IR 05000322/1985040

Insp Rept 50-322/85-40 on 851015-18.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Nonradiological Chemistry Program, Including Measurement Control & Analytical Procedure Evaluations

ML20137S407
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/29/1985
From:	Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137S400	List: IR 05000322/1985040 ML20137S397
References
50-322-85-40, NUDOCS 8512060236
Download: ML20137S407 (5)

Text

-

'

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

e Report N /85-40 Docket N License N CPPR-9_5 Priority -

Category B Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792

'

Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Wading River, New York Inspection Conducted: O_ctobe r 15-18, 1985

' Inspectors: ht#/k[dk H. Zibulsk9, Chemist i

//- M475~

date Approved by: [1h 3 kts c~ d W. J. PWsciak,' Chief n-M"V date BWR Radiological Protection Section Inspection Summary:

Inspection on October 15-18, 1985 (Report No. 50-322/85-40) ,

t

'

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedure evaluations. The inspection involved 27 inspector hours by one NRC region based inspecto Results: No violations were identifie .

8512060236 851129 DR ADOCK050g32

_

hm _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

.

~

.

.

d Details Individuals Contacted

J. Schmitt, Radiological Controls Division Manager

R. Petricek, Radiochemistry Supervisor

C. Seaman, Quality Control Division Manager

R. Grunseich, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing

G. Romeo, Laboratory Supervisor

• . R. Gaschott, Laboratory Foreman

M. V111 aran, Compliance T. Bulischeck, PASS Chemist S. Sprengel, Laboratory Technician S. Chan, Laboratory Technician R. Hawkins, Laboratory Technician

• denotes those present at the exit interview.

. The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staf . Measurement Control Evaluation The adequacy and effectiveness of the licensee's nonradiological chemistry quality control program was reviewed against the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Technical Specifications, licensee's Procedure 71.018.01, Re , " General Laboratory Operation," and standard industrial practice The licensee's performance relative to these requirements and standards was determined by review of records, discussions with licensee personnel, and observations by the inspecto The licensee was using the same standard solution for calibration and measurement control. This observation was made by the NRC inspector in Inspection No. 50-322/85-15. The licensee has committed to prepare and analyze measurement control standards independent of calibration standards. This will be an inspector follow-up item (85-40-01).

The inspector observed that the reported results for chloride were not within the calibration standards range. The lowest chloride calibration standard was 20 ppb and the reported values were less than 10 ppb. The licensee committed to change the calibration standard concentrations to incorporate a lower measurement rang The inspector identified that the licensee had generated only one measure-ment control chart with acceptance criteria of 2 sigma while several different types of analyses were required by the Technical Specification The inspector informed the licensee that control charts should be gen-

--~~~~eirlled for the analyses required by Technical Specification , and vendor and fuel warranties. The licensee committed to generate control charts l

.

.

%

for boron, chloride, metals, and any other elements that may be feasibl This will be reviewed during a future inspection (Inspector Follow-up Item 85-40-02).

The standby liquid tank and reactor coolant tank were sampled and dupli-cate samples were sent to Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for inde-pendent verification. Boron analysis will be performed on the standby liquid tank ~ samples and chloride and metal analyses on the reactor coolant sample. On completion of the analyses by both laboratories, a statistical

evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 85-40-3).

No violations were identified.

' Analytical procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted by the inspector to the licensee for analysis. The standard solutions were pre-pared by BNL for NRC Region I, and were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment. The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensees capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems'with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirement In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and pre-cisio The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that with the exception of the three copper measurements, all of the results were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see attachment 1). The disagreements may be due to a poor calibration standard. This could not be verified because the licensee did not have a measurement con-trol program for the metals (see paragraph 2). This analysis will be repeated when control charts are complet No violations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 18, 1985, and summarized 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

. . - . -. . - - . - . _ - .

..;

"

.

.

.

+

W

.

.

%

Capability Test Results Shoreham Chem. Parameter NRC Value Lic. Valta Ratio (Lic/NRC) Comparison

.,

Results in parts paa billion (ppb)

Chloride 10.31 ' <20 -

Agreement

27.7 .31 .02 0.15 Agreement

69.7 3 68.3 .9810.12 Agreement

Results in parts per million (ppm) *

Boron 1014t15 107612 .06 0.03 Agreement 3047 26 305016 .0 Agreement 5040 130 4918 41 0.98 0.03 Agreement Iron -1.28 0.09 1.17 0.02 0.9110.07 ~ Agreement 2.39 0.10 2.49 0.02 1.04 0.04 Agreement

,

3.4310.21 3.3710.03 0.98 0.06 Agreement

Coppe .33 0.01 1.4310 1.08 0.01 Disagreement

"

2.6010.04 2.76 0 1.06 0.02 Disagreement *

3.84 0.04 3.95 0 1.03 0.01 Disagreement

Nickel 1.3210.16 1.3410 Agreement 2.5810.13 2.7010 1.0510.05 Agreement i- 3.79 0.07 3.88 0 1.02 0.02 Agreement Chromium 1.20 0.10 1.1010 0.92 0.08 Agreement 2.69 0.05 2.6010 0.9710.02 Agreement 3.74 0.28 3.7510 Agreement

.,

i i

!

.. _ _ _ . _ , - _ ~ , . - _ , . , , . . . , _ , . . _ . _ __,,.__.,__ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . , . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ _

.-. - - _ _ . .

. .

p 4

.

.

l *

AT T ACllMEN T ,

Criteria For Comparing Analytical Measurements f

This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability test 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 propagate If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreemen (ll-ratio l 2 2 uncertainty)

Z , then Sz2 = Sx2 + sy2 Z2 x2 y2 (From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)

i

,. , _ ,. , _ _ , _ . _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ __ _ _ . . . _._._.,,,,.,.x , , _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ - . _ _ _ _ - -_ _ _