IR 05000312/1990009
| ML20044A923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1990 |
| From: | Wong H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A922 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-90-09, 50-312-90-9, NUDOCS 9007160382 | |
| Download: ML20044A923 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:F f
,. r ' U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No: 50-312/90-09 Docket No.
50-312 License No. DPR-54 Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799 Facility Name: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Inspection at: Herald, California (RanchoSecoSite) Inspection conducted: April 15, 1990 through May 26, 1990.
Inspectors: A. J. D'Angelo, Senior Resident Inspector C. J. Myers, Resident Inspector Approved By: N / ^x n/9e H.'Wong,ProjectsSectionII ChieT V Date '5igned Reactor Summary: Inspection between April 15 and May 26, 1990 (Report 50-312/90-09) Areas Inspected: This routine inspection by the Resident Inspectors involved
the areas of operational safety verification, health physics and security observations maintenance, surveillance and testing and quality assurance.
DuringthisInspection,InspectionProcedures 71707, 62703, 61726, 30702, 86700 and 30703 were used.
Results: General Conclusions: The licensee has maintained compliance with applicable Technical Specifications requirements and continues to maintain components and equipment in a non-degraded condition.
Significant Safety Matters: None Summary of Violations or Deviations: No violations to deviations were noted.
Open Items Summary: None [00"IOO$ [[$0hi$12 ! g PDC.
! .
. - . . - .. -- - , . .. . ., DETAILS ]
1.
Persons Contacted a.
Licensee Personnel i D. Keuter Ass,istant General Manager (AGM), Nuclear l
- J. Shetler,, Deputy AGM G. Delezenski, Supervisor. *!cMr ' censing J
- P. Bender, Manager, Quality and Safety P. Turner, Manager, Support Services
- P.
Lydon,. Manager, Nuclear Plant
- D. Brock, Manager, Nuclear Maintenance i
- W. Peabody, Manager, Technical Services J. Clark - Nuclear Chemistry L. Hough by Manager Nuclear Security
) M. Bua, uclear Radia, tion Protection Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security, and office personnel.
J
- Attended the Exit Meeting on June 15,1990.
2.
Operational Status of Rancho Seco The plant started this inspection period shutdown and defueled with all . fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool.
Layup activities continued l.. during the period.
Layup plans for all systems have been developed and L implementation of the plans is in progress.
! Current staffing levels as of June 15, 1990. remain at approxiuately 548 i total plant personnel with 36 licensed operators (25 SR0s and 11 R0s).
after the inspection period on June 13. 1990, the licensee l However,d plans to eliminate 100 positions (60 $ MUD personnel announce
- Securitycontractemployees,20othercontractemployees)durIngthe i summer period.
, , -On April 26, 1990, the licensee announced the selection of l S. David Freeman as the new General Manager, replacing David Boggs as of June 4, 1990,
3.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
? The inspectors reviewed control room operations which included access i control, staffing, observation of system alignments,ift supervisors and procedural adherence, and log keeping.
Discussions with the sh operators indicated an unca.:Aanding by these personnel of the reasons ' for annunciator indicatier.s, st. normal plant conditions and maintenance work in progress.
The inspectors also verified, by observation of valve and switch position indications, ions for the defueled conditions of the that systems were properly aligned as
required by technical specificat
plant.
Control room staffing remained in accordance with Technical - Specification requirements.
. . _ .. - - ._ . -
-_. _.. . _.
__ _ _ _.
' ' - , l Tours of the auxiliary, and turbine buildings, including exterior areas, ) were made to assess equipment conditions and plant conditions.
Also, the J 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 practices.
) During work activities, it appeared that the health physics managers were i conducting plant tours and monitoring work in progress.
The ' aware of significant work which occurred during t11s period.y appeared The inspector's Rajiation Work Permit (RWP) review revealed that the RWP i did include: job description, radiation levels, contamination, airborne radioactivity-(if expected), respiratory equipment, protective clothing, j dosimetry, special equipment, RWP expiration, health physics (HP) coverage, and signatures.
