ML20137E591

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-254/85-23 & 50-265/85-26 on 850715-19.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radioactive Samples & Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Findings.Confirmatory Measurements Encl
ML20137E591
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/13/1985
From: Holtzman R, Oestmann M, Schumacher M
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137E588 List:
References
50-254-85-23, 50-265-85-26, NUDOCS 8508230284
Download: ML20137E591 (10)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000254/1985023

Text

'

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-254/85023(DRSS); 50-265/85026(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-29; DPR-30

Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company

Post Office Box 767

Chicago, IL 60690

Facility Name: . Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Inspection At: Quad Cities Site,' Cordova, IL

Inspection Conducted: July 15-19, 1985

7ll. lllthcw /MW

Inspectors: M. J. Oestmann i

Date

> B o Y3f$[

Dpte /

l

l

'

Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Chief

.

////'  !

'

Independent Measurements and Date

Environmental Protection Section

Inspection Summary

Inspection on July 15-19, 1985 (Report Nos. 50-254/85023(DRSS);

l 50-265/85026(DRSS)) .

l Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of confirmatory measurements.

l The Region III mobile laboratory was onsite to analyze radioactive samples

i

collected and split with the licensee for comparison. The inspectors also

reviewed licensee actions on previously identified findings. The inspection-

involved 62 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

l

8508230284

DR 850814

ADOCK 05000254

PDR

'

.

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

IT. K. Tamlyn, Services Superintendent, QCNPS

IB. R. Strub, Regulatory Assurance Administrator, QCNPS

1N. D. Griser,-Senior Quality Assurance Inspector, QCNPS

J. Wethington, Quality Assurance Inspector, QCNPS ~

t 2J. E. Sirovy, Rad / Chemistry Supervisor, QCNPS

1 2P. A. Behrens, Lead Chemist, QCNPS

R. Hebeler, Laboratory Foreman, QCNPS

D. Fraser, Radiation Chemistry Technician (RCT), QCNPS

W. Kaufman, RCT, QCNPS

1Present at plant exit interview on July 18, 1985.

2Present during telephone conversation on July 31, 1985.

2. Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings

a. (Closed) Open Item (50-254/84-10-02; 50-265/84-09-03): Licensee

agreed to recalibrate his gas geometry for effluent samples. The

licensee recalibrated the 4.7-liter gas Marinelli geometry in

September 1984 with a vendor-supplied gas standard. In the present

inspection, confirmatory measurements comparisons were performed

with this geometry. The results were satisfactory; seven available

gamma-ray spectral lines for the off gas sample showed close agree-

ment between the two sets of measurements (see Table 2).

b. (Closed) Open Item (50-254/85006-01; 50-265/85006-01): Licensee

to analyze a liquid sample for Sr-89, Sr-90, H-3, Fe-55 and gross

beta for comparison purposes. The analyses performed by the

licensee and his contractor showed agreement (Table 1) for Fe-55,

H-3, Sr-90 and gross beta. The Sr-89 results were in disagreement

owing, probably, to the approximate four month delay between sample

collection and submittal for analysis to the contractor. The

results of a followup split sample taken during this inspection will

be submitted by the licensee and will be reviewed for this analysis

(Section 4).

c. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-02; 50-265/85006-02): Training of

licensee personnel in water chemistry control. A training program

in water chemistry for BWR's is being developed by the licensee's

Braidwood Production Training Center, but it has not been presented

to the licensee's corporate and plant management and technical staff

in accordance with NSD Directive S-17, dated October 5, 1984. This

item will remain open, pending completion of this training.

d. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-03; 50-265/85006-03): Licensee to

revise chemistry procedures to meet the commitments in the licensee's

water chemistry control program. The inspector reviewed drafts of

2

_

.

several different chemical procedures that were revised to reflect

the requirements of the licensee's NSD Directive S-17, referred to

in Sec. tion 2c. They are going through a formal review process.

This item will remain open, pending licensee approval of the revised

chemistry procedures.

e. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-04; 50-265/85006-04): Full imple-

mentation of the licensee's water chemistry control program. The

licensee has established.an internal working group on BWR water

chemistry control program to identify specific plant modifications

needed and to assign responsibilities for water chemistry improve-

ment modifications in. order to carry out NSD Directive S-17.

Several meetings of the working group have been held during the

Spring of 1985. Lists of plant modificatior.s are being prepared and

,

an action plan for implementing each modification is being developed.

This item will remain open, pending full implementation of changes

and plant modifications to assure that corrosion effects are kept to

a minimum in accordance with NSD Directive S-17.

f. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-05; 50-265/85006-05): Counting room

control charts should include daily results to observe trends on

counter reliability. The licensee had agreed in the previous

inspection to develop procedures to plot daily results of counting

check sources and background on the control charts to make possible

the more timely observation of trends in the results. This activity

has been implemented for the alpha-beta counters, but not for the

liquid scintillation counter and gamma detectors. This item will

remain open until completion of the project.

g. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-06; 50-265/85006-06): Licensee plans

to upgrade the process instrumentation to meet the chemistry analysis

requirements and to perform comparisons of laboratory and plant

instrumentation for consistency of values. The inspectors discussed

with licensee representatives the plan the licensee has made to

upgrade the plant in-line process monitors to measure continuous

chemical parameters in various plant components and systems. Three

vendors have been selected to investigate necessary changes and

additions to the plant's sample panels needed to meet the require-

ments of the licensee's NSD Directive S-17. The vendors are to

present recommendations with detailed specifications to the licensee

on changes to the existing sample panels and the addition of new

in-line monitors by September 1985. After licensee approval of the

recommendations, the licensee will implement the changes and

addition to the plant's sampling systems. This item will remain

open, pending completion of the changes and additions to process

instrumentation to continuously measure chemical parameters.

h. (0 pen) Open Item (50-254/85006-07; 50-265/85006-07): Licensee to

modify radwaste shipping procedures to incorporate current practices

and 10 CFR 61 and 10 CFR 20.311 requirements. The inspectors

discussed with licensee representatives the status of the development

3

!

.

l

I

!

of a computer program designed to prompt the user on all aspects

of radwaste shipments. This computer program is being developed by

Impell, a licensee contractor, but no progress report was available

at the time of the inspection. This item will remain open, pending

completion of; development and implementation of the Waste Track

program with appropriate modifications to the radwaste procedures to

incorporate the requirements of 10 CFR 61 and 10 CFR 20.311.

3. Management Controls

The inspectors reviewed personnel changes in Chemistry group. P. Behrens

-is the new Lead Chemist. He received a B.S. degree in chemical engineering

in 1976; his qualifications meet the requirements of ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978.

Two Group Coordinator positions have been established. The Coordinators

are supervised by the Lead Chemist. The Unit Chemistry Coordinator has

three chemists and one chemistry engineering assistant reporting to him.

The Auxiliary / Support System Coordinator has two chemists and the

chemistry laboratory foreman reporting to him. A new chemist has

recently been hired in each of the two groups. Each chemist has a .

Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry. Laboratory assignments of the

Radiation Chemistry Technicians (RCTs) are made by the laboratory foreman.

No violations or deviations were identified.

4. Confirmatory Sample Analysis

Comparative analyses were performed by both the licensee in his laboratory

and the. inspectors using the NRC mobile laboratory for various samples:

actual and spiked air particulate filters, a chiarcoal adsorber cartridge,

primary reactor coolant, liquid waste from the river discharge tank (RDT),

and off gas. The licensee's samples were counted on two detectors located

in the counting room except for the RDT sample which was counted on the

emergency backup system near the TSC. Results of these analyses are

prese.nted in Table 2. The comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.

A split of the liquid waste sample from the RDT was sent to the NRC

Reference Laboratory, the Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory.

The licensee agreed to determine the concentrations of H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89,

Sr-90 and gross beta and to report the results to Region III (0 pen

Item 50-254/85023-01; 50-265/85026-01). Comparison of these results will

be included in an addendum to this report. ,

'he licensee achieved 34 agreements in 35 comparisons. Poor peak

resolution precluded comparisons of Zn-65 in the reactor coolant sample.

The disagreement, Ce-141, on the~ air particulate filter, arose from the

licensee's failure to detect the small 145-Kev peak in an area of the

spectrum showing high background. The value obtained by the NRC

represented an effluent release concentration approximately two orders

of magnitude below the lower limit of detection (IE-11 uCi/ml) specified

in Technical Specification 4.8.A.1.

4

-

.

.

In the off gas sample analyzed, one difficulty was noted. Originally the

initial Xe-135 value presented by the licensee was in disagreement with

the NRC'value. This was caused by the analyst using the value from a

secondary peak. He had missed the more accurate value derived from the

primary peak because it had been placed in the Class 3 category by the

Automated Analytical Instrumentation System (AAIS). This latter, more

correct value was allowed in the final comparison with the AAIS. This

~

item was discussed with the licensee representatives who agreed to

provide more thorough review of the data in future analyses.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Sample Collection and Handling Practices

The inspector observed several instances of poor practices by RCTs during

the collection and handling of radioactive samples for the confirmatory

measurements. They included poor planning for preventing the spread of

possible contamination during collection of the river discharge tank

liquid waste sample in a gallon bottle provided by the inspector.

Because of the awkward setup for collecting this sample, the outside of

4

the bottle became inadvertently contaminated during the sample collection

step. The RCT did not have readily available paper towels to dry the

~

outside of the bottle. He did obtain paper towels to dry the bottle and

a plastic bag to contain the bottle as suggested by the inspector prior

to carrying the bottle through the plant to the hot laboratory. In the

laboratory, the RCT placed the bottle in a fume hood where a previous

worker had not cleaned up the material spilled on the work area. This

area was eventually cleaned up by the RCT.

The RCT was. intending to use an obviously impure concentrated acid to add

to the sample bottle until the inspector recommended a new acid solution

should be used. These problems are indicative of lack of experience of

the RCTs which is further reinforced by the duty cycle in which the tour

of duty in the laboratory is.short (about 1. week), while the lead time

between tours is long (about 8-12 weeks). This item was discussed in the

exit interview.

6. Exit Interview

The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1

at the conclusion of the inspection on July 19, 1985, and discussed the

scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee agreed to include

discussion of proper sample handling practices in the September 1985 RCT

retraining course. In further discussion of this matter by telephone on

July 31, 1985, the lead chemist stated the matter had been discussed with

the RCT involved, that he and the laboratory foreman would be conducting

spot-checks of sample handling practices and laboratory cleanliness, and

that a work request to install a sampling sink for the River Discharge

Tank had been submitted.

l

l

5 i

_ _ _ . _ . __._ _ _ - _ ___

_ _ . _ _ _

.

The inspectors discussed the likely . informational content of the inspection

report with regard to documentation processes reviewed by the inspectors

during the inspection. Licensee representatives did not identify any

such documents / processes as proprietary.

. Attachments: ~

1. Table 1 Confirmatory Measurements

Program, First Quarter of 1985

2. Table II Confirmatory Measurements.-

Program, Third Quarter.of 1985

3. Attachment,-Criteria, for Comparing

Analytical Measurements

6

.

.

.

.

TABLE'1

-U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

<

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM ,

FACILITY: QUAD CITIES

FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF.1985

NRC--- ----LICENSEE---- LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ~ ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

SPLIT SA FE-55- 6.6E-07 6.OE-08 6.OE-07 0.OE-01 9.1E-01 1.1E 01 A

H-3 1.9E-03 3.OE-05 1.8E-03 0.OE-01 9.2E-01 6.4E 01 A

SR-89 1.5E-07 1.3E-OS <[6.OE-08 0.OE-01 3.9E-01, 1.2E 01 D

SR-90 3.1E-OS 5.OE-09 5.9E-08 0.OE-01 1.9E 00 6.2E 00 A

GROSS B 3.7E-06 1.3E-07 3.4E-06 0.OE-01 9.1E-01 2.9E 01 A

e

.T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT

D= DISAGREEMENT

'" o= CRITERIA RELAXED

N=NO COMPARISON .:

.

s .

m

,

. .

.

TABLE 2

U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM

F(,C I L I TY: QUAD CITIES

FOR lHE 3 OUARTER'OF .1985

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

OFF GAS KR-85M 1.8E-05 2.1E-07 1.7E-05 0.OE-01 9.5E-01 8.7E 01 A

KR-87 5.5E-05 7.3F-07 5.6E-05 O.OE-01 1.OE 00 7.SE 01 A

KR-88 4.SE-05 6.SE-07 4.6E-05 O.OE-01 9.6E-01 7.4E 01 A '

XE-133 2.GE-05 3.6E-07 2.7E-05 0.0E-01 9.6E-01 7.8E 01 A

XE-135 8.4E-05 3.7E-07 8.4E-05 O.OE-01 9.9E-01 2.3E O2 A

XE-135M '2.2E-04 8.5E-06 2.0E-04 0.0E-01 9.2E-01 2.6E 01 A

XE-138 5.1E-04 1.9E-054 5.SE-04 0.OE-01 1.1E 00 2.7E 01 A

L WASTE MN-54 3.SE-07 8.6E-08 2.SE-07 0.OE-01 7.4E-01 4.4E 00 A

CO-58 1.9E-07 6.OE-08 1.7E-07 0.OE-01 9.1E-01 3.1E 00 A

- CO-60 6.0E-06 2.0E-07 5.OE-06 0.0E-01 8.3E-01 3.0E 01 A

CS-137 1.7E-06 1.1E-07 1.5E-06 0.OE-01 8.9E-01 1.SE 01 A s

P FILTER SR-91 1.6E-03 9.5E-05 1.4E-03 0.0E-01 9.0E-01 1.6E 01 A

BA-140 1.2E-03 4.OE-05 1.2E-03 O.OE-01 1.OE 00 2.9E 01 A

LA-140 9.5E-04 3.1E-05 7.6E-04 0.0E-01 S.OE-01 3.1E 01 A

CE-141 2.7E-05 3.OE-06 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 5.4E 00 D

I-131 '2.OE-04 S.2E-06 1.7E-04 0.OE-01 S.5E-01 2.4E 01 A

I-133 6.4E-04 2.OE-05 5.9E-04 0.OE-01 9.2E-01 3.1E 01 A

C FILTER I-131 2.2E-03 2.8E-05 2.5E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 7.7E 01 A

I-133 3.6E-03 5.7E-05 4.3E-03 0.OE-01 1.2E 00 6.2E 01 A

PRIMARY NA-24 7.1E-03 2.3E-04 7.9E-03 0.OE-01 1.1E 00 3.1E 01 A

CR-51 3.1E-03 2.OE-04 3.SE-03 0.OE-01 1.1E 00 1.6E 01 A

MN-54 7.9E-05, 2.3E-05 9.7E-05 0.0E-01 1.2E 00 3.5E 00 A

CO-58 2.7E-04 3.6E-05 1.6E-04 O.OE-01 5.9E-01 7.SE 00 A

CO-60 3.5E-04 3.1E-05 4.OE-04 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 1.1E 01 A

ZN-65 1.3E-04 5.7E-05 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 2.4E 00 N

AS-76 4.6E-04 7.7E-05 6.7E-04 0.0E-01 1.5E 00 6.0E 00 A

I-131 2.SE-04 2.9E-05 3.SE-04 O.OE-01 1.2E 00 9.9E 00 A

I-133 4.0E-03 1.OE-04 4.6E-03 0.0E-01 1.1E 00 3.8E 01 A

.

T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT

D= DISAGREEMENT

  • = CRITERIA RELAXED

N=NO COMPARISON

f'

l

l ^.

l .

l

l

TABLE 2

U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM

FACILITY: QUAD CITIES

FOR THE 3 QUARTER-OF 1985

NRC-------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

PRIMARY SR-91 5.5E-03 7.4E-04 5.9E-03 0.OE-01 1.1E 00 7.4E'00 A

MO-99 1.OE-03 1.SE-04 1.1E-03 0.OE-01 1.1E 00 5.6E 00 A

BA-140 4.9E-04 7.7E-05 5.4E-04 O.OE-01 1.1E 00 6.4E 00 A

LA-140 3.7E-04 4.4E-05 3.4E-04 0.OE-01 9.2E-01 8.5E 00 A

F SPIKED MN-54 1.5E-02 6.9E-04 1.3E-02 O.OE-01 8.SE-01 2.2E 01 A

CO-60 2.7E-O'2 3.6E-04 3 2.5E-02 0.OE-01 9.2E-01 7 6E 01 A

CS -137 1.6E-02 3.7E-04 1.3E-02 O.OE-01 8.2E-01 4.3E 01 A

CE-144 3.5E-02 9.OE-04 3.2E-02 0.OE-01 9.3E-01 3.9E 01 A

,

b -

'

T TEST RESULTS:

!

A= AGREEMENT \

l D= DISAGREEMENT

o= CRITERIA RELAXED

N=NO COMP,ARISON

1

1

l

.

.

l

l

'

.

t *

,

!

l

,

- . - - - , ,- . - - . ,,, . -. . - . . , , . - - . , , . .-- . - . - - . ..,

.

l

-

..

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 ot 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 s.ignificant 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.

.

5

R_ESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE

Agreement

.

.

<3 No Comparison

jt3 and <4 -0.4 -

2.5

2,4 and <8 0.5 - 2.0

_8

> and <16 0.6 - 1.67

>16 and

.

<51 0.75 - 1.33

251 and <200 0.80 - 1.25

_E200 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.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137E591&oldid=2869952"