IR 05000206/1981018
| ML20009A928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1981 |
| From: | Canter H, Miller L, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A926 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-81-18, NUDOCS 8107140504 | |
| Download: ML20009A928 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:FOR DCS PROCESSING - . ' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10N Original document not available ' 0FFICE OF IWSPECT10ii AND ENFORCEMENT Ce i ed by / [[3/Yul
REGION V
7v8N> ' Report No.
50-206/81-18 Docket No.
50-206 License No.
DPR-13 Safeguards Group Licensee: Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead. Califnrnia 91770 Facility Name: San Onofre Unit 1 Inspection at: San Onofre California Inspection conducted: May 4 - 3 1981 Enspectors: d.[b (Df).K/1 d!M / . L., Miller, sid t Ins torf j / Date/ Signed NdfN NO.
7.
_ d 3k HT CaMer, Senio( ResidenQIn Ector ( ancho Seco) ' Date/ Signed r Date Signed 7.
M / Approved By: _ ~ T. Young, Jr.'. Act)Ooerations Pro.iects Branch Date' Signed ng Chieh Rp/ictor Projects Section 2. Reactor Summary: Inspection on May 4 - 29. 1981 (Report No. 50-206/81-18) Areas Inspected: Routine resident inspection of plant operations during long term outage; l monthly maintenance and surveillance operations; containment integrated leak rate test witnessing; (annual) surveillance program review; the ' inspection involved 75 inspector hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: ! No items of noncomnliance or deviations were identified.
. 8107140504 810624 PDR ADOCK 05000206 , PDR G RV Form 219 (2)
. . . - . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. M. Curran, Plant Manager
- D. E. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance
- H. E. Morgan, Assistant Station Manager, Operations
- W. J. Matter, Station Services Manager
- B. Katz, Assistant Station Maiager, Technical
- K. P. Barr, Health Physics Manager
- R. Santosuosso, Assistant Station Manager, Maintenance
- G. W. Mc Donald, Station Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. D.
Nunn, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- N. R. Dickinson, Construction /Startup Project Superintendent The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees and contractor employees during this inspection.
- Denotes those attending the Exit Interview on May 29, 1981.
2.
Inspection of Plant Operations During Long-Term Outage The inspector observed Control Room operations frequently for proper shift manning, for adherence to procedures and limiting conditions for operation, and appropriate recorder and instrument indications.
The inspector discussed the status of annunciators with Control Room operators to determine the reasons for abnormal indications, and to determine the operators' awareness of plant status.
The Control Operator's log was reviewed to obtain information on plant conditions, and to determine whether regulatory requirements had been met.
Other logs, including the Watch Engineer's Log, were also reviewed several times.
The equipment clearance records were reviewed regularly, and clearance tags for the North Charging Pump, East Residual Heat Removal pump, and Test Pump were verified to have been hung.as indicated on the tag.
The inspector frequently tot ed the accessible areas of the f acility to assess equipment conditions, radiological controls, physical security, and personnel safety.
Radiation Controlled Area access points were generally safe and clean.
Surveys and packaging of low specific activity material were observed and appeared adequate.
However, the inspector noted that the control point survey meters regularly had defective audio count rate or alarm outputs.
This problem was recently identified by the inspector (See Inspection Report 50-206/81-10).
At th'at time a licensee representative stated that more effort would be made to reduce the frequency of this problem.
The inspector reemphasized to the licensee representatives at the Exit Interview that all of this equipment should be operable.
In particular, that equipment at which there was a full time Health
. . . . . . . , -2-Physics aide should be operable whenever the aide was stationed.
The inspector stated that in every instance where malfunctioning equipment was observed, tha aide had been stationed, but had been either unaware of the defect or aware and not concerned.
A licensee representative. agreed to reemphasize to these personnel the responsibility to ensure that the survey equipment at their station appeared to be operable.
This item remains open (01 50-206/81-1C-01) pending effective corrective action by the licensee.
The Physical Security Plan appeared to be properly implemented.
Manning of security posts, integrity of protected area barriers and isolation zones, conduct of search procedures, and personnel identification measures were all observed at intervals by the inspector.
Several hydraulic shock suppressors were checked for p' roper oil level and integrity.
Plant housekeeping was generally adequate.
The exception to this condition was that on May 29 the Main Battery Room and D.C. Switchgear Room were observed to be littered with dirt, concrete chips, tools, electrical extension cords, empty cardboard . boxes and miscellaneous metal fittings.
The Main Battery was covered with a fine layer of dust, as was the floor of the Battery Room.
Two smoke detectors for the adjacent D C Switchgear Room were sus, pended from the ceiling by their electrical wires.
The inspector stated that although this condition posed no immediate hazard, it was below previous cleanliness standards at the facility and should be corrected prior to'startup.
A licensee representative agreed to promptly correct the conditons observed by the inspector.
In addition, in this period, on every tour the inspector noted that the southwest door to the 4160 Volt Switchgear Room was either blocked open with a partially full garbage can, or fou'ed with electrical - cables and air hoses such that the automatic door closer could not-close the door if actuated.
This condition was previously observed by the inspector (See Inspection Reports 50-2061 81-10 and 81-15).
The inspector noted that this door was assumed to be automatically closable in the Safety Evaluatioa Report for the licensee's Fire Protection Plan.
A licensee representative agreed that this door would be closed as required following the completion of this outage, when this Plan requirement becomes effective.
No items of non-compliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test Witness The inspector witnessed various portions of the licensee's periodic Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT).
Prior to the commence-ment of the test the inspector verified that a technically adequate and approved procedure was available.
The operative procedure is 501-V-1.3, Revision 9, Sphere Integrated Leak Rate Tes. .. . .. .. . - , _3 The inspector verified that the pressure, temperature and dew cell instruments used in this test were calibrated and in service. The inspector verified that valve lineups were completed in accordance with S01-V-1.3.
During the test, the inspector independently verified various calculations for vapor pressure, containment mass, mass point leak rate and confidence level.
The starting test pressure was 49.976 psig, with the starting time for data purposes being 7:20 pm on May 16, 1981. The CILRT was conducted at full pressure (Pa=49.4 psig and La=.12 W%/ day).
The licensee's calculated mass point leak rate was 0.03518 W%/ day with a +95% Upper Confidence Level of 0.03677 W%/ day. The inspector's calculations based on the licensees raw data developed leak rates of 0.0356 and 0.1415 W%/ day respectively.
These numbers are less than 75% La or L.090 W%/ day acceptance criteria, therefore, it appears that the CILRT was successful up to this point.
The verification test technique used at SONGS I was a " pump back" technique. Even though Appendix J to 10 CFR50 suggest a " superimposed leak rate method be used, the " pump back" method has been shown to provide acceptable results. The licensee had problems developing a successful set of " pump back" data. The major problem was traced to a malfunctioning differential pressure instrument around the " pump back" orifice. The licensee repaired and calibrated the instrument while the containment was kept pressurized, performed the third mass pump back, verified the data and met the acceptance criteria. The inspector verified by an independent calculation, that the pump back test ;--t the acceptance criteria.
The data analysis was completed on May 18, 1981. At that tic'e the licensee lined up valves for a containment sample prior to depressurization t No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, however, the licensee was informed that accurate and traceable calibration data for the " pump back" system should be available onsite for review at a later date. Also, the computer plots of various test parameters, took a dramatic change at about 12 hours into the test.
This change should be explained and justified in the written report of the test, which is due for submittal during August,1981.
Finally, the licensee was reminded that CV948 and CV949, PRT gas sample space valves must receive local leak rate tests with an appropriate Type C penalty added to the reported Type A leak rate, prior '.o stating for certain that the Type A test was completed satisfactorily.
The before and after ILRT rasults should be reported. No items of noncompliance ! or deviations were identified.
4.
Monthly Maintenance Operations a.
Routine Activities The inspector observed portions of the following maintenance and modification work: Auxiliary Feedwater Cold Functional Test, Subcooled Monitoring System Preoperational Test, Containment Isolation System Preoperational Test, and Main Steam System Hydrostatic Tes. .... . .. - . . -4-The inspector determined that these activities did not appear to violate Limiting Conditions for Operation, that required administrative approvals.
and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the work, and that approved procedures were, with one exception, being used by qualified personnel. One test, SpE-448, " Preop-Auxiliary Feedwater System, Cold Functional" was significantly modified during its performance by the test engineer.
In the original test, Step 6.1.16a tested the ability of valve 3"-1500-19 to close with design flow in its line. While perfor' ming the test the test engineer decided that it was acceptable to test this valve earlier in the procedure, after performing Step 6.1.9, by cycling it shut, then open with less than design flow in its line. The test engineer directed an unlicensed operator to perform this valve operation.
The inspector questioned licensee representatives regarding whether or not test engineers were authorized to modify approved test procedures unilaterally.
He was informed by them that such changes were authorized for construction work being conducted by the Project Management Organization.
In particular, that organization's procedure, TI-01, " Test Procedure Preparation, Review, Approval and Evaluation of Results, " Exhibit C " Format and Instructions for Test Procedure Exceptions and Deficiency List," states that during the conduct of the test, the test engineer may find it appropriate to deviate from the procedure by making exceptions to it. The inspector stated that a quality assurance program which authorized the test engineer to unilaterally modify aa appro'ved test procedure appeared to deviate from industry standard, ANSI 18.7.
However, discussion with the licensee in this area was not complete and will be continued during the next inspection period. This item is unresolved 50-206/ 81-18-02.
b.
Steam Generator Repair Program The tube repairs required by this program were completed on May 7, 1981. On May 12, the inspector attended a meeting of licensee representatives and interested NRC personnel at which the licensee briefly outlined the final repaired condition of the steam generator tubes.
In addition, representatives of the prime contractor for the program presented an overview of the acceptance criteria that were used on those tubes that were partially dissolved by the heat of the sealing process.
Finally, the return to power test program was outlined by the licensee.
Following the meeting, the inspector reviewed the licensee's reload safety evaluation with representatives of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the NRC.
The inspector stated that, based on these presentations, his on-site reviews of the program, and the Technical Specification changes which were required prior to the Unit's return to power, the steam generator repairs appeared to be adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Monthly Surveillance Observations The inspector. observed a portion of the Power Range Nuclear Instrument six month calibration. This activity was performed in accordance with the applicable __ _ _ _ , _ ___.
- __
.... .... .... .. , -5-procedure (S01-II-1.6), and a record of the steps performed was prepared. The unit was in Mode 5 at the time, so that no Limiting Conditions for Operation restricted the performance of this test.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
6.
Surveillance Program Paview The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to perform the refueling interval inspection and testing of safety related batteries and battery chargers. This inspection and testing is required by Technical Specification 4.4.
This Technical Specification requires that the licensee perform a service test on the Main Battery for eight hours, and on the #2 DC Battery for three hours, under the actual expected accident load. The-licensee performed an engineering evaluation which concl :'ed that the actual load on both of these batteries would only be greater than zero for ninety minutes. A licensee representative stated that the service tests performed on the battery had, therefore, been of ninety minutes duration.
The inspector agreed that this interpretation of the Technical Specifications was acceptable. However, at the conclusion of the inspection, the inspector requasted that the records of the previous two refueling interval charges be made available. A licensee representative agreed to retrieve these records. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of this inspection, the inspectors met with licensee representatives (Paragraph 1) to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection.
r l i I - . . ._.
, }}