ML15239A075
| ML15239A075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1993 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15239A076 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310120354 | |
| Download: ML15239A075 (32) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1993011
Text
SEP 10 1993
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270,
50-287 and 72-4
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. J. W. Hampton
Vice President
Oconee Site
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-269/93-11, 50-270/93-11,
50-287/93-11 AND 72-4/93-11)
This refers to the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
for your Oconee facility which was sent to you on July 13, 1993; our meeting
of July 28, 1993, at which we discussed the report; and your written comments
dated August 18, 1993. I have enclosed a summary of our presentation at the
meeting, a copy of ttie SALP slides which were used at the presentation, a copy
of your written comments, and the Final SALP Report for the period February 2,
1992, through May 1, 1993.
We appreciate your efforts in evaluating the Initial SALP Report and providing
comments. The following is our evaluation of your comments:
Docket Nos.
We agree with this comment. The docket number of the Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation has been added to the Final SALP Report as you requested.
Maintenance/Surveillance
We understand that your Design Basis Documentation program identified the need
for testing the isolation relays at Keowee; however, the-SALP Board concluded
that action to accomplish these tests had not been initiated in a timely
manner. Therefore, no change is warranted for this section of the Final SALP
Report.
Engineering/Technical Support
Your response provided additional clarification on issues related to the Low
Pressure Injection h.2at exchangers, MG-6 relays at Keowee, the Electrical
Distribution System Functional Inspection, and licensed operator initial and
requalification examination programs. The weakness we noted in the
requalification examination construction and instructor cuing techniques can
9310120354 930910
PDR ADOCK 05000269
9
\\
j
Duke Power Company
2
SEP 10 1993
only be observed during a requalification examination. During the most recent
requalification examination, July 12-22, 1993, which was outside the
assessment period, we did not identify any problems with cuing and examination
construction. On this basis, we conclude that the problems have been
corrected. For the remaining items, we have considered the justification in
your request and have modified the SALP Report as described in Enclosure 4.
Supporting Data and Summaries
We have revised the Licensee Activities section of the Final SALP Report to
include your clarification comments on the October 19, 1992, loss of off site
power event. Also, we have revised the Direct Inspection and Review
Activities section to indicate the correct number of initial and
requalification examinations performed during this assessment period. We have
verified that only operator examinations administered during this SALP period
were assessed. The management meeting to discuss station blackout and Keowee
issues has been included as one of the additional meetings held during the
assessment period.
In accordance with Section 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any questions
concerning these matters, I will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Stewart D. Ebneter
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1. Meeting Summary
2. SALP Slides
3. Duke Power Comments on SALP
4. Revision Sheet
5. Final SALP Report
cc w/encls:
M. E. Patrick
Compliance
Duke Power Company
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
cc w/encls:
See page 3
Duke Power Company
3
SEP 101993
cc w/encls: Continued
A. V. Carr, Esq.
Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242-0001
County Supervisor of
Oconee County
Walhalla, SC 29621
Robert B. Borsum
Babcock and Wilcox Company
Nuclear Power Generation Division
1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525
Rockville, MD 20852
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Winston and Strawn
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20005
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Heyward G. Shealy, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Manager, LIS
NUS Corporation
2650 McCormick Drive
Clearwater, FL 34619-1035
G. A. Copp
Licensing - EC050
Duke Power Company
P. 0. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Karen E. Long
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Duke Power Company
4
SEP 101993
bcc w/encls:
The Chairman
Commissioner K. C. Rogers
Commissioner F. J. Remick
Commissioner E. G. de Planque
J. M. Taylor, EDO
H. L. Thompson, Jr., EDO
J. F. Plisco, Regional
Coordinator, EDO
T. E. Murley, NRR
S. Varga, NRR
L. A. Wiens, NRR
F. Allenspach, SALP Coordinator, NRR
Regional Administrators, RI, RIII
RIV, and RV
K. Clark, RII, PAO
A. R. Herdt, DRP, RH
M. S. Lesser, DRP, RII
W. H. Miller, DRP, RH
R. L. Watkins, DRP, RH
NRC Resident Inspector
DRS and DRSS Branch Chiefs,
Document Control Desk
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Route 2, Box 610
Seneca, SC 29678
Mr. John C. Heard, Jr.
