IR 05000070/1998001

Insp Rept 50-070/98-01 on 991116-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review of Status of Three Shutdown Reactor Facilities,Getr,Vbwr & Evesr.Safstor Condition of Evesr,Getr & VBWR Evaluated During Tour of Facilities

ML20206P661
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	01/07/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206P658	List: IR 05000070/1998001 ML20206P654
References
50-070-98-01, 50-70-98-1, NUDOCS 9901130035
Download: ML20206P661 (11)

Text

..

-_,

...

.

-...... _.. _ -.. - -. -.

_.

-.. -

-... - -. - -

.

i

.

.

,

l ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.:

50-70;50-18;50-183 License No.:

TR-1 DPR-1, DR-10 Report No.:

50-70/98-01.

,

. Licensee:

General Electric Company Facilities:

General Electric Test Reactor (GETR), Docket 50-70 Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR), Docket 50-18 ESADA Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR),

Docket 50-183 Location:

Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC)

Pleasanton, California Dates:

November 16-19,1998 Inspectors:

J. V. Everett, Sr. Health Physicist D.S. Simpkins, Radiation Specialist Approved By:

. D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief Nuclear Materials inspection and Fuel Cycle Decommissioning

' Attachment:

SupplementalInformation f'

l'

!

!

b

.

P A

pp

- -

,

.

.

...

.

-

_

.. - =.

.-

..

r

.

-2-l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vallecitos Nuclear Center NRC Inspection Report 50-70/98-01

,

l l

The Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) consisted of one shutdown power reactor, two shutdown test reactors, one operating test reactor, and numerous radioactive material activities conducted under an NRC special nuclear materials license and a state of California byproduct materials license. This inspection included review of the status of the three shutdown reactor facilities: General Electric Test Reactor (GETR), Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) and i

l Empire State Atomic Development Associates incorporated (ESADA) Vallecitos Experimental l

Superheat Reactor (EVESR). The SAFSTOR condition of EVESR, GETR and VBWR were evaluated during a tour of the facilities. The facilities showed normal degmdation from the l

many years of being in SAFSTOR. No unusual or unexpected conditions were observed. The l

licensee's programs to maintain the facilities in a SAFSTOR condition were determined to be l

adequate.

'

Decommissionina Performance and Status Review l

The three reactor facilities at the Vallecitos NJclear Center were being maintained in a

!

.

SAFSTOR condition. The facilities were being maintained closed and locked. A tour of

,

l the facilities found no structural or radiological problems. Radiation levels were low and j

had been fairly constant over the past several years (Section 1).

l

!

Decommissioning records required by 10 CFR 50.75(g) were reviewed. Since the l

regulation became effective after the three reactor facilities had been shut down, there

were minimal records in the file (Section 1).

l

!

Cold Weather Preparations Special provisions wero determined to not be necessary for cold weather protection at

.

,

l the three shutdown reactor facilities. Water associated with the facilities was not l

susceptible to freezing problems. No spent fuel was stored at the reactor facilities l

(Section 2).

Oraanization. Manaaement and Cost Controls The licensee had made no key management changes to the site organization since the l

.

l last inspection. The Vallecitos Technology Safety Council continued to provide l

oversight review of activities. Contact was made with the individual responsible for the employee concern program. No safety concerns had been reported in the past 12 months (Section 3).

Self-Assessments. Auditina and Corrective Actions The licensee's audit and assessment program was effectively applied to policies and

.

procedures and met technical specification requirements. The level of detail evaluated by the auditors and the scope of the audits was adequate (Section 4).

..

... -. -.. _.

. _ _ _. _. _ -

. - - - -.

.... - - -... - -. - ~

._.-

.

_- - -

.

.

,

-3-

-

Safety Reviews. Deslan Chanaes and Modifications No change authorizations were issued in 1998. Two change authorizations were issued

.

in 1997. Both had received effective reviews by the Regulatory Compliance group as required by technical specifications (Section 5).

i Maintenance and Surveillance The licensee had established a procedural process to ensure that maintenance and

.

calibration activities associated with the GETR facility were completed in a timely manner as required by Technical Specification 6.3 (Section 6).

.

T

.

-4-Report Details Summary of Plant Status The Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) consisted of one shutdown power reactor, two shutdown test reactors, one operating test reactor, and numerous radioactive material activities conducted under an NRC special nuclear materials license and a state of California byproduct materials license.

