IR 05000312/1975003
| ML19319D836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1975 |
| From: | Book H, Fish R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D811 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-75-03, 50-312-75-3, NUDOCS 8003250824 | |
| Download: ML19319D836 (8) | |
Text
.
. -
-.
- -
-_
.-
..
f
.
a *.
,
,
.
-
e...
-
<-
-
.,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
U.- S. NUCLEAR sECULATORY COMMISSION
,
.
, *0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE!ENT
-
.
- .
.
.
,
'
REGION.V
'
-
.
'-
.'
,,
'
.
..
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.:lir,InspectionReportNo. 50-312/75-03
.
Licensee Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-319
'
~
6201 S Street - P, O. Box 15830 License No.DPR-54 Sacramento, California 95813 '
Priority.
-
Category R
Facility o n,,,. hg e.,.9 Location Clay Sta' tion, Californ"fa
.
Type of Facility PWR, B and W, 913 MWe (2772 MWt)
.
Type of Inspection o,,,, p,, o _ a,,,,,,,,,,. g o,,, $ g g
.
.
Dates of Inspection warr.h 94 97. lo7s Dates of Previous Inspection Fohroarv 9n. 94 97 1o74 M II!7.T
'
-
Principal Inspector
D* *
'
R. F. Fish
'
,
'
Accompanying Inspectors
-
Date
,
.
Date
.
.
.
'
Other Accompanying Personnel:
t
'////[7d
- Reviewed by
.
"***
<
H. E. Book
'
.
.
~
gan
-
.
.
,
i.
j 8.003250 g M
^
-
.
-
..
'
.
.
.
.
~
- .
I
-
,
w
-
e.
<m
-
,
.-e,+,
w
.
m--
,w-n, w~
-
.
.
=
_
_
.-
_
--
_.
,o
,
i
~m
- .
s
.
,,,
,
..
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
'
.
.
.
.
SUMMRY OF FINDINGS
'
'
-
.,
f Enforcement Action A.
The Chairman, Plant Review Connittee, did not prepare detailed evaluation reports for three unusual occurrences within the required one week of those occurrences.
'
(Paragraphs 6.b c and d of Details)
.
B.
The licensee did not submit reports of two occurrences to the Regional E-Ictor, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (Regulatory Operations
,
Cn rice) within the required ten days.
(Paragraphs 6.c and d of Details)
Enforcement Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Not applicable.
Unusual Occurrences The information and corrective actions described in the licensee's O
Unusual Occurrence Report Mos. 50-312-74-1, 2, 3 and 4 were confirmed
!
by examination of records-and interviews with personnel.
(Paragraphs 6. a, b, e and d of Details)
,
Other Significant Findings
.
-
A..The radiological environmental conitoring program for the last two quarters of 1974 did not identify any significant adverse environ-
.
mental effects resulting from the operation of the plant.
(Paragraph 2.a of Details)
-
8.
The nonradiological environmental monitoring program for the last two quarters of 1974 did not identify any significant adverse effects resulting from the operation of the plant.
(Paragraph 2.bofDetails)-
C.
The survey program showed there were no significant radiation level or removable contamination in uncontrolled areas.
(Paragraph 4of Details.)
.
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, a verbal summary of the findings
.
was presented to R. Rodriguez, J. McColligan, P. Oubre, L. Swchwieger, and other members of the licensee's staff. The two items of non-
'
compliance were identified. Also there was a discussion of +he four
>
l
.
.
-
_ _ _. - - -. -
.
.
..
-... -.
.
. _ -. -. - _ - - - -, - -
- -. _ _, ~.
..
-
-
-.
.
.. _.
.
...-.
.-.
-.
..
,.
,
-
.
- _ _.. _.L!
'
d
"
,
'
'
l
.
,
'
.
.
.
.
!
_
,
.
.
,
.
,
unusual occurrences and the associated noncompliance with the technical specifications. Regarding the confirmatory calibration of a process
-
gas monitor (see R0 Report tio. 50-312/74-02), the licensee. stated that the calibration should be completed by the end of May 1975. No
'
other significant items were discussed that required any commitment by the licensee.
'
.
.
t
e
.
.
l I
'
.
,
e
$
,,
t
.
O e
[
.
.
A I
'
.
,, _ - - - - -
-.. - - -
14-,
.
,.-, -. - _ _., _.. _
.m
-.,, -...,. - -.,. -
-g
_.,_,,,,_-,.-...-_--.wr
.- -,. _
7-___-.m.,,,.,vrw.y,ww-wwrw
.
--
n%
.
.L
.
- .
,.
-
.
'
.
.
.
-
.
.
,
REPORT DETAILS
'
~
.
1.
Persons Contacted
'
R. Colombo, Technical Assistant R. Miller, Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor D. Martin, Plant Health Physicist F. Kellie, Senior Chemical and Radiation Protection Assistant D. Gardiner, Senior Chemical and Radiation Protection Assistant
~
L. Bell, Senior Chemical and Radiation Protection Assistant G. Sprung, Instrument Technician
.
2.
Environmental Monitoring Programs A.
Radiological The program was modified at the start of the third quarter (July 1) of 1974 to comply with the expected Appendix B Technical Specifications (effective date August 16, 1974).
The results for samples collected and measurements made prior to the third quarter of 1974 showed the maximum values
[,T were one half of the notification levels contained in Section V
4.0 of Appendix B to the Technical Specifications. An examina-tion of the results for the third and fourth quarters of 1974 confirmed the values shown in the licensee's Annual Report, dated March 1975, that was submitted to the Commission. Ac-cording to the licensee, the direct radiation monitors are read at the plant and the results provided to Controls for Environmental Pollution, Inc. (CEP) for inclusion into the quarterly report.
CEP analyzes all of the other samples. The
.
licensee receives a data summary letter monthly and a draft of each quarter's report within 30 days of the a.7d of the quarter. A surveillance procedure for this program had been i
prepared and approved.
The licensee's program was found to j
be in agreement with Section 4.0 of Appendix B to the Technical Specifications.
.
8.
Nonradiological
This inspection included an examination of the licensee's program for evaluating the following environmental effects:
erosion, drift contaminants, liquid effluent contaminants and noise. The applicable requirements are contained in specifi-cations 3.1-3.4 of Appendix B to Operating License flo. DPR-54
,
Technical Specifications.
The licensee's records showed that a visual inspection of the' effluent water course had been made on November 15, 1974 and February 7,1975 and that the results v
.
i
~
!
.
- -, -.,
.
.--
.
_.
_..
.-
-
-
- -
.
-
.-
4,.
..
_
..
'
.
..
.
..
,
_
[
G
-
.
.
-2-
.
.
,
~
'
were " acceptable" (no excessive erosion). According to the
.
licensee,. vertical cuts and lateral washouts estimated to be near the limits would be measured with a transit and the results compared to photographs that were made prior to
operation and kept on file.
Three soil samples were collected on these same dates at locations equidistant from the cooling
. towers at a radius of about 0.25 mile. Three additional soil samples were taken at the required locations downstream. The six soil samples were analyzed for sulfate content by the i
licensee and all results showed less than 50 ppm. The licensee has made four noise measurements under various conditions (plant operating and not operating) at the perimeter of the security fence and at.a distance from this fence but still on the licensee's property. Measurements at the security fence varied
between 35 and 77 decibels (dB). The high value was detected
'
when the reactor was shutdown. The measurements at the outer perimeter varied between 41 and 52 dB. The licensee stated that additional noise measurements will be made in the future. To date there has been no fogging caused by thermal plume from the
-
,
cooling towers. According to the records, the licensee has examined the creek on a weekly frequency and found no pollutants, O
oil, or growths (specification 2.3.C and D of Appendix B to
the license Technical Specifications).
i
!
3.
Meteorological Program
.
u
'
The meteorological equipment presently being used by the licensee
was found to be as described in Section 2B.5 of Appendix 2 to the
'
i Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
Data is being collected at three heights (6, 33 and 200 feet). The minicomputer, printout, and
)
recorder associated with this equipment were located behind the i
operating panels in the control room. Averaged values for the data have been printed out automatically on an hourly frequency.
The data also has been recorded on tape which is sent monthly to
-
an outside contractor for evaluation. The licensee has approved procedures that govern the daily check'of the equipment for operability and the required calibration and maintenance. The licensee's records for the period August 1974 through February 1975 showed that the required daily checks and periodic calibrations
-
.
had been made.
4.
Radiolonical Surveys
-
,
'
l The licensee's survey program'for the period September 1 through
'
l December 31, 1974 was examined. The program consisted of direct
- radiation level readings and smears to detect removable contamination.
Some air samples were also taken. - The radiation and smear surveys
'
'%
.
l
^
t t
.
.-
-
.
-. -
.
-
- - - -
.
.
. -
_
..
--
L1
..
nw
.
-
..
..
.
.
.
._
.
.
v)
-
.
.
.
-3-
-
,
.
,
'
were made on a daily basis with areas in the reactor and auxiliary buildings included in each survey. The examination showed that no significant radiation levels or removable contamination existed in uncontrolle areas. Within controlled areas contamination levels up to 1.7 X 10 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm ) were dejected; however, most of the results were less than 1,000 dpm/100 cm. The licensee stated, and the survey results2 usually confirmed, that smearable contaminat; ion above 200 dom /100 cm was to be cleaned down to this level or less. Leaking equipment was the source of the contamination. Most of the radiation levels detected were less than 1 mR/hr. A few higher radiation levels, up to 55 mR/hr, was found to be usually in the range of 10'Qculate grborne activity were detected ar.ound pump and filters.
Par to 10-uC1/cc. Oc-casionally some bromine-82 and argon-41 were detected also.
5.
Respirator Protection Ecuioment Procedures In March 1975 a new set of procedures for the use, training of personnel, and maintenance of respiratory protection equipment received the required approvals. An examination of these proceduras Os showed they covered the following subjects:
description of. equipment use, training of using personnel, and maintenance.
Included in the training program are a video tape describing all phases of the program, a fitting of equipment to personnel, use of the equipment under simulated conditions (non-radioactive), and an opportunity
for raising questions. The licen'see stated that the training program under the new procedures had been initiated.
The licensee was found to have a respiratory protection program which included all the requirements contained in Sections 6.9.1D.3, 4, 5 of Appendix A to the Technical Specifications.
6.
Unusual Occurrences (Nonradiological)
A.
August 23, 1974
~
An examination of pertinent records and interviews with licensee personnel _ confirmed the information and proposed corrective action described in the licenr4 ' Pausual Occurrence Report No.
50-312-74-1, dated September 3, 1974. The records showed that the concentrations of chlorine in excess of the limit (0.2 mg/ liter, technical specification 2.2 of Appendix B to Technical Specifications) were detected on August 23, 26, 27 and 28. According to the records, when the high chlorine was detected, laboratory personnel notified the control room and requested an increase in the flow of dilution water to reduce the concentration to the acceptable limit. The Chairman of the Plant Review Committee (PRC) prepared the required evaluation
.
s
-
-
'
!
l
._
..
-
Kn
- .
... -.
.. m l
'
.
j
-
.
-
.
..
\\
-
-
.
'
-4-
-
-
'
.
,
.
report and submitted it to the Plant Superintendent and the
,
Chairman of the Management Safety Review Committee (MSRC) on August 28, 1974. This inspection confirmed that the polyvinyl chloride valves had been installed.
B.
September 11,1974 An examination of pertinent records and i.nterviews with licensee personnel confirmed the information and corrective action described in the licensee's Unusual Occurrence Report flo. 50-312 74-2, dated September 21, 1974. The high chlorine concentration (limit is 0.2 mg/ liter) was detected in a sample collected at 10:50 a.m.
A second sample, collected at 2:40 p.m., showed a chlorine concentration of 0.04 mg/ liter. Using the formula contained in Provision C.3 of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order ?!o.74-174, gave a daily discharge rate for these two sample results of 0.096 mg/ liter. The records showed that the laboratory personnel notified the control room of the high chlorine result and requested an increase in the flow of dilution water to reduce the concentration to the accept-O able limit. The Chairman, PRC, prepared the required evaluation report and submitted it to the Plant Superintendent and the Chairman, MSRC, on September 21, 1974.
C.
November 5, 1974 An examination of pertinent records and interviews with licensee personnel confirmed the information and corrective action described in the licensee's Unusual Occurrence Report No. 50-312-74-3, dated November 22, 1974.
In addition to the sample described in the report, two additional samples were obtained at 2:00 p.m. on tiovember 4 and at 3:00 p.m. on November 5.
The laboratory results for these two additional samples showed approximately 630 and 310 ppm respectively.
Using the formula referenced in the previous paragraph, the licensee calculated the daily discharge rate of 870 mg/ liter
'
(limit is 830 mg/ liter, technical specification 2.3.A of Appendix B to Technical Specifications). The Chairman, PRC, prepared the required evaluation report and submitted it to the Plant Superintendent ud the Chairman, MSRC, on !!ovember 22, 1974, 17 days after the occwrence.
Specification 5.4.3 of Appendix B to the Technical Specifications requires that this evaluation report.be completed within one week of the occurence. The O
-
V
.
e
--
,
v
~
.
.__._
_ _. _
_
_
_
_
_..
_
. _. _
'
-
.
..
.
w
.
y a,
-
-
'
-
.
.
. -...
.
.
.
.
.
.
N
.
.
-5-
-
-
.
.
licensee's report of this occurrence was sent to the Director'of the Regional Office, USAEC, on November 22,17 days after the occurrence. Specification 5.6.2.C of Appendix B to the Technical Specifications requires that the report to the Regional
Office be submitted within 10 days. The corrective action has not yet been completed. Also the licensee is making plans to
provide a readout capability in the control room for those
,
making plans to provide a readout capability in the control
room for those detectors (i.e., dissolved solids and pH in
'
the effluent water) which presently readout at the retention basins only.
.
D.
November 8,1974 An examination of the pertinent records and interviews with licensee personnel confirmed the information and corrective action described in the licensee's Unusual Occurrence Report No.
50-312-74-4, dated November 26, 1974.
No other chlorine
'
determinations on effluent samples were made during the day.
The Chairman, PRC, prepared the required evaluation report and submitted it to the Plant Superintendent and the Chairman, MSRC, on November 26, 18 days after the occurrence. The
.
report of the occurrence.was sent to the Regional Director,
!
USAEC, on November 26 also,18 days after the occurrence.
Both of these time limits exceeded the requirements in Appendix B of the Technical Specifications -- see previous
-
paragraph for description of requirements. The licensee stated that in order to provide better mixing in the discharge structure.
the height of the baffles was increased.
-
7.
Process and Radiation Monitors
.
.
The testing results for the process and area monitoring systems were examined. The records showed that the required testing had been performed and the results met the. acceptance criteria. The testing was completed on September 26,1974 and required reviews
,
j had been made.
i
.
-
.
,
$
-
I
.
-
j
-
.
!
-
.
.
.
. -
.
-.
-.
.. - - - -
.
..
.
_ _ -... _. -
-