IR 05000387/1993012
| ML17157C422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157C421 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-93-12, 50-388-93-12, NUDOCS 9308090034 | |
| Download: ML17157C422 (9) | |
Text
2's Report Nos.
Docket Nos.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-387/93-12 and 50-388/ 3-12 50-387 and 50-388 License Nos.
Penns Ivania Power and Li ht Com an P&L 2 North Ninth Street Allentown Penns lvania 18101 Facility Name:
Inspection At:
Inspection Conducted:
2-
93 Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station and PP&L Co orate Office Berwick and Allentown Penn.
Ivania Inspector:
Jas C. Jang, Sr. Radiation Specialist E
uents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRS &SB)
Date Approved by:
obert J. Bo, Chief, ERPS, FRS&SB, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Date K:6 H ly'
yg*ygChggMg
'
2 'g Program (REMP) and the capability for assessing dose to the public including: management controls, audits, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, meteorological monitoring program, laboratory QA/QC, and implementation of the above programs.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, the licensee maintained an excellent REMP.
The responsible individuals had very good knowledge regarding the implementation of the REMP and dose assessment.
No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.
93080'F0034 930727 PDR ADOCK 05000387
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licen ee Per nnel at Site R. Breslin, Chemistry Supervisor W. Knecht, I&CForeman
~G. Kuczynske, Manager, Nuclear Plant Services
~D. McGann, Supervisor, Nuclear Compliance
~R. Prego, Supervisor, Site Quality Verification
~B. Rhoads, Chemistry Laboratory Supervisor
~L, Vnuk, Senior, Chemist
~R, Wehry, Compliance Engineer 1.2 Licensee Per nnel at Co orate ffice
~~ B. Carson, Health Physicist, Radiological & Environmental Services
~~ R. Doty, Supervisor, Radiological & Environmental Services
~~ W. Hill, Health Physicist, Radiological & Environmental Services 1.3
~NR
~ G. Barber, Sr. Resident Inspector
~ D. Mannai, Resident Inspector
~ Denotes those present at the exit meeting on July 16, 1993 at the site.
~* Denotes those present at the exit meeting on July 15, 1993 at the Corporate Office.
Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed during this inspection.
2.0 P~uose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's capability to implement the following areas during both normal and emergency operations.
(1)
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (RElMP), including the implementation of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
(2)
Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP).
(3)
The licensee's ability to calculate projected doses to the public from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases during normal operatio.0 Mana ement Controls 3.1 r anization and Pro ram han e
The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and discussed with members of Radiological and Environmental Services any changes made since the last inspection conducted in July 1991.
There were no significant changes in the REMP management since the previous inspection.
3,2 4O di
4.1 The inspector reviewed the 1992 and 1993 QA audit reports (Audit Numbers92-041 and 93-057) for the REMP conducted by the Nuclear Quality Assurance Department.
The inspector noted that the scope and technical depth of the audits were sufficient to assess the implementation of the REMP.
The audit did not identify any findings or deviations for the 1992 audit but identified two minor findings (not safety significant) for the 1993 audit.
The appropriate individuals responded to these findings in a timely manner.
No violations were identified in this area.
ical and Environment 1M nit rin P
m Direct bservati n
The inspector examined selected sampling stations, including air samplers for iodines and particulates, thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations, milk, and broad leaf vegetation sampling stations.
Allreviewed air sampling stations were operational at the time of this inspection.
Broad leaf vegetation samples and milk samples were available and were collected during growing seasons.
TLDs were placed at the designated monitoring stations as described in the ODCM.
- Based on the above observations and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee had good sampling procedures and techniques.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
4.2 Review of Annu 1 R The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Report for 1992.
This report provided a comprehensive summary of the results of the REMP around the Susquehanna Steam Electric Stations (SSES) and met the Technical Specification (TS) reporting requirements.
The inspector also
reviewed available 1993 analytical data for the REMP during this inspection.
Reviewed analytical data for 1993 appeared to be reasonable and no apparent anomalous data were identified.
During the review of the 1992 report, the inspector noted that the licensee collected and analyzed more samples than required by the TS.
The inspector also noted that the licensee summ~ historical REMP data since the preoperational stage for trending purposes, and reported these trend data in the annual reports.
The inspector determined that the inclusion of the trend analyses in the report was noteworthy.
4.3 Im lementation f the REMP The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure (Procedure NEM-QA-1014, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program) to determine the adequacy of implementation of the TS and ODCM. This procedure provides (1)
instructions as to program responsibilities, (2) sampling instructions for all REMP sampling, (3) packaging and transmittal, and (4) annual land census.
The inspector also reviewed selected analytical procedures of the contractor laboratory (Teledyne Isotopes).
Reviewed procedures appeared to be good.
The inspector noted that the licensee controls the contractor laboratory procedures as required by the TS.
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee was implementing Technical Specification and ODCM requirements effectively.
5.0 ualit A urance/
uali n
1 f Anal i
1 Mea uremen The quality control (QC) of analytical measurements is conducted by the contractor laboratory (Teledyne Isotopes).
The contractor laboratory participates in the EPA Cross-Check Program and the analytical results for the EPA cross-checks are listed in the annual report.
The inspector reviewed analytical results of blind, split, and spike samples and noted that the analytical results of the majority of QC samples were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
The contractor laboratory published periodic reports of QC results and supplied them to the licensee. The inspector also reviewed the contractor laboratory's periodic reports and determined that these reports contained very useful information related to the QA/QC program.
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee was conducting a very good quality control program for the REM.0 Meteorolo ical Monit rin Pro ram The inspector reviewed the most recent meteorological instrumentation calibration results for wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and delta temperature.
The licensee performed these calibrations semiannually for a primary and a back-up meteorological tower.
The reviewed calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
Based on the above reviews and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee had implemented a very good MMP.
7.0 Verification fthe Pro'ected Do e Calculati n Pro ram During this inspection, the inspector performed an independent verification of the licensee's capability for calculating projected doses to the public resulting from discharges of radioactive liquids and gases to the environment.
The licensee calculated the projected dose to the public prior to discharge of radioactive liquids and/or gases based on the analytical data incorporated into the radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge permits.
The inspector also used the same parameters contained in the discharge permit (e.g., dilution factor, total amount of radioactivity released, meteorological data to calculate the maximum projected doses to the public for intercomparison with the licensee's assessments.
The licensee representatives used their computer code and the NRC used the "PCDOSE code".
The PCDOSE code was developed by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The code was designed to calculate the maximum projected radiation dose to an individual and the average dose to the population due to radionuclides in radioactive liquid and airborne effluent releases from a nuclear power plant.
The code was designed for normal operation rather than for emergency situations.
The code was developed from the methodology found in both NUREG-0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1).
The PCDOSE code serves as a basis of comparison with calculational programs used by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plants.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for site specific parameters and current methodology for the noble gas, liquid, and particulates release pathways.
The ODCM corresponds to the licensee's computer code using the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0133 for all parameters.
The inspector noted that the licensee used the LADTAPcomputer code for radioactive liquid releases and the GASPAR computer code for noble gases and particulates, including iodines and tritium releases.
Both LADTAPand GASPAR computer codes were developed and published by the NR A simplified LADTAPcomputer code is used by the Chemistry Department to compute the projected dose to the public prior to release of radioactive liquids from the site.
The LADTAPcode is used by the Radiological & Environmental Department at the Corporate Office to compute the realistic dose to the public using the actual radioactive liquid release information generated by the site.
The inspector evaluated the licensee's computer code by assuming site specific parameters and certain release information.
The intercomparison results for the liquid, noble gas, and particulates (iodine-131 and cesium-137) release pathways are listed in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
The comparison results of the radioactive liquid release pathway were based on an actual release permit issued at the Susquehanna site (Liquid Release Permit Number:
93187 and Release Date: June 28, 1993) and using the simplified LADTAPcode by the Chemistry Department.
The intercomparison results were excellent, as shown in Table 1.
The comparison results of another liquid release pathway were made using an actual release permit at the Corporate Office where the LADTAPprogram was being used.
