ML19207B229

IE Insp Repts 50-320/76-10 & 50-289/76-18 on 760720-28 & 0803 & 04.Noncompliance Noted:Weekly Air Particulate Samples Were Not Composited & Written Procedures Were Not Prepared to Ensure Compliance W/Ets

ML19207B229
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/15/1976
From:	Bland J, Bores R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B227	List: ML19207B226 ML19207B228 ML19207B229
References
50-289-76-18, 50-320-76-10, NUDOCS 7908230634
Download: ML19207B229 (17)

See also: IR 05000289/1976018

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. MA__ __ .

~ . z - -- ' Q -; _ '-- _ N ~E -- ~ - ~ ~ k b IE:I -Foi:s 12 9' _ " ' ~ C T ' . an 75) (Rcv) ~ -- U. S. NUCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY CO:CilSSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFC'1CDIENT

REGION I . 50-289/76-18 50-289 'l IE Inspection Report No: 50-320/76-10 / Docket No: 50-320 M ! Licensee: Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) License No: CPPR-66 _P. O. Box 542 Priority: __ , C Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category: _B-1 Safeg,uards Loca tio n: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMINS), Units 1 & 2. at Miccietown, Pennsylvan2.a

. Type of Licensee: Unit 1-Pk'R (3610 , 2535 int Unit 2-Pb'R (B&W) , 2 772 ISit fpe of Inspection: Unannounced, Environmental, Routine Dates of Inspec tion: July 28-30 and August 3-4, 1976 9 $ .' Dates of Previous Inspection: July 20-30, 1976 1:' .

_ f[/f//yy Reporting Inspectop: W T cpy;[ d'/ .4 R. J. Bores, Radiation SpeciaIist DATE j Acco panying Inspectors: NONE , DATE i DATE i l' DATE Other Acco=panying Personnel: J. s . m 1, ., a un,3-w m...a _,e ..3r DOR _ , DATE ' 9 /f; Reviewed y: / A1,p / 4 7 , . P.' Stohr, Envitonmental and Special Proj ects DATE / J. [g Section Chief '/90052 _ =gec4wsswwwpm==w.esammr+=mg ::srs=~ nmmm=w=m mmse -

. . . . . _ . - [J . . .J . . . _ . . . . % _ . - 4 L .. k ' ' 1 1 ~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action (Environmental Monitoring) Items of Noncompliance

. A. Violations ' None identified. B. Infractions None. identified. ' C. Deficiencies The following items were found to be in noncompliance with the TMINS Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS): , I 1. ETS 5.5.1 requires, in part, that written procedures be pre- . ! pared to ensure compliance with various activities involved in carrying out the provisions of the ETS. One of these activ- 'O itics is the analyses of background and indicator station air sa=ples for I-131 and radioactive particulates. . Contrary to this requirement, written procedures have not been ' prepared to ensure co=pliance with the ETS with regard to the analysis of I-131 and radioactive particulates in air samples. (Details, Paragraph 4.a.(2)) 2. ETS 4.4.a requires, in part, that quarterly gamma spectal analyses be performed en the composites of the eight weekly indicator air particulate sample stations and of the one weekly background alr particulate sample station. I Contrary to this requirement, weekly air particulate samples composited as described above for the quarterly indicator were not and background samples since 1974. (Details, Paragraph 4.a(3)) 1 Licensee Action on Previou' sly Identified Enforcement Items .j (Environmental Monitoring) 7) None identified. -i Desica Changes None identified. i 71]OGEi.1 i

-{g- . g - ' m.-._ . y.5" - - - - . _ . . - - z- .:

.. . ,q : _ _ ~ -- _.,5 -y. -- _.x. . u; - -- 2 .. . . ., z _- - . _ . - - . - . _ .k h . ' . .. .- - - Unusual Occurrences -I . A. Tritium concentrations in the surface water samples, collected - l downstream of the TMINS discharge point, in excess of ten times or ~ I four times the control station values were reported by the licensee in letters to the NRC on the following occasions: , Report Date s Non-Routine Seven-Day Environmental Report 75-03 October 24, 1975 Non-Routine 30-Day Enviredmental Report 75-04 November 20, 1975 Non-Routine Seven-Day Environmental Report 75-04 January 2, 1976 The inspector examined the licensee's sa=pling and analytical program as related to the above reports and also examined the liquid discharges from TMINS-Unit 1 in conjunction with the sa=pl- ing program. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. (Details, Paragraph 4.d) I B. I-131 and Co-60 concencrations in a surface water sa=ple (collected downstream of the TMINS discharge) in excess of four times that measured at the control station were reported by the licensee in a () letter, Non-Routine 30-Day Environmental Report 75-03, dated November 21, 1975, to the NRC. The inspector reviewed the circumstances surround- ing the reported levels, including the sampling and analytical

program and the pertinent liquid releases. The inspector had no further questions in this =atter at this time. (Details, Para- graph 4.d) C. Radioactivity in bottom sediments in excess of ten times (Co-58) and four times (Cs-137) the control station values were reported by ' the licensee in letters to the NRC on the following occasions: Non-Routine Seven-Day Environ = ental Report 75 0? October 17, 1975 Event Report 76-04/4L January 16, 1976 i The inspector reviewed the circumstances surrounding the reported radioactivity levels and stated that he had no further questions in , this area at this time. (Details, Paragraph 4.e) % Other Significant Findines (Environ = ental Monitoring) . . A. Current Findings , 11 _ , 5

• "

a . w N

'{[ -( ~~ e . - , .- . L . - - -- - - k . - _ _ , , 3 . _ _ .- - -3- . . kh ' i 1 f 1. Unresolved Items a. The termination of the aquatic programs ETS 4.1.1. A, Impingement; 4.1.1.B, Entrainment of fish eggs and fish larvae; and 4.1.1.C, Entrainment of plankton; after the second fear of operation, but prior to the review by the , staff. (Details, Paragraphs 7.a, 7.b , and 7. c) , v b. The sensitivity of analy.ees of precipitation samples for Sr-89 and 90. (Details, Paragraph 4.b. (4)) c. Apparent discrepancy between the indicator / background ratios for g.oss beta and gamma spectral analyses. i ' (Details. *.a.(4)) 1 d. Method of ascertaining periodic sulfate ion useage. (Details 6 d) 2. , Infractions and Deficiencies Identified bv the Licensee a. Infractions () None identified. b. Deficiencies

(1) ETS 4.4.a requires, in part, that envi'ronmental

media be sampled and analyzed in accordance with Table 3 of the ETS. Contrary to this requirement: (a) Sr-89 and 90 analyses were not of sufficient sensitivities to meet the requirements of Table 3 for fish; (b) Sr-89 and 90 analyses were not of sufficient sensitivities to meet the requirements of Table 3 for botto= sediments; and _! (c) I-131 analyses were not of sufficient sensi-

- tivity to meet the requirements of Table 3 for J vegetation. 1 ~ The inspector noted that the licensee had submitted a proposed ETS change (7/31/75) and obtained the resultant ETS Amendment No. 18 (7/23/76). The f ({g inspector had no further questions in this matter. (Details, Paragraphs 4.c and.4.f) ! - YbOGb5 , n <

b

v q

_ , , - ,, ~ i - AN. - - = - o . o - , . - m .. . ( \\ - w -4 . _i O - . (2) ETS 2.1.b. (2) requires , in part , that during reactor s coo.~down cond!tions the discharge te=perature to - inlet te=perature differential shall not be changed by more than 2 F during any one hour. 0 Contrary to this require =ent, the te=perature differ- 8 , ential exceeded 20F during a one-hour period on , Nove=ber 13, 1975. The event was reported to the s NRC in a letter dated Nove=ber 20,.1975. The in- spector reviewed the circumstances surrounding this event and the licensee's corrective and preventive / actions. ihe inspector had no further questions in ! this area at this ti=e. (. Details , Paragraph 6.a) I* c. Deviatiens None identified. B. Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolved Items None reported. O semeee=e t eterviewe . On July 30, 1976 following the onsite inspection, the ineoector =et with the following TMINS representatives:

