IR 05000312/1979015
| ML19256E192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1979 |
| From: | Book H, Thomas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E185 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-79-15, NUDOCS 7910300017 | |
| Download: ML19256E192 (10) | |
Text
.
.
-
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-312/79-15 Docket No.
50-312 License No.
DPR-54 Safeguards croup Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Rox 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name:
Rancho Seco Inspection at:
Clay Station, California Inspection conducted.:
July 23 - 26, 1979
/fstA I
/77 Inspectors:
/1 u -7 f)R. D.
Ihordas, Radiation Specialist date Signed Date Signed Date Signed
'
g M
b Approved By:
'
-
H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Facility and Materials Date Signed Safety Branch Sun mary :
Inspection on July 23-26,1979 (Report flo. 50-312/79-15)
Areas Inspected:
Environmental Protection including management controls, quality control program, environmental monitoring, tour of sampling sites, QA Audits, and the Annual Report; Confirmatory measurement samples including liquid; gaseous, charcoal and particulate samples; Posting of radiation areas; IE Circular No. 79-09; Followup on the emergency training for firemen and radiological teams: Followup on the contaminated truck report; Followup on Unusual Event Report No. 79-1 regarding pH level being exceeded; Independent inspection effort associated with an allegation. The inspection involved 36 inspector hours onsite by one inspector.
Resul ts: Of the fourteen areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in thirteen areas; one apparent item of noncompliance (Infraction - Improper Personnel Monitoring, paragraph 10.) was identified in one area.
M/
$43 RV Forrn 719 (7)
'
7 9103 00 O / f
'
_
..,.,..,,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted SMUD
- R. Colombo, Technical Assistant
- R. fliller, Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor T. Morrill, Senior Chemical and Radiation Assistant W. Wilson, Senior Chemical and Radiation Assistant B. Rogers, Senior Chemical and Radiation Assistant F. Kellie, Plant Chemist A. Bulf, Clerk T. Tucker, Shift Supervisor D. Gouker, Shift Supervisor
- R. Low, I and C Electronics Engineer G. Bjork, flaintenance Helper G. Hammond, Special Agent D. Ross, Watchcommander - Training R. Orr, Watchcommander
- J. Sullivan, Q.A. Engineer
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview.
2.
Environmental Protection a.
Management Controls Effective flay 26, 1978, the licensee adopted AP-306,Section VIII, entitled " Quality Control - Laboratory Operations." This document establishes the quality control program for the analytical laboratory. This procedure delineates the managerial responsi-bilities, qualifications, and training of the operational staff.
Under the direction of the Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor, a Senior Chem-Rad Assistant has been assigned to supervise the Chemistry QC program and the inspection of health physics controls.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Quality Control Program It was observed by the inspector that the quality control program outlined in AP-306,Section VIII, incorporates all analytical test procedures and establishes the acceptance c. iteria and instructions to assure that deficiencies and deviations in the program are recognized and identified.
[
344
-2-
,
The licensee has also initiated a quality control audit program which will periodically review the analytical laboratory tests and instrumentation. !!onthly overchecks are being made by running split or spiked samples and checking the results for agreement. The monthly overcheck summaries are audited periodically by the Plant Nuclear Chemist to resolve any deficiencies or deviations in the program. An examina?. ion of the monthly overcheck summaries was conducted for the period of June 1978 to date. All audits and reviews appeared to be complete and only minor discrepancies were noted.
The quality control / quality assurance program utilized by Controls for Env1mmental Pollution, Inc. (CEP), which performs the radiological analyses of the SMUD environmental samples, was not examined during this inspection. The licensee's oversight of CEP's QA/QC progran will be examined in a subsequent inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, c.
Environmental Monitoring An examination was made of the records pertinent to the radio-logical environmental monitoring program for the period of January 1979 to date. The areas examined were the same as those listed in Table 4-1, of Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
All sampling was performed in a timely manner, and all data were less than the reporting requirements specified in Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
An examination was made of the records pertinent to the non-radiological environmental surveillance program for the period of January 1979 to date. The areas examined were erosion, drift contaminants, liquid eff~uent contaminants, noise, fogging, and reservoir drawdown.
