IR 05000313/1987033
| ML20234C069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1987 |
| From: | Chaney H, Murray B, Nicholas J, Wise R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234C062 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-87-33, 50-368-87-33, NUDOCS 8801060094 | |
| Download: ML20234C069 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . < >
, . APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/87-33 Operating Licenses: DPR-51 50-368/87-33 NPF-6 Dockets: 50-313 50-368 Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) Inspection At: AND Site, Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: November 16-20, 1987 Inspectors: /2////#7 P J. B. Nicholas, Senior Radiation Specialist Date ~ Facilities Radiological Protection Section W /2/t rlt7 m R. Wise, Radiation Specialist, Facilities Date Radiological Protection Section JW (vltff89 H.D.Chehey,RadiationSp%ection ecialist, Facilities Date Radiological Protection Approved: b O M //l/f227/ /3/ k B. Murr'ay, Chief, Facilitief Radiological Dat4 / Protection Section / l
8801060094 871230 PDR ADOCK 05000313
DCD
. _ _ _ _ - _. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ __ - . . . . . -2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted November 16-20, 1987 (Report 50-313/87-33; 50-368/87-331
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's ) chemistry / radiochemistry program and water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. -Three previously identified violations were closed.
i i ! l , - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ b
. . ' . . -3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted AP&L J. M. Levine, Executive Director, AND Site Operations
- E. C. Ewing, General Manager, Plant Support L. W. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality
- S. M. Quennoe, General Manager, Plant Operations
- T. C. Baker, Technical Support Manager
- B. L. Bata, Quality Assurance Engineer
- E. E. Bickel, Health Physics Superintendent A. J. Bryant, Chemist
- R. Carroll, Health Physics Specialist, AP&L General Office D. R. Coker, Assistant Chemistry Supervisor R. K. Duvall, Chemist
- M. E. Frala, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor
- R. D. Gillespie, Technical Analysis Superintendent C. D. Harris, Lead Trainer, Chemistry / Radiochemistry
- L. G. Hodges, Training Instructor, Chemistry / Radiochemistry
- D. R. Howard, Special Projects Manager
- R. L. Jones, Assistant Chemistry Supervisor
- D. B. Lomax, Plant Licensing Supervisor R. D. McCormick, Senior Radiochemist W. C. McKelvy, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor D. J. Meatheany, Chemist
- P. L. Michalk, Plant Licensing Engineer W. R. Pool, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor P. C. Robins, Assistant Chemistry Supervisor T. C. Spalding, Radiochemist J. F. Strother, Senior Chemist D. J, Wagner, Quality Assurance Engineer D. W. Williams, Radiochemist G. W. Williams, Chemist
- Denotes those present during the exit interview on Nove.mber 20, 1987.
2.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (50-313/8701-01; 50-368/8701-01): Failure to Meet l Health Physics Personnel Qualifications - This violation was identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/87-01; 50-368/87-01 and involved the promotion of a contract junior health physics technician to a senior health phye.ics technician prior to acquiring the minimum of 4000 hours of radiological protection experience. The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's response and corrective actions to the violation.
The licensee had implemented a change to Procedure 1612.013, " Contract Health Physics Technician Selection," which defines the qualifications for contractor -___u-_--________-___-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - - - - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . > -4-junior and senior health physics technicians. The NRC inspectors also reviewed the licensee's promotion of a contract junior health physics technician to a senior health physics technician on October 12, 1987, and verified that all required qualifications were met.
This violation is cor sidered closed.
(Closed) Violation (50-313/8701-02; 50-368/8701-02): Failure to Perform Laboratory Analyses - This violation was identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/87-01; 50-368/87-01 and involved the failure to perform monthly gross alpha analyses of unit vent air particulate samples. The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's response and corrective actions to the violation. The licensee had made the; appropriate changes to l Procedures 1604.015 and 1042.003 and Data Forms 1042.001GG and 1042.001L.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the procedure changes and monthly gross alpha analysis data of unit vent air particulate samples for the period January through October 1987 and verified that the Technical Specification requirements were met. This violation is considered closed.
(Closed) Violation (50-313/8701-03; 50-368/8701-03): Failure to Report Radwaste Effluent Radiation Doses - This violation was identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/87-01; 50-368/87-01 and invalved the licensee not including in the first semiannual effluent release report fi',ed in 1986, a summary of radiation doses due to radiological effluents released to the environment during the previous calendar year (1985) nor did the report contain the radiation dose to members of the public due to their activities inside the site boundary. The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's response and corrective actions to the violation. The licensee had submitted a revised report for 1985 which included the required radiation dose data. The NRC inspectors reviewed the revised semiannual effluent release report for 1985 and the first semiannual effluent release report for 1986 and verified that the Technical Specification repcrting
requirements were met.
This violation is considered closed.
3.
Inspector Observations The following are observations the NRC inspectors discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on November 20, 1987.
These observations are not violations, deviations, unresolved items, or open i items. These observations were identified for licensee consideration for program improvement, but the observations have no specific regulatory requirements.
The following observations are identified in paragraphs 6 and 8 of this report. The licensee stated that these observations would be evaluated.
a.
Quality Control Charts - The licensee was not using quality control charts to trend and evaluate data biases identified in daily or periodic quality control analyses of chemical parameters (see paragraph 6).
_______m_____ s
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i . . . . . -5-b.
Calibration Standards Verification - The licensee was not using two independent standards for calibration and measurement quality control (see paragraph 6).
c.
