IR 05000277/1990009
| ML20042G062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G061 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-90-09, 50-277-90-9, 50-278-90-09, 50-278-90-9, NUDOCS 9005110052 | |
| Download: ML20042G062 (11) | |
Text
...
.~
g
.-
_,
,
L:
..
Qi
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
REGION I
_
=50-277/90-09-
. Report No.: 50-278/90-09 3-
'
50-277 Docket No.
50-278'
<
l?
License No.-
DPR-56 Licensee:
Philadelhhia Electric Company 2301 Marcet Street PFiladelphia. Pennsylvania 19101 Facility-Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3 Inspection.At:
Delta, Pennsylvania N
Inspection Conducted: April 2-6. 1990
!
U
' Inspectors: Net T MC Tomt&lh- '
Vfd7 90 N. T. McN(Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
nara, Laboratory Assistant, date Effluents.
,.
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
,
L
'
fp
.'
S).
4 ' L7 -'70-J.-J.Kottin,-Laboratory Specialist, Effluents date
>4
"
Radiation Protection Section, FRSSB k
Approved by:
T'O O@
'
,
1*
R. J. Bo Ws, Chief, Effluents Radiation date Protection Section, FRSSB, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
'
.
sInspection' Summary,:
Inspection on April 2-6, 1990 (Combined Inspection
'g
-_ Report Numbers 50 277/90-09 and 50-278/90-09)
-Areas Inspected:
Routine.junannounced inspection _of the radiological and
- non-radiological chemistry programs. Areas reviewed included
- = confirmatory measurements-radiological, standards analysis-chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC,
'Results: Of'the areas reviewed, no violations were identified.
9005n oO52 90043o x
,
[DR ADOCK c5000277
'
PDC y
,,
,
- -
_
_
_. __ ___-_
- _ _ _ - _ _
,
. -
I t
,4
.
f o
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted I.
- D. Foss, Regulatory T. Hoopes, Chemistry Technical Assistant
- T. King, Chemistry Technical Assistant
- D. LeQuia, Superintendent of Plant Services C. Mareino, Chemistry Technician
- M. Moore,'NQA A. Odell, Senior Chemist
- G. Stenclik,. Radiochemist T. Taylor,_ Senior Chemistry Technician
- H. Watson, Chemistry Supervisor E. Wilson, Chemistry Technician Other personnel J. Lyash, NRC Senior Resident Inspector L. Myers.-NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Urban, NRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes-those personnel who attended the exit meeting on April-6, 1990.
The inspectors also interviewee other licensee personnel inc,1uding other members of the chemistry staff.
-
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine instection was to review the following' areas._
1.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems and
,.
effluent samples, and ability to measure chemistry parameters in-
'
various plant systems.
U
-
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 Measurenents 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 same sanples were analyzed by both the licensee and NRC with the exception of the stack gas sample, which I
- im,>--
w -
.:
h, i
?,
....
!
was an actual split sample. Where possible, the samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for radioactive effluent sample analyses..The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measure;nents 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 and other regulatory requirements.
- ,
[
In addition, a liquid effluent. sample was sent to the NRC reference p
laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental E
Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
L The analyses to be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, H-3, and gross 41pha. 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.
The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on February 2-6, 1987 (Inspection Report Numbers 50-277/87-05 and 50-278/87-05) were also compared
!'
during this inspection.
The results of the sample measurements intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria
. for comparing results.
(See Attachment 1.) The results of the
.
radioactivity mcasurements comparisons are listed in Table I.
The L
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 (BNL) 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 mr Stor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specifications 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 standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal-calibration range.
The boron analyses by titration were performed in duplicate due to the lack of sufficient volume of the NRC-supplied standard to perform the analysis in triplicate.
- i
,
A
___
.,
v
.
'
P
,
!
The results of the standards measurements comparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used
!
for comparing results (see Attachment 2) with one exception. The
'
one exception was the boron results. The licensee routinely performs boron analyses by potentiometric titration with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) after the addition of inannitol to the sample. The
,
licensee uses a pH starting and end point of 7.6 in the. titration.
The NaOH concentration is one normal (IN). The inspector witnessed the boron analysis and noted that it was difficult for the chemistry technician to end the titration at the required pH because of the-high normality of the NaOH solution. The NaOH could only be added to the sample in approximately 0.05 m1 increments. As the chemistry technician approached the titration end point, one additional drop of NaOH added to the sample results-in a pH value greater than the end point.
In order to compensate for this problem the licensee's chemistry technicians noted the volume of NaOH used prior to exceeding the endpoint and used that volume in the calculations.
Thus, the licensee was always using the volume of NaOH prior to reaching the titration end point.
In addition, the use of IN NaOH solution made it difficult for the licensee to accurately assess the blank correction which is used in the calculation of the final boron concentration results.
The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee, and the licensee stated that appropriate corrective action, such as reducing the strength of the NaOH solution, would be taken.
The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No violations were identified in this area.
~!
4,0 Laboratory _QAlqC The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC program.
The program is described in a number of procedures:'
CH-1 Chemistry Organization and Administrative Policy l
CH-33 Effluent Analysis Quality. Assurance Program CH-39 Preparation, Use and Review of Quality Control Charts
.RT7.4.2 Periodic QC Check for Chemistry Technicians RT7.21 Counting Room Quality Assurance Program - Cross Check Analysis Program RCA-le Chemistry Quality Control Program These 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 periodic analyses of spiked samples.
The spiked sample results were plotted on control charts.
The interlaboratory program consisted of the analysis of unknown samples from an outside laboratory for chemical parameters, and a split sample program,. using actual samples, with an outside laboratory j
s t
.
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
[*
!.
Yr ti for radioactivity analyses.
The licensee's procedures contain acceptance criteria for comparing these results.
The inspector reviewed selected L..
data generated by the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program for 1989 and 1990 to date and noted that the licensee appeared to be implementing the-laboratory QA/QC program as required.
The inspector noted, however, that the licensee had no program in place for the vendor laboratory used for radioactive effluent sample analyses which require wet chemistry.
The licensee stated that arrangements had been made for the licensee to receive spiked samples from an outside e
supplier. These spikes would include those radionuclides normally L
analyzed on site by the licensee as well as those analyzed by the vendor laboratory. The licensee stated that those spiked samples requiring
,
radiochemical separations would be sent to the vendor laboratory. - The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent.
!
inspection.
The inspector also noted that the licensee had one individual within the chemistry organization with responsibility for the laboratory QA/QC program.
This one individual was responsible for periodic control chart review and evaluation.
These reviews were very detailed and included the total number of data points, the number cf points above or below the mean, consecutive numbers of points above or below the mean, and P
any identifiable trends. The inspector stated that the oversight which this individual provided the laboratory QA/QC progrsm was excellent, and
'
this appeared to be a noted strength of the laboratory QA/QC program.
No violations were identified in this area.
S.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of this-report-at the conclusion of the inspection on April 6, 1990.
The-inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
.
L i
i.
-f$
+m
.__. - _ _ _.
-
p.
, -
.
t
'
. -
p Table I i
i Peach Bottom Verification Test Results i
f SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON
!
Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter f
I'
Reactor Water Co-58 (4.010.2)E-4 (3.85115.7%)E-4 Agreement U
0940 hrs Co-60 (2.2t0.2)E-4 (1.70130.4%)E-4 Agreement i
p 4-5-90 Cu-64 (1.25t0.05)E-1 (1.4319.8%)E-1 Agreement
k
- (detector #3)
,Zn-65 (5.810.4)E-4 (7.20121.0%)E-4 Agreement
'
I-132 (4.0210.06)E-3 (4.1512.9%)E-3 Agreement.
'
I-133 (2.2410.02)E-3 (2.2212.6%)E-3 Agreement t
'
I-134 (1.2510.06)E-2 (1.3212.7%)E-2 Agreement j
'
- 1-135 (5.5610.12)E-3 (5.3515.6%)E-3 Agreement-
'
Na-24 (3.94 0.04)E-3 (4.02t2.5%)E-3 Agreement
-,
Fuel Pool 00-60 (4.1110.06)E-5 2 7712.0% E-5 Agreement e
. 110E hrs Zn-65-(1.3910.07)E-5 1.2318.3% E-5 Agreement
1 4-5-90 Cs-137 (3.26110.013)E-4 3.2210.6% E-4 Agreement
'
(detector #3)
Cs-134 (7.1910.07)E-5 (6.8411.2%)E-5 Agreement
.l
,
,
F Offgas Kr-85m (4.0610.07)E-3 (4.28tl.0%)E-3 Agreement
~ 1028 hrs
.Kr-88-(9.010.2)E-3 ( 9. 512. 2%)E-3 Agreement
4-4-90 Xe-133 (1.2110.02)E-2 (1.3710.8%)E-2 Agreement i
- (detector #2)
Xe-135 (1.98510.014)E-2 (1.9010.5%)E-2 Agreement Kr-87 (9.010.2)E-3'
(1.0111.3%)E-2 Agreement Main Stack Xe-133 (2.910,5)E-7 (2.41116.0%)E-7 Agreement-l Gas Xe-135 (2.010.3)E-7 ( 2. 318. 4%)E-7 Agreement
,
i.
0825 hrs 4-4-90
'
(detector #3)
- Unit 3 1-131 ( 2,2:t3. 3)E-8 (2.12t12.3%)E-8 Agreement
Equipment-I-133-(2.310.3)E-8 (2.11113.2%)E-8 Agreement-(
i'
Cell,(Charcoal s
- Cartridge)
'
' -
1005 hrs t'
- 4-5-90'
,
- (detector #2)
,
n-i
-
,
i F
.;
-
w
.j
l.
..
'.
.
K
.
,
Table I Peach _ Bottom Verification Test Results SAMPLE
' ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Total Microcuries Reactor Water Mn-54 (5.010.2)E-2-(5.1913.6%)E-2 Agreement Clean Up FilterL Co-58 (3.48t0.03)E-1 (3.4510.6%)E-1 Agreement 1355 hrs ~
Co-60-(7.9510.04)E-1 (7.8210.5%)E-1 Agreement-
.4-1-90 _
Zn-65 (8.72i0.07)E-1 (8.6910.8%)E-1 Agreement (detector #2)
1-131 (9.010.2)E-2 (8.8811.6%)E-2 Agreement Ba-140 (1.4810.06)E-1 (1.5013.7%)E-1 Agreement Results in Microcuries per Milliliter Main Stack I-131 (6.310.6)E-8 (7.6116.8%)E-8 Agreement (Charcoal I-133 (5.511.4)E-8 (4.6117.0%)E-8 Agreement Cartridge)
0900 hrs
'4-2-90-(detector #1)
- Floor Drain-Fe-55 (4.011.0)E-7 (3.7116%)E-7 Agreement Sample Tank.
H-3 (3.4110.05)E-3 (3.62110%)E-3 Agreement 1200 hrs-Sr-89 (-513)E-8
<2.3E-8 No Comparison
_2-3-87 Sr-90 (1.510,5)E-8
<8.3E-9 No Comparison
,
<
- Results from sample' split during previous inspection See Section 3.1 of Report
,
+
'
,.. _ _. -,.... -.... -.. -
1*
e
,
TABLE 11 Peach Bottom Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysi s*
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Con' pari son Results in_ parts per billion (ppb)
Chloride IC 3012 29.010.3 0.9710.07 Agreement 3112 28.710.5 0.9210.06 Agreement 4813 44.010.5 0.92610.012 Agreement Sulfate IC 1913 18.4310.15 0.9710.15 Agreement 1912 18.610.2 1.0410.10 Agreement 3012 27.52 0.11 0.9210.06 Agreement Silica SP 4914 50.510.5 1.0310.08 Agreement 55.011.0 50.910.4 0.9310.02 Agreement 80.511.5 76.1 0.2 0.9410.02 Agreement Iron DCP 19813 209.710.6 1.0610.02 Agreement 392110 37813 0.9610.03 Agreement 580110 55818 0.9610.02 Agreement Copper DCP 19914 19614 0.9810.03 Agreement 40513 387 5 0.95610.014 Agreement 59515 58213 0.97810.010 Agreement Nickel DCP 20315 20414 1.0010.03 Agreement 40316 38913 0.9710.02 Agreement 610110 57214 0.9410.02 Agreement Chromium DCP 200110 20213 1.0110.05 Agreement 40419 393111 0.9710.03 Agreement 60017 58619 0.9810.02 Agreement
- Boron Tit.
