IR 05000395/1990004
| ML20012C296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C295 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-90-04, 50-395-90-4, IEIN-88-022, IEIN-88-031, IEIN-88-22, IEIN-88-31, NUDOCS 9003210004 | |
| Download: ML20012C296 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:g taov UNITED STATES
,, , . -[[' _ , % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
- $
REGION il ' -g Ij 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
J e AT L ANT A, GEORGI A 30323 'g ,/
' MAR 0 21990 - Report No.: 50-395/90-04 Licensee: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Columbia, SC 29218 , Docket No.: 50-395 License No.: NPF-12 Facility Name: Summer Inspection Conducted: January 29 - February 2, 1990 b ?, e.______ -.4 _ Z ' 78 90 - Inspector: A R. R. Marston f/ Date Signed ' Approved by: /4t -[#t M' M' 70 sw._ T. R. Decker, Chief p f Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological liquid and gaseous effluents, radiological environmental monitoring, water-chemistry, and confirmatory radiological measurements.
Results: In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not. identified.
The licensee's effluent release program appeared to be closely and professionally monitored end controlled.
Releases - were maintained within Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits. The radiological' environmental samples were analyzed at required frequencies.
The confirmatory measurements results showed that the licensee's measurements were in agreement with those of - the NRC Mobile Laboratory for all samples.
9003210004 900302 FDR ADOCK 03000395 Q PDC
'.. - .. . . l.
l l REPORT DETAILS l 1.
Persons Contacted , I Licensee Employees
- W. Bacon, Associate Manager, Chemistry
- W. Baehr, Manager, Chemistry and Health Physics E. Baker, System Engineer, Air Handling
- L. Blue, Manager, Corporate Health Physics and Environmental Programs l
l
- 0. Bradham, Vice President, Nuclear Operations l
C. Crowley, Operating Specialist, Technical Oversight J. Dinkins, Supervisor Radiological Services i l
- H. Donnelly, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Licensing
- G.Gowdy,StaffHealthPhysicist(CorporateHealthPhysics)
'
- G. Hall, Associate Manager, Health Physics
, '
- A. Koon, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
- G. Moffatt, Manager, Material Services
- D. Moore, General Manager, Engineering
- K. Nettles, General Manager, Nuclear Safety
- C, Price, Manager, Technical Oversight
- J. Proper, Associate Manager Quality Assurance l
- L. Shealy, Operating Experience Supervisor l
- J. Skolds, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations
!
- J. Sowell, Count Room Supervisor R. Sweet, Jr., Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance
- G. Taylor, Manager, Operations
- J. Todd, Engineer, Design Engineering Other licensee employees contacted -during this inspection included engineers, operators, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- L.
Modenos
- Attended exit interview 2.
Audits (84750) The inspector reviewed the following Quality Assurance (QA) audits: II-21-88-M, Environmental Monitoring, conducted October 17 - November 2, 1988.
This audit included evaluation of the Interlaboratory comparison program, the meteorological monitoring program, and an evaluation of the Annual Environmental Report for 1987.
Eight findings were opene.. . . , I . ,
II-21-89-M, Environmental Monitoring, conducted October 18 - November 2, 1989. This audit evaluated radiological environmental monitoring, personnel dosimetry and elements of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM).
Closeout of the findings from the previous audit in this area was discussed.
II-02-89-R, Radwaste, conducted January 25 - February 17, 1989. This
audit evaluated elements of the radwaste program.
Seven findings were identified, but were of an administrative nature onl Evaluation of elements of the Process Control Program (PCP) y.were included in this audit.
The inspector also reviewed seven Surveillance Audits of the Environmental Monitoring program (all conducted in -1988) and five Surveillance Audits of the Radwaste program (all conducted in 1989).
Findings identified in the surveillance program appeared to be promptly addressed and closed out.
The annual audits were conducted in accordance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the surveillances provided a_ detailed look at the implementation of the programs.
The combined program of the two levels of audits appeared to ensure a thorough, detailed evaluation of the Environmental Monitoring and Radwaste programs.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Changes to the Health Physics and Chemistry Programs (84750) The inspector discussed changes to the Health Physics-Chemistry programs with the Manager, Chemistry and Health Physics, the Associate-Manager, Chemistry, the Associate Manager, Health Physics, and the Count Room Supervisor. The Chemistry and Health Physics groups were brought together l under one organization subsequent to the last inspection in this area (50-395/87-35, conducted December 1987), and the Count Room was removed l from under Health Physics and placed on a level with the Chemistry and l Health Physics groups.
At the time of this inspection, the Manager, Chemistry and Health Physics reported to the General Manager, Station ' Support, and the Associate Managers of Chemistry and of Health Physics, the Radwaste Process Coordinator, the Count Room Supervisor, and the Analytical Coordinator reported to the Manager, Chemistry and Health Physics.
The Chemistry group had 28 personnel authorized and five vacancies.
The Associate Manager stated that there was no Corporate level Chemistry organization, but that there were some personnel in the Corporate Health Physics group who were knowledgeable in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, and were able to provide technical support.
After the reorganization discussed in the above paragraph, Chemistry stopped counting their samples; all counting was done by Count Room personnel.
The Associate Manager stated that the major problems faced in the past two years were condenser tube leaks, and the resin intrusions of January and
.
. February 1989.
Sludge lancing had been done in the steam generators after the resin intrusions.
Approximately 25 pounds of sludge (primarily resin beads) were recovered from each steam generator.
No sludge lancing was planned for the next outage, scheduled to start in March 1990.
The Count Room Supervisor. stated that the Count Room staff was comprised of eight people, including the Supervisor.
The Associate Manager, Health Physics, stated that the Health Physics group was authorized 34 people, and two Senior Specialist positions were vacant.
The major change taking place during the reorganization was the removal of the Count Room from the Health Physics group.
The Associate Manager, Health Physics assumed the job in October 1989.
The Associate Manager stated that the major problems his group had to deal with were radon daughter and hot particle contamination, and that a major goal during the upcoming outage would be exposure reduction.
' No violations or deviations were identified.
Procedures (84750) The inspector reviewed selected Health Physics and Chemistry procedures.
The procedures were required to be reviewed on a two-year cycle.
The inspector noted that this appeared to have been done.
The procedural steps were easy to follow and each appeared to be adequate for the function it was written to accomplish.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation (84750) The inspector toured the plant accompanied by the Count Room Supervisor.
During the tour, the inspector examined liquid and gaseous effluent monitors and discussed them with the Supervisor. - Among the monitors reviewed were: RM-A3, Main Plant Vent Monitor RM-A4, Reactor Building Purge Monitor RM-A6, Fuel Handling Building Exhaust Monitor RM-L5, Waste Monitor Tank Discharge Monitor i RM-L7, Nuclear Blowdown Tank Release Monitor ' RM-L9, Liquid Radwaste Effluent Monitor l RM-G19A, Main Steam Line Monitor A RM-L3, Steam Generator Blowdown Monitor The inspector reviewed licensee logs and verified that the Main Plant Vent Monitor (RM-A3), the Reactor Building Purge Monitor (RM-A4), and the Nuclear Blowdown Waste Effluent Liquid Monitor (RM-L7) calibrations and operational tests had been performed at the required frequencies.
No violations or deviations were identified, l
l
. . . .
6.
Radiochemistry and Chemistry Instrumentation (84750) i The inspector and the Count Room Supervisor toured the Count Room, the Chemistry Analytical Laboratory, and the Nuclear Sampling Room. The Count i Room was equipped with a Tennelec LB 5100 gas proportional counter used for alpha counting, a Gamma Products G5000 alpha / beta gas proportional counting system which was newly installed and not yet operational, and a Beckman LS 1800 liquid scintillation system for beta counting. There were also five gansna spectroscopic systems, of which only four were operational.
The Count Room Supervisor stated that detector #3 had been cut-of-service for the past year.
The current system used ND-66/HP9845 combinations to control and monitor the systems.
The Supervisor stated that these systems were to be replaced by VAX Station Model 3100s with ND/ Canberra Software.
