IR 05000312/1976008
| ML19317G125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1976 |
| From: | Crews J, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G109 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-76-08, 50-312-76-8, NUDOCS 8002210812 | |
| Download: ML19317G125 (11) | |
Text
=
.
.
s
.
U. *
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION V
.
IE Inspection Report No.
50-312/76-08 Licensee Sacramento Municioal Utility District Docket No.
50-312
_
P. O. Box 15830 License No.
OPR-54
.
Sacramento. California 95813 Priority Facility Rancho Seco Category C
Location Clay Station, California Type of Facility PWR B&W, 913 MWe (2772 MWt)
,
Type of Inspection Poutine. Announced Dates of Inspection October 4-9, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection June 8-10 & July 6-8,1976
~
[8.?/
h rincipal Inspector
' ' ' R.\\ T. Dcidds, Reactor ' Inspector
/Date /
Accompanying Inspectors None Date Date
'
Other Accompanyi./
3 P rso el:
None Reviewed by
.
6[,b
/d //+ M.
.
. Crbs, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear
/ Dase J. L Support Branch IE:V Form 219
.
k 8002210
__
..
.
-,
.
.
s p
SUMMARY
'
~ Enforcement Action
,
A.
The reactor was taken critical prior to verifying that leakage from the decay heat removal system was within specification following the rek f a decay heat removal pump seal.
(Paragraph 7.a.(2) of Details),
,
Status of Previously Identified Enforcement Action
'
Not applicable.
Nonroutine Events A.
The circumstances and corrective actions described in Licensee Event Report Nos. 76-9 through 76-11 were confirmed.
(Paragraph 2 of Details)
Design Changes None.
Other Significant Findings Current Findings b
A.
Power operation of the facility was resumed on October 10, 1976 following an extended outage that started in April to remove vessel specimen holders and repair the turbine generator.
Power will be limited to about 75-90% of rated power pending replacement of one of the feedwater heaters.
B.
It was verified that facility personne1'had indeed reviewed and assisted Engineering in the determination that IE Bulletin Nos.
76-06 and 76-07 and IE Circular No. 76-02 were not applicable to Rancho Seco operations.
(ItemsClosed)
C.
Not all departments h-3 developed a formal training program, and records were lacking to substantiate all training activities.
-(Paragraph 4 of Details)
D.
System components were. identified that had not been included on the surveillance and/or preventive maintenance schedule.
(Paragraph 6 of Details)
,
,
O
t
- J
-
.
_ _ -.
..
_
_.
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
-
.
+
(
o-2-Status o'f Previously Identified Unresolved Items and Other Items of Interest A.
The procedur~es requiring an evaluation of previous test results when test equipment was found to be out of calibration were to be issued later this month.
(Item remains open, IE Report No. 76-05)
.
B.
The procedures in the QA manual have all been examined by the QA
,
Director who will be assigned specific responsibility to review these procedures at least once every two years.
(Item closed, IE Report No. 76-05)
C.
A manual scram test has now been included as a standard startup test prior to criticality.
(Item closed, IE Report No. 76-05)
~
D.
Surveillance procedures and/or log data sheets have been modified'
to show acceptance criteria.
(Item closed, IE Report No. 76-05)
Manaaement Interview The results of the ing,pection were discussed with Messrs. Rodriguez, f-Schweiger and other members of SMUD management. The following items were (
specifically addressed and commitments made by licensee representatives as indicated:
x A.
In the future, surveillance tests will be conducted after equipment repairs prior to the resumption of operations.
(Paragraph 7.a.(2)ofDetails)
B.
The desirability of calibrating such things as (1) pressure. relief
, valves in engineered safety feature systems, (2) flow indicators, and (3) temperature control elements as part of the surveillance /
preventive maintenance program will be examined and acted upon accordingly.. (Paragraph 6 of Details)
.
C.
Formal programs will be established by all departments for the training / retraining of personnel, including the maintenance of records of training activities.
(Paragraph 4 of Details)
O
'
o
.
,
,.
. -..
,
-
_,
-
.-m p
,..
-
.
.
-.. -
-
- -. -
-
--
_ -
-
.. -
w-
-
.
-
.
.
