IR 05000412/1987046
| ML20235T119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1987 |
| From: | Bicehouse H, Kottan J, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T074 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-87-46, NUDOCS 8707220039 | |
| Download: ML20235T119 (9) | |
Text
-,-
.-- --
_
_ __
_ _ _.
.
.
'
'[
,
w
,
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION:I
'~ Report No. - 50-412/87-46'
Docket No.
50-412-
'
License No, -NPF-64 Category' C Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company P. O. Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility'Name: Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 Inspection At: :Shippingport, Pennsylvania
" Inspection Conducted: June 1-5, 1987 Inspectors:
N.
1 ~
-7!7[97-H.~J.Cicehous,RafiationSpecialist
-
date T O. ItH(&k 7/eb7
'
J. J. Kottah, Radiation Laboratory Specialist
/ Grate Approved'b
/
76 B7
-
g. J. 7asciak, 461ef, Ef fluents Radiation
/ fate Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 1-5, 1987 (Inspection Report No.
50-412/87-46).
,
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced safety inspection of the licensee's pre-operational test program with regard to process'and effluent radiation
.l monitors; radios.ctive effluent control' program, gaseous radioative waste
'
systems, and nonradiological water chemistry.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
8707220039 870716 PDR ADOCK 05000412 G
PDR L :_- _ _ - _ _ _ -.
--
-.
- ----------------- - - 9
_. - _ _ _ - -. - - - _,
.
'
4 DETAILS
!
l'.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
!
- K. Winter, Senior Health Physics Specialist
- F. Liptak, Counting Room Coordinator
- J. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer
- T. Noonan, Assistant Plant Manager
- L. Rabineau, Lead Compliance Engineer
- D. Claridge, Compliance Engineer
- W. Wirth, Director, Effluent Control and Environmental Monitoring
'
- A. Lonnett, Senior Health Physics Specialist
!
- F. lipchick, Senior Licensing Supervisor
- V. Linnenbom, Director, Plant Chemistry
- N. Daugherty, Director, System Testing
- D. Girdwood, Director, Rad Operations L
- J. Kosmal, Manager, Radiological Controls
- J. Kalinyak, Chemist
- S. Palian, Senior Chemist D. Weitz, Senior Health Physics Specialist Contractor Employees A. Pietrangelo, Startup Test Coordinator, Westinghouse K. Malmey, Test Engineer, Stone and Webster S. Moore, Engineer, Westinghouse The inspectors also talked with and interviewed other licensee personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.0 Previously Identified Item (Closed) 25-00-13 TI - Trial Use of Water Chemistry Inspection Modules This inspection completed a series of inspections reviewing the i
licensee's water chemistry control program which involved the trial use of two inspection procedures.
3.0 Radioactive Effluent Control Proaram The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the control of radio-active effluent releases from the site.
This review included radioactive effluent sampling and analysis, effluent and process monitor alarm set l
points, procedures for controlling effluents, and implementation of Technical Specification requirements.
In addition, the inspector toured i
selected portions of the facility and examined selected liquid and gaseous process and effluent radiation monitor systems and the chemistry counting room.
L__ _ _ ---__ --_
-
-.
.
._
- --
-
-
._- _ _ -_ - _ _ - _ - - -
- .'r
-
'
,
The licensee:has written draft procedures for-' controlling radioactive effluent release from the site in order to comply with Technical Specification requi'ements..The following selected procedures were r
reviewed in detail:
RIP 2.21, "DRMS, Effluent Monitoring Subsystem"
-
RP 6.1,
" Liquid Waste. Holdup Tank Sampling"
-
RP.6.3,
." Unit 1= Gaseous Waste Tank Sampling"
-
-?
RP 6.4,
" Unit 2. Gaseous-Waste Tank: Sampling"
-RP 6.5,-
" Radioactive Waste Discharge Authorization-Liquid at Unit 1 H
-
.
.
and Unit 2 Hand Calculation Method"
'
'
" Batch Radioactive Discharge Authorization-Gas at Unit 1 and
-
.RP 6.6,'
Unit 2-Hand Calculation Method" RP 6.12,: "Quantification.of Unplanned Radioactive Gaseous Releases
-
at Unit l' and Unit 2-Hand Calculation Method'!
RP.6.10,
" Monthly Release Permit for the Continuous Ventilation
-
PathwaysLat Unit 1 and Unit 2 Hand Calculation Method.
