ML17194A267
| ML17194A267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Januska A, Janusko A, Rozak S, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194A266 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-81-15, 50-10-81-15, 50-237-81-29, 50-249-81-22, NUDOCS 8111130544 | |
| Download: ML17194A267 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000010/1981015
Text
~**
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-10/81-15; 50-237/81-29; 50-249/81-22
-~*
Docket Nos~ 50-10; 50-237; 50-249
License Nos. DPR-2; DPR-19; DPR-25
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago,* Il 60690
Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3
Inspection At:
Dresden Site, Morris, IL
Inspection Conducted:
Octob~r 13-16, 1981
Inspectors:
-~
- J
~,;;**.ii-- ~)e-L
A. G. Januska
/>/.~
Approved By:
M. Schumacher, Chief
Independent Measurements and
Environmental Protection Section
Inspection Swnmary:
Inspection on November 13-16, 1981 (Report Nos, 50-10/81-15; S0-237/81-29;
and 50-249/81-22)
_
Areas Inspected:
Routine Unannounced inspection of Confirmatory Measure-
ments including collection of samples analysis onsite with the NRC Region
III Measurements Van, and discussion of results.
The inspection involved
52 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
,_
Results:
No items of noncomp_liance or deviations were idendfied .
8111A13D005C~4o~6668to
pDR
G
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Farrar, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Support
Services
- G. Myrick, Rad/Chem Supervisor
- S. McDonald, Lead Chemist
- E. Wilmer, QA Coordinator
- T. Tongue, RIII Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
3.
(Closed) Noncompliance (10/80-21-01; 237/80-23-01; 249/80-27-01):
Failure to collect and analyze cooling water samples.
The licensee's
contractor, Eberline Instrument Corporation was informed by a letter
of the necessity for strict compliance with sample collection and
analyses.
In addition the licensee has established a log which is
signed by the Eberline representatives when he picks up the samples
each week.
This log is reviewed and initialed by station personnel.
The inspectors have no further questions regarding this matter.
(Closed) Unresolved item (237 /80--23-02; 249/80-27-02):
Possible
improper calibration of the Marinelli sample container.
A review of
- calibration data by the licensee revealed that the Marinelli container
used for gaseous effluent quantificatioa, was calibrated as was the
14 ml serum vial which had resulted in low reporting. of Xe-133 by a
factor of two.
The licensee has since recalibrated the Marinelli
using an actual gas standard, and has revised his gaseous effluent
repori data to reflect the underreporting through 1977, when this
erroneous calibration was first used.
The *maximum conc*entrations of
the revised effluent data was 1.51% of the chimney limit.
The in~
spectors have no further questions regarding this item.
(Closed) Unresolved item (237/80-23-03; 249/80-27-03):
Possible
existence of Xe-133m in gas samples.
The licensee examined 34 spectra
for noble gases from the D2/3 chimney collected between.February and
December 1980 and 23 from the D3 reactor building stack collected
between July and December* 1980 and found no evidence of Xe-133m.
Although no Xe-133m has been noted, the licensee has added this
nuclide to the list of nuclides which require quantification.
The
inspectors have no further questions regarding this item.
Results of Comparative Analyses
Effluent samples in four media were split and counted by the licensee
and onsite by the RIII Measurements Van.
In addition an NBS traceable
charcoal spike was counted by the*licensee at the request of the in-
spectors.
The results of comparative gamma analyses are given in Table
- 2 -
I and the criteria for comparing measurement results are given in Attach-
ment 1.
Results involving beta counting (tritium, gross beta, Sr-89,
Sr-90) will be completed at a later date and will be included as an
addendum to this report.
No item of noncompliance was found.
For 33 comparisons, the licensee's results yielded 32 agreements or
possible agreements.
The only disagreement is in a charcoal cartridge
from the D3 reactor building vent.
This disagreement is conservative.
As an independent check another cartridge from the D2/3 stack has been
sent to RESL..
These results will be included in Table II in the addendum.
At the request of the inspectors the licensee also counted a face-loaded
NBS traceable spiked cartridge.
All the comparisons in the spiked cart-
ridge were agreements; however, since the cartridge was known to be
face loaded the licensees did not apply a correction factor that he
normally applies for charcoal to account for distribution of activity
within the body of the cartridge.
This correction factor was. deduced
by calibrating with a cartridge that had activity distributed to
approximate the distribution the licensee believes occurs in most
samples at the facility.
The licensee's counting procedure does not
provide for any deviation from this distribution.
In addition, the
charcoal geometry was calibrated indirectly by deducing a correction
factor to be applied after the activity on the charcoal had been
quantified using efficiencies appropriate for another geometry.
This
in itself is not incorrect; however, it does introduce another possible
source of error.
At this point the reason for the disagreement in
charcoal is not clear; it may be-a compounding of small errors from
several sources.
The licensee tends to be high by approximately 20% compared to NRC
values in all media.
This may, in part, contribute to this disagree-
ment in charcoal.
The reason for this trend is not clear but it may
be due to the software currently being used in the licensee's counting
system.
Specifically the form of this efficiency function used to fit
the calibration points is very simple and may not be general enough
to generat.e a good curve through the points.
The licensee is currently in the process of calibrating and bring
on-line a new counting system.
This system is expected to be in use
routinely sometime in the beginning of 1982.
This involves recalibrat-
ing all the geometries; thus it is likely that the trends toward over-.
estimating seen during this inspection will be resolved.
The licensee
has expressed a desire for another split with the. NRC when the new
counting system is fully operational.
4.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph
1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 16, 1981.
The in-
spectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
At the
time the licensee agreed to:
- 3 -
- .
Analyse the liquid sample collected during the inspection for tritium,
SR-89, Sr-90 and gross beta and report the results to Region III (Open
items numbers 237/81-29-01 and 249/81-22-01).
Attachments:
1.
Criteria for comparing Analytical Measurements
2.
Table I Confirmatory Measurements Program Results
4th Quarter, 1981
- 4 -
..*.. . .
TAtJLE I
,
U S NUCL~AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITYI DRESDEN
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1981
---*--NRC*------
~AMPL.t.
ISOTOPE
RESULT
ERROR
- LICENSEE*****
RESULT
ERROR
OFF GAS
L WASTE
XE l3SM
XE 138
XE 133
XE 135
t<R 85M
t<R 87
~R 88
MN 54.
co 60
SR 91
cs 137
BA 140
cs 134
t' F 1 LT E*R CR 51
MN 54
- CO 58
co 60
I 131
RU 103
cs 137
BA 140
C FILTER I 131
I 132
I 133
I 134
I' 135
C SPIKED CO 57
SN '13
y-se
co 60
co 60
cs 137
"86
T TEST RESULTSa
A*AGHt'.EMENT
U=DlSAGREEMENT
3e8E*OO
lelE*Ol
5e2E*Ol
le6E*OO
le4E*OO
le2E*OO
3e4E*05
le5E*04
- a.4E*06
7.2E*06
2.7E*06
2e4E*06
6e8E*04
2e3E*04
9e7E*05
l.7E*03
7 e6E*03 .
4e9E*OS
6.lE*OS
le7E*03
4*.6E*03-
l ,8E*02
2e3E*02
3,8E*02
3.SE*02
s.aE-oJ
le5E*02
7.SE*02 .
4e4E*02
4e4E*02
3.3E*Q2
7.SE*02
2,SE*Ol
9,SE*Ol
2elE*02
6*3E*02
i*,sE-02
6e5E*02
4e7E*02
3e8E*07
1.1E.-01
le2E:.o6 -
2eSE*07
- 7e4E*07
2.2f:-07
6e7E*OS
le4E*OS
leOE*OS
3e4E*OS
7.lE*OS
9*.2£-06
9elE*06
leOE*04
4e7E*05
9e9E*04*
le9E*o4
7.6E*o3
le3E*o3
2e6E*04
6.0E*04
2e9E*Ol
i.aE:-03
i.at-03
l e3E*0*3
3e2E*03
4e3E*OO
l .SE+'O l
6,3E*Ol
2.0E*OO
4e9E*Ol
le9E*OO
leSE+OO
4elE*OS.
le~E-04
7.2E*06
7.0E*06
J,SE*06
2e4E*06
9e8E*04*
l,7E~04
l,JE*04
l,3E*03
6.SE*OJ
9.SE*OS
l.OE*04
l.7E*03
6,4E-03
2e7E*02
3 .* oE:-02,.
3.4E*02
4elE*02
6e2E*03
l.7E*02
7.8E*02
4e8E*02
4.8E*02
3.6E*02
8.4E*02
~*POSS'IBLE AGREEP4£NT
N*NO COMPARISON
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o .
o.o
o,o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o,o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
2e4E*04
4,2E*03
e.1E*03
6e6E*04
6.9E*04
4.4E*04
6 *. lE*OJ
- .LI C f:IJ5!°~: lfll.c ****
RATIO
T
l.lE*.00
< l.4E*OO
le2E*OO
le2E+OO
le4E*OO
l,4E*OO
l.3E+OO
.l .2E+OO
le2E*OO
8e6E*Ol
9e7E*Ol
lelE*OO
leOE+OO
-
..
°l..4E+OO
7.4E*Ol
le3E*OO
7.6E*Ol
B.6E*Ol
le9E+OO
l.6E+OO
leOE*OO
le4E+OO
leSE*OO
l.3E*+oo
8e9E*Ol
le2E*OO
lelE*oo
lelE*OO
leOE*OO
lelE+OO
lelE*OO
lelE*OO
lelE*OO
l.SE+Ol
le2E+Ol
2.SE+Ol
2.SE*Ol
2e4E+Ol
2.2E+Ol
2.6E+Ol
8.9E+Ol
le9E*02
7eOE*OO
2.9E+Ol
3e6E*OO
lelE*Ol
leOE+Ol
l.6E*Ol
9.7E+OO
SeOE*Ol
lelE*02
SelE*OO
6.7E*OO
leTE*Ol
9e8E+Ol
l,8E+Ol
le2E*02
s.oE+OO
2.7E*Ol
2e2E*Ol
2.SE*Ol
2e6E*Ol
2e4E+Ol
2.4E*Ol
2.SE+Ol
2.3E*Ol
A
A
A
A
p
p
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
p
A
A
A
A
A
A
0
p
p
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
. . .
.. '
\\f ....
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability
tests and verif~cation measurements.
The criteria are based on an
empirical relationship whici1 1,;umbines prior exper!"='!"!i:e c:u1u the accuracy
needs of this program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the
comparison of the NRC Reference* Laboratory'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 con-
sidered 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.
The acceptance category reported will
be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
RESOLUTION
RATIO ~ LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
<3
>3 and <4
">4 and <8
>s and <16
">16 and <51
">51 and <200
>200
No Comparison
- o.*4
2.5
0.5
2.0
0.6
1.67
o. 75
1. 33
o. 80
1. 25
0.85 -
1.18
Possible
Agreement "A"
No Comparison
0.3
3.0
o. 4
2. 5
0.5
2.0
0.6
1.67
0.75
1.33
0.80
1.25
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Possible
Agreeable "B"
No Comparison
No Comparison
o. 3
3. 0
0.4
2.5
0.5
2.0
0. 6
-.
l.'67
o. 75
1. 33
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
cation is greater than 250 keV.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" cri~eria are applied to the following analyses:
~armna spectrometry, where principal gauuna energy used for identifi-
cation* is less than 250 keV.
r
Sr~89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the
same reference nuclide.