ML20055D536

Discusses Electrical Safety Sys Functional Insp Conducted on 891030-1130 & Forwards Notice of Violation

ML20055D536
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	06/29/1990
From:	Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20055D537	List: ML20055D536 ML20055D538
References
NUDOCS 9007090070
Download: ML20055D536 (2)

Text

0 L 'i *)#@IE0 UNITE 3 STATES

%o,'s 7.!

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

;j R5000N V -

-% ei 1460 MARIA LANE SulTE 210

% ,o* WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94996 DUN 191990 Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 Southern California Edison Company Irvine Operations Center 23 Parker Street Irvine, California 92718 Attention: Mr. Harold B. Ray, Senior Vice President Gentlemen:

This letter refers to the electrical Safety System Functional-Inspection 1 (SSFI) conducted by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation between October 30 and November 30, 1989. This inspection activity was documented . j in Inspection Report Nos. 50-361/89-200 and 50-362/89-200, dated January 12, 1990.

The purpose of this SSFI was to' determine whether the electrical distribution  ;

systems of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, as designed, installed, and configured,  !

would be capable of perfonning their intended safety functions.: The-inspec--

tion . included technical reviews of calculations, reviews _ of supporting documents, examinations of activities associated with the electrical-distribution systems, .and system walk-downs by the inspectors. -

Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in the-Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.

As:a result of the inspection, the inspection team' identified four general areas of weakness which were discussed during the-exit meeting on November 30, j 1989. These weaknesses were also identified in our letter to you dated January 12, 1990, which forwarded the SSF1 report. These included (1) set-points inconsistent with the plants' design batis, (2) inadequate procedures to ensure that setpoints were properly implemented in equipment settings.

(3) errors in documentation of maintenance actions, and (4) missing or inade-quate calculations to demonstrate that design bases had b'een met. These four weaknesses were substantiated by fifteen deficiencies which were documented in Appendix A to the SSFI report. Four of.these. specific deficiencies are- '

considered by Region V to constitute the three violations of NRC requirements  :

which are cited in Appendix A to this letter.

1 LYou submitted to us a letter dated April 24, 1990, responding to.the findings o presented.in the SSFI report referenced above. We have have reviewed the-responses provided in that letter,.and consider the corrective actions you 1 have taken or initiated for violations A.1, B, and C of the enclosed Notice to w appropriate. Consequently, no additional response is required for these violations.

\  :

9007090070 900629

.Prm pc ADOCK 03000361 PDL moj n -

l I

l l

Violation A.2 of the enclosed Notice was addressed, in part, by Item 15, i

" Deficiencies in Diesel Fuel Storage Tank Level Calibration", of your April 24 t

letter. However, you are requested to provide a written response for this '

violation which further discusses the basis for your conclusion that the diesel fuel oil' storage tanks have sufficient margin to accommodate any-additional errors that may be identified. Your response should specifically  ;

address the basis for SCE's confidence that the fuel inventory required by  !

the Technical Specifications (47,000 gallons in modes 1 through 4; 37,000 gallons in mode 5 or 6) is met at all times. This response is requested  !

within thirty days of receipt of this letter. ,

l In addition, we request that you advise us regarding the results of the fuel storage tank level setpoint evaluation which your April 24 letter stated you expect to complete by September 1,1990. This information is requested l

within 30 days after completion of your evaluation.

i Your response to this Notice is to be submitted in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201 as stated in Appendix A, Notice of Violation.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter, the enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The response directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance. procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely.

., h S.A.Richards, Chief C7e

! Reactor Projects Branch l

l

Enclosure:

Appendix A - Notice of Violation cc w/

Enclosure:

D. J. Fogarty, Executive Vice President H. E. Morgan, _Vice President and Site Manager (San Clemente) i R. W. Krieger, Acting Station Manager (San Clemente)

State of California

-l l

l

/ 1 l

l 1

. ..