ML20148C754

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to & Commits That Implementation of Util Utilization Ordinance Will Not Adversely Impact Safety. Rev 1 to Future Plant Capacity Factor Engineering Assessment Encl
ML20148C754
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 03/17/1988
From: Andognini G
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20148C760 List:
References
GCA-88-176, NUDOCS 8803230046
Download: ML20148C754 (2)


Text

e~ swun St JRAMENTo MUNICIPAL UTiUTY DISTRICT O P. O. Box 1583o, Sacramento CA 95852 183o,191o) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA GCA 88-176 MAR 171989 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Dr. Thomas E. Murley Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 RANCHO SECO UTILIZATION ORDINANCE

Dear Dr. Murley:

First and foremost in responding to your letter of March 11, 1988, I individually and as Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District commit that the implementation of the Rancho Seco Utilization Ordinance will not adversely impact safety. Additionally, I am confident that you will receive the same commitment frcm the District Board of Directors at the upcoming NRC Commission Meeting.

Throughout n1y tenure as CEO, Nuclear I have always placed safety and quality ahead of cost and schedule. In witness of this fact, on three separate occasions during the period from December,1987 through February,1988, I stopped work because I was dissatisfied with performance even though such stoppages caused schedule slippages and cost increases. At no time has the Board been critical of me for taking such actions, nor has any pressure been put upon me to shortcut safety.

Secondly, the terms of the Ordinance warrant some discussion. In respect of the goal set forth in Ordinance of achieving a 70% capacity factor several things should be said:

(1) The Ordinance explicitly establishes 70% as a "goal" and not a mandate.

(2) I consider the goal to be reasonably achievable, particularly in light of the numerous actions that we have undertaken to address the historical events that have prevented Rancho Seco from reaching this goal in the past. For long term operation, there is a reasonable basis to expect achievement of a higher capacity factor. (See Attachment -

"Future Engineering Assessment," Tab I-Executive Sumary.)

\

8803230046 880317 PDR ADOCK 05000312 p DCD RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION O 14440 Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799;(209) 333 2935

/

4

.. . GCA 88-176 Dr. Thomas E. Hurley g4g 7 (3) In recent years the NRC itself has stressed to all licensees the need to establish reasonable goals as a means to improve performance. In fact, capacity factor is recognized in NUREG-1275 as a primary performance indicator.

With respect to the mandatory criterion for shutting down Rancho Seco, i.e.,

the failure to achieve a monthly capacity factor of 50% in each of four consecutive months, I consider this to be a very low threshoTTwlTh an equally low probability. (See Attachment).

I trust that this discussion is responsive to your letter, but if further information is desired we shall be glad to furnish it to you.

Sincerely, G. Carl Ando ini Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Attachment cc: F. J. Miraglia, NRC, Rockville G. Kilman, NRC, Rockville A. D' Angelo, NRC, Rancho Seco J. B. Martin, NRC, Walnut Creek i