IR 05000528/1993027
| ML20057C582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1993 |
| From: | Bocanegra R, Nader Mamish, Nicholas B, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C574 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-93-27, 50-529-93-27, 50-530-93-27, NUDOCS 9309290134 | |
| Download: ML20057C582 (46) | |
Text
-
,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
>
Report Nos:
50-528/93-27;50-529/93-27;50-530/93-27 ai License Nos:
Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Company
!
P. O. Box 53999, Sta. 9012 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Facility:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Location:
Wintersburg, Arizona Inspection Duration:
July 26-30,1993 Inspected by:
&1 MTA 8 3b!f3 R.Bocpnegra,Radi#tionSpecialist Date S4gned AM //
skc193
,
R. t ' amish,Radift'nSpecialist Da'te Signed e/x/s
- Aem
-
x B/ $iol as, Sr.
ion Specialist Date Signe3
-
Sf26!43 h(Mi.-
\\/
u Approved by:
/
Jame?) H. Reese, Chie~f Dafte S'igned j
Facilities Radiological Protection Branch Summary:
-
Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the licensee's water chemistry and radiochemistry programs including water chemistry, radiochemistry, and health physics confirmatory measurements. NRC Inspection Procedure 84750 was used.
Results: The licensee's radiochemistry and health physics analytical measurements programs were being conducted eff2ctively.
The radiochemistry and health physics radiological counting systems were calibrated, functional, and well maintained. The licensee achieved 90 percent agreements in the radiological confirmatory measurements portion of the inspection.
Based on the results of the inspection, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements was good.
A good water chemistry program was being implemented in accordance with HRC requirements.
A good program had been established and implemented for the calibration and quality control of the chemistry laboratory analytical instrumentation and chemistry process instrumentation.
Chemistry analytical and process instrumentation had been upgraded since the previous chemistry 9309290134 930830 PDR ADOCK 05000520-i G
PDR '
-
-
.
.
.-
....
.-
- _ -.
- -. -
)
.
Y
..
.
!
i i
a inspection. The final water chemistry confirmatory measurements analytical results from the respective units' chemistry laboratories indicated 100
percent agreement or qualified agreement. Based on-the results of the i
inspection, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's performance in the area of water chemistry control, chemical analysis, and confirmatory
measurements was good.
,
k
,
0
i l
!
1
+
,
,
,
.. -.
., -
..
-,
- -..,
_
.
_
l
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee
- B. Adney, Plant Manager, Unit 3
- B. Beal, Chemistry Technician, Unit 2 Chemistry W. Blaxton, Supervisor, Unit 1 Chemistry i
R. Bouquot, Supervisor, Quality Audits and Monitoring T. Bradish, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
,
- E. Burgos, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 3 Chemistry
-
- D. Carnes, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 3 Chemistry J. Draper, Site Representative, Southern California Edison
- D. Elkinton, Senior Technical Specialist, Quality Audits & Monitoring
- K. Epperson, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 1 Chemistry
- R. Flood, Plant Manager, Unit 2
- D. Fuller, Manager, Site Chemistry R. Fountain, Supervisor, Quality Audits & Monitoring
,
D. Goodwin, Supervisor, Chemistry Technical Services F. Gowers, Site Representative, El Paso Electric
-
- B. Grabo, Supervisor, Wuclear Regulatory Affairs
'
- T. Gray, Supervisor, Radiation Protection Technical Support
- P. Guay, Manager, Unit 3 Chemistry l
R. Henry, Site Representative, Salt River Project W. Hoey, Manager, Radiation Protection Technical Services
- P. Hughes, Corporate Health Physicist H. Hurley, Supervisor, Unit 3 Chemistry
!
- L. Johnson, Manager, Unit 2 Chemistry
- D. Kanitz, Sr. Engineer, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
.
J. King, Supervisor, Unit 1 Chemistry D. Leech, Supervisor, Quality Audits & Monitoring
- D. McFarlane, Sr. Technical Advisor, Unit 3 Radiation Protection
- M. Pacholke, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 2
- W. Pierson, Manager, Unit 1 Chemistry
C. Podgurski, Technical Advisor, Radiation' Protection Technical Support
'!
'
D. Raught, Supervisor, Unit Three Chemistry
- J. Santi, Supervisor, Central Chemistry
'
- J. Scott, General Manager,' Site Chemistry J. Scott, Assistant Plant Manager, Unit 3
- M. Scott, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 2 Chemistry
- M. Shea, Manager, Unit 2 Radiation Protection
- R. Siddell, Sr. Chemistry Technician, Unit 1 Chemistry.
- D. Sneed, Supervisor, Unit 2 Effluents -
,
- W. Sneed, Manager, Unit 3 Radiation Protection
.
'
- R. Sorensen, Manager, Site Chemistry Support-
- J. Wolfe, Supervisor, Unit 2 Chemistry i
?
,
,
=
.
-
-.
-
.
~
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
Non-Licensee
- Y. Lee, Researcher, Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety
- T. Suk, Principal Researcher, Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety
- T. Alley, Nuclear Engineer, U. S. Department of Energy
-
NRC
- J. Sloan, Sr. Resident Inspector
- Denotes the individuals that attended the exit meeting held July 30, 1993.
The inspectors held discussions with other personnel during the inspection.
l 2.
Radioloaical Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
i I
The Region V mobile laboratory was brought on-site to perform I
measurements and intercomparisons of radionuclides in selected radioactive samples with the licensee's counting laboratories. Several types of samples routinely analyzed by the licensee for Technical Specification surveillances were analyzed and compared during the inspection. Additionally, where necessary, radioactive standard sources and spiked samples were also analyzed. The analysis results were compared using the criteria outlined in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750 (Attachment 9).
a.
Procedures and Assurance of Quality The inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry sampling and analytical procedures used by licensee technicians during the inspection. The inspectors also reviewed selected licensee records involving radioanalytical instrument calibration and quality control. The inspectors verified that the radiochemistry counting room instruments and health physics counting room instruments had been calibrated and an instrument quality control program had been implemented in accordance with station procedures. The licensee had implemented the use of instrument quality control charts to monitor and trend radioanalytical instrument quality control data. The
,
l inspectors found the type and quantity of radioanalytical instrumentation in the radiochemistry counting rooms and 'the health l
physics counting rooms adequate to perform the required analyses specified in the Technical Specifications.
The inspectors observed a chemistry technician draw a sample from the Unit 1, Chemical and Volume Control System tank and noted the following concerns:
The procedure used by the chemistry technician was
incomplete in that it did not include instructions for l
l l
l-l
- - _
_ -
__ _ __ -
__
,
removing the metal end cap from the sample line prior to drawing the sample.
,
The chemistry technician, with help from a Radiation
Protection technician, used a pipe wrench to remove the al end cap. The sample line was located inside a drip catch making it difficult for the technicians to work and thus increasing the risk of personnel and area contamination.
Prior to the exit meeting, the licensee committed to work on resolving the concerns raised by the inspectors' observations.
b.
Scope of Confirmatory Measurements
'
Radiological confirmatory measurements were performed by the licensee on the following samples in the radiochemistry and health physics counting rooms for all three units. The inspectors performed measurements in the NRC Region V mobile laboratory on-site.
Reactor Water Suspended Solids on Paper Filter
'
Diluted Reactor Water Sample - 1000 ml Marinelli beaker
Chemical and Volume Control Holdup Tank Sample - 10 cc Liquid
Scintillation Vial
Containment Charcoal Cartridge Sample Waste Gas Decay Tank Sample - 25 cc Gas Sphere (NRC) and 100 cc
Marinelli beaker (Licensee)
Waste Gas Decay Tank Sample - 1000 cc Marinelli beaker
(Licensee)
NRC 10 cc Liquid Scintillation Vial Standard Source
The radiological confirmatory measurements consisted of comparing the analytical results from the licensee's radiochemistry and health
physics counting rooms with the NRC Region V mobile laboratory analytical results. The NRC Region V mobile laboratory's
measurements were referenced to the National Institute of Standards and Technology through certified calibration standards. The radiological confirmatory measurement comparisons were made only for
those nuclides identified by the NRC as being present in
'
concentrations greater than 10 percent of the respective isotopic values for liquid and gas concentrations as stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.
The licensee maintained two high purity germanium detectors in each units' Units' radiochemistry counting room and the Unit I health i
I l
.__
.__
.
.
.
.
physics counting room, and one high purity germanium detector in the Unit 2 and Unit 3 health physics counting rooms. These detectors
'
were used routinely for isotopic analysis of radioactive samples to demonstrate compliance with Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements. The analytical results from the ten detectors were
-
compared with the NRC analytical results. Due to different needs t
and requirements for the licensee's counting rooms, not all samples i
or geometries were compared on each detector.
Individual sample analysis results and their comparison with the NRC radiological confirmator'y measurements analytical results are tabulated in Attachments I through 8.
Attachment 9 describes the criteria used
'
to compare the radiological analytical results.
c.
Results
,
The gamma isotopic analysis results from the samples listed in Attachments 1 through 8 showed 30 percent agreement with the NRC analysis results based on 217 agreement results out of 241 total results compared. Overall, the licensee's chemistry and health physics counting rooms' performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements demonstrated approximately the same level of agreement attained during the last NRC inspection in this area in December 1990 (90 percent vs. 87 percent). During the 1990 inspection, the health physics counting rooms were not included in the intercomparison.
The licensee's health physics counting rooms' analysis results showed 73 agreements in 92 comparisons made (79 percent agreement).
The licensee's chemistry counting rooms performed at a higher level achieving 144 agreements in 149 comparisons (97 percent agreement).
Similar to the 1990 confirmatory measurements results, the licensee
did not identify several nuclides in the samples analyzed due to the
'
J low sensitivity of the their detectors and the software used by the
'
health physics counting systems. The inspectors verified that'for the type of samples analyzed, the required lower level of detection limits were met.
The health physics counting system software was not capable of decay correcting to account for sample decay during long periods of sample deposition. As a result, the charcoal cartridge sample analyzed (21
day sample deposition time) resulted in seven disagreements (Attachment 6). The inspectors recalculated the licensee's values i
to account for decay and the results yielded all agreements (Attachment 5). The inspectors verified that administrative controls were in place that normally would have prevented this type
'
of sample from being counted on the health physics detectors.
The remainder of the disagreements were attributed to three
)
personnel errors. One error resulted when technicians entered the j
wrong sample volume (reactor coolant system liquid sample Attachment 3). When the correct sample volume was entered all results were
'
within the acceptance criteria.
Another error involved a nuclide
,
..
.
.
-
.--
A L
.
.
,
correctly identified by the counting system, but manually deleted by the licensee during post-analysis review of the isotopic results.
Technicians in the Unit 2 chemistry counting room inadvertently counted the reactor coolant system filter upside down resulting in 5 disagreements (Attachment 1). The filter sample was recounted, and
-
all results were in agreement (Attachment 2).
The licensee's personnel errors identified appeared to be isolated and were attributed to the fast pace of the inspection and the lack of familiarity with the non-routine samples analyzed during the inspection.
d.
Conclusions The radiochemistry and health physics analytical measurements l
programs were being conducted effectively.
The radiochemistry and health physics radiological counting systems were calibrated,
!
functional, and well maintained.
Based on the results of the
!
inspection, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurements was good.
No Violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Water Chemistry Control. Chemical Analysis. and Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
'
The inspectors reviewed the water chemistry control and analysis program including implementation of a water chemistry control program, facilities and equipment, quality control program for chemical measurements, analytical procedures, and water chemistry confirmatory measurements to l
determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 9 of the Updated Safety
Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.4.6, 6.8.1.1, and 6.8.4.c.
,
a.
Confirmatory Measurements and Assurance of Quality
The inspectors' review of the water chemistry program determined that the licensee had revised and approved administrative
procedures, surveillance procedures, chemical control procedures, sampling procedures, analytical instrument calibration and quality
control procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of selected
water chemistry procedures indicated that the licensee had established and implemented good water chemistry programmatic procedures to meet the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requirements in the Technical Specifications.
!
The inspectors inspected the laboratory _ facilities and analytical
'
and process instrumentation in all three units used by the respective chemistry staffs. The chemistry laboratories and the water chemistry process instrument panels were equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, and state-of-the-art analytical instrumentation to perform the required analyses and process instrumentation to monitor the various water system chemical I
.l
>
-.
_.
.
.
-.-.
--
_
.- -
--
.-
.
=
.
l
l l
parameters.
The inspectors noted several changes and upgrades in j
'
the laboratories' analytical instrumentation and chemical process instrumentation since the last NRC inspection conducted in December l
1990.
.; 1 The inspectors reviewed selected chemistry analytical procedures and procedures for the operation, calibration, and quality control of i
the analytical instrumentation used for the analyses of the NRC water chemistry standards. The licensee's records for the period
-
May 1993 through July 1993 involving chemistry analytical instrument
"
calibration and quality control were reviewed.
It was verified, by i
review of records and direct observation, that the chemistry i
f laboratory analytical instruments had been calibrated, and an instrument quality control program had been implemented in
accordance with licensee's procedures.
f p
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry data management program and the water chemistry data for the period January 1992 through July
!
1993 to determine compliance with Technical Specification i
requirements.
It was verified, by review of records, that required i
water chemistry sampling and analyses had been performed and
.
documented according to station procedures.
The review included l
'
trend plots of the water chemistry parameters, the records of out-l
,
of-specification chemical parameters, and the licensee's corrective
.
actions taken when chemical parameters did not meet established chemical control limits. Selected chemistry control instructions were reviewed. The licensee had established action levels and corrective actions for out-of-specification chemistry conditions.
l These action levels and corrective actions were strictly enforced.
The licensee's chemical control limits were established according to the Electric Power Research Institute owner's group guidelines for i
pressurized water reactor secondary and primary water chemistry and the Combustion Engineering chemistry specifications.
r
!
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry monthly performance monitoring reports for the time period December 1992 through May 1993. The monthly chemistry performance overview reports provided details concerning significant chemistry events during the month, such as,
'
out-of-limit chemistry conditions, abnormal chemistry trends, and non-routine chemistry related work-taking place. The reports identified where specific chemistry related operational problem areas may be developing, when out-of-specification chemistry
'
conditions existed, and what corrective actions were taken to
'
reestablish normal operating chemical parameters. The monthly reports provided a thorough and helpful description of the units'
chemistry performance.
The inspectors reviewed the laboratory analytical control program established and implemented by the licensee and verified, by review of records compiled during 1991 and 1992, that the program was being conducted in accordance with procedural requirements Samples consisting of check standards, spiked samples, and intra-and inter-
,
,
-
-
_., _, _.
.
.
.
..
.
.-
..
_.. -
.-
,
.
i laboratory samples of non-radioactive and radioactive samples prepared in-house or supplied by various vendors were routinely introduced into the unit chemistry laboratories to verify the validity of the chemistry analytical results. All chemistry technicians had completed the required sample analyses, and the
-
established acceptance criteria had been met. The analytical capability of the chemistry. technicians was improving over the last
two years.
!
!
'
The inspectors provided prepared standard chemical solutions to the licensee for confirmatory measurement analyses. The standard solutions were prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Analytical Chemistry Division, for the NRC. The NRC standards were analyzed by _
the licensee in each of the unit's chemistry laboratories using routine analytical methods and instrumentation. The analyses of the
>
chemical standards were used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various station water systems with
,
respect to Technical Specification requirements and industry standards.
In addition, the chemical analyses of the NRC standards
were used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with
>
respect to accuracy and precision.
.,
As part of the water chemistry confirmatory measurements inspection, a downcomer sample was collected from Steam Generator No.1 in Unit 1 at 11:00 am PDT on July 28, 1993. The sample was spiked with an anion mixture and split into four equal aliquots. An aliquot of the
,
spiked sample was analyzed for chloride, fluoride, and sulfate in
each unit's chemistry laboratory, and the fourth aliquot was shipped
'
to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for confirmatory analyses of
'
chloride, fluoride, and sulfate. The comparisons of the analytical.
,
results will be reported in a future NRC inspection report.
i
-
.
The results of the initial water chemistry confirmatory measurement
,
'
analyses and their comparison with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations are listed in Attachment 10 for Unit 1,
Attachment 11 for Unit 2, and Attachment 12 for Unit 3.
Attachment 13 contains the criteria used to evaluate the analytical results.
!
b.
Unit 1 Results j
The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses
performed in the Unit I chemistry laboratory indicated minor l
problems with the analyses for sulfate, iron, sodium, hydrazine, and silica. The original analytical results showed that 28 of the 33 results compared (85 percent) were in agreement or qualified i
agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 13.
{
,
(1) The licensee's original sulfate low range concentration analysis result was in qualified agreement, and the mid-range concentration analysis result was in disagreement.
Both analytical results were biased low.
The licensee prepared new sulfate calibration standards, performed a new sulfate
!
!
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
'
instrument calibration, and performed retest sulfate analyses on the original NRC sulfate standard dilutions. The retest analysis results were all in agreement.
