IR 05000269/1977025
| ML19316A133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1977 |
| From: | Alderson C, Ouzts J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A128 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-25, 50-270-77-25, 50-287-77-25, NUDOCS 7911280666 | |
| Download: ML19316A133 (3) | |
Text
~
.
.
p3f40 UNITED STATES
%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<
j
<<
,_
l
{
3.,
g REGION li
!
~
g 230 PE ACHTREE STR EET, N.W. SUITE 1217
-*
'
f o
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
%,
,/
'
- ...*
Report Nos.:
50-269/77-25; 50-270/77-25 and 50-287/77 -25 Docket Nos.:
50-269; 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38; DPR-47 and DPR-55 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 S. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Inspection at: Oconee site, Seneca, South Carolina Inspection conducted: October 11-14, 1977 Inspector:
J.
Ou ts Reviewed by:
A[ tat = -
Il!1!11 C. E.,Ildersori, Acting Chief
'Ddte Nuclear dupport Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 11-14, 1977, (Report Nos.:
50-269/77-25; 50-270/77-25 and 50-287/77-25)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of surveillance test program.
The inspection involved 30 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7911280[$$
-
. - _
_
__
_
_
.__
t
.
.
f)-
~
!
RII Report Nos. 50-269/77-25,
'
50-270/77-25 and 50-287/77-25 I-1
/ f
DETAILS I Prepared by: _
' Dat'e Z 4. Ouzts,/ Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Insp tion: 0 *ober 11-14, 1977 II !E !'ll Reviewed by:
1h lA W m C. E.#Alderson, Acting ChTef Date Nucleaf Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted J. E. Smith, Station Manager R. Adams, Maintenance Engineer (I&E)
s
- R. T. Bond, Technical Services Engineer
,
- 0. S. Bradham, Maintenance Superintendent
C. L. Burns, I&E Supervisor W. Campbell, Reactor Engineer
- H. R. Lowery, Operating Engineer W. M. McClain, Shif t Supervisor The inspector also interviewed three ISE technicians, four reactor operators, two test technicians, and four file room personnel.
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items None identified during this inspection.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (. denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusien of the inspection on October 14, 1977.
The inspector sunnerized the scope and findings of the inspection discussed in Paragraph 5.
sj l
==~~-wn~.
~ -..
.~-,---,-e--
. -.
-r
- - -
.. -
e~-m----
- --.~
.--
- - - - -. - -
.
.
- : ---- - - --.2 - -:- : ---
-
-
.
..
.
..
.
f~h
.
->
RII Report Nos. 50-269/77-25, t
50-270/77-25 and 50-287/77-25 I-2 5.
Periodic (Surveillance) Testing The inspector reviewed periodic test procedures, records of test results and test performance schedules to insure that the periodic test program was being conducted in accordance with Section 4 of the Technical Specifications.
Three periodic tests in progress were witnessed by the inspector to verify that correct procedures were being used, test instruments were in calibration and that the personnel performing the testing understood the procedures and were fauiliar with the equipment.
Procedures and records were reviewed and testing witnessed as follows:
Master copies of thirty-three periodic test procedures for a.
eight categories of systems were reviewed for inclusion of Technical Specification requirements, test prerequisites, calibration of test instruments, acceptance criteria, verification of return to service, technical adequacy and requirements for review and approval of test results by second party.
b.
Approximately eighty-five sets of test results for 21 separate tests, performed for Units 1, 2 and 3 were reviewed to verify that the results were in conformance with Technical Specification and procedure requirements, and that the results had been reviewed by someone other than those involved in performing the test.
c.
The August 17, 1977, computer printout of surveillance testing status was reviewed to verify that no tests required by the Technical Specifications were overdue and that the tests were being performed at the required frequency.
d.
The performance of three periodic tests were witnessed to insure that correct procedures were in use, test instruments had been calibrated and that the technicians and operators performing the tests understood the procedures and were familiar with the equipment.
Within the areas inspected, no items cf noncompliance or deviations were identified.
._.
.
--.. _ - -.
.
_. -.
-.
-
...
-
j l