ML20133F480
| ML20133F480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | Holtzman R, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133F444 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-85-11, 50-301-85-11, NUDOCS 8508080299 | |
| Download: ML20133F480 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1985011
Text
.
.
.
a
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
,
Reports No. 50-266/85011(DRSS); 50-301/85011(DRSS)
?
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301
Licenses No. OPR-24; DPR-27
Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company
231 West Michigan
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant
Inspection At:
Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI
Inspection Conducted:
June 24-27 and July 3 and 18, 1985
0k.banuska
amwlw
7 '3 / ~ 8 5
A. G.
Inspectors:
Date
pyn
-k>
,
'
"~
R. B. Holtzman
<
Date
k.
h" L M
p-y y
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief
Independent Measurements and
Date
Environmental Protect!on Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on June 24-27 and July 3 and 18, 1985 (Reports No. 50-266/85011(DRSS);
50-301/8!.011(DRSS))
-Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of confirmatory measurements,
including sampling, laboratory quality control, and comparison of licensee
analyses with those of the Region III mobile laboratory.
The inspection
. involved 59 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
0ne apparent violation was identified (Severity Level IV), Supple-
'
ment IV violation - failure to make an evaluation as required by 10 CFR 20.201(b) - Section 5).
.
f
66
-
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
10. Fay, Vice President, Nuclear Power
1,3J. Zach, Manager, Point Beach Nuclear Plant
1R. Link, Superintendent, Engineering, Quality and Regulatory Services
1J. Reisenbuechler, Superintendent, Technical Services
1J. Knorr, Regulatory Engineer
1T. Fredricks, Radiochemist
1,3T. Slack, Specialist, Nuclear Chemistry
IF. Flentje, Supervisor, Staff Services
2E. Hinshaw, Specialist, Nuclear Chemistry
1R. Hague, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
1R. Leemon, NRC Resident Inspector
The inspectors also interviewed other chemistry personnel during the
course of the inspection.
1 Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on June 27, 1985.
2 Denotes those present during a telephone conversation on July 3,1985.
8 Denotes those present during a telephone conversation on July 18, 1985.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Open Item (50-266/84-14-04; 50-301/84-12-04): Analyze betas in
liquid and report results to Region III.
The results of the comparisons
are given in Table 1 and the comparison criteria in Attachinent 1.
The
analytical results for H-3, the only disagreement, were examined by the
licensee and by the NRC reference laboratory.
Neither could find an
error in their respective results.
In addition, the licensee made new
st'ndards using NBS traceable material, redistilled a remaining portion
of the sample and reran it using two different scintillation cocktails.
The initial results were reproduced.
This item is considered closed and
.the results of a split made during this inspection will be examined.
3.
Management Controls, Organization, Training, and Qualifications
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's management contrals for.
implementing the chemistry and radiochemistry program. This program
is supervised by the Radiochemist who reports to the Superintendent of
Technical Services, who in turn, reports to the General Superintendent -
Operations and Support.
The Radiochemist supervises the Radwaste
Supervisor, four Specialists - Nuclear, and the Chemistry Supervisor.
The training of the responsible person in Chemistry, the Radiochemist
2
r
-
.
meets the qualifications of the position description required by
ANSI /N18.1-1971 (Technical Specifications (T/S) requirement).
The program
appears to have management support adequate to effectively meet plant
chemistry requirements.
Four Specialists - Nuclear, a Chemistry
Supervisor and ten radiochemical technicians (RCTs) provide support for
the chemistry / radiochemistry program.
The RCTs are permanently assigned to the chemistry laboratory.
They are
required to have a minimum training of two years of college; several have
four year degrees, and several have had nuclear Navy ELT experience.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Chemistry Laboratory
The laboratory appeared to have sufficient room.
Although the laboratory
benches were somewhat crowded, the housekeeping was good and the space
was well maintained.
Because the laboratory is located in the
radiologically-controlled area of the plant, the laboratory workers are
required to use minimum protective clothing (head covering, laboratory
coat, and shoe covers).
This additional clothing is inconvenient and
produces some inefficiencies in laboratory usage, as noted by a licensee
representative.
The analytical equipment ranged from adequate to state-of-the-art, such
as an ion chromatograph and a recent model atomic absorption spectro-
photometer.
An extensive review of expiration date on chemical bottles
and reagent containers showed only one to have been past this date, and
this by only a few days.
The gamma-ray spectrometry system consisted of four shielded germanium
(Ge) detectors that ranged in size from 16 to 32% and were controlled by
a Canberra Series 90 multichannel analyzer-computer system.
The RCT
operating the equipment appeared to be knowledgeable about its operation.
Overall the laboratory appeared to be well-supported and wi.71
un.
No problems were identified in this area.
5.
Confirmatory Measurements
Seven samples (an air particulate filter, a charcoal filter, distillate
water, primary coolant, gas, a charcoal spike and a particulate spike)
were analyzed for gamma emitting-isotopes by the licensee and by the
inspectors.
All samples were counted by chemistry personnel on their
Detector 3 and, additionally, a particulate filter and a charcoal
adsorber were counted on Detector 1.
Results of the sample comparisons
are listed in Table 2.
3
_ . - _ _
_
I
.
,
No air particulate activity was observed by the licensee or the NRC
on filter samples taken from the Unit 2 purge exhaust system and the
Unit 2 containment.
As no other sources of airborne particulate matter
were available, the licensee's air particulate standard was treated as a
sample and counted by the licensee and the NRC on each of two detectors
and by the inspectors.
Comparison of the results yielded agreements for
the nine isotopes in the standard.
A gas sample split contained only one isotope, which yielded an agreement.
A liquid waste distillate tank sample split yielded five agreements.
The licensee agreed to count a portion of this sample for gross beta,
H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and to report the results to the Region (0 pen
Item 266/85011-01; 301/85011-01).
Comparisons made on a charcoal sample from Unit 2 containment gave
disagreement for iodine-131 and iodine-133 when counted on licensee
Detector 1; agreement was obtained when counted on licensee Detector
3.
The disagreement (wherein the licensee's value was nonconservative
by a factor of approximately 3) was verified in a recount by both
parties.
An NRC spiked standard also gave disagreements (four lines)
when counted on Detector 3.
The disagreement was traced to an error in the activity value entered
into the computer for the licensee prepared charcoal standard during its
use in calibration of two charcoal geometries on Detector 1.
The
inspectors confirmed that the charcoal cartridge calibrations of the
licensee's remaining three detectors were not affected.
The licensee
immediately amended the computer file to preclude use of the two
affected geometrics and stated that they would be recalibrated before
future use (0 pen Item 266/85011-02; 301/85011-02).
Detector 1 is used by the licensee for a full range of counting activities,
including analysis of charcoal cartridge samples for effluent monitoring
and for personnel radiation protection. This use with improperly cali-
brated charcoal cartridge geometry a violation of 10 CFR 20.201(b) which
requires the licensee to perform evaluations (surveys) necessary to
comply with the regulations of 10 CFR 20 (Violation 266/85011-03;
301/85011-03).
The question of possible violation of regulatory limits or of licensee
administrative limits owing to the use of this detector was not ascer-
tained during the onsite phase of this inspection.
The licensee was to
examine his records to identify dates and conditions of use by July 31,
1985. This is an unresolved item pending further NRC review of the
matter.
(Unresolved Item 266/85011-04; 301/85011-04).
6.
QA/QC of Analytical Measurements
QA weaknesses were a factor in the calibration problem identified in
Section 5.
The detector was new and being calibrated for the first
The
time, so there was no pravious efficiency curve for comparison.
4
-
--
~
.
licensee's procedure did not require comparison of like geometrics
between detectors following calibration.
Such a comparison would have
caught the error in this case by revealing the inconsistency between
detectors.
Licensee representatives stated that appropriate comparisons
would be required in an amended procedure by July 15, 1985.
(0 pen Item
266/85011-05; 301/85011-05).
Another weakness is the absence of a program to periodically confirm the
basic calibrations through appropriate standards provided by a third
party such as an independent laboratory,
The licensee's weekly and
quarterly efficiency and energy checks are important in confirming con-
tinued system operability and stability but check only one geometry and
would not be expected to uncover an error of this type in the basic
calibrations.
The recently initiated cross check with the Kewaunee plant
will provide a useful independent comparison but is, at present, limited
to a single geometry.
Yet another weakness involved the absence of an activity certificate for
the licensee prepared charcoal standard.
When calibrating Detector 1,
the charcoal activity was obtained from an activity certificate applicable
to the 25 m1 solution from which aliquots were taken to spike the charcoal.
This certificate listed not only the activity in the entire 25 mi
solution but also the activities that would be transferred in various
sized aliquots.
The wrong data was chosen when Detector 1 was calibrated
and management review did not identify the error.
The importance of strengthening counting room QA was discussed with
licensee management by telephone on July 18, 1985.
The licensee does have a program to provide blind samples for non-
radiological analysis by all plant RCTs.
Samples are prepared by the
Chemistry Laboratory supervisor from standards provided by the licensee's
corporate office.
The results reviewed by the inspector indicated
satisfactory performance.
A similar program for radiological analyses
would be useful.
No violations were identified.
7.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-
ance or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection
is discussed in Section 5.
8.
Exit Interview-
The inspecticn findings were discussed with licensee representatives
(Section 1) at the close of the inspection on June 27, 1985.
The
inspector identified an apparent unresolved item concerning calibration
of licensee's germanium Detector No. 1.
Licensee representatives agreed
to recalibrate Detector 1 charcoal adsorber geometries before further
5
..
use, amend calibration procedures to assure consistency between
detectors, and to examine use records for Detector 1 for possible
regulatory violations.
An additional telephone discussion concerning a previously open item was
-held on July 3, 1985.
On July 18, 1985, the licensee was informed by telephone that use of
Detector 1 in analyzing airborne exposure samr;Ies and airborne effluent
samples was an apparent violation of 10 CFR 20.201(b).
The inspectors discussed the review and evaluation of charcoal samples
-
counted on Detector 1 as an unresolved item.
- During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely infor-
mational 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 processes as
proprietary.
' Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory
Measurements Program
Results - 3rd Quarter
1984
2.
Table 2, Confirmatory
Measurements Program
Results - 2nd Quarter
1985
3.
Attachment 1, Criteria
for Comparing Analytical
,
Measurements
4
!
,
6
e
-
,
-
.
TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF IN5F'ECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: CALLAWAY
FOR THE 2 OUARTER OF 1985
NRC--
=
L I CENSEE--
---LICENSEE:NRC
SAMPLE
ISOTOFE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
L WASTE
2.9E-03
4.OE-05
3.1E-03
0.OE-01
1.1E 00
7.2E 01
A
G BETA
4.0E-07
8.0E-08
4.8E-07
0.0E-01
1.2E 00
5.0E 00
A
SR-89
1.SE-09
7.OE-09
1.5E-08
0.OE-01
1.OE 01
2.1E-01
N
0.OE-01
4.OE-09
2.IE-08
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
N
T TEST RESULTS:
A=AGPEEMENT
D=DISAGREEMEllT
- = CRITERIA RELAVED
N=fl0 COMPARISON
.
- - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - -
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
1
TABLE 2
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: POINT BEACH
FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1985
NRC
---
LICENSEE-
LICENSEE:NRC-
=
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
L WASTE
CO-58
5.3E-06
3.1E-07
5.6E-06
2.1E-07
1.OE 00
1.7E 01
A
2.2E-06
2.5E-07
1.8E-06
1.5E-07
8.2E-01
8.9E 00
A
DET 3
SB-124
3.OE-06
2.1E-07
2.8E-06
1.7E-07
9.5E-01
1.4E 01
A
CS-134
1.2E-06
1.4E-07
1.2E-06
1.2E-07
1.1E 00
8.3E 00
A
2.3E-06
2.5E-07
2.8E-06
1.7E-07
1.2E 00
9.4E 00
A
C FILTER 1-131
2.0E-11
1.5E-12
6.7E-12
2.6E-13
3.4E-01
1.3E 01
D
I-133
1.6E-11
2.5E-12
6.3E-12
3.2E-13
3.9E-01
6.5E 00
D
DET 1
OFF GAS
6.0E-03
2.5E-04
6.3E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E 00
2.4E 01
A
DET 3
F SPIKED CO-57
2.7E-03
7.OE-05
2.8E-03
4.5E-05
1.OE 00
3.9E 01
A
DET 1
1.9E-02
4.6E-04
1.8E-02
2.7E-04
9.6E-01
4.2E 01
A
HG-203
1.7E-03
1.1E-04
1.6E-03
5.OE-05
9.4E-01
1.6E 01
A
5.4E-03
1.8E-04
5.1E-03
9.3E-05
9.5E-01
3.0E 01
A
Y-88
1.5E-02
4.6E-04
1.5E-02
2.1E-04
9.5E-01
3.4E 01
A
8.1E-02
1.8E-03
8.1E-02
1.4E-03
1.0E 00
4.4E 01
A
SN-113
8.7E-03
2.4E-04
7.8E-03
1.2E-04
9.OE-01
3.6E 01
A
1.9E-02
3.GE-04
1.8E-02
2.1E-04
9.6E-01
4.8E 01
A
CE-139
2.6E-03
8.4E-05
2.6E-03
4.8E-05
1.OE 00
3.1E 01
A
C SPIKED CO-57
7.7E-04
4.7E-05
2.9E-04
7.9E-06
3.8E-01
1.6E 01
D
DET 1
1.6E-02
3.6E-04
6.4E-03
8.1E-05
4.OE-01
4.5E 01
D
7.8E-02
1.7E-03
3.6E-02
4.8E-04
4.6E-01
4.5E 01
D
1.8E-02
3.2E-04
7.8E-03
7.3E-05
4.4E-01
5.5E 01
D
C FILTER I-1.21
2.0E-11
1.5E-12
2.0E-11
7.4E-13
1.0E 00
1.3E 01
A
DET 3
I~133
1.6E-11
2.5E-12
1.9E-11
1.2E-12
1.2E 00
6.5E 00
A
F SPIKED CO-57
2.7E-03
7.0E-05
2.8E-03
3.4E-05
1.0E 00
3.9E 01
A
DET 3
1.9E-02
4.6E-04
1.9E-02
1.9E-04
1.OE 00
4.2E 01
A
HG-203
1.7E-03
1.1E-04
1.7E-03
3.6E-05
1.0E 00
1.6E 01
A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
- - .
.
.
TABLE 2
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: POINT BEACH
FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1985
NRC-
- - -
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC
-
---
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
F SPIKED SR-85
5.4E-03
1.8E-04
5.2E-03
6.4E-05
9.6E-01
3.0E 01
A
Y-88
1.5E-02
4.6E-04
1.5E-02
1.5E-04
9.7E-01
3.4E 01
A
3 Cont'd
8.1E-02
1.8E-03
9.OE-02
1.1E-03
1.1E 00
4.4E 01
A
SN-113
8.7E-03
2.4E-04
8.2E-03
8.5E-05
9.4E-01
3.6E 01
A
1.9E-02
3.8E-04
1.8E-02
1.5E-04
9.7E-01
4.8E 01
A
CE-139
2.6E-03
8.4E-05
2.9E-03
4.6E-05
1.1E 00
3.1E 01
A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
,
?
l
I
' o
.
'
,
,
_ ATTACHMENT 1
-
-
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL F.EASUREMENTS
.
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 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
-
- 13 and
<4
0.4 - 2.5
2_4 and
<8
0.5 - 2.0
.28 and
<16
0.6
1.67
-
2_16 and
(51
0.75 - 1.33
251 and
<200
0.80 -
1.25
- 1200
0.85 -
1.18
L
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.
f
.
. , . . , , . - . -
--
- - _ . . - - _ - - . . - - - . . - -
. - . -
-