ML15261A263
| ML15261A263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1999 |
| From: | Mallett B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| EA-99-142, NUDOCS 9906140146 | |
| Download: ML15261A263 (5) | |
Text
CATEGORY 2 REGULATMY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO oYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9906140146 DOC.DATE: 99/06/02 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET #
FACIL:50-269 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Duke Power Co.
05000269 50-270 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Duke Power Co.
05000270 50-287 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Duke Power Co.
05000287 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MALLETT,B.S.
Region 2 (Post 820201)
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MCCOLLUM,W.R.
Duke Power Co.
.C
SUBJECT:
Provides NRC decision on licensee 980604 request for reconsideration of violation B of NOV issued on 980504 re A
timeliness in reporting design basis events or conditions at plant facility.
T DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR / ENCL 54SIZE:
-5 E
TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response G
NOTES:
0 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL R
LPD2-1 PD 1
LABARGE,D 1
Y INTERNAL: ACRS 2
AEOD/TTC 1
DEDRO 1
"FILE CENTE R 1
NRR/DIPM/IOLB 1
NRR/DRIP/REXB 1
2 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1
OE 1
OGC/RP 1
RGN2 FILE 01 1
EXTERNAL: LMITCO MARSHALL
.1 NOAC 1
D NRC PDR 1
NUDOCS FULLTEXT 1
0 C
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE.
TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083.
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 17 ENCL A
June 2, 1999 EA 99-142 Duke Energy Corporation ATTN:
Mr. W. R. McCollum Vice President Oconee Site P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287/98-03 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Mr. McCollum:
This letter provides our decision on your June 4, 1998, request for reconsideration of Violation B of our Notice of Violation (Notice) issued on May 4, 1998. The violation concerned your timeliness in reporting design basis events or conditions at your Oconee facility. Based upon the information provided in your June 4, 1998, letter and our review, we have determined that the violation should be withdrawn for the examples cited. The basis for our decision and response to some issues raised in your letter are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
In your response, you stated that you did not agree that a violation of regulatory requirements occurred. As basis for the denial, you explain how your reporting process is consistent with the regulations and NRC guidance documents. You also indicate that, for conditions that do not impact current operation, Oconee's process recognizes a lower safety significance and allows more time to complete the engineering analysis to evaluate the effect of the condition on past operability. Oconee's process sets forth an expectation that, for more complex issues, the evaluation should normally be completed within 30 working days. This expectation is associated with past conditions where it is not readily apparent that a reportable condition may be satisfied.
Oconee's process then allows 30 additional days from the time a determination is made that a past condition is reportable for submitting a Licensee Event Report. If at any time during the evaluation process, the system, structure, or component is determined to have been inoperable in the past, a reportability determination is required immediately.
After review of your response, the circumstances surrounding each example in the violation, the NRC guidance in NUREG-1022, Revision 1, Generic Letter 91-18, and the regulations in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, we have determined that your actions to determine past operability and reportability were reasonable and in compliance with the regulations for the six examples described in the Notice of Violation.
With regard to the broader question about consistency of your process with NRC guidance, we have concluded that for operability questions involving events discovered during operations, the Oconee reporting process, as described in your June 4, 1998, letter reflects the reporting guidance as stated in NUREG-1022, Revision 1. For operability questions regarding events or 9906140146 990602 PDR ADOCK 05000269 Q
FUR
DEC 4
Distribution:
V. McCree, Rll L. Plisco, Rll R. Carroll, Rll C. Payne, Rll D. Allison, NRR P. Baranowsky, RES H. Berkow, NRR D. Hickman, NRR S. Mays, RES J. Rosenthal, RES C. Rossi, RES A. Thadani, RES G. Mizuno, OGC J. Lieberman, OE D. LaBarge, NRR PUBLIC NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 78128 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672
- FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SEE ATTACHED SHEET OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RIl:ORA RII:EICS SIGNATURE NAME
- BSchin:pd
- KLandis
- CEvans
- ABoland DATE 6/
/99 6/
/99 6/
/99 6/
/99 6/
199 6/
/99 6/
/99 COPY?
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DRS\\EB\\DENIAL\\OCODENY.WPD
DEC 2
conditions that occurred in the past, the Oconee reporting process, as described in your June 4, 1998, letter provides two distinctions not present in the guidance in NUREG-1022.
Specifically:
For past operability questions where (1) it is not readily apparent that the event may be reportable and (2) more complex issues are involved, there is an expectation that the evaluation should normally be completed within 30 working days.
For past operability questions, reporting is triggered when the equipment in question is determined to have been inoperable, rather than when there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the equipment was operable.
While this approach is reasonable for past operability reporting, it is not for current operability decisions.
Please note that the above discussion of past operability applies only when the existence of the condition is not known until long after it has occurred. If, for example, a condition was discovered involving unexpectedly large air leakage pathways into the control room, while the plant was operating, and that condition was immediately corrected by sealing the leak paths, it would not be appropriate to take 30 days to evaluate the 'as found' condition for operability on the basis that it is now a past condition. Any event or condition that, at the time of discovery, could have prevented the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, remove residual heat, control the release of radioactive material, or mitigate the consequences of an accident is required by 10 CFR 50.72 to be reported immediately. This reporting requirement has been in place for many years and is emphasized in the current proposed rule to modify the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, as published in the Federal Register on July 23, 1998.
With regard to timeliness of Emergency Notification System notifications, 10 CFR 50.72 requires reporting as soon as practical and in all cases within one hour orffour hours of the occurrence of a reportable event or condition, depending on the reporting criterion. In cases of past operability questions, reporting within one hour or four hours of occurrence is not possible because the existence of the condition is not known until long after it has occurred.
This letter will serve to modify our records for the previous Notice and inspection report. No further response regarding this issue is required. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact K. Landis at (404) 562-4605 Sincerely, Original signed by Bruce S. Mallett Bruce S. Mallett, Director Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 cc: (See page 3)
DEC 3
cc:
J. E. Burchfield Compliance County Supervisor of Duke Energy Corporation Oconee County P. 0. Box 1439 Walhalla, SC 29621 Seneca, SC 29679 Manager, LIS Lisa Vaughn NUS Corporation Legal Department (PB05E) 2650 McCormick Drive Duke Energy Corporation Clearwater, FL 34619-1035 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 L. A. Keller, Manager Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Rick N. Edwards' Duke Energy Corporation Framatome Technologies 526 S. Church Street 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Charlotte, NC 28201-0006 Rockville, MD 20852 Karen E. Long Anne Cottington Assistant Attorney General Winston and Strawn N. C. Department of Justice 1400 L Street, NW P. 0. Box 629 Washington, D. C. 20005 Raleigh, NC 27602 Mel Fry, Director Steven P. Shaver Division of Radiation Protection Senior Sales Engineer N. C. Department of Environmental Westinghouse Electric Company Health & Natural Resources 5929 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500 3825 Barrett Drive Charlotte, NC 28209 Raleigh, NC 27609-7721 Virgil R. Autry, Director Div. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201