IR 05000324/1988028
| ML20155E828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1988 |
| From: | Hughey C, Kahle J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155E825 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-88-28, 50-325-88-28, IEIN-88-022, IEIN-88-22, NUDOCS 8810130008 | |
| Download: ML20155E828 (7) | |
Text
.
+ nouq
-
UNITED STATES
'#'
3
)
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- '
o REGION 11
.
\\,,,, *'/
I 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
e ATLANTA, GEORQlA 30323 f
'
SEP 2 31988 deport Nos.: 50-325/88-28 and 50-324/88-28 Licensee: Carciina Power and Light Company i
P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 i
Docket Nos.:
50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.:
DPR-71 and DPR-62 Facility Name: Brunswick 1 and 2
'
l Inspection Conducted: August 1-5, 1988 Inspector:
/ #d 8/J/ / 8 9 C,4. K ghe'y
~/
D/te Signed
Approved by:
__
Q
'I////7 i
[J.
' Kahle, Section Chief hte' Signed
.
sien of Radiation Safety and Safeguards I
i SUPNARY
Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of i
liquid and gaseous radwaste management, radiological effluent monitoring i
instrumentation and environmental monitoring.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
l The inspector concluded from discussions with plant personnel and a review of
appropriate records that liquid and gaseous effluents for 1987 were within
10 CFR 50, Appendix ! design objectives (ALARA), 40 CFR 190 dose limitations j
and the radiological effluent technical specifications.
!
.
Inoperabilty of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor building and turbine building ventilatien flow measurement devices and the radwaste liquid effluent flow i
measuring device had kept the licensee continuously in ACTION stattments of the
'
Technical Specifications for up to three years.
Since the licensee also indicated no imediate plans for repairing or replacing this instrumentation, the inspector concluded that there was a lack of licensee management involvement in assuring quality in the maintenance of Technical Specification required effluent flow rreasuring devices.
8810130000 880923 PDR ADOCK ODO
l
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
___ - _. -
.
._-
. - _ _
.
.
.-
__ -
_
.-
'
'
.
1*
l
?
'
'
,
[
PEPORT DETAILS l
l 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees l
- J. Davis, Project Specialist. Environmental and Chemistry (E&C)
r S. Fitzpatrick, Specialist E&C i
- J. Harness, General Manager, Brunswick T. Harris, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
- P. Howe, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Project D. Mingis, Senior Specialist. E&C W. Nurnberger, Foreman, E&C f
- R. Poulk, Project Specialist
!
'
J. Price. Ttchnician, E&C
- C, Robertson, Superviscr E&C
!
T. Roeder. Foreman, E&C r
B. White, Senior Specialist, E&C (
t Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, operators, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
.
NRC Resident Inspectors
!
'
L. Garner
- W. l.evis
-
- Attended exit interview i
I 2.
Licensee Actions And Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)
j a.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Items (!Fis) 324/85-12-01 and 325/85-12 01:
Inoperable condition of hydrogen gas monitoring instruments in the l
Augnented Offgas System to be corrected and instruments returned to service.
The hydrogen gas monitoring equipment in the Augmented Offgas Systems continued to be inoperable in both units. These instrument failures had placed the licensee in an ACTION statement of the Technical Specifications (TSs) (3.3.5.9) continuously for over three years.
The licensee continued to abide by the periodic sampling and monitoring requirements of the ACTION statement.
As described in Inspection Report No. 87-32/87 33 dated October 1, 1987, new in-line hydrogen analyzers (gas chromatograph (GC)) will replace the old detectors (electrodes).
At the time of this inspection the Unit 2 GC system was installed and in the testing phase.
Completion cf both systems was tied with de implementation
.
'
,. - - ~ _ - ~
-
.
_ _ -
-
,
,
,.
!
!
.
'
I of hydrogen water chemistry (HWC). GC operability and HWC implementation was estimated to take place during September 1988 for
"
Unit 2 and late in 1990 for Unit 1.
The licensee planned to continue
!{
to operate under the ACTION statement of the Technical Specifications until continuous offgas hydrogen monitoring could be achieved with
'
l in-line gas chromatographs. This item remains open.
'
'
l b.
(0 pen) IFls 324/87-32-01 and 325/87-33-01:
Licensee comitted to (
)
have reactor building and turbine building ventilation flowrate F
~
measurement devices operational and returned to service by
!
January 13, 1989.
The reactor building and turbine building ventilation flowrate
j measurement devices continued to be inoperable in both Units 1 and 2.
The devices had been continuously inoperable for approximately three i
j years.
This placed the licensee in a continueus ACTION statement of
f the Technical Specifications (3.3.5.9) for the entire period, which r
j requires periodic flow estimations of the ventilation exhausts.
l l
During the previous inspection in this area (87-32/87-33,
i September 14-18, 1987), the licensee comitted to have these flow
!
measurenient devices operable by January 13, 1989.
