IR 05000312/1976004
| ML19317F854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1976 |
| From: | Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F818 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-76-04, 50-312-76-4, NUDOCS 8002210594 | |
| Download: ML19317F854 (11) | |
Text
.
.. _
_
___
_ - - _
_
.
_c
_._
-: -
...
.
. _. _
,
.
-5.
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICF
-
.
(
(17 Fha CF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEh..
,
,
,
-
g'
$EGIONY
-
.
,
.
.
'.
.
-
.
~ M Inspection Report No.
50-3f2/76-04 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-312 u e.n.
P: 0. Box 15830 License No. OPR-54
'
-
Sacramento, California 95813'
Priority,
.
C
Rancho Seco Category
'
Facility
,
'
Location Clav Station. California
.
Type of Facility PWR, B&W, 913 MWe-(2772 MWt)
-
Type of Inspection Routine. Unannounced
.
Dates of Inspection March 29 - Aoril 1,1976
.
Dates of Previous Inspection December 15-18,1975 (Reactor Ocerations)
M/2.[74
)
-
-
Principal Inspector
'Date R. T. Dodds, Reactor Inspector
-
Accompanying Inspectors M 9/ N w
//jd'//76
.
M. H. Malmros, Reactor Inspector
' Data
'
.
.
,
Data Other Accompanying Personnel:
None
.
Reviewed by ft914#
[AFL(V
/
-
,
Dat*'
J. Il Crews, Chi /f,' Reactor Operations & Nuclear
'
.
Support 1 ranch
.. ~
-
-
.
..
,
!
.i
.
'
....
'
'
-
..
i
.-
i
~
.
.
-
..
$002.310 kh x.
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
^
"
-
- - - -
- -
-.
......
._
_.
..
.,
.
.
_ _
..
.
- -
-
-.
.
._
__. - -_._ - _
. -,
-
..
.-
.
.
.._. ]
-
%
.
'
SUM 4ARY
.
Enforcement Action A.
The Management Safety Review Comittee had not performed certain review and reporting functions as prescribed by the technical specifications.
(Paragraph 7)
B.-
The licensee failed to conduct the annual visual examination of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment
'
structure.
(Paragraph 10.c)
Status of Previously Identified Enforcement Action
,
A.
It was verified that records of material receiving inspections of spare parts were being maintained as stated in the licensee's
'
letter of January 26, 1976.
(Paragraph 3)
Unusual Occurrences-A.
The circumstances and corrective actions described in Licensee Event Report Nos. 76-01 and 76-02 were confirmed.
(Paragraph 4)
Design Changes
\\
Not applicable Other Significant Findincs
.
Current Findings A.
Nonnal plant operations were resumed on February 25, 1976, thus ending the outage that began with the turbine failure in June 1975.
-
The plant will,.however, sautdown on April 3 to check the irradia-e
,
tion specimen holders, a current generic problem with similar reactor systems.
(Paragraph 2)
B.
The licensee's actions in response to IE Bulletin Nos.75-04B and
'
75-08 were verified.
(Items closed. Paragraph 5)
!
.C.
Power ascension testing at rated power has comenced.
(Paragraph 11)
<
.
D...
The reactor has been operated for periods of time up to six hours
at indicated thermal heat balance levels in excess of rated power.
The average of the indicated thermal heat balances (hourly readings)
!
for a day,'however, has not exceeded the license limit for steady state power level of 2772 megawatts thermal.
(Faragraph 8.a.(5))
y
.
,
j
'
.
.t
.
,
I
'
-
_,
.-.,,......,,.7_,--
. _....
..
_.
__
._.
__
-. _.
-
-
_ _ _ _.
.
... _
--
.
.
_.4
. ~.,.
.....
...
-
.
-
-
-
- - _.
.
. a.
. :..
.
.
-.-
...
.
-
..
,
.
O
-
-2-Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items and Others Items of
'
Interest A.
The surveillance testing required by technical specification-4.5.2.1.B.2 was verified to have been completed.
(Report No. 75-10.
Item closed.)
'. B.
It was verified that the licensee has a Special Operating Procedure
,
for protection against freezing as previously described by the
'
licensee during a telephone inquire.
(Item closed.)
.
.,
C.
SMUD has implemented procedures requiring the reactor coolant pump seals to be replaced should the steady state leak-off rate reach
'
2.8 gpm during normal operations.
Current analysis and tests show that seal integrity for anticipated transients would be maintained for steady state leak-off rates of less than 2.8 gpm, even in the event of loss of seal injection water.
It was determined that the coolant water-pumps for the reactor coolant pump and motor were not on the same buses as the seal injection pumps.. (Item closed.)
i Management Interview The results of the inspection were discussed with Messrs. Mattimoe, O
Rodriguez and other members of management. The following items were (j specifically addressed.
A.
To preclude misinterpretation,.the existance of outstanding design changes will be noted on the " flip chart" drawings in use in
'
the Control Room until such time as the applicable drawing has been
. revised.
(Paragraph 6)
B.
The licensee felt that the MSRC had indeed reviewed all items of
.
noncompliance since their's was not a large organization.
However, this review will be formally documented to assure that all members
-
of the MSRC are afforded the opportunity to pass judgement on these items. Minutes of meetings will be given timely distribution in accordance with the newly revised technical specifications.
!
,
(Paragrapn 7)
C.
The exterior and interior surfaces of the containment vessel will
'
be examined following the preparation and approval of a surveillance procedure for this required inspection.
(Paragraph 10)
'
.
t e
1
'
.
.-
.
o
.
.=:==
,.....
..
.
..
,
. -.
.
-
-
-
..
.
--
--
- - - - -. - - - -
... -
.
.
_ _ _ _.
.
- :.
.._.
_ _.
.
..
.-
...
-
+44 O-3-D.
The definition of a quorum of the MSRC will be considered to mean the chairman and a majority of the other members (5 of 8) unless an interpretation contrary to this is obtained from itRR.
(flote: The
.
inspector had questioned the intent of the technical specification since it states, A quorum of MSRC shall consist of the Chairman
"
or his designated alternate and a majority of the MSRC members including alternates.")
E.
SMUD will evaluate and provide the technical bases to support periodic short term operation at indicated power levels (obtained
.
from thermal heat balance calculations) greater than a steady state power level of 2772 megawatts thermal.
In the mean time, the-indicated thermal power level will be promptly reduced to a maximum level.:f 2772 MWt anytime the hourly average exceeds this value.
(Paragraph 8.a.(5))
G
.
t
.
e
.
.
i
!
'
D T.J
,
'
-.- -.
.
....
_ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _...
... _., _..
_
. _ _ _ _
,__
l
,
..
_ _ _.
-.
.
-_-.
'
.
-__
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
-
-
-
-
as e
. _
- -..
_.
e m e m.
-
,
O t
I DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
J. Mattimoe, Assistant General Manager & Chief Engineer R. Rodriguez, Manager, Nuclear Operations P. Dubre, Assistant Superintendent Plant Operations J. McCulligan, Assistant Superintendent Technical Support s
F. Eisenhutt, Nuclear Engineering Assistant
-
J. Sullivan Quality Assurance Engineer i
H. Heckert, Surveillance Scheduler
.
A. Schwieger, QA Director A. Lacy, Electrical Maintenance Foreman N. Brock. Instrument & Control Foreman R. Lawrence Mechanical Engineer J. Wheeler, Electrical Engineer R. Knierim, Engineering Technician.
D. Gardner, Sr. Chemistry & Radiation Assistant L. Bell, Chemistry & Radiation Assistant
J. Mau, Shift Supervisor D. Comstock, Shift Supervisor J. Nichols, Control Room Operator D. Zompetti, Control Room Operator 2.
