ML16154A777
| ML16154A777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16154A778 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-95-03, 50-269-95-3, 50-270-95-03, 50-270-95-3, 50-287-95-03, 50-287-95-3, NUDOCS 9505030134 | |
| Download: ML16154A777 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000226/2003025
Text
Duke Power Company
Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, and 287
Oconee 1, 2, and 3
License Nos. DPR-38, 47 and 55
During an NRC inspection conducted on February 26 - March 25, 1995, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, "10 CFR Part 2,
Appendix C, the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, states in part that measures shall
be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the
design basis are correctly translated into specifications, drawings,
procedures, and instructions. It further states that design control
measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of the
design.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part that activities
affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented procedures of a type
appropriate to the circumstances.
Contrary to the above, from May 20, 1993, until March 20, 1995, the
design control process, independent verification process, and operating
procedure associated with establishing the maximum power limit of a
Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU) while generating to the system grid, were
inadequate. Specifically:
a.
Oconee Site Calculation (OSC)-6003, Revision 0, "Keowee Operating
Limits To Prevent Overspeed Due To Load Rejection," a QA-1
calculation, established 66 MW as the maximum power output for a
KHU generating to the grid. Revision 1 of this calculation, dated
May 20, 1993, increased the limit to 75 MW. This revision was
non-conservative in that it did not accurately account for
instrument uncertainties. Taking appropriate account of these
instrument uncertainties should have resulted in a limit of 68 MW.
This calculation was independently reviewed and approved without
identifying the error. The non-conservative limit of 75 MW was
subsequently incorporated into procedure OP/0/A/2000/041, "Keowee
Modes Of Operation."
As a result, for a cumulative time of
thirty-one hours and three minutes between May 20, 1993, and
January 27, 1995, the KHU aligned to the grid was technically
inoperable due to potential overspeed lockout while operating in
excess of 72 MW.
b.
OSC-6003, was revised (Revision 3) on March 14, 1995, in order to
raise the maximum power output limit for a KHU from 56 MW to 69
MW. The statistical analysis methodology utilized to reduce
instrument uncertainties was incorrect for this revision.
Utilizing the appropriate statistical methodology should have
resulted in a maximum power limit of 68 MW. This calculation was
Enclosure 1
9505030134 950421
PDR ADOCK 05000269
0
2
independently reviewed and approved without identifying the error.
The non-conservative limit of 69 MW was subsequently incorporated
into OP/O/A/2000/041, "Keowee-Modes Of Operation."
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby
required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555
with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC
Resident Inspector at the Oconee Nuclear Plant, within 30 days of the date of
the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should
be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for
each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis
for disputing the violation, (2)
the corrective steps that have been taken and
the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid
further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice,
an order or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should
not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be
proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the response time.
ODated at Atlanta, Georgia
this 21 day of April 1995
Enclosure 1