IR 05000275/1996007
| ML16342D299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1996 |
| From: | Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342D298 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-96-07, 50-275-96-7, NUDOCS 9605230220 | |
| Download: ML16342D299 (30) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-275/96-07 50-323/96-07 Licenses:
DPR-80 DPR-82 Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street.
Room 1451 P.O.
Box 770000 San Francisco, California Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, California Inspection Conducted:
April 15-19 '996 Inspectors:
L. T. Ricketson, P.E..
Senior Radiation Specialist Plant Support Branch G.
L. Guerra.
Radiation Specialist Plant Support Branch Approved:
aine urray, ie
,
Division of Reactor Saf y
uppor rane ae Ins ection Summar Areas Ins ected Units 1 and
A routine.
announced inspection ot radiation protection activities in support of the 1996 Unit 2 refueling outage and of the radiological environmental monitoring program was conducted.
The inspection of the radiation protection activities included reviews of:
planning and preparation, training and qualifications. external exposure controls. internal exposure controls, controls of radioactive materials and contamination, surveying and monitoring, and the program to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The inspection of the environmental monitoring program included reviews of:
program changes.
training and qualifications, quality assurance, program implementation, and meteorological monitoring.
9605230220 960521 PDR ADQCK 05000275
-2-Results Units 1 and
Plant Su ort Radiation Protection
~
Planning by the radiation protection organi zation to support the refue1ing outage was performed well.
Reviews of proposed work packages by ALARA personnel were thorough and lessons learned were well integrated.
The quality of the ALARA prejob briefings varied, but in all cases the preparation was commensurate with the complexity of'he task and the potential for adverse consequences.
Sufficient supplemental staffing for the radiation protection group was provided (Section 2.1).
~
The temporary. additional personnel used to supplement the radiation protection staff met the Technical Specification qualification requirements (Section 2.2).
~
Exposure controls were implemented well.
Job coverage by radiation protection personnel was good.
Radiation work permits furnished appropriate guidance to radiation workers.
Posting and area controls were properly implemented.
Respiratory protection equipment and whole body counting techniques were used appropriately (Sections 2.3 and 2.4).
Good contamination controls were implemented.
The radiation survey program provided current information regarding radiological conditions in work areas (Section 2.5).
~
Licensee management demonstrated strong support for the ALARA concept by scheduling additional time for cleanup of radioactivity in the reactor coolant system.
A challenging ALARA goal was set for the 1996 Unit 2 refueling outage.
The licensee implemented good ALARA initiatives to reduce radiation dose (Section 2.6).
Environmental Monitoring Good management controls of the radiological environmental monitoring program were implemented.
The radiation protection department maintained an appropriately sized staff to perform the duties required by the radiological environmental monitoring program.
A low turnover of personnel contributed to a stable program (Section 3. 1).
The licensee maintained a qualified staff to effectively implement the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Personnel implementing the radiological environmental program were experienced (Section 3.2).
Excellent, comprehensive, and detailed quality assurance audits of the radiological environmental monitoring program were performed (Section 3.3).
-3-
~
A good radiological environmental monitor ing program was implemented.
Good annual radiological environmental operating reports were submitted in a timely manner.
The last land use census was properly performed (Section 3.4).
~
Essentially identical, primary and secondary meteorological towers and instrumentation provided for the implementation of a strong meteorological monitoring program (Section 3.5).
Attachments:
~
Attachment
- Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
~
Attachment 2 -
List of Documents Reviewed
-4-n
PLANT STATUS DETAILS Unit 1 was operating at full power.
Unit 2 was in Mode 6.
The inspection was conducted during days 10 through 14 of the 1996 Unit 2 refueling outage.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING EXTENDED OUTAGES (83729)
2. 1 Plannin and Pre aration The inspector revi ewed supplemental staffi ng, ALARA reviews, prejob briefings, radiation instrument stock.
and consumable supplies in order to evaluate the radiation protection department's planning and preparation to support the refueling outage activities.
2. 1. 1 Supplemental Staffing The licensee hired 85 additional radiation protection technicians to
. supplement the permanent staff of technicians.
The "temporary additional" personnel were hired directly by the licensee without the use of a contractor company.
The individuals were hired for 6 to 8 weeks, typically.
A high percentage of the temporary additional personnel had worked at the site during previous outages.
The inspector determined.
based on the workload during the inspection, that supplemental staffi ng of the radiation protection organization was sufficient.
2. 1.2 Instrumentation and Supplies During tours of work areas.
the inspector reviewed supplies of radiation protection instruments and supplies and interviewed radiation protection personnel and concluded that sufficient supplies were available.
2. 1.3 ALARA Prejob Reviews The inspector reviewed ALARA work packages and noted that the information included survey and personnel dose information from previous work, man-hour estimates, and lessons learned from worker comments and postjob reviews.
The inspector concluded that proper revi ews were performed.
2. 1.4 ALARA Prejob Briefings Certain high dose radiation work permits required that AL'ARA prejob briefings be performed to ensure that workers were properly informed of radiological hazards and special precautions.
The inspector attended briefings presented during the inspection to evaluate the licensee's preparation.
On April 16.
1996.
an ALARA briefing was conducted for Radiation Work Permit 96-2063.
"Regenerative Heat Exchanger Room Work Activities."
The briefing was held in the radiation protection office at the containment entry point.
The
inspector noted distractions from phone calls for people attending the briefing.
The radiation protection technician presenting the briefing used no briefing outline and the sequence of work was not discussed unti 1 one of the mai ntenance personnel asked questions regarding the sequence.
However, the radiation work permit to be used was identified; the technician explained why the briefing was necessary; dose rates in the work areas were discussed; low dose waiting areas were discussed; a demonstration of part of the work was performed by crafts persons; and workers were reminded to ensure all necessary tools were available so as to reduce time in the radiation area.
A radiation protection foreman assisted the radiation protection technician presenting the briefing and ensured that key information was provided to the workers.
A second ALARA briefing was conducted on April 18, 1996, to discuss the requirements of Radiation Mork Permit 2044,
"Primary Steam Generator Eddy Current Testing and Tube Plugging."
The class room used proved to be ideal for the briefing because there were no distractions.
The briefing technician was well prepared.
Instructions provided to the personnel were clear and comprehensive.
Only minor problems were noted by the inspector.
An initial communication problem resulted in confusion as to where the briefing was to be held.
There was little use of visual aids to familiarize personnel to the areas in which they were to work, and the radiation work permit was passed among the workers while other topics were being discussed.
The second item could have resulted in workers not devoting full attention to the remainder of the briefing.
A radiation protection foreman auditing the briefing acknowledged the inspector's comments.
Overall, the briefing was good.
The inspector reviewed the exposure projections for work in the regenerative heat exchanger room and for steam generator eddy current testing and concluded that. although ALARA prejob briefings differed in quality. the preparation and performance of the briefings were commensurate with the complexity of the task and the potential for adverse consequences.
Therefore'he ALARA briefings were determined to be appropriate.
2.2 Trainin and ualifications The inspector reviewed selected resumes to determine if individuals hired as temporary additional senior radiation protection technicians met the requirements of Technical Specification 6.3.
The licensee had written guidelines for the radiation protection foremen to use when evaluating resumes of applicants.
The inspector reviewed the guidance and determined that it was similar to guidance used at other sites and was appropriate.
Resumes chosen at random indicated that individuals had the necessary experience to be qualified as senior radiation protection technicians in accordance with the guidance of ANSI/ANS 3.1-1978 and the requirements of Technical Specification 6.3.
Individuals were requi red to have passed an examination testing their knowledge of plant procedures'ithin the previous two years.
A screening examination testing general health physics knowledge.
as required at some
-6-sites, was not used according to a radiation protection foreman.
The inspector acknowledged that there was no regulatory requirement for such an examination.
2.3 External Ex osure Controls The inspector reviewed posting and high radiation area controls, radiation work permits, access controls.
and radiation protection job coverage in order to evaluate the licensee's external exposure controls.
2.3. 1 Posting and High Radiation Area Controls Ouring tours of the radiological controlled area and the Unit 2 containment building. the inspector reviewed area postings and high radiation area controls and made independent radiation measurements.
No problems were identified.
Postings met the requirements of.10 CFR 20. 1902, and high radiation area controls conformed to the requirements of Technical Specification 6.12.
2.3.2 Radiation Work Permits and Radiation Protection Job Coverage Radiation work permits reviewed were written clearly and provided appropriate radiation safety information.
The inspector compared ALARA br iefing attendance lists with lists of individuals entering the radiological controlled area and confirmed that individuals had received the required briefings.
