IR 05000454/1992023

Insp Repts 50-454/92-23 & 50-455/92-23 on 921117-20.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiochemistry Program Including Confirmatory Measurements & Audits

ML20126B786
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	12/08/1992
From:	House J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126B783	List: IR 05000454/1992023 ML20126B780
References
50-454-92-23, 50-455-92-23, NUDOCS 9212220209
Download: ML20126B786 (10)

Text

. - . . _ _

.~

~

O.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

-Report Nos. 50-454/92023(DRSS); 50-455/92023(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company

'-

1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Byron Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted: November 17 through 20, 1992 Inspector: /J- JP Tk Date Approved by:

us00 LM Wi11fam Snell, Chief it/g/ Radiological Controls

~

Date Section 2 Insoection Summary Inspection on November 17-20. 1992 (Recort Nos. 50 454/92023(DRSS): 51-455/92023(DRSS))

Areas Insoected:- Routine announced inspection of the radiochemistry program (IP 84750) including: confirmatory measurements, audits, quality assurance, implementation of the radiological environmental mcnitoring program (REMP) and an open ite Results: Licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program was excellent with the. laboratory achieving all agreements in 71 comparisons. The-laboratory QA/QC program was functioning well. Audits were performance based and thorough. Oversight of the REMP was very good and station personnel were well qualifie No violations or deviations were identifie DR ADOCK 0500

- _

-.

. .

- .-

..

• '

DETAILS Egrsons Contacted

• M. Burgess, Technical Superintendent

• R. Colglazier, Compliance Engineer W. Conti, Laboratory Supervisor E. DeLong, Radwaste Chemist N. Gordon, Unit Chemist

• B. Gossman, Lead Chemist

• W. Grundmann, Safety Quality Verification Superintendent M. Haynes, Chemistry Technician

• A. Javorik, Chemistry Supervisor M. Johnson, Chemistry Technician K. Krowzack, Corporate Chemistry D. Lenox, Chemistry Technician K. Lurkins, Quality Control Chemist

• McNeill, Radiation Protection Supervisor D. Olsen, Laboratory Supervisor J. Wicklund, Chemistry Technician

• D. Palmer, Health Physicist

• G. Schwartz, Station Manager

• D. Starke, Chemist

• E. Zittle, NRC Coordinator

• C, Brown, Resident Inspector, NRC

• Present at the Exit Meeting on November 20, 1992 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 84750)

(Closed) Open Item (50-454/90006-01: 50-455/90005-01): The' licensee was to split a liquid radwaste sample with.the NRC and have their vendor laboratory analyze it for gross beta, iron-55, tritium, strontium 89 and:

strontium-90. The results of the analyses were to be forwarded to Region III for comparison with' results from the NRC reference -

l aboratory. The above tasks were completed and the comparisons are contained in Table 1 with the acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 1. The gross beta, tritium and iron-55 were conservative disagreement Strontium 89 and strontium-90 could not be compared due to poor counting statistics. These results are due, in part, to the low activity-present in the radwaste sample. Since the disagreements were conservative, no further action is requested of the licensee. This item is close .. Confirmatory Measurements Proaram (IP 84750)

Five plant samples including reactor coolant, waste gas, charcoal adsorter, liquid waste and a reactor coolant crud filter were analyzed

,

for gamma emitting isotopes by.the licensee and in the Region III mobile laboratory on site. Comparisons were made on combinations of the

, 2

.

,.

• *

licensee's four count room detectors normally used for counting plant and effluent samples. A calibration standard was also counted on th licensee's-four detectors and the NRC detector. Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria are given 4 Attachment The licensee achieved 71 agreements in 71 comparisons; no biases were observed in any of the licensee's-detectors. The licensee performed very well ni the confirmatory measurements prograt No violations or deviations were identifie . Chemistry Ouality Assurance /0uality Control (IP 847501 The inspector reviewed the radiochemistry laboratory quality assurance program including physical facilities, laboratory operations and selected procedures. The count room was well organized and work space appeared adequat Chemistry technicians that were observed during sample collections appeared knowledgeable, followed procedures and handled radioactive mater' ! safel The licensee participated in an interlaboratory cross-check program with an outside vendor and all comparisons for the orevious eight quarters-were agreements.- Required efficiency and energy calibrations for gamma spectroscopy equipment had been performe Check sources were run daily and the software used this data to performed minor adjustments to the energy calibration based on the 356 kev line of Bailum-133 and the 1332 kev line of Cobalt-60. Check source activity for these two energy peaks and their associated full width half maximums were trended on statistically based control chart Instrument performance data was reviewed by technicians when samples were analyzed, by laboratory-supervisors weekly and by the quality assurance chemist monthl Calibration source certificates were current. The licensee's radiochemistry QA program appeared to be very goo No violations or deviations were identifie . Audits (IP 84750)