Quality Control Procedures - The licensee's secondary chemistry I instrument quality control procedures did not contain sufficient detail to describe the exact sequence of events which are, erformed l in conducting the instrument quality control checks (see ' paragraph 6).
d.
Spectrometer Calibration - The licensee was not using a 100 mm cell path for routine analysis of hydrazine which would provide a more sensitive method of analysis than the 50 mm cell path currently used (see paragraph 6).
e.
Postaccident Sampling System (PASS) Baron Analysis - The PASS boron analysis is performed by a manual titration of an undiluted grab , sample of reactor coolant (see paragraph 8).
f.
PASS Area - The areas where the baron samples are obtained for Units 1 and 2 are not radiologically isolatable from the cubicle in which the PASS system piping and valve gallery are located (see paragraph 8).
g.
Confirmatory Measurements - The percent agreement between the licensee's and NRC's results were below the expected value for these kinds of measurements (see paragraph 8).
4.
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 chemistry section (CS) and radiochemistry section (RS) to determine adherence to commitments in Chapter 12 of the - Unit 1 Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and Chapter 13 of the Unit 2 USAR and the requirements in Section 6.2 of Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS).
The NRC inspectors verified that the organization structure of the CS and RS were as defined in the USAR and TS. The NRC inspectors reviewed the ANO staff assignments and management controls for the assignment of
responsibilities for the management and implementation of the ANO ! chemir cry and radiochemistry programs. The NRC inspectors verified that l the administrative control responsibilities specified by the ANO procedures were being implemented.
j l i
_-_ . . . .- , -6-The NRC inspectors reviewed the staffing of the CS and RS.
The AND CS and RS organizational structures and staffing were determined to be in accordance with licensee commitments.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Training and Qualifications (83723/83523) The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's training and qualification program for chemistry and radiochemistry personnel including education and experience, adequacy 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 Unit 1 USAR, Chapter 13 of the Unit 2 USAR, and the requirements in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the Units I and 2 TS.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the education and experience backgrounds of the present chemistry and radiochemistry staffs and determined that all but one staff member met the experience qualification requirements of ANSI N18 1-1971. A review of shift staffing for both chemistry and radiochemistry indicated that all five chemistry and radiochemistry shifts had a lead chemist meeting the qualification requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971.
It was determined that the licensee had an adequate qualified staff to meet shift staffing requirements.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's training program for chemistry and radiochemistry personnel.
It was determined that the chemistry training program was INPO accredited.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Light Water Reactor Water Chemistry Control and Chemical Analysis (79701/79501) The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry programs including establishment and implementation of a water chemistry control program, water sampling, water chemistry confirmatory measurements, facilities and equipment, establishment and implementation of a quality assurance program for chemical measurements, and audits and appraisals to determine adherence to commitments in Chapters 4, 9, 11, and 13 of the Unit 1 USAR and Chapters 5, 9, 11, and 13 of the Unit 2 USAR and the requirements in Sections 3.1, 3.10, 6.5, and 6.8 of the Unit 1 TS and Sections 3/4.4.7, 3/4.4.8, 6.5, and 6.8 of the Unit 2 TS.
The NRC inspectors' review of the chemistry and radiochemistry programs found that the licensee had revised and approved administrative procedures, surveillance procedures, chemical control procedures, instrument calibration and quality control procedures, and analytical procedures. A review uf analytical data and of selected procedures revised and written since the previous NRC inspection in July 1986 . _ - _ _ _ _ _ __.
_ _.
. _ _. _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _.
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._. _ . . .. . . -7- . indicated that the CS and RS had established sufficient programmatic procedures to meet the requirements of the USAR and TS. A list of procedures reviewed is provided in Attachment 6.
The NRC inspectors reviewed chemistry logs and records of completed chemical and radiochemical analyses and determined that the required analyses were.being' performed in accordance with appropriate procedures.
The review also included discussions of the recorded trends of the water quality data with the chemistry personnel and reactor coolant chemistry parameters with the radiochemistry personnel.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the records of out-of-specification chemical and radiochemical parameters and the licensee's corrective actions taken when chemical parameters did not meet established limits.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the effectiveness of the water chemistry program to measure and prevent the introduction of chemical contaminants into secondary water systems and found the licensee's limits established according to the Electric Power Research Institute owner's group guidelines for pressurized water reactor secondary water chemistry. The NRC inspectors held interviews with CS and RS personnel and determined that staff at all levels understood the importance and need for water chemistry control.
The NRC inspectors inspected the facilities and equipment used by the CS and RS staff. The following facilities were inspected: secondary chemistry laboratory, radiochemistry laboratories for Units 1 and 2, radiochemistry counting room, PASS area, and chemistry and radiochemistry personnel work areas. The laboratories were equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, labware, and analytical instrumentation to perform the required analytical procedures.
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected quality assurance (QA) audit procedures, audit reports, and surveillance reports. A list of the reviewed documents is provided in Attachment 6.
The QA program was reviewed to deternine scope and thoroughness of chemistry and radiochemistry program evaluation.
The NRC inspecturs found the QA audit and surveillance program for chemistry and radiochemistry adequate and corrective actions and responses to audit findings and observations timely.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's records, for the period July 1986 through October 1987, involving instrument calibration and quality control procedures, instrument calibration and performance check , l_ data, and other documentation of instrument performance.
