IR 05000269/1975013
| ML19322B827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1976 |
| From: | Burke D, Epps T, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B817 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-75-13, 50-287-75-15, NUDOCS 7912050808 | |
| Download: ML19322B827 (23) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. -- _.
..m.._ _~ ' j UNITED STATES ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' i REGION 18 l . . 230 PEACHTR EE STR EET. N. W.
SulTE 818 f ATE.ANTA. GEORGI A 30303 t - IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 .
- _- Licensee: Duke Power Company ' Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 , Facility Name: Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287
License Nos.: DPR-38, 47 and 55 i Category: C,C,C ! ' Location: Seneca, South Carolina Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568, Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: December 2-5, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection: November 4-7, 1975 Principal Inspector: /
/) "3 / ~ 7[ T.N.Epps,fe/ctorInspector Date Reactor Profects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support 3 ranch Accompanying Inspectors: D. J. Burke, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear , Support Branch ' W. W. Peery, Radiation Specialist Radiation Support Section Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety Branch F. Jape, Reactor Inspector i Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch A. L. Cunningham, Environmental Specialist otuTict Environ = ental and Special Projects Section @s % Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety 3 ranch e C b
' % $
- 276 19N i
l 1% q 91'2 0 50
- , . - . ! l /~ ) ' / IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, ' 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15-3- . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Items - A.
Infractions 1.
Contrary to Technical Specification 6.1.2.2.f, the Nuclear Safety Review Committee had not met within the required five month interval (since May 27, 19 5) to review and audit plant operation as required by Technical Specifications 6.1.2.2.1 and 6.1.2.2.j.
(Details II, paragraph 2) , B.
Deficiencies 1.
Contrary to Appendix B of Technical Specification 1.2.A and Table 1.2-1, the boron concentration limit of 0.2 ppm in the Keowee River was exceeded during a 48 hour period on November 19-21, 1975.
(Details V, paragraph 5).
1.
Contrary to Appendix B of Technical Specification 1.2.A and Table 1.2-1, the sulfuric acid concentration in the Keowee River water apparently exceeded the 2.5 ppm limit during the period of December 1, 1974 - November 30, 1975, in that 207,231 pounds of surfuric acid was consumed during this period which exceeds the 150,500 pound per year specified in the Technical Specifications.
(Details , V, paragraph 6) J II.
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Matters ] l Inadequate Instrumentation Drawings (IE Investigation Report 50-269/75-8, 50-270/75-9 and 50-287/75-9) Followup revealed the licensee's corrective actions, as stated in a 1,etter to NRC, dated September 3, 1975, are incomplete.
The licensee committed to complete corrective actions by February 1, 1976.
This item remains open.
' III.
New Unresolved Items None , -. .
- - .. -. . .
! . A, ' ) IE Rpt.-Nos. 50-269/75-13, ' 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15-4- . i ! l IV.
Status of Previously Reoorted Unresolved Items A.
Oconee 1, 2 and 3 75-2/2 Sensitivity of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems The licensee's analysis was completed.
The system appears to be in agreement with the basis of Technical Specification 3.1.6.
This item is closed.
(Details IV, paragraph 3) B.
Oconee 1 (50-269) 73-12/1 Calibration of Effluent Monitors The licensee provided a status report dated August 1, 1975, and a supplemental report dated September 18, 1975.
This item remains open.
(Details III, paragraph 2) ' 73-13/1 Wastewater Collection Basin Modification This system is operational.
This item is closed.
(Details V, paragraph 7) C.
Other Unresolved Items Other outstanding unresolved items were not reviewed during this inspection.
V.
Unusual Occurrences ' Selected reported occurrences were reviewed by each of three inspec-tors and results appear in Detail sections I, II and III of this report.
VI.
Other Significant Findings C. T. Yongue is now the station Health Physics Supervisor.
J. R. Leonard replaced C. T. Yongue as an Assistant Health Physics Supervisor.
VII. Management Interview A management interview was held with J. E. Smith and members of the Oconee staff on December 5, 1975.
H. B. Tucker, D. C. Holt, M. S. Tuckman and E. D. Blakeman, from the Duke Power Company _ Corporate Office, were also present.
. I , v v w
~ ~ - a i .
,, IO . IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15-S- . i Items discussed included a summary of areas reviewed during the inspection and apparent noncompliance items.
The licensee commit-ments are discussed in Details I, paragraphs 3 and 4.
f e e .
1 I I ..
- . . ! IE'Rpt. Noc. 50-269/75-13 I-l !f,' l 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 i ll-3 I-7 5" DETAILS I Prepared by:
T.N.Epps,ReachgrInspector Date Reactor Projec(s/ ection No. 2 S . Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: December 2-5, l?75 Reviewed by: [. d. D / /- 4W R. C. Lewis, Section Leader Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC) Site Personnel J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station L. E. Schmid - Superintendent of Operations 0. S. Bradham - Superintendent of Operations R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services , ' T. S. Barr - Technical Engineer R. A. Knoerr - Assistant Plant Engineer Operations Personnel Corporate Office Personnel H. B. Tucker - Manager Nuclear Production M. S. Tuckman - Staff Engineer (Licensing) 2.
Operations (Unit-3) The 1 : spector reviewed Unit-3 operations for the period from November 20 through December 2, 1975.
This included review of log books, check sheets, work requests and discussions with personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified during this review.
3.
Seismic Instrumentation The inspector reviewed calibration records for seismic instrumenta-tion and found that no calibration of this instrumentation had been , %
I i. . ! - ' ) IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, I-2 , ' 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 , conducted since April 30, 1974.
The licensee stated that a cali-bration program for seismic instrumentation related to the control room annunciators would be established on a quarterly basis. The inspector stated that since section 5.6.2.2 of the Oconee FSAR states that the seismic magnetic tape recorder is started by an actuating pendulum having a normal setting of 0.0lg, this should be included in the calibration check.
During the above review the inspector verified, through records review, that the two seismic magnetic tape recorders were origi-nally set to start recording at.01g.
A licensee representative informed the inspector that the seismic alarm annunciator in the Unit-3 control room was inoperable.
Apparently wire had not been run from the seismic trigger to the alarm on Unit-3.
A licensee representative stated that the Unit-3 seismic trigger would be made operable by March 1, 1976, and that a review would be conducted of other potentially inoperable alarms on Unit-3 by February 1, 1976.
4.
Reportable Occurrences UE-270/75-17 The inspector reviewed UE-270/75-17 concerning inadvertent isola-tion of letdown flow.
The apparent cause of this incident was operation of a three-way valve (2 HP-14) by a maintenance mechanic during limit switch adjust =ents on the valve.
' Site management indicated that maintenance personnel do not nor= ally operate valves in the plant but this practice is not delineated in , - administrative procedures.
The licensee agreed to include defini-tion of valve operation responsibility in administrative procedure number 5 by January 1, 1975.
The licensee's above referenced report (UE-270/75-17) stated that the cause of the incident was inaccurate connunication between , operating and maintenance personnel but did not take issue with
j maintenance personnel operating the valve.
! The licensee agreed to submit a supplement to the UE report by ! January 16, 1976, to expand on corrective action information.
I ! - l
l
- _
. . IE'Rpt. Noa. 50-269/75-13, j ' ? i 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 I-3
. A0-269/75-12 Contrary to Oconee Technical Specification 3.3.1.g, on October 7,1975, BWST level was allowed to decrease to 45 feet.
The limit is 46 feet.
- The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions and had no further questions.
UE-269/75-8 The inspector reviewed this incident during a previous inspection (50-269/75-10, 50-270/75-11 and 50-287/75-11) and reviewed the licensees corrective actions.
This item involved the lack of assurance on the part of Oconee personnel that the 100 kv transmission line would be completely isolated from all other connecting facilitJes rhen Oconee required backup emergency electri-cal power from Lee Steam Stat.on.
The licensee's interim corrective action was to manually disable a questionable tie to the 100 kv central white line. A licensee representative stated that two Oconee personnel verified that this had been accomplished in the field.
, The licensee's permanent corrective action will be to implement a i modification to enable Oconee personnel to remotely remove loads from the central white transmission line.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
5.
