IR 05000282/1979032
| ML19312D548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1980 |
| From: | Essig T, Oestman M, Oestmann M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312D541 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-79-32, 50-306-79-26, NUDOCS 8003240599 | |
| Download: ML19312D548 (10) | |
Text
-.
.f's.
^
.. >
U.
'U.S.
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-282/79-32; 50-306/79-26 Docket.No. 50-282; 50-306 License No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Prairie Island, Red Wing (on December 19-20, 1979)
. Northern States Power Corporate Office (December 21, 1979)
Minneapolis, MN
,
Inspection Conductej: December 19-21, 1979
_,
Inspector: M. J. Oestmann
" *
N",'
fr< /?tGQ Approved By:
T.-l!. Essig, Chief w 3-i*S
-.
, _
Environmental and Special Projects Section
. Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 19-21, 1979 (Report No. 50-282/79-32; 50-306/79-26)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of:
(1) confirmatory measurements for Units 1 and 2, including the licensee's program for quality control of. analytical measurements; evaluations of the licensee's analytical results of plant effluent samples obtained during a previous inspection; collection of plant effluent samples for future comparative analysis; and submission of a spiked particulate-filter, charcoal adsorber and liquid sample for future comparative analyses; and (2) environmental protection, including administrative and procedural control system; quality assurance and control in analytical measurements; implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP); review of
~
-Environmental Event Reports (EER), and licensee actions on previously identified matters.-
'Results: Of the ten areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance
.or deviations were. identified in nine areas; one apparent item of-non-
-
compliance was identified in one area (infraction-neutralizing tank batch release with pH. greater than 8.5 - Paragraph 10).
80039 0 % 7 (
'
.
..
DETAILS 1.
-Persons Contacted
- F.
P. Tierney, Jr., Plant Manager
- A. Hunstad, Staff Engineer
- D. Schuelke, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- J.
Linville, Plant Chemist R. Lindsey, Operations Supervisor L. Eberley, Supervisor, Ecological Studies.
- E. Ward, Manager, Nuclear Environmental Services (NSS)
- B. Clark, Administrator, Radiation Environmental Monitoring Program (NSS).
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees during the course of the inspection, including chemistry, environmental and health physics technicians, members of the security force, and general office personnel.
- Denotes those present at plant exit interview on December 20, 1979.
- Denotes those present at the corporate office exit interview on December 21, 1979.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (282/75-16, 77-18, 78-08, 78-22, 79-17, and 306/75-13, 77-14, 78-10, 78-22, 79-14);
Necessity for the licensee to justify all operations with cooling tower blowdown flow greater than 150 cfs on the basis of monitor-ing thermal discharges within Environmental Technical Specifica-tion (ETS) limits. The licensee has submitted data to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for eval.uation in order to determine and clarify blowdown flow rate limits for the plant, and is currently dealing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerning these limits.
NRR is to issue an ETS change on reporting requirements on this item in the near future.
b.
(Open) Unresolved Item (282/77-02, 77-18, 78-08, 78-22, 79-17, j
and 306/77-02, 77-14, 78-10, 78-22, 79-14); data on the inability of the_ thermal monitoring system to monitor all flow rates have been provided to NRR for evaluation with the blowdown flow rate evaluation. This item is also being reviewed by MPCA with respect
'
to the NPDES. The licensee is considering an alteration of the intake design to avoid recycling thermal discharges and other
)
. effects. This item remains open, pending completion of NRR's L
-
-2-5:
)
.
evaluation, which, in turn, depends on the action to be taken by
MPCA.
These two items remain unresolved at the present time and will be examined during a future inspection.
-3.
General This inspection consisted of confirmatory measurements, including the
' licensee's quality control program of analytical measurements; evaluationofthelicensee'sanalyticalregyltsofplanteffluent samples collected in a previous inspection-and collection of plant effluent samples for future comparative analyses.
The licensee's environmental protection program was reviewed, including administrative and procedural control systems; quality assurance and control of analytical measurements; implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP); and review of Environmental Event Reports, The licensee's Appendix A Technical Specifications, Section 4.10, were as used as the primary criteria for this inspection.
4.
Licensee Program for Quality Controlof Analytical Measurements a.
Management Controls The assignment of responsibility and authority for management control of analytical measurements was discussed with licensee personnel. Responsibility and management of analytical measure-
.ments rest with the Superintendent, Radiation Protection. The lead chemist reports to this superintendent and has overall responsibilities for the daily activities for nonradiological and radiological analytical measurements in the laboratories.
