IR 05000133/1993002
| ML20057C514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1993 |
| From: | Cillis M, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C510 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-93-02, 50-133-93-2, NUDOCS 9309290056 | |
| Download: ML20057C514 (9) | |
Text
_
.
~
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY @ttCESSION
.
REGION V
'
-
Report No.:
50-133/93-02 License No.:
OPR-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 Conducted:
August 17-20, 1993 8 d!O
'
Inspector:
- e M. C l lis, Senior R iation Specialist Date Sicjne'd Approved
[O24/ L
_1 ~A S/2%[93 J3med. H. Reese, Chi (f Date Mgned
'
eactdr Radiological Protection Branch Summary:
Areas inspected:
This was a routine, announced inspection of licensee activities during SAFSTOR including; radioactive waste management, environmental protection, emergency
.
The preparedness, shipping and transportation, and occupational exposures.
inspection also included facility tours.
Inspection procedures 88035, 84850, i
88045. 88050, 86740, and 83822 were addressed.
i Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable of accomplishing of their safety objectives. Strengths were noted in all program areas that were reviewed.
9309290056 930826 PDR ADDCK 05000133 G
-
.
- -
-
- -.
_ _ _.
I i
E l
.
DETAILS
!
'
,
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. E. Holden, Acting Plant Manager (Rotational Assignment)
- R. Willis, Power Plant Engineer
- R. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (SC&RPE)
- D. Peterson, Quality Control Supervisor (QCS)
,
- R. McKenna, Supervisor, Operations
,
- W. Montavlo, Jr., Radiation Protection Monitoring Foreman
,
'
- P. Rasmussen, Senior Power Production Engineer
.l J. Crow, Training Coordinator
!'
- Denotes individuals attending the exit interview on August 20, 1993.
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held
,
discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
-l Radioactive Waste Manaaement/ Waste Generator Reauirements (88035 and
,
2.
,
84850)
The licensee's radioactive waste management program was reviewed for t
compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61, the Technical Specifications (TS), and licensee procedures.
Audit and Review a.
The following Quality Assurance (QA) audits and Quality Control (QC) surveillance reports were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee representatives:
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program audit o
conducted during the period of October 14-23, 1992.
Dry Solid Radioactive Waste Shipment /10 CFR surveillances o
>
conducted on April 22, 1992, and December 10, 1992.
Radioactive Waste Shipment Manifest Tracking surveillances o
condacted on April 28, 1992, and March 16, 1992.
- The inspector verified that appropriate corrective actions had been taken for all identified deficiencies. The inspector noted that the quality of audits and surveillances were excellent and covered all aspects of the various SAFSTOR programs in great The inspector determined that licensee audits and reviews detail.
continue to be effective in identifying and reporting deficiencies to management.
b.
Changes There have been no changes in the licensee's program since the last inspection of this area.
,
.
,
-
.;
.
"
!
c.
Liouid and Solid Wastes Records of radioactive liquid wastes to the'outfall canal for June
of 1992, through June 1993, were reviewed. A total of fourteen batch releases were made during this period. 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.
Operations and analysis were conducted in accordance with the requirements specified in the Technical
-
Specifications (TS) VI A and B.
Routine sample measurements of the spent fuel pool (SFP), SFP
,
'
reviewed. The sample l.iner, french drain, and caisson sump were measurements remained at about the same levels as described in previous inspections of this area.
Levels in the SFP liner continue to show a slight decrease as previously reported.
-
Solid waste generation during SAFSTOR period of June 1992 through June 1993, has been limited. Solid waste generally consist of low
level radioactive waste such as disposable protective clothing and cleaning materials, used liquid waste filters, wastes generated from routine maintenance activities, and hardware that are no longer required, and from decontamination efforts.
A review of related procedures and Surveillance Test Procedures (STPs) disclosed that quarterly checks and an annual calibration
,
i of the liquid radwaste monitor had been conducted in accordance The with licensee procedures and as required by TS Section V.
inspector concluded that the licensee's liquid and solid waste
programs were being managed in accordance with established licensee procedures and TS Section VI, " Waste Disposal Systems."
The licensee's staff informed the inspector that low-level radioactive contamination was discovered outside of Unit 3.
The contaminated area was within the licensee's owner controlled area.
,
The discovery occurred while excavating a trench for the new oily I
water separator discharge line to the Unit 3 outfall tube.
!
Radioactivity was discovered in two general locations, around a ten inch perforated french drain line and inside.the Unit 3 outfall tube. The french drain line is located in drain rock under the railroad spur outside of gate 3.
The line which was not identified on any drawings runs approximately 25 feet into Unit 3 yard and terminates under the roadway to the settling ponds.
Samples were taken at numerous locations along the route of the train spur. Activity levels up to 20 picocuries per gram (pC1/gm)
were found inside the pipe and up to 45 pCi/gm of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 were found where the pipe ' terminates under the roadway.
The outfall tube sediment was sampled and was found to have activity levels of 125 pCi/gm of Cobalt-60 and 56 pCi/gm of The licensee determined that the area became Cesium-137.
contaminated during radwaste discharges when Unit 3 was still operating. The licensee's investigation was still ongoing
..
.
h
..
.
at.the time of this inspection. Tentative action items established by the licensee included the fol. lowing:
Research pre-historic spills for the probable cause.
a.
,
Sample the ditch and characterize the conditions surrounding l
b.
.
this area.
I Conduct a 50.59 review per I&E Bulletin 80-10.
c.
d.
Document and preserve this information for subsequent dismantlement.
Document the french drain line and outfall tube
-
'
e.
contamination in the five year base line study.
!
Establish a standard work practice that precludes excavating f.
'
on site without PSRC approval.
Determine if the french drain line should be plugged, g.
h.
Identify french drain line and submit drawing updates.
The licensee's Technical Review Group had scheduled an additional meeting to further review this matter.
,
c.
Gaseous Effluents Records of stack effluent sampling data for 1992, were reviewed.
.The inspector noted that the results of the releases were well below the limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column I.
'
The review of related STPs disclosed that the stack gas monitor functional checks and calibrations had been conducted in accordance with licensee procedures and TS Section V.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's liquid, gaseous and solid waste programs were adequate to the accomplishment of its safety No violations or deviations were identified.
objectives.
3.
Environmental Protection (880451 The licensee's environmental protection program was reviewed for
'
compliance with Technical SpecificationsSection V and the following procedures:
RCP-14A, " Weekly Environmental Air Samples" o
C&RP E-1," Environmental Monitoring and Sampling Program" o
The review of the environmental monitoring and sampling program disclosed that the licensee's program exceeded TS requirements.
I
.
.
.
~
.
The licensee's environmental monitoring program also includes the sampling of: drinking water, surface water samples.taken for EPA, milk
. samples from nearby dairies taken for HBPP and the State, offsite air particulate samples, caper clams, algae, marine sediment, oysters, a variety of fishes, and soil samples. TS only require: four offsite monitoring stations for obtaining direct radiation measurements, a continuous sampler for water in the discharge canal, five groundwater monitoring wells, and sampling of the caisson sump.
The inspector reviewed environmental monitoring data for sampling that had been conducted in 1992 and 1993. The sample data results were found to oe consistent with the licensee's 1992 Annual Facility Status Report The and the 1992 Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports.
inspector noted that no abnormal results were reported and that plant operations while in SAFSTOR had no apparent impact on the environment.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's environmental monitoring program was fully capable of accomplishing its safety objectives and the licensee's performance in this area exceeded the requirements specified in the TS. No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Emergency Preparedness (88050)
The licensee's Emergency Preparedness program was examined for
'
compliance with TS requirements delineated in Section VII.F and in the licensee's Emergency Plan, Revision 29, dated January 14, 1993.
The inspector noted the plan had been reviewed in accordance with
,
requirements prescribed in the EP.
,
One unannounced annual and one announced drill of a simulated emergency effecting the entire site, and off-site agencies (local fire department, ambulance service, local hospitals, and the State) were conducted in The announced drill was conducted on November 5, 1991, and the 1992.
unannounced drill was conducted on December 19, 1992. Based on discussions with licensee representatives and review of records maintained of the drills, the inspector made the following observations:
Each drill appeared to mock realistic conditions and tested
o the ability of both the licensee's staff and involved offsite support agencies. The announced drill did receive favorable attention from the news media, A critique of each drill was conducted.
Identified o
deficiencies were addressed in a timely manner.
The inspector noted that the licensee continued to maintain agreements The with the appropriate offsite emergency support agencies current.
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 appeared to be well maintained, and as appropriate, operable and currently
.
.
_
_
..
.
'
.
'
-
.
.
calibrated. During facility tours the inspector observed that emergency
.
exits and pathways were adequately identifiable.,
The inspector verified that the licensee continued to conduct EP
<
training as delineated in the EP.
License performance in this area appeared adequate to the accomplishment i
of their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were
'
identified.
i 5.
Transportation Activities (86740)
.
The inspector noted that the only one shipment of radioactive material
'
was made since the last inspection. The shipment was made on
December 10, 1992.
i i
Based on a review of shipping records, the inspector concluded that the shipment had been made in accordance with the requirements delineated in 10 CFR 20.311, 10 CFR Part 61, 10 CFR Part 71, and 49 CFR 173.421 and licensee procedures.
Discussions held with the licensee's staff revealed that the licensee i
did not expect to make another shipment of radioactive waste until 1994.
The licensee had approximately 300 cubic feet of dry active waste in storage at the time of this inspection.
The licensee's performance in this area was determined to be satisfactory and the licensee's transportation program appeared to be No violations or fully capable of accomplishing its safety objectives.
-
deviations were identified.
6.
Radiation Protection (83822)
The licensee's radiation protection program was reviewed for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, Technical Specifications and with administrative procedure HBAP C-200, " Requirements for the HBPP
<
Procedure HBAP C-200 outlines the Radiation Protection Program."
licensee's radiation protection program and licensee's commitment to The maintain exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
procedure also establishes on-site lines of authority and
responsibilities.
The inspector reviewed selected procedures, records of surveys, use of survey and monitoring equipment, sealed source leak test results and
'
The inspector also verified that the conducted a facility tour.
licensee's general employee training program was consistent with 10 CFR Part 19 requirements and that posting and labeling practices were in compliance with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and 10 CFR Part 20.203.
!
i
.;
,
.
-
a.
Changes Several staff members were on rotational assignment during the inspection. The rotational assignments included the Plant Manager, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer, and
Senior Power Production Engineer's positions. The later two individuals rotated positions for a five month period and the Plant Manager was assigned a position at one of the licensee's fossil fuel plants on a two month rotational assignment. An individual from the licensee's Diablo Canyon Power Plant assumed
>
the role of Plant Manager during the two month period that the rotational assignment was in effect. The inspector determined that the rotational assignments had no affect on the performance
!
of normal operations. The inspector concluded that each individual's had performed at a level equal to the position they e
assumed responsibility for during the change of assignments.
b.
Audits The QA/QC audits and.surveillances are described in Section 3 and as follows:
,
,
o Audit Report No. 93023 I,
"HBPP Results of Corrective Actions, Technical Specifications and License Conditions, Plant Staff Training, Performance and Qualifications, and QA l
Programs" Audit Report No. 93024 I, " Emergency Planning and Radiation-l o
Protection"
,
Audit Report No. 92026 I, " Radiation Protection Program" o
,
Quality Control (QC) Surveillance of March 16, 1993,
,
o
" Posting of Notices to Workers" QC Surveillances on Housekeeping conducted on May 27, 1993, o
and August 17, 1993 QC Surveillance involving " Management Review of the Health
,
o Physics Program / Reg. Guide 4.15" The inspector noted that the QC surveillances and management reviews covered all of the major SAFSTOR programs. The inspector j
determined that the audit / surveillance program were effective in
identifying and reporting deficiencies to management. Appropriate corrective actions had been taken and/or planned for identified
deficiencies.
l c.
External Exposure Control Personnel exposure records for 1992 and 1993 were reviewed.
The inspector noted that the total collective dose for the entire Unit
-
-
-
-
-
i
.
.
-
staff was approximately 0.350 person-rem for the period of
,
January 1, 1992, through November 30, 1992., Personnel exposures for 1993 were tracking at a slightly lower level than they did in t
1992. The licensee's staff stated that they expect to resume i
their efforts to decontaminate the remainder of the refueling building during the later part of 1993 or early 1994 so that personnel access can be made in street clothes; thereby, reducing
,
personnel exposures and the generation of radioactive wastes.
,
-!
d.
Procedures The inspector noted that procedures which have been developed for the purpose of implementing the radiation protection program were reviewed periodically for adequacy.
Several radiation work permits (RWPs) and procedures were randomly selected and reviewed during the inspection. No concerns were identified.
Internal Exposure Control e.
The licensee continues to assess and control internal exposures on
!
the basis of their air sampling, whole body counting, engineering controls and respirator protection programs. The inspector
,
reviewed air sampling and whole body counting records during the l'
inspection period.
It was noted that internal exposures were being maintained well below the requirements delineated in 10 CFR
>
Part 20.
,
The inspector noted that the licensee continues to maintain an
active respiratory protection program that includes, trcining.
medical examinations, fit testing, and procedures for use and maintenance of respirators. It was also noted that the licensee's
use and/or need to use respiratory equipment has been limited.
The inspector concluded that the licensee maintained a respiratory protection program that was consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.103, Regulatory Guide, 8.15, NUREG 0041.
Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination. Surveys, and f.
Monitoring There had been no changes in the licensee's radiological monitoring program for SAFSTOR since the last inspection of this The inspector reviewed radiation protection survey records
<
area.
The
for monitoring that had been performed during 1991.
documentation of surveys, degree of detail, supervisory reviews, and survey frequency of the surveys were found to be consistent
applicable parts of 10 CFR 20, the TS, and licensee procedures.
The inspector reviewed records of the licensee's sealed source inventory and sealed source leak tests for compliance with TS t
Section V.B.7 and STP 3.39.1, " Leak Testing of Sealed Radioactive Sources." No concerns were identified.
.
.
'
l
,
'
.
.. '
-
'
g.
Facility Tours Tours of the licensee's facilities were conducted during the
'
inspection period. The following observations were made.
~
All survey instruments in use were within their current ~
calibration period.
Adequate operating personnel survey
'
instruments were conveniently located at exits from contaminated Personnel in controlled areas were equipped with proper
-
areas.
dosimetry.
All areas toured were found to be exceptionally clean.
.j The licensee's-performance in this area was found to be. satisfactory and the radiation protection program appeared fully capable of accomplishing its safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.
!
Exit Interview (83822)
7.
The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section
,
'
1, at the conclusion of the inspection on August 20, 1993. The scope findings of the inspection were summarized.
The licensee was and informed that no violations or deviations were identified.
.
,
l I
.
l