ML20247C903

Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 Re Denial of Request to Shut Down Facility Based on Allegation That Util Disregarded Public Health & Safety Per 1980,1984 & 1988 Incidents

ML20247C903
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	03/21/1989
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245E989	List: DD-88-20, Responds to Requesting NRC to Shut Down Facility Due to Listed Reasons.Encl Director'S Decision DD-88-20 Issued Re Request ML20245E985 ML20247C903 ML20247C950
References
2.206, NUDOCS 8903300309
Download: ML20247C903 (9)

Text

r-

, DD-89-02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Thomas E. Murley, Director In the Matter of SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT (SMUD)

(RanchoSecoNuclearGenerating (10CFR2.206)

Station)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION On August 30, 1988, Ms. Barbara Moller (Petitioner) submitted a Petition requesting the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to shut down the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (Rancho Seco). Ms. No11er's Petition was based on allegations that (I) SMUD management criminally (willfully) dis-regarded public health and safety as shown by incidents between 1980 and 1984, and again in 1988, in which SMUD released excessive amounts of water containing radionuclides;(2)indicationsonthepressurizersupportlugsdemonstrate embrittlement as a result of rapid cooldown events at Rancho Seco; (3) pipe wallthinninghasoccurred;and(4)inMarch1988whilestartingthereactor, SMUD lost control of Rancho Seco and was tnable to shut the plant down. I The Petition also reiterated concerns related to the use of illegal drugs at Rancho Seco. The drug-related issues had been raised by the Petitioner in an earlier submittal dated August 3, 1988. These concerns were addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, and a Director's Decision dated December 14, 1988, DD-88-20, was issued. The NRC treated this portion of Ms. Mo11er's correspond-ence of August 30, 1988, as a supplement to the Petition of August 3, 1988; 8903300309 890321 po" ^"c"oSE"h 4

i

s. l

• 9 6

, , l i

the Decision.of December 14, 1988, responded to all the drug-related issues .

raised in these letters, which are not reevaluated as part of this Decision.

The Petitioner's concerns about the release of radioactive liquid effluents were first brought to the attention of the Commission by a letter from the Petitioner to Senator Alan Cranston, dated May 16, 1988, a copy of which the Petitioner sent to the NRC. The Executive Director for Operations, Mr. Victor Stello, responded to these concerns in a letter to Senator Cranston on June 20, 1988, in reply to the Senator's inquiry. The NRC also received a copy of the Petitioner's letter to Senator Cranston dated July 15, 1988, in which the Petitioner reiterated these concerns. Although our response of June 20, 1988, clearly established that liquid effluents were not an ongoing safety issue, the Petitioner's continued concern in this area prompted the NRC Project Manager for Rancho Seco, Mr. George Kalman, to personally meet with the Petitioner in Sacramento on August 25, 1988, to discuss this matter. Since our contact with the Petitioner in August, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (NOV) to SMUD on January 13, 1989, for improper handling of radioactive liquid waste in 1985. An update of the status of the issues related to the NOV is included in this response. However, there are no new environmental or technical developments associated with liquid effluents, and these issues are not readdressed as part of this Decision.

The other issues included in the Petition of August 30, 1988, were evaluated by the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. The evaluation concluded that the allegations raised by the Petition are unsubstantiated or do not affect public health and safety. I have decided, therefore, to deny the Petition.

_j

. . BACKGROUND The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD or the licensee), includes a Babcock & Wilcox-designed pressurized-water reactor located in Sacramento County, California, about 25 miles southeast of Sacramento. The plant received an operating license in 1974. On December 26, 1985, following a reactor trip and overcooling, the NRC issued Confirmatory Action Letters that requested the licensee to justify resumption of power operations.

Subsequent inspections by the NRC staff and self-assessments by the licensee identified extensive deficiencies that had developed during the first 10 years of commercial operations at Rancho Seco. Many of the identified deficiencies were classified as safety significant and their resolution became a prerequisite to plant restart. One of these deficiencies was the control of radioactive effluents. The restart prerequisite actions were completed in March 1989, and Rancho Seco was authorized to restart. The restart program is described in detail in the Rancho Seco restart Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1286, and NUREG-1286, Supplement 1. These documents have already been supplied to the Petitioner in response to previous correspondence.

Since restart, Rancho Seco has completed a very successful power ascension program and is currently operating at power. NRC staff assessments indicate that operations at Rancho Seco have improved markedly following the restart.

The NRC staff's intensified inspection program at the facility indicates that the corrective a tions completed by the licensee during the 27-month

. . shutdown appear to have. corrected the previously identified safety-significant deficiencies and that there are no existing concerns that warrant additional plant shutdowns.

DISCUSSION Radioactive Liquid Effluents.

1.

Between 1980 and 1985, radioactive liquid effluents discharged from Rancho Seco resulted in offsite contamination in the vicinity of the plant that exceeded regulatory. limits. On May 16, 1988, the Petitioner wrote to Senator Alan Cranston to request the Senator to query the NRC on this matter. In a letter _ dated June 20, 1988, Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. , Executive Director for Operations, NRC, replied to Senator Cranston's inquiry, explaining.that the NRC had initiated an extensive investigation in 1984

'nto the releases and giving the results of the investigation. A copy of this letter is enclosed. As explained in more detail in the letter, the investigation found that before 1984, the sensitivity of SMUD measurements of radioactivity in liquid waste was insufficient to detect radioactive releases that exceeded regulatory limits. Additionally, SMUD calculations to determine the effect of the releases on the environment were faulty.

A subsequent NRC-initiated environmental study

• concluded that contamina-tion in the vicinity of Rancho Seco exceeded regulatory limits but that no individual was actually exposed to radiation in excess of these limits.

l 1

• / Letter from J. Stolz (NRC) to R. Rodriguez (SMUD), dated April 28, 1986.

I _ _- ________-________a

:.1

'}.

i .. .. . In 1985, after the liquid release problems were identified, NRC learned that additional releases in excess lof regulatory limits were made at Rancho Seco. The 1985' occurrence was the basis of a Notice of: Violation'.

and.a Proposed Civil Penalty .(NOV) that was issued January 13, 1989. A copy of the NOV and'its cover letter is attached. As the NOV and cover letter show, no further enforcement action for this violation is now warranted.

' Additionally, criminal prosecution of SMUD managers associated with the 1985 radioactive releases was considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office (which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice) in Sacramento. The U.S.

Attorney found the evidence' insufficient to establish that. plant managers acted criminally by intentionally violating' Federal regulations and dis-continued the criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, SMUD has removed its managers responsible for the liquid releases from their management positions,. including the plant manager.

Following the plant shutdown in December 1985, improvements to the Rancho Seco liquid waste systems were made a prerequisite to plant restart.-

Before authorizing plant restart in March 1988, the NRC ascertained that plant 7.iquid waste systems could support plant operations while satisfying regulatory limits on releases of radionuclides to the environment. This evaluation is sunnarized in NUREG-1286, Supplement 1, Section 4.3.

Following the 1988 restart, radioactive liquid waste systems have continued to receive extremely close scrutiny by the NRC technical staff, and there is no indication that existing technical or managerial concerns associated

. . )

I with liquid radioactive weste are sufficient to warrant consideration of plant shutdown.

l During plant restart, radioactive water was discharged several times i i

inside the containment building. The Petitioner cites examples of discharges inside containment in an apparent attempt to show that SMUD's

]

program to control liquid radioactive effluents is inadequate.

In-containment discharges are relatively common in nuclear power plants and the specific occurrences at Rancho Seco are not indicative of pro-gramatic deficiencies or incompetence on the part of the operators. The containment building is a water-tight structure that is designed to collect radioactive discharges. Radioactive liquids collected in the containment are eventually processed by the plant liquid radioactive waste system, which is now functioning properly within regulatory limits. Accordingly, such releases inside containment do not constitute a hazard to the environ-ment.

2. Pressurizer Support Lug Indications.

NRC Inspection Report 50-312/87-03 included findings related to the Rancho Seco Inservice Inspection Program. One of these findings, based on the inspector's review of ultrasonic test records, was left unresolved.

In particular, following the record review, the inspector could not ascertain whether variations in the ultrasonic inspections indicated that potential faults in pressurizer support lugs were increasing in size or, if the faults had existed since fabrication, why they had not been detected l earlier.

I

. . - 7.-

The. licensee examined this' matter with the help _of independent contractor specialists and responded to the unresolved item by letter.

dated October 20, 1987. NRC inspectors reexamined the issue and closed out-the unresolved. item in Inspection Report 88-05, dated May'10, 1988.

-It was-concluded that the variations contained in the ultrasonic test' records were expected variations resulting from the accuracy of the ultrasonic measuring technique. .The variations that were identified by the first inspector were not indicative of unacceptable. faults in the pressurizer support lugs or of faults that were increasing in size, nor do these variations 1.dicate any embrittlement of the lugs.

3. Pipe Wall Thinn.ing-Pipe wall thinning at all nuclear plants became an issue of great concern after a feedwater pipe at the Surry nuclear plant in Virginia failed catastrophically in 1987 because of an apparent combination of corrosion and erosion. NRC issued Bulletin 87-01 to obtain data in order to assess the adequacy of industry taonitoring programs designed to predict pipe deterioration. Nuclear plants, including Rancho Seco, responded to l the NRC bulletin and submitted descriptions of their pipe monitoring programs.

l The NRC randomly selected 10 plants in order to evaluate the effective-ness of the monitoring programs. Rancho Seco was one of the 10 plants I selected. An NRC team evaluated the effectiveness of the pipe wall deterioration monitoring program at Rancho Seco on September 28-29, 1988.

The NRC inspection team did not detect any pipe wall thinning that had

,?. .

s..

. . p any safety significance and concluded that the pipe wall-thicknesses at Rancho Seco were adequate. A additionally -the team made recommendations for improving-the Rancho Seco monitoring program by adding consistency to the monitoring procedure.to enable meaningful comparison of accumulated

, . data, thus providing the basis for predicting pipe deterioration trends in the future.

In sum, SMUD has an adequate program to detect pipe wall thinning at .

Rancho Seco, and the NRC has not found any evidence of unacceptable thinning. Accordingly, there are no existing concerns about pipe wall

-thinning at Rancho Seco that would warrant plant closure.

4. Inability of Rancho Seco to Shut Down Inability to shut down a nuclear plant is an extremely serious matter. -This situation has never existed at Rancho Seco. The allegation that SMUD could not shut down Rancho Seco is apparently based on a head-line that appeared in the Sacramento Bee newspaper on April 26, 1988. The story indicated that SMUD chose to delay shutting down the reactor for convenience while making a repair. At no time did SMUD lose the ability to shut down Rancho Seco, nor does the story so indicate. It is evident' that the story does not allege a safety-significant event and does not give a basis for petitioning to shut down a nuclear power station.

CONCLUSION On the basis of allegations set forth in the Petition, the Petition requsted that Rancho Seco be shutdown. The Petitioner's allegations relating x _ _____ _ _- _- ___ = - - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _

to radioactive liquid effluents have already been addressed by the NRC and the identified deficiencies have been corrected such that SMUD's current program for controlling radioactive liquid effluents does not adversely affect safe operations at Rancho Seco. Moreover, the NRC has already taken enforcement action for the violations SMUD committed by releasing radioactive liquid effluents. A staff evaluation has concluded that the other allegations raised by the Petitioner are not substantiated or do not raise any threat to public health and safety.

The institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is appropriate where substantial health and safety issues have been raised. See Consolidated Edison Company of New Ycrk (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,175(1975), and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899, 923 (1984). These are the standards that I have applied to the concerns raised by the Petitioner in this decision to determine whether enforcement action is warranted.

For the reasons discussed above, I conclude that no substantial health and safety issues have been raised by the Petitioner that warrant the initiation of a proceeding to consider shutdown of Rancho Seco. Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied. As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the l

Secretary of the Commission for the Commission review.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m L MwAg Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, I this 21st day of March, 1989 E_ _ - - - - - - . - - . . - - - . - - -- - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - --------_--_--o

l f4 ,, .

/.. Q F4 fps ,.  ;

' UNITED STATES

$ ' 'f q( -

NUCLEAR RECULATCRY COMMISSION 5 [ REGION V 4

• 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210 4 WALNUT CREE K, CALIFORNIA 94606 4, * . . . * ,o'g '

JAR E 'Aco j Docket No. 50-312

.EA 86-110 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 1 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station ~1

. ATTN: J. F. Firlit, Chief Executive Officer Nuclear

)

L _

14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799

' Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION'AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-312/36-15)

This refers,to.a special NRC inspection conducted at Rancho Seco by members of the.NRC staff during the period of April 1, 1986'through May 23, 1986; of.

activities authorized by NRC License.No. DPR-54. The. subject inspection report was transmitted.to'you by separate correspondence dated June 6, 1986.

An enforcement conference.related to the inspection findings was held at.the Region V office on June 20,-1986, with members of the District staff. Based on the results'of this inspection and discussions during the enforcement conference, it was established that certain of your licensed activities 'were

~

not conducted in: full compliance with NRC requirements.

The violations set forth in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed

. Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) demonstrate a failure of the District to:

'(1) implement its technical specification requirements to preclude release of liquid effluents containing radioactivity in amounts exceeding the dose criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 50,. Appendix I; (2) evaluate changes to the facility as required by 10 CFR 50.59; and (3) maintain and iniplement procedures and report the release of radioactive material in effluents as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifications. These violations and inspection findings present a picture'of how the District during 1985, despite commitments made in the letter dated September 24, 1984, improperly accounted for the amounts of radioactivity released in liquid effluents and ended up with an inaccurate record of radioactive releases for the year 1985.

By letters of July 3,1986 and October 8,1987, you described your corrective actions'in response to the inspection findings. We acknowledge your continuing efforts to improve your performance in the area of radioactive effluents as ,

well as many other areas during the plant shutdown. As the two letters referenced above limited themselves largely to corrective actions of a technical and programmatic nature, by a letter dated December 23, 1987, the NRC requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) your assessment of the management and personnel CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECO Pi REQUESTED u ,~- ,,,-a ,

_ _ _' [?- _ _ f_ _

b' I , j

i 1

.- )

^ '

l Sacramento Municipal "

. Utility District considerations surrounding the inspecticn findings. Your evaluation of those areas was provided in a letter dateo January 25, 1988, which has been reviewed by the NRC staff.

]

Notwithstanding all the information you have provided concerning these issues, as well-as their relative age, we view the violations as demonstrating a l significant breakdown in the oversight of your program to control radioactive j effluent releases. This is especially significant given your prior commitment to resolve the effluent release problem which occurred in 1984. We recognize that the effect of the radioactive releases was not significant. Nevertheless, a civil penalty is appropriate because of the failure of many levels of your management to assure that programs and commitments were properly implemented in an area which had previously been of heightened concern and visibility both within your organization and the NRC staff.

To emphasize the importance of establishing and adhering to approved procedures, performing safety evaluations, avoiding unnecessary releases of radiation to the environment, and management assuring that commitments and requirements are met, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Commission and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations,, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of

$100,000 for the violations described in the Notice. In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been collectively classified as a Severity Level III problem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III problem is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered. Despite the comprehensive corrective actions that were taken prior to restart, escalation of the penalty is appropriate based on the duration of the violations and the

, significant breakdown in management controls of the radioactive effluent discharge program. In sum, the penalty is being proposed to make it clear that NRC will not tolerate conduct such as that demonstrated by supervisors and managers who either were not technically qualified to be involved in controlling and monitoring radioactive effluents or were at least negligent in controlling the program.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal. Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

v .<

L.;

Sacramento Municipal <

Utility District The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject

-to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork-Reduction Act of 1980; PL 96-511.

' Sincerfly,

/

/ . t, .

f. <]s

• pi':

c.; .. n John B. Martin Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:

J. Vinquist, SMUD K. A. Meyer, SMUD State of California e

w____.___--____...._._.___..._- _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 EA 86-110 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period April 1, 1986 through May 23, 1986, violations of NRC requirements involving control of radioactive effluents were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),

42 U.S.C. 2282, P.L.96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section IV.B provides that:

"The licensee shall establish an appropriate surveillance and monitoring program to:

1. Provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions of paragraph A of this section are met...."

Contrary to the above requirement, as of April 1, 1986, an adequate surveillance program was not established to provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid effluents to assure compliance with the provisions of paragraph A of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

B. 10 CFR 50.59 provides, in relevant part, that:

. (a)(1) "The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production l or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and j (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety l analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question."

(b)(1) "The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility

... made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these l

changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report ... These records must include a written safety evaluation...."

The updated FSAR submitted July 22, 1982 and subsequent FSAR amendments submitted through July 1985, provide in Section 11, Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protection, that:

ll 05 5

• 1 0

Notice of Violation . .

"During normal plant operations, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is designed not to release any liquid effluents containing radioactivity of plant origin to the environment. All potentially radioactive wastes are processed by degasification, filtration, demineralization, and/or evaporation to remove radioactive and nonradioactive components. Radioactivity removed by these processes is retained within the filter cartridges and exchange resins and concentrated evaporated bottoms for offsite disposal in drums by an )

NRC-licensed disposal contractor."

Contrary to the above requirements, without having performed an evaluation to determine whether a change in the Technical Specifications was required or if an unreviewed safety question was involved, and without having created I or maintained a record of a safety evaluation, from January 1983 through March 13, 1986, procedures and temporary system modifications were imple-mented to facilitate the pumping of radioactive water from the Demineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank (T-621) through a temporary conduit to either Regeneration Hold-up Tank (T-950 A or B), and ultimately released to the environment.

