IR 05000255/1981024
| ML18046B102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1981 |
| From: | Januska A, Paperiello C, Rozak S, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046B101 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-81-24, NUDOCS 8111300177 | |
| Download: ML18046B102 (7) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-255/81-24 Docket No. 50-255 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Insp~ction At:
Palisades Site, Covert, MI Inspection Conducted:
October 26-29, 1981
'!(, ti. '!(_~/u-k-rc, r t > f (/'fr Inspectors:
A. G. Januskar'-" jV,,
.Approved By:
'!(a;;(~/~
S. Rozak 1--'L-'
yt. a. '1.~c-4t#fu M. C. Schumache.{; Chief Independent Measurements and Environmental Protection Section f?.:tt~ef Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch Inspection Summary License No. DPR-20
'tifr: /9 11 ti
~-/~/fl!
Inspection on October 26-29, 1981 (Report No. 50-255/81-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of Confirmatory Measure-ments including discussion of previous sample results analyzed by the NRC's Reference Laboratory; collection of samples; analysis onsite with the Region III Measurements Van and discussion of results; and program for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of analytical measurement The inspection involved 43 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(
. e1113001n a 11~
i PDR ADOCK 05000255 /
Q PDR.
,
- DETAILS Persons Contacted
- R. Montross, Plant Manager
- A. Kowalczuk, Chemistry/Health Physics Superintendent
- W. Mullins, Plant Heath Physicist
- S. Pierce, RMC Supervisor
- D. Clement, Lab Supervisor
- J. Hager, Chem. Tec *Denotes those present at the exit intervie.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Item of noncompliance (50-255/80-19-01):
Failure of the licensee to submit the annual environmental monitoring report within the required tim The "1979 Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program" report was issued on October 23, 198 The inspectors have no further questions regarding this ite (Closed) Item of noncompliance (50-255/80-19-02):
Failure of the licensee to submit the topics required by Section 4.11 of the Technical Specifications in the annual Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Repor The licensee submitted a report entitled 1979 Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Report in a letter dated January 16, 1981 which summarized narrative summaries of the programs involve The inspectors have no further questions regarding this ite (Closed) Item of noncompliance (50-255/80-19-03):
Hourly record-ings of water temperature prior to discharge to the lake were not performed during the period April 28, 1980 through July 31, 198 The licensee was relieved of nonradiological monitoring Technical Specifications requirements by Technical Specifications Amendment 63 dated January 22, 198 The inspectors have no further questions regarding this ite (Closed) Item of noncompliance (50-255/80-19-04):
Failure of the licensee to accurately report the curie content of particulates released from the sit The licensee has changed his method of quantification of particulates being released by summing particul-ates on both the particulate filter and the charcoal adsorbe The inspectors have no further questions regarding this ite.
Confirmatory Measurements Fourth quarter 1980 Split Analyses which could not be performed onsite during the split sampling of inspection 255/80-19 are shown in Table I and the comparison criteria in Attachment *
b.
Fourth quarter 1981 Split Collected liquid, particulate and charcoal samples were analyzed by the licensee and by NRC inspectors using the Region III Mobile Laborator No gaseous waste was available for compariso In addition, an NBS traceable spiked air particulate filter and an NBS traceable spiked charcoal cartridge were analyzed by the licensee at the request of the inspector Results of the analyses are shown in Table I An examination of the licensee's analytical data and a spectral display indicated that the performance of his gamma spectroscopy system in the low level counting room is deterioratin The licensee's results tended to be high compared to NRC result This is especially evident for comparisons on the spiked sample The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the 1332 keV Co-60 peak for his system is now 2.5 keV whereas undamaged detectors of this size and vintage generally have a FWHM of about 2.0 ke The licensee is forced to use a wide (2keV) energy tolerance in identifying peaks due to his energy calibration driftin Futhermore, the peak shapes on the spectral display indicated a strong distortion in the low energy sid This would result in difficulties in quantifying energy and activit The licensee admitted that his detector had suffered physical damage at the beginning of 1981. It had been subsequently repaired; however, the ancillary electronics had never been readjusted for optimum per-formanc Settings on the amplifier used with this system also had been changed significantly at one time and again no readjustments for optimum performance had been don The licensee also has difficulty in controlling temperature and humidity in his counting rooms, which also adversely affects the stability of the syste The licensee recognized that these problems need to be corrected and committed to repairing and/or adjusting his system for optimum per-formance and recalibrating all geometrie The licensee has already purchased new calibration standards in preparation for routine recalibratio The licensee agreed to have the adjustments and calibrations completed by January 1, 198.