Oue to delays in removing fuel from the reactor core, there were limited opportunities to observe work that required full time coverage by radiation protection personnel.
Howevers during such work activities as reactor coolant pump seal removal, centrifugal charging pump replacement, and manipulator crane repai rs, job coverage provided by radiation protection personnel was good.
Radiation protection personnel wore magenta-colored hoods and were easily recognizable in the containment building.
Roaming radiation protection personnel routinely checked work areas and provided good intermittent coverage.
2.3.3 Oosimetry The inspector identified no examples of individuals failing to wear dosimetry as required by radiation work permits.
However, the inspector noted on two occasions, examples of electronic alarming dosimeters placed in storage racks with the dose display functional.
This indicated that the electronic alarming dosimeters were not turned off by the dosimeter readers.
This, in turn, could indicate that an individual removed the dosimeter from the reader too quickly, resulting in the individual's dose not being properly recorded.
An analogous situation could exist prior to an individual's entry into the radiological controlled area.
In this situation, if a person withdrew the dosimeter from the reader too soon, the dosimeter. would not be turned on.
Radiation protection personnel confirmed that both situations had happened and that they
-7-were working with the manufacturer to enhance the system so that it would alarm and notify workers if they withdrew the dosimeters too quickly.
The inspector reviewed records of examples of similar problems and noted that the number was small in relation to the number of entries made into the radiological controlled area.
Dose calculations were performed routinely to estimate doses.
Radiation protection personnel added that, should the dose estimates indicate significant potential f'r exposure, the thermoluminescent dosimeters would immediately be processed to determine the official radiation dose to the individuals.
In all examples reviewed by the inspector, the radiation doses were very small.
The inspector concluded that since the electronic dosimeters did not provide the dose of record.
the licensee's proposed actions were appropriate and. in general personnel monitoring was appropriately used.
2.4 Internal Ex osure Controls The inspector reviewed respiratory protection use, whole body counting, and air sampling to evaluate the licensee's internal exposure controls.
2.4. 1 Respiratory Protection Equipment Few respirators had been issued for radiological use; however.
the inspector selected examples of individuals receiving respiratory protection equipment and confirmed by a review of records that the individuals were properly trained. fit tested, and reviewed by a physician. prior to receiving respiratory protection equipment.
2.4.2 Whole Body Counting The inspector reviewed personnel contamination records and noted examples of individuals who were found to have facial contamination.
Personnel contamination records indicated that these individuals were instructed to have whole body counts performed to determine if intakes of radioactivity occurred.
The inspector compared the examples noted with whole body counting records and confi rmed that the individuals had received the whole body counts, as required.
Through a review of the whole body counting records.
the inspector confirmed that no significant internal exposures had occurred as a result of refueling outage work.
2.4.3 Airborne Radioactivity Monitoring During tours of containment.
the inspector noted that use of continuous air monitors and air samplers were appropriate for current conditions.
2.5 Control of Radioactive Contamination Surve in and Monitorin The inspector reviewed radiation worker practices.
release of items from contaminated areas.
radiation survey results and records.
and survey
-8-instrument use to evaluate the licensee's survey program and controls of radioactive contamination.
2.5. 1 Contamination Controls The inspector noted that radiation workers generally used good health physics techniques when working in or leaving contaminated areas.
Contaminated areas were conspicuously posted.
A low number of personnel contaminations had been identified, thus far.
Radiation protection personnel monitored potentially contaminated items appropriately before releasing them.
In addition to the personnel contamination monitors at the exit of the radiological controlled arear'he licensee used beta and gamma sensitive personnel contamination monitors at the containment exit area for early identification of potential contamination problems.
2.5.2 Surveying and Honitoring The inspector reviewed selected survey records, including those used for ALARA prejob briefings.
and noted that the records were complete and survey information was current.
The inspector conducted independent surveys and confirmed radiation measurements in selected areas.
The inspector confirmed that all survey instruments used by radiation protection technicians in the field were within the calibration intervals and were properly performance tested.
2.6 ALARA The inspector reviewed ALARA goals. initiatives, training, and practices to evaluate the licensee's ALARA program.
2.6. 1 ALARA Outage Goal The total exposure goal for the outage was 150 person-rems.
The inspector interviewed ALARA personnel to evaluate the licensee's goal-setting process.
