IR 05000373/1992029

Insp Repts 50-373/92-29 & 50-374/92-29 on 921216-21.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Chemistry Program (IP 84750),chemistry Comparisons,Audits,Qa & Radiological Environ Monitoring Program

ML20127A988
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	12/31/1992
From:	House J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127A974	List: IR 05000373/1992029 ML20127A970
References
50-373-92-29, 50-374-92-29, NUDOCS 9301120132
Download: ML20127A988 (7)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill Report Nos. 50-373/92029(DRSS); 50-374/9c.029(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66-Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and-2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: December 16 through 21, 1992 Inspector: ~

/.NJ/[92 p.' House ~h Date

'

Approved by: M n #ddy Willia WSnell, Chief Date '

Radiological Controls Section 2 Inspection Summary-Jaspection on December 16-21.1992 (Report f!os. 50 373/92029(DRSSl':

50-374/92029(DRSSI)

Areas Insoected: Routine, announced inspection of the chemistry program (IP 84750) including: chemistry comparisons, audits, quality. assurance, and the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP).

Resultq: Licensee performance in the chemistry comparison program was

-

excellent with the laboratory achieving all agreements in 29 comparisons. The quality assurance program was functioning well as evidenced by participation in two -interlaboratory comparison programs which is a strength; performance in these programs was very good. The QV audit of chemistry was well written, detailed and demonstrated the auditors knowledge of chemistry laboratory -

operations. Site management of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) appeared to be good. No vioiations or deviaticas were identifie . .

i

. 9301120132 921231 1 PDR ~ADOCK 05000373:

G PDR l

-

_ _ . .

.

_

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• J. Arnould, -0PEX- Administration

• D. Carlson, Regulatory Assurance

• Diederich, Site Vice-President (Acting)

• J. Houston, Emergency Planning Coordinator

• W. Huntington, Technical Superintendent .

• K. Kociuba, Safei.y Quality Verification Superintendent J. Miller, Technical Staff

• P. Nottingham, Chemistry Services Supervisor

• R. Ragan, Administrative Engineer

• J. Schmeitz, Station Manager (Acting)

-

• J. Schuster, Lead Chemist J. Thean, Quality Control Chemist J. Torrones, Quality Verification Inspector "

R. Whitley,--Analytical Chemist .

• J. Roman,-Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

• Present at the Exit Meeting on December 21, 1992 Water Chemistry Control Proaram (IP 84750)

The licensee's water chemistry control program was similar to -that- <

described in Region III Inspection Reports No.-50-37_3/91027; 50-374/91028. A review of selected trend chart data from the previous 12 months indicated that-chemistry parameters were within the'EPRI guidelines. Reactor-water chloride, sulfate and conductivity levels-

'

averaged'less than 1-ppb, 5 ppb, and 0.18 micro Siemen per centimeter-

. (uS/cm),- with EPRI guidelines of 15 ppb,:15. ppb and 0.2 uS/cm respec'.ively. Silica levels were less than the. EPRI achievable _ level of

'100. ppb. Feedwater parameters were good with conductivity-averagin .06 uS/cm, dissolved oxygen averaged less:than.60 ppb..and iron averaged 4- ppb with EPRI guidelines <0.07 US/cm, 200 ppb, and 5 ppb respectively; -

.-

-

The inspector reviewed -the Technical- Specification (T/S) .4. requirements for boron concentration and volume-in the-standby ligtaid control-tanks. Both concentration _and volume were-within the window for-each tank. Required analyses of the boron-10 fisotope, which is ~now-used

_

to provide increased: negative reactivity, had been performed and.the-t necessary B-10 concentration was me ~

,; ,

l No violations or deviations were identifie ' Chemistry Comoarison-Proaram-(IP 84750)

L The inspector submitted chemistry samples to the licensee forfanalysis l- as part of'a program -to _ evaluate the' laboratory's capabilities to L monitor nonradiological chemistry parameters in.various plant systems with respect to regulatory and administrative requirements. These samples had been prepared and standardized for the NRC-by the Analytical

.

,

- - - . - , --- - - - ,

_ . . . . .

.

Chemistry Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (0RNL). The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipmen Three dilutions were prepared from each sample by licensee personnel in order to bring the concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory. A single analysis was performed on each dilution in a manner similar to that of routine samples. The results are presented in Table I which also contains the criteria for agreement. These criteria are based on ORNL analyses of the standards and on the relative standard deviations (RSD) derived from the results of the plants participating in a 1986 interlaboratory comparison (Table 2.1, NUREG/CR-5442). The acceptance criteria were that the licensee's value should be within ..

2 Standard Deviations (SD) of the ORNL value for agreement and between 2 and 3 SD for qualified agreement. A qualified agreement may indicate a bias in the assa The licensee analyzed nine unknowns at three concentrations and one at two concentrations; all 29 comparisons were agreements. Initially the three sodium analyses were disagreements (not shown). However this problem was traced to a matrix mismatch. The licensee's calibrator solutions were prepared in deionized water and the unknowns had been acidified by ORNL. When the instrument was recalibrated with standards prepared in an acid matrix similar to that of the unknowns, the analytical results were agreements. Licensee performance in the chemistry comparison program was excellen No violations or deviations were identifie . Chemistry Ouality Assurance /0uality Control (IP 84750)

The licensee's chemistry quality assurance program was defined by the Chemistry Quality Control Program Manual for Analytical and Radiochemistry Laboratories, Revision 11, November 13, 1992. The licensee has multiple point calibretion curves, independent controls and control charts which are maintained in a computer data base. The mean value along with 2 standard deviations (S.D.) were plotted on the control charts. A review of selected charts from the past year did not reveal any significant biase The technician testing program is conducted at the Production Training Center (PTC) by PTC personnel. A few assays must be performed at the site due.to unique instrumentation that the PTC does not hav Acceptance criteria is based on INP0 standards and technicians'whose results were outside of the criteria were retested. An evaluation-of the technician analysis data had been prepared for chemistry management by the PTC. All technicians had been tested as required. This program appeared to be operating wel The licensee participated in two interlaboratory comparison. programs; .

one was vendor supplied and the other was supplied by the corporate chemistry group. Results-for the past year were very good. The licensee achieved 74 agreements in 78 analyses (95%) in the corporate

. .~ - .

.

'

program. Using NRC acceptance criteria,14 of the 15. analyses in the vendor supplied program would be agreements. One analysis, iron-recovery, had a aositive bias of 38%. The licensee's investigation of this indicated 11at a likely cause of the bias was contamination. The licensee's quality assurance program appeared to be well manage No violations or deviations were identifie . Audits (IP 84750)

Quality Verification Audit Report 01-92-11 of the chemistry program, conducted February 3-18, 1992, focused on technician performance in obtaining plant samples,-preparation and analysis of samples and performing required quality control procedures. Calculations were j verified by the audit team and instrument set up parameters were- 1 reviewed for accuracy. The auditors also observed technician adherence to procedures. The audit report was well written, detailed and demonstrated that the audit team was very knowledgeable of chemistry operation Quality Verification Surveillance QAS 01-92-002 conducted._May.7-14, 1992 and Audit Report 01-92-13 conducted July 1992, reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)' operation and .

vendor performance.in sample collection. Auditors. accompanied the

'

vendor during sample collection, verified that _ required samples were obtained and that vendor procedures were followed. Sample records were .

reviewed for completeness. These audits were performance' based and well documented. Performance of the Quality Verification group represents a strength for the statio No violations or deviations were identifie . Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (IP 84750)

The inspector reviewed the' Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including the 1991 Annual Enviro.nmental-Report.which appeared to comply with the REMP_ requirements. All oF.the required ' samples Were

' collected and analyzed, except as noted in the repor The inspector toured selected air sampling stations with-the station GSEP coordinator who is also responsible for monitoring the REMP. The-air sampling stations had folders containing monthly field calibration-documentation and the equipment was in good operating conditio Monthly field calibration records' for all samplers were reviewed along -

-

with the annual air pump. calibrations and the quarterly calibration records of the field flowmeters used in'the monthly calibrations. The REMP manager stated that he' accompanied _the vendor sample collector _-

twice.per year and=the Quality Verification (QV) group accompanied the__

vendor'on an annual basis. The inspector noted to the REMP manager that accompanying the vendor-quarterly for those samples collected on a weekly. basis and during the land use census.would provide stronger-vendor oversight. The licensee agreed to consider this. The contractor

. _ _ . . .. _

,

'

provided station personnel with copies of sample collection and equipment maintenance records which were reviewed by the REMP manage The REMP appeared to be operating wel No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit iaterview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 21, 1992. The inspector discussed licensee performance in the chemistry comparison program along with observations on the chemistry quality assurance program, audits and oversight of the REMP. During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection. Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar Attachment: Table 1, Chemistry Comparison Results .

4th Quarter 1992

_

w

o

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

. .

.

'

TABLE 1 Chemistry Comparison Results LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station December 16-21, 1992 Analyte Method l Conc

Ratio 3 Acceptance Ranges

Result

2RSD i 3RSD

-

. ._

_

Fluoride A IC 2 1.074 0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A B 4 1.020 0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A -

C 8 0.937 0 875-1.125 _ 0.813-1.187 A Chloride A IC 2 1.016 0.933-1.067 0.900-1.100 A B 4 1.083 0.917-1.081 0.879-1.121 A+

C 8 0.983 0.926-1.074 0.895-1.105 A Sul f ate A IC 2 1.015 0.895-1.105 0.842-1.158 A B 4 1.005 0.895-1.105 0.868-1.132 A C 8 0.967 0.900-1.100 0.867-1.133 A Iron G DCP 1000 0.980 0.904-1.096 0.854-1.146 A H 4000 0.990 0.903-1.097 0.857-1.143 A 1 8000 0.995 0.903-1.097 0.855-1.145 A Copper G DCP 1000 1.000 0.904-1.095 0.859-1.141 A H 4000 1.007 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A I 8000 1.005 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A Nickel G DCP 1000 1.020 0.936-1.064 0.906-1.094 A H 4000 .l.015 0.938-1.062 0.908-1.092 A I 8000 1.016 0.938-1.062 0.907-1.093 A Chromium G DCP 1000 0.985 0.905-1.095 0.855-1.145 A H 4000 0.985 0.903-1.097 0.854-1.146 A I 8000 0.985 0.903-1.097 0.853-1.147 A Sodium J IC 5 0.887 0.863-1.137 0.784-1.216 A K 10 0.964 0.859-1.141 0.788-1.121 A L 15 0.968 0.862-1.138 0.789-1.211 A Silica T Spec 30 0.980 0.906-1.094 0.859-1.141 A U 60 1.036 0.909-1.091 0.860-1.136 A EPl0 Baron D Titr 1000 0.993 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A E 3000 1.006 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A F 5000 1.000 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ____ - _

. . . . . . . - . . .- _ -

.

g:

.. Methods: Titr - Titration IC - Ion-Chromatography Spec - Ultraviolet / Visible Spectrophotometry .

DCP - Direct Coupled Plasma Spectrophotometry 1 Conc: Approximate concentration analyze . Ratio of Licensee-mean value to NRC mean'valu . The standard deviation (SD) in the sixth and seventh. columns represents the coefficient of variation obtained from. averaging licensee data .from '

the preceding cycle (Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244). A result is considered to_ be in agreement if it- falls within.the- 2 SD range;-a qualified agreement .if it lies outside 2 SD, but within 3 SD; and.in

,

disagreement if it is outside the 3 SD rang . Result:

A = Agreement:-Licensee value is within 2 SDs of the NRC mean valu A+ -' Qualified agreement, licensee is between i 2 and i3 SDs o the NRC value.

,

D - Disagreement: licensee value is outside 3 SDs.

..

g .y --(. - - , _ _ , z-. -.-L- - -=