IR 05000361/1987024

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Address Concern Noted in Insp Rept 50-361/87-24

ML20236W671
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8712080147
Download: ML20236W671 (1)

Text

, y. _

,

f - s-e

,

. .

,

-

.

,

.,

' '

w ' ' '

. k b// .j. ,

g ~;, 1 y 3, .

'

v- DEC 2 1987

..

,

y, '

,,

g .7 g ,a

~ Docket No. 50-361.

.,v o Oc d SouthernCaliforniaEdis$n' Company-P. O Box-800.

,

'1 :p[er'.

y i v'*' 'y ,

2244. Walnut Grove Avenue /W 1

'

Rosemead,' California 91770 pt,r .1 w. .p

-

p k j

.

Attention: .Mr. H. B. Ray, Vice Presid' ent

. Site Manager m ,'

Gentlemen:

,

c q f A f.l

4 '1 J.

Thank' you for your letter' dated. November 6,' 1987, in . response to our letter 'i

and Inspection Report No. 50-361/87-24, dated:Gctober 15, 1987, informing ~us :f of the steps you-have taken.to address.the concern which we brought to'your ,

attention. '

]i

; A.

Your cooperation with'us/is appreciated.

,

4 ("

,;

Sincerelv -

y 7*  ; ,

U hc l', . L M./ '

'-

F. A. enslawski, Chief i ,f Emergency Preparedness and f l Radiological Protection Branch a 'j y'i g-CC: -(@[3 '

K. P. Baskin, Vice President, SCE I u 7 cc w/cy. ltr dtd 11/6/87: >

State of CA bec w/cy ltr dtd 11/6/87:

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) (IE06)

Project Inspector ,,

Resident Inspector s B. Faulkenberry J. Martin f ,,

'

.t

' ^*

'

J. Zo111 coffer 8 becw/ocyofltrdtd1N6/87:/ ,/

l M. Smith -

, 4

'>

Region V

' -

'

l jREQUEST COPY ] R AEQ ST COPY ]

W U YES l/ NO ] ESTCOPY-)AYESy/2

/ NO T , NO - ]

V

-

[4F TO POR ] .

ff L MS '/ ,NO ]

f%

JRussell/ norma GY as .

• IV FAWenslawski 12/ /87 '

.

12/ / /87 22/3/87

+ >0 8712080147 871202

) ('

-

PDR ADUCK 05000361 G

W ,hs Q

'

PDR '

, ., ,

f .

'

< ~ t. m

Y "'

, f [fe

'~

i UUAM ~ #

ce'rtified 4 4% ,

Southem Califomia Edison Company t"i;:j ...,, .

,f a 2y ,

^

v~ ~ , .o. .ox in. .

-

j c. : N, /3 g.

yrt. sxu eteneure.catpynwx oren .

x E "oI.".n"7ma , November 6#1987 .

,,,,,,,,..

, ,

..........-

'

d

. i ',, t

\',> , ,

,

Mr..p8nn'. B Martin, Regional Administrator.

U. 4.(dyclear Regulatory. Commission, Region V 145Ct Wttle, Lane, suite 210 Walnut)Ordek, CA 94596

'

Dear Ec. Mar,

V4.nz r; SubjectJ Deh Wt No. 50-361 l 3

' Sad mofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Mi , F. A. Wenslawski's letter dated October 15, Li987, forwarded to us a report of a special inspection' conducted at San onofre in September. The letter identified a' concern with certain plant procedures related to emergency conditions _and:the J impDmentation of 10 CFR 50.54tx). It requested that we evaluate'

/ issLi:s identified' in the repoi-t and identify any actions that we will take. TM.3 purpose of this letter is to respond to this.

/ % quest.

.

l

'

g .

<

,

\ y,s -

.\

The special inspectics was(directed at an event that' i

/ occurred on August'32,.1987, which involved leakage-of. primary '

, !

