ML19316A197
| ML19316A197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1978 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A196 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911280730 | |
| Download: ML19316A197 (2) | |
Text
.
DUKE POWER COMPANY g s p)
Powzu Butt.nswo 422 Socra Caumen Srazer. Crunt.oriz. N. C. asa.sa i
I
.. w a o.
.. c. s a.
May 10, 1978 vice Petsiot=,
Tc te-o=c:Asta 704 Seca= Pacowerio=
37 3-ac e 3 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1217
.s 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 RE:
RII:GRJ 30-269/78-7 50-270/78-7 50-287/78-7 7
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
With regard to Mr. J. T. Sutherland's letter dated April 18, 1978 which transmitted OIE Inspection Report 50-269, -270, -287/78-7, Duke Power Company Joe. not consider Liaio inivemotiou to be proprietary.
Please find attached a response to the item of noncompliance identified in the subject report.
Ver truly yours,,'
N 4j %,
til. [
A- -f s
William O. Parker, Jr. y RLC:ses Attachment 7911 230
' r's R32ptnaa to NRC/0IE Inapseticn Rsport j
50-269, -270, -287/78-7 ITEM:
Duke Power Company's letter to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated June 24, 1977, discussed actions to be taken in the event a primary to secondary leak is identified, and stated, in part, that the oil collection basin is initially sampled every two hours and analyzed for tritium and ga=ma isotopes.
Contrary to the above, subsequent to indication of primary to secondary leakage ca Unit 2 on September 27, 1977, the oil collection basin was not sampled every two hours on September 27 or September 28, even though sampling of the turbine building sump detected radioactivity during this period.
Intervals between sampling on September 27 and September 28 ranged from three hours and fourteen minutes to eleven hours and twenty-nine minutes.
RESPONSE
The station procedures in effect at the time of this deviation specified sampling frequencies but were not sufficiently specific concerning super-visory personnel to be contacted, individuals making contact, times, dates, and changes to the sampling frequency.
In addition, the HP Tech-nician involved did not closely follow the sampling frequencies required.
The station procedures involved (OP/0/A/1106/31, Control of Secondary Contamination and HP/0/B/1000/62Q, Environmental Surveillance Following a Primary to Secondary Leak) have been revised to specify who in Health Physics to contact (HP Supervisor or Station Health Physicist) and to document dates, times, individuals making contacts and being contacted, and initial and subsequent sampling frequencies.
Disciplinary action has been taken against the HP Technician for impro-perly carrying out procedural requirements.
-