IR 05000293/1993017
| ML20057E286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057E283 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-293-93-17, NUDOCS 9310080276 | |
| Download: ML20057E286 (9) | |
Text
.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _
.
-
--
- --
U.S. NUCL. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-243/93-17 Docket No.
50-293 License No.
DPR-35 Licensee:
Boston Edison Corroany RFD #1 Rocky Hill Road Plymouth. Massachusetts 02360 Facility Name:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Plymouth. Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
August 30 - Seotember 3.1993
)
.-
Inspector-q v ;y, ~
obe4
,
Durie Peluso, Radiation Specialist Date Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved by:
j O//M/N Robert J.
es, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, Date Division o Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
Areas Inspected: Announced safety inspection of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program including: management controls, quality assurance audits, meteorological monitoring program, quality control program for analytical measurements, and implementation of the above programs and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
Results: Within the areas inspected, the licensee continued to maintain an excellent REMP.
The responsible individuals in the Chemistry Department were qualified and knowledgeable with respect to implementation of the above programs. No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.
-
9310080276 930928 PDR ADOCK 05000293
G PDR
-
- - _ - _ _
__
__ _
.
.
'
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted
1.1 Licensee Personnel
,
- G. Basilesco, Senior Compliance Engineer
" N. Desmond, Compliance Division Manager
- F. Famulari, Quality Assurance Departnent Manager
- R. Gay, Senior Compliance Engineer
- E. Kraft, Vice President Nuclear Operations D. LeVitere. General Test Division
- R. Ixwis, Radiological Training Support
- P. Markson, Communications Specialist
l
- D. Montt, Chemistry Division Manager C. Morrill, General Test Division
- M. Most, Chemistry Supervisor
- L. Schmeling, Plant Manager K. Sejkora, Senior Environmental Engineer J. Spangler, Emergency Preparedness Manager
- L. Wetherell, Radiological Protection Manager
- A. Williams, Station Services Section Manager 1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Personnel
- A. Cerne, Resident Inspector
- J. Macdonald, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those individuals present at exit interview on September 3,1993.
Other licensee personnel were also contacted or interviewed during this
,
inspection.
2.0 Puroose The purpose of this inspection was to verify the licensee's capability to implement the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) and the Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP) according to Technical Specifications (TS), the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), ar.d appropriate procedures during normal and emergency operations.
!
.
l
-
,
'
3.0 Manacement Controls l
3.1 Oreanization The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the REMP and j
discussed with members of the Chemistry Depanment any changes since the i
last inspection conducted in September 1992. Members of the Chemistry Depanment have responsibility for the REMP. There have been no significant
'
changes in the oversight of the REMP since the previous inspection.
3.2 Ouality Assurance Audits and Surveillances The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance Aurlit and Surveillance Repons as pan of the evaluation of the implementation of the TS requimments. Audit i
Repon 92-01, " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", was reviewed during the last inspection. The licensee stated that an audit of the
,
REMP is scheduled to be conducted during September 1993. The inspector reviewed the audit schedule and plan and noted that the REMP audit was planned according to the frequency specified in the Technical Specifications j
and the scope of the audit plan was appropriate for the REMP. The 1993 QA Audit results will be mviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector reviewed the surveillance repons that supplement the audit.
These sun'elllances included the Beach Sun'ey, Garden Census, Air Paniculate and Air Iodine Filter Collection, and Milk and Vegetable Sampling. The inspector noted that the surveillances were based on the TS mquirements and probed for performance and procedural weaknesses. No weaknesses wem found during these surveillances. The inspector noted that a qualified technical specialist performed the surveillances. The inspector detennined that the surveillances were of sufficient technical depth to supplement the REMP audit.
3.3 Annual Renon The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Repon for 1992, as well as the selected analytical data for 1993.
'
The repon provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical results of the REMP around the Pilgrim site and met the TS reponing requirements. The reviewed results indicated that all samples were collected and analyzed as required by TS. No obvious omissions or anomalous data were identified.
.
.
-
.
4.0 Radioloeical Envimnmental Monitorine Program
4.1 Direct Observations l
The inspector examined selected sampling stations to determine whether l
samples were being obtained from the locations designated in the TS and the
'
ODCM and whether air samplers were operable and calibrated. These sampling stations included air samplers for paniculates and airborne iodines, the composite water sampling station at the discharge canal, and a number of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations for measurement of dimet ambient radiation. The inspector witnessed the weekly exchange of charcoal I
cartridges and air paniculate filters at selected sampling stations, a water grab
,
l sample from an indicator surface water location, and the weekly water
'
collection from the composite water sampler located at the discharge canal.
All reviewed air sampling equipment and the composite water sampler were operational at the time of the inspection. The TLDs were placed at the designated locations as specified in the ODCM. Sample collection was performed according to the appropriate procedures. The observed air sampling equipment was well maintained, and the associated air volume
,
j measurement equipment was in calibration at the time of the inspection.
4.2 Review of the REMP Procedures i
<
l The inspector reviewed a number of pmcedures as pan of the evaluation of the implementation of the REMP in accordance with TS and the ODCM. The
'
l following procedures were reviewed.
,
e 7.12.25, " Air Paniculate and Air hxiine Filter Preparation and Collection" e 7.12.30, " Surface Water Sampling" e 7.12.40, " Exchanging TLDs" e 7.12.70, " Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program The inspector noted that the above procedures have been updated and revised.
The reviewed procedures were concise and provided the required direction and i
guidance for implementing an effective REMP.
In addition to the procedure review, the inspector reviewed the calibration results of the volume meters for the air samplers. The calibrations were
performed as scheduled and results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
As pan of this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's program concerning IE Bulletin No. 80-10 (issued May 6,1980), " Contamination of l
l l
, _ _ _ -. l
'
.
.
m l
Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to Environment". The inspector discussed the in plementation of IE Bulletin No. 80-10 with members of the Chemistry Department. The inspector reviewed the site plan, each of the discharge
points and sampling locations for the yard drain systems. 'the discharge dmins t
are routinely sampled and analyzed and the results are reviewed by the.
!
responsible individual. The inspector also discussed with the licensee the j
method for identifying all potential sources of miease from the site and the inclusion of these sources in the program. The inspector determined that the
program is effective and facilitates the identification of potential soitrees of
.'
radioactive liquids and solids within and from the facility.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the relocation and placement of slightly radioactively contaminated construction soil within the licensee owner-l contmiled boundary in accord with an NRC approved 10 CFR 20.302(a)
]
application. The inspector examined the re-location site. The inspector determined that the relocated soil is not located in the near proximity of the
,
wetlands and would not likely be affected by them. Because this area is
owner-controlled, members of the public have limited access to this onsite i
area. The licensee's surveys indicated that no dose rates above the normal t
background levels for the ama were detected. The inspector noted that the i
licensee collected and analyzed sufficient soil samples to fully characterize tha i
material prior to the relocation. The inspector also noted that the licensee had accurately quantitized the amount of the soil to be moved based on records of the number of loads of material stored. The licensee had performed adequate surveys and measurements prior to, during and after the relocation of this
material. The inspector concluded through discussions with the licensee
-
review of applicable records and direct inspection of the amas, that the licensee conducted this project thoroughly and appropriately. Radiological impacts from this soil to the pun:e and the environment 'are negligible. The
inspector had no further question in this area.
j
!
Based on the above review and discussions with tie licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee has implemented an excellent REMP, l
4.3 Environmental Dosimetry Program Comparison
'
The results of the NRC TLD Direct Radiation Monitoring Network are published quarterly in NUREG-0837. This network provides continuous I
measurements of the ambient radiation levels around 72 nuclear power plant 3tes throughout the United States. Each site is monitomd by approximately 30 m 50 TLD stations in two concentric rings extending to about five miles from s nuclear power plant.
l
.
One purpose of this network is to provide a means of comparing the results of the direct radiation monitoring programs conducted around individual nuclear power plants with that of the nationwide NRC program. Therefore, several NRC TLDs are collocated with selected licensee TLD stations. The NRC employs the Panasonic Model UD-801 TLD that consists of two elements of lithium borate activated with copper and two elements of calcium sulfate activated with thulium. The two calcium sulfate elements are used to determine the environmental exposure level during normal operations. Twelve NRC TLDs (one at each collocated station) are collocated with licensee TLDs at the Pilgrim site.
The licensee currently places two types of Panasonic environmental TLDs, one Model UD-801 and one Model UD-814, at each specified monitoring location.
'
Both TLDs consist of lithium borate elements activated with copper and calcium sulfate elements activated with thulium. The UD-801 contains two lithium borate and two calcium sulfate elements. The UD-814 contains one lithium borate and three calcium sulfate elements. Only the five calcium sulfate elements are used by the licensee to determine environmental exposure levels during normal operations.
During this inspectic, the inspector compared the monitoring results of the collocated TLDs for 1992 and the first half of 1993. For both the NRC and the licensee, the results are provided in Table 1 as the net exposure result i random uncertainty expressed as one standard deviation. Table 1 also includes the NRC " historical average" data for each location as a basis for comparing the quarterly NRC results to those measured previously; these historical averages also provide a means of comparison with the results of the licensee.
The data begin in 1983 and include the data through the first quarter of 1993.
The reported values are the mean i I standard deviation for all quarters for which net data were available. The relatively small standard deviations for the historical averages indicate that the NRC results have remained consistent over the ten-year period, with one exception. The quarterly results for location NRC 1 (the onsite Overlook Area) have been higher than the historical average since 1991. NRC 1 is subject to exposure to scattered ndiation from N-16 turbine shine during periods of operation. The introduction of hydrogen water chemistry during 1991 somewhat enhanced this phenomenon. The quarterly TLD results for this location are typically higher than the historical average when ine plant is operating and lower than the historical average (2nd quarter 1993) when the pir.at is shut down (background level). TNs variation in exposure with power operations accounts for the higher standard deviation for the historical average for this location.
The licensee's quarterly results during 1992 were sightly higher than those of the NRC. This difference may be due to different transit doses, differences in
-
i
time of field exposure, and specific TLD location variations. With the above t
uncenainties and variabilities considered, the results of the two sets of TLDs are in good comparison.
.
The inspector noted that the Environmental Program Manager of the Chemistry Depanment tracks, trends, and reviews the TLD msults including those of the NRC collocated TLDs.
,
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the bcensee continued to maintain an excellent envimnmental dosimetry program.
I 5.0 Ouality Assurance and Ouality Control for Analytical Measurements The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for quality assurance (QA) and quality l
control (QC) to determine whether the licensee had adequate control with respect to
!
sampling, analyzing, and evaluating data for the implementation of the REMP.
'
t The quality control pmgram for analysis of environmental samples is conducted by the Yankee Atomic Environmental l2boratory (YAEL), located in Framingham, MA.
t The laboratory conducts a blind duplicate program, an intralaboratory quality control program, and panicipates in the EPA-cross check program to verify the quality of
,
laboratory analyses. The inspector reviewed selected results from these programs and
,
noted that the reviewed results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
The inspector noted that the licensee continues to maintain an excellent quality assurance program to ensure that the routine and non-mutine REMP sample results are thoroughly reviewed by the Environmental Project Manager. Any results that appear suspect are recounted and reviewed.
Based on the above reviews and discussions with the licensee, the inspector
.
i determined that the licensee had excellent QA and QC programs.
6.0 Meteorolocical Monitorine Program afMP)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's MMP to determine whether the instrumentation and equipment were operable, calibrated, and maintained. The Emergency l
Preparedness Division has oversight for surveillance, calibration, and maintenance of
!
the meteorological instrumentation and equipment. Calibrations am performed weekly and quanerly and surveillances are conducted daily, weekly, and biweekly by technicians of General Test Division using the vendor operation manual.
l Calibrations and surveillances were performed according to the requirements specified
,
l in the Emergency Preparedness Procedure, EP-AD-421, " Surveillance, Maintenance and Calibration of MeDAP Equipment". The inspector reviewed this procedure and i
l
,
.w
-
e
--r
~,-
.
.
"
.
the most recent calibration results for wind speed, wind direction, and delta temperature at the primary and back-up meteorological towers. All reviewed calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria and all calibration:
were performed according to the frequencies required by the procedure.
The inspector witnessed the 'veckly calibration of the meteorological instrumentation at the primary tower, including an examination of the strip chart recorders located in the control room to verify the expected response to the calibration. The calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria. The inspector noted that '.he chart recorders in the control room and the instrumentation at the primary tower were operable and well maintained at the time of the inspection.
Based on the above inspector observations, record review and discussions with the licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee continued to implement the MMP effectively.
,
7.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.1 of this
'
inspection report at the conclusion of the inspection on September 3,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspection fm' dings.
>
l l
.
l
!
!
. - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _. _ _. - - - - _ - _. - - _ _ _. -- _ ---_--_
_ _._ - - - - _ - _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _. _ _ - - - _ - - - _ _. - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - -
._
- - _ ----- - -
- _
- _ - -
.,
a
!
Table I i
'
Environmental TID hlonitoring Results (mR! quarter) for 1992 and first half 1993*
Comparison of NRC TLDs Colkwsted with Pugrim 7LDs
.
'
'
19_92 1993 int uuarter 2nd quarter 3rd unarter 4th quarter ist uuarter 2nd quarter NRC Averace**
NRC1 102.8 i 3.5 93.2 i 3.1 113.4 i 3.8 71.612.5 109.1 1 3.7 41.4 i 1.6 43.0128.2 PIL OA 107.014.4 117.319.7 120.9 i 5.2 70.013.7 119.816.5 44.312.2 NRC2 17.0 i 1.1 14.6 i 0.9 20.8 i 1.1 14.610.9 16.7 i 1.0 15.810.9 16.7 i 2.8 PIL PA 20.310.7 20.7 i 1.0 20.710.8-18.5 i 1.1 10J i 0.6
'18.3 i 0.9 NRC 6 13.4 i 1.0 12.8 i 0.8 15.611.0 13.5 i 0.9 13.210.9 15.710.9 14.4 i 1.8
,
Plt JG 16.110.4 15.9 i 0.6 16.110.6 16.010.7 15.3 i 0.6 16.510.7 NRC 7 17.1 i 1.1 17.9 i 1.0 19.0 i 1.1 16.4 i 0.9 16.4 i 1.0 20.1 i 1.0 18.3 i 2.6 PIL WR 20.610.7 19.710.8 20 3 i 0.9 19.6 i 0.9 19.210.6 20.111.0 NRC 13 12.8 i 1.0 12.010.8 15.1 i 1.0-11.510.8 12.810.9 13.710.8 13.4 i 1.8 PIL ER 15.610.7 14.810.4 15.410.5 15.0 i 0.4 14.7 i 0.6 14.9 i 0.9 NRC 22 14.1 i 1.0 10.8 i 0.8 15.1 i 1.0 12.6 i 0.8 13.4 i 0.9 14.7 i 0.8 13.8 i 2.1 PIL hlP 17,2 i 0.7 16.110.9 15.5 i 0.4 16.1 i 0.7 15.9 i 0.6 15.610.9
,
I NRC 25 12.8 i I.0 13.3 i 0.9 14.4 i 1.0 13.7 0.9 12.910.9 15.010.8-14.0 i 1.9 PIL Wil 15.710.9 15.0 i 0.7 15.210.5 15.4 i 0.8 15.310.6 15.410.6 NRC 30 15.2 i 1.0 15.710.9 16.2 i 1.0 15.010.9 14.811.0 18.910.9 16.0 i 1.8 Plu his 18.3 i 0.4 17.610.5 18.2 i J.7 18.1 0.5 17.310.6 18.7 i 0.6 NRC 37 15.0 i 1.0 13.9 i 0.9 16.1 i 1.0 13.010.8 13.410.9 14.9 i 0.8 14.3 i 1.9 PIL SP 16.210.7 15.110.6 15.5 i 0.8 15.8 i 0.9 14.8 i 0.6 15.I i 0.7 NRC 38 10.7 i 0.9 11.2 i 0.8 12.6 i 0.9 10.710.8 NC 12.9 i 0.8 13.1 i 2.3 PIL hlb 16.110.7 15.3 i 0.6 17.4 i 2.7 15.4 i 0.5 NC 14.4 i 0.9 NRC 43 15.7 i 1.0 14.0 i 0.9 16.7 i 1.0 14.6 i 0.9 15.1 i 1.0 16.2 i 0.9 15.7 i 1.9 PIL NP 18.2 i 0.9 17.510.5 17.8 1.0.8 17.810.6 17.510.6 18.410.9
'
NRC 47 14.0 i 1.0 13.710.9 16.4 i l.0 14.510.9 12.9 i 0.9 NC 14.9 i I.9 PIL EW 17.8 i 0.4 17.1 1-0.4 16.6 i 0.7 17.7 i 0.6 15.8 i 0.7 17.8 0.8 NRC 48 15.5 i 1.0 17.711.0 18.3 i 1.1 18.0 i 1.0 13.9 i 0.9 NC 15.7 i 2.2 PIL EW 17.810.4 17.110.4 16.6 i 0.7 17.7 i 0.6 15.8 i 0.7 17.8 i 0.8
,
>
All data are shown as the net result i i standard deviation for the random uncertainties.
- All net results are in milliroentgens (mR) and are normalized to a W4ay quarter.
" NRC historical average from 1983 (1st quarter) through 1993 (1st gaarter).
NC = no comparison because data are not available (due to missing or damaged TLD)
- ;
--.-
m:.
m.
.
ems
-. - - -
.,.-. -,-._.-. _ _, -. - -
e-
....
- - -
...--.,.r--
,m.--.e....r--
--
....-...%,-
.
.... - - - - -. _., -,..
, - -. -,
-.----. -
- m ---'v-v-
-r