The chemistry coordinator and laboratory technicians conduct the daily laboratory work. The inspector reviewed the description of these responsibilities in Section Work Instructions and determined the program management was adequate.
b.
Nonradiological Analysis of Reactor Coolant The' inspector reviewed selected licensee chemistry procedures and records for Calendar Year 1978 and 1979 to date of this inspection relating to nonradiological analyses of reactor coolant. Analytical procedures reviewed included analysis for boron, chloride, ammonia, hydrazine, pH, silica, conductivity, and spectrometric analysis of various reactor coolant metals.
All procedures-noted above were deemed technically adequate.
1/
IE Inspection Report No. 50-282/78-13; 50-306/78-14.
-3-
.
The inspector toured the licensee chemistry laboratory and ob-
.-
served that all laboratory instruments appeared to be functional, calibration stickers were current, and calibration curves were up to date. No technical weaknesses were observed.
c.
Radiological Analysis of Reactor Plant Effluents The inspector reviewed selected licensee counting procedures, records, and logs for Calendar Year 1978 and 1979 to date of this inspection relating to quality control of radiological measurements of reactor plant coolant and effluents. Procedures reviewed covered plant' sampling and schedule of sampling, func-tional tests of laboratory equipment, counting equipment includ-ing calibration procedures for gamma spectrometer and proportional counters, computer programming, and radiochemical analysis of
,
various nuclides. All chemistry and radiochemistry procedures in the Chemistry Manual and the Counting Room Manual had been reviewed and revised by the licensee in 1979. No technical weaknesses were identified.
The inspector toured the licensee's counting room and noted that all counting equipment had been calibrated in accordance with the appropriate procedure. Daily, weekly, and monthly checks are made of each counter or spectrometer. The selected results of recent quality and functional checks of the licensee's gamma spectrometer and proportional counter were reviewed by the inspector. All functional tests required by the licensee pro-cedures were conducted and recorded. In addition, the inspector examined the mobile van the licensee has extablished which contains a gamma spectrometer and other counting equipment for emergency purposes. No problems were identified.
The inspector examined logs, check sheets and other records for calendar year 1979 to the date of this inspection resulting from the licensee's quality control activities which reflect adherence to procedural controls. Frequent backgrounds and calibrations on each instrument are performed. Results were properly documented.
d.
Quality Control of Laboratory Personnel The licensee conducted a formal program of checking the quality of analytical measurements of the radiological reactor plant effluents. Samples are split on a quarterly basis and analyzed by the licensee and the licensee's contractor, Science Applica-tions, Inc. The licensee's comparative results with his contrac-tor are comparable to those obtained in the Confirmatory Measure-ments inspection program.
-4-
-
,
I
,
.
e.
Training of Chemistry Laboratory Personnel Currently, the licensee trains chemistry personnel on the job.
Such training includes supervisor observation of analytical measurements. The inspector determined that all plant chemistry personnel appeared adequately trained. The licensee also has a formal training program for all Radiation Protection Specialists, including a chemistry course conducted by a professor at a local college. Documentation described in the Section Work Instructions SWI-RP-23 and 12 for training and retraining was reviewed by the inspector. The licensee has established formal acceptance criteria to determine if a plant chemist has been properly trained. No problems were identified.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Results of Comparative Analyses Results of comparative analyses performed on effluent samples split at the site on August 1978, are shown in Table 1. The " Criteria for Comparing Analyt' cal Measurements" are given in Attachment 1. For nineteen nuclide comparisons, the licensee's results yielded four disagreements.
Specifically, the licensee failed to properly quan-tify Xenon-133 in the gas sample, Cesium-137 on a particulate filter, Iodine-131 cn1 a charcoal adsorber and Manganese-54 in the '
' pool liquid sample. The licensee results of the disagreements e on the nonconservative side as compared to the NRC Reference Laborattry's data. Reasons for these discrepancies were discussed with licensee representatives. The licensee counts his samples for a shorter period of time than does the NRC Reference Laboratory and stated that the concentrations of the Cesium-137 in the particulate filter and Iodine-131 in the charcoal adsorber were below the licensee's minimum detectable limit. The licensee, therefore, did not report any acti-vity present in these samples. With regard to the gas sample, the licensee's results of Xenon-133 were a factor ten times lower than those from the NRC Reference Laboratory. In addition, the licensee's results of Manganese-54 in the fuel pool liquid sample were half as much as the NRC Laboratory's results.
If the difference in results of these nuclides is real and representative of routine analyes, the licensee could have underestimated the release of these nuclides during the time of the comparison. This item will be examined during the comparison of effluent samples collected during this inspection.
6.
Effluent and Spiked Samples Samples of gaseous waste, liquid waste, particulate filter and char-coal adsorber were obtained for future comparison. In addition, the licensee received a spiked particulate filter, a spiked charcoal adsorber, and will receive a spiked liquid standard from the NRC Reference Laboratory to analyze. Results will be compared.with those from the NRC Laboratory and reported in a future inspection.
-5--
.
-
.
-
.
-
--
.-
- _ _ _
.
b 7.
'Manaaement and Procedural Control Systems for REMP The inspector reviewed the licensee's management and procedural
,
controls for. implementation of the. radiological environmental moni-toring program (REMP). Themanagementcontrolshavereginedthe same as those described in a previous inspection report. No administrative problems were identified.
- .
'
8.
.' Licensee Program for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of
'
Analytical Measurements
~
~The inspector examined the following documents pertaining to QA/QC for the REMP.
1.
~ Quality Assurance Manual, dtd 6/26/78
-
2.
. Quality Control Procedures Manual, Revision 3, dtd 8/16/79
'3.
. Sampling Procedure Revision 9, dtd 10/20/78
~
4.
. Analytical Procedures Revision 1, dtd 6/14/78
,
W Details of these' documents were discussed in a previous inspection
'
.
.All procedures were deemed technically adequate and had been imple-mented during.the conduct of the REMP. During a tour of the environ-mental sampling stations, the inspector noted that the air sampling
equipment.had been maintained and calibrated in accordance with the
,
procedures listed above.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Implementation of the REMP The inspector examined the results of the REMP for CY 1978 and 1979 to date of this inspection. Examination of sample collections and shipment logs established that all samples had been collected and shipped to the contractor for analysis.-The inspector reviewed the analytical results in data tables for this period and determined that analyses were performed as required by Section 4.10 of Appendix A to
_
the Technical Specifications.
The licensee.had. continued plotting-the data for a trend analysis and determined that-except for the tritium analysis of well water #2 samp1e, no unusual results-attributable to the plant operations were found. Fallout effects from'the Chinese bomb detonation were evident in REMP samples collected during the spring of 1978.
The licensee had conducted a special project to study the anomalous
'
report fresults in Plant'Well #2 samples as' discussed.in a previous-triting. =Results of the hydrological study and the trend analyses were found to.be: inconclusive. Results of tritium ranged from 150 to 350
- pCi/liduring 1979,- which are comparable to the expected values.
'
12/
-IE Inspection Report No. 50-282/78-22; 50-306/78-22
- 3/'
Ibid
]/
- Ibid-
-6-
-
V
- >
Because of the~ accidental release of radioactive material associated withthestgmgeneratortube. leakage (discussedinapreviousinspec-tion report- ), the licensee has deployed additional thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) on the plant site for use in the event of an emer-gency situation. The inspector reviewed the results of environmental samples collected as part of the followup of this incident. No measur-able increase in offsite radiation levels appeared to occur as a result of this release of activity.
No apparent items of noncompliance or devia'tions were identified.
10.
Licensee Environmental Event Reports (EERs)
The inspector reviewed EER's from 79-06 through 79-11. EER's 79-06, 79-07, 79-08, 79-10, and 79-11 reported daily average blowdown flow rates in excess of 150 cfs from June through November 1979. The inspector selectively examined Procedure PING 45 data sheets and the daily computer print-outs in order to verify compliance with thermal and blowdown requirements of Appendix B, Technical Specifications. A review of the environmental event logs verified that the licensee reported properly.
Review of.EER 79-09 revealed the licensee discharged a waste neutraliz-ing tank batch with a pH of 11.65 on October 7, 1979..This release was in exces= of the limit of 8.5 contained in Technical Specification 2.4.3.
Because this event resulted in an actual occurrence, it therefore constituted an item of noncompliance. The inspector reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee to avoid recurrence of this event. The licensee made a design change to the pH probe using an ultrasonic agitator on the probe, and requires a chemical technician to measure pH of the batch prior to discharge. This action appears to be adequate. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
11.