It was verified i I that the chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory instruments had been calibrated according to procedures and an instrument quality control program had been implemented. The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures listed in Attachment 6.
l ' The NRC inspectors reviewed selected chemistry procedures for operation, I calibration, and quality control of the instrumentation used for analysis I of the NRC water chemistry standards to determine the adequacy and l effectiveness of the licensee's chemistry measurement control program.
It ' _- _______- ___ - _ -
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ ._ - - - ! . . . , , i . -8-was noted that the licensee was not using quality control charts to trend and evaluate data biases identified in daily or periodic quality control analyses of chemical parameters. The licensee had not established in the quality cuntrol program for water chemistry criteria to identify and evaluate data biases in calibration data and changes or trends in instrument performance.
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 standards which would include one standard stcck solution dedicated for instrument ! calibration and a second independent standard stock solution dedicated for quality control.
The NRC inspectors' review of chemistry analytical instrument quality control procedures indicated that these procedures contained insufficient detail to describe the exact sequence of events which are performed in conducting the instrument quality control checks.
The procedures did not contain quality control acceptance criteria in all cases.
The licensee was observed using a 50 mm cell for the routine analysis of hydrazine. The short spectrometer cell path was reducing the sensitivity of the hydrazine analysis at concentrations greater than 20 parts per billion and giving results which were biased low. The licensee performed additional analyses on the hydrazine standards using a 100 mm spectrometer cell path and the results were within the acceptance criteria, The above observations were. discussed with the licensee at the exit interview.
The licensee agreed to evaluate the observations and consider actions for program improvements.
During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the licensee for confirmatory measurements analyses.
Tne 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.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Systems Affecting Plant Water Chemistry-(79502) The NRC inspectors did nut devote much time to evaluating plant water chemistry systems during this inspection due to the emphasis placed on performing the water chemistry confirmatory measurements. The NRC inspectors verified the operation of in-line chemistry process instrumentation in botn Units 1 and 2 secondary chemistry sampling areas.
No violations or deviations were identified.
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
. . .. .
-g-8.
Quality Assurance and Confirmatory Measurements for In plant Radiochemical Analysis (84725/84525) The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiochemical analysis program including procedures; facilities, equipment, and supplies; implementation of a quality assurance program; audits and appraisals; contractor activities; PASS sample analyses; confirmatory measurements to determine adherence to commitments in Chapters 4, 9, 11, and 13 of the Unit 1 USAR and Chapters 5, 9, 11, and 13 of the Unit 2 USAR, and the requirements in Section 6.8 of the Units 1 and 2 TS and NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.
The NRC inspectors inspected the PASS building and installed hardware.
The NRC inspectors verified that the equipment and associated procedures satisfied the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3, for representative samplirg and analysis of reactor coolant and containment atmosphere following a reacter -locident. The licensee had completed PASS operator training for all radiochemistry technicians as part of their shift qualification.
Requalification training on PASS was being conducted every 6 months.
The NRC inspectors verified that the licensee had established and implemented a routine surveillance and preventative mainter.ance program for Units 1 and 2 PASS.
The NRC inspectors reviewed weekly surveillance reports for the period July 1986 through October 1987 for Units 1 and 2 and found the licensee in compliance with their surveillance requirements.
3' The licensee demonstrated PASS operability on Unit 1 by collecting an undiluted sample of reactor coolant and performing a boron analysis, dissolved hydrogen analysis, dissolved oxygen analysis, and isotopic analysis.
The analytical results from the PASS sample were compared with results from a reactor coolant grab sample.
The results comparison was satisfactory. The licensee also performed a Unit 1 PASS isotopic analysis of containment atmosphere and compared the analysis results with the results rebtained on a grab sample of Unit I containment atmosphere. The results comparison was satisfactory. The licensee could not demonstrate i PASS operability on Unit 2 during the inspection due to the system being tagged out-of-service because the hydrogen analyzer was being replaced following repairs.
In conjunction with the PASS demonstration, the NRC inspectors reviewed the PASS procedures listed in Attachment 6.
The NRC inspectors determined that the licensee's procedures and analytical sensitivities were consistent with PASS requirements.
The NRC inspectors observed during the performance of the manual titration for boron analysis of the reactor coolant grtb sample that the exposure to the technicians might be excessive and that an alternate remote method of performing a PASS boron analysis be evaluated to reduce exposure.
It was also observed that the PASS areas for Units 1 and 2 where the reactor coolant grab samples are collected and the boron analysis performed were not i solated to prevent inleakage of airborne contamination from the adjacent cubicles where the PASS system piping and valve galleries are located for the respective units.
If a system leak developed in the PASS piping cubicles during a reactor incident, the PASS grab sampling area - __ _ _ - _ _ _ -.
._- . _ _ _ _ . . . . -10-would be uninhabitable.
These observations were discussed with the licensee during the exit interview. The licensee agreed to evaluate the NRC inspectors' concerns and observations.
During the inspection, radiological confirmatory measurements were performed on standards and split samples by the licensee and the NRC inspectors in the Region IV mobile laboratory. The standards and samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. The results of the measurements comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1, 4, and 5.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Radiological Controls
The NRC inspectors reviewed the events concerning a radiological incident.
On October 28, 1987, at approximately 2 a.m., upon exiting the Unit I reactor containment following reinstallation of insulation on the bottom of Steam Generator-A (SG-A), three contract workers (Daniel) were found contaminated. One of the workers had received approximately 1250 millirem of gamma exposure vdiich was more than twice his authorized weekly administrative limit of 600 millirem. Also, one of the workers had received during the course of the work, a puncture wound to the right lower leg.
