IR 05000133/1978015
| ML19276E060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1979 |
| From: | Book H, North H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276E059 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-78-15, NUDOCS 7903020259 | |
| Download: ML19276E060 (3) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULAT00.Y COM 11SS10il 0FFICE OF IllSPECTION AfiD Ef'FORCEME!!T REGI0il V Report !!o. 50-133/78-15 Docket No. 50-133 License f;o.
DPR-7 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street
__
San Francisco, California 94106 Facility flame:
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Inspection at:
Eureka, California Inspection Conducte : Decembe,r 14, 1978 b
O
/
/
f Inspectors:
H. 57 florth, Radiation Specialist
/ Date Signed Date Slgned f
f 0-0-
/ O Approved By:
s
.
H. E. Book, Chief, Fuel Facility and liaterial's Date Signed
,
Safety Branch Surrmary:
Inspection on December 14,1978 (Report fio. 50-133/78-15)
Areas Inspecte_d:
Routine announced inspection of emergency planning, records of tests and drills, observation of an emergency plan drill. The inspection involved 8 inspector hours onsite.
Results:
flo items of noncompliance were identified.
7903020251 IE:V Form 219 (2)
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
P_ersons Contacted
- W. A. Raymond, Plant Superintendent
- E. D. Weeks, Power Plant Engineer W. T. Rapp, Senior Power Production Engineer
- R. C. Parker, Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
- R. Lund, Radiation and Process Monitor Foreman D. Voss, Supervisor of Operations S. Redeker, Power Production Engineer R. Nelson, Training Coordinator R. Twiddy, QC Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Energency Planning - Test and Drill Records The inspector discussed with licensee oersonnel and examined records of an Emergency Plan Drill conducted on November 20, 1978.
The drill was an announced, " walk-through" of an explosion and fire in the Radiation Waste Storage Building.
The drill did not involve the participation of any offsite organizations.
The inspector determined that qualified indivi-duals were used to evaluate the licensee's response; and that a critique, attended by involved departnent heads, was conducted immediately following the drill.
The results of the critique were formally documented in a Training Menorandum. Action had been initiated or completed to correct areas needing improvement.
No items of. noncompliance were identified.
3.
Emergency Planning - Tests and Drills On December 14, 1978, the inspector observed an unannounced drill of the Emergency Plan. The drill scenario plant conditions were 100% power and 1100 psi, sunny day with light wind. The drill simulated a generator trip, inoperative bypass valves, reactor trip on high neutron flux, emergency condenser inoperable, safety valve lift to suppression chamber, main steam line failure to dry well, low pressure core flooding operational, but no core
..
.
.
-2-
.
spray.
The scenario was selected to provide a nechanism which could result in fuei failures with significant offsite releases.
The drill included evacuation of the Refueling Building, sounding the site emergency signal, dispatch of an offsite monitoring team, and simulated Unit 1 and 2 and offsite evacuations.
The licensee had developed and used during the drill a conouter program which printed map scale offsite, curves of constant concentration based on release rate and meteorological data. The Humboldt County Office of Emergency Services was notified.
The inspector was present at a critique conducted immediately following the drill.
The critique included the principal drill participants and drill monitors. The critique identified minor problens in the areas of ccnmunications and organization.
There were also delays in identi-fying the problem as a main steam line break caused principally by the difficulty in simulating such an occurrence when information is made available on handout cards or by asking the monitors for info rmation.
The inspector determined that the response to the simulated emergency was in accordance with the emergency plan, tirely and coordinated.
No items of nonconpliance were identified.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in Daragraph 1) at the conclusion of the insoection. The inspector summarized the scope, purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee was informed that the licensee's actions concerning the problem areas identified during the critique would be examined dur-ing a subsequent inspection (78-15-01). The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance had been identified.