IR 05000312/1985036
| ML20137Z645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1986 |
| From: | Perez G, Perz G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Z640 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-85-36, NUDOCS 8603130085 | |
| Download: ML20137Z645 (6) | |
Text
..
-
. -
..
-
s
,
b
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Repo;t No: 50-312/85-36 Docket No.
50-312 License No. DPR-54
>.
Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830
'
-
Sacramento, California 95813
'
Facility Name: Rancho Seco Unit 1 Inspection at: Herald, California -(Rancho Seco Site)
Inspection conducted:
',
Inspectors:
~ / f> ~" #
Gle
/. Perez nt Inspector Date Signed l.
Y/
' 'lYY
~
Lef4sf F. MillerqCKection Chief Date Signed-
'
Summary:
'
s
,
,
,
'
Inspection between December ~ 18, 1985 and January 24, 1985 (Report I
l 50-312/85-36)
,
l Areas Inspected: This routine inspection' by the Resident Inspector and Regional based inspectors involved the areas of operational safety verification, maintenance, and surveillance. Also a special enhanced control
room and plant operation insp-etion was performed. During this inspection,
!
Inspection Procedures 61726, 62703, 71707, 71710, 64703, 71715, 90712, 92703, j
93702 and 92701 were used.
~
This inspection involved 941 hours0.0109 days <br />0.261 hours <br />0.00156 weeks <br />3.580505e-4 months <br />. including 219 hours0.00253 days <br />0.0608 hours <br />3.621032e-4 weeks <br />8.33295e-5 months <br /> on backshift onsite.
Results: Of the; areas inspected, no violations were identified.
!
i i
i
'
,
D603130085 860220 ADCH34 05CKjggg2 DR
,
.
-
-
.
--
n
b
..
!
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted
.a.
Licensee Personnel
- G. Coward, Manager, Nuclear ' Plant
- J. McColligan,. Assistant Manager, Nuclear Plant
- S. Redeker, Nuclear Operations Manager
- J. Shetler, Nuclear Scheduling Manager B.' Spencer, Nuclear Operations Superintendent
- M. Price, Nuclear Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent
,
N. Brock, Nuclear I&C Maintenance Superintendent
- R. Colombo, Regulatory Compliance Superintendent
- J. Field, Nuclear Technical Support Superintendent
- S. Crunk, Incident Analysis Group Supervisor
.
J. Jurkovich, Site Resident Engineer
,
- F. Kellie, Acting Chemical and Radiation Supervisor
'
L. Schwieger, Quality Assurance Manager i
M. Hieronimos, Assistant to the Operations Superintendent D. Comstock, Assistant to the Operations Superintendent
- J. Jewett, Site QA Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechancies, security 'and office personnel.
b.
NRC Inspectors participating in the Inspection Effort:
W. Albert M. Padovan P. Qualls J. Eckhardt f
J. Burdoin C. Myers-C. Bosted A.< Hon G. Kellund.
A. Toth P. Morrill-J. O'Brien P. Phelan M. Cillis
- Attended the Exit Meeting on' January 25, 1986.
2.
Operational Safety Verification lAt the start of.this report period the plant was at 100% power. On December 22, 1985, the plant experienced a packing leak of approximately 20 gallons per minute from a safety features pressurizer liq'uid sample line isolation valve, SFV-70001, inside containment. The licensee-classified the leak as an Unusual Event and brought the plant to a hot
' shutdown condition and made repairs. Subsequent to the plants' return ~to power, the plant tripped due to high reactor coolant pressure. This transient was initiated by a loss of integrated control system power.
,
Details are discussed in paragraph 7.
The plant was brought to a cold shutdown condition and remained shutdown throughout the' report period.
f
6 k
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
__
...
'
.
The inspectors observed Control Room operations, verified proper control room staffing, reviewed applicable logs, conducted discussions with the
. operations crews, reviewed selected emergency systems, reviewed tag-out records, verified proper removal from service of affected components, and verified the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations.
- Tours of the auxiliary building, turbine building, and the general site area were conducted-to observe plant equipment levels and excessive vibrations, and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated
,
for equipment-in need of maintenance.
The inspectors reviewed portions of non-licensed operator logs, conducted various discussions with the non-licensed operators and observed them performing their assigned duties.
'
During tours of the facility, the inspectors frequently entered radiologically controlled areas. The inspectors verified compliance with the licensee's radiation protection program. The inspectors discussed
- the radiation work permit requirements and the radiological conditions of the work areas with workers in the radiologically controlled areas.
(
Also, the inspectors verified proper clothing requirements and observed the method of personal frisking when exiting radiological controlled areas. The inspectors randomly examined selected radiation protection instruments to verify operability and adherence to calibration frequence.
