IR 05000424/1988055
| ML20235K644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1989 |
| From: | Kahle J, Stoddart P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K628 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-88-55, 50-425-88-71, NUDOCS 8902270192 | |
| Download: ML20235K644 (12) | |
Text
7-
_
. ___ ___ __ - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ -
'
'
'
7,'
.
>>
- .
- y
- *
s lf'
-
{;
UNITED STATES
,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
L m
g
,.
o,,
,!
REGION 11
',
101 MARIETTA ST N.W.
- 4
. j'
n (j
. g,,
ATI.ANTA. GEORGIA 30323 LReportNos.:
50-424/88-55 and 50-425/88-71
o Licensee:. Georgia Power Company.
P. 0. Box 1295
.
LBirmingham, AL 35201 Docket Nos.1 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.:.NPF-68 and CPPR-109
'
Facility'Name:
Vogtle 1 and 2 23'
. Inspection Cond ct d:.D mber 12 - 16, 1988 and January 3 - 6, 1989
/
T#/
Inspector:
P. G. Stoddart Date Signed Accompanying e onnel:
J. B. Kahle, (January 3 - 6, 1989)
Approved.b :Vf/
g[I J/2/ff
'4.
. Kahle, Chief.
..
Date' Signed-R iological Effluents and Chemistry Section mergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection
' Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY
' Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems, liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring and sampling systems, plant water chemistry and plant equipment affecting water chemistry, and environmental ' radiological monitoring.
Emphasis was on preoperational testing of Unit 2 systems in the areas noted above.
Results: All preoperational tests of systems in the inspector's assigned review areas and required for Unit 2 fuel load had been completed. While most of the systems not needed for Unit 2 fuel load had been tested, not all of the preoperational tests of systems in any one review area had been completed.
Three HEPA filter and charcoal adsorber trains in the Unit 2 portion of the Auxiliary Building HVAC system had not been tested (Paragraph 4).
The waste gas processing system tests had been delayed by ) overheating of a recombiner heater, requiring heater replacement (Paragraph 5.
Only 13 out of 22 process and-effluent radiological monitors (PERMSS) assigned for review had been tested
.m'
and only 6 out of 22 had been calibrated (Paragraph 6). Tests of floor drains in the Unit 2 -containment building and the Unit 2 portion of the Auxiliary Building had not been completed (Paragraph 3).
Plant water chemistry and plant systems affecting plant water chemistry were common-to both Units 1 and 2 and had beta extensively reviewed during Unit i startup and operation.
Preoperational aspects of the water chemistry program
'
C 8902270192 890207 l
PDR ADOCK 05000424
[~
-
Q PDC Cm2 -
.________._________________________________________i
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
.
.
appeared to have been satisfactorily addressed (Paragraph 7).
The inspector considered the water chemistry program to be a licensee strength.
The inspector's review of the plant liquid radwaste system and of its management and operation indicated this area to be another licensee strength.
A radiological environmental monitoring program was initiated prior to startup of Unit 1 and was fully applicable to Unit 2 (Paragraph 8).
No violations or deviations were identified.
I
<
l l
\\
l l
-
- - _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ -
- - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
-*
.
...
.
'4 ll REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Bellamy, Plant Manager M. Biron, PERMS System Supervisor P. Burwinkel, HVAC Supervisor
- C. Eckert, Manager,. Health Physics and Chemistry
-*G. Frederick, QA Site Manager, Operations
- W. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist
- C. Garrett, Operations Engineering D. Hallman, Chemistry Supervisor R. Legrande, Operations Supervisor
- R. Pinson, Vice President, Construction, Georgia Power
- J. Swartzwelder, Manager, NSAC Other licensee employees contacted during. this inspection included engineers, operators,. technicians, and administrative personnel.
Other Organizations R. Cislo
. PERMS Preoperational Testing Supervisor (Bartlett Corp)
J. Guimbellot, HVAC Preoperational Testing Supervisor (Bechtel)
I. Jamieson, Liquid and Gaseous Radwaste System'Preoperational Testing Supervisor (Bechtel)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- J. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
3.-
Liquid Radwaste Processing System (84523)
The inspector selectively reviewed 28 procedures either wholly or partially concerned with liquid radwaste processing for Unit 2.
All procedures appeared to be sufficiently detailed to facilitate radwaste operations and had been reviewed and approved by appropriate licensee staff in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications.
The inspector and licensee personnel discussed licensee operating experience of the liquid radwaste system, which was to be shared between Units 1 and 2.
The radwaste system appeared to have the capability of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _. _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _. - _ - - - _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _
- - - _ _
- - _ - _ _
_
--
a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
.
