IR 05000275/1982011
| ML20052B453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1982 |
| From: | Carlson J, Mendonca M, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B451 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-82-11, NUDOCS 8204300439 | |
| Download: ML20052B453 (4) | |
Text
.,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
.
.
REGION V
Report No.
50-275/82-11 Docket No.
50-275 License No.
DPR-76 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.
O.
Box 7442 San Francisco. California 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Inspection at:
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County. California Inspection conduc d:
February 28 t W oril 3.
1982
.
Inspectors:
g/1Ad kt7 M
~3'
.
Jol D." Carl.o
'S r. Les
})
H y,
fac or V -l3-U
'nt R Inspector Date Signed
-
Marvin"M.Mendoga, RcQd Re a c[t o r I ns p e c t o r'
Date Signed t
/
Date Signed Approved By: _
I-
~O~b
___Tolbert Young, J(SectionChief/\\//
Date Signed
.,
Reactor Projects N
'
V Summary:
Inspection of February 28 to April 3, 1982 (Report No. 50-275/82-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance and licensee event report follow-up.
The inspection involved 191 inspector-hours by two NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
l
..,
{
RV Form 219 (2)
,
.
DETAILS
-
1.
Persons Contacted R.
Thornberry, Plant Manager
- R.
Patterson, Plant Superintendent J.
M.
Gisclon, Power Plant Engineer
- D.
A.
Backens, Supervisor of Maintenance
- J.
A.
Sexton, Supervisor of Operations
- J.
V.
Boots, Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection
- C.
M.
Seward, Acting' Supervisor of Quality Assurance (QA)
- W.
B.
Kaefer, Technical Assistant to the Plant Manager R.
G.
Tadaro, Acting Security Supervisor
- R.
C.
Howe, Regulatory Compliance Engineer The inspectors also talked with and interviewed a number of other licensee employees including shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant tech-nicians and engineers, quality assurance personnel and members of general construction.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Operational Safety Verification During the-inspection period, the inspectors observed and examined activities to verify the operational safety of the licensee's facility.
The observations and examinations of those activities were conducted on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
On a daily basis, the inspectors observed control room activities to verify the licensce's adherence to limiting conditions for operations as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifica-tions.
Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operation records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations.
The turnover of information on plant status was observed to determine that all pertinent information was relayed.
During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility to observe the following items:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions b.
Maintenance requests and repairs c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control e.
Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administrative controls and approved procedures f.
Interiors of electrical and control pancis g.
Implementation of the licensee's physical security plan h.
Plant housekeeping cleanliness
.
-2-During each week, the inspectors conversed with operators in the control room, and other plant personnel.
The discussions centered on pertinent topics relating to general plant con-ditions, procedures, security, training, and other topics aligned with the work activities in.olved.
The inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm the deficiencies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Maintenance activitics including both preventive and corrective maintenance were reviewed by the inspectors during the month.
Observations by the inspectors verified that proper approvals, system clearance and tests of redundant equipment were per-formed, as appropriate, prior to maintenance of safety related systems or components.
The inspectors verified that qualified personnel performed the. maintenance using appropriate main-tenance procedures.
Replacement parts were examined to deter-mine the' proper certification of materials, workmanship and tests.
During the actual performance of maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for proper fire protection controls and' housekeeping,,as> appropriate.
Upon completion of the maintenance activity, the inspectors verified that the com-ponent or system was properly tested prior to returning the system.or component to : service.
No items of' noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance The surveillance-testing of safety-related systems were reviewed by the inspectors.
Observations by the inspectors included verification that proper procedures were used, test instrumentation was calibrated and that the system or component being tested was properly removed from service if required by the test procedure.
Following completion of the surveillance tests, the inspectors verified that the test results met the acceptance criteria of the Technicel Specifications and were reviewed by the cognizant licensee personnel.
The inspectors also verified that corrective action was initiated, if re-quired, to determine the cause for any unacceptable test results and to restore the system or component to an operable status consistent with the technical specification requirement '
i
.
~
.
.
.
'
_3_
.
5.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in the LER No. 82-02 was examined by the inspectors.
The inspec-tors found that the LER had been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting inter-vals.
The inspectors verified that appropriate corrective actions were taken.
This LER is considered closed.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on April 5, 1982.
During this meeting, the scope and findings of the inspection were summarized by the inspectors.
l l
v