IR 05000269/1977005
| ML19322B791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1977 |
| From: | Alderson C, Cunningham A, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B776 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-05, 50-269-77-5, 50-270-77-05, 50-270-77-5, 50-287-77-05, NUDOCS 7912050781 | |
| Download: ML19322B791 (7) | |
Text
h rs%q t
UNITED STATES
,
g,t.
jee, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
i
{
) q=>
g (_,1
, ge(/,: g REGION 11
-
g 230 PEACHTREE STREET. N.W. SUITE 1217
-) #s. 'v 2i
[
ATLANTA. CEORGIA 30303 o
,
- ...+
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/77-5, 50-270/77-5 and 50-287/77-5 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 Licensee: B&W, PWR, 2560 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: April 14-15, 1977
.
Dates of Previous Inspection: April 5-8, 1977 Inspector:
A. L. Cunningham, Environmental Scientist Accompanying Inspector.
None q
Y!!'I!11 Principal Inspector:
.
.
tA Lo-Carl E.'
1derson, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor (rojects Section No.
P
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by:
M e d.
I!/7/77 R. C. Lewis, Chief
'Date Reactor Projects Section Fo. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
.-
.
.
.-.
=
..
t9isoso 7P/
-
.
.
,
!
.
()
. IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-5, 50-270/77-5 and 50-287/77-5-2-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Items De: Iciency Contrary to the requirements of Appendix B Technical Specification 1.2, the licensee failed to submit a written report to the Director of Region II within one week following telephone notification of
-
the March 16, 1977, event in which the pH limit of Technical Specification 1.2.B was exceeded.
(Details I, Paragraph 3)
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters No previously identified non-radiological environmental protection enforcement items remain open.
III.
New Unresolved Items None
'T'
IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items There were no previously identified unresolved items in the area of non-radiological environmental protection.
V.
Unusual Occurrences None VI.
Other Significant Findings Deviation The licensee failed to implement installation and operation of a control room alarm for the inline yard drain pH monitor by April 1, 1977, as committed to in their response dated November 16, 1976, to the noncompliance with pH limits cited in IE Inspection Report No.
50-269/76-10.
(Details I, Paragraph 4)
VII.
Management Interviews At the conclusion of the inspection of April 15, 1977, a meeting was held with L. E. Schmid, Acting Station Manager, and members of the plant staff.
The findings of the inspection, as presented in
'
the Details of this report, were discussed.
v
-- - - - _ _ - -
.
_ _ _ _ _. _ - _. _ _. _
_ _. -,
_.
.
.
.
.
O" IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-5,
" 50-270/77-5 and 50-287/77-5 I-1 s
/-
l
DETAILS 1 Prepared by: M
_.4./ M M
- //z
/
A. L. Cunninghem, jf,avfr'onmental
'Date Scientist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: April 14-15, 1977
[. [m e !
S/[v[77 Reviewed by:
.
'Date R.' L. Bangart.jChief Environmental land Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Scope The subject inspection was a routine followup of the licensee event concerning plant discharge pH limits (Appendix B TS 1.2B) reported i
on March 16, 1977.
Inspection included the following items:
(1)
~'
assessment of licensee's review of the event; (2) review and assess-ment of corrective action scheduled for completion by April 1,1977 in response to two previous discharge pH events reported on February 12, 1976 and March 16, 1976 (IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/76-10, 50-270/76-10, 50-287/76-10); (3) review of previous reportable occurrences.
2.
Individuals Contacted R. T. Bond, Technical Services Engineer D. C. Smith, Station Chemist L. E. Schmid, Superintendent of Operations O. S. Bradham, Superintendent of Maintenance T. S. Barr, Performance Engineer R. J. Brackett, Station Senior QA Engineer 3.
Reporting Requirements _
The inspector conducted a detailed review of the event reported a.
by the licensee on March 16, 1977 in which the maximum pH limit of 8.5 assigned by Appendix B TS 1.2B was exceeded. The review included an audit of pH records and recorder strip charts for the period March 15-16, 1977, and discussions with licensee representatives. The inspector also discussed the reporting requirements assigned by the subject specification;
..
-. _
-. -...
.
-
-
__
_. _
_
.
. _.. _
__
.
.
'
_
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-5,
- )
50-270/77-5 and 50-287/77-5 I-2 1.e.,
a report by telephone and telegraph within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of an event, followed by a written report to the NRC Regional Director within one week.
b.
On March 16, 1977, the licensee reported that the maximum pH limit of 8.5 was exceeded for waste water discharged from the plant.
It was stated that the event was apparently traceable to valve leakage from the caustic makeup tank.
On March 23, 1977 however, the licensee informed the NRC principal inspector that as a result of dilution of the plant discharge within the Keowee River, measurement and recalculation of pH in the river indicated that the 8.5 limit assigned by Appendix B TS 1.2.B
was not exceeded; therefore a written report of the event would not be submitted.
During inspection the inspector reminded licensee representatives that plant discharge pH is not monitored in the Keowee tailrace but at the outfall from the oil collection pond which receives all plant wastes including yard drainage and effluent from the upper and lower wastewater collection basins. Keowee tailrace dilution is nei*,her included nor factored into plant discharge pH determinations.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that the reported event should not have been rescinded and that a detailed written report of the event should have been submitted. He further stated that failure to submit a written report to the NRC Regional Director, as required by the above cited specifi-cation, constituted an item of noncompliance.
Licensee repre-sentatives stated that their review of the event was in error and that a written report describing the event and appropriate corrective actions was being prepared and would be submitted as required.
4.
Review of Implementation of Corrective Actions In response to two events involving the pH discharge limits assigned by Appendix B TS 1.23 and reported to Region II on February 12, 1976 and March 16, 1976, respectively (IE Inspection Report Nos.
50-269/76-10, 50-270/76-10, 50-287/76-10), the licensee made the following commitments:
(1) installation of in-line pH monitor at the station yard drains with provisions for continuous recording of pH data in the water-treatment room by March 1, 1977; (2) provi-sion of audible alarms in the Oconee control rooms in the event that in-line pH monitors indicate pH releases in excess of allowable Technical Specification limits.
The latter corrective action was scheduled for completion by April 1, 1977.
Inspection revealed that the yard drainage in-line pH monitor providing continuous data recording was implemented by March 1,1977.
This system was opera-tional at the time of inspection.
Inspection also revealed however, J
.
- = ::
I
.- -
'
.
.
i I
IE Rpt. Noc. 50-269/77-5,
50-270/77-5 and 50-287/77-5 I-3
)
)
that installation of station control room pH annunciators was not implemented. Discussions with licensee representatives disclosed that all necessary equipment was available; however, authorization for installation of the annunciator systems was inadvertently cancelled.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that failure to complete the above commitment constituted a deviation.
Licensee representative stated that an additional authorization to install the annunciators had been approved and that installation would be completed as soon as possible.
5.
Review of Previous Reportable Occurrence _s The inspector reviewed the event reported by the licensee on January 12, 1977 in which the annual usage quantity of liquid cleaning detergent i
assigned by Appendix B TS 1.2.A was exceeded.
The review also included other reportable events involving chemical waste limits required by the above referenced Technical Specification as summa-rized in Table 1.2-1 of the specifications.
The events and respective reporting dates included the following: (1) sulfuric acid - November 2, 1976; (2) solid laundry detergent - June 2,1976.
Each of the above items were reviewed in detail and formally closed out at the management interview.
,
/
\\
. _ _. -.. _ _
. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.. - - - -
. - - - - - -
,
l j
i l