The RWP radiation and contamination surveys were kept curreni.
Employees understood the RWP requirements.
l The inspectors observed that personnel in the controlled areas were ' wearing the ) roper dosimetry and personnel exiting the controlled areas were using tie monitors properly.
Labeling of containers appeared ' appropriate.
The inspectors walked down aortions of the protected and vital area boundaries to ensure that t1ey 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 observed.
Personnel entering with packages were procarly searched and access control was in accordance with licensea procedures.
The inspectors observed no obstructions in the isolation zone which could conceal a person or interfere with the detection / assessment system.
Protected area illumination appeared adequate.
In summary operations staffing ap eared adequate for the defueled condition o,f the plant.
Plant equ pment continued to be maintained in a i graded approach dependent on its e assification.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726. 86700) t 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 activities were observed: T ' SP.32A Quarterly Decay Heat Removal System Loop A Surveillance ' SP.451B Quarterly Channel Test of Reactor Building Purge Vent , and Auxiliary Building Stack Effluent Flow Rate Device t i ~ . - - .... - .- - . . _, -- - --- . a
, .. . - - . .. . .- - - -_ , i
. ' ,.. The following items were considered during this review: testing was in i accordan:o 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 proceoare 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 i agreement with observations made by the inspector and that any
deficiencies identified during the testing were pr,operly reviewed and ) resolved by appropriate management personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 5.
Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703) j a.
Maintenance Activities - Maintenance activities for the systems and com)onents listed below ! were observed and reviewed to ascertain that t1ey were conducted in accordance with approved )rocedures, regulatory guides, industry
codes or standards, and tie Technical Specifications.
1.
Decay Heat Removal (DHR) System Modification , A DHR system modification was performed under Work Request (WR)161518 to allow long term layup conditions to be established for "B" DHR train components while maintaining the "A" DHR train available as a backup system for spent fuel pool coolin. The modification consisted of cutting out a section l of pip ng and installing a blank in a 3-inch line which
crosst es the suction of the DHR pumps.
" During the modification, the licensee entered a 72-hour administrative action period because both trains of DHR were i unavailable.
The inspector observed that although the duration oftheDHRoutakeexceededthe72-houractionperiod,the licensee estabi shed an operations directive for the extended i L, period to assure that spent fuel cooling could be adequately . maintained.
' The inspector found that the licensee appeared to be appropriately following their administrative procedure for the control of systems required to be available.
2.
Dehumidifier installation The inspector observed portions of modifications to install dehumidifiers, fans and ducting to establish layup conditions e for the feedwater system.
The modifications consisted of the nu installation of a dehumidifier unit and ducting to circulate dry air through all the feedwater heaters and associated feedwater piping.
The dry air was introduced into the feedwater system at the discharge header of the condensate _ .. ~ . _ .
\\' .-
.,,.. - pumps and recirculated through the manhole of the last feedwater haater.
The inspector found the modifications to be consistent with the system layup plans, b.
Spent Fuel Pool Leakage Investigation Installation of flow instrumentation to monitor the leakage flow from the spent fuel pool was completed and tested.
The inspector found that the leaka approximately1/2-I'eappearedtoremainconsistentat gallon per day.
The licensee was in the process of compls. ting their investigations and preparing a final report on their corrective actions.
This issue will continue to be followed up in future inspections.- -The following items were considered during this review: The limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were work; activities were; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the removed from service accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing or calibration was performed prior to returning components or systems to service; activities were a:complished by qualified personnel; radiological controls were 'mplemented; and fire prevention controls were implemented.
, No violations or deviations were identified.
' 6.
Exit Meeting (30703) 'The inspector met with licensee representatives (noted in paragraph 1) at various times during the re1 ort period and formally on June 15, 1990.
The scope and findings of tie inspection activities described in this report were summarized at the meeting.
Licensee re acknowledged the inspector's findings at that time,presentatives i i }}