ML20083B111

Responds to NRC 830825,0923 & 1104 Ltrs Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-305/83-11.Corrective Actions:Changes to Measure Performance of Equipment on Statistical Basis Being Considered.Details Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21)

ML20083B111
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	12/09/1983
From:	Giesler C WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORP.
To:	Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20083B099	List: ML20083B111
References
CON-NRC-83-222 NUDOCS 8312200526
Download: ML20083B111 (2)

Text

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

. NRC-83-222 WISCONSIN PUBLIC . SERVICE CORPORATION P.O. Box 1200, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305 December 9, 1983 Mr. J. A. Hind, Director Division of Radiological and Materials Safety Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Gentlemen:

Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Inspection Report 50-305/83-11

References:

1. Letter from W. L. Axelson, (US NRC) to C. W. Giesler (WPSC) dated August 25, 1983.

l 2. Letter from C. W. Giesler (WPSC) to W. L. Axelson (US NRC) i dated September 23, 1983

3. Letter from J. A. Hind (US NRC) to C. W. Giesler (WPSC) dated November 4, 1983 This letter provides the response you requested in reference 3 concerning the non-compliance originally cited in Inspection Report 50-305/83-11 (reference 1).

You noted in reference 3 that you felt our response of September 23, 1983 was inadequate. We would like to note that this response was generated based on a bona-fide misunderstanding between our staffs regarding the specifics of the citation. As such, we agree with you that the meeting of October 7 was useful to clarify our respective opinions: in fact, based on that meeting we feel that we are in agreement on the substantive issue of the general basis for a non-compliance. For future reference, we feel that it would be useful to document that basis here:

As you recall, our specific item of concern was the apparent issuance of a non-compliance based solely on the failure of a given piece of equipment to pass an opcrsbility test. Our position is that to the extent that such a failure is beyond the licensee's control, this is not a non-compliance. Of Enclosure Contains

' AFEGUARDS INFOR!AATION y 8312200526 831216 DEC141983 PDR ADOCK 05000305 pon Separation This o PDR roge is Decontrolled

o .. .

Mr. J. A. Hind December 9,.1983 Page 2 course, it is expected that the licensee institute a surveillance and

maintenance program that provides a reasonable assurance that the equipment remains operable. Guidance on appropriate surveillance and maintenance prac-tices is usually provided by the equipment vendor.

If the equipment failure is due to an inherent defect in the licensee's sur--

veillance or maintenance program, or in the equipment itself, it should only be a non-compliance if the licensee could have reasonably been expected to be aware of the. problem. We feel'that'it is an obligation of all parties

-involved to clearly commun_icate concerns (and generic findings from other

. installations) so that licensees can be reasonably expected to be aware of those concerns. We feel that this may have been a contributing factor to the misunderstanding'in this case.- Additionally, we feel that this case is further complicated by the fact that the measurement of the performance of the equipment of concern is generally accepted to be done on a statistical, rather than deterministic, basis. We feel this factor warrants further review on both our parts; we are considering changes to our plan to reflect this.

Finally, we agree that effective consnunication on these and all matters is

'important to the nature of our business. As'such, we intend to continue our practice of providing corporate representation at-security (and all other) exit interviews whenever possible.

The attachment to this letter discusses in detail each of the items of concern noted in reference 3. The areas discussed in the attachment concern a subject' matter which is exempt from disclosure according to Section 73.21(c)(2) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 73, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

'This information must be handled and protected in accordance.with the provi-

-sions of 10 CFR 73.21. Consequently, the attachment to this letter must not

,be placed in the public document room.

Very truly yours,-.

_ [g C. W..Giesler Vice President - Nuclear Power CAS/js Attach.

cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC, w/o attach.

Mr.-Richard DeYoung, US NRC Mr. S. A. Varga, US NRC

't

-