IR 05000133/1990001
| ML20034B411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1990 |
| From: | Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B409 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-90-01, IEIN-88-034, IEIN-90-008, IEIN-90-009, NUDOCS 9004270121 | |
| Download: ML20034B411 (8) | |
Text
<
.
~
.
,
,.
V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-133/90-01 Docket No.
50-133 Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California'94106 Facility Name: Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 Inspection at: Eureka, California
Inspection Conducted:
March 26-30, 1990 Inspector:
O#ihb Y//#//#
- 9 C. A. Hoo(er, Fuel Facilities Inspector Date Signed
Approved:
C.h db _
i ho19 0 -
- ?
'
G.P.Y as, Chief Date Signed
' 's Emerg Preparedness and Radiological
Protection Branch Summary:
a.
Areas Inspected:
l This was a routine, unannounced inspection of licensee activities
'
during SAFSTOR covering followup on IE Information Notices; followup of items of noncompliance; occupational exposure, shipping and transportation; and radioactive waste management.
The inspection also included tours of the licensee's facilities.
Inspection procedures 30703, 92701, 92702, 83750 and 88035 were addressed, b.
Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared adequate to accomplishment of their safety objectives.
One non-cited violation (NCV) was identified involving the failure to conduct a quality assurance audit, as detailed in Section 4.
However,'the NCV was not reflective of the the licensee's audit a major strength in SAFSTOR operations. program which appeared to be
,
'
9004270121 900410 PDR ADOCK 05000133 Q
.-
r 1~
,
-
.
.,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)-
- R. T. Nelson, Plant Manger
- P. E. Rigney, Power Plant Engineer
- R. C. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (SC&RPE)
- D. A. Peterson, Quality Control Supervisor (QCS)
- W. R. Montavlo, Jr. Radiation Protection Monitoring Foreman
- D. D. Richardson, Supervisor, Maintenance
- P. G. Rasmussen, Senior Power Production Engineer
- Denotes individuals attending the exit interview on March 30, 1990.
.
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Followup on IE Information Notices 92701)
The inspector verified that the licensee had received, reviewed and was taking action or had taken action on IE Information Notices Nos. 88-34, 90-08 and 90-09.
3.
Followup on Item of Noncompliance (92702)
Itern 50-133/89-02-02 (Closed).
This item involved the failure to post a.
The inspector verified that the corrective actions, specified in the licensee's timely response dated Se been effectively implemented to prevent recurrence. ptember 11, 1989, had The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
4.
Occupational Exposure, Shipping and Transportation (83750)
i a.
Audits and Appraisals j
-
>
The following Quality Assurance (QA) audits were reviewed and-discussed with cognizant licensee representatives:
(1) QA audit Report No. 89810T, " Radiation Protection-(Technical Specifications, Administrative Controls, and Provisions of the SAFSTOR License," dated September 11,1989, conducted August 7-11, 1989.
The inspector noted that the audit essentially covered all aspects of external and internal exposure control, control of radioactive materials and surveys, shipping and transportation, and liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring.
No Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) were issued.
One deficienc identified that resulted in an Audit Finding Report (AFR)y was-issued for corrective action. The the deficiency was
,
u
_____a
,
-
.
.,
.
administrative in nature, and effective corrective actions were
!
effectively implemented to prevent recurrence.
(2) QA audit Report No. 89631P, dated November 10, 1989.
This
!
audit was conducted during August 14-18, 1989 to verify that
HBPPwasimplementingvariouselementsoftheIrSAFSTORQA Manual for (1) personnel training and qualification; (2)
quality problems /nonconformances;ka(3) radiological monitoring;
and (4) radioactive material, pac ging and transportation.' No NCRs were issued.
One AFR was issued for the lack of objective evidence that-two individuals had passed their eye examination
requirements for being qualified crane operators.
The evidence _
i regarding this matter was produced and accepted by the QA
- r auditors prior to issuance of the audit report. -The audit
'
determined that HBPP was effectively implementing their SAFSTOR
,
QA Program for the areas audited.
