IR 05000275/1983032
| ML16340E021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1983 |
| From: | Garcia E, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340E022 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.B.3, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM 50-275-83-32, NUDOCS 8312120165 | |
| Download: ML16340E021 (16) | |
Text
~ ~
~
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-275/83-32 Docket No. 50-275 License No. DPR-76 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Com an 77 Beale Street San Francisco California 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Can on Unit 1 Inspection at:
San Luis Obis o Count California
.Inspection conducted:
October 3-7 1983 Inspectors:
P-
/
E.
M. Garcia, Radiation Specialist
/
Approved by:
F. A. Wenslawski, Chief Radiological Safety Branch Mop. PZ /~/3 Date Signed Date Signed Summary:
Ins ection on October 3-7 1983 (Re ort, No. 50-275/83-32)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector following up, on unresolved items and other follow-up items identified in inspection reports 50-275/80-04, 50-275/81-16, 50-275/83-09, and 50-275/83-22.
These items deal with incomplete preoperational tests, implementation of NUREG-0737 Items II.B.3 and II.F.l, and calibration of FSAR identified radiation monitors.
The inspection also followed up IE, Information Notices, Licensee Event Reports, Allegation Number RV-83-A-0018, and licensee preparation for 10 CFR 61 compliance.
This inspection involved 42 hours4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> onsite by one inspector.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected no items of noncompliance were identifie ~I
~
~ ~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted-R.
C. Thornberry, Plant Manager
+R. Patterson, Plant Superintendent-J.
V. Boots, Supervisor, Chemistry and Radiation Protection (C&RP)
R. J. Kosmala, Assistant Power Plant Engineer
- W. A. O'ara, Senior C&RP Engineer (E)
D. R. Clifton, C&RPE A. 0. Taylor, C&RPE H.
W. Fong, C&RPE B. D. Guilbeault, C&RPE W. Kelly, Power Production Engineer L. T. Moretti, C&RP Foreman H. A. Ferguson, C&RP Foreman R. Tucker, Instrument and Control Foreman-P.
Baum, Power Production Engineer
>Denotes those individuals present at the exit interview.
2.
Preo erational Testin The status of preoperational tests selected for review was examined.
The last time this area was examined two tests remained incomplete.
These tests are:
19.2.12 Flush and Preoo.
S ent Resin S stem 23.3 Aux.
& Fuel Handlin Buildin Vent. Prep
. Test Review of records indicate that these test have been completed and accepted by operations.
This item is considered closed.,
(50-275/80-04-01 Closed)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
NUREG-0737 Item II.B.3 Post Accident Sam lin S stem (PASS)
Inspection reports 50-275/81-16 and 50-275/83-22 have reviewed the licensee's Post Accident Sampling system.
The licensee anticipates that by late October 1983 a combined use of the Interim Post IOCA Sampling System (IPLSS)
and portions of the "Sentry" system will enable them to meet the recommendations of NUREG 0737 Item II.B.3.
Inspection Report 50-275/83-22 identified seven issues regarding the licensee's post accident sampling capability.
The status of these issues follows:
L g
~
The inspector observed the location where the source was found and interviewed the cognizant licensee staff.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiological evaluation of these events.
The evaluation concluded that a significant health hazard was not likley as a result of misuse of these sources.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
(50-275/83-03-LO, Closed)
9.
Follow u on Alle ation Number RV-83-A-0018 This allegation express three areas of concern.
These are:
1.
Licensee's Health Physics personnel are not qualified to American National Standard Institute (ANSI) requirements.
2.
The licensee has poor practices as far as keeping exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)~
3.
Modifications to the Air Ejector Discharge Radio-Gas Monitor (RE-.15)
and Gas Decay Tank Discharge Radio-Gas Monitor (RE-22) have made these monitors insensitive to Xenon-133 and Krypton-85.
Regarding the first issue the applicable ANSI standard is N18 ~ 1"1971, Standard for Selection and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.
Technical Specification 6.3, Unit Staff Qualifications further requires that the Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection shall meet or exceed the qualifications of Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975.
The qualifications of the Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection and his alternate were reviewed by NRR in February 1981 and found to meet both the ANSI standard and Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975.
The individuals involved have had experience at another Nuclear Facility and have been involved in the development of Diablo Canyon since its inception.
=
The licensee's program for reviewing the unit staff experience and qualifications to meet the ANS1 N18.1"1971 standard were reviewed.
Records of selected individuals were examined.
The records reviewed indicate that the licensee has a program for determining whether an individual has the required experience.
The inspector noted, however, that for Chemistry and Radiation Protection Technicians the licensee considers that two years experience in chemistry, radiation protection, or a combination of both meets the standard for this position.
The licensee was informed that although it was not clear that their interpretation of required experience is correct, it is the licensee's responsibility to insure that technicians in responsible positions are qualified to do the job.
Region V will seek from NRR clarification of the ANSI 18.1-1971 experience requirement as it applies to the licensee's Chemistry and Radiation Protection technicians.
The inspector will follow up on this issue (50-275/83-32-01, open)-
In regards to the second 'general.concern, the individual gave three examples of what he (she) felt were poor practices in the ALARA program-
~ g
~
The first example is that air from the chemistry laboratory is only exhausted by means of the fume hoods and that this is inadequate.
The inspector toured the laboratory and noted that there is an additional room exhaust besides the two fume hoods.
Also, a
19S1 report by the licensee's corporate industrial hygienist measured 16 room air changes per hour considering only the air removed by the fume hoods.
The minimum recommended room air changes per hour is 10.
Further, the licensee has a Design Change Request (DCR) for adding a fume hood over sink, and thus further increasing the number of air changes.
The second example of 'poor ALAM practices given"-by the individual concerned is that the licensee intends to permit.all floors in the restricted area to become contaminated.
Whether or not floors will be allowed to become contaminated can not be clearly determined until the plant is operational.
In interviews with the Supervisor Chemistry and Radiation Protection and the CMP Engineer responsible for Operation Health Physics the licensee indicated that they intend to keep hallways "clean" and to control the spread of contamination by the use of step-off-pads.
Statements in Radiation Control Procedures G-4 and G-5 substantiate the licensee's intent.
The third example of poor ALA1Q practices given by the individual concerned is that the licensee will not provide respirators to workers when they want one.
This situation would arise when the radiation work permit does not require a respirator but the worker insists on having one.
Licensee's radiation control procedure G-9, "Use of Respiratory Equipment for Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Materials" establishes prerequisites for use and selection of respiratory equipment.
Prior to using respiratory equipment each individual must have a physical examination, be trained and fitted with the type of respiratory equipment to be used.
Selection of type of equipment to be used is made by the Radiation Protection staff.
The procedure does not address the question of providing respirators on demand.
In interviews with the Supervisor CMP and with the CRGP Engineer responsible for respiratory protection, they stated that if after explaining to the individual why a respirator was not needed for a particular task if the worker insisted, and was qualified, a
respirator would be provided.
The third general area of concern deals with modifications to the Air Ejector Monitor, RE-15, and the Gas Decay Tank Discharge Monitor, RE-22, making these monitors insensitive to Xe-133 and Kr-85.
RE-15 is in a hostile environment, high humidity and temperature.
RE-22 monitors what may be relative high concentrations of an undiluted stream.
The licensee procured environmental shields from the manufacturer of these monitors to protect them from the hostile environment, and to decrease the sensitivity, respectively.
The manufacturer has provided
the licensee with analysis of responses for Xe-133 and Kr-85 for these monitors.
As expected the beta emissions from these radionuclides is completely shielded by the environmental shields.
However, the gamma
'emissions (514 Kev for Kr-85 and 80 KeV for Xe-133) penetrate the shield and are detected by the monitor.
The licensee intents to verify the vendor's response curves when the plant is operational.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Licensee Pre aration for 10 CFR 61 Cora liance On December 27, 1983 the new Part 61, Iicensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, becomes effective.
NRC is attempting to determine if 1.icensees are aware of, and are making preparation for compliance with 10 CFR 61.
