IR 05000482/1988028
| ML20195E065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1988 |
| From: | Baer R, Nicholas J, Wise R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E056 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-88-28, NUDOCS 8811070232 | |
| Download: ML20195E065 (16) | |
Text
r
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ft11SSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-482/88-28 Operating License:
NPT-42 Docket:
50-482 Licensee:
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC)
P.O. Box 411
,
Burlington, Kansas 66839 Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)
Inspection At: WCGS Site, Burlington, Kansas Inspection Conducted:
September 19-23, 1988 Inspectors:
(
dh M
e //9/pr
.
J. J. ificholas, Senior Radiation Specialist Date F cilities Radiological Protection Section bi k
^$ l'?ltr
,
. M
.
ise, Radiation Spbcialist, Facilities Date adiological Protection Section
/
.
Approved
//M N
[ ' *
- d/ v/
-
Rf E. Baer, Chief, f acilities Radiological Date Protection Section e
Inspection Summary
,
Inspection Conducted September 19-23, 1988 (Report 50-482/88-28)
.
Areas Inspected:
Rcutine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemistry / radiochemistry program and water chemistry confirmatory measurements.
Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation ras identified (failure to take immediate corre'tive action to chemistry laboratory technician's unsatisfactory analytical performance. paragraph 5).
No deviations were identified.
8811070232 801031 PDR ADOCK 05000402 O
PNU
_ _ _ _ _ _ _..__ -
_
_
_
,
.
.
.. '
.
.
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted WCNOC
- J. A. 3ailey, Vice President, Engineering and Technical Support F. T. Rnodes, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- G. D. Boyer, Plant Manager T. D. Card, Licensing Engineer
- E. W. Creel, Nuclear Coordinator, Kansas Gas and Electric
- T. F. East, Chemistry Training Instructor
'S. A. Henry, Primary Chemistry Supervisor
- N. Hoadley. Lead Engineer, Nuclear Plant Engineering
- C, J. Hoch, Quality Assurance (QA) Technician R. W. Holloway, Manager, Maintenance and Modifications W. M. Lindsay, Manager, Quality Evaluations
- R. L. Logsdon, Chemist
- 0. L. Maynard, Manager, Licensing
- J. F. McMahon, Supervisor, Technical Training T. S. Morril, Health Physicist
- C. L. Palmer, Radwaste Chemistry Supervisor
- C E Parry, Manager, QA
- A. L. Payne, Supervisor, Quality Plant Support G. J. Pendergrass, Licensing Engineer K. R. Peterson, Supervisor, Licensing
- W. D. Pyle, Chemistry Supervisor B. D. Reischman, Senior Engineer (Nuclear Chemist),
Radiological Services R. M. Stambaugh, Supervisor, QA Audits
- H. L. Stubby, Chem!stry Training Program Coordinator
- C, A. Swartzendruber, Manager, Radiological Services
- M. G. Williams, Manager, Plant Support
"J. ;l. Ziesents Secondary Chemistry Supervisor NEC
- B. L. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector, WCGS
- Denotes those individuals present during the exit interview conducted on September 23, 1980.
2.
Inspector Observations The following are observations the WRC inspectors discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on September 23, 1988. These observations are not violations, deviations, unresolved items, or open
items.
These observations were identified for licensee consideration for
_ - _ _ _ _ -
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
-
.
.
program improvement, but the observations have no soecific regulatory requirements.
The licensee stated that the observations would be
reviewed.
a.
Training and Qualification Records - The licensee had not completed the initial chemistry technician training laboratory guides for any l
of the chemistry technicians (see paragraph 4),
b.
Quality Control (QC) Charts Procedure - The licensee had not developed a procedure for the use oTQC charts to trend and evaluate instrument QC data (see paragraph 5),
c.
Postaccident Samplin_
vstem (PASS) Maiid:n:nce Program - The licensee's PMS has e,serienced naerous maintenance problems and uncontained leaks which reduces the operational reliability of the system (see paraoraph 6),
3.
Orga_nization and Management Controls (C3522/83722)
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's organization, staffing, identification and correction of program weaknesses, audits and appraisals, conmunication to employees, and documentation and implementation of the water chemistry and radiochemistry programs to determine agreement with commitments in Chspter 13 of the Final Safety
,
Analysis Report (FSAR) and compliance with the requirements in Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications (TS).
The NRC inspectors verified that the organizational structures of the i
l corporate radiological services nuclear chemistry section and the WCGS chemistry / radiochemistry section (C/RS) were as defined in the FSAR and TS
"
and unchanged from previous riRC inspections. The corporate radiological services nuclear chemistry section and C/RS staff assignments, management control procedures, and position descriptions were reviewed for the assignment of responsibilities for the saanagement and implementation of the corporate radiological services nuclear chemistry section and the WCGS
,
chemistry / radiochemistry programs. The NRC inspectors verified that the l
administrative control responsibilities specified by the WCGS prosedures i
were being implemented.
I l
The NRC inspectors reviewed the staffing of the corp; rate radiological
!
services nuclear chemistry section and the WCGS C/R's and noted that the corporate nuclear chemistry section was fully staffed and the two staff
,
L mernbers were the same as reported in previous NRC inspection reports.
Since the previous NRC water chemistry / radiochemistry inspection in
,
September 1987, the WCGS C/RS had lost and replacec three chemistry
!
technicians. The NRC inspectors noted that the C/RS personnel turnover l
had been approximately 20 percent in the past 12 moiths. The corporate i
and WCGS C/RS organizational structures and staffing were determined to be
.
in accordance with licensee commitments.
,
k l
No violations or deviations were identified.
i I
_ _ _.
- - - - - _ _ _ _. - -
_. _ _ _ _.
- _ _ - - - - - _ -, - _ _ -
_ _, - _ _ _ _ _,
.,,
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
__ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
..'
'
.
.
4.
Training and Qualifications (83523/83723)
The NRC inspectors riviewed the licensee's training and qualification program for C/RS 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 agreement with commitments in Chapter 13 of the FSAR and compliance with the requirements in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the TS.
The NRC inspectors r9 viewed the education and experience backgrounds of the two recently hif ed chemistry technicians.
It was determined that the new chemistry technicians had received Bachelor of Science degrees, but
they had no prior nuclear power laboratory experience.
The NRC inspectors determined that all the C/RS supervisory staff positions and 9 of 15 chemistry technician positions were currently filled with personnel who met the ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978 qualifications. The C/RS has 9 shift qualified technicians and 6 chemistry technicians presently in shift qualification training. The NRC inspectors reviewed the six-shift rotation schedule and determined that each shift was composed of at least one ANSI and shift qualified technician.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for training and qualification of C/RS personnel including a review of chemistry course lesson plans, laboratory qualification guide, and C/RS personnel training records and quslification cards.
It was determined that the chemistry training program had received INPO accreditation since the previous NRC inspection in September 1987.
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected C/RS individual staff training records and laboratory qualification guides.
It was observed that the initial chemistry tech.11cian training laboratory qualification guides have
not been completed for any of the chemistry technicians in accordance with the new INPO accredited program. Training waivers for lecture material and job tasks covered by the "old" training program have not been completed.
This observation was discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on September 23, 1988, and the licensee stated that they
,
were working on a resolution to complete the initial training laboratory
'
qualification guides for those chemistry technicians who had received training under the "old" training program prior to INPO accreditation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
(ight Water Reactor Chemistry Control and f iemical Analysis (79501/79701)
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's water chemistry program including establishment and implementation of a water chemistry control program, sampling, facilities and equipment, esttblishment and l
implementation of a QC program for chemical measurements, and water
i
. _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
_ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
.
.
l
.
.
,
b I
chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 9 of the FSAR and compliance with the requirements in Sections 3/4.7.1.4, 6.8.1, and 6.8.4.C of the TS.
The NRC inspector's review of the water chemistry program found that the licensee had revised and approved administrative procedures, surveillance
.nrocedures, ch'emical control procedures, instrument calibration and QC procedures, sampling procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of i
selected procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection in September 1987 indicated that the C/RS had established sufficient programmatic procedures to meet the requirements of the FSAR and TS.
The NRC inspectors inspected the facilities and equipment used by the C/RS l
staff. The following facilities were inspected:
secondary chemistry
laboratory and sampling area, radiochemistry laboratory, and radiochemistry counting room.
The laboratories and counting room were
-
equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, labware, and analytical
.'
instrumentation to perform the required analyses.
The facilities inspected had not been changed since the previous NRC inspection of these areas in September 1987.
It was noted that new sodium analyzers and dissolved oxygen analyzers had been purchased and installed and were
!
operational in the secondary chemistry instrument panel,
-
i The NRC inspectors reviewed selected C/RS procedures for operation, I
calibration, and QC of the instrumentation used for analysis of the NRC water chemistry standards to determine adequacy and effectiveness of the licensee's secondary chemistry measurement QC program.
The NRC inspectors verified that the secondary chemistry laboratory instruments had been r
calibrated in accordance with procedures and an instrument QC program had
'
been implemented.
It was observed that the licensee had initiated the use
'
of QC charts to trend QC data collected from daily or periodic QC analyses i
of chemical parameters.
However, the licensee had not established a procedure to indicate which instruments and chemical parameters were to be
,
trended on control charts and had not established criteria to identify, j
evaluate, and correct data biases in instrument calibration and QC data and changes or trends in instrument performance.
This cbservation was
!
discussed with the licensee during the inspection and at the exit
,
interview on September 23, 1988. The licensee agreed to evaluate the NRC j
inspectors' observation and consider actions for program ineprovement.
i i
'
The licensee had implemented an inter-laboratory cross-check program with i
several utilities as well as an internal laboratory analytical accuracy cross-check program to verify performance of C/RS technicians on
!
,
analytical procedures.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires, "Written
,
j procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the
activities referenced below:
The applicable procedures recommended in
Appendix A, of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978." The l
l licensee's cross-check programs are implemented by Administrative
,
Procedure ACM-04-017. "Verification of Analytical Performance,"
{
Revision 7, dated August 7, 1987.
Paragraph 2.2 requires that, for any
'
!
I _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,'
.
,
.*
.
unacceptable conditions or results identified by this procedure, the cause shall be determined and immediate corrective action taken and documented i
on the Corrective Action Record (Figure 4) of ADM-04-005.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the 1987 and 1988 results of the two cross-check programs.
Contrary to the above procedure requirement, it was determined on September 21, 1988, during the review of the cross-check analytical results, that numerous results for various chemica' parameters performed by the C/RS technicians during the time period July 10, 1987, through July 20, 1988, were not within the acceptance range established for satisfactory analytical performance.
Furthermore, the cause of these t
unacceptsble results had not been determined and immediate corrective action for each incident had not been taken and documented on the Corrective Action Record as per procedure. The failure to determine cause of the unacceptable results and perform and properly document immediate corrective action to the unsatisfactory analyses results during the period July 10,1987, through July 20, 1988, is an apparent violation of TS 6.8.1
and the licensee's implementing procedure, ADM-04-0017.
(482/8828-01)
The NRC inspectors reviewed secondary chemistry data logs for the period January through September 1988 to determine compliance with TS requirements.
It was verified that all TS required secondary water
,
chemistry sampling and analyses had been performed.
During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the licensee for confirmatory measurements analyses.
The standards were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and instrumentation.
The I
results of the measuremert comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1, 2,
!
and 3 to this report.
No deviations were identified.
6.
QA and Confirmatory Measurements for In-Plant Radiochemical Analysis (84h257BlT25)
,
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiochemical analysis program including procedures, facilities and equipment, implementation of chemistry control of the reactor coolant system and plant borated water i
sources, implementation of a QC program, PASS, and radioanalytical
'
confirmatory measurements to determine compliance with commitments in
,
Chapters 5 and 11 of the FSAR and compliance with the requirements in
'
,
Sections 3/4.1.2.6, 3/4.4.7, 3/4.4.8, 3/4.5.1.1, 3/4.9.1.2, and 6.8.4.d of the TS.
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry laboratory analytical
!
procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection in September 1987 and determined that the licensee had established and implemented sufficient analytical precedures to meet FSAR and TS requirements.
I I
t
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ____-_ _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - ________-_
.
l
.
.
i l
,
f
,
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for the period January
through September 1988 to determine compliance with TS requirements for
'
sampling and analyses of the reactor coolant system, boric acid storage tanks, and accumulator tanks.
The E-Bar data for March 1988 was also reviewed. The NRC inspectors verified that all TS required chemistry
sampling and analyses of the above listed system and components had been performed.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for the period September 1986 through September 1988 involving instrument calibration and
'
QC, It was verified that the radiochemistry laboratory ion chromatograph
and boron titration reagents and tb9 radiochemistry counting room l
'
instruments had been calibrated according to procedures and an instrument l
,
!
QC program had been implemented.
The NRC inspectors verified that PASS equipment and associated procedures
!
satisfied the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item 11.B.3, and TS for
representative sampling and analysis of reactor coolant, reactor sump, and containment atmosphere following a reactor incident. The licensee had I
'
completed PASS operator training as a requirement for shift qualification I
training for C/RS technicians and had implemented a requalification
training program on PASS which was being conducted semiannually.
The
"
licensee had implemented a PASS in-line instrument calibration and
preventive maintenance program in compliance with TS requirements. The
'
NRC inspectors reviewed the PASS in-line instrument calibration and QC I
records.
It was noted that numerous problems with PASS operatior had been i
identified through the licensee's QC and preventative maintenance
j programs. The NRC inspectors' noted that work requests had been issued in
!
!
an attempt to keep the PASS operable.
The NRC inspectors' review revealed
[
l that the in-line oxygen analyzers were unreliable and very seldon,in
[
calibration. An engineering evaluation request had been written to
+
evaluate and replace these analyzers.
The NRC inspectors also determined
that leaks had developed in the PASS which caused airborne activity in the
'
PASS area during sampling.
These problems were discussed with the
'
,
licensee during the inspection and at the exit interview on September 23, 1988.
The NRC inspectors expressed concern as to the reliability of the i
PASS and that the FASS should be leak free or all leaks from the system j
should be contained so as to eliminate the spread of contamination and i
i ensure operation of the PASS during a reactor accident.
The licensee i
agreed to maintaining the PASS operable and placing a high priority on all
PASS work requests.
[
r The NRC inspectors reviewed the semiannual chemistry reports for the i
periods July through December 1987 and January throug% June 1988 produced I
by the nuclear chemistry radiological services section.
The reports
!
j included analyses trends of chemical parameters in both the secondary and i
primary water systems.
The graphs and narrative descriptions in the
[
'
}
reports indici.ted where specific problem areas may be developing, when l
out-of-specification conditions existed, and corrective actions which were i
taken to reestablish normal chemical parameters.
The reports provided a thorough and helpful description of plant chemistry performance.
l i
l
'
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
l
-
-
.
,
During the inspection, radiological confirmatory measurements were not
,
j completed because of instrument malfunctions experienced in the Region IV F
mobile laboratory. The licensee split a spent fuel pool sample with
!
"
the NRC inspectors for tritium analysis comparison.
The results cf the
[
tritium analysis are reported in Attachment 4.
The gamma analysis of split samples has been postponed and will be rescheduled and comple:ed at a later date.
!
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
QA Program (79501/79701; 84525/84725)
!
I
'
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's QA surveillance and audit programs regarding chemistry / radiochemistry activities to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 17 of the FSAR and compliance with
!
the requirements in Section 6.5.2.8 of the TS.
[
!
I The NRC inspectors reviewed the QA department organization, selected QA surveillance and audit procedures, audit / surveillance schedule for 1988, and surveillance and audit reports. Audit and surveillance reports generated from QA activities du-ing the period from August 1987 through September 1988 in the areas of chemical / radiochemical control, j
indoctrination and training, chemistry QA records, hot laboratory chemistry, and secondary chemistry activities were reviewed for scope to l
ensure thoroughness of chemistry / radiochemistry program evaluation.
The t
'
NRC inspectors determined that the audit plans and checklists generated
!
from a list of essential chemistry / radiochemistry program elements and
,
l attributes were comprehensive.
It was verified that the list of essential elements for the chemistry / radiochemistry program used for preparation of l
l QA audits had not changed since the previous NRC inspection in
j September 1987. The NRC inspectors found that the QA audit / surveillance
,
program appeared to be adequate.
[
,
>
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
i 8.
Exit Interview i
i The NRC inspectors met with the NRC senior resident inspector and the
,
licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report at the
)
conclusion of the inspection on September 23, 1988.
The NRC inspectors
summarized the scope of the inspection and discussed the inspection L
'
findings, NRC inspectors' observations, item of noncompliance, and the l
results of the water chemistry confirmatory measurements as presented in j
this report.
[
h
I j
i
I
'
!
l
'
,
!
I
!
i
.
.
. _ -
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
. _.. _ _ _
_ _
. _.
_ _ _,
a e
.
.
.
'
'
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 Analvticel Measurementn 1.
Meter Chemistry Confirmatory Mo a'mr emen t s During the inspection, standard chumical solutions were provided to the licensen for analysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Safety and Environmental Protection Divi, ten, 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 licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specificat.on 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 measurements comparison are listed in Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 contains the criteria used to compara results.
All standards were analyzed in triplicate.
The licensee's original analytical results indicated that 22 of the 33 results were in agreement.
The licensee's original high range iron and copper results were in disagreement.
This was probably due to the lack of linearity in the instruinent calibration at the upper limit of the concentration range.
The I t censee's original r->dium results were all in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee prepared new sodium calibration standards spiked with lithium similar to the DNL standard solutions, recalibrated the atomic absorption system, and reran the DNL sodium standards.
The rerun reuults were all in agreccent.
Based on this information, it appeared that the lithium present in the ppm range in the DNL standard solutions caused an interference in the sodium analysis in the ppb range when using the etcmic absorption graphite furnace for the sodium analysis.
The original ammonia midrange concentration result analyzed by selective ion electrode was in disagreement.
The licensee reran the DNL midrange concentration standard and the rerun result was in agreement.
The licennee's original siliza results were all in disagrooment.
The licensee's silica quality control standards indicated a low data bias.
The licensee recalibrated the spectrometer, prepared now BNL standerd dilutions, and reran the silica standards.
The rerun results 2or the midrange and high silica concentrations remained in disagreement.
This performance with the BNL silica standards is a repeat from-the previous year's performance when all silica results were in disagreement.
As an attempt to resolve this analyuis problem, the licensee prepared three silica standards which have been split butween the licensee and DNL for analysis.
The results of these milica analyses are pending.
The boron results analyzed by manitol titration were in disagreement on the low and high concentrations.
The licensee prepared new reagents and quality control standards and recalibrated the sodium hydroxide titer.
The results of the licensee prepafed quality control standards were within 2 1 percent, but the results of the BNL baron standards were consistently about 5 percent low.
Four
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
-
,
,
.'
'
.
.
!
ATTACHMENT 1
boron standards were prepared and split between the licensee and DNL in an attempt to resolvu this analysis problem.
The resultu of these analysen are pending.
The licennee's final analytical results after rutests showed OO percent agreement with the DNL results based on 27
,
i agreement results out of 33 results compared.
.
An part of the previous water chemistry confirmatory meenurements
'
inspection, an actual inplant steam generator water sample was spiked
'
with anions and split between the Itconneo and the NRC.
This sample
,
was analyzed for fluoride, chloride, and sulfate by the licensee using
.
their normal analytical methods and instrumentation and by DNL for the l
NRC.
Thre comparinon of the analytical results is presented as sample
'
12, Attachment 2.
2.
Endiolooicaj Confirmatory Measurements l
Confirmatory measurements were performed on the following namc.% in
.j the Region IV laboratory f o11owin0 the onsite inspections (1) Spent Fuel Pool Tritium Sample (20ml Scintillation Vial)
a j
The radiolcgical confirmatory measurement consisted of comparing the i
analysis results of the licensee and the NRC Region IV laboratory.
The sample analysis and comparison of analysis results is tabulated in l
Attachment 4.
Attachment 5 contains the criteria used to compare i
results.
The licensee's tritium result on the spent fuel pool sample
was in agreement with the NRC analysis result, l
!
!
i l
l i
e
!
!
}
'l i
i i
!
)
.,
,,...~. _ _ _,,- _ _,
l'
-
.
.
,
'
s
.'
i i
'
ATTACHnENT 2 Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements Resqlin Wolf Creek Generatina Station NRC Inspection Reports 50-402/88-28 l
!
,
,
!
!
1.
Chloride Analvsis (2-50 ppb)
Ion Chromatograph
!
WCGS? suits NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Samole (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Deci si on i
87A 4.610.1 4.610.3 1.0010.06 Agreement i
C7B 18.610.3 18.710.2 0.9910.02 Agreement i
87C 30.610.5 38.310.1 1.0110.01 Agreement j
l
,
2.
Fluoride Analysis (2-50 ppb)
Ion Chromatograph WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Compari s on
!
f Samole (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Decision 87A 4.910.5 5.610.5 0.8810.12 Agreement f
87B 21.110.2 21.210.2 0.9910.01 Agreement i
87C 43.710.5 41.410.9 1.0610.03 Agreement
1 3.
Sulfate Analysis (2-50 ppb) Ion Chromatograph j
WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison I
Samole (oob)
(oob)
Ratio Decision
,
87A 5.710.A 4.910.4 1.1610.12 Agreement i
87B 20.910.3 19.211.4 1.0910.08 Agreement t
87C 40.311.5 39.011.2 1.0310.05 ff-/ement
,
)
,
i
'
l
4.
Boron Analvsi s (100-2000 ppm)
Mani tal Ti trati on
!
J
'
I WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comp ari son
Samolg (Dom)
(com)
Ratio Deciaion r
87D 49315 52015 0.9510.01 Disagreement
>
87E 147417 1544120 0.9510.01 Disagreement
[
87F 98111 1000118 0.9810.02 Agreement (
!
'
f I
5.
Iron Analysis (5-50 ppb)
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption l
WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison
{
Samole igqkt (oob)
EE112 pycision
!
Agreement j
87G 10.011.7 9.310.3 1.1610.
- 87H 19.611.7 19.910.3 0.981' ov Agreement j
B71 26.710.3 29.310.8 0.9110 OJ Dissgreement
!
- -
-
r=
.
.
,
'
- -
,.
-
.
ATTACHMENT 2
6.
Cooper Analysis (2-40 ppb)
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption WLGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Samole inp5;'
(pob)
Ratio Decision 07G 9.91.
10.0 0.02 0.9910.06 Agreement 87H 20.810..
20,210.80 1.0310.05 Agreement 871 33.OiO.9 30.010.80 1.iOiO.04 Disagreement 7.
Sodium Analysis (0.5-30 ppb)
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sampl e (oob).
(oob)
Ratio Decision 87J 1.SiO.1 6. liO. 7,
0.24 Disagreement 87K 2.3iO.1 10.610.6 0.21 Disagreement 87L 4.310.8 26.311.5 0.16 Disagreement Rettst - after ocalibration with lithium sample matrix 87J 5.711.7 6.110.7 0.9410.3 Agreement 97K 10.9iO 9 10.6iO.6 1.0310.1 Agreement 07L 24.417.2 26.3il.5 0.9310.3 Agreement 8.
Lithium Analysis (0.05-5.0 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (oob)
(oob)
Batio Decision 87J 0.39iO.01 0.3910.01 1.0010.01 Agreement 87K 2.9410.02 3.OOiO.07 0.9810.02 Agreem?'t 87L 3.98io.05 4.1310.10 0.9610.03 Agreement
,
9.
Ammonia Analysis (0.5-10 ppm)
S61ective Ion Electrode WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison
-
,
_oob)
(pob)
Ratio Deci si on
Samole (
87M 1.0010.02 1.0410.05 0.96 0.05 Agreement 87N 2.8110.02 3.01 0.03 0.9310.01 Disagreement 870 7.9310.06 8.20 0.38 0.9710.05 Agreement Retest - new analysis on the same standard 87N 2.9010.03 3.0110.03 0.9610.02 Agreement
<
\\
l
[
.
-
.
-
- - -. - -
,
e
,'
,i
.
ATTACHMENT 2
10.
Hvdrazine Analysis (10-100 ppb)
Spectroscopy WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison p_egig_i.gn e
i Samole (pob).
(oob)
Ratio 87P 18.7iO.6 19.910.3 0.9410.03 Agreement 870 48.7 1.5 49.910.5 0.9810.03 Agreement 87R 84.711.5 83.310.8 1.0210.02 Agreement t
.
11.
Silica Analysis (2-240 ppb)
Spect oscopy WCCS Results NRC Re'.ults WCGS/NRC Comparison Samal_e_
(oob)
f p.p_ i Ratio Decision 87S 20.87 0.57 26.4 1.4 0.79io.05 Disagreement 87T 85.83 1.53 104.Oi4.0 0.8310.04 Disagreement 87T 170.5711.85 208.OiB.O O.8210.03 Disagreement Retest - after recalibration and new standard dilutions 87S 24.011.7 26.411.4 0.9110.08 Agreement 87T 93.310.6 104.014.0 0.9010.04 Disagreement 87T 180.7 2.1 208.Oi8.0 0.87 0.04 Disagreement 12.
Epiked Steam Generator Water Sample WCGS Results BNL Restil ts WCGS/ANL Comparison Analysis (oob)
(opb)
Batio Deciqion Fluoride 25.311.5 25.210.3 1.0010.06 Agreement Chloride 23.7 3.2 22.410.1 1.0610.14 Agreement No Comparison Sulfate 26.311.5 No Result
,
'
.
.
OIIOCUdENI_3 CB1IEB10_EQB_CQUE881ND_8BBLYIIC9L_DE95WBEDENIS This attachment provides criteria f or 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 following steps are performedt (1)
The ratio of the licensee's value to the NRC value is computed Licensee's Value
); and (ratio
=
NRC VALUE (2)
the uncertainty of the ratio is 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)
N 6)
x Z=
then.
=
+
-
,
y Za x:
ya (From:
Bevington, P.
R.,
Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)
!
i t
l
,
l l
._._
.
- _
_
..
.
- --
_.
-.
r
.
,a
-
.
BIIBCUdENI_d Radioloaical Confirmatory Measuresment Results Wolf Creek Generatina Station NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/88-28 1.
Soent Fuel Pool Tritium Samole (20 ml Scintillation Viel)
(Sampled:
09:20, LDT, September 20, 1988)
WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml)
(uCi/ml)
6atig4 Decision H-3 1.3810.01E-2 1.52iO.03E-2 0.9.
Agreement l
l
!
l l
l l
l l
l
- _
-
- _ - -
- - - -
..
- --
- -.
,
.
.
.'
-
-
BIIBCUd5NI_D CBIIEB10_EQB_CODB881NG_000LYI1 COL _DEOSUBEDEUIS The f ollowing ar." the criteria used in comparing the results of
.
caoability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship established through prior l
experience and thi s program's analytical requirements.
In these criteri&, the judgement limits vary in relation to the comparison of the resolution.
NRC VALUE Resolution
=
- _ -
NRC UNCERTAINTY LICENSEE VALUE Ratio
=
NRC VALUE Comparisons are made by first determining the resulution and then reading across the same line to the corresponding ratio.
The following table shows the acewptance values.
RESQLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO
<4 0.40 - 2.50 4-7 0.50 - 2.00 0- 15 0.60 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 230 0.80 - 1.25
>206 0.05 - 1.18
-
Thw above criteria are applied to the f ollotsing analyses:
(1) Gamma Spectrometry
,
(2) Tritium in liquid samples (3) todine on adaorbers O
(4) O'Sr and Sr determinations
.
(5) Gross Beta whe*e samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
- - _. -. -
- _ _
-_.
_.