IR 05000133/1990002
| ML20055H471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1990 |
| From: | Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055H467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-90-02, 50-133-90-2, GL-88-06, GL-88-6, IEIN-90-014, IEIN-90-031, IEIN-90-033, IEIN-90-034, IEIN-90-035, IEIN-90-14, IEIN-90-31, IEIN-90-33, IEIN-90-34, IEIN-90-35, NUDOCS 9007260246 | |
| Download: ML20055H471 (10) | |
Text
_
,
_
..
.-
. _.
.
-
.
.
j
.
p*
.
s'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.]
'
'f
"
REGION V
c
,
Report No.
50-133/90-02 l
. Docket No.
50-133 i
e Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company e
77 Beale Street
- l San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name: Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 Inspection at: Eureka, California Inspection Conducted:
June 18-21, P 90 Inspector:
43/
I" 7 J/P()
/
C. A. Hoo(er, Facilities Inspector Date igned Approved:,
/
8
as Chief Date Signed y G. P rladlologicalProtectinBranch Reac V
'
i^
Summary:
I a.
Areas Inspected:
l This was a -outine, unannounced inspection of licensee activities
during SAFSTOR including licensee action on open items; followup on l
management organization and controls; NRC IE Information Notices;/ prevention surveillance procedures and procedures; fire protection L
records;emergencypreparedness; training;andoccupational i
exposure, and shipping and transportation.
The inspection also included facility tours.
Inspection procedures 30703, 92701, 93702,
.
88005, 42700, 64704, 61700, 82701, 41500, and 83750 were addressed.
"
b.
Jesults:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capableofaccomplishingoftheirsafetyobjectives.
During this past year, the licensee s internal and external audit program has been effective in implementing and maintaining a high quality SAFSTOR program as noted in Section 4.
The licensee s fire fighting u,
capability and training programs are also noted as strengths (Sections 3 and 6).
No violations or deviations were identified.
L L
,
9007260246 90071m PDR ADOCK 05000i33 O
,
..
..
--
_
.
-
..
.._
--
.-
_-.
-
,.
..
.
.
DETAILS
'
..
L 1.
Persons Contacted Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
i
- 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)
.
,
!
Operations
- R. D. McKenna, Supervisor, ion Protection Monitoring Foreman
- W. R. Montavlo, Jr. Radiat
- D. D. Richardson, Supervisor, Maintenance
,
P. G. Rasmussen, Senior Power Production Engineer
- M. N. Colcun, Supervisor Administration
- J. H. Paul, Power produclion Engineer and Plant Fire Fire Marshal
- Denotes individuals attending the exit intervie" on June 21, 1990.
,
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held
,
discussions with other members of the litersee's staff.
2.
Followup on Open Items and IE Information Fotices 92701)
a.
Open Items
(0 pen) Item 50-133/90<01-02.
This-item involved the need to review I
the licensee's long term corrective actions regatding low level I
radioactive contamination of.the soil outside of the Llit 3
,
restricted area perimeter.
During this inspection, the inspector l
i was-informed by the plant mana'er that the matter had been discussed in the General Office Nuclear lant Review and Audit Committee (GONPRAC) meeting held at HBPP on June 20, 1990.
However, no final decision had been made as to PG&E's long term plans.
The plant i
manager stated, in part, that no decision would probably be made
.;
until the new NRC "Below Regulatory Concern" release limits
!
(radiation) ara % acted by the NRC.
This matter will remain as an oper. ;iem until the licensee has made an decision as to the remedial
'
actions for the contaminated soil.
b.
IE Information Notices reviewed or The inspector verified that the licensee had received, Nos. 90-14,
'
was in the process of reviewing IE Information Notices 90-31, 90-33, 90-34 and 90-35 for applicability at their facility.
3.
Onsite Review of Licensee Event (93702)
.
During the onsite inspection, the inspector reviewed the 6 tails of an
unusual event (UE) that occurred on June 17, 1990, at 10:45 p.m. PDT and reported to the NRC Headquarters duty officer by telephone at about 11:37
- - -
,+
.
__
..
-
_
-
-~ _
.
-,
- - - -.
__
!<
!
' '
i
.
.
- .
