IR 05000269/1973012
| ML19322A860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Murphy C, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A853 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-73-12, NUDOCS 7911270620 | |
| Download: ML19322A860 (15) | |
Text
_
-. -...
.-.
.
f%*A UNITED STATES
.
,sf i
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l!~G l
.
N*
c,',/**"p [
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATCRY OPEPATICIIS
-
REGeoM ll * $UIT E RIO
'
e
'
2M PE ACHT AEE ST RE C T, NOAT HwCL'
.
,
' 4 G4 92 49C3 A T L. A N ' A G C o RG I A 30303 J
R0 Inspection Report !!o. 50-269/73-12
.
.
Licensee: Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte,llorth Carolina 28201 Facility:
Ocenee Unit 1 Docket llo.: 50-269 License:
DPR-38 Category :
E2 Location: Seneca, South Carolina
.
Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 P.a (t)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
-
Dates of Inspection: October 22-26, 1973
.
.
Dates of Previous Inspection: Au3us t 29, 19 73 and September 17-21, 1973
!
Principal Ins ~pector: F. Jape, Reactor Inspector
,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Other Accompanying Personnel:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch A. F. Gibson, Radiation Specialist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch G. R. Jenkins, Radiation Specialist Radiclogical and Environmental Protection Branch Principal Inspector:
4a tt b C
/ddl9Y
<< PL -
F. Jape, Reactor Inspectdr Date Facilities est and,Startup Branch Reviewed by:
< 't /
/
//
?J C. E. !!urphy, @ic)VA /
'Ddte Facilities Test and Starfup Branch V
$911270 $
-
. _...
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12-2-
.
.
.
~
.
h SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations
'1.
The following violations are considered to be Category II severity:
a.
Control Rod Uithdrawal Limits During the rise in power on October 5, 1973, the contr91 rods were operated outside of the withdrawal limits specified by Technical Specification 3.5.2.5.
Failure to maintain the control rods within allowable positions is a violation of technical specifications.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
This event was reported to RO:II on October 5,1973, and an Abnormal Occurrence report No. A0-269/73-6 dated October 16, 1973, has been issued by Duke Power Company (DPC).
b.
Core Flood Tcak Discharge Valve Motor Ocerator Breakers The motor operator breakers for the core flood isolation valves, CF-1 and CF-2, were locked closed at a time when Technical Specification 3.3.3(c) required them to be locked open. Failure to properly position the breakers is a violation to technical specifications.
(Details I,
-
paragraph 3)
This event was reported to RO:II on October 7,1973, and DPC has issued an Abnor=al Occurrence Report No.
A0-269/73-7, dated October 17, 1973.
c.
Borsted Water Storage Tank Water Samole The minimum sampling frequency of the Borated Water -
Storage Tank (BWST) for boron concentration analysis is prescribed in Technical Specification 4.1.2.. During the period of July 15-21, 1973, there is no record of sampling. This is a violation of technical specification.
This violation was discovered by the station QA group during an audit to verify that the technical specifications on chemistry sampling were being met.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
.
s
. _ _ -
_. _. -
. - - _
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12-3-
-
.
.
JLsi B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations Audit of Operations (R0 Report No. 50-269/73-7)
DPC's response, dated September 7,1973, was verified-by the inspector. There are no qrestions or comments on this item at this time.
(Details I, paragraphs 5 and 6, and Details II, paragraphs 2 and 3)
B.
Safety Items None III. New Unresolved Items
.
73-12/1 Calibration of Effluent Monitors Calibration of process radiation monitors for radioactive liquid and gaseous waste effluents do not appear to be in agreement with sample results.
(Details III, paragraph 2)
IV.
Status of Freviously Recorted Unresolved Icems
.
73-10/1 Operability of RC-4 The licensee has provided TP-230/10A, " Test of Power Relief Block Valve," to determine the operability of RC-4.
The test has been conducted and the results accepted by DPC.
The test results have been reviewed by the inspector and there were no questions. This previously identified unre-solved item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 7)
73-9/1 R0B 73-3, " Defective Hydraulic Shock Suporessors and Restraints" Evaluation of the licensee's response, dated August 31, 1973, is continuing at RO:HQ and Licensing.
73-4/1 Reactor Coolant Pumn Flow The licen'se's report, dated August 23, 1973, encitled " Reactor Coolant Flow Evaluation," has been. reviewed by Licensing and it has been concluded. that this item is resolved.
(Details.I, paragraph 8)
v e
w -
-..
.
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12-4-
,
G 71-10/1 Flow Meter Error Analysis and Terts This item is related to 73-4/1, " Reactor Coolant Pump Flow,"
and is also considered as resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
71-7/1 Thin Walled valves (R0 Report No. 50-269/71-5,Section II paragraph 3)
The acceptability of 1-RV-67 (also labeled 1-RC-66) remains to be resolved. A mock-up is being prepared which will be sectioned and analyzed.
Results will be reported by the licensee.
V.
Unusual Occurrences A.
A0-269/73-6 " Control Rod Withdrawal Limits" Corrective action described in DPC's report, dated October 16, 1973, was verified during this inspection and the inspector has no further questions on this item.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
B.
A0-269/73-7 " Core Flood Tank Discharge Valve Motor Operator Breakers" Corrective actions described in DPC's report, dated October 17, 1973, were verified by the inspector and there are no further questions on this item.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
VI.
Other Significant Findings None VII. Management Interview A management interview was held on October 26, 1973, with the folicwing in attendance:
Duke Power Company J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent T. L. Cotton - Junior Engineer J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer The following items were discussed:
A.
Enforcement Matters The three technical specification violations described in Section I,.
of the Summary of Findings, were discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 2, 3,-and 4)
t.
.
.
.
.
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-269 /73-12-5-
-
.
B.
Previousiv Identified Enforcement Matters The status of previously identified enforcement matters, as described in Section II of the Summary of Findings, was discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 5 and 6, and Details II, paragraphs 2 and 3)
C.
New Unresolved Item One new unresolved item was identified during this inspection.
This item was discussed during the management interview.
(Details III, paragraph 2)
D.
Yower Escalation Tests The inspector stated that he had reviewed the test results of zero power testing and three power escalation tests. There were no major questions or comments.
(Details II, paragraphs 4 and 5)
E.
Ventilation Iebalance Between. Turbine Building and Auxiliary Building Control of air flow from the auxiliary building to the turbine building was discussed. The inspector reviewed health physics survey results to determine if radioactive material has been released as a result of the ventilation imbalance. It was concluded that unmonitored releases of particulate and gaseous waste fron the auxiliary building have remained below IEC.
(De, tails I, paragraph 2 and Details III, paragraph 3)
F.
Control Rod Group and Power Distributien Limit The licensee's program for assuring Technical Specifications 3.5.2.4,
" Quadrant Tilt," 3.5.2. (5(e), " Reactor Power Imbalance," and 4.1.3, ' Tower Mapping," was reviewed. The inspector noted that administrative procedures have been provided and are currently in use. Also, alarms for quadrant power tilt and reactor power imbalance have been installed.
(Details I, paragraph 9)
G.
Independent Measurement Program Arrangements have been completed for the South Carolina representative to collect, divide, and independently analyze radwaste and environ-mental samples. During this inspection, liquid and gaseous waste samples were collected and divided for analysis.
(Details III, para-graph 4)
w
_
.
i
.
,,2 R0 Report Na. 50-269/73-12 1-1
-
.
//- ~h DETAILS I Prepared by:
40 % 0 NC F. Jape ff I Date
'
Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch'
Dates of Inspection: October 22-26, 1973 Reviewed by:./
/
~/.
,///7 73
,
C. E. Murphfy C,)fef c/
Da t e'
,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted
-
Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant-Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Enrineer.
L. E. Schmid - Operating Engineer R. L. Wilson - Performance Engineer J. N. Pope - Shift Supervisor S. A. Holland - Assistant Operating Engineer B. Jones - Control Operator T. L. Cotton - Junior Engineer D. Rogers - Junior Engineer
~
2.
AO-269/73-6 " Control Rod Withdrawal Limits" On October 5, 1973, upon discovery that the control rods were.
operated outside of withdrawal limits specified by technical specification, reactor power was reduced to 89% from 95%. Operation at reduced power continued while soluble poison concentration was adjusted. Reactor power was then increased to 95% while maintaining control rod position within the permissible operating region.
The inspector reviewed these corrective actions as recorded in the control roca operations log, and as described in DPC's report, dated October 16, 1973.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
L 3.
