Text

Discusses Insp Repts 50-269/73-03 on 730304-07.Noncompliance Noted Re Nonradiological Tech Specs
	ML19322A877
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	03/30/1973
From:	Moseley N; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Thies A; DUKE POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML19322A878	List: ML19322A877; ML19322A881;
References
	NUDOCS 7911270634
	Download: ML19322A877 (6)
	v • d • e

.

- .

"

UNITED STATES

'

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

.(3

DIRECTCRATE OF REGUIATCRY CPERATICNS

-

REGION H - suit E 818

,

-

230 >'E AC HT R E E ST R E ET , NORT M wE $t

% rg s C' g

,

AT L A NT A. GE ORGi A 30303

In Reply Refer To:

idAR 3 01973

RO:II:RW

50-269/73-3

Duke Power Company

Attn:

Mr. A. C. Thies

Senior Vie President

Production and Transmission

Power Building

422 South Church Street

Charlotte, Norch Carolina 28201

Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Warnick of this

office on March 4-7, 1973, of activities authorized by AEC

Operating License No. DPR-38 for the Oconee Unit 1 facility, and

to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Warnick with Mr. Smith

and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection included items remaining to

be completad in your preoperational testing progra=, preparations

for the iuitial approach to criticality, power ascension test

procedures, damage resulting from the oil fire, and certain

activities telating to compliance with the Commission's rules and

regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection

consisted of salective examination of procedures and representative

records, interviews with personnel, and observat1ons by the inspector.

During the inspection, the violation of your Non-Radiological

Environmental Technical Specification 1.2 was also examined. This

violation nad been reported by telephone to Region V on February 16,

1973, by Mr.'J. E. Smith of your staff.

During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities

appear to be in violation of AEC requirements. The item and

references to pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure

to this letter. Item 3 in the enclosure requires no response from

,

you since the deficiency was corrected prior to the inspection and

)

your corrective actions have been examined. This letter is sent to

'

you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the AEC's " Rules

of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. .Section

,

7911270 ( 3 4 9

. . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ .

_

-

.

,

' Duke Power Company

~Z-

f.1AR 3 01973

,

.

2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within twenty (20) days

of your receipt of this notice, a written statement of explanation

in reply including:

(1) corrective steps which have been taken by

you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be

taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance

will be achieved.

By way of this letter, we wish to confirm our request to review the

documentation of the nitrogen in-line heater design change, and our

understanding that it will be made available for our review during

a subsequent inspection.

You should note that this letter and your reply to this letter will

be disclosed to the public by being placed in an AEC Public Document

Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be

j

glad to discuss them with you.

)

i

Very truly yours,

N

ww

Norman C. Moseley

Director

Enclosure:

As stated

l

.

--

,

- , -

. - . . _.

.- .

_

.

s

..

.

&

.*

s

.

,

Ltr to Duke Power Company

'

dtd ljAR 3 01973

I

e

cc w/ enc 1:

J. G. Keppler, RO

-

J. B. Henderson, RO

RO:HQ (h)

Directorate of Licensing (h)

i

R Central Files

PDR

Local PDR

l

'NSIC

l

DTIE, OR

State

3

A!

'To be dispatched with licensee response.

i

.

k

i

!

.

d

i

1

i

.

e

4

I

e

1

-_.

,,-%~

,-

, , . - - , - - ,

.~--

.-

,

.~, , , , , , . . . ., - - -. , - ,.,

,,,,,,-o,,

4

,,c-.,

-,-,

m.

-,,,,,

,y,.,

, m.- w w-

wr

_.

._

- _ _ _ _ _ _

_

.

- . ENCL'OSURE

Duke Power Company

-

Docket No. 50-269

.

Certain of your activities appear to be in violation of AEC

regulations and conditions of your operating license as identi-

fled below:

1.

Technical Specification 6.1.1.6 states, in part, that

Unit 1 minimum shift staffing for other than cold shut-

down will be in accordance with Table 6.1-1 and this minimum

operating staff shall be permitted to assist in the pre-

licensing activity of Units 2 and 3 only to the extent that

it does not affect their full availability for Unit 1

operation.

In addition, Table 6.1-1 requires that each

shift have one shift supervisor with a senior reactor cperator

(SRO) license, one control operator with at least a reactor

operator (RO) license, one assistant control operator with

at least an R0 license, and two utility operators.

Each shift is presently staffed with one SRO (who will have

I

the full responsibility and authority for Unit 1), two RO'.s

(one of who will act as shift supervisor for Unit 2), and

'

two unlicensed utility operators. The RO who is to act as

shift supervisor for Unit 2 is to be fully aware of Unit 1

l

activities and is to spend as much time on Unit 1 as is

needed.

.

The use of a Unit 1 RO es shift supervisor for

Unit 2 appears to vf., late the intent of paragraph 6.1.1 in

tr at he will have Unit 2 operators reporting to him and will

, directing their activities rather than assisting in the

prelicensing activity of Unit 2.

2.

Technical Specification 6.1.2.1 states, in part, that the

Station Review Committee (SRC) shall review all proposed

tests that affect nuclear safety cr radiation safety, and

that minutes shall be kept at the station of all meetings

of the Committee.

Contrary to the above requirements, the minutes'of the SRC

-

meeting in which test procedure TP-800/5, " Reactivity Coefficients

I

at Power," was discussed and approved were not available.

3.

Technical Specification 1.2, in Appendix B to the operating

license states, in part, that all water discharged from the

wastewater collection basin shall have a pH between 6.0 and 8.5,-

and that the pH and specific conductance of the wastewater

collection basin effluent shall be determined and recorded daily.

Contrary to the above requirements, the wastewater collection basin

pH was not der armined February 6, 7, 8, 9, ll, or 13,1973. The pH

.

~

-

. _ . _ .

.

-2-

'

,

.

was above 8.5 or below 6.0 on February 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19, 1973.

This item had been reported to Region II by telephone on February 16,

1973, by J. E. Smith, Plant Superintendent.. A response relating to

this item is not required since corrective actions have been taken,

subsequent samples have been obtained and were within limits,

the violations have been investigated, and a report has been

prepared for review by the Station Review Cocnittee as required

by Technical Specification 6.1.2.1d (3) .

that

4.

Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR. 50 states, in part,

activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented

instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to

the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with

-

these instructions, procedures, or drawings.

Contrary to this requirement, the activities which lead to the

oil fire of March 6,1973, were not covered by a written procedure.

.

O

4

9

.

_

__

_ . .

_

.

eMo9

aM&***e

W

6

rmA

.

'

,

.

s,

,

i

Duke Power Company

.

oconea 1

isAR 3 01973

RO Inspection Report No. 50-269/73-3

,

!

i

(

cc w/ encl:

,

l

J. G. Keppler, RO

j

J. B. Henderson, R0

RCa

Files

l

1

Regulatory Standards (3)

'

f

Directorate of Licensing (13)

I

cc encl. only:

.

PDR

Local PDR

NSIC

'

'DTIE, OR

' State

.

"To be dispatched at a later date.

t

!

,

i

.

I

-

1

i

l

i

1

e

5

. _

k

f

+,

,

- , . . , . . _ _ _ _

._

. , , ,

m

..

,s-,

7

ML19322A877

Text

Navigation menu

Search