IR 05000312/1977018
| ML19309A136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1977 |
| From: | Crews J, Johnson P, Malmros M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A130 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-77-18, NUDOCS 8003260853 | |
| Download: ML19309A136 (6) | |
Text
.
-
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
o.
.
u
.
.
.
.
.
O
~
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE 0F INSPECTION AND. ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION V
Report No. 50-312/77-18 Docket No.50-312 License No.DPR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District
P. O. Box 15830
-
Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name: Rancho Seco Inspection at: Rancho Seco Inspection conducted: December 15-16 and 20, 1977
-
/ 7-[ze[3,
Inspectors:
w
-
6?[o'hnson,ReactorInspector.
K ii Date Signed s
Lw si,,
-
brH. H/jalmros, Reactor Inspector Date Signed
/M.2#!77 Approved b :
A J. L. Crews, Chief,- Reactor Operations and Date' Signed Nuclear Support Branch
.
Inspection on December 15-16 and 20,1977 (Report No. 50-312/77-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of maintenance activities, fire prevention / protection, reportable occurrences, licensee actions related to IE Bulletis.3/ Circulars, and followup on previously identified noncompliance and unresolved items.
Results: tb deviations or noncompliance items were identified.
f L
=
l-8003260 [
-
.
_..
......
,, -.
-
-
,
-., -
--
, _ - - -
-.,,
,,, - -,, -
-, _
-
-
-n,
...
.
LA
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Rodrigaez, Plant Superintendent
- L. Schweiger. Quality Assurance Director
- R. Columbo, Technical Assistant
- J. McColligan, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Support
- P. Oubre, Assistant Superintendent, Operations
- H. Funk, Plant Scheduler
- D. Cass, Maintenance Supervisor
- M. Carter, Shift Supervisor
- J. Sullivan, Quality Assurance Engineer D. Anderson, Mechanical Maintenance Foreman l
R. Turner, Mechanical Maintenance Foreman A. Locy, Electrical Maintenance Foreman
- G. Coward, Plant Mechanical Engineer
'
The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and en-gineering staff, technicians, shift supervisors, reactor operators, and maintenance personnel.
-
- Denotes those present at the exit interview (December 16 and/or 20).
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (312/77-09): Failure to document design reviews as required by the QA Program and failure to audit design
'
review activities. The licensee has revised the QA Progam and im-plementing procedures for the control of the design process.
Engineering personnel have been trained in the use of the revised design / review procedures, and audits of design activities have been completed by the licensee's QA organization.
,
(0 pen) Facility Training Program (312/77-09): An administrative procedure for the facility's training and retraining program has been prepared.
The licensee expected that a Training Coordinator
.
would be hired in early January and stated that the training pro-gram would be fully implemented by the summer of 1978.
,
I (0 pen) Lifted Lead Tags (312/77-09):
Efforts by the licensee to
'
eliminate older lifted lead tags are continuing.
~
n v
i I
!
.
..
.
.
...
-. _..
.
.
.
_
_
.
_..
__
____
y
.-
,
,.-
.
,
.
-2-3.
Licensee Event Followup The circumstances and corrective action described in Licensee Event Reports submitted since the previous inspection were verified. The cause of each event was identified with the details reported to facility management and reviewed by the Plant Review Comittee.
Limiting conditions for operation as prescribed in the technical specifications were exceeded as described by the licensee in LER
'
No. 77-18. The circumstances surrounding LER No. 77-18 were discussed in IE Inspection Report No. 50-312/77-16. Corrective action to preclude recurrence had been identified for each event and the inspectors verified that implementation of corrective action had been completed or was scheduled for completion.
Corrective action for LER No. 77-14 was scheduled for completion during February 1978 and for LER No. 77-17 by the end of March 1978.
These actions will be reviewed during a future ' inspection.
The report of each event had been submitted to the NRC Regional Office within the required time interval. The Licensee Event Reports
,
.
examined by the inspector were as follows:
LER No. 77-14 - Reactor Coolant Pump Phase Balance Relay Failure LER No. 77-15 - Aluminum in Reactor Building LER No. 77-16 - Inoperable Hydraulic Snubber 1.ER No. 77-17 - Isolated High Pressure Injection Line
.
!
LER No. 77-18 - Control Rod Insertion Limits
!
LER No. 77-19 - Reactor Coolant System Leakage No deviations or noncompliance items were identified.
4.
IE Bulletins / Circulars-The inspection included followup on licensee actions related to l
recent IE Bulletins and Circulars, with findings as follows:
'IE Bulletin 77-02, Westinghouse AR Relays (Closed):
Discussions with licensee representatives confirmed the con-clusions in the licensee's letter dated September 12, 1977,
'
which stated that no AR type relays were in use or planned for use at Rancho Seco.
IE Bulletin 77-04, Containment Sump Post-LOCA PH Control (Closed): Discussion with a licensee representative and ex--
amination of Technical Specifications showed the values used in the licensee's analysis (letter dated December 6,1977) to be consistent with operating-limits.
. -
.
.
__
-
-., - __.-
_,. -
-
-.
..
_
_.
.
.-
-
.
d
,
g-3-IE Bulletins' 77-05 and 77-05A, Electrical Connector Assemblies (Closed): The information presented in the licensee's letter dated December 6, 1977, was confirmed in discussions with facility representatives.
This letter concluded that no actions related to the IE Bulletins were necessary at Rancho Seco.
i
~ IE Bulletin 77-06, Containment Electrical Penetrations (Closed):
Review of the vendor manual for the Conax penetrations used at
'
Rancho Seco confirmed the information provided in the licensee's response dated November 29, 1977.
Examination of pressure gauges for several penetrations showed penetration pressures
.
to be consistent with the licensee's stated practices.
l IE Circular 77-15, Diesel Fuel Oil Degradation (Closed):
!
Discussions and observations showed that this matter had been
'
reviewed by the licensee and that existing practices were considered adequate.
No deviations or noncompliance items were identified.
5.
Maintenance
\\
The licensee's maintenance program was reviewed, including con-O
sideration of limiting conditions for operation, administrative approval, inspection activities, post-maintenance testing, quality control documentation, personnel qualifications, reportability, and use of approved procedures. These aspects of maintenance activity I
were examined for each of twelve different maintenance jobs selected from a cross-section of plant systems. Two additional maintenince jobs were selected for further examination of material receipt and storage.
One maintenance item reviewed was inspection and testing of a
i pressurizer code safety valve. Maintenance records showed this valve to have been pressure tested for three lifts at 2460, 2480, and 2500 psig (the prescribed setpoint), with a setpoint adjustment
-
made after each of the first two lifts.
Step 6.3.4 of Procedure
j MT.003 calls for the safety valve to be lifted three times at 2500
psig..The inspectors noted that the procedure had not been followed,
.
although the established setpoint was not in question. The licensee i
stated that the wording of the procedure was not consistent with
!
the intent and that it would be clarified before the procedure is used again.
,
No deviations or noncompliance items were identified.
,
6.
Fire Prevention / Protection
!
Based 'on a review of facility records, discu:sions with licensee repretentatives, and a tour of the facility, fire protection / pre-
-
vention practices and procedures were verified to have been im-gi i
plemented within the facility. The inspectors witnessed the performance i
a n,.
..,--,,
,
,, - -
, -,. +.
. -
... _.. - - -,..,,
,,,
-,. -.,
..
,.
,
,
.
,
.-
-
.i a
.
.
.
U 4.-
of a routine surveillance test performed in accordance with Procedure No. EM-157, " Fire Protection, Cardox Routine Testing." The test results demonstrated that the Cardox System functioned properly in both the automatic and manual modes of operation for protection of
,
the West 480 Volt Switchgear Room.
Records revealed that the
'
licensee has been responsive to deficiencies identified in the fire
]
protection / prevention program as a result of inspec'. ions performed i
by the licensee's Safety Technician and the fire insurance agency (NELPIA).
Specific procedures and records reviewed by the in-spectors included tha following:
Procedures M.113 - Welding Procedure AP 29 - Use and Control of Combustible Materials and Ignition Sources AP 32 - Fire Drills and Fire Fighters Training Program
,
l AP 34 - Fire Safety Inspection Guide
.!
AP 605 - General Warehousing O
Records SMUD - Monthly fire inspection records for 1977 NELPIA - Inspection results for facility visits on 1/17-18/77 6/13-14/77, 7/13-14/77, 8/9/77 and 9/30/77.
SMUD QA Audit No. 0-115 of fire protection activities dated April 1977.
No deviations or noncompliance items were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on December 16 and at the conclusion of the inspection i
I on December _20, 1977. The inspectors summarized the scope and l
findings of the inspection. During the interview, licensee re-presentatives made the following responses to certain of the inspectors' comments:
Stated that a Training Coordinator was expected to be hired in-early January, and that the facility's overall training program would be fully implemented by the sumer of 1978 (Para. 2).
O
.
,
.__
_
_
.._
,, _. -
_.
_
_
$
,_
.. _
..
-
.-
-
.
L_1
,
-5-Stated that a maintenance procedure for preventive maintenance of RCP monitoring relays (re LER 77-14) wall be developed by February 1978 (Para. 3).
Stated that the modifications described in LER 77-17 will be completed in March 1978 (Para. 3).
During a subsequent telephone conversation (December 21), a licensee representative stated that the procedure for pressurizer safety valve pressure testing would be clarified before it is used again (Para. 5).
l
.
.
O
.
.
e i
' O
,
I
'
-
_
. -
.
_
_.
.. -
_
.
.
-