IR 05000309/1987006
| ML20214Q185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1987 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q169 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-87-06, 50-309-87-6, NUDOCS 8706040273 | |
| Download: ML20214Q185 (7) | |
Text
,..
.
...
_-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
'leport No.
50-309/87-06 Docket No.
50-309 License No. DPR-36 Category C
Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 Facility Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection Conducted: April 20-23, 1987 Inspectors:
E- / E-T 7 H. Zibulsky,3 SaYehuards Chemist date ERP, EPRPB, DRSS
<-
5 [ n 6t I V
I l
h Approved by:
l n.
W / J. Pa, tak, Chief, L'fluents Radiation daty
/
'
Protecti Section, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 20-23, 1987, (Report No. 50-309/87-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included analytical procedure evaluations and measurement control.
Results: No violations were identified.
8706040273 870521 DR ADOCK 05000309 PDR l
.-
.
i DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
- J. Garrity, Plant Manager
- P. Radsky, Chemistry Section Head
- J. Stevens, Lead Chemist
- L. Thornburg, Secondary Chemist E. T. Boulette, Assistant Plant Manager
- Present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff.
2.
Action On Previous Licensee Findings (Closed) 84-24-01 IFI - The licensee initiated a measurement control program with control charts having acceptance criteria of 12 sigma and an unacceptable parameter of 3 sigma (see paragraph 4).
(Closed) 85-33-02 IFI - With the licensee's upgrading of the laboratory facilities, equipment ard personnel, improved analytical laboratory performances resulted (see paragraph 3).
(Closed) 85-33-03 IFI - The licensee submits standard solutions, on an annual basis, to their technicians for analysis which is evaluated by the Lead Chemist.
The licensee is a participant in an inter laboratory standards program with the New England Nuclear Chemist Association that use a commercial laboratory for the preparation and comparison of the standards.
The analytical results for both the inter and intra laboratory standards programs are documented.
3.
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 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the NRC, 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 precision.
The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that four out of thirty-nine comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
..,
..
'
The four disagreements were due to sampling error and are not considered significant.
,
The NRC standards for sodium were analyzed by the licensee with the addition of potassium. chloride. The analytical results of the three standards showed significant positive biases of 79%, 71% and 34%. The inspector suggested to rerun the standards without the addition of potassium.
The licensee reran the NRC standards using the atomic absorption spectrometer and the ion chromatograph. The results had random biases of less than 10%
which were well within the acceptance criteria. The licensee will revise their sodium procedure to eliminate the addition of the potassium salt.
The ammonia standards were rerun. The original licensee values had negative bias which were identified by the licensee to be the result of inadequate temperature control. The RC str.ndards were made up and analyzed in a temperature of about 254 and the licensee's room temper-ature was about 20 C.
When the temperature difference was compensated for, the results were within the acceptance criteria.
The nickel standards were rerun. The licensee found that in the presence of iron, copper and chromium, an alternate line of 231 on the AA should be used. Also, the chromium standards were rerun.
The licensee found that in the presence of iron, copper and nickel, a secondary peak of 359.4 on the AA should be used.
The licensee's analytical results showed a great improvement from the previous inspection 85-33. This could be attributed to management's efforts to improve the laboratory facilities and upgrade the instruments.
The higher caliber of laboratory technicians and supervisors that are now onsite are also a contributor to the improvement of the licensee's laboratory performance.
4.
Laboratory Measurement Control Verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples is done by splitting samples with the licensee and BNL. A steam generatcr sample was taken for anion analyses and a reactor coolant sample was taken for metal analyses. The steam generator sample was spiked with a standard solution of chloride, fluoride and sulfate and the reactor coolant sample was spiked with a standard solution of iron, copper, nickel and chromium. The standard spike solutions were prepared by BNL for the NRC. On completion of the analyses by BNL and the licensee, an evaluation will be made (Inspector Followup Item 50-309/87-06-01).
Except for boron, two independent standard stock solutions for calibration and measurement control were not being u:ed. The licensee was not able to identify a degenerated standard solution or verify the quality of the standards. The licensee was going to initiate this in their measurement
.,
quality assurance progra.
o
,
The licensee stated that they would generate calibration curves with no less than three data points, excluding zero. The curves would be statistically fit to the data points.
The licensee generated control charts for most of the analytes.
The control charts had acceptance criteria of 12 sigma and an unacceptable parameter of 13 sigma.
During inspection 85-33, there were only two control charts, boron and chloride. Because the licensee had good control charts, many analytical anomalies were identified by the licensee during this-inspection.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 23, 1987, 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.
e TABLE 1 CAPABILITY TEST RESULTS MAINE YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL NRC LICENSEE RATIO PARAMETER PROCEDURE VALUE VALUE (LIC./NRC)
COMPARIS0N Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Ion Chloride Chromatograph 12.1 1.6 9.210.2 0.7610.10 Disagreement 18,710.6 18.3 0.7 0.9810.05 Agreement 40.311.1 39.111.2 0.97 0.04 Agreement Ion Fluoride Chromatograph 11.610.3 10.8 0.2 0.9310.03 Disagreement 21.811.0 22.510.9 1.0310.06 Agreement 41.811.4 44.3 0.4 1.06 0.04 Agreement Ion Sulfate Chromatograph 10.010.5 9.910.1 0.9910.05 Agreement 20.511.2 20.310.9 0.99 0.07 Agreement 40.411.5 41.310.3 1.0210.04 Agreement Ion Sodium Chromatograph 4.5810.5 4.1510.1 0.9110.10 Agreement 9.23 0.8 8.4110.06 0.9110.08 Agreament 14.410.8 14.5710.33 1.0110.06 Agreement Specific Ion Ammonia Electrode 175.2110.6 190117.1 1.0810.12 Agreement 314 26 30010 0.9610.08 Agreement 938185 1000 0 1.0710.10 Agreement SIO, Spect.
27.21.2.8 28.013.5 1.0310.17 Agreement
'
54.513.5 54.011.7 0.99 0.07 Agreement 80.0 2.5 80.714.0 1.01 0.06 Agreement Hydrazine Spect.
22.311.4 21.510.9 0.9610.07 Agreement 56.9 0.7 52.010.9 0.9110.02 Disagreement 10411.0 104 0.6 1.0 Agreement
.,
-o TABLE 1 Cont.
CAPABILITY TEST RESULTS MAINE YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION-CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL NRC LICENSE RATIO
' PARAMETER PROCEDURE VALUE VALUE (LIC./NRC)
COMPARISON Results in parts per million (ppm)
.0461.05
.0431.01 0.9311.03 Agreement
.0921.08
.097.01 1.0510.92 Agreement 1.441.08 1.571.06 1.091.07 Agreement Mannitol Boron.
Titration 985110 98912 1.0 Agreement 2980150 2965124 0.991.02 Agreement 4870160 493913 1.011.01 Agreement Copper AA 0.4681.02 0.523t.03 1.121.08 Agreement 0.9661.05 0.9871.01 1.021.05'
Agreement 1.451.06 1.481.01 1.021.04 Agreement Iron AA 0.4891.04 0.5010.10 1.0210.22 Agreement 0.9551.03 1.0331.06 1.0810.07 Agreement 1.471.04 1.551.05 1.0510.0.04 Agreement Nickel AA 0.5091.03 0.571.06 1.1210.14 Agreement 1.021.03 1.071.06 1.05.07 Agreement 1.531.04 1.6710.15 1.0910.10 Agreement Chromium AA 0.511.03 0.49.01 0.961.06 Agreement 0.9411.03 1.04.02 1.111.04 Disagreement 1.431.08 1.37.03 0.961.06 Agreement
- _
-
=o
.
,
i ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL 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 ration of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed Licensee Value (ratio = NRC Value
);
(2) the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated.2 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-rated [< 2 uncertainty)
1 Z= x, then Sz2 + Sx8
+Sy
~28
~ 8
x y
8( From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
l