..
!
)
1 handling the anticipated combined inputs from both units and to meet the system design objectives without exceeding the criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
The radwaste processing system had been in operation since shortly after startup of Unit 1 in 1987, and had been operated satis-factorily since that time.
As discussed in Paragraph 8 of Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/88-54 and 50-425/88-70 (November 14 - 18, 1988), the i
licensee had initiated improvements in pre-filtration for the liquid radwaste processing system which appeared to have the potential to improve both the decontamination efficiency and volumetric throughput of the system.
The inspector considered the management and operating staff of the liquid radwaste system to be a licensee strength.
As of the end date of this inspection, the Unit 2 connection to the shared liquid radwaste processing system had not been completed.
Certain floor
,
drains in Unit 2 had not been preoperationally tested; these were in the
Unit 2 containment building and in the Unit 2 side of the Auxiliary Building.
None of the preoperational tests above were required to be completed prior to the fuel load date; however, the anticipated date for completion of the tests was the week of January 16, 1989.
The preoperational testing supervisor indicated that the equipment appeared to be satisfactory but that scheduling of test personnel had been the principal cause of delay in completing the required tests.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) Filter and Charcoal Adsorber Ventilation Treatment Systems (84524)
Preoperational testing of the Unit 2 HEPA filter and charcoal adsorber ventilation treatment systems, with the exception of the three trains servicing the Unit 2 portion of the Auxiliary Building, had been completed as of the end date of this inspection.
A licensee representative stated that it was anticipated that the preoperational tests of the remaining three trains would be completed during the week of January 16, 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Waste Gas Processing System (84524)
Preoperational testing of the waste gas processing system had not been completed as of the end date of this inspection.
A licensee representative indicated that four out of eight sections of the preoperational tests had been completed.
During the week of December 26, 1988, a recombiner preheater had been damaged by overheating during a
'
test.
Replacement of the heater delayed test completion and required repeating of a portion of a prior test.
Full completion of the waste gas process system tests was anticipated to be accomplished during the week of January 24, 1989.
l
)
l t
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-_ - _- _ ____
-_.
_.
.
..
.
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6. -
Process'and Effluent Radiological Monitoring and Sampling System (PERMSS)
(84523,84524)
Twenty-two. PERMSS monitors.or. samplers.were in the inspector's review area. Preoperational tests had been completed on 13 of the 22 monitors or samplers as of the end date of this inspection, leaving an additional nine tests;to be completed.. A licensee representative stated that the remaining tests were scheduled for completion prior to or during the week of January 19, 1989.
Calibration of the PERMSS monitors or samplers was being performed separately from the preoperational tests and it was required that each monitor be " turned over" to'the operating group by the preoperational test group before calibration could be performed.
As of the end date of this inspection, only six out of 22 calibrations had been performed.
All
,
calibrations were scheduled for completion prior to February 9,1989.
l The. inspector's review of the 13 PERMSS monitor or sampler preoperational tests which had been completed showed that the tests appeared to have been conducted properly and that.the monitors or samplers were ready for operation, subject to calibration. The inspector's review of three of the six calibrations completed to date indicated that calibration had been performed in accordance with procedures and appeared to be satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
~
7.
Plant Chemistry, Plant Water Chemistry, and Plant Systems Affecting Plant Water Chemistry (79501, 79502)
At Plant Vogtle, plant systems affecting plant water chemistry, procedures for the measurement and control of plant water chemistry, plant facilities for analyses of plant water chemistry, and the plant staff committed to plant water chemistry were common to both units and were shared by both units.
The procedures and criteria for plant water chemistry were essentially established and were in-place prior to the startup of Unit 1, with the
.
exception of such changes as were made based on Steam Generator Owner; Group (SG0G) guidelines and on operational experience.
Plant chemistry was reviewed indepth in
Inspection Report
Nos. 50-424/88-46 and 50-425/88-61 (October 17 - 21, 1988), 50-424/87-29
(April 23 - 24,1987), 50-424/86-108 (October 27 - November 4,1986),
j
50-424/86-92 (September 29 - October 3,
1986), 50-424/86-32 (April 15
'
- 18, 1986), and in "NRC Review of Vogtle Readiness Review Module 9B,
Chemistry" (November 13,1986).
During the current inspection, the inspector reviewed portions of selected
plant chemistry laboratory procedures, discussed the plaat chemistry
program with plant chemistry staff representatives, and inspected the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _
.A
_______ _ - _ _ ______
_
'
.
..
