ML20107G968

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-219/75-12 on 750425-27 & 0408-10.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Waste Mgt Sys
ML20107G968
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 05/23/1975
From: Hyson R, Knapp P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18039A986 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-95-258 50-219-75-12, NUDOCS 9604230403
Download: ML20107G968 (8)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000219/1975012

Text

. _ -

. -

-

_.

.-

-

.-

. 5'

,.

'

'

R03I Form 12

- (Jan*75) (Rev)

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO)DIISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

.

REGION I

<

.

b,I!

IE Inspection Report No:

sn-91o /7s 19

Docket No:

50-2]9

Licensee:

Jersey Central Power & Light Co.

License No: DPR-16

Madison Ave at Punch Bowl Road

Priority:

I

)

Morristown, N. J.

07960

Category:

C

Location: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Safeguards

'.s.,

Group:

$

-

r

Type of Licensco:

BWR, 640 MWe

Type of Inspection: Waste Management Systems (Unannounced)

Dates of Inspection:

Aoril 29-May 1. 1975

Dates of Previous Inspection: March 25-27 and April 8-10. 1975

Reporting Inspector: 'G

bW

3 N O$

.

Robert R. Hyson, Rad'ia ion Specialist

I Date

Accompanying Inspectors:

Date

1

Date

Da?.e

Date

Other Accompan,ing Personnel:

Date

Reviewed By:

)7 IN/&

E!7?>!70

~

.

.

/P.J.Ynapp,Chkef, Facilities

U'

-Radiation Protection Section

,

9604230403 960213

~

PDR

FOIA

l

DEKOK95-258

PDR

i

-~

-

.

-

.-

.

4-

,

,

.+

,

-

, .

.

,

,

'

.

i

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

. Y *]

Enforcement Action

.C

A.

Items of Noncompliance

1.

Violations

None

2.

Infractions

Failure to calibrate the liquid process radiation monitor during

the last quarter, 1974, and .he first quarter, 1975, as required

by Technical Specification 4.6.A.

(Details, Paragraph 2 d & e)

3.

Deficiencies

None

B.

Deviations

None

y

Design Changes

No't inspected

Unusual Occurrences

None

Other Significant Findings

A.

Current Findings

1.

Acceptable Area

a.

Liquid Releases

T

A review of the liquid radioactive releases was conducted.

<

(details, Paragraph 2)

'

b.

Gaseous Releases

A review of gaseous and iodine and particulate releases was

conducted.

(Details, Paragraph 3)

,

'

e

.

- - - - -

_

__

_

. . . _ . _

.

t

..

.

-2-

c.

Reactor Coolant Quality

.

A review of measured parameters in the reactor coolant was

made.

(Details, Paragraph 6)

>.a

d.

Filter Testing

A review of the frequency and results of HEPA filters and

charcoal adsorbers-in the standby gas treatment system was

r'eviewed.

(Details, Paragraph 5)

'

2.

Unresolved Items

None

3.

Items Identified and_ Corrected by the Licensee

Infraction

None

Deficiency

None

Management Interview

A management interview was held at the site on May 1, 1975.

Persons Present

Mr. D. A. Ross, Manager,.*a. lear Generating Stations

Mr. J. Carroll, Station Supsrintendent

Mr. E. Grovney, Technical Engineer

Mr. R. Pelrine, Chemistry Supervisor

'

,

'

Mr. R. Stoudnour, Staff Engineer

Items Discussed

A.

Purpose of the Inspection

The inspector stated that this was an in-depth inspection of the

licensee's waste management systems for the period from about June

1974 to the present. The areas of specific concern were delineated

as follows.

'

.

0

i

3

-

--

-. .- . - . ,

. .- .

.- ..~

. . - -

-- . . = . . . - .

. . ~ . .

- - - . - - , ~

,

' '

c

'

'

-

T

g

-

4

'.

' . .

,

,

.

DETAILS-

f ti,

vq

,

1.

Individuals Contacted

-

J. Carroll, Station' Superintendent

~ D. Reeves, Chief: Engineer

'

-R. Pelrine, Chemistry Supervisor.

R. Stoudnour, Environmental Engineer

E. Growney, Technical Engineer-

E. Scalsky,- Radiation Protection. Supervisor

- C. Konta,; Chemistry Foreman

L

LJ. Sullivan, Operations Supervisor.

m,.

R. Baran, Engineering Assistant

j

.D. Wiegle, Engineering-Assistant.

.

2.

Liquid Waste System

a. . A review by the inspector of the licensee's liquid waste re -

i

leases ~since the last inspection indicated that the releases

.

were within Technical Specification limits. This review re-

-

vealed'that the licensee's measurements program for specific

radionuclides was conducted in accordance with regulatory

1

4?W

requirements.

b.

The inspector determined that proper data reduction techniques

H

were being employed by the licensee inJobtaining the amounts

and concentrations of liquid radioactivity released from the:

-

,

facility.

c.

