IR 05000361/1987024

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Address Concern Noted in Insp Rept 50-361/87-24

ML20236W671
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8712080147
Download: ML20236W671 (1)

Text

,

y.

,

_

,

,

f -

s-e w

-

.,

.

.

.

,

. k b//

' '

.j.

,

' ' '

g

~;, 1 y

3,.

v-DEC 2 1987

'

y, g.7

,,

,

g

,a

..

p[er'.

o Oc d

'

~ Docket No. 50-361.

.,v SouthernCaliforniaEdis$n' Company-

'1

,

P. O Box-800.

y i v'*'

'y

,

2244. Walnut Grove Avenue

/W

'

Rosemead,' California 91770 pt,r

.1

-

k

.

w.

.p p

Attention:

.Mr. H. B. Ray, Vice Presid' ent j

. Site Manager

,'

m f

f A

,

Gentlemen:

c q

.l J.

'1

4 Thank' you for your letter' dated. November 6,' 1987, in. response to our letter

'i

and Inspection Report No. 50-361/87-24, dated:Gctober 15, 1987, informing ~us

f of the steps you-have taken.to address.the concern which we brought to'your

]i

,

attention.

'

;

A.

Your cooperation with'us/is appreciated.

4 ("

,

Sincerelv 7 *

,;

-

y

,

U hc l',.

L M./

'

,f

'-

F. A.

enslawski, Chief i

Emergency Preparedness and f

l Radiological Protection Branch a CC:

-(@[ g-

' j y'i

'

K. P. Baskin, Vice President, SCE I

u 7 cc w/cy. ltr dtd 11/6/87:

>

State of CA bec w/cy ltr dtd 11/6/87:

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) (IE06)

Project Inspector

,,

Resident Inspector s

B. Faulkenberry f

,,

.t J. Martin

'

' ^*

'

J. Zo111 coffer

becw/ocyofltrdtd1N6/87:/,/

l M. Smith

-

Region V

'>

,

'

-

l jREQUEST COPY ] R ESTCOPY-)AYESy/2 AEQ ST COPY ]

'

W U YES l/ NO

]

/ NO T NO -

]

,

V

-

[4F TO POR ]

.

ff L MS '/,NO ]

f%

• IV JRussell/ norma GY as FAWenslawski

.

.

12/ / /87 12/ /87 '

22/3/87

>0

+

8712080147 871202 PDR ADUCK 05000361

) ('

-

G W,hs

'

PDR

'

f

.

Q

,

.,

,

<

~

t.

'

m

f

[f Y

'~

"'

e

,

i ce'rtified 4 UUAM

~

4%

,

Southem Califomia Edison Company t"i;:j...,,.

a 2y,

,f

^

yrt.

j c. : N, /3 g.

v~ ~,

.o..ox in..

-

sxu eteneure.catpynwx oren

.

x E "oI.".n"7ma,

November 6#1987

,,,,,,,,..

.

d

,

.......... -

,

'

. i ',,

t

\\ ', >

,

,

Mr..p8nn'. Martin, Regional Administrator.

B

,

U. 4.(dyclear Regulatory. Commission, Region V 145Ct Wttle, Lane, suite 210 Walnut)Ordek, CA 94596

'

Dear Ec. Mar,

V4.nz r;

SubjectJ Deh Wt No. 50-361 l

' Sad mofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Mi, F. A. Wenslawski's letter dated October 15, Li987, forwarded to us a report of a special inspection' conducted at San onofre in September.

The letter identified a' concern with certain plant procedures related to emergency conditions _and:the J

impDmentation of 10 CFR 50.54tx).

It requested that we evaluate'

/

issLi:s identified' in the repoi-t and identify any actions that we will take.

TM.3 purpose of this letter is to respond to this.

.

g

/ % quest.

'

l

<

.

,

\\

y,s

. \\

-

The special inspectics was(directed at an event that'

i

/ occurred on August'32,.1987, which involved leakage-of. primary

,

coolant due to failure in Mode 5 of the packing for valve

. l

'

('C

<

21IV-9378.

