IR 05000269/1977004
| ML19316A306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1977 |
| From: | Alderson C, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A292 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-04, 50-269-77-4, 50-270-77-04, 50-270-77-4, 50-287-77-04, NUDOCS 7912050874 | |
| Download: ML19316A306 (10) | |
Text
'
-
t
UNITED STATES
p *3 E82 9
'
je NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,
j g
') e ( g g REGloN il
r 230 PE ACHTREE STR EET, N.W. SUITE 1217
k <, D
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s,..s.',/
...
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/77-4, 50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4 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, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of License:
B&W, PWR, 2560 Mwt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: April 5-8, 1977 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 8-11, 1977 Principal Inspector:
C. E. Alderson, Reactor Inspector Accompanying Inspector.
h I
C C]TI Principal Inspector:
M QA" 6 C.E.(Aljerson,ReactorInspector Date Reactor Wojects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by: M. C-.
f /
R. C. Lewis, Chief
' Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
_
7912050
,
_ _ _ _
__ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ ___
_ __
7".
-
)
.
!
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-4, I
(,
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Items Infraction Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 50.54(1-1) of 10 CFR 50, the licensee failed to implement an operator requalification program meeting the minimum requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR 55, in that as of April 7, 1977, systematic reactor operator performance evaluations had not been completed, documented and reviewed as ppecified in Sections 5 and 6 of the licensee's approved requalifica-tion program.
(Details, paragraph 6)
-
IT.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Failure to Perform Required Surveillance Testing This item, identified in Paragraph I of the Summary of IE Inspection Report 50-287/76-9, is closed based on a review of the licensee's corrective actions.
(Details, paragraph 4)
III.
New Unresolved Items 77-4/1 Releases of Gaseous Radioactivity to the Auxiliary Building Two incidents involving unintentional releases of radio-active gases in the Auxiliary Building require further NRC review.
(Details, paragraph 8)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not inspected.
V.
Unusual Occurrences None VI.
Other Significant Findings None VII.
Management Interviews An entrance interview was held by the inspector with Messrs. J. Hampton and R. Bond on April 5, 1977, and the areas to be inspected and the scope of the inspection were discussed.
!
,
s
- " '
~ * = =
~
-e-ww _
_._..e
- %e..
,-*,
-
-
-
-
. - _ -.
'
a r,l
.i IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-4
,.,
f'
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-3-An exit interview was conducted with Mr. J. E. Smith and other members of the Oconee staff at the conclusion of the inspection on April 8, 1977.
The findings, as presented in the Details of this report, were discussed.
/*
t T
.
1
)
l ()
.
- A,-9
=
,,,,
- -<
,
_
!,
-.
.
q IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-4, (
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-1-
")
DETAILS Prepared by:
Carl E.\\)1derson, Reactor Inspector
'Date'
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: April 5-8, 1977 f 7 Reviewed b h
~
'
g R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear
'
Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station L. Schmid - Superintendent of Operations 0. Bradham - Superintendent of Maintenance k. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services J. Hampton - Director of Administrative Services C. Yongue - Health Physics Supervisor M. Harris - Operating Engineer R. Bond - Technical Services Engineer M. Alexander - Technical Specialist J. Price - Assistant Shif t Supervisor R. Beughet - Training Coordinator G. Mitchell - Assistant Shif t Supervisor Other members of the Operations, Maintenance, Technical Services and Administrative Services Groups 2.
IE Circulars The inspector verified that appropriate station management personnel had received and reviewed copies of the following Circulars:
IEC 76-3, Radiation Exposures in Reactor Cavities IEC 76-7, Inadequate Performance by Reactor Operating and Support Staffs IEC 77-1, Malfunctions of Limitorque Operators IEC 77-3, Fire Inside a Motor Control Center IEC 77-4, Inadequate Lock Assemblies
_.
_. _..
... _ _
__ -
_.
__
T
__
_ -.
_ __
'
.
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-4, (
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-2-F For IEC's 76-3 and 76-7, which required written responses, the inspector also determined that the responses were prepared within the time period specified.
For 76-7 the inspector further determined that the information presented in the response was supported by licensee records. Within the areas inspected no discrepancies were identified. The above items are closed, except for IEC 76-3 which remains open pending review of licensee documentation by NRC health physics personnel.
3.
Reportable Occurrence Review Follovup The inspector performed an inoffice review of the licensee event
,.
reports listed below to determine,whether:
(1) the reporting requirements of Technical Specification 6.6.2.1 had been satisfied; (2) the details provided were adequate to access the event; (3) the cause was accurately identified and the corrective action appropriate; and (4) generic implications had been considered, where appropriate.
During this inspection, licensee documents available onsite such as internal incident investigation reports, maintenance work requests and operating logs, were reviewed to verify that:
(1) the circum-stances of the events were as reported; (2) the stated corrective actions had been accomplished and were appropriate; and (3) the events did not result in operation in a manner which would constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 or a hazard to the health and safety of the public. The following reports were reviewed:
R0 269/77-5, Reactor Protective System Not Recalibrated Promptly After Technical Specification Change RO 269/77-6, Failure of a HPI Letdown Isolation Valve IHP-5, which is also a Reactor Building Containment Isolation Valve RO 269/77-8, Primary-to-Secondary System Leakage in "1B" Once-Through Steam Generator RO 269/77-9, Two-pump Coastdown Flow Assumed in the Core Thermal Bydraulic Design Analysis Found to be Slightly Non-conservative RO 270/77-3, Reactor Building Pressure Transmitter Out of Calibration Licensee report RO 269/77-9 was forwarded to IE:HQ for evaluation and may be reviewed further during future inspections. Within the creas inspected, no discrepancies were identified and the above items are closed.
__
.. ]
]
.
.
IE Rpt. Nao. 50-269/77-4
'
i 50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-3-
.
.
4.
Periodic Testing The inspector reviewed licensee documents and held discussions with licensee personnel concerning the noncompliance cited in IE Inspec-tion Report No. 50-287/76-9 regarding failure to perform the annual discharge test on the Unit 3, 125 volt instrument and control system batteries, and the corrective actions described in the licensee's written response dated October 13, 1976.
The inspector determined that the corrective actions were appropriate and had been completed as described.
The inspector had no further questions and this item is closed.
/*
5.
General Employee Training The inspector reviewed individual training records for nine employees and conducted interviews with several employees to verify that the general employee training and retraining required by Technical Specification 6.1.1.5 and described by Section 2.5.5 of the Adminis-trative Policy Manual was being conducted and documented.
Interviews with female employees also confirmed that information had been provided to them with regard to prenatal exposure. Within the areas inspected, no discrepancies were identified.
6.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training The inspector reviewed licensee documents to verify that a requali-fication program for NRC licensed reactor operator (R0s) and senior reactor operators (SR0s) had been established consistent with the requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR 55 and the licensee's approved requalification program.
The inspector also reviewed individual training records and held discussions with licensed personnel to determine whether the program had been implemented.
Additionally, the licensee's QA Audit Report No. 76-24 addressing this area was reviewed by the inspector. The inspector confirmed that two problems identified during that audit had been corrected and reaudited.
Within the areas inspected, one discrepancy was identified.
Paragraph 4.e of Appendix A to 10 CFR 55 requires systematic obser-vation and evaluation of the performance of licensed operators and senior operators, and Paragraph 5 of Appendix A requires that training records include the results of these evaluations. Section 5.2 of the licensee's approved requalification plan states that
" Semi-annually each Shift Supervisor will submit a report to the Operating Superintendent, evaluating the perfonnance of each man under his supervision during normal and abnormal operating conditions."
l
..
_
__
.
-
]
j'
.
l IE Rpt. Nan. 50-269/77-4, 50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-4-
,
r
'
<
!
Section 5.3 of the plan states that "The performance of Operators and Senior Operators will be evaluated by the simulator training staff following simulator training." Finally, Section 6.1 of the plan requires that training records include these evaluations.
None of the training records reviewed by the inspector contained the required evaluations. This was discussed with licensee manage-ment and the Operations Superintendent stated that such evaluations i
were performed for supervisory personnel and were retained in personnel records rather than the training records; however, the Operations Superintendent further stated that the semi-annual
. performance evaluations had never been performed for non-
'
supervisory licensed personnel.
Failure to perform, document and
,
review the required performance evaluations for non-supervisory licensed personnel is an Infraction.
7.
Cleanliness
'
Section 3.11 of the Administrative Policy Manual and Maintenance Procedure MP/0/A/1800/1 were reviewed to verify that the licensee l
had established a program to assure adequate houscheeping and system cleanliness. The program was evaluated for conformance to ANSI N45.2.3-1973 and Section 5.3.5 of ANSI N18.7-1972. These documents appeared to contain the necessary requirements for material accountability to prevent unintentional entry into safety-related systems, establishment and maintenance of cleanliness zones, removal of combustible materials, and cleaning of replacement parts prior to use. Discussions with licensee maintenance personnel indicated that such personnel are cognizant of these requirements and their implementation.
[
Within the areas inspected, one discrepancy was identified.
Proce-dure MP/0/A/1800/1 did not contain blank spaces to enter the date completed, a work order number, or any other means of identifying the specific job for which the procedure was completed.
The licensee stated that the procedure would be revised to include a requirement that when completed it would be attached to the procedure controlling the related maintenance or operations activity.
The inspector had no further questions.
8.
Review of Plant Operations
.
The inspector reviewed operating records and logs to verify that:
(1) facility operation was being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments; (2) incidents were identified and reported to the NRC where required by Technical Specifications or other regulatory requirements; and (3) the licensee i
.
.-.. - - - - - - -
_a_..
-
- _ _ -.
., _. _ -
)
.
IE Rpt. Nas. 50-269/77-4, 50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-5-l
,
had performed the required reviews of plant operations.
The follow-ing documents were reviewed for the periods indicated:
Reactor Operations Logs - Unit 1 (March 22 - April 2, 1977)
Unit 2 (March 1-13, 1977)
Unit 3 (February 26 - March 31, 1977)
Shif t Supervisors' Logs - Unit 1 (January 1 - March 31,1977)
Unit 2 (January 1 - March 31,1977)
Unit 3 (January 1 - March 31, 1977)
Out of Normal Logs -
Unit 1 (January 1 - March 31,1977)
'
Unit 2 (January 1 - March 31, 1977)
Unit 3 (January 1 - March 31, 1977)
Incident Investigation Reports - All reports covering incidents involving safety-related systems which occurred during the period January 1 - March 31, 1977 and which had not been reported to the NRC.
In addition, the inspector toured various areas of the facility to ascertain the general status of plant equipment and area conditions.
Specific items checked included:
(1) recording instruments operating properly; (2) radiation controls properly established; (3) general housekeeping; (4) existence of fluid leaks or pipe vibrations; (5)
status of indicating lights and annunciators; and (6) control room manning. The inspector also held discussions with the operating staff to ascertain the cause of certain activated annunciators or status lights.
Within the areas inspected, the following adverse conditions were identified:
a.
The Unit 1 Shif t Supervisor's Log contained an entry dated January 8,1977, which described an accidental release of radioactive gas from the "B" Waste Gas Decay (WGD) Tank into
-
the Auxiliary Building. The entry indicated that increased readings were noticed on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Vent Radiation Monitors and simultaneously a decreasing pressure was observed on the WGD Tank.
