IR 05000315/1987030
| ML17325A517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A516 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-87-30, 50-316-87-30, NUDOCS 8712110248 | |
| Download: ML17325A517 (9) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-315/87030(DRSS);
50-316/87030(DRSS)
Dockets No. 50-315; 50-316 Licensee:
Indiana Michigan Power Company 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216 Licenses No.
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D.
C.
Cook Site Bridgeman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
November 3-6, 12 and 13, 1987 f( ~~,/-
Inspectors:
A.
nuska Accompanied By:
R.
Bocanegra r
/ gtgcc11~i.ctcrr
'pproved By:
M.
C.
Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section
"/ /8~
Date ate Ins ection Summar Ins ection on November 3-6 12 and
1987 (Re orts No. 50-315/87030(DRSS).
No.
50-316 87030 DRSS di
i felly and confirmatory measurements for in-plant radiochemical analyses.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
8712110249 871202 PDR ADOCK 05000315
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
~A.
1L M.
Blind, Assistant, Plant Manager, Operations and Administration Gibson, Assistant Plant Manager, Technical Support Gumm, Technical Physical Science, Administrative Compliance Coordinator Haglund, Technical Physical Science, Chemistry Supervisor Horvath, AEPSC, Site gA Supervisor Kriesel, Technical Physical Science, Superintendent Smith, Jr., Plant Manager Wojcik, Technical Physical Science, Plant Chemical Supervisor
~Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2Present during telephone conversation on November 12 and 13, 1987.
2.
Confirmator Measurements ualit Assurance The inspectors reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory quality assurance program including the physical facilities, laboratory operations, and procedures.
All the counting equipment was found to be in good working order.
Pertinent laboratory operating procedures found in 12 THP 6020 LAB were reviewed by the inspectors.
A detailed review of annual calibration procedures
THP 6020 LAB.073, LAB.074, and LAB.140 was performed.
Other procedures reviewed included daily, weekly, and monthly equality Control checks (LAB.088), laboratory surveillance (LAB.100),
particulate counting (LAB.085), gamma analysis (LAB.0141) gross beta-gamma determination (LAB.047), and equality Assurance (LAB.044).
There were no problems observed in these procedures.
The inspectors also reviewed equality Control records and related supporting documentation.
Documents inspected included weekly Chi Square Test results, daily g.C. results for germanium detectors for the last three months, check source decay graphs for daily g. C.
checks, and G. M.,
P. C.,
germanium detector, and liquid scintillation counter calibration.
All records inspected were found to be in accordance with 12 THP 6020 LAB procedures.
Based on information used to compare the results of the licensee's six day iodine stack sample, the inspectors questioned the licensee's decay correction during long sample collection times.
After reviewing the spectroscopy system software manual the inspectors found that the licensee was using a decay time that, for short-lived nuclides, would cause the software to over report activity present in a sample.
The licensee consulted with the system vendor and a
solution has been devised based on the inspectors'inding.
The
licensee will temporarily apply a correction factor to short-lived nuclides collected over long sample periods until permanent software changes have been made.
Sam le S lit Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal adsorber, spiked air particulate, spiked charcoal adsorber, reactor coolant, liquid waste, and gas)
were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Hobile Laboratory on site.
A spiked air particulate filter and a spiked charcoal adsorber were analyzed after no activity was detected on a plant particulate stack sample and only I-131 detected on an adsorber stack sample.
Both spikes were treated as actual samples.
Comparisons were made on combinations of two count room detectors and the licensee's Emergency Counting Facility detector.
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 lone disagreement, Ce-139 in primary coolant occurred on Detector 2 after having been accurately quantified on Detector 3.
Examination of the peak printout revealed that the 165 keV peak was not present on the recount.
The licensee plans to relax the system sensitivity and recall the spectrum to determine if the peak is quantifiable in the presence of adjacent peaks.
A gas sample collected and analyzed yielded two disagreements and exhibited an apparent conservative bias by the licensee.
In order to verify if the bias was systematic and resolve the disagreements, a second sample was collected and the results compared against the NRC's recently certified gas bulb geometry.
