IR 05000269/1979001
| ML19261D738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1979 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Cottle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261D729 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-79-01, 50-269-79-1, 50-270-79-01, 50-270-79-1, 50-287-79-01, 50-287-79-1, NUDOCS 7906260271 | |
| Download: ML19261D738 (4) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES (g# RfGoqjo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
REGloN ll g
jq g
-
., t 101 M ARIETT A STR E ET. N.W.
'
I ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
\\' v,o/
.
.....
Report Nos.: 50-269/79-1, 50-287/79-1 and 50-270/79-1 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos..
50-269, 50-287 and 50-270 License Nos..
DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Inspection at Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, South Carolina Inspector:d'2 ru e ds
//'t [79
_
W. T. Cottle
[
Date Signed Approved by:6/
m<b M
_
M26
F. S. Cantrell, 'Adting Section Chief, RONSB Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 31 through February 1, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 16 inspector-horrs on-site in the areas of Licensee event reports and plant inspection tours.
Results Of the two areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identified in one area; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (deficiency-failure to submit written reports within thirty days of discovery of the event).
2311 021-908280 2 7 / 9
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- R. T. Bond, Licensing and Projects Engineer
- D.
J. Vito, Licensing Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector F. Jape
- Attended Exit Interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 1, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I abose.
The apparent item of noncompliance was discussed.
Licensee representatives stated that there had been some confusion on the 30 day time limit for submission of a licencee Event Report when tue 30 day period ended on a weekend or a holiday.
The inspector restated the position that the time period is calculated as 30 calendar days, holidays and weekends not excluded. The Station Manager acknowledged that 30 calendar days would be used as the time limit for all future reports submitted in accordance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.lb.
.
3.
Licensee Action on Prev _ious inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Incident Investigation Index The inspector reviewed the Incident Investigation Index for the period December 12, 1978 to January 24, 1979. The review covered nineteen events which occurred during this period.
(Events B-799 and B-805 were under review by the Resident Inspector and were not reviewed.) The 2311 022
.
.
-2-inspector verified that investigative actions had been initiated for the events and that events required to be reported to the NRC were reported or had been designated to be reported. Questions regarding the report-ability requirements of two events were discussed with licensee personnel.
Each question was satisfactorily resolved.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Reports The inspector reviewed the following Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
submitted during the period Ncvember 1, 1978 to January 15, 1979 for compliance with the reporting time requirements established in Technical Specification 6.6.2.1:
50-269/78-24 50-269/78-25 50-269/78-26 50-269/78-27 50-270/78-10 50-270/78-11 50-270/78-12 50-270/78-13 50-287/78-14 50-287/78-15 50-287/78-16 50-287/78-17 50-287/78-18 50-287/78-19 50-287/78-20 50-287/78-21 50-287/78-22 Unit 1 LERs 50-269/78-25 and 50-269/78-26 were properly classified as thirty day reports in accordance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.lb but were submitted 32 days and 31 days respecitively following discovery of the event.
Unit 3 LERs 50-287/78-19 and 50-287/78-20 were properly classified as thirty day reports in accordance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.lb but were submitted 33 days and 31 days respectively following discovery of the event.
This constitutes apparent norcompliance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.lb which requires that written reports of the types of events listed in this specification be submitted to the Director, Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, within 30 days of discovery of the event. This is a deficiency.
2311 023
.
.
.
.
-3-7.
Plant Tour The inspector toured the auxiliary and turbine buildings for familiariza-tion with plant equipment and physical layout.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2311 024