29914 28610 0.95710.013 Disagreement 510110 491.510.7 0.9610.02 Disagreement
- Note:
SP UV-Vis Spectrophotometry
=
IC-Ion Chromatography
=
Tit = Potentiometric Titration DCP Directly Coupled Plasma Spectrometry
=
- Duplicate Analysis Only
i
p,-
-
,
.
.
.
.
- -
,
b
g
'
.
4:
'j L
!
I ATTACHMENT 1 to TABLE 1
'
i'
.
.l CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL' MEASUREMENTS.
!
.
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests i
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 l'
. comparison.of the NRC Reference Laboratory's'value to its associated
'
uncertainty. As the ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution",
L increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the n
- f resolution decreases.
c U
Resolution 8 Ratio for Agreement *
V
<3 No Comparison 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 i
k; 5 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
p Ratio =-(License Value/NRC Reference Value)
e
'
,,
t.
l
.
l
t
!
.
'
.
,
s
-.
E
{Fi o.-
- t
,
..
,
.
i
?
!
ATTACHMENT 2 i
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
'
h
This attachment provides criteria for comparing result of capability tests, i
In these criteria.the judgement limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of n
NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power
'
Reactors'!.
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standerd deviation
[.
range (12Sd) of the BNL known value are considered to be in agreement.
L Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but i
['
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 standard deviations range of the BNL p'
known value.are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using
',
^=
the average percent ~-standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1.
.
.
'
The ranges for the data in Table II are as follows:
,
!
Agreement Qualified Agreement l
Analyte Range Range
!
'
Chloride 28-32 27-33; 28-34 27-35 44-51 42-53 Sulfate 17-21 16-22
.,
17-21 16-22.
,
27-33 26-34
.;
Silica-44-54 42-56
.[
50-60 47-63 i
73-88 69-92
.
Iron 179-217 169-227 i
354-430 336-448
."
524-636 496-664 Copper 180-218 171-227 366-444 347-463
538-652 510-680
-
.
e g.
>
~
e 23.-ll g,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.r
.
,
,
- bg
..
,
.
,
..,
,.
.
, }
.',E
.
j
,
r
'
J; %.
.,.
- < J 3
- .
e s.
.
e
' -
,
-
0,
e
.tyy
- ao d'i r-
- . ;
+
.
.,
a c
-
.. s
,
i
,:
-
p t ei
-
.t
'
,
.
ti
<
j
,
,
,i ATTACHMENT ? (continued)
l e
,
i -
,
~ Agreement Qualified Agreement'
-
-~
,
Analyte Range Range-
.
<
-
,
.
.
..
190-216
.184-222'
~
.
-
. Nickel.
-
378-428
'366-440
-
.
-572-648 553-667
.
.
J Q
-
Chromium 181-219
.171-229
365-443 345-463'
-c
~i
542-658 512-688 i
- Boron 292-305 289-309-
4
,cc, 499-521 493-526 i
e
,
t f
!
<
.,
a
. >
t
,
.' t
-
,
W.., -
' I,
.
( '-,
,ta
-
m<
,
[
'i
h.ig
.
,
y,
- i t
/
-
4. f
[7c.;.,
9s
^!
L q
h '$ i+,
,{
,>
'i e
..
l
+
'..
t f(
n<
r
~, ' _.. -
f
,r
.;
.I"."..
-i'
-
$
"
.,....
Uf sarq l_
-
j
-
,
ni s
sg
" 'i fl',, l c 's y,.
.;
'
-
'
w o,-
l
,
'
..
b l
..
n Iyy l
)
i i'
.
_!
w ry t
,
!
- <
>
-;
i V
I
,
,!4 i s j
1
._.
{
f-Y_!;l.
'
r
,
,+1.~*
a fir
...-r 4,