Early in the inspection, the QCS informed the inspector that a QA:
>
audit of results of corrective actions to correct significant
,
deficiencies required by Technical Specification (TS) VII.D.2.h, ire
-
" Audits," was not scheduled and performed in 1989.
The TSs requ such an audit to be conducted at six month intervals.
This problem was identified as a result of a review by PG&E's Technical Review Group (TRG)duringareviewof.1989quarterlyreports..TheTRG
,
.
determined that the missed audit was a result of a management-l decision to postpone 4 out 142 audits conducted between Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) and HBPP.
The QA department issued a NCR, No. HB3-90-QA-N001/0, dated February 6, 1990,'to' determine the cause and corrective action to prevent recurrence.
i The licensee's immediate corrective action was to conduct the
required audit (No. 90601P) on February 7 8, 1990, of which no NCRs-
or AFRs were identified.
The licensee attributed the causes of the-
missed audit to (1) an error in judgement for postponing the audit,
(2) failure to understand and follow requirements, and (3) not
,
clearly defining the HBPP SAFSTOR audit schedule.
Among the several
'
corrective actions to prevent recurrence were (1) to establish procedure guidance, and document training for scheduling and-
-
implementing the audit program; (2) clearly define in the' procedures
that any exceptions to the audit schedule requires the QA manager's justification and approval; and (3) revise the audit schedule to
!
clearly identify required audits.
'
The failure to conduct the required audit appeared to be a violation
!
!
of TS VII.D 2.h.
However, since this violation was identified by the licensee, the violation would normally be classified'as a
severity level IV matter, and it appeared not to be reportable, the
-
violation is not being cited because the criteria specified asSection V. G. of the Enforcement Policy were satisfied (NCV 50-133/90-01-01).
l In addition to the QA audits conducted by the Corporate office, the-l inspector reviewed selected monthly housekeepin random weekend /backshiftinspectiondatasheets,andQhreportsinspectIonand
'
..
,
,
~
-
.
.
.
'
.
management review reports..The inspector'noted that HBPP's monthly QC inspections and/or management' reviews covered essentially all of the major SAFSTOR programs.
The inspector determined that HBPP's-audits / inspections were effective in identifying and reporting deficiencies to management.
Appropriate corrective-actions had been taken and/or planned for identified deficiencies.
.
b.
Changes There,had been essentially no changes in organization, personnel, facilities, equipment, programs and procedures that may effect occupational exposure since the last inspection of this area,
_
c.
External = Exposure' Control Personnel dosimetry reports from July 1,1989, through February 28,:
1990, were reviewed.
The-inspector noted that' exposures;were
,
minimal with 'only 0.371 person-rem expended in 1989.
The inspector
"
noted that the highest monthly exposure,-for any one-individual, was 32 mrem.
The licensee only expended 0.472 person-rem in 1988.
According to the licensee there had been no major tasks conducted in.
!
1989 or planned for 1990 that would result in higher personnel I
exposures.
During facility tours the inspector noted that'
individuals were properly equipped with-personnel monitoring.
devices.
_ j i
~
l-d.
Internal Exposure Control j
The licensee continues to assess internal exposures on the basis o'f their air sampling program and semiannual whole body counts. One-individual that the licensee'is unable to-count on.their bed type -
counter, submitted semiannual urine samples for assessment. ~ Based on review of air sampling and bioassay data, the inspector.noted that'the internal exposures were being maintained <well below the-l requirements delineated in 10 CFR 20.103.
!
The inspector noted that the licensee's whole body counter was
calibrated by a contract vendor about once every 18 months; The
,
most recent calibration was performed on February ~7, 1990.-
No
,
concerns were identified in review of the vendors calibration data.
l
During facility tours.the inspector observed that air; sampling stations appeared to be sufficient in number, and reasonably representative of the work area being: sampled.
Engineering controls-i to contain loose radioactive material were evident.
-
The licensee's use and/or need for use of respiratory equipment has i
been-limited.
However, the licensee. maintains an active program
=
I that includes, training, medical examinations, fit testing, and--
procedures for use and maintenance of respirators.
'
!
i
-
.
r
[
4.
,
c q
.
,
.
e.