< coolant due to failure in Mode 5 of the packing for valve .l ('C

/

21IV-9378. Our report of this event'is providedcin Licensee: Event Report (LER) No. 2-87-14. Revision 1 of the.LER;was submitted.by.

l letter dated October 26, 1987, and it' indicated;that a:suparate, .l

informational LER would be provided to address the: health physics  !

aspects of the event. Preparation of that LER has been {

f/ r.ompleted, and it is being submitted as LER No. 2-87-20.

q In summary, d agree with the concern identified in Mr. Wenslawski's it.\+,ter. The.need to have clear, well understood  !

requirements to enstre that radiation protection requirements are ,

met is always important, but,it is particularly so'in 1 circumstances where people are suddenly faced.with unanticipated '<

,

conditions and where prompt action is required. Our evaluation j of the August 31 event hss doncluded that a number of changes are i required in our programs at.d training..

y 4  :

!

) \ 1.

I a

'

? f , ,

~, a

) A n f /1_._. .<  !

^)W )

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _

j-

'

Qy e' .

i * d

>

,, ... s .

.

'1 ,g

• .

E > , ll fi .),

,..  : - Jf t' I '

1. ' '

,g y i -.' i fj. [ g ;

I .. . , .

,

.I

,

' k ,,

aw q ,

.

~

, ,.

,r..c-

. ..

,

d /)Mr.fJohn B. Martin W -2 . '

November 6,-.-1987. J

,

- .

, t, ,,

b,

} *? ,c .

a , '

r icur responso .'to the conaern idelitified:in(Mr. ;Wenslawski's

'

,

i.

. letter is provided>as an attachment hereto.. Additionaln..

information concerning;.our evaluation.of the: health physics, aspects of the. event may be'foundiin-LER'No'. 2-87-20..

-

-(

t 3 If.yoddave.any; questions;or, comment's;forlif.you would.like; additional intcb, nation, pleaseolet:me know.

-

.

,

..:-

' "

Sincerely,

-l

'f Y. -

H

HBR:bam

Attachment cc: David'J. Fogarty. ,

i

! -'.

Kenneth-P. Baskin o .

Mr. F. R..Huey, USNRC Senior; Resident Inspector, SONGS.

'j

,

[ ,

i Mr. F. A. Wenslawski, Region V'

,

l h' 6 l ,J l

'

,

,

\ J s >

• .

,

3 :l 1 l

l '

l l

I ' ;l + .

,

. 4 f

2'

{

r y.

,

• • ,

"

g  :

3  ;

).

{

!

-

-

'

l.

i

'

.

. l

, i

...I-

. p -

.

___ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - - . . - - _- o

'

. ., .- .

]

<> .t . . ,

q

'!'<

^

"

Attachm'ent-

i q

-

RESPONSE.TO NRC CONCERN-~

The following. summarizes the SCE evaluation of the Health-Physics (HP) actions and controls which were implemented in c l

' response to the packing-leak.which developed for valve'2HV-9378:  ;

'

on August 31, 1987. 3 This summary is'provided in response'to the concern identified in Mr. Wenslawski's letter. dated" October 15, 1987,:and additional information concerning the event: ,

11s provided in~LER Nos.:2-87-14-and 2-87-20. .j r '

'With respect to the identified NRC concern,nour evaluation. i consists of a number of: findings-and corrective actions,'as 1 follows: 1 , j

Finding 1 No condition of emergency.was declared by.the Shift Superintendent as a result offthe packing leak from 2HV-9378.-

1 Problem The HP Foreman believed he was authorized, sunder the:

circumstances as he understood them,nto deviate from-approved procedures in providing. support!to personnel who.

had been directed to take. steps-to reduce or stop the leak.

u Discussion l As indicated in the NRC' inspection report, provisions of .

plant procedures which' authorize deviation from approved j procedures in accordance with:10 CFR 50.54(x), in. order.to j protect the-public health and safety, were.not. implemented,  !

for this event. This was because--there was no-need:for such-  !

i -deviation. H Nevertheless, as discussed in LER'No. 2-87-20,.the HP . . .

Foreman did deviate from the approved procedures. .Although'

o the radiological protection actions taken were appropriate under the circumstances, and.they would have'been the: a

' actions taken eventif:all provisions of the procedures had- H been followed,-the HP Foreman had not been; authorized to- , i deviate from the approved procedures. . Such unauthorized-deviation is not acceptable and could result in-a hazard, as: , i noted in the,. inspection report.

l q

i

!

-

l l , d

1 ,

L~ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ ___

-

. _ . _a

,

.. ,, ,

• '

,ky'w >R '

.

• , .

, , , ,

j.

' ' '

ll

1. f, . i: ,

i 1

'

- ' * '

y:

'

U T , ,

'

,

[

'

l > 'L~ v_ n > , > i.

'

'

' Attachment. s-2 ,

.1 i r .g,

'

'

. . ) .. l

'

! , Corrective Action ,

u <

"Allitraining programsIwill[bd? reviewed, Land.revisedUasL

"

< '

.l-necessary,uto ensure that the'circumstancescunder"whicht @'

. personnel lmay be: authorized toideviatelfromLapproved . ..

' '

,

procedures, and"the'meansLof' obtaining such!auth'rizationJ o ,

ar'.e clearly addressed. iIniaddition,:this.aspectfoffthe; X. <

, .m

'

-August 31 event 1willebe; discussed lin aJapacial noticoltoiall

. personnel" who L hold: unescorted access to :the ' Protected $ Area. , ' -

-This> notice will'be; issued'by' November:13;7 1987.- ' '

,

<

, , J" -

.

<

w

. Finding 2' '

_. ,

y

,

, ,

..e

,

.HP procedures are unclear,)with respect'toLtheI'ntEnt i ofka provision which concerns deviations under: certain; circumstances.:. ,

.

I 5 Problem 4 As indicated in the NRC ,i.nspection- report, othere fis a - A provision in HP: procedure .SO123-VII-9.9 thatirefers to deviations.which are. permitted:under declared. emergency:

conditions'or HP Supervisor-approved'special conditions.

The scope of the deviations might'be:subjectyto? ,

misunderstanding. *

Discussion As. discussed above, the event;on' August 31 did not11nvolve~

any condition of-declared emergency, and no special-condition was approved by.a HP Supervisor."

The context in the procedure for the reference to deviations was itself intended to' limit tla scope of;the, deviations.:

The reference appears in Subsection'6;1.1.2. '.Section 6.1.1 describes the process for'an.ititiator;to obtainla. Radiation, Exposure Permit ( RE'P) . . S u b s e c t / o n . 6 '. 1 '. 1 . 1* s t a t e s : t h a t " a n !

REP must be requested at:least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> iniadvance-ofithe need for.its use. Subsection 6.1.1.21gives'the' exception to:

this as follows: , 1

" Deviations are permitted.for operations Shift- ,

,

Supervisor-declared emergency conditionsnor< Health Physics Supervisor-a,pproved'special conditions.

~

NOTE: Health Physics will' attempt to' service. late request's '>

but timely requests will be given priority."

,

g f,. P

. go . r;g' , , w Q: \ ' *.

--

.;. s

,

,

i i

3 e),

)

'

4 , i

'

iAttachment ' -3-

',

,

+ ,

,

,

, .

.

'j

'

Hence', theTintent'of(this proOis' ion $1nIthe procedure'was not '

to provide for. deviations from?the"HP:. Program generally,'but "

• '

.only:from;the:requirementito" request an' REPS 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s:in-

~

,

-advance.ofithe'need:foriits'use.L , s a

%

corrective ~ Action ,-

c

'Although t'he intent.of the statement,concerning deviations L l

'

' isx11mited by its: context in theTprocedure,.in order-to!

' ' 44 ensure.that it:is not'a1 source:of misunderstanding, the statement will'be' revised.to: simply:6say!thatJexceptions to- ,

the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> requirement may be' approved)in1certain specified' -

- circumstances.- .~ "

. . . , . . . . , .,

' Also, use 'of the term '! emergency" .in this vsubsection,,Tof the L

.

. .

',M procedure is: improper and was:nothintended to; describe ,

,.

conditions referred to:in:10 CFR 50.54(x),or?in the?. , , i Emergency. Plan l Implementing ProceduresJ(EPIPs).; Use i'n'thisi '

'l case was generic,Eand such generic usage ~will be replaced Y1 with more precise 1 terms wherevereit appears,in;HP. j procedures. '

a

'

?

Thes'e actions will be completed by December' 31, 1987.

, .

j l

Finding 3 ,

!

'

'

d HP procedures should provide for actions:to'be.takenLini 1 non-declared-emergency circumstances 1when>non-shiftLHP; '

supervision and management'may not be-immediately available..to authorize expedited actions.. -

'

Problem .

' '

d t

i Existing. procedures require approval above theilevel of HP shift supervision, inLorder to use defined, expedited.( , y procedural steps:for issuance of an REP.- UndericertainL j circumstances, obtaining.such approval may unneccusarily

'

delay REP issuance. .

,

]l Discussion-

.I subsection 1.1.1.4 of HP procedure Sol 23-VII-9.9.prov' ides'

for expedited action:as'follows:-

~

"For certain con'itions d where work must be performed in an"

~

i expedient manner and pre-job surveys;cannot be~'obtained in T

,

the time frame required (such~asifor'SSAM'or ALARA d considerations, etc.) the following;will apply." l l

l.

,

'

w, n , w i

f .4 i . - ,

' , , ,

,,i., 3 ..

-

,

, 9-e i 1 Attachment? '

-4-

o a d

IV

'

. One ofithe'requiredisteps'is.to obtain-approval of the,HPL.' I-Manager or!a HP Supervisor,1 including by phoneJif..necessary.4 '7 h' This was:not'done during the evention-Augustl-31.. >

L-

,

.r , , ,

r.

l. ,}

[ Corrective Action- O q

.

HP; procedures \willberevisedLbyNovember30,[1987,Lto?

'

>

, _ ;f

', W

'

include provisions for HP. shift supervisionito provide'

, expedited ~ support;to;planteactivities,(underlspecifiedb ,

circumstances.1 Theirequirements-for providing such support.. "

,

will be defined in the procedures:solthat'approvaliof;higheri a,.

• '

~ levels of : supervision and; management prior to implementation;

-

- will not be required. >

, w <

,

a;;

' Finding'4-u In principle, the emergency conditions ~ addressed byl10LCFR. m , f

. 50.54(x) could include conditions which.do:not result'-in '

, 9; declaration ofcan emergency'under the EPIPs.

I:

Problem .

The NRC inspection report indicated'a concern inLthat the provisions of.HP procedure SO123-VII-9.9Jand' operations -

procedure Sol 23-0-l' recognize.'aniemergencyLand authorizet departure from established requirements without necessarily being in an emergency classification as defined:by EPIP-SO23-VIII-1.

.!

Discussion- d As discussed above, Sol 23-VII-9.9 used theSterm,Jemergency, .,

in a generic' sense,~and the intended uselwas only.with- . i respect.to the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. requirement:forz. REPiissuance. This; will be corrected.

S0123-0-1 uses the term,Lemergency,iin the1 sense;that"it;:iss=O - j used in 10-CFR 50.54(x).' It is ourl understanding lthat:the.' .

H NRC does not intend the emergency conditions 1 addressed'by i ~

d 10 CFR 50.54(x) to-be limited:to those which'areiaddressed d by EPIPs. EPIPs are prepared in response to!101CFR(50,; ~j Appendix-E, and related guidance, whereas:10 CFR'50.54(x)?  ;;

(anditherefore" Sol 23-o-1)-are~' intended to: address' - '

,

!

circumstances in which.no action consistent'with licensei conditions a'nd' technical specifications that'can provideL -

adequate protection (to the public" health and-safety isc immediately apparent. j];

'

l

e -.

ll

'

,

f E__ _ ____ u_______ _ _ _ _ ___. -. . . . . . . . .

": __

'

t . =

d

7 ys ;,c , o

') f * W , $( , ;

,

"[T f

, 'l , ,

i

.

w a , ya j

_

v.s y '. ..

-

- . ,

,

g , .. f fg

' '

-Reattachment -5- .

.4 i jWith. respect to:the event (on-l August [31,9asLdiscussed Above-

and1innthe, NRC inspection l report, -it was not:

s an: emergency L

defined

either by'S0123-0-l'or!:SO23-VIII-1.,1AsfregardsiHP1

/ -procedure SO123-VII-9.9, the Shift Superintendent-did:not declare an emergency. If heLhad,.the deviation permitted:byi.

' '4 the procedure was onlyLwith respect to thel 24' hour. REP:

, requirement. <

Corrective Action J

,

t

'

'

WeLconclude that all personnel;who~mayJhave toiprovide: _.

expedited support'to unanticipated plant'conditionsfshould- '

receive; training.whichl clarifies their) authorities,Jduties- ,

'jl~

.

and responsibilities andathose;of::others who.may be

-

. . . , uc i involved.: Currently, such trainingEis; generally-limited"to:

conditions 7M dressed by EPIPs.

'

~ Because of: the potentially. broad scope: of 'this(needed #1 training,.and the possibility that'some, changes ini ..

. .

n procedures may also be required, antaction plan"and< schedule.:

will first be developed. .ThisiwillLbe^ completed by~ d December 31, 1987. -

l l

Finding 5 i

Telephone communication:between the Shift Superintendent:and.the'. ..

l- HP Foreman resulted in incorrect > understanding ofz theJdirection'

provided. ]j l- Problem The._Shif t Superintendent, believed he was speaking: on - the -

l- telephone to a maintenance mechanic when he provided' general

!

direction to take the steps necessary to"stop.the packing l leak. It appears that.he~was'instead speaking.to,the HP f l Foreman who interpreted the direction?as authorization <to deviate from his approved' procedures. i Discussion , ,

I a

-

. ' .l 1-The Shift Superintendent does'not recall speaking toLthe HPl i Foreman, and=he.certainly;did not declare an emergency or- 1 i, authorize deviation from HP procedures.~ He doerirecallS . , l l- having~a telephone. conversation 1with a person he? thought toi .j be the mechanic assigned;to. work on1 valve'2HV-9378. .What: ~

would-be appropriate direction.to the mechanic to urgently- i)

take steps to!stop the packing leak, was. evidently provided: l l to the HP Foreman in error. This led the foreman to believe ,1 l he had direction that would permit him.to deviate'from.his;

. .

procedures.

i- 1

'

g.

u

.. _ = . _ . _ - -

gn , ,

.

--

..

-

,

4-

-D :

jo , .

• lA.< * *

'!-

Attachment -6-N ,

,

Corrective Action'-

As discussed >under Finding.,1 above', this-' event'will-be.

~

. formally reviewed'with all-:personne1Lwho' hold. unescorted-access to the': Protected. Area. - Mis-communication'of'this>

kind can lead to-very serious.~consequenc'es'and'must not

.

.

. occur. :There'is anfestablished training program for controlE f

L

-

Room. operators which is. designed'to'.preventathis kind of.

'

error. This trainingifor' Control Room personnel willLbel enhanced to explicitly:' apply.to their communications'with-others who may be1 outside.thefControl. Room..

1; i

l h .V.

t

.. ,

'

, '..b

)

i 4

.

.

I l

- J, ci E

j i

.

]

.

-]

a

.

il

!

l :

o

'

!

l' '

i l

} ,

I i

- t g