ML20155F504
| ML20155F504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1998 |
| From: | Williams N AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F482 | List: |
| References | |
| LR, NUDOCS 9811060050 | |
| Download: ML20155F504 (4) | |
Text
_. , . . -
/Moa.7 .....
1 I
'4.JC'* l Cha%oga River Watershed Coalition l 1
R O. Box 2006 o Cl *n, GA 30525 ;
(706) 782 6097 o Fau (706) 782 6098 I crwc@ acme brain. corn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
BEFORE THE I ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l l
In the Matter of )
)
l DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION )
) Docket Nos. 50-269-LR Oconce Nuclear Station, ) 50-270-LR Unit Nos.1,2, and 3) ) 50-287-LR DECLARATION OF NORMAN (" BUZZ") WILLIAMS l
1 swear under the pains and penalty of perjury, and hereby affirm that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the following is tme and correct:
- 1. My name is Norman ("Buz") Williams.
- 2. I own propeny and reside at 190 Mountain Cove Road, Mountain Rest, South Carolina,29664. Said propeny is 20 miles from the Oconec Nuclear Station.
- 3. My family and I live, recreate and travel to areas within 20 miles of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1. 2 and 3. I also breathe the air, drink water and cat food produced within 20 miles of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. Our food sources, air and water would be adversely affected by normal and accidental releases of radioactive materials from the proposed extended operation of the Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. I believe that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, myself and all of my family members could suffer severe illness and/or die, and my safety, property rights and personal finances, and those of my family could be adversely affected by the NRC granting Duke Power's application for license reneuni of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 for 20 years, if the plant cannot be safely operated for the full 20 year term of the renewal. Based on my knowledge of the cunent re-licensing proceedings, I have a reasonable fear that the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1. 2 and 3 may not be safely operated for the full 20 year term of the rencual.
- 4. I am a member in good standing of the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition. Inc. (CRWC). I am also an employee and the Executive Director of the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, a non-profit, tax exempt entity recognized by the Internal Revenue Scnice, and incorporated in the state of Georgia, with an office located in the town of Clayton. The CRWC office lies within 30 miles of the Oconee Nuclear Station.
- 5. In July of 1994. the CRWC's Board of Directors hired me for the position of" Executive Director" of the organization, in which capacity I have sen cd to this date, and am projected to serve into the foreseeable future.
The CRWC's Bylaws, at Article Vll, name and desenbe the position of the organization's Executive Director by 9811060050 981030 ~
1 e ,
l l
- 6. reference to a specific job description. His current job description authorizes me, in my position of l
Executive Director, to serve as the organization's oflicial representative in matters concerning the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, and related responses to and contacts with the press, governmental I agencies, and the general public. In my role as Executive Director, I work to fulfill the organization's j mission and goals. l
- 7. In September 1998, the CRWC's Board of Directors voted unanimously, and in accordance with voting l procedures described m Articic VI, section 7 of the organization's B 1aws, 3 to engage the CRWC and inc as the organization's authorized representatise in the proceedings regarding Duke Power Company's application to renew the operating license of the Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. My actions in these proceedings falls within the scope of my responsibilities and job description as Executive Director of the CRWC.
l
- 8. %c CRWC's ' Bylaws state, at Article 111, the organization's mission: "To protect, promote and restore the !
natural ecological integnty of the Chattooga River watershed ecosystem; to ensure the viability of native j species in harmony with the need for a healthy human environment; and, to educate and empower i commumtics to practice good stewardship on public and private lands." He entire Chattooga River l watershed is within 40 miles of the Oconce Nuclear Station; indeed, parts of the watershed are 15 miles from the Oconce Nucicar Station. I believe, as the authorized representative of the CRWC and in accordance with the organization's Board of Directors, that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, myself and the other stafT members (both of whom own property and reside within 30 miles of the nuclear station) working for the CRWC may suffer severe illness and/or dic, and the ability of the CRWC to function would be destroyed.
Thus, I could not fulfill my responsibilities as the organization's Executive Director, the CRWC could not pursue its organizational mission, and CRWC would be unable to serve as an advocate for my and the j CRWC's interest a cleaner and healthier emironment.
- 9. The CRWC has six primary goals that are tied to the orga tization's mission statement, and u hich are named in the organization's Constitution. Two of these goals are specifically appliczble to these proceedings, and are: " Educate the public," and " Promote public choice based on credible scientific information." As the authonzed representative of the CRWC and in accordance with the organization's Board of Directors, I belicyc that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, m3 scif and the other staff members of the CRWC nmy suffer severe illness and/or dic, and the ability of the CRWC to function would be destroyed. Rus, I could not fulfill my responsibilitics as the organization's Executive Director, and the CRWC could not
" Educate the public " and " Promote public choice based on credible scientific information" in regards to the Oconee Nuclear Station re-licensing proceedings.
- 10. I believe that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1. 2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, the flora, fauna, air, and aquatic resources of the Chattooga River ecosystem would be inttrievably damaged and/or destroyed. Thus, an accident would adversely affect the quahty of my emironment, and my enjoyment of my natural surroundings.
I 1. I believe that significant issues remain unresolved to the public, the Nuclear Regulato., < nission (NRC), ard Duke Power Cor nany, in Duke's application to renew the operating license . Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. Thus, the application is inadequate to protect me and my family from the unacceptable risk of a radiological accident at the facility during the proposed renewal term. My concern is based on my knowledge that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has responded to Duke Power's application by requesting additional information concerning the structural integrity of the reactor vessel and containment buildings, and other entical components of the facility w hich are pivotal in detennining whcther the facility can be safely operated now, and through the extended renewal term for Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. In addition, to my knowledge there are other significant issues that are unresolved in Duke Powcr Company's application to renew the operating licerac for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. specifically: the effects of aging and embrittlement of the Oconce Nuclear Station's reactor vessels and contaimnent s essels; the status and capacity of the current storage facility for ,,,,
spent fuel and other radioactis e substances on the site of the Oconce Nuclear Station; the potential need to g . .,.
8 :
- 2. .,c.-
._.y._ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ . _._ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _. _ _ _ __ _ . _.__ _ _._ _ _ _ _s l
design and expand aforementioned storage facilitics to accommodate extended operation of Units I,2 and 3 of the Oconce Nuclear Station; transport of radioactive materials to other locations if and when storage capacity is exceeded; the real and potential availability and viability of other storage sites; specific safeguards to detect terrorist actions, and plans and measures to defend against terrorist attacks; and, the !
structuralintegrity of Units I,2 and 3 of the Oconce Nuclear Station to withstand tornadoes, and )
carthquakes of the magnitude possibic due to the nucicar station's proximity to the Brevard Fault. In i addition, I belicyc that the established timeline of these proceedings presents a totally inadequate window of opportunity for members of the CRWC and the public at large to gain an adequate understanding of, 3
expertisc on, and legal standing for the particular issues named above. Hus, I am concerned that i meaningful public pmticipation is not possible in the ongoing license renewal proceedings, because the !
public scoping meeting for the renewal application was held well after the deadlines for obtaining legal standing in the proceedings. In addition, the expedited timeline for intervenors (namely the CRWC and petitioners Williams, Clay and Lesan) in the proceeding to submit " contentions" is not adequate for said intervenors to become fully conversant with the huge volume of relevant documents. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear that the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 may nct be safely operated for the full 20 year term of the renewal.
- 12. I hereby authorize the CRWC to represent all of my interests pertaining to the Oconce Nuclear Station re-licensing matter. Should the CRWC not be granted standing to represent my interests, I hereby request permission to represent my own interests before the NRC, and participate in this proceeding in my individual capacity, Jc.-y Y 0 . 3 3 l99 f Norman (# Bun") Williams Dated Executive Director, Chattooga River Watershed Coalition T
1 g..c.
3
,AmA . a m ,J k ee.La m in ,g.a a.- 4 " ^ ^ ' " " "AA M^ 'M"WMA^^^H'M-" " " "'" ~ ~~ ~
'l D
- s, 4w y
<1,/%
g~ % .
i
\' _
,\ {
? bk i a
MAc41 h p p**c ,
Y OMMISSION .
was c , o.c. ansam
+
LICENSEE. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION n ,
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 FACILig
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ON LICENSE RENEWAL ACTIVITIES FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 On April 29,1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a public meeting with representatives of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) at Seneca, SC, to discuss Duke's responses to the November 14,1997. NRG staff reouest for additional information on the _
_Oconee reactor building license renewalliFvaluation.\ Attachment 1 contains the 8ist of meeting attendees. An overview of the purpose of the NRC site visit was provided by the NRC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the staffs RAl's on the Duke reactor building technical report and the Duke responses to the staffs RAl's. The goal was to clarify and gain a better understanding of the NRC RAl's and Duke responses to RAl's. It was not the intent to reach resolution of issues or RAI questions arfd no RAI question would be considered closed as a result of the meeting Each RAI was covered individually and classified as either:
Cateoorv A: "having enough information at this time for the NRC to continue its review," or Cateoorv B: *needing more information from the NRC to clarify the RAI or more information needed from Duke to clarify their RAI response in order for the staff to continue the review of the RAI respons'es."
Summaries of the discussions pertaining to each RAI question and actions to be taken by the NRC or Duke follow-
,. RAI #2.3-1) Category A RAI #2.3-2) Category A
- RAI #2.3-3) Category B. The NRC clarified ths RAI qaestion. More specifically.
Duke should address what detrimental effects water infiltration in the tendon gallery has on the tendon anchorage systern (e.g., tendon end caps, tendor.s, and bar,emat concrete). Duke agreed to consider this additional cf.etion.
- RAI #2.3-4) Category B. The NRC clarified the necessity fer providing explicit discussion of the containment evaluation boundary. Tho staff feh that welds between miscellaneous attachments (e.g., pipe supports) a nd the steel liner should be included within the evaluation boundary. The bot.ndary proposed by Duke was not consistent with the inspection requirements containpal in ASME
^_ Section XI Subsection IWE. Duke agreed to consider this additional clarification and possibly submit a revised response to the RAI question that clarified the scope of attachment welds inside containment.
4PDR 80604000-7-980526 6 P
ADOCK 05000269 /p PDR
l RAI #2 3-5) Category A RAI #2.3 6) Category A RAI #2 3-7) Category A RAI #3.3-1) Category B. Duke had asserted in their technical report and response to the staff RAl that concrete aging effects do not apply to Oconee containments. However. Duke had committed to implement the examination requirements of ASME Section XI. Subsection IWL The staff nonetheless disagreed that there are no aging affects and reiterated the position that ,
concrete components are subject to aging effects ana that aging management programs should be implemented. Duke agreed to consider this additional I clarification and submit a revised response to the RAI question. Duke also urged
]
the NRC to revise the draft Standard Review Plaa for License . Renewal :
(SRP-LR) to address inconsistencies when discussing aging effects and aging management programs for concrete containment stmotures and components. l The NRC stated that industry comments on the draft SRP-LR should be I submitted for NRC evaluation. Duke indicated their intention to submit I comments on the draft SRP-LR through a formal submission from the Nuclear i Energy Institute.
RAI #3.3-2) Category B.* The NRC noted that the Oconee coatings program
~
should be identified as an aging management program and IWE should also be specifically identified for managing corrosion of s' teel components. Duke agreed i
to either revise the RAI response or address this RAI when responding to the '
" Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) open item to credit the coatings program as part of the aging management program for these compor.ents.
RAI #3.3-3) Category B. The NRC clarified that the question pertained to why Duke was not crediting ASME Section XI excmination category E-B (a VT-1 inspection - visual) and Examination Category E-F (a VT-3 inspection - surface) forlicense renewal. NUREG 1611 states that both examination categories 6 should be performed for license renewal to demonstrate that no stress corrosion g a etacking has been initiated. Duke stated that Examination category E-A was being performed in lieu of E-B and E-F however they noted that their submittat from March predated the publication of NUREG 1611. Duke agreed to consider this additional clarification and the information contained in NUREG 1611 and possibly submit a revised response to the RAI questien.
l RAI #3.3-4) Category A l RAI #3.3-5) Category B. The NRC stated that the examination of inaccessible areas should be explicitly discussed consistent with the guidance in the draft SRP-LR The NRC also stated that there is a need to address the issue of corrosion ofinaccessible areas when conditions in accessible areas may not indicate the presence of degradation of inaccessible areas. The N3Cinoted that a x-2 1
4 NUREG 1811 addresses aging affects for inaccessible areas and the associated evaluations. Duke stated that additional discussion of this issue will be included in their revised response to RAI question 3.3-1.
RAI #3.3-6) Category A.
,, RAI #3.3-7) Category A.
RAI #3.3-8) Category A.
RAI #3.3-g) Category B. The staff stated that the Duke RAI response does not address the degradation of mechanicalitems such as hinge assemblies and door locking mechanisms and that some discussion should be provided to include
. proposed aging management programs, in addition to vibration, mechanical wear can be caused by repeated use. The NRC noted that Oconee LER 2879302, reviewed dudng the site visit, had documented dagradation of the lock at the airlock sealing mechanism. NUREG-1611 indicates that there are ASME m Section XI Examination categories that address these aging effects, ie.
Examination Categories E-D, E-G, and E-P. Duke agreed to consider this additional clarification and possibly submit a revised response to the RAI question.
+
RAI #3.3-10) Category l3. The NRC stated that, additional discussion pertaining to operating experience associated with joint sealants should be provided. This may include LER's, leak rate testing results, etc. The NRC noted an occurrence of liner plate corrosion in the vicinity of the liner plate - basemat interface where a seal had failed. Duke stated tnat this paiticular incidence had occurred after submittal of the technical report and RAI response and agreed to include a discussion of this issue in a revised RAl response or as a response to a DSER open item.
RAI #3.3-11) Category A.
i -
RAl #3.3-12) Category A.
1 a RAI #3.3-13) Category A.
RAI #3.3-14) Category B. 'The staff clarified a concem over the source and rate of grease leakage through the containment structure concrete and questions regarding the affect of the grease on the concmte integrity.' This includes the affects of the grease leakage from the tendon sheaths and the sign 5cance of this leakage over time. The staff acknowledged that an NRC NUREG/CR report ;
will provide additional research information in the near future, but Duke should submit additional justification for their basis why grease leakage is not significant.
In addition, the staff requested Duke to submit a 1971 manufactures letter i pertaining to grease leakage. Duke agreed to submit this letter.
l 3
l l 1
_ __.___.__.______..m ._
. W CN NY 7&~93 100T36~Wo~UGG P . 02 / 05 BRS Printout from the NRC Public Documant Room 11:22 AM TUE., 27 OCT., 1998 RUSSELL 224 10220/2828#217 ACN: 9809010381 DATE: 986827 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUT/*OITTGOING CORRESPONDENCE EST_PAGES: 6 l L1: FORWARDS RAI RE LICENSEE RESPONSES TO GL 97-01 ' DEGRADATION L2: OF CRDM-CEDM NOZZLE & OTHER VESSEL CLCSURE HEAD l L3: PENETRATIONS.' REQUEST RE B&WOG INTEGRATED PROGRAM FOR l L4: ASSESSING VHP NOZZLES AT B&WOG MEMBER PLANTS.
KEY: ASSESSMENTS, CLOSURES, DEGRADATION, MEMBERSHIP, NOZZLES, l PENETRATION, PRESSURE VESSELS, PROGRAMS, l
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION j i FICHE: A4903:072-A4903:077 '
PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980827 DKT: 50269P/80CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE PONER CO.,
50287P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO.
RPT: GL-97-1, TAC-M98579, TAC-M98580, TAC-M98581 RN#1: MCCOLLUM N R AN#1: LABARGE D E RA#1: . EUTDPC/SDUKE POWER CO.
l REFAFFIL: TOP-EMVBW/eBABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
N*******/?
AA#1:
I PACKAGE: 980827-9809010381
- 980909, 980914 CIT _ UPDATE
10220/6000#218 ACN: 9809220283 DATE: 980916 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INC/* INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE EST PAGES:
~
4 L1: FORWARDS ADDL INFO REQUESTED IN 980716 NRC LTR RE 980506 L2: REQUEST TO USE ALTERNATIVE TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASME B&PV i L3: FOR EXAM REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-TENSIONING SYS OF CONCRETE j L4 : CONTAINMENTS.
KEY: ALTERNATIVES, CONCRETES, CONTAINMENT, EXAMINATIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REQUIREMENTS, STRESSES i FICHE: AS262:232-A52G2:235 l PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980916 DKT: 50269P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO., ,
50270P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE POWER CO., '
50287P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO.
RPT: TAC-MA1766, TAC-MA1767, TAC-MA1768 AN#1: MCCOLLUM W R RA41: NIRCTQ/eRECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK)
.AA#1: EUTDPC/9 DUKE POWER CO.
PACKAGE: 980916-9809220283 CIT __ UPDATE: 980923, 980924, 980925, 981008 l
i i
BKS Printout from the,NRC Public Docum:nt Room 11:22 AM TUE., 27 OCT., 1998 ROSSELL 224 10220/634 *3 H 219 ACN: 9809240021 DATE: 980917 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INC/* INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE EST PAGES: 6 L1:- RESPONDS TO NRC 980811 RAI RE HOW UTIL RESPONSE TO GL 97-04 L2: RELATED TO REACTOR BLDG OVERPRESSURE COMPARES TO CURRENT L3: LICENSIAC BASIS.
KEY: CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS, LICENSING, OVERPRESSURIZATION, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FICHE: A5273:053-A5273:058 PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980917 DKT: 50269P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE POWER CO.,
50287P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO. .
RPT: GL-97-4, TAC-MA17, TAC-MA18, TAC-MA19 l AN#1: MCCOLLUM W R l RA#1: NIRCTQ/eRECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK)
AA#1: EUTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
PACKAGE: 980917-9809240021 CIT _ UPDATE: 980925, 980929, 981014 10220/7516#220 ACN: 9809290260 DATE: 980921 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INC/*1NCOMING CORRESPONDENCE EST_PAGES: 22 L1: FVRWARCS NON-PROPRIETARY & PROPRIETARY VERSIONS OF RESPONSE L2: TO 980701 RAI ON APP D TO TOPICAL REPT DPC-NE-2005P ' DUKE L3: POWER CO THERMAL-HYDRAULIC STATISTICAL CORE DESIGN L4: METHODOLOGY.*
KEY: APPENDIX D, CORES, DATA ANALYSIS, DESIGN, HEAT, HYDRAULICS, METHODOLOGIES, POWER, PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 'ICPICAL REPORTS FICHE: A5281:300-A5281:321 PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980921 DKT: 50269P/#CCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270P/#OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DOKE POWER CO.,
50287P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO.
AN#1: TUCKMAN M S RA#1: NIRCIQ/# RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK)
REPAFFIL: 'IVP-EUTDPC/eDUKE PCMER CO.
AA#1: EUTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
PACKAGE: 980921-9809290260*
OTHER: 9809290260 CIT _ UPDATE: 981002, 981005, 981014
. MnMM TET_'WFPMQF~3333 Oct 7TVJ DTITI Wo .ON P .04/of BRS Printout from the NRC Public Document Room 11:32 AM TDE., 27 OCT., 1998 RUSSELL 224 10220/6924#221 ACN 9809250278 DATE: 980923 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUT/*OUTOOING CORRESPONDENCE EST_,PAGES: 5 L1: FORWARDS RAI RB 971028 APPLICATION FOR AMEND THAT PROPOSED L2: CONVERSION OF PLANT UNITS 1 2 & 3 TSS TO IMPROVED STD TSS.