PVNS-RCM' Appendix 5, " Compliance with Regulatory Guide-1.21 and
-
Technical Specifications"-
The licensee appears to_have in-place,an adequate program for the. control of radioactive. effluents from the site within Technical Specification-limits 1and: requirements. Although most of the procedures that comprise the radioactive effluent control program are-in draft form,-the licensee
. stated the procedures had been reviewed and revised several times and no major changes were' anticipated prior to formal issue of the procedures.
The' licensee is also -in the process of computerizing the procedures used '
for.' discharging radioactive effluents from the site.
Currently all calculations'for releases from the site are performed by hand.
.
.The licensee ~ stated that the radioactivity' sample analysis for effluent releases from the site would be performed using the Unit 1 counting room-or the Unit 2 chemistry counting room, Construction of the Unit 2 radio-l logical controls counting room has not yet been completed.
The Unit 2 i
chemistry counting room has two germanium detectors coupled to a computer
'
based multichannel and is calibrated in geometries for effluent samples d
using NBS traceable standards.
One'of the two germanium detectors has been designated for radiological controls use for effluent analyses and a
,
l menu. driven computer program is available for radiological controls to use j
for counting and analyzing the samples.
However, the operating procedure
for the system has yet to be written.
The final procedures in this area will'be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
4.-
Effluent and Process Radiation Monitoring f
The inspector examined selected process and effluent radiation monitors
,)
required by-the licensee's Technical Specifications.
The monitors appear
]
to conform to FSAR, Chapter 11, Section 5, requirements and descriptions.
'
The majority of the process and effluent monitors have been tested by the i
e
<
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - -. _ - -.
.
-
Initial Operating Procedures and are ready for Pre-operational Testing.
The Initial Operating Procedures include calibration checks of the effluent and process radiation monitors using radioactive check sources.
The Initial Operating Procedure test results for the following effluent radiation monitors required by Technical Specifications were reviewed:
-
2T-RMS-43-2.68,
"2HVS-RQIl01 Ventilation Vent Effluent Particulate and Gas Monitor Test" 2T-RMS-43-2.65,
"2HVL-RQI112 Condensate Polishing Vent Stack
-
Particulate and Gas Monitor Test" 2T-RMS-43-2.70,
"2HVS-RQIIO98/C Elevated Release Effluent
-
Radiation Monitor Test" 2T-RMS-43-2.40,
"2RMQ-RQI303 Waste Gas Storage Vault
-
Particulate and Gas Monitor Test"
-
2T-RMS-43-2.39,
"2RMQ-RQI301 Decontamination Building Particulate and Gas Monitor Test" In ac'<ition the inspector reviewed the vendor supplied calibration reporas for selected gaseous effluent and process radiation monitors.
These calibrations consisted of using the actual radiation monitor source geomet"j with NBS trueable standards.
Pre-operational test procedure PO-2.43.01, " Radiation Monitor System Test", cas a so reviewed.
To date the fuel pit bridge and containment purge rar11etica monitors have pre-operationally tested. These radiation monitor > were required for initial core loading.
The inspector reviewed the pre-op test data (Test Results Report) for the containment purge monitor. The licensee stated that additional process and effluent radiation monitor pre-operational test procedures would be completed as required to meet Technical Spe ification requirements for initial criticality and power ascension.
These test results will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
5.
Water Chemistry Control Program The licensee's primary and secondary water chemistry controls were reviewed relative to requirements in the licensee's Technical i
,
Specifications, commitments in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report and consensus industry guidelines provided in Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) and American Society for Testing and Materials
'
(ASTM) reports. The purpose of the review was to assess the licensee's program to control corrosion and out-of-core radiation field buildup, ensure long-term integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary and minimize fuel leakage caused by corrosion-induced failures.
The licensee's performance in developing a program addressing each of these safety concerns was assessed by interviews and discussions with cognizant Chemistry, Radiation Protection, Operations, Maintenance and Testing personnel, review of procedures, drawings and other documents and direct observation of plant facilities and equipment during Unit 2 tour _____-_- __
j
.
<
5.1 Management Controls The licensee's management policies regarding the Unit 2 water chemistry control program for primary and secondary systems were reviewed to determine if a management commitment to, and support for, an effective water chemistry control program had been provided. A clear commitment to an effective water chemistry control program was noted including chemistry control ranges, routine surveillance / trending, standardized analytical test methods, in plant instrumentation and data analysis and management programs to identify potential material / service condition incompatibilities and to develop / implement controls to minimize corrosion / erosion phenomena.
