ML19322A618
| ML19322A618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1971 |
| From: | Seidle W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | James O'Reilly US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A619 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210691 | |
| Download: ML19322A618 (2) | |
Text
.
A*'
UNITED STATES
(
b ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 8
e' f
I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE l.l g',
f REGION ll - $UlTE 818 230 PE ACHTREE STREET. N OR T H W E ST 4
Tus.ameses 5264537 AT t.A NT A. GE OR o t A 30303 Morch 31, 1971 i
J. F. O'Reilly, Chief, peactor Testing and Operstions Branch 31 vision of Ccepliance, Heacquarters UKE FOWER CCMFANY (OCONE 1), LICDISE NO. CPPR-33, DOCKET NO.
'he attached racort of :n inspection of the subject facility by our inspectors on February 44-26, 1971, is forwartied for infonnation. Cnc item of nonconfermance i volving the licensee's failure to properly protect the clean reactor vessel and internals fr a reconta:aination w_s detected during the irsoection. Specifically, the ncnconfomance item involves the dropping of wood splinters into the vessel and the crsoping of a three-foot, length of polyethylene under the core shielc scroort flange.
In regard to the polyethylene, we are quite cence ned that the licensee may elect to leave this material in the vessel.
However, before we recommend that Headquarters take actier en this matte", we would prefer to have the benefit of evaluating the licensee's resecnse to the CDN we issued to that on March 8 which addresses it-aalf to this item and that of the wood splinters in the vessel.
In response to your memorancum of February 1,1971, the matter of reactor overflights is discussed in the Other.2ignificsnt Items anction of the report.
Cur inso-ctor's discussion with the licensee on the contairment building leak test procedure during the last insoection revealed Inst he did not plan to conduct a controllec leak rate test at bcch tha accident pressure and at 50% pressure, During this inspection our inspector aavisea Mr. J. E. Smith, Plant Juperin-tanient, that the Technical Scecifications imply that the test w w id be conducted at both pressures. Our inspector also pointed cin that it has been the practice at other facilities to conduct the controlled lesk test at coth pressures. Mr. ::aith informed us a week later that the test in question will be perfomed at both crassures.
.-iiccage in the construction schedule and problems with leaking components have generated difficulties for Duke personnel involvt 4 with the cleaning and testing of completed systems. For the:e 7 asons th3 Duke test program appears to have given the :,est coordinator more authority to make field revisions to procedures than woulo be pe mitted by apoenaix 6 to 10 CFR 30.
The plant superintendent was not too receptive to our inspector's comments at tne time of this inspection.
1911210 P00RORIBlE
G J. P. O'Reilly March 31, 1971
=
However, a w:ek later he informed Fegion II by telephene that the test program procedure had been chang +d to limit the test coordinator's authority regarding procedura changes to thet of correcting troographical errors and minor mistakes.
Nke is sticking with their July 1971 fuel loading date. We still f-el that late September 1971 is a more realistic date.
W. C. Seid14 CO:II:1dCS Senior Reactor Inspector Fnelosure:
CO Rpt. No. 50-269/71-3 (Murchy) ec w/ encl:
E. G. Case, DRS(3)
P. A. Morris, DRL R. S. Boyd, DRL(2)
R. f*. DeYoung, DRL(2)
D. J. Skovholt, DRL(3)
P.
~4. Howe, DRL(2)
A. Giambusso, CO L. Kornblith, Jr., C0 R. H. Fr4elken, CO R. Y. Kirkman, CO:I B. H. Grier, CO:III J. Y. Flora, CO:IV j
R. W. Smith, CO:V
.m Files J. B. Henderson, CO v