IR 05000352/1985023

Insp Rept 50-352/85-23 on 850423-26.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Status of Previously Identified Items,Chemical & Radiochemical Tests & Gaseous Radwaste Sys

ML20129A538
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/17/1985
From:	Kottan J, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20129A521	List: IR 05000352/1985023 ML20129A516
References
50-352-85-23, NUDOCS 8506040648
Download: ML20129A538 (4)

Text

r;

.

_

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-23 Docket N License No. NPF-27 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street-Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:

~

Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 23-26, 1985 i/ a Inspectors: [ . M . /( h 8 P/) P/S~-83 J. J. Kottarf, Radiation Laboratory Specialist - Date O

Approved by: l , s dA n /[ k CJ. [isciak,'ChieT, BWR Radiological Safety Section [ Dafe Inspection Summary: Inspection on April 23-26, 1985-(Inspection Report No. 50-352/85-23)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced startup inspection of the-licensee's chemistry and gaseous radwaste systems. Areas reviewed included: status of previously identified items, chemical and radiochemical tests, and gaseous radioactive waste systems. The inspection involved 20 inspector hours onsite by one NRC regionally - based inspecto Results: No violations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR

__

1 . 5 DETAILS 1.0 ' Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees

D. Clohecy,- QA

J. Sabados, Supervisory Chemist

C. Endriss, Regulo.ory Engineer-J. Wiley, Senior Chemist K. Gordon,'ST/RT Senior Chemistry Technician J. Muntz, Test Engineer (ST Coordinator)

M. McCabe, Test Engineer (Radwaste)

M. Christinziano, Special Projects Physicist G. Murphy, Technical Support Health Physicist The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including

. members of the chemistry and health physics staff Other Employees R. Pohto, Start Up Chemist, General Electric J. Murphy, Power Ascension Supervisor, Bechtel

• W. Rekito, Regulatory Coordinator, Bechtel

Denotes those present at the exit intervie .0' Status of Previously Identified Items (Closed) Follow-up Item (352/84-03-03): Training of personnel for the Limerick Generating Station radiological, environmental monitoring pro-gram. The licensee has modified procedure NES 2.0, Specification of Qualifications of Personnel in Radiological Environmental Monitoring and Indoctrination and Training, to include Limerick Generating Station. .A

. review of training records indicated that licensee personnel had been trained in the revised procedur (Closed) Follow-up Item (352/84-57-10): Revision of gas sampling proce-dure. The licensee revised procedure CH-1015, Sampling of Gases, Iodine, and Particulate at G.E. Gaseous Effluent Radiation Monitors, to incor-

.porate actual sampling practice (0 pen) Follow-up Item (352/84-58-01): Initiation of a measurement control program with analyzed standards plotted on control charts. The licensee has written an appropriate measurement control program procedure. How-ever, the licensee has not yet implemented the program for all measurement system ___

,

-

l

f 3.0 Chemical and Radiochemical Tests The inspector reviewed licensee Surveillance Test and Startup Test results.' The review indicated that the reactor coolant water quality met the Technical Specification requirements. Also the performance of the startup chemical and radiochemical tests were performed in accordance-with FSA? commitment The licensee established reactor water quality requirements that met the Technical' Specification requirements during precritical tests, and demonstrated the ability to maintain the specifi-cations during~heatup and operation at temperature. The inspector re-viewed the licensee's system for tracking performance of Surveillance Tests. The Surveillance Tests required by Technical Specifications are maintained on a computer file. A test engineer is responsible for en-suring that the chemistry group completes and reviews the Surveillance-Tests as require e In addition, the licensee demonstrated a computer based system for main-taining chemistry data to the inspector. The system will permit the licensee to trend various plant system chemistry parameters. The.inspec-tor noted that the data base with trending capabilities should contribute to the licensee meeting system water quality requirements. The inspector toured the chemistry laboratories and counting room and examined the analytical instrumentation used for performing surveillance and startup tests. The associated instrument QC data was also reviewed. The inspec-tor discussed laboratory QC at length with licensee chemistry staff-

~

personne The inspector had no further questions in this area. No violations were identifie .0 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Systems The inspector reviewed the results of the licensee's surveillance and startup test in the area of gaseous radioactive waste. The review indicated that the licensee is meeting Technical Specification require-ments for gaseous effluent sampling and analysis and is meeting FSAR com-mitments with regard to startup testing. The inspector also reviewed the results of surveillance tests performed to demonstrate compliance with the Technical Specification requirements for calculations of dose contribu-tions from plant radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas using the methodology specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM).

Chemistry group personnel are responsible for effluent sampling and anal-

,

ysis and entering the effluent data in the RMMS computer system used for calculating the unrestricted area dose contribution The calculations l are performed by the Health Physics Grou Discussions with both chemistry and health physics personnel indicated that only one chemistry group person is responsible for entering the ef-fluent data into the computer. Data is not being entered into the com-puter promptly. Dose calculations cannot be performed in a timely manner

!

l

g, . . , - - . i 7,.1 . .. -

.

because of the delay-in data' entry. LThe licensee stated that additional-chemistry personnel would be trained.in data entry and use of the RMMS computer system. The inspector stated that this_ area would be reviewed-during a subsequent inspection. -(352/85-23-01)

'

-The inspector had no further questions in this area. No violations were

,

identified.

!

[:

. 5.0 Exit Interview l, The inspector met with the licensee . representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on April 26, 1985. The ' inspector sum-marized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings. At no time during the inspection did the inspector provide writ-

. ten material to 'the licensee.

,

~ R., *

s

,

l

-

!

-- .- - , - . -

i