IR 05000348/1991003
| ML20029C062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1991 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C061 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-91-03, 50-348-91-3, 50-364-91-03, 50-364-91-3, NUDOCS 9103250188 | |
| Download: ML20029C062 (9) | |
Text
_ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _
.
UNIT ED GT ATES
. p2 CEocq'o,
[*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
. #
~^
REoloN 11 h'
- t ATLANT A, OEORot A 30323
$
mqa
-
Report Nos.:
50-348/91-03 and 50-364/91-03 Licensee:
Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.:
NPF-2 NPF-8 Facility Name:
Farley 1 and 2
,
Inspection Conducted:
February 4-8, 1991 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama Inspector:
NI
$ O O L du-4d e'
R. R. Marston p
Date Signed
,
Approved by:
hN A
dh M7/9'/
T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological liquid and gaseous ef fluent processing and releases, Post Accident Sampling System (PASS), radiochemistry, training, instrumentation, and ventilation exhaust cleanup.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
The radiochemistry, ef fluent storage, handling and release, solid radwaste storage, instrumentation, and training programs were satisfactory.
The licensee had started labelling the chemistry control charts with dates, so that they could be readily identified.
I
9103250188 910311 l
PDR ADOCK 05000348 o
PDR J
.l
.
,.
REPORT DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. Bayne, Chemistry and Ensironmental Superintendent 5. Casey, Systems Performance Supervisor P. Farnsworth, Radwaste Supervisor P. Hanes, Chemistry and Environmental Instructor
- R. Hill, Assistant General Manager-Support M. Maddox, Senior Instructor, Technical Training
- M. Mitchell, Health Physics Superintendent
- D. Morey, General Manager-Nuclear
- C, Nesbitt, Technical Manager J. Powell, Operations Superintendent
- L. Stinson. Assistant Gener61 Manager-Support
- J. Walden, s.
'.uditor R. Wiggins e n< visor, Operations Training
- L. Williams,
.ining Manager
- R. Wood, Chem 1stry Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included operators, technicians, security force members, and adnrHstrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors G. Maxwell, SRI
- M. Morgan, RI
- Attended exit-interview 2.
Airborne Effluent 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 and discussed the testing programs with the. cognizant Systems Performance Supervisor to determine TS and procedural compliance.
The Unit 2 Containment Purge System filters, adsorbers, and charcoal were successfully tested in October 1990.
No violations or deviations were identifie,
'
.
'
,.
3.
Liquid Effluent Processing and Release (84750)
TS 3/4.11.1 states requirements for handling, surveillance, and release of liquid radioactive effluents.
The inspector discussed the program with a Chemistry Supervisor and reviewed nine Liquid Radwaste Release Permits for releases conducted from July through December 1990.
The releases were for continuous releares from the Steam Generator Blowdown System and the Turbine Bay Sump, and for batch releases from the Waste Monitor Tanks.
Records also showed that total liquid waste releases for calendar year 1990 resulted in total body doses of less than 2.4 percent of the allowable limits for the year, and organ doses of less than one percent of the allowable limits for the year.
The permits were completed in accordance with'TS and procedural requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Gaseous Effluent Processing arvi Release (84750)
TS 3/4.11.2 states requirements for handling, surveillance, and release of gaseous radioactive effluents.
The inspector reviewed fourteen updated gas release permits for continuous releases from the Plant Vent, the Containment Purge, and the Turbine Bay Vent; and 24 permits for batch releases from the Waste Gas Decay Tanks (WGDTs).
The permits showed that releases were conducted in accordance with TS and procedural requirements.
The inspector observed prerelease sampling of a Unit 1 WGOT. The process was conducted by a Health Physics Technician and a Chemistry Technician.
The sampling was done in accordance with Procedure FNP-1-CCP-653, Sampling the Waste Gas Decay Tanks, Revision 1, June 19, 1990.
The Health Physics Technician surveyed the area, unlocked the sample equipment room, surveyed the room and applicable equipment, and resurveyed the equipment whenever changes took place which might have caused a change in dose rates.
The Chemistry Technicians operated the valves, and took the sample after the required circulation period.
A Chemistry Technician used a syringe to withdraw 4 milliliters (ml) of gas, then injected it into a 15 mi vial.
The vial was placed into a rubber glove, surveyed, and taken to the count room.
The gas sample was also run through a particulate filter and silver zeolite cartridge which were to be analyzed later.
The gamma spectroscopic analysis of the gas sample showed knon-133 to be present.
The inspector observed that the sampling and analysis had been conducted in accordance with procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Solid Radwaste Handling and Storage (84750)
TS 3/4.11.3 states the requirements for solidification and packaging of radioactive wastes.
The inspector toured the radwaste solidification and packaging facilities with the Radwaste Supervisor to verify compliance and to assess capability.
The Supervisor stated that the Solidification /
Dewatering Facility was three years old, and was used for processing
'
.
.
N
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
.
contents of the Chemical Drsin Tank, evaporator bottoms, and Spent Resin Storage.
The processor included four pits, with windows on top for viewing, and various lead glass windows on the sides to view the process.
