ML20003D815
| ML20003D815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1981 |
| From: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D812 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8104010053 | |
| Download: ML20003D815 (1) | |
Text
-
b 6
DUKE POWER COMPANY
[
Powrn Buxx.orno 4aa Souru Cnunca Srnzer, CnAarortz,N. C. asaos C, <
I w
A C. THits P. O. Box 2178 semion vice Passicant paoouctio= a o Ta====ission March 6, 1981 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re:
RII:JJL 50-269/81-01 50-270/81-01 50-287/81-01
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
With regard to C. E. Murphy's letter dated February 9, 1981 which transmitted the subject inspection report, Duke Power considers that a letter concerning I.E.Bulletin 80-11 submi;ted to your office on February 2, 1981 by William O. Parker, Jr., Vice President, provides the necessary response.
Please find attached a copy of the letter for your convenience.
Duke Power Company does not consider the information contained therein to be proprietary.
I declare under penalty of perjury that toe statements set fo'th herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Very truly yours, A. C. Thies ACT:pw Attachment 8104010053 1
9 A
\\
. 6 t
e' e
Dt;xn PowEle CoxPANY l'owru lh:iunxo 4ud SO1?TH CHURCH ST H E UT. C H A H tm r E. S C. UUU.C vv i b i f A u O
- A R M E R, J R.
4-c r Pat 5 0C,
'g,ga r &
a *-
s.t.
-co c,.o-February 2, 1981 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re:
Oconee Nuclear Station U. S. NRC IE Sulletin'80-11 Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, -287
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
This 1ctter supplements my letters of July, October 28, and November 4, 1980 which previously provided information in response to IE Eulletin 30-11.
During a site visit to Oconee Nuclear Station by Mr. Joe Lenihan of US: RC Atlanta office on 6-9 January 1981, it was determined that several masenr.
wallr, at the station had not been surveyed in the conduct of initial as-built surveillance required by the subj ect bulletin.
Review of the events leading up to the initial survefl. lance revealed that nine areas in the plant surveyed because no mason y walls were found in an office search were not of drawings showing these areas.
Subsequent review of these drawint;s showed the existence of five masonry walls which had not been surveyed.
An exhaustive search of the nine areas concerned was conducted by traine engineers during the period 13-16 January 1981.
No masonry walls other than the five which are shown on the as-built plant drawings were found The additic,ral walls are:
Drawing Wall Identification
- Priori:v**
0-13 T1-775.0-2526-HJ-ll65 III T1-775.0-HJ-2526-1166 III T1-775.0-2526-HJ-1167 III T1-775.0-HJ-2526-1168 III 0-2018 A3-783.8-PQ-8889-1463 I
Wall identification is as defined in Duke's 60-day response to the bulletin.
(William C. Parker letter dated July 7, 1980)
- The priority system is defined in Duke's 60-day response to the bulletin.
(William O. Parker letter dated July 7, 1980) bJj3 A oa l Oa w l ww L-w u
.i I
N 4
Mr. James P.
O'Reilly Page 2 February 2, 1981 The five aaditional valls were surveyed in acccrdance with established pro-cedures and will be included in the review of all nasenry walls at Oconee Nuclear Station.
Very truly yours,
/
/
l jym
( / G&ts L&s
. g6 D
/
//
William O.
Parker, Jr.
7/
t RLG:pu cc:
Director Division of Reactor Operations Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.
- 5. Nuclea r Regula tory Co;=ission W;ishington, D.
C.
20555 I
i e