IR 05000219/1989013
| ML20245E757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1989 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245E753 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-89-13, NUDOCS 8906270428 | |
| Download: ML20245E757 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- _ _ _ - _ ___ _ __ ! ' i
- ,: . , _ l
i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION I
i j Report No. 50-219/89-13 i Docket No. 50-219 i License No. DPR-16 Priority Category C' - Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation-P. O. Box 338 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 , i Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ' Inspection At: Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: May 22-26, 1989 Inspector: ddML.
dh$ [ -/f df J.
'ng,SeniorRadiationSp)fcialist date 5'T Approved by: ' R.- Bores,Rhief,-Effluents Radiation daU Protection Section, FRSSB i-1 l Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 22-26, 1989 (Inspection Report i No. 50-219/89-13) I
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's liquid and j gaseous radioactive effluent control programs and radiological environmental monitoring program. Areas reviewed included management controls, audits, and implementation of the above programs.
Results: No violations or deviations were identifici.
i J I l , l . 8906270428 890616 PDR ADOCK 05000219 .O PDC ,____ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ -
- - _ _ _ - _ ! l . . .
' i ! DETAILS i ! 1.0 Individuals Contacted l 1.1 Licensee Personnel i
- K. Barnes, Licensing Engineer j
M. Carlson, Technical Analyst III . '
- E. Fitzpatrick, Vice President / Director, Oyster Creek
- R. Hillman, Manager, Plant Chemistry l
.0. MacFarlane, Manager, Site Audit i P. Schwartz, Sr. Scientist, Environmental Controls l J. Solakiewicz, Operation QA Audit ' J. Stevens, Sr. Engineer, EP&I, Corporate Office
- R. Stoudnour, Sr. Engineer II, Chemistry
<
- P. Thompson, QA Auditor
- D. Weigle, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Controls
- K. Wolf, Manager, Radiological Controls i
1.2 NRC Personnel
- E. Collins, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes personnel who attended the exit interview on May 26, 1989.
2.0 Licensee Action On Previous Findings (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (50-219/86-01-03): ' Improvement of high range noble gas monitoring system. This item consists of eight sub-items. Sub-items A and G were closed in a previous inspection report (Report No. 50-219/87-10).
Sub-items B, D, and H were closed in a subsequent inspection report (Report No. 50-219/88-22).
Sub-item C.
(Closed) A low-range capability should be installed on the turbine building monitor or it should be demonstrated that it (this capability) is not required.
Low-range capability was added to the turbine building by the installation of a low-range radiation monitor to the Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring System (RAGEMS). The cali-bration of this monitor was performed on February 10, 1989. This sub-item is closed.
Sub-item E. (Closed) A method to deactivate the low-range monitor near the upper bound of its dy_namic range and to reactivate it when the high , ! range monitor returns to the low end of its range should be devised.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Document No. C-1302-611-5350-030, , I " Turbine Building RAGEMS Low Range Gas Monitor Setpoint". 'The licensee ' established the deactivation / reactivation method in this document using an alarm setpoint. When the monitoring results of the low range monitor i reach the high alarm setpoint ( 5.1E+5 cpm; equivalent to approximately ' O.1 uCi/cc of Xe-133), the high range monitor actuates and the low range monitor is deactivated.
Procedure 406.9, " Operation of the Turbine _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.n !
- - .
1
i q Building RAGEMS", describes the dynamic range of.the low and high range j monitors-(upper bound of the low-range. monitor is about 1.0 uCi/cc of l Xe-133 and lower bound of. the high-range monitor is about 0.01 uti/cc of l Xe-133)..The high alarm sotpoint of the low-range monitor is within the ' dynamic ranges of the monitors.
Based on the above review, the inspector i determined that the licensee established the deactivation / reactivation-i method. This sub-item is closed.
! Sub-item F (Closed) 'A study on the effects of other nearby radiation ! sources on the response of the low range monitor should be made. This ! sub-item was related to the stack low-range monitor. The inspector reviewed the licensee's Document No. C-1302-661-5350-033, " Stack RAGEMS LRGRM (Low Range Gamma Radiation Monitor) Background Response".
In this > document, the licensee calculated the background count rate following a design based accident (DBA) using (1) as-built shielding and (2) augmented
shielding'(adding an additional 2 inches of lead shielding).
The results
are listed in Table 1.
i Table 1 Performance of LRGRM Following a DBA . Background Count Rate Time As-Built Shielding Augment'ed Shielding (Hour) (Counts per Second) (Counts per Second)
0.0 399 399 0.5 3,015 648 1.0 4,071 651 8.0 5,172 439'
- !
24.0 4,001 315 The expected background count rate after 8 hours following an accident was 5,172 counts per second as'shown in Table 1 for the as-build configuration. This background count rate is equivalent to 1.14E-3pCi/cc of Xe-133.
If stack gas concentrations exceed about ! , 0.1 pCi/cc, the LRGM will be deactivated in favor of a high range ! monitor.
The licensee concluded that the sensitivity of the LRGM can j be increased by about a factor of 10 by the augmented shielding.
! Based on the above review and.the statement of the followup, the j inspector determined that this sub-item is closed.
i The above document is undergoing additional review by the licensee to ! evaluate the feasibility of adding 2 inches of shielding. Adding an additional 2 inches of lead (about 900 pounds) requires several field ! studies such as weight distribution over the detector housing.
{ Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that the additional
2-inch.. lead shielding will be added, assuming the findings of the field study are favorable.
The inspector stated that this area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
i i l l
.'
- d
3.0 Administrative Controls 3.1 Audits The inspector reviewed Quality Assurance audits of the gaseous and liquid radioactive effluent control areas and the. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
Section 6.5.3 of the Tech-nical Specifications requires an audit of conformance to Technical Specification requirements at least once per 12 months and of the Off-site Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) and implementing procedures at least once per 24 months. The.following audits of the gaseous and liquid radioactive effluent controls and the REMP were reviewed.
- Audit No. S-0C-88-07, " Effluent Controls /0DCM", Performed 7/14/88 to 9/15/88
- Audit No. S-0C-88-05, "REMP/0DCM", performed 5/25/88 to 7/14/88 The inspector reviewed the master audit schedule and it appeared that the licensee would meet the Technical Specification requirements in these areas.
The inspector noted that the audits which were conducted by a lead auditor appeared to be both quite thorough and of sufficient techni-cal depth to adequately assess capabilities and performance in the areas being audited.
The inspector also reviewed activities performed by the Operational QA group. Periodic in-depth surveillance of Chemistry Department activities are performed by this group. Again, these Operational QA Audits appeared to be quite good, of excellent technical depth, and were conducted by an individual with technical expertise in this area.
No violations were identified in this area.
3.2 Semiannual and Annual Reports The inspector reviewed the Semiannual Effluent Release Reports and the Annual Radiological Environmental Report for 1988. No anomalies In the data were noted.
l . ' l The Semiannual Effluent Release Reports provided total released radio- ' activity for liquid and gaseous effluents including radiation dose to the public. The Annual Radiological Environmental Report provided summaries of the results of the environmental sampling and analysis program. Sampling frequencies and analytical results for airbctne pathways, ingestion pathways, and direct radiation measurements were ' reviewed. The inspector also reviewed the available 1989 analytical results.
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
. $ .
l l Through review of these reports', the inspector determined that the , licensee met the Technical Specification requhements.
No ' violations were identified in this area.
4.0 Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Control Programs ~.4.1 -Prot, cam Changes i There were no significant changes in-the licensee's program for handling liquid and gaseous effluents since the previous inspection in this area.
4.2 Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Controls The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and liquid and gaseous discharge permits to determine the implementation of the following. technical specification requirements: I
- Technical Specification 3/4.6, " Radioactive Effluents" and j
. Technical Specification 6.19, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual".
! The inspector reviewed selected. liquid and gaseous discharge permits to determine compliance with the above requirements. The inspector deteimined that the licensee was meeting the requirements for sampling and analysis at the f requencies and at the -lower limits of ~ detection established in Tables 4.6.1 (liquid effluents) and 4.6.2 (gaseous effluents) of the Technical Specifications. All discharge permits met the above requirements.
i The licensee is attempting to minimize the routine release of liquid radioactive waste from the site during normal power operation.
No routine liquid releases were made from January 1988 to April 1988.
A number of routine liquid releases were made, however, from i May 1988 to December 1988 ac the. licensee prepared for.the coming ' refueling outage. The inspector noted that the licensee was -{ ' effectively implementing the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) . methodology for controlling liquid effluent releases from the site, ! including the trending of accumulative offsite dose commitments.
l This is'a noted strength of.the licensee's liquid effluent control
program.
Through a review of selected gaseous discharge permits and associated ! procedures, the intractor determined that the licensee has in place i an adequate program.for gaseous effluent sampling, analysis, i surveillance, and reporting.
! l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
' i l . , .. , .-
The licensee uses a computer program (EFFECTS) to perform offsite dose assessment using ODCM methodology. The inspector performed a hand calculation in order.to verify the dose assessment using the
gaseous effluent discharge permit record for June 22, 1988, stack j . release. The comparisons indicated good agreement for the records ' analyzed.
The inspector noted that the licensee was effectively implementing the ODCM methodology for controlling gaseous effluent releases from j the site. The inspector also noted that the licensee performed the
trending analysis for accumulative offsite dose commitments.
i Based on the review of the above records, the inspector determined . that the licensee is implementing effective liquid and gaseous: i effluent control programs.
No violations'were noted in this area.
4.3 Radioactive Effluents Monitoring Instrumentation , The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and calibration records to determine the implementation of the following technical specification requirements.
- Technical Specification 3/4.15.A, " Liquid Effluent Instrumen I
tation"
- Technical Specification 3/4.15.B, " Gaseous Effluent Instrumen tation"
, .
- Technical Specification 6.19, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual"
The inspector reviewed the most recent calibration records of the
following monitors.
!
- Main Steam Line Radiation Monitors
- Reactor Building Service Water Effluent Monitor
- Turbine Building Sump No. 1-5 i
- Main Stack Noble Gas Monitors (RAGEMS I, low and High Range i
Noble Gas Monitors) '
- Turbine Building Noble Gas Monitors (RAGEMS II, Low and High l
Range Noble Gas Monitors) l
- Offgas Building Noble Gas Monitor At the time of the inspection the liquid radwaste effluent monitor and turbine building sump No. 1-5 monitor were not in service.
Monitoring was being conducted under Technical Specifications - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - _
' E
- ,
.. .
Condition (Table 3.15.1, Action 110) which permits grab or additional sampling to meet the Technical Specification requirements.
The inspector reviewed in detail the checks, calibrations and functional tests of. the Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Systems (RAGEMS) ar.d the reactor. building service water effluent monitor. The calibration results were within the acceptance criteria contained in the associated procedures.
The RAGEMS I and II were put in service in February 1989 and the service water effluent monitor was put in service in March 1989.
Based on the above review,.the inspector determined that the licensee was meeting the Technical Specification requirements with respect to these monitors, and, in fact, was performing many of the surveillance tests more frequently than required by the Technical Specifications.
- No violations were identified in this area.
5.0 Air Cleaning Systems The inspector reviewed the licensee's surveillance test results for the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) with respect to Technical Specifica-tion requirements. All surveillance test results were reviewed by the NRC during a previous inspection (Inspection No. 50-219/88-22, performed July 18-22, 1988) except the charcoal canister laboratory test results for 1989. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed these laboratory test results and determined that the test results were acceptable with regard to the Technical Specification requirements.
No violations were noted in this area.
6.0 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1 Program Changes The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization for the management of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
The inspector noted that the licensee had reorganized the Department of Environmental Controls. The Radiological and Biological Sections were combined and formed the Environmental Program as of January 1988.
The inspector determined that management organization of the REMP remained essentially the same as it was at the time of the last inspection.
The inspector, however, noted that two positions were eliminated in the REMP in 1988. Through discussions with the licensee with regard to program performance, the inspector determined that the l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -
--- . ~- .,. .
performance of the'REMP was not adversely effected by losing two positions:
- The Environmental Program has better flexibility of job.
assignments.for the REMP and the Bi.ological' Program as needed, and =The-licensee is making effective use of computer programs to track the schedules.for sampling, analysis and equipment.
maintenance.' 6.2 Implementation of the REMP The inspector examined selected environmental monitoring' stations including air samplers for iodine and particulate. All of the equipment at the selected air sampling.'.ations was operational at the time of the inspection. The' inspector. toured vegetable gardens,: where the licensee is cultivating vegetables near the site to guarantee samples for radiological analyses and facilitate. sample collection.
The inspector noted that the GPU Environmental Radioactive Laboratory (Commerce Park, PA) was assigned the responsibility to analyze all environmental samples.
The inspector also noted that the licensee perf ormed audits of the GPU Environmental' Radioactive Laboratory (ERL) and the communication between the licensee'and the ERL has been successful with regard to resolving anomalous results.
6.3 Meteorological Monitoring l
The inspector reviewed the most recent' calibration results' for wind speed, wind direction, and temperature. The licensee calibrated meteorological equipment quarterly.
The inspector compared meteor-
logical parameters (wind speed, wind direction and temperature at l 33 ft and 380 ft elevation) at the tower station and at the control ! room panels. All parameters were in agreement.between the tower station and the control room.
' i Based on the above review of the implementation of the REMP and ! meteorological monitoring program,- the inspector determined that 'the ' licensee is implementing an effective REMP.
i No violations were identified in this area.
I 7.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 26, 1989..The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and discussed the results.
_ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. }}