Based on discussions with the Daniel workers, the licensee inspected the l work site and found there had been a loss of radiological control over the work activities.
The problems noted were: Quick disconnect fittings on the ends of the breathing air lines were
laying uncontained in a highly contaminated area.
Temporary lead shielding was not replaced over the entrance to the SG
skirt.
The majority of the personal dosimetry used by the worker was
contaminated.
- '
One worker received approximately twice the allowed weekly radiation
dose.
All of the crew, including tne Health Physics Technician (HPT)
covering the job, incurred a minor amount of skin contamination.
Gross inconsistencies existed in the airborne contamination results
obtained from the contract health physics technician's (C-HPT) grab air sample and the results from analysis of the breathing zone air sampler used by one of the Daniel workers.
l The reinstallation of insulation was being radiologically controlled by I continuous on-the-job coverage by a C-HPT and the instructions contained ,
l >
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . -11-in Radiological Work Permit (RWP) No. 871533.
The RWP was issued on October 23, 1987, for removal of the inspection port on SG-A, which also required removal of interf ering insulation.
The C-HPT had been on site since October 12, 1987. The insulation work had commenced about 12:30 a.m. the morning of October 28, 1987.
The C-HPT had been briefed on the contents of the RWP and area conditions by the shift C-HPT supervisor (Combustion Engineering - CE) at approximately 10:30 p.m. on the night of October 27, 1987.
The C-HPT supervisor had been employed at ANO for the last 18 months and had personally worked with the C-HPT at other nuclear plants in job situations involving high levels of contamination and radiation. A licensee HPT supervisor was also on shift at the time of the briefing and the C-HPT was assigned to the job, but was not directly supervising this particular job.
The licensee's investigations revealed the following causes for the loss of radiological controls during the job: A pre-job briefing between the workers and HP personnel was not
performed as required by the RWP and ANO procedures.
Previous radiation surveys of the work area were not reviewed by the
worker or the C-HPT.
The C-HPT performed an inadequate radiation survey of the work area
prior to allowing the workers to enter under SG-A.
The licensee also believes the C-HPT's job-related air sample during the SG-A work operations was improperly accomplished.
The C-HPT did not establish a suitable location from which the work
activities could be adequately observed.
The C-HPT did not require the workers to periodically read their
self-reading dosimeters.
The C-UPT evidently lacked sufficient ability and knowledge for a job
involving high radiation and contamination hazards.
The licensee documented this incident in accordance with ANO procedures (1622.014 and 1000.025) and issued: (a) a Report of Abnormal Condition (1-87-206), and (b) a Radiological Safety Infraction / Condition Report regarding the incident.
The licensee recognized the seriousness of this incident and has initiated the following corrective actions: The C-HPT's employment at ANO was terminated.
- All HPTs should ensure that pre-job briefing requirements are
discussed with HP Supervisors and any ambiguities and inconsistencies in understanding of the radiological control requirements should be clarified.
__
. . . . -12-Errors made by the C-HPT will be discussed with all HPTs on site and
factored into general employee refresher training.
The C-HPT screening process will be reviewed for flaws.
- The ANO Corporate Health Physics staff had also conducted a review of the incident and had provided a report to AND management on November 17, 1987, which included severa'l recommended corrective actions that would increase the licensee's control over C-HPTs.
The NRC inspector determined that the licensee had adequately identified the root cause of the incident and had initiated satisfactory corrective actions to prevent a similar recurrence of this incident.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1987.
The NRC inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and discussed the inspection findings, inspector observations, and the results of the confirmatory measurements.
..
l
. . - , ATTACHMENT 1 Analvtical Measurements i I ! 1.
Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements During the inspection, standard chemical sol'utions were provided to the licensee for ana' lysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by
the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Safety and Environmental l.
Protection Division, for the NRC.
The standards were analyzed by the I licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The analysis of chemical standards is used to verify the. licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant, systems with respect to Technical Specification requirements and other industry standards.
In addition, the analyses of standards are used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The results of the m.3asurements comparison are listed in Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 contains the criteria used to compare resulta.
All standards were analyzed in triplicate.
The licensee's original analyt.ical results indicated that 26 of the 30 results were in agreement.
Two~hydrazine results were originally found in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee reran the hydrazine standards and the rerun results were all in agreement.
The.two other disagreements with the fluoride and iron analyses results were due to a high analytical precision in the results and based on a statistical analysis of the rese.lts.
The disagreements are not considered to indicate any significant programmatic problem.
The licensee's final analytical results showed 93 percent agreement with the BNL results based on 28 agreement results out of 30 total results compared.
As part of the inspection, actual inplant camples were split between the licensee and the NRC in order to verify the licensee's measurement capabilities on actual plant water samples.
The analyses will be performed by the licensee using their normal analytical methods and I instrumentation and by BNL.
Upon completion of the aaalyses by both I laboratories, the results will be documented in a subsequent NRC inspection report.
I Z.
Radiological Confirmatory'Meaauramania l I Confirmatory measurements were performed on the following standards ! and samples in the Region IV mobile laboratory at Arkansas Nuclear One during the inspection:
(1) Reactor Coolant Liquid (20 cc Scintillation Vial) (2) Reactor Coolant Gas Sample (15 cc Serum Vial) i ! l l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - - - - .' ' , (3) Particulate Filter Standard (24838-109) (4) Charcoal Cartridge Standard (24841-109) (5) Liquid Waste Sample (1 liter Marinelli Beaker) (6) Containment Gas (33 cc Gas Bulb) (7) Reactor Coolant Tritium Sample The confirmatory measurements tests consisted of comparing measurements made by the licensee and the NRC mobile laboratory.
