IR 05000458/1993013
| ML20044G376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1993 |
| From: | Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044G375 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-93-13, NUDOCS 9306030002 | |
| Download: ML20044G376 (21) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
.
,-
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
l NRC Inspection Report: -50-458/93-13 l
!
Operating License: NPF-47 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities P.O. box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 l
!
l Facility Name:
River Bend Station
Inspection At:
River Bend Station Site, St. Francisville, Louisiana inspection Conducted: May 3-7, 1993 Inspector:
J. B. Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Section Approved:
OM Bl'aine~Murray, I,hief, Fac ~ ities Inspection Date
'
Programs Section Inspection Summary
/
Areas inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management programs including organization and management controls, training and qualifications, quality assurance, radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent systems, radioactive effluent monitoring, and reports of radioactive effluents.
,
Results:
+
A good radioactive waste effluent management program was being properly
.
implemented (Section 1.1).
The chemistry department, radiological engineering sectior., and the
.
radwaste operations section organizational st6 -tures 2.nd naffing met requirements (Section 1.1).
The chemistry department and radiological engineering section had
.
experienced a very low turnover of technical personnel-(Section 1.1).
A good training program had been implemented for chemistry personnel
.
responsible for performing radioactive waste effluent activities (Section 2.1).
9006030002 930526 PDR-ADDCK 05000459 G
__
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_
_- _ -
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
s-2-A satisfactory number of chemistry personnel had been trained and
qualified to perform radioactive waste effluent activities (Section 2.1).
Good quality assurance audit and surveillance programs of the
radioactive wa::te effluent program and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual had been implemented (Section 3.1).
Quality assurance audits had been performed of the contractors used to
perform radioactive waste analyses (Section 3.1).
An excellent liquid and gaseous radioactive waste effluent program was
being implemented (Sections 4.1 and 5.1).
A good testing and calibration program had been established for the
radioactive waste effluent instrumentatiun and radiation monitors (Sections 4.1 and 5.1).
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports were submitted in a
timely manner and contained all the required information in the proper format (Section 6.1).
A satisfactory postaccident sampling system operator training and
qualification program was being implemented for the chemistry technicians (Section 7.1).
Good quality assurance surveillances of the postaccident sampling system
operation and equipment inventory had been performed (Section 7.1).
A good postaccident sampling system surveillance test program was being
implemented (Section 7.1).
Summary of Inspection Findings:
Inspection Followup Item 458/9122-01 war closed (Section 8.1).
- Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
Attachment 2 - Summation of all liquid Effluent Releases
Attachment 3 - Summation of all Airborne Effluent Releases
Attachment 4 - Maximum Annual Doses from Gaseous and Liquid
Effluent Releases Attachment 5 - Liquid Effluent Release Summary
..
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
'
s-3-Attachment 6 - Gaseous Effluent Release Summary
.
l
...
~
<
. '
-4-DETAILS 1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS (84750)
The inspector reviewed the organization and staffing regarding the radioactive waste effluent program to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in-Technical Specification 6.2.
1.1 Discussion The inspector verified that the organizational structure of the chemistry department, radwaste operations section, and the radiological engineering section, which are responsible for the implementation of the radioactive waste effluent program, were as defined in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and Technical Specifications. Management control procedures were reviewed for the assignment of responsibilities for the management and implementation of the radioactive waste effluent program. The chemistry department was assigned the responsibility for preparing the radioactive waste release permits and evaluating the radioactive waste effluent releases.
The radwaste operations-section was responsible for making the radioactive waste effluent releases.
The radiological engineering section was responsible for calculating the radiation doses resulting from the releaser to the environment and maintaining the radioactive waste effluent release data. The inspector determined that the duties and responsibilities of the respective organizations as specified in station procedures were being implemented.
Seventeen chemistry technicians staffing four rotational shifts were directly responsible for collecting and analyzing radioactive waste effluent samples and preparing the effluent release permits. The inspector interviewed several of the chemistry technicians, several members of the radiological engineering section, and two radwaste operators, and determined that they were all familiar with the requirements of the radioactive waste effluent program and maintained a high level of performance.
The inspector reviewed the staffing of the chemistry department, radiological engineering section, and the radwaste operations section since the previous NRC inspection of the radioactive waste effluent program conducted in June 1992 and determined that all three organizations were adequately staffed in accordance with licensee commitments.
There had been a very low turnover of personnel within the chemistry department and radi> logical engineering section.
-
~
~
_
_
_
.
.
,
.
.
j i
!
-!
-5-j
.
1.2 Conclusions
i The chemistry department, radiological engineering section, and the radwaste j
operations section organizational structures and staffing met Technical Specification requirements. A good radioactive waste effluent management
program was being implemented in accordance with station procedures. The
!
chemistry department and radiological engineering section had experienced a
very low turnover of technical personnel during the past year.
'
'
,
2 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS (84750)
-j v
The inspector reviewed the training and qualification programs fcr the
,
chemistry technicians responsible for implementing the radioactive waste
,
effluent program to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in
Technical Specifications 6.3 and 6.4.
2.1 p'scussion The inspector reviewed the training records and qualification cards for the
!
chemistry technicians responsible for performing radioactive waste effluent program activities.
Based on the review, it was verified that the seventeen
chemistry technicians responsible for performing radioactive waste effluent
!
program activities had completed the required training to perform their e,
assigned duties. It was also noted that the entire chemistry department staff had recently completed training on the new effluent management _ system liquid discharge permit computer software.
- 2.2 Conclusions The licensee had implemented a good radwaste effluents training program for the chemistry department.
Seventeen chemistry technicians were qualified to
!
perform independent sampling, analyses, and processing of radioactive waste
effluent release permits to meet Technical Specification requirements. The
!
- chemistry department had an adequate, well qualified staff to meet shift staffing requirements.
i
'
3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (84750)
The inspector reviewed the quality assurance audit and surveillance programs regarding the radioactive waste effluent program activities to determine agreement with commitments in Chapters 13 and 17 of the 85 dated Safety
-
Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in.schnical i
i Specification 6.5.3.8.
3.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the quality assurance surveillance and audit plans and checklists and the qualifications of the quality assurance auditors and technical specialists who performed the audits of the chemistry program, i
,
_ _ _
_
_ - _
e.
L
,
-6-radiological environmental monitoring program, and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The audit were in compliance with the Technical Specification audit frequency requirements.
Reports of quality assurance audits performed during 1992 of the areas related to the performance of the radioactive waste effluent program were reviewed for scope, thoroughness of program evaluation, and timely followup of identified deficiencies. The audits were performed in accordance with quality assurance procedures and schedules by qualified auditors and technical specialists. The reviewed audits of the chemistry program, radiological environmental monitoring program, and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual were of good quality and satisfactory to evaluate the licensee's performance in implementing the radioactive waste effluent program and meeting the Technical Specification and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
Quality Assurance Audit 92-04-I-CHEM, " Chemistry Program," conducted April 7-16, 1992, reviewed, in part, the effectiveness and adequacy of the chemistry program management and the performance of sampling and analyses of required samples by chemistry technicians.
The audit verified that the required samples and analyses were being performed and documented in accordance with chemistry department procedures. Two audit findings were identified and nine concerns were generated as a result of this audit. None of the audit findings or concerns were directly related to the performance of tne radioactive waste effluent program activities. These audit findings were documented in Quality Assurance Finding Reports P-92 04-005 and P-92-04-006~
and were in the process of being closed.
Responses to the'nine audit concerns were reviewed by the inspector and found satisfactory.
Quality Assurance Audit 92-05-I-ENVL, " Environmental Monitoring Program,"
conducted May 5-14, 1992, reviewed the overall adequacy. and effectiveness of H
the radiological environmental monitoring program. The audit scope was satisfactory to evaluate the licensee's performance of required environmental monitoring activities and how these activities monitored the effect of the radioactive waste effluent program on the environment.
Four concerns were generated as a result of this ' audit. None of the audit concerns.were directly
,
related to the performance of the radioactive waste effluent program l
activities.
Responses to the four audit concern:, were reviewed by the
.l inspector and found satisfactory.
Quality Assurance Audit 92-01-I-0DCM, "Offsite Dose Crlculation Manual,"
conducted January 10-17, 1992, reviewed, in part, the implementation of the dose calculation methodologies described in the Offsite Dose Calculation
":nuC
' the doses calculated from gaseous and ' * quid effluents released to
.
the environment.
The doses reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports met all Technical Specification requirements.
The inspector reviewed two quality assurance surveillances performed _ during the time period January 1992 through April 1993 in the areas related to the performance of the radioactive waste effluent program.
Quality Assurance Surveillance 0S-92-01-16, " Conduct of Chemistry," was performed on January 31, s.
.. <....
_-... _..
.
_
_
'
<
e
.
e-7-
.,
1992, and monitored chemistry personnel performing the required sampling and analyses of recovery sample tank 4D in preparation for a batch radioactive waste liquid waste release. There were no findings or observations identified. Quality Assurance Surveillance 05-92-10-20, " Radiological Waste Effluent Program," was performed on October 30, 1992, and included the review of radioactive waste liquid discharge permits generated during the time period February through August 1992 to determine if the radioactive waste liquids
!
i were sampled and analyzed in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that the required dose calculations had been performed.
There were no findings or observations identified.
)
The licensee was using a contractor laboratory to perform Technical j
Specification required radiochemistry analyses on radioactive waste effluent composite samples. The licensee was also using a contractor to perform in-place filter testing and laboratory charcoal adsorber analyses on the station's safety-related air cleaning systems. The licensee had performed an audit of the contractor radiochemistry laboratory during the time period November 6-8, 1991, and had used an audit of the air cleaning systems filter testing contractor performed by a Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee audit team during the time period March 13-14, 1991, to evaluate the performance of j
the contractors to perform their respective functions and to retain their I
current status on the licensee's qualified suppliers list. The inspector reviewed these audits performed on the two contractors and determined that the audits were satisfactory to evaluate the contractors' abilities to perform their respective Technical Specification required analyses and surveillance activities. The inspector verified-that the licensee had also performed annual evaluations of the contractors' programs as required to retain their
'
current status on the licensee's qualified suppliers list.
3.2 Conclusions Quality assurance audits of the radioactive waste effluent program and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual had been performed as required. These audits were technically comprehensive and provided good program evaluation and management oversight. Quality assurance surveillances which monitored radioactive waste effluent program activities had been performed. Audits and evaluations of the contractors used to perform radioactive waste effluent program Technical Specification radiochemistry surveillance analyses and safety-related air cleaning systems' surveillance testing had been performed as required to retain the contractors' current status on the licensee's qualified suppliers list.
