ML16341G547
| ML16341G547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1992 |
| From: | Mcqueen A, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341G546 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-92-12, 50-323-92-12, NUDOCS 9205110063 | |
| Download: ML16341G547 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1992012
Text
'
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.:
50-275/92-12
and 50-323/92-12
License Nos.:
DPR-82
Licensee:
Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
(PGLE)
77 Beale Street
San Francisco,
California 94106
Facility Name: Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant
(DCPP), Units 1 and
2
Inspection at: Diablo Canyon Site,
San Luis Obispo County, California
Inspection
Conducted:
Inspector:
April 6 through 10,
1992
A~
ud~
q zz/VZ,
r
.
c uee
erg ncy
repare
ness
na ys
a
e
igne
Approved by:
~Summar:
eese,
ie
,
a eguar
s,
mergency
edness,
and
Non Power Reactor
Branch
4 zz-
z-
ae
ine
Areas Ins ected:
This unannounced,
routine inspection
by a region-based
inspec or examined the following portions of the licensee's
emergency
preparedness
program:
An Item identified during previous
emergency
reparedness
exercises,
Operational
Status of the Emergency
Preparedness
rogram
Onsite Follow-up of Written Reports of Nonroutine Events at Power
Reactor Facilities and Inspector Identified Items.
During this inspection,
portions of Inspection
Procedures
82701,
92700,
and 92701 were used.
Results:
In the areas
inspected,
the licensee's
emergency
preparedness
program appeared
adequate
to accomplish its objectives.
The licensee
was
found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within the areas
examined
during this
nspection.
9205110063
920422
'ADDCK 05000275
8
~
'
INSPECTION DETAILS
Ke
Persons
Contacted
- S,
G. Banton, Director, Plant Engineering
"T.
P. Bast,
Senior Coordinator,
Work Planning Center
P.
A. Bishop, Secretary
Emergency/Safety
Services
"R.
M. Bliss,
Emergency Planner,
Technical
Support Center
- G.
S.
Boi les,
Foreman,
Radiation Protection
- J.
V. Boots, Supervisor,
Chemistry
E.
Chaloupka,
Surveillance Coordinator
"H.
W. Fong, Radiation Protection
Engineer
"J.
E. Gardner,
Senior Chemical
Engineer
"R.
Gray, Dbector,
Radiation Protection
"J. J. Griffen, Sr.
Engineer,
Regulatory
Compliance
J.
R. Harris,
Team Chief,
Emergency
Preparedness
(EP) Audit Team
"J.
A. Hays, Radiological,
Environmental
and Chemical
Engineering
"T. L. Irving, General
Foreman,
Radiation Protection
"R.
P.
Kohout, Manager,
Safety
Health
and Emergency
Planning
D.
D. Malone, Regulatory Compliance
Engineer
"D. B. Miklush, Assistant Plant Manager,
Operations
"J.
E. Molden, Director, Instrumentation
and Controls (I8C)
"T. A. Moulia, Assistant to the Vice President/Plant
Manager
D.
W. Patty, Shift Supervisor
M.
S.
Persky,
GET (General
Employee Training) Instructor
"C.
B. Prince,
Emergency
Planner
"D.
P.
Royer,
GET Instructor
"R.
S.
Snyder,
Senior
Chemistry Instructor
"M. 0.
Somervs lie, Senior Radiation Protection
Engineer
"P.
A. Steiner,,
Supervisor,
Emergency
Planning
A. 0. Taylor, Chemical
Engineer
"E.
V. Waage,
Senior Engineer,
Emergency
Planning
W.
R. Wallace,
Foreman,
I8C
"W.
R. White, Senior
GET Instructor
The above individuals denoted with an asterisk
were present
during the
exit meeting.
The inspector also contacted
other members of the
licensee's
emergency
preparedness,
administrative,
and technical staff
during the course of the inspection.
NRC Personnel
at Exit Interview
M. Cillis, Health Physics Inspector,
RV
A.
D. Mcgueen,
Emergency
Preparedness
Analyst,
RV
M.
H. Miller, Resident Inspector,
RV
Functional or Pro
ram Areas Ins ected
The licensee
seemed to be maintaining their previous level of performance
in the following areas
and their program appeared
adequate
to accomplish
their objectives.
~
'
The inspector
reviewed licensee
emergency
preparedness
implementing
procedures
(EPIP) pertaining to the inspection
modules
being
inspected
(subparagraphs
a.(1) below).
The inspector toured
and
inspected
emergency
preparedness
facilities which included the
Control
Room, the Technical
Support Center
(TSC), the Operations
Support Center '(OSC),
and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
0 erational
Status of Emer
enc
Pre aredness
(MC-.82701)
(1)
Emer enc
Plan
and
Im lementin
Procedures
Licensee
Emergency
Plan Implementing Procedures
(EPIP), which
had been revised since the last routine inspection,
reviewed
during this inspection included:
(a)
EP AD-3, Emergency
Equipment,
Instruments,
8 Supplies,
Revision 13, dated
February
20,
1992.
(b)
EP EF-3, Activation and Operation of the Emergency
Operations Facility,.Revision 9, dated
February 20,
1992.
(c)
EP EF-9, Activation of Back-Up Emergency
Response
Facilities, Revision 2, dated
March 30,
1992.
(d)
EP M-3, Ammonia Release,
Revision 9, dated January
24,
1992.
(e)
EP M-4, Earthquake,
Revision 13, dated
February 20,
1992.
(f)
EP M-5, Tsunami
Warning, Revision 8, February 20,
1992.
(g)
EP R-3, Release
of Radioactive Liquids, Revision 7,
January
24,
1992.
(h)
EP R-4, High Radiation (In-Plant), Revision 5, dated
February 20,
1992.
(i)
EP R-7, Off-Site Transportation
Accidents,
Revision 8,
dated
March 30,
1992.
(j)
EP RB-4, Access to and Establishment
of Controlled Areas
Under Emergency Conditions,
Revision 4, dated January
24,
1992.
No degradations
in site emergency
preparedness
were noted.
(2)
Emer enc
Facilities
E ui ment
Instrumentation
and
~Su
lies
The Control
Room,
TSC,
OSC,
and
EOF were toured
and inspected,
to include response
equipment,
instrumentation
and calibration,
and supplies
on hand.
Maintenance
records for emergency
preparedness
facilities, all executed
since January
1992,
were
inspected
as follows:
0'
STPG-17F,
Form Number 69-10766,
Control
Room Checklist,
completed
February
18,
1992.
STPG-17G,
Form Number 69-10767,
Technical
Support Center
Checklist,
completed
February
13,
1992.
STPG-17H,
Form Number
69-10769,
Operational
Support Center
Checklist,
completed
February 18, 1992.
STPG-17I,
Form Number 69-10770,
Emergency Operations
Facility Checklist,
reviewed March 6, 1992.
It was verified that in instances
where supply items were short
and/or equipment deficient or malfunctioning were identified;
appropriate
on-the-spot action or Action Requests
(AR) for
correction were initiated.
Equipment
was verified as being in
calibration and properly scheduled for re-calibration.
STPG-17G for the
TSC quarterly calibration checks indicated
that
AR number A0237676
had been initiated because
Instrument ¹
RE-60 (a
TSC Air Monitor) calibration due
on December
10, 1991,
had not yet been performed
as of the
TSC checklist surveillance
on February
13, 1992.'s of this inspection,
licensee
records
indicated that the calibration
had still not been performed.
An I8C Foreman stated that while the calibration
had not yet
been performed,
a quarterly functional check of the monitor
with a check source
on April 5, 1992, verified that it still
responds
as expected.
Licensee
procedures
indicate that the
TSC radiation monitors are treated with the
same priority as
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
lant safety equipment,
which is governed
by
NRC approved
echnical Specifications.
Technical Specification
(TECH SPEC)
3/4.0.2 indicates that
Each Surveillance
Requirement shall
be performed within
the specified surveillance interval with a maximum
allowable extension
not to exceed
25 percent of the
specified surveillance interval.
The licensee
indicated that the calibration will be performed
within the
TECH SPEC required grace period.
A review of
calibration records for this monitor verified that since 1987,
calibration
has
been performed within the eighteen
month
schedule.
(3)
Emer enc
Pre aredness
Trainin
Inspection of the licensee
emergency
preparedness
(EP) training
program at the site included monitoring and inspecting three
.sessions
of classroom training:
o
EPD 450,
Emergency
Communications (Notifications)
o
Assembly
and Evacuation
o
Protective Action Recommendations.