The Chemistry Laboratory was equipped with a PE 5000 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, a new Dionex 8100 ion chromatograph (with separate anion and cation channels), a Dionex Model 20201 ion chromatograph, a Spectronic 210 (used to analyze peroxide, hydrazine, silica, and ammonia), several pH meters, an Eberline Scaler, a Photochem Organic Carbon Analyzer, and a conductivity bridge. The Supervisor stated that an Allied Fisher Scientific Computer Aided Titrimeter was used for boron determination.
A Model 1200 Gas Partitioner was available in the Nuclear Sample Room for use in depressurizing coolant samples.
The inspector reviewed calibration records for the gamma spectroscopic system.
The systems had been calibrated in October and November 1988, a few geometries on Detectors 5, 6, and 8 had been calibrated in April 1969, and one geometry on Detector 6 had been calibrated in January 1990. The i inspector also reviewed the daily gamma spectroscopic quality control (QC) data sheets and control charts for January 1990.
The plots remained within the plus/minus 3 sigma limits for the period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Air Cleaning Systems (84750) l The inspector selectively reviewed the Surveillance Test Procedures (STPs) used for in-place filter and adsorber testing and adsorber charcoal sampling.
The inspector also reviewed the results of these tests conducted in 1988 and 1989 for effluent systems and the Control Room , l Emergency Air Cleanup System.
The tests appeared to have been conducted at the required frequencies.
The in-place tests for both HEPA and charcoal filters were successful, and the charcoal cannister tests as conducted by a vendor were successful except for a test conducted on samples from the Auxiliary Building charcoal beds in November 1988.
Licensee records showed that the charcoal was replaced and successfully retested.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
- . . . , , .
8.
GaseousRadiologicalEffluents(84750) The inspector discussed the gaseous release program with the Count Room , Supervisor and reviewed a selection of gaseous release permits for 1989 ' I and January 1990 for main plant vent releases and reactor building purges.
l The releases appeared to have been conducted in accordance with Technical
Specifications (TSs) and implementing procedures.
Dose projections were done for all releases and cumulative projections appeared to be within TSs and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9. Liquid Radiological Effluents (84750) The inspector discussed the liquid radwaste release program with the Count Room Supervisor and reviewed a selection of liquid release permits for 198C and January 1990 for lurbine Building Sump and Waste Monitor Tank releases.
Dose projections were done for all releases and cumulative projections appeared to be within TSs and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Water Chemistry (84750) The inspector reviewed the Monthly Chemistry Report for December 1989.
The Report included summaries on Chemistry, Radiochemistry, and Problem , Areas / Projects.
Trend charts on significant chemical and radiochemical l parameters were included as well as power levels.
A weekly summary was also reviewed.
The summary presented parameter values and trends as well l a maintenance trends. The system appeared to be operating within limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Environmental Monitoring Program (84750) The inspector discussed the Corporate Health Physics and Radiological Environmental programs with the Manager, Corporate Health Physics & Environmental Programs and his staff.
Three Supervisors and their staffs reported to the Manager.
The Rad Analytical Services group was responsible for the conduct of the radiological environmental monitoring program and provided and read the plant's personnel dosimeters.
The Staff Health Physics group was responsible for providing Corporate Health Physics support to the plant, conducting ALARA reviews, and monitoring the interlab comparison programs.
The Environmental Programs group was responsible for conduct of the nonradiological environmental program, conduct of the annual land use census, conduct of the meteorological monitoring program, and data reduction.
The Manager stated that the current environmental TLDs were to be replaced with those from another vendo _ _ _. - . . . . .
The inspector toured the Laboratory / Count Room areas accompanied by a licensee Supervisor. The Supervisor stated that very little wet chemistry was done in the Lab, and that the hardware and software in the count room l were to be replaced.
The count room was equipped with four gamma spectroscopic detectors and associated hardware and software, a Packard ' 1550 Tri Carb Liquid Scintillator system, and a Tennelec LB 5100 gas proportional counting system.
l The inspector reviewed documentation of the Lab intercomparison programs.
l Data was maintained for both the plant-and Environmental count room participation. in the intercomparison program conducted by Analytics.
Sample media were liquids, gas, particulate filters, and charcoal cartridges.
Comparisons were conducted quarterly during 1989. Both plant and Environmental Labs were in agreement for all samples evaluated.
The Environmental Lab also participated in the EPA intercomparison program, counting air filters in March and August 1989.
The inspector reviewed documentation of the environmental sampling and analysis program conducted in 1989.
The program appeared to have been conducted in accordance with TSs and implementing procedures.
The inspector reviewed the results of the annual Land Use Census, which was conducted from July 21 to August 22, 1989.
The report indicated that no significant changes were noted.
The inspector reviewed QC and maintenance records for the meteorological instrument system for the period from October 1989 through January 1990.
The records listed the Meteorological instruments and transmitting i equipment replaced during 1989, showed the daily checks performed, showed the biweekly functional tests performed, and showed that the system was last calibrated during October 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Followup Items (92701) (Closed) Information Notice (IN) 88-IN-22: Disposal of Sludge from Onsite Sewage Treatment Facilities at Nuclear Power Station.
The inspector reviewed documentation showing that Plant staff was aware of the problem i' and was working with the State of South Carolina to dispose of the sludge pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302.
(Closed) IN 88-IN-31: Steam Generator Tube Rupture Analysis Deficiency.
The licensee considered that the only problem in this area that could exist was the case of a locked rotor on a coolant pump.
This case was still under study, and the licensee was awaiting a vendor owner's group study before making final conclusions.
A licensee Operating Specialist stated that action on this item was expected to be concluded in April 199, . . . , , . .
i 13. Confirmatory Measurements (84750) l As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent to the plant on July 13, 1989, for selected radiochemical analysis.
The NRC was provided with the results of these analyses via letter dated September 13, 1989.
The inspector discussed the results via telephone with a member of the licensee's Health Physics staff on November 28, 1989.
The Strontium-89, Strontium-90, and Iron-55 values were in agreement with the NRC values, but the licensee's value for Tritium was low and outside the range of agreement.
The licensee subsequently called the inspector with a corrected value for Tritium which was within the range of agreement with the NRC value.
This corrected value was also subsequently provided via letter dated January 26, 1990. A member of the licensee's Health Physics staff stated that the error in the original Tritium concentration was due to the decay correction being miscalculated.
The comparison of licensee results with NRC analyses is presented to Attachment 2 to this report, and the acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Attachment 3.
During the inspection, the licensee was asked to take samples of reactor coolant, liquid radwaste, and waste gas.
The NRC provided a particulate filter and a charcoal cartridge spiked with mixed ganna sources.
These samples and filters were analyzed for radionuclide concentrations using i the licensee's four operational gamma spectroscopic systems and the NRC Region 11 mobile laboratory.
The purpose of these comparative i measurements was to verify the licensee's capability to accurately measure l gamma emitting radionuclide concentrations in various plant systems and effluent streams.
The licensee provided samples of reactor coolant, liquid waste monitor tank contents, and contents of a waste gas decay tank.
A more detailed l ' description of the sample types and geometries along with a comparison of the NRC and licensee results is listed in Attachment 1.
The methodology for determining agreement or disagreement is discussed in Attachment 3.
The results showed agreement for all compared radionuclides.
The inspector observed the sampling of the waste ga decay tank, the reactor coolant system, and the steam generator blowdown system. The sampling of the steam generator blowdown system was observed since the licensee did , ' not think there was enough water in the waste monitor tanks (WMTs) to sample, but it was later determined that a WMT sample could be taken, so the WMT sample was the one that was analyzed.
i No violations or deviations were identified.
14. Reactor Coolant Spill (84750) On February 2, the Resident inspector and the inspector were informed of a-Reactor Coolant (RC) spill the previous afternoon.
A maintenance team was to change an RC filter.
The job required Control Room approval and isolation and draining of the system by Operations.
At the time of the reauest, Operations could not authorize the job and told the Maintenance
, . . , .
13. Confirmatory Measurements (84750) As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent to the plant on July 13, 1989, for selected radiochemical analysis.
The NRC was provided with the results of these analyses via letter dated September 13, 1989.
The inspector discussed the results via telephone with a member of the licensee's Health Physics staff on November 28, 1989.
The Strontium-89, Strontium-90, and Iron-55 values were in agreement with the NRC values, but the licensee's value for Tritium was low and outside the range of agreement.