Although agreements, five of six comparisons remained conservative and of approximately the same magnitude as the first comparison.
The licensee is in possession of a new gas standard as part of a routine complete calibration of Detector 3 and has agreed to completely recalibrate Detector 3 and recalibrate Detector 1's gas geometry by November 30, 1987.
(Open Items No. 50-315/87030-01; No. 50-316/87030-01)
A portion of a monitor tank sample will be analyzed for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 and the results reported to Region III for comparison with an analysis by the NRC Reference Laboratory on a split of the sample.
(Open Items No. 50-315/87030-02; No. 50-316/87030-02)
The inspectors examined procedure
THP 6020 LAB.048, Revision 4, for accuracy of EP and Ey values used in the required EBAR determination for the reactor coolant system.
The inspectors found that Table I is in error
, primarily for the beta particles, as is the suggested calculational statement in Section 6.3.
The licensee agreed to correct Table I, apply the corrected values to the last two Technical Specifications (T/S) required EBAR determinations to determine (T/S) compliance and inform the inspectors of the results.
(Open Items No. 50-315/87030-03; No. 50-316/87030-03)
c.
Audits The inspectors reviewed survei llances No. 12-87-43, No. 12-87-119 and No. 12-87-138 and audits gA-87-07 and gA-87-23.
No findings relevant to this inspection were noted.
3.
~0en 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 3.b.
~E"i N
The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Section
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 6, 1987.
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
During the inspection the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or procedures as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th quarter 1987 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
TABLE
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE GF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: DC COOK FGR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1987
--NRC
LICENSEE SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT FRRGR RESULT ERROR
---LICENSEE: NRC--
RATIG RES T
C SPIKED bEi F SPIKED bCv i L WASTE h6'i Z F SP IKED bFT 2.
CO-
CO-bi3 Y-~8 CD-109 SN-113 CS-137 CE-13<<r CO-. 7 CO-60 Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 CS-1 ~7 CE-139 MN-54 CG-58 CO-/= 0 AG-110M I-131 CS-i>4 CS-137 XE-133 CG-57 CO-60 Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 CS-i>7 CE-13<</
7.2E-03 1.5E-02 4.0E-03 4. 3E-01 3, OE-03
>. 5E-02 2. 5E-03 7. 3E-i33 1. 6E-02 4. 1E-03 4 ~
E-Ol 3. 4E-03 2. 9E-02 2.5E-03 8. 2E-07
]. OE-05 1.4E-06 5'E-06 7.5E-O7 6.2E-05 7.1E-05 2.0E-06 7.3E-O3 1.6E-02 4. 1E-03 4. 5E-Oi 3. 4E-03 2. 9E-02 2. 5E-03 1. 2E-04 3. 9E-04 2.5E-04 4.5E-03 2.3E-04 4.3E-04 r. 6E-O.
9. 1E-0
<<r. 3E-04 1.9E-04 3.3E-03 1.7E-04 3.5E-O4 7.3E-05 8 ~ 8E-08
~ 7E-07
/. 2E-08 1.9E-07 1.5E-07 3.6E-07 3.7E-O7 2.0E-07 9. 1E-05 3. 2E-04 1.<</E-04 3.3E-03 1. 7E-04 3.5E-04 7.3E-05 8. 2E-03 1. 7E-02 3. "/E-03 4.7E-Oi 3.6E-03 2.9E-02 2.<<rE-03 7.6E-03 1.6E-02 3.5E-03 4.5E-01 3.0E-03 2.7E-02 2.6E-03 8.4E-07 9.5E-06 1.5E-06 4.6E-06 8. <E-07 5.7E-05 6.6E-05 2.5E-06 7. 4E-03 1. 5E-02 3. 5E-03 4. 3E-01 3. 1E-03 2.6E-02 2.6E-03 1. 4E-04 5.4E-04 2.9E-04 6 ~ 1E-03 2. 8E-04 5.4E-04
<<r.7E-05 1.2E-04 4.5E-04 2.4E-04 5'E-03 1.7E-04 4. 4E-04 7.8E-05 5. OE-08 1.6E-07 5.5E-08 1.5E-07 1. 1E-07 6. 7E-07 0. QE-Oi 2.5E-07 8. 5E-05 3.3E-04 1.7E-04 3.2E-03 1. 2E-04 3. 3E-04 6.3E-05 1. 1E 00 1.2E 00
'r. '/E-01 1. 1E 00 1.2E 00 1. 2E QQ 1.2E
1.0E OQ 1.0E 00 8.5E-01 1.0E 00 8.8E-Oi 9.