G. P. Mi'ler, Unit 2 Superintendent J. P. O'Hanlon, PORC Chair =an i J. F. Ro=anski, Supervisor-Radiation Protection r .d Chemistry K. E. Beale, Radiation Protection Supervisor - < f On August 4, 1976, at the conclusion of the inspection, a =ecting was held at the corporate office of the Metropolitan Edison Cc=pany (Met- 'j Ed), Reading, Pennsylvania. The following individuals attended: _ R. J. Bores, hadiation Specialist, 5'RC:I W. E. Potts, Licensing Supervisor, Met-Ed . C. W. S=yth, Licensing Engineer, Met-Ed M. R. Buring, Radiation Safety and Environ = ental Engineering, 't-Ed J. E. Mudge, Radiation Safety and Environ = ental Enginearing, Met-Ed During these =cetings, the following areas were discussed: i f A. General I The inspector discussed the scope of the inspection and stated that . h it included both the radiological and non-radiological aspects of j the environ = ental conitoring progra=s at the TMINS site. The inspector . 'i9005b . $$5$$I1tIIf$5f0N

d- .

e

e . . t : ( . . . . . - 1 i ({) -5- , . further stated that the inspection encompassed the first pre-operational environmental inspection of Unit 2, and both the routine operational environmental inspection and the environmental portion of the Sandia - SSIP programs for Unit 1. B. Items of Noncompliance The inspector discussed with the licensee, each of the Items of s , Noncompliance listed under Enforcement Action. (Details, Para- i graphs 4.a. (2) and 4.a. (3)) C. Unresolved Items The inspector discussed' with the licensee each of the items listed under Current Findings, Unresolved Items. The inspector stated that Item a. was censidered unresolved pending the cc=pletion of the NRC staff's review of the results of these biological programs. Item b. is considered unresolved pending the acquisition of addition- al data by the licensee to verify that the analytical sensitivities for Sr-89 and 90 in precipitation were sufficient to meet the requirements of ETS 4.4.a, Table 3. (Details , Paragraphs 4.a. (4) , {} 4.b. (4) , 6. d , 7.a , 7.b , and 7. c) D. Licensee Identified Deficiencies - -

The inspector discussed with the licensee each of the items listed 5 under Current Findings, Inf ractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Licensee and stated that he had no further questions in these areas. (Details, Paragraphs 4.e, 4.f, and 6.a) , e m. . p 1 k '. .I 4

1

-. O . ~O 6-ag

79.0057 e . , e

• Ms

. -mmai-- "

- ....__ _ _ f _ _. . . h ' DETAILS , 1. Individuals Cont' acted i I Metropolitan Edison Comoany

I G. P. Miller, Unit 2-Superintendent, TMINS . , R. W. Dubiel, Proj ect Engineer, TMINS t l G. A. Kunder, Operations Supervisor, TMINS l J. E. Romanski, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Supervisor, j MHS J. G. Reed, Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 1, TMINS K. L. Harner, Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 2, TMINS K. E. Beale, Radiation Protection Supervisor, TMINS' A. C. Fredlund, Shift Foreman, TMINS R. R. Harper-I & C Supervisor, TMINS H. L Wilson-Instrument Foreman, TMINS W. E. Potts, Licensing Supervisor , . I C. W. S=yth, Licensing Engineer M. R. Buring, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering J. E. Mudge, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering O- B. J. Beck, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering Ichthyolocical Associates., Inc. (IA) i G. A. Nardacci-Project Manager-TMINS J. D. Montgomery , Biologis t R. F. Eppley, Jr., Biologist i Porter-Gertr Consultants, Inc. e R. Laughlin, Environmental Sample Collector - 2. General The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's pre-oper- ational environmental monitoring program for Unit 2 and the oper- ational environmental monitoring program for Unit 1, encompassing 4 both the radiological and non-radiological aspects of these programs. l The licensee's operational environmental monitoring requirements for Unit 1 are described in Appendix B to the Operating License DPR-50, the Environmental Technical Specification (ETS). The pre- _,) operational environmental monitoring commitments for Unit 2 are - _ described.in the Unit 2 Environmental Report and in the Unit 2 - FSAR. Areas examined during this inspection included a selective - examination of air, water and gamma dosimetry stations, sampling ., ) < '/90058 , -, OW ' * * q %

' ' "= w ' w'-s m&, =:w : -nam.

" , -D 4 V * '- A

.. - ._ ~ O O a t .. - '. -7- (h '

l and analytical procedures, representative program results and ' reports, interviews with licensee and contractor personnel, and c.bservations by the inspector. As part of this inspection, the laboratory facilities of Ichthyological Associates, Inc. (IA) in ! Etters, Pennsylvania were visited. ! In addition, the circumstances, evaluations and corrective actions relating to the reported Environmental Incident EI 75-09 were e - . . amined, and the following TMINS reports were reviewed: Report of Water Quality and Heavy Metals Analysis for 1975 An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station-Annual Report for 1975 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for TMINS- 3 Semi-Annual Report - January-June, 1975 Semi-Annual Report July-December, 1975 - 3. Organization and Administration .

The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the environmental monitoring programs at the TMINS site and determined that this area was essentially as described in NRC:IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-289/75-21 and 50-320/75-12 and in AEC:R0 Report No. 50-289/74-34 at previous inspecticas of this area. 4. Radioloeical Monitoring Procram a. Air Monitoring (1) The inspector examined selected air sampling stations and noted that all were operating at the time of the in- spection. The inspector observed that the sampling trains and filters used were the same as reported pre- viously in AEC:R0 Inspection Report 50-289/74-07. The inspector noted that the sampling heads had been re- oriented and sheltered such that precipitation did not strike the particulate filters. (2) The inspector determined that the licensee did not have prepared, written procedures as required by ETS 5.5.1.j for the analysis of background and indicator station air I ' samples for I-131 and radioactive particulates. The inspector stated that this was an item of noncompliance. ' The inspector examined the licensee's Surveillance Procedure SP 1301-9.4 and noted that it did not provide _ sufficient instructions to ensure that its imple=entation . would assure co=pliance with the ETS. > 'l J 730059

i - 4 & - MN a M .3 .* e . . F. . = m = 2 MP M::":.s. .:w

=c--~ = .-

. . _ . - - - _ ~~ . ,

- ---

• -s-

0 (3) The inspector further determined through the review of the available records and reports and through discussions with the licensee that the quarterly compositing of the weekly air particulate filters was not done in accordance with the requirements of ETS 4.4.a, Table 3. This Table requires that the weekly filters from eight indicator , stations and the weekly filters from the one background station be composited as two samples-indicator and back- ground, respectively, for gac=a spectral analyses. The s inspector determined that two stationc (one an indicator) were used in co= positing the background samples ror the past 1 1/2 years in noncompliance with the requirements. (The inspector noted that the ETS had been recently amended as o.f July 23, 1976 to allcw the compositing of filters from three weekly air sampling stations for the quarterly background gam =a spectral analysis and from five sampling stations as the " indicator" samples.) (4) The inspector reviewed the licensee's air particulate and air iodine results sin'ce January, 1975 and determined that with the exception of the method of compositing the ' background and indicator samples, all the analyses appeared .( ) to have been performed, as required. The inspector discussed with the licensee an apparent discrepancy between the ratios of indicator / background gross beta activities and those of the gamma spectral activities. f The licensee stated that this would be evaluated. This ! ite= is unresolved pending subsequent review of this ' area. b. Precipitation Samuling < I (1) The inspector examined selected precipitation collection stations and observed the ecnthly colleccions at these , stations. The inspector discussed with the licensee the sampling and collector rinse procedures. The licensee stated that these areas would be reviewed. The inspector noted that the ETS did not specifically require approved procedures for this area, therciore had had no further questions. . I 1 0 j

• /30060

, = A- _?$y 23uL$ .cqws . : e q-t7ap_.g y3.-g g:34 Y_ - 1~y ;3.gkr. ,& %+:'WEDO'" ~ ~ '

y-=-T w ~ w: <;

