ML17179A455
| ML17179A455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1992 |
| From: | Januska A, Steven Orth, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17179A454 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-92-25, 50-249-92-25, NUDOCS 9209290013 | |
| Download: ML17179A455 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1992025
Text
-*
,.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I I I
Reports No. 50-237/92025(DRSS); 50-249/92025(DRSS).
Docket Nos.* 50-237; .50-249
Licensee:
Commonwea 1th Edi son Company
Opus West III
1400 Opus Place
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3
InspectioD At:
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois .
Inspection Conducj';,e. ~ September 1 - 3, 1992
.
~-A~~
Inspectors:
A. G.
.nuska
.
.-***
S. K. Orth*
-~--#..~id;~*N ~?&~- , .
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief
Radiologi~al Controls Section 1
Inspection Summary
/. *'* /
.
. *' ..
Date
9_:_2/- 7"L
Date
Inspection on Septemb~r 1-3, 1992 (Reports No. 50-237/92025(DRSS); 50-
249/92025 (DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of:
(1) the radiochemistry
program (IP 84750) including, organization, quality assurance/quality control
in the laboratory, and radiological confirmatory sample measurements; and (2)
the close out of open items from prev~ous inspections.
Results:
The licensee continues to maintain a very good radiochemistry
analytical prog~am. Laboratory quality control has be~n enhanced with
computerized trending capabiliti~s. The licensee has improved the accuracy of
the boron analysis of the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS)* (section 2) .
9209290013 920922
ADOCK 05000237
G
.
1.
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
1 S. Berg, Technical Superintendent
P. Boyle, Unit 2 Chemist
1 E~ Carroll, Regulatory Assurance
L. Scheiber, Unit 3 Chemist
1 K. Whittum, Lead Chemist
1 L. Wolf, Radiochemist
1 Present at the Exit Meeting on September 3, 1992
The inspectors also contacted other litensee employees in the course of
the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
(Closed) Open Item (237/92006~01: 249/92006-01):
Licensee was to
analyze a spike liquid sample and send. the results to Region III for
comparison.
The results of these analyse~ are presented in Table l; the
comparison criteria are presented in Attachment 1.
The results yielded
all agreements except for Sr-89. which was 17% of the NRC value .
. Investigation by the licensee and the NRC failed to determine the reason*
for this disagreement. *A review of Sr-89 analytical results from
previous inspections indicated that they were not compared because of
poor counting statistics. Had these comparisons been made however, they
would also have resulted in nonconser~ative disagreements.
A routine
audit of the vendor laboratory is scheduled in the near future and the
licensee stated that emphasis will be placed on Sr-89/90 analyses. A
review of select semiannual effluent reports indicated that if a factor
of six is applied to the Sr-89 values reported ((all less than the Lower
Limit of Detection (LLD) of 3E-08 uCi/ml)) the results would be more
than an order of magnitude below the most restrictive Sr-89 Maximum
Permissible Concentration (MPC) listed in 10 CFR 20.
(Closed) Open Item (237/92006-02: 249/92006-02):
Licensee to
demonstrate the accuracy of the Post Accident Sampling System boron
analysis to satisfy the NUREG-0737.
The inspectors saw satisfactory
test results of the ahalyses of boron at the 50 and 6000 parts per
million concentration.
Final calibration data for the Unit 2 and Unit 3
in-line ion chromatographs were reviewed and appeared to be acceptable.
(Closed) Open Item (137/91021-01: 249/92021-01):
Licensee to
investigate positive tritium r~sults in a ~esidential drinking well and
higher than normal gross beta results in the station inlet and discharge
canals. After positive quarterly-tritium results of approximately 260
~Ci/L (LLD = 200 pCi/L) were nbted in two consecutive routine samples
from a residential well, the licensee increased the sampling frequency
of the well and adjacent wells to monthly in August of 1991.
Since then
three positive samples, the highest being 329 pCi/L, were observed.
No
2
positive results have ever been detected in the adjacent wells and no
positive results have been detected in the well in question since May
1992.
No reason for the positive results has been determined.
Anomalous gross beta samples ranging from approximately 3 to 13 times
normal were noted on 4 occasions in the inlet canal and on 2 -
corresponding occasions in the discharge canal between March 1 and
August 24, 1991.
Isotopic analyses indicated Cs-137 in the intake canal
and Co-60 and Mn-54 in the discharge canal *for one common period.
Results of the highe~t of the paired samples were all less than one
percent of the appropriat~ 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 MPC.
Although the discharge results are attributable to the operation of the
plant no reason for the intake results has been determined.
These items are considered closed, however .they will be examined along
with the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program results.
3.
- Management Control and Organization (IP 84750)
The inspecto~s reviewed the Chemistry Unit organization and discussed it
with the licensee. Since the last inspection the Chemistry Supervisor
(CS) was transferred to the Nuclear Servfces Group and a corporate
employee has been assigned the position of Acting Chemistry Supervisor.
This individual will evaluate the Chemistry Group and assist in
selecting and training the replacement CS.
The Quality Control
Chemi~t/Operational Supervisor, who recently transferred from Braidwood
to replace the QC chemist, terminated.
The Grbup evaluation will
determine if t~is position is to be filled.
The Chemical Control
Coordinator (CCC) terminated and has been replaced by tht Corporate
Safety Representative, a former contractor who was the CCC at one time.
The Chemistry Group is currently one person under quota; however, there
are two contractors on the staff.
The Lead Chemist indicated that the
current staff with the contractors, is adequate to perform *the required
duties .
. No violations.or deviations were identified.
4.
Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84750)
Five samples (simulated air particulate, charcoal, gas; reactor coolant,.
and simulated liquid waste) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by
the licensee and in the Region III mobile laboratory on site.
Comparisons were made on combinations of available detectors.
Results
of the sample comparisons are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria
are given in*Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved all agreements out of
84 comparisons.
Three no comparisons resulted for Ba-139 because the
licensee and the NRC use different abundances, both from reputable
references.
When the same abundances are used the three bec6me
agreements which indicates that the licensee's calibrations are correct.
The licensee will analyze a liquid sample f6r beta emitters and report
- the results to Region III. (IFI 237/92025-01; 249/92025-01)
3
. 5.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- Implementation bf the Laboratory QA/QC Program (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry quality control program as defined
by Nuclear Station Chemistry Quality Control* Program Manual, Revision
10, December 31, 1991.
The licensee maintained computer generated
control charts and
instrument logs for each of the detectors.
The
licensee implemented two sigma and three sigma control limits for the
high purity germanium detectors and the proportional counters,
respectively.
The inspectors reviewed the control .charts and noted that
the data showed normal statistical variance.
Chemistry supervision
reviewed the control charts and resolved any apparent biases.
The inspectors discussed the calibration of laboratory instruments with
licensee personnel.
The licensee performs calibrations in accordance
with their quality control manual.
Calibration standards were
independent from the performance check standards.
The licensee's performance in their radiochemistry cross-check program
was very good.
The licensee participates in interlaboratory comparison
programs both with a vendor and with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's performante in
these programs over the last 12 months.
Th~ licensee achieved all
agreements out of 101 comparisons. *
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Post Accident Sampling System (IP 84750)
The inspectors examined the overall operation of the PASS including a
tour of the sampling panels, review -0f calibration of the systems'
instrumentation~ quality control, operability, training, and
maintenance.
The licensee performed instrument performance tests and
completed isotopic comparisons between sampl~s obtained at the PASS and
the routine plant sample points, which verified representative PASS
s~mpling.
The overall responsibility for the PASS had been recently assigned to
the two unit chemists and a member of the Technical Staff. These
persons were very knowledgeable of the system and the maintenanc~
program.
The licensee had begun implementing new improvements in the
program~ including instrument performance trend charts and weekly system
inspecti-0ns.
-
Chemistry technicians had been trained on the PASS as part of their
initial qualification training.
The licensee provided annual classroom
,training as part of the emergency plan training.
However, the yearly
chemistry department continuing training only contained PASS related
items if requested by the chemistry staff. The licensee stated that the
periodic operational and performance checks provide the technicians with *
adequate operation of the PASS panels.
4
-*
The licensee implemented a good maintenance program for the PASS:
A
vendor evaluated the operability of the PASS on both units, and
appropriate equipment work requests were generated.
The licensee
assigned appropriate priorities to the PASS work requests.
