ML19343C693
| ML19343C693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Chaffee A, Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343C690 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-81-03, 50-206-81-3, NUDOCS 8103250040 | |
| Download: ML19343C693 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000206/1981003
Text
.
.
U. S. I;UCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY CC1SilSSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE.".r.hT
REGION V
Report No.
50-206/81-03
Docket No.
50-206
treense go,
Safeguards Group
Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
-
Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1
San Onofre and Rosemead California
Inspection at:
Inspection conducted:, J,anuary 12 - 16, 1981
Inspectors:
($ [
,
7 f fg7f
A. thattee, Heactor inspector
Date Signed
Date Signed
Date Signed
Approved 3y:
ll A
/[
4 / f / / f'/
%
B. H. I&IITiieiiberry, Chiefr-Re'ac, tor Projects
Date Signed
Section 2 Reactor Ope'(ations and Nuclear Support Branch
Su::: man:
.
Inspection on January 12-16, 1981 (Report No. 50-206/81-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of Implementation of TMI
Task Action Items and independent inspection effort. This inspection involved
35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> by one NRC inspector.
Resul ts: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
!
8
._
i
go 09
RV Form 219 (2)
,
_ _
.
_ ._
_
_
___
_
_ _ . _
._. .
~ __
1
.
.
O
I
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- W. G. Frick, Compliance Engineer
- R. M. Santaisso, Ast. Superintendent for Maintenance
- J. M. Curran, Plant Manager
- D. E. Nunn, Manager, QA
- R. R. Brunet, Superintendent, Unit 1
- G. U. Mac Donald, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor
R. Krieger, Supervising Engineer Nuclear Licensing
- J. Reeder, Unit 1 Operations
-
- J. L. Willis, Manager, Training
- J. G. Haynes, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- E. E. Gulbrand, Training
- H. E. Morgan, Superintendent, Units 2 & 3
- D. Dunn, Manager of Quality Assurance
- W. W. Strom, Safety Evaluation Group
- B. Katz, Supervising Engineer
- Denotes those persons who attended th exit interview. Also present
at the exit interview was the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, B. Pate.
2.
Inspection of TMI T6sk Action Plan Requirements (TI 2515 42/43):
The inspector confirmed that the implementation of several task action
'
,
,
plan requirements were in accordance with the licensees commitments to the
'
NRC, as noted below.
a.
Task Action Plan (TAP) I. A.1.1
1
The inspector verified through discussion with licensee personnel
and review of their training program that the training program
,
-
for Shift Technical Advisors, as described in the licensee's
letter of December 30, 1980 letter to NRC, has been implemented.
Further, fully qualified Shif t Technical Advisors were available
1
on January 1,1981. Due to the extended shutdown which has existed
[
since April 1980 and which will continue into the first quarter
i
of 1981, Shift Technical Advisors have not been required to be on
,
'
i
du ty.
In light of this fact, the licensee has chosen to assign
their fully qualified Shift Technical Advisors to continuing
training to enhance their capabilities.
b.
TAP (I.A.2.1):
i
!
The inspector verified based on discussions with licensee personnel,
l
review of the Operator Requalification Program (Rev. 2 July 1980),
l
and the test results of periodic written examinations that
j
. instruction in heat transfer, fluid flow, themodynamics and
l
mitigation of accidents involving a degraded core are being implemented.
_
<
.
i
.
- - , . -
-
, , -
a-
,,,
--
-2-
.
.
c.
TAP (I.C.5):
The inspector reviewed the following procedures:
Engineering and
Construction Department Interim (E&C) QA Procedure 40-9-19 Rev. O,
12-30-80; 501-A-122, Rev. 4; S01-V-1.22, Rev. 0; and S-0-110, Rev 6.
Based on this review and discussions with licensee personnel the
inspector came to the following conclusions:
-
(1)
I.C.5.(1) of NUREG 0737 states:
"These procedures shall
clearly identify organizational responsibilities for review
of operating experience, the feedback of pertinent information
and the incorporation of such information into training and
retraining programs".
E&C procedure 40-9-19 clearly defines
the Nuclear Engineering and Operations Department as the
organization responsible for the review of INP0/NSAC Significant
Operating Experiences. This seems satisfacotry in light of the
licensee's position that all operating experiences, both
inside and outside the licensee's organization, will be reviewed
by INP0/NSAC.
E&C 40-9-19 does not specifically state who is responsible
for the feedback of pertinent information to operators and
other personnel.
It does state that the " Responsible Engineer"
who reviews each Significant Operating Experience Report (SOER)
must fill out Form 26-134. This form has a check off for
" Dissemination of information". Thus, it is implied that the
" Responsible Engineer" provides any further feedback that
is required. However, this procedure doesn't clearly state
who is responsible for ensuring the feed back of information
actually occurs.
