IR 05000354/1990005

Insp Rept 50-354/90-05 on 900305-09.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Radiological & Nonradiological Chemistry Programs,Including Confirmatory Measurements Radiological,Stds Analyses Chemistry & Lab Qa/Qc

ML20034A570
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/05/1990
From:	Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20034A568	List: IR 05000354/1990005
References
50-354-90-05, 50-354-90-5, NUDOCS 9004230495
Download: ML20034A570 (12)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:' t ..t , , ; ' L ! U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

-i Report No.

50-354/90-05 -- Docket No.

50-354 l' License No. NPF-50 Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

P.O. Box 236 o Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station

Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey i Inspection Conducted: March 5-9, 1990 . M d M'N Inspectors: 4'J. Kottan, Laboratory Specialist t date Effluents Radiation Protection Section ! + + l_ > _t+ G Y ~ S~ N f"N. McNamara, taboratory Assistant _ date Effluents Radiation Protection Section @- S -9$ Approved by: - R. Bores, Cfiief, Effluents Radiation date Protection Section, Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, Division of

Radiation Safety and Safeguards

Inspection Summary: Inspection on March 5-9,1990 (Inspection Report - No. 50-354/90-05).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological and non-radiological chemistry programs. Areas reviewed included: confirmatory measurements-radiological, standards analyses-chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC.

. ' Results: Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identified.

~ $$$42ggg. . The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel including other members of the chemistry and h'ealth physics staffs.

, 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following areas.

• The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems and effluent samples.
• The licensee's ability to measure chemistry parameters in various plant systems.
• 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- !

. . .-. - ... L ' .. .. , , , ..

3

. analyzed by'the licensee and the NRC.for the purpose of intercompari-son.

The reactor water sample was an actual split sample. The.

.

, liquid radwaste, particulate. filter, and offgas samples could not be- . I split, and therefore, the same samples were analyzed by both the .. ! l licensee and the NRC. Also spiked charcoal cartridges were gi.ven to . the licensee by the NRC because no radioiodine was detected on the routine effluent vent charcoal cartridge samples.

. here possible, W the. samples were actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for. effluent ! l 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

were used to verify the licensee's capability to measure' radioacti-a - vity 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- ' ' labo.ratory, Department of Energy,-Radiological and Environmental l Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.

The analyses to be performed-on that sample are'Sr-89,:Sr-90, Fe-55, i H-3, and gross alpha. 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 i

NRC during a previous inspection on November 16-20,1987'(Inspection ' Report No. 50-354/87-28) were also compared during this inspection.

'l The licensee's Health Physics Department also possesses a' gamma.

'; spectrometry system. This system is a part of the chemistry gamma spectrometry system in that the computer terminals are interfaced to the chemistry department gamma' spectrometry computer. The Chemistry.

' Department is responsible for calibration and quality control of this system. However, the system is operated by health physics department personnel, and is routinely used to analyze airborne radioactive-effluents from the facility.

Therefore, the' particulate filters and spiked charcoal cartridges were also analyzed using this counting system and compared with the NRC results.

The results of the sample measurements comparisons indicated that all of the. measurements were in agreement under the criteria' used for comparing results.

(See Attachment ~1.).. Initially, however, disagreements were encountered in the measurement of a particulate filter and a charcoal cartridge.

Through discussions.with the licensee and a review of calibration data, it was'determinedithat the detector efficiency values had not been correctly installed in the

ef ficiency files of the gamma spectrometry system computer for these

geometries after the calibrations had been performed.

The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and the licensee stated that all-current efficiency files would be compared to the calibration-data to ensure that the efficiency files contained the proper data.

. . . . -

___ i , e . r >l . " l

~ I-The licensee further stated that if any other efficiency files were found to be incorrect, the measurement results obtained with the , incorrect efficiency data would be corrected-Further,-the gamma spectrometry procedure would be modified to require' verification of-

the efficiency files after each calibration;. - The: inspector noted that effluent samples which were compared were in agreement on the.

first count by the licensee indicating that these efficiency files

were correct. The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed' ' during a subsequent inspection, , .The results of the radioactivity measurements comparison are listed - in Table I.

The inspector had no further questions in this area.

'l No violations were identified, j 3.2 Standards-Analyses (Chemical) . During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analyses. 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 l capability to 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 with_ respect to accuracy and ! I precision.

The results of the standards measurements comparisons indicated that

all but one of the measurements were in agreement;or qualified t aggreement under the criteria used for comparing results.

(See g Attachment 2). The result which was.in disagreement was a sulfate result at approximately_two parts per billion.(ppb). The-licensee's- " results were higher than the NRC known value. Analysis.of blank water samples indicated the presence' of. sulfate contamination at-l , approximately the 0.5-ppb level. This contamination becomes more ' significant when comparing results at low (several ppb) concentrations.

-, The inspector discussed.this matter with the licensee, and the licensee stated that the source of the sulfate contamination would be determined and appropriate corrective action taken.

,' The standards were submitted to'the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee'sLnormal calibration range. The boron standards were analyzed at only-two concentrations because of the sensitivity'of the licensee's method, and one silica concentration was analyzed only once rather than in triplicate because of the volume of standard available for dilution.

! , , _. ,_. -

.

. . , .

84 . J In observing the above analyses,-the ins'pector noted'that the licensee ' performed the boron analysis _using acid-base indicators rather than a.

. pH meter in order to determine the starting and equivalence or end

point pH values for the titration.

The inspector discussed this , matter with'the licensee, Land the licensee stated that consideration.

I would be given to implementing a potentiometric method for boron

analysis in order to improve'the accuracy of the method. Also,.in ! observing the silica analysis the inspector.noted that the licenseef i performed a multi point calibration of the spectrometer and then '; - performed a linear-regression fit to the calibration points.

, However,.the calibration curve which was constructed by the. licensee i was approximated by using a straight edge rather than using the.

_ ! calibration slope and intercept values.

The. inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and the licensee-stated that the calculated values would be used to construct the celibration curves. The results used for the silica comparisons c re_those obtained using the calibration curve coefficients.

The results of the comparisons-are listed in Table II.

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 Procedure CH-AP.ZZ-017(Q), " Chemistry Quality ControlcProgram".

The procedure

, provides for both an intralaboratory QA/QC program =and an interlaboratory QA/QC program. The intralaboratory program consisted of instrument and procedure control charts and the analysis of spiked samples for certain chemical analyses.

The inter 3aboratory program consisted of the' analysis ' of spiked samples received from-outside laboratories _for both chemical and radioactivity analyses. Also included in the.interlaboratory program.was-the vendor laboratory that performed the radiochemical _ analyses of.

l-

effluent samples. The inspector reviewed selected ' data ' generated by the- - i 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.

In addition, the-inspector noted that the licensee had included control of computer software documentation and process instrumentation in the laboratory QA/QC -procedure.

The inspector had no further questions in this area.

No violations were identified.

5.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representative denoted in Section 1 of the report at the conclusion of the inspection on March 9, 1990.

The , j inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection, j n q l ~ .

. , " . .. . .; . c .

> ' l - Table I Hope Creek Verification Test Results ! SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALVE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARIS0N !~ Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter , ! l Reactor Water Mn-54 (7.2810.05)E-2 (7.4610.05)E-2 Agreement: Crud Filter Co-58 (1.0010.03)E-2 (1.0010.03)E-2 Agreement 0835 hrs Fe-59 (6.5510.07)E-2 (6.3910.07)E-2 Agreement , ! 03-07-90 Co-60 (1.1610.02)E-2 (1,1110.02)E-2 Agreement-Chemistry Zn-65 (2.8210.06)E-2 (2.9010.06)E-2 Agreement.

det. #2 Na-24 (2.8210.04)E-2 (2.8710.08)E-2 . Agreement Cr-51 (5.3210.11)E-2 (6.010.2)E-2 Agreement- ' Reactor Water Mn-54 (7.28i0.05)E-2 (6.8410.06)E-2 Agreement Crud Filter Co-58 (1.0010.03)E-2 (9.510.4)E-3- ~ Agreement.

, 0835 hrs Fe-59 (6.5510.07)E-2.

.(6.0410.09)E-2 Agreement 03-07-90 Co-60 (1.1610.02)E-2 (1.0710.03)E-2 Agreement l Chemistry Zn-65 (2.8210.06)E-2 (2.7510.08)E-2 . Agreement det. #1 Na'-24-(2.8210.04)E-2-(2.8210.08)E-2 Agreement-Cr-54 (5.3210.11)E-2 (5.3t0.2)E-2 Agreement ' Reactor Water Mn-54 (7.2810.05)E-2 (7.4410.04)E-2 Agreement Crud Filter Co-58 (1.0010.03)E-2 (9.910.2)E-3 Agreement 0835 hrs Fe-59 (6.5510.07)E-2 (6.6410.06)E-2 Agreement 03-07-90 Co-60 (1.1610.02)E-2 (1.15 0.02)E-2 Agreement

Health Physics Zn-65 ( 2.' 8210. 06) E-2 (2.9110.05)E-2-Agreement l l det. #5 Na-24 (2.8210.04)E-2 (2.9410 03)E-2 Agreement . Cr-51 (5.3210.11)E-2 (6.010.2)E-2 Agreement Results in Total Microcuries NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.0210.05)E-1 (9.0010.15)E-2 Agreement-Charcoal Cs-137 (9.810.4)E-2 (7.7510.09)E-2 Agreement: Cartridge Health Physics det. #4 NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.0610.05)E-1 (1.139 0.013)E-1 Agreement Charcoal Cs-137 (1.02t0.05)E-1 (1.02110.008)E-1 Agreement Cartridge Health Physics det. #5 NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.0210.05)E-1 (9.0010.06)E-2 Agreement Charcoal Cs-137 (9.810.4)E-2 (1.00010.011)E-1 Agreement Cartridge Chemistry ' det. #2

. - . . .-

. . .

TableI(continued)- Hope Creek Verification Test Results ~

SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Total Microcuries.

NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.06 0.05)E-1 (1.110.3)E-1-Agreement' ', Charcoal ~ Co-137 (1.0210.05)E-1 (1.010.2)E-1 Agreement Cartridge Chemistry det. #2 t NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.0210;05)E-1- -(1,0410.14)E-1-Agreement i Charcoal Cs-137 (9.810.4)E-2 : (9.0510.08)E-2 Agreement- ! Cartridge

Chemistry det. #1 ' Results in Microcuries Per M111 iter South Plant Mn-54 (3.0 0.3)E-13-(2.310,4)E-13 ' Agreement Vent Weekly Particulate Filter 1145 hrs 03-06-90 Health Physics l det. #4 , Offgas Kr-85m (2.7810.14)E-4 .(2.9310.12)E-4' Agreement 1031 hrs Kr-87 (1.3110.05)E-3 (1.3710.04)E-3' Agreement 03-07-90 Kr-88 (9.8 0.5)E-4 (1.1910.06)E-3 Agreement Chemistry Xe-135 (1.0710.03)E-3-(1.1610.02)E-3- ' Agreement det. H2 Reactor Water Na-24 (6.9610.06)E-3 (6.5810.10)E-3 Agreement 0830 hrs Cr-51 (7.7010.14)E-3- =(8.010.3)E-3 Agreement 03-06-90 Mn-56 (9.2 0.4)E-4 (1.0610,06)E-3 Agreement-Chemi stry Zn-65 (5.1 0.5)E-4 (5.010.7)E-4-Agreement det. #2 Tc-99m (7.0010.03)E-3 (7.3510.06)E-3 Agreement ! ' 'i l

i s

" g , , n.

. ' i,_'

y ' & ' r l Table I (continued) Verification Test Results l SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE' LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON-Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Condensate Mn-54 (8.010.9)E-7 (8.011.4)E-7 Agreement Storage 2n-65 (2.38 0.04)E-5 (2.56i0.06)E-5 Agreement Tank 1430 hrs-

03-07-90 Chemistry det. #1 l Waste Collector Mn-54 _(4.310.2)E-6 (4.110.2)E-6 Agreement-' Tank Co-60 (1.4010.10)E-6 (1.2010.08)E-6 Agreement 1025 hrs Zn-65 (3.2210.06)E-5 (3.3410.06)E-5 Agreement

03-08-90 Chemistry det. #2 Results from RESL for Previous Inspection (in Microcuries Per Milliliter) Liquid Rad.