The licensee subsequently called the inspector with a corrected value for Tritium which was within the range of agreement with the NRC value.
This corrected value was also subsequently provided via letter dated January 26, 1990. A member of the licensee's Health Physics staff stated that the error in the original Tritium concentration was due to the decay correction being miscalculated.
The comparison of licensee results with NRC analyses is presented to Attachment 2 to this report, and the acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Attachment 3.
During the inspection, the licensee was asked to take samples of reactor coolant, liquid radwaste, and waste gas.
The NRC provided a particulate filter and a charcoal cartridge spiked with mixed gama sources.
These samples and filters were analyzed for radionuclide concentrations using the licensee's four operational gamma spectroscopic systems and the NRC Region 11 mobile laboratory.
The purpose of these comparative measurements was to verify the licensee's capability to accurately measure gamma emitting radionuclide concentrations in various plant systems and effluent streams.
The licensee provided samples of reactor coolant, liquid waste monitor tank contents, and contents of a waste gas decay tank.
A more detailed description of the sample types and geometries along with a comparison of the NRC and licensee results is listed in Attachment 1.
The methodology for determining agreement or disagreement is discussed in Attachment 3.
The results showed agreement for all compared radionuclides.
The inspector observed the sampling of the waste gas decay tank, the reactor coolant system, and the steam generator blowdown system. The sampling of the steam generator blowdown system was observed since the licensee did not think there was enough water in the waste monitor tanks (WMTs) to i sample, but it was later determined that a WMT sample could be taken, so i the WMT sample was the one that was analyzed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 14.
Reactor Coolant Spill (84750) On February 2, the Resident inspector and the inspector were informed of a Reactor Coolant (RC) spill the previous afternoon.
A maintenance team was to change an RC filter.
The job required Control Room approval and isolation and draining of the system by Operations.
At the time of the request, Operations could not authorize the job and told the Maintenance
r . . . ., , , .
people to come back later. The Maintenance people returned to their shop, where the job was assigned to another team.
This team, not understanding the requirements for the job, started to do the job without checking with the Control Room.
Since the system (the Chemical & Volume Control System) was operating, coolant was released.
The Control Room noticed a drop in ! the level of the Volume Control Tank, and sent someone to investigate.
.l The Operations personnel isolated the system, and since the system was i open, authorized Maintenance to continue with the filter change.
The water drained to the floor drain system-(estimated 150 to 200 gallons).
! and Health Physics later performed a decontamination of the cubicle.
The inspector discussed the incident with the Chemistry and Health Physics Manager by telephone on February 8,1990, and was told that the in-vestigation was not yet complete.
This incident will be reviewed after the licensee's investigation is complete.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15.
ExitInterview(30703) The inspection scope and results were sumarized on February 2,1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas ', inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
The effluent l release program appeared to be closely controlled and monitored. Releases l were maintained within TS limits.
The radiological environmental program sampics were taken and analyzed at required frequencies. The confirmatory measurement results showed that the licensee's measurements were in i agreement with those of the NRC mobile laboratory for all samples.
I Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
l , !
.-
ATTACHMECT 1 NRC-l.lCENSEE SAMPEE' COMPARISON EVALUATION , CONCENTRATION RAftO' SAMPEE ISOTOPE EICENSEE NRC LICENSEE NRC RESOEUTION COMPARISON SUMMER, CHARCOAL. Co-60 5.44E-2 5.50 1 0.07E-2 0.99
AGREEMENTz . CARlRIDGE, CP100, Cd-109 4.45E-1 4.66 1 0.04E-1 0.95-117 . AGREEMENT-
(SPIKE) Sm-113 9.68E-3 9.59 1 0.31E-3 1.01 31! -AGREEMENT NRC-CC-009 Ce-139 5.97E-3 6.05 i 0.13E-3 0.99' 46; AGREEMENT GSDET4 Co-57 7.74E-3 8.20 1 0.12E-3 .0.94
AGREFMENT - Y-88 1.49E-2 1.62 1 0.04E-2.
0.92' '40-AGREEMENT.
CS-137 4.70E-2 4.65 i 0.05E-2 1.01
AGREEMENr .. GSDE13 Co-60 5.46E-2 5.50 .0.07E-2-. -. 0. 99 L 79.
