ML19309F713

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-312/80-03.Corrective Actions:Appropriate Individuals Have Been Made Cognizant of Prompt Reporting Requirements
ML19309F713
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 03/19/1980
From: Mattimoe J
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To: Engelken R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML19309F710 List:
References
NUDOCS 8004300433
Download: ML19309F713 (2)


Text

-

( G,,. k 8004s00 f

P

- 3SMUD

' ^ SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street, Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813; (916) 452-3211 i

March 19, 1980 ga Mr. R. H. Engelken, Director Region V Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek Plaza, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, California 94396 Re:

NRC Inspection 80-3 Docket No. 50-312 License No. DPR-54

Dear Mr. Engelken:

In reply to your inspection conducted by Messrs. H. Canter and P. Narbu on January 2 through 31, 1980, we offer the following explanations and corn :tive actions which will assure full cocpliance with the NRC requirements.

Appendix A of your letter indicates the following infraction:

A.

Technical Specifications 6.9.4.1.1 requires a report to be submitted within twenty-four (24) hours by telephone and confirmed by telegraph, mailgram or facsimile transmission to the Director of the Regional Of fice when performance of structures, systens, or components require remedial action or corrective measures to prevent operation in a manner less conservative than assumed in the accident analysis in the Safety Analysis Report or Technical Specifications bases; or when discovery during plant life of conditions not specifically considered in the Safety Analysis Report or Technical Specifications that require remedial action or corrective measures to prevent the existence or development of an unsafe condition.

Contrary to the above, docu,nentation between Allis-Chalmers and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District dated December 17, 1979, indi-cated that the 66-inch containment purge valves may not function when required.

Operating instructions were issued which require the purge valves to remain closed during power operation. This corrective action was taken to prevent operation in a manner less conservative that assumed i

in the accident analysis in the Safety Analysis Report.

This condition was not reported to Region V until January 8, 1980, via the resident inspector and Licensee Event Report 79-22.

AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM S E RVIN G MORE THAN 600,000 IN THE HEART OF CAtlF NIA jj i ? '/A'T

q

..)l i. s i

)

Mr. R. H. Engelken Page 2 March 19, 1980 SMUD REPLY Similar to the response submitted for Ipspection.No.i79-25, it is felt that future problems in this' area can be precluded by an; appropriate training session.

The training session for Generation Engineering personnel, held in accordance with the response to Inspection No. 79-25,.was held February 20 and 21,1980.

In addition to the Generation Engineering personnel, a number of Nuclear Operations personnel attended. These individuals included the Engineering and Quality Control Supervisor, Senior Engineers in the nuclear, mechanical and. electrical disciplines, and the Technical Assistant.

In the absence of any specific group supervisor, these individuals are those which would be designated.to assume the specific responsibilities.whi'h say include-c determination of the reportability of an occurrence in accordance with Regula-tory Guide 1.16 and Technical Specifications Section 6.9.4.

As a result, appropriate individuals in both Generation Engineering and Nuclear Operations have been made cognizant of the prompt reporting requirements and'similar recurrences should be minimized.

Respectfully submitted,

.W J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer JJM:HH: jim F

J'

__i

--. 5