Fe-55 (2.2010.10)E-7' <1E-6 No-Comparison- ! Waste H-3 (2.2310.04)E-4 (1.9 0.1)E-4 Agreement 0AT-346 Sr-89 (1.8tl.4)E-8 <3E-8 No Comparison 1430 hrs Sr-90 (-1014)E-9 <5E-9 No Comparison 11-18-87 ' ' l l l { u l ?

l - .. .

' . .: . - .

• r

. - t _ ATTACHMENT 1 l 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, , i In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation-to the ' comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to_ its' associated

L uncertainty. As the ratio, referred to in this' program as " Resolution",= l increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should.be more l selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered' acceptable'as the resolution decreases.

~ -t Resolution! 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 >200-0.85 - 1.18 .

2 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty) 2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)--

'l

. _. , l .. 4,

.

c - . . .

TABLE II l Hope Creek

j Chemistry Test Results- , i L Chemical Method of NRC' Licensee .-Ratio j Parameter.

Analysis * Know Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC) Compa ri so'n '

Results in Parts Per Billion-(p g - Chloride IC '3.010.2 '3.2210.15 1.07 0.09 Agreement _ . ~6.210.4 5,910.5 . 0.95 0,10 . Agreement: 9.510.5 8.710.6 0.9210.08 Qualified Agreement.

Sulfate IC 1.910.3 2.3610.06 1.210.2 Disagreement 3 - 3.810.2 4.110.3 1.0810.14 Agreement-6.010.4 5.510.2~ 0.92 0.07.' Agreement' - Silica SP 4914

49.310.6 1.0110.08.

Agreement 9818 96.311.2 0.98 0.08 Agreement- ~ 161i3 162 1.01 Agreement . Iron AA 19813 184t8 0.9310.04-Agreement' 392110 3651'11-0.9310.04 LAgreement . , 580i10 570150 0.9810.09 Agreement- . l' Copper AA 19914' 19912 _-1.00 0.02 Agreement- ' 40513 41316 1.0210.02f Agreement-l 59515 622 12 1.0410.02 Agreement- , Nickel AA 20315 20015 0.9810.04 Agreement ! 403 6 40417 1.0010.02

Agreement l

610110 58414 0.96 0.02 Agreement l Chromium AA 200110 22417 1,1210.07 Qualified l _ Agreement-

40419 407 11 _1.0110.04 Agreement, ! 60017 55213 0.920 0.012.

Agreement: Results in Parts Per-Million-(ppm) Boron Tit.

29914-30016 1.00 0.02 Agreement 510110 50114-0.9810.02-- Agreement.

• Note: 'SP UV-Vis Spectrophotometry

= IC = Ion Chromatography Tit. = Titration with PHT endpoint AA Atomic Absorption-Flame =

-

__ l .. . ' . I ' r , , e ATTACHMENT 2 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides 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 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 i 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 II are as follows.

! Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range , Chloride 2.8-3.2 2.7-3.3 5.7-6.7-5.5-6.9 8.8-10.2 8.5-10.5 . 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-44.4-53.6 42.1-55.9 88.8-107.2 84.2-111.8-146-176 138-184.

Boron 292-305 289-309 ' 499-521 493-526' Iron 179-217 169-227-354-430 336-448 524-636 496-664 Copper 180-218-

171-227

, 366-444 347-463 538-652 510-680 , i

T ' . .-

• -

,. '*o 4.s.

.. I ATTACHMENT 2 (continued) Agreement Qualified Agreement' Analyte ' Range Range , l Nickel 190-216 '184-222 . 378-428 366-440-572-648-' 553-667 ! . Chromium 181-219-171-229

365-443 345-463 ! 542-658 512-688' l-1 - I , m.

i - !

.1

! i ~ ~ ' : I l l l

.l ! }}