IR 05000206/1981009
| ML19345H518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1981 |
| From: | Chaffee A, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345H516 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-1.A.1.3, TASK-1.C.5, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-2.F.2, TASK-2.K.3.09, TASK-TM 50-206-81-09, 50-206-81-9, NUDOCS 8105210150 | |
| Download: ML19345H518 (8) | |
Text
F
.
.
'
t U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
.
Report No.
50-206/81-09 Docket No.
50-206 License No.
DPR-13 Safeguards Group
,
Licensee:
Southern Lo.ifornia Edison Company P. V. Box 800 - 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre, Unit 1 Inspection at:
San Onofre, California Inspection conducted:
March 23-27, 1981
)
Inspectors:
OnN
^)
i o
<
/ DWte'Sifgned A. Chaffee, Reactor Inspector
,
Date Signed
..
T\\
b /7kf Approved by: s rh
_f
,
G. B. Zwetzig, Actin'g Chief'fleactA Projects f 'Dite Signed
~
,
Section 2
'
Summary:
Inspection on March 23-27, 1981 (Report No. 50-206/81-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of fire protection modifications; implementation of TMI Action Plan Items; facility procedures; l
review and audit program; and seismic event monitoring equipment.
This
<
inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results-No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
!
l l
RV Form 219 (2)
8105210lfQ;
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted H. Dickinson, SCE Construction /Startup W. Matter, Administrative Supervisor, Unit 1 C. Seward, Fire Protection and Safety Administrator T. Mozingo, Training Services Administrator, Nuclear Training Division G. Mcdonald, QA/QC Supervisor R. Brunet, Unit 1 $uperintendent J. Haynes, Manager, Nuclear Operations F. Briggs, Compliance Ergir.eer K. Hadley, Plant Securii.y Supervisor D. Nelson, Project Manager J. Dunn, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor E. Majcarowilz,~ Maintenance Planning Supervisor D. Nunn, Manager, QA J. Curran, Plant Manager H. Morgan, Super!ntendent Units 2 & 3 R. Santosuosso Supervisor, Nuclear Plant Instrumentation All personnel listed above attended the exit inter. view on March 27, 1981.
Also present at the exit, hterview were the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, R. Pate and the Resident Inspector, L. Miller.
2.
Fire Protection Modifications
..
a.
Completed Items
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's turnover packages * for the following fire protection modifications (see Fire Protec* ion Safety Evaluation Report (FPSER) dated July 19, 1979 and Supplement 1, dated February 4,1981):
l 1)
Item 3.1.15(a), Hydrogen Monitor for battery room with remote reading in the Control Room.
Based on review of b-l this item, the inspector determined that remote indication in the Control Room was provided by a single annunciator which alarms when either the high or high-high hydrogen (H2) conceritration levels are initiated at the H2 monitor cabinet outside the Control Room.
The lower explosive l
limit (LEL) is equal to 0: H concentration in the battery
room. The high alarm is actuated at.35% of LEL and the l
I
- A turnover package is a documentation package showing that all necessary constructior., testing and procedure preparation (where applicable) has been satisfactorily completed, so that the system or structure is ready for use.
l
.
.
-2-high-high alarm is actuated at.65% LEL.
The acceptability of using an annunciator with alarms as described above in place of a remote meter in the Cchtrol Room was discussed with the NRR cognizant engineer for fire protection modifications.
Based on the discussions, it was concluded that the licensee's method for providing remote indication in the Control Room was acceptable.
2)
3.1.15(b.1), Curbing at the base of the test pump to
.
'
contain oil spills.
3)
3.1.15(d), Curbing across doorway to air intake filter rooms in Diesel Rooms to contain oil spills.
4)
3.1.15(f), Curbing around clean and dirty lube oil storage tanks.
5)
3.1.15(g), Curbing around station (main) service transformers.
Based on review of the documentation associated with the above modifications and visual inspection of a portion of the modifications, the inspector concluded that the above items appeared to be satisfactorily completed.
b.
Incomplete Items
~
Based on review of available documentation and visual inspection, the following fire protection modifications were not yet complete for the reasons indicated.
(Note:
Numbers refer to items in the FPSER dated July 19, 1979):
1)
Item 3.11(5), Detectors for lube oil reservoir area (Turnover package not complete).
2)
Item 3.1.11(c), North Wall Turbine Lube oil area (Work
not complete and turnover package not made up)
3)
Item 3.1.15(b), Curbing around Charging Pumps (Turnover package not available for review)
4)
Item 3.1.15(c), Curbing around Hydrogen Seal Oil Unit (Turnover package not available for review)
5)
Item 3.1.15(i), Fire door with 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> rating, 480 volt room facing station service transfarmers.
(Turnover package not done)
6)
Item 3.1.15(j), Curbing around engine driven screen wash pump (Turnover package not available)
-.. -
_
_
. _..,
.
.
__
.
.
-3-The above six items are required by the facility license to be completed prior to startup. These six items will be reviewed in a future inspection.
(80-18-02)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Implementation of TMI Task Action Plan Items Item I.A.1.3(1), Shift Manning Overtime Limits. The inspector
'
.
reviewed the licensee's Overtime Policy dated January.9. 1981 and found that it had been updated in accordance with the -
,
guidance provided in NUREG 0737. This iter: is closed, b.
Item I.C.5, Operating Experience Feedbac_k.
_
1)
Outstanding Item (81-03-01)
Based on a review of procedure E&C 40-9-19, " Interim QA Procedure" Rev.1, dated February 7,1981, Station Order 501-A-122, Rev. '5 and Nuclear Training Division Training Memorandum 4-81 dated January 29, 1981, the inspector concluded that the concerns expressed in Inspection Report 50-206/81-03 regarding this topic have been satisfactorily addressed.
This item is closed.
2)
Implementation of Operating Experience Feedback Program
'
The inspector reviewed Significaiit Operating Experience l
Action Sheet 5-81.
These sheets are used by the Nuclear Training Division to control and document required training resulting from significant operating experience items.
,
Action sheet 5-81 documented the completion of the Operating l
Experience Feedback Process on 3/13/81 for the " Loss of D.C. Power Event" (LER 80-38).
This event occurred on November 27, 1980, and was due to an operator error.
.
Based on the above review, the inspector concluded that the Operating Fxperience Feedback program has been implemented.
'
This item is closed.
.
l c.
Item II.E.4.2(6), Dependability of Containment Vent an_d Purge
{
Valves.
1)
Purge Valves The inspector reviewed Station Order S01-0-108, Rev.11 dated November 18, 1980, to determine the licensee's compliance with guidance given in the Staff Interim Position on this matter, dated October 23, 1979 and l
.
.
-4 NUREG 0737, and the licensee's commitments contained in their letters of January 15, 1980 and January 5, 1981.
This review indicated that the licensee has chosen to comply with the sealed closed guidance of NUREG 0737 (SRP 6.2.4 item II.3.f) by including manually operated purge valves V-9A and V-10A in their "i.ocking of Critical Valves" procedure (S01-0-108, Rev. 11 (11/18/80)).
This procedure requires these two valves to be shut and locked and requires Watch Engineer permission to change the position of the valves.
It is noted that these manual valves (V-9A, V-10A) are not the automatically controlled containment isolation valves (V-9, V-10) which were discussed by the licensee in his letter of January 15, 1980. However, V-9A and V-10A are in series with the automatic valves.
Therefore, placing Administrative Controls on these manual valves appears to have the sdme effect as placing Administrative Controls on the autonatic valves, V-G and V-10.
The inspector advised the NRR Project Manager that the licensee's measures in this regard appeared to provide a level of protection eouivalent to that specified in the regulatory guidance.
"
Accordingly, this item is closed.
2)
Vent Valve Reliability The inspector reviewed the licensee's design change which edified vent valves (CV-10 and CV-116) to conform to the Staff Interim Position of October 23, 1979.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's letter dated January 15, 1980 dealing with this matter. The inspector determined that thelicenseehadmodifiedthesttwogentvalvessuchthat one valge will not open more than 47 and the other more than 53.
The Staff Ingerim Pgsition allows the opening of these valves from 30 to 50 as technically supported by an analysis by the valve manufacturer.
The licensee provided in a letter to the NRC, the manufacturer's i
(Fisher Controls) preliminary analysis which demonstrated that ghese valves could in fact operate satisfactorily up to 70 open.
Based on this information and discussions with the NRR Project Manager and the NRR Cognizant Engineer for this item, this design change appeurs to be acceptable, and the item is close.
.
-5-d.
Item II.F.2, Sub-Cooling Meter.
The inspector reviewed the following documentation related to this item:
letter dated May 2,1980 from the NRC Division of Licensing to Southern California Edison, letter dated May 22, 1980 from Southern California Edison to NRR, and the design change documentation for the Sub-Cooling Meter.
Based on this review,- the inspector concluded that the design appeared to incorporate the five requirements of the May 2, 1980 letter listed above.
(Note: A detailed review of the final design will be done by NRR).
