IR 05000206/1981008
| ML19345H148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Miller L, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345H146 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-81-08, 50-206-81-8, NUDOCS 8105010045 | |
| Download: ML19345H148 (6) | |
Text
,
V
.
U. S. IlUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0tl 0FFICE OF IllSPECTIO1 AttD EllFORCEMEilT
REGION V
Report tio.
50-206/81-08
.
Docket tio.
50-206 License fio.
Safeguards Group -
~
~
Licensie':
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility llam.e:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Inspection at:
San Onofre, California Inspection conducted:
February 2-27, 1981
~
M)/IM M 44M 2 0. /9 M
'
Inspectors:
g L.
er1Ts ent Inspector Date Sign'ed
~
~
Date Signec Date S,igned Approved by: ORQa M M 26./9r/
Date s'igned'
.
GIII.Owetz{3,IctingChief,ReactorProjects A
Section 2, Reactor Operations Projects Branch.
Summary:
Inspection on February 2-27, 1981 (Report No.-50-206/81-08)
Areas Inspected: Routine,' resident inspection of plant operations during long term outage; monthly maintenance and surveillance obser-vations; follow-up on enforcement items; semiannual review of )lant
operations; followup on inspector identified items; review of ) art l
21 item; and followup on licensee responses to Bulletins and Circulars, This inspection involved 39 inspector-hours onsite by the resident
!
inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, i
-
l l
l IE:V Form 219 (2'
l 810 50100$
.
-
-.
..
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Haynes, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- D. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance
- J. Curran, Plant Manager
- J. L. Willis, Manager, Nuclear Training
- R. Brunet, Superintendent, Unit 1 M. Wharton, Supervising Engineer, Unit 1
- D. Dunn, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. Reeder, Supervisor of Plant Operations, Unit 1
- G. Mcdonald, Quality Assurance Supervisor, Unit 1
- S. McMahan, Supervisor of Plant Maintenance, Unit 1
- R. Warnock, Supervisor of Health Physics, San Onofre
- W. G. Frick, Compliance Engineer
- B. Katz, Station Supervising Engineer
2.
Inspection of Plant Operations During Long-Term Outage The inspector observed Control Room operations for proper shift manning, for adherence to procedures and Limiting Conditions for Operation, and for appropriate recorder and instrument indications.
Some gauges in the control room were observed to have false indications.
For example, flow indicators, FI 410 and 420, (Reactor Coolant System flow in loop "B" and "C",respectively) had midrange readings even though there was no flow through either loop at the time. Also, level indicator, LI 451, ("B" Steam Generator wide range level) indicated a midrange level even though the "B" Steam Generator was drained at the time. The erroneous gauges were not tagged or logged to indicate that they were in error. At the exit meeting on February 27, 1981 the inspector stated that when off-normal or false in-dications were known to exist, the licensee should consistently indicate, in some manner, that maintenance was required. A licensee representative sub-sequently agreed. This item is closed.
On February 18, 1981 the inspector observed that both the local refueling water level sightglass and the Control Room reactor vessel flange water level gauges had been removed from service to clean the sightglasses. Con-sequently for a period of a few hours, there was no direct indication of Reactor Coolant System water level.
(The Reactor Coolant System was open to atmosphere and drained below the level of the Steam Generators at the time). The inspector determined that there was no Limiting Condition for Operation (LC0) which would require such indication. The inspector stated that an inquiry would be made to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to determine whether or not such an LC0 would be appropriate.
,
(0I 50-206/81-08-01).
.
,-
-
.
p w-
- -
s
.. _
-2-
.
.
The inspector reviewed logs and operating records regularly, and verified that selected radiation Controlled Area control points were safe and clean.
In addition, the inspector discussed his observation that Radiation Exposure Permits for Bechtel Contractor personnel frequently carried the statement
!
that "HP will determine protective clothing" rather than specifically stating on the permit which clothing was required. The inspector stated that while this practice did not appear to violate any regulatory requirement, it did make it more likely that a worker would not receive proper guidance and might, therefnre, perform a task while wearing insufficient protective clothing.
A licensee representative stated that they intended to ensure that all person-nel wore the appropriate protective clothing for the work which they performed.
This item is closed.
The Lifted Lead and Jumper log records were reviewed and no discrepancies were noted. The inspector noted that records of surveillance tests performed during the shutdown had been completed, and that those tests which could not be completed due to plant conditions were being logged. The inspector also deter-mined that the Physical Security Plan appeared to be properly implemented.
Frequent discussions with Control Room Operators were held by the inspector to determine their understanding of the reasons for existing indications and plant conditions. The inspector also frequently toured the facility.
The licensee's Fire Protection Plan appeared to be properly implemented. The cleanliness of the facility was adequate, but the inspector observed that the level of housekeeping had declined. Noticeable quantities of combustible material had accumulated both within and outside of controlled areas. For example, large stacks of fire-resistant lumber, approximately twenty filled polyethylene bags awaiting compaction, and many empty cardboard boxes were observed.
(None of the combustible material, however, was an immediate threat to safety related equipment.) At the exit meeting on February 27, 1981 the inspector discussed this trend. A licensee representative affirmed the licensee's commitment to maintain adequate cleanliness.
The inspector noted extensive construction and modification work continued this month.
In particular, the erection of post-accident shields in the
l Auxiliary Building Area, the installation of conduit, piping and the control panel for the Automatic Auxiliary Feedwater System, and modification of the Technical Support Center continued.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 3.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed licensee personnel perform 501-12.2-10 " Boric Acid Flowpath Verification" on February 11, 1981 and S01-12.3-10, " Diesel Generator Load Test" on February 24, 1981.
In addition, the records of two completed surveillances, 501-12.2-6, " Availability of Electric Power," and S01-12.2-7,
"RCS Hot Leak Rate Test," were reviewed. The activities observed were perform-ed in accordance with the appropriate procedures, and Limiting Conditions for Operation were met as applicable. Logs and records of these surveillances were maintained, and were reviewed independently by the Watch Engineer. The licensee's records indicated that all surveillances required to be completed during this period with the plant in this operating mode had been completed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.- - -..
.-
.-.
_- -.
--
.
.- -
.-
.. -. --
.
.-
-3-4.
Part 21 Review The inspector requested information from the licensee concerning the possible use of 1" size Hilti Anchor Bolts. These bolts were the sub-ject of a Part 21 report from Hilti which indicated that low tensile pullout forces for some of these bolts might occur. A licensee repre-sentative stated that no such bolts were known to have been used at Unit 1.
The inspector checked several locations in the Unit and observed no 1" size Hilti Anchor Bolts in use. This item is closed.
5.
Monthly Maintenance Observations a.
Routine Activities The inspector observed portions of the Spent Resin Shipment procedure on February 23, 1981 (Procedure S-VII-1.7). The inspector observed the transfer of spent resin to the Resin Shipping Cask. This transfer was performed in three increments. On the third increment, the Cask was overfilled and spent resin returned via the vent line to the Spent Resin Return Filter. The apparent cause for this malfuction was a sticking Cask level float switch. The inspector noted that the opera-tors dealt with this malfuction safely by stopping the spent resin transfer, and subsequently backflushing tha vent line and disconnecting and disposing of the resin supply hose. This was done without resin spillage. The inspector determined that this activity did not violate Limiting Conditions for Operation, that required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work, and that approved procedures were being used by qualified personnel.
b.
Steam Generator Repair Program.
The licensee inserted over 1700 steam generator tube sleeves in this inspection period. Of these, however, only about 210 sleeves were i
A meeting of licensee and Westinghouse project managers, the Resident Inspectors, and a representative of the Office of Inspection and En-
,
forcement Headquarters Staff was held at the site on February 12, 1981
'
to discuss the progress of the sleeving project. A licensee representa-tive expressed optimism that the brazing of tubes outside the sludge
,
l pile region had been generally successful, albeit with a change in the original brazing acceptance criteria.
The licensee representative stated that this change, which reduced the minimum acceptable amount of braze wetting, was justifiable under the ASME Code.
