ML090350505: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = Letter, Licensee Response to Notice of Violation
| document type = Letter, Licensee Response to Notice of Violation
| page count = 4
| page count = 4
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000361/2008013]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
{{#Wiki_filter:Ross T. Ridenoure nEDDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Senior Vice President and CNO San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station An EDISON INTERNATIONAL& Company January 19,   2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
n ED DISON An EDISON INTERNATIONAL&
 
Company Ross T. Ridenoure Senior Vice President  
==Subject:==
and CNO San Onofre Nuclear Generating  
Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 Reply to Notice of Violation; EA-08-296 Inspection Report No. 05000361/2008013 and 05000362/2008013 San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, Units 2 and 3
Station January 19, 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
 
Commission
==References:==
Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Subject: References:
Letter from Mr. E. E. Collins (NRC) to Ross T. Ridenoure (SCE) dated December 19, 2008 and LER 2008-006, dated September 17, 2008
Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 Reply to Notice of Violation;  
 
EA-08-296 Inspection  
==Dear Sir or Madam:==
Report No. 05000361/2008013  
 
and 05000362/2008013
The reference letter transmitted the results of NRC Inspection Report No.
San Onofre Nuclear Generation  
05000361/2008013 and 05000362/2008013 to Southern California Edison (SCE). The Special Inspection was conducted between August 4, 2008 and December 11, 2008 at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The referenced report also transmitted a Notice of Violation (EA-08-296). The attachment to this letter provides the required response to the Notice of violation.
Station, Units 2 and 3 Letter from Mr. E. E. Collins (NRC) to Ross T. Ridenoure (SCE) dated December 19, 2008 and LER 2008-006, dated September  
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. A. E. Scherer.
17, 2008 Dear Sir or Madam: The reference  
Sincerely,
letter transmitted  
 
the results of NRC Inspection  
==Enclosure:==
Report No.05000361/2008013  
As stated cc:     E. E. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV G. Warnick, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Mail Stop D45 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 368-6255 PAX 86255 J~t~DI Fax: (949) 368-6183 Ross.Ridenoure@sce.com
and 05000362/2008013  
 
to Southern California  
ENCLOSURE REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION The Enclosure to Mr. E. E. Collin's letter dated December 19, 2008, states in Part:
Edison (SCE). The Special Inspection  
During an NRC inspection completed on December 11, 2008, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violation is listed below:
was conducted  
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," states, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions and procedures shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
between August 4, 2008 and December 11, 2008 at San Onofre Nuclear Generating  
Contrary to the above, in March 2004, the licensee engaged in activities affecting quality that were not prescribed by documented instructions or procedures of the type appropriate to the circumstances. Specifically, maintenance and work control personnel failed to develop appropriate instructions or procedures, and failed to include quantitative or qualitative steps to ensure the maintenance activities on safety-related 125 Vdc station battery Breaker 2D201 had been satisfactorily completed. The work plan described in Maintenance Order 03100406000 was incomplete and lacked the steps necessary to ensure that-electrical connection fasteners on Breaker 2D201 upper stud to bus bar connections were properly installed. This failure resulted in the Unit 2 safety-related Battery 2B008 being inoperable between March 2004 and March 25, 2008.
Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The referenced  
This violation is associated with a White significance determination process finding.
report also transmitted  
 
a Notice of Violation (EA-08-296).  
SCE RESPONSE TO VIOLATION BACKGROUND AND EVENT  
The attachment  
 
to this letter provides the required response to the Notice of violation.
==SUMMARY==
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. A. E. Scherer.Sincerely, Enclosure:  
 
As stated cc: E. E. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV G. Warnick, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Mail Stop D45 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 368-6255 PAX 86255 Fax: (949) 368-6183 Ross.Ridenoure@sce.com
On March 25, 2008, while performing a weekly surveillance of a 1 E battery, plant personnel discovered its voltage below the required value. SCE determined the low voltage was caused by loose bolts to the DC breaker connecting the battery to the source of the battery charging current, the 1 E 125 VDC bus. SCE determined that the degraded electrical connection to the DC breaker was due to an inadequate work plan and lack of checks during installation in March 2004. A report of the event was submitted on September 17, 2008 (LER 2008-013).
J~t~DI
As discussed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Special Inspection Exit meeting on December 11, 2008, SCE does not contest the violation or the NRC's determination of its significance.
ENCLOSURE REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION The Enclosure  
: 1.     Reason for the Violation The SCE Root Cause Evaluation for the maintenance activity of the 2004 installation of the DC breaker identified two root causes leading to the deficient work. First, SCE concluded that the Work Order was not sufficient in detail to match the significance of the work activity. SCE planner personnel do not consistently perform to the same set of standards. In this case, the Maintenance Order Planner did not include critical steps in the work plan and did not provide adequate instruction to verify the tightness of the breaker bolts. The work plan was reliant on a single barrier (the electrician's performance) to ensure proper tightening of the bolts.
to Mr. E. E. Collin's letter dated December 19, 2008, states in Part: During an NRC inspection  
SCE concluded the event involved not only planners not meeting procedure expectations, but also electricians not meeting expectations for applying their skills/knowledge in the conduct of their work. In addition, the supervisor was not overseeing work and verifying critical steps were complete. Underlying these behaviors was a lack of accountability.
completed  
: 2.     Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved
on December 11, 2008, a violation  
: a. On March 25, 2008, SCE tightened the loose connections for 2D201 which restored battery 2B008 to Operable status.
of NRC requirements  
: b. On March 25-26, 2008, SCE inspected the bolt/connections for the seven similar breakers and verified that they were tight.
was identified.  
: c. SCE revised appropriate maintenance procedures to provide additional assurance that critical electrical connections, as defined by procedure, disturbed during maintenance activities are restored to their design condition. These changes include:
In accordance  
o Additional verifications of connection torque or tightness.
with the NRC Enforcement  
o Specification of torque values in procedure or work order instructions.
Policy, the violation  
o Post maintenance verification testing to confirm the connection is restored to design condition.
is listed below: 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion  
: d. To assess the extent of condition, SCE reviewed over 1300 Maintenance Orders for the electrical portion of the Emergency Diesel systems, the Auxiliary Feedwater system and the 1 E electrical system. This review covered the previous 3 years and focused on identifying previously performed work in which the work plan lacked critical steps and verification.
V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," states, in part, that activities  
: e. Based upon the review described in 2.d, SCE has initiated inspection of the limited set of connections based upon the work plans that lacked critical steps and verification. This effort is on-going.
affecting  
: f. SCE has initiated independent reviews to find and correct deficiencies of previously planned Maintenance Order work plans prior to issuance to the field.
quality shall be prescribed  
(This review includes the equipment whose failure may initiate (a) a plant trip, (b) a 5% reduction in load, (c) entry into a 72-hour or less Technical Specification required shutdown or (d) DG inoperability.)
by documented  
: g. To initially address the issue of not meeting expectations, SCE has reviewed the lessons learned from this event with the planners, electricians and supervisors involved with the 2004 installation.
instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate  
: 3. Corrective Actions That Will Be Taken
to the circumstances  
: a. SCE recognizes the importance of its responsibilities with respect to identifying and correcting significant degraded conditions, not meeting expectations and lack of accountability. Consequently, the RCE that addressed the causes of this event is being expanded and broadened. Additional Corrective Actions are anticipated that will further address the root causes and reduce the likelihood of a future safety significant equipment functional failure due to loose electrical connections.
and shall be accomplished  
: b. SCE is developing training modules to train planners in planning fundamentals.
in accordance  
These modules will address the use of newly revised planning procedures as well as other applicable division and site procedures. SCE anticipates the program will be implemented and training will begin in April 2009.
with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.  
: 4.     Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved Full compliance with the Technical Specifications was achieved with the maintenance performed on March 25, 2008 and Battery 2B008 restored to Operable status.
Instructions  
Full compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V was achieved on December 31, 2008 when revised procedures (in 2.c) were issued.}}
and procedures  
shall include appropriate
quantitative  
or qualitative  
acceptance  
criteria for determining  
that important activities  
have been satisfactorily  
accomplished.
Contrary to the above, in March 2004, the licensee engaged in activities  
affecting quality that were not prescribed  
by documented  
instructions  
or procedures  
of the type appropriate  
to the circumstances.  
Specifically, maintenance  
and work control personnel  
failed to develop appropriate  
instructions  
or procedures, and failed to include quantitative  
or qualitative  
steps to ensure the maintenance  
activities  
on safety-related  
125 Vdc station battery Breaker 2D201 had been satisfactorily
completed.  
The work plan described  
in Maintenance  
Order 03100406000  
was incomplete  
and lacked the steps necessary  
to ensure that-electrical  
connection
fasteners  
on Breaker 2D201 upper stud to bus bar connections  
were properly installed.  
This failure resulted in the Unit 2 safety-related  
Battery 2B008 being inoperable  
between March 2004 and March 25, 2008.This violation  
is associated  
with a White significance  
determination  
process finding.  
SCE RESPONSE TO VIOLATION BACKGROUND  
AND EVENT SUMMARY On March 25, 2008, while performing  
a weekly surveillance  
of a 1 E battery, plant personnel  
discovered  
its voltage below the required value. SCE determined  
the low voltage was caused by loose bolts to the DC breaker connecting  
the battery to the source of the battery charging current, the 1 E 125 VDC bus. SCE determined  
that the degraded electrical  
connection  
to the DC breaker was due to an inadequate  
work plan and lack of checks during installation  
in March 2004. A report of the event was submitted  
on September  
17, 2008 (LER 2008-013).
As discussed  
with the Nuclear Regulatory  
Commission  
during the Special Inspection
Exit meeting on December 11, 2008, SCE does not contest the violation  
or the NRC's determination  
of its significance.
1. Reason for the Violation The SCE Root Cause Evaluation  
for the maintenance  
activity of the 2004 installation  
of the DC breaker identified  
two root causes leading to the deficient  
work. First, SCE concluded  
that the Work Order was not sufficient  
in detail to match the significance  
of the work activity.  
SCE planner personnel  
do not consistently  
perform to the same set of standards.  
In this case, the Maintenance  
Order Planner did not include critical steps in the work plan and did not provide adequate instruction  
to verify the tightness  
of the breaker bolts. The work plan was reliant on a single barrier (the electrician's
performance)  
to ensure proper tightening  
of the bolts.SCE concluded  
the event involved not only planners not meeting procedure expectations, but also electricians  
not meeting expectations  
for applying their skills/knowledge  
in the conduct of their work. In addition, the supervisor  
was not overseeing  
work and verifying  
critical steps were complete.  
Underlying  
these behaviors was a lack of accountability.
2. Corrective  
Actions Taken and Results Achieved a. On March 25, 2008, SCE tightened  
the loose connections  
for 2D201 which restored battery 2B008 to Operable status.b. On March 25-26, 2008, SCE inspected  
the bolt/connections  
for the seven similar breakers and verified that they were tight.c. SCE revised appropriate  
maintenance  
procedures  
to provide additional
assurance  
that critical electrical  
connections, as defined by procedure, disturbed during maintenance  
activities  
are restored to their design condition.  
These changes include: o Additional  
verifications  
of connection  
torque or tightness.
o Specification  
of torque values in procedure  
or work order instructions.
o Post maintenance  
verification  
testing to confirm the connection  
is restored to design condition.  
d. To assess the extent of condition, SCE reviewed over 1300 Maintenance  
Orders for the electrical  
portion of the Emergency  
Diesel systems, the Auxiliary Feedwater  
system and the 1 E electrical  
system. This review covered the previous 3 years and focused on identifying  
previously  
performed  
work in which the work plan lacked critical steps and verification.
e. Based upon the review described  
in 2.d, SCE has initiated  
inspection  
of the limited set of connections  
based upon the work plans that lacked critical steps and verification.  
This effort is on-going.f. SCE has initiated  
independent  
reviews to find and correct deficiencies  
of previously  
planned Maintenance  
Order work plans prior to issuance to the field.(This review includes the equipment  
whose failure may initiate (a) a plant trip, (b)a 5% reduction  
in load, (c) entry into a 72-hour or less Technical  
Specification
required shutdown or (d) DG inoperability.)
g. To initially  
address the issue of not meeting expectations, SCE has reviewed the lessons learned from this event with the planners, electricians  
and supervisors
involved with the 2004 installation.
3. Corrective  
Actions That Will Be Taken a. SCE recognizes  
the importance  
of its responsibilities  
with respect to identifying
and correcting  
significant  
degraded conditions, not meeting expectations  
and lack of accountability.  
Consequently, the RCE that addressed  
the causes of this event is being expanded and broadened.  
Additional  
Corrective  
Actions are anticipated  
that will further address the root causes and reduce the likelihood  
of a future safety significant  
equipment  
functional  
failure due to loose electrical
connections.
b. SCE is developing  
training modules to train planners in planning fundamentals.
These modules will address the use of newly revised planning procedures  
as well as other applicable  
division and site procedures.  
SCE anticipates  
the program will be implemented  
and training will begin in April 2009.4. Date When Full Compliance  
Will Be Achieved Full compliance  
with the Technical  
Specifications  
was achieved with the maintenance
performed  
on March 25, 2008 and Battery 2B008 restored to Operable status.Full compliance  
with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion  
V was achieved on December 31, 2008 when revised procedures (in 2.c) were issued.
}}

Latest revision as of 09:13, 14 November 2019

Reply to Notice of Violation; EA-08-296, Inspection Report No. 05000361/2008013 and 05000362/2008013
ML090350505
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 01/19/2009
From: Ridenoure R
Southern California Edison Co
To:
Document Control Desk, NRC Region 4
References
EA-08-296, IR-08-13
Download: ML090350505 (4)


Text

Ross T. Ridenoure nEDDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Senior Vice President and CNO San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station An EDISON INTERNATIONAL& Company January 19, 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 Reply to Notice of Violation; EA-08-296 Inspection Report No. 05000361/2008013 and 05000362/2008013 San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, Units 2 and 3

References:

Letter from Mr. E. E. Collins (NRC) to Ross T. Ridenoure (SCE) dated December 19, 2008 and LER 2008-006, dated September 17, 2008

Dear Sir or Madam:

The reference letter transmitted the results of NRC Inspection Report No.

05000361/2008013 and 05000362/2008013 to Southern California Edison (SCE). The Special Inspection was conducted between August 4, 2008 and December 11, 2008 at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The referenced report also transmitted a Notice of Violation (EA-08-296). The attachment to this letter provides the required response to the Notice of violation.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. A. E. Scherer.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated cc: E. E. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV G. Warnick, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Mail Stop D45 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 368-6255 PAX 86255 J~t~DI Fax: (949) 368-6183 Ross.Ridenoure@sce.com

ENCLOSURE REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION The Enclosure to Mr. E. E. Collin's letter dated December 19, 2008, states in Part:

During an NRC inspection completed on December 11, 2008, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violation is listed below:

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," states, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions and procedures shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.

Contrary to the above, in March 2004, the licensee engaged in activities affecting quality that were not prescribed by documented instructions or procedures of the type appropriate to the circumstances. Specifically, maintenance and work control personnel failed to develop appropriate instructions or procedures, and failed to include quantitative or qualitative steps to ensure the maintenance activities on safety-related 125 Vdc station battery Breaker 2D201 had been satisfactorily completed. The work plan described in Maintenance Order 03100406000 was incomplete and lacked the steps necessary to ensure that-electrical connection fasteners on Breaker 2D201 upper stud to bus bar connections were properly installed. This failure resulted in the Unit 2 safety-related Battery 2B008 being inoperable between March 2004 and March 25, 2008.

