IR 05000312/1980038
| ML19341C366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1981 |
| From: | Canter H, Faulkenberry B, Obrien J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341C365 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-80-38, NUDOCS 8103030154 | |
| Download: ML19341C366 (10) | |
Text
.,
.
\\/
U. S. f!UCLEAR REGULATORY COT 4ISSI0'l 0FFICE OF IflSPECTIO!! A!!n E!!FORCEMEtiT REGIO 1 V Report !!o.
50-312/30-33 Docket flo.
50-312 License flo.
DPR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. i'ox 15P,30 Sacramento, California 95813 Fac11ity Name:
Rancho Seco Unit 1 Inspection at:
iierald, California (Rancho Seco Site)
Insocction conductea:
December 1-31, 1980 Insnectoes: ] [ 1
'
,as
-
-
///(/f/,
Od "
9""
Harvey L. Canter, Senior Resident Inspector
_
_1
' <. wh_ %
'6
/ './f/f/
'
Jonn u'arien, Unit Resident inspector Date Signed
_
//f/ /
Aoproved by:
Bates (igned
'
.c.
,
n
,o :% - _.--x
.
_
/
Nil:enberry, Cnief, Reactot Projects 'Section i', mctor Operations and fluclear Support Branch Summa ry:
Insoection between Decc: er 1-31, 1930 (Report liu. 50-312/80-33)
Areas inspected:
fgerational safety verification; monthly maintenance observation; monthly surveillance observation; 'SALP' inspection activities; followup on reqional requests; inoffice review of event reports; independent inspection effort and followup on a significant event.
The inspection involved 15? insoector hours by two resident inspectors.
Results:
Of the oight :reas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia tions were found.
EV Forn 219 (2)
slososo;Sq
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Rodriguez, Manager, fluclear Operations
- P. Oubre', Plant Superintendent
- D. Blachly, Operating Suoervisor N. Brock, Electrical /I&C Maintenance Supervisor
- R.
Colombo, Technical Assistant
- Q. Coleman, Quality Assurance Technician
- G. Coward, Maintenance Supervisor
- li. Heckert, Engineering Technician
- J. Jewett, Acting Quality Assurance Supervisor R. iiiller, Chemistry / Radiological Supervisor L. Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director B. Stiver. Mechanical Engineer
- T. Tucker, Planner / Scheduler D. Whitney, Nuclear Engineer B. Wichert, Mechanical Engineer The insoectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the engineering, main-tenance, operations, and quality assurance (QA) organization.
- Denotes those attending the Exit Interviews either on December 12, 1980 or December 31, 1980.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The insoector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the unnth of December,1930.
The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components.
Tours of the auxiliary building and the turbine building were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The insnector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being imple.nented in accordance with the statian security plan.
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
Durinq the month of December,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.
!
i
!
l
..
.
.
- 2-These reviews and observations were' conducted to verify that
,
facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under techaical soecifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to' ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed fran service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as apolicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls were implacented.
,
Work reouests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenar.ce wnich may affect system performance.
-
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
a)
Reactor Building Entry and Reactor Coolant Pump 'C'
,
b)
'B' Energency Diesel Fuel Racks c)
'C' Emergency Diesel Air Start Motor
'
d)
' T Emergency Diesal + # roller Following completion of maintenance on all the above, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation _
_
The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance testing on the
'B' Diesel Generator; Auxiliary Feed Pumps, Diesel Driven fire Pump, and Reactor Protection System and verified that testing was perforned in accordance with adequate procedures, that
..
__ _
.
-3-test instrumentation was calibrated that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were acccmplished, that test results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were procerly reviewed and resolved by aprropriate management personnel.
The insoector witnessed the following test activities:
SP 200.18 (12/17/30) Monthly Aux. Feed Pomo (P-314P319), SP 201.035 (12/18/80)
.
Plant Fire System (Diesel) P-996,SP 200.08C (12/18/80) Monthly RPS Channel
'C', and SP 206.03B (12/22/80) Diesel Gen. "B" Monthly Test.
5.
SALP Insoectinn Activities IJurina the month of December,1980, the inspector reviewed the following activities:
'
a.
Review and Audits The insoector sat in on a safety review committee meeting.
The insoector verified that provisions of technical specifications dwiinq witn membersnip, review process, frequency, and qualifications
,are net.
The inspector diso verified that decisions made were rer lected in tne meeting minutes and that corrective actions proposed were taken.
b.
ic!iqing Th, inspector attended one or the licensee's operator requalification ier ture series and verified that lesson olan objectives were
.es 2nd that training was in accordance with the approved operator requalification program schedule and objectives.
