IR 05000010/1978019
| ML19338E349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1978 |
| From: | Essig T, Grant W, Oestmann M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338E348 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-78-19, 50-10-78-19, 50-237-78-17, 50-249-78-19, NUDOCS 8009250532 | |
| Download: ML19338E349 (7) | |
Text
w
- j
'.
'e
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION III
Report No. 50-10/78-19; 50-237/78-17; 50-,249/78-19 Docket No. 50-10; 50-237; 50-249 License No. DPR-2; DPR-19, DPR-25 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility name: Dresden Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection at: Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection conducted: June 5, 6, 7 and 9, 1978 J. Oes mann M
Inspectors:gvMsa %,r
'
car 77
-
W. B. Grant 0 {7/ !78 Approved by:
T Chief f
Environmental and Special Projects Section P
Inspection Summary Inspection on June 5, 6, 7 and 9,1977 (Report No. 50-10/78-19; 50-237/78-17; 50-249/78-19)
geas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the Environmental Protection Program including: management controls; internal audits; quality control of analytical measurements; implementation of the environmental monitoring program; results of the meteorological program and the Confirmatory Measurements Program including: discussion of the results of comparative analyses of previous radiological effluent samples; collection of samples for subsequent comparative analyses and review of licensee's quality control of analytical measurements. The inspection involved 50 inspector-hours onsite by 2 NRC inspectors.
Results:
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8009250 M
~
,
l I
'.
.
.
l
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
-
1.
Persons Contacted
- B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent, Dresden
- G.
Bergan, Plant Obemist
- G. Reardanz, Quality Assurance Engineer. Dresden
'
- J.
Parry, Lead Health Physicist, Dresden
- J. Wujciga, Lead Unit 2 Engineer Dresden M. Waldron, Staff Biologist, Environmental Affairs (EA), CECO P. Howe, Water Quality Supervisor (EA), CECO J. Golden, Staff Radioecologist and Administrator for Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs, Production Systcms Analysis Department (PSA), CECO P. Hayes, Radiochemist, PSA, CECO
B. Dione, Radiation Protection Engineer, Dresden D. Adam, Radiation-Chemistry Supervisor, Dresden T. Schnieder, Plant Chemist, Dresden
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Internal Audits
[
,
_
The inspectors reviewed licensee audits of contractors who perform the radiological environmental and meteorological monitoring programs.
The inspectors noted the licensee performed follow-up audits on both contractors and determined that identified discrepancies had been corrected.
The licensee's Quality Assurance Department has scheduled an audit of the environmental monitoring program for the week of June 12, 1978. The results of this audit will be reviewed during the next inspection.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Management controls, The inspectors examined management controls, including organization structure, assignment of responsibilities and authorities, and l
procedural controls of the environmental and radiological monitoring programs. It was noted that the licensee has maintained the same adminf trative functions relating to these monitoring programs as discus. l in the previous environmental inspections.
i No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-2-
.
.
.
4.
Quality Control of Analytical Procedures
-
The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance manuals of the contractors responsible for the environmental monitoring programs.
Included was a review of the Field Sample and Analytical Procedures by Eberline Instrument Company. The licensee has established a schedule to asaure radiological environmental samples are collected in accordance with the frequency established in Table 4.8.1 of the Technical Specifications. The inspectors also examined the schedule for calibration and maintenance of monit'oring equipment listed in the Eberline Field Sampling and Analytical Procedures. It was noted that sampling, maintenance and calibration had been completed as required by existing procedures.
The inspectors also re. viewed the Quality Assurance Manual for the nonradiological environmental monitoring program. This document will be examined in detail during a subsequent inspection, when the program has been incorporated into the Appendix B Technical Specifications. The Appendix B Technical Specifications are scheduled to be issued in the near future.
No apparant items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
5.
Implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
_
_
The radiological environmental monitoring program underwent a significant change with the issuance of a Technical Specification Amendment effective October 18, 1977. The inspectors examined the
,
monitoring results for calendar year 1977 prior to October for compliance with the old requirements and for November and Decamber for compliance with the requirements of the current Technical Specifications. No monitoring omissions or unusual trends were noted in the results. Special sample collections and analyses were performed following increased effluent radioactivity release rates associated with operational occurrences. Actions taken were found to be adequate and the notification to the NRC timely and as described in the semiannual and annual reports.
The inspectors toured several monitoring stations and found all but one of them to be operable. Station D-15 " Clay Products" air sampling pump was found not functioning and was probably burned out.
The licensee notified their contractor and were assured that the equipment would be operable within the week. Monitoring equipment is checked weekly to assure equipment is operable.
!
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
l-3-l
.. -.
.
-
-
.
___
.
- --
i
.
=
-
6.
Implementation of Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program The inspactors examined selected results. of the licensee's nonradiological
~
environmental monitoring program for 1976.
The inspectors visited various sections of the site to observe the intake and discharge structures, spray canals, lift station and cooling i
lakes, and co inspect the general reate of the cooling system for Unit 1 an. Jnits 2/3.
!
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
l 7.
Meteorological Monitoring Program The inspectors noted that the meteorological monitoring results during 1977 showed an overall data recovery rate of 95.7%.
The inspection revealed thet the contractor has maintained and calibrated the meteorological recording equipment on a bi-monthly basis. The inspectors toured the meteorological tower and observed radiological monitoring equipment. It was noted that the meteorological j
equipment provides readouts at the tower,in the control room and at the GSEP. Command Center at Corporate Headquarters. The inspectors were informed that the control room readout information differs from
-
!
that provided at the tower and at the Command Center. During discussions with the licensee on this matter, an oral commitment was
-
received to calibrate the readouts so they all provide the same information.
The inspectors reviewed 1977 annual meteorological report from the contractor who performs the dose calculations for the licensee's
-
anncal report on radiological effluents and the radiological environmental monitoring program.
i No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i
'
8.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The-licensee's program for uality control laboratory analyses is
'
governed by plant procedures. These procedures govern sampling techniques, instrument calibration, and analytical techniques. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and no problem areas were noted.
i l
9.
Comparison of Analytical Measurements The inspectors reviewed the analytical results of the gaseous and
'
liquid wastes, particulate and charcoal adsorber samples collected from the Dresden Nuclear Power Station in December 1977. The results of the licensee's and the NRC Reference Laboratory's analyses were compared using the " Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements" (Attachment 1).
l
.
-4-
-- -.
.
-
.--
-
-
.-
..
.
.
A summary of these results by sample type and isotope is presented in Table 1.
The inspmetors discussed the results with licensee
-
representatives and noted that all analyses were in agreement or
-
possible agreement.
10.
Collection of Samples for Future Comparative Analyses The inspectors collected a liquid and gaseous vaste, particulate filter, charcoal adsorber samples from the licensee for subsequent comparative analyses. The results of th~ese analyses will be compared during a future inspection.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives -ienoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on Jew 9, 1978.
The inepectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings. The licensee representatives made the following remarks in response to certain of the items discussed by the-inspectors :
a.
Agreed to calibrate the control room readout from the meteorological tower so that it corresponds with the readouts at the tower and in the CECO Command Center.
_
b.
Acknowledged a comment by the inspectors concerning a milk cow census to be performed annually under the current Technical Specifications.
Accacuments:
1.
Table 1, Dresden Confirmatory Fkasurements Program 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
!
t
I
,
!
'
,
'
.
iAULE I U S h u C L E A if r.l. G U L A 1 0 f.Y CJHNISSION OFFICE OF I N S F E C 110 8. AhD C liF 0 h C F IIF H 1 C0 fir lR N A Tbh Y MF A Sul E ME NT S PR OGR A rt FACILl1Y: O f,F S D E li FOR Tite 4 00AkiER OF 1977
--
--hhL-------
---NRC LICEt.SEE----
1LC ISSTOFE RFSULT E l.h 0 R R f' S uli ERHOR RAi10 hES i
l' it ir r C O 5s 1 2F-04 1.6E-OS 1 3E-04 1 0E -0 5 1 1E*00 7 5F +00 A
LU 6'
1.7 E -0 4 2 6E-05 3 0F-04 1.0F-05 1 3E+00 6.5E +00 A
CS 1 34 7.2 E -04 2.v E -il 5 8 2 F -O t.
1.a l -q i, 1 1E+00 2 5 E + 01 A
CS 137 3 2E-03 9.tE-03 3 3 E -0 3 1.U E '14 1.qE+00 3 3E + 01 A
o'
140 2 3E-02
'i 6F -0 4 2 4 E -0 2 1.0F -9 3 1 0E +00 2 7E *01
'A 1 151 8.CE-04 2 0F-04 1 0E-03 1 00-04 1.?E+00 4 0E +00 A
r I t l i F-1 1 31 1e1E-11
.5 2 E -0.)
7.6E-02 2 3E-02 6 96-01 3. t.E + 01 P
-
gas 8. i 133
'i. 7 E - q 2 1 1 E -J13 3 1E -0 2 1 0F-93 6 4E-01 3 4L + 01 A
,. T 131M I.SE-13 4 0F -0 4 2 40-03 1.JF-11 o.9E-01 8 7F*00 A
.;,
!< r T A R.4E -0 7 4 6E-ul 1 2E-06 1 0F -0 7 1 4E+00 2 1E+01 P
- 1
2 4 E ~13 2 0E-05 2 40-03 2 0E-04 1 0E*00 1 2l+02 A
Y
. T[ 51 FESULTS:
U
- ' C F. F E ME se T (<
I I !. A ' Ri E llF N T
'
g
.ic,I%r * G RF F MLH1
-
e i..i t"P A L I 5 0t'
q
,
p eD
&W
.
b
.t
.
.
.
-
.,
_
..
.
ATTACCIC*T 1
.
.
.
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASt P.D!D;TS
~
.
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based on an
-
empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
'
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the
.
comparison of the NRC Refetence Laboratory's value to its associated l
one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as
'
." Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement should be con-sidered acceptable as the resolution decreases. The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported by tne NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance. The acceptance category reported will
~
be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
~
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible
.
'
.
Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
,
-
,
.3
,
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
<
3.0 No Comparison
,
>3 and <4 0.4 - 2.5 0. 3
-
2.5 0.3
- 3.0 2.0 0.4 31 and <8 0.5
-
-
2.5 2. 0 -
0.4 1.67 0.5 0.6
-
T8 and <16
-
-
-
'2.0 1.67 0.5
.
-
T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
-
-
1.67 1.33 0.6 I51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75
-
-
1.33 1.25 0.75
~
~
][200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80
-
-
.
"A" critaria are applied to the,following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 kev.
.
.
!
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
cation is less than 250 kev.
Sr.-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Cross beta, where samples are counted on the same date usi.1g the
.
same reference nuclide.
~
.
i
'
.,. ~
D*
90 D[}F @
'
. e es M em MU Jul W==
.
..
.
.
e e
[
g
.e-
.
. e a
,
-
.
.
-
a f
.
.
.
.
.
-
~
.-._--m.
.
-