IR 05000327/1990007

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-327/90-07 & 50-328/90-07 on 900226-0302.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radiological Effluents & Waste Treatment,Radiological Environ Monitoring & Primary & Secondary Water Chemistry
ML20034A043
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 04/03/1990
From: Decker T, Marston R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20034A040 List:
References
50-327-90-07, 50-327-90-7, 50-328-90-07, 50-328-90-7, NUDOCS 9004190221
Download: ML20034A043 (9)


Text

c y

~~~

,

,

e

.

-

he his A

UNITE] STATES NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMIS$10N ~

,

3-

,f

'

,

,,.

cE210N il

,o

)

101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.

'"

U

't

- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 -

  • ,

f

.

.....

APR 0 C 1990

,

Report Nos.:

50-327/90-07 and 50-328/90-07

,

,

Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority

,

6N38.A Lookout Place tno 37402-2801

,

- Docket Nos.:

50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.:~ DPR-77 and DPR-79 Facility Name:

Sequoyah 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 26-March 2, 1990

.

Inspector: M.

N R. R. Marston f"

Da e Signed

~

,

Approved'by: -

DAu 3 9'M

' T. R. Decker, Chief =

Date Signed

.

Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section-Emergency-Preparedness and Radiological p

Protection Branch

!

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

'

SUMMARY

'

-Scop'e :

]

.

This routine, unannounced inspection was' conducted in the areas of radiological

~

'

L

. effluents and waste treatment, radiological environmental monitoring, and primary and secondary water chemistry.

-

,

Results:..

.

.,

No violations' or deviations were identified in this inspection.

Liquid and

-

. gueous effluents were maintained within Technical Specification and 10 CFR 50..

,

1e Appendix l'11mits. Primary and secondary coolant chemistry parameters were:

general.ly maintained within specified limits.

Documentation, close. supervision,

i and review by management' enhanced the chemistry i program. ~ The Quality.

,

.

Surveillance program-tracked chemistry activities -in detail.

-

,

t

,

L

.>-

,

I i

g004190221 900404 q,DR ADOCK 050003'27

-

'.

PDC

-

p.3 4 m

.

[

.

s

.-

a v

,

g-

..;

j

,

p REPORT DETAILS i

1.

Persons Contacted I

Licensee Employees

'

l D., Adams, Nuclear Chemistry Manager F

'

'

J. Bates, TVA Chemistry and Environmental l Manager

  • M.' Burzinski' ' Site Licensing-Manager

,

e

  • H. Byrd, Manager. Project Control- & Financial Services 1

-

"

  • M. Cooper, Compliance Licensing Supervisor-

)

At Dyson,. Nuclear Quality Assurance Evaluator-

- *G.: F1ser, Chemistry &- Environmental. Superintendent.

  • T. :F11ppo, Nuclear Quality-Assurance Manager -

1J. Hereford, Electrical- & HVAC-System Engineer -

A. Jones,: Engineering Aide-

.

  • R. Lumpkin,-'Jr.. Site Quality-Manager

~

P. MacLaren, Manager,: Process Control.

.;

.

  • J. Proffitt, Licensing Engineeri _

.

&

l W. _.. Rai nes, Manager, TVA~ Environmental. Radiation. Monitoring

_

Instrumentation

!

'*V Shanks, TVA Chemistry Program Manager.

j
  • W. Smith, Nuclear Quality Assurance Audit' Specialist

]

_

W. Vanosdale, Manager, Operations Water Processing-l

  • C, Vondra, Plant Manager Other licensee employees contacted during Hthis1 inspection included'

'

,

engineers,_ operators, security force members, technicians, ;and

]

administrative personnel.

'

-

NRC Resident' Inspectors j'

  • P.

Harmon l

'*K. Jenison

_

  • D. Loveless-2.

