IR 05000338/1992027
| ML20127D541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1992 |
| From: | Robert Carrion, Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127D540 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-92-27, 50-339-92-27, NUDOCS 9301150275 | |
| Download: ML20127D541 (13) | |
Text
, - , . . - . . ~ ~ - - . .- . -- .- _ .-,
-'
880ug UNIT ED ST ATES f NUCLEAR HEGULATORY c0MMISslOM
, ' &+f .
--
- o REGION H:
- {I $ 101 MARIETTA aTHEET. * ATL ANTA;oEORGI A 30323
't 9 yd DEC 171992 Report Nos : 50-338/92-27 and S0-339/92 27 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company *
Glen' Allen, Virginia 23060 Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NPF-7 facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2 .,
Inspection Conducted: November 16-20, 1992 h9 r ~
Inspector: bFr+% )2 hrc 92 ~
~ R.'P. Carrion, Radiation Specialist ~Date Signed ,
Approved by: \ $ # / O2 T. R.. Decker, Chief .- .
Date Signeif Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection ar' Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Sa;_ y and Safeguards
&
SUMMARY Scope:
This was a routine, unannounced inspection in the-areas of the'arganization of
. the Chemistry Department and the units responsible for handling and shipping-of radioactive material; primary plant water chemistry; confirmatory-measurements of non-radiological samples; the Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report; the radiological environmental monitoring program'(REMP); contaminated
-
s' oil on site; the Control Room Emergency _ Ventilation System; processing and-
.
shipping of radiological materials; records- for decommissioning planning; and '
Information Notice (IN) 92-3 Results:
The licensee's organization of its Chemistry Department. and radioactive material processing and shipping units satisfied Technical Specification _(TS) -
and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) requirement (Paragraph 2)
The licensee's Plant Water Chemistry was maintained well within the TS requirements; (Paragraph 3)
With' the exception-of sulfate analysis, the 1itensee performed satisfactorily; on the Non-Radiological Water Chemistry Standards prepared by the Oak Ridg National Laboratory (ORNL). (Paragraph 4)
9301150275 921217 PDR ADOCK 05000338 G PDR
. . -. - -- - . _ _ _
~
-
.
,
'
.
,
For the first half of 1992, North Anna liquid, gaseous,- and particulate effluents were maintained well within TS,- 10 CFR 20, and 10 CFR 50 effluent-limitation (Paragraph 5)
The' licensee had effective programs in place to monitor releases of radiological effluents. Plant operations caused minimum impact to the environment and virtually no dose to the general public from those effluent (Paragraph 6)
The licensee did not have a problem with contaminated soil on sit (Paragraph 7)
The licensee had implemented a good program to maintain its control room emergency ventilation system within TS requirements. (Paragraph 8)
The licensee had good programs in place for the handling and shipping of '
radioactive material and they were effectively implemented. (Paragraph 9)
The licensee was developing a procedure to include relevant decommissioning planning information, as required by the CFR. (Paragraph 10)
The licensee had reviewed Information Notice 92-34 and determined that no action was required for North Anna. (Paragraph 11)
,
.
-,-
_ _ ._ - -_ _ _ . _ _ .
'
.
..
.
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. B. Breeden, Supervisor, Radiological Analysis S. Bykowski, Senior Engineer, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
- E. W. Dreyer, Supervisor, Radiation Protection T. G. Johnson, Supervisor, Radioactive Material Control
- G. E. Kane, Station Manager
- P. A. Kemp, Supervisor, Licensing
- J. R. Lamberson, Supervisor, Chemistry
- J. H. Leberstein, Staff Engineer, Licensing
, *J. P. Smith, Manager, Quality Assurance
- A. H. Stafford, Superintendent of Radiation Protection
- J. A. Stall, Assistant Station Manager
- W. A. Thornton, Director, Chemistry and Health Physics Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, technicians, and administrative personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- S. Lesser, Senior Resident inspector D. Taylor, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview l- Acronyms and Initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the-last~ paragrap _ Organization (84750 and 86750)
Technical Specification (TS) 6.2 describes the licensee's onsite- and offsite organizatio i The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization, staffing levels, and l
lines of_ authority as they related.to the Chemistry Department, o Radioactive Material Control Unit, and the Decontamination Waste Unit to verify compliance with the TS and Updated Final Safety: Analysis Report
-
(UFSAR) requirements and to assure that adequate control of radioactive material to prevent / mitigate radiation exposures to the general public j' and plant personnel was maintaine The inspector interviewed the. Superintendent of Radiological Protection, who reported directly to the Station Manager and whose _ organization included five departments: Health Physics (HP) Operations; HP Technical Services; Nuclear Chemistry; Radiation Engineering; and Radwaste HP'
-Operations. Units responsible for the handling and-shipping of radiological materials were divided between Radwaste HP Operations and HP Technical Services, with packaging activities being the responsibility of Radwaste HP-Operations and shipning being the responsibility of
'
.