Water could be pumped pit-to-pit, and from a pit to the sump.
Teletector ports were available at various points of the system, and radiation monitoring was available.
Demineralizer: were used for cleanup, with an air-operated pump used for initial dewatering, and a vacuum system used for final dewater.
The cleanup system consisted of one stage of activated charcoal, and two demineralizer beds.
The building was constructed extra-strong, and was considered capable of withstanding tornado loads.
The Radwaste Building (also known as the Low Level Rad Waste Building) was used to store radioactive materials for outages and Dry Active Waste.
Numbered shelves were used for storage.
The inspector observed that the materials were tagged and the aisles were wide enough for easy handling of the materials. The Supervisor stated that the only active water system in the building was the fire protection system.
The Supervisor stated that all laurdry was done in house.
Three washers and three dryers were located in the laundry area.
The inspect;r examined the Decon Room, the Trash Sorting area, and the dress out areas.
The facilities appeared to be roomy and clean.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Post Accident Sampling System (PASS)
(84750)
TS 6.8.3.d and NUREG-0737, II.B.3 state the requirements for Post Accident Sampling Systems.
The inspector and a Chemistry Supervisor toured the PASS facilities for each unit and discussed the operation of the equipment in order to verify compliance and assess capability.
The plant had a separate system for each Unit.
Sample control panels were outside each sample room.
Once the coolant sample was isolated, it was placed in a shielded " pig", then transferred through the room wall via a shielded tunnel to a portable chrt, then taken to a lab for isotopic and chemical analysis.
The containment atmosphere sample line extended through the same tunnel so that a Chemistry Technician could, while standing outside the sample room, remove a sample from the line using a syringe.
Coolant sample aliquots of 0.1 milliliter (ml) were diluted in 14.9 rul of water and placed in a 50 or 75 mi vial.
Gas samples consisted of 0.1 ml gas put into a 15 ml glass vial.
Routine non-accident samples were also taken using the same equipment, except that the control panels were located inside the sample rooms.
For routine samples, aliquots were: 1 ml liquid into 29 ml of water for Unit 1, 15 mi sammie into 15 ml of water for Unit 2, and 4 ml of gas into a 15 ml glass vial fcr both units.
The inspector also reviewed Proceoure FNP-0-CCP-1300, Chocical and Environmental Activities During a Radiological Accident, Revision 12, December 7,1990, Appendix A, Post
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
..
-
_ - _ _ _ _ _ -
'
.
.
- Accident Sampling Requirements to determine adequacy.
The inspector determined from the review tha' the procedure was adequate for operation of the equipment.
The system appeared to ha odequate for the conduct of post accident sampling.
The remcie control panel and the tunnel for taking samples out of the sampla room would reduce exposures to sampling personnel, and use of the equipuent for routine sampling should ensure detection of equipment problems before the necessity for accident sampling arose.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Status and Changes ir. Chemistry and Radwaste Programs (84750)
The inspector and the Chemistry Superintendent discussed changes in the organization and program taking place since the previous inspection in June 1990 to determine capability.
One in-company transfer and two resignations resulted in three vacancies in Chemistry.
Two new hires had completed the self-study part of their training and were on on-the-job training (0JT). They were to start classroom training in August 1991.
The Superintendent stated that a vendor was producing high quality water for the site, using reverse osmosis, demineralizers, and electrodialysis equipment.
With respect to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM),
consideration was being given to considering dilute flow for tritium releases.
A thorough review was being done for calculations for simultaneous multiple releases.
An irrigation water exposure pathway was added, and antimcny (124 and 125) was added to the data base.
The inspector discussed the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems with the Unit 1 Operations Superintendent to determine status and c" ages in the programs.
The Superintendent stated that the Radwaste operation was conducted by five crews of eight systems Operators each.
In the Operations Control Room, the Shift Supervisor and the Snift Foremen were responsible for interaction with the Radwaste organization.
Some of the sources of liquid waste were: dilute Reactor coolant at end of life, monthly valve test water, laundry and hot shower drain tank, waste holdup tank, sump pumps, containment, and inleakage. The inleakage could get up to 40 to 50 gallons per hour during heavy rain. Liquid waste systems were separate for each unit, but transfers could be made, and each unit could feed into the portable demineralizer system.
Waste gas systems were separate for each unit.
There were six storage tanks for each unit plus two shutdown tanks each.
The Superintendent reported no significant problems for either Unit, and no significant changes had taken place since the last inspection in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
..
,
.
.
'
8.
Training (84750)
TS 6.4.1 states the requirements for a training program for the facility staff.
The inspector discussed tne Chemistry Technician training program with the Chen.istry and Environmental Instructor and reviewed a training outline to verify compliance.
The course, Chemistry and Environmental Fundamentals, lasted about 21 weeks.
The Chemistry Supervisor stated that the remainder of the training consisted of self-study 0JT, and finally supervised check. offs.
The entire' program normally took about two years for a Chemistry Technician to become fully qualified.
The inspector discussed the Radwaste training provided to Systems Operators with the Supervisor, Operations Training, and reviewed the Curriculum Guide for the program in order to verify compliance.
