IR 05000302/1978001
| ML19308D549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1978 |
| From: | Ewald S, Gibson A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D530 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-78-01, 50-302-78-1, NUDOCS 8002280981 | |
| Download: ML19308D549 (8) | |
Text
'b'
,
SO (Y '
/p>A P'etag#o,$
r]
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
f REGloN\\\\
!
- e 230 PEACHTR EE STREET, N.W. SUITE 818
-
k
'8 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s...../
Report No.: 50-302/78-1 Docket No.: 50-302 i
License No.:
,
t Licensee: Florida Pcwer Corporation P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
'
l Facility Name: Crystal River Unit 3 Inspection at: Crystal River Site, Crystal River, Florida Inspection conducted: January 3-6, 1978 Inspector:
S. C. Ewald Reviewed by:
h!
'M
/
'
A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and ibterials Safety Branch Inspection Summarv Inspection on January 3-6, 1978 (Report No. 50-302/78-1)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of previously identified
>
items and the radiation protection program including training, qualifica-tions, audits, procedures, equipment, posting and labeling, and reports.
'
Results: Of eight areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations, were identified in seven areas.
One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction - failure to post a radiation area (78-01-01) - paragraph 3)
'
sees eso 9#/
'
i
.
..
v'
.
RII Rpt. No. 50- 02/78-1 1-1
_
f k @M2-DETAILS I Prepared by:
h
'.M
.
Ifd.I" S. C. Ewald, Radiation Specialist
'Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: January 3-6, 1978 26 M Reviewed by:
v A. f. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted
- G. P. Beatty, Jr., Nuclear Plant Manager
- P. F. McKee, Assistant Nuclear Plant Manager
- J. R. Wright, Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
- J. L. Harrison, Assistant Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer O
- C. D. Perkins, Health Physics Supervisor
- G. H. Ruszala, Radwaste Management Supervisor
- R. E. Fuller, Plant Engineer
- W. A. Cross, Plant Engineer
- D. W. Pedrick, IV, Compliance Engineer W. R. Nichols, Operations Supervisor P. E. Griffith, Training Coordinator
- J. Cooper, Compliance Auditor
- E. G. Beall, Chief Chemical and Radiation Protection Technician
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
'
(Closed) Deviation (50-302/77-8) Solid Waste Packing System a.
This item was discussed in RII Report Nos. 50-302/77-8 and 50-302/77-14. The inspector reviewed test procedure TP-77-7-37 detailing the operability tests performed relative j
to the solid waste packaging system. The inspector discussed the test results with the plant engineer in charge and inspected the four drums that had been solidified during these tests. All drums appeared to satisfy criteria for a freestanding solid and free water. The inspector had no further questions, b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (77-22-01) Effluent Monitor Correlation This item was discussed in RII Report No. 50-302/77-22. The inspector reviewed correlations performed December 16 and 23,
.
.
(
-
.
. - - -
-
._.
-
-
_
_ __
.
.
-
.
-
.,
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-2
'
.
l 1977 relative to reactor building purges. Licensee representa-
<
tivea stated correlations may now be performed on the.va. fous effluent channels. The results of the above correlations are
~
-
discussed further in paragraph 11.
The inspector had no further
questions relative to the performance of effluent correlations.
.
(open) Unresolved Item (77-22-02) Monitor Setpoints - This item c.
was discussed in -RII Report No. 50-302/77-22. The inspector reviewed a final copy of procedure CH-280L, " Radiation Monitoring -
System Operating Parame;=rs." This procedure addresses the bases and specific values of the various setpoints. The inspector j
stated this item would remain open until appropriate setpoint
'
controls are formalized and a program for periodic verification
'
of setpoints is implemented.
'
d.
(Open) Outstanding Item (77-22-04) Maintenance of Caseous Release Records - This item was discussed in RII Report No.
50-302/77-22. The inspector verified the implementation of interim corrective measures discussed in the above report.
The inspector discussed these items with two chem / rad techni-
.
cians and observed the detailed check off sheets and central data storage file. This item will remain open pending imple-
-
mentation and review of new procedures and training programs,
_(Closed) Outstanding Item (77-22-05) Effluent Monitor Channel e.
Checks - This item was discussed in RII Report No. 50-302/77-22.
A review of the monitor channels in question (RMAl and RMA6)
'
revealed these systems are equipped with failure alarms triggered by a loss of input signal. Based on discussions with licensee representatives the inspector concluded that an alarm status check would satisfy the criteria of a channel check as any occur-rence that would render a channel inoperable would npparently result in one of the alarms being tripped. The inspector had
'
no further questions.
.
3.
..
Posting. Labeling and Control
a.
10 CFR 20,203 details posting and labeling requirements for radiation areas, high radiation areas, airborne activity areas, radioactive materials areas and container labeling.
