IR 05000413/1993006
| ML20034G018 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1993 |
| From: | Decker T, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G015 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-93-06, 50-413-93-6, 50-414-93-06, 50-414-93-6, NUDOCS 9303080070 | |
| Download: ML20034G018 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-. , [[ g UNITED STATES fg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON - ! n RE GION il 'g.
< .. $ -.,, $ 101 MARIETTA STREE f.N.W.
f .7.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 . s, *~ j ,
- o'
FEB 2 3 E93 i ! Report Nos.: 50-413/93-06 and 50-414/93-06 i Licensee: Duke Power Company - 422 South Church Street I Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF-52
! Facility Name: Catawba 1 and 2 ' i Inspection Conducted: February 1-5, 1993
Inspector: / b 2.//6'/9,3 . D.W.~Qp6e's Date Signed j , .t . Approved by: \\ Ikkte
- /// /3 T. R. Decker, Chief.
Dite Signed i Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section ' Radiological Protection and Emergency
- I Preparedness Branch
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards e ! SUMMARY j
Scope.
' This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Control Room I Area Ventilation Systems, transportation of radioactive material, primary and l secondary water chemistry, and training.
l ,
i i ! Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
The licensee had complied with the operational and surveillance requirements for the Control Room pressurization and air filtering. systems (Paragraph 2).
The licensee's program for classifying and preparing radioactive waste for , shipment and' for shipping radioactive materials was effectively implemented.
! No recent transportation incidents involving the licensee's shipments have ! I occurred (Paragraph 3).
i I
' . l 9303080070 930223 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G PDR , i ..--m.
.. ,, .,, _ ..y
- - - .-- _-._ . _ _ _ _ _ - - , I i
! ! The licensee's water chemistry control program was effectively implemented.
Parameters required to be monitored were maintained well within their l-specified limits. The program also included provisions for implementing, with l few exceptions, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidelines for PWR primary and secondary water chemistry (Paragraph 4).
l The licensee had implemented an effective program for training and qualification (Paragraph 5).
! l
1 A i
$ i !
I l d i
i J l , I l
l ... -.. . . _.
.. _. - --- - - - - -.
__ . . . l I REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Bryant, Specialist, Radiation Protection
- J. Cox, Acting Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- P. Deal, Manager, Radiation Protection R. Dove, Instructor, Training M. Drost, Supervisor, Chemistry
- T. Harrall, Manager, Safety Assurance J. Lowery, Compliance Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- W. McCollum, Station Manager
- K. Nicholson, Compliance Specialist, Regulatory Compliance B. Painter, Gcneral Supervisor, Chemistry
- R. Propst, Manager, Chemistry S. Putnam, System Engineer, System Engineering S. Rodgers, General Supervisor, Chemistry A. Salmons, Supervisor, Chemistry N. Strickland, Supervisor, Radiation Protection
- M. Tuckman, Vice President R. White, Instructor., Training C. Wrey, Scientist, Radiation Protection
- J. Wylie, Manager, Training Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. Hopkins, Resident Inspector W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspector J. Zeiler, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Control Room Area Ventilation Systems (84750) i Technical Specifications (TSs) 3/4.7.6 described the operational and l surveillance requirements for the control room pressurization and air l elements, pre-filters, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) ' all operational modes. Action statements applicable to variou i ! were provided for conditions in which one or both of the systems were filter leak testing, air flow measurements, differential pressur ,
measurements, and charcoal adsorption efficiency testing were specified.
The inspector toured the plant area in which the pressurization and air located and identified, for the inspector, the major compone systems. The inspector observed that the components and associated \\ l i E
. _.
. . - _. _ _ ._... - _ _ . .- _ _ . _ [ i t !y .
! ductwork were well maintained structurally and that there was no
physical deterioration of the ductwork sealants.
!
l' The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below and determined that they included provisions for performing the above operability and "
performance tests at the required frequencies. Review of selected L records of those tests indicated that they had been performed at the
required frequencies.
l f PT/1/A/4600/02A " Mode 1 Periodic Surveillance Items" i PT/0/A/4450/08 " Control Room Ventilation System Performance Test" !
PT/0/A/4450/08A " Control Room Area Outside Air Pressure Filter l Train "A" Test"
PT/0/A/4450/08B " Control Room Area Outside Air Pressure Filter ! Train "B" Test" ! t - PT/0/A/4450/01B " Control Room Area Outside Air Pressure Filter { Trains Perfomance Test" l i
PT/0/A/4450/17 " Safety Related Filter System Run Time Monitoring" l
Based on the above reviews and observations, it was concluded that the ! licensee had complied with the above operational and surveillance !
requirements for the Control Room pressurization and air filtering [ j systems.
j
i No violations or deviations were identified.
-{ I . 3.
Transportation of Radioactive Material (86750) ! I
10 CFR 71.5 required the licensee to comply with the applicable l regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR t a Parts 170 through 189 when transporting licensed material outside the i confines of the plant or other place of use, or when delivering licensed material to a carrier for transport. 10 CFR 20.311(d)(1) required the
licensee to prepare all radioactive waste transferred to a land
disposal facility such that the waste is classified in accordance with j 10 CFR 61.55 and meets the waste characteristic requirements of ! 10 CFR 61.56.
