IR 05000312/1986041
| ML20207R295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1987 |
| From: | Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Julie Ward SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703170076 | |
| Download: ML20207R295 (4) | |
Text
DN
.
'o UNITED STATES y8'
I,,e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ep WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*****p#
Docket No. 50-312 March 11,1987
.
l Mr. John E. Woro Deputy General Manager, Nuclear Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station P. O. Box 15830, Mail Stop No. 291 Sacramento, California 95852-1830
Dear Mr. Ward:
A special announced team inspection of the restart activities at Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station was conducted by NRC headquarters staff during the period December 1,1986-February 12, 1987.
The team discussed the inspection findings with you and members of your staff during the course of this inspection and at the exit meeting on February 12, 1987. This letter provides a summary of the significant findings in advance of the inspection report (50-312/86-41)
so that appropriate corrective actions may be factored into your restart planning activities. The findings listed below are only the more significant concerns identified during the inspection and provide neither a complete list of inspection concerns nor any of the strengths identified by the inspection team. A complete discussion of all the inspection findings will be provided in Inspection Report 50-312/86-41.
The more significant inspection findings are summarized below:
1.
Functionality Concerns:
The auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system pumps may not be able to provide a.
the flow required by Technical Specifications. This problem may have been concealed by inadequate testing procedures, inconsistent cali-bration of the condensate storage tank (CST) level instrument and inaccurate (low) estimates of the minimum recirculation flow that is diverted from the steam generators.
b.
The structural reliability of the CST may be in question due to im-properly set pressure relief valves and vacuum breakers that appear to be incorrectly sized and did not receive required periodic in-service te: ting.
c.
The AFW system may be susceptible to pump runout situations despite Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control (EFIC) System installation.
Operator action is still required to prevent runuut under some cir-cumstances and the alarm and flow indication in the control room could provide unreliable information. The commitment to install flow limiting devices in the AFW system may correct this concern. Additionally, the proposed action for correcting the potential pump damage from the runout condition experienced during the event on December 26, 1905, appeared inadequate.
87031700'6 070311 DR ADOCK 05000312 PE@
.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ __- _
,m
'
j
--
Mr. John d.-
Certain breakers on-DC Buses SOA end SOB may be incorrectly sized for
. interrupting short circuit current after installation of the larger BA and BB batteries.
2.
Programmatic Concerns:
j a.
Examples were found where improper implementation of the design control. program resulted in poor analyses, incorrect calculations, and inaccurate drawings being used for modification activities -in the plant.
)
l b.
The surveillance /in-service. test program was found to have several l
deficiencies including incorrect procedures, poor procedure imple-mentation, and inadequate evaluation of. test results.
c.
Deficiencies were identified with tne implementation of administrative l
i procedures for the control of plant systems and equipment status l
tracking.
d.
Maintenance procedures used for AFW air-operated flow control valves appeared inadequate, which raised questions about the material condi-tion of the valves. Additionally, equipment maintenance history programs were not fully implemented.
The quality assurance (QA) audit and surveillance programs were e.
not providing station management with adequate feedback on safety activities. Management Safety Review Consnittee (MSRC) oversight of the QA audit program did not appear to adequately review close-out of audit findings.
f.
The corrective action program did not appear to have a procedure issued for identifying and correcting significant conditions adverse tu quality.
3.
System Review and Test Program (SRTP) Concerns Selected System Status Reports (SSRs) did not appear to be properly a.
controlled cor.sidering their importance as a basis for the NRC development of the restart safety evaluation report (SER).
b.
The SRTP priority system and restart plan did not sufficiently identify all system problem resolutions which would be accomplished prior to restart. Some problems, classified as a priority 2 or 3, which affect or demonstrete safe plant operation should be completed prior to restart. The team acknowledged the commitment to correct the specific items identified during the inspection for the eight systems reviewed; hcwever, a review for similar problems in the remaining selected systerrs should be performed.
c.
The problems with the surysillance/in-service testing program and procedures reflect poorly on their use for SRTP testing.
,
_ - _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ -. - - _
.
-
.
Mr. John No response is required to this letter since Inspection' Report 50-312/86-41 detailing the inspection findings and concerns will be issued in the near future.
Sincerely, cr.qd:ici sirs:ai by:
- w u a. 1 %-tLs.t.a James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: See next page
)istribution:
Local PDR DI reading ORPB reading J. M. Taylor, IE J. B. Martin, RV J. G. Partlow, IE R. L. Spessard, IE
'
L. 1 Callan, IE T. v. Martin, IE
~'
J. E. Dyer, IE D. Kirsch, RV L. Miller, RV W. Ang, RV A. D'Angelo, SRI D. Crutchfield, NRR F. Miraglia A. Capucci, NRR J. Stolz, NRR S. Miner, NRR
,
- For previous concurrences, see attached ORC.
G l}
OFC
- IE:DI:0RPB
- IE:DI:0RPB
- IE:DI:DD
- IE:DI:D\\y)____:_____....____:_______
_____.:......._________:___..________: ________ _. _:....___.
,
NAME :*JEDyer:cb
- LJCallan
- RLSpess d
- JGPartlow
......:________________:._______...___:______ __.__:______________:______________:________...__
DATE :3/09/87
- 3/09 /87
- 3/ /
- 34 e/87
1*
_. _ _ _ _ __ _~ __.
. _ _ _
. _. _
.. _. _ _ _ _. _,.. _
.. _ _.. - - _.
_ _.
_
.
'
.-
Mr. John.,
cc: Mr. Stuart Knight Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief Sacramento Municipal Utility District Radiological Health Branch Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station State Departinent of Health Services 1440 Twin Cities Road 714 P Street, Office Building #8 Herald, California 95738-9799 Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Gordon K. Van Vleck Sacramento County Secretary, Resources Agency Board of Supervisors 1416 9th Street, Room 1311 827 7th Street, Room 424 Sacramento, California 95814 Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. David S. Kaplan, Secretary Ms. Helen Hubbard and General Counsel P. O. Box 63 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sunol, California 94586 6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95613 Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. Ron Columbo Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 4440 Twin Cities Road Heralc, California 95638-9799 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission
,
14410 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation and Developn.ent Comission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814
.
. -.
-
.
. - - -
,
. - - - _.
.. _ -. -,
-. _ - -
.