IR 05000327/1990027

Insp Repts 50-327/90-27 & 50-328/90-27 on 900730-0803.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radiological Effluents & Waste Treatment,Water Chemistry & Qc,Periodic Repts,Surveillances & Allegations

ML20059H358
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	08/23/1990
From:	Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059H357	List: IR 05000327/1990027 ML20059H353
References
50-327-90-27, 50-328-90-27, NUDOCS 9009170127
Download: ML20059H358 (7)

Text

_ _ ?

'

. ..

,

I

UNITE 3 STATES

[@ Ct49'o,' NUCLEAR nEGULATOHY COMMISslON b' REGl0 nil  !

k* ,f 101 MARIETT A STREET, .

• ATLANTA, GE0Hol A 30323 L

\,...../ . AUS 2 91990

i Report Nos.: 50-327/90-27 and 50-328/90-27 i Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority  !

6N38 A Lookout Place i 1101 Market Street [

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79 i

facility Name: Sequoyah 1 and 2  !

Inspection Conducted: July 30 - August 3, 1990  !

[

'

Inspector: 8 R. R. Marston

,_ f

~~Ifa/_f5/90 te Sfgned Approved by: 8[

T~lC'EcWr~, Chief fo

. .

e 8/23/fo

~IfaYe Signed i Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section '

Emergency Preparedness and-Radiologic .

Protection Branch .

!

Division of. Radiation. Safety and Safeguards

~

a t

'

SUMMAP,Y- .

l

'

Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological effluents and waste treatment, water chemistry and quality control, periodic r reports, surveillances, and allegation Results:

No violations or deviations were identified in this inspectio Primary and secondary coolant chemistry parameters were generally maintained within '

r specified limit Liquid and gaseous effluents' were maintained within '

Technical _ Specification and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits.. The chemistry *

program was enhanced by the close supervision and-review of documentation by j

,

management and by the comprehensive Quality Surveillance program, u

I i

!

!

~

9009170127 900829 *

PDR ADOCK 05000327:  :

G PNVc ,

, ,

j

. _ _- __

. '

.

'.

-

, .

,,

t,

l

l l

! REPORT DETAILS l .

l

!- ,

l Persons Contacted f Licensee Employees .

• D. Adams, Primary Chemistry Manager .:

D. Amos, Nuclear Chemist  !

• M. Cooper, Site Licensing Manager j

• A. Dyson, Quality Evaluator

• G.. Fiser, Chemistry & Environmental Superintendent-  !

• S.' Johnson, Communications Manager .

• W. Lagergren, Operations Manager

• P. MacLaren, Chemistry Process Control. Supervisor '

J. Newton, Engineering Specialist, Design Engineering .

• J. Proffitt, Compliance .icensing Manager '

i

• S. Spencer Licensing Engireer W. Vanosdale, Manager, Operations Water Processing l Other licensee employees contacted during .this' inspection included engineers, operators, security force members, technicians, and admini-strative personne .

Nuclear Regulatory Comission

, *P. Harmon, SRI

!

l l * Attended exit interview Audits (84750) i

,

Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.2.8 states - the. requirements for the I

!

performance of audits of unit activities, including frequencies..and l- subject areas. The inspector had reviewed the'last audit conducted in L

I areas within the scope of this report during the last inspection in this area (Inspection Report No. 50-327,328/90-07); however. numerous quality ;

'

surve111ances= had been . conducted ' in those areas subsequent to that-inspection and were reviewed by the inspector in order to assess quality ;

and to evaluate capability. Seven surveillances had been conducted each in Chemistry and . Radiochemistry, and in Laboratory analysis, three in; '

Radiological Effluent Monitoring, two in Chemical Wastes, two in Quality: ,

' Control Cross Checks, and one each in Inventory Control and Laborator j Instrument Standardization'and Calibration.- Three of the surveillances were-for the-purpose of closeout of Condition Adverse to Quality Reports:

(CAQRs). In - the surveillances reviewed, only - four: problems were-identified, and those four were closed.out during the surveillances, q l

L k

. - . .. - . .

- . .

a

> .

. i i

,

!

!

l The surveillance program, while providing only a quick look at a program j in each surveillance, did provide an evaluation in depth of the program

'

due to the number conducted and the thorougnness of each surveillance. No violations or deviations were identifie : Water Chemistry (84750) I i

TS. 3/4.4'.7 states the requirements for primary coolant chemistry and  !

chemistry surveillances TS 3/4.4.8 states the requirements for primary ,

coolant radiochemistry and radiochemistry surveillances, and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Standard Practice SQE 22, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Chemistry ,

. Program, Revision 12, January 31, 1990, states the requirements for the ,

,

entire water chemistry and water chemistry surveillance programs. The  !

inspector reviewed Chemistry data and trend charts to determine complianct and assess quality. The data and trend charts were found in the Monthly 1 Chemistry Trends, Units 1 and 2 for October 1989 through March 1990; the Unit 1 Cycle 4 Trends for December 19, 1988, through March 19, 1990; tnt Unit 1 Cycle 5 Trends for June 4 through .the current date (August 2, i 1990); and -for _ the Daily Chemistry Report for August 2,1990. The -l inspector deterrained from these reviews that chemistry was maintainet  !

under good control. The inspector observed one exception to this contt0 :

The Primary Water partsStorage Tank ((PWST) had an upper limit for thatdissolv;d

,

oxygen of 100 per billion ppb).

'

The trend charts showed the actual value ran between 100 ppb to 800 ppb. The Nuclear Chemistr/  !

Manager stated that the limit.had been selected as one that the Chem'stry Department thought they could meet, but had been unable to achieve. The ,

Manager st6ted that a Design Change Review (DCR) had been written o# the '

proble The inspector toured the analytical laboratory, the secondary '

laboratory, and the Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrophotometer Room. The '

labs and count room were equipped as described in the last two instection l reports in this area (Inspection Reports 50-327,_328/89-28 and 5f-327, l 328/90-07). In the Analytic lab,- the boron titration area had Deen cleaned off and was no longer roped off with radiation rope and r tep-off pads as a contamination are No violations or deviations were identifie . Chemistry Quality Control (84750) -;

TS 6.8.4 states that written procedures shall be established. ' mplemented  !

and ~ maintained covering in part, Quality . Assurance- Prograts - and  :

Environmental Monitoring using the guidance contained in Regu?atory Guide ,

4.15 December 1977. Technical Instruction TI-20, Radiochemice1 Laboratory I l

. Test Equipment Calibration Program,: Revision 26, April 29.1189, states requirements for the calibratio_n, standardization. and functional checks

,

'

i

..

on Chemistry's Analytical Instrumentation, provides the co strols for-calibration Control (QC) program gases, and for implements both analytical andand documents the inter radioanalytical /iltra Quality chemistry data produced at the plan The inspector. reviewed QC racords for individual Chemistry Technicians involving analysis of spii.ed, unknown, '

and other QC samples for March through June 1990. The irspectorclso '

h s

= =. . __ ~ __

_ . _. _ ,_ _ __ _ __ :

_ _ _ _ __

;

t

~

'

. .

!

i .

l reviewed results of the online instrumentation crosscheck program against laboratory analysis for July and August 1990,.and quality control checks !

and control charts for laboratory instrumentation such- as the ion

- ,

chromatograph and atomic ,bsorption spectrophotometer for March through -!

early August 1990. Theste records were reviewed to determine compliance ;

and to evaluate qualit l The records showed that the quality control program was conducted in  !

compliance with requirenents and both analysts and instruments maintained tight controls over analytical results, j No violations or deviations were identified . Liquid and Gaseous Effluents (84750)

TS 3/4.11.1 states requirements for release, sampling, and analysis of liquid radiological effluents, and TS 3/4.11.2 states requirements fo I release, sampling, and analysis -of gaseous radiological effluent i Surveillance Instructions in the Sla4xx series. state recuirenents- for t liquid and gaseous radwaste releases.- The inspector: reviewed selective l liquid and gaseous radwaste release permits and the count room's Liquid '

I Release Logbook and Gas Logbook to determine compliance. Doses had been calculated for each release and cumulative doses had been determine '

The inspector determined that releases had been maintained within TS and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limit ,

!

No violations or deviations were identifie ,

i RadwasteProcessing(84750)  :

i Radwaste hndling and Shipping Instructions (RHSIs) specify requNecnts i of the redwaste program. The inspector discussed thel radwaste prograin-with the Manager, Operations Water Processing, and examined components of i

'

the system while touring the plant in order to determine compliance and assess capability. The Manager stated that the organization consisted of the Manager, four Unit Operators, and ~ 21 Assistant- Unit Operators, representing a loss of one Unit Operator and one Assistant Unit Operator since the last inspection (50-327, 328/90-07). A~ decision had been made to keep the water treatment plant operational and to contrnt with a . ,

vendor for a Reverse Osmosis-(RO) unit for water clean up.. The Condensate .

Demineralizer Waste Evaporator (CDWE) was still operational; but was'being '

maintained in " hot standby" and hadn't been ured for two nwths since the vendor was doing a good job of processing was';e.- The CDWE had been used during the Unit 1 outage. -The CDWE heater leaks still had not been found.- 2'

The Floor Drain Collector Tank still had inleakage of about 13.7 gallons '

per minute. An acoustic n.onitor was to be installed to. help determine the

> sourc The Manager stated that a plan was.under consideration that would result '

ir ^be loss of .c11 except two specialized ass 1gned people by the

. ,

Ceaations Water Processing Grou The.other operators would be trained ,

in radwaste- processing, and the job would ' be done by the on-duty- t operator '

,. ._ _

. ._ .

. . - . -- . . .. .

,

' -

,

,. l

The Operations Water Processing organization continued to monitor and process radwaste effectivel ;

i No violations or deviations were identifie ; Changes to Chemistry Program (84750)-

The inspector! discussed ' changes in the chemistry program with the .

Chemistry and Environmerital Superintendent, the Nuclear Chemistry Manager, l and the Chemistry Process ' Control Supervisor in crder to assess  !

capability. A reorganization took place since the previous inspection r

'(Inspection Report 50-327,328/90-07). The Chemistry and Environmental- I Group was still authorized and manned with 42 personnel. -The Chemistry l and, Environmental Superintendent had a Process Control Supervisor, a Chemistry Control Manager, and a Nuclear: Chemistry Manager reporting'to !

hi This was a change from the previous organization, which had the > !

Process Control: Supervisor, a Primary Chemistry Manager, and a Secondary - '

Chemistry Manager reporting to him. A Nuclear Chemist and six Chemistry j Shift Supervisors (supervising 23 Chemistry Technicians) reported to the ;

Chemistry Control Manager, and four Nuclear Chemists and two Environmental ;

Engineers reported to the Nuclear Chemistry Manager. The most significant .

change occurred as a result of the cut of the Corporate Chemistry Group !

from 25 to 11 people, and the corresponding loss of' support. The plant i Chemistry Group had already started calibrating their own systems and had ;

contracted with a vendor for those. analyses that they did not d The Chemistry and Environmental- organization ap) eared to have effectively .

picked up the additional workload which resultec from the significant loss

of the Corporate and Power Operations Training Center suppor No violations or deviations were identified, f Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (84750)

f TS 6.9.1.6 states the requirements for timeliness of submission. of the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. TS 6.9.1.7 states the requirements "or content and format of the Report. Reference is made to L instructions in Regulatory Guide 4.8, December 1975 and to: the ,

requirements of TS 3.1 The inspector reviewed the. Report, which was submitted on April 25, 1990 i and covered Calendar Yeur 1989, to verify compliance. The Report discussed changes in the environmental monitoring program _which took place l during the Calendar Year. The environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters *

l (TLDs) which had been used in the past were used through_1989. These were i L Manganese-doped, Calcium Fluoride elements encased in a glass bulb with :

I three TLDs to a site. In 1989, new TLDs- from a different vendor were i l ddded to the program and collocated with the old TLDs. The new TLDs ,

!

contained four chips: one Lithium Borate, and thres Calcium Sulfate eac ,

Results from both types of TLDs were included in the Repor .i

!

, j

. - - . . . .- .. . . - - - - .

y . ;

r .

j- n ,

. .

.j

l= 5 +

, -l l

The Report stated that' vegetation samples were discontinued at all but two l stations since air and milk samples provided earlier . indications of v

'

changes in environmental concentrations than did vegetation samples. The ;

Report included the conclusion that environmental radioactivity reported

-

was primarily the result of-fallout or natural background radiation, and ,

that any activity which might be present as a result of plant operations-

-

did not represent a significant. contribution to the exposure of members of the publi ]

The. Report included the results of the Annual Land Use Survey and the  :

Intercomparison program. : The inspector determined that-the Report was in :

L compliance with requirement ;

-

l No violations or deviations were identified.- Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (84750) -!

TS 6.9.1.8 states the requirements for the timeliness of the' Report. TS !

6.9.1.9 states the requirements for content and format of the Report. 'The- ,

TS references Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1. June 1974, and Appendix B 1

'

thereto.- The inspector reviewed the Report for the' period from July 1-through December 31, 1989, to determine compliance and reviewed data from >

t previous Reports to evaluate trends in liquid and gaseous release The .

l following Table compares effluent results for the past three years

.

TABLE >

l

! 1987 1988 1989

.

Gaseous Effluents Fission and Activation Gases 0.00E+00 2.24E+02 3.90E403 lodines & Particulates 2.55E-04 1.90E-04 4.27E-04 i Tritium 1.47E+01 1.38E+01 5.62E+01  ;

Liou_i_d Effluents

.

Fission & Activation i;- Products 2.33E-01 4.48E-01 3.54E-01 'i l Tritium 5.95E+01 2.00E402 1.15E+03 l l l Attachment I to the Report described Inoperable Instrumentation (Process I and Effluent Monitors). The content and format of the Report was in

-

. compliance with TS requirements. The trends of the ' effluents showed a; gradual increase as expected from a~ plant started'up from an extended shutdow .

,

No violations or deviations were identifie l

i

• . _ . . __ _ ._. . 'I

- __ __ . ._ . - - .. - . .-

..<w .

-

j

..

l

10. Allegation followup (99014)

Allegation RII-90-A-0082 .

'

A concern was expressed that Modification Packages 6318-01 and 2018-01 did-not have proper paperwork. These modifications suppostdly involved radiation monitors. 1he inspector examined Modification Package 2018-0 l The other package could not be identified. The modification involved a

'

change to provide Main Steam Line Radiation Monitoring capability in the 1 Main Control Rocm to meet the requirenents of Regulatory Guide 1.97R2 fo !

TVA had comitted to the NRC to meet this ~l Post Accident Monitoring (PAM)(.requirenent in ' Condition 2-C 24) of TVA's S '

'

Operating License DPR-77. The objective'of the modificetion was to install main sttam line radiation monitors at each main steam line. These  ;

monitors consisted of on-line detectors,- a signal processing unit locally .

mounted; and a display control unit located in the Main Control Room. The design change was certified to satisfy TVA's comitnant to the NRC on April 26, 1990, and was walked down for constructability_on January 5, 199 Constructability was verified on January 17, 1990, and a safety Assessment was finished on April 26, 1990. FSAR 11.4.2.2.7 was included i describing the system, which included a GM detector and an ion chamber on each Main Steam Line. The inspector examined the indicators in the Main '

Control Room. The Shift Operations Supervisor stated that they were not .

yet operationa :

Conclusion i

The inspector examined the modification package and was unable to ,

determine if there was any paperwork missing. -There was insufficient- '

information in the allegation to determine the validity and, therefore, this allegation temnins ope . followup Items (92701) -

(Closed) Unresolved Item'(50-327, 328/89-22-01): Source Check of Radiation Monitors. This item was evaluated in Inspection Report 50-327,328/89-28 andwasidentifiedasanon-citedviolation(NCV).

1 Exit Interview (30703)  !

The inspection scope and finding; were sumarized on August 3,1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings - No dissenting- '

consents were received from the licensee. ' Water chemistry and quality ,

control, liquid and gaseous radwaste, and periodic reports were adequate.

l The quality surveillance program represents a strength in this are ,

!

l

.

. . - _ -. .. . _ _ _ - _