IR 05000334/1993007
| ML20035H164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035H161 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-93-07, 50-334-93-7, 50-412-93-07, 50-412-93-7, IEB-80-10, NUDOCS 9305030221 | |
| Download: ML20035H164 (8) | |
Text
'.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Repon Nos.
50-334/93-07 and 50-412/93-07 Docket Nos.
50-334 and 50-412 License Nos.
Duouesne Light Company P.O. Box 4 Shipningport. Pennsylvania Facility Name:
Beaver Vallev Power Station. Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Shipningpon. Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
April 5-8.1993
_
,j
,
ll93
' A paar [c] r bu w eV
-
_
Inspector:
'Laurie A. Peluso, Radiation Specialist IIate'
Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Bmnch (FRSSB)
Approved by:
/
I I
Robert J. Borg, Chief, Date
ERPS, FRSSB, Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards (DRSS)
>
Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the Radiological Envimnmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including: management controls, quality assurance audits, quality
,
assurance / quality control of measurement laboratory, the program for IE Bulletin 80-10 implementation, Meteorological Monitoring Program, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
,
(ODCM), and implementation of the above programs.
Results: Within the amas inspected, implementation of the above programs was very good.
The responsible individuals were qualified and knowledgeable with respect to implementation
'
of the above programs. No safety concems or violations of regulatory requirements were l
identified.
'
9305030221 930423
.PDR ADOCK 05000334 Q
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- J. Baumler, Director, Quality Services Unit R. Dinello, Contractor, Field Representative
- D. Hoffman, Supervisor, Chemistry Support S. LaVie, Sr. H.P. Spec., Radiological Engineering & Health Services
- F. Lipchick, Senior Licensing Supervisor
- A. Lonnett, Sr. H.P. Spec., Safety and Environmental Services W. McIntire, Director, Safety and Environmental Services
- A. Mizia, Supervisor, Quality Services Unit, Audits D. Murcko, Instrument and Controls Engineer
- D. Orndorf, Director, Chemistry Operations
- B. Sepelak, Licensing Engineer
- D. Spoerry, V.P. Nuclear Operations
- N. Tonet, Manager, Nuclear Services Division
- J. Wenkhous, Senior Environmental Services Specialist
- R. Vento, Manager, Health Physics 1.2 Nuclear Reentatory Commission
- L. Rossback, Senior Resident Inspector P. Sena, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview held on April 8,1993.
Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed during this inspection.
2.0 Purnose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's capability to implement the following areas.
1.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), during both normal and emergency operations.
2.
Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP), during both normal and emergency operations.
3.
IE Bulletin No. 80-10, " Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to Environment", May 6,198.,-
_
-
,
.
.
.
i 3.0 Manacement Controls
,
l 3.1 Oreanization
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and discussed with
!
members of Safety and Environmental Services (SES) any changes made since
!
the last inspection conducted in April 1990. As of January 1,1993, changes
,'
had been made in the staff organization of the Health Physics (HP) Department since the previous inspection.
Prior to January 1993, the HP Department, consisted of six directors, one i
director each for Radiological Engineering, Radiological Health Services, Effluent Control Monitoring, and Environmental Services, and two directors for Radiological Operations (one for each unit). As of January 1993, the HP
Department consists of four directors, one each for SES, and Radiological
[
Engineering and Health Services (REHS), and two for Radiological Operations (Unit 1&2). Radiological Operations essentially remained unchanged, however, SES incorporates Effluent Control Monitoring, Environmental Services, and a portion of Radiological Engineering. REHS incorporates Radiological Health Services and the remainder of Radiological Engineering.
Members of Safety and Environmental Services have responsibility for the REMP. Based on interviews with personnel and observation of personnel implementing the REMP, the inspector determined that the above changes
'
were generally smooth and the REMP has continued as scheduled without negative impact.
Members of the Instrument and Controls (I&C) Department have responsibility to verify that the vendor maintains and calibrates the meteorological equipment and members of REHS support I&C and oversee the Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP). Prior to the organization change, the licensee
>
had been changing vendors to perform the calibrations and maintenance i
required by the MMP. Based on interviews with personnel and observation of
+
personnel implementing the MMP, the inspector determined that the MMP has continued as scheduled without negative impact.
!
3.2 Ouality Assurance Audits The inspector reviewed the following licensee's Quality Assurance Audit l
Report as part of the evaluation of the implementation of Technical
'
Specifications.
.
BV-C-92-09, " Quality Services Audit of On-Site Environmental f
Monitoring Programs", July 2,1992.
