IR 05000409/1985021

Insp Rept 50-409/85-21 on 851216-19.No Noncompliance or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Confirmatory Measurements Program,Including Sampling,Lab Qc,Followup on Open Items & Regulatory Improvement Items

ML20137L587
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	01/16/1986
From:	Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137L582	List: IR 05000409/1985021 ML20137L577
References
50-409-85-21, NUDOCS 8601280030
Download: ML20137L587 (9)

Text

.-

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-409/85021(DRSS)

Docket No. 50-409 License No. DPR-45 Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue - South La Crosse, WI 54601 Facility Name: La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LAC 8WR)

Inspection At: LACBWR, Genoa, WI Inspection Conducted: December 16-19, 1985

~/)j / b4 a b u/(v Inspector: A. G. Januska / 4//4

W//2/auud!w Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents and

//4/M Date Chemistry Section i

Inspection Summary Inspection on December 16-19, 1985 (Report No. 50-409/85021(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the confirmatory measurements program including sampling, laboratory quality control, licensee followup of open items and regulatory improvement items

. identified in previous inspections. The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000409 G PDR

-

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• J. Parkyn, Plant Superintendent

• P. Shafer, Radiation Protection Engineer

• L. Nelson, Health and Safety Supervisor M. Land, Health Physics Technician J. Gaynor, Health Physics Technician J. Papieratak, Health Physics Technician

"R. Wery, Quality Assurance Supervisor

• I. Villalva, NRC Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on December 19, 198 . Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (409/82017-04): Improve quality control of Environmental Monitoring and Analytical Measurements. The inspector reviewed results of comparisons made with EPA supplied cross check samples. This program appears to be comprehensive and representative of actual samples. However, the inspector noted that although the results for the most part were acceptable, the precision of the three results required for each comparison in a few instances was poo The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments on the need for further analyses when an outlying result is noted and longer counting times when appropriat Results of third quarter 1985 intercomparison results with Analytics, Inc. were also reviewed. Five Internal Proportional Counters (IPCs) were tested /or alpha and/or beta in addition to tritium on a liquid scintillation counter and a gamma scan on Detector No. 1. All comparisons resulted in agreement Prc:.edure HSP 03.1 was revised to include the requirements for tegetation sampling and require compositing of air particulate samples by location. The procedure now agrees with the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program defined in the latest revisi'on of the Technical Specification (Closed) Regulatory Improvement Program Open Item (409/RP-00Q-1):

Expand QA program to provide check on quality of radiological and nonradiological analyses. As the licensee is implementing an effective QC program which has corrected problems with IPCs identi-fied in. previous inspections as contributing to a violation and a repeat violation and has an acceptable intercomparison program with Analytics, Inc. Section Za, the radiological portion of this RIP open item is satisfied. The nonradiological portion (CL-) will be discussed further in Section 3 and carried as Open Item 409/85021-01.

l

.

. (0 pen) Open Item (409/85010-01): Revise waste shipment procedure Procedure HSP-04.1, " Disposal of Spent Resin Filter Media as. Radio-active Waste Using a Hittman High Integrity Liner" was revised on August 6, 1985 (Issue 6) and on October 15, 1985 (Issue 7) and HSP-04.2, " Disposal of Dry Active Waste" was revised on October 15, 1985 (Issue 1). Although both procedures now provide adequate guidance to determine waste classification, HSP-04.1, Attachment 2, Table 2 is incomplete and HSP-04.2 needs cnalytical results and other appropriate tables and Section 9.3.3(5) needs clarificatio The licensee acknoweledged the inspector's observation and agreed to correct these minor deficiencie (Closed) Open Item (409/85015-03): Perform analyses for gross Leta, H-3, Sr-89, and Sr-90 on Retention Tank 1B and report results to Region III. Results from comparisons are listed in Table 2 and the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1. Sr-89 and Sr-90 results were not compared because a wrong preservative was put into the sample split between the licensee and NRC. This analysis will be performed on a sample collected during the inspection (Section 5).

3. Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The inspector reviewed counting room and chemistry laboratory quality control including records, observation of practices, and corrective actions implemented to correct a violation identified during a previous inspectio Three IPCs with various combinations of detectors and electronics and a fourth, a Canberra Model 2404 are currently being maintained along with Detector No. 1 in the counting lab. Each IPC has been dedicated to specific uses. Each IPC has a malfunction sheet, Form WP 4.32, an up-to-date plateau, and results of daily plotted source checks. Source checks are performed using appropriate sources (Cs-137 or Am-241) as required and the malfunction sheet, which is used to describe the problem, initial corrective actions, whether satisfactory or not, and further repair requested' is completed when appropriate. For all counters, plateaus were examined and all appear to be accurate. Management review of daily check results is performed routinely. Although frequency of review is not procedurally required, the lack of management review was contributory to two earlier violations of QC procedures for'this equipment. The licensee acknowledged the advantage of a specific frequency and stated that a frequency will be specified in the procedur Chloride analyses continue to present a problem. A new reference electrode was purchased, new maintenance techniques used, daily checks run, monthly calibration curves drawn and corrective measures specified if probe degradation occurs. In spite of these attempts.to resolve the chloride problem, the results of analyses performed on corporate supplied spiked Cl samples and of daily Cl checks of standard solutions, reviewed by the inspector, yielded a number of poor comparison . -

'

The licensee has no numerical acceptance range specified'for daily Cl-checks; however, correcitve measures are taken if measurements are beyond i 50% of the current calibration curve as determined by management revie As the chloride concentration normally runs 25 ppb and the Techncial Specification (T/S) limit is 200 ppb, an error of 100% (twice the management review limit) would result in only 25% of the T/S normal operating limit and 10% of the maximum limi The licensee altered his maintenance technique and is studying the result of probe drif Preliminary results indicate that the new technique has maintained daily Cl tests to within 20% of the calibration curve. This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (0 pen Item 409/-

85021-01).

The Biennial Quarterly Assurance Audit, QA 70-85-01 conducted September 16, 1985 was reviewed. One open item, not related directly to Laboratory QA was identified. Procedure HSP-08.2 Issue 1 requires retraining ~for Health and Safety personnel in approximately five topics, one of which, the area of waste disposal, was not conducted in 198 No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Confirmatory Measurements The licensee was asked to identify and quantify the activity on an air particulate and a charcoal adsorber spike on both the in plant gamma spectrometer (Detector No. 1) and the environmental spectrometer (Detector No. 3) due to the fact that the Region III Mobile Laboratory was not brought to the site. Results of the sample comparisons are listed in Table The licensee achieved 16 agreements out of 16 comparison In addition, the environmental unit was set up as a stand alone analyzer and an analysis of the particulate spike performed. The results, also on Table 1, yielded three agreements and one disagreement (Co-60). . This unit is currently in the process of being checked out as a backup system for use in a situation where the computer now serving both Detectors 1 and 3 becomes unavailabl As a result of difficulty observed during a previous inspection 1 in comparing results of a split liquid due to settling of insoluble corrosion products, the licensee and NRC analyzed a spiked liquid supplied to both parties. The results of the comparisons (14 agreements out of 14 comparisons) are listed in Table 3 for both Detector 1 and Detector No violations or deviations were identifie Inspection Report No. 50-409/84015 l 4

,

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ .

-

. Confirmatory Measurements Sample Split A sample of "B" Retention Tank was split with the licensee. The licensee agreed to analyze his portion for gamma emitters, gross beta, H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90, and report the results to Region III (0 pen Item 409/85021-02). 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 bot Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3 and . Exit Interview The inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspectio During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report. Licensee representatives did not indicate they felt it contained proprietary informatio Attachments:

1. Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1985 Table 2, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1984 Table 3, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1984 Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements

'

-

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . _ .- . - . _ . - . _ _ . _ . -

_ . - - - ~ = . - . _ . .

i e

] TABLE 1

) U S HUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISSIOM  ;

i

'

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i

'

CONCIPMATOPY MEASUPEMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LACBWR I

FOP THE 4 OUAPTEC Oc E5

<

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMFLE ISOTOCE RESULT ERROP RESULT EPROP RATIO PES T F SPIKED CO-57 5.3E-04 2.8E-05 5.9E-04 3.7E-04 1.1E 00- 1.9E 01 A DET 1 CO-60 1.7E-02 3. OE--04 1.SE-02 '2.7E-04 1.1E 00 5.7E 01 A

'

CD-!Oo 6.6E-02 1.4E-03 7.9E-02 1.3E-03 1.2E 00 4.7E 01 A CS-137 2.OE-02 2.CE-04 2.2E-02 1.4E-05 1.1E 00 6.oE 01 A i

C SPIMED CO-57 3.1E-04 4.4E-05 2.'3E-04 2.OE-05 7.4E-01 7.OE 00 A

, DET 3 CO-60 6.dE-03 2. 3E- 04 '.7E-03 2.IE-04 1.OE 00 2.oE 01 A CD-100 3.2E-02 1.4E-03 3.1E-02 9.0E-04 C.7E-01 2.3E 01 A CS-137 E.0E-03 2.3E-04 E.5E-07 1.7E-04 1.1E ^0 3. 5E 01 A

!

F SPIVED CO-57 5.3E-04 .2.9E-05 5.7E-04 2.2E-05 1.1E 00 1.9E 01 A i DET 1 ~CO-60 1.7E-02 3.0E-04 2.0E-02 2.6E-04 1.2E ^0~ 5."E 01 A

,

'

CD-109- 6.6E-02 1.4E-03 7.5E-02 1.1E-03 1.1E 00 4.7E 01 A C9-137 2.OE-02. 2.oE-04 2. 4 E-02 2.2E-04 1.2E 00 6.CE 01 A C SPIMED CO-57 3.1E-04 4.4E-05 2.4E-04 2.OE-05 7.7E-01 7.OE 00 A DET 3 CO-60 6.6E-03 2.3E-04 c.6E-03 1.3E-0? 1.0E 00 2.oE O! A CD-109 ~3.2E-02 1.4E-03 3.1E-02 7.2E-04 9.7E-01 2.3E 01 A CS-137 C.OE-03 2.3E-04 o.3E-03 1.3E-04 1.OE 00 3.5E 01 A

!

