IR 05000440/1987020
| ML20235S567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235S537 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-87-20, NUDOCS 8710090044 | |
| Download: ML20235S567 (9) | |
Text
.
,
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-440/87020(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-58 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
September 14-18, 1987 h.
wN Inspector: A.G.IAnuska
- /J/8 7 Date N/.,l
"A Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief
/ 2M7 l
Radiological Effluents and Date I
Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on September 14-18, 1987 (Report No. 50-440/87020(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the Confirmatory Measurements program including sampling, quality control of analytical measurements and
]
comparison of license analytical results with those of the Region III Mobile Laboratory onsite.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
l l
I l
I
<
l 8710090044 871002 PDR ADOCK 05000440 G
PDR L
_
- _ - _ _ _
-
.
DETAILS.
1.
_P_ersons Contacted
- S. Kensicki, Technical Superintendent
- S. Wojton, General Supervising Engineer, Radiation Protection
- D. Jones, Operations Engineer
- D. Reyes, Plant Chemist
- C, Shelton, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. Grimm, Chemistry Specialist
- J. Webb, Associate Environmentalist D Piller, Chemistry Supervisor P. Barton, Consultant J. Lynch, Senior Chemistry Technician, Count Room Coordinator
- K. Connaughton, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on September 18, 1987.
2.
Management Controls and Organization l
t The inspector reviewed the organization of the Chemistry Unit since i
the last inspection.1 The organization remains the same as previously described except that the numbers of technicians and staff (Chemistry Supervisors and Chemistry Specialists) have increased to 25 and 7 respectively.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements a.
Sample Split Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal, liquid waste, reactor
'
coolant, spiked air particulate, spiked charcoal adsorber, and gas) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory onsite.
The spiked air
)
particulate (F SPIKED) and spiked charcoal (C SPIKED) samples were i
treated as actual samples after no activity was detected on the
)
plant particulate sample only two nuclides on the charcoal sample.
One nuclide, I-133 on the charcoal sample, was not compared because of poor counting statistics.
Comparisons were made on both licensee count room detectors.
Detector No. 4, a backup detector in the whole body count room, could
{
not be used because of detector drift caused by elevated temperatures
!
in the room.
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 1; I
the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved 77 agreements in 81 comparisons.
l l
2 Region III Inspection Report No. 50-440/87002(DRSS)
I
l
- _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _
l
. - - - _
__
__
_
_
_
-
-
.
{
.
.
The charcoal sample and the filter and charcoal spikes yielded
.all agreements on both detectors.
A pre-treat gas sample collected in a 14.4 cc serum vial was counted on Detector 1 (0FF GAS-1), the NRC detector and Detector 2 (OFF GAS-1)
with minimal decay between counts.
The Detector 1 analysis yielded a disagreement for Kr-88 while Detector 2 achieved all agreements.
A second sample was collected and analyzed using the same counting sequence; Detector 1 (OFF GAS-2) failed to identify Kr-88 while Detector 2 (OFF GAS-2) agreed with the NRC.
The licensee later recounted this sample on Detector 1 (not shown) after sufficient time.for decay of short lived nuclides masking the Kr-88 and obtained agreement.
Although this geometry is used mainly for fuel performance and rarely for gaseous releases, the licensee was cautioned to establish a counting method which will allow for the quantification of all gaseous nuclides.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comnients.
A floor drain collector tank sample analyzed using the licensee's liquid waste release geometry resulted in all agreements.
Because few nuclides were present, water spiked with reactor coolant was counted in this geometry (L WASTE-2).
The same sample was counted by the licensee and NRC in the licensee's container. While Detector 2 has all agreements, Detector 1 had a disagreement for
-
Sb-122.
Examination of the various parameters used by the licensee for quantification did not reveal the reason for this disagreement.
A portion of the collector tank sample will be analyzed for gross beta, tritium, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 and the results reported to
'
Region III for comparisons with an analysis by the NRC reference laboratory on a split of the sample.
(0 pen Item 50-440/87020-01)
i A primary coolant sample was analyzed and compared, with a disagree-ment initially for Cr-51 for both Detectors.
After a review of the data and examination of the spectra, the licensee reduced the confidence level on his software to 85% and was able to accurately quantify Cr-51 on Detector 1.
Although the Cr-51 peak was also visible on the Detector 2 spectrum, it was of poor quality and could
,
not be resolved and quantified.
The inspector stated that although J
a high confidence level will limit the instances of false positive results and may be appropriate for new plants with small radioactivity inventories, periodic tests should be performed to confirm that significant positive results are not missed as radioactivity inventories in the plant change.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
)
The licensee has ordered standards for a procedurally required
,
recalibration of his gamma spectroscopy systems.
