IR 05000155/1990005
| ML20033G646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1990 |
| From: | Holtzman R, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G642 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-05, 50-155-90-5, NUDOCS 9004100459 | |
| Download: ML20033G646 (14) | |
Text
-
.
.
.
3,
,
.
,
c.
. 4,5 1
+
g
,
,
.
,
'
' '
'
'
+ -
i,
- .
_ *
',
7-
,jl
,
.,
i;
i p
e.;
'
,
,
,
,
!
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
'
' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION III
-
.
,
'
Report'No. 50-155/90005(ORSS)
'
-
c
,
Docket No. 50-155 License No. OPR-6
,
. Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
,
212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson,'MI 49201
,
,
facility Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
,
Inspection At:, Big Rock Point ' site, Charlevoix, Michigan Inspection Conducted: March 5-9, 1990 (Onsite)
9/f$arand%lv
.
A.:
Januska
/Md
,
.
'
inspectors:
,
Date gg/w<4
,
d>
R. B. Holtzman Date
'
jNf Mc/W
Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief.
'
Radiological Controls'and Date Chemistry Section
.
,
Inspection Summary
- 2 j
,
Inspection on March 5-9,'1990 (Report No.'50-155/90005(DRSS)) ~
-
Areas Inspected; Routine announced inspection of the chemistry program,
"
including:
(1) procedures, management organization and training (IP 84750),,
%-i(-
..
(2) reactor systems water quality control program (IP 79701),(3) qualit
'
assurance / quality control program in the laboratory (IP 79701, IP 84750)y
...
'
>
,-
,
'
'(4) confirmatory. measurements of' radiological samples (IP 84750),
N
?
-
'.
1(5) confirmatory measurements of nonradiological samples (IP 79701);
'
'
-
.and (6) review of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.'
',.
~
s.
'
2-
>>
.
.
Results:
The licensee revised the water chemistry control' program to' address
'l i
'
"4
'
!,.,
the,EPRI..BWR Owners Guidelines. ~ Extensive use was made'of chemistry paramete~r
- f-
.
i[
, '.
' trend charts.
Both the radiological and cold chemistry confirmat'ory measurement
'
'
resu The laboratory now has an extensive QA/QC program,for h
analy}tsweregood.tical measurements.
The' REMP appeared to conform to the ;T/S requireme...,-nts'
,
,-
,
and to be operating satisf actorily, 'The ~ staff appeared to be knowledgeable and
', # j ;,t
$
competent.- No violations or deviations weresidentified.
"M i
'
- ~*,
s,
,'ll
'
,
"1
' '
']
t
.
.
-
,
a t,.o
'
'
+004100439 000329
-
~
,
'
PDR ADOC1: 05000155
,
Jj Cs FDC
-
,
,,4
,,,
.,
.
h.
'Y k
'_
I
.-
.
,
.
.A
W
- -
-
[
.L m
e
.,
,
.
,,.
,
,
.
.
.-
,
'
',,
..
,
,
<
.
-
,
,
It ';<
,
o
,
,
,
,
'
.
'
p?
,
-
.
,,
.
'
'
DETAILS.
,
,
'
<
'
,
,
,
,
e
. 1.
Persont Contacted
'
n
i
'W. L. Beckman, Plant Manager, Big Rock Point (BRP) CPCo
'
'
- L. Monshot, QA Superintendent; CPCo
- J. L. Beer, Chemistry / Health Physics Superintendent, BRP
- R. J. Alexander Technical Engineer, BRP
- R. L. Burdette, Senior Health Physicist, BRP '
'
- T. Hancock, General Engineer, Chemistry / Health Physics, BRP
,
- E. A. Plettntr, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC The inspectors also' interviewed other licensee personnel in the course of the inspection.
.
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on March 9, 1990.
-
,
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
a.
(Closed) Open Item No. 50-155/87029-01:
Licensee to analyze a portion of a liquid waste sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and report the results to Region III.
Results of sample comparisons are listed in Table 1; comparison criteria are1given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved agreements for Sr-89 and $r-90 and conservative disagreements for gross beta and H-3.
The' parameters involved in these analyses were examined, however, no reason for the disagreements could be found.
This item is closed and the results of another sample split during'this inspection (Section 5) will be examined when available.
,
,
b.
(Closed) Open Item ho. 50-155/88023-01:
Licensee revised the water quality control program to conform to the EPRI BWR Owners Guidelines.
