IR 05000361/1981001
| ML19345G420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1981 |
| From: | Pate R, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G419 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-81-01, 50-361-81-1, NUDOCS 8104070215 | |
| Download: ML19345G420 (4) | |
Text
r
.
U.S. flVOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AtlD EtlFORCEMENT-
REGION V
Report No.
50-361/81-01
,
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:
December 19, 1980 to January 15, 1981 Inspectors: h h
)7/gted </, /9f/
RO J. Pfde, Sdhier" Resident Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By: bbM
/7/M y, /9 f /
G. Iwet919, M:t ng Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2.
Date/ Signed Reactor Operations Projects Branch Summary:
Inspection on December 19, 1980 to January 15,1981 (Report No. 50-361/81-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's preoperational test program and procedures, observation of tests, and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 55 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
C104070 W
_.
- - -
- - - - - - - - - -
-
- -
-
a e-MMn
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
a.
Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
- M. Z. Merlo. Startup Engineering Supervisor i
K. A. Slagel, Startup Management Supervisor
,
- P. R. Belhumeur, Startup Quality Supervisor
- G. A. Chacez, Project Startup Supervisor
'
K. E. O'Connor, NSS$ fest Operations Supervisor
- P. A. Croy, Site Project Quai.tv Assurance Supervisor
- D. E. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance
- D. Stonecipher, Operatians Quality Assurance Supervisor C. R. Horton, Startup Quality Assurance Engineer
- W. McGhee, Operations Training Administrator V. 8. Fisher, Supervisor, Plant Operations
- R. M. Aosenblum, Star;up Engineering Soperviso-
- E. Prabhu, Engirmcr i
b.
Bechtel Corporation W. E. French, Quality Assurance Engineering Supervisor R. Gross, Nuclear Engineer
- D. W. Strolman, Startup Quality Assurance Supervisor J. E. Geiger, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
.In addition, construction end maintenance craftsmen, engineers, and foremen were contacted during the inspection.
- Denotes attendees at management meeting on January 15, 1981.
2.
Plant Status The licensee reported Unit 2 construction to be 98 percent complete
.as of January 14, 1981.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The inspector examined the action taken by the licensee on a previous inspector-identified concern as follows:
(Closed) Followup Item (50-361/80-22/01): Quality Assurance training as recommended by NRC documer.t, " Guidance on Qaality Assurance Requirements During the Operating Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," was not being provided.
-
e
--
wy gi
~
..
.
s... e e u e ms. Ads..
-,d.
's. *
.
.
.
.
. -
.
.
.
.
m.
m
..
..
.
.
..
-
..
..
.
....m.
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
-2-A training schedule was established by letter from D. E. Nunn to J. L. Willis, dated January 5,1981, to provide the recommended training. QA training for site personnel was scheduled to begin
,
February 20, 1981. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
4.
Review of Preoperational Test Preoperational Test 2HA-102-01, Rev. O, Thermal Expansion, was reviewed.
The inspector's review of the FSAR in this area revealed that the licensee had committed to provide to NRC the locations in the piping systems selected for observation during the test, and the maximum allowable deflection at each location selected. This data, according to the connitment in FSAR Section 9.3.2.C, was to be submitted "60 days prior to the initiation of the test program (about DecembLr 1979)." The licensee stated that this data had not been provided to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) as required, but that they would do so immediately. The inspector discussed the importance of the data to the NRR review of the piping verification program with the Licensing Project Manager.
It was determined that the data needed for the NRC review was subnitted to NRR about November 1980 - which was core than 60 days prior to the start of the piping verification program testing. The rissing data on the measurement locations and maximum deflection was not required by NpR to complete their review. However, the licensee did submit the data prior to starting the piping verification program test.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Observation of Preoperational Tests The inspector witnessed a portion of the Preoperational Tests 2PE-512-06, Rev. O, Charging Pump and Boric Acid Makeup Pump Rooms Emergency HVAC; and 2PE-508-01 Retest, Intake Structure HVAC. The inspector confirmed that the test procedures were followed and that the test engineers and-operators performing the tests were knowledgeable of the test requirements and_ systems being tested.
During Test 2PE-508-01, the inspector observed one of the temperature controllers (2TCH9599-2) for the Intake Structure HVAC System had been calibrated on December 22, 1979, and did not have a required date for recalibration. The inspector reviewed Test Instruction Number 24 (TI-24) and found that plant instrument and controls were required to be recalibrated in the startup phase at a frequency not to exceed 24 months from the date of system turnover from the construction organization.
Since the sytem turnover was frequently after the date of the calibration of the instrument, recalibration could exceed 24 months. Since such
_
l J
~
.w..
- -. - - - - -.
m.
_ _. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.s
_ - - _ -
__
. _ -
..
-_
__ -_.
-.-
--
.
.
-3-
!
a poorly defined period could be longer than acceptable to assure valid test data for some plant instruments, the inspector requested the licensee to provide a basis for the acceptability of this criterion.
(50-361/81-01/01)
,
No items of noncunpliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Emergency Procedures for Coping with ATWS Events Operating Instruction S023-3.5.3, Reactor Protection System Failure was reviewed and found adequate to address ATWS events. However, statements defining the responsibility, authority, and criteria for initiation of emergency boration were not found.
(50-361/81-01/02)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Observation of Test Working Group Meetings
'
The inspector attended three meetings of the Test Working Group (TWG)
which is the review committee for the startuo program. The meetings were conducted in accordance with Test Instruction Number 7.
The membership of the TWG was consistent with the prir..ary functions of the startup program. The subjects covered during these meetings primarily concerned the review of procedures for the Hot Functional Test Program.
The discussion of each procedure was brief; dealing mostly with the administrative actions required for review and approval of test procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
8.
Plant Tour The inspector toured Unit 2 several times during the report period.
Particular attention was directed to observing housekeeping, equipment
,
preservation, maintenance activities, and work on completed systems.
i No items cf noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Management Interview On January 15, 1981, the inspector met with licersee representatives identified in Paragraph 1 to discuss the scope and findings of the
,
inspection.
,
, su (N h@W Is%+%
h.