IR 05000456/1988017

Insp Repts 50-456/88-17 & 50-457/88-17 on 880524-26 & 0531-0602.No Deviations Noted.Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Chemistry Organization,Mgt Controls,Qa & Confirmatory Measurements for Plant Radiochemical Analyses

ML20195J002
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/21/1988
From:	Bocanegra R, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195H921	List: IR 05000456/1988017 ML20195H915 ML20195H965
References
50-456-88-17, 50-457-88-17, NUDOCS 8806290033
Download: ML20195J002 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

'

.

-

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-REGION III Reports No. 50-456/88017(DRSS); 50-457/88017(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. NPF-72; NPF-77 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 an Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braceville, Illinois Inspection Conducted: May 24-26, 31 through June 2, 1988 amb t, 8f88 Inspector: A.G.hanuska Date Accompanied By 8 7 Date l

Approved By: N.f C Schumacher, Chief f/p/

/

/g Radiological Effluents and Date Chenistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on May 24-26, 31 through June 2, 1988 (Reports No. 50-456/88017(DRSS);

50-457/88017(DRSS))~

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of confirmatory measurements including: plant chemistry organization, management controls, training and .

qualifications (IP 83722, 83723); and quality assurance and confirmatory measurements for in plant radiochemical analyses (IP 84725).

Results: An extensive organizational change is in progress. The change will require an increase in manpower and has the potential to improve the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry program. A significant management error in judgement related to a violation was note One violation (calibrating gamma spectroscopy systems on a number of occasions with a source having an expired date - Section 3.a) and no deviations were note l l

l l

8806290033 DR 880622 '

ADOCK 05000456 1 DCD j

. . . . . - .. .

i

. 4

,

-

.

,

-

l

!

'

DETAILS i

) Persons Contacted l l

• R. Aker, Rad / Chem Supervisor

• P. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• F. Bevington, Quality Assurance  :

'

• Carroll, Regulatory Assurance

• J. Cronin, Lead Chemist

• L. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Services

• R. James, Count Room EA R. Karowak, QA Supervisor

• 0. O'Brien, Service Superintendent

"

.

• R. Querio, Station Manager

• S. Stapp, Quality Assurance -

,

• T. Tongue, NRC Senior Resident Inspector

• T. Taylor, NRC Resident ~ Inspector

' Management Controls and Organiz3 tion (IP 83722, 83723)

The inspectors reviewed the management controls and organization of the Rad / Chem (RC) Departmen The Department is headed by a Rad / Chem

, Supervisor who reports to the Assistant Superintendent, Technical Service In the Chemistry portion of the RC Department, the Rad / Chem Supervisor '

supervises a Lead Chemist who in turn supervises two Foremen. Currently 36 Rad / Chem Technicians (RCT) form a pool and answer to either Chemistry or Radiation Protection Foremen depending on the job they are assigned

to. The Rad / Chem Department is in the process of separating into a i dedicated Chemistry and a dedicated Radiation Protection Group. The RCTs will be divided into 21 Chem Techs. and 25 Rad Pro Techs. a net gain of

]]

'

10 in the nonsupervisory ranks. New personnel in the Chemistry group will receive four months of initial training provided by the Production Training Center and 12-14 weeks of on-the-job training. All personnel i are involved in a continuing training program and will be required to be recertified annu:lll Dedicated groups and the recertification requirement should result in an improved Chemistry Progra ,

.

No violations or deviations were identifie . Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84725) i

! Quality Assurance The inspectors reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory

'

quality assurance program including the physical facilities, laboratory operations, and procedures. Pertinent laboratory and ,

s counting room operating procedures found in the Commonwealth Edison j Company Quality Assurance Manual and Braidwood Chemistry Procedures )

-

(BwCP) were reviewed for technical content by the inspector i

,

Procedures reviewed included Manual Use and Operation of Canberra i

. _ . .- .

- - . -- - .- _

-- - -- - .

'

.

p .

.

,-

-

1

i Proportional Counter (BwCP 200-1), Background Determination of Germanium Detectors-(BwCP 210-3), Manual Radionuclide Analysis 1 (BwCP 210-4), Determination of Recctor Coolant Gaseous Activity (BwCP 216 6), and E-Bar Determination (BwCP 240-2). The inspectors L also reviewed Quality Control records and related supporting

'

documentatio Documents inspected included results for germanium !

detector calibrations and efficiency graphs. The inspectors also ;

'

verified that calibration'for release geometries had been performed i at intervals specified in CECO Quality Control Directive Table ~

The inspectors found inconsistencies between-the 1988 and the 1987

! calibration curves. Upon further investigation, it was found that-l the inconsistencies were the result of the licensee using expired-

<

calibration sources for four 1987 and one 1988 detector calibrations i

in violation of Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual

! Quality Requirement QR 12.2. (Violation 456/88017-01; 457/88017-02).

i The inspectors reviewed CECO-internal assessment of Chemistry ,

I policies and practices found in a document titled "Results of the i Technical Services Parformance Assessment of Braidwood Station Chemistry Policies and Practices." The assessment performed in January 1987 had identificd the problem of expired radioactive

'

standard Under the Improvement Statement, it recommended that "an- !

expiration date should be associated with each radioactive standard to assure its physical reliability for use in calibrations and performance checks."  ;

The inspectors examined Third Quarter 1986 contractor cross check results and Third Quarter 1987 intracompany intercomparison results.

J The 1986 results were very good, but the 1987 results had many disagreements. The expired standard finding and the disagreements I

in the intracompany results should have alerted the' licensee to the fact that the calibrations were questionabl Sample Split Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal, crud filter used as air

' particulate, reactor coolant, liquid waste, gas stripped from a reactor coolant sample and a gas decay tank) were analyzed for

,

gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III ,

Mobile Laboratory onsite. Comparisons were made on the licensee's J four normally used count room detectors and on the Post Accident Radionuclide Analysis Portable System (PARAPS). Results of the

'

sample comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison criteria l are given in Attachment 1. The licensee achieved 68 agreements out of 72 comparisons.

The licensee's stack air particulate was analyzed (results not i shown) to verify the licensee's results of no detectable activity.

l In order to test the particulate geometry, a reactor coolant filter

was analyzed as an air particulate filter.-

i i A charcoal adsorber sample analyzed on Detectors 1 and 4, a Waste l Gas Decay Tank sample analyzed on Detector 2, a primary coolant filter (CRUD) sample on Detector 3 and a Reactor Coolant resample i

,

-

,

'

. _ _ - ~ _ , _ ._ -

_ . - _ _.,-__ .__-____

!

__

-

.

.

.

on Detector 2 yielded all agreements. The initial reactor coolant sample (results not shown) although all agreements had 13 of 16

,

comparisons that ranged from 110 to 150% of the NRC results. The licensee determined that the cause of thic conservative bias was the sample befitg different than the calibration standar The licensee made provisions to correct this error by the end of the inspection and make necessary procedural change A reactor coolant stripped gas sample resulted in a disagreement for Ar-41 on the PARAPS. Investigation revealed that the efficiency used was incorrectly extrapolated beyond the gas standard energie Although this geometry is not used to satisfy regulatory requirements ,

and this detector is primarily for emergency use and not normally used for routine analyses the licensee directed that Ar-41 will not be quantified until the detector is recalibrate Further, the licensee agreed to complete the calibration of routine geometries on the PARAPS, verify the library contents and review analytical algorithms to assure they are proper and work by July 15, 1988. (0 pen Item No. 50-456/88017-02; No. 50-457/88017-02).

A crud sample analyzed on Detector 1 resulted in a disagreement for i Ba-139 (166 kev). Examinations of the licensee's spectrum and the variables used in the analysis did not indicate the reason for the disagreement ,

A liquid waste sample counted on Detectors 3 and 4 yielded disagreements for Co-58 and Cs-137. In one case, Co-58 went from a disagreement to an agreement when recounted and in the other Cs-137 went from an agreement to a disagreement when recounte As the calibration appeared to be correct, the reason for these changes may be settling of particulate matter thus effectively changing the geometry. The licensee agreed to analyze or have analyzed a portion -

of this sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 and report the results to Region III (0 pen Item No. 50-456/88017-03; 50-457/88017-03), Audits l The inspector reviewed (1) QA Audit Report No. 20-87-02 and No. 20-88-02 as they pertained to Radiochemical and Chemical control requirements and (2) auditor qualification Findings and observations were corrected in a timely manner and the audits appear to be comprehensive and in a sufficient depth to assure the quality of the chemistry program. The inspector examined the qualifications of persons on these audits and found that (1) the auditor qualification requirement for chemistry, one of 34 distinct areas, was satisfied; (2) there were at least two chemistry qualified auditors on each audit, and (3) one auditor who was present on both audits appeared to be very well qualified by eduction, training, and experience in this disciplin One violation was identifie l

,

'

.

-

.

,

. Open Items Open items are matters which have been discuased 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. Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section . Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection or. June 2,198 The scope of the inspection and findings were discussed with emphasis on a violation discussed in Section 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 did not identify any such documents or processes as ,

proprietar Attachments: Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 2nd Quarter 1980

,

l

!

I

,

I I<

i 5 l

'

.

.

.

-

.

,

\

ATTACHMENT 1

'

,

CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS 8 i

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 i

'

.

In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison !

of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertaint As that ratio, i referred to in this program as "Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a l licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement 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 acceptanc RESOLUTION RATIO = l.ICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE r t Agreement

<4 0.4 - .5 - .6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 '

200 - 0.85 - 1.18 l l

Some and fordiscrepancies some specificmay result from the use of different equipment, techniques, nuclide These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data shee .