Other Items Reviewed The inspector assisted in portions of the review of the following items with other inspectors as listed below.
NSRC review frequency - Details II l Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications - Details III Drawing Control - Details IV , Non-radiological Environmental Technical Specification - Details V
-
~ , - , . I) IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 I-4 , i The inspector reviewed licensee diagramatic layout drawings of the Unit 2 condensate and coolant storage systems as part of the followup on A0-27C/75-19.
It appeared from this review that no other source of :ontaminated water, other than frem the component drain pump discharge, contributed to the total amount of contaminated water released as a result of this incident.
(See Details III, paragraph 3) Subsequent to the inspection the licensee submitted additional information, in a letter dated December 29, 1975, stating that the 2 inch droin line was cut down stream of the isolation valve in the vicinity of the turbine building sump and that there was no require-ment in the test procedure (TP/2/B/230/12) to assure that the line was restored to its origital configuration.
This incident will be the subject of future review.
> . - l ' . l l !
. . I' ) ! ' IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 ' and 50-287/75-15 II-1 . DETAILS II Prepared by: [. 4,,Ic__ b//;;- e D. J. Burke, Reactor Inspector Date Nuclear Support Section . Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: Dece=ber 2-5, 1975 19!W Reviewed by: b C+-cd -- / ' H. C. Dance, Section Leader Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC) J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station L. E. Schmid - Superintendent of Operations , T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer ' R. P. Bugert - Training Supervisor J. Cox - Station Senior QA Engineer R. J. Brackett - Assistant QA Engineer J. R. Wald - QC Inspector R. Cobb - Storekeeper 2.
Organization and Administration a.
Onsite Organization The inspector verified that the licensee's onsite organization is as described in Section 6 of the Technical Specifications (TS) and Secticas 12.1, 17.1.1 and 17.2.1 of the FSAR. Section 12.1 of the FSAF was revised on July 21, 1975, to reflect title changes made in the onsite organization. On October 1, 1975,
several personnel changes were made in the operating staff; the qualifications of new personnel in the Shift Supervisor, Operating Engineer, and Assistant Operating Engineer positions were spot checked and found in compliance with the TS.
The shift crew composition and licensed personnel requirements were also examined and no discrepancies were identified.
In . addition, the qualifications of several onsite staff members were reviewed and found in confor=ance with ANSI N18.1(1971), the TS, and Section 12.1 of the FSAR.
i , =
-_ , - . ! () IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 II-2 , , , i ! i b.
Safety Review Committees . The inspector verified that the onsite Safety Review Committee (SRC) met and reviewed items as required by Section 6.1 of the ! Technical Specifications (TS). One item of noncompliance was identified concerning the off-site Nuclear Safety Review Committee activities. Contrary to Section 6.1.2.2 of the TS, the Nuclear Safety Review Committee (NSRC) had not met within the required five month interval to review and audit the items in 6.1.2.2.1 and j of the TS.
Section 6.1.2.2.1 states that the NSRC shall review the followinh: 1.
Proposed tests and experiments, and results thereof, proposed changes in equipment or systems, and TS or license changes which involve unreviewed safety questions as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.
2.
Violations of statutes, regulations, orders, Technical Specifications, license requirements, or internal procedures, or instructions having safety significance as determined by the NRC.
3.
Abnormal occurrences or unusual events as defined in
Section 1.0 of these specifications.
4.
Special reviews or investigations as required by the Assistant Vice President, Steam Production, or the station Manager.
Contrary to the above, the NSRC has not met since May 27, 1975, to discuss violations, abnormal occurrences, or unusual events although several have occurred since that time.
In addition, the NSRC has not met to review the items in Section 6.1.2.2.j of the TS (cperating problems, records and logs, SRC minutes, etc.) since May 27, 1975.
A conference telephone call was convened from the corporate office on September 10, 1975, to . discuss the expansion of the Unit 3 spent fuel storage facilities, however, no additional items were discussed.
Consequently, the NSRC has not met to perform a safety review and audit of the normal operating organization since May 27, 1975.
