ML19257C943
| ML19257C943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1979 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18044B026 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-79-20, NUDOCS 8001310115 | |
| Download: ML19257C943 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000312/1979020
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUL\\ TOP.Y C0!c419SION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-312/79-20
Cocket No.
50-31'.
License Nc.
sarcauards crcup
<
Liccusee-
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
P. O. Eox 15830
Sacramento, California 95813
Facility Nare:
Rancho Seco
Inspection at:
Clay Station, California
October 1-5, 1979
Inspection conducted:
Ins pec t o rs ;
b[ 'A
.(I l3 /k79
G. B.
Zkietzig) Reactoh Inspector
Date Sirned
Date Signed
Date Signed
-
Appro"ed !3y :
I)
E
d z,
Adi/
N' /7 79
.t
2 -.m
B. H. Faulkenberry, ChieV,Te' actor Projects Section 2,
Date Signed
Reactor Operations and N6 clear Support Branch
Summary:
Inspection on October 1-5, 1979 (Report No. 50-312/79-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of implementation of
changes in the quality assurance program; the content of the quality
assurance / quality control administration program; the operations of the
off-site review committee; the operations an. qualifications of the off-
site support staff; and followup on IE Bulli ' ins and Circulars.
The
inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsit 2 and 8 inspector-hours at
the utility's main office by one inspector.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or
deviations were foundin five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance
was found in one area (infraction - failure of offsite review committee
to review minutes of the onsite review committee, Paragraph 4).
RV Forn, 719(?)
1843 273
8001810
.f4 j j f
7
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
Columbo, Technical Assistant
- H. Heckert, tiuclear Engineering Technician
- John Sullivan, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
- L. fl. Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director
Norman F. Wood, Principal Buyer
Gordon Merrill, Manager, Purchases and Stores Department
Dallas Raasch, Manager, Generation Engineering Department
Roger Powers, Supervising tiuclear Engineer
- Ron Rodriguez, Manager, riuclear Operations Department
- Pierre Oubre, Plant Superintendent
- Willis Ford, Supervisor, riuclear Operation
- George Coward, Supervisor, Maintenance Division
The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee
employees, including members of purchasing, quality assurance and
the Generation Engineering Department.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Annual Review of QA Program
The inspector determined that 17 procedures in the Rancho Seco
Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) had been revised since this inspection
was last performed in June 1978.
Implementation of these procedures
was verified by discussions with licensee personnel and by determining
that the revision numbers of the procedures included in the QAM
corresponded, with one exception, to the latest revision designations
given in the Table of Contents of the QAM. This exception, which
involved a revision made one week prior to the inspection, was
brought to the attention of the licensee who indicated corrective
action would be taken.
Examination of three QAM's issued to individuals onsite revealed
that two of the three conformed to the reference QA copy.
The
third manual was deficient only to the extent that the revision
issued one week earlier had not yet been entered in the manual.
The licensee was advised of this condition and agreed to correct
it.
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
QA/QC Administration Program
The inspector reviewed QA procedures and verified that procedures
and responsibilities had been established for making changes to QA
documents.
He also verified that administrative controls had been
established to assure review and approval of QA/QC procedures prior
1843 274
-2-
'
.
to implementation and to assign responsibility for distribution and
recall of procedures. The inspector also verified that respon-
sibilities had been established to assure review of the effectiveness
of the QA Program, and to determine that the results of a review
are used to modify the QA Program to provide improved effectiveness
in a problem area (see Paragraph 5). The inspector determined that
the licensee had identified structures, systems and components
subject to the QA Program only by broad criteria and by a list of
major components (pumps and vessels). The list did not include
items such as valves and nuclear and process instrumentation.
In
response to the inspector's expressed concern as to means for
assuring proper assignment of QA class for procurement, the licensee
stated that he would review his present procedure (see Paragraph 5).
This matter is considered to be unresolved.
(79-20-01)
4.
Offsite Review Committee
The inspector reviewed the changes made in the charter of the
offsite review committee since the last inspectica (May 1978) and
found that the changes were consistent with the Technical Specifi-
cations and regulatory requirements.
The inspector also reviewed
selected minutes of meetings of the offsite review committee for
meetings held from January to August 1979.
These minutes were
reviewed to determine if the frequency of meetings, the number of
designated attendees and the scope of review were consistent with
the Technical Specifications.
On the basis of tnis review, it was
determined that the offsite review committee had not, during this
period, reviewed the minutes of the Plant Review Conmittee (PRC) as
required by Technical Specification 6.5.2.7.1.