-
~
'
(
-3.-
-
i-
.
i'
'
DETAILS-
.
p
.
"
- 1.
Persons Contacted R.; Rodriguez, Manager, Nuclear Operations i
.R.--Columbo, Technical Assistant
.
-
'
P.- Oubre, Assistant Superintendent, Plant Operatir J.'McCulligan, Assistant Superintendent, Technir
., port
..
.
F. Eisenhutt, Nuclear Engineering Assistant
.
i A. Locy, Electrical Maintenance Foreman.
.
-D. Cass, Mechanical Maintenance Foreman
'
l H. Heckert, Surveillance Scheduler
'
L N. Brock, Instrument and Control Engineer
~
i D. Whitney, Nuclear Engineer
.
'
W. Ford, Shift Supervisor-
.-
J. Mau, Shift! Supervisor
,
T. Tucker, Shift Supervisor
'
D. Gouker, Shift Supervisor
J. King, Senior Control Operator.
i D. Zompetti,-Control' Operator.
z R. Alexander, Auxiliary Operator
-
'
.
. D. Tipton, Control Operator l
L. Adkins, Control Operator
.
H. Shoemacher, Safety Technician
-
' M. Montenero, Instrument Foreman i
A.' Littlefield, Maintenance Helper B. Knox, Maintenance Helper.
i:
R. Miller, Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor
.S. Anderson, Nuclear Engineer
{
J. Field, Mechanical Engineer
.
d
- J. Dunn, Supervising Electrical Engineer
.
- R.Elawarent.e, Senior' Engineer -
- J.'Sullivan, QA Engineer
'
l '
A. Schweiger, QA Director G. Coward, Senior Mechanical Engineer
. M. Glavich,' Electrician i
. 2.
Nonroutine Event Reports Licensee. Event Report Nos.76-09_(failure of "B" diesel-start),.76-10 (failure of "A" diesel generator to start) generator to
.
, and 76-11 (leak in weld for nipple on decay heat cooler) were submitted since the previous' inspection. Based on _the examination of selected facility
-
records and discussions with licensee representatives, the following
'were verified:
.
.
-
e
'
'
z
. -
-.
-.
-
. -.. -..
. - -... -.. -
. -
.. >
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
. _ _
_ _
.
'
.
.
.
~
.
1v-4.-
.
a.-
Each event was investigated and the details reported to
-
' facility management.
b.
Corrective action was taken as described in the event report to preclude' recurrence.
- c.. -The events had been reviewed by the Plant Review Comittee
'
,
and were scheduled for review by the Management Safety Review-
'
Comittee.
.
'
d.
~ Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting
.
conditions for operation did not appear to have been exceede.d for the subject events.
.
3.
. Organization and Administration
'
- The licensee's organizational structure was examined and found to be consistent with the technical specif.ication requirements. The following' observations were made by the inspector.
a.
Pe.rsonnel qualification. levels were in conformance with ANSI a 18.1 and the technical specifications.
i O
b.
Authorities and responsibilities of licensee personnel were as delineated in the technical s'pecifications, the FSAR and
.the QA program.
c.
The overall shift crew composition schedule was in conformance with the technical specifications.-
d.
The makeup of the Plant Review Comittee and the Management Safety Review Comittee was in confonnance with the technical l
specifications.
e.
No changes have been made in the licensee's organization that require. reporting to the NRC.
.
.,
4..
-Training ~-
The overall training. activities-for new employees and the retraining
.of nonlicensed personnel were examined by reviewing records of training and discussions with supervision and craftsmen. The follow-
~
ing observations were mM e by the inspector.
i i
.
^
>
y
-
.
w -1
.. -..
..-
,-
-
,....
,,
. -.
.
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
(m;
-5-Facility management has assigned each division the
-
a..
responsibility for the training of personnel within that group.
It was found that, execpt for Operations, these
.
divisions had not established femal training programs per se. However, each employee, as a part of his initial
"
~ indoctrination at Rancho Seco, is given formal training in the areas of (1) radiological. health'and safety, (2) industrial
.
,
safety, (3) controlled access and security procedures,
,.
(4) emergency plan, and (5) as a rule, initial quality assurance indoctrination.
