IR 05000424/1989028
| ML19327B528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1989 |
| From: | Adamovitz S, Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327B527 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-89-28, 50-425-89-32, NUDOCS 8911010062 | |
| Download: ML19327B528 (15) | |
Text
I
'
'
c
,
f 4-
'.
.
.
'
]
pnneo \\' %
' i
'*
u
'
' UNITE') STATES Q'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
.
]
'
REGION il :
i
,
j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
,]
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
\\, *., *.)t.
OCT 2 4 N
-
Report Hos.:
50-424/89-28 and 50-425/89-32-Licensee: Georgia Power Company
.
P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-l Docket Nos.:
50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: 'clPF-68 and CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2
' Inspection Conducted: ' September 25-29, 1989
[
lnspector:
M M 7;
/]AhmA e
&by/fff
'
S. 5. Adamovitz
~~
j Date S1gned '
'
Approved by: h M M '~
/v,2V-py
'.
'T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed
>
Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch
-
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems, liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring and sam)1ing systems, plant water chemistry, and post accident sampling systems.
Emplasis was placed on Unit 2 startup concerning initial chemical and
-
radiochemical tests, effluent releases, and radwaste processing.
Results:
The plant demonstrated the ability to adequately control and document radioactivereleases(Paragraphs 2and3).
,
,
A possible unmonitored release pathway was identified through the trim steam generator heat exchanger during a primary to secondary leak (Paragraph 8).
'
' A licensee identified noncited violation was issued concerning containment vents and purges without the appropriate release permits (Paragraph 4).
8911010062 891024 PDR ADOCK 05000424 Q
'
-.
.
-.
.
...
-
--
t
-
.
.
4 ~
-
- .
j
.
,
[.
.
.
I
i L
REPORT DETAILS i
,
1.
Persons Contacted
,
i P
Licensee Employees
-
- H. Beacher, Senior Plant Engineer
.
P. Berwinkel, Plant Engineering Supervisor
- M. Biron. Engineering Support Supervisor
,
- G. Buckhold, General Manager
'
L. Clark, Health Physics Specialist S. Conner, Senior Plant Chemist D. Gathers, Chemistry Technician
!
- D. Hallman, Chemistry Superintendent P. Jackson, Plant Engineer
'
- R. LeGrand, Manager Health Physics / Chemistry
- A. Mosbaugh, Assistant General Manager, Plant Support
- R. Odom, Nuclear Safety Advisory Comittee Supervisor
- D. Schreiber, Radwaste Supervisor, Operations J. Sills, Chemistry Operations, Supervisor S. Sundaram Plant Chemist
- J. Swartzwelder, Manager Operations H. Williams, Chemistry Technician M. Wright, Laboratory Foreman Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- J. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
,
,
. 2.
Liquid Radwaste Processing System (84523, 84521)
The inspector toured the Auxiliary Radwaste Building (ARB) with a cognizant licensee representative and discussed liquid radwaste system operation.
The ARB accepted inputs from the Floor Drain Collection Tank (FDCT) or the Waste Holdup Tank (WHT) for processing before release to the environment.
The plant was equipped with one FDCT and one WHT per unit with a ecpacity of 10,000 gallons each.
Liquid from these tanks was then routed to the ARD which contained two filter trains, one per unit, for l
radwaste processing.
The filter trains each consisted of one prefilter l
and four demineralizers with a single absolute filter that could be l
connected to one filter train at a time.
The licensee had been having l
problems with Co-58 and Co-60 particles of 0.1-0.3 microns in the radwaste
!
l l
l
.
l'
,
. - -
-- -
---
-
,, _ _.., -
-
,
- -.
-
.
y
-
_
t
'
-
-
...
,
,
-
,
.
,.
.
r L
I" streams.
The absolute filter was not effective in removing these
'
particles since its filtration was for particles of 0.5 microns or
.
greater. The licensee had ordered a backflushable microfilter which would L
be able to remove particles of 0.1-0.3 microns and expected to have the filter inservice by the end of the year. This filter would be portable so that it could be connected to either filter train and would be connected downstream of the prefilter. A second microfilter was due to be purchased e
during 1990 or 1991 for permanent installation.
After processing by the ARB, the liquid effluent was then routed to a
,
series of waste monitor tanks (WMT) for hold-up and sampling prior to
- 6 release.
During Unit 1 construction, two WMTs of 5,000 gallons each had been installed.
With the construction of Unit 2, two WMTs of 5,000 gallons each had been installed for that unit and additionally, to provide L
extra storage space, two 20,000 gallons WMTs common to both units had been installed.
Currently, the 20,000 gallon WMTs were not being used due to inoperable pumps which had been nonfunctional for approximately three months.
New pumps had been ordered and were due to be installed during November 1989.
The inspector toured the ARB control room which had been added during Unit 2's startup.
Further improvements that had been implemented for the ARB during Unit 2 startup included the addition of an overhead crane with
.three remote-control TV cameras, a fixed TV pan which monitored six areas within the building, a resin handling skid for resin transfers to high integrity containers (HICs) and subsequent dewatering, and four area radiation monitors with remote readouts in the control room.
The area radiation monitors were not yet operable and the licensee was currently using local area radiation monitors located on the demineralizer, the
'
absolute filter housing and the Unit 1 prefilter.
The licensee was also planning to add a control panel for the microfiltration unit in the ARB q
Control room.
j The inspector reviewed the procedure 36015-C " Radioactive Liquid Effluent Release Permit Generation and Data Control Computer Method," Revision 8, dated September 19, 1989, and observed the sampling, analysis, and
!
pre-release calculations for a WMT release.
The inspector noted that current procedures were used and that the technicians appeared knowledgeable of their tasks.
Sampling, analysis, activity and dose i
calculations, and effluent monitor setpoints were performed by chemistry i
personnel.
Operations personnel performed the actual valve alignment and monitored the release by effluent monitor readings.
The inspector also
'
reviewed 17 Units 1 and 2 liquid release permits from June through September 1989.
The examined permits appeared complete and correct per
procedural requircments.
-
i
,j,
-
.
.
'
j, 1.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
E
i
'
o
!
' Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/88-55; 50-425/88-71 indicatec that the t>
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. The inspector examined the completed procedure 2-3LE-01, " Auxiliary Building Flood Retaining Rooms,
!
Alarms, and Drains,". Revision 0.
This procedure covered Containment and Auxiliary Buildings floor drains with level switches and showed that
,,
testing was completed and approved by February 1,1989.
'
"
No violations ur deviations were identified.
i 3..
Waste Gas Processing System (WGPS) (84521, 84524)
The licensee's WGPS consisted of two main process loops which were interconnected to allow waste gas processing from either plant unit.
-
Major components in each process loop consisted of a waste gas compressor, a catalytic hydrogen recombiner, and seven 600-cubic foot waste gas decay
,
tanks.
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/88-55; 50-425/88-71 indicated that preoperational testing of the Unit 2 waste gas processing system had not been completed.
During December 1988, a recombiner preheater had been
.
'
damaged by overheating, and replacement of the heater delayed test
completion.
The inspector reviewed preoperational procedure 2-3HA-02,
" Waste Processing System - Gas," Revision 0, which documented completion of heater work by January 5,1989, and completion of preoperational
.
testing by January 20, 1989.
Releases from this system were ninimal with
one release for Unit 1 and zero releases for Unit 2 during 1989.
The inspector reviewed the procedures 36020-C, " Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Release Permit Generation and Data Control Computer Method,"
Revision 4 September 18,1989, and 36022-C, " Containment Purge Pemitting and Chemistry Monitoring," Revision 1, February 2,1989.
The inspector also examined 15 gaseous release permits for Units 1 and 2 plant vents and purges from June to September 1989. One licensee-identified problem with containment vents and purges is discussed in Paragraph 4.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
4.
