ML19341D408
| ML19341D408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D403 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103050550 | |
| Download: ML19341D408 (2) | |
Text
,
'I O.
e
~Q$sMun
'~
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street, Box 15830, Sacramento, Cahfornia 95813; (916) 452-3211 January 26, 1981
(
.o V
9 e
Y t
40 t
Mr. R. rl. Engelkea, Director j
Region V Office of inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek Plaza, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, CA 94936
}
Re:
NRC Inspection 80-36 Operating License DPR-54 Docket No. 50-312 i
Dear Mr. Engelken:
As a result of an inspection conducted between November 3 and 28, 1980, two items of noncompliance were identified:
A.
10 CFR 50,' Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states in part, " Measures a
shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to 1
quality, such as... nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
Quality Control Instruction 1, Revision 7, Processing of Non-conforming Reports, NCRs, Section 5.8 states that the Manager of Nuclear Operations or the lianager of Generation Engineering are responsible to insure prompt closure of the NCRs in their areas of responsibilities.
Contrary to the above, the November 7, 1980 NCR Status Report lists NCRs which have not been promptly corrected.
d This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
SMUD Reply l
The District concurs that prompt closure of NCRs have not been realized in the past. The long time for closure has resulted from a program that was directed to produce a NCR whenever a nonconformance exist'ed in either QA Class I, 11, or ill material or couipment. This approach has resulted in over 2167 NCRs since Rancho Seco has been in operation, in 1980, 613 NCRs were written, mostly as the result of THI modifications.
The large volume of NCRs made prompt closure di f ficul t.
The MSRC, on December 10, 1980, directed a program to identify i
all NCRs over two years old and obtain definitive information
-81080505C9 C A t l F O R N((,
AN E L ECT RIC ~S YSTE M ' S E RVIN G MORE THAN 600.000 IN THE HEART OF
- a Mr. R. H. Engelken 2
. J a.nua ry 16, 1981 on why they have not been closed.
By July 1, this program will be expanded to identify the NCRs one year and older. The Managers of Nuclear Operations and Generation Engineering have been directed to expedite closure of outstanding NCRs.
i 1
I The high visiblility of the NCR reporting system will provide the information to avoid further noncompliance.
Full compliance will be achieved by July 1, 1981.
B.
.10 CFR 50.59(b) requires that the licensee furrish the NRC annually or at such shorter intervals as may bu specified in the license, a report which includes a summary of the safety 4
evaluations of each change, test and experiment made pursuant to 10'CFR 50.59 Technical Specifications 6.9.3 requires a monthly report be provided which includes a tabulation of facility changes, test i
and experiments made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 Contrary to the above, the mcnthly reports for May, June, and.
July, 1979, did not include the summary of safety evaluations discussed in 10 CFR 50.59(b) such that the annual requirement for these summaries was not ful fi l led.
This is a Severity Level Vi violation (Supplement 1).
SMUD Reply A summary of the safety evaluation for each 50.59(b) change to comply with the NRC audit finding was initiated for the December 1980 Monthly Report and all subsequent reports will have the stated evaluations ic.cluded.
The District is in full compliance with this item.
The District contends that according to the Licensee Technical Specifications Section 6.9.3, the monthly reports did include a tabulation of facility changes, tests and experiments made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 The requirements for a summary of the safety evaluation statement only appears within the context of the 10 CFR 50.59(b) discussion.
The governing operational document is the Technical Specifications when applicable not 10 CFR.
Since a tabulation was submitted for each 50.59(b) change this violation should be withdrawn.
4 Sincerely yours,
. AAYA J. J. Mattimoe
)
Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer l
Sworntoangsubscribedbefore I
me this N day of January, 1981 OFFdtt$((L PATRICIA K. GEISLER NOTARY PU3UC.CAJO8tN;A d&&.
s5?NT$$Ni
......................... 1983 My Comosse bpwes November 22 Notary PubIic
...g
.