IR 05000498/1990003
| ML20011F524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1990 |
| From: | Murray B, Nicholas J, Wilborn L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F523 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-90-03, 50-498-90-3, 50-499-90-03, 50-499-90-3, NUDOCS 9003060193 | |
| Download: ML20011F524 (34) | |
Text
o
.-
,
4.
,.
I
'
APPENDIX
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-498/90-03 Operating Licenses:
'
50-499/90-03 NPF-80 i
Do'ckets:
50-498 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77251
'
Facility Name:
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP)
Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
STP Site, Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: January 15-19, 1990 Inspectors:
OLL W M p( )
2 /24 /90
,
J.B.Nipolas,SeniorRadiationSpecialist Date Facilities Radiological Protection Section
$tA41hu tlY/GAAO 2-lwl9G>
L.Wilbop,RadiologicalProtectionSection Radiation Specialist Date Facilities Approved:
(1/ADMllAM/
O!88 M)
3. KuVr'ay, Chief,Taci/ities Radiological Dtte Protection Section /
Inspection Summary b
Inspection Conducted January 15-19, 1990 (Report 50-498/90-03: 50-499/90-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's water-chemistry and radiochemistry programs including water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements and certain aspects of the radioactive materials transportation program.
Results: The inspectors determined that the licensee had developed and implemented a water chemistry program and radiochemistry program in accordance
{bl 9003060193 900226 ADOCK0500g98
{i iR
.
..
.
.
.,
.
.g.
I with NRC requirements. The water chemistry and radiochemistry programs were being conducted in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) requirements.
The licensee's chemistry staff had experienced a very low turnover of personnel during the last 14 months.
Quality Assurance (QA) surveillances and audits had been performed as required and were technically comprehensive and performance based. The licensee's performance on the water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements was very high and an improvement over the previous confirmatory measurements inspection results in November 1988. Three previously identified inspector observations for program improvement were evaluated by the licensee and steps had been taken to improve the overall chemistry / radiochemistry program. All previously identified open items in the chemistry / radiochemistry program area have been closed. The Chemical Operations and Analysis (C0&A) technical support group has become a strength in the performance and trending of chemistry and radiochemistry parameters and maintaining chemistry operations within operating specifications.
The licensee's program for transportation of radioactive materials and radioactive wastes was found to be improving and shipments of redioactive wastes performed satisfactorily.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
b
-
-
,,
...
-
~.;
- .
,
-l
-,
.,
o
'
3-
,,
'i DETAILS i
1.
Persons Contacted i
HL&P
- M. A. McDurnett, Manager, Plant Licensing
- J. R. Lovell, Manager, Technical Services
- C. A. Ayala, Supervising Engineer, Licensing-l C. R. Beavers, Su.nervisor, Radiation Monitoring System Section J. E. Behm, Senior QA Specialist H. W. Bergendahl, Manager, Health Physics (HP) Division
>
E. S. Chandrasekaran, Staff Chemist
.
- S. E. Citzler, Chemical Analysis Technical Supervisor
.
C. K. Clinton, Senior Chemical Technician, Unit 1 W
K K. Coffey, Senior Chemical Technician, Unit 2
- R. A..Gangluff, Manager, C0&A Division W. M. Gattis, Jr., Supervisor, Chemical Technician, Unit 1 L. M. Earls,-Staff Engineer, HP R. L. Erickson, Supervisor, Nuclear Assurance Audits S. L..Harvey, Senior Nuclear Chemist W. F.~ Jocher, Supervisor, Chemical Technical Support-
'*A. K. Khosla, Senior Licensing Engineer D. E. Massey, Supervisor, Chemical Technician, Unit 2 D. W. Miller,~ Senior Nuclear Chemist
,
S. A. Miller, Senior QA Specialist R. W.-Pell, General Supervisor, HP
..
K. W. Reynolds, Senior Nuclear Chemist t
J. R~ Sims, Radwaste Supervisor, HP
.
- J. A. Slabinski, Supervisor, Quality Engineering J. J. Woods, Senior Nuclear Chemist NRC
l
- J. I. Tapia, Senior Resident Inspector-
- Denotes those present during the exit meeting on January 19, 1990.
2..
Followup on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Open Item (499/8903-04):
Primary Calibration of Process
)'
Report 50-499/89-03 and involved the completion of the " primary" Radiation Monitors - This item was discussed in NRC Inspection calibration of the TS required process radiation monitors installed in STP Units-1 and 2.
The licensee had completed the " primary" calibration of all 18 TS required process radiation monitors installed in STP Units 1 and 2.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation monitor calibration procedures for the " primary" calibration of liquid detectors, gas detectors, particulate detectors, iodine detectors, and the results of
,
the 18 TS: required process radiation monitor calibrations.
The inspector
'
W f'~~
y f; w
,
'
clu
,
.,;
,
g-4
>
,
,
l
"onsiders'the completion of the process monitor " primary" calibrations n
.jequate to close this item.
!
3.
Organization and Management Controls (84750, 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's organization, staffing,-and staff f
functional assignments related to the water chemistry and radiochemistry c
programs and the radioactive materials transportation program for Units 1 and 2 to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 13.1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and compliance with the requirements in-Section 6.2 of the TS.
,
,
The inspectors verified that the organizational structure of the C0&A Division and the HP Division were as defined in the FSAR and TS. The STP management control procedures and position descriptions were reviewed for the assignment of responsibilities for the management and implementation of the STP chemistry / radiochemistry program and the radioactive materials transportation program. The inspectors determined that the duties and
,
responsibilities of the chemical aridlysis section (CAS) of the C0&A
'
Division and the radwaste shipping section (RWS) of the HP Division wore adequately described in approved procedures and position descriptions.
The licensee had recently completed new job descriptions for the HP Division staff which were job specific and provided detailed duties and responsibilities, The inspectors determined that the duties and responsibilities specified in the CAS and RWS procedures and task oriented-job descriptions were being in.ple:aented.
The inspectors reviewed the staffing of the C0&A Division and noted since the previous NRC chemistry / radiochemistry inspection in November 1988, the C0&A manager had left and had been replaced by the former general supervisor of the CAS. The C0&A Division general supervisor position has since been vacant.
The technical supervisor position and one senior l-chemical technician position for Unit I were also vacated and had not been filled. This left three vacancies in the CAS.
The licensee had experienced a very low turnover of CAS personnel during the last
'
.
14 months. The inspectors determined that the vacant positions had not significantly affected the quality of performance of the CAS.
l The inspectors reviewed the staffing of the RWS of the HP Division and noted that the RWS is staffed with a supervisor and two technicians.
This staffing level appeared adequate to support the licensee's radioactive
'.
materials transportation program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Light Water Reactor Chemistry Control and Chemical Analysis (84750J The inspectors reviewed the licensee's water chemistry control and
,
!
analysis program including implementation of a water chemistry control program, water sampling, facilities and equipment, implementation of a quality control (QC) program for chemical measurements, and water
,
.
--
-
- - -
a i
&
-
-5-t chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with-commitments in Chapters 9 and 10 of the FSAR and compliance with the-requirements in Sections 3/4.7.1.4 and 6.8.3.c of the TS.
The inspectors' review of the water chemistry program found that the licensee had revised and approved administrative procedures, surveillance-procedures, chemical control procedures, sampling procedures, instrument calibration and QC procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of selected procedures revised since the previous NRC water chemistry inspection in November 1988 indicated that the C0&A Division had sufficient programmatic procedures to meet the commitments of the FSAR and TS requirements.