Quality Verification Audit QAA 06-92-11, conducted October 26 through November 2, 1992, reviewed the chemistry quality assurance program.. The audit team observed in-line instrumentation, sampling and operation techniques for the High Radiation Sampling System (HRSS), calibration and control charts for laboratory instruments, surveillance and calibration of the HRSS equipment. No deficiencies were found. A previous audit, 06-92-05, was conducted March-9 through~29, 1992 and covered the Environmental Protection Program including the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP). Auditors reviewed the station oversight of REMP contractors, conducted interviews with contractor personnel and verified that data for the semi-annual and annual reports was reviewed by station personnel. Auditors accompanied contractor '

-, _

.

-

..

personnel during sande collections anii Sserved the condition of'all air sampling stations. The team also vs. ified that the vendor laboratory performing environmental, analyses participated in an independent cross check arogram. No deficiencies were found. Both audits were performance Jased and focused on implementation of quality assurance program No violations or deviaticas were identifie . Analyses ReotLired by Technical Specifications (IP 8475Q),

Primary coolant dose equivalent iodine-131 levels were below the-Technical Specification (1/S) limits by a factor of 50 or mor E-Bar calculations appeared to be adequate and primary coolant activity was well under the T/S limit of 100/E-Bar. Isotopic and boron comparisons of grab samples were made with samples taken from the High Radiation Sampling System (HRSS) dilution system. The isotopic comparisons were all within a factor of two and the boron analyses were within ! ppm which complies with NUREG-0737 requirements for the PAS . Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (IP 84750)

The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including the 1991 Annual Environmental Report which appeared to comply with the REMP requirements. All of the required samples were collected and analyzed, except as noted in the repor The inspector toured selected air sampling stations with the station health physicist responsible for monitoring the REMP. The air samplers had current calibration stickers, along with a folder containing maintenance and calibration documentation. Air sampler equipment was~in good operating condition and no air inloakage could be detecte Station personnel were very knowledgeable of the REMP and appeared to exercise considerable oversight of contractor sample collector Station personnel performed surveillances and reviewed collection records in order to assure that required samples were collected. ^The contractor provided station personnel with copies of sample collection and equipment maintenance records. Licensee oversight of the REMP appeared to be aggressive and the program appeared to be performing wel No violations or deviations were identifie . Inspection Followup Items Inspection Followup Items (0 pen 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. An Inspection Followup Item (0 pen-Item) closed in this report is' discussed _in Section l

-]

... . . . - - .. . .-. - . .- - .

..

'

' Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1992. The inspector discussed the-Inspection Followup item in Section-2, licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program along with observations on the radiochemistry quality control program, high radiation sampling system, audits and oversight of the REM During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection ~. Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar Attachments:

' Table 1, Radiological Chemistry Split Sample Results 1st Quarter, 1990 Table 2, Confirmatory Measurement Results 4th Quarter 1992 Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Radiological Measurements

_ , - - .-.. .- . --

. .- .. - ._ . . . ~ - . - -- . . . .~. . . . - . . .. .- ., . . -. -_ .

I

,y (

.; ,

TABLE 1-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION

REGION III

SAMPLE SPLIT ,

m FACILITY BYRON-

-FOR.THE IST. QUARTER OF 1990' -o'

.t

. .

5EMPLE~~~sUELIBE- nRE vet! ARE EER LIc. VA LIc. ER RATIO RESOt. RESutT

- - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .

LIQUID - G-BETA 4.80E-06 2.OOE-07 7.25E-06 0.OOE+00 Rt.51 2 'EL WASTE FE-55 9.60E-06 3.GOE-07 1~.48E-05 0.OOE+00 ' 1. 54 - 2 D SPLIT H-3 1.70E-02 2.OOE-04 2.20E-02 0.OOE+00~ 1.29 8 D SR-89 6.OOE-09 1.60E-08 1.OOE-09 O.OOE+00 0.171 N=

SR-90 1.20E-08 7.OOE-09 1.OOE-09 0.OOE+00 0.08 1~.7- _

TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT ,

D= DISAGREEMENT '

o= CRITERIA RELAXED

. .N=NO. COMPARISON .

,

.

l

,

e C

}l

-

me.s's S ga -- F 4-"==

-r e -T' *-PE-9's W *- * "1 % g i y as

. .. .-. - - - - . ~ - - _ . - . - - - - . . . . .. -

.,' ;-

.

.

