IR 05000254/1988088

Insp Repts 50-254/88-88 & 50-265/88-09 on 880404-08.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa & Confirmatory Measurements for in-plant Radiochemical Analyses & Verification of TLD Collocation

ML20151W268
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	04/27/1988
From:	Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151W262	List: IR 05000254/1988008 IR 05000254/1988088
References
50-254-88-08, 50-254-88-8, 50-265-88-09, 50-265-88-9, NUDOCS 8805030340
Download: ML20151W268 (10)

Text

' - - - - - - ' -

,

• ~ .,

-

- . . . .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II i Reports No. 50-254/88008(ORSS); 50-265/88009(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. OPR-29; DPR-30 Licensee:- Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection'At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, Illinois Inspection Conducted: April 4-8, 1988 0.Y N w k Inspector: A.G.Oanuska d.27-SS Date fj!g/lma+2ln Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Chief #' # '

Radiological Effluents and _Date -

Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 4-8,1988 (Reports No. 50-254/88008(DRSS);

50-265/88009(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine inspection of: (1) quality assurance and confirmatory measurements for in plant radiochemical analyses; (2) verification of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) collocation; and ,

(3) action on an open item identified during a previous inspection, j Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this '

inspectio '

-

Q

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

'

.

• * '

6

'

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• R.'Bax, Plant Manager

• P. Behrens, Chemist

• N. Digrindakis, Regulatory Assurance Engineer B. Elkir., H6alth Physicist R. Hebeler, Laboratory Foreman ' '

, S. Hopewell, Chemistry Services Supervisor, CECO W. Kaufman, Rad Chem Technician

• C, Norton, QA Engineer

• J. Sirovy, Rad Chem Supervisor

• R. Wiebenga, Chemist

• J. Wooldridge, Chemist

• A. Morrongiello, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (50-254/86018-06; 50-265/86018-06): Analyze a resample of the River Discharge Tank for gross beta and Fe-55 and report the results to RIII; review liquid release data for periods where nonconservative disagreements for Fe-55 occurred to assess the impact on effluents reported. Results of the sample comparisons are listed in Table 1; comparison criteria are given in Attachment The licensee's contractor's results indicate a 43% nonconservative disagreement. The licensee investigated releases of Fe-55 and selected the highest monthly release (612 901) to calculate dose to the public at the site boundary and at the nearest community wa.ter supply. The total body dose projected over a year after doubling the Fe-55 contribution only increases the value by less than one percent. Although this item is closed, another sample was split during the inspection, and the licensee agreed to pursue this issue further (see Section 3.a.),

3. Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84725) Sample Split Six samples (air particulate, charcoal adsorber, spiked air particulate, reactor coolant, liquid waste and gas) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile laboratory on sit Comparisons were made on combinations of the licensee's four normally used count room detectors and the Post Accident Radionuclide Analysis Portable System (PARAPS).

Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 2. The licensee achieved 67 agreements out of 75 comparison _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

. . .

The licensee's chimney air particulate samr>1e was analyzed and resulted in no detectable activit In order to test the particulate geometry, a spiked air particulate standard was analyzed as an unknown. This sample and the chimney charcoal adsorber results yielded all agreement A reactor coolant system sample was split and counted simultaneously on two of the licensee's detectors and on the NRC detector resulting in disagreements for As-76. The As-76 peak at 559 key was not identified by the licensee in the presence of a much stronger 555 key peak (Sr-91) and only identified after four deconvolutions by the NRC. A review of the licensee's spectrum revealed a weak peak at 559 key which did not satisfy the system criteri A River Discharge Tank sample was split and analyzed. The licensee failed to identify Co-58 on the PARAPS. This system is designated for high activity post accident samples and not for routine sample The licensee stated that he will continue to restrict routine sample use on the system unless absolutely necessary and then only after determining an appropriate count time to assure that the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) values are met. The licensee agreed to analyze or have a portion of this sample analyzed for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 and send the results to RIII (0 pen Item 50-254/88008-01;50-265/88009-01).

The licensee is in the process of renewing the analytical contract, and in an effort to solve the Fe-55 problem, will discuss Fe-55 procedures with the NRC Reference Laboratory chemistry personnel, audit the new contractor's procedures, and observe the analysis of a Quad Cities discharge tank sample to be collected after the new contract is awarded (0 pen Item 50-254/88008-02;50-265/88009-02).

Because off-gas samples are limited in activity, several tests were necessary to achieve a valid comparison: (1) injecting 5 cc of a pretreat licensee and gas NRC sample into a closed geumetries recirculating) loop (0FF GAS,13-1040(1 containing

) which resulted the in only one nuclide; (2) recirculating an adsorber inlet sample through the licensee and NRC geometries (OFF GAS 13-1040(2) and 25-P844(2))

which resulted in a total of five disagreements; and (3) injecting 20 cc of pretreat as in (1), which resulted in all agreement (OFF GAS 28-P844(3) and 13-1040(3)). All sample results exhibited a persistent, apparent nonconservative bias indicating a problem in calibration. The licensee contacted its cross check contractor and obtained the results of a recent cross check for gas; they indicated a 17% nonconservative bias on the Marinelli geometr The licensee initiated action during the inspection to obtain a fresh gas standard (tentatively scheduled for April 25, 1988) and will calibrate the Marinelli, as a minimum, within two weeks after receipt of the standard (0 pen Item 50-254/88008-03;50-265/88009-03).

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-____ ___

-

.

. . . Quality Assurance The inspector reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory quality assurance program including the physical facilities, laboratory and counting room operations, and Procedure QCP 1400-12,

"Quality Control Program for Chemistry Instrumentation." The gas proportional counters and gamma spectrometers were in good working order. The inspector also reviewed completed daily performance checklists which demonstrated that QC requirements for this equipment are being me The licensee currently participates in a cross check program with a contracto The inspector reviewed past gamma spectroscopy results and found them to be very good. The inspector also reviewed the 3rd Quarter 1987 results of the CECO intracompany laboratory intercomparison program and found them also to be very good. The inspector stressed the value of such a competitive program and expressed concern that this program has been discontinued due to manpower limitations, Audits The-inspector examined Quality Assurance surveillance reports, onsite audit report numbers 04-87-19 and 04-88-02 and offsite audit report numbers 04-87-I and 04-87-11 related to radiochemistry and counting room activities. No findings, observations, or open items listed were related to this inspectio No violations or deviations were identifie . Collocated TLD Verification (IP 25022, 80721)

The inspector examined nine locations where licensee and NRC dosimeters were thought to be collocated; two others could not be found. All of the locations were close enough in distance and azimuth to be considered as collocate . 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. Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section . Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on April 8, 1988. The scope and findings of the inspection were discusse ( .

.

..

. . .

,

I i

During the exit interview,'the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to l documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the '

inspection. Licensee representatives did not identify any s'Jch documents or processes as proprietar Attachments:

1. Table 1, Confirmatory Measurement Program Results, 1st Quarter 1987 2. Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing '

Analytical Measurement . Table 2, Confirmatory Measurement Program Results, 2nd Quarter 1988

.

r s

l

i i

'

a l 5 [

i

- - - - - , , , , - . . -_. _ - , . ,, - _ . . ,,. ,.m. _-. - , - - - . , , --.. . . ,

. - . - .

.

.: :. -

.

J.' .  ;

TABLE 1

'

U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.s t OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

-

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY QUAD CITIES l

'

FOR THE 1 OUARTER OF 1987

,

---

NRC------- ----L1CENSEE---- ---LICENSEEINRC----

. SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESUL ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO PES T L WASTE FE-55 1.1E-06 1.0E-07 4.7E-07 0.0E-01 4.3E-01 1.1E 01 D G BETA 5.3E-06 2.0E-07 4.7E-06 0.0E-01 0.9E-01 2.7E 01 A T TEST.RESULTS AoAGREEMENT D2 DISAGREEMENT -

ooCRITERIA RELAXED N:NO COMPAR1 SON

,

,

.I

!

J I

!

.

i

,

e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ .

-

• '

.

.

'

. . - ., , 't ATTACHMENT 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 progra In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the com-parison of the NRC'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 should be considered 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 acceptanc RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement

<3 No Comparison 2,3 and <4 .5 2,4 and <8 .0 JJ and <16 .67 2,16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 251 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 2200 0.85 - 1.18 Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclides. These may be factored into the acceptance criteria cnd identified on the data shee )

.

'

..

.

,

TABLE 2 U'S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM -

FACILITY: QUAD CITIES FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1988

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEEINRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T C' FILTER I-131 2.9E-12 1.7E-13 3.5E-12 3.0E-13 1.2E 00 1.7E 01 A Jref844 I-133 2.8E-11 1.18-12 2.3E-11 2.4E-12 8.3E-01 2.4E 01 A F SPIKED CO-57 5.1E-03 7.6E-05 5.3E-03 4.7E-04 1.0E 00 6.7E 01 A-Jf-&otA CO-60 1.5E-02 3.1E-04 1.5E-02 1.5E-03 9.7E-01 5.0E 01 A Y-88 1.4E-03 1.1E-04 1.5E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00. 1. 3E 01 A CD-109 3.6E-01 2.8E-03 3.6E-01 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 1.3E O2 A i SN-113 1.7E-03 1.3E-04 1.7E-03 0.0E-01 9.8E-01 1.3E 01 A CS-137 2.8E-02 3.5E-04 2.7E-02 2.3E-02 9.6E-01 8.0E 01 A CE-139 1.2E-03 5.5E-05 1.3E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 2.1E 01 A PRIMARY NA-24 1.4E-02 5.3E-05 1.4E-02 1.2E-03 1.0E 00 2.6E 02 A af.4,44 CR-51 6.8E-03 1.1E-04 6.7E-03 5.9E-04 9.9E-01 6.0E 01 A MN-54 2.7E-04 1.9E-05 2.1E-04 2.3E-05 7.CE-01 1.4E 01 A CO-58 1.9E-04 1.6E-05 2.1E-04 2.4E-05 1.1E 00 1.2E 01 A CO-60 2.5E-04 1.4E-05 2.3E-04 1.9E-05 9.2E-01 1.8E 01 A MN-56 5.2E-03 4.6E-04 4.7E-03 4.7E-04 9.1E-01 1.1E 01 A AS-76 1.1E-04 2.2E-05 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 5.0E 00 D I-131 4.7E-05 8.0E-06 5.0E-05 1.3E-05 1.1E 00 5.8E 00 A I-132 2.1E-03 3.7E-05 2.0E-03 1.1E-04 9.5E-01 5.6E 01 A I-133 7.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.7E-04 6.1E-05 9.6E-01 4.7E 01 A I-134 6.5E-03 3.5E-04 6.0E-03 9.7E-04 9.3E-01 1.8E 01 A l I-135 1.9E-03 7.7E-05 1.7E-03 1.0E-04 9.1E-01 2.4E 01 A SR-91 3.0E-04 4.7E-05 2.8E-04 4.3E-05 9.2E-01 6.4E 00 A !

SR-92 1.1E-03 4.4E-05 1.1E-03 1.7E-04 1.0E 00 2.4E 01 A l BA-139 2.1E-03 1.8E-04 1.3E-03 2.1E-04 6.3E-01 1.1E 01 A I

'

L WASTE CR-51 1.4E-06 1.9E-07 8.2E-07 2.3E-07 5.9E-01 7.4E 00 A MN-54 3.0E-07 4.4E-08 4.0E-07 6.9E-08 1.3E 00 6.8E 00 A

, 7AfAPS CO-58 1.9E-07 4.4E-08 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 4.4E 00 D l CO-60 3.2E-06 7.8E-08 3.3E-06 1.OE-07 1.OE 00 4.0E 01 A CS-137 6.6E-07 4.2E-08 6.6E-07 4.6E-08 1.0E 00 1.6E 01 A

T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT  !

D= DISAGREEMENT c= CRITERIA RELAXED N NO COMPARISON l

t I

E

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

- - - - - -

,

"

.

l

.* ,

't I

TABLE 2 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: QUAD CITIES FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1988

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEEINRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T OFF GAS KR-85M 2.9E-04 9.5E-06 2.1E-04 1.4E-05 7.2E-01 3.1E 01 D g l lovo(a)KR-87 8l.7E-04 2.8E-05 6.7E-04 4.9E-05 7.7E-01 3.2E 01 A KR-88 8.6E-04 3.0E-05 6.6E-04 4.8E-05 7.7E-01 2.8E 01 A XE-133 1.7E-04 1.3E-05 1.1E-04 1.0E-05 6.5E-01 1.3E 01 A XE-135 1.9E-03 1.8E-05 1.3E-03 1.2E-04 6.9E-01 1.0E 02 D C FILTER I-131 2.9E-12 1.7E-13 3.4E-12 2.5E-13 1.2E 00 1.7E 01 A 9A C APS I-133 2.8E-11 1.1E-12 2.4E-11 1.3E-12 8.6E-01 2.4E 01 A OFF GAS KR-85M 2.9E-04 9.4E-06 1.9E-04 1.9E-05 6.5E-01 3.1E 01 D Jf.Paqqt4KR-87 8.2E-04 2.8E-05 6.5E-04 7.1E-05 7.9E-01 2.9E 01 A KR-88 8.5E-04 3.4E-05 5.1E-04 6.6E-05 6.0E-01 2.5E 01 D XE-133 1.4E-04 1.4E-05 1.1E-04 1.0E-05 7.6E-01 1.0E 01 A XE-135 1.8E-03 1.8E-05 1.3E-03 1.2E-04 7.1E-01 1.0E 02 D F SPIKED CO-57 5.1E-03 7.6E-05 5.1E-03 3.6E-04 1.0E 00 6.7E 01 A g,9an y CO-60 1.5E-02 3.1E-04 1.5E-02 9.0E-04 9.7E-01 5.0E 01 A

, Y-88 1.4E-03 1.1E-04 1.5E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.3E 01 A CD-109 3.6E-01 2.8E-03 3.4E-01 0.0E-01 9.5E-01 1.3E 02 A SN-113 1.7E-03 1.3E-04 1.4E-03 0.0E-01 8.1E-01 1.3E 01 A CS-137 2.8E-02 3.5E-04 2.6E-02 2.2E-03 9.2E-01 8.OE 01 A CE-139 1.2E-03 5.5E-05 1.1E-03 0.0E-01 9.3E-01 2.1E 01 A OFF GAS KR-85M 1.8E-06 5.3E-07 1.0E-06 8.0E-08 5.5E-01 3.5E 00 A l 2f-PSVVf DXE-135 6.6E-06 6.0E-07 5.8E-06 4.5E-07 8.8E-01 1.1E 01 A i XE-135M 4.2E-05 5.9E-06 3.1E-05 5.1E-06 7.3E-01 7.2E 00 A

'

XE-138 1.3E-04 1.5E-05 1.2E-04 1.6E-05 9.0E-01 9.1E 00 A PRIMARY NA-24 1.4E-02 5.3E-05 1.3E-02 1.1E-03 9.4E-01 2.6E 02 A g3.seda CR-51 6.8E-03 1.1E-04 6.6E-03 5.9E-04 9.8E-01 6.0E 01 A MN-54 2.7E-04 1.9E-05 1.8E-04 2.4E-05 6.7E-01 1.4E 01 A MN-56 5.2E-03 4.6E-04 5.2E-03 5.6E-04 1.0E 00 1.1E 01 A T TEST RESULTS A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT C= CRITERIA RELAXED

/ N=NO COMPARISON I

.

~~

,.,u ,

'

.

.

'

't

.-

TABLE 2

.

U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: QUAD CITIES FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1988

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEEINRC---- .

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T PRIMARY CO-58 1.9E-04 1.6E-05 2.1E-04 2.5E-05 1.1E 00 1.2E 01 A

1. 3.soqo CO-60 2.5E-04 1.4E-05 2.4E-04 2.1E-05 9.6E-01 1.8E 01 A AS-76 1.1E-04 2.2E-05 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 5.0E 00 D dear 8.0E-06 I-131 4.7E-05 6.1E-05 1.2E-05 1.3E 00 5.8E 00- A I-132 2.1E-03 3.7E-05 2.OE-03 1.1E-04 9.5E-01 5.6E 01 A I-133 7.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.6E-04 6.1E-05 9.4E-01 4.7E 01 A I-134 6.5E-03 3.5E-04 6.4E-03 7.7E-04 9.9E-01 1.8E 01 A I-135 1.9C-03 7.7E-05 1.7E-03 1.2E-04 9.1E-01 2.4E 01 A SR-91 3.OE-04 4.7E-05 4.3E-04 8.5E-05 1.4E 00 6.4E 00 A SR-92 1.1E-03 4.4E-05 9.5E-04 1.5E-04 9.0E-01 2.4E 01 A BA-139 2.1E-03 1.8E-04 1.6E-03 2.2E-04 7.8E-01 1.1E 01 A 0FF GAS KR-85M 1.6E-06 4.4E-07 1.1E-06 9.0E-08 7.0E-01 3.5E 00 A 33. gogo (hKE-135 6.8E-06 7.2E-07 6.OE-06 5.0E-07 8.8E-01 9.5E 00 A L WASTE CR-51 1.4E-06 2.3E-07 1.1E-06 1.6E-07 8.1E-01 5.9E 00 A gq 9gg y MN-54 3.5E-07 2.5E-00 2.8E-07 4.0E-08 8.1E-01 1.4E 01 A CO-58 2.2E-07 5.0E-08 1.2E-07 2.6E-08 5.5E-01 4.4E 00 A CO-60 3.1E-06 8.4E-08 3.3E-06 2.1E-07 1.1E 00 3.7E 01 A CS-137 6.0E-07 4.0E-08 6.5E-07 6.8E-08 1.1E 00 1.5E 01 A

'

OFF GAS XE-135 2.1E-06 5.7E-07 1.5E-06 1.3E-07 7.1E-01 3.7E 00 A I S-t o Wo(s)

T TEST RESULTS A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT -

o= CRITERIA RELAXED <

N=NO COMPARISON  ;

-3-