The intercomparison results were also excellent as illustrated in Table 2.
The comparison results of noble gas release pathway were made at the Corporate Office where the GASPAR program was being used.
The intercomparison results were also excellent as illustrated in Table 3.
The comparison results of the particulates (Cs-137) release pathway were based on a simulated release permit using 10 curies release of Cs-137.
The intercomparison results were also excellent as shown in Table 4.
The comparison results of the radioiodine g-131) release pathway were also based on a simulated release permit using 10 curies release of I-131.
The intercomparison results of radioiodine g-131) were also excellent as illustrated in Table 5 with the exception of the child/vegetation/thyroid pathway.
The inspector and the licensee calculated dose factor for the child/vegetation/thyroid pathway independently using site specific parameters.
Hand calculation results of the pathway dose factors calculated by the NRC and the licensee were in agreement but disagreed slightly with the ODCM results.
The licensee initiated an investigation of the ODCM pathway dose factors for the child/vegetation/thyroid pathway during this inspection.
The disagreement in the dose assessments for the child/vegetation/thyroid pathway does not significantly change the projected dose calculation to the public or environment.
The inspector stated that the results of the licensee's investigation willbe reviewed during a subsequent inspectio Based on the above comparisons and reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted a very good projected dose calculation program.
The inspector noted that the responsible individuals at the site and the Corporate Office had excellent knowledge of the dose calculation methodology described in the ODCM.
8.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of this inspection report) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 15, 1993 at the Corporate Office and July 16, 1993 at the site.
The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection finding Table 1.
Projected Dose Comparisons for Liquid Release Liquid Release Permit Number: 93187 Release Date: June 28, 1993 Adult Bone Liver Total Body Tllyfold Kidney Lung GI-LLI NRC (mrem)
6.97E-9 7.21E-7 6.64E-7 6.23E-7 6.48E-7 6.26E-7 1.08E-6 LICENSEE (mrem)
6.70E-9 6.94E-7 6.38E-7 5.99E-7 6.23E-7 6.02E-7 1.04E-6 Table 2.
Projected Dose Comparisons for Liquid Release using LADTAPCode at the Corporate Office Adult Bone Liver Total Body Tllyrold Kidney Lung GI-LLI NRC (mrem)
3.48E-9 3.60E-7 3.32E-7 3.12E-7 3.24E-7 3.13E-7 5.38E-6 LICENSEE (mrem)
3.55E-9 3.64E-7 3.35E-7 3.15E-7 3.27E-7 3.16E-7 5.44E-6
Table 3.
Projected Dose Comparisons for Noble Gas Release using GASPAR Code at the Corporate Office Beta AirDose Gamma AirDose Total Body Dose Skin Dose 3.28E-3 mrad 4.05E-4 mrad 2.37E-4 mrem 2.11E-3 mrem LICENSEE 3.28E-3 mrad 4.05E-4 mrad 2.37E-4 mrem 2.11E-3 mrem Table 4. Projected Dose Comparisons for Particulates (Cs-137)
based on a simulated release permit (10 Ci release)
and using GASPAR Code at the Corporate Office Adult Bone Liver Total Body Kidney Lung GI-LLI NRC (mrem)
9.43E+2 1.29E+2 1.82E+2 4.38E+1 1.46E+1 2.49B 0 LICENSEE (mrem)
9.43B+2 1.29B+2 1.82E+2 4.38B+1 1.46E+1 2.49E 0 Table 5.
Projected Dose Comparisons for Particulates (1-131)
based on a simulated release permit (10 Ci release)
and using GASPAR Code at the Corporate Office AGB/ORGAN PATHWAY Ground Vegetable Child/Thyroid Adult/Thyroid Infant/Thyroid Child/Thyroid Meat Inhalation
~ Han C
culation Result NRC (mrem)
8.18E-2 1.09E+3 7.79E 0 1.24B+3 1.78B+1 LICENSEE (mrem)
8.18E-2 1.04B+3 +
7.25B 0 1.16E+3 1.78E+1