IR 05000250/1990034
| ML17348A721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1990 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17348A720 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-90-34, 50-251-90-34, NUDOCS 9011090027 | |
| Download: ML17348A721 (11) | |
Text
~P,S RECT, (4
es n
R dS eo IP +vt*i+
.UNITED,STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
@gg Report NoseI 50-250/90-34 and 50-251/90-34 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nose I 50-250 and 50-'251 License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Facility Name; Turkey Point 3 and
Inspection Conducted:
Octo er 1-5, 1990 Inspector:~A ZA7 R. K $larston Approved by:
NAAO.
T.
R.
Dec er, C )ef Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ate Soigne ao ate sgne SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of radiological liquid and gaseous effluent processing and releases, water chemistry, and Postaccident Sampling Systems (PASS).
Results:-
Within the scope of the inspection, the inspector determined that the licensee had maintained an adequate program to control radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and had maintained an aggressive program to track and control water chemistry parameters.
The guality Assurance audit program provided management with a strong control to monitor and ensure effectiveness of the chemistry program.
One non-cited violation was identified and reviewed during this inspection:
Failure to provide for acceptance criteria, for qualitative'hannel checks on the Plant Vent low range SPING System (Paragraph 2).
90ilO9OO27 90iO=-O PDR AQOCK o.'=0002
Q PDC
REPORT DETAILS'ersons Contacted Licensee Employees J.
Berg, Primary Chemistry Supervisor L. Bladow, guality Yianager
- J. Balaguero, Assistant Technical Department Supervisor
- R. Daly, Outage Manager
- J. Davis, Operations Support Supervisor E. English, Special Projects and Outage Coordinator (Chemistry)
D. Feingold, Systems Engineer (PASS)
- K. Harris, Vice President
- J. Knorr, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
- E. Lyon, Lead Systems Engineer
- R. Yiende, Operations Supervisor.
C. Murray, Online Instrumentation Coordinator (Chemistry)
- L. Pearce, Plant Yianager
- T. Plunkett, Site Vice President
- D. Powell, Licensing Superintendent S. guinn, Radiochemist C. Rossi, Supervisor, Regulatory Performance (guality Assurance)
- R. Steinke, Chemistry Supervisor J.
Woodard, Supervisor, Secondary and Water Treatment Plant Chemistry Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included operators, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- R. Butcher, SRI
- Attended exit interview Audits (84750)
Technical Specification (TS) 6;5.2.8 requires that audits of facility activities shall be performed under cognizance of the Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB).
The TS further specifies the subject areas to be audited and the frequency of audit.
The inspector reviewed a selection of audits performed since the last inspection (50-250, 251/90-15)
in this area in order to determine TS compliance. 'he following Regulatory Performance audits were reviewed:
gAO-PTN-90-038, Radwaste Handling and Shipping, July 31, 1990.
No findings were identifie gAO-PTN-90-033, Radioactive Yiaterials Release, August 2, 1990.
This audit was conducted to evaluate compliance to Technical.
Specifications (TSs)
3.9, 6.18, and 6.5.2;8 (k,m).
Two findings were identified.
One finding was successfully challenged by the Chemistry Department.
Finding 2 was stated as follows:
Chemistry Procedure NC-22C,
"SPING and DAYi Yionitor Channel Check,"
approved April 3, 1989, does not provide acceptance criteria for the instrument channel checks.
In reference to the above finding, the inspector determined that a
violation of NRC regulations existed.
Title
CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V states in part:
"... Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
guality Procedure gP 11.4,
"Test Control," Section 5.3.1.d states in part:
h
"Test procedures shall include or reference the following require-ments as appropriate:...
"Acceptance Criteria - Criteria which clearly identifies basis on which acceptance or rejection will be judged, contained within the design documents."
Step 8.6 of NC-22C states in part:
"Record on Appendix 1 the number displayed below. the status LEDs.
This value is compared to the previous readings to determine operability of the channel.
When comparing readings, plant conditions and counting statistics of the channel in question should be considered."
.
However, the procedure does not provide or define adequately what constitutes a satisfactory channel check.
The procedure did provide-acceptance criteria for component status via colored lights in previous steps, however, no criteria was provided for the check in Step 8.6.
Procedure 3-OSP-201. 1, RCO Daily Logs, August 9, 1990, ATTACHMENT 1 (Page 14 of 15), provided for reading the Low Range Gas Channel on the SPINGs each shift by the Reactor Control Operator.
