IR 05000333/1985023

Insp Rept 50-333/85-23 on 850910-12.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Nonradiological Chemistry Program, Including Measurement Control & Analytical Procedure Evaluations

ML20133G531
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/08/1985
From:	Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133G511	List: IR 05000333/1985023 ML20133G507
References
50-333-85-23, NUDOCS 8510160016
Download: ML20133G531 (5)

Text

.

- '

.,

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-23 Docket N License No. ORP-59 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Facility Name: James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted: September 10-12, 1985 Inspectors: M M *[

H. Zibul skyi, Ch'edist 4h/ '

/C- 7-f C date NMS&SB, DRSS Approved by: Ib C-9 Q Walter J. P(a)cTak, Chief ~

IO EEI 4 dhte BWR Radiati&1 Protection Section, DRSS Insoection Summary:

Inspection on September 10-12, 1985 (Report No. 50-333/85-23)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedure evaluations. The inspection involved 28 inspector hours by one NRC region based inspecto o Results: No violations were identifie .

! .-

' 8510160016 85101133 DR ADOCK O

- .

-

.

.

.

.

DETAILS Individuals Contac;ed

R. Converse, Resident Ma ager

E. Mulcahey, Radiological and Environmental Service Superintendent

B. Gorman, Chemistry General Supervisor

W. Hamblin, Chemistry Supervisor R. Patch, Q.A. Superintendent W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power

Denotes those present at the exit intervie The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staf . Action on Previous Licensee Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow-Up Item (84-13-01 ) - The licensee did not have a measurement control program for their analytical laboratory procedure Also, the licensee was not calibrating their laboratory measurement systems over the range of the sample analysis. The licensee generated measurement control charts with accepted criteria of 2 sigma. Sample analyses are not reported beyond the range of the lowest and highest calibration standard . Measurement Control Evaluation Verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples is done by means of NRC contractor analysis of sample Samples from the turbine building closed loop cooling system, boron standby liquid control tank, and two acid digested filters were obtained and sent to the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for independent verificatio Chloride analysis will be performed on the cooling water, boron analysis on the liquid control tank, and iron, copper, nickel, and chromium analyses on the acid digested filters. On completion of the analyses by BNL and the licensee, a statistical evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 85-23-01). 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 the 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 l regulatory requirements. In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precisio , _

- - .-

P

-

.

.

-3-The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that with the exception of six measurements, all of the results were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see attachment 1). The six disagreements are not considered significant. The boron disagreement was due to the NRC standard not being in the concentration range of the licensee's analysis. _ The chloride disagreement, using the spectrophotometric procedure, was due to the insensitivity of the method. The results of the comparisons are listed in Table The licensee analyzed the chloride standard by two methods, Dionex (ion chromatography) and spectrophotometry. The results showed that the spectrophotometric method was insensitive for ranges below 100 ppb chloride. The inspector advised the licensee to use the Dionex or Specific Ion Electrode metho No violations were identifie . Exit Interview '

The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)

at the conclusion of the inspection on September 12, 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 inspecto .e

!

!

"

r

.

.

!

<

TABLE I Capability Test Results J. A. Fitzpatrick Chemical NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Value Value (Lic/NRC) Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)

Chloride (Dionex) 20.6 .7 .20 0.40 Agreement I 27.7 .7 .18 0.13 Agreement -

69.7 3 83.5 1 .20 0.25 Agreement Chloride 20.6 .0 .26 0.46 Agreement (Spectrophoto.) 27.7 .3 .38 0.16 Disagreement 69.7 3 76.3t .09 0.09 Agreement l Results in parts per million (ppm)

Boron 1014 15 1081 108 1.07 0.11 Agreement 3047 26 3243 36 1.0610.01 Disagreement j 5040 130 5345 105 1.06 0.03 Agreement >

Iron 1.28 0.09 1.31 0.03 1.02 0.08 Agreement 2.39 0.10 2.49 0.02 1.04 0.01 Disagreement 3.43 0.21 3.64 0.03 1.06 0.07 Agreement 1

!

Copper 1.33 0.01 1.35 0.04 1.02 0.03 Agreement 2.60 0.04 2.6510.03 1.02 0.02 Agreement :

3.84 0.04 3.99 0.03 1.04 0.01 Disagreement ;

i'

Nickel 1.32 0.16 1.4010.02 1.06 0.13 Agreement 2.58 0.13 2.7510.05 1.07 0.06 Agreement !

3.79 0.07 4.0610.06 1.07 0.03 Disagreement Chromium 1.20 0.10 1.27 0.02 1.06 0.09 Agreement !

2.69 0.05 2.0110.02 0.747 0.02 Disagreement 3.74 0.28 3.97 0.26 1.06 0.28 Agreement

,

l t

{

,

i i

i i

I r

l r

-, ,-. . . . . , ,, -- --. . - . _ - . - - - , - - .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

.

ATTACHMENT Criteria For Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria fcr 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:

!

i (1) the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed ( ratio = Licensee Value )- (2)

NRC value the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated. 1 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-ratial 5 2 uncertainty)

1 Z = f , then Ef = Ef + E f

.

(From: Bevington, P.R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)

.

.

.