4 LIQUID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE EFFLUENTS (84750)
The inspector reviewed the liquid radioactive waste effluent program including liquid waste processing, liquid waste sampling and analyses, procedures for control and release of radioactive liquid waste effluents, surveillance tests, and liquid effluent instrumentation and radiation monitor txts and calibrations to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 11 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in
....
-
- _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
-_________
..
A
.
-8-Technical Specifications 3/4.7.10, Table 4.3.7.10-1, 3/4.11.1.1, Table 4.11.1.1.1-1, 3/4.11.1.2, 6.8.1, 6.14, and 6.15, and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, j
4.1 Discussion
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the liquid radioactive waste effluent program and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual to ensure compliance with sampling and analyses requirements, analyses sensitivities, analytical results, surveillance tests, radwaste operations procedures,
I offsite dose results from radioactive liquid effluents, and operational tests l
and calibrations of equipment and radiation monitors associated with the l
radioactive liquid waste processing systems.
The inspector reviewed selected procedures governing the release of liquid radioactive waste effluents. These procedures provided for the following:
recirculation and sampling of the radioactive liquid waste; chemical and radionuclide analyses of the radioactive liquid waste prior to release; calculation of effluent release rate, effluent radiation monitor setpoints, projected offsite radionuclide concentrations, and offsite doses prior to release; and recording of dilution parameters and verification of effluent discharge flow rates and effluent volume discharged during the release.
The inspector accompanied and observed a chemistry technician collect a i
radioactive waste liquid sample from recovery sample tank 4A on May 5, 1993.
I analyze the sample, and prepare the batch radioactive waste liquid release permit. The inspector accompanied and observed a radwaste operator perform the radioactive waste liquid release. All aspects of the batch radioactive waste liquid release were performed in accordance with approved procedures.
The inspector reviewed a representative number of batch radioactive waste liquid release permits for the period June 1, 1992 through April 30, 1993.
It was determined that the processing, sampling, and analyses of radioactive waste liquid effluent and the approval and performance of batch radioactive liquid waste discharges were conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
Quantities of radionuclides released in the liquid effluents were within the limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Offsite doses were calculated according to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and were within the required limits. The inspector verified that the licensee was performing the Technical Specification required analyses on composite samples of batch radioactive waste liquid releases for gross alpha, strontium-89, strontium-90, and iron-55.
The inspector determined that no major design modifications had been made to the liquid radioactive waste management system during 1992. The inspector reviewed Modification Request 93-0011 which was completed on April 5, 1993, and used to install a temporary waste liquid effluent discharge line to connect the discharge from recovery sample tanks ILWS-P4A, ILWS-P4B, and ILWS-P4C through the permanent waste liquid effluent discharge line (lLWS-002-615-4) to the circulating water system blowdown line.
The inspector
...
.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_
_ _.
_
_
_.
<
.
~
.
B
\\
-9-
]
<
accompanied a radwaste operator during the walkdown of the temporary discharge line prior to making a batch radioactive liquid effluent release from recovery l
sample tank 4A on May 5,1993. The temporary liquid waste discharge line was
required to be inspected by operations personnel twice per a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period to
identify any leaks or potential for any leak.
The temporary liquid waste
)
j effluent discharge line was installed downstream of LWS-A0V257 in the liquid l
'
waste discharge line, ILWS-002-615-4, to ensure isolation capability and
.l monitoring of radioactivity in the liquid waste effluent by radiation monitor l
l 1RMS-RE107. The temporary liquid waste effluent discharge line increased the j
iiquid waste effluent discharge flow rate from approximately 50 gallons per
!
>
'
minute to a maximum of 100 gallons per minute. The temporary liquid waste
'
'
effluent discharge line was necessary to ensure continued operation of the
.
liquid waste system while discharging the increased liquid waste discharge
!
volume caused by the draining of the condensate storage tank via of the liquid j
waste system prior to cleaning the condensate storage tank to eliminate
identified high total organic carbon concentrations.
i
The inspector reviewed selected liquid radioactive waste process and effluent
.
'
radiation monitor source check, channel check, functional test, and calibration records. All records reviewed indicated that the radioactive l
liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation was being maintained, tested, and j
calibrated properly in compliance with Technicc1 Specification requirements.
4.
!
4.2 Conclusions
!
'
!
!
The licensee was implementing a liquid radioactive waste effluent program in
accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation
,
,
Manual.
The quantities of radionuclides released in the liquid radioactive
waste effluents were within the Technical Specification limits.
Offsite doses
'
to the environment from the liquid radioactive waste effluents had been l
calculated using Offsite Dose Calculation Manual methodologies, and the dose i
results were within Technical Specification limits. The licensee had not made
- '
any major equipment or design modifications to the radioactive liquid waste
management systems during 1992. A temporary liquid waste effluent discharge i
line had been installed to increase the liquid waste discharge flow from the l
a
'
liquid waste system while draining the condensate storage tank.
Liquid t
radioactive waste effluent instrumentation and radiation monitors were being
,
tested and calibrated in compliance with Technical Specification requirements.
!
'
$
5 GASE0US RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE EFFLUENTS (84750)
t
,
The inspector reviewed the gaseous radioactive waste effluent program
!
l including gaseous waste processing, gaseous waste sampling and analyses.
l
!
surveillance tests, and gaseous effluent instrumentation and radiation monitor
tests and calibrations to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 11 e
of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in
!
Technical Specifications 3/4.3.7.11, Table 4.3.7.11-1, 3/4.11.2.1, Table j
l 4.11.2.1.2-1, 6.8.1, 6.14, and 6.15, and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
j i
'
'
'
-
-
.