Copies of the final rule with a fact sheet and a branch technical position were mailed to licensees on February
and May ll, 1983, respectively.
Pacific Gas and Electric is aware of the requirements of 10 CFR 61 and is developing specific procedures to effect compliance.
The guidance provided in the documents described above is being used in developing the procedures.
A Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer with experience in radioactive waste programs has been hired and placed in charge of developing the licensee's program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Paragraphs 4.b, 4.c and 5 discussed previously identify unresolved items.
These items have been found to be acceptable.
No new unresolved items have been identified and none of the previously identified unresolved items have resulted in noncompliance or deviations.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with individuals denoted in paragraph 1 at the end of the inspection.
The scope and findings of the'nspection were presented.
Specific areas discussed are described in paragraphs
through 10.
The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance were identifie ~ ~t
WlC Form 3)7
{1142)
- h'5-3Q ALLEGATIONDATAFORM u.s, Nuc~)I IIEGu~ToRY coMMissio~
lnattuct)ona on revetae eke Facility(fes) Involved:
{Ifmote than 3, or If
, Oenenc, vrtita GENERIC)
RECaeNO OFHCE 84'R(JYoQ VM)T'$ 4 g 0 3-Docket Number lifapplicable)
2p Z. Functfonaf Area(s) involved:
{Check approptiate bott{ac) )
operations construction aafeguards Other {Spacify)
onsite health and safety offsito health and safety emergency proparadness 3. Description:
{Umitto 100 charectara)
T 1 ~
{'.
f-(= P
'/
fj
{,'k /
ST@
l 4. Source of Allegation:
{Check appropriate box)
F
contractor employee licensee employee NRC employee organization {Specify)
other {Spacify)
security guard news media private citizen SFE.
Y- >-A-c o>z 5. Date Allegation Received:
6. Name of Individual Recafvfng Allegatfon:
MM OO YY f
/ g3
{Rtet Ntto Inltlala and teat name)
. p/, A/g~
p,J
.~orhalf.c 7. Offic:
8. Action Office Contact:
9. FTS Telephone Number:
ACTION OFFICE
{Flrat two Inlt44 and laat name)
~4'3-57m r g
F
. V,'i g.SCIL 10. Status:
{Check one}
1t. Date Closed:
Open. Iffollowup actions are pending or In progress Clo'sed, iffollowup actions are completed MM OO YY 11.1 Document Nos.
Remarks:
{Limitto 50 chatacteral 12;1 Man-hours/Date 13. Allegation Number:
Office Year Number V-~Ba.O oB
~ ~)
Y kffC Form 307 11142)
QS 'f~
~GATIONgAYAF0/M u.s. NUClEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Instructions on reverse side RECEIVING OFFICE 1. Facility(les) Involved:
flfmora than 3, or lf generic, tarnta GENERIC)
co
~AN'oh'NCS r era
Docket Number (if applicable)
2. Functional Area)a) Involved:
ICheck appropriate boxiss) )
.operations construction safeguards other ISpeclfy)
onslte health and safety offslte health and safety emergency preparedness 3. Description:
(Um)t to 100 characters)
SPsrde rPi
P 8f r ere 4. Source of Allegation:
lcheck appropriate bcx)
contractor employee licensee employee NRC, employee security guard news media private citizen Pape+
OrganiZatiOn IspeClfy)
~ A@5 other (Specify)~9'.
Date Allegation Received:
6. Name of individual Receiving Allegation:
7. Office:
MM DD YY D9'o 7 IHrst two initials and last name)
%~Ar;~c~
8. Action Office Contact:
9. FTS Telephone Number:
'CTION OFFICE gO.'f fr/2$ CQ IRrst two Initials and last name)
10. Status:
ICheck one)
11. Date Closedl Open, iffollowup actions are pending or in progress Closed, if followup actions are completed MM DD YY 11.1 Document Nos.
12. Remarks:
IUmitto 50 charactersl 12.1 Nc)n-holft s JD 13. Allegation Number:
Office Year Nrrmber
-~8'- O'
ALLEGATION NO.
a