IR 05000285/1988018

Insp Rept 50-285/88-18 on 880606-10.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Water Chemistry & Radiochemistry programs,post-accident Sampling Sys & Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements

ML20150B253
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	Baer R, Nicholas J, Wise R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150B243	List: IR 05000285/1988018 ML20150B240
References
50-285-88-18, NUDOCS 8807110418
Download: ML20150B253 (16)

Text

m < ,

.,-. ,

- .

.

,-. .,

F APPENDIX-

"

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPEISSION

, REGION IV

.

-

.

NRC Inspection Report:- 50-285/88-18' .0perating License: DPR-40 Docket: 50-285 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (0 PPD)

.1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)

Inspection At: FCS Site, Blair, Washington County, Nebraska-1 Inspection Cor. ducted: June 6-10, 1988 M , 6 JD Inspectors:[)M J.- B. Senior ctolas, Nj Radiatjpfi Specialist Facilities Radiological Protyction Section Date f N d WL R. Wis'e, Radiation Specj'alist, Facilities Date

'

') Radiological Protection Section g/N /- M Approved: r R.' E. Baer, ChieT, Fac@ies Radiological Date Protection Section (/

Inspection Summary

Inspection Conducted June 6-10, 1988 (Report 50-285/88-18)

.

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's water '

chemistry and radiochemistry. programs, postaccident sampling system (PASS), and water chemistry confirmatory measurement Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were i identified. One previously identified oper, item was closed.

)

!

8807110418gj$hg3 PUR ADOCK pg Q :

. 1,- -

-

.

2-

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

'

OPPD

'

• G. Gates, Manager, FCS >

R. J. Beck, Chemistry Technician C.J.-Brunnert,' Supervisor, Operations'QualityAssurance(QA)

• T. R. Dukarski,-Chemistry Coordinator

• J. J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Nuclear. Regulatory and Industry Affairs

• J. K. Gasper, Manager, Administration and Training Services J. M. Glantz, Senior Chemistry Technician D.,A. Jacobson, Supervisor, Chemistry and Radiation Protection Trainin *R. L. Jaw)rski, Manager, Station Engineering

• K. J. Morris, Division Manager, QA

• A. W. Richard, Manager,"Corporate QA

• L. Roach, Supervisor, Chemical and Radiation Protection

• B. A. Schmidt, Chemist

• C, F. Simmons, Licensing Engineer

'*F.-K. Smith, Plant Chemist NRC

• E. Baer, Chief, Facilities Radiological Protection Section

• H. Harrell, Senior Resident Inspector, FCS

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 10, 1988.

.

, Followup on Previously Identified Inspection Finding (92701)

.

(Closed) Open Item 285/8721-03: Audit of Vendor Activities - This open item was identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/87-21 and involved the lack of an audit of the vendor selected to' perform radiological analyses of samples of liquid effluents and waste stream characterization determinations. The licensee had performed an audit of the licensee's vendor laboratory in February 198 . NRC Inspectors Observations

,

'

The following are observations the NRC inspectors discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on June 10, 1988. These observations are not violations, deviations, unresolved items, or open items. These observations were identified for licensee consideration, for program

' improvement, but the observations have no specific regulatory requirements. The licensee stated that these observations would be evaluate ,

a*

-

. .. -

.

- - -

.

,

a .- Organizaiional Structure - The licensee's proposed organizational structure does not include specifically designated supervisory

' positions reporting to the_ plant chemist (see paragraph 4). Water Chemistry Calibration Standards Verification - The licensee was

'

not using two independent standard stock solutions for instrument calibration and measurement quality control (see paragraph 6). Quality Control Charts The licensee was not using quality control charts to-trend and evaluate instrument quality control data. The licensee had not established criteria to identify and evaluate data biases in daily or periodic quality control analyses of water chemical parameters (see paragraph 6). PASS Operational Monitoring Program - The licensee had not developed a comprehensive PASS operational monitoring program (see paragraph 7).

_ Contractor Laboratory Audit Team - The licensee's vendor audit' team did not include a member or te3inical specialist trained in chemistry / radiochemistry activities at nuclear power facilities (see paragraph 9). Confirmatory Measurements The licensee's contractor laboratory has not analyzed an NRC prepared spiked liquid sample for Sr-89 and Fe-55 content with satisfactory agreement to certified values (see paragraph 9). Organization and Management Controls (83722/83522)

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's organization, staffing, identification and correction of program weaknesses, audits and appraisals, communication to employees, and documentation and implementation of the water chemistry and radiochemistry programs to determine adherence to commitments in Chapter 12 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and the requirements in Section 5.2 of the Technical Specifications (TS).

The NRC. inspectors verified that the organizational structure of the chemistry /radic, chemistry section (C/RS) was as defined in the USAR and T The NRC inspectors reviewed the C/RS staff assignments and management controls for the assignment of resporsibilities for management and implementation of the FCS water chemistry and radiochemistry program The NRC inspectors reviewed the proposed organizational changes for the C/RS which places the plant chemist at the level equivalent to a department manager reporting directly to the plant manager. The NRC inspectors noted the C/RS proposed organizational structure did not include specifically defined supervisory positions reporting to the plant chemis This observation was discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on June 10, 1988. The licensee stated that the NRC inspectors'

observation would be evaluate _ _

. .. . . .

l- x

' '

.

. *

,

The NRC inspectors reviewed the staffing of the C/RS and noted that, since the previous NRC water chemistry / radiochemistry inspection in May.1987, the C/RS had replaced two chemistry technicians and added four ne chemistry technicians. The four new technicians were currently undergoing shift qualification training. The C/RS perconnel turnover had been approximately 20 percent in the past 12 months This is'a reduction in

- personnel turnover experienced in the C/RS over the past 3 year , ,

No violations.or deviations were identifie . - Training and Qualification (83523/83723).

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's training and qualification program for C/RS personnel including education and experience, adequac and quality of training, employee knowledge, qualification requirements, new employees, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) accreditation, and audits and appraisals to determine adherence to commitments in <

Chapter 12 of the USAR and the requirements in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the T The NRC inspectors reviewed the education and experience backgrounds of the six most recently hired chemistry technicians and determined that they met the qualifications specified in the USAR, TS, and ANSI N18.1-1971. A ,

review of shift s%ffing indicated that all shifts had a shift chemistry ,

technician meeting sne' qualification requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971. It was determined that the licensee had an adequately qualified staff to meet shift staffing requirement The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for training and qualification of C/RS personnel including a review of the chemistry training instructors' qualifications, the "Training Program Master Plan for Chemistry," the chemistry technician qualification guide, the chemistry technician continuing training program, selected course lesson plans and performance evaluation checklists, and selected C/RS personnel training records and qualification cards. It was determined that the chemistry training program had been recently INP0 accredite The NRC inspectors reviewed selected C/RS individual staff training records and qualification cards and determined that the four most recently hired chemistry technicians were in the process of completing the required shift qualification trainin No violations or deviations were identifie . Light Water Reactor Chemistry Control and Chemical Analysis (79701/79501)

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's water chemistry program including establishment and implementation of a water chemistry control program, sampling, facilities and equipment, establishment and implementation of a quality control program for chemical measurements, and r

-

a

.-

.,

.