Our report of this event'is providedcin Licensee: Event l

/

Report (LER) No. 2-87-14.

Revision 1 of the.LER;was submitted.by.

.

letter dated October 26, 1987, and it' indicated;that a:suparate,

informational LER would be provided to address the: health physics aspects of the event.

Preparation of that LER has been

{

f/ r.ompleted, and it is being submitted as LER No. 2-87-20.

q In summary, d agree with the concern identified in Mr. Wenslawski's it.\\+,ter.

The.need to have clear, well understood

!

requirements to enstre that radiation protection requirements are

,

met is always important, but,it is particularly so'in

circumstances where people are suddenly faced.with unanticipated

'<

conditions and where prompt action is required.

Our evaluation

,

j of the August 31 event hss doncluded that a number of changes are i

required in our programs at.d training..

y

!

)

\\

I 1.

a

?

f

'

,

,

a

)

A n f /1_._.

~,

.<

^)W

)

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _

'

j-i

d Qy e'

.

>

.. s.

.

,,

.

'1

.

E

>

, ll

,g

-

Jf

fi

.),

'

[ g

1. '

t'

,..

' k,,

I

.I

'

i -.' i fj.

I

..

.,.

,

y,g

,

,r..c-

~

aw q

.

,,.

.

..

J

,

,

d

/)Mr.fJohn B. Martin W-2.

November 6,-.-1987.

'

,

-

.

t,

,,

,

}

b, a

• ?

'

,c.

r

,

'

icur responso.'to the conaern idelitified:in(Mr. ;Wenslawski's i.

,

. letter is provided>as an attachment hereto.. Additionaln..

information concerning;.our evaluation.of the: health physics, aspects of the. event may be'foundiin-LER'No'. 2-87-20..

-(

-

t

If.yoddave.any; questions;or, comment's;forlif.you would.like; additional intcb, nation, pleaseolet:me know.

-

..:-

.

,

'

"

Sincerely,

-l

'f Y.

-

HBR:bam H

Attachment cc:

David'J. Fogarty.

i

,

!

-'.

Kenneth-P. Baskin o

.

[

Mr. F. R..Huey, USNRC Senior; Resident Inspector, SONGS.

' j

,

,

i Mr. F. A. Wenslawski, Region V'

,

l h'

l

,J l

\\

J

'

,

,s

>

.

l

,3

l l

'

l l

I '

+

.

l

,

.

2'

f

{

r y.

,

,

"

g

).

{

!

-

-

l.

'

i

'

.

l

.

i

,

...I-

.

p -

.

_ _ _

_ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - -.. -

-

_- o

'

.

]

.-

.

.,

q

<>

.t

.

.

,

'!

'<

^

Attachm'ent-

"

i q

RESPONSE.TO NRC CONCERN-~

-

The following. summarizes the SCE evaluation of the Health-l Physics (HP) actions and controls which were implemented in c

' response to the packing-leak.which developed for valve'2HV-9378:

'

This summary is'provided in response'to

on August 31, 1987.

the concern identified in Mr. Wenslawski's letter. dated" October 15, 1987,:and additional information concerning the event:

,

11s provided in~LER Nos.:2-87-14-and 2-87-20.

.j

'

r

'With respect to the identified NRC concern,nour evaluation.

i consists of a number of: findings-and corrective actions,'as

j follows:

,

Finding 1 No condition of emergency.was declared by.the Shift Superintendent as a result offthe packing leak from 2HV-9378.-

Problem The HP Foreman believed he was authorized, sunder the:

circumstances as he understood them,nto deviate from-approved procedures in providing. support!to personnel who.

u had been directed to take. steps-to reduce or stop the leak.

Discussion l

As indicated in the NRC' inspection report, provisions of

.

plant procedures which' authorize deviation from approved j

procedures in accordance with:10 CFR 50.54(x), in. order.to j

protect the-public health and safety, were.not. implemented,

!

for this event.

This was because--there was no-need:for such-

!

i-deviation.