As previously stated NUREG 0737 requires that the procedures
clearly identify organization responsibilities for the
incorporation of such information into' training and retraining
programs. This is handled in the same fashion as described
above for infonnation feedback. That is,the " Responsible
Engineer" is required to check the appropriate box specifying
" Input to Operations Traf ning Program". Thus, the procedure
implies .that the training organization is responsible for
!
the incorpo.ation of information into its program after
re:eipt from the " Responsible Engineer", although it doesn't
specifically state this.
(2) The Inspector Determined that I.C.5(2) requirements are
adequately conred by procedures E&C 40-9-19, and S01-A-122.
,
-(3) The only procedures identified that seemed to apply in this
-
area were S01-V-1.22 and S-0-110. S01-V-1.22 addressed this
area adequately for . Shift Technical Advisors.
S-0-110
provided a system for operations personnel (Watch Engineer,
Operating Foreman, Operators) to document the review of-
.
- - - - -
__
._-
- _ - -
_ _ _ - - _ _. -
. - .
-
- -
'
-3-
.
.
various documents identified in this procedure.
However,
it was not apparent to this inspector that operating experience
information was included in the documents addressed in the
procedure.
It appears that additional procedures need to be
!
developed in this area to fully satisfy the requirements
specified in I.C.5(3).
.
!
(4) The requirements of I.C.5(4) are cerrently addressed as
l
follows.
If the SOER is a red itet. applicable to the licensee,
the Safety Group Supervisor is required by procedure
E&C 40-9-19 to inform the Plant Superintendent promptly.
The
licensee's position is that the Plant Superintendent will then
-
determine whether this information should be disseminated
directly to operations personnel or provided in the form of
i
training by the training group.
This sequence of actions
is not, however, specified in any procedures.
,
!
E&C 40-9-19 requires all S0ER's to be routed to the Training
,
Group.
It is understood by the licensee that the Training
Group will make a similiar determination to that of the
'
Plant Superintendent as described above.
The Training
Group is presently developing procedures in this area to more
specifically define these actions.
.
.
1
(5) The requirements specified in I.C.5.(5) and (6) appear to be
i
satisfied by the screening function of INP0/NSAC. However,
i
this fact is' not addressed in the licensee's procedures.
(6) The requirement specified in I.C.S.(7) is adequately covered
in E&C procedure 40-9-19.
.
,
It is apparent.the licensee has made an effort to meet the criteria
specified in NUREG 0737.
However, changes to the licensee's current
t
program and procedures are required to adequ'ately satisfy the NUREG
.
- requirements. The licensee has committed to provide the necessary
chrnges by February 27, 1981. .(0I-60-206/81-03-01).
I
d.
TAP (I.C.6)
'
The inspector reviewed the licensees procedures' S01-A-107, Rev. 5;
S-3-2.38, Rev. 2; and D-A 14, revised November 11, 1974; ~against
the-licensee's committment transmitted to NRC in a letter dated
January 5,1981, regrading providing " Procedures for Verifying
_ Correct Performance of Operating Activities" in accordance with
the requirenents of NUREG 0737.
The inspector-determined, based on the above review and discussion
- with licensee personnel, that supplemental provision (3), page 3-49
of NUREG 0737 which states," Except in cases of significant
radiation exposure, a second qualified person should verify correct
,
4
4
3g- -
e
e
-
- - - - > -
- . - - +
=
--
--
-s
-
-
--e
-+
_ __ _ __ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
'
.g.
'
!
,.
-
.
.
implementation of equipment control measures such as tagging of
equipment.", did not appear to be adequantely covered in their
procedures. This raised the question of the completeness of the
licensee's review which was done in light of the new clarification
i
provided in NUREG 0737. The licensee agreed that another review
[
>
was needed to determine whether or not their procedures adequately
t
conforn with I.C.6(3) of NUREG 0737.
In addition, the licensee
agreed, to perform another review of their program against the
'
acceptance criteria specified in I.C.6 of NUREG 0737.
The
licensee committed to have these reviews completed by February 17,
1981. .(0! 50-206/81-03-02)
3.
Independent Inspection
.
,
i
The inspector toured the facility including inside containment and
observed the following:
,
.
a.
Security procedures were properly followed by security personnel
when the inspector requested the vital area code from a guard.
b.
The Reactor Health Physics activities controlling entry into
containment were'well organized.
'
4.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was conducted on January 16, 1981, with the licensee
representatives listed in paragrap
were discussed and the licensee re.h 1.
The results of the inspection
'
quested that he be given until
January 23, 1981 to scope the work required to address the problems
'.
identified in Section 2 at this report. The licensee subsequently
provided Region V, prior to January 23, 1981, the committments delineated
j
in Section 2.
.
4
.
'
t
4
1
-
] ..
.
._ ,.
,_,-
_.
_ . -
_