ML19305A380

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards IE Insp Rept 50-312/78-23 on 781204-08 & 790103 & Notice of Violation
ML19305A380
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 01/24/1979
From: Engelken R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Shared Package
ML19305A378 List:
References
NUDOCS 7903130481
Download: ML19305A380 (2)


See also: IR 05000312/1978023

Text

-

.

.

[d# ""%

UNITED STATES

y q,,

/t

NtlCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

k,I

l

h

REGION V

p

0,,,

SUITE 202, W ALNUT CREEK PLAZ A

U

1990 N. C ALIFORNI A DOULEVARD

t

9

,o

      • e*

WALNUT CREEK, C AllFOR NI A 94596

JAN 241979

Docket No. 50-312

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

P. O. Box 15830

Sacramento, California 95813

Attention: Mr. John J. Mattimoe

Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer

Gentlemen:

Subject: NRC Inspection - Rancho Seco

This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. R. Thcmas and

J. R. Curtis of this office on December 4-8, 1978 of activities authorized

by NRC License No. DPR-54, and to the discussion of our findings held by

Mr. R. Thomas with !!r. R. Rodriguez and otner members of your staff at

the conclusion of the inspection.

This also refers to the enforcement

conference held between representatives of this office and fir. J. J. Mattimoe

and members of his staff on January 3,1979.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed

inspection report.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of

selective examinations of procedures and representative records, in-

terviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that one of your

activities was not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements,

as set forth in the Hotice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.

This item of noncompliance has been categorized into a level as de-

scribed in our correspondence to all NRC licensees dated December 31,

1974.

This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201,

of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations.

Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office,

within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this notice, a written state-

ment or explanation in reply including (1) corrective steps which have

been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which

will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full

compliance will be achieved.

790313048(

.

.

.

.

JAN 2 41979

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

-2-

As a part of this inspection, an enforcement conference was held on

January 3,1979 between members of the flRC Region V management staff and

SMUD management.

This enforcement conference was prompted by a finding

during this inspection, identified in Appendix A, which is identical in

nature to one which was identified during a previous t1RC inspection and

described in our letter to you dated October 20, 1978.

During this con-

ference we expressed our concern about the recurrent items of noncompliance

being identified within your radiation protection program and about the

capability of your management control system to implement thorough and

permanent corrective actions.

In your reply to the enclosed flotice of

Violation, you are requested to describe in detail the actions you intend

to take to improve your management controls to preclude the recurrence of

items of noncompliance.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the fiRC's " Rules of Practice,"

Part 2, Titie 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and

the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public

Document Room.

If this report contains any information that you believe

to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application

to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting

that such information be withheld frcm public disclosure. The application

must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the

information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that

any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to

the application, since the application without the enclosure will also

be placed in the Public Document Room.

If we do not hear from you in

this regard within the specified period, th'.e report will be placed in

the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be

glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

M

m

R. H. Engelken,

Director

Enclosures:

A.

flotice of Violation

B.

IE Inspection P,eport

flo. 50-312/78-23

cc w/o enclosure B:

R. J. Rodriguez, SMUD

L. G. Schwieger, SMUD