IR 05000312/1980020
| ML19331D112 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1980 |
| From: | Canter H, Faulkenberry B, Obrien J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331D107 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-80-20, NUDOCS 8008270307 | |
| Download: ML19331D112 (5) | |
Text
r
y
,
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULSTORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
REGION V
R';po r t No. 50-312/80-20 Docket No.
50-312 License No.
OPR-54 Safeguards Group I.icensce:
Sacramento !1unicipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813
_
Facility Name:
Rancho Seco Unit 1 Herald, California (Rancho Seco Site)
Inspection at:
Inspection conducted: June 2-30, 1980 Inspectors:
')
/4v 7/g/g O
Date Signed Harvey mer,Sef5r14sidentInspector N-
/ho 7/9/fe D' ate Signed John O'Brien, Unit Res{nt%pector Date Signed Approved By:
.M.&
7/9//d g-B. H. Faulkenberry, Chief Reac' tor Projects Section #2 Date Signed Reactor Operations and (uclear Support Branch Suc=ary:
Insoection between June 2 and 30,1980 (Penort No. 50-312/80-20)
Areas Inspected: Routine operations safety verification; routine monthly surveillance observations; followup cn noncompliance items; followup on Headquarters requests; start-up testing following the refueling outage; and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 76 inspector hours by the Resident Inspectors.
Results: Of the six areas in3pected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed in five areas; one item of noncompliance was disclosed in one area (deficiency - failure to respond to an item of noncompliance within the required time frame, see Paragraph 4).
600%W RV Form 219 (2)
.
..
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Rodriguez, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- P. Oubre', Plant Superintendent
- R. Colombo Technical Assistant
- W. Ford, Operating Supervisor D. Gardiner, Senior Chemical & Radiation Assistant
- H. Heckart, Engineering Technician F. Kellie, Plant Chemist
- J. Lervold, Quality Aysursnce Engineering Technician J. McColligan, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor
- R. Medina, Quality Assurance Engineer R. Miller, Chemistry / Radiological Supervisor L. Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director B. Stiver, Mechanical Engineer J. Sullivan, Quality Assurance Supervisor D. Whitney, Nuclear Engineer B. Wichert, Mechanical Engineer The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the engineering, maintenance, operations, and quality assurance (QA) organizations.
- Denotes those attend hg the Exit Interview on June 26, 1980.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector obarved control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of June,1980.
The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems.
Tours of both the reactor building and turbine building were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations.
The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
During the month of June,1980, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of the Auxiliary Feed and Diesel Generator systems to verify operability.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under technical specifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deivations were identified.
-
.
_
.
..
.
.
.
-2-3.
Monthly Surveillance Observation, The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance testing on the Diesel Generator, Auxiliary Feed, and Reactor Protection Systems and verified that testing was performed in accurdance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
STP 088, Auxiliary Feed Pump Endurance Test; SP 206.03 A & B Diesel Generator
"A" and "B" Monthly Tests; and, SP 200.08D Monthly RPS Channel "D".
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Followuo on Items of Noncompliance The response to an item of noncompliance issued with I.E. Report 50-312/
80-10 was examined to ascertain that the corrective measures were completed.
By letter dated June 2,1980, the licensee responded to the Notice of Violation. All corrective actions were verified by the inspector.
(80-10-01 is Closed)
One item of concern with respect to the response was discussed during the exit interview on June 26, 1980, and also during the May 30, 1980 exit interview for IE Report 50-312/80-17. The item of concern dealt with the NRC not receiving the response to the citation mentioned above.
In response to the inspecto/s query on May 30, 1980, the response dated June 2, 1980 was submitted.
Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations Energy, Part 2.201 states in part, "The notice of violation will concisely state the alleged violation and will require that the licensee submit, within twenty (20) days of the date of the notice or other specified time, a written explanation or statement in reply...."
Contrary to the above requirement, the licensee received the notice of violation as part of IE Inspection Report 50-312/80-10 on April 23, 1980 while the response was submitted on June 2,1980.
This item is a deficiency.
(80-20-01)
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_
__
_
._.
_
..
_
.
..
.
<
.
.
-3-
.
5.
Followup on Headquarters Request Category "A" Reouirement Verification By letter dated May 1,1980, the NRC informed the licensee of the staff's evaluation for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generation Station actions taken to satisfy the Category "A" items of NUREG-0578, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned
,
Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations."
>
i The referenced letter requires the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to verify many actions taken by the licensee and to document the verifications in an appropriate inspection report.
'
Accordingly, the NUREG-0578, Paragraph 2.1.1 item dealing with the emergency power supply requirements was examined, but the inspection was not completed by June 30, 1980.
This item will be addressed during the Resident Inspector's July inspection efforts.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Startuo Testing-Refueling The inspector reviewed the test results obtained from Special Test Procedure No. STP-222, "Beginniag of Cycle Four Physics Testing," and found that the test results indicate the reactor is being operated within license limits and was performing within the acceptance criteria based on the reload core design. The procedure, STP-222, had been reviewed and approved by the Plant Review Canmittee on March 27, 1980. The following specific areas of STP-222 were reviewed by the inspector:
a core thermal power b
determination of reactor shutdown margin c
isothermal temperature coefficient of reactivity measurement d
control rod worth measurements The inspector reviewed the records of surveillance tests performed in accordance with surveillance procedures to verify that the control rod system was functional following the refueling outage.
Results from SP 208.01, " Control Rod Drop Times" and SP 208.03, "CRD Program Verification,"
documented proper operation of the control rod system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Independent Inspection Effort Discussions were held between the Resident Inspectors and operations, security and maintenance personnel in an attempt to better understand problems they may have which are related to nuclear safety. These discussions will continue as a standard practice.
_
__
_.
__.. _ _ _ _
_.
- _ _ _ _
..
.
.
O
'
-4-On numerous occasions, during the month of June, the Resident Inspectors attended operations status meetings. These meetings are held by the Operations Supervisor to provide all disciplines onsite with a update en the plant status and ongoing maintenance work.
In addition to the above, independent inspection effort was performed on the folloiwng items:
a.
Containment Isolation Valve (Outside Purge Exhaust Valves) operations.
b.
Security system (abherrent behavior).
c.
Integrated and Local Leak Rate Testing No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
E_xit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection on June 30, 1980 and surmlarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The licensee acknowledged the information on the item of noncompliance mentioned in paragraph 4 of this report.
The licensee was informed that Region V has received and is currently reviewing the draft of the Performance Appraisal Team (PAT) enforcement report (50-312/80-15).
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were discussed.
.
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -