IR 05000206/1986028
| ML13323B158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | Pate R, Picker B, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13323B157 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-86-28, NUDOCS 8606240433 | |
| Download: ML13323B158 (7) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report N /86-28 Docket N License N DRP-13 Licensee:
Southern-California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 92770 Facility Name. San Onofre Unit 1 Inspection at:
San.Onofre, San Clemente, California Inspection conducted:
June 2 -
6, 1986 Inspectors:
Robert J. Pafe, Chief'
Date Signed Reactor Safety Branch B0-BO A Picker, Contractor Date SIgned Approved By:
T. Young, Chie Date Signed Engineering Se ion 8606240433 86609 PDR ADOCK 0500206 PDR Inspection Summary Inspection on June 2 through June 6, 1986 (Report No. 50-206/86-28)
Areas Inspected:
Special inspection of'the training for return to service related to the November 21, 1985 water hammer event and training for Appendix R system Results:
No violations or deviations were identifie. Persons. Contacted, Southern California Edison Company G. Morgan, Station Manager M. Wharton, Deputy Station Manager R. Krieger, Deputy Station Manager D. Shull, Maintenance Manager'
W. Zintl, Compliance Manager
- J. Wambold, Training Manager
- D. Peacor, Emergency Preparedness Manager J. Reeder, Oprations Superintendent, Unit 1 T. Mackey, Compliance Supervisor
- G. Gibson, Compliance Supervisor
.*C. Couser, Compliance Engineer
.R. Sandstrom, Instructor T. Dewitt, Instructor D. Barney, Shift Superintendent
- R. Mette, Supervisor of Operator Training
- M. Kirby, Nuclear Training Administrator
- V. Gow, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer
- M. Barr, Compliance Engineer
- W. Barney, Integrated Safety Evaluation.Group
- D. Harbst, Integrated Safety Evaluation group
- S. McMahan, Manager, Maintenance Engineering
- M. Short, Project Manager
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on June 6,.198 The inspectors also contacted other licensee employees during the course of the inspection, including operations shift superintendents, control room supervisors,.control room operators, QA and QC engineers, compliance engineers, maintenance craftsmen, and health physics engineers and technician.
Return to. Service Training (RTS) During the inspection period the following training areas were reviewed to verify.RTS training was being conducted:
(1) Lesson Plan Lesson plans were adequate.for coverage in all areas inspecte The following is a list of the specific topics and areas covered:
Automatic Steam Generator Blowdown isolation
Operator actions required to reset and open blowdown valves
Blowdown valve position indication and remote valve operations(from Control Room vs Local operation)
0 Diesel Generator and reactor (impedance) Bypass breaker operation on 4kv Bus o
Alarms associated with 4kv busses operating in parallel o
Procedure changes concerning the reactor bypass breaker operations o
Automatic reset of the backup overspeed trip on main generator o
Loss of voltage auto transfer circuit dealing with generator lockup bus o
Automatic closure of Main Feed Regulation Valves on AFW actuation o
Fox III computer auto-reboot due to.loss of power -
actual modification was to move to security VPS power and therefore not require reboot o
Trouble shooting and manipulations of plant electrical system and 4kv ground isolation procedures (2) Observation of Operator RTS Training Training was observed on the following subjects:
o Events on November 21, 1985 o
Water Hammer Theor o Nuclear Training Division training enhancements as a result of November 21 even The above subjects were covered in sufficient detail and depth of subject matter to ensure adequate operator training. The lesson plan was followed and the lesson objectives clearly state The inspectors did have two items of-concer The use of a poor example of implicate vs implied operator action The largenumber of repeat questions on consecutive examinations for RTS trainin Both of these items were immediately addressed by the training department and corrective actions are in progres (3) Interviews of Operating Personnel Interviews were held with four people from the plant operations personnel regarding the RTS.training. The-range.of people varied from Shift Superintendent to Plant Equipment.Operator Overall, those interviewed displayed adequate knowledge in the RTS training areas. All of the licensed operators answered 80%
or more of the questions correctly. One non-licensed individual appeared to be extremely nervous and the inspectors attributed the lack of complete knowlede in a few areas by this individual to the nervous conditio Weaknesses were noted during the interviews by a majority of the interviewees in the following areas: Blowdown System operation of valves Cr. 100, 100-A and 100-B Understanding of the Loss of Voltage auto transfer and automatic reset of turbine generator backup-overspeed trip circuitry and how to explain circuit operation Hazards and/or problems of having 220kv buses paralleled through the 4kv syste The above items are to be covered by the training department when the individuals interviewed return to training for one additional day to recover changes made since their initial RTS training. Also, the difficulty of individuals to understand and be able to explain elementary diagram circuits as noted the loss of voltage auto transfer item above has been previously identified by the station and is being incorporated in ongoing requal program to enhance operator knowledge of electrical elementary drawings. With these exception, the general operator knowledge of plant drawings is assessed.to be adequat (4) Review of RTS Training Records The class attendance and examination results were reviewed for the RTS training. The classes were being attended and all the operators except one scored 80% or greater on the examinatio The individual that scored less than 80%'will be retrained and reexamined in accordance with the requalification progra (5) Review of Plant Procedures A review of selected plant procedures was conducted. The primary attention was to S01-2.6-6, Rev. 0, dated 6/6/86, "4kv System Grounds or Faults". The inspector found the 4kv ground procedure adequate for its intended us A review of all the remaining plant procedures was conducted to determine if any that are normal operating or surveillance procedures should be converted to abnormal procedures. Five procedures of this nature had already been identified by the station staff and are in process of being converted. No other procedures,. as determined by the team, need to be converte The other procedures reviewed by the inspectors were reported in NRC.Inspection Report 50-206/86-2 As a result of the review of the San Onofre Unit 1 training as detailed in.items 2.A.(1) through 2.A(5) above, the inspectors concluded that the training of operators was adequate in the following area (1) Trouble shooting and isolating grounds including bus and transformer ground (2) Transfer of loadsbetween 4KV buse (3) Operator response to loss of offsite electrical powe (4) Resetting unit trip to allow reenergization of onsite electrical buse (5) Controlling steam generator blowdow (6) Safeguards loading sequencing system (SLSS) panel indication (7) Operators training and knowledge in the use of prints and drawing (8) Mix of training for normal and abnormal operation.
Appendix "R" Training Verified that training is taking place on the following procedures:
o SO1 -
13-8 Fire System Annunciators o
SOl -
2.7-1 Appendix R Fire Zone Response o
S01 - Plant Shutdown Using Dedicated System o
SOl - Plant Shutdown from Full Power to Hot Standby Observed Appendix "R" training on the following procedures:
o So
-
13-8 Fire Systems Annunciator o
S01 -
2.7-1 Appendix R Fire Zone Response
SO1 -
10-7 Dedicated Safe Shutdown System Operations (II
.5 The OJT (on-the-job training) which was observed was conducted by a Shift Superintendent with 10 people from the training shift.,
The amount of material and depth of coverage was judged to be appropriate. The instructor stepped through each procedure emphasizing important points as needed and asking questions of the Ahift personnel at different times to check knowledge. Adequate extra -procedure copies and handouts were made available to the class. Expertise of project personnel were used to aid in operator understanding and knowledg Additional items of the "lessons learned" variety was inserted to lend importance to item of discussio.Training that was observed was adequate, well prepared -aid'taken seriously by all presen. Exit Interview At the conclusion of the June 2-6, 1986.special inspection a summary of the findings was presented to the licensee.. The licensee was informed that none of the findings appeared to be violations of NRC regulation.