L3: ADDL INFO RE LOO SECTIONS 3.8.3 & 3.8.4. REQUESTS TO BE L4: CONTACTED IF RESPONSE CANNOT BE SUBMITTED BY 981016.
KEY: AMENDMENTS, INPORMATION, LCO, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAT STS, TECHNICAL SPECIPICATIONS FICHE: A5201:049-A5201:053 PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980923 DKT: 50269P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270P/WOCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE POWER CO.,
50287P/WOCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO.
RPT: TAC-M99912, TAC-M99913, TAC-M99914 RN#1: MCCOLLUM W'R AN#1: LABARGE D E RA#1: EUTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
AA#1: N*******/?
PACKAGE: 980923-9809250278 CIT _, UPDATE: 980929, 981002 10221/492#222 ACN: 9810060154 DATE: 980930 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INC/* INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE EST_PAGES: 6 L1: PROVIDES RESPONSE TO NRC 960323 RAI CONCERNING REAC'IOR L2: PRESSURE VESSEL BELTLINE REGION CROSS SECTIONAL DEVELOPED L3: INNER-SURFACE AREAS OF PLATE & WELDS FOR OCONEE UNIT 1.
KEY: NUCLEAR REACTORS, PLATES, PRESSURE VESSELS, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SURFACES, WELDING i PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-980930 DKT: 50,269P/#0CONEB NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT :., DUKE POWER CO.
RTR: REGGD-1.154 AN#1: MCCOLLUM W R RA#1: NIRCTQ/8 RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK)
AA#1: EDTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
PACKAGE: 980930-9810060154 CIT _ UPDATE: 981014 10221/1566#223 ACN: 9810090413 DATE: 981007 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUT/*OUMOING CORRESPONDENCE EST_PAGES: 4 L1: FORWARDS RAI RE LICENSEE RESPONSE TO GL 96-06 ' ASSURANCE OF L2: EQUIPMENT OPERABILITY & CONTAINMBNT INTEGRITY DURING DESIGN L3: BASIS ACCIDENT CONDITIONS
- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 981231.
KEY: DESIGN CRITERIA, INFORMATION, PTPES, VALVES I
'W 6 N 1N 43RA O30(d P.05/05 1 BRS Printout from the NRC Public Document Room 11:22 AM TUE., 27 OCT., 1998 RUSSEI4 224 FICHE: AS360:358-A5360:361 PFL: ADOCK-5000269-P-981007 DKT: 50269P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE POWER CO.,
50287P/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO.
RI'r: GL-96-6, TAC-M96840, TAC-M96841, TAC-M96842 RN#1: MCCOLLUM W R AN#1: LABARGE D E RA#1: EUTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
AA#1: N*******/7 PACKAGE: 981007-9810090413 CIT _ UPDATE: 981014, 981019 10221/2005#224 ACN: 9810190126 DATE: 981014 DTC: CL/* CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUT/*0tTIU3ING CORRESPONDENCE 1
.EST PAGES: 4 Lir~ FORWARDS RAI RE UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION RELATED TO L2: PLANNED FUNCTIONAL TESTS OF KEOWEE EMERGENCY POWER I
L3 ENGINEERED SAFEGUARDS SYS. RESPONSE 'IO ENCL QUESTIONS L4: REQUESTED BY 981019. ;
KEY: EMERGENCIES, ENGINEERS, FUNCTIONAL TESTING, INFORMATION, POWER '
QUESTIONS, SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY l PFL: ADOCK-5000269-F-981014 DKT: 50269F/#OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, DUKE POWER CO.,
50270F/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, DUKE POWER CO.,
50287F/#0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, DUKE POWER CO. I RPT: TAC-MA3595, TAC-MA3596, TAC-MA3597 RN#1: MCOOLLUM W R AN#1: LABNtGE D E RA51: EUTDPC/eDUKE POWER CO.
AA#1: N*******/?
PACKACE: 981014-9810190126 CIT _ UPDATE: 981020, 981021 w - _, - , - --