!
.
?
j
,
.
.
.
The audit had been performed during the period of April 6-June 5,1992 by members of the Quality Services Department. The auditor was very knowledgeable in areas of the REMP. The audit covered the stated objectives
and was of sufficient technical depth to assess the REMP. Each audit
,
identified one finding and one observation, neither were of safety significance.
l The finding concerned the monitoring of sewage sludge for contamination and j
the observation concerned the method used to determine effluent Icwer limits of detection. The finding was assigned to the appropriate department and the
'
response to the finding was timely. The audit followup to the finding was
,
timely and the audit finding had been closed.
The licensee did not perform a vendor audit of the MMP during 1992. This audit was not performed because the licensee was changing vendors. The
.
?
change was in progress prior to the scheduled audit date of May 1992, however a review of the new vendor's quality assurance program was conducted May 8,1992. This review, which consisted of the check list from the previous vendor audit, verified that the vendor satisfactorily met 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements. The licensee stated that an audit of the vendor would be performed in 1993. The inspector stated that the audit would
'
be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
3.3 Annual Radiological Environmental Monitorine Report The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring i
Reports for 1990,1991, and 1992 (draft), as well as the 1993 analytical results
and the results of the Land Use Census required by Technical Specifications.
-l The reports provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical results of the REMP around the Beaver Valley site and met Technical Specification reporting requirements. Records of the analytical results for 1993 indicated that samples i
were collected as required and the lower limits of detection specified in the licensee's Technical Specifications were met. No obvious omissions, trends, or anomalous measurements were identified.
4.0 Radiolocical Environmental Monitorine Prorns e
4.1 Direct Observations
!
The inspector examined selected environmental sampling stations to determine whether samples were being obtained from the locations designated in the Technical Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
and whether the air samplers were operable, calibrated, and maintained.
i
'
These stations included air samplers for particulate and airborne iodines, automatic composite water samplers, milk, vegetation, and a number of
,
thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) stations for direct ambient radiation measurements. All the air sampling equipment was operational and the gas meters for the air samplers were calibrated at the time of the inspection.
TLDs were placed at their designated locations, and the water compositors
f.
.
.
were operating and taking samples. Milk and vegetation samples were available and collected from the locations specified in the ODCM. The inspector witnessed the contractor collect milk and water samples. Sample collection was performed correctly according to the appropriate procedures.
Based on independent observation and interviews with the contractor and licensee personnel, the inspector determined that personnel were knowledgeable and qualified with respect to the REMP.
4.2 Imolementation of the REMP The inspector reviewed the licensee's Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) as part of the examination of the implementation of the REMP as described in the Technical Specifications.
The EPM included three chapters (1) Description of Overall Environmental l
Monitoring Program, (2) Sample Collection Procedures, and (3) Radioactive Analysis. The procedures contain requirements for sampling frequencies and sampling techniques for various environmental sample media and calibrations for the automatic water samplers and gas meters for the air samplers. Chapter three refers the user to a separate manual which consists of approved contractor procedures of the primary contractor laboratory for analyses of environmental samples. The procedures provided the required direction and guidance for implementing an effective program.
As part of this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's program concerning IE Bulletin No. 80-10, " Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to Environment", May 6,1980. The inspector discussed this program with members of the Health Physics and Chemistry Departments.
The licensee has several programs in place which address systems such as the demineralized water system, instrument air system, auxiliary boiler system, and the sanitary waste system.
Regarding the sanitary waste system, the inspector noted that the licensee had identified a sink in a janitor closet located at the Unit 1 Health Check Area (HCA) which leads to the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). There is also a similar sink in Unit 2, however this sink had been identified and has not been used since Bulletin No. 80-10 had been issued. The STP is not a contaminated release pathway, however there is a potential for it to become an uncontrolled release pathway due to the close proximity of the sink to the HCA. The licensee conducted an extensive study and prepared Incident Report I-93-003 (IR) to determine the amount, if any, and concentration of radioactive materials which could have been released via this pathway. The inspector reviewed the IR, conducted an independent assessment using actual analytical results of emuples collected from the STP, and determined the followin r
,
'
.
-
!
.
!
(1) The IR was of excellent technical depth.
(2) The dose assessment appropriately concluded that no radioactive l
materials were released via this pathway.
~
.
(3) The results of the dose assessment demonstrated that no release limits were e.xceeded.
r t
!
i (4) Dose projections to members of the general public as well as to the
'
environment verified that there was no measureable impact as a result
,
of plant operations.
!
The inspector toured the areas where the sink is located and noted that the
!
licensee had secured the sink with plastic tarp and has posted signs warning
[
others not to use the sink. The licensee stated that during 1993 both sinks will be removed and the drain lines capped as a permanent solution. A summary will be reported in the 1993 Effluent Release Report.
The inspector also noted that Chemical Analysts of the Chemistry Department collect grab samples of effluent (liquid) and sludge from the STP. The grab
samples are collected and analyzed according to procedure frequency requirements. The inspector reviewed the sampling procedures, toured and i
conducted a walkdown of the STP facilities, and discussed with the licensee
sampling techniques and overall training. The inspector determined that the
samples are representative samples, training was appropriate, and procedures
were correctly followed and written with the required steps to properly perform the assigned task.
l Based on the above procedure review, discussions with the licensee
!
representatives, and independent observation of the licensee's performance with regard to implementing and following procedures, the inspector determined that the licensee follows the appropriate procedures, has an I
excellent understanding of the environmental monitoring program, including
,
programs related to IE Bulletin 80-10, and had implemented the REMP very effectively.
5.0 Ouality Assurance /Ouality Control of Analvtical Measurements
)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) of analytical measurements to determine whether the licensee had adequate controls with respect to sampling, analyzing samples, and evaluating data for implementing the REMP. The quality control of analytical measurements is conducted by the primary contractor laboratory, Teledyne Isotopes, Inc., which is located in Westwood, N.J. The QC samples include spikes, blinds, splits, and reanalyses of environmental samples. Spike samples are prepared by the QC laboratory and sent to the contractor laboratory for analysis. In addition, an independent laboratory is used to supplement the regular program. The results of the
. -..
-. - -
.
.
.-
i
I r-
.
.
,
.
,
analyses fro n each laboratory are documented in the Annual Repon and indicate ag eement, with few exceptions. Reasons for the exceptions were investigated by the licensee and were resolved.
The inspector reviewed the quality assurance program, including the EPA cross-check program which is required by Technical Specifications. Both the contractor and GC laboratories participate in the program. The results of the EPA cross-check programs are documented in the Annual Report and were in agreement, with few exceptions.
The licensee investigated these exceptions and resolutions were determined. The inspector noted that the licensee follows these matters aggressively to identify potential weaknesses of the measurement techniques.
In addition to the above programs, the licensee also verifies that samples were collected as scheduled and that sampling equipment is operable, calibrated, and
maintained. The licensee, independent of the contractor, visits sampling stations once per week and checks sample cards at the air sampling stations, water level of the automatic water compositors, and the respective calibration cards when necessary.
These activities are documented on the Certification-Environmental Sample Collection forms located in the Teledyne Isotopes Field Logs. The inspector reviewed the logs and noted that they were thorough and well kept.
Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had in place
'
comprehensive QA/QC programs for the REMP.
6.0 Meteorological Monitorine Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP) to determine whether the instrumentation and equipment were operable, calibrated, and maintained.
Members of the Instrument and Controls (I&C) Department maintain all the sensors on the meteorological tower and those in the weather station at the tower. Members of Radiological Engineering and Health Services (REHS) support I&C and oversee the MMP. The vendor uses the licensee's procedures to perform quarterly calibrations, more frequent than the Technical Specification requirement. The inspector reviewed the following calibration procedures and results for 1992.
l IMSP 45.17-I, " Meteorological Monitoring System Test /Cslibration" IMSP 45.17A-1, " Redundant Meteorological IVonitoring System
Test / Calibration"
]
The inspector noted that the calibrations wete performed as scheduled, the procedures were well written and provided the requirei direction and guidance for implementing the required tasks, and the results were witiin the licensee's acceptance criteria.
The meteorological tower is equipped with redundant wind speed, wind direction, and
'
temperature sensors at the 35,150, and 500-foot elevations. The inspector compared
..
.
.
.
.
1
.
'
i
,
.
t
the real-time data from the strip charts at the weather station to the digital 15-minute l
averages displayed in the Control Room, Unit 1. The results were in agreement taking into account the variance in the data. The inspector noted that the sensors on
',
the tower and two of the six strip charts were operating at the time of the inspection.
The strip charts were scheduled for maintenance in the future. This is of no safety
i significance since the alternate recorders were operating and the strip chart recorders are considered a backup to the computer output.
.
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee implemented l
the meteorological monitoring program very effectively.
'
7.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.0 at the
!
!
conclusion of the inspection on April P 1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
,
i i
)
)
e r
~
i