IR 05000266/1993003
| ML20012G515 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1993 |
| From: | House J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012G514 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-93-03, 50-266-93-3, 50-301-93-03, 50-301-93-3, NUDOCS 9303050027 | |
| Download: ML20012G515 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _
_
_
- _.. _ _
.
_ _ _ _. _ _.
_ _ _ _
.
!
'
!
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-266/93003(DRSS); 50-301/93003(DRSS)
-
!
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 l
Licensee:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
231 West Michigan
,
Milwaukee, WI 53201
,
Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Two Creeks Wisconsin i
Inspection Conducted:
February 1 - 5, 1993 0h4k
,
Inspector f. fiouse
/-2F'73
)
Date i
.?
-
Approved By: - illiam Snell, Chief OM/ft I
Radiological Controls Section 2 Da~te Inspection Summary j
inspection on February 1-5. 1993 (Report Nos. 50-266/93003(DRSS): 50-301/93003(DRSS))
.
Areas inspected:
Routine announced inspection of:
(1) the chemistry program including procedures, organization, and training; (2) primary and secondary systems water quality control programs; (3) chemistry quality assurance (QA)
program; (4) nonradiological chemistry comparisons; (5) the radiological
,
!
environmental monitoring program (REMP) and; (6) review of an inspection
followup item (Inspection Procedure 84750).
Results:
The licensee's water quality control program conformed to the Steam J
Generator Owners Group guidelines and overall water quality was very good.
i Performance in the chemistry comparison program was very good with 30 i
-
agreements in 32 comparisons. The laboratory QA program was good. The i
Radiological Environmental Monitoring _ Program (REMP) was well managed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
!
,
9303050027 930226 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
.
a t
~
!
DETAILS i
1.
Persons Contacted I
- R. Arnold, Specialist, Regulatory Services
- M. Baumann, Manager, Licensing and Radiological Engineering
,
- J. Becka, Manager, Regulatory Services
- F. Flentje, Specialist, Regulatory Services l
D. Gehrke, Nuclear Specialist, Chemistry
!
- D. Gesch, Supervisor, Chemistry
F. Hennessy, Manager, Chemistry
- E. Hinshaw, Supervisor, Chemistry R. Parlato, Nuclear Specialist, Chemistry
- K. Rathgaber, Nuclear Specialist, Chemistry H. Schlegel, Technologist, Health Physics S. Thomas, Specialist, Health Physics f
'
The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel in the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on February 5, 1993.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 84750)
,
!
(Closed) Inspection Followup Item Nos. (50-266/91027-01; 50-301/91027-
.
01): The licensee was to investigate the deviations of boron, hydrogen, chloride, radioiodines and xenon analysis results of samples taken from l
the Post Accident Sampling Panel (PASS) from the same analytes measured
{
in primary coolant obtained from the primary sample panel.
The licensee
'
determined that excessive air used to strip gases from the primary
coolant resulted in a loss of iodine and also caused carbon dioxide from i
the air to dissolve in the liquid which interfered with the boron analysis. Chloride contamination of sampling system fittings by a joint
.
sealing compound appeared to be responsible for the chloride disagree-
[
ment. Analysis of the xenon isotopes included xenon 135-M which has a
-
short half life (15.4 minutes) relative to the time required to obtain a
,
PASS sample. This resulted in decay correction errors which produced incorrect xenon concentrations in the PASS sample.
'
Assay results were much improved following corrective actions in PASS l
sampling. These included the use of a lower vacuum (less air) during
!
stripping which has reduced the iodine loss and removed the interference l
from the boron assay; removal of the joint sealing compound has
'
eliminated the chloride contamination problem; exclusion of Xenon 135-M from the Xenon analysis eliminated the decay correction error; and the j
gas chromatograph used for the hydrogen analysis was serviced.
The
!
licensee had conducted the required semiannual PASS training for
!
technicians. This item is closed.
- 3.
Manaaement Controls. Oraanization and Trainina (IP 84750)
}
'
The organizational structure within the chemistry group has not changed since the last inspection. However, the chemistry manager now reports to the production manager who reports to the plant manager.
The two
,
t
'
-
!
l
.
.
chemistry supervisors have exchanged positions with two of the four nuclear specialists. All six positions report to the chemistry manager.
-
Nine chemistry technicians report to the chemistry supervisors which represents a loss of two technicians from the previous inspection. A licensee representative stated that one technician would be replaced.
!
A new chemistry manager was recently appointed. The individual's
credentials included a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering, a M.Sc. in Nuclear
'
Engineering and approximately 12 years of experience in the nuclear industry. This level of training and experience appeared to meet the
,
requirements of the American National Standards Institute-(ANSI) N18.1-l 1971 for radiochemistry supervisor.
j No violations or deviations were identified.
l 4.
Water Chemistry Control Proaram (IP 84750)
j The licensee's water chemistry control program was similar to that described in Region III inspection report 50-266/91027; 50-301/91027 (DRSS). A review of selected trend chart data from the previous year
!
indicated that primary system chemistry parameters were maintained i
within industry guidelines.
Fluoride, chloride, and dissolved oxygen f
levels averaged less than 1 part per billion (ppb), 2 ppb, and 2 ppb l
l with guidelines of 150 ppb, 150 ppb, and 10 ppb respectively.
Dissolved
-
'
hydrogen was maintained within the concentration window.
Secondary system chemistry was also very good with steam generator (S/G)
i blowdown levels of sodium, chloride, sulfate, and silica averrging less
f than 1 ppb, 2 ppb, 3 ppb and 20 ppb.
Industry guidelines wer+ 20, 20, 20 and 300 ppb.
Cation conductivity averaged about 1.2 micro siemen/ centimeter (pS/cm) which was above the guideline of 0.8 gS/cm; i
however, licensee representatives stated that this was the result of I
morpholine addition which is used for pH control.
Feedwater dissolved oxygen, iron and copper averaged less than 1, 4, and I ppb with
guideline levels of 5, 20 and 2 ppb respectively.
'
l The in-line Dionex lon Chromatograph used for monitoring secondary side I
contaminants can sample steam generator blowdown, feedwater and make-up
l water from the water treatment plant. Chemistry data is reviewed by l
technicians and trended by supervisors and nuclear specialists. A summary sheet of chemistry parameters is sent to the Control Room daily.
The water quality program appeared to be very good.
'
l No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Analyses Recuired by Technical Specification (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed trends for the previous year of boron analyses
required by Technical Specifications (T/S). The refueling water storage i
tanks (T/S 15.3.3.A.I.a, 2000 parts per million (ppm) minimum baron concentration) averaged 2200 ppm, the boric acid storage tanks (T/S f
l 15.3.2.B.3 and 15.3.2.C.3, 11.5% minimum boron concentration) averaged i
l 12.2%, the accumulators (T/S 15.3.3. A.I.b, 2000 ppm minimum boron
'
l concentration) averaged 2200 ppm, and the spent fuel pool (T/S 15.5.4.3, l
1800 ppm minimum boron concentration) was over 2220 ppm.
l
'
_
_
_
-
-
_
.
_
..
-.-
'
!
t
.
,
t
!
Dose equivalent iodine-131 levels (T/S 15.3.1.C.1.a) for both units averaged approximately 0.01 micro Curie per gram (pCi/gm) of reactor coolant for the current and previous fuel cycles and were well within i
the T/S limit of 1.0 pCi/gm. Gross beta-gamma activity (T/S 15.3.1.
,
C.2.a) of reactor coolant for the previous year was approximately 0.150
!
pCi/gm for Unit I and 0.160 pCi/gm for Unit 2.
These activities
!
represented a small fraction of the 100/E-Bar limit. A review of
selected data and calculations indicated that the required E-Bar
!
surveillances had been performed as required.
e No violations or deviations were identified.
r
!
6.
Chemistry Comparison Proaram (IP 84750)
j The inspector submitted chemistry samples to the licensee for analysis
!
as part of a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to i
monitor nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems
with respect to regulatory and administrative requirements.
These I
samples had been prepared and standardized for the NRC by the Analytical
!
Chemistry Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
The samples l
were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
!
Three dilutions were prepared from each sample by licensee personnel in
!
order to bring the concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by
the laboratory. A single analysis was performed on each dilution in a
'
manner similar to that of routine samples. The results are presented in Table I which also contains the criteria for agreement. These criteria-are based on ORNL analyses of the standards and on the relative standard
,
deviations (RSD) derived from the results of the plants participating in
,
a 1986 interlaboratory comparison (Table 2.1, NUREG/CR-5442).
The
!
acceptance criteria were that the licensee's value should be within 2 Standard Deviations (SD) of the ORNL value for agreement and between 2 and 3 SD for qualified agreement. A qualified agreement may indicate a bias in the assay.
The licensee analyzed ten unknowns at three concentrations and one at i
two concentrations. Of the 32 comparisons, 30 were agreements (94%) and
.
2 were disagreements. The low concentrations of chloride and sodium were disagreements and both exhibited a positive bias. The inspector i
discussed likely causes for these disagreements with licensee
'
representatives including contamination for chloride and both contamination and an interference for sodium. The presence of nitric
,
acid in the sodium samples could have interfered with the flame atomic
'
absorption analysis as the licensee's calibration solutions were prepared in. distilled water. When the middle concentration of sodium was reanalyzed at a' higher dilution (not shown in Table 1), the bias decreased suggesting that the lower concentration of nitric acid in the diluted unknown produced a smaller bias.
It should also be noted that at the concentrations being measured, an error of less than 1 part per billion _(ppb) would produce the disagreement for chloride and an error of less than 1.5 ppb would produce the disagreement for sodium.
Very low levels of contamination and small interferences can produce disagreements. The licensee performed well in the chemistry comparisons.
.-.
.
..
.
b f
i
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
7.
Implementation of the Chemistry 0A/0C Procram (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the chemistry QA/QC program which was defined by i
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Chemistry Laboratory Quality Assurance Program
,
CAMP 001, Rev. 12, July 8, 1992. Control charts, independent controls
and calibration curves were discussed with licensee representatives.
During instrument calibration, a midrange check standard prepared from the calibration material was run.
Independent controls were analyzed l
monthly and the results plotted on control charts. The inspector noted
,
to licensee representatives that the independent control should be used
routinely instead of the calibrator based material.
!
The licensee had two vendor supplied interlaboratory comparison
,
programs; one for analytical chemistry and one for radiochemistry. The
analytical chemistry program is also used for evaluating technician
performance. Unknowns are received quarterly, all technicians are tested twice per year and results must be within an acceptance criteria that is based on an industry standard. A review of selected data from-l 1992 indicated that the required testing had been performed and that the
laboratory's performance was good. Technicians whose results were f
.
outside the acceptance criteria were retested and the results were
'
satisf actory. The radiochemistry interlaboratory comparison program was performed quarterly and measured overall laboratory performance.
,
'
Results for the previous year were good.
The licensee checks the efficiency calibration of the gamma spectroscopy.
'
detectors for all effluent release geometries annually. The quality assurance (QA) parameters trended for the gamma spectroscopy detectors included the full width-half maximum (FWHM), the channel number and the kiloelectron volts (kev) per channel at 122 and 1332 kev.
From a review
>
,
of selected portions of this data the licensee's four count room
detectors appeared stable.
Licensee performance in radiochemistry will l
bt evaluated more extensively during the next inspection with the Region i
III mobile laboratory.
i No violations or deviations were identified.
l
8.
Audits and Appraisals (IP 84750)
l Audit A-P-92-14 of the halth physics program included a review of the f
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 'JEMP).
Sample l
collection, the sampling checklist and data report preparation were
observed by the auditors. The semiannual monitoring reports were reviewed for completeness and accuracy. No condition reports were
'
issued for the REMP.
,
Audit A-P-92-03, Biennial review of the Nuclear Fuel Reliability Policy
,
(NFRP), covered analyses and reporting of reactor coolant sample
,
radiochemistry parameters, sampling, computer records and report distribution. Of the four condition reports (CR) issued, two applied to
>
chemistry. These were minor in nature involving procedure changes.
J
.
-
-
_
-
-
,
I i
'
f
-
Audit A-P-92-13 of chemistry was conducted to evaluate the _ adequacy and
implementation of the primary water chemistry program. The auditors i
observed and reviewed laboratory procedures, the quality assurance (QA)
i program, laboratory analyses, sample collection, and laboratory data.
!
The three condition reports issued had been addressed by chemistry in a timely manner.
,
The audits incorporated a mix of performance based activities and document review. The audit teams appeared to be knowledgeable of the i
areas reviewed.
I
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (IP 84750)
,
The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program j
(REMP), including the Semiannual Monitoring Reports for 1991 and the first half of 1992, toured selected air sampling stations, and discussed i
REMP operations with licensee personnel. The Semiannual Monitoring
,
Reports appeared to comply with the REMP requirements. All of the i
required samples were collected and analyzed, except as noted in the
.'
reports. The results did not indicate a significant contribution to the environment due to plant operation.
The inspector toured selected air sampling stations around the plant.
The samplers observed appeared to be operating satisfactorily, all had current calibration stickers and no air inleakage was detected.