The insocctor verified by direct questioning of one new, one exoerienced, and one temporary employee that administrative controls and procedures, radiological health and safety, industrial safety, controlled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and quality assurance training were provided as required by the licensee's technical specifications; verified by direct questioning of one craf tsman and one technician that on-the-job training, formal technical training commensurate with.iob classification, and fire fighting training were
,
provided.
l Mo items of noncomaliance or deviations were identified.
..
.
.
-4-6.
Followup on Regiona_1 Requests Durina the month of Decenber,1980, personnel from the Region V office of the NRC in Walnut Creek, California requested information from the Resident Inspectors regarding the operation and maintenance of the Rancho Seco powcr plant.
Information was obtained and transmitted to the Reqion V office concerning:
a)
5hutdoun Panel Arranaement; and b)
Licensed Ooerator Training
.
The Residant Inspector also performed a survey of emergency and other related procedures to determine their involvement in Anticipatory Transient Mithout Scram ( ATUS) events.
The following procedures were examined:
-0.1 Load Rejection-0. 2 Reactor Trio / Turbine Trip-D.4 Reactor High Startup Rate-D. 5 Loss of Reactor Coolant / Reactor Coolant System Pressure
- D. 6 Moderator Dilution-U. 7 Loss of CRD Cooling
'
- D. B CRD Malfunction-D.9 High Activity in Reactor Coolant-D.10 Loss of Reactor Coolant flow - RCP Trip-0.11 Loss of Reactor Coolant Makeup / Letdown-0.12 Reactor Coolant Pump / Motor Emergencies-0.13 Steam Line/ Feed Line Ru9ture-D.14 Loss of Steam Generator Feed-0.15 Pressurizer System Failure-0.16 Loss of Decay Heat Renoval System-0.17 Evacuation of Control Room
,
l
'-
_
.
.
.
.
.
. _ - -
-
--.
.
.
.
.
.
-5-
-AP.1 Responsibilities and Authorities-0P B. 6 Reactivity Balance Calculations-0P B.9 Soluble Baron Concentration Control The technical snecifications were also examined for references to inoperable control rods and emeroency boration paths.
,
The inspector found that Emergency Procedure D.8, CRD Malfunction; AP-1, Responsibilities and Authorities; and Technical Specification Sections 3.2.3, 3.5.1.6, 3.5.2, 4.7, do address ATWS actions.
Also, the requalification training proaram is expected to address ATWS events in the future. The term ATWS is not used specifically in any orocedure nor is there a conscious attemot to include specific ATWS actions in emergency procedures other tnan D.8.
This information has been forwarded to NRC Headquarters per their request.
No items at noncompiiance or deviations were identified.
7.
Inoffice Review of Event Reoorts,
'
The inspector perrormed on examination of the following event recorts to ascertain whetner additional inspection effort or other IE resr:onse is warranted, whether corrective action discussed in the licensee's report appears appropriate, and whether ;o'.ormation encortea to tne hRC appears to satisfy reporting requirements.
All of tne events listed below appear to meet the above criteria and r quire no further followup at this time.
These items are CLOSED.
30-05 L nkage from the Outboard Seal of the " A" DHR Pump 30-08
"U" Colt Bracket iiissing on Seismic Support 30-03 SFA-X Relays not Wired 30-11 3 I'efective OTSG Tubes 30-12 Diesel Generator " A" Failed to Start
"0-13 Leakage in a "B" Diesel Air Start Line 80-15 Missing Clad on a Fuel Assembly C0-16
':eismic Support Analysis Anomolies 30-17 Safety Features Valve Malfunction
!
l
d0-13 Safety Features Valve Malfunction t
j 80-19 NSRN Breaker Failure l
..
.
- -.,
-
_
~
-
.
.
.
-6-80- 21 Eiiluent ph Limit Exceeded
'
80-24 Diesel Generator " A" fialfunction 30-25 Control Switch Cam Follower Problems 80-28 Single Failure of SFAS-Inverters 80-30 RPS-C Overnower Bistable Voltage Problem 80-31 DHR Pump Stress 80-32 AFW Failed to Start from the Control Room
30-39 High Flux Trips set at 105.5% vice 5% at Shutdown
!:ypass 80-40
"B" RCS Loon Flow Transmitter Failure 80-41
"B" Diesel Generator did not Achieve Rated Voltage fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
8.
I_ndependen t inspection Effort Discussions were held between the Resident Insoectors and operations, security and maintenance personnel in an attempt to better understand probleiis t.ney may have unich are related to nuclear safety.
