IR 05000361/1993023
| ML20057C611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1993 |
| From: | Ang W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C609 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-93-23, 50-362-93-23, NUDOCS 9309290167 | |
| Download: ML20057C611 (7) | |
Text
-
-
-.
.-
.
a.
j
.
.
'
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION V
.
I Report Nos.:
50-361/93-23 and 50-362/93-23 l
Docket Nos.:
50-361 and 50-362 License Nos.:
Southern California Edison Company Irvine Operations Center 23 Parker Street Irvine, California 92718
.
Facility Name:
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 l
Inspection at:
San Onofre Site, San Clemente, California Inspection date: July 19 through July 23, 1993
Inspectors:
W. J. Wagner, Reactor Inspector
!
I!I3!93 Approved by:
A
/
Date $igned W. P. Ang, Chief,#
p;;,, 44g47 Engineering Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection durino the period July 19 throuah July 23. 1993 (Report Nos, e
!
50-361/93-23 and 50-362/93-23)
Areas Inspected:
This routine announced inspection reviewed licensee design changes and modifications.
Inspection procedure 37700 was used as guidance for this
inspection.
Results:
,
,
,
General Conclusions And Specific Findinas:
j The design change packages reviewed were completed and documented in
accordance with licensee procedures.
i
!
Sionificant Safety Matters:
None.
9309290167 930813 'T i
PDR ADOCK 05000361 G
PDR;
'
-
-
.
_
r l.
.
.
-
.
i
.
..
,
l
Summary Of Violation Or Deviations:
,
tione Open items Summary:
,
None.
s
,
I i
!
l i
i
i i
a
!
t i
e
,
n i
!
I l
s
!
!
L l
'
l f
,
k
' k h
,
$
t i
,
- * ~ -
--
- _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.., _. __
,,_
,,,,
,
y
.
-
.
.
.
Details 1.
Persons Contacted Southern California Edison comoan_y
- D. Axline, Engineer, Onsite Nuclear. Licensing (ONL)
C. Brandt, Senior Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer P. Croy, Senior Engineer
- G. Gibson, Supervisor, ONL
- R. Giroux, Engineer, ONL
- D. Irvine, Supervisor, Station Technical G. Nakata, Nuclear Construction Engineer
- P. Schofield, Supervisor, Performance Monitoring
- M. Short, Manager, Site Technical Services
- K. Weigand, Engineer, QA Engineer
.
G. Williams, Nuclear Construction Engineer U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission
- C. Caldwell, Senior Resident Inspector The inspectors also held discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel during the inspection.
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on July 23, 1993.
2.
_Desian Chances and Modifications (37700)
The purpose of this inspection was to review design changes and temporary modifications for conformance-with Technical Specifications, 10 CFR 50.59, the licensee's quality assurance program, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control.
2.1 Desian Chances Desian Chanae Packaaes Reviewed The inspector selected two design change packages (DCPs) and one Minor Modification Package (MMP) for review. These Unit 2 design changes were:
DCP 2-6711.00 entitled, " Station Blackout." This DCP added provisions for cross-tieing of DC buses and tiie addition of emergency lights to support station blackout. The design changes were in response to 10 CFR 50.63, also known as the station blackout rule.
- DCP 2-6742.07 entitled, " Component Cooling Water (CCW) Seismic This DCP was to seismically upgrade the primary storage Upgrade."
tank T056 to provide qualified makeup water to the CCW system.
Work on this DCP was about 30% complete during this inspection.
E
. -
.
.
.
..
.
.
_
.
.
.
-
.
(
entitled, " Plant Protective System (PPS) Test and MMP 2-6828.00
Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Power Supply
'
Repl acement." This MMP was initiated to replace obsolete PPS and
'
ESFAS Power Mate power supply equipment.
Inspector Review Criteria
"
2-6711.00, 2-6742.07, and MMP 2-6828.00 for
The inspector reviewed DCPs their compliance with licensee procedures S0123-XXIV-10.16, Development, Review, Approval, and Release of SCE Design Change Packages and Minor Modifications, revision 1, and 50123-XXIV-10.15, Preparation, Review, and Approval of Facility Change Evaluations, revision 1.
Specifically the inspector reviewed the packages for proper approval authority,
,
r interdisciplinary and interdepartmental reviews, independent verification, procedure control, "as built" drawing control, and that appropriate revisions were planned or completed for updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA),
and the 10 CFR 50.59 annual report to the NRC.
Insoector Review The inspector found that the licensee had implemented the design changes and minor modification packages in accordance with licensee procedures.
The inspector found that the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 review concluded
[
that the design changes and the minor modification packages did not
'
require prior NRC approval.
The inspector, when reviewing the design changes and minor modification packages, noted that provisions were included to assure that these changes would be added to the licensee's i
Since the two. design change annual 10 CFR 50.59(b) report to the NRC.
packages and the minor modification package had not been completed for both units the items had not been added to the licensee's 10 CFR
-
50.59(b) report to the NRC.
[
The inspector reviewed licensee FSAR and FHA change requests numbers SAR 23-027 and FHA-028 for liCP 6711.00 and SAR 23-188 & 189 and FHA-188 &
6742.07. The inspector found that proposed FSAR changes 189 for DCP accurately described the design changes and were being tracked in accordance with licensee procedure 50123-XXIV-10.
The inspector found that the fire hazard analysis had been completed and documented in
,
accordance with licensee procedure 50123-XXIV-10.16.
2-6711.00 The inspector visually inspected equipment installed under DCP which provided emergency lights in the following areas:
Vital Power Distribution Room 2A, 2B and 2C
Emergency Chiller Rooms 115 and 117
Turbine Building Main Generator Gas Control
,
!
i
-
-..
.
- -
-
-.
.-.
--
-.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
The inspector found that the emergency lighting units were the specified equipment model, and were mounted to provide adequate lighting to support local manual operator actions during a four hour station bl ackout. The. inspector also noted that tags had been added to the emergency light units to differentiate them from existing Appendix R fire protection lighting.
Conclusion The inspector concluded that the design changes packages and minor modification package reviewed were prepared, reviewed, and installed in accordance with licensee procedures.
No violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identified.
2.2 Temporary Modifications The inspector selected one temporary facility modification (TFM) for review. The TFM reviewed was number 2-92-PKA-002, " Battery 28007 Modification."
TFM 2-92-PKA-002, " Battery 28007 Modification" connected a temporary battery box to the 125V DC bus 2D1 so that the bus would remain operable during the replacement of cells in battery 2B007. This TFM assured that the battery backed DC power to the DC switchboard 201 was not interrupted beyond the two hour action statement duration of Technical Specification 3.8.2.1.
Inspector Review Criteria TFM 2-92-PKA-002, " Battery 2B007 Modification" was reviewed for compliance with licensee procedure S0123-V-5.10, " Temporary Facility Modification (TFM)," Revision 3. Specifically the TFM was reviewed for program controls, approval responsibility, safety evaluation, formal records of the' changes, independent verifications of the changes, functional testing, and periodic licensee review.
Inspector Review The inspector reviewed documentation for TFM 2-92-PKA-002, " Battery 2B007 Modification" and found that the licensee had issued and implemented the temporary modification in accordance with licensee procedures. The inspectors review included document reviews that-documented proper program controls of temporary modifications, appropriate approvals, safety evaluations, records of changes, independent verification of changes, testing, and periodic _ licensee review.
e
?
.
.
Conclusion The inspector concluded that the licensee had prepared, reviewed, documented, and implemented temporary field modification, TFM 2-92-PKA-002, in accordance with licensee procedures.
No violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identified.
2.3, Quality Assurance Insoector Review Criteria The inspector reviewed licensee Nuclear Oversight Division (N0D) Quality Assurance (QA) records and interviewed QA personnel to determine if the licensee's QA group had been reviewing and providing QA oversight of the licensee design change process in accordance with licensee Topical Report SCE-1-A, " Quality Assurance Program,"
Inspector Review The inspector reviewed licensee NOD outage plans, QA " Outage Assessment Weekly Summary Reports," and interviewed QA personnel, to determine if scheduled work activities required QA coverage of design change packages.
The inspector noted that licensee's QA Program does not require QA review and inspection of all design change packages, but allows for the However, it was also random sampling and auditing of design changes.
noted that a QA type review was performed by the Nuclear Safety Group (tiSG) of all design change packages. Sampling of design change packages was in accordance with Topical Report SCE-1-A, " Quality Assurance Program."
The inspector found that licensee NOD QA had identified work activities requiring QA review and direct inspection of five design change packages for Unit 2 refueling outage number seven. The inspector reviewed the Unit 2 " Outage Assessment Weekly Summary Reports" and found that the
'
scheduled QA surveillances had been performed and that the results and any corrective actions were documented.
Conclusion The inspector concluded that the licensee QA personnel were reviewing and providing oversight of the design change process in accordance with the QA program and procedures.
iio violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identifie..
,
3.
Exit Meetina The inspector met with the licensee management representatives noted in paragraph 1 on July 23, 1993.
The scope of the inspection and the inspector's findings were discussed.
Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's findings.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the informatirn provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector during this inspectic;i.
t