IR 05000269/1992028
| ML16148A720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1992 |
| From: | Decker T, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16148A719 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-92-28, 50-270-92-28, 50-287-92-28, NUDOCS 9212300157 | |
| Download: ML16148A720 (7) | |
Text
t REG4.UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.: 50-269/92-28, 50-270/92-28, and 50-287/92:-28 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and 50-287 and DPR-55 Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: November 16-20, 1992 Inspector:
D. W. J "s Date Signed Approved by:
2,,_
T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of control room emergency ventilation systems, meteorological monitoring, training, and audit Results:
No violations or deviations were identifie The licensee had complied with the operational. and surveillance requirements for the control room emergency ventilation systems (Paragraph 2).
The meteorological instrumentation had been adequately maintained and the meteorological monitoring program had been effectively implemented (Paragraph 3).
The licensee had implemented an adequate training and qualification program for Radiation Protection and Chemistry personnel (Paragraph 4).
9212300157 921210 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
The licensee had implemented an effective program for conducting audits of station activities. The effectiveness of the licensee's response to audit results will be evaluated during a subsequent inspecti6ni (Paragraph 5).
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees 0.* Davis, Radiation Protection Instructor, Training H. Dummeyer, Site Coordinator, Quality Verification L. Garrett, Radiation Protection Instructor, Training S. Lee, Chemistry Instructor, Training
- C - Little, Superintendent, Instrumentation and Electronics
- K. Louvin, System Engineering
- M. Patrick, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
m Perry, Licensing Coordinator, Regulatory Compliance M. Simpson, Nuclear Production Engineer, Component Engineering
- L. Wilkie, Manager, Training Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission B. Desai, Resident Inspector
- K. Poertner, Resident Inspector
Harmon, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit intervie.
Control Room Emergency Ventilation cuSystems (84750)
Technical Specifications (TSs)3.15 and 4.12 described the operational and surveiglance requirements for the control room emergency ventilation systems. The common control room for Units 1 and 2 and the Unit 3 control room each had a dedicated system. Each system had two separate trains which included outside air booster fans with prefilters, high efficiency.particulate air filters (HEPA) and activated charcoal filters. When the reactors were above hot shutdown conditions the systems were required to be capable of maintaining a positive pressure within the control room, and both outside air booster fans and both filter trains within a system were required to be operable. Action statements were provided for conditions in which one or both trains were inoperable. Operability tests of the systems were required to be performed quarterly. The operability tests included external visual inspection,.air flow measurements, pressure drop measurements across the filters, one hour operation of the fans, and functional testing of all louvers. On a refueling frequency, the licensee was required to demonstrate that the systems could maintain a positive pressure in the control rooms and to perform leak tests on the HEPA filters and the charcoal filters. The-leak testing media were specified as di-2-ethyl hexyl phtalate or diocryl phtalate (DOP) for the HEPA filters and freon for the charcoal filter The inspector toured the plant areas in which the ventilation systems for the Units 1 and 2 control room and the Unit 3 control room were
located. The licensee-'s cognizant system engineer and the inspector located and identified the major components of the systems, including the fans, filter banks, dampers, and the associated ductwork from the air intakes to the control room air conditioning systems..The -inspector observed that the components were well maintained structurally and that there was no physical deterioration of the ductwork sealants on either syste The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below and determined that they included provisions for performing the above operability and performance tests at-the required frequencies. The acceptance criteria specified in those procedures for the test results were consistent with the TS requirement PT/1&2/A/0110/05A "Control Room Filter System Test" PT/3/A/0110/05A
"Control Room Filter System Test" PT/1&2/A/0110/15
"Control Room Pressurization" PT/3/A/0110/15
"Control Room Pressurization" PT/1&2/A/0170/03
"Control Room Pressurization System Test" PT/3/A/0170/03
"Control Room Pressurization System Test" The inspector also reviewed selected records for the above tests and determined that the tests were being performed at least at the required frequencies. Generally the test results indicated that the equipment either met the acceptance criteria or was repaired and restored to operable status within the allotted time specified in the TSs. During a test performed on June 8, 1992, the licensee found.that the.emergency ventilation system for the Units 1 & 2 control room could not maintain a positive pressure in the control room relative to the turbine buildin The system was declared inoperable and, pursuant to TS 3.15.2 b, a 30 day Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) was entered. During the LCO the licensee performed experimental tests and determined that by turning off extra auxiliary building exhaust fans and closing outside doors to the auxiliary building, the emergency ventilation system could maintain a positive pressure in the control room relative to both the auxiliary building and the turbine building. On July 7,1992, the system was declared operable and the LCO exited, based on test results which indicated that the acceptance criteria were me During the previous inspection in this area (Ref. Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/91-27, 50-270/91-27, and 50-287/91-27 conducted September 9-13, 1991), the inspector noted that TS 4.12 did not include a requirement for an iodine removal test of the charcoal as was required by TS 4.5.3.1.e for the penetration room ventilation system. This issue was discussed with the licensee at that time and the licensee indicated that an iodine removal test would be added to TS 4.12 the next time the TSs were updated. During this inspection the licensee indicated that the surveillance procedure, rather than the TS, would be changed to include provisions for performing the iodine removal test and that this change would be implemented by June 1, 1993. The licensee also indicated that an internal document entitled "Design Basis Specification for Control Room Ventilation System, Spec. OSS-254.00.00-1021" would be revised to
indicate that the test is to be performed. The licensee's implementation of these changes will be examined during subsequent inspection Based on the above reviews and observations, it was -concluded that the licensee had complied with the above operational and surveillance requirements for the control room emergency ventilation system No violations or deviations were identifie.
Meteorological Monitoring Program (84750)
Section 2.3.3.2 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) described the operational and surveillance requirements for the meteorological monitoring instrumentation. Near real-time meteorological data were required to be collected, summarized, and stored by the Operator Aid Computer (OAC) system. Weekly equipment calibration and maintenance checks and semiannual calibration checks were required to be performed by prescribed station procedure During this inspection the licensee's cognizant engineer accessed, for the inspector, the current meteorological data through the 0AC syste The inspector determined that data for wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, and precipitation were being collected-as described in the FSA The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below and determined that they included provisions for performing the required surveillances on the meteorological monitoring instrumentatio IP/O/B/1601/03- "Meteorological Equipment Checks" IP/O/B/1601/008 "Teledyne Geotech Series 21 Precipitation Processor Channel Calibration" IP/O/B/1601/011 "Teledyne Geotech Series 21 Wind Speed Module Channel Cal ibration" IP/O/B/1601/012 "Teledyne Geotech Series 21 Model 21.21-1 Wind Direction Processor Channel Calibration" IP/O/B/1601/014 "Teledyne Geotech Platinum RDT T/Delta T Processor Channel Calibration" The.inspector reviewed records of weekly calibration checks performed on October 15, 22, and 29, 1992 and semiannual calibrations of wind speed, wind direction and air temperature instrumentation performed during April 1991, October 1991, and April 1992. The inspector determined that the calibration checks and calibrations were performed in accordance with the above procedures and at the required frequency.,.
Based on the above reviews and observations, it was concluded that the meteorological instrumentation had been adequately maintained and that the meteorological monitoring program had been effectively implemente No violations or deviations were identifie.
Training and Qualification (84750 and 86750)
Section 13.2.2 of the FSAR and TSs 6.1.1.4 and 6.1.1.7 described the requirements for training and qualification of licensee personnel. The licensee's program was implemented through the Employee Training and Qualification System (ETQS) which consisted of general employee training, technical training, and employee/professional development training. The general employee training covered-administrative, safety, and emergency control procedures, and plant systems and equipment. The technical training consisted of initial training, on-the-job training and qualification, and continuing training. The ETQS Manual included standards for specific positions and those standards described the specific topics covered by the-technical training phase of.the progra The inspector reviewed the training records for two individuals assigned to the Radiation Protection section and two individuals assigned to the Chemistry section. The records reviewed included ETQS Task Lists and Qualification Summaries. The ETQS Task List was a list of tasks which had been developed for each position and for which an individual must have been trained and qualified prior to independently performing the task. The Qualification Summary was maintained for each individual and listed the tasks for which the individual had received training and qualification. The inspector compared the ETQS Task List and-the Qualification Summary for each of the four individuals selecte Generally the Qualification Summaries included all of the tasks listed on the relevant ETQS Task List. The licensee indicated that procedural requirements prohibited individuals from performing those tasks for which they had not received training and qualificatio Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee had implemented an adequate training and qualification 'program for Radiation Protection and Chemistry personne No violations or deviations were identifie.
Audits (84750 and 86750)
TSs 6.1.3.4 and 6.1.3.5.d required the licensee to perform audits of station activities, under the cognizance of the Nuclear Safety Review Board, and forward the audit reports to licensee management within 30 days of completion of each audit. The audits were required to encompass, in part, the following: the conformance of station operation to provisions contained within the TSs and applicable facility operating license conditions at least once per year; the performance, training and qualifications of the station staff at least once per year; the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and implementing procedures at least once per 24 months; the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program and the results thereof at least once per 12 months; the Process Control Program and implementing procedures for solidification of radioactive wastes at least once per 24 months; and the performance of activities required by the Quality Assurance Program for effluent and envpironmental monitoring
at least once per 12 month The inspector reviewed the report for Departmental Audit NG-92-03 (ON),
dated February 21, 1992, and the management response to the audit results, dated March 31 and April 7, 1992. The audiit was conducted during the period January 6-30, 1992, by the licensee's Quality Verification Department. The scope of the audit in luded, in part, activities in the areas of procedures and instructions, training and qualification, liquid and gaseous effluents, shipment of radioactive material, laboratory quality control, offsite dose calculations, and environmental monitoring. The number and characterization of the substantive issues identified by the audit were as follows: 1 finding, 4 document discrepancies, 6 follow-up items, 8 observations, and 3 recommendations. Pursuant to the licensee's auditing procedures, findings and document discrepancies required documented corrective actions and each identified issue was tracked for completion of warranted follow-up actions. The licensee's corrective action for the issue characterized as a finding was documented in the management response to the audit results. That issue pertained to relocation of radioactive sources without prior approval by the Radiation Protection Manager for permanent storage location changes. The corrective action consisted of adherence to the procedural requirement to obtain documented approval of changes in source storage'locations..With regard to the other issues identified by the audit, it was not readily,apparent from a review of the management response to the audit that all issues had been adequately addressed. The licensee's response to those other identified issues will be further examined during a subsequent inspection. The inspector determined that the audit was of sufficient scope and depth 'to identify existing problems and that corrective action was taken for the identified finding. The audit results were well documented and reported to facility management in a timely manne Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee had implemented an effective program for conducting audits of station activities. The effectiveness of the licensee's response to audit results will be evaluated during a subsequent inspectio No violations or deviations were identifie. Exit Interview
'The inspection scope and results were summarized on November 19, 1992, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussedin detail the inspection results listed above. No dissenting comments were received from the license Proprietary information is not contained in this report.