The inspectors inspected the Unit I secondary chemistry laboratory and laboratory instrumentation. The Unit 1 secondary chemistry laboratory was equipped with the necessary chemicals, standards, reagents, labware, and analytical instrumentation to perform the required chemistry analyses to support plant operation. The licensee had installed and put into operation in-line ion chromatography instrumentation on the secondary water systems in Units 1 and 2.
The inspectors reviewed selected C0&A Division procedures-for operation, calibration, and QC of the laboratory analytical instrumentation used for analysis of the NRC water chemistry standards to determine adequacy and accuracy of the licensee's water chemistry measurements program. Units 1
'and 2 secondary and primary chemistry nonradiological laboratory analytical instruments had been calibrated in accordance with approved procedures and an instrument QC program had been implemented.
The licensee was using QC charts to trend QC data and instrument performance.
The licensee had implemented a program of using independent chemical standards for calibration and QC measurements of chemistry analytical instr aentation.
The inspectors-reviewed secondary and primary water chemistry data to determine compliance with TS requirements.
It was verified that TS required nonradiological water chemistry sampling and analyses had been performed. The review included inspection of the recorded trends of the secondary water quality data and reactor coolant chemistry parameters.
The inspectors reviewed the records of out-of-specification chemical parameters and the licensee's corrective actions taken when chemical parameters did not meet established chemical control limits. The inspectors reviewed the effectiveness of the water chemistry control g_
program and determined that the licensee's chemical limits were established according to the Westinghouse chemistry specifications and the Electric Power Research Institute (EpRI) owner's group guidelines for pressurized water reactor secondary and primary water chemistry.
Operation action levels have been defined in plant chemistry control procedures and plant operation is often controlled by chemistry parameter specifications.
The licensee had implemented a strong chemistry control program which was substantiated by the results of the sludge lancing performed on the four steam generators in Unit I during its first
,
- I
,.
y s
..
.y
,-
-6-
refueling in 1989. The sludge lancing results showed only 24 pounds of sludge recovered from the cleaning process of the four steam generators in
,
Unit 1.
When compared to industry data supplied by the Steam Generators-Owner Group, the data indicated this type of steam generator cleaning had-produced sludge quantities in the range of 25-1000 pounds per steam generator depending on the life of the plant and adherence to good-secondary chemistry controls.
Standard chemical solutions were provided to.the licensee for
,
~
nonradiological confirmatory measurements analyses. The chemical standards were analyzed by the licensee in both the secondary and primary
'
laboratories in Units 1 and 2 using routine methods and equipment. The results of the nonradiological confirmatory met.surements in Units 1 and 2 indicated 100 percent agreement when compared to the NRC results except for the boron analysis results which were consistently 6-7 percent low.
This item of disagreement was extensively researched by the licensee, and it was determined that the systematic error in the initial boron measurements was introduced into the analysis by the preanalysis volumetric dilution of the samples which is not a part of~the licensee's routine analytical procedure.
Retests were performed on the NRC standard i
solutions by the licensee using gravimetric dilution techniques and also no dilution of the NRC standards prior to analysis, The retest results
.
"
were in agreement.
The licensee's efforts to resolve the disagreements between their boron analysis results and the NRC certified standard values demonstrated the licensee's responsiveness to NRC concerns and their commitment to precise chemistry measurements and control. The final nonradiological water chemistry confirmatory measurements results for Units 1 and 2 showed 100 percent agreement or' qualified agreement with the NRC certified standard values.
These results indicated an improvement in nonradiological water chemistry analytical performance over the Unit 1, 89 percent agreement and the Unit 2, 95 percent agreement during the previous NRC chemistry confirmatory measurements inspection. The results of the measurements comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1, 2, and 3.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
QA and Confirmatory Measurements for Radiochemistry Analysis (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiochemical analysis program L
including analytical procedures, facilities and equipment, implementation i
I of chemistry control of the reactor coolant system and plant borated water systems, implementation of an instrument QC program, and radioanalytical confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with the commitments in I.
Chapters 5 and 9 of the FSAR and compliance with the requirements in
,
Sections 3/4.1.2.5, 3/4.4.7, 3/4.5.1, 3/4.5.5, and 6.8.1 of the TS.
j The inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry laboratory analytical procedures revised and approved since the previous NRC inspection of radiochemistry activities in November 1988 and determined that the licensee had established and implemented sufficient radioanalytical l
procedures to meet FSAR and TS requirements. Radiochemistry procedures
.
-
-
.-
m
..
.
.
-.. -
<#
, n i
-
.g-
.,
~7-for the operation, calibration, and QC of the radiochemistry counting room instrumentation used for_ analysis of the radiochemistry confirmatory
measurements were reviewed. Units 1 and 2-radiochemistry counting rooms
~
and HP counting rooms' walytical instrumentation had been calibrated in-
>
accordance with approved procedures and an instrument QC program had been implemented.
The licensee was using QC charts to trend QC data and instrument performance.
.The inspectors _ inspected the Unit I radiochemistry counting room facility and analytical equipment..It was noted that the licensee had replaced all of their multichannel analyzer gamma spectroscopy systems in the Units 1
'
and 2 radiochemistry and HP counting rooms and had completed the calibration of all eight detectors during 1989. A review of these calibrations showed them to have been completed satisfactorily.
t The licensee had implemented an improved and extensive interlaboratory and
"
intralaboratory quality control program for. nuclear chemical technician performance evaluation.
This quality control program is implemented by
,
the chemical support group, which is a part of the C0&A Division.
The program includes interlaboratory and intralaboratory' comparison measurements on both nonradiological and radiological " blind" samples.
It was noted that-the chemical support group has taken an extremely active
. role.in the quality control of laboratory performance and. maintenance of chemistry parameters in the two units. This program has proved to be a strength in the chemistry and radiochemistry programs as shown by the CAS confirmatory measurements performance during this inspection.
Radiological confirmatory measurements were performed on' split samples by the licensee and the inspectors in the Region IV mobile laboratory onsite.
The samples _were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. The radiological confirmatory measurements included analyses performed in Units 1 and 2 radiochemistry and HP counting rooms. This involved comparisons of analytical results from-eight detectors.
The licensen's radiological confirmatory measurements results for Unit 1-indicated 99 percent agreement and for Unit 2 showed 96 percent agreement
,
with the NRC analyses results. These results were consistent with the Unit-1, 98 percent agreement and Unit 2, 95 percent agreement during the previous radiochemistry confirmatory measurements inspection.
The results of the measurements comparisons are summarized in Attachments 1, 5, and 6.
l:
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
QA Program (84750, 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's QA surveillance and audit programs regarding water chemistry and radiochemistry activities and radioactive l
materials transportation activities to determine agreement with l;
commitments in Chapter 17.2.18 of the FSAR and compliance with the requirements in Section 6.5.2.8 of the TS-
,
I
q
- -
17 7 e.
.
y
,-
7,
-8-The' inspectors reviewed QA surveillance and audit plans and checklists, the qualifications of the QA auditors used in conducting surve_illances, and audits in the areas of chemistrv/ radiochemistry and radwaste management.
QA surveillance and audit reports generated from QA activities during.the period January 1989 through December 1989 in the chemistry and'radwaste areas were. reviewed for scope to ensure thoroughness of program evaluation.
and for timely followup of identified deficiencies.
The inspectors
'
determined that the surveillances, audit plans,- and checklists were
,
comprehensive performance based, and designed to ensure compliance with
'
,
the FSAR, TS,.and STP procedures.
The inspectors verified that the QA surveillances and audits had been performed-in accordance with STP QA procedures and schedules and by qualified auditors who were knowledgeable of-the respective areas they were auditing. No significant problems were identified.
QA finding reports and surveillance followup items had been closed in a timely manner. The documents which were reviewed are listed in Attachment 8.
No' violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Radioactive Materials Transportation Activities (83750, 86721, 86740)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for transportation of radioactive materials and radioactive waste to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 and 49 CFR Parts 170 through 189.
The inspectors reviewed documentation of selected radioactive material and radioactive waste shipments and found them to be in order and complete and the shipments performed satisfactorily in accordance with STP procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Meeting (30703)
The-inspectors met with the senior. resident inspector and the licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report at the conclusion of the inspection on January 19, 1990.
The inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and discussed the inspection findings and the results of the water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements as presented in this report. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
h
.
..
..
.
m -
c;
>
e.--
'
y
.
q ATTACHMENT 1.
Anelvtical Measurements South Texas Proieet Electric Generatina Station NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/90-03 and 50-499/90-03 1.
Water Chemistry Confirmatory Mannuramanta During the inspection, standard chemical solutions were provided to the licensee _for analysis.
The standard solutions were prepared by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Safety and Environmental Protection Division, for the NRC.
The standards were analyzed by the licensee using routine-methods and equipment.
The analysis of chemical standards is ueed to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to
,
Technical Specification (TS) requirements and other industry t
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 comparisons are listed in Attachment 2 for Unit 1 and Attachment 3 for Unit 2.
Attachment 4 describes the criteric used to compare the results.
All~ standards were analyzed in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licencee's normal calibration range.
The licensee's original analytical results from Unit 1 indicated problems with the analyses for chloride, boron, and sodium.
The original results showed 30 of the 36 results were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4.
a.
The licensee's original chloride high range concentration result was in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee prepared a new dilution of the BNL standard 88C and reran the chloride analysis.
The retest result for the chloride high concentration was in agreement, b.
The licensee's original boron results were all in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee performed extensive research to determine the cause of the systematic bias in the original boron results.
It was. determined that the systematic error in the initial boron measurements was introduced into the analysis by b
the preanalysis volumetric dilution requested by the inspector to bring the BNL standards concentrations into the licensee's normal analysis range for boron samples.
This preanaly is dilution is not part of the licensee's routine analytical boron procedure.
The licensee performed retest analyses on the BNL boron standards without dilution prior to analysis.
The retest results were all in agreement or qualified agreement.
-
-
w
.
m
- ..
.-
.
. <-
-
--a
ATTACMMENT 1
c.
The licensee's original sodium low range concentration result was-in disagreement and biased high indicating possible contamination.
The licensee prepared a new dilution of BNL standard 88J and reran the sodium analysis.
The retest result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results for Unit 1, after the retests to resolve the original disagreements, indicated 100 percent agreement or qualified agreement with the BNL results based on 36 results compared.
The-licensee's original analytical results from' Unit 2 indicated several problems with the analyses for boron, iron, and ammonia.
The-original results showed 30 of the 36 results were in agreement or'
qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4.
,
a.
The licensee's original boron results were all in disagreement and biased low.. The licensee performed retest analyses on the BHL boron standards without dilution prior to analysis.
The retest results were all in agreement or qualified agreement.
b.
The licensee's original iron low range concentration result was in disagreement and the midrange concentration result was in qualified agreement and biased high.
The licensee prepared new dilutions of the BNL standards 88G and 88H and reran the iron analyses.
The retest results were in agreement.
c.
The licensee's original ammonia midrange concentration result was-in qualified agreement and the high range concentration was in i
disagreement and biased high.
The licensee prepared new dilutions of the BNL standards 88N and 880 and reran tne ammonia analyses.
The retest results were in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results for Unit 2, after the retests to resolve the original disagreements, indicated 100 percent agreement or qualified agreement with the BNL results based on 36 results compared.
h
.
.
-
--.
g-Ej $
@
,e
. -
A J
- w ATTACHMENT 1
,
'
-2.
Radiolonical~ Confirmatory Measurements o
The radiochemistry ~ confirmatory measurements were performed on'the i
following> samples in the NRC Region IV mobile laboratory at South'
. Texas Project (STP), Units-1 and 2, during the inspection.
Each unit-supplied their own independent samples..
q (1) STP: Scott Charcoal Cartridge Sample b,
-(2) STPLAir Particulate Filter _ Sample
]
(3) STP Reactor Coolant System Gas Sample - 15cc Gas Serum Vial (4) STP Reactor Coolant System Liquid Sample - 20ml Scintillation Vial-
'
'!
(5) STP Waste Liquid Sample - 1 Liter Marinelli Beaker
(6) STP Hoble Gas Sample - 1 Liter Gas Marinelli Beaker (7) STP Reactor Coolant Tritium Sample i
'
The radiological confirmatory measurement. tests consisted of comparing-the_ analysis results of the licensee and the NRC Region IV mobile laboratory.
The NRC's mobile laboratory measurements are referenced to the. National Institute of Standards and Technology by. laboratory _
i intercomparisons.
-Confirmatory measurements are made only for those nuclides identified by the NRC as being present in concentrations
>il
,
greater than 10 percent of the respective isotopic values for liquid I
.and gas: concentrations as stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table
'II.
ll'
The licensee maintains two high-purity germanium detectors in each-of the two unit's radiochemistry counting rooms and in each of the two unit's health physics counting-rooms for a total of eight detectors'.
l These detectors are used routinely for isotopic analysis of radioactive samples to demonstrate compliance with TS and regulatory j
requirements.
The analytical results from all four detectors in each
L unit were compared with the NRC results.
The results from the four
!
'
detectors in each unit are listed in the following_ order:
radiochemistry counting room detector no.
1, radiochemistry counting L
room' detector no. 2, health physics counting room detector no.
1, and'
,
1'
health physics counting room detector no. 2.
The health physics.
!
counting room only analyzed the Scott charcoal cartridge sample and
i~
the air particulate filter from each unit.
The licensee performed.the
!
l
'
j tritium analyses on their liquid scintillation counting systems in the respective radiochemistry counting rooms.
Samples in plastic and L
glass' liquid scintillation counting vials were analyzed and the
.results compared to the NRC analytical results.
The individual sample L
analyses and comparison of analytical results of the radiological confirmatory measurements are tabulated in Attachment 5 for Unit 1 and
'
Attachment 6 for Unit 2.
Attachment 7 describes the criteria used to compare the analytical results.
.
d w
m
- i m.
.
.
- -
.
-
.
e
.
m,
.
.
'
e ATTACHMENT-1
The licensee's gamma isotopic results from the Unit i samples listed-in' Attachment 5 showed 99 percent agreement with the NRC analysis results based on 105 agreement results out of 106 total results compared.
The licensee's tritium results of the Unit i reactor
. coolant sample were in agreement with the NRC analysis result.
The licensee's Unit 1 performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements was similar 98 percent agreement achieved dur3.ng.the last NRC inspection of this area in November 1988.
The licensee's gamma isotopic results from the Unit 2 samples listed in-Attachment 6 showed 96 percent agreement with the NRC analysis results based on 90 agreement results out of 94 total.results compared.
The licensee's Unit 2 tritium results of the reactor
,'
coolant sample were in agreement with the NRC analysis result.
The.
licensee's Unit 2 performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements showed a slight improvement over the 98 percent agreement achieved during the last NRC inspection of this area in November 1988.
I'
-
.
~
.-
-
... -
._-
-
..
"4'.
.
.'
V o
-
.,
..
...
,
!
'^
ATTACHMENT 2
'1 Water Chamistry Confirmatory Mammuramanta Ramulta South Tawan proinct Electric Ganaratina Station Unit 1
NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/90-03 p
'
1..
Chloride Analvain (10-200 ppb)
Ion Chromatography
,
STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample Innb)
( unb i '
Decision L-88A 30.810.5 30.012.0 Agreement
,
L 88B 112.311.6 124.018.0 Qual.' Agree.
