IR 05000373/1986028
| ML20205B792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1986 |
| From: | Holtzman R, Oestmann M, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205B784 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-86-28, 50-374-86-29, NUDOCS 8608120150 | |
| Download: ML20205B792 (13) | |
Text
.
.
-_
.
_
..
_.
,
'
i f.
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION III
..
t
'
Reports No. 50-373/86028(DRSS); 50-374/86029(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18
_
!
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
!
Post Office Box.767 Chicago, IL-60690 Facility Name: -LaSalle County Station, finits 1 and 2
,
Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Seneca, IL L
Inspection Conducted:
July 7-11, 21, 24, and 29, 1986 g,[hedw
.
N
/
!
Inspectors:
M. J. Oestirann Date o
[7/86
.' o tz
.
'
Date'
f W.// [ r$e k Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents and Date Chemistry Section-Inspection Summary
Inspection on July 7-11, 21 24, and 29, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-373/86028(DRSS);
50-374/86029(DR55))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of: (1) chemistry and radiochemistry, including water chemistry control; quality assurance / quality control of sampling and analysis in the laboratory, observations of technician
,
-
performance in the laboratory, and sampling facilities; (2) training and qualifications of chemistry staff; and (3) licensee internal audits.
.L Results:
No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
i
.
8608120150 860807 DR ADOCK 05000373 PDR
!
'
i
-. -
..
~. - - - _. -. - - - -.
.
, - -.
- -,_,,..,_.-.....
-.
.
-, - -, -.. -. -., -. -..
- S DETAILS 1.
Penons Contacted l'4R. D. Bishop, Services Superintendent, LaSalle County Station (LSCS)
1P. F. Manning, Technical Staff Supervisor, L5CS 1T. A. Hammerich, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor, LSCS 1R. W. Stobert, Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor, CECO C. E. Sargent, Production Superintendent, LSCS 1L. R. Aldrich, Rad / Chem Supervisor, LSCS 1D. Zoloty, ISI Te:Snical Staff, LSCS 2P. T. Nottingham, Lead Chemist, Rad / Chem Department, LSCS 3J. Schuster, Chemist, LSCS 3J. Fuchs, Chemist, LSCS 2M. Burgess, Analytical Services Group, CECO R. Sayers, Rad / Chem Laboratory Foreman, LSCS
,
D. Jerzycke, Rad / Chem Technician (RCT), LSCS S. Tutoky, RCT, LSCS J. H. Atchley, Operating Engineer, LSCS P. Watford, Performance Engineer, LSCS T. Shafer, Shift Engineer, LSCS K. Klotz, GSEP Coordinator, Rad / Chem Department, LSCS T. Gibes, Training Coordinator, Rad / Chem Department, LSCS R. Crawford, Training Supervisor, Training Department, LSCS J. Bech, Rad / Chem Training Instructor, Training Department, LSCS
,
L. Blunk, Lead Rad / Chem Training Instructor, Training Department, LSCS
'
US NRC 1R. Kopriva, Resident Inspector 1J. C. Bjorgen, Resident Inspector IJ. Mueller, Resident Co-op Student 1P. L. Eng, Regional Inspector The inspectors also interviewed several other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection, including chemistry and health physics personnel.
1 Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on July 11, 1986.
2 Telephone conversation on July 21, 1986.
3 Telephone conversation on July 24, 1986.
4 Telephone Conversation on July 29, 1986.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open Items (50-373/85003-01; 50-374/85003-01):
Licensee to inspect and repair radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) air samplers.
The licensee reported in its Action Item Record (AIR) 01-85-30301 that the air leakage problem on air sampler stations L-04 and L-06 had been repaired by April 1,1985 and that all 14 air samplers had been checked and found without leaks.
During this
_
_
.
_.
.
.
inspection, the inspector checked air samplers L-01 through L-06 and identified no problems, except for L-02 where the inspector found significant air in leakage to the sampling train when the inlet was plugged.
This has the potential to introduce a nonconservative error in the analytical results for the air particulate filter and iodine cartridge samples.
