IR 05000289/1977004
| ML19291B676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1977 |
| From: | Bores R, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19291B668 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-77-04, 50-289-77-4, 50-320-77-08, 50-320-77-8, NUDOCS 7911110076 | |
| Download: ML19291B676 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.* . . - Reg I Form 12 ,, (Rev Feb 77) . ,O '
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT '
REGION I
l 50-289/77-04 50-289 IE Inspection Report No: 50-320/77-08 Docket No: 50-320 OPR-50 Licensee: Metreoclitan Edison Company License Mo: reoo As P. O. Box S42 Priority: -- C Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category: B-1 Safeguards Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMINS) Group: ~~ ! Location: ign4+e 1 ans ? Midalarnwn. Pennsvivania ' PWR (B&W); Unit 1 - 2535 MWt Type of Licensee: Unit 2 - 2772 MWt Type of Inspection: Unannounced Environmental, Routine Dates of Inspection: February 17,18, 22 and 23,1977 Da.) of Previous Inspection: February 8-10, 1977 Reporting Inspector: 64-dY-77 j R. W. Bores, Radiation Specialist DATE j Accompanying Inspectors: NONE DATE DATE DATE DATE , Other Accompanying Personnel: NONE DATE Rev' 7ed By: cf 7 f - ., J. P. Stoffr, Chief," Environmental and Special DATE Projects Section, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 15B2 544 7911110O[[ ' _ . - - -_.
. .- - - - .__ _
i
. { > l
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
l Enforcement Action (Environmental Monitoring) ! A.
Violations None identified.
B.
Infractions None identified.
C.
Deficiencies l 1.
77-04-01 - Failure to sample and analyze air particulates.
Contrary to Section 4.4.a of the Environmental Technical ' Specifications (ETS), air particulates were not sampled and l analyzed at one of the required stations during 10 successive weeks.
(Details,5.a) - i 2.
77-04-02 - Failure to meet Sr-89 and Sr-90 analytical sensi-tivity requirements for sediments.
' Contrary to Section 4.4.a of the ETS, the semi-annual sediment samples collected in July,1976 were not analyzed for Sr-89 nor Sr-90 with sufficient sensitivity to meet the requirements specified in Table 3 of the ETS.
(Detail 5.d) ,
3.
77-04-03 - Failure to meet Sr-89 analytical sensitivity requirements in drinking water.
Contrary to Section 4.4.a of the ETS, the water samples collected from the City of Columbia water intake during the Third Quarter,1976, were not an_alyzed for Sr-89 with sufficient sensitivity to meet the requirements specified in Table 3 of the ETS.
(Detail 5.c) Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items (Environmental Monitoring) The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions as submitted in letters dated October 11 and October 19, 1976, to the NRC:I office in response to the items of noncompliance identified in the NRC:I letter of 15u2 345 .. . -. _ _ - -.. - .. -.
,9 \\./
g i September 16, 1976, and in NRC:IE Inspection Report No. 50-289/76-18.
The inspector had no further questions with regard to these items.
(Detail 5.a) Design Changes . None identified.
Unusual Occurrences
! Anomalous Measurements ! The inspector reviewed the following Nonroutine Reports submitted by the licensee relative to the levels of radioactivity in environmental media: '
! Nonroutine 7-Day Environmental Reports, 76-43/4o i 76-48/4o
76-50/4o i l The inspector had no further questions regarding these items.
(Details, i 5.b, 5.c, and 5.d) j O j Other Significant Items (Environmental Monitoring) l' A.
Current Findings i 1.
Unresolved Items l 77-04-04 - Sr-89 and Sr-90 analytical sensitivities for milk,
precipitation and fish.
The analytical sensitivity for Sr-89 and Sr-90 in precipita- , tion was previously repcrted in Inspection Report 50-289/76-18, Detail 4.b(4) and continues to be unresolved.
(Details, 5.b and 5.e) 2.
Deviations None identified.
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 1.
77-04-05 - The apparent discrepancy between the indicator / - background ratios for air particulate gross beta and gamma spectral analyses - Inspection Report 50~289/76-18, Detail 4.a(4).
This item is still unresolved.
(Det.iil 5.a) 1532 346 _ .__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _.
_
f.
!
' . . i 2.
The termination of the aquatic programs (ETS Sections 4.1.1.A, 4.1.1.B. and 4.1.1.C - Inspection Report 50-289/ 76-18, Details 7.a. 7.b, and 7.c.
This item is now resolved.
(Detail 7) 3.
Method of ascertaining periodic sulfate ion usage - Inspection Report 50-289/76-18, Detail 6.d.
, This item is now resolved.
(Detail 6.c)
4.
The sensitivii> of Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses of precipitation ' samples - Inspection Report 50-289/76-18, Detail 4.b(4).
' This item is still unresolved.
(See Unresolved Item 77-04-04) Management Interviews i On February 18, 1977, following the inspection at the TMINS site, the
! inspector met with the following THINS representatives: l
O G. P. Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent R. W. Dubiel, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry ' i T. A. Jenckes, Supervisor, Radiation Safety / Environmental Engineering - I Reading J. L. Seelinger, Unit 2 Superintendent, Technical Support i M. Bezilla, Unit 2 PORC Administrator l l On February 23, 1977, following the iaspection, a meeting was held at the Met Ed corporate office in Reading, Pennsylvania.
The following individuals were in attendance: j ! R. J. Bores, Radiation Specialist, USNRC:I R. M. Klingaman, Manager Generation Engineering, Met Ed W. E. Potts, Licensing Supervisor, Met Ed M. R. Buring, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineer, Met Ed J. E. Mudge, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineer, Met Ed B. J. Beck, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engins r, Met Ed . During these meetings, the following areas were discussed: 1502 547 . -em.- e .me - - mm . ,- =* mamnen m.
+, -m.e-e===e+ e =ew. l I.. i .
i A.
General The inspector discussed the scope of the inspection and stated that - I it included the operational environmental programs for Unit 1 and j the preoperational aspects of the Unit 2 environmental monitoring programs, including the provisions for monitoring the chemical and i thermal discharges from the site.
B.
Items of Noncompliance The inspector discussed each of the items of noncompliance listed under Enforcement Action.
(Detail 5.a)
C.
Previously Identified Items of Noncompliance The inspector stated that he reviewed the licensee's corrective i actions taken with respect to the items of noncompliance identified during a previous inspection of these areas (Inspection Report 50-289/75-18) and referenced under Previously Identified Enforcement Items. The inspector stated that he had no further questions regarding these matters at this time.
(Detail 5.a) , I ,1 ' D.
Unresolved Items The inspector discussed with the licensee the Unresolved Items listed under that heading in the Summary of Findings.
The inspector , stated that without the chemical yield data for the Sr-89 and Sr-90 , I analyses, the available data was inadequate to determine if the j minimum analytical sensitivity requirements were met for fish,
precipitation, and milk. The inspector also stated that the sensi-l tivity of the strontium analysis for precipitation remained unresolved ! from NRC Inspection 50-289/76-18.
The inspector stated that this ' item is unresolved pending the receipt and subsequent NRC review of the necessary analytical data to assure compliance with the sensitivity requirements.
(Details 5.b, 5.e) The inspector staicd that one other item (77-04-05) remained unresolved _since in.pection 50-289/76-18.
This item is unresolved pending the licensee evaluation of the apparent discrepancy between indicator / background ratios for air particulate gross beta and gamma spectral analyses.
(Detail, 5.a) The inspector stated that the other Previously Reported Unresolved Items (Items 2 and 3 under that heading in the Summary of Findings) are now resolved.
(Details, 6.c and 7) , 1582 348 . - .- ._- -. - . ._ - _ _ _.-.
{a . ,
D_ETAILS 1.
Individuals contacted l Metropolitan Edison Company - TMINS G. P. Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent R. W. Dubiel, Supervisor of Radition Protection and Chemistry J. L. Seelinger, Unit 2 Superintendent - Technical Support M. Bezilla, Unit 2 PORC Administrator K. L. Harner, Unit 2 Chemist W. R. Desh, Unit 2 Shift Foreman l D. E. Weaver, Unit 2 Instrument Foreman { J. A. Brummer, Unit 2 Instrument Engineer H. B. Shipman, Unit 1 Operations Engineer R. W. McCann, Unit 1 Radiation Protection Foreman . Metropolitan Edison Company - Reading Office R. M. Klingaman, Manager Generation Engineering (,i W. E. Potts, Licensing Supervisor '" T. A. Jenckes, Supervisor, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering M. R. Buring, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering , J. E. Mudge, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering B. J. Beck, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering 2.
General The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's operational environmental monitoring programs for TMINS Unit 1 and the pre-operational environmental monitoring programs for THINS Unit 2, t
encompassing both the radiological and nonradiological aspects of these programs. The licensee's operational environmer.tal monitoring
requirements for Unit 1 are described in the Appendix B, Environ-mental Technical Specifications (ETS).
The preoperational environ-mental monitoring commitments for Unit 2 are described in the Unit 2 Environmental Report and FSAR.
Areas examined during this inspection included a selective examina-tion of air sampling and gamma dosimetry stations; the chemical and thermal monitoring programs; selected ecological monitoring programs; a review of selected sanpling and analytical procedures; representa-tive program results; interviews with licensee personnel and observa- ,- ] tions by the inspector.
1552 349 _ - - .- - - ..
. a'.- l -
I 3.
Management Controls The inspector reviewed the organizational and administrative
structure responsible for implementing and controlling the TMINS , environmental monitoring programs with respect to changes made since the last inspection of this area (50-289/76-18, 50-320/76-
10). The licensee stated that the Radiation Safety / Environmental j Engineering Department, was about to lose one individual who had i the prime responsibility for overseeing the biological / aquatic I programs.
The inspector determined that the management system for controlling i the environmental programs did not currently utilize written pro-i cedures for the assignment of specific organizational or individual j responsibilities and authorities, for the inspection of activities, j review of the program results, for defining the criteria to be used and instructions to assure that deficiencies in the program are ' ' recognized and corrected.
The inspector noted that the Unit 1 ETS did not have specific requirements in this area.
This program is currently under development by the licensee for the Unit 2/ station program.
This program will be devloped in accordance with the C' requirements of the ETS for Unit 2, however, these requirements have not yet been finalized.
The inspector also determined that no audits of the radiological or I biological / aquatic environmental programs had been conducted since the last inspection of this area (50-289/76-18, 50-320/76-10).
The inspector noted that there were no specific requirements in this area and therefore had no further questions at this time.
4.
Licensee program for Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The inspector examined the licensee's program for assuring the quality of analytical measurements with respect to changes since - i the last inspection of this area.
The inspector determined through i , the review of the applicable reports and records and through discussions with the licensee that this program remained essentially unchanged since the last inspection (50-289/76-18, 50-320/,76-10).
Quality control data from the radiological environmental monitoring program (split and duplicate samples and second laboratory analyses) are furnished to porter-Gertz Consultants for statistical evaluation.
Semi-annual reports of these results and evaluations are furnished to the licensee and these reports were reviewed by the inspector, a 1532 350 . . - -. .- - - - . -._ .
-- -.. - -. -.. - - - - . . .- O . , i The inspector determined that with respect to the biological / aquatic programs that quality control program is under development in conjunction with the contracting laboratory.
The inspector noted that while the licensee had no written procedures to speciti-cally assign the program responsibilities, types and frequencies of checks, criteria for accepting results, identifying and resolving deficiencies, writtcn procedures are not specifically required for these areas by the Unit 1 ETS nor by the Unit 2 commitments.
These procedures will be developed in conjunction with the TMINS Unit 2 ETS requirements, once the latter are finalized.
5.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program - Radiological a.
Air Monitoring i i The inspector examined selected air monitoring stations and noted that each appeared to be functioning properly at the
. time of inspection.
The inspector noted that the locations of I the selected monitors were as specified in the Unit 1 ETS, as I amended. The inspector also examined the licensee's air . particulate and air iodine sampling and analyses procedures j l () and determined that they had been approved in accordance with l the requirements of the Unit 1 ETS.
The inspector stated that " he had no further questions with respect to the item of non-compliance identified in Inspection Report 50-289/76-18 re-lating to the failure to have the above analytical procedures.
. The inspector examined the records of analytical results for ' 1976.
The inspector noted that air particlate samples had not been collected or analyzed from one of the required sampling stations, 9G1, during the 10-week interval from March 25 to June 3,1976.
The inspector stated that this faDyre to sample and analyze air particulates on a weekly basis was in noncompliance with Section 4.4.a of the Unit 1, ETS.
(77-04-01 ) The inspector's review of the analytical records also indicated that the air particulate samples were composited in accordance with the Unit 1 ETS for gamma spectral analyses.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions concerning the item of noncompliance identified in this regard in a previous inspection (50-289/76-18).
') 1532 351 _ . _._.
__ _.
_. _ _
- - - - -.. _ - - . - - . -. .. - -- . . .- ()
f l The inspector determined through interviews with the licensee that the apparent discrepancy between the ratios of the indicator / background gross beta activities and those of the gamma spectral activities during 1975 and the first half of 1976 had not yet been evaluated.
This item was identified an an unresolved item in Inspection Reports 50-289/76-18 and 50-320/76-10.
The inspector stated that this item remains un-resolved pending the licensee's review of the. data in question.
(77-04-05) b.
Mil k l The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for the analysis of I-131 in milk.
The inspector also reviewed the results of the milk analyses for 1976 and determined that the . required samples were collected and analyzed.
The inspector ' noted that the licensee now obtained the chemical iodine yields such that the minimum analytical sensitivity for I-131 could be verified. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
fl With respect to the Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses, however, the
chemical yield data was not available.
The inspector stated that without this information, compliance with the required minimum analytical sensitivities for Sr-89 and Sr-90 could not be determined. The inspector further stated that this area ! would be considered unresolved pending the availability of the strontium yield data and its subsequent review.
(77-04-04) ! The inspector also reviewed the circumstances and the sub-
sequent licensee evaluation relative to the Nonroutine Seven-Day Environmental Report 76-43/4o submitted by the licensee on l November 15, 1976, as a result of a milk sample containing approximately 46 pCi/ liter of I-131.
The licensee's evaluation + l indicated that the source of the I-131 was not TMINS but resulted from nuclear fallout from the September 1976 Chinese atmospheric weapons testing.
The inspector had no further questions in this matter.
c.
River Water The inspector reviewed the licensee's records of river water analyses for 1976 and determined that samples were collected and analyzed from each of the required stations.
The inspector noted that the records indicated that the Sr-89 analyses of water sampled at the City of Columbia water intak,e dgring,t(e , , C second and third quarters of 1976 did not meet the mjhimumj g 1582 352 - -. -- - - _. - - -
, - . .... .--- ... -. . . - . -.- -... -- .
- -
, . t')
,
analytical sensitivity required by ETS 4.4.a. Table 3.
The inspector stated that this failure to meet the minimum sensi-tivity requirements was an item of noncompliance.
(77-04-03) The inspector also reviewed the circumstances surrounding and the licensee's evaluation of reported Zr-Nb-95 concentrations at an indicator station in excess of 10 times that of the control station.
(Report.No. 76-50/4o, submitted December 29, 1976 and noted very small quantities (<0.05 mci) of Zr-Nb-95 were discharged during any one batch.
The expected dilution of the Zr-Nb-95, prior to discharge from the site and mixing with the river water, would reduce the discharge concentrations to less than that found in the composite river sample.
The ' inspector also noted that the actual dilution in the river (based on the ratio of H-3 measured in the batch before dis-charge, the discharge dilution factor and the concentration measured in the composite river sample) was approximately another factor of 100.
The licensee's evaluation indicated
that the reported Zr-Nb-95 was probably not plant related and was a result of the fallout from the September,1976 Chinese weapons test. The inspector had no further questions in this , _() matter.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's river water sampling program and procedures for Station 9A2 and 981 and noted that while the sampling requirements for these stations were met or exceeded, because of the intermittent nature of the discharges, i grab sampling as conducted, even at a weekly frequency, would not accurately reflect the river water concentrations at these stations. The licensee is evaluating change to the ETS to improve the representativeness of these samples.
The inspector noted that the licensee has a sampling station at the nearest drinking water intake downriver; that the sampling at that station is more representative of river concentrations; and this sampling' has indicated no increase in radioactivity . concentrations above that of the control stations.
1552 553 . . - - - .. . -. _--
... -. . -. . ' , (\\
d.
River Sediments . ! ' The inspector reviewed the licensee's sediment sampling pro-gram for 1976.
The inspector noted that the requirements in this area were met with the following exception.
The analyt-ical sensitivities for Sr-89 and Sr-90 did not meet the minimum required sensitivities for the first semi-annual . sediment samples in 1976.
The inspector stated that this failure to meet the minimum required sensitivities was in
noncompliance with ETS 4.4.a. Table 3.
(77-04-02)
l The inspector also reviewed the circumstances surrounding, and l the licensee's evaluation of the reported radionuclide con-l centrations in sediments in excess of 10 times that of the background stations.
(Report No. 76-48/4o, submitted December 20, 1976) The licensee's evaluation indicated that the reported levels of radioactivity in the sediments were probably not I plant related and are attributable to fallout debris from the I Chinese weapons testing.
The inspector reviewed TMINS discharge records and other sampling data in reviewing this event and had no further questions in this matter.
C) e.
Other Media " The inspector reviewed selected sampling and analytical pro-cedures relative to the radiological monitoring of environ-
mental media and parameters, including precipitation, vegetables, fish, and external radiation (TLDs).
The inspector's review of the results of this program for 1976 did not reveal any instances of noncompliance with the ETS requirements.
With respect to precipitation and fish, however, the inspector stated that since the chemical yield data was not available ! for the Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses, he could not determine whether the minimum required analytical sensitivities were met.
The inspector stated that this item would be considered unresolved pending the availability of the strontium yield information and the subsequent review of the sensitivity of the strontium analyses.
(77-04-04) (See Detail 5.a for related item - milk) The inspector noted that the lack of strontium yields for precipition analyses was previously reported as unresolved in Inspection Report 50-289/76-18.
15o2 554 ' _ __ . . . _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. .. _ _ _ .. ! .. .. , . , ! s-
1 6.
Nonradioactive Effluent Release Rates and Limits ! a.
Thermal The inspector reviewed the discharge temperature monitoring system associated with the Unit 2 cooling tower blowdown water. The inspector discussed with the licensee the antici-pated requirements in the proposed Unit 2 ETS relative to this area. Since the requirements for the Unit 2 temperature monitoring had not yet been established, the inspector could l not determine the acceptability of the licensee's Unit 2 monitoring systems at this time.
The inspector stated that f this area would have to be re-examined prior to licensing.
I l The inspector reviewed selected temperature monitoring records i for Unit 1 since the last inspection of this area.
The i inspector found no instances in which the temperature require-
menta had not been met for those records examined.
, b.
Chlorine ('} The inspector reviewed with the licensee the chlorination regime utilized at TMINS Unit 1 and that anticipated at Unit " 2.
The inspector also examined the records of chlorine analyses for Unit 1 since July,1976, and observed no instances in , which the requirements of the Unit 1 ETS had not been met.
' . { With respect to the Unit 2 program, since the Unit 2 ETS requirements were not yet fixed, the inspector could not determine the acceptability of the chlorine monitoring tech-niques and instrumentation in terms of the ETS requirements in . this area at this time.
This area will be re-examined prior to licensing.
c.
Other Chemical Discharges
The inspector examined the records of approximately one-fourth of the Unit I neutralized regenerant wasta discharges since July 1976 and determined the licensea analyzed each tank prior to discharge to assure that pH and the dissolved and suspended solids were within the Unit 1 ETS requirements.
