ML15219A069
| ML15219A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1992 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15219A070 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204090210 | |
| Download: ML15219A069 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000270/1991202
Text
'§'"NkREGU
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
April 6, 1992
Docket No.:
50-270
Duke Power Company
ATI: Mr. J. W. Hampton,
Vice President, Oconee Site
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, South Carolina 29679
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
OOONEE SHUYIDOWN RISK AND OUIAGE MNAEMET INSPEION
(NRC INSPBCION REPORT 50-270/91-202)
We are forwarding the report of the shutdown risk and outage managemnt
inspection conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
from December 2, 1991, through February 21, 1992.
The activities are
authorized by NRC Operating License DPR-47 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the team discussed the findings with you
and members of your staff.
The inspection team examined the adequacy of your outage planning and conduct
with respect to minimizing the risk of initiation of accident sequences during
shutdown conditions.
This assessnnt was conducted in two phases.
The first
phase was conducted before the outage and focused on outage planning.
The
second phase was conducted during the outage and focused on the implementation
of outage controls for equipment being worked on, equipment returned to
service, and system turnovers to operations.
The team found that although you had given same consideration of shutdown risk
during the Unit 2 outage, these measures need more emphasis.
In particular,
the team considered the planning and scheduling of work activities to be a
weakness.
Minimal procedural guidelines existed for managing the risks that
could occur during shutdown conditions.
The team found that excessive
reliance was placed on individuals to schedule work activities during the
outage to avoid situations of high risk rather than pre-planning such
activities.
The team found that the plant staff executed their duties in a competent and
professional manner and appeared capable of operating and controlling outages
on Unit 2 in a satisfactory manner.
The team noted several strengths,
including shift turnovers, mid-shift briefings, and a positive control of
control roam access.
However, the team identified the following deficiencies: (1) incorrectly
performed nuclear instrumentation reliability check during fuel movement,
(2) lack of independent safety tag verification, and (3) lack of 10 CFR 50.59
safety evaluation for a temporary modification.
These deficiencies appeared,
9204090210
920406
NRC
LE
ENTER COPY
ADOCK 05000270
0
pi
I
I
~ -2 'j~-~z
0
Mr. J. W. Hampton
-2-
April 6, 1992
in part, to be attributable to weak procedural guidance.
The team also
observed inaccurate information being presented during a licensed operator
training session.
The team concluded that plant personnel need to be more self-critical and to
have a more questioning attitude.
There were indications that plant personnel
need to became more sensitive to identify and correct conditions that have the
potential to adversely impact plant systems or impact the operations staff
capability to perform their functions.
The Executive Summary gives an overview of the inspection and the inspection
report, and the appendices amplify the inspection effort and related findings.
No response to this letter is required.
The NRC Region II office will issue
any enforcement action that may result from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CER 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions
concerning this inspection, please contact me or Mr. J. D. Wilcox, Jr.
(301-504-2965),
of this office.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Steven A. Varga, Director
Division of Reactor Projects, I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-270/91-202
cc w/enclosure:
see next page
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENES
RSIB:DRIS*
RSIB:DRIS*
SC:RSIB:DRIS*
C:RSIB:DRIS*
D:DRIS:NRR*
JRBall: jb
JDWilcox
RAGram
EVImbro
BKGrimes
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
RII*
RII*
RII*
RII*
SELB:NRR*
WKPoertner JShackelford
IB4ellen
BABreslau
RVJenkins
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
04/01/92
RSIB:DRIS*
.
NR
DSpaulding
Va
,
04/01/92
/192
Mr. J. W. Hampton
-2
in
, to be attributable to weak procedural guidance.
The team also
observed inaccurate information being presented during a licensed operator
training session.
The team concluded that plant personnel need to be more self-critical and to
have a ibre questioning attitude. There were indications that plant personnel
need to became more sensitive to identify and correct conditions that have the
potential to adversely impact plant systems or impact the operations staff
capability 1e perform their functions.
The Executive Sumary gives an overview of the inspection and the inspection
report, and the appeidices amplify the inspection effort and related findings.
