IR 05000206/1990005

Insp Repts 50-206/90-05,50-361/90-05 & 50-362/90-05 on 900108-12.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Followup of Open Items,Events & Items of Noncompliance & Tours of Facility

ML20006E929
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	02/01/1990
From:	Cicotte G, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20006E928	List: IR 05000206/1990005 ML20006E927
References
50-206-90-05, 50-206-90-5, 50-361-90-05, 50-361-90-5, 50-362-90-05, 50-362-90-5, IEIN-89-027, IEIN-89-27, NUDOCS 9002260553
Download: ML20006E929 (8)

Text

w e

'

Q

.

..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION V

Report Nost 50-206/90-05, 50-361/90-05, and 50-362/90-05-License Nos.

DFR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15 Licensee:

Southern California Edison Company

"

23 Parker Street Irvine, California 92718 Facility Name:

San Onofre Nuc1 car Generating Station Inspection at:

-San Clemente. California Inspection Conducted:

January 8-12, 1990f Inspected by:

rN/ h-2. M g ri.8 cicotte, Ra iation Specialist Date Signed Approved by:

b R//fo

/

m F. A. Wenslawski, Chief Date ' Signed D

Facilities Radiological Protection Section Summary:

-Inspection durinc the 3eriod of January 8-12, 1990 (Report Nos. 50-206/90-05, 50-361/90-05, anc 50-3 52/90-05)

.)

Areas Inspected:

Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based T5spector of;. follow-up of open items, events, and items of non-compliance, and

tours of the facility.

Inspection procedures 30702, 90713, 92701, 90712, 92700, 92702, and 83726 were addressed.

Results:

'No cited violations were identified in the four areas addressed.

In one area, a non-cited violation of 10 CFR 19.11(a)(4) was identified (

i

. paragraph 5).

The number of reportable events related to radiation monitor

o failures had reduced significantly.

The licensee's programs appeared fully

l capableofmeetingtheirsafetyobjectives.

.

,

$:

9002260553 900201

PDR ADOCK 05000206

O PNV

'

_

.:

.

,

,

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

• H. Ray, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering, Safety and Licensing Department

• H. Morgani Station Manager

• D. Brevig, Compliance EngineerOnsite Nuclear Licensing (ONL) Supervisor

• R. Baker,

• B. Czajkowski, Supervisor of Dosimetry

• J. Fee, Assistant Operational HP Manager

• G. Gibson, ONL Eng/3 HP Supervisor ineer J. Madigan, Unit 2

• S. Jones, QA Engineer

• P.

Knapp, HP Manager

• R. Plappert Technical Support and Compliance Supervisor

• J.Reilly,$tationTechnicalManager

• P. Shaffer, Compliance Supervisor

• J. Shipwash, Supervisor Technical Support

• R.Warnock,AssistantHkManager NRC

• C Caldwell Senior Resident Inspector

• A. Hon,ResIdentInspector

• D Schaefer, Chief, Safeguards Section

• C, Townsend, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those personnel present at the exit interview held on January 12, 1990.

In addition, the inspector met and held discussions'with other members of the licensee's staff.

2.

Follow-up (90713 and 92701)

50-361/89-GC-50(Closed):

This item refers to a licensee identified c

failure to report periods of inoperability for the Condenser Evacuation System and the Ventilation Exhaust Treatment System.

The licensee's timely Special Report, dated November 30, 1989, stated that periods of inoperability may have been overlooked, for both Unit 2 and Unit 3.

The report correctly stated that although the systems are not required to be o>erable during refueling activities, the ino)erable status for greater t1an 31 days remains reportable pursuant to tie action specified in Technical Specification (TS) 3.11.2.4.

Licensee personnel with whom the matter was discussed had been made generally aware of the reporting

>

requirements for all such systems.

This matter is considered closed.

50-206/IN-89-27(Closed): This refers to NRC Information Notice 89-27,

" Limitations on the Use of Waste Forms and High Integrity Containers for Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste." The licensee had received and distributed the notice under tracking number ISEG 89-055,isions andand personnel handling high integrity containers were aware of the prov j

.