^

water chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine adherence to commitments in Chapter 4, 9, 11, and 14 of the USAR and the requirements in Section 2.20, 5.8, and 5.13 of the T The NRC inspectors' review of the water chemistry program found that the licensee had revised and approved standing orders, surveillance procedures, chemical control procedures, instrument calibration and quality control procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of selected procedures revised and written since the previous NRC inspection in May 1987 indicated that the C/RS had established sufficient programmatic procedures to meet the requirements of the USAR and T The NRC inspectors inspected the facilities and equipment used by the C/RS staf The following facilities were inspected: secondary chemistry laboratory, radiochemistry laboratory, and radiochemistry counting roo The laboratories and counting room were equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, labware, and analytical instrumentation to perform the required analyses. The NRC inspectors reviewed the final plans for the proposed new chemistry laboratories and office facilities which are to beconstructedadjacenttotheexistingauxiliarybuildin The new chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory facilities will provide the much needed additional space to perform routine chemistry and radiochemistry analyses to support plant operatio The NRC inspectors reviewed selected C/RS procedures for operation, calibration, and quality control of the instrumentation used for analysis of the NRC water chemistry standards to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the licensee's chemistry measurement quality control progra It was observed that the licensee was not using two independent standards for calibration and measurement of quality control of chemistry analytical instrumentation. The licensee could not verify the integrity of the standard solutions. The licensee had not initiated a program of two independent standard stock solutions prepared from independent

ources, i.e., different vendors or different stock lot This program would include one standard stock solution dedicated for instrument calibration and a second independent standard stock solution dedicated for quality control. The use of independent standards affords a crosscheck on the stability of the standards and identifies a degenerated standard solution. It was also observed that the licensee was not using quality control charts to trend quality control data collected from daily or periodic quality control analyses of chemical parameter The licensee had also not established criteria to identify, evaluate, and correct data biases in instrument calibration and quality control data and changes or trends in instrument performanc These observations were discussed with the licensee during the inspection and at the exit interview on Jt.ne 10, 1986. The licensee agreed to evaluate the NRC inspectors' observations and consider actions for program improvement _

__-

_

4:

.

'. .

(

.

'

The NRC inspectors reviewed secondary. chemistry data sheets for the period January 1987 through May 1988 to determine compliance with TS requirements. The NRC inspectors verified that all TS required water '

chemistry sampling and analyses had been performe During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the licensee for confirmatory measurements analyses. The standards were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. The results of the measurement comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 to this repor No violations or deviations were identifie . Cuality Assurance and Confirmatory Measurements'for In-Plant Radiochemical Analysis (84725/84525)

The NRC inspectors. reviewed the licensee's radiochemical analysis program including procedures, facilities and equipment, and implementation of chemistry control of the reactor coolant system and plant borated water sources to determine adherence to commitments in Chapters 4 and 9 in the USAR and the requirements in Sections 2.1, 3.2, 5.8, and 5.15 of the T The NRC inspectors reviewed selected standing orders and radiochemistry laboratory analytical procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection in May 1987 and determined that the licensee had established and implemented sufficient analytical procedures to meet USAR and TS requirement The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for the period January 1987 through May 1988 to determine compliance with TS requirements for sanpling and analysis of the reactor coolant system, safety injection refueling water tank, boric acid storage tanks, safety injection tanks, and spent fuel pool. The E-Bar data for the period February 1985 through February 1988 was also inspected. The NRC inspectors verified that all TS required chemistry sampling and analyses of the above listed systems or components had been performe The NRC inspectors verified that the PASS equipment and operating procedures satisfied the requirements of NUREG-0737. Item II.B.3, and TS for representative sampling and analysis of reactor coolant and containment atmosphere following a reactor incident. The licensee had completed PASS operator training as part of shift qualification training for chemistry technicians and established a requalification training program on PASS which was being conducted annuall The licensee had implemented an in-line instrument calibration and preventative maintenance program in compliance with TS requirements. The NRC inspectors reviewed

, the in-line instrument preventative maintenance records. The licensee demonstrated PASS operability by collecting a sample of reactor coolant and performing analyses including gamma isotopic, boron, and dissolved hydrogen and comparing the results of these analyses with reactor coolant grab sample analyses results. The isotopic and boron results compared L

-

,

t 7

. ,

,

.