Audits-(84750)

~

Technical _ Specification (TS), Section 6.5.2.8 requires that audits of unit.

.

activities shall be performed under-the cognizance of the Nucle'ar Safety Review Board (NSRB) and:shall encompass in part: ;the conformance of un.it'

operation:to provisions contained 'within. the-TSs and applicable license

1 conditions at least once per _12 months; the radiological. environmental l

monitoring program and the results thereof at =least: once per 12 months;

.i the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) and implementing (PCP) 'and-procedures at jJ least once per 24 months; the - Process Control _ Program

!

-implementing _ procedures for solidification of radicactive wastes at least

'

once 'per 24 months; and the performance of activities required.by the-j

.]

l

1)

.

'h

.

.

j.

-

.

Quality Assurance (QA) Program to meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide j

4.15. December 1977, or Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1,1974, and Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 1,1975, at -least once per 12 months.

The inspector reviewed SQN-NQA&E Audit Report No. SQA89002-ALARA, Radiological-Effluent Monitoring, and Radiological Environmental i

Monitoring, dated January 9,1990, land conducted November 27 to

l

~ December 15, 1989.

'

One Condition Adverse to Quality Report (CAQR) was identified: Technical I

and non-technical deficiencies in Surveillance Instructions used to meet

'

Technical Specification requirements for liquid and gaseous effluent-

,

,

monitoring instruments. The inspector reviewed the management-response to j

l.

this CAQR.

The response stated that the situation was due to procedures l

'

being issued at different times when different requirements were -in l

effect.

Setpoints were not due to be reset until the Surveillance

'l Instructions were corrected.

i The inspector also revicwed Quality Surveillance Reports dealing with the f

l areas of interest which were conducted in 1989 and 1990.

Six were'

,

l conducted in the area of laboratory analysis, four were conducted in the j

[

area of CAQR closure, two in the area of chemistry sampling, and one each

,

l in the areas of water chemistry control, redwaste management, radiological effluent monitoring, chemistry QC crosscheck, impact of resin discharge, j

and observation of Surveillance Instruction (SI).

'

}

The few discrepancies identified during these surveillances were corrected

in a timely manner.

l

No violations or deviations were identified, j

'

3.

Changes to the Chemistry Program (84750)

j

!

The inspector discussed changes in the chemistry program with the j

Chemistry and Environmental ' Superintendent.

The Superintendent stated

that the reduction-in-force would result in the loss of 10 Analysts who-l were in training and nearly qualified, and 2 analysts who were relatively new.

An experienced count room specialist was also expected to be lost.

{

Three people had been hired back and three more.were to have their service

!

extended until after the upcoming outage. - The-latest authorization was-j set at 42 personnel. Some day shift people were expected to go on backshift'

j during the outage.

A reorganization had taken place since the last

,

inspection (Inspection Report 50-327,328/89-28).

The Superintendent had-j a Process Control Supervisor, a Primary Chemistry Manager, and a Secondary l

Chemistry Manager reporting to him.- The Labs, Shift Supervisors, and l

technicians were split between the Managers.

Under the organization in

,

effect at the time of this inspection, a Process Control Manager, a i

Chemistry Control Manager, and a Nuclear Chemistry Manager, reported to l

the Superintendent.

The Nuclear Chemistry Manager supervised four Nuclear Chemists and two Environmental Engineers.

The Chemistry Control Manager

W

,

.

..

.

,.

..

i supervised one Nuclear Chemist, and the Shift Supervisors and techn'icians,

including the Labs and count room.

The -ND9900 computer system was fully integrated into the chemistry

-

program. The Superintendent stated that with this system, more data could

.

t be tracked and trended.

'

The inspector discussed the effect of the proposed manp'ower reductions with the TVA Corporate -Chemistry & Environmental-Protection Manager.

The-i Manager stated that the Corporate organization was to be. cut - from 24 people to 11.

