ML15112A578
| ML15112A578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1998 |
| From: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-MA0722, TAC-MA0723, TAC-MA0724, TAC-MA722, TAC-MA723, TAC-MA724, NUDOCS 9802240436 | |
| Download: ML15112A578 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 3, 1998 Mr. W. R. McCollum Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION REGARDING OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. MA0722, MA0723, AND MA0724; NOED NO. 98-6-001)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated January 30, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) requested that the NRC exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required by Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specification (TS) 3.0 related to the performance of certain refueling outage surveillances. That letter documented information previously discussed with the NRC in a telephone conversation on January 30, 1998, at 3:30 p.m. You stated that, because the units would not be in compliance with the staff's literal interpretation of the plant condition required for performance of refueling outage tests, entry into TS 3.0 was made at 12:45 p.m. on January 30, 1998. This TS requires that Units 2 and 3 be in the Hot Shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (Unit 1 was already in cold shutown). You requested that a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) be issued pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercising discretion for an operating facility, set out in Section VII.c, of the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be effective for the period until the issuance of a related TS amendment.
As a result of forced outages during 1998, certain surveillances for Oconee Unit 2 that can only be performed during a refueling outage will exceed the maximum frequency of 22 months 15 days prior to the start of the Unit 2 refueling outage. On January 15, 1998, Duke submitted a TS change to justify an extension of these surveillances to support the scheduled refueling outage date of March 13, 1998. As a result of this determination, Duke also evaluated the performance of other surveillances at power to assure that the required refueling outage frequency was not exceeded.
Oconee has not in the past interpreted a surveillance that is specified to be performed during a refueling outage as meaning that the unit must be in a refueling outage to satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the practice has been to perform some surveillances specified for refueling outages at other times than during a refueling outage. In discussions with the NRC staff on January 29, 1998, Duke was informed that any surveillance specified for a refueling outage frequency must be performed only during a refueling outage. Thus, any surveillances performed at power, in past forced outages, or planned shutdowns, would not satisfy the TS requirements. Oconee immediately began to evaluate the impact of the staffs literal interpretation of the TS. On January 30, 1998, Oconee confirmed that certain surveillances have been performed at times other than during a refueling outage and, on the same day, discussed these findings with the staff. The licensee also determined that the refueling outage 9802240436 980203 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR 1111111111 11111ll1I1ll IIIIIl lldl1 llll U FMM R
P r rB 7B A
g-
' 1-
W. February 3, 1998 surveillances for all three Oconee units have been performed in accordance with the time intervals required by the TS (22 months 15 days). Therefore, there are no safety consequences related to issuance of the NOED and no compensatory measures have been proposed by the licensee.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and justification for the issuance of the NOED and agrees that implementation of the staffs interpretation of the surveillances designated in the TS as "refueling outage" should not result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 or interfere with the planned startup of Unit 1. The staff recognizes your determination that all surveillances that are presently required to be performed during refueling outages have been performed within the required interval. Thus, the surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied. The staff concludes that the compliance issue does not create any concerns regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of the staffs evaluation of your request, the staff has concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact and has no adverse radiological impact on public health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0 for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, until issuance of a related amendment, which was submitted by letter dated February 2, 1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation at 3:30 p.m.
on January 30, 1998, when we orally issued this NOED.
However, as stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will normally be taken to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc: See next page Distribution:
e~ketEile JZwolinski JLieberman BBoger (Acting ADP)
PUBLIC HBerkow E-Mail NOED WBeckner PD 11-2 Rdg.
LBerry E-Mail NRCWEB BSheron HThompson DLaBarge JJohnson, RII ACRS SCollins/FMiraglia OGC COgle, RII DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\OCONEE\\OCOA0722.NOE To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachmentlenclosure "E" = Copy with attachmentenclosure "N" = No copy See previous concurrence OFFICE P I[-
PDII-2/LA
(' TSB*
RI PD NAME DL Age:cn LBerry
)
WBeckner Cg H
DATE 98
/
98 2/ 3 /98 2, 1/98
/Yi /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
W. R. McCollum
-2 surveillances for all three Oconee units have been performed in accordance with the time intervals required by the TS (22 months 15 days.). Therefore, there are no safety consequences related to issuance of the NOED and no compensatory measures have been proposed by the licensee.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and justification for the issuance of the NOED and agrees that implementation of the staffs interpretation of the surveillances designated in the TS as "refueling outage" should not result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 or interfere with the planned startup of Unit 1. The staff recognizes your determination that all surveillances that are presently required to be performed during refueling outages have been performed within the required interval. Thus, the surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied. The staff concludes that the compliance issue does not create any concerns regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of the staffs evaluation of your request, the staff has concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact and has no adverse radiological impact on public health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0 for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, until issuance of a related amendment, which was submitted by letter dated February 2, 1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation at 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, when we orally issued this NOED.
However, as stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will normally be taken to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.
Sincerely, erbert N. Berkow, Director roject Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc: See next page
Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr. J. E. Burchfield Legal Department (PBO5E)
Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Oconee Nuclear Site Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice Mr. Robert B. Borsum P. 0. Box 629 Framatome Technologies Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike L. A. Keller Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Manager, LIS Duke Energy Corporation NUS Corporation 526 South Church Street 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Senior Resident Inspector Division of Radiation Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory North Carolina Department of Commission Environment, Health, and 7812B Rochester Highway Natural Resources Seneca, South Carolina 29672 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
W.
February 3, 1998 surveillances for all three Oconee units have been performed in accordance with the time intervals required by the TS (22 months 15 days). Therefore, there are no safety consequences related to issuance of the NOED and no compensatory measures have been proposed by the licensee.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and justification for the issuance of the NOED and agrees that implementation of the staffs interpretation of the surveillances designated in the TS as "refueling outage" should not result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 or interfere with the planned startup of Unit 1. The staff recognizes your determination that all surveillances that are presently required to be performed during refueling outages have been performed within the required interval. Thus, the surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied. The staff concludes that the compliance issue does not create any concerns regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of the staffs evaluation of your request, the staff has concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact and has no adverse radiological impact on public health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0 for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, until issuance of a related amendment, which was submitted by letter dated February 2, 1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation at 3:30 p.m.
on January 30, 1998, when we orally issued this NOED.
However, as stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will normally be taken to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc: See next page Distribution:
Docket File JZwolinski JLieberman BBoger (Acting ADP)
PUBLIC HBerkow E-Mail NOED WBeckner PD 11-2 Rdg.
LBerry E-Mail NRCWEB BSheron HThompson DLaBarge JJohnson, RIl ACRS SCollins/FMiraglia OGC COgle, Ril DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\OCONEE\\OCOA0722.NOE To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C"
= Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure/
"N"
= No copy ASee previous concurrence OFFICE P 'II-PDII-2/LAj 6 TSB*
RI PD NAME DL ge:cn ILBerry
) WBeckner CO H
DATE
-1./ /98
/
98 2/ 3 /98 1 198
/
198 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
UNITED STATES 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-001 February 3, 1998 Mr. W. R. McCollum Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION REGARDING OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. MA0722, MA0723, AND MA0724; NOED NO. 98-6-001)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated January 30, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) requested that the NRC exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required by Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specification (TS) 3.0 related to the performance of certain refueling outage surveillances. That letter documented information previously discussed with the NRC in a telephone conversation on January 30, 1998, at 3:30 p.m. You stated that, because the units would not be in compliance with the staffs literal interpretation of the plant condition required for performance of refueling outage tests, entry into TS 3.0 was made at 12:45 p.m. on January 30, 1998. This TS requires that Units 2 and 3 be in the Hot Shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (Unit 1 was already in cold shutown). You requested that a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) be issued pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercising discretion for an operating facility, set out in Section VII.c, of the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be effective for the period until the issuance of a related TS amendment.
As a result of forced outages during 1998, certain surveillances for Oconee Unit 2 that can only be performed during a refueling outage will exceed the maximum frequency of 22 months 15 days prior to the start of the Unit 2 refueling outage. On January 15, 1998, Duke submitted a TS change to justify an extension of these surveillances to support the scheduled refueling outage date of March 13, 1998. As a result of this determination, Duke also evaluated the performance of other surveillances at power to assure that the required refueling outage frequency was not exceeded.
Oconee has not in the past interpreted a surveillance that is specified to be performed during a refueling outage as meaning that the unit must be in a refueling outage to satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the practice has been to perform some surveillances specified for refueling outages at other times than during a refueling outage. In discussions with the NRC staff on January 29, 1998, Duke was informed that any surveillance specified for a refueling outage frequency must be performed only during a refueling outage. Thus, any surveillances performed at power, in past forced outages, or planned shutdowns, would not satisfy the TS requirements. Oconee immediately began to evaluate the impact of the staffs literal interpretation of the TS. On January 30, 1998, Oconee confirmed that certain surveillances have been performed at times other than during a refueling outage and, on the same day, discussed these findings with the staff. The licensee also determined that the refueling outage
W. R. McCollum
-2 surveillances for all three Oconee units have been performed in accordance with the time intervals required by the TS (22 months 15 days.). Therefore, there are no safety consequences related to issuance of the NOED and no compensatory measures have been proposed by the licensee.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and justification for the issuance of the NOED and agrees that implementation of the staffs interpretation of the surveillances designated in the TS as "refueling outage" should not result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 or interfere with the planned startup of Unit 1. The staff recognizes your determination that all surveillances that are presently required to be performed during refueling outages have been performed within the required interval. Thus, the surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied. The staff concludes that the compliance issue does not create any concems regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of the staffs evaluation of your request, the staff has concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact and has no adverse radiological impact on public health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0 for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, until issuance of a related amendment, which was submitted by letter dated February 2, 1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation at 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 1998, when we orally issued this NOED.
However, as stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will normally be taken to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.
. Sincerely, erbert N. Berkow, Director roject Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc: See next page
Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr. J. E. Burchfield Legal Department (PBO5E)
Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Oconee Nuclear Site Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice Mr. Robert B. Borsum P. 0. Box 629 Framatome Technologies Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike L. A. Keller Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Manager, LIS Duke Energy Corporation NUS Corporation 526 South Church Street 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Senior Resident Inspector Division of Radiation Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory North Carolina Department of Commission Environment, Health, and 7812B Rochester Highway Natural Resources Seneca, South Carolina 29672 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621