IR 05000277/1988020
| ML20151J055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1988 |
| From: | Jang J, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151J026 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-88-20, 50-278-88-20, NUDOCS 8808020176 | |
| Download: ML20151J055 (5) | |
Text
_ ___ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-277/88-20 50-278/88-20 Docket No.
50-277 50-278 License No.
OPR-44 Priority
--
Ca tego ry C
DPR-56 Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom _ Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: June 13.-17, 1988
[h
_7 il-te Inspector-N-
/g. C. Jang, Sd/flo/
r Radiation Specialist date
,
b-
'.
7 -/ 2 -S S Approved by
^ #. J. Pascia, Chief, Effluents Radiation date Protection Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 13-17, 1988 (Report Nos. 50-277/88-20i 50-278/88-20)
Areas inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry i
program. Areas reviewed included n.easurement control and and analytical proced-ure evaluations, i
i Results: No violations were identified.
i g!*osele M8?N17
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
.
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
.
Details 1.
Individuals Contacted D. Ahmuty, Training Services
- T. King, Chemistry Technical Assistant D. LeQuia, Superintendent, Plant Services V. Morris, Regulatory Support
- 0. Mowery, Corporate Chemist
- A. Odell, Support Chemist
- D. Oltmans, Senior Chemist
- J. Valinski, Chemistry Senior Technical Assistant
- H. Watson, Plant Chemist
"J. Wiley, Director, Nuclear Chemistry
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other liceraee employees including members of the chemistry staff.
2.
Organization The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the chemistry program.
The chemistry program is administered by the Senior Chemist, who has responsibility for review of nonradiological and radiological chemistry programs.
The Senior Chemist now reports to the Superintendent Plant Services as of March, 1988 due to the recent reorganization.
Prior to the reorganization, the Senior Chemist reported to the Superintendent of Opera-tions.
Lines of authority appear clear and upper plant management support appears strong as evidenced by the commitment to upgrade laboratory equipment.
3.
Training During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the qualification examina-tions for technicians A and B rather than on job-training records.
The inspector noted that all questions were reasonably complex, not only for the technical depth but for regulatory requirements.
The inspector deter-mined the licensee has a good training program in the chemistry area.
4.
Analytical Procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were given to the licen-see for analysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for NRC Region I and were analyzed by the licen-see using normal methods and equipment.
The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in vari-ou: 2nt systems with respect to Technical Specification and industry standards.
In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
I
.
.
The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that one out of thirty measurements was in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
The silica disagreement was due to a slope shift in the calibration curve.
The inspector recommended that the calibration curves should be constructed using working level standard solutions to minimize a slope shift.
The licensee took an action during this inspection.
Presently, the licensee does not have procedures capable of analyzing sulfate ion to a level of 20 ppb as required by EPRI guidelines.
The corporate laboratory is developing procedures for utilizing their ion chromatograph (IC).
In other areas, the licensee recently revised their analytical procedures to include upgraded laboratory techniques throughout the laboratory.
5.
Measurement Control Verification of the '<icensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples is done by splitting samples with the licensee and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The condensate system water samples were taken for metal analyses and for chloride analysis.
These samples were spiked with a standard solution of iron, copper, nickel and chromium and a standard solution of chloride. The standard spike solutions were prepared by BNL for the NRC Region I.
On completion of the analyses by BNL and the licensee, an evaluation will be made (Inspector Followup Items 50-277/88-20-01 50-278/88-20-01).
The licensee now generates control charts for their measurement systems including silica which was reconmended during the previous inspection.
-
Also the licensee participates in an interlaboratory comparison program.
The licensee has developed the Plant Chemistry Database Management System (DMS) as part of 0A/QC.
The inspector reviewed the DMS.
This system (OMS)
!
contains the analysis list ana frequencies at each sampling point and acceptance criteria for all parameters.
The system will flag if there are any anomalous results of measurements. Also, the DMS has capability to generate the parameter trending charts which are a very useful tool to diagnose plant water chemistry conditions as well as analytical results.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection or June 17, 1988 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio,
.
-
.
_ TABLE 1 Capability Test Results Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 Chemical Analytical NRC Licensee Ratio Patameter Procedure Value Value (Lic./NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Silica Spectro-13.2 0.7 11.0 0.9 0.83 0.03 Disagreement photometry 26.0 1.0 25.1 3.3 0.97 0.13 Agreement 39.3 0.5 38.213.7 0.97 0.09 Agreement Copper Direct 10.0i0.2 10.2 0.4 1.02 0.08 Agreement Current 20.2 0.8 22.220.6 1.1010.05 Agreement Plasma 30.0 0.8 31.2 1.1 1.04 0.05 Agreement Iron Direct 9.3 0.3 10.6 1.0 1.14 0.11 Agreement Current 19.910.3 20.120.3 1.01 0.02 Agreement Plasma 29.3 0.8 29.310.1 1.00 Agreement Nickel Direct 10.210.3 10.6 1.1 1.04 0.11 Agreement Current 20.9 0.4 20.2 0.4 0.97 0.03 Agreement Plasma 30.3 1.3 28.4 0.2 0.94 0.04 Agreement Chromium Direct 9.9 0.3 10.120.3 1.02 0.04 Agreement Current 19.3 0.3 20.4 0.4 1.06 0.03 Agreement Plasma 29.0 0.5 29.5 0.3 1.02 0.02 Agreement Zinc Ofrect 10.3 0.4 10.3 1.1 1.00 Agreement Current 28.8 0.4 29.8 3.7 1.03 0.13 Agreement Plasma 48.0 0.6 48.6 3.3 1.0110.07 Agreement Chloride Ion 18.510.1 20.411.4 1.1010.08 Agreement Chroma-37.3 0.3 38.0t0.4 1.0210.01 Agreement tograph (IC)
76.5 1.2 77.110.4 1.01 0.02 Agreement Sulfate IC 78.0i5.6 72.313.3 0.9320.08 Agreement 153.2i9.2 169.4 2.0 1.11t0.07 Agreement 78.0i2.3 81.7 5.8 1.0510.08 Agreement Sodium IC 12.121.4 10.920.4 0.90 0.11 Agreement 21.2 1.2 20.621.5 0.97 0.09 Agreement 31.6 1.8 29.910.7 0.95i0.06 Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)
Boron Ofrect 1040t10 1003115 0.96 0.02 Agreement Current 31001100 2993153 0.9710.04 Agreement Plasma 5000 90 4903 50 0.98 0.02 Agreement
_'
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYT! CAL MEASUREMENTS 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. RRC Value
);
(2)
the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated.8 If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreement.
(ll-ratici s 2 uncertainty)
8
Z=p,thenSz7r*Sx x
1,
- x y
8(From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York,1969)
l l
i