ML20212E522

Forwards Insp Repts 50-361/86-25 & 50-362/86-26 on 860922-1003 & Notice of Violation.Listed Conditions Similar to Conditions Noted at Other Plants Identified as Contributing to Severity of Operational Event

ML20212E522
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/17/1986
From:	Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Baskin K SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20212E526	List: ML20212E522 ML20212E534 ML20212E553
References
IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, NUDOCS 8701050343
Download: ML20212E522 (4)

See also: IR 05000361/1986025

Text

7

- - - -

,

')3

&

- 4,...

'

% t

iv

' -

DEC 171986

'

.

4 ,

i

'

i

\

>  ?

Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362

Southern California Edison Company

- P. O. Box 800

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Rcsemead, California 91770 4

,

'

Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President'

'

'%

Attention:

Nuclear Engineering, Safety and Licensing Department

Gentlemen: ,

,

, Subject: NRC Inspection of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units

. 2 and 3.

.

This refers to the.special team inspection conducted by Mr. R. P. Zimmerman,

<

and other members of our staff on September 22 through October 3, 1986 of

'

activities authorized by NRC, License Nos. NPF-10, and NPF-15, and to.the

discussion of our findings held with Messrs. H. B. Ray, K. P. Baskin and other

4 ' * members of yourl staff'at the conclusion.of the inspection.

• , n. -

.

, ,e

, Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection -

report. 'Within_these areas, thel inspection l consisted of selective 3

examinations of1 procedures and representative records, interviews with i

j personnel.fand observations by the inspectors.' )'

'

Based on'the results.of this ins'pection,"it appears that one of your

activities was not conducted in full compliance with KRC requirements, as set

forth in the Notice of Violations enclosed herewith as Appendix A. Your

L response to this Notico is to be submitted in accordance with the provisions

'

of10CFR.2.201asstated-in}ppendixA,NoticeofViolation.

This inspection focused primarily upon assessing whether industry problems .,

which have occurred during specific operationalJevents at other facilities,

could be considered applicable to SONGS Units 2 and 3. Further, rhe team

assessed the quality of the review performed by your industry operating

experience program with regard to these events to determine whether adequate

preventive.and corrective measures were implemented based on lessons which

could~be learned'from within the industry. The primary events chosen for

review were the overcooling transient event at the Rancho Seco Nuclear

Generating Station'on December 26, 1985, (NUREG 1195), and aspects of the loss

. of feedwater event at-the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant on June 9, 1985,

. (NUREG 1154). Several additional industry problems were selected for review T '

, such as the susceptibility to a loss of shutdown cooling; and followup of NRC

Bulletin 85-03, which was generated following the Davis-Besse event, and dealt

t with motor operated valve common mode failures due to improper switch ,

i-

8701050343 861217

PDR ADOCK 05000361

O PDR l

$$0$- _' .

<

- -

-

- -- - - .. - -.-.- _ -.- .

G

,

e

'

>{ '-

9 ,

A

L3s

. . V DEC 171986

1 -

-2-

u-

settings. Also, the team assessed the material condition of the plant based

on' plant tours.

'A summary of-the areas inspected and results is included in Appendix B.

Overall Conclusions 1

The team. determined that your evaluations of complex operational events at-

other facilities need improvement and that increased management attention

-r needs to be focused on assuring the readiness of operations personnel for

manual operation of plant equipment in a transient situation. Also, the team

identified the need for increased attentiveness by plant personnel, including

• '

Q supervision, during plant rounds and tours to ensure that adverse conditions

are identified and corrected at the earliest opportunity.

N- 3

+- TheinspectorsidentihiedspecificconditionsatSONGSthatweresimilarto

N$ ' conditions identified at other facilities as having contributed significantly

to the severity of an operational event as follows:

1. H During the Rancho Seco event the operators tried to terminate the

- overcooling event by attempting to use manually operated block valves.

The valves would not operate due to lack of preventive maintenance. Lika

Rancho Seco, SONGS does not have a preventive maintenance program for

manually operated valves, which could contribute to the operability of

these type valves.-

2. During the Rancho Seco event, the plant operators were confused by

iincorrect local valve position. indication. This confusion resulted in

oveptorquinganddamagetoansuxiliaryfeedwatercontrolvalve,thus

complicating the termination of the event. Several valves (approximately

10) in the auxiliary feedwater systems for SONGS Units 2 and 3 had

missing,' inaccurate or defective local valve position indication.

f -

p- v 3. During the Davis-Besse event initiation of auxiliary feedwater was

• significantly delayed due to the, plant operator's unfamiliarity with and

• s inability to reset and'relatch the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine

,

! t 'following an overspeed trip.-~Likewise,-the SONGS plant operators were

(. !s! not far.iliir'with the subtle details necessary to reset and relatch the

3 ,. s auxiliary feedwater pump turbine'overspeed< trip. Although this event was

O V being evalusted by your, safety: review group, the evaluation was not in-

+ sufficient detail'to ensure that this problem would be addressed and

O

resolvsd." '0'

, t-

, , . .

.?

D4 Althodgh notispecifically part of,the Rancho Seco event, a walk-through

l

of a postulat.ed scenario for SONGS Units 2 and 3 identified a lack of

l -; consistent knowledge by the plant operators regarding the manual

L operation of the atmospheric dump valves (ADV) and the auxiliary

I

feedwater control valves. Also, the physical arrangement of the ADV

controls (the handwheel and manual pneumatic control are 7 feet and

i

\

. (* I

I -. e

f 'f- N

L }

4

m~ ' cf

DEC 171986

-3-

> ,

.

. 13 -feet, respectively, above the platform) made manual operation of these

valves very difficult.

"

" '

During the exit meeting the team noted that in general, the areas reviewed by

the team were found to be acceptable. Your actions to evaluate and collect

plant' problems such as those resulting in plant trips and spurious actuations

of the radiation monitoring and toxic gas isolation system were considered

o

,' . appropriate. Our review of your industry operating experience program

.

,

. indicated your evaluations were generally effective, except as noted above,~in

,

regard;.to reviews of complex operational events. We understand that .

'

,.

. corrective ~ actions are planned to assure all operations personnel are trained _ *

,' > on resetting and relatching the AW pump turbine following an overspeed trip. ,

^ '

,

'

Additionally, we understand that you plan to review the broader problem of

,

ensuring that sufficient detail is included in your evaluations of operational

,

. <

,

. events and that corrective action will be taken as appropriate.- Also, we~'. ,

understand you plan to review the readiness of SONGS for manual operation of

plant equipment during operational transients, and assess the need for

. increased attentiveness by plant personnel during plant rounds and tours. In

,'

addition to your response to-the enclosed Notice of Violation, please include ",

in your response letter those actions taken or planned to address the concerns

noted above and those identified in the enclosed inspection report.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of'this letter and the enclosures

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 procedure of the Office of Management and Budget as

rc.ptired by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

-

.

. - . - . - . - . _ _ _ .

.

-

DEC 171986

_4_

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased

to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

h). bM

Den s F. Kirsch, Director

Division of Reactor Safety and

Projects

Enclosures: ~

A. Appendix A - Notice of Violation

B. Appendix B - Areas Inspected and Results

C. Inspection Report Nos. 50-361/86-25, 50-362/86-26

cc w/ enclosures -(A), (B), and (C):

~

D. J. Fogarty, Executive Vice-Presiderit.

H. B. Ray, Vice-President _(San Clemente)

H. E. Morgan, Station Manager (San Clemente)

State of California

bec w/ enclosures (A), (B) and (C):

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Mr. Martin, RV

A. Johnson, RV

B. Faulkenberry, RV

G. Cook, RV

R. Huey, Resident Inspector ; Project Inspector

bec w/ enclosure A: LFMB

REQUEST COPY REQUEST COPY REQUEST COPY REQUEST COPY UEST COPY YES

@ / NO g / NO YES /@ / NO YE / NO

ZIMMERMt. 4ft MELFI f /d PERE RA ROYACK HON

12/r7/86 12//6/86 12/n /86 12//7 /8 12//l/86

REQUEST PY REQUEST COPY REQUEST COPY RE UEST COPY EST COPY

YES / N YES / @ YES /@ E / NO / NO

MYEL CALD KELL AS Cb

12/d/86 12/0/86 12/o/86 12/d/86 12/O/86

UEST COPY REQUEST Y R EST COPY REQUEST 0Y REQUEST COPY

YES / NO YES / N YES / NO YES / 0 YES

/h

RI S J SON PA CHA E KIRS

12/d/86 12/lf/ /86 12/0 /86 12// /86 12// 7/86

SEND TO PDR

@ / NO