!
88C 167,312.5 190.0120.0 Disagreement
.
Retest - prepared new BNL dilution and preformed retest analysis 88C'
183.012.5 190.0110.0 Agreement a
2.
Fluoride Analysis (10-200 ppb)
Ion Chromatography
,
STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samule-(unb)
(unb)
Decision 88A 26.910.2 24.012.0 Agreement
-
'
88B 96.410.7 96.014.0 Agreement 88C 137.310.8 148.016.0 Agreement
.;
3.
. Sulfate Ann 1vnin (10-200 ppb)
. Ion Chromatography i
STP Results NRC Results Comparison
.
Samnle-(unb)
(unb)
Decision
'
88A 21.611.0 19.013.0-Qual. Agree.
88B 78.912.2 76.018.0 Agreement
,
88C 115.411.3 120.018.0 Agreement
> I
--
_
_
_ _. _
._
__
_
.. -
_. _. _
_
_.
'
.
.s o.,
u.-
- ,
.
'
ATTACHMENT 2
$
,
~ Boron Ammivnia (50-3000 ppm)
Manitol Titration
>
.
- 4 =. :
-
STP Resulta-NRC Results Comparison L
Sample (nomi (nom)
Decision L
L 88D 96.010.8 102.511.8 Disagreement L
88E 284,811'.7 299.014.0 Disagreement
!
88F-482.711.5 510.0110.0 Disagreement
'
88F 2363120 2550150 Disagreement
!
Retest - BNL standards were analyzed without any dilution prior to e
l analysis 88D 1001.012.0 1025.0118.0 Qual. Agree.
88E 2972.013.0 2990.0140.0 Agreement E
88D 4957.019.0 5100.01100.0 Qual. Agree.
- 5.
Iron Ann 1 vain (10-100 ppb)
Inductive Coupled Plasma STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (onb)
(unbi Decision 88G 20.011.0 19.810.3 Agreement L
'88H 40.310.6 39.211.0 Agreement 88I 58.011.0 58.011.0 Agreement 6..
Conner Analvain '(10-100 ppb) Inductive Coupled Plasma
,
STP Results NRC Results Comparison
,
Samole (unb)
(onb1 Decision 88G 18.711.5 19.910.3 Agreement
88H-40.6i0.6 40.510.3 Agreement 88I 62.320.6 59.510.5 Agreement 7.
Sodium Analysis (5-100 ppb)
Flame Atomic Absorption STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samnle (onb)
(nobi Decision p
88J 8.110.2 5.110.2 Disagreement 88K 23.010.9 19.810.4 Qual. Agree.
'88L 62.710.5 60.811.0 Agreement Retest - repared-new BNL dilution and performed retest analysis i
80J 5.310.2 5.110.2 Agreement
.
_~
., _ _
. -
-
-
-
-
_._
_
_.
_
..
.
.
.
..
'"O ATTACHMENT 2
8.
Lithium An=1 vain (0.5-2.0 ppm)
Flame Atonio Absorption STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sannle (nom)
(nna)-
Decision
<
88J 0.8010.01 0.7910.01 Agreement 88K 1.1510.01 1.1710.03 Agreement 88L 1.5510.01 1.5810.02 Agreement 9..
A-
,nia Analvain (0.1-10 ppa)
Selective Ion Electrode STP Results NRC Results Comparison l
Samole (nom)
(onal Decision 88M 1.0710.01 1.0210.05 Agreement 88N 3.2610.02 3.1010.10 Agreement.
880 5.3810.02 5.0010.20 Agreement 10.
Evdramine Annivnin (10-100 ppb)
Spectroscopy STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (unb)
(unb)
Decision 88P 10.011.0 10.210.3 Agreement 88Q 41.310.6 42.310.9 Agreement-
88R 82.011.0 84.410.6 Agreement-11.
Silica Analysin~(10-100 ppb)
Spectroscopy STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (unb)
(onb)
Decision 86S-30.011.0 27.212.8 Agreement 86T 60.011.0 54.513.5 Agreement L
860 87.011.0 80.012.5 Agreement l-12.
pont Accident Samole i
Boron Analvain Manitol Titration STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samnle (una)
(unni Decision AA17 1972123 2060140 Agreement
)
Chlor.ide Annivnin Ion Chromatography
L STP Results'
NRC Results Comparison Samnle (nomi (una)
Decision AA17 12.110.2 11.310.3 Agreement i
l
\\
-
. -
,
-
._
_
_
_
_.. -
_
_ _ --
,
','
c.
3,-
~.
>
,
m.
'
ATTACHMENT 3 Water Chamintry Cnnfirmatorv-Nammuramanta Ranulta
,
,;
South-Tavam pro 3act Electric Generatina Station Unit 2 NRC Inspection Report: 50-499/90-03 g
,
'
1.-
Chloride Analvsis (10-200 ppb)
Ion Chromatography
'STP Results NRC'Results Comparison Samole (nob)
(unb)
Decision
'
i
'
88A 30.610.6 30.012.0
. Agreement 88B 137.411.2 124.018.0 Qual. Agree.
88C 208.312.8 190.0120.0 Qual. Agree.
2.
Flunride Anm1vais (10-200 ppb)
Ion Chromatography STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samnle (unb)
(unb)
Decision 88A 23.910.7 24.012.0 Agreement 88B 99.510.5 96.014.0 Agreement 88C.
148.614.7 148.016.0 Agreement
..
7 3.
Sulfate'Analvnis (10-200 ppb)
Ion Chromatography g
f fJ STP Results NRC Results.
Comparison
];
Sample (unb)
(unb)
Decision
88A 21.611.8 19.013.0 Qual. Agree.
88B 85.510.8 76.018.0-Qual. Agree.
880 124.013.3 120.018.0 Agreement
.4..
Baron Analvain (50-3000 ppm)
Manitol Titration i
STP Resulta-NRC Results Comparison
Sannle funa)
(una)
Decision 88D 96.110.7 102.511.8 Disagreement-g 88E 292.311.2 299.014.0 Disagreement 88F 485.214.2 510.0110.0 Disagreement 88F 2355120 2550 ISO Disagreement Retest - BNL standards were analyzed without any dilution prior to analysis 88D 1003.015.0 1025.0118.0 Qual. Agree.
88E 2976.013.0 2990.0140.0 Agreement 88D 4950.0110.0 5100.01100.0 Qual. Agree.
(
- - - - - -.
- - -- --.-- --
-
-
,
-
e
.
.
_
_ _ _.. _.
_
_
_
.. _ _ __
-.-
.-
e-4
'4 ATTACHMENT 3
,
-t
.5..
Iron Anm1 vain'(10-100 ppb)
Inductive Coupled Plasma
.
STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samola (unb)
(unb)
Decision
-
88G 24.011.0 19.810.3 Disagreement
88H 44.011.0 39.211.0 Qual. Agree..
.88I 57.013.0 58.011.0 Agreement Retest - prepared new BNL' dilutions and performed retest anlyses-88G 20.011.0 19.810.3 Agreement 88H 40.610.6 39.211.0 Agreement
.
~6 Conner Analvain (10-100 ppb) Inductive Coupled Plazma STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samole (unb)
(unb)
Decision i
88G 22.610.6 19.910.3 Qual. Agree.
88H 43.611.2 40.510.3 Agreement 881 60.011.4 59.510.5 Agreement-Retest - prepared new BNL dilutions and performed retest anlyses 88G 19.310.6 19.910.3 Agreement
- .
88H 40.610.6 40.Si0.3 Agreement l
l 7.
Sodium Ann 1vnin (5-100 ppb)
Flame Atomic Absorption STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (unb)
(onb)
Decision 88J'
6.011.0 5.110.2 Qual. Agree.
88K 20.110.6 19.810.4 Agreement
,
88L 62.710.7 60.811.0 Agreement
!
' 8.
Lithium Ann 1 vain (0.5-2.0 ppm)
Flame Atomic Absorption
!'
STP Results NRC Results Comparison Samole ( nem i -
Lunal Decision
68J 0.8010.01 0.7910.01 Agreement 88K 1.1310.01 1.1710.03 Agreement 88L 1.5210.01 1.5810.02 Agreement l
)
.-
.,
.
.
-
- -
- - -
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
,
-
-
, --
.
-. -
-
..
_
_
-. _ _ _
-
--
.
- o
' f
.;
- '
-4
,
,-
. ATTACHMENT 3
,
9.
Ammonia Analvala -(0.1 -10 ' ppm)
Selective Ion Electrode q
l L"
STP Results NRC Results Comparison l
n==nle (nom)
(nna)
Decision
,
-.
88M 1.1110.02 1.0210.05 Agreement 88N-3.4410.01 3,1010.10 Qual. Agree.
880 5.8210.05 5.0010.20 Disagreement
,
Retest - prepared new BNL dilutions and performed retest anlyses 88N 3.2710.07 3.1010.10 Agreement 880 5.4810.04 5.0010.20 Agreement 10.
Hydramine Analvnin (10-100 ppb)
Spectroscopy-STP Resulta NRC Results Comparison
,
L Sample (unb)
(nnb)
Decision 88P 10.210.3 10.210.3 Agreement i
,
88Q 37.710.3 42.310.9 Qual. Agree.
88R 75.710.5 84.410.6 Qual. Agree.
- 11.
Silica Analvsis (10-100 ppb)
Spectroscopy STP Resulta NRC Results-Comparison Samole ( unb 's (unb)
Decision 86S 31.910.4 27.212.8 Qual. Agree.
86T 49.711.0 54.513.5'
Qual. Agree.
860 78.910.2-80.0i2.5 Agreement Retest - prepared new BNL dilutions and performed retest anlyses 86S 28.810.5-27.212.8 Agreement 86T 54.910.3 54.513.5 Agreement 12.
Post Accident Samnle Boron Analvain Manitol' Titration STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (nnni Lans1 Decision I-
-AA17 199214 2060140 Agreement Cbloride Analysis Ion Chromatography STP Results NRC Results Comparison Sample (ona)
(nom)
Decision AA17 12.110.1 11.310.3 Agreement
-.
-
--
.
- - - -.. -
... -.
.
. w
,[, $
.. *
'
k
- '
q ATTACHMENT 4 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING WATER CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS g
f The1following are the criteria used in comparing the results of the' capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria a
for-the judgement limits are based on the data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors."- Licensee values within the plus or minus two stadnard deviations range of the BNL known values are considered-to be~1n agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or.minus
-
-
two standard deviations range but within the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the-BNL known-values-are considered
to be in qualified agreement. 5 Retest results which are in qualified agreement will receive additional attention.
Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the BNL'known values are in disagreement.
The standard
,
'
deviations were computed using the average percent. standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1.
The ranges for the data in Attachments-2 and 3 are as follows:
Agreement Qualified Areement
<
Amoule Annivte Ranae Ranae 88A F
21 - 27 20 - 28 C1 28 - 32-27 - 33 SO 17 - 21 16 - 22
88B F
84.- 108 80 - 112 l:
C1 114-- 134 110 - 138 SO 68 - 84 66 - 86
880-F 130 - 166 122 - 174 C1 176 - 204 170 - 210 SO 108 - 132 104 - 136
88D B
100.8 - 105.2 99.7 - 106.3 88E B
292.6 - 305.4 289.4 - 308.6 i
88F B
499.1 - 520.9 493.7 - 526.3 88G Fe 17.9 - 21.7 16.9 - 22.7
Cu 18.0 - 21.8 17.1 - 22.7 l
Hi 19.0 - 21.6 18.4 - 22.2 Cr 18.1 - 21.9 17.1 - 22.9
'
88H Fe 35.4 - 43.0 33.6 - 44.8 Cu 36.6 - 44.4 34.7 - 46.3 Ni 37.8 - 42.8 36.6 - 44.0 Cr 36.5 - 44.3 34.5 - 46.3
.
_
_.,
--
-
.
.
w
..
..
h e'
-,n
p ATTACEMNT 4
Agreement Qualified Areement Ampula Analyta nonna amnne 88I Fe 52.4 - 63.6 49.6 - 66.4 Cu 53-8 - 65.2 51.0 - 68.0
.
Ni 57.2 - 64.8 55.3 - 66.7 Cr'
54.2 - 65.8 51.2 - 68.8 88J Na 4.4 - 5.8 4.0 - 6.2 Li 0.68 - 0.90 0.63 - 0.96-88K Na 17.0 - 22.6 15.6 - 24.0 Li-1.01 - 1.34 0.92 - 1.42 Mi 88L Na 52.4 - 69.2 48.0 - 73.6 Li.
1.36 - 1.80 1.25 - 1.91 88M-NH -
0.92 - 1.12 0.87.- 1.17
88N NH 2.80 - 3.40 2.65 - 3.55-
880 NH 4.52 - 5.48 4.28-- 5.72
88P NH 9.4 - 11.0 9.0 - 11.4
88Q-N0 39.0 - 45.6 37.4 - 47.2 2 4-88R NH 77.9 - 90.9 74.6 --94.2
88S SiO 24.4 - 30.0 22.5 - 32.6
887 SiO 50 - 60 47.3 - 62.5
880 SiO 73 - 88 69 - 92
88X Zn 0.92 - 1.12 0.87 - 1.17 88Y Zn 2.59 - 3.17 2.45 - 3.31 88Z Zn 4.30 - 5.26 4.06 - 5.50 AA17 B
1957 - 2163 1945 - 2175 C1 10.2 - 12.4 10.0 - 12.6 I
-
.-
.
...
-
--
-
.
.
e s
a..
>
_
.-
.
,
ATTACHMENT 5 Radiological Confirmatory Mammuraamant Dannita South Tarma Proinct Rimetric Generatina Station Unit 1
,
NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/90-03 i
,
1; STP Scott Charcoal Cartridae Sannle (STP 29A)
(Standardized:
14:30, CST, January 17, 1990)
.
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uci/ce)
(uci/ce)
Ratio Decision I-131 7.79tl.46E-11 7.0710,64E-11 1.10 Agreement 6.8316.18E-11 0.97 Agreement 6.6310.69E-11 0.94 Agreement 6.8810.52E-11 0.97 Agreement
'
{
I-132 3.2010.16E-10 3.3310.23E-10 0.96 Agreement 3.1910.13E-10 0.96 Agreement
,
3.3910.23E-10 1.02 Agreement 3.2510.20E-10 0.98 Agreement
'
I-133 3.5610.12E-10 3.4710.09E-10 1.02 Agreement 3.8010.10E-10 1.09 Agreement 3.6910.12E-10 1.06 Agreement 3.8710.11E-10 1.11 Agreement I-134 3.5510.19E-10 4.7410.92E-10 0.75 Agreewant
"
3.9510.31E-10 0.83 Agreement 5.0911.38E-10 1.07 Agreement 3.4711.41E-10 0.73 Agreement l
I-135 6.4510.82E-10 5.5210.47E-10-1.16 Agreement 5.8210.30E-10 1.05 Agreement 6.3110.33E-10 1.14 Agreement 5.2510.33E-10 0.95 Agreement
.
'l l
__.
.
__
.
.
_
__
__
.
_ _
e
,s
,I
- ',.
n
.,
ATTACHMENT 5
,
p l 2..