In a letter to the l
l NRC dated June 22, 1988, the licensee postponed this comitment one t
j year to January 13, 1990 because of "project scheduling considera-l i
tions."
The licensee informed the inspector that although these (
)
items would be given a high priority, it could not be guaranteed that l
these itG would be completed in 1990.
This item remains open.
j j
]
3.
Radiological Effluents (84723, 84724)
]
a.
Sampling Observation j
,
i The inspector observed the weekly changeout of the particulate and !
l
}
charcoal filters in the Unit I reactor building vent particulate,
i iodine and noble gas radiation monitor.
Proper technique and
procedural compliance was observed during the changt )ut.
The inspector did note that since the monitor is located over open I
grating directly over the Unit I spent fuel pool, the possibility l
exists for dropping tools and equipment into the spent fuel pool.
!
The license $ also expressed concern over this problem and agreed to
j look into it further.
]
b.
Process Monitor Calibrations The inspector reviewed the records of the follow process monitor
,
'
channel calibrations:
i
{
j Unit 1 Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor i
'
- Urit 2 Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor
- '
'
Liquid Radwaste Radioactivity Effluent Monitor
!
!
J
--
..
.
.
- _
_
_-
.
.
_ _.
.-
_
--.
_
-
t
..
i
,.
(
l
l l
Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. Roof Vent Radiation Monitor I
Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. Roof Vent Radiation Monitor
,
{
Unit 1 Reactor Bldg. Roof Vent Radiation Monitor I
'
J Unit 2 Reactor Bldg. Roof Vent Radiation Monitor
!
Stack Radiation Monitor i
{
Unit 1 Detector Linearity/ Sensitivity Detemination for NUMAC
!
SJAE Off-gas Radiation Monitor i
Unit 2 Detector Linearity/ Sensitivity Detemination for NUMAC
<
SJAE Off-gas Radiation Monitor
The inspector noted no items of concern and verified that the channel
-
calibrations were performed within the requirements of Technical r
I Specification Tables 4.3.5.9-1.
j
.
c.
Semiannual Effluents Reports j
TS 6.9.1.8 requires the licensee to submit, within 60 days of l
January 1, and July 1 of each year, routine Radioactive Effluent i
Release Reports covering the operation of the unit during the
j previous six months of eperation.
The reports shall include a I
summary of the quantities of radioactive materials ;eleased from the i
i unit as outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21. Additionally, the reports
-
i that are submitted 60 days after January 1 of each year shall include
an dssessment of radiation doses from primary effluent pathways, j
)
The inspector reviewed the semiannual radiological effluent release f
l report for the period July 1 - December 31, 1987.
The review l
j included an examination of the liquid and gaseous effluent release i
dita.
A large increase in liquid waste volume released occurred i
j between 1986 and 1987 (4.96 E+6 gallons to 1.28 E+7 gallons).
Also
noted was a large increase in potential dose to adults, due to fish t
consumption, by a factor of 100. The licensee attributed the volume
increase to a heavy outage schedule during 1987, and attributed the i
dose increase to the volume increase and to an abncreal release of l
radioactivity from the residual heat removal system through the i
j service water system.
This release was discussed in detail in Inspection Report Nes. 50-325/87-33 and 50-324/87-32 dated October 1, 1987.
d.
Nuclear Air Cleaning Systems i
!
The inspector reviewed records of in-place 00P leak tests of HEPA l
filters, inplace leak tests of charcoal absorber banks, and methyl l
i iodide retention efficiency laboratory tests of filtrition system i
j charcoal for the control rooms dated May 7,1988.
These tests met
'
]
the requirements of TS 4.7.2.
The HEPA filters passed the first l
time.
Charcoal absorber tanks passed only af ter they were replaced.
l i
'
!
l
-
- - -
.
.=
_ _ -
__-
.
.
.
-
'
.
a
.
,
1
J
,
e.
Reactor Coolant Sys'am i
The technical specification's specifies maximum limits, sampling and
"
analysis frequencies for reactor coolant chlorides, conductivity,
>
dose equivalent lodine-131, isotopic analyses for lodine including
,
1-131, 1-133, and 1-135, gross activity determinations, and
)
,
l radiochemical determination for E-Bar.
The inspector reviewed
!
l selected plant chemistry records for the period January 1988 -
(
July 1988, and verified that these various reactor coolant system (
parameters were within Technical Specification limits.
l The inspector discussed with licensee representatives from the
!
!
chemistry group the status of hydrogen water chemistry (HWC)
)
implementation.
Unit 2 implementation was planned beginning Fall
1988.
The licensee estimated Unit 2 hydrogen injection rates would be between 9-10 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM).
This would i
drop the electrochemical potential (ECP) of the RCS to well below the
,
j recommended -230 millivolts to retard crack growth in welds.
l t
'
i Radiation levels in the main steam lines were estimated to increase t
i about 10%. This would be due to the reducing environment produced in
[
j the RCS during hydrogen injection.
