IR 05000245/1993008
| ML20035C841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1993 |
| From: | Mark Miller, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C831 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-93-08, 50-245-93-8, 50-336-93-04, 50-336-93-4, 50-423-93-05, 50-423-93-5, NUDOCS 9304090136 | |
| Download: ML20035C841 (6) | |
Text
.,
.
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
'
Repon Nos.
50-245/93-08. 50-336/93-04. 50-423/93-05 Docket Nos.
50-245. 50-336. 50-423 License Nos.
DPR-21. DPR-65. and NPF-49 Licensee:
Nonheast Nuclear Enerev Company P.O. Box 270 Hanford. Connecticut 06141
.
Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Generatine Station. Units 1.2. and 3
[
,
Inspection At:
Northeast Utilitie.s Service Company at Berlin. Pmduction Operation Services Laboratory at Middletown. and the Millstone Nuclear Genemtine Station at Waterford. Connecticut
- ;
i Inspection Conducted:
March 8-12.1993
,
.
J/ndr Inspector:
9 us_
ww Laurie A. Peluso, Radiation Specialist Date
'
Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards
,
Branch (FRSSB)
.
.i iy
d' Ai'D Approved by:
Marie T. Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, Date
[
Division of Radiation Safety and
!
t-Safeguards (DRSS)
E I
,
Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring
[
Pmgram (REMP) including: management contmis, quality assurance audits, quality E
assurance / quality control of measurement laboratory, surveillance procedures, meteomlogical monitoring pmgram, ODCM, and implementation of the above pmgrams.
l Results: Within the areas inspected, implementation of the REMP was very effective. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements wem identified.
'!
'
9304090136 930401-PDR ADOCK 05000245 G
PDR i
_
_
,
<
.
k
,.
t DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted i
1.1 Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCOL Berlin. CT
- R. Crandall, Supervisor Radiological Engineering
- W. Eakin, Senior Engineer, RAB
- C. Flory, Senior Scientist RAB
- R. Schmidt, Manager Radiological Assessment Branch
'
r 1.2 Pmduction Operation Services laboratory (POSLL Middletown. CT i
N. Corsi, Environmental Technician R. Marchinkoski, Environmental Technician, Meteomlogical Monitoring i
!
G. Martel, Supervisor R. Parker, Environmental Specialist
,
P. Staehly, Engineer, Environmental Monitoring i
1.3 Millstone Nuclear Generating Station
,
- D. Peiffer, Unit 3, Chemistry 1.4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
R. Arrighi, Resident Inspector A. Asars, Resident Inspector
!
- Denotes those present at the exit interview held on March 12,1993.
Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed -during this
,
inspection.
- 2.0 Pumose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's capability to implement the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), including the l
Metcomlogical Monitoring Pmgram (MMP), based on the Technical Specifications
'l and the Radiological Envimnmental Monitoring and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (REMODCM), during both normal and emergency operations.
3.0 Previously Identified Items-
(Closed) Violation (50-245/92-06-01, 50-336/92-06-01, 50-423-06-01) Failure to l
maintain copies of pmcedure RAB-2, Rev.1.1,1.2,1.3 as specified ir pmcedure i
RAB 1-3, Rev. 7, "RAB Record Retention," as required by Technical Specifications.
'
(See Inspection Report No 50-245/92-06,50-336/92-06,50-423/92-06 for details.)
l I
s
,f i
.
.
.
.
f
.
,
.
The inspector reviewed the following RAB procedures to verify that procedures were
,
being transmitted timely to Nuclear Document Services to be retained.
o RAB l-1, Rev. 9, "RAB Procedures Document Control," June 1992
!
o RAB 1-3, Rev. 9, "RAB Record Retention," June 1992 The inspector noted that the above procedures had been rewritten to ensure that outdated procedures are sent to Nuclear Document Services prior to the deadline
,
stated in the procedures. The responsibility for documenting pmcedure changes, retaining preceding procedures, and transmitting preceding procedures had been
clearly dermed. The inspector reviewed the Nuclear Plant Records Transmittals
document and noted that the document contained all the pmcedure transmittals.
l Based on the above procedure review and discussion with the licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee was maintaining records excellently. This item is closed, j
4.0 Management Controls
,
4.1 Organization j
't The inspector revieweo the licensee's organization of the REh1P and discussed
'
with members of the Radiological Assessment Branch changes made since the last inspection conducted in January 1992. There were no changes in the organization of the REhfP since the previous inspection.
!
4.2 Ouality Assurance Audits
The inspector reviewed the following Quality Assurance (QA) audit reports as l
part of the evaluation of the implementation of Section 6.5.4.7 of Technical
Specifications.
,
o Millstone Site Nuclear Review Board (SNRB) Audit A24030,
__
.
" Verification of Compliance to REh10DCM and Regulatory Guides
'
1.21 and 4.1," August 3,1992
'l
,
t o Millstone 2 Technical Specification Audit, September 28,1992
f Quality Assurance Audits were conducted by members of the Assessment Services Department that is a subsection of the Quality Services Department
-
(QSD), whose members coordinated the audit. In order to meet the Technical i
Speci'ication audit frequency requirements, the Assessment Services j
Supervisor indicates a specific area from the REhiP to be emphasized and l
assigns a technical specialist to conduct the audit. The inspector reviewed the
!
l
,
'
.,
.
&
audit schedule and noted that an audit of the REhiP was scheduled every year, however specific areas to be audited were distributed over a five year interval.
The Millstone SNRB Audit was subdivided into two sections, (1) the Quality Services Department Audit of the Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and (2) the Nuclear Review Board (NRB) Audit of the Quality Control of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
The inspector noted that the NRB Audit did not contain the detail or technical depth necessary to assess the Quality Control of the REhiP sufficiently. The inspector discussed with the Assessment Services Supervisor the frequency, scope, and technical depth of the REMP audit. The licensee stated that these items would be reviewed and the subsequent REhiP audit would be improved, as appropriate. The inspector stated that this would be reviewed during a i
subsequent inspection.
The 1992 Millstone 2 Technical Specification Audit included the Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP). The inspector noted that this i
audit was very detailed and of excellent technical depth to assess the pmgram.
i There were no findings of safety significance.
Based on the above audit review and discussions with the licensee, the inspector, (1) noted that the above audits were performed as scheduled, covered the stated objectives, and utilized a technical specialist, (2) determined that the NRB audit partially assessed the implementation of the Quality Control of the REMP, and (3) the Technical Specification Audit assessed excellently
.
the MMP. No safety concerns were identified.
4.3 Review of the Annual Renon
,
The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Envimnmental Operating Repon for 1991, as well as the available 1992 analytical data. The repon provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical results of the REMP
.
around the Millstone site and met Technical Specification reponing l
- requirements. Records of the analytical results for 1992 indicated that samples
were collected as required and the lower limits of detection specified in the licensee's Technical Specifications were met. No obvious omissions, trends, j
or anomalous measurements were identified.
.l
!
t i
,
l
-..-
...
i
l 5.0 Radioloeical Environmental Monitorine Procram f
f 5.1 Direct Observations j
The inspector examined selected envimnmental sampling stations to detennine l
whether samples wem being obtained from the locations designated in the
!
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and whether the air samplers were
'
operating, calibrated, and. maintained. These stations included air samplers for
,
particulate and airborne iodines, the discharge composite water sampler, milk
.i and vegetation sampling stations, and a number of thermoluminescent
dosimetry (TLD) stations for direct ambient radiation measurements. All the i
air samplers were operating and the gas meters for the air samplers were
.,
calibrated at the time of the inspection. The TLDs were placed at their l
designated locations and the water compositor was operating and collecting
!
samples. Milk and vegetation samples were available and collected from the
locations specified in the ODCM. Sample collection was performed according
!
to the appmpriate procedures.
r
5.2 Impleme_ntation of the REME l
The inspector reviewed the following pmcedures as part of the examination of
'
the implementation of the REMP as described in Section 6.8.5 of Technical j
Specifications and the REMODCM.
RAB 3-1, " Quality Control of Envimnmental TLD Monitoring
Program"
RAB 3-2, " Quality Control of Radiological Environmental Sampling i
Program"
-
,
RAB 3-3, " Radiochemical' Analysis Data Checks" RAB 3-6, " Quality Assurance in the Preparation, Review and Approval l
of RAB Analyses and Calculations The inspector also reviewed procedure _s that included requirements for
!
sampling frequencies and sampling techniques for various environmental-i sample media. The procedures provided the required direction and guidance
for implementing the REMP.
'
Based on the above procedure review, discussions with the licensee repmsentatives, and independent observations of the licensee's performance i
with regard to implementing and following procedums, the inspector determined that the licensee follows the appropriate procedures, has a good
_
i understanding of the envimnmental monitoring program, and had implemented j
the REMP effectively. No safety concerns were identified.
i I
,
!
,
--
--
- _ _ -. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _.
l:<
l
.
'
i
!
6.0 Quality Assurance /Ouality Control of Analytical Meast:rements
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for quality assurance / quality control to determine whether the licensee had adequate control with respect to sampling,
,
analyzing samples and evaluating data for the implementation of the REMP. The licensee's primary contractor for REMP sample analyses is Teledyne Isotopes, Inc.,
located in Westwood, N.J. and the laboratory for quality control is Yankee Atomic
Environmental Laboratory, located in Framingham, MA. The licensee's quality control program included duplicates, spikes, and blinds. The EPA Cross-check program, required by Technical Specifications is conducted by Teledyne Isotopes.
'
The inspector reviewed the results of the above programs and noted that the results of the EPA Cross-check pmgram were within the acceptance criteria and the msults of the licensee's quality assurance program were within the licensee's acceptance -
criteria, however, them were some exceptions. The inspector noted that some of the items were resolved and closed and some of the items were still in progress. The inspector discussed with the licensee these open items and stated that the licensee has the right focus. This area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
.
Based on the above reviews and discussions with the licensee, the mspector detennined that the licensee had in place a good quality assurance / quality control program to assess the REMP.
I 7.0 Meteorological Monitoring Procram The inspector reviewed the licensee's meteorological monitoring pmgram to detemiine whether the instrumentation and equipment were operating, calibrated, and maintained. Members of the Pmduction Operation Services Laboratory maintain the sensors at the main and backup towers and perform quarterly calibrations, mom frequent than the semi-annual Technical Specification requirement. The inspector reviewed the most recent calibration results and noted that the calibrations were performed as schedu!ed and the results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
The inspector compared the wind speed, wind direction, and delta temperature outputs
of the main tower to the outputs in all three control rooins. The results were in good agreement.
!
Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee maintains an excellent meteorological monitoring program.
'
8.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.0 at the conclusions of the inspection on March 12, 1993. The inspector summarized the i
purpose, scope, and findings, of the inspection.
l
'
q