IR 05000206/1990031

Insp Repts 50-206/90-31,50-361/90-31 & 50-362/90-31 on 900731-0803.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Followup of Open Items,Plant Chemistry & Radiochemistry, Radiological Confirmatory Measurements & Facility Tours

ML20059G981
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	08/21/1990
From:	Louis Carson, Tenbrook W, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059G979	List: IR 05000206/1990031 ML20059G975
References
50-206-90-31, 50-361-90-31, 50-362-90-31, NUDOCS 9009140083
Download: ML20059G981 (14)

Text

?' M

~!!

-

a acA;. o. c p

t 7 s

~.p s

-

,

'"A'

N-fN

'

'

.

,

%

>

h,yh/WO?

fjefQ",

.

~

^

..

,

.

'

'

s m

U. S. NtlCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

p

a

@,6

REGION V

+

&&d*

eM W

Report Nos.

50-206/90-31, 50 361/90-31 and 50-362/90-31

!

License Nos.

DPR-13, NPF-10 and'NPF-15 nR Licensee: Southern California Edison Company i

Irvine Operations Center

,

23 Parker Street m9 Irvine, California

Facility Name:

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at:

hanClemente, California Inspection conducted:

July 31 through August 3, 1990 Inspected by: h.@ kh _

1$f81/9C W. K.

rooR, Radiation Specialist Date Signed

1. 4a2 4tw

,

C C. Carson II, Radiation Spscialist Date 5'igned G.Q nn a go Approved by:

G. P.

uh 5, Chief Date Signed Reactor diological Protection Branch Summary:

Areas Inspected:

Routine unannounced inspection covering follow-up of open

.(

items, plant chemistry and radiochemistry radiological confirmatory measurements and facility tours.

Inspectionprocedures 30703, 92701 and 84750 were addressed.

te Results:. Program strengths included good water quality in the reactor coolant and secondary systems (section 3). Weak areas were improper assumptions and calibration used for analysis of health physics air samples and less than full participation of chemistry technicians in PASS surveillances (section 3).

r

-

.

p.

f

.

i 9009140083 900821

'

PDR ADOCK 05000206 O

PNV

,

-

-u

y F.

, Tg w :a

'p) ]$ y,;q q qm-, Qfa ftf ' f,l: & -

,y

['I

%D y Q

'

e w

• v.

,

.

,

,,

.Qy ' {

r r

9- --

y-g

,

. g ;p n y..

t.-

. -

,1 y

j

- 7,;.,:,,

.,

%-

s

,

,

,,

.

'

'

.

.

-

mg a

w

' 3 yygg s p y Jiy [

,"

w[

.

.

'

^ c h,.

n.,

,.

.

.

,

.

pg

& a, g, s DETAILS-a: ' -

-,

q

'

g.

y

.

,

.

'

f

,.

,

,f

'

ll

, '.

o.

m y

,

. *

y m,

%e

,

,

,

. y ;;n-q Persons Contacted V A@1'

.

a -

.c

,,

<

1.

L i,

'

>

-

.

.

r

,

,

a

'

ox'

."

,

,

,

Licensee' Personnel _ Wm w

>

'

.

..

.

W

,y

..

..

i

+

.

>

.

+

x

.

W Brevig,L Su erviso~r,00nsite Nuclear Licensing -

"

s.

,

m R.:Garcia,Eng neer, ChemistryEn ineerp Stat' ion Emergency. P1anning-

"

"

va

'

S.-Chick, y

.M

'

%

J. Fee, HealthTPhysic.s Superintendent

%

,.

-

?

J (

0;; Flores 1 Supervisor ;; Chemical ~ Engineering:

"-

-

,;T. Kent,$ystemEngine,erN i~-

,

'

-

"

t

,

- P. Knapp', Manager,rHealthtPhysics'

• *T N

~

'

f'

,R.TKrieger," Station Manager:

s W Madigan,oSupervisor,; Unit 2-and 3 Health Physics

^<

,

- Engineer,= Health Physics

",

i D.sMadson,LEnqineer,i

,

S." Morris, Onsite Nuclear; Licensing

+~

J. Rolph, En inser, Health Physics F(-

PP Penseyres ESuperv sor Chemistry

'

,

-

,

'"

P. Shafferk upervisorP Compliance-,

-

'

M.. Short, Manager," Station Technical

'

'

'

'

o

,e

-

r R.- Waldo,4 Assistant: Technical Manager 4e

+

.

R.cWarnock',JAssistant Manager,' Health Physics A

v 0.' WerntzW EngineerE0nsite Nuclear Licensing

'

-

m

,

'"

'

l H.~ Wood,9 Engineer,/ Quality-Assurance.

• a.

a s

.

NRC

&

'

.

,

,

+

,

.y tC/Townsend,$esident-Inspector

.

.

.

.t i

,

.

.

.

L

,

.

d.

'Th'e individuals listed above attended the exit interview on' August 3, 1.

1990.

The inspectorsfcontacted other members of the licensee's staffz

?

x

,

,.

t, J.

f lduring the inspection.

s

'

,

>.

,

^

f, 2. :

Fo'llow-up of Open Items (92701)

, *

'

'*

o

.

,

,

'

.

.

.

f0 pen ~ Item

..

..

,

..

..

50-206/89-26-01 (Closed),'50-361/89-26-01 (Closed):' These items 1 concerned analyses of:NRC water chemistryLsamples wherettherlicensee:had'

,not met the NRC! agreement criteriatfor boron, sulphate <and iron analyses

'

+

,, dat Unit 2/3 and boron at Unit 1.

Thelage of the~ standards and multiple. 4 m,

.

.dilutionswereimplicatedinthe' disagreements.1Additionalbllind: samples;,L7

'

<

ifrom the series' for use in 1989-1990hwere analyzed by the licensee. <The" results are given in Table 1. %The agreement rangelwas :three ' standard- [

'

o'M

. deviations about the Brookhaven National'Labofatory' ~ ertified-

',

c

-

o,

' ' concentration.< :The standard ' deviations were derived-from the-distribution Lof measurements by licensee +1aboratories-during prior inspections?in alll

'

m

> NRC regions.

i(~

.

y

,

" z

,

,

.

>

,

.

,

'

"

k*

.

a

.

t y

'

,, l

.

Na f

if -,

.; (

_

e

-

,

,

+

t

.

'

'

[

!,

i"

m, a m, w

-

$ Q$ O

,4 x

M g.M@M

.

' '

S i"

'

'

gM 49( W' ' lU'

+,>>

m w-

.

s 2 e,3 ;; W" >U

. =

x

.

~

.

.

4 2a

'<

+

.

%W

.y

,

j e,

. a'

+

mf

d

'

C-

_

>

-

W~, m m

__

-

,

-

,

yg

,

,

em

.

,

tb A

_

.

Wyly(% ' '

^

'

. LTable 1,

'

.

.

2'

,

a

'

,

,

~ f'_

[

g.

• w fy

'

'

>

%

,n y_

>

fp,T g

[

?AnalyticaleChemistry Verificatiorf v

g e,

y

.

.

'

-

m.

.

Q^w,

,

_

,

NRC Value,tLicensee=Value

..

Agreement-

'

E 7p Analyte >

(Undiluted)

(Undiluted)

Ratio Range

,

c

.

I i

- _-

1030 ppm

,1006: ppm r "

-0298 997-1063,

f

p I

', ' f

.U1' Boron:

f

,

i

-

)

<

,e

,

2990

'3003c J 11;00/ 2894-3086' '~

,>

,R 5100 g,4982 0.9.8L,4937-5263'

'

"

,

.

...

,

<

y.

t9

.

,

,

gesq '

U2/3' Boron:

'1030

.597-i O.97 997-1063

'

1.

i

~190

.

y 14955 J0. 977. 4937-5263,

'

12987 1 1.00: 2894-3086-

/

+4 P1 7 -

5100

'

'

>

..

,,

p p"-

+

'

'

,

M, U2/3 Sulfate a

22,1;

'1.16 : 16-22 F

42.' 1 )

1.11; 33-43

'

M'

'60 63.4-1.06 52-68 L

mn4

-

-

", m{i?

. t :.1 E

1U2/3 Iron 19.8 119. 8,

' Id0 16.9-22.7

,

M. @..

39.2 39.7'

1.01 33.6-44;8!

w* "

58.Oc 59<5 1.03

~49;6-66.4

-

-

_

y*'D,.

