IR 05000133/1987002
| ML20235D240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235D172 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-87-02, 50-133-87-2, IEIN-86-103, IEIN-87-003, IEIN-87-004, IEIN-87-013, IEIN-87-13, IEIN-87-3, IEIN-87-4, NUDOCS 8707100099 | |
| Download: ML20235D240 (10) | |
Text
..
.
_
_ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
'
-
I l
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l
REGION V
i Report No. 50-133/87-C?
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 i
Inspection Conducted: June 2-5, 1987 6 /.Pd7 Inspector:
M
_Date Signed C. A. Hooker, Radiation Specialist
baNM SlFi/W G.P.(uhhs, Chief Date Signed Facilit'ies/ Radiological Protection Section Summary:
Inspection on June 2-5, 1987 (Report No. 50-133/87-02)
i Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of a facility in extended shutdown (preparation for SAFSTOR) including:
actions on previous inspection findings; fire protection; operator and plant radiation protection training and qualifications; procedures; operational safety; surveillance procedures and records; spent fuel pool activities; radioactive liquid and gaseous waste; licensee reports and followup on IE Information Notices.
Inspection procedures addressed included 30703, 84723, 84724, 86700, 61700, 64704, 41700, 83723, 42700, 71707 92701 and 90713.
Results:
Of the an as inspected one apparent violation was identified in one area:
Technical Specification (TS) VII.B.2., failure to change the stack effluent sample within the 200 hour0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> limit, paragraph 3.b.
QNh P
G
__
__
_
_
. _ _ _ -
-_ _ _ _-_____ ___ _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Personnel
- F. T. Nelson, Plant Manager
- P. E. Rigney, Power Plant Engineer
- R. C. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer
- D. A. Peterson, Supervisor, Quality Control
- T. J. Williams, Environmental Coordinator
- J. H. Paul, Fire Marshall, Power Production Engineer
- J. D. Crow, Training Coordinator
- R. R. Prigmore, Supervisor of Operations, Acting NRC Contacts I. N. Jackiw, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2 C, Region III K. R. Ridgway, Senior Resident Inspector, Lacross Nuclear Power Plant, Region III
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 5, 1987.
In addition to the individuals identified above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Followup (50-133/87-01-01):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01 documented the need for the licensee to revise the proposed SAFSTOR TS,Section III, Table III-2, regarding spent fuel pool (SFP) pH control limits.
Based on review of Revision 2 of the proposed SAFSTOR TS, dated March 20, 1987, that included new SFP pH control limits, the inspector had no further questions and considers this matter closed.
(Closed) Followup (50-133/87-01-02):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01 documented the inspector's concern regarding the need for the licensee to
{
label equipment and valves (liquid radwaste system), and identify them in plant piping and instrument diagrams (P& ids) and licensee procedures.
During this inspection, while making facility tours, the inspector observed that the licensee had labeled equipment and valves in the liquid radwaste facility.
The inspector also noted that P& ids were being updated to include valve numbers.
Procedures will also be revised to identify valve numbers.
The inspector considers this matter closed.
(Closed) Followup (50-133/87-01-03):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01 documented the inspector's concern in regard to the licensee not performing response tests (between 6 month calibrations) and not having developed a method for performing such tests on their R02 survey instruments.
During this inspection the inspector noted that the licensee had effectively acted on this matter and R02 survey instruments _ _ - - _ - _ _ -
.
_
_
-
+
4.
were being response tested prior to use.
The inspector had no further
, questions-regarding this matter.
(0 pen) Followup (50-133/87-01-04):
Inspection. Report No. 50-133/87-01
'
documented the need for the licensee to develop procedures for measuring.
the radiation intensity of their Co-60 instrument calibration source with
.
new measuring instruments being used.
During this inspection the
-
inspector was informed that the source measuring. instruments had been
sent off-site for recalibration and that procedures to use this equipment had not been developed yet.
This matter remaint open.
(0 pen) Followup (50-133/87-01-05) - Radiological and Chemical Confirmatory Measurements - (84725):
)
Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01 documented previous inspection efforts in this area and the need to evaluate the licensee's and NRC's radioactivity analysis of specific selected well water and other plant
!
samples.
During this. inspection the licensee had not received all of the
{
analytical results from their off-site vendor.
Comparison of the results
!
remains open.
- 3.
Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Waste j
The inspector reviewed gaseous effluent sampling and monitoring data,
!
liquid radwaste discharge forms, selected procedures, Semiannual f
Radioactive Effluent Release Report (paragraph 4), calibration of monitoring systems and conducted a facility tour to determine the licensee's compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, TS requirements and licensee procedures.
a.
Liquid Waste l
Radioactive liquid waste discharges to the outfall canal from l
January 1 through May 29, 1987, were reviewed.
The licensee had i
made a total of 16 discharges during this period.
The inspector
,
verified by manual calculations the MPC values for batch release No.
'
87-15, Receiver Tank No. 2, released on May 20, 1987.
No errors or anomalies were noted.
Discharges were noted to be in accordance with Operating Instruction F-3, Radwaste System.
.
No unmonitored release paths were identified.
Radioactive liquid discharges were noted to be less than the limits specified in,10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column II.
Operation, sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with TS Section VIII.A.I.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Gaseous Waste No fission and activation gases were detected in releases made by the licensee.
Weekly plant stack particulate sample data from October 30, 1986 l
through May 26, 1987, were examined.
Quarterly vent grab samples of l
. - -
.
-. -. _ _
-..
_ _ _
- - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -
-. - _ -.
_-
- _ _ -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
__ _
_ -
_
'
.
.
l
-
(
the hot chem lab, hot shop and liquid radwaste building for 1987 were also examined. All sample data examined by the inspector verified that sample results were well below the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, limits.
No unmonitored release pathways were identified.
Based on further review of stack sample data and other records, the-inspector made the following additional observations:
TS,Section VII.B.2, as amended and effective October 26, 1986, I
-
states, in part that "The stack particulate filter will normally be removed for laboratory counting on a weekly schedule (sample intervals shall not exceed 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />)."
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-133/86-03, paragraph 8, documents
'
-
the review of a nonconformance report (NCR) No. HB3-86-TC-N003 concerning the failure to collect this stack particulate sample within the TS 200 hour0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> limit during the period.of October 18, 1986 through October 30, 1986 (213 hour0.00247 days <br />0.0592 hours <br />3.521825e-4 weeks <br />8.10465e-5 months <br /> duration).
The
!
licensee subsequently submitted a Licensee Event Report (LER)
No. 86-002-00, dated December 1, 1986, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i).
The licensee's corrective action to prevent recurrence included the development of a.more formal scheduling and tracking system to ensure the TS sample interval requirement would not be exceeded.
The inspector noted during this inspection that the licensee did not implement the corrective action until February 1987.
The inspector noted from the licensee's stack gas particulate
-
activity data sheets that the sample was changed on December 8, t
1986, at 11:36 p.m.. and was not collected until December 17, 1986, at 8:40 a.m., a time interval of 201 hours0.00233 days <br />0.0558 hours <br />3.323413e-4 weeks <br />7.64805e-5 months <br />.
Failure to change the stack particulate sample within a 200 hour0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> time interval was identified as an apparent violation of TS VII.B.2.
Had the licensee been more timely in implementing their corrective action from the previous event, this TS requirement may not have been exceeded.
Based on review of sample data following completion of the corrective action in February 1987, no additional examples of untimely sample collection were identified.
One apparent violation was identified.
c.
Instrumentation Calibration and source check records of the liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring instruments and alarms were examined.
Based on this examination, no errors or anomalies were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Licensee Reports
The following reports were reviewed in-office by the inspector:
_. _ _.
_- - --- _ _ -_
_- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<
l
..
.
.
.
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period of i
l July 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986.
Thistimelyreportwasissued'if.
accordance. with TS.IX.I.3.a and included a summary of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste released as outlined in RG 1.21.
No errors or anomalous data were identified (Closed, 50-133/87-SA-01).
Annual Tabulation of Personnel Exposure to Radiation for 1986, date'd
~
i March 27, 1987.
This timely report showed the exposure distribution
!
among various groups and work functions as required by TS IX.I.1.b.
No errors or. anomalies were identified.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
5.
Plant Procedures
'
Technical Specification IX.F.2 and 3 describe 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 requiremen s.
Ne ;iolations or deviations were identified.
6.
Fire Protection.
t The inspector ekamined the dicensec's fire protection and prevention program for compliance witti TS Section IX.C.3 and 4, and Section X.
W.
(,
a.
Audits
)4 N3
'
'
3,
.
A PG&E corporate,. Quality Assurance (QA) Audit, No. 87062T, Fire
_ Prevention for h8PP, was being conducted while the inspector was l
on sitel The QA audit team consisted of three members and was being conducb d during June 1-3, 1987, to ensure that HBPP was in compliance with TS and NRC Branch Technical Position BTB 9.5-1, Fire Protecti"n Program'.- On Jure 3, 1987, the inspector observed o
the QA exit meeting regarding the audit.
Three apparent audit findings and two recommendations were discussed at the meeting._ The findings did not represent a TS violation or problems that would represent a fire safety problem.
Based on the observations made, the inspector had no questions regerding the audit.
ITheinspectoralsodiscussedtheannualLossFirePreventionAudit,
[ conducted February 10-11, 1987, with the QC supervisor since the licensee had not received the audit report as of this inspection.
g
- )The inspector was, informed that one recommendation involving a procedural-change had been identified.
The audit also included observations during an unannounced fire drill.
Fire brigade training and fire drill records were examined.
Fire brigade training and unannounced fire drills were conducted monthly
_
_ _ _ ___
a
'
l i
.
..
onsite and actual hands-on training provided by th'e Greater Eureka Fire Training Association is conducted annually During a facility tour on June 2, 1986, the inspector examined fire hose stations,' placement of fire extinguishers,' fire extinguisher inspection tags, positions of fire system water shutoff. valves and attached security seals, and housekeeping practices.
No problems were identifed.
The inspector also examined records of the Operational Test-Procedures (OTPs) for selected TS Section X required surveillance:
OTP-14A Weekly Plant Fire Systems Check
~
'0TP-148 Monthly Fire Suppression Equipment and Fire Suppression Water System Valve Checks
OTP-14C Monthly Fire / Low Pressure Core Flooding Tests OTP-140 Monthly Fire Protection Sprinkler Tests
'
OTP-14E Diesel Fire Pump Quarterly Battery Tests OTP-14F-No. 2 Fire Pump Die'sel Fuel Oil Analysis l
OTP-14M 18 Month Maintenance On No. 2 Fire Pump Diesel Engine Based on the reviews and observations made during the inspection of this area, the inspector determined that the licensee was-effectively implementing the TS fire protection requirements.
l Problems identified in performance of the OTPs were promptly l
corrected.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance Records of selected applicable TS required surveillance from January 1, 1987, through May 31, 1987, were examined. The examination covered check lists from the following:
OTP-6, Testing of Engine-Generator and Transfer Scheme for Emergency Section of the 480 Volt A-C System.
(TS VI.A.7.B and VI.B.7)
- '
OTP-8, Refueling Building Leak Rate Test and Gas Treatment System Check and Check of Automatic Functioning of Refueling Bui; ding Isolation Monitors.
(TS III.B.8, VII.B.5 and VIII.B.5)
The inspector v: *ified that the licensee maintains a master surveillance test scb % Sat ideatifies test, test frequency, test procedure, rerooas
'a s ividual and requirement to perform the tes.
- _ _ _ _
__ _ _-_
.
.
j No violations or deviations were identified.
l 8.
Operational Safety l
'
The examination of this area focused on staffing, observations of control room activities, review of operator's survey log sheets and discussion with control operators on their actions in regard to the Unit 3 remote visual and audible alarm system in the Unit 1 and 2 (oil fired plants)
control area.
Applicable control room annunciators, chart recorders, meter readouts and gauges were observed to be fully operational.
The control room log book and operator log sheets were maintained.
Based on review of the operator log sheets the following observations were made.
-
Equipment Description and Operating Instructica A-3, Operations Log Sheets, contains all of the operations log sheets (five) which are to be used for routiae equipment monitoring based on current plant status.
Log Sheet 4, Readings Outside of Control Room, provides a secti'n
-
for recording several radiation survey data points throughout the plant, which are taken on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift.
This log sheet also notes that the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift foreman is to review the survey data and sign the log sheet for this section.
During review of log sheets from January 1, 1987 through June 3, 1987, the inspector noted that on eight occasions, during April and May 1987, the foreman had not reviewed the survey data and signed the log sheet.
Foreman review and signatures were not indicated for any of the other 4 operator log sheets and procedures did not address any foreman review and/or signatures of these logs.
The licensee initiated a Nuclear Plant Problem Report and placed a note in the night orders in regard to this observation. At the exit meeting on June 5, 1987, the inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and the need for them to review and evaluate their procedures regarding operator log sheets.
The licensee informed the inspector that this matter would be reviewed.
The licensee is staffed with 14 licensed operators including five Senior Reactor Operators (SR0s) and nine Reactor Operators (R0s).
As of this inspection, all licensed operators maintain a current limited license due to the extended shutdown of the facility.
The inspector noted that the licensee maintains four shifts, three operating and one relief.
Each shift is staffed with six operating personnel including at least one licensed operator.
If the licensed operator is not an SRO, then an SRO is on call.
Based on the reviews and observations made of this area, the inspector determined that the licensee was in compliance with TS requirements appropriate for current plant status.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
_ _ _ _ _ _
__
_ _ _ --.
-
. -.
-_
-
-_- - _ _ _
. _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
9.
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Activities Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01, paragraphs 6 and 7,- discussed previous inspection efforts related to.this: area.
Verification,that the. refueling building isolation occurs on high radiation signals, proper operation of the ventilation system, and air monitor. calibrations were covered-in paragraph 7 above.
t Control room operator survey sheets indicated that the SFP water level was checked visually daily, pool water inventory was maintained and the area radiation monitor readings were logged each shift.
SFP water
. chemistry is maintained by a demineralizing cleanup system.
The licensee informed the inspector that on May 14, 1987, the level of the SFP-liner _ decreased by about six inches, coincident with a sample taken from the French Drain (FD)..This indicated an apparent direct-connection between the two systems.
Based on discussions with the licensee and review of their in-house investigation report the following observations were made:
Licensee review of previous recorded SFP liner level data found
-
similar level changes when the FD was sampled (monthly).
This level
!
change was not detectable until installation of the new SFP liner
,
-level monitoring system on February 1, 1987.
-
The licensee's evaluation concluded that during sampling of the FD about 0.3.gpd flows from the SFP liner into the FD system.
The activity of the FD ranges from about 1 to 3 E-6 pCi/cc
-
(predominantly Cs-137).
The licensee developed four options to correct this problem.
The
-
licensee's final action in regard to this matter will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-133/87-02-01).
No violations or deviations were identified, j
10.
Training and Qualifications a.
Licensed Operator Training l
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 e
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
- - _ - - _ _ _,
. -
.
problems related to the training based on current plant status.
As discussed in paragraph 8 of this report, licensed operators maintain
current limited licenses.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
General Employee Training (GET)
'
The licensee's GET program was reviewed for compliance with 10 CFR Part 19.12 and the recommendations of t;RC Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29.
Initial training for plant staff and non plant staff personnel working in radiologically controlled access areas is provided through the use of video tapes and handout material.
Seven video tapes provide instructions on the following subjects:
what is radiation; radiation exposure; radiation protection practices; measuring radiation; administrative requirements; entering and leaving contaminated areas; and airborne contamination control.
Each individual is tested after viewing each video tape.
In addition, a video tape covering the corporate ALARA policy and goals is shown to each individual.
Female workers are provided special j
instructions in regard to prenatal radiation exposure and a copy of proposed revision 2 to RG 8.13, Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure.
Annual retraining consists of 1\\ hours of classroom instructions followed by a quiz.
The inspector briefly observed a retraining class during the inspection.
Based on this review, the inspector determined that the licensee's GET training program was in compliance with 10 CFR 19.12 and generally followed the guidelines recommended in RG 8.29.
No vio18tions or deviations were identified.
c.
Radiation Protection Monitor (RPM) Training During 1986 the licensee's RPM staff were provided refresher training related to job skills about once every two weeks.
This training was primarily provided by Chemrad Corporation who was contracted to augment the licensee's radiation protection staff in cleanup and waste disposal in preparation for SAFSTOR operations.
Since Chemrad's departure, in December, 1986, there has been no job skill training for the two RPMs maintained by the license's staff.
However, in view of the extensive training provided in 1986, as noted from records review, and the current status of the plant, the inspector determined that the RPMs have received adequate training during the past 12 months.
The licensee plans on having a new training program developed prior to SAFSTOR operations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Information Notices
.
i-.-
.i-is
..
.
.
...
.
.
.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,,. _
_ - _ - _
_ _ - _ - _ _ _.
_.
-_
_ _ - _ _ _ -_
- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ -. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
the inspector verified that the licensee had received, reviewed and was taking or had completed action on IE Information Notices Nos.86-103, 87-03, 87-04 and 87-13.
No violations or deviations wee identifed.
12.
Facility Tours
,
The inspector toured the radiologically controlled areas of Unit 3 making independent radiation measurements with a Xetex, S/N 8324, portable survey meter due for calibration August 19, 1987.
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.
13.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on June 5, 1987.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The licensee representatives were informed of the apparent violation discussed in this report.
In response to the inspector's concerns discussed in this report, they were acknowledged by the licensee.
1'
o...
...
...
..
....
...
.
.
..
__
. _______ _ _________-_-