IR 05000254/1989019
| ML20248G175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1989 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248G171 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-89-19, 50-265-89-19, NUDOCS 8910100117 | |
| Download: ML20248G175 (9) | |
Text
m
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
REGION III
Reports No.~ 50-254/89019(DRSS); 5'0-265/89019(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-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:
August 21-September 12, 1989 G.}J.knuskaUL A. G.
YaS/S 9 Inspector:
Date
$Y M
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief I
Radiological Controls and Date Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on August 21-September 12, 1989 (Reports No. 50-254/89019(DRSS);
50-265/89019(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of confirmatory measurements and radiologi_ cal environmental monitoring including: review of open items (IP 92701); audits and appraisals; changes in organization, equipment, facilities and instrumentation; implementation of the quality assurance and confirmatory
,
measurements program; post-accident sample analyses; implementation of the
'
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) and the REMP quality'
assurance program (IP 84750).
Results:
Confirmatory measurements sample results were good.
The licensee expended extra effort to analyze vendor cross-check samples on all five detectors also with good results.
8910100117 890928 PDR ADDCK 05000254 O
PNU
_
__
_
_
.
_
b,.
.
,
..,
._.s
.
,
v..
ha
- ,
DETAILS k
"1.
Persons Contacted
T. Barber, Regulatory Assurance
'
-1 R.;Bax, Station Manager.
~2P. Behrens, Chemistry Supervisor
!>
.J. Burkhead, Quality Assurance
"
B. Eklin, Health Physics'
.R.~Hebeler, Chemistry Foreman
.R.
Luczak, CECO R.. Moore, Chemistry Foreman
R. Robey, Technical Superintendent
R. Stols, Nuclear Licensing Administrator
'J. Wooldridge,. General Chemist
.
J. Wethington, Quality Assurance Superintendent R. Wiebenga, Chemist
,
R. Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector,'NRC 1 Present at the Exit Meeting on August 25, 1989.
2 Telephone Conversation on September 12, 1989.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)'
a.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-254/88008-01; 50-265/88009-01):
Licensee.to analyze a liquid sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89,-
Sr-90 and Fe-55 and. report the results to Region III.
Gross beta and H-3 results were in agreement; however, strontium and Fe-55 were not' compared because of poor statistics.
A river discharge tank sample was later split and sent for Fe-55 analyses to both laboratories under contract to the licensee.
One laboratory's result was a factor
'of 4.2 higher than the NRC. Reference. laboratory's result (disagreement);
and the other.. laboratory a factor of 89% (agreement).
The licensee
,
agreed to have at spike to be supplied by the NRC' analyzed by both laboratories.
A sample split from this inspection will also be analyzed by the laboratory that achieved agreement. The licensee also informed appropriate station personnel to use that laboratory in the' future for waste stream and technical specification analyses.
b.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-254/88008-02; 50-265/88009-02):
Licensee to audit the analytical contractors' procedures paying particular attention to Fe-55, and observe the analysis of a discharge tank sample for Fe-55. A licensee representative visited one of the laboratories in early 1989 and a quality assurance audit was performed in mid 1989.
Results of the trip and the audit and an audit scheduled for the other laboratory will be reviewed when available.
i-
_ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _
-
__ _
.
s.,
-
.
.
'
l'
c.
(Closed) Open Item (50-254/88008-03; 50-265/88009-03:
l'
Calibrate marinelli gas geometry within two weeks af ter receipt of gas standard (tentatively 04-25-88).
The geometry was calibrated as' required.
Gas ~ analyses using this geometry during this inspection
resulted in all agreements.
3.
Changes in Organization, Equipment, Facilities and Instrumentation (IP 84750)
The management structure of the Chemistry Section was changed to conform to the Chemistry and Health Physics split which took place on January 1, 1989. The Chemistry and the Health Physics Sections are each headed by a Supervisor who report to the Technical Superintendent.
Two Foremen and five Chemists report to the Chemistry Supervisor.
Chemistry Technicians (cts), currently 13, are under the direction of the Chem Foremen.
Technician training involves initial general studies, site specific information and annual continuing training.
Requalification for all
"A" cts will be required annually.
The inspector discussed the need for continuing training for the Foremen at the exit interview.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Confirmatory Measurement (IP 84750)
a.
Sample Split
Six samples (reactor vent air particulate and charcoal, charcoal spike, gas, reactor coolant and liquid) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory on site.
Comparisons were made.on combinations of the licensee's four normally used count room detectors and the Post Accident Radionuclides Analysis Portable System (PARAPS).
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved 74 agreements out of 75 comparisons.
The charcoal filter had only one detectable nuclide.
To verify this geometry a charcoal standard was counted as an unknown which resulted in all agreements.
A portion of the liquid waste sample will be analyzed for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe55 by the licensee and the results reported to Region III for comparison with an analysis by the NRC Reference Laboratory on a split of the sample (Discussed in Section 2).
The only disagreement was for Ba-139 in a primary sample.
The analysis on detector 25-P844 resulted in an agreement but a disagreement resulted when analyzed on detector 25-60RA.
No reason for the disagreement could be found.
b.
Audits The inspector reviewed audits 04-89-02 and 04-88-II, surveillance QAS 04-89-039, 04-89-047 and 04-89-124 and auditor qualifications.
The audits and surveillance placed emphasis on observing performance l
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
__
_
.
.<
.
..
and appeared to be in sufficient depth.
Responses to the audit findings appeared to be timely and adequate.
The qualifications of auditors who participated in the chemistry audits and surveillance indicated that they were qualified in chemistry and that backgrounds, experience and professional development was adequate.
The inspector discussed auditing for performance and the need for continuing training for auditors at the exit interview.
c.
Quality Assurance The inspector' reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory quality assurance program including physical facilities and laboratory operations.
Housekeeping was generally good; laboratory and counting room work space was adequate.
Chemistry Technicians were observed taking appropriate precautions when handling radioactive materials.
The licensee participates in an intercomparison cross-check program with an outside vendor.
The inspector examined the third quarter 1988 results through and including the second quarter of 1989 and noted only two disagreements.
The inspector also noted that in-addition to the cross-check comparison, the licensee compares four detector results against the one used for cross-check submittal.
The results of the comparison between the five detectors were very good.
Daily implementation of the instrument quality control program was examined.
Tests were run as required. The inspector saw evidence that the counting room is checked daily but noted that sign off of the review of data is often not timely.
The necessity of that review, especially for those instruments whose results are not automatically entered into the computer based QC program was discussed with a license representative who acknowledged the inspector's comment.
No violations of deviations were identified 5.
Post Accident Sampling (IP 84750)
The inspector discussed the High Radiation Sampling System (HRSS)
and its operation with the licensee.
In-line monitors are checked weekly.
The HRSS is prepared to accept accident samples and an inventory of supplies is performed quarterly. Various samples are collected and radiochemical analyses performed at this time.
Semiannually, samples are collected for gamma spectroscopy and chemistry equipment is calibrated. The inspector saw data of an annual analysis performed to verify the liquid dilution valve size.
No violations or deviations were identified.
I l
l l
l
_ - - _ _ _ - _ - _
_ _ _ _
_ __
_
_
___
__.
_.
_
_ _ _ _,
. _ _. _
..
&
-
.
.
6.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)(IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the 1988 Annual Environmental Report. The Report i
appeared to comply with the_REMP requirements.
All required samples were collected and analyzed except as noted in the report.
The results do not indicate any significant contribution to the environment due to plant operation.
The inspector examined the quarterly collection schedule and completed weekly sample collection data sheets, and discussed the Program with a Station Health Physicist who has the Program oversight as'part of his normal duties.
The individual was very knowledgeable of the workings of the Program.
No violations of deviations were identified 7.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 25, 1989.
The inspectors discussed the following:
1. sample split results 2. audits 3. retraining for auditors and foremen 4. the HRSS system 5. the REMP program 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 or processes as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Radiological Interlaboratory Split. Sample Results, 3rd Quarter 1989 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Radiological Measurements
4
________ _______________ _ _ -
,a
%.
.
~
,
<.
_
_<
-.
, 4.. p
-
,
- '
N.
x,
- . q-g -
c
?
.,
O T
k.
>
'
' TABLE 1-L U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o1
~ OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY..MEASUREl/ENTS PROGRAM FACILITY-QUAD CITIES
'FOR THE'3 QUARTER OF 1989-NRC---'
LICENSEE
---LICENSEE:NRC--
. SAMPLE-ISOTOPE RESULT-ERROR.
RESULT ERROR-RATIO RES T-PRIMARY. NA-24 6.9E-03 5.2E-05 6.2E-03 0.OE-01 9.0E-01 1.3E 02 A
Jappgqd CR-51 4.4E-03 1.3E-04; 4.0E-03 0.0E-01 9.0E-01 3. 5E O l ' A MN-54'
1.5E-04 1.6E-05 1.3E-04 0.0E-01 8.5E-01 9.4E 00- A MN-56:
9.6E-04 1.1E-04:
8.1E-04 0.0E-01 8.5E-01 8.6E'00
'A CO-58 1~.5E-04 2.0E-05-1.5E-04 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 7.5E 00 A-CO-60.
2.7E-04 1;5E-05'
2.5E-04 0.0E-01 9.1E-01 1.9E 01-A ZN-65 6.8E-05 2.5E-05 4.6E-05 0.0E-01 6.8E-01 12.7E 00 A-AS-76 1.2E-04. 2.5E-05 1.1E-04 0.0E-01-9.3E-01 4.7E 00 A
I-132 9.OE-04-4.5E-05 8.2E-04 0.0E-01 9.1E-01 2.0E 01 A
I-133 2.8E-04 1.3E-05-2.6E-04 0.0E-01 9.1E-01-2.2E 01 A
I-134 3.3E-03 3.2E-04 2.6E-03 :0.0E-01 7.9E-01 1.0E 01 A
I-135 9.7E-04 '9.6E-05 6.6E-04 0.0E-01 6.8E-01 1.0E 01 A
BA-139 9.9E-04 1.5E-04 5.3E-04 0.0E-01 5.4E-01 6.4E 00 A
C FELTER I-131
'1.2E-12 3.3E-13 5.0E-13 0.OE-01 4.2E-01 3.6E 00 A
2S-botA P FILTER NA-24 1.3E-10 5.5E-11 1.3E-10 0.0E-01 9.9E-01 2.4E 00 A
14 4218F CR-51 4.3E-11 1.7E-12 4.5E-11 0.0E-01 1.OE 00 2.5E'01 A
MN-54 6.3E-12 3.3E-13 5.3E-12 0.0E-01 8.4E-01 1.9E 01 A
CO-58 8.2E-12 3.7E-13'
7.3E-12 0.0E-01 8.9E-01 2.2E 01 A
CO-60-2.5E-11 5.5E-13 2.5E-11 0.0E-01 1.0E-00 4.5E 01 A
ZN-65 6.OE-12 8.4E-13 5.6E-12 0.0E-01 9.4E-01'
7.1E 00 A
- PRIMARY NA-24 6.9E-03 5.2E-05 6.2E-03 0.0E-01 9.0E-01 1.3E 02 A
af. sot 4 CR-51 4.5E-03 1.2E-04 3.8E-03 0.0E-01 8.5E-01 3.8E 01 A
MN-54 1.6E-04 2.0E-05 1.0E-04 0.0E-01 6.1E-01 8.1E 00 A
MN-56 9.8E-04 1.7E-04 7.4E-04 0.0E-01 7.5E-01 5.8E 00 A
.CO-58 1.7E-04 1.7E-05 1.5E-04 0.0E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E 01 A
.CO-60 2.7E-04 1.7E-05 2.3E-04 0.OE-01 8.6E-01 1.6E 01 A
AS-76.
1.3E-04 2.1E-05 1.0E-04 0.0E-01 7.7E-01 6.2E 00 A
'3.3E-05 9.4E-06 2.0E-05 0.0E-01 6.1E-01 3.5E 00 A
I-132-9.9E-04 4.8E-05 7.9E-04 0.0E-01 8.0E-01 2.1E 01 A
=T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
'D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA ~ RELAXED N=NO' COMPARISON
?
- _ _ - _ _ _
, _ - _ _ _ _ _
.__
-
-
_
._.._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
I, b"
,
.'
TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: QUAD CITIES FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1989
-
NRC
==
LICENSEE----
LICENSEE:NRC----
!
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
. PRIMARY I-133 3.0E-04 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 0.0E-01 8.8E-01 2.4E 01 A
I I-134 3.1E-03 3.8E-04 2.4E-03 0.0E-01 7.7E-01 8.2E 00 A
I-135 8.7E-04 6.7E-05 6.5E-04 0.0E-01 7.4E-01
'1.3E 01 A
BA-139 1.0E-03 2.3E-04 4.5E-04 0.0E-01 4.3E-01 4.6E 00 D
l C FILTER I-131 1.2E-12 3.3E-13 5.8E-13 0.0E-01 4.9E-01 3.6E 00 A
13-s o q o P FZLTER NA-24 1.3E-10 5.5E-11 1.3E-10 0.0E-01 9.9E-01 2.4E 00 A
Ji - SotA CR-51 4.3E-11 1.7E-12 4.5E-11 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A
MN-54 6.3E-12 3.3E-13 5.3E-12 0.0E-01 8.4E-01 1.9E 01 A
CO-58 8.2E-12 3.7E-13 7.3E-12 0.0E-01 8.9E-01 2.2E 01 A
CO-60 2.5E-11 5.5E-13 2.4E-11 0.0E-01 9.6E-01 4.5E 01 A
ZN-65 6.0E-12 8.4E-13 6.0E-12 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 7.1E 00 A
,
oE-04 3.9E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 8.4E 01 A
C SPIKED CO-57 3.8E-02
'
I S -l od o CO-60 8.2E-02 9.8E-04 8.3E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 8.4E 01 A
HG-203 1.OE-01 2.3E-02 8.1E-02 0.0E-01 7.8E-01 4.6E 00 A
,
Y-88 1.5E-01 4.3E-03 1.5E-01 0.0E-01 9.8E-01 3.6E 01-A i
CD-109 1.6E 00 1.2E-02 1.5E 00 0.0E-01 9.3E-01 1.4E 02 A
~
SN-113 1.1E-01 3.2E-03 1.1E-01 0.0E-01 9.6E-01 3.5E 01 A
CS-137 6.9E-02 7.6E-04 6.6E-02 0.0E-01 9.5E-01 9.1E 01 A
<
CE-139 4.3E-02 1.0E-03 4.5E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 4.2E 01 A
l I
L WASTE CR-51-2.3E-06 5.6E-07 1.6E-06 0.0E-01 6.9E-01 4.2E 00 A
a f.? gqq MN-54 8.5E-07 7.7E-08 6.5E-07 0.0E-01 7.7E-01 1.1E 01 A
CO-60 3.5E-06 1.4E-07 2.8E-06 0.0E-01 8.1E-01 2.5E 01 A
CS-137 1.1E-06 9.1E-08 8.3E-07 0.0E-01 7.8E-01 1.2E 01 A
i C EPIKED CO-57 3.8E-02 4.6E-04 3.7E-02 0.0E-01 9.7E-01 8.4E 01 A
I gg.gogg CO-60 8.2E-02 9.8E-04 8.OE-02 0.0E-01 9.7E-01 8.4E 01 A
HG-203 1.0E-01 2.3E-02 1.1E-01 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 4.6E 00 A
Y-88 1.5E-01 4.3E-03 1.5E-01 0.0E-01 9.8E-01 3.6E 01 A
l T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON l
l
'
-2-
-. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<
.
-
.
..
TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: QUAD CITIES FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1989
--NRC---
-
-
LICENSEE-LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR-RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
C SPIKED CD-109 1.6E 00 1.2E-02 1.5E 00 0.0E-01 9.3E-01 1.4E 02 A
SN-113 1.1E-01 3.2E-03 1.0E-01 0.0E-01 8.8E-01 3.5E 01 A
CE-137 6.9E-02 7.6E-04 6.4E-02 0.0E-01 9.3E-01 9.1E 01 A
CE-139 4.3E-02 1.0E-03 4.3E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 4.2E 01 A
OFF GAS KR-85M 2.0E-04 4.6E-06 2.1E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 4.3E 01 A
gg. gag;pKR-87 3.2E-04 2.5E-05 2.6E-04 0.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.3E 01 A
KR-88 4.8E-04 1.8E-05 5.1E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 2.7E 01 A
XE-131M 2.7E-04 8.4E-05 2.9E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.2E 00 A
XE-133 1.7E-04 5.7E-06 1.8E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.0E 01 A
XE-135 1.6E-03 9.9E-06 1.7E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.6E 02 A
L WASTE CR-51 2.1E-06 4.1E-07 1.7E-06 0.0E-01 8.2E-01 5.0E 00 A
gg.gos A MN-54 6.9E-07 8.5E-08 7.3E-07 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 8.1E'00 A
CO-60 3.5E-06 1.4E-07 2.BE-06 0.0E-01 8.1E-01 2.4E 01 A
CS-137 9.7E-07 8.9E-08 7.7E-07 0.0E-01 8.0E-01 1.1E 01 A
OFF GAS KR-85M~ 1.9E-04 5.5E-06 2.4E-04 0.0E-01 1.2E 00 3.5E 01 A
13 -f oq o KR-87 2.9E-04 3.0E-05 3.2E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 9.6E 00 A
KR-88 5.1E-04 2.3E-05 5.5E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 2.2E 01 A
XE-133 1.7E-04 5.5E-06 2.0E-04 0.0E-01 1.2E 00 3.2E 01 A
XE-135 1.6E-03 1.0E-05 1.BE-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.6E 02 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT-D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON-3-
_
_______ ___ _ -
.
,,,
-
.
..
.
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANflYTICAL 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 program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison 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.
should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. Conversely, poorer agre The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE ei Agreement
<4 0.4 - 2.5 4-
0.5 - 2.0 8-
0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33
'
51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 200 -
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 and identified on the data sheet.
.
b
.