The licensee
reviews PASS work requests monthly and develops monthly PASS operability
reports for plant management.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Audits and Appraisals CIP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed Field Monitoring Reports (FMR) for chemistry for
1992.
The FMRs dealt with sev~ral aspects of chemistry, the PASS syste~
and Radiation Work Permit adherence.
All of the FMRs had acceptable
attributes and no deficient attributes.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview
The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
representative~ (Section 1) at the c6nclusion of the inspection on
September 3, 1992.
The following matters were specifically discussed by
the inspectors:
the results of the sample comparisons,
the disagreement for Sr~89,
the open items and
. the quality control program.
During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely
informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents
or processes reviewed during the inspection.
Licensee representatives
did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, -Radiological Confirmatory
Measurements Program Results
2nd Quarter 1991
2.
Table 2, Radiological Confirmatory
Measurements Program Results
.
3rd Q~arter 1992
3. Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
Analytical Measurements.
5
SAMPLE
NUCLIDE
TABLE 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS REPORT
FACILITY:
DRESDEN
.FOR THE 3RD QUARTER OF 1992
NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC.VAL.
LIC.ERR.
RATIO
RESOL. RE SUV
*---
. --*-----------. ---*---*-
SPIKED
2.89E-04
LIQUID
SR-89
3.23E-04
BETA
s:13E-05
2.80E-05
TEST RESULTS:
A=AGREEMENT
D=DISAGREEMENT
- =CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
1.45E-05
1.62E-05
2.57E-06
8.40E-07
2.95E-04
O.OOE+OO
1.02
19.9
- A
5.45E-05
O.OOE+OO
0.17
j_ 9 . *:j
D
5.32E-05
O.OOE+OO
1.04
20.0
A
3.10E-05
O.OOE+OO
1 . 1 :l
33.3
A
TABLE 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMEN_TS REPORT
FACILITY:
DRESDEN
FOR THE 3RD QUARTER OF 1992
SAMPLE
NUCLIDE
NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO
RESOL. RE SUL'~
CHARCOAL I-131
DET.26
I-132
I-133
I-135
CHARCOAL I-131
DET. 22
I-132
- 1-133
I-135
OFF-GAS
DET.
23
OFF-GAS
DET.
2 5
CRUD
FILTER
DET. 27
..*.
--
KR-85M
KR-87
XE-135
XE-135M
KR-85M
KR-87
XE-135
XE-135M
CR-51
MN-56
C.0-58
C0-60
AS-76
W-187
SR-92
Y-92
ZR-95
F.U-10:,
5.20E-11
l.87E-i0
3. 36*E-10
5.00E-10
5.20E-11
1.87E-10
3.36E-10
5.00E-10
2.66E-07
2.04E-06
1.87E-06
1.20E-05
4.69E-05
2.66E-07
2.16E-06
l.96E-06
1.41E-05
l.77E-04
5.95E-04
l.29E-03
4.49E-04
5.74E-05
2.77E-04
2.00E-04
1.30E-04
5.40E-05
1.17E-04
1.75E-05
4.l3E-05
l.27E-12
2.74E-11
3.81E-12
2.46E-11
l.27E-12
2.74_E-11
3.81E-12
2.46E-11
3.36E-08
1.45E-07
- 6.65E-08
1.24E-06
3.57E-06
3.36E-08
1.74E-07
5.78E-08 _
2.86E-06
9.69E-06
4.46E-06
1.llE-05
1.47E-05
2.31E-06
2.52E-06
4.47E-06
2.33E-05
4.24E-06
2.46E-05
3.41E-06
1.lOE-06
5.55E-11
2.14E-10
3.65E-10
4.89E-10
5.48E-11
1.96E-10
3.63E-10
4.98E-10
2.87E-07
2.0lE-06
1.86E-06
9.40E-06
4.44E-05
2.60E-07
1.84E-06
l.78E-06
7.55E-06
1.77E-04
6.32E-04
1..37E-03
4.64E-04
6.00E-05
3.00E-04
2. _22E-04
l.58E-04
5.95E-05
1.47E-04
1.28E-:05
5.03E-05
4.26E-12
2.12E-11
2.71E-11
4.23E-11
4.13E-12
2.69E-ll
2,69E-11
4.29E-ll
2.77E-08
1.83E-07
l.38E-07
9.49E-07
4.19E-OG
3.35E-08
2.07E-07
1.44E-07
O.OOE+OO
1.81E-05
4.40E-05
7.lOE-05
2.lbE-05
5.49E-06
1.49E-05
1.87E-05
8.SOE-06
9.SSE-06
3.58E-05
3.61E-06
1.02E-05
1. 07
j_ * 1 4
1.09
0. 9S:
1.05
1. 05
- !. . Of;_
l.00
l. OS
0.99
0.99
0.78
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.91
0.53
1. 00
1.06
1.06
1. 03
1. 05
1.08
1.11
1.22
1.10
1.26
(i . 7 3
4'.:... 0
--
C>
b. \\..-"
88.1
20.3
41.0
6.8
82-.1
20.3
7.9
14.1
28.1
9.7
13. :;_
7.9
12.5
34.0
4.9
18.3
133.4
116.8
30.5
24.S
109.9
44.7
5.6
1 ")
7
..I.. ,t__,
'
'
,; . 2.