The curriculum included five courses in the-radwaste area:
Liquid and Solid Waste, Waste Gas, and Steam Generator Blowdown under Waste Processing Systems; and Containment Ventilation and Purge and Auxiliary Building HVAC under the Rad Ventilation System subject area.
The inspector discussed Radwaste training provided to Technicians in the Health - Physics Radwaste Processing organization with the Senior Instructor, Technical Training, and the Radwaste Processing Supervisor to verify compliance.
The Senior Instructor stated that in basic Health Physics Technician treining, one module, one week in length, was given each_ on solid and liquid radwaste.
The module covered the various demineralizer systems and the dewatering process in use.
Further training was provided through a one week course, conducted on site or at Chem Nuclear.
Further-specialized courses were provided to individuals, who in turn, conducted training sessions for the rest of the group.
From the discussions and review of the material provided, the inspector determined that the training programs described were adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Radiological. Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation (84750)
TSs 3/4.3.3.30 -and 3/4,3.3.11 state the operability and surveillance requirements for liquid and gaseous effluent n'onitors, respectively.
The inspector reviewed calibration records for selected monitors to verify compliance.
The records showed that the Unit 2 Plant Vent Stack Monitor was last calibrated on December 6, 1990, the Unit 1 Plant Vent Stack Monitor was calibrated for setpoint on September 30, 1990, the Steam Generator Blowdown Treatment Liquid Monitor was calibrated on November 23, 1990, and the Waste Disposal System Liquid Monitor was calibrated on June 28, 1990.
The systems were calibrated within 10 month intervals as required by TS.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
- - -
.
.
...
- -
- - -.
-.--
.
.
.
___
_
_
_ _ _ _ -
.
'
,.
~
10. Count Room (84750)
Title 10, CFR 20.201(b) states the requirements for surveys.
The inspector toured the count room, examined the equipment, checked
,
calibration and quality control records to verify compliance.
Each of the Unit count rooms was equipped with a Canberra gamma spectroscopic system connected with two HPGe detectors.
Calibration records showed that each.
of the four detection and measurement systems was in current calibration.
Quality Control records - for Calendar Year 1990 showed that daily checks were performed as required.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.201(b) this area was inspected to verify the licensee's ability to conduct precise and accurate measurements.
During the year, the licensee was asked to analyze liquid samples provided by the NRC containing beta-emitting nuclides.
The results were provided to-the NRC and compared to NRC analytical results (Attachment 1). Agreement was determined using the criteria described in Attachment 2, The inspector determined that all analyses were in agreement.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Exit Interview (84750)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 7,1991 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and-discussed in. detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The confirmatory measurements program showed the licensee's effluent sampling and analysis to be adequate.
Waste handling and ielease, process and effluent-radiation monitoring, filter testing, training, post accident sampling systems, and. count room measurements were adequate.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
'
l L
~. -
-
..
.
~
-
.
.-.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
-,,
-
.
___.
.
%
ATTACHMENT 1 CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS OF H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89 AND Sr-90 ANALYSES FOR FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ON NOVEMBER 19, 1990 NRC Licensee Ratio Isotope uCi/mi Uci/mi Resolution Licensee /NRC Comparison H-3 4.98!0.20 E-5 5.38E-05
1.08 Agreement Fe-55 3.80 0.15 E-5 3.48E-05
0.92 Agreement Sr-89 3.4020.14 E-5 3.14E-05
0.92 Agreement Sr-90 2.51 0.10 E-6 2.25E-06
0.90 Agreement
!
__.
._ ___ _______-______ _
.
_
.
- -. -
.
-l c
y
-
,. -
,
i ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
- This attachment provides criteria for the comparison of results of analytical radioactivity measurements.
These criteria are based' on empirical relationships which combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity analyses,- the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive emission, and the: accuracy needs of this program.
In these. criteria, the " Comparison Ratio Limits"1 denoting agreement-or disagreement: between licensee and NRC results are variable.
This variability is a function of a the - ratio of the NRC's analytical value relative to its
' associated: statistical =and analytical uncertainty, referred to'in this program as "Resolutionna, i
For-comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and
~
the NRC s-analytical value is computed for each radionuclide presei't.in a given
'
-
isample; = The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or o sagreement
- based on " Resolution."
The-corresponding values for " Resolution" and the
" Comparison Ration Limits" are: listed in the Table below.
Ratio values which
-
are wither about or. below the " Comparison Ration Limits"'are considered to be
-
in disagreement,:while ration values 1sithin or encompassed by the " Comparison Ration Limits" are considered to be in agreement.
i TABLE NRC Conf _irmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolution vs. Comparison Ration Limits i-I
!~
Comparison Ration Liinits L
l Resolution
'for Agreement
<4-0.4 - 2.5
0.5 - 2.0
115-0.6 --1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 l
51 - 200-0.80 - 1.25-
'
>200-0.85-1.18
' 2Comparist a Ratio = Licensee-Value -
NRC Reference Value i
l 2 Resolution = NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty
.
.2-
..~