IR 05000387/1987003
| ML20212N855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1987 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N842 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-87-03, 50-387-87-3, 50-388-87-03, 50-388-87-3, NUDOCS 8703130182 | |
| Download: ML20212N855 (7) | |
Text
.
.-
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-387/87-03 50-388/87-03 Docket Nos.-50-387 50-388 License Nos. NPF-14 Category C NPF-22 C
' Licensee: Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Facility Name: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Berwick Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
February 9-13, 1987 Inspectors:
7/l. 2/[tkdhd3L J[/[//
H.ZfbulskY,Cheyst
/date Approved by:
7(_. % WoL I b s[y[7 W. J. PaWiak, Mjief, Effluents Radiation
/ da'te Protection Sdetion, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 9-13, 1987 (Report Nos.
50-387/87-03; 50-388/87-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included measurement control and analytical procedures evaluation.
Results: No violations were identified.
8703130182 870305 PDR ADOCK 05000387 o
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
- R. Byram, Plant Superintendent
- J. Palmer, Supervisor of Operations
- L. O'Neil, Supervisor of Maintenance
- R. Prego, QA Supervisor-0perations
- K. Roush, Supervisor Nuclear Instruction
- J. White, Supervisor Training Support
- D. McGann, Compliance Engineer
- D. Heffelfinger, Coordinator Engineer-NQA
- C. Burke, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. Stewart, Laboratory Foreman
- D. Wright, Assistant Laboratory Foreman R. Doly, Health Physics / Chemistry Supervisor P. Treier, Assistant Laboratory Foreman J. Hirt, Compliance
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff.
2.
Measurement Control Verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples is done by splitting samples with the licensee and Brook-haven National Laboratory (BNL). The feedwater system samples were taken for metal analyses, the reactor water was taken for chloride and sulfate analyses and standby liquid control tank sample was taken for boron analy-sis.
The feedwater samples were spiked with a standard solution of iron, copper, nickel and chromium and the reactor water sample was spiked with a standard solution of chloride and sulfate. 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 Items 50-387/87-03-01; 50-388/87-03-01).
The licensee has contracted a laboratory to supply them with standards for their interlaboratory standards program. The results of the standards will be evaluated with approximately ten northeast utilities for analy-tical and personnel proficiencies. With an efficient interlaboratory standards program, the poor sodium results of the NRC standard solutions
would have been identified (see paragraph 3-sodium analysis evaluation).
The inspector observed that the licensee used one standard stock solution for calibration and measurement control. Two independent standard stock solutions are needed to provide an analytical cross check on the continu-ing quality of the standard solutions. A single standard stock solution
<
-
.
was used for the analyses of iron, copper, nickel, chromium, sodium, silica and sulfate. The licensee agreed to maintain two standard stock solutions.
The concentration of some control standards were not in the same range as the analyte concentration in the sample. This did not allow the licensee to identify any malfunction in the measurement system that might affect the analytical results.
For the chloride determination using the ion chromatograph (IC), the system was calibrated with a 50 and 200 ppb standard. A 40 ppb control standard was used and the samples were re-ported out as less than 20 ppb. The inspector advised the licensee that calibration standards of 10, 50 and 100 ppb chloride should be used to calibrate the IC and a 20 ppb chloride control standard be analyzed with the low concencentration samples. A suggestion was made by the inspector that if high chloride samples were to be analyzed on the IC, measurement sensitivity would be lost and IC columns would have to be replaced more frequently. The licensee will be using another IC for high chlorides and nitrates and utilize the automated feed IC for low chloride samples.
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 the NRC, and were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment. The analysis of standards is used to verify the 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 four out of thirty comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1). The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
The chloride and boron disagreements were due to sampling error.
The sodium analysis showed a large positive bias. About 50% of this bias was due to contamination from the potassium chloride that was added to the NRC standards as a depressant.
Even the two analyses that were in agree-ment had large biases. The agreement between the NRC values and the lic-ensee's values were a result of the large uncertainties rather than close-ness of results. The NRC sodium standards were rerun without the potassium chloride. A positive bias was still present. This bias was attributed to the licensee performing a one point calibration and drawing the calibration curve through zero.
It was determined that one point cali-brations were made for all measurements on the AA and for sulfate on the IC. The inspector advised the licensee that a one point calibration will not allow him to identify slope changes or nonlinearity in the calibration curve. The accepted practice is using three data points excluding zer _
-
.
'The single point calibrations made by the licensee was identified during inspections 50-387/85-27 and 50-388/85-22.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's analytical procedures. The proce-dures still do not include reagent preparations. The licensee has initi-ated an effort to eliminate the CH-RP procedures and include the reagent preparations in the analytical procedures. This was identified as a poten-tial problem during the 1985 inspections.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 13, 1987, and summar-ized the scope and findings of the inspection. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto.
-
Table 1 Capability Test Results Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2 Chemical Analytical NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Procedure Value Value (Lic./NRC) Compasison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Ion Chloride Chromatograph 48.216.2 44.215.4 0.9210.16 Agreement 74.8t2.4 84.512.9 1.1310.05 Disagreement 80.512.2 77.611.5 0.9610.03 Agreement Ion Sulfate Chromatograph 40.0 1.8 44.212.6 1.11 0.08 Agreement 82.0 4.8 85.911.1 1.0510.06 Agreement 80.813.0 70.616.9 0.8710.09 Agreement Silica Specrophotometry 54.315.6 49.011.0 0.9010.09 Agreement 109.017.0 102.011.0 0.9410.06 Agreement 160.015.0 157.010.6 0.9810.03 Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)
Mannitol Boron Titration 985110 103915 1.0510.01 Disagreement 2980150 3024172 1.0110.03 Agreement 4870160 47941161 0.9810.04 Agreement Atomic Iron Absorption 0.98 0.07 0.9910.02 1.0110.07 Agreement 1.9110.07 2.0010.02 1.0510.04 Agreement 2.9410.08 2.9910.02 1.0210.03 Agreement Atomic Copper Absorption 0.9410.05 0.9810.01 1.0410.06 Agreement 1.9310.10 2.0310.01 1.0510.05 Agreement 2.9010.12 3.0610.01 1.0610.04 Agreement Atomic Nickel Absorption 1.0210.05 0.9910.01 0.9710.05 Agreement 2.0410.06 2.0110.03 0.9910.03 Agreement 3.0610.08 2.9810.04 0.9710.03 Agreement Atomic Chromium Absorption 1.0210.06 1.0110.02 0.9810.06 Agreement 1.8810.06 2.0210.03 1.0710.04 Agreement 2.8610.16 2.9910.02 1.0510.06 Agreement
r
.
...
Atomic Sodium Absorption 0.1810.02 0.3310.03 1.8310.26 Disagreement (with KCL)
0.3710.03 0.5510.09 1.49 0.27 Agreement 0.5810.03 0.7210.06 1.2410.12 Agreement Atcmic.
Sodium Absorption 0.1810.02 0.2510.01 1.3910.16 Disagreement (without KCL)
0.37 0.03 0.4410.02 1.1910.11 Agreement 0.58 0.03 0.6510.03 1.1210.08 Agreement h
-
.
-
....
ATTACHMENT 1 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 f
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.
(ll-ratio l s 2 uncertainty)
8 + Sx8 8 Z= x, then Sz
+4 y
7 y
1(From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences,.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
l
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _