ML20234B020
| ML20234B020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A991 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-87-23, NUDOCS 8709180235 | |
| Download: ML20234B020 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1987023
Text
r-
y.
"'
. .
'
t
..
..
}e,
h ;;i ] ' !
b
- i.
,
f.
Vi S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
f."
,
9
REGION III
. v
4
- Report No. 50-346/87023(DRSS)
1
t
Docket No. 50-346
License No. NPF-3
-l
f,
,
Licensee:
Toledo-Edison Company
i
300 Madison Avenue
!
!
'
,
Toledo, OH- 43652
.
1
4
~ Facility Namei
Davis-Bess'e Nuclear Power Plant
'
Inspection At:
Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, Ohio
j
Inspection Co'nducted: . August 10-14 and 19-21, 1987
'Md
N
pgj/h
Inspector:
-A. G. Januska'
V
-
Date
!
){. /6%$464'**
'b
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief
,
'
Radiological Effluents and
Date
Chemistry Section
!
Inspection Summary
l
i
- Inspection on August 10-14 and 19-21, 1987 (Report No. 50-346/87023(DRSS))
l
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the Confirmatory
Measurements program including sampling, quality control of analytical
measurements, comparison of licensee analytical results with those:of the
i
Region III Mobile Laboratory onsite'and action >on open items identified during
a previous inspection.
"i
Results:
One violation (failure to detect Cs-134 in liquid waste samples on
three occasions, at levels greater than Technical Specification 4.11.1.1.1
!
requirement - Section 4a) and no deviations were identified.
1
a
/
/'
8709100235 87
346
ADOCK O
G
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _
--
i
,
.
,
.
.
.
_
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- L. Storz,' Plant Manager
- R. Flood, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations
- J. Scott-Wasilk, Director, Nuclear Health and Safety
- R. Scott, Chemistry Superintendent
- E. Hart, Environmental Compliance Manager
- D. Briden, Chemistry Program Manager
- R. Rinderman, Quality Verification Supervisor
!
- J. Sturdavant, Licensing Principal
l
R. Edwards, Chemistry Specialist
'
J. Ferguson, Chemistry Specialist
B. Geddes, Health Physics Specialist
8. Smith, Associate Nuclear Technologist
J. Less, Assistant Nuclear Technologist
L. Klett, Lead Technical Skills Training Instructor
R. Messersmith, Chemistry Foreman
,
W. Weiss, Acting RC Foreman
V. Capozziello, Tester
- D. Kosloff, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit interview on August 21, 1987.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Open Item (346/86026-06):
Licensee to revise ST 5099.03,
,
Revision 13 to reflect current assignment of responsibility and changes
due to an environmental contract renewal, and to include additional tasks
1
which had not been proceduralized.
ST 5099.03 has been revised to address
,
the above items; however, AD 1843.00 has not been changed as anticipated
and is currently undergoing a rewrite.
This item will remain open until
.
AD 1843 and ST 5099.03 reflect the current administration and
l
responsibilities of program.
'
3.
Management Controls and Organization
Chemistry and Health Physics, formerly managed by a Chemistry and Health
Physics General Superintendent, was split into two separate departments,
j
each managed by a Superintendent.
The workload for the Chemistry
'
Superintendent has increased significantly owing to increased chemistry
staffing and to his assumption of management tasks formerly performed by
the General Superintendent.
The result has been a reduced professional
review of laboratory analyses which may have been a contributing factor
to the violation identified in Section 4.
This matter was discussed at
the exit interview.
No violations or deviations were identified.
I
I
l
2
'
d
p
.
p
- <
l'
[
.
.
,
e
?
i:
,
c
a
'-
. ., ','-
,
.
!
,
{
lr
'
'
,
-)
i
'
4.
Confj rniatydieasurements
J
.
,
Sange ' Split
a.
7,
"i Eevent samples (air particulate, charcoal,.' liquid, reactor ccoiant,
g'spiksd air particulate, spiked charcoal and gas) were analyzed for
'
,'
s
gammi emitting isotopes by the licentes.and in the Region III Mobile
. Laboratory onsite.
The spiked air particulate (F SPIKED) and spiked
. charcoal (C SPIKED) were compared after'no activity was detected on
,<
'
,:the plant particulate sample and only one' nuclide on the charcoal
sample.
'
,
Comparisons were made with both licensee detectors.
Results of
the sample com~parisons are given in Table 1; the comparison
criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved
"i
69 agreements in 77 comparisons.
"All samples,-except for g'as were analyzed on both detectors with all
agreements on the charcoa'l filter, charcoal spike and particulate
i
J,1
spike.
Several attempts at collecting a gas sample were made before
'
i
a gas sample was obtained.
The inspector rel ued the acceptance
,'
criteria because of the uncertainty of the gas transfer to t.he NRC
gas geometry.
The analysis on Detector 1 yielded a disagreer,ent for
Kr-88.
The reason was that the licensee quantified Kr-88 at an
ynergy beyond the caMbration range using an extrapolated efficiency
Recalculation, using'an energy within the calibratica range yielded
'
,,- an agimement.
The licencee made appropriate changes to the
'
quantit'ication program during the inspection. -
lThe licensee s analyses of a liquid waste sunpie failmi to
' identify ano quantify Cs-134 on both detectors.
Emination of
'
the licenseeN data reverle:I that the licensee's spectroscopy
,
system did not identify the Cs-134 604 key peak' in the presence
of other nuclides in the 600 key energy range.
Therefore, it could
not satisfy the requirement, that both the 6/A key and 795 key peaks
of Cs-134 be identified before the nuclide co':ld be quantified.
The NRC analysis verified the presence of the 634 ke",: peak among
others in that area.
The licensee's liquid release' analyses for
December 31, M86 through August 9,1987 were examined and revealed
that on July 27,. August 4 and 9,1987, Cs-134 present in
concentrations grea',er than 5 x 10 7 uCi/ml, was not identified and
quantified.
?ailure to cuantify Cs-134 in radioactive liquid wastes
1
at a concentration greater than 5 x 10 7 uCi/mi is a violation of
Technical Specification 4.11.1.1.1 and referenced Table 4 11-1.
(Violation 50-346/87023-01) Prior to the end of the inspection tbs
,,M
licensee changed the Cs-134 requirement so that it will be quantified
'y,
even if the 604 key peak is masked by surrounding nuclides.
A portion of the lf wid waste sample will be analyzed for gross beta,
tritium, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and the results reported to
"
>
Region III for compnison with an analysis by the NRC referer.ce
laboratory on a aplit,7f the sample.
(0 pen Item 50-346/87023-02)
/
3
,,
.MN -
- _ _
1
d
.
.
.
- .
Administrative Procedure AD 1842.05, Revision 01, Section 6.5
i
addresses steps to be taken when any " unacceptable" result in an
j
Interlaboratory Analysis Program is found.
If in satisfying this
l
requirement a change to past Effluent Reports is warranted the
licensee will make the appropriate correction in an errata to the
next required effluent report. -(0 pen Item 50-346/87023-03)
i
A primary coolant sample counted on both detectors resulted in
three disagreements on Detector 1 and three disagreements on
Detector 2.
During the inspection Detector 2 was replaced with
,
a new intrinsic germanium detector as a planned upgrade.
For
!
Detector 1, the failure to quantify Cs-134 was corrected as
described above and a review of the licensee's data did not
,
identify reasons for the othe: disagreements.
The licensee
started calibrating new Detectvc 2 during the inspection and
will also recalibrates Detector 1.
(0 pen Item 50-346/87023-04)
l
The inspector examined the licensee's current library of EBAR
nuclides and found many differences between it and the values used
by the NRC.
The licensee agreed to investigate EBAR data sources
l
and upgrade his library before the next required EBAR determination.
(0 pen Item 50-346/87023-05)
b.
QA/QC of Analytical Measurements
The inspector examined results of the intercomparison program the
licensee is engaged in with a commercial vendor.
The comparisons
for 1986 and the first two quarters of 1987 were good; however, the
inspector noted that only liquids are analyzed.
