ML20207F549

Safety Insp Rept 50-409/86-16 on 861208-16.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Confirmatory Measurements Program,Including Sample Split,Onsite Analysis W/Region III Mobile Lab & Previously Identified Open Items

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: ML20207F530 ML20207F549
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

Inspector:

.

A. G. Januska P

Date

'4//7

!- 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.

'

j Results: No violations or deviation were identified.

'

1

t

8701060125 870101

PDR ADOCK 05000409

O PDR

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 701L ~A

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

CS-137 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*

.CO-60 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*

CD-109 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

,

FE-59 - 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

CO-60 1.6E-02 1.8E-04 1.3E-02 2.1E-04 8.1E-01 8.9E 01 A

[ .T[T'ST E RESULTS:

.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

I-131 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

CO-60 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

CS-137 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-

r

'

FOR THE 4 GUARTER OF 1485

---

NRC------- ' ----LICENSEE---- - ---LICENSEE:NRC ,

SAMPLE _  ;

ISOTOPE PESULT t .ERPOR RESULT _.EPPOR PATIO PES T- H

- L WASTE BETA 6.6E-05 2.0E-06 6.0E-05 1.1E-06 9.1E-01 3.3E 01' A

SR-90 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

CS-137 1.4E-05 4.0E-07 1.5E-05 2.4E-07 1.1E 00 3.5E 01 A-

MN-54 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.

,

.

. -

-- -. . _ -