IR 05000146/1999201
| ML20204H798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204H791 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-146-99-201, NUDOCS 9903290160 | |
| Download: ML20204H798 (11) | |
Text
,
.. - + .
.
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUALTION Docket No: 50 146 License No: DPR-4 Report No: 1999-201 Licensees: GPU Nuclear Corporation and Saxton Nuclear E.xperimental Corporation l l
I Facility: Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facilit i Location: Saxton, Pennsylvania Dates: February 16-18,1999 Inspectors: Thomas F. Dragoun Jason C. Jang ;
I I
Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director l Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning i I
Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office cf Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
9903290160 990322 PDR
'
G ADOCK 05000146 PDR j
- . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . ~
-
, .
P EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,
Programs to control and quantify effluent releases from the site were effectively implemented. T,he means of calculating doses to the public was verified. Environmental sampling, laboratory analysis, and quality control of results were satisfactory and confirmed that exposures of the public were well below the limits. Acceptable effort was
. underway to identify and address Year 2000 computer problems. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identifie i-I f
!
l
'
f
P f
_ , , . - . . - , __ _ _ _ + - - _ . -
. _ _ . _ _ . . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . ._ _. _.._ _. _ -._ _ _ _ _ _
&
, . .
,
i
l Report Details Summarv of Plant Status _
Dismantlement activities were continuing. A fuel rack was loaded into a van placed inside the containment vessel (CV) in' preparation for shipment and disposal. Concrete scrabbling
. equipment designed for decontamination was available on-site for worker training, i
] 1.0 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCMi~
-The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) provides descriptions of the sampling and analysis programs for radioactive liquid and particulate samples and radiological environmental samples. -The ODCM also provides necessary parameters, such as effluent radiation monitor setpoint calculation methodologies, dose assessment methodology, and site specific dilution factors.
- Insoection Scope (Inspection Procedure 80745)
The inspector reviewed the ODCM, Revision 0, dated June 3,1997. The inspector
- reviewed the following items:
radioactive effluent controls and instrumentation, including setpoints,
'
- Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) implementation, and e site specific parameters for the dose assessment, such as dilution factors and dose pathways.
' Observations and Findinas l
The ODCM containeo appropriate radioactive liquid and particulate effluent controls
!
requirements, including setpoint calc :!ation methodology for the radiation monitoring system. ' The inspector determined that the particulate radiation monitor (RMA-1) alarm setpoint calculation methodology was acceptabl ,
, ;
Sample media and sampling frequencies for the REMP are listed in the ODCM, as well as ;
analytical sensitivity requirements Environmental sample media are: air particulate, '
aquatic sediment, direct radiation level using thermoluminescent dorimetry (TLD),
ground / surface water, milk (as needed), and vegetation. The licensee's ODCM contained sufficient specifications, information, and instructions to acceptably implement and maintain the REMP. - All necessary specific parameters, such as meteorological parameters and dose factors were listed. The inspector reviewet the projected dose calculation
. methodologies and the methods were acceptabl ,
)
+
- n, - ,. -
-e w -. -
- -. -. - . . . - . . ~ .- . . ...- - - _ .
-
. .
.
2 Conclusions The ODCM contained sufficient specifications, information, and instructions to acceptably implement and maintain the radioactive liquid and particulate effluent control programs and the REM ,
2.0 Implementetion of the Radioactive Liquid and Particulate Effluent Control Proarams ,
y Inspection Scope Unspection Procedure 80745)
The inspector reviewed:
o radioactive liquid and particulate effluent control procedures, e unplanned or unmonitored release pathways, and a the 1997 annual repor The inspector toured the CV, the particulate effluent radiation monitoring system (RMS),
and the ventilation exhaust treatment syste Observations and Findinas The procedures were detailed, easy to follow, and ODCM req'uirements were incorporated i into the appropriate procedure The inspector discussed unplanned or unmonitored radioactive liquid and/or particulate releases with the licensee. The licensee indicated that there were no unplanned or unmonitored radioactive liquid or particulate releases to the environmen The 1997 Annual Report contained data regarding various site activities, such as radioactive shipments and CV entries. Radiation levels at the site boundary area (used for projected doses to the public) were listed and found to be well below the Technical Specification (TS) limit The effluent radiation monitor and the ventilation exhaust treatment system were operable at the time of the plant tour. The CV and associated areas are maintained at a negative pressure to prevent any unmonitored radioactive material release. The inspector noted that heat tracing and thermalinsulation had been added to the particulate monitor RMA 1 l
sample line. The need for this modification had been discussed with the licensee during NRC inspection No. 50-146/1998203. This matter is closed, Conclusions The licensee maintained and implemented effective radioactive liquid and particulate l effluent control program i i
, . - .- - . . . - - . - .- - . .--.... - -
. .
3 3.0 Calibration of Effluent Radiation Monitorina Systems (RMS) and Flow Rate Monitors Insoection Scoce (Insoection Procedure 80745)
The inspector reviewed the most recent calibration results of the particulate monitor RMA 1 located in the station ventilation system; and tha station ventilation stack flow rat Objprvations and Findinas All calibration results reviewed were within the acceptance criteria as defined by the licensee's procedures. The calibration data indicated that the RMS were responding in a linear manner, as expected. Licensee tracking and trending efforts provided sufficient information to assess the RMS system performanc The calibration results of the station ventilation stack flow rate were within the licensee's acceptance criteria, Conclusions The licensee established, implemented, and maintained an effective radiation monitoring system and the station ventilation stack flow rate calibration progra .0 ~ Ventilation Exhaust Treatment System j Insoection Scooe (Inspection Procedure 80745)
The most recent surveillance test results for the ventilation exhaust treatment system i (in-place HEPA leak tests, air capaHty tests, and pressure drop tests) were reviewed to !
determine the implementation of Section 2.2 2.3 of the ODCM requirement Observations and Findinas I
All surveillance results were either within the ODCM acceptance criteria or the l administrative acceptance criteria. The responsible individual had good knowledge of (
testing methodologies and acceptance criteri !
l
Conclusions
' The licensee established, implemented, and maintained an effective ventilation system '
surveillance program with respect to HEPA mechanical efficiency, and air capacity test !
l
l
!
_
_ _ _. ,_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ._
'
. . }
!
.
5.0 Comparison of the Projected Dose Calculation Method Inspection Scope i
.The licensee's projected dose calculation program, including the applicable computer code, )
was examined to validate the licensee's capability for calculating projected doses to the l f
public, required by the TS and ODCM, The NRC PCDOSE code was used for an independent compariso 'l
Projected dose comparisons were made using tritium (H-3), cesium-137 (Cs-137), and-cobalt-60 (Co-60).
1 Observations and Findinas The inspector and the licensee performed projected dose calculations at the Saxton site and the Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory (ERL). The inspector used the licensee's specific parameters, such as atmospheric dispersion factor (X/Q) and a tritium dose -
conversion factor. The comparisons of calculated projected doses to the public by the NRC and the licensee were good. In fact, the calculated projected doses were the same,
! Conclusions The licensee established an acceptable means to calculate projected doses to the public as required by the TS and ODC J 6.0. Implementation of the Radioloalcal Environmental Monitorina Proaram (REMP) , Inspection Scope (Intoection Procedure 80745)
The inspector reviewed the following areas of the REMP:
e selected sampling locations and stations specified by the ODCM, e selected REMP procedures, e thermoluminescent dosimeters program, e 1998 environmental sample' analytical results, e Land Use Census results, and e the 1997 Annual REMP repor Observations and Findinas Several environmental monitoring stations were examined during the site tour. The air samplers, water sampling, and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed at the locations designated in the ODCM. The air sampling equipnant was operable. Vegetation samples were also collected from the locations specified in the ODC .=
- -
. .
. -
Overall, the REMP procedures provided appropriate direction and guidance to prepare, sample, and analyze the environmental sample media. Analytical procedures used by the Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory (ERL) were appropriate. Analytical procedures for actinide analyses (uranium, curium, americium, and plutonium) were well written and easy to follo Saxton's environmental TLDs were processed by the TLD Laboratory. The inspector toured the TLD Laboratory and the TLD irradiation facility. The licensee's equipment l included environmental TLDs (Panasonic Model 814AS) and the TLD reader (Panasonic I Model 710A). The licensee used the Shepherd Panoramic Irradiator to determine the Element Correctior, Factor (ECF) of TLDs. The ECF is the ratio of the delivered radiation over the measured radiation. Measured TLD data were reviewed by a senior environmental scientist. The inspector interviewed the senior environmental scientist and I the TLD laboratory personnel. Responsible individuals had very good knowledge of the l characteristics of environmental TLDs, the application of the transit dose, and the data evaluation methodology. The licensee handled TLDs appropriately to minimize transient exposur The inspector reviewed selected analytical results of the 1998 environmental samples. All REMP samples were analyzed by the ERL. The data indicated that the environmental i samples were collected and analyzed at the frequencies required in the ODCM. The licensee met the environmentcl lower limits of detection (LLD), required by the ODC There were no anomalous analytical result The annual Land Use Census was performed during the growing season, as requireJ by the ODCM. A thorough land use survey, including a resident, garden, and collection of broadleaf vegetation was performed. No significant changes were made to the REMP program as a result of the censu The 1997 Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report included results of the environmental monitoring program, program changes, land use census, and interlaboratory comparison program, as required by TS. The report provided a comprehensive summary of the results of the REMP around the site and met TS reporting requirement Conclusions Overall, the licensee effectively maintained and implemented a radiological environmental monitoring program that exceeded regulatory requirement . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ -
- _ _ _ -_. _ _ _
-
. .
.
6 l l
7.0 Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (OC) Inspection Scope (Insoection Procedure 84750-01)
The inspector reviewed; e the 1998 QA audit required by the ODCM, I e the Saxtoa Nuclear Experimental Corporation Facility Decommissioning QA Plan (Procedure Number 1000-PLN-3000.05),
e implementation of the measurement laboratory quality control (OC) program for actinide samples, and e the QC program for the TLD Laboratory. Observations and Findinas The 1998 QA audit (S-SAX-98-01) findings did not identify any significant regulatory or safety issues. However, findings ard recommendations were identified to improve program performance. Responses to audit findings were timely.
The inspector reviewed the QA plan for the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation Facility Decommissioning and discussed it with the licensee staff. The mspector determined that the QA plan contained sufficient QA policies and staff had appropriate knowledge and understood the QA pla The QA/QC program for analyses of REMP samples is conducted by the ERL. The QA/QC program, with the exception of actinide analyses, was reviewed and reported as acceptable during a previous inspection report (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-289/98-07).
Therefore, the inspector reviewed the QC program for actinide during this inspectio Quality control charts for alpha spectrometry (Canberra Alpha Analyst) were frequently reviewed by licensee staff and used as a mechanism to assess laboratory performanc The QC program consisted of measurements of blind duplicate, spike, and split sample The ERL participated in interlaboratory comparisons with the Department of Energy-Environmental Measurements Laboratory. All measurement comparisons reviewed were within the licensee's acceptance criteri The inspector reviewed the QC program for the environmental TLD laboratory. The licensee tracked the element correction factor (ECF), dark current for the reader, and spiked TLD reading results. The inspector detcrmined that the licensee's QC program for the environmental TLDs was appropriat ,_ _
_ __ __ _ _ _ _ _
. . . - - . . - . . -. - -- - . - _ . - - . - - - . - - -
,.
'
. .
l
! 7 Conclusions l
The licensee established, implemented, and maintained an effective QA audit program for the radioactive effluent controls and REMP with respect to audit scope and depth, audit l
'
team experience, and response to audit findings. The licensee (ERL and TLD Laboratory)
also implemented an effective OC program to validate measurement results for actinide l radioactive effluent, particulate effluent samples, REMP samples and environmental TLD .0 Year 2000 Concerns Insoection Scope The inspector reviewed with licensee representatives a 10 item ques *ionnaire developed by NRC staff regarding Year 2000 (Y2K) computer concerns. The questionnaire is included as an attachment to this report, Observations and Findinas i
The Saxton Radiation Safety Officer is responsible for addressing Y2K computer problems at the site. He stated that all systems were Y2K compliant or Y2K ready except for a
!