The inspector
discussed the advantage of periodic use of other sample types.
The
licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
The inspector examined the licensee's counting room QC program as
defined in AD 1842.05 " Radiochemistry Quality Control Program,"
Revision 01, dated June 16, 1987.
The program requirements are
{
being met on the proper frequency and records are up to date.
The
l
Chemistry Foreman overseeing the program appears to have a good
l
grasp of its requirements, has affected positive results and is in
the process of making further changes which will benefit the
{
program.
l
!
c.
Audits
l
The inspector examined reports of audits AR-86-CHEMC-01, conducted
November 3-12, 1986 and AR-87-CHEMC-01 conducted June 25-July 8,
1987.
Although no finding or observations dealt with the subject of
the inspection the inspector noted proposed corrective actions to
-
audit findings were submitted in a timely manner and appeared to be
acceptable.
(
l
A
1
1
i
i
L_______________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w--
.
.
'
.
.
.
3'
d.
Training
The inspector conducted a limited review of; training of Chemistry
-Testers to determine if training was involved in the violation
discussed in Section 4a.
Training Department personnel, lesson
plans and the Chemistry Training Laboratory appear to be adequate.
However', neither the formal training nor the Health Physics
Qualification Manual (on-the-job training) address the need for
analyst intervention and review of gamma spectroscopy data.
This
weakness appears to have.been a contributing factor.in the violation.
It was discussed at the exit interview.
'One' violation was identified.
4
5.
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 licensee or both.
Open items disclosed during the
inspection are discussed in Section 4.
6.
Exit Interview
The inspector' reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection with
licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 on August 21, 1987.
Split
sample comparisons were discussed in detail.
Analyst intervention, and
management review-of results, as contributing factors in the violation
were also discussed.
The inspector commented on improvement in other
aspects of the laboratory QC program.
The licensee acknowledged the
inspectors comments.
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=, 3rd Quarter 1987
2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for
Comparing Analytical
Measurements
5
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
-
r
-
.
. .
,
(
i
'
TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
l
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY
DAVIS BESSE
,
FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1987
,
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
_
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
C FILTER I-131
8.1E-04
4.0E-05'
8.8E-04
2.6E-05
1.1E 00. 2.0E 01
A
' DfT I
OFF GAS
KR-85M
1.2E-01
9.5E-04
1.0E-01
1.9E-03
8.7E-01
1.3E 02
A*
D47i
KR-87
9.9E-02
1.7E-03
8.5E-02
2.3E-03
8.6E-01
6.0E 01
A*
KR-88'
2.1E-01
2.7E-03
1.8E-01
1.6E-02
3.5E-01
7.8E 01
At
4.4E 00
5.4E-03
4.0E 00
9.1E-03
9.0E-01
8.1E 02
A*
XE-133M 9.3E-02
4.2E-03
7.4E-02
8.7E-03
7.9E-01
2.2E 01
A*
XE-135
8.2E-01
1.8E-03
6.9E-01
2.1E-03
8.4E-01
4.5E 02
A*
XE-135M S.1E-02
8.3E-03
9.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E 00
9.8E 00
A*
F SPIKED CO-57
8.8E-03
9.5E-05
9.7E-03
9.0E-05
1.1E 00
9.2E 01
A'
10ET :
1.6E-02
3.3E-04
1.6E-02
2.6E-04
1.0E 00
4.9E 01
-A
HG-203
4.5E-04
7.1E-05
3.7E-04
7.5E-05
8.1E-01
6.4E 00
A
Y-88
6.2E-03
2.2E-04
6.8E-03
0.0E-01
1.1E 00
2.9E 01
A
4.9E-01
3.5E-03
4.8E-01
0.0E-01
9.8E-01
1.4E 02
A
SN-113
5.7E-03
1.9E-04
5.9E-03
1.5E-04
1.0E 00
3.0E 01
A
2.8E-02
3.5E-04
2.7E-02
2.5E-04
9.7E-01
7.9E 01
A
CE-139
3.7E-03
8.1E-05
4.0E-03
0.0E-01
1.1E 00
4.6E 01
A
L WASTE
CO-58
4.5E-05
2.5E-07
4.8E-05
2.4E-07
1.1E 00
1.8E 02
A
1> s t a
2.9E-06
8.0E-08
3.4E-06
8.8E-08
1.2E 00
3.6E 01
A
AG-110M 1.8E-06
8.5E-08
1.8E-06
8.6E-08
1.0E 00
2.1E 01
A
i
$8-125
1.8E-05
3.5E-07
1.8E-05
3.5E-07
1.0E 00
5.1E 01
A
j
CS-134
2.6E-06
1.5E-07
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.7E 01
D
5.5E-06
1.5E-07
5.7E-06
0.0E-01
1.0E 00
3.8E 01
A
C FILTER I-131
8.1E-04
4.0E-05
9.4E-04
3.1E-05
1.2E 00
2.0E 01
A
'bdr A
L WASTE
CO-58
4.5E-05
2.5E-07
4.7E-05
3.4E-06
1.0E 00
1.8E 02
A
73rra
2.9E-06
8.0E-08
3.3E-06
1.4E-07
1.2E 00
3.6E 01
A
!