'The physical security plan was evaluated on a daily basis during this period by observing security performance during the inspector's daily entry through the monitoring area, wearing of photo identification badges
~
by personnel, escorting of visitors, and security compensatory measures when security doors were out of service.
.
The licensee took a2 equate corrective action to eliminate the
'
deficiencies the inspectors identified during this inspection period.
~
j No violations or deviations were identified.
~
3.
Monthly Surveillance 0bservation Two Technical Specification (TS) required surveillance tests were observed and reviewed to ascertain'that they were conducted in accordance with these requirements.
The following items were considered during this review: testing was in accordance with adequate. procedures; test instrumentation was calibrated; limiting conditions for operation were met; removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished;. test results conformed with TS and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test; the reactor operator, technician or engineer performing the test recorded the data and the data were in agreement with observations made by the inspector, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
.
- -
.
.
.
..
.
.
~
... _..
.-
,
-
-.
'],,
,
' ~..
..
,
i
w
-
+
-
.
,
- Portions of the A'and B diesel generator surveillance were observed and
'
'
,
reviewed, as were portions of,the daily surveillances performed by the
'+
operators..Also a special test was observed and reviewed that tested the
~ B main feedwater pump ramp function.
performed.
~
The tests were satifactorily
,
'
.
,
e
_
(.
.,
.
'No' violations or deviations were identified.
.
- "
a
-
-
-
4.
' Monthly-Maintenance' Observations
,
Station maintenance activit'ies of safety-re. lated and non-safety-related systems'and components' listed below wera observed and reviewed to
.
'
,
!
cascertain that they;were conducted in accordance with approved
,
procedures, regulatory \\ guides and industry codes or. standards and in
.
l
'conformance with technical specifications..
l The'following items were. considered during this review:
the limiting-j..
conditions for operation,were met 'while components or systems were l
removed.from service; approvals cere obtained prior to initiating the
,
L work; activities were accomplished,u' sing approved procedures and were
inspected'as' applicable ~;, functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning: component's or systems'to service; activities (;
were accomplishsd by, qualified personnel;_ radiological controls were l
implemented;-and, fire; prevention controls were implemented.
,
n
..a
'
'
..
>
l;
.The following maintenance activities were observed and/or reviewed:
l
~ Makeup pump disassemb1y;
'
~
.
'
t
-
,
,
,
SFV-7000NSFV-70003,pressurizerliquidsampleisolationvalve
,
.
i
, repacking;.,
,
i i
,
.I Valve: Stroking torque measurements on FWS-119; ti
-
'
l
Preventive Maintenance on P16284, condensate mini-flow
'
.-
,
!
indicator; I
I Removal of a condensate pump B electrical connection box; l
.
-
During the observation of the condensate mini-flow indication I
'
calibration,'the inspector noted that the' technicians were recording the
'
data on a piece of. scratch paper. When questioned by the inspector, the
. technician stated that'they would take their notes ba'ck to the shop and
'
'
record the values on a more formal. document..The inspector'also noted that.the preventive maintenance documentation did not have a procedure or
,
,
maintenance approval sign off sheet attached to the work package. A
'
.. review of the procedures on plant maintenance revealed that preventive
'
<
,
imaintenance'for non-safety related equipment.was not required to have the
- ,.,
same formal documentation as safety related maintenance. This was
'
discussed with maintenance management and it "as acknowleged that the
-licensee was aware of the~ situation. They explained the' steps that were.
being taken to increa'se.the preventive maintenance staff.and generate an
~
'
improved program for the control of preventative maintenance.
_
.
,
t I
T '
"
[
j I
.
'o
'
+
-
,
x
.
.
,
h-Y
,
,
.,
=
y3
- -
-
- 3,,
-,
- ,
a
,
,
,
W J
b.-
_g'
.,
- <
,
<
,
..
.
~,
,
-
- '
['
>
c.
a.
.
s
'
{:
,
.t 4,
8,
.~
l.
,
,
h
.The inspector verified that the maintenance data noted above had been p
placed in the proper maintenance record-sheets and that maintenance p
' ' supervisor.had reviewed _;the completed work package.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
<
'
5.
Fire Protection
.
s
,
- ',,
-
a. Procedure Revieb
~
+
,.
~
[~
The inspector reviewed licensee progress'in revising their fire p~ '
protection. Administrative procedures. These procedures were
-
-
- < ' undergoing' revision at the time of the August.1985 Appendix R
,
cinspection (50-312/85-22). ' The procedures were reviewed against the-
' '
,,, <-
-
c guidance given.in1the-Standard Review' Plan'Section 9.5.1. and were
~
- awaiting final' approval at that time. The procedural changes, which-Lwould more clearly conform.to the guidelines, delineated in the s.
.
,-
- Standard Review Plan were still not; approved'on January 16, 1986!
"
.
,
The licensee' stated thattthe procedure format was being,
>
restructured. ' Review of,these procedure changes will be accomplishedein a later inspection (50-312/85-36-01).
'
,
'
?
b.
. Fire Door Instaliation L
The'l'nspector' observed the' installation of a fire door assembly in L
the NSEB. The workers adhered'to good. work practices and installed the door properly in accordance with NFPA Code 80.
j No' violations.or~ deviations were' identified.
l.
i 6.
Enhanced Control Room and Plant Operation O'servation Inspection b
f~,
p-r-
This inspection was's continuation of an inspection which commenced on -
'
November-2, 1985, details describing the inspection plan,can be found in; Inspection Report 50-312/85-32.
During'the inspection which continued till'the plant was in cold.
shutdown, December 28, 1986,- the following were observed:
shift l-
. turnovers, the licensee's response to a 2J gym' leak from'a pressurizer
a
' ' '
sample line valve, hanging of clearances,' control room watch standing,
. plant tours, and the activities associated with placing the plant in a
[
cold' shutdown condition.
>
(
.
,
j n
'
'
-
,
l No' violations or deviations were identified.
!
-
7.
1 Plant Trip on December 26, 1985
'
,
f.'
On Decemb'r 26, 1985:st 4:14 am,",while operating at.70% full power the e
~
.
[>
plant experienced'a' reactor / turbine trip from high reactor coolant f ].
T
~
'
pressure. The' sequence..of events.was initiated by a. loss of.DC power to the Integrated: Control System,'(ICS). -ThisLeesulted'in plant-heatup and a l
>
subsequent. reactor trip. j The plant' then, experienced a - rapid cooldown,-
'
. ~ '
L followed.by plant' stabilization.5 An Unusual Event was declared.
,
ls
,7 ; '
M. ki M < 3 < ) k %.
'
i'
i w
r-
,k'
,,
a
'
,
.
a k
N
1
+
q
a
[<
'
V
'
t *
.,,
e~
-
.,
e-
,,
s, I
-
?
g i [, ;
- -[,
-
gj~
^
'
'
E\\(
'y y.,+
- ..
c;- -
,
.
.
.
a
- .
L-
.
- -
--
,
.
.
.
-
- _.
_ __
_ _
_
._
.
... _.
_
7. >
h.
.
t
~
,;,
,47 t
'
'
,
-
, 5
>
J, <
s
-
r,
-
,
-
.,
-
t f
y Due to the significa'nt nature of.the. event, the Regio al Office issued a Confirmatory ' Action Letter which states that Rancho Seco will remain -in i
.,' ' '.S the shutdown condition until a root cause analysis is< completed by the t
.
.
licensee'and a briefing is provided to the NRC giving the results of this
!
y' '
'C analysis.and the licensee's: Justification for return to power.
In
>-
I addition, an Augmented Investigation Team (AIT) was dispatched ~to the
!
"
site on December 27, 1985 to begin an' investigation of the events-.
,
~
,
,
surrounding the-transient. Based on the. initial investigation by the
,
!
AIT,.the team was upgraded to an Incident Investigation Team (IIT) on
{
- . December 30, 1985.
_
'
.
e u.
...-
'o i
,
The IIT's investigation report will be issued in mid-February, 1986. The
'
i"
',
regional and resident staff has continuously reviewed the licensee's e'
t
[',
investigation and troubleshooting. Details of the investigation,
!
i 4. :
corrective actions, and activities associated with plant restart will be
'
~ detailed in a. future inspection report (50-312/86-07).
!
8.
Exit Meeting
'
'
n
<
i
,
,
,
,
.
..
.
- l The resident inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in-
(
paragraph 1) at various times during the reporting period and formally on t
j January 24, 1986. The scope,and findings of the inspection activities as
~-
,
given in this report,.were summarized at the meeting. The licensee
'
.
j representatives acknowledged the inspectors' findings.
P
.
,
.,
..
.
'
[
,
.
l.
,
'
^ si l
.
,
.
,
,
,
- i PT
'4
,
-
.,
,
>
,
,
>
us1,
s l =
, ',
.
'r
<
c.
<,
'
)
.
j) -
.
r
',
-
.
,
+
y
A
'
!
r
,
,
.l
.
,
.,
>
- '
+
.
,
' '
, i, s
.
'
r
,,
(
'
'
s
,.
..
,
.
,
..
'
g,
i
,
,$
j
'
t f
'
>
.+
r b
,
m
-.d
.-
-