-
.. - -
.
..
_ _ - __ ___________
.
_.. _
.
..
O
+
-10-5.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the gaseous radioactive waste effluent program and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual to ensure compliance with sampling and analyses requirements, analyses sensitivities, analytical results, surveillance tests, offsite dose results from radioactive gaseous effluents, and operational tests and calibrations of equipment and radiation monitors associated with the radioactive gaseous waste processing systems.
The inspector reviewed selected surveillance tests governing the continuous release of gaseous radioactive waste effluents for the period July 1,1992 through April 30, 1993. These surveillance tests provided for the sampling and analyses of the radioactive gaseous waste effluents, verification of effluent discharge flow rates and effluent volume discharged, and calculation of offsite radionuclide doses. It was determined that the sampling, analyses, and continuous discharge of the radioactive gaseous effluents was conductedin accordance with Technical Specification requirements. Quantities of gaseous and particulate radionuclides released were within the limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Offsite dores had been calculated according to Offsite Dose Calculation Manual methodologies and were wit *ain required limits.
Particulate effluent composite sample analyses for. gro;.i alpha, strontium-89, and strontium-90 had been performed and met Technical Specification requirements.
The inspector determined that no major equipment or desigo modifications had been made to the radioactive gaseous waste management systems during 1992.
The inspector reviewed selected gaseous radioactive waste process and effluent instrumentation and radiation monitor source check, channel check, functional test, and calibration records. All records reviewed indicated that the l
instrumentation and effluent radiation monitors were being maintained tested, and calibrated properly in compliance with Technical Specification
,
requirements.
i 5.2 Conclusions The licensee was implementing a gaseous radioactive waste effluent program in accordance with the Technical Specifications and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Quantities of radionuclides released in the gaseous radioactive waste effluents were within the Technical Specification limits. Offsite doses to the environment from the gaseous radioactive waste effluents had been calculated using Offsite Dose Calculation Manual methodologies, and.the dose results were within Technical Specification limits. The licensee had not made any major equipment or design modifications to the radioactive gaseous waste management systems during 1992.
Gaseous radioactive waste effluent instrumentation and radiation monitors were being tested and calibrated in-compliance with Technical Specification requirement _ _ _ _ _ -._- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
.-
v
.
-11-6 REPORTS OF RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS (84750)
The inspector reviewed reports concerning radioactive waste systems and effluent releases to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.36(a)(2) and Technical Specifications 6.9.1.8, 6.14, and 6.15.
6.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for the tir periods January 1 through June 30, 1992, and July 1 through December 31, 1992.
These reports were written in the format described in NRC
-
Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, June 1974, and contained the information
.
required by the Technical Specifications. During the time period January 1 through December 31, 1992, the licensee had performed 642 liquid batch releases. The licensee reported one abnormal release during the time period reviewed. On March 5, 1992, tornadic winds and heavy rain were experienced at River Bend Station.
These winds scattered approximately 2730 square feet of contaminated fiberglass insulation and other debris onto the buildings and grounds surrounding the station. After the analysis of the event, it was estimated that 1.29E-07 Curies of cobalt-60 were washed into East Creek and the unrestricted area.
This amount of radioactive material did not exceed any release limits and did not present any radiological hazard to the environment.
Effluent moniioring instrumentation had not been out of service in excess of Technical Specification requirements during the tine period reviewed.
The inspector reviewed typographical changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual made during the time period reviewed and found the changes documented
!
in the appropriate Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report as required by the Technical Specifications.
Summaries of the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases and associated doses for 1990, 1991, and 1992 are presented in Attachments 2 through 6 to this inspection report.
6.2 Conclusions The licensee had submitted their Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Releasa Reports in a timely manner, and these reports contained all the required information presented in the format described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21.
The abnormal radioactive release did not exceed any Technical Specification limits.
Typographical changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual were properly documented.
7 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING SYSTEM (84524)
The inspector reviewed the postaccident sampling system (gerational readiness while performing a followup inspection of two emergency exercise weaknesses concerning the performance of the postaccident sampling system operators and the sampling capability of the postaccident sampling system including operator training, quality assurance surveillances, and operational surveillance tests to determine compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.8.4.c.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
-
o
.
-12-l 7.1 Discussion
[
The inspector reviewed the postaccident sampling system operations training records for the seventeen chemistry technicians and noted that thirteen chemistry technicians had completed the annual postaccident sampling system operations classroom training and the annual on-the-job evaluation in 1992 and the annual classroom training in 1993.
The remaining four chemistry
!
technicians had not completed the required prerequisite training so they could receive their initial training on the postaccident sampling system.
Eight of the seventeen chamistry technicians had completed their 1993 on-the-job evaluations at the time of the inspection.
The inspector reviewed two quality assurance surveillances performed in 1992
!
of the postaccident sampling system operation. Quality Assurance Surveillance l
'
05-92-02-10, " PASS Sample Collection and Inventory," was performed on February 28, 1992, and monitored a team consisting of two chemistry technicians and one radiation protection technician attempting to collect a large volume liquid and dissolved gas sample from the postaccident sampling system jet pump sample point.
The team was unable to collect the sample because the large volume sample cask would not fit under the postaccident sampling system sample point.
A Condition Report and Maintenance Work Order were issued to document and correct the problem. A second attempt to collect the. sample was successful.