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports (84521, 84750)
L The inspector reviewed 1988 and 1989 (January-June) Semiannual Radioactive
,
Effluent Release Reports. The effluent release data summarized in Table A was obtained from these reports.
L l
-
-
-.
-.
.-.
.
-
c;
'
.
.
-
.
.,.
.,,
,
'
.
.
.-
.
i
.
!
!
Table 1
.
Effluent Release Summary for Vogtle (First Half)
Activity Released (curies)
- 1988 1989
~1.
Gaseous Effluents
,
,
,
Fission and Activation 1.15E+2 3.64E+2
}
L Products
Iodines and Particulates 1.75E-5 1.19E-3
.
2.
Liquid Effluents g
Fission and Activation 1.66E0 1.94E-1 Products
Tritium 3.90E+2 3.39E+2
'
- 0nly Unit I was in operation during 1988.
.
The reports appeared to be complete and to contain the information specified in Regulatory Guide 1.21.
Liquid fission and activation products decreased by almost an order of magnitude for the first half of 1989.
The licensee attributed this decrease to several factors which included the use of recycle water to fill the Unit 2 spent fuel pool rather than discharging it; the installation of the 20,000 gallon waste monitor tanks which provided extra storage and allowed reprocessing; daily
'
checks for inleakage rates in the FDCTs and the WHTs; and a reduction in the amount of washdown water by the elimination of spurious fire alanns.
-
The increase in gaseous effluents was attributed to the startup of Unit 2.
l The inspector noted that the whole body dose rates due to Unit I noble gas effluents decreased significantly from 2.69 mrem / year in 1988 to 7.12E-3
-
'
mrem / year in the first half of 1989.
The 1989 effluent report described an unplanned gaseous release which L
occurred April 17, 1989 from Unit 1.
A containment vent permit was issued l
and after the containment pressure relief ended, a purge was initiated without a purge permit.
The inspector also determined that on April 21, 1989, a containment purge permit was issued but a vent was performed. The l
inspector informed the licensee that these instances appeared to be
.
'
,
violations of procedural requirements which require that separate vent and l
purge permit be issued and did not indicate that a purge permit could be l
used for a containment vent.
The inspector noted that the appropriate I
permits were issued after the fact, and that activity released and dose i.
calculations were completed.
The licensee had also revised the procedure L
36020-C " Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Release Permit Generation and Data
'
Control Computer Method" to allow the issuance of event and purge permits simultaneously.
This would make possible a containment purge to occur
-
incediately after a vent if required.
Since the licensee had identified this problem and implemented appropriate corrective actions, a licensee
._.
-
_ __
__
_
_
._,
.
._,
. -
. L. [
.
j
'
,
.
.
.
i i
identified noncited violation (NCV) is being cited because criteria
,
specified in Section V.G.1 of the NRC Enforceraent Policy were satisfied
(NCV50-424/89-26-01;50-425/89-32-01). Additionally no response would be required since corrective actions had been implemented.
t One NCV was issued.
.
t i
5..
High Efficiency Particulate Air (ll EPA) Filter and Charcoal Absorber VentilationTreatmentSystems(84524)
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/88-55; 50-425/88-71 indicated that the preoperational testing of the Unit 2 HEPA filter and charcoal absorber
'
ventilation treatment systems had been completed with the exception of the three trains servicing the Unit 2 portion of the Auxiliary Building. The
,
inspector examined the completed procedure 54033-2 " Auxiliary Building
,
Normal Ventilation System Filter Test" Revision 0.
The licensee had taken credit for portions of the preoperational tests 2-4GL-06 concerning visual inspection, and HEPA and carbon filter leak testing.
Heater tests and laboratory analyses of carbon samples were performed as required by the 54033-2 procedure.
Testing was completed May 3,1989, with an approval
'
date of May'4, 1989.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring and Sampling System (PERMSS)
(84521)
The inspector reviewed calibration packages for the Unit 2 Plant Unit Effluent monitor dated December 15, 1988, and the Unit 2 Waste Liquid Effluent Monitor dated December 7,1988.
The packages appeared complete and the review indicated that the calibrations had been performed in accordance with procedural requirements with satisfactory results.
The inspector also reviewed liquid release packages and noted that the effluent monitor readings were routinely compared to isotopic activity determined by laboratory analyses of grab samples.
The licensee had
.
established acceptance criteria for the actual response of the effluent monitor as compared to the expected response. This was documented in the procedure 36015-C " Radioactive Liquid Effluent Release Permit Generation and Data Control Computer Method." For a monitor response outside of the acceptance band, possible actions included termination of the release or collection and analysis of a confirmatory sample.
During 1987 and 1988, the licensee had experienced recurrent problems with out-of-service (OSS) monitors due to failed components.
A large portion
.
of the component failures were in the detectors and the digital processing modules. A special PERMSS action group was formed approximately two years ago to deal with the monitor problems and has proved effective in reducing the number of 00S channels.
During 1988, the number of 00S channels for Unit I and common channels averaged 23 cat of a total of 76.
During 1989, this number was reduced to an average 01 eight 00S channels.
Unit 2 00S channels averaged six for 1989, for a to'al of 54 channels.
The action
-
.
-
-.-
-
,. -
.
-.
.-
.
-
. -
. - -
R~
l
- .
.
'
-
.
.s
.
,
p=
.n
.-
c f.
'*
.
t
-
a
,
group provided semiweekly updates and met weekly with plant management to discuss the status of the monitors.
The licensee.was planning to implement a major operating procedure rewrite for monitor maintenance and calibration and to establish a separate manual for the PERMSS.
Instrumentation and Control technicians were to be given additional training to improve onsite diagnnstic capabilities.
A PERMSS-simulator had been purchased and was due for installation at the training
'
center during 1989.
The inspector considered the PERMSS action group to
'
be a licensee strength.
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Chemistry (84521)
a.
Unit 2 Startup Chemistry
.
The inspector reviewed the Unit 2 startup test procedure 2-600-12
" Primary and Secondary Chemistry," Revision 0, completed and approved
May 30, 1989.
The procedure documented primary and secondary
'
chemistry parameters at zero percent, 30 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent power.
Samples were collected from the i
reactor coolant system hot leg, steam generator blowdowns, condensate t
pump discharge,.and feedwater pump discharge. Acceptable levels for the various measured parameters were specified.in the procedure.
From a review of the data, the inspector concluded that the licensee's chemical and radiochemical control systems were able to control water quality and that the tests had been performed in accordance with FSAR commitments and licensee procedures.
b.
Reactor Coolant System The inspector reviewed trend plots of various Units 1 and 2 reactor coolant chemistry parameters for the time period January to September 1989.
Reactor coolant chloride was typically maintained at 10 parts per billion (ppb) and fluoride below 20 ppb, both of which were well
below Technical Specification limits.
Unit 2 experienced a chloride
excursion during July 1989 due to a depleted demineralizer; however, the chloride peaked at 25 ppb during this excursion.
During 100 percent power steady state operations, both units' dose equivalent iodine ranged from SE-4 to 8E-4 uCi/ gram which indicated good fuel cladding integrity.
For Unit 1, one small tight fuel cladding defect was identified during Cycle 1 and was still present in the reactor core.
During Unit 2 startup, significant iodine spikes were not noted.
c.
Steam Cycle Chemistry The licensee tracked dissolved oxygen (00) concentrations in the condensate pump discharge as an indication of circulating water inleakage.
A review of 1989 data for both units indicated that no
.
.
-
. -
.
_
-.
_
.-
..
-
--
--
g
-
<
l:
'
.
- g ;.
- .,.
,
.
,
.
.
-
,
.
.
.
[
L,
major inleakage of circulating water had occurred. D0 concentrations remained at or below 5 ppb during power operations.
,
A review of chemistry data plots for 1989 indicated that secondary t
chemistry except for minor. transients, was maintained within. the guidelines recommended by the Steam Generator Owners Group.
Unit 1
steam generator (SG) blowdown cation conductivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.2. umho/cm, well below the recommended level of 0.8 umho/cm.
The
,
L initial Unit 2 SG blowdown cation conductivity ranged from 0.5 umho/cm to 1.0 umho/cm due to the presence of organics in the
.
< secondary system. - As the organics were removed, the Unit 2 cation
'
.,
conductivity decreased to the current level of 0.3 uraho/cm.
Chloride and sodium concentrations in SG blowdown were normally maintained
..
below 20 ppb.~
Sulfate levels for Unit 1 were less.than 5 ppb and for
Unit 2 had decreased to less than 5 ppb after initial elevated levels
"
as high as 60 ppb during startup.
The low sulfate levels indicated-low condensate polisher resin intrusion.
d.
Plant Tour The inspector, accompanied by a licensee representative, toured the
<
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which supplied makeup water for the primary and secondary systems.
The licensee indicated that the WTP was able to supply sufficient makeup water for normal plant operations. A vendor system was brought in during outages to provide additional water treatment capacity.
The specific conductivity of u
makeup water was typically 0.06 umho/cm indicating good water purity.
,
!
The inspector also toured the secondary monitor panels and sampling sinks, the hot and cold laboratories, and the chemistry count room.
Licensee representatives indicated that currently secondary system inline D0 monitors were inoperable and that grab samples were being collected for D0 measurements. Replacement of the inline D0 monitors for both units was planned for 1990. The licensee was also alanning i
to upgrade all Unit 1 secondary system analog readouts to cigital during 1990.
Unit 2 digital readouts were installed during startup.
The licensee did not have an inline ion chromatograph but used a
.
,
L tabletop instrument for chloride and sulfate determinations.
In t
L touring the laboratories and chemistry count room, the inspector noted that the hoods were inoperable in the chemistry laboratories and the primary sampling room. The inoperable hoods were caused by a
>
nonfunctional fan which occurred approximately six weeks prior to the inspection.
Replacement parts were due onsite October 6,1989. The
,
!
licensee had taken compensatory measures which included area radiation monitors, air samplers, and erecting a barrier of heavy plastic sheeting over the doorway between the primary sampling room p
and the laboratory.
The inspector and licensee discussed the l -
importance of maintaining increased attention to this problem.
The inoperable hoods represented not only a possible personnel hazard but also caused additional problems with sample contamination and count room inoperability.
!
.
.-.
.
-
.
-_
-
. -. -
.
-.
-
.
_,
_
_
p
..
-
)
.
..
,
,-
..
.
e
'
.*
No violations or. deviations were identified.-
8.
Evaluation of Nonradioactive Systems for Radioactivity (84521)
The licensee had identified selected secondary and cooling systems as having the potential to _become radioactively contaminated and had initiated sampling of these systems. This sampling program was summarized j
in the' procedure. 30025-C " Periodic Analysis Scheduling Program,"
Revision 10. September 11, 1989.
During-discussions with plant personnel, the inspector determined that a possible unmonitored release pathway existed through the trim steam generator heat exchanger.
The trim heat exchanger was used occasionally to assist in cooling SG blowdown, and cooling water was provided by general service water-Turbine Plant cooling.
In the event of a primary to
second leak and. faulty heat exchanger tubes, an unmonitored release
pathway would exist.
During the inspection, the licensee modified two rocedures, 36011-C " Rad Effluent Off Normal Conditions," and 35210-C p' Chemistry Control of the Steam Generators" to require sampling of the trim heat exchanger during a primary to secondary leak.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
9.
InspectorFollowupItems(IFIs)(92701)
i a.
(Closed) IFI 50-424/86-137-06:
Review applicant evaluation of
'
mechanisms of sample transport for iodines in long sampling lines.
During the inspection conducted November 1988, the inspector reviewed results of tests which had been conducted by licensee personnel. The
,
'
licensee staff had evaluated the tests as inadequate and after a review of the test data, the inspector concurred with the licensee's evaluation.
Subsequent to that time period, the licensee had l
evaluated NUREG/CR-4786 " Transport Behavior of Iodine in Effluent
Radioactivity Monitoring Systems" and had concluded that the study
.
was applicable to their plant.
The EG&G Idaho study of iodine
,
plateout used a one inch outer diameter (0D) line, 150 feet long with a linear velocity of 27.3 feet /sec, 50 percent relative humidity and 30 C constant temperature.
The study indicated that equilibrium was achieved within 15 minutes.
The licensee's sampling lines were 3/4 inch OD with a linear velocity of 28 feet /sec and the licensee's lines were heat traced to minimize relative humidity.
The licensee also referenced a second study using an inch OD line which showed
that equilibrium was reached between the inlet and outlet samplers within 6-8 hours. This item is considered closed, b.
(0 pen)
IFI 50-424/87-68-02:
Review resolution of low hydrogen / dissolved gas analysis results in primary coolant post accident sampling system (PASS) samples.
The licensee had repaired leaks in a swage lock valve and had completed one successful run September 18, 1989.
Additional tests would be run to confirm these test results. This item remains open.
.
..
-
- - - -.
---
.
-
. -
-
...
- -. - -
.-.
'
' ~~
t r- ;
,
[
,
,
.,
j
,
,
i
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.,
.
j
!
I
'
c.
(0 pen)IFI 50-425/88-70-01:
Evaluate performance of PASS performance
after 30 days operation of reactor at full power.
The licensee had i
had continuing problems with various PASS inline monitors and had
.
chosen to eliminate the inline D0 monitor.
The PASS contained an
!
inline boron monitor, ion chromatograph, gas' chromatograph, pH meter, J
and gama spectroscopy systems. _The inspector reviewed the completed
Unit 2 preoperational test procedure 2-3RP-02, " Post Accident-
-
,
..
Sampling System"' which used potassium: permanganate to test PASS i
piping and dilution components.
The inspector' additionally reviewed
'
calibration packages for the inline monitors and completed procedures
showing valve operation.
This item remains open pending examinstion of comparison data of samples collected from'the PASS panel and from n
the normel reactor coolant sampling point.
,
10. Exit Interview-s The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 29, 1989, l
with those persons indicated in Paragraph l'.
The inspector described.the y
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed
-
below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
'
Dissenting coments were not received from the lit ae.
The plant demonstrated the ability to adequately control and document radioactive releases-(Paragraphs 2 and 3).
.
A possible unmonitored release pathway was identified through the trim SG L
heat exchanger during a primary to secondary leak. During the inspection.
L the licensee revised procedures to require sampling if the heat exchanger
-
was used (Paragraph 8)
The '1989 Semiannual Effleunt Report identified an unplanned release on April 17,1989 when a containment purge was initiated without a purge permit.
Also on April 21, 1989, a purge permit was issued and a containment vent performed.
The licensee identified and corrected the
.
problems so that a NCV was issued (Paragraph 4).
i j
Hoods in the chemistry laboratories and primary sampling room were inoperable due to nonfunctional fans.
The licensee expected replacement l
parts by October 6, 1989 (Paragraph 7.d).
The licensee's attention to effluent control and plant chemistry was evidenced by the following:
A PERMSS working group for problem solving and monitor meintenance
(Paragraph 6).
,
Reduction of PERMSS out of service channels from an average of 23 in 1988 to 8 in 1989 for Unit 1 and common monitors (Paragraph 6).
L l
Reduction of liquid effluents from 1.66 curies in 1988 to 0.19 curies
for the first half of 1989 (Paragraph 4).
l I
_. - _ _,
..
._.
.
..
.
.
,
_ _.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
i
!
Reduction of whole body dose rates from Unit ! noble gas effluents
from 2.69 mrom/ year in 1988 to 7.12E-3 mrem / year in the first half of
1989(Paragraph 4).
l
.
Compute,' tracking of chemistry and radiochemistry parameters
.
'
(Paragraph 7).
One IFI was closed concerning iodine plate-out in long sampling lines and i
two IFls remained open pertaining to the PASS (Paragraph 9).
!
.
!
I i
l i
>
,
i
!
i
!
i
}
l
!
o
.
.
....
.
[ ~.ani. 4
%m L
-
,,,, sge dD7811/
Jf9nf g4 anA@A A0$AAf0Rv Cowwil6e04 a==.re6 - + ses. em ev Y
m g y y.g g y
~~~
.
r s n,a
=
p,/,g7
-
,
N eef
g g
/??/)A1/6 btJ')/s^
1%194 I I I I I V4L%1 s
' ****"
&A1 -
d2I41 I I I I I JPDU1. tug a
.. ese*'
IM
'
-
ym //f.
'
/
-
.. a'i II IIIII IIIIIIIIe
_.. _ m...W__.._._..__
.
.-
~. _._
,
amma seen
]
'e IXI '. sesom.a'"cs s'aa'
dP'=en
[g N,,, am, wg
-
,
<--1
- -
es I e, I. I so I. I. I ]. a neet assocw MWMW". *.'*"
-
AA,.?... { l l'
'"9 # 'C#' 58*h8C'88 'C'u8* ens em sur w actes
" * * * * ' " '
18E Y. Saf9ft
.. es rt vert g..Whirt.E m. au.mpt
_
,
e. mag e. asp p
. - escogn,
. 68ecWs et. sp gyt ygt g.sp W,ub6'en
_
,
.. -,
..
..
.
'
2.c-
-
-
..
,,
,
.. -,
,
..
,
i g,
L., ;.
4,.
I
,' g g
. oacamgo.'iss=Cs
- 6y g'ga isno w
,,s r,= wie
.,,,,,
- *!'l*!..
l '".nlll* lTel'
"~'**
-
i z oii..
uce) acy
.
s..ru m 4. l :
e 1.!...
[.1 cl.j (. 1,., g _., g 1., l.
- au m a.r==
- _
v.
-
' ' ' '
'- f -
'
. 1
..n jl J j..
Il b. w
.....
.-.
5. t
..
_
- -ae sena+en
&.s asomma'en esce4.se o seuemove
] b edODAJ Agr.se ei48
,8
0*^t * 80 **".'"d'
Fna isoku =asese ese
,,g sl i11 I
t i l M ili ! iii ii fill ii i i M it i i ii li i
,,,,
ma
-
1..I...
.
n.ewa
.
n
..
,
.
i
-
/MV/M G l..I I
.I
'
,
'
"
j ge,,fpo,,g ii,I
,1
.,
n Iii1 e
,,
,i i
I
'
..
,,
,
fgg liil
,,
..
, ii.1
=
'
..
,,
i w
,i yAfinP/1f I, i 1.
S RAFul a
- AnFJ1 MF/m o
,
a
..
..i I..I l,,1 y,cf
=
.i
,,
..
,,
,
p,.c op li,1 Ii.I
i,
,,
i
'
g, g,-
1.
I ii
..
.
l..I
..
..
i
..
..
,
_
i st' M6 C ln it-i lhM 2.9 li,\\,
,
e 1 1Mh?M m9/a0 R
i
liil iC/M G i i i il a
'
ffe gg in
. i i
Ia.1 l
. l.
c
.i
,,
,
'
..
..
,
g gj l,il t...,
..
.i i
..
,,
i
,6/D0
i l iI
,
,
- s MMM oli sM n?A MP /no r
!,,!,
~
Ii
'
io/id/J f-
.
!,,1
'
gg,,/g/yf/g
..
.,
,
liii
'
Iii1 i,
,,
i
.T/or/p c
- W.". 4* ~g i.
..
,
l i1 6dEbbEEbbE
=
t
.
..
i i
,
-
NE MMBRM n
c,
- - -
.. -.. - - -
-
-. -.
. -
- -.
.. -
.. -.
.. -..
.
..
_
-
__-_----
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
-
.
..
- -
.
.
-
-
_
_
,
.
i
-
,
-
-
_
-
g
-
-
.w g
y
_
l _1
Ei
,,
j
j g
-
-.
-
-
-
d
e r sT sT
-
-
--
- - -
2 Q
.Y
-
-
~
{ !
s
-
-
-
-
w g
W R
-
-
-
-
g
-
-
-
l m-m
--
%
w-I i
,
W~
-
-
9
--
-
E Lw Lw-w g
\\ b E
-
E
<
~
t~ a (
E tl
-
~
,
E h h
E
-
<
F.
yl
-
_
<
<
=f g
E t
..
u.
% q gG g
,
t
-
->
-
E 3 \\
.
-
-
M u M
M sl-c W
W W
!;
-
'
-
-
.
t h w
ti
-
-
g
=
g g
tl
-
.
-
w c
g 4
-
w Ij I
!
-
'
j!
-
-
-
.
.
i
=
, s c
-
-
g
-
-
o
-
j g
t 5
-.
_
,
,
\\ t
~
ei t
r E-
-
i
-
':
t\\mN3
\\ N c
_- - - -
=
!
-
[.
g
w
,
a
\\ \\
\\
!
0 0 K
!
8
e s
g
,
I i
'
l E -am*
g q g s u
!
I
,
y ette
'
& BERE '! h 4
%
Ir
-
g
{\\
. :
- t i
R i
J g
.
4 t.K g %
s
!
M
% %
Q t
-
S M
'
g g l
Q i
'
'
-
-~m.
s
-~m
,
, ~,,
S C C 22 C 2 s o ucc c c c c c'
-
5555 55 5 E
'5 5 5 E,
h y g y
.. -. -. -.
- - - - - -
-
-
.
-
- - _ _
- -
.
.
..
-
.
i lol-1Aald AvamoA M lIf r.g[.,,,,,3-m ontt m m m
-
g ijijjj
.
,
I I
I I
I I
I p/3o//g
'
I I
I I
I I
/
N ILITV
)
litM N M ER CLO$tM ACTION
-
!
b f h
$
d /
.
/
~
~
'
_
.
I
-
'
-
!
__
!
l
.
,
b
-
.
...
-
.
...
.
-
!
'
I
'
!
l l
[
.
l
-
-
.
!
!
,
l I
.
i i
,
!
-
-
-
,
--
,
--
,
h
+
l
.
.
'
'
$tt ROTR$I TOR E'.W E!
.
-r-e.-w-*,m.--n-y,,.-----,,.-r
e-.--,-
_---s.---,--w-*---we---w
--==*----~*---ww--==-+--w---
-
..
.
.-_ -
- -
-
!"I b I#I b ak o vh' / c l
lJ
_
bocarf n0,(s).
f l
1
1
j m M 41N.I m rvapun,
,
.
I' I I
I I
I I
go,, //g i
iI I
I I
I
/
W ILITV ITEM N M ER CLO$f0Li ACTION e f d c/sy 0 4 1 9
/ 4 / 9 6
-
-
o f f 9
- 2 P d 6bepi 2 /
9 9
-
-
l l
_
!
'
.
II
i
.
...
i:
-
....
.
I
'
l
,
!
!
!
i
-
i
.
,
!
_
,
,
-
l/ :
,
li
'
.
l
.
'
SEE RnTF.$E TOR E'.m t$
.
... - - -,. _ _ -.. _... - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
.