The inspector discussed the advantage of treating these standards as unknowns initially to verify existing geometries and of comparing like
geometries between all detectors.
The recalibrations will be examined during the next Confirmatory Measurements inspection and verified by split sampling.
._
- _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _-_ - _
f
-
.
b.
QA/QC of Analytical Measurements i
i
'
The licensee conducts a chemistry quality control program as described i
in Procedure OM1E: RAP-0204 entitled " Chemistry Unit Analytical Quality Control Program." Technicians are tested on both Intralaboratory and j
Interlaboratory radiological samples.
The licensee's interlaboratory
]
program is with'a vendor different than the'one who supplies calibration standards.
Results for both programs were reviewed
)
for 1986 and found to be in good agreement.
)
The inspector examined the implementation of the counting room QC
>
program.
Backgrounds and source checks are counted daily on all counters.
In addition, efficiencies are determined for tritium I
before use on the liquid scintillation counter, for Am-241 prior to use and for Sr-90 weekly on gas proportional counters.
Daily
FWHM, activity and energy checks are made for the gamma i
spectrometers.
Trend plotting is performed for all equipment.
The inspector noted that QC checks were timely, data outside of warning and/or control limits were noted and subsequent actions were consistent with the QC procedure.
Control charts appear to be well done.
Log sheets indicated that a daily review is performed by the Count Room Coordinator and a weekly review by a Chemistry Supervisor.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1986.
The Plant achieved initial criticality on June 6, 1986 and received its full power license on November 13, 1986.
Significant power level operation was limited to late December 1986.
Review of the 1986 Environmental Monitoring Report identified no effect of plant operation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i 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.
One open item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 3.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 on September 18, 1987.
Split sample comparisons were discussed in detail.
A method for counting off gas samples, assuring that all nuclides are accounted for and the possible need to change the spectrometry sensitivity in the future were also discussed.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
,
-
_ - _ _ - - - _ _
- _ - _ _ _ _ _.
- - - - _ _
..
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
__..
-
.
' During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of_the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed'by the inspector during the inspection.
Licensee representatives l
-
did not identify any such documents or process as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1 Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 3rd Quarter 1987 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparino Analytical Measurements
<-
,
l l
l
,,
-
L a
TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: PERRY FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
F SPIKED CO-57 8.6E-03 9.3E-05 9.1E-03 3.1E-04 1.1E 00 9.2E 01 A
T>FT :
CO-60 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 1.7E-02 9.2E-04 9.9E-01 5.2E 01 A
Y-88 5.5E-03 2.1E-04 5.1E-03 5.9E-04 9.3E-01 2.6E 01 A
CD-109 4.8E-01 3.3E-03 5.0E-01 1.2E-02 1.0E 00 1.5E 02 A
SN-113 4.7E-03 1.8E-04 4.6E-03 4.3E-04 9.8E-01 2.6E 01 A
CS-137 2.9E-02 3.6E-04 2.5E-02 9.1E-04 8.7E-01 8.1E 01 A
CE-139 3.3E-03 7.8E-05 3.4E-03 2.1E-04 1.OE 00 4.3E 01 A
i L WASTE-lCO-58 7.2E-07 1.7E-07 5.2E-07 1.3E-07 7.2E-01 4.2E 00 A
be7 a MN-54 1.1E-06 1.9E-07 6.5E-07 1.5E-07 6.OE-01 5.9E 00 A
1-133 9.5E-07 2.1E-07 7.5E-07 1.7E-07 7.9E-01 4.4E 00 A
OFF GAS-2KR-85M 1.OE-04 1.1E-05 1.6E-04 0.OE-01 1.5E 00 9.3E 00 A
D4FT g KR-87 5.5E-04 3.8E-05 5.6E-04 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 1.4E 01 A
KR-88 3.6E-04 4.1E-05 O.OE-01 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 8.9E 00 D
XE-135 2.3E-04 1.4E-05 2.2E-04 7.6E-05 9.5E-01 1.7E 01 A
XE-135M 9.4E-04 3.8E-05 9.4E-04 9.4E-05 1.OE 00 2.5E 01 A
XE-138 4.7E-03 1.8E-04 4.7E-03 4.3E-04 1.0E 00 2.6E 01 A
I C SPIKED CO-57 8.5E-03 1.4E-04 9.3E-03 3.6E-04 1.1E 00 6.1E 01 A
l CO-60 1.6E-02 4.3E-04 1.7E-02 1.OE-03 1.0E 00 3.9E 01 A
b67 i Y-88 5.6E-03 2.7E-04 5.1E-03 6.4E-04 9.2E-01 2.1E 01 A
CD-109 4.7E-01 4.8E-03 4.9E-01 1.4E-02 1.0E 00 9.7E 01 A
!
SN-113 4.5E-03 2.2E-04 4.3E-03 4.8E-04 9.6E-01 2.1E 01 A
!
CS-137 2.6E-02 4.3E-04 2.6E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E 00 6.1E 01 A
l CE-139 3.3E-03 1.1E-04 3.4E-03 2.5E-04 1.OE 00 2.9E 01 A
j
\\
C FILTER I-131 U.5E-12 4.0E-13 4.4E-12 7.OE-13 8.0E-01 1.4E 01 A
l 9bC7's
!
PRIMARY NA-24 5.3E-03 1.9E-04 5.9E-03 4.3E-04 1.1E 00 2.8E 01 A
l l> 6T 1 CR-51 4.7E-03 8.3E-04 3.4E-03 0.0E-01 7.2E-01 5.7E 00 A
(
MN-56 5.OE-02 4.8E-04 5.2E-02 2.9E-03 1.OE 00 1.1E O2 A
)
l l
T TEST RESULTS:
)
A= AGREEMENT
!
D= DISAGREEMENT j
- = CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON l
_ - _ _ _____ ______ - _ _ _ _.
__
- -
- p.'
!
- )
TABLE 1
'
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
{
l CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS' PROGRAM FACILITY: PERRY l
FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC--- -
E SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
PRIMARY AS-76 2.5E-03 2.4E-04 2.7E-03 5.2E-04 1.1E 00 1.OE 01 A
OFF GAS-1KR-85M 1.0E-04 8.1E-06 1.2E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.3E 01 A
'b6TI KR-87 5.5E-04 2.9E-05 5.5E-04 1.8E-04 1.OE 00 1.9E 01 A
KR-88 3.5E-04 4.3E-05 1.9E-04 0.0E-01 5.5E-01 8.0E 00 D
XE-135 2.OE-04 1.1E-05 2.1E-04 6.4E-05 1.OE 00 - 1.8E 01 A
~XE-135M 1.1E-03 5.9E-05 1.2E-03 1.4E-04 1.1E 00 1.8E 01 A
XE-138 6.4E-03 2.5E-04 6.6E-03 6.6E-04 1.OE 00 2.6E 01 A
L WASTE ZNA-24 5.0E-03 1.4E-04 5.4E-03 3.2E-04 1.1E 00 3.6E 01 A
b 67' s CR-51 2.3E-03 2.OE-04 2.4E-03 3.OE-04 1.OE 00 1.2E 01 A
MN-54 1.5E-04 3.7E-05 1.7E-04 3.1E-05 1.1E 00 4.1E 00 A
CO-58 7.OE-05 1.2E-05 6.1E-05 2.3E-05 8.7E-01 6.1E 00 A
AS-76 2.5E-03 8.3E-05 2.6E-03 2.2E-04 1,0E 00 3.0E 01 A
SB-122 9.5E-05 -1.9E-05 4.2E-05 2.3E-05 4.4E-01 4.9E 00 D
F SP]KED CO-57 8.6E-03 9.3E-05 8.7E-03 2.5E-04 1.0E 00 9.2E 01 A
CO-60 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 1.6E-02 8.2E-04 9.7E-01 5.2E 01 A
b Y-88 5.5E-03 2.1E-04 5.5E-03 5.5E-04 1.0E 00 2.6E 01 A
CD-109 4.8E-01 3.3E-03 4.7E-01 8.9E-03 9.9E-01 1.5E O2 A
SN-113 4. 7E-03 - 1.8E-04 4.2E-03 3.7E-04 8.8E-01 2.6E 01 A
CS-137 2.9E-02 3.6E-04 2.5E-02 8.1E-04 8.7E-01 8.1E 01 A
'
CE-139 3.3E-03 7.8E-05 3.5E-03 1.9E-04 1.OE 00 4.3E 01 A
I L WASTE-lMN-54 1.2E-06 1.5E-07 8.4E-07 1.5E-07 6.9E-01 7.8E 00 A
g g7 g CO-58 5.4E-07 1.5E-07 4.8E-07 1.3E-07 8.9E-01 3.7E 00 A
I-133 1.1E-06 1.5E-07 7.8E-07 1.6E-07 7.3E-01 7.3E 00 A
0FF GAS-&KR-85M 1.OE-04 1.1E-05 7.1E-05 0.0E-01 6.8E-01 9.3E 00 A
J
%6T1 KR-87 5.5E-04 3.8E-05 4.7E-04 6.8E-05 8.6E-01 1.4E 01 A
)
KR-88 3.6E-04 4.1E-05 3.6E-04 0.0E-01 9.9E-01 8.9E 00 A
j XE-135 2.3E-04 1.4E-05 2.2E-04 2.3E-05 9.7E-01 1.7E 01 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
'
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
- _ _ - _ - _ _ _. -
-
.