Postaccident sampling system equipment inventory surveillance test sheets were verified to be performed as required. Quality Assurance Surveillance 05-92-09-28, " PASS Sample Collection," was performed on September 3,1992, to followup on the sampling problems encountered during the quality assurance surveillance of the postaccident sampling system performed in February 1992.
No findings or concerns were identified.
The inspector reviewed the postaccident sampling system operational procedur_es for collecting liquid samples of the reactor water system or the suppression pool and collecting gaseous, iodine, and particulate samples of the containment /drywell atmosphere. The inspector also reviewed postaccident sampling system surveillance tests completed during the time period' January -
1992 through April 1993. The surveillance tests were designed to urify the-operational readiness of the postaccident sampling system to collect reactor water and containment /drywell atmosphere samples for analysis and assassment of reactor core damage in the event of a reactor accident in accordance with NUREG-0737 and Technical Specification requirements. The postaccident sampling system equipment and supplies were inventoried monthly and a simulated collection of a small volume liquid, large volume liquid, and dissolved gas samples of reactor water was performed monthly. A containment /drywell atmospF
- a:plc was collected quarterly. These surveillance tests were performed at the required frequencies and the results of the tests satisfactorily verified that all portions of the postaccident.
sampling system operated in an acceptable manner, including, indicating devices, sample selectors, and associated equipment. The inspector reviewed the analytical cross-check results of the reactor water samples collected twice per year from the postaccident sampling system and the reactor water recirculation system. The isotopic analysis results of the two samples were
..
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_-... _
.
%
-13-in agreement.
Samples from the residual heat removal system and the postaccident sampling system sample points were scheduled to be included in the semiannual cross-check comparison program for sampling and analysis of the small and large volume liquid postaccident sampling system samples.
On May 4, 1993, the inspector observed an unannounced exercise to demonstrate the licensee's capability to collect and analyze, in the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> required time l
frame, a small volume liquid sample from the residual heat removal system and a containment air sample using the postaccident sampling system. -A team consisting of a radiation protection technician and two chemistry technicians was assembled, briefed, and dispatched to the postaccident sampling system panel in the radiological controlled area. The assembled team functioned well together and performed effectively and efficiently i preparing themselves and gathering all of the required equipment necessary to collect the requested postaccident samples prior to entering the radiological controlled area.
The team attempted to collect a small volume liquid sample from the residual heat removal train A sample point at the postaccident sampling i,ystem panel. While attempting to purge the sample line, sample flow stopped and the sampling process was suspended.
It was determined that sample flow could not be restored due to the failure of valve ISSR-50V-135.
A Maintenance Work Request was written to repair the failed valve.
The failed valve was repaired, and the licensee satisfactorily collected and analyzed a small volume liquid sample from the postaccident sampling system residual heat removal system train A sample point in the required time frame on May 7, 1993.
-
7.2 Conclusions A satisfactory postaccident sampling system operator training and qualification program was being implemented for the chemistry technicians.
Thirteen chemistry technicians were qualified to operate the postaccident sampling system.
Good quality assurance surveillances of the postaccident sampling system operation and equipment inventory had been performed. A good
'
postaccident sa:apling system surveillance test program was being implemented.
Several hardware problems were encountered and resolved during the performance of the postaccident sampling system surveillance tests.
8 FOLLOWUP (92701)
8.1 (Closed) Inspection Followup Item 458/9122-01: Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Dose Conversion Factors This item was identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/91-22 and involved differences in the calculated offsite dose results between the licensee and the NRC for the total body and critical organs for all age groups from airborne radioactive iodines and particulates. The licensee's iodine-131 and iodine-133 dose conversion factors for the inhalation pathway and ground plane calculations were high by a factor of 2 which caused an overestimation of the iodine dose to the public as a result of airborne iodines released to the environment.
The licensee reviewed and evaluated their current computer code and was unable to determine the reason for the high (factor of 2) dose
_ - __-___--_____
._-________ __ _ _ _
_
.
o
.
-14-conversion factors for iodine-131 and iodine-133.
Based on their evaluation the licensee decided not to alter the iodine dose factors since they were in the process of purchasing a "new" computer code for performing.offsite dose calculations from effluent releases. The intpector performed confirmatory i
l dose calculations on several airborne radioactive particulates and confirmed that the licensee's calculated dose results using their current dose calculation computer code were in agreement with the NRC's calculated doses for the total body and critical organs for all age groups and ingestion pathways. The inspector also performed confirmatory dose calculations for comparison with the dose results calculated by the licensee's "new" computer code. The inspector and licensee performed dose calculations on several test
,
cases based on typical effluent radionuclide concentrations and release rates i
i for radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents.
The calculated dose results for the radwaste liquid effluents were in agreement between the licensee's and the
!
NRC's dose results-for the adult total body and critical organs for all radionuclides compared. A test case for noble gases was performed, and the licensee's dose results for the total body gamma-air dose, total body beta-air
!
dose, total body gamma dose, and total gamma and beta skin dose from exposure i
to radioactive noble gases were in agreement with the NRC's calculated doses.
I The licensee's dose results from the radioactive airborne iodines and j
particulates were greater (i.e., conservative) when compared to the NRC's calculated dose results.
The differences in the calculated dose results between the licensee's results and the NRC's results were determined to be the result of the licensee's computer code adding the ground plane dose to each of the critical organ doses calculated by the licensee as a result of ingestion.
The NRC's computer code, PC-DOSE, adds the ground plane dose contribution to only the total body dose.
Therefore, when the ground plane dose was added to the NRC's calculated critical organ doses, the licensee's and the NRC's calculated dose results agreed for the examples tested.
Based on the results of the test cases, the inspector concluded that the licensee's current and
"new" computer codes calculated accurate offsite doses to the public resulting from radioactive waste effluents discharged to the environment.
)
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-..__ _ _.
- _ - - _ _ _ _
__
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -
.
4 ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- P. D. Graham, Vice President, River Bend Nuclear Group
- R. J. Backen, Supervisor, Systems Quality Assurance
- R. L. Biggs, Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance D. D. Castleberry, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
- H. R. Causey, Systems Engineer l
D. A. Dabodie, Radwaste Operator l
- S. V. Desai, Principal Engineer
- C. E. DeWeese, Senior Chemistry Engineer
'
- R. G. Easlick, Supervisor, Radwaste
- L. A. England, Director, Nuclear Licensing
- C. L. Fantacci, Supervisor, Radiological Engineering L. B. Frederickson, Chemistry Technician
- P. E. Freehill, Assistant Plant Manager, Outage Maintenance
- K. D. Garner, Licensing Engineer
- K. J. Giadrocich, Director, Quality Assurance
- J. R. Hamilton, Manager, Plant Engineering R. K. Jobe, Senior Emergency Planner
- G. R. Kimmell, Supervisor, General Maintenance
- G. D. Lipham, Acting Supervisor, Chemistry
- D. N. Lorfing, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
- I. M. Malik, Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance
- W. H. Odell, Director, Radiological Programs g
- J. P. Schippert, Plant Manager
'
R. T. Scnoemer, Systems Quality Assurance Engineer J. L. Schram, Operations Senior Quality Assurance Engineer M. H. Small, Quality Assurance Engineer
- W. M. Smith, Supervisor, Emergency Planning W. H. Spell, Health Physicist
- K. E. Suhrki, Manager, Site Support K. W. Varnado, Radiologich' Engineer
- C. A. Womack, Systems Engineer
,
C. L. Young, Acting Chemistry Foreman i
l 1.2 NRC Personnel W. F. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector, River Bend Station
- D. P. Loveless, Resident Inspector, River Bend Station In addition to the personnel listed above, the..;specio. contacted other personnel during the inspection period.
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting on May 7,1993.
-.
....
. - _-_____ _ -___-
- -.
..
.
.
.
_
. -.
,
,
.
I
%-
{
.9..
,
.
.
-2 t
t
,
2 EXIT MEETING E
!
An exit meeting was conducted on May 7, 1993. During this meeting, the
.
inspecter reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee did i
not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector during the inspection.
.
I
,
h
I
t h
I i
.
P l
l I
',
,
--
,
_ _.. _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,. _... _ _.. _.. _ _, _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _... _ _.. _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _,.
_ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _..
.. _..
..,...
t
%
w
-
o
-
@
w O
O O
O g
a
+
e
+
w w
6aJ
&nd W
W w
w
&
&
-
- t O
CD
&
D O
,
v.
e%.
sa'
@
N D
O 9%
.-*
@
-*
m O
-
M N
O
-
W M
O O
O O
N e
+
+
E L
hmJ w
eaJ w
haa 6.a.J
-
W W
-
@
M (Y
m.
-
N.
N.
af.
C D
- %
- 3 O
fs n
N
O e=e m
-
@
S Op
' @
eue
. wei N
N O
N
@
N O
O O
O M
b
+
e
W LJ W
W w
w Le.J W
W M
@
- -
O
@
g M'e D
O
.
.
V.
+
af at f*')
N D
D W
(D 6A
N O
l
-
N
-
O O
i N
e
-
i O
O m
a
+
s
+
M La.o w
w ked LJ w
g 6-W
&
(T5 M
&O P%
K i
M.
O M.
C.
- 1 l
C D
A D
l O
no 8%
==
&
m O
.
E.R./
W
.-
N e
-
O N
@
r
-
O-O O
O O
O O
=w O
M g
a
+
a
+
n
+
t
+
,
"
a.na LaJ wa LaJ Lad m.eJ
$,nd Lee esa LJ i
%
W W
W
&nd
&
N f%
O K
%O N.
Ne
@
L's O
r~.
O.
~.
cr.
<
o
<t
.
O
@
n.
3 -
a m
-
O w
-
~
-,
,
O
-
m m
,.
.n
.
.
,
"5 i
-
emE
<
-
-
e m
-
O N
u m
-
-
O O
O O
O O
Q O
O t%
&.J K
a
+
s
+
+
e
+
LaJ hat W
W
&as heJ 4eJ La.1 baJ
<
E
-
-
m
~
~
~
m m
.
O e
g
O.
-
W O.
.
N.
Ne
@
N.
4D.
.
erf oN O
T
me D
.
D anr O
@
M
- tt M
hO O
g 8;
-
E I
~-
g i
-
.-
I m
N
-
-
N
@
N
-
O m
.
O O
O O
O O
O O
i
+
s
+
l g
a
+
a
+
a 6.a w
w w
w w
.a w
w w
eJ W
-
g N
wt O
&D E
CPn e.g 9%
Os
4A (D
W
- Ef e.h 4A
@
C
.
W AA.
D q
-
4.D M
O
_ **
@
t%
Ch O
iD
.
D
.
