ML20005E477
| ML20005E477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1989 |
| From: | Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E476 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-89-18, NUDOCS 9001050310 | |
| Download: ML20005E477 (2) | |
Text
p L'
w I.
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Unit 1 License No. DPR-54 During an inspection conducted on October 23 through 27 and November 5 through 9, 1989, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
L 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), as modified by 52 Federal Register 40019 (October 13,1988), the violations are listed below:
A.
TS 6.8 reads, in part:
Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering tne activities referenced below:
.j.
Quality Assurance Program for Effluent Control and Environmental Monitoring using the guidance of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, February 1979.
RG 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Ef fluent Streams and the Environment, part C., paragraph 6.3.2, Interlaboratory Analyses, reads, in part:
Laboratories of licensees or their contractors that perform environmental measurements should participate in the EPA's Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check) Program, or an equivalent program.
This participation should include all of the determinations (sample medium /radionuclide combinations) that are both offered by EPA and included in the licensee's environmental monitoring program....If the mean result of a cross-check analysis exceeds the control limit as defined by EPA...an investigation should be made to determine the reason for this deviation and corrective action should be taken as necessary.
Contrary to the above, when the licensee's contract vendor was notified that their results from EPA cross-check analyses performed on 10 February, 17 February and 31 March 1989 were outside the control limits defined by EPA, the vendor failed to adequately investigate to determine the reasons for the deviations and did not take corrective action.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
B.
TS 6.18, Postaccident Sampling, reads, in part:
l A program shall be maintained and implemented which will ensure the l
capability to obtain and analyze reactor coolant, radioactive iodines and particulates in plant gaseous effluents, and containment l
9001050310 891213 ADOCK 050g2 DR
W.
j 2
atmosphere samples under accident conditions.
The program shall include the following:
(i) Training of personnel...
RSAP-0219, paragraph 5.2, Trainina, reads, in part:
The plant shall have a minimum of five designated PASS equipment operators to insure the availability of trained equipment operators to support post-accident sampling requirements.
Contrary to the above, on 9 November 1989 there were only three PASS operators employed at the plant.
This is a Severity Level IV (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the arovisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Sacramento Municipal Utility District is heresy required to submit a written statement of explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V and acopytotheNRCResidentInspector,within30daysofthedateoftheletter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Ifanadequatereplyisnotreceivedwithinthetimes?ecifiedinthisNotice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license s1ould not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/LLJ Gregory P. Yuhas, Chief
/
~
Radiological Protection Branch Dated a Walnut Creek, California this& ay ofhecen/ber1989 E