IR 05000266/1979015
| ML19260C236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Oestmann M, Roytek C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260C231 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-79-15-01, 50-266-79-15-1, 50-301-79-17, NUDOCS 7912260098 | |
| Download: ML19260C236 (8) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
1 Report No.
50-266/79-15; 50-301/79-17 Docket No. 50-266; 50-301 License No. DPR-24; No. DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection condected: October 23-24, 1979 U0 lf Inspectors:
H. J. Oestmann f(/T /9
/
bl)
C. Roytek. o-op Student)
//
4/6
/
-
Approved By: T. H. Essig, Chief Il /T"19 Environmental and Special
/1 Projects Section Inspection Summary:
Ing ection on October 23-24, 1979 (Report No. 50-266/79-15;50-301/79-17)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of confirmatory measure-ments and radiological environmental protection for both units, including licensee program for quality control of analytical measurements; comparison of analytical results of samples collected previously; collection of air particulate, charcoal adsorber, waste gas and liquid samples for future comparison; management controls; implemention of radiological environ-mental monitoring program.
The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours on site by 2 NRC inspectors.
Results:
,+..
.
('Noapparentitemsofnoncomplianceordeviationswereidentifiedduring
-
'
.'
is inspection.
,
w%-34v
,~
.
x
a
_a " l s
.
- -
1616 101
'91 s 097 2 eo
.
.
.,..,. -
.
.
-
m
- - _. -
.
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted
- G. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Power Division (PBNP)
- J. Greenwood, Assistant to the Manager (PBNP)
- C. Harris, Radio Chemical Engineer (PBNP)
R. Weedon, Health Physicist (PBNP)
- F. Zeman, Office Supervisor (PBNP)
T. Slack, Laboratory Supervisor (PBNP)
- J. Zack, Superintendent, Technical Services (PBNP)
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees during the course of this inspection, including health physicists and chemical technicians, members of the security force and general office personnel.
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview.
2.
General This inspection consisted of an examination of the licensee's confirma-
-
tory measurements and radiological environmental monitoring programs.
The confirmatory measurements inspection included review of the licensee's quality assurance and quality control of analytical
,
'
measurements, comparison of analytical results of samples collected previously, and collection of air particulate filter, charcoal adsorber, waste gas and liquid samples for future comparison of the licensee's results with the NRC Reference Laboratory.
The radiological environmental protection inspection included manage-ment controls, sampling techniques and locations, and monitoring program results. The inspector utilized Section 15.4.10 of the Appendix A Technical Specifications, as the primary inspection criteria for the radiological environmental monitoring program.
3.
Licensee Program for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Analytical Measurements a.
Nonradiological Analysis of Reactor Coolant Selected licensee procedures and records relating to nonradiological analysis of reactor coolant were examined by the inspector. Pro-cedures reviewed included analysis of pH, boron, lithium, chloride, flouride, dissolved oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Since the begin-
,
?.
ning of 1978, the licensee has been in the process of updating
- * ' ~ nonradiological analytical procedures. These updated procedures
,jt appeared to be technically adequate.
- c *,.
p}L!.q,
,
V
- %
.
.
,-
,-y,r y
~ y w;=g
"p y
-
'~
??T'
,
" " " * * * * * " ' * ~
.
The inspector also observed a laboratory assistant perform the
,
analysis of amronia in a sample taken from the secondary system of the plant. The laboratory ascistant was found to follow the proper analytical procedure. No technical weaknesses were obse rved.
~
During a tour of the licensee's nonradiological chemistry,
laboratory area, the inspectors observed that all laboratory instruments appeared to be functional and adequately cali-brated. No technical weaknesses were identified.
b.
Radiological Analysis of Reactor Plant Effluents Selected licensee procedares, records, and logs relating to quality control of radiological measurements of reactor plant effluents were reviewed by the inspector. Procedures reviewed included analysis of gaseous waste, charcoal adsorber, and particulate filters by gamma spectroscopy. No technical weak-nesses were identified during the review.
