ML20247D063
| ML20247D063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1988 |
| From: | Connelly L CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247D052 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8903300369 | |
| Download: ML20247D063 (1) | |
Text
<
e I
COMMITTEE.S NE PLY 70 CHAIR. AGING AND LONG TERM FORT R U NG CARE 2705 K STRECT. SUITE 6
'i ENVIRONMENTAL 5AFETY AND
' SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9$816 Galiforma lEcgtslaittre
= " -
1 CHAIR. SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPrf0L OFTICE THE ADMINISTRATION OF STATE CAPITOL JUSTICE PO. BOX 942B49 SACRAMENTO. CA 94249 0001 NATURAL RESOURCE'S
" " ' " " ' ' " *^ "
LLOYD G. CONNELLY
' MEMBER OF THE L.EGISLATURE SIXTH' ASSEMBLY DISTRICT '
September 7, 1988 l
Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman s
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
)
Dear Mr. Zech:
{
l Would you please provide me with a copy of your response to the enclosed letter from my constituent, Barbara Moller?
l Thank you for your assistance in this regard.
Cordially, I
p-LLOYD G.
CONNELLY Member of the Assembly LGC:pm Enclosure I
cc:
Barbara Moller 8903300369 890327 PDR ADOCK 05000312 H
y4WMZnegFTaggea, ap. ;.a j
s m-J Y
BARBARA MOLLER P.O. Box 163306 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 444-3390 RECEIVEDAugust 30, 1988
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY BOARD 1
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 DlSTRICT OFFICE OF F
. LLOYD G. CONNELLY w-t's a
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Board:
.This' petition a.10 CFR 2.206 is intended to show cause vny 1
the. Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant located in Clay, California, i
.just" twenty-six miles southeast of Sacramento, California should l
be closed down as a Nucl. ear Generating Station.
4
' The original" petition nubmitted February 25, 1987 was denied.
As
.. l basis for' denial the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cited an absence p
of health and safety issues.
p ThiL petition will show the reprehensible and crimminal conduct of L
the Sacramento Municipal Utility District management, and the flagrant disregard the Nuclear Regulatory Commission imposes on the public citizen when they try to be heard.
L
'On June 24, 1988, I wrote Senator Cranston and expressed my doop
'I concern regarding the poor attempts at management of Rancho Seco; and the uti.lities continued disregard for the health and safety of their ratepayers and the surrounding communities.
Newspaper i
H articles were sent detailing.the continued mismanagement and dis-regard for. health and safety.
/
A 1984 Sacramento Bee artis identifies over two billion gallons of s
radioactive water having bav released to that date. (enclosed 7 j
'The-records will show thac corversion calculations were readjusted h
by the Rancho Seco persr snel between 1980-1984.
The Brookhaven National'Labratory was
_a char ge of the investigation.
f' Neither SMUD nor the Brookhaven National Labratory can honestly D.
sayohow much~ radioactive water was released in the period from L
1980-1984.
Ar. extensive evaluation by'the NRC was done regarding L
thistrelease, MUREG 12-86, Supplement 1 Section 4.3.
Following this,there'came a revision of calculational techniques to determine permissabir:' liquid release levels.
l' In Mr.' Victor Stello's opinion that radioactive releases from Rancho Seco do not contaminate major waterways and agricultural land is only ar. opinion.
Radioactive releases are based on a number of f:ctors, one of them being, arid terrain.
As water evaporates radioactivity concentrates, basic rule.
The radioactive radionuclides and cesium isotope releases are accumulative.
They have half life, indicating strength and length.ofitoxibility.
These facts are verifiable.
N Prior to the March 1988 restart attempt, seven hundred, (700),
y t I Z }6b h5~qt? -
p.pp)Q n6-
' gallons of radioactive water was released by a SMUD employee, George Coward.
He was the Assistant General Manager, Nuclear Technical Services.
George Coward was discharged, but he did receive a sizable severance pay, $204,000 if terminated on or before April,30, 1988.
A copy of his contract with the area dealing with' severance pay highlited.
Under. conditions: issued by the State Department of Water Res-ources;therelis a drought in California.
The long range forecast does not indicate'any change in site.
In a 12/83 California Water Plan,mthe: projected use and available water supplies to theLyear 2010/ indicate a problem in the San Joaquin. Valley.
.The net. vater useLby population is five (5) percent, with the rest going'for' agricultural purposes.
There is a four (4) percent increase in use projected by 1990.
Essentially we are taking more water.out..than< putting.back. $There is a six (6) percent decrease in the water table, by the year 2010, the overdraft will be 11 percent,.almost double.
These vaters feed prime agricultural land as well;as people.
t I. interpret this information along with what is known concerning radioactive releases of elements such as cesium and now Tridium to indicate increased concentration of radioactivity.
These radioactive elements have a least a thirty (30) year half life.
Victor Stello, in answering one of my letters concerning the purposeful miscalculation, writes directly to Senator Cranston and defended that even though calculations performed by Rancho.
Seco personnel were incorrect between 1980 and 1984, the Brookhaven National.Labratory, in charge of the investigation, stated according to Victor S,tello,'"that even though conditions for exposure existed offsite, no. person was exposed to a dose in excess of EPA limits.
How'do they know who swam in Clay Creek or the Consumnes river during the period from 1980-1984.
From the Consumnes the water flows into the San Joaquin in a North-South direction, the widthi is roughly 150, miles.
~
The Environmental Protection Age'ncy provides that radioactive J
release-limits are given in terms of public exposure limits, the i
NRC prescribes release limits in terms of concentration of each l
f radioisotope,and between 1980-1984 the.SMUD utility used their own dose calculation. method.
Mr. Stello defends the utility by stating that the>NRC limits can be applied by utility personnel 4
directly,evithout use of a dose calculation manual.
Please be aware l
we are talking about radioactive water, cesium isotopes, tridium
.l and other' radionuclides, and NOT SMUD, NOR THE NRC, OR THE BROOK-t HAVEN NATIONAL LABRATORY CAN SAY FOR SURE HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE WATER WAS RELEASED.t It was also indicated by Mr. Stello of the NRC, that a low level-radioactive!vaste disposal site is being developed in California l
in compliance with the Low Level Waste Policy Amendment Act.
I asked the location of this proposed site, but the only response I received was from a M1. Kalman, the Project Manager for Rancho Seco.
He told me that the' nuclear testing grounds in Nevada was being considered for the dump site.
The purpose of Mr. Kalman's visit was to reassure me the NRC was doing all possible, and they could be trusted.
Well I term this a lack of discretion on thej fA/ of A
the NRC.
L______-____
?
'M 1
s r
Mr. Stello identifies numerous additional technicaJulqs.ues, including
-/
j[
pipe wall' thickness concerns which are still being evaluated at Rancho Seco.
He also compares.a number of open issues at Rancho
[
Seco to other nuclear power plants.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT Three Mile Island, TMI, a! nuclear power plant which also had OPEN ISSUES which'wereinot implemented to the date of the accident at TMI.
I willialso state that there is a definite parallel between Rancho j
Seco and Three Mile Island.
1 2
There are additional safety flaws which still plague. Rancho Seco.
Onx initial restart in March of 1988,.as SMUD started to warm-up the plant, just the warmer, and as indicated my a Sacramento Bee article, SMUDLcouldn't get the plant shut off.
NEXT, was ANOTHER REACTOR LEAK.
a, Smud defended, the radioactive water was contained, so therefore, nothing was jeopardized.
History shows this is not an isolated incident.
I suggest SMUD was.only LUCKY.
An-increase in pressure caused the leak. 4.,'
7 Attachments dated March 11, 1987 indicate dimensional changes.
There are' tables of thickness readings of examined pipe".
In this-report, letter to John Ward, March 11, 1987, Docket #50-312, 4
are the results of one ultrasonic inspection'for the pressurizer ~-
supportflugs (report #85-006,85-007, 85-010, and 85-0014) revealed additional. indications detected since the 1983 outage.
.The in-spection results showed indications close-to previous reported dimensional changes.
The following concerns were unanswered to date of this letter:
1)
Are these indications growing as reported and if they are,,what is the rate of growth?
- )
2)
If these new indications are fabrication welding indications not detected'before, do they require further evaluation to determine why these indications were not detected before.
j l
- This was an unresolved item pending licensees action relating to'the above concerns and NRC review (50-312/87-03-02).
j I would'suggest, that dimensional changes have occurred at Rancho i
j Seco because of l} the history of rapid cooldowns and 2) the theory and facts concerning the phenomena of embrittlement.
d I call your attention to the Sacramento Bee Article, March 17, 1988.
I i
Radioactive steam leak at Rancho Seco.
About 700 gallons spewed from a faulty valve.
THEY DID A $400 MILLION OVERHAUL, and a NRC spokesman Greg Cook 1
- said, "Your going to get leaks and blow gaskets. occasionally".
BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MAINTENANCE HISTORY ON THE EQUIPMENT AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE VALVE WAS PROPERLY ADJUSTED.
et
__.____.____-m-
(
g.
a y.
- /
g/
/
I.will call the Boards attention to a Sacramento Bee article of
/'
August 1988 which identifies a ROCK COCAINE find at Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.
The results of this find was drug testing of
/
the people working where it was found in the warehouse.
Nine people.
ONLY NINE PEOPLE.
My senses are enraged at this LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY.
More than nine people have access to the warehouse area.where it was found.
This is not the only drug related incident, either.
The results of the test were (8) people tested negative and (1). tested positive, but not for cocaine.
You can bet: the rock cocaine did not get there by itself, and to think these people are attempting to operate a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.
Drug testing is not an alternative, because the expense would be passed on to the ratepayers.
The SMUD board has already' spent $400 Million dollars of the ratepayers money trying to make Rancho Seco work, and they still have problems.
PLEASE REMEMBER...in 1979, the President's Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island, after study and investigations into the events of that accident and the conditions existing.up to the accident, finds and. concludes:
l~ [~,.~
'Three Mile Island, fundamental changes will be "To prevent nuclear accidents as serious as necessary in the organization, procedures, and practices--and above all in the att:.udes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, to the extent that the institutions we investigated are typical of the nuclear industry.
The Commission stated, "The utility that operates a nuclear power plant, must be held responsible for the basic fundamental design and procedures that assure nuclear safety."
There'was drug testing, but for only nine people.
THIS IS LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY, especially for a nuclear power plant.
With the potential of the worst case scenario, and in this case defined crimminal activity involving cocaine, and this not being an isolated drug incident, I am petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory Board to put an immediate halt to the operation of Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.
s Yours truly,
[
B r ara Moller
k.
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s'
I o
WASHWGTON, D. C. 20655 k *s.
March 21, 1989 ee*
Ms. Barbara Moller Post Office Box 163306 Sacrauento, California 95816
Dear Ms. Moller:
This letter is in response to your letter of August 30, 1988, in which you
]
requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) to shut down the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
Your request was based on allegations that (1) the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) management
)
- criminally (willfully) disregarded public health and safety as shown by incidents.
j between 1980 and 1984 and again in 1988, in which SMUD released excessive amounts of water containing radionuclides; (2) indications on the pressurizer support lugs demonstrate embrittlement as a result of rapid cooldown events at Rancho Seco; (3) pipe wall thinning has occurred; and (4) in March 1988, while starting j
the reactor, SMUD lost control of Rancho.Seco and was unable to shut the plant down.
1 Also, your Petition restated drug-related allegations that were initially submitted by you in a letter dated August 3,1988. A Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, dated December 14,-1988, DD-88-20, was issued in response to your letter of August 3,1988. The drug-related issues that you raised were evaluated as part of the Decision of December 14, 1988, and will not be addressed further here.
By letter dated December 16, 1988, you were informed that your submittal of August 30, 1988, would be considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and that a decision would be issued in the reasonably near future. The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the concerns you raised. For reasons set forth in the enclosed Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, your request has been denied.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of the Decision will be '
referred to the Secretary of the Commission for t1e Comission's review. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice regarding this Decision filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Office of Nuclear, Director Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Director's Decision
- 2. Notice cc w/ enclosure See next page
m.
a.
I Mr. Joe Firlit Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Station Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799 Mr. David S. Kaplan, Secretary Mr. John Bartus and General Counsel Ms. JoAnne Scott Sacramento Municipal Utility Federal Energy Regulatory Commission District 825 North Capitol Street, N. E.
1 6201 S Street Washington, D.C.
20426 P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 I
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Ms. Helen Hubbard Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge P. O. Box 63 2300 N Street, N.W.
Sunol, California 94586 Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. Steven Crunk Manager, Nuclear Licensing Sacramento Municipal Utility District l
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station i
14440 Twin Cities Road l
Herald, California 95638-9799 Mr. Robert B. Borsum, Licensing Representative Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Division 1700 Rockville Pike - Suite 525 Rockville, Maryland 20852 I
l Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco c/o U. S. N. R. C.
14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638 l
Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Paul Szalinski, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Building #8 Sacramento, California 95814 Sacramento County l
Board of Supervisors l
700 H Street, Suite 2450
)
Sacramento, California 95814
.. = -
s.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Thomas E. Murley, Director In the Matter of
)l SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY h
Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT (SMUD) l)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating (10CFR2.206)
Station)
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION On August 30, 1988, Ms.BarbaraHoller(Petitioner)submittedaPetition requesting the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to shut down theRanchoSecoNuclearGeneratingStation(RanchoSeco). Ms. Mo11er's Petition was based on allegations that (I) SMUD management criminally (willfully) dis-regarded public health and safety as shown by ir.cidents between 1980 and 1984, and again in 19P8, 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 wall thinning has occurred; and (4) in March 1988 while starting the reactor, SMUD lost control of Rancho Seco and was unable to shut the plant down.
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; O
- 1[
g_
1 s.
J 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 Consnission 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 l
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, I
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 l
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 l
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.
wm,
BACKGROUND The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD cr 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 o?erating 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.
I 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 1988, and Rancho Seco was authorized to restart. The restart program is described in detail in the Rancho Seco restart Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-i 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 asceasion 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 actions completed by the licensee during the 27-month.
l 1
n.
)
shutdown appear to have corrected the previously identified safety-significant deficiencies and that there are no existing concerns that warrant additional 1
plant shutdowns.
DISCUSSION 1.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents.
Between 1980 and 1985, radioactive liquid effluents discharged from Rancho Seco resulted in offsite contamination in the vicinity of the plant.
I 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 into 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 radioactive., b ligt 4 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.
1/ Letter from J. Stolz (NRC) to R. Rodriguez (SMUD), dated April 28, 1986.
i i
e In 1985, after the liquid release problems were identified NRC learned that additional releases in excess of 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-continueu the criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, SMUD has removed its managers responsible for the liquid releases from their management positions, including the plant manager.
I Following the plant shutdown in December 1985, improvements to the Rancho Seco liquid waste systems were made a prerequisite to plant restart.
j i
Before authorizing plant restart in March 1988, the NRC ascertained that plant liquid waste systems could support plant operations while satisfying regulatory limits on releases of' radionuclides to the environment. This evaluation is summarized 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 4
4
r-i j
i l with liquid radioactive waste are sufficient to warrant consideration of plant shutdown.
1 During plant restart, radioactive water was discharged several times inside the containment building. The petitioner cites examples of 4
discharges inside containment in an apparent attempt to show that SMUD's program to control liquid radioactive effluents is inadequate.
j 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 i
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.
i 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 l
l en 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 fabrict. tion, why they had not been detected earlier.
r-l
- s 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 indicate any embrittlement of the lugs.
3.
Pipe Wall Thinning Pipe wall thinning at all nuclear plants became an issue of great conct.rn 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 monitoring programs designed to predict pipe deterioration. Nuclear plants, including Rancho Seco, responded to the NRC bulletin and submitted descriptions of their pipe monitorirg programs.
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 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 wr11 thinning that had
v any safety significance and concluded that the pipe wall thicknesses at Rancho Seco were adequate. 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 l
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 l
to shut doc 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.
CONCt.USION i
On the basis of allegations set forth in the Petition, the Petition requested that Rancho Seco be shutdown. The Petitioner's allegations relating
wm.
.g.
I 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 i
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 89', 923 (1984). These are the standards that I have applied to the concerns raHed 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 Secretary of the Comission for the Comission review.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lq $
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March,1989
O cta E)
,jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGON V l
1450 MARIA LANE,SulTE 210
\\*....
WALNUT CREE K.CALtFoRNIA 94506 JAS 1 'sco Docket No.
50-312 EA 86-110 Sacramento Municipal Utility District I
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station ATTN:
J. F. Fir 11t, Chief Executive Officer Nuclear 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799 Gentlemen:
i i
SU8 JECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY l
(INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-312/86-15) i 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.
3 An enforcement conference related to the inspection findings was held at the 1
Region V office on June 20, 1986, with members of the District staff.
Based l
l on the results of this inspection and discussions during the enforcement i
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 implement 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 R_E_ TURN RECEIPf REQUESTED
~
g-
~.
~
Sacramento Municipal -
Utility District
~
considerations surrounding the inspection findings.
Your evaluation of those areas was provided in a letter dated January 25, 1988, which has been reviewed by the NF.C staff.
Notwithstanding all the information you have provided concerning these issues, as well as their relative age, we view the violations as demonstrating a significant breakdown in the oversight of your program to control radioactive.
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.
- ':vr.
k j
1 Sacramento Municipal Utility District The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject l
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
' Sincer ly, A.'
f'k: r..' ~.?S John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/cnc1:
J. Vinquist, SMUD K. A. Meyer, SMUD State of California e
=
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY l
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 or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in I
the procedures as described in the safety analysis report,-and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety 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 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 Secticn 11, Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protection, that:
{
l I
"During normal plant operations, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is designed not to release any liquid affluents 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 i
to determine whether a change in the Technical Specifications was required or if an unreviewed safety question was involved, and without havin!T created or maintained a record of a safety evaluation, from January 1983 th. iugh March 13, 1986, procedures and temporary system modifications were pple-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 (7-950 A or B), and ultimately released to the environment.
'l 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 f
with the listed nulcides, shall be identified and reported."
d 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 I
and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous l
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
o,
- 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 reported."
Contrary to the above requirements, on June 4,1985, isotopic analysis of a batch of radioactive liquid waste (8 RHUT 85-93) identified measurab~le 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 i
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) elso found measurable concentrations of Cs-137 which were identified but not i
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 effluents 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 l
organ."
Contrary to the above requirement, during calendar year 1985, radioactive J
materials in liquid effluents were released such that a member of the public could have received a total body dose in excess of 3 mrom 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 arem.
l E.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 provides in part that:
"Writtr.n procedures shall be established, implemented and 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.
i Contrary to the above requirement, from March 30, 1933 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 8 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:
The intent of the original procedure is not altered... [and) a.
b.
The change is documented, reviewed by the PRC and approved by the Plant Superintendent within 'seven (7) days of. implementation."
s
P.'.
~
f
.nc'
.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 i
each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) i the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have i
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 is'ued to show cause why the license should s
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 affimation.
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 cumulative 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 incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,.
t
'ptot~ ice of Violation citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
The attention of the licensee ~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 I
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.
l RT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f'(//f John B. Martin Regional ' Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California this /0 day of January 1989.
i l
l 0
3
,=.
.a DD-89-D2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312 ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor-Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision concerning a Petition dated August 30, 1988, filed by Ms. Barbara Moller of Sacramento, California. The Petitioner requested the NRC to shut down the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Therequestwasbasedonallegationsthat(1)TheSacramentoMunicipal Utility District (SMUD) management criminally (willfully) disregarded 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; l
(2) indications on the pressurizer support lugs demonstrate embrittlement as a result of rapid cooldown~ events at Rancho Seco; (3) pipe wal's thinning has l
l occurred; and (4) in March 1988, while starting the reactor, SMUD lost control of Rancho Seco and was unable to shut the plant down. Also the Petition restated drug-related allegations that were initially submitted by Ms. Moller in a letter dated August 3, 1988. A Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, dated December 14, 1988, DD-88-20, was issued in response to the letter of l
August 3, 1988.
On December 16, 1988, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),acknowledgedreceiptofthePetition. He infonned Ms. Moller that the Petition would be treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations and that appropriate action would be taken in a reasonable time.
hD0 b$
Z
m w
9 a.
,, a The Director has now determined that the Petitioner's request should be denied for the reasons set forth in the " Director's Decision Pursuant to 10CFR2.206"(DD-88-02),whichisavailableforinspectionandcopyinginthe Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station located at the Martin Luther King Regional Library, 7340 24th Street l
Bypass, Sacramento, California 95822.
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission.
for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), the Decision will become the final action of the Comission twenty-five (25) days after issuance unless the Comission, on its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within that time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- k hRt
,,-4 c5 Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March,1989
}
q l
\\
l l
i
_____i