Text

Summarizes 961104 Mgt Meeting W/Util in Region II Office to Discuss Findings Documented in Insp Repts 50-348/96-10 & 50-364/96-10.W/list of Attendees & Handouts
	ML20132B504
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	12/09/1996
From:	Gibson A; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Dennis Morey; SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
References
	NUDOCS 9612170266
	Download: ML20132B504 (11)
	v • d • e

._ _ . _ . _ .. .. . _.__ __ ___ ____.___

,

'

i. l

!

i

'

. j

'

l

December 9, 1996

l

'

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 1

i ATTN: Mr. D. N. Morey 1

i Vice President

1. P.O. Box 1295

i Birmingham, AL 35201

-

SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY: INSPECTION REPORT 96 10 FINDINGS

,! FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NOS. 50 348, 50 364

! Dear Mr. Morey:

This refers to the management meeting on November 4 1996, conducted at the

NRC Region II Office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss findings

3 documented in Inspection Report (IR) 50 348, 50 364/96 10. It is our opinion,

j that this meeting was beneficial.

.

'

, A List of Attendees and Handouts used by Southern Nuclear Operating Company

d

representatives during the discussions are enclosed. Licensee representatives

discussed their evaluations, root causes and corrective actions regarding the

i following Health Physics and Radiological Effluent program issues: containment

.

high range monitor (CHRM) electronic calibrations; personal dosimetry use:

! radioactive material labeling: and liquid composite sample preservation.

Regarding the examples of configuration control violations, potential root

! causes and status of corrective actions were reviewed and discussed for a !

radiation monitor sample line and for additional discrepancies noted for plant !

3

supports as documented in IR 50 348, 50 364/96 07 dated September 27,~1996. ;

! The status of, and current initiatives within the Health Physics and the i

[ Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER) programs were detailed. l

f

i During the discussions the licensee stated that identified violations

.

'

regarding liquid composite sample preservation, CHRH electronic calibrations,

'

and labeling of casks containing radioactive' materials did not appear to be

the result of a lack of attention to detail as documented in our letter

transmitting IR 50 348, 50-364/96 10, but to misunderstandings regarding the

l adecuacy of the program elements in place. We agree that the reasons for the ,

CHRF calibration and labeling issues may be the result of misinterpretation of '

program adequacy. However, our references to a lack of attention to detail

were intended to focus management and staff attention on finding the causes

and successfully correcting the aggregate weaknesses and violations

identified.

Licensee representatives discussed issues associated with the CHRH electronic

calibrations and requested that the NRC review the bases for dispositioning

the item as a violation rather than an Inspector Follow up Item. The

licensee's bases for their request and our supplemental review and final

disposition regarding this issue are provided in Enclosure 3. We conclude

that this issue was properly identified as a violation.

.

,-

h217EE!R

!ssan48

p

1 0 ,

w dM5

. - - - .

4

.

SONOPC0, Inc. 2

In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's " Rules of Practice, "Part 2,

Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures

will be placed in the NRC Public Do::ument Room.

l Should you have any questions cor.cerning this letter, please contact us.

! Sincerely,

l

(Original signed by A. F. Gibson)

Albert F. Gibson, Director ,

Division of Radiation Safety

Docket Nos. 50 348, 50 364 !

License Nos. NPF-2, NPF 8 )

l

Enclosures: 1. List of Attendees ;

2. SNC Handouts

3. Evaluation and Conclusion

Violation 96 10 02

I

cc w/ enc 1: M. Stanford Blanton

M. J. Ajluni. Licensing Balch and Bingham Law Firm l

Services Manager, B 031 P. O. Box 306 l

Southern Nuclear Operating 1710 Sixth Avenue North i

Company, Inc. Birmingham, AL 35201

42 Inverness Center Parkway

Birmingham, AL 35242 Chairman ]

Houston County Commission !

R. D. Hill, Jr. P. O. Box 6406 l

General Manager, Farley Plant Dothan, AL 36302 l

Southern Nuclear Operating

l Company, Inc.

l P. O. Box 470

Ashford, AL 36312

J. D. Woodard

Executive Vice President

Southern Nuclear Operating

l Company, Inc.

P. O. Box 1295

Birmingham, AL 35201

l State Health Officer

Alabama Department of Public Health

434 Monroe Street

Montgomery, AL 36130 1701

Distribution w/ enc 1: (See page 3)

I

.. . __ _ _ _ . - _ _ . - _ _ _

.

SON 0PCO, Inc. 3

Distribution w/ encl:

J. Zimmerman, NRR

l P. Skinner, RII

f

W. P. Kleinsorge, RII

M. E. Ernstes, RII

PUBLIC

NRC Resident Inspector

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

l 7388 N State Hwy 95

l

Columbia, AL 36319

l

i

l

i

For pervious concurrence see attac ge

orFICF RII-ORS * Rf f :0RS* R

SIGNATijRE

NAME GKuzo KBarr PSk nmr

9

DATE 12 / / 96 12 / /% 12 / h / 96 12 / /% 12 / /% 12 / /%

COPY 7 YES NO YES NO [Eh NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

Uf11CIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:\ G#\ DOCUMENT \MiW UM.FNP

.._ _ _- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _. __ . . _ _ _ _ _ .

1_ .

-

.

/

SONOPC0, Inc. 3 /

/

l

'

Distribution w/ encl: '/

W dT, NRR T. 7 J ^4 M C"" A s

P. Skinner, RII

W. P. Kleinsorge. RII

M. E. Ernstes, RII

PUBLIC

NRC Resident Inspector

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

7388 N State Hwy 95

l Columbia, AL 36319

l

,

'

/

l

/

,/

/

'

l

/ i

'

/ 1

,/ 1

/ l

l

I

/

l

t

OFFICE Rff:0RS Rf f r[5tS Rif:0RP

$1GNATURE l

[- NANE m za /Kak if PSkinner

DATE 12/i /% 2 / 96 12 / / 96 12 / / 96 12 / / 96 12 / / 96

COPY? kE[ N0 fES ) NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

Ott1CLM. RECORD COPY UDCUMENT NAME G:\ DOCUMENT \MitcuM.FNP

i

!

.. . . . . . _ . . - - _ _ . . . - _ - - . _ .

,

.

,

l

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Southern Nuclear Operatino Comoany

J. Woodard Executive Vice President

D. Morey, Vice President

j R. Hill, General Manager, FNP

'

S. Fulmer. Technical Manager, Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP)

D. Jones, Engineering Manager, Corporate

i

J. McGowen, Manager, Safety Auc'it and Engineering Review (SAER), FNP

G. Waymire, Superintendent, SAER FNP

l

Nuclear Reaulatory Commission .

S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator l

l

A. Gibson, Director, Division Reactor Safety (DRS) j

K. Barr, Chief, Plant Support Branch (PSB), DRS 1

C. Casto, Chief. Engineering Branch, DRS !

'

P. Skinner, Chief. Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), Branch 2 l

T. Ross, Senior Resident Inspector, FNP, DRP, Branch 2 l

G. Kuzo, Senior Radiation Specialist, PSB, DRS l

j

i

$

I

Enclosure 1

i

. _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ __ . . _ . _

'

' .

-

David Jones -

November 1996

-

' **N ,

K' .< _

<

d-cic-3D s-a-as Nf

!

From Iso Drawing )<

j D-514771 Rev. O n .

'. $ l

e ,

4 l

l8 'R

> sA

i

.

-EBC-

s-e-23ys

!

. x

>< Z

'

.,

'

',,

><

t

'

10"3 r6 j ,

s q,

l

ge 4

il

14 g

15

.. s ,

v

~

Vp

20 * % 1 k

N,, Yp '

%

-

.

x

,,

s. ,,,.,. 3

.

\ s.

.l'

- x [

.

>. s

.,, .x n

'

n

.

in .

l I bd

-

lb, . [

Enclosure 2

-. -- _. -. . - . -. . ..

David Jones November 1996

-

. -

i

i 4-cac-3D NJ# '

s-a-337

i

From Iso Drawing x

.

D-514771 Rev.1 e

k

-

e

4

>

'

!

1-EBC-

-e-337 c -

i

(> s

L d

.

,c 31 ;

) A # #

'

,

I

. e

4

11

14 g

15

.. x s

h

~

Vp

.

th'El

a

a s

Y '

'

' g %

i,

s

ny s

' k. is.,, 3s.

U

.

,.

>. s

wg

m- u

' ,

? h

in .

lf bd

1. . .

Enclosure 2

_ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - -.

- - . - . . . . .. . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . - - . ~ - . . - . . . . - - . . . . _ - . - . . . - ~ . . . - . - - . . .

.

' *

.

i

<

1

)*

1

,

1

e mese sev e

mort ee&acGCR DEPARTietMT

a

I

g i " P Grh eH ===

execx ev * / *' - =^'=

-#

34Tu 1 s 21 -

"'

l'-

.

euoromsa af1*AWA PTR. CO. er omawn erw8N oars 4"21 PF

' {'

l emess os coere e -- 7.0.dFTP.222 new i . a a 4 6

s

i

i -

,., FAILEY NUO. 3?A UNI? $1 MlS2.9//// a

! '

ce N4 E ET E ** *

x . 1,o 2. e mv> ,v ., 5 .' . ..s

! y. .cos .- . . . , , ., ,. . ! . *. : .4, Os1 6

, ,

'

. - . ..- 7.Y g i

'

z=

, .

j j . o z.t . .. l ' .. i . l 1; .Q 3 _

! rn..t

xn n. a wa. u.s e

(n.__

-

\ b: i,

w

%.; .'. :

sz...+

3.sise 1:sbm. \ 1

1

'

,

, q' -

-

2 @

\ _ m e = i'. 6 h' I

j

,

-

Prow

Crition.L as

o i, A y y , e w e gg , . 4 e. .

