IR 05000133/1987005
| ML20236J499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J483 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-87-05, 50-133-87-5, NUDOCS 8711060144 | |
| Download: ML20236J499 (7) | |
Text
.. -
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.
_ - - _
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPiISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-133/87-05 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:
September 28 - October 1,1987 Inspector:
[ /
- # M., --
/d////77 C. A. Hooker,' Radiation Specialist Date Signed
$NW tolvilz7 G.P.YqaA, Chief Dat'e Signed Facilities-Radiological Protection Section Summary:
Inspection on September 28 - October 1, 1987 (Report No. 50-133/87-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of a facility in extended j
shutdcwn (preparation for SAFSTOR) including:
actions on previous inspection J
findings; radiological confirmatory measurements; radiological environmental l
monitoring; review of licensee audits; review of licensee reports; and
!
facility tours.
Inspection procedures addressed included 30703, 84725, 83726,
.
80721, 90713 and 92701.
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8711060144 871023 i
PDR ADOCK 05000133 l
G PDR
'
.
_
_
._
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
,
,
I '.
b h
DETAILS i
'
i 1.
Persons Contacted
.
,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Personnel
- R. T. Nelson, Plant Manager
- P. E. Rigney, Power Plant Engineer T
- R. C. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (SC&RPE)'
R. D. McKenna, Supervisor, Operations
- D. A. Peterson', Supervisor,' Quality Control
- D. D. Richardson, Supervisor',' Maintenance
- T.' K. Tyler,' Instrument and Electrical Foreman i
T. J. Williams, Environmental Coordinator'
!
- DenoP unose present at the. exit meeting on October 1,1987.
I.
icensee. Action on Previous' Inspection Findings f
(Closed) Followup (50-133/87-01-04):
Inspection Report No. 50-133/87-01 l
documented the need for the licensee to develop procedures for measuring
the radiation intensity of their Co-60 instrument calibration source with-
'
a new instrument being used.
Based on review of recently revised Chemical and' Radiochemical Procedure No. F-4, Measurement of 15 Ci Co-60 Source Radiation Intensities, the inspectoi determined that the licensee had appropriately addressed the use.of all. instruments used to cclibrate
their Co-60 calibration source.
The (nspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
j (Closed) Followup (50-133/87-01-05):
Inspection Report Nos. 50-133/8'7-01'
l and 50-133/87-02 documented the need to complete the review of the i
results for :r d ic split samples taken during February 11-13, 1987.
l The NRC's' samples were analyzed by their contract laboratory, who
!
provided the final analytical results in May 1987, The licensee's l
analytical results were a combination.of.certain analysis performed by the licensee and those performed by two contract laboratories.
The NRC's primary purpose for obtaining the split samples, was to perform an j
independent analysis of radioactivity from selected plant systems and
ground water samplin0 wells.
The results are summarized below:
j I
i
,
<
>
i.
L
!
_______a
-
.,
-.
+
.,
-
'
.
'
'
,
a.
Plant Systems
!
I Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)
Spent Fuel Pool Liner (SFPL)
l HBPP NRC HBPP NRC l
Analysis pCi/ml pCi/ml pCi/ml pCi/ml l
Gross Beta 7.90E-6 2.16E-5-2.20E-4 2.46E-4 Gross Alpha 8.10E-9 1.60E-8 8.80E-8 2.20E-7 Tritium 3.80E-4 4.02E-4 1.57E-4 1.85E-5 Cs-134 4.44E-7 4.50E-7 3.69E-6 3.50E-6 l
Cs-137 2.54E-5 2.33E-5 2.78E-4 2.54E-4 Co-60 1.56E-6 4.20E-7 7.93E-7 8.00E-7 3:
Pu-238 2.40E-9 4.50E-9 4.00E-8 6.10E-8
,.
Pu-239/240 1.20E-9 3.50E-9 3.40E-8 5.40E-8 French Drain Caisson Sump HBPP NRC HBPP NRC; Analysis pCi/ml pCi/mi pCi/ml pCi/ml l
Gross Beta 3.90E-6 3.84E-6-2.02E-8 3.20E-8 I
Gross Alpha
-
1.49E-9
-
1.50E-9 Tritium'
1.09E-5 9.20E-6
-
--
Cs-134
'
5.38E-8
-
-
-
Cs-137 3.19E-6 3.23E-6
-
-
00-60
'3.50E-8
-
-
-
l Pu-238
-
-
-
-
Pu-239/240
-
-
-
-
I'!
-b.
Groundwater - Sampling Wells
Well No. 11
]
HBPP NRC j
Analysis pCi/ml pCi/ml Gross Beta
-
-
Gross l Alpha
-
-
j Tritium 4.80E-6 4.90E-6 i
{
Cs-134
-
-
Cs-137 I
-
-
-
-
.
Plant Service Water and Wells No. 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10.
The i
analytical results from these locations indicated no measurable
!
levels of radioactivity, other than that considered to be contributed from low levels of natural occurring radionuclides, i
It should be noted that no attampt was made to calculate an agreement range between the licensee's and NRC's analytical results due to the
{
number of participants providing the data, differences in counting times, l
and unknowns in the calibration data of.all counting equipment involved.
!
Blank spaces represent no activity detected or where detection was j
questionable for the indicated analysis.
Analysis for Pu-238 and
i I
i
.,...
!
_ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _
3
.
-
i Pu-239/240 were only performed when the gross alpha results indicated measurable levels of activity.
The noted differences in the Co-60 activity from the SFP was apparently due to undisolved Co-60. oxide particles not equally divided during sample
splittinge-The licensee has observed similar results of Co-60 counting analysis from routine in plant samples.
With respect to the tritium activity from the SFPL, the licensee suspected the contract laboratory's results, since routine sample analysis from another contract vendor indicate ranges of 2-3.0'E-5'pCi/m1, which are also within close agreement of the NRC's results.
With the exception of variances.in some of the analytical results, generally the overall agreement is adequate.
Other than the tritium activity in well no.11, no other well samples provided positive results of radioactivity that could be suspected to_be
'
from the facility.
The tritium levels in well no.11, which is located within the licensee's restricted area, were considerably lower than the limits specified in 10.CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring a.
Audits Quality assurance audit related to this area is discussed in paragraph 4, below.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Program The licensee's Annual Report, Environmental Radiation Study, was reviewed.
The report addressed the annual radiological rconitoring results of marine and terrestrial samples, air particulate samples, and direct radiation measurements.
With the exception of the direct radiation measurements, PG&E's Department of Engineering Research (DER) analyzes samples collected and compiles the report.
The results of DER's participation in the EPA's cross-check program and State cross-check program were also included in the report.
In addition, DER included a report of the radioactivity detected in the environs as a result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant incident on April 26, 1986, in the USSR.
The licensee observed no radiological impact on the environment from HBPP.
No errors or anomalous data were identified.
The licensee's Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period of January 1,1987, through June 30, 1987, was also reviewed.
This timely report was issued in accordance with Technical Specification (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 NRC Regalatory Guide 1.21.
The report also included the offsite doses and dose commitments to members of the public from radioactive effluents and direct radiation measurements.
No errors or anomalies were identified.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
p,
'
L
,
L
.. -
The inspector also visited the licensee's off-site continuous' air sampling stations, Nos. 3 and 45, and toured thel site boundary with i
the SC&RPE to observe direct radiation monitoring stations. Air-
'
sampling equipment _ appeared to be in good operating condition, and records of their quarterly calibrations were maintained at HBPP.
Direct radiation monitoring stations were in good condition and as depicted on the licensee's figures presented in the. environmental report.-
The inspector'also reviewed the usefulness of the licensee's alarm set point, for the liquid radwaste effluent monitor.
Based on discussions yith the SC&RPE, radiation measurements made during facility tours, records'of calibration and alarm set point data, the inspector made the following observations:
,
The shielded monitor, that utilizes a NaI detector, is located
-
on the upper level of the radwaste building.
The background.
j radiation level at the unit is about 2.0 mrem /hr, primarily due to a nearby radioactive resin transfer line that measured 6.0 mrem /hr'on contact.
The control room meter readout normally l
~ indicates a background reading of about 1.0E+4 cpm.
According to the SC&RPE, the background reading was about 7.0E+3 cpm when the. unit was newly installed.
This would indicate that about 3.0E+3 cpm background is due to internal contamination of the detector assembly.
Data from a calibration perfori.1ed on March 30, 1987, indicated
-
that the monitor's response was about 269 cpm /pCi/ml for Cs-137.
The alarm set point was noted to be set at 7.0E+5 cpm.
This
-
represented a net alarm set point of about 2.6E-3 pCi/ml.
)
I The average concentration of liquid discharge prior to dilution
-
is about 1-3,0E-5 pCi/ml, total, for Cs-134, Cs-137, Co-60 and Sr-90 (based on quarterly composite analysis), with Cs-137 being the highest and averaging about 1-2.5E-5 pCi/ml.
Based.on the licensee's calibration data 2.5E-5 pCi/cc (Cs-137)
would represent about a 6.7E+3 cpm count rate on the 6 decade, log count rate meter, lypically the licensee observes very l
little net reading above the 1.0E+4 cpm background meter l
reading of the monitor and sometimes a lower reading.
The licensee suspects this is due to the shielding effect of the liquid being discharged from internal contamination of the detector assembly and influences from external radiation.
s The highest activity level noted for liquid waste being stored
-
at H8PP, was in Waste Receiver Tank (WRT) No. 3 (2.14E-3 pCi/ml).
Discharges are not made from this tank.
With the alarm set point at 7.0E+5 cpm (6.9E+5 net cpm with a 1.0E+4 cpm background) which represents about 2.6E-3 pCi/ml of i
!
l
__
-
_ _
_ - - - _ _ _ -
--_ _ _ - - _ _ _ - -
'
,
-
-
- ,.
-
activity its questionable that an inadvertent discharge from c
WRT No. 3 would activate the alarm.
The primary purpose of the monitor is to alert the licensee in
-
the event of an inadvertent high activity level discharge.
The monitor does not provide any ' automatic shut off function.
Due to the plant cleanup in preparation for SAFSTOR operations,
,
l liquid discharges are much lower in radioactivity than seen in previous years.
Based on the above observations it appears that the liquid radwaste E
discharge monitor serves very little purpose based on the current l-alarm set point.
It would also be difficult for the licensee to exceed to 10 CFR.20 Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 limits due to the low levels of activity available for release.
During the first half of 1987, the average diluted concentration (not including tritium,
.
gases or alpha) was 3.73E-10 pC1/ml.
The licensee informed the inspector that they would evaluate the matter and determine a new G
alarm set point.
The inspector will review the licensee's action
]
regarding a new alarm set point in a subsequent inspection
(50-133/87-05-01, Open).
4.
Audits A draft Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Report, No. 87200P, was reviewed.
The audit was. conducted August 31 - September 4, 1987, by a four person audit team from PG&E's corporate office.
This was a broad scope audit that included the areas of:
Training - Licensed and Non-Licensed Plant Staff
'
Results of Corrective Actions Affecting Nuclear Safety
"
i l
Technical Specification Administrative Controls and Provisions of L
the Operating License
.
l Radiological Protection - Personnel Monitoring
'
l Radioactive Material Management
l Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program
,
In-Plant Radiological Protection Controls l
The audit (draft report) identified several deficiencies that resulted in five proposed Audit Finding Reports (AFRs) for corrective action by HBPP.
No problems were identified that would require issuance of a
-
Nonconformance Report.
The inspector noted the deficiencies identified and confirmed that ~ roposed corrective actions appeared to be p
appropriate.
The inspector, being familiar with the persons named on the L
audit team, determined that the audit team was appropriately qualified l
for conducting the audit.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Facility Tours The inspector toured the radiologically contrciled areas of Unit 3 on two U
occasions making independent radiation measurements with an NRC R0-2
'
<
l--_
-a__
.-_
__. __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - ^ " - - - - - - - - ^ -
_. _
--
..
'
.
..
portable ion chamber S/N 2691 due for calibration December 14, 1987.
During these tours, the following observations were made:
On September 29, 1987, the inspector observed that the licensee had
-
relocated their dry radioactive waste compactor, from the refueling building to the upper floor area of the liquid radwaste building.
This relocation is being done under Design Change Notice (DCN) No.
HB3-0-SH-214.
The waste compactor was enclosed in a plastic tented l.
area for contamination control.
The prefiltered air from the l
compactor will exhaust to and be nionitored by the Unit 3 stack gaseous effluent system.
In review of the DCN safety evaluation package, the inspector noted that the licensee had determined that the change could be performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.S9.
Based on a review of the licensee's safety evaluation aid field observations, no problems were identified by the inspector.
The DCN
'
package appeared be very thorough and well documented.
l-
-
The inspector noted that housekeeping practices were generally good l
in all areas toured, with the exception of the Hot Shop.
It l
appeared that very little effort was being made to maintain this l-area to HBPP's standards.
This matter was also discussed at the 1.
exit interview on October 1, 1987, and the licensee acknowledged the
!
inspector's observations, In addition to the above observations, the inspector observed that all i
radiation areas and high radiation areas were posted as required by 10
,
'
CFR Part 20, and access controls were consistent with TS requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 1, 1987.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The inspector informed the licensee representatives that no apparent violations or deviations were identified.