IR 05000440/1990016
| ML20058N496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Januska A, Michael Kunowski, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058N495 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-90-16, NUDOCS 9008140162 | |
| Download: ML20058N496 (8) | |
Text
,
,'
.
.
>
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
'
. Report No. 50-440/90016(DRSS)
-
Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-58 Licensee: Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Perry Site, Perry, Ohio
,
Inspection. Conducted: July 9-13, 1990 M. 4. Is M Inspectors:
M. A. Kunowski I' M 0 Radiation Specialist Date
'
Q. ).J. tmL A.G.Ihnuska 8~8-98
'
Senior Radiation Specialist
.Date b
Approved By:
M. C. Sc um cher, Chief
_ _ e-a - po Radiological Controls and Date Chemistry Section Inspection Summary
Inspection on July 9-13, 1990 (Report No. 50-440/90016(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the operational radiation protectionandradioactivewasteprograms(InspectionProcedures(IPs)83750 and84750), including:
audits and appraisals; changes in organization;
~ outage planning and preparation; external exposure control and ALARA; and
implementation of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste programs.
The inspectors also reviewed several previous inspection findings (IP 92701).
Results: - Overall, the licensee's radiation protection and gaseous and liquid
,
-
radioactive waste programs are adequate.
Program strengths observed by
inspectors were the licensee's participation in an inter-utility technical assistance group.(Section 7) and experienced and proactive corporate and-stationALARAgroups(Section8). Two areas in need of additional attention
'
b in issuin
'(y the licensee were the delay (Section 11.an ALARA report for the 1989 outage Section 4)-and housekeeping Two items, pertaining.to the'
- !
adequacy of licensee corrective actions for the failure of operators to recognize that logged data were outside technical specification LC0 requirements and to calibration'of the
"C" main steamline monitor, will be reviewed further in a subsequent inspection.
(Section10)
h0 h h h h00bbk40 I
g PDC
_-
i r
(
l
-
.
,
K.
- . :
.
,.
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons contacted 4R.R. Bowers, Manager,:RadiationProtectionSection(RPS)
T. R. Calkins, Lead Surveillance Coordinator-
' ',
+W.E.Coleman, Manager,QualityAssurance(QA)Section 1D. W. Conran, Compliance Engineer, Licensing and Compliance o
,
Section(LCS)
p,
. J. W. Detchemendy, QA Engineer
-
p L
A.' O. Diaz, Group Lead, Instrument and Control (I&C)
j
.
Engineering i
,
4C J. Frank, Licensing Engineer, LCS
,
4M. W. Gmyrek, Manager, Operations Section
e (1
+J.-J. Grimm, Plant Chemist
!
E 4H. L. Hegrat, Lead Engineer, LCS.
'
p
+S. F.; Kensicki. Director, Engineering Department
-
G. W.. Kindred, Health Physics (HP) Planning Supervisor, RPS i
-+L. Hinter, Unit Supervisor, Quality Control Section
+R. A. Newkirk, Manager, LCS
'
C. Reiter, Technical Support Supervisor, RPS c
,
C.' A. Shelton, General Supervisor, Chemistry Section
h
+F. R. Stead,. Director, Nuclear Support Department
~
t
+R. A. Stratman, General Manager, Perry Plant
.{
+J. J. Traverso, Acting Corporate Health Physicist
g
,
C
-+L.'C. VanDerHorst, Plant Health Physicist, RPS
+M.-J. Yeager. I&C Engineer
,
j The inspectors also contacted other licensee employees.
/I L
+P. Hiland, NRC-Senior' Resident Inspector i
y
+ Denotes those present at the exit meeting on July 13, 1990.
j
r 2.1 General
'
The inspection was conducted to review radiation protection and-I radioactive waste activities.
It included tours of onsite facilities.
- review of records, discussions with onsite personnel, and independent j
dose rate neasurements.,
'
e" i
3.
Licensee Action on~ Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
J
a.
(Closed) Open Item'No. 440/87018-01:
Followup on the need to shield
neutron streaming near the drywelTpurge pipe in containment. As
"
discussed in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-440/87018(DRSS),the o
E licensee has adequate administrative controls for monitoring neutron a
p exposure of workers. A review of past survey records and inplant
-
neutron measurements during the current inspection with the reactor i
operating at 100% power indicated that neutron exposure rates in
!
containment 'and in the general area of the drywell purge pipe are
very low, typically 0.5 millirem / hour.
Immediately adjacent to the
!
'
2 r
i
__
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
'
,R
,(
- *
c-
.
,
-'
gy
}
pipe, the neutron exposure rate increases sharply to approximately
-!
,
150 millirem / hour. The licensee's evaluation of the need to shield
'
this pipe indicated that the design and installation of. shielding would not be cost effective. This conclusion appears reasonable.
,
Preliminary estimates of the cost ranged from $50,000 to at least
$100,000, whereas total annual neutron exposure is typically less
,
than 0.1 person-rem. This item is considered closed.
!
b.
[ Closed)Open_ltemNc. 440/89029-03:
Review procedure change j
ontendad to clarify detinition of abnormal release. The inspector i
reviewed the revised procedure,: CHI-54, " Radiological, Effluent Data Reduction," and determined that the definition of abnormal release had been clarified and was now consistent with the licensee's stated
,
i
' interpretation of abnormal release. This item is considered closed.
i 4.
Audits and Appraisals (IPs 83750 and 84750)-
!
The inspectors reviewed the results of recent corporate QA audits of the
'
ALARA and respiratory protection programs, and the process control program;-
't the 1989 annual assessment of.the station ALARA program conducted by the
'
ccting corporate Health Physicist; and a detailed surveillance of the
r RadiationWorkPermit(RWP) program. No major problems were identified
!!
by the licensee during these self-assessments and by the NRC inspectors
.
.,
during the review. The audits, the assessment, and the surveillance y
,
' '.'
appeared to be in-depth reviews of the programs and to have been conducted
by experienced, trained personnel.
One audit finding that merits
'
additional licensee attention, however, was that the expansion of the
-'
duties of the station ALARA group (now designated the Health Physics Planning Unit) to include RWP preparation, HP planning, and HP records
'
-management could impair the quality of. ALARA reviews and result in program o
inefficiencies. These work demands _have been such that the ALARA Outage -
'
Report for the 1989 refueling outage.has not yet been prepared and
distributed to plant work groups.
Post-outage ALARA reports.are commonly used at nuclear power plants to 'comunicate to work groups (other than HP).
j the success or failure of ALARA actions and may serve to reinforce a sense of responsibility for ALARA. The licensee stated that the recent
,
>
expansion of the duties of the ALARA staff and the demands of 3reparing
for'the ~ upcoming outage have greatly increased ALARA staff worc load, but
that additional experienced personnel have been and will be added to the l
staff..They further stated that although the Outage Report has not been-issued, lessons-learned have been incorporated by the ALARA group into i
planning for the September 1990 outage. Outage planning and preparation
is discussed further in Section 6.
Overall, corporate reviewers, and the NRC inspectors during the current inspection, found the station and corporate ALARA groups to be functioning well and staffed by experienced and motivated individuals. The licensee's ALARA program is discussed further in Section 8 and will be reviewed in future inspections.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified by the NRC inspectors.
j d
.
_-
p E
,
,
n, ' l i,,,
.
I
(
..
..
i
.
.
'I 5.
Changes in Organization (IPs 83750 and 84750)
,
h
~
,
'
'
The station chemist was recently reassigned to the corporate Independent l
Safety Engineering. Group for. two years. An experienced staff chemist was.
I assigned to replace him as supervisor of. the Chemistry Department.
This change is not expected to adversely affect the Chemistry Department.
'6
-
No violations of NRC requirements were identified by the NRC inspectors.
'
'
6.
Outage planning'and Preparat1p,n '(IPs '83750 and '84750,).
Discussions.with licensee representatives and a review of records indicated that planning and prep 6 ration for the upcoming 76-day refueling
,
outage, scheduled to begin.early in September, were generally good..
l;
.
As with the first refueling outage, in 1989 (NRC Inspection Report h'
No. 50-440/89008(DRSS)), the licensee prepared an "ALARA Pre-Outage
. i Planning Report.",The inspectors reviewed a portion of the Report and i
observed that;it was a well organized and thorough planning effort.. The
~r inspectors also attended a' meeting of HP and outage management-held to.
discuss progress on efforts to better integrate HP job coverage needs and-
hold points into the. outage schedule.
'
,
The inspectors observed that much effort was being expended by the HP
[
L group on planning and preparation for the replacement of the recirculation pump shaft and impeller assemblies, scheduled for the September 1990
,
outage. A pump assembly.was obtained from the terminated. Allens Creek.'
,
nuclear plant in Texas and is being used as a mockup, and a senior ALARA.
,
staff person went:to the Grand Gulf nuclear plant to review their efforts for a= similar replacement project. Early in 1990, the licensee evaluated the feasibility of chemically decontaminating the recirculation system,
.h including the pumps. and' portions of the reactor water cleanup system.
The evaluation indicated that approximately 75 person-rem would be saved just during.the. outage. However, because the decontamination would require about 6 days of critical path time, the decision was made not-to decontaminate.
,
.No. violations of NRC requirements were identified by the NRC inspectors.
7.
Joint Utility Technical Assistance Program
+
.
Early in 1990, the licensee joined with several midwest nuclear utilities
!
to form a technical specialist exchange group, termed the Joint Utility-
!
Technical Assistance Program. A similar program has been inplace for
]
. conducting reviews of utility QA organizations.
Since the Technical Assistance Program began, the licensee's radiation protection manager
!
narticipated in a review at Monticello and Prairie Island, and the
!
' licensee's radiological assessor participated.in a recent refueling
,
outage at Davis-Besse and in a review of the leak reduction and stellite control programs at Fermi.
The inspectors discussed the visits with the licensee representatives, who stated that the visits were valuable
'
learning experiences from which enhancements to the HP program at Perry could be made.
,
.
i
p
'
,
L p.-
,
p
.
l-
..
m-
,
8.
External Exposure Control and ALARA (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed aspects of the licensee's implementation of the
"
external exposure control and ALARA programs.
K The station dose total for 1989 was 767 person-rem. This value is high P
compared to the first refueling outage at similar plants, but is not v
surprising considering the comparatively higher dose rates in containment L
and the drywell, and the large amount of work oerformed during the outage.
"
for 1990, with a 76-day refueling outage scheduled to begin in early (
September, the licensee has tentatively estimated a total station dose _of R
.
680 person-rem.
Some: licensee ALARA initiatives were discussed in NRC Inspection Report
'^
No. 50-440/89029(DRSS).
In addition, during the current inspection the inspectors noted other good initiatives by. the licensee including the
'
use a laser disc-based, plant surrogate tour system by the cocorate radiological engineering group for reviewing proposed modifications;.
implementation of a cobalt replacement project that has resulted in the identification of stellite-bearing valves-in several major plant systems-
- J (work on prioritizing replacement of these valves and testing welding l
techniques for replacement hardfacing. material has also begun); and
,
the licensee's participation on two.recently formed BWR Owners Group subcommittees on source term reduction and radiation protection /ALARA.
However, the licensee's zinc injection system, to date, has not resulted
<
in a noticeable change in primary system Co-60 concentrations.
,
No violations of NRC requirements were identified by the NRC. inspectors.
,
,
9.
Liquid Radioactive Waste program (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed.the licensee's liquid radioac tive waste (radwaste)
-effluent program' including:
procedures' for calibration, monitor alarm-
.
setpoints, and discharge batch releases; records of furctional tests, calibrations, and batch releases; and the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 1989'and.1990.
The program remains.as described previously in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-440/88014(DRSS).-
,
o
'
Records indicated that the radwaste radiation monitor calibration was
'
acceptable when performed on July 20, 1987, but unacceptable when next performed on June 23, 1989. The inspectors examined " Active LC0 Tracking Log" records for this monitor to determine if the 18-month calibration frequency had been violated and.if releases had been made with an
'
inoperable monitor. The inspector determined that approptlate measures were taken during releases when the instrument was not restored to an operable' condition within the required time and that no regulatory problem.
j
'
existed. High background from internal contamination of the monitor liner appears to have been the cause of the monitor inoperability.
Liquid effluents are released on a batch basis from a single sampled tank to a single monitored release line. Most liquids are processed by use of filters and resin beds and reused.
Releases consist mainly of laundry waste or processed liquid which does not meet reuse criteria. Selected
!
@
~
.
- .
<
,..
'
.
,
,
.
batch release permits for 1989 and 1990 were reviewed and found to be i
"
complete. No problems were noted.-
l f
The Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 1989.and 1990 i
i were also reviewed.
The reports satisfy the reporting requirements
'
t.
of Technical Specification (T/S) 6.9.1.7.
No anomalous resul_ts were
,
noted.
!
He violations of NRC requirements were identified by the NRC inspectors.
F 10. Gaseous Radioactive Weste Program (IP 84750)'
I I
M The inspectors reviewed the licensee's' implementation of selected portions-
of'its gaseous radwsste pro 9 ram. Other recent inspection activities in
,,
,,
this area are documented in Ins f-440/89029(URS3),dnd440/90002(pectionReportNos. 440/89028(DRP),
i DRP).
!:,
,
Discussions with the licensee and a revies of: Semiannual Radioactive'
'(
Effluent Release Reports indicated that in 1989, a refueling outage year,
.
approximately 191 curies of gaseous radwaste were released from the plant.
In 1988, approximately 1258 curies had been released. 'In.the first-half
!
of 1990, approximately 56 curies were released. The decreaselin 1989 and
1990 were attributed by.the licensee to removal of-a. leaky fuel assembly
during the 1989 outage and the addition of charcoal'to the offgas system.
Offsite doses for 1989 and 1990, to date, were well within T/S 3.11 i
limits, l
~
h Thettoe.: tors also reviewed the licensee's compliance with the functional
-;
test and calibration requirements for the main steamline: radiation
.
i monitors. These. monitors are part of the reactor protection and isolation
.i
' actuation instrumentation systems. Test and calibration requirements
.are specified in T/Ss 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.
During a recent inspection
(NRCInspectionReportNo. 440/90005(DRP)), a procedural. problem was.
t identified with Surveillance Instruction SVI-017-T0040-D, Revision 2, t
used for performing the technical specification. required monthly.
functional' test of the "D" main steamline monitor.- The procedure used
.for the D monitor and those used for the other three monitors were i
subsequently revised.
'During the current inspection, discussions with the licensee and a review
-
of1 records' indicated that on June 18, 1990, the "C" main steamline monitor
. failed the. functional test specified in SVI-D17-T0040-0 but the monitorL was not placed in the tripped condition within 1; hour'as required by T/S l
3.3.1.
On June 19, the licensee subsequently discovered the problems-i (approximately 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> later) during.a review of the surveillance record, j
The. monitor was then tripped and the electronic components of the monitor
~in the control room were replaced with spare components from the Unit 2 control room. Condition Report 90-145 was issued internally by the
,
licensee and Licensee Event Report (LER)90-013 was submitted.
'
t Y
.On June 19, after the components for the C monitor were replaced, problems were again encountered, and on June:20 another replacement from
',
Unit 2 was made. This replacement passed electrcnic tests and performed
.
u
Y
-
,
,
.
.,
.,,.
-,
,
.
4) -
e 4,
'
.
I satisfactorily until July 5-6, when shiftly checks by control room L
,
personnel indicated the monitor reading was low compared to the other i
three monitors. The components were replaced for a third time and, as of
,
the end of_ the inspection, have been functioning properly. The success i
of the latest replacement will be reviewed further after the upcoming refueling outage when the main steamline monitors and associated detectors
are calibrated with a radioactive source (0 pen Item iso. 50-440/90016-01
,
(DRSS)). Enforcement action. appropriate' to this LC0 violation is being i
held in abeyance pending resolution of the applicability of corrective
.
i p
actions-for a previous licensee event, LER 90-012, regarding the
.}
inoperability of the control room emergency recirculation system.' An i
e initial-review by. the inspectors indicated that corrective actions for:
L this LER may have.also been applicable to LER 90-013.- In both cases,
,
operators apparently failed to recognize that recorded equipment data
'
,
were outside allowable limits, and were counseled on the need_to review
!
'
.
recorded ~ data for acceptability. This matter will be reviewed at e
"
<
.
futureinspection-(0penitemNo. 50-440/90016-02(DRSS)).
l
-
No violations of NRC requirements were identified'by the NRC inspectors.
~11.
Plant Tours (Ip 83750)
?
,_
Limited tours of the licensee's facilities, including the containment, were'made during the: inspection.
Independent dose rate measurements were also made. Housekeeping was found to be generally adequate; however, it
~j
.
was poor at the step-off. pad area at the upper elevation entrance to'
containment and at the protective clothing storage and change. area near
'the: lower elevation entrance to containment. An isolated posting problem i
was also identified in containment and was promptly corrected by the licensee.
Independent dose rate measurements made by the inspectors were i
tin agreement with postings and licensee survey data.
!
.
!
No violations of HRC requirements were identified by the NRC inspectors.
12
Exit Meeting (Ip'30703)
_
,
,Theinspectorsmet.withlicenseerepresentatives(denotedinSection1)
!
at the conclusion of the onsite inspection activities on July ?.3. 1990, j
and summarized the scope and tentative findings of the inspection, t
Specifically, the following items were discussed.
'a.
-Good performance of the station and corporate ALARA groups regarding i
planning for the upcoming outage, use of the surrogate tour system, evaluation of chemical decontamination of the recirculation system, v
and the stellite-faced valve identification program (Section 4
.
and8).
s b.
The delby in issuing a post-outage ALARA report (Section 4).
c.
The lack of definitive data on the effectiveness of zinc addition, a recent expensive initiative in dose reduction (Section 8).
i d.
Good initiative with the Joint Utility Technical Assistance Program L
(Section7).
>
u.
q
!-
.-_,
.
- -,
p' 'pj'; i."l q.,
ea a4
_
_ - -
._ -
- - - - -
.*
- - - - -
e
,-
-
t
,
-
-
,
up
,
'
s -
'
3 xy ;;-
,
,
.
'
,
'
,
4#,
-
,
,
7,q e + p
.
,
.
'
.
>
,
.
-
-l
-.
,
..
-
s
e:
h@,k,
.
,
't
..
,
,
>
7-
,
,
.
e.
- Closure of.two openlitems (Section 3).
j t! y y.
.
..
'
f$
-Y
' f..
The missed action. statement for the main, steam 11ne radiation' monitor i!
.
- l
,,
pm*
andthe' operability. problems.(Section_10).-
g
.-
-
j
>
N;.
g.-
The general! observation that the. upper management personnel:in the
,
"s.
-
radiation and chemistry grcups were very knowledgeable.
.!
m
'
.
.
T
,,
'.
f
. *
' -The licensee-did' not 'ide" ntify any mater 3a'1 reviewed by the inspectors ~ a's'.
a
.a pq }
.,
j proprietary.'
'
'
j
.. ~..
.
'-a y
e yt,@
Di
'
j
- -y
- (,
'
>
,
t
!
.,
, i'
't
'.'>..i
-
<
<
b
,
i 7.j
- 51'
,
'
r
'I
'
gif
'
yf[pi -,
,
t Jt
"
'
,
'
j
,
,
,.c s
-
I!r. I[f.
,
q.. ; -j_
'
,
,
0.<
(.{
(, "
_
s n
i 5_f.
i>
>
Nl 4.
0-
'
.
o,
,
- E
'-
Tf:
m i
.
jp
.
.~
.
p,
.
n
s,
.
.
'%s, (..
.;-
!i, e
$
.t g
t I-
4 sc
'
~!
e.
.
.
fW
"-
-