IR 05000266/1986009
| ML20207E316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207E304 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-86-09, 50-266-86-9, 50-301-86-08, 50-301-86-8, NUDOCS 8607220297 | |
| Download: ML20207E316 (8) | |
Text
._
-
_
.-
_
..
.
-
'
.
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
l Reports No. 50-266/86009(DRSS); 50-301/86008(DRSS)
!
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. OPR-24; DPR-27 i
Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI
'
i'
Inspection Conducted: June 9-13, 1986 h.
mw*A Inspector: A.G.knuska 7-II' O b Date j
$ h wY Approved By:
M. C.
humacher, C ef 7-11-66 i
,
Radiological Effluents and Date Chemistry Section l
Inspection Summary
,
i Inspection on June 9-13, 1986 (Reports No. 50-266/86009(DRSS);
50-301/86008(ORSS))
l Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the confirmatory
!
measurements program, including sampling, comparison of licensee analytical results with those obtained from the Region III Mobile Laboratory, and counting room quality control, a review of the 1985 Annual Environmental i
Monitoring report; close out of one open item; and review of a portion of one i
r LER.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
!
.
l
>
i
!
i
!
l
i i
t R
/*DO PDR
G
!
'
i
- _.. _.. _ _ - _. _. _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _, _,. _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _,. _. _ _ _ _.., _, _ - _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- T. Keehnr, General Superintendent
- T. Fredricks, Radiochemist
- T. Slack, i'uclear Plant Specialist
- F.
Flentje, Administrative Specialist E. Hinshaw, 5,'ecialist, Nuclear Chemistry E. Manos, Specialist, Nuclear
- R. Hague, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
- R. Leemon, NRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on June 13, 1986.
2.
Action on Previous inspection Findings (Closed) Opon Item (50-266/85011-01; 50-301/85011-01): Analyze betas in liquid and report results to Region III.
The results of the sample compari-sons are given in Table 2; comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
Only the tritium results were compared because the strontium values were below the comparison limit of 10% of the unrestricted 10 CFR 20 Appendix B values.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements Stack air particulate, charcoal, reactor coolant, gas, spike air particulate, spike charcoal, and a liquid waste distillate tank sample were split and analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and by the inspector using the Region III mobile laboratory.
Results of the sample comparisons are listed in Table 1.
The licensee also agreed to analyze a split of the distillate tank for gross beta, tritium, and strontium - 89,90, and report i
the results to Region III.
(0 pen Item 266/86009-01; 301/86008-01)
No radionuclides were identified on the air particulate and charcoal cartridge samples. Therefore, the licensee's spiked air particulate and charcoal cartridge standards were analyzed and compared as though real samples. The charcoal cartridge comparisons were made against licensee
,
l Detector Nos.1 and 2 using the gamma lines with energies that approximated those of the iodine isotopes (C SPIKED Det 1 and Det 2). These comparisons yielded all agreements. Agreements were also achieved on all comparisons made on an off gas sample, the air particulate spike (F SPIKED), and on the
,
i sample from the liquid waste distillate tanks (L WASTE). A filtered primary coolar.t sample (RCS 1) comparison with the licensee's test-tube geometry on Detector No.1 gave disagreements for Na-24, I-132 and I-134. In addition, the licensee was 15% low in a dose equivalent I-131 comparison made on this l
sample. A second primary sample was collected and compared on Detector
!
No I with the licensee's test-tube geometry (RCS 2) and also with his normal one-liter release geometry (SIMREL). The test tube geometry again showed a low bias (11% on dose equivalent iodine) including a disagreement for I-132.
f l
l l
!
<
_
~
,
-
.
By contrast the one-liter geometry showed all agreemects. Additinnal counting by the licensee demonstrated that tF.e tast-tube geometry gave accurate results on Detector Nos. 2 and 3, further indicating that the problem was in the test-tube geometry of Detector No. 1.
The licensee
-
amended his computer file to preclude ese of this gconetry on the latter
'
detector until it is recalibrated.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Unit 1 Primary Coolant Activity Increase During the inspection, the Unit I failed-fuel. monitor detected an increase in primary coolant activity indicating the possibility of failed fuel. The event occurred between the collection of the two primary coolant samples used in the confirmatory measurements comotrison (Section 3). The inspector's analyses confirmed the licensee's evaluation that dose equivalent iodine did not exceed the technical specification limit of one pC1/g. The e.nalyses showed that the dose equivalent iodine increased from 3.0 E-2 uti/9 on June 10, 1986, to 3.7 E-1 pC1/g on June 11, 1936.
Inspector analysis of a third sample collected on June 12, showed 2.7 E-1 pCi/g, which confirmed licensee results demonstrating that dose equivalent iodine had peaked and was starting to decrease. This matter is being followed by the NRC resident inspectors on site.
5.
Counting Room Quality Control frogram The inspector briefly reviewed the counting roon quality control program.
The licensee recently implemented daily QC performance checks on the gamma spectrometers, beta gamma counter, and the liquid scint11'sation counter.
The results are recorded on log sheets that specify star.dard sources and acceptance criteria (5%) for count rate and, for the gamma spectrometers, the acceptable variability (10.2 kev) on full-width half-maximum for the Cs-137 and Co-60 peaks.
The inspector noted that the licensee does not follow the customary practice of using control charts with warning and control levels to trend instrument performance. This is considered a weakness in that control charts give a much better indication of coutiter performance than tabular data. The log sheets also do not specify actions to be taken when the daily checks fall outside the 5% criterien. A licensee representative stated that it is common understanding within the group to notify the laboratory supervisor and to document cut-of-servict instruments in the counting room shift turnover 109 This aspect of performance was not reviewed. Also not reviewed were other licensee described improvements such as bimonthly receipt of fresh, sendor supplied standards to check air particulate, charcoal, gas, and liquid release quantification.
Labo-atory quality control will be examined in greater detafi during a subsequent inspection.
(0 pen Item 266/S6009-02; 301/86008-02)
No violations or deviations were icentified.
'
l e
a
._ _
.
. -
__ -
.
-.
_
-
.
6.
Environmental Protection Tre inspector cevieved the Radiological Environmental Monitoring section cf the 1985 senlannual monitoring report, an Environmer,tal Data Leg Book, arc a ampling checklist and oiscussed the program irr.plementation with a licensee representative.
Saaples are co!1ected by pizot personnel, and analyzed by centrictcr; the monthly reports are review d by corporate personnel.
Interpretations ard con:lusions regarding the samples analyzed in 1985 indicate that no naasurerseats with sigd ficar' departures f rca the nortial were attributable to pl ant operations, No violations or deviation 5 were identified.
)
7.
Open Items Open items are matters which Pave been discussed dth the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve scmc action on the part of the NRC or licenseo or both. Open i*. ems disclosed during the inspection are discussed in 3ections 3 anc 5.
8.
Exit Interview The scope and firdings of stie inspectien were reviewed with licensee re;:resentatives (Section 1) at the.:oticlusior, -f the inspection on Junc 13, 1986.
The inspector discussed the attributes of a scod counting room QC program including data crending with control charts, rianagtment review of OC results, flagging of instrunent problems, u d handling of instrumer,ts where OC checks inoicate performance otitside of acceptaus limits.
During the exit interview, tne iospector dist Jssei the like'y in 'ormational content cf the inspection repart with regarri t.o occuments or processes
)
reviewed by the inspectcr tiuring the ir.spection. Licensee representatives did not identify any such tjocumerts or processes as propriotary.
Attech nents:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measuraments Program Results, 2nd Quartar 1986 2.
Table 2, Cenrirn.atory Heasurements Program Results, 2nd Quarter 1985 3.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
"
Analytical Measurements
,
-
._
._.
,-
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ --
. _
-. _.
. _ _ _ _ _
_ _.
_
-
.
TABLE 1
.
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM l
FACILITY: POINT BEACH FOR THE 2 OUARTER OF 1986 i
<
!
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
)CSPIKEDY-88 1.2E-02 3.9E-04 1.3E-02 1.7E-04 1.OE 00 3.2E 01 A
i SN-113 9.2E-03 3.1E-04 9.8E-03 1.2E-04 1.1E 00 2.9E 01 A
CS-137 1.9E-02 3.9E-04 1.9E-02 1.7E-04 1.OE 00 4.7E 01 A
'RCS-2 I-131 2.0E-01 1.6E-03 1.8E-01 2.2E-03 9.0E-01 1.2E 02 A
I-132 2.4E-01 4.5E-03 1.9E-01 5.SE-03 7.BE-01 5.4E 01 D
' Det. 1 1-133 4.9E-01 2.1E-03 4.3E-01 4.4E-03 8.8E-01 2.4E 02 A
I-134 1.5E-01 1.4E-02 9.BE-02 1.3E-02 6.6E-01 1.1E 01 A
i I-135 3.2E-01 5.5E-03 3.0E-01 8.2E-03 9.5E-01 5.8E 01 A
i
'SiMREL T1A-24 3.1E-03 6.7E-04 2.7E-03 3.1E-04 8.5E-01 4.7E 00 A
l I-131 2.0E-01 1.6E-03 2.0E-02 1.3E-03 1.0E 00 1.2E 02 A
. Det. 1 I-132 2.5E-01 3.6E-03 2.SE-01 2.9E-03 9.9E-01 7.OE 01 A
i I-137 4.9E-01 2.1E-03 4.8E-01 2.6E-03 9.8E-01 2.4E 02 A
I-134 1.4E-01 1.2E-02 1.4E-01 6.6E-03 9.8E-01 1.2E 01 A
- .
i 1-135 3.3E-01 5.5E-03 3.1E-01 3.5E-03 9.4E-01 5.9E 01 A
l t
iT TES1 RESULTS:
!A= AGREEMENT
- D* DISAGREEMENT
'*= CRITERIA RELAVED l
' N=NO COMPARISOri
,
l l
[
r f
I
,
t i
t t
I t
!
'
_
-
-
- -
.
_ _. _
___ _,.- _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _
____
_ _ _ _ _
__ __
___ -
.
TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: POINT BEACH
FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1986
l
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
-LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
'
OFF GAS KR-85 3.9E-03 2.5E-04 3.9E-03 8.3E-04 9.8E-01 1.6E 01 A
,
Det. 1 XE-133 2.2E-03 1.1E-05 2.3E-03 2.3E-04 1.OE 00 2.1E 02 A
'
i XE-133M 2.3E-05 4.2E-06 2.2E-05 1.1E-05 9.5E-01 5.5E 00 A
XE-135 5.7E-06 5.5E-07 6.8E-06 0.0E-01 1.2E 00 1.0E 01 A
L WASTE CO-58 9.0E-07 1.4E-07 7.4E-07 C.3E-08 8.2E-01 6.3E 00 A
,
D:t. 2
.
!
RCS-1 NA-24 1.4E-03 1.9E-04 5.6E-04 1.3E-04 4.1E-01 7.1E 00 D
I-131 6.9E-03 3.3E-04 5.7E-03 1.2E-04 8.2E-01 2.1E 01 A
l Det. 1 1-132 6.1E-02 1.4E-03 4.6E-02 1.0E-03 7.5E-01 4.3E 01 D
I-133 4.6E-02 4.3E-04 4.0E-02 4.4E-04 8.7E-01 1.1E 02 A
I-134 1.3E-01 6.6E-03 8.5E-02 3.4E-03 6.7E-01 1.9E 01 D
c
'
I-135 7.6E-02 1.8E-03 7.OE-02 1.4E-03 9.2E-01 4.2E 01 A
.
TC-9CM 7.6E-04 1.2E-04 1.0E-03 5.2E-05 1.3E 00 6.4E 00 A
. C SPIKED CO-60 1.8E-02 4.3E-04 1.7E-02 2.2E-04 9.2E-01 4.3E 01 A
)
HG-203 2.8E-03 1.3E-04 2.5E-03 4.9E-05 8.9E-01 2.2E 01 A
Det. 1 Y-88 1.2E-02 3.9E-04 1.2E-02 1.7E-04 9.8E-01 3.2E 01 A
,
SN-113 9.2E-03 3.1E-04 9.5E-03 1.2E-04 1.0E 00 2.9E 01 A
-
,
'
CS-137 1.9E-02 3.9E-04 1.8E-02 1.8E-04 9.5E-01 4.7E 01 A
i i
F SPIKED CO-57 2.4E-03 5.8E-05 2.6E-03 3.6E-05 1.1E 00 4.1E 01 A
I CO-60 6.7E-03 2.1E-04 6.5E-03 9.8E-05 9.6E-01 3.1E 01 A
Det. 2 HG-203 4.4E-03 9.6E-05 4.5E-03 4.8E-05 1.0E 00 4.6E 01 A
j Y-88 7.2E-03 2.2E-04 7.3E-03 9.3E-05 1.0E 00 3.2E 01 A
CD-109 2.6E-01 2.4E-03 2.5E-01 4.1E-03 9.6E-01 1.1E 02 A
SN-113 7.2E-03 1.7E-04 7.0E-03 7.2E-05 9.8E-01 4.2E 01 A
'
CS-137 8.4E-03 2.3E-04 8.5E-03 8.8E-05 1.0E 00 3.7E 01 A
i CE-139 3.8E-03 7.6E-05 4.2E-03 4.6E-05 1.1E 00 5.1E 01 A
C SPIKED CO-60 1.8E-02 4.3E-04 1.8E-02 2.0E-04 1.0E 00 4.3E 01 A
- Det. 2 HG-203 2.8E-03 1.3E-04 2.8E-03 5.7E-05 9.9E-01 2.2E 01 A
,
T TEST RESULTS:
!
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT
- o CRITERIA RELANED j N=NO COMPAPISON
,
.,sy7--__-_.~,-,,e_r,..
. _ - -
.,.,.,_3..r,.m.-.%.
.,,_.,._,~..%_.
,_.,.,_...,-.r.,e..-~,..___.._,,_.
,.,.n,,
r.m,.. -,. _
.-me..w-.
-
... ;.
I e
.
TABLE 2
-
U E NUCLEAR REG:.fLf. TORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONCIFMATODY MEASUDE*1Et>TS FROGPaM
'
FACILITYr *0!NT PEACH FOR THE 2 OUAPTErt Or 1935
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICEt45EE NRC----
SAMDLE ISOTOPE RE. ULT SPROR PESULT EPoOP PATIO PE?
'
L WASTE H-?
1.2E-01 2.0E-03 1.3E-01 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 6.0E 01 A
SR 09 0.0E-92 6.0E-09 2.3E-00 0.0E-01 0,0E-01 0,0E-01 D
SR-90 9.OE-09 4.OE-09 4.5E-09 0.OE-01 5.OE-01 2.3E 00 B
T TEST RESULTS:
A=AGRE5 MENT DoDISAGFEEMENT
,
l i
l l
l l
.
I r
..se
.
.
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 program.
In these criteria, tne 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 acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement s
<3 No Comparison
.g3 and
<4 0.4 2.5
-
2.0 J,4 and
<8 0.5
-
1.67
.2p and
<16 0.6
-
,1,16 and
<51 0.75 - 1.33
,251 and
<200 0.80 - 1.25
.1200 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.