,
-
D.m. PDT.' The UE was declared as a result of a fire in the wind box of Unit 1.. Units 1 and 2 are fossil fueled plants. Although Units 1 and 2
!
are located within same building complex as Unit 3 (BWR in W STOR), they
are outside of the Unit 3's radiological restricted area.
Unit I was
-
L operating at 5 MWE during the event and Unit 2 was in a routine
maintenance outage.
H.
Based on discussions with cognizant licensee re)resentatives and review I
of licensee records the inspector noted that tie fire was initially detected during a ro,utine inspection of the boiler flame and wind box.
E Since the cause and extent of the fire was not immediately known, the
'
S shift foreman re Department (HFD) quested assistance from the Humboldt District No. I Fire j
L
, and notified the on-call duty su)ervisor.
Shift i
i operators reduced the flew using a water wall was11ng lance via the wind l
p box inspection port.
With the fire reduced, it was observed that the fire was due to unburned fuel oil leaking from one of the boiler's.six
'
,
L fuel nozzles that had ran back onto a hot burter barrel in the wind box.
L The fuel oil, supply to the leaking nozzle was immediately secured, and L
preparations were made to shut the Unit down if the fire could not be controlled.
11:02 p.m. and was placed on standby by the shift foreman.The HFD arrived at about-J
'
shift personnel are members of the licensee's onsite fire brigade.
With the fire reduced, another fire was also observed from a burning clinker (unburned fuel residue) in the bottom of the wind box.
The licensee declared the incident an UE in accordance with procedure EPIP R-6, " Unusual Event Declaration and Eme gency Plan Activation", and notified offsite organizations in accordance with procedure EPIP R-7,
" Notification of Off-Site Organizations".
The fire on the burner barrel j
was extinguished at about 1:00 a.m. on Jrne 18, 1990 and the UE was terminated at about 1:03 a.m.
June 18, 1990.
Theclinkerwasseparated i
andhadburnedoutbyabout7I00a.m.ofthesameday.
According-to the licensee, clinker fires are not uncommo n in fossil fueled boilers.
The l
licensee was able to control and extinguish the fires without the assistance of the HFD, or shutting Unit I down.
Based on review of the licensee's actions regarding this matter, the inspector determined that the licensee had properly classified the event
and notified offsite organizations in accordance with their emergency procedures.
There were no personnel injuries as a result of the fire, l
l and the fire did not pose a threat to the spent fuel being stored in the Unit 3 fuel storage pool.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Management Organization and Controls (88005)
Thisareawasreviewedtodeterminethelicensee'scomp'liancewiththe requirements of Section VII, " Administrative Controls, of the Technical Specification (TS),licenseeprocedures;andagreementwith i
recommendations outlined in various industry standards.
t l
There had been no changes in management personnel, organizational p
structure or staffing that would affect operations during SAFSTOR since
.
.
.
- -.
--
.
...
s
1
'
.
,
,
.?
!
'
~
the last inspection of this area. The. inspector noted that by License Amendment No. 24 dated May 7.1990, TS Section VII was changed to replace theonsiteandoffsiteorganIzationalcharts,withtextadditionsthat
,
contained the essential requirements for the structure of these i
or anizations.
The new TS administrative text included a title change of i
a lant Staff Review Committee (PSRC) men,ber from Senior Chemical and Radiological Engineer to Senior Radiation Protection Engineer.
Other changes involved the reporting of the GONPRAC from the President to the Vice President, Nuclear Power Generation.
The removal of the
'
organization charts from the TS were consistent with NRC Generic Letter 88-06, dated March 22, 1988, i
From review of licensee records, the inspector noted that the PSRC and GONPRAC committees were properly staffed, conducted meetings, and
performed the required reviews in accordance with the requirements
?
delineated in TS VII.D.I. and VII.D.2.
On June 20, 1990, the ins)ector also observed that a GONPRAC meeting was being conducted at the HBPP.
,
Inspection Report No. 50-133/93-01 described a non cited TS violation for i
anauditofcorrectiveacticas,ualityAssurance(0A)Departmenttoconduct the failure of the Corporate r
(TS VII.D.2.h).
However, the insaector i
noted that all other required QA audits have been conducted at t1e required frequencies, and have been effective in evaluating the adequacy
)
of operations at HBPP during SAFSTOR.
i In addition, to the QA audits conducted b the Cor l
inspectorreviewedselectedmonthlyhouseeeping/fkorateoffice,the re protection re r;1domweekend/backshiftinspectiondatasheets,andqualitycontro$ orts}
(QC inspection and management review reports.