E-Oi 1.0E 00 1.OE 00 9. 4E-01 1.0E 00 8.4E-01 1.1E 00 9. 2E-Ol 9. 2E-Oi 1.2E QQ 1. OE 00 9-7E-Ol 8. 6E-01 9.6E-01
<</. 1E-Oi 9.2E-01 1. OE 00 5. 9E i. 6E 9. 5E 1. 3E 5. 9E 2. 6E 8. OE i. 7E 2.2E 1. 4E 2. OE 8. 1E 3. 4E 9. 3E 6. 1E 1. 5E 2. 8E 5. 1E 1. 7E 1. /E 1. QE 8. QE 4.9E 2. 2E 1. 4E 2. OE 8. 1E 3. 4E
A
A
A Oi A
Oi A
A
A
A Oi A
A
A Ol A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A Oi A
A
A T TEST RESULTS:
A=AGREEMENT
=DISAGREEMENT CRITERIA RELAXED NO COMPARISON
TABLE
U "-'UCLEAR REG)JLATORY COMMISSION CUFF I CE C)F INSPECT ION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: DC COC)K FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 198?
SAMPLE ISOTOPE ----NRC---
LICENSEE RES)JLT ERROR RESULT ERRC)R-LICENSEE: NRC-RATIG RES T
C SPIKED CO-7.
CO-6()
Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 CS-137 CE-13./
7. 2E-03 1.5E-02 4. ()E-()3 4. 3E-Ol 3. OE-03 2, 5F-02 2.
E-03 1.2E-04 3.9E-04 2.5E-04 4.5E-O3 2. 3E-04 4.3E-04 9.6E-05 8;2E-03 1.7E-02 3.SE-03 4. 7E-01 3. 6E-03 3.OE-02 2.SE-03 1. 1E-04 3.9E-04 2.0E-04 3.9E-03
~ 1E 00 1.1E.00 9.7E-01 1. 1E 00 1. 2E 00 1.2E
1. 1E 00 C'.
7E 1. 6E 9.5E 1. 3E 5. 9E 2 ~ 6E
A
A
01 A
Ol A
A
A L WASTE
@AT 3 MN-54 CC)- 8 CG-60 AG-110M I-131 CS-134 CS-1 ~7 XE-133 9.
1.i.
5 ~
6.
7.
2.
OE-07 OE-0 4E-0/
SE-06 SE-07 2E-05 1E-05 OE-06 1. OE-07 1. ?E-07 9.7E-08 1.9E-07 1.6E-07 5.?E-O?
3'E-07 2.4E-07 8.2E-07 9 7E-06 1.5E-06 4.6E-06 8. 1E-07 5. 7E-05 6.6E-05 2. 3E-0/
4. 7E-08 1. 5E-07 5.8E-08 1.6E-07 9.3E-08
?.iE-O?
7.7E-07 2.2E-07 9.0E-01 9.5E-01 1. OE 00 7. <iE-Of 8.2E-01 9. ~E-Of 9.3E-01 1. 1E 00 9.0E 5.8E 1. 5E 3. 1E 6. 2E 1. 7E 1. 9E 8. 4E
A
A
A Oi A
A
A
A
A PRIMARY b8T 3 I-131 I-132 I-1~3 I-134 I-135 RB-88 Y-88 RU-106 CS-'134 CS-137 CS-138 CE-139 NA-24 rI& ~
7.
1.
9 ~r
~
6.
6.
7.
4 ~
~i ~
2 ~
1 E-C)3 5E-03 7E-03 2E-02 7E-03 OE-Oi
/~E-Oe 3E-03 7E-03 6E-03 8E-02 SE-04 OE-OZ 8. 3E-05
/.4E-05 7.4E-05 3.3E-04 3. OE-04 5. 1E-03
/
~ SE-0 s
~E-04 6. /~E-05 8. 7E-05 6 ~ OE-04 4.2E-05 6.0E-O4 3.0E-O3 S.OE-03 7.6E-03 1. 3E-02 9.2E-03 1. 9E-01 1. 6E-03 6. OE-03 6.6E-03 b. ~iE-03 4.7E-02 2'E-04 1.?E-03 9.5E-05 3. 7E-04 1.5E-04 2.6E-04 3.0E-04 7.7E-03 6.5E-05 5.4E-04 1.2E-04 3. OE-04 9. 1E-04 6. OE-05 8.5E-05 9. 6E-01 9 4E-01 9.SE-01 1.1E
9. 5E-01 9.2E-01 9.9E-01 9.7E-01 1.OE 00 9.0E-01 9.8E-01 S.bE-01 8 'E-01 3.7E
.1E 1. OE 3,5E 3. 3E 4. OE 2,4E 1. 2E 1. OE 8. 8E 8. OE b. 7E 3.4E Ol A
01 'A
A Oi A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A OC)
GFF GAS KR-85M beT 8 T TEST RESULTS:
A=AGREEMENT
=DISAGREEMENT CRITERIA RELAXED NG COMPARISON 7E-06 3. 2E-07 2. 2E-0/,
6. 6E-08 1.3E
5.4E 00 A
TABLE
U
=
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 0) 'F IRMATORY MEAS)JREMENT'ROGRAM FACILITY: DC COOK FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC----- --LICENSEE-
-LICENSEF: NRC-SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RES)JLT ERROR RATIO RES
C)FF GAS XE-133 XE-13 3, 1E-05 1. 1E-05 1. 1E-06 5. 9E-07 3. 7E-05 1. 1E-05 3. 4E-07 1.3E-07 1. 2E 00 1.0E 60 2.9E
A 1.9E
A PRIMARY b87Z I-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135 Y-88 RU-10/
CE-134 CS-137 CS-138 CE-13~/
3.0E-03 8.5E-03
/ ~ 8E 03 1. 2E-02
/-. 7E-03 7, P.E-03 4 'E-02 1. 8E-04 8.6E-05 1.0E-04 7.0E-05 3.8E-04 2.6E-04 5. 1E-05 3. 8E-04 5. 9E-05 7.0E-05 1.2E-03 3.3E-05 3.0E-03 8.6E-03 7.2E-03 1.3E-02 8. / E-03 8. 4E-04 3. 5P-03 6.0E-03 7. 1E-03 4.7E-02 0.0E-Oi 9. 5E-05 2. /~E-04 1. 5E-04 3. 4E-04 3. 1E-04 5.7E-O 5.2E-04 1.0E-04 1.8E-04 1.4E-03 0 ~ OE-01 1.0E
1.0E 00
/ ~ 3E-01 1.1E
8.9E-01 9.3E-01 1.1E
8.9E-01 cj 4E
9. 8E-01 O.OE-01 3 ~ 5E 8.3E 1.1E 3.0E 3. 7E 1.8E 8. 2E 1. 1E i. 1E 4.0E 5.3E
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D OFF GAS-her I KR-8 M
3. 3E-05 1. 2E-05 3. '/E-07 1. 1E-0/
3. /E-05 1. 2E-05 1.0E-07 1. 1E-0/
1.8E-07 6. 9E-01 1. 2E 00 1.0E
8 ~ 2E 00 A
2./E
A 2.0E
A C FILTER I-131 3 ~ '/E-13 3. 7E-14 2. 5E-13 0. OE-01 6. 4E-01 1. 1E 01 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A=AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT
~:=CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON-3-
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALHEASUREMENTS 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.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result'n a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
~A@cement
<4 4 -
8-
16 -
51 " 200 200-0.4
- 2.5 0.5
- 2.0 0.6-1.ee 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 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.