Chief, Tech. Hazards Branch
Federal Emgcy. Mgmt. Agency
Suite 706A
1371 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
- RII
- RII
- RII
- RII
WMiller
MLesser
AHerdt
PSthor
Jaudon
09/ /93
09/ /93
09/ /93
09/
/9319/93
- RII
- NRR
- NRR
- R
RI
PHarmon
LWiens
DMatthews
J
son
yes
09/ /93
09/
/93
09/
/93
09/
/93
0 /3/93
Duke Power Company
4
bcc w ncls:
The Ch 'rman
Commiss ner K. C. Rogers
Commissi
er F. J. Remick
Commissio r E. G. de Planque
J. M. Tayl
, EDO
H. L. Thomp n, Jr., EDO
J. F. Plisco, Regional
Coordinator, EDO
T. E. Murley,
R
S. Varga, NRR
L. A. Wiens, NRR
F. Allenspach, SAL Coordinator, NRR
Regional Administra ors, RI, RIII
RIV, and RV
K. Clark, RII, PAO
A. R. Herdt, DRP, RH
M. S. Lesser, DRP, RH
W. H. Miller, DRP, RH
R. L. Watkins, DRP, RH
S. Vias, Chief, TSS (2 cop'es)
NRC Resident Inspector
DRS and DRSS Branch Chiefs,
and Section Chiefs
Document Control Des:
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio
Route 2, Box 610
Seneca, SC 29678
RIIW4
RH
RI
RI
WMif'er
sser
AHerdt
PSt
u
09/1 /93
09/1 /93
09/\\ /93 09/1 /93 0
3
RLNRR
RJ
RH
Valmon & LWiens
DMafthews
J, son
LReyes
09/1/93
09/, /93
09/1 /93
0 /i/934 09/ /93
ENCLOSURE I
MEETING SUMMARY
A.
A meeting was held on July 28, 1993, at the Oconee station to discuss
the results of the NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) evaluation of the Oconee facility for the appraisal period of
February 2, 1992, through May 1, 1993.
B.
Licensee Attendees
R. B. Priory, Executive Vice President Power Generation Group
H. B. Tucker, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Department
M. S. Tuckman, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Department
J. E. Groman, Vice President, Generation Services
J. W. Hampton, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Site (ONS)
H. B. Barron, Oconee Station Manager, ONS
J. M. Davis, Safety Assurance Manager, ONS
L. V. Wilkie, Training Manager, ONS
S. C. Adams, Community Relations Director, ONS
The list of licensee attendees does not include all of the Duke
Employees that were present at the SALP presentation.
C.
NRC Attendees
L. A. Reyes, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RH)
J. R. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII
A. R. Herdt, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 3, DRP, RH
L. A. Wiens, Project Manager, Project Directorate 11-3, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
K. M. Clark, Public Affairs Officer, RH
P. E. Harmon, Senior Resident Inspector, Oconee, DRP, RH
W. K. Poertner, Resident Inspector, Oconee, DRP, RH
W. H. Miller, Jr., Project Engineer, DRP, RII
D.
Public Attendees
D. Cambell, Director, South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Division
R. Duggleby, South Carolina Emergency Planning Division
W. Corley, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control
J. Morris, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
D. Evett, Director, Pickens County Emergency Preparedness Agency
A. Horn, Director, Oconee County Emergency Preparedness Agency
M. McCance, Greenville News
E. Gorski, Anderson Independent
R. Young, WYFF-TV, Greenville, SC
N. Nygro, WYFF-TV, Greenville, SC
ENCLOSURE 2
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
(SALP)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
SALP CYCLE 10
FEBRUARY 2, 1992
THROUGH
MAY 1, 1993
OCONEE
JULY 28, 1993
LICCOVR.CH3
SALP PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
1. IDENTIFY TRENDS IN
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
2. PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
ALLOCATION OF
NRC RESOURCES
3. IMPROVE NRC
REGULATORY PROGRAM
PROJOBJ.CH3
REGION II
ORGANIZATION
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
S. EBNETER
DEPUTY L REYES
DIVISION OF
DIVISION OF
DIVISION OF
REACTOR PROJECTS
REACTOR SAFETY
RADIATION SAFETY
AND SAFEGUARDS
DIR. E. MERSCHOFF
DIR.
A. GIBSON
DIR.
J. STOHR
DEPUTY J. JOHNSON
DEPUTY J. JAUDON
DEPUTY B. MALLETT
RII-ORG.CH3
DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS
ORGANIZATION
DIVISION OF
REACTOR PROJECTS
DIR. E. MERSCHOFF
DEPUTY J. JOHNSON
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 3
CHIEF
A. HERDT
PROJECTS SECTION
PROJECTS SECTION
NO. 3A
NO. 3B
CHIEF
CHIEF
M. LESSER
P. SKINNER
CATAWBA
HATCH
MCGUIRE
OCONEE -P. HARMON, SRI
VOGTLE
BR30RG.CH3
NRR ORGANIZATION
OFFICE OF
NUCLEAR REACTOR
REGULATION
DIR. T MURLEY
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
PROJECTS
INSPECTION AND
J. PARTLOW
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
IDIVISION
OF
ENGINEERING
DIVISION OF
REACTOR PROJECTS I/I
S. VARGA, DIR. I/II
G. LAINAS, ASST. DIR. II
D. B. MATTHEWS, PD 11-3
REACTOR INSPECTION
L A. WIENS
PROJ MGR, OCONEE
DIVISION OF REACTOR
CONTROLS AND
HUMAN FACTORS
DIVISION OF
REACTOR PROJECTS IIIIIVNR
DIV. OF RADIATION
SAFETY AND
SAFEGUARDS
DIVISION OF OPERATING
REACTOR SUPPORT
NRRORG.CH3
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS
FOR OPERATING REACTORS
A. PLANT OPERATIONS
B. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
C. MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE
E. SECURITY
F. ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY
VERIFICATION
FNCAREAS.CH3
AREA PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY 1
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO
AND INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR SAFETY
OR SAFEGUARDS ACTIVITIES RESULTED
IN A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE.
NRC WILL CONSIDER REDUCED LEVELS
OF INSPECTION EFFORT.
CATIDEFN.CH3
AREA PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY 2
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO
AND INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR SAFETY
OR SAFEGUARDS ACTIVITIES RESULTED
IN A GOOD LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE.
NRC WILL CONSIDER MAINTAINING
NORMAL LEVELS OF INSPECTION
EFFORT.
CAT2DEFN.CH3
AREA PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY 3
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO
AND INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR SAFETY
OR SAFEGUARDS ACTIVITIES RESULTED
IN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE;
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE NRC'S CONCERN
THAT A DECREASE IN PERFORMANCE MAY
APPROACH OR REACH AN UNACCEPTABLE
LEVEL, NRC WILL CONSIDER INCREASED
LEVELS OF INSPECTION EFFORT.
CAT3DEFN.CH3
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND CONTROL
IN ASSURING QUALITY
2. APPROACH TO IDENTIFICATION AND
RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT
3. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
4. REPORTING, ANALYSIS AND CORRECTIVE
ACTION OF REPORTABLE EVENTS
5. STAFFING (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT)
6. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND
QUALIFICATION
EVALCRIT.CH3
PLANT OPERATIONS
(CATEGORY 2)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE REMAINED GOOD.
STRENGTHS
- CONTROL ROOM DECORUM
- EXPERIENCE OF OPERATIONS STAFF
- OPERATORS KNOWLEDGE OF SYSTEMS AND
PROCESSES
- RESPONSE TO TRANSIENTS
- USE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT STAFF
- NUMBER OF LIT ANNUNCIATORS
- IMPROVEMENT IN SHUTDOWN RISK
CONSIDERATIONS
OCONEE 7/93
PLANT OPERATIONS
(CONTINUED)
CHALLENGES
- CONFIGURATION CONTROL EVENTS
- ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURES
-
ATTITUDES
-
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION
- KEOWEE OPERATIONS STANDARDS
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
(CATEGORY 1)
PERFORMANCE CONTINUED TO BE SUPERIOR.
STRENGTHS
- RADCON ORGANIZATION
- RADIATION EXPOSURE CONTROL
- RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT CONTROL
- ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- WATER CHEMISTRY PROGRAM
- RAD MATERIAL SHIPMENTS
CHALLENGES
- POSTING AND LABELING
- ADHERENCE TO RWP PROCEDURES
- TIMELY FOLLOWUP OF RADCON AUDIT
DEFICIENCIES
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE
(CATEGORY 2)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE WAS GOOD.
STRENGTHS
- PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE
- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
- INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM
- REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE WORK REQUEST
BACKLOG
CHALLENGES
- OPERATIONAL EVENTS ATTRIBUTED TO
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
- MAINTENANCE CONTROLS
- PROCEDURE ADHERENCE
- SYSTEM FUNCTIONS NOT FULLY
DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING
(CATEGORY 1)
PERFORMANCE REMAINED SUPERIOR.
STRENGTHS
- MANAGEMENT SUPPORT AND INVOLVEMENT
- TRAINING PROGRAM
- DRILL PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE
- OFFSITE SIREN SYSTEM MONITORING
- EMERGENCY FACILITIES
CHALLENGES
- MAINTAINING PERFORMANCE LEVEL
- IMPROVE INFORMATION RELEASED FROM THE
SECURITY
(CATEGORY 1)
PERFORMANCE REMAINED SUPERIOR.
STRENGTHS
- KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF
- AUDITS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
- PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (ACCESS,
ALARMS, ETC.)
CHALLENGES
- ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (CAMERA) RELIABILITY
- COORDINATION WITH OTHER SITE
ORGANIZATIONS
ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SUPPORT
(CATEGORY 2)
PERFORMANCE CONTINUED TO BE GOOD.
STRENGTHS
- SUPPORT TO OUTAGE ACTIVITIES
- SUPPORT TO PLANT OPERATIONS
- INITIAL LICENSING OPERATOR TRAINING
CHALLENGES
- RESOLUTION OF EMERGENT ISSUES
- TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
- SUPPORT TO SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL TESTING TO
VERIFY PREDICTIONS (CALCULATIONS)
- LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION
SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY
VERIFICATION
(CATEGORY 2)
PERFORMANCE REMAINED GOOD.
STRENGTHS
- SHUTDOWN RISK INITIATIVES
- NOTIFICATION OF PLANNED REQUESTS
- QUALITY OF LICENSING SUBMITTALS
CHALLENGES
- PROCEDURAL ADHERENCE
- CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
- RECOGNITION OF NEED TO IMPROVE OVERSIGHT
OF KEOWEE OPERATIONS
Duke Power Company
Oconee NuclearSite
J WHAMPTON
PO .Bor 1439
ENCLOSURET3-
Vice President
Seneca. SC 29679
(803)885-3499 Office
(803)8853564 Far
DUKEPOWER
August 18, 1993
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attention:
Document Control Desk
20555
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Site
Docket NoS. 50-269, -270, -287; 72-4
Inspection Report 50-269, -270, -287/93-11
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
Gentlemen:
By letter dated July 13, 1993, the initial SALP report for the
Oconee facility was issued.
