ML16148B153
| ML16148B153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1992 |
| From: | Wiens L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, GL-88-20, TAC-M83649, TAC-M83650, TAC-M83651, NUDOCS 9206230201 | |
| Download: ML16148B153 (4) | |
Text
t;F REG~
W U
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 June 16, 1992 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679
Dear Hampton:
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 88-20, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS FOR EXTERNAL EVENTS - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (TAC NOS. M83649, M83650, AND M83651)
Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20 was issued on June 28, 1991, to require each licensee and each Construction Permit holder to conduct an individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE). Guidance was provided with the generic letter supplement in the form of NUREG-1407, "Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities." The supplement requested a 180-day response (December 26, 1991) that would (1) identify the method and approach selected for the IPEEE, 2) describe the method to be used if it has not previously been submitted for staff review, and 3) identify the milestones and schedule for performing the IPEEE and submittal of the results to the NRC. Licensees were requested in the supplement to submit the IPEEE results to the NRC for review by June 28, 1994, (3 years after issuance of the supplement) to ensure that the intent of the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement will be met by mid-1995.
We have reviewed your letter dated December 18, 1991, submitted in response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4. We find that your selected IPEEE methods are acceptable. However, your submittal did not provide projected milestones and schedules. The reason given in your submittal for not providing this information was that the staff had not issued the Supplemental Safety Evalua tion Report (SSER) approving the USI A-46 Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP). This SSER was issued by the staff on May 22, 1992, via Supplement 1 to Generic Letter 87-02. Therefore, we request that you update your IPEEE plans and provide your projected milestones and schedules to the NRC no later than September 18, 1992. The basis for that response date is that those plants covered under USI A-46 are required to respond by September 18, 1992, with their USI A-46 program. Most licensees for these plants have linked their IPEEE response to USI A-46.
If your submittal schedule is not consistent with the NRC's requested date of June 1994, you should forward your justification with sufficient discussion to provide the NRC staff with a basis for determining the acceptability of your schedules. However, we request that your submittal be provided no later than mid-1995. By doing so, your efforts will more closely reflect the level of safety significance attributed to this effort by the Commission when the goal of closing severe accident issues by June 1995 was established.
9206230201 920616 PDR, ADOCK 05000269 IR S
CERTE HitY
Mr. J. W. Hampton
- 2 The NRC, with assistance from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and the utility Seismicity Owners Group, assisted by the Electric Power Research Institute, have conducted probabilistic seismic hazard studies for nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Although no plants were found to have exceptional vulnerabilities, eight plants at five sites were identi fied as needing further evaluation by the NRC staff based on comparison of their probabilistic seismic hazard to their deterministic response spectra.
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 was one of those sites so identified. The plant design is believed to meet the 10 CFR Part 50 General Design Criteria (Appendix A) and other applicable NRC regulations. The result of this review indicated that the NRC does not need to reestablish the seismic licensing basis and no immediate action on your part is necessary at this time. However, the staff will further examine the plant vulnerability with respect to seismic hazard upon receipt of your IPEEE. From that examination, the staff will have a better understanding of what seismic vulnerabilities, if any, warrant consideration for corrective action. The staff may then, if appropriate, consider backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 for proposed plant improve ments.
Sincerely, L. A. Wiens, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page
Mr. J. June 16, 1992 The NRC, with assistance from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and the utility Seismicity Owners Group, assisted by the Electric Power Research Institute, have conducted probabilistic seismic hazard studies for nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Although no plants were found to have exceptional vulnerabilities, eight plants at five sites were identi fied as needing further evaluation by the NRC staff based on comparison of their probabilistic seismic hazard to their deterministic response spectra.
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 was one of those sites so identified. The plant design is believed to meet the 10 CFR Part 50 General Design Criteria (Appendix A) and other applicable NRC regulations. The result of this review indicated that the NRC does not need to reestablish the seismic licensing basis and no immediate action on your part is necessary at this time. However, the staff will further examine the plant vulnerability with respect to seismic hazard upon receipt of your IPEEE. From that examination, the staff will have a better understanding of what seismic vulnerabilities, if any, warrant consideration for corrective action. The staff may then, if appropriate, consider backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 for proposed plant improve ments.
Sincerely,
/s/
L. A. Wiens, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION UDocket File)
DMatthews CAder NRC/LOCAL PDRs LWiens JChen Oconee Reading LBerry PDII-3 Reading OGC GLainas ACRS (10)
L ye.,RHI RHernan OFC
- PD (
NAME
- LBERRYV
- LAWIENS
- DMTTHEWS DATE
- 6/1<'92
- 6/7 /92
- 6//92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: C:IPEEE.OCO
03 Mr. J. W. Hampton Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esquire Mr. M. E. Patrick Duke Power Company Compliance 422 South Church Street Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Washington, DC 20005 Project Branch #3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert B. Borsum 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Babcock & Wilcox Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Nuclear Power Division Suite 525 Ms. Karen E. Long 1700 Rockville Pike Assistant Attorney General Rockville, Maryland 20852 North Carolina Department of Justice Manager, LIS P. 0. Box 629 NUS Corporation Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Mr. R. L. Gill, Jr.
Licensing Senior Resident Inspector Duke Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 1007 Route 2, Box 610 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 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 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621