During the exit interview the licensee representa-tives agreed to repair this sampler and check for air leakage. This item will remain open pending resolution of the leakage problem of the air samplers.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-374/85003-02):
Repair Unit 2 pretreat sample panel by March 18, 1985.
During the inspection of January 14-18, 1985, the RCT collecting a gas sample from the pretreat sampling panel was unable to obtain sufficient vacuum to allow him to pull the sample.
Subsequently, in response to AIR No. 01-85-04302, the licensee reported that for five sample collections from January 29, 1985 to February 26, 1985 no difficulties were encountered in obtaining'the proper vacuum values of 25.5 - 28.7 inches Hg.
The inspector s review of 20 sample collection data sheets for sc..ples collected from October 8, 1985 to April 29, 1986 showed that the RCTs obtained the proper vacuums on the sample bottles, 27 - 28 inches Hg. This item is closed.
c.
(Closed) Open Item (50-374/86005-01):
Licensee will consider effects of carbon dioxide absorption and the use of boron standards to improve boron analysis (LCP 110-9).
The licensee submitted a study on the effects of carbon dioxide absorption in the high range boron analysis.
These data showed that delays in titrating the sample of sodium pentaborate for up to 60 minutes had no significant effect on the apparent concentration of the boron.
It was concluded that delays in titration of up to one hour should have no effect on the accuracy of the measurements. The procedure for analysis of high range boron (LCP 110-9), " Determination of High Range Boron (Sodium Pentaborate)," was modified (Revision 7, May 19, 1986) to incorporate the use of a blind quality control boron standard with each set of determinations to test the performance of the procedure and analyst.
At the time of the inspection only one such standard had been used.
The result appeared to be satisfactory.
This item is considered
>
closed.
d.
(Closed) Open Item (50-374/86005-02):
Licensee to revise Operating Department procedures to require the use of a plumb bob method to more accurately determine the solution volume in the SBLC tank.
The i
licensee revised the Rounds Package (a checklist that operators must complete on reactor building rounds) to require a weekly measurement of the volume of the liquid in the tank by the plumb bob method. They record the readings of the tank volume bubbler gauge on each shift and the plumb bob reading on the first shift each Monday.
They then calculate the volume from the formula:
V = 39.7 (d-260), where V is the volume in gallons and, d the depth in inches.
The inspector's review of the records showed that the gauge determinations read from 0-120 gallons higher then plumb bob valve of about 4900 gallons.
_-.
-_
-.
~
_
...
.-.
__.
. _ - -.
..
.
_-_
._
-
-
-
--
.-
- - -
-
.--
-
'
.
.
-
The RCTs~also use the plumb bob when they take monthly samples.
,
The regular use of the-plumb bob method, as required by the Rounds Packages, appears.to be a, satisfactory solution to the problem
,
,
-
or gauge inaccuracies.
Inis item is closed.
p t
e.
(Closed) Open Item (50-373/86008-02; 50-374/86009-02):
Count liquid
-
!
sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and report results to Region III..'The results of comparisons made on these four analyses o
are presented in Table 1.
The comparison criteria are described in Attachment 1.
The H-3 results were in agreement and no comparison was possible with the Sr-89 and Sr-90 values because of the low activities and the consequently large uncertainties in the values.
The disagreement in the gross beta values appears to be due to
,
differences in sample preparation between the licensee's laboratory
and the NRC Reference Laboratory. To resolve these problems and to further check the licensee capabilities, the licensee has agreed to
analyze spiked samples from the NRC Reference Laboratory for Sr-89,
Sr-90, Fe-55 (required by Technical Specification) and Fe-59, and a j
separate sample for gross beta..This item will be closed and this comparison will be followed under a new Open Item (50-373/86028-01; 50-374/86029-01).
f.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-373/86008-03; 50-374/86009-03):
Calibrate gamma spectroscopy detectors for gas within two weeks after receipt of standard (March 11,1986).
The licensee received the gas standard and calibrated the detectors._ However, because of differences in shape between his 14-m1 vial and that of the standard sample, the licensee
'
made additional studies to resolve uncertainties in the calibrations
before releasing them for use. A licensee representative reported this item, tracked on AIR 373-100-86-00803, and completed it on
'
July 11,1986. The gas geometries are now available for use.
This item will remain open until the inspectors can review the results.
2.
g.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-373/86008-04; 50-373/86009-04):
Review licensee i
participation in radiological intercomparison programs. The licensee j
presently has no interlaboratory radiological comparison program.
An intracompany program is being developed by the Nuclear Services
Technical group to be presented to the Chemistry Supervisors meeting in August, as noted in a memorandum, "Intracompany Confirmatory
'
Radioanalytical Sample Program," dated April 3, 1986.
This item will remain open pending establishment of such a program.
I h.
(Closed) Violation (Severity Level IV) (50-373/86007-04):
Failure to perform surveillance requirements of collecting a 24-hour reactor coolant conductivity sample for Unit'l on February 18, 1986 when the j.
= continuous conductivity monitor was inoperable. The inspector
reviewed the corrective actions taken to avoid further violation and I
determined through review of log sheets from May 1986 to date that all reactor coolant samples had been collected and analyzed for conductivity in accordance with T/S 4.4.4.C.
Furthermore, Rad / Chem Technicians (RCTs) and chemistry management received the proper retraining to assure that the required surveillances would be
-
!
i
., _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ - -.
_ _., - _
_ _ _ _, _ _ _
-
_
._
. _ _ _
__ _.
_
_._
_. _
_
_
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
-made and properly documented in accordance with Procedure LAP-1800-4,
" Rad Chem Surveillances." This procedure, as well as others,
such as LAP 1800-6, " Rad Chem Foreman Shift Turnover," were revised to assure that all surveillances, particularly during shift turnover, F
would be conducted.
This violation is considered closed.
,
o
,
3.
Management Controls, Organization, Training and Qualifications The inspectors reviewed the organization and staffing of the Chemistry Group.
The Lead Chemist, who reports to the Radiation / Chemistry
-
Supervisor, oversees the chemistry / radiochemistry area.
Five chemists,
an Engineering Assistant and Laboratory Foreman report to the Lead-Chemist and are responsible for specific areas. One chemist is assigned to oversee laboratory functions and the QC program.
Another chemist is responsible for the Unit 1 and a third for the Unit 2 chemistry areas, n
while a fourth is responsible for the counting room activities.
The
.
chemists all have bachelors degrees in chemistry but, except for the chemist responsible for the counting room, have limited experience, having been assigned to their positions only within the'last two years.
The Lead
'
Chemist has been in his position for-about three years and appears to meet ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978 requirements for this position.
't The Laboratory Foreman assigns work to the Radiation / Chemistry Technicians (RCTs) and supervises laboratory activities. The 41 RCTs are assigned on a rotating basis to three weeks in chemistry followed by 10 to 12 weeks in
,
,
health physics.
The lengthy interval between assignments to the Chemistry
!
Group requires that the chemists and Laboratory Foreman provide close
'
!
supervision of the RCTs to assure credible analytical results are obtained.
Aprogramisjustbeinginitiatedtoprovidesemiannualproficiencysamples to the RCT prior to his performing any analysis.
Results have yet to be obtained for this program.
The intention is for the RCT to obtain satisfactory results of these samples before he performs any analysis.
i Presently there are 34 RCTs with at least four years experience at LaSalle and seven new RCTs who have just completed the 14-week formal training
'
program at the Braidwood Production-Training Center.
The seven RCis will
<
complete their OJT program at LaSalle by early September. This will include completing over 300 tasks for their qualification cards.
A licensee representative reported that an annual two-week retraining
!
program for the 34 experienced RCTs involving the use of new laboratory equipment, revised procedures review and discussion of other chemistry
,
topics will be started in the first quarter of 1987.
A training
coordinator responsible to the Rad Chemistry Supervisor is developing
!
this program in cooperation with the Training Department.
Training Department representatives indicated that the station will undergo i
an INP0 evaluation for accreditation later in 1986.
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Water Chemistry Control Program The licensee's policy for BWR Water Chemistry Control was issued in Nuclear i
Stations Division Directive, NSD0-517, on October 5, 1984. The policy is I
i i
L
. -
-
-.- -. -
.
---.---.
.-.
, - -
- -
. _
-
.
.
.
.
.
consistent with the BWR Owners Group Guidelines and it adequately addresses management policies, assignment of authority and responsibility to implement the program,.and provides appropriate guidance on operational chemistry.
limits designed to minimize intergranular stress corrosion cracking ~(IGSCC)
.in the reactor system and turbines.
It includes guidance on analytical Lmeasurements, performance monitoring, data management and trending,
'
action levels and training. Management respons1bilities described
.in the directive include providing adequate resources of staff,
equipment, funds and organization to implement the program.
Thestationiscurrentlyimplementingthedirective.through Procedures LAP-1800-4, Rad / Chemistry Surveillances," Revision 6, dated
June 4, 1986, and LAP 1800-7, "BWR Chemistry Control Program," Revision 1, dated March 19, 1986.
These procedures specify action levels for off-normalconditionsandprovidefortrendplottingofkeychemicalparameters measured during plant operation.
The inspector s review confirmed that
the licensee has been conducting these surveillances and trending the data since 1984.
The data reviewed indicated that the station has been generally successful in operating within the guidelines. Abnormal levels of key chemical paraieters were recognized, mitigated and corrected in a
,
i timely manner.
,
~A~ licensee BWR Working Group in 1985 identified and recommended several modifications to improve chemistry controls and better implement the BWR Owners Group Guidelines.
The modifications for LaSalle station,
expected to begin in 1986-87, include the following:
a.
Install sodium analyzers in the hotwell to confirm condenser. tube
leaks and reduce the time necessary to locate the leaks;
'.
b.
Replace valves in the reactor cleanup system to reduce RWCU-l demineralizer trips; e
c.
Modify the existing regeneration equipment in the condensate system to prevent excess resin waste during a major condenser leak; i
d.
Upgrade the sampling and analysis equipment to include process i
conductivity and dissolved oxygen monitors to improve sensitivity of measurement to interpret water chemistry data properly; e.
Increase cooling capabilities of sample status in order to allow measurement of conductivity at 25'C to eliminate the necessity of making corrections from the present elevated temperatures; f.
Install resin sampling systems in the condensate demineralizer
system;
g.
Investigate the dissolved oxygen and carbonate levels at the i
condensate pump discharge before, during, and after makeup to
' determine the effectiveness of the condenser as a deaerator; i
h.
Install a makeup water degassifier to lower the amount of C02 and
'
thereby, the conductivity in the makeup water; i
i
!
-
_ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - _, _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _,. _ _, _ _ _ _
..
.
.
.
i.
Provide a separate dedicated cleanup system to process suppression pool water to keep the water clean at all times and decrease the time for startup; j.
Investigate increasing the RWCU capacity to lessen the severity of conductivity excursions.
These changes will be examined during subsequent inspections (0 pen Item 50-373/86028-02; 50-374/86029-02).
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Water Sampling and Monitoring The inspector reviewed the water treatment, sampling, and monitoring programs and reviewed related equipment during tours of the plant.
The licensee has adequate sampling capability for various plant systems including reactor coolant and cleanup, condensate storage, makeup, and radwaste to permit necessary water analyses.
Installed in-line monitoring capability is currently limited to specific conductivity, pH and turbidity.
Implementation of the BWR working group recommendations should substantially improve in-line monitoring capabilities and put the station on a par with newer plants.
The licensee plans to make the improvements in 1987, if funds are available.
Licensee's progress in this area will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Chemistry / Radiochemistry Program The inspectors reviewed the chemistry and radiochemistry programs, including physical facilities, laboratory operations, and chemistry procedures and practices followed in the laboratories and counting room.
Laboratory space was adequate in size to accommodate the required activities.
Housekeeping, particularly in the fume hoods needed m ne improvement.
Temperature control problems were evident during the first days of the inspection with laboratory and counting room exceeding 90 F.
Licensee records indicate that this has been a recurring problem at the station with temperatures exceeding 80 F about one-third of the time since the beginning of 1986.
This problem is of considerable concern inasmuch as elevated temperature can have a deleterious effect on electronic instrument performance and reduce analytical reliability.
The inspectors confirmed that daily QC performance checks on gamma spectrometers and proportional counters (Section 7) showed substantial drifts correlated with temperature.
The licensee is well aware of the problem and stated in the exit interview that its resolution would be given high priority.
Repairs to the counting room air conditioning system succeeded in reducing temperatures
.-
--
-.
._.
.
.
-
-
--
.
.
to about 70 F near the end of the inspection and telephone discussions with licensee representatives on July 24 and July 29 indicated that it was still operating satisfactorily.
This matter will be examined during subsequent inspections (0 pen Item 50-373/86028-03;50-374/86029-03).
Chemistry instrt. mentation is generally of good quality.
It includes pH and specific ion probes, conductivity meters and colorimeters.
These instruments were operable, well maintained and calibrated.
Balances are vendor-calibrated every six months.
Reagent bottles were properly labelled and solutions and chemicals were within posted expiration dates.
The station correctly uses a specific ion probe with a nominal sensitivity of 20 ppb, the BWR Owner Group guideline for chloride analysis.
Licensee experience with this instrument indicated that the instrument was capable of better sensitivity and the possibility of extending the calibration to lower levels was being evaluated.
A new Dionex 2020i Ion Chromatograph (IC) with much better sensitivity will be used as the primary instrument for chloride and other analyses after it is made operational and the RCT's are trained in its use.
Other new instruments being set up and tested by the chemists include a Dohrmann Total Organic Carbon Analyzer, a computerized Beckman Direct Coupled Plasma (DCP) Spectrophotometer, and a Tracor Gas Chromatograph.
The licensee plans to put these instruments into routine use within the next six months.
,
Counting room instruments were of higt,i quality. They included two ORTEC analyzers and associated computer equipment, a Ge(Li) and two Ge gamma detectors, three Canberra 2200 Series Alpha / Beta Counters with automatic sample changers, one of which is a low-background counter, and a Packard TriCarb Liquid Scintillation Counter with an automatic sample changer.
A computerized Tennelec automatic alpha / beta counter was available, but not in use while being modified to make it compatible with the AAIS corporate computer system.
-
Selected chemistry procedures approved by the LaSalle Onsite Review (LOSR)
Board during 1985 and 1986 were reviewed with no technical problems noted.
LCP 110-8, Determination of Low Range Boron LCP 110-9, Determination of High Range Boron (Sodium Pentaborate)
LCP 110-12, Determination of High Range Chloride by Specific Ion Electrode LCP 110-20, Determination of Conductivity (Flow-thru Cell)
LCP 110-25, Determination of Dissolved Oxygen (Indigo Carmine Method)
LCP 110-26, Determination of Dissolved Oxygen (Chemet Kit Color Comparison)
LCP 110-38, Determination of pH LCP 110-41, Determination of Silica LCP 110-52, Determination of Turbidity LCP 110-54, Determination of Low-Range Fluoride Using Specific Ion Electrode LCP 110-57, Determination of Low-Range Chloride by Specific Ion Electrode 6= LCP 150-1, Reagent Preparation Documentation for Chemical Quality Control
. _ - _.
. _ _
-
._.
.
. _ _.
_ _ -..
._
._-
_
. _ - -
_ _. _
-
.
-._ - -. -. - -.
.
.
LCP 150-2, Chemistry Quality Assurance Program LCP 150-3, Instrument Calibration and Performance Checks Schedule
.for Chemical Quality Control Purposes
-
LCP 150-6, Quality Control Check of Laboratory Double Demineralized 1-Water (DDI)
LCP 210-22, Total Organic Carbon Analysis of Aqueous Samples Using the Dohrmann DC-80 r -
LCP 210-23, Operation of the Dionex Ion Chromatograph LCP 210-24, Determination of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Using
.the Orbisphere Model 2606 Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer LCP 310-9, Standby Liquid Control Solution Tank Sampling
,
LCP 620-1, Routine Chemical Analysis Records
'
LAP 1800-3, Rad / Chem Area Safety and Housekeeping
LAP 1800-4, Rad / Chemistry Surveillances
'
Review of selected log sheets indicated that the licensee has been analyzing for pH, conductivity, chloride and silica in reactor coolant
>
- and RWCU demineralizer effluent, dissolved oxygen in feedwater, i
conductivity of condensate storage tank water and conductivity and silica in fuel pool and other key chemical parameters.
No problems
'
- were identified.
t The inspector observed RCTs collect samples and perform various chemical analyses.
They appeared generally to be competent and well-versed in
,
- procedures and laboratory practices.
However, two problems were noted while observing one RCT who appeared otherwise kaowledgeable.
He failed to recognize that air entering a conductivity cell via loose hose i '
connection was causing faulty readings until pointed out by the inspec'.or.
He also opened two radwaste tank sample valves by hand turning the threaded valve stems.
This maneuver, which was prompted by the absence of valve handles, could have resulted in hand contamination had the threads cut the thin surgical gloves he was wearing.
These
.
observations indicated a laxness in maintenance of sampling systems
!
and as well'as the need for better RCT awareness of possible contamination problems.
The laboratory foreman, when informed, indicated that the vaive problems would be repaired. These observations were also discussed by telephone on July 29, 1986, with the LaSalle Technical Services Superintendent who stated they would be followed up witn appropriate
,
discussion and training (.This will be further reviewed during a
subsequent inspections 0 pen Item 50-373/86028-04;50-374/86029-04).
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
i 7.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control in the Chemistry / Radiochemistry
Laboratory
.
g The licensee has made considerable progress in developing and implementing r
!
programs to improve laboratory performance.
These efforts show a
substantially increased appreciation of the importance of QA/QC programs l
in achieving valid analytical results.
I
)
.
--s gi-g-
- 9 q.
g..---r+-ey---3>->W-gr-gemr-+w-r w * sg7-1r-'-,-ee1m y-m---r3v6 we
---,ee-
--yy9+W--
- -v--grm.ry-y-v-gmg,--
---,,muy---w, gg-y-mm---myw we--
--
,--p
+<w w --
-W-ww-r---i---$--
+em- - - --4 we'
^
-
?.
.
.
..
l The inspectors reviewed the recently instituted nonradiological QA/QC program based on two procedures:
LCP 810-19, " Analysis of Quality Control Samples in the Chemistry Laboratory," Revision 0, May 16,1986, and LCP 810-20, " Rad-Chem Tech Semi-Annual Proficiency Check,"
Revision 0, May 15, 1986.
The first procedure provides instructions to the RCT for the analysis of QC samples for testing precision by duplicate analyses of plant samples or of bias samples supplied to the RCT.
Bias samples (those with values known to the supervisor but unknown to the analyst) are supplied to the RCT according to the " Laboratory Routine Checklist." These results are tabulated and plotted on control charts.
Some rules are given for handling samples with precision values outside the control limits. This
,
procedure has been implemented since April 1986 for silica and low level chloride analysis with a specific ion electrode.
A review by the inspectors of these analyses showed achievement of reasonable precision.
This program is being developed for other analyses, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons by gas chromatography, metal ions by plasma jet, 3H, and various environmental measurements for NPDES.
A procedure (LC) 810-20)
to check the performance of the RCTs semiannually has not been implemented.
Informal performance checks done near the end of 1985 for chloride and silica by about 15 RCTs were mostly within the 20% acceptance limits.
The progress of the QA/QC program development will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (0 pen Item 50-373/86028-05;50-274/86029-05).
In 1986 the licensee initiated a quarterly interlaboratory crosscheck program for nonradiological analyses through the licensee s corporate Technical Center.
This program included distribution of samples for testing key parameters for each of the licensee's plants.