O at c
O e.D O
O O
O
-
O O
O O
g a
+
e
+
g e
+
g
+
4mJ 66.4 LaJ haJ
&aJ 6.eJ b-L6J 4a.d 14J W
WW
-
- =e ett M
&
P%
O h.
9F a1
+-e m.
.
Ch
- 1
-
Ch.
M.
.
4A.
- =*
p
.
D og O
e.O
-
et SC N
O
==
N eO N
f%
T V
V V
C 4-
@
C
&^
0
+4*
MW e.**
-m+
W
-
C e an
.D C **
an
@
en t
sp o' n
@ N N
b b R (O
- "'*'
L b F
f e *
CUw W
u
- A *Gi e
4s 3 W
D G.I in e.J
@
f
W E"
4.*
+.* L
.-L
0 3
-
sm, Uw u
4J
44 L
@
U 3 L
W CL, aC (J
n2 se
.
gr.a a1 f.aw v
@
D
anl5 P E
te.-
ear! w U
G-O~
Q te e
w t an-O<--
O ao e
w t e
.
na e5 W @
ga @
@
C +a y
p C
> m ga g4 r,
y h eG
--an T
- -
sn -
- * * *
La Q
.-O O
b e c pe e b m O
t. 8
a-D SJ R$ @
fD e
+
sn w se so b
L to b
Ge 9
O @
W W 4.*
mD 4.6
{-
e b
.e M.C m-E-
e o
-
9e th D Z tr u E.E W
DZ 3w Zm 4.a,. CL 6--
- =en a m-
"J GJ b
- * = C Me 3 W
- L b
QZ
E w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N N
p
-- -
-
_- _ _.... _ _ _
_._ _ _
. -_,.,_. _, _. _.. - _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _.
___
....
O e
D e
~
m n
e, n
O O
O O
&
+
=
s
+
g e-w a.aJ eaJ taJ mJ w
>-
K
- =**
O A
E'%J Q
af et C.)
Q Ch ett.
.
.
D O
O W
E)
N N
O
-
M N
m M
O re)
O O
O O.
e t
i
+
cr a.
sJ
se.,
anJ w
aeJ w
e-cr W
m (T M
w et
&
t%
G_.
Jn s[
D
=
-
D O
O N
f.T
-=
7 O
F')
e Ch CP.
- C.h.e eo
.
N N
N m
O t%
O O
O O
4 K
Q
4.n'>
a.,
w w
n.
k.a w.J.
e.-
a-f.
-
m C
-
U Cr
- ?
O N
O et O
D o
O-e
-
-
m O
l l
I l
.
-
N N
m O
-
O O
O O
W
+
i e
+
g K.J h
Les a*J tas W
a[
W tw C
W ew s
aA t--
&
w
Cb
-
f%
C at D
Z
-
O O
-
-
-
m" W
w E
-
E n
~
m m
-
n
-
m e
-
I
"
O O
O O
O O
O O
,
W
+
+
g
+
i a
f
.
6.4 u.i w
w ti w
w tes haJ LaJ l
[
[
-
+9 m
eiy in g
s.
%
m en
.-
W W
y
N.
N.
O.
M.
O.
sn.
m at tw va D
D
,
h O
O m
W
-
-
O O
C N
-
@
i I
sc
_
_
E e
<
%
,,,,.,,i m
N N
r4
=
m N
- F LA
-
O O
O O
O O
O O
h aC gr
1
+
g
+
e t
w i+J 6.J w
uJ 6.J w
ks.s AaJ haJ
<
.,.
b-e-
O rY N
f%
Ch O
m sa'
W m
th I
p
.
.
o.
ce aL tv.
pi gr
=I C.
Ch
.
ge
j O
O O
~
N
~
O O
m N
N
'#>
O N
g
-
g
_
-t
-
-
.
.
_
-
N
-
N O
N
-
O O
O W
D O
O O
O g
+
t a
+
gr e
i e
s eJ 4.aJ k.s W
kn.s w
L4)
nas as f km.a e--
en
- y c
ev
-
A, fx
@
-
-
O
~
m ui at W
M
M.-
e,t.
3-y O
O at -
N
+*
N O
O e=
+4
-
m
-
mme====
.-
O o
C O
-
ce, g
-
O O
O O
O O
O O
y
+
+
+
gy
+
e e
=
w n.a w
w kn.s w
w w
w LeJ
+-
e--
W G
O
-
m e.t N
t's at G
-
- -*
C7 ty k
O Cn ch
p
.
N.
4:
.
O O
O
-
A T
O O
O
Ch f%
e n
s er.
%.
en G,
G1 C-me
e=m.e O
I L D
I A
-
.-
Zv e
ee Kuw
~
E
- * ' -~
~
R U9 so -
et V
-<
ea m sn
- -~
- * -
E
>.~ eL
> b me e
W
>
G, A
Y T
J U
G*
ef2 *
b.
T U 3 b
iS T
+QS u
.*
c E V GI
,;
.
4.J L
>
-
e 4.J L
e A
L L^.
G) T B
LD 4 L-J C
GD T
LL M fJ-Y
--eO"'
&"
h M w D
@ E'
W M
-
e w
-
e.>
u
- +G en t
- -=D~
O V>
nh O~
e-C e v?
- )
r F
G!
c
- J
- - - so 3 A E_
4, 4,
&
.e
- 1 e
eE.
(.s
.e3 4.-
so O
(.,
e8e -e@
E, e
+ Co sa L 4*
as 4J
& B eto T L
4J GF
.e3 V
O ti L
L.e s Ur c
- m Os m M
sr>
ir.
