IR 05000322/1985040
| 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: |
| References | |
| 50-322-85-40, NUDOCS 8512060236 | |
| Download: ML20137S407 (5) | |
Text
-
'
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
e Report No.
50-322/85-40 Docket No.
50-322 License No.
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
//- M475~
H. Zibulsk9, Chemist date i
Approved by:
[1h
kts c~ d n-M"V W. J. PWsciak,' Chief 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 inspector.
Results: No violations were identified.
.
8512060236 851129 ADOCK050g32 DR
_
hm
.
.
- - -
..
.
~
.
.
d Details 1.
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 staff.
2.
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, Rev.
5, " General Laboratory Operation," and standard industrial practices.
The licensee's performance relative to these requirements and standards was determined by review of records, discussions with licensee personnel, and observations by the inspector.
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 range.
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 Specifications.
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 feasible.
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.
'
3.
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 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 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 complete.
No violations were identified.
4.
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
!
- - -. -
-
.
. -.
.
.
....
..
-
..
_-
.
.
.
-
. -.
.
-
-
.
-
_.
. _ -.
..;
"
.
.
.
+
W
.
.
%
Capability Test Results
Shoreham Chem. Parameter NRC Value Lic. Valta Ratio (Lic/NRC)
Comparison
.,
Results in parts paa billion (ppb)
Chloride 10.310.7
' <20
-
Agreement
27.7 2.8 28.312.9 1.02 0.15 Agreement
69.7 3 68.3 7.6 0.9810.12 Agreement
Results in parts per million (ppm)
Boron 1014t15 1076120.8 1.06 0.03 Agreement 3047 26 3050160.6 1.0 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
,
1.33 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 1.0 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 1.0 Agreement
.,
i i
!
..
_ _ _. _, - _ ~,. - _,.,,..., _,..
_. _ __,,.__.,__ _. _.
_.. _ _ _ _ _..,..., _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _. _ _...... _
-
_
.-.
-
-
_
_..
..
p
.
.
l
AT T ACllMEN T
,
f 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.
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
=
Z2 x2 y2 (From:
Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
i
,., _
,., _ _, _. _ _ _,,.
_ _ _
__ _ _...
_._._.,,,,.,.x
,, _ _ _ _ _
. __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _..... _ -.
_ _ _ _ - -_ _ _