ML16340A612
| ML16340A612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1979 |
| From: | Sternberg D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340A613 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-79-18, NUDOCS 7910250584 | |
| Download: ML16340A612 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1979018
Text
U ~
S ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
epozt
No
50-275/79-18
D-~et
No
REGION V
License
No.
Safeguards
Group
Licensee:
PaCifiC GaS
and EleCtriC COmpany
77 Beale Street
San Francisco,'California
94106
Facility Name:
Diablo Canvon
it
Inspection at
Diablo Canyon Site,
San Luis Obispo County, California
Inspection
cond cted
Inspectors:
T. Young, Jr.,
f ~ ~[OuA4., sv
esident
Reactor Inspector
D te Signed
Date Signed
Approved By:
,Sunmary:
D.
M. Sternberg,
Chic
R actor Projects
Section
1,
Reactor Operations
and
uclear Support Branch
Da
Signed
Date
igned
Inspection
on Au ust 17-31,
1979
Re ort No. 50-275/79-18
P
5
fp
P
i 1:ig.
actions
on previous. inspection findings, plant tour.
gA for preoperational
testing,
preoperational
test program controls, nuclear plant problem
reports
(HPPR),
and fire protection/ prevention.
This inspection in-
volved 42 inspector-hours
onsite
by one
NRC Resident Inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
V ii1 02 50 +Q
I~
C
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
- R. D. Ramsay,
Plant Superintendent
R.
D. Etzler, Project Superintendent
- M. N. Norem, Resident Startup
Engineer
M.
E. Leppke,
gA Supervisor
~J.
S.
Diamonon,
gC Supervisor
J.
M. Gisclon,
Power Plant Engineer
D. A. Backons,
Supervisor of Maintenance
R. Patterson,
Supervisor of Operations
K..C. Doss,
Instrument
and Controls Supervisor
e
The inspector also talked with and interviewed
a number of other
licensee
employees
including members of general
construction,
the
operations staff and- gA personnel.
- Denotes
those attending
the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin s
3.
4,
(Closed)
Item of noncompliance
(50-79-15-01):
Amendment
No. 80 to
the
FSAR, dated August,
1979,
changes
the responsibilities
of. the
training coordinator
from the maintenance
of adequate trai ning
records
to assuring
that adequate
training records
are maintained
and kept at the site.
This item is considered
resolved.
Plant Tour
The inspector walked through various areas of the plant on
a weekly
basis
to observe acti,vities in progress;
to inspect the general
state of cleanliness,
housekeeping
and adherence
to fire protection
rules; to check the proper
approval of "man on the line, caution
and clearance"
tags
on equipment;
and to review with operations
personnel
the status of various
systems
in the plant.
The inspector
noted that the status of the systems- and the house-
keeping
appeared
consistent with construction activities.
The
reactor c'avity is still being maintained
as
a clean area
and extra
personnel
are still assigned
to'leanup
crews.
Cleanliness
and
housekeeping
of the plant is still improving.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were. identified.
Preo erational Testin
The inspector
examined in depth test package
37.12 (auxiliary feed-
water
and
level control).
The test is complete but
has not been'approved
by the resident startup engineer
or accepted
by the plant superintendent.
Discussions
with operators
revealed
qO
that they were unhappy with the operations of the level control of
(AF) valves.
An examination of the records
revealed
that there is
a history of problems with the actuators
on
these valves.
The actuators
were redesigned
and rebuilt in 1977;
however, this did not significantly increase
the reliability of
these valves.,The
licensee
has decided to replace
these
valve
actuators
with actuators
from a different vendor.
The actuators
have
been ordered
and are scheduled
to be delivered
in.mid-November.
An engineering
evaluation
has
been
performed
and the licensee
states
'hat
if the plant must start
up before the
new actuators
are in-
stalled,
then these actuators will be de-energized
wi'th the. valves
'ull
open
and locked during plant operations.
No items Gf noncompliance or deviations
were identified..
5.
Prep erational
Test Pro ram Controls
The inspector verified by record review and/or observation that (a)
jurisdictional controls were being observed for system turnover,
(b) tagging
was being accomplished
consistent with jurisdictional
controls of the administrative
procedures
and (c) controls were
being observed prior to and subsequent
to testing.
A schedule is
being maintained for preoperational
t~sting and updated. when
necessary.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
6.
OA for Preo erational Testin
The inspector
examined all gA audit reports of preoperational
testing audits
conducted within the last three months.
The inspec-
tor verified that the audits
were conducted in accordance
with
approved
procedures
and that corrective actions for all identified
discrepancies
had
been taken.
System turnover from construction to
the startup test group and to the operations division was conducted
in accordance
with established
procedures
and administrative controls.
'
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
7.
Fire Protection Prevention
The control
room and the cable spreading
rooms were inspected.
The
fire alarm, extinguishing equipment,
actuating controls
and fire-
fighting equipment were verified to be operable in the cable
spreading
rooms
and
255 of the balance of the plant.
The
new cable
seal material
was verified not to be flammable.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
8.
Nuclear Plant Problem
Re orts
NPPR
The requirements
of Administrative Procedure
No. C-12 (Resolution
and Reporting of Plant Problems)
and its implementation
were
examined..
The intent of this implementing procedure
and that of gA
Procedure
No. 8.1
(Honconformances
and Corrective Actions, which is
-3-
required to be implemented
90 days before licensing) is that any
member of the plant staff including the
gA staff may initiate a-
HPPR.
The inspector
found that at least
one foreman required the
technicians
working for him to discuss with him the potential
problem before initiating a HPPR. If the foreman did not agree,
then
a
HPPR would not be initiated.
Plant management
agreed that
this practice
on the part of the foreman, in effect,
was circum-
venting the intent of the procedures.
A licensee representative
stated that, in the future,
any member of the plant staff may
initiate a
NPPR by filling out items
2 and
3 on
HPPR
(Form 76-682).
If the foreman did not agree that the potential
problem should
be '.
sent through the review process;
he would then assign
a number
and
give a brief explanation
as to why it should not go through the
complete review.
This form would then
be reviewed
by the foreman's
supervisor
and the
gC department,
then filed.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
9.
Exit Interview
The inspector
met with a senior licensee representative
on a weekly
. basis
and with the representatives
denoted in Paragraph
1
on
August 31,
1979.
The scope
and findings of the inspection were
summarized
by the inspector.
No other statements
or corrmitments
aside
from those in Paragraph
8 were made.
~v