IR 05000387/1989016
| ML17156B262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1989 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B261 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-89-16, 50-388-89-14, NUDOCS 8907170492 | |
| Download: ML17156B262 (16) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-387/89-16 50"388/89-14 Docket No.
50-387 50-388 License No.
NPF-14 NPF-22 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an 2 North Ninth Street Allentown Penns lvania 18101 Facility Name:
Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 5 2 Inspection At:
Berwick Penns lvania Inspection Conducted:
June 12-16 1989 N.
cNamara, Laboratory Assistant, ERPS date J. Kottan, abora ory Specialist, ERPS date Approved by:
R. J.
Bo s, Chief, Effluents Radiation Protection Section, FRSS Branch date Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on June 12-16 1989 Combined Ins ection Re ort Nos. 50"387/89-16 50-388/89"14 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological and non-radiological chemistry program.
Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements
- radiological, standards analyses-chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC.
Results:
Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identifie DETAILS l.
Individuals Contacted Princi al Licensee Em lo ees
- R. Byram, Superintendent of Plant
"G. Stanley, Assistant Superintendent
- Outages
- E. Figard, Supervisor of Maintenance
"J. Blakeslee, Assistant Superintendent of Plant
"P. Treier, Chemistry Assistant Foreman
- C. BurKe, Chemistry Supervisor
"J. Hettinger, Chemistry Foreman
- D. McGann, Compliance Engineer
"R. Kichline, Project Licensing Specialist
- R. Prego, QA Supervisor - Operations D. Wright, Chemistry Assistant Foreman J. Appel, Private Consultant - Chemistry C. Smith, Chemistry Technician Level I L. Lontz, Chemistry Technician Level I S. Wary, Chemistry Technician - Level I
- Denotes those personnel who attended the exit meeting on June 16, 1989.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel including other members of the chemistry group staff.
2.
~Pur ose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the following aroas.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity and non-radiological chemistry parameters.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of his analytical results though implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
3.
Radiolo ical and Non-Radiolo ical Chemistr 3. 1 Confirmator Measurements Radiolo ical During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge),
and gas samples were split between the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison.
Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent 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 are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in
effluent and other samples with respect to Technical Specification 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, gross alpha, and tritium.
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 NRC during a previous inspection on September 8-12, 1986 (Inspection Report Nos.
50-387/86-17 and 50-388/86-18)
were also compared during this inspection.
The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results.
(See Attachment 1.)
The comparisons are listed in Table I.
The first analysis of the liquid radwaste sample resulted in three of the five identified nuclides being in disagree-ment and the average of all of the results biased low by approxi-mately 20 percent.
After discussions between the inspector and the licensee, and a review of the latter's counting practices, the licensee determined that the sample was not properly positioned on the detector because the sample was counted while contained in a plastic bag.
Through further discussions with the licensee the inspector determined that the licensee routinely counted samples in Marinelli beakers in plastic bags in order to prevent the detector from becoming contaminated'he inspector discussed with the licensee the need to make accurate measurements at all times and the importance of properly positioning the Marinelli beaker on the detector.
The licensee responded to this matter by changing his counting protocol so that the lids of the Marinelli beakers are taped in place, the germanium detector is now covered with plastic wrap to prevent its contamination, and the samples are taken out of the plastic bag when counted.
The inspector noted the licensee's prompt response to this matter.
When the sample was properly positioned on the detector the licensee's results were in agreement with the NRC results.
The inspector had no further questions in this arear'o violations were identified.
3.2 Standards Anal ses Non-Radiolo ical Chemistr During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipmen The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specification and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
A spiked sample of feedwater was sent to BNL for analysis.
The analyses to be performed on the sample are for chloride and sulfate.
The licensee will perform the same analyses, and the NRC results will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date.
These will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
The analysis of spiked sample of the licensee's feedwater permits comparison of results from an actual sample matrix.
t The results of the standards measurements comparison indicated that 5 of 27 measurements were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results.
(See Attachment 2.)
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table II.
The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration range.
Of the five results in disagreement under the NRC criteria, two of the results, one iron value and one silica value, were within ten percent of the NRC known value.
These disagreements were due to the statistical nature of the NRC comparison criteria and were not judged to be significant.
The three remaining disagreements were measurements of chromium.
These disagreements appeared to be due to the licensee's atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA) rather then the procedures or the technique of the technicians performing the analysis.
When attempting to set-up and calibrate the AA, the licensee could not obtain the expected minimum absorbance for the chromium standards used for this purpose, indicating a problem with the instrument.
Through discussions with the licensee the inspector determined that the licensee had purchased a
new AA, had trained the technicians on this new instrument and would have the new instrument in service in the laboratory within several weeks to a month.
The inspector noted that during the previous NRC inspection in this area (Inspection Report Nos. 50-387/87-03 and 50-388/87-03),
the licensee's chromium
'results were in agreement with the NRC known value.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations were identified'.
Laborator A/
C Pro ram Chemi stry Program. Quality Assurance Criteria for Comparing Radiochemical Measurements (Split Samples)
The licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC programs are contained in a number.of procedures.
Specifically, the following procedures were reviewed by the inspector.
AD-QA-445 CH-QC-001
Interlaboratory Quality Control Program Intralaboratory Spiked Sample Quality Control Program Chemi stry Computer Software Verificat i on Replicate Sampling and Analysis Control of Chemistry Test Equipment Instrument Checks CH-QC-002 CH-QC-003 CH-QC-004 CH-QC-005 CH-QC-006 CH-GI-011 These procedures provide for the control of analytical performance through a variety of mechanisms including an interlaboratory program of spiked or split samples, including acceptance criteria; an intralaboratory spike program, including acceptance criteria; replicate sampling and analysi,s; and the use of control charts to assess instrument performance.
The procedures provide guidance in both the construction and use of control charts.
The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's QA/QC program for 1988 and 1989 to date, and noted that the licensee appears to be implementing the program as required by his procedures.
In particular, the inspector noted that for 1988 the licensee used three laboratories as part of his interlaboratory program and for 1989 two laboratories were being used.
Also, the licensee tracked the results of his intralaboratory spiked program by both individual technicians who analyzed the spikes and the procedures used for performing the analyses.
In addition, the licensee included his vendor. laboratory, used for performing effluent analyses requiring radiochemical. separations, in the interlaboratory program.
The inspector observed that the interlaboratory and intralaboratory programs were a noted strength of the licensee's QA/QC program.
'I In reviewing laboratory control charts the inspector noted that the licensee maintains statistical control charts for the analytical instrumentation and counting equipment with the exception of the gamma spectrometry system.
For this counting system the licensee used fixed percentage values as control limits and warning limits.
The inspector discussed this with the licensee.
The licensee stated that a new gamma spectrometry system had been purchased and delivered to the site, and that after the new system was installed and operating, statistical control charts would be generated and used for this system also.
The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations were identified.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 16, 1989.
The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspectio TABLE 1 SUS UEHANNA 1 and 2 VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE. VALUE Results in Total Microcuries COMPARISON Char coal Cartridge I-131 Unit 2 Containment 6-15-89 1051 hrs Det.
(2.9+0.4)E"4 (2. 1+0. 3)E-4, Agreement Results in Microcuries Per Milliter Particulate Filter 6-21-89 0110 hrs Det.
Cr-51 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Na-24 (2.4+0.3)E-4 (2.37+0.08)E"4 (4.5+0.5)E-5 (9.4+0.6)E-5 (2.1+0.3)E-4 (2.32+0;08)E-4 (2.65+0.04)E-4 (5.3+0.2)E-5 (7 ~ 1+0. 2) E-5 (2. 15+0. 09) E-4 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Particulate Filter 6-12-89 0110 hrs Det.
Offgas 6-14-89 0841 hrs Det.
1st Count Offgas 6-14-89 0841 hrs Det.
2nd Count Liquid Radio-active Waste 6-14-89 2145 hrs Det.
Co-58 Cr-51 Mn-54 Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135m Xe-135 Xe-138 Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135 Cr-51 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Na-24 (4.5+0.5)E-5 (2.4+0.3)E-4 (2.37+0.08)E-4 (4. 11+0. 05) E-2 (1. 69+0. 02) E"1 (1. 41+0. 02) E-1 (4. 05+0. 07) E-2 (3. 27+0. 11) E" 1 (1. 705+0. 009) E-1 (9.8+0.3)E"1 (4.09+0.08)E-2 (1.70+0.10)E-1 (1. 40+0. 04) E-1 (3.94+0.06)E-2 (1.720+0.010)E-l (9.2+0.3)E-5 (9.42+0.02)E"4 (3.20+0.06)E"5 (2 '66+0.009)E-4 (9.78+0.10)E-5 (4.O+0.5)E-5 (2.1+0.2)E-4 (2.40+0.08)E-4 (4.23+O.O4)E-2 (1.67+0.03)E-1 (1. 370+0. 014) E" 1 (4.22+0.12)E-2 (3.38+0.03)E-1 (1. 600+0. 008) E-1 (8.77+0.05)E-1 (4.67+0.04)E-2 (1.74+O.O4)E-1 (1. 500+0. 014) E-1 (4.8O+O.O4)E-2 ('1.750+0.005)E-1 (8.2+0.3)E-5 (8.63+0.02)E-4 (3.02+0.07)E-S (2. 020+0. 013) E-4 (1
~ 13+0. 02) E-4 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement'greement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUS UEHANNA 1 and 2 VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries Per Milliter Reactor Water 6-12-89 0110 hrs Det.
Post Treat-ment Offgas 6-15-89 1010 hrs Det.
Cr-51 Co-58 Mn-54 Co-60 Na-24 Kr-85m (1. 92+0. 03) E-3 (2.2+0.2)E-5 (2.3+0.3)E-5 (2. 1+0. 3) E-5 (2.02+0.04)E-3 (3.5+0.3)E-7 (1.72+0.04) E-3 (2.2+0.2)E-5 (2.0+0.3)E"5 (2.2+0.3)E-S (3. 81+0. 05) E"3 (3.5+0.2)E-7 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
"Liquid Radio-Fe-55 active Waste gross alpha 9-9-86 H-3 1000 hrs Sr-89 Sr-90 ( 1. 50+0. 10) E-6 (4.2+1.5)E-9 (6. 62+0. 10) E-4 (-13+9) E-9 (0+3)E-9
<1E-6
<2E-8 (6. 3+0. 1) E-4
<2E-8
<7E-9 No Comparison No Comparison Agreement No Comparison No Comparison
- Note:
Results of sample split in Inspection 50-387/86-17 and 50-388/86-18
-
TABLE II SUS UEHANNA 1 5 2 CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS Chemical Parameter Method of
~Anal sis*
NRC Known Value Licensee Ratio Measured Value
~Lic/MRC Results in Parts Per Million
~Coe ari son Boron Iron 1040+10 3100+100 5000+90 1.86+0.05 3.98+0.05 0.585+0.015 1020+30 2980+20 4910+40 2.02+0.05 4.04+0.03 0.68+0.04 0.98+0.03 0.96+0.03 0.98+0.02 1.09+0.04 1.015+0.015 1.16+0.08 Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Copper 2.00+0.03 1.957+0.015 4.03+0.15 3.85+0.02 0.600+0.015
'.58+0 0.98+0.02 0.96+0.04 0.97+0.02 Agreement Agreement Agreement Nickel Chromium Chromium (reanalysis)
Sodium 2.03+0.06 4.17+0.07 0.61+0.03 1.98+0.05 0.385+0.005 0.580+0.010 1.98+0.05 0.385+0.005 0.580+0.010 P.6P+P.P7 0.106+0.006 0.790+0.009 2.17+0.05 4.22+0.02 0.65+0.03 1.83+0.02 0.527+0.006 0.750+0.0'10 1.61+0.06 0.437+0.006 0 '23+0.012 0.543+0.006 0.113+0.006 0.83+0.04 1.07+0.04 1.01+0.02 1.07+0.07 0.92+0
~ 03 1.3710.02 1.29+0.03 0.81+0.04 1.14+0.02 1.07+0.03 0.90+0 F 11 1.07+0.08 1.05+0.05 Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Results in Parts Per Billion b
Chloride IC 18.5+0.1 37.3+0.3 76.5+1.2 19+3 37+3 74+2 1.0+0.2 0.99+0.08 0.97+0.03 Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLE II (continued)
SUS UEHANNA 1 8( 2 CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS Chemical Parameter Method of
~Ana'I sis" NRC Licensee Known Value Measured Value Ratio
~LIc/NRC
~Com ari son Results in-Parts Per Billion b
Sul fate Silica IC SP 19.5+1.4 38+3 78+2 53+3 104+4 157+2 18.7+0.2 38+2 76+2 49.0+1.2 98.6+1.0 147+2 0.96+0 F 07 1.00+0.10 0.97+0.04 0.92+0.06 0.95+0.04 0.94+0.02 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement
"Note:
= UV-Vis Spectrophotometry IC
= Ion Chromatography Tit.= Potentiometric Titration AA
= Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS 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 criter ia, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty.
As that 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'atio For A reement~
<34" 7 8-15
~ 16 " 50 51 - 200
>200 No Comparison 0.5 - 2 '
0.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18
'Resolution
= (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty)
~Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
'
ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests.
In these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value.
The following steps are performed:
(1)
the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed (ratio =
Licensee Value NRC Value (2)
the uncertainty of the ratio i s pr opagated.
'f the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, () 1-ratio)
< 2 uncertainty),
the results are in agreement.
x, Sz'x'~'Z=
-'hen
=
+ ~
Z2 x2 yz
'(From:
Bevington, P. R.,
Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)