ALARA personnel stated that they started with the best performance accompJished by the site for the baseline work.
They then tailored the estimate to the specific outage by adding estimates for specialized work.
The inspector reviewed the exposure results of outages in which similar work was performed and concluded that the licensee had established a challenging goal.
2.6.2 Oose Saving Initiatives Mhen asked about dose saving initiatives implemented for the 1996 Unit 2 outage, licensee representatives stated that the area of greatest dose saving would likely prove to be the extra time devoted to the cleanup of the reactor coolant after shutdown.
Approximately 3 days were added to the schedule.
The additional time was devoted to the removal of iodine which was anticipated and radioisotopes released from solution during the crud burst.
Licensee
representatives estimated that radiation levels
~ in general, were 20 percent lower than the previous Unit 2 refueling outage.
The inspector noted that the licensee used advance technologies to remotely monitor workers'erformance and dose accumulation.
The licensee used cameras and telemetric dosimetry to its advantage.
The inspector concluded that the licensee implemented good ALARA initiatives.
2.6.3 ALARA Training According to ALARA representatives, mockup training was presented in preparation for steam generator manway removal, nozzledam installation.
reactor coolant pump seal work, and miscellaneous valve work.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING (84750)
3.1 Chan es in the Environmental Monitorin Pro r am The licensee had implemented changes in the management of the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Specifically, the radiation protection department became the responsible organization for the implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Four radiation protection engineers were responsible for the collection and shipment of environmental samples to the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory.
located in San Ramon
~ California, and the reading and annealing of thermoluminescent dosimeters.
They were also responsible for the calibration and preventive maintenance of the air sampling equipment and for performing the annual land use census in the vicinity of the station.
Prior to this change, the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory was responsible for implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program including the collection of samples.
analysis of the samples, and compiling the annual report.
Following the re-organization.
the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory was only responsible for the analyses of the collected samples and compiling the annual report.
Four technicians and specialists and one supervisor at the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory performed the analyses required by the radiological environmental monitoring programs for the Diablo Canyon and Humbolt Bay sites.
These changes affected only program ownership and management responsibility.
The staff implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program did not change.
However, they report to different management.
Changes in four implementing procedures CY2.
CY2. IDl, CAP A-8. and RP1. IDll (see Attachment 2). which collectively described and outlined the implementation of the radiological effluent and environmental monitoring programs for the Diablo Canyon plant were made.
The changes clarified the requi rements of the radiological environmental monitoring program in the procedures.
These procedures provided instructions for the collections
-10-documentation; and analyses of environmental media samples collected around the Diablo Canyon plant site.
The inspector noted a change was made to Procedure RP1.ID11,
"Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program,"
Rev.
0. April 5.
1996.
Specifically, the licensee's procedure.
in describing the location of certain air samplers
~
originally read,
"three samples from close to the three site boundary locations, in different sectors
~ of the highest calculated annual average groundlevel D/Q (deposition rate)."
This statement was changed to read,
"three samples from close to the three site boundary locations in different sectors."
This change no longer specified the criteria for these three air samplers to be in the highest calculated annual average groundlevel D/Q sectors.
However. the licensee had established five air sampling stations close to the site boundary.
The licensee intended to use any three of the
.
five air sampling stations, which were in the three high annual average groundlevel D/Q sectors for a given year, as determined by that years meteorological data. to meet the sampling requirement and report accurate information each year.
The inspector noted that this was only a procedure wording change and that no changes in the actual location of the air monitoring stations were made.
The inspector agreed that any three of the five air samplers could be used to meet the air sampling requirement as long as they were located in the three high D/Q sectors.
The inspector discussed this issue with the licensee and explained that the wording change in the procedure did not reflect the discussion in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
which states, in part. that sites (sample locations)
were selected to provide data at downwind locations.
The licensee agreed with the inspector and initiated an "On-The-Spot-Change" to Procedure RP1. ID11 on April 18, 1996. to restore the original 'wording.
Furthermore.
the licensee explained that a change in location of any sampling station could not occur without a review of the commitments in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
The inspector determined that the duties and responsibilities specified in the licensee's implementing procedures were effectively implemented.
Overall, the staff implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program had remained unchanged with low turnover of personnel.