The General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) suspended operations in October 1977. All reactor fuel, failed capsules, fuel experiments, and target capsules were removed from the facility. All i

fuel was transferred to the Department of Energy by October,1982. The reactor had been used to conduct experiments for General Electric's boiling water reactor program and to produce radioisotopes for medical use. Annual facility entries were completed by the licensee to conduct radiological surveys and verify that general facility conditions had not changed.

The facility was being maintained closed and locked.

The Empire State Atomic Development Associates incorporated (ESADA) Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR) suspended operations February 1,1967. EVESR was a light water moderated, steam cooled, superheat reactor using slightly enriched uranium dioxide as a fuel. The purpose of EVESR was to provide information on the suitability of various types of experimental superheat fuel elements. EVESR achieved initial criticality on November 25,1963 and operated at a maximum power level of 17 megawatts thermal. After shutdown in 1967, all fuel and special nuclear material was removed from the facility and

,

shipped offsite. All water was drained from the reactor systems and tanks. All nonessential

'

piping systems extemal to containment and the cooling tower were removed. Annual facility entries were completed by the licensee to perform radiological surveys and verify that general facility conditions had not changed. The facility was being maintained closed and locked.

The Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) discontinued operation December 9,1963. The fuel and much of the equipment used in operating the reactor were removed. All fuel was shipped offsite. Annual facility entries have been completed by the licensee to perform radiological surveys and verify that general facility conditions had not changed. The facility was being maintained closed and locked.

Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (71801)

1.1 Inspection Scope The status of the decommissioned reactors was reviewed to verify that facilities were being maintained in a safe condition. This included consideration for structural integrity, fire safety, radiological safety, and control of access to the facilities. Changes to the facilities since the previous inspection were reviewed. Required decommissioning records were verified as being properly maintained.

.

_ _ _ _ _ _.

_. - - _ _ _ _ _.

. _ _. - _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _

~ '

.

-5-1.2 Observations and Findinas A tour of the reactor facilities was conducted as part of the annualinspection. No significant physical changes to the structures or equipment inside containment had occurred since the tour conducted in December,1997. Fire loading was minimal.

l-Structurally, the facilities were sound; however, the asphalt insulation layer on the

'

exterior of the GETR facility had numerous pieces of materialloose or missing.

Management had noted this problem and hardhats were required when inside the j_

security fence near the containment structure. Some deterioration inside containment

!

was observed during the tours, in particular, the lower level of EVESR had rust and corrosion from the in-leakage of water into the facility which occurred in 1993. To i

correct the problem, the licensee installed a system in 1994 to monitor the sump water i

i level. The system provided an alarm to site security if water in-leakage was detected.

During the tour of VBWR, the inspectors noted several areas where asbestos had deteriorated significantly from the piping and had fallen on the floor or through the grating. Lead bricks were also observed at severallocations in both facilities.

l Housekeeping reflected the years of inactivity in the facilities. Access control to the facilities was maintained by keeping the facilities locked. Radiological controls were l

adequate to limit the potential for spreading contamination. Radiation levels in the facilities were typically below 1 mR/hr with only a few areas above 10 mR/hr. All areas inside the containments were properly posted.

Technical Specification 6.3 of GETR License 50-70 required procedures for ALARA, l

maintenance and surveillance, radiation protection, emergency planning, and security.

The VNC safety standards and site nuclear safety procedures included specific l

procedures for radiation protection, ALARA, and safeguards. For emergency planning,

!

the licensee maintained a site emergency procedure manual. For maintenance and i

surveillance, site standard operating procedures were developed for each of the site facilities.

,

l The licenses for the three shutdown reactors required submittal of an annual report to the NRC conceming any changes made to the facilities during the past year and the radiological conditions of the facilities. The annual reports for the years 1996 and 1997 were reviewed for each facility. The VBWR facility had been shutdown for 35 years.

Conditions inside VB'#R had remained essentially unchanged for the 2-year period reviewed. No changes to the facility structures were identified in the annual report.

Radiation levels, including contamination levels and airbome levels, were relatively constant. The stack located behind the facility, which was slightly contaminated intemally, was being considered for removal. Vendors for decommissioning and removal of the stack were being actively solicited, although management gave no commitment to a timeline for removal.

The EVESR facility had been shutdown for 31 years. Conditions at EVESR remained

essentially unchanged throughout the 2 year period reviewed. No structural changes to l

the facility were identified. A continuous dehumidifier was operated inside the j

containment building with the discharge collected in a tank located in an adjacent

'

support building. Analysis of the discharge showed no elevated levels of contamination.

_

_,

_

.

_ _.

_.__._._ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _. - _

___.

!

.

.

l

'

-6-

l l

The GETR facility had been shutdown for 21 years. Conditions at GETR remained essentially unchanged during the 2-year period reviewed. Radiologicallevels were consistent with last yeam levels and were below 10 mR/hr for general areas, Decommissioning records required by 10 CFR 50.75(g) wera toviewed. The licensee was required to maintain a file of records associated with spills or spread of radiological contamination as-built orawings of the facilities, and records of cost estimates. The

l licensee established separate files for each of the three shutdown reactor facilities when the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g) became effective. No records had been l

retrieved from archived files for the period prior to the regulation becoming effective.

l l

No spills or significant contamination spread had occurred at the facilities after they were shutdown. Records of soil samples taken around the VBWR facility were l

included in the files. The files contained reference to the vendor index notebook which i

identifisd the required as-built drawings. The as-built drawings were maintained by the

,

l drafting organization. Decommissioning cost estimates were included in the files for all three facilities.

1.3 Conclusion The three reactor fccilities at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center were being maintained in a SAFSTOR condition. The facilities were being maintained closed and locked. A tour of

,

i the facilities found no structural or radiological problems. Radiation levels were low and l

l had been fairly constant over the past several years.

l

,

Decommissioning records required by 10 CFR 50.75(g) were reviewed. Since the

!

regulation became effective after the three reactor facilities had been shut down, there were minimal records in the file.

I

2 Cold Weather Preparations (71714)

2.1 Inspection Scope The three reactor facilities were reviewed to determine if special provisions were needed for freeze protection du ng old weather.

d l

2.2 Observations and Findinas l

Winter weather for the GE Vallecitos area is typically mild, resulting in few cold weather problems. Water is present in the GETR reactor vessel, VBWR reactor vessel, and EVESR sump. However, there were no locations identified during this inspection where water was susceptible to freezing and damage to the facility would occur. No special provisions had been made by the licensee for freeze protection related to the three

.

i shutdown reactor facilities. No spent fuel was stored at the shutdown reactor facilities.

I J

+

i

.

l-

.

.

,,, -

,,

. -,

<,-

.

.,

{.'

b-7-

.

,

2.3 Conclusion

l'

Special r ovisions were determined to not be necessary for cold weather protection at iL the three shutdown reactor facilities. Water associated with the facilities was not

[

susceptible to freezing problems. No spent fuelwas stored at the reactors facilities.

1'

!

Organization, Management, and Cost Controls (36801)

. 3.1 -

Inspection Scope The licensee's current organization was reviewed to determine if any changes to key

personnel had been made. The licensee's employee concem program coordinator was contacted to determine the number of reported employee concems at the Vallecitos

.

site.

l-3.2 Observations and Findinas

[

The' licensee maintained a current organization.; hart which showed reporting chains j

and identified, by name, personnel assigned as managers for key functions. Technical

L Specification 6.1.1 of GETR License 50-70 established reporting chains for the

functions of radiation safety, facility supervisor, and facility manager. The licensoe's

!

organization satisfied the concept for the organizational structure specified in the technical specifications. No changes had been made to key positions in the organization since the inspection completed in December 1997.

Technical Specification 6.2.1 of GETR License 50-70 required the licensee to establish and maintain an independent review function. VNC Safety Standard 1.1, " Charter-Vallecitos Technology Safety Council," Revision 7, dated August 1994 established the requirements for the Vallecitos Technology Safety Council. This council consisted of an independent body that reviewed alllicensee activities associated with reportable events, unreviewed safety questions, criticality procedures, radioactive material handling activities, proposed new facilities, and handling of toxic or flammable liquids.

VNC Safety Standard 1.1.1, Revision 12, dated June 10,1998, provided a list of eight people, by name, who comprised the council membership. The council included personnel from management, licensing and environmental programs. The Manager, Nuclear Test Reactor was the chairman. The Manager, Regulatory Compliance was the secretary. A quorum cresisted of 50 percent attendance by the members.

. Quarterly meetings were held.

g The licensee was maintaining an employee concem program at the site. Information and a phone number were observed to be posted at several work areas. The inspector j

. called the phone nurr.ber to verify the number was current. The phone call was

,

received by the Manager,' Safety Evaluation, Procedures, and Trairing, who confirmed that he was responsible for receiving and documenting employee concems. No st fety concems had been received in the past 9 months from the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.

.

!

,

H

):~. {

_.

- --._ _

._ _ __... _ - - - _ - _. -_

. _ _ _..-__ _..__ _ _-_ - _ _.. _ _

L

.

.

l

'

.8 3.3 Conclusion -

The licensee had made no key management changes to the site organization since the last inspection. The Vallecitos Technology Safety Council continued to provide

,

oversight review of activities. Contact was made with the individual responsible for the

'

employee concem program. No safety concems had been reported in the past 12 months.

Self-Assessments, Auditing, and Corrective Actions (40801)

-

4.1 Intoection Scone

1 The licensee's intemal audit program incluoed audits and assessments of the vanous site programs to verify compliance with regulations and company policies. Several selected audits and assessments were reviewed to determine the level of detail and adequacy of the scope of the audits.

l 4.2

' Obwrvations and Findinas The licensee had implemented a quality assurance program and had assigned an individual to be responsible for the program. The licensee had established a process for scheduling periodic program audits to ensure all required areas were evaluated l

during the required time frames. Deficiencies identified by the audits were sent to management for priority evaluation and assignment to an appropriate party for followup. This was tracked via a database on a monthly 6;iedule to ensure adequate attention was given for resolution of issues.

Four audits ware reviewed. These included emergency preparedness, radiation work

!

permits, radiation surveys and radioactive material handling. All audits were thorough, I

in-depth and sufficient to meet the goals and intent of the program. Adequate documentation of the areas reviewed and the findings were maintained in the files.

l Technical Specification 6.2.4 of the GETR License 50-70 required periodic examination of selected areas of the licensee's programs. Four specific areas were identified in the

'

technical specification. The items requiring examination included: technical j

spectications and the license, staff qualifications, actions taken onsite to correct deficiencies, and the emergency plan and procedures. The licensee had developed a table for audits and a cross matrix of the required topics to be audited. This matrix i

included the four areas defined in Technical Specification 6.2.4. All four areas had been included in the 1997 audits conducted on July 30,1997, September 18,1997, and December 31,1997. For 1998, Technical Specification 6.2.4.3, conceming actions

,

taken to correct deficiencies, had been (aciuded in the August 12,1998, audit. The j

other required areas were included ir. f uture audits. None of the four areas were i

.

)

overdue.

'

The December 31,1997, audit was reviewed, in particular, this aud;t was reviewed to j

'

j

. verify that selected technical specifications and license conditions had been reviewed.

'

. Section 6.3 of the GETR technical specifications described five areas that required

) ~

t-

.

M

e q-y1

-

r

-

-

&m m--

,

344

---

w

-,

py.ip--

-

-

.-.-......- - -.

-

- -. - - - - -

-. -

-. -

. -.

.. _.. - -

i j

~

j

.g.

j written procedures. The December 31,1997, audit had included a review of the d

procedures for the five areas.

,

Technical Specification 6.2.4.4 of GETR License 50-70 required an independent audit of emergency planning every two years. The audit of August 18,1997, had included emergency planning. No issues were identified during the audit related to emergency planning.

.

The audit schedule also included review of the VBWR license conditions and the EVESR license conditions, technical specifications, and radiological control practices.

The EVESR audit was required by Technical Specification B.2.c of Appendix A to EVESR License 50-183. The audit was completed on September 11,1997.

4.3

.C. onclusion The licensee's audit and assessment program was effectively applied to policies and procedures and met technical specification requirements. The level of detail evaluated by the auditors and the scope of the audits was adequate.

Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Mod!fications (37801)

5.1 Inspection Scope The change authorization and modification program implemented by the licensee to comply with 10 CFR 50.59 was reviewed. This included change authorizations issued in 1997 and 1996.

5.2 Observations and Findinas l

VNC Safety Standard 2.0, " Change Authorization," Revision 6, was used by the licensee to conduct safety evaluations in accordance with the requirements in

.

10 CFR 50.tI9. Changes were evaluated to determine if an unreviewed safety question or change to the license or technical specification was involved. Tnis was documented on form number VNC.3080. No change authorizations had been completed in 1998 for GETR, EVESR, or VBWR. During 1997, two change authorizations had been issued.

These were Change Authorization 97-03, " Electrical Rearrangement for EVESR," dated February 4,1997, and Change Authorization 97-04,"EVESR Groundwater," dated February 18,1997.

Technical Specification 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 of GETR License 50-70 required an,

independent review capability. Technical Specification 6.2.3 (b) required an independent review of all proposed changes to facilities or procedures. VNC Safety Standard 1.2, "VNC Regulatory Compliance Function Charter," Revision 7, established

,

the Regulatory Compliance group as responsible for the independent review of proposed changes in accordance with VNC Safety Standard 2.0, " Change Authorizations." Step 3.3 of VNC Safety Standard 1.2 specifically identified 50.59 and review for an unreviewed safety question as areas that were included in the review by

'

c

,, -

~ - - -

-

-..

.

!-

)

I

!

!

..~

,

.,

l:

-10-l the Regulatory Compliance group. A review of Change Authorizations 97-03 and 97-04 L

confirmed that the changes had been reviewed by the Regulatory Compliance group.

5.3 Conclusion.

i No change authorizations were issued in 1998. Two change authorizations were issued in 1997. Both had received effective reviews by the Regulatory Compliance

l

~

group as required by technical specifications.

l 9..

Maintenance and Surveillance (62801)

!

6.1 Insoection Scone c

Maintenance and surveillance activities associated with the GETR facility were reviewed to verify a system was in place to ensure required activities were completed in a timely manner.

j'

6.2 Observations and Findinas l

l Technical Specification 6.3 of GETR License 50-70 required written procedures for

-

'

routine maintenance of major systems that could effect facility safety. Since the facility l

was shutdown, major systems were no longer functioning. Maintenance activities were

.

being performed to maintain the facility in a stable condition and minimize deterioration of some components. Maintenance activities for the facility were performed using written guidance issued with engineering requests or change authorizations. Nuclear.

Safety Procedure 3400, "GETR Work Routines," Revisica 8, also provided weekly,

,

quarterly, and annual maintenance and calibration work activities. Periodic surveillances were performed using Facility Operating Procedure 6.2," Patrols and inspections."

The licensee had purchased new computer software for scheduling work activities l'he activities associated with the three shutdown reactors would eventually be incorporated into this new system, i

6.3 C' onclusion

-

.

The licensee had established a procedural process to ensure that maintenance and

calibration activities associated with the GETR facility were completed in a timely

[-

manner as required by Technical Specification 6.3.

<

>

Exit Meeting

.

The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the exit meeting on November 19,1998. The licensee did not identify j

as proprietay any information provided to, or reviewed bi, the inspectors.

'

.

P i

.

,

, ~.

,

,u.

,-

-

-...-- -.... -. -. - - - - -. - -

- - -

I l

.

,v-

ATTACHMENT PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED f

Licensee F. Arit, Facility Manager C. Bassett, Regulatory Compliance Manager E. Hagberg, Facility Protection Specialist B. Murray, Licensing Engineer M. Rogers, Radiation Monitoring Specialist a

M. Smith, Safety Evaluation, Procedure, and Training Manager

.l G. Stimmell, Vallecitos and Morris Operations Manager H. Stuart, Radiological Engineer

,

' J. Tenorio, Remote Handling Operations Manager INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 36801 Organization, Management and Cost Controls 37801

~ Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifk:ations 40801 Self Assessments, Auditing, and Corrective Actions 62801 Maintenance and Surveillance

'71714.

,.

CcH Weather Preparations i

71cui C o. ;'esioning Performance and Status Review ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

. Opened None Closed None Discussed Nm;e LIST OF ACRONYMS ESADA Empire State Atomic Development Associates incorporated EVESR ESADA Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor

' GE.

General Electric Company GETR

- General Electric Test Reactor

. mR/hr milliroentgen / hour NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'SNM Special Nuclear Material VBWR

- Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor.

VNC Vallecitos Nuclear Center

.