IR 05000237/1990015
| ML17202L272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1990 |
| From: | Holtzman R, House J, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17202L271 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-90-15, 50-249-90-14, NUDOCS 9006200220 | |
| Download: ML17202L272 (8) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-237/90015(DRSS); 50-249/90014(DRSS)
Docket Nos~ 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-25 Lic~nsee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 167 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Gener~ting Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspect~on At:
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
April 23-27, 1990 (Onsite)
May 5 throtigh June 1, 1990 (In Office)
R.s..*?L~~~
Inspectors:
R. * H~l.... tz~~*~*'
Approved f,f~
. J. E. House
-/11-~
By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Controls and Chemistry Section
- Inspection Summary 6 /1z./ro
. Date Inspection onsite April 23-27 and inoffice May 5 through June l, 1990 (Report Nos. 50-237/90015(DRSS); 50-249/90014(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the radiochemistry program including:
(1) review of an open item (IP 92701); (2} implementation of the laboratory quality assurance/quality control programs (IP 84750); and (3) comparison of measurements of split radiological samples with the Mobile Laboratory (IP 84750 and IP 84725).
- Results:
Laboratory quality assurance was generally goo Results of the radiological confirmatory measurement program were good, as were the licensee's interlaboratory crosscheck results with an independent contracto No violations or deviations were identified.
DETAILS Persons. Cbntacted.
1E. D; Eenigenburg,*Station Manager, DNGS, CECo 1 L. Gerner, Technical Superinte~dent, DNGS~ CECo 1,2D. Morey, Chemistry Supervfsor," DNGS, CECo 1 K. Peterman, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor, DNGS, CECo 1 F. D. Bevington, Nuclear.Quality Programs,. CECo 1G. Bergan, Nuclear Safety, CECo 1,2K. Whittum~ Chemist, DNGS, CECo
.
1,2t~ Schrieider, Chemist, DNGS, CECo 1D. Hills, R~sident Ins~ector, NRC 1 Pre~ent at the Exit Interview on Ap~il 27, 199 Te1ephone discu~sions May 5, 10, 11, 14 and June 1, 1990.
..
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
(Closed) Open Item (50-237/88019-01; 50-249/88020-01):
The licensee analyzed a portion of a split liquid radwaste sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 and submitted the results to the Region III Office for comparison with the results from the portion. submitted to the NRC Reference Laboratory, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) in* Idah Comparisons of the results are presented in Table 1 with the comparison criteria in Attachment There was one agreement*and ~ne disagreem~nt; the other thf~e comparisons are considered noncomparisons due to low 11 resolution 11 (Attachment 1),
The lic~nsee agreed to repeat the H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89 and'SR-90 ~nalyses in a spiked sample supplied by RESL. and to submit the results to the Region III Office for comparisor This item wil.l be followed in a*
subsequent inspection under Open Item 50-237/90015-02; 50-249/90014-02 (Section 3).
Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84.725, IP 84750)
Six samples (air particulate, charc~~l cartridg~. offgas, reactor (R~)
coolant crud filter, Rx coolant ~nd liquid radwaste) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee on several detectors, and in the Region III Mobile. Laboratory onsit Comparisons of the sample results are pr~sented i.n Table 2 with the comparison criteria in Attachment The licensee achieved*52 agreements in 59 comparisons; five of the comparisons were disagreements and two were no comparison While.the licensee's Co-58 and Co-60 values in. the radwaste sample showed
- substantial negative biase~ relative to thos~ of the NRC, only Co-58 on Detector 24, was a disagreemen A likely explanation is the differing effects of p 1 ateout owing to the differences.in counting geometries used
by the licensee (Mirinelli beaker) and the NRC (500-ml plastic bottle).
Cr~51 in Rx coolant was a disagree~ent probably due to poor counting statistics; the licensee estimated the activity using manual method * As~76 results in the air particulate filter showed substantial negative biases relative to the those of the NRC, resulting in a disagreement on Detector 2 This disagreement was not resolved, and will be followed in subsequent inspections.* Analyses of both of these nuclides in Dther samples showed agreements (see below).
Similar results were found for Xe-133, with both measurements exhibiting substantial negative biases relative to those of the NR Since the other nuclides in the sample with higher energy gamma emissions were generally in good agreement, it appears that these discrepancies resulted from calibration uncertainties due to vatiations in container (15-ml glass vial) base thickness when measuring the low-energy Xe-133 peak (81-keV)~
.
The disagreement in Am-241 in the RCS filter was du~ to the licensee's spectral library lacking the the Am-241 parameter Licensee representatives agreed to add it to their librar This, along with the analyses of a new liquid radwaste and an offgas crosscheck sample, will be followed in subsequent inspections under Open Item No (237/90015-01; 249/90014-01).