The acceptance criteria provided on the Logsheet states that the check is satisfactory if the reading is displayed as white numeral on green back-ground, and if any channel is not white on green, declare the channel out of service and notify Chemistry.
The Chemistry Department's response to the finding, dated August 28, 1990, stated that the Procedure was being rewritten, would incorporate acceptance criteria for the readings obtained, and would be approved by
e 3.
December 31, 1990.
The inspector reviewed the draft of the procedure (designated as O-NCSP-067),
and determined that the corrective action proposed in Section 6.0 would be adequate to correct the finding.
The inspector determined that the failure to provide acceptance criteria for the channel check of the Plant Vent Channel 5 SPING was a violation of
CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V:
NCV 50-250, 251/90-34-01.
The violation is not being cited because the criteria specified in Section V.G. 1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy was satisfied.
The inspector also reviewed the folloQing Performance Monitoring Audits:
gAO-PTN-90-016, Performance Yionitoring Audit for Yiarch 1990.. Areas included pertinent to this inspection were Post Accident Containment Ventilation System and Post Accident Hydrogen Recombiner.
gAO-PTN-90-035, Performance Yionitoring Audit for June 1990.
Area included pertinent to this inspection was transfer of spent resin to shipping cask.
Through reviews of these audits and discussion with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee had an'ggressive, effective audit program.
One non-cited violation was identified:
50-250, 251/90-34-01.
Procedures (84750)
TS 6.8.1 requires that. written procedures and administrative policies shall be established, maintained, and implemented that meet specified requirements and recommendations for designated areas.
TS 6.8.2 requires that the above procedures and policies be reviewed by the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC)
and approved by the Plant Yianager.
TS 6.8.3 specifies requirements for temporary changes to the 'procedures.
The inspector reviewed a selection of Nuclear Chemistry Procedures to verify that TS requirements were met.
The inspector determined from the review of the procedures that TS requirements were met and that the procedures appeared to be effective.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e 4,
Changes in the Chemistry Program (84750)
The inspector discussed status and changes to the Chemistry Department and program with the Chemistry Supervisors to assess quality and evaluate capability.
The Chemistry Supervisor stated that the manning level of the Department was unchanged, but there had been some shifts among the Supervisors.
A new group was established within the Department to oversee the online monitors.
The Supervisor stated that the function of the Group
e 5.
was to keep the monitors operational and to track their performance.
A Special Projects and Outage Coordinator had been appointed to oversee the Secondary system wet layup during the upcoming outage and to coordinate outage activities.
The Super visor stated that the plan was for the units to be taken down in November and December 1990, and to come back on line again in September and October 1991.
The Secondary systems would be put into wet layup, and each would be brought out for only 30 days for necessary outage work, then would be put back into layup until the end of the outage.
The Supervisor responsible for the chemistry aspects of the Water Treatment Plant (MTP)
was also placed in charge of Secondary Chemistry.
The Supervisor stated that it was planned to install a
new type of membrane in the Reverse Osmosis (RO) units used in the WTP and that good performance was seen from the ion exchange beds.
One cation bed had processed 2.9 million gallons of water, while two years ago a cation bed would handle only 0.8 or 0.9 million gallons before break-through.
In the Secondary system, it was planned to test new high purity elements in the polishers.
The accomplished and proposed changes in the program were expected to have no negative impacts, but appeared to improve the 'effectiveness of the programs.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Liquid Effluent Processing and Monitoring (84750)
TSs 3.9.1.a and b state requirements for liquid effluent concentrations and doses.
The inspector toured the plant, examining tanks, monitors, and control panels for the liquid radwaste processing and release system.
The count room was operational in its new location.
The main equipment consisted of three intrinsic germanium detectors with a ND9900 system for gamma spectroscopic analysis, a liquid scintillator system, a Tennelec gas proportional system, and a
hood for storage of samples.
The Radiochemist stated that the samples were prepared in the laboratories and transported to the count room on a cart, stored in the hood, and returned to the lab on the cart after counting.
No sample preparation was to be done in the count room.
The Radiochemist stated that plans were under consideration to install a sink in the entryway of the count room for disposal of samples.
The inspector reviewed liquid effluent records to verify compliance.
Monthly Release Reports and Liquid Release Logs were reviewed for June through August 1990, and nine Liquid Release Permits were reviewed for September 1990.
The inspector reviewed calculations which showed that projected doses were calculated in accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) methodology.
The records showed that the liquid effluent releases were made in accordance with requirements, and that releases and doses were well within limits.