The inspector also observed the collection of a liquid sample from the RHR system and a gaseous waste sample from the gas decay tanks. These samples were split with licensee or were
duplicates. In addition, an air particulate filter and charcoal adsorber were obtained from the licensee. These samples were sent to the NRC Reference Laboratory for analysis. The results
'
of the analyti. cal measurements of these four different radio-logical samples will be compared during a future confirmatory measurements inspection.
c.
Quality Control of Laboratory Program The inspectors reviewed a series of check sheets for performance of routinely s.cheduled quality checks. The check sheets provide a means to assure line items have been completed and to document scheduled checks have been performed. The inspector reviewed selected check' sheets for 1979. The licensee implemented scheduled calibrations, calibration checks, and instrument functional checks during 1979 in accordance with procedures.
d.
Training of Chemistry Laboratory Personnel The inspector reviewed the licensee's training program for the chemistry laboratory personnel. This program provides on the job training including supervisor observation of the technician
,
performance of selected analytical measurements and techniques.
.
S y (y
-
w
.
.~m
- >
.-
ki?st; e
$
J
'
j jf jy 3-
-
.
, y "' f % F7 "I ' * 7.y. 4 7'Jy.',' T T ;7
. '* ~ ' e ' T[- -
t
. 7 P.. -
f~~
'
,-
CJ
~' N " "
~
,
'
-
.
The licensee has established a formal acceptance criteria to
,
determine if a technician is properly trained. The inspector reviewed selected qualification training records of laboratory personnel and found no technical weaknesses.
' No apparent items of non compliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Results of Comparison of Confirmatory Heasurements The results of comparative analysis performed on efflent samples split at the plant in November 1978 were reviewed and discussed with the licensee. The results are shown in Table 1.
The criteria for comparing measurements results are given in Attachment 1.
Disagree-ments in the measurement of Xe-133 and Kr-85, however, were noted in that both results were larger than those of the NRC Reference Laboratory.
The licensee has correctly identified and quantified both these nuclides in the previous collection taken in the third quarter of 1977. Examination of raw data and discussion of comparative results failed to identify any likely cause for the disagreements noted.
Results for a particulate filter and a liquid sample indicated that activity levels were below the criteria used for comparison; hence, no comparison could be made.
- The inspector will arrange to provide the licensee with a standard particulate filter and a liquid sample for comparative purposes in a
,.
subsequent inspection. No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Management Controls The inspector reviewed the licensee's administrative and procedural controls for implementation of the radiological environmental moni-toring program. The environmental monitoring program is under the direction of the staff Radiochemical Engineer. The analysis of environmental samples is conducted by the licensee's contractor, Eberline Instrument Company. The plant personnel collects the radiological samples which are analyzed at the Eberlina facilities in West Chicago, Illinois.
The licensee utilizes the PBNP Environmental Manual as a primary document to define and implement the radiological environmental monitoring program. Procedures for sample collection and locations are described in this manual. This manual also includes audit responsi-bilities for technical review of data. The inspector reviewed a report of an audit of the radiological environmental monitoring
' ",
program, conducted by the licensee's Offsite Review Committee in W
1978. The audit included a review of program results obtained from e
g..
i s
+-hf I s;;
&,t. > l'
_
9 0 I
I Admu@m]D'ffD3Pa (.n 1616 104
-'-
,
- w
- J:,7 a
{*'r t ', :'f. Wrma
,
,
--
^' '~: L T~
~W
.
,
' ' ' ~ ' '
.
the licensee's contractor for the first quarter of 1978. No discrepancies
,
were identified. A licensee representative agreed to determine whether an audit of the program had been conducted for the entire year of 1978. This item will be examined during a future inspection.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were iltentified.
6.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The inspector reviewed records of quality control checks of the radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by the licensee's contractor. The contractor participates in the Environmental Protection Agency's cross check program. Results of the contractor's performance during the 1978 cross check program identified no problem areas.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were idenfied.
7.
Implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's results of the radiological environmental monitoring program for calendar year 1978 and for the first half of 1979 in compliance with the monitoring and reporting
-
requirements presented in Technical Specification 15.4.10. These results were presented in the licensee's 1978 semi-annual operating reports and also in monthly reports prepared by the licensee's
,
,
contractor.