-STP' Air Particulate' Filter Rm=nla (STP27A)
E-(Standardized:
09:30, CST, January-17, 1990)
s STP Results.
NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison I
L 3pelide fuci/an=nla)
(uci/ananla)
Ratio Decision
'
Cr-51L 3.2810.36E-3 3.1110.40E-3 1.06 Agreement 3.1810.33E-3 1.02 Agreement 3.2910.35E-3 1.06 Agreement
'
(1)
Mn-54 1.3710.06E-3 1.3610.06E-3 1.01 Agreement 1.3210.06E-3 0.97 Agreement 1.3910.07E-3 1.02 Agreement (
(1)
-Co-58 2.9710.02E-2 2.8810.02E-2 1.03 Agreement
.,
2.8810.02E-2 1.00 Agreement l
2.9410.02E-2 1.02 Agreement (1)
Fe-59 3.1810.52E-4 2.9610.90E-4 1.07 Agreement f
3.0610.50E-4
'1.03 Agreement
'l
'
3.2110.56E-4 1.08 Agreement (1)
!
!
Zr-95 8.7510.62E-4 9.6110.90E-4 0.91 Agreement 8.6210.68E-4 0.90 Agreement 8.5610.70E-4 0.89 Agreement j
(1)
-
,!
Nb-95 1.4810.06E-3 1.4310.06E-3 1.04 Agreement
.
1.4610.06E-3 1.02 Agreement
!
1.4210.06E-3 0.99 Agreement
(1)
I-131 0.9710.33E-4 1.5310.42E-4 0.63 Agreement 0.9010.33E-4 0.58 Agreement 1.2110.41E-4 0.79 Agreement (1)
I-133 4.7310.63E-4 3.6910.73E-4 1.28 Agreement g._
4.3010.62E-4 1.17 Agreement 4.7310.71E-4 1.28 Agreement (1)
Cs-137 2.0310.52E-4 2.4810.53E-4 0.82 Agreement 2.5710.50E-4 1.04 Agreement 2.4310.51E-4 0.98 Agreement (1)
(1)
Health Physics Detector No. 2 experienced FWHM problems and was-taken out of service; therfore, no data was reporte. - - -
_
.- -
-
I:
}'
i
- e
'
.
. -
..
,
V
4
.
l D
ATTACHMENT 5
3,1 STP'RCS Gan R==nle (See in 15cc nam Sarum Vimii STP22A
.(Standardized:
15:35, CST,-January 16, 1990)
'
'
STP'Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uC1/ce)
(uci/ce)~
Ratio Decision Ar-41 3.7510.37E-4 3.8910.27E-4 0.96 Agreement
.3.7510.47E-4 0.96
' Agreement
.
.
Kr-85m 8.2410.17E-4 8.9910.19E-4 0.92 Agreement
,
7.9310.21E-4 0.88 Agreement
!
.
Kr-87 1.2310.05E-3 1.3710.05E-3 0.90 Agreement 1.1810.07E-3 0.87 Agreement Kr-88 1.8110.05E-3 2.1610.05E-3 0.83 Agreement 1.7510.08E-3 0.81 Agreement Xe-133 2.9910.07E-3-2.9810.05E-3 1.00 Agreement 2.9310.06E-3 0.98 Agreement Xe-133m 1.4810.84E-4 2.7810.72E-4 0.53 Agreement 1.0010.67E-4.
0.36 Disagreement l-t Xe-135 3.4410.04E-3 4.1910.03E-3 0.82 Agreement 3.4310.04E-3 0.82 Agreement Xe-135mL 8.2010.92E-3 7.2012.17E-4 1.14 Agreement
,
No-Peak (1)
l
.
Isotope had decayed to below the lower limit of detection prior
'
(1)
to' analysis; therefore, no comparison was made, p:
L
>
l
.
l u
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
--
,,
4fi ~'
I
<
1:
'V
~
+
,
ATTACHMENT 5 4'
i
'
- 4, _
'fMMP RcE~ Liauld Amanle (Mal in 20 ml Scintillation Viali STP21A (Sampled:
14:00, CST, January 16, 1990)
i STP Resulta-NRC Results STP/NRC.
Comparison Nuclide (uci/mli fuci/mli Ratio Decision Na-24 1.5410.11E-3 1.6610.05E-3'
O.93 Agreement 1.4710.10E-3 0.89 Agreement i
,Co-58 1.0110.93E-4 3.2410.40E-4 0.31 Agreement-
,
2.2510.61E-4 0.70-Agreement
.)
Rb-88 1'.3810.19E-2 1.3910.29E-2 1.00 Agreement i
No Peak (1)
Nb-95 1.5710.61E-4'
O.9210.25E-4 1.71 Agreement No Peak (1)
'31 3.63tl.55E-4 2.5210.59E-4 1.44 Agreement 3.4511.18E-4 1.37 Agreement I-732-2.5310.10E-3-2.6310.08E-3 0.96 Agreement H
2.6710.12E-3 1.01 Agreement j
I-133 1.4010.08E-3 1.4910.04E-3 0.94 Agreement 1.3810.07E-3 0.93 Agreement I-134 5.0310.18E-3 4.8110.14E-3 1.05 Agreement 5.3110.60E-3 1.10 Agreement I-135 2.8510.20E-3 2.8610.16E-3 1.00 Agreement 2.9710.17E-3 1.04 Agreement Cs-138-9.6510.43E-3 9.2910.31E-3 1.04 Agreement 9.1113.41E-3'
O.98 Agreement (1). Isotope had decayed to below the lower limit of detection prior
.to analysis; therfore, no comparison was made, i
,
+_
.
,,
.
.
..
.
_
_-
.
.... -.
- - _ _. _ - _ _ _, _ _ -
n
-
, Le;'[ j :
x. :
a
".
r-
,
m ATTACHMENT 5
.5
5 '. -
STP Waste Lianid Amanle (1000 al'in 1 Liter Marinelli Ranker) STP18B
-
(Sampled: 123:05,' CST, January 15, 1990)
>
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide fuci/ml)
(uci/mli-Ratio Decision I
Cr-51 1.3510.51E-6 1.8910.42E-6 0.72 Agreement 1.5610.59E-6 0.83 Agreement Mn-54 2.6110.14E-6 3.3310.10E-6 0.78 Agreement 2.5610.13E-6 0.77 Agreement
.
.Co-58 1.4210.03E-5 1.7210.02E-5 0.83 Agreement
[
1.4510.03E-5 0.84 Agreement-Fe-59 4.0710.96E-7 3.5711.05E-7 1.14 Agreement
'!
3.2711.09E-7 0.92 Agreement'
Co-57 7.7015.03E-8 9.4913.02E-8 0.81 Agreement t
8.9414.99E-8 0.94 Agreement Co-60 6.4110.15E-6 7.8510.14E-6 0.82 Agreement 6.7210.16E-6 0.86 Agreement-S.
STP Noble Gas Samnle (30cc in 1 Liter Gas Marinelli Beaker) STP24A (Sampled:
15:35, CST, January 16, 1990)
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ce)
(uci/ce)
Ratio Decision
Ar-41 1.0010.04E-5 1.0010.03E-5 1.00 Agreement t
0.9510.04E-5 0.95 Agreement l
L Kr-85m 2.2710.02E-5 2.2910.02E-5 0.99 Agreement 2.2410.02E-5 0.98~
Agreement
.Kr-87 3.3810.07E-5 3.3210.05E-5 1.02 Agreement i
3.4710.06E-5 1.04 Agreement Kr-88 4.9610.07E-5 5.0010.05E-5 0.99 Agreement
'
5.0110.06E-5 1.00 Agreement.