At the end of this report period, the licensee's plans to provide brazed sleeves in the sludge pile region were changed to provide, a l
non-brazed sleeve instead. This design consists of a " leak-limiting sleeve" which is mechanically expanded and rollea in place at its upper and lower ends. This design is stated to also provide acceptable leak integrity under normal and accident conditions. The licensee met with the NRC Staff to discuss this concept on February 25, 1981. The licensee hopes to complete all brazing, sleeving and tube plugging in l
time to return to power by May 15, 1981.
l
.
.
.
..
.
.-
-4-
-
,
,
In a related matter, on February 13, 1981 the licensee requested relief from the provisions of their October 15, 1980 commitments concerning the use of inflatable nozzle seals in the steam generators during steam gene-rator repair. After discussions between licensee personnel and the ins-pector, a new agreement was reached on February 25, 1981. This change to the original Immediate Action Letter allowed a metal cover plate and plastic seal to be substituted for the inflatable seal, provided the plate and its seal were verified to be intact once per shift. The intent of this change was to reduce occupational exposure without reducing con-trol over foreign material inside the steam generators.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Review of Plant Operations The inspector observed portions of an audit conducted by the licensee to verify conformance to Technical Specifications 2.1 and 6.7.
The inspector verified that the auditor was qualified and independent of the organization being audit-ed, that an audit report da?.ed January 22, 1981 was made to the licensee's management, that corrective action was scheduled, and that the audit was made at the required frequency.
The inspector also attended two training lectures for licensed personnel and prospective licensed personnel, and reviewed the iesson plans for these lectures. The first lecture, on the 480 volt Electrical System, was for trainees. The second lecture, on the NRC's Bulletins and Circulars system was for licensed operator requalification.
Both lectures were presented well by their instructors, and the inspector reviewed the weekly examination results for the trainees to verify that that lecture had been generally understood by the trainees.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Followup on Notices of Violation a.
(0 pen) Infraction (80-19-02).
On February 12, 1981 a meeting was held with licensee representatives to discuss the licensee's plans to revise its preventive maintenance program. At that meeting, the licensee outlined the preliminary structure planned for the new program, including a preliminary document which would integrate the many requirements for equipment control into one document. The Resident Inspector stated that the scoping of the program appeared to have received an increased level of management attention.
The licensee agreed to meet again in mid-April to discuss further progress in developing the new program.
b.
(Closed) Severity Level V Violation (80-34-03).
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this citation dealing with lack of onsite committee review of a revised procedure. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's corrective action. The inspector concluded that since the improper practice which had been identified had not been observed since the original occurrence, the corrective action appeared to have been effective. This item is close '
,.
c.
(Closed) Infraction (80-12-03).
The inspector reviewed the licensee's explanation of the failure to post a radiation area properly. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's corrective action which consisted of providing increased emphasis in training sessions on the importance of such postings.
The corrective action taken was acceptable. This item is closed.
8.
Followup on Licensee Responses to IE Bulletins (IEB's).
a.
IEB 79-18 (0 pen),
The inspector determined that the licensee had completed installation of a modified evacuation alarm system, but had not completed pre-operational testing. The inspector noted that completion of testing prior to unit startup, had been agreed to by the licensee. This item remains open.
b.
IEB 79-23 (0 pen).
The inspector determined that the final report on the Diesel Generator test was still not available as of February 23, 1981. A licensee re-
,
presentative stated that the report was being prepared. The inspector observed that nearly ten months had elapsed without completing this report. This item remains open.
c.
IEB 79-25 (Closed).
The inspector reviewed the measurements which the licensee obtained-using their procedure, SPI-001, " Overtravel Testing on BFD and NBFD relays." The inspector stated his agreement with the licensee's conclusion that only older style BFD's required a periodic inspection program, therefore, the one time inspection performed by the licensee was adequate. This item is closed.
9.
Followup on Inspector Identified Items.
a.
01 80-32-01 (Closed).
The inspector verified that the Area Radiation Monitoring System set-point tolerances were now being routinely updated to reflect the re-sults of the most recent instrument calibration. This item is closed.
10. Exit fleeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusien of the inspection on February 27, 1981, to summarize the.
scope and findings of the inspection.
.
m
_
-
,--
g