ML20050B147
| ML20050B147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1982 |
| From: | Murray B, Nichols J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050B139 | List: |
| References | |
| 99990004-82-03, 99990004-82-3, NUDOCS 8204050041 | |
| Download: ML20050B147 (7) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Acceptance appraisal for the NRC/ State of Louisiana Independent Measurements Contract Appraisal Facility: State of Louisiana Nuclear Energy Division Laboratory Appraisal at:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Appraisal conducted:
February 16, 1982 Inspector:
J[/p!/p Blair Nichol'as,(Radiation Specialist Ddte r
thhc]lI]LL%LctL 3//f/92-Approved by c Blaine Murray, T,hief, facilities Radiation Date' Protection Section Appraisal Summary Appraisal conducted on February 16, 1982 (Report:
99990004/82-03)
A)praisal
Purpose:
To perform a systematic preagreement review to determine t1e suitability of the State of Louisiana to provide services of the quality necessary for conducting an environmental monitoring program for the NRC around the Waterford-3 site.
Areas Ciscussed and Appraised: Terms of the environmental monitoring contract; management support; organizational structure; technical staff; training and experience; quality assurance program; implementation procedures; counting instrumentation and facilities.
Results: The State is presently conducting a comprehensive environmental monitoring program around the Waterford-3 site. Most of the sampling specified in the proposed NRC/ Louisiana contract is currently performed by the State.
The State should be able to accomplish the work specified in the contract without significant modification of their present program.
It is recommended that the necessary actions be completed in order to implement the contract by July 1, 1982.
8204050041 820325 IE GA999 ESGLA 999/90004 PDR J
2 DETAILS 1.
Persons in Attendance a.
Louisiana Health Department W. Spell, Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division H. Bohlinger, Assistant Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division S. Collins, Nuclear Projects Manager, Nuclear Energy Division M. Schlenker, Environmental Specialist, Nuclear Energy Division b.
Louisiana Power and Light J. Lewis, Radiation Control Engineer C. Groome, Environmental Licensing Engineer-Nuclear D. Espenan, Health Physics Engineer M. Borter, Health Physicist c.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV K. Seyfrit, Deputy Regional Administrator G. Brown, Chief, Technical Program Branch B. Murray, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section B. Nicholas, Radiation Specialist 2.
General The purpose of this appraisal was to review the capability of the State of Louisiana (State) to enter into an Independent Measurements Contract with the NRC and discuss the terms and conditions of such contract. The environmental independent measurements performed under the contract are to be associated with the Waterford-3 Nuclear Station power -
reactor located near. Taft, Louisiana.
The discussion and ensuing appraisal included a history and purpose of-the NRC environmental monitoring program, explanation of the terms and conditions of the proposed contract, and a review of the technical staffing, training and experience, organizationci structure ar.d managerial support, procedures, technical instrumentation, and facilities.
It should be noted that the State of Louisiana currently conducts a more extensive environmental monitoring' program than required by the proposed contract.
i
3 3.
Summary and Conclusion In general, the State has the capability tu satisfy the conditions of the proposed contract. However, the Appraisal 1t im identified the following items that will require further review; a.
Written procedures have not been completed to cover all aspects regarding sample collection and control.
See paragraph 10.
b.
Written procedures have not been completed for response tests, calibration, and quality control of laboratory counting instruments.
See paragraph 10.
t c.
The State's Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) for certain samples and radionuclides will require further review in order to demonstrate agreement with the values contained in the proposed contract. See paragraph 12.
4.
Organization The appraisal team evaluated the following areas which would affect the performance of the contract:
a.
Management support b.
Organizational structure c.
Staffing d.
fraining e.
Facilities and equipment f.
Procedures g.
Quality Assurance The status of the above items is detailed in the following paragraphs.
5.
Management Support The State has an established ongoing environmental monitoring program at the present time. The existing environmental monitoring program is conducted by the Nuclear Energy Division and is administered by qualified personnel and funded with a workable budget to accomplish the present workload.
I l
4 6.
Organizational Structure The appraisal team reviewed the State of Louisiana's Office of Environmental Affairs Nuclear Energy Division and Nuclear Projects Section staff assignments and responsibilities. The following diagram shows the present structure and assigned individuals.
J. Porter Assistant Secretary - Office of Environmental Affairs I
W. Spell Administrator - Nuclear Energy Division I
H. Bohlinger Assistant Administrator - Nuclear Energy Division l
S. Collins gnager-NuclearProjectsSection l
M. Schlenker Environmental Specialist III I
T. Laiche Environmental Specialist III 7.
Staffing The appraisal team reviewed the educational backgrourds and qualifications of the technical staff.
S. Collins - M.S. from Arkansas University Mr. Collins has had experience in the operation of the laboratory equipment and has been employed by the State for 6 years.
M. Schlenker - B.S. from Louisiana State University Mr. Schlenker directs the laboratory operation and is very knowledgeable in the procedures and operation of all the laboratory equipment.
He has been employed by the State for 3 years.
T. Laiche - B.S. from Southeast Louisiana University Mr. Laiche performs "luch of the sampling and laboratory analyses.
He is qualified to perform all analytical procedures and operates all laboratory equipment.
He has been employed by the State for 2) years.
J
5 8.
Training Offsite training is encouraged but dictated by budget restrictions and availability of FEMA and NRC sponsored courses. Matt Schlenker indicated that during the period from May 1979;to October 1981 he attended seven courses which covered topics such as radiochemistry,' instrument -
operation, emergency planning, and dose assessment. Most of-the onsite staff training is strictly on-the-job.
9.
Facilities and Equipment The appraisal team toured the laboratory facilities and reviewed the equipment and instruments which would be used to perform the work outlined in the proposed contract. The laboratory space approximates 6400 square feet designed into twofoffice spaces, two laboratory areas, and a counting room. The office spaces are assigned to the Manager-Nuclear Projects Section and the lead Environmental Specialist.
The two laboratory areas are equipped with a radioactive material qualified fume hood, sinks, utilities and approximately 150. square feet of laboratory bench space. The following types of laboratory and counting equipment are available:
a.
Ref rigerator b.
Drying Oven c.
Muffle Furnue d.
Large Centrifuge which can handle Babcock bottles e.
Laboratory mill for chopping vegetation samples f.
0haus Triple Beam Balance for large samples of soil and vegetation 9
Mettler Model H Analytical Balance h.
Canberra 8100 multi-channel analyzer with PDP-11 mini-computer and associated electronics to support a Canberra Ge(Li) detector inside a 4 inch thick steel shield for high-resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy.
i.
4"x4"' Nal detector inside a thick lead and steel shield linked to Ortec electronics for gamma-ray analysis.
j.
Beckman Wide Beta 11 for alpha and beta analysis.
k.
NMC manual gas-flow proportional counter for alpha and beta analysis; not currently in use.
6 1.
Beckman LS-150 Liquid Scintillation system for low-energy beta analysis.
m.
Victoreen Model 2800 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Reader for analysis of direct radiation measurements.
n.
Air samplers for particulate and air iodine sampling are not in service presently. There are five NMC samplers on order and a State representative stated that at least two will be in service by July 1982 to collect weekly samples.
- 10. Procedures The appraisal team reviewed existing procedures in the following areas:
sample collection, sample control, sample preparation, sample analysis, operation of counting instruments, response tests for counting instruments, calibration of counting instruments, and quality control of analytical equipment including counting instrumentation.
The appraisal team noted that detailed, written procedures had not been established to cover all of the above areas in order to demonstrate program existence, adequacy, and implementation. The State acknowledged that many of their present procedures could be expanded and up-dated.
The State comented that they planned to devote an effort during 1982 to revise their procedures.
- 11. Quality Assurance Program The appraisal team examined the State's quality control program associated with the laboratory counting instrumentation.
The State is a participant in the EPA Cross Check Program.
In this program, the EPA provides spiked samples to the laboratory for analysis. The EPA Cross Check Program covers all sample media requested in the proposed contract except for
' vegetation, river sediment, and charcoal cartridge. The State's performance in the program was reviewed and found to be satisfactory.
The State also performs a periodic internal quality control program.
This program consists mainly of response tests and calibrations of the various counting instruments.
The response test: and calibrations are routinely performed with sources traceable to NB5. Written procedures were not available to document the response tests and calibration results.
J
1 i
~
=,7 ;
s i
c
- + %
l
^
12.
Lower Limits of Detection.([LDI ~ '-
. ' O-
~
~
r.
The appraisal' team reviewed the-State's LLDs'to determine the State's capability in meeting ~the.reiguirements'in Attachment No. 2 to the proposed contract.
A. State representative stated that the LLDs i
stated in Attachment No. 2-to the proposed contract could be met except
~
for the following:
Proposed Analysis
. Sample Contract ~~LLD
_ tate LLD S
gross beta Water 2 pCi/l 4 pCi/l gitium Water 330 pCi/1 2000 pCi/l Zr Water 10 pCi/1 30 pCi/l 95 Nb Water 10 pCi/l 15 pCi/l 131 I Water 0.4 pCi/1 7 pCi/l 137Cs Water 15 pCi/1 18 pCi/l 140Ba Water 15 pCi/1 60 pCi/1 134 3
3 Cs Air 0.01 pCi/m 0.05 pCi/m 137 3
3 Cs Air 0.01 pCi/m 0.06 pCi/m 137 Cs Fish 130 pCi/kg, wet 150 pCi/kg, wet 137Cs Milk 15 pCi/l 18 pCi/1 140Ba Milk 15 pCi/1 60 pCi/1 137Cs Food 60 pCi/kg, wet 80 pCi/kg, wet The LLDs presented above are those presented by the State at the time of the appraisal.
The appraisal team believes that with minimal additional effort by the laboratory staff that the analytical procedures could be modified to meet many of the proposed contract LLDs.
This item will be investigaed further during negotiations of the contract and resolved j
before the contract is implemented.
1 4
--