IR 05000354/1986033

Insp Rept 50-354/86-33 on 860616-18.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Radwaste Program During Initial Fuel Load Activities,Radiation Monitoring Sys,Procedures & Liquid Radwaste Sys

ML20203H337
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	07/25/1986
From:	Bicehouse H, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203H333	List: IR 05000354/1986033 ML20203H328
References
50-354-86-33, NUDOCS 8608040377
Download: ML20203H337 (5)

Text

y

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /86-33 Docket N License No. NPF-50 Priority --

Category C Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: June 16-18, 1986 Inspectors: .f .

_

7/2S[5'4 H. J! Bicehouse, Radiation Specialist date Approved by: '

s c., ds 7/2dsc WT Tsciak, Chief, Effluents Radiation date/

Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 16-18, 1986 (Inspection Report N /86-33)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radioactive waste (radwaste) program during initial fuel load activities including previously identified items, radiation monitoring system, procedures, gaseous radwaste system, and liquid radwaste syste Results: Within the areas reviewed, no violations or deviations were note staa188uM8%g4 G

-~

q

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted During the course of this routine startup inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewe .1 Public Service and Gas Company (PSE&G)

R. S. Salvesen, General Manager, Hope Creek Operations W. Choromanski, Systems Engineer R. Danges, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer A. Giardino, Manager, Station Quality Assurance R. Harrington, Senior Radiation Protection Supervisor - Radioactive Material Control J. Hawrylak, Systems Engineer K. Heath, Systems Engineer J. Lovell, Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager J. Molner, Senior Radiation Protection Supervisor - Operations G. Morrill, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Effluents and Shipping Other licensee employees were contacted or interviewed during this inspectio .2 Contractors J. Jones, Ph.D. , Radiation Monitoring System Consultant (WBJ Nuclear)

T. Rekart, Acting Radiochenistry Supervisor (NEC)

1.3 NRC Personnel R. Borchardt, Senior Resident Inspector 2. Purpose The purpose of this routine startup inspection was to review the licensee's radwaste program with respect to the following elements:

Previously Identified Items;

Radiation Monitoring System;

Procedures; Gaseous Radwaste System; and

Liquid Radwaste Syste I O

3 Previously Identified Items 3.1 (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (50-354/85-44-08) Review completion of installation and testing of sampling stations. This item was reviewed during Inspection Nos. 50-354/86-15 and 50-354/86-0 During this inspection, the dispositioning of test exceptions from the preoperational testing program was reviewed. This item is close .2 (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (50-354/85-44-12) Review test results for liquid radwaste system. This item was reviewed during Inspection No. 50-354/86-20. Four of five preoperational test procedures (PTP) were reviewed at that time. During this inspection, test results for the fifth PTP and the dispositioning of test excep-tions were reviewed:

This item is close .3 (0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (50-354/85-52-38) Line loss tests for North and South Plant Vents. The licensee's contractor had completed particulate line loss tests. However, the report for the North Plant Vent had not been received by the licensee and the licensee had not completed review of the line loss test report regarding the South Plant Ven This item remains ope .4 (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-354/86-05-07) Adequacy of the changes to chemical and radiochemical tests. The licensee's proposed changes to the tests were reviewed and approved as Amendment 14 to the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

This item is close . Radiation Monitoring System The inspector reviewed the status of Mtdlation, calibration, functional testing and operability d the 'icensee's process and effluent monitors relative to commitments pr c de in the following correspondence:

Letter, R. L. Mittl (PSE&G) to W. Butler (NRC) dated 9/10/85; Letter, W. Butler (NRC) to C. McNiel (PSE&G) dated 11/21/85; and

Letter, C. McNiel (PSE&G) to E. Anderson (NRC) dated 12/26/8 The licensee's performance in meeting the commitments regarding the process and effluent monitors was determined by interviews of the Radiation Monitoring System Consultant and other members of the licensee's radiation protection staff, review of test and calibration records regarding the monitors and direct observations during plant tour _

,

-e 3

.

.

Within the scope of this review, the following items were noted:

The effluent ventilation monitors, (i.e., North and South Plant Vent and the Facility Recirculation Vent system monitors), were calibrated and fully operationa *

The Control Room, Refuel Floor Exhaust and Reactor Building Exhaust monitors were calibrated and fully operationa *

The process liquid effluent monitor was calibrated and locally operabl *

The liquid effluent monitors were calibrated and fully operationa The licensee was following a sampling and analysis schedule to monitor effluent process streams which appeared to be adequate for the plant statu Detailed test procedures were being completed fer the process monitor Within the scope of the review, no deviations from previous commitments were note . Procedures The licensee's procedures for implementation of surveillance and reporting requirements for the following technical specifications were reviewed in the Region I office prior to the inspection and discussed with the licensee's radiation protection, chemistry and operations groups onsite:

Technical Specification 3/4.11.1, " Liquid Effluents;"

Technical Specification 3/4.11.2, " Gaseous Effluents;" and Technical Specification 6.8.11, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual" (00CM).

Surveillance procedures were noted to include the periodic tests to be per#ormed, appropriate test procedures, intervals for test performance and technical specification requirements. Selected surveillance precedures were reviewed for implementation. The licensee appeared to be performing appropriate surveillance tests at required intervals for test performanc '

Contractor-supplied computer software is used to implement the ODC The licensee verified software performance through a " third party" contractor. A comparison of software generated dose projections with manually generated projections using ODCM methods was made for various effluent release conditions including batch liquid releases (waste sample

q

.

. 5 tanks, floor drain sample tanks, detergent drain tanks and condensate storage tanks), continuous gaseous releases (North Plant Vent and South Plant Vent) and batch gaseous relenses (Facility Recirculation Vent).

The acceptance criteria used for the comparison was less than 5%

difference between the manual and software generated dose projection The inspector reviewed 7 test cases %r liquid and gaseous effluents used by the " third party" contractor for comparison and noted that the differences met the acceptance criteria in these cases. Procedures for manual calculation were also reviewed and appeared consistent with ODCM method Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were note The licensee appeared to have developed adequate methods and procedures to implement the referenced technical specification . Gaseous Radwaste System The gaseous radwaste system was reviewed for readiness for initial criticality. Operational performance tests for the recombiner, determination of holdup times and tests of the charcoal adsorbers and loop seals were discussed with the licensee. The installation, calibration and functional testing of the off gas system hydrogen analyzer were also reviewed. Licensee plans for comparison of gaseous effluent monitor readings to known effluent concentrations (determined by laboratory analysis of grab samples) were discusse The licensee appeared to have adequately prepared the gaseous radwaste system for initial criticality and subsequent performance testin . Liquid Radwaste System The readiness of the liquid radwaste system for initial criticality and low power testing was reviewed during walkdowns of the liquid radwaste system. The licensee's plans and preparations for comparing liquid process and effluent monitor readings to known liquid concentrations (determined by laboratory analysis of grab samples) was discussed with the license Within the scope of the review, the licensee appeared to have adequately prepared the liquid radwaste system to support initial criticality and subsequent low power testin . Exit Interview On July 21, 1986, the inspector discussed the scope and findings of the inspection with the Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager by telephon At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. No information exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 2.790 is discussed in this report.

t