IR 05000282/1981012
| ML20009C320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1981 |
| From: | Januska A, Oestmann M, Paperiello C, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009C309 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-81-12, 50-306-81-14, NUDOCS 8107200459 | |
| Download: ML20009C320 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
, . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-282/81-12; 50-306/81-14 Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power ' 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Prairie Island, Red Wing, MN (June 11-17) NSP Corporate Office, Minneapolis, MN (June 15, 1981) Inspection Conducted-June 11-17, 1981 0.
GA%44 Y 7/l*/S . Inspectors: A. Januna Y'. Ytoru ck 'f e , M. J. Oestmann ' / % &b I/next/blu Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Acting Chief 6[[/ Independent Measurements and Environmental Protection Section [( [', J.
> C. 'd. Pa riello, Chief 7 I! Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on June 11-17, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-282/81-12; 50-306/81-14) Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the radiological en-l vironmental monitoring program including internal audit practices and of l the program for quality control of analytical measurements. The hTC Measurements Van was used onsite to make confirmatory measurements of samples collected and split with the licensee. The inspection involved 69 inspector-hours on:. te by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8107200459 810708 ' PDR ADOCK 05000282 O PDR c
_ _ . . _ _ _ ._ . __ _ _ _ ' . . DETAILS , 1.
Persons Contacted
- L. Mayer, Manager, Nuclear Support Scrvices, NSP Corporate Office
- B. Clark, Administrator, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (NSS), NSP Corporate Office F. P. Tierney, Jr., Plant Manager, PINGP
- E. Watzl, Assistant Plant Manager, PINGP
- A. Hunstad, Staff Engineer, PINGP
- D. Schuelke, Superintendent, Radiation Protection, PINGP
- D. Larimer, Supervisor, Radiation Protection, PINGP J. Maurer, Radiation Protection Specialist, PINGP L. Eberley, Supervisor, Ecological Studies, PINGP
> Several other licensee employees, including chemistry, environmental and health physics personnel, were also interviewed during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the corporate office exit interview on June 15, 1981.
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on June 16, 1981.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-282/79-17 and 50-306/79-14): Necessity [ a.
for the licensee to justify all operations with cooling tower blow-down flow greater than 150 cfs on the basis of monitoring thermal discharges within Environmental Technical Specificaticas. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) issued an ETS change on reporting requirements on February 29, 1980 requiring the licensee to report any excess cooling tower blowdown in the annual Environ- - mental Report rather than an Environmental Event Report. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-282/79-17 and 50-306/79-14): Inability of the thermal monitoring system to monitor all flow rates.
The licensee was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit concerning thermal monitoring from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in 1981.
In addition the licensee has requested a license amendment to NRR to delete Appendix B ETS now that the MPCA has issued the NPDES permit. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
3.
General This inspection consisted of a review of the 1980 radiological environ-
mental monitoring program (REMP) including implementation, sampling
equipment and location, program results, quality assurance, and internal audits. The licensee's Appendix A Technical Specifications, Section 4.10, were used as the primary criteria for this inspection.
-2- . -,., -.... .-.. .. . - -. - - - - - ,_
' . . The licensee's program of quality control of aaalytical measurements , and confirmatory measurements, including evaluation of the licensee's results of radiological effluent samples compared with those from the NRC's Measurements Van, were also reviewed.
4.
Management and Administrative Controls for REMP The licensee's management and administrative controls for implementation of the REMP were reviewed. The management controls have same as those described in a previous inspection report.37emainc4 um No adminis-trative and management problems were identified.
5.
Licensee Internal Audit A quality assurance audit conducted by the licensee in June 1977 of the radioanalytical work for REMP by the licensee's contractor, Hazleton Environmenta}fSciences Corporation, was described in a previous inspec-tion report.- Necessary corrective actions for recommendations to improve the program were completed and approved by the licensee in December 1977.
The licensee plans to conduct another audit during 1981.
This item will be examined during a future inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee's Program for Quality Assurance for the REMP The licensee's REMP centractor is revising his quality assurance and quality 7 ntrol procedures manuals described in a previous inspection report.3 These procedures encompass field quality control; laboratory analytical quality control using standard, spiked and unknown sample,; counting equipment calibration and performance test procedures; and record keeping. The procedures had been found technically adequate.
The licensee's contractor has participated in the Environmental Protection Agency's interlaboratory comparison cross-chech program since 1975.
Results for the 1979 and 1980 program involving water and milk samples appear to be satisfactory. The contractor's results for thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) in the international comparison program conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the School of Public Health of the University of Texas appear to be adequate.
The Nuclear Support Services Department staff conducts a combination audit and training program for the Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department (ERAD) personnel through monthly accompaniment of field sample collections by ERAD personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
. 1/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-282/78-22; 50-306/78-22.
2/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-282/77-18; 50-306/77-14.
3/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-282/78-22; 50-306/78-22.
-3-i l -- _ ._ ..
. . 7.
Implementation of the REMP , The REMP results for CY 1980 in the detailed monthly and annual summary reports were reviewed. No significant trends or results owing to plant operations were identified; however, elevated radio-activity levels were found in air particulate filters in December 1980 to atmospheric weapons testing by the People's Republic of China.
These results confirm those obtained from other nuclear plants in Region III.
As discussed in a previous inspection report,b! the licensee had conducted a special project to study the anomalous presence of tritium in Plant Well No. 2 samples obtained over several years. During this inspection, the inspector collected a sample of the well water for tritium analysis. The results will be reported in an aC> adum to this report.
Examination of sample collection and shipment logs established that all samples had been collected on schedule at the right locations in accord-ance with Section 4.10 of Appendix A to the Technical Specifications.
The inspector noted that the air sampling equipment was operable and properly maintained during a tour of the air monitoring stations. Cali-brations of the air sampling equipment had also been done in accordance with procedural requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Program for Quality Control of Analytical Measurements a.
Management Controls The assignment of responsibility and authority for management control of analytical measurements was discussed with licensee representatives. The responsibility and management of analytical measuremegpshaveremainedthesameasdescribedinapreviousin-spection.- The Section Work Instructions include a description of these responsibilities. The inspector determined the management controls were adequate.
' b.
Nonradiological Analysis of Reactor Coolant Selected licensee procedures, logs, and records for CY 1980 and 1981 to the date of this inspection relating to the nonradiological analysis of reactor coolant were reviewed.
Analytical procedures reviewed included analysis for ammonia, pH, hydrazine, chlorides, boron, silica, conductivity measurements, and spectrometric analysis of reactor coolant metals. No problems were identified.
. During a tour of the chemistry laboratory, the inspector found that all laboratory instruments had been properly calibrated and main-tained and were found operable.
Calibration curves were found to be up to date and calibration stickers on instruments were current. No technical weaknesses were observed.
4/ Ibid.
l S/ Ibid.
-4-
' . . c.
Radiological Analysis of Reactor Plant Effluer.ts , Review of selected licensee counting procedures, records, and logs for CY 1980 and 1981 to date of this inspection relating to quality control of radiological measurements of reactor coolant and effluent revealed no problems.
Procedures reviewed covered plant sampling and frequency of sampling; functional tests of laboratory and counting equipment including calibration , procedures for gamma spectrometer and proportional counters; and radiochemical practices. All radiological procedures had been reviewed by plant management in 1980. No problems were identified.
The inspector noted that each instrument had been properly maintained and calibrated during a tour of the radiochemistry laboratory. Daily, weekly, and monthly checks of each counter or spectrometer had been made. The inspector collection of refueling waste storage tank, observed the licensee and waste gas samples which were split with NRC under the confirmatory measurements inspection program. No prchlems during sample collections were obse rved.
d.
Quality Control of Laboratory Personnel Performance The licensee conducts a formal program checking the quality of analytical measurements by splitting radiological samples on a quarterly basis with a licensee contractor, Science Applications, Inc. The samples are analyzed and compared. The results are comparable with each other and with those obtained by the NRC in its Confirmatory Measurements Inspection Program.
The plant chemist periodically provides split or blind samples to the Radiation Protection Specialists to test the specialists' laboratory proficiency. River water samples are also split on a monthly basis with the licensee's environmental group to check quality control for the NPDES permit. The quality control program appears to be adequate.
Training of Chemistry Laboratory Personnel e.
Currently the licensee trains chemistry personnel on the job.
This includes supervisory observations of analytical measurements.
The licensee has developed documentation through the Section Work Instructions SWI-RP-12 and -23 for training and retraining of labo-ratory personnel. The licensee has developed formal acceptance criteria for adequate training and performance of laboratory personnel's work. No technical weaknesses were observed.
