IR 05000312/1978010
| ML19309A200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1978 |
| From: | Book H, Thomas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A197 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-78-10, NUDOCS 8003260906 | |
| Download: ML19309A200 (5) | |
Text
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
L.,
-
-
.
.
-
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENMRCEMENT
- REGION V
,
Report No. 50-312/78-10
-
,
Docket No. 50-312 License No. DPR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830
-
.
Sacramento, California 93813 Facility Name:
Rancho Seco Inspection at:
Clay Station, California Inspection conducted:
June 1,9-21,1978 n
!*
Inspectors:
/*#
6 /,
R. D. Thomas, Radiation Specialist
[ [D6te Signed Date Signed
.
see Signed g
)
hw
,,
/ //<O Approved By.
'
Date Signed H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Fa:ility and Materials Safety Branch
Inspection on June 19-21,1978 (Report No. 50-312/78-10)
Areas Inspected: Confirmatory me1surements followup; action on previous inspection findings; IE Circular 78-03, IE Bulletins 78-07 and 78-08 followup; followup on HQs requests regarding information on Neutron Monitoring Practices and Radiation Monitor Failures; followup on the State Environmental Surveillance Report for 1977; and independent l
inspection effort in the area of Packaging and Shipment of Radioactive Materials. The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by one
'
!
inspector.
-
,
i l
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
,
.
,
\\
RV Form 219 (2)
8 0 03 260 fg
.-
-
--
. -
-
-
_ _ _ _
-
_ _ _ - _ _ _
_
__
____ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
-
.
.,
(m.
V
-
.
,
DETAILS ~
'
-
.
1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Colombo. Technical Assistant
- R. Miller, Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor S. Coats, Plant Health Physicist J. Mau, Training Supervisor
.-
J. King, Reactor Shift Supervisor T. Morrill, Senior Chemical and Radiation Assistant W. Wilson, Senior Chemical and Radiation Assistant
'
F. Kellie, Nuclear Chemist D. Cass, Maintenance Supervisor A. Locy, Nuclear Electrical Foreman
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
'
2.
Confirmatory Measurements Followup During this inspection, the analytical data results of the con-firmatory measurements samples collected during a previous inspection O
were reviewed.
(See Paragraph 8, IE Inspection Report No. 50-312/78-04). A comparison between the D0E-HSL analytical results and those of the licensee will be made by the Computer Data Analysis System (CDAS).
Final results of the comparison will be reported in a subsequent inspection report.
3.
Action'on Previous Inspection Findings The corrective actions taken by the licensee in response to a Region V enforcement letter dated May 17, 1978 were examined. All posting infractions had been corrected in compliance with 10 CFR 20.203. Training related to the use and operation of the emergency escape hatch within the containment area had been given during the period of May 19,1978 - June 8,1978. Approximately 100 individuals received the training by the Training Supervisor. The training consisted of a lecture, slide presentation, and a two-minute video taped instruction. Based upon the observations by the inspector, discussions with plant personnel, and the training sessions given by the licensee, this matter is considered closed.
{
4.
IE Circular and Bulletins Followup
.The contents of IE Circular 78-03, and Bulletins 78-07 and 78-08 l
were reviewed and discussed with the licensee. The licensee is currently reviewing the IE Bulletins for applicability and will respond to the NRC within the 60-day limitation.
v
.
l.
-
.
..
.
.
.
L.
.
-
.
p-2-
)
.
5.
NRC Headquarters Requests Followup As per the request from NRC Headquarters to review the neutron monitoring practices and radiation monitor failures at all power reactor facilities in the region, a review was made during this inspection of the two items of interest.
'
!
A.
Neutron Monitoring Practices
'
The licensee utilizes three methods of persoanel monitoring for neutron exposures; (1) the NTA film badge, (2) the thermal neutron pocket dosimeter and (3) the calculated method of determining neutron dosages based upon a " Rem-ball" instrument
reading and stay times in the area of exposure as proposed in Regulatory Guide 8.14, Revision 1.
The licensee stated that total neutron exposures of 30 mrems
.
per quarter or less are recorded as zero as per Section C.1.e.
'
!
Regulatory Guide 8.14 Revision 1.
An examination of the
'
neutron e/posures for 1977 indicated 0 man-rems of exposure.
l The licensee also performs periodic neutron urveys inside the containment in order to plot neutron radiatior, measurements at
,
the various building levels where maintenance operations may be required during a full power run. The only maintenance
,
operation ever conducted at full reactor power (January 1978)
j indicated neutron exposures ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 mrems
'
.
using the " Rem-ball" calculation and stay time method.
!
!
B.
Radiation Monitor Failures Due to the failure of two GM detector process monitors at i
another NRC licensed nuclear power plant, an in-depth review was held with the licensee regarding the failure history of
'
any process radiation monitors at Rancho Seco. An examination of the records indicated no malfunctioning due to saturation
.
i from high radiation levels. All process monitors are of the
.
i gamma on beta scintillation counter type and would not have the same response as that of a GM detector type device at high
.
radiation levels.
!
6.
Followup of California department of Health, Environmental Surveillance Report for 1977 i
Pursuant to an NRC contract with the California Department of Health, Radiologic Health Section, regarding the environmental
' surveillance for measuring concentrations of radioactivity and
. radiation levels 11n the environment of Commission licensed activi-ties located within the state, the annual report for 1977 was l
- .
-
.-.
,. - -
. _ _, _., _ - -,.-,.-., _ - - -.__,
...-...,__ -, _
--
__
__
_
_
_
_ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _
_ -_ __
.
G.
.
.
'
.-
i
.
reviewed and discussed with the licensee. Areas were examined where the tabulated data indicated a significant variation between the State independent analyses and those of the licensee. The results of the examination indicated that the variations were attributable to known causes such as, different analytical cali-bration sources, the sensitivity of analytical methods or techniques to detect trace elements in the samples, and the fallout patterns from the Chinese weapons testing late in 1976. The licensee stated that most of the problem areas had been resolved with compatible
calibration sources and refined analytical techniques. The licensee
'
'
also stated that the results of the data comparison would be discussed at the next QA audit with their contractor who performs the ana-
~
lytical measurements on the environmental samples.
'
In summary, the State coments on the environmental impact attrib-
,
utable to the operations of the licensee were that the impact was
determined to' be insignificant in terms of a realistic public health concern. Releases were found to be below the legal limits, generally by at least two orders of magnitude and therefore com-
,
parable to the limits prescribed by ALARA considerations.
'
'
l No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Followup on the Packaging and Shipment of Radioactive Materials The documentation and records related to eight shipments of solid radioactive waste were reviewed. The licensee has been using 00T Regulations, Section 173.392(b) for low specific activity materials which exempts LSA materials from packaging, marking, or labelling as required by 173.392(a), when shipped by exclusive use vehicle.
>
An examinatior. of the records indicated that the licensee was misinterpreting the definition by which LSA materials are established.
LSA materials assumes that the radioactive materials are evenly
'
distributed throughout the bulk of the shipping container to the l
limitation of 0.3 mci /gm for radioactive material.
The weight of added concrete shielding or overpacks cannot be used in the cal-
-
culation to determine LSA material shipments.
Based upon the discussion with the licensee regarding proper packaging requirements, the licensee agreed to the following on all future shipments of solid waste materials:
A.
A determination will be made to establish LSA quantities based upon the weight of the radioactive material within the container.
No credit will be taken for additional shielding materials.
If the shipment does not meet LSA limitations, the materials
.
will be packaged as Type A or B quantities.
O
-
.
l l
..
.
..
... _..
_
_
....
, _
_
_ _ _..,, _, _,
.
L.
'
,
..
.
.
.s
.
-4-
,
'
B.
All drums and/or overpacks containing Type A or B quantities will be labelled in accordance with 00T regulations.
C.
A determination will be made to identify materials as Transport Group III or IV within the containers in order to fulfill the requirement for Type A or B packaging.
During the discussion, the inspector also pointed out to the licensee that 10 CFR 71 requires LSA materials greater than Type A quantities to be packaged in containers authorized by the general license of 10 CFR 71.12.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Ircerview
'
In addition to those individuals denoted in Paragraph 1, the following individuals were in attendance:
P. Oubre Plant Super-intendent; R. Rodriguez, Manager of Nuclear Operations. The
.
inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
A discussion was held relative to the interface of 10 CFR 71 and DOT regulations concerning the packaging, labelling, and shipment of radioactive materials. The shipping requirements for low s;:ecific activity (LSA) materials and Type A and B quantities were reviewed.
The licensee's three statement agreement to fulfill shipping re-
)
quirements of DOT and NRC were reviewed.
(See Paragraph No. 7).
The licensee was informed that the written reply dated June 7,1978 to NRC enforcement letter dated May 17, 1978 was inadequate since it did not address what management control' corrective actions were being taken to prohibit repetitive items of noncompliance. The licensee stated that this matter would be reviewed and their answer would be forthcoming which would stipulate what corrective actions were being taken to improve management controls.
.
.
.
.
,