IR 05000382/1990021
| ML20058A676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1990 |
| From: | Murray B, Ricketson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A675 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-90-21, NUDOCS 9010290076 | |
| Download: ML20058A676 (6) | |
Text
_
'
...
..
.
.
APPENDIX V.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Resort:
50-382/90-21 Operating License: NPF-38 Docket:
50-382 Licensee:
Er.tergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Wat-3)
Inspection At: Wat-3 site, K111ona, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Inspection Conducted:
September 10-14, 1990 Inspector-k d
'L. T. Ricketso'n, P.E., Senior Radiation Ddte '
Specialist, Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Section
,
Approved:
M M/
D[at d/
[d
urray, Chief, R9 1ological Protection Erlaine and Emergency Preparv0 ness Section
,
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted September 10-14, 1990 (Report 50-382/90-i Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licent a liquid and
'
gaseous radioactive waste management program.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
.
identified.
The licensee has maintained an adequate staff of well qualified-personnel to implement the liquid and gaseous redwaste management program.
The health physics--(HP) department was assigned the overall responsibility for the radioactive effluent program. Concerns were noted regarding the lack of-technical expertise for quality assurance (QA) audit personnel responsible-for reviewing the radioactive effluent program._ Surveillances and audits in i
some areas were infrequenti Liquid and gaseous releases were below Technical
.
Specification (TS) limits.
Surveillances on air cleaning systems and effluent monitoring instrumentation had been performed according to TS requirements.
Semiannual effluent reports,were submitted on schedule and contained the required information.
j 9010290076 901016 PDR ADOCK 05000382 O
.
..
- _ - - - - -
__---
____
-. *
..
.
'
.g.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Entergy Operations, Inc.
- J. R. McGaha, General Manager, Nuclear Operations
- D. E. Baker, Director, Operations Support and Assessments K. P. Boudreaux, TS Coordinator
'
'G. L. Hood, HP Technician
- M. J. Langan, Technical Training Supervisor
- L. W. Laughlin, Supervisor, Site Licensing
- A. S. Lockhart, Manager QA M. Marler, Senior Technical Instructor R. Norville, Senior Engineer J. Pollock, Supervisor, QA Audits R. Porter, Acting Supervisor, Systems Engineering, Electrical
P. V. Prasankumar, Manager, Technical Services
- J. A. Ridge 1, Radiation Protection Superintendent A. Roberts, QA Auditor NRC S. Butler, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on September 14, 1990.
2.
Organization and Management Controls-The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and management controls to determine compliance with the requirements of TS 6.1, 6.5.2,8; the commitments in Chapter 13 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33.
The licensee's organization was found to be as described in Chapte'r 13 of the FSAR. The HP department was assigned the responsibility for evaluating effluent waste releases, preparing radioactive waste release permits, and maintaining effluent release data. A group of five technicians were directly responsible for collecting effluent samples and
!
writing ef fluent release permits. The inspector observed that the group.
!
was familiar with the requirements of the program and maintained a high-level of performance, i
The inspector reviewed QA audits and surveillances involving items related to the areas covered during the inspection. The following audits were reviewed:-
I I
7 gp... '
.
'
r Audits Subject Date
!
'
SA-90-022.1.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring / January 29 -
Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual March 15, 1990 i
SA-90-018A.1 ALARA Program April 30 -
June 14, 1990 l
SA-89-024.1 Radwaste Processing, Packaging, and March 31 -
Shipments May 12, 1989
'
SA-87-0278.1 Fuel Management - Nuclear Material April 8 -
Control April 24, 1987 SA-W3-QA-86-20 System Function Audit of Reactor June 24 -
Auxiliary Building Heating, September 5,
'
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 1986 The inspector reviewed quality notices issued as a result of the findings
<
of the above audits and noted that several of the responses were not timely and in other cases extensions were granted because responses could
.not be'made before the assigned deadlines.
!
The inspector noted that the licensee had not established a comprehensive
cudit program to verify that all TS requirements related to air cleaning j
systems.have been met.
For exampic, the controlled ventilation area
'
system, was last audited in 1986, and the fuel handling building ventilation system was last audited in 1987.
The inspector noted that only two surveillances, " Resin Transfer and Radwaste Shipment," performed in August 1989, and " Waste Condensate
' Chemistry Analysis," performed in October 1989 had been performed in the radwaste are sinct the previous NRC inspection (50-382/89-14) in May 1989.
Lictnsea's representatives stated that the number of
.
surveillances was down because priority had been given to accomplishing -
l
.
audits. Through recent organizational changes, the responsibility for i
- performing surveillances was transferred to tho'QA support group which now j
has af goal of increasing the number of. surveillant.*. performed..
'
QA representatives stated that the group was lacking individuals having i
applied. experience in the radwaste area and was faced with the possibility
.
'
"
of losing their one experienced member.
.s-No. violations or deviations were identified.
.
.
,
m
yp
'
e z
'
r ;.
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _.
. n..
'
-4-3.
Training and Qualifications The inspector reviewed the training and qualifications of individuals involved with the liquid and gaseous radwaste management program to determine compliance witF TS 6.3 and 6.4.
HP technician training was performed by one instructor.
The inspector interviewed the instructor and determined that he was qualified to address this technical area by virtue of the fact that he was formerly in HP and was in charge of the effluent program. The instructor appeared to have adequate resources and reference material.
The inspector reviewed lesson plans used in training courses leading to qualification of individuals as senior countroom specialists and verified that individuals currently assigt.ed duties in the effluent program had completed their qualification requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
QQuid and Gaseous Radwaste The inspector reviewed the licensee's control, processing, and release of liquid and gaseous radwaste effluents to determine compliance with the requirements of 1Ss 3.11.1.1, 3.11.1.2, 3.11.1.3, 3.11.2.1, 3.11.2.2, 3.11.2.3, and 3.11.2.4; and the surveillances required by TSs 4.11.1.1.1, 4.11.1.1.2, 4.11.1.2, 4.11.1.3.1, 4.11.1.3.2, 4.11.2.1.1, 4.11.2.1.2, 4.11.2.1.3, 4.11.2.2, 4.11.2.3, A.11.2.4.1, and 4.11.2.4.2.
'
a.
Liquids-The inspector reviewed selected liquid release permits and determined-that radioactive materials released to unrestricted areas were below
- TS limits. Through the review of the permits and interview with the licensee's representatives, the inspector determined that the liquid radwaste treatment system was operational.
Liquid sampling was conducted in accordance with the sampling program outlined in Table 4.11-1 of the TS.and the analysis conducted in accordance with the methodology given in-the Offsite Dose-Calculation Manual (ODCM).
Liquid samples were routinely collected by the chemistry department, with HP performing the radioanalysis.
,,
,t'
The inspector reviewed the licensee's dose calculations and verified that-the doses to members of the public in unrestricted areas were-below TS limits. The cumulative dose contributions from the lio!L 3 effluentt were calculated and evaluated at the required interva k The licensee informed the inspector of the circumstances involving a liquid release on September 10, 1990.
A batch release from Boric Acid Condensate Tank D was terminated by the'high-radiation alarm.
Records indicated that: radiation levels reached approximately eight times the alarm setpoint.
Licensee. representatives stated that m _.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
N A
M h
.
'
.
5-E
'
,
calculations would be performed to determine if allowable limits had been exceeded, but expressed the opinion that the setpoint used was conservative enough to prevent the violation of TS limits.
-b.
Gaseous The inspector also reviewed gaseous release permits and determined that the dose rates for noble gases, iodines, tritium, and other radionuclides were below TS limits.
Sampling and analysis were being performed in accordance with-instructions specified in Table 4.11-2
,
and the ODCM. The inspector verified that dose rates and cumulative
'
doses were calculated at the required frequency for the site boundary.
The inspector reviewed the circumstances involving a gaseous release on September 3, 1990. A release from Gas Decay Tank B was automatically terminated after 55 seconds, when radiation levels exceeded the setpoint of the-radiation monitor.
Licensee
- >
representatives theorized that radioactive gas of higher activity from one of'the other decay tanks, trapped in the manifold connecting the tanks, caused the termination.
The occurrence was the subject of Potential Reportable Event Report 90-050.
Licensee Event Report 90-13 was issued concerning this event and will be reviewed further by NRC.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
-Air Cleaning Systems
'
The inspector reviewed the licensee's testing and surveillance programs for plant air systems to determine compliance with the requirements of TSs 4.0.6.1, 4.7.6,-4.7.7, and 4.9.12.
l The inspector verified,that theilicensee maintained a program for testing airJcleaning. systems for the shield building -ventilation system, the-x control room. air conditioning system, the contro11ed' ventilation area system, and the fuel: handling building ventilation systems. The, inspector
' reviewed selected records of testing and verified that the licensee performed operability checks as' required. An offsite vendor performed
' '
'
inplace, testing and laboratory analyses for iodine removal efficiencies,to.
.
'
. verify that high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and charcoal filters
_
-performed in'~accordance with;TS. requirements. The inspector confirmed
,
that'the vendor was audited periodically by QA.
'No violations or deviations.were identified.
'"
si
,
i l
y q. a.2 <.
s
.
'
6-
!
6.
Instrumentation
'
The inspector reviewed the licc;mc's program of maintenance, calibration,
-
and checking of liquid and gasecus process and effluent monitors to determine compliance with TSs 3.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.1.
,
The inspector reviewed selected records and verified that channel checks,
,
channel calibrations, and channel functional tests were performed and that alarm / trip setpoints were determined in accordance with Sections 8.7 (for liquid monitors) and 8.13 (for gaseous monitors) of the ODCM. The inspector toured the control room and verified that the monitoring was properly displayed on the control room panels. Various monitors in the i
plant were also inspected to verify that the instrumentation was properly maintained.
The. inspector interviewed systems engineers in regard to the maintenance
history of radiation instrumentation.
Licensee representatives stated
.
that the particulate-iodine gas (PIG) monitors required considerable i
maintenance and the flow meters used on the PIGS were scheduled to be replaced by a more modern and reliable type.
The, inspector observed that internal components were being changed in some of the liquid monitors to reduce the amount of internal contamination and to lower the background radiation levels, and noted that temporary shielding was hung around the
!
circulating water discharge monitor, also to reduce background radiation
levels.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Semiannual Effluent Reports
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's semiannual radioactive effluent-release reports from January 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990, to determine compliance with TS 6.9.1.8.
The; inspector noted that the reports were submitted timely and followed the format recommended in RG 1.21.
In addition, the reports listed two cases of: instrument inoperability exceeding 30 days, two cases of. missed j
effluent samples, one unmonitored release (May 7, 1990), and several
~
<
'
potential secondary release paths which were being monitored. No changes to the 00CM were made during the reporting period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit' Meeting 1.
The inspector met with the resident inspector on September 13, 1990, and i
^
the licensee's-representatives denoted in paragraph I at the conclusion of'
the. inspection on September 14, 1990, and summarized the scope and e
. findings,0f the inspection as presented in this report.. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector during the inspection.
~