ML20151V970
| ML20151V970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1988 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Andognini G SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151V973 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805030260 | |
| Download: ML20151V970 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000312/1987040
Text
-
j
,-
a
s
g
-
[
UNITED STATES
c
';, 4
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
\\ .....*
April 26, 1988
Docket No. 50-312
Mr. G. Carl Andognini
Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
14440 Twin Cities Road
Herald, California 95638-9799
Dear Mr. Andognini:
SUBJECT: OPERATIONALREADINESSINSPECTION(50-312/87-40)
This letter forwards the report on the operational read' ness inspection
performed by an NRC inspection team during the periods December 7-18, 1987 and
February 8-17, 1988, involving activities authorized by Operating License
DPR-54 for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
The inspection was
conducted by mcmbers of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office
for Analysi*, and Evaluation of Operational Data, the Region V office, and an
NRC contractor. At the conclusion of the inspection, we discussed the findings
with the me.mbers of your staff identified in Appendix A of the enclosed
.
inspection report.
The NRC evaluated the corrective actions taken as a result of the previous
Augmented Systems Review and Test Program inspections (50-312/86-41 and
1
50-312/87-29) and assessed your readiness to operate the Rancho Seco Nuclear
Generating Station. This readiness assessment covered the areas of operations,
maintenance, surveillance testing, quality assurance, design change control,
and corrective actions.
Two doeurrents are enclosed with this letter:
the executive sumary which
<
provides an overview of the inspection team's finding in each area reviewed
!
and the inspection report which provides a n.o e detailed explanation of the
team's findings. The report includes findings that may result in enforcement
action, which would be the subject of aeparate correspondence from the NRC
Region V office.
2
After the first onsite inspection period, the team was concerned that your
programs for surveillance testing, operations, maintenance and correctfve
actions were not adequately impicmented to support an operating station.
Additionally, it did not appear that your quality assurance program was
identifying these weaknesses for management attention.
During the second
onsite inspection period, the team was encouraged by the increased management
'
awareness of plant activities and your decision to stop testing until the
quality of these activities improved. However, these delays prevented further
assessment of your readiness to operate the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
Station.
8805030260 880426
ADOCK 05000312
O
,
_
__
,_
_ _ _ _ _
~
s
e
Mr. G. Carl Andognini
-2-
April 26, 1988
A followup inspection conducted during the period March 7-10, 1988 completed the
assessment and will be documented in Inspection Report 50-312/88-200.
Because the followup inspection (50-312/88-200) has already been conducted at
your facility and there are no remainino open or unresolved items, no written
response is required to this inspection report.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a) a copy of this letter and the enclosure
will be placed in the NPC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
YR V}
Dennis M. Crutchfield, D
tor
Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V
and Special Projects
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Executive Sumary
2.
Inspection Report 50-312/87-40
.
5
1
_ _ _ _ _ -
t
.
Mr. G. Carl Andugnini
-3-
April 26, 1988
cc: Mr. Robert Croley
Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Radiological Health Branch
14440 Twin Cities Road
State Department of Health Services
Herald, California 95638-9799
714 P Street Office Building #8
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Gordan K. Van Vleck
Secretary, Resources Agency
Sacramento County
1416 9th Street, Room 1311
Board of Supervisors
Sacramento, California 95814
827 7th Street, Room 424
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. David S. Keplan, Secretary
and General Counsel
Ms. Helen Hubbard
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
P.O. Box 63
6201 S Street
Sunol, California 94586
P.O. Box 15830
Sacramento, California 95813
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
1100 Circle 75 Parkway
Thomas A Baxter Esq.
Suite 1500
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Steven Crunk
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
14440 Twin Cities Read
Herald, 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 Commission
14440 Twin Cities Road
Herald, California 95638-9799
1
'
Director, Energy Facilities Siting Division
'
Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Comission
1516 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Regional Administrator
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V
1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210
Walnut Creek, California 94596
i
.
- -
--
- , . ,
-
. ,
-
,,,
.---.
-
--
. _-__ _ -_ _ -
'.
,
. Mr. G. Carl Andognini
4
April 26, 1988
,
Dist!ribution
Docket Files . 50-312
DRIS R/F
RSIB R/F
JPartlow
BGrimes
CHaughney
LNorrholm
JKonklin
Elmbro
,
JDyer
TMurley, NRR
JSniezek, NRR
T. Martin, NRR
FMiraglia, NRR
DCrutchfield, NRR
GHolohan, NRR
GKnighton, NRR
GKalman, NRR
JMartin, RV
DKirsch, RV
RZimmerman, RV
LMiller, RV
Wang, RV
-
LSpessard AEOD
JTaylor OED0
!! Johnson, OEDO
LPDR
I
b-
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
O
Y(
J
AW WA
i
0FC :RSIB:DRIS:NRR :RSIB:DRIS:NRR: SIB:UM:NRR:DD:DRIK:NT<R:DIR:URIS:hRR:BfEP:5RR
.....:..............:.............:............:..........:.................................
NAME :*JDyer/vjj
- LNorrholm
- CHaughney
- BGrimes
- JPartlow
- DCrutchfield:
.....:..............:.............:............:....... ....:........
.........f ......:........
,
! DATE :04/ /88
- 04/ /88
- 04/al/88
- 04/M/88
- 04/11/88
- 04/D/88
1
1
.
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ . _ - _ _ _ _
.
__
-.
..
e-.-
,
,
l
Mr. G.' Carl.Andognini
-4
l
'
.
l
l
Distribution
.
Do ket Files - 50-312
'
!