A0-269/73-7, " Core Flood Tank Discharge Valve Motor Operator Breakers" On October 7, 1973 the motor operator breakers for the core flood isolation-valves, CF-1 and CF-2, were discovered ~ locked closed rather than locked open as required by the technical specifications. The
. corrective actions to prevent recurrence were reviewed by the inspector.
,a
-
..
...
.
- -
..
. mt.
a
_. ~
__
-
R0 Report No. 50-269/73-12 I-2
.
^
.
t ?
Operating Procedure, OP 1102/01, " Controlling Procedure for Unit Startup," has been revised to specifically include a check-off item which requires the motor operator breakers for the isolation valves to be locked open. In addition, each of the shift supervisors reviewed this event with their operati:.g crews.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
4.
Borated Water Storace Tank Water Sample During an audit of the ten-week period of July 15 through September 22, 1973, by the QA group, of the technical specifications, (TS) requirements for chemistry sampling, it was discovered that the weekly sample of the borated water storage tank was missed during July 15 through July 21, 1973. Failure to obtain the sample and perform the analysis is a violation of TS 4.1.2.
Samples were obtained and analyzed during the other nine seeks of the audit period.
The need for performing the required routine samples has been reemphasized by the licensee as a me_ans to prevent recurrence of this type of event.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
-
5.
Review of Administration Controls for Processing Desien Changes The administrative controls for processing station design changes were reviewed by the inspector. The primary control in effect is Administr3tive Procedure No. 10, " Station Modification," dated October 15, 1973.
This procedure presents the policy and details for handling design changes. A " Station Modification Report" form is used as a track sheet to ensure each change receives the proper reviews and approvals. The procedure incorporates the requirements of technical specifications regarding safety related changes.
The inspector reviewed the following changes that are being processed under the new procedure:
0-1-S,
" Annunciator Alarms for Quadrant Power Tilt, Axial Imbalance, and Rod Index"
~0-2-S,
" Flanged Correction for Relief Valves on Coolant Storage System" O-5-S,
"RB Purge and CR Ventilations" 0-8-S,
" Increase Compressed Air Capability"
.
-
.-
~~ -
-
.
.
-
RO Report No. 50-269/73-12 I-3
.
(3 The inspector had no major questions regarding the processing of these changes. Each :hange is being processed as prescribed by Administra ive Procedure No. 10.
This previously identified violation 1 is considered closed.
6.
Miscellaneous Test Procedures During a previous inspection /, violations were identified
regarding the use of miscellaneous test procedures for safety related equipment or system cesting. The inspector has reviewed the master test files and has found that no new miscellaneous tests have been issued since June 21, 1973. All testing has been performed as prescribed in the Quality Assurance Fbnual, Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
An intrastation letter on use of miscellaneous tests was issued to all supervisors and test coordinators on June 22, 1973. The letter emphasized that all safety related testing must be accomplished as prescribed by the QA manual.
The inspector found no deviations to the instructions and this previously identified violation is considered closed.
7.
Operability of RC-4 Attempts to open RC-4 under reactor operating conditions have been unsuccessful. This problem was identified during a previous inspection.3/
TP 230/10A, " Test of Power Relief Block Valve," vas reviewed by the inspector. The test results demonstrated trat RC-4 would close with the power operated relief valve full open at operating te=perature and pressure. Once the valve is closed, experience has been that reopening is only possible at cold shutdown conditions of temperature and pressure.
Since RC-4 is a reactor coolant boundary valve and its ability to close has been deronstrated, this previously 1dentified unresolved item is considered resolved. The fact that the valve cannot be opened at operating temperature and pressure is considered to be an operational problem.
1/ RO Inspection Report 50-269/73-7, Details I, paragraph 3.
2/ RO Inspection Report 50-269/73-7, Details I, paragraph 5.
3/ RO Inspection Report 50-269/73-10, Details I, paragraph 2.
i
.s
i
.
.
RO Report No. 50-269/73-12 I-4
}
8.
Reactor Coolant Pump Flow t
The licensee's report, dated August 23, 1973, on " Reactor Coolant Flow Evaluation" was reviewed by Licensing and RO:HQ.
It has been concluded that the measured reactor coolant flow values and
'the minimum and maximum acceptance values are adequate. The error analysis associated with the flow determination is also considered to be adequate.
These previously identified unresolved items are considered resolved.
9.