As described in previous inspections, and in subsequent sections of this report the inspector L
noted that licensee's monthly QC inspections and/or man,agement reviews cover essentially all of the SAFSTOR programs.
The inspector determined
!
that licensee's audits / inspections continue to be effective in identifying and reporting deficiencies to management.
Appropriate
.
corrective actions had been taken and/or planned for identified
"
deficiencies.
'
The licensee's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory in the accomplishment of their safety objectives.
The licensee's audit and
reviews were noted as program strengths.
No violations or deviations
'
were identified.
-
l-5.
Plant Procedures (42700)
Based on review of selected licensee procedures and PSRC meeting minutes,
the inspector verified that the licensee continues to maintain and review
'
plant procedures in accordance with the requirements delineated in Section VII of the TS.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
i
.
.
-
.
-
- --
-
-
r a
N,,
,
y,
-
..;
f
6.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program (64704)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with
.
Sections IV and VII of the TS, licensee procedures; and agreement with recommendations outlined in various industry standards.
-
,
a.
Changes j
There have been no change in the licensee's program since the last j
inspection in this area.
The license continues to maintain a well i
trained fire brigade and a site Fire Marshall (FM).
b.
-Incidents Section 3 above describes the only significant incident that has occurred since the last inspection in this area.
c.
Audits l
-
The following audits and inspections were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee representatives:
(1) QA audit report, "Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Bay Power Plant -
,
Annual, Biennial and Triennial Fire Protection Audit 90802T,"
dated April 6,1990.
The onsite audit at HBPP was conducted j
February 20-22 1990.
The inspector noted that the audit coveredessentlallyallelementsofthefire protection / prevention program.
No deficiencies were
'
identified.
The audit concluded that HBPP had been effectively implementing their NRC requirements and PG&C's commitments for fire protection and loss prevention programs.
'
(2) Although the licensee had not received the re) ort, the inspector reviewed the inspection plans and discussed e Loss Fire Prevention inspection conducted by a fire prote; tion
,
consultant for the Nuclear Mutual Limited Instrance Company on l
May 2-3, 1990, with the QCS.
According to the QCS, recommendations from previous audits were closed, and no new t
recommendations for program improvements were identified as a
,
l'
result of this audit.
The inspector noted that the audit also I
included observations during an unannounced fire drill, and witnessing of an annual capacity tests of the fire pumps.
c.
Training There have been no change in the licensee's fire protection training program as described in previous inspection reports.
The licensee continues to conduct unannounced monthly fire drills to exercise the fire brigade and other plant staff.
The inspector noted that the i
fire brigade members continue to receive a minilium of six hours of formal classroom training each year, and annual hands-on fire fighting training provided by the Greater Eureka Fire Training Association.
The inspector also noted that all piant staff receive
' ~.
.
. -
-
-
-
.
.
- -.
-.
..,
.,
-
-
.
..
--
.
-.. -
-
-
.
-
-.
.-
'k, i
'n qv,,
)
-
.-
g(
l i
'V
.
E annual instruction on the basics of fire protection / prevention and.
l
'
the use'of fire extinguishers.
d.
Maintenance and Test Programs The inspector reviewed records of routine surveillance tests and
-
inspections conducted since t'a last inspection.
The review 2 diesel fire pum)y fire systu checks, (2) weekly tests-of the No.
included (1) weekl
,
(3) month 1 fire su ression system tests, (4 monthly tests of (. I and 3 e ectric d ven fire pum s, (5) mont ly
!
'
fire protection s?rinkler system tests - (6) the annua fire hose 18-monthfIre(7)tieannualfirepumpflowcapacity. test,(8)the inspection barrier inspection, and (9) the 18-month fire. system
-
functional test.
In addition to these reviews,-the inspector-
-
performed a walk-down of the fire arotection system in the fire aump house and other selected areas.
Tie walk-down was performed wit 1 i
the accompaniment of the FM and utilizing Surveillance Test Procedure S P) 3.20.2, " Monthly Fire Suppression E uipment and Fire
.
Suppressio ater System Valve Checks".
