IR 05000250/1989046
| ML17347B453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1989 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347B452 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-89-46, 50-251-89-46, NUDOCS 8912130371 | |
| Download: ML17347B453 (19) | |
Text
gpR REOy,
~
'I (4 fp0
+ip I
>>>>*<<<<
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-250/89-46 and 50-251/89-46 Licensee Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and 4.
Inspection Conducted:
October 23-27, 1989 Inspector:
R.
R. Narston Approved by:~
~
~
T. R.. Decker, Chief Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Date Signed
//
Date Signed SUYiNARY Scope:
This routine,,unannounced inspection was in the areas of radiological liquid and Gaseous effluents, Post Accident Sampling Systems, and water chemistry.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The Chemistry Department appeared to be conducting a thorough prooram in the effluent and water chemistry areas.
The data trackino and trending program compensated to some degree for the lack of experience of Department personnel.
An agoressive guality Assurance audit program appeared to be monitoring the Chemistry and effluent 'programs closely and ensuring close attention to the programs.
8912i3037i 89ii29 PDR, ADOCK 05000250
PNU
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- T. Abbatiello, Supervisor, Performance Monitoring, guality Assurance (gA)
"J. Anderson, Supervisor, gA Regulatory Compliance
- J. Arias, Jr., Technical Assistant to Plant Manager P. Bailey, Nuclear Energy Senior Analyst (FPL)
- N. Blew, ISI Coordinator
- R. Brown, Health Physics Operations Supervisor
- J. Cross, Plant Manager E. English, Secondary Operations Supervisor (Chemistry)
- D. Feingold, System Engineer
- S. Hale, Engineering Project Manager
- V. Kaminskas, Technical Supervisor H. NcKaig, System Engineer
- L. Pearce, Operations Superintendent
- D. Powell, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
- S. guinn, Radiochemist
- K. Reminaton,"System Performance Supervisor
- F. Southworth, Assistant to Site Vice President
- R. Steinke, Chemistry Supervisor M. Vollmar, Primary Operations Supervisor (Chemistry)
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, operators, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- R. Butcher, SRI T. NcElhinney, RI
- G. Schnebli, RI
- Attended exit interview Audits (84750)
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's guality Assurance (gA) Audits which were performed in areas within the scope of this inspection.
The following audits were reviewed:
gAO-PTN-88-917, Radioactive Materials Release, Iodine Noni'toring, and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCN), July 20, 1989.
This audit was conducted from June 29, 1989 to July 6, 1989, and included five finding (
gAO-PTN-89-002, Radioactive Effluents, August 18, 1989.
This audit was conducted June 30 through August 17.,
1989.
Performance Monitoring Summary PMON P7, June Performance Monitoring
'udit gAO-PTN-89-993, June 27, 1989.
Performance Monitoring Report PMON k'2, October Performance Monitoring Audit gAO-PTN-89-025,, October 13, 1989.
gAO-PTN-89-993 included one finding: " Less than adequate control of liquid waste,"
and gAO-PTN-89-025 included three draft findings.
The inspector reviewed the responses to the five findings in Audit gAO-PTN-88-917.
Three of the findings were determined to require no corrective actions, and the other two required corrective actions, but were not safety significant items.
The audits appeared to be comprehensive and capable of detecting any programmatic weaknesses that might exist.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Procedures (84750)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Chemistry Parameters Manual and Nuclear Chemistry Procedures.
The Manual listed parameters and normal values for those parameters for various components in the Primary and Secondary systems, and control chemicals which might be added.
The Procedures were in the process of being upgraded.
The Procedures appeared to have been reviewed at the frequency required and appeared to be adequate.
f No violations or deviations were identified.
Liquid Effluent Releases (84750)
The inspector reviewed a selection of Liquid Radwaste Release Permits.
The permits appeared to have been prepared and handled in accordance with Procedures, and release concentrations and dose projections were within Technical Specification limits.
The inspector also reviewed the Liquid Release Logs for June, July, and September 1989.
The Logs were essentially summaries of information extracted from the Release Permits, the most significant being Total Monthly Doses and Isotopic Activity Released.
A Tritium Worksheet was included with the June 1989 package.
This sheet showed calculations and results for average concentration and total curies released.
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Gaseous Radwaste Releases (84750)
The inspector reviewed a selection of release permits for Containment Purge and Gas Decay Tank Releases.
The Release Permits included release concentrations, isotopic analyses of the releases, and projected dose
.
calculations.
The release concentrations and projected doses appeared to be within Technical Specification limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Post Accident'ampling System (PASS)
(84750)
The inspector and a cognizant licensee System Engineer walked down the PASS and discussed the system.
The PASS Control Panel was located in the Auxiliary Building, near the intersection of the main East-West and North-South corridors.