H Nevertheless, as discussed in LER'No. 2-87-20,.the HP

.

.

.

Foreman did deviate from the approved procedures..Although'

the radiological protection actions taken were appropriate o

under the circumstances, and.they would have'been the:

a

' actions taken eventif:all provisions of the procedures had-H been followed,-the HP Foreman had not been; authorized to-i

,

deviate from the approved procedures.. Such unauthorized-deviation is not acceptable and could result in-a hazard, as:

i

,

noted in the,. inspection report.

l q

i

!

-

l l

,

d

,

L~

-

-

. _.

_a

_ _ _ _ _

_

__

-

_

___

.

w >R '

,

• '

.

..

,,

,

' ' '

• ,

,,ky'

j.

,

,

,

ll

'

'

'

1. f,

. i:

i

,

'

'

'

y:

- '

'

U T

,

,

,

l

'L~

v_ n

[

'

>

,

> i.

'

>

' Attachment.

s-2

'

,

.1 i

r

.g,

.

. ).. l

'

'

'

Corrective Action

,

u

<

!

,

"Allitraining programsIwill[bd? reviewed, Land.revisedUasL

.l

< '

-necessary,uto ensure that the'circumstancescunder"whicht

@'

"

. personnel lmay be: authorized toideviatelfromLapproved...

,

'

'

procedures, and"the'meansLof' obtaining such!auth'rizationJ o

,

ar'. clearly addressed. iIniaddition,:this.aspectfoffthe; X.

e

.m

<

,

-August 31 event 1willebe; discussed lin aJapacial noticoltoiall

'

. personnel" who L hold: unescorted access to :the ' Protected $ Area., '

-

-This> notice will'be; issued'by' November:13;7 1987.-

<

,

'

'

J

.

w

-

<

,

,

"

. Finding 2'

'

_.

,

..e

,

y

,

,

,

.HP procedures are unclear,)with respect'toLtheI'ntEnt ofka i

provision which concerns deviations under: certain; circumstances.:.

.

,

I

Problem

As indicated in the NRC,i.nspection-report, othere fis a - A provision in HP: procedure.SO123-VII-9.9 thatirefers to deviations.which are. permitted:under declared. emergency:

conditions'or HP Supervisor-approved'special conditions.

The scope of the deviations might'be:subjectyto?

,

misunderstanding.

• Discussion As. discussed above, the event;on' August 31 did not11nvolve~

any condition of-declared emergency, and no special-condition was approved by.a HP Supervisor."

The context in the procedure for the reference to deviations was itself intended to' limit tla scope of;the, deviations.:

The reference appears in Subsection'6;1.1.2. '.Section 6.1.1 describes the process for'an.ititiator;to obtainla. Radiation, Exposure Permit ( RE'P).. S u b s e c t / o n. 6 '. 1 '. 1. 1* s t a t e s : t h a t " a n !

REP must be requested at:least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> iniadvance-ofithe need for.its use.

Subsection 6.1.1.21gives'the' exception to:

this as follows:

,

" Deviations are permitted.for operations Shift-

,

,

Supervisor-declared emergency conditionsnor< Health Physics Supervisor-a,pproved'special conditions.

NOTE: Health Physics will' attempt to' service. late request's

~

' >

but timely requests will be given priority."

,

g f,.

P

. go.

r;g'

w

,

,

Q:

\\

' *.

.;.

,

i

--

s

,

i e),

)

,

'

i iAttachment

'

' -3-

',

,

,

,

.

'j

,

.

,

+

Hence', theTintent'of(this proOis' ion $1nIthe procedure'was not

'

to provide for. deviations from?the"HP:. Program generally,'but

'

~

"

.only:from;the:requirementito" request an' REPS 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s:in-

'

,

-advance.ofithe'need:foriits'use.L

%

s

,

a corrective ~ Action c

,-

t L

'Although 'he intent.of the statement,concerning deviations

'

' isx11mited by its: context in theTprocedure,.in order-to!

l

'

'

ensure.that it:is not'a1 source:of misunderstanding, the statement will'be' revised.to: simply:6say!thatJexceptions to-

,

the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> requirement may be' approved)in1certain specified'

-

- circumstances.-

.~

"

.

...

.

,...

.

.

,

.,

' Also, use 'of the term '! emergency".in this vsubsection,,Tof the L

',M procedure is: improper and was:nothintended to; describe

,

,.

conditions referred to:in:10 CFR 50.54(x),or?in the?.

i

,

,

Emergency. Plan l Implementing ProceduresJ(EPIPs).; Use i'n'thisi

'l case was generic,Eand such generic usage ~will be replaced

'

Y1 with more precise 1 terms wherevereit appears,in;HP.

j procedures.

a

'

'

,.

?

Thes'e actions will be completed by December' 31, 1987.

j l

Finding 3

!

,

d HP procedures should provide for actions:to'be.takenLini

'

'

non-declared-emergency circumstances 1when>non-shiftLHP;

'

supervision and management'may not be-immediately available..to authorize expedited actions..

-

'

Problem

.

d

'

'

t

i Existing. procedures require approval above theilevel of HP shift supervision, inLorder to use defined, expedited.(,

y procedural steps:for issuance of an REP.-

UndericertainL j

circumstances, obtaining.such approval may unneccusarily delay REP issuance.

'

]

.

,

Discussion-

.I subsection 1.1.1.4 of HP procedure Sol 23-VII-9.9.prov' ides'

for expedited action:as'follows:-

~

d

~

"For certain con'itions where work must be performed in an" i

expedient manner and pre-job surveys;cannot be~'obtained in T

,

the time frame required (such~asifor'SSAM'or ALARA d

considerations, etc.) the following;will apply."

l l

l.

,

w, n

w

,

'

f

.4 i. -

,

',

,

,

i

,,i.,

..

-

,

9-

,

e i Attachment?

-4-

'

o a

d I

IV

. One ofithe'requiredisteps'is.to obtain-approval of the,HPL.'

'

-Manager or!a HP Supervisor,1 including by phoneJif..necessary.4

'7 h'

This was:not'done during the evention-Augustl-31..

,

,

,

L-

>

.r

,

,}

r.

l.

[

Corrective Action-O q

.

HP; procedures \\willberevisedLbyNovember30,[1987,Lto?

' ',

'

>

include provisions for HP. shift supervisionito provide'

_ ;f

,

W expedited ~ support;to;planteactivities,(underlspecifiedb

circumstances.1 Theirequirements-for providing such support..

,

,

,

will be defined in the procedures:solthat'approvaliof;higheri a,.

"

• '

~ levels of : supervision and; management prior to implementation;

- will not be required.

-

>

w

<

a;;

,

,

' Finding'4-u In principle, the emergency conditions ~ addressed byl10LCFR.

m

,

f

. 50.54(x) could include conditions which.do:not result'-in 9;

,

'

declaration ofcan emergency'under the EPIPs.

I:

Problem

.

The NRC inspection report indicated'a concern inLthat the provisions of.HP procedure SO123-VII-9.9Jand' operations

-

procedure Sol 23-0-l' recognize.'aniemergencyLand authorizet departure from established requirements without necessarily being in an emergency classification as defined:by EPIP-SO23-VIII-1.

.!

Discussion-d As discussed above, Sol 23-VII-9.9 used theSterm,Jemergency,

.,

in a generic' sense,~and the intended uselwas only.with-i

.

respect.to the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. requirement:forz. REPiissuance.

This; will be corrected.

uses the term,Lemergency,iin the1 sense;that"it;:iss=O -

j S0123-0-1 used in 10-CFR 50.54(x).' It is ourl understanding lthat:the.'

H

.

NRC does not intend the emergency conditions 1 addressed'by i

~

d 10 CFR 50.54(x) to-be limited:to those which'areiaddressed d

by EPIPs.

EPIPs are prepared in response to!101CFR(50,;

~j Appendix-E, and related guidance, whereas:10 CFR'50.54(x)?

!

(anditherefore" Sol 23-o-1)-are~' intended to: address' -

'

circumstances in which.no action consistent'with licensei

,

conditions a'nd' technical specifications that'can provideL

-

j]

adequate protection (to the public" health and-safety isc immediately apparent.

l

'

e

-.

ll

f

'

,

u

_ _ _ _ ___.

-.........

__

t.

=

d E__ _ ____

":

'

ys

,c o

,

') f * W

$(, ;

w v.s y

..

a

"[T f

,

'l

i

.

,

,

,

,

_

'.

-

-.,

, ya j

,

g

,

.. f fg-Reattachment-5-

.

'

'

i

.4 jWith. respect to:the event (on-l August [31,9asLdiscussed Above-

and1innthe, NRC inspection l report, -it was not: an: emergency L s

defined

either by'S0123-0-l'or!:SO23-VIII-1.,1AsfregardsiHP1-procedure SO123-VII-9.9, the Shift Superintendent-did:not

/

declare an emergency.

If heLhad,.the deviation permitted:byi.'

'4 the procedure was onlyLwith respect to thel 24' hour. REP:

requirement.

<

,

Corrective Action J

t

'

,

WeLconclude that all personnel;who~mayJhave toiprovide:

'

_.

expedited support'to unanticipated plant'conditionsfshould-

'jl

'

receive; training.whichl clarifies their) authorities,Jduties-

~

,

.

and responsibilities andathose;of::others who.may be

...,

-

uc i

involved.: Currently, such trainingEis; generally-limited"to:

conditions 7M dressed by EPIPs.

'

~ Because of: the potentially. broad scope: of 'this(needed

1. 1 training,.and the possibility that'some, changes ini

..

..

n procedures may also be required, antaction plan"and< schedule.:

will first be developed..ThisiwillLbe^ completed by~

d December 31, 1987.

-

l l

Finding 5 Telephone communication:between the Shift Superintendent:and.the'.

i

..

]j l-HP Foreman resulted in incorrect > understanding ofz theJdirection'

provided.

l-Problem The._Shif t Superintendent, believed he was speaking: on - the -

l-telephone to a maintenance mechanic when he provided' general

!

direction to take the steps necessary to"stop.the packing l

leak.

It appears that.he~was'instead speaking.to,the HP f l

Foreman who interpreted the direction?as authorization <to deviate from his approved' procedures.

i Discussion

,

,

I a

-

. '.l 1 -

The Shift Superintendent does'not recall speaking toLthe HPl i

Foreman, and=he.certainly;did not declare an emergency or-

i,

authorize deviation from HP procedures.~ He doerirecallS.,

l l -

having~a telephone. conversation 1with a person he? thought toi

.j be the mechanic assigned;to. work on1 valve'2HV-9378..What:

would-be appropriate direction.to the mechanic to urgently-i)

~

take steps to!stop the packing leak, was. evidently provided:

l l

to the HP Foreman in error.

This led the foreman to believe

,1 l

he had direction that would permit him.to deviate'from.his; procedures.

..

i -

'

g.

u

..

_ =. _.

_ - -

gn

.

..

,

--

-

4-

,

,

-D :

lA.<

,.

jo

• *

'!-

Attachment-6-N

,

,

Corrective Action'-

As discussed >under Finding.,1 above', this-' event'will-be.

~

. formally reviewed'with all-:personne1Lwho' hold. unescorted-access to the': Protected. Area. - Mis-communication'of'this>

kind can lead to-very serious.~consequenc'es'and'must not

.

.

. occur. :There'is anfestablished training program for controlE f

Room. operators which is. designed'to'.preventathis kind of.

-

L error.

This trainingifor' Control Room personnel willLbel

'

enhanced to explicitly:' apply.to their communications'with-others who may be1 outside.thefControl. Room..

1; i

l h

.V.

t

..,

'

'..b

,

i

)

.

.

I l

- J ci E

j i

.]

.

-]

a il

.

!

l

o

'

!

l'

i

'

l

}

,

I

-

t i

g