ML19312C078

Ack Receipt of 730320 Ltr Informing AEC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-269/73-02

ML19312C078
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/11/1973
From:	Thies A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Mosely N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19312C077	List: ML19312C078 ML19312C079
References
NUDOCS 7912030372
Download: ML19312C078 (2)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_,-A _ - . _ . . .

O. '

( TIKE Powsn COMPANY k I Powrn amaneo -

4ea sotrrn caumen srazzr, cuAnwrrz,R c.assos A. C THits P.o. Box 217e emaioe vece passiormt PROT #UCTf00s AseD Teamstatsasca.

April 11, 1973 .

Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region II - Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: Oconee Unit 1 .

RO:ll:RN .

50-269/73-2

Dear Mr. Moseley:

In reply to your letter of March 20, 1973 and pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, please be advised as follows:

Section 3.4 of Duke Power Company's " Administrative Policy Manual for Operational Quality Assurance of Nuclear Stations," as issued on December 15, 1972, provided written instructions as to the procedure to be followed for making station modifications. At this time, however, Section 3.4 was not in full compliance with Criterion III of Appendix B to 10CFR50 in that it did not specifically require that "... Design I changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design and be  ;

approved by the organization that performed the original design unless i the applicant designates another responsible organization." l This discrepancy in Section 3.4 of the " Administrative Policy Manual for I Operational Quality Assurance of Nuclear Stations" was discussed with Mr.

R. F. Warnick, AEC/RO/II, and a revision to Section 3.4 of the manual ,

was agreed upon. These changes to Section 3.4 were included as a part ,

of Revision 1 to the manual which wt.s issued on February 16, 1973.

• It is felt that as of this date, February 16, 1973, Oconee Nuclear Station was in full and complete compliance with the requirements of Criteria III and V of Appendix B to 10CFR50 as cited in your letter dated March 20, 1973. Furthermore, Oconee Nuclear Station Meinistrative Procedure 10 was issued on February 24, 1973 with regard to station. modifications.

This document further clarified the specific requirements involved in I requesting and making a station modification.  ;

! \

.T 9 1 2 0 3 0 N 2

e

• %. f

- i Mr. Norman C. Moseley Page 2 April 11, 1973 Prior to and after February 16, 1973, the mechanism for initiating station modifications was the Station Problem Report. Any design change resulting from a Station Problem Report was subject to the same design control .

measures applied to the original design. ,

We are confident, therefore, that the "Ad=4nintrative Policy Manual for Operational Quality Assurance f Nuclear Stations" complies with the requirements of Criteria III and V of Appendix B to 10CFR50, as cited above.

Very truly yours, A. C. Thies ._- _ _ . _ _

ACT:vr O

e 0

• + =e m .m- ,,

U

• * * * ' * * * * * * - = * --% ,e .. , , ,,,,

4 4

_ . . . . _.