IR 05000133/1986002
| ML20211K141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1986 |
| From: | Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211K136 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-86-02, 50-133-86-2, NUDOCS 8606270265 | |
| Download: ML20211K141 (8) | |
Text
!
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-133/86-02 Docket No.
50-133 License No.
DPR-7 Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106
'
Facility Name:
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Inspection at:
Eureka, California
.
Inspection Conducted:
June 2-6, 1986
.
Inspector:
M f//fdY _
_,,
C. A. Hooker, Radiation Specialist Date Signed Approved by:
b9k L 6hq/9(
G. P. Y a'w', Chief Date Signed Faciliti Radiological Protection Section Sununary:
Inspection on June 2-6, 1986 (Report No. 50-133/86-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of a facility in extended
~
shutdown (preparatior, for SAFSTOR).
Inspection of activities associated with-the decomunissioning process including:
actions on previous inspection findings; operator training; liquid effluents; gaseous' effluents; plant procedures; fire protection; operational safety; surveillance procedures and
,
.
records; spent fuel pool activities; and facility tour.
Inspection procedures.
84723, 84724, 86700, 30703, 64704, 42700, 41700, 71707, 61700, 92702, 92701 and 90713 were covered.
'
Results: No violatiuns-or deviations were identified.in the areas inspected.
.-
.
h a
,
.
J
/
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Person Contacted A.
PG&E Personnel
.
- E.
D.' Weeks, Plant Manger
- R. T. Nelson, Power Plant Engineer
- R.
C. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (SC&RPE)
D. A. Peterson, Supervisor, Quality Control
- R. M. Lund, Radiation Protection Monitor (RPM) Foreman R. R. Prigmore, Training Coordinator R. D. McKenna, Operations Supervisor T. K. Tyler, Senior Power Production Engineer G. M. McKinnon, Control Operator B.
Contractors
- R. Decker, Radiological Engineer (Chemrad Corporation)
G. E. Davis, Quality Control (PDS Technical Services)
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 6, 1986.
In addition to the individuals identified above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (50-133/86-01-01):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/86-01 I
identified that the licensee had not established procedures for assessment of personnel exposures resulting from skin contaminations.
This inspection disclosed that such procedures have been incorporated in procedure RCP-3,'" Personnel Contamination Control," and approved on June 4, 1986. The inspector had no'further questions regarding this matter.
(Closed) Open Iter (50-133/86-01-02):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/86-01 described inspecto. ~ concerns that the licensee's two year general Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) being used had expired. LDuring this
. inspection, the inspector noted that new RWPs had been issued, management
.
controls were implemented for future review and approval prior to expiration and the licensee had. posted the new approved RWPs in the access control area. This. matter is considered closed.
(Closed) Open Item (50-133/85-03-01):
Inspection Report No.. 50-133/85-03'
described inspector's concerns that fire brigade duties assigned to security personnel may have been on an interfering basis with security
responsibilities'during certain events. During this inspection, the
'
inspector verified through discussions with licensee' representative, fire.
brigade training records and licensee's procedures-that security personnel were not assigned fire brigade. duties that would interfere with security responsibilities. -The inspector had no further questions in regard to this matter.
.
A
,.
.
_ /l
-
-
-
(Closed) Violation'(50-133/85-03-02): Violation involving the failure to provide adequate protection of stored safeguards information. Actions as stated in licensee's response dated September 19, 1985, were verified by a visual inspection of the cabinet-in which the safeguards information was stored. Appropriate locking bar and safeguard type security combination lock had been installed and was being used. The inspector had no further questions regarding this issue.
3.
Audits Quality Assurance Audit conducted February 25-28, 1986, (QA Report No.
i
~
86054P) to verify that HBPP was effectively implementing the QA Program policy and-departmental procedures established for 10 CFR 50, Appendix B:
Criteria IX, " Control of Special Processes;" XII, " Handling, Storage and Shipping;" XIV, " Inspection, Test and Operating Status;" XV,
" Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components;" XVI,'" Corrective Action;" and XVII, " Quality Assurance Records," was examined. The audit identified one Audit Finding Report, (AFR) No.86-042, concerning
.
calibration records, file and recall cards, and referenced procedures that could not be found for four' instruments. The audit. concluded that the deficiency identified in the AFR had not adversely affected HBPP from a safety standpoint, redundant devices were' properly functioning, and other calibration procedures were used to calibrate the instruments involved. No nonconformance reports (NCR) were issued.
The audit findings concluded that HBPP had been effectively, implementing the requirements for the audited areas.
Based on review of this audit and HBPP's response to the AFR, the inspector concluded 'that ' corrective actions appeared appropriate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Liquid and Gaseous Waste The inspector reviewed gaseous effluent sampling and monitoring data, liquid radwaste discharge forms, selected p-ocedures, Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, calibration of monitoring systems and conducted a facility tour to determine the licensee's compliance to 10 CFR Part 20, Technical Specification (TS),' requirements and licensee e
procedures.
A.
Audits
!
Quality Assurance audit related to this area was discussed in
,
paragraph 3 of this report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
B.
Liquid Waste Radioactive liquids are batch released to the outfall canal in accordance with Operating Instruction No. F-3,_"Radwaste System,"
and attached Forms Nos. 1 and 2.
Recordssof selected liquid radwaste discharges from January 1 to June 2,1986, were examined.
,
b
/
.
.
The inspector verified by manual calculations the MPC values for batch release from the No. 2 Hold Tank, Batch No. 86-54.
As a result of this review, it was noted that the procedure and discharge forms did not specify or provide for verification of the minimum circulating water flow needed for dilution when releasing radioactive liquids.
In addition, the discharge Form No. I did not provide evidence priot to each discharge of the precalculated release rate value to ensure that the MPC limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, would not be exceeded. The need to revise Operating Instruction No. F-3 and discharge Form No. I was discussed with the licensee at the exit meeting on June 6, 1986.
The licensee's action on this matter will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-133/86-02-01, Open).
Calibration records of the liquid radwaste process monitor conducted on April 25, 1986, were examined and noted to be in accordance with licensee's procedure C&RP No. F-9, " Calibration of the Liquid Radwaste Monitor."
No violations or deviations were identified.
C.
Gaseous Effluents Weekly stack sampling data from January 1, 1986, to April 24, 1986, were reviewed. Since the reactor has been shut down since July 2, 1976, no radioiodines or noble gases have been detected in the plant effluents. All sample data examined by the inspectors verified that radioactivity released in particulate form was well below the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, limits.
Calibration records of the stack monitoring system and alarms were examined. Based on this examination, it was noted that monthly calibrations were being performed in accordance with TS VII.B.2.
No violations or deviations were identified.
D.
Semiannual Effluent Report The inspector reviewed, in office, the licensee's Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period July 1, 1986, through December 31, 1986, issued under PG&E cover letter No.
HBL-86-003, dated February 28, 1986. The report was issued on time in accordance with TS IX.I.3.a and included a summary of the quantities of radioactive liquid, gaseous effluents and solid waste released from Unit 3 as outlined in RG 1.21.
No errors or anomalous data were identified (Closed, 86-SA-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
l
.
.
5.
Licensed Operator Requalification The licensee's training program is described by NPAP B-101, "NRC Licensed Operator Retraining Program." This procedure is consistent with 10 CFR 55, Appendix A.
The inspector discussed the training program and reviewed lesson plans as appropriate for the current plant status.
Training is appropriately focused on those plant systems that remain in service as required by TS; such as fire protection, emergency procedures, spent fuel pool operations and waste processing.
Annual written and oral exams for selected individuals were examined.
Based on this examination and through discussions with the training coordinator, the inspector did not identify any unsatisfactory performance among licensed operators.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Plant Procedures Technical Specification IX.F.2 and 3 described the requirements for review and approval of procedure changes, new procedures, and for temporary changes to existing procedures. The inspector verified by selective examination of new, revised and temporary procedures, and review of Plant Staff Review Committee meeting minutes that new procedures and changes were in accordance with TS requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Fire Protection A.
Audits Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Annual Fire Protection Audit, No.
85142T, conducted August 12-14, 1985, in accordance with TS IX.D.2.h.2.c requirements, was examined. According to the report, HEPP had been effectively implementing the fire protection program in accordance with applicable TS requirements. The audit team witnessed a training session and an unannounced fire drill with respect to NRC Generic Letter 82-21.
No NCRs or AFRs were issued.
The inspector examined a Loss Prevention Report from a survey conducted by a consultant firm on February 11 and 12, 1986. The inspector noted that there were no recommendations that would indicate noncompliance or a si nificant fire safety issue.
E Fire brigade training and fire drill records were examined. Fire brigade training is conducted monthly onsite and actual hands-on training provided by the Greater Eureka Fire Training Association is conducted annually.
During a facility tour on June 3, 1986, the inspector examined fire I
hose stations, placement of fire extinguishers, fire extinguisher inspection tags, and housekeeping practices. Fire hoses appeared to
,
l
r
+
.
