IR 05000277/1989028
| ML20005G981 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005G974 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-89-28, 50-278-89-28, NUDOCS 9001230343 | |
| Download: ML20005G981 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_-. . -. -
. . - ' . i i I U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION
REGION I
. Report Nos.
50-277/69-28
50-278/89-28
Docket Nos.
50-277
' 50-278 ' Category C License Nos. DPR-44 Priority - DPR-56
Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco) i 2301 Market Street . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 facility Name: Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 , Inspection At: Delta,.PA, Wayne, PA, and Westwood, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: December 11-18, 1989 i Inspector: b6 /- Y~[6 . Jas C. Jang, Sr. Radiation )lipecialist, date E luents Radiation Protect Mn Section Approved by : /- 1 -f@
, Chief, Effluents Radiation date t RobertJ.Bobetection, Division of Radiation' Protection Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary : Inspection on December 11-18, 1989 (Combined Inspection - Report Nos. 50-277/89-28 and 50-Z78/89-28) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's programs for radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent controls, rediological environmental monitoring, and meteorological monitoring.
Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were identified.
However, some weaknesses in the area of radiation monitoring system calibrations were identified (See Section 4.1.3 of this inspection report).
. f I l 900123o343 900110 -{DR ADOCK 05000277 ' FDC L - - - - -. .. - - . ...,.. - - -... ... . . - - -,. ., ..
- __ .. . .--. _ _. .-_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. > . - . , ' , , .
, i , , e DETAIIS 1.0 Individuals contacted i 1.1 Pea & Bottom Atomic Power Station, Delta, Pennsylvania j
- N. Barkins, Isrc Supervisor
!
- T. Critbe, Regulatory Engineer
!
- M. Hartanond, Maintenance /IEC Manager
..! T. Herpen, I&C ErxJineer
- G. Hanson, Regulatory Engineer l
- D. LaQuia, intendent, Plant Services
- R. Moore, ity Assurance
J. Mroz, Quality control
'
- A. Odell, Senior Chemist
- R. Szczech, atory DxJineer B. Wargo, st j
1.2 Corporata Office, Wayne, Pennsylvania J. Ballentine, Supervisor, Envirciaistal Gra.1p, Radiation Control ' and Chemistry Department
- D. Oltmans, Director, Nuclear Chemistry Branch, RaMation Control and Chemistry Department G. Roach, Director, Radiation Control and memistry Def.o.rtment D. Wahl, Health Ihysicist, Envisuaistal Group, Radiat n Control and Chenistry Department 1.3 NRO Personnel
- J. Lyash, Senior Resident Irspector
- L. Myers, Resident Inspector j
- R. Urban, Resident Inspector j
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on %r 15, 1989 at
the Peach Bottom Site.
1.4 Teledyne Iso % (Contractor laboratory), Westwood, New Jersey
- Dr. J. Martin, Vice President, Envitusia:atal Analysis
- Dr. H. Jeter, Manager, Radiochennistry, Envisuaistal Analysis l
- B. Canpbell, Quality Assurance Manager
- A. Hcgan, Project Manager, Envitu dud Analysis
'
- J. Ballentine, Environmental Group, Radiation Cbntrol and Chemistry
' i Department, Ihiladelphia Electric Cartpany
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on C+Wer 18, 1989 at
'haledyne Isotopes, Westwood, New Jersey.
l i
. . .. . __ _ _ _ _.
_ .
. -- .-- - - - .__ .- -- . !
- . i .
I i l
3
i I 2.0 Purpose i j ' 'Ibe of this inspection was to review the licensee's pi w&m s in the
l foll areas.
o 'Ihe licensee's ability to control and quanti release of radioactive liquids, gases, and particulates during no and emergency operations.
o 'Ihe licensee's ability to impiment its radiological envitus-i'21 I ' nonitoring prwt-n during normal and emergency operations.
3.0 Manageant controls 3.1 Audits 'Ihe inspector reviewed the follow audits of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring E %smu the Pea d Bottom Effluent Control h-@t-e, including contractor laboratories, with respect to Te&nical j Specification requirments.
i
i (1) N@ Audit PA 89-28, Effluent Controls ', (2) N @ Audit PA 89-31, Radiological Envitw.ie tal Monitoring l (3) PEco @ Audit VA 89-23, Clean Harbors l (4) PE00 @ Audit VA 89-21, Teledyne Isotopes Audits available appeared to cover the stated objectives and were tierough.
'Ihere were no negative audit findirgs in the areas of effluent controls and radiological env12w.ieital monitoring gwimu.
'Ihe audits identified several findings requiring followup for the contractor laboratories, Clean
Harbors and Teledyne Isotopes. Findings were good, but none were of safety ' significance. 'Ibe licensee uses a tracking systm for audit-identified followup items. No violations was noted in this area.
3.2 Review of Semiannual and Annual Reports , 'Ihe inspector reviewed the ser.tiannual radioactive effluent release report for the first half of 1989. Tnis report provided total released . radioactivit the public. y for liquid effluents, including projected radiation dose to 'Ibe inspector also reviewed the annual radiological envitu iestal report for 1988. 'Ihis report provided sumaries of the results of the envitu ieital sanpling ard analysis prwtau. Sanpling frequencies and analytical results for airborne pathways, ingestion pathways,iewed the and direct radiation measuraisits were reviewed. 'Ibe inspector also rev available new 1989 analitical results.
- 'Ihrough review of these reports, the inspector determined that the licensee met the Te& nical Specification requitais tus.
No violations were identified in this area.
l l L ! .. _ _ _. -
.. ._ . - _- - -- - . . .. - -. . i ' . . , . ,
i
, I 4.0,R,_adioactive Waste Syste s 4.2 Liquid ard naamia Effluent Controls-l 4.1.1 Pro 2 ram Omnges i Since the previous inspection in this area (January 1989) there have been j no significant charges in the licensee's ym,3 for handling liquid and . gaaama effluents, j . 4.1.2 Liauld and naamia Effluent Controls ' 'Ihe inspector reviewed the licensee's bowing technical specification-hures and disch determine the inplementation of the fo '
requit ueit. j
o Technical Specification 3/4.8.B, " Liquid Radwasta Effluents",; o Technical Specification 3/4.8.C, "caneta Effluents" i o Technical Specification 6.17, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODO4 ", and o Technical Specification 6.9.2.h. (3), "Radiati)on Dose Amaaaament l Report".
'Ihe inspector reviewed selected discharge permits to determine ocmpliance with the above requirements. 'Ibe inspector determined that the licensee i was meeting the requirements for ling and analysis at the frequencies and lower limits of detection establ in Tables 4.8.1 (for liquid effluents) and 4.8.2 (for gaamia effluents)its met the above requirments.
of the Technical i ' Specifications. All reviewed discharge perm 4.1.3 Calibration of Effluent /Prma Monitors . 'Ibe inspector reviewed the following radiation monitor calibration results to determine the implementation of the technical specification requirements.
o Reactor Building Exhaust Vent Monitors for Units 2 and 3 o Offgas Monitors for Units 2 and 3 o Main Steam Line Monitors for Units 2 and 3 ' ' o Main Stack Noble Gas Monitor o Liquid Effluent Radwaste Monitor i 'Ihe Chemistry DepatLisit has the responsibility to perform the radiological calibration and the I&C Department has the respcnsibility to perform , - electronic calibration for the effluent and process monitors. 'Ihe inspector reviewed the radiological calibration results dur the previous inspection (January 1989). Consequently, during this on, the inspector reviewed the electronic calibration results in more detail than for the radiological calibration results.
i .-, - - - . _. ._., _ -.. m - .. ..,
- _ _ _ . __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ __ _ __
. , , .
i
1
The inspector noted that the electronic calibrations for the above monitors
were performed as a result of Maintenance Request Form (MRF) tad by Chanistry. When the radiological calibration results were of tolerance limits, Chemistry ins==9 a MRP to 18C. After IEC lated the electronic ' calibration, the Chemistry Department performed the f radiological calibration.
The inspector also noted that the IEC oartment had w t Led the monitor l calibration pWives including the cal tion frequency. The inspector' i noted that the calibration prMnes for the liquid effluent radwasta monitor ard the main stack noble monitor were not included in the
twt.h procedures.
The riianmaari the calibration w ebres ! for these monitors with the licensee. The licensee initiated an w i.ie to monitor and main stack noble gas monitor) durin(liquid effluent radwaste the cilibration piucidares for these monitors , g this inspection. The ,
- .
inspector stated that these procedures will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
Since the licensee has the responsibility to review radiological and electronic calibration results, the ir%- % diammaari with the licensee , the following: (1) issuance and resolution of MRFs; (2) calibration manuals l l supplied by the manufacturer; and (3) the aria'?mcy of calibration procedures. The inspector noted that the licensee's representative was not , i familiar with the monitoring systens. The inspector noted further that ! this individual had occupied this position only about six months, and that
his praianaaam also was assigned to that position for only a abort time.
'
- .
The inspector ershasized to management that this position is critical.'y inportant in evalua the adequacy of onlibration results and the- , l operability of the toring system. The inspector stated that an
individual assigned that position should stay sufficiently long to accunulate knowledge and expertise relative to the monitoring systems, their operability and maintenants histories. The licensee stated that this itan will be resolved in the near future.
,
maari on the above review, the inspector stated that mana ouent attention v and rt were naariael to ensure ownership in the area of the radiation monitor system calibration and maintenance.
5.0 Radiological Environmental Monitoring F1uytaru (RENP) - 5.1 Ftuytain Changes - Due to a recent reorganization, the inspector reviewed the licensee's management vud.wls for the RENP.
The REMP is administered by the PECb Corporate Envitu =:mital Group Supervisor, who has respeissibility for review . of the contractor's performance of the REMP. The supervisor rqx:rts to the Manager of the Radiation Control and Chenistry Department. He, in turn, , P l - . . _ . _ _ , , - ~ _ -_, - _ _
. - -._.
. _. _ . - ., .- - . . .-
.. . . .
6 , i i i l reports to the Vice President of Nuclear Services throu@t the Manager of
Nuclear Support Division. Radiological analyses of the REMP sanples continue to be contracted to Teledyne Isotopes and clean Hartors of Natick.
7he inspector determined that the reorganization did not reduce or dange i the effectiveness of the REMP.
5.2 Toledyne Isotcces Erwiromental Analysis Tahnratory . The inspector reviewed the licensee's contractor laboratory (hledyne i Isotopes) organizatim, facilities, labora quality assurance and-control, and selected pi twas during this on.
' j The Enviremental Analysis Tahnm is directed by the Vlos President of ! the Envitensital Analysis who supervises several groqps arx17titlum,diochemistry, Gas Analysis, Getsna-ray S4Lud -, Radiocarbon i (Project Ra Radan, Enviru. dal TID, Field Sampling, and supporting . groups).
i The inspector toured the hledyne Envitu. ital Analysis laboratory l facilities including radiological envite. A ial laboratories in-plant radiochenistry laboratory, dosimetry laboratory, and counting, laboratory.
l The radiological counting laboratory was equipped with gas flow
' proportional counters, beta-gama coincidence counters, liquid l scintillation counters, and alpha and gama sphhuduy systans.
l The inspector also diamaaari analytical gu=dares for skud.ium and iodine in the different sanple media and envisu.eital TLD AMares with the laboratory staff. h inspector Mammaari the inplanantation of.QC in the counting laboratory, spike sanples, split sanples, and blind sanples with the QA Manager.
Based on the above review and discussions with the staff members, the inspector concluded the following, o 7he hiedync Envisumerital Analysis Iaboratory was well-organized and had an effective, established control prWaam for REMP sanples. The laboratory was equipped with the state-of-the-art instrumentation.
i o The technical staff members understood the importance of QA/QC in the laboratory and were well trained and well versed in the s M ares.
o Based on the above findings, the Teledyne Environmental Analysis Laboratory was well qualified to support the REMP.
l ! ! i .. .. - -
. . . , + 5.3 Islementation of the REMP S.3.1 Direct nhaatvation The ina=+or examined selected swiiu.isital monitorincJ stations, includ-ing air sanplers for iodines and particulates TID stations for the men-surment of direct radiation, and milk sanplin,g locations. All air sam-ling -ir= ant at the selected stations was operational at the time of the-on. TIDs were placed at the designated monitoring stations. Milk sanples wezu available at the identified sanpling staticns.
5.3.2 Islanantation The inspector reviewed the licensee's inglenentation of the REMP by means of Mamanions with licensee personnel, review of analytical @- Aims for iodine strontium, and tritium and available 1989 REMP analytical results.
The ins,pector found them to be satisfactory.
The inspector noted that the licensee had ocupared the licensee's data with the NRC's data for the collocated TIDs (three collocated TID stations).
The inspector reviewed these ocuparison data, and noted that although there are see minor differences between the licensee's and NRC's results, they are generally in good agreement with the exception of one collocated station (NRC Station Number 10 and Peach Bottcan Station Number 33A). The NRC's results were higher than the licensee's results (about 25%). The inspector nhaarved the TID station during the direct nhaatVation tour and fourd that the licensee TID station (33A) was installed in the fenced area of the radar tower. The foundation of the radar tower was well meted and covered with stones and pebbles. The NRC TID station (10) was installed outside the fenced area near a corn field. Even though they were only about 40 feet apart, the inspector determined that these stations should not be treated as collocated TID stations, in that the radar tower fourdation area with its backfill was not representative of the situation at the NRC monitoring location. The inspector r+-Rded that the licensee and the NRC TID laboratory delete these from the collocated TID station list.
The inspector determined that the licensee has an effective prugrau to ocmply with technical specification requirements. No violatlons were identified in this area.
5.4 Islementation of Quality Assurance Fiwtwu for RIMP 1he inspector reviewed the licensee's program for quality control of analytical maastuousits for the radiological analyses of swizumisital media including the EPA Cross-check Frupau. The inspector reviewed selected sanples of quality control data submitted to the licensee by its two contractors, Teledyne Isoto indicated, with few exceptions, pes and Clean Harborkof Natick. These data - Spaimisit between EPA spike sanples ard the I i
-. _ -. - . .. -. .. - _- - , '. ., . l
! - , i )
!
i
i contractors' results. Were discrepancies were found, reasons for the ' differences were investi tad and resolved satisfactorily. Based on these ! rwiews, the inspector that the liounsee was implenanting the , quality assurance program satisfactorily. No problems were noted in i
this area.
~ l
l 5.5 Meteorological Manitorim Prtxga
i The inspector reviewed the most recent meteorological instrumentation ' i calibration results for wind speed, wind direction tenparature, and ' , delta-taperature. The licensee performed the callbration of meteorologi-I cal =*-- nt. seni-annually for the primary system and the hanW systen. - ! All cali'raticm results were within the licensee's defined acomptance b - criteria. No violations were identified.
[ t 6.0 Exit Interview , ' h inspector raet with the licensee representatives denoted in Detail 1 at the Peach Botta Atcanic Power Station on namanhar 15, 1989 and at the ! 'Ittledyne Isotopes, Westwood, New Jersey on Decenber 18, 1989. The inspector > sumarired the arv.1 scope of the inspection, and MmW the inspection f i . ,
> I i ? l , I > - -, - - -.e.
.-- - - - - . --m---- - m . - - - ---. }}