General The facility was phased to the grid on February 25, 1976, thus ending the turbine repair outage which began on June 30, 1975.
Generation at 92% of full power was achieved on February 27. Power operation was escalated to 100% cn March 5 following approval for full rated power by NRR. The reactor was scheduled to be shutdown on April 3,1976 to examine irradiation specimen holder tui:as for
. potential vibration problems which have been identified at similar facilities.
3.
Followup on Item of Noncomoliance
.
The corrective measures described in the licensee's letter of
-
January 26, 1976, in response to the item of noncompliance de-
)
scribed in IE Inspection Report No. 50-312/75-05 were verified to
'
have been implemented. Quality Control Instruction No. 4 had been revised. -(Revision 1, 2/3/76) to provide specific methods for the use of the Receiving Inspection Data Report (RIDR).
Examination of documents from recently performed receiving inspections indicated
-
proper use of the RIDR by inspection personnel. An audit of the receiving inspection activity has been scheduled by the licensee's
>;
QA organization for April 1976.
6 (
)
-
e
.
Mew e dome =
w
.goe=
wee *--
n een
&*-
b-e e
gee a w
a
, eegog gege _. e ee gge.m.
.
-
'
,
-.
..:
.
- .
.
-
--
.
..--..
r._
.
_
f~~)
.
-5-4.
- Review of Nonroutine Event Reports Licensee Event Reports Nos. 76-01, " Breaker Control Relay," and 76-02,. " Emergency Sump holation Valve," were submitted by the licen-
- see since the previous inspection. Based on an examination of facility records and discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector verified the following:
a.-
The cause of each event was identified and the details were
. clearly reported to facility management.
,
b.
The corrective actions-described in the reports to prevent recurrence of the events were implemented by the licensee.
c.
The events had been reviewed by the Plant Review Committee.
d.
Safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
'
conditions for operation were not exceeded for events 76-01 and 76-02.
e.
The corrective action described in Licensee Event Report No.
75-15 had been completed as a result of the installation of a
.
valve which provides for the draining of condensation from the hydrogen purge piping.
\\
5.
IE Bulletin Followup
.
The information provided by the licensee in respone to IE Bulletin 75-08, PWR Pressure Instrumentation, was verified by an examination of facility recoros and installed process monitoring instrumentation.
Copies of the' licensee's response were available at the facility and the reply had been submitted to IE within the prescribed time period. The instruments for recording reactor coolant system temperatures and pressures and the licensee's administrative
.
practices were verified by the inspector to provide adequate records of temperature and pressure variation of the reactor coolant rystem..
Corrective action coninitments as described in the licensee's response to IE Bulletin 75-04B and identified as open items in Report No.. 50-312/75-10 were re-examined during this inspection and i
are considered closed.
Items examined were as follows:
l
-
l-a.
- Asbestos' welding blankets were verified to have been ordered.
'
l
.
(Purchase request No. 54168)
b.
Fire alarm pull stations were being installed in the switch-yard control. building with completion scheduled for April 9, 1976.
O V
. _
P
- -N*e*4'
&6ed hea e 4 ereDe89
- wd Su mage m g ea 3 ge 9%,
,,.%,
,,,
,
,
-,
.-
.-.w.-. -
9.,,-
,,----,-.,,erry
-
.
..
-
.-
...
-
.
.,
.
f~'N-6-6.
Records The program for the control, storage retention and retrieval of records and documents was examined by sampling selected items and discussion with licensee personnel. No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
The records and documents examined were related to the following items.
-
a.
Pressurizer Safety Valves b.
Calibration of Power Range Channels c.
Surveillance Tests of Turbine Steam Stop Valves d.
Containment Anchors e.
Core Flooding System
'
f.
Reactor Building Spray Pumps
,
g.
Biannual Inspection of Diesel Generators h.
Asbuilt drawings N23.01-59 Sheets 24, 248, 50 and SOE 1.
