ML20147C035
| ML20147C035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1978 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jeffery Grant TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C039 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810110263 | |
| Download: ML20147C035 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1978022
Text
. _ _
_ _._ __ _ _____ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L M
Y
d'il
QL
,
'
e
.
.
J '"
W
UNITED STATES
9
?
[.,
' p 'g
N UC LE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
I
j ,
, ' , ) j
REGloN lli
'
- .
f
"
- ei
G L E N E L L Y N. IL LINots 60137
0 . . . . . *g
SEP 0 81978
Docket No. 50-346
Toledo Edison Company
ATTN:
Mr. James S. Grant
Vice President - Energy
Supply
Edison Plaza
300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, OH 43652
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. A. G. Januska of this
office on August 21-23, 1978, of activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 1 authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-3
and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. Green and others of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the
inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures
and representative records, observations, and interviews with
personnel.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be
in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed
Appendix A.
With regard to the first item of noncompliance, the
inspection showed that action had been taken to correct the identi-
fied noncompliance and to prevent recurrence.
Consequently, no
reply to that item of noncompliance is required and we have no
further questions regarding this matter at this time.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of
Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you
to submit to this office within twenty days of your receipt
of this notice a written statement or explanation in reply,
including for each item of noncompliance: (1) corrective
action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action
to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date
when full compliance will be achieved.
'
b
..
..
--. .
-
- .
. _
7~
'
,
e
.
Toledo Edison Company
-2-
SEP 0 81978
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of
Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a
copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to
.
this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room,
except as follows. If the enclosures contain information
that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you
must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of
your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information
from public disclosure. The application must include a full
statement of the reasons for which the information is con-
sidered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary
information identified in the application is contained in an
enclosure to the application.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this
'
inspection.
Sincerely,
i
1
A. B. Davis, Chief
Fuel Facility and Materials
'
Safety Branch
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of
Violation
2.
IE Inspection Rpt No.
50-346/78-22
cc w/encia:
)
T. Murray, Station
Superintendent
' Central Files
Reproduction Unit NRC 20b
Local PDR
U. Young Park, Power
j
Siting Conmission
.,
RIII
RIII
orricr> _....... 43
RIII
RIII
.
.
RIII
RIII
..
.
Janusk / c
Essi
Davis
Tamblin
...........'.......
i
SURNAMEk
,.................
....-.........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
......
......
.................,
9/.6/78
parc, ... ..............- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-----.------ --. -- ---..------
NRC Form 3180 (RIn )(178) NRCM 0240
.u. s ooVERNMENT PRINilNG OFFaCEt 19 79-25 3'a l ?
-
. .
-
.
___
_
_
,
L
.
'
.
Appendix A
Toledo Edison Company
Docket No. 50-346
Based on the inspection conducted on August 21-23, 1978, it appears
that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC require-
ments, as noted below.
Both are infractions.
1.
Section 2.3.1 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifi-
cations limits " total residual chlorine in the effluent from the
collection box .
. " to "A daily average concentration of 0.2
.
mg/l free available chlorine and a daily maximum concentration
of 0.5 mg/l free available chlorine."
Contrary to the above, the 0.5 mg/l limit was exceeded between
July 7, 1978 and July 10, 1978.
2.
Section 5.1.1 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifi-
cations requires in part that the Station Review Board's review
responsibility will include .... results of the Environmental
Monitoring Programs prior to their submission in each Environ-
mental Operating Report.
Contrary to the above, the Station Review Board did not review
the first Annual Environmental Operating Report for the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.
s
~
- . . . . , _ _ _ _ . . .
_.
. .
.
.
l
U. S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-346/78-22
Docket No.
50-346
License No. NPF-3
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company
Edison Plaza
300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, OH
43652
Facility name:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection at:
Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, OH
Inspection conducted:
August 21-23, 1978
h Y
O 2m W
Inspector:
A, C.
anuska
Y/ 7/76
/ 4h
'l f1f78
Approved by: T. H. Essig,
lef
Environmental and Special
Projects Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on August 21-23, 1978 (Report No. 50-346/78-22)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced environmental protection inspection,
including evaluation of reportable occurrences78-017, 78-031, and
78-072-04-T-0; the licensee's program for quality control of analytical
measurements; evaluation of the licensee's analytical results of plant
effluent samples obtained during a previous inspection; collection of
plant effluent samples for future comparative analyses; program management
and implementation; review of program results. The inspection involved
23.5 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
were found in four areas; an apparent item of noncompliance (infraction)
was found in each of two areas (discharge of chlorine in excess of T/S
limits, Paragraph 4d; and failure to review results of Environmental
Monitoring Programs, Paragraph 4c).
-
. .
_ ,
.
_ . _ _,
. -
.
.
_
.
-
- _~
_
- _ .
.
._
_ _ _ - _ _ _
___ .
.
f
.
-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
B. Beyer, Assistant Station Superintendent
- D.
Briden, Chemist and Health Physicist
- W.
Green, Administrative Coordinator
- W.
Mills, Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
- J. Buck, Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor
D. Hitchens,16C Engineer
- F.
Kebker, Senior Chemical and Radiation Tester
D. Eldred, Technical Assistant
- J.
Sullivan, TECo Environmental Activities Department
- K.
Mauer, TECo Environmental Activities Department
- Der.stes those present at exit int e rview
2-
Review of Reportable Occurrences
(Closed) Reportable Occurrences78-017 and 78-031: Meteorological
Tower inoperative and failure to record channel check on Control
Room Ventilation Air Intake Chlorine Detectors, respectively.
The
inspector discussed reported corrective actions and reviewed docu-
mentations where available and has no further questions regarding
these items.
(0 pen) Reportable Occurrence 78-072-04-T-0: chlorine discharge in
excess of ETS limit. The inspector discussed the reported corrective
action. As the corrective action is not complete and this is an
apparent item of noncompliance, this item will be reviewed and closed
out during a subsequent inspection.
3.
General
The inspection consisted of an examination of the licensee's
nonradiological environmental monitoring program, including
implementation and program results.
Environmental occurrence
reports were reviewed.
The licensee's program for quality control
of analytical measurements including chemical (nonradiological)
measurements of reactor coolant water quality and results of plant
effluent samples collected during a previous inspection were examined.
Plant effluent samples were collected for future comparative analyses.
,
~.
- 2-
,
l
i
-
__,
_
- . _ , . _ - _ . - . _ _ , _ , _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ . . _ _ .
_ , _ . _ , _ . . _ . . . . ~ _ _ , - , _ , . . _ _ _ , , _ , , , ,
-
__ _
.
_
__
. _ _ _ .
_
___
_
.
B
4.
Nonradiological Monitoring Program
The following results of the licensee's nonradiological environmental
monitoring program for 1977 were examined for compliance with
monitoring and reporting:
a.
Water Quality Analyses
The inspector reviewed records of water quality analyses and
noted that solar radiation measurements had not been made
(1) for the three required stations in April and November
(2) at station 1 for May through October and (3) at stations 8
and 13 in July and August.
In addition, random dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and conductively measurements were missing during
the required sampling period.
As the contractor did not identify
the reason for these missing results, this matter is considered
unresolved.
b.
Unreported Studies
Plantkton, benthic and fisheries population studies as well
as ichthyoplankton were to be received by Toledo Edison in
early April and subsequently reported to the Director of the
NRC Regional Office as a supplementary report as required by
Environmental Technical Specifications 5.4.1.A.
To date,
only the fisheries population study has been received by
Toledo Edison.
The inspector discussed the necessity of
timely reporting with licensee representatives who, in turn,
acknowledged these comments. These sections will be reviewed
upon receipt and the results covered in a subsequent inspection.
c.
Environmental Monitoring Programs Review
A review of audits of the environmental monitoring program was
conducted by the inspector. The Quality Assurance Department
has audited a portieu of the program. The remainder will be
audited by section.., although no schedule had been established
at the time of the inspection.
The inspector's review also revealed that the Station Review
Board had not reviewed the results of the Environmental Monitoring
Programs prior to their submission in each Environmental Operating
Report. This constitutes an item of noncompliance with Environ-
mental Technical Specification Section 5.1.1.
.
-3-
l
!
__-- _ - _ - . _ -,,._
_
_
. .
, _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ ., _ _ _ ,
_ _
_
_
.
.
d.
Chemicals
The inspector reviewed records of chlorine, pH and sulphate
ion concentrations.
Except for one instance of chlorine,
all concentrations were within the Technical Specification
limits. The licenee reported that between July 7 and
July 10, 1978 free available chlorine in excess of 0.5 mg/l
was in the collection box effluent from the circulating
water blowdown.
This constitutes and item of noncompliance
with Environmental Technical Specification Section 2.3.1.
5.
Licensee Program for Quality Control of Analytical Measurements
The inspector discussed the assignment of responsibility and
authority for management control of analytical measurements.
Responsibility and authority for control of those measurements
rests with the Chemist and Health Physicist.
The management
control for the program progresses down through supervisors and
foremen.
The inspector reviewed records for daily checks of applicable
counting equipment and procedures associated with radiological
measurements of effluents and nonradiological measurements of
reactor coolant water quality.
The licensee's procedures do not contain criteria for accepting
measurement result and requiring notification when deficiences
,
are noted.
A licensee representative stated that personnel counting
samples are aware of what steps to take if anomalous results or
deficiencies are encountered. The inspector reviewed a memo
posted in the counting room which addresses steps to be taken if
the daily source check is not within the prescribed range.
In
addition, a source check that was unacceptable and the subsequent
actions taken by the individual who ran the check was reviewed and
found to be acceptable.
The inspector had no further questions
regarding this item.
6.
Results of Comparative Analyses
Results of comparative analyses performed on effluent samples split
at the site in February 1976 are shown on Table 1.
The criteria
for comparing measurement results are given in Attachment 1.
For
eleven sample comparisons, t he licensee's results yielded ten
agreements. The licensee failed to properly quantify gross beta
activity in the analysis of liquid waste.
No reason for this
discrepancy was apparent after a review of both the licensee's
and the NRC Reference Laboratory's data.
'
.
-4-
.-
--
. .-
- .
.
- - _
.,
,
.
. .
-
.
.
-
. - _ .
_.
.
-
_
'
.
.
7.
Effluent Sampling
Samples of liquid and gaseous waste were obtained for future comparison.
8.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of
noncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during
the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 4a.
9.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in
Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of this inspection on August 23,
1978. The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were
discussed.
In response to certain remarks made by the inspector,
the licensee agreed to:
a.
Put a trace on the replacement parts needed to put the
recorder and computer alarm point associated with the
automatic chlorine analyzer at the beach sample station
back into good ',ocking order.
b.
Expedite the installation of the replacement parts
discussed in Paragraph 9a as soon as they are received.
c.
Obtain documentation f rom the nonradiological environmental
contractor regarding the samples which were missed (Paragraph 4a).
Attachments:
1.
Attachment 1, Criteria for
Comparing Analytical Measurements
2.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements
Program, Davis-Besse
'
-5-
!
\\
_-
,.
-
, - - .
.,
-
.
..-. ,-.- n - - . . - - ,
-n-
. .
_
.
_
.
\\
l
ATTACIIMENT 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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the
j
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 licensee's mcasurement
1
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
narrowed category of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will
be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
RESOLUTION
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
Possible
Possible
)
A ryement "A"
Agreeable "B"
A reement
J
J
<3
No Comparison
No Comparison
Fo Comparison
>3 and <4
d.4 -
2.5
0. 3
-
3.0
No Comparison
T4 and <8
0.5 -
2.0
0.4
-
2.5
0.3
-
3.0
78 and <16
0.6 - 1.67
0.5
-
2.0
0.4
- 2.5
T16 and <51
0.75 - 1.33
0.6
-
1.67
0.5
-
2.0
351 and <200
0.80 - 1.25
0.75 -
1.33
0.6
- 1.67
3
__200
0.85 - 1.18
0.80 -
1.25
0.75 -
1.33
l
1
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
cation is greater than 250 kev.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
cation is less than 250 kev.
Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
'
.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the
same reference nuclide.
.
.
~r
v
r
. , - - - - -
+ . , . . . , . . , - - - ,
-
. , .
=
,
-w
--,---e
~
.
a
1ASLE I
U S FUCLEAR FEGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION A ND E NF O R C E ME NT
CONFIRMATORY ME ASUREMEN T S PROGR A M
FACILITY: DAVIS 4 ESSE
F 0 f,
THE 1 OUARTER 0F 1975
NRC-------
---L I C E N SE E -- --
- -NRC:LICENSEC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
RESULT
EREGE
hESULT
ERROR
KATIC
'EE S
T
'0 F F GAS
XE 133
2 0E-04
1 1 E -0 5
3 7E -0 4
00
1 3E+0C
2 6E+01
A
LtWASTE
BETA
1 5E-05
1 0E-06
4 2E -35
00
2 8E+00
1 5 E + 01
0
H 3
5.3E-02
1 0E-04
5 8E-D2
0.0
1 1E+00
5 3E +02
A
I 131
4.0F-06
7 5E-07
5 8E -Db
00
1 2E+00
6 5E +00
A
CG SR
9 0E-05
2 6E-06
8 2 E -05
00
9 1F-01
3 5E + 01
A
MN 54
1.1E-US
3 8E-07
1 0 E -0 5
00
9 1 E -01
2 9 E + 01
A
F SPIKED r3 57
2' d?E -03
1 61-04-
6 45-03'
).7
1 3E+00
5. J E +C l
A
CS 134
1: 1E-02
4 0E-OL
1 e 2E -0 2
00
1 1E+00
2 7E+01
A
CS 137
6 6E-03
3 0E-04
7 9E-03
00
1 2E +00
2 2 E + 01
A
CO 60
8 1E-03
4 0E -04
9 8 E -0 3
00
1 2E+00
2 0E +01
A
C SPIKE 0 BA 133
8.9E+04
4 8E +0 3
8 4E+04
00
9 4 E -01
1.9 E + 01
A
T 1851 R!SULTSt
.
A = A C R E E ME N T
D =0 IS AGRE E ME NT
P=POSSIBLE A G RE E ME l:i
N=NO COMP A R I S 0h
.
ms
-
.
--
- .
. . .
- ,
__
-
y
h
i
I
w
UNITED ST ATES
[
4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
j [I
Of, &j
REGloN lli
.
799 nooseveL1 noto
- pg [,
GLEN E LLY N, ILLINots 60t 37
$'% . y
's
r
....
SEP 181978
License No. 13-01983-15
University of Notre Dame du Lac
ATIN:
Dr. John W. Lucey, Chairman
Radiation Control Committee
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection condue.ted by Mr. S. R. Lasuk of this
office on August 22-23, 1978, of activities authorized by NRC Fv-
product Materials License No. 13-01983-15 and to the discussion of
our findings with you and Messrs. E. Riley and R. Zerr at the
conclusion of the inspection.
The inspection was an examination of activities conducted
under your license as they relate to radiation safety and
to compliance with :Se Commission's rules and regulations
and with the conditions of your license. The inspection
consisted of a selective examination of procedures and
representative records, observations, and interviews with
personnel.
The inspection also included a review of the actions described in
,
19, 1976, regarding the apparent item of
l
your letter dated April
noncompliance found during our March, 1976 inspection and your in-
ventory control system. We have no further questions on this matter.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared
to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described
in the enclosed Appendix A.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of
Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you
to submit to this of fice within twenty days of your receipt
of this notice a written statement or explanation in reply,
including for each item of noncompliance: (1) corrective
action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action
to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date
when full compliance will be achieved.
b)Y $
5
.-
- _.
.
..
.- -
.
-
.-.-
- -.
.- -.
-
-.
F
7-
J
.
.
.
University of Notre Dame
2-
g{p
gjg7g~
-
du Lac
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this
inspection.
Sincerely,
A. B. Davis, Chief
Fuel Facility and Materials
Safety Branch
Enclosure: Appendix A,
ec w/ enc 1:
Central Files
Reproduction Unit NRC 20b
FDR
_RIII
RIII
R
OFFIC E >
-- .
L'
,
'
$URNAME>
- -------.
----------
.---- - ------ ---------.---------
---.---------
.- - - - .4 / 7 8. . . . - -- - -----------------------
.
9/1 ---
.---- ------------
--~~~~-------
04rt>
NHC Form 3188 (RIn ) (178) NRCM O240
- V.5,GOVERNMENfpR
TING OFFICE: 1974-2$3817
__ _
_
_
_
__
_
.
.
'
..
Appendix A
University of Notre Dame du Lac
License No. 13-01983-15
' Based on the inspection conducted on August 22-23, 1978, it appears
that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC
requirements, as noted below. The following item is an infraction.
Condition 19 of your license requires that licensed material be
possessed and used in accordance with statements, representations,
and procedures contained in certain applications and letters.
The
application dated August 8, 1975 included a copy of your Radiation
Safety Manual.
Contrary to the requirements of this manual (item 2, page 20), on
August 23, 1978, food was stored in a radioisotope laboratory (Lab 364,
Nieuwland Science Hall).
l
i
l
L
-
-,
-
_ . , . _
_ . _ ,
._
.
...
. . . _ . . . . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,