IR 05000269/1986006

Insp Repts 50-269/86-06,50-270/86-06 & 50-287/86-06 on 860224-27.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Switchyard Surveillance Testing,Containment Isolation Valve Test Witnessing & Procedure Review

ML20138B570
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	03/14/1986
From:	Jape F, Larry Nicholson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138B540	List: IR 05000269/1986006 ML20138B536
References
50-269-86-06, 50-269-86-6, 50-270-86-06, 50-270-86-6, 50-287-86-06, 50-287-86-6, NUDOCS 8603250109
Download: ML20138B570 (4)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. . _ . . - .. - . l 'an RfCg UNITED STATES I

*

D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

**
,
 - " ,o^   REGION li k** ,

101 MARIETTA STREET. ' c ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

j \ .... /

 +
       .

Report Nos.: 50-269/86-06, 50-270/86-06, and 50-287/86-06 } Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street ' Charlotte, NC 28242 , Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and ' l DPR-55 i Facility Name: Oconee ! Inspection Conducted: February 24-27, loc 36 l Inspector: ' kM_ # L. Nicholson g[ Date Signed ~ Approved by: e_ ^^^1 /

F. Jape, Secti%f Chief [[ Date Signed i Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope

This routine, unannounced inspection involved 20 inspector-hours on site

,
'

in the areas of switchyard surveillance testing, containment isolation valve test witnessing and procedure review, and plant tour.

i Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

I i

,

E

!

i d.

'

. < $ i l l  ! I

:

f f i ! 0603250109 860320

PDR ADOCK 05000269 i G PDR

!

,

-  - -. - -     . . - . - ..
.
.

!

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted

j Licensee Employees

'

*M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
*T. C. Matthews, Technical Compliance Specialist B. E. Owens, Performance Specialist T. E. Evans, Performance Specialist K. G. Rohde, Associate Test Engineer

Other licensee employees contacted included. engineers, technicians,

,

operators, mechanics, and office personnel.

j NRC Resident Inspectors

; *J. Bryant j K. Sasser               L l * Attended exit interview i

j Exit Interview

i The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 27, 1986, with

! those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No j dissenting comments were received from the license i J Inspector followup Item, 269, 270, 287/86-06-01, Review Final Evaluation of j Switchyard Isolation Test, paragraph i i' The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio i j Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

i Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection, j Plant Tour (71302) j The inspector toured the control rooms, turbine building, switchyard and

; Unit I containment to observe work activities in progress, preparation for q refueling, housekeeping and tag controls on equipmen s Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie i
!
.
 . .

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

_ _ _ _ _

.
'

t.

' 2 Leak Rate Testing, Unit 1 (61720) The inspector witnessed leakage testing of containment isolation valves performec by the Oconee Surveillance Test Grou The procedure,

PT/1/A/0150/06, " Mechanical Penetration Leak Rate Test", tests each valve by pressurizing the applicable volume to a pressure of no less than 59 psig or greater than 65 psig. The leakage rate is determined by measuring the flow rate of dry air required to maintain test pressure. Pressure is applied in the post accident direction except where testing in the reverse direction is equivalent or conservative or where approved exemptions exist. During the

'

inspection period two mechanical penetrations 18 and 54 from the quench tank were tested and witnessed by the inspector. To ensure the adequacy of the leak rate testing the following items were reviewed:

 -

Testing was conducted in accordance with approved procedure Latest revision of the test procedure was available and in use by test personne All test prerequisites were me Required test equipment was calibrated and in servic All data were collected for final analysi ,

 -

Adequate communication was established with the control roo No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspecte . Containment Leak Rate Test Results Evaluation Unit 1 (70323) i 1 The inspector reviewed test data from 24 individual mechanical penetration i leak rate tests as documented in procedure PT/1/A/0150/06. All calculations J were verified to be correct and results adequately evaluate Proper i authorization had been obtained to test certain valves in a different

'

direction than post accident pressure. The inspector also verified that all mechanical penetrations required to be inspected per Oconee Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.1.2, Table 4.4-1 are addressed in the procedur Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie ' Complex Surveillance Observation (61701) j

      '

The inspector observed testing of the External Grid Trouble Protection System Logic and Switchyard Isolation Logic performed in accordance with procedure PT/0/A/0610/0 This TS required quarterly surveillance test

; demonstrates the ability to provide an isolated power path from the Keowee emergency power source to Oconee. Proper operation is verified by observing Statalarms, switchyard events, recorder printouts and various indicating lights. Testing was verified to be in accordance with the latest revision

j i

. _ .  . _ .  . _

! l ,.

.

f ! to approved procedures. Test prerequisites were met and acceptance criteria clearly specifie A problem was observed with the Channel B Switchyard Isolation Test (labeled as Channel 2 in the Switchyard) when initially performed per step 12.6 of . the above procedure. All test pushbuttons for the Channel B logic were depressed and their associated amber test lights verified to be illuminated, . yet no indication of Channel B switchyard isolation occurred in either the I switchyard or control room. The logic circuit was returned to normal and i the test repeated, this time resulting in the initiation of the proper lamps ! and alarms. The logic was cleared and step 12.6 was repeated a third tim Proper initiation was observed. A note was added to the procedure cover sheet documenting the anomaly and surmising that all test buttons had initially not made full contac Formal documentation, evaluation and i corrective action had not yet been performed, therefore the final review is j identified as an inspector followup item 269, 270, 287/86-06-01, Review Final Evaluations of Switchyard Isolation Tes No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.

i t i

l

1 . r _ _ _ ___ _ __ }}