,
AG-110M 1.8E-06
8.5E-08
1.8E-06
1,5E-07
C.CE-01
2.1E 01
A
$8-125
1.8E-05
3.5E-07
1.9E-05
5.7E-07
1.1E 00
5.1E 01
A
J
l
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
.
N=NO COMPARISON
,
_ . _ - _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)
-_
-
. _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _
"
.
1
.
.
TABLE 1
l
U S NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
' OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT
PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS BESSE
FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1907
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE!NRC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
L WASTE. CS-134
2.6E-06 -1.5E-07
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.7E 01
D
5.5E-06
1.1E-07
5,4E-06
0.0E-01
9.9E-01
4.7E 01
A
C SPIKED CO-57
8.9E-03
1.3E-04
9.8E-03
1.1E-04
1.1E'00
6.9E 01
A
DEri
.1.5E-02
3.7E-04
1.6E-02
2.8E-04
1.1E 00
4.0E 01
A
HG-203
6.5E-04
1.1E-04
4.2E-04
9.1E-05
6.5E-01
5.7E 00
A
.Y-88
6.0E-03
2.8E-04
6.9E-03
0.0E-01
1.!E 00
2.1E 01
A
4.9E-01
4.8E-03
4.9E-01
0.0E-01
1.0E 00
1.0E 02
'A
SN-113
5.0E-03
2.2E-04
5.8E-03
1.8E-04
1.1E 00
2.3E 01
A
2.5E-02' 4.1E-04
2.7E-02
2.9E-04
1.1E 00
6.0E 01
A
CE-139
3.6E-03
1.0E-04
3.9E-03
0.0E-01
1.1E 00
3.4E 01
A
8.8E-03
9.5E-05
9.6E-03
1.1E-04
1.1E 00
9.2E 01
A
btr J
1.6E-02
3.3E-04
1.6E-02
3.5E-04
9,7E-01
4.9E 01
A
HG-203
4.5E-04
7.1E-05
4.4E-04
1.1E-04
9.7E-01
6.4E 00
A
Y-88
6.2E-03
2.2E-04
6. 4 E-03
0.0E-01
1.0E 00
2.SE 01
A
4.9E-01
3.5E-03
4.7E-01
0.0E-01
9.6E-01
1.4E 02
A
SN-113 '5.7E-03
1.9E-04
5,7E-03
2,1E-04
1.0E 00
3.0E 01
A
2.8E-02
3.5E-04
2.7E-02
3.5E-04
9.8E-01
7.9E 01
A
CE-139
3.7E-03
8.1E-05
3.8E-03
0.0E-01
1.0E 00
4.6E 01
A
PRIMARY
AR-41
6.7E-03
4.8E-04
5.6E-03
7.2E-04
8.4E-01
1.4E 01
A
,1367 g
NA-24
'2.5E-03
2.5E-04
1.6E-03
2.9E-04
6.7E-01
1.0E 01
A
CO-58
1.9E-03
2.0E-04
1.0E-03
2.2E-04
5.4E-01
9.9E 00
D
W-187
2.4E-03
6.2E-04
2.9E-03
6.4E-04
1.2E 00
3.EE 00
A
1.2E-02
2.7E-04
1.1E-02
3.1E-04
9.6E-01
4.3E 01
A
I-132
2.5E-02
4.3E-04
2.8E-02
6.1E-04
1.1E 00
6.0E 01
A
I-133
2.9E-02
3.1E-04
2.4E-02
4.8E-04
8.4E-01
9.3E 01
A
I-134
2.4E-02
1.3E-03
3.5E-02
7.6E-03
1.5E 00
1.CE 01
D
I-135
3.9E-02
1.2E-03
3.6E-02
1.3E-03
9.2E-01
3.3E 01
A
RB-88
2.5E-02
1.6E-03
2,1E-02
1.6E-03
0.3E-01
1.6E 01
A
CS-- 134
7.SE-04
1.4E-04
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
5.7E 00
D
T TEST RESULTS8
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
,
- - - . - . - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ -
.
