IR 05000412/1986014

Insp Rept 50-412/86-14 on 860617-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Training,Requalification & Analytical Procedures Evaluations Re Nonradiological Chemistry Program

ML20207E592
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	07/10/1986
From:	Kramaric M, Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207E559	List: IR 05000412/1986014 ML20207E556
References
50-412-86-14, NUDOCS 8607220378
Download: ML20207E592 (5)

Text

__ _= . . _ .- -

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGUL/, TORY COMMISSION Region I Report N /86-14 Docket N License N CPPR-105 Priority --

Category B Licensee: Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue

>

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Shippingport3 Pennsylvania

'

Inspectors: 1 mc 0 (.,

FM ZibuW , Chemist g / gate i LO  %.10, Radiation Specialist

~ vhokc

/ da1(e f.Krama Approved By: '\1 hA Y.J.F'asciak, Chief,EffluentsRadiation

[F (,.

/ dap Protection Section, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 17-20, 1986 (Report No. 50-412/86-14)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas reviewed included training and requalification and analytical procedures evaluation Results: No violations were identified.

t i

'

O

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

. . - _-

.,

.- ._ _ _ -

~

- ,

,

'

- ,

.'

'

• *

- ~

L ,

, , .,,-- .

-

~_ , ,

-

, ?

,

'

?

, DETAILS

'

} Individuals Contacted -

J

• R. Druga, Manager, Technical Services-

• C. Schultz, PRC Chairman ,

* V. Linnenbom, Director, Plant Chemistry

• A. Dulick, Chemistry Supervisor -

• D. Evans, Chemistry, Trend and Analysis Coordinator

• S. Palian, Senior Chemist, Unit 2

,

'

• R. Fedin, Unit 2 Licensing

• D. Hunkele, Director, Quality Assurance Operations

• R. Swiderski, Startup Manager F. Lipchick, Senior Licensing Supervisor B. Sepelak, Licensing Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff.

.

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Action on Previous Licensee Findings

. ,.

(0 pen) 25-00-13 TI - The inspection covered part of this item. Of the two

.

modules included in the TI, Module 79501 was complete . Analytical Procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical 7 solutions were submitted to the-

licensee for analysis. The standard solutions were prepared by the ~

Brookhaven National Laboratory for the NRC Region I, and the standards 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 requirements and other regulatory requirement .

In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's - -

analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precisio The results of the standard measurements comparison indicated that eight

, out of twenty comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1). '

'

i The analyses of chloride and fluoride with the ion chromatograph 'aie unre-

<

liable, including the two chloride analyses that were in agreement. The unusually high uncertainties were due to chloride contamination in the deionized water and the instrument was recen,tly put into service without

>

much testing. The chloride agreements using the specific ion electrode l was due to high uncertainties and a malfunction of the electrode. The

.

$

,

?

,

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

- - -

- - . - - . , , , . , , , , - - , - - - - , - - - , - - - ,

- _ . - . . . - . . . - . . _ _ . -

e

.

licensee's control standards analyzed with the NRC blind standards also was unstable and had large variances. The fluoride disagreem'ent with the specific ion electrode was due to statistic The copper disagreement was due to poor calibratio The NRC low standard, which was in agreement, and the NRC high standard, which was in disagreement, were both biased low. The middle standard showed no bias which is an indication that the calibration curve may not have been linear at the ends and the curve was

'

drawn to be linear. The ammonia and hydrazine disagreements were due to poor calibration at the low concentrations of the curv The inspectors observed that the licensee used one standard stock solution for the calibration and control solutions. Naintenance of two standard stock solutions is required to provide an analyticai cross check on the continuing quality of the stock solution The licensee agreed to maintain two standard stock solution The licensee stated that the problems with the instrumentation and methods ,

noted during this inspection would be reviewed and appropriate corrective

action would be taken. More NRC standards will be brought to the licensee when the laboratory is more establishe . Training ant' Requalification The inspector reviewed the results of the intercomparison performed by the Unit 1 Chemists and Analysts. The licensee's intercomparison programs are 1 implemented so that within one year every Chemist or Analyst will perform

'

each analysis at least once. The Chemists analyze samples provided by Analytics Inc., which uses an acceptance criteria of 20%. The licensee also compares these results using an acceptance criteria of 10%. The results are reviewed by the Chemistry Trend and Analysis Coordinator and logged when results exceed either of the acceptance criteria. However, the licensee does not followup the disagreement with an intralaboratory comparison. The inspector discussed with the licensee the importance of submitting spikes or deplicates to the chemist for the purpose of intra-laboratory compariso . Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 20, 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 inspecto ,

.

- - - . .

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

a

• .

-Capabilftv Test Results-Eq_ aver Va l lev P9yer Sta_gjon. Unitj x -

Chemical Ratio- _

l ,

Pa ramete r NRC Value Licensee Value (Licensee /NRC) Compa rison -

l Results in.r; arts per. billion (ppb) ,

$ Chloride (lon 10.3 1 .1 .0 1.61 1 0.31 Ag reement Ch roma tog raph ) 69.7 1 .0 1 .13 1 0.10 Ag reement

! Chloride (S .3 1 .7ft 1 .20 i 1.38 Ag reement

, Ion Electrode) 69.7 i .0 1 3 .09 1 0.55 Ag reement 27.7 1 .0 1 3 .88 1 1.38- Ag reement Fluoride (lon 38.4 i .1 1 .44 1 0.12 Di sag reement Ch roma tog ra ph) 74.5 1 .6 i .32 1 0.15 Di sag reement Di sag reement

'

32.9 1 .3 1 .41 i O.07

. Fluoride (S .4 i .0 i 0 1.12 1 0.05 Di sag reement

'

,

Ion Electrode) 74.5 1 .7 1 .05 1 0.05 Ag reement 32.9 1 .0 1 .09 i 0.07 Ag reement

. Cooper -5.3 1 0.04 4.3 1 .6tsi 0.11 Ag reement

!

10.4 1 0.16- 10.3 1 .0- Ag reement 15.36 0.16 11.7 i .76 1 0.04 D i sag reement Ammonia 1168 1 19 1207 1 19 1.03 1 0.02 Ag reement 356 i 1 ,J 348 1 22 0.98 1 0.07 Ag reement 119.8 1 .7 0.79 1 0.07 Di sag reement flyd razi ne 193 1 16 217 1 4 1.12 1 0.10 Ag reement

, 104.8 t .7 0.9) t 0.03 Di sag reement

'

100 1 2 87.3 1 .87 i 0.03 Di sag reement

_

I

,

I

$

!

i,

.

!

l

.,- - .

_ - . .- ~ .

__

.

.

s ATTACHMENT Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for 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:

(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 propage *

If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreemen (l1-ratio l 2 2 uncertainty)

Z =x, then Sz2 = Sx2 + Sy2 y F x2 y2 (From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)

,

.r . , - - - - - - _ - - , -,,,m,-,-y ---emr----,-- --e-- ,+-