Xe-133 8.2310.07E-5 7.8310.04E-5 1.05 Agreement g
8.1410.07E-5 1.04 Agreement Xe-133m 4.3910.83E-6 3.4410.41E-6 1.28 Agreement 3.1510.72E-6 0.92 Agreement
'
Xe-135 0.9610.01E-4 1.0010.01E-4 0.96 Agreement O.9610.01E-4 0.96 Agreement
- -
-
-
-
_ _ _
.
.. _..
-
.. _.
a*.
"q:; 7, ':n.
-l\\;.
'{ {'l'i.
.
J'
,... ?-..
,
,
ATTACHMENT 5 6
)
'
',
a
,
7; STP Rametor Coolant Tritium Amanle (Sampled:
1:35, CST, January 19. 1990)
STP Results-NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uci/ml)
(uC1/ml)
Ratio Daciaion H-3 8.4610.02E-2 8.2010.10E-2 1.03 Agreement
. (Plastic)
H-3 8.1010.02E-2 8.3610.10E-2 0.97 Agreement l
(Glass)
'
i f
a
,
,
l l
l l
L'
!'
!
I i
['.
l-
)
l-l'
l-l'
!
- i l
-
-
.
z
.
n
^o..<
-.
-e-
..,.
p:
. * i~
AIIAMI _6.
Radiolonical Confirmatory Measuremnant Ranults South Tavan Proiact Electric Generatina Station Unit 2 NRC Inspection Report: 50-499/90-03 1.
STP Scott Charcoal Cartridae Ramnle (STP30A)
(Standardized:
09:00, CST, January 18, 1990)
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC
' Comparison Nuclide fuC1/namnigi (uci/nmanle)
Ratio Decision I-131 1.3210.08E-3 1.2110.06E-3 1.10 Agreement 1.4110.10E-3 1.17 Agreement 1.2510.08E-3 1.03 Agreement l
1.31io.07E-3 1.08 Agreement.
I-132 7.1110.13E-3 7.1610.29E-3 0.99 Agreement 7.0310.15E-3 0.98 Agreement 6.89i0.16E-3 0.96 Agreement 6.8710.17E-3 0.96 Agreement I-133 7.7710.13E-3 7.1710.11E-3 1.08 Agreement 7.4910.14E-3 1.04 Agreement 7.4710.14E-3 1.04 Agreement 7.4910.14E-3 1.05 Agreement I-134 7.8710.22E-3 1.1110.11E-2 0.71-Agreement 7.8310.34E-3 0.71-Agreement 7.9010.59E-3 0.71 Agreement 8.3810.86E-3 0.76 Agreement 2.
STP Air Particulate Filter Samnle (STP25A)
(Standardized:
07:00, CST, January 17, 1990)
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uci/snanle)
(uci/smanle)
Ratio Decision Be-7 2.2410.58E-3 1.8610.33E-3 1.20 Agreement 1.9710.59E-3 1.06 Agreement-1.4910.36E-3 0.80 Agreement
[
2.6210.67E-3 1.41 Agreement Cr-51 7.5810.49E-3 7.1510.37E-3 1.06 Agreement 6.7410.43E-3 0.94 Agreement U
6.5610.37E-3 0.92 Agreement 7.2310.47E-3 1.01 Agreement Mn-54 1.1810.07E-3 8.6510.49E-4 1.37 Disagreement 1.0110.06E-3 1.17 Agreement 1.0210.06E-3 1.18 Agreement 1.0810.07E-3 1.18 Agreement
~
o
.g :. ~ t > lg
- ,_.
..
,~;;.
ATTACHMENT 8
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uC1/===nle)
(uci/===nle)
Ratio Daciaion Co-58'
2.5110.02E-2 2.0110.02E-2 1.25 Agreement 2.3110.02E-2.
1.15 Agreement 2.1810.02E-2 1.08 Agreement.
2.4510.02E-2 1.22 Agreement Fe-59 2.0510.10E-3 1.6110.10E-3 1.28 Agreement 1.7710.09E-3 1.10 Agreement
<
1.7610.09E-3 1.09 Agreement
"
1.9310.11E-3 1.20 Agreement
'
Co-60 1.5910.05E-3 1.3010.06E-3 1.23 Agreement 1.4210.05E-3 1.09 Agreement 1.3210.05E-3 1.01 Agreement 1.5810.06E-3 1.21 Agreement Zr-95 4.9410.62E-4 3.9310.67E-4 1.26-Agreement 4.3610.G3E-4 1.11 Agreement 3.9810.66E-4 1.01 Agreement 4.7210.76E-4 1.20 Agreement Nb-95 7.4810.59E-4 6.1610.46E-4 1.21 Agreement 7.3610.59E-4 1.19 Agreement 6.8110.56E-4 1.11 Agreement 7.2010.57E-4 1.17 Agreement 3.-
STP RCS Gan Samnle-(15cc Gan Serum Vial) STP190 (Sampled:
14:05, CST, January 17, 1990)
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison-Nuclide (uC1/cci fuC1/cc)
Ratio Decision Ar-41 9.3810.71E-5-7.65tl.25E-5 1.23 Agreement 9.4410.71E-5 1.23 Agreement Kr-85m 2.8610.22E-5 2.4710.30E-5 1.16 Agreement 2.7710.22E-5 1.12 Agreement Kr-88 4.6810.52E-5 4.08tl.27E-5 1.15 Agreement 5.6910.57E-5 1.40 Agreement-k.
Xe-133 5.2710.59E-5 3.7710.33E-5 1.40 Agreement 5.2710.71E-5 1.40 Agreement Xe-135 2.9810.06E-4 2.7410.05E-4 1.09 Agreement 3.0010.06E-4 1.09 Agreement
__ _ _ _......_
g,,,_
.
..
W ': i ATTACEMNT 8
4.7 STP RCS L%anid namnle (Sal in'20ml Saint. Viali STP20A-(Sampled:
07:20,, CST, January 16, 1990)
STP Results NRC.Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide fuC1/mli (uci/mli Ratio Decision Na-24 0.9610.19E-4-1.8310.13E-4 0.53 Disagreement 1 6210.23E-4 0.89 Agreement Disagreement Mn-54 No Peak 2.7910.70E-5
2.0010.94E-5 0.71 Agreement Co-58
_1.1110.17E-4 1.4210.09E-4 0.78 Agreement 1.6910.23E-4 1.18 Agreement Co-60'
1.9410.69E-5 3.68to.87E-5 0.53 Agreement 2.6610.86E-5 0.72 Agreement Nb-95 No Peak 2.0410.49E-5 Disagreement
2.35tl.17E-5 1.15 Agreement I-133 5.8911.57E-5 7.45tl.05E-5 0.79 Agreement 7.3711.97E-5 0.99 Agreement.
I-134 2.2710.29E-4 2.6711.34E-4 0.65 Agreement 2.5310.46E-4 0.95 Agreement I-135 0.9710.44E-4 1.8910.39E-4 0.51'
Agreement 1.7010.44E-4 0.90 Agreement 5.;
STP Wante Lianid-Samnle (1000 m1 in 1-Liter Marinelli Beakeri S.TP23A (Sampled:
14:50, CST, January 16, 1990)
STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uci/ml)
(uci/mli Ratio Decision Co-58 3.0410.12E-6 3.0810.07E-6 0.99 Agreement 3.0510.12E-6 0,99 Agreement Co-60 1.8310.28E-7 2.5110.26E-7 0.73 Agreement 1.6110.27E-7 0.64 Agreement
_;
Nb-95 1.0110.31E-7 0.7210.20E-7 1.40 Agreement 0.96i0.32E-7 1.32 Agreement
"
Sb-124 3.7810.51E-7 4.1110.38E-7 0.92 Agreement 3.7610.47E-7 0.92 Agreement i
-... -...
