IR 05000333/1993013
| ML20046C913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Mcnamara N, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046C911 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-93-13, NUDOCS 9308130019 | |
| Download: ML20046C913 (9) | |
Text
~
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.:
50-333/93-13 Docket No.:
50-333
.
License Nos:
,
Licensee:
New York Power Authority P. O. Box 41 Lycomine. New York Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Lycoming. New York Inspection Conducted:
July 12-16.1993 Inspectars:
4 mmeuf[
7//s /13
/ at'e 1. Peluso, Radiation Specialist d
Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
{/&r n T fMeAlmtit1j 4'30-93 N. T. McNamara,12boratory Specialist, ERPS date Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved By:
7 40-93 Robert J. Mores, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insnected: Announced safety inspection of the radiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included: Confirmatory Measurements - Radiochemistry, Audits and Surveillances and Laboratory QA/QC.
Results: The licensee had in place effective programs for measuring radioactivity in process and effluent samples. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were observed.
930813o019 930904 PDR ADDCK 05000333 G
.
,
.-
.
?
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted
,
Principal Licensee Employees
,
- B. Barrett, General Manager Operations
,
- T. Bergene, Alara Supervisor
- B. Gorman, NYPA/JAF Environmental Supervisor
- W. Hamblin, Chemistry Supervisor i
- D. Linding, General Manager Maintenance
- J. McCarty, Sr. Quality Engineer
- '
- A. McKeen, Acting RES Manager
- M. McMahon, H.P. General Supervisor
- E. Mulcahey, Sr. Licensing Engineer
- H. SalNn, Resident Manager i
- J. Solini, Radiation Engr. Gen. Supervisor
- A. Zaremba, Organization Manager NRC Employees
,
!
- J. Furia, Sr. Radiation Specialist
- J. Kottan, Laboratory Specialist
,
- R. Ragland, Jr., Radiation Specialist
- J. Tappert, Resident Inspector Denotes those present during the exit meeting on August 21,1992. The
inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel, including members of the chemistry department.
.
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following areas.
1.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems samples and effluent samples.
>
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
.
p
.
i-3-3.0 Radiolonical Measurements During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee's Chemistry Department and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filter, charcoal cartridge and the offgas sample. 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 and process samples or other in-plant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent and process sample analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC Region 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 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 j
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 from a liquid sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on October 21-25,
,
1991 (Inspection Report No. 50-333/91-24) were also compared during this
inspection.
The results of the comparisons for all of the above sample results that were available, which are presented in Table I, indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment I to i
Table I). However, for the liquid sample split during the previous inspection, RESL performed only the Fe-55 analysis and did not complete the rest of the analyses (Sr-89, Sr-90, H-3, and gross alpha). The Fe-55 analysis was in agreement when compared to the licensee's results. The inspector informed the licensee that the liquid sample split for the wet chemistry analyses during this inspection will be
analyzed by RESL for all the required radionuclides and results will be compared as soon as received.
During the previous inspection, the licensee's measurement results of radioactive noble gases from a stack sample were biased higher than the NRC's results, with the-
.
'
Xe-133 result being in disagreement. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's action for determining the reason for the disagreement. The licensee believed that the gas standard they had used in 1991 for the gas Marinelli beaker counting geometry calibration may have been defective. The licensee purchased a new calibration standard in early 1992, and compared this new standard to the 1991 b
,
_.
_
._
-
\\
-4-standard. The efficiencies increased 15% with the most significant changes at the j
low energy end of the calibration curve, which would affect the Xe-133 result. The
)
licensee recalculated the results from the previous inspection using the 1992 j
efficiencies and the comparison was in agreement. The inspector noted that the l
licensee's action to resolve this disagreement and the documentation of their evaluation and results were excellent. All the results for the stack gas sample split during this inspection were in agreement. The inspector had no further concerns in this area.
+
4.0 Laboratory OA/OC The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Procedures, CDP-17, Revision 11, which is a supplement to the licensee's Chemistry Manual, Section 4, Chemistry Quality and Assurance Control Program. Since the last inspection, the
,
licensee had mcorporated into Section 4 of the Chemistry Manual the guidelines of the Electric Council of New England (ENCE) 12boratory Quality Control Manual.
'
The inspector noted the ECNE manual was quite thorough and provided a good basis
for the operation of the licensee's QA/QC program.
[
The QA/QC procedures provided for the control of analytical performance through various mechanisms. The intralaboratory program consisted of the use of instrument and procedure control charts. The licensee also prepared spiked samples which were analyzed by Chemistry Department technicians to identify technician and/or method error. The inspector noted the licensee's review of the control charts was thorough and well documented. The interlaboratory program consisted of-participation in the Analytics, Inc. and NIST crosscheck programs in which spiked unknown samples of various sample media were sent to the licensee for preparation and analyses. These samples were also sent to the licensee's vendor laboratory, which was used for effluent radioactivity analyses, in order to assess the performance of this laboratory.
j The inspector reviewed cross check data for both the Analytics, Inc. and NIST
,
programs for 1992 and the first quarter of 1993. The inspector stated that the participation in these programs was a noted positive attribute to the chemistry program, particularly with the immediate action that was taken to review data and resolve any disagreements. Based upon this data review the inspector determined that the licensee was implementing the laboratory QC program as required.
'
5.0 Audits The licensee conducts audits of the vendor laboratory for verification of the quality of the analytical services. The inspector reviewed documentation on these audits for both May 1991 and February 1992, as well as, surveillance type audits performed over the past two years. The audit teams were comprised of two licensee individuals and one
.
.
5-outside contractor. The inspector noted that the audit preparation, performance and documentation were excellent. Audit recommendations and concerns were well tracked and a designated individual had the responsibility of verifying that the vendor laboratory addressed the audit findings.
!
In September,1992, the licensee designated an individual to implement a quality assurance audit program for the radiological area. Although the chemistry area had not been specifically audited due to other priority audits, the audits that the inspector did review were well prepared, detailed and documented. Also, the licensee had initiated a tracking system for items of concern and recommendations, therefore requiring the department being audited to respond in a timely manner. The inspector discussed with the licensee the auditing of the chemistry laboratories. The
'
licensee committed to perform a chemistry surveillance in the third quarter,1993 and possibly schedule an audit prior to the end of the year. The inspector had no
!
further concerns in this area.
6.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the
'
conclusion of the inspection on July 16, 1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection. The license acknowledged the inspection finding. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
- _ _ _
.
TABLE 1 FitzPatrick Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE bJtC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries per Milliliter Gas Kr-85m (6.4 1 0.2)
E-7 (7.9 0.8)
E-7 Agreement Main Stack Kr-87 (3.06 i 0.08) E-6 (3.58 0.05) E-6 Agreement 1412 hrs.
Kr-88 (2.21 0.11) E-6 (2.26 i 0.06) E-6 Agreement 7-15-93 Xe-133 (2.64 0.05) E-6 (3.14 1 0.07) E-6 Agreement (Detector #1)
Xe-135m (3.02 0.14) E-6 (3.78 0.07) E-6 Agreement Xe-135 (3.11 0.05) E-6 (3.30 t 0.03) E-6 Agreement Xe-138 (1.09 1 0.04) E-5 (1.26 i 0.02) E-5 Agreement Offgas Kr-87-(1.33 0.07) E-3 (1.29 0.06) E-3 Agreement Post Treatment Xe-133 (7.7 0.4)
E-4 (7.0 0.5)
E-4 Agreement 0945 hrs.
Xe-133m (3.7 0.3)
E-3 (3.31 0.08) E-3 Agreement 7-15-93 Xe-135 (1.05 0.04) E-3 (8.7 0.3)
E-4 Agreement (Detector #4)
Liquid Fe-55 (4.15 0.02) E-5 (4.1 i 0.2)
E-5 Agreement Radioactive Waste (V-3 Outlet)
0935 hrs.
10-23-91
i 1 oi 3
-
-- ----
-
- -.
- -...
.
- -
.
... ~
.
.-.
'5
,
.
TABLE 1 FitzPatrick Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON
,
Results in Microcuries ocr Milliliter Reactor Coolant I-132 (2.03 1 0.06) E-4 (1.9 0.2)
E-4 Agreement (2 hr. count)
I-133 (5.8 i 0.4)
E-5 (5.6 0.7)
E-5 Agreement 0735 hrs.
I-134 (5.9
.04)
E-4 (6.1 0.7)
E-4 Agreement 7-14 3 (Det. tor #4)
Reactor Coolant Cr-51 (4.88 0.05)
E-5 (4.8 0.3)
E-5 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (6.17 i 0.08)
E-6 (6.0 i 0.4)
E-6 Agreement 0830 hrs.
Co-60 (7.22 0.11)
E-6 (7.6 i 0.5)
E-6 Agreement 7-15-93 Zn-65 (6.12 0.15)
E-6 (6.3 i 0.7)
E-6 Agreement (Detector #3)
Reactor Coolant Na-24 (2.312 0.09) E-3 (2.26 0.09)
E-3 Agreement Cation Filter Mn-54 (2.45 i 0.09)
E-5 (2.31 0.09)
E-5 Agreement (24 hr. count)
Co-58 (8.65 1 0.11)
E-5 (8.28 i 0.11)
E-5 Agreement 0735 hrs.
Co-60 (1.086 t 0.012) E-4 (1.080 0.013) E-4 Agreement 7/14/93 Zn-65 (2.59 0.03)
E-4 (2.63 0.03)
E-4 Agreement (Detector #3)
20f3
-
..
-
.
. ~..
__
- -
L
.
TABLE 1 FitzPatrick Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON T'
Results in Microcuries per Milliliter Reactor Coolant I-131 (2.2 0.2)
E-6 (3.02 0.12)
E-6 Agreement Anion Filter I-133 (3.61 1 0.09) E-5 (3.79 0.05)
E-5 Agreement (24 hr. count)
0735 7-14-93 (Detector #2)
P1 ant Vent I-131 (3.6 0.2)
E-13 (3.9 i 0.5)
E-13 Agreement Charcoal Cartridge I-133 (3.8 0.4)
E-12 (3.2 0.3)
E-12 Agreement 1105 hrs.
7-12-93 (Detector #1)
Liquid Radioactive Waste Mn-54 (3.53 0.04)
E-5 (4.1 i 0.2)
E-5 Agreement (Waste Co-58 (5.6 i 0.2)
E-6 (5.5 1.1)
E-6 Agreement Neutralizer Tank)
Co-60 (1.080 0.006) E-4 (1.20 0.03)
E-4 Agreement 1053 hrs.
Zn-65 (4.02 i 0.07)
E-5 (4.1 0.4)
E-5 Agreement 7/15/93 Cs-137 (9.7 0.2)
E-6 (9.7 1.4)
E-6 Agreement (Detector #4)
3of3
.
.
.
_
_
_,
. _ _
-
.
,
,
'
ATTACHMENT 1 TO TABLE I l
faile_nig for Comparine Analytical Measurements of Table I r
!
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.
l In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC l
Reference Laboratory's value to its associated 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'
Ratio for Aareement2
,
<4 No comparison
-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 8 Resolution = NRC Value/1 sigma counting ut,;ertainty 2 Ratio = Licensee Value/NRC Value