i
)
TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: PERRY FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
OFF GAS XE-135M 9.4E-04 3.8E-05 1.1E-03 2.8E-04 1.1E 00 2.5E 01 A
XE-138 4.7E-03 1.8E-04 4.3E-03 1.0E-03 9.1E-01 2.6E 01 A
C SPIKED CO-57 8.5E-03 1.4E-04 8.9E-03 2.9E-04 1.OE 00 6.1E 01 A
1)c7 2 CO-60 1.6E-02 4.3E-04 1.7E-02 9.1E-04 1.0E 00 3.9E 01 A
Y-88 5.6E-03 2.7E-04 5.1E-03 0.OE-01 9.1E-01 2.1E 01 A
CD-109 4.8E-01 4.8E-03 4.SE-01 1.0E-02 1.0E 00 9.9E 01 A
SN-113 4.5E-03 2.2E-04 4.4E-03 4.3E-04 9.6E-01 2.1E 01 A
CS-137 2.6E-02 4.3E-04 2.4E-02 9.0E-04 9.5E-01 6.1E 01 A
CE-139 3.3E-03 1.1E-04 3.5E-03 2.2E-04 1.OE 00 2.9E 01 A
C FILTER I-131 5.5E-12 4.0E-13 4.8E-12 6.5E-13 8.8E-01 1.4E 01 A
teTt PRIMARY NA-24 5.4E-03 1.9E-04 5.9E-03 3.9E-04 1.1E 00 2.9E 01 A
'b 67 1 CR-51 5.5E-03 7.7E-04 0.0E-01 0.OE-01 0.0E-01 7.1E 00 D
MN-56 5.1E-02 5.OE-04 5.2E-02 2.9E-03 1.OE 00 1.OE O2 A
AS-76 2.5E-03 2.5E-04 2.3E-03 4.7E-04 9.2E-01 9.8E 00 A
OFF GAS-f KR-85M 1.OE-04 8.1E-06 9.1E-05 0.OE-01 8.7E-01 1.3E 01 A
THFT 1 KR-87 5.5E-04 2.9E-05 5.2E-04 0.0E-01 9.6E-01 1.9E 01 A
KR-88 3.5E-04 4.3E-05 2.5E-04 7.9E-05 7.3E-01 8.OE 00 A
XE-135 2.0E-04 1.1E-05 1.9E-04 2.3E-05 9.4E-01 1.8E 01 A
XE-135M 1.1E-03 5.9E-05 1.1E-03 3.3E-04 1.OE 00 1.8E 01 A
XE-138 6.4E-03 2.7E-04 5.8E-03 1.2E-03 9.1E-01 2.4E 01 A
L WASTE-7 NA-24 5.OE-03 1.4E-04 5.4E-03 3.7E-04 1.1E 00 3.6E 01 A
gyg7 g CR-51 2.3E-03 2.0E-04 2.2E-03 2.7E-04 9.5E-01 1.2E 01 A
'
MN-54 1.5E-04 1.7E-05 1.5E-04 3.2E-05 1.OE 00 9.OE 00 A
CO-58 7.0E-05 1.2E-05 4.0E-05 2.6E-05 5.7E-01 6.1E 00 A
AS-76 2.5E-03 8.3E-05 2.5E-03 2.2E-04 1.OE 00 3.OE 01 A
I-1'33 8.1E-05 2.4E-05 7.4E-05 4.9E-05 9.0E-01 3.4E 00 A
$D-122 9.5E-05 1.9E-05 7.1E-05 2.OE-05 7.5E-01 4.9E 00 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
I4. -.
.
..
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 a
program.
In these crite' ria, 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 category of acceptance..
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement
<3 No Comparison 2.5 23 and
<4 0.4
-
2.0 2.4 and
<8 0.5
-
JJ and
<16 0.6 1.67
-
>16 and
<51 0.75 - 1.33
{
l
~
j51and
<200 0.80 - 1.25 2200 0.85 - 1.18 I
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