Text

Insp Rept 50-346/87-23 on 870810-14 & 19-21.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Confirmatory Measurement Program,Including Sampling,Qc of Analytical Measurements & Comparison of Licensee Results W/Mobile Lab Onsite
	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: ML20234A988; ML20234B020; ML20234B107;
References
	50-346-87-23, NUDOCS 8709180235
	Download: ML20234B020 (9)
	v • d • e

r- y.

"'

. .

'

t

.. ..

}e, ;

b

,

i. h ;;i ] ' !

f.

,

Vi S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 f."

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

Inspector:

'Md

-A. G. Januska'

-

N

V pgj/h

Date !

){. /6%$464'**

Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Chief 'b ,

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

PDR ADOCK O PDR

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 l

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

l '

2

d

p .

p ;<

l' .

,

?

[ ,

e

.

i:

c ,

'-

a .

' ., ','-

. ,

!

'

,

{ lr

-) i '

4. Confj rniatydieasurements

. J ,

7,

a. Sange ' Split

'

"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

"i criteria are given in Attachment 1. The licensee achieved

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

1 quantified. ?ailure to cuantify Cs-134 in radioactive liquid wastes

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

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.

4

'One' violation was identified.

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 RES 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

XE-133 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 : CO-60 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

CD-109 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

CS-137 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 CO-60 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

CS-137 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

CO-60 2.9E-06 8.0E-08 3.3E-06 1.4E-07 1.2E 00 3.6E 01 A !

, 73rra 1,5E-07

AG-110M 1.8E-06 8.5E-08 1.8E-06 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 RES T

L WASTE. CS-134 2.6E-06 -1.5E-07 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 1.7E 01 D

CS-137 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 CO-60 .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

CD-109 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

CS-137 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

F AF .KED CO-57 8.8E-03 9.5E-05 9.6E-03 1.1E-04 1.1E 00 9.2E 01 A

btr J CO-60 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

CD-109 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

CS-137 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

I-131 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

CD-109 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

CS-137 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

'DFT A NA-24 2.5E-03 2.5E-04 2.8E-03 4.5E-04 1.1E 00 1.0E 01 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

I-131 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 ,

RB-88 2.5E-02 1.6E-03 2.5E-02 3.3E-03 9.7E-01 1.6E 01 A i

CS-134 7.8E-04 1.4E-04 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0,0E-01 5.7E 00 D

CS-137 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

ML20234B020

Text

Navigation menu

Search