ML20005A448
| ML20005A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A439 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-81-01, 50-277-81-1, 50-278-81-01, 50-278-81-1, NUDOCS 8106300343 | |
| Download: ML20005A448 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1981001
Text
~
.
-
.
'
.
O
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
O
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
50-277/81-01
Report No. 50-278/81-01
50-277
Docket No. cn_>79
_
OPR-44
C
License.No. npp.cg
Priority
Category
c
-
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Comoany
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
.
Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania
Inspection conducted:
Janu ry 12-15, 1981
Inspectors: M
MhD -
3 '/O - 6 /
J. J. Kot, tan, naciation LaboratoT9 Specialist
date signed
date signed
-
,
.
.
,
date signed.
8/27/M/
Approved by:
' R. J BoFes, Chief, Independent Measurements
cate signed
and Environmental Protection Sectjon, DEP&OS
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 12-15,1981 (Report No. 50-277/81-01; 50-278/81-01)
.
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemical and
radiochemical measurements program using NRC:I Mobile Radiologimal Measurements
l
Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological and Environmental
Services Laboratory. Areas reviewed included:
program for quality control of
'
analytical measurements, audit results, performance on radiological analyses of split
actuoi effluent samples, and effluent control procedures. The inspection involved
30 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC regionally based inspector.
l
Resul ts:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in
i
,
!
three areas, one item of noncompliance was identified in one area.
(Severity Level 5-
failure to have an approved procedure, Paragraph 6)
.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
8106 30 0 3y,3 k
.
.
i
.
OETAILS
1.
Individuals Contacted
principal Licensee Employees
.
"W. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
- A. Hillsmire, Engineer, Healtn Physics and Chemistry
- H. Watson, Chemistry Engineer
K. James, Radiochemist
T. King, Technical Assistant Radiochemistry
E. Traverso, Technical Assistant
R. Costagliola, General Superintendent, QA
The inspector also intarviewed other licensee employees, including members
of the chemistry and health physics staffs.
- denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on previous Insoection Findings
(Closed) Unresolved Item (277/79-02-07, 278/79-02-07):
Verifying Isotopic
.
Analyses. The licensee has modified procedure HP0/C0 718, Sampling and
Analysis of Spent Resins, to faclude a review of the results of the gamma
spectroscopic analyses by a person other than the one who performs the
.
.
analysis.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (277/78-13-01, 278/78-17-01):
Measurement of RESL Samole: A sample split during a previous inspection
was analyzed for tritiu.n by both the licensee and the NRC. The results are
in agreement. See Paragraph 5 and Table I.
3.
Laboratory QC program
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the quality control of
analytical measurements. The inspector noted that the licensee's RT series
procedures ccver quality control for both reactor coolant chemistry analyses
and radiological analyses of effluent samples.
The licensee's effluent
radiological analysis QC program consists of quarterly splits with an out-
side laboratory for analyses required by his Technical Specifications.
In
. addition the licensee has_aaalyzed unknown samples submitted by an outside
laboratory. Also, the operation procedures for the various counting
instruments specify daily background and source checks and where applicable,
gain checks. The inspector discussed Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality
Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -
Effluent Streams and the Environment, and laboratory quality control in
general with the licensee. The inspector had no further questions in this
area.
l
_-
,
.
.
.
3
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Audit Results
The inspector determined that the licensee's chemistry and effluent
monitoring programs were on the Quality Assurance Division audit list.
The inspector reviewed Audit No. A80-04 HPC dated 2/14 - 3/28/80 and
Audit No. A80-2950 dated 9/12 - 10/24/80 which covered the above areas.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Confirmatory Measurements
During the inspection, actual liquid, airborne particulates and charcoal,
and gaseous effluent samples were split between the licensee and NRC:I
for the purpose of intercomparison.
The effluent samples were analyzed
by the licensee using his normal me hods and equipment, and by the NRC
using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint
analyses of actual effluent samples are used to determine the licensee's
capability te measure radioactivity in effluent samples.
In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference
laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Services
, Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses
to be performed on the samples are: Sr-89, Sr-90, gross alpha, gross beta
and tritium. These results 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 a liquid effluent sample requiring wet chemistry,which
was split during a previous inspection,were also compared during this
inspection.
The results of the sample measurement intercomparisons indicated that all
of the measurements were in agreement or possible agreement under the
criteria used for comparing res,ults.
(See Attachment 1) The results of
the comparisons are listed in Table I.
6.
Procedures
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for chemical, radio-
chemical and effluent analyses. The inspector noted that the licensee
had a written and approved procedure for the operation of the computer-
based multichannel analyzer (MCA) used for effluent gamma spectroscopy
analysis, Procedure HPA-70. The inspector noted that the licensee also
had a procedure for the calibration of his MCA, but this procedure was
not reviewed and approved as required by the licensee's Technical
!
!
.
.
.
4
Specifications.
Section 6.8.1 of the Technical Specifications requires
procedures as per Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, dated November, 1972.
i
Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires procedures for both opera-
tion and calibration of instruments used for radioactive effluent analyses.
-Section 6.8.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that the procedures
required by Section 6.8.1.of the Technical Specifications be reviewed by
PORC and approved by the Station Superintendent prior to implementation.
The inspector stated that the failure to have a reviewed and approved
procedure for MCA calibrations was an item of noncompliance (277/81-01-01;
278/81-01-01). The inspector had no further questions in this area.
7.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representat.ives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the
conclusion of the inspection on January 15, 1981.
The inspector
summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspector
findings.
The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in Paragraph 5 and
report the results to the NRC.
.
.
.
e
.
.
TABLE I
,
PEACH BOTTOM 2 and 3 - VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISON
RESULTS IN TOTAL MICR0 CURIES
Unit 2
Drywell Vent
Na-24
(8. lf 0.4 )E-2
(1.1811.3%)E-1
Possible Agreement
Particulate
Fil ter
Cr-51
(5.519 5)E-2
(6.6614.3%)E-2
Agreement
0955 hrs
,
1-13-81
Co-58
(2.210.6)E-3
(3. 37113. 8%)E-3
Agreement
licensee's
detector #2
(5.319 6)E-3
(6.3919.0%)E-3
Agreement
Zn-65
( 5.110. 3) E-2
(7.7612.5%)E-2
Possible Agreement
(4.01p.6)E-3
(5.7715.6%)E-3
Agreement
Cs-134
(2. 5fp.7)E-3
( 3. 67113.4%)E-3
Agreanent
(3.41p.4)E-3
(3.9417.8%)E-3
Agreement
Unit 2
Drywell Vent
(8.261p.02)E-1
(8.3819 3%)E-1
Agreenent
Charcoal
Cartridge
I-133
(6.881p.09)E-2
(7.4211.0%)E-2
Agreement
0955 hrs
1-13-81
I-135
(3.lfp.2)E-2
(3.0015.27)E-2
Agreement
licensee's
detector #3
.
e
-
-
- - - - -
.
.-
.
.
'
.
.
TABLE 1
1
PEACH BOTTOM 2 and 3 - VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
IS0 TOPE
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISON
'
RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER MILLILITER
Unit 2
0FFGAS
Kr-85m
(1.30!p.02)E-3
(1 lC12.3%)E-3
Agreement
0925 hrs
1 -13-81
Kr-87
(3.56fp.08)E-3
(3.52+2.3%)E-3
Agreement
licensee's
detector #1
Kr-88
(3.3619 06)E-3
(2.7314.9%)E-3
Agreement
(2.57+0.03)E-3
(2.53+3.0%)E-3
Agreement
Xe-135
(4.9819 03)E-3
(3. 9411.0%)E-3
Possible Agreement
Unit 2
Na-24
(3.44fp.03)E-2
(4.31+1.8%)E-2
' Agreement
1550 hrs
1-12-81
Cr-51
(1.4819 11)E-3
(1.43143.5%)E-3
Agreenent
licensee's
detector #3
Tc-99m
(1.1640.02)E-2
( 1.42 +3.9 %) E-2
Agreement
Zn-65
(1.081p.06)E-3
(1.75fl5%)E-3
Possible Agreement
(8. 711. 2) E-5
(7.62+82%)E-5
Agreement
I-133
(1.09fp.03)E-3
(1.31fl2%)E-3
Agreement
.
e
,
.
4
'
.
.
.
TABLE 1
.
PEACH BOTTOM 2 and 3 - VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
IS0 TOPE
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISDN
RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PEP. MILLILITER
1350 hrs
Cr-51
(2.719 2)E-5
(2. 65.113.9%)E-5
Agreement
1-13-81
(2.610.3)E-6
(1.92121.5%)E-6
Agreement
Co-58
(4.710.3)E-6
(3. 321,9. 3%)E-6
Possible Agreement
( 3.23fp.06) E-5
(2.851.2.6%)E-5
Agreement
Zn-65
(4.60!p.ll)E-5
(4.1213.4%)E-5
Agreement
(1.4010.04)E-5
(1.3614.1%)E-5
Agreement
Cs-134
(3.8710.06) E-5
(3.8611.8%)E-5
Agreement
(6.2110.07)E-5
(6. 5311.7%)E-5
Agreement
(8.891p.03)E-4
(1.0010.10)E-3
Agreement
1600 hrs
12-18-78
Sr-89
(913)E-8
(3.4411.06)E-7
No Conparison*
'
(517)E-9
<l.91E-6
No Couparison*
.
gross beta
(1.5010.09)E-5
(1.1810.12)E-5
Agreement
Cross alpha
(612)E-9
<2.93E-6
No Conparison*
- NOTE: These analyses could not be compared because of the less than
values reported by the licensee for Sr-90 and gross alpha, and
because the Sr-89 results had a large error.
(See Attachment 1)
1
_ _ _ _ -
_
%
,
i
.
. . .
Attachment 1
-
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
This attachment provides criteria for comparing rescits 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 criteria, 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.
LICENSEE VALUE
RATIO = hRC' REFERENCE VALUE
Possible
Possible
Resolution
Agreement
Agreement A
Agreemcnt B
<3
0.4 - 2.5
0.3 - 3.0
No Comparison
4-7
0.5 - 2.0
0.4 - 2.5
0.3 - 3.0
'
8 - 15
0.6 - 1.66
0.5 - 2.0
0.4 - 2.5
16 - 50
O.75 - 1.33 *
0.6 - 1.66
0.5 - 2.0
'
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
0.75 - 1.33
0.6 - 1.66
>200
0.85 - 1.18
0.80 - 1.25
0.75 - 1.33
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
- Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification
is greater than 250 Kev.
'
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
Iodine on absorbers
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification
is less than 250 Kev.
895r and 90Sr Determinations.
Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same
reference nuclide.
.
O
e
.