-- . - . -
,
.
.. .
"
.
=
. HP Technical Service There was technically one vacancy for a technician in the-unit responsible for the packaging of radioactive material. However, that position was to be phased out as of January 1, 1993. There were no. vacancies in the unit responsible for shipping 'i radioactive material nor in the Nuclear Chemistry Departmen The inspector concluded that TS and UFSAR requirements had been :l satisfie ! Plant Water Chemistry (84750) j l
During this inspection, Unit I was at the end of its ninth fuel cycle, :
producing less than 60 percent power and " coasting down" to-a scheduled January 4,1993 outage during which the reactor will be refuelea and the steam generators replaced; Unit 2 was also in its ninth fuel cycle and producing power at 100 percen TS 3.4.7 specifies that the concentrations of dissolved oxygen (D0),
chloride, and fluoride in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) be maintained below 0.10 parts per million-(ppm), 0.15 ppm, and 0.15 ppm, respectively, during steady state operation. TS 3.4.8 specifies that the specific activity of the primary coolant be limited to less than or equal .to 1.0 microcuries/ gram (uCi/g) dose equivalent iooine (DEI). These parameters are related to corrosion resistance and fuel integrity. -The oxygen parameter is based on maintaining levels sufficiently low to prevent general and localized corrosion. The chloride and fluoride parameters are based on providing protection from halide-stress corrosion. The specific activity parameter is based on minimizing personnel radiation exposure during operation and maintenanc Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector reviewed daily summaries for both units which correlated reactor power output- to chlori _de, fluoride, and D0 concentrations, and specific activity of the reactor coolant for the period of October 23, 1992- through November 19, 1992 and determined that the parameters were maintained well below TS limit Typical values for D0, c'loride, n and fluoride were less than five parts per billion (ppb), three ppb, and less than one ppb, respectively, for both units. Typical DEI values at steady-state conditions ranged from 8.25E-3 uCi/g to 6.11E-3 uCi/g for Unit 1 and from 8.26E-3 uC1/g to-7.23E-3 uti/g for Unit Since its last refueling, Unit 2 had shown no evidence of leaking fue The inspector concluded that the Plant Water Chemistry was maintained well within the TS requirement No violations or deviations were identifie . Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
In an effort to evaluate the licensee's analytical capabilities, Non-Radiological Water Chemistry Standards were prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and presented to the licensee for analysis,
- _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _
.
.