These discussions will continue as a standard practice.
On nonerous uccasions, during the month of December,1980, the Residenu inspectors attended operations status meetings.
These neetings are held by the Operations Supervisor to provide all disciplines onsite with an update on the plant status and ongoing na i n tenance.; ark.
In addition to the above, independent inspection effort was performed on the following items:
a.
1931 Outage Plans Because of the potential for accelerated keyway disc cracking in the main turbine, the licensee has decided to perform a 90-120 day % fueling and Turhine inspection outage commencing January 30, 1981.
The licensee informed the inspector on December 11,1980, tha t the Contlinment intecrated Leak Rate Test will not be performen during this upcoming outage.
Instead, it will be performed prior to startup and heatup following the 1982 outage which is expected to commence around April 1982.
..
--
-
-
-
.
.
_7_
'
Because the licensee's technical soecifications and 10 CFR 59, Appendix J link the frequency of testing to the time at which the plant shuts down for the 10-year plant inservice inspections, the inspector stated that the following chart appears to apply for the Rancho Seco ILRT performances.
This schedule is based on a fourteen month extension to the date for required conformance to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) which deals with inservice inspectinns.
" Actual / Planned Test Date Test Window **
2-74*
2-74 10-77*
3-77 to 3-79 4-82 4-81 to 4-83 6-86 6-85 to 6-87
- 2ased on a 12-year-four-month interval to comolete four tests and a 25% dispensation on the frequency of surveillance test performance.
b.
IF Report 80-34 Clarification It was erroneously reported in IE Report 50-312/80-34, Page 59, that the Plant Superintendent would issue a Standing Order by Decemner 15, 1930, which would authorize operators in the case of emergency to depart from proceduros where necessary to prevent injury to personnel, including the public, or damage a.he facility.
f r. taad of issuing a Standing Order, which is a temporary i ns truc tion, the Plant Superintendent changed Administrative Proceaure AP-1, Responsibilities and Authorities, to include the following words which conform to Paragraph 5.1.2 in ANSI Hla.7-1976.
' All personnel engaged in administrative, operational or maintenance activities are responsible for insuring that their daily work practices follow approved operating pro-cedures and/or normally accepted practices in those areas where specific procedures do not apply.
In the event of an emergency not covered by an approved nrocedure, operations personnel shall take whatever action necessary utilizing their education, training and experience so as to mininize personnel injury and damage to the faci 1ity and to protect the health and safety of the publ ic.,,
This addresses the concerns in 50-312/80-34, Paragraph 10A, Page 59.
..
..
_
.
.
_a_
c.
AP 22 Reviews AP 22 is the administrative method by which the licensee reports procedure violations, technical specification violations and other potential reportable occurrences to the Plant Super-intendent and the Chairman of the Plant Review Committee.
The inspector reviewed an AP 22 report dated December 24, 1980, dealinq with failure to follow the work request procedure, AP 3.
At the time of the exit meeting on December 31, 1980,
the inspector had not gathered enough information to determine if an item of noncompliance was associated with the failure to follow the work request procedure. The inspector will review the licensee's actions on the AP 22 reDort at a future date.
Until then, this item is unresolved.
(80-38-01)
9.
Followuo on a Sionificant Event On December 22,1980 at 8:50 a.m. while technicians were performing maintenance in the radiation monitoring panels, the auxiliary building stack, the control room and the condensor air ejector radiation (gaseous) monitoring systems alarmed with pegged high indications.
The licensee inmediately activated the onsite emergency plan and evacuated onsite personnel to the warehouse assembly area.
Gaseous and particulate grab samples were taken, and the NRC Headquarters was notified via the red phone at 9:01 a.m.
By 9: 26 a.m., the grab sanoles were evaluated and indicated background levels of radioactivity.
Also, trauoie shooting of the radiation monitoring equipment had revealed that the ac power cables to the above instruments had failed ano that novement of the above cables would cause the wide swinqs in indicated gaseous radiation levels.
In accordance with the Technical Specifications, backup grab samples were taken while repair of the system was conducted.
By 4:00 p.m., repairs and surveillance were completed, and the systems were returned to normal operation.
Durinq the entire evolution, the Plant remained at 100 power, anJ the Unit Resident Inspector observed and participated in the licensee actions from the technical support center.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 8.a. (Item 80-38-01)
i
..
.
-
_
. - -
_,_
.
,
-9-
,
11.
Exit f teeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the month and at tne conclusion of the inspection on December 12 and 13, 1980, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
.
.
&
i se
. - - -.
,
~. _.,
.
. _.. _