ML18152A424
| ML18152A424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1990 |
| From: | Robert Carrion, Decker T, Seymour D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A425 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-90-13, 50-281-90-13, NUDOCS 9005020353 | |
| Download: ML18152A424 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1990013
Text
Report Nos. :
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
r:.r.:,o 2 ~ *lQSfl
Mt
111.
'! u
'-*...,
50/280/90-13 and 50/281/90-13
Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Glen Allen, VA
23060
Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281
License Nos.:
Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
Inspection Conducted: ~?,ih 19-23, 1990
.
Inspectors: ~~-:
____
- ----_
0
Approved by:, r.r )l~
__
.
~T. R. Decker, Chief
Scope:
fl
- Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section
Emergency Preparedness and Radiological
Protection Branch
. Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Date Sianed
Z)~'?o
Date Signed
ti 2.:s ~-°-----
Date Signed
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of confirmatory
measurements, radioactive effluents, and the radiation monitoring program.
Results:
The item concerning the operability problem of the component cooling service
water monitor was reviewed.
It was closed based upon its current status and
licensee commitments (Paragraph 2).
The violation concerning modifications to the ventilation system was reviewed.
It remains open pending completion of short term and long term corrective
actions (Paragraph 2).
Liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents were within the concentrations
permitted by 10 CFR 20, Appendix B.
Radiation doses were well within the
li~jts allowed by 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 20.105(c) (Paragraph 3).
The Radiation Monitorina Proaram was reviewed.
Internal audits and evaluations
of the program are coniidered to be a licensee strength (Paragraph 4).
':;'005020:3!53
A:OOCK
G!
90042:~:
050002::::0
Confirmatory measurements were made and all but one sample were in agreement
(Paragraph 5).
Operation of the PASS was observed.
Proper sampling techniques and health
physics practices were observed (Paragraph 6).
The licensee's aaaressive actions reaardina the Liquid Curie Reduction Program
were considered to be a strength (Paragraph 7).
No violations or deviations were identified .
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- W. Benthall, Supervisor - Licensing
- R. Bilyeu, Licensing Engineer
- P. Blount, Supervisor, Radiation Analysis
- R. Boles, System Engineer
- D. Christian, Assistant Station Manager
- Z. Edwards, Health Physics Technician
- D. Erickson, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- B. Garber, Supervisor, HP T~chnical Services
- E. Grecheck, Assistant Station Manager
- D. Hart, Supervisor, Quality Assurance (Audits)
- M. Kansler, Station Manager
- R. McManus, Engineering Supervisor
- M. Paul, System Engineer
- E. Smith Jr, ,Manager, Quality Assurance
- E. Swindell, Supervisor, Chemistry
- W. Thornton, Director, Corporate Health Physics and Chemistry
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- D. Collins, Branch Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection
Branch
- J. York, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Findings and Inspector Follow-up.
Items (92701, 92702)
a.
(Closed)
IFI 50-280/87-02-03, 50-281/87-02-03:
Resolve the
inoperability problem of component cooling service water monitor
RM-SW-107.
As discussed in Inspection Report Nos. 89-11 and 89-32, the component
cooling service water monitor, RM-SW-107, had been out of service
since 1987, over 11 years.
Debris in the service water had caused
plugging of the sample line to the monitor and jamming of associated
pumps on a frequent basis. This caused the licensee to declare the
monitor inoperable, requiring the periodic grab sampling and analysis
as stated in Table 3.7.5(a) of the Technical Specifications (TSs).
b.
2
The* inspectors discussed with-the licensee the.most current status of
the monitor replacement program.
To resolve the problem, the
licensee plans to mount *sodium iodide crystal detectors in dry wells
that will be fabricated in replacement component cooling water heat
exchanaers.
The installation of the new detectors will coincide with
the replacement of the heat exchangers.
The
11D
11 Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger and its associated
radiation monitor were replaced in February 1990.
The Semi-Annual
Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period July 1, 1989
through December 31, 1989, discussed the installation of the
remaining heat exchangers and associated monitors.
Two of the heat
exchangers and monitors are scheduled to be installed during the Unit
- 1 refueling outage in the Fall of 1990~
The remaining heat
exchanger and monitor will be* installed during th~ Unit #2 refueling
outage in the Spring of 1991.
Based on this licensee commitment, and
on discussions with the licensee, this item is considered closed.
(Open) Violation 50-281/89-32-01:
Modifications to Ventilation
Systems Resulted in Inadequate Survey of Gaseous Effluents.
Back-pressure prob 1 ems and genera 1 degradation of the auxi 1 i ary
building ventilation system had caused unmonitored leakage to the
environment, and had caused reverse flow out of laboratory fume hoods
into areas outside the radiologically controlled area.
Also, there
was non-representative sampling of gaseous effluents out of the main
gase6us effluent pathway (Ventilation Vent #2).
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's short term corrective actions
with respect to this item.
The inspectors reviewed Procedure No.
1-PT-26.1, entitled "Radiation Monitoring Equipment Check," dated
February 28, 1990.
This procedure had been modified to incorporate a
daily check of sample flow through Ventilation Vent #2 radiation
monitors to ensure that the isokinetic flow exists.
The inspectors
discussed the Process Vent with the licensee to determine whether
non-representative sampling could be occurring at this point.
The
licensee had determined through review of documentation and of the
operating system, that isokinetic sampling was occurring at the
Process Vent gaseous release point.
The inspectors also determined
that the hot 1 ab where the b 1 owback was occurring was no 1 anger
in use, that radioactive material had been removed from this hood,
and that the hood had been tagged as inoperable.
The inspectors also
discussed with the licensee the plans to reinstate Ventilation Vent
- 1 back into service. The inspettors also reviewed three Engineering
Work Requests (EWRs) concerned with this violation:
Evaluate RM Tubing (Isokinetic Bends), dated March 9, 1990; EWR No.89-335, Evaluate VG Radiation Monitors Stack Discharge Flow Rate,
dated February 20, 1990; and EWR No.89-470, Evaluate RM Vent Stack
Software (no date given).
The licensee responses, dated February 22,
1990, and licensee actions up to the time of the inspection were
considered acceptable. This item will remain open pending completion
of the short term and long term cor~ective actions.
3
3.
Effluent and Environmental Reports (84750)
TS 6.6.3.C requires the licensees -to submit, within 60 days of January 1
and July 1 of each year, routine Radioactive Effluent Release Reports *
covering the operation of the unit during the previous six months of
operation.
The inspector reviewed the Semi-Annual Radiological Effluent
Release Reports for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, .1989.
The review included an examination of the liquid and gaseous effluent
release data. This data is summarized in Attachment 4.
Liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents were within the radioactive
concentrations specified in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B.
There was an increase
in liquid fission and activation products in 1989.
The licensee
attributed this increase to tube leaks in the component cooling water heat
exchanger, most of which have been repaired.
There were no unplanned
releases in 1989.
TS 6.6.3.C requires the Radioactive Effluent Release Report to be
submitted within 60 days afte.r January 1 of each year and to include an
assessment of the radiation doses to the maximum exposed member of the
public due to radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released from the
site during the previous calendar year.
The assessment of the radiation
doses is to be performed in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation
Manual (ODCM).
The inspector reviewed the 1989 annual and quarterly doses
to the maximum exposed member of the public.
According to the ODCM, the
maximum exposed member of the public from the release of airborne I-131,
tritium, and all radionuclides in particulate form with half lives greater
than eight days. was defined as an infant, exposed through the
grass-cow-milk pathway, with the thyroid as the critical organ.
The beta
and gamma air doses due to noble gas released from the site were
calculated at the site boundary.
The maximum exposed member of the public
from radioactive materials in liquid effluents in unrestricted areas was
defined as an adult, exposed by either the invertebrate or fish pathway
with the critical organ being either the thyroid or the gastrointestinal
tract. A summary of the 1989 annual doses to the maximum exposed member
of the public is presented in Attachment 5.