- No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Sample Comparisons in the Confirmatory Measurements Program Results of comparative gamma analyses for effluent samples collected during this inspection and analyzed by the Region III Measurements Van are shown in Table I and the comparison criteria in Attachment 1.
-5- _- - . -
_. - - _ - - . . - - .-
. . Analyses requiring beta counting (tritium, strontium and gross beta) , ' will be completed by the licensee and reported later.
Twelve of twelve comparisons met the established criteria for agreement or possible agreement. The comparisons listed in Table I include an NBS traceable spiked particulate filter given to the licensee because radioactivity in the airborne effluent pathways was too low to permit comparison.
It does not include the results of counting an NBS trace-able spiked charcoal filter given to the licensee for the same reason.
The licensee's results on the charcoal filter were about 30% high but the comparison is not really meaningful because the activity distribution on the spike (face loaded) is not necessarily representative of either the licensee's calibration standard or of the activity distribution on an actually collected sample.
The licensee achieved agreement in the liquid comparison using his normal release geometry (5 liter Marinelli). An earlier attempt with a 60 ml volume failed to identify nuclides at concentrations ranging from 10% to 100% of those listed in Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 of 10 CFR 20.
10.
Exit Interview The inrpectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the licensee's corporate office on June 15, 1981 and at the plant on June 16, 1981 at the conclusion of the inspection.
In both instances, the inspection discussed the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspec-tion. The licensee agreed to analyze the liquid split sample for gross beta, tritium, strontium-80 and 90 and will report the results to Region III. An addendum to this report containing the comparison of the results will be sent to the licensee.
Attachments: 1.
Table I, Prairie Island Second Quarter 1981 Confirmatory Measurements Results 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements , . l-6- _ _ _ _ ,- _ _. -_. * .. . ATTACIND'T 1 . CRITERIA FOR COMPARINC ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an - empirical relationship which combinen 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 resoluiton 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 cetegory 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" Agreeable "B" <3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 3.0 No Comparison 2.5 0. 3 >3 and <4 0.4 - - 3.0 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 T4 and <8 0.5 - - 2.5 2.0 0.4 78 and <16 0.6 1.67 0.5 - - - 2.0 T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.67 0.5 - 1.67 1.33 0.6 I51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - - 1.33 ->200 0.85 - l'.18 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - "A" criteria are applied to the following analyses: Gamma 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: Gamma 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 . TAHLF T t1 4 NUCLFAR DEGllLATORY couviSSION OFFirE OF INSPECTION AND FNFORCFuFNT CONFIRwATORY uEASUQFuENT; P00Got" FACILITY! RDA1DIF It FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 19A1
NDC-------
---LICENCEE----- --NRCtLICFNSFF---- - SAMDLE ISOTOPE DE90t T FAROR RFSULT FRROR RATIO RES T OFF GAS XE 133 1.5E-04 P.7E-06 1.3E-04 1.PE-n% P.7E-01 5.6E+n! A ko 85 8.5E-04 9.4E-05 7.9E-04 5.7E-05 R.3E-01 R.0E+00 A L WASTE CO 58 4.5r-na 1.3E-06 4.Pr-04 P.aF-04 9.3E-n1 3.5E+02 A CO 60 1.2E-04 7.5E-n7 1.0F-04 7.7E-06 P.3F-01 1.6E+02 A AG 110" 1.EF-05 3.5E-07 1.5F-o; Q.;F n7 1.nE+00 4.3E+n) .A %A 124 1.9E-05 4.7E-n7 1.PE-05 1.1E-nA R.nF-01 3.2E+n1 A SR 129 1.PF-09 R.0E-07 1.or-09 1.1F-06 P.3E-n1 1.5E+01 A F SPIKEn r0 57 3.0F-03 5.4F-na 3.1F-93 P.6E-04 1.1F+00 %.6F+00 A SV L63 7.Ar-n3 4.7E-na 7.3r-n3 1.3r-n3 c.
r-01 1.6E+ni a CS 137 1.5r-op g AE-ng 1,pr-np o.RE-04 1.1E+00 1.AF+02 A y 88 3.5F-02 9.7E-n4 3.9E-n? 3.4E-n3 1.nE+00 3.6E+01 A C0 60 P.or-n2 1 9E-na P pr-n? 1 7E-03 1.1E+nn 1.3E+n2 A ~ T TEST DE9'lLTs t A=AGQEEdFNT - DoDISAGaFF"ENT P=POSSIDLF AGPEF4ENT NANO CouPARISON . -1 - i }}