IR 05000373/1980038
| ML19339A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Oestmann M, Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A143 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-80-38, 50-374-80-24, NUDOCS 8011030128 | |
| Download: ML19339A150 (8) | |
Text
-
_-
_
.
j
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-373/80-38; 50-374/80-24 Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. CPPR-99; CPPR-100
>
Licensee: C >mmonwealth Edison Company i
P.J. Box 767
-
Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: La Salle County Nuclear Station; Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office (August 26, 1980)
La Salle Site, Seneca, IL (August 27-28, 1980)
Inspection Conducted: August 26-28, 1980
")/f.,h.h?idk/dWvrw G,
,
Inspector:
M. J. Oestmann
' +-afA1
.
rzero
.
i Approved by:
.
. Paperiello, Acting Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section
,
Inspection Summary
.
Inspection on August 26-28, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-373/80-38; 50-374/80-24)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of:
(1) environmental protection for Units 1 and 2, including nonradiological monitoring and radiological programs and status of open items from previous irmpection; and (2) confirmatory measurements, including quality assurance and quality control of analytical measurements and close-out of analytical measurements of spiked effluent samples obtained previously. The inspection involved 17 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
,
i i
8'031030 M
, - _ - _.
.
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
'
J. Golden, Administrator, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), Technical Services Nuclear Department, Ceco V. Chaney, GSEP Coordinator, Ceco C. McDonough, Assistant to the Director, Environmental Affairs Department (EAD)
R. Montzingo, Staff Biologist (EAD), Ceco
- R. Bishop, Technical Staff Supervisor, LSCS
- F. Lawless, Rad / Chem Supervisor, LSCS J. Ullrich, Engineering Assistant, LSCS J. Gutierrez, Environmental Site Coordinator, LSCS Other Personnel D. Bedeker, tenant farmer of adjacent farmland owned by Mr. H. Killelea and Mrs. F. Nessinger
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on August 28, 2980.
The inspector also ii.erviewed several other licensee employees during the course of the inspection, including health physics and chemistry technicians, members of the construction and security force, and general office personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/80-27 and 50-374/80-10):
a.
Seeding of the Armstrong Run by the tenant farmer. The banks of the Armstrong Run have been partially seeded by the tenant farmer this past summer. The inspector observed grass growing on parts of the banks. The tenant farmer stated he may not complete the seeding until 1981.
This item remains open until the seeding is completed, b.
(0 pen) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/78-26):
Completion of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (LPZ's). The licensee's Generating Stations Emergency Plan (GSEP) and annexes have been revised and are under review by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The licensee is revising the LPZs in light of changes in emergency planning requirements by the NRC.
This item remains open, pending approval of the 1 vised GSEP, Annex and LPZ's by NRC.
(Closed) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/79-05; 50-374/79-]3):
c.
Completion of the Confirmatory Measurements Program. The licensee completed analysis of spiked samples provided by NRC. The resuds are discussed in Paragraph 6.b. of this report. This item is considered closed.
-2-
.
.
.
.
'
d.
(Closed) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/80-08; 50-374/80-04):
Submission of investigation report and plan of action of cause of rupture of blowdown pipe required in accordance with Section 3.E(2)
of the Construction Permits. The licensee submitted a summary report prior to August 1, 1980, to the NRC discussing the cause of the rupture of the blowdown pipe. The report discusses the testing performed on the failed section of blowdown pipe and the probable mode of failure.
The inspector has no further questions on this item. This item is considered closed.
(0 pen) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/80-08; 50-374/80-04):
e.
Preparation of management instructions to meet the five licensee commitments discussed on pages 4-6 in Section 4.2 of the Final Environmental Statement-Operating License. The licensee is pro-posing Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications to include these commitments pertaining to erosion control of the cooling lake dikes and banks of the Armstrong Run.
However, only one commitment, visual inspection of vegetative cover of the cooling lake dikes, is included. The item therefore remains open, pending consideration of the other commitments and approval of the ETS.
3.
Management Controls The inspector reviewed the licenaee's administrative and procedural controls regarding the environmental monitoring programs and imple-mentation of environmental protection practices to assure compliance with construction permit requirements. The management control aspects, including organizational responsibilities, delegations of authority and administrative procedures have remain previousenvironmentalinspectionreportgthesameasdescribedina 4.
Technical Specifications The inspector discussed the status of the Technical Specifications for the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) with licensee representatives. The licensee has proposed Section 3/4.12 for the REMP Technical Specifications which are under review by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Once approved, the Technical Specifications will be used as primary inspection criteria for future inspections.