No violations or deviations were identifie Gaseous Effluent Processing and Monitoring (84750)
TSs 3.9.2.a, b,
and c state dose limits for gaseous effluent releases for gases, iodines, and particulates.
The inspector toured the plant areas, examining gaseous radwaste processing, storage, monitoring, release, and control equipment to assess capability.
The equipment appeared to be as described in the FSAR.
The inspector reviewed airborne release documents to verify compliance.
The inspector reviewed Yonthly Gas Summary Reports and Gas Release Logs for June through August 1990, and five Gas Release Permits for September 1990.
The inspector also reviewed calculations which showed that projected doses were calculated in accordance with ODCN methodology.
The records showed that gaseous effluent releases were made in accordance with requirements and that releases and doses were well within limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (84750)
J TS 6.9.4.a requires that routine Radioactive Effluent Release Reports covering the operation of the unit during the previous 6 months of operation shall be submitted within 60 days after 'January 1 and July 1 of each year.
The TS further includes requirements for the content and format of the report.
The inspector reviewed the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the first half of Calendar Year 1990 to verify compliance with TS requirements and to determine trends in liquid and gaseous releases.
The review of the releases showed no trends in either liquid or gaseous releases.
No unplanned liquid or gaseous releases occurred during the period.
The Report included all required information.
No TS or
CFR 50, Appendix I limits were exceeded for the period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Chemistry (84750)
TSs 3.1.4 and 3. 1.5 specify reactor coolant radiochemistry and chemistry limits, respectively.
Further limits are stated in specific Nuclear Chemistry Procedures.
The inspector toured the Hot Lab with a cognizant Chemistry Supervisor to assess capability, quality, and to observe analyses.
The Lab was equipped as discussed in the previous inspection report (50-250, 251/90-15),
and the remodelling discussed in that report had been completed.
The inspector also reviewed primary chemistry plots to determine compliance.
Boron-Lithium plots and Lithium recovery plots were reviewed and determined to show adequate chemistry control.
The licensee Primary Supervisor stated that the Group was starting to plot pH versus conductivity trend charts in October 1990.
Secondary chemistry parameter limits are stated in specific Nuclear Chemistry Procedures.
The inspector toured the Secondary Chemistry Laboratory with the Chemistry Supervisor to assess capability, quality and
e to observe ongoing analyses.
One ion chromatograph was in use to analyze anions, and another was being set up to analyze cations.
A PE 5000 Atomic
,
Absorption Spectrophotometer was in use to analyze metals, and a liquid scintillator was in use to analyze tritium, and to serve as a backup to the unit in the count room.
The inspector also reviewed secondary chemistry data and control charts for June through September 1990.
Parameters monitored included Chemistry Performance Index (CPI),
Steam Generator Yiass Balance Diagnostic (comparison of actual and theoretical cation conductivities),
Feedwater pH Diagnostic results (comparison of theoretical and actual 'pH),
Feedwater pH, and Feedwater Hydrazine.
Parameters were generally maintained within limits.
Where anomalies existed, points were identified, and the cause identified elsewhere on the chart.
9.
10.
Control of primary and secondary system chemistry parameters appeared to be adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Postaccident Sampling System (PASS)
(84750)
\\
TS 6.13 requires in part, a
program which will ensure the capability to obtain and analyze reactor coolant, radioactive iodines and particulates in plant gaseous effluents, and conta'inment atmosphere under accident conditions.
The program shall include provisions for maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment.
To verify compliance to this TS requirement, the inspector examined the PASS control and indicator panels and discussed the ongoing maintenance with the System Engineer.
The pH, Chloride, Dissolved Oxygen, Boron, Dissolved Hydrogen, and Isotopic Analyses were dore online on the Reactor Coolant.
Isotopic analysis was done online on the containment gas.
Grab sample capability existed for both systems.
The dissolved oxygen analyzer had been replaced and appeared to be operating adequately.
The dissolved hydrogen analyzer was to be replaced since it was considered to be unreliable.
The balance of the system was operable.
The system would appear to be fully operable with the replacement of the dissolved hydrogen analyzer.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 4, 1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
One noncited violation was identified:
Failure to provide acceptance criteria for channel check of SPING Honitor Channel
(Paragraph 2).
The licensee declined to admit or deny the violation at this time, but desired to evaluate the situation further.
The Chemistry Department made effective use of the control charts and accompanying documentation to maintain close control over the program.
The guality Assurance Department's Regulatory Performance and Performance Yionitoring audits represented strengths in the licensee's program.
No proprietary information is included in this report.