ML20198B830

Comments on Adequacy,Scope & Direction of 860418 Meeting W/ Util Re Plant Performance & Mgt Improvement Program Addressing Broad Range of Issues Affecting Restart & Safe & Reliable Operation in Response to 851226 Transient

ML20198B830
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	05/12/1986
From:	Miraglia F, Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Lowe D SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
References
TAC-60462, NUDOCS 8605220147
Download: ML20198B830 (29)

Text

. _ _

] ) I'1 {3 0 lo Docket No. 50-312 NAY 121986 DISTRimlTION

@cket File) BGrimes Taylor axC rox JPartlow Martin, RV L PDR RIngram ED0 R/F Mr. Dewey K. Lowe PBD#6 Rdg PM General Manager FMiraglia Gray File Sacramento Municipal Utility District 0 ELD EBrach 6201 S Street ACRS-10 B0rnstein P.O. Box 15830 EJordan venton Sacramento, California 95813 Stello Roe

Dear Mr. Lowe:

Rehm On April 18, 1986, representatives of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District _(SMUD) met with members of the NRC staff to discuss SMUD's proposed plant performance and management improvement program for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. This meeting was a follow-up to the meeting held between SMUD and senior NRC management on March 24-25, 1986 where SMUD was requested to develop a program to address a broad range of issues affecting the safe and reliable operation of the Rancho Seco plant and not just focused on_ responding to the December 26, 1985 transient. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the NRC staff views regarding the adequacy, scope and direction of your. improvement program.

The staff notes that you have taken a structured approach to program improvement which includes the establishment of independent review and oversight panels reporting directly to you. With regard to management improvement, the creation of six departments with defined functional responsibilities (operations, quality, engineering, training, licensing, and projects) should enhance SMUD's ability

.to. deal with the programmatic deficie,cies apparent over the past several years.

Wo~also note that SMUD has been able to attract experienced personnel for several of the management positions in the new organization. The staff expects

'that the beneficial impact of the new organization will become apparent as you progress in your plant performance improvement program. However, the staff wishes to emphasize _the importance of filling the position of the Assistant General Manager Nuclear by an individual with a known track record to direct the upgrading effort needed for the safe and reliable operation of the Rancho Seco plant. This individual, with six department heads reporting to him, will be a key factor in meeting acceptable recovery goals.

With regard to the plant performance improvement program, you have developed a program which appears to respond to a broader range of issues than just the problems and deficiencies related to the December 26, 1985 overcooling transient. This step is indicative of SMUD's efforts to look beyond the narrow focus of the transient. Of course it remains to be seen if your program translates into improved performance. Your near term performance goals are modest (greater than 60% plant availability, less than 10% forced outage rate and less than 3 reactor trips per year) but reflect the degree of improvement SMUD has to make.

8605220147 860512 PDR ADOCK 05000312 S PDR a

Mr. Dewey Lowe MAY 121986 The SMUD performance improvement program includes deterministic failure consequence analyses of a number of components and systems to determine which could (1) cause a reactor trip, (2) challenge a safety system or (3) impact the ability of the plant to stay within the desired " post-trip response

-window" (reactor coolant and steam outlet pressure and temperature).

Components and systems with identified deficiencies will be targeted for possible modifications to hardware and procedures and enhanced operator training and possible testing.

Additionally, we understand that the improvement program may include some other (as yet, unidentified) system testing. However, the staff's sense of your test program is that it is rather limitcd in scope. The staff has reservations about the adequacy of your test program and would urge that you assess the merits of conducting a broader scope test program. The ongoing program at Davis-Besse is an example of a broad scope test program. Members of my staff are available to discuss the detailed aspects of the Davis-Besse program, including the results obtained to date, to permit you to determine its applicability to your proposed test program at Rancho Seco. As you are aware from our meetings.of March 24-26, 1986, SMUD has the burden of demonstrating to NRC that Rancho Seco can be restarted and operated safely and reliably.

The staff corsiders the system testing to demonstrate safe and reliable operation under both normal and abnormal conditions to be an important element of your overall plant performance improvement program.

Regarding restart, at.the April 18 meeting SMUD staff was asked about the projected schedule of activities or milestones which are prerequisites to restart. The NRC staff was informed that the Rancho Seco startup report would be submitted for NRC review in early July. This report should clearly delineate your position as to which issues or actions are restart items (i.e.,

short term actions) and which can be completed after restart (i.e., long term items). The NRC staff is prepared to meet with SMUD staff for detailed technical discussion of the issues, if such meetings would be useful prior to the

bmittal of your restart report. In this regard your staff agreed at the April 18, 1986 meeting to send the NRC staff an outline of the scope and content of your restart report well before your formal submittal. Please advise us of the projected schedule for the report submittal if the schedule changes from the anticipated date of early July.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, G&J!nl@@.9 IPT Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations cc: See next page

• See previous white for concurrence. pg P -6 4 D-6 , D-6 g b B

~

E R:V Etb SMi , 'ak R Js Fly a 1ia JTay1or JMartin*

5/}/86 5/ /86 5/j/86 5/L /86 5/ /86 5/7/86 st la

, a Mr. Dewey Lowe The SMUD performance improvement program includes deterministic failure consequence analyses of a number of components and systems to determine which could (1) cause a reactor trip, (2) challenge a safety system or (3) impact the ability of the plant to stay within the desired " post-trip response window" (reactor coolant and steam outlet pressure and temperature).