The inspector also received a draft copy of the proposed Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications. Once these are approved by NRR, they will also serve as primary inspection criteria for future inspections.
5.
Environmental Protection The inspector noted that the licensee had maintained a dust control program with the use of a water spraying truck to reduce dust.
1/ IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-30; 50-374/79-14.
-3-
_
,.
._
_
.. _ _ _
.__-_ _
_ _
.
,
.
.
The inspector observed the growth of crown vetch and other grasses
!
on the cooling lake dikes. The licensee conducts a cooling lake I
dike inspection in accordance with a procedure (LTS-1000-5, Revision 1,
November 16, 1979) to verify that the integrity of the dikes is not
degraded by erosion. The inspector reviewed monthly reports for 1980 which indicated that the natural shoreline of the west end of the i
cooling lake showed signs of erosion. A small island about 100 feet in diameter was created about 300 feet south of the blowdown structure by erosion. Erosion on sides of drainage ditch from runoff from the exterior slopes of the dikes was evident. The licensee reseeded the
,
!
dikes during the spring of 1980 to minimize erosion. These items will
<
)
be examined during a subsequent inspection.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Confirmatory Measurements Program i
a.
Licensee's Program for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Analytical Measurements
,
(1) Nonradiological Analysis of Reactor Coolant
'
The inspector reviewed selected licensee laboratory proce-dures for nonradiological effluent and chemical analysis of
^
reactor coolant to determine their adequacy and completeness.
Procedures reviewed covered analyses of chloride, free
'
mineral acid, biochemical demand, boron, conductivity, pH, total hardness, phosphate, acidity and alkalinity, suspended
!
solids, fluoride, spectrometric analysis of various metals, operation of laboratory instruments, sampling techniques and
sample preparation. All procedures noted above were current (most having been prepared or revised in 1979 and 1980) and were deemed technically adequate. The procedures have been reviewed by plant management and the onsite review committee.
"
During a tour of the cold chemistry laboratory and sample preparation room the inspector observed that all laboratory instruments appeared to be functional and operable; cali -
bration curves were up to date and chemical solutions dated currently.
Performance checks of instruments are made daily and calibrations are made daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly.
j Surveillance testing and calibrations are performed according to a prescribed schedule contained in a computer printout.
I No technical weaknesses were observed.
i i
The inspector also examined logs, check sheets, and other j
records of analytical results which are reviewed by the lead chemist. The inspector noted that the licensee's
>
management is informed of any usual results.
No problems were identified.
i
- 4-
-
,
,
,
-~mm,4
-
n
,-w w-m e--
-w r
- -
y
,
-
.
-
-~. _ ~.
.
_--
..
_.
_
..
!
.
?
-
i
'
(2) Radiological Analysis of Reactor Coolant j'
Selected reactor coolant _ procedures reviewed included radiochemical separation of iodine and copper, efficiency calibration of a gamma spectrometer, sample preparation
for gross alpha and beta counting, sampling of liquid and gaseous waste, radiation monitor discriminator settings, effluent discharge calculations and preparation of required l
reports of effluent releases. The licensee has completed i
his radiochemical and radiation monitoring instrumentation
'
procedures. All procedures appeared current and deemed j
technically adequate.
!
!
The inspector examined the licensee's radiochemical i
laboratory and counting room. All instruments appeared
functional and operable. All calibrations were current.
The inspector examined selected logs, check sheets and other
,
records where future analytical results will be kept. No technical weaknesses were identified.
(3) Training of Chemistry Laboratory Personnel i
The inspector discussed programs for training chemistry
i laboratory personnel with licensee representatives. The
!
licensee has developed a formal training program involving
'
a one-week orientation; a five-week system description of j
plant operation; and a fourteen-week radiation laboratory
'
training program, including theory, hands-on laboratory practice and experience at the licensee's other nuclear plants. Laboratory personnel are given examinations during
,
the six month formal training period. The licensee's
{
training program in chemical and radiochemical laboratory
' practices appeared to be adequate.
.
(4) Quality Control of Laboratory Operations
,
The inspector examined the licensee's quality control pro-
!
cedures for nonradiological and radiological measurements
'
involving performance checks and calibrations of chemical and radiation counting equipment. The licensee has estab-i lished control charts for background and check sources with
each radiation counting instrument.
In addition, a program has been established to check the laboratory reactor coolant
>
!
chemistry results by means of spikes and blind quality control I
samples..No technical weaknesses v-re identified.
