IR 05000454/1987042
| ML20237C186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237C183 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-87-42, 50-455-87-39, NUDOCS 8712210114 | |
| Download: ML20237C186 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
,-
., -
-
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-454/87042(DRSS);50-455/87039(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; No. NPF-60 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL. 60690 Facility Name:
Byron Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
November 18-20, 23 and 24, 1987 h.
"
Inspectors:
A. Vanuska
"b/61 Date Accompanied By:
R. Bocanegra Q,f de.:,c./Q Approved By:
M. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents Date and Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on November 18-20, 23, and 24. 1987 (Reports No. 50-454/87042(DRSS);
No. 50-4bb/8/039(DR55))
Areas inspected:
Routine announced inspection of:
1) quality assurance andconfirmatorymeasurementsforinplantradiochem(icalanalyses; (2) organization and management control; (3) training and qualifications; (4) radiological environmental monitoring.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
87.12210114 871214 s
hDR ADOCK 05000454 DCD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
..
,
O'
'
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Flahive, Rad Chem Supervisor V. Junlowjiraya, Analytical Group Leader
- S. Kerr Chemist i
K. Lurkins, Engineering Assistant
- R. Querio, Station Manager
- L. Sues, Assistant Superintendent Technical Service
- M. Snow, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- S. Wilson, Station Chemist
- E. Zittle, Regulatory Assurance Staff
- P. Brockman, Sr. Resident Inspector
- N. Gilles, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit interview on November 24, 1987.
2.
Organization and Management Control The inspectors reviewed the organization of the Byron Station Chemistry i
Department.
The department is headed by the Station Chemist (chemical
'
engineer) and is divided into two groups; Operational Group and Analytical Group.
A detailed list of'the duties and responsibilities of each member of the-department was reviewed by the inspectors and found to be adequate.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements a.
Quality Assurance The inspectors reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory quality assurance program including the physical facilities,ipment laboratory operations, and procedures.
All the counting equ was found to be in good working order.
Pertinent laboratory operating procedures found in the BCP, ASIS-CSP and AAIS-CCP series were reviewed by the inspectors.
Procedures reviewed included daily performance checks, detector efficiency calibration, LLD calculation, and EBAR calculation.
Several procedures were found to be in conflict.
Procedure BCP 400-T14 specifies yearly calibration of a liquid scintillation counter while procedures BCP 320-14, BCP 500-17, BCP-500-19 specify semi-annual
!
calibration for the same counter.
A review of actual calibration i
records showed that the licensee was following the semi-annual l
calibration schedule.
Action has been taken by the licensee to I
i
2
_ __
_
_ - _ _ _ _ -
.
..
-
,
-
.
revise procedure BCP 400-T14 to conform with the other procedures.
There were no other problems observed in the contents of these procedures, however, the AAIS-CCP volumes were in a dilapidated condition.
Before the inspection was concluded these volumes were replaced with newer ones.
TheinspectorsalsoreviewedQualityControlrecordsand related supporting documentation.
Documents inspected included EBAR calculations, LLD calculations, check source decay graphs for daily QC checks and others.
All records inspected were found to be in accordance with BCP procedures.
The inspectors examined the licensee's progress in implementing the new Corporate Chemistry Quality Control Program.
The framework of theprogramisfoundinQualityControlManualNSDD-525.
The implementation schedule is set forth in Control / Action Plan Statements which are reviewed and revised regularly.
The program is scheduled to be fully implemented by December 1988.
The licensee participates in an intracompany laboratory intercomparison program developed within the Commonwealth Edison Company.
All CECO nuclear power plants participate, with each acting as host on a rotational basis.
T1e inspector examined the results of the first intercomparison and noted good agreement, b.
Sample Split Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal adsorber, reactor coolant filter, reactor coolant, liquid waste and gas) were analyzed for amma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile g[aboratory on site.
Comparisons were made on combinations of the licensee's four normally used count room detectors and the Post AccidentRadionuclideAnalysisPortableSystem(PARAPS).
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved 67 agreements out of 70 comparisons.
A particulate stack sample was analyzed by the inspectors to verify the licensee's results of no detectable activity.
To test the particulate geometry, a reactor coolant filter was analyzed as an air particulate.
Charcoal filter, liguid waste, and primary coolant samples were analyzed resulting in all agreements.
A gas sample was analyzed on Detector 2 and the PARAPS although the 250cc gas container used by the licensee is not a normally used geometry on the PARAPS.
Detector 2 results were all in agreement
l
_ _ _ _ _
,-
-
.
i i
while the PARAPS yielded conservative disagreements for Xe-131m and Xe-133.
To determine the source of the disagreements, the gas geometry normally used on the PARAPS, 15cc, was used on a second
. gas sample resulting in all agreements.
The inspectors examined the licensee's results of the first sample and of a third sample (not i
showninTable1),bothanalyzedinthe250ccgeometry,andfound that in both cases the PARAPS results exhibit conservative results.
As the PARAPS is not used to quantify routine gas samples, the 250cc geometry file was deleted from the system prior to the close of the inspection.
A reactor coolant filter analyzed as a particulate air sample yielded a disagreement when the licensee failed to identify Cs-137 on the PARAPS.
Examination of the spectrum did not indicate the presence of a, peak at 661 key.
Although this system is for post accident analysis (high concentrations), is not used to satisfy routine regulatory requirements, and has a redundant filter
) aper geometry within the system, the licensee' agreed to examine t'ie calibration parameters.
A portion of the liquid waste sample will be analyzed for gross beta,. tritium, Sr-89,ison with an analysis by the NRC Reference Sr-90 and Fe-55 and the results reported to Region III for compar l
Laboratoryonasplitofthesample(0penItem 50-454/87042-01; 50-455/87039-01).
c.
Audits l
L
.The inspectors examined QA audits No. 06-86-02, January 1986; No. 06-86-48, September 1986; and No. 06-87-02, January 1987.
No findings or observations relevant to this inspection were noted.
4.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program The inspectors reviewed the 1986 Environmental Monitoring results.
Technical Specification sampling, analysis and sensitivity requirements i;
were met and the Land Use Census performed as required.
There appears to be no evidence that the Plant operation has had any significant environmental impact.
,
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 disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 3.
!
l
i
-_
s
,-
.-
-
.
6.
Exit Meeting
<
)s The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on November 24, 1987.
The scope of the inspection was discussed.
During the inspection the inspectors discussed the likely i.iformatfonal
'
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
,)'l
.
proprietary.
.
Attachments:
T 1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program
+)
.
'"
Results, 4th Quarter 1987
',
2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements i
t) #
>,y
>
p a)
/
!
+
No
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _. _. _
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
my - -
4 / yq,
'
g,Y
.
,
p
\\
.
,
T
,,f
,
,
,.
e-
) \\
- .
I \\.
i s
,.,f i
i i
y d
Is s
.
JL c
N
,j ?
'O,s t
s a.
i O
i j
' i
.,.
+
'
f
y f
TABLE 1.
.f
q>
.
,
)
U S'NUCLk}R REGULATORY COMMISU.ON
,
U.
',((
%/
OFFICE C#2 INSPECTION Af@ EfEORC2MEd'
\\
'
l fN-u (q CONFITJh4 TORY MEASUREMENTS Pf0 GRAM 1 g
\\
- AC LITY: BYRON,
/. cf, A
.
i FOR 7t'd '4 QUARTER OF 1h.37, t
s
>
>
fi.,
p x,
s s
.
'I i
(1 ------NRC---
"-
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE: NRC----
SAMPLEh ISOTOFII RESULT ERROYt
. RESULT EPROR RATJO
'35 S T
I
'\\
,-
} { ;),
\\
s\\<
/
LQ u.,
<
,>.
g
.
- f,
-\\
-.
29-82{ '2,4E-62' 3. 7E,ok g'T.?. 38E-02 a S. DE-04 s
' 9. 4&S1 ~(pdE 01 A
,'
t/ ! N.
'
C FILTER
-
-
..
hET3 I-131 4". 3E-02 3.1E-04 ' 4.' FG -Of 2. 4 E-03 1.1E'00 1.4E 02 A
,
pg.p fug,fAI-133 3.5E4 3 2.2E-04 3,{ ?E-gi 5. 7E-04 1.,tE 00 1.6E 01 A
g d.hE-07[6.6E-08 7.7E-01.6.OE 00 A
i L WAETEc MN-54
'S, NI-07 9.BE-05-be7a (CO-58 Ev3E-07 8..BE-08 E.3/E-07 8.SE-08
' B t M-01 (9.9E 00 A
q CO-60 5.BE-06 2.OE-0/
( 5. W-06 3.2E-07 8.BE-01 e2.9E 01 A
47-rq.49BZA1t131 3.4E-07. ~6.4E-08 2 3fM7 3.7E-08 6.7E-01 5.3E 00 A
'
CSe134 3. 4E- 07 6.6E-08 C/.OE-07-3.BE-08 8.BE-01. E2E 06 A
i i
}.2E-06 1.2E-y'
9.3E,07 1.OE-07 7 dE-01 1.l0EI 01 A
'
s 3(
y r'
c
\\
'
.
2.4E-02 3.PE' 44 2.4E-02
,s C ':!LTER BR-82.
A
)5.6E,02
\\
A
-
p
'D67i I-131; 4.3E-02 3.1R*04 4.5E-02 2.3E-03 1.OE 00*
!. 4E A
' '
,pg_pg ysA I-133\\
3.SE-03 2.2F-04
'3.5E-03
E-0%
1.OE;0d '1.6E 01 A
\\
5.2E-07 9.
E-08 3.7E-07 '6.\\AE-OP, 7.1E-01V3.4d00 A
L WASTE' MN 44 8. BE-07 ' E 1. [1E48
5. 4E-06 W. 4E:q[38. BE-01I '% GE 0.0 A
7.BE-q.h 9F.y?-r 4Fr.5
.CO-5E
C0-60 5.7E-06 2.($E-07
/
9.5G-01l 7. BE 0), /.
I-131 3.6E-07 6.2E-08 2,2E-07 4.1 F-%8 6. IE-O i!. 5. B E ; 0 0 L' A-
'
CS-134 4.6E-07 7.2E-08 3.OE-07 6.4E-08 6.SE-01-6.4E,00
i C3-137 1.2E-06 1.3E-07 8.9E-07 1.OE-07 7.7E,-01 8.9E 00 A
,k
'
.
<
-
t PRIt.ARY NA-24 1.4E-01' 1.3E-04 1.2E-03 2.6E-04 8.3E-01 1.2E Of eS.
,m-2.4E-03{3.OE-04 MT I-13?
1.9E-04 2.4E-(p s3.2E-04 1:,OE 00 i 3E 01 A
,
s 1-132 2.SE-02 2.
E- 02 1.3E-03 9.6E-01 9',4E 01 A
.
(
1-133 1.BE-02 2.1E-04 1)BE-1.6E-03 9.BE-01 8.6E 01 A
!
4. Si +)C7
!~134 5.OE-02 9.5E-0#
'
.
2.BE-03 ' 9. 7E 'D1 5.2E 01 A
I-135 3.3E-02 7.4E-04 NT,2Elh 1.6E-03 9.6E 41 4.5E 01 A
,
l CS-!38 5.6E-02 1.3E-03 5.6E-02 3.7E-03 9. W-01 4.DE 01 A
,
l OFF GAS KR-85 3.OE-03 3.1E-04 3.1E-03 2.9E-04 1. OE,(10 9.BE 40 A
h-r J XE-131M 8.7E-04 4.OE-05 8.OE-04 7.3E-05 9. 24, -0 1 2.2E 01 A
i 1,'
aSosc.
'
. T TEST RESULTS:
.
!
A= AGREEMENT
\\
>
'
'
D= DISAGREEMENT.
e (
y[
(
,
j o= CRITERIA RELAXED
'-
i t
,
N=NO COMPARISON
[
,'
'
/;
\\
-
'
s.
,
j; t
,
,
!
(
n'
.
y y
j
.(
1L
r
5.
i i
,
.<
,i
.
e
~
TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: BYRON
.
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1937 I
e i,
NRC-------
---~tICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RE3 ULT FRROR RATIO RES T
OFF GAS XE-133 1.9E-02 3.0E-05 2.0E-02 0.0E-01 1.0E 00 6.2E 02 A
Dat a XE 133M 7.1E-05 7.0E-06 6.4E-05 6.3E-06 9.0E-01 1.0E 01 A
XE-135 2.3E-06 5.7E-07 1.5E-06 2.4E-06 6.SE-01 4.1E 00 A
P FILTER CR-51 2.5E-05 5.4E-06 2.6E-05 4.7E-06 1.0E 00 4.7E 00 A
"b GT V CO-58 2.3E-05 1.2E-06 2.1E-05 2.0E-06 9.0E-01 1.9E 01 A
l CO-60 8.0E-06 >i.1E-06 7.2E-06 6.6E-07 9.05-01 7.2E 00 A
JS-P-9& f A I-131 2.4E-06 6^.1E-07 1.8E-06 4.6E-07 7. 4 E-01 4.0E 00 A'
I-132 1.1E-05 2.3E-06 1.1E-05 1.0E-06 1.CE 00 4.7E 00 A
I-133 9.2E-06 9.6E-07 9.0E-06 1.2E-06 9.8E-01 9.5E 00 A
ZR-95 2.6E-G5
.'SE-06 2.7E-05 2.7E-06 1.0E 00 1.5E 01 A
'
ZR-97 1.4E-05 1.2E-06 1.4E-05 1.4E-06 9.7E-01 1.3E 01 A
NB-95 2.6E-05 1.2E-06 ' 2.7E-05 2.5E-06 1.0E 00 2.2E 01 A
CS-137 2;4E-06 8.4E-07 1.5E-06 3.6E-07 6.2E-01 2.9E 00 A
BA-139 3.4E-04 1.!E-05 3.1E-04 2.8E-05 9.2E-01 3.1E 01 A
BA-140 7.9E-06 2.4E-06 1.4E-05 2.2E-06 1.8E 00 3.3E 00 A
OFF GAS. XR435 ' 3.2E-03 2.8E-04 3.9E-03 1.7E-04 1.2E 00 1.1E 01 A
l 7A R. a Pi XE l31M G.0E-04 3.7E-05 1.2E-03 3.4E-05 1.5E 00 2.2E 01 D
ggy,g,g,.
XE-133 1.9E-02 3.!E-05 2.6E-02 3.5E-05 1.4E 00 6.2E 02 D
i XE-133M 7.8E-05 6.4E-06 7.4E-05 4.1E-06 9.4E-01 1.2E 01 A
,
JJN c c-XE-135 4.1E-06 7.9E-07 2.3E-06 3.5E-07 5.6E-01 5.2E 00 A
,
,
PRIMARY NA-24
.L 4E-03 1.4E-04 1.2E-03 0.0E 01 8.8E-01 1.0E 01 A
i
'b6T4 I-131 2.lE-03 1.7E-04 2.3E-03 2.5E-04 1.1E 00 1.2E 01 A
I-132 2.BE-02 3.1E-04 2.6E-02 1.2E-05 9.4E-01 8.9E 01 A
'
I-133 1.GE-02 2.0E-04 1.7E-02 1.5E-03 9.6E-01 S 7C 01 A
'
I-134 4.BE-02 1.2E-03 4.1E-02 2.7E-03 S.5E-01 4.0E 01 A
I-135 3.2E-02 8.!E-04 3.1E-02 1.4E-03 9.7E-01 4.0E 01 A
CS-138 5.8E-02 1.8E-03 5.3E-02 4.1E-02 9.2E-01 3.!E 01 A
P FTLTER CR-51 2.5E-05 5.4E-06 4.3E-05 3.92-06 1.7E 00 4.,7E 00 A
?Ad ap '
T TEsf RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
'
D= DISAGREEMENT i
o= CRITERIA RELAXE1 N=NO COMPARISON
.
'l
+
-2-Il
^~
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.
,
,e TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: BYRON z
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
P FILTER CO-58 2.3E-05 1.2E-06 2.4E-05 1.9E-06 1.0E 00 1.9E 01 A
pgaa fs CO-60 8.OE-06 1.1E-06 7.6E-06 1.2E-06 9.5E-01 7.2E 00 A
I-131 2.4E-06 6.1E-07 4.1E-06 1.6E-06 1.7E 00 4.0E 00 A
I-133 9.2E-06 9.6E-07 8.!E-06 1.4E-06 8.8E-01 9.5E 00 A
ZR-95 2.6E-05 1.8E-06 3.5E-05 2.9E-06 1.3E 00 1.5E 01 A
NB-95 2.6E-05 1.2E-06 2.9E-05 1.SE-06 1.1E 00 2.2E 01 A
ZR-97 1.4E-05 1.2E-06 1.3E-05 0.0E-01 8.8E-01 1.3E 01 A
CS-137 2.4E-06 8.4E-07 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0,0E-01 2.9E 00 D
'
BA-139 3.4E-04 1.1E-05 4.0E-04 2.2E-05 1.2E 00 3.1E 01 A
BA-140 7.9E-06 2.4E-06 2.OE-05 O. OE-O 1 2.5E 00 3.3E 00 A
OFF GAS KR-85 2.1E-03 5.9E-04 2.5E-03 1.0E-03 1.2E 00 3.6E 00 A
74e a ps XE-131M 1,2E-03 8. 5E- 05 1.3E-03 2.1E-04 1.IE 00 1.5E O1 A
XE-133 5.4E-02 7.6E-05 6.1E-02 2.BE-04 1.1E 00 7.OE 02 A
/ 5'c c XE-133M 3.7E-04 1.8E-05 4.OE-04 5.4E-05 1.1E 00 2.1E 01 A
XE-135 8.6E-05 2.6E-06 1.1E-04 7.1E-06 1.3E 00 3.3E O1 A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
I r
I-3-
-
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
_
_
.t
^
'
-
,
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 ri Agreement
<4 0.4 - 2.5 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 different equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.
.
.
,.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - ' - - - - - - ~ - ' - -
_