! The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below and determined that-
they adequately addressed the following: assuring that the receiver has
' a license to receive the material being shipped; assigning the form,- - quantity type, and proper shipping name of the material to be shipped; J classifying waste destined for burial; selecting the type of package i - required; labeling and marking the package; placarding the vehicle; J assuring that the radiation and contamination limits are met; and
preparing shipping papers.
l l , d , _ _ - _- , _ __ -- - __ . __ . .. . l
-.. _ - . - -. - -. .. i
. ! ! - ! ,
j HP/0/B/1006/01 " Shipment of Radioactive Material" } } ilP/0/B/1006/05 " Periodic Sampling of Radioactive Waste for 10 CFR 61
, Scaling Factor Determination" l
HP/0/B/1006/08 " Shipment of Dry Active Waste" HP/0/B/1006/09 " Shipment of Radioactive Filters and i Filter Media" HP/0/B/1006/10 " Shipment of Solidified Radwaste" l l HP/0/B/1006/12 " Shipment of Dewatered Resins" [ ! HP/0/B/1006/13 " Determination of the Waste Classification for i Radioactive Waste Offered for Shallow Land Burial" j
The inspector reviewed the licensee's records for the shipments made ! during October, November, and December, 1992. Those records indicated l , that the shipments were made in accordance with the above procedures and l Codes. No recent transportation incidents involving the licensee's ~; shipments have occurred.
Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee's program for classifying and preparing radioactive waste for shipment and for
shipping radioactive materials was effectively implemented.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
4.
Water Chemistry (84750) i ! ~ ' TSs 3/4.4.7 and 3/4.4.8 described the operational and surveillance requirements for reactor coolant chemistry and specific activity.
i
Maximum concentration limits and sampling frequencies were specified for i dissolved oxygen, chloride, fluoride, and specific activity during various operational modes. Action statements applicable to specific ! , l modes were provided for conditions in which the concentration limits ~ were exceeded.
l i Tha inspector reviewed the following Chemistry Management Procedures: i 3.4.17 " Sample Collection, Specification, and Corrective Action" and j 3.4.17.2 " Secondary Chemistry". Those procedures were found to include j provisions for sampling and analyzing reactor coolant for the TS j required parameters at the specified frequencies and for implementing, .: ' with a few exceptions, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) { guidelines for PWR primary and secondary water chemistry. They also
provided guidance to analysts for actions to be taken if analytical !
results exceeded action limits or if trends were observed.
l ) , The inspector also reviewed trend plots of analytical results for j ' dissolved oxygen, chloride, fluoride, and dose equivalent iodine-131 i , _ (DEI) in reactor coolant. The trend plots reviewed included data ( i , j. , , , _ _ . - _ _ , i
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .. - l - .. ! i I
j ! generated for both units during the period November 1992 through ! January 1993. Selected records for primary and secondary parameters
included in the EPRI guidelines were also examined. During steady state j operations the dissolved oxygen concentrations were typically <5 ppb, ! chloride concentrations were typically <10 ppb, and fluoride i concentrations were typically <50 ppb. These parameters were well below
their respective TS limits of 100 ppb, 150 ppb, and 150 ppb. The i specific activity of the reactor coolant for both units was also well l within its TS limit of I pCi/g. The Unit 1 DEI was typically l <4 E-3 pCi/ml and the Unit 2 DEI was typically <5 E-4. pCi/ml. The other j parameters selected for review were generally maintained within the EPRI i guidelines.
Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee's water l chemistry control program was effectively implemented.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
5.
Training and Qualification (84750 and 86750) { I TSs 6.3 and 6.4 described the requirements for training and qualification of licensee personnel. The licensee's training program was , implemented through the Employee Training and Qualification System j (ETQS) which consisted of general employee training, technical training, ! and employee / professional development training. The general employee l training covered administrative, safety, and emergency control , procedures. The technical training consisted of initial training, on- ! ' the-job training and qualification, and continuing training. The ETQS Manual included standards for specific positions and those standards ! described the specific topics covered by the technical training phase of ! the program.
j
The inspector reviewed the training records for two individuals assigned l to the Radiation Protection section and two individuals assigned to the l Chemistry section. The records reviewed included ETQS Task Lists and
Qualification Summaries. The ETQS Task List was a list of tasks which had been developed for each position and for which an individual must have been trained and qualified prior to independently performing the task. The Qualification Summary was maintained for each individual and - i listed the tasks for which the individual had received training and j qualification. The inspector compared the ETQS Task List and the
Qualification Summary for each of the four individuals selected.
- Generally the Qualification Summaries included all of the tasks listed
- ' on the relevant ETQS Task List. The licensee indicated that procedural requirements prohibited individuals from independently performing those tasks for which they had not received training and qualification.
Based on the above reviews, it was concluded that the licensee had implemented an effective program for training and qualification.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l -! ,
._ ._ .. - -._.
~_.
_ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _.. _ _ _ t !
., ! . . ! ^ \\
f 'i-6.
Exit Interview i ! The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 4, 1993, ' , with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described
, ' the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results i listed above.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
. !
! j .i .i
i ! ! '. l i
j ! I il , d t r '
! ' l
, I t i ! i '
! i ! >
l
l i i j ., l } l ! i , ., . -. . ,- .-. . .. , }}