ML18152A434
| ML18152A434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1991 |
| From: | Decker T, Seymour D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A435 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-91-02, 50-280-91-2, 50-281-91-02, 50-281-91-2, NUDOCS 9103120242 | |
| Download: ML18152A434 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1991002
Text
,.
UNITED STATE~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION.II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 .
FEB 12 1991
R~port Nos.: 50-280/91-02 and 50-281/91-02
Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company.*
Glen Allen, YA 23060
Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281
Li~ense Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37
Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
Inspection C~d1ucted: r/ nuary 14 through 18, 1991
Inspector: lt:J~a. ~---~------'*---------
D. A. Sey our
.
,
.
.
-
"~
- ,,' :
-
Approved by: \\_;<-/r:? ~LL~-1 h_.j__. *
r:-1r:*oecker, Chief
Scope:
Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section*
Radiological Protection*and Emergency
Preparedness Branch
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards*
SUMMARY
I
~//1 /9/
Date Signed
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological
envi ronmenta 1 monitoring, meteoro 1 ogi ca 1 monitoring, primary and secondary
system chemistry, radioactive gaseous effluent treatment systems, .and solid
radwaste management and transportation~
- *
Results: .
The violation concerning mod~fications to the ventilation system was reviewed
and was closed based on completion of short term and long term corrective
actions (Paragraph* 2).
The portions of the. radiological environmental monitoring program and the
meteorological monitoring program that* were r~viewed met regulatory
requirements (Paragraph 3).
I
Reactor Coolant System chemistry and secondary system chemistry parameters were
maintained well below Technical Specification and administrative limits. There
were not indications of significant* fuel leakage problems (Paragraph 5).
.
A review of records indicated that the radioactive gaseous effluent treatment
- systems had been adequately tested in accordance with Technical Specification
req~irements and that acceptance criteria had b~en met (Paragraph 7).
9103120242 910212
ADOCK 05000280
~
Based on a selective review of portions of the program, .it was determined that
the Solid Radwaste Management and Transpor~ati on Program *was adequately
implemented (Paragraph .8).
The licensee was in agreement with accepted NRC values for the samples they
received as part of the Confirmatory Measurement Program (Paragraph 9) .
.
- In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified .
~.
1.
Persons Contacted
Lfrensee Employees
REPORT DETAILS
- W. Benthall, Supervisor, licensing
- R. Bilgeu, Engineer, Licensing
P. Blount; Supervisor, Radiation Analysis
D. E~ickson, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- R. Garber, Technical Supervisor, Radiation Protection
A. Hall, System Engineer
- M. Kansler, Station Manager
L. King, Jr., .Chemistry Technician
- J. Maciejewski, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance
L. Morris, Superintendent, Radiologic~l Waste
. *J. Price, Assistant Station Manager
C. Putnam, Senior Staff Engineer
W. Slifer, Quality Spe(:ialist
- E. Smith Jr., Manager, Quality Assurance
- T. Sowers, Superintendent, Engineering
E. Swindell, Supervisor, Chemistry
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included.
engineers, mechanics, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- M. Branch, Acting Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Tingen, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
Acronyms and Initial isms used throughout *this report are listed in the last
paragraph.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspector Follow-up Items (92701)
(Closed) Violation 50-280/89-32-01, 50-281/89-32-01:
Modifications* to
Ventilation Systems Resulted in Inadequate Survey of Gaseous Effluents.
Back-pressure problems and general degradation of the auxiliary building
ventilation system had caused unmonitored leakage to the environment, and
had caused reverse fl ow out of 1 aboratory fume hoods into areas outside the
radiologically controlled area .
During the current inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's
progress in resolving this issue.
This review included a review of
records, and discussions with cognizant licensee personnel.
2
The* inspector determined that Ventilation-Vent 1 was placed back trite
.service as planned. The _inspector examined the instrument skid for
monitoring this release pathway, and discussed monitor performance with *the
licensee.
Based on this. selective review, the inspector determined that the licensee
had proceeded with the long term*corrective actions* for this item.* This
item is closed.
3..
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) and Meteorological
Monitoring Program (84750)
a.
Technical Specification (TS) 3.11.D *. 1.a specifies that the REMP be
conducted as specified in Table 4.9-3.
Table 4.9-3 specifies the
exposure pathway and/or sample, the numbers of samples and sample
locations, the sampling and collection frequency, and the type and
frequency of analysis.
The REMP provides measurements of radiation and
radioactive materials in those exposure pathways and for those_
.
radionuclides that lead to the highest ~otential radiation exposures of
the maximum exposed member of the public resulting from the station
- operation. * The REMP also verifies that radioactive materials and
levels of radiation in the environment are not higher than expected
based on effluent measurements and modeling of the exposure pathways.
Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector accompanied licensee
representatives during a portion of their regular collection of
week-long air samples from air sa~pling stations established for the
Surry site.* The inspector observed sample change methods and rioted
that good sampling handling pra~tices were used. * The licensee knew the
sampling route and locations and performed their tasks in a competent
.. and professional manner.
All sampling equipment was functioning
properly and appeared to be well-maintained.
Sample enclosures were
clean and- free of debris and extraneous material.
Collected samples
were clearly labeled as to sample type, sample on arid off times, air
flow rate, and sample volume.
Samples were to be shipped to the vendor
for analysis. The inspector also obsetved a water sample being taken,
and the locations of several thermoluminescent dosimeters.
The inspector discussed various aspects of the REMP with cognizant
licensee personnel, including sample collection and compositing of
liquid samples, and vegetation and milk sampling. The inspector also
reviewed *selected portions of procedure PT-50.13, titled Land Use -
Census, dated May 7, 1987.
This procedure detailed the steps necessary
- to perform a survey of the area surrounding Surry, and was adequate for
its intended purpose .
No violations or deviations were identified.
3
b.
Meteorological Monitofini Progta~
The inspector determined, through d-irect observation, discussions _with
- the 1 i censee, or the review of re.cords, the fo 11 owing: * Surry . had two
meteorological towers, a 150-foot primary tower, and a 30-foot backup
- tower. The primary tower had two sets of instrumentation located at
either the 35 or 150 foot levels. Wind speed, wind direction, wind
direction fluctuation (sigma theta), and delta temperature were locat~d
at both levels. Dew point and temperature instrumentation were also
located at the 35 foot l~vel. The backup tower had wind speed, wind*
direction and wind direction fluctuation instrumentation.located at the
30 foot level. The location of the towers was such that there would be
no interference with the flow of air.
.
.
The inspector verified by direct observation and by records review that
the meteorological. monitoring instrumentation* channels were operable
and maintained.
The inspector reviewed selected portions of
meteorological monitoring instrumentation channel calibration records
and procedures for: the wind speed and direction monitoring systems,
the ambient temperature and differential temperature monitoring system,
the met tower delta T loop calibration, the MRI tipping bucket
. calibration procedure, and the sigma theta loop calibration procedure ..
The inspector ~etermined, through conversations with lhe licensee, that.
the calibration of th~ various meteoiologi~~l instru~entation sensor~
were performed by personnel from the Air Quality Department, Corporate
Technical Assessment on a quarterly basis. The calibration of the
circuits and wirfng associated with these sensors was performed by.
Surry Instrumentation and Control technicians on an 18 month cycle.
Based on the scope of this review, the inspector determined that the
meteorological measurem*ent system was capable of fulfilling its *
required functions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Radiation Monitoring System (84750)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.201.(b), this area was inspected to determine whether
the licensee had a system sufficient to perform the surveys necessary to
adequately evaluate the extent of radiation hazards.
The inspector reviewed the progress the licensee had made in returning the
Waste Gas Holdup System Monitor to operability.
This monitor had been
inoperable since approximately 1984.
The licensee had made several .
attempts to bring this monitor online, but had encountered continuing
difficulties with calibration, sample flow, spurious alarms, and
maintenance of associated equipment.
Further delays were incurred because
a reevaluation determined that the monitor system should be safety related;
and a decision was made to include hydrogen monitoring capability.
4
Discussions with the licensee during the current inspection indicated that
this monitor was in service, but was . riot fully opera ti anal, and was
experiencing problems with electronic spiking that may have been assoctated
with the sample pump.
Also, apparently the instrument *was lacking a
circuit board that was integral for hydrogen monitoring capabilities. A
technical representative from the company that provided the monitor was due
to arrive onsite on January 23, 1991, to work. with the licensee.to resolve
these* prob 1 ems. The 1 i censee was proceeding with grab samples in the
interim. The operability of this moni.tor will be reviewed by regional
inspectors during subsequent inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5 .. Chemistry (84750)
a.
Diesel Fuel
TS 4.18.B.2.b specifies that the fire pump diesel engine shall be
demonstrated operable by ve*rifying, at once per 92 days, that a sample
of diesel fuel from the fuel storage tank is within the acceptable
limits specified in Table 1 of American Society for Testing and
Materials-0975-74 when checked for viscosity, water, and sediment. The*
objective of this surveillance is to verify that the fire protection
system will respond promptly and proper1y when require~.
Pursuant to these requirements,. the inspector reviewed a Chemistry Log
for the time frame covering October 26, 1990 through December 18, 1990.
- This log listed 35 shipments of diesel fuel oil, not all of which was
destined for the fire pump fuel oil tank. A review of this log
indicated that these shipments were within the 1 imi ts for the TS
required tests.
Discussions with the licensee indicated that upon arrival of a diesel
fuel shipment, prior to off-loading of the fuel, five tests are
performed to determine acceptance of the fuel.
These tests are the
three mentioned above; specific gravity and a "stick" test. The stick
test involves putting a sticky or pasty substance on the end of a stick
and checking for large pieces of sediment on the bottom of the oil. If
the fue 1 * meets the acceptance criteria for these tests the fue 1 is
accepted and is off-loaded into the appropriate tank. Prior to
off-loading an additional fuel sample is taken and sent to the Systems
Lab for further analysis.
These tests include flash point;. percent
ash, percent
carbon, copper strip corrosion test, distillation
temperature 90 percent point, cetane number, and cloud point. It takes
approximately one month for Surry to receive these results, although
discussions with the licensee indicated that this time may be lesseried
as a result of planned. changes in the system .
If the results for any of these tests fail to meet the specified
acceptance criteria, the litensee, following the generic requirements
of a Chemistry Administrative Procedure, would take a grab sample out
I
I
5
. of the appropriate ta~k (basically a compasite sample because of the
presence of fuel from other. shipments)* for retest. The licensee
indicated that there has*never been an example of a "composited
11 sample
failing to meet the acceptance criteria upon retest. Through
discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that if a
composited sample did fail to meet specified criteria upon retest, the
Chemistry Department would report the results with recommendations for*
appropriate actions to the Station Engineering group.
Through discussions with the 1 i censee, the inspector deterrili ned that
these tests were performed on all diesel fuel received by the station;
and that_ the 92. day check on the diesel fuel was performed for the
foll owing tanks: ab*ove ground storage tank, underground emergency
diesel generator fuel oil tank, diesel generator day tanks, fire pump
-fuel oil tank, warehouse fire*pump tank, low-level storage*tank,
security diesel tank, and Independent Spent F1,1el Storage Installation
diesel ta~k. The inspector also briefly reviewed applicable portions of
the Vi rgi ni a Power Nuclear Operations Nuclear Pl ant Chemistry Manual
and several procedures associated with this area.
Based on the scope of this review, the inspector determined that TS
. requirements were being met with regard to diesel fuel testing .
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Reactor Coolant Chemistry (84750)
..
TS 3.1.D specifies the maximum concentration of radioactive iodine in
tne reactor coolant in terms of Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 (DEI). This
parame_ter is related to fuel integrity.
Pursuant. to these requirements, the inspector discussed fuel integrity
and DEI with the licensee, and reviewed chemistry logs, and graphs
generated . by the 1 i censee for the purpose of tracking this parameter
and i den ti fyi ng trends.
The inspector determined that DEI as of
- January 18, 1991, was 1.38 E:-02 microcuries per milliliter (uCi/ml) for
Unit 1, and 4.39 E-03 uCi/ml for Unit 2.
Two defective fuel rods were
removed from Unit 1 during the last outage. The licensee indicated that
there were no leakers in either unit as of January 18, 1991..
The inspector determined that the paramete~s were maintained well below
TS 1 imits.
No violations or deviations were-identified.
c. Secondary System Chemistry *
The inspector also reviewed secondary chemistry parameters, including
the review of chemistry logs and graphs generated by the licensee for
the purpose of tracking these parameters and identifying trends. The
maintenance of these parameters within specifications helps ensure the
- ,
.
6
material integrity of secondary system components. Action Levels (AL)
are instituted to provide chemistry control and prevent . 1 ong term
operation at a less than optimum conditioris with respect to material
integrity.
When the first AL is exceeded the parameter has to be
brought back into specifications within one week, or reactor power must
be reduced.
. Steam generator (SG) sodium levels can be an indicator of contaminant
ingress, and in high enough levels, cause *stress corrosion crackirig of
Inconel. The first Action Level (AL) for sodium was greater than. *
20 parts per billion {ppb) for power operation. Typical values for
sodium for the six SGs (for both units) fo_r 1990 was *approximately
. 1 ppb, with occasional spikes to approximately 10 ppb.
The presence *of sulfates in the SGs can-be caused by the degradation of
resin, or by the ingress of the regenerative acid associated with the
resin beds. The presence of sulfate will effect cation.conductivity,
and can promote the growth of magnetite. The first AL for sulfates was
greater than 20 ppb for power operation. *. Typical values for sulfates
. for the six steam generators for 1990 w~s approximately .2 ppb.
SG cation conductivity is an importan*t secondary chemistry parameter
bec~use it is an indication of the ingress of.anionic impurities which
can lead* to aggressive metal attack.
The first AL for cation.
conductivity was greater than 0.8 microSiemens per centimeter (uS/cm)
for power operation: Typical values for cation conductivity for the six
steam generators for 1990 were approximately 0.1 uS/cm, with occasional
spikes to ~3 uS/cm.
The measured cation conductivity *corresponded
closely with calculated values (based on presence of organics, etc.)'.
Condensate pump discharge dissolved_ oxygen is controlled because of the
corrosive nature of oxygen and oxide reaction products.* The first AL
for this parameter was set at greater than 10 ppb for power operation.
Typical_ values for this parameter for 1990 were approximately 5 ppb for
both units. The inline sample results* and the grab sample results
corresponded closely.*
Condensate cation conductivity indicates anionic impurity ingress, and
allows detection of condenser i*nleakage.
The first AL for this
parameter was greater than 0.2 uS/cm for power operation.
Typical
values for this parameter for 1990 were approximately 0.07*uS/cm for
Unit 1, and approximately 0.10 uS/cm for Unit 2. Unit 2 had experienced
condenser leaks, which were indicated on the graphs.
Main steam cation conductivity also is a measure of anionic impurity
ingress. The first action level was greater than 0.3 mS/cm for power
operation. Typical values for this parameter for 1990 were
approximately 0.06 uS/cm (daily average) for both .units .
7
Based'on this review, the inspector determined that the licensee had a
program to monitor and trend their secondary chemistry parameters, and
in general maintained these parameters within ad~inistrative limits.
No violations or deviations were identified~*
6.
Radwaste Building (84750)
. i
During this inspection, the inspectot was given a tour of the radwaste
processing facility that is currently being built.
This facility was
discussed previously in Inspection Report 90-13, Paragraph 7.
The lice~see
estimated that the facility was greater than .95 percent complete.
The
i-nspector took the tour, and discussed facility operations, and the.
scheduling of preoperational testing as a precursor to a preoperational
inspection that will be perfo*rmed by regional inspectors.
Hot testing of
this .facility is scheduled for April 1991.
No violations or deviatiorts were identified.
7.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Treatment System and Main Control Room
Emergency Ventilation (84750)
TS 3.19.A requires a bottled dry air bank be available to pressuriie the
main control *room to a minimum positive differential pressure of 0.05
inches of water, with respect to adjoining areas, for one hour. TS Table
4.1-2.A lists the surveillance frequency for this test as being condticted
during each refueling interval, approximately every 12 to 18 months.
The
control room ventilation system is required to maintain the main control
room at a positive pressure using bottled air following a design basis loss
of coolant accident, in order to prevent contamination from containment.
.
.
Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector discussed the results-of thi~
test with cognizant licensee personnel, and reviewed selected portions of
.the procedure_ and results for this test, whkh was performed on
November 29, 1990.
Based on this review, the inspector determined that the
test was performed as required and the surveillance criteria for
acceptability were met.
TS 4.12.A lists the tests and test frequencies for the-Auxiliary_
Ventilation Exhaust Filter Trains. TS 4.20.A lists the tests and test
frequencies for th~ control room air filt~ation sjstem. These filter*trains
consist of roughing filters, high efficiency particulate absolute (HEPA)
filters, and charcoal absorbers. These tests verify that leakage efficiency
and iodine removal efficiency are within acceptable limits. This
safety-related systems would remove particulates and gaseous iodine
~allowing a loss of coolant accident or a refueling accident.
Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector discussed system maintenance
and operability with cognizant licensee personnel, and reviewed test
- results for these systems. This review included:
.
8
- TS 4.12.A.1 reqoires that each redun<lant train circuit shall be operated
every month if it has not al ready been in opera ti on.
The inspector .
reviewed selected portions of PT,-32.1, titled Auxi.liary Ventilation Filter
Train Test, dated October 9, 1990, whith listed the resultt fof this test
on install at ions FI-VS-117A and *117s, and for FI-VS-58A and 58B for January
1990 through December 1990.