_Cpntrol of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Surveys and Monitoring The inspector noted that the license'e had modified their. routine radiological survey program for SAFSTOR operations.
Daily surve were conducted of selected locations wnere exposure levels are ys expected to' change due to equipmant. operation.
The degree of detail and survey frequency of other plant areas, were based on the amount-and type of work in the respective area.
Based on a review.of the.
licensee's program and selected survey reports, it appeared that surveys.were being conducted to ensure proper control of-radioactive materials during SAFSTOR..
A voluntary informational Licensee Fvent Report. LER), No.
.
89-002-00, " Vestigial Radioactive Contamination,' dated January 4, 1990, was reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee representatives during the onsite inspection.
This matter involvedL the licensee's identification of contamination on the ground area
,
outside of the Unit 3 restricted. area = boundary., As described in the
-
LER, the inspector noted that the contaminated area -was not accessible to the general public, and the radiation levels associated with the contamination were less than-the limits i
specified in 10CFR20.105(b)(2).
The area of concern was also within the licensee's restricted area boundary for effluent releases. -The contaminated area was adequately isarricaded.and posted pursuant to
'
10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
The cause, analysis, and=the
.,
corrective actions taken (short-term) to control the contamination to the area were adequately described in the LER. 'As of this inspection, the licensee had not made a decision as to'what long-term actions would be-taken regarding the contaminated aret.
This matter will be reviewed.in e subsequent inspection and is considered as an Open Item (50-133/90-01-02).
The inspector review records of the licensee!sLsealed source inventory and sealed source leak tests _ conducted during the last 12 months.
Sealed source leak testing was noted-to be consistent-with
-
the requirements specified in Section VI.B.7 of the TSs.
Sealed source wipe test data indicated that' all sources: tested had less
.,
than 0.005 microcuries (uCi) of removable contamination.
During facility tours, the inspector observed that adequate.
.
i operating personnel survey instruments were conveniently located at
exits from contaminated areas. 'All survey instruments-in use were noted to be within their current calibration period.
The inspector
also made independent measurements using an Eberline'R0-2 portable
- i survey meter, S/N 2691, due for calibration on May 14, 1990.
The:
j inspector noted that radioactive materials and radiation areas were
.
posted as required in 10 CFR Part 20.
Licensee access controls for R
high radiation areas were observed to be consistent with TS,Section VII.K, and licensee procedures.
The licensee's program appeared adequate to the accomplishment of of its safety objectives.
Although one NCV was identified in the licensee's
!
!
!
l y'
....m
... _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ - - - - - -
.
5'
-
o
,
.
auditandinspectionprogram,_it' appeared-that.theseprogram'sweremajor strengths-in SAFSTOR operations.
5.
Radioactive Waste Management (88035)
There have been no significant changes in the license's program since_the last inspection of this area, a.
Audits.
QA audit Report No. 89188T, " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)- Diablo' Canyon (DCPP) and.Humboldt Bay Power Plant-(HBPP)," dated December 17, 1989, was reviewed.
This: audit was conducted during. November 6-17, 1989, to verify,-in part, that HBPP was effectively implementing their SAFSTOR QA Program for radiological environmental monitoring.
No.NCRs-or AFRs were issued.
The audit determined that HBPP was effectively implementing their REMP.
Section 4.a above, also describes QA audits'related to-this area.
b.
Liquid Wastes
!
Records of radioactive liquid discharges to the outfall. canal. from i
January 1 through March 16, 1990, were reviewed.
A total of'seven
batch releases were made during this period.
The inspector i
verified, by manual calculations, the maximum permissible
'
concentration (MPC) values for batch release No. 90-07, discharged
.
.
on March 16, 1990.
No errors or anomalies were noted.
The
. inspector determined that all releases were well~below:the limits
.
provided in 10 CFR:Part 20. Appendix B, Table II,-Column 2.
Operation and sample analysis were-conducted in accordance-with the requirements specified in TS VI.A and B.
During the inspection, the inspector observed monthly samples-being taken from the spent fuel pool (SFP), SFP liner, french drain-and the caisson sump.
Sampling was noted to be' consistent with licensee procedures.
The inspector also reviewed records of the previous monthly sampling results.
The sample measurements indicated that
~
Cs-137 was the predominant radionuclide in the SFP and SFP liner,
-
which averaged about 2.0E-5 uCi/ml-and 1.5E-4 uCi/ml, respectively.
'I Cobalt-60 averaged about 6.0E-7 uCi/ml and 4.5E-8 uCi/m1, j
respectively for these areas.
Typically the sample measurements of a
the french drain and caisson sump indicated no detectable activity.
However, occasionally sample measurements detected low level concentrations of Cs-137.
i a
c.
Gaseous Effluents
- f Records of weekly stack gaseous' effluent sampling;dai.a from January
'
I through March 20, 1990, were reviewed.
The inspector noted that
!
releases of radioactive traterial were well below i.he ' limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1.
i
-
,
- _ _ _
_
.
-_ -_
-
!
. l
,
_
'
..
d.
Quality Control The inspector reviewed records of the licensee's radiochemical-intra-company laboratory cross-check program.: - Samples-originated-.
a from PG&E s Technical and Ecological Services'(TES). group with DCPP
'
and HBPP participating.
TES prepares the' sample by dilution of-
known standard solutions traceable to the National Bureau of
~
Standards.. The types of samples prepared for analysis included mixed gamma emitting radionuclides 1n' liquid'and air particulate-
filters, and gross alphaiand beta in water and air particulate.
filters.
These samples were prepared and analyzed two times a year.
TES reports of sample measurement results-indicated that HBPP showed good agreement for-all of the samples.- It was also noted that HBPP showed good performance in identification of unknown samples.
>
e.
Licensee Reports
The licensee's semiannual effluent reports for the perio'ds of.
_
l January 1 through June 30,1989, dated-August 29,_1989,;and July 1
'
through December 31 1989,. dated. March 1,.1990, were reviewed during, the onsite inspectio,n.
These. timely reports were submitted pursuant--
to TS VII.H.3 and included a summary of the_ quantities of radioactive liquid, gaseous effluents, and' solid waste released from>
,
!
Unit 3 as outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21.
The reports-also; included the offsite dose-and dose. commitments to. members of.the i
l public from radioactive' effluents and direct radiation measurements.
,
'
Upon arrival at'the site, the SC&RPE informed-the inspector of_an error in the report covering the period-of July 1_through December
~
31, 1989.
The inspector also reviewed a licensee letter being i
prepared to inform the NRC of this error.
The error involved the value presented for the percent of applicable limit'for particulates.
The values presented for the third and fourth quarter
of 1989 were 9.76E-3 and 1.36E-2 respectively, and should have.been l
2.86E-7 and 4.25E-7 respectively.
The original values-had.been
i calculated on the basis of the. gaseous release point and should have been calculated for a conservative estimate of' ground, level:
,
concentration.
The effluents released were noted to be ALARA and no l
other errors or anomalies were identified.
r
I The licensee's annual " Facility. Status and Survey Report," dated March 16, 1990, for the period January I through December.31,1989, was also reviewed.
This timely report was submitted pursuantLto TS VII.H.1 and provided a summary'of the onsite (TS V.B.6.b) and offsite (TS V.B.4) direct-radiation measurements, the discharge canal sample results (TS V.B.6.a), groundwater monitoring well
.results (TS V.B.6.c) and caisson sump sample results (TS VI.B.1.c).
As previously reported, low level concentrations of tritium continued to be detected in onsite monitoring well No. 11, The inspector noted that the sample results and direct radiation
masurements indicated no abnormal changes in the plant status or apparent impact on the environment.
No errors or anomalous data
'
were identified.
'
y
= -
v
-,e
i
.
7:
.
..
.-
-
..
The licensee's program appeared adaquate-to-the accomplishment of its safety objectives.
No' violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview (30703)
-The inspector met with the licensee representatives,- denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion.of the inspection on March 30, 1990.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The inspector informed the licensee of the apparent NCV described in.
Section 4.a.
.
.
.
-i q
t i
'
.
N
r
's_
}
-
.
>
i
- 1
!
I