IR 05000317/1988003
| ML20151G748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1988 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151G724 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-317-88-03, 50-317-88-3, 50-318-88-03, 50-318-88-3, NUDOCS 8804200127 | |
| Download: ML20151G748 (6) | |
Text
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
i.
...
4_
',
.,
'i
- .
~
"
-
a-
,
.
,
.
U.S. NUCLFAR REGULhTORY C01NISSION REGION I-50.97/88-03 Repcrt Nos.
50-31B/88-03-50-317 Docket Nos'.-
50-318 F
DPR-53 License Nos.
OPR-69 Priority Category C
-
. Licensee:
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box-1475 Baltimore, Maryland 21203
,
!
Facility Name:
Calvert Cliffs-Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Lusby, Maryland
,
Inspection Conducted:
February 29 - March 4, 1988 M
b7-II
'
Inspector:
..H. Zibulsky,' C date
'
'f 0 01 II ff
Approved by:
ri.
W. J. PaWink, Chief, Effluents Radiation datp
[
Protec Hon Section, FRSSB, DRSS In_spection Summary:
Inspection on February 29 - March 4,1988 (Com';ined
.
Instection Report Nos. 50-317/88-03 and 50-318/88-03),
Arens Inspected: P.outine, announced inspection of the nonradiological
'
chenistry program. Areas "eviewed included analytical procedure evaluations and measurement control.
Results: No violations were identified.
"
8804200127 880413 ADOCK0500g7 lla
.
._ -. _ _ -
_.
- . - ;
.
>
,
,
k
'
OETAILS
i 1.
Individuals Contacted
"J. Lemons, Manager, Nuclear 0perations Department
- P. Crinigan, General Supervisor, Chemistry
- Sc Hutson, Supervisor, Plant Chemistry
"E. Eshelman, ' imist
- C. Phifer, Jr., QA Auditor.
- D. Shaw, Licensing Engineer R. Kreger, inemistry Technician J. York, Chemistry Technician J. Szymkowiak, Principal Chemistry Technician
- Denotes those present at'the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff.
2.
Analytical Peacedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted by the inspector to the itcensee 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 stat,dards is used to verify the various plant measurement 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 six out of twenty-six comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used fer comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
The silica and hydrazine disagreements were due to poor calibration and
,
the use of an old colorimeter. The licensee was calibrating with a
,
'
multi point calibration on an old colorimeter that wasn't able to produce repeatability on the samples. The licensee had a new spectrophotoneter i
that had to be calibeatsd. When the new instrument is brought into service, the old colorimeter will be retired. The copper disagreement was due to a single point calibration (see paragraph 3). The fluorice and chloride disagreements were due to sampling. A 100 lambda and a 300 lambda aliquot of the NRC standard was diluted to one liter which rmy have introduced error into the final analysis.
--
. --
.
_ - _
. -_
___-
.
-
.
.;
.
3.
Measurement Control Evaluation Verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples is done by splitting samples with the licensee and BNL.
A reactor coolant sample was taken for boron analysis, and steam generator
{
samples were taken-for anion and metal analyses.
One steam generator
'
sample was spiked with a standard solution of_ fluoride, chloride and sulfate, and another steam generator sample was spiked with a standard solution of iron and copper. The standard spike solutions were prep red by'BNL for the NRC, 0 uompletion of the analyses by BNL and the licen-
.;
see, an evaluation will'be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 50-317/88-03-01
~
and 50-318/88-03-01).
The intpector observed that the liccasee was using two commercially bought standard solutiens for calibration and control.
The standard solutions,
.
howeter, were from the same lot number. The licensee agreed that, for
.
Independence of the two standard solutions, different lot numbers should
!
be used.
It was also suggested t'y the inspector that the licensee not
generate a new measurement control chart'every month but to extend the
!
duration of the chart to 3 or 4 months. This will enable the licensee to observe trending.
[
'
It was demonstrated with the NRC sodium standards that single point calibrations for the Atomic Absorbtion (AA) or any other measurement
system is unacceptable. Also, all the calibration curves generated must be statistically fit to the data points and not graphically approximated.
,
The NRC sodium standards were analyzed by the licensee using their
procedure CP908 Determination of Sodium by Flame Emission, calibrating with a 100 ppb standard ind using the readout made on the AA and a 20 ppb
calibration check point.
The resulting biases on the NRC standards were
-20%, -10% and -26%.
Usir i a four point calibration curve that was
I statistically fit, resulte. in biases of +4%, +8% and -8% which were well within the 2 sigma acceptance criteria, i
4.
Exit Interview
!
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 4, 1988, and
'
,
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.
i I
L
i
!
!
<
i
.m
_,_ ~ _ _ _ _. - _ _ - - __., -,. _,,_ _ __- _.,...,,,_ _ _ _.-
__
t
- s f.
-
4...
.
. :' -
a Table 1 Capability Test Results
Calvert Cliffs. Units 1&2
,
Chemical Analytical Ratio o
Parameter Procedure NRC Value Lic. Value (t.ic./NRC) _ Comparison Resultsinpartsperbillion(ppbl Chloride Ion 8.0311.03 7.9410.64 0.9910.15_
Agreement
-
Chromato-12.4710.40 13.19i0.84 1.06 0.08 Agreement graph (IC)
8.0510.22 8.8310.24 1.1010.04 Di sagreemer.t Fluoride IC 7.70 0.17 6.82 0.46 -0.8910.06 Agreement 14.5010.63
- 11.82!0.12 0.8210.04 Disagreement 8.3510.28 8.4110.13 1.01 0.04 Agreement
'
Sulfate IC 6.67 0.30 5.7410.70 0.8610.11 Agreement
13.7010.80 12.3010.70 0.90 0.07 Agreement 8.08 0.30 8.2210.30 1.02i0.05 Agreement Silica Colorimetry-54.3 5.60 90.0115.0 0.6010.12 Disagreement 218114 18814 0.86t0.06 Disagreement 16015 163 16 1.0210.11 Agreement Hydrazine Colorimetry 22.311.4 20.711.6 0.9310.09 Agreement 113.8 1.4 90.010.0 0.7910.01 Disagreement Sodium AA-Flame 4.6 0.5 4.8 0.0 1.04 0.11 Agreement 9.2 0.8 9.910.0 1.0816.10 Agreement 14.410.8 13.311.5 0.9210.12 Agreement
'
Copper AA-Graphite 4.6810.24 3.4910.09 0.75 0.04 Disagreement
'
19.4 0.68 20.310.06 1.06 0.04 Agreement
'
43.511.8 44.511.4 1.0210.05 Agreement l
Iron AA-Graphite 4.8910.35 4.1510.9 0.8510.19 Agreement i
19.110.68 19.1 1.4 1.0 Agreement 44.1 1.20 43.112.3 0.9810.06 Agreement
?
t Resultsinpartspermillion(ppm]
f Boron Titration 1000110 1002 4 1.0 Agreement 3024146 296919 0.9810.02 Agreement 4947 61 493518 1.0 Agreement
!
,
--
-.,,.,-
-
,,e
--
---,----,-w-,-
-
- - -,
-
-
--2,
[/
..'
...
.-
..e
"
i
'
o
,
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 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.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-ratio l s 2 uncertainty)
l I
2 + Sx8 + 4S 8 Z m x, then Sz y
~ZY
y t
2(From: 9evington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the
!
Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New Ycrk, 1969)
,
d
,
!
f l
I i
!
!
i L
.
k l
?
'
!~
t i
!
_. _ _.,
,_ __ _ _-_ _ - _ ___ _ _,,___. ~. _ _ - _ _. - -
.. _, _
,
,
-
-
7-.L Q
.
.
.
...,
.......
.
.
.
.
.-
.
-
.
.
'
.
.
l l
l ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREME 4TS This attachient provides critoria for comparing results of capability tests.
(
In these criteria, the judger.ent 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 ratto of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed Licensee Value (ratio = NRC Value
);
(2) the uncertainty of the,-atio 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-ratio ( s 2 uncertainty)
8 + Sx8 8 Z = r, then Sz
+4 y
]*
T y
8( From:
Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York,1969)
<
_