,

- ..-

TABLE-2

>

U.S.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ;

REGION III

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: BYRON FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF 1992 sEREEE - DEEiBE- nsE 0EET ns5 Ess!- ETE!OEET- ETE Ess!- EEii5- sss5E! REsDEi-

---

---------- .

7.OOE-05 6.69E-06 6.85E-05- B.47E-06- 0.98 1 lA CRUD CR-51 FILTER MN-54 3.49E-06 5.48E-07 4.47E-06- 6.07E-07 1.28 A

- UNIT 2 CO-58 4.02E-04 3.34E-06 4.62E-04 2.80E-05 1.15 12 A 6.33E-07 1.43 1 A DET. 25P CO- c0 S.98E-06. 5.73E-07 8.57E-06 1 A 79-95 1.12E-05 9.89E-07 -1.43E-05= 1.24E-06 1.28 1.44 A 2R-97 4.7BE-06 -8.92E-07 6.87E-06 1.24E-06 NB-95 1.25E-05 7.04E-07 1.30E-05 1".36E-06 1'.1 .8 A 3.89E-04- 0.OOE+00 0.89 A BA-139 4.38E-04 7.67E-05 1.90E-05 2.92E-06 1.30 A BA-140 1.46E-05 3.22E-06 CR-51 6.92E-05 6.91E-06 7.46E-05 8.86E-06 1.08 1 A CRUD A FILTER MN-54 3.33E-06 4.52E-07 3.53E-06 5.65E-07 1.06 UNI FE-59 2.39E-06 9.08E-07 3.02E-06- 2.23E-07- -1.26 N 4.31E-04- 2.87E-05 1.09 11 A DET.27TP CO-58 3.94E-04 3.36E-06  !

6.55E-07 7.58E-06 6.46E-07 1.41 'A CO-60 5.39E-06 A-1.38E-05- 1.56E-06 1.20 37 . 0 ZR-95 1.-15E-05 '1.27E-06

1.35E-05 9.52E-0 .49E-05 1.46E-06 1.10 1 NB-95 BA-140 1.62E-05 '3.76E-06 2.18E-05 .3.88E-06= -1.35 A LA-140 1.68E-05 1.89E-06 2.27E-05 42.31E-06 -1.35 8.91 A-1.01E-03 ' 1.' 23 J7. 0 A'

OFF-GAS' XE-131M 3.63E-03 5.19E-04 4.47E-03 0.91 21 A DET.: 24P XE-133 1.33E-01 -6.25E-04- 1.21E-01 1.05E-02 l2.12E-04: 0.9 l .XE-133M 7.76E-04 1.36E-04 7.57E-04 l

1.42E-04' O.00- 2.6 3 . -A-

. CHARCOAL BR-82' 5.20E-03 >1.98E-04 4.14E-03 N 1.79E-04 6.45E-05 2.58E-04 5.94E-05 1.44 h ADSORBER-I-131

' DET. 24P L RCS- NA-24 1.07E-03 7.23E-05 9.57E-04 7.'97E-05 O.89 1 'A-4269E-04 3.76E-04 3.13E-05- 0.00 22.'1- A L

DET. 25P'I-131 2.12E-05 0.98 3 A-2.49E-03- 6.29E-05 12.44E-03 1.70E-04

~

I-133

'

I-135 4.92E-03- 6.77E-04 4.41E-03 2.52E-04 0.90 . .A

.MO-99 4.35E-04~ 9.39E-05 2.65E-04 0.OCE+00 0.61 A s

9.18E-06 0.92~ l A'

CS-137 8.82E-05 1.16E-05_ 8.07E-05 ,

I

,

,

a , - .

. ___ _ _ ____ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.__

_..-

saRPEE-~~n0EEiBE- ARE 0EE! ERE ERE!- ETE!OEET- ETE!Ess!- REii5- REs5E! REs0Ei

---

.--------------------------------------------------------

RCS NA-24 1.07E-03 6.62E-05 1.11E-03 9.OOE-05 1.04 1 A

, 'DET. 23P I-131 -3.55E-04 6.55E-05 3.13E-04 4.70E-05 0.88 A 1-132 4.50E-03 9.OOE-05 4.19E-03 1.60E-04 0.93 5 A I-133 2.34E-03 5.58E-05 2.18E-03 1.60E-04 0.93 4 A I-134 8.48E-03 2.64E-04 7.45E-03 3.40E-04 0.88 3 A I-135 4.53E-03 2.36E-04 4.09E-03 1.50E-04 0.90 1 A RB-88 4.70E-01 1.98E-02 4.34E-01 3.OOE-02 0.92 2 A CS-138 1.63E-02 7.02E-04 1.57E-02 7.50E-04 0.96 2 A

-

'-

MN-54 6.60E-06 2.87E-07 6.90E-06 6.04E-07 1.05 2 A RAD WASTE CO-57 3.61E-07 8.OOE-08 6.10E-07 1.30E-07 1.69 A DET 27TP CO-58 1.82E-05 4.36E-07 1.84E-05 1.41E-06 1.01 4 A CD-60 1.41E-05' 4.27E-07 1.42E-05 8.80E-07 1.01- 3 A 1-131 5.60E-06 2.36E-07 5.17E-06 5.08E-07 0.92 2 A MO-99 4.68E-07 8,48E-08 4.01E-07 3.69E-OB O.86 A CS-134 4.59E-06 2.83E-07 5.36E-06 3.60E-07- 1.17 1 A CS-137 9.15E-06 3.23E-07 8.18E-06 7.11E-07- 0.89 28.3- A AIR CO-57 1.91E-02 1.71E-04 1.87E-02 1.09E-03 0.98 11 A PAR CO-60 6.28E-02 5.68E-04 6.51E-02 3.17E-03 1.04 11 A ST Y-88 1.87E-01 '2.43E-03 1.91E-01 9.40E-03 1.02 7 A DET. 23P CD-109 4.76E-01 3.88E-03 4.71E-01 3.60E-02 0.99 12 A SN-113 0.53E-02 1.25E-03 8.62E-02 5.84E-03 1.01 6 A TE-123M 2.21E-02 3.81E-04 2.18E-02 -1.45E-03 0.98 5 A CS-137 9.16E-02 -5.53E-04 9.47E-02- 7.55E-03 1.03 16 A AIR CO-57 1.91E-02 1.71E-04 2.13E-02 1.57E-03 .1.12 11 A PAR CD-60 6.28E-02 5.68E-04 6.86E-02 3.85E-03 1.09- 11 A -

ST Y-88 1.87E-01 2.43E-03 1.90E-01 1.02E-02 1.02 76.7- A DET.~24P CD-109 4.76E-01- 3.88E-03 4.63E-01- 4.48E-02 0.97- 12 A -

SN-113 8.53E-02 1.25E-03 7.91E-02 '6.21E-03- 0.93 6 A TE-123M 2.21E-02 3.81E-04 2.36E-02 2.17E-03 1.06 5 A CS-137 9.16E-02 5.53E-04 9.51E-02 6.82E-03 1.04. 16 A AIR CO-57 1.91E-02; 1.71E-04 2.01E-02 1.35E-03 1.05 11 A PAR CO-60 6.28E-02 5.68E-04 6.73E-02- 3.60E-03 1.07= 11 'A-ST Y-88 1.87E-01 -2.43E-03- 1.90E-01 9.90E-03 1.02 7 A DET. 25P CD-109 4.76E-01 3.88E-03 4.67E-01' 4.17E-02 0.98 112 A SN-113 8.53E-02 1.25E-03 8.40E-02_ 6.32E-03 0.99 -6 A TE-123M 2.21E-02 3.81E-04 2.23E-02. 1.86E-03 1.01 5 A CS-137 9.16E-02 -5.53E-04 -9.43E-02- 6.72E-03 1.03 16 A

. . . . . . . _ -- . - . .- .- - . - . . . . . .. . . -

- .l

. * ,

-

l sERFEE-~~A05EiBE~~EN5 0EET~nRE~Ess!~~ETE!OEET-~ETETEERT-~EE

---

--------------------------

1.44E-03 11 A AIR CO-57' 1.91E-02 1.71E-04 2.06E-02 1 =. 0 8 A

5.68E-04 6.90E-02 3.95E-03- 1.10- 11 PAR CD-60 6.28E-02 1.02 7 A Y-88 1.87E-01 2.43E-03 1.90E-01 1.OOE-02 ST .26E-02 0.97 122.6~ A-

.DET 27TP C -D 109 4.76E-01 3.88E-03 4.60E-01 6.23E-03 0._96 68.3- A SN-113 8.53E-02 1.25E-03 8.22E-02 A TE-123M 2.21E-02 3.81E-04 2.30E-02 2.03E-03 1.04 58.1'

6.70E-03 1.03 16 A CS-137 9.16E-02 5.53E-04 9.40E-02 TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON

,

&

a J

, , - .-4--. .-, u--- , qv m e,-n,

a 2 , #,_..& mao -u_Ac_

, ..as,4 -

4 . . a 4

-

.e - ,

,.

..

ATTACHMENT 1 -

CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALY1ICAL 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 progra In these criteria, the judgment -limits are variable in relation to the - '

comparison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertaint As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selectiv 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 acceptanc RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement

<4 NO COMPARIS0N 4- 7 0.5 - .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.

'

,

,

I

!

r

.

.

v O.