3.2 Trainin and ualifications Through discussions and observations the inspector noted that the personnel involved in the radiological environmental monitoring program had been in their positions for several years and were well qualified to perform their assianed duties.
The inspector determined that the experience.
training, and working knowledge of the personnel responsible for implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program was adequate.
The inspector did not visit the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory; however, discussions with the laboratory supervisor revealed that the laboratory staff had also remained unchanged.
Programs for periodic training were implemented as personnel were requalified on a triennial basi.3 ualit Assurance Pro ram Audit and surveillance reports of quality assurance activities performed durIng 1994 and 1995 of the radiological environmental monitoring program were reviewed for scope, thoroughness of program evaluation, and timely followup of identified deficiencies.
The 1994 and 1995 audits identified a number of findings which prompted management attention, resulting in various program enhancements.
The changes described in the above report sections were the result of the audits.
The audits recommended that ownership of the radiological environmental monitoring program was needed at the plant level and not at the Technical and Ecological Services level.
Procedure revisions were needed to clarify implementations organizational and management responsibility.
and to reduce redundancy in procedures.
An audit finding, which involved the land use censuses, was of concern to the inspector.
The auditors found that previous annual land use censuses lacked detai 1 and that thei r performance was not thoroughly documented.
This observation was made known to the auditors by the person performing the 1995 annual land use census after several discrepancies between the current census and past censuses were discovered.
However, the inspector n'oted that the 1995 census was satisfactorily performed.
Excellent audits of the radiological environmental monitoring program were performed.
These audits were of good quality and comprehensive enough to evaluate the licensee's performance in implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program.
The audits met Technical Specification frequency requirements.
3.4 Radiolo ical Environmental Honitorin Pro ram The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program to ensure compliance with the sampling and analyses requirements, analyses lower limits of detection, analytical results'nd reporting limits specified in the implementing procedures.
Procedures for implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program were reviewed.
(Attachment 2 contains a list of documents reviewed.)
Radiation protection environmenta'1 technicians were responsible for the collection and shipment of environmental samples to the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory.
The inspector determined that personnel involved in the radiological environmental monitoring program were familiar with the requirements of the program for which they were responsible and each maintained a high level of understanding and performance.
The inspector accompanied and observed a radiation protection environmental technician collect a number of environmental media samples at locations described in the radiological environmental monitoring program.
The following types of sampling locations were inspected:
ai rborne, drinking water.
ground I
-12-water vegetation'ilk.
and thermoluminescent dosimeters.
The inspector noted that the technician used proper handling techniques.
Good practices were used in preparation of the collection media, including having dedicated sample holders for each air sampling station.
Samples were promptly marked for identification and packed for shipment to the Technical and Ecological Services laboratory.
Approved procedures were used for the collection and handling of the environmental samples.
The inspector verified that the sampling locations were as described in the licensee's procedures.
The collection, processing'nd analyses of radiological environmental media samples were conducted in accordance with the licensee's procedures.
The equipment at the sampling locations was operational and calibrated.
Air samplers were recalibrated on an annual frequency by the radiation protection environmental technicians.
The inspector observed the facilities used by the licensee including environmental media sample storage and preparation areas.
Adequate supplies were available for use.
The licensee participated in an interlaboratory comparison program as requi red by Technical Specification 6.8.4.h.
Howevers since the Environmental Protection Agency's Interlaboratory Comparison Program is no longer available.
the licensee will be using a vendor to provide samples for determining the licensee's analytical capabilities.
The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports to determine compliance with the reporting requirements in Technical Specifications 6.9. 1.5 and 6.9.1.6.
The reports were submitted in a timely manner and contained the required information.
Revisions to the licensee's procedures for implementing the radiological environmental monitoring program were included in the proper report.
Any discrepancies or missed samples were reported.
The results of the land use censuses were documented as required in the appropriate Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.
3.5 Meteorolo ical Monitorin Pro ram The inspector reviewed the meteorological monitoring program to determine agreement with the recommendations in NRC Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.97, and the ANSI/ANS Standard 2.5-1984.
The inspector inspected the primary meteorological tower and associated monitoring instrumentation.
The licensee also maintained a secondary backup meteorological tower essentially identical to the primary tower.
All instrumentation was found operational and calibrated.
The inspector reviewed selected meteorological instrumentation calibration procedures and associated records.
The inspector determined that
-13-meteorological sensing and recording equipment was calibrated semiannually.
The meteorological towers were equipped with instrumentation which was calibrated in accordance with approved procedures for wind speed, wind directions and air temperature difference.
The meteorological monitoring instrumentation calibration procedures and the calibration records for the last calibration conducted were reviewed.
All records reviewed indicated that the meteorological monitoring instruments were being properly maintained, tested'nd calibrated at recommended frequencies.
"Meteorological Measurement Program For Nuclear Power Plants."
recommends that meteorological instruments should be inspected and serviced at a frequency whi ch will assure at least 90 percent data recovery.
The licensee had obtained a 97 percent data recovery rate for 1995.
REVIEW OF UPDATED 'SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT COHHITHENTS A recent discovery of a licensee operating its facility in a manner contrary to the Updated Safety Analysis Report description highlighted the need for a special focused review that compares plant practices, procedures, and/or parameters to the Updated Safety Analysis Report descriptions.
While performing the inspections discussed in this report.
the inspectors reviewed the applicable chapter s of the respective Updated Safety Analysis Reports for Units 1 and 2 that related to,the areas inspected.
With the exception of the comments regarding the procedure change discussed in Section 3. 1, the inspectors verified that the wording in the respective Updated Safety Analysis Report was consistent with the observed plant practices'rocedures, and/or parameter III
PERSONS CONTACTED ATTACHMENT 1 1. 1 Licensee Personnel
¹ D. Brosnan, Director, Regulatory Services R. Clark, Foreman, Radiation Protection
¹*S. Ehrhardt.
Radiation Protection Engineer P. Garfen, Computer Engineer
¹*R. Gray. Director, Radiation Protection
¹*C. Harbor, Licensing Engineer
- C. Hellman, ALARA Coordinator, Radiation Protection Engineering M. Hicks'ystem Engineer
- T. Irving, General Foreman, Radiation Protection
¹ R. Johnson.
Supervisor, Licensing D. Nugent, Radiation Protection Environmental Technician
- D. Oatley.
Outage Manager, Maintenance Services A. Ong-Cari llo, Laboratory Supervisor, Technical and Ecological Services R. Rogers'oreman'adiation Protection
- D. Taggart.
Director. Nuclear Safety Engineering, Nuclear Quality Services
~J.
Young. Director. Quality Assurance.
Nuclear Quality Services 1.2 NRC Personnel
- M. Tschi ltz. Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Boynton, Resident, Inspector
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting.
In addition to the personnel listed, the inspectors contacted other personnel during this inspection period.
¹Denotes personnel that attended the telephonic conference on May 16.
1996.
EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on April 19, 1996.
During this meeting, the inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the report.
The licensee did not express a position on the inspection findings documented in this report.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to, or reviewed by the inspectors.
A followup meeting was conducted telephonically on May 16.
1996. to discuss issues presented at the Apri 1 19.
1996. exit meetin PROCEDURES:
CY2 CY2.ID1
'P1. ID11 RCP EH-1 RCP EH-2 RCP EH-3 STP I-40-H559.B SC-I-40-M559.B HP I-40-H569 AUDITS:
ATTACHMENT 2 List of Documents Reviewed Radiological Honitoring and Controls Program Radioactive Effluent Controls Program Environmental Radiological Monitoring Procedure Radiological Environmental Biological Sampling Radiological Environmental Air Sampling Use of Panasonic Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters Primary Meteorology Wind Direction, Wind Speed, and Air Temperature/Delta T Calibration Instrument Scaling Calculation Primary Heteorology Wind Direction. Wind Speed, and Air Temperature/Delta T Channels Backup Meteorology Wind Direction, Wind Speed.
and Air Temperature/Delta T Calibration Revision Revision Revision Revision Revision Revision 2 - 4/5/96 2 - 4/5/96 0 - 4/5/96
- 4/5/96
- 4/5/96
- 3/21/96 Revision 9 - 1/2/96 Revision 5 - 8/10/95 Revision
- 8/12/95 94033I
- Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Humbolt Bay Power Plant 95031I
- Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program REPORTS.
Oct.
6-21 '994 Oct.
24-Dec.
1, 1995 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report OTHER:
Final Safety Analysis Report
- Section 2.3.
Meteorology
- Section 11.6.
Offsite Radiological Honitoring Program 1993 and 1994 1993, 1994, and 1995. (draft)