No response to thisletter is required.
The NRC Region II office will issue
any enforcement action that may result from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CER 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosures
will be placed in the NRCNPublic Document Room.
Should you have any questions
concerning this inspection,\\please contact me or Mr. J. D. Wilcox, Jr.
(301-504-2965),
of this offibe.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Varga, Director
DivIsion of Reactor Projects, I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-270/91-202
cc w/enclosure:
see next page
-S
kia
Rgl
RSS:RSIB:RIS
CRSIB:DRISD
JRBall:jb
JDWilcox
RAGramm
EVlmbro
4( /92
4/1/92
4//92
/92
/92
RIw
(rLit RII e&r%
Ie
I(/rn--SIB.R
WKPoertner JShackelford
LSMellen
BABreslau
/[/92
q///92L/
/2//9/2
RSIB:DRIS
'D:DRP:NRR
DSpaulding SAVarga
Ly /92
/ /92
A/
/92/
/92/
/92
rICe
SELB:NR
WY
IOelUlenB
AJsa t'4"c
L{/-
6
/92o
X/
(/92
/92
Mr. J. W. Hampton
-2-
April 6, 1992
in part, to be attributable to weak procedural guidance.
The team also
observed inaccurate information being presented durirg a licensed operator
training session.
The team concluded that plant personnel need to be mre self-critical and to
have a more questioning attitude.
There were indications that plant personnel
need to becane more sensitive to identify and correct conditions that have the
potential to adversely impact plant systems or impact the operations staff
capability to perform their functions.
The Executive Summary gives an overview of the inspection and the inspection
report, and the appendices amplify the inspection effort and related findings.
No response to this letter is required.- The NRC Region II office will issue
any enforcement action that may result from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roam.
Should you have any questions
concerning this inspection, please contact me or Mr. J. D. Wilcox, Jr.
(301-504-2965),
of this office.
S' T
~y,
enA. Varga, D
rr
Division of Reactor
.ects, I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-270/91-202
cc w/enclosure:
see next page
Mr. J. W. Hampton
-3-
Oonee Nuclear Station
Dike Power Campany
cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esq.
Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief
Duke Power Campany
Project RmrK+/- #3
422 South Church Street
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Qmmission
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001
101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Winston and Strawn
Ms. Karen E. Lon
1400 L Street, N.W.
Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20005
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 639
Mr. Robert B. Borsum
Raleigh, North Carlina 27602
Babcock & Wilcox
Nuclear Power Division
Mr. R. L. Gill, Jr.
Suite 525
Licensing
1700 Rockville Pike
Duke Poer Ccupany
Rockville, Maryland 20852
P.O. Box 1007
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007
Manager, IES
NUS Corporation
Regional Adrnistrator, Reion II
2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor
U.S. Nuclear Reulatory Camission
Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035
101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 2900
Senior Resident Inspector
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
c/o Oconee Nuclear Station
Rt. 2, Box 610
Seneca, South Carolina 29678
Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Departrent of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
County Supervisor of Oconee County
Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
Mr. M. E. Patrick
compliance
Duke Power Cmpany
Oconee Nuclear Site
P.O. Box 1439
aSeneca,
Stath Carolina 29679
Mr. J. W. Hampton
-4
Distribution:
Docket Files 50-270
RSIB R/F
DRIS R/F
TEMurley, NRR
FJMiraglia, NRR
WIRussell, NRR
JGPartlow, NRR
BKGrimes, NRR
EVITbro, NRR
RAGramm, NRR
JRBall, NRR
JDWilcox, NRR
RISpessard, AEDD
SAVarga, NRR
DBMatthews, NRR
IAWiens, NRR
IGBerry, NRR
GDHolahan, NRR
GABelisle, RII
ARHerdt, RII
AFGibson, RII
JRThnson, RII
MIS System, RII
RSTS Op, RII
RPB, RII
RII Docket Files
Regional Administrators
Regional Division Directors
Inspection Team
IPDR
PER
ACRS (3)
OOG (3)
1S Distribution