IR 05000286/1986004
| ML20202F930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1986 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202F906 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-286-86-04, 50-286-86-4, NUDOCS 8604140246 | |
| Download: ML20202F930 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -._
..
.
..
.
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
Report No.
50-286/86-04 Docket No. 50-286 License No. DPR-64 Priority
--
Category C
l l
Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Facility Name:
Indian Point 3
.l Inspection At: Buchanan, New York Inspection Conducted: March 3-6, 1986 h.
Inspector:
Y-2.- T(o H. Zibulsky mist i
date i
Approved by:
0 >n e Y- % - 3 (o
.
W. J.Vasciak, Chief, Effluents date
{
Radiation Protection Section, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 3-6, 1986 (Report No. 50-286/86-04).
l l
t Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included measurement control, analytical procedure evaluations, and training.
Results: No violations were identified.
.
g4140246860407 G
ADOCK 05000286 PDR
,
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
- M. Cass, Assistant to Resident Manager
- J. Gillen, General Chemistry Supervisor
- M. Kerns, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. Kraft, Chemistry Supervisor J._ Russell, Superintendent of Power J. Perrotta, Radiation and Environment Service Superintendent J. Schivera, Licensing Coordinator
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members
- of the chemistry staf f.
2.
Action on Previous Licensee Findings (closed) 84-17-01 IFI - The licensee did not have a measurement control program with analyzed standards plotted on control charts. The licensee has generated control charts with a 2 sigma alert parameter and a 13 sigma acceptance criteria. They have yet to generate control charts for spectrophotometric and metal analyses.
The licensee was initiating the use of independent standard stock solutions for calibration and measure-ment control.
(open) 84-17-02 IFI - The licensee is scheduled to initiate a formal training program for chemistry technicians in September,1986. This program will be reviewed at that time. The licensee is participating in an inter laboratory standards program with other northeast power plants.
The licensee has an intra-laboratory standards program where the chemistry technicians analyze standard solutions that were prepared by the Chemistry Supervisor and evaluated by the Supervisor.
(open) 25-00-13 TI - The inspection covered part of this item. Of the two modules included in the TI, module 79501 was completed.
3.
Measurement Control Evaluation The licensee's measurement control program was verified through analysis of actual plant water samples.
The boric acid storage tank, condensate, and steam generator blowdown were sampled and duplicate samples were sent to Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for independent verification.
Boron analysis will be performed on the boric acid storage tank, ammonia and hydrazine analysis on the condensate and silica analysis on the steam generator blowdown sample. On completion of the analyses by both labor-atories, a statistical evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 50-286/86-04-01).
.
f!'
.
!-
.
1 4.
Analytical 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 licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specification and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and pre-cision.
The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that five out of twenty nine comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
One chloride analysis was slightly lower than the licensee's lowest 20 ppb standard and was not used in the comparison rating. The licensee's control standard identified that the fluoride disagreements were caused by a deteriorated reference electrode solution, which was changed immediately. The ammonia disagreement was due to sampling error and the hydrazine disagreements were probably due to the deterioration of the standard solution. There wasn't a control chart for the ammonia and hydrazine analyses. The licensee will generate control charts for those analyses and also for silica. The hydrazine disagreements were less than nine percent of BNL's values.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 6, 1986, and sum-marized the scope and findings of the inspection. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
I l
_
.
__
.
.
-
,
.
..
t i
i Capability Test Results
.
Indian Point #3 Nuclear Power Plant i
Chemical Parameter NRC Value Lic. Value Ratio (Lic./NRC)
Comparison
.
Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Chloride 20.6 1.4
<20
--
--
' (Sp. Ion 69.7 3.0 65.3 2.5 0.94 0.05 Agreement Electrode)
139.4 6.0 132.0 5.3 0.95 0.06 Agreement Chloride 10.3 0.7 9.7 0.5 0.94 0.08 Agreement (Ion Chroma-69.713.0 70.9 0.6 1.02 0.04 Agreement tography)
27.7 2.8 30.9 0.7 1.12 0.12 Agreement
Fluoride 48.1 2.0 47.310.6 0.98 0.04 Agreement (Sp. Ion 149 7.0 126 0 0.8510.04 Disagreement Electrode)
65.8 4.0 57 2.0 0.8710.06 Disagreement Ammonia 239.8 6.6 231.712.9 0.97 0.03 Agreement (as NH )
1168 19.1 1215 5.0 1.04 0.02 Agreement
356 10.6 310i10 0.87 0.04 Disagreement Hydrazine 100 2.0 93.7 0.6 0.94 0.02 Disagreement 19.3 1.6 19.0 0 1.0 Agreement
-
52.4 1.3 47.7 0.6 0.9110.03 Disagreement Iron 456 8.4 469 10.6 1.03 0.03 Agreement 608 8.0 617 6.1 1.01 0.02 Agreement 608 14.4 608 3.8 1.0 Agreement t.
Copper 465 1.6 461 3.1 1.0 Agreement i
620 3.2 624 4.7 1.0 Agreement 620 1.6 627 6.7 1.01 0.01 Agreement Nickel 472 2.8 470 0.6 1.0 Agreement 629 10.4 627 10.9 1.0 Agreement 629 25.6 64016.8 1.0210.04 Agreement Chromium 453111.2 451 2.9 1.0 Agreement 604 4.0 607 5.0 1.0 Agreement 604116.0 594 6.4 0.9810.01 Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)
Baron 3047 26 3054 10.4 1.0 Agreement 50401130 4990110.4 0.99 0.03 Agreement
'
-
i
)
--
-
-
- -
-
-
.
L
'
.
.
ATTACllMENT
,
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability te ts.
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.
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-ratio l 2 2 uncertainty)
Z=*, then Sz2 = Sx2 + Sy2
22 x2 y
,
l l
(From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York,1969)
l s
,
I l
t L.