This report covered the time
period of February 1,
1992 through May 1,
1993.
A verbal
presentation of that report was made in
a public meeting on
July 28, 1993 at the Oconee site.
I would like to comment and provide additional information
regarding the Operator Training assessment (Attachment 1), the
Engineering assessment
(Attachment 2),
and the Maintenance/
Surveillance assessment (Attachment 3).
I request that these
comments be considered for inclusion into the final SALP report
and rating.
In addition, I request that the Docket Number assigned to the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation be added to the
final SALP report.
Please contact me, or members
of my staff,
if
further
information is needed.
Very truly yours,
J .
W.
an tn
DRP OFFICIAL COPY
Document Control Desk
August 18, 1993
Page 2
cc:
Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II
Mr. L. A. Wiens, Project Manager
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
P. E. Harmon
Senior Resident Inspector
Oconee Nuclear Site
ATTACHMENT 1
OPERATOR TRAINING AREA
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT
The "Summary of Results" section of the preliminary SALP report
indicates that "performance in the operator requalification program
declined from the previous assessment due to weaknesses in
examination content and evaluator techniques."
In Section V.B of the report, Direct Inspection and Review
Activities, it
is listed that two initial
and three requalification
examinations were conducted at Oconee. Our records indicate that
one
initial
exam
(50-269/93-300,
January
1993)
and
two
requalification exams
(50-269/92-302,
July 1992; 50-269/93-300,
January 1993) were administered during the SALP cycle.
The following information is taken from the above referenced
Examination Reports.
Duke Power believes the Operator Training
Program has shown continuous improvement during this SALP period.
A.
NRC Examination Report 50-269/92-302
In July,
1992,
the NRC
administered a requalification
examination. Nine of ten Reactor Operators (RO) and thirteen
of
fourteen Senior Reactor Operators
(SRO) passed the
examinations.
Based upon these results, the Oconee Requalification Program
was determined to be satisfactory.
A strength was noted in
the construction and maintenance of Job Performance Measures.
Weaknesses were noted in
the areas of written examination
construction,
communications
during
Emergency
Operating
Procedures implementation, and evaluator performance.
B.
NRC Examination Report 50-269/93-300
In January, 1993, the NRC administered initial written
examinations
and
operating
tests
to
seven
SROs.
Requalification
simulator
retake
examinations
were
administered to the RO and SRO who failed the July, 1992 test.
All seven SRO candidates passed the initial examinations and
both requalification retake examinees passed. The examiners
stated that
"both of the operators
exhibited noticeably
improved performance compared to their former examination
results".
Strengths identified were "instructor assistance during exam
administration, communications and team interaction, and an
improved crew command and control structure."
ATTACHMENT 1
OPERATOR TRAINING AREA
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT
B.
NRC Examination Report 50-269/93-300 (continued)
It was also noted in the report that Oconee had "conducted an
extensive pre-examination review
...
and was successful in
significantly reducing the number of post examination comments
compared to previous examinations."
The examiners stated that the previous examination linked many
weaknesses to poor communications and command and control.
These problems were effectively addressed by management as can
be seen in
the following statements made by the examiners;
"The candidates displayed excellent communication skills and
team work between each other, especially during plant
The use of formalized repeat back communications
and operator involvement in the decision making process was
noteworthy."
In addition, the command and control structure was changed
such that the Unit Supervisor is
in
an oversight position.
This improved method of command and control revealed none of
the problems mentioned during the previous examination. The
examiners observed that "communications were clear, concise,
and formal" and identified the new structure as a strength.
Duke Power believes the Operator Training Program has improved and
requests that the NRC review this information for inclusion in the
final SALP report and rating.
Duke also requests the NRC to verify
that only Operator Examinations which took place during the SALP
cycle are included in the report.
ATTACHMENT 2
ENGINEERING AREA
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Section V.A,
Licensee Activities,
of the SALP report discusses
problems that were encountered with the LPSW system. The report
states that "...cooling water flow of the LPSW system through the
LPI heat exchangers were found to exceed the manufacturer's
specifications.
The power level of both units was reduced to
approximately 10 percent and modifications were made to reduce the
flow through the heat exchangers to meet the manufacturer's
specifications."
Duke Power would like to clarify this information.
The cooling
water flow of the LPSW system through the heat exchangers, during
a postulated design basis accident, could have potentially exceeded
the manufacturer's specifications.
This was discovered on a test
performed on Unit 3 and was also determined to be applicable to
Units 1 and 2.
Section F of
the SALP report contains
information on the
Engineering/Technical Support area.
The first paragraph on page
15, item (5)
lists
a failure to correct the MG-6 testing deficiency
after identification during Keowee Unit 2 testing.
The specific
MG-6 problem was promptly corrected.
A comprehensive program is
underway to deal with MG-6 concerns and is part of the Emergency
Power Management Plan.
The second paragraph on page 15 discusses the EDSFI report. Duke
Power requests that additional,
pertinent information from the
EDSFI cover letter
(ref: 50-269,270,287/93-02) be included in this
writeup. The second paragraph of the EDSFI cover letter indicates
that "this comprehensive inspection revealed no inoperable systems
and provided adequate assurance that the Electrical Distribution
System will perform as intended pending further analysis and
testing by the licensee".
The last paragraph of Section V.A, Licensee Activities, in the SALP
report discusses the October, 1992 loss of off site power event.
This
should
read,
"On
October
19,
1992,
during maintenance
activities, a loss of off site power occurred for Unit 2 which was
followed by a subsequent loss of one of the Keowee Hydro units."
A June, 1992 management meeting which was held at NRC headquarters
on Station Blackout and Keowee issues should be added to Section
V.D, Management Conferences.
ATTACHMENT 3
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE
Section C contains information on the Maintenance/Surveillance
area. The second paragraph on page 10 discusses the test program
for Keowee Hydro. The report states that "...
relays required to
isolate portions of the switchyard and to transfer Keowee auxiliary
power to an alternate source were not fully tested".
Duke Power would like to clarify this information.
The need for
these tests had been previously identified by our Design Basis
Documentation program. Duke Power was awaiting testing procedure
development; complexity of the test and an extensive 50.59
evaluation precluded earlier testing.
ENCLOSURE 4
REVISION SHEET
SALP BOARD REVISION SHEET
PAGE
LINE
NOW READS
SHOULD READ
Title Sheet 1
INITIAL SALP REPORT
FINAL SALP REPORT
6
50-269.. ./93-11
50-269...../93-11 AND 72-4/93-11
8
OCONEE ....... 3
OCONEE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 AND THE
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE
INSTALLATION
BASIS:
These revisions change the Initial SALP Report to the Final
Salp Report and include the name and docket number of the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
15
13
Injection (LPI)...
Injection
(LPI)..., (5) failure
MG-6 testing
to adequately test the MG-6 relays
to verify operability. After the
development of an appropriate
procedure for testing the MG-6
relays, a long standing operability
problem was identified.
BASIS:
This change is for clarity. The problem was not the failure
to correct the MG-6 testing deficiency, but was the failure
to perform an adequate test to verify operability of the
relays. Once an adequate test was conducted, a relay which
had been inoperable for a long time was identified.
15
15
An Electrical ....
Although the Electrical Distribution
..... documentation.
System Functional Inspection
revealed no inoperable systems and
provided adequate assurance that the
electrical system will perform as
intended, it also revealed problems
in testing, design analyses and
design basis documentation.
BASIS:
This revision adds the comment that no inoperable systems
were identified during the EDSFI inspection.
18
15
through ...
the
through the LPI heat exchangers,
during a postulated design basis
accident, could have potentially
exceeded the manufacturer's
specifications. This was discovered
on a test performed on Unit 3 and