They included chloride, fluoride, silica, sulfate, iron, copper, nickel and chromium.
For the first intercomparison set, LaSa11e's results had a mean relative deviation of 8% from the known values (the sulfate deviated by 28%).
This mean is slightly higher than that from one BWR plant (4.6%) and lower than that of another (14.3%).
The results of the June 1986 set have not yet been evaluated.
This program will be further reviewed in a subsequent inspection (0 pen Item 50-373/86028-06;50-374/86029-06).
The inspectors reviewed the radiological performance control charts extensively to estimate the effects of the high and variable countirg room temperatures on performance of the multichannel analyzers (MCA) and the Canberra alpha / beta counters.
The MCA performance check sources use the 356-key Ba-133 and the 1332-kev Co-60 peaks and the FWHM of the
'
Co-60 peak.
The control limits are 2 sigma (counting statistics) for the peaks and less than the vendor guaranteed FWHM value +0.1 key.
Exceeding any one of these limits places the instrument out of service until a satisfactory check is achieved.
For the Canberra counters both alpha and beta checks are required to be within the control limits.
The performance checks of the MCAs showed definite drifts upward with temperature and performance check failures increased from about 10-15% of the tests to about 30-40%.
The Canberra high background l
l l
l r
- _.
-
-..
.
-
..
...
..
.
_
_
~
.
.
counter drifted similarly, while the low-background Canberra, which has an anti-coincidence guard counter, drifted downward.
It is clear that temperature-induced changes in counting officiencies were affecting the reliability of counter operations.
This matter was discussed at the exit interview.
No eiolations or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Internal Audits and Surveillances The inspectors reviewed three audits and four surveillances relating to Chemistry:
QAA-01-86-02, January 1986, QAA-01-86-11, April 1986, QAA01-86-10, April 1986, QAS-01-86-37, QAS-01-86-43, QAS-01-86-48 and QAS-01-86-98 performed by onsite personnel by the licensee's QA Department personnel.
The inspectors reviewed the responses by the licensee to each finding and observation and determined that the licensee has taken appro-priate actions so that all findings could be closed out in a timely manner.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Sections 2, 4, 6, and 7.
10.
Exit Meeting The inspectors m with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on July 11, 1986.
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
The licensee acknowledged the need to:
Upgrade the in-line monitors for chemical measurements
Fully implement the QA/QC program in chemistry
Improve the ventilation in the counting room and laboratories
Additional telephone discussions concerning the inspection findings were held with licensee representatives on July 21, 24, and 29, 1986.
During the inspection the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or procedures as proprietary.
i
\\
Attachments:
1.
Table II Confirmatory Measurements l
2.
Program Results, First i
Quarter 1986 l
\\
I l
.
.
i TABLE 2 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LASALLE FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1986-NRC
-
=-
LICENSEE
---LICENSEE:NRC SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERR 7 RESULT ERRCR RATIO RES T
L WASTE BETA 1.7E-05 6.0E-07 1.2E-05 0.0E-01 7.2E-01 2.8E 01 D
H-3 6.2E-04 9.0E-06 7.3E-04 3.0E-06 1.2E 00 6.9E 01 A
SR-89 3.0E-09 9.0E-09
<1.1E-09 0.0E-01 3.7E-01 3.3E-01 N
SR-90 2.0E-09 4.0E-09 1.7E-09 7.0E-10 8.5E-01 5.0E-01 N
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT O= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
i
-
..
. -- -_
..
..
.__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
.
-
ATTACHMENT 1
-
..
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 ofidhis program.
,
l In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the com-parison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a 1.icensee's measurement should be more selectiye. Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The
!
values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to' fewer significant figures to l
maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported
'
by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION P.ATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE Agreement
<3 No Comparison 23 and
<4 0.4
- 2.5 14 and
<8 0.5 - 2.0 2.8 and
<16 0.6 -
1.67 116 and
<51 0.75 -
1.33 251 and
<200 0.80 -
1.25 2200 0.85 -
1.18 Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclides. These may be factoreu into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.
.
_ __ -_-_____ _____