Asbuilt drawing M532 j.
Trending data samples for primary and secondary systems
~~
k.
Design Change No. 28 (Steam Generator Blowdown Modification)
'
1.
Change to Procedure B.6, " Reactivity Balance Calculation" m.
Selected Plant Review Committee Minutes of Meetings h
Examination of asbuilt drawings disclosed one anomaly in the opinion of the inspector. Tuo sets of P&I drawings are maintained in the Control Room, one on a stic. file and another encased in plastic 'as " flip charts" on a stand for easy access. The drawings on the stick files were stamped to indicate the existance of any outstanding design changes, such as DCN-28, against the drawings (copy of all DCNs maintained in Shift Supervisor's Office). The other set of " flip chart" drawings on the stand were not so marked.
It was noted on several occasions that the drawings on the stand
-
were being used by facility personnel. When questioned, the Shift Supervisor stated that facility personnel used the " flip charts" for general information and relied on the stick files for details.
Also, copies of all DCNs are promptly routed to the operators for their review. The Reactor Operator and Shift Supervisor questioned were familar with the elements.of two DCNs examined by the inspector.
i 7.'
i
-
Review and Audits
l l
The onsite and ofnite review and audit functions for the years 1975 and 1976 to date were examined by review of records and i
discussion with licensee personnel. Selected portions of the l
following records were included in the inspection.
,
'
'
G
'
,..
,
~+6
+
..s
_%
.. - ~
......
.... _
m_
..,
,_,
-
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
-
.
..
'
s
-
-7-a.
Minutes of Plant Review Committee's (PRC) Meetings b.
Minutes of Management Safety Review Corrrittee ('100) Meetings c.
Reviews of Proposed Tests, Experiments 1d Changes performed
-
in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 d.
Reviews of Reportable Occurrence Violations e.
Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications
'
f.-
Records of QA Audits conducted under the cognizance of the MSRC including:
1) Procedures and checklists 2) Personnel performing audit
'
3) Documentation and review by management (4) Followup action and reaudit (5) Frequency of audits The only item of noncompliance identified was that the MSRC had not performed the following review and reporting functiors as prescribed by the technical specifications.
OQ a.
Records of MSRC activities did not indicate that the Committee had reviewed and advised the General Manager on the violation identified by the NRC in June 1975 pertaining to the failure to implement Administrative Procedure No. 26, " Control of Bypasses and Jumpers."
(The MSRC planned to review the violation identified in December 1975 pertaining to Data
. Reports of receiving inspections of spare parts during an April meeting.)
-
.
b.
The minutes for the MSRC meeting of February 27, 1976 were not
,
...preparea, approved ano distributed within 14 days," as
"
required by the technical specifications.
'
8.
Plant Operations The area of plant operations was examined by (1) selective review of shift logs and operating records for the period of December 1975 through March 1976, (2) tours of the accessible portions of the
-
-
plant, and (3) discussions with facility personnel including.
Control Room Operators and Shift Supervisors. Results of the examination were as follows.
.
!
%
.
I
,
L
.
-....
-
- _ _
--
.__
.
r-
-. -. -
I
--
.
-
.
..
-
-
-
.
~
.
,
^
-
-
...-
.
..
..
....
s
.
.
,
.
a.
Shift Loos and Operating Records (1) The log sheets were complete and contained appropriate signatures and initials of personnel responsible for log entries and log review.
(2) Abnormal conditions' described in the logs contained sufficient information to communicate equipment or system status and results of corrective action taken.
(3) -Special Orders-(Nos.-1-76-through 29-76) issued by the Assistant Plant Superintendent, Operations, did not
conflict with the intent of the Technical Specifications.
(4) Jmnpers and bypasses issued in accordancy with AP-26,
" Abnormal Tag Procedure", did not contain bypassing discrepancies with Technical Specification requirements.
