IR 05000348/1986005

Insp Repts 50-348/86-05 & 50-364/86-05 on 860324-28.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qc & Confirmatory Measurements & Info Pertaining to Allegations

ML20197D688
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/17/1986
From:	Adamovitz S, Gloersen W, Stoddart P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197D653	List: IR 05000348/1986005 ML20197D649
References
50-348-86-05, 50-348-86-5, 50-364-86-05, 50-364-86-5, NUDOCS 8605150018
Download: ML20197D688 (6)

Text

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _..

-

.

_

2 E'Eco UNITED STATES

[k o

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[T REGION 11

,

j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.

g 7,

• 1 e

ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323 o,

%...., * 'g gpR29 M6 Report Nos.:

50-348/86-05 and 50-364/86-05 Licensee:

Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291 Docket Nos.:

50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.:

NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name:

Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Cond d:

March 24-28, 1986 Inspectors:

O d

W. 'B. GloWsen

"

Date Signed

.

1. 2MsYktbar?f;s'

Y-#-fd S. S. Adamovitz v

Date Signed Accompanying Pers 1:

G. Stoddart

.

7 b Approved by:

-

s P. G. StoddarW Acting Secti'on Chief Date' Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:

This special, unannounced inspection involved 99 inspector-hours on site in the areas of (1) gathering information pertaining to allegations and (2) quality control and confirmatory measurements.

Results: No apparent violations or deviations were identified.

8605150018 860429 PDR ADOCK 0500030$

G pop

i

-

.

-

REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• J. D. Woodard, General Manager

• R. D. Hill, Operations Manager

• L. S. Williams, Training Manager

• J. McGowan, MSAER

• J. K. Osterholtz, SSAER

• M. Mitchell, Health Physics and Radwasto Supervisor

• J. M..Walden, Radwaste Supervisor

• W. R. Bayne, Chemistry.and Environmental Supervisor C. D. Nesbitt,' Technical Manager D. N. Morey, Assistant Plant Manager - Operations P. Patton, Plant Health Physicist - ALARA Supervisor P. Farnsworth, Section Supervisor, Health Physics Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspector

• W.-H. Bradford i

• Attended exit interview 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were ' summarized - on. March 28, 1986,.with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.

-The inspectors described the

,

purpose of ' this special allegations. information gathering. inspection and R

informed licensee representatives.that the inspection findings pertaining to j

the allegations could not be discussed until the NRC had made an assessment of the findings. The licensee requested that.the findings be transmitted to them as soon as the. review ' process was complete.

The inspectors also

,

identified an unresolved item 2 in the area of confirmatory measurements (See

Paragraph 5).

Additionally, the licensee was made aware of certain safety-significant practices in the Counting Laboratory during a ' telephone-conversation on April 1, 1986 (See Paragraph.4).

' Unresolved - Items are matters about which more 'information is required' to determine whether it is acceptable or may involve violations or deviations.

.

.

-

.

- - -

-

.

-

.

.

-

- -

-

.

.

3.

Licensee Action on Previously-Identified Inspector Followup Items (92701)

(Closed) 50-348/85-27-03 and 50-364/85-27-03: Completion of Fe-55, Sr-89, and Sr-90 analyses by October 31, 1985. The inspectors reviewed the results of the most recent analyses and noted that the analyses were completed by October 31, 1985. - The inspectors noted, however, that the licensee results for Fe-55 and Sr-89 were not in agreement with the known values.

This concern is discussed in greater detail in Paragraph 5 of this report.

4.

Allegations (99024)

The main purpose of this inspection was to followup and evaluate information reTated to allegations that have been recently made concerning past practices at the Farley Nuclear plant.

The inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the objective of the inspection and explained that discussions related to the followup of allegations would have to be deferred until NRC reviewed and evaluated the information developed in the followup of allegations. The inspectors reviewed records and procedures, interviewed technicians, and observed radioactive sample collection, preparation, and analytical activities in progress.

The inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the objectives of the inspection and explained that any findings or concerns that were related directly to the allegations could not be discussed until the NRC-had made a review of. the information collected.

During this inspection, however, the inspectors noted certain practices in the Unit 2 Counting Laboratory which were determined to have been af sufficient safety significance that the licensee was made aware of the inspectors' concerns during a telephone conversation on April 1,1986.