%

'

,

"

l

.

L m,

p I

information which applied to the licensee's facility.

This matter is

"

I considered closed.

i F

The licensee's program appeared fully capable of meeting its' safety L

objectives.

No violations or deviations were identified.

-

r r

3.

Follow-up on Written Reports of Non-routine Events (90712 and 92700)

'

[

50-206/89-09-LO:.This item refers to a licensee identified failure to

"

perform 15 required surveillances within the specified frequency.

The report contained all the required information except the date of the

(discovery) event.

Licensee event report (LER) 50-206/89-09, dated

.

October 30, 1989, stated that an audit of Effluent Monthly Reports had N

identified several reports which had exceeded their interval by slightly more than 25 per cent.

The licensee reported that the activity released was well within TS limits.

The inspector verified that corrective action

!

had been completed.

No concerns were identified.

This matter is considered closed.

,

50-206/89-09-L1(Closed):

This item refers to Revision 1 to LER 50-206/89-09, discussed above, to specify the inadvertently omitted event L

date. This matter is considered closed.

- 50-206/89-27-LO(Closed):

This item refers to a licensee identified failure to make a composite sample of the plant vent stack effluent,

-

contrary to TS 4.6.1, Table 4.6.1-1.

lhe licensee's timely report, dated December 29, 1989, stated that on November 30, 1989, the licensee t

.Jetermined that the sample for the week of October 17-24, 1989, had been lost.

The licensee reported that previous examples of partial composite

effluent samples had been reported, but only for liquid samples.

The

licensee further re)orted that administrative controls for liquid sample

'

storage had been enianced, and that gaseous effluent sam)le controls would be altered appropriately. The inspector verified tie information contained in the report.

This matter is considered closed.

.

50-361/87-22-Ll(Closed):

This item refen to Revision 1 to LER

'

-50-361/87-22, regarding additional info >% tion on cause and corrective

,

action for a spurious actuation of the ;.el Handling Isolation System (FHIS).

The report contained all the information required by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report, dated December 15, 1989, stated that insufficient circuit noise suppression had resulted in a voltage s)ike on the associated radiation monitor, which caused the actuation.

T1e report further stated that this was recurring) problem, for all the Essential Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS radiation monitors, as reported in LER 50-362/88-12.

The inspector verified the information in LER 50-362/88-12.

No concerns were identified.

This matter is

[

considered closed.

50-361/87-24-Ll(Closed):

This item refers to Revision 1 to LER 50-361/87-24, regarding additional information on cause and corrective

,

action for a spurious actuation of the FHIS.

The report contained all

.

the information required by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report, dated October 30, 1989, stated that reevaluation of the available

.information indicated that the likely cause was reset of the monitor and

.

g,.

=

-

'

3 l

'

-

,

h-(

o

,

L

-

,

consequent voltage spiking.

The report further stated that the details s

of the analyses were contained in LER 50-361/88-12.

The inspector j

verified the information in LER 50-362/88-12.

No concerns were

[

identified.

TMs matter is considered closed.

50-361/87-28-t1(Closed):

This item refers to Revision 1 to LL'R

)

50-361/87-zu,~regarding additional information on cause and corrective action for a spurious actuation of the Containment Purge Isolation System (CPIS), on December 6,1987.

The report contained all the information e

L required by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report, dated July 17,

,

1989, stated that further testing of the replaced equipment indicated k"

.

,

that the likely cause was a poor electrical connection, resulting in

'

,t circuit noise which caused a voltage spike on the associated radiation monitor.

Rather than list related events, the report stated that random

,

circuit noise was a recurring problem, last reported in LER 361/87-24.

)*

F See item 50-361/87-24-L1,above.

No concerns were identified. This

-

,

matter is considered closed.

50-361/88-07-Ll(Closed):

This item refers to Revision I to LER 50-361/88-07, regarding additional information on cause and corrective action for non-linearity of the iodine channel of the CPIS.

The report

,

'

contained all the information required by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report, dated December 5, 1989, stated that the non-linearity had

'

been corrected by converting the monitors from single channel analyzers to gross counters.

The report further stated that a TS change was being proposed separately.

No concerns were identified.

This matter is considered closed.

,

50-361/88-11-LI(Closed):

This item refers to Revision 1 to LER 50-361/88-11, regarding additional information on cause and corrective

action for a spurious actuation of the FHIS on May 12, 1988.

The report-

'

contained all the information reqbired by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report, dated October 30, 1989, stated that the loss of power to the monitor, which had caused the actuation, had resulted from a defect in the manufacturing process, in that the heat sink for the voltage regulator had a burr on the mount, which shorted through the insulator.

The report further stated that all such power supplies were to be

. evaluated.

The Supervisor, Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, stated that

,

these evaluations were being performed under corrective maintenance work orders, during: routine 18-month calibration maintenance.

The inspector verified implementation of representative work orders which had been

,

l provided.

Item 50-362/89-10-LO, below, is related to this event.- From discussion between the inspector, the senior resident ins)ector, and

'

,

L licensee re)resentatives, the inspector determined that t1e defect was not reporta)1e purs'ent to 10 CFR 21.

No other concerns were identified.

This matter is cons 4.aed closed.

50-361/88-13-L1(Closed):

This item refers to Revision 1 to LER

'

50-361/88-13, regarding additional information on cause and corrective action for a spurious actuation of the FHIS.

The report contained all l

the information required by 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's timely report,

>

dated June 14, 1989, stated that the actuation had been determined to l

have been caused by high voltage spiking in ad lacent circuits.

Discussion with the Supervisor, Nuclear Plant nstrumentation, and review L

o

.

.

-.

--

- -. - - - - - - - -.

- - - - -

,_

eq

.

,..'

,.Q

'

E E

of other efforts by the' licensee to address noise suppression in radiation monitor circuitry revealed that the licensee's corrective i

actions had been effective In significantly reducing the number of spurious actuations.

The report identified two similar previous events.

[

No concerns were identified.

This matter is considered closed.

'

50-361/89-08-LO(Closed):

This item refers to a spurious actuatio'n of the I

Control Room Isolation System (CRIS), on May 19, 1989. The licensee's

timely report, dated June 13, 1989, stated that inadvertent

,

F de-energization of the monitor during a planned bypass for filter changeout had caused the actuation.

A review of event reports by the-

'

inspector revealed that the root cause for item 50-301/89-20-LO, discussed below, was somewhat similar.

The similarity was the lack of si recognition of the functions of the actuation circuitry by operations personnel.

The licensee did not identify any previous similar events, as the specific initiating action was different.

The inspector concluded o

that although this matter was similar to item 50-361/89-20-LO, the similarities were not sufficient for the lack of previous events

'

identified to constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50.73(b), " Contents."' The e?

licensee's report stated the error had been reviewed with operations

,

personnel to prevent recurrence.

The inspector verified that operations personnel were familiar with the operation of the bypass.

No other concerns were identified.

This matter is considered closed.

,

50-361/89-17-LO(Closed):

This item refers to a spurious actuation of the

'

CPIS, on September 27, 1989.

The licensee's timely report, dated October

'

27, 1989, stated that failure of the associated radiation monitor had caused the actuation, due to intrusion of water into the detector. The LER stated that the water was injected into the wrong line during a local leak rate test (LLRT) of the containment penetration. The LER further stated that this was due to lack of instructions in the work authorization and the LLRT procedure, regarding where to connect test fittings.

The report stated that the error would be reviewed with operations and test personnel to prevent recurrence, and that the procedure would be revised to require greater clarification to test personnel.

No similar previous events were reported or observed to have i

occurred.

No concerns were identified.

This matter is considered closed.

.50-361/89-20-LO(Closed):

This item refers to a spurious actuation of the CPI 5 and FHIS, on September 3, 1989.