-
(5) Data on the hourly printout by the computer indicated that the reactor power as determined by the computed thermal heat balance was 2775 to 2786 MWt for a con-tinuous six hour period on March 23, 1976. The average of days thermal heat balance readings was 2771.7 MWt.
b.
Site Tour
,
s.
!
(1) No signs of abnormal piping vibrations or fluid leaks i
resulting from facility power operation were observed.
Proper position of the' controls for safety feature valves (core flooding tanks) was verified by direct observation.
(2) The instrumentation for monitoring nuclear power. reactor coolant system pressure and temperature and rod position indication were verified to be operational.
Containment
-
requirements were consistent with power operation conditions.
(3) Clearance tags were examined on several components during
-
the tour and verified to have been properly installed through examination of control documentation maintained
.in the control room. The installation and approval
-
signatures for clearance tags were consistent with Administrative Procedure No. 4, " Tagging System."
-
.
,
.
%
u
..
,.- - -
.
.
.
.
..
._ _
_
-
-e-.
.
.,.
,-
-
_ _.. _ _.
...-
,
.
. _ _ _
..
.
_m
--..
.
,
- -
-
'
s O
'
.
V-9
'
.(4) Discussions were held with the control room operator and
'
the shift supervisor regarding safety related annunciators which indicated an~ alarm condition. Both individuals were knowledgeable as to the cause and significance of the apparent alarm conditions.
Control room manning was in conformance with the facility Technical Specifications.
~
9..
Annual Reports The Annual Report for 1975 was examined and compared against
~
. selected portions of facility records for the comparable time period. The information required by the technical specifications has been reported and the report reflects information as documented in the facility-records examined, including forced outages and-indications of failed fuel (no failures experienced to date).
10. Contaimnent Testing
.
The results of tests performed during 1975 by the licensee to evaluate the integrity.of the reactor building were examined.
Conformance to leak rate testing requirements and containment inspection requirements was verified as follows:
'
Local leak-rate tests of applicable components were performed.
C3 The data indicated that the total leakage from all penetrations a.
and isolation valves did not exceed 0.06 per cent of the reactor building atmosphere per 24' hours.
- b.
The information contained in licensee's reports covering the containment structural post-tensioning system surveillance a
test and the liner plate surveillance test dated January 1976
a'nd February 1976 respectively, was reviewed and found in conformance with technical specification requirements.
.,
c.
Discussions with the. licensee indicated that no procedure exists to perform surveillance technical specification 4.4.1.4,
" Annual Inspection" which requires an annual inspection'of the interior and exterior surfaces of the containment structure
-
and its components for evidence of deterioration which may
affect either the ~ containment's structural integrity or leak-
.
.
tightness. Also, no specific inspection was performed during 1975 to address.the inspection requirement of this technical
'
.
'
specification. The licensee indicated that a procedure would
be written and inspections required by technical specification 4.4.1.4 would be placed on the surveillance schedule.
,
,
.
N~ >
..,
i
.
-..
...
..
. -.
- - -. -
,...
.-.
--
...
.. _ -,
-_
_
,
..
__,
.
..
.
.
_
- _.
._.
....
.
..
_ _..
_
. _..
m
[
-
.
\\.j
'
- 10 -
11. Power Ascension Testing The power ascension test program was reconvened when authority to
,
operate the facility at 100% of full power was received from NRR on March 5,1976. Tests to verify core performance characteristics at the 100% power palteau had been run and the data were being evaluated.
No deviations from anticipated core performance were identified.
Remaining tests which include turbine trip / reactor trip and ICS tuning at power have been scheduled for completion by the licensee following completion of the maintenance outage for inspection of specimen tube holders which is to commence on April 3,1976.
.
.
.
e G
O I
l i
'
!
!-
.
u
.
-
. - -..
.
-. -..
.
-..
...
,_
.
.
.._. _.
... __.
_
_
-.
-
.
_ -....
-
.. -. -..- --