IR 05000263/1978006
| ML20024G821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1978 |
| From: | Essig T, Januska A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G819 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-78-06, 50-263-78-6, NUDOCS 9104300445 | |
| Download: ML20024G821 (8) | |
Text
.
t s
(
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-263/78-06 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee:
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tacility name: Monticello Nuclear Generating Station Inspection at: Monticello Site, Monticello, MN Inspection conducted:
April 25-28, 1978 h.3. f-5,:aabo-O'/70 Inspector:
A. G. Janusk,a C!'3f78 (
Approved by:
T. H. Essig, Chief
'
Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 25-28, 1978 (Report No. 50-263/78-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced emergency planning inspection including reviews of the Emergency Plan; coordination with offsite procedures; tests and drills; dis-i agencies; facil'. ties, equipment, cussion of confirmatory measurement results from a previous sample collection; collection of effluent samples and the submission of a The inspection spiked liquid sample for future comparative analyses.
involved 26.5 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Within the areas inspected no deviations or items of non-i l
Results:
compliance were noted.
1
'
(i 9104300445 780607 PDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR Q
-
-
-
-_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.
. _ _.
_
e
(
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Monticello Personnel
- M. Clarity Superintendent, Radiation Protection and Engineering
- F. Fey, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- R.
Jacobson, Plant Chemist J. Peterson, Chemical Coordinator L. Nolan, Chemical Engineer E. Earney Training Supervisor Offsite Agencies J. Albaugh, Administrator, Monticello - Big Lake Community Hospital R. Peklo Emergency Room Supervisor, Monticello - Big Lake Community Hospital D. Wolff, Sheriff, Wright County G. Wieber, City Administrator, Monticello, MN D. Cook, Manager, Big Lake - Monticello Ambulance Service 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (263/77-11): Missing first-aid kit items.
The licensee has assigned the responsibility of replen-ishing missing items from first aid kits to one individual within the Radiation Protection group. This item is considered resolved.
3.
General The inspection consisted of a review of the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures revised December 5,1977.
Items inspected included agreements and coordination with offsite agencies, facilities, equipment, procedures, records of test and drills, and training.
Confirmatory maasurement results from a previous sample collection were discussed, effluent samples collected and arrangements made for a spiked liquid sample for future comparative analyses.
(
-2-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
,, - -
--
_-
_
'
s (.
4.
Emergency Plan / Implementing Procedure Review A review of the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures revealed that:
Maps to be used by offsite monitoring teams for collection a.
of TLD's, milk, local lake water, top soil and vegetation, and air sample filters were omitted from the 1977 revision, b.
No decisional aids are available in the control room.
The dose sector map and the isodose curve in the Implementing c.
Procedures are not the same scale.
d.
The licensee has a meteorological tower which meets Regulatory Guide 1.23, however, meteorological data readout (direction and speed) is from a vane on the containment building and therefore does not represent the conditions of a stack release (one of the two airborne pathways considered).
'There is only one isodose curve in the Implementing Pro-e.
cedures, and it is not representative of the varied meteor-ology conditions which may be present during a release.
f.
The evacuation doses listed in the plan do not consider the sensitive population (pregnant women and children)
(
discussed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
" Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents."
A licensee representative stated that items a, b and c abov,?
will be corrected by October 1,1978 and that items d through I will be investigated.
In addition, the licensee representative agreed to determine if the evacuation doses stated in the These Implementing Procedures ere based on projected doses.
items will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
.
The Safety Audit Committee (SAC) is required to review revisions to the Emergency Plan. Minutes of a SAC meeting in February i
1978 stated that the latest revision of the Plan would be reviewed This during their next meeting scheduled for May 24 or 25, 1978.
will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
5.
Coordination with Offsite Agencies Coordination between offsite support agencies and the licensee All was verified by visiting selected agency representatives.
(
-3-
_.
, _.. _ _
_
_
_
.
..
.
-
.
_ _ _ _. _ -
_
(
representatives commented on the adequacy of coordination. The licensee has current letters of agreement from offsite agencies.
The inspector has na further questions regarding this item, 6.
Facilities, Equipment and Procedures The inspector reviewed records of inventories performed and the emargency equipment specified in Appendix I of the Emergency Plan. The inventories are performed in accordance with Emergency Equipment Inventory and Radio Test Procedure #1102, which is a monthly surveillance procedure.
Documentation for inventories performed in 1977 were found to be complete. While verifying emergency equipment inventories, the inspector noted an Air Sampling Procedure missing from the Emergency Coordinator books in the two emergency assembly areas.
A licensee represen-tative stated that these will be replaced by October 1, 1978.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector examined the stack and vent monitors and found them to be operabic.
The stack gas monitor has a computer alarm in addition to a high alarm.
A high alarm and trip are also present on the reactor building vent monitor. The stack gas monitor is calibrated monthly and the vent monitor quarterly.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
!
Meteorological monitoring consists of wind speed and direction from a vane on the containment building with a chart recorder in the control room. In discussions with a licensee represen-tative, the inspector pointed out that data from the meteorological system (120 ft) does not represent conditions at the stack dis-charge (328 ft) level for dose determinations.
The licensee has a meteorological tower on the owner-controlled property which the licensee representative stated conforms to the parameters of Regulatory Guide 1.23 and has agreed to investigate the availability of this towers' data for use in dose determinations.
This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
7.
Tests and Drills The inspector reviewed the documentation of drills held by the licensee in 1977. The drills were conducted as required by the Emergency Plan and reviewed in accordance with T/S 6.2.B.S.g.
As of September 1977, the drills will be conducted according to Emergency Procedures Drill #0254, dated September 12, 1977.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
(
-4-
-
. -.
-
--_
-_
. - -. _.
.
.
.
_ _. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J (
8.
Training Emergency Plan training and Fire Brigade training records for 1977 were reviewed.
Records indicated that training was providad to required personnel as specified in Section IX of the Emergency Plan and T/S 6.1.E. respectively. The inspector noted during his review of general Fire protection and Fire Brigade training that it was not apparent that the required training was not given to specified individuals.
The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comments, but was able to demonstrate compliance with the training requirement.
Offsite support training provided by the Radiation Protection group was also reviewed. The inspector has no further questions
'
regarding this item.
9.
Results of Comparative Analyses Results of comparative analyses performed on effluent samples split onsite and a spiked liquid sample submitted in December 1977 are shown in Table I.
The criteria for comparing measurement results are given in Attachment 1.
For 23 sample comparisons, the licensce's resulta yielded 19 agreements or possible agree-ments. The results were discussed with the licensee. The license did not identify Ce-141 on a particulate filter, Cs-137 (
on a charcoal adsorber or Mn-54 in a liquid waste sample. The licensee stated that no activity was detectable for these nuclides, although his minimum detectable activity (MDA) levels were higher Since than the values reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory.
these samples were analyzed, the licensee has added additional shielding to his detector. The addition of this shielding is expected to reduce the licensee's MDA and increase his ability to analyze activity at lower levels.
The licensee failed to accurately quantify Sr-90 in liquid waste, although he satisfactorily quantified this nuclide in a spiked liquid sample. No reason was determined for this disparity other than the fact that the liquid waste sample was two orders of magnitude lower in Sr-90 activity
,
than the spiked sample and had more nuclides present which might have contributed additional counting interference.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 28, 1978. The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were (
-5-
_
...._.
.. _..
_-
~. -. _ _.. _ _.
_
. -. _. _ _ -. _ _ _
..
-
%
k discussed. The licensee, in response to certain items discussed by the inspector, agreed to take the following actions:
Implement changes in the Emergency Plan.
(Paragraphs 4.a.
a.
4.b and 4.c)
b.
Investigate release information associated with the Emergency Plan. (Paragraphs 4.d. 4.e and 4.f)
Replace a missing procedure in the Emergency Coordinator c.
books in the two emergency assembly areas.
(Paragraph 6)
d.
Determine if evacuation doses are based on projected doses.
(Paragraph 4)
Attachments:
1.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements 2.
Table I, Confirmatory Measurements Program Monticello Station r
.
