IR 05000206/1981021
| ML20009E108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1981 |
| From: | Chaffee A, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009E107 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.F.2, TASK-2.K.3.09, TASK-TM 50-206-81-21, NUDOCS 8107270110 | |
| Download: ML20009E108 (8) | |
Text
,
.
,
.
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
R; pot t flo. R1_p1 Docket !!o. 50-206 License No. DPR-13 Safeguards Group Licensee:
southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead. California 91770 Facility Name:
san Onofre Unit 1 Inspection at:
San Onofre. California Inspection conducted: June 8-12. 1981
'7[7!?[
Inspectors :
A. Chaffg#,' Reactor Inspector Oatt Signed Date Signed Approved by:
bbWM-
b/
.r
~rojects Section #2
/ D(te Signed T.' Young, Actin hief, R actf Sumary:
Inspection on June 8-12, 1981 (Report No. 50-206/81-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's training program, retraining program, pre-startup plant operations, implementation of TMI items, fire protection and IE Bulletins. The inspector also addressed one SALP item.
This inspection involved 38 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8107270110 810709 DRADOCK05000g RV Form 219 (2)
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- E. Gault, Clerk-Typist
- J. Dunn, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- F. Briggs, Compliance Engineer
- J. Curran, Plant Manager
- D. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance
- J. Haynes, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- J. Willis, Manager, Nuclear Training
- B. Katz, Assistant Station Manager, Technical
- G. Morgan, Assistant Station Manager, Operations
- R. Brunet, Superintendent, Unit 1 J. Findell, Nuclear Instrument Technician W. Smith, Journeyman Electrician
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview.
Also present at the exit interview was the Resident Inspector, L. Miller.
2.
Follow-up on Item of Concern (Closed) Outstanding Item (81-14-03)
Through discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined the following:
a.
The licensee cleaned the sumps and pumps prior to startup.
b.
The licensee performed a visual inspection of the baffle between the sphere sump and recirculation sump. This inspection revealed no gaps of concern.
c.
The licensee determined that the level switches which control the sphere sump pumps were set improperly. This resulted in the recirculation pumps being partially immersed in water. The licensee I
reset the limit switches to insure the recirculation pump suctions are always above_ water.
l d.
In light of the above, the licensee performed an operational test l
on the recirculation pumps and found the discharge pressure of l
the pumps was satisfactory.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
!
l l
.-.,
_
.
'
.
.
-2-3.
Follow-up on IE Bulletins a.
IEB 80-24 (Prevention of Damage Due to Water Leakage Inside Containment)
(Closed) Outstanding Item (81-14-01)
The licensee stated that his evaluation determined that, when installation is complete, the new TMI containment level indicator system will adequately represent sphere sump level.
(Closed) Outstanding Item (81-14-02)
The licensee evaluated the inspector's concerns and corrected the sphere sump pump control system to perform as required.
The system now performs as follows:
As sump level rises one sphere sump pump starts with associated indication in the control room.
If the level continues to increase then a second pump is started with indication in the control room.
If level continues to increase LS-82 will secure both pumps and give a high level alarm in the control room.
IEB 80-24 Overall Review-The inspector reviewed the following:
Operating Instruction 501-4-31 " Leakage Inside Containment",
Surveillance Instruction S01-12.3-22 " Service Water Integrator Operability Test", and licensee responses to IEB-80-24 dated March 23, 1981 and April 6,1981.
Based on the above review and discussions with licensee personnel, the following was concluded:
(1) The licensee has redundant level indications in the control
'
room to alert the operator to abnormal water level in the
!
sump.
However, frequent surveillance on this indication l
system would require a containment entry with the associated
ALARA problems. Thus, the licensee performs surveillance on this equipment only when shut down at a frequency of at least every refueling cycle. The existing multiple indications should not result in any abnormal levels going undetected.
!
(2) The licensee has procedure 501-4-31, " Leakage Inside Containment."
!
This procedure requires the recording of sphere sump pump run times and once-a-shift monitoring of the totalizer in i
!
_
-
-_ _.
_
'
.
.
-3-the service water system to containment.
Since the service
.
water system is the only open cooling water system inside
'
containment, this procedure provides satisfactory means of detecting open cooling water leakage-inside containmeat.
This feature combined with the trending of pump run times ~
seems adequate to alert the operator to a change in flow rate.
In addition, the licensee has surveillance procedure S01-12.3-22 which requires monthly operability testing of the service water system totalizer.
Thus, its operability seems to be adequately assured.
Thus, the inspector has concluded that the licensee's response is adequate. This item is closed.
b.
IEB 80-21 (Valve Yokes Supplied by Malcolm Foundry Company, Inc.)
(Closed)
The licensee stated in his submittal of June 9, 1981, that San Onofre Unit 1 has none of the valve yokes in question.
This item is closed, c.
IEB 80-23 (Failure of Solenoid Vtives Manufactured by Valcor Engineering Corporation) (Closed)_
Licensee has no Valcor Solenoid Valves in use at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.
This item is closed.
d.
IEB 81-02 (Failure of Gate Type Valves to Close Against Differential Pressure) (Closed)
l The licensee reported that he has three W-EMD model 3GM88 valves.
l Two are installed in the auxiliary feedwater system as pump discharge I
valves. The third is a replacement for the two installed valves.
'
The failure of these valves to shut would not prevent auxiliary feedwater flow.
In addition, these valves are not expected to experience a differential pressure higher than 1200 psi. They i
are designed to operate against a differential pressure of 1500 psi.
This item is closed.
l l
. _ -.
.,-
.-
-
____
_____-___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -._
__
_
'
'
.
.
-4-4.
Follow-up on TMI Items a.
Item II.F.2, Sub-Cooling Meter The inspector verified by visual inspection that the subcooling meter was installed.
b.
Item II.K.3.9, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) Controller Modification for Power Operated Relief Valve _(PORV)
The inspector verified by discussions with licensee personnel and review of an internal memo that this item was completed.
5.
Follow-up on Fire Protection Modifications Required Prior to Startup 01 81-18-02 (0 pen)
The turnover documents required to close out this item were not available during this inspection. The licensee, however, assured the inspector that this documentation would be complete before startup.
This item will be followed up at a future inspection.
-
6.
Follow-up on Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance (SALP)
The inspector reviewed the following:
San Onofre Unit 1 Technical Specifications which included Amendment 53, NUREG 0452, Revision 3, published September 1980, " Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors", ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ANSI /ASME BPV-XI-1 with addenda through Winter 1979, and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1, Station Order S01-A-112, " Station Quality Assurance Program".
Based on this preliminary review, the inspector concluded that San Onofre Unit 1 Technical Specification surveillance requirements appear to only address completely approximately 45 of some 150 surveillance requirements which appear to be applicable to this plant (less than 30 percent).
Of the approximately 105 surveillance items which are not covered in Songs Technical Specifications, approximately 39 have no related Limiting Condition for Operation specified in this units Technical Specifications.
The other 66 surveillance requirements, which are not addressed in Songs Technical Specifications,- do have Limiting Condition for Operation requirements specified. Also, some of these 66 items are partially covered by surveillance requirements
,
...
.
..
_ _ _ _ _
-
.
,
,
!
-5-
, -
in San Onofre Technical Specifications. Ilowever, most are not covered at all. Currently the Systematic Evaluation Program (S.E.P.) has.
the task (Topic XVI) of evaluating San Onofre Technical Specifications in light of current regulatory requirements. The list of 105 surveillance items which are not completely addressed by San Onofre Technical Specifications will be transmitted to this group. The results of this preliminary comparison have been discussed with the licensee and a wpy has been provided for his use.
Further I&E effort in this area will be discussed in the next SALP Review Board.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
7.
Training The inspector reviewed the following documentations:
Training memorandum 9-81, May 21,1981, " General Employee Orientation Training"; training memorandum 5-81, May 29,1981, "llealth Physics Technician Training and Retraining Program"; training memorandum 10-81, May 20,1981, " Emergency Plan Support Personnel (onsite) Training Program"; training memorandum 5-80, November 28, "ttaintenance Personnel Training and Retraining Program"; training memorandum 6-80, December 1, 1980, " Guidelines for Lesson Plan Development"; training memorandum 7-80, December 10,1980, " Shift Technical Advisor Training and Requalification Program"; and " Initial Reactor on Shift Training Program".
The above documents appear to be in conformance with the licensee's
comitments and requirements. The licensee reported that he was actively pursuing improvements in his program.
In particular, the licensee was considering the establishment of a documented qualification program for maintenance personnel which included qualification cards.
The licensee has established a " General Employee Orientation Training" (GE0T), as delineated in station memorandum 9-81, dated May 21, 1981.
This program includes basic training in the following areas:
General description of plant and facilities, job related procedures
and instructions, radiological health and safety program, station emergency plans, industrial safety programs, fire protection program,
'
security program and quality assurance program. This program is scheduled to be given during the first two months after hiring. This program
is cugmented as the specific occupation requires.
Prior to the recent-development of this formal program, this training was done in a more fragmented fashion. This new program will be offered in its entirety
-
for the first time in June 1981.
The inspector interviewed two new, two temporary and two.long term employees.
These interviews revealed training had been given generally in the areas covered by the G.E.0.T.
,
- -
-
-
_. -. _.
- _.,..
,...,.... _.
. _. -
,,.
_
-
....
-6-The inspector interviewed one female employee and verified that prenatal radiation exposure training had been given.
The inspector interviewed two technicians and two craftsmen.
It appeared that training in the areas of on the job training, technical training and fire fighting training had been received in varying degrees.
The licensee's internal commitment to formalize this training and provide documentation should enhance this training further.
In order to establish this Formalized program, the licensee has perfomed a task item evaluation of each trade.
This has enabled the licensee to provide a comprehensive listing of general and specific training for each trade.
The licensee hopes to have this program promulgated in the near future.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Requalification Training Based on discussions with licensee personnel and the review of documentation referenced below, the inspector concluded the following:
a.
The licensee has revised his " Licensed Operator Requalification Program" (promulgated by station order S-A-126) to include changes required by NUREG 0737.
This new program is delineated in " Operator Requalification Program Songs Unit 1," Rev. 2, dated July 1980.
This program is promulgated by training memorandum 2-81 dated February 3, 1981.
This new program is pending NRC approval.
Operator Licensing Br=nch has given the licensee tentative verbal approval to implement this new program pending formal NRC approval of this program.
The inspector reviewed this program and noted no areas in violation of applicable guidance, b.
The licensee has a lecture schedule as delineated in training memorandum 2-81 for the next two year cycle. This program scheduled lectures in all areas.
Training memorandum 6-80 requires formal lesson plans be developed for each lecture as time is available.
The licensee currently has only rough lesson material available for review.
c.
Six personnel failed at least one section of the Annual Requalification examination. They all particiapted in accelerated retraining.
'
d.
The training records of several Senior Reactor Operator and Reactor Operator qualified personnel were reviewed.
This review revealed that all necessary documentation was available but was not located in a central file. The Training Division is reorganizing the documentation system to provide a central file for ease of review and administratio * * '~
....
-7-e.
Based on interviews with several licensed operators, the inspector concluded that the training documented in the training records was being accomplished. However, the quality of the training is being negatively effected by the need to conduct much of it during overtime hours due to the limited number of shift personnel.
This problem is recognized by the licensee. The licensee assured the inspector that ~e was actively pursuing all avenues to correct-this problem. However, no quick solution to the problem is evident due to the long training pipeline to qualify personnel and the difficulty in recruiting personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Review of Plant Operations (orior to startup following refuelingj_
The inspector reviewed the following documents:
Operating Instruction 501-3-1, Rev. O, April 24, 1981, " Plant Startup from Cold Shutdown to Hot Standby"; Operating Instruction S01-3-2, rev. 1, May 4, 1981, " Plant Startup from Hot Standby to Minimum Load";
Operating Instruction S01-3-3, rev. O, April 24, 1981, " Plant Operation from Minimum Load to Full Fower"; and Operating Instruction S01-7-3, rev. O, April 24, ?981, " Auxiliary Feedwater System".
Based on the above review, the inspector concluded that these procedures appeared to be updated to reflect all design changes which had occurred during the refueling cutage.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 12, 1981.
The results of the inspection were discussed.
f