IR 05000312/1977009
| ML19319E244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1977 |
| From: | Canter H, Crews J, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E208 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-77-09, 50-312-77-9, NUDOCS 8003310750 | |
| Download: ML19319E244 (8) | |
Text
-
- _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_- _.
-
_ _
~
h-U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.9tISSION O
OFFICE OF IftSpECTION AtiD EliFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-312/77-09 Docket fic 50-312 License flo.
OpR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee: _ Sacramento Municioal Utility District P. O. Box 15300 Sacramento. California 95813 Facility flame:
Rancho Seco Inspection at:
Inspection conducte'd:
May 31, June 1 and June 20-23, 1977
. Inspectors: M8d h
//[77 C
R' T. Dodds -Reactor Inspector
/
/ ate Signed
%%.CmL
,/nin
.
H. L. Canter,, Reactor Inspector Date Signed
Date Signed Approved By:
[) M 7[#[7 7 J. d Crefs{ Chief, Reactor Operations
/
'Date' Signed ydNuclearSupportBranch Summary:
Inspection on May 31-June 1 and June 20-23, 1977 (P.eport No. 50-312/77-09)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations;
-
annual report; quality assurance program; cleanliness; isothennal temperature coeffficient of reactivity; power coefficient of reactivity; control rod worth measurement; followup on IE Circulars /
,
Bulletins, reportable event Nos. 77-5 and 77-6, and inspector identified items relating to torque switch bypass settings, fire watch comunication with control room, review and approval of power ascension test results, training / retraining program, material control, lifted lead tags and surveillance of spray pond level; containment integrated leakage rate testing; hydrogen monitoring assessment of large lead storage batterics; miscellaneous independent inspection effort including tours of the facility to observe operations and maintenance
,
activities; and an examination of design review practices. This-l-
aoosaldf0 n
,
' Form 219 (2)
.
. _
. -
-..
.
. -
-
.
.
O'
SUP9tARY (Continued)
,
..
inspection involved 4 back-shift, 59 regular on-site and 4 in-office inspector hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Two apparent items of noncompliance (failure to conduct design review in acccidance with the Quality Assurance Program and the failure to conduct periodic audits of design review) and one deviation (ineffective operation of Reactor Building gaseous and particulate
.
monitors as a means to detect leakage from the reactor coolant system)
were identified during the inspection.
i
.
)
.
t
i
,
.
4 w
-
.- - - - - - -
,
.-----4
..,
w
- - -....,
e.4.-w, s
.,---.#s
,
m.w.*,
-e-
-w,-e-,
,--.ew.e
--
(
_
_
.
.
_ _
_
..
OETAILS 1.1 Persons Contacted
__*R. Rodriguez, Plant Superintendent
-
- R.-Columbo Technical Assistant
'
- P. Oubre, Assistant: Superintendent. Operations
- J. McColligan,-Assistant Superintendent, Technical Support W.' Spencer, Shift Supervisor D. Comstock. Shift Supervisor
- A. Swieger, Quality Assurance Director
- N. Brock, I&C Supervisor R.' Miller, Rad-Chem Supervisor.
-The inspectors also talked with and interviewed'several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and engineering staff, technicians, reactor operators and craft
personnel.
'
- Denotes those present at one or both of the exit interviews.
2.
Reportable ~ Events i
Events Nos. -77-5 and 77-6 reported by the licensee relating to O
(1) Flux / Imbalance / Flow channel being outside the maximum allowable trip envelope and (2) an item of. noncompliance for failure to l
perform verification checks of control rod drive cables following maintenance were examined by a--selected review of facility records and discussions with -licensee representatives.
It was found that the licensee's review, corrective actions', and report of the identified events and associated conditions were adequate and in conformance with regulatory requirements and licensee procedures and controls. The Flux / Imbalance / Flow channel was found to be in calibration and not to exhibit setpoint drift when-checked on April 25, May 6 and May 17, 1977.
- 3..
Plant' Operations-General
. Plant operations ~ for the period of April 6 through June 22, 1977 were examined by discussions with facility personnel, tours of the plant and a selected review of the following:
' Shift, Daily..and Weekly Surveillance Log Sheets Shift Supervisor Log Book Control Room Log Book Lifted Lead ~and Jumper. Tags-Potential Reportable.0ccurrence Reports Computer Logs.
/ Auxiliary Tank Logs-l'
'
.
..
,b
,,_
'
- _ _. _ _ _ _ - _. _
_ _
_
_
.
_
-._. _
_ _
__
__
_
__
. f :-
-2-No items of' noncompliance were identified.
