IR 05000312/1982023
| ML20054L691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1982 |
| From: | Book H, Scown K, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L686 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-82-23, NUDOCS 8207080369 | |
| Download: ML20054L691 (5) | |
Text
U. S. !iUCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY CC:!MISSIO!!
REGIO!! V Report !!o.
50-312/82-23 Docket !!o.
50-312 License tio.
Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municioal' Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility ;ta:ae:
Rancho Seco
.
Inspection at: Corporate Office, Sacramento County OES, San Joaquin County and Amador Co.0ES Inspection cond t d: May 27, 28 and June 7, 11 and 15, 1982 j( g $ $, j @2 Inspectors:
f,1 O[ tty 1_
_/
Date Signed Ken $cown, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Date Signed Date Signed 6/29/72
'
Approved by:
.
w <fm-ce v F. A. enslawski, Chief Da'te Signed
'
Reas fladiat/Jn Proyection Section 6,. K1etvP_
&l73 lS' v H. E. Bo'ok, ChTef
' Datd Signed
-
Radiological Safety Branch
,
.
Inspection on May 27 and 28, 1982 with subsequent telephone communications on June 7, 11, and 15, 1982 (Report Number 50-312/82-23).
Areas Inspected:
Special unannounced inspection of the Prompt Notification System's installation and current status.
The inspection involved 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> of field inspection effort by a regionally based inspector.
Results: The inspection confirmed that the Prompt Notification System had been installed and tested by the date specified in the licensee's letter dated May 5, 1982 to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
RV For:a 219 (2)
C207080369 820623 PDR ADOCK 05000312
- --
.
PDR O
- ,waw g
...
.
-
..
-.
.-
.-
.
.
-
-
,
.
DETAILS
l 1.
Persons Contacted i
SMUD Corporate Office
- -
G. D. Hodges, Senior Electrical Engineer
'
E. Bradley, Supervisor, Environmental Sacramento County
.
H. B. White, Emergency Operations Coordinator l
R. Hines, OES Telephone Systems Analyst
'l j
Amador County
'
Sean Crowder, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator San Joaquin County
.
Cleo Janiw, Emergency Services Coordinator D.
Dearman,
Lieutenant, San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department M. Cockerell, Operations Officer, San Joaquin County OES Delta Connunications, Stockton, California i
J. Hignight, Communications Technician i
i B.'Vosburg, Communications Technician Acoustic Technology Inc.
l M. R. Bassiouni, Principal Consultant 2.
Licensee Response to Notice of Violation:
i i
In the licensee's May 5, 1982 letter to the NRC in response to a Notice r
of Violation issued on February 12, 1982, the licensee took the position that as of Friday, April 30, 1982, the Prompt Notification System (PNS)
surrounding Rancho Seco was completely installed and that initial testing had been performed prior to and during its installation. Also, that
l after system activation, control deficiencies were discovered and actions
.
were beirg taken to correct these deficiencies.
It should be noted that Rancho Seco has been shutdown for maintenance since April 2,1982.
I L
'
,
I i
I l
'
!
!
f i
!
-
'
.
.
_ _. -.,. - - _ _ _
_ _
..
-..
.. _ - _., _ _ _ _ _. _ _
_. -- _
...
._
..
-2-
,
.
3.
System Description:
The PNS consists of three encoders; one for each county, and 34 sirens and control panels. Basically, the control panels consist of a decoder, starter motor, and electrical relays and contacts within an electrical
'
box. The siren', and control panels are distributed throughout the 10
mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) in the three neighboring counties as indicated below:
Amador - 7 Sacramento - 21 San Joaquin - 6 Each county is responsible for activating the sirens within its jurisdiction.
Activation of sirens is via radio signal.from the encoders (installed
'
,
in 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> dispatch centers in each county) to decoders in the control panels. Each county has its own radio frequency over which the activation
signal is transmitted. The capability exists to activate all sirens l
at the same time or to only activate one at a time.
1 4.
Inspection Findings; Installation and Testing:
j In November 1981, the licensee conducted U.H.F. field strength measurenents
,
'
at 28 proposed siren locations:
Sacramento County (17)
Amador County (6)
San.Joaquin County (5)
According to SMUD documentation, all sites indicated an acceptable margin
-
with no apparent operating problems caused by inadequate signal strength.
The licensee later identified the need for six additional sirens. Signal strength tests for these six locations were not performed because they were located in areas previously determined as acceptable.
.
t
.
The licensee contracted a vendor to supply component parts of the prompt notification system. The vendor and its sub-contractor (s) experienced
difficulties in meeting delivery schedules. Therefore, the licensee, i
'
in the interest of saving time, proceeded with the installation of the poles and system equipment as it arrived. The sirens were the first to be installed.
Then, as the control panels arrived, the licensee
.
'
bench tested, repaired as necessary, and installed them. This test included activating the control panel with a radio signal (equivalent
to the encoder signal) to ensure the decoder performed properly, closing contacts and operating the starter motor which sends power to the siren.
During this testing, problems such as faulty decoders, deficient starter
,
motors, and broken parts were identified. These were replaced or repaired i
before the control panels were released for installation.
,
After installation of the control panel, a local growl test was made (1) to check the circuitry, (2) that the siren sounded, and (3) for proper siren rotation.
This growl test was made by depressing a test
'
button in the control panel which bypasses the decoder. The decoders
'
,
had been previously tested in the licensee's communications shcp.
l
-
i
, _, -
. - - - -,
-n...
-
,
.,, _..
, - -.. _
_
-
.
,
-3-The three encoders, one in each county, were installed when received and given functional tests. The functional tests consisted of activating the encoder and checking that proper signal strength and level were being transmitted. All test results were satisfactory.
Sacramento County installed and tested their encoder while Delta Communications installed and tested the encoders at San Joaquin and Amador Counties.
The entire PNS (encoders, control panels and sirens) was installed and tested by April 30, 1982. The majority of the system was tested and operational by April 23, 1982 (30 of 34 sirens).
Four sirens were not operable on April 23, 1982 because electrical power had not yet been installed by another utility. The power was installed to all four by April 28 and the four were tested and considered operable by April 30, 1982.
It was at this point the licensee considered the system installation and testing to be complete.
The PNS has not had an integrated test performed on it as of yet; i.e.,
the sirens have not been activated by signals from the encoders. The testing that was performed on the component parts overlapped in such a manner the Counties are satisfied that the system will function as it was designed to.
Operating procedures for activating the PNS were provided to the three Counties via letter dated April 22, 1982. The letter included Encoder Instructions and Encoder Programing Instructions for each County.
In the process of distributing the letters, San Joaquin County mislaid theirs and did not realize they had encoder operating instructions until this inspection. The other two counties received operating instructions but did not perform training on the encoder itself until about a month later - Sacramento County, May 25, 1982, Amador County, May 28, 1982.
The Counties saw no.need to rush the training because the PNS was not
. operable, except locally at each siren, since the afternoon of April 23, 1982 (see discussion under paragraph 5).
Compensatory measures were placed in effect during the time the PNS was being installed and tested. Measures taken were arrangements with
,
l Sacramento County Sheriff's Department for use of two helicopters and (
several patrol cars, equipped with loudspeakers, for alerting and instructing the public within the EPZ. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) will provide an additional helicopter if necessary.
5.
Current PNS System Status:
On April 23, 1982 the licensee experienced problems with two sirens inadvertently activating in Sacramento County. The licensee was concerned j
about unnecessarily alarming the public and decided to shut off the
!
power to all of the sirens until the problem could be identified and
[
corrected. A major f actor in the licensee's decision to shut off power
!
to the sirens was that the plant was shutdown and presented no hazard
,
l to public health and safety.
Since this action, the licensee and vendor i
..
.
- - _ - - _..
.
,
,
-4-have been working to resolve the problem which was determined to be in the decoder'. All 34 decoders were sent to the vendor's laboratory to be tested and modified as necessary to correct deficiencies.
The compensatory measures described in paragraph.4 above are in force l
at this time. This was stated by the licensee and verified with the
~
Sacramento County, Emergency Operations Coordinator. Response time for one helicopter to the EPZ is from 10-40 minutes, for patrol cars it is 20-60 minutes.
The inspector questioned several members of the general population within the EPZ regarding the PNS. They understood the significance of the siren sounding and what to do when they hear it.
During the inspection the licensee, through a consultant, was in the process of performing siren field measurements in order to verify coverage of the EPZ.
These measurements consisted of sounding approximately 22 sirens for 90-120 seconds while taking readings at eight locations surrounding the siren. Each was sounded twice for a total of 16 measurements per siren. The balance of the sirens were tested for 90-120 seconds to ensure they could sustain operation. A report will be published by the consultant sometime this sunmer.
6.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held, via telephone, with Gary Hodges, of the licensee's staff on June 17, 1982. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
In addition, the following comments were made to Mr. Hodges:
1.
Although the hardware for the Prompt Notification System is installed and its component parts have been individually tested in an overlapping way, it would be prudent to have an integrated system test performed once the system is operational again.
2.
The licensee should develop a system for verifying that local agencies (counties) receive and implement,. as necessary, information, operating instructions and procedures provided to them.
During the course of the exit interview the inspector was informed that the vendor was currently installing.the modified decoders in the control panels and that tests would be performed in the near future.