IR 05000275/1982021

IE Insp Rept 50-275/82-21 on 820606-0703.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations,Surveillance Testing,Physical Security,Maint,Ler Followup & Licensee QA Program

ML20062J263
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/19/1982
From:	Carlson J, Mendonca M, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062J244	List: IR 05000275/1982021 ML20062J241
References
50-275-82-21, NUDOCS 8208160314
Download: ML20062J263 (4)

Text

., ,

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

REGION V

Report No. 50-275/82-21 Docket No. 50-275 License N DPR-76 Safeguards Group _

Licensee: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Box 7442 San Francisco. California 94106 Facility Name: Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Inspection at: Diablo Canyon Site. San Luis Obispo County, California Inspection conducted: June 6. 1982 through July 3. 1982 Inspectors: 9M [ Ort D. Carlson, Sr. Residen6 Reactor Inspector 7 - / f -ft Date Signed

& h//L 7-/V~ft

1. . MM. Mendonca, Resident Reactor Inspector Date Signed

,

Date Signed Approved By: /. )h T. houng, Jr. , thik, Reactor Projects Section 2 Date Signed 7- I i - @.

Reactor Operations Projects Branch Summary: Inspection on June 6 - July 3, 1982 (Report 50-275/82-21)

Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance, Licensee Event Report follow-up, and licensee quality assurance progra The inspection involved 133 inspector-hours by two NRC Resident Inspector Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . . . .

8208160314 820722 PDR ADOCK 0500027S O PDR RV Form 219 (2)

.

.

.

DETAILS

. 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, Sup;rvisor of Operations J. V. Boots, Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection

• W. B. Kaefer, Technical Assistant-to the Plant Manager

• R. G. Tadaro, Acting Security Supervisor

• R. T. Twiddy, Supervisor of Quality Assurance

• R. C. Howe, Regulatory Compliance Engineer

,

The inspectors also talked with and interviewed a number of other :

licenace employees including shift supervisors, reactor and aux-iliary operators,~ maintenance personnel,' plant technicians and engineers, quality assurance personnel, and members of general constructio * Denotes those attending the exit intervie . Operational Safety Verification During the inspection period, the inspectors observed and examined activities to verify the operational safety of the licensee's facilit The observations and examinations of those activities were conducted on a daily,. weekly, or monthly basi 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 Specification Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operation records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulation The turnover of information on plant status was observed to determine that all pertinent informa-

,

tion was relaye During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility to observe the following items: General plant and equipment condition Maintenance requests and repair Fire hazards and fire fighting equipmen Ignition sources and flammable material control, Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administrative controls and approved procedure ;

t

.

'

,

O

.

-2-

, Interiors of electrical and control panel Implementation of the licensee's physical security pla Plant housekeeping cleanlines 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 involve The inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm that the deficiencies were identified and tracked by the syste Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective actio No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Maintenance -

Maintenance activities including both preventive and corrective maintenance were reviewed by the inspectors during the mont 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 ,

or components. The inspectors verified that qualified personnel 7 performed'the maintenance using appropriate maintenance procedure Replacement parts were examined to determine the proper certifica-tion of materials, workmanship and test During the actual per-formance of maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for proper fire protection controls and housekeeping, as appropriat Upon completion of the maintenance activity, the inspectors veri-fied that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component to service.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Surveillance, The surveillance testing of safety-related systems were reviewed by the inspectors. Observations by the inspectors included verification that proper procedures were used, that test instru-mentation was calibrated, and that the system or component being tested was properly removed from service if required by the test procedur Following completion of the surveillance tests, the inspectors verified that the test results met the acceptance criteria of the Technical' Specifications and were reviewed by

,

l

.

s-3-

,

the cognizant licensee personne 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 component to an operable status consistent with the technical specification requirements.

5. Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in LE Nos. 82-05, 82-07, and 82-08 were examined by the inspecto The inspectors found that the LERs were reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval The inspectors verified that appropriate corrective actions were take These LERs are considered close No' items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

6. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on July 2, 1982. During this meeting, the scope and findings of the inspection were summarized by the inspector .

, - -