,

were.in agreement. The'results of the dissolved hydrogen analysis appeared to have procedural calculation concerns. These calculational concerns were identified by the licensee and an evaluation of the calculational method was initiated during the inspection. -The licensee

,

also collected and analyzed a containment atmosphere sample for isotopic

, content. .The isotopic results compared were-in agreement. The NRC inspectors provided the licensee with a PASS boron standard for confirmatory measuremen The PASS instrumentation analyzed the boron i standard giving a satisfactory result. It was determined that the-licensee's equipment, procedures, analytical sensitivities, and analytical results.of chemistry and radiochemistry-parameters were consistent with PASS requirement The licensee had established and implemented a PASS

'

operational monitoring program. However, the results of'this monitoring program were not well documented and a more structured pro 0 ram to demonstrate complete operability of the PASS upon demand needs to be developed and implemented. This observation was discussed with the licensee during the inspection and at the exit interview on June 10, 198 The licensee agreed-to develop and implement an operational monitoring

program of the N SS which would check the operability of all PASS functions on a routine frequency, i.e. , quarterl During the inspection, radiological confirmatory measurements were attempted. However, due to instrument malfunctions experienced in the Region IV mobile laboratory this portion of the inspection has been postponed and will be rescheduled and completed at a later dat No violations or deviations were identifie . Quality Assurance Program (79701/79501; 84725/84525)

'

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's QA surveillance and audit y programs regarding water chemistry and radiochemistry activities to determine adherence to commitments in Chapter 12 of the USAR and the requirements in Section 5.5 of the T The NRC inspectors reviewed the surveillance and audit schedules for 1988,

~ QA surveillance and audit planc and checklists, selected QA department procedures, and the qualifications of QA auditors. Surveillance reports

.

of QA activities performed during the period January 1987 through'May 1988

'

in the areas of water chemistry and radiochemistry were reviewed for scope to ensure thoroughness of program evaluation. It was determined that the j

'

QA surveillances were designed to ensure compliance with the USAR, TS, and FCS procedures. The NRC inspectors determined that the QA surveillances were performed by qualified personnel. The NRC inspectors verified that no QA audits of the water chemistry and radiochemistry programs had bean performed since the previous NRC inspection of these areas in May 198 No violations or deviations were identified.

I l

I e

,_ -

_ --- _ ---_ _--- _--_-_ - - --_-- ___--

., .

.

.

8 Contractor Activities (84725/84525)

The licensee uses a contractor laboratory to perform TS required radiochemistry analyses on radioactive effluent composite samples. The licensee's program for oversight of contractor laboratory activities and the quality control of analyticel measurements by the contractor laboratory were reviewed to verify adherance to the requirements in '

Section 3.12 and 5.9.4 of the TS and agreement with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 4.1 The licensee performs vendor audits triannually with annual evaluations to retain current status on OPPD's routine supplier's list. The NRC insoectors reviewed the audit performed on the licensee's contractor laboratory in February 1988 and verified that the contractor had been approved for the required TS analyses and placed on the current routino supplier's list. However, it was noted that the audit team did not include a member or technical specialist tnined in chemistry / radiochemistry activities at nuclear power facilitie Confirmatory measurements were performed by the licensee's contractor laboratory on a liqu H radiochecistry sample prepared by the Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The  ;

analytical results were compared to the known sample activities and the results of the comparisons are presented in Attachment 4 of this repor The laboratory's results were in agreement with the certified activities for Sr-90 and in disagreement with the activities for H-3, Sr-89, and Fe-55. Further review of FCS's contractor laboratory's performance on RESL samples indicated that FCS Sr-89 and Fe-55 results have been in disagreement on both the 1986 and 1987 RESL samples. The disagreements were discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on June 10, 1988, and the licensee agreed to evaluate the performance of their contractor laboratory on analyzing samples for Sr-89 and Fe-5 No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with the NRC senior resident inspector and the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on June 10, 1988. The NRC inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and discussed the inspection fii. dings, inspector observations, and the results if the water chemistry confirmatory me: 9ments as presented in als repor r l

-

-__ _ _ - - _

_ _ _ . .

. - .

. ...