C. Technical Specification 4.21, Liquid Effluents, provided in part that:

"The radioactivity content of each batch of radioactive liquid waste to be discharged shall be determined prior to release by sampling and analysis in accordance with Table 4.21-1..." Table 4.21-1 requires in part that each batch waste release tank be sampled prior to release and analyzed for Cs-134 and Cs-137. Footnote (c) of Table 4.21-1 provides in part that: "Other peaks which are measurable and identifiable, together with the listed nulcides, shall be identified and reported."

. Technical Specification 6.9.2.3 provided in part that:

"The radioactive effluent release reports shall include a summary of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste released from the unit as outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21,

' Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,' with data summarized on a quarterly basis, following the format of Appendix B thereof."

Regulatory Guide 1.21 provides in Paragraph B.2 that:

"In many cases the criteria for sensitivity of effluent measurements have been modified to reflect as low as practicable dose considera-tions in the of.fsite environs; i.e., the sensitivity of effluent measurements should be sufficient to detect concentrations which, when dispersed in the offsite environs, would result in a dose to individuals of a small fraction of natural background radiation."

Paragraph C.10 of Regulatory Guide 1.21 provides in part that:

"The sensitivity limits given for radioactivity analyses in Appendix A of this guide are based on the potential significance in the l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ l

l Notice of Violation . .

environment of the quantities of radioactive materials released. For some radionuclides, lower detection limits than those given herein may be readily achievable and when measurements below the stated sensitivity limits are attained, the results should be recorded and J

report: 1. " l i

Contrary to the above requirements, on June 4, 1985, isotopic analysis of a batch of radioactive liquid waste (B RHUT 85-98) identified measurable concentrations of Cs-137 (2.33 E-7 1 4.9 E-8 uCi/ml), but were not identified or reported on the " Rancho Seco Radioactive Liquid Waste Release Permit" 85-98 or in the " Semiannual Effluent Release Report" (RJR 85-491) for the period January 1 through June 30, 1985. Analyses of releases on June 6, 1985 (85-99) and June 17, 1985 (85-110) also found measurable concentrations of Cs-137 which were identified but not reported.

D. Technical Specification 3.17.2. provided that: "The dose or dose commitment to a member of the public from radioactive materials in liquid ef fluents released beyond the site boundary shall be limited ... during any calendar year to 3 mrem to the total body and to 10 mrem to any organ."

Contrary to the above requirement, during calendar year 1985, radioactive materials in liquid effluents were released such that a member of the public could have received a total body dose in excess of 3 mrem when calculated in accordance with the methods described in the Technical Specifications. The dose calculated for 1985 using the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual was approximately 3.9 mrem.

E. Technical Specification 6.8.1 provides in part that: " Written procedures

. shall be established, implemented ard maintained covering ... the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix ' A' of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972." Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972, Section G.,

recommends that procedures be developed for liquid radioactive waste systems, including discharging of effluents.

Contrary to the above requirement, from March 30, 1983 to January 6, 1986, and from March 6, 1986 through March 30, 1986, no procedure was implemented or maintained to control the transfer of radioactively contaminated water from the Demineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank (T-621) to the Regene-rated Hold-Up Tanks (T-950 A and B) for ultimate release to the environment.

During 1985, about 787,500 gallons were transferred from T-621 to T-950 A and B and then released to the environment.

F. Technical Specification 6.8.3 provided that: " Temporary changes to procedures of 6.8.1 above may be made provided:

a. The intent of the original procedure is not altered... [and]

b. The change is documented, reviewed by the PRC and approved by the Plant Superintendent within seven (7) days of implementation." l

o Notice of Violation . .

l Contrary to the above requirement, on January 6,1986, without approval by the Plant Review Committee (PRC), the licensee implemented a temporary change to Procedure A.10, " Demineralized Reactor Coolant Storage System,"

to allow the pumping of water from T-621 to T-950 A and B for offsite release. From January 6, 1986 to March 6, 1986, the licensee estimates that about 350,000 gallons of water were transferred.

The above violations. A, B, C, D, E, and F have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplements I and IV).

Civil Penalty - $100,000 - assessed equally among the violations.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective step that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order may be issued to show cause why the license should 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. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR

. 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulativa amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an Order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation," and may: (1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may i incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,

1 e

l Notice of Violation * '

' citing page.and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the licenses is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedures for imposing a civil penalty.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282(c).

The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California 94596, and a copy to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Anthony J. D'Angelo, Rancho Seco.

RT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i, , .

g7 ['.7 John B. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California this /p day of January 1989.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _