IR 05000277/1993012

Insp Repts 50-277/93-12 & 50-278/93-12 on 930512-24.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiological Environ & Meteorological Monitoring Program & Licensee Program for QC

ML20036C276
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	06/04/1993
From:	Bores R, Struckmeyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20036C275	List: IR 05000277/1993012 ML20036C274
References
50-277-93-12, 50-278-93-12, NUDOCS 9306160016
Download: ML20036C276 (7)

Text

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report Nos.

50-277/93-12 50-278/93-12 Docket Nos.

50-277 and 50-278 License Nos.

DPR-44 and DPR-56 Licensee:

Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo)

P. O. Box 195 Wayne. Pennsylvania 19087-0195 Facility Name:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:

Wayne and Delta. Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:

May 12 - 24.1993 Inspector:

fl wh Richard K. Struckmeyer, f Radiation Specialist Date Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)

Approved by:

Mo'/hB

--

TRobert J. IMres, Chief, ERPS Date Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program and meteorological monitoring program, including management controls for these programs, and the licensee's program for quality control of analytical measurements.

Results Within the areas inspected, no safety concerns or violations were identified. The licensee is implementing the above programs effectively.

9306160016 93060s PDR ADOCK 05000277 O

PDR J

. -

-

.

.

-

'

,

.

DETAILS

1.0 Individuals Contacted

,

1.1 PECo I

• J. Ballantine, Supervisor, Environmental Group

• D. Wahl, Health Physicist, Environmental Group i

F. Hunt, Nuclear Quality Assurance Assessor

,

M. Brisan, Nuclear Quality Assurance Assessor

,

'

G. Bell, Manager, Site Quality Assurance

• M. Kaminski, Engineer, Nuclear Quality Assurance

P..Hoffman, I&C Technician i

K. Ralston, Calibration Supervisor, Corporate Labs Division R. Stadnik, Sr. Engineering Technician, Corporate Labs Division j

1.2 Radiation Manacement Corocration. Inc.

i

'

,

C. Reid, Sampling Contractor

'

Other licensee personnel were also interviewed during this inspection.

• Denotes those present at exit interview on May 24,1993.

,

2.0 Puroose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review thelicensee's implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program and Meteorological Monitoring Program.

i 3.0 Manacement Controls

The inspector reviewed the licensee's management controls for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), including assignment of responsibility, i

program audits, and corrective actions for identified inadequacies and problem areas in the program.

3.1 Assignment of Resoonsibility The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the REMP. There have been no significant changes since the previous inspection. The program is administered by the PECo Corporate Environmental Group, which reviews the performance and/or analytical data generated by its contractors.

Sample-l

-

collections are performed by Radiation Management Corporation, Inc. (RMC),

.I and routine analyses are performed by Teledyne Isotopes, Inc. Quality control samples are analyzed by the Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Research i

_ _.

.

_

_ -

_

_

.

_

.

a

'

r and Testing Laboratory. Results are sent to the Environmental Group, where

'

they are reviewed and compiled into the annual Radiological Environmental

,

Monitoring Program report.

I 3.2 Mid_in

'l i

i The inspector reviewed the following audits of the Radiological Environmental

!

Monitoring Program and the Meteorological Monitoring Program.

[

Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Audit Report No. A0167269, January 22 -

February 7, 1992 - Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program /

l Meteorological Monitoring Program (dated March 4,1992).

!

Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Audit Report No. A0680043, April 1 - 16, (

1993 - LGS and PBAPS Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program j

'

(REMP) and Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP) (dated May 17, 1993).

Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee (NUPIC) audit of Teledyne Isotopes, l

Inc., led by New York Power Authority (Audit Number 92-18), August 3 - 6,

{

1992.

,

The audits were performed by qualified personnel and were of sufficient technical f

depth to properly assess the implementation of the programs. Appropriate and

'

timely responses to NQA audit findings were received. Responses to NUPIC

-

audits have been provided by Teledyne, and a follow-up visit to verify compliance

!

with several items has been scheduled for July 1993.

l i

The inspector had no further questions in this area.

,

,

4.0 Implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitorine Program

-.

4.1 Direct Observation

,

i The inspector examined selected sampling stations, including air samplers for

,

iodines and particulates, milk sampling locations, TLD stations, and drinking l

water composite sampling stations. All air sampling equipment at the selected i

locations was operational at the time of the inspection. Milk samples appeared

[

to be available at selected locations. TLDs were placed at locations designated

in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The Holtwood Dam station serves as a i

control station for both drinking and surface water. Although 75 percent or more of the expected volume of water had been collected in the compositor holding tank, the composite water sampling equipment at this station appeared to be out

,

of service at the time of the inspection. The problem was not related to the

!

compositing equipment per se, but to the pump that draws water from the intake

,

I

!

,

_. _. -.

_

.

.

-

_

m

.

.

-

,

,

.

canal within the dam. The contractor performing the sample collections indicated-l that the pump appeared to be subject to cavitation and/or clogging by mud, either t

of which may be due to the unusually high flow of water in the river. The l

contractor indicated that this problem had existed only a few weeks, and each l

time only for no more than a few days. The contractor has been able to restore

!

the pump to operating condition each time.

No violations of regulatory.

requirements were noted.

!

4.2 Review of Annual Reports The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 1992

!

Annual Report. This report provided a comprehensive summary of the results of

.I the REMP around the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and met the Technical l

Specification and ODCM reporting requirements. The inspector also reviewed-l selected analytical REMP data records for 1993 during this inspection. The

reports were complete and the reviewed data indicated no adverse' radiological

!

impact on public health or the environment.

j 4.3 Review of REMP Procedures

!

The inspector reviewed selected licensee environmental monitoring procedures.

l Based on this review, the inspector determined that the licensee has good-procedures for implementation of the REMP.

!

The inspector also reviewed the licensee's air sampler calibration procedures and

records.

Calibrations of orifices and vacuum gauges are performed semi-

!

"

annually. Results of these calibrations were within the specified acceptance

.;

criteria.

i 4.4 Intercomparison of TLD Results

.

!

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Direct Radiation Monitoring l

Network is operated by the NRC (Region I) to provide continuous measurements of the ambient radiation levels around nuclear power plants throughout the United States.

Each site is monitored by arranging approximately 30 to 50

,

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations in two concentric rings extending to j

about five miles from the power plant. The monitoring results are published in

_

NUREG-0837 quarterly.

,

!

One of the purposes of this program is to serve as a basis of comparison with

'

similar programs conducted by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plants. Four NRC TLDs are collocated with licensee TLDs at the Peach Bottom i

plant site.

~

i l

i

-

.

.

-

. -

-

-

-

-.

.

.-

.

'

.

The licensee monitors the environmental radiation levels with two sets of TLDs, i

one set that is exchanged and read monthly, and another that is exchanged and read quarterly. The licensee's dosimeters, which contain calcium sulfate activated with dysprosium (CaSOgDy), are supplied and analyzed by Teledyne Isotopes, i

Inc. The NRC uses the Panasonic Model 801 dosimeter, which contains two elements of lithium borate activated with copper, (Li BO :Cu) and two elements

7 of calcium sulfate activated with thulium (CaSOgTm). The NRC uses only the l

calcium sulfate elements for routine environmental monitoring and handling techniques.

j i

During this inspection the monitoring results of collocated TLDs were compared, l

and the results are listed in Table 1. Only the licensee's quarterly TLDs were i

considered in this comparison. The NRC " historical average" data are also

.;

provided as a basis for comparison of NRC results with those of the licensee.

.

The historical averages shown here are the same as reported in NUREG-0837,

!

Vol.12, No. 4, for these collocated stations. These reported values are the mean

+/-l standard deviation for all quarters (starting in 1983) for which net data were

.

!

available. The relatively small standard deviations indicate that the NRC results have remained consistent over the ten-year period. The licensee results are generally somewhat below those of the NRC, and may be due to different l

methods of calibration of the two systems.

The inspector had no funher l

questions in this area at this time.

4.5 Ouality Control Program for REMP

[

r The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for quality control of analytical

!

measurements for radiological environmental samples. One aspect of quality control consists of measurements of duplicate samples performed by the contractor laboratory. Both the primary and the QC laboratories participated in j

the EPA cross-check program, and conducted an internal QC program. Periodic reportr of QC results are supplied to the licensee. The data indicate, with few exceptions, agreement between the primary contractor laboratory and the QC laboratory. Where discrepancies were found, reasons for the differences were

'

investigated and resolved.

The licensee has a thorough and effective program for review of the analytical data, including QC sample data. The contractor laboratories routinely supply

'

both the final results and the raw data for each sample, and the licensee performs the necessary calculations to check the laboratories' results.

The data are

subsequently reviewed again prior to publication in the annual REMP report. The inspector had no further questions in this area.

I i

l l

.

.-.

.

__

s.

.

6 i

5.0 Meteorolocical Monitoring Program i

'

The inspector examined the licensee's meteorological monitoring program through direct observation, discussions with personnel, and examination of procedures and records for calibration of equipment. The primary meteorological tower is equipped with wind speed

'

and wind direction sensors at the 30, 75, and 320-foot elevations. There are also temperature sensors at the 30,150, and 320-foot elevations. The inspector observed the sensors and their readouts in the equipment house at the base of the tower, as well as the readouts in the control room. The meteorological data are available in the equipment house via analog strip chart recorders. The data are available in the control room via i

analog strip chart recorders and as a digital display from the system computer. The

.

inspector also observed that the licensee utilizes two other sets of wind speed and q

direction sensors, with readouts in the control room and/or the primary tower equipment

house. The licensee stated that these additional sets of sensors are intended to partially

!

compensate for the complex terrain by providing information at locations where i

conditions may differ significantly from those at the primary tower. The inspector noted

{

that the primary tower temperature displayed on the recorder in the equipment house was

reading approximately 20 degrees F too low. The licensee stated that a request for repair

would be issued.

The licensee performs calibrations of the meteorological sensors and data transmission lines on approximately a semiannual basis. There are no Technical Specification

,

requirements for calibration of these sensors. The inspector reviewed selected calibration

!

records, with emphasis on the wind speed, wind direction, and temperature sensors. All

.

reviewed calibration results were within the licensee's dermed acceptance criteria. The inspector noted that while the primary tower instrumentation was calibrated at about six-month intervals, more than one year has elapsed since the last calibration of the wind

speed and direction sensors located on one of the secondary meteorological towers, a

transmission tower in the Susquehanna River. The most recent calibration of these l

sensors was performed on or about April 9,1992. The sensors at the other secondary

!

tower ("Hillpole") were calib.ted near the end of April 1992, and again in early January

'

1993. The inspector questioned the length of time between calibrations of the equipment

{

at these secondary locations. A licensee representative stated that due to the workload

!

r and limited personnel to perform the work, this area had not been given sufficient priority to accomplish calibrations on a semiannual basis at all k> cations.

The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time,

.

i 6.0 Exit Interview

!

The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of this repon on

,

May 24,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.

.

-

.

.

.- ~

.

.

Table 1 Environmental TLD Monitoring Results (mR/quader)*

Comparison of NRC TLDs Colbeated with Peach Bottom TLDs NRC no.:

11

31 Monitoring Period PBAPS no.:

33A

5

1991/Ist Quarter NRC 18.3 0.6 20.2 i 0.7 18.310.6 20.4 i 0.7 PBAPS 14.5 i 0.1 16.610.4 15.7 i 0.3 18.1 i 0.3 2nd Quarter NRC 19.5 i 0.8 19.6 i 0.8 19.3 i 0.8 21.110.8 PBAPS 14.5 1 0.3 20.7 i 0.6 19.8 0.5 18.4 i 0.5 3rd Quarter NRC 17.4 i 0.7 19.1 i 0.7 19.4 i 0.7 22.8 i 0.8 PBAPS 12.110.5 16.910.1 16.3 i 0.3 18.110.5 4th Quarter NRC 20.110.8 19.910.8 19.0 0.8 22.7 i 0.9

'

PBAPS 13.010.5 17.2 i 0.1 16.7 i 0.3 18.4 i 0.3 1992/Ist Quarter NRC 17.9 i 0.7 17.9 i 0.7 18.310.7 20.610.8 PBAPS 9.8 i 0.5 13.0 i 0.7 11.8 0.3 14.2 i 0.6 2nd Quarter NRC 19.1 i 0.7 19.0 i 0.7 19.410.7 21.3 i 0.8 PBAPS 12.410.7 18.7 i 0.6 16.6 0.4 20.412.1 3rd Quarter NRC 19.8 i 0.8 19.5 i 0.8 20.0 i 0.8 21.8 i 0.8 PBAPS 15.7 i 0.1 19.8 i 0.4 21.0 1.0 21.910.7 4th Quarter NRC 19.8 i 0.9 19.1 i 0.9 18.9 i 0.9 22.1 i 1.0 PBAPS 12.1 i 0.1 16.010.4 18.9 i 0.7 19.2 i 0.6 1993/Ist Quarter NRC 18.3 i 0.6 19.010.7 18.1 i 0.6 20.4 i 0.7 PBAPS 13.4 0.4 15.9 i 0.3 14.9 i 0.3 17.6 i 0.8 NRC llistorical Average NRC no.:

11

31

From 1983/Ist Qtr to 1992/4th Qtr average 18.612.7 19.2 1.5 18.6 i 1.7 21.2 i 1.6 All results are in milliroentgens and are normalized to a 90-day quarter.

!

l All data are shown as Result i i standard deviation.

..

.

-

.

-

.

.

.

-

.

. -.. -

_,

- -. -

_