The hydrogen injection reduces i
{
the nitrates and nitrites normally seen in the RCS during power l
operations to more volatile nitrogen compounds (NH and N,).
This
i would result in more Nitrogen-13 and Nitrogen-16 ctrryover into the i
i main steai.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the RCS recirculation loops
[
were also anticipated to decrease from the nonnal 150 part per i
r
]
billion (ppb) seen from radiolysis to less than 15 ppb.
}
The licensee anticipated that a lower ECP along with the lower
'
dissolved oxygen levels in the RCS would significantly retard crack growth within the recirculation piping weld areas, l
I'
Implementation of HWC for Unit I was not planned until late 1990.
,
!
f.
Procedures
TS 6.8.1 requires the licensee to estGblish, irplement and maintain
]
procedures covering areas such as liquid and gaseous radvaste management.
The inspector reviewed selected portions of the
'
i following procedures for completeness, accuracy and organization and i
l noted no items of concern:
I l
E&RC-2002, Sarpling of Airborne Ef fluent rteleases, Rev. 9 j
April 11, 1988 l
i J
E&RC-2003, Reporting of Radioactive Airborne Effluent Releases,
'
i Rev. 4 April 15, 1988
<
I E&RC-2009. Radioactive liquid Effluent Releases ad 4 pets,
.
I j
Rev. 5 December 10, 1987 i
'
l
_
_
_
_. _.
__ _
._
_ _. _
.
._
,
a P
?
.
!
,
f
,
g.
Audits and Appraisals
,
I
'
j TSs 6.5.5.1 and 6.5.5.2 require the licensee's Performance Evaluatien Unit (PEU) of the Corporate Quality Assurance Department to perform i
s d
periodic audits including:
The Environmental Monitoring Program and
-
'
'
results (once per 12 months); the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (once per 24 months); the Process Control Program (once per 24 i
months); and the Quality Assurance Program to meet the provisions of j
Regulatory Guide 1.21 Revision 1. June 1984 and Regulatory Guide
.
.
4.1, Revision 1, April 1975 at least once per 12 months.
The i
'
inspector reviewed audit QAA/0021-88-03, conducted April 4-13, 198d.
t
{
This audit appeared to satisfy the TS requirements and licensee
j identified findings had been resolved or were being tracked until l
'
i final resolution.
I
-
h.
Radwaste Liquid Effluent Flow Instrument l
t i
The inspector discussed with tha licensee, the inoperability of the
!
-
radwaste liquid effluent flow measurement device which had been i
inoperable since 1984, it was first identified in Engineering Work l
l Request No.84-578 dated June 20, 1984
!
'
t
}
Although this inoperable instrument had placed the licensee j
j continuously in another ACTION statement of the TS (3.3.5.8), the
[
i licensee indicated no immediate plans for replacing this obsolete
[
j in:trument (replacement parts were difficult to obtain).
This i
j project had recently been postponed because it was considered a
"plant becterrient item" and not of safety conew.1. This item will be i
j followed under an IFI (50-324/88-28 01).
,
t No violations or deviations were identified.
{
Environmental Protection (80721)
I j
The inspector, along with a licensee representative, examined several l
j fixed, offsite environeental monitoring locations. This includad:
6 thermolominescence dosimeters (TLD) locations (2 locations
!
collocated with NRC TLDs)
l
'
2vegetablesamplingplots(turnipsandcollards)
'
meteorological tower i
)
'
storm drain stabilization pond
{
intake and discharge liquid sampling stations
I j
4 continuous air sampling stations
'
,
,
i
-
.
"
.
,
.
>,
,
j
I
All equipment observed was in working order and properly maintained. The inspector reviewed procedure E&RC 3101, Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications Monitoring Program, Rev. 7, for accuracy and i
!
content and noted no items of concern.
'
No violations or deviations were identified, f
5.
Followup On Irfortnation Notices (92701)
[
,
j infonnetion Notice (!N) 88-22. Disposal of Sludge From Onsite Sewage
!
Treatment Fuilities at Nuclear Power Stations, had been received by the I
,
i licensee, reviewed for applicability and distributed to the appropriate i
i plant personnel for action.
i
!
Sae91es of sewagts treatment sludge were periodically analyzed for
radioactivity and, to date, had not contained detectable amounts of t
'
licensed materi 1.
All sludge was being held at the plant site awaiting j
licenging act'on by the State of North Carolina.
This item is considered j
closed.
,
l No violations or deviations were identified.
I 6.
Exit Interview l
The inspection scope and results were summarized on August 5. 1988, with l
l those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas
[
inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. Proprietary I
!
infortnation is net contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not
]
received from the licensee.
l I
I
,
i i
l l
!
i I
I
!
!
l
i i
i
J l
i
- -. --
-