IR 05000312/1981037
| ML20040E771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Morrill P, Willett D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E765 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-81-37, NUDOCS 8202050341 | |
| Download: ML20040E771 (4) | |
Text
T
,
.
-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
g Report No. 50-312/81-26 M Docket No. 50-312 License No. Opp-54 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municioal Utilitv District
>
P. O. Box 15830
.
Sacramento. California 95R11
'
Facility Name: RancFo Seco i
Inspection at: Clay Station. illifornia s
Inspection conducted: December 15-16. 1981 s
Ih([8 Inspectors:
.
P. J./ Morrill, Reactor Inspector Date Signed CL)a/6Ma+
/-s-yz C Willett,/ eactor Inspector Date Signed R
e n
.
Approved by:
dA/
Nf6Fb 7-
/
b DpeSigned e
'Section 2
/
T.' Young, Chief,RegtorPrg j
ReactorOperationsPojectsfjr ch
'
Summary:
Inspection on December 15-16, 1981 (Report No. 50-312/81-37)
>
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of design changes and modifications and independent inspection effort. The inspection activities involved 28 inspector-hours by two regionally based inspectors.
Results: Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
s t
u
,
<
,
-
,m t
<
RV Fo m 219 (2)
.
y 2 p5fyh f*
,,.c D.
.,-$
,
,
,
- -,-~
m-
^
-
.
.
.
---
-
.
--
m
-~
,
.
,
- DETA_ILS
\\
'N 1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Blachly, Operating Supervisor
- R. Colombo,. Technical Assistant
- G. Coward, Maintenance Supervisor
- T. Perry,.Cn Site Quality Assurance Supervisor L.' Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director
- D. Whitney, Engineering and Quality Control Supervisor
- Denotes those attending the Exit Interview on December 16, 1981.
'
'
2.
Design Changes and _ Modifications e
The inspectors exannrcri licensee Procedures, Engineering Change Notices (ECN), Drawing Chay;c Relices' (DCN) and appropriate Nonconformance Reports (NCR) and discussed these items with licensee personnel to determine if design changes and modifications were being completed in conformance with resulatory requirements; such a,10 CFR 50.59 and the technical specifications. The documents examined included the following:
s s
.
QAP.-7
-
Configuratio'n Control
'
~
QCI-l
-
Processing of JIon-Conformance Reports QCI-0,
- '
. Procedures for Logging, Filing and Retrievability of the SMUD Nuclear Operations Quality Assurance
,
,
Documentation System
-
ECP-1
-
sRancho Seco Configuration Control E-105,
-
One Lirie Diagram 480 Volt System (with DCN #5 and
.
Sh 11 ECN 2631)
'
Pev. 12
--
E'-312,
,; hiring Diagram T-SAT Cabinet (with DCN #1, NCR
,
Sh 12, '
S-1875, Work Request 6 5930)
-
'
Rev. 0,
J
'
ECN #2031 i Security Plan Facility Modifications
& 2704
~
,
s
--
'
-
a s
Controlled [StickFiles'andApertureCcrdsforselectedPiping
~
'
"and Instrument Diagrams, One Line Electrical Diagram 3, and Wiring Diagramt in the Control Room, Electrical Maintenance Shop, the s
'
Site Document Control Center, and the Instrument and Control Shop.
\\,
,
\\
'
.
.
k
..
-^
.m
'
F
,
-2-
.
The inspectors observed that drawing E-312, Sneet 12, Rev 0 (Wiring Diagram T-SAT Cabinet) - DCN #1 depicted the physical connections of the capacitors differently than the installed condition, however the inspectors verified that the as-built condition was electrically correct.
The inspectors also observed that drawing E-105, Sheet 11, Rev.12 (one line diagram, 480 volt system) incorrectly identified breaker 2C208 as a spare whereas DCN #5/ECN 2031 correctly identified this breaker as the Battery Building Transfer Switch.
The inspectors determined that although the Site Document Center had this DCN it was not located or referenced to in the control room controlled stick file or aperture cards.
Based on further examinations of the licensee's configuration control
'
system and discussions with licensee personnel the inspectors concluded that between the time work was started on a system or component, until a Final (i.e. yellow) DCN was issued (after the work was completed),
the controlled stick files and aperture cards would not represent the
"as-built" condition of the facility. Since drawings were not marked to indicate that work was in progress or completed, it would be possible
,
a for plant operations or maintenance personnel to use incorrect drawings.
,
Conversely, work in progress in the existing plant is controlled by the Shift Supervisor who retains a copy of the work request while the work is being done and also supervises the placing of systems and components out of and into service. After the work request is completed the Shift Supervisor's copy is returned to processing and prior to the issuance of a final DCN only Site Document Control personnel retain complete records of the as built condition of the plant.
This appeared to be an item of noncompliance, however the inspectors determined that licensee o
personnel had previously identified the problem of maintaining up to
'
date drawings (SMUD Memo Oubre to Rodriguez dated December 3, 1981)
and requested resolution by SMUD Management.
Subsequent to the inspection on December 18, 1981, members of the Region 5 staff discussed the inspection findings with the SMUD Quality Assurance Director and his staff.
Based on these discussions Licensee Management initiated a memorandum (Mattimoe to Rodriguez, Ruasch, and Schwieger dated December 23, 1981 " Drawing Control Turnaround Time") with the following c~ommittments:
"1.
Issue by March 1, 1982 Revision 4 to ECP-1 and initiate training
.
of personnel involved in its usage. Major and sub-ECNs should expedite closure and permit earlier distribution of the yellow
drawings.
,
,
2.
Make every effort on the older ECN packages to " freeze" the design package, expedite closure of the ECN ' package and release the yellow DCNs to the Control Room stick files.
l 3.
Direct Inspection / Quality Assurance to expedite inspection packages l
through their organization to enable SDC to release the yellow DCNs at the earliest possible time.
4.
NCRs against an ECN package may pennit release of the yellow DCNs.
Quality Assurance will notify SDC when release of DCN is permissible j
under the confines of the Quality Assurance Program, QAP 17, Nonconforming l
Material Control.
,
.
h
-
..
.
-3-5.
Establish a program by February 1,1982 that will ensure system modifications will not be put into service until yellow prints or marked-up prints are on the Control Room stick files." 7 The Region 5 staff will monitor the implementation of these committments to alleviate the problem.
3.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspectors toured various areas of the plant to observe modifications in progress and to inspect the implementation of procedural controls as well as the status-and use of," controlled" drawings. The inspectors discussed the scope and adequacy of the licensee's configuration control program with licensee _ Quality Assurance', Maintenance, Construction, Operations, and Clerical. Personnel.
No items of noncompliance'or deviations were identified.
4.
Exit Interview
-
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on December 16, 1981, to summarize the scope and findings of the inspection.
,
- - - -
-
-
,
--
-