IR 05000397/1992016
| ML17289A746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1992 |
| From: | Louis Carson, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17289A745 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-92-16, NUDOCS 9207270125 | |
| Download: ML17289A746 (10) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.:
50-397)'92-16 License No.:
NPF-21 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System (MPPSS)
P.O.
Box 968 3000 George Mashington May Richland, MA 99352 Facility name:
Mashington Nuclear Project No.
Inspection at:
MNP-2 Site, Benton County, Mashington Inspection conducted:
June 15-19, 1992 Inspected by:
arson c or a
>a )on pecla 1s agne Approved by:
~Summer:
Areas Ins ected:
am
.
e e,
c r Radiological I r tection Branch
g z
a sgne This routine unannounced inspection covered the licensee's radiation protection activities during the seventh refueling outage (R-7) in the areas of radioactive waste management.
This inspection
)ncluded solid radwaste (SRM)
management liquid radwaste (LRM) management, and the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
Inspection procedures 84750, and 86750 were used.
Results:
No violations were identified in the two areas addressed.
The licensee's programs appeared fully capable of meeting its safety objectives.
9207270125 920709 PDR ADQCK 05000397
Persons Contacted:
Licensee DETAILS
~V. Parrish, Assistant Director of Operations.
"J. Baker Plant Manager
"L. Harrowed Assistant, Plant Manaqer
"D. Pisarcik, Health Physics (HP)7Chemistry Manager H. Honopoli, Support Services Manager
."G. Sorensen Regulatory Programs Manager
~D. Larson, emergency Preparedness Manager
~S. Mashington, Nuclear Safety Engineering Manager
~D. Malker, Health 8 Safety Fire Protection Manager
"M. Davison, Plant equality Assurance Manager L. Bradford HP/ALARA Planning Supervisor
"R. James, A4RA Coordinator
~R. Mardlow, Radiological Services Super visor L. Pitchard HP Operations Supervisor
- C. Madden, (uality Assurance Engineer (gAE)
"P. MacBeth Radwaste Supervisor
~L. Hayne, Ecting HP Supervisor
~C.
Leon MNP-2 Operations Event Assessment Engineer M. Reis, Plant Engineering/Compliance Supervisor
"S.
Kim, ALARA Engineer (~)
Denotes personnel who attended the exit meeting held on June
1992.
In addition to those individuals listed above, the inspector met and held discussions with other licensee personnel.
NRC R.
Neese, Acting Resident Inspector D. Corporandy, Reactor Inspector, Region V
~F11 (92701)
Item 50-397/91-40-02 (Closed):
This item involved the results of the licensee s
)qua ra was e
RW) split sample analysis that was sent to the NRC contract laboratory, Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), Department of Energy.
The LRW sample was analyzed for Sr-89/90, Fe-55, H-3, and gross beta activity by RESL and the licensee.
The RESL results demonstrated the'icensee's ability to sample and measure radioactivity.
The inspectors had no further concerns in this matter.
Item 50-397/IN-91-35 (Closed):
The inspector verified that the licensee a
receive
, revaewe
, an aken action on Information Notice 91-35,
"Labeling Requirements for Transporting Multi-Hazard Radioactive Materials."
Item 50-397/IN-91-40 (Closed):
The inspector verified that the licensee a
receive
, revsewe
, an aken action on Information Notice 91-40,
"Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Possibility for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release to the Environment."
Item 50-397/92-13-03 0 en):
This item involved the Radiological nvsronmen a
on> orang EHP) group's report that the plant storm drain, pond had State of Washington reportable levels of iodine-131, cerium-141, and cobalt-60; only the iodine-l31 met the NRC reportable level.
The licensee held meetings with officials of the Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology, in June 1992.
The licensee will issue a letter to the State on storm drain pond discharge operations.
The licensee resumed normal storm drain pond discharges, subsequent to their initial investigation.
The licensee wants to be sure that the radioactivity levels reported were statistically valid.
The concentration of iodine-131 in two storm drain samples analyzed in the second quarter of 1992 were 12.6 and 21.1 picoCuries/liter (pCi/1). This would make the storm drain have an average second quarter concentration of 3.8 pCi'/1.
The NRC reporting level in Technical Specification (TS) 6.3.1.1, Table-2, is 2.0 e
Ci/1, when averaged over a quarter year.
The inspector toured, with icensee staff, the storm drain pond area and the Turbine Building sumps that discharges to the pond.
The REMP group was continuing to evaluate storm drain pond samples.
This item will be reviewed ih a future inspection.
3.
Radioactive Waste Treatment Effluent and Environmental Honitorin (84750)
a.
Audits
A raisals The inspector reviewed the licensee's quality assurance activities in the areas of LRW management and REHP for compliance with Technical Specifications (TS) 6. 5.2.8, and TS 6.8. 1.
The inspector reviewed the following:
Audit 91-586
"WNP-2 Radwaste Process Control Program," dated January 15, 4992.