Chlorine Treatment of Cooling Tower Water The inspector reviewed the environmental event logs and the records pertaining to the licensee's treatment of the coaling tower water with large doses of chlorine to eliminate the amoeba encephalitis.
On November 2, 1979, the licensee received a temporary Technical Specification Exception to conduct _this treatment of chlorine. The treatment occurred during November 1979. The licensee is preparing a special report describing the details of the treatment program. This report will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 5_/
IE Inspection Report No.- 50-282/79-26.
-7-
'
.
_
_
-__
_.
12. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at an exit interview conducted at the plant on December 20, 1979, and at the licensee's Corporate office on December 21, 1979.
In both instances, the inspector discussed the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings. The licensee discussed their program to prevent recurrence of the discharges from the neutralizing tank exceeding the pH limits (Paragraph 10). A licensee representa-tive stated that he plans to continue to work with NRR and MPCA to resolve the unresolved items pertaining to excess cooling tower blowdown and unmonitored paths of the thermal discharges.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Program, Prairie Island Confirmatory Measurements.
2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements.
-~8 -
_ - _ _ _ _ _... - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TABLE I
,
US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPEC110N A ND E NF O R C E M E N T CONFIRMATORY ME A SURE MENTS PROGR A M FACILITY PRAIRIE ISL.
FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1978
NRC-------
---NRC L IC EN C E E ----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RE SULT ERROR RESULT ER ROR RATIO RE S T
OFF GAS XE 133 1 4E-01 5 0E-03 1 5 E -02
1 1 E -01 2 8E +01
X E 133M 6 6E-04 9 0E-05 7 5E-04
1 1E+00 7 3E +00 A
6 0E -01 2 1E+01 P
P F ILIER CS 137 2 9E-05 4 3E-06
00
6.7E +00 D
C' FILTER GAMMA B 3 9E -0 5 2 3E-05
00
1 7E +00 N
I 131 1 4E-04 3e8E-05
0.0
3.7E +00
00
2 1E +00 N
L. WASTE BETA 6.7E -0 3 2 0E-04 8 3E-03 0.0 1 2E+00 3.4E +01 A
9 3E -01 1 4E+02 A
SR 89 3 0 E-0 7 2 0 E -07 8 4E-07
2 8E+00 1 5E +00 N
SR 90 5 3E-07 4 0 E -0 8 5 0E -07
9 4 E -01 1.V +01 A
CO 57 5 5 E -0 5 2 8E-06 4 2E-05
7 6 E -01 2 0E +01 A
CS 137 8 0E-05 6 5E-06 8 3E-05 0.0 1 0E+00 1 2 E + 01 A
CO 58 3 8E-03 1 1E-04 3 4 E -03 0.0 8 9 E -01 3 5E +01 A
MN 54 8 9E-05 9.Fi' 06 4 4 E -0 5
4 9E-01 9 1E +00 D
9 2E-01 3 5E +01 A
SB 1 24 1 6E-03 6 0E-05 1 5 E -0 3
9 4E-01 2.7E+01 A
SB 125 1 5E-04 1 0E-05 1 5 E -04
1 0E+00 1 5 E + 01 A
CS 134 S.6E-05 0 0E -0 6 7 5 E -05
8 7E-01 9 6E+00 A
l T TEST RESULTS:
A o A G R E E ME N T D cD I S AG RE E ME N T Pd P.0 S S IBLE A GCiE ME N T CoC0 COMP A R I S 0h l
l f
f
..
ATTACIIMENT I
'
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASURCHENTS 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 statintical. consistency with the number of significant figures reported by the-NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed catenary of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will be the narrowet into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
RTS01UT,10]
KA110 = LICr.NSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" AgreenbJe "B"
<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 3.0 No Comparison
>3 and <4 0.4 2.5 0. 3
-
-
3.0 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 0.3
>4 and <8 0.5
-
-
78 and <16 0.6 2.0 0.4
-
2.5 1.67 0.5
-
-
Il6 anJ <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 1.67 0.5 2.0
-
-
551 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 are applied to the following analyscs:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater tnan 250 kev.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"I," criteria are' applied to the following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi.
cation ;i less than'250 kev.
.Sr-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
- Cross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the i
same reference nuclide.
U l
.
.
.
.
i
'
-
_
j