ML19322A918
| ML19322A918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1973 |
| From: | Thornburg H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis, James Keppler, Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A903 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911270682 | |
| Download: ML19322A918 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
+6 c
- ,;;.53 x
?
+
_.j.
.f
~
" 4 '[vj:n O -:
- v p, u-7,y;g.g.;,g. ;q 44 u.
---,..e w
u
-e.
.s.
e r m %..w,.. a.. g. c.
.,. r.
p 7
- s b,
1 e
4 4
N;.
-7.. u.
~
-,i.' C / e.
l :, * ' 4.
'AUG 1 5 y.
'.. jQ]:
- :n. ;. ;,
-:7;e, ~
y Those Listed Below y
RO INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-269/73-7 h... _
Enclcsed are copies of revised pages t'and 5 of the Sumnery 6f Findings and page 16 of the Details. Please insert the' revised pages in the copies of the report previously distributed to you.
- w
. I 1
a 1
s' s
Original sttned tf
)
H,3. Thatstuf t Harold D. 1bornberg Chief Field Support & Enforcement Branch
- g?
Directorate of Regulatory Operations
Enclosure:
Revised pages Addres.as:
P. A. Morris. RO a
J. G. Kappler. R0 J. G. Davis, RO Y.A. Moore.L(2?
~
R. C. DeYoung, L L2)
D.Skovholt,L(3?
D. Muller, L H. Denton, L (2)
~
R. Tedesco, L R. Vollner, L
.Q J. Hendrie, L
'.:, y i,
RegulatoryStandards(3)
~,
DR Central Files m
,m R0 Files N
b- -;"xI.ON c-~
U cc: C. E. Murh Ay. RO:II w/o enc 1
~ ^
~
~.
RO:FS/EB ;,R,0: F EB,C '
___I,,
n.
omet >
/#62 1
a:
RCPaulus:das H urg
-} Q-1) n DATE >
....R /.14 /.72-.....
Foran AEC-318 (Rev.9-53) ABCM OMO
+p de--elau-a 44*47s
.. s -.,,
.a*
1
REVI.SCD PAGE 1
R0 Rpt. Ns. 50-269/73-7,,,
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations Certain of your activi, Lies, conducted under AEC Operating License No. DPR-38 appear to be in violation with license requirements as indicated below:
9 1.
Violations considered to be of category II severity are as follows:
Paragraph 50.54(1) of 10 CFR 50 specifies that manipulation a.
of the controls of a facility shall be under control of a licensed operator.
Contrary to the above, an unlicensed maintenance technician manipulated the control rods while performing =iscellaneous test procedure " Check of Safety and Shim Control Rod Actuators for Frictional Binding." (Details, paragr:9h 5.b. (3))
s b.
Paragraph 50.59(b) of 10 CFR 50 requires a documentud safety evalaation of the basis for the deter =ination that a change of the facility does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, written safety evaluations vera not prepared for codifications of the following safety related equip =ent:
(1) RCP Oil Drain System.
(2) Turbine Bypass Control Modification.
~
(3) Feedwater Flow-Turbine Trip.
(4) Electrical Auxiliary Transfer. '
(5) CRD Motor Fault Time Delay.
(Details, paragraph 3) c.
Criterion II of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires the establishcent of a QA program consistent with the work schedule.
I Contrary to the above, the Nuclear Safety Revie.v Committee (NSRC) agenda contained a list of eighteen ite=s which dated from November 1971 to Janeary 1973 w..ica had not been a'cced upon.
(Details, paragraph 6) t l
..p.mn,.g
-=w As 1
I nEVISE3 PACE K
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/73-7.
Contrary to the above, following perfor:ance of miscellaneous test procedure " Auto Transfer from IT to CTl Transformer without Generator Lockout," the status of the emergency start relays was not verified.
(Details,
paragraph 5.b. (4))
h.
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected?
Contrary to the above, there is apparently no formal method for assuring that the superintendent be made r
aware of unusual events and abnormal occurrences so that these may be, assigned for prompt investigation j
and corrsction.
(Details, paragraph 9) 1.
Technical Specification 6.1.2.1, " Station Review Committee," specifies the functions and responsibilities of the Station Review Committee (SRC).
Contrary to the requirements of this technical specification:
(1) The SRC failed to have a quorum in attendance at its meetings on June 7, 1973, and June 8, 1973.
(Details, paragraphs 4.c and 5.b. (2))
(2) The SRC failed to review new procedures and proposed revisions to safety related procedures.
This is recorded in the SRC minutes of March 29, April 5, 10, 16, 19, 25, 27 and 30, May 8 and 22, and June 15, 1973. Miscellaneous tesc procedures "4160 v Bus Transfer Time Test" and " Shuffling Control Components in Spent Fuel Pool" were not reviewed by the SRC.
5.b. (1), and 5.b. (7)) (Details, paragraphs 4.e. (2),
(3) The SRC failed to review station operation and safety considerations.
Specifically, the minutes of the SRC did not reflect that the SRC had reviewed:
(a) the oil fire on R,CP 1Al; and (b) the premature
/ lifting of the main steam relief valves.
paragraph 4.e. (2))
(Details, e
(
,,pp,
,=hh#
- ~
i
REVISED PACE
.t-RO Rpt. N3. 50-269/73-7 p l
(i) The procedure did not require that a licensed operator manipulate the controls or to be present when the con-trols were manipulated.
(Controls in this case being the air hoist.)
Failure to provide adequate procedures appears to be contrary to the requirements of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The method prescribed in the procedure for the conduct of the test specified that the hoist operator lif t each control rod with an air hoist and, by measuring the pounds of force required, determine the friction" drag on the drives and rod.
The procedure required that voice co==unication be main-tained between the hoist operator and a licensed reactor operator in the control building.
Part 50.54(i) of 10 CFR 50 provides that the licensee not permit the =anipulation of the controls of any facility by any one who is not a licensed operator or senior operator unless the manipulation is done under the direction of and in the presence of a licensed operator or senior operator.
An unlicensed =aintenance technician operated the hoist in conducting this test. The canipulation of the control rods by an unlicensed person appears to be a violation of Part 50.54(1).
(4) Auto Transfer From 1T to Crl Transformer Without Generator
' Lockout The purpose of this test was to verify the the time required for the transfer of station power from the unit station service transformer IT to the reserve station service transfer CT1 would not cause a lockout of the main generator.
~
This procedure was approved by Smith 'on February 3,1973, and was perfor=ed on February 4,1973. The procedure required the disabling of the emergency start relay for the Keovec Hydro Station. The operating license for Oconee 1 was issued on February 6,1973, and the Keowee Hydro Station provides e=ergency pcwer for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
4
.i u p.
I