IR 05000298/1988027
| ML20195K377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1988 |
| From: | Baer R, Nicholas J, Wise R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195K364 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-88-27, NUDOCS 8812050196 | |
| Download: ML20195K377 (21) | |
Text
.
.
.
APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLdAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-298/83-27 Operating License: OPR-46 Docket:
50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
P.O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
Inspection At:
Inspection Conducted: October 24-28, 1988 f/.r.>/fp Inspectors:
(
.i J/ B. Nicholas Sen16r Radiation Specialist Da~te Facilities Radiation Protection Section
/
W
//- Jo -Jc5'
.nw R. Wise, Radiation Specialist, Facilities Date Radio'ogical Protection Section i
M h
$//r
//
Approved:
_
s E. Baer, Chief, acilities Radiological Date
'
-
Protection Section Inspection Sumary Inspection Conducted October 24-28, 1983 (Report 50-299/SB-2_7)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemistry /radiochenistry program and water chenistry and radiochemistry j
confirmatory measurements.
Results: Witnin the areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure to conduct postaccident sampling system (PASS) operator training, paragraph 4).
No deviations were icentified.
!
l ssicorcios astro:
PDn ADOCK 05000 98 O
FDC
- -
-
_ _ _ _
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted NPPD
- R. E. Wilbur, Acting Division Panager, Nuclear Operations
- L. E. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
- J. W. Dutton, Nuclear Training Manager K. L. Fike, Chemist
- J. H. Hinz, Senior Nuclear Training Instructor
- R. J. Mcdonald, Chemistry Supervisor K. J. Musil, Chemistry Technician C. H. Putnam, Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer
- J. V. Sayer, Radiological Manager G. E. Smith, QA Manager G. R. Smith, Licensing Supervisor D. L. Snyder, Chemistry / health Physics Training Instructor
!
J. A. Teten, Chemistry Technician l
J. R. Warren, Senior Chemistry / Health Physics Specialist l
C. L. Weers, Chemistry Technician P. R. Windham, Technical Training Supervisor M. C. Wright, Lead Chemistry Technician NRC W. R. Bennett, Senior Resident Inspectc, CNS G. A. Pick, Resident inspector, CNS
- Denotes those present during the exit interview on October 28, 1938.
2.
Inspector Observations The following are observations the NRC inspectors discussed with the licensca during the exit interview on October 28, 19S3.
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 the observations would be reviewed, a.
Chemistry Trainine Staff - The licensee had not hired a sufficient number of chemistry trcining instructors to adequately develop and implemant chemistry training requirements (see paragraph 4),
b.
Chemistry / Radiochemistry Laboratory Space - The licensee had r.ot l'emode[eo the chemistry /raoiocnemistry laboratory area to eliminate existing crowded conditions (see paragraph 5).
..
.
.
.
.
c.
Quality Control Charts - The licensee was not using quality control charts to trend and evaluate biases in periodic c,uality control data (see paragraph 5).
d.
Alpha / Beta Counter Calibration - The licensee's :alibration procedure for the alpha / beta counter was not specific as to which alpha and beta sources and counting configurations were to be calibrated annually (see paragraph 6).
e.
Gamma Spectroscopy System Calibration - The licensee's calibration procedure for the gamma spectroscopy system did not define what was considered an annua' calibration of the system (see paragraph 6).
3.
Organization and Management Controls (83522, 83722)
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 agreement with commitments in Section XIII of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and the requirements in Section 6.1 of the Technical Specifications (TS).
The hAC inspectors verified that the organizational structure of the CNS chemistry / radiochemistry section (C/RS) was as defined in the USAR and TS.
The C/RS staff assignments, management control procedures, and position descriptions were reviewed for the assignment of responsibilities for the management and implementation of the CNS water chemistry and radiochemistry programs.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the organizational changes for the C/RS which were implemented ir July 1988.
These organizational changes created a new chemistry supervisor position which reports directly to the radiological manager.
The senior chemistry specialist and chemist new report directly tc the chemistry supervisor.
The new organizational structure segregates the chemistry, health physics, and radiological support functions and responsibilities and provides for more direct speciality supervision and control.
The NRC inspectors verified that the administrative control responsibilities specified by the CNS procedures were being imples.ented.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the staf fing of the C/RS aid noted that, since the previous NRC chemistry / radiochemistry inspection in June 1987, the C/k$ lost the lead chemistry technician to the CNS nuclear training department and one of the chemistry technicians had left CNS employment.
The lead chemistry technician position had been filled by the appointment of a senior chemistry technician creating two chemistry technician vacancies.
At the time of the inspection, one vacancy had been filled by a CNS reactor operator who was to start his chemistry training and responsibilities on November 1, 1988.
The C/RS personnel turnover was approximately 25 percent in the past 16 months.