F SPIMED CO-57 5.3E-04 2.BE-05 4.BE-04 0.OE-01 o.1E-01 1.OE 01 A

! DET 1 CO-60 1.7E-02 3.0E-04 1.3E-02 0.0E-0! ' 6E-01

. 5.7E 01 D i

(ND 66) CD-109 6.6E-02 ~1.4E-03 6.?E-02 0.0E-01 9.5E-01 4.7E 01 A

~:-137 2.OE-02 2.9E-04 1.PE-02 '.OE-01 o.OE-01 6.CE of A

,

l T TEST RESULTS:

<

A= AGREEMENT l D=DISAGPEEMENT l *= CRITERIA-RELAXED l N=NO COMPARISON l

l i

l e

r l .

!

l

.,_4..._ - . , , , . _ - , . , . . _ - . , . . . - . _ . . - . _ , , _ _ _ ~ , , - , ,,.,._,,,,,,m...,,,-.,. ,,---.m , _ - - - . , ~,,,.,,,. . . _ , , , , ,

.

TABLE 2

,

U S NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSIO'1 OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONDIPMATORY MEASUREMENTS OPOGPAM PACILITY: LACBWR FO'? THE 4 OUARTER 00 84

---

NoC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROP PESULT EFROP PATIO PEE T L UASTE G BETA 1.oE-04 7.0E-06 1.5E-04 1.4E-06 7.9E-01 2.7E 01 A H-3 0.7E-02 2.0E-04 1.0E-01 0.0E-O! !.1E 00 4.4E 02 A T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT D=DISAGPEEMENT o=CPITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPAPISON

.

l l

. .. . -_ _- .. . . _ . .

. . -

.

!

TABLE 3 U S NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISi' ION OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND EfEORCEMENT CONCIPMATORY MEASUCEMENTS PPOGRAM' )

FACILITY: LACBUR

! FOR THE 4 OUAPTEP'Or 94 i

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE PESULT ECPOR PESULT EPROP RATIO PEi T

i L. SPIKED MM-54 C.6E-05 6.9E-07 9.5E-05 0.0E-01 9.9E-01 1.4E 02 A

• DET 1 CO-57 2.6E-06 1.!E-07 2.6E-06 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 2.4E 01 A CO-60 2.4E-05 4.1E'07 2.3E-05 0.0E-01 9.6E-01 5.9E 01 A

Y-09 7.2E-06 2.EE-07 7.4E-06 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 2.dE 01 A I

SN-113 '4.2E-06 2.7E-07 4.2E-06 0.0E-01 1.'OE 00 1.6E 01 A CS-!?' 2.5E-05 ?.oE-0" 2.2E-05 0.0E-01 S.EE-01 'd.JE 01 A i

CE-139 1.EE-06 1.2E-07 1.5E-06 0.0E-01 E.3E-01 1.5E 01 A

! L SPIKED MM-54 c.6E-05' 6.oE-07 c. 3E- 05 0.0E-01 o.7E- .1.4E - 02 a j DET 3 CO-57 2.6E-06 1.1E-07 2.6E-06 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 '2.4E 01 A i CO-60 2.4E-05 4.1E-07 2.2E-05 0.0E-0! C.2E-01 5 9E 01 A l Y-BS 7.2E-06 2.EE-07 7.0E-06 0.0E-01 9.7E-01 2.6E 01 A j SN-113 4.2E-06 2.7E-07 4.2E-05 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 1.6E Of A

. CS-137 2.5E-05 3.9E-07 2.2E-05 0.0E-01 8.EE-01 6.4E 01 A l CE-!?9 1.8E-06 1.2E-07 1.6E-06 0.0E-01 8. 9E- 01 1.5E Of A

!

!

! T TEST PESULTS:

'

A= AGREEMENT

, D= DISAGREEMENT l 4=CRfTERIA RELAYED'

N=fl0 COMPARISON l

!

l l

l

,

i l

[

.- - - . . . _ _ _ _ . . , _ ._ __ _ - . . _ . - ~ , . . . . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . -

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 progra In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the com-parison 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 to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed categogy of acceptanc RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement

.

<3 No Comparison

t3 and <4 .5 2.4 and <8 .0

.1p and <16 i.67

,116 and <51 0.75 - 1.33

,251 and <200 0.80 - 1.25

_1200 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.

l l

!

. , . -

. . _ .