__

T Al'eanalysessfell'within the three standard deviationirange foh qualified J

l.

, -,

,,

_5

,

-1

,,

di '

<. agreement'.' > 'In a memorandum dated February '12; L1990,ethe licensee

-..

+

Q specifically. addressed concerns pertaining to-these; anal

'

procedures and instrumentsusedxthe: sources of primary,yses including;the

'

<

iA secondary and i

&;W

.qualityicontrolstandards,;qua1ItyTcontrolprocedures,sampledegradation=

and sample 1 contamination. 1Tha inspectorialsoiexamined the results of the-J e

mo-licensee's interlaboratory comparisons whichidemonstrated good accuracy

among the p.rogram participants. ~The in,spector had no~further questions in

-

%n.

.

~ ' this matter.

"

-

~

.f,

'

,

,

.

<

.s

-

-

,,

G'

L4..? ' Water Chemistry; Confirmatory Meis' re'ments (84750)f *'

u

-

,'

.

.,

.

'

'

>W Audits G

>,

'

..

i

. E L

'

<

-

4 - s

,

q

~[

The inspector reviewed SONGS QA<AudiU epor+.yt,'SCES-021-89:en Plaht.,

.

-

A Chemistry, performed Oc'tober 1, 1987 through-May 31,!1989.-'QA.re-visited

'

J Problem Review' Report-(PRR) S0-020-87,1which: identified. PASS component

>

failures during surveillancestin 1986 and;

,PASSito perform under accident" conditions.'questi_oned.the reliability _of'

,$

c

,.

$QA! accepted;the ongoing.

-

"

' '

. corrective' action'in design change packagesL(DCP) Y seventeen chemis

1-3521. 0MS. for' Uni t '1

, ;'

, ms

' '

?'.

PASS and.DCP2-6751.0MS for Units 2/3. "In addition

. deficiencies lwere identified b

' tracking in corrective' action y QA'and'ap ropriately, documented for.

4?

'-

. " '

reports, P Hs,;and field correct. ions.

<

.

[U h The depth >and scope of the reviewed audit was adequate.

The licensees

audit program met its objective to identify chemistry problems.

.

m

,

,

t

• o

,

/

,\\

j

,1 (.-

'y :

q Q-

>

,, '

,e.

l}

ym

.

,

,,

r i

s s

e a

f' y;

.'

q wpm y gnw n : -, '

m

-

>

> n

.,

s

.

.

..

W[$ggyhfNgrWeMD',7 Sh ;3 = 0

[7 %cd W ' ',

C

'.. >>

VT Sn m

>

-

_

MgM

'

@ $d y gA@M" !

'

b'; A. f'

,

h jf MW %;,

.

.

.

_

k ^V l

^

3 ^v

-

3-

.w.

>

=

m g%

4,4 e_

s-

.

Q [ m'Ii? f

'

&y

'

$

e

.

,

~-

% $ghy&glpdPrimary, a,nd Secondary Water -

A

.-

W.

,

s ( i, ' A g

A

,,

,

,

,

n%n m+

,

ua 3, ' ;

• -

,

.~ -

...

N/Mn Mg, fverify compliance with the tschnical specifi. cations: and'proced L LThe li'nspectorJreviewed ' daily chemistrp data in' Unit!1tlaboratoryllogs1 tot J

'

!WRC

'

.

g ; 4 f 4' p "111-1;121, 50123-111-1.1.23,III-2.1.1',-S0123-111-2.1.23,"..: Chemical;Control

+W ' '

WW%

P1antiandP

-

u g Related Systems," and S0123-M.

P

N g $ y 'l g Frequencies;"s l

"

W Generator and Condensate /Feedwater Chemistry Control?and Sam'pling i 'f il

!

<

kp The following trends,were obseryedpfor Unit;1;at power

qw

- -

"

w ;&m e[-[h

.

Res01ts=

Limit}r'ActionLevele'

,q o

- -

@[A 'j @hihih, t Sample

'

'

'

L5 1 8 ppb'

_,

150" ppb" j

f S

RCS Chioride f

dy RCS-Diss~olved Oxygen

< 5 ppm 1 100 ppm

,

-

3W N T

,RCS Activity.

2;:3uCi/gm]t,,j 100 uCi/gm; f.

X

,

$ p, j% ' '

,

Steam Generator (SG);C1 5: 25 ppb ' "j,7,9.6 -10,2100 ppb::x

• 4

"j

-

d

%'i

~SG aH

'

9.~ 9 : - ' 10. 0 ' '

>

%yMMW.

SG-Pho'sphate 17-30hpm

-

gm:

15 -~30 i

1E-8 1 -7 uCi/gm 0.1 uCi/ ppm;

' lf d ~ + W %

SG I-131 Equivalent

'

,

o

%p w m, The'following trends were observed for Unit 2 at powe F

,

r

m N,d!@l$a[;,

,3

,

Results.

Limit or Action' Level'

M M

T

>I

'

e Sample;

.

ypdi

'

.h hh

% RCS. Fluoride'

7 -8 ppb b50 ppb

'

'

.fylgf J" s

'RCS Chloride

.

,2 - 6 ppb.

150 ppb

,

6Ni RCS Dissolved Oxygen'

< 5. p/pb-

.100 ppb;

,

9fM

'

ERCS ~ Activity

.

0.01-0.03 uCi/gm,a 1.uCi/gm 0.7 uCi gm

..

~100 uCi/gm s

i.

'

,

TR hgy, #W $p, 7*

RCS I-131(Equivalents

'

4

,

< Steam Generator (SG) C1 0.3 - 1.2 ppb 20 ppb

,

JSGpH i

8.8 - 8.9.

8.5 - 9.'2

' '

t

,

$gl? ?.L JSG Cation Conductivity-0.11- 0.6 uS/cm 0.8tuS/cm

3W

SG Sodium

,:

O.2'.0;4-ppb'

20' ppb;

'

"

W V '

%

SG Sulfatet 0.2'

10.'8' ppb 20 ppb:

>

,

,

o

..

Y rSG I-131 Equivalent.

E< LLD '

> LLD M

'

s,

.

'

.

u.

~

,

.

,

A w

o

:The'following trends were observed for Unit 3 atapower after each

.

)]

'

measuredparameterhadreturnedtofpost-outageequilibrium:

j

,

,e

>

'

,n.

Sample ~

'Results LimittorActihn! Level

'

'

'

-

'

,

'

• RCS:Fluorideh 2 -L10 pab (Mode 2) 150 ppb >

.;

+

'

~'7~

RCS Chloride-2 --6 pp) (Mode 2)

150 ppb.

'

?

RCS Dissolved Oxygen'

<5 ppb 200 ppb 1RCS Activity 1.4'uCi/gm.

.

-100 uCi gm

.

.

~RCS'I-131cEquivalent

. 0.01-0.03 uCi/gm 1-uCi/gm d

"

<

,

C& 7

,~

'

Steam Generator (SG) C1' < 2 ppb 8.5,ppbi.

r hC, SG pH-8.9 9.2

-

,

"k-SG Cation Conductivity 2 0.1 - 0.3 uS/cm * '0.8 uS/cm,

,

R nz SG Sodium.

3 ppb 20 ppb.

!

'

Ws" SG Sulfate,

.< 1. ppb

~ 20-ppb

.

. SG: 1-131" Equivalent l<~LLD '

> LLD

'

,

..

, :.

-

t

>

o

,

,

'

'

J

,

,

'

I i

'

+

,

tb4 s

'd I

dup >

[

>

,

,

}

.

'$

>

t

,{_

r

- s nl'

.

"W y.

• a

'

e

-

c

>

s ' ':

'

.

u s

bh[/ndi$ s M '1i, 4. l, 7 M7) M $4]

Y U Y NNhM$$$ N.

~

' l.

'f b$

'

' -

'

O 4; y[i %

'

f

.

.

\\w g$

,

w qy "f k * j 'f f j %y, %,l i

d ')

";

+;

v3

,

-

,;

.

.

,

,

[Q

'

"

,

..

.

s

.

.on

.

.w

-

>

.. -

(O f 7The quality of; primary and sedo'ndary ' water was well within applicable; J

,

-..

.-

+

/

, action levelsi andElimiting' conditions for: operation.nRCS specific-t.

i

-

$h

' activity indicated?satisfactoryf uel integrity.

Anionsein steam generator!

%.1 f

m j

w-1 -

1 ", blowdown:were' particularlyfloWR; M

i~

~

'

_,

,

<

1. yy

,

,

'V ' Confirmatory Mdasu$ments$d Radiochemica1' Analysis >

'$i

,

JG

~

.

,

?

v

... A:

, ny

.

,

,

.

.

<

.

.

~

i a2

"The NRC Regional mobile ' laboratory'was brought' onsite' for gamma isotopic;

'

y ;, '*

-intercomparisonsLwith the licensee s counting laboratories.

Sample,t C ' y'

commonly analyzed,for compliance 'with regulatory requirements wereJ ' ypes v Aq i a

y

,

,

-

'*

_ ' analyzed by the-licensee and the: inspectors, and the results were compared-M

",

usingtheNRCverificationtest-criteria (seeenclosure).- -

. Q

~$

c s

e r

'

,

.

TheLfirstsample:obtainIdwasasingle:4Lmmifilterofsuspendedsolibs

[. m

~

l n..f

,from one< liter'of' reactor: coolant.

The'results of:the filter comparison

'

-

A

@

!

sare' presented in Table 2.s T

~

$

-

,

,

,

.

.

.

,,s

.

,

a'

p;

'

g3, g

-

+

,

,

f

s

"

%

"

1M

-,

,

fjp Rea'ctor Coolant Susped niids

'

adC

,' y

'

.

,

,

,

.

,

o,

~

y^

W

, iLicensee

.NRCE NRC, Agreement 7

'i'

'

l

1 Analysis a' A6alyte Result Re'suh.l&rertainty Ratio Range!

w a

n,

~

y

,

,

W

.

1U1 Chem LCr.-51L 5.41E-04 4.77E-04 2.23E-05 1.13 0.75-l'.33 M

^s 01 Chem L.Mn 54 M 3.73E-05'4.35Ev05 2.06E-06 0.86 0.75-1,33 Md

-

nL

U1 Chem i i Mn-56f 9.65E-04.8/18E-04 4.01E-05 1.18 0.75,1.33 M@

.

100-58 2 9.07E-04 8.41E-04 4.801-06 1.08 0.80-1.25 i

d

', v7 y 01: Chem 3

-

.

U1 Chem-Fe-59L 1/70E-05:1.85E-05 3.041'-06 0.92--0.5-2.00

/.j*

'

.

U1 Chem.-

Co-601 9,23E-05 8.73E-05 -2.391'-0614 1.06 0.75-1.33

-~

.

,,

W'4 U1 Chem Ni-65h 2.57E-04 3.21E-04 3.871-05 0.8 0.6-1 66

-

^

-

....

^

,

,.U1 Chem iAs-76 % 1.18E-04'1/21E-04 7.80L-06 0.98;0.6-1.66W

"$

%

w s

u,

ct U1' Chem" JSn-11391.55E-051:40E"05 3;072-06 1.11LO.5-2.00M

"s.

y

>-

.

"

TU1'Cheml LSn-117m 2.-57E-05 2.05E-05;1.3'E-06 t1.26 0.6-1.66

'

&

>

,

< #.

U1 Chem j$b-122 >1.56E-04 1.56E-0415.f,0E-06 1,

1.0.75-1,33

'

-

4 53 f%.

A'

r 01 Chem!

LSb-124i 1.11E-05 1.36E-05 2.80E-06-0.82'0.5-2.-00t i

"?

"

.

Ang ^

TU1 Chem lW-187 D 3.06E-04~3.87E-04 1.06E-05 0.79 0.75-1.33

f

^'

'

,

A'

U1 Chemi

?Np-239/1.48E-041.43E-044.00E-06 1. 03 : 0._75-1. 33 L m4

.,

.

1.?JL

"'o ' Ulichem St-89 ' O.00E+00 1.60E-02il.78E-03.

.

0 0.6-1.66

4 f~ M. N A

JU1' Chem Nb-95 L2.95E-04 2.84E-04-3.30E-06

.1.04 0.80-1.25:

', :w

'

>4

,

'U1;Chemi Zr-95 3.62E-04 3.40E-04 5.30E-06 1.07 0.80-1/25

' 'a

-

" ' a'

x m U1'Chemi 1Nb~ 971 ;3/20E-03 3.04E-03 >1.00E-05 l'.05 0.85-1.18l

'

-

,

Mli 2 F ^U1 Chem

?Zr-97J '33.01E-03 2.68E-03:1.00E-05 ~.61.120.85-1.18

%

-

<

-

Tc-99m 2.68E-05 2.37E-05'1.34E-06.

~1.13 0.75-1.33 i'

n

'U1-Chem h&:n U1 Chem F131;',6.35E-05 5.12E-05 2.94E-06 1.24 0.75-1.33

't s

'

.

<

-

m 7, ;y U1 Cheme A133!L1.77E-041.70E-045.10E-06 1;04:0:75-1.33

"

.

'

,h s

yn mm"

,.;s

Og

,

.

b*:t

'

i-

.

U2/U3 Chem Cr-51L 5.81E-04 4.77E-04:2.23E-05 cl.22'0.75-1.33

.

1

4U2/U3 Chem Mn-54';4.01E-05 4.35E-05 2.06E-06 0.92 0.75-1.33

.

af-

U2/03 Chem >Mn-561 1.11E-03 8.18E-04 4.01E-05 1 36 0.75-1.33

.0

-

M '~

1. 102/03ChemCo-58- '1.05E-03 8.41E-04 4.80E-06 1.25 0.80-1.25 WW

~

y

,

,

,

-1 (j

>

i

-

,

,

s*

'

lp%.3,'

,#.q [ b,

.

.

..,

,

i

'

ue

-

,

'6A ~(

}

h h Y # @l

'

['

.'

S q

'

'

ff}A k u

..

Q U2/U3 Chem Fe-59 2.26E-05 1.85E-05 3.04E-06 1,22 0.5-2.00 kgs

'?

U2/U3 Chem Co-60 1.07E-04 8.73E-05 2.39E-06 1.22 0.75-1.33

-

My w

U2/03 Chem Ni-65 3.06E-04 3.21E-04 3.87E-05 0.95 0.6-1.66 qf

U2/03 Chem As-76 1.32E-041.21E-04 7.80E-06 1.09 0.6-1.66 hp U2/U3 Chem Sn-113 1.67E-05 1.40E-05 3.07E-06 1.2 0.5-2.00 W

U2/U3 Chem Sn-117m 2.65E-05 2.05E-051.37E-06 1.29 0.6-1.66 h

U2/U3 Chem Sb-122 1.84E-04 1.56E-04 5.30E-06 1.18 0.75-1.33 C

U2/U3 Chem Sb-124 1.45E-05 1.36E-05 2.80E-06 1.07 0.5-2.00 V

U2/U3 Chem W-187 3.62E-04 3.87E-04 1.06E-05 0.94 0.75-1.33 k

U2/U3 Chem Np-239 1.64E-04 1.43E-04 4.00E-06 1.15 0.75-1.33

1. -

U2/U3 Chem St-89 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 1.78E-03 0 0.6-1.66 V

U2/03 Chem Nb-95 3.45E-04 2.84E-04 3.30E-06 1.22 0.80-1,25 U2/U3 Chem Zr-95 4.20E-04 3.40E-04 5.30E-06 1.24 0.80-1.25

' ' '

U2/03 Chem Nb-97 3.73E-03 3.04E-03 1.00E-05 1.22 0.85-1.18 P

U2/U3 Chem Zr-97 3.50E-03 2.68E-03 1.00E-05 1.3 0.85-1.18 c

U2/U3 Ch a Tc-99m 3.08E-05 2.37E-05 1.34E-06 1.3 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 Chem I-131 7.24E-05 5.12E-05 2.94E-06 1.42 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 Cnem I-133 2.05E-04 1.70E-04 5.10E-06 1.21 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 HP Cr-51 4.00E-04 4.77E-04 2.23E-05 0.84 0.75-1.33 U2/03 HP Mn-54 3.41E-05 4.35E-05 2.06E-06 0.78 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 HP Mn-56 8.19E-04 8.18E-04 4.01E-05 1 0.75-1.33 n

U2/U3 HP Co-58 7.46E-04 8.41E-04 4.80E-06 0.89 0.80-1.25 U2/U3 HP Fe-59 1.90E-05 1.85E-05 3.04E-06 1.03 0.5-2.00 U2/U3 HP Co-60 7.85E-05 8.73E-05 2.39E-06 0.9 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 HP Ni-65 2.62E-04 3.21E-04 3.87E-05 0.81 0.6-1.66 U2/U3 HP As-76 0.00E+00 1.21E-04 7.80E-06 0 0.6-1.66 U2/03 HP Sn-113 1.47E-05 1.40E-05 3.07E-06 1.05 0.5-2.00 U2/U3 HP Sn-117m 0.00E+00 2.05E-05 1.37E-06 0 0.6-1:66 U2/03 HP Sb-122 0.00E+00 1.56E-04 5.30E-06 0 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 HP Sb-124 0.00E+00 1.36E-05 2.80E-06 0 0.5-2.00 U2/U3 HP W-187 3.44E-04 3.87E-04 1.06E-05 0.89 0.75-1.33 U2/U3 HP Np-239 1.27E-04 l'.43E-04 4.00E-06

'0.89 0.75-1.33

U2/U3 HP Sr-89 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 1.78E-03 0 0.6-1.66 U2/U3 HP Nb-95 2.46E-04 2.84E-04 3.30E-06 0.87 0.80-1.25 U2/U3 HP Zr-95 2.95E-04 3.40E-04 5.30E-06 0.87 0.80-1.25

'

U2/U3 HP Nb-97 0.00E+00 3.04E-03 1.00E-05

.0 0.85-1.18 U2/U3 HP Zr-97 2.44E-03 2.68E-03 1.00E-05 0.91 0.85-1.18 U2/U3 HP Tc-99m 3.08E-05 2.37E-05 1.34E-06 1.3 0.75-;1,33 U2/U3 HP I-131 5.49E-05 5.12E-05 2.94E-06 1.07 0.75-li33 U2/U3 HP I-133 1.42E-04 1.70E-04 5.10E-06 0.84 0.75-1.33 The licensee and NRC measurements of the reactor coolant filter were in o

general agreement.

The Unit 2/3 chemistry analysis exhibited a positive bias with marginal disagreements.

This conservative bias was brought to

,

the attention of the radiochemical engineer for evaluation.

The inspector and the radiochemical engineer discussed the absence of Sr-89 in the chemistry analyses.

The radiochemical engineer and the inspector evaluated the 909 kev emission assigned as Sr-89, and agreed that Sr-89 would be added to the licensee's nuclide libraries (50-362/90-31-01).

s

+

E

"

.

.

,,,..,,,,,,,.....,, - - - -,, - - -, -

,,..

fmag.n ; T3 : +m }, M$ 4

[.

fif ; L

Mg

^

M

>

.x i,

n' '

3 }n 16I

.+

,,:ny[ %

n Ji?: <

yo

'

,'

-

,

n

,

.

pp l

h

/y

'

Rg o'<

i

,y

'}

,

,.,,

ydG s

.

,

,

,

'

. wa.a y

..

.

z>

...

x m

,

tTh'e health" physics,nuclide libraryL1acked many offthe'nuclides found in:

1. g,W

/

' %j p hi

[P@d's

the reactor coolant e The

health physics enc h er stated thatitheir data-

"

.' A,, 9 review;for ' air; particulate sam'plesancMed identification of <all gamma l'

'

-

-

FM,'

• emissions detected ~and thatithe; health physics ~ nuclide library reflected VW

"

'

, licensee's' contention by review of nuclide i6entification data for<actuali "d

the1nuclides; detected in plant air samples.

The. inspector verified the-O

%

"

-

.

,

,

6 t.L % '

.

W, M~,*

f air samples in isupport-of; maintenance and: containment entries at power

'

'

No: instances >ofc unquantified. gamma' emissions were observed.i The insp

,;f(

considered the nuclide= library adequate for air samples..

'

'

'

The next samplefobtained was reactor coolant. g The -inspector observed ther" W9 o

P m L;

-

.

sampling of the~ coolant-and verified the method was consistent ~ with.

9 @h,

,

,A Procedure,S0123-III-1.6.23, " Units 2/3-Normal Operation of the Reactor.'

Ml

'

-

, Coolant ~ Sample System."' The coolant sample wasisplit into separate'one^?of" l

-.

7,L

-

. milliliter aliquots for NRC and. licensee analysis." The. intercomparison

49.

Q CU f

. reactor coolant is,given'in Table 3r

3 f7 1

-

x

~

s

- >

.

..

$

p

Table 3 YW

"

'g

,t

'

e -

>

a s

.

'

'

,

1. 1 ml of Reactor Coolant"

'4 LM y

s"

,-

..+2 s

+

<

,

,

'

'

NRC

.

'

-

o

,

%glB Licensee

'NRCL Random

^

"

i

. Agreement O

a

,.

.U y;cf'#

RAnalysis Analyte Result'

Result Uncerta_inty Ratio 1 Range

<

,,

,

'UlfChem' iRb-88'

O.00E+00 1.25E203'2.18E-04,

' :0 0.5-25000 l

'

'

• M g

,

U1' Chem;.Nb-97.

7.79E-04 1.39E-03'2.02E-04 0.56 0.5-2.00:

U1 Chemc 'Zr-97?

5.88EkO4 1.13E-03:1.92E-04 0.52 0.5-2.00

'

>

.

..

E 4' ~ l #

,U1 Chemi I-131 1.87E-02.1.91E-02 3.70E-04

~0.98 0.80-1.25 D.

'

'

= U1 Chem I-132,

'1;98E-02 2.02E-02 1' 08E-03

' O.98'0.75-1.33 '

'

s

.

>

- U1 Chem I-133 4.53E-02:5.02E-02 5.20E-04 0.9;0.80-1.25 w t' -

J;j xy

,

(U1' Chem:.I-135 3.07E-02 3.17E-02'1'.53E-03e '0.97 0.75-l'.33 %

'7 i

y e

'.

\\

i

,j i; L

.

.

,.

U2/3 Chem Rb-88'

O.00E+00 1."25E-03 2.i18E-04 1 ",O/0.t5-2.00:

'

'

.

M U2/3 Chem Nb-97~

7.26E-04 1.39E-03.2.02E704

!0.5210.5'2;00k l

,

N

'U2/3 Chem Zr-97 L 9.47E-04.1/13E-03,1.92E-044 0;84*0 5-2;00~

'

A LU2/3? Chem I-131

.1.90E-02tl.91E-02 3.70E-04aOf99.0.i80-1.25;

,I '

,e

<

j lW f-

'U2/3 Chem I-132 1.75E-02 2.02E-02 1.08E-033 0.86~0.75-1:33'

U2/3 Chem I-133 4.92E-02 5.02E-02 5.20E-04, (0.98 0.t80-1.25'

M

-

-

,.

W

., :

U2/3' Chem I-135 3.39E 02 3.17E,02.1.53E-03+ jl.07f0175-1.33s

'

.r c

,

',

I2

I Mg5

,.,.

, i'

,

..,

Wi~.' d.y /Short-lived!radioiodine emissions %ere 'p'redominant inLthe coolanUsampleb

.;

?

1The measurements of the radiciodines a reed,< indicating that'thei ?

-

E

'

'

<

y

. licensee's surveillance of dose equiva ent I-131:was' accurate.

'

%g

.

.

,

y

-

3

~

,- 'The licensee did'not identify Rb-88 in the\\ sample.

Th'efanalyticall Q

p#,

~,

,

A ' !, A

- software had rejected Rb-88 as a candidate nuclide because several. half-M o

lives' had ' elapsed between sampling and analysis. :A gas / liquid: separation.

allowing entrainediparent Kr-88 to

~

was'not^ performed on the sample'III-1.12, " Reactor Coolant Activity" a

e

>9 lproduceRb-88.

Procedure 50123

>

'#

.specified a gas / liquid separation for ~samplesLused in TS-related analyses.

I

/

-

,

m

,1 After this separation, the parent daughter relationship of Kr-88 and Rb-88

'

>

A, &

c

-

.

