IR 05000155/1981006
| ML19350E757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1981 |
| From: | Januska A, Nicholson N, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350E753 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-81-06, 50-155-81-6, NUDOCS 8106230498 | |
| Download: ML19350E757 (5) | |
Text
.
..
O
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE.0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-155/81-06 Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 Licensee: Consumers' Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Inspection At: Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, MI Inspection Conducted: May 18-21, 1981 WNW/k.4& f Inspectors:
A. G. Januska N
ga @W N. A. Nicholson 6/fd 9/. / b w u b Approved by:
M. C. Schumacher, Acting Chief
__
/r, Environmental Protection and Independent Measurements Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 18-21, 1981 (Report No. 50-155/81-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the radiological environ-mental monitoring program, the program for quality control of analytical measurements and the confirmatory measurements program which included the collection and analysis of radiological effluent samples with the NRC Measurements Van onsite. The inspection involved 54 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8106230 %
.
.
.
.
.-
._
, _,,.. _,..
..
,,,.
-
--
--
,-
y-J
-
,
.
. DETAILS 1.
Persons contacted
.
- D. P. Blanchard, Acting Plant Superintendent
- R. L. Kirchman, Quality Assurance
- T. R. Fisher, Quality Assurance
- M. G. Dickson,' General Health Physics C. Axtell, Plant Health Physicist
_.
T. Martens, Senior Health Physics Technician R. Burdette, Acting Chemistry and Radiation Protection Supervisor
- Attended exit meeting May 21, 1981.
,
2.
Environmental Monitoring The licensee conducts a film monitoring program as specified in his Technical Specifications and in addition, a voluntary TLD monitoring program and an aquatic program. Theseprogpasremainthesameas described in a previous inspection report.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's contractor results for these programs and examined select environmental air sampling stations.
No unusual results or trends were noted and the equipment examined appeared to be operating properly.
3.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The inspectors reviewed procedures associated with radiological measurements, and quality control sheets for instrumentation. The procedures were current, appeared adequate and the quality control tests were conducted in accordance with procedure schedules.
Sample Comparisons 4.
Results of compcrative gamma analyses for' effluent samples collected during this inspection and analyzed by the Region III Mobile Laboratory are shown in Table I and the comparison criteria in Attachment 1.
Analyses requiring beta counting (tritium, strontium, and gross beta)
will be completed by the licensee and reported later.
Nineteen of twenty comparisons met criteria for agreement or possible agreement. The licensee did not accurately quantify Xe-138 in a Steam Jet Air Ejector gas sample, but was 50% higher than the NRC value and therefore conservative. The licensee's and Region III efficiency tables were examined for a bias at the energy at which this nuclide is quantified.i Relative abundances and decay times AI IE Inspection Report No. 50-155/79-07 2-
..
_
._
.
.
_.
-
- g.
.
.
used were also checked for consistency between Region III and the licensee. No discrepancies for these variables were noted and no reason for this disagreement was apparent. _In addition, Xe-133 and Kr-85r were not directly identified or quantified by gamma analysis.
The values, reported in Table I, for these nuclides were obt'ained f.om a computer program which predicts the activity of gaseous nuclides not directly identified from values and ratios of nuclides that are directly observed.
Manganese 54 on,the stack particulate filter was also not identi-
' fied and quantified by the licensee until system rejection para-meters were relaxed. This finding suggests that unnecessarily strict rejection criteria may have been the cause of failure to /
identify certain nuclides during this and earlier inspections. 2 This matter was discussed with the licensee who agreed to review the problem. In addition, the licensee is replacing his gamma spectrometry system. The new detector will be of higher efficiency
,
and should provide improved resolution when the system is installed and calibrated. At that time Region III will arrange for the licensee to count spiked samples furnished by the NRC reference laboratory.
5. -Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 21, 1981.
The licensee agreed to review the identification criteria used with gamma spectrometry. The licensee also agreed to analyze the liquid split sample for gross beta, tritium, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and report the results to Region III. An addendum to this report containing the results of these comparisons will then be sent to the licensee.
-Attachments:
1.
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements 2.
Table I, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 2nd quarter 1981
.
- l
'
IE Inspection Report No. 50-155/80-08-3-
-
,, -
-
.
,
-
-
.
..
.
_
e l
TABLE I U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
<
CONFIRMAT7RY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY BIG ROCK PT FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1981
NRC-------
---LICENSEE-----
---NRC: LICENSEE----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RA710 RES T
L UASTE CR 51 2.1E-04 3.8E-06 2 1E-04 6.2E-06 1.0E*00 5.5E*01 A
MN 54 1.5E.-05 5 1E-07 9.0E-06 7.5E-07 6.0E-01 2.9E+01 P
CO 60 9.2E-05 1 1E-06 7.8E-05 1.9E-06 8.5E-01 8.4E+01 A
CS 134 5.9E-06 4.7E-07 4.4E-06 6.7E-07 7.5E-01 1.3E+01 A
CS 137 1.5E-04 1.1E-06
.5E-04 2.1E-06 1.0E+00 1.4E+02 A
C FILTER XE 133 6.3E-04 1 3E-04 4.6E-04 5.9E-05 7.3E-01 4.8E+00 A
MN 54 1.7E-05 1.5E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1E+00 N
CO 60 9.6E-05 2.5E-05 6.7E-05 9.6E-05 7.0E-01 3.8E+00 A
CS 137 4.4E-05 1 6E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7E+00 N
I 131 2.7E-03 4.6E-05 3.0E-03 8.4E-03 1.1E+00 5.9E+01 A
P FILTER CR 51 3.7E-03 1 3E-04 4 2E-03 3.2E-04 1.1E+00 2.8E+01 A
MN 54 9.1E-05 1.5E-05 1.3E-04 3.5E-05 1.4E+00 6.1E+00 A
CO 60 2.2E-04 2 6E-05 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 9.1E-01 8.5E+00 A
CS 137 3 2E-04 1 8E-05 3.8E-04 4.7E-05 1.2E+00 1.8E+01
BA 140 2.2E-03 6.2E-05 2.9E-03 2.0E-04 1.3E+00 3.5E+01 A
0FF GAS XE 133 7.4E-04 6.7E-05 3.5E-04 0.0 4.7E-01 1.1E+01 D
XE 135 9.0E-03 6.6E-05 7 2E-03 2 4E-04 8.0E-01 1.4E+02 P
XE 135M 3.9E-02 4.8E-04 4.5E-02 1.6E-03 1.2E+00 8.1E+01 A
XE 138 1 3E-01 9.2E(04 2.0E-01 3.7E-03 1.5E+00 1.4E+02
KR 85M 1.9E-03 3.1E-L'
1.9E-03 0.0 1.0E+00 6.1E+01 A
KR 87 1.3E-02 1 4E-04 1.0E-02 5.7E-04 7.7E-01 9.3E+01 D
KR 88 5.3E-03 8 9E-05 6.0E-03 4.6E-04 1.1E+00 6.0E*01 A
T TEST RESULTS AoAGREEMENT Do0ISAGREEMENT PePOSSIBLE AGREEMENT
,
l NANO COMPARISON
_._
.
.
~.. ~
.
_ _-
,._
l
_
.. *
,
.
.
.
.
.
e'
' ATTACHMENT 1
.
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEhSURDfENTS 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 relatien to the 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 measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement'shoald 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 Agreement Agreement "A" Agreetble "B"
,
<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
>3 and <4 d.4
?. 5 0. 3 3.0 No Comparison
-
-
'E4 and <8 0.5 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 0.3 3.0
-
-
T8 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
-
-
T51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25-0.75 1.33 0.6 1.67
-
-
][200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 1.33'
1.25 0.75
-
-
"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 key.
Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Cross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
'
.
w---------
--
-
.
.
,.
,,
-
w-
-?
-. ~
e-
..,
- -,
e
,
w--