IR 05000206/1990012
| ML20034A365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1990 |
| From: | Louis Carson, Cicotte G, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A355 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-90-12, 50-361-90-12, 50-362-90-12, NUDOCS 9004230125 | |
| Download: ML20034A365 (6) | |
Text
.
' '
'
,
'
'
j,=\\
q
,
,
,'
U.Si NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,_
REGION V
,
-
Report Nos.
50-206/90-12, 50-361/90-12, and 50-362/90-12 License Nos.
DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15 Licensee:
Southern California Edison. Company-23 Parker Street Irvine, California 92718 Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station-Inspection at:
San Clemente, California
/
Inspection Conducted:
March 12-16,1990M ff
-=>
Inspected by:
y'd-M
'5-st 4 o G. R. Cicotte, Radiation Specialist Date Signed-bl /fff(
.1f//fll
'
L. C Carson, Radiati Specialist Date Signed
Approved by:
M.
'
s p #)
F. A. Wenslawski, Chief
..
.
Dhte 5igned r
Facilities Radiological Protection Section
'
Summary:
Inspection during the period of March 12-16, 1990 (Report Nos. 50-206/90-12, 50-361/90-12, and 50-362/90-12)
'
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by two regionally based inspectors of; follow-up on items of noncompliance,. transportation, radioactive waste generator requirements of 10 CFR 20 and 61, follow-up on open items, and-tours of the facility.. Inspection procedures 30703, 92702,:
86721, 84850 and'92701 were addressed.
Results:
No violations were identified in the four areas addressed.
The licensee's programsDappeared. fully capable of meeting its safety objectives.
!
,
- 9
?
C w>
,
G M 050
_
%
,
'.
4
,
,
a*
DETAILS
c,
,
,
,,
.
$
I y l PersonsrContacted ~{1
q.,,,
-
w
.
m
- D. B' evig,+ 0risite NuclearJLicensingL(ONL) Supervisor r
f fC R.TBaker, Compliance Engineer-t r*(',
'T." Cooper,: Health' Physics (HP)SEnaineer J.' Fee,1 Assistant OperationalsHP Ranageru
'I r
J G. Gibson, ONL Engineer. " -
,
4'
- D. Herbst, Site. Quality Assurance:(QA) Manager :
'
J. Jamerson,' QA! Supervisor
-
- S. Jo~nes, QA. Engineer
-' ' '
{*PcKnapp,HPManagerc
.
.
,
,'
'*M;. Lewis, Radioactive Material Control-(RMC) Supervisor.
,
'J. Madigan, Unit'2/3'HP Supervisor J. Reilly, Station Technical Manager
-
- !
'
J. Scott,cUnit 1 HP' Supervisor, P. Shaffer, Compliance Supervisor
.
J. Shipwash, Supervisor, Technical Support -
- M. Speer, ONL Engineer
- R. Warnock, Assistant HP Manager
.
NRC C. Caldwell SeniorResidentLInspector A. Hon,ResIdentInspector C. Townsend,. Resident Inspector
- Denotes those personnel present at the exit. interview.heldJon March 16, 1990.
,
In addition, the inspectors met and held discussions;with other members of the-licensee's staff.
2.
Follow-up on Items of Noncompliance and Deviations (92702)-
1 l
50-361/89-28-01,50-362/89-28-01(Closed)i This matter.. refers to failure.
'
to verify the most.recent revision of a procedure.for maintenance of respiratory protective equipment (see Ins 50-206/89-28 and. '
90-05, 50-361/89-28 and 90-05, and 50-362/pection Reports 89-28'and 90-05).; The' licensee
.
had reemphasized the requirement via a memorandum from the Station. Manager g
and some: procedure revisions as committed in the response to the notice i
of' violation.
DiscussionswIthseveralpersonnelrevealed.thattheytwere-.
l I
aware of how to verify procedures.
This matter:is considered closed..
50-206/89-28-01,50-361/89-28-02,50-362/89-28-02-(Closed):,This. matter refers to inadequate procedures for maintenance of respiratory protective a
equipment (see Inspection Reports 50-206/89-28 and'90-05, 50-361/89-28'
and 90-05, and 50-362/89-28 and 90-05).
The licensee had improved procedure. revision methodology and revised the. respiratory protectkon program procedures as committed in the response to the notice of
,
violation! ~ The inspector verified that no respirator models were in use
,
without'having available-the. appropriate level of instruction to
.
H adequately maintain the respirators.
Respirator maintenance appeared to l
'
have improved significantly.
