IR 05000270/1973013
| ML19322A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Kelley W, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A857 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-13, NUDOCS 7911270627 | |
| Download: ML19322A869 (14) | |
Text
.U
.
.
[k
UNITED STATES g/
q ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION D *.
M
i i
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATICNS h
e J
(4
,
c s
accios n - suere ete j
. 4i'(/
am oc acar ace sracer, soaru cs.
'rarn o'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ar ca ur 4, cconce a ac 3o s
,
l I
t l
RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-13 Licensee: Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street
,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
,
Facility:
Oconee Unit 2
-
Docket No.:
50-270 License No.:
CPPR-34
Category:
B1 Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of License:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced m
Dates of Inspection:
September 17-21, 1973
,
i Dates of Previous Inspection: August 28-31, 1973 (Facilities Test and Startup Branch)
Principal Inspector:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector:
W. D. Kelley, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch Other Accocpanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector:
Atta f.
,. _ >
- 32 --
f~2 F. Jape, Reactor Inspeepifr /
Date
,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:.
/rM
/zfM7f C. E. Murphh Cfh ief (f
/Dite Facilities Test and Sfartup Branch m,
-
- '
4911270 6 2 7
. _ _ _.
r-
..1 _ _ _ _ _..
n--
_
,v
-
-
.
.
l
,
.
-
-
.
.
,. R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13-2-
!
!
-sb
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
'
i l
l I.
Enforcement Action
.
,
A.
Violations
-
l'
None l
!
B.
Safety Items
None
!
II., Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations i
l 1.
Welding Program Deficiencies (RO:II Letter to DPC,
'
Dated March 8,1972, Item 5; RO Inspection Report
'
No. 50-270/71-5)
i A draft of the licensee's report on welding deficiencies was reviewed.
No deficiencies were noted in the draft
-,
report. Final resolution will be documented upon j
(_s receipt of the final, completed report.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
I 2.
Loss of Test Control (RO:II Letter to DPC, Dated i
August 29, 1973; RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-10)
'
The licensee's response on this item is due October 4,1973.
This item will remain open until the response has been reviewed and a followup inspection has been completed.
!
-B.
Safety Items N ne o
III. New Unresolved Items None l
l l
.g a
l
,
-__
_
-. -.
__
._
_ _ _ _ _ _. -
' ~ZZT1 i
-
,
--
-
-.
.. _ - -
--
.
.
.
I
~
.
'
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13-3-O j
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items f~
73-11/1 Source Range Instrumentation Response Planned changes are underway and are to be completed prior to initial fuel loading.
73-11/2 Electrical Interlock and Bypass Procedure the QA group on September 21, 1973, The results of an audit by / related to open circuits have been revealed that deficiencies 1 resolved. The licensee has initiated plans to replace jumper tags and to establish a method to account for all tags. Final closecut of this item will be documented upon
'
review of the new accounting procedure.
(Details I, paragraph 12)
73-10/1 Administrative Procedures The licensee has provided the three administrative procedures tl.at were identified as required to be in agreement with
'
Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program i
Requirements (Operations)." This item is resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
'
-m
,
.
73-8/2 Valve Wall Thickness of Valve 2-RV-67 The licensee's engineering analysis of 2-RV-67 (also labeled 2-RC-66) did not consider the thinnest section of the valve wall.
The licensee will determine dimensions and a stress analysis would be completed for the thinnest wall dimension.
(Details II, paragraph 3.a)
,
73-8/l Body Wall Thickness of Valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 Wall thickness of 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 revealed them to not be in agreement with guidelines of RO:II letters to DPC, dated June 30, 1972, and February 16, 19'
Further
.
engineering evaluation is underway.
(Details II, paragraph 3.b)
1/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-11, Details II, paragraph 4.2.
.,
.
-c--.w-w
-
-
-
.w---we=.
.-e.w=-e.<e
.
--eae--r-
+-
_
-
_
_
-
-
--_-_.
.
-
l-I l
.
.
.
t RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13-4-
,
'
T
,.J'
-V.
Unusual Occurrences N ne o
!
VI.
Other Significant Findings A.
ROB 72-2, " Simultaneous Action 'of the Safety Injection Signal
on Both Units of a Dual Unit Facility" DPC's responses to R0B 72-2, dated November 22, 1972, and March 30, 1973, were reviewed by the inspector. Action
'
described in the response letters was verified and RO:II has i
no further questions.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
B.
R0B 72-3, "Limitorque Valve Operator Failures" i
DPC's response to R0B 72-3, dated January 26, 1973, was reviewed by the inspector. RO:II has no further questions i
on this item.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
C.
ROB 73-1, " Faulty Overcurrent Trip Dels.y Devices in Circuit
'
,
Breaker for Engineered Safety Systems" Corrective measures described in DPC's response to R0B 73-1, j
s j
K-dated April 12, 1973, were verified by the inspector.
,
!
(Details I, paragraph 5)
i I
D.
R0B 73-2, " Malfunction of Containment Purge Supply Valve Switch" i
j DPC's response to R0B 73-2, dated August 27, 1973, was reviewed i
by the inspector, and there are no further questions on this item.
(betails I, paragraph 6)
.
E.
Hot Functional Testing Hot functional testing is essentially complete.
Examination
,
'
of the reactor internals is currently underway.
The licensee
,
j has a number of outstanding items to complete before initial I
fuel loading date. No change is expected in the initial fuel
[
loading date of October 7, 1973.
l i
7 l
.~
'
~.
,
h
_
.-.- -.
-.
.- - -
__
. _ _ -..
_.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13-5-
.
()
VII. Management Interview
.
A management interview was held on September 21, 1973, with the following in attendance:
,
Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent J. E. Nabow - System Project Engineer R. F. Wardell - Corporate QA Manager T. L. Cotton - Junior Engineer J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer
<
The following items were discussed:
3.
Previously Reported Unresolved Items
,
i h
The status of previously reported enforcement matters and
'
unresolved items, as described in Sections II and IV of the Summary of Findings, was discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 2 and 12 and Details II, paragraphs 2 and 3)
B.
Regulatory Operations Bulletins
,g ss The inspector stated that he had verified the responses to ROB's 72-2, 72-3, 73-1 and 73-2 and found all satisfactory.
(Details I, paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6)
C.
Hot Functional Testing The inspector stated that he had reviewed the test results of 18 HFT and had no major questions or comments.
(Details I, paragraph 13)
D.
Drum Storage The inspector stated that he had reviewed drum storage in the auxiliary building.
This item was raised during a previous inspection / due to fumes in the storage area.
(Details I, l
paragraph 7)
1/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-2, Details I, paragraph 4.
.~ D V
l i
_
..
--.:~-
__
_
_
_
_
_
__
.
-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13-6-
!
(')
~. -
E.
Reactor Coolant Pumps
-
!
l A question regarding QC-31 forms for the reactor coolant pumps j
had been raised during a previous inspection.1/ Followup on this item was completed.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
,
'
F.
QC Records Review A followup inspection was completed on QC records.
(Details I, paragraph 9)
G.
11alogen Sample Line The inspector reviewed the insulation of the outside section of the halogen sample line. All work had been completed.
(Details I, paragraph 10)
l H.
Gamma Spectral Analysis Procedure The licensee has approved this procedure.
(Details I,
'
paragraph 11)
O)
%.
t
,
1,/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-2, Details I, paragraph 12.
3(v
~-
T -
- --
~
__
__.
.. - - _.
_
_ _ _ _ - _
_
~
10 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13 I-l i
DETAILS I Prepared by:
Acw
/
(')
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Date
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection:
Septe er 17-1, 1973
,
Reviewed by: [
dr-uf
//
.y C. 'E. Murph% gfief,pilities
/D(te Test and Startup Manch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer D. J. Rains - Assistant Plant Engineer R. C. Collins - Performance Engineer R. J. Brackett - Junior Engineer B. H. Webster - Field Engineer Mechanical C. B. Aycock - Senior Field Engineer 2.