This is considered to be contrary to Section 6.1.2.2 of the TS, and is an infraction.
_ e -
. - , . ... , (~ ) - ~ IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 l and 50-287/75-15 II-3 - . 3.
QA Program The Operational QA Program was reviewed to verify that recent changes are in conformance with the program as described in the - FSAR, with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and with applicable codes and standards.
The Corporate QA Program (Chapter 17 of the FSAR) was implemented in Appendix 1B of Oconee's FSAR on July 21, 1975 (Revision 36).
However, sinc.e the QA Program at Oconee has been evolving, the Administrative Policy Manual (APM) and Procedures were not significantly changed when the Corporate QA Program was implemented at the plant. A few areas which had been upgraded, such as procurement control and receipt, storage, and handling of equipment and materials, were inspected.
The following documents were reviewed and their implementation verified: AP21, AP24, QCG-1R3, QA-505, QA-601, and APM, Section 2.4.
Within the areas inspected, no discrepancies were identified.
Licensee personnel stated that while humidity and dust control in the storage areas are not in effect at this time, if Level A items are received, ANSI N45.2.2(1972) will be followed.
The inspector had no further questions.
4.
Nonroutine Event Reoorts The inspector reviewed the following Unit 2 nonroutine event reports: Unusual Event (UE) - 270/75-14, Leakage of Penetration Room Valves in E.:ess of TS UE-270/75-18, Failure of Reactor Building Electrical Penetration Abnormal Occurrence (AO) - 270/75-20, Failure of RTD in RPS Channel A Adequate corrective action was taken for the above events to prevent recurrence. The failed RTD in A0-270/75-20 will be cut out and examined during the Unit 2 refueling cutage.
Each event was reviewed by the on-site SRC as required.
No record of the NSRC review existed (See paragraph 2.b).
The inspector had no further questions.
C l -
e .
-a
-
i () ' IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 III-1 , l- ' ~ ~, - l "' 5 - l~1 - - ,, ' "# . DETAILS III Prepared by: - , W. W. Peery, Radiation Specialist Date , ', ' Radiation Support Section, Fuel < Facility and Materials Safety Branch , Dates of Inspection: December 2-5, 1975
- s/
I / -
. 'E-' "O ' Reviewed by: , v -- A. F. Gibson, Section Leader Date Radiation Support Section, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch All information in these details applies equally to Units 1, 2 and 3 except where identified with a specific reactor.
1.
Individuals Contacted J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station R. M. Koehler - Technical Services Superintendent i T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer J. Dunlop - Assistant Quality Assurance Engineer .
W. A. Brown - Staff Chemist
M. G. Kriss - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor D. L. Davidson - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor J. R. Leonard - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor P. Deal - Labman 2.
73-12/1 Calibration of Effluent Monitors DPC report dated August 1, 1975 and supplemental report, dated , September 18, 1975, have been reviewed.
This item remains open.
3.
AO-270/75-19 Unplanned Release of Radioactive Liquids Licensee Unit 2 report dated October 17, 1975, provided informacien on an unplanned release of radioactivity through the turbine building - , sump due to an unplanned release path connecting the Unit 2 com-ponent drain pump discharge header to the turbine building trench leading to Units 1 and 2 turbine building sumps.
The licensee determined that an isolation valve was leaking which allowed radio-active liquid to flow to the turbine building sump and ultimately to be released offsite to the Keowee River via the yard drains.
The , i.
I > w .
., . l !. .-
_ - , . j , l('~ IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 III-2 . !
inspector reviewed the licensee's method, parameters and data used to derive the total radioactivity released from the occurrence and had no questions.
The licensee added the quantity of each radio-isotope released from this occurrence to the amount of radioactivity released in other effluents from the site for 1975 and the total , appeared to be within the linits of the licensee's Technical Specifi-cations and 10 CFR 20. A licensee representative stated that a blank flange had been installed downstream of the leaking isolation valve to prevent further flow by this path to the turbine building sump. The inspector noted that a licensee headquarters directive, dated November 19, 1975, required a more thorough program for the detection , of radioactivity in normally non-radioactive systems.
4.
