IR 05000269/1977022
| ML19322B672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1977 |
| From: | Jape F, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B649 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-22, 50-270-77-22, 50-287-77-22, NUDOCS 7912040692 | |
| Download: ML19322B672 (4) | |
Text
.. _ _.
.
@ E84 UNITED STATES g
73 (
,o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,) ;
e g
REGION 11
-
g 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SulTE 1217
,
o
!
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%... /
Report Nos:
50-269/77-22, 50-270/77-22 and 50-287/77-22 Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Licensee:
Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at: Oconee Inspection conducted:
September 19-21, 1977 t
Inspector:
F. Jape Accompanying Personnel:.
R. W. Woodruff Reviewed by:
ar
/Cd7[77 R. C. Lewis, Chief
Date ReactorProjectsSecti[onNo.2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on September 19-21 (Report Nos. 50-269/77-22, 50-270/77-22 and 50-287/77-22 Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of plant operations; review of safety limit::, limiting safety system settings, and limiting conditions for operation; and followup of IE Circulars and Bulletins.
The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
One item of noncompliance was identified in one of the three areas inspected (Infraction - failure to maintain a high radiation area door locked, paragraph 5).
-
7912040h9M
~
,
_
.
.
.
- <\\
f RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-22, 50-270/77-22 and 50-287/77-22-1-b
/
7/77
'
'
DETAILS Prepared by:
h F. Jape, React'or Inspdctcr
'Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection:
S ptember 19-21, 1977 Reviewed by:
b
/C 7
m R. '. lewis, Chief ReactorProjectsSection[No.2 C
D' ate Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith, Station Manager B. V. Earnhardt, Assistant Operating Engineer H. W. Morgan, Shift Supervisor T. L. Farmer, Shift Spervisor W. R. Pollard, Assistant Shift Supervisor L. C. Eavans, Assistant Shift Supervisor D. L. Gordon, Assistant Shift Supervisor R. K. Emory, Control Operator R. P. Thurow, Control Operator C. M. Sheridon, Control Opertor R. T. Bond, Technical Services Engineer B. G. Davenport, Test Engineer 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not within the scope of this inspection.
3.
Unresolved Items
,
No new unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
Exit Interview An exit management interview was held with J. E. Smith and other members of management on September 21, 1977.
The scope and find-ings of the inspection were summarized. Licensee management j
-
acknowledged the item of noncompliance involving failure to maintain the entrance to an unattended high radiation area locked.
(See paragraph 5)
.-
.--
,_
_
___ _ _
I
- ,.
'O RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-22,
,
'
50-270/77-22 and 50-287/77-22-2-Other findings of the inspection were acknowledged without comment by licensee management.
5.
Plant Operations The inspector reviewed plant operations to ascertain conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and adminis-trative directives.
Station logs, such as the unit supervisors log, control room operators log and the removal and restoration of station equipment records were reviewed.
Interviews with a number of plant operations personnel were held on the day and night shifts.
In addition, a tour was conducted of the auxiliary building and the Unit I reactor building.
During the period of observation and inspection, Unit 1 was in a refueling outage, Unit 2 was in a cold shutdown outage preparing for startup and Unit 3 was in power operation at essentially 100%
power.
During the tour on September 21, 1977, a door in the Unit 1 part of the auxiliary building which provides access control to Room'119, and is posted as a high radiation area, was observed to be unlocked.
The door was intended to comply with 10 CFR 20.203 (c)(2)(iii).
None of the alternative control devices as prescribed by 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2) were installed, nor was the area under surveillance as described by 10 CFR 20.203(c)(4).
Station management was immediately notified of this finding and the door was secured.
This finding is an infraction that applies to Unit 1 and is a repeat of an infraction of the same basic requirement identified in IE Report 50-269/76-12, 50-270/76-12 and 50-287/76-12.
Also during the tour, observations were made regarding the general plant housekeeping and cleanliness, ongoing activities, security practices and other radiation control practices.
In general, housekeeping and cleanliness were found to be satisfactory.
The nonradiation areas were found to be less cluttered than areas within the auxiliary building.
Security practices and other radiation centrol practices were adhered to during the tour.
Supervisor and control room operator actions were observed during the shift and at shift change.
The actions and activities were
'
conducted as prescribed in Section 3.0 of the Station Directives.
The number of personnel available on each shift met or exceeded the
minimum required by Technical Specificacion 6.1.1.3.
Operators
!
vere responsive to annunciator alarms and appeared to be cognizant
of plant status.
~
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _.
l.
-
-
.
.
..
-.
_m e
~
e e.m
- "N"'
' " ' '
' '--
!
.
-
-
-
..
.
'
,-
'
i
'
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-22, 50-270/77-22 and 50-287/77-22-3-A number of Technical Specifications related to safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting conditions for operation were selected for review considering the unit status.
In all cases, operations were found to be in conformance with the Technical Specifications.
6.
Surveillance Test The inspector witnessed PT 203/18, "LPI System ES Test," being performed on Unit 3.
The test demonstrated operability of the low pressure injection pumps and valves from an engineered safeguard signal as required by Technical Specification 4.5.1.1.2.
The test was performed jointly by Performance and Operations personnel.
Personnel involved were using the approved procedure and were knowledgeable with the test purpose and method. The test was completed satisfactorily without incident. Within the areas inspected, there were no items of noncompliance or deviations identified by the inspector.
7.
IE Circulars The inspector verified by discussions with licensee management that IE circulars are reviewed for applicability even though no response is requested by the NRC.
Each circular is reviewed by management and distributed to department heads for their use.
The IE circulars reviewed during this inspection were:
IEC 77-10, Vacuum Conditions Resulting in Damage to Liquid Process Tanks IEC 77-11, Leakage of Containment Isolation Valves with Resiliant
Seats
)
8.
IE Bulletin 77-01 The licensee's responses, dated May 31, 1977 and July 1, 1977, to IEB 77-01, " Pneumatic Time Delay Relay Setpoint Drift,* was reviewed and found to be responsive to the action requested. The licensee has determined that relays of the type discussed in the bulletin are not utilized in safety-related systems.
No further action is planned for this item.
-,
(
_
/