TS 4.12.B.7 requires laboratory analysis of in-place charcoal samples.
The
inspector review~d seletted portions of-PT-32.8B, titled Charcoal Filter
Test Analysis, dated January 3, 1989, which listed the results fort.his
test on l-VS.-FL-3B (auxiliary ventilation charcoal). The charcoal *was
sampled on October 18, 1990. * The date the analysis was received was
November 18, 1990, within 31 days as required. The sample failed the methyl
iodide penetration test, as only 94.BE percent methyl iodide was removed,
as compared to the required 96 percent. The inspector noted that the
fil_ters were changed on November 20, 1990, as required.
TS 4.12.A.8 specifies tha.t laboratory analysis on in-place* charcoal samples
shall be performed after 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of system operation.
The inspector
.reviewed selected portions of PT-32-8A, titled HEPA and Charcoal Filter
Test After 720 Hours of Operation, dated May 16, 1989.
This test is
performed after 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of operation, after a refueling cycle, upon
receipt of a .new batch of charcoal, followin~ painting, and follbwing a
fire or chemical release. The inspector r~viewed the results of this test
for filter 1-VS-FL-3A and for 3B, dated October 18, 1990, and December 11,
1990. The test results were satisfactory ..
The inspector also reviewed, and d1scussed with the licensee; _other
pr6cedures ahd test results for these systems. Based on the .scope ~f this
review, the operation of these systems appear to be iri conformance with
requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified .
. 8.
Transportation of Radwaste (86750)
10 CFR 20.311(b) requires that each shipment of radioactive waste to a
licensed disposal facility be accompanied by a shipment manifest and
specifies required entries on the manifests.
Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector reviewed selected records of
radioactive shipments completed during 1990, and verified that the
manifests had been properly completed.
As part of this inspection, the inspector also observed the performance of
surveys and the loading of a Low Specific Activity waste shipment on
_January 17, 1991. The shipment was surveyed, the boxes labeled, ins*pected
by a Quality Control inspector, loaded, and the vehicle placarded in
accordance with st~tion procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9
9.
Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
-
As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples
were sent on October 10, 1990 to Surry for select~d radiochemical analyses.
The NRC received the analytical results from Virginia Electric and Power
Company in a letter dated December 10, 1990.
Th~ comparison of licensee
results to known va 1 ues are presented in Attachment 1. The acceptance
criteria for the comparisons are presented in Attachment 2.
The results
were all in agreement.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Exit Interview
The inspection s~ope and results were summarized on January 18, 1991, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector 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.
11. Acronyms and Initialisms
CFR
DEI
ppb
TS
uCi/ml
uS/cm
Action Limit
Code of Federal Regulations
Dose Equivalent Iodine-131
High Efficiency Particulate Absolute
part per bi 11 ion
Periodic Test
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
Radiation Monitoring System
Technical Specification
microCuries per milliliter
microSiemens per centimeter
Isotope
Sr-89
NRC
ATTACHMENT 1
CONFIRMATORY ~EASUREMENT COMPARISONS FO~
SURRY NUCLEAR PQWER PLANT
Licensee
Resolution
Ratio.
(uCi/ml)
(uCi /ml)
(Licensee/NRG)
6.38 + 0.26 E~5 *
5.9 E-5
25
0.93
3.75 + 0.15 E-5
4 .. 2 E-5
25
- 1.12
9.17 + 0.37 E-5
8.4E-5
24 .
0.92
2.17 + 0.09 E-6
-
.
2.0 E-6
25
1.12
Comparison
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
ATTACHMENT 2
CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
This attachment provides criteria for the comparison of results of ~nalytital
radioactivity measurements.
These criteria are based on empirical
relationships wtiich combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity
analyses, the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive
emission, and the accuracy need~ of this program._
In these criteria, the "Comparison Ratio Limits" 1 denoting agreement or
disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.
This variability
is a function of the ratio of the NRC 1s analytical value relative to its
associated statistical and analytical uncertainty, referred to in this program
as
11Resolution
11 2.
For comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and
the NRC
1s analytical value is co~puted for each radionuclide present in a given
sample.
The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement
based on "Resolution."
The corresponding values for
11Resolution
11 and the
11Comparison Ratio Limits" are listed in the Table below.
Ratio values which
are either above or below the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in
disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the
11Comparison Ratio
Limits
11 are considered to be in agreement.
TABLE
- NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria
Resolution vs. Comparison Ratio Limits
Resolution
<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