This violation is associated with a White significance determination process finding.

SCE RESPONSE TO VIOLATION BACKGROUND AND EVENT

SUMMARY

On March 25, 2008, while performing a weekly surveillance of a 1 E battery, plant personnel discovered its voltage below the required value. SCE determined the low voltage was caused by loose bolts to the DC breaker connecting the battery to the source of the battery charging current, the 1 E 125 VDC bus. SCE determined that the degraded electrical connection to the DC breaker was due to an inadequate work plan and lack of checks during installation in March 2004. A report of the event was submitted on September 17, 2008 (LER 2008-013).

As discussed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Special Inspection Exit meeting on December 11, 2008, SCE does not contest the violation or the NRC's determination of its significance.

1. Reason for the Violation The SCE Root Cause Evaluation for the maintenance activity of the 2004 installation of the DC breaker identified two root causes leading to the deficient work. First, SCE concluded that the Work Order was not sufficient in detail to match the significance of the work activity. SCE planner personnel do not consistently perform to the same set of standards. In this case, the Maintenance Order Planner did not include critical steps in the work plan and did not provide adequate instruction to verify the tightness of the breaker bolts. The work plan was reliant on a single barrier (the electrician's performance) to ensure proper tightening of the bolts.

SCE concluded the event involved not only planners not meeting procedure expectations, but also electricians not meeting expectations for applying their skills/knowledge in the conduct of their work. In addition, the supervisor was not overseeing work and verifying critical steps were complete. Underlying these behaviors was a lack of accountability.

2. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved
a. On March 25, 2008, SCE tightened the loose connections for 2D201 which restored battery 2B008 to Operable status.
b. On March 25-26, 2008, SCE inspected the bolt/connections for the seven similar breakers and verified that they were tight.
c. SCE revised appropriate maintenance procedures to provide additional assurance that critical electrical connections, as defined by procedure, disturbed during maintenance activities are restored to their design condition. These changes include:

o Additional verifications of connection torque or tightness.

o Specification of torque values in procedure or work order instructions.

o Post maintenance verification testing to confirm the connection is restored to design condition.

d. To assess the extent of condition, SCE reviewed over 1300 Maintenance Orders for the electrical portion of the Emergency Diesel systems, the Auxiliary Feedwater system and the 1 E electrical system. This review covered the previous 3 years and focused on identifying previously performed work in which the work plan lacked critical steps and verification.
e. Based upon the review described in 2.d, SCE has initiated inspection of the limited set of connections based upon the work plans that lacked critical steps and verification. This effort is on-going.
f. SCE has initiated independent reviews to find and correct deficiencies of previously planned Maintenance Order work plans prior to issuance to the field.

(This review includes the equipment whose failure may initiate (a) a plant trip, (b) a 5% reduction in load, (c) entry into a 72-hour or less Technical Specification required shutdown or (d) DG inoperability.)

g. To initially address the issue of not meeting expectations, SCE has reviewed the lessons learned from this event with the planners, electricians and supervisors involved with the 2004 installation.
3. Corrective Actions That Will Be Taken
a. SCE recognizes the importance of its responsibilities with respect to identifying and correcting significant degraded conditions, not meeting expectations and lack of accountability. Consequently, the RCE that addressed the causes of this event is being expanded and broadened. Additional Corrective Actions are anticipated that will further address the root causes and reduce the likelihood of a future safety significant equipment functional failure due to loose electrical connections.
b. SCE is developing training modules to train planners in planning fundamentals.

These modules will address the use of newly revised planning procedures as well as other applicable division and site procedures. SCE anticipates the program will be implemented and training will begin in April 2009.

4. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved Full compliance with the Technical Specifications was achieved with the maintenance performed on March 25, 2008 and Battery 2B008 restored to Operable status.

Full compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V was achieved on December 31, 2008 when revised procedures (in 2.c) were issued.