IR 05000254/1979001
| ML19289D817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Axelson W, Essig T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289D813 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-79-01, 50-254-79-1, NUDOCS 7903140488 | |
| Download: ML19289D817 (7) | |
Text
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-254/79-01; 50-265/79-01 License No. DPR-29; DPR-30 Docket No. 50-254; 50-265 Commonwealth Edison Co.
Licensee:
P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Name:
Inspection At: Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted: January 8-11, 1979 l
Inspector:
W. L. Axe son t
5zy
J Approved By:
T. H. Ess
, Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section Summary:
1979 (Report No. 50-254/79-01; 50-265/79-01)
Inspection on January 8-11, Routine, unannounced nonradiological environmental Areas Inspected:
protection inspection for both units, including review of the chlorine river temperature monitoring; monitoring and injection system; nonradiological chemical usage and disposal; fish impingement; management controls, procedures and audits; and review of the third quarter, 1978 confirmatory measurement samples.
The inspection involved 25 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified Results:
during this inspection.
7903140t'gg
..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Personnel
- N. Kalivianakis, Station Superintendent
- L. Gerner, Technical Staff Supervisor
- R.
Flessner, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor
- J. Heilman, QA Engineer
- S. Hopewell, Radiation Chemistry Supervisor W. Walschott, Plant Chemist T. Markwalter, Plant Chemist G. Sikkema, Plant Chemist M. Whitemore, Laboratory Foreman Other Personnel A. Hirsch, Chemist, Hazelton Environmental Sciences (Contractor to CECO)
D. Blei, Technician, Hazelton Environmental Sciences (Contractor to CECO)
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (50-254/78-23; 50-265/78-24): Failure to adhere to station emergency procedures.
During this inspection, the inspector determined maat the licensee prepared and approved revisions to those emergency procedures which were out of date.
Procedures QEP-310-2, 500-2 and 500-T2 have been approved by both the onsite and offsite review committees; however, comments from both committees have not been incorporated into the latest revision. This item remains open, pending final preparation and distribution of the procedures.
b.
(Closed)
Inspection Finding (50-254/78-23; 50-265/78-24):
Inoperative auxiliary meterology equipment. During this inspection, the inspector determined that the auxiliary wind speed indicator was operating properly. All other meterological and effluent monitoring equipment was found to be functional during this inspection.
-2-
-
..
.
3.
General The inspector reviewed the licensee's nonradiological environmental monitoring program for calendar year 1978. Unusual results and apparent missing data identified were discussed with licensee representatives. Areas inspected included the chlorine monitoring and injection system, river temperature monitoring, fish impingement study, and nonradiological chemical usage and disposal.
4.
Chlorine Monitoring and Injection System The inspector examined the licensee's chlorine monitoring program to ensure all required parameters were being measured and documented as required by the Appendix B Technical Specifications and to verify compliance with effluent limits.
The inspector also examined and observed operation of the chlorine injection system and analytical measurements made during an injection cycle.
The licensee's chlorine monitoring program is being conducted by a contractor laboratory and by plant personnel.
The licensee is required to perform four total chlorine analyses per calendar month, both in the discharge bay and in the Mississippi River.
In general, the inspector noted an improved cocrdination between the contractor personnel and the station staff with regard to implementing the chlorine monitoring requirements. Also, the inspector determined there was better review of these data, especially in noting abnormal levels.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
5.
River TemperatuYe Monitoring The inspector reviewed the licensee's river temperature monitoring program for calendar year 1978. Data reviewed included daily and hourly temperature measurements conducted at various locations in the Mississippi River.
During this review, the inspector examined the licensee's deviation report, D-4-1-78-11, supplements 1, 2, 3 and 4.
These reperts documented instances where river temperature limits of 5 F delta T or 20F/hr wete exceeded.
In all instances, the reports indicated that
,
temperature limits were exceeded from natural changes in the river, i.e., heat input from the Wapsipinicon River into the Mississippi River during early spring of 1978. The inspector determined that in all instances no significant changes in reactor power or plant cooling modes were conducted.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-3-
-
..
.
Nonradiological Chemical Usage and Disposal 6.
The inspector examined licensee records covering use and disposal Quantities of chemicals used in various systems throughout the plant.
and types of chemicals used and disposed were compared with the No instances were re.fiirements of the Technical Specifications.
notec in which chemicals used in the plant were not reported.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Fish Impingement The inspector reviewed records covering identification, quantifi-and incidences of external parasitism cation, size range, weight, traveling screen trash basket.
for fish collected from the plant Methods of collection and analysis were discussed.
During this inspection, the licensee installed a 0.5 square inch Two mesh netting at the plant's cooling water intake structure. The nets nets were installed, one on each side of the intake boom.
were installed to determine their effect on reducing fish impingenent during closed cycle operation.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Procedures, and Audits 8.
Program Management, reviewed assignments of responsibility and authority The inspector for conduct of the various portions of the nonradiological Procedural controls were also environmental monitoring program.
Selected program procedures for activities conducted both by the station staf f and by contractor personnel were reviewed.
examined.
No technical weaknesses were noted.
(Report No. QA04-78-24)
The inspector reviewed the most recent auditto the Appendix B Technical of programs conducted pursuantThis audit, performed by the station Quality Specifications.
covered the period February 1978 through July Assurance Department, This audit identified no deficiencies.
1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Results of Comparative Analyses 9.
The results of comparative analyses performed on ef fluent samples 25, 1978 were reviewed. The results split at the plant on JulyThe criteria for comparing measurement are shown in Table I.
Of 21 analyses, the licensee's results are givin in Attachment 1.
Of the remaining three results yielded 18 acceptable comparisons.
results, one analysis was a "no comparison" and the other two yielded unacceptable comparisons.
-4-
-
..
.
The licensee's reported results on analysis of a partfeulate sample The inspector and the licensee for Ce-141 ycilded a disagreement.
However, the were unable to positively resolve this disagreement.
licensee indicated that the NRC result was below the lower limit of detection (LLD) for the licensee's laboratory capability.
Consequently, since the licensee's LLD for this nuclide was well within the value contained in NUREG-0473 (Draft Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for BWR's), the inspector and the licensee agreed that air particulate samples should be compared for Ce-141 only when above the detection level for the licensee's laboratory.
Further, the licensee indicated that according to past comparisons for Ce-141, they have been in good agreement with the NRC measurements.
The inspector concurred with this finding.
the licensee disagreed with With regard to the other disagreement, the NRC measurement on analysis of a liquid waste sample for Co-60.
The inspector and the licensee were unable to positively resolve This in all likelihood was probably a sampling this disagreement.
Consequently, error due to insoluable Co-60 present in the sample.Further, the inspector noted a split sample is difficult to obtain.
the licensee was in agreement with other gamma emitting that nuclides in this sample.
If these apparent disagreements observed from the liquid and particulate samples were real and representative, the licensee may have underestimated releases of these nuclides at the time of this However, because the sample concentrations were low, comparison.
the licensee did not exceed effluent release limits.
Followup confirmatory measurement samples will be conducted during During that inspection, split samples will be a future inspection.
collected from gaseous, particulate and liquid radwaste effluent systems.
10.
Exit Interview (denoted in The inspector met with licensee representatives Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on Janaury 11, The inspector discussed the scope and purpose of this 1979.
inspection.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements-5-
..
.
TABLE I US NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSIO N OFFICE OF INSPECTION A ND E NF OR CE M E NT CONF IR M ATOR Y MEASUREMENTS PROGR A M FACILITY: QUA0 CITIES FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1978
.
NRC-------
---NRC: LICENSEE- --
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
OFF GAS XE 133 1. 6 E -01 8 0E -03 1 7E -01 4 0E-02 1 1E+00 2 0E+01 A
X E 133M 4 0 E-0 3 2 0E -04 6 3E-03 6 0E-04 1.6E+00 2 0E+01 P
KR 85 3 6E-04 1 0E -04 6 1E-04 7 0E -0 5 1 7E+0D 3.oE +00 A
L WASTE I 1 31 2 2E-06 6 5E -07 2 4 E -0 6 4.0E-17 1 1 E +00 3 4L+"O A
CS 134 1 1E-05 3 9 E -0 7 1 2 E -0 5 2 0E-06 1 1E+00 2 5E +01 A
CS 137 2 2E-05 7 3E-07 2 2E-0 5 4 0E -0 6 1 0E+00 3 0 E + 01 A
C0 60 52 E -05 1 6E-06 2 7E-05 5 0 E -0 6 5 2E-01 3 2E +01
SR 89 7 5E-07 4.OE-08 6 1 E -0 7 7 0E-08 8 1E -01 1.9 E + 01 A
SR 90 2 0E-07 1 0E-08 2 9 E-07 3 0E-08 1 4E+00 2 0E +01 P
BETA 6 1 E-0 5 2 0E-06 6 8E-05 1.OE -0 6 1 1E+C0 3 1 E + 01 A
P FILTER CE 141 1 1E-04 1 5E -0 5
00
7 3E +00
CR 51 4 0E-03 3 0E -0 4 4 1 E-03 9 0E -0 4 1 0E+00 1.3E +01 A
I 131 5 7 E -0 3 2 6E-04 5 0E-03 1 0E-03 8 8E-01 2 2E+01 A
CS 134 2 5E-03 8 0E-05 2 3E-03 5 0E-04 9 2E-01 3.1 E + 01 A
'9 4E-05 2 3E-03 5 0E-04 7 7E-01 3 2E + 01 A
CO 58 3 2 E -0 4 2 7E -0 5 2 3 E -0 4 5 0E-05 7 2E-01 1 2E +01 A
MN 54 1 5E-04 1 9E-05 1 6E-0 4 4 0E-05 1 1E+00 7 9E +00 A
00
3 0E +00 N
C0 60 1 6E-03 6 3E-05 1 3E-03 3 0E-04 8 1E-01 2 5E+01 A
BA 140 1 1 E-0 2 5 4E-04 8 3E-03 1 1E-03 7 5 E -01 2 0E+01 A
C FILTER I 131 1 9E-02 5 9E-04 2 3 E -0 2 2 0E-03 1 2E+00 3 2 E + 01 A
T. TEST RESULTS:
-
A= AG REEME N T 0=D IS AGREE ME N T P=POSSIBLE AGREEMENT N=NO COMPARISON
. =
.,
ATTACl!"E::T 1 v
.
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASURDIENTS 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 one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as
'
t
." Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee s measuremen 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 the 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 7ALUE Possible Possible
'
,
Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
~
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
. <3
.
2.5 0. 3
- 3.0 No Comparison
,
>3 and <4 d.4
-
2.0 0.4
- 2.5 0.3
- 3.0 T4 and <8 0.5
-
1.67 0.5
- 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 I8 and <16 0.6
-
T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
- 1.67 0.5
-
2.0 551 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
- 1.67 1.25 0.75 - 1.33
'
I200
'
O.85 - 1.18 0.80
-
.
"A" criteria are applied to the follo.ing analyses:
,
Gamma 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.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
.
-
.
W
,
.
.
-
=,
,
%