This is an increase in personnel turnover e :perienced in the C/RS over the past 4 years.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
-. -
-
-
- - - - _ - _ - _.
- -
-
.
~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
.
.
.
.
i
'
.
4, Training and Qualifications (83523, 83723)
.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's training and qualification program for C/RS personnel including education and experience, adequacy and quality of training, employee knowledae, qualification requirements, l
new employees, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) accreditation, and audits and appraisals to determine agreement with commitments in
'
l Section XIII-3 of the USAR and the requirements in Sections 6.1.4 and
,
6.3.7 of the TS.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the education and experience backgrounds of
'
the present C/RS staff and verified that they met the required i
,
!
qualifications specified in the USAR and TS.
!
]
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for training and f
l
qualification of C/RS personnel including a review of the chemistry training instructor's qualifications; the Chemistry Training Program o
'
j Description, TPD-0401, for chemistry technicians; the Training Program
Descriptions, TPD-0405 and TPD-0406, for training and qualifying health
,
L j
physics and chemistry technicians to provide on-site backshift health physics and chemistry coverage; the 1989 chemistry training schedule;
selected course lesson plans and job performance measures; and C/RS
i personnel training and on-the-job certification records.
It was
!
determined that the chemistry training program had been recently INPO l
s l
accredited.
!
!
I The NRC inspectors observed that the licensee had only one chemistry l
]
training instructor on staff to develop and conduct the chemistry training I
program.
It was also determined that this instructor was also required to l
l assist in conducting various training sessions for radiation protection.
[
The NRC inspectors discussed this observation with the licensee during the l
inspectien and expressed concern that one chemistry instructor appeared i
not to be able to satisfactorily develop, conduct, and control the
{
chemistry training program.
It was pointed out that most nuclear trainirg j
I departments employed a minimum of two instructors to in:plement a l
satisfactory chemistry training program.
The NRC inspectoes' observation I
was discussed in the exit interview on October 28, 1988, and the
I licensee's representatives stated they would evaluate the NRC inspectors'
.
concerns for program improvement.
[
!
,
l The NRC inspectors reviewed the C/RS individual staff training records and
!
on-the-job certification records and determined that the two most recently
[
l hired chemistry technicians were in the process of completing the requ1 Md (
qualification training.
The NRC inspectors also reviewed the required
requalification training records for the chemistry technician PASS
,
)
opt.rator training. TS 6.3.7c requires that a program be established using l
l the PASS to ensure the capability to obtain and analy:e reactor coolant,
,
!
radioactive iodines and particulates in plant gaseous effluents, and i
i containment atmosphere samples under accident conditions.
This program is t
j to incluce traini'g of personnel, procedures for sampling and analysis, and provisions fo operability of sampiing and analysis equipment, Tne j
!
'
l
,!
_ - - _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
!
.
i
-
-
i
,
.
,
!
l
!
licensee's PASS operator training program is directed by Chemistry l
l Procedure 8.4.1.1, "Post Accident Sampling System,' Revision 6, dated
August 6, 1987.
Paragraph M requires that PASS operators be trained and j
requalified semiannually and training records be maintained by the CNS j
training department.
The PASS operator training program is implemented by
the Training Program Description, TPD-0401, for chemistry technicians, and
.
requires / ASS training to be performed every 6 months and documented under
!
j file numbers INT 013-01-01 and INT 013-02-01 for PASS liquid samples and
'
Kaman raonitor sa ples of radioactive iodines and particulates in plant
!
l gaseous effluents, respectively. Contrary to the above requalification i
training requirements of every 6 months, the NRC inspectors determined on
!
October 27, 1988, during a review of the CHS training department files for
'
INT 013-01-01 and INT 013-02-01, that PASS operator training had not been
'
l conducted semiannually.
The above designated training records documented PASS training being conducted for PASS liquid samples in May 1987 and r
,
March 1938 and for Kaman monitor samples in June 1987 and June 1988.
The I
'
'
failure to conduct and document semi-annual PASS operator requalification training, during the period May 1937 through June 1988, is an apparent
,
violation of TS 6.3.7c and the licensee's implementing training program
'
!
description TPD-0401 and Chemistry Procedure 8.4.1.1.
(298/8827-01)
l No deviations were icentified.
c
j 5.
Light Water Reactor Chemistry Control and Cnemical Analysis (79501, s
79701, 84750)
i Th'. WRC 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
!
water chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with
!
commitments in Section IV of the USAR and compliance witn the requirements i
in Section 3/4.6 of the TS.
l The NRC inspectors' review of the water chemistry prer.am found that the
licensee had approved administrative procedures, surveillance procedures.
l
chemical control procedures, sampling procedures, irstrument calibration
,
and performance check procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of
!
selected procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection j
in June 1987, chemistry logs, and analytical data indicated that the C/RS f
,
had establisned sufficient programmatic procedures to 'teet the
i requirements of the USAR and TS.