(
-6-
,. _ -..
--.-._.,
..... -.
, -.....
.
-.
. -..
-.-. -.
.
-
..
,
ATTACINENT 1
,
(
CRITERI A TOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification' tesirements.
The criteria are based on an
-
empirical relationship w'tir:h combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, t'nr fLdgment limits are variabic in relation to the comparison of the Nhc Leforer:e Laboratory's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, referred tu 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 fig 2res 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 VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeabic "B"
<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison ('
>3 and <4 0.4 3.0 No Comparison 2.5 0. 3
-
-
3.0 2.5 0.3 T4 and <8 0.5 -
2.0 0.4
-
-
2.5 2.0 0.4 1.67 0.5 T8 and <16 0.6
-
-
-
2.0 1.67 0.5 T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
-
-
1.67 1.33 0.6 751 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75
-
-
1.33 1.25 0.75 1200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80
-
-
"A" criteria 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.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
(
-
.
-
_ _ - - _ _ - - -, _
i
,
.
(
TASLE 1 US NUCLEAR f E GUL 810hY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPFCTION A ND ENFORCEMENT CONF IR M A TOR Y ME ASURE MENT S PROGR AM FACILITY M0t11 CELLO FOR THE 4 OUAPTEP OF 1977
-
NRC-------
---L I C E N SE E -----
---NF C L I C E N S E E -- -
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ER00R PESULT E F. F O R RATIO RE S T
P TILTER 1 131 4.4E-04 1 4E -04 1 4F-04
3 2E -01 3 1 E +00 P
00
2 7E +00 h
CS 1 37 2 6E-04 1 7E-05 2 1 F -0 4
8 1E-01 1 5 E + 01 A
BA 140 1 8E-02 7 0E-04 1 6E-02
8 9E-01 2 6'E+01 A
CE 141 6 0E-05 1 9E-05 0e0 0.0 0,0 3 2E +00
.C FILTER I 131 9 2E-0 2 2 8E -03 1.1E-01
1 2E +00 3 3E +01 A
00
8 0E +00
0FF GAS XE 133 3 1E-03 1 e2E -04 2 5E-03
8 1 E-01 2 6E +01 A
(., SPIKED H 3 2 8E-03 6 0E-05 4 2 F -0 3 Dec 1 5E+00 4 7 E + 01 P
SR 89 6.SE-03 9 0E -05 5 4E-03
7 9E-01 7 6 E + 01 P
SR 90 5 e 7E-0 4 260F-05 4,5E-04
7 9F-01 2 6 E + 01 A
1 0E+00 2 1 E + 01 A
BA 133 1 8E-03 1 0E-04 1 5 E -0 3
6 3E-01 1 8E+01 A
C S 137 1 8E-04 1 0E-05 1 9 E -0 4
1 1E+00 1 6 E + 01 A
L. WASTE SR 89 1 7E-04 7 0E-06 9sSE-Pt
5 B E -01 2,4E+01 P
SR 90 2 5E-06 2 0E-07 9 s 8 F -G
3 9E+01 1 3E + 01
9 1E-01 1 0E+01 A
CO 60 1.7E-04 9 9E-06 2.?E-04 0.0 1 4E+00 1.7 E + 01 P
ZN 65 5 1E-04 2 3E-05 5 8E -04
1 1E+00 2 2E + 01 A
CR 51 2 4E-03 1 1 E -0 4 1.* E -0 3
7 5F-01 2 2 E + 01 P
1 131 3 7E-03 1 6E -04 4 3E-03
1 2E +00 2 3E +01 A
BA 140 5 9 E -0 3 2 6 E -n 4 Se6E-03
9 5E-01 2 3 F + 01 A
CE 1 41 1 5E-04 P. s f E -0 6 f.3F-05
5 5E-01 1.*E+01 P
00
3 0E +00 N
MN 54 1 9E-05 4 1 E -0 6
00
4 6E+00
T TEST PE S U L T S :
A = A G R E E ME N T D=0 I S AGRE E ME NT P=POSSISLE A GPE E ME NT
{ '=NO COMP A R ISON
.
_ -.
-
-