.5 be new and were equipped with appropriate spanner wrenches. During the tour, the inspector noted the following observations:
u l
The upper level-of the new liquid radwaste building was not
-
equipped with a portable fire. extinguisher.
Since the floor over the top of concentrate waste tank had a plastic contamination control barrier and some. combustible paper waste was in the area, the inspector recommended that a portable fire
,
extinguisher be installed in the area.~
The nearest, most-readily available-fire extinguisher was.in the low level waste storage building about 40 ft. away. The licensee initiated a Nuclear Plant Problem Report (NPPR) to evaluate the need for placing a fire extinguisher in this area.
~'
-
The inspector observed that a ' fire extinguisher located in the Hot Shop was lying on the floor under the extinguishers mounting back-drop, and another extinguisher in the pond area -
was not mounted to the nearby. backdrop.
In each case, the.
hanging mounts were not compatible with the fire extinguisher hanging bracket. The licensee initiated a NPPR to correct this problem.
J I]
_
The decontamination tent enclosure in the Hot Shop was cluttered with paper and plastic wastes.
j The inspector also examined records of weekly plant fire system checks in accordance with procedure OTP-14A with respect to TS X.A.1
requirements. No anomalies were noted in this examination.
Based on the review of this area, the inspector noted that the licensee was implementing the TS fire protection requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Surveillance i
Records of applicable TS required surveillances from January 1,1986, through May 31, 1986, were examined selectively. ~The examination covered check lists from the following' operational test procedures (OTP):
OTP No. 6, " Testing of Engine-Generator and Transfer Scheme for Emergency Section of the 480 V A-C System." (TS VI.A.7.B and VI.B.7)
OTP No. 8, " Refueling Building Leak Rate Test and Gas' Treatment System Check and Check of Automated Function of Refueling Building Monitor." (TS III.B.8,.VII.B.5, and VIII.B.5)
The inspector verified that the licensee maintains a master surveillance 3.
test schedule that identifies test, test frequency, test procedure, responsible individual and requirement to perform the test.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i
,
-
-,
-
- --
-
,-
. -..
--.-..,
-
.
.
-.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
9.
Spent Fuel Pool Activities There were no current spent fuel activities or fuel handling operations being performed during this inspection. Cleanup activities by a contract vendor had been completed.
Verification that the refueling building isolation occurs on high radiation signals, proper operation of the ventilation system, and air monitor calibrations were examined in paragraph 8 of this report.
During a visual inspection of the spent fuel pool, the inspector noted that the water was at the proper level, area air and radiation monitors were operational, spent fuel assemblies were properly stored in the fuel racks, and the pool was impressively clean.
Control room operator survey sheets were examined. Spent fuel pool water level was checked visually daily, pool water inventory was maintained and the area radiation monitor readings were logged each shift. Pool water chemistry is maintained by a demineralizing cleanup system.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Operational Safety The examination of this area focused on staffing, observations of control room activities, review of operator's survey log sheets and quizzing control operators on their actions in certain events (spent fuel pool low level water alarm, liquid radwaste high activity alarm and location of radiological emergency equipment).
Procedure NPAP No. 104, " Shift and Control Room Manning Requirements,"
Rev. 120-5/86, was also reviewed. The procedure described revisions for shift and control room manning requirements while in the cold shutdown mode and with no fuel in the reactor.
Paragraphs a, b, c, and e of Section VII.c.1 of the TS was determined not to be applicable.due to the current facility status. This matter was discussed at a meeting at the Region V office with licensee representatives on April 9, 1986'.
The new manning requirements were noted to be consistant with the new proposed TS for a SAFSTOR license. Based on review of this procedure and verification that staffing had been implemented as proposed, the inspector determined that the licensee was in compliance with TS requirements appropriate for currant plant status.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
11.
Facility Tours The inspector toured the radiologically controlled areas of Unit 3 making independent radiation measurements with a portable ion chamber, S/N 2694, due for calibration August 15, 1986.
The inspector observed that all,
radiation areas and high radiation areas were posted as required by 10 CFR Part 20, and access controls were consistent with TS requirements and licensee's procedures.
l I
-.
.
.
..
.-... -
r
,
.
The inspector. also observed good agreement with the radiation levels
measured by a licensee representative conducting a survey on a low level
'
waste container.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 6, 1986. The scope and
,
findings of the inspection we're summarized.
.
t I
4
-
i s
1 N
p
-
y v
i
"
T h -
-- -
W~
- - -c h-n P
A e --