IR 05000289/1990017
| ML20058D314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D307 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-90-17, NUDOCS 9011060054 | |
| Download: ML20058D314 (12) | |
Text
y
,
,'./
h
?. L L.-' -
,
1.2
.
!
N.p LiJ
,
-
?
'
..
'
r
'
,,
!
!-
i I k2'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
,
.
REGION I
.
'_,
iReport No.
50-289/90-17
'
'
- Docket Noi.50-289
-
i
'. License No. 'DPR-50 e
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation
'P.-0.
Box 480 a
Middletown, PA 17057 Facility.Name:' Three' Mile. Island Nuclear Station - Unit 1~
Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania
,
- -
Inspection Conducted:
September 24-28, 1990
'-
s b
/. Inspectors-
^9'
/0 /4S /90 L.N. T. McNamara, Physic 411 Science Technician,.
' dat'e-
-
'
H
' ; Effluents. Radiation Protection Section (ERPS),
,
Faci:lities Radiological Safety ~ and Safeguards
-
. Branch.(FRSSB), Division of Radiation. Safety-i M
and-Safeguards-(DRSS).
'
<
,
,
?'
k0f hO
'
jo/ig./go.
'
<
k J. J. Kottan,.-Laboratory $Vecialist, ERPS,
'dat(-
', i l FRSSB,;0RSS.
~
'
,
- -;
y g_9
- R.- J. Bore's, Ch1R, ERPS, FRSSB, DRSS,
date
-
'
,
'
'
- Inspe'ction Summary:
Inspection on September 24-28, 1990 (Inspection
.
.,
,
- TReport.No,;b0-289/90-17)
g m
--
.g LAreas Inspected: LRoutine, unannounced inspection of the radiological _and
,
'
.,
,non.-. radio. logical chemistry programs ' Areas' reviewed-included:. confirmatory i
w measurements-radiological, standards analyses-chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC,
'!
-
-
.i cResults: Of the areas reviewed,.no violations were identified.
.
t
'
9011060054 901029
<
PDR ADOCK 05000289
'
O PDC y
i
,
_
.
- I u n'
,
.
.
.
.
.
'
v
..
I
-
r.
~
p
..
OETAILS j
a
- 1. ; l Individuals-Contacted-d
,
!
Principal 1 Licensee Employees
,
L. '
R. Bybel, Group Chemical Supervisor k
G. Chevalier,: Senior Chemist T. Davis, Jr., Chemistry Technician
-.
K.-Eppley, Chemistry Technician
'*
F. Fink, Chemistry Technician
.*
' *E.' Fuh.rer -Manager P1 ant Chemistry
'G. Grim,--Chemistry: Technician
'
,
- R. Knight,- Licensing Engineer.
,
M._Kuhn, Group' Chemical: Supervisor
T
'
- L. Lucas, Senior Chemist
.
my T. Pyke, Chemistry Technician l
_
i L*R.-Shaw,.Radeon' Director.
l
1*St. Williams,L-Radcon Engineer.
j
.
NRC Employees
,
DJ Beaulieu,-Resident Inspector j
t D' l John son ~,( Re si dent ; I n spector_
j
.
- S.0 Young,' Senior-Resident-Inspector
-
,
y"
,
E* Denotes;th_ose present at:-the exit meeting on' September 28, 1990.
-
.s
_
'Thesinspectors also interviewed other licensee: personnel, including other:
f membersfoffthe chemistry and radconostaffs.-
o<
,
a:;
,.
"2 n Purpose:
'
The7 purpose of this routine-inspection-was to review.the.following: areas,
"
>
,
.
'
.
q
'.,.
.
.
.
.
..
t
"q"
<L1.
?The lice'nsee's abi.lity to measure. radioactivity in plant. systems andt
-
effluentqsamples,qand the ability.to measure chemistry' parameters in.
-
'various. plant systems.
,.;
~
i.
?2.
