IR 05000346/1991007
| ML20024G937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1991 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G935 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-91-07, 50-346-91-7, NUDOCS 9105020183 | |
| Download: ML20024G937 (8) | |
Text
._____
__
- _ -.
~_ _.._____ _._____.___ _
'
i
.
U.S. HUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION
,
REGION III
Report No. 50-346/91007(DRSS)
'
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3
!
Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza
'
300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, OH 43650 Facility Name: Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 i
Inspection M: Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio Inspection Conducted: April 1 - 5, 1991 QA.}anuskal+
a A. G.
M/aV/91 Inspector:
Date Accompanied By:
B. L. Hamrick WlN'=
/fH/h/
V i
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Controls and Date Chemistry Section l
Inspection Summary
.
Inspection on April 1-5.1991(ReportNo. 50-346/91007(DRSS))
Areas Inspected: P,outine unannounced inspection of the licensee's confirmatory measurements program (IP 84750) including:
audits, Lquality assurance, confirmatory measurements of in-plant-radiochemical analyses, primary coolant radiochemistry, past accident sampling,-implementation
.
of the radiological environmental monitoring program-(REMP l
on items identified during previous inspections (IP 92701)). and followup
-
-
l.
Resultsi The licensee's continues to demonstrate high' quality radiochemical s
-
l incasurements capability.-as demonstrated by very good-comparative results with the NRC and excellent comparative results with an independent laboratory
-
contractor. The implementation of the REMP satisfies the Technical Specifications-(T/S); requirements,iswellmanagedandpersonnelhavean
indepth knowledge of the details of the program.
There is no-evidence of
,
any impact on the environment due to the operation of the plant.
9105020183 910424 PDR-ADOCK 05000346 Q-PDR
.-.
___.
_. _ _
. _ _ _ _
_
___
._
_._
_
__
__
.
.
D_ETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- L. Bonker, Supervisor Rad Health
- R. Edwards, Chemistry Analyst
- B. Geddes, Radiological Environmental Supervisor
- G. Honma, Compliance Supervisor-Licensing
'R. Gaston, Licensing Technologist J. Lochotzki, Asst. Environmental Compliance Technologist
- A. Mason, Radiolegical Controis-Associate HP
- R. Scott, Chemistry Superintendent
- R. Walton, Resident inspector NRC The inspectors also contacted other licensee employees.
- Denotes those present at the Exit Meeting on April 5, 1991 2.
LicenseeActiononPreviousinspectionfindings(IP92701)
a.
(Closed) NC4(50-346/90008-01: Licensee failed to place the results of all analyses of environmental radiological samples in the REMP annual report. The licensee submitted supplemental information to the 1985,1986,1987 and 1988 Annual Environmental Operating Reports on May 31, 1990 and submitted required sample results as Attachment 1 to the 1989 Annual Environmental Operating Report, b.
Q0en)Openitem(50-346/91003-03):
The licensee is reviewino the optlons of excavating the soil for offsite disposal and of evaluating the consequences of letting it remain in-place pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302.
A difficultly with the first option is the determination of the appropriate background for comparison. The licensee has analyzed soil samples collected 10 - 20 miles from the station which show low levels of fallout cosium-137 in the range of 1 pCi/g.
However, these were surface samples and probably not representative of subsurface soil backgrounds. These matters were discussed in telecoms between the licensee, Region 111 and NRR representatives fo11 ewing the inspection.
3, ManagementControlsandOrganization(IP84750)
The Chemistry Section is headed by a chemistry Superintendent (CS)
,
who answers to the Operations Superintendent. Answering to the CS are five Chemistry Staff, a General Supervisor (Chemistry) and a Clerk. The five supervisors who direct 20 Chemistry Testers answer to the General Supervisor.
Staffing is stable.
The REMP group is headed by a Radiological Environmental Supervisor who answers to the Radiological Controls Manager.
Since the transfer of this group to the Radiological Controls Section in early 1990, the group lost the services of two experienced technologists and four
'
.
.
.
-
-
_ _ _,
-.- - - - --
-
_
____ _- ________ _ _ - -
...
...
trained students.
The technologists' positions have been filled by one promotion and a transfer within TECo. Three student positions have been filled. Slots for two more students currently remain unfilled.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Radiological Confirmatory Heasurements (IP 84750)
rive samples (air particulate, charcoal, gas, reactor coolant and a simulated liquid waste) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Hobile Laboratory on site.
Comparisons were made on combinations of the licensee's three detectors in chemistry and radiological controls.
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved 56 agreements out of 57 comparisons.