!
,
j The NRC inspectors inspected the facilities and equipmert used by the C/RS i
staff.
The following facilities were inspected:
chemistry / radiochemistry l
i laboratory, radiocnemistrv counting room, and chemistry sampling panels.
[
'
l The laboratory and counting room were equippec with the necessary
,
chemicals, reagents, labware, and analytical instrumentation to perform the reovired analyses.
The facilities inspected had not changeo since the I
!
!
!
l i
!
i
!
-
- -
.
.
_
I e
.
.
.
!
l
\\
i
'
,
!
previous NRC inspection of these areas in June 1987.
The NRC inspectors
)
noted that the working conditions in the laboratory and counting room were (
)
still crowded and the desk area for the chemistry technicians w as using
'
'
much of the intended laboratory space.
This observation was discussed at the exit interview on October 28, 1988, and the licensee's representatives f
indicated that the remodeling of the chemistry laboratory and C/RS staff l
I working areas had been postponed to 1990.
The licensee informed the NRC
'
!
inspectors that a new atomic absorption spectrometer system had been l
approved to be purchased.
!
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected C/RS procedures for operation, i
)
calibration, and quality control of the instrumentation used for analysis
of the NRC water chemistry standards to determine the adequacy and
'
j effectiveness of the licensee's chemistry measurement quality control (QC)
!
program.
The NRC inspectors verified that the water chemistry laboratory (
)
instruments had been calibrated in accordance with procedures and an i
j instrument QC program had been implemented.
The licensee had initiated
!
j the use of two independent stancards for calibration and QC performance of
l chemistry analytical instrumentation.
However, it was observed that the
!
l j
licensee was not using QC charts to trend instrument QC data.
The
'
'
licensee had not established criteria to identify, evaluate, and correct i
data biases in instrument calibration and QC data and changes or trends in
!
instrument performance. These observations were discussed with the l
j licensee at the exit ir.terview on October 28, 1988.
The licensee agreed j
to ev&luate the NRC inspectors' observations and consider actions for i
j program improvement.
i l
The licensee had implemented an internal laboratory analytical accuracy
{
cross-check program to verify performance of C/R5 technicians on chemistry
'
analytical procedures.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's results
!
'
of the spiked sample analyses perfntmed during 1987 and 1985 and fcund the
!
cross-check program being implemented according to procedure.
The NRC inspectors reviewed water chemistry data forms for the period j
.
January 1937 through September 1988 to determine compliance with TS j
l requirements.
The NRC inspectors verified that all T$ required water
,
!
chemistry sampling and analyses had been perforced, r
I i
'
During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the
{
licensee for confirmatory reasurerents analyses. The stancards were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and instrumentation.
The results of the rteasurement comparisons are suimarized in Attachments 1, 2, j
I and 3 to this report.
- No violations or deviations were identified.
l
!
6.
Quality Assurarce and Confirmatory Measurements for In-Plant
a j
EfadiocP2mistry Analysis ($4525, 24M575W$b)
i The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiocnemical analysis program
,
including procedures, facilities and equipment, implementation of
>
,
l chemistry control of the reactor coolant system ard plant berated water
!
l
!
'
r i
. _ ______ - ___
____
___
,
.
.
sources, implementation of a QC program, PASS, and radioanalytical confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Section X of the USAR and compliance with the requirements in Sections 3/4.6 and 6.3.7 of the TS.
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry analytical procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection in June 1987 and determined that the licensee had established and implemented sufficient analytical procedures to meet USAR and TS requirements.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for the period January 1987 through September 1988 to determine compliance with TS requirements for sampling and analysis of the reactor coolant system and the standby liquid control tank.
The NRC inspectors verified that all TS required chemistry sampling and analyses of the above systems had been performed.
The NRC inspectors found the type and quantity of radiological analytical instrumentation in the radiochemistry counting room acequate to perform the required analyses specified in the TS.
The NRC inspectors examined the licensee's radiochemistry counting room instrumentation calibration and QC procedures, counting instrumentation calibration data and performance check data, QC charts, and other documentation of instrument performance.
Records for the period June 1937 through September 1988 were reviewed.
The NRC inspectors noted that the chemistry Procecure 8.5.2.2,
"Alpha / Beta Counter," Revicion 4, dated May 31, 1988, requires an annual efficiency determination for alpha and beta measurements.
It was observed that the procedure is not specific as to which alpha and beta sources are to be used and which counting configurations (i.e.,1-inch smear air filter or 2-inch pad) are to be calibrated annually.