Supervisory positions were to be cut; the remaining -

10 people would all report' directly to the Manager.

The Effluent and Laboratory Services Group was to be deleted entirely. This group' ran the Power Operations Training. Ceater (POTC) Laboratory.

This Laboratory performed the 1ollowing services for the plants:.

External QC for plant laboratories;

'-

Lab analyses that could not be done by plants (resin analysis for Browns Ferry, Strontiums and Iron for-all plants);

Standardized procedure development;

'

Gamma Spec. system calibration for plants;

'*

Verification and troubleshooting; and Training

,

The Manager stated that with no Project Managers at the Corporate level, project support would be limited to some generic projects.

The services which could no longer be performed by Corporate would have to be done by the plant Chemistry organizations or be contracted _out.

The inspector. discussed the impact of the manpower reduction with the Manager, Environmental Radiation Monitoring and Instrumentation, at Muscle:

Shoals, Alabama, via telephone. The Manager stated that the' reduction would have little effect on his organization.

Three positions to be eliminated involved work on a project which had been completed. No other losses were anticipated.

No violations or deviations were identified.

4.

Laboratories and Instrumentation (84750)

TS 6.8 requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained.

In part, the TS requires the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February '1988; s'urveillance and test activities of safety related equipment; PCP implementation; ODCM implementation; QA Program for effluent monitoring,

- using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.15, December 1977, or Regulatory.

Guide 1.21, Revision 1,1974, and Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 1,1975; and QA Program for environmental monitoring using the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 4.15, December 1977.

,

.

.

..

.r

,,

.

,

,

a The inspector and the Chemistry Process Control Manager toured the plant,

-

'

primarily examining - process.and effluent radiation monitors, radwaste system components, chemistry _ laboratories, the count room, and chemistry

,

sample points.

The Analytic Lab and count room were still equipped as described in the

,

L last inspection report in this area (Inspection Report 50-327,328/89-28).

'

The inspector reviewed documentation showing the last _ calibration and

,

quality control checks performed on each gamma spectroscopic system in the i

count room.

The calibrations and checks appeared to have been performed et the frequencies required by Technical Instruction 49.

,

The inspector toured the Secondary Chemistry Laboratory and the Atomic

,

l Absorption (AA) Spectrophotometer Room.

The licensee Manager stated that

'

the Lab was used to back up the count room and that environmental type-t samples, oil and grease, and other non-radioactive NPDES type samples were handled and analyzec there.

The AA Room was equipped with a PE 8500 Gas

'

l Chromatograph which was installed,' but not-yet operational..and -a Dionex i

20201 Ion Chromatograph which was not operational, and was used for spare p

parts.

The AA Rocm was also equipped with a Model 700 Total Organic Carbon Analyzer and a PE 4000 AA Spectrophotometer.

No violations or deviations ware identified.

5.

Process and Effluent Monitors (84750)

l TS 3.3.3.9 requires that the radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation chan_nels shown in Table 3.3-12 - shall be operable with their alarm / trip setpoints set to ensure that. the limits of TS 3.11.1.1 are not exceeded. TS 4.3.9 requires that each radioactive liquid' effluent

-

l monitoring instrumentation channel shall be demonstrated operable by i

performance of the channel checks, source check channel observation and channel functional test operations at, the frequencies shown in Table L

L 4.3-8.

TS 3.3.3.10 requires that the radioactive gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation channels shown in Table 3.3-13 shall be operable with

!

their alarm / trip setpoints set to ensure that the limits of TS 3.11.2.1 are not exceeded.

TS 4.3.3.10 requires that each radioactive gaseous

effluent monitoring instrumentation channel shall be demonstrated operable by performance of the channel check, source check, channel calibration, and channel functional test of the frequencies shown in Table 4.3-9.

The inspector and a licensee representative toured the plant and examined

a selection of liquid and gaseous process and effluent monitors.

The monitors appeared to be adequately installed and were maintained in a clean environment.

The inspector discussed calibration and functional tests performed on the monitors with a system engineer, and reviewed docilmentation which showed that the Waste Disposal System Gaseous Effluent Monitor and the Waste i

...

,

.

.

,

,4

.

Disposal System Liquid Effluent Monitor had been-calibrated and func-tionally tested at required frequencies.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6.

Liquid Radiological Effluents (84750)

TS 3.11.1.1 defines limits on the concentration of radioactive material released to unrestricted areas.

TS 4.11.1.1 requires that radioactive.

I liquid wastes shall be sampled and analyzed according to the sampling and analysis program of. Table 4.11-1.

TS 3.11.1.2 limits 1the dose or dose commitment to a member of the public from radioactive material in liquid effluents released-to unrestricted areas.

~

The inspector reviewed a selection of. liquid radiological effluent release permits for the period from November 1989 through. January 1990, and reviewed the Laboratory's Liquid Release Logbook for-liquid radwaste released from December 1989 through March 1990. Doses had been calculated for each release, and cumulative doses had been determined. The inspector determined through review of these documents that releases had been maintained within Technical Specification and.10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits.

No violations or deviations were identified.

L 7.

Gaseous Radiological Effluents (84750)

TS 3.11.2.1 defines limits for the dose rate due to radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents to areas at or beyond the site boundary.

The inspector' reviewed a selection of gaseous radiological effluent release permits for the period from November 1989 through January 1990, and reviewed the Laboratory's Gas Logbook for gaseous radwaste released

'

from December 1989 through March 1990.- Doses had been calculated for each release, and cumulative doses had been. determined.

The inspector determined through review of these documents that releases had been maintained within Technical Specification and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits.

No violations or deviations were identified.

8.

Water Chemistry (84750)

-

TS 3.4.7 requires that the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) chemistry shall be maintained within all limits specifiea in. Table 3.4-2.

TS 4.4.7 requires that the RCS chemistry shall be determined to be within the limits by-analisis of those parameters at the frequencies specified in Table 4.4-3.

TS 3.4.8 limits the specific activity of the primary coolant.

TS 4'.4.8 requires that the specific activity of the primary coolant shall be

!

determined to be within the limits by performance of the sampling and

q

e

,0'

'

.,

,

<

,

analysis program of Table 4.4-4.

Other limits are specified in Surveillance Instructions SI-50 through 51-54.

The inspector discussed the water chemistry program with Chemistry representatives, observed analyses in the Analytical Lab, and reviewed the

'

Primary System Chemistry Book and the Radiochemistry Book.

The data sheets provided chemistry and radiochemistry data for various components of the Primary system for the calendar year to date.

Parameters remained within limits or appeared to be returned to within limits in' a timely

,

manner.

No violations or deviations were identified.

9.

Chemistry Quality' Control (84750)

.

Surveillance Instructions _ and Technical Instructions' specify quality-control (QC) requirements of the _ chemistry program.

The inspector discussed the QC-program with the Manager, Chemistry Process Control and reviewed documentation of the program.

The Manager stated that the program had gone from an annual basis to a semi-annual basis in late 1989.

Intralab crosscheck data sheets were reviewed for March 1989 through February 1990.

Control charts for the period were also reviewed.

Gases and liquids were both run in the program. LComparisons were run with samples from the POTC.

Radiochemistry samples were run for the same

"

period.

Tritium samples were checked on the Packard Liquid Scintillation I

system in June and August 1989.

Crosschecks were run on the online L

l analysis system for sample points on various water systems.

,

l The overall results for both systems and.for individual analysts appeared i

l-to be adequate.

_There were very few comparisons outside the-acceptable

'

range.

No' violations or deviations were identified.

"

l 10. Radwaste Processing (84750)

l Radwaste Handling and Shipping Instructions (RHSIs) specify requirements of the radwaste program.

The inspector discussed the radwaste system with the Manager, Operations-Water Processing, and examined compcnents of the system while touring the i

plant.

The Manager stated that a Radwaste Improvement Task Force Group

'

had been established a year ago to assist. in solving TVA's radwaste

.

problems, and that this Group was-being closeo out in the near future.

The Operations Water Processing Group consisted of one Manager, 5 Unit Operators,. and 22 Assistant Unit Operators.

The Manager stated that consideration was being given to contracting out water-making for the DI Head Tank or Condensate Storage Tank and shutting down the new water treatment plant.

!

i

.

,

.a

..

.

-r Morpholine chemistry in the secondary system was under consideration. The

-

Manager stated that this process would result in running at a higher pH t

and a partial flow through the-demineralizers instead of full flow.

At'

the time of the inspection 45 to 75 million gallons were being processed

'

through each demineralizer prior to regeneration.-

The Manager' stated that the-Condensate Demineralizer Waste Evaporator (CDWE) was still in use.

The Boric Acid Evaporators had had the seals replaced, and the B Evaporator had been retubed.

.The contract was still in effect for the portable demineralizers, but they were seldom used. The-Manager stated that there were-possible tube leaks in the CDWE heater,'and

,

Chemistry was taking samples to detect these tube leaks.

No-violations or deviations were identified.

[

11. TestingofEffluentAirCleaningSystems-(84750)-

TSsrequiretestingofHEPAfiltersand.charcoaladsorbersandlaboratbry analysis of representative charcoal samples at'specified frequencies and under specified conditions in order to demonstrate systems operability for the followng systens: ' Emergency Gas Treatment System:(EGTS) (TS 4.6.1.8);-

Control. Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) ~ (TS 4.7.7); and Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System ( ABGTS)-(TS 4.7.8).

The' inspector discussed the program for in-place filter and' charcoal adsorber leak testing and charcoal sample lab testing with a cognizant

,

Engineering Aide and reviewed records of.the testing.

l Filter testing records were reviewed for the Control Building Emergency

,

Air Cleaning System (CBEACS), the ABGTS, and the EGTS.

The records showed i

I.

that the CBEACS trains were last tested in November 1989, the ABGTS, Train A was last tested in May 1989, Train B in January 1990, and the EGTS, Train A in May 1989, Train B in March 1989.

The inspector'also reviewed the records for laboratory analysis of the charcoal samples from these

-

systems. The records showed that the CBEACS, Train A was last analyzed in -

August 1989, Train B in August 1989, the ABGTS, Train A in October 1989, Train B in February 1990, and the EGTS, Train A in May. 1989, Train B in March 1989.

The results of both the in-place tests and the laboratory

'

tests showed that all tests successfully met-the Technical Specification requirements.

No violations or deviations were identified.

12.

HighBackgroundinEffluentMonitor(84750)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's Potential Reportable Occurrence, PRO 1-89-191, originated on August 19, 1989. The Turbine Building Sump Radiation Monitor, R-90-212, showed a High Radiation Alarm and wouldn't clear.

Investigation revealed that the sample chamber was contaminated to a level where the reading was above the alarm setpoint.

,

,

l

,

.

,

-

!

..

,.

8'

i h

The licensee cleaned the chamber, resulting in the reading dropping' to a lower level.

The licensee later painted'the inside' of the chamber with epoxy: paint, which was expected to slow the buildup of contamination inside the chamber-and making it easier to decontaminate.. The inspector-determined that painting the chamber.did not involve a safety question, and did not contradict anything in Technical Specifications or the Final Safety Analysis Report, therefore did not require a 10'CFR 50.59 review.

,

No violations or deviations were identified.

13. Exit Interview (30703)

The inspection scope and results were' summarized' on March - 2,1990, with-

.those persons indicated in Paragraph-1.

The inspector described the areas inspected and ' discussed' in detail the-Linspection results listed below.

Proprietary information is not contained. in this report. 'The inspector-stated that;the~ Quality Assurance Audit program and the Quality Surveil-t lance program combined to give.a very. thorough evaluation of the Chemistry-and Redwaste programs.

I

!

.

h