IR 05000269/1977023
| ML19316A271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1977 |
| From: | Alderson C, Verdery E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A265 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-23, 50-287-77-23, NUDOCS 7912050842 | |
| Download: ML19316A271 (3) | |
Text
!
\\.
'
s4 "4, UNITED STATES
'
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.?
y, g
RECloN ll
g 230 PE ACHTREE STRE ET, N.W. SUITE 1217
[
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
,
g, v y
- ....
.
Report Nos.: 50-269/77-23; 50-270/77-23; 50-287/77-23 Docket Nos. : 50-269; 50-270; 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38; DPR-47; IPR-55 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at: Oconee site, Seneca, South Carolina
-
Inspection conducted: September 27, 28 and 29, 1977 Inspector:
E.
.V de g}
'
r t
s Reviewed by:
6N 1[hk h s 10[20b")
,
C. E.' Alderson, Acti$g Chief
' Ddte i
Nuclear. Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summarv Inspection on September 27-29, 1977 (Report Nos. 50-269/77-23, 50-270/77-23 und 50-287/77-23)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of facility design changes and modification evaluations, procedures, implementation, and acceptance tests; revisions to operating procedures and system drawings; and maintenance of records.
The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_
7912050 M
.
...
.. - -.
.-
s'
,.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-23,
s.
,
50-270/77-23, and 50-287/77-23-1
-
DETAILS I Prepared b :
M
/v
/f? H. Verdery, Rf6ctor Inspector
' Date Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Insp tion:
tember 27, 28 and 29, 1977 Reviewed by:
L
\\l1 4A.Str- -- -
l0!A0!M C. E('pderson, Acting Chief
'Datel Nucleat Support Section No. 2
'
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch l
1.
Persons Contacted i
Duke Power Company
- R. T. Bond, Technical Services Engineer
- J. Brackett, Station Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. M. Koehler, Superintendent of Technical Services e
l
- J. Riden, Assistant Engineer i
L. Wilke, Assistant Engineer
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
i 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items None identified during this inspection.
4.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were discussed with the licensee's representatives listed in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on September 29, 1977.
5.
Desi'n Changes and Modifications The inspector reviewed nine completed design change packages selected from the licensee's list of design changes (Nuclear Station Modifications)
completed during the previous year.
Of the nine packages reviewed, three were applicable to each of the three Oconee units.
..
O m-
~. -.-
.. -_.-- - -
--
.-
-
--
.
-
-
-.
-
i
e
.
,
g J
s
.O i RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-23, 50-270/77-23, and 50-287/77-23 I-2 During this review, the inspector verified that these design changes had been reviewed in accordance with the licensee's approved quality assurance topical report (Duke 1A); evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59; conducted in accordance with the Technical Specifications and designated quality assurance procedures; implemented with formal approved procedures; and acceptance tested to demonstrate compliance with applicable Technical Specifications. Additionally, the inspector verified that appropriate operating procedures and system drawings had been revised, where appropriate, for the nine selected design changes.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Documentation of Hydrostatic Test Results The inspector noted one area of inconsistent documentation.
Specifically, the documentation of resulte of hydrostatic tests, performed subsequent to system modifications where weld repairs have been made, varies significantly accordine to the procedure followed to perform the test.
In situations where a local hydrostatic test is performed, the licensee utilizes MP/0/A/1720/10, " Controlling Procedures for Hydrostatic Test."
This procedure includes provisions to record the inspection of each individual welded joint to be certified during the test on a data sheet (Hydrostatic Final Acceptance Test Record). However, in cases where a local hydrostatic test is not practical and the Reactor Coolant System Leakage Test, performed in accordance with Operating Procedure 1102/01, " Plant Startup", is relied upon to certify the integrity of welds, no similar documentation exists.
In the latter situation, the licensee either includes a signoff on tae Nuclear Station Modification Procedure or simply records the completion of this test in the Shift Supervisor's Log.
The inspector stated that it appeared that the less formal method of documentation could lead to a failure to test and/or inspect all of the welded joints requiring certification following repairs.
7.
Thoroughness of Safety Evaluations The inspector noted that several of the licensee's safety evaluations, conducted to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, consisted of a checklist and a very brief discussion.
The inspector discussed with the licensee's representatives the brief nature of these evaluations and the need to more fully detail the bases for the determinations.
The licensee stated that the Nuclear Safety Evaluation Checklist, Form SPD-1001-1, had been recently revised to require more descriptive bases for the answers given on the checklist.
Additionally, the licensee stated that specific training for members of the Technical
-
Review Committee had been scheduled to address this area.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.