IR 05000361/1980022
| ML19345E772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1980 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345E770 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-80-22, NUDOCS 8102060087 | |
| Download: ML19345E772 (5) | |
Text
U.s.
NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECT 10N AND ENFORCEMENT
'
.
,
i
.
REGION V
v Report No.
50-361/80-22 Docket No.
50-361 License No.
C PPR-9.7 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Comoany 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 9177G Facility Name:
San Onofre Unit 2 Inspection at:
San Diego County, Califo. nia Inspection conducted:
October 17 to November 14, 1980 s
,
,-
Inspectors: _TdOk.Cd 2.. ii/e ;
/du G ULllD R. J. Pate, Senior P.esident-Adspector Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
S. 'j bM r/, Jd _[ue l il 3)J fo B. H. Faulkenaerry, Crg ef, Rea'otor Projects Section 2, Date Signed i
Reactor Operations ar.d Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on October 17 to Novemoer 14,1980 (Report No. 50-361/80-22)
Areas Inspected:
Rcutine, unannounced inspection of licensee's preoperational test program and procedures and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 53 inspector-hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8102060 04 7 RV Form 219 (2)
._.
.
._.
.
-
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Southern Cclifornia Edi_ son Compay (SCE)
+*K. A. Slagel, Startup, Management Supervisor H. E. Morgan, Unit 2 Station Superintendent
+*P. R. Belhumeur, Startup Quality Supervisor
+G. A. Chaves, Project Startup Supervisor K. E. O'Connor, NSSS Test Operations Supervisor 4P. A. Croy, Site Project Quality Assurance Supervisor D. E. Nunn, Quality Assurance Manager R. M. Rosenblum, Startup Engineering Supervisor
'!. Willis, Manacer, Nuclear Training
+D. Stonecioner. Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor C. R. Horton, Startup Quality Assurance Engineer
+*W. McGhee, Operations Training Administrator b.
Bechtel Corocration L. W. Hurst, Project Field, Quality Assurance Supervisor K. E. Hess, Startup Froject-Engineering Supervisor
- D. W. Strolman, Startup Quality Assurance Supervisor J. E. Geiger, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
'
In addit on, construction and maintenance craftsmen, engineers and i
foremen were contacted during the inspection.
- Denotes attendees at Management Meeting on November 6,1980.
+ Denotes ettendees at Management Meeting on November :18,1980.
2.
Plant Status The licensee repurted the Unit 2 construction to be 95 percent complete as of November 12, 1980.. The construction progress durin9 the report period was limited by a strike by the boilermakers from October 8,
.1980, to November 14, 1980, which was honored by all 'other craf ts.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Finding The inspector examined the action taken by the licensee on a previous inspector-examined concern as follows:
(0 pen)
Follow-up I tem (50-361/00-16/0S):. SCE was requested to respond to four areas.of concern resulting from the LPS!
system valve operator failure during the primary system hydro.
The status of each corcern is. indicated below:
-
- - -
-
-
-
- -
- -
..-
-- -
-
-
-
-
- -
._
__ _
_
. _. - _ _ - -
.
..
_
_
.
-
- -
t
.
,
[
-2-
.
Determine the extent of overpressure in the LPSI system during a.
i the primary system hydro.
This area-~ as discussed at a meeting w
'
between SCE and resident inspector on October 27, 1980. The
..
'
calculated maximum pressure of the LPSI system was 950 psia.
This is below the maximum allowed test pressure at 1310 psia.
This area is closed.
b.
Determine whether there was-a water hammer in the low pressure
~
system. SCE concluded from their study of the event that the
'
,
pressure change occurred over approximately 30 seconds.
For.
a waterhammer to occur, the, pressure change would have to occur
.in the order of a few milliseconds. This area is. closed.
c.
Determine-the cause of the operator failure.
SCE has not provided this information.
This -area is open
!
d.
Provide steps to be taken to protect-low pressure systems during i.
a repeat primary system hydro. This was addressed in IE Inspection -
Report No. 50-361/80-16. This area is closed.
-
4.
Operating Sta ff Training i
The operating staff training program was reviewed. The inspector verified
>
l that. the training program was consistent with the. FSAR training ~ commitments.
,
<
>
.The operator training program was also reviewed to verify that the
. _
recommendations of ANSI U18.1-1971, as referenced by. Regulatory Guide 1.8-1975,
~
Rev.1, were' being implemented.. These recommendations were being implemented '
with one exception. The operators had not been trained.in the emergency.
i operating procedures. The emergency operating procedures for Unit 2 have been revised, and the approved copies 'have not been _ issued. _ SCE.
'
. committed to provide training. in this ~ area ' to the. operators' prior to -their j-taking the --licensing exam.
The training program was also reviewed.to determine whether SCE had adopted'
the1 recommendations ~ of the NRC document, " Guidance on Quality. Assurance Requirements During the Operating Phase of Nuclear Power Plants.".Section1
,~
0.2.b, Training of _ Personnel, references _Section ~ 5.4, General Employee Training, of ANSI.H18.1-1971, and. states that training should: also be~
. 1 provided concerning the quality assurance' program at the site. : This
.
training'should include as a minimum: _ (1)~the overall company policies,
'
procedures ~, or_ instructions which Jestablish -its. quality assurance program,-
and -(2)_ procedures or instructions which implement the qualityf assurance
'
. program related.to~ the specific operations:pha~sesjob-related activity.
SCE had not_ provided the QA training recommended. - The 'SCE management training personnel' stated that' plans had been made=to provide the recom-mended training, but the schedule could not be supported by.the QA.organi-
-
'zation. The lack of support by the QA organization apparently:was due to a Ecommunications problem..SCE management QA: personnel ~ stated that -they'
,
'5
A
.
a.
..
.
..-
u.
u u....
-
-
m
.-
.
..
..
.
.m6a i
..
-
...
.2.
A ~
- .
-.
.
.
.
.
-3-would support a request from the training organization to provide assistance for QA training. This area will be reviewed in a future inspection.
(50-361/80-22/01)
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Observation of Preoperational Test The implementation of the local leak rate test for Penetration Number 54, Containment Emergency Sump Suction, was obserygd. The leakage rate was in excess of the acceptance criteria (2 2000CM / Min). The penetration was subsequently retested and passed.
No items of noncompliance or ceviations were observed.
6.
Preocerational Test Program Imolementation The following aspects of the preoperational test-program were verified as indicated.
a.
Daily collection and analysis of the water from the Primary Makeup Water Tank was observed.
b.
The preoperational test schedule was reviewed.
The schedule was being kept current by ravision as required.
c.
Weekly naintenance of the 125V dc plant batteries in Battery Room 2D4 was observed. Maintenance Procedure MPEG-009, Rev. 1, was being implemented. The inspector verified that Procedure MPEG-009, Rev.1, wds Consistent with the manufacturer's instruction manual, S023-301-2-36 and IEEE-450-1972. SCE has taken exception to the minimum cell voltage of 2.20 volts requircd by IEEE-450.
SCE plans to adopt the revised IEEE-450 new in craf t which specifies a minimum cell voltace of 2.13 volts.
A revision to the FSAR and proposed Technical Specifications will be required.
d.
The preventive maintenance records for the vital bus inverters, Buses 2, 3, and 4, and the station 125V dc batteries, S21806EB007, EB008, EB009, and EB010, wer e reviewed. The records indicated that
l the preventive maintenance was being done on schedule.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
7.
Plant Tour The inspector toured Unit 2 several times during the report period.
Particular attention was directed to observing welding and burning activities, housekeeping, equipment preservation, maintenance activities and work on completed systems.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- - - -
-
-
-
-
e-
.
_4_
8.
Management Interview On November 6 and 18,1980, the inspector met with licensee representatives identified in Paragraph 1 to discuss the scope and find:ngs of the inspection.
The licensee made commitments as described in Paragraph 4.
-
-
-