Control of Power Peaking Factors and Linear Heat Rate The licensee's program for monitoring quadrant power tilt axial imbalance and power peaking factors was reviewed by the inspector.
The licensee has provided PT 200/30, " Weekly Power Describution Comparison," and PT 600/1," Periodic Instrument Surveillance,"
as a means to monitor and control power distribution in the core imbalance and quadrant tilt. Limiting values are specified in technical specification, 3.5 and 4.1.
The inspector observed the control operator obtain data for surveillance of quadrant tilt and imbalance. The performance engineer obtaf ; data on a weekly schedule for power distribution surveillance, peaking factors and linear heat rate. Alarms have also been provided for both the quadrant power tilt and axial imbalance.
.
10.
Ventilrcion Imbalance Between Turbine Building and Auxiliary Building During a previous inspecton,l/ control of air flow from the auxiliary building to the turbine building was discussed. The inspector commented that the control of air flow is necessary to ensure against unconitored-releases of radioactive materials. This matter was reviewed during this current inspection and the findings are reported in Details III, paragraph 3.
As an interim measure to control and monitor air flow direction, the licensee has issued an intrastation letter regarding verification of air flow once a shift. This interim measure is to remain in effect until a permanent solution is provided. Station Modification
'
Report No. 0-9-S has been issued, requesting alarms to be provided, in the control room, to indicate and annunciate when the auxiliary building pressure exceeds atmospheric pressure.
1/ R0 Inspection' Report 50-270/73-14, Details I, paragraph 2 and Details II, paragraph 5.
i l
I l
.
..
.
.
'
RO Report No. 50-269/73-12 I-5-
,
.
.
- .
l
'
-', _
The question of procedures and instruction for control of air flow.
is the subject of a violation notice issued in RO report 50-270/73-14.
DPC's reply to the violation notice is due November 6,1973 and since Units 1 and 2 share the turbine and auxiliary buildings, the licensee's response will apply to both Units.
i i
f
$
!
t
e 4.
-
b i
~
i i
I
.,
!
I
'
,
's
,#
,
-
w
-
,
,
s
.,-,.
,-.sr..
.-,
.
..e-,
s eem
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12 II-1
,_
-
,
,
.
/
DETAILS II Prepared by: o (,
L6 4)[3/[7_3
~
.
K'.'W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Date Facilitie.* Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: October,2 -26,1973
' c \\,,/
/
/
.-
i i Reviewed by: / C' ' 6 '//
-4 4
//d h I
C. E. Murphy, Chief /
Date
,,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant "uperintendent J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer R. J. Brackett - Junior Engineer -
R. L. Wilson - Performance hurineer 2.
Station Review Committee (SRC)
i As a result of an inspection 1/ in June 1973, a citation was issued for apparent violations of Technical Specifications 6.1.2.1 and 6.2.2 concerning the SRC. During this inspection, the minutes of eleven SRC meetint? covering the period from July 31, 1973, through October 22, 1973, were randomly selected and reviewed. These minutes indicate that a quorum was present for all the meetings.
No lack of review of new procedures or procedure changes was noted.
In order to ' assure that the'SRC review of station operation and
'
safety considerations is optimized, the following procedure has been initiated.
Significant occurrences regarding station operation
,
and safety considerations are brought to the attention of the plant superintendent or assistant plant superintendent by the operating personnel.
If this individual determines that the occurrence is safety related and sufficiently significant, he assigns the appropriate personnel to perform additional investigation and to prepare a report.
1,/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-269/73-7, paragraph I.A.1.1 and j.
o
-- a m
.
-
.
m
-.. -
.
.
_
_ _ _
RO.Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12 II-2
.
.
.
.
(D All such reports are reviewed by the SRC.
In addition to this process,
'
'
any member of the committee may bring any operation occurrence before the committee for consideration. The inspector chose eight items that he felt were significant from the shift supervisor's log. All these occurrer.ces had been recorded within the past month. A review of statien records showed that reports were being prepared for seven of these items. The one remaining item occurred during a startup test and is being handled as a test deficiency which will be con-sidered by the SRC. The inspector concludes that station operation and safety considerations are now receiving adequate attention from the SRC. This item is considered closed.
3.