It was not apparent that formal training included administrative controls and procedures.
,
b.
A formal QA training / retraining program was being established and was expected to be implemented shortly. The training records to date could not substantiate that the operating shift crews had received any formal training on the quality assurance program. -However, discussions with personnel revealed that
.
there had been some informal scssions between Quality Assurance and.the several shift crews, particularly on the control of
'
nonconformances, c.
The Safety Department has a scheduled training / retraining program for the fire brigade.
d.
It was found that on-the-job training and technical training comensurate with job classification was being provided.
However, records to substantiate this were not always current nor in some instances were they being maintained. Examples were as follows:
(1) At the time of the inspection, Instrument and Control had not documented ' training sessions held within the past six months on the control rod drive system, the EHS system for the turbine and the integrated control system.
(2) No records were being maintained of the Chemistry and Health Physics technician training of new employees in j
the use of laboratory procedures. However, the supervisor does go over each procedure with the technician and has
]
him run the tests under his direct observation before the trair.ee is considered qualified to conduct tests on his own.- Also, technicians are tested on sample analysis periodically as part of the QA audit program. Records were available of these. audits.
,
v'
f
..
...,
,
'
-
.
.
.
,
.
(~)
'
-
-6,-
v
,
e.'
As a general rule, each division head does evaluate each
employee's training / retraining, but, except for Operations,
.it was not necessarily a. formal evaluation.
f.-
Discussion with several craft. personnel confirmed indoctrina-
>
tion training received as well as their participation in apprentice' and on-the-job training activities.
...
g.
Records signed by female employees substantiated that they
'
.had been provided with instructions concerning prenatal radiation exposure.
5.
Requalification Training The licensed operator requalification training program has been implemented by the licensee. The.progran is administered by the
-
Training Coordinator in accordance with the requirements of Administra-tive Procedure AP-25, " Licensed NRC Operator Retraining." Based on discussions with the. Training Coordinator and an e-amination of facility records, the training activities were fcand consistent with
<
the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and commitments in the facility application. The following' observations were made by the inspector.
a.
Lecture schedules have been established for required lecture v'
items.
b.
The program includes the use of training aids, films and tapes. -
c.
Procedure changes and modifications have been communicated to the operating staff through special orders and routing of procedure changes,
,
d.
' Annual' written and oral examinations have been administered.
e.
Records of the requirei manipulation of reactor controls were being maintained for'e ch operator.
f.
. Quarterly audits and annual supervisory evaluatfons of examinations, manipulations and simulations were being perfonned.
g..
Training manuals were being maintained by each operator to document individual study, lecture participation and
- manipulations performed.
.
!
l
,..,,
L
.
.
.
.-
-
.
.
-
-
?.
,.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
s_,/
-7-
.
- 6.
Calibration Based on discussions with licensee representatives, examination of facility. records and observing the calibration of equipment, the calibration of components and equipment associated with safety related systems and/or functions was found in conformance with the
. requirements of the technical specifications.
Calibration of the
-
following items was examined:
Reactor Coolant Pressure (PT 21040B)
Power / Imbalance / Flow (Channel C)
Steam Generator Water Level (LT 205048)
High Pressure Injection Flow (FT 23806B)
Reactor Building Spray (PT 53606B)
Diesel Generator Sequencer
,
Power Operated Reliaf Valve (PSV 21511)
Reactor Coolant Flow Indicator (RC 14A-F1)*
RCP Total Seal Flow Letdown Temperature (TSH 22009)*
SIS Loop Flow (FI 23807)
DHR Pressure Relief Valve (PSV 26101)*
5 Volt Power Supply
'
-
[
)
Undervoltage Relays on Emergency Bus N_/
Emergency Power Supply Cell Voltmeter Approved procedures were avrilable and used where applicable for the items examined.
It appeared that personne'! performing alibrations were qualified in their respective skills.
The records of three measuring / testing devices used as primary standards during the performance of the above calibrations were-examined with the following results observed:
a.
Calibration frequency was met and accuracy verified as prescribed by licensee procedures.
b.
Accuracy was traceable to an independent testing organiza-
,
tion, c.
Storage and control of the test equipment was proper.
Of the items examined, the.three with an asterisk were originally calibrated but are-not currently on the calibration and/or preventive maintenance schedule. ~It was noted'that only the pressure relief
.
).
s
-
'
.
.
,-
-,.., -
..
i
" '
^
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
,
_,e~-):
-
,
V-8-
.
-
'
valve does indeed' perform a true safety function, the other being for operator information and protection of demeralizer resins.
- 7.
Plant Operations
.
a.-
Shift Logs and Operating Records
-
-Operating logs and records were selectively examined for
.
the period July 7 through October 8, 1976. Observations from this examination were as follows:
(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.
It was noted however that the. decay heat system had failed its refueling outage leakage rate test on August 22, 1976 due to a failed seal in a decay heat removal pump. The seal was subsequently replaced and
)
the pump operated for performance testing for 37 x_ /
miwJtes. The reactor was then taken critical on
'
August 29-30, 1976 for physics testing. The leakage rate test was not run until September 1,1976 and found to be 0.0185 gphr, well within the technical specification limit of 0.63 gphr.
(3) Special orders examined'that were issued by the Assistant Plant' Superintendent, Operations, did not conflict with the intent of the technical specifications.
,
(4) The jumpers and bypass permits examined and issued in accordance with AP-26, " Abnormal Tag Procedure," did not contain bypassing uiscrepancies with technical specification requirements.
b.
Site Tour (s)
Tour (s) of the facility, including the auxil'iary building, reactor building operating deck, and control room were conducted while the reactor was being prepared for startup. No signs of abnormal piping vibrations or fluid leaks were observed.
.
.
,
-
.., -,
.
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
e
-
.
,
.
-
,
,
('~'<) -
,
(N- /
_9_
,
.
Proper position of several high pressure injection system valves and their tagging was verified by direct observation.
Radiation controls had been established for the controlled areas visited.
The instrumentation for monitoring neutron counts and reactor
,
coolant system conditions were verified to be operational.
-
Containment requirements were consistent with the mode (s) of.
operation.
Discussions were held with the control room operators regarding safety related annunciators which indicated an alarm condition. They were knowledgeable as to the cause and significance of the apparent alarm conditions. Control room manning was in conformance with the facility technical
'
specifications.
l 8.
Plant Operations Refueliny Startup_
Selected examination-of records perta'ining to system checkouts prior to the resumption of operations disclosed the following:
Systems disturbed during(the outage were returned to service a.
per approved procedures sampled nine items).
<
.u)
b.
Control rod withdrawal sequence and authorization was in effect prier to the startup.
c.
Surveillance tests during the outage had indeed been performed in accordance with technical specification requirements on the five systems randomly selected for verification of program implementation.
9.
Startup Testing Refueling-Startup testing folltsing-the reloading of the core was verified to have been conducted Mr accordance with,coereved precederos.
Rod drive and position checks were-performed in accordance with SP 208.01.
Physics measurements of boron' worth, temperature coefficient and control. group calibration demonstrated these to be as predicted.
10.
Independent' Inspection
.
,.
Independent inspection activities by the inspector included observing
.(1) the auxiliary operator align safety injection system _ manual block valves, (2) activities to latch two control rods that had been
.
n
.
s_ -
<
9 %WT * T
.
-
...
.
.-
.-.
.
. _ -
. -..
...
_.
._
._.
.. _.
_.
.. _
.
.._ _
_.
. _.
'
.
>
-#
-
,,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
_
_.
.
.
10-
-
-
A'
subjectedtoa"rachet" drop,and(3)-reactorstartupandascension to 10%-power..All activities. observed appeared to have been
-
,
' performed safely and in accordance with the technical specifications
!
.
-
.
. '
.
I
i S
.
l
'
9 h
.
'
f.
}-
.
i
=
f
L
e
-
!
,
,
,
'
l
.
i-t i
.
~
,
c f
'
.
.
'
,
k
< ve
+,"v
-
w,
-w i v-,m,
,-,-
,, -,
,,--w-wve, -. -,,. = - * -r---
w w
- - v-w< - - - - *, = - - -
e*-e--*
er,---ewe--+,-%-we,...e-----nr*-ar,
---+--*,w.#
w, v