IR 05000333/1993021
| ML20058N272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058N271 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-93-21, NUDOCS 9310130240 | |
| Download: ML20058N272 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.: 50-333/93-21 Docket No.: 50-333 License No.: DPR-59 Licensee:
New York Power Authority P.O. Box 41 Lycomine. New York Facility Name:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Lycomine. New York Inspection Conducted:
Seotember 20-24.1993 Inspector:
N'
'
A -t 't 3 J. Kottan,A2boratory Specialist Date Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Approved By:
/8-06'-P3 R. BoE's, Chief, ERPS Date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insoected:
Announced inspection of non-radiological chemistry programs.
Areas reviewed included: Confirmatory Measurements - Chemical and Laboratory QA/QC.
Results The licensee had in place effective programs for measuring chemical parameters in plant systems samples. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were observed.
9310130240 931005 PDR ADOCK 05000333 G
, _
.
.
t l
.
l Details i
-
l
.
'
l 1.0 Individuals Contacted Princinal Licensee Emniovees
i i
- R. Barrett, General Manager, Operations
C. Boucher, Chemistry Supervisor
- M. Colomb, General Manager, Support Services
!
- R. Converse, Senior Assessment Engineer W. Hamblin, Chemistry Supervisor i
- J. Heddy, BWR Licensing '
,
l
- D. Lindsey, General Manager, Maintenance Services
,
l
- A. McKeen, Chemistry General Supervisor
- E. Mulcahey, ORG l
J. Prokop, QA Auditor l
H. Salmon, Resident Manager
- J. Sipp, RES Manager i
- G. Tasick, Quality Assurance Manager
- A. Zaremba, ORG Manager i
U.S. NRC Emniovees
[
J. Tappert, Resident Inspector l
!
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on September 24,1993.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel, including the chemistry technicians who performed the analyses for this inspection.
.
l
!
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following areas.
1.
The licensee's ability to measure chemical parameters in various plant systems i
samples.
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
3.0 Chemical Confirmatory Measurements
!
l
'
l During this part of the mspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the l
licensee for analysis. The standards were prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory l
(ORNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. The analysis of standards is used to ve.rify the licensee's capability to i
l l
i
,
I
+,,.
.
r
, _
__
. _.
_
'C
.
monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatcry requirements. In addition, the analysis of standards
.
is used to evaluate t9e licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision. The stand rds were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spreau over the licensee's normal calibration and analysis range. The r
boron analyses were grformed at only one concentration due to the lack of sufficient volume of the NRC boron standards.
P Also, an actual sample was sent to ORNL for anion analysis. The analyses to be l
performed on the sample are chloride and sulfate. The licensee will perform the same
'
analyses on an aliquot of this sample. The results of these analyses will be compared
,
i when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection repor*
The analysis of a real sample permits comparisons from an actual matrix.
.
The results of the standard measurements comparisons indicated that all of the l
measurements were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for
comparing results. (See Attachment 1 to Table I.) The data are presented in Table I.
i No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
!
4.0 Laboratory OA/OC The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program was described in the licensee's Chemistry
Manual, Section 4, " Chemistry Quality Assurance and Quality Contml Programs". This l
section of the Chemistry Manual provided the basis and philosophy of the laboratory
QA/QC program. The actual implementation of the laboratory QA/QC program was
'
described in Procedure CDP-17, " Quality Assurance / Quality Control Procedure". This
procedure provided for both an intralaboratory QC program and an interlaboratory QC program. The intralaboratory program consisted of the use ofinstrument and procedure l
control charts for trending performance and the periodic analysis of split, spiked and duplicate samples. The interlaboratory QC program consisted of the quarterly analysis of unknown samples received from an outside laboratory. The licensee also sent split and spiked samples to the vendor laboratory used for isotopic boron analyses.
The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program for 1992 and 1993 to date, and, based on this review, noted that the licensee was implementing the laboratory QA/QC program as required. Of particular note to the inspector were the detailed reviews of both the intralaboratory and interlaboratory QC
{
data performed by the Chemistry Supervisor. This included the use of control charts for i
trending and assessing the interlaboratory QC data, and the use of trend charts for assessing intralaboratory control chart means and control limits. The inspector concluded that these aspects of the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program were noteworthy.
In addition, the inspector reviewed QA surveillance and audit activities of the chemistry area. The licensee had preformed three surveillances of chemistry activities 1991, one
.
.
in 1992, and had scheduled a surveillance to be performed prior to the end of 1993. The licensee had not conducted specific QA audits of the chemistry area, but the inspector noted that audits of other areas included some aspects of the chemistry program. For example, Audit No. 804, " Radiological Environmental Program and Reg. Guide 4.1",
conducted March 29 to May 14,1993, included a section covering Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications, and resulted in Chemistry Procedure CDP-17, " Quality Assurance / Quality Control Procedure", being reviewed as part of this audit.
Furthermore, the licensee stated that a future audit of the chemistry area was being planned. The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector had no further questions in this area. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
5.0 Exit Meetine The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on September 24,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspecdon.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspection finding.
.
-
-
-
. ~.
- -
-..--
... - -..
.
.
,
P TABLEI J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Analytical Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comoarison Results in oarts oer billion (oob)
Fluoride IC 16.8 i 0.8 16.21 i 0.03 Agreement 20.2 i 0.8 21.2 i 0.5 Agreement 28.0il.4 31.3 i 0.5 Agreement Chloride IC 15.4 i 0.6 14.11 i 0.13 Agreement 19.4 i 0.5 19.6 i 0.2 Agreement 25.6 i 0.8 26.7 i 0.8 Agreement Sulfate IC 15.8 i 0.4 15.42 i 0.05 Agreement i
19.4 i 0.3 19 li0.3 Agreement i
27.2 i 0.4
.28.2 i 0.6 Agreement Sodium IC 10.6 i 0.4 10.2 i 0.3 Agreement 20.4 i 0,6 19.43 i 0.14 Agreement 31.010.8 29.8il.2 Agreement t
l Silica SP 12.17 i 0.13 13.7 1.5 Qual Agree 28.4 i 0.4 27.6 i 0.9 Agreement i
60.lil.0 63.2i0.7 Agreement t
.
i
4
'
!
r
!
!
.
..
.
..
.
.
...
..
.
....
.
. -
.
...
. -.
.
. -..
.
..
.
.
. -..
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
TABLE I - (Cont'd)
J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Analytical Chemistry Test Results
'
Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts ocr million (nom)
'
Zinc ICP 0.109 i 0.003 0. I14i0.002.
Agreement i
0.261 i 0.004 0.272 i 0.002 Agree't mt 0.412 i 0.004 0.423 i 0.007 Agreem.nt
,
Iron ICP 0.199 i 0.002 0.2126 i 0.0008 Agreement
.i 0.398 i 0.004 0.408 0.002 Agreement 0.795 i 0.007 0.820 i 0.005 Agreement Copper ICP 0.202 i 0.002 0.208 i 0.003 Agreement
-
0.403 i 0.004 0.400 1 0.002 Agreement 0.810 1 0.010 0.804 i 0.008 Agreement Nickel ICP 0.199 i 0.002-0.214io.004 Qual Agree 0.400 i 0.004 0.398 i 0.002 Agreement 0.800 i 0.008 0.7989 i 0.0004 Agreement Chromium ICP 0.200i0.002 0.1994 i 0.0008 Agreement 0.402 i 0.004 0.394 i 0.003 Agreement 0.804 i 0.007 0.808 i 0.006 Agreement i
Boron T
5060 i 80 5189 i 0 Agreement Notes:
= Ion Chromatography SP
= UV-Vis Spectrophotometry l
= Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry T
= Titration with PHT end point
,
- -
--
-
....- - -._...- - _ - - - - - - - -.. _. _. -... _, _ -. -... - - -,. - -. - - -
,
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO TABLE I Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements from Table I This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests. In these criteria the judgement limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors". Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviation range (i2Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in
,
agreement. Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but within the plus or minus three standard deviation range (13Sd) of the ORNL known values are
considered to be in qualified agreement. Repeated results which are in qualified agreement will
receive additional attention. Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the ORNL known value are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using the average percent deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of the
,'
The ranges for the data in Table I are as follows.
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analvte Range Range Chloride i 8%
i 12 %
Fluoride 12 %
i 18 %
Sulfate i 10 %
i 15 %
Silica i 10 %
i 15 %
Sodium i 14 %
i 21 %
Copper i 10 %
15 %
Iron i 10 %
i 15 %
'
Boron i 2%
i 3%
Nickel 6%
9%
,
Chromium i 10 %
15 %
i
,
I l
i i
.