IR 05000312/1985031
| ML20136G578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1985 |
| From: | Miller L, Myers C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136G575 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-85-31, IEIN-84-83, IEIN-85-049, IEIN-85-49, NUDOCS 8601080343 | |
| Download: ML20136G578 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - _ . - . U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
l l Report No.
50-312/85-31 Docket No.
50-312 License No.
DPR-54 Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Inspection at: Herald, California (Rancho Seco Site) Insp-etion conducted: 0ctober 24, 1985 - November 22, 1985 /2 '/7-[[ Inspector: , a no _ C. F C r',7 oj tpfspector Date Signed I - Approved By.
N ~/ f',Y\\ ' L. Fgtfiller, Jr, Ch ef Date Signed Reactor Projects Sec ion 2 i Summary:
Inspection between October 24, 1985 and November 22, 1985 (Report No. 50-312/85-31) I Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a regionally based i inspector to follow-up previous inspection open items.
IE Modules used during I this inspection: 30703, 92701 and 92702. This inspection involved 36 hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
, 8601080343 85121Y PDR ADOCK 05000312 O PDR _ ! l +--,y n -- -it m+ w w a,ne
.. _ _ _ _ - i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Personnel R. Columbo, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor J. Jewett, Site QA Supervisor
- S. Crunk, Regulatory Compliance R. Dieterich, Licensing Manager R. Roehler, Licensing Engineer The inspector also held discussions with several other members of the licensee staff including members of the maintenance, operations and quality assurance organizations.
- Attended Exit Meeting on November 22, 1985.
2.
Follow-up of Items from Previous Inspections a.
USAR Update (Followup Items 85-11-01: OPEN, 85-27-03: OPEN) The inspector had previously identified a weakness in the licensee's control of updates of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
CFR 50.71.e.4 requires the licensee to submit an annual update of the USAR to reflect all changes made within six months prior to filing the revision to assure that the USAR contains the latest information developed. The inspector had found that the licensee's program reported facility modifications only after the documentation controlling the work had been completely closed out, rather than when the actual modification was implemented. Lengthy delays in closing some Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) after turnover to operations prevented timely reporting of the modification in the-USAR.
As an example, the inspector had found that modificaticus to the seismic event monitoring instrumentation had been operational for the last two years, but the ECN documenting the work (ECN-A-2982) had still not been closed out at the time of the inspection nor had the modifications been included in updates of the USAR.
During the current inspection, the inspector found another apparent example of this lack of timely updating of the USAR. The USAR had . not been updated to identify that all high pressure injection (HPI) pumps discharge into a common header which normally supplies HPI to both loops. A licensee representative indicated that a change in the normal manual valve alignment to enable each pump to supply HPI to both loops has been implemented since.1980. The inspector noted that USAR Figure 9.2-1, Makeup and Purification System, Amendment 2, had been updated to identify the cross connected discharge alignment ' of the HPI pumps. However, Figure 6.2-1, Emergency Injection Safety Features, Amendment 2, and Figure 6.1-1, Safety Features Systems, Amendment 2, showed two independent trains of HPI with HPI pump "B" normally isolated from the common discharge header of the ' -. - .._ __ . ._,_ _ ___ _ _._. _ _ _ _ _
- , makeup pump and HPI pump "A".
Furthermore, Paragraph 6.1-3 stated that "The safety features are separated into two completely independent trains... failure. of either train cannot affect the other".
The inspector identified this discrepancy to a licensee representativa for resolution.
This item is unresolved and will be followed up in connection with the licensee's previous commitment to review their prcgrams and identify their plans for changing their procedures to smp/ove the timeliness of reports of facility modifications.
(Unr t st. lved j Item 85-31-01: OPEN) (Followup Item 85-27-03: OPEN)
The inspector had previously observed that the USAR had not been updated to describe the operations phase QA program. The inspector reviewed Amendment No. 3 to Appendix 1B of USAR and found that a short reference to the operations quality assurance program had been added to identify that the licensee's QA program commitments for the operations phase were described in the licensee's QA manual, " Quality Assurance Program. for Nuclear Operations." A licensee representative stated that the reformatted QA manual, which would include 10 CFR 50.54(a) requirements for control of program changes,
would be issued in December 1985.
Followup of this item remains open pendinF, issuance of the revised QA manual.
(85-11-01: OPEN) The inspector observed a similar weakness which affected the timely reporting of 50.59 changes as required by 10 CFR 50.59(b) and Technical Specification 6.9.3.
10 CFR 50.59(b) states, in part, "..the licensee shall furnish..... annually or at such shorter- . intervals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of_such changes..., including a summary of the safety evaluation of each."
Paragraph 6.9.3 of the Rancho Seco' Technical Specifications specifies, in part, "... tabulations of facility changes, tests or experiments required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(b), shall be submitted ^; on a monthly basis...". The licensee's monthly reports tabulated facility changes, tests or experiments only after all' documentation had been closed, even though the actual modification may have been implemented many months earlier. -As an example, four lower. core barrel bolts had been permanently removed during the 1983 refueling outage. This 50.59 modification was not reported in the monthly plant status reports until April 1985, af ter the 1985 refueling had commenced.
The inspector found that'the licensee's program for reporting facility changes did not appear to fully meet the intent of 10 .CFR 50.59(b). The monthly plant status report does not necessarily report all 50.59 changes which were made operational during the subject month. Nor does the monthly report even insure that modifications are reported-annually after becoming operational.
Furthermore, the inspector observed that the tabulations of 50.59 i
- . changes in the Monthly Reports does not ordinarily includes a summary of the safety evaluation of each change.
These weaknesses in the licensee's reporting of 50.59 modifications .are unresolved items and will be followed up in connection with the licensee's commitment to improve the timeliness of USAR updating (Unresolved Item 85-31-02: OPEN) b.
HPI Nozzle Modification and AFW Header Modifications (Follow-up Item 82-20-01:. CLOSED) As part of a task interface agreement with NRR, Region V reviewed the licensee's QA/QC program, management controls and repair activities in connection with modifications of the high pressure injection (HPI) nozzles and auxiliary feedwater (AFW) header in the steam generator.
These reviews were documented in Inspection Reports 82-21 and 82-29 during ongoing system modifications. All HPI nozzle modifications and AFW header modifications have been completed.
This item is' closed. No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Reactor Building Inspection (Follow-up Item 82-29-01: CLOSED) In Special Report No. 82-04, the licensee reported the results of reactor building inspections performed in 1981 as required by Rancho Seco Technical Specification 6.9.5.B.1 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix K.
Discrepancies noted in the report had been documented in nonconformance reports (NCR) which were to be addressed during subsequent outages.
The inspector reviewed NCR Nos. S-2325, -2326, -2479, -2478, and-2481 which dealt with the reactor building inspection discrepancies. Typical discrepancies included minor cracks in exterior walls, grease leaking from tendons and corrosion in interior surfaces of the containment liner. The inspector found all items to be adequately reviewed and dispositioned as minor discrepancies.
This item is closed. No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Enforcement Items a.
Gilson Shaker and Screen Calibration (ENF 82-20-02: CLOSED) The inspector reviewed QA Audit No. 488-A which the licensee performed to insure that construction equipment maintained by a materials testing contractor was properly tested and calibrated as ~ required by SMUD approved.procnid~res. The audit verified that equipment calibration was controlled and documented by the contractor in compliance with approved procedures.
l This item is closed. No violations or deviations were identified.
l l l t . - -. - - -. -, -. - - . .- . -- ...,. - ,,.
__ - _ _ . _ _ .- . . ! . >
P
s. s ! i 4.
Licensee Action on Information Notices (IN) f e a.
Relay Calibration Problem (IN 85-49: CLOSED) I ! IE Information Notice 85-49 identified that increases in delay times f of up to 30% over the calibrated time delay had been observed in l AGASTAT E-7000 series relays due to orientation differences between ! installation and calibration.
In response to this notice, the i licensee reviewed their maintenance procedure "EM-144, Testing of j Protective and Control Relays". The inspector reviewed QA i Surveillance No. 416 dated July 23, 1985, which found that AGASTAT l relays were calibrated in-place at Rancho Seco and concluded that ! due to this calibration technique, the problem should not occur at [ Rancho Seco.
i ! This item is closed. No violations or deviations were identified.
j ! b.
Vr.rious Battery Problems (IN 84-83: CLOSED) i IE Information Notice 84-83 informed licensees of instances of ! overloading of D.C. buses and solvent induced cracking of battery [ cases. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this t ' notice which determined that overloading of the Class I battery ' systems was unlikely due to Nuclear Engineering control of load allocations. Furthermore, the licensee determined that solvent induced battery cell cracking was not a problem since neither trichlordethylene solvent nor hydrocarbon based greases were used by the Rancho Seco Maintenance Department.
f . This item is closed. No violations or deviations were identified.
[ f c.
Foundation Material (IC 81-08: CLOSED) { f This IE Circular notified licensee's of soil compaction construction ! deficiencies which had resulted in excessive settlement of plant structures at several sites.
This item is closed. No unusual observations indicating structural ( settlement have been found during periodic building inspections.
j i , . 5.
Unresolved Items l Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in ! order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or i deviations. Two unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are ( discussed in Paragraph 2a.
f l I > t ' 6.
Exit Meetings !' The inspector met with licensee representatives on November 22, 1985, and j summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee j acknowledged the inspector's findings.
i I .
! I i I s [ . - , -. - - - . --. - - - - - -. -. . -.- . }}