In the Protective Action Recommendations
(PAR) session,
the
licensee
included
a "Training Summary of the Protective Action
Guide Manual
Upcoming Changes."
The training brochure
indicates that
Implementation for the California (PAGs) should
be within
1 year of the changes
to 10 CFR 20 which is currently
scheduled for implementation
by January
1, 1993.
(This
date
may slip to January
1, 1994.)
These training sessions
appropriately reflected current plant
procedures,
commitments,
and regulatory requirements.
(5)
Inde endent
and Internal
Reviews
and Audits
(a)
Annual Audit
The 1992 Emergency
Plan Audit was under way
~g
i
p tl
.
Th
Plt ill h
k pt
t
include an upcoming dress
rehearsal
for the 1992 Diablo
Canyon
Power Plant Annual
Emergency
Preparedness
Exercise.
The audit will be reviewed dur>ng
a future routine
emergency
preparedness
inspection.
(b)
ualit
Performance
and Assessment
Surveillance
No equality
Performance
and Assessment
Surveillance
Reports
had been prepared
since the last routine
EP inspection.
b.
Onsite Followu
of Mritten Re orts of Nonroutine Events at Power
eac or ac>>
res
One licensee
event
was reviewed during the inspection wherein the
licensee
had declared
an emergency
unusual
event since the last
routine inspection.
On March 22, 1992, at 10:ll PM (PST),
The licensee notified the
NRC
that Unit 2
Reactor
shutdown
(was) in progress
due to apparent
turbine stop
valve failure.
Licensee investigation into an unexplained
power fluctuation has concluded that turbine stop valve FCV-144
may have failed partially closed.
External indications of the
valve appear
normal.
However, other indications
such
as sound,
pressure
drop,
and downstream temperature
would indicate that
either the valve disk is partially closed or some obstruction
exists in the valve.
The valve was declared
and the
licensee
commenced
a normal plant shutdown
as required per
TECH SPEC 3.3.4. 1 (Turbine Overspeed
Protection).
The Unusual
Event
(UE) was declared
based
on
a
TECH SPEC required shutdown....
The licensee
subsequently
informed the
NRC at 04:39
(EST) on
March 23,
1992, that Unusual
Event was terminated at 01:28 (PST)
when turbine was isolated from main steam supply by closure of
A review of this event
and documentation pertaining thereto
indicated that the event classification
appeared
conservative
and
was appropriate;
and that timely notifications and follow-up
notifications were
made to the county, state
and the
NRC in
accordance
with approved procedures.
3.
Follow u
on Previous
Ins ection Findin
s (HC-92701)
(0 en
Follow-u
Item (91-15-01).
Licensee's
S stem for Authorizin
an
ssuin
s
ause
ome
e
a
an
on usion.
An exercise
weakness
in the 1991 Annual Exercise (Inspection
Report 91-
15) indicated that the licensee's
system for making protective action
recommendations,
as demonstrated
in that exercise,
appeared
to be
excessively
complicated
and could cause
delay in the issuance
of PARs
based
on plant conditions.
The licensee
system for transmitting
to
the County decision
makers
was not clearly specified
by procedure
and the
licensee
did not follow procedural
requirements
governing the
documentation of PARs.
Concerns
about the licensee
system for making
PARs were previously
identified in 1985,
1987,
and 1990.
The finding identified in 1987 was
characterized
as
an exercise
weakness.
The finding in the 1990 exercise
was apparent
again in that
a potential
was noted for delays in the
issuance
of PARs based
on plant conditions.
It had been determined
during the last routine inspection that the
licensee
had
made procedural
changes
to address
these
concerns.
These
procedures
are being exercised
and validated during emergency
preparedness
exercises
and drills.
In the most recent drill, new
forms were used
by the licensee
and the county which indicated the system
may function better with a single two-part form.
A draft of this
new
form (EP RB-10(69-10412))
has
been fabricated for test in the next drill
prior to the 1992 annual exercise.,
Since there
had been
concerns
identified in the past
two annual
emergency exercises,
the item will
remain
open for review in the 1992 Annual
Emergency Exercise.
Exit Interview.
On April 10,
1992, at the conclusion of the site visit, the inspector
met
with the licensee
representatives
identified in paragraph
1 above to
summarize the scope
and the preliminary results of this inspection.
This
exit interview was
a joint exit for emergency
preparedness
and health
physics.
0'