The inspector found that installation and testing of the sub-cooling meter was not yet caplete. The licensee had committed in his letter of May 2,1980, to complete the required work by January 1, 1981 subject to certain specified conditions.
Since the work was not completed by this target date, a licensee representative made a commitment to the inspector, subsequent to this inspection, to complete installation of the sub cooling meter prior to startup from the present outage.
This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
e.
Item II.K.3.9, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID)
Controller Modification for Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV).
The inspector revived the following documentation relating to this item:
Letter dated June 13, 1980, from K. P. Baskin, Manager Nuclear Engineering and Licensing, SCE to NRR; letter dated January 5,1981, from K. P. Baskin to NRR and internal SCE memo dated March 25, 1981, from R. W. Krieger, Supervising Engineering Nuclear Licensing to J. G. Haynes Manager, Nuclear Operations.
This item states that the derivative input to the PID controller for the PORV should be set to zero. The licensee committed in his letter of June 13, 1980, to complete this item by July 1,1980.
Subsequently, NUREG 0737 specified that this item be completed by January 1, 1981.
The licensee later committed to this date in his letter of January 5,1981.
The inspector determined that despite this commitment, the change had not been made at the time of this inspection.
When questioned by the inspector concerning this matter, the licensee
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _
- _ _ _.
. ___
_ _ _
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
- 6-stated that the commitment in his January 5,1981 letter had been an error and that he actually intended to commit to completion of this item prior to startup. The licensee in an internal memo dated March 25, 1981.from R. W. Krieger to J. G. Haynes states that this item will be included as part of the instrument calibration program to be performed prior to startup. The licensee further committed to submit by April 10, 1981, a followup letter to NRR correcting the earlier commitment.
This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
,
4.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the Silowing procedures:
S-3-1.1, " Plant Startup from Cold Condition to Minimum Load" S-3-2.10. "Startup, Normal Operation, Shutdown of the C.C.W. System" S-2-13, " Auxiliary Feedwater System Operation" S-2-4, " Operation of Circulating Water Pumps" S-2-7, " Salt Water Cooling Pump and Backcp Operation S-1-1, " Instrument and Service Air Systems" S-3-4.1, " Station Annunciator Response Procedure" S-3-5.19. " Loss of Component Cooling Water System" S-3-5.34, " Loss of Salt Water Cooling to the C.C.W. System" S01-1.5-2, " Malfunction of the Instrument Air System" S01-1.6-1, " Earthquake" S-XII-1.13, "Inspec' ion and Cleaning of the C.C.W. Heat Exchangers" S-XII-1.22" Inspect' on and Repair of C.C.W. Pumps"
-
S01-A-109, " Station Documents - Preparation, Revision and Review'
S-XI-1.1, " Station Documents - Preparation, Revision and Review" D-A-2, " Station Orders, Station Procedures and Operating Instructions" This review indicated that the above procedures were properly reviewed, approved and had proper content (format).
The inspector also reviewed the following Procedure Change Notices:
!
S-3-3.20/Rev. O PCN-1, " Flushing the Safety Injection Recirculation and Containment Spray System:
S-I-1.22/Rev.1 - PCN 3, " Battery and Charger Testing During l
Refueling" S01-I-1.20/Rev. 2 pCN 1, " Removal at Pressurizer Manway Cover"
!
Based on this review, the inspector concluded that the above Procedure Change Notices (issued during the past year) were properly approved.
The inspector examined the technical content of the following procedures:
S-3-1.1, " Plant Startup from Cold Conditions to Minimum Load", and S-3-5.19 " Loss of Component Cooling Water System."
.
,
.
-7-Based on this review, the inspector concluded that these two procedures appeared technically adequate.
fio items of noncompliance or det.-iations were identified.
5.
Onsite Review Committeo The inspector attended the Onsite Review Committee Meeting #81-29 on March 25, 1981 and reviewed on a sampling basis Committee minutes dating from January 1980 to March 1981.
The inspector noted that quorum, meeting frequency and other Technical Specifications requirements appeared to be satisfactorily met.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Seismic Event Monitoring Equipment The inspector reviewed Station Order S-E-102, " Seismic Instrumentation",
and discussed thic item with the licensee.
The inspector determined that surveillance and calibration was done in a manner which would allow recording of a seismic event even if it occurred during calibration of a portion of the equipment.
The inspector will evaluate the past reliability of this system when the licensee's internal response to IE Circular 81-03, " Inoperable Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation" is reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
~
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I 7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on March 27, 1981. The results of the inspection were
discussed and the licensee made the commitment described in paragrapn 3e.
!
!