IR 05000219/1989025
| ML19332C756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1989 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332C753 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-89-25, NUDOCS 8911280512 | |
| Download: ML19332C756 (12) | |
Text
- * *
_.,
,,
.s
-
..
U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/89-25 Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 Priority Category 1
-
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation b.0. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: October 16-20, 1989
_ _
--
Inspectors:
M-
///J-If J. J. Kottah', Laboratory SpeciaTist, ERPS date
//'IS 'h
.
A N ' 77 McNamara, L' boratory Assistant, ERPS date ~
a
'l
.
'
Approved by:
h/
// ~ N f 7 R. J. Bores iTeT, EffTuents Radiation date Protection etion, FRSS Branch Inspection Summary: -Inspection on October 16-20, 1989 (Inspection Report No. 50-219/89-25).
t+
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological and non-radiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements - radiological, standards analyses - chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC.
Results: Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identified.
8911280512 891115 PDR ADOCK 05000219 Q
.
L'.,
.
-
..
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted J. Barton, Deputy Director, Oyster Creek i
- R. Hillman, Manager, Plant Chemistry
-
- M, Heller, QC Licensing Engineering
- D. MacFarlane, Site Audit Manager
- D. Arbach, Manager, Radiological Health o
- G. Busch, QC Licensing Manager R. Stoudnour, Senior Engineer - Chemistry
W. Dunphy, Senior Chemist G. Mulleavy, Staff Chemist W. Barnshaw, Chemistry Supervisor J. Mockridge, Chemistry Supervisor F. Jordan, Chemistry Technician J. Deuchler, Chemistry Technician G. Beh, Chemistry Technician C. Heale, Chemistry Technician M. Slobodien, Radiological Controls Director
- Denotes those personnel who attendeci the exit meeting on October 20, 1989.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel including other members of the chemistry staff.
'
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the following areas.
1.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems and effluent samples, and chemistry parameters in various plant systems.
'
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
3.0 Radiological and Chemical Measurements 3.1 Confirmatory Measurements (Radiological)
During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filters, charcoal cartridge, and offgas i
l samples.
In these cases the samples could not be split, and the (
same samples were analyzed by both the licensee and the NRC. Where possible, the samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples I
..
..,,
,.
'
.
.
.
,'
- which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee
-
using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent and other samples with respect to
!
the Technical Specifications ar.d other regulatory requirements.
In addition, a liquid effluent sample was ser.t to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences laboratory (REST), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
The results of these analyses will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date
.
and will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
'
l The results of an effluent sampic split between the licensee and the NP.C during a previous inspection on August 24-28, 1987 (Inspection Report No. 50-219/87-26) were also compared during this inspection.
Tha licensee's Radiological Controls Department also possesses a gamma spectrometry system.
Therefore, the particulate filter and charcoal cartridge samples (samples routinely analyzed by this department) were also analyzed using this counting system and compared with the NRC results.
The results of the sample measurement intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment 1) with two exceptions. The two exceptions were the Fe-55 analysis on a liquid sample split during a previous inspection and the Radiological Controls' analysis of the charcoal cartridge.
The licensee's Fe-55 result was low by approximately a factor of five compared to the NRC result. This analysis was performed by the licensee's vendor laboratory and the NRC reference laboratory. The difference between the two results may indicate a poor sample split due to particulate material present in the sample which may have " plated out" on the sample container wall.
The results of the liquid sample split during this inspection will be compared as soon as available in order to resolve this disagreement.
The licensee does not routinely discharge liquid radioactive l-effluents. Therefore, the Fe-55 value would not result in ti,e licensee underestimating radioactivity in liquid effluent releases.
l The disagreement on the analysis of the charcoal cartridge for
radioiodine by the Radiological Controls Department was due to the
!
fact that the licensee calibrates the gamma spectrometer with the l:
inlet side of cartridge facing away from the detection and then
'
I analyzes the sample with the inlet facing toward the detector. The inspector discussed this practice with the licensee.
The licensee stated that this counting practice was employed so that in the event
,
"
a technician happened to place the charcoal cartrdge on the detector l
l l
r
-
~.
.
.
,.
!
l improperly, the result would not be in error and if the charcoal cartridge were properly placed on the detector the result would be
.
'
conservative. The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee
'
and stated that the measurements should be accurate, not just conservative.
The licensee stated that the counting procedure would be modified so that the charcoal certridge would be counted in the
!
,
same geometry as the calibration sttndard.
l Also noted during this inspection wat the licensee's practice of
[
counting offgas samples as soon as pcssible after obtaining the
sample.
In fact, the licensee's procedure requires that the first count of the offgas sample be made within 30 minutes of sampling so that short-lived radionuclides can be measured. This results in a complex multiplet photopeak at approximately 400 kev in the gamma ray
-
spectrum, complicating the analysis of Kr-87.
The first offgas sample analysis which was compared was performed approximately six minutes after sampling. The resulting measurement by the licensee of Kr-87 was in disagreement with the NRC result. A second count of the offgas sample after a five-hour decay resulted in the Kr-87 measurement being in agreement. After discussing this matter with the inspector the licensee modified the counting procedure so that the first count of the offgas sample would be made after a decay time of 25-30 minutes to permit some decay of short-lived, interfering isotopes. The Kr-87 result on a sample analyzed following this procedure was in agreement. Tha inspector noted the licensee's prompt response to tnis matter.
The results of the radioactivity measurements comparison are listed in Table I.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations were identified.
3.2 Standards Analyses (Chemical)
During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were
'
submitted to the licensee for analysis. The standard solutions were
,
prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory (CL) for the NRC, and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to technical specification and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The results of the standards measurement comparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (See Attachment 2).
_
--
-
.
s
[:o
,
I
'
c,.
'
,
]
,
r
,
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table II. The
!
standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal
,
!
calibration range. One of the three metals concentrations was analyzed in duplicate due to the lack of sufficient volume of the NRC-supplied standard to perform the analysis in triplicate. Also the iron analyses were performed at four concentrations rather then
three due to the wide range over which the licensee calibrates the instrument for iron analyses.
e The inspector had no further questions in this area. No violations were identified.
'
4.0 Laboratory QA/QC The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry
>
laboratory QA/QC program.
This program is described in a number of procedures:
822.1 Quality Control:
Program Outline 822.2 Chemistry Quality Control:
Instrumentation 822.3 Chemistry Quality Control:
Chemicals and Reagents 822.4 Chemistry Quality Control:
Analytical Methods 822.5 Chemistry Quality Control: Analyst Performance 822.6 Chemistry Quality Control:
Vendor Laboratories 822.7 Chemistry Quality Control:
Laboratory Control and Safety The procedures provide for both an intralaboratory QA/QC program and an interlaboratory QA/QC program. The intralaboratory QA/QC program consisted of instrument and procedure control charts and the analysis of spiked and duplicate samples.
The spiked and duplicate samples results were plotted on accuracy and range control charts, respectively.
These results were plotted so that the individual analysts could be identified.
This provided a mechanism for tracking the performance of individual analysts, as well as monitoring a specific analytical method.
The interlaboratory program consisted of the analysis of standards received from outside laboratories for both chemical and radiological parameter analyses. The licensee's procedures contain acceptance criteria for comparing these results.
Also included in the licensee's interlaboratory program was the vendor laboratory that performed the radiochemical analyses of effluent samples. The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program for 1988 and 1989 to date and noted that the licensee appeared to be implementing the laboratory QA/QC program as required.
In reviewing other laboratory data the inspector noted that the licensee was running standards on the ion chromatograph (IC) and the inductively coupled plasma spe::trometer (ICP), but was not plotting these standards on control charts.
The IC standards, however, were being used to trend the performance of the IC separator column.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the fact that these data could be plotted on control charts i
%
.
.
i
-
,
i and would lend additional credibility and validity to the licenste's results obtained from these instruments. The licensee responded that control charts would be implemented for these instruments.
In addition
,
the inspector observed that the control charts for the licensee's gamma spectrometry system appeared biased, in that, most of the data points were located on one side of the mean.
Through discussions with the licensee,
>
the inspector determined that the control charts' mean values and standard deviations were determined over a brief period of time and were not representative of actual long-term, day to day activities. The inspector stated that long-term reliable estimates of the mean and standard
deviation are necessary to establish control limits. The licensee stated
'
that actual data accumulated over a period of time sufficient to estimate long-term trends will be used to construct new control charts.
The inspector also observed that the licensee prepared a semi-annual internal laboratory QA/QC report which included all the results and
control charts generated from the laboratory QA/QC program.
The
'
inspector noted that this periodic review of the laboratory QA/QC data, along with the interlaboratory program in both chemistry and
_.
'
radiochemistry, as well as, the control charts assessing. technician
performance for accuracy and precision were noted strengths of the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program. The inspector had no further questions in this area. No violations were identified.
5.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of this report at the conclusion of the inspection on October 20, 1989.
i The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
,
&
l l
w
,,
,
+. ~
..
.
(..
-
V
,
Table I Oyster Creek Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE
_ COMPARISON Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Offgas Kr-85m (3.24 0.07)E-3 (3.04t0.13)E-3 Agreement-10-19-M Kr-87 (1.34 0.03)E-2 (1.4410.07)E-2 Agreement 1107 hrs Kr-88 (1.09 0.03)E-2 (1.0910.06)E-2 Agreement
'
(Detector #1)
Xe-133 (3.2710.13)E-3 (3.110.3)E-3 Agreement (~30 min, decay
'Xe-135m (5.410.2)E-2 (4.410.2)E-2 Agreement prior to ecunting)
Xe-135 (1.48410.015)E-2 (1.4510.08)E-2 Agreement Xe-138 (2.15 0.06)E-1 (1.66 0.09)E-1 Agreement Offgas Kr-85m (3.2810.05)E-3 (3.1310.13)E-3 Agreement.
10-18-89 Kr-87 (1.3410.03)E-2 (1.2310.06)E-2 Agreement 1007 hrs Kr-88 (1.0210.02)E-2 (9.8 0.5)E-3 Agreement (Detector #1)
Xe-133 (3.34 0.04)E-3 (3.210.3)E-3 Agreement (~5 hr. decay Xe-135 (1.52010.006)E-2 (1.4910.08)E-2 Agreement to counting)
Offgas in Kr-85m (1.2010.02)E-2 (1.2610.09)E-2 Agreement Marinelli Beaker Kr-87 (4.92 0.10)E-2 (5.110.2)E-2 Agreement (to simulate Kr-88 (3.88 0.08)E-2 (4.010.3)E-2 Agreement stackgas)
Xe-133 (1.3710.03)E-2 (1.41 0.12)E-2 Agreement 10-18-89 Xe-135 (6.0110.04)E-2 (6.010.3)E-2 Agreement 1007 hrs (Detector #2)
' Reactor Water I-131 (1.4310.11)E-4 (1.4410.13)E-4 Agreement 10-17-89 I-132 (5.2610.05)E-3 (5.610.2)E-3 Agreement l
.0950 hrs I-133 (2.17i0.02)E-3 (2.0510.08)E-3 Agreement I
(Detector #2)
I-134 (2.57 0.07)E-2 (2.4410.07)E-2 Agreement I-135 (6.31 0.11)E-3 (5,410.2)E-3 Agreement Water-Drywell Co-60 (5.6810.15)E-5 (4.9 0.3)E-5 Agreement Sump I-131 (1.55 0.08)E-5 (1.610.2)E-5 Agreement 10-17-89 I-132 (3.3010.13)E-5 (3.410.2)E-5 Agreement 1404 hrs I-133 (8.98 0.12)E-5 (8.810,5)E-5 Agreement (Detector #1)
I-135 (1.2510.04)E-4 (1.14 0.08)E-4 Agreement Cs-134 (1.94 0.09)E-5 (2.110.2)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (3.37 0.12)E-5 (3.310.2)E-5 Agreement
e
".
.
.
Y Table I (Continued)
Oyster Creek Verification Test Results
'
SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Drywell Sump Cr-51-(5.0 0.3)E-6 (4.510.6)E-6 Agreement i
Filter Mn-54 (1.4310.07)E-6 (1.4510.13)E-6 Agreement 10-17-89 Co-60 (8.1710.11)E-6 (6.9 0.3)E-6 Agreement
- 1404 hrs I-131 (1.0010.04)E-6 (1.1110.09)E-6 Agreement
' (Detector #2)
1-133 (4.2510.08)E-6 (4.210.2)E-6 Agreement
'
Stack Charcoal I-131 (3.9 0.3)E-12 (3.910.4)E-12 Agreement Cartridge I-133 (9.510.3)E-12 (8.610.6)E-12 Agreement 10-17-89 0E25 hrs (Detector #1)
- Water Drywell Fe-55 (2.8610.02)E-5 (5.211.1)E-6 Disagreement Sump H-3
.
(3.32 0.05)E-3 (3,39 0.01)E-3 Agreement 8-26-87 gross alpha (1.0 0.3)E-8
<9E-8 No-Comparison.
1450 hrs Sr-89 (2.710,5)E-7 (2.010.4)E-7 Agreement Sr-90 (4.410.2)E-7 (4.810.2)E-7 Agreement (The following analyses were performed by the Radiological Controls Group)
Stack Charcoal I-131 (3.9 0.3)E-12 (7.8 0.3)E-12 Disagreement
!
Cartridge I-133 (9.5 0.2)E-12 (1.8810.06)E-11 Disagreement l
10-17-89 l
0825 hrs Drywell Sump Cr-51 (t,.0 0.3)E-6 (5.0 0.3)E-6 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (1.4310.07)E-6 (1.54 0.08)E-6 Agreement 10-17-89 Co-60 (8.1710.11)E-6 (7.4 0.2)E-6 Agreement 1404 hrs I-131 (1.00 0.04)E-6 (1.20 0.05)E-6 Agreement I-133 (4.2510.08)E-6 (5.210.2)E-6 Agreement
u
~ s, c
.
,
.
,
,
a i
Table II Oyster Creek Capability Test Results Chemical Method of
'NRC Licensee Parsmeter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
'
-Chloride IC 3.010.2 2.910 Agreement 6.210.4 5.73 0.15 Agreement =
4.810.3 4.4710.06 Agreement Sulfate IC 1.910.3 2.010.2 Agreement i
3.8 0.4 3.75 0 Agreement 6.010.4 5.610 Agreement Silica SP'
2512 2510 Agreement 55.011.0
'50.711.2 Agreement-80.Sil.5 76.3tl.5 Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)'
Boron Tit ~
20.610.4 20.610.4 Agreement 59.8i0.8 60.510.6 Agreement 10212 100.7 0.9 Agreement Iron ICP 0.19810.003 0.18710.012 Agreement 0.580 0.010 0.56010.009 Agreement 0.78410.002 0.79210.0032 Agreement 5.8010.10 6.310.2 Agreement Copper ICP 0.19910.004-0.19410.012 Agreement 0.59510.005 0.5810.02 Agreement
'
O.81010.006 0.797102 Agreement Nickel ICP 0.20310.005 0.19010.006 Agreement 0.610 0.010 0.589 0.013 Agreement'
O.80610.012 0.8410.032 Agreement Chromium ICP 0.20010.010 0.179 0.016 Qualified Agreement 0.60010.007 0.56010.013 Agreement 0.8110.02 0.8010.022 Agreement UV-Vis Spectrophotometry
- Note: SP
=
Ion Chromatography IC
=
Tit. = Potentiometric Titration Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry ICP
=
2 Analysis performed in duolicate
em.-
'
,
pQ,,
.
-
{
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 judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated 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 must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
l
,
Resolution 2 Ratio For Agreement 2
<3 No Comparison
,
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 0.8S'- 1.18 2 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
e-
>*u-
.
-.
.
t'
ATTACHMENT 2 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements.
-,
This attachment provides criteria for comparing result of capability tests.
In these criteria the judgement limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors".
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviation range (12Sd) of the BNL known value are considered to be in agreement.
,
-
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but within plus or minus three standard deviation range (13Sd) of the BNL known values are considered to be in qualified agreement.
Repeated results which are in qualified agreement will receive additional attention.
Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standerd deviations range of the BNL known value are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1.
l The ranges for the data in Table II are as foilows:
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range Values in parts per billion (ppb)
Chloride 2.8-3.2 2.7-3.3
'
5.7-6.7 5.5-6.9 4.4-5.1 4.2-5.3 l
!
Sulfate 1.7-2.1 1.6-2.2
'
3.4-4.2 3.3-4.3 5.4-6.6 5.2-6.8
'
Silica 22.2-26.8 21.0-28.0 50.0-60.0 47.3-62.5 73.0-88.0 69.0-92.0 l
l Values in parts per million (ppm)
Boron 20.2-21.0 19.9-21.3
,
l.
58.5-61.1 57.9-61.7
!
100-104 99-105
!
Iron 0.179-0.217 0.169-0.227 i
0.524-0.636 0.496-0.664 0.708-0.860 0.672-0.896 5.24-6.36 4.96-6.64
,
M
--
y l J '... >
" *
I.
c.r L,
.
- i^
A t'
ATTACHMENT 2 (continued);
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range
.
_ Copper'
O.180-0.218 0.171-0.227 0.538-0.652 0.510-0.680 0.73210.888 0.694-0.926 Nickel 0.190-0.216 0.184-0.222 i
0.572-0.648 0.553-0.667
0.756-0.855 0.732-0.880 Chromium 0.181-0.219 0.171-0.229
'
0.542-0.658 0.512-0.688 0.73-0.89 0.69-0.93
.
i
=
$
-
,