IR 05000348/1990017

Insp Repts 50-348/90-17 & 50-364/90-17 on 900618-22.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radiological Liquid & Gaseous Effluent Processing & Releases & Radiological Environ Monitoring Programs

ML20055H654
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/10/1990
From:	Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055H651	List: IR 05000348/1990017 ML20055H650
References
50-348-90-17, 50-364-90-17, NUDOCS 9007270126
Download: ML20055H654 (9)

Text

M'

TM

~

b ait y -p-pp sq ap '. - , ,

3 g,

.

i i

' .. ;

,

-

g; 4 5 -

'-

,

• . ,, , , ..

' '

p:, , >s

'

.

' F; ,

W, , .

.

(%'./ C ,. " y'f 4 i

.-

, is: , . UNITED STATES *

c

-. .

.

'

'

,

'

.

,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -  !

• f-: s,

-

'

,

REGION ll--

• 'f -

,' .

' -

,;; ,,

'

101 MARIETTA STREET, .

' ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

,.

',k . . . . .[e -

"

j

,

-

,

IJUL 111890 j g

Report.Nos.: 50-348/90-17-and 50-364/90-17-  !

D .. -

"" -

-

. Licensee:. Alabama Power Company- ,

'

,, , 1600 North 18th.Streeto a' Birmingham,'.AL: 35291-0400: a Docket _.Nos.: .50-348 and'50-364, License Nos.: ' NPF-2 and_NPF-8

" '

. Facili ty .Name: Farley,I and 2< .

%.

L' . Inspection Conducted: " June 18-22, 1990- ,

Inspector

W /c R. R.:Marston,Radiat W

' ~

-7/k0/fo

'

ialist .Date Signed g W ,,

,

l Approved byi

' '

YI tab T. R. Decker, Chief-7 e 9e

.7 te c Tgned ';

L

"

.

'

Rad,iological Effluents and Chemistry Section

, Emergency Preparedness ~and Radiological 1

.<

a L '

Protection Branch' . r 1 j

'

Division of Radiation ~ Safety and Safeguards

-

SUMMARY +

"*l s Scope:

,

Thisiroutine', unannounced inspection was ' conducted

in the. areas of, radiological J d 111guid and gaseous effluent processing.and releases ~, radiological-environmental-

'

. monitoring programs water chemistry, and meteorolog .

} i '

, .Resul ts : -

'

l

.

. ,

x' ..

.

M- <InL: the~ -l area::c inspected, violations ;or deviations':were' not identifie The-

; Chemistryland Environmental Group was! conducting a < water chemistry

program -

which was effective in maintaining parameters within- desired -limits 4 ,

>

(Paragraph 8). The Environmental = and. Meteorologica13 monitoring programs were ,

-

' also effective (Paragraphs .10 and -11). LThe licensee'sl chemistry control 3

" '

charts - showed the starting date of: the first check on ~ that chart,, but- had n'o .

irequirement for showing the date:of:the last- check on~ the chart. : Corrective ,

tactionewas' initiated during the inspectio .

!

,

I y

ski

~

9007270126 900713 PDR ADOCK 05000348 Q PDC

^

,

-:f ,

.

_______-_-__ - _ _ _ _ _ - __ - _ _____-_ - _ ___

-

..

{; o a , <

, ,

REPORT DETAILS I Persons Cont' acted  :

!

<

Licensee Employees

• W.-Bayne, Chemistry and Environmental Superintendent  !

. C. Boatwright, Southern Company Services Quality Assurance Engineer ,

S. Casey, System Performance Supervisor  !

E.-Dennis, Environmental Technician

>

. N. Dykes, Instrument & Control Supervisor

• S. Fulmer, Safety Audit & Engineering Review Supervisor M. Graves, Health Physics Supervisor j,

• R.' Hill, Assistant General Manager-0perations

• M. Mitchell; Health _ Physics Superintendent .;

• C. Nesbitt, Technical Manager '!

M.' Perry, Data Control Technician-(Quality Control Specialist)

+ J. Pourier, Environmental Specialist

• *R. Wood, Chemistry Supervisor _ -i 10thEr licensee employees contacted during this inspection l included operators,-~ technicians, . security - force members, and i administrative personne NRC Resident Inspectors

'*G. Maxwell, SRI W. Miller, RI

• Attended exit interview i Audits (84750) ,

Technical Specification z (TS) 6.5.2.8 specifies the types and frequencies 4 of audits to be conducted under the direction of the Manager-Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER). The inspector reviewed audits conducted during the past year'by SAER within the scope of this. report. In order to i,

_ evaluate compliance with the TSs and assess' quality of the- licensee's

'

>

programs, the inspector reviewed the following audits:

'

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM), SAER-WP-21, Appendix B, conducted August 1 to September 18, 1989 Radioactive Waste Management, conducted August 15 to October 2, 1989 I

'

Surveillance Testing-Environmental, SAER-WP-01, Appendix D, conducted February 15 to April 18, 1990 On-Site Environmental Monitoring Program, SAER-WP-01 Appendix A, B, C, E, conducted February 15 to April 18, 1990 l

.

. <

,

A:

, .; ?. n

'

,

2 [.

The audits- included .several findings which were being

. tracked or had been closed out. The SAER Supervisor stated that a corrective action audit was done by the Group' every six months. Findings 3, were. closed out formally at that time or left ope The inspecto reviewed the checklists for the audits as well as the reports, in order to.

D' determine in detail the areas audite No violations or deviations were identified. The inspector verified tha ?

the' audit program was conducted in accordance with TSs. The inspector- determined from the audit checklists that the audits had been conducted in

dept ,, Status and Chan Effluents, = and Environmental (

Programs (84750)ges ,to the Chemistry, "

1The- inspector reviewed these program areas to ' evaluate their capabilit and to assess quality. The Superintendent stated that the Chemistry Group had 61 personnel, and that all authorizations were filled. - This number-included two trainees. The Superintendent stated that during an outage, the Group might. be- augmented by up to 9 Technicians: and one or two s clerk Plant dosimetry issue and reading was done by. the '.

7 Environmental Section. 'In early 1989, the Count Room.was equipped.with newf gamma- spectroscopic systems, and . approval was received to use a >

annual average Chi /Q to calculate doses for offsite releases. The ODCM~ -

was changed accordingly. lLast year, Nitrogen-16 monitors were. installed

.

l ongthe steam lines for. primary-secondary leak detection. The Supervisor stated: that .it was planned -to use reverse osmosis units instead of i, demineralizerst for water- treatment before the end of the yea The organization;and upgrades appearedcto be of a naturec to maintain and-

,

improve. quality and.the Group's capabilit No violations or de'viations were identified.

l ;LiquidEffluentProcessingandRelease(84750)

TS 3/4.11.1 states requirements for-handling, surveillance, and release-of liquid radioactive effluent The inspector discussed the program with a 4

' Chemistry Supervisor' and . reviewed a selection ofL Liquid Radwaste Release i

. Permits covering the period from August 1989 through June 1990, in order to, verify TS compliance. The releases were from Waste Monitor Tanks for-both units and showed pre-release calculations including release monitor setpoint calculations. Actual release data was .provided and post-release

= calculations were included including monthly, quarterlj, and yearly

'> projected dose updates. - The releases had been done in accordance with

= requirements, and the releases were we11'within TS limit No violations or deviations were identified.

I 1'

'

.

'

-

>

. , ol s .- s 1

,

' =;

'.

~

5$;'GaseousEffluentProcessingandRelease (84750)

TS 3/4.11.2 states requirements-for handling, surveillance. and release of-t gaseous radioactive effluents. The inspector toured the plant with.the Technical Manager, and examined several process and effluent radiation

monitors to evaluate capability and assess quality. The . inspector also-reviewed several Gaseous Waste Release Permits for both units and for several release . points and for. both. continuous and. batch releases to evaluate compliance with- the T The release permits showed pre release-calculations including the release monitor setpoint. The permits ~ also~- -

-. included actual release data and post release calculations including doses-and updated. doses for month, quarter, and year.. The processing and i releases had been:done in accordance with requirements and the releases

'

were'well within-TS and 40:CFR 190 limit '

No vid1ations or deviations were identifie . Radioactive-EffluentMonitoringInstrumentation.(84750) ,