Based on t e walk-down and
,
further records rev'iew, the inspector made the following
,
observations:
(1) STP 3.20.2 provided adequate instruction on how to conduct the and equi
checks and included TS and NFPA references,ication, pment and
-
valvelocations.
In regard to valve identif the inspector noted that valve position (open or closed) and valve numbers were clearly indicated on a checklist attached to the
-
STP.
However the inspector noted that although valve numbers were provided,on the STP checklist for two major systems (fresh water backup and fire drant isolation), the valves themselves were not numbered.
Thi observation was acknowledged by the FM who agreed to evaluate the matter.
This matter is considered asanopenitem(50-133/90-02-01).
-(2) While in the fire suppression system pump house, the pump No. 2 (diesel driven) started automatically (on low system water
'
aressure) without the No. 1 or No. 3 electric driven pumps 1aving started.
Just prior to the starting of the No. 2 pump, the FM had informed the inspector of recent problems associated with out-of-sequence staring of the fire pumps, and that the matter was still under investigation.
All three fire pumps are set for delayed starting when the system pressure drops to 50 pounds per square inch (psi).
The
.
normal suppression system pressure is maintained by the domestic water system, at 60 to 72 psi.
Heavy demands on the domestic water system can cause low pressure on the fire main.
The normal starting sequence is that pump No. I has the lead, pump No. 3 starts 5 seconds and pump No. 2 starts in 10 seconds if system pressure has not been achieved.
The automatic sequential starting is governed by installed timers.
The problem had initially started on May 10, 1990, when the licensee ot, served that the pump No. 2 had started
.
.
.
. _.__
_ _.
.._
.__
.
_
Nfl
'
!
K
.-. -
,
,
,
n.
!
' -
!
without No. 1 or'No. 3 having started.
The automatically,iately investigated the problem and tested pumps licensee immed
No I and 2 to verify system operability.
According.to the test results, all three pumps were operable.
The same tests
-
were also conducted subsequent to the automatic starting of the
.
No. 2 fire pump during the walk-down, and the fire s'Jppression system ~was verified to be operable.
,
The inspector noted that the licensee had formally investigated
'
the problem for cause and corrective action and on May 16, 1990, the matter was reviewed by the HBPP Technical Review
'
Group (TRG).
The TRG selected several options to be evaluated i
for correcting the problem. Which included increasing the
,
domestic water. supply system pressure and setting the fire
,
suppression pumps starting pressure switch set points further
>
apart;installationofajockeypumpinthefiresuppression system; and use of a separate domestic water system from the fire suppression system.
The inspector will review the licensee s resolution to the problem in' a subsequent inspection.
This matter is considered as an open item
,
(50-133/90-02-02).
,
During faci,ity tours the inspector examined fire suppression system hose stations, placement of fire extinguishers, fire extinguisher inspection t
L tags, position of fire suppression system water isolation valves and attached security seals, and housekeeping practices.
The license's performance in this area appeared adequate.
The licensee's program appeared capable of accompi khing its safety objectives. No
,'
violations or deviations were identi14ed.
'
7.
Surveillance Procedures and Records (61700)
,
L In addition to the surveillance tests noted in Scction 6 above the inspector reviewed records of other selected TS required survelllances
!
conducted since the last inspection of-this area, which included; (1)
!
. pump, (2)perability verifications of the spent fuel pool (SFP) liner gap monthly o L
monthly verifications of the SFP level indicator, (3) monthly
,
l calibrations of the area radiation monitors, (4) monthly verification of l
the emergency 480 volt transfer system, (5) quarterly tests of the
-
refueling building ventilation sp.em, and (6) the annual full load test of 480 volt emergency transfer system.
Based on the reviews.,illance test pragram.the inspector noted that the licens maintain a good surve Deficiencies identified during surveillance tests were documtnted and prcmptly. corrected.
A review of selected STPs indicated tha,\\ adequate instructions and guidance
>
'
were provided to accomplish the task ta be performed.
The licensee's program appeared fully satisfactory to accomplishing their safetyobjectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
,
e
,
,w,
-,
, - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _. - -. - - - _ _ - - - - - - -. _ _ - - - - - _ _ - - - -. _ _ - - _ _ _ _. _ _.. - _ -.. _ _, - - - _. - - - - -
.-
-
_
.
..
-
.
i
.. -
q w
.
'
.
8.
Emergency Preparedness (82701).
!
'
.
The inspector noted that there had been no change in the licensee's Emergency Plan (EP) for SAFSTOR operations since the last inspection of
'
'
this area.
,
Section 8.0 of the EP, requires an annual announced drill of_ a simulated emergency affecting the entire site, and an annual unannounced drill i
similar to 1.ne announced drill.
The inspector noted that the licensee had conducted their annual announced drill on December 14,d on1989, and their annual unannounced drill on December 20, 1989.
Base
discussions with licensee representatives and review of records
'
maintained of the cirills, the inspector made the following observations:
,
(1) Thescenariofortheannounceddrillinvolvedamajorearthquake
with the epicenter near the plant that included several site i
conditions such as (1) the loss of all power except for DC lighting, (2) loss of offsite telephone. communication, (3) a large hole in tie (4)-the refueling transfer cask roof of the refueling building, d destruction of an undetermined falling through the SFP cover an
number of stored spent fuel elements, and (5) high radiation levels as a result of the fuel damage.
,
r (2) The scenario for.the unannounced drill involved a violent fossil
fuel (gas) explosion in the No. 2 plant boiler that resulted in
.
affectonsiteradiologicalconditions.yseriouslyinjured,withno
!
several workers being killed and/or ver This drill also involved the response of the HFD.
'
(3) Each drill ap) eared to mock realistic conditions, were properly i
classified,.t1e appropriate outside agencies were notified, i
,
adequately critiqued, and identified deficiencies were adequately addressed.
[
The inspector noted that the licensee continued to maintain current
,
agreements with the appropriate offsite emergency support agencies, as l
identified in the EP.
The licensee's emergency call list was also noted
,
to be current.
The inspector verified that the type and location of emergency response equipment was maintained as specified in the EP.
The equipment app ared i
to be well maintained, operable, and survey instruments currently calibrated.
During facility tours the inspector observed that emergency exits and pathways were clearly identified.
The inspector observed that the licensee continued to conduct EP training as delineated in the EP.
As exhibited in Section 3 above, the licensee
appears to be quite capable in handling site emergencies.
The licensee's aerformance in this area appeared adequate to accomplishing t1eir safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
--
-
-.
.
. - -
.. _, _ _.
.*
H
3
,
,
- 9.
Training (41500)
ihe licensee's fuel handling and radiation protection training programs were reviewed for compliance with the requirements delineated in tie TS, 10 CFR Part 19, licensee procedures; and agreement with recommendations in various industry standards.
The inspector noted that there had been no change in the licensee's training program since the last inspection of this area.
A review of selected lesson plans, training attendance records, tests, discussions with plant workers and observations during the inspection disclosedthattrainingwasbelngconductedinaccordancewiththeabove noted regulatory requirements.
The inspector noted that the licensee devoted considerable time to ensure that appropriate training was being r mvided to all staff members.
During facility tours and discussions with plant personnel, the inspector observed no indication-of work being performed by inadequately trained personnel.
'
License performance in this area appeared full satisfacto and their programappearedfullycapableofaccomplishingtheirsafeh, objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Occupational Exposure, Shipping and Transportation (83750)
a.
. Control of Radioactive Material and Posting During facility tours, the inspector observed that adequate personnel survey instruments were conveniently located at exits from contaminated areas.
All radiological 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 survey meter, S/N 2691, due for calibration on July 19, 1990.
The inspector noted that radioactive materials and radiation areas were posted as required in 10 CFR Part 20.
Licensee access centrols for ligh radiation areas were observed to be consistent with TS Section VII.K and licensee procedural require;nents, b.
Transportation The inspector noted that the only shipments of radioactive materials, since the last inspection in this area, Licensee records have been
" limited quantity" samales.
Based on a review of for these shipments, tie inspector noted the shipments had been made in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 173.421 and licensee procedures.
No violations or aeviations were identified.
11.
Exit Interview (30703)
The ins 1ector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section 1, at tie conclusion of the inspection on June 21, 1990.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarize ]
[
,
F, <
-
y,.
c I
,
. :.
,
,
.
.
,
!
The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were
' l
'
'
identified.
i L
r..
. I i
i i
j k
b
.
,
$
' !
!
P
-
I s
i I
'
t
>
a
)
,.
P b
P t
..
.
. -
.
-