The licensee's timely report, dated October 3,1989, stated that inadvertent de-energization of the monitor had caused the actuation, af ter an Equipment Control Evaluator incorrectly concluded that bypassing the associated monitor would disable the loss of power actuation feature.

The licensee's report stated that

\\

the error had been reviewed with operations personnel to prevent

)

recurrence.

The licensee's report identified previous events in which

"

procedural precautions were missing or incomplete.

In their report, the o

licensee stated that the actuation occurred due to insufficient training of. personnel.

The recurrent nature of cognitive error by operators,

!

regarding the bypass feature of the radiation monitors, was discussed at

'

the exit interview.

The inspector discussed root cause similarities l

between this item and item 50-361/89-08-LO, above.

The inspector

' verified that representative operations personnel were familiar with the

<

q

, -

a

o

[

'

,

.

.,

.'

I bypass functions.

No other concerns were identified.

This matter is i

considered closed.

L 50-362/89-10-LO(Closed): This item refers to a spurinus actuation of the

.FHIS on September 10, 1989.

The licensee's timely report, dated October n

10, 1989, stated that loss of power to the gas channel radiation monitor

'

had caused the actuation.

The report further stated that LER

'

.

>

50-361/88-11 was similar.

No concerns were identified.

This matter is

!

considered closed.

50-362/89-11-LO(0 pen):

This item refers to a spurious actuation of the i

Tiil5 on October 17, 1989.

The licensee's timely report, dated November

-

-

16, 1989, stated that intermittent spikin1 in the power supply for the associated radiation monitor had caused tie actuation.

The report

,

L further stated that LER 50-361/88-11, although similar in that it involved failure of the power supply which resulted in ESFAS actuation, had a different root cause (See item 50-361/88-11-LO,'above).

The inspector. concurred in that evaluation.

The licensee s report further stated that additional testing by a vendor would be conducted.

Discussions with the licensee revealed that the results were still l

3ending at the time of the inspection.

No concerns were identified.

iowever, this matter will remain open pending the results of that

+

evaluation, t

The licensee's program for examining reportable events appeared fully l

capable of meeting its safety objectives.

'

No violations c. deviations were identified.

4.

Follow-up on Items of Non-compliance and Deviations (92702)

50-206/89-28-01,50-361/89-28-01,50-362/89-28-01(0 pen):

This' matter refers to inadequate procedures for maintenance of respiratory protective equipment (see Inspection Reports 50-206/89-28,50-361/89-28,and

,

50-362/89-28).

The licensee's timely response to the Notice of Violation,. dated January 8,1990, included ~ commitments to improve procedure revision methodology by February 28, 1990, and to revise respiratory protection program procedures as necessary by March 31, 1990.

i The inspector verified that the licensee was in compliance, in that the specific procedure cited in the violation had been-revised as stated in the licensee's' response.

This matter will remain open pending

'

verification of future corrective actions.

50-206/89-28-02,50-361/89-28-02,50-362/89-28-02(0 pen):

This matter refers to inadequate maintenance of respiratory protective equipment (see Inspection Reports 50-206/89-28,50-361/89-28 and 50-362/89-28).

The licensee'stimelyresponsetotheNoticeofVlolation,datedJanuary8, 1990 stated that personnel had been reinstructed in maintenance of

.

,

respiratory protective equipment.

The licensee further stated in their

'

-

L reply that a respirator testing program would be instituted by February 28, 1990, and that certain other respirator models for which training had not yet been provided would not be used unless the training and applicable procedure revisions had been completed.

The inspector

,

j.

+

. - - - -..

n i

6-

,

' -

.

observed nc examples of inadequately maintained respirators.

This matter will remain open pending verification of future corrective action.

!

50-361/89-28-03,50-362/89-28-03(0 pen):

This matter refers to failure to

.

-verify the most recent revision of a procedure for maintenance of

'

respiratory protective equipment (see Inspection Reports 50-206/89-28,-

50-361/89-28, and 50-362/89-28).

The licensee's timely response to the Notice of Violation, dated January 8, 1990, stated that the requirement

.for procedure users to verify currency of copies had been reemphasized.

Discussion with several Health Physics personnel revealed that they were

'

aware of-the requirement.

The licensee further stated that additional oversight and memoranda from the Station Mana

~The' licensee noted that a previous violation,ger would address the issue.

e discussed in Inspection

Report 50-206/88-28, was similar.

The inspector noted that that matter

'

referred to a different department than Health Physics, and had occurred p

in Unit 1, versus Units 2/3.

The licensee stated that by February 28, 1990, a review of the extent of the problem throughout the site would be completed to-determine appropriate program / policy development.

This matter will remain open pending verification of further corrective action.

,

Overall, the licensee's corrective actions appeared to be comprehensive in depth and scope.

However, the licensee was somewhat slow with respect to verifications, considering the previous violation and the inspector

,

identified problems noted in Inspection Reports 50-206/89-23, 50-361/89-23, 50-362/89-23.

No other violations or deviations were identified.

,

5.'

Tours of the Facility Tours of the Auxiliary, Radioactive Waste, and Turbine Buildings, for all three units were conducted.

Independent radiation surveys were performedwithNRCionchambersurveyinstrumentmodel#R0-2, serial

1. 022906, due.for calibration on April 16, 1990.

Radiological aostings, barricades, gates, and locks for high radiation

,

L areas were oaserved to be consistent with licensee procedures and'

'

TechnIcalSpecification6.12,HighRadiationAreas.

Some;minur housekeeping problems, related to caustic chemical control, were discussed with the licensee.

The problems were promptly corrected.

>

'

' While obtaining a respiratory protection equipment fit test, inspector and in-subsequent discussion with the Supervisor of Dosimetry, the determined that the licensee's procedure S012FVII-2.1, " Operation of

'

,

.

' Frontier Respirator Fit Test Booth," Revision 4, Temporary Change Notice

-(TCN).4-2, dated December 15, 1989, contained procedural requirements for obtaining baseline readings, which were not necessary to proper operation Lof the equipment and whic1 could not be met.

The Dosimetry 5)ecialist

!who was operating the fit test booth had already identified tie deficiency to her supervisor, and a revision to the procedure had been initiated to incorporate previous TCNs.

However, no TCN had been issued to correct the procedural deficiencies, and the procedure was in use.

,

<

.q Y

.

Q._,

-

'

4 When the matter was discussed with the licensee the licensee stated that aTCNwouldbeissuedpriortoanyadditional.fIttestsbeingperformed.

On January 11, 1990, the inspector noted that the licensee's reply to a

-

notice of violation (paragraph 4,'above), was not posted pursuant to 10

'

~ CFR 19 11 " Posting,of notices to workers." According to 100FR 19.11,

!.

any response from the licensee to a Notice of Violation must'be posted within two working days after dispatch,ies going to or from any licensed such that it may be observed by

,

'

individuals conducting licensed activit

!1 activity location to which the document ap?1ies.

The inspector discussed M

the matter with the licensee, who stated t1at the lack of timely posting

'

was an oversight.

Shortly thereafter, the reply was posted.

However, an NRC Order dated January 2, 1990, was also not posted.

NRC Orders are j.

_also,regulredtobepostedby10CFR19.11, When the matter was

.'

discussed with the licensee, they committed to post all recuired

1-documents and clarify to personnel via their bulletin boarcs, where

,

!'

copies of documents may be observed, when the documents are not practical

['

to post.

The violation is not cited because the provisions of Subpart E

V.G of the Sforcement Policy were met (NCV) (50-206/90-05-01 (Closed)).

t j;

Overall, the licensee's program appeared fully capable of meeting its'

'

safetyobjectives.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6.

Exit Interview L

The inspector met with those individuals, denoted in paragraph 1, at the

,

conclusion of the inspection on January 12, 1990.

The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.

The licensee committed to the actions denoted in paragraph 5, above.

!

,m

h

!