ML20207F549
| ML20207F549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207F534 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-86-16, NUDOCS 8701060125 | |
| Download: ML20207F549 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000409/1986016
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-4091/86016(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-409
License No. DPR-45
Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative
2615 East Avenue - South
La Crosse, WI 54601
Facility Name:
La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)
Inspection Conducted: December 8-16, 1986
T//
M
P
'4//7
Inspector:
A. G. Januska
Date
.
!-
y
7
Approved By:
M. Schumacher, Chief
Radiological Effluents and
Date
Chemistry Ser. tion
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 8-16, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-409/86016(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of (1) the confirmatory
measurements program including sample split and onsite analysis with the
Region III Mobile Laboratory, (2) the radiological environmental monitoring
,.
'
program and (3) open items identified during previous inspections.
Results: No violations or deviation were identified.
j
'
1
t
8701060125 870101
ADOCK 05000409
O
l
t
..
._
.- .
-
..
.-.
..
-
-
..
-
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted:
- G. Boyd, Operations Supervisor
- L. Nelson, Health and Safety Supervisor
- P. Shafer, Radiation Protection Engineer
- R. Wery, Quality Assurance Supervisor
A. Hansen, Senior Health Physics Technician
J. Gaynor, Health Physics Technician
G. Roediger, Health Physics Technician
M. Land, Health Physics Technician
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on December 12, 1986.
2.
Licensee Action on Pervious Inspection Findings
(a) (Closed) Open Item (409/84015-05):
Evaluate the effect of high
alpha efficiency on effluent data for 1984. The licensee prepared
an AM-241 standard and determined a new counter efficiency. An
appropriate correction factor was applied to the first and second
quarter 1984 effluent results which had already been submitted in
a semiannual report. The corrected values for the first and second
quarter along with the third and fourth quarter results, were
published in the 1984 Radioactive Effluent Report.
(b) (Closed) Open Item (409/85021-01):
Continue efforts to solve
chloride analytical problem. The licensee has continued to
evaluate the chloride problem since the last inspection and has
revised both technique and procedure. More rigid routine probe
maintenance has been implemented to compensate for drift which was
thought to be a significant part of the problem.
A 20 minute
tes. using laboratory demineralized water must result in less
than a 2m V drift before a standard check on a 20, 40, 80, 120,
or 160 ppb standard can be run. Although no finite numerical
acceptance range has been determined corrective measures were
taken based on management review. The inspector examined results
for the first, second, and third quarters of 1986 for the analytical
chemistry cross check with DPC Central Lab on Chloride measurements.
Results for the three quarters show an improvement over previous
tests.
(c) (0 pen) Open Item (409/85021-02): Analyze split sample for beta,
gamma, H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and report results to Region III.
Results of the sample comparisons are listed.in Table 2; comparison
criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The lone disagreement, Sr-90,
was from the portion of the sample analyzed by the licensee's
environmental contractor.
In order to determine the validity of
the result the licensee purchased a spike and had it analyzed by
the contractor.
Results of the analysis were not available at the
close of the inspection. This item will remain open until the
results are submitted to Region III.
2
. - - .
..
.
-.
-. _
--
_.
,
gi
3.
Confirmatory Measurements
Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal, retention tank, gas, reactor
coolant and two spiked particulate) were analyzed for gamma emitting
isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III module laboratory onsite.
Results are listed in Table 1.
The licensee achieved 40 agreements out
of 41 comparisons.
A stack air particulate filter count yielded only one nuclide, Co-60,
which was not used for comparison because of poor counting statistics.
To check this geometry, the 1:censee's calibration standard was counted
and analyzed as an unknown (F SPIKED LIC). The inspector relaxed the
test criteria because of the differences in the NRC and licensee's
calibration. Although this resulted in agreements, the NRC's spiked
air particulate was counted (F SPIKED NRC) because of an apparent
conservative bias which was also observed in a previous inspection.
A gas sample analyzed resulted in a disagreement for Xe-135. As no
reason could be found for the disagreement, the licensee agreed to
(1) prepare a new standard, analyze it as an unknown and examine the
249 and 608 Key areas and (2) generate a new efficiency curve to be
compared with the current curve before the next off gas sample is
collected (0 pen Item 409/86016-01).
In addition to the disagreement,
the analysis also indicated a conservative bias. Discussion with the
licerisee revealed that these calibrations were performed using a liquid
to simulate the particulate filter and the gas.
Liquid calibrations
did not exhibit this bias.
The licensee stated that the use of air
particulate and gas standards supplied by an independent manufacturer
will be evaluated (0 pen Item 409/86016-02) and purchased if determined
to be advantageous. A reactor coolant sample split with the licensee
initially resulted in eight disagreements in 19 comparisons. The results
averzged 20% nonconservative with only two comparisons being
conservative. Multiple liquid geometries were compared by both the
licensee and the NRC on portions of the same initial sample.
It was
'
finally determined that some of the sample preferentially adhered to the
NRC's plastic bottle and not the licensee's glass vial for tha short
j
period between putting the sample in the containers and adding dilution
water. Another split made, adding the sample to dilution water already
l
in the respective containers, resulted in all agreements.
The licensee agreed to analyze a portion of a retention tank sample
(L WASTE) for gross B, tritium, strontium-89 and strontium-90 and submit
the results to Region III (0 pen Item 409/86016-03).
4.
Quality Control Of Measurements
The licensee participates in cross check programs for implant
i
measurements with a commercial contractor and for environmental
measurements with the EPA.
Results of the annual inplant analyses for
1986 were examined and found to be in complete agreement.
Quality Assurance Audit Report 70-86-1, conducted August 11 -
September 29, 1986, was examined. No findings were noted in the
Analytical Chemistry section of the audit.
3
l
,-
-
. - -
- - - - . - ,
..
. - . - . - .
.
O
5.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
The inspector examined five environmental air sample stations in the
company of a licensee representative during a normal scheduled sample
change. All stations were operating and in good repair. The
representative appeared very knowledgeable about sample change
requirements.
The inspector reviewed the 1985 Radiological Environmental Monitoring
Report. The program is conducted as required by Technical
Specifications. The results do not indicate a significant effect due to
the operation of the plant. Although there were disagreements between
the licensee and the State of Wisconsin for tritium in water samples,
the licensee's values were less than the NRC LLD requirements in all but
one instance. The licensee changed gross counting equipment during the
period which resulted in closer agreement with the State.
6.
Open Items
Open items are matters which have been discussed 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 identified during
the inspection are discussed in Section 3.
7.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives denote in Section 1(an
December 12,1986. The scope and findings were discussed. The licensee
acknowledged the need to resolve the bias in the air particulate and gas
geometries and agreed to count a portion of the retention tank sample and
report the results to Region III.
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
proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements
Program Results, 4th Quarter 1986
2.
Table 2, Confirmatory Measurements
L
Program Results, 4th Quarter 1985
3.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
Analytical Measurements
i
4
-- -
. - .
- -
-.
_
- ,
.
-
. . _ _ - - _ ..
. . - _
,
,
-
-
g
,
..
,
.
y
,
.
p. -
~
1
.
.
,
'4'
, . -
'
<
- .
'
' TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
<
OFFICE OF IQSPECTION AND, ENFORCEMENT
,
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: LACBWR.-
..
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1986
NRC'-
--
~~---LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE. RESULT
ERROR-
RESULT
ERROR
-RATIO
RES.
.T
-C WASTE ~ MN-54'
4.5E-05- 6.9E-07
4.3E-05
-4.OE-07
9.6E-01 - 6.5E 01L
~A
7
LCO-58~
1.8E-06- 3.5E-07
1.6E-06
1.8E-07
8.9E-01
5.1E 00- A
TCO-60
- 1.5E-04
1.OE-06
1.4E-04
7.2E-07
9.3E-01
1.5E O2
A
NP-239
5.8E-06
5.1E-07
6.3E-06 '7.1E-07
1.1E 00
1.1E 01
A
SR-91;
, 1.3E-05 '2.2E-06
7.9E-06
8.8E-07
'6.1E-01
5.9E 00
A
!
SR-92-
1.5E-06
4.8E-07
2.OE-06
1.9E-07
1. 3E ' OO' 3.1E 00
A
1.6E-05- 5.OE-07
1.5E-05
2.9E-07
9.4E-01
3.2E.01
A
JLA-140' 2.5E-06
2.1E-07-
2.3E-06
1.' 4 E-07.
9.2E-01
1.2E 01
A
'OFF GAS" -KR-85M . 4.6E-03
7.5E-05
5.OE-03
1.5E-05
1.1E 00
6.1E 01
A-
-
~KR-88
'1.5E-02
1.OE-03
1'.8E-02
8.9E-05
1.2E 00
1.5E 01-
A
.XE-133 . 2.2E-03
=1.2E-05
2.6E-03
1.OE-05
_1. :2E . OO
1.8E O2
A
-XE-133M 1.5E-04. -2.5E-05-
1.8E-04
2.OE-05-
1.2E 00 15.OE 00
A
-XE-135- 2.7E-021
5.'1E-05'
3.6E-02
2.5E-05
'1.3E 00- 5.3E O2. D
-
C FILTER ~I-131
1.1E-11
2.3E-13-
'1.OE-11
1.2E-13
9.1E-01
4.8E 01
A
'
I-133
-2.7E-11'
3.GE-13
2.5E-11 -1.8E-13
9.3E-01
7.1E-01
A
I-135
1.7E-11
1.2E-12-
1.8E-11
4.7E-13
1.1E 00
1.4E 01
A
.'FJSPIKED CO-57
1.OE-03
3.1E-05
1.4E-03
3.5E-05
1.4E.OO
3.2E'01
A*
6.1E-03
1.6E-04
7.1E-03
1.9E-03
1.2E 00
3.8E 01
A*
Y-88
- 7.6E-03
1.8E-04
1.2E-02
2.8E-04
1.6E 00
4.2E 01
A*
+
2.~0E-02
6.7E-04
2.9E-02
8.OE-04
1.5E 00
3.OE 01
A*
SN-113
1 4.4E-03
1.OE-04
6.1E-03
1.3E-04
1.4E 00
4.4E 01
A*
CS-137- 7.OE-03
1.6E-04
8.1E-03
1.6E-04
1.2E 00
4.4E 01
A*
~
'CE-139
1.1E-03
3.5E-05
1.7E-03
4.5E-05
1.5E 00
3.1E 01
A*
.
PRIMARV
CR-51.
6.3E-03
5.1E-04
7.2E-03
4.1E-04
1.1E 00
1.2E 01
A
-MN-54
4.5E-03
1.2E-04
4.2E-03
1.1E-04
9.3E-01
3.7E 01
A
- 2.6E-03
2.OE-04
2.8E-03
1.9E-04
1.1E 00
1.3E 01
A
,
i t-
CO-58
3.7E-03
1.4E-04
3.5E-03
1.1E-04
9.5E-01
2.6E 01
A
1.6E-02
1.8E-04
1.3E-02
2.1E-04
8.1E-01
8.9E 01
A
[
.T[T'ST RESULTS:
E
.A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
-*= CRITERIA RELAXED
- N=NO.COMFARISON
i
,
.-
. ,-.- ,,,-,-. .~.
r-
..
m . .~.
..m._.-..--,
...-..-..-- - - .-. ,,.
...,..e.
, - , . _
-
.1
.-
,
e
'*
.
,
,
.
TABLE 1
ULS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' OFFICE O'F ~ INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
. CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: LACBWR
FOR THE 4 QUARTER OF 1986
NRC=
LICEN5EE----'
---LICENSEE:NRC----
. SAMPLE ~
I'SOTO'PE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
.RES
T
PRIMARY
W-187
8.5E-03
5.4E-04
7.1E-03
4.2E-04
8.4E-01
1.6E 01
A
NP-239
5.4E-03-1.9E-04
4.9E-03
3.7E-04
9.1E-01
2.8E 01
A
2.1E-04
5.4E-05
2.1E-04
4.3E-05
1.OE 00
3.9E 00
A
I-133
~6.9E-04
1.6E-04
6.2E-04 -1.2E-04
9.OE-01
4.3E 00
A
ZR-97
.4.6E-04
1.2E-04
3.8E-04
1.1E-04
8.3E-01
3.8E 00
A
RU-103
8.5E-04
7.OE-05
6.2E-04
5.8E-05
7.3E-01
1.2E 01
A
BA-140 -2.OE-03
2.OE-04
2.OE-03
2.7E-04
1.OE-00
1.OE 01
A
CE-141.-3.6E-04
5.1E-05
3.3E-04
3.5E-05
9.2E-01
7.1E 00
A.
CE-144
3.4E-03
3.3E-04
2.7E-03
2.OE-04
7.9E-01
1.OE 01
A
F SPIKED CO-57
2.OE-04
3.SE-05
2.4E-04
1.9E-05
1.2E 00
5.3E 00
A
1.5E-02
3.6E-04.
1.5E-02
2.6E-04
1.OE 00
4.2E 01
A
CD-109 '3.9E-02
1.3E-03
4.7E-02
1.OE-03
1.2E 00
3.OE 01
A
1.9E-02
3.5E-04
2.1E-02
2.3E-04
1.1E 00
5.4E 01
~A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
-*= CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
!
.
.
,
.-
u.-
i
.
.
,
.
.
TABLE 2.
"
U S NUCLEAR PEGULATOo'/ COM'AISSIO!1
OFFICE OF INSFECTIOf1 AND ENFORCEMENT
-CONCIRMATOF'/ MEASUPEMENTS PPDGRAM
'
FACILITY: LACBWP-
FOR THE 4 GUARTER OF 1485
'
r
NRC------- '
LICENSEE----
- ---LICENSEE:NRC
,
ISOTOPE PESULT
.ERPOR
RESULT
_.EPPOR
PATIO
PES
T-
H
SAMPLE _
t
- L WASTE
BETA
6.6E-05
2.0E-06
6.0E-05
1.1E-06
9.1E-01
3.3E 01' A
5.3E-07
3. 0E- 09
3.5E-07 "O.0E-0.1
6.6E-01
1.FE 01
0
, CO-58
3.3E-06
4.0E-07-
2.5E-06- 1.7E-07
7.7E-01
8.3E 00
A
~CO-60
6.4E-05
1'.2E-06
'7.2E-05
5, 4E- 07
1.!E 00
5. 4E 01 - A
1.4E-05
4.0E-07
1.5E-05
2.4E-07
1.1E 00
3.5E 01
A-
8.1E-06,
3. 0E- 07
9.!E-06
2.4E-07
1.1E 00
2.7E 01
A
. .
~
T'. TEST RESULTS:
-
A= AGREEMENT
DmDISAGREEMENT'
' o= CRITERIA RELAXED
' NANO' COMPARISON
.
.
h
, se-
p
.t
1
.
e
l
'
t
i
e
d
.
i'
.
..
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'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 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
<4
0.4 - 2.5
4-
7
0.5 - 2.0
8-
15
0.6 - 1.66
16 - 50
0.75 - 1.33
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
200 -
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.
,
.
.
-
--
-.
.-.
. _ -
. .
--