.
plant primary coolant and secondary 'mlant laboratories and the plant
water treatment (potable and makeup, % r systems) facilities,
i
Based on the results of the current inspection and on the results of the
'
inspections cited above, the inspector concluded that the licensee
appeared to have established an effective documented program for the
'
control of water quality for the plant primary and secondary water
systems.
The plant had committed to the guidance set forth in the SG0G
guidelines and supported the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
recommendations on plant water chemistry.
As of December 7,1988, the licensee's chemistry laboratory procedures
consisted of some 260 reviewed and approved procedures, approximately 120
of which pertained directly to the primary and secondary reactor water
systems.
I
The licensee made extensive use of on-line instrumented monitoring of
'
plant water chemistry, which enabled plant operators to maintain an
essentially instantaneous profile of plant chemistry conditions in the
primary and secondary water systems.
The on-line monitoring systems were
backed-up by periodic sampling and analy_.is of the principal points of the
l
online monitored systems.
The sampling system also provided additional
sampling points for portions of the system which were not continuously
monitored.
A quality assurance program for chemistry of the primary and secondary
water systems was in place and functional.
Some 23 chemistry procedures
addressed quality control and calibration. Frequent use was made of
l
" blind" samples and of control or reference standards.
Laboratory
analytical equipment, during periods of active use, was calibrated at
least daily against reference standards.
As of January 1989, the licensee had 42 analytical chemists assigned to
the primary and secondary water chemistry laboratories.
Of this number,
31 were Georgia Power Company employees and 11 were contractor employees.
Of those employed by Georgia Power Company,19 were considered to be
qualified under ANSI 3.1 criteria and 12 were in training to become
ANSI-qualified.
Of the 11 contractor employees, all were ANSI-qualified.
At the time of this inspection, the licensee had no INP0-qualified
analytical chemists on the staff.
However, the licensee's stated
objectives for the chemistry program were to minimize or eliminate
reliance on contractor chemists and to have all analytical chemists fully
j
INPO-qualified.
The licensee had initiated an extensive training program
for all analytical chemists and projected that all experienced analytical
chemists currently on the plant staff would be INP0-qualified by
approximately April 1990.
At the time of this inspection, 20 licensee
!
analytical chemists had completed the basic INP0 training program and 11
'
were participating in the INP0 basic training program.
It was
acknowledged, however, that as a result of inevitable staff attrition, and
since it was difficult to recruit INP0-qualified analysts, there would be
periods of time when trainee analysts without full INP0-qualifications or
j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _
d-
. :.
.
.
INP0-qualified contractor analysts might be employed to meet operational
needs.
The inspector observed that housekeeping in the licensee's water chemistry-
laboratories was good, that radiation control areas had been established
in an appropriate manner, and that analytical chemists appeared to be
conducting their work in accordance with procedures and in a professional
manner.
.The licensee had an active program in-place at Unit 1 for the minimization
of in-leakage of air and' circulating cooling water into the condenser and
condenser hotwell.
This program was to be extended to Unit 2 upon-
startup.
The licensee's experience with'_ Unit 1 indicated good control of
the chemical quality of the secondary coolant water and of the primary
coolant water, as evidenced by. minimum fuel degradation and minimal
deterioration of steam generator tubes during the Unit 1 initial fuel
cycle.
The secondary coolant condensate cleanup system for. Unit I had been
successful in maintaining acceptable water purity in accordance with SG0G
guidelines during the initial fuel cycle.
Since tSe Unit 2 system and
operating procedures were essentially identical to those of Unit 1, the
licensee staff stated that they expected that a similar degree of water
chemistry performance would be attained for Unit 2.
Based on the above discussion and on results of previous inspections of
the chemistry and water chemistry programs at Plant Vogtle,-Units 1 and 2,
the inspector considered the plant chemistry and water chemistry programs-
to be licensee strengths and considered those programs to be adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring (80521)
The Vogtle, Unit 1
" Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance
Report" for calendar year 1987 was issued April 29, 1988.
The Unit 1,
" Operating License Stage Environmental Report (0LSER)," covering the
periods 1981 through 1984, was issued May 23, 1988.
The 1987
environmental report covered the requirements of Unit 1 Technical
Specification Section 3/4.1.2, while the preoperational environmental
monitoring phase, which was equally applicable to Vogtle Unit 2 was
provided in Section 6.15 of the OLSER.
The transition between the OLSER
and the 1987 environmental report occurred March 9,1987, concurrent with
the initial criticality of Unit 1.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's annual radiological environmental
monitoring report for 1987, and discussed the contents and the licensee's
environmental monitoring program with licensee representatives.
The
environmental monitoring program for Vogtle, Units 1 and 2, was operated
,
by the corporate environmental center at Marietta, Georgia.
l
_. _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _
____s______-_________.m
-.. _
m
_ _ _ _
.. _ _ - _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.
._ _.
.
..
.
.
l
The annual environmental report provided an adequate overview of the
licensee's environmental monitoring program.
Based on a review of the
contents of the environmental report, the reporting requirements of the
plant Technical Specifications and the guidance of NRC Regulatory
Guide 4.2,
Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power
Stations, Revision 1, January 1975, appeared to have been met.
The preoperational phase of environmental monitoring was conducted under
contract by the Center for Applied Studies at the Vriiversity of Georgia,
at Athens, Georgia.
The Center for Applied Studies also provided most of
the laboratory analyses performed during the preoperational phase.
Laboratory analyses of all 1987, and subsequent environmental samples were
performed by Georgia Power Company's Central Laboratory, at Smyrna,
Thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) service, and reading of TLDs, was
provided by Teledyne Isotopes Midwest Laboratory at Northbrook, Illinois.
Direct radiation was measured at 38 monitoring locations, each with two or
more TLDs. TLDs were collected and analyzed quarterly.
Airborne radioiodine and radioactive particulate were sampled at seven
locations.
Five of these locations were close to the plant but in
different sectors. One was located at'the nearest community having the
highest annual ground level D/Q, and one was at a " control location" 10 to
20 miles distant, in the least prevalent wind direction from the plant.
Surface water samples were collected from the Savannah River from one
point upriver and from two sample points downriver from the plant water
ir';t and discharge area. Each sample was a one-month composite.
- ? king water samples were collected at the two nearest water treatment
l'".ts downsteam from the plant discharge area. Control samples were also
cc3iected.
Provision was made in procedures for collecting composite
samples for I-131 analysis on two-week cycles when projected dose,
calculated from release sample analysis data, was greater than 1 mrem / year
i
for water consumption.
Otherwise, samples were to be collected as monthly
i
composites.
Analyses were for gross beta activity and gamma isotopic
content for monthly composites and additionally for I-131 for two-week
composites. Tritium was analyzed using quarterly composites prepared from
monthly composite samples.
Sediments from the shoreline of the Savannah River were collected
semi-annually from upriver and downriver areas with existing or potential
recreational value.
The potential for radiation dose from ingestion of food products was
monitored by analysis of samples of milk, fish, and leafy vegetation. Two
milk samples were collected bi-weekly from milking animals at control
locations approximately ten or more miles from the plant in wind
_
_
_ _ _ _. - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
______d
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
directions of low prevalence.
No milk animals were identified in the
plant vicinity.
At least one fish specimen of any commercial or recreationally important
species was collected semi-annually in the vicinity of the plant discharge
area on the Savannah River.
At least one control sample of any species
was collected in an area of the river not influenced by plant discharge.
At least one sample of any anadromous fish species was collected in the
vicinity of the plant discharge during the spring spawning season.
One sample of grass or leafy vegetation was collected monthly from each of
two onsite locations near the site boundary, but in different downwind
sectors.
One sample was to be collected monthly from a location (if any)
that had a calculated dose commitment (based on plant gaseous releases)
20% greater than that calculated for any site boundary location.
One
sample was also co17,ected monthly from a control location at least
15 miles distant.
Environmental radioactivity analyses of all 1987 samples were less than
the Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) with the following exceptions:
(1)
Fish.
Cs-137 activity ranging from 228 to 446 pCi/kg (wet) was
detected in two out of three samples from the plant discharge area
(LLD: 150 pCi/kg).
Controls were LLD to 178 pCi/kg of Cs-137 in
three out of three samples.
The Vogtle, Unit 1, Semi Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports
for January - June,1987 and July - December 1987, showed that the
plant did not release detectable quantities or concentrations of
Cs-137 during or prior to CY 1987.
It appeared likely that the
amounts of Cs-137 found in fish samples were attributable to
operation of the Savannah River Plant (SRP), rather than to operation
of Plant Vogtle.
(2) Tritium was detected in finished drinking water at the Port Westworth
water treatment plant located some 122 miles downstream of the site.
Concentrations of up to 3,920 pCi/l were found in eight out of eight
samples, with a LLD of 2,000 pCi/1.
As in the case of Cs-137, above,
the concentrations of tritium detected were not consistent with the
limited discharges of tritium-contaminated water from Plant Vogtle in
1987.
In 1987, approximately 270 curies of tritium was released from
Plant Vogtle in liquid effluents at concentrations, prior to dilution
in the cooling tower blowdown and in the Savannah River, of
approximately 7E-05 uCi/ml or 70,000 pCi/1; however, diffusion and
dilution would rapidly reduce tritium from Plant Vogtle effluents to
nondetectable levels.
A possible source of the detected tritium was
the SRP, which also discharges plant waste water into the Savannah
River in the same general area as Plant Vogtle.
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _
,
-
- __ _ _ _ _
.
t
..
The following releases of radioactive materials were known to have occurred
from the SRP in CY-1987:
(1) Tritium on July 31, 1987 (quantity not specified).
(2) Cs-137 in the third or fourth week (s) of November.
Plant Vogtle air
samples from November 24 and December 1,1987, contained high gross
beta activity and Cs-137 in areas downwind of SRP.
TLD results from all stations were within anticipated ranges for naturally
occurring radioactivity.
The Georgia Power Company's Central Laboratory, located at Smyrna,
Georgia, participated in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
cross-check program for environmental radioactivity measurements.
The
cross-check program was operated by the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory at Las Vegas, Nevada. A review of cross-check results
indicated acceptable analytical performance.
The irspector's review of the licensee's report of environmental
monitoring activities for the preoperational period of 1981 - 1984 and for
calendar year 1987, concluded that the program met the guidance of NRC
Regulatory Guide 4.1, " Measuring and Reporting of Radioactivity in the
Environs of Nuclear Power Plants" (Revision 0, January 18,1973).
Based on the above discussion, the inspector concluded that the licensee
had provided an adequate radiological environmental monitoring program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97 Items
Item II.B.3 Post-Accident Sampling and Regulatory
Guide 1.97, Table 3, Type E, Accident Sampling Capability (Analysis
Capability Onsite).
The licensee provided a Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) with the
design capability to meet the guidelines and requirements cited above for
containment air and for primary coolant and containment sump liquid
samples.
Unit 2 PASS preoperational testing was discussed in a previous
inspection report (See Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/88-54 and
50-425/88-70, November 14 - 18, 1988, Paragraph 5.) The next test of the
PASS to be observed by NRC will be the scheduled evaluation to be
performed after Unit 2 has completed at least 30 days of sustained full
power operation (IFI 50-425/88-70-01).
NUREG-0737, Item II.F.I, Attachments 1 and 2 (noble
monitor and sampling and analysis of plant effluents) gas effluent
and Regulatory
Guide 1.97, Table 3, Type C, Effluent Radioactivity and Type E,
Effluent Radioactivit _ _ -. _ _
______ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
________ ___
__
l
.
..
e
i
1
The licensee provided monitoring systems meeting the guidelines and
requirements cited above as part of the plant's PERMSS. Monitored release
points included the main plant vent and the condenser air ejector vent.
Monitor designs for the identified release points appeared to have the
requisite range capacity to meet the criteria specified above. As of the
end date of this inspection, the subject monitors had been
preoperationally tested and calibrated.
The inspector reviewed the
preoperational tests of the monitors and concluded that the preoperational
tests appeared to be adequate and that the results were acceptable. The
inspector will review these monitors again at a later date during full
power operation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 6,1989, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1, above.
The inspector described
the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed
below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The inspection was principally concerned with review of preoperational
testing of plant systems in the areas of liquid and gaseous radwaste
systems, liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring and sampling systems,
plant water chemistry, plant equipment affecting water chemistry, and
environmental radiological monitoring.
All preoperational testing of systems which were within the inspector's
scope of review and which were required for fuel load had been completed.
Most of the preoperational testing had been completed for other systems
not required for fuel loading but needed for criticality, ascent to power,
and full power.
However, one or more items in each review area remained
to be tested.
Three HEPA filter and charcoal absorber trains in the Unit 2 Auxiliary
Building HVAC system had not been tested (Paragraph 4).
The waste gas
processing system tests had been delayed by overheating of a recombiner
heater, requiring heater replacement (Paragraph 5).
Thirteen out of
22 process and effluent radiological monitors assigned for review had been
tested and six out of 22 had been calibrated (Paragraph 6).
Tests of
floor drains in the Unit 2 containment building and the Unit 2 portion of
the Auxiliary Building had not been completed (Paragraph 3).
Plant water chemistry and plant systems affecting plant water chemistry
were common to both Units 1 and 2 and had been extensively reviewed during
Unit 1 startup and operation; preoperational aspects of the water
chemistry program appeared to have been satisfactorily addressed
(Paragraph 7).
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _
. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ -_
_
. _ - _ _ _ _ _
. - _ _
-
_ -
,-
. _ __
.; ?.
4,
.
.
f-
l'
An adequate. radiological. environmental monitoring program had been
l-
initiated prior to startup of Unit 1 and was fully applicable to Unit 2
i-
(Paragraph 8).
-___- ____ _____--- _________- - - _