-- $Y??WWST ~iTGW5dh L: C

- e e . "'- o _ . (2) The inspector determined from the review of the Sur- veillance Procedure SP 1301-9.4 input, discussions with the licensee, and' review of the records thac all the required precipitation samples were collected since January 1975. The inspector also reviewed the sampling procedure and noted that it did not contain compositing , procedures, nor was it approved. (The inspector further noted that the ETS did not specifically require approved - procedures for this area.) The inspector determined through discussions with the' licensee and contractor that the required quarterly analyses were made on propor- tionally composited samples. The inspector had no further

i questions in this matter at this time. (3) The inspector reviewed the results of the gross beta analyses of precipitation since January 1975 through the latest available results (June 1976) and found no in- adequacies in this area. (4) The inspector exa=ined the results of the quarterly gam .a

spectral analyses and the semi-annual Sr-89 and 90 analysis for the same time period. With respect to the Sr-89 and O So >= 1 ees or 9tec1 1cet1 = ee=91ee. the 1=evect r = tea 7 9 that at times the reported results approached the re- quired minimum sensitivities for these analyses. Since the strontium che=ical yields and other necessary data were not available to verify the reported results and because the Sr-89 results were not corrected for decay over the long compositing interval, the inspector stated . that the sensitivity of Sr-89 and 90 analyses of pre- cipitation was considered unresolved pending the ac- 1 quisition and review of this data. The licensee indicated that this data would be obtained and available for review. - c. TLD Measurements - The inspector examined selected TLD conitoring stations and ' examined the records of the results of the TLD program at TMINS since January, 1975. The inspector also reviewed the results of the TLDs utilized as a quality control of the . primary contractor. The inspector discussed with the licensee the TLD annealing, preparation, calibration, utilization, and control procedures. The licensee stated that these areas i would be re-examined. ne inspector noted that the ETS did specifically require approved procedures for this area, not therefore, the inspector had no further questions in this regard at this time. O 790061 1 9 .

LT ' I: .l 1i .I . r -- ." ~< ~ W~ W = :YL~ ~^ . - - -~ .- _ -

~

'

__ _ _ -

3 .- : . - := = n - <__ -( (: . . .. , -

Q._- . . +: ;; .;..

.

.. - \\ ,. - _ - _ . _ _ ._ y :. m =.t : . N, w -w.- .- a-__

-10- @ d. River Water The inspector examined selected river water sampling stations and observed the water sampling procedures. These areas were discussed with the licensee, as well as, the near downstream sampling stations in terms of representing the bulk of the , river flow. The licensee stated that alternate sampling locations and frequencies were being evaluated for possible ETS changes. . s The inspector reviewed the results of the river water sampling and analytical program since January,1975. The inspector also examined the circumstances surrcunding licensee's reports of I-131, Co-60 and H-3 (or several occasions) in excess of four times or ten times the control station values. (See SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, Unusual Occurrences, Items A and B). The inspector also reviewed the pertinent liquid discharge records and dis- cussed the frequency, location and timing of the river samples in terms of their representativeness of the river. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. e. Fish and Botto= Sediments O ' The inspector discussed with the licensee the sampling and analytical procedures for fish and for bottom sediments. The analytical results for these media were reviewed since January, 1975. The inspector determined that the requirements in these areas had been t, with the following exceptien: i; Sr-89 and 90 analyses of both fish and bottom sediments were ' not of sufficient sensitivity to meet the requirements of [ ETS 4.4.a, Table 3. The licensee identified this as an item j of noncompliance and submitted a proposed ETS change in July, 1975 which would relieve the sensitivity requirements to thsoe more reasonably achieveable. This change was approved in - July, 1976 by Amendment No. 18 to the ETS. (See SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Li- , ' censee, Deficiencies, Items 1.a. and 1.b.). The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. m 1 . The inspector also reviewed the circumstances surrounding the ~ , reports of Cs-137 and Co-58 in sediments in excess of four times , and ten times, respectively, those at the control stations. - ' (See SirMMARY OF FINDINGS, Unusual Occurrences, Item C.) The inspector had no further questions in this area. - . (g) - - _ _ - - . _ . _ _

_ . _ _ 790062 ~ f . . . I

, == . . 1YMWM6EMQ2f.e W # -~_.EE.EXso M $NTp."diW U S' M'h M ( h $$iS2 d i [f ' '*

. ' -

& .. . \\- . - ~ . _ . _ . - , -11- , . ,j f. , getation The inspector reviewed the licensee's records of the results of 1 the green leafy vegetation sampling since January, 1975 and ? discussed them with the licensee. The inspector determined that all the requirements in this area appeared to be met with one exception. The licensee had' determined that the analytical sensitivity for measuring I-131 in vegetation was consistently

less than that required by ETS 4.4.a, Table 3. (The inspector noted that the licensee submitted a proposed change to the ETS in this regard in July, 1975. The change uas approved in July, 1976 by A=endment No. 18 to the ETS. (See SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, Infractions and Deficiencies Identified bv the . Licensee, Deficiencies, Item 1.c.) The inspector had no further questions in this area at this ti=e. g. Milk . The inspector reviewed the results of the milk sampling pro , gram at TMINS since January 1975 and deter =ined that all the required samples were collected and analyzed with sufficient , sensitivity to ceet the requirements of the ETS. The inspector () also reviewed the results of the latest milk animal census and discussed them with the licensee. The irspector had no further questions in this area. 5. Quality Control of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring The inspector reviewed with the licensee the licensee's quality control progra=, the progra= policy'and philosophy, and represent- ative program results. In summary, the licensee uses some dupli- cate samples and sampling stations for each media and a second analytical laboratory to evaluate the quality of analytical per- formance. The inspector discussed the use of split samples rather than duplicate wherever practical. The inspector also examined the licensee's audits of one of the contractors, the audit findings, recommendations and resulting followup action. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this ti=e. 6. Chemical and Thernal Monitoring a. Thermal . . The inspector examined selected thermal monitoring records and reviewed the procedures for operation of the mechanical draft cooling tower. The inspector also examined the circu=- stances surrounding the effluent temperature decrease of 3 F/hr O t 2 '790063

+ = $ - W,1 y Q.:ry-W5ddF C;i Q.ft' %M .-A;; 3.w;:;c.wp.69- d ? C.-M ET9 T

- _ _ _ _ - , . . a - .. C(. , -12 _ .

- w

- - g - - . . , . - O

(in excess of the ETS 2.1.b(2) limit of 2 F/hr) which occurred on November 13, 1975 and was reported to the NRC in a letter dated November 20, 1975. (See SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Licensee, Deficien cies , Item 2.) Changes to the procedures for operating the mechanical cooling tower as a result of this event were reviewed and discussed with the licensee. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. , - h. Chemical Discharges s

(1) pH , . The inspector examined the licensee's Procedure 1104-18, Rev. 7 for the discharge of the contents of the waste neutralizing tanks and verified that it contained pro-

visions to assure that the tank pH was within the limits of ETS 2.2.3 prior to release. The inspector examined each of the waste release reccrds for April 1 through June 30, 1976 and selected records

outside this interval. For these releases during the - intervals examined, no discharge was made in which the pH was outside the ETS 2.2.3 limits. (2) Dissolved Solids .

'

The inspector examined Procedure 1104-18 Rev. 7 and

verified that it contained provisions to assure that , 8 the requirements of ETS 4.2.1, concerning dissolved solids in plaat river water discharges , are met. , The inspector reviewed each of the licensee's discharg; p , W records for the interval May 1, 1976 through June 30,

,

1976 and selected other intervals and determined that the dissolved solids for each of the discharges examined were within the ETS 4.2.1 limits. } The licensee stated that an analysis of the above data to determine the effcets of plant operation on river water chemistry has not yet been performed. The inspector noted that the ETS did not specifically require that this , I be done. The inspector had no further questions in this j area at this time. 4 c. Chlorine - ! The inspector reviewed with the licensee the chlorination , procedures, frec,uency and duration, and analytical procedures 9 and results for 1976. No instances were noted in which the w total residual chlorine concentration exceeded the ETS 2.2.1 limits. 1 W {}{}{y1 q _ f rl & M

.. ...___ _ _ -- k j - ( '.. . _ . . . =. . _,g L. s % . - g - . . .: . , . - - . , . The inspector also reviewed the draft report of the special _j chlorine study performed at TMINS by WAPORA, Inc., Washington, D.C. and discussed the reported findings with the licensee. The licensee stated it would be several months before the , " final report is completed and evaluations could be made of its possible implications in terms of optimum utilization of chlorine or other biocide at TMINS. The licensee stated that - the results of the study would be used to try to optimize the plant cleanliness with minimum environmental degradation. , d. Sulfate Ion ., - , The inspector discussed with the' licensee the method of main- taining inventory and log records to show the quantity of sulfuric acid used in demineraliaer regeneration and in circ- ulating water such that the total quantity of sulfate ion . released from these uses'does not exceed 4,620,000 pounds / , year. The inspector also reviewed the records for 1975 and determined that the sulfate discharges were within the ETS 2.2.2.b limits on a calender year basis. Running 12 month inventory totals were not maintained. The licensee stated that the method of determining the usage would be evaluated for obtaining periodic use status during the year. The inspector stated that this would be considered nresolved { pending completion of the licensee's evaluation. . 7. Environmental Surveillance and Special Studies a. Fish Imoincement The inspector reviewed the results of the fish impingement program for 1975, and selected sampling and analytical pro- cedures for this program. The licensee stated that the impingement program required by ETS 4.1.1.A was officially terminated by TMINS as of June 1,1976. The licensee does, however, continue the semi-monthly sampling program, but at eight hour ra.ther than four hour intervals over a 24-hour period. b. Entrainment of Fish Eces and Larvae .

1 The inspector reviewed the results of these programs through 4 October, 1975, at which time these pregrams were terminated by TMINS. Selected sampling and analytical procedures were f discussed with the licensee and contractor personnel. 'n The licensee stated that beginning in March, 1976, the plant ,a intake was sampled twice monthly using a net to obtain a ' sample rather than the pumping technique used earlier. In < O' addition, 13 stations in the reservoir are sampled to es- tablish a population base in the river. 1 790 % 5 1 .!$ ? M W$$$N$$5@.W$$5 $W5k*NWIN

.....__ _ --- -~ - _ . - . .- ,- y :,. ;. y .n.< , _ _ ;_ - . _ - - . _ - .,_..r._-- .- , - .: . _ - . ,;. . - - .;::: , - - w --

_

-

~ ' ' - ' . ._ -y

a ....

. :; . _, . - _. ._ - q.; ; ~ _ \\_-- . . ~ ~ , * -3:3 _ - ~_ .- c. . Entrainment of Plcr.M on The inspector discussed with the licensee and contractor personnel the sampling and analytical techniques used in this program, as well as, the results of this program through October, 1975. The licensee stated that this program had been terminated in accordance with the ETS at the end of October, 1975. . fhe inspector stated that items a., b., and c. above are considered ' s unresolved pending NRC review of the results of these studies. .4e inspector stated that while ETS 4.1.1 allowed the termination o2 these programs at the end of_the second year; it appears that the termination of these programs are contingent on a satisfactory NRC staff review of the results from the first year. Since that staff review had not been complcted, these items are lef t unresolved at

this time. The licensee stated that since nothing had been heard I to the contrary from the NRC, the program was terminated after the j scheduled ti=e and the licensee was using this time to perform ,1 other baseline studies to establish a = ore meaningful monitoring j program for Unit 2. i , L i d. Fish Survev I () The inspector discussed with the licensee and contractor the methodology and results of the fish sampling program. The licensee stated that in addition to the required trap netting and shore seining required by ETS 4.1.1.D, electrofishing and creel census were perforced in an effort to i= prove the fish population estimates in the Susquehanna River. This program will continue for one mere year, pending review of the NRC ~ staff. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. ~ 1 - e. Macro-invertebrates . The inspector reviewed the results of the macro-invertebrate sampling program for 1975 and discussed with the licensee and contractor personnel the sampling, and analytical techniques., including the use of keys for identification, and sampling and - analytical variability. The inspector had no further ques- ~ tions in this area at this ti=e. - . , i _ f. Coolinz Tower Salt Drift Study .- - 3:,J - & The inspector observed the met.hodology of the visual inspec- tien of natural vegetation and crops to determine if any physical 3amage resulting from cooling tower' salt drift is occurring. The inspector discussed these methods with the _, {{} licensee and contractor:and reviewed the results of the pro- -

.

gram for 1075.- The inspector had no further questions in this - br -

-i g

area at this time. - .-- . _ - ~ _ . _ . . - Q[ - - . - . - M, - - .~ ^ OMis3- cr _ - ,

• N.QT.-& Ghm.n Q y~hgl4: & z.'..5sg=;;Q f.=g ~f'...<-= ~ ~ " ~ ~":-w~]-

. e ~_ _~. ;= a ._ -- . - -

'

.

q

i 97 ~ O . m .. .. __ _ , ~ -15- , I g. Heavy Metal Analysis < The inspector discussed with the licensee the sampling and ^ analytical procedures utilized to determine the heavy metal content at the plant river water discharge and upstream of the plant river water intake. The licensee stated that Surveillance , ' Procedure SP 1304-3 was utilized to assure that each of the required samples were collected and analyzed, and that the . sampling and analytical procedures were maintained by the - contractor. ' The inspector verified from the surveillance records that each

of the required heavy metal analyses were perfor=ed for the months April through June, 1976. The licensee stated that the results of the heavy metal analyses had no't yet been reviewed to determine if plant operations had any effect on river water chemistry. The inspector had no further questions in this area at thir time. ! ' 8. Performance Evaluation in the Biological /Aouatic Studies The inspector discussed with the licensee and contractor personnel () the evaluation of the quality of performance in the biological / aquatic studies; including the determination of variability in subsampling, in analytical techniques, in repetitive samples, in identification of organisms, etc. The licensee stated that these areas would be evaluated and that in the area of water quality analysis, a sample splitting program had been initiated with a second analytical laboratory. (The results of this program were not yet available at the time of inspection.) The inspector also discussed the use of documented contractor audits in assuring all the requirements were being met. The licensee stated that this area was also being evaluated. The inspector noted that the ETS did not contain any requirements in this area and therefore had no further questions at this time. 9. Non-Routine Reoorts t !j The inspector reviewed each of the non-routine environmental i reports submitted since the last inspection of this area. I (These reports have been identified in SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, Unusual Occurrences and Licensee Identified Infractions and Deficiencies, Deficiencies, item 2.) The inspector noted that no

nonradiological non-routine reports had been required in 1976 as of the time of inspection. The inspector had no further questions in the above areas at this time. O woom _ $5:

• l 'l "
• ,
• *~

~ '

. ( ,W - U - ' - . , _ ., , . -16- - . 10. Transformer Area The inspector discussed with the licensee the proposed modification of the Unit 1 transformer areas to provide a means of preventing 2he discharge of oil from this area in the event of a transformer rupture. The licensee stated that the engineering drawings have been made for these changes and that the actual modifications to

the transformer platform / pit areas would be completed this fall. With respect to the Unit 2 transformers, the inspector determined chat the licensee has e surveillance program to assure that the transformer pits do noc fill with water and reduce their ability to contain the transformer oil in the event of a maj or spill. The inspector stated that he had no further questions '- this area at ! this time and that the progress on Unit 1 transformets would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

11. Construction Activities- Unit 2 ' The inspector coured the Unit 2 construction area and the liquid discharge point s for the site. The inspector observed that there was no indication of erosion products being carried offsite. The () licensee stated that when construction is completed, landscaping and pe rmanent revegetation will be done. The licensee stated that _ routine surveillance of the ccastruction areas is conducted by plant and corporate 'ersonnel. The inspector had no further questions in this area at er .r. time. h. 12. Unit 2 - Environmental Instrumentatica Status

,

The inspector examined the status of the Unit 2 instrumentation for limiting or monitoring chemical and thermal releases and for pro- viding meteorological data to the Control Room. The inspector observed that the pH monitoring instrumentation for the waste neutralizing system, the intake and discharge water temperature - instrumentation, and the meteorological data recorders had been installed.

he operability and calibration of this equipment has

not yet been determined. This area will be further reviewed during , ,a subsequent environmental inspections. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time. a1 < . , 1 %;0068 , e .: :v+v.-m g g.;. 4mm m ~ . -- -wg$m.5a$um ? 1 Y d 2 h Y T r-$ 5 W ' 5 *"5 W Y W ;A S ~ W W :~ h - @

• f 'S ~Y%N$

X.T~kTF }}