All surveillance procedures and sampling were performed in a timely manner and all results and data were acceptable in accordance with Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
An examination was made of the records pertinent to the non-radiological effluent releases for the period of January 1979 to date. The areas examined were maximum discharge temperatures, chlorine releases, dissolved solids, pH levels, dissolved oxygen, and boron and zinc in the effluent water. All sampling was performed in a timely manner and all results were within Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications limitations, except the pH level during a retention basin discharge exceeded the maximum level of 8.5 (see paragraph 9 for details).
The data for the TLD badges assigned to the perimeter fence and air monitoring station locations were not examined during this iaspection.
No items af noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(See paragraph 9 concerning pH exceeding T.S. limit.)
,,,.
'//
j4b
...,-...
-3-d.
Tour of Environmental Sampling Sites The inspector accompanied a member of the SMUD health physics staff during the collection of effluent water samples, milk samples from four dairies, and the inspection of three air monitoring stations.
All sampling techniques observed appeared to be acceptable. All air sampling stations examined were in operation.
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e.
Audits (1) The Quality Assurance audits pertaining to the environmental monitoring program were examined. Audit 0-193, dated 7/11/78, which covered the period of January 1978 to June 1978 indicated no items out of specification. Audit 0-248, dated 6/26/79, which covered the period of July 1978 to June 1979, made note of the contaminated algae sample and the results of followup samplings. Also noted were detectable Sr-90 and I-131 activity levels in several milk sanples.
The activity levels in the milk samples were less than the reporting values specified in Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
(2) The audit performed by the California Regional Water Control Board, Central Valley Region, on December 21, 1978, was examined.
No comments were noted pertaining to liquid effluents from Rancho Seco.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
f.
Annual Report A review of the Environnental Protection Section of the licensee's annual report dated March 6,1979, was made a part of this inspection. The report appeared to be complete.
The licensee noted in the report that twelve of the weekly milk samples indicated detectable levels of Sr-90 and I-131. The Sr-90 ievels appeared to be increasing in the last two quarters of 1978. The levels for Sr-90 and I-131 were less than the reporting limits specified in Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
Examination vf the milk sample data for the first part of 1979 did not show a significant trend.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
M/
346
..
-4-3.
Confirmatory lleasurement Samples During this inspection, a liquid sample was obtained from the primary coolant system. The sample was a 1 to 1000 dilution with distilled water.
The liquid sample was split according to the sampling procedure discussed during a meeting between Si!UD and DOE-Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory.
(See Inspection Report No. 50-312/79-13.)
A gas sample was obtained from the reactor building. The gas sample will be counted by SMUD, sent to DOE-RESL for analysis, and then returned to SMUD for a followup analysis. A charcoal cartridge and a particulate filter were also obtained from the reactor building.
The data obtained from these samples will be used to verify the results of the licensee's analytical measurements program.
Results will be reported in a subsequent inspection report.
(79-15-01)
4.
Posting of Radiation Areas As a result of a previous inspection (see paragraph 5, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-312/79-06), a followup inspection was made on July 25, 1979, of the radiation area posting requirement on the -20 foot level of the Auxiliary Building.
It was observed by the inspector that the -20 foot level of the Auxiliary Building has been posted in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203.
Due to the action taken by the licensee, this matter is considered closed.
At the time of the inspection, an independent radiation survey was conducced by the inspector. Radiation levels ranged from 1 to 20 milliroentgens per hour in posted areas, to 1 to 2 milliroentgens per hour in general areas. The instrument used was XETEX 303A NRC No. 005780, due for calibration on 9/9/79.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were ident'fied.
5.
IE Circular _No. 79-09 Followup A discussion was held with the licensee regarding IE Circular No. 79-01 which has to do with :plit or punctured regulator diaphragms in Scott Air Pak II/ IIA ard Presure-Pak II/ IIA self-contained breathing apparatus.
The inspector was informed that the licensee uses only MSA self-contained breathing apparatus and all units are subject to periodic maintenance checks.
Based upon the results of our discussion, this matter is considered closed.
!
77 34[
.
-
-5-6.
Followup on Emergency Training of HFD Firemen and Radiological Teams As a result of a previous inspection (see paragraph 7, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-312/79-08), a followup was made of the problem areas identified during the critique of the drill which was conducted on March 22, 1979. A discussion with the licensee indicated that the problem areas, referenced in the above inspection report, had been corrected with the exception of the respirctory protection training for the HFD firemen, and the proper emergency communications for the onsite radiological teams.
The licensee stated that the Plant Superintendent would discuss equipment needs and training with the Herald Fire Departnent personnel. The training of the onsite radiological teams will be conducted by the Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor at the next weekly training session.
The results of the licensee's emergency training will be reviewed during the next inspection.
Followup item (79-08-01) remains open.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Followup on the Contaminated Algae Sample During this insp(ection a followup was made on the reported contaminated algae sample.
See paragraph 4, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-312/
79-13.) An examination was made of the followup algae sampling conducted by SMUD.
On June 12,1979, four algae samples were sent to Controls f or Environmental Pollution, Inc. (CPE), Santa Fe, New Mexico, for analyses.
An examination of the results of the tests indicated no significant activity levels date-ted.
The effluent water sample taken on May 15, 1979, was re-exarcined by CEP on June 18, 1979.
The results of the analysis were still negative.
On June 14, 1979, the California Department of Health Services, Radiological Health Section (RHS), reported that the split algae sample collected on May 15, 1979, indicated no plant related corrosion products.
The independent mixed effluent algae sample taken by an NRC inspector on June 21, 1979, was sent to the DOE-Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory for analysis.
The results of the analysis indicated only trace quantities of radionuclides associated with atmospheric fallout and not related to plant operation.
M/
348
.
.
-6-
.
,
Based upon the results of the analyses conducted by CEP, the State (RHS), and DOE-RESL, it is concluded that the algae sample was not contaminated by the mixed liquid effluent from the plant.
The investigation conducted by SMUD related to the cross-contamination of the algae sample by a contaninated plastic bag was reviev ed.
The conclusions made by SMUD personnel appear to be feasibl.
The corrective actions taken by SMUD to prohibit a recurren:e of the situation are acceptable.
As a result of this inspection. followup item (79-13-01) is closed.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Followup on the Contaminated Truck Report NRC Region V office was notified on 7/15/79 by the NRC Region IV office that the Todd Shipyards, Galveston, Texas, reported a tanker truck carrying liquid waste from Rancho Seco had arrgved with a smearable surface contamination of 30,000 dpm/100 cm (beta-gamma),
and radiation levels of 15 milliroentgens per hour at six feet from the tanker.
These radiation and contamination levels were in excess of D0T regulation limitations.
During this inspection, an examination was made of the survey records associated with the shipment of 3115 gallons of liquid waste on 7/11/79 to the Todel Shipyards for disposal. A review of the survey records and discussions with the licensee indicated that the tanker truck had been overflowed at the time of filling.
Generalcontagination levels on the tanker ranged up to a maximum of 70,000 dpm/100 cm before decontamination.
The tanker was decontaminated twice to reduce the cortamination to acceptable levels.
At the time of shipment, the survgy(records indicated a maximum smearable contamination of 1200 dpm/100 cm beta-gamma), and maximum radiation levels of 110 milliroentgens per hour at contact with the tanker, and 10 milliroentgens per hour at six feet from the sides of the tanker.
These contamination and radiation levels are within DOT regulation limitations for exclusive use vehicles.
Since SMUD surveys appeared adequate and survey results were within D0T limits, no basis for noncompliance was identified in this matter.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Followup on Licensee Event Report The licensee submitted a written notification, Unusual Event Report 79-1, to the NRC Region V office on June 13, 1979, in accordance with Section 5.6.2.C., Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications.
W 349
.
.
-7-
.
Th2 report stated that the pH level of 8.5 was exceeded during the rrlease of a retention basin on May 29, 1979.
Plant water discharge pH limits are established by Section 2.4, Appendix B, of the Technical Specifications at 6.5 minimum and 8.5 maximum.
An examination of the records indicated this particular event occurred simultaneously with a release being made from a retention basin.
The pH of the retention basin was 8.9.
The initial 8.9 pH recorded could be attributed to the initiation of the release and the time utilized in setting up the dilution flow rates. However, the continuation of the release at an effluent pH greater than 8.5, for a period of five hours, was probably caused by the error band on the pH alarm setpoint. At the time of the release, the error band was approximately 0.8 pH units. As a result, the effluent pH could be out of specifications without ar, alarm to notify the operator of the condition.
Pursuant to discussions with the licensee, it was determined that a new electronics package h6s been placed in the pH recorder at the retentic basin. The new electronics will increase the sensitivity of the ph Jnit and reduce the error band to approximately 0.1 pH unit. The process standard for the calibration of the pH unit will be revised to reflect the change in the error band.
Due to the timely reporting of the event, and the corrective action taken by the licensee to prohibit a recurrence of the situation, a citation was not issued. The licensee was informed that due to a change in NRC (I&E) policy regarding noncompliance with the non-radiological sections of the Technical Specifications, any noncompliances pertinent to Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of Appendix B, which result in an actual occurrence, will be cited in the future.
10. Allegation Regarding Personnel Monitoring a.
On July 23, 1979, the NRC Region V office was contacted by a Sh0D eraployee regarding individuals exiting a controlled area without the proper personnel monitoring devices.
The allegation was given to an inspector on-site to investigate.
b.
On July 24, 1979, the inspector made contact with the individual making the allegation to obtain the pertinent information.
The alleger stated that at approximately 11:15 p.m. on 7/22/79, two security helpers were observed coming out of the controlled area of the Auxiliary Building with only a pocket dosimeter attached to their uniform. When the two security helpers were questioned by the alleger as to why they were not wearing their film badge, they stated that film badges had not been assigned to them. The alleger stated it was common knowledge that all persons entering a controlled area are to wear film badges and pocket dosimeters, w/ B0
-
.
-
_g_
.
.
.
.
c.
On July 25, 1979, the inspector identified the two security helpers and verified their ent 'ies into the controlled area of the Auxiliary Building to perform fire watch duties. An examination of their dosimeter cards indicated that one individual had made four entries and the other individual had made only one entry.
The recorded radiation exposures were minimal.
d.
On July 25, 1979, the inspector discussed the situation with SMUD manigenent relative to the personnel monitoring requirement stipulateo in the iladiation Control Manual.
Section 3.3.1.
of the manual states that the film badge is the official record of rcdiation dose received by each employee and visitor entering controlled areas. Also, a film badge along with a direct reading pocket dosimeter will be issued to station personnel whose work requires they enter controlled areas.
Management's response to the above requirement was that due to the frequent turnover in the security guard force and the paperwork associated with film badges, the use of film badges by the security guards was dicontinued approximately tuo months ago. A verbal agreement made at that time between the health physics staff manage-ment and the security guards management stated that if a member of the guard force needed a film badge to enter a controlled area, the film badge would be obtained from Health Physics prior to entry. Apparently this agreement was not being followed.
In orc to correct this situation, the Chemical and Radiation Protect. ion Supervisor and the Special Agent of Security agreed to take the following corrective actions.
(1) All security helpers will be issued film badges.
(2) The security guard at the access point to the controlled area of the Auxiliary Building will check to see that everyone has a film badge before entering.
(3) The corrective action was made effective 7/25/79.
e.
On July 26, 1979, the eDove actions were verified to be in effect. At approximately 5:00 p.m. the entry log to the Auxiliary Building was examined and a discussion was held with the security guard on duty. A security helper who had been inside on a fire watch had been assigned a film badge and pocket dosimeter.
A discussion was held with the Special /. gent of Security and three Watchconmanders pertinent to the requirement for personnel monitoring and nealth physics training. The Watch-commander in charge of training stated that all members of the security guard force had been through the health physics course, but were not too familiar with the Radiation Control
.M/
351
... _.,
..
.
...
.
.
_g.
Manual Procedures.
The Special Agent of Security stated that Security Plan Implementing Procedure No. 8 wculd be revised to add the film badging procedure for the security guards and helpers.
11.
Exit Interview In addition to those individuals denoted in Paragraph 1, the following individuals were in attendance:
R. Rodriguez, Manager of Nuclear Operations; W. Ford, Supervisor of Operations; L. Schwieger, QA Director; J. Sullivan, QA Engineer; and R. Medina, QA Engineer.
The inspector surrarized the scope and finoings of the inspection.
Several followup items were discussed.
(See paragraphs 4., S.,
6.,
7., 8. and 9.) Since this inspection involved an allegation, the inspector reviewed the nature of the allegation and discussed the basis for a possible citation.
Since the investigation associated with the allegation was completed after the exit interview, it should be noted that a citation was issued based upon the results and findings of the investigation.
(See paragraph 10)
/
352
.