Agreements were achieved for containment air particulate, charcoal, and reactor coolant samples. A Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) sample was used to simulate a liquid radwaste sample.
Initial analyses on this sample for all three detectors yielded agreements except for Hn-54 and Cs-136 on chemistry detector #2.
Because of poor counting statistics, the sample was reanalyzed by both the licensee and the inspectors and resulted in all agreements. A portion of the BWST sample will be sent to the licensee's contractor and analyzed for 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 same sample.
(0 pen item 50-346/91007-01)
The analyses of a sample of gas stripped from a reactor coolant sample (RCS) resulted in one disagreement, Xe-131m where the licensee failed to accurately quantify this nuclide.
No reason was identified for the disagreement; the amount of the nuclide's activity accounted for less than 1.0% of the total sample.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Audits (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed quality assurance audit AR-89-CHEMC-01.
The audit covered, in part, aspects related to this inspection.
No observations or findings made pertained to the content of this inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Quality Assurance /Ouality Control of Radiological Measurements (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the counting room Quality Control (QC). The licensee performs reauired QC checks on various counting room instruments, and plots the results.
The inspector noted that supervisory reviews for the Scintillation Alpha Counter (SAC-4) were not performed because of confusion on the data sheet. The QC results in all cases were in specification.
l J
--
_-
- - - - -
.
- -
-
..
=- _ _ _ _ - -. _
-
--
.
.
.
The inspectors also reviewed both the radiochemistry laboratory and count room operations, including physical facilities.
Housekeeping was generally good; the radiochemis',
laboratory is a section of the general chemistry laboratory and is.aall.
Counting room work space is adequate. The Chemistry Tester observed during sample acquisition t.nd preparation used very good laboratory techniques.
.
!
The inspectors examined the 1990 results of the confirmatory measurements program the licensee participates in with an independent vendor. The licensee achieved all agreements (180) for alpha, beta and ganna emitters. All three detectors were involved for the ganna analyses.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Primary Coolant Radiqchemisty (l' 84750)
Technical Specificatiori (T/S) 3.4.8 re.luires that the specific activity of the primary coolant not exceed one microcurie per gram of dose equivalent 1-131 (del-131) with exceptions stated in that section's Action Statements. The inspectors selectively reviewed the licensee's primary coolant radiochemistry results for 1990 to determine compliance with the T/S requirements for the del-131 concentration. The inspector noted that the licensee performs this analysis more frequently than either the T/S or en Administrative requirement. The selective review indicated that the del-131 concentration for the primary system remained less than the applicable T/S limit throughout the review period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
RadiologicalEnvironmentalMonitoringProgram(Ip84750)
The inspectors examined the adherence of the REMP to the T/S, its
implementation, Annual Environmental Operating Reports and also toured i
some selected air sampling stations. The program as implemented complies with the requirements of lable 3.12-1 of the T/S.
In addition to the requirements, the licensee conducts an enhanced arogram which
.
results in more samples than required.
The program is >eing implemented properly. Missed samples are documented along with the reason. A review of the 1989 and draft of the 1990 Annual Reports did not indicate any significant contribution to the environment due to the operation of the plant.
The inspectors toured several onsite air sampling stations with the licensee and noted that equipment was well maintained and under current calibration.
During the tour and during subsequent discussions, the licensee's representative demonstrated in depth knowledge of the
,
l program. Quality assurance audit AR-90-ENVGM 01 conducted in the fall of 1990, which dealt in part with the REMP, was examined. One m Sor observation was made which received prompt attention.
Loss of staff in the REMP group was identified and is discussed in Section 3.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
!
i
.
.
.
_
-
-
.
_
.
.
9.
Post Accident Samplino System (IP 84750)
The inspectors examined the licensee's post Accident Sampling System (PASS) program and toured two sampling stations (RCS and containment air). They were easily accessible and sample collection appeared to be relativrly straight forward.
Samples are ecliected periodically using this system.
Samples from the PASS are compared with results of like routine samples with good results.
A revision to the governing procedure was in review and will add the requirement of a gamma scan on the stripped gas sample.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Open items 0)en items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, w1ich will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee, to both. An open item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 4.
,
11. Exit interview The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 5, 1990.
Licensee representatives did not identify any documents or processes reviewed during the inspection as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Radiological Confirmatory lleasurements program Results 2rd Quarter 1991 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Radiological Measurements
.
_ __
_
. _.
_
.
.
.
_ - _ _. _
-
- _. - - - - _ _ - - -
-- _ -
.-
- - -.. _ - ~.- _
-
I l
>
t
!
f
'
.
TABLE 1
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISStrW i
r I
i'
!
REGION III
.
l
'
FACILITY: DAVIS-BESSE
'
'
I
FOR THE 2ND OUARTER OF 1991 i
!
,
r
!
-
.
.
~ bTiB~~REE5LI~EESDEi i
EbiELE~~~UUEEIbE~~Ukb~UdE!~UEU~ERRI"L5bIUELI E5bIERR
~
R
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _... _
AIR PART 1-131 1.91E-02 1.76E-04 2.05E-02 0 OOE+00 1.07 108.9 A
!
CONTNMT I-132-1.37E-03 1.16E-04--
1.37E-03 0.OOE+00 1.00 11.8 -
A.
f CHEM 2 I-13 *k 7.65E-03 1.34E-04 8.74E-03 0..OOE+00 1.14 57.3 A
!
I-135 2.19E-03 2.61E-04 3.08E-03 O.OOE+00 1.41 8.4 A
j
,
SB-122 9.97E-05 6.11E-05 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 1.6 N
CS-134 2.25E-03 8.12E-05 2.73E-03 C.OOE+00 1.21 27.7 A
CS-137 3.03E-03 9.94E-05 3.69E-03 C.OOE+00 1.22 30.5 A
-
!
'
CHARC 1-131 6.43E-01 3.02E-03 6.93E-01 0.OOE+00 1.08 212,7 A
CONTNMT I-133 1.4?E-01 1.82E-03 1.75E-01 0.OOE+00 1.19 80.9 A
'
CHEM 2 i
STRIPPED KR-85M 5.05E-02 8.34E-04 5.71E-02 0.OOE+00 1.'13 60.6 A
[
GAS KR-87 6.66E-02 2.22E-03 '7.28E-02 0.OOE+00 1.09 29.9 A
CHEM 2 KR-88 1.02E-01 2.47E-03 -1.29E-01 0.OOE+00 1.26 41.5 A
l XE-131M 3.81E"O2 8.69E-03 5.20E-03 O.OOE+00 0.14 4.4 D
i XE-133 5.18E+00 9.21E-03 5.29E+00- O.OOE+00 1.02 562.2 A
i
.
XE-133M 9.08E-02 3.08E-03 1.08E-01-O.COE+00 1.19 23.4 A
XE-135 4.06E-01 1.80E-05 4.49E-01
_O.OOE+00 1.10 225.5 A
!
XE-135M 5.35E-02 1.05E-02 6.20E-02 O.OOE+00 1.16 5.1 A
i AR-41 1.73E-03 6.86E-04 -4.23E-03 O.OOE+00 2.45 2.5-N
'
-
!
t
-
1.03 212.7 A
i CUNTMMNT I-131 6.43E-01 3.02E-03 6.65E-01 O.OOE+00 CHAR.
I-133 1.47E-01 1.82E-03 1.53E-01 0.OOE+00 1.04 80.9 A
!
RC DET.
t
CONTNMNT_I-131 1.91E-02 1.76E-04 1.97E-02 0.OOE+00 1.03 108.9 A
AIR PAR'i 1-132 1.37E-03 1.16E-04 1.11E-03-O.OOE+0v-O.81 11.8 A
!
RC DET.
1-133 7.65E-03 1.34E-04 8.OOE-03 0.OOE+00 1'.05 57.3 A
,
I-135 2.19E-03 2.61E-04 2,55E-03 O.OOE+00 1.17
'8. 4 A
[
-
,
.
1.5 N
l SB-122 9.40E-05 6.I1E-05-O.COE+00- O.OOE+00 CS-134 2.25E-03 L'.12E-05 2.29E-03. O.COE+00 1.02 27.7 A
l CS-137 3.03E-03 9.94E-05 3.35E-03 0.OOE+00-1.10-30.5 A
..
..
t SIMUL.-
MN-54 2.92E-07 7.87E-08 3.23E-07 O.OOE+00 14 1 3. 7 =
N i
'
L' WASTE CO-57 3.63E-07 7.36E-08 4.21E-07 O.OOE+00 1.16 4.9 A
'
CHEM 2 CO-58 2.22E-04 7.65E-07 2.40E-04 0.OOE+00 1.08 290.2 A
CD 60 3.'06E-06 1.COE-07 - 3.20E-06 O.OOE+00 1.05-30.6-A-i t
I
,
h
.t
'
._. _ _._ _, _ _.I
. -.
_ _ _. _ _. _ _., _. _. _. _ _ -
-
._
-
. _ -
___
_ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _
__
_
_
i a
.
}
'
______
______ _____ _______ ____ _ ____
. _____________________ ___ __ ____
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL. RESULT i
_____________________________________________________________________________
SIMUL SD-125 5.OOE-06 5.23E-07 5.07E-06 0.COE+00 1.01 9.6 A
I L WASTE CS-134-4.23E-05 2.83E-07 4.97E-05 O.OOE+00 1.17 149.5 A
l CON *T CS-136 8.30E-07 1.07E-07 1.19E-06 O.OOE+00 1.43 7.8 A
'
!
CS-137 5.85E-05 3.57E-07 6.54E-05 O.OOE+00 1.12 163.9 A
,
!
BA-139 5.96E-06 1.64E-06 7.94E-06 0.OOE+00 1.33 3.6 N
'
BA-140 4.97E-06 6.32E-07 4.36E-06 0.OOE+00 0.88 7.9 A
j CE-144 1.76E-06 5.14E-07 O.OOE400 0.OOE+00 3.4 N
RCS I-131 1.17E-01 8.18E-04 9.91E-02 0.OOE+00 0.85 143.0 A
i CHEM 2 I-132 9.48E-02 7.08E-04 9.09E-02 O.OOE+00 0.96 133.9 A
'
I-133 1.27E-01 7.61E-04 1.13E-01 0.OOE+00 0.89 166.9 A
I-134 5.69E-02 1.03E-03 5. 36E- 02 0.OOE+00 0.94 55.2 A
,
l I-135 1.39E-01 2.64E-03 1.20E-01 C.OOE+00 0.86 52.7 A
,
CG-134 3.04E-03 3.50E-04 2.84E-03 0.OOE+00 0.93 8.7 A
CS-137 3.29E-03 4.54E-04 3.56E-03 0.OOE+00-1.08 7.2 A
I CS-138 7.53E-02 1.83E-03 6.46E-02 0.OCE+00 0,86 41.1-A
'
,
SIMUL MN-54 3.48E-07 7.35E-08 2.75E-07 0.OOE+00 0.79 4.7 A
L WASTE C O-5'l 3.07E-07 7.28E-08 3.65E-07 C.OOE+00 0.94 5.3 A
"
RC DET CO-58 2.22E-04 5.69E-07 2.21E-04 0.OOE+00 1.00 390.2 A
'
CO-60 2.74E-06 1.15E-07 2.94E-06 0.OOE+00 1.07 23.8 A
!
SD-125 4.90E-06 4.81E-07 4.66E-06 0.OOE+00 C.95 10.2 A
CS-134 4.30E-05 2.82E-07 4.69E-05 O.OOE+00 1.09 152.5 A
CG -106 8.53E-07 9.88E-08 1.12E-06 0.OOE+00 1.31 8.6 A
CS-137 5.93E-05 3.67E-07 6,10E-05 O.OOE400 1.03 161.6 A
I BA-140 4.86E-06 6.64E-07 4.13E-06 0.OOE+00 0.85 7.3 A
'
.
SIMUL MN-54 3.48E-07 7,35E-08 2.07E-07 0.OOE+00 0.59 4.7 A
L WASTE CO-57 3.87E-07 7.28E-08 4.04E-07 0.OOE400 1.04 5.3 A
-
L CHEM 1 CO-58 2.22E-04 5.69E-07 2.17E-04 O.OOE+00 0.98 390.2 A
'
CO-60 2.74E-06 1,15E-07 2.87E-06 0.COE+00 1.05 23.8 A
t t
l SB-125 4.90E-06 4.81E-07 4.34E-06 0.OOE+00 0.89 10.2 A
CS-134 4.30E-05 2.82E-07 4.57E-05 0,OOE+00 1.06 152.5.
A
-
CS-136 8.53E-07 9.88E-OB 1.09E-06 O.OOE+00 1.28 8.6 A
>
BA-140. 4.66E-06 6.64E-07 4.12E-06 0.OOE+00 0.85 7.3 A
I f
.
T TEST RESULTS i
A= AGREEMENT
-
t D= DISAGREEMENT
}
l-
-onCRITERIA RELAXED
!
l NaNOCOMPARISUN A
i I
f
!
!
}
.
t I
I
,
. -. - - -
. _ _, _. _.. -. _, _,.... -.. -. -... -.. _,...--, -.,.. -.
,_--,_,__-_.-.m.-.,,-...c.,.,,-,-
r
_ _ _
- _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ - -
_
,
.
,
'
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, 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 in a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement
<4 NO COMPARISON 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 dif ferent equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.