.The licensee completed the procedure on water chemistry guidelines
.
.
to conform to the EPRI Guidelines (Section 4).
The' procedure presents satisfactory explanations for the variances'from the EPRI Guidelines.
,
"
%
c.
(Closed) Open Item No. 50-155/88023-02:. The licensee prepared and-
'
-
spiked a nonradiological sample with iron and' copper to be split withi, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the results submitted to,
s Region III.
No comparisons were.made because BNL lacked '
!. >
' instrumentation,for these analyses.
R ;
'
.
,
,
,
,
4\\"
V.
d.
'(Closed) Open Item No'. 50055/88023-03:- Licensee to develop and
'
u
-
'
. implement a QA/QC program for the laboratory using quality control a i
e
,
(: /, ~
. charts and perform 6nce checks for the chloride and boron analyses,
,
.,
-
.9
, '
'-
,
t,
,
,
I g
>
d s,
e
, ', '
,
i.*
- '
'
y
,
,
,
'
,
f A
i
.
g
'
A,
'
,
.
,
d 2'
,
,
'
,
.
,
m t,,
,
.
.,
,, '
m
..
..
.
. _,
..
_ _3
.
_
,.,
.
.,
..
.
and the use of indepenoent standards.
The licensee has a program for the use of. instrument performance checks with control charts with statistically-based control parameters.
Independent standards are also used for calibration and performance checks (Section 8).
3.
Management Controls, Organization, and Trainino (IP 84750)
Management of the Chemistry / Health Physics Department is virtually unchanged since the previous inspection in this area.1 The Department has 11 Chemistry and Radiation Protection Technicians (C&RPT), all qualified under ANSI N18.1-1971.
In addition, the plant has special requirements to qualify the C&RPTs to work alone on the back shift, based on Technical Specification requirements, a letter from the NRC, and Administrative Procedure 1.7.1, " Chemistry and Radiation Protection Technician On-the Job Training Program," Revision 1, October 19, 1989.
The staf fing appears to be adequate to perform the chemistry operations required for this small plant.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Water Chemistry Control Program (IP 79701)
The plant has a water chemistry control program based on the EPRI BWR
'-
'
>
OwnersGuidelines,(Section2b)VolumeI, Procedure 5.21,"WaterChemisbry
'
\\
'
,
Guidelines," Revision 1 January 23, 1990.
The procedure appears to have
' satisfactorily documented the variances from the guidelines, including
'
the lack of. analyses for sulfate and suspended corrosion products'-lower
,
rates of sampling f requencies of reactor water for silica and chloride
-
,
s
'
,
analyses.in cold shutdown, and oxygen determined by grab samples, rather.
i than by inline analysis.
The plant operates with copper and iron i
concentrations near Action Level 1.2 Licensee representatives noted that.
.
,
they do not believe these practices to be harmful, e.g., maximum sulfate-
,'
'
concentrations can be estimated from conductivity (which is usually very V
'
low, < 0.08 pho/cm).
In any case the long operating history with
'
'
minimal difficulties indicates that the present practices appear not
"
.to be damaging to the system or to substantially reduce safety.
The licensee maintains trend charts on the chemical parameters in the
'
i various systems, including specific conductivity, chloride, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and silica.
These charts demonstrate that these parameters are maintained at low values most of the time, especially when
'at power.
The pH values were also trended and were generally maintained within~a narrow band.
Overall, the water quality control program' appears to be adequate in controlling the critical parameters of the reactor system.
No violations'or deviations were identified.
,
2 Region III Inspection Report No. 155/88023 8 Ibid.
..
..
-
.
.
..
.
...
.
__
,
,
s,.
..
.
"1.
.
.
,
'
'
5.
Radiological Confirmatory Measurement (IP 84750)
, five samples (air particulate, charcoal, gas,. reactor coolant and liquid)
waste) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in
,
the Region III Mobile' Laboratory on site.
Comparisons were made on
.
+
.
combinations of,three of.the licensee's detectors.- Results of the sample
,
.
comparisons are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria are given in
'
-
Attachmsnt 1.
The licensee achieved 81 agreements out of 88 comparisons.
'
)
Agreements were achieved for off gas, charcoal and liquid waste samples
~
'
+
comparisons.
Aportionoftheliquidwastesamplewillbeanalptedfor
,
,
gross beta H-3 Sr-89, and Sr 90 by the license and the results reported to Region !!! for comparison with an analysis by the NRC Reference s a
,,
.
taboratory on a split of the same sample (0 pen Item 50 155/90005-01).
'
A' conservative disagreement was noted for Cs-137 on an air particulate
'
,'i.
>-
sample analyzed on Detector 2.
Examination of data indicated that the U
'
'
licensee's system had required'10 iterations to resolve the 661.65 peak
'
'
'
of Cs 137 and the 657.75 peak of Ag-110m, whereas the NRC analysis only required four iterations.
The fact that the licensee's detectors had lower sensitivities, efficiencies and resolutions than the NRC's may have contributed to this disagreement.
,
Combinations of disagreements (6) for As-76, Ba-139, 1-134 and 1-135 were noted for the results of analyses of a primary coolant sample on detectors 1, 2, and 4.-
Examination of spectral data did not reveal the-reason for any of the disagreements.
The licensee noted that the analyses had been performed well beyond the decay time stated in reference RCP-10, Dose Equivalent Iodine 131, listed in procedure T1-11/RCP-36 Reactor Water Analyses Procedure - Power Operations Startup/ Standby Condition.
This three hour decay time had been determined as optimum by the licensee to quantify iodines present in order to satisfy a Technical Specification requirement.
A second sample was analyzed on. detector 1, the detector stated as preferred in the procedure and in accordance with the decay time. All agreements were achieved.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Operation of the Chemistry / Radiochemistry Laboratory (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry measurements laboratory operations, including physical facilities and laboratory operations.
Housekeeping was generally good; laboratory and counting room work spaces although minimal are adequate for the size of the staff involved and the quantity
.of required samples.- C&RP Technicians observed during sample acquisition
'and preparation used satisf actory laboratory technique.
No violations or deviations were identified.
>
<
t i
s
,
.g
'
(
'.
%
'
i j
k
~ n'
'
a i
'
Ey
.
.
,
i p
'
,
+
o
,
.
e, j
-
b
n--
-
- _ _ _
,.
n i' i..>
,
.,
.
,..
7.
Nonradiological Confirmatory Measurements-(IP 79701)
,
'
The inspectors submitted chemistry samples to the licensee for analysis as part of a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to monitor e
nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems with respect to various Technical Specification and other regulatory and ~ administrative requirements.
These samples had been prepared, standardized, and periodically reanalyzed (to check for stability) for the NRC by the'
Safety and Environmental Protection Division of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment; The samples were diluted by' licensee personnel as necessary to bring the concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory, and run in triplicate in t manner similar to that'of routine samples.
The results are presented in Table 3 with the the criteria for agreement presented at the end of the table.
These criteria are derived from the l
,
BNL results of the present samples and the relative standard deviations (RSD) derived from the results of the 1986 interlaboratory comparisons from the various plant laboratories in the study (Table 2.1,
'
The acceptance criteria were that the licensee's value'
should be within 12 SD of the BNL value for agreement and between 2 and 3_$D for qualified agreement.
.
The. licensee analyzed four analytes at three concentrations each of.
L
"w chloride, iron, copper and silica.
Nine of the 12 initial analyses
'
,,'
'
(75%) were in agreement with the BNL values.
The three disagreements
- '><
were in the chloride analyses, which had substantial negative biases /
'
<
of about 16 31L The consistency of the biases indicates a deficiency
"
in the calibration standard; this conclusion is supported by the values
.
-
of performance check results, which consistently showed some negative-
i biases'of 10-15L Analyst bias is another possibility.
The licenste'
>;;
'
agreed to check the calibration with an independent standard and to 1000
$
1 i for other possible deficiencies.
Resolution of this problem will be
followed in subsoquent inspections under Open Item No. 50-155/90005-02..
<
'y
-
,
The turbidimetric chloride method has f ait precision, and in the past, ! '
['
,
the results were generally good down to about the level required by the
'*A EPRI guidelines.
The LLD appears to be about the EPRI " achievable level" of about 15 ppb.
,
,
,
Except for the chloride results, the precision and accuracy were
'
"*
'
comparable to those of BNL.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control in the Laboratory (IP 79701)
,
The inspectors reviewed the laboratory QA/QC' program for both the 6
,
radiological and nonradiological measurements control.
The program
>
,
.
,
. K t y..
<1
m s
,
g7 e
t
,
.
. ;.,.
.
.'
L
,e
.
g
,
'(
L'
. as developed and implemented since the previous inspection.* The'.
!s w
,
'
' performance check results were tabulated on logsheets and plotted on
,
,
control charts with two-and three-sigma warning and control limits, J~
'-
"
respectiYely.
These Were determined f rom the previous Charts, as the
[
!
charts filled up; the significance of differences between present and l
,.
previous means and standard deviations were evaluated.
,
The radiological QA/QC progras. appears to be satisfactory, with statistica11y based control charts 1for each detector, including
'
'
the Nuclear Measurements PC-5 alpha / beta counters, the ND gamma I
.
spectrometers and the Nal(TI) well counter.
The spectrometers
]
were checked with the high.and. low energy peaks of an Eu-152
source.
Y
'
-
i
,
Progress'in the QA/QC program has been good and is generally satisfactory.
'
further progress will be> reviewed in subsequent inspections in this area.
c
,'
t
.No violations or deviations were identified.
,
9.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) (IP 84750)
,
.
.
.
The inspector reviewed the REMP, including the 1987 and 1988 Environmental
,
Reports, examined an air sampling station, and observed the collection of
[
,
milk at three farms.-
,
.
The Annual Environmental Reports appeared to comply with the REMP
!
requirements.
All the required samples were cellected and analyzed,
'
except as noted in the report, and a review of the results showed them
t to be reasonable.
The licensee also trended various parameters over i
,
the years since 1982 to illustrate trends and effects of the plant, j
l
- '
The inspector toured part of the sampling circuit and observed the
<,
,
changing of an air filter at a sampling station and the collection d
a
.of monthly milk samples.
These appeared to have been done properly, j
'*
i
,
l
n
,
Licensee representatives noted the inspector's suggestions for improvements
'.
in the report:
that the defective samples (mainly those too small for
'
achieving the required LLD) should be listed along with the missed samples
'/
'
(lost TLDs).
Inclusion of the K-40 values which are normally within a
-
,
'
f airly narrow range of concentrations, such as in milk and fish, would t
provide an internal standard to demonstrate the the analytical reliability i
'
?
of some samples in which the other nuclides are below their LLDs.
,
e r?
t The REMP appeared to be operating satisfactorily.
'
.s
,
,
No' violations or' deviations;were. identified.
q
~
,
i c
!
s
>
,
,
.,
<,
,
,
8'I bi d.
'
'
.l y
f
<
.
'
'-
u
'M
,
i
~
.
.
,
.
.
.
10.
Post Accident Sampling (IP 84750)
The inspectors discussed Post Accident Sampling with the licensee.
The licensee is limited to the collection of a reactor water sample from a valve on the bottom of the core, spray heat exchanger to determine the
<
,.
extent of core damage for estimates of less than 10% core melt.
-
Containment gamma monitor results are used to determine core damage 4 greater than 104.
An annual sample is drawn from the heat exchanger to Q check for crud and the presence of corrosion inhibitors.
High range noble gas and high range iodine monitors are available for containment
-
'
atmosphere samples.. The system activates when the normal range noble gas
,
>
,.
,'
monitor reaches a predetermined release rate.
)
+
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
+
,
,
11.
Audits (IP'84750)
i
'
s
.
'
.
,,
,
The inspectors reviewed audits QT-88-21 August 22-26, 1988 and QT-89-25'.
,
October 16-20, 1989.
The audits were to verify that applicable elements i,
'
of the Quality Assurance Program have been developed, documented and
'
'
.
effectively implemented, and to evaluate the degree of compliance of Big Rock Point plant personnel with quality assurance program requirements, applicable to plant chemistry.
Two of six observations in the 1988 audit, considered to be conditions adverse to quality, pertaining to the scope of this inspection were effectively closed out in a timely manner and
,
/
documented in the 1989 audit.
The inspector noted that the licensee
'
used a non BRP Technical Specialist from Consumers Power and a Consultant Technical Specialist in the 1989 audit.
The chemistry program appears to be effectively implemented.
'No violations or deviations were identified
,
.
12.
Open Items
>
.
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee, or both.
Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Sections 5 and 7.
13 '.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection discussed were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 9, 1990.
The inspectors discussed the following in detail:
a.
preliminary confirmatory measurements results, both radiological and nonradiological.
With the latter measurements they noted the dif ficulties in the chloride analyses, which the licensee agreed to investigate, s
t i
s
- ' '
.
..
..
.
..p
.
..[
,
. _ _
'
i
,'
.,,
'
'
'
]' ;3]
^
,,
c.,
.
ji t., '
,
'
sl
>
m
..
,
,
,
,
+
i *
,
,
,
f
.'
-
-
,
..
,
,.
.
i
,
>
<
> ;
.
.
-
,
.
,
.,
. >
>
.
s
, b.
the post accident sampling system,,
f
>
l-f
,
,
c.
the closing of,a cold chemistry open' items.'
$
'
f
^
$
During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely informational
'
'
' content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes
-
,
reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection, t.icensce representatives did not identify any such docteents or processes as proprietary.
Attachments 1,
Table 1, Radiological Interlaboratory
'
q Split'$ ample Results e4thQuarter1987jl,.
.
2.
Attachment 1. Criteria for Comparing.
,
Radiological Measurements a
-
,
3.
Tat'le 2, Radiological Interlaboratory
,'
$plit $ ample Results', 1st Quarter 1990.
'
4.
Table 3, Nonradiological Confirmatory
Measurements.Results March 5-9, 1990
' ~
,
,
,
,
+
'
v t
,
g b
I
L
,
{
's s
,
a-(
A
)
s
'
j i
,
e
,.
I e.
p.
h s'
- h'
'f n,
,
t
,
i
\\
'
I
,
'.
e
'
'
'
'
>
>
- <
,
,
.
,
!
f g
5
)
5
p j ?
'
.-
,1
- ,
4 : '
,l
.,
,
,
,
'
'
"
r
8',
,
1. lt
,
U
'
' ' f,
s.
- f l
~.
'
a
<
s
,
,
,
,
,
,
,,
'#
(,,
.!*
i
-
i
&
,
{
e,
,
,
,
._
-
>
.
.
,
f
!
.
TABLE 1 I
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PRDGRAM l
FACILITY: BIG ROCK POINT
!
t FOR THE 4TH QUARTER 1987
f i
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRO ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL, RESULT
.............................................................................
LIQUID G BETA 6.30E-04 2.00E-05 8.74E-04 1.39 31.5 D
H-3 1.56E-03 2.00E-06 2.16E-03 1.38 78.0 D
.
!
SR-89 1.04E-05 5.00E-07 9.30E.06 0.89 20.8 A
SR-90 7.60E-06 3.00E-07 6.20E-06 0.82 25.3 A
i
!
AaAGREEMENT
!
D2 DISAGREEMENT
!
N NO COMPARISON
!
caCRITERIA RELAXED i
l i
!
t
!
?
i
.
i i
.
.
.
_..-..
..
._
-
.
l-
-
.,
.
l l
AII M NI 1
.
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MmM8MENTS I
'
l
!
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests
and verificatten esasurements.
The criteria are based on en espirical j
relationship which combines prior experience and the occuracy needs of this i
j program.
I i
.
In these criteria, thn. judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison
!
of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
As that ratio,
{
.
referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a l
Itcensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement i
)
should be considered acceptable as the resolution decresses.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC j
<
j Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed :stegory of
,
L acceptance.
l l
!
!
RESOLUTION RATIO = LIC(NS([ VALU(/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
i l
Anreement
!
J
.
I
!
l (4 NO COMPARISON l
}
.1 0.5 = t.0
{
8-
0.6 - 1.66
'
'
16 - 50 0.75 - 1.31
.
l*
51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 l
200 -
0.85 - 1.18 t
-
!
!
Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, I
and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance j
criteria and identified on the data sheet.
,
'
)
i i
!
-
!
I i
)
i
.
.
.
..-. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _. - _
. - -..
.....
-
.
...
..
-.
.
..
~..
-.. - -.
.
-
..
.
,
.
.
i TAN,E 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
0FFICE OF IllSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM t
FACILITY: BIG ROCK POINT
[
FOR THE 1ST QUAllTER OF 1990 i
i L
SAMPLE NUCLIDE HRC VAL NRC ERE.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL, RESULT l
...........................................................................
<
PRIMARY Na-24 1.84E-03 4.32E-05 1.59E-03 5.02E-05 0.86 42.6 A
- !
COOLANT CR-51 2.49E-03 1.24E-04 2.23E-03 1.50E-04 0.90 20.1 A
!
Det 1 C0-60 1.32E-04 1.66E-05 1.10E-04 2.32E-05 0.83 8.0 A
t AS-76 1.92E-04 2.58E-05 1.91E-04 0.99 7.4 A
I-131 2.67E-05 9.86E-06 0.00E400 2.7 N
I-132 8.01E-04 6.02E-05 6.70E-04 6.23E-05 0.84 13.3 A
I-133 3.72E-04 1.63E-05 3.51E-04 2.05E-05 0.94 22.8 A
i I-134 4.83E-03 4.41E-04 4.98E-03 6.21E-04 1.03 11.0 A
,
I-135 8.53E-04 9.23E-05 0.00E+00 9.2 D
!
SR-91 7.0$E-04 9.01E-05 6.84E-04 9.78E-05 0.97 7.8 A
i SR-92 1.91E-03 7.82E-05 1.54E-03 8.48E-05 0.81 24.4 A
BA-139 3.22E-03 3.20E-04 1.85E-03 2.24E-04 0.57 10.1 D
I
!
LIQU1;)
HH-54 4.49E-06 2.90E-07 3.94E-06 2.90E-07 0.88 15.5 A
)
WASTE CO-60 4.76E-06 3.47E-07 4.79E-06 3.07E-07 1.01 13.7 A
!
Det 1 CS-134 5.64E-07 1.74E-07 0.00E+00 3.2 N
CS-137 4.80E-06 2.92E-07 5.54E-06 2.80E-07 1.15 16.4 A
L PRIMARY Ha-24 1.84E-03 4.35E-05 1.60E-03 6.27E-05 0.87 42.3 A
i COOLANT CR-51 2.44E-03 1.29E-04 2.36E-03 1.60E-04 0.97 18.9 A
[
Det 2 CO-60 1.10E-04 1.91E-05 9.13E-05 2.46E-05 0.83 5.8 A
[
AS-76 1.85E-04 2.44E-05 7.80E-05 0.42 7.6 D
i 1-131 4.05E-05 1.14E-05 0.00E+00 3.6 H
1-132 7.33E-04 5.10E-05 7.98E-04 7.15E-05 1.09 14.4 A
i 1-133 3.74E-04 1.67E-05 3.23E-04 2.0$E-05 0.86 22.4 A
I I-134 6.06E-03 6.35E-04 6.03E-03 1.01E-03 1.00 9.5 A
1-135 8.00E-04 9.48E-05 9.58E-04 1.80E-04 1.11 9.1 A
,
SR-91 7.66E-04 7.16E-05 6.20E-04 9.57E-05 0.81 10.7 A
!
SR-92 1.73E-03 7.60E-05 1.58E-03 1.16E-04 0.91 22.8 A
!
BA-139 2.97E-03 4.00E-04 2.11E-03 2.42E-04 0.71 7.4 A
!
MO-99 2.61E-04 7.70E-05 4.46E-03 2.88E-05 17.09 3.4 N
CHARCOAL BR-82 7.81E-04 7.36E-05 5.64E-04 7.68E-05 0.72 10.6 A
i Det 1 1-131 2.55E-03 6.72E-05 2.52E-03 7,10E-05 0.99 37.9 A
I-133 4.04E-03 1.45E-04 3.68E-03 1.49E-04 0.91 27.9 A
,
!
!
l
!
h
-
.
'
.
.
.
,
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL. RESULT
.............................................................................
AIR NA-24 9.72E-04 1.41E-04 1.17E-03 1.31E-04 1.20 6.9 A
PART CR-51 1.14E-03 1.17E-04 1.22E-03 2.01E-04 1.07 9.7 A
Det 1 MN-54 6.97E-05 2.57E-05 5.31E-05 2.56E-05 0.76 2.7 N
I-131 2.50E-04 1.97E-05 2.81E-04 3.21E-05 1.12 12.7 A
I-133 6.00E-04 1.14E-04 5.94E-04 7.24E-05 0.99 5.3 A
BA-140 8.39E-04 8.98E-05 6.49E-04 1.67E-04 0.77 9.3 A
LA-140 1.37E-03 9.91E-05 1.14E-03 8.20E-05 0.83 13.8 A
CS-137 1.51E-04 2.13E-05 2.04E-04 3.06E-05 1.35 7.1 A
CD-60 2.45E-04 4.86E-05 2.40E-04 3.68E-05 0.98 5.0 A
AG-110M 1.72E-04 2.07E-05 1.41E-04 2.08E-05 0.82 8.3 A
0FFGAS KR-85M 5.10E-04 2.35E-05 4.6?E-04 3.37E-05 0.92 21.7 A
Det 1 KR-88 1.86E-03 1.40E-04 1.61E-03 1.29E-04 0.87 13.3 A
XE-133 1.44E-04 4.53E-05 1.93E-04 5.67E-05 1.34 3.2 N
XE-135 2.26E-03 4.80E-05 2.15E-03 5.32E-05 0.95 47.1 A
XE-135M 1.04E-02 5.85E-04 1.12E-02 6.65E-04 1.08 17.8 A
XE-138 5.08E-02 1.64E-03 5.07E-02 2.46E-03 1.00 31.0 A
KR-87 3.26E-03 1.24E-04 3.10E-03 1.21E-04 0.95 26.3 A
-
PRIMARY NA-24 1.80E-03 4.61E-05 1.57E-03 7.10E-05 0.87 39.0 A
COOLANT CR-51 2.57E-03 1.20E-04 2.33E-03 2.32E-04 0.91 21.4 A
Det 4 C0-60 1.20E-04 1.61E-05 9.51E-05 3.15E-05 0.79 7.5 A
ZN-65 8.20E-05 2.93E-05 0.00E+00 2.8 N
AS-76 1.66E-04 2.40E-05 0.00E+00 6.9 D
NP-239 1.27E-04 3.55E-05 0.00E400 3.6 N
I-132 9.44E-04 8.61E-05 6.76E-04 1.67E-04 0.72 11.0 A
133 3.77E-04 1.70E-05 3.43E-04 4.17E-05 0.91 22.2 A
I-134 1.46E-02 2.39E-03 0.00E+00 6.1 D
'
I-135 7.41E-03 1.11E-04 0.00E+00 66.8 D
SR-91 8.09E-04 9.62E-05 7.29E-04 1.43E-04 0.90 8.4 A
SR-92 1.88E-03 1.10E-04 1.69E-03 1.73E-04 0.90 17.1 A
MO-99 4.49E-04 1.0$E-04 3.63E-03 4.17E-05 8.08 4.3 D
LIQUID MN-54 4.38E-06 2.29E-07 4.46E-06 3.32E-07 1.02 19.1 A
WASTE CO-60 4.73E-06 3.28E-07 4.83E-06 4.34E-07 1.02 14.4 A
Det 2 CS-134 7.06E-07 1.50E-07 5.04E-07 1.89E-07 0.71 4.7 A
CS-137 5.00E-06 2.34E-07 4.50E-06 3.04E-07 0.90 21.4 A
CHARCOAL BR-82 7.81E-04 7.36E-05 6.90E-04 8.83E-05 0.88 10.6 A
Det 2 1-131 2.55E-03 6.72E-05 2.63E-03 7.79E-05 1.03 37.9 A
I-133 4.04E-03 1.45E-04 3.64E-03 1.69E-04 0.90 27.9 A
AIR NA-24 9.72E-04 1.41E-04 8.72E-04 1.86E-04 0.90 6.9 A
PART CH-51 1.14E-03 1.17E-04 1.38E-03 1.99E-04 1.21 9.7 A
Det 2 MH-54 6.97E-05 2.57E-05 1.50E-04 2.84E-05 2.15 2.7 N
C0-60 2.45E-04 4.86E-05 2.95E-04 5.32E-05 1.20 5.0 A
AG-110M 1.72E-04 2.07E-05 2.07E-04 2.68E-05 1.20 8.3 A
I-131 2.50E-04 1.97E-05 2.59E-04 3.27E-05 1.04 12.7 A
I-133 6.00E-04 1.14E-04 6.06E-04 8.28E-05 1.01 5.3 A
CS-137 1.51E-04 2.13E-05 2.56E-04 3.04E-05 1.70 7.1 D
.
- - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_,
.
.
i
,
.
.
.,
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL, NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL. RESULT
.............................................................................
BA-140 8.39E-04 8.98E-05 9.42E-04 1.21E-04 1.12 9.3 A
LA-140 1.37E-03 9.91E-05 1.12E-03 1.10E-04 0.82 13.8 A
OFFGAS KR-85M 4.66E-04 1.83E-05 4.64E-04 3.56E-05 1.00 25.5 A
Det 4 KR-87 2.88E-03 1.17E-04 2.66E-03 1.70E-04 0.92 24.6 A
KR-88 1.70E-03 7.31E-05 1.40E-03 1.18E-04 0.82 23.3 A
XE-133 1.70E-04 2.39E-05 1.65E-04 4.39E-05 0.97 7.1 A
XE-135 2.34E-03 3.06E-05 2.12E-03 4.61E-05 0.91 76.5 A
PRIMARY NA-24 1.90E-03 4.23E-05 1.81E-03 5.41E-05 0.95 44.9 A
COOLANT CR-51 2.77E-03 1.45E-04 2.55E-03 1.94E-04 0.92 19.1 A
Det 1 00-60 1.19E-04 1.72E-05 1.38E-04 3.03E-05 1.16 6.9 A
ZN-65 1.09E-04 4.34E-05 0.00E+00 2.5 N
AS-76 1.49E-04 2.53E-05 2.15E-04 1,44 5.9 A
I-131 5.36E-05 1.46E-05 2.50E-05 1.07E-05 0.47 3.7 N
I-132 8.60E-04 5.55E-05 8.64E-04 6.52E-05 1.00 15.5 A
I-133 4.17 E- 0~4 1.66E-05 4.02E-04 2.29E-05 0.96 25.1 A
I-134 5.25E-03 3.27E-04 4.27E-03 3.85E-04 0.81 16.1 A
I-135 1.12E-03 9.55E-05 7.96E-04 1.08E-04 0.71 11.7 A
SR-91 7.85E-04 1.01E-04 6.78E-04 9.82E-05 0.86 7.8 A
SR-92 1.92E-03 7.23E-05 1.75E-03 8.30E-05 0.91 26.6 A
MO-99 4.46E-04 1.08E-04 5.07E-03 2.97E-05 11.37 4.1 D
BA-139 3.16E-03 2.66E-04 2.23E-03 2.61E-04 0.71 11.9 A
A= AGREEMENT D3 DISAGREEMENT NANO COMPARISON c: CRITERIA RELAXED
.
. -.
_
,y E
n
,
=i.
,
,,
,
i,*
.fg
,
,
,
'
.
.
,
r
'
I 1ABLE 3 Nonradiological Confirmatory Measbrements Results Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant March 5 9. 1990
,
g'
Analyte Methodi Concnr Ratio 3 AcceptatIce Ranges'
Result *
i 22R$0'
13RSD
'
'
- '
.,_
'
'
,
w f
,y
,
Chloride A Turb
0.750 0.933-1.067 0.900 1.100
'O :
.
.
7.,'
. 'B
0.913 0.917 1.081 0.879-1.121 O-Q : { f. %.4
';
'
ei ;
<
'
.0.895 1.105 D.
- ,, -
'
C'
0,876 0.926-1.074 s
.,
n
.
-
ft,,
'
Iron.;.G AA/F L 400 1.010 0.904 1,096 0.854 1.146
^
A'
?,0 " '
-
,
,'H 800 1.038 0.903-1.097 0.857-1.143
'A
'
i
-
.
M I'
1100 1.036 0.903 1.097 0.855 1.145 sA
/ * * 'C
'
i
. ' '.
, l. t
-'
1 ' li !
?
(i
,
.,E A,
j
- 't
'!
Coppere G'
AA/FL 400 L O50 0.904 1.095 0.859 1.141 L'
'i
'
H 800 1.004 0.904 1.096 0.857 1.143 5 A'
a;I,
,
'
,
,.
,
I 1100 1.013 0.904-1.096 0.857 1.143
, A _,
p,
'
'~
"
,
.
Silica S
Spec
1.002.
0.906 1.094 0.859 1.141
!A
'/ h '
'
.-
T 100 0.909 0.909 1.091 0.860-1.136 A
M!)
V'
150 0.957 0.907-1.093 0.857 1.143 A
~
l
h3 i. ;
'
1.
Methods:
Terb Turbidimetry b
t Spec - Spectrophotometry
.,
,
AA/fL - Atomic absorption spectrophotometry (flame)
m.
2.
Conc:
Approximate concentration analyzed.
-
3.
Ratio of Licensee mean value to NRC mean value.
4.
.The 50 in the fifth and sixth columns represents the coefficient of variation obtained from averaging licensee data from the preceding cycle (Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244).
The licensee value is considered to be in agreement if it falls within the 12 SD range; a qualified agreement if.
'it lies outside 12'50 but within 13 $D; and in disagreement.if it,is outside the 13 $D range.
- 5.
' Result:-
.
.
'
+
A = Agreement:
Licensee value is within 12 SDs of the NRC mean value.
A+ = Qualified agreement, licensee is between i 2 and 13 SDs of the NRC value.-
0 = Disagreement:
Licensee value is outside'13 SDs;
,
,
'I k.
(
...
..
.
.
..
l