IR 05000237/1987008
| ML20212M094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212M091 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-87-08, 50-237-87-8, 50-249-87-07, 50-249-87-7, NUDOCS 8703110076 | |
| Download: ML20212M094 (5) | |
Text
,
_-.
_
'
~
.,.
-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
.
_
REGION III
-
x Reports.No.. 50-237/87008(DRSS);50-249/87007(DRSS)
' Docket No. 50-237; 50-249 License No. DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago,-IL. 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station; Units 2 and 3
~
Inspection At:
Dresden. Site, Morris, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
February 17-20, 1987 0.jh (a w k Inspector: A.~G.Jhnuska 3-3-87 Date
' h./. Nhumacher w kn
&
M. C. S
, Chief 3 -3 - 6 '?
Approved By:
Radiological Effluents Date and Chemistry Section
' Inspection Summary Inspection on February 17-20,-1987 (Reports No. 50-237/87008(DRSS);
50-249/8/007(DR55))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the confirmatory
' measurements program including sample split and onsite analysis with the Region III Mobile Laboratory, and open items identified during previous inspections.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
(
8?M"M
p
_
-- 7y
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - -
.,
-
-
p
.
+ - 7
- ,
-
.
,.
.
.
.
3,
-
.
e
-
,
,
.
_
-
'^
"
,
,
-g
.
,
>
,
- ]f:
M :.
m.
.
,N..
-
- DETAILS :
s y
,3 e y:
t
,
,'
gli Persons Contacted
'
'
'*J. Eenigenburg,' Station.ManagerJ
"
-
- R. Flessner, Services Superintendent 1
,
L*D. Adam,.Ragulatory Assurance Supervisor
- W., Johnson, Lead Chemist'-
- *E.:.0'Connor,~ Rad' Chem Supervisori..
- R.Jeisy[ der,-Chemist-Quality Assurance Superintendent
'
- T.:Schnei
-
f R. Lucia ; Rad Chem Technician'-
.P. Cirren,cione, Rad Chem Technician J. Klinker, Rad Chem Technician
J. Reuttiger-Laboratory Foreman l'"
K.-Whittua,Ehemist-
-
- Denotes those present at exit interview on February 20, 1987.
!
2.
Licensee' Action on Previous Inspection Findings
'a.
- (Closed)OpenItem-(50-237/86026-01;50-249/86031-01)':
Review s
'all RCT qualification cards to assure cards are completed. The
<
'
Laboratory Foreman reviewed the. qualification cards of the RCTs t
for chemistry-' tasks.that were not previously signed off.
Based i
,
!
.on knowledge the Foreman acguired from previous RCT assignments F
Jto the chemistry group he signed the cards of.those technicians
~ ho had demonstrated proficiency in the respective' tasks.
For w
thoseitasks that the Foreman could not attest were completed
,
l
. satisfactorily, usually nonfrequent analyses,.he will give
.
- training when the technicians rotate into the Chemistry group.
'
b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-237/86026-02; 50-249/86031-02):
Incorporate
Revision 1 NSDD-S17 requirements by March 1, 1987.
To comply with the licensee revised Procedure DCP 1200-5 this directive',itions for Selected Laboratory Analyses (Schedule i
l'
" Reporting Cond
-
of Limitations)" 'by updating Table 1 for sulfate' silica and sodium pentaborate but neglected the-lower directive limit for dissolved oxygen. The change was submitted prior to the close of the l
inspection.
This change does not require an onsite committee L.
review and should be issued quickly, c.
(0 pen)_OpenItem(50-237/86026-03;50-249/86031-03):
Repair leaking L
tubing connecting the conductivity flow cell in the reactor sample hood anu a leaking valve outside the sample panel for the' Unit 2
-
water clean-up-filter.
The licensee stated that the Unit 2 leaks F
had been repaired but as Unit 2 was in an outage and the lines-ll not charged, the repair could not be verified.
He further stated
-
L
2
>
_ _-
..
.
. -
..
. -.
.
.
.
.
.
.. -
.
_s
, aW
.
h
..
,
c
\\
'
r c
=
~'
$
g.
-
-
~-
,
_
,
,
,
t
,
,= +
.
,
,, ',
~
ithat after Uriit 2 was repairedt the Unit'3 sample"pa'nel Mas found.
'
- to:have leaks.
The ins
'for the Unit 3 repair. pector--was shown~a copy of a work' request:
Both' systems will be examined during a
-
-
subsequent inspection.
>
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
d.'
-(Closed)OpenItem-(50-237/86026-04;50-249/86031-04):
Provide e<
'
'RCTs'with legible copy of Chemistry Procedure DCP 1110-24 to use
-
J in laboratory.
Thetinspector visited the hot:and cold laboratories
.and noted that each procedure book contained legible copies of
.?~
DCP 1100-24, Revision 6 dated. January 1987.
.
- 3.
Confirmatory Measurements Five; sam coolant)ples (air particulate, charcoal, fuel. pool, gas and reactor
.
were analyzed for gamma emitting-isotopes by the. licensee
"
and in the Region-III Mobile Laboratory onsite.
Results of.the sample comparisons-are listed in Table 1; comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The. licensee achieved 56 agreements out of 58 comparisons.
The license'e analyzed samples using both normal counting room detectors and the Post Accident Radionuclide Analysis Portable System (PARAPS),
with geometries normally used for effluent release measurements, in order to check backup and emergency gamma spectroscopy systems.
"
All agreements were obtained for the charcoal analysis on both the
,
normally used detector and the'PARAPS, and for the air particulate, gas,
- and reactor coolant on the normally used detectors.
Two conservative disagreements, I-131 and Y-92, resulted from the PARAPS analysis of the reactor coolant.
The licensee's software quantified I-131 using the 284-key peak and classified the normally used 364 key peak as a Class 3 peak. Although Class 3 peaks are supposedly not suitable for quantification, the analyst,.who normally reviews the analyses, stated that after examining the data he reports the concentration consistent with the best data.
This was the case with quantifications made on-other multiple energy nuclides earlier-in this inspection and during _other previous inspections.
The
-
,
364 key peak would have resulted in an agreement.
No reason for the disagreement for Y-92 could be'found.
The licensee stated, however, that the software used by the PARAPS is not as current as that of the normal counting room system which could have contributed to both disagreements.
Because of the limited nuclides in a waste sample tank, the licensee analyzed a fuel pool sample, but using his effluent geometry.
The first comparison (not listed in Table 1) resulted in six disagreements in seven
,
comparisons.
To determine if the disagreements were due to calibration, the licensee and the inspector analyzed the licensee's standard as an
'
' unknown sample which resulted in all six agreements.
Finally, the licensee's portion of the split in his geometry was reanalyzed by the licensee and analyzed by the inspector which resulted in all agreements.
These agreements and the ratios seen for the six disagreements indicated
<
plate out to be the cause of the initial disagreements.
'
,, -
m
,
a n
f 4-J
-
,
'
'
<
_.
';'
+f s
.
lThe licensee ~ agreed to count'a' portion of a waste sampl'e tank sample
-
.for gross bete,-H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and report the results to. Region-III~(0penItem'(50-237/87008-01;50-249/87007-01).
~
4.
Quality Assurance of Analytical Measurements
- a. -
Audit.
The inspector examined the " Report of the Quality Assurance ~ Audit of Radiochemical.and Chemical Control," Audit 12-86-02 conducted 5 January 13-20, 1986, to~ verify implementation of applicable Administrative. Procedures, Chemistry Procedures and Technical Specifications.
In the only part of the-audit applicable to this inspection, the audit stressed the importance of trend
-
plotting of counting equipment performance checks and appeared
.to be instrumental in initiating trend plotting of proportional counter checks.
~b.
QC Checks The inspector examined documentation of daily performance checks run on spectroscopy systems and proportional counters.
Gamma spectrometers quantify the 344 key and 1408 key lines of Eu-152 on a-3 cm shelf and the 1332 key line of Co-60 and the 356 line of Ba-133 on a 10 cm shelf. The Co-60/Ba-133' check is computerized and a-result beyond 120 restricts the system from.being used for are relaxed by a chemist' passes a subsequent check or the parameters sample analysis until it s intervention.
The Eu-152 test is an additional QC run by~the responsible chemist.
Both checks are trend plotted and appear to be well kept and up to date.
Am-241 and Cs-137 sources are used for the proportional counter checks.
The data is entered into individual instrument data sheets by RCTs and reviewed by chemists.'
Problems identified are described on a separate sheet in the individual instrument's book.
Performance checks beyond f20 do not. automatically lock out the instrument,;but require a subsequent check to be run.
Log sheet DCP 3000-T36H defines acceptance criteria and describes what~ actions are to be taken if a. performance check fails.
Daily entries and reviews appear to be up to date, but trend plotting is not current.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments on keepiag these records up to date.
5.
Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
An open item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 3.
,
.
_
.
.
.,.
-.
.-
..
..
.
. + -
.,.
.
s T.
- 6.
' Exit Interview The inspector reviewed the scope and-findings of the-inspection with licensee representatives denoted in Section l'on February 20, 1987.
.
During the~ exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely'
informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
Licensee:
representatives did not identify any such documents as proprietary.
,
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, First-Quarter 1987
-
-2.
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Results
.
I
-.... -. -.. -.. -.. - -..
.. - - - - - -. - - -.
- -,.