IR 05000312/1977005
| ML19317F979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Bishop T, Garvin L, Spencer Gs NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F975 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-77-05, 50-312-77-5, NUDOCS 8002210684 | |
| Download: ML19317F979 (5) | |
Text
-.
_ __
_
__
. _ _.
_ - _
. _ _
.
.
.
. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS!
N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT RECION V IE Inspection Report No.
50-312/77-05 Licensee Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No.
50-312 P. O. Box 15830 License No.
OPR-54 Sacramenta, California 95813 Priority Facility Rancho Seco Unit 1 Category C
Location Clay Station, California Type of Facility PPR. B&W, 913 mie (2772 MWe)
Type of Inspection Insoection, Announced Dates Of Inspection February 4 and 28,1977 Dates of Previous Inspection October 21 - November 17 1976 Principal Inspector h
8~/d 'D L. J. Garvin', Reactor Inspector U***
Accompanying Inspectors ^
f E.E
.8-//-22
,
p. W. #ishop, Reactor Inspector Date Date
.
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None Reviewed by M
3/M/['7 G. S. Spenc"er, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering D***
Support Branch
'
IE:V Form 219
'
..
8002 en 677
.
-..
-
,
-
.
_.
.
..
_ _. _
__.
__ _
_ _ _ _
-
'\\
.
.
SUMMARY
- -
~
.
Enforcement Action None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items The repair actions described in the January 10, 1977 answer to the enforcement letter of December 21, 1976 were confirmed. The commitments to (1) increase the extent of the receiving inspection, (2) evaluate the source inspection program, and (3) modify the Exxon Nuclear Quality Assurance Program will be verified at a later date.
Other Significant Findinas None.
Management Interview The results of the inspection of the repair storage racks were discussed by telephone on March 9, 1977 with Mr. A. Schwieger. The O
inspectors stated that they were satisfied that the repairs were being conducted in accordance with the design specification.
,
l
.
e i
,
!
l
!
.
!
'
'
-. -
,
._
_
_
--
-. -
. -
_
_
.
.
.
O-2-
,
.
DETAILS
.
"
1.
Persons Contacted
-
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
A. Schwieger, QA Director R. Dieterich, Senior Nuclear Engineer J. J. Jewett, QA Engineer
.
J. Sullivan, QA Engineer Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
G. D. May, Manager, QC, NES Precision Metal Fabrication, Inc.
G. Shephard, Corporate Secretary C. Birnie, QA Manager Sierra Technoloay W. R. Powell, QC Engineer 2.
General (Reference IE Investigation Report 50-312/76-11)
Following the investigation described in the referenced report, the fuel storage racks were returned to Precision Metal Fabrication, Inc., in Tualatin, Oregon for repair. The repair consisted of grinding and rewelding areas that did not meet design requirements.
An inspection at the vendor's shop was conducted on February 4, 1977 At that time the first two repaired racks.were inspected.
On February 28,1977, an inspection at the Rancho Seco facility was conducted on two other racxs that had been returned to the facility following their repair.
3.
Record Review a.
Repair Procedures
'
The " specification re-examination of spent fuel storage racks for Rancho Seco Unit 1" was examined. The specification
.
. O.
(d
..
.
..
_.
_
_
_-_
_
_... - - - -. _ _ _ _ - - _ _
_
.
.
/%
.
-3-contained criteria for repair of the spent fuel storage racks. No anomalies were noted.during the specification review.
b.
Spot Weld Examination (Reference IE Investigation Report 50-312/76-11 and SMUD letter to R. H. Engelken dated January 10, 1977)
The referenced report discussed the possibility that the spot welds used to form the guide tubes were produced using a welding machine set at lower than allowable amperage. The result of low setting could have been faulty welds. The referenced letter from SMUD to IE Region V explained the testing program that was to be undertaken in order to verify the welding machine setting. The records of this study were reviewed. The heat tracings for the following current setting, along with the sectioned and etched spot welds were examined.
'
Current Result 180 amps No Fusion - Unacceptable
.
'
205 Fusion - Acceptable Weld O
"
230 Fusion - Acceptable Weld
"
250 Fusion - Acceptable Weld
"
270 Burn Through - Not Acceptable
"
The heat tracings for the 205 - 250 amp setting were easily identifiable. The records of the inspections of racks A and C indicated that the current settings were greater than 205 amp but less than 270 amps.
,
c.
Repair Records
-
The repair records for refueling storage rack A were reviewed.
These records included the visual and liquid penetrant examination procedures, visual and. liquid penetrant examina-tion results, and the results of the re-examinations following needed repairs. Also examined were the weld procedures, weld procedure qualifications, welder qualifica-l tion and inspector qualifications. No anomalies were noted
. during the record review.
'
4.
' Observation of Welds
,
-a.
Weld Inspection
' -
.
-
l-The _ inspectors visually inspected approximately 75 welds l
rs (
)
on racks A. B, C and D.
No defects were noted during the U
'
.
-
_ _,. -
.
_
.
.
e-'s
,
'
.
4-
-
examination. Approximately 27 welds on racks A, B, C and D
were liquid penetrant examined in the presence of the
- inspectors. No defective conditions were noted by the inspectors during the examination, b.
Spot Welds.
The accessible spot welds on approximately 25 guide. tubes on racks A and C were inspected. Their heat trace marks indicated that the welds were acceptable (see Paragraph 3.b above).
5.
On-Site Receivino Inspection The licensee had committed to an increased level of inspection upon receipt of the repaired racks.
It was noted by the
inspector that at least one weld had been determined to be defective as a result of the receiving inspection. The resolution of the defective weld was being processed in
,
accordance with the nonconforming materials procedure.
.
.
.
d
.
s
.
-
.
, - - -
,r
-
.
--+t r
?'---
-
-"i e
'*