ML20247K022
| ML20247K022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1989 |
| From: | Jang J, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247J999 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-09-MM, 50-289-89-9-MM, NUDOCS 8906010186 | |
| Download: ML20247K022 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1989009
Text
_ _ _ _ - - - _
_____
_
_
(.
.g
.;
- .
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Docket No. 50-289-
License No. DPR-50
Licensee : GPU Nuclear Corporation
P.O. Box 480
Middletown, PA 17057
Facility Name : Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1
Type of Meeting : Management Maeting
Meeting Date : April BS, 1989-
\\/M
~
Prepared by :
'
-
J.t[ang,Sr.R
on Specialist
date
.
Approved by:
M
f'#- N
'
J.J. Kottan, dcfing. Chief, Effluents Radiation
date
Protection Section
Meeting Summary : A management meeting was held at Region I, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania on April 28, 1989, to discuss NRC's non-radiological chemistry
program. The licensee requested this meeting to discuss the findings from
non-radiological inspections performed during the weeks of November 14-18, 1988
and A ril 17-21, 1989.
Specifically the licensee wanted the clarification
on: 1 the NRC's acceptance criteria as well as the statistical method used to
evalu te the non-radiological chemistry program, and 2) inspection findings
f
related to their training and calibration program. After lengthy discussions,
the NRC stated that they understood the concerns expressed by the licensee and
further stated that the NRC's acceptance criteria used in the non-radiological
chemistry inspection would be undergoing review as part of the NRC's continuing
assessment of its non-radiological chemistry program.
'
i
i
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
-
_
_
,
.
,
.
..
DETAILS
1. Meeting Attendees
a. GPU Nuclear Corporation /TMI Unit 1
.
R. McGoey, Manager of Licensing, TMI-1
TMI-1
E. fuhrer, Manager of Chemistry
G.vonNieda, Chemistry /MaterialDirector,GPUN
R. Ebert, Special Project Manager, GPUN
M. Drski, Staff Consultant QA, GPUN
b. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
R. Bellamy, Chief, FRS&SB, DRSS, Region I
W. Pasciak, Chief, ERPS, FRS&SB, DRSS, Region I
C. Cowgill, Chief, RPS Section 1A, DRP,HQsRegion I
R. Hernan, THI-1 Project Manager, NRR,
J. Jang, Sr. Radiation Specialist, ERPS, Region I
J. Kottan, Laboratory Specialist, ERPS, Region I
N. McNamara, Laboratory Assistant, ERPS, Region I
2. Background
During i NRC inspection performed at the TMI-1 site in November, 1988
(Report Number 50-289/88-30), the licensee analyzed NRC's non-radiological
chemical standard solutions (prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory for
using the licensee's normal methods and equipment.
Evaluation of the
NRC)lts indicated about 31 percent of the results were in disagreement with
resu
the criteria used for comparison. A subseouent inspection was conducted in
and all results were in agreement
with the same criteria used for compar50-289/89-09)ison except one disagreement which
April 1989 (Report Number
insignificant because of the high precision associated with the result.
This meeting was conducted at the licensee's request in order to discuss the
NRC's non-radiological chemistry program and the results of the above
inspections.
3. Discussion Summary
Dr. Pasciak opened the meeting and the attendees ware introduced.
During the meeting the NRC staff presented the background of the NRC's
non-radiological chemistry program:
o Purposes of inspections in the area of non-radiological chemistry
o Establishment of comparison criteria
w____---.--
- _ _ _ - _ _
?
..;
f'j;:;
3
,
o Determination of dilution factor of the NRC's standard solutions based on
the licensee's (TMI)-Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDCs).
o The NRC staff presented the findings of 1988 and 1989 inspections.
The NRC staff also presented the current industrial feedwater chemistry
guidelines for analytical capabilities (EPRI) and compared.the licensee's
action guidelines used in their feedwater chemistry.
The licensee's presentations included a general statement of their definition
of MDCs in the laboratory practice. The following details were discussed.
o TMI-1 chemistry laboratory did not have a statistical bases for MDCs but
these MDCs are reporting levels.
o The licensee did not agree with the 1988 inspection findings because they
felt the inspection report did not properly explain the criteria for the
measurement disagreements.
Nor did they understand the basis used by the
inspector for concluding that their training and calibration program
needed to be improved.
o The licensee evaluated the NRC's comparison criteria and concluded
that "t-test" is more appropriate statistical evaluation because
the acceptance criteria is based on random error and small sample size.
The licensee also stated that comparison criteria based on actual results
between licensees would also be appropriate for comparing results.
o The licensee requested to the NRC to re-evaluate the current acceptance
criteria.
4. Meeting Conclusions
Dr. Pasciak concluded the meeting by stating that the licensee's comments
were appreciated and the NRC's non-radiological chemistry 3rogram will be
reviewed for mutual benefits.
The licensee stated that tie non-radiole]ical
program is an excellent program to identify strong and weaknesc areas in the
analytical laboratory.
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _