IR 05000254/1980007
| ML19323G335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1980 |
| From: | Essig T, Grant W, Lovendale P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323G333 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-80-07, 50-254-80-7, 50-265-80-10, NUDOCS 8006020192 | |
| Download: ML19323G335 (6) | |
Text
r
=
O,
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
'
Report No. 50-265/80-10; 50-254/80-07 Docket No. 50-254; 50-265 License No. DPR-29; DPR-30 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Stations, Unit I and 2 Inspection At: Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted: March 25-27, 1980 Wb lt>
@
Inspectors:
W. B. Grant dlt
'/!/7 O
P.
. Lovendale Approved By:
T. H. Essi, Chief I
Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspettion on March 25-27, 1980 (Report No. 50-265/80-10;50-254/80-07 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of (1) Environmental Protection program including management controls; implementation of en-vironmental monitoring program (radiological and nonradiological); and (2) confirmatory measurements of radiological effluents, including com-parison of licensee result of samples split in November 1979 to those of the NRC Reference Laboratory and collection of radioactive effluent samples for future comparison. The inspection involved 36 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: For the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-tions were noted.
l l
I
!
8006020 b
r
,
i
.
DETAILS I
1.
Persons Contacted
,
- N. Kalivianakis, Station Superintendent
- K. Graesser, Assistant Superintendent
- J. Heilman, QA Engineer
- L.
Gerner, Technical Staff Supervisor
- R. Flessner, Radiation Chemistry Supervisor W. Walschott, Plant Chemist G. Sikkema, Plant Chemist T. Kovach, Health Physicist P. Schafer, Health Physicist
-
l M. Whitemore, Laboratory Foreman C. Hartman, Aquatic Biologist
,r
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Noncompliance (50-254/78-04; 50-265/78-05): Exceeding 2*F per hour liait while using plant diffusers. The licensee's cor-rective action was to request the change in Technical Specifications.
It has been determined that the licensee has submitted a change in Technical Specification to NRR. At the time of this inspection, NRR was still reviewing the change. This item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
3.
Management Controls Procedures, and Audits The inspectors reviewed the assignments of responsibility and author-ity for the conduct of various portions of the radiological and non-radiological Environmental Monitoring and Confirmatory Measurements Program.
Procedural controls were also examined. No deficiencies i
or technical weaknesses were identified. The inspectors reviewed the recent audits of programs conducted pursuant to the Appendix A, Technical Specifications. There were two audits conducted by the onsite QA group - one on December 7, 1979, and one on May 9, 1979.
These audits looked at various aspects of the Radiological Environ-mental Monitoring Program. No deficiencies were identified by the audit group. An offsite QA audit was conducted on October 26-27, 1979. This audit also reviewed various aspects of the Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program.
In particular, the group reviewed l
the milk animal census requirement for 1979. No deficiencies or l
anomalies were identified.
l Selected radiological and environmental procedures or activities con-ducted by both stations staff and by contractor personnel were reviewed.
'
No technical weaknesses were noted.
l No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-2-
-
r e
s 4.
Implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program The results of the licensee's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for CY1979 as well as selected monthly summaries for the early months of 1980, were examined for compliance with monitoring and report-ing requirements. Unusual results and apparent missing data identified were discussed and resolved with licensee representatives.
The inspectors reviewed licensee records on the gross beta counting of particulate samples which exceeded five times the average concen-trationoftheprgedingcalendarquarterasnotedinaprevious inspection report.
Licensee records indicated that gamma isotopic analysis had been conducted on all required samples.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Implementation of the Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program The results of the licensee's Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program for the period February 1979 through July 1979 was examined for compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements. Any unusual results or apparent missing data identified were discussed and resolved with licensee personnel.
I As noted in a previous inspection report the licensee has submitted a request for Technical Specification change on the 2 F per hour limit while using the plant diffusers. The inspectors determined that NRR action on the Technical Specification change is still pending. This item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
6.
Confirmatory Measurements Program This inspection included a comparison of the licensee's reported re-sults on analysis of selected plant effluent samples with the results reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory on analysis of the same or
'
duplicate samples. The results of the NRC Reference Laboratory are referenced to the National Bureau Standards measurement systems through laboratory intercomparisons.
The comparative results of analysis of samples of liquid and gaseous waste and of a particulate filter are given in Table 1.
The criteria for acceptance of the analytical comparisons are given in Attachment 1.
It should be noted that the charcoal cartridge adsorber was damaged during shipment and the results of the analyses were not compared. Of 19 sample comparisons, the licensee's results yielded 17 agreements or possible agreements.
The results were discussed with the licensee and no apparent reasons for the disagreements were found.
The licensee's reported results of liquid waste samples for Zn-65 and Ce-141 yielded comparisons in the " disagreement" category.
In that the licensee's re-ported results of the Ce-141 analysis was 2.8 times greater than that reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory the licen-1_/
IE Inspection Report No. 50-254/78-18; 50-265/78-19.
2/
Ibid.
-3-
. _ _. _ _
~
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
I
.
i see may have overestimated quantities or concentrations of radionu-clides released at the time of sampic collection. With regard to the 2n-65 analyses, the licensee's reported result which was ap-proximately 59% of that reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory.
However, if releases of Zn-65 experienced at the time of sample collection were increased by this approximate fcctor of two, re-leases would still be well within the Technical Specification limits. The inspector has no further questions regarding these matters.
During this inspection, samples were collected for future comparative analyses. Samples collected included a liquid radwaste, airborne par-ticulate and charcoal filters, and a gaseous waste.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Facilities Tour The inspectors examined licensee radiological and environmental equip-ment for proper installation and operability at selected offsite loca-tions. The equipment examined included airborne particulate samples, TLDs, and environmental radiation detection equipment.
The inspectors toured the plant's radiological and nonradiological chemical laboratories and examined laboratory equipment.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 27, 1980. The inspec-tors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Attachments: As stated Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program i
!
l
., _ _, _............ _. _,. _ _
. -.. ~ _
__
- --
-..
-
...
.
.
.
.
W TABLF I US NUCLEAR ECGULAT0r.Y COMMISSION
,
,
OFFICE. OF I NSFE C T10 h A ND E hr 0 RCF ME N T i
C0hr !R M A T0fiY MF A SdrE ME NT S FR OGks M rACILITY: QUA0 CITIES FOR THE 3C AeTFR OF 1979
NEC-------
---NR C L IC ; N S E E ----
SARPLF ISOTOPE RESULT EFh0R RESULT ERROR RATIO EE S T
'0FF EAS Xf 1?3 4 9 E -3 2 2 0E -03 5 3E -0 2 3: 4 E -0 3 1 1E +00 2 4E+01 A
XF 133M 4 2E-0 3 3 0E-04 2 5 E -0 3 4 1E-04 6 0E-01 1 4 E + 31 P
t vsSTF BTTs 6 4E-04 2 0E-05 5.n F -0 4 2 0E-06 7 6E-71 3 2 E + 31 A
H 3 2 1E-13 2 0E-05 2 6F-03 3.0E-04 1 2E+70 1 0E+02 A
SR 89 3 1E-05 1 0E-3o 1 8 E -0 5 2 2E-06 5 8E-01 3 1 E + 01 P
S# 00 8 3E-06 3 0 E -0 7 7 1 E -06 7 0E-07 S.6E-01 2 8E +01 A
I 1 31 2 1E-04 6.oE -06 2 4E -04 4 0E-05 1 1F+00 3 2E +01
BA 140 9 9E-05 6 4E-G6 1 1 E -0 4 2 1 E -0 5 1 1E+00 1 5E + 01 a
CS 134 1.0F-04 3 0E-06 1 0E -04 1 8F-05 1 0E+00 3 3 E + 01 A
CS 137 2 3E-04 6 5F-06 2 1 E -0 4 3 6E-05 9 1 E -01 3 5E+11 A
MN 54 1 1E-75 6 3F-07 1 4 E -0 5 2 5E-0 6 1 3E+00 1 7F + 01 A
7F 65 2 2E-05 1 3E-06 1 3 E -0 5 2 5E-0 6 5 9E-01 1 7E +01
CD 60 2. E E -0 4 7 9E-06 3 2E-04 5.7E-05 1 1E+00 3 e 5E +01 A
C E 141 1 3E-C5 7.G E -0 7 3 7E -0 5 5 8E-06 2 8E +00 1 9 E + 01 D
AG 110M 4 9E-05 8 0E -0 7 4 1E-06 9 2E-07 8 4E-01 6 1E +00 A
P TILTER CE 141 4 0F-05 1 1E -05 5 5E -05 9 3E-06 1 4E +00 3 6E+00 A
I 1 31 6 7E-04 7 0E -0 5 5 7F -04 6.9E-05 o.5E-01 9 6E +00 A
Bn 149 5 1 E -03 3. OF -0 4 4 5F-03 1 0E -0 3 8.SE-01 1.7E +01 A
CC 1 37 7 0E -0 5 1 0 C -05 6.?E-05 1 3E-05 E.9E-01 7:0E +00 A
1 TFST RESULTS:
A = A C F E E wF N T DoDI S A GREE ME N T PnPOSSIBLE AGRFESENT NANO COMF A P ISCN
,
.
.
-.
..
..
-. -.
.
-
ATTACitiraT 1
.
'
_ CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
-
e 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 Refctence Laboratory's value to its associated 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 agreccent 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 ImC 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 and <4 0.4 - 2.5 0. 3 3.0 No Comparison
-
T4 and <8 0.5 2.0 0.4 2.5 0.3
- 3.0
-
-
3I8 and <16 0.6 1.67 0.5 2.0 0.4 2.5
-
-
-
][16and<51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 1.67 0.5 2.0
-
-
>51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 1.33 0.6
- 1.67
-
'
][200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 1.25 0.75 - 1.33
.
.
-
"A" criteria ere 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 using the same reference nuclide.
-
.
-
l
..
.
.
-
.
l
-
,
.
.
.
-
-
l
-
.
.
u L
,