Nuclear Safety Review Committee (NSRC)
In June 1973, the licensee was cited for Criterion II of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.2fn apparent violation of The specific citation was for inadequate action on the NSRC outstanding items. The licensee response to this citation has been reviewed, and during this inspection, the minutes of the last two NSRC meetings were reviewed. The outstanding items list contained 58 items. The status of these items showed that action had been completed for the majority and action was continuing for the remainder. A man has been assigned by the licensee to periodically review the status of committee recommended action and is actively in-volved in expediting the required action. This item is considered closed.
4.
Review of Test Results for Zero Power Physics Testing a.
TP/1/A/710/1, "Zero Power Physics Test" The res' tits of zero power physics testing were reviewed and dis-cussed with the performance enginecr. The inspector has no further questions at this tir 2 b.
IP/0/A/330/3A, " Control Rod Drive Rod Drop Time Test"
,
The inspector had no comments on the results of this test.
.
IP/1/A/330/2D, " Patching Scheme and Cabline and Patchine Test" c.
The inspector had no co=ments on the results of this test.
d.
TP/1/A/200/13, " Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown Test" This procedure was reviewed only to assess the adequacy of licensee review and approval process.
It was concluded that the procedure and test results had been reviewed and approved by appropriate managcment personnel.
2/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-269/73-7, paragraph I.A.l.c.
s-
.... _.
..
_
_.
_ - -.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
_
- --
-
-
~
,
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12 II-3
,,
,
.
A
- ..)
5.
Review of Test Results for Power Ascension Testing The following procedures and test results were reviewed. No connnents resulted from the review.
a.
TP/1/A/800/31, " Pseudo Control Rod Ejection Test" b.
TP/1/A/800/32, " Loss of Offsite Power" c.
TP/1/A/800/33, " Dropped Control Rod Test"
_
m e
J we
_.
. _.. _ _
.
R0.Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12 III-l
-
-
f
.b DETAILS III Prepared by:
OM lo/sih 3
.
A. F. Gibson, Radiation Specialist Date Radiological and Environmental ProecgionBrnch
'
/, v]K,a y
/
/f73
-
G. R. Jenkins, Radiation Specialist Date Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Dates of Inspection: October 24-25, 1973 Re. viewed by:
/
f
&,
M/
-
J./I. Sutherland, Chief;~Ra'diological
' Date and Environ = ental Protection Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent C. L. Thames - Health Physics Superv'isor C. T. Yongue - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor 2.
Calibration of Effluent Monitors Liquid and gneous waste release forms were reviewed by an inspector, and marked differences were noted between monitor concentration values and the values recorded for laboratory analysis of batch samples.
For example, Liquid Waste Release (LWR) No. 1346 recorded a sample concen-tration (fission products) of 1.13 x 10-5 uCi/ml and a monitor (RIA-33)
value of 3 x 10-3 uC1/ml; Gaseous Waste Release (GWR) No.139 recorded a sample concentration of 1.29 x 10-1 uCi/ml and monitor values of 2.5 x 10-3 uCi/ml (RIA-37/ Normal) and 1.8 x 101 uCi/ml (RIA-38/High).
The inspector asked if the effluent monitors had been calibrated with known concentrations. A licensee representative stated that the =oni-tors were calibrated by the manufacturer prior to delivery, and that
'
periodic source checks and electronic calibration are performed by the licensee. The licensee representative said that he could not explain the kind of differences noted above. The inspector noted that the alarm and control functions for effluent release are based on the concentra-tion determined by the effluent monitors, and stated that the licensee should evaluate the calibration of effluent monitors to determine the cause of and to resolve the differences. The licensee representative stated that such an evaluation was planned and would be accomplished.
3.
Control of Radioactive Releases During an inspection.on October 5, 1973, air was discovered flowing from the auxiliary building to the turbine building through openings in the common wall shared by these buildings.
(This was discussed in RO Inspec-tion Report No. 50-270/73-4.) Since air in the auxiliary building is
.
i
.
-.
- - - - - - - -.. - -
_
. _ _ - _ - - _ -
.-
-
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/73-12 III-2
,
.
t A meeting was held wi.h a licensee representative and representatives of the South Carolina Health Department to discuss a program for collecting environmental and radioactive waste samples and splitting these samples for independent radioanalysis by the State of South Carolina, the Atomic Energy Commission and Duke Power Company. Those attending the meeting agreed on the type of samples to be collected, the method of sampling, the type of analysis to be performed and the procedure for reporting analysis results. Following the meeting, samples of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste were collected and split for analysis. b _-_