(Thslicensee'sabilitytodemonstrate;theacceptability!of
"
'
.
analytical results;through -implementation ofLa laboratory QA/QC
/
program.-
.
cl
"
<
D 3.'
Radiological and-Chemical Measurement J
~
3.1: Confirmatory' Measurements'- Radiological-a
,
,
.q
>
^
'
.During this part ofi the. inspection,. liquid,- airborne particulate-
}
'(filter)?and iodine (charcoal' cartridge),- and gas samples were ti l.
y i
'
r n
I
-
a
,\\
'$
.
{
q
-,
[$)
e
_
'!
..
p
.
analyzed by the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercompa rison.
The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filter and charcoal cartridge.
In these cases the samples could not be split and the same samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC. Where possible, the samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated ~the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses.
These 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 j
Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
!
In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
,{
The analyses to be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55,
H-3, and gross alpha.
The results of these analyses will'be j
_
compared with the. licensee's results_when received at a later date and will_be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
,
The-results of a liquid effluent sample split between the licensee d
'
<
and the:NRC.during a previous inspection on November 14-18, 1988
- )
(Inspection Report'No. 50-289/88-30) were also compared during this inspection, q
The licensee's Radeon Department possesses a gamma spectrometry
sy s tem.- Therefore, theLparticulate filter and charcoal cartridge l
samples-were aise analyzed by the licensee using the Radeon
'!
Department's gamma spectrometry' system and were compared with the 'NRC
Lresults.
Both the particulate filter and charcoal' cartridge-are the f
ty' pes of samples which are routinely! analyzed by this department.
l
-
. _..
.The results of the sample measurements comparisons, presented in
~
h *
Table I,; indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement l
under the criteria used for ' comparing-results. - (See Attachment 1.)
]
!
In reviewing the results of the sample analyses the inspector noted
!
that the charcoal cartridge sample contained I-135, but.that this_
q
. isotope wa_s' not identified by the licensee.
Upon further review, J
t the inspector _ determined that the principal _ photopeaks of'I-135 were q
present in the licensee's gamma spectrometry system reak search
~
i repor+, but the I-135 was not reported because the licensee's gamma j
spectrometry system did not report any nuclide. that had undergone a
'mo s than ten half lives of decay.
The licensee decay-corrected the l
'
cF arcoal cartridge counting results from the. sample count time to
?
che midpoint of the sampling period. The normal, sampling period was
seven daysiand, therefore,-correction to the midpoint, approximately d
31/2 days, exceeded ten half-lives of I-135.
The inspector l
discussed this matter at some length with the licensee and stated
)
]
I
.
,
---
-
-
I o-
..
.
..
t
.y
-
.
!
that I 135 was clearly present on the charcoal cartridge and should, l
' be quantified and reported.
The licensee responded that the Technical
!
. Specifications only address 1-131 and I-133-for the purpose of
' calculating offsite doses and,.therefore, 1-135 need not be reported. Additionally, the licensee stated that extensive and costly software modifications might be necessary in order to
quantify. the I-135.
The inspector then further stated that the l
licensee should' assess.the method used to calculate the amount of j
short-lived radiciodine (half life less then eight days) released j
from the facility. When applying a decay correction to the l
midpoint of the sampling period for a nuclide which has a half-life
!
approximately equal to the' collection period, such as 1-131, this
'
results in a' decay correction factor which is very close to that q
obtained when integrating the equation for uniform radiciodine j
adsorption and decay during the collection period.
However, when applying the midpoint decay correction for nuclides with half lives
'
,
'less than1the collection period, such as:1-133 and I-135, this will i
result in an over estimation of the-amount of radioactivity
' '
- released.' ~ The licensee stated that this area would be reviewed
{
2and appropriate corrective action would be taken.
The inspector
-!
stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
.
The' inspector had nogfurther questions in this area. No violations l
-
were identified, l
3.2.' Standard Analyses - Chemical.
During this.partlof the inspection, standard chemical solutions were l
-
? submitted to the licensee for analysis.. The standards were prepared j
by'Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the NRC,-and were j
analyzed by'the licensee using. routine methcds-and equipment.
The 1!
- analysis:of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to
<l monitor. 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 withLrespect'to accuracy'and precision'.
.The. standards werelsubmitted to:the. licensee for-analysis in-
g
'
triplicate at three~' concentrations spread over the licensee's n'ormal-I calibration and analysis: range.
The sodium analyses, however, were
-
- performed at _only, two concentrations because. the' NRC sodium standard-
.
contained. lithium and the-lithium interfered with the sodium.
analysis at the:five parts per billion.(ppb) level.. Standards were
}
also analyzed.using the licensee's inlina ion chromatography (IC).
.
systems,.The ammonta analyses.were performed in; triplicate at three J
9; concentrations using th'e inline cation IC, but the chloride j
analyses were performed in triplicate.at-only one concentration using thefanion inline~IC.
,l j
l
.
T
- - - -
__;...............;....
...
.
. -
-
.
o
.
-.
.
The results of the standards measurements comparisons, presented in Table 11, indicated that all results were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for comparing results, (See Attachment 2).
It should be noted that at the present time the NRC has no criteria for comparing analytical results from inline
-
instrumentation.
However, in this case, the inline instrumentation met the criteria used for laboratory instrumentation.
No violations were identified in this area.
4.
Laboratory QA/QC The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC program.
The program is described in a number of procedures including the following.
N1826
" Control of Analytical Performance" N1828
" Quality Assurance Program for Radiological Effluent Monitoring" These procedures provide for both an intralaboratory QA/QC program and an interlaboratory QA/QC program.
The inspector noted that the licensee had implemented a new QA/QC program for chemical analyses.
This new program,.
in addition to establishing guidance for the preparation and use of control charts and defining the interlaboratory program, also provided for the determination of detection limits and quantification limits.
The. inspector reviewed selected data for 1989 and 1990 to date and noted that the licensee appeared to be implementing the program as required.
In particular, the inspector noted the' extensive data review of'QA/QC results performed by= the Senior Chemist, and the timely 1 follow-up of discrepancies identified as a result of the interlaboratory program.
No violations were identified in this area.
5.
Exit Interview
'The inspector met with the icensee representatives denoted in Section 3 of. this report at the conciu> ion of the inspection on September 28, 1990.
,The inspector summarized the' purpose, scope and findings of the inspectio..
. -
.
,i s
Table I i
Three Mile Island Unit 1 Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON j
'
Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter RMAS Charcoal I-131 (2.23*0.04)E-10 (2.2210.09)E-10 Agreement i
Cr tridge I-133 (3.0510.07)E-9-(3.2010.15)E-9 Agreement
!
0830 hrs 1-135 (5.710.6)E-8 Not Reported No Comparison 9-26 90
RMA 5 Charcoal I-131 (2.23*0.04)E10 (2.3710.09)E-10 Agreement Cartridge I-133 (3.05t0.07)E-9 (3.310.2)E-9 Agreement 0830 hrs 9-26-90
,
(Radeonresults)
'
'
Mn-54 (7.110.7)E-6 (8.1*1.6)E-6 Agreement Bleed Tank 00-58 (1.5310.02 E-4 (1.6410.06)E-4 Agreement 0745 hrs Co-60 (4.3510.11 E-5 (3.510.4)E-5 Agreement 9-28-90 Cs-134 (2.0010.02 E-4 (2.1110.07)E-4 Agreement
'
Cs-137 (3.4610.02 E-4 (3.6010.09)E-4 Agreement
.
RMA5 Gas l'r-85m (3.010.3)E-7 2.610.5)E-!
Agreement.
