IR 05000361/1979021
| ML13309A786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1979 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B, Andrea Johnson, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A785 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-21, NUDOCS 7911070035 | |
| Download: ML13309A786 (3) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-361/79-21 Docket No. 50-361 License No. CPPR-97 Safeguards Group Licensee: Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre Unit 2 Inspection at:
San Diego County, California Inspection conducted:
gust 21-23, 1979 Inspectors:
-"/
A. D. Joyson, Reactor Inspector Da e Signed G. B. Z zig, eAtor Inspector Date /Signed Date Signed Approved By:
__
B. H. Faulkenberry, Chie,eacto Project Section 2, Date Signed Reactor Operations and cea u
Surmary:
Inspection on August 21-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-361/79-21 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's preoperational test procedures and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 40 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form 219 (2)
7911070
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted
- D. Nunn, Quality Assurance Manager
- P. Portanova, Startup Test Operations Supervisor
- G. Morgan, Operations Superintendent, Units 2 and 3
- P. Croy, Site Project QA Supervisor
- P. Belhumeur, Startup QA Supervisor
- D. Rosenblum, Test Operations Supervisor -
- P. King, Lead QA Engineer D. Verbeck, Test Operations Supervisor - B of P T. Phelps, Startup Engineer B. Woods, Shift Test Engineer B. Schwab, Startup Supervisor, Uni.t 2 R. Phelps, Nuclear Engineer
- Denotes those attending the exit intervie. Preoperational Test Procedures The inspectors examined the status of the procedures to be used to perform scheduled preoperational tests. Licensee representatives explained that mo.st of the procedures were in various stages of development. Draft procedures for the following systems were examined:
a. Pressurizer-pressure and level control system, AC-211-03 (Revision A)
b. Auxiliary feedwater system, 2PE-235-0 (Revision A)
c. 125 volt DC batteries, charges and distribution fuses (class IE)
.2PE-448-01 (Revision C)
Item c. above was in final draft status and ready for submission to the test working group for final approva No comments were made by the.inspector Item b. above had been reviewed by the licensee. The licensee's comments on the draft were found to be the same as those independ ently made by the inspectors. Normally, two to three drafts of a procedure are required before being considered to be in proper form for submission to the TWG for review and approval, according to licensee representative Item a. above was found to lack provisions for manually testing the heater breakers and verifying that the low-low level set point would de-energize all pressurizer heaters. The licensee repre sentatives stated that the breakers had been tested during a prerequisite test and that the low-low level set point automatic actions would be tested during hot functional testing. The licensee representative further stated that the system was non-safety related as indicated in Table 3.2-1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report for both San Onofre Units 2 and 3. As such, according to the licensee representatives, the testing of the system is neither subject to nor controlled under the startup quality assurance program required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The representatives explained that the test of the system is not subject to review by the TWG nor subject to QA inspection or audits. The representatives further stated that the startup engineer responsible for the system assures that the system is adequately tested and will function as designe The inspector commented that in his opinion Criterion 13, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A applies to the pressurizer pressure and level control systems and therefore the systems are related to the safety of plant operations. The inspector stated that since the systems are related to the safety of plant operations, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements are applicable and should be applie The licensee representatives indicated that the company's position was that only those functions of the pressurizer connected to the reactor protection system were safety related and subject to the quality assurance requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The inspector.stated that the differences in interpretation of the regulations would be forwarded to NRC Headquarters for evaluatio The licensee representatives stated that an evaluation of the company's position would be mad.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors met with the licensee representatives identified in Paragraph 1 above. After discussion of the applicability of the startup QA program to systems designated non-safety related, the licensee representative stated that the position of the company would be evaluated and that the classifications of the various systems would be examined.