The inspector determined.by discussions with licensee represent-

atives and review of records ~ that the licensee's functional tests

of the liquid radwaste monitor were consistent with regulatory

4

requirements .

d.

The inspector noted that the documentation of the last two re-

quired quarterly calibrations of the liquid radwaste monitor

j

were inadequate to the extent that they could not be considered

. actual. calibrations.. The' licensee.placed four disc sources of

varying source strengths against the detector of each monitor

j

to check detector response.

The results were as follows for

- the.two periods noted below:

,

f

,y

e

,

y

V

4,

-

w

-

e

. . - -

-,

--4d.

-

a

.

.-

..

.

,.

-4-

Date

Source'No.

Detection

Desired' Reading *

Observed Reading-

11/31/74

1

RN02-A

370 cps

380 cps

-

EEF

2

220 cps

330 cps

3

693 cps

395 cps

4

167. cps

359 cps

1

RN02-D

370 cps

390 cps

2

220 cps

395 cps

3

693 eps

345 cps

j

4-

167 cps

300 cps

'

2/13/75

1

RN02-A

369 cps

390 cps

211 cps

400 cps

2

e

3

697 cps

400 cps

4

165 cps

350. cps

1

RN02-D

.379 cps

400 cps

2

221 cps

410 cps

3

707 cps

350 cps

4

175 cps

305 cps

  • Background included

Wdu

The inspector noted that the space alloted on the calibration

documentation sheet for final observed reading was not completed.

Normally, if the initially observed readings vary significantly

( 20%) from the desired readings; then the monitor'is adjusted

_

to respond correctly to the desired readings of the check source

so as to be in calibration. The inspector informed the licensee

that the failure to adjust his monitor to the desired check source

readings appeared to constitute a failure to calibrate his liquid

,

radwaste monitors for the last quarter of 1974 and the first

.

quarter of 1975.

The licensee agreed to calibrate his liquid rad-

waste monitors, immediately, and to determine the cause of their

,

failure to respond properly upon detector stimuli. The inspector

,

i

futher noted that'for two years previous to the 11/31/74_cali-

bration attempt the monitor responded appropriately.

1

3.

Gaseous Waste Systems

a.

The inspector reviewed the records of the gaseous waste release

since the'last inspection and found that the releases were with-

.

,

in Technical Specification limits.

'

'

b.

The inspector determined that proper data reduction techniques

'

were being employed by the licensee in obtaining the amounts

'

and concentrations of gaseous radioactivity'releasdd form the

facility.

i

,

J

d

f

G

,.c

,

,

,

,-

%

-

,

.

.

.

-,.

.

.

..

-5-

The inspector determined by discussions with licensee represent-

c.

tives and review of records that the licensee's calibration and

'

functional tests, effluent monitor calibrations, and alarm and

-

isolation settings of the offgas monitor were consistent with

,

7

.j;,

8;j ,

regulatory requirements.

4.

Containment and ventilation systems

The inspector determined by reviews of records and discussions

with licensee representatives that periodic surveillance filter

testing on the standby gas treatment system was conducted as per

Technical Specification requirements.

5.

Filter Systems Testing

The inspector reviewed the test- procedures and results of tests and

determined that the filter systems (HEPA and charcoal absorbers)

were periodically tested as required by Tech Specs, and, that the

test results were consistent with requirements.

6.

' Reactor Coolant Quality

The inspector determined from discussions with licensee repre-

a.

sentatives and review of records that the frequency and results of

analyses of the reactor coolant were consistent with Tech Spec

g

requirements,

b.

The inspector noted that the reactor cooIant iodine activity

since the last inspection was maintained at less than 20% of

the Tech Spec limit of 8.0 pCi/ml.

The inspector noted that the licensee could not provide adequate

c.

documentation to establish that the disc sources used for the

liquid radwaste monitor calibration are r'eferenced to the orig-

inal calibration curves; a'1though the licensee felt that this

,

had been done historically. The inspector noted that the orig-

'

inal curves were available. The licensee agreed to properly

recalibrate the liquid radwaste monitors using a calibrated

liquid standard and a mock-up of the liquid radwaste monito.r

,

spool piece.

The monitor would then be checked with the disc

j

check sources to establish a documented reference to the newly

generated calibration curves. The 11censee representative in-

dicated that this liquid calibration would be performed at the

next calibration.

.

9

,

. -

-

- - -

.:

.

~

.

-6-

d.

The inspector noted that much confusion existed among licensee

representatives as to the basis for the liquid radwaste monitor

alarm setpoints.

In response to the inspector's expressed con-

cern about this confusion, the licensee agreed to reevaluate

s. ,

).$@

the alarm setpoint basis following the monitor recalibration and

  1. '

to distribute the results of the reevaluated basis to the plant

personnel who are expected to be cognizant of the basis.

The inspector noted that the primary basis for evaluating liquid

releases made to the environs is an isotopic gamma, gross beta

and gross alpha analysis of a liquid sample from each waste

sample tank or laundry drain tank prior to its release of con-

tents. The liquid process effluent monitor's function is to

serve as an added assurance against releasing an amount of liquid

radioactivity in excess of regulatory requirements, in the case

of an occurrence such as an improperly analyzed sample, the lack of

homogeneity of the sample analyzed, etc.

e.

The inspector noted that the licensee had not made any liquid re-

leases between September, 1974, and April, 1975. During April,

ed approximately 290,000 pC1 of

1975, 17 releasesweremadewhichinclujH0.

gross gamma activity and 20,000 pCi of

2

The licensee rep-

resentative indicated that these releases were made in conjunction

with the refueling outage operations which took place in April.

7.

Procedures

N

The inspector noted that several of the chemistry procedures being used

for procuring and analyzing radiochemical samples were still in the

draft stage and that some procedures for sample analyses were in neither

a draf t nor a forn.alized stage. The licensee stated that all chemical

and radiochemical procedures involving sampling and analysis would be

formalized and appropriately reviewed and approved by August 15, 1975.

(,

The licensee indicated that there h td been no changes in procedures

related to waste management since the last inspection.

8.

Personnel Exposures

a.

The inspector through discussions with the cognizant licensee

representative noted that the personnel exposures since IE:I

inspection 50-219/75-09 were consistent with regulatory re-

quirements,

b.

The inspector noted through discussions with the cognizant li-

censee representative that extremity badges were continuing to

be used and evaluated for operations requiring them, as per the

licensee commitment made during IE:I Inspection as discussed in

m-

Report No. 50-219/75-09.

'

,

.

.

_. . .. _ .

. . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ .

_ _ . . . . .

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . .___ .. .._ . _ . _

.

.

,'

_,

F

, s-

v

-

. .

,

I

  • l

p

,

'~

.,. ~..

OUTSTANDit:01Tr.!! 1.1c,7

--

._

,-

-

.

Facility /Licensce: N* b'-'-\\ M Y .h

'.\\. . . . .

page p

-

,

Locatlon:

D*

. Nb-

Liccnse No. ~ . ' .

'W-

.

s

.' b;

a

-

rpa

'Y

~ 01L

OPf31NG

i C1.0.;1:.T "

REFERE:CE

y

11 0

ITEM

P/S

R!:rr_ia. .*:.r.r

- - .

. . . .

.

y.g Q1. c.b.s.u,\\.A M.h,,,*

'

q

wny, 1,w.

/

t-5

' W v1

>

-

.

s. . .w . ..s

_

%,s.4,w.,

)

~ .A. . . .. .

J

l

,

~ ~

Vi M/ n.w

j

w.w . . . pm, s.'"

.A A h .,, awe

,,.4.,.;._

5

hr-b <g

l

-_

_

f,[ D$ M.Y",N

_.

.

.

.

l

,

,

~~~~

"

%-n/dt,.o

V a

,s

pa\\.% o(he

'

%A

.

>

W-0%

I'

.

4,:. s s . .

n.v . . . A

_._

c.s,h

w's.i d . % '.p n

.5

.

q

Tiald w

V

pn ,m . ., s.n e m.%

,

h

vhs't t \\ a's.,N

a3e

'

-

'

~~'

~,u ew s p .w g ~,a

\\/

Y\\-V\\/Dsb.

I

..

S

T ~0'\\.__

.

1-

%:( Q % e % oA ,\\

-

'

s

  • ,gg

@-l'dOO

b 6, f) .

C.594-vb D Ja, W

h he so.sWh'i-51 o .. t

- ...

. . . , ,

,-

sv v

,

.

.

_ __

r, ,.

'\\. ,V>_t hb T

tgw.

.,#

_ __.

s

s

hf.=_

_ _ _

g

__ ,

N

- \\

\\YeLe &

,

p.

s,w 2ca h b\\y)b

_

o f-o t\\

V

bl.3 ) ,f . ,e. & N

9K-D

__..

,

_

.,

l

9 % ,,l'

h.. nh

'

,

..

-

.- .

he sA b'wl

-

.

-

,

___

-

__

'Ck

k.

.(

,o ,- -

,

,

.<

.

.. .

-

\\ m, . s \\. k . u a..,

,

-

e-

.

-

. - .

  • s {**)

. .

___

_

M ~- D

Y.)\\b vu o , \\ ,,d

__.__ ~

"

'

- -

,

O .Y d % @ %.

-__..- .

'

'

.

,, aN

n,, -

-_.. .. .-

.

~

_.

..

~.

_--

l

-

.

m

. .

. -

- . .

, . . - ~.

,.-r,

. , , _ . . . .

-

,

-.m

- - -

,--_4

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20107G968&oldid=4298306"