(2) The licensee's original iron low range concentration analysis a
result was in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee prepared a new dilution of the NRC iron standard 92G-43, prepared new iron calibration standards, performed a new iron instrument calibration, and performed a retest iron analysis.
The retest analysis result was in agreement.
,
(3) The licensee's original sodium low and high range concentration analyses results were in qualified agreement, and the mid-range concentration analysis result was in disagreement. All analytical results were biased high indicating possible contamination. The licensee prepared new dilutions of the NRC sodium standards, verified the sodium instrument calibration, and performed retest sodium analyses on the new NRC sodium standard dilutions. The retest analysis results were all in agreement.
(4) The licensee's original hydrazine low range concentration analysis result was in disagreement and biased low. The licensee prepared a new dilution of the NRC hydrazine standard 92P-86, verified the hydrazine instrument calibration, and
>
performed a retest hydrazine analysis. The retest analysis result was in qualified agreement.
(5) The licensee's original silica low range concentration analysis result was in disagreement and biased low.
The licensee prepared a new dilution of the NRC silica standard 92S-90, verified the silica instrument calibration, and performed a retest silica analysis. The retest analysis result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the Unit I chemistry laboratory, after the retest analyses to resolve the original disagreements, indicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations
!
based on 33 analysis results compared.
c.
Unit 2 Results t
The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses
'
performed in the Unit 2 chemistry laboratory indicated minor problems with the analyses for chloride and ammonia. The original analytical results showed that 31 of the 33 results compared (94 percent) were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 13.
,
b
.
d
.
,
(1) The licensee's original chloride mid-range concentration
'
analysis result.was in disagreement and biased high. The licensee prepared a'new dilution of the NRC chloride standard
,
92B-41 and performed a retest chloride analysis. The retest
,
analysis result was in agreement.
4; (2) The licensee's original ammonia high range concentration analysis result was in disagreement and biased high. The licensee prepared a new dilution of the NRC ammonia standard i
920-106 and performed a retest ammonia analysis. The retest
'
analysis result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the Unit 2 chemistry laboratory, after the retest analyses to resolve the original disagreements, indicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified
agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations
.
based on 33 analysis results compared.
i d.
Unit 3 Results j
I The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses
'
performed in the Unit 3 chemistry laboratory indicated minor problems with the analyses for iron, hydrazine, and silica. The original analytical results showed that 31 of the 33 results
'
compared (94 percent) were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 13.
!
(1) The licensee's original iron low range concentration analysis i
result was in disagreement and biased low. The licensee
'
prepared a new dilution of the NRC iron standard 92G-38, replaced the iron lamp, verified the iron instrument
calibration, and performed a retest iron analysis. The retest-l analysis result was in agreement.
I (2) The licensee's original hydrazine low range concentration analysis result was in disagreement and biased low. The licensee prepared a new dilution of the NRC hydrazine standard 92P-26, performed a new hydrazine instrument calibration, and performed a retest hydrazine analysis. The retest analysis
!
result was in qualified agreement.
i i
(3) The licensee's original silica high range concentration analysis result was in qualified agreement and biased high.
The licensee prepared a new dilution of the.NRC silica standard
.
920-103 and performed a retest silica analysis. The retest analysis result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed
.
in the Unit 3 chemistry laboratory, after the retest analyses to
,
resolve the original disagreements, indicated that 100 percent of
,
,
,.,
,-
_
..
. _
__.
_
_
_
__
._
. _ _ _.
.
,
-
.
!
i
f the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations
,
based on 33 analysis results compared.
f e.
Conclusions
The water chemistry program was being implemented in accordance with j
NRC requirements. A good program had been established and
'
implemented for the calibration and quality control of the chemistry laboratory analytical instrumentation and chemistry process instrumentation. The chemistry analytical-and process
,
instrumentation had been upgraded since the previous chemistry.-
inspection. The licensee had implemented an excellent chemistry
'
technician performance laboratory analytical control program. -The licensee's final confirmatory measurements analytical results from
the respective units' chemistry laboratories indicated 100 percent
!
agreement or qualified agreement.
Based on the results of the inspection, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's performance
.
!
in the area of water chemistry control, chemical analysis, and confirmatory measurements was good,
,
No Violations or deviations were identified.
)
l 4.
Exit Interview An exit meeting was conducted with the individuals denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on July 30, 1993. During this
meeting, the inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection
!
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. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' observations.
i f
~. -
.
..
..
.
.
_
_
.-
.
_. -.
.-
-
-
-
-.
-
. -.
.
h
.
Attachment 1 l
RCS Crud Filter
s
!
.
NRC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC
Detector Nuclide Value (i)
Value ()
Ratio Result
!
U1-Ch-D1 CO-58 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.47e-04 2.47e-05 1.11 Agree U1-Ch-D3 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.26e-04 2.68e-05 1.06 Agree
]
Ul-RP 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.12e-04 1.35e-05 1.02
. Agree U2-Ch-D1 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 3.15e-04 1.99e-05 0.78 Disagree U2-Ch-D2 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 2.98e-04 1.77e-05 0.74 Disagree
,
U2-RP 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.62e-04 1.51e-05 1.14 Agree U3-Ch-D2 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.13e-04 2.39e-05 1.02 Agree U3-Ch-D3 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.21e-04 2.12e-05 1.04 Agree l
U3-RP 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.32e-04 1.23e-05 1.07 Agree
!
U1-Ch-D1 C0-60 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.10e-06 6.54e-07 0.52 Agree l
Ul-Ch-D3 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.76e-06 4.28e-07 0.68 Agree
Ul-RP 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.84e-06 4.21e-07 0.70 Agree U2-Ch-D1 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.42e-06 4.55e-07 0.60 Agree U2-Ch-D2 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.54e-06 6.23e-07 0.63 Agree U2-RP 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 3.16e-06 4.53e-07 0.78 Agree
!
U3-Ch-D2 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 3.lle-06 8.40e-07 0.77 Agree
~
U3-Ch-D3 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.86e-06 5.07e-07 0.71 Agree
!
!
03-RP 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 3.86e-06 4.11e-07 0.96 Agree i
U1-Ch-01 5B-122 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.79e-04 1.94e-05 0.97 Agree
,
Ul-Ch-D3 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.72e-04 1.82e-05 0.94 Agree
'
Ul-RP 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.70e-04 1.19e-05 0.92 Agree i
U2-Ch-D1 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.19e-04 1.52e-05 0.65 Agree
.
U2-Ch-D2 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.45e-04 2.16e-05 0.79 Agree U2-RP 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.93e-04 1.27e-06 1.05 Agree U3-Ch-D2 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.74e-04 1.74e-05 0.95 Agree U3-Ch-D3 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.77e-04 1.66e-05 0.97 Agree U3-RP 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.69e-04 1.00e-05 0.92 Agree i
.
.
-
-
..
-
-.
.
-
-
.
-
-
..
.
...
--
'
,
!
!
,
Attachment 1 (Continued)
Ul-Ch-D1 SB-124 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.24e-05 3.45e-06 1.02 Agree
~
Ul-Ch-D3 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.29e-05 3.20e-06 1.03 Agree Ul-RP 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 4.96e-05 2.47e-06 0.96 Agree
,
,
U2-Ch-D1 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 3.89e-05 2.66e-06 0.76 Agree U2-Ch-D2 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 3.73e-05 2.94e-06 0.72 Disagree U2-RP 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.25e-05 2.64e-06 1.02 Agree U3-Ch-D2 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.39e-05 3.63e-06 1.05 Agree l
U3-Ch-D3 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 4.47e-05 3.18e-06 0.87 Agree
.
!
U3-RP 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 4.91e-05 1.95e-06 0.96 Agree j'
- !
Ul-Ch-D1 RU-103 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.78e-06 1.04e-06 1.20 Agree Ul-Ch-D3 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.27e-06 9.97e-07 1.13 Agree
,
Ul-RP 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 7.80e-06 6.35e-07 1.06 Agree j
U2-Ch-01 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 5.41e-06 8.55e-07 0.74 Agree U2-Ch-D2 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 5.91e-06 1.08e-06 0.81 Agree U2-RP 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.70e-06 6.40e-07 1.19 Agree i
U3-Ch-D2 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.90e-06 1.22e-06 1.21 Agree U3-Ch-D3 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.00e-06 1.0le-06 1.09 Agree
]
U3-RP 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 7.70e-06 6.00e-07 1.05 Agree
'
U1-Ch-01 1-131 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.16e-05 2.52e-06 0.99 Agree
.
,
Ul-Ch-D3 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.30e-05 2.20e-06 1.04 Agree
Ul-RP 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.23e-05 2.lle-06 1.02 Agree
,
U2-Ch-D1 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 2.44e-05 2.12e-06 0.77 Agree
'
U2-Ch-D2 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 2.38e-05 2.43e-06 0.75 Disagree
U2-RP 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.67e-05 4.76e-04 1.16 Agree i
_
U3-Ch-D2 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 2.99e-05 2.61e-06 0.94 Agree U3-Ch-03 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.14e-05 2.47e-06 0.99 Agree l U3-RP 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.39e-05 1.51e-06 1.07 Agree
!
.
- - -. -,
--r
.. - - -,
,
s
,,
.
.,.
---
,,-e
..
._.
...
.
-
-.
~
-
.
_ _.
.
.
'
Attachment 1 (Continued)
c U1-Ch-D1 TE-132 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.15e-05 3.22e-06 0.91 Agree
~
U1-Ch-D3 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.48e-05 3.09e-06 1.05 Agree Ul-RP 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.56e-05 9.35e-06 1.09 Agree
'
U2-Ch-D1
?.35e-05 2.53e-06 1.34e-05 2.74e-06 0.57 Disagree U2-Ch-D2 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.21e-05 3.92e-06 0.94 Agree U2-RP 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.31e-05 1.76e-06 0.98 Agree U3-Ch-D2 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.93e-05 4.80e-06 1.25 Agree U3-Ch-D3 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.42e-05 3.49e-06 1.03 Agree
'
U3-RP 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.48e-05 1.78e-06 1.05 Agree U1-Ch-D1 CS-137 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 6.31e-06 8.07e-07 1.13 Agree
.
VI-Ch-D3 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 6.41e-06 8.21e-07 1.15 Agree U1-RP 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 4.71e-06 6.40e-07 0.84 Agree
!
U2-Ch-D1 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 5.57e-06 7.91e-07 0.99 Agree U2-Ch-D2 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 4.56e-06 1.00e-06 0.81 Agree U2-RP 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 6.35e-06 6.50e-07 1.13 Agree
'
U3-Ch-D2 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 4.67e-06 9.39e-07 0.83 Agree
V3-Ch-D3 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 6.07e-06 7.69e-07 1.09 Agree j
U3-RP 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 5.20e-06 6.60e-07 0.93 Agree
.
\\
l
.
-
- _ - -
_
. _, -.
-
..
.
-
_-
.
.
._-.
.-
-.
-
. -..
_-_.
.
.
i
!
Attachment 2
!
Unit 2 Chemistry Recount (RCS Filter)
~i NRC Result (pCi/cc)
LIC Result QvCi/cc)
LIC/NRC Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value ()
Ratio Result j
U2-Ch-D1 Co-58 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.38e-04 2.76e-05 1.09-Agree U2-Ch-D2 Co-58 4.04e-04 2.70e-06 4.33e-04 2.55e-05 1.07 Agree U2-Ch-D1 Co-60 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 2.57e-06 5.95e-07 0.64 Agree U2-Ch-D2 Co-60 4.04e-06 9.75e-07 Not Identified 1.00
U2-Ch-D1 Sb-122 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.83e-04 2.39e-05 1.00 Agree
!
U2-Ch-D2 Sb-122 1.84e-04 1.43e-05 1.75e-04 2.71e-05 0.95 Agree
U2-Ch-D1 Sb-124 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.13e-05 3.40e-06 1.00 Agree j
U2-Ch-D2 Sb-124 5.14e-05 1.96e-06 5.52e-05 4.13e-06 1.07 Agree j
,
U2-Ch-01 Tc-99m 4.91e-05 3.16e-06 6.04e-05 6.29e-06 1.23 Agree U2-Ch-D2 Tc-99m 4.91e-05 3.16e-06 5.50e-05 6.01e-06 1.12 Agree U2-Ch-D1 Ru-103 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 8.21e-06 9.68e-07 1.12 Agree U2-Ch-D2 Ru-103 7.34e-06 7.83e-07 7.95e-06 1.41e-06 1.08 Agree i
U2-Ch-D1 1-131 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.27e-05 2.83e-06 1.03 Agree
-
'
U2-Ch-D2 1-131 3.18e-05 1.59e-06 3.02e-05 3.01e-06 0.95 Agree
,
U2-Ch-D1 Te-132 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.78e-05 4.76e-06 1.18 Agree
,
U2-Ch-D2 Te-132 2.35e-05 2.53e-06 2.96e-05 5.48e-06 1.26 Agree
U2-Ch-01 Cs-137 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 5.54e-06 8.24e-07 0.99 Agree U2-Ch-D2 Cs-137 5.60e-06 8.13e-07 5.07e-06 1.04e-06 0.91 Agree Not Compared due to poor counting statistics.
!
,
I
,
h f
e
-~.
__ -
-
_
--
-
l
-
-
._
--
- -. -.
- - -..
.-. -
_...
.
.
Attachment 3 I Liter Marinelli RCS Sample a1 i
NRC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC j
Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value (i)
Ratio Result Ul-Ch-D1 1-131 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 6.56e-06 4.95e-07 1.10 Agree
-
Ul-Ch-D3 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 6.36e-06 4.72e-07 1.07 Agree Ul-RP 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 4.88e-06 3.59e-07 0.82 Agree j
U2-Ch-D1 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 5.87e-06 4.39e-07 0.99 Agree U2-Ch-D2 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 5.77e-06 4.42e-07 0.97 Agree
i U2-RP 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 5.78e-06 4.15e-07 0.97 Agree
'
U3-Ch-D2 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 6.15e-06 5.18e-07 1.03 Agree V3-Ch-D3 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 6.05e-06 4.16e-07 1.02 Agree
V3-RP 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 6.06e-06 3.97e-07 1.02 Agree j
i Ul-Ch-D1 1-132 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 8.04e-05 4.86e-06 1.20 Agree Ul-Ch-03 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 7.31e-05 5.23e-06 1.09-Agree
{
,
Ul-RP 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 5.12e-05 2.34e-06 0.77 Disagree U2-Ch-01 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.35e-05 3.58e-06 0.95 Agree U2-Ch-D2 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.46e-05 4.0le-06 0.97 Agree U2-RP 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 5.89e-05 2.72e-06 0.88 Agree
!
V3-Ch-D2 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.57e-05 4.71e-06 0.98 Agree U3-Ch-D3 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.45e-05 4.42e-06 0.96 Agree
U3-RP 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.32e-05 2.21e-06 0.95 Agree l
Ul-Ch-D1 1-133 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.59e-05 2.71e-06 1.05
. Agree l
Ul-Ch-D3 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.63e-05 2.87e-06 1.06 Agree
.
Ul-RP 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 3.30e-05 1.62e-06 0.75 Disagree j
+
U2-Ch-D1 4.38e-05-4.60e-07 4.00e-05 2.16e-06 0.91 Agree
"
U2-Ch-D2 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.16e-05 2.36e-06 0.95-Agree l
U2-RP 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 3.88e-05 1.88e-06 0.89 Agree U3-Ch-D2 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.32e-05 2.94e-06 0.99 Agree l
U3-Ch-D3 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.33e-05 2.59e-06 0.99 Agree i
U3-RP 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.06e-05 1.64e-06 0.93 Agree
,
i i
'
'
..
.
_
.
-
. - - - -
.
.
-
-
.
.
..
_
..
__
..
.
.
_
_
.
,
.
i
Attachment 3 (Continued)
Ul-Ch-D1 1-134 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 1.00e-04 5.60e-06 1.06 Agree Ul-Ch-D3 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 1.0le-04 5.70e-06 1.06 Agree
'
UI-RP 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 7.52e-05 2.97e-06 0.79 Disagree U2-Ch-01 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 9.21e-05 5.39e-06 0.97 Agree
!
U2-Ch-D2 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 9.61e-05 6.24e-06 1.01 Agree U2-RP 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 8.49e-05 4.12e-06 0.90 Agree i
U3-Ch-D2 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 9.07e-05 5.44e-06 0.96 Agree U3-Ch-D3 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 8.58e-05 5.29e-06 0.90 Agree
)
U3-RP 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 9.28e-05 4.45e-06 0.98 Agree
,
i Ul-Ch-D1 1-135-7.28e-05 1.89e-06 7.45e-05 4.10e-06 1.02 Agree Ul-Ch-D3 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 7.18e-05 4.07e-06 0.99 Agree l
Ul-RP 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 5.25e-05 2.26e-06 0.72 Disagree U2-Ch-D1 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.94e-05 3.93e-06 0.95 Agree U2-Ch-D2 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.78e-05 4.lle-06 0.93 Agree
,
U2-RP 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 5.91e-05 2.54e-06 0.81 Agree U3-Ch-D2 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.87e-05 4.00e-06 0.94 Agree U3-Ch-b3 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.96e-05 3.89e-06 0.96 Agree U3-RP 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.87e-05 2.65e-06 0.94 Agree Ul-Ch-D1 CS-138 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.21e-04 8.60e-06 0.99 Agree Ul-Ch-D3 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.19e-04 7.70e-06 0.97 Agree
.