, AGREEMEN T.. -Cd-109-4.15E-1 '4.66 1 0.04E-1 0.89' 117 AGREEMENT " Sm-113-9.63E-3 9.59 ! 0.31E-3 1.01
AGREEMENTi Ce-139 '6.05E-3-6.05 i 0.13E-3 1.00
AGREEMENT Co-57-7.96E-3 8.20 0.12E-3 0.97.
AGREEMENT Y-88 1.54E-2 1.62 i 0.04E-2 .0.95;
AGREEMENT
Cs-137 4.79E-2 4.65 i 0.05E-2 1 03-
AGREEMENT.
. GSDET6 Co-60 5.29E-2 5.50 t 0.07E-2 0. 9fs
AGREEMENT' Cd-109 4.39E-1-4.66 i 0.04E-1 .0.94 117" AGREEMENT-Sm-113 9.24E-3 9.59 i 0.31E-3 0.96' C31 .AGREEMENTf Ce-139 6.02E-3 '6.05 i 0.13E-3 1.00 u
AGREE * FEN T
- Co-57 7.69E-3 8.20 i 0.12E-3 0.94-
. 68 AGREiMENT .Y-88 1. 49 E-2 1.62 1 0.04E-2 0.90:
- AGREEMENT; Gs-137 4.65E-2 4.65 i 0.05E-2 1.00 '93 AGREEMENT.
CSDET8 Co-60 5.2SE-2= 5.50 0.07E-2 0.95-
'AGREEMENTr Cd-109 4.46E-1-14.66-i O.04E-1 0.96-117-AGREEMENT Sm-113 9.96E-3 9.59 1 0.31E-3 1.04 31? AGREEMENT Ce-139 5.95E-3 6.05'i 0.13E-3 0.98
- 46:
AGREEMENT: Co-57, 7.98E-3' 8.20 i 0.12E-3: 0.97-68.
AGREEMENT 1.50E-2 1.62.1 0.04E-2? 0.92' 40.
AGREEMENT: oY-88' ~ 4.66E-2 4.65 i 0.05E-2' .1.00 - , J93 ~ -JAGREEMENT1 Cs-137 - - A e
..
y-'
.. . . , e "- . .. _ _ _ _ _ - -.. - -, _... - -, - - . - - - . _.. ._a.
. _, _ _
1.... , ., .
+ E J L , y . . - -
, '
,- . - N ~ - . O TTTT TTTT TTTT TTTT TTTTTT TTTTTT TTTTTT S NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN I EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE R MMMM MMMM MMMM MMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM A E E E E EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE P EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE M RRRR RRRR RRRR RRRR RRRRRR RRkRRR RRRRRR O GGGG GGGG GGGG GGGG GGGGGG GGGGGG GGGGGG C AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA C R ON I _ . TE 0 1 5 9' 0160 2142 7560 245732 390020 329668 A E 9009 9000 0000 8000 909809 999909 998898 RSN 011_0 0111 1111 0111 010010 000010 000000 E C I L NO I T N A O U I L T , A U 0714 0714 0714 0714 075000 075000 075000 V L 1378 1378 1378 1378 913300 913300 913300 E O - 22
22 S >> >> >> N E O R S I
R .
