IR 05000269/1980035
| ML20003C230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1981 |
| From: | Jape F, Martin R, Myers D, William Orders NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003C226 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-80-35, 50-270-80-31, 50-287-80-28, NUDOCS 8102270270 | |
| Download: ML20003C230 (9) | |
Text
s
%g# Moq
~
/
jo, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
-
,
$.
.$
REGION ll
[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o
p
ATLANTA, GEORGtA 30303
+....
Report Nos. 50-269/80-35, 50-270/80-31 and 50-287/80-28 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Inspection at Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspector C-hd5 h
///YF[
F. Jape U
/
06te Signed C$%
///V9/
W. Orders "
//
Date Signed 0-
&
ff/Y/5/
D. O. Myefs v
Date Signed Approved by:
O'
b
/// W 8/
R, D. Martin, Section Ofiief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on November 3-30, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 253 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of plant operations, followup of previous inspection findings, station modifications, surveillance testing, safety review board, fuel cask measure-ments and shutdown activities.
Results
,
Of the 7 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
N C102270
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- J. M. Davis, Superintendent of Maintenance
- J. N. Pope, Superintendent of Operations T. B. Owen, Superintendent of Technical Services
- R. T. Bond, Licensing and Projects Engineer
- J. Brackett, Senior QA Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included 4 technicians, 4 operators, 4 mechanics, various security force members, and 9 office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and finding: were summarized on November 7,14, 21 and 26 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The licensee noted the inspection findings without significant coment.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings.
a.
(Closed) Deviation (269/79-23-01 and 270/79-21-01) Fire Protection.
Items 2 and 4 were verified complete as described in the licensee's response, dated 10/24/79.
Procedure MP/0/A/3020/05, Inspection of Fire Barrier Penetrations, and PT 10/A/250/10C. Fire Protection System, have been implemented.
'
Items 1, 3 and 5 were closed previously in IE Report 50-269/80-7, 50-270/80-5 and 50-287/80-7.
b.
(Closed)
Infraction (287/79-37-02) Lack of Procedures.
The inspector verified that the procedures described in the licensee's
,
responses dated 3/3/80 and 5/2/80 have been issued.
Additional l
details are included in IE Reports 50-269/80-17, 80-23, 50-270/80-12, 80-20 and 50/287/80-11 and 80-17.
c.
(Closed)
Infraction (287/79-37-01)
Excessive Cooldown Rate.
Licensee's response dated 3/3/80 was reviewed and found sa tisfactory. -
d.
(Closed)
Deviation (287/79-37-04)
Failure to Report per IEB
-
79-058.
Station Directive 3.1.34, Usage and Testing of the Emergency Notification System (Red Phone) has been implemented.
Licensee's responses to this matter are dated 3/3/80 a*,d 5/2/8 _
..
_-.... _
-. _ _ _
_ -.
.
...
-. - -
_
_ _
_ _ - -.
..
.
s
.
i
,
!
!
i j
e.
(Closed) Infraction (269/80-07-01) Failure to Follow Procedure.
!
Procedure OP/1106/06 has been revised to correct the identified problem as described in response dated 4/28/80.
I f.
(Closed)
Infraction (269/80-07-02) Improper Maintenance.
The l
licensee's response, dated 4/28/80, was verified by the inspector.
g.
(Closed) Deficiency (269/80-17-01) Failure to Report.
Corrective
4 actions described in the licensee's response, dated 5/23/80, were verified by the inspector.
A report was submitted to the NRC on i
i July 23, 1980 concerning the identified issue.
,
h.
(Closed) Infraction (269/80-20-01) Use of Procedure not checked
'
against Control Copy. Corrective actions described in the licensee's
response, dated 7/14/80 were verified by the inspector.
i.
(Closed) Infraction (270/80-15-01) Component Status Inaccurate.
'
Corrective actions delineated in the licensee's response, dated 7/14/80 were satisfactorily verified.
Appropriate procedures have
been clarified and administrative controls have been implemented.
,
j.
(Closed)
Infraction (270/80-15-02) Lack of Data for Shutdown Margin Calculation.
Licensee's program to provide needed data for
.
. accurate shutdown margin has been reviewed by the inspector and i
- .
found satisfactory.
Details are described in the licensee's response, dated 7/14/80.
,
k.
(Closed) Infraction (270/80-15-03) Failure to report on event.
!
The - missing report was submitted 6/5/80 and corrective actions detailed in response, dated 7/14/80, were verified by the inspector.
'
1.
(Closed) Infraction (270/80-20-01) Failure to Follow Procedure.
Corrective actions contained in the licensee's response dated
8/25/80 were examined and verified by the inspector.
'
4.
Unresolved. Items
,
Unresolved items were not identified'during.this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations The inspector reviewed plant operations throughout the report period,
'
November 1 through November 30, 1980 to verify conformance with regula-tory requirements, technical specifications and administrative controls.
Control room logs, shift supervisor's logs, shift turnover records and
,
equipment. removal and_ restoration records for the three units were
~
continually _ persued.- - Interviews were conducted with plant operations,
!
-
- maintenance, chemistry. - health : physics, and performance personnel on day and night shifts.
.
J
- *
,-
,e-n-y.,-,-
,w u
,+
r--.
~
s,%m.-
-,n
,.+_m.
y
..-,.w,,ye
,
--,,y
- - - -.. - - -, -
-m
- -. -,., -,
.--,-1
-
..
J
Activities within the control rooms were monitored during all shifts and at shift changes. Actions and/or activities observed were conducted as prescribed in Section 3.08 of the Station Directives. The complement of licensed personnel on each shift met or exceeded the minimum required by IEB-79-05C.
Operators were responsive to plant annunciator alarms and appeared to be cognizant of plant conditions.
Plant tours were taken throughout the reporting period on a continual basis.
The areas toured include the following:
Turbine Building Auxiliary Building Units 1, 2, and 3 Electrical Equipment Rooms Units 1, 2, and 3 Cable Spreading Rooms Station Yard Zone within the protected area During the plant tours, ongoing activities, housekeeping, security, equipment status and radiation control practices were observed.
Within the areas inspected, no items of non-compliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Surveillance Testing The surveillance tests detailed below were analyzed and witnessed by the inspector to ascertain procedural and performance adequacy.
The completed test procedures examined were analyzed for embodiment of the necessary test prerequisities, preparations, instructions, acceptance criteria and sufficiency of technical content.
The selected tests witnessed were examined to ascertain that current written approved procedures were available and in use, that test equipment is use was calibrated, that test prerequisites were met, system restoratica completed and test results were adequate.
The selected procedures perused attested conformance with applicable Technical Specifications, they appeared to have received the required administrative review and they al.parently were performed within the surveillance frequency prescribe..
b
'
Procedure Title IP/0/B/340/02 CRD DC POWER CHECK PT/0/A/290/04 TURBINE VALVE MOVEMENT PT/0/A/290/03 TURBINE CONTROL VALVE MOVEMENT PT/0/A/290/05 SECONDARY SYSTEMS PROTECTION PT/1/A/251/01 LPSW PUMP PRF TEST PT/1/A/251/3 CONCENTRATED BORIC ACID PUMP TEST PT/0/A/115/06 PENETRATION ROOM VALVE TEST PT/0/A/170/6 SFP FILTERED EXHAUST SYSTEM IP/2/A/305/3B RPS CH-B TEST IP/2/A/305/3C RPS CH-C TEST IP/ /30 /3B NI-2 SR CAL IP/ /A/30 /3C NI-3 SR CAL IP/0/A/310/14A ES ANALOG CH-A TEST IP/0/A/310/12A HPI & RB ISOLATION TEST, CH1 IP/0/A/310/12B LPI LOGIC, CH-3 IP/0/A/310/13A HPI & RB ISOLATION TEST, CH2 IP/0/A/310/13B LPI LOGIC, CH-4 The inspector employed one or more of the following acceptance criteria for evaluating the above items:
10 CFR ANSI N 18.7 Oconee Technical Specifications Oconee Station Directive Duke Administrative Policy Manual Within the areas inspected no items of non-compliance or deviations
'
i were identified.
7.
Visual Inspection of Snubbers - Unit 2 Du~,..ig the Unit 2 maintenance outage, a visual inspection of inacces-l sible snubbers was scheduled.
The maintenance persornel assigned this job were required to attend a training program prior to performing the work.
The inspector attended the training program along with the craftsmen.
The training was presented well and the craftsmen were required to complete data sheets on several suppressers in the classroom.
A test was taken by each man.
All attendendees passed with high grades.
The workmen performed the inspection and submitted the data sheets to the cognizant maintenance engineer. This data was also examined by the irispector.
Several minor discrepancies were identified and work requests issued to complete the job.
l
.
..
s
The inspection was done using maintenance procedure MP/2/A/3018/13 and Work Request 50786.
The inspector also conducted a visual inspection of selected snubbers on the pressurizer relief lines, reacter coolant pumps and low pressure injection lines.
All were found acceptable and in agreement with the craf tsman's data.
8.
Shipping Cask Integrity Pursent to the requirements of the Certificate of Compliance No. 6698, Rev.12, for the Model No. NFS-4, and NAC-1B, shipping cask of Oconee, the cask cavity dimensions were measured in order to determine structural
,
'
integrity.
Tha cask measurement activities were performed in accordance with and documented by Oconee Operating Procedure OP/0/A/1510/09 dated November 7, 1980.
The actual measurement activties were performed on November 11, 1980 with instrumentation calibration preformed both prior to and after measurement.
Cavity measurement was accomplished using six (6) calibrated gauges mounted on a six (6) ar'ned fixture, movable over the length of the cavity.
The gauges were mounted and oriented such that radial measurements were made at 60 degree increments.
Axial locations for cavity measurement were at 6 inch intervals over the length of the cavity, resulting in a total of 174 values.
l Three consecutive measurements comprise a measurement set.
The measuring equipment was removed from the cavity and disassembled between sets to assure that measuring equipment ard set-up variance were incorporated into the results.
Cavity dimensions are considered i
to be the average values from one or two consecutive measurement sets.
l The cask is considered to meet dimensional requirements, if the difference between the maximum and minimum diameter at any location in the cavity is no greater than 0.27 inches and the straightness of the inner
,
- urface along the axis is within the tolerance specified in NAC Drawing (
E-100-80 Sheet 1, Rev. 19.
Procedure review, instrumentation calibration, equipment installation and measurement activities were witnessed and/m reviewed by resident
'
inspectors on November 10, 11, 12, 21, 26 and 27, 1980.
On November 12, 1980, the licensee reported that data analysis revealed cask NAC-1B does not meet the acceptance criteria delineated in Certificate of Compliance 6698.
NAC returned to Oconee on November 25,1980 in order to reverify accumulated measurement data. On November 26, 1980, the licensee confirmed that cask NAC-1B does not meet acceptance criteria, and will not be employed to transport spent nuclear fuel until applicable integrity criteria have been me.
.
--
__
--
-
- - -.
_. _ -
- _ _
'
.
..
J
9.
Nuclear Safety Review Board The inspector reviewed the activities of the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB), to determine compliance with Technical Specification 6.1.3.
The inspection was conducted through reviews of records and interviews with members of the board.
The inspector concluded that the board is functioning as required by T.S., the basis for this finding is presented below.
1.
The NSRB charter, dated 11-6-80, is in agreement with the T.S.
requirements.
2.
The members and alternate membars of the NSRB satisfy or exceed the qualifications for membership as described by T.S. L.1.3.2a.
3.
Each member and alternate member is qualified in one or more areas as listed in T.S. 6.1.3.1 a through h.
l 4.
A meeting schedule has been established and has been fulfilled within the frequency per T.S. 6.1.3.2 b, e., and f.
5.
The subjects requiring review by the NSRB are listed in TS 6.1.3.3 a. through h.
De board has reviewed all (
the items listed and has rendered judgements and recommendations where appropriate.
6.
Audits of station activities are required to be performed under the cognizance of the board.
The audit subjects are listed in T.S. 6.1.3.4 a through h.
The NSRB reviews results of QA audits that cover the listed subjects.
Item g. covers other areas considered appropriate for the coard to audit.
A recent audit performed by the board, reviews of plant modifications procedures, was examined and found to satisfy this
i requirement.
7.
The board's findings and activities are reported to appropriate management as stated in TS 3.1.3.5 a through d.
In conclusion, the activities, organization and functioning of the NSRB was found to satisfy and was in compliance with the Technical Specifications.
l l
10. Nuclear Station Modifications The inspector reviewed changes to selected station safety-related systems to ensure that modifications were reviewed and approved in l
accordance with 10 CFR50.59; that changes were controlled by estab-l lished approved procedures and satisfactorily tested; that operating procedures and affected system diagrams were properly updated.
The Duke Power Administrative Policy Manual Section 4.4 defines the basic l
l-
.
._ __
_.
-
-
. -
..
.
.
requirements concerning administration of Nuclear Station Modifications (NSM).
Of the three major NSM's reviewed, no items of non-compliance were identified.
The NSM's reviewed in detail were:
NSM-0N-1080 HPI cross connect i
NSM-0N-1130 Gain Range Adjustment of the Power Range Delta-Flux Amps NSM-0N-0246 Replacement of LP-12 and LP-14.
The safety evaluations of the above NSM were reviewed to confirm that technical specification changes or an unreviewed safety question were not involved.
The implementing procedures and the modification test procedures were reviewed to ensure guidelines of ANSI-N 18.7 regarding prerequesites, QA hold points and specification of test acceptance criteria were met.
Station operating procedures and related system diagrams were reviewed to ensure revision to reflect system modifica-tions had been made.
Included in the inspection was a review of the following.
TN/1/A/1130/00/0 Procedure for Implementation TN/2/A/1130/00/0 of NSM-0N-1130 Increase Available TN/3/A/1130/00/0 Gain Range on RPS Scaled DELTA Flux Amp
IP/1/A/301/3E,F,G,H Power Range Instrument (For Three Units)
Calibration l'
TN/3/A/0246/1C Procedure for Implementation of NSM-0N-0246 (Mechanical)
l TN/3/A/0246/1B NSM-0N-0246 (Electrical)
- e/0/A/1720/10 Controlling Procedure for Hydrostatic ir j
I Test.
TN/1,2,3/A/1080/0A Procedure for Implementation of NSM-0N-1080 i
(Mechanical)
l TN/1,2,3/A/1080/0B NSM-0N-1080 (Electrical)
i l
OP/1,2,3/A/1400/02 High Pressure Injection System l
P.O. 101 A-1 High Pressure Injection System (Diagram)
l P.O. 101 B-1
l The inspector noted that in procedure TN/1/A/1080/02 performed 1-20-80, that step 8.2.7 had not been signed off.
The step required QA to i
verify that the requirements of ASME code XI were satisfied.
The l
cogniz6at engineer and the Senior QA Engineer were contacted for an explanation.
The signature was satisfactorily determined to have been t
_
0 *
/
,
withheld for administrative reasons.
The cognizant engineer committed to gaining a timely resolution to the issue.
The inspector had no further questions on the procedure.
Review of modification NSM 1080 nydrostatic test procedure MP/0/A/1720/10 resulted in several coments by the inspector regarding the connection points of test pumps, test pressure gages and definition of test boundary valves.
The comments were discussed with the Superintendent of Maintenance and satisfactorily resolved.
11.
Long Term Shutdown On November 7, 1980, Unit two was shutdown for a scheduled 26-day outage to perform modifications of NUREG 0578.
The inspectors monitored the performance of the shutdown procedure OP/2/A/1102/10 and independently verified shutdown parameters.
Routine tours 'of the control room were made to monitor such activities as:
shift turnovers, adherence to limiting conditions relevent to the units shutdown condition and shift manning requirements of IEB 79-05.
Within the control room, inspectors made detailed reviews of safety related work requests per S.D.4.4 requirements, unit equipment safety tagout records per S.U.3.3.1 and operator and supervisor logs.
Inter-views were conducted of operators to ascertain their cognizance of plant conditions, alann status and safety related work in progress.
Throughout the outage, inspectors have performed routine tours of the Reactor Suilding work areas to ensure:
radiation work precautions, applicable to high radiation areas, are in accordance with issued radiation work permits; surveys mee conducted using approved procedures; radiation monitoring equipment is as specified in procedures and within posted calibration dates; and housekeeping practices wero adequate.
Inspectors witnessed in progress modification work activities to verify compliance to procedural requirements; including, precautions for fire and radiation, use of specified materials, and proper use of quality assurance inspections.
Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.