The matrix of samples to be analyzed was determined by those analyses routinely performed by the licensee. The licensee was also provided with an opportunity for the splitting of samples of feedwater between the licensee's laboratory and ORNL. The split samples were sent off to ORNL for analysis and compariso Upon compilation of the sample analyses by ORNL, the complete results of all participants as well as statistical data will be made available to all of the licensees that submitted analytical result The results of those samples which the licensee analyzed are included in the table of Attachment 1. The inspector noted that none of the results obtained by the licensee for the sulfate anions were within three standard deviations of the value determined by ORNL. The licensee was planning to review its procedures for sulfate analysi Also, the inspector noted that the analysis of the low-concentration hydrazine sample did not agree with the ORNL resul No violations or deviations were identifie . Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (84750)
TS 6.9.1.9 requires the licensee to submit a Semiannual Radiological Effluent Release Report within specified time periods covering the operation of the facility during the previous six months of operatio The inspector reviewed the semiannual radioactive effluent release report for the first half of 1992, issued August 26, 1992. This review included an examination of the liquid and gaseous effluent results for the first half of 1992 as compared to those of full years 1990 and 1991. The data are summarized belo North Anna Units 1 and 2 Radioactive Effluent Summary 1990 1991 1992*
Unplanned Releases a. Liquid 0 0 0 b. Gas 0 0 0 Activity Released (Curies)
a. Gaseous 1. Fission and 9.53E+2 2.24E+3 1.03E+3 Activation Gases 2. Iodines 6.31E-3 2.55E-3 1.33E-2 3. Particulates 5.95E-4 1.46E-4 7.65E-5 4. Tritium 3.10E+1 4.90E+1 2.23E+1
,
.
.
.
t i 4
!
i b. Liquid I
1. Fission and 6.74E-1 3.20E-1 1.14E-1 Activation Gases 2. Tritium 1.67E+3 1.16E+3 2.74E+2 3. Gross Alpha < LLD 2.18E-4 < LLD c. Volume of Liquid Wastes Released 3.62E48 3.17E+8 1.09E+8 Prior to Dilution (liters)
- First half of 1992 only -
A comparison of the listed data for 1990, 1991, and the first half of 1992 showed no significant change For the first half af 1992, North Anna liquid, gaseous, and particulate effluents were aaintained well within TS,10 CFR 20, and 10 CFR 50 effluent limitation The report also included the results of solid radwaste shipments. The following table summarizes those shipments for the previous two and a half years. The shipments typically included spent resins, filter ,
sludges, dry compressible waste, and contaminated equipmen North Anna Solid Radwaste Shipments 1990 1991 1992*
Volume (cubic meters) 21 .6 15 _
Activity (curies) 72 .2 9 *First half of 1992 only For solid radwaste, no significant changes were noted for the period reviewe Changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) were incorporated during this reporting period to reflect the correction of two equations used by the licensee to calculate doses due to liquid effluents, as well as, two other minor discrepancies. (Refer to Inspection Reports 50-338, 339/92-05, Paragraph 6.) Additional minor editorial changes were also incorporate No major modifications to the Radwaste System were identified during the reporting perio _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
The inspector concluded that the Semiannual Radioactive Ef fluent Release Report was complete and satisfied TS requirement No violations or deviations were identifie . Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) (84750)
'S 6.8.4.f specifies that the licensee shall conduct a REMP to monitor radiation and radionuclides in the environs of the plant and defines how the program shall be conducted. The REMP shall provide representative measurements of radioactivity in the highest potential exposure pathways and verification of the accuracy of the effluent monitoring program and modeling of environmental exposure pathways. Accumulation of -
radioactivity in the environment can thereby be measured and trends assessed; to determine whether the radioactivity resulted from plant operations, to project the potential dose to off-site populations based on the cumulative measurements of any plant-originated radioactivity, and to detect unanticipated pathways for the transport of radionuclides through the environment, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report TS 6.9.1.8 requires that the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report be submitted prior to May 1 of the following yea It also includes format and content requirements for the repor The inspector reviewed the report for calendar year 1991 to verify compliance with the TSs. The report had been submitted in compliance with TS 6.9.1.8 on April 20 1492, and the format and j contents were as prescribed by the TS. Th< inspectors determined that the report was in compliance with thc TSs.
'
The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1991. Analytical results were divided into five categories based on exposure pathways: Airborno, waterborne, aquatic, ingestion, and direct radiatio Each of the pathways was described as follows:
-
The airborne exposure included airborne iodine, airborne particulate, precipitation, and soil samples. No fission products or other man-made isotcpes in the airborne particulate media were detected in 199 Overall,1991 airborne results were very similar to those of previous years and preoperational l evel s .
-
The waterborne exposure pathway included ground /well water, river water, and surface water samples. No man-made or natural isotopes were detected in Lake Anna surface water, except for tritium. The average tritium activity in 1991 was 11.6% of the NRC reporting limit, which was similar to that of 1989 and 1990, and represented an increase from preoperational level The aquatic exposure pathway included sediment / silt and
,
_ . . . . . .
. . - -_ _
- _ . .. . -.
a
'
,
.
shoreline samples. During the preoperational period, cesium-137 had been detected in sediment. Additional man-made isotopes appear to have accumulated since that period in the form of traces of cobalt-60, cesium-134, and cesium-13 Although shoreline soil contained no detectable cesium- 134, cesium-137 concentrations had shown an increase from 378 pCi/kg in 1989 to 502 pCi/kg in 199 The ingestion exposure pathway included milk, fish, and food / vegetation samples. Neither iodine-131 nor cesium-137 were detected in any 1991 milk sample. Strontium-90 was detected at concentrations comparable to those of 1989, lower than those of preoperational years. Naturally-occurring potassium-40 was detected at normal environmental levels. Fish samples contained cesium-137 at a slightly higher concentration than during preoperational years. Vegetation samples yielded concentrations of radioisotopes which were similar to those of the control sampling stations and of tin preoperational perio The direct radiation exposure pathway measured environmental exposure by use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). TLD results for 1991 remained consistent with those of previous years, i.e. essentially unchanged since' the preoperational perio The radiological environmental data. indicated that plant operations had no significant impact on the environment or public health and-safety. The maximum radiation dose from airborne, waterborne, aquatic, ingestion, or direct exposure pathways attributed to plant operations in 1991 to any off-site member of_ the public was 1.016 millirem. (Fer reference, this dose may.be compared to-the average annual dose to every person in the United States from natural and man-made sources of. 360 millirem.) Comparison of Results of Commonwealth of Virginia vs North Anna The Virginia Department of Health entered into a contractuil agreement with the NRC to perform independent environmental rampling and radiological analyses of samples at designated locations around nuclear facilities licensed by the NRC within.the state, including
_
! North Anna. The principal objective of the contract'is to provide reasonable assurance that environmental measurements made by NRC licensees-are vali To this end,'the Commonwealth of Virginia:
-
Detects and measures radioactive releases during routine plant operatio Detects and measures radioactive releases during abnormal operation event .
.
-l
.- .
.
!
'
-
Measures reconcentration of radioactive effluents in the environment, especially in human exposure pathway i
-
Provides an independent means of verification of release report These objectives are achieved through continuous sampling of air and ambient radiation, as well as, periodic sampling of-water, milk, ,
vegetation, fish, et The inspector compared severa. air particulate, air cartridge, milk, fish, and surface water (for tritium and gamma isotopics) results as reported by the licensee to those listed in the " Environmental Radiation Program,-1991 Comparative Report," submitted by the
-
Virginia Department- of Health, Bureau of Radiologi. cal Health. The results compared favorably. The inspector discussed the comparison with the Superintendent of Radiological Protection and the Supervisor of HP Technical Service Observation of Sample Collection The inspector reviewed Procedure No. HP-3051.10, Rev. 1,
" Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," and accompanie team of technicians on their normal weekly rounds to-collect samples to observe collection technique and to check the physical condition
-
and operability of the sampling stations. Samples were taken at four indicator stations, including: #1, #1A, #21, and #22, which included various combinations of media (air- or water, plus a TLD).
Some of the stations were co-located with sampling stations of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The air sampling ' stations were located well above ground level, on poles or on _ roofs of buildings, to
'
assure that there would_be_no in_terference from tall
-
weeds / vegetation in taking representative-samples. The' inspector noted that all of the sampling units were well maintained and operating. Also, the TLDs were properly located and there was no-evidence of vandalism. The technicians used good HP-techniques to avoid sample contamination and conducted their work in an efficient, competent manne NRC TLDs were-observed at Station #2 The inspector concluded that the licensee had effective programs in place to monitor releases of radiological effluent Plant operations caused minimum impact to the environment and virtually no dose to the general public from those effluent No violations or deviations were identified, l
l l
l-
!
,
p-r n - -
'
l .
