IR 05000275/1982019
| ML20054L743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1982 |
| From: | Carlson J, Mendonca M, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L741 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-82-19, NUDOCS 8207080426 | |
| Download: ML20054L743 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:'~ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , .
REGION V
Report No. _50-275Z82-19 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 conducted: May 2, 1982 thrt.une 4 1982 Inspectors: ( [[ , ^/. g- /g-M J D. Carid n,[ r. Ret d 'Reac/o Inspector Date Signed f
- , b$-donca!Residefy&$dW .. h-l$"YS - actopInspector Date Signed M.
M.
Men Date Signed _1' fM[ - Y[oung,Jr.,,btief,IKac/[r Projects Section 2 Date Signed Approved By: .t T.
Reactor Operat' ns ProjVet/f, Branch Summary: Inspection Conducted May 2, 1982 thru June 4, 1982 (Report No. 50-275/ E2-19) Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance LER follow-up and the quality assurance program.
The inspection involved 148 inspector-hours by two NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results: ho items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
. 8207080426 820618 PDR ADOCK 05000275 PDR RV Fonn 219 (2) O
. - . _ - - - -
, I 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
- W.
B. Kaefer, Technical Assistant to the Plant Manager
- R.
G. Todaro, Acting Security Supervisor
- R.
T. Twiddy, Supervisor of Quality Assurance R. C. Howe, Regulatory Compliance Engineer ' The inspectors also talked with and interviewed a nurober of other licensee employees including shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, quality assurance personnel, and members of general construction.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Operational Safety Verification i 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 licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifications.
Logs, instrumentation, recorder, traces, and other operational recoros were^ examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations.
The turnover of infor-mation 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.
' ! ..- . _. -_.
- . - - - -
.- . -2-f.
Interiors of electrical and control panels.
g.
Implementation of the licensee's physical security plan.
h.
Plant housekeeping cleanliness.
During each week, the inspectors conversed with operators in the contrcl 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 involved.
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 activities 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 performed, as appropriate, prior to maintenance of safety related systems of components.
The inspectors verified that qualified personnel performed the maintenance using appropriate maintenance pro-cedures.
Replacement parts were examined to determine 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 l that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component to service.
i No items of noncompliance or deviaitons were identified.
i 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 instrumenta-tion 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 l verified that the test results met the acceptance criteria of I the Technical Specifications and were reviewed by the cognizant ! l l -.
- -._ - - -.. _.. _.
- _ ~- - -. . - . .. , j-3-i i ! licensee personnel.
The inspectors also verified that corrective action was initiated, if required, to determine the cause for any unacceptable test results and to restore the system or com-ponent to an operable status consistent with the technical speci- ! fication requirements.
l l 5.
(Quality Assurance / Quality Control) Administration Program i The licensee's QA Program has been reviewed per Inspec _.
Report 81-14.
An. interview on June 1, 1982, with QA management to discuss our findings completed this inspection.
) No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 6.
Licensee Event Report.(LER) Follow-up ~i The circumstances and corrective action described in LER No. 82-04 was examined by the, inspector.
The inspectors found that the LER j has been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting intervals.
The inspector verified that i , appropriate corrective actions were taken.
This LER is considered i closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 7.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on June 4, 1982.
During this meeting, the scope , and findings of the inspection were summarized by the inspectors.
I } l . i . !
l l .. _ _..,,, _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _.___ _..,, _, _ _ _._.
. .. . . . .. }}