IR 05000369/1978036
| ML19274C909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Millsap W, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274C906 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-78-36, NUDOCS 7901050320 | |
| Download: ML19274C909 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
>* " f oof
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
&
REGION 11
y '9, g
101 M ARIETT A sTRE ET. N.W.
-*-
r
-
i -
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
%.'.v -',0
..+
Report No. : 50-369/78-36 Docket No.
50-369 License No.:
CPPR-83 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178
-
422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: 'McGuire Nuclear Station, Cornelius, North Carolina Inspection conducted: October 30 - November 3, 1978 Inspectors:
W. J. Millsap G. L. Troup
/g (2/if
'
'
Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Suppi, - mion Fuel Facility and Mater als Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on October 30 - November 3, 1978 (Report No. 50-369/78-36)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protec-tion and radioactive waste management programs including health physics staffing, radiation safety training and retraining, radiation protection procedures, health physics instruments and egr 'pment, liquid radioactive waste system installation, sampling of liquid radioactive waste, gaseous radioactive waste system installation, sampli..g and monitoring of geseous radioactive waste and followup on previously identified items. The inspec-tion involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
790105 o3.zo
.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
td A /.
%
Ji/Ms F W. J. Millsar adiation Sgcialist Date Radiation Su ort Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
. 8L nkfr G. L. Troup, Radiation Specialist Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: 0 to 30 - November 3, 1978 H[36 b$
Reviewed by:
j
/
v F. Gibson, Chief Date c..
Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Material Safety Eranch 1.
Individuals Contacted
- M. D. McIntosh, Station Manager T. L. McConnell, Superintendent of Technical Services
- T.
J. Keane, Station Health Physicist
- T.
B. Owen, Station Chemist
- W. M. Sample, Technica) Services Engineer L. E. Weaver, Performance Engineer G. Singletary, Associate Engineer H. Pham, Assistant Engineer S. Hurrell, Assistant Engineer W. E. Galbreath, Assistant Engineer J. Rowe, Junior Engineer C. Henderson, Junior Engineer J. Ferguson, Health Physics Supervisor J. R. Leonard, Health Physics Supervisor D. M. McGinnis, Health Physics Supervisor J. Mode, Health Physics Supervisor R. F. Cole, Health Physics Supervisor R. Propst, Chemistry Supervisor J. H. Bowden, I&E aq,ervisor
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (78-31-01) Number of Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tanks. FSAR T.ble 11.2.3-1 was revised as part of FSAR Revision 33 to reflect the ine.allation of one ventilation unit condensate drain
.
.
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-2 tank for each unit, which is consistent witL the actual installation.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Open Item (78-31-02) Types of Detectors Installed in Area Radiation Monitors. FSAR Table 12.1.4-1 was revised to reflect that the area radiation monitors contain Geiger-Muller (GM) detectors.
This item is closed (paragraph 12.a).
(Closed) Open Item (78-31-03) Comments on the Nuclear Solid Waste Disposal System Functional Test Procedure. An inspector reviewed the revised procedure and discussed the comments with the cognizant engineer.
All comments were resolved. This item is closed.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. One unresolved item was identified during this inspection.
(369/78-36-01) Improper Storage of High Efficiency Part pulate Air Filters An inspector toured Construction Warehouse No. 1 in order to observe the storage of HEPA filters and observed that several HEPA filters were improperly stored in that the filter cartons vere not positioned to conform to the vertical arrow. A licensee representative at the warehouse informed the inspector that these filters had apparently been stored in this improper fashion since 1974. Before the inspector left the site, a licensee representative stated that the. filters storage had been corrected and that these filters would be marked and special attention paid to their use. This item remains unresolved pending the inspector's determination of the intended use of these filters.
4.
Liquid Waste System Components An inspector toured the facility and observed the physical placement of several components of the liquid radwaste system. The inspector compared the name plate data on the components to selected design parameter *. such as number of components, volumes, design temperatures, design pt mare, design flow and materials o'f construction, listed in FSAR Table 11.2.3-1 entitled Liquid Waste System Component Design Parameters. Components inspected included:
in the waste monitor tank system, the tanks (A&B), the pumps, the pump discharge pressure gages, the tank filter, the tank filter differential pressure gages and the tank level gages; in the waste evaporation subsystem, the waste evaporator, the feed tanks, the feed pumps and the condensate demineralizer; in the ventilation unit condensate drain tank subsystem, the tanks and the pumps; and in the waste drain tank subsystem, the tanks and the pumps. The inspector had no further question.
