ML19312B825
| ML19312B825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1973 |
| From: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312B824 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210661 | |
| Download: ML19312B825 (3) | |
Text
--
DUKE POWEre GOMPANY O
Powra Bu Lorwo 4aa south Cnuncu Srazer, CuAntoTTE, N. G. asaos A. C, THIES season vica passioant
- p. o.DOX 2178 Paoouc r.o
. o v..
...o April 20, 1973 Mr. Norman C. Moseley Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region II - Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RO:II:RW 50-269/73-3
Dear Mr. Moseley:
The following is submitted in response to Items 1, 2, and 4 of the enclosure to your letter dated March 30, 1973.
1.
Alleged violation of Technical Specification 6.1.1.6 Technical Specification 6.1.1.6 requires that the minimum shift staffing for Unit 1 consist of the following membership: One senior reactor operator, two reactor operators, and two non-licensed operators. The technical specification also permits the minimum operating staff to assist in the prelicensing activity of Units 2 and 3 to the extent that it does not affecttheir full availability for Unit 1 operation.
One member of the minimum shift requirement who has a reactor operator license has been assigned responsibility for aiding in the startup of Unit 2.
This individual's primary responsibility is to be a backup control operator for Unit 1.
A majority of his time is spent in the Unit 1 control room and he is fully cognizant
~
of Unit. 1 activity. His Unit 2 responsibilities in no way impair
'I his ready availability for Unit 1.
We believe that this utili-zation of a licensed relief reactor operator as a backup to the l
licensed control operator meets the intent of both our technical l
specifications and AEC guidelines.
l In order to confirm our understanding of the AEC's position on shift staffing, Mr. Dick VanNeil, AEC/ DOL, was contacted by telephone.
Attached is a February 21, 1973 memorandum for file which documents that conversation with Mr. VanNeil. We believe that memor,andum confirms our understanding of the technical specification and the AEC's guidelines.
7911210$f/
Mr. N:rman C. Moraley Page 2 April 20, 1973 In order to assure there-is no future misunderstanding on this issue, a supervisor has been appointed to direct the startup activities of Unit 2.
Because the relief reactor operator on Unit 1 has valuable experience in startup activities, the Unit 2 super-visor will consult with him for guidance on Unit 2.
The Unit 1 reactor operator's primary assignment will be to Unit 1 and he will be readily available to assist the control operator on Unit 1 whenever necessary. Howeve, it is expected that some of his time can be devoted to consultation on Unit 2 startup.
2.
Violation of 'echnical Specification 6.1.2.1 Through an oversight, test procedure TP-800/5, " Reactivity Co-efficients at Power," was not received by the Station Review Committee (SRC) for its review prior to approval.
The proper review of several hundred procedures has been performed, with checks by several individuals for completeness of the review process.
This is the first identifiable failure of this process.
This matter has been discussed with rhose responsible for assuring completeness of reviews.
The test procedure has been reviewed by the SRC prior to its use.
4.
Failure to have a written procedure for draining oil from reactor coolant pump (RCP)
The piping system for draining oil from the RCP had been r'ecently installed, and a procedure had been provided for aligning the valves for operation. A procedure for draining the oil had not been written as there are numerous bearings in the station which are drained at periodic intervals to replace the oil.
It has not been our practice to provide written procedures for these routine maintenance activities.
In this instance, a written procedure may have Leen of value had we recognized the potential for backing oil up through the lower bearing overflow in the extremely unlikely event that both bottom drain paths were closed off while an upper bearing was being drained.,
The oil drain piping on the RCP's has been revised to remove the potential for a similar occurrence, and a written procedure for draining oil from the RCP's has been provided. A meeting of the station supervisory personnel has been held and emphasis placed upon the necessity for written procedures or checklists, which have been properly reviewed.
Very truly yours, W
A. C. Thies ACT:vr
i Memorandum for File February 21, 1973
Subject:
Oconce Nuclear Station Telecon with AEC Concerning Shift Staffing On Friday, February 16, 1973, J. E. Smith and K. S. Canady called Dick Van-Neil of the AEC to discuss the responsibilities of the shift staffing as defined in Unit 1 technical specification 6.1.1.6 (Al Schwencer had been previously contacted and suggested that we call Dick VanNeil directly and not involve Projects).
Ed Smith requested interpretation of the use of the assistant control operator.
It had been our previous understanding that the reason for adding a third licensed operator was to provide relief for the control operator should he need it.
Consequently, Ed Snith was proposing that even though the assistant control operators' duty would primarily be to Unit 1. that he be allowed to spend a significant portion of his time when not needed on Unit 1 to aid in the startup and checkout of Unit 2.
This problem is specifically acute on one shift where the shift supervisor is licensed as an RO only and the assistant shif t supervisor is an SRO.
In this case, the assistant shift supervisor is responsible for Unit 1 and the shift supervisor is being used as the relief control operator for Unit 1 and aiding in the checkout of Unit 2.
Dick VanNeil informed us that although the primary responsibility of the relief control operator is backup for the control operator, the AEC cxpects that the relief control operator would spend approximately 75 percent of his time in the Unit 1 control room.
He agreed, however, to check this out with his management and advise us.
On Tuesday, February 20, 1973, Dick VanNe'il called to inform us of the following.
The utilization' of manpower for Oconee is essentially up to us as long as the technical specification requirements are fulfilled. Dick VanNeil made the following points:
l.
The man should be, assigned to Unit 1 2.
He must be f amiliar with Unit 1 operations 3.
He probably should spend much of his time in the Unit 1 control room I
~
4.
He should be readily available for Unit 1 relief if needed J. E. Smith and K. S. Canady agreed to the above and thanked Dick VanNeil l
for checking into this matter.
u<
K. S. Canady KSC:vr cc:
Mr. P. H. Barton Mr. J. E. Smith I