The panel had gas and liquid flow indicators, inlet and outlet pressure and temperature indicators, pH and Dissolved Oxygen indicators, boron and percent hydrogen indicators, a chloride analyzer indicator, and Post Accident Containment System air sample flow indicator.
The panel also included control switches to select.,online analysis or grab sample; mode switches to select between Unit
and Unit 4, Normal or Accident modes, and flush or purge of the online or grab sample lines.
The panel also had corresponding control switches for post accident containment atmosphere sampling.
The inspector and system engineer then looked at the PASS room which was located behind the control panel.
The heavily shielded casks used to transport the post accident coolant and containment atmosphere grab samples were stored inside the door and outside the shielded equipment area.
The licensee system engineer described the sample flow paths through the liquid and gas systems and described component functions.
The system was operated by performing valving and instrument adjustments in the room, then the chemist used the switches on the control panel outside the room in order to minimize exposure.
The plant operator was then requested to open specified valves to start the sample flow.
A sample would be taken from the "A" or "B" hotleg of either unit or the RHR system.
The sample would be cooled by passage through a sample cooler cooled by component cooling water (CCW) and through a sample chiller cooled by ethylene glycol.
The pressurized sample then flowed through the Automated Isotopic Neasurement System (AIMS), a gamma spectroscopic system which provided appropriate geometry for the sample by means of flow paths at differing distances from the AIMS detector and a choice of different size collimator slits.
The sample then was directed through a system of variable orifices to reduce pressure to 45 pounds psig.
The sample then could be directed to the grab sample cask or to a phase separator, where the liquid and gas phases were separated.
The gas phase passed through a
dissolved hydrogen analyzer, then was routed to the Volume Control Tank (VCT) or to Containment, depending on activity.
The liquid phase was routed through pH, Chloride, Dissolved Oxygen, and Boron analyzers, then to the VCT or Containment Sump as appropriate.
The boronometer included an AmBe source located in a
sample chamber.
The inspector observed that the k
boronometer was heavily.shielded and neutron dosimetry was required to enter the immediate vicinity.
The containment atmosphere sample was transferred via heat traced lines to the PASS ro'om where it passed through its AIM system for isotopic analysis, through hydrogen analyzers, through a grab sample apparatus, then returned to containment.
The licensee system engineer stated that the chloride analyzer was out of service and the flow transmitters located after the phase separator were also out service.
The components required for the flow transmitters were expected to be received in November 1989 and installed by the-PASS vendor in early December 1989.
The chloride analyzer was expected to be replaced in April 1990.
A monthly flow path verification was required on the Reactor Coolant PASS in accordance with Procedure O-OSP-094.1, dated April 5, 1989.
The inspector reviewed documentation which showed that the verification was last done on October 6, 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Changes to the Chemistry Pr'ogram (84750)
The inspector discussed changes to the Chemistry Department and its program with licensee representatives.
The Nuclear Chemistry Department Supervisor stated that the Department authorization was still'ix supervisors'nd 24 technicians.
The technician manning was 20 personnel at the time of the inspection.
Two of the technicians were contractor personnel who were being processed for employment as Plant personnel.
Department procedures were beina reviewed, upgraded, and revised.
A procedure writer was attached to the. Department until the end of the calendar year.
An extended procedure review program was implemented.
The Chemistry Procedure logsheet was revised to accommodate the expanded review program by including a
column for the reason for rejection if-a reviewer should reject a proposed procedure.
No violations or,deviations were identified.
Chemistry Nanagement Process (84750)
,The inspector reviewed the Chemistry Management Process through discussion with the Chemistry Department Supervisors and review of each Supervisor's 'Quality in Daily Work" (QIDW) book.
Each QIDM book included a chart relating the Supervisor's accountable items to those of management above him and to the workers below him.
Quality Indicators (QIs), their limits or targets, a
reference to the accountable document (such as Technical Specifications),
and a flow chart for each process were included.
The inspector initially reviewed this program during the previous
I
inspection (NRC Inspection Report No.
250, 251/89-26).
The Chemistry Supervisors stated that the number of parameters tracked under this system had been reduced, due to time required to maintain the books and their contents.
The parameters were plotted daily or per shift, depending on sampling and analysis frequency.
The charts used were X-R charts, where both the parameter and the change since the previous value were plotted.
The following parameters were reviewed:
Radiochemistr Fue Re ia 1 sty Index (FRI)
Total Activity I-131/I-133 Ratio Online Monitors Primar Chemistr Out of Service Hours (during Node 1 operation)
Boron Concentration Lithium (percent. recovery)
Secondar Chemistr C emistry erformance Indicator (CPI)
Cation Conductivity Steam Generator Average pH Feedwater pH Hydrazine (ppb)
Condensate Average Cation Conductivity Service Hours Out of Specification Parameters were normally plotted daily, feedwater pH and Hydrazine were plotted'n each shift.
CPI was a weighted average. with respect to each parameter'
l imit of concentrations of cation conducti vity, sodium, chlorides, sulfates, and dissolved oxygen.
The above system gave parameter values a high'visibility and helped ensure trends were noted and corrective action was timely.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Laboratorids (84750)
The inspector and the Radiochemist toured the Chemistry Hot Lab and the Radiochemistry Count Room.
The Hot Lab was equipped essentially the same as in the previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 89-26).
The Ion Chromatograph systems had been upgraded, two gas chromatographs were in use, an atomic absorption spectrophotometer and a gas flow proportional counter were available.,
and a Total Organic Carbon analyzer was in use.
The Count Room had a
new Liquid Scintillation system which was not yet in service.
A gas proportional system was available for gross alpha and gross beta
10.
analysis.
Four gamma spectroscopic detector systems were'ontrolled through a
new ND9900 system.
In touring the Labs and in other areas of the plant, the inspector observed a high degree of cleanliness and.several freshly painted areas.
No violations or,deviations were identified.
Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
As. part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent to the plant on July 13, 1989 for selected radiochemical analysis.
The inspector was provided with the results during the inspection and discussed the results with Chemistry management.
The comparison is presented in Attachment 1 and the acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in'Attachment 2.
The inspector's review of this data indicated that the results were in agreement for all four nuclides.
No violations or 'deviations were identified.
Followup (92701)
(Closed) IFI 251/88-25-02:
Review licensee decontamination program results in cleanup of spill of August 15-16, 1989.
The inspector. discussed the results of the decontamination with a licensee representative and examined pertinent documentation.
The licensee estimated the activity spilled based on the amount of liquid spilled and the activity in the Pool water.
The amount recovered was determined from measurement of the activity in the gravel dug up and shipped and the volume of the gravel.
Analyses were done of possible movement and hazard of the remaining activity.
This indicated that the hazard would not be significant.
(Closed) IFI 251/88-25-04:
Review licensee action concerning cleanout of.
Auxiliary Building floor drain lines and determine system capacity.
The
.inspector dis'cussed the corrective action with the cognizant system engineer and reviewed pertinent documentation.
The drains had been cleaned out, restrictions had been implemented on placing hoses into floor drains, and the licensee conducted an evaluation of the, floor drains in the Spent Fuel Pool rooms and determined that the drain system was capable of handling the flow from an expected leak.
(Open) IFI 250, 251/88-29-02:
Track PASS modifications and operability testing.
This system was discussed in Paragraph 6 of this Report.
In addition, the AIMS was considered to be fully operational and calibrated by crosscheck with a
Modification of the grab sample mechanism to secure a dilute sample was still under consideration, but no decision date had been establishe.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 27, 1989, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
The inspector stated that the strong Chemistry Program and aggressive gA audit program were positive aspects of the licensee's'rograms, but the extended time to bring the PASS to a fully operational state represented a
'egative aspect of the program.'
ATTACHMENT 1 Confirmatory Measurement Comparisons of H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90 Analyses for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant on July 20, 1989 Isotope Licensee NRC
~uCi/ml )
~uCi/ml )
Resolution Ratio Licensee/NRC)
Comparison K-3 Fe-55 2.35E-5 2.5810.08E-5 2.87E-5 2.79+0.08E-5 Sr-90 5.47E-6 5.98+0.24E-6 Sr-89 1.14E-4 1. 10+0. 03E-4
35
25
.91
~ 1.03 1.04
.92 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
l
'
ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment. provides criteria for the comparison of results of analytical radioactivity measurements.
These criteria are based on empirical relationships which combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity analyses, the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive emission, and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the
"Comparison Ratio Limits"~ denoting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.
Th'is variability is a function of the ratio of the NRC's analytical value relative to its associated statistical and analytical uncertainty, referred to in this program as "Resolution"~.
For comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and the NRC's analytical value is computed for each radionuclide present in a given sample.
The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement based on "Resolution."
The corresponding values for "Resolution" and the
"Comparison Ratio Limits" are listed in the Table below.
Ratio values which are either above or below the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the "Comparison Ratio=
Limits" are considered to be in agreement.
TABLE NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolution vs.
Comparison Ratio Limits Resolution Comparison Ratio Limits-for A reement
<44-7 8-15 16 - 50 51 " 200
)200 0.4 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.0 0.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18
~Comparison Ratio = Licensee Value NRC Reference Value
~Resolution
=
NRC Reference. Value Assoc>ated Uncertainty
l,