IR 05000269/1978022
| ML15223A291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15223A288 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-78-22, 50-270-78-22, 50-287-78-23, NUDOCS 7811280398 | |
| Download: ML15223A291 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 Docket.Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Oconee Nuclear Station and Duke Power Company Corporate Offices Inspection conducted:
September 18-22, 1978 Inspector: Jape Accompanying Personnel:
None Approved by:
'.C. 4&Ar4
/0/4/7!
R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on September 18-22 1978 (Report Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of unresolved items, open items, special reports and action on IEC 78-0 The inspection involved approximately 39 man-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identifie RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 I-1 DETAILS Prepared by: ? 'AiI2..-
-.
/
F. Jape, Reactor Idpector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection:
September 18-22, 1978 Approved by:
.1. A-4----
__
R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Persons Contacted
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- R. M. Koehler, Superintendent of Technical Services W. M. Harris, Operating Engineer
- D. J. Vito, Licensing Engineer R. T. Bond, Licensing and Projects Engineer L. E. Payseur, Assistant Engineer T. Coutu, Junior Engineer
- R. C. Adams, I&C Engineer
- D. Thompson, Maintenance Engineer G. Thrailkill, Staff Engineer P. M. McBride, Engineer B. G. Burton, Engineer T. C. McMeekin, Principal Engineer W. J. Foley, Principal Engineer R. A. Pace, Engineer B. M. Rice, Design Engineer
- H. R. Lowery, Operating Engineer D. L. Sweat, Technical Associate D. C. Holt, Systems Engineer K. C. Canady, Manager, Projects and Licensing
- Indicates those who attended the exit meetin.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Unresolved Items (1) (Closed) (77-19/II-1): Administrative control of temporary procedure The inspector noted the possibility that the file copy of an approved temporary procedure could be re use To eliminate this possibility, licensee personnel
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 1-2 have been instructed to follow Section of the Administrative Policy Manua This policy states that temporary procedures are to be used one time onl Adherence to this policy should prevent improper use of the temporary procedure polic (2) (Closed) (78-04-03):
Reportability of Failure to Perform Certain Surveillance Tests. Followup on this item reveals that the licensee is reporting as specified by Technical Specification 6.6.2.1.b(3).
(3) (Open) (78-10-01):
Cable Penetration Fire Stop Test A test of fire stop material was conducted April 28, 197 The material tested did not provide the expected fire resistanc Tests are currently being conducted on a cementitious matrix sealing material that is expected to provide sufficient fire protectio (4) (Closed) (269/78-12-01, 270/78-11-01, 287/78-11-01):
Calibration Program for Decade Boxe During a review of the program for verifying calibration of test and measurement equipment, it was noted that the decade resistance boxes were not included in the progra A recent revision to Station Directive 2.3.1,
"Test and Measuring Equipment Control" incorporated the decade boxes into the program and calibration verification files have been establishe These records were examined by the inspector and were found to be complete and up-to-dat (5) (Closed) (78-13-02):
Review of Completed Procedure During review of completed procedures, particularly those dealing with new fuel receipt and storage, it was noted that the same signature appeared on the activity steps and the review of the completed procedur Licensee management has reviewed this matter during regularly held shift supervisors meetings. In the past, the supervisor was signing for the operator as activity progresse This practice has been stopped. It is intended that the verification of completed procedure be signed by someone other than the person performing the activity. Procedures recently completed for receipt of new fuel for Unit 1 were reviewed by the inspector and found to be satisfactor (6) (Closed) (78-13-03):
Operability of an Inverted Hydraulic Suppresso The operational status of an inverted
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 I-3 suppressor has been reviewed by the license It was agreed that any suppressor installed with the reservoir lower than the piston cylinder would be declared inoperabl Open Items (1) (Closed) (78-13-04):
Transformer Gas Charge Procedur Procedure MP/O/A/2000/08 has been changed to include guidance for temperatures between 250C to 100 0 (2) (Closed) (78-13-05):
Tagging Clockwise-to-Open Valves and Broken Position Indicator Licensee has assigned responsibility to identify and tag all clockwise-to-open valves and broken position indicator To date 3LPSW-78 was the only valve found to open clockwise and have a broken position indicato This valve has been repaired and now operates normall. Unresolved Items None Exit Interview The inspector met with J. E. Smith and those noted in paragraph 1, on September 22, 197 The inspection findings were discusse The findings were acknowledged without significant commen Licensee management agreed to submit a letter explaining the time difference between surveillance activity of Unit 1 reactor building tendon surveillance program and report submitta During the inspection, a question was raised concerning control of high radiation area boundaries within the reactor building during outage The inspector stated that this matter would be reviewed with the Radiation Support Section for future inspection (78-22-02)
on September 21, 1978, a
meeting was held in DPC's corporate office to discuss the licensee's intended response to IEC 78-0 This information was subsequently submitted to RII by letter dated September 29, 197.
IEC 78-08, "Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at Nuclear Power Plants" The inspector conducted a review of action taken or initiated by the licensee regarding IEC 78-0 The circular requested each licensee to initiate a review program to verify that installed equipment will perform as required within the accident environmen The review was
RH Rpt. Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 1-4 conducted at Duke Power Company's Corporate offices at Charlotte, N. C. with Steam Production and Design Engineering personne The licensee has assigned a task force of Design Engineering personnel, to perform the necessary review To date, progress has centered primarily around identifying the equipment and components required to operate within the accident environmen A records search for existing qualification documentation has not been complete Licensee management stated that once existing qualification documentation has been located, a review will be conducted to ascertain if testing is adequate or if additional testing is require A schedule for completing the review program was submitted by the licensee to RII in a letter dated September 29, 197.
Engineered Safeguards Actuation A review was conducted to determine if the engineered safeguards actuation system reset design feature was adequately covered by procedure The review was conducted because a design feature at some power plants requires prompt operator action to manually restart engineered safety features if the circuits had been reset following an actuatio The circuits at Oconee, which is a B&W facility, do not have the SIS reset featur The control circuits are arranged so that after a channel trip, use of the manual switch allows the operator to regain manual control of the safeguards devic In a tripped state, the normal control switches are ineffective, or locked out, unless the operator regains manual control at the engineered safeguards status pane Once manual control of a device has been regained, control may be returned to the safeguards system by using the auto switc When the channel trip has been cleared, all devices that have been placed on manual control will automatically return to automatic contro If a trip signal recurs, and the circuits are in auto, safeguards actuation is again initiated without operator actio.
Procedure Change Review During a review of a recent change to MP/0/A/2000/08,
"Gas Addition to Gas-Filled Transformers," the inspector noted that the change form had been improperly filled-i The Safety Evaluation section of the form was marked with yeses, indicating the procedure change involved (1) a change to station procedures described in the FSAR, (2)
required a change to technical specifications, and (3)
involved an unresolved
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/78-22, 50-270/78-22 and 50-287/78-23 1-5 safety question. In discussing this matter with the change author it was agreed that the form had been marked in erro All three questions should have been marked no rather than ye However, all of the reviewers of the procedure change had not observed the yes markings and the change was processed as though the safety evaluation was marked with no' The matter was discussed with management who indicated that he was not aware of the problem, but would review the matter to determine the extent of the proble The inspector stated that the matter would be carried as an open item to be examined during a future inspection (78-22-01). Unit 1 Reactor Building Tendon Surveillance Program Report The Unit 1 reactor building tendon surveillance program report, dated August 14, 1978, was reviewed to determine if the report fulfilled the requirements of Technical Specification 4.4. The inspector found that the report met the Technical Specification requirements and, based on the results reported, there has been no detectable deterioration of the post-tensioning system for Unit The report stated that surveillance activity was conducted June 29 through December 28, 1977, and the report submittal date is August 14, 197 The inspector requested an explanation of the eight month period between surveillance and final repor Licensee management explained that the delays were due to late submittal of the specimens to a contractor laboratory. Results were obtained from the contractor on June 22, 1978, and report submitted within the required 90 day Licensee management stated that a supplemental letter would be submitted to account for the eight month perio The inspector commented that reports of this type should be timely and that an eight month period for results is not considered timel Also, if problems arise that cause delays in reporting results, a letter of explanation should be submitted.