~
,
'S,
e
.\\.
. , .
.
.
r-
TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONMISSION
-OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS. PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS BESSE
FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1987
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE.
~ ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
PES
T
PRIMARY
CS-137- 2.2E-03
1.7E-04
2.0E-03
2.5E-04
9.1E-01
1.3E 01
A
C' SPIKED CO-57
8.9E-0T
1.3E-04
9.8E-03
1,4E-04
1,1E 00
6.9E 01
'A
'b e r a CO-60
1.5E-02
3.7E-04
1.6E-02
4.0E-04
1.0E.00
4.0E 01
A
HG-203
6.5E-04
.1.1E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-04
6.2E-01
5.7E 00
.A.
Y-88
6.0E-03 2.8E-04
6.7E-03
0.0E-01
1.1E 00' 2.1E 01
A
4.9E-01
4.8E-03
5.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.0E 00
1.0E'02
A
SN-113
5.0E-03
2.2E-04
5.6E-03
2.7E-02
1.1E 00
2.3E 01
A
2.5E-02
4.1E-04
2.6E-02
3.9E-04
1.1E 00- 6.0E 01
A-
CE-139
3.6E-03
1.0E-04
3.9E-03
0.0E-01
1.1E 00
3.4E 01
A-
' PRIMARY
AR-41-
6.7E-03
4.8E-04
7.2E-03
9.CE-04
1.1E 00
1.4E 01
A
NA-24
2.5E-03
2.5E-04
2.8E-03
4.5E-04
1.1E 00
1.0E 01
A
'DFT A
CO-58
1.9E-03
2.0E-04
1.2E-03
3.9E-04
6.1E-01
9.CE 00
A
W-187
2.4E-03
6.2E-04
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
3.8E'00
D
1.2E-02
2.7E-04
1.1E-02
5.2E-04
9.6E-01
4.3E 01
A
I-132
2.5E-02
4.3E-04
2.8E-02
9.9E-04
1.1E 00
6.0E 01
A
I-133
2.9E-02
3.1E-04
2.4E-02
7.8E-04
8.5E-01
9.3E 01
A
I-134
2.4E-02
1.3E-03
1.9E-02
'1.1E-02
7.8E-01
1.9E 01
A
I-135
3.9E-02
1.2E-03
3.5E-02
1.9E-03
0.9E-01
3.3E 01
A
,
i
RB-88
2.5E-02
1.6E-03
2.5E-02
3.3E-03
9.7E-01
1.6E 01
A
CS-134
7.8E-04
1.4E-04
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0,0E-01
5.7E 00
D
2.2E-03
1.7E-04
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.3E 01
D
T TEST.RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT-
g
D= DISAGREEMENT
i
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
1
. N=NO COMPARISON
_
-_
l
a
.
-
c,
,
.
ATTACHMENT 1
]
,
1
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
1
,
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.
i
i
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable iri 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
i
acceptance.
RESOLUTION
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
Agreement
<4
0.4 - 2.5
l
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
j
criteria and identified on the data sheet.
2
I
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - . - _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_
o