IR 05000361/1982010
| ML20050B741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Chaffee A, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050B735 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-1.A.1.1, TASK-1.C.6, TASK-1.D.1, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM 50-361-82-10, IEB-80-06, IEB-80-6, NUDOCS 8204070308 | |
| Download: ML20050B741 (7) | |
Text
.
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ffilSSION
&
REGION V
Report tio. 50-361/82-10 Docket flo. 50-361 License No. CPPR-97-1 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead. California 91770 Facility Name:
San onofre Nuclear Generatina Station Unit 2 Inspection at:
San Onofre. San Dieao County, California Inspection conducted: January 19, 1982 through F'ebruary 12, 1982 Inspectors:
Of5 b
/8, /f[A AJ E.(Dhaffet Segior Resident inspector, Unit 2 Date Sisned Date Signed Approved by:
N,/f[b
-
G. ZwetQ, Chief,. Reactor Projects Section 1 Date Signed Reactor Operations' Project Branch Sur. mary:
Inspection on January 19, 1982 through February 12, 1982 (Report No. 50-361/82-10)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of applicant's preoperational test program, TMI modificatior3, follow-up on Bulletin 80-06, safety comitten activities, independent inspection ef fort, and general plant observations.
This inspection involved 68 inspection-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
l Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
c
.
ADOKOsoo$$2t RV Fom 219 (2)
PDR L
.
.
DETAILS _
1.
Persons Contacted a.
Southern California Edison
- P. Croy, Configuration Control and Compliance Manager
- H. Morgan, Station Operations Manager
- H. Ray, Station Manager
- W. Marsh, Acting Station Health Physics Manager
- C. Kergis, Unit 2/3 Operations Quality Assurance Engineer
- D. Schone, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- M. Speer, Compliance Engineer
- F. Briggs, Compliance Engineer
- R. Rosenblum, Unit 2 S'.artup Engineering Supervisor
- B. Katz, Station Technical Manager
- W. Moody, Deputy Station Manager
- P. King, Project Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor b.
Consultants
- J. Hummer, ASTA The inspector also interviewed and talked with others of the applicant's employees during the course of the inspection.
These included operators, startup engineers and Quality Assurance personnel.
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview.
2.
Plant Status The applicant reported Unit 2 construction to be 99 percent complete as of February 3, 1982. The applicant anticipates commencement of initial fuel loading in February.
3.
TM_I Modifications a.
TMI Item I. A.1.1, " Shift Technical Ad fisors" (STA) (Closed)
Five STA candidates completed their qualification on February 5, 1982. The STA training records appear to document satisfactory completion of the approved STA Training Program.
This item is closed.
e a
.
. -
-2-b.
TMI Item I.C.6, " Guidance on procedures for verifying correct performance of operating activities" (Closed)
Since the previous inspection (sce Inspection Report 50-361/82-04),
the inspector reviewed the following additional documentation pertaining to the open items in this area:
Operating Instruction S023-0-24, " Redundant and Operability Testing Requirements," Revision 1, February 2,1982 Operating Instruction S023-0-13, " Work Authorizations,"
Revision 5, February 2, 1982 Special r'rocedure S023-SP0-4.0, "Use of Not Turned Over Labels,- evisior. New, February 2,1982 Station Order S0123-0-114, " Equipment Control Program,"
Revision 0, January 27, 1982 Based on the above review and discussions with applicant personnel, the inspector determined that the open items addressed in Inspection Report 82-04, have been corrected.
All systems required for fuel loading have been turned over to the station and, the I.C.6 program is presently being implemented for these systems.
In addition, the applicant has committed that prior to leaving each phase of the sta-tup program, any additional systems required for the next phase will have been turned over to the station and the I.C.6 program implemented.
This process will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
(0I 50-361/82-10-02)
The inspector will also review the implementation of S023-SP0-4.0,
"Use of Not Turned Over Labels" during subsequent inspections.
(01 50-361/82-10-03)
c.
TMI Item I.D.1, " Control Room Design" (0 pen)
The inspector reviewed the following documentation relevent to the two items remaining open in this area prior to fuel loading:
'
Engineering Procedure S023-V-4.21, " Plant Monitoring System Software Control and Documentation," Revision New, January 28, 1982 i
.
.-
-3-Operating Instruction S023-3-2.13, " Core Protection / Control Element Assembly Calculator Operation," Revision 2, January 28, 1982 Based on the above review and discussions with applicant personnel, the inspector determined the following:
(1) The Core Protection Calculator Index required by NUREG 0712,
" Safety Evaluation Report SONGS 2 and 3," (the SER), Supplement 1, was provided in Operating Instruction'S023-3-2.13, dated January 28, 1982.
(2) The administrative controls for software changes to the plant computer were provided by Engineering Procedure 5023-V-4.21, dated January 28, 1982. With the completion of the above items, all pre-fuel load requirements of TMI Item I.D.1, as stated in Supplement I to the SER are complete, d.
TMI Item II.E.4.2, " Containment Isolation Dependability" (Closed)
The applicant approved and issued Operations Surveillance Test S023-3-3.26, "Once a Day Surveillance (Modes 1-4)," Revision 1, dated February 2, 1982. Supplement 1 to, the SER requires a daily check of the closed position of the containment purge valves, and S023-3-3.26 provides for implementation of this requirement.
This closes the remaining identified deficiency in this area.
e.
