IR 05000220/1986020
| ML17055C646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1986 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055C647 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-86-20, 50-410-86-55, NUDOCS 8611250324 | |
| Download: ML17055C646 (12) | |
Text
'F.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-220/86-20 Report No.
50-410/86-55 50-220 Docket No.
50-410 DPR-63 License No.
CPPR-112 Priority C
Category B
Licensee; Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard West S racuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Units 1 and
Inspection At:
Scriba New York Inspection Conducted:
October 7-9 1986 Inspectors:
H. Zibulsk
,
emist date Approved by:
U.
J.
Prot sciak, Chief, Effluents Radiation tion Section, DRSS date Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on October 7-9 1986 Combined Re ort Nos.
50-220/86-20; 50-410/86-55 d:
chemistry program.
Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedure evaluations.
Results:
No violations were identified.
8611250324 861118 PDR ADOCK 05000220 G
'4
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted
" J. Aldrich, Operations Superintendent, Unit
- E.
Leach, Superintendent, Chemistry and Radiation Management
- J. Duell, Supervisor, Chemistry and Radiation Protection
- J. Blasiak, Supervisor, Chemistry, Unit
- A. Ross, Supervisor, Chemistry, Unit 2
- J.
Coates, Chief Technician A
T.
Roman, Station Superintendent, Unit
J.
Moser, Chemistry Technician, Unit
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff.
2.0 Measurement Control Evaluation This is a verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples.
Samples from the Effluent and Influent were taken and spiked with an anion standard and a metal standard.
Each sample, with the spikes, were divided into two.
The licensee will analyze one sample and the other was sent to Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for independent verification.
On completion of the analyses by both laboratories, a statistical evalua-tion will be made ( Inspector Follow-up Item 50-220/86-20-01).
The inspector observed that the licensee used one standard stock solution for calibration purposes.
A separate control solution is needed to pro-vide an analytical cross check on the continuing quality of the stock solutions.
The licensee'greed to maintain two standard stock solutions.
Some of the calibration curves were not statistically fit to the data points but were graphically approximated.
This could produce as much as 15 percent error as may have been the case in the licensee's analysis"of the NRC blind standard for chloride.
The licensee agreed to use a
statistical method to draw the calibration curves.
3.0 Anal tical Procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted by the inspector to the licensee for analysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by BNL for NRC Region 1,
and were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment.
The analysis of standards is used to verify the various plant systems with respect to Technical Specification and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, the analysis of standards is
used to evaluate+he licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that five out of thirty-three comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table l.
The NRC boron standard solutions were analyzed by the licensee but were not reported because the concentrations were not in the range that is usually determined.
The specific ion electrode chloride disagreement was due to the licensee graphically approximating the data points on the calibration curve instead of statistically fitting the curve.
The spectrophotometric chloride disagreement was due to the insensitivity of the procedure at levels less than 50 ppb chloride.
The silica disagreement was due to the improper size cuvette that was used.
A
cm cell was used instead of a
cm cell, as Unit ¹2 used.
For any silica concentration less than 30 ppb, a larger cuvette size should be used to increase sensitivity.
The chromium disagreement seemed 'to be due to a sampling error.
The sodium disagreement and determination of the
NRC standards showed a positive bias.
This may be due to contamination from the potassium nitrate that was added to the sample before analysis.
The licensee, is going to investigate the cause of this systematic bias.
The inspector advised the licensee that they should consider purchasing an ion chromatograph.
This instrument will enable the licensee to analyze sulfate concentrations as low as 20 ppb, which is the EPRI Guideline parameter.
The licensee's turbidimetric procedure is not sensitive enough to meet the EPRI requirement for sulfate.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 9, 1986, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto 'L TABLE 1 CAPABILITY TEST RESULTS NINE MILE POINT UNITS 1 AND 2 Chemical Parameter NRC Value
~Lic Li.V1
~R Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Fluoride (Sp.
Ion Electrode) ¹2 Chloride (Sp.
Ion Electrode)
¹1 Chloride (Spectrophotometry)
¹1 Chloride (Spectrophotometry)
¹2 Silica (Spectrophotometry)
¹1 Silica (Spectrophotometry)
¹2 23.1+0.5 43.5+1.9 80.5+2.2 24.1+3.1 37.4+1.2 80.5+2.2 24.1+3.1 37.4+1.2 80.5+2.2 24.1+3.1 37.4+1.2 80.5+2.2 10.9+1.1 21.8+1.4 32.0+1.0 10.9+1.1 21.8+1.4 32.0+1.0 22.3+0.6 41.7+0.6 80.3+0.6 19+1 36.7+0.6 81.0+1.7 37.0+1.7 37.0+13.1 73.3+4.6 24.0+6.0 38.3+2.5 74.0+5.2 12.0+0 18.0+0 29.7+2.5 12.0+0 23.3+1.5 32.0+2.0 0.97+0.03 0.96+0.04 1.0 0.79+0.11 0.98+0.04 1.0 1.53+0.21 1.0 0.91+0.06 1.0 1.02+0.07 0.92+0.07 1.10+0.11 0.83+0.05 0.93+0.08 1.10+0.11 1.07+0.10 1 '
Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)
e Iron (Atomic Absorption)
Copper (Atomic Absorption)
0.587+0.04 1.15+0.04 1.76+0.05 0.562+0.03 1.16+0.06 1.74+0.07 0.613+0.01 1.21+0.02 1.73+0.02 0.606+0.01 1.18+0.01 1.76+0.01 1.04+0.07 1.05+0.04 0.98+0.03 1.08+0.06 1.02+0.05 1.01+0.04 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
Table
Chemical Parameteo ~
NRC Value Lic. Va'lue Ratio NRC
~Com ari eon Nickel (Atomic Absorption)
Chromium (Atomic Absorption)
Sodium (Atomic Absorption)
0.611+0.03 1.22+0.04 1.84+0.05 0.612+0.04 1.13+0.04 1.72+0.10 0.183+0.02 0.369+0.03 0.576+0.03 0 '21+0.01 1.20+0 1.73+0.03 0.638+0.04 1.29+0.04 1.82+0.01 0.240+0 0.431+0 0.625+0 1.02+0.05 0.98+0.03 0.94+0.03 1.04+0.09 1.14+0.05 1.06+0.06 1.31+0.14 1.17+0.10 1.09+0.06 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1 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 Licensee Value (ratio =
NRC Value
);
(2)
the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated.'f the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreement.
(/1-ratio) < 2 uncertainty)
'
= x, then Sz
+ Sx
+
~S y
Za xT
'(From:
Bevington, P.
R.,
Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
I 0