IR 05000269/1976009
| ML19316A262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1976 |
| From: | Burnett P, Epps T, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A255 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-76-09, 50-269-76-9, 50-270-76-09, 50-270-76-9, 50-287-76-09, NUDOCS 7912050836 | |
| Download: ML19316A262 (10) | |
Text
t ** " GW,,
UNITED STATES
- /p 0,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J Yp,. yY,q nEciou n
.
g J,. '., i,..,, /.
230 PEAcHT A EE ST RE ET, N/.V. SU4TE 018
,.d.f.a / f ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 00303 o,
,
'
9 ' :; 4 g
n o
-
- ....
(J IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/76-9, 50-260/76-9 and 50-287/76-9 Licensee:
Duke Power Conpany Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Name:
Oconee L' nits 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Category:
C, C and C Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: August 17-19, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: July 12-16, 1976 Principal Inspector:
T. N. Epps, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Accompanying Inspector:
P. T. Burnett, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Principal Inspector: f/hb V
jd C-76 T. N. Epps,,Rehetor Inspector Date Reactor Prcfjects Section No. 2 Reactor; Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by:
,b.
.
/C[
b'
R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 7912osop
-
.
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9, 50-270/76-9
,
j
,'
and 50-287/76-9-2-
'
.
.
SU:OiARY OF FINDI:;GS I.
Enforcement Items Infractions Contrary to Technical Specification 4.6.7.c, an annual one-hour discharge test was not conducted, on the Unit 3 125 VDC system instrument and control batteric.;, since issuance of the Unit 3 operating license on July 19, 1974.
(Details I, paragraph 2.f.)
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not inspected.
III.
New Unresolved Items 76-9/1 Surveillance Records Records of Units 1 and 2 operational hydro tests appear deficient.
(Details III, paragraph 2)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Oconee 1 73-12/1 Calibration of Ef fluent Monitors Not inspected.
74-3/3 Training of Unlicensed Utility operators Not inspected.
Oconee 3 74-13/2 Reactor Coolant Flow Anomalv This problem has been referred to the Office of Reactor Regulation (Licensing).
It remains open pending further verification that no problem exists.
74-14/2 Ventilation Control Between Auxiliary and Turbine Buildings The licensee stated that modifications would be completed by January 1, 1977.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
-
.
-
.
.
l
.
-
.
'
'
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9, 50-270/76-9
.
'
and 50-287/76-9-3-Oconee 1, 2 and 3 75-12, 13, 14/1 Fire Protection Program Weaknesses Not inspected.
76-1/i Instrument Calibration Not inspected.
76-1/2 Electrical Equipment Calibration Not inspected.
76-2/1 Process and Effluent Monitor Calibrations and Functional Checks Not inspected.
76-5/1 Definition of " Safety-Related" The licensee committed to resolve this item by October 1, 1976.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
76-7/1 Temporary Jumpers and Bypasses Not inspected.
76-7/2 Safety Review Connittee Not inspected.
76-7/3 Test Equipment Storage Not inspected.
76-7/4 Delineation of Duties and Authorities Not inspected.
V.
Other Significant Findings Non i
,
l
-
.3 l
i lE apt. Nos. 50-269/76-9, 50-270/76-9 and 50-287/76-9-4-VI.
Management Interview A management interview was held on August 19, 1976, with J. E. Smith and members of the Oconce staff.
Items discussed included a summary of items inspected, the noncompliance item in Section I of this summary and licensee commitments in Details I, paragraph 4.
.
k
aae.
n a
a
._
..
--
.. -
. -
.
i
,
.
!
"
- s, i
.I l
IE Rp t.
Nos. 50-269/76-9, I-l
'
!
50-270/76-9, l
and 50-287/76-9
}
DETAILS I Ptepared by:
4.-
bII~76 T. N. Epps, Rea,gtor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2
Reactor Operations and Nuclear l
Support Branch a
Dates of Inspection: August 17-19, 1976
Reviewed by:
[. C.
L< c--09 N
70-R. C. Lewis, Chief Date
'
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
'
1.
Individuals Contacted J
Site Inspection
Duke Power Company (DPC)
-
Oconee Personnel J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station
.I J. W. Ha=pton - Manager, Administrative Services L. E. Schmid - Superintendent of Operations
0 S. Bradham - Superintendent of Maintenance I
R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer
'
i R. T. Bond - Technical Services Engineer 2,
Surveillance
,
The inspector reviewed selected surveillance procedures and l
results to determine if portions of Technical Specification
'
Sections 3.0 and 4.0 were being met, as follows.
a.
Reactor Coolant System Hydro following opening of system (Units 1, 2 and 3) - this te t is conducted as part of the controlling procedure for unit startup.
A licensee representative stated that when a hydro test is to be accomplished the operating engineers determine where visual leak checks are to be conducted, depending upon where the reactor coolant system was cpened.
F o
.
,---s
,.rv-
-
,,
,
,
e-
- -, -
,_.
.
l
-
.I._) '
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9, I-2
.~
50-270/76-9, and 50-287/76-9 The inspector stated that the leak checks to be done were not specifically addressed in the startup procedure nor was there a sign-off space to indicate when the leak check was completed.
The licensee stated that they would review this matter and
make procedure changes where appropriate.
I b.
Main Steam Relief Valve Test (Units.1, 2 and 3)
Completed procedures MP/0/A/3000/22, performed on March 30, 1976, for Unit 1, May 14, 1976, for Unit 3 and July 7, 1976, for Unit 2, were reviewed for conformance to Technical Specifi-cation Section 4.1 and 6.4.
The inspector had no further questions on these tests.
,
c.
Reactor Building Purge System Filter Test (Unit 1)
Slight leakage through the filter bypass was noted in procedure PT/0/A/110/5 conducted on January 18, 1976.
The licensee stated that a modification to prevent bypass leakage would be implemented by March 1, 1977.
d.
High Pressure Injection Pump Tests (Units 1, 2 and 3)
Completed high pressure injection pump operation test procedure PT/0/A/202/11, conducted on June 30, 1976, for Unit 1, August 2, 1976, far Unit 2, and July 20, 1976, for Unit 3, were reviewed.
No discrepancies were identified during this review.
e.
Reactor Building Sprar System (Unit 3)
Completed reactor building spray system procedure (PT/0/A/204/9),
conducted on April 29, 1976, was reviewed.
This annual test was performed within the required time period.
No discrepancies
were identified.
f.
125 VDC Batterv Discharge Test (Uni t 3)
The inspector found that the Unit-3125 VDC battery discharge (MP/0/A/3000/3) had not been conducted since the operating test license was granted for Unit 3 on July 19, 1974.
Technical Specification 4.6.7.C requires a one hour discharga test en the 125 VDC system batteries to be conducted annually, with a
-
maximum interval between tests of 18 months. This test should
,
have been conducted not later than January 18, 1976.
l
._
_
..,_.
., _ _._.
,
. -. - -
.-
.
.
-
,
b
=
{ ' (']
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9 I-3 50-270/76-9, and 50-287/76-9 The inspector stated that failure to perform the battery discharge test at the frequency specified in the Technical Specifications is noncompliance of the infraction category.
When the inspector informed licensee management of their nonco=pliance with the Technical Specifications, unit shutdown was initiated (August 18, 1976) and a safety evaluation was conducted, per Technical Specification 3.7.8, simultaneous with the shutdown.
As a result of the safety evaluation determining that Unit-1 batteries were available to Unit-3, the licensee terminated the Unit 3 shutdown after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and performed the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> discharge test on one string of batteries.
A licensee representative stated that the test was successful.
The licensee's plans were to recharge the tested batteries and then test the redundant string.
The licensee stated that a report on this incident would be sent, to NRC licensing within five days per Technical Specifi-cation 3.7.8 with a copy to the NRC Region II office.
The licensee agreed that a review of the method of controlling surveillance scheduling was appropriate. A licensee represen-tative stated that initial corrective action would be to emphasize accurate scheduling of surveillance required by Technical Specifications.
This will be the subject of further review by tha NRC.
3.
Ventilation control Between Auxiliary and Turbine Building This unresolved item (74-14/2) remains open pending additional cndifications to auxiliary building fano.
A licensee epresen-tative stated that larger motors were to be installed i some auxiliary building fans by January 1, 1977.
h-Definition af Safety-Related This unresolved item (~76-5/1) remains cpen.
The licensee cctsittei to resolve this item by October 1, 197o.
.
-. _.. -_ _
._
_
.. _.
_
... _ -.
_ - - _. _ _
. _ _
__
l
,
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9 II-1
.
,('T and 50-270/76-9
>
}
-J'
.I
'
'
,j
.