VI-RP 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.10e-04 7.29e-06 0.90 Agree U2-Ch-D1 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.35e-04 7.80e-06 1.10 Agree U2-Ch-D2 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.36e-04 1.02e-05 1.10 Agree U2-RP 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 9.35e-05 1.69e-05 0.76 Agree 03-Ch-D2 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.24e-04 1.56e-05 1.01 Agree U3-Ch-03 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.12e-04 1.62e-05 0.91 Agree 03-RP 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 Not identified 0.00 Disagree m
y e
.
y
,m
- _ _
m
._
s
_ _. -,,.
,.
.
Attachment 3 (Continued)
IL Marinelli With Volume Correction Ul-RP I-131 5.94e-06 3.21e-07 5.92e-06 4.36e-07 1.00 Agree
,,
l Ul-RP I-132 6.68e-05 7.10e-07 6.22e-05 2.84e-06 0.93 Agree Ul-RP I-133 4.38e-05 4.60e-07 4.01e-05 1.97e-06 0.92 Agree Ul-RP I-134 9.48e-05 1.56e-06 9.13e-05 3.61e-06 0.96 Agree Ul-RP I-135 7.28e-05 1.89e-06 6.37e-05 2.74e-06 0.88 Agree Ul-RP CS-138 1.23e-04 3.60e-06 1.34e-04 8.85e-06 1.09 Agree i
I l
- - - _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
.
..
--..
'
.
r l
i
-
Attachment 4
,
10 cc Liquid Scintillation Vial (CVCS Sample)
.;
f NRC Result ( Ci/cc)
1.1C Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC
Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value (i)
Ratio Result
i Ul-CH-D1 Co-60 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 Not Identified 0.00
,
l Ul-CH-03 4.86e-05 8.05a-06 2.43e-05 6.38e-06 0.50
'
U2-CH-01 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 2.14e-06 1.14e-02 0.04
l U2-CH-D2 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 1.73e-05 7.76e-06 0.36
f U2-RP 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 1.00e-04 2.06
!
U3-CH-D2 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 1.26e-04 2.59
i U3-CH-D3 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 1.24e-04 2.55 j
U3-RP 4.86e-05 8.05e-06 1.49e-04 3.07
Ul-CH-01 Cs-134 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.82e-02 1.54e-03 1.11 Agree
2'
Ul-CH-D3 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.85e-02 1.70e-03 1.13 Agree U2-CH-01 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.74e-02 1.37e-03 1.08 Agree
U2-CH-D2 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.81e-02 1.57e-03 1.11 Agree
!
U2-RP 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.73e-02 1.59e-03 1.08 Agree U3-CH-D2 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.69e-02 1.40e-03 1.06 Agree l
U3-CH-D3 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.70e-02 1.71e-03 1.06 Agree U3-RP 2.53e-02 8.00e-05 2.65e-02 7.38e-04 1.05 Agree l
Ul-CH-D1 Cs-137 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.66e-02 2.16e-03 1.14 Agree
'!
Ul-CH-D3 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.70e-02 2.46e-03 1.15 Agree-
,
U2-CH-01 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.61e-02 2.77e-03 1.12 Agree l
U2-CH-D2 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.56e-02 2.25e-03 1.11 Agree l
U2-RP 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.55e-02 1.97e-03 1.10 Agree-03-CH-D2 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.43e-02 1.85e-03 1.07 Agree
,
U3-CH-D3 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.53e-02 2.75e-03 1.10 Agree U3-RP 3.21e-02 9.00e-05 3.56e-02 9.50e-04 1.11 Agree l
- Not Compared due to low Co-60 activity in the sample.
l
)
I
.. _ _
. _,
_
_
.
-
-
,_
..
.
Attachment 5
L Charcoal Filter Recalculated Results a
.
NRC Result (pCi/cc)
Lit Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value (+)
Ratio Result
._
Ul-RP BR-82 8.67e-12 8.20e-14 7.31e-12 0.84 Agree U2-RP 8.67e-12 8.20e-14 9.64e-12 4.82e-13 1.11 Agree U3-RP
-
8.67e-12 8.20e-14 7.42e-12 0.86 Agree
.
Ul-RP l-131 1.30e-12 3.00e-14 1.17e-12 0.90 Agree U2-RP 1.30e-12 3.00e-14 1.07e-12 8.19e-14 0.82 Agree U3-RP 1.30e-12 3.00e-14 1.22e-12 0.94 Agree UI-RP l-133 1.58e-13 2.80e-14 1.70e-13 1.07 Agree U2-RP 1.58e-13 2.80e-14 Not Identified 0.00 Disagree
.
U3-RP 1.58e-13 2.80e-14 Not Identified 0.00 Disagree
~
_
NRC 10 cc LS Vial Standard Source
,
NRC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC Detector Nuclide Value (t)
Value (i)
Ratio Result
'U1-CH-D1 Co-60 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 2.34e-01 1.12e-02 1.21 Agree VI-CH-D3 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 2.36e-01 1.15e-02 1.22 Agree
-
U2-CH-D1 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 2.14e-01 1.14e-02 1.10 Agree U2-CH-D2 1.E4e-01 1.74e-02 2.24e-01 1.30e-02 1.16 Agree U2-RP 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 2.35e-01 6.51e-04 1.21 Agree
,
i U3-CH-D2 1.94e-01 1-74e-02 2.03e-01 1.27e-02 1.05 Agree
.
U3-CH-D3 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 1.96e-01 9.40e-03 1.01 Agree i
U3-RP 1.94e-01 1.74e-02 2.36e-01 6.26e-03 1.22 Agree
a
=
c.-,
.
, -.. _. _
_. -,, _.,
-
-
6...
-...
.
..
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
Attachment 6 Charcoal filter (Iodine)
-
NRC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value (i)
Ratio Result Ul-Ch-D3 BR-82 1.02e-10 1.00e-12 1.05e-10 6.30e-12 1.03 Agree Ul-RP 1.02e-10 1.00e-12 7.31e-12 0.07 Disagree r
U2-Ch-D1 1.02e-10 1.00e-12 1.12e-10 6.70e-12 1.11 Agree U2-RP 1.02e-10 1.00e-12 9.64e-12 1.82e-13 0.09 Disagree U3-Ch-D3 1.02e-10 1.00e-12 1.lle-10 5.60e-12 1.09 Agree U3-R'
l.02e-10 1.00e-12 7.42e-12 0.07 Disagree i
~
Ul-Ch-D3 1-131 3.15e-12 7.30e-14 3.30e-12 2.03e-13 1.05 Agree U1-RP 3.15e,12 7.30e-14 1.17e-12 0.37 Disagree U2-Ctr -D1 3.15e-12
_7.30e-14 3.32e-12 2.04e-13 1.05 Agree U2-RP 3.15e-12 7.30e-14 1.07e-12 8.19e-14 0.34 Disagree U3-Ch-D3 3.15e-12 7.30e-14 3.29e-12 2.33e-13 1.04 Agree U3-RP 3.15e-12 7.30e-14 1.22e-12 0.39 Disagree U1-Ch-03 1-133 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 3.91e-12 6.68e-13 1.21 Agree Ul-RP 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 1.70e-13 0.05 Disagree U2-Ch-01 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 4.03e-12 7.33e-13 1.25 Agree U2-RP 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 Not Identified 0.00 Disagree U3-Ch-03 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 3.87e-12 7.95e-13 1.20 Agree U3 RP 3.23e-12 5.70e-13 Not Identified 0.00 Disagree
-.
~...
-..
. - -.
.
.
i l
-
!
'
Attachment 7
!
,
25 cc Gas Sphere
-!
!
I f4RC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC
'
~
Detector Nuclide Value ()
Value ()
Ratio Result Ul-Ch-D1 Kr-85 3.93e-03 4.59e-04 3.91e-03 3.37e-04 1.00 Agree U2-Ch-01 3.93e-03 4.59e-04 4.02e-03 3.10e-04 1.02 Agree l
U2-Ch-D2 3.93e-03 4.59e-04 3.81e-03 3.60e-04 0.97 Agree U3-Ch-D2 3.93e-03 4.59e-04 4.20e-03 3.35e-04 1.07 Agree j
a Ul-Ch-D1 Xe-131m 1.79e-03 3.57e-05 1.39e-03 8.50e-05 0.78 Agree
'j i
U2-Ch-D1 1.79e-03 3.57e-05 1.27e-03 8.88e-05 0.71 Agree i
U2-Ch-D2 1.79e-03 3.57e-05 1.lle-03 9.00e-05 0.62 Agree
'
U3-Ch-D2 1.79e-03 3.57e-05 1.44e-03 9.00e-05 0.81 Agree
'
Ul-Ch-D1 Xe-133 5.56e-02 8.00e-05 5.18e-02 2.86e-03 0.93 Agree l
'
U2-Ch-D1 5.56e-02 8.00e-05 5.05e-02 2.58e-03 0.91 Agree
!
U2-Ch-02 5.56e-02 8.00e-05 4.76e-02 2.49e-03 0.86 Agree i
U3-Ch-D2 5.56e-02 8.00e-05 5.29e-02 2.91e-03 0.95 Agree
!
-
i Ul-Ch-D1 Xe-133m 1.52e-04 1.08e-05 1.29e-04 9.60e-06 0.85 Agree
U2-Ch-D1 1.52e-04 1.08e-05 1.25e-04 9.90e-06 0.82 Agree
U2-Ch-D2 1.52e-04 1.08e-05 1.22e-04 1.10e-05 0.80 Agree j
V3-Ch-D2 1.52e-04 1.08e-05 1.36e-04 9.90e-06 0.89 Agree l
r U1-Ch-D1 Xe-135 1.95e-05 1.59e-06 1.47e-05 9.90e-07 0.75 Agree
!
~
!
U2-Ch-D1 1.95e-05 1.59e-06 1.39e-05 9.50e-07 0.71 Agree U2-Ch-D2 1.95e-05 1.59e-06 1.41e-05 1.19e-06 0.72 Agree
U3-Ch-D2 1.95e-05 1.59e-06 1.46e-05 1.01e-06 0.75 Agree j
!
r n
l
!
!
!
. -
_
.
....
.
-
.
-. _ _
-..
. _-.
_
- _.
'
i
'
i i
i Attachment 8 l
l
!
1220 cc Gas Marinelli
.h f
NRC Result (pCi/cc)
LIC Result ( Ci/cc)
LIC/NRC
Detector Nuclide Value (i)
Value ()
Ratio Result j
Ul-RP-1 Kr-85 7.71e-04 2.57e-05 8.25e-04 4.62e-05 1.07 Agree
!
i Ul-RP-2 7.71e-04 2.57e-05 7.43e-04 4.20e-05 0.96 Agree
!
U2-RP 1.31e-03 3.30e-05 1.26e-03 5.37e-05 0.96 Agree f
f
,
!
U3-RP 5.96e-04 2.33e-05 4.94e-04 2.69e-05 0.83 Agree Ul-RP-1 Xe-131m 2.49e-04 6.10e-06 2.94e-04 3.00e-05 1.18 Agree
{
i Ul-RP-2 2.49e-04 6.10e-06 Not Identified 0.00 Disagree
{
U2-RP 3.75e-04 8.40e-06 Deleted 0.00 Disagree U3-RP 1.86e-04 4.60e-06 1.87e-04 3.76e-05 1.00 Agree.
!
---
!
Ul-RP-1 Xe-133 9.09e-03 6.00e-06 9.38e-03 5.61e-04-1.03 Agree l
UI-RP-2 9.09e-03 6.00e-06 8.22e-03 4.87e-04 0.90 Agree
'
U2-RP 1.55e-02 9.00e-06 6.29e-03 4.98e-04 0.41 Disagree V3-RP 6.62e-03 5.00e-06 5.91e-03 3.52e-04 0.89 Agree
]
j
!
Ul-RP-1 Xe-133m 2.36e-05 7.30e-07 2.51e-05 8.48e-06 1.07 Agree
)
Ul-RP-2 2.36e-05 7.30e-07 2.45e-05 8.26e-06 1.04 Agree j
U2-RP 4.06e-05 1.07e-06 4.12e-05 2.08e-06 1.01 Agree l
U3-RP 1.79e-05 6.70e-07 1.67e-05
~.81e-07 0.93 Agree i
Ul-RP-1 Xe-135 2.64e-06 1.0le-07 2.68e-06 7.43e-07 1.01 Agree
{
Ul-RP-2 2.64e-06 1.01e-07 2.54e-06 7.00e-07 0.96 Agree
!
U2-RP 4.35e-06 1.29e-07 4.46e-06 2.35e- 07 1.03 Agree U3-RP 1.80e-06 8.60e-08 1.86e-06 9.55e-08 1.03 Agree
i a
.. ---
.
.--
_
....
. 1
-
.
.
-22 Attachment 9 l
l CRITERIA FOR COMPARING RADIOCHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
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.
l Resolution =
NRC VALUE NRC UNCERTAINTY Ratio - LICENSEE VALUE NRC VALUE Comparisons are made by first determining the resolution and then reading across the same line to the corresponding ratio.
The following table shows the acceptance values.
!
RESOLUTION AGREEMENT RATIO
<4 Not Compared 4-7 0.50 - 2.00
'
8 - 15 0.60 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.85 - 1.18
,
L
.
!
r Attachment 10 WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY
,,
'
MEASUREMENTS RESULTS PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION j
UNIT 1
I
-
r NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-528/93-27 r
!
~ 1.
Chloride Analysis (lon.Chromatographs).
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
-
Sample (ppm)
1 ppm)
Ratio Decision
92A-56 17.33 0.44 19.0 0.3 0.91 Qualified j
Agreement j
,
!
928-43 33.90i0.70 36.011.2 0.94 Agreement i
92C-83 69.89 0.56 75.3 3.0 0.93 Agreement-2.
Fluoride - Analysis) (lon ' Chromatography)..
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
!
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision u
f 92A-56 18.31 0.49 20.2 1.0 0.91 Agreement f
i I
'
92B-01 37.00i0.71 40.222.6 0.92 Agreement 92C-83 76.71il.75 85.1 4.9 0.90 Qualified Agreement
.
-
.
'
Attachment 10 (cont.)
3.
Sulfate Analysis! ?(lon Chr'oma'tography):
~
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
'
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
,
92A-56 16.62i0.23 19.4 0.3 0.86 Qualified Agreement 92B-43 33.30 0.57 38.8 0.8 0.86 Disagreement
92C-83 71.15 1.02 79.3 2.1 0.90 Agreement Retest 'prepafed new sulfate calibration standards',: performed new D
instrument calibration./and performed retest:analysesi 92A-56 17.73i0.26 19.410.3 0.91 Agreement
92B-43 37.26i0.65 38.8 0.8 0.96 Agreement
,
92C-83 81.71 1.20 79.3i2.1 1.03 Agreement 4.
Boron-Analysis (MannitolETitiati~on)-
I
-
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC
- Comparison
'
Sample
,[ppml (ppm)
Ratio Decision 92D-81 103311.0 1049111 0.98 Agreement 92E-108 3025 5.5 3038i36 0.99 Agreement
92f-49 5028 6.0 5062 80 0.99 Agreement j
i
---
--
._ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - -
. - - -,
.
.
Attachment 10 (cont.)
5.
Iron ~ Analysis ~~(Atomic Absorption - Graphite LFurnace)-
~
-
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision 92G-43 16.7 0.1 19.9i0.2 0.84 Disagreement
!
92H-48 42.2 0.2 39.810.4 1.06 Agreement l
921-49 89.110.7 79.5i0.7 1.12 Agreement Retest prspared new NRCNiron standard dilutiontfor.92G?43,;
'
prepared new iron calibration'Tstandards,2 performed;new instrument calibrationL and performed retest 1 analysis-92G-43 20.3 0.2 19.9 0.2 1.02 Agreement 6.
Copper ' Analysis '(Atomic Absorption. Graphite: Furnace)
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sampl e (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision 92G-43 20.4 0.4 20.2 0.2 1.01 Agreement 92H-48 42.1 0.2 40.3 0.4 1.05 Agreement 921-49 81.9 0.5 81.0 1.0 1.01 Agreement l
.
.
..
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
26 Attachment 10 (cont.)
)
7;- Sodium Analysis ~: 1(Atomic-Absorption:-iF1ame)
~
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
92J-86 6.69.0.18 5.3 0.2 1.26 Qualified Agreement 92K-292 12.7310.53 10.2 0.3 1.25 Disagreement 92L-172 17.8910.21 15.5 0.4 1.15 Qualified Agreement
.
.
.....
.
.