-
-.
-. _.
-...
.-
sau;,
-
+
\\
- : :t
~
ATTACHMENT 8 4-
'
6.
STP Woble Qan n==nla (30cc in 1 Liter uma Marinelli-Emak'ari 'STP28A
'
-(Sampled:
14:05,. CST,cJanuary 17,,1990)
)
,
q STP Results NRC Results STP/NRC Comparison-I Nuclide (uC1/cci fuC1/cci-Ratin Decision R
Ar-41.
9.1910.80E-5 7.6410.44E-5.
1.20 Agreement'
8.3210.69E-5 1.09'
Agreement f
Kr-85m
'2.8810.21E-5 2.4710.12E-5<
1.17 Agreement 2.6110.23E-5 0.96 Agreement
.
.Kr-87 2.0510.52E-5 2.0410.44E-5 1.01 Agreement 2.3410.44E-5 1.14 Agreement-L Kr-88 4.9810.65E-5 4.8110.35E-5 1.04 Agreement
4.7510.51E-5 0.99 Agreement Xe-133-5.5710.65E-5 4.7810.25E-5 1.16 Agreement 5.5210.65E-5 1.15 Agreement-Xe-135
,2.9110.06E-4 2.7010.03E-4 1.08 Agreement-2.8910.05E-4 1.07 Agreement 7.-
STP Reactor Coolant Tritium Snanle-(Sampled:
00:22, CST, January 16, 1990)-
!-
STP Results NRC Results CTP/NRC Comparison'
x l
Nuclide (uC1/ml)
(uC1/mli-Ratio Decision
H-3 5.6810.01E-2 5.5710.05E-2 1.02 Agreement (Plastic)
g H-3 5.6210.01E-2 5.6210.06E-2 1.00 -
Agreement C
(Glsas)
i
-
<
-
+
o o.
i
,
c
,
-
.
i ATTACHMENT 7
,
"
l CRITKRIA FOR CdKPARIMG. RADIOCHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL MEASDREMENTS
The,following are the criteria used in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are
.,.
! based on an empirical relationship established through prior
experience and this program's analytical requirements.
>
!
In these criteria, 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 resolution and then
'
resaditsg across the same line to the corresponding ratio.
The following table shows the acceptance values.
l RESOLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO
<4 0.40 - 2.50 4'- 7 0.50 - 2.00 8 - 15 0.60 - 1.66
50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.85 - 1.18
-
,
The above criteria are applied to the following analyses:
(1) Gamma Spectrometry (2) Tritium in liquid samples
,
(3) Iodine on adsorbers
90 (4)
Sr and Sr determinations (5) Groas Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
-
i
-
.
pS
-
ATTACHMENT 8
,
South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-498/90-03 and 50-499/90-03 Documents Reviewed Title Revision Date 1.
Plant General Procedures (PGP)
OPGP03-ZE-0032, Interlaboratory Radioassay
07/12/88 Measurements Assurance Program OPGP03-ZO-0012, Plant Chemistry Specifications
08/29/88 OPGP03-ZO-0017, Radioactive Waste Process Control
02/24/87 Program OPGP03-20-0021 Radwaste Minimization Program
10/16/87 OPGP03-ZR-0014, Receipt of Radioactive Material
06/23/87 OPGP03-ZR-0020, Shipment of Radioactive Material
06/26/89 2.
Plant Radiation Protection Procedure (RRP)
OPRP03-ZR-0001, Determination of Radioactive
07/24/89 Waste Package Curie Content and Classification OPRP03-ZR-0002, Radioactive Waste Shipments
11/22/89 3.
Plant Chemical Procedure (PCP)
OPCP01-ZA-0025, 10 CFR 61 n ste Stream Sample
01/21/88 Collection and Analysis OPCP09-ZO-0004, Gamma Spectroscopy N09900
07/24/89 Workstation System Operation and Calibration
,
i I
-
..
...
'
,, <
.
,
p =.i, Q
o c.
-
.g.
OPCP09-ZR-0004, Determination of Radionuclides by
10/27/89 Gamma Spectroscopy 0PCP10-WS-0001, Radioactive Waste Cask Handling
05/08/87 OPCP14-WS-0006, Radioactive Waste Package Transfer
05/21/87 to Storage OPCP14-WS-0008, Verification of Radioactive Waste
08/31/89 Containers OPCP14-WS-0015, Loading of Liquid Filters Into High
08/19/88 Integrity Containers OPCPrs-ZA-0001, Check Chemistry Program
08/15/89 4.
Quality' Assurance (QA) Audits and Survo111ances QA Audit 89-01(MI), " Chemistry / Radiochemistry," conducted January 16-31, 1989 QA Audit 89-09(I), " Process Control Program /Radwaste," conducted March 6-31, 1989 QA Surveillance Report (QASR)89-016, " Chemistry / Chemical Laboratory Instrument Control," performed January 10-24, 1989 QASR 89-047, " Radiochemistry Sampling and Analysis / Waste Monitor Tank Sampling," performed f earuary 20-27, 1989 QASR 89-082, " Chemistry / Radiochemistry Sampling and Analysis," performed March 8-10, 1989 QASR 89-117 " Plant Chemistry Specification Compliance," performed April 10-25, 1989 QASR 89-123, " Chemistry Analysis - Reagent Control," performed April 25-28, 1989 QASR 89-127, " Chemical Operations and Analysis Source Control and Use,"
performed May 1-2, 1989 I
QASR 89-138, " Radiochemistry Sampling and Analysis of Unit 2 Unit Vent Noble Gas," performed May 5-9, 1989 QASR 89-157, " Microbiological 1y Influenced Corrosion Control," performed May 25-31, 1989~
,
,
_
i a
>
.
u I
o. e, o-
-3-
!
!
L QASR 89-175, " Chemical Operations and Analysis Shift Relief and Turnover,"
,
performed June 28, 1989 L
QASR 89-178, " Chemistry'/ Radiochemistry Sampling and Analysis - Spent Fuel Pool Boron Sampling, performed June 28-29, 1989
,
QASR 89-201, " Chemistry Laboratory Instrument Control," performed
'
r July 14-19, 1989 QASR 89-253, " Post Accident Sampling System Operability - Unit 2,"
!
<
'
performed October 3, 1989
'
QASR 89-258, " Chemistry Sampling and Analytis - Cold Chemistry Unit 1,"
F performed September 24, 1989 QASR 89-265, " Chemical Operations and Analysis Relief and Turnover -
Chemical Operations," performed October 19-25, 1989 QASR 89-268, " Plant Chemistry Specification Compliance - Unit 1," performed October 19-27, 1989 QASR 89-277, " Reagent Control," performed November 16-17, 1989 QASR 89-294, " Chemistry / Radiochemistry Sampling and Analysis - Unit 1 Radiochemistry," performed November 14-16, 1989 QASR 89-302, " Technical Specification Surveillance Test Conduct:
Gross
_ Activity Determination for the Reactor Coolant System,"' performed
!
December 15, 1989 QASR 89-098, "Radwaste Container Receipt / Storage Inspection:
High Integrity Containers," performed March 30 and April 1,1989
,
QASR 89-135, "Radwaste - Packaging of Dry Active Waste," performed i
May 4-5, 1989
.
QASR 89-172, "Radwaste Collection, Solidification, and Packaging,"
performed June 20 through July 5, 1989 QASR 89-207, "Radwaste - Radwaste Resin Transfer, Pumpdown, and Storage," performed July 24, 25, 27, 1989 i
>
QASR 89-248, " Shipment of Radioactive Materials," performed
.
September 14, 1989 l
s
'