Sample Kr-88 (7.0il.0)E-7 6.811.3 E-7 Agreement
-
,
1650 hrs Xe-133 (7.310.2)E-6 9.311.0 E-6 Agreement'
9-27-90 Xe-135 (3.66*0.08)E-6 (3.510.3E-6 Agreement Xe-135m (3.110.2)E.6 (2.810.4E-6 Agreement
,
Vent Header Gas Xe 133 (8.6810.05)E-5 (9.3fl.0)E-5 Agreement
Sample Xe-135 (1.5910.05)E-6 (1.7*0.2)E-6 Agreement 1310 hrs 9-27-90 Waste Gas Decay X1-133 (2.36810.012)E-4 (2.510.3)E-4 Agreement Tank Sample
,
0905 hrs 9-26-90^
,
RCS-Crud Filter Co-b8 (3.3910.02)E-4 (2.8110.08)E-4 Agreement
. 0001 hrs I-133 (5.010.2)E-5 (4.7f0.2)E-5 Agreement
>
9-27-90 I-135 (8.2f0.7)E-5 (7.310.2)E-5 Agreement
._
'O e
.
i i
.
'
.
.
!
,.
I TableI(continued)
Three Mile Island Unit 1 Verification Test Results
,
SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON,
Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter
[
,
RCS-Crud filter 00-58.
(3.3910.02)E-4 (2.8010.09)E-4 Agreement
!
0001 hrs 1-133 (5.0f0.2)E-5 (4.710.2)E-5 Agreement
.
9-27-90 1-135 (8.210.7)E-5 (8.910.7)E-5 Agreement (RadeonResults)
,
Waste Evaporator Co-58 (1.4410.14)E.7 (1.410.3)E-7 Agreement Condensate Storage i
Tank "A" Sample
'
2210 hrs
,
9-24-90 i
Reactor Coolant I-131 (1.7410.04)E-3 (1.610.2iE-3 Agreement-Letdown Sample I-132 (2.7010.11)E-2 (2.6i0.4)E<?
Agreement
.
t 0005 hrs 1-133 (1.87010.015 )t -i (1.73i0.06)t 2 Agreement 9 25-90-I-135 (3.4110.09)E-2 3.010.3 E-2 Agreement Na-24 (3.5410.11)E-3 3.410.3 E-3 Agreement Cs-137 (7.3i0.4)E-4 7.011.1 E-4 Agreement Waste Evaporator-Fe-55
.
(812)E-8 (1.4122%)E-7 Agreement
'
Condensate
_
gross alpha (Oi9)E-10
< 1.6E-8 No Comparison Storage. Tank H-3 (4.77f0.05)E-2 (4.72*10%)E-2 Agreement
"A", Sample *
P-32 (-112E-8
< 1.4E-7 No Comparison-i 1215 hrs Sr-89-(-212 E-8
< 1. 3E-8 No Comparison
'11-30-88 Sr-90-(413 E-9
< 7.3E-9 No Comparison l
.
!
- NOTE: Sample split during previous inspection.
!
t b
n
,
,
,
,--y, e
_
_
- 9, j
,
.
'
.
i i
TABLE II Three Mile Island - Unit 1
'
Chemistry Test Results
,
Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Copper GFAA-19.910.4 21.310.6 1.0710.04 Agreement
>
40.510.3 43.011.0 1.06i0.03 Agreement i
59.510.5 63.310.6 1.06410.013 Agreement
Iron GFAA 19.810.3 19.011.0 0.96i0.05 Agreement
'
39.211.0 39.711.2 1.0110.04 Agreement i
58.011.0 58.011.0 1.0010.02 Agreement Silica SP 4914 51.2710.15 1.05i0.09 Agreement 55.011.0 52.4t0.4 0.93i0.02
' Agreement 80.511.5
'79.5t0.2 0.9910.02 Agreement
'
Hydrazine SP 42.3i0.9 40.7310.06 0.96t0.02 Agreement 84.4t0.6 01.010.5 0.960f0.009 Agreement i
10213 100.310.3'
O.98i0.03 Agreement
- Fluoride-1SE 24.011.0 24t0 1.0010.04 Agreement 4812 51.711.5 1.0810.05 Agreement 7413 76.310.6 1.0310.04 Agreement-
' Sulfate:
IC-1913 22i2 1.210.2-Qualified-
,
Agreement 3814 42.0f0.4 1.1010.11-Agreement
,
60t4 6413 1.0710.09 Agreement Chloride IC 30f2 31.510.2 1.05f0.07 Agreement i
62t4 60.SiO.2 0.9810.06 Agreement
'
9.Si0.5 9.310.4 0.9810.07 Agreement
- Sodium GFAA 1.0210.04 0.9510.02 0.9310.04 Agreement
'
3.0410.08 2.8710.09 0.94i0.04 Agreement i
t
-
-r
-,.
s a
.
-
.
!
TABLE II (continued)
l Three Mile Island - Unit 1 Chemistry Test Results i
Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per million (ppm)
,
i Boron Tit.
1030f20 1003.0tl.0 0.9710.02 Oualified i
Agreement s
2990140 299919 1.00310.014 Agreement i
1020120 1024113 1.0010.02 Agreement
>
lithium AA 0.79210.012 0.8910.03 1.1210.04 Agreement 1.1710.03 1.35010.010 1.1510.03 Qualified Agreement 0.39510.006 0.47310.006 1.2010.02 Qualified Agreement
!
Inline Instrumentation Results**
Results in parts per million (ppm)
Ammonia IC 1.0210.05 0.996t0.003 0.9810.05
-
-0.310f0.010 0.326710.0006 1.0510.03'
'
-
O.50f0.02.
0.49310.009 0.99f0.04
-
Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Chloride IC-3.010.2 3.17*0.02 1.0410.07
-
l L
NOTES:
L
- GFAA Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
=
L SP.
= UV - Vis. Spectrophotometry ISE
= -Ion Selective Electrode IC-
=.lon Chromatography AA.
=. Flame Atomic-Absorption Spectrometry Tit.
' Titration
=
- The NRC currently has no criteria for the comparison;of results~from inline instrumentation
!
'
,_
_
.. _.
.
.
.
.,
-
ie
.. -
.
,
.
-
.
,
- -
L ATTACHMENT 1
_
.
!'
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TABLE I 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 h
comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated L
uncertainty.
As the 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.
_ Resolution 1 Ratio for Agreement 2
<3 No Comparison p
4-7 0.5 - 2.0 F
8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33
200 0.80 - 1.25
.
>200 0.85 - 1.18 n
2-Resolution = (NRC Reference _Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
L.
!-
L g
I e
--_
- -. - - - - -.
.
.
.
-
.
ATTACHMENT 2 i
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TABLE 11
.~
This attachment pivvides criteria for comparing results 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 values are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but
[-
within the 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 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 11 are as follows.
--.
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range
--
Copper 18.0-21.8 17.1-22.7 36.6-44.4 34.7-46.3 53.8-65.2 51.0-68.0 Iron 17.9-21.7 16.9-22.7 35.4-43.0 33.6-44.8 52.4-63.6 49.6-66.4 Silica 44.4-53.6 42.1-55.9 50.0-60.0 47.3-62.5 73.0-88.0 69.0-92.0 Hydrazine 39.0-45.6 37.4-47.2 77.9-90.9 74.6-94.2 94.0-130.0 90.0-114.0
-
Fluoride 21-27 20-28-42-54 40-56 65-83 61-87 Sulfate 17-21 16-22 34-42 33-43
--
--
54-66 52-68
_
-_
-
- -. - - - - -,.....
,
.
.
..
.
'
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 (continued)
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range Chloride 28-32 27-33 57-67 55-69 8.8-10.2 8.5-10.5
{
Sodium 0.88-1.16 0.80-1.24 2.62-3.46 2.40-3.68 Boron 1008-1052 997-1063 2926-3054 2894-3086 998-1042 987-1053
.
Lithium 0.680-0.904 0.628-0.956 L.
1.008-3.336 0.920-1.424 0.340-0.450 0.312-0.478
_
-
-
M
-
.
.
i----i-----