IR 05000302/1987003
| ML20211P902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1987 |
| From: | Harris J, Kahle J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P868 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-87-03, 50-302-87-3, NUDOCS 8703020450 | |
| Download: ML20211P902 (9) | |
Text
pith
'
"
UNITE'J STATES
'o
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[,
REGION 11 o
g j
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
,
~t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 h
n
-
- ..;
kB i71987 i
Report.No.: 50-302/87.-03
. Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th. Street, South-St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 Inspection Conducted: January 26-30, 1987 Inspector:
b. be 2 ~ /0- 77 i
J. D. Harris Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
R. R. Marston G. L. Froemsdorf Approved by:
h JL //// 7 J./B.
able, Section' Chief
/Date/ Signed Divis on of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (
SUMMARY Scope:
This inspection involved onsite review in the areas of Radiochemical Quality Control and confirmatory measurement comparisons of split sample analysis performed by the licensee and NRC RII mobile laboratory.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
?o030 & y 05000302 870217
-.
-
-. - - -
. --_ _,,__ _ __.,
_-.
...
.-
.
.
..
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted:
Licensee Employees
- S. Johnson, Manager, Site Nuclear Services -
- M. Collins, Superintendent,' Safety and Reliability
- R. Clarke, Manager, Radiation Protection
- P. Skramstad, Superintendent, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Chemistry
- J. Roberts, Manager, Nuclear Chemistry
- B. Julias, Chief Technician, Nuclear Chemistry
- R. Pinner, Supervisor, Nuclear Chemistry
- D. McCollough, Supervisor, Nuclear Chemistry
- P. Breedlove, Supervisor, Nuclear Records Management
- J. Alberdi, Manager, Nuclear Site Support
- W. Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance
- M. Mann, Specialist, Nuclear Compliance J. Payne, Supervisor, Nuclear Chemistry Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsman, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- T. Stetka
- J. Tedrow
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope ar.d findings were summarized on January 30, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee expressed no
'
dissenting opinions or comments.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
AuditsandAppraisals(84725)
The inspectors reviewed the following audits:
Audit QP-295, Radiation Protection Programs, September 1986 Audit QP-298, Environmental and Effluent Technical Specification Conformance, October 1986 Both audits appeared to be very thorough and probing.
Most findings were administrative issues and the corrective actions proposed werr. plausible.
- - _
. - -
-. -, - -. - _ - - -. -
.
--
.
.. -.
- - - -
. -. -
. -
.
'
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Radiochemical Quality Assurance Program (84725)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiochemical quality assurance program and some aspects of the non-radiochemisty program. This review was based on criteria given in Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) Effluent Streams and the Environment." The following records for instrumentation from the period January 1984 through January 1987 were selectively revie'.ied.
a.
Alpha and Beta Detector (1 Daily Background Check (2 Daily Source Check (3 Semiannual Efficiency Calibration b.
LS-3800 Liquid Scintillation Counter (1) Daily Background Check (2) Daily Source Check (3) Semiannual Quench Curves (4) LLD Determinations s
c.
High Purity Germanium Detectors (1) Daily Source Check (2) Daily Resolution Check (3) Monthly Source Check Trend Charts (4) Annual Efficiency Calibration (5) LLD Determinations (6) Activity Agreement Checks d.
PASS High Purity Sampling System (1) Daily Source Checks (2) Monthly Source Check Trend Charts (3) Annual Efficiency Calibration The inspector noted that the licensee did not perform long term trend analysis.
The inspector discussed this with cognizant licensee personnel.
The licensee felt that the short term trending and daily QA checks would
'
detect adverse instrument performance in a timely manner.
The upper and lower acceptance limits for some QA checks were found to have been determined in a somewhat arbitrary manner.
The inspector discussed the possible advantages of performance based limits to provide more accurate performance expectations from the instrumentation.
Cognizant licensee personnel agreed to evaluate possible program changes in this area.
The licensee participates in a interlaboratory comparison program with a vendor laboratory.
This vendor has established traceability for its
-
-
-
--
_ _.
.
-
-_ _ _ ______ _____
- -. _--.
.
measurements to'the National Bureau of Standards.
The inspectors reviewed the results of this program _for the year 1986.
Samples compared included tritium, noble-gases, charcoal cartridges, particulate filters, strontium-89, strontium-90, iron-55, gama emitters in water, and non-radiological chemistry species.
A high level of agreement between laboratories was'noted.- One problem area noted by the licensee was the lack of an industry -wide standard for comparing non-radiological chemical measurements, especially at low concentrations.
Efforts are-being made to establish error terms for these measurements by statistical analysis of i
data.
The licensee also evaluated individual technicians performance on spike and replicate samples to maintain or improve analytical capabilities.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) (84725)
i The inspectors toured the liquid PASS facilities with cognizant licensee i
personnel.
The system was well maintained and the licensee stated that the i
'
recent operational history was good. The licensee has a program in place to check or restock chemical reagents, and other supplies.
Also periodic QA checks are made for chemical instrumentation and the Automated Isotope Measuring System (AIMS).
The inspectors observed operation of the PASS system to make comparisons between the PASS and normal reactor coolant sampling points for gamma emitters and dissolved hydrogen.
The comparison results were within the criteria of NUREG-0737.
Due to the plant being online for only a short period following an outage, comparisons for gamma emitters were inconclusive.
The licensee has had a problem making comparisons at low levels of activities due to the design characteristics of the AIMS system.
The system is designed for the high level of coolant radioactivity postulated for a severe accident. The licensee has increased the count time for the PASS system and will evaluate other possible improvements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Confirmatory Measurements (84725)
Reactor coolant and selected liquid and gaseous process streams were sampled with the resultant samples analyzed by both the licensee's and NRC's RII mobile laboratory gamma spectroscopy systems.
The purpose of these comparative measurements is to help ensure that the licensee is measuring radionuclides accurately to account for radioactivity in various plant systems, and radioactivity released to unrestricted areas.
The inspector supplied a spiked charcoal cartridge and a spiked particulate filter to the licensee to ensure sufficient activity for valid comparison of those geometries. Other licensee's geometries utilized in the comparison included a one liter gas marinelli, a 34 milliliter gas bulb, a 20 milliliter scintillation vial, and a one-liter bottle. Comparisons of licensee and NRC results are given in Attachment 1.
The acceptance criterion is given in Attachment 2.
All measurements were in agreement.
The largest difference noted was the comparison for the charcoal cartridge with a ratio of I
.
- approximately 0.9.
The inspector compared the charccal cartridge standard, used by the licensee to calibrate this geometry, against its certificate
,
values and values obtained using the current licensee efficiency files. The average ratio was approximately 1.04.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
.
_
_
_
.
ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 1
.
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT CRYSTAL RIVER, JANUARY 26-30,-1987 SAMPLE TYPE ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION fuCi/ Unit 1 RESOLUTION RATIO COMPARISON
,(Licensee Geometry)
Licensee
,fiRC Licensee /NRC CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE DET l CO-60 4.405 E-2 4.901 i.062 E-2 79.0
.89 Ag reemen t (NRC Spiked Sample)
CD-109 1.609 E-O 1.84 i.009 E-O 200
.87 Ag reement CE-139 3.298 E-2 3.767.1.041 E-2 91.8
.87 Ag reement HG-203 7.298 E-2 7.376 i.339 E-2 21.7
.99 Ag reement Y-88 9.245 E-2 1.033 i.019 E-1 54.4
.89 Ag reemen t CO-57 3.405 E-2 3.870 i.030 E-2 129
.88 Ag reement CS-137 4.937 E-2 5.844 i.052 E-2 112.4
.84 Ag reement SN-113 6.680 E-2 7.711 i.122 E-2 63.2
.87 Ag reement CHARCOAL CARTRIDCE DET ll CO-60 4.598 E-2 4.901 i.062 E-2 79.0
.93 Ag reement (NRC Spiked Sample)
CD-109 1.694 E-0 1.84 i.009 E-0 200
.92 Ag reement CE-139 3.478 E-2 3.767 i.041 E-2 91.8
.92 Ag reement HG-203 7.661 E-2 7.376 i.339 E-2 21.7 1.03 Ag reement Y-88 9.608 E-2 1.033 i.019 E-1 54.4
.93 Ag reement CO-57 3.621 E-2 3.870 i.030 E-2 129
.93 Ag reement CS-137 5.323 E-2 5.844 i.052 E-2 112.4
.91 Ag reemen t SN-113 7.282 E-2 7.711 i.122 E-2 63.2
.94 Ag reement CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE DET lli CO-60 4.412 E-2 4.901
.062 E-2 79.0
.90 Ag reement (NRC Spiked Sample)
CD-109 1.611 E-0 1.84 i.009 E-0 200
.88 Ag reemen t CE-139 3.349 E-2 3.767 i.041 E-2 91.8
.89 Ag reement HG-203 8.319 E-2 7.376 i.339 E-2 21.7 1.12 Ag reement Y-88 9.137 E-2 1.033 i.019 E-1 54.4
.88 Ag reement CO-57 3.477 E-2 3.870 i.030 E-2 129
.90 Ag reemen t CS-137 4.926 E-2
's. 844 i. 052 E-2 112.4
.84 Ag reement SN-113 6.815 E-2 7.711 i.122 E-2 63.2
.88-Ag reement.
PARTICULATE FILTER DET I MN-54 1.936 E-3 2.022 i.148 E-3 13.6
.96 Ag reement (NRC Spiked Sample)
CO-60 1.704 E-2 1.830 i.029 E-2 63.1
.93 Ag reement CS-137 1.199 E-2 1.305 i.020 E-2 65.3
.92 Ag reement CE-144 3.794 E-3 4.124 i.353 E-3 11.7
.92 Ag reement PARTICULATE FILTER DET 18 MN-54 1.928 E-3 2.022 i.148 E-3 13.6
.95 Ag reement (NRC Spiked Sample)
C0-60 1.545 E-2 1.5330 i.029 E-2 63.1
.84 Ag reement CS-137 1.096 E-2 1.305 i.020 E-2 65.3
.84 Ag reement CE-144 3.375 E-2 4.124 i.353 E-3 11.7
.82 Agreement
.
_
._
_
.
.
Table 1 (Cont'd)
SAMPLE TYPE ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION fuci/Uniti RESOLUTION RATIO COMPARISON
(Licensee Ceometry)
License 2 MHC Licensee /NRC PARTICULATE FILTER DET lli MN-54 2.058 E-3 2.022 i.1848 E-3 13.6 1.02 Ag reement (NRC Spiked Sample)
CO-60 1.712 E-2 1.830 i.029 E-2 63.1
.94 Ag reement CS-137 1.208 E-2 1.305 i.020 E-2 65.3
.93 Ag reemen t CE-144 3.961 E-3 4.124 i.353 E-3 11.7
.96 Ag reemen t SAMPLE 20ML SCINTILLATION 3-131 1. 6f4 E-2 1.695 i.020 E-2 8ts.7
.97 Ag reement VIAL DET I I-132 9.35 E-2 9.421 i.030 E-2 200
.99 Ag reemen t (ReIctor Coolant Liquid)
1-134 1.13 E-1 1.196 i.018 E-1 66.4
.94 Ag reemen t 1-135 1.07 E-1 1.052 i.011 E-1 95.6 1.02 Ag reement
.
CS-138 2.19 E-1 2.218 i.038 E-1 58.4
Ag reemen t
'
SAMPLE 20ML SCINTILLATION RU-106 3.08 E-2 2.784 i.120 E-2 23.2 1.11 Ag reement VIAL DET ll 1-131 1.61 E-2 1.695 i.020 E-2 84.7
.95 Ag reement (Rssctor Coolant Liquid)
1-132 4.60 E-2 5.133 i.035 E-2 146.7
.89 Ag reement 1-103 9.17 E-2 9.421 i.030 E-2 200
.97 Ag reemen t 1-134 1.12 E-1 1.196 i.081 E-1 66.4
.93 Ag reement 1-135 1.04 E-1 1.052 i.011 E-1 95.6
.98 Ag reemen t CS-138 2.15 E-1 2.218 i.038 E-1 58.4
.97 Ag reement SAMPLE 20ML SClNTILLATION l-131 1.73 E-2 1.695 i.020 E-2 B f4. 7 1.02 Ag reement i
VIAL DET lli 1-132 5.00 E-2 5.133 i.035 E-2 146.7
.97 Ag reement
,
(Reactor Coolant Liquid)
1-133 9.56 E-2 9.421 i.030 E-2 200 1.01 Ag reement
1-134 1.18 E-1 1.196 i.018 E-1 66.4
.99 Ag reement -
1-135 1.09 E-1 1.052 i.011 E-1 95.6 1.04 Agreement CS-138 2.30 E-1 2.218 i.038 E-1 58.4 1.04 Ag reement 1 LITER BOTTLE CO-58 3.115 E-6 2.572 i.258 E-6 9.96 1.21 Ag reement DEMINERALIZER PROCESS CO-60 2.111 E-6 2.058 i.272 E-6 7.6 1.02 Ag reemen t
,
J STREAM DET I SB-124 1.262 E-5 1.306 i.080 E-5 16.3
.97 Ag reement (Liquid Waste)
SB-125 2.551 E-5 2.678 i.109 E-5 24.6
.95 Ag reement i
1 LITER BOTTLE Co-58 3.199 E-6 2.572 i.258 E-6 9.96 1.24 Ag reement DFMINERALIZER PROCESS CO-60 1.867 E-6 2.058 i.272 E-6 7.6
.91 Ag reement (
STREAM DET 11 SB-124 1.281 E-5 1.306 1.080 E-5 16.3
.98 Ag reement
,
(Liquid Waste)
SB-125 2.548 E-5 2.678 i.109 E-5 24.6
.95 Ag reement j
1 LITER BOTTLE C0-58 3.193 E-6 2.572 i.258 E-6 9.96 1.24 Ag reemen t
!
DEMINERAllZER PROCESS CO-60 2.056 E-6 2.058 i.272 E-6 7.6
.99 Ag reemen t
STRE/.M DET lil SB-124 1.238 E-5 1.306 i.040 E-5 16.3
.95 Ag reement (Liquid Waste)
SB-125 2.555 E-5 2.678 i.109 E-5 2 84. 6
.95 Ag reement
'
i I
,
%
,
._ __. _ _ _
-
-
-
-
-
,
,
.n
.
Table 1 (Cont'd)
SAMPLE TYPE ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION fuGij_ Unit)
RESOLUTION RATIO COMPARISON
.
(Licensee Geometry)
Licensee E
Licensce/NRC
,
1250ML CAS MARINELLI DET I XE-133 5.32 E-5 5.448 i.043 E-5 126.7
.98 Ag reement (W:ste Gas Decay Tank Spike) XE-135 1.18 E-5 1.244 i.013 E-5 95.7
.94 Ag reement l
KR-85M 6.27 E-7 5.848 i.427 E-7 13.7 1.07 Ag reement XE-133M 1.84 E-6 2.143 i.273 E-6 7.8
.86 Ag reement
'
1250ML GAS MARINELLI DET ll XE-133 5.30 E-5 5.448 i.043 E-5 126.7
.97 Ag reemen t (Waste Gas Decay Tank Spike) XE-135 1.17 E-5 1.244 i.013 E-5 95.7
.97 Ag reement kR-85M 6.04 E-7 5.848 i.427 E-7 13.7 1.03 Ag reemen t
XE-133M 1.63 E-6 2.143 i.273 E-6 7.8
.76 Ag reement 1250ML GAS MARINELLI DET lil XE-133 5.51 E-5 5.448 i.043 E-5 126.7 1.01 Ag reement (W2ste Gas Decay Tank Spike) XE-135 4.22 E-5 1.244 1.013 E-5 95.7
.98 Ag reemen t i
KR-85M 6.84 E-7 5.848 i.427 E-7 13.7'
1.17 Agreement i
XE-13JM 2.27 E-6 2.143 i.273 E-6 7.8 1.06 Ag reement
!
34ML GAS BULB DET I XE-133 1.051 E-1-1.130 i.004 E-1 200
.93 Ag reement
(Waste Gas Decay Tank)
XE-133M 4.208 E-3 4.181 i.258 E-3 16.2 1.00 Ag reement s
XE-135 1.321 E-2 1.367 i.010 E-2 136.7
.97 Ag reement j
KR-85M 1.366 E-4 1.532 i.284 E-4 6.5
.89 Ag reement i
34HL GAS BULB DET ll XE-133 1.061 E-1 1.130 i.004 E-1 200
.93 Ag reement
'
(Waste Gas Decay Tank)
XE-133M 4.934 E-3 4.181 i.258 E-3 16.2 1.18 Ag rcemen t XE-135 1.461 E-2 1.367 i.010 E-2 136.7 1.07 Ag reement KR-85M 1.263 E-4 1.532 i.234 E-4 6.5
.82 Ag reement
34ML GAS BULB DET lil XE-133 1.078 E-1 1.130 i.004 E-1 200
.95 Ag reemen t (Waste Gas Decay Tank)
XE-133M 4.071 E-3 4.181 i.258 E-3 16.2
.97 Ag reemen t
XE-135 1.334 E-2 1.367 i.010 E-2 136.7
.98 Ag reemen t
-
'
KR-85M 1.007 E-4 1.532 i.234 E-4-6.5
.65 Ag reement l
i
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This enclosure 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 judgement limits denoting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable. This variability is a function of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty, referred to in this program as " Resolution"1 increases, the range of acceptable differences between the NRC ' and licensee values should be more restrictive.
Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and licensee values must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
For comparison purposes, a ratio of the licensee value to the NRC value for each individual nuclide is computed. This ratio is then evaluated for agreement based on the calculated resolution. The corresponding resolution and calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below.
Values outside of the agreement ratios for a selected nuclide are considered in disagreement.
2 Resolution = NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide Associated Uncertainty for the Value 2 Comparison Ratio =
Licensee Value NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio for Resolution Agreement
<4 0.4 - 2.5 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.85 - 1.18 i
, - _ - -
, - -
- - -
-
-,.
_ - - _ - _ - - _ - -, _ _
- - -, - - _,
- -. - - - - _ _
_. _. - _