ML19352B037
| ML19352B037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1981 |
| From: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B038 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106020595 | |
| Download: ML19352B037 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000312/1981004
Text
/[p37tr
.
e
UNITED STATES
.
.
Ei
I'n
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
E
REGION V
k
e'['
1990 N. CALIFORNI A BOULEVARD
SulTE 202, WALNUT CREE K PLAZA
e,,,e
WALNUT CR EE K, CALIFORNI A 94596
'
Docket No. 50-312
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
P. O. Box 15830
Sacramento, California 95813
Attention: Mr. J. J. Mattimoe
Assistant General Manager
Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter of March 26, 1981, in which you responded to our
letter dated March 2,1981, and Notice of Violation, dated February 27, 1981.
The District Reply as contained in your letter of March 26 raises continuing
concern regarding your program for the review and analysis of changes to
safety-related systems of the Rancho Seco plant.
In addition, your reply
was not totally responsive to our Notice of Violation.
Whereas the District Reply "... admits, in-form, that 'B' Diesel Generator
did not have the DC-driven... quick start... described in...the FSAR....", it
further states that, "...the Diesel Generator performed within the definition
of OPERABLE as stated in the Technical Specification Section 1.3 and Management
determined that a 50.59 evaluation was unnecessary."
Our specific continuing concern relates to the Management determination that
in the instance described above, a 50.59 evaluation was unnecessary.
Paragraph 50.59(a)(1) states, in part, "The holder of a license...may (1) make
changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, without
prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change... involves a change
in the Technical Specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed
safety question."
(Emphasis added.) Paragraph 50.59(a)(2) states, in part,
"A proposed change...shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety westion
(i) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accider.t or
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the
safety analysis report may be increased...."
It is our determination that continued operation of the "B" Diesel Generator
without the DC-motor driven hydraulic governor quick start system operable
constituted a change requiring a written safety evaluation in accordance with
Paragraph 50.59(b).
_
810602067%
9
.
.
.
.
,
. ..
. .
..
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
-2-
April 14, 1981
The District Reply also failed to fully respond to our Notice of Violation
of February 27, 1981, in that it did not include "...(4) corrective steps
which will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance;..."
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit
!
to this office within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this letter, a
written statement or explanation in reply to our Notice of Violation dated
February 27, 1981, including corrective steps which will be taken to avoid
further items of noncompliance of a similar nature.
Sincerely,
[h
sC0 .
R. H. Engelken
!
Director
.
cc:
W. C. Walbridge, SMUD
R. J. Rodriguez, SMUD
,
L. G. Schwieger, SMUD
!
t
i
l
l
i
l
i
,
,
i
,
h
f
- m
r
--
-
p-p
y
-n
-y
,,n-
--. - -
m,
- ------++ +