Text

IE Insp Rept 50-206/81-03 on 810112-16.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation of TMI Task Action Items & Independent Insp Effort
	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: ML19343C689; ML19343C693;
References
	50-206-81-03, 50-206-81-3, NUDOCS 8103250040
	Download: ML19343C693 (5)
	v • d • e

.

U. S. I;UCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY CC1SilSSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE.".r.hT

REGION V

Report No.

50-206/81-03

DPR-13

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

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

3g- -

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

-

] ..

.

._ ,.

,_,-

_.

_ . -

_

ML19343C693

Text

Navigation menu

Search