IR 05000133/1993001
| ML20044E089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1993 |
| From: | Cillis M, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044E086 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-93-01, 50-133-93-1, NUDOCS 9305210261 | |
| Download: ML20044E089 (7) | |
Text
'.
.
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-133/93-01 License No.
DPR-7 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 Conducte :
March 15-19, 1993 I 3 13 Inspector:
~, e a
M.
il lis, Senior ion Specialist Date Signed d4k3 Approved:
/[}A(1/
-
/s
~
',
Qav6CH. Reese,' Criief /
Date Signed Reactor Radiological Protection Branch Summary:
,
Areas Inspected:
This was a routine, announced inspection of licensee activities during SAFSTOR including management organization and controls, licensee action on folllowup of open items; management organization and cont!ols; procedures; fire protection / prevention; surveillance procedures and records; maintenance / surveillance testing, operator training / retraining, plant procedures,and operational safety. The inspection also included facility tours.
Inspection procedures 30703, 92701, 88005, 64704, 71707, 41400, 42700, 61700 and 62702 were addressed.
Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable of accomplishing of their safety objectives. The licensee's performance appears to be of a high quality.
The licensee's fire protection, training, and surveillance test programs were noted as strengths.
No violations or deviations were identified.
L 9305210262 930504
{DR ADOCK 05000133
.
PDR i
.. -
_.
.
.
_
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
.
-
,
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- P. E. Rigney, Plant Manager
- R. B. Willis, Power Plant Engineer
- R. C. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (SC&RPE)
- D. A. Peterson, Quality Control Supervisor
- R. D. McKenna, Supervisor, Operations
- W. R. Montavlo, Jr. Radiation Protection Monitoring Foreman
- P. G. Rasmussen, Senior Power Production Engineer
- J. H. Paul, Power production Engineer and Plant Fire Fire Marshal
- J. D. Crow, Training Coordinator
- Denotes individuals attending the exit interview on March 19, 1993.
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Followup on Open Items (MC 92701)
(Closed) Item 50-133/92-02-01:
This item involved the benefit of performing a aydrostatic test of the underground radioactive liquid discharge line that is routed to the outfall' following the magnitude 6.9 earthquake of April 25, 1992.
Discussions held with the licensee's staff and a review of a voluntary Licensee Event Report, Nos. 3-92-001-00 and 3-92-002-00, Nonconformance Reports, HB3-92-QC-N002, HB3-92-QC-N003, HB3-92-QC-N004, and Test Procedure 5/04/92, " Hydrostatic Test of Treated Radwaste to Canal" disclosed that the discharge line satisfactorily tested on May 6, 1992.
The discharge line was hydrostatically tested for at least 30 minutes at a minimum of 80 psig to determine its integrity. This matter is closed (Closed) Item 50-133/92-02-02:
This item involved a final inspection of Unit 3's chimney for the purpose of determining the extent of any structural damage, if any, that may have resulted from the magnitude 6.9 earthquake of April 25, 1992.
A review of licensee records that were provided to the inspector disclosed that two independent inspections of the chimney structure were conducted on April 27, 1992, and April 29-30, 1992.
The inspections were accomplished by the-licensee's Custodis Maintenance Service group and also by a private firm.
Both groups concluded that the chimney suffered
,
i no structural damage from the main earthquake and the aftershocks.
This matter is closed.
(Closed) Item 50-133/92-02-03:
This item concerned a notification that an increase in the spent fuel pool (SFP) liner gap water level folicwing i
the earthquake of April 25, 1992.
The licensee reported that Technical
'
Specification (TS) III.B.2.a requirement to maintain the SFP liner gap below a +9 inch level was exceeded by approximately +26 inches.
The
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L
.
,
.
.
.,
2
liner gap level had increased to a level of +35 inches for about 45 minutes, before it was pumped down.
Since the licensee's tests have
,
I indicated that there was no SFP leakage, the actual cause of the increase had not been determined. This matter was reviewed during this inspection.
Discussions held with the licensee's staff regarding the results of their i
analysis and a review of the references delineated in Item 50-133/92-02-l 01 disclosed the following:
f Tne motion of the water in the SFP during the earthquake deflected the
,
pool liner (10 gauge stainless steel), causing the nominal 1/4 inch gap
between the pool liner and concrete walls of the pool to become smaller.
t
'
!
This action reduced the volume of the " liner gap," thereby causing the l
level of water in the liner gap to increase. After the earthquake, the level of the liner gap was 2.4 feet as compared to the normal 0.35 feet
!
above low-level water level recorded before the earthquake.
The high l
level limit for water in the gap is 0.75 feet. Although the 0.75 feet TS limit was exceeded, the groundwater in the vicinity of the SFP was
'
estimated to range from a high of 2.8 feet to a low of 2.5 feet (based on tidal levels), which was higher in elevation than the liner gap water level of two feet immediately after the earthquake. The SFP liner gap water level was established at an elevation of 0.75 feet to prevent contamination from the groundwater by maintaining the liner gap water level lower than the groundwater level, thereby making the liner gap the l
collection point for both SFP leakage through the liner and groundwater l
leakage through the concrete walls of the spent fool pool.
Tests performed by the licensee after the earthquake and the subsequent
,
after shocks indicated that no increase in the nominal 0.3 gallon per day
'
leakage rate of the SFP had occurred.
After the liner gap was pumped down, the subsequent after shocks did not result in a change of the liner gap water level, indicatig no increased leakage througn the liner or the pool structure, and no additional deformation of the liner. The liner deformation was also analyzed and i
the increase in strain was determined to be within acceptable limits.
l The licensee also assessed the effect of tides on the groundwater flow l
l and of groundwater hydrostatic pressure.
The licensee evaluation
'
included an assessment of the french drain system. This system (a crushed rock layer beneath the concrete floor of the SFP) is the primary pathway through which groundwater leaks into the pool liner gap.
If there were a significant flow reversal, contamination in the SFP liner water would likely be detected in the french drain. A french drain sample taken on May 6,1992 and subsequent monthly samples have continued
to indicate nothing more than normal radioactivity levels. The licensee stated the monthly sampling would continue. This matter is closed.
.
l
,
.
- - -
....
-
.
.
.
,
.
3.
Management Organization and Controls (MC 88005)
The inspector rev ewed the qualifications of the new Plant Manager (PM)
and Power Plant Engineer (PPE) for compliance with Technical j'
Specification Secticn VII.C.2 requirements. These positions were filled since the previous NRC inspection.
The review disclosed that the newly assigned PM qualifications were consistent with TS requirements and that the newly assigned PPE needed to complete the Certified Fuel Handler (CFH) training program before meeting the qualification standards prescribed in the TS.
The PPE scheduled to attend the CFH training class the next time that is offered.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program (MC 64704)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with Sections IV and VII cf the ISs, licensee procedures and recommendations outlined in various industry standards.
a.
Changes There had been no changes in the licensee's program since the last inspection. The license continues to maintain a well trained fire brigade, and the same designated individual as the site Fire Marshall (FM).
b.
Incidents Section 2 above describes the only significant incident that has occurred since the last inspection in this area.
c.
Audits 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 908021",
dated April 6, 1990. The onsite audit at HBPP was conducted February 20-22, 1990. The inspector noted that the audit covered essentially all elements of the fire protection and fire prevention program. No deficiencies were identified that resulted in the issuance of an Nonconformance Report (NCR) or Audit Finding Report (AFR).
The licensee's audit concluded that HBPP had been effectively implementing their NRC requirements and Company commitments for fire protection and loss prevention programs.
- i-
- --
I
l
.
!
.
t I
,
(2) Selected 1992 monthly QC housekeeping / fire protection
!
inspections. These inspections continue to be effective in the
,
licensee's identification and correcting deficiencies.
l (3) Selected backshift inspection records. These inspections were t
also effective in the identification and correction of j
deficiencies.
,
,
d.
Training
,
There have been essentially no changes in the '.icensee's Fire l
,
Brigade 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.
inspector noted that the fire brigade members continue to reuive a minimum of twelve hours of formal classroom training each year.
>
Part of this training includes an annual hands-on fire fighting
!
instructions provided by the Greater Eureka Fire Training i
!
Association. The inspector also noted that all plant staff receive annual instruction on the basics of fire protection / prevention and the use of fire extinguisher.
I The licensee's Fire Brigade responded to two brush fires on August 20, 1992, and August 24, 1992. The brush fires, which were minor in nature, were located on the North Bluff at the Plant Perimeter Fence. The local Fire Department also responded. The brush fires were used to satisfy a a part the TS Fire Brigade teams training and
drill requirements.
!
e.
Maintenance and Test Programs The inspector reviewed records of routine surveillance tests and
inspections conducted since the last inspection of (1) weekly fire system checks, (2) weekly tests of the No. 2 diesel fire pump, (3)
,
monthly fire suppression equipment and fire suppression water system i
valve checks, (4) monthly tests of No. I and 3 electric driven fire
pumps, (5) monthly fire protection sprinkler system tests, (6) the annual fire hose inspection, (7) the annual fire pump flow capacity test, (8) the 18-month fire barrier inspection, and (9) the 18-month fire system functional test.
In addition to these reviews, the inspector witnessed surveillance tests of the fire protection system in the fire pump house.
The surveillance testing was performed by the FM and and his staff utilizing Surveillance Test Procedure STP 3.20.13, "ilain Fire Pump Test." The tests of all three fire pumps were successfully completed in accordance with STP 3.20.13.
f.
Tours During facility tours the inspector examined fire hose stations, placement of fire extinguisher, fire extinguisher inspection tags, position of fire system water isolation valves and attached security seals, and housekeeping practices.
Fire Brigade emergency
)
._.
.
.
-._
-
_.
- _.
.
-
- --
.
<
I
.
.
,
.
o
.
a
.
i i
equipment (e.g., Self Contained Breathing Apparatus, Apparel, Etc).
No concerns were identified.
I The license's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory.
The licensee's program appeared fully capable of accomplishing its
safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.
(
5.
Operations Safety lMC 71707)
This area was reviewed to determine if operations were being safely conducted in accordance with the requirements of the TS and licensee
!
procedures. The inspector noted the licensee's staff were required to i
attend a safety training course during the inspection period.
It was
!
also noted that there had been no changes in SAFSTOR operations that could effect the safety of the general public or plant staff.
,
The license's performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory. The i
licensee's program appeared fully capable of accomplishing its safety I
objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Non-Licensed Staff Training (MC 41400)
'
The licensee's training program was reviewed for compliance with the requirements delineated in the Technical Specifications,Section VII C.4, a
l
" Training," 10 CFR Part 19, licensee procedures and recommendations outlined in various industry standards.
The inspector noted that there had been no changes 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 disclosed that continuing training was being conducted in accordance with i
the prescribed regulatory requirements.
The inspector noted that the i
licensee devoted considerable time to ensure that appropriate training
'
was being provided to all staff members.
License performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory, and their program appeared fully capable of accomplishing of its safety objectives.
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Maintenance / Surveillance Testing (MC 61700 an 62700)
In addition to the surveillance tests noted in Section 3.d above, the inspector reviewed records of other TS required surveillance conducted since the last inspection of this area.
Surveillance test requirements i
for the following areas were verified: Operability of the spent fuel pool liner gap pump, verifications of the spent fuel pool level indicator, '
,
calibrations of the area radiation monitors, verification of the energency 480 volt transfer system, tests of the refueling building
!
ventilation system, and the full load test of the 480 volt emergency transfer system.
. _
_
_
.
-.
_,..
.
.
.
.. _, _... _
.
-
_. - -
,
.
~
..
P Based on the reviews, the inspector noted that the surveillance testing of these systems were being accomplished at a greater frequency then is
,
specified in the TS. All surveillance were current and deficiencies identified during the testing were documented and promptly corrected.
The surveillance test procedures appeared to provide adequate instructions and guidance to accomplish the tasks.
License performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory,- and their
'
program appeared fully capable of accomplishing of its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
8.
Plant Procedures (MC 42700)
Based on a review of selected licensee procedures 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.
License performance in this area appeared fully satisfactory, and their program appeared fully capable of accomplishing of its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
9.
Exit Interview (MC 30703)
l The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section
1, at the conclus-ion of the inspection on March 19, 1993. The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified.
,
i
-
..
,,, _ _.
_
_. -.
_. _ _