ML18139A486
| ML18139A486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1980 |
| From: | Montgomery D, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A487 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-80-21, 50-281-80-22, NUDOCS 8009160497 | |
| Download: ML18139A486 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1980021
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report Nos. 50-280/ 80-21 50-281/80-22
Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Richmond, VA
23261
Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
Inspection at Surry Site, Surry Virginia
Inspector: ~, p/ f1,1frffr*[k,d
D.M. Montgomery
,'
Accompanying Personnel:
SUMMARY
E. Workman
P.C. McPhail
Inspection on June 3-6, 1980
Areas Inspected
te Signed
Date Signed
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours on site in the
areas of quality control and confirmatory measurements including:
review of the
laboratory quality control program; review of chemical and radiochemical proce-
dures, review of quality control audits; and comparison of the results of split
samples analyzed by the licensee and the NRC Region II Mobile Laboratory.
Results
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified
in three areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area. (Infraction-failure
to have written procedures for preparation of efficiency calibration standards
for the Ge(Li) detectors (280/80-21-03, 281/80-22-03)
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
J.L. Wilson, Station Manager
DETAILS
- R.F. Saunders, Assistant Station Manger
- R.M. Smith, Health Physics Supervisor
- B. Garber, Assistant Health Physics Supervisor
A. Stafford, Health Physicist
- F.L. Thomasson, Corporate Health Physicist
F.T. Swindell Chemistry Supervisor
NRC Resident Inspector
~\\-D. Burke
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 6, 1980 with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
A licensee representative
agreed to perform the analyses referred to in paragraph nine and report the
results to NR,C:RII.
The item of noncompliance was acknowledged by a Licensee
representative who also agreed to meet a sensitivity of 5E-7 microcuries
per milliliter for the analyses of the principal gamma ray emitters in
liquid effluents by September 1, 1980.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Noncompliance (Report Nos. 50-280/77-22 and 50-281/77-22)
The inspector reviewed the Licensee's response to a previous item of noncom-
pliance (Report Nos. 50-280/77-22 and 50-281/77-22) for failure to include
radiological laboratory equipment in the QA program for measuring and test
equipment.
The inspector verified that the equipment is now included in a
QA program as specified in Chapter 12 of the QA Manual.
The inspector had
no further questions and this item is considered closed.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Laboratory Quality Control Program
The inspector reviewed the licensee's quality control program for chemical
and radiochemical measurements in the following areas:
a.
-2-
Assignment of Responsibility and Authority to Manage and Conduct the
QC Program:
The Health Physics Supervisor is responsible for radiological measure-
ments including the QC program for radiation detection instrumentation.
Authority to manage the day to day operations of the QC program has
been delegated to an Assistant Health Physics Supervisor,. who is
responsible for the counting room.
The Chemistry Supervisor is respon-
sible for the QC program for stable Chemistry and associated instrumenta-
tion.
b.
Provisions for Audits/Inspections
Chapter 18 of the VEPCO Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual
provides for annual audits in the areas of chemistry and health physics
to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program
and to determine the effectiveness of the program. The Station Resident
Quality Control Engineer is responsible for the implementation of the
station audit program.
c.
Methods for Assuring Deficiencies and Deviations in the Program are
Recognized, Identified, and Corrected.
d.
The individuals conducting audits are required to.become familiar with
the requirements of the areas to be audited and prepare an audit
checklist that is approved prior to use.
A written audit report is
prepared and distributed within five days from the post audit conference.
All audit reports are reviewed by the cognizant supervisor and, when
applicable, members of the Station Nuclear Safety Operating Committee.
The Quality Control Staff is responsible for follow-up action to:
(1)
Obtain the written reply to the audit report.
(2)
Evaluate the adequacy of the response.
(3)
Assure that corrective action is identified and scheduled for
each recommendation.
(4)
Assure that any required auditee follow-up reply is received when
due.
(5)
Confirm that corrective action is accomplished as scheduled.
Quality Control of Purchased and Contracted Services Analyses of
liquid effluent samples for Sr-90 , Sr-89 and P-32 are contracted to
Teledyne Isotopes, Inc.
The Teledyne quality assurance program was
audited by Corporate Quality Assurance (Audit Number 78-57) and found
to be acceptable. Teledyne Isotopes was added to the list of approved
vendors for radiochemical analyses.
-3-
6.
Review of Chemistry and Radiochemistry Procedures
a.
The
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
inspector reviewed the following procedures:
H.P.-3.1-1, Liquid Scintillation Counting and Calibration, 2-21-79.
H.P.-3.1-2, Internal Proportional Counter-Nuclear Measurement
Corporation Model PC-4 Operation and Calibration Check, 5-25-79.
H.P.-3.1-10, GELI Detector Calibration, 6-21-78.
H.P.-3.1-17, Operating Procedures for ND 6600, 5-2-79.
H.P.-3.5-1, Radioactive Liquid Waste Discharges.
C.P.-45, Tritium 9-13-78.
CP-8, Chloride, Colorimetric Method, 10-12-78.
CP-24, Dissolved Oxygen, Indigo-Carmine Method, 9-6-78.
CP-13A Fluoride, Specific Ion Electrode Method, 1-25-79.
The inspector discussed the results of the procedure review with licensee
representatives as noted in paragraphs 6b, 6c, and 6d.
b.
The iqspector noted that the procedures for operation of the liquid
scintillation counters, gas proportional counter, and Ge(Li) detectors
did not specify corrective actions if the acceptance criteria were not
met. In addition, there were no provisions for resolution and background
checks of the GeLi detectors. A licensee representative agreed to add
these QC checks and corrective actions to the procedures.
(280/80-21-01,
281/80-22-01)
c.
The inspector noted that liquid effluent samples are counted in a
100-cc geometry for ten minutes.
This results in an approximate lower
limit of detection of lE-6 to 4E-6 microcuries/cc for principal gamma
ray emitters. The inspector stated that this did not meet the recom-
mended sensitivity of 5E-7 microcuries/cc as stated in Appendix A of
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1. 21 dated June 1979. A licensee representative
agreed to meet the sensitivity of 5E-7 microcuries/cc for liquid effluents
by September 1, 1980.
(280/80-21-02, 281/80-22-02)
d.
The inspector noted on June 4, 1980 that there were no procedures for
preparation of efficiency calibration standards for Ge(Li) detectors
which are used to assure compliance with Technical Specifications for
the release of radioactive effluents.
The inspector informed the
licensee that this constituted an item of noncompliance with Technical
Specification 6. 4.A that requires detailed written procedures with
appropriate check-off lists and instructions to be provided for release
of radioactive effluents.
A licensee representative acknowledged the
7.
-4-
item of noncompliance and stated that procedures for the preparation
of standards would be written and implemented.
(280/80-21-03,
281/80-22-03).
Review of Records and Logs
The inspector reviewed selected parts of the following records and logs and
had no further questions:
a.
GeLi Calibration Records 1-4-80, 6-5-79, 12-20-78, and 1-3-78.
b.
GeLi Daily Performance Checks, June, 1979 - June, 1980.
c.
Liquid Scintillation Daily Checks, June 1979 to June 1980.
d.
Liquid Scintillation Counter Calibrations, 12-5-78 to 6-5-80.
e.
Gas Proportional Counter Calibrations April 1978 to June 1980.
f.
Gas Proportional Counter Daily Checks, April 1978 to June 1980.
g.
Plateau Determinations for Gas Proportional Counters, January 1978 to
June 1980.
h.
Liquid Scintillation Statistical Counting Errors, 9-16-77 to 5-31-80.
i.
Fluoride Standard Curves, 3-7-80, 9-4-79, 2-5-79, 3-28-78.
j.
Chloride Standard Curves, 5-5-80, 1-31-80, 10-25-79, 7-30-79.
k.
Orion pH Meter Calibration, August 1978 to May 1980.
1.
Beckman pH Meter Calibration, 11-29-79 to 5-9-80.
m.
Sartorius Balance Calibration; August 1978 and August 1979.
n.
Bausch and Lomb Spectrophotometer Calibration, July 1979 and April 1980.
o.
Results of Analyses of Quality Control Samples for Stable Chemistry,
1-7-80, 2-11-80 and 5-5-80.
8.
Review of Audi ts
The inspector reviewed the following audits in the areas of chemistry and
health physics and had no further questions:
a.
Health Physics Program Audit Number S79-3, April 20, 1979 .
b.
Chemistry Audit Number S79-25, December 17, 1979.
9.
-5-
Confirmatory Measurements
Liquid and gaseous samples were collected during this inspection and counted
by the licensee and the NRC RII Mobile Laboratory to verify the licensee's
capability to measure radionulides in effluent samples.
The samples were
analyzed by gamma-ray spectroscopy and included samples from a liquid waste
tank, reactor coolant system, waste gas decay tank, and station vent (charcoal
cartridge and particulate filter).
An aliquot of the liquid waste tank
sample was sent to the NRC contract laboratory for H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90
analyses.
The licensee was requested to perform the same analyses and
report the results to NRC:RII for comparison.
The results of the licensee
and NRC analyses are presented ,in Table 1 with acceptance criteria in
Attachment 1.
The data show agreement or possible agreement for all radio-
nuclides.
The inspector noted that the licensee analysis of the waste gas decay tank
sample appeared to overestimate the concentration. A licensee representative
indicated that the efficiencies for the 100 cc gas geometry were not determined
by calibration with actual gas samples.
The efficiencies for the 100 cc
liquid geometry are used for counting gas samples.
The inspector noted
~hat the licensee's calibration procedure states that the actual physical
nature or shape of the source should be used for calibration.
A licensee
representative agreed to review the calibration technique for gases and
consider the use of gaseous standards. (280/80-21-04, 281/80-22-04)
Results of Confirmatory Measurements
June 3-6, 1980
CONCENTRATION, Microcuries/cc
SAMPLE
"ISOTOPE
SURRY
NRC
Waste Gas
7. 81+0. 02E-1
6. 66+. OlE-1
Decay Tank
Xe-133M
1.19+0.07E-2
8.6+.04E-3
6/5/80
Xe-135
8.91+0.4E-3
6.9+0.2E-3
Co-58
7.3+0.3E-3
6.4+0.2E-3
6/4/80
9.8+2.4E-4
9, 2+1. 2E-4
Sr-92
1. 3+0. 4E-3
8.4+2.6E-4
Tc-99M
1.2+0.2E-3
1. o+O. lE-3
l.98+0.04E-2
l.99+0.02E-2
I-132
3.7+0.lE-2
3.47+0.06E-2
I-133
2.4o+0.04E-2
2.36+0.03E-2
1-134
6.7+0.6E-2
6.9+0.3E-2
I-135
3.9+0.2E-2
3. 9+0. lE-2
ND
4. 3+1. OE-4
Cs--138
1.5+0. 2E-1
2. o+O. lE-1
Na-24
1. 9+0. 2E-3
8. 7+1.4E-4
at Surry
RATIO
SURRY/NRG
1.17
1.38
1.29
1.14
1. 06
1.5
1.2
.99
1. 07
1. 02
0.97
1. 0
NC
.75
2.2
COMPARISON
Agreement
Possible Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
1:.greement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Agreement
Possible Agreement
Liquid Waste
Co-58
5.5+0.3E-5
5.o+O.lE-5
1.1
Agreement
6/4/80
2.32+0.06E-4
2.38+0.03E-4
. 97
Agreement
1-131
2.25+0.04E-4
2.09+0.02E-4
1. 08
Agreement
1-133
l.Oo+0.03E-4
9.5+0.2E-5
1.05
Agreement
Tc-99M
5.13+1.3E-6
5.7+0.7E-6
.89
Agreement
Cs-134
6. 8+1. 8E-6
ND
NC
NC
1.6+0.2E-5
1.6+0.lE-5
1.0
Agreement
Vent Charcoal
1-131
5.l+0.2E-12
4.8+0.2E-12
1. 06
Agreement
Cartridge
1-133
7.6+2.9E-13
6. 2+1. 2E-13
1.22
Agreement
6/4/80
Vent
Co-58
4.5+0.3E-13
5. 3+0. 3E-13
.84
Agreement
Particulate
8.o+0.3E-12
1. 03+0. OSE-11
.78
Agreement
Filter
1. 9+1. 2E-13
ND
NC
NC
6/4/80
Cs-134
2. 9+1. 3E-13
ND
NC
NC
9+2E-13
6. 8+1. 7E-13
1. 32
Agreement
NOTES:
ND - Not Detected;
NC -
No Comparison
I L
CRTTfKTA FOR co*MP:'\\RT~;c ~\\~*::\\ f.\\TI ~\\.\\J.
~*t:_:,.stlRE:-!~* _-.~T:~
**-------*--------------*-**---*-~-----* ...... ;-------*----------------
Th.i.s ;:itr,1c-h:r,ent ,n,;.,vides critc*ria fnr c.'.'11'.f',ol ing r,,~*:,,1~-'°; cf capahi!.ity
tc:scs ar:~j
,... ... ,:*rif:L*.~.::1ti.on me.r.1surt::1H~nts.
Tl*~i .. '. crit
1.-.'.ria :1re ;,~-1se~*i on an
empiric.J1 J-e1~~ti.cHship which c~)"!"nl.--:i*.-,;.-_,_:; pt ;,_;r c::ixpt:*tit.'~\\:~.'] an,j t.hP acct1:--(il:*~,
n(~f:'d:3
(';f th:i S pro .... r,t-affi ..
Jn t.hc::~~e critt 1ri.:.:i, the judgrucnt li'.;!.it::: :1rc v:-;rit!.~;:f* J.:1 r1_:l.::ti.on to tht.:
con:r~<1ri~:cn of th2 NRC Reft:~1.*enc.(.:: Labci*,.1tnry
1
~, \\'t:11.1_:c to J.::.:-; :.~.; . ...;c..:-.:iaretl
u1~certainty.
As that ratio, 1.*c1[e:rrPd lo in Lhi~~ pror:r.::1::1 21s tlResc1 ut io;/
1
,
increases, t }1'.j a cc epta bi. J. -.i.t y c* f a l .li...~ c r1s ~*.: L: ' ::: n:~ :1. ':~:u t ,..:,r:12n L s h,)u l d he mor c
.*-;1.:l(Jf*t*j\\,t:*.
Convf*r*~*;e.ly.,
p(1(1rc~r 0.:.:.ri.'c;:*,
1 n!:
- _;u
- -~!.
b(* t*c*r::;ld1.trl*(.:
,*H.'".'1..
1 pi.::1"!1*
a'.-' tl;e res0lut1on decre,qses.
<3
<1 -
7
8 -
15
16 --
50
51 -
200
>?00
RATIO
0.11 -
2,5
0.5
2.0
0. 6 -
1 ,. 66
0~75 - 1.33
O.BO - 1.2:l
0.85 -
}.jg
Pns~:;.i. bJ. e
O.J - J.0
O.!i
2. 5
n.s - 2.0
C.h -- 1.66
o.;,:,-1.33
0 .* ,'.? :) *- l . 2 )
Pnssi ti 1. l:'
A?. l~eE.."fiiCr! t n
0.3
O. i_
-
0.5 -
3.0
')
r,
.:_. \\.J
0,6 - 1.66
0.75 -
l.'!-l
c~nnma S ;)ec t rcni(~ t. r ~: w~c'. ,. r:::
p*c j !-:c ;_ p~11. ;:1 ny* .. 1 *-!~**, : .. ~~ .t;Y u r; ed for idcn t if i :_:,] l. -~ ~-) n
i.s 1,;rea ter th;,,, '.: '.J KP.v.
Ga rrrrna Sp c~c t ro:rn:: cry whcr c pr inc i .. p~:_i J µ/1:::r:Fl t:r. c-:r .~~y u s1:d
i*;_) r id en t j_ f ic ~1 t ion
is less th~n 250 ~cv.
Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same
reference nuc l.ide.