Components and systems with identified deficiencies will be targeted for possible modifications to hardware and procedures and enhanced operator training and possible testing.

Additionally, we understand that the improvement program may include some other (as yet, unidentified) system testing. However, the staff's sense of your test program is that it is rather limited in scope. The staff has reservations about the adequacy of your test program and would urge that you assess the merits of conducting a broader scope test program. The ongoing program at Davis-Besse is an example of a broad scope test program. Members of my staff are available to discuss the detailed aspects of the Davis-Besse program, including the results obtained to date, to permit you to determine its applicability to your proposed test program at Rancho Seco. As you are aware from our meetings of March 24-26, 1986, SMUD has the burden of demonstrating to NRC that Rancho Seco can be restarted and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The staff considers the system testing to be an important element'of your overall plant performance inprovement program.

Regarding restart, at the April 18 meeting SMUD staff was asked about the projected schedule of activities or milestones which are prerequisites to restart. The NRC staff was informed that the Rancho Seco startup report wnuld

'be submitted for NRC review in early July. This report should clearly delineate your position as to which issues or actions are restart items (i.e.,

short term actions) and which can be completed after restart (i.e., long term items). The NRC staff is prepared to meet with SMUD staff for detailed technical ,

discussion of the issues, if such meetings would be useful prior to the submittal of your restart report. In this regard your. staff agreed at the April 18, 1986 meeting to send'the NRC staff an outline of the scope and content of your restart report well before your formal submittal. Please advise us of the projected schedule for the report submittal if the schedule changes from the anticipated date of early July.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

! cc: See next page g.

PBD-6 PBD-6 PBD-6 D:PWR-B IE R:V $'g SMiner;jak RWeller Jstolz FMiraglia JTaylor JMartin 5/ /86 5/ /86 5/ /86 5/ /86 5/ /86 5/ 7 /86

Mr. Dewey Lowe The SVVD performance improvement program includes deterministic failure consequence analyses of a number of components and systems to determine which could (1) cause a reactor trip, (2) challenge a safety system or (3) impact the ability of the plant to stay within the desired " post-trip response window" (reactor coolant and steam outlet pressure and temperature).

Components and systems with identified deficiencies will be targeted for possible modifications to hardware and procedures and enhanced operator training and possible testing. Additionally, tne improvement program may include some other (as yet, unidentified) system testing; however, the staff's sense of your test program is that it is rather limited in scope. The staff has reservations about the adequacy of your test program and would urge that you assess the nerits of the current ongoing program at Davis-Besse for its application of appropriate aspects of it at Rancho Seco. Members of my statf are available to discuss the detailed aspects of the Davis-Besse program, including the results obtained to date, to permit you to make a more informed judgement on your proposed test program. As you are aware from our meetings of March 24-26, 1986, SMUD has the burden of demonstrating to NRC management that Rancho Seco can be restarted and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and the staff considers the system testing to be an important element of your overall plant performance improvement program.

Regarding restart, SMUD staff was questioned at the April 18 meeting about the projected schedule of activities or milestones which are prerequisites to restart. The NRC staff was informed that the Rancho Seco startup report would be submitted for NRC review in early July. This report should clearly delineate which issues or actions are restart items (i.e., short term actions) and which can be completed after restart (i.e., long term items).

The NRC staff is prepared to meet with SMUD staff for detailed technical discussion of the issues if you think such meetings would be useful prior to the submittal of your restart report. In this regard your staff agreed at the April 18, 1986 meeting to send the NRC staff an outline of the scope and content of your restart report well before your formal submittal. In order that we may gear our resources for the forthcoming review of your restart report, please advise us of the projbcted schedule for the report submittal if the schedule changes from that anticipated (i.e., early July).

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Frank Miraglia, Director Division of PWR Licensing-B cc: See next page A9u PBD-6 PBD-6 PB D:PWR-B DD:NRR SMi k RWeller Jf >%

1 A FMiraglia DEisenhut 5/ 6 5/7 /86 5/p86 5/ /86 5/ /86

Mr. R. J. Rodriguez Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Sacramento Municipal Utility District Station cc:

Mr. David 5. Kaplan, Secretary Sacramento County and General Counsel Board of Supervisors Sacramento Municipal Utility 827 7th Street, Room 424 i District Sacramento, California 95814 '

6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 Ms. Helen Hubbard i Sacramento, California 95813 P. O. Box 63 Sunol, California 94586 Thomas Baxter, Esq.

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

Washington, D.C. 20036 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 Sacramento, California 95814