IR 05000269/2006015: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams|number = ML062160096}} | {{Adams | ||
| number = ML062160096 | |||
| issue date = 07/31/2006 | |||
| title = Final Significance Determination for Greater than Green Finding and Notice of Violation; IR 05000269-06-015, 05000270-06-015, and 05000287-06-015 | |||
| author name = Travers W D | |||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/ORA | |||
| addressee name = Hamilton B H | |||
| addressee affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Power Co | |||
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287 | |||
| license number = DPR-038, DPR-047, DPR-055 | |||
| contact person = | |||
| case reference number = EA-06-080 | |||
| document report number = IR-06-015 | |||
| document type = Letter, Notice of Violation | |||
| page count = 5 | |||
}} | |||
{{IR-Nav| site = 05000269 | year = 2006 | report number = 015 }} | {{IR-Nav| site = 05000269 | year = 2006 | report number = 015 }} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 23: | ||
ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672 | ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672 | ||
SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A GREATER THAN GREEN FINDING AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000269/2006015, 05000270/2006015 AND 05000287/2006015) | SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A GREATER THAN GREEN FINDING AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000269/2006015, 05000270/2006015 AND | ||
05000287/2006015) | |||
==Dear Mr. Hamilton:== | ==Dear Mr. Hamilton:== | ||
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)final significance determination for a finding involving a security related matter. The finding was identified during an NRC inspection completed on February 20, 2006, and documented in NRCSpecial Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270, 287/2006010, issued on May 3, 2006. The finding was preliminarily assessed as an issue that had the potential for greater than very lowsecurity significance (i.e., greater than Green as determined by the Physical Protection Significance Determination Process). The cover letter to the inspection report informed Duke of the NRC's preliminary conclusion and provided Duke an opportunity to request a regulatoryconference on this matter. In lieu of a regulatory conference, Duke provided a written response dated June 30, 2006. In its written response, Duke advised that it disagreed with the NRC's preliminary significancedetermination. Duke did not contest the NRC's determination that the finding represented violations of regulatory requirements. After considering the information developed during the inspection and the information providedin Duke's response of June 30, 2006, the NRC has concluded that the final inspection finding is DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke2DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)final significance determination for a finding involving a security related matter. The finding was identified during an NRC inspection completed on February 20, 2006, and documented in NRCSpecial Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270, 287/2006010, issued on May 3, 2006. The finding was preliminarily assessed as an issue that had the potential for greater than very lowsecurity significance (i.e., greater than Green as determined by the Physical Protection Significance Determination Process). The cover letter to the inspection report informed Duke of the NRC's preliminary conclusion and provided Duke an opportunity to request a regulatoryconference on this matter. In lieu of a regulatory conference, Duke provided a written response dated June 30, 2006. In its written response, Duke advised that it disagreed with the NRC's preliminary significancedetermination. Duke did not contest the NRC's determination that the finding represented violations of regulatory requirements. After considering the information developed during the inspection and the information providedin Duke's response of June 30, 2006, the NRC has concluded that the final inspection finding is DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke2DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | ||
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONappropriately characterized as greater than very low security significance in the PhysicalProtection cornerstone. Enclosure 2 to this letter provides the basis for the NRC's conclusionson this matter. The findings were promptly corrected or compensated for, and the plant was in compliance withapplicable physical protection and security requirements within the scope of this inspection before the inspectors left the site. The findings were licensee identified.You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff's determination ofsignificance for the identified finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only if theymeet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.The NRC has also determined that the finding represented two violations of regulatoryrequirements, as cited in the attached Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270,287/2006010. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice of Violation isconsidered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a greater than Green finding.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, todetermine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report, No. 05000269, 270, 287/2006015, and the above violations are identified as VIO 05000269, 270,287/2006015-01 and -02. Accordingly, Apparent Violations AV 05000269, 270, 287/2006010-01 and -02 are closed.Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory responseband, we will use the NRC Action Matrix, to determine the most appropriate NRC response forthis event. We will notify you, by separate correspondence, of that determination. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will beavailable electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system, ADAMS. ADAMSis accessible from the NRC Website at http://www/nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams.html (the PublicElectronic Reading Room). However, because of the security related concerns contained in the DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke3DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONappropriately characterized as greater than very low security significance in the PhysicalProtection cornerstone. Enclosure 2 to this letter provides the basis for the NRC's conclusionson this matter. The findings were promptly corrected or compensated for, and the plant was in compliance withapplicable physical protection and security requirements within the scope of this inspection before the inspectors left the site. The findings were licensee identified.You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff's determination ofsignificance for the identified finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only if theymeet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.The NRC has also determined that the finding represented two violations of regulatoryrequirements, as cited in the attached Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270,287/2006010. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice of Violation isconsidered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a greater than Green finding.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, todetermine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report, No. | ||
05000269, 270, 287/2006015, and the above violations are identified as VIO 05000269, 270,287/2006015-01 and -02. Accordingly, Apparent Violations AV 05000269, 270, 287/2006010-01 and -02 are closed.Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory responseband, we will use the NRC Action Matrix, to determine the most appropriate NRC response forthis event. We will notify you, by separate correspondence, of that determination. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will beavailable electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system, ADAMS. ADAMSis accessible from the NRC Website at http://www/nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams.html (the PublicElectronic Reading Room). However, because of the security related concerns contained in the DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke3DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | |||
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONenclosures, and in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, a copy of this letter's enclosures will not beavailable for public inspection.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(b)(1)(ii), the NRC is waiving the affidavit requirements foryour response, if any. This practice will ensure that your response will not be made availableelectronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system, ADAMS. If Safeguards Information is necessary to provide an acceptableresponse, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Brian R. Bonser, Chief,Plant Support Branch 2, Division of Reactor Safety, at (404) 562-4653. | UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONenclosures, and in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, a copy of this letter's enclosures will not beavailable for public inspection.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(b)(1)(ii), the NRC is waiving the affidavit requirements foryour response, if any. This practice will ensure that your response will not be made availableelectronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system, ADAMS. If Safeguards Information is necessary to provide an acceptableresponse, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Brian R. Bonser, Chief,Plant Support Branch 2, Division of Reactor Safety, at (404) 562-4653. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 44: | ||
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201County Supervisor of Oconee County 415 S. Pine Street Walhalla, SC 29691-2145(cc w/o encls cont'd - See page 5) | S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201County Supervisor of Oconee County 415 S. Pine Street Walhalla, SC 29691-2145(cc w/o encls cont'd - See page 5) | ||
DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke5DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke5DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS . | ||
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION(cc w/o encls cont'd)Lyle Graber, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, FL 34619-1035R. L. Gill, Jr., | UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION(cc w/o encls cont'd)Lyle Graber, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, FL 34619-1035R. L. Gill, Jr., M anagerNuclear Regulatory Issues and Industry Affairs Duke Energy Corporation 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28201-0006Peggy ForceAssistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice | ||
P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602Charles BrinkmanDirector, Washington Operations Westinghouse Electric Company 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 18:36, 26 October 2018
| ML062160096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2006 |
| From: | Travers W D Region 2 Administrator |
| To: | Hamilton B H Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Power Co |
| References | |
| EA-06-080 IR-06-015 | |
| Download: ML062160096 (5) | |
Text
DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS .
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION July 31, 2006EA-06-080Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)
ATTN:Mr. B. H. HamiltonSite Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672
SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A GREATER THAN GREEN FINDING AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000269/2006015, 05000270/2006015 AND
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)final significance determination for a finding involving a security related matter. The finding was identified during an NRC inspection completed on February 20, 2006, and documented in NRCSpecial Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270, 287/2006010, issued on May 3, 2006. The finding was preliminarily assessed as an issue that had the potential for greater than very lowsecurity significance (i.e., greater than Green as determined by the Physical Protection Significance Determination Process). The cover letter to the inspection report informed Duke of the NRC's preliminary conclusion and provided Duke an opportunity to request a regulatoryconference on this matter. In lieu of a regulatory conference, Duke provided a written response dated June 30, 2006. In its written response, Duke advised that it disagreed with the NRC's preliminary significancedetermination. Duke did not contest the NRC's determination that the finding represented violations of regulatory requirements. After considering the information developed during the inspection and the information providedin Duke's response of June 30, 2006, the NRC has concluded that the final inspection finding is DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke2DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS .
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONappropriately characterized as greater than very low security significance in the PhysicalProtection cornerstone. Enclosure 2 to this letter provides the basis for the NRC's conclusionson this matter. The findings were promptly corrected or compensated for, and the plant was in compliance withapplicable physical protection and security requirements within the scope of this inspection before the inspectors left the site. The findings were licensee identified.You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff's determination ofsignificance for the identified finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only if theymeet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.The NRC has also determined that the finding represented two violations of regulatoryrequirements, as cited in the attached Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000269, 270,287/2006010. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice of Violation isconsidered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a greater than Green finding.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, todetermine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report, No.
05000269, 270, 287/2006015, and the above violations are identified as VIO 05000269, 270,287/2006015-01 and -02. Accordingly, Apparent Violations AV 05000269, 270, 287/2006010-01 and -02 are closed.Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory responseband, we will use the NRC Action Matrix, to determine the most appropriate NRC response forthis event. We will notify you, by separate correspondence, of that determination. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will beavailable electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system, ADAMS. ADAMSis accessible from the NRC Website at http://www/nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams.html (the PublicElectronic Reading Room). However, because of the security related concerns contained in the DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke3DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS .
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONenclosures, and in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, a copy of this letter's enclosures will not beavailable for public inspection.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(b)(1)(ii), the NRC is waiving the affidavit requirements foryour response, if any. This practice will ensure that your response will not be made availableelectronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system, ADAMS. If Safeguards Information is necessary to provide an acceptableresponse, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Brian R. Bonser, Chief,Plant Support Branch 2, Division of Reactor Safety, at (404) 562-4653.
Sincerely,/RA: Loren Plisco for/William D. Travers Regional AdministratorDocket Nos.:50-269, 50-270, 50-287License Nos.:DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation (Safeguards Information)2. NRC Evaluation (Safeguards Information)cc w/encls:B. G. Davenport Compliance Manager (ONS)
Duke Energy Corporation ON03RC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672cc w/o encls: (See page 4)
DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke4DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS .
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATIONcc w/o encls:Lisa Vaughn Associate General Counsel Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street-EC07H Charlotte, NC 28202Timika Shafeek-HortonAssistant General Counsel Duke Energy Corporation 526 SOuth Church Street-EC07H Charlotte, NC 28202David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20005Beverly Hall, Acting DirectorDivision of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environmental Health & Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609-7721Henry J. Porter, Assistant DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201County Supervisor of Oconee County 415 S. Pine Street Walhalla, SC 29691-2145(cc w/o encls cont'd - See page 5)
DOCUMENT CONTAINS Duke5DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURES CONTAINS .
UPON REMOVAL, THIS LETTER IS SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION(cc w/o encls cont'd)Lyle Graber, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, FL 34619-1035R. L. Gill, Jr., M anagerNuclear Regulatory Issues and Industry Affairs Duke Energy Corporation 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28201-0006Peggy ForceAssistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602Charles BrinkmanDirector, Washington Operations Westinghouse Electric Company 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852