Calendar year 1989 showed an increase in the total body dose due to liquid
effluents. The licensee attributed this to work performed to reconstitute
the design of the service water system which required the shutdown of
several ci rcul ati ng water pumps.
This effectively eliminated the
licensee's ability to dilute liquid effluents, thus increasing liquid
effluent dose *. The organ that received the largest dose due to liquid
effluents was the GI-LLI with a cumulative annual dose of 0.305 mrem.
The
thyroid was the critical organ for the gaseous effluents, receiving a
cumulative annual dose of 8.40 E-03 mrem.
These doses were a small
fraction of the limits allowed by 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 20.105(c).
No violations or deviations were identified *
4
4.
Radiation Monitoring (84750)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.20l(b), thts ~rea was ins~ected to determine whethe~
the licensee was performing adequate surveys necessary to evaluate the
extent of radiation hazards.
During this inspection the inspectors determined that the liquid and
gaseous effluent monitoring program had received management attention.
One out of the four component cooling water. heat exchangers, and its
associated monitor, were replaced in 1989.
The remaining three were
scheduled for replacement during the next refueling outage for the
applicable units (see Paragraph 2). The installed radiation monitor was in
operational testing.
The licensee will rema.in in an Technical
Specification Action Statement for this item until this work is complete.
In January 1990, Surry established a special subcommittee to identify and
evaluate experiences and problems with their radiation monitoring system.
The final report, entitled "Radiation Monitoring System Subcommittee
Report," was issued on March 15, 1990.
The inspectors reviewed this
report and noted that the subcommittee examined many different aspects of
this program, including:
station deviations, licensee events reports,
engineering work requests, human factors, the design basis of the program,
technical specifications, INPO and NRC concerns, assessments of background
problems, isokinetic sampling and setpoint control.
The report listed 18
action items with scheduled completion dates.
Some of these items
included fully automating the sampling system on Ventilation Vent #2 so
that isokinetic sampling would be maintained without constant Operations
support; and installing a radiation monitor on Ventilation Vent #1.
The
report also listed nine proposed improvement items for further revi~w.
The inspectors considered the report thorough and extensive.
The inspectors also reviewed several Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Findings
relating to this area.
These findings included the component cooling
service water radiation monitor, and specifically addressed the root
causes for this monitor beina out of service for such a lona time.
The
audit covered the history of the inoperable monitor and ma~de generic
recommendations to changes in policy and procedures to prevent repeat
occurrences of long term i noperabi l i ty.
Several of these audits were .
conducted with an outside contractor providing input. The inspectors.also
reviewed a QA Audit Checklist covering the area of radiological
protection.
The implementation of the action items listed in the radiation monitoring
program study and the audit findings listed by the QA organization will be
followed by regional inspectors during subsequent inspections.
The
inspectors consider the increased visibility of the Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) organization and the management emphasis
placed upon the audit findings to be a licensee strength *
No violations or deviations were identified.
5
5.
Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.201(b) this area was inspected to verify the
licensee's ability to conduct precise and accurate measurements.
During this inspection, samples of reactor coolant and selected liquid and
gaseous process streams were collected and the resultant sample matrices
were analyzed for radionuclide concentrations using the licensee
I s
counting laboratory and the NRC Region II mobile laboratory gamma-ray
spectroscopy system.
The purpose of these comparative measurements was to
verify the licensee's capability to measure quantities of radionuclides
accurately in various plant systems.
Analyses were conducted utilizing
two of the licensee
I s i ntri ns i c germanium gamma spectroscopy systems.
Sample types and counting geometries included the following:
reactor
coolant, 100 milliliter cup; liquid waste, one-liter marinelli;
containment atmosphere, 33-cc gas bulb; and a charcoal cartridge. A spiked
particulate filter sample was provided for analysis in lieu of licensee
samples which did not have sufficient levels of radioactivity fer
analysis. Comparison of licensee and NRC results are listed in Attachment
1, Table 1 with the acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 2.
Except
for one case, the results were in agreement for all sample types analyzed.
The exception involved one disagreement with Detector #1 for the reactor
coolant sample.
The licensee recounted the reactor coolant sample twice
on Detector #1 and the results for the recounts were in aareement with NRC
results.
Also, it should be noted that the licensee's results for the
dilut~d reactor coolant sample were in agreement for Detector #1 for the
isotope in question {I-133) for the same geometry, indicating that this
disagreement was not indicative of a systematic problem in this area;
The inspectors observed the 1 i censee obtain the Unit #1 containment
atmosphere sample and one of the Unit #2 reactor coolant samples.
Proper
sampling techniques and health physics practices were observed.
The
inspectors reviewed selected portions of Procedure No. 1-PT-50.7, entitled
11Health Physics-Containment Atmosphere,
11 dated July 19, 1989.
The
portions reviewed were adequate for the intended purpose.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Post Accident Sampling System (84750)
NUREG-0737, Criterion 2a requires the 1 i censee to establish an ons i te
radiological analysis capability to provide quantification of noble gases,
iodines,* and non-violatile radionuclides in the reactor coolant and
containment atmosphere.
Pursuant to these requirements, the inspectors examined the Unit #2
Post-Accident Sampling System (PASS) for reactor coolant, gaseous
_____ effluents, and containment atmosphere.
The inspectors discussed PASS
operation and maintenance experience with licensee personnel.
During this
inspection the inspectors observed the licensee operate the PASS to obtain
a sample of Unit #2 hot leg reactor coolant.
This sample, and a Unit #2
6
reactor coolant sample obtained using nonaccident methodology were counted
by the licensee on their gamma spectroscopy systems.
.
Criterion 10 and Attachment No. 1 to the Generic Letter specifies that the
results of the gamma spectral measurements should be accurate within a
factor of two. The results of the licensee's analyses are summarized in
Attachment 1,. Table 2.
The licensee met this criteria for the PASS
sample.
Proper sampling techniques and health physics practices were
observed.
The inspectors reviewed Procedure No. 2-PT-38.48, entitled "High Radiation
Sampling System Operability Test and Operator Training," dated May 25,
1989. This procedure contained detailed guidance for the ~peration of the
PASS and it was followed by the licensee during the acquisition of the
PASS sample.
The procedure was adequate for the purpose stated.
The
inspectors determined that the licensee performed monthly PASS operability
tests per the aforementioned procedure.** The inspectors reviewed monthly
data sheets for April, 1989 to March, 1990, which summarized the
ana lyti cal results for these tests, and compared the PASS results to
reactor coolant sample results.
No violations or deviations were identifiedr
7.
Liquid Curie Reduction Program
The licensee is currently involved in a Liquid Curie Reduction Program.
The inspectors reviewed documentation and discussed this program with the
licensee and determined that this program included the building of a new
radwaste processing facility.
The facility had incorporated the latest
ALARA concepts and waste reduction technology and should be ready for cold
functional testing in late 1990.
The inspectors were given an extensive
tour of this building (still under construction) as part of this
inspection.
Corporate goals for the radwaste facility include:
the
reduction in the volume of radwaste shipped offsite; reduction in the
amount of radioactivity released to the environment; reduction in man-rem
to station personnel; the use of state of*the art technology; reliability;
and the use of an advanced control system for operation.
The facility
will have several radwaste processing systems, including: a liquid waste
system; a laundry drain system, a dry active waste system, a spent ion
exchange handling system, and an asphalt solidification system.
The
facility will also include a hot machine shop and a radiochemical hot
laboratory.
Other aspects of the Liquid Curie Reduction program included the use of
more retentive resins; the deve 1 opment of improved methods for the
regeneration of resin; and component cooling water heat exchanger
replacements.
Surry also had 50 percent implementation of a newly
developed resin separation process.
This system saved approximately
40,000 gallons of water a day from discharge during the regeneration of .
the condensate demineralizer resin.
Surry is in the process of the
developing a program to recycle the remaining 60,000 gallons of water used
daily in the regeneration process to a makeup system for reuse. Surry is
7
also in the process of replacing their sump pumps and seven out of twelve
pumps have already been replaced, with the last five scheduled in the next
quarter.
The inspectors will follow the progress of this program during
subsequent inspections, but consider the licensee
1s aggressive actions in
this direction to be a strength.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Chemistry Matrix (84750)
As part of this inspection the inspectors provided the licensees with a
l 1st of 23 subject areas that covered the elements of the chemistry
programs ~t Region II power reactors.
The licensee was asked to provide
brief responses to each applicable subject area, which then would be used
to provide information about the site in a Region-wide
11chemistry matrix.
11
The list of subject areas is included in this report as Atta~hment #3.
9.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on March 23, 1990, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors described the
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results as listed
in the summary.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
10.
Acronyms and Initialisms
ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable
cc - Cubic Centimeter
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
EWR - Engineering Work Request
GI - Gastrointestine
IFI - Inspector Followup Item
INPO - Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
LLI - Lower Large Intestine
mRem - millirem
NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PASS - Post-Accident Sampling System
TS - Technical Specification
ATTACHMENT 1
-
TA~LE 1
NRG-LICENSEE SAMPLE COMPARISON EVALUATIONS FOR
SURRY, MARCH 19-23, 1989
- Concentration (uCiLunitl
Ratio
Co!!!J:1a r i son
.§aml2.!_Q
lsotoi;>e
Licensee
NRG
ReJ?.QJ_ut ion
LicenseeLNRC
1 .
L. iqu id Waste
Test Tank, 1 Ii ter
I iqu id marine I I i
a. Detector #1
5.02 E-7
4. 75 + 0. 911 E-7
5
1. 06
Agreement
Cs-134
1. 27 E-6
1. 15 + 0. 11 E-6
10
1. 10
Agreement
2.81 E-6
2.74 + 0. 11~ E-6
20
1.02
Ag reernent
b. Detector #2
Co-160
5.40 E-7
4.75 +/- 0.94 E-7
5
Agreement
Cs-134
9. Bl~ E-7
1. 15 + 0. 11 E-6
10
0.86
Agreement
2.55 E-6
2.74 + 0. 14 E-6
20
0.93
Agreement
2. Unit #1 Radi11tion
Monitoring System (RMS)
Gas (containment.),
33 mil liter gas bulb
a. Detector #1
6.36 E-4
6.08 + 0. 10 E-4
61
1. 05
Agreement.
Xe-135
9.51 E-6
1. 10 + (). 11 E-5
10
0.86
Ag reernent
b. Detector #2
6. 15 E-4
6.08 + 0. 10 E-11
61
1.01
Agreement
Xe-135
1. 02 E-5
1. 10 + 0. 11 E-5
10
0.92
Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1
~BL~
- Concentration J uc i Lun it l
Ratio
gol!!Qa r i son
~~
lsoto12e
Licensee
NRC
Resolution
[Tcensee/NRC
3. Unit #1 RMS
Gas (containment),
cha rcoa I cartridge
a. Detector #1
1-131
2.95 E-4
2.44 + 0. 13 E-4
19
1. 21
Agreement
1-133
3.40 E-4
2.88 + 0.25 E-4
11
1. 18
Agreement
b. Detector #2
1-131
3. 18 E-4
2. lt4 + 0. 13 E-4
19
1.30
Agreement
1-133
3.24 E-4
2.88 + 0.25 E-4
11
1. 12
Agreement
4. rmc spiked
particulate r i I ter
a. Detector #1
3.28 E-2
3.60 + 0.05 E-2
72
1. 06
Agreement
1 .09 E-3
9.28 + 0.51 E-lt
18
1.17
Agreement
4.56 E-2
3. 8/t + o.oi, E-2
96
1.19
Agreement
b. Detector #2
3.63 E-2
3.60 + 0.05 E-2
72
1 . 01
Agreement
C0-57
1. 01 E-3
9.28 + 0.51 E-4
18
1. 09
Agreement
4.05 E-2
3. Bit + 0.04 E-2
96
1.05
Agreement
5. Unit #2 Reactor
Coolant Sample,
1. 0 mi 11 iters di luted to
100 mil liters
a. Detector #1
1-131
5.20 E-4
4.76 .+/- 2.20 E-4
2
1. 09
Agreement
1-132
1.25 E-2
1. 17 + 0. 10 E-2
12
1.07
Agreement
1-133
4.08 E-3
5.94 + 0. 36 E-3
17
0.69
Disagree
1-135
1. 17 E-2
1. 27 + 0. 18 E-2
7
0.92
Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE 1
- Concentration (uCiLunitl
Ratio
y..2.!!!2a r i son
fui_l!!tl!:1.
Licensee
!IRC
Resolution
LicenseeLNRC
b. Detector #2
1-131
5. 30 E-4
4.76 +/- 2.20 E-4
2
1 . 11
Agreement
1-132
1. 21 E-2
1. 17 + 0. 10 E-2
12
1. 03
Agreement
1-133
5. 16 E-3
5. 911 + 0.36 E-3
17
0.87
Agreement
1-135
1. 03 E-2
1. 27 + 0. 18 [-2
7
0.81
Agreement
5. (cont.) Hecount
of Unit #2 Reactor
Coolant Sample,
1. 0 mi I I i ters di I uted
to 100 mi I I i te rs
a. Detector #1
1-131
11. 88 E-4
11. 76 + 2.20 E-4
2
1. 03
Agreement
Hecounted
1-132
1 . 1 3 E-2
1. 17 + 0. 10 E-2
12
0.97
Agreement
at 11: 28 AM
1-133
5.91 E-3
5.94 + 0. 36 E-3
17
0.99
Ag recment
March 23, 1990 1-135
1. 24 E-2
1. 27 + 0. 18 E-2
7
0.98
Agreement
b. Detector #1
1-131
3.71 E-4
4.76 + 2.20 E-4
2
0.78
Agreement
Recounted cit
1-132
1. 28 E-2
1 . 17 + 0. 10 E-2
12
1. 09
Agreement
12: 1,1 PM
1-133
5.97 E-3
5. 911 + 0.36 E-3
17
1. 00
Ag reernent
March 23, 1990 1-135
1. 18 E-2
1. 27 + 0. 18 E-2
7
0.93
Agreement
6. Unit #2 Heactor
Coolant Sample,
0.024 mi I I i ters di I uted
to 100 mi I Ii te rs
a. Detector #1
1-133
4.96 E-3
11. 11 +/- 0.48 E-3
9
1. 21
Agreement
Detector #2
1-133
4. 35 E-3
4. 11 +/- 0.48 E-3
9
1. 06
Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE 2
LICENSEE PASS SAMPLE VERSUS REACTOR COOLANT SAMPLE
Sample
Unit #2 Reactor
coolant, 0.024
milliters diluted
to 100 milliters
Unit #2 hot leg
PASS ~ample, 0.024
milliters diluted
to 100 milliters
Concentration (uCi/unit)
Isotope
Detector #1
Detector #2
I-133
4.96 E-3
4.35 E-3
I-133
5.29 E-3
7.67 E-3
ATTACHMENT 2
CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
This attachment provides criteria for the comparison of results of analytical
radioactivity measurements.
These criteria are based on empirical
relationships which combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity
analyses, the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive
emission, and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the
II Comparison Ratio Li mi ts 111 denoting agreement or
.disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.
This variability
is a function of the ratio of the NRC 1 s analytical value relative to its
associated statistical and analytical uncertainty, referred to in this program
as
11 Resolution
112.
For comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee
1s analytical value and
the NRC
1 s analytical value is computed for each radionuclide present in a given
sample.
The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement
based on
11 Resolution.
11
The corresponding values for
11 Resolution
11 and the
11Comparison Ratio Limits
11 are listed in the Table below.
Ratio values which
are either above or below the
11Comparison Ratio Limits
11 are considered to be in
disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the
11Comparison Ratio
L imits
11 are considered to be in agreement.
TABLE
NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria
Resolution vs. Comparison Ratio Limits
Resolµtion
<4
4 - 7
8 - 15
16 - 50
51 - 200
>200
Comparison Ratio Limits
for Agreement
0.4 - 2.5
0.5 - 2.0
0.6 - 1.66
0. 75 - 1. 33
0.80 - 1.25
0.85 - 1.18
1Comparison Ratio= Licensee Value.
NRC Reference Value
2Resolution = NRC Reference Value
Associated Uncertainty
1.
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
ATTACHMENT *3
Concurrence with EPRI/S606 prt111ry and secondary ch1111ical quideltnes
Steam cycle cheatcal control proqru (Boric Acid, Aalonta, Hydrazine,
Morpholine, etc.)
Sludqe removal history (PVR only)
Hydroqen water chemtstry control (BWR only)
MIC problems tn raw water systtllS
Rx coolant B/Li control scheme (PWR)
Macrofoultnq tn raw water systems (cllllS, oysters, etc.)
Steam generator tubes
a.
integrity
b.
types of cracts/tndtcators and locattons
- c.
potential crevtces
d.
number of tubes p 1 uqqed
e.
S/G repai r/PN htstory (shot peeninq, heat treatllents, etc.)
9.
Erosion corroston aonitortnq/control ProcJr*
10. Control of cheaicals on plant site (f.e., hazardous orqanfcs fn radwaste
system - i.e., Hatch MOMAR tntrusion)
-
11. Pri111ry secondary leak rates (BWR)
1
- 12. Sulfate hideout return data (PVR)
13. Online cheafstry aon1tor1nq capabflfty
14. Condensate polisher operation and problems
15. Manaqeaent involvement and phtlosophtes toward cheatstry
16. Condenser tn-leakaqe history
17. Materials of construction tn secondary system (1.e., copper in FV heaters,
condenser tube 111tert1ls. etc.)
18. Procedure adequacy
19. Technician trafntnq adequacy
20. Heat exchanger ( raw water) performance
ATTACHMENT 3 (cont'd)
21. Coo11nq waters chen1ca1 treatment schemes (chl'Ollltes, 1110lybdates,
chlorides, d1spers1nts, surfactants)
22. Make-up water Quality
23. S/6 blowdown recycle capab111t1es
.*
ATIACHMENT 4
SURRY RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT SUMMARY
1987
1988
1989
--*
No. of Unplanned Releases
a.
Liquid
0
0
0
b.
Gaseous
0 .
0
0
Activity Released (curies)
a.
Liquid
1.
Fission and
5.17E+OO
2.41E+OO
4.05E+OO
Activation Products
2.
8.15E+02
4.94E+02
4.29E+02
3.
Gross Alpha
3.91E-05
8.00E-05
6.98E-06
b.
Gaseous
1.
Fission and
3.08E+02
3.66E+02
1. 37E+02
Activation Gases
2.
l.81E-02
9.58E-03
3.89E-04
3.
3.04E+Ol
2.79E+Ol
2.75E+Ol
4.
Particulate
2.84E-03
1.06E-02
l.99E-03
c.
Volume of Liquid
2.96E+08
2.58E+08
2.94E+09
Wastes Released
(prior to dilution)
(liters)
- '
.. *
ATTACHMENT 5
SURRY ANNUAL DOSE SUMMARY (mrem)
Li gu i ct*
Gaseous
Year
Total Bodi
Thiroid
GI-LU
Alpha
Beta
Th~roid
1989
2.30E-01
1.40E-03 3.05E-01
6.17E-02 1. 36E-01 8.90E-03
1988
9.79E-02
1.23E-02 4.14E-01
2.22E-01 5.28E-01 1.90E-01
1987
2.37E-02
3.07E-02 1. 54E-Ol
2.08E-01 5.14E-01 3.60E-01