IR 05000498/1993026
| ML20057C684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1993 |
| From: | Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C681 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-93-26, 50-499-93-26, NUDOCS 9309290259 | |
| Download: ML20057C684 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
. APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report: 50-498/93-26 - 50-499/93-26 Operating Licenses: NPF-76 NPF-80 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77251 Facility Name: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Bay City, Texas Inspection Conducted: August 30 through September 3, 1993 Inspector: J. B. Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist ' Facilities Inspection Programs Section Approved: / /$ d [[[N#/ ' BTaine Murray, Chief, acilities Inspection [Mte / i Programs Section
Insoection Summary { Areas Insoected (Units 1 and 21: Routine,. announced inspection of the licensee's 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 radiation monitoring systems, reports of radioactive effluents, and
air cleaning systems.
, Results (Units 1 and 2): The Chemical Operations & Analysis Division's organizational structure
and staffing met Technical Specification requirements.. The Chemical Operations and Analysis Division had experienced a low turnover of . personnel (Section 1.1).
An excellent accredited Chemical Operations and Analysis Division
training program for radwaste effluent activities was implemented. An , appropriate number of. chemical plant operators and chemical analysis
technicians were trained to perform radioactive waste effluent required l activities (Section 2.1).
9309290259 930924 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G PDR i
+ - -.. a
. . . -2-An excellent quality assurance audit program had been implemented. The
audits were technically comprehensive and provided excellent program evaluation and management oversight. Good quality assurance surveillances had been performed concerning radioactive waste effluent program activities. The quality assurance audits of vendor activities were of excellent quality (Section 3.1).
A noncited violation was identified involving the failure to analyze a
liquid waste tank prior to its release.
In general, an excellent liquid radioactive waste effluent program was being implemented. A temporary equipment modification was made in the radioactive liquid waste processing system. (Section 4.1).
A good testing and calibration program had been established for the
liquid radioactive waste effluent radiation monitors (Section 4.1).
An excellent gaseous radioactive waste effluent program was being
implemented (Section 5.1).
A good testing and calibration program had been established for the
gaseous radioactive waste effluent radiation monitors (Section 5.1).
Semiannual Radiological Effluent Release Reports were submitted in a
timely manner and contained all the required information presented in the required format. Changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual were properly documented (Section 6.1).
An excellent testing and maintenance program had been established for
the air cleaning systems (Section 7.1).
Summarv of Insoection Findinas: A self-identified noncited violation was identi Fied (Section 4.1).
- 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
Attachment 6 - Gaseous Effluent Release Summary
. . -3-DETAILS ' 1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS (84750) The inspector reviewed the organization and staffing regarding the radioactive waste effluent program for Units 1 and 2 to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13.1 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.2.
1.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the organizational structure of the Chemical Operations & Analysis Division and the Effluent and Waste Management Division within the Technical Services Department which are responsible for the implementation and
i control of the radioactive waste effluents program. The inspector reviewed the organizational changes in the Technical Services Department which became effective on August 1,1992. A major change included the formation of the
! Effluent and Waste Management Division to oversee the site's radioactive waste program and implement a proactive waste reduction program for all forms of radioactive waste. The organizational structure of the Technical Services Department was 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 effluents program. The inspector determined that the duties and responsibilities of the Chemical Operations & Analysis Division specified in the plant procedures were being implemented. Twenty-two chemistry analysis technicians staffing five rotational shifts and the day shift were qualified , and directly responsible for collecting and analyzing radioactive waste . effluent samples and preparing the effluent release permits.
Thirty-two i chemical operators staffing five rotational shifts were qualified to perform liquid and gaseous radioactive waste effluent release operations. The inspector interviewed several of the chemistry analysis technicians and chemical 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 Chemical Operations & Analysis . Division and noted that since the previous NRC radioactive waste effluents program inspection conducted in April 1992 there were several personnel changes including two chemical operations foremen, five chemical operators, one chemistry technical supervisor, and three chemistry technicians. These
personnel changes represented a very low turnover during the past year. The i Chemical Operations and Analysis Division staffing was determined to be in accordance with licensee commitments.
1.2 Conclusions The Chemical Operations & Analysis Division's organizational structure and i staffing met Technical Specification requirements.
Chemical Operations & Analysis Division's management controls were being implemented in accordance l
.
-4-with plant procedures. During the past year, the Chemical Operations & Analysis Division had experienced a low turnover of personnel.
2 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS (84750) The inspector reviewed the training and qualification program for Chemical Operations & Analysis Division personnel responsible for implementing the , radioactive waste effluents program to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.4.
2.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the training program for Chemical Operations & Analysis Division personnel responsible for processing radioactive waste including: a review of chemical operator watchstation qualification records for chemical plant radwaste operators and associated qualification checkout-cards; selected chemical plant operator training lesson plans regarding liquid and gaseous waste processing; selected chemical analysis technician training lesson plans for regulations, radiological effluents technical specifications, sampling and analysis of radioactive waste effluents, and the preparation of radioactive waste effluent release permits; and selected Chemical Operations & Analysis personnel training records. The inspector determined that the Chemical Operations & Analysis Division training program was being implemented in accordance with plant procedures.
The Chemical Operations & Analysis Division personnel training and qualification matrices were reviewed and found to be current and complete.
This was considered a strength in providing Chemical Operations & Analysis Division supervision with the necessary staff qualification information to make personnel task assignments. The inspector noted that 27 chemical olant
operators had completed the required training to be fully qualified as ' ' radwaste operators. The inspector's review of the chemical analysis staff training indicated that 22 of the chemistry analysis technical staff had i completed the required training to perform the Technical Specification and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual radiological effluent requirements. A review of the shift staffing for the chemical operations section and the chemical analysis section indicated that each of the five rotational shifts included several technical staff who were qualified as radwaste operators and chemistry technicians qualified on performing radioactive waste effluent Technical Specification and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
it was determined that the licensee had an appropriate, well qualified staff.
l 2.2 Conclusions The licensee had implemented an accredited Chemical Operations & Analysis l Division training program.
The Chemical Operations & Analysis Division had an appropriate, well qualified staff to meet shift staffing requirements.
, l
=-. - . . -5-3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (84750) The inspector reviewed the quality assurance surveillance and audit programs - ' regarding the radioactive waste effluents program activities to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 17 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.
3.1 Discussion , The inspector reviewed the quality assurance audit and surveillance schedules for 1992 and 1993; audit plans and checklists; and the qualifications and training of the quality assurance auditors ar.d technical specialists who performed the audits of the radioactive waste effluent program. Audit and . ' surveillance reports of quality assurance activities performed during 1992 and the first half of 1993 of the radioactive waste effluent program and 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 and concerns.
Four quality assurance audits of the areas related to the performance of the radioactive waste effluent program were performed in accordance with plant procedures and schedules and by , qualified auditors and technical specialists who were knowledgeable in radioactive waste effluent program requirements at nuclear power facilities.
The reviewed audits of the chemistry / radiochemistry program, Offsite Dose ' Calculation Manual and effluent monitoring program, radioactive waste program, and Technical Specification surveillance testing program were of excellent , 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.
The audits - were in compliance with the Technical Specification audit frequency requirements.
Four quality assurance deficiency reports were issued, and four auditor concerns were identified in the radioactive waste effluent program during 1992. The four quality assurance deficiency reports had been closed in a timely manner, and the licensee had provided satisfactory responses to the auditor concerns.
' The licensee had performed four quality assurance surveillances related to the radioactive waste effluent program during 1992 and the first half of 1993.
This was an increase in quality assurance surveillance activities dealing with the radioactive waste effluent program from that noted in 1991 and was in , response to the inspector's observation during the previous NRC inspection of this area conducted in April 1992 and a verbal commitment by the licensee
during the exit meeting that they would take appropriate actions to strengthen ' the quality assurance surveillance program in the area of radioactive waste effluents. The inspector reviewed the four quality assurance surveillances . l which monitored the following areas related to the performance of the radioactive waste effluent program: effluent sample collection and analysis for a reactor containment building purge release, effluent sample collection , and analysis for a waste monitor tank liquid release, sample collection and analysis for a unit vent effluent release permit, and the conduct of Technical ! Specification required chemical analyses.
No deficiencies were identified, . P + - ,,
~ ., ' i
-
-6- ! ! and the licensee had provided satisfactory responses to the four concerns ! identified.
! The licensee was using various contract laboratories to perform Offsite Dose i Calculation Manual required radiochemistry analyses on radioactive effluent .! composite samples. The licensee was also using a contractor to perform l in-place filter testing and laboratory charcoal adsorber analyses on the l plants' safety related air cleaning systems as required by Technical
Specifications.
The licensee had used audits of the contract radiochemistry laboratory and of the air cleaning systems filter testing laboratory performed t by Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee audit teams to evaluate the i performance of the various contractors to perform their respective functions j and to retain their current status on the licensee's approved vendor list.
. The inspector reviewed the most recent audits performed on the various > contractors and found the audits to be satisfactory to evaluate the contractors' abilities to perform Technical Specification and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual required analyses and surveillance activities.
! 3.2 Conclusions
Quality assurance audits of the radioactive waste effluent program had been performed as required.
These audits were technically comprehensive and , provided excellent program evaluation and management oversight.
Good quality assurance surveillances had been performed concerning radioactive waste effluent program activities.
The vendor audits were of excellent quality.
4 LIQUID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE EFFLUENTS (84750) j The inspector reviewed the liquid radioactive 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 radwaste effluent radiation monitor tests and calibrations to ' determine agreement with the commitments in Chapter 11 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Sections 3/4.3.3.10, Table 4.3-8; 3/4.11.1, Table A3-1; and Technical Specifications 6.8.1 and 6.8.3.g.
4.1 Discussion T The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual specifications and Technical Specification requirements to l ensure compliance with the sampling and analyses requirements, analyses ' sensitivities, reporting limits, analytical results, surveillance tests,
radioactive waste effluent program operating procedures, offsite dose results . from radioactive liquid effluents, and operational tests and calibrations of l equipment and radiation monitors associated with the radioactive liquid waste ' processing systems.
s ! The inspector reviewed current approved revisions of selected plant procedures
governing the release of liquid radioactive waste. These radioactive liquid- ! effluent release procedures provided for the following: recirculation and t !
r [ _, _ _ .
- i-7-
sampling of the radioactive liquid waste; radionuclide analysis prior to
release; calculation of effluent release rates, effluent radiation monitor i setpoints, projected offsite radionuclide concentrations, and offsite doses prior to release; recording of dilution parameters during batch releases; and , ' verifying of discharge flow rates and the effluent volume discharged.
The inspector accompanied and observed members of the Chemical Operations and Analysis staff as they performed the various tasks associated with the performance of a radioactive waste liquid release.
It was determined that the processing, sampling, and analyses of liquid radioactive waste effluent and i the approval and performance of batch liquid radioactive waste discharges were ' conducted in accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
Quantities of radionuclides released in the liquid effluents were within the limits specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Offsite doses were calculated according to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and were within specified limits. The inspector verified that the licensee was performing the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements for gross alpha analysis, strontium-89 and strontium-90 analyses, and iron-55 analysis on composite samples of batch liquid radioactive releases. The inspector determined that a , temporary design modification had been made to the liquid radwaste processing , system in Units 1 and 2.
This involved the temporary installation of Chem Nuclear's Advanced Liquid Waste Processing System in Unit 1 on September 1,
1992, and in Unit 2 on February 4, 1993.
The inspector reviewed Station Problem Report 931509 which identified a j problem of collecting a nonrepresentative sample from Waste Monitor Tank IC prior to release. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Section 4.11.1.1.1 requires , that radioactive liquid wastes be sampled and analyzed according to the sampling and analysis program specified in Table A3-1.
Table A3-1 requires that waste monitor tanks and laundry and hot shower tanks be sampled and analyzed prior to each release. Contrary to this, on April 29, 1993, the licensee identified that local samples collected from Waste Monitor Tank 1C were found to be nonrepresentative of the tank contents. Waste Monitor Tank
IC was used to discharge radioactive liquids to the Main Cooling Reservoir in accordance with OPSP07-WL-0005, " Waste Monitor Tank Liquid Batch Effluent Release," during the period September 22, 1992, through April 29, 1993. A i licensee investigation indicated that on eight separate occasions, Waste Monitor Tank 1C was sampled from a nonrepresentative local sample point and
released.
Since July 1992 the method of processing the Laundry and Hot Shower i Tank was only through Waste Monitor Tank IC, and sample collection was performed at Sample Panel ZLP-131 in accordance with IPCP07-ZS-0010, " Waste ' Monitor Tank Sampling." Shortly after implementing this liquid waste processing method, the normal sample line for Waste Monitor Tank 1C leading to
the Sample Panel ZLP-131 became clogged causing the chemistry technicians to i collect local grab samples, and they mistakenly selected a sample point which i was not representative of Waste Monitor Tank 1C contents. The eight releases were planned and released in accordance with OPSP07-WL-0005 requirements; ' however, the sample collected and analyzed was not representative of the waste actually released from Waste Monitor Tank 1C. These releases were considered - uncontrolled because the actual radioactive concentrations in Waste Monitor Tank 10 was not established prior to its release. Based on followup
. -8-evaluations of the reactor coolant system isotopic activity and the liquid waste processing system decontamination factors, the licensee determined that the Technical Specifications, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and Code of Federal Regulations limits were not exceeded. As a result of the violation,. - appropriate changes in the chemical analysis technician training program were made, and chemical analysis procedures for sampling and release of waste monitor tanks were evaluated and changed. This violation will not be subject to enforcement action, because the licensee's efforts in identifying and correcting the violation met the criteria specified in Section VII.B.2 of Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.
The inspector reviewed selected liquid radioactive waste process and effluent radiation monitor source check, channel check, operational test, and calibration records for Units 1 and 2.
All records reviewed indicated that the instruments and equipment were being properly maintained, tested, and calibrated in compliance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
4.2 Conclusions P A violation regarding the collection of a nonrepresentative sample from a waste monitor tank prior to release was self-identified by the licensee.
In general, the licensee was implementing a liquid radioactive waste effluent i program in accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements. The quantities of radionuclides released in the liquid radioactive waste effluents were within the specified limits. Liquid radwaste effluent radiation monitors were being tested and calibrated in compliance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
5 GASEQUS RADIDACTIVE WASTE EFFLUENTS (84750) , The inspector reviewed the gaseous radioactive waste effluent program including gaseous waste processing, gaseous waste sampling and analyses, , procedures for the control and release of gaseous waste effluents, and gaseous ' process and effluent monitors to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 11 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Sections 3/4.3.3.11, Table ' 4.3-9; 3/4.11.2, Table A4-1; and Technical Specifications 6.8.1 and 6.8.3.g.
! 5.1 Discussion ! The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the radiological ! effluent technical specifications and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual to-i ensure compliance with sampling and analyses requirements, analyses
sensitivities, reporting limits, analytical results, surveillance tests, i radioactive waste effluent program operating procedures, 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 plant procedures governing the release of gaseous radioactive waste. These radioactive gaseous effluent release > $
_ . . _g_ procedures provided for the sampling and analysis of the radioactive gaseous waste effluents, calculation of offsite radionuclide concentrations and doses, calculation and verification of gaseous effluent radiation monitor setpoints, and verification of effluent discharge flow rates and effluent volume discharged.
The inspector reviewed selected gaseous waste release permits which included unit vent continuous releases and containment vent and containment purge batch releases from Units 1 and 2.
It was determined that the sampling and analyses of the gaseous effluents and approval of the radioactive gaseous waste releases were conducted in accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual - requirements. Quantities of gaseous and particulate radioactive nuclides released were within the limits specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Offsite doses were calculated according to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and were within the specified limits.
Particulate effluent , composite sample analyses for gross alpha, strontium-89, and strontium-90 were being performed to meet Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements. The inspector determined that no major equipment or design changes had been made in the radioactive gaseous waste management systems during 1992 and the first half of 1993.
The inspector reviewed selected gaseous radioactive waste process and effluent radiation monitor source check, channel check, operational test, and calibration records for Units 1 and 2.
All records reviewed indicated that the gaseous radioactive waste effluent monitoring instruments and equipment were being properly maintained, tested, and calibrated in compliance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
> 5.2 Conclusions The licensee was implementing a gaseous radioactive waste effluent program in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements. The l quantities of radionuclides released in the gaseous radioactive waste
ef fluents were within the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual limits. The licensee had not made any major equipment or design changes in the radioactive ' gaseous waste management systems during 1992 and the first half of 1993.
Gaseous radioactive waste effluent radiation monitors were being tested and calibrated in compliance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
6 REPORTS OF RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS (84750) The inspector reviewed the licensee's reports concerning radioactive waste systems and effluent releases to determine compliance with the requirements of , 10 CFR Part 50.36(a)(2) and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Sections and Technical Specifications 6.9.1.4, 6.14, and 6.15.
6.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the licensee's Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for the periods January 1 through June 30, 1992, and July 1 through December 31, 1992. These reports were written in the format described in NRC i l
. _.
. .- , l i , -10- , Regulatory Guide 1.21 Revision 1, June 1974, and contained the information required by the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. During the period January 1
' through December 31, 1992, the licensee had performed 724 liquid batch releases and 578 gaseous batch releases from Units 1 and 2.
A summary of the , ' radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases and associated doses for 1990, 1991, and 1992 is presented in Attachments 2 through 6 to this report, i The licensee reported no unplanned radiological liquid or gaseous releases . during 1992. However, several uncontrolled releases are discussed in l Section 4.1 of this report that occurred during reporting period ending
- '
December 31, 1992, but were not identified by the licensee until April 1993.
The licensee stated that these uncontrolled releases will be documented in the i 1993 effluent report.
. No major design modifications to the liquid, gaseous, or solid radioactive waste treatment systems were reported during the time period reviewed. The i inspector reviewed the licensee's explanation as to why the Condenser Vacuum l Pump Wide Range Gas Monitor process Flow Channels N1RA-RT-8027A and
N2RA-RT-8027A had been out of service since November 1,1988. Plant ! modification 89-066 for Unit I and Plant Modification 89-067 for Unit 2 were
initiated to reroute the condenser vacuum exhaust to the respective unit vents.
During the time period reviewed, the plant modification installations , in both Units 1 and 2 were completed. However, placing these modifications. in , service is contingent upon the NRC approval of a change to Technical Specification 3.3.3.11 which was originally submitted on June 26, 1991, and
had not yet been approved. The inspector reviewed the licensee's changes to l the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual as documented in the appropriate Semiannual Radiological Effluent Release Report.
Revision 5 of the Offsite ! Dose Calculation Manual included changes to Part A which relocated the ' ! Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual in accordance with Generic Letter 89-01.
Part B of the Offsite Dose ! Calculation Manual was also changed, and these changes were clearly documented . in the second half of 1992 Semiannual Radiological Effluent Release Report.
The inspector reviewed the NRC's issuance of Amendments 52 and 41 to Facility
Operating License NPF-76 and NPF-80 for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 effective June 29, 1993. The amendments revised the applicable Technical Specifications to extend the Radioactive Effluent Release Report submittal frequency from semiannual to annual.
' 6.2 Conclusions , ' The licensee had submitted their Semiannual Radiological Effluent Release Reports in a timely manner, and these reports contained all the required '
information, presented in the format described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21.
No unplanned radioactive liquid or gaseous releases were reported. No , permanent design modifications were made to the liquid and gaseous radioactive
l waste treatment systems. Changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual were l properly documented.
The Radioactive Effluent Release Renort submittal
j, frequency was extended from semiannual to annual.
i ,
. . -11-7 AIR CLEANING SYSTEMS (84750) The inspector reviewed the safety related air cleaning systems testing program to determine agreement with the commitments in Chapter 11.3 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.7.7, 3/4.7.8, and 3/4.9.12.
7.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures, surveillance tests, and selected records and test results for maintenance and testing of the safety related air cleaning systems which contain high efficiency particulate air filters and activated charcoal adsorbers. The inspector verified that the licensee's procedures and surveillance tests provided for the required periodic functional checking of the ventilation systems' components, evaluation of the high efficiency particulate air filters and activated charcoal adsorbers, and the replacement and in-place filter testing of the filter systems.
Selected records and test results for the period January 1992 through July 1993 for the control room makeup and cleanup filtration system and the fuel handling building exhaust air system in Units 1 and 2 were , reviewed. The in place filter testing and activated charcoal adsorber laboratory tests had been performed in accordance with approved procedures by a contract laboratory, ansi all test results were verified to be within Technical Specification 1 emits. The inspector noted that the Technical Specification requiremer.t for testing the various ventilation systems' activated charcoal absorber material after every 720 hours of operation was being tracked by the cognizant system engineer in accordance with Procedure OPGP03-ZE-0008, " Nuclear Air-Cleaning Systems Filter Test Program Description," Revision 4, June 4, 1993.
7.? Conclusions The air cleaning and filter ventilation systems in Units 1 and 2 conformed to
the Technical Specification requirements and commitments in the Updated Safety - Analysis Report. The air cleaning systems had been tested in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
t
. . . i r
ATTACHMENT i 1 PERSONS CONTACTED , r 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- J. F. Groth, Vice President, Nuclear Generation
! '
- J. E. Behm, Quality Assurance Specialist
'
- H. W. Bergendahl, Manager, Technical Services D. J. Bryant, General Supervisor, Chemical Analysis
- M. K. Chakravorty, Executive Director, Nuclear Safety Review Board
- M. A. Coughlin, Senior Licensing Engineer D. A. Creager, Chemical Operator
!
- S. H. Daniel, Manager, Chemical Operations and Analysis
!
- M. R. Ebel, Staff Engineer, Plant Engineering
- R. A. Gangluff, Manager, Effluent and Waste Management
- W. R. Harris, Supervising Engineer, Plant ~ Engineering
- S. M. Head, Deputy Licensing Manager
, ' G. A. Johnson, Training Coordinator, Chemical Operations Support
- T. J. Jordan, General Manager, Nuclear Engineering A. K. Khosla, General Supervisor, Chemical Operations
- D. A. Leazar, Manager, Plant Engineering
- L. S. LeMaster, Senior Development Analyst
- J. E. Lovejoy, Supervisor, Instruments and Controls
D. J. McKinley, Chemistry Technician i R. F. Head, Training Coordinator, Chemical Analysh Support
- P. E. Parrish, Senior Licensing Specialist
- R. W. Pell, Manager, Health Physics
- M. J. Rejeck, Consulting Engineer, Effluent and Waste Management Division K. W. Reynolds, Effluent Tracking Chemist, Effluent and Waste Management K. E. Runk, General Supervisor, Chemical Support
- J.
Sepulveda, Supervisor, Radiation Protection - Radwaste
- J. J. Sheppard, General Manager,
- W. C. Smith, Senior Radiation Protection Technician
- K. J. Taplett, Acting General Manager, Nuclear Assurance
- D.
Towler, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Audits 1.2 NRC Personnel D. P. Loveless, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. M. Keeton, Resident Inspector D. M. Garcia, Resident Inspector r
In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspector contacted other personnel during the inspection, j
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting on Septembe 3, 1993.
,
2 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on September 3, 1993. During this meeting, the j inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the report. The licensee did not ' identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector during the inspection.
i
s b I w - N - ~ w O O O O E
+
+ E kaa had w end had bed W W M @ @ CC - K
E.l O.
N.
@ at @ . C @ N - ed > M
- =
N N 8% m O O O O E
+
+ g kan e,so see see w see >= W K & @ % er M e e ( M elP.
W.
@. f%s '
@ @ N tiP ens P8)$ W . N O N N @ N O O O O M + + e + E bee 6ed had had bed hae & W M M @ @ @ M .
m . N.
@
==.
p @ N sw N sur D -
- =
- =P @ - C O O O g
+
+ E 6ed hed bad bad 6aa bad g W e- " M @
=
h
K (
m.
. fu.
( @ p m - [ D C N N - W h 6as & W Y ad w - N - e w O - N e CQ D D O O O O O O O = s T +
+ g + +
+
w mas ses w se nae bee 4eJ 4e4 b e
e-
- d K
m N P & @
== N @ - m . C.
@ N.
eo ait f%. N.
er.
m.
( O d O O .
k e= e=s N
O "8 - +, N m em m M I E .= O a <C d m - .= e m - N O e n O O O O O O O og g T + + cr i + + + < 4.6 has had ta.e
a.an tas baJ bad esas bed & W W w
O.
en.
- - m . @ - m = N @ m.
eIP.
N.
N.
et f% O.
N.
,= m e g D 8% A @ @ M D a= W - e* @ e - N O
- =
== @ N - N O @ O O O O O O O O M + +
+ g i + + + bad 666 ked bee bed had See bad bed bed W >=* M O s'=
@ M @
W m et f% est.
m.
m.
@ et @. @ c.
O . m . m
- =
W @
- =
eir D @ ra f% M er - @ ,=s - N
== @ em N
== == O O O O O O O O
6 + e + E t
I + i ees 6ed had had 6ed and bed had aiaJ had W W N C O @ @ M @ eir @
(
@. O @e
C.
m.
o.
atr.
Q O O nos e s.r C f% @
N O @ N v'*
- =
N I .
- D T
T T C @m as C 4e
0 C en en es= as==E en en O -& stl @
=m-** e g-Si es e agp - gi g te e bb e-815 e e bb - >& se
- d
s
>& en es 3 W
==e @ CU E U e*- @ CU M %# +d e# b ans w es +a b as-w =p'
U3
@ 8D U3 L
K4 eiC U
e8 te E ED CU
e6 en E w U b
w U &
% e6 w Ve - en-e6 w T an e o o an e es e De Oe at Gm b en OV
-DC 3. m & C +* S ->C 3D e & C ** E en
6 L b an OV-ed on - + * + * S-3 O& GJ @ 0g-3 O@ @ 4 D' as DG en D - an -
- + *
es en T) e* to E 46 - &- te O
*
en.O En e $ *= 46 O
== 0 e =* 3 tr-b b-O
- lf e-3 @
-b b ZE 6 Ek e-OZ 3w ZM W Ch.
W QZ 3 sa=*' . . . . . . . . . . c'O b N W M F'8 N m T M
e ! - at O O m % et O O O
+ +
- E m,
an w anJ haa 6J see > w M
N @
M
@ M N @
8 es: 4
4 i M em N
== N M O O O O E a +
+ E 6ad w kaa bad bad had W W G en k (C & G
@ N @ N @
h N ab N h em M ens .S
- N
N
- =.
A N Q O
O E s + + M ens w w am w wW &M N @
== N &
@
C @ . at.
N.
N.
mD Q @ m -
== .= - ew .-= N N N sm O O O O E
+
+ E had w w has w baJ g > >
M N N N @ M $, et
N.
et.
m.
CC.
m up p j D @ EC es et -
! N . A 6=- ha* w C - O @ at N
@ e O O O O O O O O O O .=d g + + + + cr T +
+ V 88* had had has bas had had has had 6ed &nd W w & W gr N e@m @ M M ear A N P
O N.
CD.
EC.
O.
N
10 N.
.
- .
O.
p C O
N -" ., O .* c @
== @ Q
M tw N at LAJ D
lllis C
I m N N O e M - N N e O d O O O O O O o O m
+ + + a a + T + 4 < w w w w w w w w w w & W K .-a at C C m .= N ED N e= @ =-a N-l , alt
4 @- - - .t r m m A - - EC e CD
8 n - - - M , - .-e @ m " . - - l N N N O @ N
N N @ O O O O O O O O & f + + + E
+
+ y i bad Em, w had EnJ had 4ed het &nJ 6ad l > > N N O O r=* K se @ A sti
@ @ W @
@+
N M* l
e=* N C et . v4
- =*
49.
- CO
. - O @ M @ M sae .= N e-m @ em
N N @ O O O O O O O O m s + i + g i +
+ 6ee sad had W 6ad bad bee had Lee bad em > M N em O m a O at c O '
M.
se.
CD.
. I @ ar.
N.
N.
==. O.
- @ O c h @ N @ @ M Q m M - M N m m m m C @m @ C Gs m &# O E en en +-0 Ce en ewe W -= &# -@ g
=== f4 g ed e ge & e en e b 6- - ee e bb e
>@ en
- 3
& K > Gi e
- 3 Es
- * * * -
St GU M G.
CU M .st Wb Y
UD
81 e U3 - naJw eeJ w a w wb b
80 4U
e6 en E ED 4U
- G en E
w U 6,
w U GJ
in-e6 w m se - en= e6 w me e-O en e as g On O en te @g On a
6 be ov
->0 > en c *a E >c >e as C ++ E .as b.
Ds eOv - en e < * * * D er sn v e-O seP c= 6n+ e
-O6 G as ee-3 - sn w o*** O ss as at en m
+* Em en O = eD en - G~ en O en D en e I 3@
===b b
=== 0 9ea 3 W
- e= b h-ZE wh W
OE 3w Z CK ta A e OE 3w I
. . . . . . . .
N m et c en N m.
et af) l I
1 <
i I
..
. I s W - w e C er O O O O a + T i + m has w
w w w Ba 9-= M C CD e @ E et er @ m.
. @
- %
. w N.
em m e= @ m a
m O M O O O O M + s s + M w toe w ha, w w W M M O N O @ M O.
N.
D.
M.
eK e. m e N N em m
- =a M
.h $ .se - N
- =
@ c O N O O O O E + i i + M w has W W 6aJ w e- >- M CC @ f N N ef N.
N.
et.
.
- .e m
=
e @ W @ O D O "
~ O O O O t/1 g + + s
M w w w w sa, s., w >= W &
O @ CC M w
(C . O.
e.
. and af @ et p D =
O @ N E7 tad E > K !:' O ar - m e O e e e O O O O O O O O O O w E +
4 + E +
i + [ h w a.as w am, w w w w ase and 4.ne w b >= w M @ m CC CD E C% CC N en 3" % ~ O M et.
O.
CC.
et.
- e > C.
M.
- a[
m
== or-a m e h
N m N er
- =
m .= m O =
- < < y w.d m - e e - m - m e O O O O O O O O O ( .
+
6 + u + s
+ ( w w am, tea w see w w noe w iq.
W >= Q & 9% O
@ M O
O N et N.
CD.
. m.
@ c=. N.
an.
m.
O ac E
& D m at e=
.= e , O @ @ em
@ O
48 * - m enn me - N - . . . N _ . . .* v* O O O O O O O O E + l
+ g +
i + &as had bee had w w has had imJ 6ed e= 6.- & M N M ge M
M N N CC.
O.
@. m.
N.
. @ .* en e N m m.
et et
.
m c O' 's CD CD m m e*
==
@ O
==
W W D O O O O C O O O.
+
a + E4 E + e d
knJ w w asJ ama maa has 6me 4.es e= W E
- =
@ W @ M M @ W M @ at M.
C.
P%. e[ @ en.
- =.
O.
@ . @ et
em @ CD ed >= N . b" @ er m m b @ 4D* @
- = b
& @ C M C @*
ZU-O Ib O Ib 3
- A
- * ^
EO e@ m o* w n e@ .=e oo w m M en & f -* M.e
==3@ -
+J b i X e& > % In E > -
==3@ 4J @ u +* e8 b et h @ u3 @ @ m k @ u3 G en m b C @V
CD MV C @T
CD
- E O
- +s v w - w U v O an an om eY U M N D E M D O en en On w @ C **
- = en 3A E
& CW m en 3A E v L en Ov
Le Ov -.&
0e-3 en - 4 &# -sn T 9b
==u
g: g
- =. @ ee-4O en t gb.- e** 4> - E-en O
- 3 b >
as-ed +a &
- A E-en O
- 3 b>.-
3 @ b 0v g b
- p @
+b OU g =- 6.
ZM-es. L
- w Q. w
> ZE
Wv id W . . . . . . . . e
N M w m e=e N me W @
W e
., . -. l I k W O et1 w
== at
O O O O N + s e + m W w has w sad w >= W M @ m em M M ed ( &. . O.
em.
M m g O . N m N W D , m e @ e O m O O O O E +
1 + K w w w w w w & >= N - m CC @ E m
4 P% w.
O.
~
m e e h O .* N O
== o* n eme ' tot - ,* N O (C at
N O O O O & + a e T m had w w w w tea e- >- M & @ @ C & w
4 CD.
. e.
er.
" g m b G7 N @ er e=
-
== C sur .*
== O O O O th & + +
i E w a.ne w w w w es M >=
O O m @ M
w d @. C.
(D.
m.
s a w med O em
O M M M rr > O E E., C . = - e ae O w N @ @ -
O O O O O O O O p w +
4 + 2, E + a s + w w he and w hea w w w he, w w ,,, Q >=
w a O .n w w a N m C
m.
C.
N N.
h N
et.
A.
at.
P%. Cp sn e , - - j b @ N
N N C7 (C N CC
N
" lEI < , O w m - an v O m N e O .* t d w O O O O O O O O
K +
6 + W +
+ + w w w w 4.s w w w has w c
- =
>= < O a ed @ co .=a a iti m O -
C.
N.
- C
@
=
@.
P%. er g a m . . . O P% N
O N D P% @ em ew .U O - g - >= . sud aus n N
@ sn O N N D C O W C C O O O O O O & +
4 + g + i + + ma ess. w w w w ama had has haJ P.a >= K m
N CD M et @ O D5 O.
m.
O.
w m.
A.
@ N.
~ w
N EQ .* nn.
O sur
h ce O cc N sy
O O an C
==
to es O O O O O O O O O
+ + i +
+
i + hs> ans w w had had w had w w >= >= & nt O w k & 9% nt 9% et D o p O e N.
P%.
- C M
- =a
m.
O.
==. O.
+ O O D O N e O @ e
te. a m W5 w ee - @
- = @
C ge C ge Q Zb Q Zb
e
l e*a n 2U G e*% EU e en
- w a
g e c=e
- w d*==
> @ m e te
> @ M .** M Z .s= e&b I h e v =* e=4 3 se b V
==8 3 se @
- e Wb i
A e w g U3 @ @ g b g U3 @ @ g b (D 4V E @T
(D elC U C @V
w e6 e
- e U
w e +e U w TJ ao go w en-me t g cc w O te W On - O en ne Om e @ C **
- se 3A F
@ C e.e e= an 3A E l s. e @ u
L.a v a k I.a @ eOv eeg b.
e+# @ e** 4@ .-Ov @ e*a @ +# <f @ g
se Wg
ee se e en V en T g b EE wh >=w ks >= ZM ean O +8
b > e E-te O
- 3 b>
e Ee
- J @
===b OU ge b "5 @ b OU ge b wk >= w Aw >= l e N . . ' e e , . s.e . M w.
m , - N m W.
D ! i
. t t i i.
w o N %% %% % lL % %% % I
79
4. %.
6
0 'f
0 f
00
o
00
o -
0 t
0 L se tre P f s tsA f l l E T 'l M t l f l u e nU t Jt i F r r I e h P P D ma dd m aa dd s l I t ee aa e ee aa e U l l rr rr r rr rr r Q s mm mm m e mm mm a I i l.
4 L L
00
l
00
t
12
1
1 T O N M i l l n a e E U u u n e S M U d n n n A A H O a E C S I A A G t T _ i T tp tLn A i T S E SO D L A IM A mm dd m mm dd m e ee aa e e ee aa e rr rr r tr rr r t s s e am mm a e sm mm m PM D
98
D.
72
l
40
0
78
0 u
17
0
20
0 M
9
00
0
00
1 i _.
. s s . y . y
a
a
d
d
1 -
-
) e ) e s t se i > s e) i > s e) n n s t se t ) n os d s t ) n os d s n r e Oo o e n r e Do o e e e u D I v e e u D l v r dsi uyv l r ,dsi luyv lf ir .neL ldi f ir neL di f ol f Ai 1 at f oL f Ai 1 at fB( Es(A
af fB( Es(A
af E a (
,ll E a (
,l l en sGa - mua en sGa - mua tl a u ma eucH dl a u ma eucH og oemt nii iog oemt nii iuhr el ae itth uh r el ae itth qWO sbGB dirt qWO sbGB dirt ao oraf ao orai il GN lTP = iL GN ITPw , i llll
.
- . . - : t t t-t.s.
e.
%g % i.
iL %g
2 t . o.. 6. g 11,
, f.- f
00
o t; t n p e e c c r r e e P P . . s E 5A E ., L ER T
- .
N 't. t . i I fc . U h h... L t.
F [ r.: F E e eb:; P.. . , D ns dd e t U t. mm dd s 't I ee aa e ee aa e ) tr rr r t.
rr tr r n Q s.
sm um m s am se m o
i.
I i.
c L,
00
l.;
00
L t
12
.
12
(
i t, lv
n e-a, e
. u A U T n n d n.
n; S N U n A -:- A E
- . a E M S ,.
A . H G t e C M n i A T M I( T f A S E SO D LA
88 f aa dd m A . ee aa e e e.
rr rr r e pm em m u M s R D. g B .
48
I 2 :.
26
3 UL 9.
00
9
9
1 1..
00
1 . ,. s s . y . y
a
a _
d
d
1 - -
-
- ) e ) e t ) n os i > s e) i > s e) n n s t se s t se d s t ) n os d s n r e De o e n r e Do o e e e u D l v e e u D t v ,d s i u yv l r uys l r ,dsi neL neL ldi f r ldi f ir f ol f Ai 1 at f oL f iAi 1 at fB( Es(A
af fB( Es(A
af E a (
,l l E a (
,l l en sGa - mua en sGa - sua dl a u ma eucH dl a u ma eucH iog oemt nii iog oemt nii uhr el ae itth uhr el ae itth iqWO sbGB dirt qWO sbGB dirt ao orai ao orai L GN lTPw iL GN ITPw .. .
l l
ATTACHMENT 5 LIQUID EFFttJEMI RitEASE 9MMRY Unit 1 ~ TOTALS ' ' TOIALS 3 TUTALS PARAMETER: 1 EUR RELIA 5I3 .I0st RELEASE 3 . FOR RftIASE3 'DURIE 1990L BURIE 1991- ' DURIE 1992 Number of Batch Releases 297 326 416 Total Fission and Activation 6.499 E+00 6.025 E+00 2.042 E+00 Products Released (Curles) Total Tritium Released 3.447 E+02 6.211 E+02 6.191 E+02 (Curles) Total Dissolved and Entrained 1.179 E+00 2.578 E-01 4.882 E+00 Gases Released (Curies) Total Gross Alpha Released 0.00 E+00 0.00 E+00 0.00 E+00 (Curies) Waste Volume heleased (liters) 1.45 E+07 4.79 E+07 1.83 E+07 Total Whole Bc.dy Dose (arem) 7.04 E-02 1.94 E-01 7.38 E-02 Maximum Organ Dose (mres) 2.46 E-01 1.07 E-01 1.25 E-01 (orga) (bone) (bone) (bone) -. - - - -. . - - - - - - - . . - - .-- - .
- -.. ATTACHMENT 5 (cont) LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASE SIDMUtY Unit 2 .IUVAES.. _.... T10EALS II.- - . - i.1UEAESY PNISETER :
- H R MLEASE57
%HR BELEASE5!. J M ELDEE5..;. '
- gggg ggge :'
' ENUE 1991': IIIIBMIR 1932 : ' ~ - Number of Batch Releases' 388 395 308 Total Fission and Activation 5.891 E+00 3.990 E+00 1.330 E+00 Products Released (Curles) Total Tritium Released 4.702 E+02 4.692 E+02 7.420 E+02 (Curtes) Total Dissolved and Entrained 4.885 E+00 B.513 E-01 3.531 E-01 Gases Released (Curles) Total Gross Alpha Released 1.30 E-05 0.00 E+00 0.00 E+00 (Curles) Waste Volume Released (liters) 1.85 E+07 6.73 E+07 1.37 E+07-Total Whole Body Dose (area) 7.83 E-02 8.25 E-02 7.99 E-02 i Maximus Organ Dose (arem) 4.55 E-01-3.74 E-01 2.45 E-01 (organ) (bone) (bone) (bone) . ... .. _. . . . - -. _ _., _ - ._.._.....;... _.. _. - -.. _....,.......,_,...- . .. .. .. ...................--.......
_ , .-. ' . ATTACHMENT 6 EASEOUS EFFLUEMT RELEASE StM MRT Unit 1
- 1DTALS T 1stALS...,
11DTA13 3- . M M LEASEE .....M MLEASEE( FRAWETER
- ! M MLBISES..
..;-Eft 1IS 1991 1 5 3 115 1932 ' --
m gggy.-as Number of Batch Releases 190
245 Total Fission and Activation 1.120 E+02 8.570 E+01 2.890 E+02 Products Released (Curles) Total Iodine-131 Released 3.452 E-04-1.665 E-04 3.180 E-03 (Curles) Total Particulates with Half 8.002 E-04 1.105 E-03 3.486 E-04 Lives >8 Days Released (Curies) Total Gross Alpha Released 1.310 E-06 1.840 E-06 6.360 E-06 (Curies) Total Tritium Released 2.228 E*01-2.042 E+01 5.158 E+01 (Curles) Gamma Air Dose (erad) 9.48 E-03 4.17 E-03 9.60 E-03 Beta Air Dose (erad) 1.44 E-02 6.06 E-03 2.50 E-02 Maximum Organ Dose (arem) l 1.66 E-03 1.57 E-03 3.55 E-03 . _.,e . .-,..~. i.
+u,- 4.,m- .w--- ,,7+% .-., - - - ,,en-m e e- . +-ni ye - ,,v%#,- um ,s.- , ow ..---. -, -,.. - - -+.----.e - - 7, en-.y ,. 2. -,,---
......., .
- ,,
ATTACHMENT 6 (cont) CASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASE St99MRY Unit 2 21DTA13 f . 41DTALS > ... 191ALS
- M MtfASES.:
' M ELEASES., 1 M M LEA M S.'. gg+, g gg. gg ig. Muwber of Batch Releases 296
333 . Mal Fission and Activation .1.087 E+02 4.688 E+01 6.247 E+02 Products Released (Curles) Total lodine-131 Released 1.716 E-04 1.697 E-05 9.383 E-05 (Curies) Total Particulates with Half 4.026 E-04 5.498 E-04 1.320 E-06 Lives >8 Days Released (Curies) . Total Gross Alpha Released 4.910 E-06 3.470 E-06 5.880 E-06 (Curies) Total Tritius Released 1.895 E+01 4.338 E+01 5.563 E+01 (Curles) Gamma Air Dose (airad) 9.95 E-03 3.27 E-03 1.46 E-02 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.34 E-02 5.52 E-03 4.26 E-02 Maximum Organ Dose (area) 6.80 E-04 1.83 E-04 1.91 E-03 -.--- -. - -... -.. -~ ..:...... -. .. .. - . -. -- - . - ,_.
..
- .--... -
~.. - ~,. - - - ~ ,...,,.. - - -. ~.,, -.. . }}