I Calibration records indicated that the air samplers had been calibrated
as required against a master flowmeter which had been calibrated by a
vendor with standards traceable to the National Institute of Science and
'
Technology.
The REMP appeared to be well managed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 10.
Inspection Followup Items
.j Inspection Followup Items (IFI) are matters which have been discussed f
with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and j
which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
An Inspection followup Item closed during the inspection is discussed in
!
Section 2.
l
'
11.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
{
representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on
!
February 5, 1993. The inspector discussed an IFI (Section 2), results
of the nonradiological chemistry comparisons, observations on the
!
quality assurance program, water quality trend data and the REMP.
j t
During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely
[
informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents j
or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
Licensee
representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as l
proprietary.
i
!
t
..
_,
.
_ _.
.
_
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
Attachment:
.i Table 1, Nonradiological Confirmatory Measurements
,
t Results, February 1-5, 1993
,
!
!
i
,
,
,
!
!
!
P
!
!
i
+
'
!
[
.
)
i
!
,
,
i
.
'
,
TABLE 1 Nonradiological Chemistry Comparisons Results i
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
!
February 1 - 5 1993 l
i l
3
5 l
Analyte Method Conc Ratio Acceptance Ranges Result
2RSD i 3RSD l
!
t Fluoride A
1.104 0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A
!
B
1.077 0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A
!
C
0.914 0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A
!
t Chloride A
1.180 0.933-1.067 0.900-1.100 D
l B
1.111 0.919-1.081 0.887-1.113 A+
!
C
0.979 0.926-1.074 0.895-1.105 A
!
i Sul fate A
0.938 0.895-1.105 0.842-1.158 A
!
B
0.992 0.895-1.105 0.868-1.132 A
i C
0.967 0.900-1.100 0.867-1.133 A
l l
Iron G
AA/FU
1.090 0.904-1.096 0.854-1.146 A
i H
1.131 0.903-1.097 0.857-1.143 A+
i I
1,069 0.903-1.097 0.855-1.145' A l
Copper G
AA/FU
1.074 0.904-1.095 0.859-1.141 A
H
0.993 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A
15 0.926 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A
l Sodium J
AA/F1
1.377 0.863-1.137 0.784-1.216
{
K
1.176 0.859-1.141 0.788-1.211 A+
i L
1.110 0.862-1.138 0.789-1.211 A
Lithium JJ AA/F1 500 1.082 0.859-1.141 0.788-1.212 A
l KK 1000 1.048 0.859-1.141 0.788-1.212 A
l LL 2500 1.037 0.868-1.142 0.787-1.213 A
[
t Ammonia M
Spec 500 1.068 0.902-1.098 0.856-1.147 A
N 600 1.044 0.902-1.098 0.856-1.147 A
l
1000 1.062 0.902-1.098 0.856-1.147 A
Hydrazine P Spec
0.985 0.922-1.078 0.888-1.118 A
J Q
0.977 0.922-1.078 0.888-1.118 A
R
0.973 0.922-1.078 0.888-1.118 A
)
Silica S
Spec
0.926 0.906-1.094 0.859-1.141 A
T
1.010 0.909-1.091 0.860-1.136 A
i i
{
,
.
.
.
- -
- - -
- -
,
_-_ --
.
_ _ - -.. -
- -. --
-
... -.
..
.
- ,
i'l
..
-l
!
RRm-Boron D-Titr 1000 0.994 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
E 1500 1.007 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
!
F 1000 0.999 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
!
!
i 1.
Methods: Titr - Titration
- Ion Chromatography
'
Spec - Ultraviolet / Visible Spectrophotometry
AA/FU - Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
'
'
Graphite Furnace AA/F1 - Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry Flame I
2.
Conc: Approximate concentration analyzed.
i 3.
Ratio of Licensee mean value to NRC mean value.
4.
The standard deviation (SD) in the sixth and' seventh columns represents
!
the coefficient of variation obtained from averaging licensee data from i
'
the preceding cycle (Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244).
A result is considered to be in agreement if it falls within the 12SD range; a
.
qualified agreement if it lies outside i2SD,. but within' 3 SD; and in
!
disagreement if it is outside the i3 SD range.
'
5.
Result:
A = Agreement: Licensee value is within 2 SDs of the NRC mean value.
A+ = Qualified agreement, licensee is between 12 and i3 SDs of
.
l the NRC value.
!
D - Disagreement: licensee value is outside 3 SDs.
.
!
i
?
.
,
f L
i I
[
t i
!