Audit 91-555,
"WNP-2 Radiological/Nonradiol ogical Environmental and Effluent Monitoring," dated October 28, 1991.
Audit 92-561,
"WNP-2 Audit of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Vendor Services" dated April 13, 1992.
The inspectors had previously reviewed the preliminary results of Audits91-555 and 9l-586 while they, were in draft.
gA's final audit reports adequately identified deficiencies, and afforded the licensee opportunities to take corrective actions.
Audit 92-561 was conducted to verify that the licensee's primary REHP vendor was in compliance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4. 15, equality Assurance Program for Effluent Contro'l and Environmental Monitoring."
The inspector noted that the licensee's auditors for the vendor audit were well qualified for the task.
The audit. scope followed the context of RG 4.15, and was-performance based.
The licensee's audit was thorough, and critical of the vendor's program for tritium analysis and other proqrammatic weaknesses.
The licensee wrote a
Hanagement Corrective Action Report (MCAR) to the vendor in April
~
'
1992.
The inspector reviewed the vendor's May 1992 response to the MCAR in which they committed to enhancing their gA controls of samples.
The inspector concluded that this aspect of'the licensee's REMP gA oversight was adequate.
Chan es in Radwaste S stem Desi n and 0 eration During an outdoor tour,'n June 15, 1992 the inspector noticed that water was draining into a storm drain, through a hose, at the sump located in the licensee's low specific activ)ty (LSA) and radioactive material (RAM) storage pad area.
The inspector discussed this drainage operation with LRW personnel who explained that plant pr'ocedure (PPH) 1.11.12,
"Removal of Liquids from the RCA," allowed
.
such activ>ties.
The intent of this procedure was to mit>gate the likelihood of an unintentional release of radioactive and hazardous liquid waste from WNP-2.
PPM 1.11. 12 required that all liquids being considered for release from the WNP-2 site to be analyzed 1n accordance with the "Release of Liquids I ROL]" data form.
The ROL form determined the method of analysis to be performed, and prescribed disposal directions for that liquid.
The inspector reviewed the ROL analysis for the above mentioned LSA/RAN pad to.
storm drain release, and the results demonstrated that the liquid was free of radioisotopes or hazardous constituents.
The inspector reviewed all 125 WNP-2 ROLs from February 25 to June.15, 1992.
Host of the materials analyzed on the ROLs consisted of mop water, oil, and solvents.
Liquids were, generally, released or treated by
. deionization.
However, some ROLs required storing liquids because of high levels of total organic carbons (TOCs),
and some solvents had
.
enough radioactivity to be classified as mixed waste.
The inspector concluded that this aspect of the lic'ensee's LRW program was adequate.
~Rd t
St The inspector toured the licensee's mixed waste storage area, and reviewed the Mixed Waste Logbook.
The licensee had 44 barrels of mixed waste stored in the Radwaste Building Truckbay.
The licensee was continuing its efforts to enhance the mixed waste program.
The licensee was still recovering from a series of inadvertent spills of liquids with high levels of TOCs, which disrupted LRW operations in May and June of this year.
The LRW system was not designed to process large amounts of organic materials such as oil, solvents, and glycol, and the licensee had yet to determine a method for processing this TOC LRW.
The inspector toured the licensee's LRW storage tank area on 437 foot basement elevation of the Radwaste Building.
This area had approximately 150 barrels f55 gallon drums],
8520 gallons of high TOC LRW in temporary storage.
Most of these TOC barrels contained LRW with 800 parts per million glycol, approximately 1700 gallons of glyco The inspector reviewed the LRW storage and discharge reports for April, May, and, June 1992.
The licensee discharged two LRW tanks in April, 29,700 gallons; twenty-four LRW tanks, 358,000 gallons in May; and as 'of mid June twenty-one LRW tanks, 294,100 gallons.
The tota3.
radioactivity released'for these three periods was 2.7 Curies, and the total dose -to the general public as a result of these releases were well under the licensee's limit.
The inspector noted that the licensee's LRW release volume was comparable to May 1991 when the R-6 outage was in progress.
The inspector had no radiological concerns with this aspect of the licensee's LRW program.
The licensee adequately accomplished its LRW safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Solid Radioactive Waste Mana ement and Trans ortation of Radioactive aterza The inspector examined SRW and RAM activities associated with the licensee's seventh refueling outage (R-7).
The inspector examined SRW and RAM activities conducted by WNP-2 and by corporate radiological support services (CRSS).
Additionally, the inspector reviewed SRW and RAM program audits, changes, and training.
a ~
Audits 8 Surveillances Discussions were held with the WNP-2 plant quality assurance (QA)
personnel responsible for performing QA audits and QA surveillance reports (QASR) on the licensee's SRW and RAM programs."
The inspector reviewed the following:
Audit 91-586, 'NP-2 Radwaste Process Control Program," dated January 15, 1992 QASR 2-91-023,
"Radwaste Minimization," dated September 26, 1991 QASR 2-91-075,
"IEB 79-19," September 19, 1991 These QASRs and audit had adequate depth and scope.
The QASRs and audit identified a number of quality deficient findings and observations.
Some of the deficiencies identified by QA were programmatic and considered repeat findings.
The inspector-had no regulatory concerns with the licensee's QA activities and findings.
Trainin
ualifications The inspector reviewed training and qualification records of radwaste, health physics, CRSS, and'uality control (QC) personnel.
The licensee specified which personnel were qualified to coordinate and review RAM/SRW shipping activities.
These individuals were required to complete training in one of the following courses:
RADMAN Shipping/Receiving of RAM Packaging Transport/Disposal of SRW/RAM NRC/DOT Regulations for Packaging 6 Shipping Radwaste The licensee's training records identified 24 individuals, in five work groups who completed one of the above courses within the last year.
The inspector noted that only one QC person had taken any of the SRW/RAM training offered.
QASR finding 291-075-1 identified a weakness in the licensee's QA/QC training in SRW/RAM, and that changes to this aspect of QA/QC training would be implemented by August 1992.
The inspector had no further concerns in this area.
~Chan es The licensee used RADMAN, a computerized management program, for preparing SRW/RAM shipping and packaging records.
The inspector examined the licensee s computer software verification and validation (V&V) process.
The licensee had several methods to VRV the RADMAN, program.
The licensee's plant procedure (PPM) 1.12.2,
"Radioactive Waste Process Control Program," required the licensee to annually V&V computer software such as RADMAN.
The licensee performs.the RADMAN VSV after inputing the changes from the periodic SRW wastestream and scaling factor analysis.
The inspector examined the results of a March 1992 dry active waste (DAW) RADMAN VSV computer code comparison versus that of MICROSHIELD.
The results of the RADMAN versus MICROSHIELD comparison were acceptable to the licensee.
To guard against RADMAN computer code changes, the licensee used standardized data models to VRV the RADMAN system, and'hey performed at least one hand calculation during each SRW shipment preparation.
The inspector had no concerns in this area.
RAM/SRW Shi ments The inspector reviewed records from the sixteen RAM and SRW shipments that had taken place during the R-7 outage.
Those RAM/SRW shipments consisted of dewatered resins, DAW for supercompaction, equipment shipped as RAM, 10 CFR 61 scaling samples.
Eight of the shipments were SRW for burial to Washington State Iicensed Low-Ievel Radioactive Disposal Facility (LLRDF).
The SRW shipments made to the LLRDF consisted of the following:
Four SRW shipment were low specific activity (LSA) type A (USA/9208/B) packages, NUPAC Model No.10-142.
The disposal containers were Model No. EL-142, polyethylene high integrity containers (Poly-HICs).
Three SRW shipments were LSA greater than type A (USA/9208/B)
packages, NUPAC Model No.10-142.
The disposal containers were Model No. EL-142, Poly-HIC One SRW shipment was an LSA type A, wet sludges solidified in accordance with procedures, and shipped in thirty 17H drums.
The inspector noted that the shipment packages included copies of shipping cask and disposal container certificate of compliance, vendor licenses or permits.
The inspector examined RAM shipment records of contractor equipment that the licensee received and transported in support of R-7 outage activities, such as the chemical decontamination, reactor vessel nozzle flushes, control rod drive rework, and the inservice inspection.
The inspector examined shipment records of RAM packages sent to waste processors and contractors of licensed activities. The.
licensee maintained copies of all RAM records associated the receipt and transport of the contractor equipment including radiological surveys, shipment bill of ladings, waste manifest, and receipt/transport acknowledgments.
The inspector verified that the RAM was shipped and handled by authorized
CFR 50 licensees, and the RAM receipts and shipments were made in accordance with procedures.
The inspector examined gC, procedural adherence, documentation, health physics, and radwaste personnel controls associated with the RAM/SRW shipments.
There were no reports filed relating to problems with radiological surveys, vehicle loading, blocking/bracing; vehicle placarding, or sole us'e driver instructions.
The inspector found no significant problems in any of the shipment packages examined.
The inspector observed licensee personnel at the LSA/RAM pad survey and preparing LSA SRW containers for packaging and shipping to the LLRDF.
The inspector observed SRW handlers sort and survey RAM at the CRSS laundry facility and the basement of the Radwaste Building.
The inspector performed independent surveys of LSA/RAM containers and storage area with an Eberline R02, ionization chamber, NRC Serial No.
009154, due for calibration on July 28, 1992.
The inspector found that the licensee's performance in these areas was adequate.
The licensee appears to have adequately resolved previous NRC and State of Washington safety concerns regarding their RAM/SRW program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit The inspector met with the licensee representatives identified in Section 1 of this report on June 19, 1992.
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
No violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identified.-