IR 05000361/1979002
| ML13309A669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1979 |
| From: | Canter H, Faulkenberry B, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A668 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-02, 50-361-79-2, 50-362-79-02, 50-362-79-2, NUDOCS 7903190094 | |
| Download: ML13309A669 (5) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-02 Report No. 50-362/79-02 Docket No. 50-361, 50-362 License N CPPR-97, CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at: San Onofre Site, San Diego County, California Inspection conducted:
January 23-25, 1979 Inspectors:
- Fi-H. L. Canter, Reactor(Thlptor Date Signed F L. F. Miller, Reactor Inped Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
A?).
/
B. H. Faulkenberry, Chi
,
tor Projects Section #2,Date Signed Reactor Operations and 4uclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 23-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-361/79-02 and 50-362/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
An unannounced inspection of the licensee's overall preoperational test program administrative controls; operational staffing; quality assurance for preoperational testing; and independent inspection effor The inspection involved 34 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form ?19(?)
7908 19 06OR
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted
- K. Hess, BPC Project Startup Engineer
- D. Krisha, BPC Startup Q.A. Supervisor
- H. Morgan, Jr., SCE Generating Station Superintendent, Units 2 and 3
- P. Portanova, SCE Project Startup Engineering Supervisor H. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance
- L. Seyler, SCE Project Q.A. Supervisor The inspectors also interviewed several other licensee employees including members of the engineering staff, Q.A. staff, and operating staf *Denotes those attending the exit intervie. Overall Preoperational Test Program The inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the status of commitments listed in Paragraph 3 of I.E. Report 50-361/78-0 These commitments and the licensee's responses are discussed belo a. By modifying TI 19 (Abnormal Equipment and Circuits) to state that the SCE System Startup Cognizant Engineer will have the responsibility to determine the requirements for independent verification of the installation or removal of various temporary jumpers, the licensee has satisfied the referenced commitmen (50-361/78-09, Paragraph 3.1)
b. A licensee representative stated that functional testing of equipment after system restoration will be described in the appropriate sections of TI's (Test Instructions), SWP's (Startup Work Permits), and Test Procedures. This response satisfies the referenced commitmen (50-361/78-09, Paragraph 3.2)
c. A licensee representative stated that TI 14 (Cleanness Verifi cation and Control) now states that the SCE Station Organization has the responsibility for continued surveillance of liquids in a system after completion of preoperational testing and until the system is turned over to the operations organizatio Also, the SCE Station Organization has the responsibility to maintain the appropriate system surveillance activities in the event this transfer to operations is delayed. This response satisfies the referenced commitmen (50-361/78-09, Paragraph 3.4)
-2 The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the method of readily identifying installed jumpers or lifted leads.. The jumpers will be a unique color and mechanical jumpers may have red plastic tags attached which will identify the purpose of the modificatio An "abnormal equipment" tag will be used in conjunction with a tag log to maintain control over these modifications or jumpers. TI 19 (Abnormal Equipment and Circuits) defines the use of these tags and lo No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Q.A. For Preoperational Testing a. Surveillance Responsibilities The inspectors examined the Quality Assurance Program (QAP)
for surveillance requirements. QAP N10.19 defines the surveil lance program and includes inspections for the purpose of process control and product acceptance. This program may include monitoring activities such as conduct of testing, document control, tracking of test deficiencies, cleanliness control and maintenance during preoperational testing. Samples of completed surveillances were examined to determine that they were conducted in accordance with QAP N1O.19 and other appropriate standard The mechanisms which handle problems discovered during surveil lance inspections are the NCR (Nonconformance Report) and CAR (Corrective Action Request). These are the same mechanisms which are used during Quality Assurance audit No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Audits The inspectors examined a sampling of Q.A. audits to verify implementation of the SCE Startup Q.A. audit function. The inspectors verified that personnel performing the audits were not involved in the performance or the inspection of the activity audite No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie c. Training and Qualification of Q.A. Personnel An examination was performed of established administrative controls, including job descriptions and educational experience records, to determine that qualification requirements have
been established in writing for various positions in the SCE San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Startup Q.A. organization. ANSI N45.2.6, ANSI N45.2.23, SNT-TC-1A and the FSAR were used in this review. Also, QAP N9.01, QAP N10.10, QAP N2.05 and QAP N18.05 address the implementation of the training and qualification of these personne The draft of the 1979 Quality Assurance Training Plan was examined. The training program has been established for 1979 for Q.A. auditors, inspectors and supervisory personnel. A selective examination of the 1978 training records verified that quality assurance inspectors had received the training identified in the 1978 Training Pla No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Operational Staffing a. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Staff The inspectors examined and discussed with licensee repre sentatives written qualifications of selected QA/QC personnel in the SCE Startup Q.A. organization (see Paragraph 3).
Because the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 are not in operation, the operational Q.A. organization only exists for San Onofre Unit A licensee representative stated that the Unit 2 Operational Q.A. organization may be staffed with current SCE Startup and Unit 1 Q.A. personne No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie b. Organization Manning The manning of the operations organization at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 was selectively examined. Portions of the Unit 2/3 organization are currently staffed at the levels indicated below. A comparison of the current staff levels with the 1980 site manning plan is also provide Units 2/3 as of 1980 Site Organization December 31, 1978 Manning Plan Operations
82 Maintenance
93 Engineering 1 Instrumentation
45 Chem. & Rad. Protection
.6
Other
.5
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Independent Inspection The inspectors toured Units 2 and 3. The control room and cable spreading rooms were the focus of attention during this effor No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 25, 1979. The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.