It was Lobserved,"and called to a licensee representative's atten-
, tion, that a number. of lifted lead tags were one to two years n
old. :Also, it was observed that the Reactor Building gaseous and particulatemonigorswerealarmed.-Thegaseougmonitorwasreading
'
approximately-10. cpm on a maximum scale of 10, and the particulate monitor was full scale. A licensee representative stated that the'
building was not.being purged during operation in an effort to minimize off-site releases, thus accounting-for the increased activity within.the building.. Operation of the gaseous and particulate monitors-in the condition observed appears to deviate from their
. function described as 'a means of detecting reactor coolant system leakage in Section 4.2.3.7 of the FSAR. This items was-discussed in the exit interview.
4.
Quality Assurance Program Selected changes made to the licensee's QA program during the past year were examined and found to be consistent with the QA program as approved by the Comission. -Implementation of program changes was reviewed by the examination of applicable procedures and
.
'
questioning of licensee personnel. Also. included in the inspection O
was an examination of design review practices by Generation i
Engineering.
'
The following anomalies, apparent items of noncompliance and/or deviations from program requirements were identified:
a.
Personnel questioned were not in some instances aware of significant program changes. For example, a craft foreman was not familiar with a change to the nonconforming material control procedure. This procedure change eliminates a requirement to prepare an NCR when the nonconformance is to be corrected by " rework" or " replace" and has been listed -
,
on a serialized work request.
b.
Plant engineers stated that, while they had received QA training on the Appendix B criteria, they had not received
' training on'the specific QA program aspects of their jobs.
Examination of-QA training records indicated that this could be the case with other Departments as well.
c.
Plant:and Generation Engineering procedures did not in.all-cases reflect QA program changes and/or requirements.
Examples of this were as.follows:
O) Generation Engineering's manual on Configuration Control
.does'not include all applicable QA program elements of s
. ~..
.
.
.-
-
-..
-,
.a..
.,..,
,
_,.,
,, $.
..,
'
.
-
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
-
,.-
-3-design review, such as the. incorporation of required forms to be utilized and completed by the reviewing and supervisory engineers.
.
'(2)'Theplantproceduresdo.notrequiretheseveral Departments to maintain a list of measuring, process and test instruments to be calibrated. Such lists are included as a part of the plant equipment and instrument surveillance program, even though it is not a plant procedure requirement. -QA personnel informed the inspector that a recent audit by them had disclosed some deficiencies in these lists and corrective action
.
was initiated.
(3)
It was not apparent from discussions with plant personnel that there was a clear understanding of who was responsible for determining the need to' prepare Maintenance Inspection Data Reports (MIDR), although it was clear that QA'must approve the MIDR before it is issued.
d..
A design review of the changes made to motor control centers hCC-S2Al and MCC-S2B1 (reported in the Annual Report) was not conducted in accordance with the QA program in that the Reviewing Engineer (s) did not use the Design Review Check Lists required O
by Quality Assurance Procedure No. 2 (QAP-2). Discussions with QA and Generation Engineering personnel disclosed that Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 in QAP-2 were not being used. Further, the records exa:ained did not provide evidence of design review by the contractor who prepared the specifications for the motor control center cabinets.*
e.
Examination of audit records disclosed that, contrary to QAP-19, the area of Design Review (QAP-2), per se, was not audited in 1976 or scheduled for 1977. Audits covering Configuration
-
Control and 10CFR50.59 changes were conducted.
It was only the Design Review area that had been overlooked.*
.
- These items were discussed in the exit interviews.
- Denotes apparent items of noncompliance.
5.
Cleanliness Control The area of cleanliness control was inspected by an examination of applicable procedures, discussions with personnel in the several departments,'and a tour of the facility. No items of noncompliance were identified. The inspection did, however, disclose the following items which were discussed at the exit interview:
.
l l
b
'
'
_
_
.
..
.
.._. -..__~
.._..
-
- - -_
m
_
4-
-
~
'
a..
- Miscellaneous. materials, such as welding filler metal, a small
~
-
imetal box, absorbent towels, etc., were observed on top of decay heat removal pump motor."B". This condition was corrected
'
- prior to completion of the inspection.
b.
Cleaning instructions were not included in the Instrument and
-
~
. Control preventative' maintenance or administrative procedures, exceptlfor,the computer.
(Note: Electrical and Mechanical r
- Maintenance procedures did include appropriate. instructions.
Workers questioned were familiar with these instructions.)
'
,
\\
c.
Unused ~ absorbent towels were observed to be stacked on the floor
"
and around equipment throughout the Auxiliary Building. In no case,.however, did they appear to represent a serious fire
- hazard and/or a deterent to equipment operation.
6.
Reactor Core Physics The inspector reviewed the results of test procedures TP 800-5,.
Reactivity Coefficient at Power, and TP 800-20 Rod Worth Measurements,
.
to verify that the measurements of the below-listed reactor physics parameters were consistent with NRC requirements. No inadequacies f
'
-were found in this review.