It appeared from review of the data that the alpha and beta sources used and counting configurations calibrated varied each year at the discretion of the plant chemist. The NRC inspectors expressed their concern that the calibration procedure for the alpha / beta counter was not specific enough as to how the instrument was to be calibrated on an annual frequency, The Chemistry Procadure 8.5.2.1, "Canberra System Operation," Revision 2, dated August 18, 1958, in paragraph C 4 is not explicit as to what performance check results are to be plotted. Also paragraph 0.3 is not specific as to the f requency of celibration for which or all counting geometries. A review of the calibration measurements performed in 1987 and 1988 on the Canberra Gamma Spectroscopy System indicated that not all counting geometries had been recalibrated each year; but that all counting geometry efficiency curves had been verified against a previous counting geometry calibration.
The NRC inspectors cbserved that the procedure was not clear as to what constituted a counting geometry efficiency calibration versus a counting geometry efficiency verification.
The licensee had not established in the procecure acceptance criteria for a satisfactory counting efficiency verrification and corrective action to be taken in case
b
-
.
.
.
!
,
,
'
'
i h
of failure to meet that criteria.
The NRC inspectors discussed their
"
j concerns and observations with tne licensee during the inspection and at
"
j the exit interview on October 28,198S, and the licensee agreed to review l
]
the two, above mentioned, instrument calibration procedures and revise
'
.
them to clearly and specifically describs in detail the instrument
.
l calibration methodology.
!
i The licensee participates in the U.S. Environmental Protection l
Agency (EPA) cross-check program for radiological analyses to verify I
performance of chemistry technicians on radiochemistry procedures. The NRC
!
i inspectors reviewed the licensee's results of the EPA spiked samples j
reported during 1987 and 1958 and found the results to be acceptable
,
l within the EPA acceptance criteria.
!
l The NRC inspectors verified that the PASS equipment and operating
1 procedure satisfied the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3, and TS
)
for representative sampling and analysis of reactor coolant and I
i containment atmosphere following a reactor incident. The licensee had
j implemented an in-line instrument calibration and preventative i
I J
maintenance / operability program for PASS in compliance with TS
!
requirements.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the semi-annual surveillance
.
test results and in-line instrument calibration and performance check i
j records for 1937 and 1983 and found them completed according to procedure.
i During the inspection, radiological confirmatory measurements were
!
l performed on standards and split samples by the licensee and the NRC
j inspectors in the Region IV mobile laboratory.
The standards and samples I
were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The
!
results of the measurements comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1,
!
4, and 5.
1 No violations or deviations were identified.
l 7.
QA Program (79501, 797_01, 84525, 84725, 84750)
[
'
l The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's QA surveillance and audit l
programs regarding chemistry / radiochemistry activities to determine i
agreement with commitments in Section XIII of the USAR and compliance with
l the requirements in Section 6.2 of the TS,
,
The NRC inspectors reviewed the surveillance and audit schedules for 1987 i
and 1933, QA surveillance and audit plans and checklists, selected QA
!
j department procedures, and the qualifications and training of QA auditors.
l Audits and surveillance reports generated from QA activities during the s
l c
period January 1987 through September 1933 in the areas of
'
chemistry / radiochemistry, chemistry laboratory conditions, sample control,
[
chemistry instrument calibration and quality control, and f
,
chemistry /radiocnemistry analyses were reviewed to ensure thoroughness of (
chemistry / radiochemistry program evaluation.
The NRC inspectors found I
that the audit and surveillance plans and checklists were comprehensive j
i and designed to ensure compliance with sne T5 requirements.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
I
'
i
ax
,
i
.
,
.
.
l.
'
,
,
8.
Exit Interview (30703)
The NRC inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in
,
paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 28, 1988.
The NRs inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and discussed the
'
inspection findings, inspector observations, and the results of the water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements as presented in the attachments to this report.
'
,
.
.
f I
i b
I
!
I l
l i,
L I
i
!
t
[
f
!
!
i
.
l
!
<
!
!
,.., - - -,,
,-.,
__ _ - __ _ _, -.-,-.
,.. _ - - _....
. - _.... -,
_ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_
i
t
-
!
.
l i
I
!
ATTACHMENT
,
-
4 Analvtical_Moacuremorin 1.
L Chemistry Confirmator_y M+nsuromonts ifter j
]
During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the Itcensee for analyuts.
The standard solutionn were prepared by
the Drookhaven National Laboratory (LNL), Safety and Environmental Protection Division, for the NRC.
The standards were analyzed by the
,
licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The analysis of chemical standards is used to verify the licensco's capability to monitor chemical parameters in varioun plant cystems with respect to
,
Technical Specification (TS) requirements and other industry
.
!
standards..
In addition, the analyses of Ltandards are used to i
evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respe-t to accuracy j
and precision.
l l
The results of the measurements comparison aro listed in Attachment 2.
!
Attachmunt 0 contains tha criteria used to compare resultu.
All
!
standards were analy:ed in triplicate.