The inspectors informed the licensee of indications of multiple radioactive sample collections and analyses occurring in conjunction with the practice of recording only the lowest values in the logbook or retaining only the analysis records having the lowest values.

The inspectors had ~ also noted that there was no consistent mechanism for a radioactive sample logging and tracking system in the Unit 2 Counting Laboratory.

The inspectors noted that certain radioactive samples were brought into the laboratory without recording the sample in a sample entry logbook and also noted that there was no apparent prioritization of the samples brought in.

Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality-Assurance for Radiological Monitoring P_rograms (N_ormal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment, should be used. as.

. guidance.

5.

Confirmatory Measurement Sample Analysis (84725)-

The inspectors reviewed the licensee results for-H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 analyses of a spiked sample prepared by the:NRC contract laboratory.

Comparisons of the licensee results to the known ~ v_alues are listed in i

Table 1.

The acceptance criteria for comparing analytical measurements is

'

described in' Attachment 1.

The H-3 and Sr-90 results were in agreement; however, the Fe-55 and Sr-89 were not in agreement. The inspectors noted

,

that in 1984, the licensee's measured'value for Fe-55-was 36*. greater than l

,

i L.

-

- -

-

-

-

-

- -

-

--

- -

-

-

-

-

.

.

the known value and in 19S5 the measured value for Fe-55 was 42*4 lower than the known value.

The inspectors noted that the licensee was using an internal proportional counter located at the Training Center to perform the Fe-55 analyses.

The licensee indicated that a new procedure was being formulated so that Fe-55 contained in liquid samples would be counted on a liquid scintillation counter (LSC). The licensee had ordered LSC standards spiked with Fe-55. The inspectors also noted that the licensee had obtained liquid samples spiked with unknown quantities of Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 from a vendor for veri fyi ng their analytical techniques; however, the samples had not been analyzed at the time of this inspection.

The inspectors discussed with the licensee apparent problems in analytical determinations for Fe-55, Sr-89, and Sr-90. The inspectors indicated to the licensee that a liquid sample spiked with H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 prepared by the NRC's contract laboratory should be expected by May 1986.

The inspectors informed the licensee that, on basis of unacceptable errors in the 1984 and 1985 analyses, their performance in the analysis of the next NRC spiked liquid sample would be considered an unresolved item (50-348/86-05-01 and 50-364/S6-05-01).

One unresolved item was identified in this program are.

_

_

_... -

.

.

_..

~

.

l-ATTACHMENT 1-CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS 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 judgement limits denoting agreement or disagreement

,

between licensee and NRC results are variable. This variability is a. function of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty. As the ratio of the NRC

>

value to its associated uncertainty, referred to in this program as " Resolution"2 increases, the range of acenptable differences between. the NRC and licensee values should be more restrictive. Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and i

licensee values must be' considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.

.

For comparison purposes, a ratio 2 of the licensee value to the NRC value for each j

individual nuclide is computed. This ratio is then evaluated for agreement based on the calculated resolution. The corresponding resolution and calculated ratios l

which denote agreement are listed in Table I below.

Values outside of the.

f agreement ratios for a selected nuclides are considered in disagreement.

i NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide 2 Resolution = Associated Uncertainty for the Value Licensee Value i

2 Comparison Ratio = NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 - Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs.

Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio for Resolution Agreement

<4 0.4 - 2.5 4-7 0.5 - 2.0

'

8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33:

<

51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25

.

> 200 0.85 - 1.18 i

?

+

l

,

.

...i.

.i

.

.

..

IAOLL1 CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS OF H-3, SH-89. AND SR-90 ANALYSIS

.

FOR THE J. M.

I ARLEY NUCLEAR PL ANI ON OC10DIR 30, 1985

,

.

Licensee NRC Ratio

[tQJ/JJr1[11 DLCJ/gnitj Resoly11on

[({pcenseo/NRC)

Compa ri son isotope J

H-3 2. 6 84 E-14 2.7210.06 E-to f5 0.97 Agreement re-55 6.90 E-5 1.18t0.Ola E f6

0.58 Disagreement S r-89 3.18 E-5 8.9710.27 E-6

3. 5's D i sag reement S r-90 1.07 E-6 1.3010.05 E-6

0.82 Agreement e

.

.

.

.

.