- ~
Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity Power' Coefficient of Reactivity Control Rod Worth
.
7.
' Annual Report-Facility records were examined to ascertain that information required by the_ technical. specifications had been reported for the year 1976 and whether the Annual Report dated March 1977
' accurately reflected the information documented in facility records.
- The review.of selected records included the Shift Supervisor and
,
-
Control Room Logs, computer program results for fuel defect monitoring.
Daily Lab Reports for the Primary System, Forced Outage Reports,
--
and operational data sheets.:
.
NoLitems'of. noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
8.
Status of Inspector-Identified -Items 'and/or Licensee Comitments The following items were verified _by the examination of facility
- records and procedures and/or discussions with licensee personnel.
~
-
a.-
The spray pond level is now being recorded in the Daily-SurveillanceLog.;.(Itemclosed. ReportNo.77-06.)
.
x
'
.a_
.
a m
I ft.
-
y
+y b
g
.
e-ye-,-
-
g-,,, - --
me a
e..e.e
.m.bwgm.,,q, m.-
4ew,-w-he v-s,
--.-w
+ea.w
.
m+
w
.-.-w--
swei w 3m.e.6_t,ew-v-e n
e
, -,
,
f;
-
-
}
'
,
r
LA program will:be established prior to the August refueling.
.b;.
. outage for checking the bypass. switch settings on Limitorque valvesLin safety feature systems..(Item closed.
-
.
c.
The general welding procedure was-being revised to require the firewatch to establish.available comunication with
'
--
the control room prior to welding operations.. In the meantime, personnel.have been ' instructed in -safety meetings-to follow-the proposed program.
(Item closed. ReportNo.'77-01.)
.
'1 d..
-Results of-the power ascension tests have been reviewed and approved by the Test Work Group.
(Item closed. Report No.. 77-01.. )
e.
The overall training / retraining program has been prepared
-
and approved by management.' However, it will not be fully-implemented until a training coordinator has been selected.
(Item remains open. Report No. 76-08.)
f.
The licensee has determined that the program for material control is satisfactory as written, and that the previously -
. described instance involved the failure to follow the program in the case of the release of Class 1 wire with an outstanding NCR against it.
(Item closed. ReportNo.76-01.)
i g ~.
An audit of " Operating Reporting Requirements" was conducted by QA on April 19, 1977.' (Item closed. Report No. 77-06.)
l h.-
'Practic'es relating to lifted lead tags were being examined-by Instrument and Electrical Maintenance to close out old tags and prepare design changes as appropriate. Consideration H
will be given to separating safety-related tags from non-
,
safety related tags.
(Itemremainsopen. ReportNo.77-06.)
'
9.-
IE Bulletin / Circular-Followup Examination of Engineering. memoranda and discussions with licensee employees disclosed that the following. actions on IE Bulletins / Circulars were taken by the licensee.
IE Bulletin 77-01, Pneumatic Time Delay Relay Setpoint Drift'.-Not applicable.-
IE Circular 77-05, Liquid Entrapment in Valve Bonnets -
Examined safety related~ valves ~- No action' required.
IE CircularL77-06, Effects of Hydraulic Fluid on Electrical
._ Cables - No aggressive fluids were identified in systems
_
.that-could'effect safety related cabling - No action required.
,
.
.
'
,
k.
>
.5 e
- ,,
s,.
.'
,,
, _, _
...
_..,,.,
_ _ _,. _,, _ _,
_, _.
..,, _. _.. _ _ _, _
.s.,
,
, _,... _
-
._.
___-__ _ -
_
_ - _
__
-ja
-6-k IE Circular 77-08, Failure of Feedwater Sample Probe -
A similar problem was experienced and corrected prior to the initial fuel loading. No additional action required.
- 10.
Independent Inspection
- Independent' Inspection effort included observing backshift
'
' operations, shift changes, tours of.the facility, miscellaneous
. discussions with-licensee personnel, examination of design.
review,-QA audits, training, control of high radiation: zones, and review of the licensee's plans for the CILRT and LLRTs scheduled to be run in September, 1977. The licensee plans to contract with an outside firm for the performance of the CILRT. This contract has yet to be awarded.
No items of-noncompliance or significant deviations were identified except as reported in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this report.
11. Management Exit Interviews The results of-the inspection were discussed with licensee management on June 1 and June 23, 1977 following each portion of the inspection. The-purpose and scope of the inspection and O-the findings were discussed. Licensee representatives stated
.
that prompt attention will be given to the unresolved and-
'
enforcement items discussed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this-report.
--
-
a
lV l
.
-
-
^
m
..
.
-
.
.
.
-
_.