ML20024C441
| ML20024C441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1978 |
| From: | Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | Deddens J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-03, TASK-3, TASK-GB GPU-2600, NUDOCS 8307120629 | |
| Download: ML20024C441 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:*T 'h?U NOO u,y. e._._. ~ q y.J. THE BAUCOCX & Wil.COI COMPANY I M 2-{J[9 P.aw a m o m en noop ( r' ~ J. c.,ntacENs _ MANAGER, ENcINEERINs '= ct NFIDENTIAL -j, J. N. TAYLOR. MANAGER, LICENSING,(2317) g hat. Tile E er gef. Setj. Date
- {,
PLANT INCIDENT EVALUATICNS APRIL 14,1978 *
- 3 g - - -
- = l Sometime ano it was decided that a site probles report would j days. pared for any incident on a 344 plant causing lost capacity be pre i [l it would seen appropriate for us to consider establishing aAs a result routine practice of going further than the site prcblem report system might.otherwise require. It is suggested that we put into effect a management policy which calls for a detailed
- incident report for every significant incident affecting a 34W......_,
plant. The purpose of these incident reports would be to pursue p-p- the incident. to the point where what happened was thoroughly understood and that corrective actions could be outlined such p that all reasonable things had been done to minimi possibilzty of the same or similar occurrences on o:e the ther B&W operating plants. In some cases more than operating procedure rec,camendationsthis would involve nothing --ir could l'avolve recommended hardware changes, but, in others. j If this were done, it would seem that several benefits Yo'ul'd" ~~ l l secrue to 34W. - ~". ] ', 1. Our availability record would be enhanced, ~ 2. If this policy of in depth, follow-through tvarust' ion were made known to the NRC, it could be that they would permit. l a plant experiencing an incident to return to power more l '-l' quickly if they knew an in depth analysis was being done' l and would be followed by a detailed report, b 3. It could aske points with the NRd'i$ 'tsras of minimizing E the effect on other operating plants because of an ' incident 1 on one plant, 'a'i 4 It could lead to new business in terms of procedure .h revisions and hardware redesign, j 3.. It.Aould provide a better understanding of our' plants'and, ~ specifically, in the area of systems interaction effects; g-p g 'i.e., it could lead to desirable 1 provements. e 9 E. f;- .L 8307120629 780414 6 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P HOL .~ 325[05391 vis [9 2 9 si v. .p. A
.( ...W.i'. = 1 ~ a.
- s..f: :.*
L _ __._ 9. L J. C. Doddens Page-2 April 1A,1973 a s .r, ce.. ,9 The recent letter that was sritten by Mr. Karrasch to Mr. 01ds on March 29, indicates that an approach such as this is planned r8 in connection with the SMUD incident. It also appears as though the task ance unde.to evaluate the loose parts sonitoring system perform. r Mr. Mayo is also a good step in this direction. It i ' j*' would seem that the record of five incidents of NaOH injection on our plants is an example of inadequate follow through. . 6i , i In view of the above I recommend we establish the practice of complete follow throu,gh on every incident, and, as a result, both 34W and our customers will benefit. 6, 6 JHT:dsf / cc': I. R. Kane *
- i F. J. I.evandoski j
j G. M. Olds D. H. Roy ' R. I. Wascher I G. I. Kulynych - l f L -.i ,4 r es e c-7 e. = 'I i ,' I s ( l 2 E: 4. ~ r ip; g I r- ." Tt i,. :-. r 1 ]. g-o s I ). 1 .L F15 [9 2 9 6J .= - i 325L 0540'- ~ ..., r,. .. - - ~.... .3.- t,--.. c...-.. ,}}