< $ 31

.

'?'

I

• c e

~u

Y f

L g-m

,-

,

cy g

!

y

y w

'

r

<

,

)q f

,, '., '

f'

--,,,

.

-

M -@) W '

'

o'

& ca%s@c[% #'cJhge@iA MB ' '

T%O

'

~

,Tjd

"'l r

,,'

e

'

h ME4 P

' ' "

f. ; a -

L,.

<7 M W,.

W es

..y pp6;e' *.7

-

g e

,

>-

i

.

,

-

,

hQ) h h A;'" k.

f

g

.

,

h.

I

[

?,f

4

,

Nkd@N$hsampleslafter_ gas /1,1 quid separationg+ +.(were

'

~ x

g ? % 1was brokent: 'Thelicensee!slibraryidat riateforT5trelated.

'

w

.

q

,

.

,

,

.

,

FO; gm wn

~

,

.

...

. > -

.

. aste tank T-057.- The

,

,

l M M, h g@ p JThernextl sample was obtained from a liouid w.. me f (

-

l

.

" '

w

f'

'

,

q

., ~

,.

.g m&df,~

-

M

.L

'

.

'

'

u Table 4 + J F ( i

.h

u'

r:

s

/L y

.

Liciuidyastet 6

,j-.

g Np ',

m E NRCi W l V $c, J /

'

>

.,

N p$;b *

l y

,

es

,

,

.

Q I

W7

Licensee ~

1NRC$ ? aridomi

'

,

iAgreement

"'

R s

$%-

Analysis Analyte Result

. Result) Uncertainty ~ Ritio? Range

!-

e

,A a

~

_" i SP

'

.U1' Chem Mn-54 2.16E-07 2.05E-0773.48E-08 il.05.0.5-2.*00; ? !

,V g dv A! '

"U1= Chem ~'Co-57f 0.00E+00 7.68E-08el,77E-08b

.0"0.5-2.00 m

-

,

.

Mn J

U1 Chem" Co-58'

7.39E-06 7.56E-06Ch06Et07b 4 0.98 0.80-1.25! *

+

{dW U1 Chemt,00-60

'1.47E-06.1.;47E-06;6i10E-08i H t1 0.75-1 33-N W:

-U1-Chemi 4Nb-95t 6.57E-07 6.99Et07.5.04E-08, 4 0.94 0.6-1.66: '

.

.

y;hh

.01 Chem

'Zr-95 2.94E-07 3.57E-07=6.l79E-08 ^ =0.82.0:5-2.00!

.?

-

'.

.

n.

.

BL, " q

,,

f'

'

'

'o

,'

,

,

e

,U2/3 Chem Mn-54J 1.82E-07 2;05E-07'3.48E-08 f 0.89 0.5-2.00.

'

t

-

%y

.p, U2/3' Chem Co-578 5.18E-08 7,68E-08 1 77E-08-'

O.68 0.5-2.00

.;

.

J_a,

-

.U2/3 Chem Co-58'

7.27E-06 7.56E-06:1.06E-07

.0.96 0;80-1.25'

w. 'I b

.U2/3 Chem Co-60 (1.34E-06 1.47E-06 6.10E-08; 1"0?97-0.6-1.66; 0.91 0.75-1.33J

,

t U2/3 Chem Nb-95 6;78E-07e6.99E-07,5;04E-08

'

.

',

..

M

U2/3 Chem)Zr-95 2.78E-07'3.57E-07:6.79Et08'

O.78 0.5-2.00'

l

-

,

%,

MM LThe_measurementsofactiYity?ibe iquid waste agheed well. The Unit 1 Jj

.,

, _4 e

' chemistry analysis did. notaidentifytCo-57 in-the' sample.: - However, the"

e

'x

, C0-57 activity was 'present.at%oncentrationsiless than the required lower.

E'

,

.

.

s

. limit of detection (LLO):of;5E-7.uci/mh:'Als'oj the NRC and Unit 2/3 Co-57

~

,

gr ;

analyses were near their respective'd,etectionslimits.;

-

'

,

e t

.

t :- %i i

',

.* the licensee retained portionsJof;thecliquid waste' sample for.pector and'

O

~ ;Irf addition to the onsite gammasisotopicLmeasurementsi;theiins

,,

'

-

s" intercomparison of Sr-89/90, Fe-55 and2tr,itium-(50-362/90-31-02).y g

.

,

.

,

a

The next sample was waste gas from a gas decay tank.

The'resultsDare

,;

O presented in Table 5.

,4

..

y

-

,

,,

,

L

. Table 5

,

o

.<,.

J pasteGas-

'-

>

>

,

,

p.

.

NRC

'<$

.

^

Licensee-NRC Random.

Agreement

~:

'

>

-

..

Analyte Result'

Result, Uncertainty Ratio Range 4"

m.

Analysis

-

..

,

.U1 Chem

'Xe-131m 7.83E-05 1.09E-04 2.68E-05 0.72 0.5-2.00

'

'

-

,

A

+

101 Chem Xe-133 1.54E-02 1;61E-02 4.00E-05 0.96:0.85-1.18

..

.

T

'

U1 Chem Xe?133m 2.43E-04 2.85E-04 1.33E-05 0.'85 0.75-1.33 S3 e

+

2U1: Chem Xe-135 7.98E-06 1.24E-05 1.-78E-06 0.64 0.5-2.00

%:

,y

,

,

'

-Q d },,

f ph'

,'

,

_.'

!c

,4_.

-

f

.'

i f :.

1 4)

i i

.

. A

'

c).

t.

,

,

,

,

W

.;NMR 4'

~~

EMXkMls.,

V.

-l'

• 1

-

y

-

$gQ fNN:$$l%

- ' lM

? $Ys@ L,

'

$

g

,

& @3 R y#

y

& jQb,

y

-

'

+

.

>l}

y W

Q'

-

'

__

-W w

'

,

pp.

.Q

,

,

n yy

e

,

[k g m

a.+

n

~ '

'1 p

w gn t

,

S

.Y

.

n

,

.

m.

...

-

'

.

-

..

c. W'W Q viRn 3g j

'

-

-

.

gg

.!??U2/3. Chem!Xe-131m5.51E-051,09E-04:2.68E-05.

0. 51 0. 5-2. 0LigM W'

-

.

h

% [Epl U2/3 -Chem Xe-133 1;61E-02cl.'6'c-02 4.00E-05'%

140.85-1V10'

'

[kg i U2/3 ChemlXeL133m 2.44E-04~2.85c-04 1.33E-05<

0.86 0.75-1.33 1a L

-

phN

& 4 0,51:0.5-2._00 C

>

NW 5M h ~ '

^

J.

.

'

gyQf '

.The'measurementseof waste gas were in agreement.i

/

~

,

fb,

/Aiharcoahfilter from the-Unit 3 containment kurget exhaust halk.

%'

f [i ;hSf

.

Ma

' compared.c The results are presented in Table

'"l%p Qg

~

..

,

4'

,

N hh P

c Table 61 g

-

m h h h.h.c Conthinment Purge Charcoal Cartridge

[;y 7~

'

W; h R ? $y ~y

_

-Random)

Agreement y ", +

Q; ' Mff [

pRC a

y bs

.

,

Licensee: JNRC

+-

,

h jl$r J sl'ysis

' Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Ratio mange @

A

M d

Wp, ' e 'U1 Chem

. Br-82 ' 8. 26E-11 8,54E-11 1.'40E-12

.0.97

.- 0 T80-1. 25.

-..

,

,

ip

~ -U1 Chem I-131J1.91E-11 1.83E-11 3.20E-13 1.041 0.80-1;25Jt s

^'

<

[f Y

~

,

^

'

FW&

.U2/U3 Chem f*-82 7f86E-118.54E-111.40E-12'

O.92 t0i80-1.25 A ', i (

mm hjd4 L

'U2/U3.'Chemd-131 1.81E-11 1.83E-11 3.20E-13.

0.99

"P

0.80-1125 1 '

pV U2/U3 ChemLI-133 >2.84E-11 2,98E-11 1.46E-12 0.95.

0.75-1;33~,

'

>

g,

y

,

_ 4.52E-11 8.54E-11 1.40E-12 0.53 0.80-1.25

.

,

.

.

.

,

-

.,w

_

y a.m U2/U3 HP's :Br-82

~

,

"

"

U2/U3'HP; I-131 2.93E-1111.83E-11 3.20E-13'

1.6 0.80-1;.25 "'

'

'

'

,,N ' '

; 02/U33HP:

'

~

c

.

1-133 1.03E-11 2.98E-11 1.46E,12'-

O.35 0.7541.33 J

'

l

~

.

,

.

,

.dLi; i

'lTheNRC Unit 1 chemistry and Unit 2/3 chemistfy each employed aJ,

'

>f Ecorrectionforradioactivedecay/3healthphysicsdetector' software

.,

e ?>i ME

h ofinuclides(duringsamplingandobtained

%

f(

-

4 excellent agreement.

The Unit 2 a

ft

' snot possesssthis correctionc Instead, nuclide' decay was corrected to:the

.,

l

%p"..,ty y s

'

end of the sam) ling period.

Therefore, the system underestimated the.

t M

> A @

= activity's attention in ins)ection report 50-362/88-157.Although the-m.'

for s1 ort-lived Br-82 and I-133.x 'This had been? brought'to the.-

licensee k @W

^

chemistry department'.had'suasequently implemented the correction ^ factor,-

'S m.

,

D Lhealth physics had'not.

, c' t W;

-v

.

LThe inspector discussed: health physics air sampling practices with the

?

%,?

health physics engineer and;the-assistant manager,chealth physics.

Thel

'

a v$

licensee had established several air sampling times dependent;on the

"

,

t 9$

anticipated' concentration ~of airborne radioactive material.

The sampling-

,

iG times used to' assign. maximum. permissible concentration-hours (MPC-br) were

'

'

[ @g%j.

L -

L g

'24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />;for thosA samples' expected to measure-less than125% MPC,'shiftly-

,

d sp

,for: 25%-100LMPC, and two hours for greater than one MPC. -During the.

're' view lof air; sample data noted above,-the inspector did not identify any

'

$..

'

-isotopesfwith. half-1.ives significantly shorter than the sampling-time

'

o dbb where the4 improper decay correction-could' lead to a significant error in

!

[$ "

,

[(Q

' assessing _MPC-brs pursuant to 10 CFR 20.103.

In discussions with. health s

>

physics-personnel, it was agreed that the decay carrection used by health

'

yM

,

hhN

,

.w

.

[.

]a iL

'

^

U

,

-

'z % ?%hn h ?"

9..

.

C

F

J

, pQ QQr

• y

qW93

~

'

y

.

'

.-

"

%

%

Q a'

.% @3' M ; W_

,

g(

{ 9 % q gy

-

w'

.

x

,

.

,

' "l l $ ' ',

jY f

'

'

"

L :w <

.

(

am

1. .

-!

e

>

w

,

, ~ \\ ; jf ~ p_ q r;;

?. s, 5

_ _ f Q \\ ;, _.

'

_._s s

p(hysics would beimodifind(toscurately' estimate short-livsd nuclidesl i

_

.

,

50-362/90-31Q+3)g MQy ME ' ' '

,

s ag

,

...

.

.

.

.

• M

,

M LThe; inspector reevaluateliM NRCland Unitt2/3 health physics charcoal _.

oW

cartridgeLdatapassuming decayJfrom the end of samplirg.1 Again,- the data"

'

"

did not* agree; ;The Unit 2/3 HP concentrations-were consistently high by.a

,

y"

factor of two=with respect to the NRC res ?

The health phys es

~

engineer investi~ ated this discrepancy and ui. overed that tt Wetorfin~-

S

.r g

<

question had been miscalibrated on, March 16,1990,:with the cartridge;.

M

'

<

gf calibration standard activity facing away from the detector.- The.

.

"

.

N A-

-miscalibration was due to a' personnel error.- Procedure 50123-VII-6.3,-

.

ND6685' Gamma Spectrom'ter Operation and Calibration" contained adequate

J

~ "

e P;

.;

instructions that all: standards were to be counted in'the same geometry?as7

' ' 'sp

-

m

samples? The health! physics engineer stated that he would evaluate other

.,

,

calibrations and take appropriate corrective action.

As this calibration

'

.

.

T error resulted!in conservative assignment of? iodine MPC-hrs,;andrthe licensee hadlinitiated corrective action;.the inspector had nonfurther questions;regarding this matter.

4,a

>

.

,

,

The inspectorLreviewed quality! control; data for radioa'nalyiical

-

-

am instruments.

The frequency of checks =and the parameters. monitored were

' ?j[

-*

'

consistent with,the guidance of regulatory guide 4.15;' " Quality.As'surances a

u Programs - Effluent 9 Streams and the:

-

for-Radiolog"ical Monitorin{E N42.14, '! Measurement' of Gamma Ray -Emishons -

.

e c^"

Environment, and ANSI /IE:

'J_

of Radionuclides Using Germanium Detectors.F: The data weresindicative of?

>

!.-

'@

good instrument performancet '

-

-, >

,

-

(_

3.

.s The Inspector examined reports of the licensee'sninterlaboratory

'

radiochemical cross-check program for-1989-1990.

Mixed' gamma isotopes,>

.c

• ,

,

..O

_ tritium ~and gross alpha / beta were analyzed quarterly on filters and in

'

-

. water.

The agreement criteria were similar to those employed by NRC.

The -

_*

'

,,

results were uniformly acceptable.

,

, -

.

Ths licensee also conducted an intraplant: cross check between Unit

,

y, chemistry and health physics laboratories under procedure S0123-111-5.40,-

L

" Effluent Quality Assurance Prooram." Tritium and reactor coolant samples

'

'

were used. 1Although these samples provided an effective check on the A

.

~

,

health' physics detector systems, the: inspector noted that health' physics

@' ' A,

'

s C

did not, participate in the' quarterly vendor cross check for iodine on charcoal cartridges,'which might have detected the~ cartridge >

'

~

O Jmiscalibration. identified duri.ng the inspection.

<

'

,

N JPost1 Accident Sampling System (PASS)

,

The inspector examined the licensee's PASS'surveill'ance ram, PASS WM, ;

l procedures, SONGSLPASS Sampling Drill _ Critique. Report- (5/b0), Quality

-

Wi" and PASS activities from September As' urance Audit Report SCES-021-89, inspector interviewed chemistry s

~

1988 through July 1989.

Also, the-w^

,$

' personnel;and other staff associated with PASS activities.

'

5193

'A ' '

y

>

4g 5,

[

de

N'

'

m,' W y g %ylV::& f ' h

$

f

, l< 4

~^

'

yy6h U i ' Y f [.y;

.y x, a

,,, ~

. : g

.

) j g "k l ffp

N N

[

>;

e

"<

-

g :s

'

,

,

,a

-

m*y, J0g

' q'

7nq>

+

4

-

.

,

p y~

-

-

.r

-

n;, - - -

.

A,

.a

>

.

gg

,c a

.

f_

f p y p m:W",

J

'

q<

,, -j ;

f; p e

-

_

o.

.

,

f'n6 PASS'SuEvdilance

"

"

,

-

,g

>$

,

y r

y a

n y',

w

,

h k

,' M, SPASSLsbiveillance results from Unite 1,'2 andI 3 duringitbeperiodJune29 N

J WSw

~

11989;tol July!30, 1990, demonstrated that surveillances were performed in

,4 M

,

5;@.* %"-

.accordance with procedure S0123:I11-8.1, Revision.8b " Post-Accident

h

+

4 Sampling System i

.iSurveillances."s;and Unit 1 Dedicated Safe;ShutdowntSystem Routine. P

'1

@@ l%

j V

M ~~ hydrogeni pH'and oxygen analysis occurreds When PASS; data were

..

,unacceptableitheiappropriate component was7 repaired,and the:particular; y

@+ 11 ? ?.

M

' PASS surveillance retested.

When rel.iability ofe the primary PASS method ~

_

'

MW

'~

could not beJdemonstrated,1the licensee ~ implemented procedure' S0123-III-i-

-

e t

8.8L Revisioni6',;" Alternate Methods of Post-Accident Parameter: Analysis" d

Q( '

.which provided approved back-up"~PASSLmethods.

The PASS resultsTadequately4 j

>

V

'

ydemonstrated PASS operability.~

' u$.

q

,

['

PAbbrainingandProcedures,[op(, $q L

,

,

.

.

y

,

~

,

.

@'.

The requirements 'of Unit 2/3 TS 6.8.4 l)' arid ' Unit-1 TS-6.8.4(e)lstate: int N

']partthat"Theprogram(PASS)sha1Ein(cludethetrainingof_personnelk A

"

'

,

..

.

.

.J.

.

+

c s

~

.. :

^

v

'

"?

cProcedure 50123-III-8, Revision 70"P'st Accident' Samp1ing arid Analytica1D Vg a

fi, '

2 Requirements," 6.1.1.1 states that, ". Continuing' training will normally be

.

o

.

V l classroom; training"only and:shouldLinclude :as a minimum, atreview of

<,

,

$%

{ procedures,.systemchanges/ modifications,'industfybroblems'anddesignat$di y

iV alternate methods.

0n'the-job-training shall:be conducted *when routine J

.

y$;h.

surveillance sampling / anal performed.

This"shall be rotated among all PASS Operators."ysisiisibeing2

~

1 g'

j,

'

a,a

,

f s

<

-

-

-

1,

,.

-

,

~

q e

-

.

DO TheChemicalEngineeringSupervisdrstaddthstPASSloperitorsinb1'dded a

j

~

,

g

@,

_

ithe cognizant system engineer,1one chemistry staff e"ngineer,1 chemistry'-

J b

technicians andtforemen. ' Surveillance = records documented the w

.-

R v i participation of 15 PASS operators, including engineers,and< foremen,

.

> < ^

(M o

between June 29,"1989 and July'30 1990.

However,' only seven licensee t

y,;

istaff-members (two staff engineers,, cae c,hemistry foremanTand-four-

^m ;

gw

-

chemistry technicians) had' signed:the PASS surveillance documents 1during; l

WWo

this period.

-+

'

t

' aj e

w"

...

,

',i.,.

t5

...

m

.

,

'

e r

.

.

gh ?

J

>The inspedtor inq~uired why additional: chemistry technicianssdidInot' sign

< Mn PASS surveillances. 'The'licens'ee stated that engineers directed PASS *

.

j f'.N surveillance.operationsTandJadvised participating chemistry technicians of

.

VggL J

systemchangesandproblems.*>Also,.chemistrysupervisionstatedthatthe

Mgf

.engineerstwere considered PASS operators and were expected to be available t

,

M,,

' Lto dire't PASS. operations during an emergency therefore it wast c

g

appropriate'for the engineers to participate In the surveillances.

@4 T

'

' '

+

o A'

However" the licensee agreed that chemistry, technicians should be-

'

,f[ document?theirperformance) responsible for completing the PASS

@~

,

'

'

,

f q"",

The inspector had no further questions in e

%

.this' matter.

/

.

.

b PASS 1 Drill

!

'

.

y

.,

The inspector reviewed the Unit-1 SONGS * PASS Sampling Drill Critique

'

'

,, Report.' The PASS drill was conducted May 8, 1990, and the overall

.

Jobjectives were met.

However, th' Lspecific objective of measuring e

.e

,

g

.j

$

)

,

} $p g Q

.1

-

>

,

9-qq y L

.

1E ;p

- c u - Ma n. x ~:

'_, m

m:

y' g,

~,r 'o w or ac

.

,

-

I-Y vff

~ [ *g.J - YA >3

,

.

,--h w

- W,f

.

-O

, &p d s

N'

q

g.

• .

1t< ' ' W n 'f q' O i

,

,

,

'%

ll f'

L

'

,f j

p

' V11g{

,ah*m1 49]

x

,

Qgl$ $ 3,,

.

W%

P, V

A,

,,

W

..

g gp,

~x.

.

.

,

,.

,

s...y

+

.. y

~

..

,

.

gg

,

w.

.

..

..

n,;

a M @ %y,_ n M6ntainmentiatmosphere activitycwasLa;ccomplished b

' 4(

pg7 A

'

-

J

. method, containment radiatiori monitor; 1232.

The licensee identified ' ant.. La M

inoperable valve;that -had )reventddfan~ adequate, purge:and sample flowpathC tit. &w h k h "g W :for the primary method.T1e licensee satisfactorily, demonstrated:its PASS? 7 7 M e

%g

y4 is g

.capabi.lity..-

a>

J, H@4S m

>

y" n

,

'

s

,

,

o m

h V

" PASS Time ~Linee.s

-

>

}& W gy

-

,

.

"a 4M]

y

,

.

.

...

y f4

JTheltime 11n'e 'compdsit'e of PASS activities for Units 1' 2 rnd 3 were-4M

%,'s f 9 uiscussed with the cognizant:sys~ tem engineer and the ch,emlstry staff; fM N

,#

c' -

. engineer.

Overall; tie: PASS availability and reliability has been

-

W$

Eenhanced by the dedicate'd-focus of the engineers tracking ~all'

E v

%

>

<

?p p( @i,' f operational: problems, but provisions for maintenance of; PASS equip surveillances<and other activities.9 TheESONGS PASS continues to have,

+M g%h

%

jd q m, ;, w, ( cimprovementsein the system wereiapparent in~the:long term fix; program,

y 4%

-

F

.

.

gp

,

-

..

gM Op JThenlicensee'stradiochemistry rogram:was satisfactorylto meet radia' tion

.

4@S 6*7-

s A,. safety.and effluent control ob ectives.

Weak areas were: identified in,the1 '.

U

.A x

(improper assumptions and calib ation used for analysisiof health physics l W

c

"

<

t

', ; fair samples and"less thantfulliparticipation of chemistry technicians Lin

aM

' '

u PASS surveillances.

• f.7 4g"

y

='

a

.

s

,

,

<

%

r?

, i4;

Fa'cility-Touds!y

,

D

,,

'"

<

4,

,

.

.

.

NW s

'

?The inspector toured radiologically controlled areas of Unitsil and 2'

,

,

f during the; inspection.t 1The ; inspector-observed the following::

'

, pp

,

- Aa m

,

'

[

. a','

' Radiation monitoring equipment was in current calibration..

' '

.A

-

e

,-

+

.

,-

..

+,x y

w b.1 LAllcperso'nnelobservedon-tourwerewearing;pr'peFdcsimetry.s Q

o w.x L

~

o

.

.

,w p

'

f"*, " '. [c,L !, Posting andblabeling practicerwere* consistent withi10' CFR'19.11 and.

V "20.203.-

-

'

?'-

-

<

.

'

"

b,

.%'

.

a. E

.

.

DQ%

5 f f^,1

<

"L d.

Jarea,Lwere< reused by chemistry technicians without'a, a contaminate

'

Face"shieldsstoredintheUnit2/3RCSsample7oom

%M 7~4 u

m-surveyLand-

'

,

y&g e'%

fdonned without other protective:clothin~g on the head.',Thisc...

L

,

MW" ' W A >

observation.'was brougit' to the; attention,ofJchemistryl'and health y'

, m, V physics. super, vision.

',

+A J'

e

?g

^

'

W, ', '

y

- x

.

,,.

>

--

< 4The1radiationEplotistionpracfices;andhousekeeping~ observed.duviggplNt

'

?

j j

' tours were satisfactory.

~

v o N

q

,

,

s

,

ww r

-

?.

,

,

,

c.

$r14 754 ; Exit Meeti' g-('30703) '

M [ M]

"^

'"

n n

a

.

..

,

.

.

-.g

.

,

,

<

w

- ' 1The' inspectors met with licensee management 6n" August 3,1990 to discuss l

<

T

'C J!

,

ME

,

,

,%

thecscopetand findings of the ins)ection. :The inspectors observed that.at S

",

reasonable numberiof technicians lad not documented their performance 1of

'

?'

-PASS:surveillances,sas; participating engideers and; supervisors had

'

>

,

s generally-signed the s~urveillances.

c

,

.

x

>

. ".

The licensee explained their

? ".

-supervise' PASS surveillances, practice of using chemical engineers to.

,

'

,

,

,

b' ' ' J which resulted in the majority of

9 surveillances being signed by engineers, and explained that the training.

a

c

%

'

x g.,.

,

,e N

, _

1. 4 1,

-

gi

' '

&

My T,

• R CA y;p > mq w3.

+

,

(

% p i gy:

r

,

,

_. m.