' pressurized ion chamber (Reuter Stokes) located at the Tussey Mountain High School.
i Since this equipment is not required by the TS, options regarding this installation are still l under review. The software spreadsheet used to record effluent releases and perform the ODCM dose calculat:ons (SNECAER.XLT) was validated against hand calculations and verified for year 2000 roll-ove The ERL facility also has a knowledceable person responsible for Y2K concerns. Hardware and software problems are assessed using a five-step program. All vendor supplied fixes are verified and validated using a formal procedure (TMl Procedure 1430-IC 2). Currently, no threat to public health and safety from Y2K problems has been identified. Since the ERL will soon become Amergen property as a result of the sale of TMI, by contractual agreement, all Y2K issues must be resolved before April 15,1999, Conclusions The licensee's efforts to identify and correct Y2K problems appears to be well organized and effectiv X1 Exit Meeting Summary l The' inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the
conclusion of the inspection on February 18,1999. The licensoe acknowledged the i findings presented.
!
l
,
, ..c-, , , . . , . - - - _ , , - . .
___ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ .
'
. .
P PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED .
.
Licensee Timothy Bradley, Sr. Environmental Scientist J. Patrick Donnachle ERL Manager David Dussinger, Sr. Environmental Scientist Roger Gill, Sr. Environmental Scientist
' G. A. Kuehn, SNEC Program Director Joseph Melnic, Sr. Environmental Scientist Bradley Parfitt, Sr. Engineer Arthur Paynter, SNEC Radiation Safety Officer Lawrence Poppenwimer, Associate Dosimetry Engineer n
Saxton Citizens Task Force Charles Barker, member NRC Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager 4 INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
,
IP 80745 CLASS I NON-POWER REACTOR EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IP 84750 RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
^
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED r l
OPENED: None CLOSED: None l LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CV . Containment Vessel i ECF Element Correction Factor ERL Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory HEPA High Efficiency Particulate l
'
LLD Lower Limit of Detection ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual QA Quality Assurance .
Ouality Control l QC REMP . Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RMS Radiation' Monitoring System TLD Thermoluminescent Dosi netry TML Three Mile Island power plani TS Technical Specifications
. , ... . . . . - . . .-. . -
. . - . , .
.
. * .
..
.
ATTACHMENT NRC Questionnaire - Year 200 Concerns 1) What programmatic steps are you taking to assess the scope of the problem as it directly or indirectly affects your radiation safety program?
2) To whom have you assigned overall responsibility for resolving the Year 2000 problem?
3) What is your schedule for completing your review of computer systems within your organization?
4) Dons your organization have, or have access to, the technical expertise needed for the identification and evaluation of the nature and extent of the Year 2000 problem at your facility? If the expertise is not available, do you plan to obtain such expertise?
5) Identify the hardware and software systems relating to radiation safety either directly or indirectly that are in use at your facility. Examples of such systems include embedded systems, treatment planning systems, dosimetry programs, microprocessors, decay programs, physical security, material control and accountability, analytical systems that re'v on microprocessors and software controls, and interlocks, Describe your systems testing protocol to detect Year 2000 problems. Does your testing protocol extend beyond merely considering only time- or ]
date-related functions?
6) How will you keep track of the changes that are made to solve each indivia tal Year l 2000 problem and make sure that the changes do not affect other parts of the !
facility? What contingency plans have you developed for systems that may not be l Year 2000 compliant?
)
7) List the manufactures of systems or products relating to radiation safety and nuclear safety and safeguards systems used at your facility that you have contacted or you have been contacted by. How are they addressing the problem? To what extent do you intend to rely on vendor certifications or claims for Year 2000 compliance and what is the basis (e.g. functional testing, audits, certification) for this reliance?
8) Have you received NRC's Information Notice (lN) 96-70 (" Year 2000 Effect ori Computer System Software")? The IN describes an internet list server on the Year 2000 problem. Do you subscribe to the Year 2000 list server?
9) Would you be willing to share information and details concerning problems encountered and their solutions through some sort of organized mechanism (e.g. list server described in IN 96-70)?
10) As a result of your review, are you aware of any instance in which the Year 2000 computer issue might pose a threat to public health or safety? What are your plans to correct the problem?
. ,
% *