IR 05000266/1990002

Insp Repts 50-266/90-02 & 50-301/90-02 on 900109-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Chemistry Program,Including Procedures,Organization & Training & Primary & Secondary Sys Water QC Programs

ML20006E912
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/13/1990
From:	House J, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20006E910	List: IR 05000266/1990002 ML20006E909
References
50-266-90-02, 50-266-90-2, 50-301-90-02, 50-301-90-2, NUDOCS 9002260534
Download: ML20006E912 (8)

Text

m '

y w w

o, x

x

, c;.

m w.ns k 'e

'.

'

-

y-nV,

,

'39,

. f: ^

f.;v,2 4 !

k

..

-Q,

{-

' ' ' '

q n

"_

) ": q.

t

.

w.

.

i i:

.4

' '

'

fb

- "

?

+

,9

,

,,

-

W.

.y

_

.

.

'?

&

~ q y

~*

~

'

'

't s

j

,

.u-m

.

+

,

,,

.

,,,

g.

m

,

,

'

>, k.

.

-

,.

,,

,

&

,y e

,

}a 4-i k i al

~

'

' ' '

["

e O{

'

.

di $ i lp y. g.

A i.

'

<

,*

x

,

,

+'

.,t

,

' -

s.;

.

.

i

r c,.

U.?S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

^-

'

'

'

.m 8~ e,Ju ;,,

3.

. n v,~

c

-

>

,

y

,

.

.

~

,

1. <

...

= REGION III

^

~

'

"-

g

,

m :n >

..

..,q-

,

,

'

u

_; =.

o

<

.@$m[~~.

. l

.

r

,

,

,

.

,

'

'

"

j*;q q : Reports 1No.

50-266/90002(DRSS)j 50-301/90002(DRSS)

l'

c

>

f

.

.,,

s,

..

r '.

.

..

' %. y

.M*ns

'./... <,

.

- -

-

• -

-

@r.

.JDocket.Nosd: 50-266; 50-301='

.;.

License'Nosv DPR-24;'DPR-27'

'

.

x

,

,

,

_

• • ['

Licehsee: IWisconsin Electric' Power Company -

['""

'

-

' '

'$'-

'

4x,.

.231 West Michigan. ',

'

'

'

>

,

>

'

f~M>

..,,

Milwaukee fWI. 53201'

.

'

.1

<+

-

%-

'

Oy g'+y

,

.

q J ' J Facility'Name:

.

'#

.

I

'

'

o

,

<

.

Foint' Beach. Nuclear! Power Plant, Units,1.and 2

,

[ [.i,

'TInsp'ection'At::Two' Creeks,' Wisconsin ~

..

iS d

d c

--

i,

,,

..

.

t.

c

,,

.

,

.r c A.

.

s -

-.,

..

p

' f,-

-

,-

,

.

'

.

g h gInspection Conducted:: 7 January 9-12,1990(On-site)

-

<

.r

,

W

}l&.,$tb,

- - -

l

?

l",l l

~

"

'

>

a l[.,

-: Inspector:. J J.: - House-

'

j

8,

,

.

E y

u1 y

Date s'

'

,

.

(MI

'

tG

'

,;

.c ? ' % Approved By! 'M.iC.1Schumache M Chief M<iNd,,"

"y

"'W

.g

,

4'Q., ll1 WA2 a '~.RadiologicaltControls and?

Date.

7fn 4<T'

.

-

'

Chemist'ry Section/

w _~

vu

<

,

.

..

,,

w. g4

n

.

, g

-

4=

~,

,

'

^t t' ;

y,S+ -

,

<

.j - ',.

~hm'

. _'

,

,

~

,

y.

~-

,

,[

n

,

~

ti d + 1 Inspection Summary

..w

i u

,

-

,

>>

u

- qgs

,

,

9,og

,

.

-

.....

.,

,.

.~..

,

,

. W p pInspection-on January 9-12, 1990 (Reports Nor'502266/90002(DRSS);q

'

'

a

',. m W N. 7 50-301/90002(ORSS))

.

h

'_

-

u - 1

'

.

-

m g ? y : Areas Inspected:. Routine unannounced inspection of: -(1) t' e ch'emfstry;pfogram,.

h(

,

f '.sTncluding proceduresb organization, and training;(IP 84750);:-(2) 'pr:imary'and 0-1..

n

1. 'j secondary / quality control program 'in the. laboratory (IP:84750);,. systems; water!

<-

34 ~$ Q(4) nonradiolgical conf.irmatoryjneasurements1(IP; 84750); and (5) review of f, assurance

'

a

.

T'

,5 ' 'j O e p past open items.(IP 92701).7.

.

+

pt Resultsi 'The licensee!siwater quality controllprogram conforms'to the EPRI.

+

.m

.

,

TL 4 -

.

?#

Steam Generator Owners andsPrimary Systems Guidelines.

0verall water quality Q" g]

.e

,

qi P.wasigood as: were -the nonradi6 logical confirmatory measurements.

Laboratory yM<

?

,. ',. QA/QCL Pr'ograms continue to improve. -No violations or, deviations were -

<,

> ' '..:s' identified.>-

T c

+

,

', ' * $$ l y u,.

+h

GO

.)

,

( )'

• t s.-

+

x.

o.

'

't p

.-

,

,

j 3y

^ l'

f

)

'

,

n

,-

y,

s

. - -

q.-

,

s

.M i.ly.j.

.

_ i;;

^j

'

p't g

g.

,

,j r

w

+

i 9002260534 900213

'

'

bu PDR ADOCK 05000266

-

%'_

G PNU y r

,

\\ Y r!

.} I

,

-

,

d ' :a y >. _

ff

}'

'

.g

?f 5 %

s_

,

,#,

,

19 B C w

$

'

"

s

,7,

--

,

-- -

s

,

,

,

i',f'

'

Quv~q

.

,

x<

,

,

,

'

sA

.,.

,

ht y

e

?4

..

g

0ETAILS=

g

-

ll1

.

,

$N 1, ' Persons' Contacted-

~

'

p

'g

,

.

..

2T. Fredrichs, Chemistry Superintendent, WEPCo

"

1J. Knorr, Regulatory Engineer, WEPCo:

.

'm 5_ '

20. Gehrke, Chemist *.y Supeevisor, WEPCo-

'

s

, 2R. Parlato, Chemistry Superviso.r. WEPCo y y;_

y~

' p r.

'20. Stevens, Regulatory Specialist, WEPCo t9 L

2F. Flentje, Administrative Specialist, WEPCo t

,

O f'

'1A Gadzala Resident Inspector, NRC

,

,

'

'

"

'C{Vanderniet,SeniorResidentImector,-NRC

,

U< -

+

)The[insp'ector'alsofinterviewedotherlicenseepersonnelinthecourseof;

.

~

the inspection.

J s

^

,

'

,2Deno'tes th'ose present at the plant exit interview-on January 12, 1990.

,

.

2.-

' Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)'

'

' a. s (C1osed)~0 pen Item Nos. (50-266/88017-01; 50-301/88015-01):-

'

,

I Licensee to-spike ~ reactor water with anions and feedwater with metals.

Split samples with Brookhaven-National Laboratory (BNL),

Lanalyze.and send results to Region III.

The. licensee prepared,the

"

spiked samples;for comparison analysis and provided Region III with i

their results.

Due to different analytical methods used by the

!

licensee and BNL-for anions, a valid comparison could not be made.

The analysis of feedwater metals was_ eliminated by BNL, thus no data was available for comparison.

.

b.

'(Closed) Open Item Nos.-(50-266/88017-02; 50-301/88015-02):

Licensee to. review biases _in Fluoride, Silica and Boron analyses.

-

The inspector reviewed the assays performed during the current.

confirmatory measurements' inspection along with the licensee's QA

~

-

program.

Proper calibration techniques including the use of independent controls-was discussed with the licensee.

The QA y

program continues to show improvement..

,

?

+

' c.

l(Closed)OpenItemNos.(50-266/88017-03;50-301/88015-03J:

gr

,- '

,

,

Licensee to consider the use of multiple' calibration standards,

'l

~

'

.

develop computerized control charts and performance test chemistry-l m

,

,

technicians twice per year.

From a review of selected data it i

'

appears that the technicians are being tested twice yearly,

]

,L computerized control charts have been implemented and multiple

,

point calibration curves are in place for most assays (Section 6).

l

<

i

.

f

>

w in

-

,-

.

a

ph ; lu a,

, w +

.

...c yN 4o

<

..

> - g

. _

<

s q.

Yf., ;j' ',

~

'O M'

' '

'

,n

,

,

,

,

y,3v.g @

.

,

,

.c

. 'M

,

,

,

,.

'

'

'

<q i

s

,

,

I

?.f 3,

. Management'Controlc,' Organization and Training (IP 84750)

W'

'

.

,

,

,

n.

.

,

+

f[ 3. E '

• Ne[inspectore reviewed the organizational structure of the! chemistry, *

'l

'

.

laboratory.1 The Chemistry: Superintendent.and the Health Physics PQ,

.

,

Superintendent.1 report to theLGeneral' Superintendent, Operations,1who'

A

'

0 Mi g' <

n

.

.

'

reports: to the' Plant Manager.a ' The General Superintendent,- Operations, L

'

/

'

-

' ':

'

'q'

- and the General Superintendent, Maintenance are new positions and divide'

'

._

.

".

the[ plant?into functional areas of maintenance =and operations;with A i

chemistry being part of' operations.- The remainder of the~ laboratory-

"y "

'

-

s

.

%, " X

' organization'is'similar'to that described inlthe previous report, s

,..

'

?,(50-266/88017; 50-301/88015).

<3

'

o

.

s

,

e

'

-

,

?

,

,

,

,

p,

.Norviolations or deviations'were identified

s 4'.

,4.-

WaterbhemistryControlProgram-(IP84750)

,

i (Theiinspector reviewed the water chemistry control program" defined by-

~' 1

-

corperate Nuclear Power Department General Policy 003,' " Corporate-Water

'

,

.

. Chemistry Policy," March 1,1987.. Details for implementing' this program a

"

'

.

.

.

'

are conta'ined in procedures-PBNP 8.4.1, " Secondary Water Chemistrp

'

<

,

Monitoring Program,"iRevision 14, December 1, 1989, and PBNP 8.4.2,

.

-

,

"

T Primary Water: Chemistry Monitoring Program," Revision-8, August 31, 1989..

,

.

These procedures conform to the EPRI Steam Generator Owners. Group.(SG0G) *

' Guidelines and EPRI PWR primary system guidelines.

Deviations from these

'

,

l procedures' require approval from the Vice' President Nuclear Powgr.

,

.

,,

.-lThenlicensee has-developed.'a~ computer based system for trendihg primary

,l

and secondary water chemi.stry parameters' including those contained in the.

<

s.

SG0G Guidelines.

A review of selected records from(1989 indicated that

'

. water quality is very good and chemistry parameters'for both primary.and

~

W,4 secondary systems were-well within the Owners. Group Guidelines. > Water

~

.

quality data is reviewed daily. and _ weekly. byilaboratory and plant

'

,

,

.

management.

'

.

.

[

The licensee has completed construction *of a new primary water; treatment

'-

,

"

'

plant.,This system can provide up to 400 GPM of make:up water for the

'

'

'

_

demineralizers.

In addition, an in-line'Dionex Ion Chromatograph is UE

being planned for monitoring secondary systems. including! steam generator

- 1

,.j blowdown, condensate and feedwater.

The licensee.'s: water quality' program.

L appeared to be'very'0ood.

\\

uNo violations or deviations were identified.

~

5.

Nonradiological Cor

.

r

.

rmatory Measurements:(IP 84750)

-t n

,s

w g'

The inspecto'r; submitted chemistry standards to the' licensee for analysis

$

as part of a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to monitor

,

<

nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems with respect (

?

to regulatory and administrative requirements. -These samples had been ;

,

.

,

prepared, standardized, and periodically reanalyzed (to check for

'

..,%y 1 stability) for the NRC by the Radiological Sciences Division of Brookhaven: National Laboratory (BNL).

The samples were analyzed by the

'

.

,

licensee using routine methods and equipment.

'

+

.

-

,

P

,A y.{

'

L r

f

,

,#..

'

~,

w~,

,

.