The inspector observed no instances in which the discharge limits had been exceeded for those records reviewed.
t ) 1532 355 - . _ - ._.
_ . .
- . . , ('y. ' l
i The inspector also examined the instrumentation, operations, controls, and procedures utilized at TMINS Unit 2 for the discharge of chemical wastes. The inspector noted that these discharges were in accordance with the NPDES Permit.
The inspector could not determine the acceptability of the chemical discharge monitoring instrumentation and procedural control program at this time in terms of the Unit 2 ETS, since the Unit 2 ETS requirements were not yet fixed. This area will be re-examined prior to licensing.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's method of maintaining the sulfate ion inventory and discharge records for Unit 1.
The inspector determined that the licensee had modified the inventory method such that the sulfate ton usage could be determined in ' advance of exceeding the ETS discharge limit.
The inspector stated l that this item, which was left unresolved in Inspection Report 50-l 289/76-18, 50-320/76-10, is now resolved.
l t 7.
Ecological Surveillance Programs ! The inspector reviewed with the licensee the scope of biological / , ! , ecological programs at the TMINS site. The inspector noted that i ( ) the Unit 1, ETS requirements in this area have essentially been terminated with the exception of ETS 4.1.10 (Fish) and 4.1.1.E ,
(Macro-Invertebrate) aquatic population surveillance programs,
which are awaiting the NRC approval for termination.
I With regard to the unresolved item identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-289/76-18, Details 7.a. b, and c concerning the termination of the aquatic programs ETS 4.1.1.l A (Impingement), 4.1.1.1.B , (Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Fish Larvae) and 4.1.1.1.C (Entrain-
ment of Plankton), the inspector noted that the NRC staff has now reviewed the results of these programs and concurred in their termination. This item is resolved.
The inspector determined that the licensee is continuing to conduct the aquatic programs as described in Inspection Reports 50-289/ 76-18 and 50-320/76-10 in an effort to further refine the Unit 2 preoperational data and as additional operational monitoring for Unit 1.
The inspector could not determine the acceptability of these aquatic monitoring programs at this time with respect to the Unit 2 ETS requirements, since the latter have r,at yet been fixed.
15u2 Z0 . .- .-- .- -. - .-
.. . . i ' ' '
, b 8.
Other Areas a.
Transformer Area , The inspector examined the modifications made to the Unit 1 j main transformer area since the last inspection of this area.
The inspector determined that a slag-filled vault was con-structed beneath the transformers such that discharge of transformer oil as a result of a leak or rupture would be caught in the vault.
The inspector also determined that the sumps in these vaults are periodically emptied to maintain the , i necessary capacity to retain the transformer oil in the event of a major leak.
The inspector had no further questions in j this matter.
. b.
Protection of the Environment During Construction The inspector observed no indication of erosion products being . carried offsite or other adverse environmental conditions ' i related to the construction activities during his tour of the site. The inspector noted that while specific program pro-i ., cedures were not available for environmental protection during l () the construction of Unit 2, none were required by the Construction Permit CPPR-66 and the licensee does conduct surveillance of the construction activities to minimize the environmental impact. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
, c.
Meteorlogical Program I The inspector reviewed the meteorlogical monitoring instru-i } mentation at TMINS, Unit 2.
The licensee stated that at the l present time wind speed, wind direction, and temperature were the only meteorological parameters that will be transmitted to the Unit 2 Control Room as currently planned.
The inspector observed that recorders for these parameters were installed in the Control Room, but were not yet operable.
The licensee stated that the met information from the new tower would be transmitted to both control rooms subsequent to their hookups, currently scheduled during the Unit 1 refueling outage.
The inspector could not determine the acceptability of the Unit 2 meteorological monitoring at this time, pending completion of the installation and calibration of the instrumentation and the fixing of the Unit 2 requirements.
The inspector stated that this area would be further reviewed during a subsequent , inspection.
1562 357 .. _- .-- - .. . _.
_- }}