'
'
"
~
DETAILS II Prepared by:
'
-:
.
,
P. T. Burnett, Reactor Inspector Date
'
Nuclear Support Section
'
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: August 17-19, 1976
'
e
' ~, -
.
i Reviewed by:
._. i " -
"
'
H. C. Dance, Acting Chief Date
'
Nuclear Support Section i
Reactor Operations and Nuclear j
Support Branch i
I 1.
Personnel Contacted
'
J. E. Smith - Station Manager L. E. Schmid - Operations Superintendent O. S. Bradsham - Maintenance Superintendent R. M. Koehler - Technical Services Superintendent T. S. Barr - Technical Services Engineer R. T. Bond - Performance Engineer l
W. Campbell - Reactor Engineer
2.
Recovery of Systems Following Refueling i
The inspector reviewed facility records to ascertain that systems in both units 1 and 2 had been returned to service using approved
,
procedures following the respective retueling outage. The inspector could not confirm that the requirements of Technical Specification 4.3.2 had been met for either unit.
This requirement for a leak
'
test at pressure following openings of the primary system is addressed in OP/N/A/1102/01 (N=1, 2 or 3), " Controlling Procedure i
for Unit Startup", however, only the most recently completed procedures are retained by the licensee.
The retained copies did not address the leak tests because the systems had not been opened immediately prior to the most recent performance of the procedure.
This is an unresolved item.
A review of records such as IP/0/A/330/3A confirmed, for both
,
'
units 1 and 2, that control rod drop times and programs met the requirements of Technical Specifications 4.7.1 and 4.7.2
prior to restart after refueling.
Control rod withdrawal sequence was established by TT/1 or 2/A/711/01.
.
i
'
.
l
.l
.
. _ -.. - _,
_
,
, _...
.,.
.,
_ _ _ _
.
.
....a
,
,
>
~
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9 LI-2
/-)
and 50-270/76-9
\\
.
Similarly, conformance to Technical Specifications 3.5.1 and 3.5.4 for nuclear instruments and incore nuclear instrucents was con-firmed by review of TT/1 or 2/A/811/01 and PT/0/A/302/04.
3.
Surveillance Testing Licenaec records of required monthly surveillance tests were reviewed to confirm performance during the refueling outages.
The tests confirmed are given in the following tabic by technical specification, procedure and unit checked.
Technical Specification Procedure Unit 1 Unit 2 4.1.1 RPS Coincidence Logic X
IP/0/A/0305/
-3D 4.1.1 High Pressure Injection Logic X
IP/0/A/0310/12A, 13A 4.1.1 Reactor Building Spray Logic IP/0/A/310/22D, 13D X
4.1.1 Rod Monitor Test IP/0/A/360/15 X
X 4.6.6 125 Voltage and Specific Gravity Test 11P/0/A/3000/01, 4 X
X 4.6.7 125 VDC Diode Monitor Operability MP/0/A/3000/05 X
X
-
4.1.2 HPSW Pumps and Power Supplies PT/0/A/0250/5 Co=cen to both units 4.
Zero Pcwer Physics Tests Separate physics test manuals had been prepared for each unit prior to returning it to criticality.
The numerical acceptance criteria for both the zero power and power escalation tests were provided in the manuals. By review of procedures TT/1/A/771/01 and TT/2/A/
771/01.
The inspector confirmed that both the Manual and Technical Specification acceptance criteria were met.
The :cro power test included:
(1) boron reactivity worthand endpoint concentratiens for a variety of rod configurations, (2) moderator temperature coefficient and (3) shutdewn margin with the high worth rod out of the core.
The inspector made a detailed review of the test data associated with tests (1) and (2) for U..'t 1 and for test (1) for Unit E Rpt. Nos. 50-269/76-9 II-3 and 50-270/76-9
..
.
5.
Power Escalation Tests Tests performed during power escalation included thermal calibra-tion of the power range nuclear insttuments and incore power distri-butions.
Power and temperature coefficient measurements were performed at or near full power.
By review of com,.leted procedures TT/1/A/811/01 and TT/2/A/811/01 the inspector confirmed that the tests results met the appropriate numerical and technical acceptance criteria.
The data for the power coefficient measurements for both units were reviewed in detail.
Data for the incore power distribution measurements for Unit 1 and for power range nuclear instrument calibration for Unit 2 were also reviewed.
.
.-.
..