IR 05000269/1981030
| ML15224A512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1981 |
| From: | Bryant J, Myers D, William Orders NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A508 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-81-30, 50-270-81-30, 50-287-81-30, NUDOCS 8202050373 | |
| Download: ML15224A512 (7) | |
Text
o; UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-269/81-30, 50-270/81-30, and 50-287/81-30 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 Inspection at Oconee site near Seneca, South Carolina Inspectors:
(
J i,
co rt
/
W. T. Ord ys Date Signed D. 0. Myers Da e S gned Approved by:.
//J0 J. C/B"fnt, Sotlon Cfiief, Division of Date 'Signed Rdent and Reactor Project Inspection SUMMARY Inspection on October 10 - November 20, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 265 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of operational safety review, maintenance, surveillance activities and radioactive waste contro Results Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; two items of noncompliance were found in one area (Violation -
inadequate radiation survey, (Unit-2); Violation -
inadequate waste handling procedur (Unit-1).)
8202050373 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- T. Owen, Superintendent of Technical Services
- J. Davis, Superintendent of Maintenance N. Pope, Superintendent of Operations
- T. Cribbe, Licensing Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personne *Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 20, 1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The licensee acknowledged the violations without significant commen. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio. Plant Operations The inspector reviewed plant operations throughout the report period, October 10 - November 20, 1981, to verify conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and administrative controls. Control room logs, shift supervisors logs, shift turnover records and equipment removal and restoration records for the three units were selectively peruse Interviews were conducted with plant operations, maintenance, chemistry, health physics, and performance personnel on day and night shift 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 Directive The complement of licensed personnel on each shift met or exceeded the minimum required by Technical Specification. Operators were responsive to plant annunciator alarms and appeared to be cognizant of plant condition *
2 Plant tours were taken throughout the reporting period on a continual basi The areas toured include but are not limited to 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 Unit 1 reactor building During the plant tours, ongoing activities, housekeeping, security, equipment status and radiation control practices were observe Difficulties experienced in the control of radioactive waste during the report period are detailed elsewhere in this repor Oconee Unit 1 continued a refuel/ISI outage throughout the report perio Repair/modification of the core support assembly pursuant to the thermal shield bolt problems detailed in inspection report 50-269/81-18 was completed. At the close of the report period, core load is going with approximately 100 of 177 fuel assemblies installed. Current projections are for the unit to be on-line by December 15, 198 This report period began with Oconee Unit 2 recovering from a steam generator repair outage. The details of the outage and subsequent complicated recovery are recorded in inspection report 50-270/81-27. The unit was restarted and placed on line October 30, 198 Power was escalated to and remains at 75% in order to extend core life until Unit 1 returns to servic Oconee Unit 3 maintained virtually full power operation throughout the report period with no major complication. Maintenance Observations Maintenance activities were observed and reviewed throughout the inspection period to verify that activities were accomplished using approved procedures or the activity was within the skill of the trade, and that the work was done by qualified personne Where appropriate, limiting conditions for operation were examined to ensure that while equipment was removed from service, the technical specification requirements were satisfied. Also, work activities, procedures, and work requests were reviewed to ensure adequate fire, cleanliness and radiation protection precautions were observed, and that equipment was tested and properly returned to servic Acceptance criteria used for this review were as follows:
-Station Directives-Administrative Policy Manual, Sections 3.3 and Technical Specifications
- 3*
Maintenance activities observed or reviewed were:
Work request #
Subject Date Completed 20280 Assist in repair of 2HP-18 MP/0/A/100/01 10/26/81 56160 Fire equipment inspection MP/3/A/1705/01C 10/27/81 56211 SFP crane inspection MP/0/A/1710/09 11/2/81 20229 Repair clogged nozzle at CTI MP/0/A/1705/07 10/19/81 90290B Install strong back for U-2 emergency hatch 10/19/81 20300 Repair interlock on U-2 emergency hatch 10/15/81 51070B U-1 hanger repair MP/0/A/3018/50 10/21/81 55175A Perform RPS channel 'A' on line IP/2/A/0305/03A 11/3/81 20541 Clean 2A seal supply filter MP/0/A/1600/01 10/26/81 55456A U-3 Valcor solenoid functional test IP/0-0/4/0275/05Z 10/29/81 Forty outstanding work requests between #20418 of 10/13/81 to work request #20972 of 11/17/81 that were initiated by the operations group for Unit 3 were reviewed to determine that the licensee is giving priority to safety-related maintenance and not allowing a backlog of work items to permit a degradation of system performanc Of the areas inspected, no violation was identifie. Surveillance Testing The surveillance tests detailed below were analyzed and/or witnessed by the inspector to ascertain procedural and performance adequac The completed test procedures examined were analyzed for embodiment of the necessary test prerequisites, preparations, instructions, acceptance criteria and sufficiency of technical conten The selected tests witnessed were examined to ascertain that current written approved procedures were available and in use, that test equipment in use was calibrated, that test prerequisites were met, system restoration completed and test results were adequat The selected procedures perused attested conformance with applicable technical specifications, they appeared to have received the required administrative review and they apparently were performed within the surveillance frequency prescribe Procedure Title PT/0/A/201/03 Core Flood Operability Test IP/0/A/301/35 SR&IR Channel Test
