IR 05000387/1982013
| ML20052E975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1982 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J, Kottah J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052E961 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-82-13, NUDOCS 8205110583 | |
| Download: ML20052E975 (4) | |
Text
...
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
5_0-387/82-13 Docket No.
50-387
,
License No. CPPR-101 Priority Category B
Licensee:
Pennsylvania Power' and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Facility Name:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station - Unit 1 Inspection At:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 6-7 1982
) lf-
M E-2 3 ~O L Inspectors: N-
_ adiation Laboratory date signed
J. J. Kot a,
Specialist
}.
a st.26'-Eb C. 'Jang, Radi ion Specialist date signed
,
i l'
Approved by:
'./.
$-24-hd R. J. Boyfs, Chief, Independent date signed MeasurenMnts and Environmental Protection Section
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection-conducted on April 6-7, 1932 (Inspection Report No. 50-387/82-13)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced pre-operational inspection of the licensee's chemical and radiochemical measurements program. Areas reviewed included:
organization, procedures, program for the quality control of analytical measurements; facilities and equipment, and training. The inspection involved 20 inspector-hours on site by two NRC regionally based inspectors.
Results:
No. items of noncompliance were identified.
8205110583 820427 DRADOCK05000g
'
--,
..
-.
.
,.. - -.-.-
-
. -.
-
- -,
.
.
DETAILS'
1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
"D. J. Thompson, Assistant Superintendent of Plant
- M. B. Detamore, >lant Engineering Supervisor
- F. T. Eisenhuth, Senior Compliance Engineer
- R. E. Doebler, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. D. Green, QA Supervisor Operations L. K. Vnuk, Senior Chemist Other Site Personnel H. Helmholz, NWT Corporation
- denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Organization The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemistry organization which is part of the Technical Section.
The Chemistry Supervisor reports to the Technical Supervisor who in turn reports to the Plant Superintendent. At the present time the chemistry organization consists of the Chemistry Supervisor, a Senior Chemist, a foreman, three Level 2 Technicians, five Level 1 Technicians, and five contractor technicians.
The Chemistry Supervisor stated that the chemistry staff would be expanded as additional personnel are hired.
The inspector stated that the final organization would be reviewed in a subsequent inspection prior to fuel load.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l 3.
Procedures The inspector reviewed procedures in the following areas:
liquid and airborne effluent sampling and analysis, reactor water sampling and analysis, instrument calibration, effluent monitor calibration, and
compliance with effluent release limits.
The inspector noted that the l
licensee had not completed writing all of the procedures in the above
areas. The procedures that had been written were being reviewed and tested by the licensee.
The inspector stated that since the procedures were not finalized and many changes may be made, this area would be i
reviewed in a subsequent inspection prior to fuel load.
!
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l
.
.
4.
Quality Control The inspector discussed with the licensee the program for the quality control of analytical measurements.
Procedure AD-QA-445, Chemistry Program Quality Assurance, defines the guidelines for the chemistry QA program.
In addition, other individual procedures implement specific aspects of the QC program such as chi-squared tests and reagent preparation and control.
The inspector again noted that not all procedures had been finalized, and, therefore, this area would be reviewed in a subsequent-inspection.
The inspector discussed laboratory QC in general and Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment, with the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Facilities and Equipment The inspector examined the licensee's chemistry laboratories, counting room, and airborne and liquid effluent monitors. The licensee's counting equipment consists of gas flow proportional counters, a liquid scintillation counter, and a computer based gamma spectroscopy system with two Ge(L1)
detectors and shields.
The inspector noted that the licensee's counting equipment was not yet calibrated.
The inspector inquired as to the availability of radioactivity standards.
The licensee stated that some standards were on site and that other standards would be available shortly.
The inspector discussed counting geometries with the licensee.
The inspector also discussed analyses required or composite samples such as Sr-89 and Sr-90.
The licensee stated that a decision had not been made as to whether tnese analyses would be performed on site or by a vendor laboratory. The inspector stated that if a vendor laboratory is used for any analyses, the licensee would have to obtain controlled copies of the vendor's procedures for review and approval.
The inspector discussed simulated effluent samples which the NRC would send to the licensee to verify his capability to measure radioactivity in effluents.
The samples would be prepared by the NRC reference laboratory, DOE Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory, and would contain nuclides for which the licensee's Technical Specifications required analyses.
The licensee stated that he might be ready to receive the samples by May, 1982.
The inspector stated that he would contact the licensee to coordinate the timing and shipment of the samples so the analyses results could be reviewed prior to fuel loading.
The inspector also examined the licensee's turbine building and reactor building airborne _ effluent monitors.
The inspector noted that the monitors had not been calibrated as yet, and the procedures for calibration had not been written. The inspector discussed the calibration with the licen.>ee's contractor who would be writing the procedures and performing the calibrations. Based on an examination of the monitors it appeared that the licensee would be sampling iodine on a charcoal cartridge at
o
-
flow rate of approximately 3 cfm.
The inspector discussed charcoal cartridge residence times with the licensee and stated that at a flow rate of 3 cfm the licensee must have a documented collection efficiency for the charcoal cartridge.
The inspector stated that this entire area would be reviewed in a subsequent inspection prior to fuel loading.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Training The licensee's training program for chemistry personnel was reviewed.
The training program includes vendor training, classroom training, and procedure qualification.
The inspector reviewed documentation which confirmed that the training program was being implemented.
The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
l