.
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-3 5.
Sampling of Liquid Waste Tanks a.
An inspector discussed with a licensee representative the plans to obtain representative samples of the waste monitor tanks prior to discharge. The licensee representative st ated that a sample would be drawn from the recirculation lines on the tanks and showed the inspector a draft procedure describing the use of solublc ferric nitrate as a tracer to determine the recirculation time necessary for adequate mixing as well as preliminary instruc-tions on how to properly flush the sample lines in order to obtain an adequate sample. The inspector stated that the use of the tracer appeared adequate as long as the waste monitor tank did not contain significant radioactive particulate matter.
b.
The inspector also discussed with a licensee representative the plans to obtain an adequate sample from the Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tank. A licensee representative stated that the type of sampling to be used was unsettled pending the issuance of the Technical Specifications.
The inspector emphasized the need to obtain a representative sample of this liquid in order to properly account for the radioactive material discharged.
The inspector stated that he would examine the problem again d -ing a subsequent inspection.
6.
Waste Gas System Components An inspector toured the facility and observed the physical placement of several components of the gaseous radwaste system. The inspector compared the name plate data on the components to selected design parameters, such as number of components, volumes, design temperatures, design pressures, design flow and materials of construction, listed in FSAR Table 11.2.3-1 entitled Waste Gas System Component Data. Components inspected included the waste gas compressors, the catalytic hydrogen recombiners, the waste gas decay tanks and the startup/ shutdown tanks.
The inspector also compared the location and range of the pressure instrumentation on the gas decay tanks to the design parameters liste in FSAR Table 11.3.3-2 entitled Waste Gas System Instrumentation -
Design Parameters. The inspector had no further questions.
.
7.
Wast, Jas Decay Tanks Volumes An inspector discussed with a licensee represe'+ative the need for an accurate determination of the volumes of the waste gas decay tanks since this quantity is necessary in order to properly account for the volume of waste gas released. A licensee representative stated that he had tank measurements from the manufacturer but he vas unable, at that time, to determine whether these were design parameters or as-built measurements.
A licensee representative stated that this problem
.
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-4 would be considered.
The inspector stated that he would review the results of the licensee's efforts during a subsequent inspection.
8.
Monitoring and Sampling of the Unit Vent An inspector examined the licensee's provisions to representative 1y monitor the radioactive material in the unit vent and noted that the long run of pipe necessary to connect the sampling probe to the unit vent monitor might result in line losses which might significantly prejudice the air sample seen by the monitor. The inspector also questioned a licensee representative about the plans to representa-tively sample the unit vent in order to account for the radioactive material released to the environment by this pathway.
A licensee representative stated that these plans were incomplete. The inspector expressed concern that these provisions were not yet complete and stated that he would examine the sampling system during a subsequent inspection. This is an open item (78-36-02).
9.
Radiation Protection Procedures a.
An inspector reviewed nine radiation protection procedures for calibration and operation of air samplers and radiation survey instruments, checks of dosimeters, receipt and shipment of radio-active materials and control of radiation control zones.
The inspector made several comments on these procedures; a licensee representative acknowledged these comments and stateu that they would be factored into subsequent changes to these procedures.
b.
The inspector reviewed twenty radiation protection procedures and verified that these procedures had been reviewed and approved in accordance with Station Directive 4.2.1,
" Handling of Station Procedures." The inspector had no fuither questions.
c.
The inspector reviewed the status of the station Health Physics Manual, which will contain the policy statements for the ALARA program and the respiratory protection program, with a licensee representative.
The licensee representative stated that several sections of the manual were being sent to the various groups for comment; however, no date has been established for issuance of the manual. The inspector emphasized to licensee management the importance of issuing this manual in a timely manner as, in addition to the policy statements, it will define the responsibi-lity and authority of the Health Physics Supervisor as outlined in FSAR Section 13.1.2.2.(i) and Section III of the System Health Physics Manua.
,
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-5 10.
Health Physics Staffing a.
Qualifications for health physics technicians are outlined in FSAR Section 13.1.3.1(n). An inspector reviewed the qualifications and experience of various personnel in the health physics organize-tion with a licensee representative and determined that the supervisors and responsible technicians appear to meet the require-ments specified in the FSAR.
The inspecto'r also reviewed the background and training program for " learners" and less experienced technicians. The inspector had no further questions.
b.
The inspector discussed the current staff levels and projected levels with a licensee representative and reviewed the staffing requirements for startup. The inspector also discussed additional personnel and their qualifications to meet future staffing. The inspector had no further questions on current staffing levels.
11.
Radiation Safety Training and Retraining a.
FSAR Sections 13.2.1.1.4, 13.2.1.7.1 and 13.2.1.8 describe the requirements for initial training of various groups of the plant staff in radiation safety and protection. These requirements are implemented by Station Directive 2.5.0, " Training Program Imple-mentation." Station Directive 2.5.0 also states, in part, " Radio-logical health and safety refresher training will be given not less than once per calendar year...."
b.
An inspector discussed the training and retraining programs with licensee representatives and reviewed the training files for nine plant staff members selected at random for the administrative, technical, maintenance, operations, management, chemistry and radiation protection areas to verify that the basic training and, where appropriate, retraining had been received.
In reviewing, the inspector also verified that satisfactory test scores had been attained.
c.
The inspector noted that certain of the individuals selected had not received the retraining for a period over two years; however, retraining had been given prior to the receipt of fuel on site.
A licensee management representative stated that the retraining program was now being given and that all plant personnel would go through the retraining program prior to fuel Mading. The inspector had no further questions on training or retraining.
12.
Health Physics Instruments and Equipment a.
In RII Report No. 50-369/78-31, an open item (78-31-02) was identified concerning the types of detectors used in the Area
'
.
.
.
,
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-6 Radiation Monitoring System. FSAR Section 12.1.4 stated that the detectors are of the Geiger-Muller design but FSAR Table 12.1.4-1 listed the monitors as " Type 1-C".
An inspector discussed this with a licensee representative and was informed that a review had determined that all but three of the monitors listed in Table 12.1.4-1 were Geiger-Muller detectors; Revision 33 to the FSAR changed these detectors from "1-C" to
"G-M".
The licensee repre-sentative informed the inspector that the three detectors remaining are ionization chambers but they are considered to be process monitors even though they are listed on the area monitors table.
The inspector informed licensee management that he had no further questions, and that open item 78-31-02 was closed.
b.
In RII Report No. 50-369/78-19, it was noted that FSLR Section 12.3.3 describes an onsite thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)
reader and discusses the use of neutron film for dosimetry. A licensee representative had stated that the FSAR would be revised concerning these items.
The inspector reviewed the change to Section 12.1.3, as incorporated by Revision 31 to the FSAR, and verified that the onsite TLD reader had been deleted and the use of neutron film had been changed to neutron dosimetry to provide more latitude for the dosimetry program. The inspector had no further questions.
13.
I&E Circulars a.
Circular 77-14, " Separation of Contaminated Water Systems from Non-Contaminated Plant Systems," described a situation where the plant domestic water system at a nuclear plant had been contami-nated with radioactive water due to a valving error. An inspector discussed the actions taken by the licensee with a licensee representative. The licensee representative showed the inspector drawings which had been made of the domestic (potable) water system and which showed connections to other systems which are potentially radioactive; the drawings showed that backflow preventer devices had been installed in these lines to prevent contamination of the potable water. The licensee representative informed the inspector that these devices were installed in the piping. The
~
inspector had no further questions.
b.
Circular 78-03, " Packaging Greater Than Type A Quantities of Low Specific Activity Radioactive Material For Transport" describes a condition where a shipment of radioactive materials may comply with Department of Transportation regulations but violate NRC regulations. An inspector discussed this circular with a licensee representative and was informed that this circular would be included in a revision to the plant procedure for shipping radio-active material. The inspector stated that this would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
.
'
.
.
<.
RII Report No. 50-369/78-36 I-7 14.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on November 3,1978, the inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1).
The inspectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings and observations.
.
e