IR 05000250/1989026
| ML17345A762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1989 |
| From: | Dan Collins, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17345A761 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-89-26, 50-251-89-26, NUDOCS 8906270067 | |
| Download: ML17345A762 (11) | |
Text
1 P,Q REQIi Wp0 Cy C
~
+a*<<+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 JON X5 t989 Report Nos.:
50-250/89-26 and 50-251/89-26 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and
License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection Conducted:
May 22-26 and June 5, 1989 Inspector:
R.
R. Yiarston Approved by:
D.
M.
Co ins, Actino Chief Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards C,- iz.- g'7 Date Signe g -
te-k'ate Signe SUYiMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of radiological effluents, chemistry, liquid and gaseous radwaste processing, and radiological environmental monitoring programs.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The Chemistry Department appeared to be aggressively'pplying to guality in Daily Work System at all levels to ensure that corrosion was minimized and parameters were within limits.
a5 0627
,
002-0 70067 8906i5 PDR ADOC O
P
, REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. Abrams, guality Engineer
- J. Anderson, Supervisor gA Regulatory Compliance
- W. Bladow, gA Superintendent
- J. Cross, Plant Manager
- R. Earl, gC Supervisor E. English, Nuclear Chemistry Secondary Operations Supervisor T. Fisher, Lead Engineer, Primary Systems
- R. Gismfraneesco, Maintenance Superintendent
- Y. Kaminsser, -Technical Department Supervisor J-. Kovarik, Support Supervisor, IKC Department E. Lyons, Compliance Engineer
- S. guinn, Acting Radiochemist K. Rowe, HP Rad Waste Supervisor
- F. Southworth, Assistant to Site Vice President
"R. Steinke, Chemistry Supervisor
- K. VanDyne, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor W. Vollnor, Nuclear Chemistry Primary Operations Supervisor J.
Woodard, Nuclear Chemistry Water Treatment Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included craftsmen, engineers, operators, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- T. McElhinney, RI
- G. Schenebli, RI
- Attended exit interview Audits (84750)
The inspector reviewed two audit reports concerning chemistry and radiological environmental programs:
gAO-PTN-88-957, Measuring and Test Equipment, conducted November 30, 1988 to April 24, 1989.
gAO-PTN-89-962, Onsite Meteorological Program, conducted January
through February 21, 1989.
The audits were conducted against Technical Specification (TS)
requirements, quality practices and procedures, and administrative
procedures.
Each audit report included detailed summaries of findings, a
listing of satisfactory areas, and recommendations.
Responses to the finding were included, when applicable, in the summary of past audit conference paragraphs.
The reports also included detailed listing of
'requirements and criteria. used to evaluate the program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Procedures (84750)
The inspector reviewed selected Chemistry Department Procedures, Surveillance Procedures, for calibration of effluent monitors and testing of effluent system filters and charcoal, and Administrative Procedures applicable to the Chemistry Department.
The procedures appeared to have been established, implemented, and maintained in accordance with TS 6.8.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Liquid Effluent Release (84750)
The inspector discussed liquid effluent releases with licensee representatives and selectively reviewed liquid radwaste release permits and release logs.
The release permits were generated and approved for each release, and included pre-release concentrations, dose estimates, monitor setpoints, and fraction of MPC for each nuclide and the total fraction.
Parameters.for each release were entered on one line of each of two types of log sheet.
The first log sheet included nuclide concentrations, volumes, dose, dilution volume, diluted nuclide concentration, and cumulative volume and dose for the month.
The sample volume added to the monthly composite was also included.
The other release log sheet of each-set showed activity released per isotope.
The inspector determined that the doses calculated for the releases were a
small fraction of the TS limits.
Licensee representative stated that the primary source of liquid radwaste was from radiation cooling system (RCS)
letdown.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Gaseous Effluent Releases (84750)
The inspector discussed gaseous effluent releases with licensee representatives and selectively reviewed gaseous radwaste release permits, containment purge permits, and Monthly Gas Summary Worksheets.
The Summary Worksheets showed 'isotopic contents of the releases.
The release permits included pre-release and post-release dose calculations.
The permits showed that the releases were well below TS limitations.
Licensee representatives stated that the primary source of gaseous radwaste was from containment purges.,
No violations or deviations were identified.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Treatment Systems (84750)
The inspector reviewed the gaseous effluent treatment systems with licensee representatives, reviewed pertinent procedures and records, and toured plant areas where the gaseous effluent treatment system was located.
The licensee's waste.gas process system used six decay tanks.
Usually, one was being filled, one was used for cover gas, and four were used for holding and decay.
The inspector discussed operating maintenance, and testing of high efficiency particulate on (HEPA) filters and carbon absorbers with licensee representatives.
Required testing was normally performed during refueling outages.
TS 4.7 requires leak testing and carbon sample analysis of the following systems:
emergency containment filter system; post accident containment vent system; and the Control Room ventilation (emergency internal cleanup)
system.
The inspector reviewed the test documentation of the most recent tests for the systems.
The tests were completed satisfactorily within the required period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Radioactive Liquid Effluent Treatment Systems (84750)
The inspector discussed the operation and maintenance of the liquid radwaste processing system with licensee representative and toured the areas of the plant containing the liquid effluent processing systems.
The liquid radwaste streams were treated by filters and demineralizers by a
vendor under contract to the licensee.
The effluent was then discharged through a monitor to the discharge canal system.
The vendor system was set up in the South Filling Room of the Radwaste Building.
Steam Generator Blowdown was discharged through a monitor to the discharge canal, or if not clean enough, could be transferred to the liquid radwaste processing system for the treatment prior to release.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Radiation Effluent Monitors (84750)
The inspector discussed effluent and process radiation monitor calibration and functional testing with licensee representatives and reviewed supporting documentation.