8C
M c;
L m -
L 3 a:
+ C s*
L >
e
L >
w V-An 2'
E3'
u. L.
-cw--
s1 J
>*
Z Ez.
C.
- ~w E.n.
.s 6--
L ou m
4.-
ee N
er e4 st$
-
N r*'s M
sf J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _. _ _. _.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c
.4
ATTACHMENT 4 MAXIMtN ANNUAL DOSES FROM GASEOUS AND LIQUID Ef f tf4 NI Ritt ASES-I
'1990 Dose 2 Anmaal Limit Per ' Unit l
. Percent of Unit :
ifa.atd Effluents Whole Body 0.10 mrem 3 mrem 3.3%
Organ (GI tract)
1.06 mrem 10 mrem 10.6%
Gaseous Effluents Noble Gas Gama ( Air Dose)
0.65 mrad 10 mrad 6.5%
Beta (Air Dose)
1.01 mrad 20 mead 5.1%
j lodine-131, todine-133, Tritium, and
.
Particulates with Half lives > 8 days 4.50 mrem 15 mrem 30.0%
1991 Dose.:
i Annual Limit. Per Unit'.
Percentof'doit; Liquid Effluents Whole Body 0.05 mrem 3 mrem
.1.7%
Oruan (GI Tract)
0.58 mrem 10 mrem 5.8%
Gaseous Effluents Noble Gas Gama (Air Dese)
1.17 mrad 10 mrad 11.7%
Beta (Atr Dese)
1.28 mrad 20 mrad 6.4%
lodine-131, Iodine-133 Tritium, and Particulates with Half Lives > B days 1.30 mrem 15 mrem 8.6%
-.
-
_ - _ - _ _ - _.
_____--_-_
-._ ---__ -__ ___--_ _ _ _ _ _ _
--- - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_--
.
.
...
...,
,
i
ATTACHMENT 4 (cont)
MAXIMUM ANNUAL 005E5 TROM GASE0ft AND LIQUID Ef FLUENT RflEASES l
1992 Dose.
Annual Limit Per Unit
. Percent of limit'.-
Ltauid Effluents Whole Fody 0.47 mrem 3 mrem 15.6%
Crgan (GI tract)
4. 39 rn. em 10 mrem 43.9%
Gaseous Effluents Neble Gas Gama ( Air Ocse)
5.23 mrad 10 mrai 52.3%
Beta (Air Dese)
2.82 mrad 20 mrad 14.1%
ledine-131. Iudine-133.
Trittum, and Particulates l
with Half Lives > 8 days 0.21 mrem 15 mrem 1.4%
l 1993 Dose
' Annual Limit Per tkilt Percent of Limit Liquid Effluents Whole Body N/A 3 mrem N/A Organ (Liver)
N/A 10 mrem N/A Gaseous Effluents Noble Gas Gama ( Air Dese)
N/A 10 mrad N/A Beta (Air Dose)
N/A 20 mrad N/A Iodine-131, Iodire-133, Tritium, and Particulates with Half Lives > 8 days N/A 15 mrem N/A l
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _. _ _ _.-
9 O
ATTACHMENT S L10VID EFTtUEMI RELEASE $lMMARY
" TOT /4.5 L
TOTALS TOTALS-
.
,.
l'ARAMETER.
1FOR RELEASES _
FOR RELEASE 3
.FOR REttASES.
DURING 1990^
DLRING 1991 DURING 1992 Nmntzer of Batch Releases 298 264 64?
Total Fission and Activation 7.370E-01 3.61EE-01 1.665E+00 Products Released (Curies)
Total Tritium Released 8.351E+01 3.059E+01 2.337E+01 (Curies)
Total Dissolved and Entrained 4.434E-01 4.853E-01 3.127E-01 Gases Released (Curtes)
Total Gross Alpha Released 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (Curies)
Waste Volume Released (liters)
1.67E+07 1.44E+07 3.50E+07 Total Whole Body Dose (mreml 1.COE 01 5.00E-02 4.70E-01 Maximum Organ Dese (mrem)
1.06E+00 5.80E 01 4.39E+00 (org.nl (GI Tract)
(GI Tr.-t)
(G1 Tract)
\\
.
.
_
_ _ _ _.
- _.
..
.. _..
.
.
.
..
.
..
..
.
..
...
e
- e e
ATTACHMENT 6 GASEOUS EFI'I tR NT RE L E ASE St.lMMARY TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS PARAMETER FOR RELEASCS FOR RELEASCS FOR RELEASES UtRING 1990 DtRING 1991 DURihG 1992
__
Number of Fatch Daleases
0
Total fissien and Activation 1.032Ed3 1.115E+03 4.655f+02 Preduct s Released (Curies)
Tctal iedire-131 Released 4.824E-02 3.923E-02 8.lB2E-03 (Curies)
Total r rticulates with Half 3.452E-03 5.207E-03 1.069E-03 a
Lives >8 D-sys Released (Curtes)
Total Gross Alpha Released 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 (Curies)
To 31 Tritium Released 4.516E+01 1.372E+01 2.332E+00 (Ct les)
G w a tir Dese (m ad)
6.50E-01 1 17E+00 5.23E+00 I
Feta Air Dose (mradi 1.01E+00 1.29E+00 2.8?E400 Maximum Oroan Dese (mrem)
4.50E+C0 1.30E+00 0.21E+00
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _