IR 05000397/1989002
| ML17285A232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1989 |
| From: | Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285A233 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8902100302 | |
| Download: ML17285A232 (12) | |
Text
'
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8902100302 DOC.DATE: 89/01/24 NOTARIZED-NO DOCKET FACIL:50-397 WPPSS Nuclear Project, Unit', Washington-Public Powe 05000397 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION YUHAS,G.P:
Region 5, Ofc of the Director RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SORENSON,G.C.
Washington Public Power Supply System SUBJECT:
Forwards Insp Rept 50-397/89-02 on 890109-13.No violations noted.
I DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IEOSD COPIES RECEIVED:LTR l ENCL g SIZE:
TITLE: Environ
& Radiological (50 DKT)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons S
NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA SAMWORTH,R INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11 NRR/DREP/EPB
NRR/PMAS/ILRB1 2 OGC/HDS2 RES RGN5 FILE
RGN4 MURRAY,B EXTERNAL: EG&G SIMPSON,F NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL
0 3.'"
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME
'D5 PD AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB 11 NRR/DREP/RPB
NU OGS~ABS CT G M-LE
RGN5 DRSS/RPB RGN2 COLLINS,D LPDR NSIC, COPIES
'TTR
=ENCL
1
1
1
1
2
'1
1
'
2
1
1
1 D
I NOZE IO ALL "RIES" RECIPZWIS PIZASE HELP US 1Q REZXKZ TASTE! ~CT THE DOCUMEh"Z 02K'ROL DESK RGB Pl-37" (EXT. 20079)
KO XZZMZNATE YOUR NAME FRY DIPHGZVTICN LISXS FOR DOC&KNl'S YOU DON'T NEED TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR
ENCL
~ ~
~
Docket No.
50-397 Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968 3000 George Washington Way-Richland, Washington 99352 Attention:
Mr.
G.
C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION OF WNP-2 This refers to the routine on site inspection conducted by Mr.
G. Cicotte of this office on January 9-13, 1989, of activities authorized by NRC License No.
NPF-21, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Cicotte with Mr. J.
Baker and other members of your 'staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified within the scope'f this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Grego+P.
Yuhas, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-397/89-02
REGION V==
GCicotte/dot HNorth 1/2</89 1/4 /89 GYuha 1/Ph
R UEST COPY ]
REQUEST COPY ] N g
T COPY ]
YES /
NO ES /
NO YES /
NO SEQ TO PDR YES /
NO
]
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.* 50-397/89-02 Docket No. 50-397 License No.
NPF-21 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968 Richland,.Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
Inspection at:
WNP-2 site, Benton County, Washington Inspection Conducted:
Januar 9-13, 1989 Inspector:
(~gQQ Approved by:
G.
R. Cicotte, Radiation Specialist H.
S. 'rth, Acting Chief Facilities Radiological Protection Section Date Signed
/ 5g pg Date Signed
~Sammar:
Ins ection durin eriod of Januar 9-13 1989 Re ort No. 50-397/89-02 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector of radioactive waste systems, open items, onsite follow-up and tours of the facility.
Inspection procedures 30703, 84750, 92701, and 83750 were addressed.
Results:
Of the three areas addressed, no violations were identified.
Significant improvement in housekeeping and contamination control techniques was observed (see paragraph 4).
The licensee's program appeared capable of meeting its safety objective DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
"J.
W. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager
"J.
D. Arbuckle, Compliance Engineer
"G.
D. Bouchey, Director Licensing and Assurance
- L. L. Bradford, Health Physics Supervisor T.
M. Brun, Plant Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer A. I. Davis, Senior Radiochemist
"L. J. Garvin, Manager Programs and Audits
- R.
G. Graybeal, Health Physics/Chemistry (HP/C) Manager
"D.
A. Kerlee, Principal QA Engineer
~D.
R.
Kobus, Plant QA Manager
. "C.
H.
McGilton, Manager Operational Assurance Programs
"S.
L. McKay, Operations Manager
"D. J. Pisarcik, Health Physics Support Supervisor
"S.
L. Washington, Principal Plant Technical Engineer
"Denotes those present at the exit interview held on January 13, 1989.
In addition to the individuals identified above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's and contractors'taff and personnel.
2.
Radioactive Waste S stems A.
Audits and A praisals Audit ¹88-440, Radiolo ical/Nonradiolo ical Environmental Effluent
~aionitorin, dated June 22, 1988, waa reviewed, including completed and committed corrective actions.
The audit had previously been discussed in Inspection Report (IR) 50-397/88-28, paragraph 4.A.
For this inspection, the gaseous and liquid effluent portions of the audit were reviewed.
It was conducted by personnel meeting the u'alit Assurance Pro ram Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.
The scope and frequency were adequate to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33, ualit Assurance'Pro ram Re uirements Responses to audit findings were timely and addressed the concerns of the auditors.
Although Audit ¹88-440 incorrectly stated that.no Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements had been missed, those surveillances which had been missed had already been addressed through the licensee's non-conformance report (NCR) system, and were reported to NRC in the January-to-June 1988 Semi-annual Effluent corrective action were expected to be corrected by a planned QA staff increase.
The inspector verified completion of representative corrective action ~Chan es No major changes to the licensee's equipment or program had been made since the last inspection of this program area.
Amendment 5 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual ODCM), dated April, 1988, as modified to address NRC concerns, was addressed in IRs 50-397/88-12 and 50-397/88-26.
Im lementation Representative radioactive effluent sampling, analysis, and release records were reviewed, spanning the previous 12 months.
Non-outage liquid batch releases had been reduced in number to a total of three for the second half of 1988, according to licensee records.
With respect to total activity released, radioactivity concentrations, doses to members of the public, and dose rates, no releases in excess of the limits of TS 3/4. 11, for liquid and gaseous effluents, were observed to have occurred.
Dose calculations in the licensee's procedures were consistent with the licensee's ODCM, RG 1. 109, and
CFR 50 Appendix I.
One potential unmonitored release path was identified and eliminated by the licensee (see IR 50-397/88-26)..
No other unmonitored release paths were identified.
NRC-identified concerns were addressed in the following IRs:
~Re ort Ro.
Conc'em 50-397/88-13 'ampling Capabilities 50-397/88-22 Processing of Radioactive Resins 50-397/88-33 Survei llances, Representative Sampling 50-397/88-41 Failure to Sample Primary Containment Atmosphere No additional significant concerns with respect to implementation of the licensee's program were identified.
All the concerns previously identified above were verified to have been resolved or to have had some corrective action taken at the time of the inspection.
Instrumentation Representative survei llances for the following sample racks and associated instruments were reviewed:
REA-SR-37 (Reactor Building (RB) Effluent Release Monitor)
TEA-SR-38 (Turbine Building (TB) Effluent Release Monitor)
WEA-SR-25 (Radwaste Building (RWB) Effluent Release Monitor)
FDR-SR-45 (Liquid Effluent Batch Release Monitor)
OG-RIS-601A&B (Main Condenser Off-Gas System Post-Treatment Monitor)
Although the licensee had several outstanding material deficiency problems on processing system components, the monitoring systems
were observed to be operable, and were being maintained in accordance with the requirements of TS 3/4.3.7. 11 and 3/4.3.7. 12.
E.
Air Cleanin S stems Air cleaning tests for the offgas iodine/noble gas adsorber and for the RB, TB, and RWB air handling units, including the Standby Gas Treatment system, were reviewed briefly.
No problems, other than the timeliness of control room ventilation system charcoal adsorber sampling, previously identified by the resident inspectors (see IR 50-397/88-40),
were observed.
High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter tests were determined to have been conducted in accordance with ANSI N510-1980, Testin of Nuclear Air Cleanin S stems.
Overall, the licensee's program appeared fully capable of meeting its'afety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
~Fo1 1 owu 50-397/88-36-01 (Closed This matter refers to potential inoperability of the RB effluent monitor; REA-SR-37, under accident conditions (see IR 50-397/88-36).
The licensee had committed to additional testing under more representative conditions.
The licensee'rovided the inspector with a report indicating that some amount of sample flow, approximately 0. 1 CFM, could be obtained under actual, as opposed to test, flow conditions.
Although the report of the test was not sufficiently specific to conclude that REA-SR-37 was capable of representative sample collection, and of quantification of effluent/sample ratio under low flow conditions, the operability of the accident monitoring and trip functions was confirmed.
This matter is considered closed (50-397/88-36-01 Closed).
50-397/88-36-02 Closed)
This item refers to a lack of specific evaluation and designation of radioactive material storage locations by the HP/C Manager.
Based on information provided by the Health Physics Support Supervisor, regarding formal evaluations of storage capacity and adequacy, this matter is considered resolved as an acceptable item.
While a facility which had been proposed had not yet been approved for construction, the amount of management involvement and the extent of the evaluation were sufficient to assure that storage areas will be specifically authorized in accordance with licensee procedure PPM 1. 12.2, Radioactive Waste Process Control Pro ram.
This matter is considered closed (50-397/88-36-02 Closed).
50-397/88-41-02 0 en This refers to a failure to take all the samples required by TS 4. 11.2. 1.
Oiscussion with the Manager, Regulatory Programs, revealed that the
licensee had, on January ll, 1988, received and distributed the associated Notice of Violation (NOV) and IR 50-397/88-41.
The inspector
.veri-fied that the licensee had; beginning on, January 7, 1989, begun to take all the samples to which they had committed on January 6, 1989.
Additionally, the licensee had initiated repairs to the containment air system, inleakage from which had been the cause of the frequent containment venting operations..
This matter will remain open pending the licensee's response to the NOV (50-397/88-41-02 Open).
50-397/88-41-03 0 en Areas.
The licensee had received and distributed IR 50-397/88-41 as in item 50-397/88-41-02, above.
The Plant Manager had issued a memorandum to all personnel stressing the necessity for compliance with safety rules and procedures, and the consequences of fai lure to do so.'his matter will remain open pending the licensee's response to th'e NOV (50-397/88-41-03 Open).
Tours of the RWB, RB, and TB were conducted.
Independent radiation surveys were performed with an NRC ion chamber survey instrument, Model
¹R0-2, Serial ¹008985, calibrated 10-26-88 and due for calibration 1-26-89.
Main condenser tube leakage on January 6,
1989 had caused conductivity to rise above acceptable limits.
The licensee stopped the leakage and was in the process of making preparations for restart at the time of the inspection.
The inspector accompanied the operator and Health Physics Technician (Hf'I) who conducted the startup primary containment entry (reactor vessel pressure approximately 400 psig).
A pre-job briefing addressed expected hazards and compensatory actions.
The entry was conducted expeditiously, and the personnel involved appeared knowledgeable regarding their assigned tasks.
No extraneous material was observed to have been left in the primary containment.
r Work activities in controlled areas were observed.
No significant examples of failure to conduct activities in accordance with good radiological practice or licensee procedures were observed.
In addition, the following observations were made:
Portable instruments available for use for air sampling and radiation detection were in current calibration.
Posted notices to workers were in accordance with 10 CFR 19. 11.
Posting and labeling were in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203.
The licensee had reduced the size of many contaminated areas.
Some previously contaminated areas had been released as not contaminate '
Access to work areas had been improved, with the exception of the 606'levation of the RB.
In general, housekeeping throughout the plant had improved significantly.
Although a large volume of radioactive waste awaiting compaction had collected on the 437'levation of the RMB, the licensee stated that this was. due to malfunction of the compactor, rather than a lack of personnel available to conduct the work.
The licensee stated that efforts to restore compactor operation would commence as soon as steady state plant operation had resumed.
No significant concerns were identified.
The inspector discussed the observed improvements with the licensee at the exit interview.
The licensee expressed an intent to continue to improve in the area of radiological controls.
The licensee's program appeared fully capable of meeting its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with those individuals, denoted in paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on January 13, 1988.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarize '