IR 05000312/1982004
| ML20041F339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Canter H, Obrien J, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F329 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-82-04, 50-312-82-4, NUDOCS 8203160408 | |
| Download: ML20041F339 (9) | |
Text
.
.
V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
REGION V
Report No. 50-312/82-04 Docket No. 50-312 License No.
DPR-54 Safeguards Group _.
Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Ut111tv District P.
O.
Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name: Rancho Seco Unit 1 Inspection at: licrald, California (Rancho Seco Site)
Inspection conducted: January 4-29, 19A2 Inspectors:
NbM 2 - / '/ -- M
'
idef Inspector Date Signed fn (4n&{l$or W.fe-P M-22 r,
Se Harvey L.
Ca
"
Insp/ctor Date Signed J o h n ' 0 B r i e n, Upt Resi n
Date Signed
~ / 7 ~~ D Approved by:
-
'
Reptor Opegt[/ns Date Signed T.
Young, Chief Projects Section 2 V
Date Signed Summary:
Inspection between January 4 and 29, 1982 (Report 50-312/82-04)
Areas Inspected:
Operational Safety Verification; maintenance observations; surveillance observations; Audit Program im-plementation; requalification training; follow-up on items of noncompliance; licensee event report follow-up; follow-up headquarter's requests; follow-up on regional requests; on follow-up on plant trips; and, independent inspection effort.
The inspection activities involved 158 inspector-
,
hours by the Resident Inspectors.
-
I Results:
Of the eleven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, i
020222 RV Form 219 (2)
y g h400eo00soa
O
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
Rodriguez, Manager Nuclear Operations
- P.
Oubre', Plant Superintendent D.
Blachly, Operations Supervisor N.
Brock, Electrical /I&C Maintenance Supervisor D.
Cass, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor
- R.
Colombo, Technical Assistant G.
Coward, Maintenance Supervisor
- S.
Crunk, Associate Nuclear Engineer D.
Elliott, Quality Assurance Engineer H.
Heckert, Quality Assurance Engineer W.
Jurkovich, Project Engineer F.
Kellie, Assistant Chemi'stry and Health Physics Supervisor
- R.
Lawrence, Acting Maintenance Supervisor V.
Lewis, Site Project Engineer
- B.
McQuade, Quality Assurance Engineer R.
Miller, Chemistry / Radiological Supervisor T.
Perry, On-site Quality Assurance Supervisor S.
Rutter, Quality Assurance Engineer L.
Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director T.
Tucker, Planner / Scheduler
- W.
Wells, Senior Administrative' Assistant D. Whitney, Engineering and Quality Control Supervisor 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 attending the Exit Interview on January 29, 1982.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The plant was critical or at power for the entire month of January, 1982 except for the time the plant was shutdown due to plant trips.
(See Paragraph 11.)
Also, the plant power was reduced to hot standby on January 30-31, 1982 for hydraulic snubber inspections and minor maintenance items.
The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators.
The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components.
Tours of the aux-iliary building and turbine building were conducted to observe
.
plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards,
fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that
.-
.
.
-2-maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspector, verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspector examined plant housekeeping / cleanliness: conditions and verified the implementation of radiation protection. controls.
The inspector also walked down the accessible portions of the auxiliary feed water system and emergency power system to verify operability, and witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste barreling.
As mentioned above the plant was taken off line.on January 30,
1982 for a planned outage.
A hydraulic snubber inspection was l
performed.
Two failed snubbers were identified, removed, re-paired, retested and reinstalled.
The next inspection is due in six months.
In addition to the above mentioned items, the inspector ver'ified that surveillance tests _ required by the power reduction and reactor building entry were accomplished.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Observations The inspectors observed portions of the maintenance activities listed below and verified that' work was accomplished in'
accordance with approved procedures, that work was accomplished by qualified personnel, that provisions for stationing a fire watch to oversee activities involving welding and open.
flame were complied with and that LCO requirements we'e met r
during repair.
a.
RPS channel
'C'
- RCS-pressure transmitter replacement b.
Alignment of Aux 111ary Feed Water Pump lube' oil systems-cnd inspection of the turbine driven Auxiliary Feed Water Pump.
c.
Heater replacement-on dieselfdriven fire pump d.
Troubleshooting of the "1A" vital power inverter No items of' noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance Observations The inspectors observed portions of th'e below listed surveillance testing to' verify that the tests were covered by properly
.
,
-3-approved procedures; that the procedures used were ~ consistent with technical specification requirements; that minimum crew requirements were met; that test prerequisites.were completed; that special test equipment was calibrated and in service; and, that-the test results were adequate.
a.
SP 206.03A Monthly test of
'A'
diesel-generator b.
