IR 05000269/1976004
| ML19322B738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1976 |
| From: | Epps T, Robert Lewis, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B734 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-76-04, 50-269-76-4, 50-287-76-04, NUDOCS 7912050737 | |
| Download: ML19322B738 (9) | |
Text
_ ___
_ _
..--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
..
.
'
- "2 jf
%:,,
UNITED STATES hr
'*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
g j
REGION 11 j, e aso PEACHTR EE STR EET. N. W.
SUITE SIS
,$, yf4 /
ATi.AuTA. cEoRosa soso
.....
IE Inspection Report Nos. 5,0-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 Licensee:
Duke Power Company Powar 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 DPR-47 and DPR-55 Category:
C, C and C Location: Seneca, South Carolina Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: March 23-24 and April 6-9, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: February 3-6 and 10-13, 1976 Principal Inspector:
T. N. Epps, Reactor Inspector j
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear
Support Branch
!
Accompanying Inspectors:
H. L. Whitener, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear
'
j Support Branch
'
Other Accompanying Personnel:
B. A. Byrne, Reactor Inspector
!
Nuclear Support Section l
Reactor Operations and Nuclear
Support Branch Principal Inspector:
. [.
E s. #
d b
{
T. N. Epps, Reactor Inspector Date I
j Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed By:
. b.
f./M d
b
R. C. Lewis, Chief Date i
Reactor Projects Section No. 2
}
Reactor Operations and Nuclear
!
Support Branch
i
i
,
l
.
puoso737
'
. l
.
.
.
.
,
^
,.
,
'
.IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-4,
-2-50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4
'
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1.
Enforcement Items Infraction Contrary to 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2) and licensee standing order No.19, shutdown of Unit 1 was not started at 10% per hour, or faster, after both BWST instruments failed, until I hour and 31 minutes had elapsed.
(Details I, paragraph 2.a)
II.
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Matters 1.
Item I.A.1 from IE Inspection Report 50-269/75-13, 50-270/75-14 and 50-287/75-15, involving frequency of NSRC meetings, is considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 4.)
2.
The corrective actions stated in ene licensee's letter, dated April 7, 1976, to the four noncompliance items in IE Inspec-tion Report 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287/76-1 were verified to have been completed.
These items are closed.
(Details I, paragraph 4.)
III. New Unresolved Items None IV.
Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolved Items A.
Oconee 1. 2 and 3 (50-269, 50-270 and 50-287)
74-10,08,11/4 SRC Quorum This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 3.)
74-10,08,11/4 Procedure Changes This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 3.)
i B.
Other Unresolved Items Other unresolved items listed in IE Report 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287/76-2 were not reviewed dur!.ng this inspection.
V.
Other Significant Findings Unit 1 was started up following the second refueling. The licensee plans another shutdown to conduct further repairs to reactor vessel surveillance specimen holder tubes.
i
.
,
-_
l
!
1.
'
.
.
.
.
.-~1 IE Rpt, Nos. 50-269/76-4,
-3-50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4
.
Unit 2 was shut down, on April 7,1976, due to noise detected in the vicinity of the surveillance specimen capsules. This unit will remain shut down for refueling.
Unit 3 vill be restarted within one week after removal of surveil-lance specimen capsules and repairs to the holder tubes.
,
VI.
Management Interview A management meeting was held on March 24, 1976, by T. N. Epps with J. E. Smith and members of the Oconee staff.
Items discussed included the Oconee 1 integrated leak rate test and maintenance procedures for hydraulic restraints.
Another Management meeting was held on April 9, 1976, by T. N. Epps and H. L. Whitener with J. W. Hampton and members of the Oconee staff. Items discussed included the noncompliance item in Section I of this summary and other items reviewed during this inspection.
,
The apparant conflicts between the A0 reports and site records were disucssed, with emphasis on the inaccurate information submitted in two A.O. reports reviewed at the site during this inspection.
(Details I, paragraphs 2.a. and b.)
!
e e
i o
f
l
.
.
!
,'
.
.l
.
.-
-.
-
.
,
'l IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-4,
,
50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 I-l
.
f)7(
[Mbh -
4 'M~7b DETAILS I Prepared by:
T. N. Epps, Keactbf Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection:
reh 23-24 and April 6-9, 1976 (C(A ff 4 < xlc'
V Jhb Reviewed by:
R. C. Lew'is, Chief
'h
'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 J. W. Hampton - Manager, Administrative Services L. E. Schmid - Superintendent of Operations 0. S. Bradham - Superintendent of Maintenance R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services T. S. Barr - Technical Services. Engineer R. L. Wilson - Performance Engineer A. Faraby - Test Engineer W. Martin - Junior Engineer Operations Personnel 2.
Reportable Occurrences A0-269/75-15, " Failure of Borated Water Storage Tank Level Indication" a.
10 CFR 50.36 requires that the licensee shut down the reactor, or take remedial action allowed by Technical Specifications, when a limiting condition for operation is not met.
&
Licensee standing order No. 19 requires that in cases where no remedial action is allowed by technical specifications the shutdown rate shall be at least 10% per hour.
Contrary to the above, on December 19, 1975, when both channels of BWST Level instrumentation failed, violating Technical n_-
O s
c V
'
.
.
__ _
. --_ _ _ _ _ - - - -
.
?
/
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 I-2
-
e Specification 3.3.1.f shutdown at the specified rate was not commenced until 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 31 minutes had elapsed.
The licensee's Abnormal Occurrence Report (AO-269/75-15)
states in part that " Reactor power was i= mediately reduced and a shutdown initiated. Within 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, one level channel was put back into service by running a separate impulse line to the level transmitter. Reactor power had been decreased to 65% and the shutdown was terminated.
It appeared from the above, that a 10% per hour shutdown rate was initiated and at the end of 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> reactor power was reduced to 65%. However, the Unit-1 logbook for December 19, 1975, recorded that at 0305 hours0.00353 days <br />0.0847 hours <br />5.042989e-4 weeks <br />1.160525e-4 months <br /> both channels of BWST level indication failed; at 0349 hours0.00404 days <br />0.0969 hours <br />5.770503e-4 weeks <br />1.327945e-4 months <br /> reactor power was decreased 96%; at 0415 operator commenced decreasing power at 1 gg/ minute (N7%perhourrate);agg/perminute.
at 0436 hours0.00505 days <br />0.121 hours <br />7.208995e-4 weeks <br />1.65898e-4 months <br /> operator commenced decreasing power at 9 Apparent conflicts between the A0 report and the site records were discussed with management personnel.
b.
A0-269/75-13, " Failure of Keowee Hydro Station Unit 2 to Autostart" On Nov;mber 8, 1975, Keowee Unit 2 failed to start from the Oconee control room. The licensee's A0 report stated that Keowee Unit 1 was immediately connected to the underground feeder.
The licensee's incident report No. B-412, however, showed that 7 minutes elapsed before Keowee Unit 1 was connected to the underground 'u der and that during the 7 minutes Keowee-1 was f
started and paralleled to the Oconee switchyard.
Ihe inspector stated that, in such cases, priority action should be to connect the operable Keowee unit to the underground
~
feeder before conducting other lower priority activities.
Site management stated they would discuss this subject with
operations personnel.
The inspector again stated that management should assure that accurate information be provided in the NRC required reports.
RO-269/76-1, " Error Adjusted Reactor power Imbalance Exceeded" c.
The inspector verified that corrective action, involving changes to procedure PT/1&2/A/600/1, was accomplished.
There were no further questions on this item.
j
!
.-
..-
-
-
-. -
~
.
-
.
.,-
'
IE Rpt. Noo. 50-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 I-3
,
.
UE-269/75-10, "Inonerable Reactor Building Isolation Valve" d.
Corrective actions to inspect for paint on ES valve seems was accomplished prior to January 7,1976.
The inspector had no further questions.
.
R0-270/76-2, " Operation with Group 8, Rod 1 Misaligned" e.
Contrary to Technical Specification 3.5.2.2, a control rod in group 8 was not declared inoperable when misaligned.
"
The apparent cause of this incident was a blown fuse in rod 1, group 8, phase BB.
The licensee's corrective action was verified and the inspector had no further questions.
f.
Corrective ections were also verified on the following occur-rences:
UE-270/75-15, " Removal of incorrect letdown filter" UE-270/75-17, " Isolation of letdown flow" R0-270/76-3, " Quadrant tilt excessive when rod dropped" A0-287/75-12, " Inoperable containment isolation valve" UE-287/75-12, " Failure of gasket on personnel hatch door" R0-287/76-1, "B-train of penetration room ventilation system inoperable" UE-287/75-11, "LPSW valve failure" 3.
Previous Unresolved Items Unresolved Items 74-10, 08,11/4 (SRC Quorum) and 74-10, 08, 11/5 (Procedure Changes) are considered closed based on clarification of requirements in these two subject areas specified in changes to Section 6.0 of the Technical Specifications dated February 13, 1976.
4.
Previous 1v Identified Noncompliance Items The inspector verified corrective actions had been completed on four noncompliance items from IE Inspection Report 50-269, 270,
'
287/76-1. These items are closed.
Noncompliance iten I.A.1 from inspection report 50-269/75-13, 50-i
!
270/75-14, 50-287/75-15 involving NSRC meeting frequency is also closed.
', _
I~
!
. '
i
.- -
_-
.
- s
-
,
)
-IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 I-4
.
5.
Surveillance Soecinen Holder Tube Problems _
The inspector reviewed the extent of this problem. Video tapes showing the inside of surveillance specimen holder tubes were viewed and discussions held with licensee personnel.
At the time of this inspection Unit 1 was operating after its second refueling with the surveillance specimen capsules removed.
The holder tubes were worn in several areas but were still intact and remained in the vessel. The licensee plans to shut Unit 1 down again to implement a temporary fix on the tubes to reduce the possibility of further wear on the holder tubes.
Unit 2 was shut down during this inspection due to noise detected in the vicinity of the surveillance capsules. The licensee plans to keep the unit down for its first refueling.
Unit 3 was down during this inspection for removal of surveillance specimen capsules and temporary repair of holder tubes.
6.
Unit-1 Reactor Building Integrated Leak Race Test The inspector reviewed conduct of the Unit 1 integrated leak rate test March 23-24, 1976. This included review of instrumentation calibration, test procedures, various technical specification requirements and test results.
The licensee conducted leak rate analysis according to the Bechtel BN-TOP-1 method.
The Inspectors and licensee personnel verified that results obtained from computer runs were the same as hand calculations using actual test data.
The inspector questioned whether the licensee's use of the calculated leak rate af ter 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, as the final test result, was appropriate, or if the mean value should be reported as the final result. After further review, it was determined that the ANSI Standard (ANSI 45.4),
which addresses this subject, is under consideration for revision and the use of the calculated leak rate after 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> determined
{
by the BN-TOP-1 method appears to be acceptable.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
7.
Seismic Restraints
'
The inspector reviewed maintenance procedure MP/2/A/300C/12 and
'
verified that acceptance criteria for seismic restraint operability s,,
l had been established by the licensee.
.
!
-
e
.
-.e
--,
ogwM
&
-
m-=
v
++m4
- -
m ww
--ee,
-
p-em-sww-
,<+*-+ ** ** __
.
.
Q IE Rpt. Nta. 50-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 II-1
,
N k
26 DETAILS II Prepared by:
-
H. L. Whitener, Reactor Inspector
'Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: A ril 6-9, 1976 bh I
Reviewed by:
H. C. Dance, Chief
/ Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted J. W. Hampton - Director, Administrative Services O. S. Bradham - Maintenance Superintendent L. E. Schmid - Operations Superintendent R. Adams - I&C, Maintenance J. Cox - Station Senior QA Engineer T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer R. L. Wilson - Performance Engineer E. E. Hite - Engineer Maintenance W. Martin - Engineer J. M. Alexander - Maintenance Mechanic T. Campbell - Assistant Operations Engineer G. Ridgeway - Assistant Operations Engineer H. Lowery - Assistant Operations Engineer M. Owens - Clerk, Operations 2.
Maintenance Review Purpose of this inspection was to verify that station maintenance activities are conducted in accordance with the licensee's QA and
~
administrative policies and the facility Technical Specifications.
i Activities reviewed were within the Technical Specifications and i;
approved procedural requirements and included equipment taken out of service, removal of equipment and restoration to service in accordance with administrative requirements, performance of main-i tenance by approved procedures and quality control of maintenance as required by QA and administrative controls.
Fourteen maintenance
e s
ee
--e,=.
-c-
-
_
%y
..
.
.
.
.
-
m i
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-4, 50-270/76-4 and 50-287/76-4 II-2
'
,
.
jobs performed on Units 1, 2, or 3 since June 1975, were selected f rom safety related reactor systems such as primary pressure boundary, emergency core cooling, engineered safety features and containment systems. Equipment selected for review included pressurizer code safety valves, safety related motors, pumps and valves, hydraulic suppressors and containment airlock. Types of documentation of which portions were reviewed during the inspection included:
1.
Steam Production Department Administrative Policy Manual (APM).
2.
Administrative Procedure No. 9.
3.
Licensee Internal Reports.
4.
Work Request Files.
5.
Maintenance Procedures.
6.
QA Records and Inspection Reports.
7.
Semi-Annual Maintenance Report.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance were identified.
.
i l
,
I i
..
l
.
.
.
..
..
.
.- _.-.
-- -...---
. - -
.-
... - -..