@ 3.,

o

"- vm -

y

l

s

t

@

1

L @ g6 ..

s

"h 9 h 4.e . 9 1

i ,

a . d

__ L

4 4 ._

i

4

"

M- M +,- ,

v _. d 4 .d. i

~

,

'

.

1

-

+1 ~ ,

.,

- -

,

-

r

s

-

--l M

1

t s o' A' , -

1

l

.

6 +-l 1 9.. ,.

< 'n

-

+ + a

--

I

j $F4*' O N * A A

j i

l

j

'@

,

As, am.T. sec ou's-e-

LACAMON Pt.AN

i

'**

l inavsmate ame ocenarisses ***

l evam

l

,

tm t ens e e e . ant-r z. ct.tA Y (f1999 Ft CMA PnABEf R*PT*!f* 9F l'IEEIP

ALL MAT E Rf AL A"wr*'T T em ##wt m

1

7

' / 9"w A" en h traal Stara O ' - 10 3 / &" ' am e '

1

l

3

y 1

1/?"wA" Fa h staal 71 men. ' ' . & ' am e

j A

1 / 9"w % 1 / 2 " f*2 + - tra I 91sts o ' . &'*f am e

1/9"wA" f** * - traal #1 m e n . S ' . 0" ' am e

g 1/Aa e2 u-2

A 1/A" "mm Ratta 1 1/2" ' m e

L&

7 1 1/9" av i t n ds e 9" s c enara . Fie. 7fMi Oert en d1. ? 1/a" 1

OO 2fsm. Mvdem.nlte 9haer & Siamw Munnvenner. ' anne

! '

1Wu dsid ~?inten Ear-swe=u" he * * m e nrs Sate ne=

1 11/ l& " / *M . 7 /.

-

j

1

, a t.*, sat 4 s 61_ a

m es an se 1 wn. 4c" 2" seinenter. 1

1 , &" Pima No'.9 3/a" E.7 1/a" G=3/R"r6"r6"

I I

j

12tsMic Astr'wt v SKETC"4 & EMCINEERING

BtREDLE L "AC

gg gg **'" . d. '**

.

,.* r* _-' . _":*: r"""' '"' "

j

3

t non wassmau a=o omenarrows saa sastem a -

=sv _

i

g .s M -~ : . ~

. esp =:nw a wee esasta see ACW*1@ sugTCH ** e ' ' O b b

i sta at 3 * ' ' b "_ , * 88V

...*

}

.

M

d

i

Enclosure 2

1

i

- _= . _. - .

l.

,

l

! EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

Violation 50-348, 50 364/96-10 02

!

l

On September 27, 1996, a Notice of Violation (Notice) was issued for five

l violations identified during a NRC Inspection conducted August 12-16, and

August 26 30, 1996. The Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) responded to

, the Notice on October 25, 1996, and agreed to the stated violations. However,

during a November 4, 1996 Management Meeting, licensee representatives

requested that the bases for issuing a violation for failure to meet in situ

electronic calibration of the containment high range monitors (CHRMs) as

specified in NUREG 0737, Clarification of THI Action Plan Requirements. Table

II.F.1-3 be reviewed. The NRC evaluation and conclusions regarding the

licensee *s arguments are as follow:

Restatement of the Violation

10 CFR 50.54(h) requires, in part, the license to be subject to the provisions

of the Act now or hereafter in effect, and to all rules, regulations and

orders of the Commission.

By letter dated March 14, 1983, an Order to implement and maintain license

commitments for post-THI related items was issued. The Order referenced

commitments documented in letters dated April 16, 1982, and June 4, 1982,

issued in response to NRC Generic Letters 82 05 and 8210, and specified, in

part, that Three Mile Island (TMI) Action Item II.F.1 3 was complete.

NUREG 0737, Clarification of THI Action Plan Requirements. Table II.F.13

Containment High Range Monitor, ppecifies, in part, a monitor range of

1 Roentgen per hour (R/hr) to 10 R/hr, and that in situ calibration by

electronic signal substitution is acceptable for all iange decades above 10

R/hr.

Contrary to the above, as of August 12, 1996, the licensee failed to implement

and maintain the March 14, 1983 Order, in that, in situ special calibration by

electronic signal substitution for all range decades above 10 R/hr were not

conducted for the installed containment high range monitors.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).

Summary of the Reasons for the Licensee's Reauest

During the November 4, 1996 Management Meeting, licensee representatives

requested the NRC staff to review the dispositioning of the CHRH electronic

calibration issue ds a violation. Based on current vendor calibration and

in plant surveillance activities, they believed the intent of their

l

commitments for the CHRMs referenced in their April 16, 1982, and June 4, 1982

letters was met.

l

'

The licensee stated that their current calibration was conducted in accordance

with the original vendor procedural guidance which met the intent of

NUREG 0737 requirements. The failure to conduct an electronic calibration at

each decade above 10 R/hr was based on a misinterpretation of the words " range

Enclosure 3

l

,

1-

2

decade" in Table II.F.13 which, specifies, in part, in situ calibration by

electronic signal substitution is acceptable for all range decades above

l 10R/hr.

l l

In addition, the licensee referenced two NRC documents which they believed '

l

indicated confusion by other licensees implementing the CHRH special

electronic calibrations following initial publication of NUREG 0737. The I

referenced corresaondence included an April 20, 1982 Memorandum from G. D. l

Brown, Chief, Tec1nical Program Branch, Region IV to R. Mattson, Director, !

!

Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),

which specified, in aart, that licensees identified difficulties in obtaining {'

pulse generators wit 1 the necessary range to perform full scale electronic

response tests of the electrical circuit. The second document referenced by ,

the licensee, an August 16, 1982 Memorandum from D. Eisenhut, Director !

Division of Licensing, NRR, to Regional Administrators provided guidelines for l

meeting the intent of CHRH monitor special calibrations as documented in Item l

II.F.13 of NUREG 0737. I

NRC Evaluation

The NRC staff has reviewed carefully the licensee's recuest and has concluded

that no significant supplemental information was proviced that had not been

considered previously in dispositioning the identified non-compliance.

The use of vendor calibrations to meet the special calibrations in NUREG 0737

Table II.F.1-3 is not acceptable. The guidance specifies that "the original

laboratory calibration is not an acceptable position due to the possible

differences after in situ installation."

Further, we do not agree that the April 20, 1982, and August 16, 1982

Memoranda, and the use of the original vendor procedure justify the licensee's

current misinterpretation in implementing the in situ electronic calibration.

NUREG 0737. II.F.1, Attachment 3. Containment High Range Radiation Monitor,

Changes to Previous Requirements and Guidance, Section (6) documented that

electronic calibration is acceptable for high dose rate ranges because such

methods are sufficient to provide acceptable accuracy. Also, the Special

Calibration details referenced in Table II.F.13 allowed use of electronic

signal substitution for each range decade above 10 R/hr in lieu of source

calibrations due to ALARA considerations. The April 20, 1982. Memorandum

documented, in part, that licensees were concerned with the necessity to

'

demonstrate periodically, that the detector properly responds to radiation

sources through the designated exposure rate range ([10 R/hr 10 E+07 R/hr]);

and that there were difficulties in obtaining adequate pulse generators to

aerform full scale electronic response tests. The August 16, 1982, Eisenhut

iemorandum reconfirmed that electronic checks by signal substitution using a

calibrated current source would be a satisfactory method of demonstrating that

i the system electronics would res)ond to radiation fields over the range of

10 R/hr through 10 E+07 R/hr. T1e Memorandum also identified that Julse

generators were available to perform full scale response tests of t1e high

range radiation monitors' electrical circuits. Further, changes in the

vendor's field calibration procedure in 1983, as referenced in Inspection

Report 50-348, 50 364/96-10, corroborated our finding of deficiencies in the

original procedures for meeting the intent of Table II.F.13.

Enclosure 3

1

. - -. -. - . - _

-

.

3

!

l Finally, the Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Standard Test Procedure (STP) used to

l conduct the electronic calibration did not verify adequately, the linearity

l and accuracy of the upper ranges for the installed equipment. For example,

'

the data in FNP 1 STP 227.18A, dated October 16, 1995, only verified that the

system electronics responded withir, tolerance for an electronic pulse

representing approximately 1 E+3 R/hr for each of four separate switch

positions and for a pulse representing E+4 R/hr for the fifth switch position

associated with the readout module. The surveillance test, as conducted, did

l not verify the linearity and accuracy of the installed equipment at the upper

ranges from E+5 through E+7 R/hr as intended in NUREG 0737. Table II.F.13

NRC Conclusion

For the above reasons, the NRC staff concludes that this issue was identified

properly as a violation for failure to implement and maintain the March 14,

1983, Order for the Containment High Range Monitor in situ special calibration

by electronic signal substitution for all range decades above 10 R/hr.

i

l

i

!

l

Enclosure 3

ML20132B504

Text

Navigation menu

Search