In addition, a liquid waste sample was split with the NRC to be analyzed for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 by the license and the results reported to Region III for comparison with the results of the NRC portion by the RES Thi~ and the results of the spiked sample from RESL (Section 2) will be followed under Open Item Nos. (50-237/90015-02; 50-249/90014-02).
Overall, the impacts of the disagreements were minimal with most of the nuclides showing agreements in other samples or detector No violations or deviations were identifie.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the laboratory radioactivity measurements QA/QC program, including physical facilities and.laboratory operation Housekeeping was generally good; 1 aboratory and counting room work space was adequat The licensee recently refurbished the laboratories,
designated them radiologically-controlled areas, and eliminated nonlaboratory personnel traffic through the are The licensee*
pla.ns to upgrade the gamma spectroscopy systems in early 199 Chemistry Technicians (CT) observed during sample acquisition and preparation appeared to have good laboratory techniqu The inspectors noted a good practice in the design of the gamma spectrometry system that has an automatic control which prevents the collection of sample data when a performance check source result is outside the control limi *
The inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry control charts for the past yea The chart data are stored in a computer data base separate from the above control syste The charts had 2-sigma warning and 3-sigma cont~ol limit The.inspectors noted in several cases that following instrument maintenance, the QC charts were not adjusted to conform to instrumental changes; this r~sulted in the tests exceeding the QC Chart control limit Licensee representatives stated that while new means and standard deviations (SD) had been determined; their new values had not been entered in-the chart data base.* They noted that in the future the chart parameters w6uld be readjusted to reflect instrument performanc Overall,*the QA/QC program appears to be operating satisfactoril The counting system automatic control (above) appears to be updated to reflect instrumental change The* radiological interlaborato.ry comparison program results with a vendor (Analytics, Inc.) for 1989 were very good with all c6~parisons being agreeme~t *
No violations of deviations were identifie.
Open I terns 6.
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve some action on the part. of the NRC or licehsee, or bot Two 6pen items were
~isclosed the inspection in Section Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representativei {Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 27, 199 The inspectors discussed the prel iini nary confirmatory measurements results and control. chart parameter Licensee
,
representatives agreed to revise the control charts when instrumental conditions ~hang In ~ubsequent telephone discussions on June 1, 1990, licensee representative agreed to add Am-241 to the *spectroscopy librar During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspectio Licensee
~epresentatives di~ not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar Attachments: Table 1, Radiological Interlaboratory Split Sample Results, 3rd Quarter 1988
. Table 2, Radiological Interlaboratory Comparison Results, 2nd Quarter 1990 Attachment 1, Criteria for Co~paring
. Radiological Measurements
TABLE 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY:
DRESDEN NGS
.DATE: 3rd QUARTER 1988 SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ER LIC.VA LIC.ER RATIO RESOL. RESULT
~-----------------------------------~----
Liquid H-3 7.82E-04 Radwaste Sr-89 3.00E-08 Split. Sr-90 4.00E-09 Fe-55 f.60E-07 Gross B 6.40E-06 A=Agreement D=Disagreement Comparison iteria Relaxed 2.00E-05 l.53E-03 9.00E-09 <7.7E-8 3.00E-09 <2.9E-08 5.00E-08 <7.lE-07 2.00E-06 6.50E-06 1.53E-04 1.96 3 D 0.00 3.3*
N 0.00 N 0.00 N 1.02 A
- .
01-Jun,...90 Page 1 TABLE 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY REGULATION CONF1RMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY:
DRESDEN NGS FOR THE 2ND QUARTER OF 1990
. SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
UC. VA UC.ERR *. RATIO RESOL. RESULT
CHARCOAL I-131 6.52E-05 1.64E-05 4.80E-05 O.OOE+OO 0.74 A DET 24 I-133 8.00E-05 2.50E-05 5.80E-05 o. 73* A CHARCOAL I-131 6.S2E-05 *1.64E-05 5.90E-05. O.OOE+OO 0.90 A DET 27 I-133 8.00E-05 2.50E-05 5.50E-05 0.69 A CHARCOAL I-131 6.52E-05 1.64E-05 5.20E-05 O.OOE+OO 0.80 A PARAPS I-133 8.. 00E-05 2.SOE-05 5.7oE.:..os 0.71 A LIQUID C0-58 7.39E-07 1. 26E-07 3.30E-07 0.45 D WASTE C0-60 2.65E-06 1.66E-07 2.00E-06 0. 75. 1 A DET 24 LIQUID C0-58 7.39E-07 1.26E-07 4.50E-07 0.61 A WASTE C0-60 2.65E-06 l.66E-07 2.00E-06 0.75 16. 0.
A DET 27 OFF GAS AR-41 9.13E-04 5.SOE-05 9.lOE-04 1.00 1 A U-2 KR-85M 4.66E-04 1.14E-05 4.70E-04 1.01 4 A DET 24 KR-87 3.03E-03 1.06E-04. 3. lOE-03 1.02 2 A KR-88 1.71E-03 5.20E-05 1. 50E-03 0.88 3 A XE-133 1.86E-04 1.23E-05 1.30E-04 0.70 1 D XE-135 2.38E-03 1.84E-05 2.20E-03 0 *. 92 12 A OFF GAS AR-41 9.13E-04 5.SOE-05 8.50E-04 0.93 1 A U-2 KR-85M 4.66E-04 1.14E-05 4.80E-04 1.03 4 A DET 27 KR-87 3.03E-03 1.06E-04 3.00E-03 0.99 2 A KR...:88 1.71E-03 5.20E-05 1.70E-03 0.99 3 A XE-133. * 1. 86E-04 1.23E-05 1.40E-04 0.75 15.1 A
XE-135 2. 38E.-03 1.84E-05 2.20E-03 0.92 12 A
Ol-Jun-90 Page 2 SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.. UC.VA UC.ER RATIO RESOL. RESULT
~------------------------
Rx CR-51 2.36E~02 5.29E.,.04 *2.40E-02 1.02 4 A COOLANT MN-54 5.13E-02 2.44E-04 * 4. 62E-02 0.90 21 A CRUD FE-59 4.05E-02 3.89E-04 4.20E-02 1.04 10 *A FILTER C0-58 3.87E-03 1.19E-04 4.lOE-03
- 1.06 3 A DET 25 C0-60 2.78E-02 2.08E-04 2.90E-02 1.04 13 A AS-76 2.63E-03 6.llE-04 3.90E.:.03 1.48 A W-187 1.22E-02 1.52E-03 1.20E-02 0.98 A AM-241 5.52E-04 7.19E-05 O.OOE+OO D ZR-95 4.66E-04 1. 38E-:-04 O.OOE+OO N M0-99 3.50E-04 3.0lE..,.05 3.lOE-04 0.89 1 A SB-122 4.78E-03.2.12E-04 5.lOE-03 1.07 2 A SB-124 - 2. 59E-03 1.llE-04 2.70E-03 1.04 2 A Rx NA-24 4.52E-04 7.82E-06 4.20E-04 0.93 5 A COOLANT CR-51 l.29E-05 3.00E-06 3.20E-05 2.48 D DET 24 MN-54 2.07E-05 6.71E-07 2.20E-05 1.0.8 A
FE-59 1.69E-05 1.60E-06 l.70E-05 1.01 1 A C0-58 3.67E-05 8.08E-07 3.60E-05 0.98 45. 4 A
C0-60 1.43E-04 l.30E-06 1.54E-04 1.08 11 A AS-7.09E-04 4.56E-06 4.00E-04 0.98 8 A W-187 1.76E-05 4.94E-06 O.OOE+OO N I-131 5.69E-06 4.98E-07 7.50E-06 1.32 11. 4 A
I-133 9.32E-os* 3.19E-06 8.90E-05 0.95 2 A M0-99 7.60E-05 6.39E-06 7.90E-05 1.04 11. 9 A
SB-122 7.49E-06 8.92E-07 8.40E-06 1.12 A LA-140 5.67E-06 8.29E-07 3.50E-0.62 A AIR PART NA-24 2.02E-04 l.96E-05 l.60E-04 0.79 1 A DET 27 MN-54 3.14E-04 3.30E-05 *3.40E-04 1.08 A C0-58 7.86E-05 2.28E-05 9.40E-05 1.20 A C0-60 l._21E-03 5.58E-05 1.40E-03 1.16 21. 7 A
AS-76 2.34E-04 2.36E-05 1.60E-04
- o.68 A M0-99 1.21E-04 l.21E-05 1.60E-04 1.32 1 A AIR PART NA-24*
2.02E-04 1. 96E-05 2.30E-04 1.14 1 A DET 25 MN-54 3.14E-04 3.30E-05 3.00E-04 0.96 A C0-58 7.86E-05 2.28E-05 7.00E-05 0.89 A C0-60 1.21E-03 5.58E-05 1.40E-03 1.16 21. 7 A
AS-76 2.34E-04 2.36E-05 1.30E-04 0.56 D M0-99 1.21E-04 1.21E-05 1.80E-04 1. 49.
1 A A= AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT N=NO COMPARISON*
- =CRITERIA RELAXED
- ATTACHMENT 1*
CRITERIA. FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurement The criteria are based on an empirical relafionship which combines prior experi_ence _and the accuracy needs of thfs progra *
In these criteria, the judgment limit~ are variable in relation to the comparison
.of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertaint As that ratio,
.
referred to in this program as "Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a l*icensee's measurement should be more selective.. Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease Th~ values in the ratio criteri.a may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of
- acceptanc *
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement
<4 0.4 -.5 -.6 - 1.66 16 -
0.75 - 1. 33 51 - 200.
o.ao - 1. 25 200 -
0.85 - 1.18 Some disc.repancies may result from the use qf different equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclide These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.