-
During plant tours on January 3, 4 and 5 the inspector verified the appropriate posting and labeling of the above areas with one exception. During a plant tour on January 4, the inspector measured radiation levels of 15 to 30 millirem per hour (mrem /hr)
in the cubicle housing the concentrated waste and boric acid pumps. The area was not posted as a radiation area. A chem / rad I
!
s
i
.
- -
-, -.
.,. - -
.-,- -_
,
-
- - - - -. -. -
..
...-
_
- _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
_
[~N)
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-3
.
technician was notified of the inspector's measurements and he subsequently verified the measured radiation levels and posted the area as a radiation area. The inspector informed licensee
-
management that the failure to post this radiation area was not in compliance with 10 CFR 20.203(b) (78-01-01).
b.
Tschnical Specification 6.13 and 10 CFR 20.203(c) address controls required relative to high radiation areas with levels exceeding 1000 mrem /hr. During plant tours the inspector verified appropriate controls over access to these high radia-tion areas and that the locking systems were designed such that no individual would be prevented from leaving a high radiation area. The inspector also verified appropriate controls relative to storage of radioactive materials and the posting of these areas.
The inspector reviewed Radiation Protection Procedures c.
R.P.-106 and R.P.-107 dealing with Radiation Work Permit (RWP)
procedures. The inspector reviewed all active RWP's and 20 inactive RWP's and had no questions. The inspector reviewed the decontamination efforts and surveys performed relative to
RWP-78-8 as it was being completed and the protective measures listed on the RWP. The inspector had no questions, d.
10 CFR 19.11 (Posting of Notices to Workers) requires the posting of certain docuemnts (i.e., location of specified regulations and procedures, Form NRC-3, notices of violation)
in a conspicuous location. The inspector observed the posted documents on a bulletin board near the entrance to the Radiation Control Area. The inspector had no questions.
4.
Qualifications Technical Specification 6.3 requires facility staff to meet the minimum qualifications criteria of ANSI N18.1-1971. The inspector reviewed resume's of eight new chem / rad technicians and discussed the qualifications of the new Radwaste }bnagement Supervisor with licensee representatives. The inspector interviewed one new chem / rad technician.
The inspector had no questions relative to the qualifi-cations of the new employees.
5.
Training The inspector reviewed health physics training and retraining a.
programs for general plant staff, chem / rad staff, and operators.
The inspector reviewed lecture notes used for the training of general plant staff and discussed the training with the Health OV
,
=
.
-
.
_
_
_
.
.
,
.
.-
r"'
)
,
t i
\\
'
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-4
!
-
Physics Supervisor. The inspector determined the program j
,
included discussion of 10 CFR 19 items, and a discussion of Regulatory Guide 8.13, " Instructions Concerning Prenatal Radia-tion Exposure." The inspector reviewed training records for thirty individuals and had no questions.
b.
Discussions with the training coordinator and a review of
records revealed licensed and unlicensed operators are not included in the health physics training and retraining programs.
Instead, these topics are addressed in the operator requalifi-
I cation and retraining program. The inspector had no questions on this item.
The inspector reviewed a new training and retraining program c.
for chem / rad staff that is currently being implemented. The inspector reviewed training outlines and had no questions a
relative to the content and scope of the program. Discussicas with the Health Physics Supervisor revealed an initial qualifi-cation program is also being used. This program serves as a training outline for new chem / rad staff and portions are required to be completed prior to assignment of independent -
shift work. The inspector reviewed a copy of this training
-
outline and discussed the program with several chem / rad tech-
!
nicians. The inspector stated these training program appeared
]
to be comprehensive and would likely have positive effects on the total health physics program. The inspector had no ques-tions about training programs.
6.
Licensee Audits The inspector reviewed documentation of two quality assurance audits relating to health physics activities. Audit No. 76/15 was a broad based, comprehensive audit relative to implementation of 10 CFR 19 and 20 requirements and ALARA criteria as outlined in
!
Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10.
Audit No. 77/6 dealt with implemen-tation of Radiation Protection Procedure RP-106, " Radiation Work
Permits Procedure." The inspector reviewed the results and conclu-sions of these audits and discussed the status of suggested corrective actions with licensee representatives and had no questions.
7.
Procedures
,
The inspector reviewed current radiation protection procedures and changes to these procedures. The inspector noted only one procedure (RP-105, Airborne Release Permit Procedure) had been changed since March 1977. The inspector verified this change and all procedures f'
had been reviewed and approved as required by Technical Specifica-
\\.
tion 6.8.2 and had no questions.
,
s
,
. - - - -._.,
,.,.. _,,..., _ - _,
y
__,
,.,,., - _ _ _,,
,,_,m,
-,.... - _ _.,,,, _
,_
.
.
.
,
i d~
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-5-
..
8.
Instruments and Equipment
.
The inspector reviewed procedures RP-206 and RP-213 detailing
-
a.
calibration procedures for various portable instruments, friskers, air samplers, portal monitors and pocket dosimeters.
The procedures specify quarterly calibration of instrumentation and semiannual source and drif t checks for pocket dosimeters.