TMI Item II.F.1, " Additional Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,"
Subitem 2F (Closed)
Subitem 2F, Containment Hydrogen Monitor The inspector reviewed the following:
Safety Evaluation Report SONGS 2 and 3, NUREG 0712, Supplement 1 NUREG 0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements Design Change Package 50J Instrument and Control Loop Verification Data Sheets
,
Based on the above review and discussions with applicant personnel, the inspector concluded that the containment H2 monitor is complete.
TMI Subitem II.F.1.2F, is closed.
No item of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
-4-4.
IEB 80-06, " Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Reset Controls" (Closed)
The inspector reviewed the following documentation in addition to that reviewed during the previous inspection (see Inspection Report 50-361/82-04):
Operating Instruction 5023-1-4.1, " Containment Emergency Cooling,"
Revision 3, February 7,1982 Operating Instruction 5023-3-2.10, " Main Steam Isolation Valve Operation," Revision 4, February 7,1982 Emergency Operating Instruction S023-3-5.9, " Steam Line Rupture,"
Revision 5, February 7,1982 Emergency Operating Instruction S023-3-5.15, " Recovery From Inadvertent Safety Injection / Containment Isolation," Revision 5, February 7, 1982 Operating Instruction S023-3-2.9, " Containment Spray / Iodine Removal System Operation," Revision 3, February 7,1982 Emergency Operating Instruction S023-3-5.6, " Loss of Coolant Accident," Revision 4, February 7,1982 Emergency Operating Instruction S023-3-5.29, " Steam Generator Tube Rupture," Revision 4, February 7, 1982 Based on the above review, discussions with applicant personnel, and discussions with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the inspector determined the following:
(1) The applicant appears to have satisfactorily included appropriate caution statements in the applicable procedures, as discussed in Supplement 4 to the SER.
l (2) The applicant has added an action statement to appropriate procedures to prevent the outlet valve on the Volume Control Tank from opening upon reset of a safety injection actuation signal.
l (3) The applicant has not yet revised the applicable procedures as necessary to prevent re-energizing the non-Class 1E backup pressurizer heaters to a Class 1E bus upon safety injection actuation signal reset.
Such revisions are required prior to exceeding 5 percent power by Supplement 5 of the SER. This item will be examined at a f uture inspection (01 50-361/82-10-06)
This item is closed for issuance of a low power license.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
__
.-
-5-5.
Safety Comittee Activities (0penl The inspector reviewed the following documents pertaining to this area:
Engineering and Construction Interim QA Procedure 40-9-21, " Nuclear Safety Group Review and Audit Responsibilities for SONGS 2 and 3,"
Revision 1, February 1, 1982 Administrative Procedure S0123-III-1.0, " Station Documents -
Preparation, Revision and Review," Revision 3, January 27, 1982 Station Order S0123-G-1, " Organization and Responsibilities of the Facility Staff and the On-Site Review Committee," Revision 0, January 27, 1982 Station Order S0123-A-109, " Station Documents," Revision 2, January 27, 1982 Based on the above review the inspector noted the following:
(1) The offsite review comittee (Nuclear Safety Group) functions are delineated in Procedure E and C 40-9-21. This procedure appears to be in conformance with the presently proposed Technical Specifications.
(2) The implementation of the NSG functions will not be fully realized until after issuance of the operating license.
This is due to the nature of the required reviews.
For example, 50.59 reviews do not comence until after issuance of the license. Full implementation of the NSG function will be reviewed at a subsequent inspection.
(01 50-361/82-10-04)
(3) The Onsite Review Comittee has as yet not had its first official l
meeting. The Procedure Review Committee, however, has been meeting several times a month to review procedures; and this committee is basically the forerunner to the Onsite Review Committee (OSRC).
Full implementation of the OSRC activities will occur and be l
inspected after issuance of the operating license.
(01 50-361/
82-10-05)
(4) The lictnsee has developed procedures to define the responsibilities (
and authority of the OSRC, and these procedures appear to conform to the provisions of the presently proposed Technical Specifications.
The procedures however, have not yet been distributed for use, due to the large number of procedure changes occuring at this l
time. Distribution of the procedures will be confirmed at a j
future inspection.
(01-82-10-1)
l l
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
!
!
l
.-
-6-6.
Plant Tour _
The inspector made several plant tours and noted that the overall cleanliness of the containment had been improved in preparation for fuel loading.
No items of noncompliince or deviations were identified.
7.
Preoperational Test Witnessing The inspector observed selected portions of Preoperational Test 2PE-358-01,
" Plant Protection System Time Response." During the performance of this test, the inspector verified that the test was conducted with an approved procedure, that test equipment was installed and functional, and that the test data were collected and recorded.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector monitored an emergency plan implementation drill. This drill included manning the Technical Support Center (TSC) and Control Room in order to deal with an accident scenario which included a partial core melt down.
It appeared to the inspector that, overall, the drill was beneficial and provided useful training. The inspector did note, however, that one copy of the proposed Technical Specifications present in the Technical Support Center was not the latest revision. The applicant assured the inspector that this deficiency we 14 be corrected promptly.
All other publications in the TSC appeared oe up-to-date.
The inspector also discussed with applicant personnel their responsibility for maintaining a continuous open circuit with the NRC Operations Center during an event. While there was some initial confusion regarding this matter, it appears the applicant now has a clear understanding of his responsibilities in this area.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
{
9.
Exit Interview i
l The inspector met with the applicant's representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 12, 1982, and presented the results of the inspection.
.
- - - - - -
--n
-