IR 05000338/1990003
| ML20034A996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1990 |
| From: | Decker T, Hughey C, David Jones, Seymour D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-90-03, 50-338-90-3, 50-339-90-03, 50-339-90-3, NUDOCS 9004250195 | |
| Download: ML20034A996 (9) | |
Text
4 o
.
.,
,
.-
.
'
,
># #8%q#g UNITED ST ATES
,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C00 AMIS $10N RE GION 11
,
$
.
101 MAmitTTA STREET.N.W.
- ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30323 50. cry
"
- .*
9 Report Nos.: 50-338/90-03 and 50-339/90-03 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Glen Allen VA 23060 Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NPF-7 Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted:
February 5-9, 1990 Inspectors: u /
i.W /} /d &
$+
'/f/f'
C. A. Hughey g
Date'51gned
,
V p.sc /
/ O'.u w
.t., e
- /?/W D. A. Seymour
~ Date Signed
,
,
% b:.:sc /
/. O*.O c
!l9lW in
~
Date Signed D. W. Jones
'
,
Accompanying Personnel:
T. R. Decker
/
s/
-; / L d' A ' -
Jh/'7e^
Approved by: U yvve
.A T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of Environmental Monitoring. Counting Room Quality Control, the Radiation Monitoring System, and emergency preparedness.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
Radiation monitoring equipment used in the environmental monitoring program appeared adequately maintained and was effective in assessing the impact of radiological releases to the environment (Paragraph 2).
Recent land use censuses were adequate in verifying potential public exposure pathways (Paragraph 3).
9004250195 000309 PDR-ADOCK 03000338 O
.-
.
-
-
-
..
-.
.
-
..
-
.
..
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
s i
i A limited visual inspection of selected portions of the Auxiliary Building
>
'
ventilation system revealed no obvious leakage (Paragraph 4).
The licensee's counting room quality control program was adequate to assure the accuracy of plant radiochemical measurements (Paragraph 5).
>
Unidentified noble gas leakage in the Auxiliary Building during the inspection caused delays in exiting the radiologically controlled area for the inspectors and plant personnel (Paragraph 6).
A detailed study of the Radiation Monitoring System was being conducted by the
'
licensee that would lead to significant updates and improvements in the design and operation of the system (Paragraph 7).
.
L h
t r
i a
t c
~n-
-.-,
-.,,
-,
- - -
---
-
- -
-
.
.
.
)
.
.
.
,
l j
-
-
.
,
-
.
'
.
I REPORT DETAILS g
,
1.
Persons Contacted
J Licensee Employees
i i
- E. Dreyer, Supervisor, Health Physics Technical Services E. Ha11erman Health Physics Technician.
!
i M. Johnson, Supervisor, Radiological Analysis
,
i
- P. Kemp, Supervisor, Licensing
- J. Leberstein, Licensing Engineer N. Martin, Supervisor, Security Operations B. McBride, Coordinator, Emergency Planning R. McNutt, Health Physics Technician
- C Michadick, Supervisor, Nuclear Training M. Sadollah, System Engineer, Radiation Monitoring System
- A. Stafford, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- A. Stall, Assistant Station Manager
,
.
M. Terry, System Engineer, HVAC L. Thomasson, Supervisor, Corporate Health Physics
!
,
- S. Wallen, Licensing Engineer
- F. Woling, Corporate Radiological Controls Assessor
,
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
- Attended exit interview
-
2.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring (84750)
'
.
The inspectors accompanied a licensee representative on a tour of several selected offsite environmental monitoring sites (Station Nos. 2, 3, 5, Sa,
,
6, 7, 21, 22 and 23).
These sites included airborne and particulate
-
radienuclide sampling equipment and combinations of NRC, licensee and state (Virginia) themoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) which are required.by
Technical Specification, Section 3/4.12.1, Monitoring Program.
Table 4.12-1.
These specific locations were specified in the Offsite Dose
-
Calculation Manual.
Procedure H.P-7.3.B.10. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, described the monitoring program in detail and was reviewed by the inspectors during the tour.
An operability problem was noted with air sample pump timers at several locations.
Air samplers were being cycled at a rate of two hours on and one hour off, as described in the Technical Specifications, to reduce wear on the sample pumps.
However, during the tour the inspectors noted that faulty pump timers at three locations had prevented the proper cycling of these pumps.
The inspectors and the' licensee discussed the merits of running the air sample pumps continuously to eliminate the need
'
i
- ?
.-.. - - - - - -- - -.
. - - - - -
.-
e
,, _.
,..n.
. - - - -,
-.,-._v.,
.... -.,.
.-, -,, -
,, +.
..~,m-.,
., -.
.
_ - - _
-
.
.
. _ -.
.
- -.-
..
...
,
. ;
'
"
.
.,
,
-
,
,
,
?
.
,
.
!
for the timers and therefore. eliminate timer malfunction problems.
The
'
licensee indicated that this could, however, cause increased pump failures but agreed to investigate this area further. Otherwise, all equipment was
'
in working order and appeared well maintained. Flow indicators associated with the samplers were within current calibration requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
3.
LandUseCensus(84750)
Section 3/4.12.2 of the Technical Specifications states that an annual land use census shall be conducted and shall identify within a distance of eight kilometers (five miles) the location in-each of the 16 meteorological sectors, of the nearest milk animal, the nearest
'
residence and the nearest garden of greater than 50 square meters
,
producing broad leaf vegetation.
The inspectors reviewed the results of f the last two land use censuses which were conducted August 28-29, 1989,
'
-
and September 7-9, 1988.- This included a review of documented results and an interview with the licensee representative.who conducted the surveys.
During the 1988 and 1989 surveys, milk cows or milk goats were not noted within a five-mile radius of the plant site. - During the environmental monitoring inspection (see previous section) which covered much of the area within the five-mile radius, the inspectors did not observe any milk
!
cows or goats.
Heat animals and vegetable gardens-were noted and were
!'
properly identified in the land use census reports.
The licensee-indicated that the censuses -included " drive-by" surveys,- limited
'
door-to-door interviews with local residents ' and contacts with local
agricultural agencies.
..
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Ventilation-System (84750)
j_
As part of this inspection, the inspectors walked down selected portions of the Auxiliary Building ventilation system in an effort to detennine system integrity. The inspectors were looking for degraded boots, leaking
-
seams and leaking dampers.
These problem can be indicative. of an unmonitored release pathway to the. environment.
The inspectors did not note any obvious leakage during this limited visual inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Radioanalytical Laboratory (84750)
a.
The inspectors toured the licensee's radioanalytical laboratory-and found it clean and arranged.for efficient operation.- The analytical equipment consisted of the following:
(1) Three high purity germanium (HPGe) detectors (20 percent intrinsic efficiency) and a Nuclear Data 6650 computer assisted
--
-
.
.
. _.
.-
-
-
. -..
.
-
-
- -
.
.
-
.
-.
..
- _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - -
.I,
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
3 multichannel analyser used for gama spectroscopic analysis of liquid and gaseous samples, charcoal filters. and particulate filters, j
(2) One Beckman LS-1000 Liquid. Scintillation Counting system used for measuring tritium (H-3) concentrations in liquid and. gaseous i
samples.
,
(3) Two Nuclear Measurements Corporation PC-5 gas flow proportional counters used for routine gross alpha and gross beta-gama measurements.
b.
The licensee's quality assurance program for the gama spectroscopic system was inspected for conformance with the applicable sections of
,
Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for. Radiological Monitoring
-
Programs (Nonnal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment."
<
The quality assurance program included the following elements:
'
(1) annual calibration of the system using standards with certified traceability to the National Institute of Standards and-Technology (NIST);
(2) use of standards which encompass the range of energies encountered during the measurement of unknown samples; (3) a one-hour background count, during calibration, to establish lower limits of detection (LLDs) for radionuclides required to be measured; (4) a weekly background check to verify:LLDs;
.;
(5) a ten-minute daily background check to verify that the detectors have not become contaminated;
'
(6) control charts for daily counts of a. check source; and i
(7) a semiannual intra-utility cross-check program.
c.
The following records were reviewed:
a (1) control charts and source check data for the gama spectroscopic multichannel analyzer (MCA) for the period October 1989'through January 1990; (2) control charts and source check data for the liquid scintillation counter (LSC)'for'the period December 1989 through January 1990; (3) control charts and source check data-for the gas flow proportional counters (PC) for the period November 1989 through January 1990;
.
-.
.
.
_
.
-
-
.
-
-.. - _
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
_-
.-,
j
.
- .
m.
,
-
.
.
,
"
-
.
4-
,
,
f (4)' certifications of the standards used for the calibration of the
,
MCA, LSC, and PC systems; t
I
!
(5) the most recent calibration data-for the MCA, LSC, and PC systems; and
(6) the results of the interlaboratory cross-check measurements performed during May 1989.
'
The licensee's procedure HP-9.0.3024, " Calibration of the Nuclear -
,
,
Data Multichannel Analyzer," dated February 23, 1988, was also reviewed and found to be of sufficient scope and detail.
,
>
d.
The following departures from typical laboratory practices were I
disclosed:
(1) As indicated above, the licensee used a computer assisted'MCA
for gama spectroscopic analysis.
The computer. sof tware e
included a program for establishing the detector efficiency i
across the energy spectrum of interest using the detectors'
response to standard sources.
The. typical practice for the
<
calibration of these types of systems is to use.the ~ detector
'
efficiency determined by the computer program using the detector response.
It was the licensee's practice 1ts manually plot a-curve of detector response versus energy and to select from that curve pairs of data which were input into the computer program for calculating the detector efficiency.The licensee-indicated that the use of the smoothed defe,.taken from the plotted curve, yielded a more consistent ca1 6 ation curve and resulted in more accurate measurements at the lower end of the energy spectrum.
'
The use of additional' isotopes in the lower energy range during calibrations was suggested by the. inspector and discussed as an
H alternative for improving accuracy -in that range.
d (2) The typical practice for establishing control chart limits is to set. warning limits at two standard deviations above and below the mean of the measurements standards-and to set' action limits at three standard deviations above and below the mean.- It was
>
the licensee's practice to set action limits at two standard
,
deviations plus.three percent.of the mean, above and below the
mean.
At the count' rates used-by the licensee, these action limits equate to approximately five standard deviations above and below the mean.
The licensee. indicated that the action-limits were set at this level to reduce the probability of false alams.
Although, it is true that expanding the action limits does reduce the probability of rejecting the results when'in
!
fact the system is operating at the desired level of control, it.
is also true that expanding the action limits increases the-
'
probability of accepting the results when the system is operating outside of the desired level of control. The licensee-indicated that this would be further reviewed.
. -
, -. __
,
.
.
_.
_
__-
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
. _ _
c.L
.
..
.
,
.
'
-
- ,
.
4
i l
l t
l No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
6.
NobleGas(84750)
l During this inspection, the inspectors noted that-there were elevated
,
levels of noble gas in the Auxiliary Building. -The amounts of gas present l
were considered by the licensee to be a nuisance because, while the levels
were well below the occupational limits, it caused hold ups of personnel
'
in the personnel change out area (PCA) and could engender a nonchalant attitude toward portalmonitor alarms in the PCA.
(The gas was absorbing on personnel clothing,; decaying to rubidium-88 and causing the portalmonitor to alam upon exiting the radiologically controlled area.)
.
-
The inspectors followed the licensee's efforts to located and eliminate the source (s) of the gas.
The licensee had put together a team of j
personnel dedicated to determining the sources of the gas. The inspectors interviewed personnel on this team and reviewed the results of_ air samples taken in eight different locations in the-Auxiliary Building.
These
,
locations included the recombiner, the gas stripper cubicles, gas stripper compressors, the low level waste tank, and the sump.
The inspectors verified that the - concentrations were below the limits specified in Table 1. Appendix B, 10 CFR 20.
As of February 9, 1990, the licensee had not completely resolved this situation.
This area will be reviewed by
'
regional inspectors during subsequent inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Radiation Monitoring System (85423, 84524)
The inspectors discussed the status of' the radiation monitoring system with licensee representatives.
The licensee indicated that an extensive program was underway to study the Radiation Monitoring system to identify problems and to formulate an action plan and corrective activities for these problems.
This program was divided into three parts:
a Type 1, a Type 2, and a Type 3 study.
The Type 1 study was completed in 1989 and v
was - performed by Sargent and Lundy Engineers.
The Type 1-study was a
" scoping" study which determined the status of the systems, identified and.
defined the problems, and developed a detailed -scope for the Type 2 study.
The results of the Type 1 study were published in document SL-4558, dated December 15, 1989, entitled " Radiation Monitoring Scoping Study, ~ North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2."
This document was reviewed by the inspectors.
Several generic problems were identified in this document, including:
'
difficulties in accessing information pertinent to the radiation monitoring system;
"
inconsistent and incomplete monitor infomation;
..
_
-.
-
--.
)
,
- ,
.
-
..,.
..
'
=
.
,
.<
,
an inadequate inventory of monitor spare parts causing long down
.
times and the " cannibalization" of non-tech spec monitors; data needed to generate radiological release-reports had to be
acquired manually because the-output from the radiation monitoring system was only transmitted to the main control room and the technical support center;
redundant gaseous effluent monitors' required a large effort to
support.
These monitors accounted, for 55 percent of deviation
'
reports written for the radiation monitoring system since 1987.
'
,
electromagnetic interference caused false indications of high count
.
"-
rates and spikes on microprocessor-based systems; and
t several different manufacturers equipment was used in the. system.
~
The age design and configuration of these monitors varied greatly and they had varying degrees of capability with state-of-the-art digital
'
data processing.
. l
,
The study also addressed specific problems associated with the different
-
components of the radiation monitoring system, including. equipment and check source failures; and the study identified several tasks that should
!
be performed as part of -the Type 2 study.
The Type 2 study, which was:
l ongoing at the time of the inspection, was to recomend fixes and alter-natives, and will outline conceptual designs, costs and schedules.
The
'
licensee estimated that the Type 2 study would be completed by April-1990, with portions completed prior to then.
The-Type 3-study will take the recomendations set forth in the Type 2 study.-prioritize, and ' implement them.
A series of Design Change packages will be generated and performed on a case-by-case basis.
A completion-date for the Type 3' study was not available at the time of the inspection.
The inspectors determined through conversations with the licensee that the.
flow through the sample nozzles in the ventilation vents and in' the process vent had not been changed significantly since the installation of-the nozzles, and that the licensee believed that the sampling was I
representative of total stack flow (i.e., isokinetic flow) to the environment.
The licensee indicated that the ongoing studies were also going to address these issues.
The progress-of the Type 2. and Type 3
,
studies will be reviewed by regional inspectors during subsequent inspections.
l.
The. inspectors walked down several skids containing.the radiation monitors
!
for the ventilation system vent and the process vent, and performed a c
brief visual inspection for familiarization and to determine the
!
operability of pertinent monitors.
f No violations or deviations were identified.
l l
-,,
~
--
- -,,.
-,-
,
y,,,,g-m y
,
y-
-w,,
-.
- _.
---..
.
_-
. - - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _. _ _
Y
-
.
,,..
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
8.
Emergency Preparedness Drill (82301)
During the inspection, the licensee conducted an emergency preparedness drill to evaluate their timeliness in evacuation and personnel accountability with a recently implemented improvement to their procedure.
Previously, the designated assembly area was located in an unsheltered area inside the fenced area. A procedural improvement was implemented to locate the assembly area in a warehouse, outside the fenced area, to provide shelter from the weather and from a radioactive plume imersion in the event of a gaseous release of radioactive material.
The licensee r
indicated that accountability was completed within the required thirty-
minutes.
During the drill, the inspectors reported to the assembly for accountability in accordance with the licensee's procedure.
However, i
pursuant to regional office instructions NRC inspectors who are On site
'during a real emergency are required to report to the resident inspector.
This issue was discussed with the licensee, and it was determined that
further ccordination between the NRC and the licensee-will be necessary in-
~
order for the licensee to account for on-site inspectors during an emergency. This issue will be further discussed with the licensee.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were sumarized on February 9,1990, with
-
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors cescribed the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in. this report.
Dissenting coments were not received from the licensee.
.!
!
.
-l