ML20235H543

FOIA Request for 851216 Memo Referred to on 860606 Insp Rept 50-312/86-15

ML20235H543
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	04/17/1986
From:	Connor L DOC-SEARCH ASSOCIATES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FOIA-87-236 NUDOCS 8707150170
Download: ML20235H543 (1)

Text

- _ _ - _ _ _ - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 , .. .

l .

J

, I l

l DOC-SEARCH ASSOCIATES )

P.O. Box 7 f Cabin John, .'!D '20810 l

l l

Director l Division of Rules and Records US Muclear Regulatory Cor.uaission FREEDOM 0F INFORMATl0N  ;

vashington, D.C. 20555 MT RE l O ~[QUESTA 1

W 4,D-8)

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information-Act would you please place the f ollowing docuraent (s) in the Public Document Room: l r . '

^

kk(4 . A/ g . e' & v Q. \ M ~ Q , g y, o

• l c'~

em yS .a xe %L;

,.9 cw l C- k' h d -cv bs 'bMM (jt eob~u19s._ ,  % . G. h s l Thank you.

Sincerely,

,,L - C. LLw-Lynn Connor ct ,

8707150170 860417 PDR FOIA CONNDR87-236 PDR

p1400 N

.;8  % UNITED STATES

AW_*[ylk

-/ ... NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V 0, 1450 M ARIA LANE. SUITE 210

'[e

%, , WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNI A 945%

JUN 0 61986 1

s _ - ~

\, .

l

. \

n W Docket No. 50-312 G  ?..

l l

l Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Attention: "Ar. John E. Ward Assistect General Manager, Nuclear Gentlemer,:

Subject:

NRC Inspection Report 1 J

l This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. G. Hamada and l G. Yuhas of this office on April 1, 2, 29 and May 15, 1986, of activities l aurnorized b} NRC License No. DPR-5,4, and to the discussions of our findings l held by Mr. Whas with Messrs. R. Colombo and R. Rodriguez and other members of your staff at the conclusion of each site visit during the inspection.

This inspection was conducted to evaluate your management of liquid radioactive effluents during 1985. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

Enforcement action related to the enclosed inspection report will be addressed in separate correspondence.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the_NRC.Public Document Room.

~8606200909 860606 PDR ADOCK 05000312 G PDR g(

(

e{%;,

..... , } %

.i i

Sacramento Municipal Utility District JUN 0 61986-  !

1 1

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to il l discuss them with you. ')

Sincerely, 01;at 9--g ey E E * Cat.!Jv. ,ld .

l Ross A. Scarano, Director Division of Radiation Safety j and Safeguards '

']

l

Enclosure:

Inspection Report j No. 50-312/86-15 'l l

cc w/ enclosure:

L. G. Schwieger, SMUD. ,

G. Coward, SMUD l State of CA FEMA, Region IX bec: RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Resident Inspector Project Inspector G. Cook /B. Faulkenberry/J. Martin bec.w/o enclosure:

LFMB 3

i RV GYuh sire g g 7Wenslawski AJohnson RScarano i d {fd l

l

....% i 6

l b

The inspector notes that the word "not" has been included in the second i i

sentence.

The sa=e sentence from NUREG-0472, Revision 3, Standard Radiological l Effluent Technical Specifications For Pressurized Water Reactors, reads-

"Ihis limitation provides additional assurance that the levels of j radioactive materials in bodies of water in UNRESTRICTED AREAS will l result in exposures within (1) the Section II.A design objectives of {

Appendix I, 10 CFR Part 50, to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC and (2) the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.106(e) to the population."

The Regulatory Compliance Supervisor stated to the inspector that the word "not" had been deliberately inserted into the " Bases" during development of this specification because members of the licensee's organization recognized that the LLD values for their site might not be adequate to demonstrate compliance with the design objectives of Appendix I,Section II.A. Section II.A. limits the dose due to liquid i

' effluents to 3 mrem per year'to the total body. T.S. 3.17.1, Dose, l implementsSection II. A. of Appendix I. 1 The inspector found that several individuals within the licensee's 3

organization were not aware that the LLD values presented in Table 4.21-1 j were not intended to provide assurance that the T.S. 3.17.2 dose limits would be met. Specifically, the Radiation Protection Superintendent, Acting Chemistry Supervisor, and two Senior Chemistry and Radiation Assistants all stated to the inspector that they believed if their onsite laboratorj capability had an LLD of at least the value in Table 4.21-1 and they did not identify measurable radioisotopes in the liquid effluent )

releases, the dose limits of T.S. 3.17.2 and Appendix I would not be j exceeded. All four CRPT interviewed confirmed that they had been told this was the case by their chemistry and radiation protection supervisors.

In a December 16, 1985, memorandum from the Supervising Health Physicist to the Manager, Nuclear Engineering, the Supervising Health Physicist presented the October 1985 LLNL sample results and described his awareness beginning in January 1985 that the onsite LLD's may not be adequcce to assure compliance. The Memorandum described his efforts to evaluate the LLD issue, the lack of management support, his awareness of NRC interest, and proposed six specific actions to be accomplished. The issue of communi, cations is discussed in Paragraph 6 of this report.

10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section IV. A. reads in part:

"A. If the quantity of radioactive material actually released in effluents to unrestricted areas from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor during any calendar quarter is such that the resulting radiation exposure, calculated on the same basis as the respective design objective exposure, would exceed one-half the design ebjective annual exposure derived pursuant to Sections II and III, the licensee shall:

"1. Make an investigation to identify the causes for such release rates:

_ _ - _ _ _