IR 05000312/1989010

Insp Rept 50-312/89-10 on 890603-0721.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Areas of Operational Safety Verification,Health Physics & Security Observations,Maint, Surveillance & Testing & QA & Followup Items

ML20246K464
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	08/10/1989
From:	Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246K463	List: IR 05000312/1989010 ML20246K458
References
50-312-89-10, NUDOCS 8909050478
Download: ML20246K464 (8)

Text

_ ,. _.

r Am P , 4 [' ,, .). ~*r hi 4 ' r 4 f a , , 4 ;+l p V' + , ". . ,, . ,. 'n .

.gf' ~;.f

,

,

-

,

j, 3 34 .

1 .... U. S.' NUCLEAR _ REGULATORY. COMMISSION ,

3 ;, " z _

.

>: .

T ,l s- REGION V '

r,

'

,.

.- ,, n 1 '

l# Report No: 50-312/89-10' . . .

'

, ' Docket N ~

License;.No. DPR-54 .

'j

~

'

' Licensee: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Statio Sacramento Municipal Utility District

'

14440 Twin Cities Road Parald, California- 95638-9799

,

Facili ty ' Name: Rancho'Seco Unit 1 Inspection at: !1erald, California (Rancho Seco Site)

Inspection conducted: ' June 3',1989 ' thro!!gh July 21, 198 Inspectors: A. J. D'Angelo, Senior Resident Inspector

'C. J. Myers, Resident Inspector P. M. Qualls,-Resident-Inspector S. Reynolds, NRR Approved By: 4/ b#

S. A. Richards,' Chief Date Signed Reactor ProjectsSection II Summary:

Inspection between June 3 and July 21, 1989 (Report 50-312/89-10)

Areas Inspected: This routine inspection by the Resident Inspectors and in part by a NRR Project Manager, involved the areas of operational safety verification, health physics and security observations, maintenance, surveillance and testing, quality assurance and followup item During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 71707, 61726, 62703, 61709, 92700 and 30703 were use Results:

Z 7 General Conclusions:

O* The licensee had proceeded in a prudent manner during the June 7, 1989 reactor

'

shutdown. Control Room actions appeared timely and well controlled during the shutdow ,

.

?

<-

8909050478 890818 FDR ADOCK 05000312 g FDC

• *

u -

_ < _ _ _ .

3ye- '

r y 3 m- .

x --

13 . :.

" '

.,. n (. . -

~ ;

'

^

, ,

'

Q ;l .i '} k( ' % h-T

'

,

. , ..

' < + > *

,

'

n,

,. , -

-

, .n i m-

., .

,"

'& DETAILS ,

- ,

e i -

)

, Persons Contacted

• D. Keuter, Assistant General Manager (AGM), Nuclear

,.

'

• J. Shetler, Deputy AGM

• P. Caudill, Manager, Support. Services

• P.1 Bender, Manager,. Quality and Safety

P.-Lydon,; Manager, Nuclear.. Plant

, H' *D. Brock,. Manager, Nuclear Maintenance

.

S.;Crunk, Manager, Nuclear' Licensing .

'

' -

7 R.; Baim, Manager, Nuclear Cost Control and Plant Services M. Bua, Nuclear. Radiation Protection

, -J;. Clark, Nuclear' Chemistry n B. Kemper, Manager, Nuclear-Scheduling and Outage Management

"

• W.' Peabody, Manager, Technical Services

-

L :Houghtby, Manager, Nuclear Security

- J. Delezenski, Supervisor, Regulatory Coordination, Licensing

~Q.'.Coleman, Quality Assurance

'S.-Carmichael, Maintenance Engineer

'

Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, imechanics,. security, and office personnel ~ .

• Attended the Exit Meeting on July 21, 198 . Operational Status'of Rancho Seco At the beginning of:this inspection period, the licensee was operating the plant at 92% reactor power. Power operation continued until June 7, 1989.when the plant was shutdown and subsequently brought to cold

shutdown as a res' ult of the June 6, 1989 public vote to shutdown Rancho:Seco. The plant was in cold shutdown throughout the remainder of

+ t'le inspection perio .

3, Operational Safety Verification (71707)

The inspectors reviewed control room operations which. included access control, staffing, observation of system alignments, procedural adherence, and log keeping. Discussions with the shift superviso.rs:and

.:; operators indicated an understanding by these personnel of the reasons for annunciator indications, abnormal. plant conditions and maintenanc work in progress. The inspectors also verified .by observation of valve and switch position indications, that emergency systems were properly:

aligned as required by technical specifications for plant condition Control Room Observations' Durina -June 7th Shutdown m The inspectors observed control room operations during the June 7,1989 shutdown. The inspectors observed that the shift supervisor exercised s

- -. - -._ L ~._ .._--.~_--- ..__..-_ _ -- _ --- - _-_.____--.- - .- - ___ - _-. - _._-_ _-___...__-_---..-._.--_-___._.____--_.-__.-.-~.-._-_---_-__._____A

-- 7 = ~ 7, < - / 7TTTR

-

-

-

. , _ , , , (g f 3

'

l; 4

,

4 *

b .

'

. . 's -

4,--

p

,

L appropriate control to minimize distractions and possible confusion by frequently. requiring all nonessential personnel to leave the control -

room. The111censee performed .a relatively quick, controlled shutdown, .in order to minimize any possible transients due to continued main feedwater punp: perturbations; .The inspectors observed that extra operations-

.

,

' support.was requested and' received from~the off shift, in-training

.

.

operations crew and that utilization and coordination'n of the' personnel was ef fecti vely performed . .The inspectors concluded that the shift .

.

supervisor appeared to provide the necessary control, direction, and oversight to ensure a safe,. effective shutdown and that the entire control room staff performed in a professional and conservative manne Routine Observatists Tours of the auxiliary, reactor, and turbine buildings, including exterior areas, were made to' assess equipment conditions and plant conditions. . Also, the tours were made to assess the effectiveness of-radiological controls and adherence to regulatory requirements. The inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness,' looked.for

-

-

potential fire and safety hazards, and observed security and safeguards practice Based on the areas reviewed, the material condition of the plant appeared goo Deficiencies and equipment problems appeared to be properly tagged-

'<

and identified. The inspectors did not identify any significant discrepancies that had not been previously identified. The number of existing, previously identified equipment problems. appeared lo During this inspection period, several isolated housekeeping'

discrepancies were identified by-the inspector which were promptly resolved by the licensee. Housekeeping inside of the reactor building was well controlle During. work activities, it appeared that the health physics ^ managers were conducting plant tours and monitoring work in progress. They appeared aware of significant work which occurred during this perio The inspector's Radiation Work Permit (RWP) review revealed that the RWPs did include: job description, raviation levels, contamination,. airborne radioactivity (if expected), respiratory equipment,. protective clothing, dosimetry, special equipment, RWP expiration, . health . physics (HP) -

coverage, and signatures. The RWP radiation and; contamination' surveys were kept current. Employees understood.the RWPfrequirement '

The inspectors observed that personnel in the controlled areas'were wearing the proper dosimetry and personne1' exiting the controlled areas were 'using the monitors properly. Labeling of containers' appeared appropriat '

The inspectors walked down portions of the' protected and vital area'

boundaries to ensure that they were intact and that security personnel

'

,

'

were properly posted where known deficiencies existed. The inspectors also observed protected area access control, personnel screening, badge issuing and maintenance on access control equipment. Access control was

- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - .

.

,_ _

-- . _ - . - . .

-

y , m ,

>

g .l m ,

"

, ,

'

.3'

j- .

fa

>

-

m ,

(_ ^

,

observed. 'Personne1' entering with packages were ~ properly searched and -

< -

accessicontrol~was in accordance with licensee procedures. The ,

'

% inspectors observed _no obstructions'in the isolation zone which cculd conceal a person or interfere with the-detection /assessient syste '

Protected. area illumination appeared adequat 'l sq

_

c n-Security- ,

,

, ,3

-

' '

The inspectors were informed that' security, coverage and sensitivity would-V be increased;before, during, and'after-the June 6th public vote. During-

this time. period,_the inspectors observed the increased visibility of the'

security force throughout' all areas of the site and noted'that: security personnel corisistently questioned on-site personnel as to their reason !

'

.

for'being in s' specific are , /

c ' -

, .. ,, s >

1. .,, .No violations or deviations'were identifiedi , ,,

,

c,

{ Monthly Surveillance Observation-(61726) ,

,

Technical Specification (TS) required surveillance tests were. observed '

and reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with '

' Technical Specification requirements.

,

Portions of the'following surveillance activitie,s were" observed: .

RT-RCS-014 Special Frequency Reactivity Coefficients a Power (Procedure Adequacy)

SP.616 Special Frequency Reactor Power Distribution

, Verification f

SP.3SA ' Decay Heat Removal System (Loop A)

SP.64 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

'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 was in agreement with observations made by the inspector, and that any-deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and-resolved by appropriate management personne .c No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)

Maintenance activities for the systems and components listed below were observed and reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures,. regulatory guides, industry codes or standards, and the Technical Specifications.

L-__ _ - - _ - _ _ ,.

'

'

il 11 4

'

-

,

2 L ': <

fV , 1l

,s #.

v,

mReiratallation nnscheckon of the Refueling Bridg *

3-

'"

~ Correcthm Linter,anen f3n the Main Feedv.ater Pump Lovefcy Coritroller s; l prior to theTplarit shutdov The.following items.were considered during this review: The limiting conditions fn opeutilon%re met'while components or systems were removed frora servicc;Capprovals were obtained prior to initiating the-

, work;. activitics wre accomplished using approved. procedures and were inspected as applh.able;' functional testing'or calibration was performed prior to returnftg ccmponents or systens to service; activities,were accomplished by qual Hied personnel; radiological controls were implemented; and fire prevention controls were implemente No violations or deviations were identifie * Spent-Fuel Pool Leakage (71707).

.During this inspection, period, the-inspectors reviewed licensee actions regarding the spent fuel pool liner leakage. This was reported by the licensee in LER .85-25. According to the licensee, the leak is apparently near the top of.the spent fuel pool. :The leakage goes through the steel liner and into a leak chase system between the concrete, walls of the spent fuel pool and the steel liner. .This leakage the_n drains to a contaminated waste collection sump where the water is# then processed by the waste collection system. Based on level changes in the spent fuel

~ pool, the licensee estimates an averege of 7 gallons per hour (gph) rate of leakage. According to the licensee,.their environmental sampling program has shown no evidence of this leakage reaching'the open, environment. The inspector could,not _ verify that the 7 'gph leakage. is collected in totalit Other water sources also drain into thes _

collection sump The inspector saw no evidence that it was not being-totally collected by these sumps. ' At"the conclusion of.the inspection:

period, the licensee was establishing an action plan;to identify and correct the source of the leakag No violations or deviations were id'entifie ,

'

l Power Coefficient of Reactivity (61709)

During this inspection period and on previous occasions, the inspect'or

'

L reviewed various documents involved'in the preparation of test procedure RT-RCS-014, Special Frequency Reactivity Coefficients at Power. This physics test was intended to be performed by the licensee to verify that the ectual values for core reactivity coefficients following Cycle 7 rafueling wsre within the acceptance criteria generated from analytical predici. ions by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) in the core reload repor However, due to an extended restart program and subsequent plant closure, the test was never actually performe The inspector found that the test method and acceptance criteria had been changed by B&W in May, 1988 to reflect improvements in the analytical predictions of the reactivity coefficients since the Cycle 7 core reload report in 1984. During the preparation of a revision to the licensee's . . _ _=

- _- _ __

go ,

<

,

. , n , . . 5l

~

>

'

', E-test procedure to incorporate these changes, a question was raised by the licensee.regarding whether-the acceptance criteria for the new reactivity coefficients remained within those assumed in the Updated Final Safety s : Analysis Report (USAR). The inspector reviewed Potential Deviation from-Qualii.y roport PDQ-89-0028. The.PDQ resolved the question based on -

additional information supplied by B W indicating that the new acceptance criteria was acequately bounded within the.USAR analysi During'his review and discussions'with licensee personnel of RT-RCS-014

, .and various'other documents related to physics test control, the-inspector observed the following regarding this procedure.and other-reactor engineering activities:

r Resolution of. tne. inconsistency observed by theflicensee in the new acceptance criteria was not being aggressively resolved by the licensee at the time of the inspector's review of the draft, procedure. After the inspector questioned Licensing' personnel as to the acceptability of the old acceptance' criteria in~ light of the: -

observed inconsistency, Licensing initiated PDQ'-89-0028, which ' si determined that both'the old and new acceptance criteria "'

were , ;-

acceptabl A draft 50.59 review for a draft of. procedure RT-RCS-014 identified that: a potential unreviewed safety question existed. However, the specific problem which appeared to create the unreviewed safety question was not formally identified for resolution by the licensee' i during the procedure review processi The final 50.59 review for the '

procedure which was issued identified that'no unieviewed safety l question. existed based on the disposition of PDQ-89-0028 The

-

inspector found that the preparation of the procedure had apparently been delayed due to the lack of timely identification and resolution of the technical problem indicated in the draft 50.59 revie Calculation 2-RPS-M2007 had been performed by B&W on a previous

' occasion to resolve a licensee question regarding a 5% imbalance margin determination. The imbalance margin determination is associated with the difference between upper core power and lower core power. The inspector found that the licensee's review process appeared to resolve any in-process technical errors through the use of independent technical revie Procedure P.T-RCS-006 had been disapproved during the restart program by the Test Review Group. The inspector found that the licensee's

- - review and approval process appeared to control the technical quality of test procedure preparatio j Procedure B.6, Reactivity Balance, did not provide an at power quantitative determination of negative reactivity following shutdown. However, the inspector found that the procedure did appear to conservatively verify minimum shutdown margin as required in the Technical Specifications, and therefore appeared to be satisfactory.

1 i i

' _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ __ _

.

.

c .. .. The inspector found that the licensee had initiated.a Vrlidation and Verification program in 1987 to-improve their design controls over computer software. The licensee and an outside review group had identified c. deficiency in the documentation of design basis information for several existing computer codes.(e.g. POWCAL,

-

FREACT), which were' developed back in 1974. The inspector reviewed Software Change. Request SCR-755, which identified that some of the fonnulas used in POWCAL could not be derived from the available B&W references. The licensee identified to the inspector additional information obtained from B&W which the licensee used to resolve the identified deficienc In addition, the inspector reviewed calculation Z-PCS-N0034, which verified tha computer code POWCAL on September 17, 1988 using manual calculation The~ inspector found that the licensee's program appeared to be upgrading' the. documentation of design basis information for safety significant deficiencies identified during the pr,oces Procedure RT-RCS-003, Incore/Out-of-Core Detector Correlation, was performed October 1, 1985 (old procedure, STP-251) and again on

,

June 10, 1988, to assure that the calibration of the. two types of a detectors correlated as assumed in the core reload report. In both tests, the inspector found that the data met the acceptance. criteria within reasonable arithmetic round off accuracy, Procedure SP-616, Special Frequency ReactorLPower Distribution Verification, was performed during Cycle 7 startup testing using an

.

acceptance criterion of 1.30 for minimum DNBR (Departure'from Nucleate Boiling Ratio) from the core reload report. Dur.ing a review of all startup test data for a related problem under PDQ-89-0028 in January 1989. B&W also reviewed the. data against a revised acceptance criterion of 1.79 proposed for Cycle 8 testing and found adequate margin between the measured DNBR values and either limit. The licensee's review through the PDQ process appeared adequate to identify the change to the acceptance criteria and evaluate the acceptability of the DNBR value No violations or deviations were identifie . Corrective Actions: Ombudsman Program / Potential Deviation from-Quality Program (92700)

Through discussions with plant personnel, the inspector observed a weakness in the licensee's program to provide a sys+ematic means to communicate concerns from plant personnel regarding the quality of modifications, maintenance or operations. The inspector became aware of several instances in which technical concerns involving differing professional opinions were raised within the licensee's Ombudsman program and Potential Ceviation from Quality (PDQ) program, but did not receive an independent peer review to objectively assess the merits of the concern. Instead, resolution of the concern was determined by one of the involved partie ;

f u-_-__.__-_-__-______- -_

. _ . - -- -

..

_ ., , , .

,

'

j [

'

igy : ,

'

,

Je [ L; ,

- ' -

,g g ,, .,

_ c c. . , . . . .

c

,

.

-~

y 4

' +

'_

4 ;

m  ;, - .

. {

'

,

~

y,

,

, , _o

- ,

J - -The inspector discussed this observed weakness with-the' licensee's '

b ' Ombudsman who acknowledged the previous lack of a consistent-format ~

'

f' within their program to objectively. evaluate technical concernst'The'

L' ~'

licensee agreed ~to evaluate' improvements:in'this' area f trerigthen the K + effecti_veness of- their program.- .e . No violations.~or deviations were. identifii t

+

.

.

ExitMeeting-(30703)- .

. .

The inspector met with licens'ee representatives (noted in" paragraph 1).at various times during the report period and formally on July 21,:1989. The.-

scope and findings of the inspection activities described in this report:

-

were summarized at the meeting. Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's findings at.that tim ,

%

'$

-

<

I L 4

Y-9 I f

.

% (

_

, ,

I

-

h _.__-