IR 05000333/1993001

Insp Rept 50-333/93-01 on 930125-29.No Safety Concerns or Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Liquid & Gaseous Effluent Control Programs,Including Mgt Controls,Audits,Air Cleaning Sys & Implementation of Subj Programs

ML20128G561
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	02/04/1993
From:	Jang J, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128G548	List: IR 05000333/1993001 ML20128G544
References
50-333-93-01, 50-333-93-1, NUDOCS 9302160045
Download: ML20128G561 (10)

Text

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

-

t.

!

!

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /93-01 Docket N License N DPR-59 Licensee: New York Power Authority P.O. Box 41 Lgaming. New York 13093 Facility Name: James A. FitzP_atrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. T.vcoming. New York Inspection Conducted: January 25-29. 1993 Incpector: <0 -

NY h3 Jaso , Jang, Senior Radiation Specia ' Date Ef ents Radiation Protection Section ;RPS)

Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRS&SB)

Approved by: T- c2- O D Marie T. Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRS&SB, Date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected: Announced safety inspection of the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs including: management controls, audits, air cleaning systems, calibration of effluent / process radiation monitoring systems, and implementation of the above program Results: Within the areas inspected, the licensee implemented excellent radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs. The responsible individuals in the Chemistry Department had excellent knowledge to implement the above programs. No safety concerns or violations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000333 G PDR

. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _

.

.

DETAILS Individuals Contacted Liernsee Personnel

R. Barrett, General Manager-Operations

M. Colomb, General Manager-Support Setvices 'y

- C, Gannon, Manager, Radiological & Environmental Services

W. Hamblin, Chemistry / Radiochemistry Supervisor L J. Heddy, Licensing

• D. Kieper, I&C Manager J. Loeffert, Chief Technician, Chemistry Depanment A. Macks, Chief Technician, Chemistry Department ,

• R J. McCarty, Quality Assurance

A. McKeen, Chemistry General Supervisor

E. Mulcahey, Sr. Technical Advisor, Operations Review Group (ORG) -

G. Re, Radiological Engineering Supervisor, Corporate Office

H. Salmon, Resident Manager S. Srnith,- Respiratory Technician, Radiological Engineering K. Wells, Chief Technician, Chemistry Department

• A. Yost, I&C

A. Zaremba, ORG/ Licensing Manager j NRC

.

W. Cook, Sr. Resident Inspector J. Tappert, Resident Inspector

Denotes those present at the exit interview on January 29,1993. _ Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed during this inspection.

_ Pumose-The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's programs in the following

' area (1) The licensee's ability to control and quantify effluent radioactive liquids, gases, and particulate (2) The licensee's ability to calculate projected doses to the public from l radioactive liquid and gaseous (airborne) effluent releases during ;

normal operatio ___ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _

. - - _ - - __- _ _ _ -

l

.

.

.-:. .

3.0 Management Controls Program Changes The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs and discussed with the licensee any changes made since the last inspection conducted on December 2-6,199 The inspector determined that the radioactive ef0uent control programs ~

remained the same as at the time of the last inspection. The Chemistry Depanment has the responsibility to conduct the radioactive liquid and gaseous ef0uent control program .2 Audits The inspector reviewed the following QA Audit Repons to determine the implementation of the Technical Specification requirement (1) Audit No. 771, " Radiological Efnuent Technical Specifications" April 6-17,1992 (2) Audit No. 776, " Regulatory Guide 1.21 Commitment Compliance" May 12-15,1992 The inspector noted that the scope and technical depth of the above audits were ;

excellent in assessing the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control programs. The auditors did not focus on administrative controls but technical aspects to assess the effluent control programs. Therefore, the responsible j departments (e.g., I&C and Chemistry) incorporated findings and recommendations to enhance the programs. The inspector noted that the above audits identified few undings, none of safety significance, and several recommendations. The appropriate deoartment responded to these findings and recommendations in a timely manner.

Y Review of Semiannual Effluent Reports i

The inspector reviewed the semiannual radioactive efnuent release reports for l the second part of 1991 and the first part of 1992, and the 1991 dose assessment results to the public from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent The inspector determined that the licensee met the Technical Specification requirements. There were no anomalous measurements, omissions or trends'in these semiannual effluent report . . . . . .

,

.

.

4 * Radioactive Liould and Gaseous Effluent Control Proerams The inspector reviewed selected radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge permits and associated procedures. The inspector also discussed effluent control programs with the Chemistry Department personnel regarding the implementation of the following -

Technical Specification (TS) requirements, o TS 2.0, " Liquid Effluents" o TS 3.0, " Gaseous Effluents" o TS 7.2, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual"

<

The inspector also reviewed the new chapter of the licensee's Chemistry Manual, !

" Conduct of Chemistry Operations." The licensee prepared this chapter of the-Manual as general guidance for the Chemistry Department personnel. This chapter -

was approved by the Manager of Radiological and Environmental Services. The -

inspector was informed that this chapter would also be reviewed by and require approval of the Resident Manager. The inspector noted it contained the following useful sections for the Chemistry Department personnel,_

o Communication o Performance Monitoring o Chemistry Monitoring o Quality Control of Laboratory performance

_

o Chemistry Data Evaluation ; ,

o Chemistry Control o Training and Qualification of Chemistry Personnel-o Assessment of Chemistry Program _ Effectiveness o Chemistry Goals

.

.

.

During the discussion-with the Chemistry Department staff members, the inspector noted that the responsible individuals had excelleu knowledge in the areas ~ of: (1)__

radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent controls, (2) effluent / process Radiation Monitoring Systems (RMS),'(3) quantifying;the total amount of liquid and gaseous :

effluent release using the RMS, (4) protection of the public health and safety and the:

.

- environment, and (5) ODCM requirement !

Based on the_ review ~of discharge permits, procedures, the new chapter of the

'

,

Chemistry Manual, and discussion with the licensee, the inspector determined that the'

licensee was implementing excellent radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent controlf programs. In fact, the licensee's performance exceeded the TS requirements in the .

implenientation of these programs.

,

+

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

l

.

5 RaijAtion l Monitoring Systems (RMS) Calibration of Effluent / Process RMS The inspector reviewed the results of the most recent calibrations for the following effluent and process RMS as part of the implementation of Technical Specification requirement o Liquid Radwaste Discharge Monitor o Service Water Discharge Monitor o niain Steam Line Radiation Monitors o Reactor Building Closed Loop Cooling Radiation Monitor o Main Stack - Nonnal and High Range Noble Gas Monitors o Refuel Floor Exhaust Radiation Monitor o Reactor Building Exhaust Radiation Monitor o Turbine Building Exhaust - Normal and High Range Monitors o Radwaste Building Exhaust - Nonnal and High Range Monitors o Offgas Radiation Monitor o Main Control Room Air Supply Radiation Monitor The I&C and the Chemistry Departments had the responsibility to perform electronic and radiological calibrations, respectively, for the above effluent / process radiation monitors. All reviewed calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteri Daring the previous inspection conducted in December 1991, the inspector noted that the licensee had difficulty in meeting the calibration acceptance criteria for several gaseous effluent radiation monitors (e.g., Radwaste Building Exhaust Nonnal Range Monitor). The inspector also noted that the high voltage drifted for the gaseous effluent mdiation monitors. This might be an indication of age 4 elated problems with these RMS. The inspector discussed with the licensee representatives (Chemistry General Supervisor at the site and Radiological Engineer Supervisor from the corporate office) the operability and reliability of the RMS. The licensee representatives stated that an independent assessment of the RMS would be perfonned by a contractor during the first quarter of 1992. Based on that independent assessment, the licensee would establish appropriate corrective actions and programs as necessar During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the draft of the aforementioned independent assessment. The review is described in Section 5.2 of this

_ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

_ _ - . . _ . . _ - - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____ _-_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

inspection report. The independent assessment was also being reviewed by the licensee at the time of this inspectio .2 Upgrading of RMS The independent assessment of the RMS was performed by a contractor. Tb inspector noted that the independent assessment was performed in the areas of:

(1) reliability and maintainability of RMS, (2) calibration procedures, (3)

establishment of QA/QC, (4) establishment of tracking and trending analyses for the RMS, (5) replacement of RMS components, as necessary, and (6)

assignment of an RMS System Enginee J

.

Through discussions with the licensee, the inspector noted tnat the licensee's planned corrective actions, based on the independent assessment, wen:

inconclusive since the assessment was still being reviewed by the license The inspector, however, noted that the several areas (e.g., assignment of the RMS System Engineer and completion of draft calibration procedures for several RMS) were already in place. The inspector stated that the assignment of the RMS System Engineer should enhance the RMS reliability tracking progra The licensee's Operations Review Group (ORG) reviewed RMS deDelency reports from July 1 through November 30,1992. The ORG analyzed them and concluded that the RMS had more than a reasonable number of failure reports based on the number of components of the effluent / process RMS The inspector noted that the ORG analyzed the deficiency reports in depth. The intpector also noted that the ORG's reviews and recommendations will enhance the improvement of the RMS reliability and operability; Based on the review of the independent assessment, discussions with the

< licensee, and the ORG report review, the inspector determined that the licensee was taking appropriate actions in order to upgrade the RMS. The

inspector stated that the evolutions of the RMS upgrading will be reviewed.-

during subsequent inspections.

l 7.0 Air Cleanine Systems l

l The inspector reviewed the licensee's most recent surveillance results as part of the .

examination of the implementation of the Technical Specification requirements and FSAR commitments for the following system '

l L

!

,. 4

- -. ,

. . - _

- - - _ _ = -. . _ _ . R

, u

,

o Standby Gas Treatment Systems o Control Room Ventilation Systems o Technical Support Center Systems ,

o Radwaste Building Air Cleaning Systems The following surveillance results were reviewed and all reviewed test results were -

within the licensee's Technical Specification acceptance criteri o In Place HEPA Ink Tests o In-Place Charcoal Leak Tests o Air Capacity Tests

!

The following surveillance results, however, were not reviewed during this inspection because the licensee had not received the surveillance results from the contracto Therefore, these surveillance results (Visual Inspection, Pressure Drop Tests, and Laboratory Tests for the Iodine Collection Efficiencies) will be reviev-d during a subsequent inspectio Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee was -

_

implementing Technical Specification requirements as well as FSAR commitments effectivel .0 Comparisons of the Projected Dose Calestation Procram During this inspection,' the inspector performed an independent verification of the licensee's capability for calculating projected doses to the public resulting from . o discharges of radioactive liquids and gases to the environment. LThe licensee .

calculated the projected dose to the public prior to discharge of radioactive liquids -

.

'

and/or gases based on the data incorporated into the radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge. The inspector also used the same parameters ' contained in the discharge --

(e.g., dilution factor, total amount of radioactivity released, meteorological data, etc.)

to calculate the maximum projected doses to the public for intercomparison. The licensee used its computer code and the NRC used the "PCDOSE code". _

The PCDOSE code was developed by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (EG&G

- Idaho. Inc.) 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 designcd for normal operation-rather than for e_mergency situations. The code was developed from the methodologye found in both NUREG-0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1). The PCDOSE

.

w m erp ==v,'(

. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

_ . .. ..

.

code serves as a basis of comparison with similar programs conducted by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plant 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 paniculates release pathways. The ODCM exactly coincides with the licensee's computer code, which follows the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 for all parameter The inspector evaluated the licensee's computer code by assuming site specific parameters and release infonnation. The intercomparison results for the noble gas, liquid, and, paniculates release pathways are listed in Tables 1, 2 ad 3, n:spectivel The comparison results of the noble gas release pathway we e based on six radionuclides for the main stack, one radionuclides for the vent, and specific meteorological values. The comparison results for the vent release were slightly better than the main stack release as shown in Table 1. The reasons for these differences were due to specific meteorological data and the manner in which they were used in the calculation for the main stac!.. This site specific calculation is an acceptable method to the NRC. The intercomparison results using site specific pammeters were in very good comparison as shown in Table The comparison results of the liquid release pathway were based on four radionuclides. The intercompanson results were excellent as illustrated in Table The comparison results of the paniculates release pathway were based on five .

radionuclides. The intercomparison results were excellent as shown in Table !

. Based on the above comparison results and reviews, the inspector detennined that the licensee conducted an excellent projected dose calculation program. The inspector noted that the responsible individual had excellent knowledge to implement the effluent control program .0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.1 of this inspection report at the conclusion of the inspection on January 29.1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspectio l

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ __

.

,

Table 1. Noble Gas Dose Projection Comparisons

,

-

Release Total Body Skin Gamma-Air Beta-Air Source (mrem) (mrein) (mmd) (mrad)

Vent NRC 2.41 E-7 5.29E-7 2.56E-7 3.28E-7 Licensee 2.41E-7 5.33E-7 2.58E-7 3.30E-7 _

Main NRC 2.75E-5 3.15E-5 2.86E-5 3.53E-6 Stack Licensee 2.69E-5 3.06E-5 2.79E-5 3.54E-6 Table 2. Dose Projection Comparisons for Liquid Release Adult Organ Dose NRC Licensee Unit = mrem Bone 6.53E-7 6.53 E-7 Liver 2.26E-6 2.26E-6 Total Body 1.09E-6 1.09E-6 _'

Thyroid 4.24E-8 4.24E-8 Kidney 1.46E-8 1.46E-8 Lung 4.24E-8 4.24E-8 GI-LLI 2.42E-6 2.42E-6

<

_- _ ____-__- . . . . .

I

..

.

t

Table 3. Dose Projection Cornparisons for Tritiurn, Iodine, and Particulates

. _ _

Adult Organ Dose NRC Licensee

'

Unit = mrem Bone 4.37E-8 4.37E-8 Liver 1.87E-8 1.90E-8 Total Body 2.81E-8 2.89E-8 Tliyroid 1.82E-6 1.81E-6 Kidney 1.97E-8 2.08E-8 i

Lung 3.44E-8 3,44E-8 GI-LLI 2.16E 6 2.16E-6

,

s k-

. r j ,4