!NflM"4m.y f

e',e,. ' x

'_g;

,

y' ' " '

-

_

_ i Mg = -Y

'J.

.L - -

-

,

7@:, 'k ' ", & >;y ; ; pu fjQ' H.

.n~

.

>4'<

-

-

W m

'

W.

+ { ;? ;

'

,

'

s

'

,

,..

i t

...

.

'

r, jg

_q

,

,

,

y, g

.4 j

,-

_q

,

,

y w;

j,

z1 '

f

'

,

2,.

',

_

h_

'

!

L,4

_.

.t r

.;<%

.t

1,g,

,,

.

'

,':g ( r

.

../__t.

-

yg

, - _

t.

>

s

, ' - '

_

,-

,

-

l A p) Q',

~-.e 3

.i.* '

-$'-.J'.

y.

, s*v.

.

- y

.w

- h m,.

-

s,

~;

g 3 nq. t. -' g;,

-

.~ ; "

'

,

.

,

'

.

m.,

.m

/h 3

)+

i5.

Hj

,

+i 3

'~

.

i

.:.

.;

.

>

-

Wi x

A

.

ofPASSoperatorstwasdo;cumentedYin/othertrsiningLrecords.

ms w;p

>

,

L'% /

However th'e;

'

'

3f

inspectorsLnoted-that PASSPsurveillance

documents also1 served to' document T

<-

,

4yy?

- on-the-job training?'jThetinspectors questioned how, PASO operators could-Tsuccessfully complete their;trainin

.a x the surveillance; document.s. During;g.without demonstrating completion of~

pnt

,

"

discussions with" licensing and n

ygg 7 chemistry personnelsfollowing the' exit meeting, the licensee agreed;th'at!,

<

I 4i

, technicians should sign:the surveillances: to better reflect their tr'ainirig r" "'

,

' (, p, -

to?operateethe PASS'under. procedure'50123kIII-8;

.

.,,a

~-

.

. cw

-. w :.

..i m - * j.p, N

-

-

j

.

.

,n,

-

y

,.

.*

,

l t

s 4,

<

y

,

ck

',

+

-t

,

..

,

~

f

.

. -

s D'

. ' '

I i

'

'

~ t[; < )h,

e g _.

,a.

s

,

w

.

--

_-a.

9-v, y.7 v,

..g y -- -

7,.

-

s

.

n.

e e

-..:s %w r.. y

' ' '

'j

.

,

+

un a

",,,

tr; x

'

• i r ()

y

,. h t

]

a'

,

]Qm.'9, j[

.

,

,py g

p

>

<

u-

,wuaf 4,

xy,

,

.n q q.

'y,'

s

+

.-

'

y

..

s i

is,

s

,

y

_

g

-' '

(

'

$

g ' l'

_

it b, H&C

,,

'

.

j L

-

d-sh l * Q, * '

, + -

14'

a: F

,,. : :.: - '

e,.

>

' /> ; !,

'

,

e

_ 'y.

,

>>

.

-

l

', q,j. =

c

i y;

.

e c,

.

,

' g,p -.

,

$ 4, V(..

Liv

-

{.

,

,

I

,;

g?g C

<

,,

,..

.

', q.- 4

• < >

,

,,

,

1.

y J,

,

,

,

w"_-

'

)

-

.,'

-

H d';-

y

,. -

.

-

-

,

,

c

,

r,3t

m

- y; q

g-

.

,

3",;..

,

l

A.

.

..;4-

,

g '.

~

(

%{C J.

[Ah

.

i s'

M,

, l [2 /'.-

..

t

.

i

'qf

,

'(

-

'

,

e

"

' '

1, '

+

,1-t

'

Ae W

ii,

(;

',

r, N.-

,?

'

t

,

-

h, y, b:_ Y y

.

r-Q,,

~?h."

4 sq

'

'%

4

'

~

',.

.~

y

,,.

,

' 1 +h

<

. 4 JT.

~

9E

'

q ?{

i}

'..

i

--

(

g

,

,

.

r k

z l

+j

']

t.

,

t

-

f

,

,

'

<

'"-

. ve i

h ',., [.Y

=.

s j,y

'

g'

,

'

[.$,.

'

'

>

s-

. r.

s o

'

'

.

sg; e

.;

'

'

"

'

jW

.

+

-

gf

,

,;,,'i

-

,

W i

1-n r

,

m

'

LC, l l h[

!!,

?q f..

_

'

'

' '

19.i d

-

'

.

j,

,

,

,

y..

L (

,pgi W

'

y.@

'

,

,

,

,

.

-

.,,

. *V y,

_

r j

w M

._ -

f

,

.m a

v* -

- 1 2 1,

'I

,

D

(l M,, :,

c

,

e

'

• b -- =

'

^jL i

• .'f ' r srs

.

<

,

..1 l

,

A

_j

'q* i i i N,s

'jf,

-

w

.

,

• ,

A

\\; :.

.l*-

y

,

W g

- S

,'f,-

' W@

<

,,.:

"M

,

.

,

i 7 r

'

,

!;

g

'(

<)

'e

,.l

'

M

1. ,2

,j m.,+.\\

,

,;

a.

.

+

c g

ri

>

>

Y*

g e

,

^ {1

..}l '

'#.-

D; :, l *,

? ' -

-aa,

,

>

'}

,,,,

,

r

'1e

_

s

-

m

,

,

% -

a w w

f

}.'

.-

p g

p;g. \\'

,

'

,

t i

$hs Y,;.h.

q:

__

,

,

,

d 2 ;lf i

y

-

b l[ '

.

m

+..

,.

_.

k

'

-9

2 * W;.,.

'na

~

..,J.'

s A

.:11 I I'

,M

'

' ' ' '. -

,

h)

'

,

,

f

<!..[

n,.f!

3(,

^ hl

'

g

+

'

+

<t o

,

e-

-

g Jl:

,

}

}. )?, - - '

,

,

.

.>,

..<

i'

h. x,[(;

h

,

,

.,Q

'

,,

m mone

+

_ _. _.

-

yu

$J p N,

,

y-

'

.

g e

g gp h

a.

My Nl

'

'

'

g g= gw

,,,,,,,,,.

.m.

. - ~

-

+

i I-

,

n.

Mpl[a.9 %t,

criteria for' Acceptina the Licensee's: Measur.ementO M

.

.

.

-

....-

.

s N! '

.

1. Qgi:.

,

x.

h:qyy%

Resolution-Ratio-3 IShf F i

<4J Nol comparison s/

'

2. 0!

• '

$nE te j '

4'

' O. 5:

-

-

.J

F

.8'

15'

, 0. 6 1.66-

-

yk ihf)y{

j,

50 0.75.. '

1'. 33 -

-

Z

--

200 0.80 --

-1.25'

e ylMi &,p C *m 200 0.85 -

1.18-

'

,

~ n. ;,

r,-

$ M W if ; Comparison ~ -

Fu W,

,

x.

sno w

-

dl@jM@ 4 wl;1. Divide'eachiNRCresultbyitsassociateduncertaintyito'obtainthe-

,

M

$ }g%, '

jd resolution.

(Note:~ ' For purposes of this ' procedure, the! uncertainty is f gyk

defined;as the relative: standard deviation,;one:sigmak ofcthe,NRC result

&c, C

'.as calculated from counting' statistics.)-

$$hh* %, 2. /

Divide'each licensee result by the correspond' ing NRC result to obtain

.

.

.

Obg,

the ratio (licensca result /NRC).:

_

,

W>

Wfll jp

.

gd, Opt y L3..

Thel licensee's-measurement is in agreement if: the: value ~of the ratio gg 9,

falls within the limits'shown in the preceding table for the Um corresponding' resolution.

'

N.o%...

a

.

j.

_.{

y *'

OM : (

.

'i j i,,

h0Vh n

Q M.i h: y

,

!

.

.h n i s

( l l Q.

,f

"

i)

.

,

,

.

.am

'

\\$h

!

.l i '.} -

i

'

,

h

~j>

If.

s

,

-

q W

,

..

,'.

!

t 1:

!

s i

j f

.

'.

f

___,_i_______.i______-------^------------- - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - ' - ^ - ~ ~ - - - ' ^ ^ ' - - ' - - ~ ' - ~ ~ ^ ' ' ' - - - - -

'