IR 05000315/1978032
| ML17317A971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Greer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17317A970 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-78-32, 50-316-78-30, NUDOCS 7903070492 | |
| Download: ML17317A971 (11) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/78-32; 50-316/78-30 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No ~ DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, N. Y.
10004 Facility Name:
D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D. C. Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
December 12-13, 1978 Inspector:'pproved By:
R.
. Greer T. H. Essig, hief Environmental and Special Projects Section lo 7)
Ins ection Summer Ins ection on December 12-13 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-32 50-316/78-30 Areas Ins ected:
Routine Confirmatory Measurements inspection, including a discussion of the licensee's analytical results for the previous special sample collection and analyses; collection of effluent samples for future comparison; and an examination of the licensee's program for quality control of the radioanalytical laboratory.
The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
For the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie N"
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. Wo)cik, Plant Chemistry Supervisor
- E. Smarella, Plant Technical Supervisor
- J. Stietzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor G. Campbell, Chemist R. Looker, Chemistry Supervisor J. Rischling, Quality Control Coordinator, Technical II
- Indicates those present at exit interview.
2.
Results of Com arative Anal ses Some of the licensee's results of comparative sample analyses were unacceptable based on the test criteria used by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (see Attachment 1).
A summary of sample results is given in Table 1.
a ~
Li uid Waste Sam le The licensee's analysis of a liquid waste sample collected during a special sample collection in September 1978 yielded disagreements with Mn-54, Ag-110, and Co-60.
The licensee was unable to ascertain the reasons for these disagreements as he has made several changes in his program since September.
The changes made included:
(1) doubled count time, (2) changed sample volume, (3) computer software changes, (4) new standards and instrument recalibration, and (5) new quality control procedures.
The licensee gust recently doubled count times to obtain more definite sample peaks.
The sample volume has also been changed from 30 ml to 25 ml to eliminate possible procedural errors introduced by sample preparation.
The licensee also had representatives from Canberra check the GeLi system and the computer for proper operation.
Some software changes in the licensee's equipment were made as a result.
The licensee also obtained new NBS Standards and prepared new sources from these standards and recalibrated his instrumentation.
Lastly, in addition to the daily one point source check using cesium-137, the licensee is also counting an Amersham Searle standard with ten discrete energie After analyzing the liquid waste sample, the licensee sent the sample to his contractor, who also analyzed the sample.
The contractor's results agreed with the results from the NRC Reference Laboratory, thus proving that the disagreements noted for Mn-54, Ag-110m, and Co-60 were valid.
If these disagreements are real and representative, the licensee may have overestimated releases of these nuclides (Mn-54, Ag-110m, and Co-60) near the time of comparison and therefore may have been conservative in reporting the true activity.
The licensee analyzed the liquid spike submitted by the NRC Reference Laboratory.
Analytical results were in agreement with the information supplied by the reference laboratory for the three radionuclides contained in the spike.
c.
Gaseous Waste The licensee's results for Xe-133 and Xe-133m were in agreement with those of the NRC Reference Laboratory.
However, the licensee's result for Kr-85 was in disagreement with the NRC Reference Laboratory result.
No reason for this disagreement was apparent after discussions with the licensee.,
However, the licensee agreed to hold the gas sample collected during this collection and count it twice, one immediately'and once after a period of time, so that the short-lived nuclides can decay.
This sample analysis marked the initial use of a one liter Marinelli beaker by the licensee.
If this disagreement is real and representative, the licensee may have underestimated releases of this nuclide at the time of comparison.
However, because sample activity was low, the licensee did not exceed effluent release limits.
3.
Collection of Effluent Sam les The inspector collected liquid, gas, particulate, and charcoal effluent samples and also submitted a particulate spike from the NRC Reference Laboratory for future compariso ualit Control of the Radioanal tical Laborator The Plant Chemistry Supervisor is responsible for the confirmatory measurements program.
He reviews results of all analyses of plant radiological effluents.
Analytical instrumentation is calibrated annually by the Chemistry Department.
Daily source checks and weekly background checks are also performed by the Chemistry Department personnel.
The licensee recently evaluated the daily QC check of the GeLi system.
Previously, the GeLi system was checked daily using a
cesium-137 source.
However, in addition to the cesium-137 source, the licensee is presently also counting an Amersham Searle Standard with ten discrete energies on a daily basis.
The licensee also performs monthly system efficiency checks.
The licensee's internal quality control program is listed by computer printout which designates the various aspects of the program to be performed during a given day.
The printout is signed as the checks are performed and is reviewed by the QC Department on a quarterly basis.
The inspector examined audits of the program performed by the Technical Quality Control Coordinator during April and July 1978.
No problems were noted in these audits.
The inspector examined various procedures, records and logbooks relating to quality control, system efficiency and calibration checks.
No problems were noted.
The inspector also examined selected procedures for the non-radioactive analysis of primary coolant.
Procedures examined included the analysis for boron, chloride, chromium, conductivity, pH, hydrogen, and others.
No problems in these procedures were noted.
The licensee has arranged for Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. to audit the confirmatory measurements program.
This audit will include management control, procedure review, record review, independent sampling and analysis, a review of lab equipment, and statistical analysis of results from the independent sampling.
This audit should take place sometime after the first of the year in 1979.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on December 13, 1978.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection.
In response to certain remarks made by the inspector, the licensee agreed to count the gas sample two separate times
to allow short-lived nuclides to decay.
The inspector agreed with the suggestion that a special low-level liquid waste sample should be collected during the next routine sample collectio TABLE.
U S
NUCLEAR RE GUL ATOR Y COf'NI SS IOt'FF ICE OF IhSf E CTI Jt'VO F VFORCEifEtiT CONF IRHATCF.Y HEASUf ENENTS PROGRA H FAC ILITY:
C COOK FQR THE
QUA f'TER OF 1978-NPC-
---
---L ICEhSEE--
---t>>RC:L ICENSFE----
SAMPLF ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR f ATIO RES T
OFF Gt S XE 133 XE 133h KR
L SP IKED CO
CS 134 Ci; L
MPSTc 8: YA H
I 131 CS CS 137 CO
Ht~
54, AG
'1 10K CO 60 1 ~ 6E-02 1 o4F-go 9 <<BE-04 1 <<3E -03 3 ~ 8E-03 3 ~ 3".-03 3<<9E-03 3<<LE-02 2 'E-05 1 'E-03 2 obE-03 2 o9E -34 5 >>1E-05 9 ~ 8 F.-05 3 ~ 5E-04 5 eOE-04 2 OE-05 1 ~ 1E-Q4 5 eOF.0 8 <<QE-05 2 ~ QF."P4 2 aOE-04, 1<<OE-04 7aOE -06 7 ~ 4E "6 5 8r9c Ok 2 e9E-06 4 o7F -06 1 ~1E-05
'l e3E-02 1 <<7E-G4 3 ~ 5E-')4 1 >>4f -03 3 ~ 2E -l3
.i ~
c +
6 ~ 4E -03 3<<4E-02 2 ~CE-05 2o 2F. -03 2 ~ 9E-03 2 <<9E-04 1 ~ 3E -04 2 <<OE -04 8 <<5E-04
~ 5E-05 6 ~ 1F-06 2 <<1 =-05 1 ~ 1E-05 3 ~ 1E-05 4 o3E -05 4 ~ 8E-Q 5 2 ~ OE-OS 8 ~ 8E-36 1 ~ OF -05 1 ~ sf: -05 3 ~ 3E-OS 5 ~ 9E-06 8 <<6E -06 8 ~ 3f -06 8 ~ 1E-01 1 o 2E+0.'t 3 ~ 6E -01 1 <<1E+00 8 ~ 4E -01 1E+CO 1 ~ 6F. +00 1 ~ OE+00 1 >>QC+0'3 1 c 2E+Oi0 1 'E+00 1 ~ DE+ JO 2 ~ SE+00 2 <<OE+00 2 ~ 4E+00 3.2E+C1 7aOE +0')
A 8 ~9f +00
2 ot E+01 A
4>>BE e01 A
1>>7E+01 A
1<<9f:+Of P
3>>4E+02 A
3 ~ 6E +00 A
3<<68+01 A
3r5E+01 A
3>> -t -u1 h
1 <<LE+01
2<<1E +01
3ezF +01 D
A =A GR E EKE tt T 0=0 I SAGRF.E YiC V,T P=POSS I BLE AGREE lENT N-NO COtfPAR I SON
~:
CRIT)'.RIA FOR CO~'IPARZNG ANA1eYTICAL lII'.ASURI~II'.NTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing, results of capabili.ty tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
Possible ll tt
~Areement
~Areeeent A
ln these criteria, the )udgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to i.ts associated e sigma uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as one s
ma
."Resolution",
increases, the 'acceptabili.ty of a licensee s measurcmen should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be con-sidered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The val'ues 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.
The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
I'ESOLUTION RATIO =- LICEI'SEE VALUE/NRC REPEPENCE VALUE Possible AAreeeble
"B"
<3
>3 and
<4
>4 and
<8
>8 and
<16
>16 and
<51
'>51 and
<200
.>200 No Comparison No Comparison 0.4
-
2.5.0.0
~ 0.4
-
2.5 0.6 -
1.67.0 0. 75 1. 33 0. 6 1. 67 0. 80 l. 25 0. 75 - l. 33
'.85 -
1.18 0.80 1.25 No Comparison No Comparison.0 0.4
-
2.5 0 5
2 0 0.6
>>
1.67 0.75 1.33
"A" criteri.a are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for zdentifi-
. cation is greater than 250 keV.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"3" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 keV.
Sr-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same. date using the
~ same reference nuclide.