IR 05000272/1986003
| ML18092B049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B048 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-86-03, 50-272-86-3, 50-311-86-03, 50-311-86-3, NUDOCS 8603130255 | |
| Download: ML18092B049 (5) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No /86-03 50-311/86-03 Docket No License No DPR-70 DPR-75 Priority Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Category Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks 1 s Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
January 27-30,.1986
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Inspector:
H "(~i \\
,_~k~---5hemi st.--(}
Approved by: ~-
c;_~
W. J. Pasciak, Chief, Effluents Radiation J arate tion Section, DRSS c
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 27-30, 1986 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/86-03 and 50-311/86-03).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry progra Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedure evaluation The inspection involved 31 inspector hours by one NRC region based inspecto Results:
No violations were identified.
DETAILS Individuals Contacted
- J. Zupko, Jr., General Manager-Salem Operations
- L. Miller, Assistant General Manager-Salem Operations
- J. Trejo, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager
- G. Slaby, Senior Chemistry Supervisor
- D. Zak, Chemistry Supervisor
- R. Dolan, Chemical Engineer
- J. Rupp, Operations Licensing Engineer M. Meltzer, Nuclear Training Specialist
- Present at the exit intervie The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staf.
Action on Previous Licensee Findings (Open) 84-02-01 IFI (84725) - Control standards, independent of calibra-tion standards, were not plotted on control chart Control charts were generated but more are needed for metals and for the analytes deter-mined with the ion chromatograp For the control charts that were generated, the same standa~d solutions were used for calibration and for measurement contro This item will remain ope (Open) 25~00-13 TI - The inspection covered part of this ite Of the two modules included in the TI, module 79501 was complete.
Measurement Control Evaluation The licensee 1 s measurement control program was verified through analysis of actual plant water sample The refueling water storage tank, steam generator blowdown, and well water were sampled and duplicate samples were sent to Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for independent verificatio Boron analysis will be performed on the refueling water storage tank, ammonia and hydrazine analyses on the blowdown sample, and iron and silica analyses on the well water sampl On completion of the analyses by both laboratories, a statistical evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 50-272/86-03-01, 50-311/86-03-01). Analytical Procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted by the inspector to the licensee for analysi The standard solutions were prepared by BNL for NRC Region I, and were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipmen The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee 1 s capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant
systems with respect to Technical Specification and other regulatory requirement In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee 1 s analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and pre-cisio The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that eight out of thirty comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The chloride disagreements are considered significant because the licensee is using an analytical procedure that does not have the detectability and the sensitivity that is required for their Technical Specification accep-tance parameter of 150 pp The inspector also identified that the licensee 1 s lowest chloride calibration standard was 100 ppb and they were reporting less than 50 ppb chlorid The inspector identified the poor chloride measurement procedure during inspection number 84-0 The fluo-ride disagreement was a sampling error and not considered seriou The chromium disagreements were probably due to a contaminated or decom-posed standard solutio Because the metals did not have measurement control charts and independent calibration and control standard solutions were not used, it was difficult to determine the reason for the chromium disagreement Most signific&ntly, without the control charts and inde-pendent standard solutions, the licensee could not identify a poor measure-men.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 30, 1986, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio At no time during this inspec-tion was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto..
Capability Test Results Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Chemical Ratio Parameter NRC Value Lie. Value (Li c/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per million (ppm)
Boron 609.4 +/-.3 +/- 1. 2 0.99+/-0.01 Agreement 507
+/-.5 +/-.99+/-0.01 Agreement 1680
+/-4 +/-1.97+/-0.03 Agreement Nickel 3.14+/-0.07 3.15+/-0.03 1. 0 Agreement 2.10+/-0.13 2.09+/-0 1. 0 Agreement 1. 05+/-0. 04 1. 06+/-0. 02 Agreement Iron 3.04+/-0.21 2.94+/-0.04 0.97+/-0.07 Agreement 2.03+/-0.10 2.04+/-0.02 Agreement 1. 01+/-0. 09 1. 00+/-0. 02 Agreement Copper 3.10+/-0.04 3.16+/-0.03 1. 02+/-0. 02 Agreement 2.07+/-0.04 2.14+/-0.02 1. 03+/-0. 02 Agreement 1. 03+/-0. 01 1.14+/-0. 08 1.11+/-0. 08 Agreement Chromium 3.02+/-0.28 2.31+/-0.05 0.76+/-0.07 Disagreement 2.01+/-0.05 1. 61+/-0. 04 0.80+/-0.03 Disagreement 1. 01+/-0.10 0.81+/-0 0.80+/-0.08 Disagreement Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Fluoride 19.2 +/-.3 +/-. 27+/-0. 06 Disagreement 149
+/-7 151
+/-.0 Agreement 32.9 +/-2
+/-0 1. 03+/-0. 06 Agreement Chloride 51. 5 +/- +/-.13+/-0.15 Agreement 69.7 +/-3 105
+/-1. 51+/-0. 20 Disagreement 55.4 +/-.7 +/-.56+/-0.19*
Disagreement Chloride 100.3 +/-. 7 +/-.52+/-0.03 Disagreement (rerun)
69.7 +/-3 66.7 +/-.96+/-0.06 Agreement 55.4 +/-.0 +/- 5 0. 45+/-0.10 Disagreement Ammonia(NH 3 ) 119. 9 +/-.0 +/-. 06+/-0. 04 Agreement 178.l +/-.3 +/-.97+/-0.04 Agreement 584.2 +/-.3 +/-2.91+/-0.05 Agreement Hydrazine 19.3 +/-1. 6
+/-0 1. 04+/-0. 09 Agreement 52.4 +/-1. 3 50.3 +/-.96+/-0.03 Agreement 100
+/-2 101
+/-. 01+/-0. 02 Agreement
'
a ATTACHMENT Criteria For Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability te~t In these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of tne ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC valu The following steps are performed:
(1)
the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value ls computed Licensee Value (ratio =
NRC Value
);
(2)
the uncertainty of the ratio is propagate If the absolute value of one minus the ratio uncertainty, the results (f 1-ratiol ~ 2 uncertainty)
z-X then Sz2 = Sx2 + Sy2 Y,
z2 x2 y2 the ratio is less than or equal to twice are in agreemen (From:
Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)