IR 05000373/1987031
| ML20236Q041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1987 |
| From: | Bocanegra R, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236Q020 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-87-31, 50-374-87-30, NUDOCS 8711190153 | |
| Download: ML20236Q041 (8) | |
Text
,
]
.
.
j l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-373/87031(DRSS); 50-374/87030(DRSS)
i Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company i
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
LaSalle County Station, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
October 13-16, 21 and 22, 1987 khv<sub[i N/>M7 Inspectors:
A. G. Januska Date l
3[97 R. Bocanegra ti Datet 9ll 8 lV W Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief
')
!
Radiological Effluents Date
and Chemistry Section i
Inspection Summary Inspection on October 13-16, 21 and 22, 1987 (Reports No. 50-373/87031(DRSS);
50-374/87030(DRSS))
>
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of:
(1) quality assurance and confirmatory measurements for in plant radiochemical analysis; (2) collection of collocated TLD measurement results and verification of location; and (3)
action on an open item identified during a previous inspection.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
8711190153 871113 i
PDR ADOCK 05000373
,
!
G PDR
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
.
.
Il i
DETAILS I
i l
'
1.
Persons Contacted 2L. Alderich, Rad./ Chem Supervisor 2G. Diederich, Plant Manager K. Klotz, GSEP Coordinator l
2P.. Manning, Assistant Superintendent of Technical Services
P. Nottingham, Lead Chemist
2J. Renwick, Superintendent of Operations 2J. Schuster, Chemist
,
20. Ulrich, Quality Assurance i
2M. Jordan, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
2 Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
l 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspect (on Findings
'
(Closed) Open Item (373/86008-4):
Review licensee participation in radiological intercomparison programs.
The station currently participates in an intracompany laboratory intercomparison program
'
developed for the Commonwealth Edison Company by the Nuclear Services
.
Technical Group.
Participants in the program include the six Ceco nuclear power plants. Each of the participants acts as host of the program on a quarterly rotation basis.
The licensee had all agreements in the first intercomparison.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements a.
Quality Assurance The inspectors reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory quality assurance program including the physical facilities, laboratory operations, and procedures.
Except for one proportional counter, all the counting equipment was found to be in good working order.
Although the counting room was in the process of being painted, housekeeping was generally good.
l Samples were packaged to prevent sample cross contamination and detector contamination and stored with standards well away from the counters to prevent increases in detector backgrounds.
Personnel were observed and evaluated on sample container preparation, sample collection and preparation, sample splitting and analysis.
No problems were observed.
I Laboratory operating procedures were reviewed and a number of weaknesses were identified in performance check procedures LCP-720-01 and LCP-810-11 for the proportional counters.
The licensee acknowledged the weaknesses and revised procedures have already been drafted.
- _ - _ _ _ _.
__
_
._.
.
.
- a b.
Sample Split:
Seven samples (air particulate, ch'arcoal, liquid waste, reactor l
coolant, crud filter, spiked charcoal. absorber, and gas) were
~
analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory'on site. The' crud filter (P FILTER)
was' analyzed as an air particulate: sample after no activity was detected on the plant' particulate stack; sample.. The licensee identified I-131:on an absorber stack sample using an absorber and j
associated geometry not available in the-RegionLIII Mobile j
Laboratory. A field expedient analysis verified that the licensee's
'l value (not' contained in Table I) was correct. A charcoal' absorber-l (C SPIKED) was then analyzed as an actual sample.
l
. Comparisons were made on three count room detectors an'd the Post i
Accident Radionuclides Analysis Portable System (PARAPS).
Results of
'
the sample comparisons are given in-Table 1; the comparison criteria are given in. Attachment 1.
The licensed achieved 67 agreements'out
of 68 comparisons.
]
The licensee's lone disag'reement, Sr-92 in the prima'ry coolant sample, was on Detector 4 after having accurately quantified the i
same sample on Detector 1.
No reason for this. disagreement could be J
determined.
Detector 4.is in the process of being replaced.
A portion of a dilute reactor coolant. sample to simulate a' liquid-
waste sample will be analyzed for gross beta, tritium, Sr-89, Sr-90 y
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
,j Open Item 50-373/87031-01; 50-374/87030-01).
j i
The inspectors examined energy values used by the licensee for
.
determining E-BAR and found some were different than those used by.-
the inspectors. The differences were noted and an additional
!
reference left with the licensee to examine.
I
c.
Audits
)
The inspectors examined reports of CECO corporate audit 01-86-11 and site audit 01-86-02.
No findings or observations were within the scope of this inspection.
'
4.
TLD Results and Collocation Verification The inspectors confirmed by observation that seven collocated NRC TLD's were located closely adjacent to the licensee's TLD's.
5.
Open 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. An open item cisclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 3b.
!
'l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___
.,
!
.
.
6.
Exit Meeting
.
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on October 22, 1987.
The scope of the inspection was 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:
I 1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1987 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical
,
Measurements
'
..
l l
4 l
~
,.
,
TABLE 1 U S' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'i
1 OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LASALLE FOR THE 4 OUARTER OF Ic07
NRC-------
~----LICENSEE----
~---LICENSEE NRC----
I SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
C SPIKED CO-57 7.2E-03 9.2E-05 8.0E-03 3.6E-04 1.1E 00 7.9E 01 A
bdFTj CO-60 1.7E-02 3.0E-04 1.6E-02 6.0E-04 9.4E-01 5.7E 01
.A i
HG-203 1.9E-04 6.8E-05 2.1E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 2.7E 00 A
i Y-88 4.1E-03 1.7E-04 4.1E-03 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A
AI*E*bl CD-109 4.1E-01 3.3E-03 4.6E-01 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.2E 02 A
SN-113 3.5E-03 1.7E-04 3.7E-03 0,0E-01 1.1E 00 2.!E"01 A
CS-137 2.4E-02 3.0E-04 2.6E-02 1.4E-03 1.1E 00 8.1E 01 A
CE-139 2.6E-03 7.2E-05 3.1E-03 0.0E-01 1.2E 00 3.5E 01 A
.
OFF GAS KR-85M 1.1E-04 3.0E-06 8.9E-05 1.2E-05 8.4E-01 3.5E 01 A
D6r i KR-87 5.6E-04 1.4E-05 6.0E-04 5.9E-05 1.1E.00 4.0E 01 A
KR-88 3.5E-04 1.3E-05 3.3E-04 4.7E-05 9.4E-01 2.7E 01 A
XE-133 2.4E-05 1.7E-06 1.6E-05 5,1E-06 6.7E-01 1.4E 01 A
.
JIoP861 XE-135 3.0E-04 4.4E-06 3.2E-04 2.8E-05 1.1E 00 6.8E 01 A
l XE-135M 1.9E-03 8.7E-05 1.9E-03 2.9E-04 1.0E 00 2.1E 01 A
XE-138 7.7E-03 3.1E-04 8.4E-03 1.0E-03 1.1E 00 2.5E 01 A
,
C SPIKED CO-57 7.2E-03 9.1E-05 7.4E-03 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 7.9E 01 A
ter (
CO-60 1.7E-02 3.0E-04 1.6E-02 0.0E-01 9.4E-01 5.7E 01 A
Y-88 4.1E-03 1.7E-04 4.3E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 2.5E 01 A
PacAes SN-113 3.5E-03 1.7E-04 4.5E-03 0.0E-01 1.3E 00 2.1E-01 A
,
CS-137 2.4E-02 3.0E-04 2.6E-02 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 8.1E 01 A
l Al-P822A CE-139 2.6E-03 7.2E-05 3.4E-03 0.0E-01 1.3E 00 3.5E 01 A
PRIMARY NA-24 4.6E-03 3.0E-05 4.7E-03 3.0E-04 1,0E 00 1.5E O2 A
te7 a CR-51 1.1E-02 1.2E-04 1.3E-02 8.0E-04 1.1E 00 9.3E 01 A
MN-54 9.1E-05 1.1E-05 6.4E-05 1.0E-05 7.1E-01 8.2E 00 A
MN-56 1.8E-03 2.6E-05 1.5E-03 1.4E-04 8.4E-01 6.8E 01 A
21E0kl CO-58 1.3E-04 9.5E-06 1.0E-04 0.0E-01 7.6E-01 1,4E-01 A
CO-60 1.9E-04 9.2E-06 1.9E-04 1.2E-05 1.0E 00 2.1E 01 A-AS-76 3.5E-04 1.7E-05 3.3E-04 3.5E-05 9.6E-01 2.0E 01 A
I-132 3.8E-04 1.6E-05 3.9E-04 2.7E-05 1.0E 00 2.4E 01 A
,
T TEST RESULTS:
l A= AGREEMENT I
D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
'
_ _
.
...
',.
'
TABLE 1--
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND. ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LASALLE FOR THE 4 OUARTER OF 1937
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE NRC----
.
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR'
RATIO REG T-PRIMARY I-133 1.4E-04 8.2E-06 1.3E-04 1.4E-05 9.0E-01 1.BE 01 A
I-134 8.8E-04 1.1E-04 9.4E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00.- 8.1E 00 A
SR-92 9.5E-05 1.6E-05 6.3E-05 0.0E-01 6.6E-01 6.0E 00 A
MO-99 2.8E-04 5.3E-05 2.1E-04 5.8E-05
.7.5E-01-5.2E 00 A
L WASTE CR-51 2.1E-05 5.5E-07 1.9E-05 1.2E-06
.9.1E-01 3.BE 01 A.
ter3 MN-54 2.2E-06 9.3E-08 1.8E-06 0.0E-01 8.2E-01 2.4E 01 A-CO-58 2.BE-07 6.2E-08 1.5E-07 4.4E-08 5.4E-01 4.6E 00 A
22-P13V CO-60 5.3E-06 1.3E-07 5.0E-06 2.2E-07 9.4E-01 4.1E 01 A
,
P FILTER NA-24 9.8E-06 4.4E-07 1.1E-05 7.0E-07 1.1E 00 2.2E 01 A
berd CR-51 3.0E-05 1.0E-06 3.2E-05 2.2E-06 1.1E 00 2.9E 01 A
MN-54 3.6E-05 3.8E-07 3.6E-05 1.9E-06 1.0E 00 9.3E 01' A FE-59 7.3E-06 5.3E-07 7.0E-06 4.6E-07 9.6E-01 1.4E 01 A
A b-? ! A P A CO-58 1.!E-05 3.3E-07 1.0E-05 6.0E-07 9.2E-01 3.3E 01 A
CO-60 8.5E-05 5.6E-07 8.8E-05 3.3E-06 1.0E.00 1.5E 02 A
ZN-65 4.3E-06 6.OE-07 4.3E-06' 5.4E-06 9.9E-01 7.3E 00 A
U-187 9.1E-06 1.4E-06 5.4E-06 6.8E-07 6.0E-01 6.6E 00 A
PRIMARY NA-24 4.6E-03 3.0E-05 4.6E-03- 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 1.5E 02 A
%rf 4 CR-51 1.1E-02 1.2E-04 1.2E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 9.5E 01 A
MN-54 1.0E-04 8.5E-06 8.8E-05 0.0E-01 8.6E-01 1.2E 01 A
' (fag API) MN-56 1.7E-03 3.3E-05 1.4E-03 0.0E-01 8.3E-01 5.0E 01 A
CO-58 1.2E-04 7.6E-06 1.!E-04 0.0E-01 9.2E-01 1.6E 01 A
Jh -P SAS A CO-60 1.9E-04 1.0E-05 1.8E-04 0.0E-01 9.5E-01 1.8E 01 A
J AS-76 3.7E-04 1.8E-05 2.BE-04 0.0E-01 7.6E-01 2.1E 01 A
I-132 3.4E-04 3.OE-05 3.7E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.2E 01 A
I-133 1.5E-04 7.7E-06 1.4E-04 0.0E-01 9.2E-01 2.0E 01 A
SR-92 1.3E-04 2.6E-05 4.7E-05 0.0E-01 3.EE-01 4.8E 00 D
MO-99 1.8E-04 4.7E-05 1.6E-04 0.0E-01 8.7E-01 4.0E 00 A
L WASTE CR-51 2.1E-05 5.5E-07 1.8E-05 1.!E-06 8.7E-01 3.8E 01 A
bgT1
,
i T TEST RESULTS:
I A= AGREEMENT j
D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED
.
N=NO COMPARISON
)
l-2-
_____ -------
)
a
,
..
<
.-s-1
!
s
..
-!
TABLE 1
.
.
.
H U S tJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT j
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM i
FACILITY: LASALLE.
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1907-
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE NRC----
NRC==-
-
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES.
T
L WASTE MN-54 2.2E-06 9.3E-08 1.8E-06 1.3E-07L 8.2E-01'
2.4E 01'
A_
]
CO-58 2.BE-07 6.2E-08 1.7E-07 4.4E-08-6.~1E-01-4.6E 00' A 2b422PA CO-60 5.3E-06 1.3E-07 5.2E-06 2.2E-07-9.8E-01-4.1E -01:
A.
P FILTER NA-24 1.1E-05 8.5E-07 1.1E-05 1.3E-06 9.6E-01 1.3E 01 A
i 1673 CR-51 3.2E-05 1.6E-06 3.1E-05 '2.3E-06 9.6E-01 2.0E 01 A
i MN-54 3.7E-05 5.2E-07 3.6E-05 2.0E-06 9.7E-01 7.1E 01 A
FE-59 7.0E-06 6.0E-07 6.6E-06 4.9E-07-9.4E-01 1.2E 01 A
CO-58 1.1E-05 3.6E-07 1.1E-05 7.0E-07 9.8E-01 3.1E 01 A
34,pq39 CO-60 8.5E-05 7.2E-07 8.7E-05 3.3E-06-1.0E'004 1.2E 02' A'
7M-55 4.7E-06 6.9E-07 4.1E-06 6.2E-07 8.7E-01-6.8E 00 A
W-187 5.5E-06 1.8E-06 8.2E-06 2.4E-06 1.5E'00 3.1E 00 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
.
e t
+
l-3-
'
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
,,
.
-
.
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 i
.
should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the l
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.
,
l l
!
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
!
r5 Agreement
<4 0.4 - 2.5 4-
0. 5 - 2.0 8-
0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 I
51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 200 -
0.85 - 1.18
,
l 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.
>
.
l l
--