ML20206H394

Summarizes NRC Concerns Expressed at 860610 Meeting Re Preliminary Version of Action Plan for Performance Improvement at Plant.Formal Plan Scheduled for Submittal on or About 860701 Should Resolve Listed Concerns

ML20206H394
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	06/20/1986
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Julie Ward SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
References
TAC-61635, NUDOCS 8606260053
Download: ML20206H394 (4)

Text

DM Ob June 20,1986 3

Docket No. 50-312 DISIRIB11IION (I)ockety JPartlow NKU PUR RIngram L PDR SMiner Mr. John E. Ward PBD#6 Rdg GKalman Assistant General Manager, Nuclear (Acting)

FMiraglia Gray File Sacramento Municipal Utility District OELD NThompson 6201 S Street ACRS-10 JTaylor, IE P. O. Box 15830 Edordan Sacramento, California 95813 BGrimes

Dear Mr. Ward:

On June 10, 1986, we met with you and your staff to discuss a preliminary version of your Action Plan for Performance Improvement at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. You acknowledged at the outset that the preliminary plan was essentially an outline, lacking many necessary details, but indicated that it had been submitted for use as a basis for discussion with the staff of the required scope of the formal plan you expect to submit on or about July 1.

My staff provided many comments at the meeting that I hope will be helpful to you in improving the Action Plan. The most significant of the concerns we expressed are the following:

1.

It is not clear which of the items described in the Plan are to be com-pleted prior to restart, and on what schedule; nor is there sufficient discussion of why other items need not be resolved prior to restart.

For a number of items, the Plan indicates that resolution will be initiated prior to restart, but no schedule is provided for completion.

2.

Although your Plan appears to include both a systems review and a test program, it does not adequately describe the depth or interrelationship of these elements. We believe that the test program should be developed and its scope justified based on the systems review and configuration evaluations.

Based on the limited detail provided in the preliminary plan and the schedules indicated, we are concerned that the test program appears to include little more than the normally expected post-outage startup testing.

3.

The Plan makes frequent references to utilizing information to be developed by the B&W Owners Group Program but lacks clarity regarding the interaction between SMUD and the Owners Group, and confirmation that the BWOG schedules are consistent with your plans for restart.

8606260053 860620 PDR ADOCK 05000312 P

PDR

4 Mr. John E. Ward 4 4.

The preliminary version of the Plan does not indicate that the retro-spective matters raised by the Incident Investigation Team in Chapter 7 of NUREG-1195 will be addressed. We consider that SMUD must address these matters prior to restart.

It is important that the Plan you submit in July resolve these significant con-cerns, particularly in view of the relatively short time period assumed in your schedule for staff review and approval.

Sincerely, Origina1 signed by Frank J. Miraglia Frank J. Miraglia, Director Division of PWR-Licensing-B cc: See next page

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES-

• PBD-6

• PBD-6

• PBD-6

• PBD#6 SMiner;cf~

GKalman RWeller JStolz F

' a:mcs 6/17/86 6/17/86 6/17/86 6/17/86 6/

4

Docket No. 50-312 DISTRIBUTION Docket File JPartlow NRC PDR RIngram L PDR SMiner Mr. John E. Ward PBD#6 Rdg GKalman Assistant General Manager, Nuclear (Acting)

FMiraglia Gray File Sa rimento Municipal Utility District 0 ELD NThompson 62 1 S Street ACRS-10 P.

. Box 15830 EJordan Sacr mento, California 95813 BGrimes Dear Mh Ward.

\\

Thank youxfor the presentation you and your staff made to us on your Action Plan for Performance Improvement on June 10, 1986. We' note that your report outlines a fairly comprehensive program to address the problems at Rancho Seco and that you have taken a number of actions already'to resolve these problems.

The scope of the Action Plan appears adequate except for the matters discussed with you at the meeting. The scope does not address the retrospective matters raised in NUREG-1195, Chapter 7 and the integration of the systems review into your systems test program. Both of these issues should be considered as restart items. Also it is not clear as to which items described in your Action Plan are to be\\ resolved prior to restart. The schedule for completion of items started before, plant restart that,will be completed later is not provided.

In addition the Action Plan is/not clear on where, and how, information being developed as part of th'e BWOG effort will be utilized in the Performance Improvement Program. Pleass note that where the results of the owners group program are to'\\be used, y6u will need to verify that the BWOG schedules will support your p ogram for the restart issues.

i It was also not clear how the S stematic Assessment Program would be used to define your System Review and Test' Program. Your action plan appears to have most of the elements of a system /rhview and test program i.e., system review, configuration evaluation and testin'gsbut the plan does not yet adequately describe the depth or interrelationsh(p of these elements. Since we consider the systems review and test program important to your establishing that the plant can be operated safely /and reliably, we are sending a team to Rancho Seco to review in depth how/ he Systematic Assessment Program is being used t

to scope the System Review'and Test ProgrSm portion of your Performance Improvement Program.

/

\\

Sincerely

\\\\

,/

Frank J. Miraglia, Director Division of PWR Licensing-B

/

\\

cc: See next page N

OW/n Ad A*W

\\

PBD-6' PBD 6 PBD-6 8 tf i

GKalman RWeller JSt'b

\\

SMiner;cf

/

6// 7/E6

' 6/n /86 6// >/86 6

/6

Mr.' John E. Ward Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Sacramento Municipal Utility District Station cc:

Mr. David S. Kaplan, Secretary Sacramento County and General Counsel Board of Supervisors Sacramento Municipal Utility 827 7th Street, Room 424 District Sacramento, California 95814

'6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 Ms. Helen Hubbard l

Sacramento, California 95813 P. O. Box 63 l

Sunol, California 94586 Thomas Baxter, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Mr. Ron Columbo Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 4440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799

)

Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco c/o U. S. N. R. C.

14410 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638 Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation &

Development Commission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Building #8 4

l Sacramento, California 95814

.-