--.
3etest -: prepared new: NRC sodiumistandard : dilution'sh vertfied.:-
. sodiumiinstrumenticalibrationi;fand; performed retest =
analyse.s'
92J-98 6.20 0.06 5.3io.2 1.16 Agreement
92K-292 10.80 1.30 10.2 0.3 1.06 Agreement
92L-172 14.90il.71 15.5 0.4 0.96 Agreement I
b81 LLithium' Analssis. -(Atomic ~Absorptio'n* Flame):
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision 92JJ-60 5.27 0.01 4.93 0.1 1.07 Agreement
,
92KK-50 13.01i0.04 12.44 0.2 1.05 Agreement 92LL-78 25.64 0.08 24.30 0.3 1.06 Agreement
,
b
.
.-
.
.
Attachment 10 (cont.).
91 - Ammonia Analysis. -(Ion?Clipomatography)'
~
'
~
-
.
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision i
92M-62 107.29 0.64 109.7812.86 0.98 Agreement j
92N-14 308.44 1.32 304.98 5.13 1.01 Agreement j
,
920-68 518.2011.22 481.87 7.43 1.08 Agreement l
10. hHydrazine. Analysis -(UV-VIS Spectroscopy):
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
'
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision I
,
92P-86 12.4 0.2 13.23 0.06 0.94 Disagreement
>
.
920-106 33.4 0.4 34.12 0.32 0.98 Agreement
,
92R-5 56.1 0.2 56.52 0.95 0.99 Agreement Retest:. prepared:new NRCihydrazine1. standard! dilution Tor'92P-86,,
l verified'. instrument::: calibration;[andLperformed retest"
.
~
~
- analysis <
92P-86 12.8 0.9 13.23 0.06 0.97 Qualified Agreement i
-
-
-
..
-
--
- - -.
.
_
-..
-.
!
'
?
t
,
!
Attachment 10 (cont.)
{
r
~ 11iISilical An'alysise -(UV VIS Shebtfoscop5
-
,
E
'
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison:
-!
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
,
!
,
92S-90 11.9 0.4 15.44 1.68 0.77 Disagreement j
s 92T-205 30. Bio.2 28.36i0.36'
1.09 Qualified i
Agreement
?
920-10 61.4 2.5 60.14 0.99 1,02 Agreement 2 ~ '
- Retesta prepsred new NRCisilicastandardIdihtio'nl
- forJ9_2S 90,4
- verifiedlinstrumsnt calibrationsfand: performed retesti
.
? analysis?
e i
92S-90 14.6i0.2 15.4411.68 0.95 Agreement
!
.
I a
l l
i
.
y
--s
--
m-9
-
,,,-w
.-_-.--m
. - - - -
,,-
.. -.
--
a-
- ----
.
l
-
I
Attachment 11 WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS
~!
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
!
UNIT 2 NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-529/93-27 l
i l'. - Chloride Analysis ~ -(lon Chromatograpfis) -
~
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision b
92A-12 20.8012.10 19.010.3 1.09 Qualified Agreement 92B-41 39.8510.69 36.0 1.2 1.11 Disagreement 92C-41 81.22 0.53 75.3 3.0-1.08 A9reement Retest G-: prepared new NRC chloridej stsndard" dilution for' 92B.41, and performed retest' analysis
-
92B-41 37.72 0.72 36.0il.2 1.05 Agreement
.
.
- - _ _ - _ _
.-... _
..
.
...
'
.
'
i i
!
Attachment 11 (cont.)
2i F1'uoriMIAhalysib L(' Ion Chromat'ography$
~
'
-
,
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
.
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision I
~!
92A-12 17.74+0.68 20.2il.0 0.88 Agreement i
i 92B-41 40.1720.45 40.2i2.6 1.00 Agreement l
.
92C-41 77.97i0.33 85.1 4.9 0.96 Agreement i
3. ; : Sulf ate: Analysis? 4(lon Chromatographs))
l PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
'
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision l
92A-12 22.02i0.94 19.410.3 1.14 Qualified
Agreement l
92B-41 39.03i0.33 38.8 0.8 1.01 Agreement-
.;
92C-41 81.09 0.41 79.3+2.1 1.02 Agreement 4..fBoron Analysis f(MannitolLTitrationf l
t F
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision i
92D-26 1045 0.1 1049 11 0.99 Agreement
,
,
92E-61 3000 46 3038i36 0.99 Agreement 92F-37 5025.37 5062 80 0.99 Agreement l
l
-. -. - -. _,
.
.-.
Dh
.
.
Attachment 11 (cont.)
.
5.
Iron Analysis'- (Atomic? Absorption 1-- Graphite Furnace)
-
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
.(Igpl Ratio Decision 92G-103 18.7310.81 19.910.2 0.94 Agreement
,
'
92H-66 37.10i0.54 39.810.4 0.93 Agreement 921-14 68.49 1.09 79.5i0.7 0.86 Qualified Agreement
-..
.
.,.
.
'6.
Copper Analysis ~ (Atomic Absorption ~- Graphite Furnace)-
__
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Samp'e id
{ ppm)
Ratio Decision 92G-103 18.9110.27 20.2 0.2 0.94 Agreement 92H-66 38.3710.50 40.3i0.4 0.95 Agreement
921-14 73.15 2.63 81.011.0 0.90 Qualified
,
Agreement
!
l
.
.
Attachment 11 (cont.)
-
72 Sodium Analysis" E(Atomic Absorptioni : Graphite' Furnace).
-
'
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision J
92J-74 6.58 0.21 5.3 0.2 1.24 Qualified Agreement 92K-167 10.87 0.56 10.2 0.3 1.07 Agreement 92L-262 15.87 0.28 15.5 0.4 1.02 Agreement 8. LLithium-Analysis.-(Ion! Chromatography)'
l
'
'
.
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision f
92JJ-45 5.02 0.01 4.93 0.1 1.02 Agreement
,
92KK-45 12.33 0.01 12.44 0.2 0.99 Agreement 92LL-16 24.61 0.02 24.30 0.3 1.01 Agreement
'
!
.
i
,
.
-
-
.
.
-
.. -
-~.
,.
,
'4
,
!
~
!
.l
!
T Attachment 11 (cont.)
i
,
'
c...9b jam ontalh$alydis'-TInniMrbmit'ogrigshi)1 ~
~
~j s
t PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
.i Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision j
92M-42 114.40i0.53 109.78 2.86 1.04 Agreement
.
92N-56 278.63 1.53 304.98i5.13 0.91 Agreement t
I I
I e
920-106 567.41i0.75 481.87 7.43 1.18 Disagreement l
'
l R5te sE-t preisa rhNhew( $ficiammoni a ist ahdAkd (.d illitTon.l f 66920 106 L
Yand: performed 9etestTana19siss
_
~
.
920-106 503.99 6.84 481.8717.43 1.05 Agreement
L104 HydsazihetAnal) sis; i(UY-VIfSpettroscopp)h -
i (
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison-
,
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
)
92P-73 13.4 0.06 13.23 0.06 1.01 Agreement l
.
!
92Q-83 35.7i0.42 34.12 0.32 1.05 Agreement
.
I 92R-63 58.2 0.32 56.52i0.95 1.03 -
Agreement
'
,
-
u
, _ _
__
._
,
,
..
.. -
-
.
.
_
..
-. _ _ - _
,
.
i
_E' '
i
'.
- !
Attachment 11-(cont.)
l
!
il IlliS$11cafhnslysisb(UVNIS$ Spec {roscopyh
.
t PVNGS'Results NRC Results
.PVNGS/NRC Comparison I
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision l
- t
!
92S-261 15.26 0.21 15.44 1.68 0.99 Agreement-
-
..
.
92T-150 29.22*0.15 28.36 0.36.
1.03 Agreement
I 92V-235 62.5210.19 60.14 0.99 1.04 Agreement i
l I
a
i
!
l i
!
!
.
-!
i l
i
!
o
.. ;
!
i
..
i i
' !
I i
(
,
_
-
__
...
.,.
-
..
..
..,...$
.-.
.
-
_
-
,
'
.
,
Attachment 12
,
WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS
!
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
-
UNIT 3
.
NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-530/93-27
,
1.
Chloride Anal. sis : L(Ion Chromatography).
.
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision 92A-15 20.37 0.60 19.0 0.3 1.07 Agreement 92B-20 37.8420.63 36.0il.2 1.05 Agreement l
i 92C-39 76.85 1.12 75.3i3.0 1.02 Agreement
,
!
2.
lluoride: Analysisi (Io'n Chromatography)'
'
<
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
-
Sample
{ ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision l
'
92A-15 18.30 0.44 20.2il.0 0.91 Agreement 92B-20 39.87 1.42 40.2 2.6 0.99 Agreement 92C-39 80.49 0.67 85.124.9 0.95 Agreement i
,
b P
,
-.
--
<-
.-
)
Attachment 12 (cont.)
j
~
"'
3.
Sulfate Analysis;: (lon Chromatography)
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sampl e (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
,
92A-15 18.00dD.37 19.4 0.3 0.93 Agreement 92B-20 36.9910.70 38.a 0.8 0.95 Agreement i
I 92C-39 77.0110.46 79.3 2.1 0.97 Agreement-f 4 ~.- Boron ~ Analysis '(Mannitol: Titration)'
,
PVNGS Results NRC Results-PVNGS/NRC Comparison
-
Sample
.{ ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
,
>
92D-94 1009 5 1049ill 0.96 Agreement
,
92E-27 3012114 3038 36 0.99 Agreement
'
92F-12 5029 26 5062180 0.99 Agreement t
s
.
.
.-
. - - -
_.. -
-
_.
.
-. -
..
-
.
.!
!
-.
!
Attachment'12 cont.)
}
-
,
i
~
!
nslysisL :i(AtomicJAbsorition -iFlams)?
5=.
! Iron
-
T
. i
>
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison i
.
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision l
t i
92G-38 16.18i0.47 19.9 0.2 0.81 Disagreement j
!' '
-..
92H-33 35.7110.91 39.810.4 0.90 Qualified
Agreement j
,
i 921-88 75.34 0.98 79.5 0.7 0.95 Agreement
Retests? prepared ienNRCEivoWstandifd sdil uiTordfSN 52GS38 h
...
!
L repl acedl i ron il amp Q ve r i fi ed 4i nit pumsnt[ cal i bt'at i$ shd !
'
performed! retest?analysist 92G-38 19.79i0.24 19.9dD.2'
O.99 Agreement
,
!
6t! Copper ~ nal y s i si I( At0mi'c" dbNorpti on -J-[Fl ame ) ::
^
~
)
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
.
,
Sampl e
{ ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
_
l
!
!
92G-38 18.98 0.23 20.2 0.2 0.94 Agreement
)
.
"
92H-33 35.7610.55 40.3 0.4 0.89 Qualified Agreement
!
!
l 921-88 71.5311.14 81.0 1.0 0.88 Qualified.
I Agreement i
i
.I
.
-
I i
.
.. - -.
...
_
.
_ _ _.. - -
p...
,
...
Attachment 12 (cont.)
j
,
- 71: ISodiumL Analysi sl ' (lon ih'romatography)
-
-
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC-Comparison
'
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision-I
.
.
<
92J-114 5.3610.18 5.3 0.2 1.01 Agreement
-
92K-276 10.2710.06 10.2 0.3 1.01 Agreement
,
!
92L-243 15.70 0.49 15.5i0.4 1.01 Agreement i
-
l,
!
<8. ? Lithium-AnalysisW(lonI hromatography);
C PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sampl e
{ ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision l
'
.
92JJ-28 5.08i0.04 4.93 0.1 1.03 Agreement
!
I l
92KK-16 12.63 0.31 12.44 0.2 1.02 Agreement j
92LL-93 25.33 0.39 24.30 0.3 1.04 Agreement i
i
- - - -
,
.-.
-
I
.
<
.
!
-
Attachment 12 (cont.)
i i
.
l 9.
Ammonia AnalysisT '(Ion Chromatography)
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
-
'
G 92M-63 123.40i2.86 109.78 2.86 1.12 Qualified Agreement 92N-1 311.00 4.18 304.98 5.13 1.02 Agreement
,
!
920-26 533.80 7.92 481.87 7.43 1.11 Qualified Agreement i
.
.
..
-
!
102 Hydrazine' Analysis' (UV-VIS, Spectroscopy)
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison Sampl e (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision
-
>
I 92P-26 11.8710.15 13.23 0.06 0.90
] Disagreement i
920-97 32.9820.80 34.12 0.32 0.97 Agreement 92R-77 54.15 0.36 56.52 0.95 0.96 Agreement t
Retest - prepared new NRC hydrazine. standard ~ dilution' fori92Pi26,
-
i performed new instrument calibration,.'and performed
~
- rete' tL analyses s
92P-26 12.63 0.31 13.2310.06 0.95 Qualified Agreement
!
920-97 32.93 0.25 34.12&O.32 0.96 Agreement
92R-77 54.97 0.40 56.52 0.95 0.97 Agreement i
,
.
40
,
l
,
I Attachment 12 (cont.)
i 11. : Silica Analysis 1 (UViVIS Spectroscopy)!
. <
~
-
PVNGS Results NRC Results PVNGS/NRC Comparison
Sample (ppm)
(ppm)
Ratio Decision 92S-110 15.2710.29__,
15.4411.68 0.99 Agreement
_
92T-105 28.33i0.67 28.3610.36 0.99 Agreement
!
92V-103 64.47t0.85 60.14iO.99 1.07 Qualified
'
Agreement Retest.
prepared new NRC silica::standed:dilutioniforf 920-103,
'and performed ' retest -analysis j
920-103 63.60 0.85 60.14 0.99 1.06 Agreement
!
r-
.
.
/\\ttachnlent 13 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING WATER CHEMISTRY
., ;
I ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
'
The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of the capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria for the judgement limits was based on the data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Whter Chemistry at Power Reactors," applied to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data.
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviations range of the
!
known values are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviations range but within the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the know values are considered to be in qualified agreement.
Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the known values are in disagreement.
The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244.
- Agreementi Qualified ~ Agreement; l
.
- Anal vtei Sample:
- Range.
'
- Range
!
Ammonia 92M 99.02 - 120.54 93.64 - 125.92 92N 275.70 - 334.26 261.06 - 348.90 920 436.48 - 527.08 413.85 - 549.71
,
Boron 920 1028 - 1070 1018 - 1080
,
92E 2977 - 3099 2947 - 3129 92F 4941 - 5183 4880 - 5244
,
f Chloride 92A 17.6 - 20.4 16.9 - 21.1 i
I 928 33.7 - 38.3 32.5 - 39.5 92C 69.1 - 81.5 66.0 - 84.6
_
.
Chromium 92G 18.0 - 22.0 17.0 - 23.0 92H 35.9 - 44.5 33.8 - 46.6 921 73.5 - 87.3 70.0 - 90.8 r
-
-
.
(
_ _.
_ __
'.
.
Attachment 13 (cont.)
~...
_
Agresment
Qualified; Agreement; Analyte
- Sample-Range-
'
Range Copper 92G 18.3 - 22.1 17.3 - 23.1 92H 36.0 - 44.6 33.9 - 46.7 92I 74.2 - 87.8 70.8 91.2 Fluoride 92A 16.5 - 23.9 14.6 - 25.8 92B 36.8 - 43.6 35.1 - 45.3 92C 77.9 - 92.3 74.4 - 95.8 Hydrazine 92P 12.83 - 13.63 12.63 - 13.83 920 29.96 - 38.28 27.88 - 40.36 92R 52.00 - 61.04 49.74 - 63.3 Iron
__92G 18.6 - 21.2 17.9 - 21.9 92H 35.9 - 43.7 33.9 - 45.7 921 69.6 - 89.4 64.7 - 94.3 Lithium 92JJ 4.05 - 5.81 3.61 - 6.25 92KK 10.9 - 13.9 10.1 - 14.7 92LL 21.4 - 27.2 20.0 - 28.6 Nickel 92G 18.6 - 21.2 17.9 - 21.9 92H 36.6 - 43.4 35.0 - 45.0 921 77.1 - 82.9 75.7 - 8 ~
-
.. -. - -
-.
...
.-. _
. _ _.
- -.
.
..
l
.
i
.
.
Attachment 13 (cont.)
'
~Agreementi
- Qualified
- Agreementi Analyte-Sampl e -
-Range-
~
Range
Silica 925 13.15 - 17.73 12.01 - 18.87 92T 26.32 - 30.40 25.30 - 31.42 92U 56.53 - 63.75 54.73 - 65.55
,
Sodium 92J 4.37 - 6.27 3.90 - 6.74 92K 9.00 - 11.4 8.30 - 12.1
-
92L 13.7 - 17.3 12.8 - 18.2 Sulfate 92A 17.5 - 21.3 16.5 - 22.3 h
928 35.8 - 41.8 34.4 - 43.2 92C 70.9 - 87.7 66.7 - 91.9 Zinc 92X
92Y
92Z
,
I
-