IR 05000309/1985033

Insp Rept 50-309/85-33 on 851119-21.No Violation Identified. Major Areas Inspected:Nonradiological Chemistry Program, Including Training,Measurement Control & Analytical Procedure Evaluations

ML20138M119
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	12/17/1985
From:	Pasciak W, Zibulsky H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138M103	List: IR 05000309/1985033 ML20138M100
References
50-309-85-33, NUDOCS 8512200236
Download: ML20138M119 (6)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No.

50-309/85-33 Docket No.

50-309 License No. DPR-36 Priority

-

Category C

Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive August, Maine 04336 Facility Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection Conducted: November 19-21, 1985 c-

-

l7 l'C Inspector:

GAcu H. Zibubky, Chemist

/

"

Mat 6 Approved by:

M C. t C

ST W. J. P W iak, Chief,

'date'

BWR Radiation Safety Section, DRSS Inspection Summary:

Inspection on November 19-21, 1985 (Report No. 50-309/85-33)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, announced inspection of the nonradiological chem-istry program. Areas reviewed included training, measurement control and analytical procedure evaluations. The inspection involved 27 inspector hours by one NRC region-based inspector.

Results:

No violations were identified.

-

8512200236 851217 PDF.

ADOCK 050

0

-

---

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Individuals Contacted

• E. T. Boulette, Assistant Plant Manager

• P. Radsky, Chemistry Section Head L. Thornburg, Secondary Chemist R. Haynes, Laboratory Assistant

• Present at the exit interview The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry staff and training staff.

2.

Action on Previous Licensee Findings (0 pen) 84-24-01 IFI (84725) - Control standards, independent of calibra-tion standards, were not plotted on control charts. During the inspec-tion, the licencee did generate control charts for boron and chloride.

More control charts are needed for other analytes to verify that the measurement systems were operating and the analytical results were within the acceptable parameters.

This item will remain open.

(0 pen) 25-00-13 TI - The inspection covered part of this item. Of the two modules included in the TI, Module 79501 was completed.

3.

Measurement Control Evaluation The licensee's measurement control program was verified through analysis of actual plant water samples.

The spent fuel tank, secondary coolant, and ground water were sampled and duplicate samples were sent to Brook-haven National Laboratory (BNL) for independent verification.

Boron analysis will be performed on the spent fuel tank sample, ammonia analysis on the secondary sample and chloride, silica, and fron analyses on the ground water sample. On completion of the analyses by both laboratories, a statistical evaluation will be made (Inspector Follow-up Item 85-33-01).

4.

Analytical Procedures Evaluation During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted by the inspector to the licensee for analysis.

The standard solutions were pre-pared by BNL for NRC Region I, and were analyred by the licensee using normal methods and equipment. The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chtnicai 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 seven out of_ eighteen comparisons were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1). The iron and copper di! agree-ments are not considered significant because they are less than N of four ppb concentrations. The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.

The boron control chart showed that the measurement method for the boron analysis has a systematic bias.

This may be due to the pH 9.3 end point being used instead of the true inflection point of pH 8.4.

The licensee will investigate this bias problem.

The licensee is still using only one standard for calibration and measure-ment control.

This was identified during Inspection No. 84-24 The li-censee will correct this problem by preparing and identifying independent standards for calibration and for measurement control.

It was difficult to account for the other analytical disagreements because the licensee did not have a measurement quality control program.

The NRC standard samples will be brought back for the licensee to analyze when the control program is in place (Inspector Follow-up Item 85-33-02).

5.

Training and Requalification The inspector reviewed the training and qualification program for the Chemistry Technicians.

Procedure 7.211 Rev. 6 defines the requalification program to consist of spiked sample analysis to be performed "at least annually".

The last time spiked samples were analyzed by the Chemistry Technicians was 2h years ago. The inspector advised the licensee that they must participate in an intra and inter laboratory standards program.

This will be reviewed at a subsequent inspection.

Inspector Follow-up Item (85-33-03).

6.

Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph 1) at the_ conclusion of the inspection on November 21, 1985, 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.

L

.

.

.

CAPABILITY TEST RESULTS Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Chemical Parameter NRC Value Lic.Value Ration (Lic/NRC)

Comparison Results in parts per million (ppm)

Boron 1014 15 1004 3.5 0.99 0.02 Agreement 3047126 294616 0.97 0.01 Disagreement 5040 130 4875t11 0.97 0.03 Agreement Results in parts per billion (ppb)

Fluoride 15017 140 0 0.9310.04 Agreement 329120 300 20 0.91 0.08 Agreement Hydrazine 19.311.6 19.511.3 1.0 Agreement 52.411.3 49.911.5 0.9510.04 Agreement 100.012 96.8 0.4 0.9710.02 Agreement L

.

.

.

Ammonia 12013.3 157 2.9 1.3110.04 Disagreement (As NH )

356110.6 443 11.5 1.2410.05 Disagreement

1168 19 1500 0 1.2810.02 Disagreement Chloride 69.713 71.3 1.2 1.0210.05 Agreement Iron 1.33 0.01 1.23 0.02 0.92 0.02 Disagreement 2.39 0.10 2.40 0.02 1.0 Agreement 3.43 0.21 3.47 0.03 1.01 0.06 Agreement Copper 1.3210.16 1.39 0.01 1.0510.13 Agreement 2.60 0.04 2.73 0.01 1.05 0 92 Disagreement 3.84 0.04 3.95 0.02 1.03 0.01 Disagreement r*,

.

..

.

..

.

ATTACHMENT 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 ( ratio = icensee Value ); (2)

NRC value the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated. 1 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-ratiol 5 2 uncertainty)

I=f,then

)=

)

+

.

(From: Bevington, P.R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)