It was further
determined that during the period covered by the review (January -
August 1979), approximately 75 PRC meetings had been held. At the
exit meeting, the licensee's representatives stated that minutes of
all PRC meetings were sent to the chairman of the offsite review
committee, but that it had never been their policy for the full
offsite review committee to review the minutes of the PRC meetings.
The inspector stated that this indicated a weakness in the licensee's
audit procedures (Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.a) which require
that conformance with Technical Specifications be audited yearly.
This is an apparent item of noncompliance at the infraction level.
(79-20-02)
5.
Offsite Support Staff
The inspector reviewed selected procedures in the licensee's QA
manual.
Based on this review, the inspector concluded that there
were adequate administrative controls describing the responsibilities,
authority and lines of communication for offsite personnel involved
in design, technical support, QA, construction and procurement.
The inspector also concluded that the above procedures conformed to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The inspector inter-
viewed a manager, a group leader and a staff member in each of the
1843
275
.
-3-
.
areas of Design / Technical Support, Quality Assurance and Procurement.
Based on these interviews the inspector concluded that the individuals
interviewed understood their responsibilities and authorities with
respect to maintaining plant safety and were aware of the applicable
licensee procedures.
Based on review of the licensee's resumes for
the individuals interviewed or direct questioning of the individuals,
the inspector found that the individuals interviewed were qualified
to perform their assigned tasks.
The inspector reviewed audits performed by the liceasee of activities
involving the offsite support staff.
The review dacluded Audit tio.
0-190 and 0-244 dealing with Material Control, ard Audit flo. 0-256
dealing with Design Control. Audit flo. 0-190 (J >ne 15 and 22,
1978) concluded that there were a significant number of instances
where the QA class of components were either improperly specified
or undefined on control documentation.
Internal correspondence
attached to this audit indicated that the licensee had made an
effort to correct these conditions and Audit flo. 0-244 (May 15-16,
1979) concluded that improvement had been made.
Despite this
improvement, Audit flo. 0-256 (August 27-September 14, 1979) con-
cluded that problems remained with regard to obtaining proper
designation of QA class on control documents.
The inspector
informed the licensee that it appeared problems remain in this
area because of the problem (unresolved item described in Para-
graph 3) of clearly specifying the QA classification of components.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars
The inspector discussed the licensee's status with respect to
outstanding IE Bulletins and Circulars.
Significant conclusions or
items of information are summarized below,
a.
IE Bulletin 79-11 (Closed)
The licensee's letter of June 20, 1979 states that circuit
breakers of the type discussed in this bulletin are not
employed in safety-related systems at Rancho Seco.
Accordingly,
this completes the licensee's action on this bulletin.
b.
IE Bulletin 79-15 (Closed)
The licensee's letter of August 30, 1979 states that Rancho Seco
does not have any pumps similar to those described in Bulletin 79-15 in any safety-related system.
Therefore, this completes
the licensee's action on this bulletin.
c.
IE Bulletin 79-21 (Closed)
The licensee's response of September 14, 1979 states that no
reactor protection or safety feature system actions are
initiated by level instrumentation, and therefore, the error
1843 276
-
.
.
-4-
-
,.
induced by the increase in the reference leg temperature need
only be considered for post-accident monitoring.
With respect
to revision of procedures to account for this error, the
licensee's letter stated that they did not feel that revisions
to procedures were required, however plant operators would be
informed of the possible level indication errors.
During this
inspection, the inspector questioned the licensee as to why pro-
cedures had not been modified to assist the operators in
assessing the magnitude of the error in level indicati?n.
The
licensee's representative responded that the maximum tempgrature
in the containment predicted by accident analyses was 286
F,
and based on this temperature, the maximum error in level
indications would be less than 8%.
Because of this small
error and the fact that no level signals are used as inputs to
the reactor protection or other safety systems, the licensee
reiterated his belief that operator awareness of potential
level errors was an adequate response to this concern.
Based
on these considerations, this item is considered to be closed.
d.
IE Circulars 79-02 and 79-04 (Closed)
Based on discussions with the licensee, the inspector verified
that Circulars 79-02 and 79-04 had been received by the licensee.
It was also determined that the licensee considered these
circulars applicable to Rancho Seco and had implemented appro-
priate corrective action. Accordingly, this completes the
licensee's actions on these circulars.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Unresolved Item
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-
quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,
items of noncompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item dis-
closed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 3.
8.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-
graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 5,1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee representative acknowledged the statement of the
inspector with respect to the item of noncompliance (Paragraph 4),
and stated that they would be looking at possible revisions of the
QA program with respect to the QA classification of components.
1843
277