IR 05000423/1987032
| ML20149L648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1988 |
| From: | Jang J, Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149L642 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-87-32, NUDOCS 8802240345 | |
| Download: ML20149L648 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
l
.
i
,
r t
-
'
V. S. huCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
i Report No.
50-423/87-3_2,
,
I Docket No.
50-423 Category C
i
License No. NPF-49 Priority
-
!
Licensee: _ Northeast Nuclear Energy Corrpany
,
!
F. O. Box 270
.
I Far_tford, Conrecticut 06101
!
Facility Name: Millstore Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3
Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut
,
Inspection Conducted:
D_ej p ber 14-18, 1987 Inspectors:
dA M4 k O
b H. Zibulsk), Q emist
\\
date llOL N$/
lYfYf I
i
. Jang. Sr. Radtp Ton Specialist date
'
Approved by:
_
h)/A D
8 W. J.
iciak, Chief. Effluents pap Radi on Section DR5S
'
,
!
inspection Sumary:
Inspection on December 14-18, 1987 (Report No.
,
l 50-423/87-32).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, anecunced inspection of the nonradiological chemistry program. Areas revieward included measurerent control and analytical
[
proc 2 dure evaluations.
I
i Results: No violations were identified.
l
!
F i
gn="Haeit**ax"ylp
___
_
__ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
1 1 '
,
Details
1.
Individuals Contacted
.
- C Clement Unit 3 Superintendent
- J. Waters, Chemistry Supervisor
.
'T. Burns, Assistant Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 3
!
'
- F. Mueller Unit 3 Chemist i
- S. Macklin, Unit 3 Chemistry Specialist H. Haynes, Station Services Superintendent G. D'Auria, Chemist D. Peiffer, Unit 3 Chemistry Specialist i
- Present at the exit interview.
'
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee ecployees including f
members of the che'nistry staff, 2.
Measurement Control Evaluation Verification of the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual slant l
water samples is done by splitting sarples with the licensee and tie t
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The reactor water standby tank l
sample was taken for boron analysis and feedwater samples were taken ior l
hydrazine, armonia, iron, copper, fluoride, chloride and sulfate. A l
l feedwater sarple was spiked with a standard solution of iron and copper i
and another feedwater sample was spiked with a standard solution of l
"
fluoride, chloride and rulfate.
The standard spiked solutions were prepared by ENL for the NRC. On completion of the analyses by Bht and
,
'
thelicensee,anevaluatienwillbemade(InspectorFollow-upItem 50-423/87-32-01).
!
,
Two independent standard stock solutions for calibration and r.easurerent
centrol were being used.
The licensee was able to identify degenerated
!
standard solutions and verify the quality of the standards.
-
}
Single point calibrations were currently being performed on the ion l
chromatograph and the atomic absorption reasurement systems, lhe r
licensee understood the need for muf ti point calibrations 590 was in the
!
process of revising their procedures to include five calibration data (
peints.
The calibrations will be done twice menthly and a centrol check will continue to be performed each day the measurertent systems are used.
The calibration curves will be statistically fit using a newly developed least squares program the licer.see has written for calibration curves.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's inter-and intra-laboratory j
standards program as cescribed in Procedure CP 3800, "Chemistry Quality Assurance Progran." The prograns are being niaintained and the results are dccumented, l
,
b
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ __
_ _ _____________
.
'
3.
Analytical procedure Evaluations During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysis. The standard solutions were prepared by BNL for the hRC, and the standards were analyzed by the licensee using normal cethods and equipment.
The concentrations of the standards were adjusted to cover the calibration ranges of the analytical systems used. The analysis of standards was used to verify the licensee's capability to ronitor chemical parameters in vartN s plant systems with respect to Technical Specification, vendor, and fuel warrant) requireeents.
In additien, the analysis of standards was used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The results of the standard treasuren4nts comparison indictated that two 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 fluoride and chloride disagreements were due to the single point calibrations made on the ion thromatograph.
Because of the low concentrations, these disagreements are not considered significant, khsn the licensee's calibration program is fally implemented, the licensee's reasurement progran should be significantly irproved to analyze the anions and other analytes to low concentratiens with good accuracy and precision.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on Decerber 18, 1987, and surrarized the scope and findings of the inspection. At no tine during this inspection was written raterial provided to the licensee by the inspecto _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
.
.
Toble 1. Capability lest Results Millstone Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 3 Chemical Analytical NRC Lic.
Patio Parameter Procedure Value Yalue Value Comparison Results in DEtt,g;=!11 ton (ppm]
Boron Titration 100'*.10
- 006t11 1.00 Agreement 3024v4
,012 54 1.00 Agreement 494' S 5044:23 1.02to 01 Agreement Results in parts per billion (ppb}
Chloride Ion 2.4:0,3 2.020.1 0.83t0.11 Agrecrent Chromatography 3.720.1
'4,420.2 1.1920.C6 Disagreement 8.1 0,2 8.4t0.3 1.04 0,05 Agreement
-
Fluoride ton 2.320.1 1.920.1 0.83.0.06 Disagreement Chromatography 4.420.2 4.220.1 0.95t0.05 Agreement S.420.3 8.721.0 1.0420.13 Agreement Sulfate ton 2.020.1 2.130.1 1.05:0,07 Agreerent Chromatograpny 4.120.2 4.5t0.3 1.1020.09 Agreement 8.120.3 8.220.3 1.01:0,05 Agreceent Amonia Spec. Ion 87.625.3 90.521.4 1.03 0,06 Agreement Electrode 314.0226.0 302.226.7 0.9620.08 Agreceent
'
234.5t21.3 247.0t8.9 1.0520.10 Agreecent Hydrazine Spectrophotometry 22.3 1.4 21.0$1.7 0.94:0,10 Agreerent 56.9:0.7 57.3 2.9 1.01:0.05 Agreement i
104.0tl.0 101.3 2.1 0.9720.02 Agreement l
Silica Spectrophotoa<try 27.222.8 28.3:1.5 1.04:0,12 Agreement 54.5 3.5 52.3 1.5 0.9620.07 Agrecrent l
80.0:2.5 80.321.5 1.00 Agreenent Sod;um Graphite 4.620.5 4.820.2 1.04:0.12 Agreement furnace 9.2 0.8 9.4t0.8 1.02:0,12 Agreement 14.420.8 14.1:0,4 0.99t0.06 Agreement
. _
- _. __ _-
_
.
.
.
Copper Graph'te 4.7*0.2 4.810.3 1.0210.08 Agreement furnace 9.720.5 9.810.4 1.0120.07 Agreement 14.5 0.6 14.3 0.5 0.99 0.05 Agreement Iron Graphite 4.9 0.4 4.4 0.3 0.9010.10 Agreement furnace 9.610.3 8.910.5 0.9320.06 Agreement 14.710.3 13.9 0.2 0.9510.03 Agreement
,
. _.
,
_
,
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
,
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS i
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests.
In l
these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of the ratio of i
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 uncertaint, on the ratio is propagated.1 If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or ecual to ; 'ce tae ratio ancertainty, tne results a e in agreet.ent.
(l1-ratic{ s 2 uncertair.ty)
2
- Z= x, then 5 S
7
,
x
.
Y
2
?
Z x
y-l 5(From: Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
,
l i
l l
!
l
!
l t
I
!
!
I
.-
-
_
_
.
- -._ _ _.
._
--
_.
. _.