IR 05000312/1979028
| ML19296D589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Canter H, Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D587 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-79-28, NUDOCS 8003070014 | |
| Download: ML19296D589 (6) | |
Text
6 s
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-312/79-28
'
Docket No. 50-312 Licenec No.
DPR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District F. U. t$o x l b o J U Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name:
Rancho Seco fluclear Generating Station Inspection at:
Herald, California 95638 (Rancho Seco Site)
December 3-19, 1979 Inspection conducted:
Inspectors:
i
.rk b _ _
//24/ /pc Ks Harvey L. Canter, Senior Resid$nt Inspector
' Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
NN 6 b,, b.-
/ /2V /90 B. H. Faulkenberry, Chief,_Re'ac, tor Projects Date Signed Section 2, Reactor 0qerations and fluclear Support Branch
'
Inspection between December 3 and December 19, 1979 (Report flo. 50-312/79-28)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations; physical security; training; followup on previously identified items; and, independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours onsite by the Senior Resident Inspector.
Results:
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
8003070(9/
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Rodriguez,flanager, Nuclear Operations
- P. Oubre, Plant Superintendent
- N. Brock, Supervisor, Nuclear Instruments
- G. Coward, flaintenance Supervisor R. Colombo, Technical Assistant
- W. Ford, Operations Supervisor
- H. Hechert, Engineering Technician J. McColligan, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor
- R. Medina, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. Miller, Chemistry and Radiological Supervisor J. Sullivan, Quality Assurance Supervisor D. Whitney, Senior Nuclear Engineer The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. These included shift supervisors, reactor operators, auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, security personnel, plant technicians, helpers and engineers, and quality assur-ance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
2.
Plant Operations a.
Facility Goerating Records The inspector examined the log entries contained in the control room log, the shift supervisor's log, and various other logs for facility operations performed between December 3 and 19,1979. The log entries were consistent with the requirements of facility admin-istrative orders and were found to accurately reflect the operational status of the facility.
Station orders issued by the operations supervision were consistent with the intent of the facility technical specifications, license conditions, and IE Bulletin requirements.
Sufficient information appeared to be contained in the control room log and shift supervisor's log to identify potential problems and to verify compliance with technical specification reporting require-ments and limiting conditions for operation.
b.
Facility Tours and Observation of Operations Tours of the facility were made by the Inspector in the auxiliary building, turbine building and other accessible vital areas.
During the tours, the following assessments of equipment and plant
.
-2-conditions were made.
(1) A number of limiting conditons for operation and limiting safety system settings were reviewed by the inscector and determined to be in compliance with technical specification and license requi rements.
(2) Routine plant effluent chemistry sampling was observed by the Inspector. The liquid sanples were analyzed consistent with facility procedures.
(3) Control room observations indicated that facility manning was in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Shift turnovers were found to be in accordance with presently approved watch-standing practices.
Two or more operators were noted to be in the control room at all times.
(4) System alignment and operability of various engineered safeguards systems were verified to be correct by the Inspector.
(5) Piping systems which were observed, appeared to show normal vi-bration levels and leakage.
(6) Plant housekeeping /claanliness canditions in controlled areas were appropriate for the work occurring in the areas.
(7) Radiation controls appeared to be properly established.
(8)
Instrumentation for monitoring the status of the plant were in operation.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Physical Security Based on discussions with various licensee representatives, observations, and examination of facility procedures, the inspector verified that the measures employed for the physical protection of the facility were con-sistent with the requirements of the physical security plan, applicable administrative orders, and regulatory requirements.
Specefic aspects of physical protection examined by the inspector included the following:
a.
Properly closed and locked protected area and vital area barriers, b.
Properly conducted personnel, vehicle and package searche.
.
-3-c.
Adequate security organization manning.
d.
Proper shift turnover, shift routines, and communication procedures.
e.
Properly authorized, identified and badged personnel being provided access to the protected area and vital areas, f.
Proper escorts provided for personnel and vehicles when required inside the protected area.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Radiological Protection Operations During plant tours, the Inspector verified that the posting requirements of 10 CFR 19 and 10 CFR 20 were met.
Radiation control barriers were examined and found to be properly posted and to have been maintained consistent with facility procedures and oper-ating practices. Workers observed by the inspector were found to comply with the requirements of the radiation work permits.
Work performed within radiologically-controlled areas was found to have been properly authorized in accordance with work requests.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Training The Inspector discussed the plans for modifying and updating the I&C Apprentice Training Program (see item 79-25-02 in IE Report 50-312/
79-25). The discussions were held with the Instrument and Control Super-vision and his foremen. Part of the I&C Department already has a system of records to document on-the-job training and training lectures.
Also, some criteria does exist for defining the qualification steps necessary to advance. A licensee representative reiterated the committment to for-malize the program for the complete I&C Department tentatively by July 1, 1980.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Followup on Previously Identified Items a.
79-25-01: Logkeeping (closed)
'
,.-
-4-Standing Order 16-79 was issued on December 4,1979 which addresses testing of SFAS equipment, resetting of high flux trips and logging of locked valves.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
79-25-04: Sequential Numberina of LER's (closed)
The licensee has decided to sequentially number all occurrences whether they be Appendix A or Appendix B technical specification reports.
The numbering system will commence in calendar 1980.
'to items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Indeoendent Insoection Effort Discussions were held with operations, security and maintenance personnel in an attempt to better understand problems they may have which are rela-ted to nuclear safety. These discussions will continue as a standard
'
practice for the Resident Inspector.
On numerous occasions during the month of December, the Resident Inspec-tor attended the morning status meetings. These meetings are held by the Operations Supervisor to provide all disciplines onsite with a daily update on the plant status and ongoing maintenance work.
The Inspector discussed with licensee management and supervision the plans that should be developed to assure that adequate familiarization with current plant conditions and activities are known to those licensed personnel who are not normally assigned to operate the plant.
The li-censee is aware of the problems that could be generated by not having adequate contingency plans for events which could incapacitate the nor-mally assigned personnel due to sickness, accident or strike.
The li-censee management does have ideas about what could be done to keep the plant operating safely with qualified personnel if the above problems materialize.
B',W will modify a directive to SMUD dealing with the identification of surveillance capsules to be withdrawn from Davis Besse I at the end of the Davis Besse I first cycle.
In a letter to the NRC on this subject, S!1UD stated that capsule RSI-E would be withdrawn, but technical specifi-cation 4.2 indicates capsule RSI-D should be removed. RSI-E is not to be removed until the end of cycle 10.
Therefore, using the revised B&W directive, the licensee will modify the October 31, 1979 letter, Mattimoe to Reid, to accurately reflect the specimen identification erro ' '
.-
-5-Finally, the Senior Resident Inspector witnessed a special test that has not been run at B&W plants in the past. STP-220, APSR withdrawal at EOC-3 was written and approved in accordance with station administra-tive procedures.
The purpose of STP-220 was to provide the detailed procedure by which the Axial Power Shaping Rod's (APSR's) would be pulled at near end-of-core (E0C) three.
This is being done to extend the fuel cycle by util-izing the reactivity suppressed by the APSR's.
STP-220 also provides a procedure for the controlling of axial xenon oscillation as which result from pulling the APSR's.
The rod shift to the APSR's commenced at about 0830 on Sunday, December 16, 1979.
Reactor power was less than 100% until about 0530 on Monday, December 17, 1979. Then a plot of power in balance vs. time was gener-ated in preparation for suppressing the xenon peak with CPA group 7 motion.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The NRC Senior Resident Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on December 18, 1979.
During this meeting, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the December Resident inspection effort.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.