IR 05000369/1990007
| ML20043A532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1990 |
| From: | Adamovitz S, Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A530 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-90-07, 50-369-90-7, 50-370-90-07, 50-370-90-7, NUDOCS 9005220207 | |
| Download: ML20043A532 (17) | |
Text
+
+
s n
,%
.
t
o
..
.
',
[a at
_
' UNITEb STATES
-
.
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l-[
REOl0N11
' $ '-
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
g.
- -
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%....J NAY 161980'
IdpurtNos.: 50-369/90-07 and 50-370/90-07
~
.
-Licensee:
Duke Power Company
.,
422 South Church Street
'
Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.:
50-369 and 50-370-License Nos.:,NPF-9 and NPF-17 Facility Name: McGuire 1 and 2
.
Inspection Conducted:
April:23-27, 1990,
<
/h//fg' ()
lgnedC' /F'/
/ 1nspector: ( & _ _.. ~. Adamovitz-at . - , Approved by: d'rrua / d <'2' o 6~ F 94 ~ ~~ ~ T. R. D IcFe~r~,'IChTel [~~~~~~ . 'Date Signed c Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section i Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards , ! ' SUMMARY Scope: . This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological' effluents, environmental monitoring, plant chemistry, and previously identified . items.
Results: ,In the' areas inspected, violations or deviations were-not identified.
The licensee's program to control and monitor liquid'and gaseous radioactive ~ effluents had been effectively ; implemented' (Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5).
Liquid ! and gaseous effluents and the resulting doses fwere maintained'within Technical Specifications (TSs), 10 CFR 20,. and 40 CFR 190 limitations.
The liquid- .1 - radwaste system had been modified with the installation of-two new sluicable deminertlizers (Paragraph 5).. ' The licensee had maintained increased attention to the status Lof the steam generators.
Primary Water Stress " Corrosion Cracking ((PWSCC)- had been identified in Unit 1 steam generators during.the ' current 1 outage sand 400 tubes were sleeved as a result (Paragraph 11).
> gS220207900516 ' g ADOCK 0500o359 PDC y - >
.. - , '
.. ,. , i The stat 0s of the steam generator blowdown recycle (BB) system was discussed (Paragraph 5.c).
A radiation monitor had not been installed on the nuclear:
service. water discharge but a radiation protection procedure still required ' sampling if the BB system was used.
The' Units-1 and 2-post-accident liquid sampling (PALS){ systems were examined- - and the licensee had initiated plans and identified a schedule ~for replacementE of the current systems with the PALS System II+ (Paragraph 7).- An inspector' ' - followup item was identified to track the installation of the PALS systemLII+. - t , . L i e t i h
.. - ' . . . 3' . -f j REPORT DETAILS ! y 1.
. Persons Contacted' -Licensee. Employees '
- G.' Barker," Supervising. Scientist, Chemistry
.
- D.;Baxter, Operations Support Manager.._
J. Boyle, Superintendent,-Integrated Scheduling ,
'
- R..Broome, ProjectLServices Manager
- B. Byrum,' Supervising Scientist, Radiation Protection li C. Carpenter, Radwaste Supervisor-0. Cline, General Supervisor of StationtSciences/ Shift Personnel,-
- Chemistry-J Day, Associate Engineer, Compliance - .
- J.' Foster,' Radiation Protection Manager:
. a
- D. Franks Quality: Assurance Verification. Manager-
- G. Gilbert, Superintendent Technical Services'
, ' L. Haynes, Scientist, Radiation Protection . . ' .G. Johnson, Associcte Scientist, RadiationLProtection' M. Lane, Supervising Scientist, Applied Sciences Center R. Michael,. Station Chemistry Manager-- ' B. McDowell, Associate Engineer: 1-
- K. Murray, Scientist, Radiation Protection'
- B.-Parrott, McGuire Safety Review Group M. Pearson, Nuclear Production Engineer
.
- T. Pederson, Compliance, Shift Manager-t
- J. Pope,' Assistant Scientist, Radiation Protection M. Rains, Project Engineer
. 0; Reid, Chemistry Supervisor P. Roberson, Nuclear Production Engineer
- R. Sharpe, Compliance Manager.
G. Singletary, Nuclear Production Engin'er e ' R. Smith, Associate-Scientist, Radiation Protection P. Wingo, Technical Systems Manager, Applied Sciences Center NRC Resident Inspectors I , T. Cooper S. Ninh
- K. Van Doorn
- Attended exit interview
'! . .. _ a
,_ ,ee 4 - e , t
- .
'
t , 2.
Licensee Action on Previous-Enforcement Matters.(92702): , a.
(Closed)' Unresolved Item (URI): 50-369,. 370/87-13-01: Review the-radiciodine and _ particulate sampling requirements. of : NUREG-0737 !4-II F.1-2 and determine if the sampling. requirements are met.
This~ item was concerned-with the-' licensee's use of 'a: sampling train , consisting =of a portablel vacuum pump, flow meter,' vacuum gauge, -100 cc gas bomb,; silver zeoliteicartridge, and particulate filter to
- collect effluent-gas, particulate, and iodine samples during accident a
conditions.
This issue had been ~ discussed in previous inspection .[ - reports"(See 50-369, 370/89-12 and 50-369,-370/89-26) and the Office = of Nuclear Reac_ tor: Regulations (NRR) had conducted an evaluation of.'
the system's acceptability to meet NUREG-0737 requirements.
NRR's
evaluation concluded that the. licensee's sampling met. hod had: ' adequately _ addressed the NUREG-0737 criteria for representative and ! continuous sampling.-
- - . .During an August:1989 inspection'(50-369, 370/89-26).. the' Region II7 inspector examined the procedure. HP/0/B/1009/06, " Procedure for Quantifying -High E Level Radioactivity Releases during : Accident - l Conditions," dated: March 24~ 1989. lThe " Limits and Precautions - , section of the procedure- -identified ~ the station's. Radiation. _.. L Protection Manager / designee as having-the. authority to: provide ~ A appropriate surveillance and control.of-people > collecting samples, L and referenced.the use. of radiation ' control; practices ' including :
l portable shielding for sample _ collection.
.The; procedure also i L identified the use of-a shielded container to transport the samples-to the laboratory in order to minimize dose.
During-the current' e ' l inspection, the inspector reviewed-the ~ revised procedure dated-l August 16, 1989, and determined that the provisions as cited above - for limiting occupational' worker dose had not' changed.
Theiprocedure also specified that, if contact-dose: rates were: greater than or equal to 10 mR/hr, Unit Vent ' iodine, particulate,L and noble' gas-concentrations would be calculated based upon direct radiation readings.
From discussions with Radiation Protection (RP) personnel, the ' inspector -determined that this dose rate limit had been established due to dead time considerations for' the. count-~ room
equipment and the dose rate would not preclude the collection of samples.
The inspector concluded.that the provisions identified in the referenced procedure for limiting occupational dose were adequate: ' and satisfied the requirements of NUREG-0737 II.F.1-2.. ! A forth requirement of NUREG-0737 Item II.F.1-2 was. concerned with l limiting entrained moisture in the ' effluent stream which could ' degrade the absorber.
To prevent entrained moisture in the sampling I lines, the licensee had installed heat tracing for the Units 1 and 2 ' , T I l \\ b . - . - - - - - - - -. . - .
- (:' . + > . . _ - .~ . , i 3:
P outside sampling 111nes.. The -inspector ~ examinid the insta11' tion, ' - a reviewed the completed work requests, and verified that. the. ! installation had been finished by October 31, 1989. This-completion- , dateJ had been established as an -NRC commitment during a previous-inspection-(50-369,'370/89-26).
This item is considered closed.
q , b.
(Closed) Non-cited' Violation (NCV) 50-369, 370/89-36-01:' Failure to secure licensed - materials stored - in ; an'-unrestricted area - from 1 unauthorized removal.
This-item-was concerned with the accidental: ' removal.of _ sanitary > sewage _ sludge. containing slow levels ofi radioactive l materials from Duke property.,.During. the inspection ! conducted.0ctober'1989, the licensee committed;to corrective actions , which included the' installation' of vehicle barriers-by. January 31, d 1990, for the onsite sewage treatment area and tthe ' initial holdup; pond of the routine water: treatment facility; the: prohibitionioff - sludge processing until thei barriers-had been installed; 'and: the ' posting of an informational siga during' processing.
The4 inspector examined a. completed - work request for the vehicle' barriers which. ! documented:a~ completion date of January 30,.1990.- The' inspector.also.
' reviewed the. draft L revisions of the procedures CP/0/8/8500/13 " Chemistry Procedure for Sampling = and: Disposal of > theLConventional Waste Treatment System Sludges" Land CP/0/B/8500/14M' Chemistry Procedure for Sampling-and DisposalLof' the Sanitary Waste Treatment. , System Sludge."
Theseurevisions_ included steps requiring that-the ! gates leading to the -dewatering ' areas. remain' locked until the-a - dewatering and disposal process had been completed and that an informational sign be posted during' processing whichidetailed access . instructions for'the processing area.
'
This item is considered closed.
? -3.
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports (84750) > L Technica!. Specification (TS) 6.9.1.7 requires the licensee to submit a-
Semiannual Radioactive Release Report within 60 days after January 1. and July 1 of each year covering the operation of the facility during the'
previous six months of operation.- l The inspector reviewed the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports
for 1989 and discussed the reports with licensee representatives.
The
effluent and dose information presentation Table A-was ' obtained - from t current and previous effluent reports.
_ ' ,
. ,
a . . ,..
TABLE A ' EFFLUENT' RELEASE AND. DOSE SUMMARY FOR MCGUIRE UNITS 1 AND 2
Activi.ty Re, leased (curies) 1986-l1987 1988 1989 e ' 1.
Gaseous Effluents-Fission and Activation
" . Products .' 2.10E+3 4.08E+3 3. 90E+ 3 1.44E+3- - Iodines - and - Particulate's 7.19E-2 1.22E-1 1.84E-2 1.27E-2-Tritium 6.12E+1 5.00E+1-4.80E+1-5.32E+1.
~2.
_Lictui_d Effluents . '3.14E0 5.14E0-3.08E0 . . . . FissTon and Activation 1.56E0 Products
Tri tium'. 9.16E+2 9.84E+2 ,1.06E+3 8.46E+2
Dose Estimates (mrem) 1986-19.87 ,~1988: 1989 _ y
1.
Gaseous Effluents-Noble- ' Gas Exposure _.
Whole Body 8.36E-1 1.53E0 1.61E0.
6.28E-1c Skin 2.27E0
- 4.18E0 4.30E0_
L1.55E0~ 2.
Liquid Effluents . 4.08E-1 Whole Body 2.80E-1~ -2.10E-1 1.92E-1 . Gaseous fission - and activation products decreased during 1989..'The f licensee attributed this decrease to. good fuel integrity for Unit.2'and to the steam generator (S/G) tube': rupture.for' Unit I which: caused the unit to;
be shut down for _68 days.
Liquid effluents decreased slightly during 1989' l but were consistent with 1987clevels.._. Liquid'and gaseous. effluents and.
i the resulting doses' were well within TSs,10 CFR-20,: and 40. CFR 190 - - , effluent limitations.
l The Semiannual Effluent Reports identifiedc one liquid' and two gaseous-E abnormal releases during 1989.
The liquid release occurred ~during' April' - 1989, when I-131 was detected >in-the Sanitation and' Waste. Treatment (WT)'. pond.- The licensee determined that the activity' resulted from a medical-
dose of I-131 to a plant worker, and. the Lreleased activity ttotalled. 0.1 millicurie. The worker had continued to use restroom facilities which discharged to WT pond.
The two abnormal gaseous. releases occurred during March 1989 and December 1989. The March 1989 release was due-to a primary to. secondary leak in the Unit 1 S/G B and a total of 72.01 curies'of. noble-
gases were released.
This event -is' discussed 'in further detail in the Augmented Inspection Team report, 50-369, 370/89-06.
The December 1989 gaseous release resulted from hydro testing being performed on waste gas > Compressor A piping.
An associated system valve was removed and this _
removal coincided with a release-from Waste Gas, Shutdown Tank A.
The-licensee determined that the tank pressure was less than 1.0 psig and that a total of 11.7 curies had been released.
-
. ' 'y., '.
5; .. 'The reports did not identify any' effluent monitors that.were. inoperable , for greater than 30 days.. " , i The-inspector concluded-that TS reporting. requirements regarding the t effluent reports had been met and that.~ releases. were within TS and-t regulatory requirements.
, No violations or deviations were identified.
4.. Effluent. Monitoring Instrument'ation (84750) ~
a.
TSs.3/4.3.3.8 and 3/4.3.3.9 define the operating land. surveillance , requirements for monitors of radioactive liquid and gaseous; effluent:
streams.
- e The inspector, accompanied by a-licensee - representative, ' toured:.. selected effluent monitoring stations 'and verified the operability of - recorders and. monitor ' read-outs. in the control < room.. All.- contro1L room monitor read-outs: weres analog Lbased modules, and the licensee - indicated that test modules, which combined analog andJdigital:- read-outs, were, currently being.' fabricated by the_ Duke Power Nuclear. . Production Department. These test: modules would be installed for two
monitors, which were notlTS -required and.'had no control-' functions.
The licensee expected 'insta11ationiof the test modules toi be
completed during May 1990 and would. initiate'a program.to replace all analog modules if the' tests-proved successful.
The inspector reviewed monitor calibration and functional. test-packages for the following monitors: ! 1-EMF-49 Waste Liquid Monitor October 12, 1989 January 29, 1990 j l 1-EMF-50 Waste Gas Discharge Monitor' j December 20, 1989 February 2, 1990 1-EMF-17 Fuel Pool Radiation Monitor February 5, 1990 1-EMF-36 Unit Vent Gas Radiation Monitor- ' December 5, 1988 ' January 13, 1990 i: 1-EMF-35 Unit Vent Particulate Monitor l January 2, 1990 1-EMF-37 Unit Vent Iodine Monitor August 2, 1988 - l l.
,
.
,.. -
~ - .. . . 6.
. > . 1-EMF-38 Containment Particulate Channel June 14,.1989
' December 12, ~ 1989 y January 10, 1990: .1-EMF-39 Containment Gas' Monitor-December 20, 1989-March 1, 1990 , , v , -l-EMF-40 Containment' Iodine Monitor c ., ' NovemberL 17,.1989i ]
L The examined records; appeared : comp.letec and the -calibrations ' wore-
performed within the-required time period.
l ! Theinspectoradditionally. examined 1989 monitor' correlation'datafsrs f liquid and gaseous monitors. 1 Monitor : correlations? were: performed - typicallyLon an annual basis: and consisted. of ai comparison 1between gross radioactivity measurements of 'the _ monitors and ~ counto room. > . analyses of specific radionuclides. ~ Comparisons could not be made.if
. l sufficient activity was not present in,the _ effluent pathway, and the: ? licensee then had'to rely.on transfer calibration data.
.; i . b.. The/ inspector.discussedthe'operabilityofthe'EYF-34,theS/Gsample ti , ! line monitor, which c would secure blowdown during - ac primary to, ' , I secondary leak.
Problems with flowH to 'therdetector. had been documented ~ in a-previous inspection: report --(50-369, :370/89-12). - A1 new throttling / isolation valve: had been -installed upstream of-the' - EMF-34 for both units, since the original isolationtvalveitended to L plug with debris.
During'the: March 1989 S/G tube rupture, the Unit 1: l EMF-34 did not alarm', and the licensee later determinedethat the
' monitor' non-response wasidue to-. makeup.demineralizer water flowing.
, through the monitor caused by. a valve misalignment. : Tol prevent l: further valve misalignments, the licenseei had - relabelled the ' associated valves from NM' (Nuclear Sampling System) L to YM L (DemineralizerWaterSystem).
i No violations or deviations were identified.-
5.
Liquid and Gaseous Releases (84750) -
' TSs 3/4.11.1.1 through 3/4.11.1.4 -define-thecoperating requirements,.. radioactive effluent limits, and surveillance requirements-for the-liquid'
radwaste treatment system.
TSs 3/4.11.2.1 through 3/4.11.2'6 define the operating requirements, . . radioactive effluent limits, and. surveillance requirements for the gaseous ! radwaste treatment systems.
j a.
The -inspector, accompanied by a cognizant licensee representati te, toured various compartments of the liquid radwaste system.. The Floor- . t j d -! l Di . _. ,
. . . m J
) -
.- . , , +. . !
1 Drain - Tank -(FDT)_ Subsystem : collected inputs from the Auxiliary > ,i Building floor _ ahd equipment drains, containment ~ sumps, and' low.
, activity lab drains.
Processing was accomplished by a. series of - filters and; demineralizers, and the licensee had recently installed two new sluicable demineralizers e as replacements; for' the-current- - demineralizers which used only whole bead resin;. The sluicable demineralizers, which were'. located in :thel WasteESolidificationL
Building, were Lexpected to improve the LtreatmentL capacity _ and decontamination factor since these vessels could accommodate several' . types of resins-whole: bead ce powdered.
During 1989, the licensee .; _ processed approximately 1,530,000. gallons'through--this system and had' . established goals to minimize inputs to the processing system during-1990.
To date, 786,000 gallons; had been processed : from~ FDT - Subsystem.
, , .
The Leundry and Hot Shower Tank' Subsystem: processed soapy liquids' ' ' - flom showers, sinks and' 1aundry machines through a strainer and ' filters. During 1989, 813,000 gallons of waste'were processed by-the.
- . system and the licensee estimated that the system currently arocessed- ! 3,000 to 5,000 l gallons per day. (gpd)c during non-outage concitions.
I During outage - conditions, the amount' processed' could -. increase: to - 10,000 to 15,000 gpd.. The Recycle Waste Subsystem treated-reactor coolant grade water-using < an evaporator and subsequent demineralizerifor the distillate,1f' - required.
The distillate was then_sent-to the.ReactorfMakeup Water ! Storage Tank (RMWST) and the; evaporator bottoms to the= Boric Acid.
Tanks -(BAT) for reuse.
All inputs to this system were considered reusable and discharges were not made..'During 1989, approximately ' 2,130,000 gallons were processed by the Recycle Waste-Subsystem.
' l The waste gas. system consisted of a series of six; gas decay tanks, two startup/ shutdown _ service tanks,--and _ two catalytic hydrogen' ' recombiners.
The system could accommodate'. a; release from any_-. tank, and the' licensee estimated that six to= ten waste gas' releases were made per year.
l-l The licensee's Radwaste group, located. within - the Chemistry l-Department, operated the systems, performed releases:and; collected - liquid. waste samples.
Currently RP personnel collected waste gas l , samples but the Radwaste group planned-to take this. responsibility. in order to consolidate waste. processing within the -Chemistry
Department.
b.
The inspector reviewed eight 1990 liquid-waste release. permits and six 1990 gaseous waste release packages.
The examined packages appeared complete per procedural requirements, c.
The Steam Generator Blowdown Recycle (BB)~ System was designed to cool l blowdown flow via the steam generator blowdown heat exchanger.
Cooling flow for the heat exchanger was provided by the Nuclear s l ! , .
m - - . . . 7.1 =. - y, q >
,, - ... !
! Service Water- (RN) System on-the shell side of -the heat. exchanger.
- and the' system did not have.a' radiation monitor.-on-the service water discharge from the exchanger.
During an emergency with a' primary to secondary leak, a possible unmonitored release. pathway existed if the recycle system was usedland the BB heat exchanger leaked. During the-March 1989 S/G tube leak, the BB system was not used due _ to past-
- problems'with leakage in the heat exchanger.
The inspector documented;the1 system's history. during a previous
August 1989 inspection- (50-369 - 370/89-26).
At-that time, both units' systems.had 'been tagged ~out-of-service untile corrective' . ' actions could be implemented.. The licensee had considered moving the monitor EMF-32 from the BB recycled demineralizer outlet.to the RN.
discharge side of.the exchanger.but this had not been;done as of the-date of the current. inspection.. However, the RP-procedure - . HP/0/B/1009/18. " Radiation ' Protection Response' to ' Indication of ~ a' , Primary to Secondary Leak,". dated - January 4.1990,- still contained - the. requirement.for.two hour sampling'on.the.RN discharge-side when-the BB system was used. - Currently the Unit 1.BB system was tagged = out-of service in part due to maintenance work; requests and-the: > , Unit 2 BB system was in. service.
a No violations or deviations were-identified.- , 6.
Leak Testing of High Efficiency -Particulate. Airs (HEPA) ? Filters l and-. y Treatment Systems (84750) gineered Safety Feature -(ESF)' Ventilation; Charcoal Absorbers 'in En - ! TSs 3/4.6.1.8, 3/4.7.6, and 3/4.7.7 define the operating.a'nd surveillanc'ef requirements for HEPA filter and charcoal _ absorber systems'..The inspector reviewed selected methyl iodide laboratoryiteststof charcoal samples for i TS systems for 1989-1990, and determined that the. results wereiwithin TS requirements. The inspector:noted that the charcoal was tested at:80*C to ' fulfill TS requirements and also at 30*C -to simulateL" normal"isystem conditions and give an earlier indication of carbon adsorption 1fai. lure.
The inspector reviewed the - test packages and: results of in-place' leak'
tests for the following systems: . j Control Room August 5 1989 Auxiliary Building Unit 1 March 21,'1990 Unit.2 January.3, 1990 Annulus Unit.1 December 14, 1989 - January 18, 1990 Unit 2 November 9, 1989 Fuel Handling Unit 1 May 24, 1989 Unit 2 May 8, 1989 Containment Purge Unit 1 February 6, 1990 Staging Building Unit 2 May 8, 1989 ' Per discussions with licensee employees, the inspector determined that the two 50 percent fans for the control room ventilation system had been' , , t - . . .
if ~ ' ' > . , , i ' [
,
.. .. ,, - - .. ;
.
9 replaced during 1989:with a single larger fan.
This was done for both A j and B trains.-' _ No violations or deviations were-identified.
7.
Post Accident Sampi.ing (PAS) Systems (84750).
. TS 6.8.4.e provides for the establishment,; implementation, and maintenance of a PAS system.
The inspectori discussed; PAS: system operation and maintenance experience with licensee' personnel. The' facility utilized two i separate systems for collecting.: liquid and gaseous samples _under-accident:
- conditions.-
Operation: and. maintenance. of: the : PAS system ' for liquid : sampling was the _ responsibility of. the Chemistry Department while the
-
system for obtaining gaseous 1 samples.~during accident: conditions was the? responsibility of_ the RP Department. LRP~personne1~ indicated that there had;been no major changes to either units' post-accident gaseous sampling - (PAGS) system since' the last inspection.
The PAGS systems _were_ tested ' > quarterly-and the inspector reviewed--1989 and 1990 tests results for both 4, units.
The test results showed good comparability. between routine = - containment and PAGS samples.: As indicated in_an earlier report (50-369, 370/89-12), the flow elements-i for low flow conditions.in the post-accident liquid sampling:(PALS) system
~ i were still inoperable 4 and new flow elements:- had not. been' installed.
- , Currently, the licensee did not plan to install new flow elements since " ' the entire PALS systems for both units were' to be replaced -with the' PALS System II. designed = for Oconee.
The PALS panels. would be-constructed: by i the ' Duke Power Production. Support Department which had built Oconee's panels.
Construction of the panels had not' begun as yet but the licensee-planned installation and testing'of the panels during the_ first half of - 1991.
The. inspector reviewed the latest set of test data for. both. units.
- , The Unit 2' PALS system was ~ tested March 23, 1990 and all' accepting criteria were' met for this test.
Unit 1 PALS system was: tested December 20, 1989 and' the test acceptance criteria were met for boron, 'i , ' hydrogen. and gamma analyses but not for pH and chloride analyses.
> ' Discussions. with the licenseerindicated-that there had been continuing
l-problems with the dilution equipment in the Unit-1. PALS.
Further : testing- ! could not be conducted since Unit I had been in an outage since. January 1990.
The inspector and licensee. discussed the importance of maintaining ,
- _
increased attention to the current system and the installation of the new a ' PALS System II+. The inspector informed-the licensee that the ! installation and testing of the -PALS System II +~ for.both units would.be ' considered an inspector followup item (IFI).
d f . ' IFI 50-369, 370/90-07-01: Track installation of PALS System II+ for both units.
No violations or deviations were identified.
. l . .
> , t , 3..' , .;. .. , ,
, - 8.
InformationNotice(92717) [ E The inspector reviewed the Notice 90-20; " Personnel Inquiries _ Resulting.
from Improper Operation of Radwaste Incinerators" with licensee personnel.
, The Notice had been received and distributed to the appropriate groups for < information and evaluation.
, No violations or deviations were identified.
! ' 9.
Environmental Monitoring (84750) TS 3/4.12.1 defines the' sampling and. analytical. requirements for the radiological environmental monitoring program.
The' inspector reviewed the-licensee's Environmental Report for.1989.. The~ licensee's statistical- - analysis of the environmental data,' which was documented in: the 1989 report, indicated, that the station contributed to the tritium: concentration in drinking water (2.8 percent of the TS reporting = level); , the Cs-137 concentration in-shore line sediment (2.29 percent of the TS- " r'eporting level); and the Co-58 concentration in fish (1.49-percent _of the TS reporting level).
However, no TS reporting levels were exceeded;in
1989 due, to plant effluents.- Iodine activity > increased'during the year due to.the S/G tube rupture.
One air sample out of 207-showed: activity and the I-131 was 2.29 percent'of the. reporting level.- The annual mean activity for Cs-137 in broadleaf vegetation increased from 39.0-pCi/kg wet for.1988 to 96.0 pCi/k'g wet' (4.8 percent of the TS reporting level). for
1989.
This increase was attributed to one vegetation sample' with a ! reported Cs-137 concentration of-206 pCi/kg'. Two other samples,lout of a total of twelve, showed detectable activities of 51.6 pCi/kg and 31.5 pCi/kg respectively.
The licensee did not identify the cause of <the ~ elevated concentration but environmental-laboratory personne1'specified that new counting containers were' used for each' sample lin: order to minimize the possibility of cross contamination.
Broadleaf vegetation was-determined to be the. critical pathway for whole body and four organ doses from environmental measurements.
' Environmental sampling and analysis'_ was conducted by-the Duke: Power - Applied Science Center.
The inspector toured the' laboratory and reviewed-various aspects _of the licensee's quality assurance program for radiological _ measurements.
The laboratory's counting s aipment-included: ' seven intrinsic germanium (IG) gamma detectors. four Tennelec alpha-beta . proportional counters and two Beckman liquid scintillation counters'. Laboratory staffing had remained stable with the current personnel which ' included one Supervising Scientist, one Scientist and three Technicians.
All personnel had occupied the current positions for a minimum of five t years.
, The inspector reviewed selected. procedures which dealt with sample , i collection, nmple preparation, equipment operation and calibration.
l routine equipment quality control and cross-check analyses. The inspector examined daily 1990 linearity, source, and background checks for the seven IG detectors, and the associated control charts for the source and i
' y,
-
. .. w.. ,, 11, . w .. background-checks.. An Instrument Logbook was maintained which documented j equipment modifications, downtime, or.. repairs.
The, inspector al_so reviewed 1989' EPA crosscheck data for selected environmental; samples which' i ' showed good correlation between licensee and. EPA-known values.
From a review of the 1989 environmental report 'and the monitoring and ' _ j analysis program as conducted by the Applied Science Ce.nter, theLinspector- '! concluded that the environmental' monitoring program was being implemented- .," according to TS requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (84750)
I TS 6.14 specifies Comission approval, prior to im>1ementation of:the 0DCM and lists the requirements to-implement licensee-nitiated changes.
The , inspector: discussed dose calculations using;the:McGuire ODCM with licensee - ' representatives and verified a computer-generated' release' rate with manual calculations ~ for Cs-13711n air.
The'-licenseel used the procedure HP/0/B/1003/03, " Radioactive' Gaseous Waste Release.(GWR)"' dated March 26.
1990, which described - release ' rate determinations ::.usingt the station computer as the primary method and the General Office computer or: manual.
calculations as the. backup methods.- The release rates were calculated for.
a normal containment air release and the rates compared'well-between the.
two methods.
No-violations.or deviations were identified.
11.
PlantChemistryandSteamGenerator' Integrity.(84750).
TSs 3/4.4.7 and 3/4.4.8 specifies - the, requirements for reactor coolant l . system chemistry.
' - ! As indicated in an earlier report (50-369,2370/89-26) the licensee'had fully implemented the' Electric Power Research Institute-(EPRI) primary and - secondary chemical guidelines.
During December 1989, a secondary ' l chemistry program of morpholine treatment had been : initiated for both ! units in an effort to reduce system corrosion and subsequent corrosion.
J products transport to the steam generators.
During the current inspection, Unit I was in an outage and extensive L primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC). in the area of the S/G l tube sheet and above had been identified.
Since.the steam generators were l' near the limit for the number of plugged tubes, the licensee had sleeved a L total of 400 tubes in the hot leg area during this outage due to the L PWSCC.
To date, a total of 849 tubes had been plugged in Unit 1 and , 916 tubes in Unit 2.
L The inspector discussed fuel integrity with licensee representatives and determined that the dose equivalent iodine levels (DEI) had been maintained below the TS requirement of 1.0 microcurie / gram.
Typical DEI , aYAN.-- A. - -. .-- - - - - - ~, w
>: . '... .. ,
- 12.
! i s levels.for. Unit 2 were IE-2 uCi/ml and for Un'it IL prior to shutdown were: !7E-2 uCi/ml.- ' As part of this inspection, the inspector provided the licensee with a list of 11 subject areas that covered lthe_ major elements'of the chemistry.
programs at Region 11 power reactorsc TheLlicensee was asked to provide ' brief responses: to: each applicable subject area,-~ which wouldl: then be r incorporated-ir 3 Region-wide'" chemistry matrix" to provide information.
, about each site.
The list'of subject areas is' included in this report as Attachment 1.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
12.- Counting-Instrumentation (84750)' ! The inspector discussed a recent incident at a-wastelfacility where-an-incorrect 4 detector efficiency had been-used. due to source. strength assumption errors for the strontium-90?(Sr-90)' radioactive standard.. The certificate of activity supplied by the source manufacturer did:not y ' include the activity contribution: from theistrontium daughter-product, J yttrium-90.(Y-90), which was equal to that of the Sr-90 3This resulted in an. instrument beta.' efficiency. thatt was twiceL the correct value and
subsequently underestimated the beta activity by-a factor of two.; The - - inspector determined that :the' inplant count-room and the ' Applied Science L s Center environmental' laboratory used Cs-137 as the beta. standard.- -The i licensee.noted this'information for possible future.use.
No violations.or deviations were identified.
13. Licensee Action on Previously. Identified Inspector FollowupfItems (92701)- a.
(Closed) IFI 50-369,'370/88-17-01: Complete modification on ;CPD. , backwash system to prevent: spills.
The. inspector' examined the' tank ., areas and noted that dikes;had been added to contain small spills.
Licensee representatives indicated that further improvements included.
new tank level instrumentation.and the. installation 1of sight glasses.
Additionally, to aid in the -decanting ' process,' pumas, filters, and resin bags that were previously located on a porta)1e skid cutside i the tank-area were now permanently installed in the tank room.
This item is considered closed.
, b.
(Closed) IFI 50-369, 370/89-12-03: Include calculation-for WC.
' releases in a procedure.
The inspector' reviewed the procedures HP/0/B/1003/02, " Radioactive. Liquid Waste Release (LWR)," January 12, 1990, and PT/0/B/4600/18, " Radioactive Liquid Effluent Sampling and r Analysis Frequency," November 8,1989.
These procedures contained . instructions for sampling, analysis, and release calculations ~ for - releases from ti.e Conventional Waste Water Treatment system.
i This item is considered closed.
, .. .
.
-- . , , -; J , ..s.
,, . ,t . y '
, , . c.
(Closed) IFI 50-369, 370/89-12-04:: Review PALS system flow element l ! installation for. low flow conditions. - The licensee had scheduled installation for the new. PALS System IIC for both units:and had subsequently decided not: to-install the flow; elements for-low flow- + -conditions.
The installation.of the PALS System IIt is discussed > further in Paragraph-'7;of this report.
This item is' considered closed.
I '
Exit Interview The inspection. scope:and'results were summarized on April.27,.1990 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas; inspected and discussed in detailt the inspection. results listed:below ' ' ' Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting: comments were not received from the licensee.. The licensee's program to -control and monitor liquid and? gaseous radioactive effluents had been effectively implemented (Paragraphs-3,--4, and 5). Liquid and gaseous effluents-and the resultingL doses Lwere ~ ' maintained within TSs, 10 CFR 20, and 40 CFR~190 limitations. :The liquid-radwaste system had beenJ modified with the installation: of two new sluicable demineralizers (Paragraph 5).
, The-licensee had maintained-increased attention to'the: status of the steam-generators. PWSCC had been identified in' Unit 1 steam generators during.
the current outage and A00 tubes were sleeved-as a result'(Paragraph 11).- o . i The status of the S/G BB system was discussed. (ParagraphD5.C).
A-radiation monitor had not been installed on the nuclear RN discharge-but-an RP procedure still required sampling-if theLBB system was used.
The Units 1 and 2 PALS systemsi were1 examined and ~ the : licensee had initiated plans and identified a schedule for replacementLof the current systems with the PALS System II+ (Paragraph 7). --An'IFI was 'identifiedito track-the installation.of the PALS System II+. A chemistry matrix was-completed during the inspection and briefly covered-i the major elements of the chemistry program (Paragraph 11).
, ' A review of the environmental monitoring program included an examination . of the 1989 environmental report and the mon.itoring and : analysis ' program ' as conducted by the Applied Science Center.
The program was being implemented according to TS requirements (Paragraph 9 Three IFIs, one URI and one violation were closed.
The IFIs -included " modifications to the CPD backwash system, a procedural calculation for WC
releases,anda-PALSsystemmodification(Paragraph-13).
The URI involved the-radi.oiodine and particulate sampling requirements of NUREG-0737, and a the violation was concerned with the accidental removal of sanitary sewage i i
. - .s. ,
.,j .-, ,, < , p.. . , .
L . l t , sludge-containing low levels of radioactive materials from Duke-property
(Paragraph 2).
, J
& P h .. - l_ v l , ) + t , f
l ' (.- l.
, l ., . - l t - o r
.. -... . .. -. ,-. . -. - - . . - -.. - , ATTACHMENT I , x ; ,,_ . -, . .,,o.
- . PLANT TYPE (PWR or BWR) i S/GMODEL(PWR) . . y 1.
. Concurrence :with EPRI primary chemical. guidelines (if. yes indicate.
whether fully-or partially implemented) . 2.
Concurrence with EPRI/SGOG secondary chemical guidelines. (if-yes, .
indicate whether fully or partially implemented) 3.
. Steam cycle' chemical-control program.(Boric acid Ammonia. Hydrazine, i Morpholine,etc.)
~ ' 4._ Sludge removal history (PWRs only, Ibs. ' sludge' removed, trends). _. . . 5.
Hydrogen water chemistry control (BWR only, yes or no.--SCFM injected) , 6.
Significant-MIC problems in raw water systems (types and' methods of .' control) .7.
Rx coolant B/Li control scheme (PWR) '8.
Significant macrofouling in raw water systems ' (typesandmethodsofcontrol) 9.
Steam generator tubes . ' a.
integrity- -i b.
. types of cracks / indicators and locations c.
potential crevices 'd.
number of tubes plugged.. . e.
S/G repair /PM history (shot' peening.. heat treatments, etc.)- 10. Erosion corrosion-monitoring / control program (principle methods and areas.
ofconcern) 11. Primary to secondary leak rates (PWR) ' - ! ! i '
.' l ) e h .
' i ,. - -. -.. - - .. . ... . -... }}