PT/2/A/0251/17 RC Bleed Transfer Pump PT/O/A/230/15 HPI Motor Coolant Flow IP/2/A/305/3A-D NI&RPS Channel A-D Test PT/O/A/201/04 PORV Operability Test PT/O/A/600/18 Emergency Feedwater Operability PT/2/A/600/12 Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Pump PT/2/B/620/01 Keowee Data Multiplex PT/2/A/204/07 Reactor Building Spray System Performance The inspector employed one or more of the following acceptance criteria for evaluating the above items:
10 CFR ANSI N1 Oconee Technical Specifications Oconee Station Directive Duke Administrative Policy Manual Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Radioactive Waste Management Inadequate Radiation Surveys Subsequent to the Unit 2 steam generator tube leak of September 15 the resident inspectors increased the frequency of site radiation surveys due to the increased amounts of contaminated waste material on site. On October 15, a routine inspection survey revealed an unposted radiation area of 6 mr/hr in an unrestricted area. The discovery was made using an NRC detector. Radiation levels were later verified by the licensee using site equipmen The contaminated area was located between chemical treatment ponds (CTP) #1 and CTP #2. The ponds are used for treatment of secondary system water prior to release from the sit The ponds are located outside of the licensee's restricted area as defined in the Station HP manual but within the site boundary. The contaminated area was located a few inches from the outlet of a pH sampling line discharge pipe on the CTP #2 recirculation piping and extending down the bankside 10 feet to the edge of the CTP #2 water. CTP #2 was posted as a radiation area (by station administrative standards); however, the contaminated area at the discharge line was about 10 feet outside of the posted boundar The inspector notified the licensee, the area was resurveyed and the CTP #2 boundary was enlarged to encompass the subject are CTP #1 was also poste The inspectors reviewed daily samples of CTP #1 and #2 which indicated very low levels of activity which were with regulatory limits. The 6 mr/hr area was considered to have been the result of contaminates in the pond water
0S
concentrating as the flow from the 1 inch sample line met the grassed bank of the CT The licensee has issued a work request to have the sample line piping extended to a point near the CTP to allow recombination of the sample line discharge with the contents of the CTP which is expected to eliminate the concentrations mechanism. The existing piping configuration was such that it allowed radiation levels in an unrestricted area to exceed the permissible level of 2 mr/hr allowed by 10 CFR 20.105(b)(1).
This regulatory level was not met because of inadequate area survey Proper surveys would have indicated increasing area radiation levels in the vicinity of the sample lin The inadequate CTP area surveys constitute a violation of 10 CFR 20 paragraph 20.201(b) which requires the licensee to provide surveys as may be necessary in order to comply with the regulations of this part. This violation applies to Unit 2 (50-270/81-30-01).
Laundry and Hot Shower Tank Release On November 11, 1981, at 11:08 p.m. the licensee was attempting to release the "B" laundry and hot shower tank (LHST) with the "A" LHST pump and employing procedure OP/0/B/1104/34. The release was terminated when it was noticed that the "A" LHST was decreasing in level instead of the "B" tan Since the "B" tank had been sampled as required and the "A" tank had not, the described event constituted a discharge of unsampled liquid waste to the environmen The apparent cause of the incident was a procedural inadequacy combined with an administrative deficiency. Two groups, Radwaste and Operations, are responsible for the operation of the system. Radwaste controls the suction side valves to the LHST pump and Operations controls the rest of the syste During the incident, operations personnel experienced difficulties with the
"B" LHST pump and were attempting to employ the "A" LHST pump instea Due to the division of responsibility for the system and the fact that operating procedure OP/O/B/1104/34 does not describe the pump suction valve position requirements, the A tank was lined up to the A pump and the water was release The ramifications of the foregoing incident are not serious in that the radiation monitors' normally employed to monitor liquid radioactive effluent were in service at the time of the release and were capable of terminating it if the predetermined setpoints for the release of the "B" tank had been reache The expected range of the B tank release was between 1,400 to 26,000 cp The actual reading associated with the A tank release was 15,000 cp The licensee had determined that they have discharged approximately 135 gallons of water containing 5.9 x 10-5 curie *
- 0
The licensee is currently evaluating the division of responsibility detailed above and considering the revision of the operating procedur The results of the evaluation are expected in response to the following violatio Oconee Technical Specification 6.4.1(b) requires that radioactive waste management systems be operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures entailing appropriate instruction to facilitate safe, efficient operatio Contrary to those requirements, the procedure OP/O/B/1104/34 did not have adequate instructions to facilitate safe operation in that the required LHST suction valve positioning was not addressed; resulting in an unsampled releas This is a violation (50-269/81-30-01).