The entry further indicated that the cause was failure of the unloader valves on the
"B" Gaceous Waste Compressor which was undergoing maintenance at the time, and that at 2145 hours0.0248 days <br />0.596 hours <br />0.00355 weeks <br />8.161725e-4 months <br /> the unloader valves were placed in the closed position terminating the release.
-..
.___.._....___s
..
.
l l
-_
)
i IE Rpt. N20. 50-269/77-4, l
-
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-6-
,
.
,,,
The instector reviewed the recorder chart for tank pressure (Chart No. R135) and it appeared that the tank pressure started decreasing from approximately 20 psig at 1420 hours0.0164 days <br />0.394 hours <br />0.00235 weeks <br />5.4031e-4 months <br /> on January 8, 1977, and stopped decreasing at approximately 2215 hours0.0256 days <br />0.615 hours <br />0.00366 weeks <br />8.428075e-4 months <br /> the same day with the indicated pressure at about 3.5 psig.
The inspector requested copies of sampling and counting results data sheets for any surveys made for gaseous activity in the Auxiliary Building during this time period on January 8, 1977.
A licensee representative stated that the records did not indicate that such surveys had been conducted on the day in question. The inspector stated that this information would be
'
conveyed to NRC Region II health physics personnel for evalua-tion.
b.
The Unit 1 Shift Supervisor's Log also contained an entry dated January 10, 1977, which described an accidental release of reactor coolant from the Letdown Storage Tank into the Auxiliary Building. The event occurred due to inadequate isolation of a valve which was to be repaired. Maintenance personnel, believing the valve to be isolated, removed the valve bonnet and created the leak. Action vr.s taken immediately to isolate the valve, but before isolation was accomplished approximately 250 gallons of radioactive water was released.
The log indicated that at 1040 hours0.012 days <br />0.289 hours <br />0.00172 weeks <br />3.9572e-4 months <br /> on January 10, 1977, the Jealth Physics group was notified and were requested to make a survey.
The log stated that the survey indicated a 5-8 mr/hr dose rate due to gaseous activity and that the first and second floors of the Auxiliary Building were evacuated at 1055 hourt.
The inspector was given a copy of a survey datg sheet which indicated a total gaseous activity of 7.63 x 10 micro-curies per milliliter.
The licensee stated that the improper valve isolation was due to insufficient information on the piping diagrams and insuffi-cient identification of the pipe itself.
The licensee further stated that corrective action had been initiated and involved revision of the drawings and placement of a sign in the vicinity of the valve to better identify the specific pipe.
The inspector noted that fifteen minutes elapsed between the time the Health Physics group was notified and the time that the Auxiliary Building was evacuated. The inspecter stated that from a radiological safety standpoint it wou15 appear more appropriate to evacuate an area when a hazard is suspected rather than wait until the hazard is confirmed.
The licensee agreed with this statement.
.
e-M'@
M +* W 9* M
- * *
.
..
.
i
-
\\
.
s)
>
.
.
l IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-4,
<*
50-270/77-4 and 50-287/77-4-7-i
,x)
-
With regard to the adequacy of the surveys and the results, the inspector stated that the information would be evaluated by NRC Region II health physics personnel, and that both this event and the one described in 8.a above, would be designated as Unresolved Item 77-4/1 pending completion of the evaluations.
c.
In the Unit 3 control room the inspector noted that the power indicating light for the fire deluge system was not on and also that the " Fire" annunciator on the control panel was on.
The inspector questioned the operator concerning these conditions.
The power indicating lamp was determined to be bad and was replaced.
The operator stated that the fire annunciator
',
was the result of a malfunctioned detector in the Unit 3 reactor building.
The inspector inquired about reflash capability on the particular annunciator and it was determined that the reflash unit was not operating
,
properly. The operator stated that a work request would be iniated to have ther reflash unit fixed. The inspector had no further questions.
)
i l
l
~
l
~~
'
- - - -
--.-..
..... _
__
\\
_
, -...
,
.-
_-,