DPC Report of Radiological Environmental Samole Results ' DPC letter dated October 23, 1975, reported to NRC, pursuant to Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specification 6.6.2.6.c, a measured level of radioactivity in aquatic vegetation at location 000.4 ten times greater than the control level measured at location 000.5.
Analytical results on October 24, 1975, for aquatic vegetation samples taken August 8, 1975, showed the following: l
Location 000.4 Location 000.5 Cs-134 10 1 3 pCi/gm (dry weight) <2 pCi/gm (dry weight) Cs-137 2415 pCi/gm (dry weight) <2 pCi/gm (dry weight) Co-58 128 1 10 pCi/gm (dry weight) <3 pCi/gm (dry weight) ' Co-60 77 i 10 pC1/gm (dry weight) <2 pCi/gm (dry weight)
Location 000.4 is near the liquid effluent discharge to the Keowee River and control location 000.5 is within a one mile radius of the ' site.
The report states only that due to the normal discharge of radioactive effluents, this build-up of activity in aquatic vege-tation in the discharge area is to be expected.
The inspector discussed the anomalous results with licensee represene.tives and the extent of their evaluation of the results. Although there were other sample results from the same general location they did not correlate very well with the reported higher than normal results. Licensee representatives stated that they were not certain just how near to the exact same location the samples were taken.
The inspector requested to review the licensae's records of the evaluation of the anomalous results and there apparently were none available at the plant.
The inspector inspected sample location 000.4 in the Keowee tailrace just downstream from the Oconee liquid effluent release point.
The area of sampling loca-tion 000.4, as described by a licensee representative, appeared to be an area of potential eddy currents which conceiveably could , _ concentrate radioactivities from the upstream release point '
. . , '
e- -- _ i ' . I . b) ~ IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, ' j 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 III-3
, i in the aquatic vegetation at location 000.4.
Discussions with Oconee personnel indicated that the licensee may consider facility or procedure changes to provide improved mixing of radioactivities in the Keovee tailrace at their point of release upstream from location 000.4 to reduce possible reconcentration in the aquatic vegetation at that location.
Technical Specification 6.6.2.6.c states that such notification should include an evaluation of any release conditions, environmental factors, or other aspects necessary to explain the anomolous results.
A licensee rep e-sentative at DPC's Headquarters in Charlotte, N.
C., stated in ,
a telephone contact fror IE:II on December 10, 1975 that a supplemental report providing the evaluation would be submitted ! within two weeks.
This information was furnished by IE:II by tele-phone on December 11, 1975, to a licensee management representative , at DPC's Oconee Nuclear Station.
t ! 5.
Surface Water Samole Results A review by the inspector of analysis results of water samples collected by a continuous sampler at environmental sampling station - ' 000.7, downstream of licensee liquid effluent release points at Highway 183 bridge over the Keowee River, revealed tritium concentra-tions as follows: -5 July'1975 - 1.56 X 10 uC1/ml Aug.1975-2.90X10fuci/ml ~
Sept. 1975 - 6.38 X 10 uCi/ml-5 Oct.
1975 - 6.79 X 10 uCi/ml The inspector pointed out that the concentration of tritium in these samples appeared to exceed the quarterly average limit of 1 X 10 uCi/ml as specified by Technical Specification 3.9.2.
Licensee representatives stated that these sample concentrations could not be related to the quarterly limit specified by Technical
Specification 3.9.2 because the volumes of samples collected by the continuous sampler were not proportional to flow in the Keowee River.
Large fluctuations. in flow occur due to the influence of the operation of the Keowee Hydroelectric Station.
The licensee representative indicated that the surface water samples from the 000.7 station that are depended upon to satisfy the Technical Specification requirements for the radialogical environmental monitoring program are separate monthly grab samples taken at the same bridge location. A review by the inspector of the records of the analysis results for the monthly grab samplas revealed that the averagg quarterly crituim concentrations had ,'_ not exceeded the 1 X 10 uCi/ml limit of the Technical Speci-fications. A licensee representative indicated that considera-tion is being given to making a determination of proportionality _ of . the continous type sampler.
The inspector had no further questions.
i . . - - - - - - __
..:- - . .--.-- ._ - - _ .... . . . , i
i () IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, . i 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15 III-4 6.
Other Areas Inspected Other areas inspected about which the inspector had no further questions were as follows: 1.
Management controls for environmental programs.
! 2.
Implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program.
= . > ( e . . w e
- u,- _ _., _ _ _ m -._, , y
l.
. - . , IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, , (r.) 50-270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15 IV-1 , - , . DETAILS IV Prepared by: Of4 N% /[7d , F. Jape, Reactor Id4pedtor Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch . Dates of Inspection:- December 4-5, 1975 / Y7/ha ' Reviewed by: - W. C. Seidle, Kection Leader Date Reactor Projects Section No.1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC) O. S. Bradham - Superintendent of Maintenance R. C. Adams - Instrument Control Engineer D. E. Havice - Instrument Control Supervisor J. Cox - QA Supervisor , - R. A. Boughman - QA Electrical Inspector A. M. Segrest - Assistant Design Engineer M. S. Tuckman - Licensing Engineer D. C. Holt - Systems Engineer E. D. Blakeman - Licensing Engineer R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services 2.
Inadequate Instrumentation Drawings The inspector conducted a followup inspection of the previously identifie drawings.-{fnoncompliance item related to inadequate instrumentation The licensee's response dated September 3, 1975, stated that drawings for systems identified as being inadequate ha.ve been corrected to reflect the as-built condition.
Contrary to this, the inspector identified several discrepancies between the recently revised drawings and the as-built condition for the borated water storage tank (BWST) level instrumentation.
The BWST level instrumentation consists of two redundant channels which are detailed on drawings 0-422X-13 and 0-422X-28, for a total of six drawings for the three Oconee units.
All six drawings were revised on 8/22/75 to reflect the actual installation.
The actual installation was compared with the recently revised drawings by the inspector, accompanied by DPC personnel.
The results are as su=marized below: _ 1/ Item of noncompliance reported in IE Investigation Report 50-269/75-8, 50-270/75-9 and 50-287/75-9, Details, paragraph 2.
i
. . IE Rpt. Nto. 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15 IV-2 s ..) . .
l Drawing Number 0-422X-13 0-422X-28 Oconee 1 No Errors.
Location of V2 shown incorrectly.
, Oconee 2 Supply air branch Extra valve in impulse line shown lines not shown.
and an isolation valve in air supply line missing.
Oconee 3 Supply air branch No Errors, lines not shown.
In addition, the inspector compared the 1711owing drawings with the actual installation: , Drawing Numbers Finding 0-2422X-3 No errors.
0-422Y-2 No errors.
0-1422Y-3 No errors.
0-422EE-1 No errors.
0-422EE-1A No errors.
0-422EE-13 No errors.
0-422X-6 No errors.
The inspector's findings were discussed with licensee management.
During the discussion, the inspector requested an explanation as to how drawings, 0-422X-28, for Oconee 1 and 2 could be issued with the errors noted.
Licensee representatives explained that each drawing is checked prior to issuance, but that in this case the errors were not detected by the checker or approver. As a result of this discussion, management agreed to: (1) Review again all safety-related pneumatic instrumentation systems at Oconee against actual installation and to update any drawings that need to be revised.
This work is to be completed by February 1, 1976.
(2) Re-emphasize the requirement for checking and approving drawings issued by Design Engineering for accuracy.
The inspector's findings were also discussed at the management interview and the above commitments were verified.
The inspector stated that the item of noncompliance would remain open.
_
e
.
. l IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-13, .(-) 50-270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15 IV-3 3.
Sensitivity of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems This subject was previously discussed in IE Report No. 50-287/75-13 and is identified as Unresolved Item 75-2/2.
The licensee has completed its commitments and the inspector has no further questions.
This unresolved item is closed.
The inspector reviewed the analytical analysis, completed by thn licensee, to determine that sensitivity of the reactor buildi.g airborne activity monitoring system is as described in the basis of Technical Specification 3.1.6.
The inspector agreed with the conclusion presented in the report.
4.
Plant Tour
A, walk-through tour of accessible plant areas was conducted.
Observations and findings were as follows: (a) Housekeeping - No discrepant items were identified regarding housekeeping practices within the auxiliary building, turbine building, electrical equipment rooms, cable spreading rooms and control rooms.
, (b) Radiation Controls - No discrepancies were identified regarding adherence with controls for entry to radiation zones, step-off pads, hampers for used S'4P clothing and locked entrances to radiation zones.
(c) Flu.d Leaks - No major leaks were observed within the areas examined.
(d) Piping Vibration - No significant vibration was observed within the areas examined.
(e) Lockout Tags - Lockout tags for the core flood isolation valves for Units 1 and 3 were as required by Technical Specifica- - tion 3.3.3(c).
)
. l $
. - . () IE Rpt. No. 50-269/75-13, V-1 <<50 270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15 '] , DETAILS V Prepared by: ,[,._ /N// /[f/f//[gf[ A. L.'Cunningham, Enyf ental D' ate' Scientist, Envir ' ental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: December 2-5, 1975 A--4M! /.bb
Reviewed by: - R. L. Bangary, Section Leader Date' Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch All information in the following Details applies equally to Units 1, 2 and 3 except where identified with a specitic reactor.
1.
Individuals Contacted R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services D. C. Smith - Plant Chemist
J. J. Sevic - Plant Biologist M. Killough - Assistant Biologist M. G. Kriss - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer 2.
Inspection Obj ectives The objectives were as follows: (1) review of licensee's environmental protection program and procedures assuring compliance with regulatory requirements included in the Code of Federal Regulations and Appendix B Technical Specifications of the facility licenses; (2) assessment of licensee's compliance with such requirements during station operation.
3.
Scope The following items were included in the inspection: (1) review of . Semiannual Report for period ending June 30, 1975; (2) review of procedures designed to assure implementation of all facets of environmental protection program; (3) audit of surveillance, monitoring and special studies data, records, chemical inventories and reports generated since the last inspection; (4) inspection of three or more monitoring, sampling or surveillance stations and associated instrumentation or equitrent necessary to i=plement program requirements.
- . h
. . . - . () IE Rpt. No. 50-296/75-13 V-2 50-270/75-14, tnd 50-257/75-15 - ' < . 4.
Environmental Protection Program Feview e Review of 'the environmental protection program included a detailed audit of the Semiannual Report for the period ending June to, 1975, and an audit of surveillance, monitoring and special studies data generated during the period July 1, 1975 through November .0, 1975.
The review was conducted to determine if the program was co. ducted in accordance with Appendix B Technical Specifications, and to identify deficiencies in program implementation, results, documentation and reporting. There were no questions concerning this item.
5.
Boron Discharge Limit Boron released to the Keowee River during the 48-hour period November 19-21, 1975, resulted in an increase in boron concentration in excess of the 0.2 ppm limit assigned by Technical Specification 1.2.A.
This occurrence was discussed with licensee representatives who were informed that it constituted an item of noncompliance.
A licensee representative stated that the incident resulted from an error in the calculations which determined the release rate of wastewater effluent to the Keowee tailrace.
The calculated release rate was 50 gpm at a boron concentration of 5.38 ppm.
The actual release rate was found to be 3500 gpm at the above cited boron, concentration. A licensee representative stated that the hydro plant was operated periodically for a total of 13.8 hours during the 48-hour period to increase 6 dilution within the tailrace using flow rates of 9850 cfs (4.4x10 gpm).
A licensee representative also stated that the corrective action adopted for immediate implementation would entail at least two independent calculations of release rates for extraordinary or nonroutine releases (e.g., the above releases involving Unit 3 spent fuel pool water) and that agreement among the calculated rates would be required prior to discharge.
Inspection confir=ed that the corrective action was implemented.
6.
Sulfuric Acid Discharge . Inspection of the station chemical inventory records for the period December 1, 1974 through November 30, 1975, revealed chat the projected annual consumption of sulfuric acid listed in TS-1.2 Table 1.2-1 (150, 500 lbs.) was exceeded by 57,000 pounds.
Since the increase in sulfate concentration in the Keowee River is limited to 2.5 ppm, as cited in the above table and based on angual consumption and an average hydro tailrace flow of 30 cfs (13.5 X 10 gpm), it was apparent that the assigned limit was exceeded at some point in time during the period examined.
Licensee representatives were informed that this rinding constituted an item of noncompliance.
. . I
. , . . () IE Rpt. No. 50-296/75-13, V-3 ,,50-270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15 i A licensee representative stated that inventory records are routinely maintained; however greater attention would be directed toward correlating reagent usr, a with Keowee River concentration limits to prevent recurrence of ouch incidents.
The possibility of revising the technical specification to require more direct chemical monitoring methous was discussed with licensee representatives.
7.
Wastewater Collection Basis System Construction of an additional (upper level) wastewater collection basin, oil collection pond and accompanying skimmer wall and discharge weir had been completed.
The system was operational at the time of inspection.
Inspection revealed that the system had been operating in accordance with its design requirements.
Completion and operation of the system had remained outstanding as unresolved item 73/13-1 (Implementation of Required Modification of Wastewater Collection Basin - Report 50-269/75-13).
Licensee representatives were informed that based on inspection findings this item was closed out.
8.
Aquatic Biological Monitoring General aquatic surveillance and special studies assigned under Technical Specifications 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 were reviewed, viz.; fish population dynamics and reproduction, periphyton, benthic and plankton studies, thermal plume mapping and gas bubble disease studies.
Fish i=pingement and ithyoplankton entrainment records and studies recuired by Technical Specification 1.4 were also reviewed.
There were no questions concerning these items.
9.
Station Cooling Water System thermal Limits Inspection included a review and audit of station cooling water intake and discharge temperature records for the period December 1, 1974 through November 30, 1975. Water temperature monitoring and recording stations were also inspected at Stations 502, 503, 504 and the hydro plant discharge.
There were no questions concerning this item.
10.
Abnormal Occurrence Reports The inspector reviewed the abnormal occurrences reported following , the previous annual inspection to verify that corrective actions assigned by the licensee had been implemented. The following two occurrences were reported: > . _ _.
. _. - -. . - - - - -. . . - -. - _.
_ _. - - s . - ^ - , . - . . . ! () IE Rpt. No. 50-269/75-13, V-4 ' 50-270/75-14, and 50-287/75-15
,... .
. 1.
The boron concentration limit in the Keowee River specified j in TS-1.2 was exceeded for a short period (1959 to 2040 hours) .
on May 29, 1975. The wastewater release rate during the subject period was calculated on the basis of sample activity ! rather than boron concentration.
The rate used was 50 gpm; however, the actual rate should have been 24 gpm.
In order to j prevent future recurrence, Health Physics personnel were i required to list on the sample request form a release rate for j each parameter analyzed.
In addition, the Shift Supervisor authorizing the release would ascertain that the release rate was within limits for the parameter values listed on the release form.
Inspection revealed that sample requests and liquid , waste release forms were revised to implement the corrective action requirements.
Inspection of sample requests and liquid wastes release records revealed the recommended corrective i actions were implemented.
I 2.
The pH limit assigned in TS-1.2 was exceeded on July 26, 1975.
A routine sample of yard drainage indicated a pH reading of l 9.4.
The incident resulted from a leak in the discharge pipe ' i from the water treatment sump pump.
The leakage was released to a drainage ditch which discharges to the yard drainage i
system it was determined that the discharge valves from the
- l water treatment room sump pump to the wastewater collection basin had been closed.
There was no apparent reason for the discharge valves being closed.
Inspection revealed that the t water treatment room sump pump discharge pipe had been replaced.
! Inspection also revealed that the discharge valves to the > wastewater collection basin had been tagged to require Chemistry Department notification prior to operation of the valves.
' Inspection revealed that corrective actions for the above abnormal occurrences were promptly. implemented.
There were no further questions concerning these items.
l ) ! J < ' t h ! , l l i . . I .. ~ l ,, - -, -.. e , _, - - ,_, -.--rwm.y.,___. -.. _ .... - -- , }}