,

.S t p T

,

,

,

Q1Q : m 2;y T

'u

.

,

'

'

<

,c7

,

h_

g, a-

-

,

,

,

d %. x 2.;.;

, Mi' ' \\'

~

<

.

y"&.,

v

? [;

• (

'7fl I

.i"

'_L:

>

'A ' ingle dilution was made for each sample by licensee personnel as s

b

necessary to bring;the concentrations within theiranges.'normally analyzed,

'by thel laboratory, and runvin a' manner similar to that offroutine samples.

-

,

W~

The results are presented in: Table 1 which also contains the:criteriaffor

'

-

• s

,; agreement. These criteria are based on,BNL analyses:of the standards and

'

" L on:the relative standard deviations (RSD) derived from the' results' of the w

plantsiparticipating in the'1986 interlaboratory comparisons (Table 2.1.

o

<

.

DNUREG/CR-5422).

^

y

<

,

.

The' licensee determined nine analytes;at th'ree concentrations each.-

.

.'

..

..

. ~

Of,

'

the~ initial 27 analyses, 20 were agreements, five'were qualified' agreements.

.

.and two were disagreements.

The qualified agreements are considered as

.

agreements but' fall"within + 3 standard deviations instead of within + 2

-

,

.SD (see Attachment 1). LThe disagreements were the middle" level chlorTde

,

J which had a negative' bias of 12% and sulfate with a positive bias of 14%.

m

'Following instrument >recalibration, these analyses were repeated by'a

"

s.'

'

,.

more experienced technician and the results were -agreements.

U

Although the.results of[the nonradiolbgical confirmatory measurement

.

program-were good, a few assays exhibited significant biases.

Two of

"

t?

the silica results, although qualified

agreements,' demonstrated biases

.

'M with the;10w' level having a' positive bias of-14% and the high;1evel a j

t'

.

i+

negative bias of 11%.' s A new calibration curve for silica was prepared t j

>

,

V and the silica unknowns reanalyzed but the results showed little'

<

>

-improvement.

The new calibration solutions _were prepared from the"

?

~

'

.

existing stock standards which could have been the-source of, the bia'ses%

i l:

,s.

.

t

,

All three iron levels exhibited biases.

The low level had a negative

"

'

-;

.

,

bias-of.9% while the middle and high levels had positive biases of-12%.

s k

~

and 10% respectively.

The inspector discussed instrument calibration-

'

-

'

'

and other QA parameters that can affect. calibration (Section.6) with:

l ;f.

.

No vio'lations or deviations'were. identified.

[

'

flicensee representatives.

,j

'

,,

,

.

,

,

E' { f

,

-

>

o

,

Y

"6.

, ~ Implementation of the Chemistry QA/QC Program (IP 84750)'

,

'"

x. <

c

. #'

-

The inspector reviewed the QA/QC program for nonradiological

.

, Checks, Revision 8, October 23, 1989.

.

y CAMP-1d9, Chemistry Administrative Procedure, Verification of Chemistry

~~

'

. -In-Line Instruments, Revision 3, January 26,-1988.

.

+u i

,( h

q

,

y,

\\

,

c4

>.

i

p,.

-

-

,

,-g 1s, u

-

,

r=

y c~,

,

,

,,

s o

,

lg

,',yg

%

-

w,M ; 4

.

o

'

'

i n

• <

+

,

,-

m

,

,

e

-.ayq k n:1 #.

,

m

,

,

,

'"

,- d

+

t

-

$ ji? '

,

s

+

,

,

,

f-h /

'

• '

-

'4 (,

s

<

,

K g wge

The

licensee uses multiple point calibration curves for most: assays; '

,

M f' y cA single pointLis;used to calibrate the Ion Chromatograph;thoweveri a N

, %l

~ functional check standard is also incorporated'into:the: calibration.

>>

% M,~

, procedure for;thisiinstrument..' - Although functional check 7stan'dards are ;

fX G-in general use; the9 are prepared from the same materia 1Tas calibration

,

'V Jstandards and thus do not represent true; independent" controls.

The

'

,,

inspector discussed preparation and use of. independent controls with

'

y licensee representatives.

s

,

Wa

JComp' uter based -control charts are in' routine.use..The paramet'er t' hat

is plotted is'the de'viatinn from the mean and is obtained= by subtracting-

,

i

'the'known certificate'value from the observed value of the functional

,'

check' standard. This difference represents-the' deviation from the mean.

'

.

Control limits for' this parameter were statistically derived.

The A T.

inspector notedithat'there-was no formal < procedure 5 describing' preparation,

.

L of' control charts. 'The licensee did have'a.five page' memo ~thatfwas used

+g

,

f by laboratory personnel to. maintain the control charts.

Additional

,

parameters such as retention time and a reference factor.(peak, height /known value.of the check standard) are plotted for the Ion v

'

'

LChromatograph.

These parameters enable the licensee to monitor

,4 instrument: performance more closely.

"

>

.

The inspector discussed plotting.the values of. independent controls on'

]1

'

t control charts along with the developraent of a formal procedure ^ for...

'

icontrol charts.3.TheLlicensee agreed to consider these dtems-which will,

"

,

f, be followed under Open Item Nos.(50-266/90002-01;:50-301/90002-01).-

l

,

<

'

,

The licensee's interlaboratory and intralaboratory comparison programs

!

'

l4 are vendor supplied and are combined into a single program. -Data from

'

each technician is averaged and' then divided by the vendor supplied

-

value.

Each < technician is; tested = twice per year and results'must be

<

'within an acceptance band.' A review of selected' data from 1989 indicated

'

, >

'

"t'

,

that"the: required testing is being; performed and..the laboratory's

performance when compared with the vendor. data'isl adequate.

This program:

'.

'y

'

.

,

W appeared to be well organized and managed.

'

.,

.

,

.

L

!$

The licenseehas a new cold chemistry laboratory. l Equipment included lMetrohn Titrators model 665,-a Dionex Autoion 400' Gradient Elution Ion' -

Chromatography system, a Perkin Elmer 3030B' Atomic Absorption / Graphite t

,1 J.

'

~

,

,

Furnace Spectrophotometer and a Milton Roy 1201 Spectrophotometer.1The

,

f

'

'

laboratory appeared to be.well designed and equipped.

Offices for R

Housekeeping' appeared to be very good.

'

s ;)

laboratory management and staff were located adjacent to the laboratory.

[7,,

'

,

'

t M

'

'

• vs

.

i y ',,

. The-licensee has the elements of a good QA/QC program in place and the j

f

', program continues to improve.

,

,

.

-,

m

-

'l D,

lNoviolationsordeviationswereidentified.

L

,

[

~(

7.

Nnalyses Required b'y Technical Specification (IP 84750)

>

'

c The inspector reviewed b'oron analyses required by Technical Specifications.

]

c

These included-Refueling Water Storage Tank (weekly,.2000 ppm minimum

,,

'

x

-S

,

,

,

j-o

,

D,-

.

,

'

'

,

-

e r

,

q vu r j

.g

p

7 y

- y

,

--

,

y.

> L g_/

%q

y

,

y' 7'pfh

,

,

(;

M

j'

q.

'

-

'

y; m

,>

+

q 3% y {+Q:

,

'

%,

,,

.

s

,

(/+9y:m yy ~ l..

,

,

- v

-

'

o

' '

n'

'

'

,

,

yC sc',#

+<

T

s

-

.

,

,s

-

+

v

.-

-

,

-

,

.

,

.,

q_.,

y c -

,

,

,,

,.. >

ef -

• 'q

,

,

boron concentration),; Boric Acid Storage Ttnk (twice weekly,11.50

m

,

's

' minimum boron concentration)LAccumulator'(monthly,12000 ppm minimum O-

,

Lboron concentration) and the-Spent Fuel Pitf(monthly 1800 ppm minimumi

+

N

.

'1

,

boron concentration).. Selected' data fron 1989) indicated that all.

>

.

j required. analyses were~ performed land boron concentrations met T/S

'

requirements..

,

i

>

,

,

'

'

$

No violations orideviationsLwere identified.

t

.

,m.

_..

,

-

1 8.

fAudits and Appraisals (IP 84750).

>

d

,

4

,

~'

'

.

.

-

,

,

The inspector reviewed selected quality-assurance audits conducted during'

i e

cn 1989. The audittteams appearedzto-address.in adequate detail the chemistry.

,

'QA/QC program and overall plant water systems.~ JThe auditors had nol

'

'findingsin;thechemjstryarea.

@

A" No violations'or deviations were' identified;

.m

, =

.

7[

q

<

,

,

?

.9.~.

Open Items

'

.

>

...

.

1

'Open-Items:are matters which have been discussed with,th'e licensee, which.

,

,

L'

.

'

will be reviewed:further by'the inspectors, and which involve some action-

"

<

k

'on the>part of-the NRC or, licensee, or bothi 'Open items-disclosed during-

.

!the inspection are discussed in Section 6.'

.

'

~

q

%,

• =

-

.

,

.10.

Exit Interview

,

'

-

..The scope?and findings of the inspectio'n were reviewed with: licensee 1 l

representatives'(Section:1) at'the conclusion.of the inspection on~-

g

January 12, 1990.

The inspector discussed:the Open Items (Sections 2

'

<

.and 6)f results of'the nonradiological confirmatory measurements program,

'

observations on the quality assurance program and water quality trend data..

,d

,

.

.. s

.

'c During the exit interview,.the inspector-discussed the'likely informational

'

y content.of the inspection report with regardtto documents or processes.

,

.

(,

reviewed by'the inspector during thel inspection.t Licensee repres'entatives~~

V

'

,

did 'not identify any such documents or processes.as' proprietary.

~

,

,

.

.

i

'

-

. Attachment:

Table 1,:Nonradiological.

'

N....

Confirmatory Measurements Results

,

s J'

-January 9-12, 1990.

i

b, f

'

,

,

~

,

,

a I

g, fy. i f,

-,

w

,

e'e

.3.

.

-

a 6. [ G-

'[

f.

'

y

$;.

>-

I

,

.

,

,, +

.,

fa

!

(

f

s W

4

1

,

~

t

,

s

.

,

df

• N.

-

.p

E

_

p'

t1

~~m

- -

c w

n -

-

,

,

&t

,y

^ *,

- y'

'c

'

u[

<

7' 2 a:

.c"

"

'

.

i 3-y ! I. --ij' {. 4,

. '

l i

(

+

.

,

pii ;*

.

'

w

,

,

,

H-c 3'

r y"af

' TABLE 1.

'

'

'

Nonradiological. Interlaboratory-Test Results..

-

Point Beach Nuclear Plant'

'

C January 9-12, 1990

^

"

'

,

' '*'

.

.;

EO

.,

A-fAnalYtee Methodt

.Conen.

Ratio 3 ps.

'

' Acceptance Ranges '

' Result '

t

~

d

,

'

v i 2sd!

11 3sd

-

.

~r$'

.,

'

s

,

,

,

(

EP_k

' <

.

.

,

AL M :

Chloride'A

~ IC 10-20-

-1.023 0.933-1.067 0.900-1.100; f

"

B.

25-35

.0.876 0.919-1.0811 0.'887-1.113'

'DL'

!

'

"

--i C

10-20.

0.970

'O.926-1.074 0.'895-1.105 A'

'

' *

.

-

• -

' rerun B 25-35 0.979 0.919-1.081 0.887-1.113J

>A

~

'

u,

,

c.

.

,A IC 10-15'

1.~ 083 0.875-1.125- 0.813-1.187 A

~7,

.

,

e Fluoride

>

-

b,'

B

'

20-25 1.006-0.875-1.125 0.813-1.187 A

.

M'

C 10-20'

O.964 0.875-1/125 0.813-1'187

.A

'

,

.

Sulfate-A IC 5-102 1.053

'0.895-1.105 0.842-1.158 AL

o f

}

B 10-20 1.139 0.895-1.105 0.868-1.132.

0-

- *

<

m

>i C

10-15 0.953 0.900-1.100 0.867-1.133 A-

'l

"4 10-20 1.000 0.895-1.105 0.868-1.132

.A:

j rerun: B

>

&

s

.

.

,

Iron-G AA/FL 5-15

~0.909

'O.904-1.096 0.854-1.146 A

~'

H 15-25.

1.122 0.903-1.097

.O.857-1.143 A+

'

l-I 25-35 11.103 0.903-1.097 :0.855-1.145

.A+

.

p"

-

'

Copper

.G AA/FL 5-15-1.~ 005.

0.904-1.095 0.859-1.141 A

-<

H 15-25 0.988-

.0.904-1;096 0,857-1.143 A

'

,

y I-25-35'

1.020 0.904-1.096 0.857-1;143 A

'

,

.

• Sodium 1 J~ :AA/FL 40-60

'1.118 0.863-1.137 0.784-1.'216 A

'

,

'

K'90-110 1.010 0.859-1.141-0.788-1.212 A

L 140-1704 11.007 0.862-1.138 0.789-1.211 A

1 Lithium 7 AA/FL 150-250

'1.010

.0.859-1.141 0.788-1L212 A

'

K

~250-350 1.024 0;859-1.141 0.788-1.212-A L

350-450 1.038 0.868-1.142 '0.787-1.213 A

,

.,y s.

Silica S ' Spec 30-60 1.137 0.906-1.094 0.859-1.141 AF

-

<

-

T 100-120 0.945

'0.909-1.091 0.860-1.136 A-g

.

140-160 0.892 0;907-1.093' 0.857-1.143'

A+

U Boron 6 D

Titr'

1000 0.964 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A

s:

.

E 300 0.997 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032

.A F

500.

0.975 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032_

A

,

-

,

D

)

.

.

y

,

^

-- -

"

'

. _, _ _., _.. _ _, _ _ _

__,____________.l__

_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

p q. 3=

4 g

--

-

,1

=7 s.

,

,

,

';A, G.

'(, ; J :.

4; f

i :

s

,

.

u y

j'

^'w+

-

-

.

b

^

}*

y s%: y *'

'

'

' ' ':

.v

.

j,

'-.l.

'

,

r

'

'

"

g,w

+

.,

,

,

.

{A l i ' 'y1,'. Methods: Titr

'

'

I Titration:

-

',

-

.

R%

"

- IC'

Ion Chromatography

-4

.

,r- _

'W Espec -(SpectrophotometryJ

'

-

c

r, d,

5.

AA/FL'- Atomic-absorption. spectrophotometry

'

,

i3

'

(flame)_

,

M

.

2.-

. Conc: ' Approximate. concentration analyzed.

-

.,.,

i3..

Ratio of, Licensee mean' value,to NRC mean value.

+

.

(f3

-

!

-

g7

'

l4.? ' '

4.

'The SD in.the1fifth and. sixth' col'umns, rep _ resents-the coefficient of.

b q:

Jvariation obtained from averaging licensee-data from the' preceding cycle

• (% x

'

'(Table 2.1 of,NUREG/CR-5244).

The licensee value is' considered to be in

'

!

s d'

-

agreement. if it falls within the + 2 SD range;- a qualified agreement if i

it lies outhide'+ 2 SD but within~+ 3 SD;.and in disagreement if it is

,4 P 1;

'outside the +L3 30. range..

~

g.

-.

.

-

,

..

.

-

'

W 5., Resulti x

2..

$

A =fAgreement:7 Licensee value is within + 2 SDs-of the NRC mean value.

,

-

"s,

A+ = Qualified ' agreement, licensee is betweenJ+-2 and +,3 SDs of the NRC

~

-

"- '

value.

'

..

.

r

-

~

.D

= Disagreement: licensee value is outside + 3 SDs.

,

'

.

6.-

Boron-assays are' considered to be agreements' based on comparison with

'

'

other plants in Region'III.

BNL assay method differs somewhat'from that.

'

s-

,

-

-used by Region lIII. licensees.

t

.

,

-

<

,

,

a i:

. f ~~

_

f9, 9e f)

V:, '

y

+

<

'

n

'r

'.

-

.

,e

-

'

i.

,

}

-

\\

>

'

s-

O3 b

..

kk * -_? f ]*

+

.V

.

_,

q

,

.)l

',

e

,

,

,

'F'

,,

,

.,

,

1w I

9.

.3 Q 1:,'V_'

s E

.

s C

i

.-

,

'

, 9-m.;

o