,

,

hTT ACHMErlT 1 An m.) v+ t c al M e n .u r v or'n t n

.1 . Water Chemi stry_ Conf i r matory Meaeur ements During the incpection, st andar d chemical solutions t #ere provided to '

the licensee for analysi The standard solutions were prepared by

the Drookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Safety and Envircnmental Protection Division, for the NR The standards were analyzed by the licensee us1"g routine methods and equipment. The analysi s of -

chemical standards is uued to verify the l icensee's capat ;ity to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with. respect to-Technical Specification requirements and other-industry standard In'

addition, the analyses of standards are used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy anu prctisio The results of the measurements comparison are listed in. Attachment Attachment 5 contains the criteria used to compare result All-standards were analyzed in triplicat The licensee's-origina analytical .esults indicated that 25 of the 34 results were in agreemen The licensee's original chloride resul ts . analyzed' by ion chromatography were all in disagreement. The fluoride midrange concentration result analyzed by ion chromatography was in disagreemen The licensee's chloride'and fluoride quality control standards did-not indicate a significant data-bias. .The-licensee recalibruted the ion chromatograph, prepared:new BNL standar d i l uti ons , and reran the chloride and fluoridefstandard :The,. rerun results for the low chloride concentration And ,the; midrange' fluoride' '

concentration remained in disagreement. The licensee's l original-

-

hydrazine results'were all in' disagreement and:syst'ematicall'y' biased- -

lo The licensee prepared new~h/ d razine reagent and reran'the;BNL~

-

hydrazine standards. The' rerun results for-hydrazine wereiallin'-

agreemen The licensee's original silica result.for The;nigh'

.

,

~

,

concentretion war in disagreement and biased lo The licensee's-silica quality control standards. indicated a,high1 data' bias., .T h licensee reran the high concentration silica' standard :and .the resul t; ,

remained in disagreemen .The licensee's final'analyticalc rosults 2fter retests showed 88 percent agreement - wi th the BNL' results t based '

on 30 agreement results out of 34 total'results compare 'The unresolved disagreements are not considered to indicate Lany'

significant programmatic problem As part of the previous water chemistry confirmator measurements:

inspection, an actual inplant condensate wacer.sampie wasLspiked;with0 L anions cod split between the licensee ano the1NR Thi s s nampl e. .was.- .

analyzed for flLoride, chloride, and sulfate by the11icensee:using,. ,

their normal analytical methods and instrumentation and by'BNL-for the~

NR The comparison of'the analytical results is presented asl sample 12, Attachment All snalytical results were in agreemen .

. . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ , . . _ - -. . - - -

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- --- - . _ . _ - - m _ . I .;

p - .-. .

,

!

,

..

i

'

?

l' 2

,

Rf1ACHMENI

' Spitoloq1cg.] Cr:nfiematory Me<nurenente '

i

. Confirmatory mascurements were performed by the licensee and. their l

'

' ' contractor--laboratory on two liquid radiochemistryt samples prepared'by-

the Radiological Environmental Sci ences Labor ator y ' (RESL) in-Idaho <

Fal l s, Idah The namplus were provided to the licensee for analysi.s.

.-i n~ J ul y 1987. The licensee's analytical results-were compared to th !

knov;n . sample activities and the resultc of the coroparisons1are

,

l-presented.in Attachmsant 4. Attachment 5. containii' the cri teria used to -

,

-

i compare the renuit The licensee's results for the 1787 RESL' samples; were in 43 percent tigreement wi th the certified activitie '

!

'. i  ;

('

i

l t

'

I p .

'

i

! .

t f

f I l

, 1

1 5

i <y ..

' ki [

'

\ !

.

.

>

.f

.

"E_ {

l

'

l(

,

r k

f'

?

.

,

e t

k i

~

- ~.- -- _ _ -- ~ .- _ -

--_-_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .- - _ _ - _ _-__ . - _ _

. .

• .

,

ATTACHMENT 2 Water- Chemi stry Confirmatory Measurements Results Fort Calbcon Nuclear Station <

NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/88-18 Chloride Analysis (5-100 ppb) Ion Chromatograph FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC Comparison Samgig JgD b l Jggbl Batig Dggigign 87A 22.31 .51 .2110.03 Disagreement 878 40.31 .31 .0810.02 Disagreement 87C 83.01 .5i .08 0.02 Disagreement Retest - after recalibration and new standard dilutions prepared 87A 20.31 .51 .1010.03 Disagreement 87B 40.0 .3 .0710.04 Agreement 87C 79.01 .5 .0310.02 Agreement Fluoride - Analysi s (5-100 ppb) Ion. Chromatograph FCS Results - NRC Results FCS/NRC ) Compar i son -~ ,

gamglg (pob) JDDb l Ratig; ,

1Dggigign 87A 20.71 .5! .O.92iO.10 ' Agreement-87B 44.31 ^42.31 .05102O2 LDisagreement: -

87C 85.3i .811.7' 1.0310.03 ' Agreement'

Retest'- after recalibration and new standard dilutions. pre'ared-

~

p 87A 18.71 .5i .8310.09 Agreement 87D 40.01 .31 .9510.01 Disagreement 87C 80.7 .81 .97iO.03- Agreement Chloride Analysis (10-1000 ppb)' Selective Ion Electrode FCS Results NRC-Results FCS/NRC' Comparison Sample (oob) (pob) Ratio Decision 87A 40.01 .01 .0810.08 Agreement 878 151.31 .21 .0110.02 JAgreement 87C 340.01 .01 .1110.03 Disagreement l

[

l

- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

_

'. ;.

- ...

.. ,

.I

' ATTACHMENT 2 2 Fluoride Analysis (20-450 ppb) Selective Ion Electrode FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC Comparison Sampl e (pob) (oob) Ratio Decision 87A .39.311 .Oi .87iO.08 Agreement 162.71 .2 .96to.02 Agreement" 87 C- 318.311 .'21 O.9610.04 Agreement t Sulf ate Analysis (5-100 ppb) Ion Chromatograph FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC -Comparison SamR19 329L) (DED1 Bati9 DEGis190 20.71 .5i .0610.10 ' Agreement 87A 87B 41.71 .31 .0910.08 Agreement 87C 83.7i .01 .07iO.04 Agreement Baron Analysis (100-2000 ppm) Manitol Ti trati on FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NR Comparison Sameln Janel 'leaml Bati9 -Res1919e 203 2 208i2 0.98 0.01' -Agreement:

87D 620120 0 .' 9 5 1 0 . 0 3 1 Agreement:

87E 59015 87F 987 18 1000118 .O.9910.03> JAgreemen ,

,

c PASS Be-on Analysis-2480 2500 0.99- Agreement,

'87F

' Sodium Analysig l(5-50 ppb) ' Flame Atomic Absorption'

NRC Results- FCS/NR Comparison FCS Results Jggbl Jggbl Batio Deci si oD ?

Samalg i 12.11 .8510.11 ? Agreement 87J '

10.31 FAgreement-87K 22.0 .2 1. 2 - 1.04 0.08 87L 35.3 .6 .1210.0 Agreement

'

Li thium Analvs(s (1-2 ppm) Flame Atcraic Absorption' NRC Results FCS/NR Compariso FCS Results pggisiggi Sample (onb). Jggbl Ratig-1.9710.04 0.9810.02 Agreement 87J 1.94iO.02 Agreement 87K 1.5010.01 1.5010.04 1.0010.03 1.0310.03 0.9710.03 ' Agreemen L 1.0010.01

- - - .. - - , - . . - . _ . . . , . _ _ _ __

, - _ _ . -__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1- .:

.

.

!

ATTACHMENT 2 3 Ammoni a Anal ysi s (20-1000 ppb) Spectroscopy FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC Comparison Egm212 192h1 199bl Bat 19 D2Eisi90 87M H53.Oi .01 .0210.14 Agreement 87N 150.7 1 .51 .0010.10 Agreement 870 537.Oi2 .0 2 .0910.07 Agreemen . Hydraz i ne Anal ysi s (5-600 ppb) Spectroscopy FCS Results NRC Results FCS/N Comparison Sgmnlg Jggb1 JEDbl Bali D2Glai90 87P 17.71 .91 .8910.03 Disagreement'

870 42.7 .91 .8610.01 Disagreement 87R 86.71 .01 .8710.01 Disagreement Retest - using new reagent and analyzing the same standards 87P 19.71 .9i .99iO.08 Agreement 870 48.71 .91 .9810.02 Agreement 87R 97.01 .01 .9710.02 . Agreement 1 Silica Anal ysis (10-2OOO ppb) Spectroscopy FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC' Comparisona Sgm2 DED1 192hl' 83119 DREls190 87S 50.31 .812.8- .O.9510.09- iAgreement!

104.01 .9410.04 Agreement 87T- 97.7 Disagreement:,

87T 190.3 .01 G.9110.04 ,

Retest new anaylsis on'the same standards 208.01 .9010.0 . Disagreement'

87T- 188.Oi . Spiked Condensate Water Sample BNL Result FCS/BNL Comparison FCS Resu1Lc

' Analysi s (oob) (oob) Ratio Decisio .0 .07 0.05 Agreement Fluoride 25.71 .3i .9 .0410.04 Agreement

. Chloride 32.61 .0010.14 Agreement Sulfate 32.7 _

' O

,

BIIBCHDEUl_}

CBlIEB10_EQB_CQUE0810G_000LXIICOL_DE95WBEDEUIS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability test in these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC valu The following steps are performed:

(1) The ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed Licensee's Value ); and (ratio =

NRC VALUE (2) the uncertainty of the ratio is propagate If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreemen (l1-ratio l 1 2x uncertainty)

x si sj s, Z= , then = +

y Z2 xa ya l

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

m. ,

!

l l

f l

l

-

l

!

l t

i I

l l

. _ _ _ - - . _ _

- . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ,

s o

.

.

81IBCUMENI_6 Radiolooical Confirmatorv Measureement Results Fort Calhoun Nuciear Station NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/88-18 RESL Unknown Licuid Sample (Standardized: 12:00, MST, J ar.. ary 11, 1987)

FCS Results NRC Results FCS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml) (UCi/ml) Ratio Decision Mn-54 1.78to.10E-5 1.98tO.04E-5 0.90 Agreeraent Co-60 1.9910.10E-5 1.9110.04E-5 1.04 Agreement Cs-137 3.85iO.11E-5 2.80tO.08E-5 1.38 Disgreement Fe-55 <6.16E-9 6.1910.12E-5 ----

Disagreement Sr-89 3.54 0.35E-4 1.3910.04E-4 2.55 Disagreement Sr-90 1.4410.06E-5 1.2610.05E-5 1.14 Agreement H-3 6.19iO.11E-5 1 .' 0 1 1 0 . 0 2 E - 4 0.61 Disagreement Fe-59 Not Reported 4.75tO.19E-6 Cs-134 3.18iO.48E-6 Not Present L

m,w - a a .-;<

l

. J .

NRC results were taken from the standard certification supplied to the'

NRC Region IV office as prepared by RESL and traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.

l l

l l

i

_

-

. ..

'

.

OIIOCbbENI_D CBIIL610_EDB_CDDE081NE_0NGLYI1 COL _DE05UBEDEUIS The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based w. empirical relationship established through prior experts-re and thi s program's anal ytical requirement In these criteria. the judgement limits vary in relation to the comparison of the r esolutio =

" ^

Resolution NRC UNCERTAINTY LICENSEE VALUE Ratio =

NRC VALUE Comparisons are made by first determining the resolution and then reading across the same line to the corresponding ratio. The f ollowing table shows the acceptance value RESOLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO

<4 0.40 - 2.50 4-7 0.50 - 2.00 8- 15 0.60 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25

>200 0.85 - 1.18 The above criteria are applied to the f ollowing 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.