IR 05000317/1978029

IE Inspec Repts 50-317/78-29 & 50-318/78-26 on 780410-3 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected Incl:Effluent Sample

ML20148U035
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	10/24/1978
From:	Kottan J, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148U026	List: IR 05000317/1978029 ML20148U021
References
50-317-78-29, NUDOCS 7812060244
Download: ML20148U035 (4)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -

. -

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O- 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-317/78-29 Report No. 50-318/78-26 Dotket No. 50-317; 50-318 License No. OPR-53; DPR-69 Priority --

Category C: C L'censee: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Facility Name: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Lusby, Maryland Inspection conducted: October 12, 1978 Inspectors: D ~C / />fh7h Kottan, Kaalation specia alst gk 4 [3

/dat/ signed date signed Approved by: [ *2.g4/

. P. St d , Chief, Environmental and Special j g

' date signed g-y Projects Section, FF&MS Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on October 12,1978 (Report No. 50-317/78-29; 50-318/78-26)

-

Areas Insoected: This report contains the results 01 an effluent sample split between tie licensee and NRC:I during a previous inspection which was conducted on April 10-13, 1978 and which was documented in Inspection Reports 50-317/78-13 and 50-318/78-08. The comparison of these results involved no onsite tim Results: Within the area inspected, no items of noncompliance were observed.

i 78120602%

Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)

_ _ _ _ _

. .

-

DETAILS Persons Contacted P. T. Crinigan, Performance Engineer Confirmatory Measurements In a previous inspection conducted on April 10-13, 1978, Inspection Reports 50-317/78-13 and 50-318/76-08, a liquid effluent sample was split with the licensee and NRC:I. Analyses were performed by the

,

licensee using his normal methods and procedures, and the NRC:I l analyses were performed by the Department of Energy's Radiological l and Environmental Services Laboratory (RESL). The comparison of l the analyses results indicated that all of the measurements were in i

agreement or possible agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1) with the exception of the Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses. The licensee's results in both analyses were higher than the NRC results, and, tnerefore, were in a conservative direc-tion and would not have resulted in the licensee exceeding any effluent release limits. The licensee stated that since his results were higher than the NRC results, a good radiochemical separat' ion may not have been obtained and the sample may have been contaminate The licensee stated that he would review his enalysis procedure with regard to the separation technique. The inspector noted that the Sr-89 and Sr-90 results of a spiked standard, compared in In-spection Reports 50-317/78-13 and 50-318/78-08,were in agreemen The inspector stated that the licensee's evaluation would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. (78-29-01 and 78-26-01) The inspector had no further questions in this area. The results of the comparisont are presented in Table en No items of noncompliance were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector discussed the results of this inspection in a tele-phone conversation on October 12, 1978, with. the licensee representa-tive denoted in Paragraph :

.

.

TABLE I  ;

CALVERT CLIFFS VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE tiRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER MILLILITER Liquid Rad .

Waste Tank gross beta (8.5 1 0.3)E-6 (9.14 1 2.02)E-6 Agreement l 1115 hrs 4/11/78 H-3 (1.12 1 0.10)E-2 (1.05 1 0.01)E-2 Agreement

,

Sr-89 (2.1 1 0.7)E-3 (2,96 i 1.30)E-7 Disagreement i Sr-90 (1.1 1 0.3)E-8 (3.83 1 0.62)E-8 Disagreement l

l

-_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

.

Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurement's 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 l needs of this progra In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution",

increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should oe more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease LICENSEE VALUE PATIO = NRC' REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible l

Resolution Agreement Agreement A Agreement B

<3 0.4 - .3 - No Comparison 4-7 0.5 - .4 - .3 - .6 - 1.66 0.5 - .4 - .75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - .80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66

>200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33

"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:

Gamina Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is greater than 250 Ke Tritium analyses of liquid sample Iodine on absorbers

"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:

Gamma Spectrometry where principa gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 Ke Sr and 90Sr Determination Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.