TS Table 4. 1-1 requires calibration of these monitors to be performed once per refueling cycle (approximately 18 months)
and tested monthly.
The inspector determined through review of the calibration and test records for the Plant Vent Monitor,'he Liquid Radwaste Monitor, and the Steam Generator Blowdown Monitors that these monitors had been calibrated and tested at required frequencies.
No violations or deviations were identifie *
I
-'
5 if'K e
~
=
~
Nuclear Chemistry (84750)
The inspector reviewed this area of the licensee's program through discussion with licensee representatives, review of records, and examination of systems, facilities, and components.
Licensee representatives stated that the Chemistry Group authorization level was
technicians and six managers.
The manning at the time of the inspection was two below the authorized level.
There were approximately seven contractor personnel in the Department.
These people were being phased out as trainees became qualified.
The Chemistry Department was organized into five functional areas:
Water Treatment; Radiochemistry; Special Project; Primary Operations; and Secondary Operations.
Technicians were assigned to the individual sections and worked in those sections during day shift.
On back shifts, however, only two Technicians were assigned during normal operations, and each was qualified to do primary, secondary, or radiochemistry.
In addition to data logs and forms used by the Chemistry Departments, a
Quality In Daily Work (QIDW)
System was also used.
Matrices were established for each level of management, relating functions, and standards to the level above.
At the section level within the Chemistry Department, two types of charts were used.
The first type specified a
process description, a
process objective, and quality.indication to fulfillthat objective.
A process flow chart was included and, in tabular form, a listing of process indicators, limits, criteria, frequency, responsible individuals and applicable standards or procedures.
The other type of chart consisted of a control chart for each indicator.
The form included a table of data (either single or multiple points),
a control chart plotted against limits, and a range chart (an algebraic plant of the differences between points on the control chart).
This system provided high visibility for the data and standards.
The inspector reviewed selected data and control charts for the Primary Operations, the Secondary Operation, and the Water Treatment Sections.
The Chemistry Department appeared to be maintaining an aggressive program to maintain the program within limits in accordance with Off-Normal Operating, Procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Quality Control of Chemistry (84750)
The inspector discussed, the Water Chemistry Quality Control program with licensee representatives and reviewed documentation of th'e program.
The licensee had participated in a
comparison program with a vendor since 1985.
The program included both primary and secondary types of samples.
Results were plotted for each parameter within the sample as. percent recovery versus number of analyses.
. A licensee representatives stated that analysis of spiked samples had started recently with receipt of standards from a vendor.
The inspector reviewed the results of duplicate
analysis conducted in 1988.
The licensee also analyzed spiked samples provided by the NRC-in 1988.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Environmental Monitoring Program (84750)
The inspector'iscussed the licensee's environmental monitoring program with a licensee representative.
The licensee representative stated that the program was conducted by the State of Florida in accordance with a letter of understanding, dated April 1984.
The letter made provision for the licensee's review and approval of the State's procedures for this program.
The latest procedure revision had been made in 1987.
The State reported results of the program to Florida Power and Light (FPL), which in turn furnished a quarterly report and summary to the appropriate Plant Manager, Document Control Office, and Chemistry Department Manager.
The licensee representative stated that in the event of an anomaly that could not be otherwise resolved, FPL would contact the plant.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Periodic Reports (84750)
a.
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report The inspector review'ed the Annual Radiological Environmental Report for comparison to the requirements of TSs 6.9.4.b.
and 4. 12.
The inspector determined from this review that the requirements appeared to be met.
Sampling and analysis were conducted at the required frequencies and locations, required action levels and LLDs were met,
.the annual land use survey was conducted, and the results of the State
-
EPA Inter-laboratory cross-check program were included.
Overall results were consistent with previous results.
b.
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (84750)
lists the requirements for the licensee's Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
The inspector reviewed the Report, evaluating the format and content for compliance to TS requirements.
The inspector concluded that the report met all requirements for content and format.
The following Table compares liquid and gaseous effluent releases for 1986-198 TABLE Gaseous Fission and Activation Gases 1986
~ci 8.66E+03 1987
~Ci 1.72E+03 1988
~Ci 1.25E+03 Iodine -131
+ Particulates 4.12E-02 2.62E-02 4.83E-03 Li<iuid Fission and Activation Products 8.40E-01 7.48E-01 3.30E-01 Tritium 1.03E+03 5.38E+02 2.99E+02 The Table indicated a
downward trend for both effluent gases on liquids for the period.
An unplanned liquid release from the Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pit occurred in August 1988.
This incident was discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-250, 251/88-25.
W The inspector noted an elevation in tritium levels in calendar year 1988.
According to licensee monthly reports, approximately half the tritium for the year was released in August 1988.
A licensee representative stated that background levels were elevated in the plant at several times during the year, including August, due to changes in power levels (start up and shutdown included).
It was the practice that when a
new batch of scintillation cocktail was received, a
new blank would be made up and sealed, to be used for background determinations during the life of that batch.
When samples were taken, handled, and mixed with the scintillation cocktail in the laboratory, the mixture could have been contaminated with airborne noble gases, resulting in high net readings after the background was subtracted.
The licensee representative stated that a
practice was implemented to make up a
new blank each time of batch of samples was to be run.
Another proposed corrective action was to move the sample handling and counting process out of the old laboratory in the Auxiliary Building and into'he new secondary laboratory when it became operational in the Office Building.
No violations or deviations were identified.
13.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on May 26, 1989, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed abov Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
The inspector commented formally on the gIDW graphing and trending system and stated that the Chemistry Department appeared to be making good use of it.