YSs 3/4.3.3.10. and 3/4.3.3.11 state the operability and surveillance a requirements for liquid and gaseous effluent monitors, respectively. The inspector discussed the calibration and functional test program for radioactive effluent monitors with a Health Physics Supervisor and an Instrument & Control Supervisor and reviewed calibration and . functional '

test records for Plant Stack and . Liquid Discharge Monitors to evaluate quality and determine TS compliance. The records showed that the Unit 1 Plant Vent Stack Monitor was last calibrated on May 14^, 1990, and that the Unit 2 Plant Vent Stack Monitor was last calibrated on June 27, 1989. .The Unit 11 Liquid Radwaste Discharge Monitor was last calibrated 'on May 17, 1989, and the Unit 2. Liquid Radwaste Discharge Monitor was last calibrate on December 24, 1988. The most recent functional tests for'the Liquid Radwaste. Discharge Monitors were conducted on June-19, 1990.for Unit I and on June 20,1990 for Unit The most recent functional ' tests for the ,

Plant Vent Stack Monitors were-conducted on March 28, 1990 for Unit 2, and on May 14, 1990, during the calibration for Unit 1. The records indicated that the monitor calibrations and . functional tests were conducted at

~

required frequencie No violations or deviations were identifie . Air Cleaning Systems (84750)

- Operability and surveillance requirements for the Control Room Emergency

. Ventilation Systems, the Penetration Room Filtration Systems, and the Containment Purge Exhaust Filters are stated in TS 3/4.7.7, 3/4.7.8, and-- ,

3/4.9.14 ~respectively. The inspector examined test records for the

'

systems, systems logbooks, and discussed the testing programs with the cognizant Systems Performance Supervisor to determine TS and' procedural compliance. The records showed that the testing had been conducted in accordance with TSs and no violations or deviations were identifie l

'

,

. 1;j'?

. . ': ]

j. s -

,.

,- ,

e ,

'

8. . Water Chemistry (84750) ,

TS 3/4.4.8 states- reactor primary chemistry requirements, TS 3/4. states primary radiochemistry requirements, TS 3/4.7.1.4 states secondary

. radiochemistry requirements, and TS 6.8.3.c states elements of a secondary water chemistry . progra Chemical-Radiochemical . Control Procedure FNP-0-CCP-202, Water Chemistry Specifications, Revision 25 April 18, 1990, states primary and secondary water chemistry specifications. The inspector toured the Chemistry Labs and Count Rooms with a cognizant licensee- supervisor in order to evaluate capability and qualit The-secondary lab was equipped with a. dissolved oxygen inline analyze The Chemistry Supervisor- stated that it was - planned to install ion chromatograph . instrumentation inline in the secondary systems. On the

.'

primary side, the AA Lab was equipped with a PE 5000 and a PE 2380 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, and a Gas Chromatograph. The Unit I and ~

Unit-2 Count Rooms were each equipped with two Gamma Spectroscopic systems and- one Liquid Scintillato The Unit 1 Count-Room was also equipped with' two gas proportional counting systems. The inspector observed that-each of the gamma spectroscopic systems were in current calibration. The~

Primary Labs for-'both Units 1 and 2 were both equipped with ion chromato-graphs, UV/VIS spe-trophotometers, and gas chromatographs. Various turbidimeters and titration systems were also available in the labs. The-inspector. reviewed Primary and Secondary Chemistry data, trend charts, and periodic: reports to verify TS and procedural complianc Primary'

Chemistry information was. checked for Radiochemical parameters such as Iodine ' nuclides, Dose Equivalent Iodine :(DEI), Particulates, Dissolved gases, gross. beta, and gross gamm 'The results were, in general, maintained within specified limit Secondary system -parameters were:

reviewed for. February to June 199 The parameters were maintained, for the most part, within desired limits. . Chemistry parameters for both the primary and secondary systems were maintained within desired limit No violations or deviations were identifie . Chemistry Quality Control (84750)

i Chemistry-Radiological Control Procedure' FNP-0-CCP-204, Standardization -

and Control of Chemical Analysis Instruments, Revision 22, May 30, -1HU,'

' , "

establishes general guidelines and instructions to implement, control and 1 document the quality control- program for the Chemistry and Environmental Group's permanently installed plant instrumentation'and laboratory test and: measuring equipment. The inspector reviewed control charts for the-licensee's chemistry laboratory instrumentation to verify procedural compliance and to _ assess quality. Copper, sodium, and lithium standards were reviewed fr.- the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AA), as well as y instrument tran;.aittanc Ion chromatograph control charts were reviewed

'

for peak height, formate standard, acetate standard, chloride standard, morpholine standard, sulfate standard, and fluoride standard. Hydrogen and oxygen standards were run on gas chromatographs, and conductance

'J i

y~ 3,

-

fn

'

(-

F L . .

,

' ~

,

g l5

!

standards were run on the conductance meters. Boron standards were run on I titrating pH systems, and peak- height, morpholine standards, hydrazine: -

standards, _and silicon standards were run on the UV/VIS_ .

.

spectrophotometer The abscissas of.the control-charts were labelled in !

'

number of control checks rather than in time units. These numbers were not .necessarily chronologically linear since several. days could pass without a check, then there could ,be several checks _done in one da Each chart was labelled with a starting date and, occasionally, with other dates along the abscissa, but there was no consistency and very seldom was the- last" check on a chart dated. This would - tend -to decrease the- '

usefuiness of: the control chart and to make it difficult to track the control check Upon-being informed of this, the licensee agreed to date

.

,

-

the first'and last checks on' each control chart. The-inspector reviewed '

.a procedure change initiated by the licensee which implemented this prior ,

to the end of' the' inspection. The inspector stated that the change

'

appeared to be adequate and that the inspector would evaluateLthe program during a subsequent inspectio The review of the control charts showed that the licensee maintained a close~ control over instrument performance. Restandardization was done -

whenever the control chart showed bias or exceeded the. guidelines. The inspector determined that the program was conducted in compliance with the, Procedure (FNP-0-CCP-204).

,

No violations or deviations were identified.- ,

1 Environmental Monitoring Program (84750)

, TS '3.12 states . the requirements for the licensee's ' environ' ental m

monitoring program. The inspector toured a selection of the environmental monitoring = stations with a licensee Environmental Technician to verify TS compliance' and to assess capabilit The inspector Lexamined .four thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)' stations, three air sampling stations, two forage: plots, and the liquid effluent discharge point to the rive The forage plots consisted of : dry-brownish grass-like plants. Two pairs'-

of TLDs were at each station, and' the air sample flow totalizers were Llabelled to show that they were in current calibratio A, State air sampler ' and a NRC environmental TLD were collocatedt at one? of the licensee's air sample-TLD stations, and a NPDES compositingl water sampler .

was' located at the liquid discharge point on the rive ,

.The sample points were located as specified in the TS, and the equipment'

'

was operable and in calibratio The inspector examined the licensee's environmental monitoring program records to verify compliance. The Environmental Technician stated that

the licensee collected the TLDs, read them out, and annealed' the The l . raw data was sent to a vendor who performed the dose calculations. Fish

'

and sediment samples were collected by a Corporate Office group and sent to a vendor for analysi The remainder of the samples were collected -by i

L b

AI

m t

.y 4-~

> .-  ;

y3 '

s

,

6 i x

personnel.from the Plant Chemistry and. Environmental Group and sent to the l

-

vendori for - analysis. - The records -for the period from January .1 to -

. . mid-June,1990 showed that the samples were coller.ted as= required with

most analyses below the Minimum' Detectable Count, and' none approaching J any Action Leve ,

i The inspector determined from review of the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring- Report that the annual land use census require by TSL3.12.2'had'been conducted and the results entered into the progra The inspector verified from discussion-with the: Safety Audit & Engineering Review Supervisor and a Corporate-Quality Services Quality Engineer that y the last three annual audits of the vendor responsible for analysis of-the y er..it mmental samples showed that the vendor participated in . NRC-approved Intercomparison Program (EPA), as required by TS 3;1 ,

m BasedLon the above evaluations, the inspector concluded that the licensee 3 conducted an adequate environmental monitoring program in accordance withi ,

- TS No violations- or deviations.were identifie ,

11. Meteorological Instrumentation (84750)

( . TS 3/4.3.3.4 states operability and surveillance requirements of the lt meteorological monitoring syste Requirements are implemented by -

Procedure FNP-0-ENV-17, . issued December -11, .198 The'. inspector and a Plant Environmental- Technician inspected the . Primary and Secondary Meteorological Towers, their associated instrument buildings and included

,, . equipment and logbooks, in order to verify compliance and evaluate-

- quality. The' inspector observed that both towers were located such that there -would be no interference ~ with the flow of air. The Primary Tower-was 150 - feet tall 'with instrument packages at 35 and 150. feet.1 The 1 Technician stated that calibration was done by the Corporate Environmental E Services Office, and that.the Chemistry and Environmental Group performed checks three times' per. week. The towers and their instrumentation were inspected bimonthly for the primary tower and monthly for the backup tower. The primary system h6d three channels'for the vertical temperature <

'

differential, which was 'used to determine the air stabil.ity index. The inspector observed that the recorders showed that calibrations were last

'

performed on1 January 10, 1990. In addition to wind speed and direction at

., each. elevation, the vertical wind speed was measured at each leve '

. ' Temperature and dewpoint were measured at the 35 foot level, and a solar

. radiation measuring instrument and a rain gauge were located on a platform ,

near > the primary tower. A mercury barometer was mounted on the wall of I

the primary tower's instrument -building. The backup meteorological tower was 35 feet tall with detectors at a single leve This tower was also f equipped with a system for measuring vertical wind components. The L systems at this tower had also been calibrated on January 10, 199 From examination of the above described systems, the inspector determined that the meteorological measurement system was capable of fulfilling its required function No violations or deviations were identifie ~

p

. .-

~; -

,

1. '

,

op'i '1

,

_,

'

$.'.' ,

?

'

. ,. 4 7 1 .

.

I

, 1 Periodic Reports (84750)  :

Annual Environmental Operating-Report

TS 6.9.1.6 _ requires that the Report ' be submitted prior ' to?

May11 of each year. TS 6.9.1.7 states requirements for the' format

, and- content of the- Report. The inspector reviewed : the Annual Environmental Operating Repor t for Calendar Year -1989, which was

,

,

submitted on April 30,1990,:to verify compliance with the'TSs. - The i Report had been submitted as required by TS 6.9.1.6, and the_ format >

and contents were as prescribed by TS'6.9.1.7. The._only significant item in the' report was that two-more control TLDs were added to the environmental monitoring networkiduring Calendar Year 1989. The?

inspector determined that the report was in compliance with the'

TS No violations or-deviations were identifie ! Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report TS 6.9.1.8 states that -the- routine radioactive effluent release reports . covering. the operation of; the ' unit-; during the previous. six .

months- of operation shall be subm_itted within~ 60 days after -

• ' January'I and July 1, of each year. TS 6.9.1.9 states the t requirements for the content and format of . the- repor Th i inspector 1 reviewed ~ the rep' ort for the;1ast half of 1989 to verify

.

compliance - and to.. determine trends which: might have. occurred in- u-liquid and gaseous: effluent release The review of the report showed' .that the format- and content

'

<

_

were as stated inzTS 6.9.1.9 and it had been submitted : prior to the date required . in TS 6.9. No abnormal releases

-

-were reported for Calendar Year 198 A Releases for the past three years are ~ summarized in the following i a1 table:-

TABLE

', Types of Releases 1987 1988 1989

, Gaseous Fission & Activation Gases 2.02E+3 1.55E+3 2.59E+2 Particulates & lodines 5.30E-4 1.60E-3 3.72E-5

'

Liquids Fission & Activation Products 9.72E-2 1.66E-1 1.47E-1 Tritium 1.14E+3 1.27E+3 1.31E+3

.

l'

-

>

,

A '

• '

.9 ,5

g;

The . Table shows that there were no significant_ trends for the past three years other than a decrease in. fission and-activation gasses.- <

The Report'was submitted in accordance with TS requirement ,

No violations or deviations were identifie .

, 13. -Exit. Interview- (30703)

>

- The -inspection scope and results were' summarized 4 on June 22, 1990, with

< 'those persons indicated in Para ~ graph 1. The inspector described the. areas

. . inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. No violations

- or. deviations were identified.- - One area was noted that could be

' improved. - The' Chemistry Instrumentation Control Charts were not always : '

clearly dated. The Chemistry _ and Environmental Group Superintendent agreed to- ensure that the .first check and the last check on the contro charts were-dated. The inspector reviewed the proposed procedure change and determined that it was adequate. The licensee did not . identify as ;

proprietary any_of.the-information reviewed for this inspectio l e

+

l