IR 05000275/1994020
| ML16343A251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1994 |
| From: | Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342C676 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-94-20, 50-323-94-20, NUDOCS 9409260020 | |
| Download: ML16343A251 (74) | |
Text
APPENDIX U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-275/94-20 50-323/94-20 Operating Licenses:
DPR-80 DPR-82 Licensee:
Pacific,Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, Cali fornia 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
San Luis Obispo, California Inspection Conducted:
July 18-22, 1994 Inspectors:
J.
B. Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Branch W. L. Holley, Senior Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Branch Approved:
ur ray.
e
,
aci i es nspec ion Programs Branch Ins ection Summar Areas Ins ected Units 1 and
Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's water chemistry and radiochemistry programs including water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements.
Results Units 1 and
Organizational structure and staffing of the chemistry department met Technical Specification requirements (Section 1. 1).
The chemistry department had experienced only one personnel change during the past two years (Section 1. 1).
The chemistry department was fully staffed with qualified personnel (Section 1.1).
The chemistry department had implemented a good chemistry program (Section 1.1).
qa092S0020 9409>5
'DR ADOCK 05000275 Q
PD J
. ~
~
'
good technically comprehensive quality assurance audit of the chemistry/radiochemistry progr am was performed as required (Section 2.1).
A good water chemistry program had been implemented (Section 3.1).
The water chemistry confirmatory measurements performance was good and showed improved performance in the water chemistry confi rmatory measurements area.
However, minor analytical problems were experienced with the sodium and silica analyses initially.
These analytical problems were resolved during the performance of a second analysis (Section 3.1).
~
A good radiological analytical measurement program had been implemented (Section 4.1).
~
State-of-the-art radiological counting instrumentation was calibrated and maintained (Section 4.1).
~
The radiological confirmatory measurements performance was good and consistent with the high quality performance achieved during the previous NRC inspection of'his area (Section 4. 1).
Attachments:
. ~
Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting Attachment 2 - Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements Results (Secondary Chemistry Laboratory)
Attachment 3 - Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements Results (Primary Chemistry Laboratory)
Attachment 4 - Criteria for Comparing Water Chemistry Analytical Measurements Attachment 5 - Radiological Confirmatory Measurement Results Attachment 6 - Criteria for Comparing Radiological Analytical Measurements
a e
~
' 3-DETAILS
ORGANIZATION AND HANAGEHENT CONTROLS (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the organization and staffing of the chemistry department to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.2.
1.1 Discussion The inspectors reviewed the organizational structure and staffing of the chemistry department and staffing changes in the chemistry department since the previous NRC inspection of this area conducted in January 1990.
The chemistry department organizational structure was changed in early 1994 and one senior chemistry engineer position, which reported to the chemistry department director, was eliminated leaving only one senior chemistry engineer, the general chemistry foreman, and the chemistry technician staff reporting to the chemistry department director.
Hence. all chemistry engineers now report to the one senior chemistry engineer.
This reorganization provided a vacancy in the chemistry department which was filled by an additional chemistry engineer.
This was the only personnel change in the chemistry department's staff during the past two years.
This personnel change had no negative affect on the performance of the chemistry program.
The chemistry department was fully staffed and included a chemistry director, a senior chemistry engineer, a general chemistry foreman.
5 chemistry foremen.
10 chemistry engineers, and 28 chemistry technicians.
All chemistry staff personnel met the qualifications specified in ANSI-N3. 1-1978 and were directly responsible for performing the requi red chemistry activities and responsibilities for monitoring and controlling chemistry parameters of station water and effluent systems by collecting and analyzing station water system samples in accordance with the Technical Specification and Radiological Monitoring and Controls Program requi rements.
The inspectors interviewed several of the chemistry technicians and determined that they were familiar with the requirements of the chemistry program and maintained a high level of performance.
Staffing of the chemistry department was as defined in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and Technical Specifications.
Station procedures were reviewed for the assignment of responsibilities for the management and implementation of the chemistry program.
The inspectors determined that the duties and responsibilities specified in the station procedures were being implemented, and the chemistry department activities were well manage l. 2 Conclusi ons The organizational structure and staffing of the chemistry department met the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requirements in the Technical Specifications.
During the past two years, the chemistry department had reorganized and had experienced only one personnel change.
The chemistry department was fully staffed with qualified personnel'hemistry department management controls were being implemented in accordance with station procedures.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance audit program regarding the chemistry program activities to determine agreement with the commitments in Chapters 13 and 17 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requi rements in Technical Specification 6.5.3.8.
2.1 Discussion The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance 1994-1995 audit schedule issued July 18.
1994.
This schedule reflected a biennial audit schedule for the chemistry/radiochemistry program.
The audit schedule indicated that the Chemistry/Radiochemistry audit was to be performed in September of the odd numbered years.
The audit schedule was in compliance with the Technical Specification audit frequency requirements.
The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance audit plan and report for the chemistry/radiochemistry program and the qualifications of the quality assurance auditors and technical specialist who performed the audit of the chemistry program.
The quality assurance auditors and technical specialist were well qualified and knowledgeable of chemistry program activities conducted at nuclear power generating facilities.
The inspectors reviewed the 1993 quality assurance audit report of the
"Chemistry and Radiochemistry Program" (Audit 930321) which was conducted during the time period August 4 through September 3.
1993, for scope, thoroughness of program evaluation, and timely followup of identified deficiencies.
The audit was performed by qualified personnel who were knowledgeable in nuclear chemistry program activities and in accordance with quality assurance procedures and schedules.
The audit team evaluated the implementation of the chemistry/radiochemistry program.
The evaluation included. in part, reviews and assessments of the sampling and analytical activities, proper sampling techniques and contamination controls, shift turnovers and briefings, routine maintenance of laboratory and in-line process instrumentation, chemistry parameter trending and control, and compliance with the Technical Specification surveillance requirements.
The audit incorporated both document reviews and performance based observations of technicians on both day and swing shifts, and interviews with chomistry technicians, foremen.
and engineers.
The audit generated four Quality ;va'uations.
The auditors identified that administrative controls and adherence to administrative procedures was an area needing improvement.
Laboratory quality control information and routine laboratory data sheets were found to be incompletely
I
-5-filled out and not reviewed by supervision in a timely manner.
This lack of procedural compliance and inattention to detail resulted in the issuance of Quality Evaluation Audit Finding Report, QE-AFR (Q0010954).
A second QE-AFR (Q0010955)
was generated which addressed deficiencies with records pertaining to the chlorination of the Circulating Water System.
A third QE-AFR (Q0010953)
was initiated for the lack of effectiveness of corrective action taken on Quality Evaluation (Q0009031),
which related to the laboratory quality control program and was generated during the previous chemistry audit in 1991.
It concerned the lack of action and documentation indicating that supervision had been notified when trends developed on laboratory quality control charts.
A fourth Quality Evaluation (Q0010952)
was generated as a
result of calibration data sheets for the Tennelec proportional counting systems being almost a year overdue for placement into the Records Hanagement System.
The inspectors reviewed the Quality Evaluation Audit Finding Reports generated during the 1993 quality assurance audit, which documented the corrective actions to be taken to prevent recurrence.
The inspectors noted that corrective actions had been completed for all four of the Quality Evaluations and that the four Quality Evaluations had been closed.
The 1993 audit of the chemistry/radiochemistry program was comprehensive and of good qqality to evaluate the licensee's performance in implementing the chemistry/radiochemistry program and was conducted in agreement with Updated Safety Analysis Report commitments and met Technical Specification requirements.
2.2 Conclusion A good quality assurance audit of the chemistry/radiochemistry program had been performed as required.
The audit was technically comprehensive and provided good program evaluation and management oversight.
WATER CHEHISTRY CONTROL, CHEHICAL ANALYSIS, AND CONFIRHATORY HEASUREHENTS (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the water chemistry analysis program including facilities and equipment, implementation of the quality control program for chemical measurements, selected analytical procedures.
and water chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 10 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.4.7, 3/4.9. 1, 6.8. 1, and 6.8.4.c.
3.1 Discussion The inspectors'eview of the water chemistry program determined that the licensee had approved administrative procedures, surveillance procedures, chemical control procedures'ampling procedures, analytical instrument calibration and quality control procedures, and analytical procedures.
A review of selected water chemistry procedures indicated that the licensee had established and implemented good water chemistry programmatic procedures to meet the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requi rements in the Technical Specification l
-6-The inspectors inspected the primary chemistry and secondary chemistry laboratory facilities and the analytical instrumentation used by the chemistry staff for water chemistry analytical measurements and control.
The chemistry laboratories were equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, and state-of-the-art analytical instrumentation to perform the required analyses to monitor the various water system chemical parameters.
It was verified that instrument quality control and calibration standards were prepared from different standard stock solutions on different shifts.
The inspectors reviewed selected chemistry analytical procedures and procedures for the operation, calibration.
and quality control of the analytical instrumentation used for the analyses of the NRC water chemistry standards.
It was verified. by direct observation, that the chemistry laboratories analytical instruments were calibrated, and an. instrument quality control program was being implemented in accordance with licensee's procedures.
All chemical standards and reagents were properly labeled, and none were found to be expired.
During the inspection, the inspectors provided prepared standard chemical solbtions to the licensee for confi rmatory measurement analyses.
The standard solutions were prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Analytical Chemistry Division, for the NRC.
The NRC standards were analyzed by the licensee in the primary chemistry and secondary chemistry laboratories using routine analytical methods and instrumentation.
The analytical results of the chemical standards were used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in the various station water systems with respect to Technical Specification requirements and industry standards.
In addition, the chemical'nalyses of the NRC standards were used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The results of the water chemistry confirmatory measurement analyses and their comparison with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations are listed for the secondary chemistry laboratory and primary chemistry laboratory in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.
Attachment 4 contains the criteria used to evaluate the analytical results.
The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses performed in the secondary chemistry laboratory indicated minor problems with the analyses for sodium and silica.
The original analytical results showed that 15 of the 18 analytical results compared (83 percent)
were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4.
The licensee's original sodium low and high range concentrations analytical results were in disagreement, and the sodium mid-range concentration analytical result was in qualified agreement.
All of the analytical results were biased high indicating a possible instrument calibration problem or possible sodium contamination of the NRC standards during dilution preparation.
The licensee
'1
-7-prepared new sodium calibration standards.
recalibrated the atomic absorption spectrometer for sodium, prepared new NRC sodium standard dilutions, and performed retest sodium analyses.
The retest analytical results were in agreement.
The licensee's original si lica high range concentration analytical result was in disagreement.
The analytical result was biased high indicating a possible silica contamination of the NRC standard during dilution preparation.
The licensee recalibrated the ultra violet-visible (UV)-VIS spectrometer for silica, prepared a new NRC silica standard dilution for the high range concentration, and performed a retest silica analysis.
The retest analytical result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the secondary chemistry laboratory, after the retest analy'ses to resolve the original disagreements and qualified agreement, indicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations based on 18 analytical results compared.
The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses performed in the primary chemistry laboratory indicated minor problems with the analyses for sodium and silica.
The original analytical results showed that 33 of the 36 analytical results compared (92 percent)
were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4.
~
The licensee's original sodium low and high range concentrations analytical results were in disagreement.
and the sodium mid-range concentration analytical result was in qualified agreement.
All of the analytical results were biased high indicating a possible instrument calibration problem or possible sodium contamination of the NRC standards during dilution preparation.
The licensee prepared new sodium calibration standards, recalibrated the atomic absorption spectrometer for sodium, prepared new NRC sodium standard dilutions, and performed retest sodium analyses.
The retest analytical results were in agreement.
The licensee's original silica high range concentration analytical result was in disagreement.
The analytical result was biased high indicating a possible silica contamination of the NRC standard during dilution preparation.
The licensee recalibrated the UV-VIS spectrometer for silica, prepared a new NRC silica standard dilution for the high range concentration, and performed a retest silica analysis.
The retest analytical result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the primary chemistry laboratory, after the retest analyses to resolve the original disagreements'ndicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations based on 36 analytical results compare V
~
~
The. licensee's performance in the area of water chemistry confirmatory measurements showed improved performance when compared with the performance documented during the previous NRC inspection of this area in October 1987.,
3.2 Conclusion A good water chemistry program was being implemented.
The chemistry laboratories and analytical instrumentation were being maintained satisfactorily.
The licensee's performance in the water chemistry confirmatory measurements was good and showed improved performance in the water chemistry confirmatory measurements area when compared with the results achieved during the previous inspection of this area in October 1987.
However, minor analytical problems were experienced with the sodium and silica analyses initially.
These analytical problems were resolved during the performance of a second analysis following instrument recalibration and preparation of new di lutions of the NRC standard solutions.
RADIOLOGICAL CONFIRHATORY HEASUREHENTS (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the radiochemistry program including facilities and equipment.
implementation of a quality control program for radiochemistry measurements, and performed radiological confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Chapters 5 and 9 of the Updated Safety Ana'lysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.4.8. 3/4.7. 1.4. 6.8. 1, and 6.8.4.g:
and the Radiological Honitoring and Controls Program Sections 7. 1.3.2 and 7. 1.3.3.
4.1 Discussion The inspectors reviewed the radiochemistry analytical program and determined that the licensee had implemented satisfactory procedures to meet commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the Technical Specifications and Radiological Honitoring and Controls Program requi rements.
The inspectors inspected the primary chemistry laboratory and radiochemistry counting facility and determined that the licensee had sufficient state-of-the-art analytical instrumentation to perform the requi red radiochemistry analytical measurements.
The inspectors verified that the radiochemistry counting facility instruments were properly calibrated and that a good quality control program was being implemented.
The inspectors accompanied and observed chemistry personnel collect and prepare for analysis the radioactive waste liquid sample from Floor Drain Tank FDR-02. the radioactive waste gas sample from Waste Gas Decay Tank GDT 1-1, and the gas and degassed liquid samples from the Unit-1 Reactor Coolant System.
The sampling and preparation of the samples for analysis were performed in accordance with approved procedures and contamination control and ALARA techniques were used during the sample collection ar d oreparation proces During the inspection, radiological confirmatory measurements were performed on split samples and a charcoal cartridge standard analyzed by the chemistry
'epartment staff in the radiochemistry counting facility. and analyzed by the inspector s in the Region IV mobile laboratory on site.
The samples and standard were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and instrumentation.
Radiological confirmatory measurements were performed on the following samples:
~
Floor Drain Tank FDR-02 Sample (500 ml liquid Harinelli beaker)
~
NRC Cesco Charcoal Cartridge Standard (44711-109)
~
Waste Gas Decay Tank GDT 1-1 Sample (1 liter gas Harinelli beaker)
~
Reactor Coolant Crud Filter Sample (filtered sample in a petri dish)
~
Unit-1 Reactor Coolant System Gas Sample (15 cc serum vial)
~
Unit-1 Reactor Coolant System Liquid Sample (20 ml scintillation vial)
~
Unit-2 Reactor Coolant System Liquid Sample (20 ml scintillation vial)
The radiological confirmatory measurement tests consisted of comparing the analytical results from the licensee's radiochemistry counting instrumentation with the NRC Region IV mobile laboratory's analytical results.
The NRC Region IV mobile laboratory's measurements were referenced to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by laboratory intercomparisons.
At the time of the inspection, the licensee was utilizing four high purity germanium detectors in the radiochemistry counting facility.
These detectors were used routinely for isotopic analysis of radioactive samples to demonstrate compliance with Technical Specification and Radiological Monitoring and Controls Program requirements.
Individual sample analytical results and thei r comparison with the NRC analytical results are tabulated in Attachment 5.
The tabulated analytical results from the licensee's four detectors are listed in the following order:
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.
-10'-
The licensee's radiochemistry counting facility's isotopic analytical results from the samples and standard listed in Attachment 5 showed 94.5 percent agreement with the NRC's isotopic analytical results based on 205 agreement results out of 217 total analytical results compared.
The criteria used to compare the analytical results is presented in Attachment 6.
The licensee's radiochemistry counting facility's performance in the area of'adiological confirmatory measurements was consistent with the high quality performance achieved during the previous NRC inspection of this area in January 1990.
The licensee will be performing radiological confi rmatory measurements during the fall of 1994 on a quality assurance liquid capabi lity test sample prepared by the NRC's reference laboratory, the Department of Energy's Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
The licensee's analytical results will be compared to the sample's certified radionuclide activities'nd the results of the analytical results comparisons will be reported in a future NRC inspection report.
4.2 Conclusion A good radiological analytical measurement program was being implemented.
The licensee had satisfactorily calibrated and maintained state-of-the-art radiological counting instrumentation.
The licensee's performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements was good and consistent with the high quality performance achieved during the previous NRC inspection of this area in January'99 ATTACHMENT 1
PERSONS CONTACTED 1. 1 Licensee Personnel
- W. Fujimoto. Vice President/Plant Manager
"J. Boots, Director, Chemistry
- D. Bradley, Foreman,.Chemistry K. Cortese.
Foreman'hemistry M. Dorsett, Foreman, Chemistry S. Ehrhardt.
Engineer, Radiation Protection
- J. Gardner
~ Senior Engineers Chemistry RE Gray, Director, Radiation Protection
- J
~ Hays, Director, Site Quality Control
- L. Hopson, Foreman, Chemistry
- K. Hubbard, Engineer, Regulatory Compliance
- M. Hug. Supervisor, Emergency Planning
"J.
Knemeyer, Engineer, Chemistry M. Mosher, Engineer, Site Quality Assurance J.
Pearson, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Technician
- R. Snyder, Supervisor, Chemistry/Radiation Protection Training
- R. Stephens.
Foreman, Chemistry
- D. Taggart. Director, Site Quality Assurance
- D. Unger.
Radiochemist
- E. Wessel, Engineer, Chemistry 1.2 NRC Personnel M. Tschi ltz, Resident Inspector In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other personnel of the licensee's staff during the inspection.
- Indicates those present at the exit meeting on July 22, 1994.
EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on July 22, 1994.
During this meeting.
the inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee did not express a position on the inspection findings documented in this report.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to.
or reviewed by, the inspector Attachment
WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS Secondary Chemistry Laboratory DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT:
50-275/94-20; 50-323/94-20 Sam le 92A-23 DCPP Results (
m)
20.3+0.7
. NRC Results (
m)
19.0+0.3 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.068 Comparison Decision Agreement 928-91 35.3+0.4 36.0+1.2 0.981 Agreement 92C-75 73.7+1.0 75.3+3.0 0.979 Agreement Sam le 92A-23 DCPP Results (
m)
19.1+0.1 NRC Results (
m)
19.4+0.3 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.985 Comparison Decision Agreement 92B-91 38.7+0.3 38.8+0.8 0.997 Agreement 92C-75 78.6+0.3 79.3+2.1 0.991 Agreement
A
-2-Attachment 2 (cont'd)
m)
7.0+0.4 NRC Results (
m)
5.3+0.2 OCPP/NRC Ratio 1. 316 Comparison Decision Disagreement 92K-194 12.0+0.4 10.2+0.3 1.176 Quali fied Agreement 92L-3 21.8+2.6 15.5+0.4 1.406 Disagreement 92J-235 5.5+0. 1 5.3+0.2 1.034 Agreement 92K-243 10.5+0.2 10.2+0.3 1.029 Agreement 92L-53 16.0+0.3 15.5+0.4 1.032 Agreement Sam le 92H-14 DCPP Results (
m)
111.0+0.6 NRC Results (
m)
109.78+2.86 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.018 Comparison Decision Agreement 92N-47 318.0+5.0 304.98+5.13 1.046
. Agreement 920-80 499.0+2.3 481.87+7.43 1.037 Agreement
-3-Attachment 2 (cont'd)
Sam le 92P-84 OCPP Results (
m)
13.0+0.0 NRC Results (
m)
13.23+0.06 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.983 Comparison Decision Agreement 92Q-11 34.9+0.5 34.12+0.32 1.023 Agreement 92R-114 57.7+0.2 56.52+0.95 1.021 Agreement Sam le 92S-107 DCPP Results (
m)
15.3+0.1 NRC Results (
m)
15.44+1.68 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.991 Comparison Decision Agreement 92T-107 30.0+0.0 28.36+0.36 1.058 Agreement 92U-107 67.7+0.2 60.14+0.99 1.126 Disagreement 92U-89 63.3+0.4 60. 14+0.99 1.053 Agreement
'e
Attachment
WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS Primary Chemistry Laboratory DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT:
50-275/94-20; 50-323/94-20 Sam le 92A-23 DCPP Results (
m)
19.9+0.5 NRC Results (
m)
19.0+0.3 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.047 Comparison Decision Agreement 92B-91 35.8+0.8 36.0+1.2 0.994 Agreement 92C-75 75.6+0.9 75.3+3.0 1.004 Agreement 2@!:H.uor.;i:da ":A Sam le 92A-23 DCPP Results (
m)
21.6+0.0 NRC Results (
m)
20.2+1.0 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.069 Comparison Decision A reement 92B-91 44.4+1.4 40.2+2.6 1.104 Qual ified Agreement 92C-75 85.5+3.2 85.1+4.9 1.005 Agreement
-2-Attachment 3 (cont'd)
Sam le 92A-23 OCPP Results (
m)
18.7+0.8 NRC Results
.(
m)
19.4+0.3 OCPP/NRC Ratio 0.964 Comparison Decision Agreement 928-91 38.1+1.2 38.8+0.8 0.982
. Agreement 92C-75 80.7+6.0 79.3+2.1 1.018 Agreement Sam le 920-97 DCPP Results (
m)
1040+0 NRC Results (
m)
1049+11 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.991 Comparison Decision Agreement 92E-36 3053+10 3038+36 1.005 A reement 92F-97 5036+3 5062+80
'.995 Agreement Sam le 92G-80 DCPP Results (
m)
21.6+0.0 NRC Results (
m)
20.0+0.2 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.080 Comparison Decision Agreement 92H-39 41.2+0.6 40.2+0.4 1.025 Agreement 92I-55 84.0+0.0 80.4+0.7 1.045 Agreement
~I
-3-Attachment 3 (cont'd)
m)
19.3+0.2 NRC Results (
m)
20.2+0.2 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.955 Comparison Decision Agreement 92H-39 39.8+0.2 40.3+0.4 0.988 Agreement 92I-55 81.0+0.8 81.0+1.0 1.000 Agreement Sam le 92G-80 DCPP Results (
m)
19.7+0.5 NRC Results (
m)
19.9+0.2 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.989 Comparison Decision Agreement 92H-39 39.8+0.2 39.8+0.4 1.000 Agreement 92I-55 79.0+0.0 79.5+0.7 0.994 Agreement Sam le 92G-80 DCPP Results (
m)
19.5+0.1 NRC Results (
m)
19.9+0.2 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0.980 Comparison Decision Agreement 92H-39 37.8+0.6 40.0+0.4 0.945 Agreement 92I-55 81.8+0.9 80.0+0.8 1.023 Agreement
-4-Attachment 3 (cont'd)
Sam le DCPP Results (
m)
NRC Results DCPP/NRC (
m)
Ratio Comparison Decision 92J-274 7.8+0.2 5.32+0.18 1.466 Disagreement 92K-194 11.8+0.2 10.2+0.3 1.157 Qual ified Agreement 92L-3 19.8+1.0 15. 5+0. 4 1. 277 Disagr cement 92J -235 6. 1+0. 2 5. 32+0.18 1.147 Agreement 92K-243 11.3+0.2 10.2+0.3 1.108 Agreement 92L-53 16.7+1.0 15.5+0.4 1.077 Agreement Sam le 92J J-38 DCPP Results (
m)
5.36+0.0 NRC Results (
m)
4.93+0.07 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.087 Comparison Decision Agreement 92KK-37 12.66+0.0 12.44+0.2 1.021 Agreement 92LL-7 24.80+0.0 24.30+0.3
~ 1.021 Agreement
~
~
v
~
-5-Attachment 3 (cont'd)
':ll'-';..-Ammonia';:-Arial-sis<P'(S 'eci.:
m)
94.6+0.5 NRC Results (
m)
109.78+2.86 DCPP/NRC Ratio 0. 862 Comparison Decision Quali fied Agreement 92N-47 289.0+11.7 304.98+5.13 0. 948 Agreement 920-80 463.0+4.7 481.87+7.43 0.961 Agreement Sam le DCPP Results (
m)
92S-295 16.3+1.6 NRC Results (
m)
15.44+1.68 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.056 Comparison Decision Agreement 92T-53 30.1+0.5 28.36+0.36 1.061 Agreement 92U-89 67.2+0.1 60.14+0.99 1.117 Disagreement 92U-93 62.5+0.1 60.14+0.99 1.039 Agreement
Attachment 4 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING WATER CHEMISTRY ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of the capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria for the judgement limits was based on the data from Table 2. 1 of NUREG/CR-5244,
"Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors."
applied to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data.
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviations range of the known values are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviations range but within the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the know values are considered to be in qualified agreement.
Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the known values are in disagreement.
The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244.
- gjfp43:jt'i,4.:
Ammonia 92M 92N 920 99.02 - 120.54 275.70
- 334.26 436.48
- 527.08 93.64 - 125.92 261.06
- 348.90 413.85
- 549.71 Boron 92D 92E 92F 1028
- 1070 2977
- 3099 4941
- 5183 1018 - 1080 2947
- 3129 4880
- 5244 Chloride 92A 928 92C 17.6
- 20.4 33.7
- 38.3 69.1
- 81.5 16.9 - 21.1 32.5 - 39.5 66.0
- 8 Attachment 4 (cont'd)
Chromium 92G 92H 92I 18.0
- 22.0 35.9
- 44.5 73.5
- 87.3 17.0
- 23.0 33.8
- 46.6 70.0
- 90.8 Co er 92G 92H 92I 18.3
- 22.1 36.0
- 44.6 74.2
- 87.8 17.3
- 23.1 33.9
- 46.7 70.8
- 91.2 Fluoride 92A 928 92C 16.5
- 23.9 36.8
- 43.6 77.9
- 92.3 14.6
- 25.8 35.1
- 45.3 74.4 - 95.8 Hydrazine 92P 92Q 92R 12.83
- 13.63 29.96
- 38.28 52.00
- 61.04 12.63
- 13.83 27.88
- 40.36 49.74
- 63.3 Iron 92G 92H 92I 18.6
- 21.2 35.9
- 43.7 69.6
- 89.4 17.9
- 21.9 33.9
- 45.7 64.7
- 94.3 Lithium 92JJ 92KK 92LL 4.05
- 5.81 10.9
- 13.9 21.4
- 27.2 3.61
- 6.25 10.1
- 14.7 20.0
- 2 J )
~
-3-Attachment 4 (cont'd)
Anal-yte',.'::,-'.
-':; "-".::--,:;-.",,:,,".:,:,",.':: ';~:.,:::,:',':,",,',:,'Agi'.cement.":."I:.:."::.'::;;,,':.:,'::: "':0'u Nickel 92G 92H 92I 18.6
- 21.2 36.6
- 43.4 77.1
- 82.9 17.9
- 21.9 35.0
- 45.0 75.7
- 84.3 Silica 92S 92T 92U 13.15
- 17.73 26.32
- 30.40 56.53
- 63.75 12.01
- 18.87 25.30
- 31.42 54.73
- 65.55 Sodium 92J 92K 92L 4.37
- 6.27 9.00
- 11.4 13.7 - 17.3 3.90
- 6.74 8.30
- 12.1 12.8 - 18.2 Sulfate 92A 92B 92C 17.5
- 21.3 35.8
- 41.8 70.9
- 87.7 16.5
- 22.3 34.4
- 43.2 66.7
- 91.9 21 nc 92X 92Y 922
C
)
Attachment
RADIOLOGICAL CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT:
50-275/94-20; 50-323/94-20 Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/ml)
NRC Results (pCi/ml)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Hn-54 6. 781+0. 571E-6 6. 711+0. 303E-6 6. 715+0. 602E-6 7.044+0.643E-6 7. 139+0. 524E-6 1.01 1.00 1.05 1.06 Agreement Agreement Agreement A reement Co-57 6. 795+1. 472E-7 7.635+1.344E-7 6. 339+1. 333E-7 6. 873+1. 154E-7 6.262+0.849E-7 1.08 1.22 1.01 1.10 A reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Co-58 9.446+0.553E-5 9. 105+0.307E-5 9. 771+0. 571E-5 9.596+0.561E-5 9.852+0.574E-5 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.08-Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Co-60 1. 018+0. 044E-4 1.048+0.052E-4 1.054+0.051E-4 1.073+0.052E-4 1. 019+0. 030E-4 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.05 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
)
-2-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/ml)
NRC Results (pCi/ml)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Nb-95 1.759+0.502E-6 2.083+0.188E-6 1.938+0.342E-6 1.868+0.363E-6 1.740+0.243E-6 0.84 0.93 0.90 0.84 Agreement A reement Agreement A reement Sb-125 1.342+0.093E-5 1. 381+0. 104E-5 1.390+0.102E-5 1.434+0.084E-5 1.461+0.083E-5 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.98 A reement A reement A reement A reement Cs-137 1.774+0.302E-6 1.958+0.362E-6 1. 701+0. 374E-6 2.053+0.284E-6 1.736+0.223E-6 1.02 1.12 0.98 1.18 A reement A reement A reement Agreement
J(
Attachment 5 (cont'd)
-3-Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (yCi/Sam le)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Co-57 5.079+0.310E-3 5. 308+0. 316E-3 5.208+0.318E-3 5.213+0.311E-3 5. 158+0. 214E-3 0.99 1.03 1.00 1.01 A reement Agreement Agreement A reement Co-60 6.766+0.295E-2 7.163+0.312E-2 7. 112+0. 312E-2 7. 219+0. 312E-2 7.259+0.216E-2 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.99 Agreement A reement Agreement A reement Y-88 1.393+0.160E-3 1.405+0.164E-3 1.347+0.178E-3 1.661+0.152E-3 1.479+0.141E-3 0.94 0.95 0.91 1.12 A reement A reement A reement A reement Cd-109 5.846+0.420E-1 6. 261+0. 450E-1 6. 167+0. 444E-1 5.967+0.429E-1 4. 791+0. 271E-1 1.22 1.31 1.29 1.25 A reement A reement A reement Agreement Sn-113 9.592+1.899E-4 1. 152+0. 125E-3 1. 126+0. 184E-3 9.744+1.930E-4 1. 033+0. 167E-3 0.83 0.98 0.85 0.90 A reement Agreement A reement Agreement
'
"~
0
-4-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (pCi/Sam le)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Cs-137 5.630+0.389E-2 5. 944+0. 410E-2 5.916+0.409E-2 5.964+0.409E-2 5.931+0.223E-2 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.01 Agreement
. A reement Agreement Agreement Ce-139 1. 536+0. 175E-3 1. 532+0. 170E-3 1. 563+0. 175E-3 1. 499+0. 166E-3 1.58340.088E-3 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.94 A reement Agreement Agreement A reement
e
~
~
~
~
-5-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (yCi/cc)
NRC Results (yCi/cc)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Kr-85 1.236+0.504E-4 1.208+0.073E-4 1.132+0.148E-4 9. 755+1. 424E-5 1. 222+0. 126E-4 1.02 0.94 0.81 1.01 A reement A reement A reement A reement Xe-133 2.525+0. 178E-5 2.392+0. 130E-5 2. 529+0. 179E-5 2. 412+0. 172E-5 2.496+0.175E-5 1.06 1.06 1.01 1.04 A reement A reement A reement A reement Nuclide DCPP Results (yCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (pCi/Sam le)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Be-7 6. 314+2. 008E-3 6. 865+1. 379E-3 6. 464+1. 952E-3 7. 448+1. 788E-3 7. 391+1. 463E-3 0.92 0.94 1.08 1.08 A reement A reement A reement A reement Cr-51 8.479+0.610E-2 8.726+0.622E-2 8.899+0.642E-2 8. 731+0. 646E-2
'.333+0.498E-2 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.05 A reement A reement Agreement A reement
~
~
v III-6-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (yCi/Sam le)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Hn-54 4.447+0.330E-3 4.543+0.178E-3 4.692+0.344E-3 4.760+0.367E-3 4.988+0.342E-3 0.98 1.03 1. 05 1.10 A reement A reement A reement A reement Co-57 3. 113+0. 906E-4 2.296+0.820E-4 3.474+0.879E-4 3.345+0.826E-4 3.760+0
~ 681E-4 0.83 0.61 0.92 0.89 A reement Agreement A reement A reement Co-58 1.801+0.103E-1 1.847+0. 062E-1 1.911+0.109E-1 1.934+0.110E-1 1. 916+0. 109E-1 0.98 1.03 1.05 1.04 A reement A reement A reement Agreement Fe-59 3.229+0.264E-3 3.527+0.282E-3 3.350+0.295E-3 3.511+0.250E-3 3.522+0.193E-3 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.99 A reement A reement A reement
'
reement Co-60 1.098+0.034E-2 1. 100+0
~ 035E-2 1. 139+0. 056E-2 1. 175+0. 059E-2 1. 186+0. 056f -2 0.99 1.04 1.0:
1.08 A reement A reement Agreement Agreement
-7-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide OCPP Results (pCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (pCi/Sam le)
OCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Zr-95 8.207+0.368E-2 8.540+0.345E-2 8.743+0.392E-2 8.892+0.400E-2 8.895+0.398E-2 0.96 1.04 1.04 A reement A reement A reement Agreement Nb-95m 8. 855+4. 145E-4 No Peak 1.076+0.457E-3 No Peak 8. 993+3. 111E-4 0.98 1.20 A reement A reement Nb-95 9.886+0.598E-2 1.027+0.036E-1 1.036+0.063E-1 1.048+0.064E-1 1.053+0.064E-1 0.96 1.01 1.02 1.02 A reement A reement A reement A reement Sn-113 3.214+0.347E-3 3.396+0.248E-3 3.404+0.347E-3 3.409+0.375E-3 3.504+0.329E-3 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.03 Agreement Agreement A reement Agreement Sn-117m 1.486+0.165E-3 1. 752+0. 174E-3 1. 648+0. 171E-3 1. 696+0. 171E-3 1. 591+0. 305E-3 0.93 1.10 1.04 1.07 A reement Agreement Agreement Agreement
d
-8-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (pCi/Sam le)
NRC Results (yCi/Sam le)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Sb-124 4. 269+1. 396E-4 4. 754+0. 586E-4 3. 238+1. 260E-4 3.518+1.059E-4 No Peak-0.90 0.68 0.74 A reement A reement A reement La-140 2.678+0.795E-4 3. 564+0. 891E-4 4. 996+1. 154E-4 3.846+0.773E-4 2. 339+1. 147E-4 1.14 2.14 1.64 A reement A reement A reement A reement Hf-181 8. 043+1. 471E-4 7.032+2.342E-4 7. 757+1. 365E-4 8. 767+1. 236E-4 6.472+2.690E-4 1.24 1.09 1. 20 1.35 A reement A reement A reement A reement
r4
~ 4
~
~
Attachment 5 (cont'd)
-9-Nuclide OCPP Results (yCi/cc)
NRC Results (pCi/cc)
OCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Occision Xe-133 6. 421+0. 732E-4 6. 687+0. 383E-4 7.700+0.763E-4 7.098+0.752E-4 7.878+0.804E-4 0.96 1.15 1.06 1.18 Agreement Agreement A reement Agreement Xe-135 7. 351+0. 717E-4 7.958+0.760E-4 7. 771+0. 758E-4 7.599+0.723E-4 7.430+0.484E-4 0.99 1.07 1.05 1.02 A reement A reement A reement A reement
V
Attachment 5 (cont'd)
-10-Nuclide DCPP Results (yCi/ml)
NRC Results (yCi/ml)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Na-24 6.633+0.557E-4 7.025+0.582E-4 6.972+0.608E-4 6.930+0.535E-4 7. 919+0. 331E-4 0.84 0.89 0. 88 0.88 Agreement A reement Agreement Agreement Hn-54 6.959+1.384E-5 7. 666+1. 595E-5 6. 293+1. 586E-5 6.913+1.148E-5 1. 408+0. 120E-4 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.49 Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disa reement Co-58 2.405+0.248E-4 2.968+0. 162E-4 2.298+0.250E-4 2. 147+0. 258E-4 2.415+0.222E-4 0.81 0.77 0.72 0.81 A reement A reement Disagreement A reement Co-60 6. 346+0. 984E-5 8. 081+0. 949E-5 6. 762+1. 109E-5 6. 482+1. 089E-5 6.713+0.853E-5 0.79 0.84 0.80 0.83 A reement A reement A reement A reement I-132 8.566+0.452E-4 1.104+0.821E-3 9.073+0.437E-4 9.543+0.486E-4 9. 177+0. 440E-4 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.83 Agreement A reement Agreement Agreement
Vr
~
~ g ~
~
Attachment S (cont'd)
Nuclide I-133 DCPP Results
, (yCi/ml)
5.425+0.464E-4 5. 410+0. 463E-4 5.253+0.461E-4
. 5.330+0.438E-4 NRC Results (pCi/ml)
5. 157+2. 068E-4 DCPP/NRC Ratio 1.05 1.05 1.02 1.03 Comparison Decision A reement A reement Agreement Agreement I-134 1.562+0.099E-3 1.995+0.171E-3 1.584+0.076E-3 1.626+0.092E-3 1.576+0.102E-3 0.78 0.79 0.82 0.79 Agreement Agreement A reement A reement I-135 9.308+0.699E-4 9.370+0.703E-4 9.473+0.740E-4 9. 525+0. 617E-4 1.204+0.067E-3 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.79 A reement Agreement A reement Agreement Cs-138 1.623+0.231E-3 1. 763+0. 136E-3 1. 603+0. 176E-3 1.607+0.262E-3 2.006+0.339E-3 0.81 0.88 0.80 0.80 A reement A reement Agreement A reement W-187 6.165+0.666E-4 5.746+1.860E-4 6. 781+0. 746E-4 6. 177+0. 747E-4 6. 559+0. 591E-4 1.07 1.18 1.08 1.14 Agreement A reement A reement Agreement
I.>
pi
-12-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (yCi/ml)
NRC Results (pCi/ml)
OCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision Na-24 7. 945+0. 667E-4 1. 001+0. 079E-3 9. 023+0. 731E-4 8.789+0.750E-4 9.224+0.688E-4 0.79 0.90 0.88 0.92 A reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Co-58 2. 536+0. 312E-4 4. 621+0. 466E-4 3.007+0.349E-4 3.205+0.346E-4 3.089+0.299E-4 0. 55 0.65 0.69 0.67 Disagreement A reement A reement A reement Nb-95 2. 239+1. 986E-5 3. 198+2. 392E-5 3. 433+1. 976E-5 3. 872+1. 557E-5 6. 524+1. 819E-5 0.34 0.49 0.53 0.59 Disagreement A reement Agreement Agreement Nb-97 5.745+2.126E-5 7. 713+2. 314E-5 7.448+2.048E-5 7.168+1.670E-5 3.709+1.874E-4 0.15 0.21 0.20 0.19 Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement
L'
-13-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide 2r-97 OCPP Results (pCi/ml)
5.975+1.697E-5 7. 203+1. 902E-5 5. 295+1. 684E-5 4. 839+1. 514E-5 NRC Results (pCi/ml)
4.732+2.322E-5 OCPP/NRC Ratio 1. 26 1.52 1.12 1.02 Comparison Decision A reement A reement A reement A reement I-131 1.642+0.442E-4 1.289+0.446E-4 1.777+0.323E-4 2 '24+0.348E-4 1.788+0.584E-4 0.92 0.72 0.99 1.13 A reement A reement A reement A reement I-132 3.875+0. 138E-3 4.503+6.777E-3 4. 041+0. 139E-3 3. 950+0. 150E-3 3. 981+0. 135E-3 0.86 0.89 0.87 0.88 A reement A reement A reement Agreement I-133 2.300+0.170E-3 2.344+0.365E-3 2. 367+0. 173E-3 2. 342+0. 174E-3 2. 400+0. 175E-3 0.98 1.01 0.99 1.02 Agreement A reement A reement Agreement I-134 6. 631+0. 267E-3 6. 618+0. 913E-3 6 '56+0.254E-3 6.833+0.340E-3 7.034+0.284E-3 1.01 1.04 1.03 1.06 A reement Agreement Agreement Agreement
e J
-14-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
Nuclide DCPP Results (yCi/ml)
NRC Results (yCi/ml)
DCPP/NRC Ratio Comparison Decision I-135 4.127+0.191E-3 4. 308+0. 196E-3 4.271+0.204E-3 4. 336+0. 187E-3 4.637+0.373E-3 0.89 0.93 0.92 0.94 A reement, A reement A reement Agreement Cs-138 6.962+0.446E-3 7.222+2.452E-3 7.075+0.368E-3 6.823+0.935E-3 8. 010+0. 566E-3 0.96 0.97 0.94 1.11 A reement A reement A reement A reement Ba-139 1.145+0.292E-3 9. 194+2. 354E-4 1.408+0.358E-3 9.983+3. 165E-4 9. 765+0. 108E-4 1.17 0.94 1.44 1.02 A reement A reement Disa reement A reement
~a Wj
Attachment
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING RADIOCHEMISTRY ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship established through prior experience and this program's analytical requirements..
In these criteria, the judgement limits vary in relation to the comparison of the resolution.
Resolution =
NRC VALUE NRC UNCERTAINTY Ratio = LICENSEE VALUE NRC VALUE Comparisons are made by first determining the resolution and then reading across the same line to the corresponding ratio.
The following table shows the acceptance values.
- ~~::.BE ILAIL'-'.;I
< 4 4-7 8 - 15 16 - 50
- 200
> 200 WAGREEHEI!!WTIO'!4 0'0 - 2.50 0.50
- 2.00 0.60
- 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80
- 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 The above criteria are applied to the following analyses:
(1)
Gamma Spectrometry (2) Tritium in liquid samples (3) Iodine on adsorbers (4)
Sr and "SR determinations (5) Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.