4'
,
j
.b.
Comparative Analytical Results The licensee was provided spiked radioactive effluent samples to test his analytical capability to perform. radiochemical analyses.
The samples provided included a spiked particulate filter, charcoal
'
.
i i
l
--5-
--
. _.
,
...... -
-,
-. -
-_.
.
-.
-- -
-
,,'
.
.
.
'
adsorber, liquid solution, and a simulated gas sample. The results of comparative analyses performed on these spiked samples are shown in Table 1.
The criteria for comparing measurement results are given in Attachment 1.
The licenste results showed all agreements with the NRC Reference Laboratory results.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of this inspection on August 28, 1980. The purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection were discussed. The licensee acknowledged the need to complete the emergency planning procedures (LPZ's) prior to issuance of the operating license.
Attachments:
1.
Criteria for Comparaing Analytical Measurements 2.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program i
!
l-6-
!
I
ATTACllMENT 1
-
.
.
,
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAT. MEASUREMENTS
,
,
'
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 licensec'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 Z
narrowed category of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution baing used.
'
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Poscible Possible
,
Agreement Ay,rcement "A" g recabic "B"
-
-
,
..
<3
,
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
.
>3 and <4 d.4 - 2.5 0. 3
- 3.0 No Comparison l
>4 and <8 0.5 - 2.0
- 0. 4
- 2.5 0.3
- 3.0
>8 and <16 O.6 1.67 0.5
- 2.0 0.4
- 2.5
'
'
-
Il6 and <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 analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 kcV.
.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma cncrgy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 kcV.
.
Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Gross beta, where samples arc. counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
s
.
,
.
.
.
"
+
e
,
.
.
..
.-
T
.
.
.
,
~
<
.
.
.e e me. * * *
em..,
%..
.
s *
} 7*
, ww w. - ~..... +.. - -..., _..,
. _ _,,
,,, _,
.,
.
iir
'
.
?
.
.
'
TABLE I
.
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE :0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFI RM ATORY MEASUREM ENTS PROGR AM FACILITY: LASALLE FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1980
- -- q N R C- -- -- --
'---LICENSEE-----
---NRC: LICENSEE----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
F SPIKED CO 57 6. 3E-0 4 2 0E-05 5 9E-04 1.6E-05 9 4E-01 3.1E+01 A
CO 60 2.1E-03 6 0E-05 2 3E-03 4.5E-05 1 1E+00 3.5E+01 A
CS 134 1.4E-03 5 0E-05 1 5E-03 3 2E-05 1 1E+00 2 8E +01 A
CS 137 4.1E-03 1.2E-04 4 4E-03 5.0E-05 1 1E+00 3.4E+01 A
L SPIKED H 3 6 3E-03 6.0E-05 6 2E-03 6. 2 E -04 9 8E-01 1.0 E + 02 A
SR 89 3 1E-03 1.2E-04 2 7E-03 5 7E-04 8 7E-01 2 6E +01 A
SR 90 6 2E-04 2.4E-05 5 6E-04 6.1E-05 9 0E-01 2.6E+01 A
CO 57 1.6E-04 5 0E-06 1 4E-04 2.6E-06 8 8E-01 3.2 E + 01 A
CS 134 8.6E-04 2 4E-05 9 5E-04 1.0E-05 1 1E+00 3.6E + 01 A
CO 60 1.1E-03 3 0E-05 1 1 E-03 1 3E-05 1 0E+00 3 7E +01 A
C SPIKED CO 57 2.2E-03 0 0E-05 1 8E-03 2.9E-05
' 8 2E-01 2.4E + 01 A
CO 60 1.3E-02 5 0E-04 1 1E-02 1.1E-04 8 5E-01 2 6E + 01 A
-
CS 134 8.2E-03 3 0E-04 7 1 E-03 7.1 E-0 5 8 7E-01 2 7E+01 A
CS 137 2.3E-02 7.0E-04 1 9E-02 1.0E-04 8.3E-01 3.3E+01 A
BA 133
~6. 7E +0 4 2 0E+03 6 4 E+04 2.0E402 9 6E-01 3.4E+01 A
G SPIKED B A 133 1 6E+06 5.0E+04 2.1E+06 6.2E+03 1 3E+00 3.2E+01 A
,
GAMMA A 1.9E+06 5 0E+04 2 2E+06 1.1E+04 1 2E+00 3.8E+01 A
i
T TES T RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT 0= DISAGREEMENT P=POSSIBLE A GREEMENT N=NO COMPARISON
.