IR 05000263/1974004
| ML20128D792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1974 |
| From: | Allan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Thornburg H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212070386 | |
| Download: ML20128D792 (2) | |
Text
__ _,_
__, _
._. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _- _. _,. _ _. _ _. _. _ _. -..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..
_.. _. _.
___._.
_
(J E (%Mt L\\
UNITED STATES
L.'
Q.
l ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
,
y DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS REGION lil
'8 8 d 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD vm GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 (alt) 866-2000 JUL 2 9 1974
,
H. D. Thornburg, Chief, Field Support and Enforcement Branch Regulatory Operations, Headquartere NORTHERN STAfr.S POWER COMPANY ()DNTICELLO)
As a result.of our inspection 0$0-263/74-04, the licenses was cited for inadequate salibraties of the liquid radwaste monitor.
la a respones letter dated June 11, 1974, the liseasee maintains that quarterly surveillance tests utilising a variety of enternal check eeurces satisfy the technical specificaties salibration requirement.
We de not disapprove of the practice of calibrating procesa liquid monitors with a liquid sourse and then routinely verifying that sal-ibration with a secondary ooerse. "swever, this mothed has limitatione
.
l which appear not to have been properly ceasidered at the mentisello l
pleat.
Das such limitation, whfah W. L. Fisher of this office discussed by telephone with L. Eliseen of the Montiaalle plant on February 7, 1972, is the pose n ility of thenges ta energy reopease. The original sal-ibratism, performed in Assuet 1970, utilised a emetus 137 solutica and a nobalt 60 secondary seures. To our knowledge,- the relativa responsa of the liquid radweste offluent monitor to these radionus11 des has not been measureti oisse the original calibraties.
As acted is our inspection report No. 73-06, eheek sources of variese strengths and unidentified type have been used te verify the calibration.
,
Differences among check sourose seuld cause apparest calibration changes.
For example, the measured response to a source se February 28, 1974, was l
fifty to seventy percent of the reopease to two different eomrees need during the original calibration. Whether this apparent calibraties change is real or is the result of using as improper eeurce, in our judgment the source cheek performed on February 24 easset be seasidered a calibration.
9212070386 740729-PDR ADOCK 05000263
.G P DR ---- -
, _.,.. _.. - -
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
... ~
-
,_,
-
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _.
.,
"'l 2 0 1974
,
lierthern States Power Company-1-Recosaising that the Nestice11e Plant has released as radieestive affluents siese January 4, 1971, Mr. Rester of this offies attempted om May 13, 1974, to resolve the salibraties problem by obtaining from Mr.
Larson a sensaitment to reaalibrate the monitor befers making any future releases.
Mr. Larsom dealised to make seek a asumitment, se the estattee was iseeed.
Having been unable to estisfactorily resolve this estter, we are retar-ring it to hegulatory Operations Keadquarters for further evaluation.
James H. Allan. Chisf Radiological and Environmental Protesties tranch ec:
Mr. J. Keppler Hr. C. Piers 111 DR Central RO Files
_
-
_ _
_ _ - - - _ - - -. _ _ - -