Administrative Procedures During a previous inspection,1! the licensee indicated that three
/^'
-
additional administrative procedures would be provided in order to be in agreement with Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)." These have been prepared and were reviewed by the inspector. The findings of this review are summarized below:
a.
Shif t and Relief Turnover The licensee has issued Administrative Procedure No.15, "Shif t and Relief Turnover," that specifies what cust be done by an on-coming shif t prior to assuming control of the plant.
This prece-dure also states that each oncoming shif t shall patrol the pla:a to verify correct equipment parameters and status.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
i b.
Access to Containment Access to the containment building during reactor operation and shutdown has been covered by Administrative Procedure No.14.
The inspector had no major comments or questions regarding this procedure.
1/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-10, Details I, paragraph 3.
,
f. 1
-/
. _ _ _
.
-
- _
_
- = :.:=
-.~2
--
--~'
.
.
.
.
_. - ____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____
-
,
,
.
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13 I-2 a
N-l
<
c.
Recall of Standby Personnel to Plant i
The licensee has provided Administrative Procedure No.13 to
,
establish a call list of plant personnel.
Personnel designated on call are required to notify the station security guard of his name and telephone number where he can be reached.
The inspector
had no comments or questions on this procedure.
-
This previously identified unresolved item, 73-10/1, is now resolved.
3.
R0B 72-2, " Simultaneous Action of the Safety Injection Signal on Both Units of a Dual Unit Facility" DPC's responses to ROB 72-2, " Simultaneous Action of the Safety Injection Signal on Both Units of a Dual Unit Facility," dated November 22, 1972, and March 30, 1973, were verified by the inspec-tor.
The licensee has incorporated appropriate limits and precautions in OP/1/A/1107/02, " Normal Electric Power," dated May 29, 1973, to assure transformer ratings are not exceeded.
-
!
There are no further questions on this item.
4.
R0B 72-3, "Limitorque Valve Operator Failures"
[)
The licensee's response to R0B 72-3, "Limitorque Valve Operator Failures," dated January 19, 1973, was verified by the inspector.
,
'
The torque switch torsion spring was replaced on 173 operators for Unit 2.
The replacement program was completed late in 1972.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
5.
ROB 73-1, " Faulty Overcurrent Trip Delay Device in Circuit Breakers for Engineered Safety Systems" The corrective measures for the DB-50 relays discussed in DPC's response, dated April 12, 1973, to Regulatory Operations Bulletin No. 73-1, " Faulty Overcurrent Trip Delay Device in Circuit Breakers for Engineered Safety Systems," were verified.
The overcurrent trip devices on the six DB-50 relays in service at the Keowee Hydro Station have been replaced.
Changeout was completed on July 17, 1973.
Plans to annually inspect these breakers have been completed.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
i 6.
R0B 73-2, " Malfunction of Containment Purge Supply Valve Switch" DPC's response to R0B 73-2, " Malfunction of Containment Purge Supply Valve Switch," dated August 27, 1973, was verified by the inspector.
3j
- ~ ~"
..
_..
_
.._
, _. _
5"
., _ _
-
l<.
.
l
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13 I-3 k)
i
As stated in the report, the reactor building inlet and outlet purge
valves are controlled by separate switches.
These are labeled PR-1,
2, 4, 5 and 6.
The inspector had no questions regarding this item.
!
'
7.
Drum Storage During a previous inspection,1/ the inspector raised a question regarding storage of steel drums inside the auxiliary building.
Fumes were observed in the area and the inspector's question was in regard to the possible danger of fire frem the fumes.
Subsequent investigation bf the licensee revealed that the drums contained noncombustible material and the fumes in the area came from painting of the floor and walls at the time.
,
I j
8.
Reactor Coolant Pumps i
During a previous inspection,2/ the inspector reviewed the QC-31 forms for the reactor coolant pumps and noted that three forms had not received confirming written clearance from design engineering.
A followup review of these three QC forms, Nos. 2600, 2601 and 2603, ()
revealed that written clearance was obtained on April 19, 1973. The
'
inspector has no further questions on this item.
9.
QC Records Review During a previous inspection,3/ the inspector indicated that difficulty was encountered in interpreting QC records purporting to approve installa-tion of equipment. The licensee indicated that a revised procedure would i
be developed for future use. The new procedure is currently being reviewed within DPC and is expected to be in use for Unit 3.
As pertains to Unit 2, there are no further questions on this item.
10. Minimization of Halogen Losses in Outside Sample Deliverv Line The insulation of the outside sample line has been completed. This line was insulated to minimize halogen condensating in the sample line from the stack.3/ RO:II has no further questions on this item.
?
.
1/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-2, Details I, paragraph 4.
2/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-2, Details I, paragraph 12.
3/ R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-2, Details III, paragraph 3.
'
4/ RO Inspection Report Nos. 50-270/73-3, Details II, paragraph 13 and 50-270/73-10, Details II, paragraph 5.
. -
s-
,,
_ _ _
... -
__. -
.__,__ _ _ - __. i.,42'N
... ' '
.. ~
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
l..
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13 I-4 s
.
,
d
_l 11. Radiochemical Control Procedures The Radiocgymical Procedures Manual was previously reviewed by the inspector.-
All procedures were approved except RC Procedure ll,
" Gamma Spectral Analysis." The licensee has approved this procedure
on May 23, 1973, and Region II has no further questions on this item.
12. Electrical Interlock and Bypass Procedure (73-11/2)
The station QA group conducted a followup audit on the electrical interlock and bypass procedure on September 21, 1973.
The findings resealed that all previously reported open circuits have been resolved.
To resolve questions on lost or unaccounted jumper tags, a new set of jumpers are to be provided.
These will be serially numbered and will be of a different color than previously used tags.
Routine audits are to be perfor=ed to ensure all tags are accounted for.
To ' ensure that missing jumpers have not been inadvertently used, the
'
licensee is surveying all safety-related cabinets in Units 1 and 2.
Final closeout of this unresolved item will be documented upon RO's review of the survey results.
13. Hot Functional Testing
-
V The following hot, functional tests and test results were reviewed by the inspector. There were no questions nor comments on these test procedures, a.
TP 600/26, "1500 psig HPI Engineered Safeguards Test" b.
TP 230/5, " Soluble Poison Control Test" TP 600/11, " Emergency Feedwater System and OTSG Control Test" c.
d.
TP 600/12A, " Pressurizer Operation and Spray Flow Test" TP 600/28A, "CRD Mechanism Temperature Test (HFT)"
e.
f.
TP 600/10, "RCS Hot Leakage Test" g.
TP 200/13A, "RC Flow Cs astdown" h.
TP 600/4, " Chemical Addition Sampling System Operation Test" i. TP 600/15, "CRD System Operation Test" 1/ R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-6, Details II, paragraph 16.
,_,
l_)
-_
_ -_
_ _
.
_ _. _ _..
._ _ __
- -
_
.
~
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
l.
-
,
l R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-13 I-5 j. TP 200/12A, "RCP Flow Test (HFT)"
k.
TP 202/5, "HPI Engineered Safeguards Test" 1.
TP 230/10, " Quench Tank Operation Tes t" m.
TP 270/3A, "Heatup Test" TP 200/5, "RC Pump Initial Operation" n.
o.
TP 240/4,
"Compcnent Cooling System Functional Test"
,
p.
TP 600/8, " Component Cooling Operational Test" q.
TP 201/3, " Core Flood System Functional Test" TP 200/36, " Loose Parts Monitor System Functional Test" r.
14. Status of RO's Review of Preoperational Testing Test Category
% of Procedures Reviewed
% of Test Results Reviewe.
40
~'
37
3
35 15. Licensee's Approval of Test Results The licensee has not completed all preoperational testing, reviewed the test results nor has he approved all testing as being acceptable.
At the present time, the results of 34 test procedures and 37 instrument procedures remain to be approved by the plant superintendent or responsible group head. Most of the tests are in progress or have been conducted.
The final review and acceptance is actively in progress by DPC and R0 ex-pects to find all tests accepted by initial fuel loading date.
i
_ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _..
. _ _.. _
_ _ _.. _.. _ _.. _
_
_
._
.. _ _
hp
l.
-
..
.
.
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-10 II-l O
DETAILS II Prepared by:
rfs '.
d
// 2/73 f., D/Kellff,' React'or Inspector Date
'
!
[, Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch
'
!
Dates of Inspection:
September 19-21, 1973
'
Reviewed by:
m e,
// 2 [7 %
'
J.,C. Bryant, Senior Inspector Date Engineering Section
,
Facilities Construction Branch
1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Comoany (DPC)
- W. H. Owen - Vice President - Design Engineering D. G. Beam - Construction Manager L. R. Davison - Associate Field Engineer, NDT A. R. Hollins - Associate Field Engineer, Welding O
- ar ce1 econ 2.
Welding Program Deficiencies The inspector reviewed the draft of the final report of detailed inspection, examination and final audits performed on critical piping by the DPC consultant. The questions that the inspector had were clarified by the consultant and, where necessary, an explanation was added to the final draft.
The welding program deficiencies are considered to be resolved.
The final report will be reviewed when received.
3.
Thin Walled Valves The licensee has identified and measured the wall thickness of all reactor pressure boundary valves in response to RO:II letters of June 30, 1972, and February 16, 1973. The documentation of the
.
measurements and the engineering evaluation of valves that did
..
-
9D
"-
W A-PMh-p=
w We*See t 'M%MvyN.WW** @W M 4' sW P--*WW**h7*"
- ee e. _ _.
.
.
.
,
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-10 II-2 p'
s_
not meet the original purchase specifications are at the site.
'
The inspector reviewed these and has questions only on the valves described below.
'
a.
Wall Thickness of Valve 2-RV-67 (73-8/2)
'
The licensee had previously presented a stress analysis for this valve. After discussion with the inspector, this analysis had been discarded and a new set of calculations was made. This second analysis had been reviewed and approved for input, results, and application by' Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) on August 15, 1973. The inspector was informed by the licensee that DPC engineers had also checked the stress analysis.
A review, by the inspector, of the calculations and the vendor's drawing revealed that the thinnest wall sections of the valve had apparently not been used in the stress analysis. A visual in-spection of an identical valve, using fiber optics, confirmed that the valve was built in accordance with the drawing used by the inspector in his review of the stress analysis.
The licensae then attempted to measure the thinnest wall section
.
ultrasonically, using the shear wave technique, but was unable to ( ',
do so with the crystal he had at the site. The licensee also requested B&W to supply him with the dimension of the thinnest wall section.
If the dimension for the valve's thinnest wall section is less than the dimension used in the stress analysis, the licensee will return the analysis to B&W for corrective action.
This will remain an open item.
b.
Body Wall Thickness of Valves 2-51-244 and 245 (73-8/1)
The licensee, in his letter of September 13, 1973, to RO:II, stated that the measured wall thickness of valves 2-51-244 and 245 were 20.4% and 12.4%, respectively, below MSS-SP-66,1964
)
minimum requirements.
The licensee asked that these valves be accepted since the actual measured material yield stress was 187% of required yield stress.
The RO:II letters of June 30, 1972, and February 16, 1973, per-mitted a 10% reduction of wall thickness based on actual stress values. The inspector said that additional information would
,y
- _ _.
-,.
_. _..
-, -.
_=
,_.
-
h
-
,,.
_ _
_
_
m_
.
'
j
,-.
.
-
i
-
.
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-10 II-3
'
O-s
,
be needed as to the location, size and stress in thin areas of the valves in order to evaluate the DPC position. The inspector added that the accuracy of ultrasonic measurements, due to non-parallel surfaces, should be included in the evaluation.
The licensee will reevaluate his position and will attempt to meet a recognized valve standard or code by using the system design pressure and temperature for determining the valve design rating.
This will remain an open item.
.
O
.
I
.i j
i
,
-.
- + -
-. -..., _.... -.
...... -.
+..msem-.
.,%. -.
""