ML20027A869
| ML20027A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A871 | List: |
| References | |
| LSO5-82-08-011, LSO5-82-8-11, NUDOCS 8208120388 | |
| Download: ML20027A869 (5) | |
Text
'
Enclosure (3)
~
, 8tf G 3
O
/- k
'o UNITED STATES
~'g
["
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
1j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
August 5, 1982
,o LS05-82-08-Oll MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. M. Sternberg, Chief Reactor Operations Projects Branch Region V FROM:
D. M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
SALP BOARD REVIEW OF SAN ON0FRE UNIT N0. 1 Enclosed is NRR's evaluation of Southern California Edison's performance in the functional area - Licensing Activities - for San Onofre Unit No. 1 for the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982.
en
. Crutch 1 eld, ie Operating Reactors Br ch #5 Division of Licensing cc:
J. W. Hornor, Region V i
l l
W% %etrScnrtepog ca a ~, :..~~
l-
'?"
7, j yi\\
bOh/OO387J alc.:a
Facility Name: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Uriit No.1 Licensee:
Southern California Edisen Company NRR Project Manager: Walter A. raulson I.
Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of Southern California Edison Company in the functional area of Licensing Activities. This report is intended to provide NER's input to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance review process as described in NRC Manual Chapter 0516. This report covers the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982.
The approach used for this evaluation was to select a number of licensing issues which included major topics of NRR concern. The staff involved in the selected issues were then requested to assign a performance category for the evaluation criteria based on their experience with the licensee. This information was then assembled into a matrix which allowed an overall evaluation of the licensee's performance. This evaluation is based on staff input from nine branches in four NRR divisions.
II.
Summary of Results NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that the final rating for each functional area vill be a composite of attributes tempered with judgment as to the significance of the individual items.
Based on this approach, the performance of Southern California Edison Company in the functional area - Licensing Activities - is rated Category 2.
III. Criteria Evaluation criteria as given in NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0516, Table 1, were used for this evaluation.
I*,*. Performance Analysis The licensee's performance evaluation is based on a consideration of seven evaluation criteria given in the NRC Manual Chapter. For most of the licen-sing issues considered in this evaluation, only four of the evaluation criteria were of significance. Therefore, the composite rating is based
. on the following evaluation criteria:
- Management involvement
- Approach to resolution of technical issues
- Responsiveness to NRC initiatives
- Training With the exception of Enforcement History, for which there was no bases within NRR for evaluation, the remaining evaluation criteria of
- Reportable events
- Staffing were judged to apply only to a few licensing activities.
' The evaluation was based on our evaluation of the following licensing activities:
- Responses to NUREG-0737 items
- Adequacy of station electric distribution voltage
- Degraded grid voltage
- Auxiliary feedwater, system evaluation
- Pressurized thermal shock-procedures and training
- Equipment environmental qualification
- Steam generator inspection
- Inoperable safety injection system valves
- Systematic evaluation program-seismic evaluation
- Systematic evaluation program (SEP) all other topics
- Operator licensing
- Appendix R I
I A.
Management Involvement in Assuring Quality The overall rating for thic evaluation criterion is category 2.
The ratings varied from category 1 to 3 with most ratings being category 2.
The licensee's performance in only one area was judged to fall in category 3 namely in the area of SEP seismic reevaluation.
For this topic, the licensee's planning and priorities were ' judged not effective and the supporting information provided by the licensee was not complete or made available on a timely basis. On the other hand, management involvement was evident in the evaluation of auxiliary j
feedwater systems where consistent evidence of prior planning and i
priori, ties was noted and in the evaluation of procedures and traihing regarding pressurized thermal shock where timely, thorough, an'd technically sound reviews were noted as well as complete well main-l
{
A tained records being available and evidence of corporate management involved in site activities.
On balance, the topic evaluations support a category 2 rating.
B.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint All topic ratings for this evaluation crite.rion were category 2 which, therefore, is also the overall rating. For the case of the operator licensing topic, there was no basis for rating this topic. In all topics rated, an understanding of issues was generally apparent.
The licensee had generally sound approaches to the resolution of the issues.
C.
Responsiveness The category rat'.ng for this evaluation criterion varied from 2 to 3.
The licensee's performance in four of the topics evaluated were judged to fall into ustegory 3-Inoperable safety injection system valves, SEP (both scismic and all other topics), and Appendix R.
In the SEP and Appendix R areas, it was judged that there are longstanding regulatory issues attributable to the licensee.
In the SEP areas it was also noted that the licensee frequently requires extensions of time.
The licensee was judged to have done a poor job in documen-ting their position and proposed resolution of the inoperable SIS valve s issue. For the other seven topics, category 2 rating was given based on assessments of the licensee's performance that included generally timely responses, few longstanding regulatory issues attributable to the licensee, and viable and generally' sound and thorough responses.
Overall, the rating for this evaluation criterion is category 2.
D.
Enforcement History l
There is no important basis for an NRR evaluation of this criterion.
l E.
Reportable Events Only one topic was evaluated with regard to reportable events. This one evaluation (category 2 rating) was judged to be too limited a sample to provide an overall rating.
F.
Staffing Only one topic was evaluated with regard to staffing-SEP seismic reevaluation. A category 2 rating was given to this topic based on the judgment that staffing is marginal as indicated by excessive i
backlog and late response. Based on the limited input, a category 2 rating was assigned to this criterion.
6
_4 G.
Training This evaluation criterion was evaluated based on the results of the operator licensing examinations.
One examination of operator candidates was completed during the assessment period. The candidates consisted of three Senior Operator upgrades and one Reactor Operator.
All passed the examination. Based on the 100% passing rate it was judged that the training provided by the licensee for these candidates was appropriately defined and implemented. A category 1 rating was
\\1 assigned to this criterion, V.
Conclusion Based on the evaluation of the above seven criteria with regard to Southern California Edison's performance in the functional area - Licensing Activities -
for San Onofre Unit No. 1, an overall performance rating of category 2 is determined.
O A-EG 9
._