ML19352B044
| ML19352B044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Canter H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B038 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-81-04, 50-312-81-4, NUDOCS 8106020600 | |
| Download: ML19352B044 (1) | |
Text
..
/(j APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-312 As a result of the inspection conducted between January 1 and 31,1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980),
the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50.59(b) states, in part, "The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this s.: tion, to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report....These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change, test or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question."
Section 8.2.3.1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report describes a quick starting feature of the emergency diesel generators, in part, as follows:
"DC-motor driven... hydraulic governor oil pumps are provided for starting.
After the engine is up to speed, direct driven governor oil pumps take over."
Contrary to the above, on April 18, 1980, the licensee discovered that the piping for the "B" Diesel Generator DC-driven governor oil booster pump was improperly routed, thereby causing the quick start starting fea-ture to be disabled. This apparently constitutes a change in the facility as described in the FSAR. Although Nonconforming Report S-1910 authorized postponement of corrective action until the next refueling outage (several months later), there is no record of a written safety evaluation showing that the postponement did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(Supplement I)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, SMUD is hereby required to submit to this office within twenty-five days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged items of noncompliance; (2) the reasons for the items of noncompliance, if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps wl.ich will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Under the authority of Section 162 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath of affirmation.
b darl)
Date:
h t.41 M / M /
_H.I L7C{i)ler,'Genibr] Resident Inspector
(/
/
l Reactor Operations Projects Branch l
81060206@.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District March 2,~1981 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
/.s(',i/L1
. L.
re
, Chief
, eactor Operations Projects Branch 4
Enclosures:
1.
APPENDIX A - Notice of Violation 2.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-312/81-04 cc w/o Enclosure 2:
R. J. Rodriguez, SMUD L. G. Schwieger, SMUD t
i
.