Inspector examination of program results indicated that the licensee had reported no analytical results of the third algae sample #5 at the north of the discharge for 1978. The licensee had attempted to collect algae in 1978, but none was available. Algae samples were collected in July 3, and October 4, 1978. The licensee plans to revise his collection schedule so as to collect algae during the warmer months of the year to assure algae is present. This item will examined in a future inspection.
Shoreline silt sample #5 was collected the second half of 1978, but no analytical results for gross beta or gamma scans of #5 sample were available during this inspection. This is considered an unresolved item.
The program results reported revealed no ananalous results or trends, except for fall-out effects from weapons testing of the Republic of China in 1978. The inspector determined the licensee had conducted an annual review of the milk sampling program which included visual
...
'I, verification of milk animal census in the vicinity of the. site. The
,
[^
inspector also reviewed and examined the installation and opera-bility of five air monitoring stations and TLD stations during a
- '
tour of the site. All instruments were found to be in good-order and properly calibrated.
.p.1 -
.
1616 105 s-
-
Nk kkO301
.
-
'l
.,.,,,. ~,
4.,ey
,
7.,
,~
. rv-
-:-,,.s
,
.
-
-
~.
.
.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertafn whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 7 above.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 24, 1979 and summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and its findings. With regard to the unresolved ites, the licensee agreed that they would determine whether an analysis had been carried out of a shoreline soil sample. The licensee also stated that they would investigate determining the frequency of conducting audits of the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Attachments:
1.
Confirmatory Heasurements Program
-
2.
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
-
.
a.\\.
lb.
>
c
~.
.t.
..d
-
d'-
'b
\\
,.,...
'44Q4
,
7:...
-6-1616 106
.
%
_ mw e,
,.4
.... -.
.,.._.3,
.;
.,mg,--.
.,, -
,..
,, - -.,
,,
g-
- a ~ = &-
eeve- -
-_-._.__ _ _
_
e
..
.
TABLE I
-
-
U S NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND E NF ORCEMENT
. CONFIR M ATORY ME ASUREMENTS PROGR A M FACILITY: POINT BEACH FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1978
NRC-------
---hRC: LICENSEE----
SARPLE I SOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
OFF GAS XE 133 1 7E-04 7 0E -06 4 e 2E -04
2 5E +00 2 e 4 E + 01
KR 85 1 3E-03 1 2E -04 4 3E -03
3 3E+00 1 1E*01 D
.C EILTER S AMM A B 5 7E -0 5 2 5E-05 Oe0
00*
2 3E +00 N
I 131 8 e 0 E -0 5 2 6E-05 9e5E-05 Dec 1 2E+00 3 1E +00 A
~
T IEST RESULTS A = A G RE E ME N T D aui $ AG RE E ME N T P=POSSIBLE AGREEMENT
.
NANO COMPARISON
.
]D "
" l0 '* D)[lT
= = M o MU 2.Y lhViL 1616 107
'
..
e s
t
.
s
,
.
M.
m---
.
.
,
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASURD!ENTS 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 Reference 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 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 VALUC/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible
.
Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
~ #
-
-
,
.,
,
<3
,
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
>3 and <4 0.4 3.0 No Comparison 2.5 0. 3
-
-
T4 and <8 0.5 3.0 2.5 0.3 2.0 0.4
-
-
-
.
I8 and <16 2.5
'
2.0 0.4 1.67 0.5 O.6
'
--
-
-
1.67 0.5 2.0 T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
-
-
-
1.67 I51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 1.33 0.6
-
-
1.25 0.75 - 1.33
.
.
.I200 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 analyscs of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where prir.cipal 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.
-
.,
.
..
.,
,
.
.. *
,
.
j
-
..
..
.. _.
,
,
-
- W " **
-6 ss
_,
,
.
___
-
.-- - - -....
...
-. -
...
..-
,
d
_
r,
,
_
.,.-
s-p
,
,
-, '
,,
.
-,c