ML20003D815

Responds to NRC 810209 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-269/81-01,50-270/81-01 & 50-287/81-01.Parker 810202 Ltr Re IE Bulletin 80-11 Provides Necessary Response.No Proprietary Info

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: ML20003D815
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 e'

- t 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 were not surveyed because no mason y walls were found in an office search 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 o

a l OaL- wwu l ww .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 /

William O. Parker, Jr. // . g6 t 7/

D 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