'
JPartlow
l
BGrimes
"
t
CHaughney
LNorrholm
-JKonklin
Elmbro
-
JDyer
TMurley, NRR
JSniezek, NRR
,
.T. Martin, NRR
'
,
'
FMiraglia, NRR
i
DCrutchfield, NRR
l'
GHolohan, NRR
l
GKnighton, NRR
GKalman, NRR
-
JMartin, RV
DKirsch, RV
!
RZimerman, RV
LMiller, RV
"d
,
Wang, RV
y
-
.
l
LSpessard, AE0D
l
JTaylor, OEDO
'
'
MJohnson, OEDO
LPDR
i
!
!
i
i
i
j
l
_ f\\
'
l0FC :RSIB:DRI5:NkR :RSI
15:NRR:5IB:DRIS:NRR:DD:DRI5:NRR :DIR:DRIS:NRR:DRSP:NRR
- .....:..............:..q:
......:............:............:............:............:........
,
lNAME:JDyer/vjj
- LNor
[m
- CHaughney
- BGrimes
- JPartlow.
- DCrutchfield:
.....:..............:.............:............:............:............:............:........
DATE :04//9/88
- 04/2Q88
- 04/ /88
- 04/ /88
- 04/ /88
- 04/ /88
4
.
-
.
l
i
a
o
1
l
i
'
ENCLOSURE 1
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'
INSPECTION REPORT 50-312/87-40
I
RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
A team of NRC and contractor personnel assessed the readiness of the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to restart the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
Station. This effort included a review of the open and unresolved items remain-
ing from the Augmented Systems Review and Test Program (ASRTP) Inspections
(50-312/86-41 and 50-312/87-29) and an evaluation of the maintenance, operations,
design change control, surveillance testing, quality assurance and corrective
action programs' ability to support an operating plant.
The inspection was
scheduled to observe the preparation for plant heatup and mode change to provide
an input for determining the licensee's ability to restart the plant.
December 7-18, 1987 Inspection Findings
The inspection team was unable to observe plant heatup because of delays to the
licensee's System Review and Test Prog am (SRTP) test schedule. The team did
review plant heatup preparations, SRTP testir.g and licensee programs to support
an operating plant. The following observations were made of these activities:
(1) Defiriencies were identified with the technical adequacy of surveillance
test procedures, test performance, data review and problem resolution
which indicated that the Surveillance Test Program was not ready to
support mode change decisions.
(2) Problems were identified with the conduct of maintenance in the areas
of procedural adequacy, job planning and supervision, radiological
control practices and quality control.
(3) Control room operators did not appear to be adequately controlling
SRTP testing evolutions.
Systems were turned over to testing
personnel; control room operators were not following the individual
tests; and system test boundaries did not appear to be adequately
,
defined.
(4) No deficiencies were noted with the licensee's program for closing
out design change packages.
]
(5) Corrective action programs did not appear to be effectively correcting
plant problems.
The NRC team identified a trend with defective local
valve position indicators for motor-operated valves that was not being
addressed by the licensee.
Instead, the team observed an operator
violating a procedure during a valve lineup to compensate for the defective
indicators.
'
-1-
)
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L
4
i
(6) The Quality Assurance MA) Surveillance Program was not adequately imple-
mented to provide current information on the quality of activities being
conducted in the plant.
As e result, management did not appear to be
adequately informed about plant reaknosses.
As a result of these findings, the team concluded that the licensee was not
ready to restart the plant.
The detaile:f finding,s of the first inspection
period were provided orally at the interim exit meeting held on Dece.nber 18,
1987; a written sumary was submitted by w NRC letter from D. M. '.rutchfield
to G. C. Andognini dated January 7, 1988.
A folloitup onsite instection period
was scheduled to coincide with plant heatup and the resolution of concerns
identified during the first onsite inspection period.
February 8-17, 1988 Inspection Findings
The inspection team was still unable to observe plant heatup because the
licensee had stopped SRTP testing to implement the Operations Management Action
Plan. Because several test events and management observations had raised
concerns about the operators' ability to contrM the plant, the licensee's
i
management decided to stop testing until the quality of activities improved.
The inspection team reviewed the licensee's corrective actions taken from
.
previous inspections and observed ongoing plant activities.
The following
observations were made:
'
(1) The surveillance program was significantly improved in all areas, but
the team again noted problems with system restoration and operator
reviews of completed test results.
(2) Training of maintenance personnel appeared to address previous team
concerns. The team observed one maintenance activity and found no
i
deficiencies.
(3) Corrective action programs were receiving increased attention and the
licensee was implementing a new program to improve the efficiency of
the corrective action process.
(4) The QA programs were significantly improved.
The QA Surveillance Program
was enhanced and directed towards preparing for plant operations. A
Quality Control Field Inspection Program was initiated to review all
ongoing jobs in the plant.
A Management Observation Program was started
which required licensee managers to directly observe their department's
performance. The increased awareness of the quality of plant activities
because of these programs, coupled with recent testing events, convinced
inanagement to stop testing before equipment was damaged.
(5) The Operations Management Action Plan appeared to address concerns identi-
fied by previous inspections and recent events. The team concluded that
the plan could improve the quality of operating activities if it were
properly implemented.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the team was encouraged because all the
issues it had identified during the second onsite inspection had been previously
2
identified by the licensee's QA programs.
It appeared that the licensee had
adequately identified the problems; however, the corrective actions were not
complete. The tean concluded that the licensee's performance should be further
,
evaluated during heatup and hot functional testing before plant restart.
'
2
-
-
.
.
. _ _ _ _
._.