IR 05000244/1981002
| ML17258B088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1981 |
| From: | Bores R, Sakenas C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258B084 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-81-02, 50-244-81-2, NUDOCS 8106080110 | |
| Download: ML17258B088 (22) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I R
p
.N
. ~50-24 Docket No.
50-244 License. No.
DPR-18 Pri.ority Category Licensee:
'ochester Gas and Electric Com an (RG8E)
89 East Avenue Rochester,'ew York 14649 Facility Name
~
Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (REG)
Inspection at:
R.
E. Ginna Site',.Ontario, New York Inspection conducted:
January 20-22, 1981 Inspectors:
i'.
Sakenas, Radiation Specialist r-r >-~l date signed date signed Approved by:
date signed
.
v-i-r/
R. J.
Bores, Chief, Independent Measurements
da<< signed Emergency Planning Section, DEP&OS I
Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Januar" 20-22, 1981 Re ort No. 80-244/81-02 p
monitoring programs for operation, including:
management controls of these programs; quality control of analytical measurements; implementation of environmental monitoring programs-radiological; implementation of environmental monitoring programs-biological/ecological; nonradioactive effluent release rates and limits; and a followup on previous environmental inspection findings.
The inspection involved 18 inspector-hours onsite by one regionally based inspector.
Results:
Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in five-areas.
One apparent item of noncompliance (failure to take filterable dust samples as required)
was identified in one area.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
qggeo'so) l~
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
"B. Snow, Station Superintendent, REG
"J.
Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent, REG
- D. Filkins, Supervisor, Health Physics an'd Chemistry, REG B: Quinn, Health Physicist, REG
"D. Filion, Radiochemist, REG P.
Sawyko, Aquatic Biologist, RG&E T. Rakiewicz, Foreman, Instrument and Control, REG J. Bodine, Quality Control Engineer, REG
- denotes those present at exit interview.
Z.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
Noncompliance (78-2Z-01):
Failure to prepare, approve, and imple-ment procedures for the multichannel analyzer.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures; PC-1.4, Revision 2, "Operation of TN-11 Gamma Analyzer" and PC-1.5, Revision 0, "Operation of TN-4000 Gamma Analyzer" and determined that corrective actions in this area were completed as described in the licensee's letter to the NRC dated December 5,
1978.
3.
Mana ement Controls a.
Assi nment of Res onsibi lit The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the
.
environmental monitoring programs with respect to changes made since the last inspection of this area.
The inspector noted, through dis-cussion with the licensee and review of current organizational charts that Mr. D. Filkins has replaced Mr. E. DeMeritt as Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry.
Mr. DeMeritt is now assigned to emergency planning.
The inspector determined that the changes would provide the same or higher level of management controls as the previous program.
b.
Pro ram Audits and Review The inspector reviewed the program audits and noted that documented audits were conducted on December 18-20, 1979 and June 16, 1980 and involved the technical specification requirements for environmental radiation surveys.
The inspector noted that several deficiencies were identified, and that responses outlining corrective actions were submitted within the specified time and follow-up inspections were conducted to verify corrective action.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this are p
Licensee Pro ram for ualit Control of Anal tical Measurements The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for analyzing environmental samples and records of backgrounds, performance checks and control charts for the GeLi system and Wide-Beta II Counter.
The inspector noted through records review and discussions with the licensee that 2-sigma and 3-sigma control bands were applied to the control charts for the Wide Beta II.
the
~ inspector noted that no procedure existed to indicate follow-up action when values fell outside the acceptable range indicated by the control band, although it appeared that corrective actions were initiated by the licensee.
The inspector verified through records review that the TLD system was cali-brated quarterly as indicated in Procedure ES-8.2.
The inspector also reviewed results for 1979 and 1980 of the licensee's participation in the EPA interlaboratory comparison program, and noted agreement within the 3-sigma criteria with few exceptions.
The reasons for these discrepancies were identified and resolved by the licensee.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
Im lementation of the Environmental Monitorin Pro ram - Radiolo ical The inspector examined several on-site air sampling and precipitation collecting stations and TLDs.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the placement of TLDs to prevent burial in snow following snow removal activities.
The licensee stated that the TLDs, in question, would be relocated.
The inspector examined procedures for sample collection of each sample type, and analysis for gross beta activity and gamma spectroscopy of each sample type and I-131 in milk and air.
In addition, the inspector reviewed procedures for collection and reading of TLDs.
The inspector reviewed the results of all of the radioanalytical environmental measurements from 1979 and 1980.
The inspector noted that some samples were not collected in 1979 as required by REG technical specifications:
marine organisms were collected twice per year instead of four times per
'year; and weekly filterable dust samples were not collected from the six onsite stations from March'0 April 13, 1979.
An REG audit conducted December 18-20, 1979 identified missing marine samples as deviations from technical specifications.
Corrective action was initiated for the missed marine organisms and the four required samples were collected in 1980.
The inspector had no further questions regarding the resolutio'n of this item.
The loss of air samples was not addressed, however, in the licensee's response to the audit findings and no documentation was available on the reason for the missed air samples, nor for corrective/preventative actions.
The inspector stated that failure to collect these samples on a weekly basis is in noncompliance with Se'ction 4. 10. 1 of REG Technical Specifications (81"02-01).
The, inspector noted through discussions with the licensee and examination of records'hat a
52 week sum for liquid releases was not documented and the documentation of gaseous releases was not current.
The inspector stated that since these totals dictate which environmental sampling and analysis regime is required by the REG Technical Specifications, some calculational method should be employed and maintained.
The licensee stated that these totals would be maintained.
The inspector noted that at the time of the inspection, the cumulative releases were well below the level which would require the ne'xt, more intense environmental sampling and analytical regime.
The inspector stated that this area would be re-evaluated in a subsequent inspection (81-02-02).
The inspector also examined the meteorological instrumentation and observed the data being recorded at the time of the inspection.
The inspector observed that this instrumentation appeared to be functioning properly.
The inspector also reviewed calibration records from 1979 and 1980, and determined that the equipment had been calibrated as required by REG pro-cedures.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
Im lementation of the Environmental i4ionitorin Pro ram Biolo ical/
Ecolo ical The inspector discussed the biological/ecological studies conducted at the REG site and reviewed the data collected from several of these programs.
The specific areas reviewed included:
impingement studies (species, number, weights, lengths, etc.)
from 1978 and 1979; and entrainment studies (ichthy-oplankton and macroinvertebrates)
from 1978.
The licensee has no specific NRC requirements in this area.
Nonradioactive Effluent Release Rates and Limits The inspector reviewed the records of the licensee's monitoring of chemical and thermal discharges from the site for 1979 and 1980 and found that none of the measured effluent parameters were outside the limits of the licensee's NPDES permits.
The licensee has no specific NRC requirements in this area.
Exit Interview On January 22, 1981, the inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in Paragraph 1.
The scope and findings of the inspection were presented and the item of noncompliance was identifie 'f A
J
~h>4av gQ CIA
,C
~o C
Ci L ~~
+~
~0
~a*++
Docket Ho. 50-244 I.
, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM/SSION
REGION I
631 PARK AVeNuE KING OF PRussIA Pc INSYLVANIA46406 0 3 APR tag)
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation ATTN:
Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Elec ric and Steam Production.
89 East Avenue Roches er, Hew York 14649 Gentlemen:.
Subject:
Inspection 50-244/81-02 This refers to the rovtine safety inspec.ion conducted by Ms.
C.
Sakenas of this office on January 20-22, 1981 at the Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site, Ontario, Hew York of activities authorized by NRC License Ho.
OPR-18 and to the discussions of our findings held by Ms. Sakenas wi.h Mr. Snow and other members of your s afi at
.he conclusion of.he inspec.ion, and to a subsequent
.elephone discussion between Ms.
Sakenas and Mr. Filkins on January 28, 1981.
Areas examined during his iinspection are descr.bed in the Offic= of inspec.ion ld En i orcemen-.
In spec-. ion Repor-'. which i s encl osec with thi s 1 e:" er.. 'r/i hi n these areas, the inspection consiis.ec of selec-ive examine.ions of procedures
.and represen ative records, in erviews wi h personnel, and observa.ions by tne"
-inspec or.,
Our inspector also verified the steps you have taken to correc.
he item of noncompliance brought o your attention in the enclosure to our le'er dated November 16, 1978.
Me have no ivrtner ques ions regarding your ac ion at this ime.
'Based on the resul.s of this inspec ion, it appears that one of your ac.ivi ies was not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in he Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
This item of noncompliance has been categorized into the levels described in he Federal Regis.er Notice (45 FR 66754) dated Oc.ober 7, 1980.'n accordance with Sec ion 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of his letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any infor-mation that you (or your cont".actor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a.written applica ion within 20 days to this office to withhold svch information from public disclosure.
Any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed bv the owner of.he information, which identifies the docvmen. or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a statement of reasons which addresses with specificity the items which will be considered by the Commission as listed in subparagraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790.
The.information
Rockies er Gas and Electric Company
APR leal sought to be wi.hheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. if we do no-hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the repor. wi 11 be placed in he Public Oocument Room.
Should you have any ques.ions concerning this inspec ion, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
incerely, Gary L
nyde
,
C ef, Emergency Prepa dness an P. ogram Support Branch, Oivisi of Emergency Preparedness and Operational Suppor Enclosures:
l.
Appendix A, No ice of Yiola ion 2 ~
Office of inspec.ion and Enforcement Inspec ion Report Number 50-244/S'-02 c" w/encls:
B. A. Snow, Plant Superin-.enden:
J.
Bodine, QC Engineer Harry H. Yo',gt, Esquire J.
T. S-'. Hartin, Tecnnical Assis. an OperatIons Assessmen Engineer bcc w/encl s:
."- Hail 6.=iles (.=or Appro
'.'":
Distr" u-.'.'on)
Cen ral ri I es Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room ('.R)
Nuclear Sa ety information Can.er (NS:C)
Techni ca 1 infol ma i on Center (TiC)
REG: i Reading Room State of New York Roy P.
Zimmerman, Senior Residen-.
inspector-Chic=.,
Op rational. Support Section (w/o encls)
i
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Rocnester.
Gas and Electric Company R.
ED Ginna. Nuclear Power Plan Docket No.
50-244 License No.
DPR-18 Based on
.he results oi an NRC inspection con"ucted on January 20-22, 1981, and in accordance with the Interimi Enforcemen Policy,
FR 66754 (October 7,
'980), the following violation was,identified:
Sec ion 4.10.
of the REG Technical Specifica:ions requires that samples of illterable dust be collected we kly.
Contrary to
.he above, weekly filterable dust samples were not co'llec.ed from he six onsite locations from March 30, 1979 to April 13, 1979.
I i 5 1 s a Severity Level VI Violat i on (Suppl emenit I).
Pul suan o the Drovi slons of I0 CFR 2.20~,
R"chester Gas and lee ric Company is hereby reouired o submit to this office ~-.th.'n twenty-five days of he date of
~ I
No i ce a
w i..en s-.atemen-or expl a.".a-ion in reply, incluc ing:
( ):he c"rrectiive steos wnich have been taken and::-,=,"esults achieved;
{2) correc:ive s:e s whiich will be awen o avoid iur.her vi";a-.icns; and (3).he date when
.full.compliance. wi 11 be achieved.
Under the au=hority o
Section 2 of the A
mi Enelcy Ac of ~954, as amended, thiis.esponse shall be submit:ed under cath or aiiiirmation.
'Dated Gary L.
n der,/Chic, Eme. oency Prepar ness and Pr o
am Support I/
Branc'.-.,
Divisiion of emergency Preparedness and Opera ional Suppo l
U..
NUCL-"AR REiUL'TORY OFFICE Or INSPECTION nHD CQMMISSI N
EHFOR CEMENT Region I
-'P "
~50-2 Dock: No.
50-24'ice..se Ho.
DPR-18 Pri.ority Catecory Licensee:
'ochester Gas and Electric Company (RG&E)
89 East Avenue Rochester, Hew York 14649
, acil i y Name.
Robert E.
Ginna Nuclear Povrer Plan (REG)
- nspe ion a,:
R.
E. Ginna Site, Ontario, New York Inspc tion conducted.
January 20-22,,
1981
- nspec.ors:
C.
Sakenas, Radiation Specialist da i sioned da-e signed date signed Approved by:
R. J.
Bores, Chief, Independen lvaasurements
&
Emergency Planning Section, DEP&DS da-signed Inspection Summar
inspection on Januar '0-22, 1981 Report No. 6b-244/81-02 Areas inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of environmental monitcrsng programs for operation, including:
management con.rois o,
these programs; quality control of analytic 1 measurements; implementation of environmental monitoring programs-radiological; implementation of environmental moni.oring programs-biological/ecological; nonradioactive efiluent release rates and limits; and a followup on previous environnental inspection findings.
The inspec.ion involved 18 inspector-hours onsite by one regionally based inspector.
Results:
Qf the six areas inspected, no itens o-noncompliance were found in five areas.
One apparent item o noncompliance ( ailure to take filterable dust samples as reouired)
was identified in one area.
'P.ecion I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
)
l'
DETAILS 1.
Individual s Contacted
"B. Snow, S ation Superintenden
,
REG
"J.
Noon, Assis ant Plan. Superintenden.,
REG
"D. Filkins, Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry, REG B; Quinn, Heal.h Physicis
,
REG
"O. Fi lion, Radiochemis.,
REG P.
Sawyko, Aquatic Biologist, RG&E T. Rakiewicz, Foreman, ins.rument and Control, REG J.
Bodine, Quality Control Engineer, REG
"denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action. on Previous Insoec.ion Findincs (Closed)
Noncompliance (78-22-01):
Failure to ment procedures for.he multichannel analyzer.
licensee's procedures; PC-1.4, Revision 2,
"Ope and PC-1.5, Revision 0, "Operation of TN '000 G
that correc.ive actions in this area were compl licensee's le. er to he NRC dated December ",
prepare, approve, and imple-The inspector reviewed the
, a ion of TN " 1 Gamma Analyzer" amma Analyzer" anc determined ezed as described in the
'978.
3.
Manaaemen Con.rois a.
Assi nment of Resoonsibi li-The inspec.or reviewed the organize~ion and administration cf the environmental moni:oring programs wi=h respect to changes made since the las inspec.ion of this area.
The inspec or notec, hrough dis-
- cussion with the licensee and review of current organizational char-s that Mr. D. Filkins has replacec Mr.
E. OeMeritt as Supervisor, Heal.h
,Physics and Chemistry.
Mr. OeMerit. is 'now assigned to emergency planning.
The inspec or determined
.hat the chanoes would provide the same or higher level of managemen.
con.rois as the previous'rogram.
b.
Pro ram Audits and Review The inspector reviewed -the program audits and no ed tha documented audits were conducted on December 18-20, 1979 -nd June 6,
1980 and involved the echnical specifica.ion requirements for environmental radiation surveys.
The inspector no.ed that several deficiencies were identified, and that responses ou.lining corrective ac.ions were submitted within he specified t-mme and follow-up inspections were conducted o verify correc ive action.
No items of noncompliance were ider ified in his are Licensee Program for Qualit Control of Analytical Measurements The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for analyzing environmental samples and records of backgrounds, performance checks and con rol char s
for the GeLi system and Mide-Beta Ii Co nter.
The inspec.or noted through records review and discussions with.he licensee tha 2-sigma and 3-sigma control bands were applied to the control char s for he Mide Seta II.
the inspec or noted ha no procedure existed to indica e follow-up ac ion when values fell ou side
.he acceptable range indica"ed by the con rol band, although it appeared that corrective a.ctions were initiated by the licensee.
The inspector verified 'nrough records review hat the TLO system was cali-brated quar.erly as indica.ed in Procedure iS-8.2.
The inspector also reviewed results for I979 and 1980 of the licensee's participa ion in he EPA interlaboratory comparison program, and noted agre men within the 3-sig'a criteria with few excep ions.
The reasons for these discrepancies were identified and resolved by the licensee.
The inspec or had no further questions in this area.
Implementation of the Environmental Mon t"r inc Prooram - Radiological The inspector examined seve. al on-site air sampling and precipitation collecting stations anc TLDs.
The ins"ec:or discussed witn the licensee the placemen
.of TLDs to preven-burial in snow following snow removal ac ivi.ies.
The licensee sta-ed hat the ILDS, in question, would be relocated.
Tne inspec.or examined procedures for sample collection of each sample type, and analysis for gross beta ac ivi=y and gamma spectroscooy of each sample
.ype and I-131 in milk and air.
i.", acdition, the inspec. or reviewed procedures for collec.ion and reading of 's.
The inspector reviewed the resul s of all of he radioanalytical environmental measurements from 1979 and 1980.
The ',nspec-or noted that some samples were not collected in ~979 as required by REG technical specifications:
marine oroanisms were collected
.wice per year instead of four ines per year; and weekly filterable dus samples were not collected from.he six onsi e sta ions from March 30 - April 13,
~979.
An REG audit conducted December 18-20, 1979 identified missing marine samples as deviations from technical specifica.ions.
Correc ive ac ion was initiated for the missed marine organisms and the four required samples were collec.ed in ~980.
The inspec.or had no fur.her ques ions reoarding the resolution of this i.em.
The loss of air samples was no addressed, however, in the licensee's response to the audit findings and no documenta=ion was available on the reason for.he missed air samoles, nor for corrective/preven ative actions.
The inspector s.ated that failure to collect these samples on a weekly basis is in noncompliance with Sec.ion
<.~0. 1 of REG Technical. Specifications (8i-02-01).
The. inspector noted through discussions wi h -'he licensee and examination of records that a 52, week sum for liquid releases was not documented and the documentation of gaseous releases was not current.
The inspec or stated that since these to-als dic.ate which environmental sampling and aralysis regime is required by.he REG Technical Specifications, some calculational method should be employed and main.ained.
The licensee stated that these totals would be mairtained.
The inspector no ed that at the time of the inspection, the cumulative r leases were well below the level which would require the next, more intense environmental samplino and analytical regime.
The inspector stated that this area would be re-evaluated in a subsequent inspection (81-02-02).
The inspec or also examined the meteorological instrumen ation and observed the data being recorded at the time of.ne inspection.
The inspector observed that this instrumen ation appeared to be functioning properly.
The inspector also reviewed calibra ion records from 1979 and 1980, and determined tha the equipment had been calibra ed as required by REG pro-cedures.
The inspector had no fur her questions in this area.
Implementation of he Environmen al vIcn'turing Program - Biolocical/
Ecoloaical The inspector. discussed
.he biological/e olcgical studies conducted at the
. REG.si.e and reviewed the da a collected from several of hese programs.'he specific areas reviewed included:
impingement s udies (speciies, number, weights, leng hs, etc.)
from 1978 and 1979; and entrainment s.udies (ichthy-oplank.on and macroinvertebrates)
from 1978.
The licensee has no specific NRC requirements in this area.
7.
Nonradioactive Effluent Release Rates and Limi s
The inspec.or reviewed the records of the licensee's monitoring of chemical and thermal discharges from the site for '979 and 1980 and found that none of the measured effluent parameters were outside the limits of the licensee's NPOES permi s.
The licensee has no specific NRC requirements in this area.
8.
. Exit Interview On January 22, 1981, the inspector met with the licensee represen atives indicated in Paragraph 1.
The scope and findings of he inspection were presented and the item of noncompliance was identifie ~
V J