ML19322C058
| ML19322C058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1975 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269F520 | List: |
| References | |
| RO-270-75-03, RO-270-75-3, RO-287-75-02, NUDOCS 7912300011 | |
| Download: ML19322C058 (2) | |
Text
_
DUKE POWEli COhTANY OCONEE Ut;1TS 2 AFID 3 lygt_qo,g ' UE-270/75-3/UE-287/75-2 March 25, 1975 Iteport Datei February 10, 1975 and March 19, 1975 Event Datei Oconee Units 2 and 5, Seneca, South Carolina Facilityi Failure of manual feature of Decay IIcat kemoval Identification of Event:
~
System valves Unit 2.In cold shutdown Conditions Prior to Event:. Unit 3 at 75 percent full power 1
Description of Event:
On February 10 and March 19, 1975, the Decay IIcat Removal System Unita 2 Operated Valve Annual Performance Test was performed to Oc ification 4.5.1.2.2.
and 3, respectively.
not be manually operated as required by Technical Spe ided below:
A and Low Pressure' Injection (LPI) discharge crossconnect between the q
f~
C LPI pumps, 2LP-9, was missing a handuheel.
1.
2LP-12, LPI discharge throttic valve for A decay heat removal cooler, d
started cicetrically when the manual clutch was engage.
2.
ih LPI header isolation valve, 2LP-17, speed handle had in 3.
two adjacent-pipes.
P 12, LPI discharge throttle valve for A decay heat removal cooler, 3L -
4.
handuheel stem was bent preventing rotation.
4
.. 'c
~
LVI discharge throttle valve for B decay heat removal cooler, 3LP-5.
uas missing a handwheel.
ble.
Uork requests were prepared and~ all valves were made manually oper Desio, nation of Apparent Cause of Event:
e The surveillance test to ensure manual operability of these low pressur the 110 wever, thin tm injection valves is _ performed on an, annual basis.
All pre-first time that tJte test had been performed on Unita 2 anel 3.
h t
operational testing of these conponents is performed unine t e remo e verified.
pwer operated features; hence, manual operability was never Wre pas no indication that these valves had ever been manually since the initial construction of the units, we.
t A912300 o g d.
l
_g.
Analyni, of I'. vent:
selected 1.PI valvet. can
%e purpose of the periodic test in to ensure that be ranually operated to provide long-tern: encrnency core cooling should This remt,tc or local operation of system components not he possibic.
in Jutended na a backup to the normal automatic initiation or canual remote initiation.
In the case of Unit 2, only one string of-LPI was affected; thus, one of tuo redundant backup nethods of supplying LPI uas inoperable. The inoparable discharge crossover valve vould have only af fected the spare LPI pump.
In the case of Unit 3, both cooler outlet throttic valves were ranua11y inoperable; however, they are normally open valves and would not have prevented LPI flow.
It is concluded that the health and safety of the public was not affected.
Corrective Action:
As a result of the tent results on Unit 2, the test was perforned on Unit 3 ahead of its scheduled thme.
All valves on Units 2 and 3 vere repaired and tested to ensure manual operability.
Since this test has now been performed on all three units, and problens corrected, it is believed that continued annual surveillance is adequate to p'revent future occurrences.
.. =
lx 9
6 i
46.u%bN
I gft',D1;hlOV.T Q..hN m
t l
-1 1
DUKE POWER COMPANY Powzn Bu Lorwo
,: (g 1
1/>
i 4aa SouTu Cnuncu SrazzT, CuAntoTTz,N. C. assos t
r.o.coxene A. c. THIES
$Enson Vice Pass DEnf g
ll
- f..
\\
l Paoouction ano taas.s sission
! /
/
- gG l
March 25, 1975 i
k.,,' #. t._
..j is t-c;%
. y g.'<'
I
- ':'.N.),%w,_
-( )
, NAR3 1,jf3 Mr. Angelo Ciambusso, Director
_L' M,,
Q Division of Reactor Licensing
-s_
l/
,-\\
t U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission
'4
{,.,,,,,,
,f//
Washington, D. C.
20555
.x p x ^ I.TT[f' Re: Oconce Nuclear Station WY Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287
Dear Mr. Giambusso:
Section 4, Surveillance Eequirements, of the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications requires that certain surveillance of structures, systems and components be performed at specified Associated with frequencies, e.g., weekly, monthly, annually, etc.
the various frequencies specified are maximum allowabic intervals between successive surveillances.
With regard, to the initial performance of such surveillance items for which a frequency is specified, it is Duke Power Company's position that the beginning date for the interval specified in the Technical Specificat. ions is the date of issuance of the Facility For example, a surveillance specified Operating License for a unit.
to be performed annually for a particular unit could be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications, up to eighteen (18) months following issuance of the Facility Operating License for that unit.
If we have not heard from you within 30 days, we shall a sume that the above application of Oconee Technical Specifications is correct.
Very truly yours, A. C. Thics ACT:vr 4
p nc2
{AQ-Sf.[*