Text

PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS 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 29672

SUBJECT: 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 CO2 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. PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC2DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS 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 22nd 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. PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC3DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS 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-55

Enclosure:

Appeal Panel Review cc w/encl: (See page 4) PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC3DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS 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-55

Enclosure:

Appeal Panel Review cc w/encl: (See page 4)X PUBLICLY AVAILABLE G NON-PUBLICLY AVAILABLEG SENSITIVE X NON-SENSITIVEADAMS: X YesACCESSION NUMBER:_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 RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML070650190.wpd PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC4DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS 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) PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONDPC5DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED HEREWITH CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ENCLOSURE, THIS DOCUMENT ISDECONTROLLED.Letter to Bruce from William D. Travers dated March 1, 2007

SUBJECT: 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