The licensee *s original f
analytical results indicated that 20 of the 01 results were in
agreeuent.
(a)
The licensee's original iron m1drenge and high concentration results were in disagreement and biased low.
The atomic absorption system had been calibrated using a 1.0 ppm stander d The licensee prepared fresh 5.0 ppm tron calibration atendard, a
r ecal.4 br ated the atonde abcorption system, and reran the BNL iron
,
standards.
The rerun results were in agreement.
'
(b)
The incensee's original copper low and midrange concentr6 tion
,
!
results were in disagreement and biased low.
The atomic I
absorption system had been calibrated using a 1.0 ppm standard.
The Itcensee prepared a fresh 5.0 ppm copper calibration standard. recalibrated the atomic abnorption Mystem, and reran the ENL copper standards.
The rerun result for the midrange concentratien was in agreement.
(c)
The 11censee's original nickel high concentration result was in disagreement and biased low.
The atomic absorption syntem hed
?
Deen calibrated using a 1.0 ppm standard.
The licensee prepared a fresh 5.0 ppm naciel calibration standard, recalibrated the
'
atomic absorption system, and recen the BNL nickel standard.
The
)
rerun result showed little change and remained in disagreement.
!
l (d)
The 11censee's original chromium midrange and high concentration j
results were in disagreement and biased low.
The atomic j
absception system had been calibrated using a 1.0 ppm standard.
I The licenece prepered a fresh b.O ppm chromium calibration I
standard, recalibrated the atomic absorptiom system, and rcran l
The rerun results were biased high and in disagreement.
i i
,.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
(e)
The licennon's ortginal sodium low and midrange concentration results were in disagreement and biased high indicating possible contamination.
The licenseu coran thu DNL sodium standards
- eroing the atomic absorption system with water rather than air.
The rurun results showed little change and remained in disagreement.
(f)
The licensee's original silica two midrange concentration results woro in disagreement and biased low.
Both DNL standard dilutions had been prepared using a 50 micro-liter piputter.
The licensee preparod new BNL standards using a 500 micro-litur pipottor and reran the silica standards.
The rerun results were in agreement indicating that thu SQ micro-litar pipettor may have been out ei calibration.
The licensee *s dinal analytical results, after the retests in aa attempt to renolve the original disagreements, incicated 01 percent agreement with the BNL results based on 25 agreement results out ot 31 results compared.
The unresolved disagreements are not considered to indicate any significant programmatic problems.
However, the l
unresolved di sagrooments associ ated wi th the n.otals and sodium i
analyses using the flame atomic ebsorption system may indicate a l
problem in the celibration standards currently used, a problem I
associated with the one point calibration technique used, or possible instability of the instrument due to age.
The purchase et a new atomic absorption system was di scur> sed with the litchsee during the insps: tion.
The licensee informed the NRC inspectors at the exit interview on October 20, 19ES. that authorization to purcnose a new atomic abnorption system had been approvud.
As part of the previout water chemistry confirmatory measurements inspection conducted in June 1907 two condensate domineralizer effluent water samples were spiked wath annons and metals, respectively.
The samples were then split between the licensee a.id NRC for analyses.
The first sample was analy:ed for chloride end sulfato and the second sampl e wa s analyred for iron, ccpper, nickel, and chromium by the lic ensce using their normal analytical methods end instrumentat.on and by BNL for the NRC.
The comparisons of the analytical results are presented as samples 11 and 12. Attachment I
I
,
.
.
f
'
.
ATTACHMENT 1
,
I J
2.
Radiolcoteel Confirmator_v Measurements
!
I I
Confirmatory measurements were perf ormed on the f ollowing e.amples and
'
i standard in the NRC Region IV mobile laboratory at Cooper Nuclear j
Station during the inspection
$
l (1) Elevated Release Point Charcoal Cartridge I
-
<
I (2) Off Gas Sample
,
t I
(3) t.iquid Floor Drain Storage Tank Sample
!
!
!
(4) Reactor Water Sample
i (5) Air Farticulate Filter Standard i
!
(6) Condensatt Demineralizer Effluent Tritsum Sample
!
I
(7) 1987 Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL'
(
l Quality Control Sample
I l
The radiological confirmatory measurement tests conutsted of conparing the analysis renults of the licensee and the NRC Region IV mobile
,
l laboratory.
The NRC's mobile laboratory measurements are ref erenced to the National Bureau of Standards by laboratory intercomparisons, j
The lic6nsee maintains one detector in the radicchemistry counting
!
room for routine 1sotopic analyses of radioactive samples to
[
l demont trate comp 11 arce wi th TS and regulatory requiremnants.
The
[
]
analytical results vrom this detector were compared with the NRC l
)
results.
The licensee performed the tritium analysis on their liquid
!
scintillation counting system.
The individual sample analyses and l
comparison of analytical results of the radiological confirmatory j
massurements are tabulated in Attachment 4 At t a c hinen t 5 contains the criteria used to compare results.
The licensee's gemma isotopic results from the listed samples and NRC standard in Attachment 4 showed 97 percent agreement with the NRC analysis results.
The licensee's tritium result on the condensate demanerali:er effluent cample was in agreement with the NHS analysis
result.
!
'
Radiological confirmatory measurements were performed by the licensee
!
and the licensee's contractor laboratory on a 11guld radiochemistry f
sample prepared by RESL in Idaho Falls. Ideho.
The anal yt i c al results i
were compared to the known sample activities and the results of the l
co+parizons are presented in Attechment 4,
sample 7 The results for
}
the 1987 RESL sample were in 86 percent agreement with the certified
'
activities.
The only disagreement was Fe-bL performed by the licensee's contractor laboratory.
I
-
,~erm---er-
l
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 ELter Chemistry Confirmatorv Measurements Results Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Inspection Reports 50-298/08-27 1.
Ch* ori de Anal ysi s (10-200 ppb)
Selective !on Electrode CNS Pesults NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samnle (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Qecision 87A 26.715.8 18.510.1 1.4010.30 Agreement 07B 39.011.7 37.310.3 1.0510.05 Agreement 87C 03.713.5 76.511.2 1.0920.05 Agreement 2.
Chloride Analysi s (10-100 ppb)
Ion Chromatograph CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samole (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Decision 87A 19.6t1.2 18.510.1 1.0610.07 Agreement 87B 39.811.3 37.310.3 1.0710.04 Agreement 87C 80.310.8 76.511.2 1.0510.03 Agreement
b 3.
Sulfate Analysis (10-100 ppb) Ion Chromatograph
!
!
CNC Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison j
Qamol e Joob)_
(oob)
Ratio Decision l
87A 21.212.1 19.511.4 1.0910.13 Agreement 87B 40.211.0 38.312.7 1.0510.08 Agreement
,
}
87C 82.611.1 78.012.3 1.0610.03 Agreement
!
I f
4.
Boron Analysi s (200-2000 ppb)
Spectroscopy l
CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samole (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Qecision l
87D 2131110 20812 1.0210.53 Agreement l
87E 5131103 61718 0.8310.17 Agreement 87F 8331122 1000118 0.8310.12 Agreement l
I
!
i
,
.
... -
-.
.
-, ~ ~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
5.
Iron Analvsis (0.1-5 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samole (com)
(com)
Ratio Deci si on 87G 1.7510.03 1.8610.05 0.9410.03 Agreement 87H 3.4310.02 3.9810.05 0.8610.01 Disagreement 871 2.5210.03 2.9310.08 0.8610.03 Disagreement Retest - after preparation of a 5 ppm standard and recalibration 87H 3.9510.05 3.9810.05 0.9910.02 Agreement 87I 2.9810.03 2.9310.00 1.0210.03 Agreement 6.
Cocoer Analysis (0.1-5 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samole (com)
(com)
Ratio Decision 87G 1.8710.02 2.0010.03 0.9410.02 Disagreement 87H 3.7210.10 4.0310.15 0.0210.04 Agreement 87I 2.7510.03 3.0010.08 0.9210.03 Disagreement Retest - after preparation of a 5 ppm standard and recalibration 87H 3.8910.01 4.0310.15 0.9610.04 Agreement 871 2.8910.01 3.0010.08 0.9610.03 Agreement 7.
Nickel Anal ysi s (0.1-5 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison S ampl e foom)
toom)
Ratio Deci si on 87G 1.9910.01 2.0310.06 0.9810.03 Agreement 87H 3.9310.02 4.1710.07 0.9410.02 Disagreement 871 2.9010.03 3.0310.13 0.9610.04 Agreement Retest - after preparation of a 5 ppu standard and recalibration 87H 3.9610.03 4.1710.07 0.9510.02 Disagreement 87I 3.0210.02 3.0310.13 0.9910.04 Agreement
i l
-
.
i
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
i r
.
t 8.
Chromium Analysis (0.1-5 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption
i CNS Pesults NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison
!
Samole ingm1 Acom)
Ratio Decision
<
"
)
r i
'
B78 2.0110.01 1.9810.05 1.0210.03 Agreement
'
l 87H 3.2010.03 3.8510.05 0.8310.01 Disagreement
,
!
B7!
2.2510.03 2.9010.05 0.7610.02 Disagreement (
i j
Retest - after preparation of a 5 ppm standard and recalibration l
87H 4.54 0.04 3.8510.05 1.1810.02 Disagreement
[
871 3.0410.04 2.9010.05 1.0510.02 Disagreement i
j l
{
9.
Sodium Analysis (15-1000 ppb)
Flame Atomic Absorption
[
t
[
CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison j
l Samole, ingkl (oob)
Ratio Decision
I f
j 87J 53.315.8 30.313.5 1.7610.28 Disagreement i
87K 133.315.0 106.016.0 1.2610.09 Disagreement j
87L 350.0116 316.0110 1.1110.07 Agreement Retest - after instrument was zerced with water rather than air
!
i 87J 60.0110 30.313.5 1.9810.40 Disagreement
j B7K 136.715.0 106.016.0 1.2910.09 Disagreement j
87L 356.7111 316.0110 1.1310.07 Agreement i
)
10.
Silica Analysi s (5-1000 ppb)
Spectroscopy t
i
'
'
CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Samoln (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Decision f
f 87S 23.711.5 26.411.4 0.9010.07 Agreement 875 42.714.4 52.812.8 0.7810.09 Disagreement f
87T 94.710.6 104.014.0 0.9110.04 Disagreement
!
87T 195.019.0 208.010.0 0.9420.06 Agreement
!
l
Retest - after BNL standard dilutions were prepared using a 500 (
j micro-liter pipettor t
i t
i 87S 46.712.5 52.822.8 0.8810.07 Agreement l
l 87T 103.312.9 104.014.0 0.9920.05 Agreement
[
l
'
t
i
!
-
,
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
t (
-
.
!
!
-
<
t
l ATTACHMENT 2
!
,
,
L
l 11.
Epiked Condensate Dominerallrer Effluent Water Samole l
,
'
CNS Results BNL Results CNS/BNL Comparison
An al' si s (nob)
(DDb)
Ratio Decision l
Chloride 201.112.5 236.011.3 0.8510.01 Disagreement f
i i
Sulfate 259.512.0 244.5112.1 1.0610.05 Agreement
!
.
l 12.
Soiked Condensate Domineralirer Ef fluent Water Samole
!
CNS Results BNL Results CNS/BNL Comparisoti f
An al ysi s ( n o m )_
(com)
Sq,@
Decision
{
1ron 2.0610.02 2.1510.05 0.9610.02 Agreement Copper 2.1210.02 2.2110.04 0.9610.02 Agreement l
s Nicket 2.0410.03 2.1310.08 0.9610.04 Agreement
'i Chromium 1.0210.03 2.0710.03 0.8810.02 Disagreement
'
l t
t i
- l s
l I
i I
l f
,
l
!
t
[
i (
,
.
i i
e
.
.
-
-
'
6IIGCUDEUI.3
.
.
'
CBIIEB18.EDS.CQUEGB109 eUBLXIICBL bE65UBEDEUIS
This ettachment provides criteria f or comparing results of capability tests.
In these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of thk retic of the licensee's value to the NRC value.
The following steps are performed (1)
The ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed L I C '" ' " ' ' v'l"'
);
(ratio and
=
NRC VALUE (2)
the uncertainty of the ratic is propagated.
If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty, the results are in agreement.
(l1-ratio l 1 2x uncertainty)
SI S2 8)
x Z=
then
=
+
.
y Za ma ya (From Bevington, P.
R.,
Data Reduction and Error Analysis f or the Physical Sci ences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
I
.
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
. _ _
_
. _.
. _ _ _ _ _ _
_.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
f
.
I
.
i
.
.
SIIBCb5ENI..e
!
!
Radioloaical Confirmatorv Measuremment Results
!
Cooner Nuclear Station i
NRC Inspection Reports 50-298/88-27 i
.
I l
l 1.
Elevated Release Point Charcoal Cartridae
(Sampled:
09:00, CDT, October 24, 1998)
,
I i
l CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison
!
Nuclide (uCi/ce)
.(uCi /ce )
Ratig Deci si on 1-131 4.8910.09E-12 5.1510.14E-12 0.95 Agreement l
1-133 2.8810.00E-12 3.0210.14E-12 0.95 Agreement I
f f
2.
Off Gas Samole - 15cc aas vial
+
(Sampled:
09:52, CDT, October 25, 1988)
'
CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Nuclide
_uCi/ec)_
(uC1/cc)
Ratio pecision (
Kr-85m 1.92iO.07E-03 1.67to.02E-03 1.14 Agreement
[
Kr-87 5.7910.26E-03 6.4010.00E-03 0.90 Agreement Xe-133 2.2010.14E-03 1.9610.04E-03 1.12 Agreement
!
)
Xe-135m 1.4510.06E-02 1.9810.02E-02 0.77 Disagreement Xe-135 6.5510.14E-03 7.3910.04E-03 0.89 Agreement r
f r
i 3.
Liould Floor Drain Storace Tank Samole - 0.5 liter Marinelli bealgt (Sampled:
10:40, CDT, October 25, 1988)
l CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison f
Nuclide (uti/ml)
(uC1/ml)
Ratio DeciTLED l
i Cr-51 1.6210.16E-05 1.7310.15E-05 0.94 Agreement Mn-54'
2.5010.05E-05 2.5410.05E-05 0.98 Agreement
[
Co-58 9.1010.34E-06 8.9310.38E-06 1.02 Agreement Co-60 4.3010.07E-05 4.0210.07E-05 1.07 Agreement
,
I Cs-134 3.6210.26E-06 3.2410.32E-06 1.12 Agreement
,
Cs-137 9.4410.33E-06 8.7110.35E-06 1.09 Agreement
[
l c
t
.
.
.
.
,
ATTACHMENT 4
4.
Reactor Water Samole - 0.5 liter Marinelli beaker (Sampled:
10:50 CDT, October 24, 1988)
l CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison Nucl i de (uCt/ml)
(uCi/ml)
Ratio Decision l
Na-24 1.00io.02E-03 1.0110.01E-03 1.08 Agre1 ment i
Cr-31 B.00io.13E-03 7.2910.06E-03 1.11 Agreement Mn-54 9.9710.b6E-05 1.02io.05E-04 0.90 Agreement j
Co-58 1.9410.06E-04 1.02iO.05E-04 1.07 Agreement f
Co-60 1.3cio.06E-04 1.40io.07E-04 0.97 Agreement Sr-91 1.52io.27E-04 1.4510.23E-04 1.05 Agreement
,
I Tc-99m 1.20tO.01E-02 1.1510.01E-02 1.04 Agreement l
1-133 1.04tO.06E-04 9.9310.43E-05 1.05 Agreement
i 1-135 2.15tO.32E-04 2.0810.35E-04 0.75 Agreeme.it l
l 5.
Air Particulate Filter Standard
!
(Standardized:
06:00, CST, February 1, 1980)
!
i CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison
Nuclide (uCi/samnie)
(uCi/ sample)
Ratio Decision l
,
Cd-109 2.55tO.00E-01 2.44to.02E-01 1.05 Agreement
,
Co-57 9.40iO.35E-03 9.6510.00E-03 0.97 Agreement h
Ce-139 1.25tO.07E-02 1.17to.02E-02 1.07 A.*eement Q
Sn-113 4.3310.21E-02 4.70tO.06E-02 0.92 Agreement
i Sr-05 5.93to.46E-02 5.69to.14E-02 1.04 Agreement
!
l Cs-137 4.06tO.00E-02 4.0310.02E-02 1.01 Agreement
!
Y-00 9.20tO.35E-00 0.7710.11E-02 1.06 Agreement I
,
Co-60 4.96tO.11E-02 4.09to.03E-02 1.01 Agreement
!
6.
Condennate Dominerali zer Effluent Tritium Sample (Sampled:
10:00, CLT, October 25, 1988)
'
CNS Results NRC Results CNS/NRC Comparison
Nuclide ipCi/ml)
(uCi/ml)
Ratio Decisicn
!
H-3 1.35tO.02E-03 1.72to.10E-03 0.78 Agreement
-
t i
!
..
_
.
._.
.
..
.
..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
.
.
.
ETACHMENT 4
7.
RESL Unknown Linuid Samnle (Standardized:
12:00, MST, January 11, 1987)
CNS Results NRC Rehults CNS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml)
(uCi/ml)
Ratio Decisi2D, Mn-54 2.5410.03E-05 2.3810.05E-05 1.07 Agreement Co-60 2.4710.03E-05 2.2910.05E-05 1.00 Agreement Cs-137 3.5110.03E-05 3.3610.10E-05 1.04 Agreement Fe-55 1.7310.17E-04 8.6810.17E-05 1.99 Disagreement Sr-89 2.1710.04E-04 1.9410.06E-04 1.12 Agreement Gr-90 2.00io.17E-05 1.7610.07E-05 1.14 Agreement H-3 1.4910.06E-04 1.4210.03E-04 1.05 Agreement NRC results were taken from the standard certification suppited to the NRC Region IV of fice as prepared by RESL and traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
,
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___.
_
_
.
.
.
BIIGCudEWI.3 CBIIEBle EQB.CQDBeBIND.eueLYIlceL dE05WBEDEUIE The f oll owi ng are the cr,i teri a e'.ed in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship established through prior exper t 'ince and this program's anal ytical requirements.
In these criteria, the judgement limits vary in relation to the comparison of the resolution.
N ALUE 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 values.
RESOLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO (4 0.40 - 2.50 4-7 0.50 - 2.00 6-15 0.60 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.35 - 1.18
The above criteria are applied to the f ollowing analyseas (1) Gamma Spectrometry
,
(2) Tritium in 11guld samples (3) lodine on adsorbers (4) 0'Sr
and Sr determinations
,
(5) Gross Beta where samples are counted on the 34me date using the same reference nuclide.