IR 05000397/1986038
| ML20212J257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1987 |
| From: | Cillis M, Russell J, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J195 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-86-38, IEIN-86-022, IEIN-86-023, IEIN-86-042, IEIN-86-043, IEIN-86-046, IEIN-86-086, IEIN-86-22, IEIN-86-23, IEIN-86-42, IEIN-86-43, IEIN-86-46, IEIN-86-86, NUDOCS 8701280119 | |
| Download: ML20212J257 (13) | |
Text
,
-
..
- .
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
REGION V
-
,
,
Report No. 50-397/86-38-DocketNo.'b0-397 License No. NPF-21 Licensee:' Washington Public Power Supp'ly System P. O. Box 968 Richland,' Washington 99352'
.
>
Facility Name: Washington. Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at: WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection Conducted:
November, 4-26 and December 15-19, 1986 Inspectors:
.
m i
/. p-P)
M. p is, 5(nio R~adiation Specialist Date Signed
'
m
/ 7-17
.
J )krssell, Radiation ~ Specialist, C.H.P.
Date Signed
L_
-
Ov/ F/
G. Y@asT Chief D6th Signed Faci 1Riks Radiological Protection Section Approved By: [
kSw
\\/ 7/97 bT
)'. Vuh4s', Chief Fal.e~ Signed Facili%.'g) Radiological Protection Section Summary:
Inspection on November 24-26 and December 15-19, 1986 (Report No. 50-397/86-38)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by regionally based inspectors of the licensee's gaseous waste systems, liquids and liquid wastes;
-facilities and equipment; including followup on IE Information Notices, enforcement items, Licensee Event Reports, and open items; and several tours of the licensee's facility.
Inspection modules 30703, 83724, 83726, 83727,
'84723, 84724, 92700, 92701, 92702, 92703, and 93702 were performed.
Results:
In the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
$h0b0$g, PDR t
-
'
..
.
'
t
.
DETAILS
-"
,
F 1)
Persons Contacted T
a)
WNP-2 Staff
-
+ C. Powers, Plant Manager
'
.
- J. Baker, Assistant Plant Madager
+*R. Graybeal, Health Physics / Chemistry Manager
+*D. Larson, Manager of Radiological Programs and. Instrument Calibration
'
.-
"
-
+*L. Bradford, Health Physics Supervisor
,,
+ L. Morrison, Chemistry Supervisor
'
V. Shockley, Health Physics / Radiochemistry Support x
+*E. R. Ray, I&C Supervisor D. Bainard, Principal Engineer
-
+*D. Feldman, Plant QA Manager '
- J. M. Graziani, Nuclear Safety Assurance Engineer
S. Lentho, Principal Engineer
,
- J. Arbuckle, Performance Engineer M. Kippes, Principal Engineer
_
W. Holzendorf, Supervisor, Maintenance Services c
- C. Van Hoff, Senior State Liaison T. Houchins, Audits Manager
+ A. David, Radiochemist
+ D. Bouchey, Support Services Manager
,
b)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
,
+*R. C. Barr, Resident Inspector
'
R. Dodds, Senior Resident Inspector c)
State of Washington, Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council
\\*
+*R. Bidstrip, Health Physicist
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on November 26, 1986.
+ Denotes those present at the exit interview on December 19, 1986.
In addition, the inspectors met with other memb'ers of the licensee's staff.
'
,
.
2)
Open Item Tracking System An attempt was made to use the licensee's open item and commitment tracking system to review the status of open items identified in paragraph 3, herein.
The inspectors were not able to effectively use the licensee's computer tracking system because the information in the systems was not current,
,
.
.
-
-
- -
-
-
__
-
'
t
.
u
,
,
)
a
"
.some. items could not be traced and the categories of trackable items-in the system were limited.
c t
The above observations were discussed ~with-the licensee's staff and at the exit' interview. -The staff informed the' inspectors that an evaluation of the system,was currently in progress.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
3)
FollowupofNiscellaneousItemsl Thestatus.ofNRCenforcementitehs,licenseeevaluationsofNRC Information Notices (ins) and Generic Letters, Licensee Event Reports, and inspector identified items was examined.
