IR 05000397/1991009
| ML17286A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1991 |
| From: | Tenbrook W, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17286A722 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-91-09, 50-397-91-9, NUDOCS 9104250313 | |
| Download: ML17286A723 (7) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-397/91-09 License No.
NPF-21 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968
, Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 site, Benton County, Washington Approved by:
Inspection Conducted:
March 25-29, 1991 Inspected by: W XC~
W.
K. TenBrook, Radiation Specialist G.
P.
Y has, Chief Reacto Radiological Protection Branch Date Signed Date Signed
~Summer:
Areas Ins ected:
Inspection of followup item concerning confirmatory analysis of Iron-55 in plant liquid effluent.
Inspection procedure 92701 was used.
Results:
Measurement disagreements for internal check samples and an NRC test sample indicated that licensee'e-55 analyses for the third calendar quarter, 1990, had been in error.
The licensee determined that calibration standards were not proper ly prepared.
The licensee reanalyzed the NRC test sample and obtained acceptable results.
Fe-55 measurements for the third quarter would be amended in the next semi-annual effluent release report per the results of the investigation.
Radiological effluent limits were not approache DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Bennett, Chemistry Craft Supervisor L. Hayne, Chemistry Operations Supervisor L. Morrison, Plant Chemistry Supervisor Item 50-397/89-15-03 Closed
This item concerned a comparison of NRC and licensee measurements of tritium, radiostrontium and Fe-55 in a liquid effluent sample.
Prior comparisons documented in inspection report 50-397/90-08 confirmed the licensee's analyses for tritium and radiostrontium, but the Fe-55 analyses disagreed.
The inspector concluded the disagreement was caused by a non-homogeneous sample split
'r container sorption of iron.
The inspector instructed the NRC contract laboratory to provide a Fe-55 sample for confirmation of the disagreement.
The licensee provided their results by letter dated November 2, 1990.
The intercomparison is presented in Table 1.
Table
Initial Comparison of Iron-55 Spiked Sample NRC Licensee
-
NRC Random Ratio:
Agreement Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Analyte (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml)
Fe-55 7.90E-05 4.92E-05 2.00E-06
'1. 61.
0. 75"1. 33 The initial results did not agree.
During this period, the licensee also analyzed their periodic quality assurance sample of Fe-55 in liquid.
The quality assurance sample vendor laboratory obtained the licensee results, compared the results with the certified value, and determined that the licensee's measurement did not meet vendor acceptance criteria.
Upon learning of the vendor laboratory disagreement, the licensee investigated the cause.
The licensee informed the inspector of the results of the investigation by facsimile dated February 5, 1991.
The licensee's Fe-55 standard had been prepared at a lower, concentration than the value documented.
The licensee amended their Fe-55 results for effluent and control samples consistent with the concentration actually prepared.
The results appear in Table il
~ lf
'r
-2-Tabl e 2-Amended Comparison of Fe-55 Spiked Sample NRC Licensee NRC Random Ratio:
Agreement Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Analyte (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml)
Fe-55 5.33E-05 4.92E"05 2.00E"06 1. 08 0. 75-1. 33 Table 2 demonstrates that the licensee's corrective action had been effective.
The reanalysis also confirmed the licensee could accurately analyze Fe-55 in a simple test solution.
Liquid effluent release limits were not approached as a result of the measurement inaccuracy.
The licensee stated that third quarter Fe-55 levels would be amended in the next semi-annual effluent release report.
The licensee's quality assurance program had effectively identified the faulty Fe-55 calibration standard, which led to accurate correction of Fe-55 measurements.
"This item is closed.
Exit Meetin During the inspection period, the inspector and personnel listed in Section 1 discussed the results of the comparison and the corrective action for the initial discrepancy.
The inspector informed the licensee that the final result was,acceptabl Enclosure Criteria for Acce tin the Licensee's Measurements Resolution
16
200
15
200 Ratio No comparison 0.5
-
2.0 0.6
-
1.66 0.75 "-
1.33 0.80 -
1.25 0.85 "
1.18
~Com ari son 1.
Divide each NRC result by its associated uncertainty to obtain'he resolution.
(Note:
For purposes of this procedure, the uncertainty is defined as the relative standard deviation, one sigma, of the NRC result as calculated from counting statistics.)
2.
Divide each licensee result by the corresponding NRC result,to obtain the ratio (licensee result/NRC).
3.
The licensee's measurement is in agreement if the value of the ratio falls within the limits shown in the preceding table for the corresponding resolutio '