The i NRC's mobile laboratory measurements are referenced to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) by laboratory intercomparisona.
Confirmatory measurements are made only for those nuclides identified by the NRC as being present in concentrations greater than 10 percent of the respective isotopic values for liquid and gas concentrations as stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.
Attachment 5 contains the criteria used to compare results.
At the time of the inspection, the licensee utilized two detectors in radiochemistry for comparison with the NRC results.
The licensee performed the tritium analysis on their liquid scintillation counting system.
The individual sample analyses and comparison of analytical results of the confirmatory measurements are tabulated in Attachment 4, as caves 1 and 2.
The licensee's gamma isotopic results from the listed samples in Attachment 4 showed 98 percent agreement with the NRC analysis results.
The licensee's tritium result was in agreement with the NRC analysis result.
Confirmatory measurements were performed by the licensee and a contractor laboratory on two liquid radiochemistry samples prepared by the Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
The samples were provided to the licensee in July 1987.
The analytical results were compared to the known sample activities and the results of the comparisons are presented in Attachment 4, sample 8.
The licensee's results were in agreement with the certified activities for Mn-54, Co-60, and Os-137 and in disagreement with the certified activities for H-3, Sr-89, and Sr-90.
The contractor laboratory's Fe-55 result was in disagreement.
Therefore, the licensee's overall results for the 1987 RESL samples were in 43 percent agreement.
Further review of AN0's performance on RESL samples indicated that ANO tritium results 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 November 20, 1987, and the licensee agreed to evaluate their performance and the performance of their contractor laboratory on analyzing samples for tritium, Fe-55, Sr-89, and Sr-90.
l l l l l
'
l l t _ _ - _ _ _ - _
. . I . . OIIOCUMENI_2 I d e t E C _ C b E 0 lg t r.y _ C 90 i it m a t gt y _ d g g g g t g e g e t g _8 g gy lt s BChggsgs_Nyglegt_Qgg i NRC Inspection Report: 50-313 & 368/87-33 l 1.
Gblgtldg_89glygis (2-40 ppb) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Seeele detbed __lanbl___ __Innbl___ _Beti9_ _DEEisL90_ 86A IC 10.27t0.12 12.0511.60 0.8510.11 Agreement 86B 20.3310.12 18.7010.60 1.0910.04 Agreement 86C 41.33 0.23 40.3011.10 1.0310.03 Agreement 2.
Elugtide_80elysis (15-100 ppb) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Seente detb9d __129b1___ __199h1___ _Betio_ _DettaL90_ 86A SIE 19.0010.90 23.1010.50 0.8210.04 Disagreement 86B 48.3012.50 43.5011.90 1.1110.08 Agreement 86C 90.0014.00 83.5012.80 1.0010.06 Agreement 3.
Syligtg_Agglygig (5-40 ppb) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison @gmGlE Edib9d __IEEhl___ __1Rekl___ _Betio_ _Decimi90_ 86A IC 10.33 0.21 10.0010.50 1.0310.06 Agreement 86B 20.33 0.12 20.5011.20 0.9910.06 Agreement 86C 40.8011.00 40.4011.50 1.0110.04 Agreement s 4.
S9E90_80glygig (100-2000 ppb) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison SBORlE dElb9d __19G01___ __1920l___ _BetL9.
_DeGLEiOO_ 86D MT 501 6 500!5 1.OOiO.02 Agreement 86E 14951B 1512 23 0.99 0.02 Agreement 86F 249418 2473131 1.0110.01 Agreement
_
i . . l l I '1 l 5.
Igga_Agglygis (5-20 ppb) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Samale detbod __leabl___ __lankl___ _Batto_ _Renigt90_ l 86G AAGF 5.7010.30 4.9010.40 1.1610.11 Agreement 86H 10.5010.25 9.6010.30 1.0910.04 Agreement 861 17.0010.50 14.7010.42 1.1610.05 Disagreement i 6.
Cggggr_8calygig (1-10 ppb) l AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Sagglg Ugthgd __Iggh) (ggbl___ _BgtLg_ _Qegisige_ 86G AAGC 4.6010.20 4.7010.20 0.9810.06 Agreement 86H 9.9010.06 9.7010.50 1.0210.05 Agreement 86I 2.3010.06 2.9010.10 0.7910.03 Agreement 7.
Sgdium_Agglygig (5-100 ppm) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Seeale detb9d __laab) (aabl___ _Bett9_ _Recisi 90_ 86J AAF 28.2011.00 22.9012.50 1.2310.14 Agreement 86K 10.0710.06 9.2310.80 1.0910.09 Agreement 86L 65.6011.00 57.60 3.20 1.1410.07 Agreement 8.
6000Dia_60Blygig (350-1000 ppb) AND Results NRC Results AND/NRC Comparison Seente detbed __lankt___ __lanbl___ _Batig_ _RestsL90_ 86M SPEC 604.319.10 583.4135.3 1.0410.06 Agreement 86N 295.013.00 314.0126.0 0.94.0.08 Agreement 860 971.012.00 938.0185.0 1.0410.09 Agreement 9.
Hydtggige_80glysis (20-100 ppb) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison SeTale detb9d __leabl___ __1ggbl___ _Batig_ _Qegigige_ 86P SPEC 20.6010.70 22.3011.40 0.92 0.07 Agreement 860 49.8010.20 56.9010.70 0.8710.01 Disagreement 86R 98.3010.30 104.011.00 0.9510.01 Disagreement Rerun 86P SPEC 21.0011.00 22.3011.40 0.9410.07 Agreement 860 53.30!O.60 56.9010.70 0.9410.03 Agreement 86R 107.311.20 104.011.00 1.03 0.02 Agreement - .. . _ _ _ ___ .
- _ - _ _ - -. _- _ _ _. _ _ - .- l . . n.
, 10.
Silica _00alysis~(5-100 ppb) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Samale-Metbed __leabl___ __leabl___ _Battg_ _Dgtigign_ 865 SPEC 17.3010.06 18.10!1.90 0.9610.10 Agreement - 86T-26.'3010.06 27.3011.80 0.9610.06 Agreement 86U 79.4010.06 80.0012.5G 0.9910.03 Agreement Analysi.s Method Definitions: Ion Chromatograph - IC ! Atomic Abborption Graphite Furnace - AAGF Atomic Absorption Flame - AAF ) Sel ec ti ve Ion Electrode - SIE Manital Titration - MT Spectroscopy - SPEC e < > r } ( (
I
L i
l . - _ ___ _ __ - - -_ - -_ - .
._ ___ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _
" I . , . GIIBGUUENI_3 k CBIIEB10_EQB_C00E8 BIND _0N8LyIICOL_DEOSUBEDENIS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests.
In these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of the ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value.
The f ollowing steps are perf ormed: '(1) The ratio.of the licensee's value to the NRC value i's computed Licensee's Value ( atio ); and = NRC VALUE i
is propagated.1 ' (2) the uncertainty of the ratio If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice'the ratio uncertainty, the results are in . agreement.
l ( j l-ratio l $ 2 x uncertainty) j i
Sl St
Z= then = + , y
x2 y2 1(From: Bevington, P.
R., Data Reduction and Error Anal ysi s f or the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969) l l . l l l l l l ( ln _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
.. . . ATTACHMENT 4 l Radiological Confirmatory Measurement Results Arkansas Nuclear One I NRC Inspection Report: 50-313 & 368/87-33 1.
Reactor Coolant Liauid (20cc Scintillation Vial) (Sampled: 10:46, CST, November 17, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision Na-24 3.27110.03SE-2 3.26S10.020E-2 1.00 Agreement 3.18110.030E-2 0.97 Agreement Co-58 1.59910.148E-3 1.601 0.090E-3 0.99 Agreement 1.61010.152E-3 1.01 Agreement Sb-122 4.01611.224E-4 4.81610.648E-4 0.83 Agreement 2.42E-4 0.50 Agreement Sr-91 1.35310.364E-3 1.21510.228E-3 1.11 Agreement 8.78413.12SE-4 0.72 Agreement Nb-95 6.38111.OO7E-4 3.22110.6S7E-4 1.98 Agreement 6.6SS10.994E-4 2.07 Disagreement I-131 2.59910.124E-3 2.63210.06SE-3 0.99 Agreement 2.84210.132E-3 1.08 Agreement I-132 1.66S10.026E-2 1.56410.022E-2 1.06 Agreement 1.601 0.229E-2 1.02 Agreement I-133 2.47610.020E-2 2.49810.011E-2 0.99 Agreement 2.402tO.019E-2 0.96 Agreement I-134 7.06210.143E-2 6.406 0.175E-2 1.10 Agreement 6.68510.094E-2 1.04 Agreement I-135 4.3SS10.091E-2 4.49510.OS4E-2 0.96 Agreement 4.OSS10.075E-2 0.90 Agreement .
- _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _. - - .__ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - -_-- . .
,
Reactor Coolant Cont'd AND Results NRC Results AND/NRC Comparison.
Nuclide- _(uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision l Cs-134 4.88010.156E-3 S.08110.103E-3 0.96 Agreement 4.97210.174E-3 0.98 Agreement Cs-137 8.68810.173E-3 8.737 0.081E-3 0.99 Agreement 8.482 0.156E-3 0.97 Agreement Cs-138 1.022 0.OSOE-1 1.006 0.OS6E-1 1.02 Agreement 9.48110.319E-2 0.94 Agreement Ba-139 8.37411.313E-3 1.11210.OS8E-2 0.75 Agreement 1.17910.098E-2 1.06 Agreement 2.
Reactor Coolant Gas Samole (1Sec Serum Vial) j (Sampled: 10:28, CST, November 17, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide fuCi/cc) (uCi/cc) Ratio Decision Ar-41 2.618 0.013EO 2.74010.OOBEO O.96 Agreement , ' 2.61010.011EO O.95 Agreement Xe-133 1.469io.OOSEO 1.46310.OO4EO 1.00 Agreement 1.61610.OO6EO 1.10 Agreement Xe-133m 6.72310.893E-2 7.32310.661E-2 0.92 Agreement 7.56711.279E-2 1.03 Agreement Xe-135 2.34610.OO4E0 2.3SS10.OO3E0 1.00 Agreement 2.284tO.OOSEO O.97 Agreement Xe-13Sm 1.90410.404E-1 1.90010.OS6E-1 1.00 Agreement 2.17910.OS2E-1 1.15 Agreement Xe-138 S.998 1.847E-1 4.SS2io.216E-1 1.32 Agreement 4.84810.203E-1 1.07 Agreement Nr-OSm S.477 0.029E-1 S.622iO.014E-1 0.97 Agreement , S.25810.029E-1 0.94 Agreement ' Kr-87 6.38010.072E-1 S.99S10.03BE-1 1.06 Agreement 6.29610.OS7E-1 1.0S Agreement l Kr-88 1.OO610.OOBE0 1.OS810.OOSEO O.95 Agreement i 1.03S10.OOBE0 0.98 Agreement
l l l l l ) ) L _ __________-_____________J
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . . . .
. 3. * Particulate Filter Standard (47 mm Filter 24838-109) (Standardized:.12:00, CST, November 17, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison , Nuclide (uCi/ Sample) (uCi/ Sample) Ratio Decision j \\ ! } Cd-109 1.26310.OOSEO 1.195tO.OO3E0 1.06 Agreement 1.49310.OO8EO 1.25 Disagreement . Co-57 3.18710.016E-2 3.10810.011E-2 1.03 Agreement 3.63010.029E-2 1.17 Agreement Ce-139 2.64610.017E-2 2.63710.012E-2 1.00 Agreement 2.94710.026E-2 1.12 Agreement Hg-203 4.38410.02SE-2 4.247 0.019E-2 1.03 Agreement 4.84510.038E-2 1.14 Agreement Sn-113 4.36110.03SE-2 4.38610.027E-2 0.99 Agreement 5.092tO.OS2E-2 1.16 Agreement Cs-137 4.62110.042E-2 4.59210.033E-2 1.01 Agreement 5.2OO10.056E-2 1.13 Agreement Y-88 5.782 0.049E-2 S.81410.040E-2 0.99 Agreement 6.54610.072E-2 1.13 Agrenment Co-60 4.15710.046E-2 4.13410.036E-2 1.01 Agreement 4.73910.062E-2 1.15 Agreement 4.
Charcoal Cartridae Standard (Cartridae 24841-109) (Standardized: 12:00, CST, November 17, 1987) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide ipCi/ Sample) (uCi/Samole) Ratio Decision Cd-109 1.351 0.OO4E0 1.24610.OO4E0 1.08 Agreement 1.41110.OO7EO 1.13 Agreement Co-57 3.34310.01SE-2 3.248to.014E-2 1.03 Agreement 3.41110.02SE-2 1.05 Agreement Ce-139 2.81410.016E-2 2.694 0.01SE-2 1.04 Agreement j 2.81810.023E-2 1.05 Agreement
! l
! l i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
I
. , . Charcoal Cartridae Standard Cont'd AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison } Nuclide fuCi/Samole) (uCi/Samole) Ratio Decision l Hg-2O3 4.65210.023E-2 4.37110.022E-2 1.06 Agreement 4. 76'2t O. 033E-2 1.09 Agreement Sn-113 4.66110.031E-2 4.522 0.031E-2 1.03 Agreement 4.82510.04SE-2 1.07 Agreement Cs-137 4.86610.034E-2 4.807tO.038E-2 1.01 Agreement S.09810.04SE-2 1.06 Agreement Y-88 6.02010.046E-2 5.98610.046E-2 1.01 Agreement 6.35710.061E-2 1.06 Agreement Co-60 4.39410.040E-2 4.24410.041E-2 1.04 Agreement 4.576tO. OSSE-2 1.08 Agreement S.
Liouid Waste Samole (1 liter Marinelli) (Sampled: 16:30, CST, November 16, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide fuCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision-Cr-51 1.71910.046E-4 !.43310.038E-4 1.20 Agreement 1.64110.063E-4 1.15 Agreement Co-58 1.10310.OO2E-3 9.34410.016E-4 1.18 Agreement 1.08010.OO2E-3 1.16 Agreement Fe-59 3.678tO.081E-S 3.15710.074E-S 1.17 Agreement 3.638to.086E-S 1.15 Agreement Co-60 S.41310.048E-S 4.64610.046E-S 1.17 Agreement 5.2OOiO.OS3E-S 1.12 Agreement Zr-95 1.61010.076E-S 1.481!O.067E-S 1.09 Agreement 1.58810.094E-S 1.07 Agreement Ag-110m 3.29710.060E-S 2.522!O.OS7E-S 1.31 Agreement 3.20610.071E-S 1.27 Agreement _
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ I . . ! .- .- Lia'uid Waste Samole Cont'd-AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision Sb-122 6.27310.695E-6 4.94410.643E-6 1.27 Acreement 5.12110.073E-6 1.04 Agreement Sb-125 2.26010.157E-S 1.83S10.122E-S 1.23 Agreement 2.602iO.208E-S 1.42 Agreement Cd-113m 1.SO110.494E-2 2.02010.40SE-2 0.74 Agreement 1.181E-2 0.90 Agreement 1-131 1.99810.062E-S 1.62910.047E-S 1.23 Agreement 1.92410.081E-S 1.18 Agreement j Cs-134 S.74410.067E-S 4.53010.062E-S 1.27 Disagreement J 5.52510.077E-S 1.22 Agreement Cs-137 1.OO910.OO7E-4 8.37410.060E-S 1.20 Agreement 9.740iO.081E-S 1.16 Agreement 6.
Containment Atmoschpre Gas Samole (33cc Gas Bulb) (Sampled: 13:13, CST, November 18, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/cc) (uCi/cc) Ratio Decision Xe-133 2.09510.015E-4 ,1.98710.035E-4 1.05 Agreement - 2.257to.024E-4 1.14 Agreement Xe-135 2.94410.119E-6 3.811 0.4SOE-6 0.77 Agreement 3.16110.2OOE-6 0.83 Agreement } 7.