The examination disclosed the following:
,
,
'
A)
Enforcement Itcms 1) a(Closed) Enforcement Items 50-397/86-23-02: An examination was conducted and discussions were held with the, Supervisor of Maintenance Services to verify licensee corrective actions described in their timely response, dated August 20, 1986, for controlling, vacuum cleaners.
The examination also included a tour of the licensee's controlled tool crib and discussions with a' tool crib attendant.
Inspection report 50-397/86-23 identified that vacuum cleaners used for radiation protection purposes were not being maintained and controlled in accordance with licensee procedure PPM 10.1.20,. Vacuum Cleaner Control.
The licensee's corrective actions included:
Revision of PPM 10.1.20
Designation and tagging of vacuum cleaners as either wet or dry type Issue of vacuum cleaners from WNP-2 tool crib as controlled tools by trained personnel.
Instruction of all maintenance group and contractor personnel in the revised PPM 10.1.20.
During the tour of the tool crib, the inspectors noted that vacuum cleaners, numbers 16 and 17, were not appropriately tagged and that the tool crib attendant's knowledge of PPM 10.1.20 was marginal.
The above observations were brought to the attention of the Supervisor of Maintenance Services who took immediate action to tag the two vacuum cleaners.
The supervisor stated that the two vacuum cleaners had recently been returned to the tool crib from the decontamination facility.
He added that the units
.
~3
.
were wrapped in polyethylene bags while the other cleaners were-being tagged.
The supervisor added that t.ool crib attendants will_ba reinstructed in PPM'10.1.20 and that the additional training'of the staff would be documented.
The above observations were discussed at the exit interview.
The inspector stated that this item was closed in view of the immediate action taken by the Supervisor'of Maintenance Services (86-23-02).
2)
(Close'd) Enforcement Items 50-397/86-28-01, 50-397/86-28-02 and 50-397/86-28-03.
A similar examination was' conducted to verify corrective actions identified in the licensee's timely response, dated November 18, 1986, for controlling radiation and high radiation areas and for assuring appropriate surveys are :ade in accordance with the regulatory requirements prescribed in'10 CFR Part 20.201(b).
The examination, tours (see paragraph 4), discussions with the licensee's staff and a review of the proposed revision to licensee procedure PFM 11.2.24.1, Health Physics Work Routines, disclosed that licensee practices for controlling and maintaining such areas were consistent with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 10 CFR Parts 20.201, 10 CFR Part 20.203 and the Technical Specifications (TS), Section 6.12, High Radiation Areas.
The corrective actions for assuring compliance with the above requirements include:
~
More frequent plant _ tours and reviews of work areas by Health Physics Management, Foreman, and Technicians. The
'
results of Health Physics tours are documented and reviewed by Health Physics Management.
A change to PPM 11.2.24.1 specifying a requirement to survey and to check all occupied areas.
~
This matter is closed (86-28-01, 86-28-02 and 86-28-03).
3) -(Closed) Enforcement item 50-397/86-28-04.
This examination included verification of corrective actions prescribed in the same response as that to (1) and (2) above, for assuring that area, portable and airborne radiation monitoring equipment is
- properly controlled, calibrated and adjusted at specified periods to maintain its accuracy as required by Regulatory Guide 1.33 pursuant to TS, Section 6.8.1.
The corrective actions described in the licensee's response were discussed with the I&C Supervisor and Health Physics / Chemistry Manager.
Corrective actions included:
!
.
9-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -. _
.
.
Health Physics personnel have assumed the responsibility via the licensee's Scheduled Maintenance System (SMS)
Tracking Program, to assure that such equipment'is either within current calibration or removed from service prior to'the' calibration due date.
Health Physics personnel have been instructed to tag instruments _"out of service" until they can.be removed.
. Health Physics personnel verified that the SMS and
'
Material' Equipment List (MEL) for health physics equipment were current.
Responsibility for input of the SMS and MEL data into the licensee's accountability system for health physics equipment has been assumed solely by the Health Physics staff.
The I&C-supervisor informed the inspectors that he was still in
'
the process of reviewing Inspection Report 50-397/86-28 and the
_
Quality Assurance report referenced in the inspection report to verify that corrective actions for preventing a recurrence of this ~' item are ' adequate. This matter is closed (86-28-04).
B)
' Inspector Identified Open Items 1)
,(Closed) Open Items 50-397/86-14-03 and 50-397/86-14-04.
These items were associated with the spread of contamination from the 606' level refueling cavity to the 572', 548', 522', 501' and
.
~471' levels of the reactor building.
The cause for the spread of contamination was investigated by the licensee's radiation protection staff pursuant to procedures HPD 3.1.19 and PPM
,
11.2.19.1.
An examination of the licensee's investigation disclosed that the problem was'two fold.
A health physics technician allowed maintenance workers to use a dust broom to clean highly contaminated surfaces in the refueling cavity and this was complicated by an inbalanced reactor building ventilation system.
The licensee's staff was not aware of the inbalanced ventilation Fyrtem.
t Corrective actions taken by the licensee's staff included:
Health physics personnel were instructed that dust brooms (foxtails) should not be used in high contamination areas.
The ventilation system was properly balanced and steps were taken to assure balancing is maintained by performing
'
checks prior to future refuelings.
- Steps were being taken to assure that HEPA vacuums are made available during work evolutions.
L i
-
_
-
.
5
,
.
i
- f The licensee's evaluation of this matter was documented on radiological occurrence report number 2-86-18, dated October 18, 1986.
This matter is closed (86-14-03 and 86-14-04).
2)
(0 pen) Open Item 50-397/86-14-06.
Inspection Report
50-397/86-14 identified that loose surface contamination was
spread via the equipment hatchway located between the 437' and
467' level of the Radwaste Building.
The spread occurred after
a recirculation pump was transferred into the decontamination
room via the equipment hatchway.
The cause for the spread was attributed to a poor seal (i.e.
tape) used to cover the gap in the hatchway joint.
The licensee's investigation concluded that the tape sealed
poly cover installed over the hatchway had been poorly
installed.
The inspectors were informed that the door had been
resealed and covered with herculite.
The licensee's staff
added that an evaluation is still underway to develop a
permanent seal for the equipment hatchway.
The inspectors
informed the licensee that this item would be examined during a
subsequent inspection (86-14-06).
?)
(Closed) Open Item 84-CS-08.
This item was related to a
potential ALARA problem with the routing of SP-1, Reactor
Coolant Sample (RCS) line, through non-radiation zones from the
501' level of the Reactor Building to a sample room on the 441'
level of the Turbine Building.
This item was brought to the
licensee's attention through the NRC's preoperational
inspection program.
From discussions held with the licensee's staff and by
personnel observations, the inspectors verified that the SP-1
sample line had-been rerouted to the sample room located on the
467' level of the Radwaste Building, thereby eliminating the
problem.
This matter is closed (84-CS-08).
4)
(Closed) Open Item 84-CS-09.
Technical Specifications, Section 4.11.1.1.1, requires that monthly and quarterly composite
samples of liquid releases be retained for analysis.
Open item
84-CS-09 identified that composite samples were missed on some
occasions.
The licensee's corrective actions for assuring that their
composite sampling program is consistent with the Technical
Specifications'was examined.
Discussions with the Chemistry
Supervisor disclosed that procedure PPM 7.4.11.1.1.1,
Determination of Radioactivity in Radioactive Liquid Waste, was
revised.
The revision provides for retaining separate monthly
and quarterly samples.
Previously, only one sample was taken
and then split for the required composite sample.
The split
was not made on several occasions.
-
__
t
.
The inspector concluded that the change to PPM 7.4.11.1.1.1 was
adequate. This item is closed (84-CS-09).
5)
(Closed) Open Item 84-GY-01. WNP-2 letter to the NRC, SN
G02-83-1152, dated December 13, 1983, identified that sealants
(RTV silicone) would be used to complete the operational
testing of a Standby Gas Treatment system charcoal filter bed.
The letter stated that the reason for using the sealants was to
. fill the gaps created by welding the units perforated plates
used to contain the activated charcoal bed..The licensee's
report stated that the wolding had warped the plates.
Subsequent discussions with the NRC disclosed that the sealants
used were not as recommended in ANSI N509, Nuclear Power Plant
Air Cleaning Units, and< ANSI N510, Testing of Air Cleaning
Units.
Discussions held with the license.'s staff and a review o'f
l_icensee records revealed that the RTV sealant was removed, the
warped plates were repaired and the system was successfully
tested in accordance with ANSI N510.
This matter is closed
.(84-GY-01).
6)
(Closed) Open Item 50-397/86-14-05.
This item concerned the
health physics controls established for inspecting the "B"
recirculation pump during the recent refueling outage.
The licensee: performed a ' detailed evaluation of the health
physi.cs practices that'were implemented during the work.
The
evaluation, documented ~on WNP-2 interoffice memorandum dated
November 6, 1986, and Radiological Occurrence report, serial
number Z-86-023, was reviewed by the inspector.
,
The inspector concluded that the licensee's evaluation was
thorough and had addressed the concerns discussed in the
inspection report.
The licensee's corrective actions planned
for similar work appeared to be adequate.
This matter is
closed (86-14-05).
7)
(Closed) Open Item 85-CS-02.
An examination was conducted to
determine if the estimated error associated with the-
measurement of radioactive materials in effluents as determined
by the licensee was consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.21,
Measuring, Evaluating...in Liquid and Gaseous
Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,
Paragraph C.11.(a).
Discussions with the Radiochemist and a review of a WNP-2
l
memorandum dated December 22, 1986, disclosed that the
licensee's error determinations are consistent with R.G. 1.21.
The licensee uses a two-sigma counting error in lieu of the
one-sigma recommended by R.G. 1.21.
This matter is closed
-
(85-CS-02).
-
3 -..
'
.
,
C)
' Licensee Event Report (LER)
~
(Closed) LER 85-58 (85-58-LO), dated' November 13, 1985, describes an
event in which the Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) Fan 182 stopped with
no annunciation in the control room and the backup fan failed to
start. This resulted in an uncontrolled release of primary
containment atmosphere to the secondary containment and,
subsequently, to the environment without treatment as required by
Technical Specifications.
Immediate corrective actions were taken to terminate the purge,
restart SGT-FN-182, and align the secondary containment purge.
Health physics personnel were contacted to perform surveys to
determine the extent of any possible releases. No abnormal levels
were encountered.
An investigation was conducted by the licensee's
engineering staff including troubleshooting of the systems control
circuitry.
A review of the LER, discus:, ions with the staff, a review of plant
Deficiency Report /Nonconformance Report (NCR 286-0348) dated August
15, 1986, and Maintenance Work Requests (MWR's) related to this
subject, identified.that the system relays were not wired per
drawing E-545, Sheet #3.
The engineering staff stated that this
would not have prevented the lead SGT fan from starting due to a
fail safe Z signal or manual start. -The engineers added that this
condition would not have prevented the lag SGT fan from sta'rting
after a fail safe Z signal condition and a lead fan failure.
The relay was subsequently wired in accordance with drawing E-545.
No repeat of the problem identified in the LER has occurred since
the relay was rewired.
This matter is closed (85-58-LO).
D)
Information Notices
Region V Inspection Report 50-397/86-10, paragraph 4, identifies the
-licens'ee's program for handling Information Notices (ins).
The
inspection report also identified that' improvements in timely IN
,
evaluation were'needed.
The inspectors determined the status of IN 86-22, 86-23, 86-42,
86-43, 86-46 and 86-86.
Licensee evaluations.of ins 86-22 and 86-86 were determined to be
consistent with the recommendations identified in the respective IN.
Licensee evaluations of the remaining ins were incomplete.
The
<
evaluation of IN 86-42 had not started even though it had been-
received by the licensee in June 1986.
Only partial evaluations of
IN 86-23, 86-43 and 86-46 have been completed even though the
licensee's Operating Experience Review (0ER) system had assigned an
evaluation completion date of November 21, 1986.
The licensee's Nuclear Safety Assurance Group (NSAG) engineer
responsible for assigning ins to the staff for evaluation informed
.
'
the inspectors that he intended to complete the evaluation of these
ins but had not had sufficient time to do so.
Further discussions with the NSAG engineer revealed that procedure
1.10.4, External Operating Experience Review, was being revised to
include provisions for assuring that evaluations of ins are more
timely.
The inspectors brought the above observations to the licensee's
attention at the exit interview.
The concern identified in
Inspection Report 50-397/86-10 for more timely evaluations of ins
was reiterated.
IN 86-22 and 86-86 are closed.
IN 86-23, 86-42,
86-43 and 86-46 are open.
E)
Generic Letters
(Closed) 85-08-R1 (Generic Letter 85-08, Revision 1).
Discussions
held with the Manager of Radiological Programs disclosed that the
licensee plans to implement the recommendations of Generic Letter 85-08, Rev. 1.
Implementation is expected to be complete by March
1, 1987.
This matter is closed (85-08-R1).
4)
Facility Tour
Several tours of the licensee's facilities were conducted by the NRC
inspectors =during the inspection period.
Independent radiation
measurements were performed by the inspectors with an Eberline, Model
R0-2 ion chamber survey ' meter, Serial No. 2694, due for calibration on
January 16, 1987.
The following observations were made:
A)'
The licensee's posting and labeling practices were consistent with
10 CFR Part 20.203, Caution Signs, Labels, Signals and Controls, and
10 CFR Part-19.11,' Posting of Notices to Workers.
Current copies
(i.e. 1985) of Form NRC-3 were provided to the licensee's staff to
replace the 1984 editions that were observed during the tour.
B)
A general improvement in housekeeping was noted in the areas toured.
C)
Observed radiation protection practices appeared to be consistent
with ALARA as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.1(c), Purpose.
D)
The inspcctors noted several Nuclear Measurement Corporation (NMC)
constant air monitors, located in the reactor building, did not
display any calibration labels.
The NMC units are routinely calibrated in accordance with licensee
procedures PPM 12.13.20, In Plant Air Particulate Monitor
Calibration and PPM 12.13.21, Calibration of Iodine Monitor NMC-54M.
A review of the procedures disclosed instructions are provided for
performing electronic and isotopic calibrations but no instructions
are included for calibrating the units flow rate measurement device
as recommended by Regulatory Guide 8.25, Calibration and Error
.
'
.
,
.
Limits of Air Sampling Instruments for Total Volume of Air Sampled.
The.I&C supervisor informed the inspectors that the flow rate
measurement devices are' calibrated by his staff at the same time the
isotopic calibration is performed.
The I&C supervisor stated that
procedures would be developed to include requirements for assuring
the flow rate measurement devices are calibrated.
The above observations were brought to the licensee's attention at
the exit interview.
The inspectors informed the licensee that this
item would be examined during a subsequent inspection (86-38-01).
E)
Excluding item 0 above, all other portable instruments used for air
sampling and radiation detection were in current calibration.
F)
The inspectors noted numerous process and effluent monitor racks had
no valve labels and some, whose valves had been labeled, from which
the labels had fallen.
Discussions with the licensee staff revealed
that a program to tag / label panels and instruments in the plant had
been instituted several years previously and that this program had
not yet been completed.
The inspectors noted to the staff that more
aggressive pursuit of this program's completion could eliminate the
,
potential for problems due to valve misalignments.
This observation was brought to licensee management attention at the
exit interview.
The inspectors informed the licensee that this item
would be examined during a subsequent inspection (86-38-02).
G)
During a tour of the Radwaste Building, the inspectors noted that
the building ventilation exhaust radiation monitor panel, WEA-SR-25,
had a low flow alarm.
The inspectors traced the sample lines and
found the cause to be an air leak in the particulate and iodine
sample cartridge. When the inspectors informed the licensee staff
of the problem, immediate action to replace and properly align the
cartridge eliminated the leak and the low flow alarm.
The licensee's staff informed the inspectors that there have
previously been leakage problems with the plant's particulate and
iodine sample cartridges, that the cartridges were very difficult to
remove and install and that the staff had, in previous years,
submitted a design change request on which no action had yet been
taken.
The inspectors noted that such problems can result in lost
or inaccurate sampling data from TS instrumentation.
This
observation was brought to the licensee's attention during the
inspection and at the exit interview.
The inspectors informed the
licensee that this item would be examined during a subsequent
inspection (86-38-03).
5)
Facilities and Equipment
A discussion was held with the Health Physics Support Supervisor to
determine whether any changes, additions or improvements of facilities
and equipment used for the radiation protection program were being
considered.
The supervisor informed the inspector that there were no
plans for adding to or modifying existing facilities.
The supervisor
-
p
-
-
.,
,
,
. -
3,
.
.
,
,
f*
loi
,'
_
,...
,
,
,
N
,y
a
j'
i
-,..
g
.,
^
c
said:some plans for improving the electro polisher decontamination system-
>
.
~-would be accomplished.
~
'
"
u-
,
'
"
=The supervisor.added that a freon decontamination unit and a_ waste b'ag
~
'
"
_
, monitoring system'had been approved for purchase and-that,an evaluation
- of.available freon decontamination' units and of waste, bag monitoring
' systems Would'be accomplished before they are' purchased.
,
,
['
-
No. violations ~or deviations were-identified.
-
6)
. Liquids and Liquid Wastes
,
_
-A)
Audits' -
.
s-
.
.
Licensee audits. conducted in 1985 and'1986 pursuant to Technical
' '
-Specifications, Section 6.5.-2.8, Audits,-were. examined.
'
'
,
.
.
.
Audit report 85-327 addressed Technical Specification requirements
,
'
-,
.
'in the area ~of Radioactive Effluent Monitoring, Radiological.
'
M'
Environmental Monitoring Program and the Offsite Dose Calculation
'
Manual. The audit identified five deficiencies and seven concerns.
_
No Lviolations of theiregulatory requirements were identified.
All
'
'
- deficiencies'and concerns were resolved in a timely manner.
,
'
^
/
Audit report 86-362 a'ddressed the licensee's Radiological Effluenti
Monitoring ~and the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Prog' ram.. A
<
' total of six deficiencies and twelve concerns were identified.
No
-
violations or deviations of the regulatory requirements.were
1 identifi.ed._ Approximately,90% of the deficiencies and concerns have
~
ebeen resolved.-
-"
. '
+
x '_,
a
,,
The inspector, concluded'th'at the audits were thorough and well-
'
,
.
Jdocumented. -
.
,
'
Novioiati
drdeviationswereidentified.
'
'
e
.
B).
Instrument 5 tion
'
.[,;
(,
F Rabioactivi fliquid effluent. monitoring instrumentation shown in ~.
'
Table 3.3.7.11-1.of,the Technical Specifications (TS) and in Table
e
11.'5-2'of the' Final Safety' Analysis Report (FSAR) was discussed with
~
'-
the Radiati.on Protec, tion and I&C staffs.
'
- e:
,
!
,-ThelinstrumentationidentifiedintheTSandFSARwasinspected
during the tour (see" paragraph 4) of the licensee!s facility.
t-
-
Additionally, related calibration records, surveillance procedures
and surveillance records for 1985 and 1986 were examined.
-
- s
,
I
^
iThe examination disclosed that the channel checks, channel
calibrations,-source checks and channel functional, tests prescribed
in Table.4.3.7.11-1 of the TS were performed at the frequencies
"
-
specified.
.
%
L
!
-
<
s
b
'
,
,
..,c
v
"
.
E
The inspector also verified that the method for. process ~and effluent
monitor setpoint determinations was established in accordance with
g
~ the 0.ffsite Dose Calculation, Manual and plant procedures.
,
No' violations or deviations were' identified.
.C)
Reactor' Coolant System - Chemistry
Surveillance procedures, established for assuring the chemistry of
the reactor coolant is maintained within the limits specified in
Table 3.4.4-1 of the TS,.were reviewed.
Selected surveillance
records were also reviewed.
The' inspector verified that the reactor coolant chloride,
conductivity and pH levels for the period of 1985 through 1986 were
maintained within the TS limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
D)
Reactor Coolant - Specific Activity
l
The inspector discussed TS, Section 3/4.4.5, with the Chemistry
Supervisor and examined surveillance procedures and records
,
associated with the. licensee's primary coolant specific activity
l
[
sampling and analysis program.
Measurements and analyses were performed for gross beta and gamma
activity, Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 concentration, E-Bar
determination', isotopic analyses for iodine and isotopic analyses of
~
off gas.
The values were within the limits specified in the TS and
i
licensee procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7)
Gaseous Waste Systems
A)
Audits
See Paragraph 6. of this report.
B)
. Changes
The inspectors reviewed current gaseous waste processing and
sampling equipment and procedures for both normal and emergency use.
No equipment changes were identified.
Procedure changes identified
were evaluated as to their safety significance and~did not appear to
constitute unreviewed safety questions.
Changes appeared to be
appropriately documented and reviewed.
~
No violations or deviations were identified.
~ C)'
Effluents
.
-
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-
_
>
I
'
^
'
-
_
The inspectors examined the monthly and quarterly gaseous waste.
release reports, off-site dose. calculations for 1986 and the January
,'
to June 1986 Semiannual Effluent Release Report.
The inspectors
also examined software input precedures, computer code validation
practices, and code data manipulations for the licensee's
- meteorological and gaseous effluent dose estimation codes,- X0QD0Q
and GASPAR, respectively.
Discussions with the licensee staff indicated a difference in
interpret 6 tion of the TS 3/4.11.1 limits from that held by the NRC.
The staff, when questioned, interpreted,these as cumulative dose
rate limits which could be summed over extended periods rather than
instantaneous limits.
An examination of licensee instrument
setpoints and procedures revealed no improper instrument settings
had resulted from this misinterpretation but control' room
procedures, specifically PPM 4.602.A5-3.5,'did not provide
sufficient information for the staff to determine what actions-and
reports were_necessary when a plant stack high radiation alarm
annunciated and the potential for exceeding the TS limits existed.
The inspectors brought the above observations to the licensee's
attention at the exit interview.
The inspectors informed the
licensee that this item would be examined during a subsequcnt
inspection (86-38-04).
D)
Instrumentation
Gaseous waste monitoring instrumentation identified in Table 4.11-2
of the TS and in Table 11.5-1 of the FSAR was discussed with the
licensee and inspected during the tour.
Calibration records,
setpoint determination procedures and records, and surveillance
procedures and records were examined.
The calibrations and
surveillances appear to be performed at the required frequencies and
~
the procedures seemed adequate to accomplish the requirements of the
TS.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
E)
Air Cleaning Systems
Records of in place HEPA filter and. iodine adsorber testing were
reviewed and procedures for these were discussed with the licensee
staff.
Records for required surveillances were also examined.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8)
Exit-Interview
t
The inspectors met with the individuals denoted in paragraph 1 at the
'
conclusion of the inspection on November 26 and December 19, 1986.
The
scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The licensee wa:
informed that no violations or deviations had been identified.
-