.
8 Contaminated Soil OnSite (84750)
The inspector discussed the issue of contaminated soil with the Radiation Protection Supervisor to determine onsite quantities, activity levels and associated isotopic characterization, contamination sources, and plans for dealing with i The inspector was informed that there was no contaminated soil onsite at this time. Furthermore, he said that the REMP provides for soil samples to be taken and analyzed from onsite locations once each three years to assure that no accumulations of radioactive have occurred during the period. The inspector later confirmed the requirement in Procedure No. HP-3051.10, Rev.1, " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program."
The inspector concluded that the licensee did not have a problem with contaminated soil on sit . Control Room Emergency ventilation System (84750)
Per 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 19, licensees shall assure that adequate radiation protection be provided to permit access to and occupancy of the control room under accident conditions and for the duration of the accident. Specifically, operability of the control room emergency ventilation system ensures that 1) the ambient air temperature does not exceed the allowable temperature for continuous duty rating for the equipment and instrumeatation cooled by this system and 2) the control room remains habitable for operations personnel during and follow'.ng all credible accident conditions such that the radiation exposure to personnel occupying the control room is limited to 5 rem or less whole body, or its equivalen TS 3.7.7.1 defines operability requirements for the control room emergency air cleanup systems under the various design scenario TSs 4.7.7.1, 4.7.7.2, and 4.7.7.3 set the surveillance requirements for the syste The inspector reviewed the latest test results for High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter and carbon adsorption testing of both Unit 1 system trains,1-HV-FL-8 and 1-HV-FL-9, to verify compliance with TS requirement The tests were conducted in October, 1991 and the filters satisfied their respective acceptoce criteri The inspector reviewed " Ventilation & Air Conditioning - Service Building," Sheets 3, 4, and 5 (Drawing Nos. 11715-FB-24C-20, 11715-FB-240-15, and ll715-FB-24E-14, respectively). These drawings showed the general layout of the components of the Control Room Emergency Air Conditioning System. The inspector walked down the system, from the air intake to the control room, to air exhaust. The major components, such as isolation dampers, filter banks, and fans as well as detectors for radiation, etc., were properly labelled as indicated on the drawing All components were well maintained, with no sign of physical degradation. The inspector reviewed the System Description and the l
l
- - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - _ - . . .
. . - _ _ _ _. .
.-
.
..
.
.
Operating Procedure (0-0P-21.7, " Main Control Room and Relay Room Emergency Ventilation Operation," Rev. 3) and discussed system operation under both normal and emergency conditions with the System Engineer, r
The inspector concluded that the licensee had implemented a good program to maintain its control room emergency ventilation system within TS -
requirement .,
No violations or deviations were identifie . Radwaste Processing and Trasportation (86750)
10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that each licensee who transfers-licensed material outside of the confines of its plant or other place of use, or who delivers licensed material to a carrier for transport, shall comply '
with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR, Parts 170-through 18 Pursuant to these requirements, the inspector reviewed the licensee's activities affiliated with these requirements to determine whether the -
licensee effectively processes, packages, stores, and ships radioactive solid material The licensee's program for the processing (including separation and compaction) and packaging of radioactive materials, including solid radwaste, was conducted by the Decontamination Unit within the Radwaste HP Department. The licensee's program for the transportation of-radioactive material was conducted by the Radioactive Material Control Unit within the HP Technical Services. Unit and was responsible for loading shipments and preparing shipping documentation, Radwaste Shipping Documentation The inspector reviewed shipping logs for 1992. The licensee !
classified shipments into three categories: Radiological Material Receipts; Radiological Material Shipments; and Radwaste -Shipments, which were further identified as shipments to the disposal facility, Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (SEG), and Quadrex. Radiological Material Receipts included items such as decontaminated outage and-refueling equipment, empty Sea-Land containers, and laundered protective clothing and modesty garments. Radiological Material *
Shipments included items such as contaminated outage equipment, radioactive material samples, and laundry. Radwaste Shipments included radioactive material ultimately destined for disposal. The logs showed that for the 1992 calendar year to date (November 19, 1992),. there' had been 119 Radiological Material Receipts, 126 Radiological Material Shipments, and 37 Radwaste Shipments (18 directly to the disposal facility and 19 to SEG). The inspector reviewed two Radwaste Shipment documentation packages, 9217 and 9218, two Radioactive Material Shipment documentation packages, 92-RMS-123 and 92-RMS-126, and one Radioactive Material Receipt
_ .. _. ._ . _ . . __ __ _ __ _ , . _ - _ _
,
l
-
-
.
.
-10 ,
documentation package, 92-RMR-ll7, for completeness and compliance with the' regulations. The packags documented the shipments and included items such as unique shi} t and shipping container numbers, waste content and volume,
_
.a1 activity, analytical summary and breakdown of isotopes with a half-life greater than five years. The radiation and contamination survey results were within the limits specified and the shipping documents were being maintained as required, Certificate of Compliance (C of C)
10 CFR 71.12 requires, in part, that-a licensee must transport licensed material "in a package for which a-license, certificate-of '
Compliance, or other approval has been -issues by the NRC." ShipmentL 92-SEG-19 was prepared for transport during the current inspection and required the use of a cask, No. USA /9176/ The inspector requested the C of C for_ the cask to verify compliance with the regulations. It was promptly provided to the inspector who noted_that the documentation was in order, listing such items as the
.
maximum quantity, as well as type and form of material permitted to-be transported by the cask. The C of C had originally been: signed by Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) on June 15, 1988 and was due to expire on May 31, 199 Information Notice (IN) 92-62 The inspector discussed _IN 92-62, " Emergency Response Information Requirements For Radioactive _ Material Shipments," with cognizant licensee personnel to be sure that the licensee had: received it an that the staff was aware of it and its implications. The IN emphasizes that all emergency response information required by-Department of Transportation (D0T) regulations must be. accurately
'
provided on shipment papers or other documents and that the licensee-must be prepared to respond immediately with the information, as needed. Furthermore, the IN defines."immediate access" to a person knowledgeable about a specific shipment as being fifteen-minute The licensee was modifying its shipping procedures to ensure that the D0T regulations would be satisfie On the afternoon of November 19, while Shipment'No. 92-SEG-19 was in transit, the inspector called the emergency telephone number listed in the shipping manifest. It was answered by the Shift Superviso The inspector explained that he was trying to ascertain-compliance-of_49 CFR 172.604, specifically_concerning immediate access to someone.with_ incident mitigation information for Shipment No. 92-SEG-19. The Shift Supervisor had'a copy of the accident mitigation information for the shipment and was able to answer the '
questions posed by the inspector concerning fires, damaged shipping
cc :ners, evacuation / exclusion areas, et ,
-. -- - - - - . - - - -- _ . . - .
.
,
.
.
.
The inspector concluded that the licensee had good programs in place for the handling and shipping of radioactive material and that they_were effectively implemente . Decommissioning Planning Records (84750)
10 CFR 50.75(g) requires that licensees maintain " records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an '
identified location until the license is terminated by the Commission."
Furthermore, information_ considered important by the Commission for ,
decommissioning is identified as " records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the-facility, equipment, or site" and that the records "must_ include any known information on identification of involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations." Also identified are "as-built drawings and modification: of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipes which may be subject to contamination."