A 6555 6555 6555 6555 232201 232201 232201 T P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N M EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE E O 6456 6456 6456 6456 542611 542611 542611 M C 1000 1000 000 1000 041200 041200 041200
H - . . . . C E 0000 0000 0000 0000 0O0000 0O000O O00000 A L - - ' T P C 1i ii11 iiii i11 iiiiii ii1iii ii11i. T M-R .. A A NN 3962 3962 3962 3962 840959 840959 840959 S O 6450 6450 6450 6450 442892 442892 442892 I E T 1135 1135 1135 1135 474725 474725 474725 E A ' S R N T E N C ECE
L NE 6555 6555 - OS - - - - - - - - C CN EEEE EEEE R E 7046 6182 6555 6555 232201 232201 232201, M C 5579 4570 - - - - - - - - - - EEEE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE I L 1134 1135 6002 2691 028545 690715 6B2838 6571 4570 179808 138007 187786 . ... .. ...... 1135 1135 473634 473734 463624 E . M M M^ P
47-47 47 M 335 M 335 M 335 O 8133 8133 8133 8133 578333 578333 578333 T 5311 5311 5311 5311 888111 888111 888111 O 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - S o ss o ss o ss o ss rrreee rrreee rrreee I C1CC CICC ClCC ClCC KKKXXX KKKXXX KKKXXX D E I , ,L K E ,IP EN TKLP TA
SNLU ST AAES A WTN-WY IEY AL .RRER ,C A E ROAST 4 S
8 RE14
8 L ETMNET T T T EDVT T T P MI EME E E E M E E E M MNLCOD D D D MSSO O D A UO .IES S S S UAAS S S S SM1LGG G G G SGGG G G . i .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - _.., , , ... , ,b[ ATTACHMEOT 1 .. 4 ~~D NRC-LICENSEE SAMPLE COMPARISON EVALUATION
CONCENTRAT10N RAT 10 SAMPLE ISOTOPE LICENSEE NRC RESOLUTION' LICENSL'E NRC COMPARISON , SUMMER. REACTOR l-131 1.16E-2 1.27 0.06E-2 .21 0.91 AGREEMENT-i COOLANT SAMPLE, 1-132 5.68E-2 6.93 i 0.10E-2
0.88 AGREEMENT 50 ml BOTTLE (NRC) 1-133 3.43E-2 3.57 i 0.06E-2
0.96 AGREEMENT COUNT #1 l-134 9.75E-2 1.22 i 0.03E-1
0.80 AGREEMENT
, GSDET4 I-135 5.75E-2 6.14 i 0.27E-2
0.94 ' AGREEMENT Cs-138 1.37E-1 1.60 f 0.04E-1 40-0.86 AGREEMENT d' .GSDETS l-131 1.70E-2 1.27 i 0.06E-2
0.94 AGREEMENT l-132 5.73E-2 6.99 i 0.10E-2
0.82 AGREEMENT l-133 3.45E-2 3.57 i 0.06E-2
0.97 AGREEMENT l-134 9.41E-2 1.22 1 0.03E-1
0.77 AGREEMENT-l-135 5.76E-2 6.14 i 0.27E-2
0.94 AGREEMENT Cs-138 1.37E-1 1.60 1 0.04E-1
0.86 AGREEMENT GSOET6 l-131 1.20E-2 1.27 i 0.06E-2
0.94 AGREEHENT l-132 5.61E-2 6.99 1 0.10E-2
0.83 . AGREEMENT l-133 3.51E-2 3.57 i 0.06E-2 '60 0.98 AGREEMENT l-134 9.42E-2 1.22 1 0.03E-1
0.77 AGREEMENT I-135 6.22E-2 6.14 1 0.27E-2
1.01 AGREEMENT Cs-138 1.39E-1 1.60 i 0.04E-1
0.87-AGREEMENT GSDET8 l-131 1.19E-2 1.27 i 0.D6E-2 21~ 0.94 AGREEMENT I-132 5.98E-2 6.99 i 0.10E-2
0.86 AGfiEEMENT l-133 '3.56E-2 3.57 i 0.06E-2 60-1.00 AGREEMENT-l-134 9.70E-2.
-1.22 1 0.03E-1
0.80 AGREEMENT l-135-6.08E-2 6.14 0.27E-2
0.99 AGREEMENT Cs-138 '1.45E-1 1.60 i 0.04E-1
0.91 . AGREEMENT SUMMER PARitCULATE Co-60 3.56E-2 3.67 i 0.05E-2 '73 .97 AGREEMENT F ILTER (SPlKE) Cd-109 7.29E-2 6.67'i 0.16E-2 =42 1.09- . AGREEMENT NRC-LQ-014-D Co-5/ 1.23E-3 1.13 0.06E-3
1.08 AGREEMENT GSDET4 Cs-137 4.28E-2 3.95 1 0.04E-2
1.08 - AGREEMENT 3.54E-2 3.67 i 0.05E-2 73- .96 AGREEMENT GSDET5 Co-60. 6.680-2 6.67 1 0.16E-2 ~42 1.00 ' AGREEMENT-Cd-109 .C0-57 1.15E-3 1.13 i 0.06E-3 19-1.02 AGREEMENT Cs-137 4.14E-2 3.95 i 0.04E-2
1.05 AGREEMENT GSDET6 Co-60 3.58E-2-3.67 1 0.0$E-2
.98 AGREEMENT .Cd-109-6.91E-2 6.67 i 0.16E-2-42 't.04 AGREEMENT Co-57 1.21E-3 1.13'i 0.06E-3
1.07 AGREEMENT Cs-137 4.22E-2 3.95 1 0.04E-2 99.
1.07 ~ AGREEMENT GSDET8 Co-60 3.63E-2 3.67 i 0.05E-2
0.99 AGREEMENT Cd-109 7.42E-2 6.67 1 0.16E-2 42_ 1.11 AGREEMENT Co-57 1.22E-3 1.13 1 0.06E-3
1.08 AGREEMENT: Cs-137 4.21E-2 3.95 i O.04E-2
1.06 AGREEMENT.
L.
.a.
. - -. - .
- d
.
y,gy ,y,.. - n.
- -. - -, - . s.-. , - ~ ,y n,_,. .. ", $ g N $ .4 D t -, ! t
6 - i b . -s I i $ .. .? . - $
$ % b ', f ,
I i l n -- .,,
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. -.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, . _ _, .. . ,,., - 7.pHM ' ? ? Q '.: .; :.g.. ' e
- W r.,
. w - , ' ' an -., ' -[. _ .pr _,_ ATTACHMEDT 2 ~ ~ ~ ,. - 1+4 , CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARI SONS OF H-3. - Fe-55, Sr-89,- AND Sr-90 ANALYSES ' ~ e.
- FOR SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT ON SEPTEMBER 13,'1989 " . . L;. ' Licensee NRC . ' Ratio' . Isotope fuci/mi)- fuci/ml) Resolution (Licensee /NRC) Compa ri son ' . ' '.. H-3.
- 2.15E-05 (2.691.08)E-05:
' 3 f4 ' O. 80' Agreement'
Fe-55 2.95E-05 (2.99teO9)E-05'
-.0.99 Ag reement S r-89 ' '1. 05 E-04-(1.15t.03)E-04'
'O.91 Ag reement . - sr-90 5.12E-06-(6.24!A25)E-06
0.82 Ag reement _ a .. ~
- Corrected value sent January 26, 1990 r-
-. 4, M l .. i ' ' ., '" .,,, '! P + ,,. ri -
s.
" u f & b, j.
,. % , * # l.
wg . - - '
- .N
., ' r-( Y'- . Y '% .m W -- r q, ud l_i- },, . 4. h.;' m..
- ' lf r - , .
- _ ' .g
--- . .. . . ' ATTACHMENT 3-CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF-ANALYTICAL-MEASUREMENTS: This enclosure provides criteria-for the comparison of results of analytical-- radioactivity measurements.
These. criteria are based on-empirical' relationships which combine prior' experience.in comparing radioactivity analyses,- the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive _ emission, and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the ' " Comparison Ration Limits"8 : denoting ; agreement' ora disagreement between licensee and-NRC results are variable. This variability is a function of the ration of the NRC's?-analytical-'value; relative to its associated statistical and analytical uncertainty, referred.to _in this program as " Resolution"8 For comparison purpose, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and the-NRC's analytical value is computed for each-radionuclide present in-a given : sample. The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement-based on " Resolution." The ' corresponding values _ for " Resolution"_' and.the " Comparison Ratio Limits" are listed in the Table below.
Ratio values which - are either above or below the " Comparison-Ration Limits"' are considered to be in disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the'" Comparison Ration Limits" are considered to be.in agreement.
TABLE NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria-- Resolution vs. Comparison Ratio Limits Comparison Ration Limits Resolution for Agreement <4 0.4 -'2.5 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 8 - 15 0.6 -'1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80~- 1.25 >200 0.85 - 1.18 2 Comparison Ration = Licensee Value NRC Reference Value , 2Resoluticn = NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty A B
l }}