ML15264A316
| ML15264A316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1985 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8507090017 | |
| Download: ML15264A316 (4) | |
Text
-
June 10, 1985 Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 DISTRIBUTION and 50-287 Docket-File JPartlow TAlexion NRC PDR ACRS-10 RBeckham L PDR RIngram Lasher Mr. Hal B. Tucker ORB#4 Rdg HNicolaras Vice President - Nuclear Production HThompson Gray File Duke Power Company OELD RAuluck P. 0. Box 33189 EJordan PKadambi 422 South Church Street BGrimes JStevens Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CERTAIN ITEMS OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 Re:
Oconee Nuclear station, Units 1, 2 and 3 The staff has completed a preliminary review to assess the completeness and adequacy of licensee responses to Generic Letter 83-28 Items 2.1, 2.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.4, 4.4 and 4.5.
For the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, your responses were found to be incomplete for Items 2.1(1), 2.1(2), 2.2.2, 4.4 4.5.2 and 4.5.3. Brief descriptions of the deficiencies are given as guidelines for corrective action in the enclosed request for additional information. Efforts by Owners Groups, INPO and NSSS Vendors have been or are being made to produce generic responses that may be useful in meeting the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 Items 2.1(2), 2.2.2 and 4.5.3. You may wish to contact your Owner's Group or INPO regarding the applicability of such generic responses to Oconee.
In order to preserve our present review schedule, the staff needs to have the supplementary information within 60 days for Items 2.1, 2.2.2, 4.4 and 4.5.2, and within 90 days for Item 4.5.3. If you intend to formally endorse the B&W Owners Group response to Item 4.5.3, the staff should be advised within 60 days.
This request for additional information was approved by the Office of Management and Budget under clearance number 3150-0011 which expires April 30, 1985. Comments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503 Sincerely, LAL'SG~
SG= By John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/enclosure: See next page ORB
- DL 0Cl HI c aras;cf JSt
/ha Lasher 6/lt/85 6/1 6/e-/85 6/"/85 8507090017 850610 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
__PDR~
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Duke Power Company Nos. 1, 2 and 3
-cc:
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company G,. Bo~ 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont*Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. J. C. Bryant Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region-II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological. Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GL 83-28 "1GENERIC IMPLICATIOS OF ATWS EVENTS AT SALEM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ITEMS 2.1, 2.2, 4.4 AND 4.5 Item 2.1, Part 1 Duke Power Company needs to verify that B&W Owner's Group listing referred to in the response includes all Reactor Trip System (RTS) components for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, and make a statement that all RTS components are identified as safety-related on documents, drawings, procedures, and in information handling systems used in the plant to control and execute safety-related activities.
Item 2.1, Part 2 Duke Power Company needs to submit a description of its program that specifically shows a program of periodic contacts with RTS component vendors that assures all vendor technical information is being received, kept current, complete and controlled throughout the life of the plant. Also, Duke should indicate that'lists of vendor information are available for audit at each reactor site. This description should also indicate how this program will be implemented at Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.
Item 2.2.2 In letters dated November 4, 1983 and May 7, 1984, Duke's response was based on the NUTAC report. Duke needs to present its evaluation of the NUTAC program and describe how it will be implemented at Oconee. The staff found that the NUTAC program fails to address the concern about establishing and maintaining an tnterface between-all safety-related equipment vendors and the utility. Accordingly, Duke will need to supplement its response to address this concern. This additional information should describe how current procedures will be modified and new ones initiated to meet the elements of this concern.
Item 4.4 Duke has stated that it is revising surveillance testing and maintenance procedures and is reviewing the Technical Specifications to determine what, if any, changes should be proposed. Duke should submit the results of its review and propose changes to the Technical Specifications to include the silicon controlled rectifiers in the appropriate surveillance and test sections of the Technical Specifications.
-2 Item 4.5.2 Duke should identify the periodic on-line testing features and indicate if this testing covers all components of the Reactor Trip System.
Item 4.5.3 Duke needs to describe what is contained in the B&W Owner's Group response and how it applies to the Oconee Station. Duke should provide the basis for the statement that monthly testing is adequate.