The organization of the station's Cnemistry Department relative to Unit 2 chemistry operations appeared to be clearly defined. Within the Chemistry Department (under Technical Services), the Director of Plant Chemistry was responsible for both units.
Under the Director, a Chemistry Supervisor, Count Room Coordinator, Chemistry Trend and Analysis Coordinator and three Senior Chemists provided technical and administrative direction to the plant chemistry program.
Four
analysts and five specialists (reporting to the Chemistry Supervisor)
>
were assigned to Unit 2's chemistry program.
Unit 2 chemistry staffing was reviewed relative to operational analytical / sampling responsibilities.
Staffing appeared to be adequate for assigned responsibilities.
However, an opening for a Chemistry Specialist was noted which the licensee indicated would be filled.
Laboratory analytical capabilities were reviewed relative to EPRI guidelines and typical Region I utility capabilities.
State-of-the-art analytical capabilities were noted allowing part per billion (ppb) measurements to be routinely made.
Unit 2 specialists and analysts were interviewed to determine their understanding of the sampling and analytical methods to be used in Unit 2.
The individuals appeared to be knowledgeable of the-licensee's methods.
The inspector noted that the licensee's chemistry training program had been reviewed and accredited by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INP0).
Unit 2 procedures were reviewed to determine if instructions were provided prescribing the nature and frequency of sampling and
,
analysis, administrative control limits for common contaminants,
,
- _ _ - - - - - _ _ - _. _ _ -
_ - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- _
._
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ -
--
__ _ _ - - _ - _.
. -
-..
- _ _ _ _ - _ -
I i
.
)
' '
!
in-line instrumentation calibration and maintenance, ope.ation of the Unit 2 water chemistry control systems and reporting / trending various chemical parameters.
The draft Chemistry Manual was the primary reference used by the Chemistry Department regarding those-instructions. Maintenance, radiation protection'and operations
!
instructions.in the respective manuals also provided instruction germane to water chemistry control issues.
The inspector noted the'
absence of sample line flush times or volumes in sampling instruct-ions for samples taken from lines which were not continuously left running.
The licensee indicated that flushing instructions would be provided in subsequent drafts of the Chemistry Manual.
Systematic radiation field buildup surveys and valve maintenance debris control instructions were noted.
The inspector suggested that the licensee formalize a procedure for a. technical review process for abnormal chemistry conditions including an evaluation of the conditions and a mechanism for informing management of the existence of~the condition, the implication of continued operation with the condition and possible short and long term corrective actions. The licensee indicated that the suggestion would be considered.
5.2 Unit 2 Water Chemistry Systems Unit 2 is a 2660 MWth (833MW ), Westinghouse 3 loop Pressurized e
Water Reactor (PWR) scheduled for commercial operation in 1987. The l
licensee plans to use the " constant pH", (coordinated lithium / boric acid), scheme for primary coolant loop operation. High Cobalt-con-taining valves, (" stellite") were noted for 5 primary valves used to control letdown flow.
Unit 2 has 3 Westinghouse Model 51 Recircula-ting Steam Generators with " blowdown" rates up to 1.5% full steaming rate with a " closed" blowdown system, i.e. returned to the condenser. Secondary side materials include 304 Stainless Steel condenser tubes and tubesheets, carbon steel low pressure and high pressure feedwater heater tubes and 90 Copper /10 Nickel Moisture Separator Reheaters. A powdered filter full-flow condensate demineralized system for condensate treatment is provided.
Low pressure heater drains are returned to the hotwell but high pressure heater drains, moisture separator drains and moisture separator reheater drains are pumped forward.
Particulate filters are not provided in the feedwater and the auxiliary feedwater is not deaerated. Secondary water treatment includes hydrazine for oxygen control and morpholine for pH and corrosion control.
The licensee plans to use iodine ratios augmented by a vendor-supplied computer program monitoring fission products for fuel failure monitoring.
Primary-to-secondary leakage will be monitored by a blowdown radiation monitor augmented by steam jet air ejection off gas monitoring.
Discussions with licensee personnel indicated that methods employed at Unit I would be generally applied to Unit 2.
The inspector noted that Unit I was a similar unit x_____ _ _ - _ _
.