SP 210.03A Post - trip test of Turbine Steam stop valve c.
SP 203.06B Quarterly test of DHR-B SFAS Valves d.
SP 208.04A Monthly test of Reactor-trip from GEN /TURB trip No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Audit Program Implementation The inspector verified on a sampling basis that the licensee's Quality Assurance organization is conducting routine audits by qualified personnel.
These activities appear to have been conducted in conformance with regulatory requirements, the licensee's technical specifications, and license conditions.
The inspector witnessed portions of the performance of Audit 0-438 entitled "Once Through Steam Generator (OTSG) Eddy Current Tube Inspections."
This audit was. performed between December 7-18, 1981.
The auditor discovered an item that required a Licensee' Event Report (LER)~be written to the NRC.
That action was taken as part of the corrective action to the audit.
(See LER 50-312/81-58).
The above named comments on qualified auditors _and.following appropriate l
requirements apply to this-audit also.
No items of noncompliance or deviations.were identified.
,
6.
Requalification Training I
(
The inspector reviewed the implementation <
the Requalification l
Training Program for the licensed operators.
The inspector re-viewed the licensee's AP-25; Harold Denton's-letter on Re-l qualification Training dated' March 28, 1980; and, the licensee l
response to that letter, Topical Report T2-80 dated July 24, 1980.
l This report documents the requested changes to the licensee's i
Requalification Training Program.
It is noted that the Operator j
Licensing-Branch has not yet approved SMUD's change request, i
l l
l
!
l i
!
l L
_
._
_
-
,
- _.
.
.
-4-The inspector verified that lecture topics have been covered by scheduled lectures or self-study assignments; that the licensee is administering exams and quizzes in accordance with the procedures mentioned above; tha't the licensee is maintaining adequate records to document training,' exams and operator manipulations to maintain proficiency;.and that weak areas found on written exams are addressed in the next re-taining cycle.
The inspector reviewed training records for two shift supervisors (SRO), and two control room operators (RO), and verified'that they contain the required documentation.
The inspector then interviewed the operators and verified that the record reflected actual training received.
The inspector verified that scheduled training missed last year has been made up by self-study and oral quizzes.
The following inspection followup items are CLOSED:
a.
81-07-02 - CLOSED b.
80-34-04 - CLOSED-No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Followup on Item of Noncompliance a.
Item 80-26-03 CLOSED:
Loss of D.C.
Power to Containment'
Isolation Valve Solenoids The inspector verified that the corrective action committed to in correspondence dated October 17, 1980 and November 19, 1980 has been completed.
The valves in question are-now designed to receive an appropriate closure signal.
No further items of noncompliance or' deviations were identified on this issue.
,
b.
Item 81-15-02 CLOSED:
Inadequate Surveillance Procedures for Safety Related Pumps The licensee responded to this item in letters dated July.1, 1981, August 25, 1981, and' October 22, 1981.
In addition, the inspector verified that'the commitment
,
..
-5-
<
to revise Surveillance Procedures SP203.02 A/B/C has been done.
As a short term correction for the tube plugging problem, the licensee has epoxy coated all the Component Cooling Water and Nuclear Service Raw Water cooler end bells associated with the High Pressure Injection and Make-Up Pumps. They will open and inspect these coolers for plugging every 180 days until long term action is taken.
As a long term correction, the licensee plans to replace all lube oil coolers with new design stain-less coolers.
This item is CLOSED.
The Resident inspectors will follow-up on the installation of the stainless coolers (Follow-up item 82-0-01).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were. identified.
8.
Licensee Event Report Follow-up The Resident Inspectors performed an examination of the following licensee event reports to ascertain whether add-itional inspection effort or other IE response is warranted, whether corrective action discussed in the licensee's report appears appropriate, and whether the information reported to the NRC appears to satisfy reporting require-ments.
All of the event reports listed below appear to meet the above criteria and require no further follow-up at this time.
These items are CLOSED.
81-16 - Plugging of lube oil coolers for HPI pumps and make-up pump.
(See Paragraph 7.b)
81-33
" Diesel Trouble" alarm relay failure.
81-41 - Re-analysis determined pipe supports were inadequate.
81-49 - Limitorque operator failure.
81-58 - Failure to report on Davis Besse's utilization factor.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Followup on Headquarters Requests During the month of January 1982, personnel from NRC headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland requested information from the Resident Inspectors about operation, design and maintenance of the Rancho Seco power plant.
Information was obtained and transmitted to the NRC headquarters concerning:
_ _ _ -. _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _
_ -
--
-
.
.
.,
-
' #
t
,
-6-
.
l
.
,
,
. Tower Crane a.
i The-inspector ~ verified that the guy wire restraint 1 system
'
= was installed as described in Bechtel. letter BSL-2185 dated November 30, 1981. : Initial tension ' set -on cable -
guys is approximately 1,000 lbs'. and.the sag-is' set at
- approximately 5 feet._ -These settings are within the a
calculated ranges of.the1 referenced letter.
The inspec-I tor reviewed the approved proceduresJ(approved by the PRC on 1-9-82), and witnessed-training given to the crane
,
operators and-flag men.
The~approv'ed procedures address
,
load handling instruction, define safe load travel paths and define administrative controls to prohibit the~ carry-
"
. ing of loads over safe shutdown equipment.
b.
Modification Test Working Group (MTWG):
-
Due to the.large amount;of modification and construction work that has commenced in response to the Three Mile'
.
,-
'
The purpose t
Island event in 1979, the~MTWG was-chartered.
!'
of the MTWG is to provide'overall management direction to those' functions necessary,from the time lof completion
of modifications to-the point lof declaring 1 Rancho Seco
/
ready to return.to power.-
The-group' will haveithe' authority _
J through its members to exercise the direction of resources necessary to successfully complete-the functions under-i its jurisdiction.
The scope of the~MTWG's jurisdiction is commensurate with-typical construction site Test Working Groups.
The MTWG's
- -
membership will consist of the top level decision makers
in the' Operations, Engineering and Quality Control,.Maint-g enance, Instrument and Control, and' Generation Engineering
~
departments.
c.
Reactor Building Purge Valve Modifications:
!
-See. Paragraph 7.a I
d.
Insulation Material in the Annulus Area-
'
The office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) was i
investigating a. concern of clogging of-the emergency l
sump' screens.
They requested that the Resident In-i spectors review documentation and/or' inspect the Reactor
_ Building.to determine types of insulation used inside
- -
Rancho Seco's annulus areas.
Since the plant was at
.
i
<
v
=f e -
e rw-ye.,si em e.~.-vwe
,ry,-
+-6m-----
e w.
w--e.
YeT,-*r+-te--
ee-we em+~ e ev s'+-P e
'f aw+-
Fd
+-+-f-
--
.
/.
-7-power the licensee's drawings were reviewed by the Resident' Inspector..These drawings were also checked by the plant engineers.
Appropriate insulation specifi-
-cations were transmitted to NRR.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Follow-up on Regional Requsts During the' month-of January, 1982 personnel from the Region V office of the NRC in Walnut Creek, California. requested in-formation from the Resident Inspectors regarding the operation and maintenance of the Rancho Seco power plant. Information was obtained-and transmitted to the Region V office-concerning:
a.
-Nuclear Service Electrical Building construction and schedule, b.
Tower crane modifications and operation, c.
Commissioner Robert's visit of January 22, 1982, and
'd.
LER 81-58 No_ items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Plant Trips Two plant trips occurred during the month of January 1982:
One on January 14, 1982, due to a 100 percent. load rejection caused by a technician's error, and one on January 19, 1982
~
due to an electrical system fault.
The inspectors witnessed the recovery from both of these trips.
The licensees integrated response to both trips was good.
The licensee contracted with a B&W transient assessmeat team after the first' trip to assist in analyzing'the trip and to help in writing a " trip report."
While the transient assessment team was at Rancho Seco, the second trip occurred, such that the-team was.able to perform a first hand analysis of this trip.
t
'
During both trips, unanswered questions arose which were addressed by the licensee in the trip reports.
In general, the licensee adequately identified causal factors for the events; took appropriate immediate corrective actions; and,
l addressed factors to prevent recurrence.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie,
_ _ _
.,.
-8-12.
. 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 havelwhich are related to nuclear safety.
These discussions will continue as a standard practice.
On numerous occasions, during-the month of January,.the Resident
"
-Inspectors attended operations status meetings.
These meetings sre held by the Operations Supervisor to provide all disciplines on-site with a update on the plant status and on-going maint-enance work.
In addition to the above, independent' inspection effort was performed on the following items
,
a.
Primary heat balance veru's secondary heat balance, and, b.
Welding material-control.
,
'
13.
Exit Interview e
The inspectors met with licensee representatives throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection on' January 29, 1932.
(See - Paragraph 1).
.The. inspectors summarized their inspection findings.
Also, the inspectors informed the licensee.that' the next Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance.(SALP) manage-ment meeting is scheduled for 10:00am on February 25, 1982 at the Sacramento Municipal Utility' District office in Sacramento.
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the licensees performance during 1981.
I Finally, the inspector acknowledged the information that if Rancho Seco maintains an 85 percent capacity factor and a 10 percent coastdown, the 1982 refueling outage will commence on or about September 4, 1982.
,
n s--,
--
-
e