The inspector reviewed calibration records for these instruments and verified calibration stickers on available instrumentation.
The inspector verified efficiency calibrations for friskers by performing independent ef ficiency measuements. The inspector had no questions on these items, b.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's thermo-lumenescent dosimeter (TLD) Spiking program. This program consists of exposing several TLD's to known levels of radiation and verifi-cation of TLD response. The inspector reviewed the results of this program over the last year and had no questions.
9.
Notification and Reports The inspector reviewed twenty-five termination reports made
'
a.
pursuant to 10 CFR 19.13 and 10 CFR 20.408. The inspector noted these reports may be sent out based on the individuals exposure history and recent (current quarter) pocket dosimeter results. Discussions with the Health Physics Supervisor revealed supplemental termination reports are issued if subse-quent TLD results deviate from the reported pocket dosimeter data. The inspector had no questions.
b.
Discussions with the Health Physics Supervisors revealed no reports have been made pursuant to 10 CFR 20.403 and 20.405.
10.
Decontamination Facility This item was most recently discussed in RII Report No. 50-302/77-22.
The inspector reviewed proposed ventilation systems for the facility and noted they include addition of a nominal 2000 cfm capacity. The inspector observed the installation status of the various components and noted the only major items remaining are the ventilation system and a drain line to the concentrated waste tank. Licensee represen-tatives stated testing was scheduled for mid January and the facility would be operational by February 1, 1978.
.
x
'
,
-
-.
-
,
__
_
.,
..
.
.
-
m
.
V RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-6
-
11.
Reactor Building Purge Monitor Setpoint
.
Technical Specification Table 3.3-4 requires the reactor a.
building purge monitor trip setpoint be 100 pCi/sec. Licensee review of monitor correlations between channel readout and isotopic analyses indicate the setpoint calculation procedure may be in error. Environmental Technical Specification 2.4.2 specifies gaseous release limits for all effluent points including purges. Licensee studies show that a purge rate of 100 pCi/sec is extremely conservative relative to relcase limits.
b.
Based on monitor correlations performed December 16 and 23, 1977, the licensee determined a normal reactor building purge would exceed the 100 pCi/sec setpoint based on setpoint calculations taking the monitor correlations into consideration. No purges were performed until January 12, 1978 when technical specification were changed to conform with the Environmental Technical Specifications. The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
)
12.
Reactor Coolant System Leak Detection Technical Specification 3.4.6.1 requires operability of a a.
containment iodine activity monitor channel for Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leak detection. Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 limits RCS leakage to 1 gpm unidentified and 10 gpm identified leakage.
FSAR section 4.2.3.8 states the response of this channel is such that a 1 gpm leak to the containment atmosphere as vapor would give an alarm in 15 minutes assuming design basis corrosion products in the reactor coolant.
b.
RMA6 is the instrument installed to satisfy these requirements and consists of a gas monitoring channel and a particulate /
iodine channel. The particulate / iodine channel includes a particulate and charcoal filter with a Sodium-Iodide detector.
Operating experience to date indicates this channel is more sensitive to particulate daughter products than radioiodine and calculations indicate the radioiodine sensitivity is inadequate to meet the FSAR design criteria on iodine activity alone. Licensee estimates show the channel would alarm based on particulate activity. The inspector requested this channel be studied in light of Technical Specification requirements and their bases (78-01-02). Licensee management agreed to review the matter.
13.
Charcoal Specifications J
Technical Specifications 4.7.7.1 and 4.7.8.1 detail surveil-a.
lance requirements relative to Auxiliary Building and Control
.
_
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
,
f '\\
O)
( #
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-1 I-7
-
Room ventilation systems. The Technical Specification states that charcoal adsorbent is to meet laboratory testing criteria of Regulatory Position C.6.a of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 1, 1976. The licensee was informed by their charcoal vendor that they were unable to meet acceptance criteria of Test 5.b, Table 2 (methyl-iodide removal efficiency) of Regulatory Guide 1.52 Revision 1.
Test 5.6 is referenced by Regulatory Position C.6.a.
Discussions with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) by the licensee and Region II personnel determined failure to meet this test had no safety significance if the charcoal met the other specifications. Representatives of NRR stated a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.52 is expected
)
by March 1978 that will resolve this problem. The inspector stated that should charcoal replacement be required prior to this revision it would create a compliance question.
b.
On January 5, 1978, a licensee representative informed the inspector that a batch of charcoal supplied by the vendor was certified to conform with the specifications of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 1, 1976. The licensee determined via discussions with vendor representatives that this certifica-tion was in error as the charcoal was not tested in accordance N
with Test 5.b, Table 2.
Licensee management stated the charcoal was not accepted and the vendor was advised of their responsi-bilities pursuant to 10 CFR 21.
14.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on January 6, 1978, the inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Ite.s discussed included one item of noncompliance and the status of previous items.
.
'
..,.
,,,
,
--
._.. -...,
-.
,