Reactor Coolant Tritium Sample (20 ml Scintillation Vial) (Sampled: 10:46, CST, November 17, 1987) AND Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision H-3 1.0310.01E-2 1.34!O.10E-2 0.77 Agreement
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ - - - - . . .. ,
\\
, 8.
RESL Unknown Liould Sample-(Standardized: 12:00, MST, January 11, 1987) ANO Results NRC Results ANO/NRC Comparison I 'Maglide (uCi/cc) (uC1/cc) Ratio Decision I l Mn-54 1.9710.16E-S 1.8310.04E-S 1.08 Agreement Co-60 1.8810.17E-S 1.7610.04E-S 1.07 Agreement ! Cs-137 2.9110.16E-S' 2.5910.08E-S 1.12 Agreement Fe-SS 1.18iO.10E-4' 7.1210.14E-S-1.66 Disagreement Disagreement Sr-89 <1.09E-4 1.5910.OSE-4 --- Sr-90 1.01 0.49E-S 1.44'to.06E-S 0.70 Disagreement H-3 B.5310.16E-S 1.1710.02E-4 0.73 Disagreement Fe-59 4.3910.13E-6 NRC results werte 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
_ - _ _ - - _ - _._ _- _ _ - - . - - _ _ _ _ _ _. . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _. e ,- < , ! GIIBRUDENI_5 ( ) CBIIEB18_E0B_CQUE8 BIND _GNBLYIICBL_DE85UBEdENIS \\ The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical r el ati onshi p established through prior e>< peri ence and this program's analytical requirements.
In these criteria, the judgement limits vary"in relation to the d comparison of the resolution.
, NRC VALUE . = Resolution NRC UNCERTAINTY { 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, l i 7ESOLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO
<4 0.40 - 2.50 4 -7 0.50 - 2.00 { 8-
0.60 - 1.66
16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 i 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 >200 0.85 - 1.18 ' The above criteria are applied to the following anal yses: ) (1) Gamma Spectrometry
(2) Tritium in l i qui d sampl es ] (3) Iodine on adsorbers O O (4) Sr and Sr determinations (5) Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
. _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
_ _ _ _ - - . _ - - - _ _, _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - l-l . . - , , , . l h ATTACHMENT 6 l-1 L Dofuments Reviewed i l.
Arkansas Nuclear One L i L NRC Inspection Reports 50-313 & 368/87-33 l
' l f Title Revision Date 1.
Chemistrv Procedures 1604.027, Determination of Fluoride-
12/23/86 Specific Ion Electrode Method [[ 1604.030, Determination of Boron-High Range
2/10/83 1604.043, Chemical Analysis Using the Ion
9/25/87 Chromatograph j 1605.003, Determination of Ammonia
8/29/85 (Photometric Method) 1605.011A Determination of Copper (AA Method)
8/31/84 h 1605.015, Determination of Hydrazine-Low Range
8/29/85 (Photometric Method) { 1605.016B Determination of Iron (AA Method)
8/31/84 , i ' 1605.025, Determination of Silica (Photometric
8/22/85 Method) 1605.26A, Determination of Sodium (AE Method)
8/31/84 1605.032, Determination of Sulfate by Ion
7/16/86 Chromatography 1605.033, Determination of Chloride by Ion
7/16/86 Chromatography 1606.08, Operation of the IL-551 in Emission
8/28/86 Mode 1606.09, Operation of the IL-551 Using the
9/11/84 Graphite Furnace 1606.12, Ion Chromatograph Startup, Shutdown,
7/16/86 and Calibration of the Dionex 20101 1606.30, Startup, Shutdown, and Calibration
7/2/86 of the Perkin-Elmer Lambda 1 Spec.
_----
_ _ _ _ - -- , . _ - - _ - - - - _ - - -. . . - - - - - _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ - _ - l l... - . l l 2.
.Postaccident Samplina System Procedures
l 1617.002, Use'of the Unit I ND/ APT Grab
10/22/87 Sampler ( 1617.003, Use of the ND6620 for On-line
9/11/87 Chemical and Radiochemical Analysis 1617.004,.Use of the Unit II ND/ APT Grab
7/9/87 Sampler 1617.005,- On-line Oxygen Analysis for Unit I
10/22/87 l 1617.006, On-line Oxygen Analysis for Unit II
10/22/87 1617.007, On-line Reactor Coolant Hydrogen
7/9/87-f Analysis'for Unit I 1617.008, On-line Reactor Coolant Hydrogen
7/9/87
Analysis for Unit II 1617.009, Panel 2C357 Valve Alignment
10/22/87 l 1617.012, Post Accident Grab Sample Baron
10/22/87 Analysis 1617.014, Energy Calibration of PASS / AIMS
7/9/87 Detector l b l 3.
Quality Assurance Audits and Surveillance l OA Audit OAP-22-86, " Chemistry / Radiochemistry / Environmental Monitoring," performed September 29, 1986 through December 18, 1986 QA Audit Surveillance Report 87-026, " Radiochemistry Determination of the Boron Concentration of Reactor Coolant," dated March 27, 1987 QA Observation Program results for chemistry and radiochemistry for the period January 1987 - November 1987 GA Audit Checklist for GAP-22-87 l l l ! l
1
1 l l ..____-__________.______N }}