The inspector requested the licensee's decommissioning planning record to verify compliance with the regulations. Discussions with the Supervisor of Radiation Protection determined that the subject information had been retained per administrative procedure. However, the records were not segregated into one readily identifiable area nor was a listing identifying pertinent information for decommissioning planning availabl The licensee had addressed the issue, at the meeting held in early August by HP staff _The Corporate Procedure Group was to draft a Nuclear Standard _ addressing requirements for decommissioning a nuclear station,-
including commitments for compliance with 10 CFR 50.75, among other The inspector reviewed a draft of Nuclear Standard LINS-2809, " Nuclear Unit Decommissioning," which specifically addressed the requirements- of -
10 CFR 50.75 in Section 4.5, " Records Retention." Implement 6 tion of the-standard was expected by early 199 The inspector concluded that relevant decommissioning planning
--
information was available onsite. However, -timely retrieval was less than certain. This issue-will be revisited during a future inspectio No violations or deviations were identifie . Discussion of Information Notice (IN) 92-34 The inspector discussed IN 92-34, "New-Exposure Limits For Airborne l Uranium and Thorium," with the Supervisor of Radiation Protection to be sure that he and his staff were cognizant of it and its implication The IN emphasizes the two changes due to the NRC's adoption of the' dose-assessment methodology recommended by the International Commission on
-
u Radiation Protection-(ICRP) 26 and 30 in the new 10 CFR 20. These are
! significant changes in occupational exposure-limits and equivalence of l
_
.- - . . - - - . . . . . . . ..- _ - - . . _ . . . - . - - . - ~ . - - . .
.
'
~ .
.4 s
internal and external dose and could have great _ impact on licensees that experience airborne concentrations of uranium and thorium compound Corporate Health Physics had reviewed the IN_ and determined that no action was required for North Ann . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on November 20, 1992,-
with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. .The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the inspection results, including likely inforaational content of the_ inspection report with regard to documents oudfar processes reviewed during the inspection. The licensee did not io 'tify any such documents or processes-as proprietary. Dissenting cohnents were not received from the license . Acronyms and Initialisms :
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Ci - curie C of C - Certificate of Compliance DEI --Dose Equivalent Iodine DO - Dissolved Oxygen <
DOT - Department of Transportation 9 - gram .
HEPA - High Efficiency Particulate Air HP - Health Physics ICRP - International Commission on Radiological Protection IN - Information Notice IR - Inspection Report kg - kilogram LLD - Lower Limit of Detection uCi -
micro-Curie (1.0E-6 Ci)
NMSS - Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards No. - Number NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM -- Off-site Dose Calculation Manual ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory pCi - pico-Curie (1.0E-12 Ci)
ppb - parts per billion ppm - parts per million RCS - Reactor Coolant System REMP - Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Rev - Revision SEG - Scientific Ecology Group, Incorporated TLD - Thermoluminescent Dosimetry TS - Technical Specification - ---
- UFSAR - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
.
._
_
--. .~
_ _
c l
. . ;
._-
,- .
-,
.
f ATTACHMENT 1 ANALYJ1_S TY.P_E CONCENTRATION RANGE (ma/1) RESULTS Chloride Anions 10.0 - 3 Agreement-Chloride Anions 30.0 - 5 Agreement i Chloride Anions 60.0 - 10 Agreement Fluoride Anions 10.0 - 3 Agreement Fluoride Anions 30.0 - 5 _ Agreement-Fluoride-Anions 60.0 - 10 Agreement Sulfate Anions 10.0 - 3 Disagreement Sulfate Anions 3 .0 Disagreement Sulfate Anions 60.0 - 10 Disagreemen Chromium 15.0 - 2 Agreement Chromium 25.0 - 5 Qualified _ Agreement Chromium 60.0 - 10 Agreement Silica 20 - 40- Agreement Silica 40 - 60 Qualified Agreement-Boron 500 - 1500 Agreement Baron 2500 - 3500 Agreement Boron 4500 - 5500 Agreement-Sodium 2.5 - Agreement Sodium 7.5 - 1 Agreement Sodium- 12.0 - 1 Agreement Zinc 0.5 - Agreement Zinc 4.0 - Agreement-__
Zinc 8.0 - 1 _ Agreement -
Ammonia 75 - 125 -Qualified Agreement Ammonia -275 - 325 Agreement _
'
Ammonia 400 - 600 Qualified Agreement Hydrazine 5.0 - 1 Disagreement Hydrazine 25.0 - 3 Agreement Hydrazine 40.0 - 6 Agreement-L Lithium 2.5 -. Agreement-.
'
Lithium 7.5 - 1 Agreement Lithium 18.0 --28.0' A greement-Note: Qualified Agreement is i three standard deviation Agreement is 1 two standard deviations.
L:
!
- .
e
' ,