.

- -

. _ . _-

, ,

'

.

'

' .

,

l 3 l TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM >

FACILITY: BRAIDWOOD FOR THE 2 OUARTER OF 1980

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEEINRC----

SAMFLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

,

C FILTER BR-82 6.3E-03 1.9E-04 5.5E-03 2.0E-04 8.8E-01 3.2E 01 A DFTl I-131 1.GE-03 7. 6E->05 1.8E-03 1.6E-04 1.0E 00 2.3E 01 A !

I-133 2.6E-03 1.4E-04 2.7E-03 2.6E-04 1.0E 00 1.9E 01 A :

OFF GAS AR-41 3.7E-05 2.8E-06 1.1E-02 0.0E-01 3.1E 02 1.3E 01 D 7A c AP5 XE-133 4.4E-03 9.2E-05 4.5E-03 1.7E-04 1.0E 00 4.8E 01 A XE-135 5.!E-03 3.4E-05 5.2E-03 1.2E-04 1.0E 00 6.1E 01 A C FILTER BR-82 6.3E-03 1.9E-04 5.3E-03 2.1E-03 8.5E-01 3.2E 01 A ,

1)c-T 4 I-131 1.8E-03 7.6E-05 1.4E-03 1.2E-04 7.8E-01 2.3E 01 A I-133 2.6E-03 1.4E-04 2.5E-03 2.5E-04 9.5E-01 1.9E 01 A CRUD NA-24 4.1E-06 4. 4 E- 07 3.9E-06 5.0E-07 9.5E-01 9.?E 00 A i

'b ET i CR-51 6.6E-04 6.2E-06 6.9E-04 5.9E-05 1.0E 00 1.1E 02 A i MN-54 4.4E-05 7.?E-07 4.7E-05 3.9E-06 1.1E 00 6.0E 01 A

'

MN-56 2.3E-04 6.4E-06 2.3E-04 2.3E-05 1.0E 00 3.6E 01 A FE-59 6.SE-05 1.5E-06 7.1E-05 6.3E-06 1.0E 00 4.5E 01 A CO-57 1.6E-06 2.0E-07 1.5E-06 2.4E-07 9.6E-01 7.9E 00 A CO-58 7.3E-04 2.1E-06 7.2E-04 6.0E-05 9.9E-01 3. 4E 02 A CO-60 4.3E-05 6.9E-07 4.4E-05 2.6E-06 1.0E 00 6.1E 01 A W-187 6.2E-05 3.6E-06 6.7E-05 4.8E-06 1.1E 00 1.7E 01 A NP-239 1.7E-05 8.0E-07 1.5E-05 2.5E-06 9.0E-01 2.1E 01 A l I-131 7.0E-06 5.3E-07 7.6E-06 8.0E-07 1.1E 00 1.3E 01 A l I-132 9.8E-05 1.2E-05 E.5E-05 6.0E-06 8.7E-01 8.5E 00 A 1-133 5.4E-05 1.1E-06 5.3E-05 4.8E-06 9.8E-01 4.8E 01 A l I-135 8.9E-05 3.6E-06 8.9E-05 4.4E-06 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A l ZR-95 6.7E-05 1.3E-06 6.6E-05 5.6E-06 9.8E-01 5.1E 01 A i ZR-97 1.3E-04 1.5E-06 1.3E-04 0.0E-01 9.9E-01 9.1E 01 A l MO-99 9.6E-06 3.0E-07 1.1E-05 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.2E 01 A i 58-122 3.0E-06 9.5E-07 3.4E-06 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.2E 00 A 1 SN-113 2.0E-06 5.6E-07 2.3E-06 4. 7E- 07 1.1E 00 3.7E 00 A I BA-139 4.9E-04 8.7E-05 2.2E-04 4.6E-05 4.5E-01 5.6E 00 D T TEST RESULTS )

AsAGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

• • CRITERIA RELAXED i

'

NANO COMPARISON

. .

,

.

'

".

.

s TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: BRAIDWOOD FOR THE 2 OUARTER OF 1988

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEEtNRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T L WASTE NA-24 1.4E-06 1.1E-07 1.4E-06 1.6E-07 1.0E Of 1.2E 01 A 3 60- 4 MN-54 1.8E-06 1.0E-07 1.5E-06 1.6E-07 8.2E-01 1.8E 01 A CO-58 1.2E-05 2.2E-07 1.5E-05 5.6E-06 1.3E 00 5.5E 01 D CO-60 6.8E-07 7.9E-OS 5.6E-07 5.7E-00 0.2E-01 8.6E 00 A CS-137 1.1E-06 1.1E-07 9.4E-07 1.1E-07 8.7E-01 9.8E 00 A CRUD NA-24 4.1E-06 4.4E-07 4. 4 E-06 5.6E-07 1.1E 00- 9.3E 00 A q)c73 CR-51 6.6E-04 6.2E-06 7.3E-04 6.6E-05 1.1E 00 1.1E 02 A

,

MN-54 4.4E-05 7.3E-07 4.6E-05 4.1E-06 1.0E 00 6.0E 01 A MN-56 2.3E-04 6.4E-06 2.1E-04 2.4E-05 9.2E-01 3.6E 01 A FE-59 6.8E-05 1.5E-06 7.2E-05 4.8E-06 1.!E 00 4.5E 01 A CO-57 1.6E-06 2.0E-07 1.3E-06 2.1E-07 8.3E-01 7.9E 00 A'

CO-53 7.3E-04 2.!E-06 7. 4 E-04 6,7E-05 1.0E 00 3.4E 02 A CO-60 4.3E-05 6.9E-07 4.5E-05 2.8E-06 1.1E 00 6.1E 01 A W-187 6.2E-05 3.6E-06 6.4E-05 4.0E-06 1.02 00 1.7E 01 A NP-239 1.7E-05 8.0E-07 1.6E-05 2.4E-06 9.6E-01 2.1E 01- A I-134 7.0E-06 5.3E-07 7.0E-06 7.SE-07 1.0E 00 1.3E 01 A I-132 9.BE-05 1.2E-05 9.7E-05 1.0E-05 9.9E-01 8.5E 00 A I-133 5.4E-05 1.1E-06 5.8E-05 5.4E-06 1,1E 00 .8E 01 A I-135 8.9E-05 3.6E-06 9.0E-05 4.7E-06 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A ZR-95 6.7E-05 1.3E-06 7.2E-05 6.5E-06 1.1E 00 5.1E 01 A ZR-97 1.3E-04 1.5E-06 1.5E-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 9.1E 01 A MO-99 9.6E-06 3.0E-07 1.1E-05 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.2E'01 A SB-122 3.0E-06 9.5E-07 2.5E-06 0.0E-01 '8.2E-01 3.2E 00 A SN-113 2.0E-06 5.6E-07 2.5E-06 5.8E-07 1.2E 00 3,7E 00 A OFF GAS XE-133 1.1E-05 1.1E-06 8.0E-06 1.5E-06 7.1E-01 1.1E 01 A

% GT A L WASTE NA-24 1.5E-06 1.2E-07 1.2E-06 1.6E-07 8 !E-01 1.2E 01 A 7)g7 3 MN-54 1.8E-06 9.3E-08 1.3E-06 1.7E-07 8.7E-01 2.0E 01 A-CO-58 1.2E-05 2.2E-07 9.8E-06 9.0E-07 8.5E-01 5.4E 01 A CO-60 5.6E-07 7.2E-08 5.6E-07 6.1E-C8 1.0E 00 7.8E 00 A T TEST RESULTS A= AGREEMENT i D=DISAGPEEMENT l

• sCRITERIA RELAXED l i

NANO COMoARISON 2-

- . - . .- --. . . -. .- -- . .

_ -. .-.

l

.

. 1

.

. 1

.

, ,

.

.'

TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: BRAIDWOOD FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1988

---

NRC------- --

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

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T L WASTE CS-137 1.1E-06 9.4E-08 6.3E-07 1.0E-07 5.9E-01 1.1E 01 D

"b FT 3 co ot PRIMARY CL-38 1.3E-03 1.7E-04 1.5E-03 2.3E-04 1.15 00 7.7E 00 A

'D e T A CO-58 5.2E-04 2.7E-05 5.3E-04 4.9E-05 1.0E 00 1.9E 01 A W-187 1.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-03 8.0E-05 9.7E-01 8.0E 00 A I-131 2.8E-04 3.1E-05 2.5E-04 3.6E-05 9.1E-01 9.0E 00 A I-132 3.6E-03 4.2E-05 3.7E-03 1.8E-04 1.0E 00 8.5E 01 A

_- I-133 2.6E-03 3.1E-05 2.5E-03 6.7E-04 9.7E-01 8.3E 01 A I-134 6.4E-03 9.3E-05 6.3E-03 3.2E-04 9.OE-01 6.9E 01 A .

1-135 4.3E-03 1.1E-04 4.3E-03 1.8E-04 1.0E 00 3.9E 01 A )

RB-88 2.1E-02 1.8E-03 2.!E-02 2.8E-03 9,8E-01 1.2E 01 A, )

CS-138 8.5E-03 2.0E-04 8.4E-03 5.3E-04 9.9E-01- 4.3E 01 A ;

l

,

I T TEST RESULTS:  !

A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT l

• • CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON i-3-

.-. - . .- _

-