(without condensate _ polishers) and reviewed Unit l's performance in the following areas:
Steam Generator examination results (for wastage, denting,
pitting, stress corrosion tracking, 'intergranular attacks and sludge pile buildup / removal);
Fuel failure during recent cycles;
Primary-to-secondary leakage rates;
Condenser air and circulating water in-leakage rates; and
Low pressure turbine examination results.
- The licensee reported no steam generator corrosion problems, a 0.0013*s fuel f ailure rate, a primary-to-secondary leak in the "A" steam generator of approximately 0.9 gallons per day, no condenser water in-leakage, approximately 50 standard cubic feet per minute condenser air in-leakage and no corrosion induced turbine problems.
From the Unit 1 operating experience, the inspector concluded that the licensee's operating scheme for Unit 2 had a reasonable probability for operation without significant chemistry-related problems.
5.3 Sampling /In-line Measurement The licensee's sampling and in-line measurement capability were reviewed relative to commitments in the Final Safety Analysis Report and industry-consensus guidelines (i.e. ASTM recommendations).
The I
inspector reviewed the following sampling panels during Unit 2 walkdowns:
2 SSR-PNL21, " Primary Sample Panel";
2 SST-PNL21A, " Turbine Building Sample Panel";
2 SST-PNL21B, " Turbine Building Sample Panel"; and
2 SST-PNL21C, " Turbine Building Sample Panel".
- The inspector also reviewed licensee preoperational testing for the sample panels (ongoing) and the dispositioning of test exceptions and deficiencies noted in that testing. The licensee is testing the
,
j sampling systems under S0V 2.14A.01 and 50V 2.14B.01.
The Post
'
t Accident Sampling System, (tested under PO 2.14A.02), will be the subject of a separate inspection following initial criticality.
Within the scope of this review, no problems were noted.
Subsequent inspections will review completion of the licensee's testing.
j l
l l
_
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,.
_7 _-_ _ _ _ _
,;'
.t i
gY 8-
'
l 5.4 Findings Based on thefabove, the inspector concluded that:
the' licensee had a clear commitment;to and support for an.
L
'*
L<
effective water chemistry control program and was providing-L resources sufficient to implement it;
.the developing program at Unit 2 was site-specific and in
reasoned agreement with industry-consensus guidelines; and-
- .
the program should be effective when fully' developed and implemented.
L.
6.0 Preoperational Testing The. inspector briefly reviewed the licensee's.' test program as 1t' related D
to the' gaseous,. liquid and solid radwaste systems, air handling systems, sampling, and the Post-Accident Sampling System. -The objectives', scope and degree of completion.of the following tests were reviewed relative.to NRC Regulatory Guides 1.68, (" Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled-Nuclear Power. Plants"', Revision 2, August 1978) and 1.140 (" Design, Testing,-and Maintenance for Normal Ventilation Exhaust System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," October 1979):
SOV 2.14A.01, " Primary Sampling Test;"
P0 2.14A.02, " Post Accident Sampling System Test;"
SOV 2.148.01,
" Turbine Plant Sampling Test;"
SOV 2.17.01,
" Waste Drain Tank Pumps and Controls Test;"-
lt SOV 2.18.01,.
" Solid Waste Disposal System Test;"
S0V 2.19.02,
" Gaseous Radwaste System Test;"
BVT 2.1-1.60-1 " Filter Efficiency Test;"
SOV 2.44C.03, " Containment Iodine Filters Test;"
p
- -
)'
PO 2.44.A.01,
" Control Building HVAC Test;"
P0 2.44F.01,
" Miscellaneous Safety-Related HVAC Systems Tests."
- l The inspector noted'that testing sufficient to support fuel load in each l-
.of these' areas had been completed. Additional testing was planned to
. support future milestones (e.g. initial criticality and ascending power level tests). The tests planned appeared to address NRC Regulatory Guide 1.68 and 1.140.
SOV 2.14A.01 and SOV 2.14B.01 are ongoing tests discussed briefly in the water chemistry control section.
SOV 2.19.02 was reviewed
.and discussed with the cognizant test engineer. The test procedure verified control logic, general subsystem operability, subsystem parameter and performance characteristics, and control gas routing and purging operations. The test was ongoing during the inspection and test results will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
l_
_
_
-.
- __ _.._-- _
- _ - - _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - -
'
!
'
l I
Exit Interview
\\
The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives denoted in paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on June 5, 1987.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the i
identified findings as described in the report.
'
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.