This matter.is considered closed.
i yy (
<
$
l
+
m
.
...
'
e
..
50'-361/89-28-02, 50-361/89-28-03, 50-362/89-28-03 (Closed):
This matter
.
,
rotective equipment (see.
refers to inadequate maintenance of respiratory p/89-28 and 90-05, and.
I Inspection Reports 50-206/89-28 and 90-05, 50-361
.
'
50-362/89-28 and 90-05).
The inspector verified that personnel had been.
,
retrained in the maintenance of respiratory protective ecuipment.
The i
l licensee had instituted a respirator testing program anc had* removed
'
'L certainrespiratormodelsfromserviceforwhichtraIninghad'notbeen
'
-
>
>
conducted.
The inspector observed no examples of inadequately maintained
- i respirators.
With the exce) tion of.some internal goals set >by the-committedcorrectiveactlns.sappearedtocompletethelicensee's licensee for the program t11 o
o This matter is considered closed.;
I
'
'
L 3.
Transportation (86721)
'
,
_
-
w
- .
The inspectors reviewed approximately 70 radioactive materialp solid
"
waste, and dewatered resin shipment records.
The licensee maintains'a'
.
'
copy of all waste shipment classification, characterization; survey-manifest,receiptandacknowledgement,andotherdocuments,-alongwith-
,
the procedure checklists for transport preparation.. The: records were r
reviewed for both this section and for Section 4, below.
,
A.
Audits and Appraisals i
The inspectors reviewed three audits, six su'rveillance reports I
(QASR), and six monitoring reports (QAMR), of radioactive-solid waste activities:
SCES-022-89, " Radioactive Waste Transportation and Disposal,"
dated August 31, 1989 SCES-035-89, " Major Changes to the Radioactive Waste Treatment-Systems," dated August 31, 1989 TMA-1-88, an audit of the licensee's vendor for waste classification, dated April 8, 1988 QASRs S05-088-89, -109089, -118-89, -124-89, -197-89, -014-90-QAMR-034-89,-041-89,-045-89,-112-89,-176-89,-008-90-All elements of the licensee's radioactive material transportation
QA activities appeared consistent with 10 CFR 71, "Subpart H-Quality Assurance." The licensee's audits identified several-deficiencies, none of which were programmatic-in nature.
The licensee uses Problem Review Reports (PRR) to document findings.
The inspectors noted that all responses to'PRRs were technically adequate.
Some PRR responses were late, relative to the stated -
'
response due dates, and-some corrective actions were not completed by the effective commitment dates from the responsible: organization.
In those instances, the auditors followed up'in accordance with licensee procedure, to obtain responses and corrective action commitments.
No examples were observed of complete failure to respond to audit findings.
'
.
,
' 2.( ' t
~
GA~
]
,
'
'
A
'
u
3
.
,
,
,
+
,,
.
,
,
'
'
a
[
B.*
Procedures-
- -j
,
i The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures regarding;.. '
packagin, shipment preparation, maintenance of packaging,' marking
a
.
and both survey and disposal site criteria.
In-all and labe ing,iewed, the appropriate procedures had been used to'
'
"
shipments-rev l-l document actions necessary to properly transport the mater.ial.
The procedures adequately addressed recent changes and information.
I notices, and-had been revised in a timely manner.
The licensee l
stated that it plans to consolidate some ?rocedures and simplify the l
documentation process to further assure t1at procedural requirements l
are not missed.
!
C.
Package Procurement / Reuse-
'
[
!
For all-shi)ments reviewed, the licensee had records available to show that tie aackages had been manufactured and maintained in-accordance wit 1 the license or certificate of compliance (CofC),
including maintenance records, drawings referenced in the CofC, and the appropriate approvals for use, including recent' renewal of some
.
of the licensee's Type B packages.
D.
Implementation l
Portions of the first radioactive material-shipment for 1990 were observed.
The package was in compliance with all requirements at.
,
(
the time of the shipment.
Review of shipment records showed that the licensee notified the a disposal site in all cases.ppropriate state agencies and the l
Also, appropriate instructions were given to the driver regarding carrier res)onsibilities for I
notification.
The licensee stated that t)ere had been an instance in which there was a dispute between-burial site state regulators.
and the licensee regarding placarding and-labeling.
At present, all-l shipments are photographed to show a record of where' the marHngs
,
are at the time of shipment.
The inspectors noted that in aii but one instance, the photographs were present in the shiament record.
All the photographs revealed proper placarding and laaeling.
In a few instances, the disposal. site notified.the licensee of omissions
,
or errors in their manifests, such as inclusion of curie content of
'
small quantities of source or special nuclear material, without the
'
,
l'
mass being listed.
The inspectors observed several similar
^
omissions or errors, none of_which were of significant concern.
The, licensee's audit, noted in paragraph 3.A above, had identified the problem and assigned corrective action.
E.
Incidents The licensee stated that many extra shipments of radioa tive waste
'~ '
had been performed in 1989 due to an expected increase ~in dis)osal costs for 1990.
At the time of the inspection, one shipment lad-been made in 1990, during the inspection.
Of the approximately 90-waste shipments made in 1989, no examples of transportation
,
incidents were observed to have occurred.
The licensee. informed-the inspectors that in one instance, the bracing of some waste drums in-
,
'
i
-
,
,
i
,
_
..
.
4-
.
.
,
..
~
a closed transport vehicle-had become loose, but no spillage or.
.
significant load shift was involved.-
,
The licensee's programs appeared fully capable of. meeting its' safety-
-
objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Waste Generator Requirements of 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 61 (84850)'
_
A.
Management Controls Responsibilities for radioactive waste processing for disposal were well defined-in the licensee's 50123-VII-8.xx' series procedures.
Radi_oactive material control (RMC) department personnel with whom the matter was1 discussed were aware of their responsibilities.and; the appropriate procedural recuirements for processing waste for disposal.
No concerns were icentified.
e
.
B.
QualfthControl;
'
'
,
,
- ",Seeparapaph3.A'foradiscussionofauditsinthisarea.
The requirements of 10 CFR 61.55 and 61.56 were reviewed as part of~
audit SCES-022-89.
No significant findings resulted from that'
.
audit.-
-
'
<
,
~
-C.
Waste Manifests
.
.
p All the information* required by 10 CFR 20.311(b) and (c) was
'
/
contained in all manifests reviewed.
In a few instances, the
-
c disposal site required;information was not' included, but the
'
significance of the omissions was low.
D.
Waste Classification, Form and Characterization
^
The licensee's waste classification and characterization. procedures are consistent with 10 CFR 20.311(d)(1) and the Branch Technical Position on waste classification criteria, to provide reasonable assurance that the representation of waste class is correct.' No examples of improperly classified waste were observed.
'
E.
Waste Shipment Labeling All shipments reviewed were properly labeled as demonstrated by the photographs described in paragraph 3.D, above.
.
F.
Tracking of Waste Shipments The licensee's methods of-assuring that waste manifests accompany-shipments were effective for all shipments reviewed.
All shipments-reviewed included acknowledgement of receipt, and the. licensee's.
procedure requires follow-up by the RMC department if the receipt acknowledgement is not received by the licensee in a timely manner.
The licensee's' procedures also require that the appropriate report be made to NRC should an investigation be necessary, o
s
e
- e
~
.5
.
'-
-
'
[j
], l
-
Gl Disposal Site License Conditions
..
The' licensee had on file the appropriate disposal site license, and had incorporated license conditions in the RMC procedures.for minor mani Exce
,'
'
~'
..to meet disposal site license conditions.
+
.
.
'
The licensee's programs appeared fully capable of meeting its' safety (
objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
'
,
,
'
5.
Tours of-the Facility
[
Tours of the Auxiliary and Radwaste Buildings for all three units, were '
conducted.-
Independent radiation surveys were performed with NRC ion:
-
-
,
chamber survey instrument model #RO-2, serial #022906, due for.
..
,
calibration on April 16, 1990.
,/^
-
.
.
.
Radiological aostings, barricades', gates, and locks.for high radiationg.
TechnIcalSpecification6.12,"HighRadiationAreas.groceduresand-A flashing light areas were'oaserved to be consistent.with licensee which had been placed at.an opened shield plug to a high-radiation area, a'nd which appeared to be in-the process of failing, was brought to the attention of. the licensee.
The problem was promptly corrected.
l Housekeeping appeared to have remained at the same high level'of quality as observed in previous inspections.
Overall, the licensee's program appeared fully capable of meeting its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.-
6.
Follow-up (92701)
50-206/85-29-01(Closed):
This refers to the licensee's efforts to:
dispose of waste with a concentration greater than, Class C.~
The inspector verified that the licensee had obtained the necessary approvals -
from NRC, the disposal facility, and the appropriate state agency.
The licensee stated that they plan to ship the. material in the very near future.
This matter is considered closed.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with those individuals, denoted in paragraph 1, at the-conclusion of the inspection on March 16, 1990.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized, j
1
,
!
l 1