ML20244B105
| ML20244B105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1989 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Firlit J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244B108 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904190009 | |
| Download: ML20244B105 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000312/1989001
Text
m.
- yg* 1
- ,
.
~[f-
p Mtv
'
8 ~
O.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
1
- ,E
REGION V
g
1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210
- 0,%*****,d
. WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNI A 94596
MAR 2 71989
Docket No. 50-312.
LSacramento Municipal Utility District
,
~
P. O. Box 15830'
Sacramento, California 95813-
~ Attention:- Mr'. ' Joseph F. Firlit
Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
Gentlemen:
. Subject:
NRC Inspection of Rancho Seco
This' refers to the maintenance team inspection conducted by Mr. A. D. Toth
and other members of our staff during January 23 through February 17, 1989.
l
This inspection examined your activities as authorized by NRC License No.
.DPR-54.
Discussions of our findings were held with you and other members of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection'.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed
inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
' examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
personnel and observations:by the inspectors.
Inspection Overview
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the
' total integrated maintenance process at Rancho Seco, to assure that all
components, systems, and structures of the facility are adequately maintained so
that they are available to pe,' form their intended functions. A primary focus
of the inspection was an assessment of the maintenance program as it related
to the January 31, 1989 Auxiliary _Feedwater System turbine overspeed event,
and your then-ongoing investigation activities to determine the root causes
of the' event.
Specific inspection emphasis was focused on the following objectives:
1.-
Assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program in avoiding
1
challenges to safety systems from transients' initiated or made more
severe by equipment failures due to maintenance weaknesses.
2.
Assess the effectiveness of quality verification organizations in
contributing to the identification, solution, and prevention of safety
significant technical problems and deficiencies in plant systems and
operations.
3.
Assess the. effectiveness of problem identification and resolution
processes, including awareness and actions regarding industry
initiatives in equipment performance monitoring and preventive
maintenance.
41%h h
$)
0
l
__. I-.
<
__
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
,
,
N
2
.
.
l
4.
Assess the status of corrective actions for self-assessment efforts in
the Maintenance area.
Overall Conclusions
The maintenance process for Rancho Seco has been improved since the December
1985 shutdown and shows a continuing dedication of resources to further
improve the program and its implementation.
Substantial progress has been
made in the reduction of backlogs, and in addressing prior troublesome
maintenance issues, such as permanent. repairs of leaks in piping systems.
The team consensus was that the maintenance program at Rancho Seco is
adequately addressed and implementation is in place, but the program could be
strengthened, as discussed below. The team noted areas where you have been
proactive in establishing improvements in the maintenance program.
Your current maintenance self-assessment efforts appear both warranted and
productive in identifying additional needed program improvements. Continued
management emphasis is particularly needed to improve communications between,
and the involvement of, various organizational units when addressing
technical issues, and to improve attention to detail to avoid oversights and
omissions in technical work.
Programmatic Concerns Highlighted by this Inspection
As summarized below and discusseo in aetail in the attacnea report, the
inspection identified several findings associated with the systems inspected.
However, underlying each of the findings is one or more of the following
basic concerns:
1.
Inadequate attention to detail in engineering analyses, generation of
work instructions, control of documents, ano consideration of industry
experience and initiatives.
2.
Absence of involvement of some organizational units in the review and
performance of technical work, especially post-maintenance testing.
3.
Weakness in communications between some organizational units, in the
review and performance of technical work.
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your
activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as
set forth in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appenoix A.
Your
response to this notice is to be submitteo in accordance witn the provisions
of 10 CFR 2.201, as stated in the Notice of Violation.
We would also appreciate your written comments on the programmatic concerns
identified above.
Cunpletion of our review of your activities relative to the January 31, 1989
overspeed event is pending. Our further actions relative to the event, if
any, will be addressed in future correspondence.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _
-_-_
_
'.
.$
,
.6
I'
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
,
.
The responses directed by this letter and the attached Notice are not subject
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you.have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to
discuss them with you.-
Sin rely,
$$tfCfiff
. B. Martin
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A (Notice of Violation)
2.
Inspection Report No. 50-312/89-01
cc w/ enclosures:
J. Vinquist, SMUD
S. L. Crunk, SMUD
-State of California
1
1
_ . - .
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
'
V; .g ' _ ,.
,,
,
l
.5:
ca
y
_ MAR 2 71989
v
_
,
pp
bec w/ enclosures:
,
,
Project. Inspector!
'
L
Resident Inspector.
,
R. Nease. NRR-
G. Cook,1RV..
.
<
'B. Faulkenberry, R.V-
-
J.. Martin, RV
' docket file J
,
h
iJ.-Roe,NRR/DLPQ:
DRS/RI-
.'
DRS/RIIE
DRS/RIII
'
u
DRS/RIV
-
A.:Toth, RV.
c
- C..Ramsey, RV-
.W. Wagner, RV .
.C._Caldwell, RV
,
C. Hooker;.RV ,
<
R.:Correia NRR/LHFB
G. Kalman, NRR/PD5-
D., Baxter, LINEL/EG&G '
- bec w/o erclosure 2:
'J. Zollicoffer
'
=M.; Smith:
A
'
(
..RE ION V/ dot
5
.
D. F./ Kirsch
A '. -
hnson
p1
A'Richards
F ' Miller
A..;D.~Toth
S.4/89
3/
89
3/pt/89
'3
/89
V3/23/89p.~
.
3/a7/19
REQUEST COPY
REQUEST
Y
REQUEST COPY
.
EST/ COPY JEQ) JEST C0PY-
'I YES -/ NO
. .f((ES / :l NO oIYES
/ NO
YES / N0'
'YES / N0
- F A.-Chaff
-(z T. ,W ting
U
R
.
,
/,89 T ; , , .
.
<< 3/g
/89'a
t
<
.<
'
'
- -
REQUEST COPY:
.REQUESToCOPY-
<
'
fYES4 '/% . ' - YESi: 1/. ' NO
4
t
M
,
'
' 'i
.TO PDR
'
<
i.
/ NO
I-
t
.
N
j
!
'
,
>
I
l
,
3#
{
k
- --
._N__'^..l-.-
. - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
-