5.1
3 7. 5
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A
P..
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
SAMPLE
CRUD
FILTER*
DET. 27
CRUD
FILTER
DET. 26
DET 25
DET 26
NUCLIDE
NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC.VAL.
LIC.ERR.
RATIO
RESOL.
RESUL~
SB-122
SB-124
BA-139
CE-144
CR-51
MN-56
-FE-59
C0-58
C0-60
AS-76
W-187
SR-92
Y-92
ZR-95
Ru..:.105
SB-122 .
SB-124
BA-139
CE-144
NA-24
CR-51
C0-58
C0-60
."A..S-7 6
I-132.
I-134
1-135
SR-91
SR-92
M0-99
BA-139
NA-24
CR.-51
MN-56
C0-58
C0-60
AS-76
I-133
I-134
SR-91
S?-92
3.lOE-05
2.llE-05
3. 5.lE-04
1.13E-04
1.77E-04
5.95E-04
1.29E-03
4.49E-04
5.74E-05
2.77E-04
2.00E-04
1.30E-04
5.40E-05
1.17E:--04
1.75E-05
4.13E-05
3.lOE-05
2*.11E-05
3.51E-04
1.13E-04
- 1. 48E-04
1.37E-03
7.80E-05
1.29E-04
3.39E-04
1.03E-05
5.99E-04
2.18E-04
2.37E-03
6.llE-04
1.04E-04
5.15E-04
8.55E-05
- 1.03E-03
1.39E-04
1.33E-03
3.76E-05
7.76E-05
l.25E-04
3.54E-04
1.34E-05
5.92E-04
2.22E-04
2. 3,0E-03
6.04E-04
1. 20E-.04
4.SSE-04
2.44E-06
3.31E-05
9.47E-07
2.47E-05
2.20E-05
2.39E-04
5.56E-06 * 1.19E-04
9.69E-06
4.46E-06
1.llE-05
1.47E-05
2.31E-06
2.52E-06
4.47E-06
2.33E-05
4.24E-06
2.46E-05
3.41E-06
1.lOE-06
2.44E-06
9.47E-07
2.20E-05
5.56E-06
4.50E-06
2.67E-05
3. o*6E-06
3.49E-06
6.41E-06
2.39E-06
3.38E-05
3.49E-06
2.16E-04
8. 37E-"-05
1.17E-05
6.31E-05
l.85E-05
4.60E-05
4.20E-06
3.00E-05*
3.0lE-06
3.38E~06
2.99E-06
6.19E-06
2.72E-06
2.91E-05
3.35E-06
3.44E-04
4.98E-05
1.17E-05
1.80E-05
1.83E-04
6.45E-04
1.40E-03
4.74E-04
-6.66E-05
3.07E-04
- 2. 26E-04
1.71E-04
6.27E-05
1.42E-04
1.32E-05
4.53E-05
4.02E-05
2.18E-05
3.00E-04
1.18E-04
1.43E-04
1.38E-03
9.18E-05
1.39E-04
3.66E-04
1.06E-05
6.71E-04
2.26E-04
2.65E-03
6.24E-04
1.09E-04
4.66E-04
6*. 44E-0 5
6.41E-04
1.36E-04
1.39E-03
3.18E-05
8.08E-05
1.32E-04
3.89E-04
1.52E-05
6.77E-04
2.34E-04
2.64E-03
- 5. 2 3E-04
l.l9E-04
5.13E-04
4.85E-06
3.09E-06
2.07E-05
1.28E-05
.2.06E-05
4.56E-05
7.40E-05
.2.24E-05
6.0lE-06
1.55E-0_5
1.91E-05
9.40E:-06
1.07E-06
3. 44E..:..05
4.00E-06
1.13E-05
4.51E-06
2.86E-06
3.08E-05
1. 27E-os*
1.13E-05
1.llE-04
8.27E-06
7.60E-06
2.51E-05
3.66E-06
2.67E-05
l.76E-05
l.29E-04
2.04E-05
8.60E-06
6.54E-05
1.88E-05
7.82E-05
1.06E-05
1.15E-04
8.50E-06*
6.75E-06
7.00E-06
- 2.46E-05
3.09E-06
2.53E-05
1.82E-05
1.29E-04
1.89E-05
8.40E-06
6.llE-0'.:0
1. 07
1.17
0.68
1. 05
1. 04
1. 08
1. 08
1.06
1.16
1.11
1. 13
1.32
1.16
1.21
0.75
1.10
1.30
1.03
0.85
1.04
0.97
l.01
1.18
1.02
1. 08
1.03-
1
1 ..-,
.L * .!. L.
l. 04
1. :l. 2
1.02
1.05
0.90
0.75
0.62
0.98
1. 05
0.85
1. 04
l. 06
1.10
1.13
1.14
1.05
1 . 0 ::*
0.99
1. 06
12.7
22.3
16.0
20.3
18.3'
133.4
116 .. 8
30.5
2 4. E:
109.9
44.7
5.6
1. 2 . 7
4.8
5.1
37.5
12.7
22.3
16.0
20.3
32.9
37.G
52.9
17.7
62.5
11. 0
~
. . .J
3.9
0
'"')
U.L
4 .(,
22.4
33.l
44.3
12.5
23. :)
41. 8
57.2
4.9
- o.3
66.3
S. 7
12.
- , /,
_v.
A
A
N
A
.A
-A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SAMPLE
NUCLIDE
NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC.VAL.
LIC.E.RR.
RAT:!:O
RESOL: RE SUL'.
M0-99
6.18E-05
1.52E-05
9.52E-05
1.54E-05
1.54
4.1
A
BA-139
1.09E-03
5.39E-05
7.63E-04
7.73E-05
0. 70
20.2
N
SIMUL.
CR-51
1.41E-03
6.40E-05
1.21E-03
1.29E-04
0.86
22.0
A
LIQUID
C0-5.8
6.64E-05
7.55E-06
7.19E-05
9.83E-06
1. 08
8 ,.,
.v
A
WASTE*
C0-60
1.42E-04
1.09E-05
1.36E-04
1.64E-05
0.96
13.0
A
DET. 27
AS-76
3.31E-04
2.81E-05
3.31E-04
4.27E-05
1. 00
11.8
A
SIMUL.
'NA-24
1.45E-04
2.34E-05
1.59E-04
2.66E-05
1.10
6 .. 2
A
LIQUID
CR-51
1.41E-03
6.77E-05
1.37E-03
1.29E-04
- o. 97
20.8
A
WASTE
C0-58
5.35E-05
7. 67E:...06
6.83E-05
1.llE-05
1.28
7.0
A
DET. 25
C0-60
1. 4 3E-04. l.lOE-05
1.31E-04
l.64E-05
0.92
13.0
A
AS-76
3.97E-04
2.64E-05
4.02E-04
5.32E-05
1.01
15.0
1A
TEST RESULTS:
A=AGREEMENT
D=DISAGREEMENT
- =CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
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
1 s value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.*
As that ratio, referred to in this program as
11 Resolution
11
, increases,
the acceptability of a licensee 1 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
<4
4
7
8 -
15
16 -
50
51 - 200
200 -
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
Agreement
NO COMPARISON
0.5
2.0
0.6 - 1.66
0.75 - 1.33
0.80 - 1.25
0. 85 - 1.18
Some discrepancies may result frcim 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.