IR 05000333/1986020
| ML20214F530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1986 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214F487 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-86-20, NUDOCS 8611250340 | |
| Download: ML20214F530 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-333/86-20 Docket No.
50-333 License No.
DRP-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: October 21-23, 1986 Inspectors:
U - I 3 ~%
H. Zibu C63 mist date
'
Approved by:
l/
_
/& Aev Q
ti - 17 - 3' I Wi d. PaTciak, Chief, Effluents Radiation date Protection Section, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 21-23, 1986 (Report No.
50-333/86-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedure evaluations.
Results: No violations were identified.
,
8611250340 861118 PDR ADOCK 05000333 G
_
-
.. -
.... -,.
-,
_
-.
- -, -
.,
.- -.--
.
. - -
- -. =.
_
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
- R. Converse, Resident Manager
- R. Patch, QA Superintendent
- W. Fernandez, Superintendent
' Power
- D. Burch, Reactor Analyst Supervisor
- E. Mulcabey, Radiological and Environmental Service Supervisor
- B. Gorman, Chemistry General Supervisor
- W. Hamblin, Chemistry Supervisor A. McKeen, Assistant RESS R. Locy, Assistant Operations Superintendent 2.
Action on Previous Licensee Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (85-23-01) - On completion of the analyses of water samples by the licensee and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), a statistical evaluation was to be made. The analyses were completed and an evaluation was performed (see paragraph 3).
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.~
The results of the split samples taken at inspection 85-23 are:
BNL FitzPatrick Boron (ppm) SBLC 21,300 700 20,128 Iron (ppm) Millipore Filters 3.10 2.98 Copper (ppm) Millipore Filters
<0.050
< 0.099 Nickel (ppm) Millipore Filters 0.115
< 0.120 The analytical comparison for the analytes were acceptable.
New samples were taken to be sent to BNL for independent verification.
The boron standby liquid control tank f.or boron analysis, the condensate demineralizer outlet (CDO) for chloride and sulfate analyses and the feedwater system, for metal analyses, were sampled. The CD0 was spiked with a standard solution of chloride and sulfate and the feedwater sample was spiked with a standard solution of the metals. The standard spike solutions were prepared by BNL for the NRC Region I.
On completion of the analyses by BNL and the licensee, an evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 86-20-01).
.
4.
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 I, 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 six out of twenty-seven measurements were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The chloride disagreements were due to the use of a factor (ppb /mV). The factor could only be used where there is linearity in the calibration.
At more than 25 ppb of chloride, the calibration curve was not linear.
The inspector advised the licensee to use a statistically fit calibration curve. The licensee will generate a calibration curve to show linearity.
The iron and chromium disagreements were due to degenerated standard solutions.
The licensee was not using two independent standard stock solutions for calibration and measurement control. The licensee did not have the means of cross checking and verifying the standard solutions and did not identify the degenerated standards. The licensee stated that two independent standard solutions will be used in the future.
The calibration curves used for the metal analyses with the atomic absorption procedure were not statistically fit.
The calibration curve generated for chromium, using the licensee's current computer program, was compared with a curve generated with a linear regression program.
The result was 5% difference in values.
The licensee will investigate which is the correct calibration curve and change the program if necessa ry.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 23, 1986, 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.
_ _
_
,
,.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests.
In these criteira 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.
(l1-ratio l 2 2 uncertainty)
2 Z= x, then Sz2 + Sx2 + Sy2
Z2 x
y2
2(From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
..
p
.y----..
- -
--e er
--_,
- _
-y
,
-wy y-
t-g
- '--
- -- w
--
.-
. -. - _
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
_.
.
.
,..
o
!
Tablo 1
,
Capability Test Results J. A.
Fitzoatrick
'
Chemical Analytical NRC Lic.
Ratio Pa rame te r P rocedu re Vaiue VaIue fLic/NRC1 Comoseison
'
Results in parts per billiore (ppb)
lon Chloride Ch roma tog ra ph 24.113.1 20.710.6 0.8610.11 Ag reemen t 37.411.2 40.011.0 1.0710.04 Ag reement 40.311.1 39.710.6 0.9910.03 Ag reement
>
Chloride Sp. lon Elect rode 24.113.1 23.310.3 0.9710.13 Ag reement
37.411.2 52.412.6 1.4010.08 D i sa g reement 40.311.1 58.211.9 1.4410.06 Di sag reement Sulfate ion Ch roma tog ra ph 20.010.9 19.010 0.9510.04 Ag reement 41.012.4 39.711.5 0.9710.07 Ag reement 40.411.5 39.011 0.9710.04 Ag reement i
Silica Spect rophotomet ry 27.212.8 27.810 1.0210.11 Ag reement
%.513.5 54.211.2 0.9910.07 Ag reemen t 00.012.5 79.210 0.9910.03 Ag reement Sodium Atomic Ab so rp t ion 46.015.0 50.711.2 1.1010.12 Ag reement 92.318.0 96.011.0 1.0410.09 Ag reement 144.018.0 141.010.6 0.9810.05 Ag reement Results in parts per million (ppm)
'
t ron Atomic Absorption 0.97810.07 0.87110 0.8910.06 Ag reement I
1,91 10.07 1.71 10.03 0.3010.04 D i sag reement 2.94 10.08 2.63 10.05 0.9010.03 Di sag reement Nickel Atomic Absorption 1.01810.05 1.06710.02 1.0510.06 Ag reement
,
2.04 10.06 2.06110 1.0110.03 Ag reement 3.06 10.08 3.06410.03 1.0 Ag reement Copper Atomic
Abso rp t ion 0.93610.05 1.00210.01 1.0710.06 Ag reement
'
1.93210.10 2.06410.02 1.0710.06 Ag reement l-2.90 10.12 3.09 10.01 1.0710.04 Ag reement
~
Ch romium Atomic
,
Ab so rpt i on 1.02 10.06 0.93310.02 0.9110.06 Ag reement 1.88210.06 1.66310.03 0.8810.03 D i sag reement 2.86 10.16 2.19810.03 0.7710.04 Di sag reement
!
,
!
.
-
_