Procedure Review The inspectors reviewed procedures which related to effluent monitoring equipmen The inspectors noted that some procedures exist for equipment no longer in use, some revised procedures are in for review and some have been recently revised to reflect currently used equipmen A pro-cedure for the calibration of gas cont~iners has never been written and a licensee representative stated that the calibration, although performed, did not account for self-absorption factor The inspectors discussed the need for the completion of procedure revisions, and overreporting of gaseous effluents when self absorption factors are not used in gas cal-ibration The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comment *
s. Equipment Equipment used for effluent monitoring was examine Except for the scintillation system used for tritium analyses, they are checked dail The scintillation system is checked prior to us Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted at the conclusion of the inspection on October 28, 198 summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio The the following remarks in response to certain of the items the inspectors:.
in Paragraph 1)
The inspectors licensee made discussed by Acknowledged statements by the inspectors with respect to a deteriorating gamma spectroscopy system (Paragraph 3). Agreed to repair and/or adjust his gamma spectroscopy system and complete all recalibrations by January 1, 198 (Open Item 255/81-24-02) Agreed to count and report the results of gross beta, Sr-89, Sr-90 and H-3 of a split liquid sample to Region II (Open Item 255/81-24-01)
Attachments: Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Table I, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1980 Table II, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1981
- 4 -
- CRITERIA FOR cn*.rPARING ANALYTICAL HEASu!d:J*fENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurement The criteria are based on an empirical relationship whici1 ~umbines prior exre~ienc~ ~nd the accuracy needs of this progra In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated one sigma uncertaint As that ratio, referred to in this program as
"Resolution", in~reases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selectiv Conversely, poorer agreement should be con-sidered acceptable as the resolution decrease 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 acceptanc The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being use RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
>3 and <4.5.0 No Comparison
>4 and <8.0.5.0
>a and <16.67.0.5
">16 and <51 0.75 1. 33 l. 67.0
">51 and <200 0.80 1. 25 0.75 l. 33.67
>200 0.85 1.18 0.80 1.25 0.75 1. 33
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
- Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 ke Tritium analyses of liquid sample "B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 ke Sr~89 and Sr-90 determination Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclid TABLE.. *!
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT*
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILlJY1* PALISADES FO~ -THE 4 QUA~TER ~F 1980
~
NRC*******
- LICENSEE-----*
RESULT ERRO SAMP ISOTOPE RESULT ERRO L. WASfE BETA H 3 leOE*03 4eOE*OS-lelE*03 2.9E~os 1~7E*Ol 2eOE*03 *
l.9E*Ol 6eOE*04 T TEST RESULTS:. ',.
A=AGHfEMENT '
ll=DISAGREEMENT P=POSSIBLE AGREEMENT :
- ~
N=NO ~OMPAR I SON~-_,-~'.:.?_::*,*, '.- :".:':_* * ~-
- -'
..
..
-. *'.
-*.-
-:'* ;._,->_~: -":>._*.,::;
. -
_.. : -~ :. ~:....
- ~..
r :-
'
,..
~**
.
.. ~-"
'.
' '...
".,
- ~,*
- ,:
-~*NRCILICENSEE*****
RAT IO*.
-~. RES T
. 1.1E+oo 2,sE+Ol A
l~lE+OO* 8e5E+Ol A
..
I
\\:
. '
SAMPLE e*
TABLE~
~- s NUCLEAR REGULATORY *coMMISSlON * >
OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
.. FAtI~ITY~ PALISADES FOR TH~ 4 Q~ARTER.OF 19Sl
.
.
. --~---NRC**-----
ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR
- LICENSEE-----
RESUL T
. ERROR
- NRC:LlCENSEE*---*
RATIO*
- RES T
p FIL. TER co 58 s.3E*OS r~sE-06 s*._iE-05 5.4£~0.6E-.O 1
.7. lE*OO A
co 60 4.6E-05 i~4E-05:
3.SE*OS *._1.oE:-os*
,:, 7.6E*Oi 3.3E*OO CS 137 3e8E.i.o5::.t~iE*.06 3.3g*05* -_6.0~*06, *. * '~e7E*Ol. 5e4E+OO A
.
.
_:
- *. _.:.
- .
.~.-....
- **.*.
- !.
.':
. *
..... -...
- """:. :.* **
c FILTER GAMMA A.*
3~6E-OS *7.6i;:*o6',**4.6E-os* 6,2E-o6... 1.3E+00'* 4.7E+OO A
I 131
- 3e5"'E*04 * le3E*05.*
4.7E*04 l.4E*05 l.3E*+0-0~- *2.7E+Oi P
cs 137.. 3. 2E-o5 7. SE-06 l * 7E-os 5. JE-06*
s*. 3E*O 1 ' 4-.3E*.OO A
F SPlKED co: 57 cs 137 co 60 4e4E+03 i.aE~02 2.SE+04 3.0E+02 3.9E+04 * 4eOE+-02 C SPIKED CO 57 cs 137 co 60 lelE+04 6.2E+04 9.8E+02 T TEST RESULTS&
A=AGREEMENT D=OISAGREEMEN ~=POSSIBLE AGREEMENT 1~=NO COMPARISON
.,
s.0E+o2 2e5E+03 3~9E*.03 S.3E+03 e2E+04.sE+o4 o~o le4E+04. a.sE*04 l.2E+05 le2E+OO 2.4E+Ol A
le3E+Ob. 8e3E+Ol P
l.2E+OO 9.8E+Ot* A le3E+OO l.4E+OO le2E+02 2.2E+Ol 2.SE+Ol
.2e5E*Ol
..
A*
p N