IR 05000220/1993016
| ML20056D503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056D502 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-93-16, 50-410-93-16, NUDOCS 9308170014 | |
| Download: ML20056D503 (9) | |
Text
r.
,,
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
!
Report Nos.
50-220/93-16 and 50-410/93-16 Docket Nos.
50-220 and 50-410 License Nos.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
301 Plainfield Road Syracuse. New York 13212 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point. Units 1 and 2
,
t Inspection At:
Scriba. New York
,
>
Inspection Conducted:
July 26-30.1993
,
>
r 6Q h
Inspector:
ME
Jasos['C. Jang, Sr. Radiation Specialist (/
Date EffMents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Approved by:
b OY'k3
'
Ro'bert J. Borp(/ Chief, ERPS, Facilities Date Radiological Sftfety and Safeguards, Division
,
of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insoected: Announced safety inspection of the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs including: management controls, audits, calibration of effluent and process radiation monitoring systems, air cleaning systems, and implementation of the above programs.
Results: Within the areas inspected, the licensee implemented very effective programs.
'
The management commitment to maintaining the operability of ef0uent radiation monitoring systems was excellent. Responsible individuals in the Chemistry Departments had excellent knowledge to implement the above programs. No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.
!
9308170014 930810
.
PDR ADOCK 05000220
.
.
..
.
DETAILS
'
1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personne1'
D. Barcomb, Acting Radiation Protection Manager, Unit 2
J. Blasiak, Chemistry Manager, Unit 2
R. Carlson, Supervisor, Radiation Protection, Unit 1 R. Cole, General Supervisor, Radwaste Operations, Unit 2
G. Corell, Chemistry Mar.ager, Unit 1
K. Dahlberg, Plant Manager, Unit 1
J. East, Supervisor (Instrument), Radiation Protection, Unit 1
J.12wton, Radiation Protection Technician, Unit 1
E. Izach, Sr. Generation Engineer-Chemistry, Unit 2
!
R. Magnant, Licensing
C. Merritt, Supervisor, Radwaste, Unit 2
G. Montgomery, Supervisor (Instrument), Radiation Protection, Unit 2
J. Mueller, Plant Manager, Unit 2
S. Scholtens, Radiation Protection, Unit 2
C. Senska,- Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 1 P. Smalley, Radiation Protection Manager, Unit 1
P. Swafford, Radiation Protection Manager, Unit 2
B. Sylvia, Executive Vice President
A. Zallnick, Supervisor, Site Licensing
1.2 NRC Personnel W. Schmidt, Senior Resident Inspector R. I2ura, Resident Inspector
W. Mattingly, Resident Inspector
,
Denotes those present at the exit interview on July 30,1993. Other licensee
employees were contacted and interviewed durir.g this inspection.
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's capability for measuring and quantifying radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents during normal and emergency
!
operations.
.
i
.
_
..
,
,
.
b
!
t
3.0 Ouality Assurance Audits
The inspector reviewed the 1992 audit report (Audit Number: 92012 RG/IN) for the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs, conducted by the QA Department, to determine the implementation of the Technical Specification
,
requirements.
During the review of this audit, the inspector noted that the 1992 audit covered in
,
detail the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs and other chemistry programs such as non-radioleghal chemistry and water chemistry. The 1992 audit
,
identified five findings for the 'hemistry Departments (Units 1 and 2) but only one in i
the effluent controls area. H<yvever, none were of safety significance. The
'
appropriate department resprnded with corrective actions in a timely manner. The inspector also noted that the representatives of other utilities participated in the audit
.
as a peer evaluation which was an excellent management effort.
Based on the review, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted a very good
.!
audit to assess the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs.
4.0 Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Control Programs
,
4.1 Program Changes The inspector reviev ed the licensee's organization and administrative control for the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs. The inspector also discussed with the licensee changes made since the last
-
inspection of both units conducted on March 30-April 3,1992. The inspector y
determined that there were no significant changes to the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs.
l 4.2 Review of Semiannual Effluent Reports
'
!
The inspector reviewed the 1992 semiannual radioactive effluent release i
'
reports for Units 1 and 2 (submitted separately by each unit), and determined that the licensee met the Technical Specification (TS) reporting requirements.
The inspector noted that the licensee reported inoperable effluent radiation
,
monitors (longer than 30 days) in the Semiannual Effluent Reports as required
by the TS. Those inoperable effluent radiation monitors were the radioactive
'
gaseous effluent monitoring system (RAGEMS) for the Unit I and the Vent
and Stack Noble gas monitors for the Unit 2. For each instance in which an effluent radiation monitor was inoperable, appropriate alternate monitoring was
'
conducted by the licensee. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
"
l i
i i
.
-_..
'
.
?
,
The semiannual effluent repons provided the total released radioactivity m liquid and gaseous effluents. The second half semiannual effluent reports not
-
only provided the total released radioactivity but also provided the projected j
radiation dose to the public as required. The projected radiation doses to the
,
total body and organs of the public were well below regulatory limits specified
in the licensee's TS. The inspector also reviewed available 1993 effluent
>
release records and determined that these records did not contain anomalous
>
'
measurements or omissions. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
,
4.3 Rae.oacuve Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Controls The inspector reviewed the following licensee's procedures and radioactive f
liquid discharge permits and gaseous effluent release documents to determine the implementation of the TS and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) requirements for Units 1 and 2.
Unit 1:
o N1-CSP-MO4, Liquid Release Dose Calculation o N1-CSP-V201, Radioactive Liquid Release Analysis
>
o N1-CSP-M350, Noble Gas Dose Calcuhtion o N1-CSP-W335, Offgas Weekly Surveillance Unit 2:
o N2-CSP-LWS-@201, Radioactive Liquid Release Analysis and Documentation o N2-CSP-OFG-M333, Offgas Monthly Surveillance -
o N2-CSP-RMS-M350, Noble Gas Dose Rate and Dose Calculation
'
o N2-CSP-RMS-300, GEMS Daily Surveillance o N2-CSP-RMS-@306, Operation of GEMS
,
The inspector determined that the above radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control procedures were mfficiently detailed to allow performance of all necessary steps. The inspector also determined that the reviewed discharge permits were complete and met the requirements for sampling and analyses at the frequencies and lower limits of detection established in the TS. The inspector was informed that the last batch of Unit I liquid radwaste was
,
discharged in 1992 and in March 1993 for Unit 2.
t The inspector reviewed selected monthly gaseous effluent monitoring system (GEMS) results. The GEMS has the capability to perform isotopic analysis for gaseous effluent streams at any time because the GEMS used a gamma
,
spectrometry system with an intrinsic Ge(Li) detector. The licensee set the
.
..
.
,
monitoring frequency at three times a day. The GEMS has the capability of quantifying actual amounts of isotopic releases in real time monitoring. The licensee, therefore, is able to project the dose to the public accurately and i
realistically.
'
The inspector noted funher that the Chemistry Department personnel conducting the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs had excellent knowledge in the areas of: (1) dose projection calculation; (2)
quantifying the total amount of gaseous effluent release using RMS; (3)
protection of the public health and the environment; and (4) ODCM
~
,
requirements.
Based on the above reviews, the inspector detennined that the licensee has
-
conducted excellent radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs.
4.4 Calibration of Effluent / Process Radiation Monitoring Systems (RMS)
.{
The inspector reviewed the licensee's most recent calibration results for the following effluent / process radiation monitors to determine the implementation of the Technical Specification requirements for Units 1 and 2.
Unit 1:
o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Radiation Monitor o Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor o Main Steam Line Radiation Monitors
,
o Stack Gaseous Effluent Monitors (Low and High Ranges)
o Emergency Condenser Vent Monitor o Containment Spray Heat Exchanger Raw Water Effluent Radiation Monitors
,
Unit 2:
o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Radiation Monitor o Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor o Cooling Tower Blowdown Line Monitor o Main Steam Line Radiation Monitors o Radwaste/ Reactor Building Vent Monitors (IAw and High)
o Main Stack Gaseous Effluent Monitors (Iow and High Range)
The I&C, Chemistry, and Radiation Protection Depanments had the responsibility to perform electronic and radiological calibrations for the above effluent / process radiation monitors for Unit 1. The Chemistry and Radiation Protection Departments had the responsibility to perform electronic and radiological calibrations for the above effluent / process radiation monitors for
'
w
,
,
J
'
.
i
.
i Unit 2. The inspector also reviewed several quarterly channel function tests l
for the above effluent radiation monitors. All reviewed calibration results
-
were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
,
,
The inspector noted that the RMS calibration techniques appeared to be
excellent. The inspector noted that the licensee could enhance the data reduction technique using statistical analyses to obtain conversion factors and l
the linearity. Statistical analysis, such as linear regression, is a good method
to calculate the conversion factor for the entire range (calibration and operation
,
raages) and the linearity. The licensee stated that the acceptance criteria for
,
the monitor efficiency and the use of statistical methods will be reviewed and will be applied in the calibration procedure, as necessary.
l
I Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted excellent radiation monitor calibration programs for both units.
4.5 Operability and Reliability of Effluent RMS Previously, the licensee had many inoperable effluent RMS experiences (See Inspection Reports 50-220/89-24; 50-410/89-23, and 50-220/91-05; 50-410/91-05 for details). The management commitment to maintaining the operability of the effluent RMS was noted during the previous inspection conducted in 1992.
During this inspection, the inspector noted that all effluent RMS were operable i
at the time of this inspection with the exception of the Unit 1 RAGEMS _
i (Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring System). Appropriate alternate
-
monitoring was being performed in accordance with the requirements. The Unit 1 RAGEMS hid been repaired and upgraded since a previous inspection conducted in 1991. About ten specific important improvements were made
'
(e.g., software and mechanical enhancements) to improve the operability. The t
licensee expected that the RAGEMS will be operable in the near future. The inspector determined that these efforts were accomplished due to the management commitment and support for maintaining the operability of effluent RMS.
t The inspector reviewed the licensee's QC data for the GEMS for Unit 2. The licensee performed daily background checks and verified the FWHM (full-width-half-maximum) at 778.9 kev using a Eu-152 source. The inspector had -
no further questions in this 7:ea.
[
L e
..
,
7
,
Based on the above reviews, the inspector concluded that the licensee's commitment to maintain the operability and reliability for all effluent RMS
,
was demonstrated since the last two inspections conducted in 1991 and 1992.
The inspector was informed by the licensee that the management support will be continued to maintain the operability for all RMS.
4.6 Alarm Setooint Calculation The inspector reviewed the licensee's setpoint calculation procedures and results for the following effluent / process radiation monitors to determine the implementation of the Technical Specification and ODCM requirements for
'
Units 1 and 2.
Unit 1:
o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Radiation Monitor o Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor o Offgas Radiation Monitor o Main Stack Radiation Monitor Unit 2:
o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Radiation Monitor o Service Water Effluent Radiation Monitor o Control Room Air Intake Radiation Monitor o Reactor Building below Refueling Floor Gaseous Monitor The inspector determined that the setpoint calculation procedures for the above
'
effluent / process RMS were sufficiently detailed to allow performance of all necessary steps. The inspector also determined that the reviewed setpoints were complete and met the requirements of the TS and CDCM.
,
5.0 Review of Events Unit 1:
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's failed fuel event chronology during this inspection.
The licensee (Chemistry Department) identified the elevated offgas activity during a routine daily offgas surveillance on June 10,.1993. The licensee performed a complete isotopic analysis and notexl that the offgas release rate of Xe-133 increased by about a factor of 10 (759 Ci/second, up from 79 pCi/sec on June 9,1993). The licensee, however, did not notice any elevated release at the main stack until June 29,1993. The release rate of Xe-133 at the main stack was 19.6 pCi/second. The licensee increased sampling frequency for the
.
-
-
-
-
-
"
D Q
main stack and offgas during and after the flux tilt maneuver by Operations on July 3,1993. All samples were analyzed immediately in order to perform the-projected dose assessments to the public.
Projected total body dose to the maximally exposed member of the public due
[
to noble gases, iodines, particulates, and tritium releases from Unit 1 during June 1993 was negligible,2.20E-3 mrem. Projected total body dose to the maximally exposed member of the public in May 1993 was 2.23E-3 mrem.
,
Unit 2:
On July 27,1993, the licensee had an unusual event, a possible fire in the charcoal beds in the offgas system. The licensee was investigating the event, including the monitoring of temperature changes in the offgas system, reactive / corrective actions to be taken, and the root cause analysis. These investigation results will be available in the future.
During this inspection, the inspector observed the licensee's actions regarding the quantification of the noble gas release rate at the offgas system and the main stack using the GEMS. The licensee released noble gases directly to the nmin stack (by-pass the offgas system). The highest noble gas release rate at the main stack on July 27,1993 was insignificant, about 160-200 times lower than the Technical Specification limits. The licensee (Chemistry Department Staff) calculated the projected total body dose to the public assuming the worst noble gas rdease rate persisted for one month (from July 27,1993 to August 27, 1993). The calculated projected total body dose was 0.047 mrem / month.
The inspector also observed the licensee's actions included effective communication between the Operations and Chemistry Departments. The inspector noted that all corrective actions and decisions by Operations and upper management were made based on the projected dose assessment to the public.
Based on the reviews and observations of the above events, the inspector made the following conclusions.
(1)
Projected total body doses to the maximally exposed member of the public due to these events were well below the TS Limit (TS Limit for total body dose due to noble gases is "less than or equal to 5 mrem / quarter").
(2)
The Chemistry Departmot personnel demonstrated their knowledge of plant systems and suggested options to management to protect the public health and -
safety and the environmen f.
..
(3)
An excellent communication link was established among management, Operations, and Chemistry.
6.0 Air Cleanine Systems The inspector reviewed the licensee's most recent surveillance test results to determine the implementation of the following air cleaning systems for Units 1 and 2.
The surveillance tests for these air cleaning systems were required by the Technical Specifications.
Unit 1:
o Emergency Ventilation Systems o Control Room Air Treatment System Umt 2:
o Standby Gas Treatment System o Control Room Outdoor Air Special Filter Train System
'
The following surveillance results were reviewed. The inspector also discussed with the responsible individual (Radiation Protection Department) the technical aspects for testing the air cleaning systems. All reviewed test results were within the licensee's Technical Specification acceptance criteria.
L o Visual Inspections o In-Place HEPA Tests i
o In-Place Charcoal Tests o Air Capacity Tests o Pressure Drop Tests o I2boratory Tests for the Iodine Collection Efficiencies Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had effectively implemented this surveillance program and the responsible individual had an excellent
'
knowledge of the current practices in this area. The inspector had no further questions.
,
7.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.1 of this.
inspection report at the conclusion of the inspection of July 30,1993. The inspector
summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
,