ML070650190

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
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 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.