ML17228B468

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1995 Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept St. Lucie Plant,Units 1 & 2
ML17228B468
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1995
From: Bohlke W
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
L-96-96, NUDOCS 9604230014
Download: ML17228B468 (17)


Text

CATEGORY 1 REGULATE INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIONiSTEM (RIDS I ACCESSlC.V NPF".9Ej042)0014 DOC

~ DATE: 95/12/31 NOTARIZED:

NO

DOCKET I FACI::50-335 )t. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Florida Power

& Light Co.

05000335 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, Florida Power

& Light Co.

,05000389 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIAT ON BOHLKE,'H.'H.

Florida Power

& Light Co.

REC'P.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SUB.DIECT:

"1995. Arnpal Radiological Environ Operating Rept Plan't,Units 1

& 2." W/960412 ltr.

D.'STRIBUTLON CODE:

IE25D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL TITLE: Environmental Monitoring Rept (per Tech Specs)

NOTES:

St. f facie SIZE:

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-1 LA NORRIS,J COPIES LTTR ENCL 3

3 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-1 PD COPIES l TTR EhJCL 1

1 0

R TNTi Hki': A( RS NRR/DRPM/PERB EXTERNAL: LITCO AKERS,D 1

LAMENTER 1

1 6N2~TGR 1

NRC PDR 1

1 1

1 1

1 0

N NOTE TO ALL "RZDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTEI CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM OWFN SD-5(EXT. 415-2083)

TO ELIMINATE YOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEEDl TOTS~'NUMBER OP COPE"'S REQL i.RFD:

LTTR 11 i'NCL

. 11

y

~

I Florida Power 5 Light Company, P.O. Box 128, Fort Pierce, FL 34954-0128 April 12 1996 L-96-96 10 CFR 50.4 10 CFR 50.36 U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.

C.

20555 RE:

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2

Docket Nos.

50-335 and 50-389 Annual Radiological Environmental The attached pages update "Attachment C" of the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report with the 1995 results from the Interlaboratory Comparison Program.

When the report was submitted per our letter L-96-73 dated March 21,

1996, the data was not available.

Should there be any questions.,on this information, please contact us

~

Very truly yours, W. H. Bohlke Vice President St. Lucie Plant Attachment WHB/SL cc:

Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC, Atlanta GA Senior R'esident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant

~ f j

~

N I 7'PQ)gg l

p ~

~ I V'

~

9eoe2300<4 Wsaa3S PDR ADOCK 05000335 R

PDR LI an FPL Group company

1995 ANNUAL OGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPE ING REPORT ST.

LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1 Sc 2

ATTACHMENT C RESULTS FROM THE INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM 1995 HP3:1/RADENVQP.PSL

I l'

FLORIDA DEPT.

OF HRS EPA ZNTERLABORATORY CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM DATA January through June, 1995 WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER Alpha Beta Co-60 Zn-65 Ba-133 Cs-134 Cs-137 H-3 I-131 Sr-89 Sr-90 Media Nuclide Collection Mon Day Yr 01 27 95 01 27 95 06 09 95 06 09 95 06 09 95 06 09 95 06 09 95 03 10 95 02 03 95 01 13 95 01 13 95 EPA Known 5

5 40 76 79 50 35 7435 100 20 15 Units pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L Normal.

Range 0 '36 0.236 0.236 0.517 0.148 0.000 0.354 0.193 0.118 0.354 0.236 Mean of Analyses 5.00 7.33 39.00 82.67 74.33 47.00 37.67 7355.00 97 F 00 14.33 10.33 N.D,K. Action Level 0.00 0.81

-0.35 1.44

-1.01

-1.04 0.92

-0.19

-0.52

-1.96

-1.62 NOTES:

Normal.:

N.D.K.:

NDP:

NA:

Normalized range.

As defined in "Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory lntercomparison Studies Program Fiscal Year 1981 1982", Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.

S. Environmental Protection

Agency, P.

0.

Box 93478, Las Vegas,

Nevada, 89193-3478.

EPA-600/4-81-004,

February, 1981

'ormalized deviation of the mean from the known value, as defined in EPA-600/4-81-004.

No data provided.

No data was provided to EPA for inclusion in their report.

Not available.

Report containing this data has not yet been received from EPA, Las Vegas.

,c' Ega

$ 6

~

FLORIDA DEPT.

OF HRS EPA INTERLABORATORY CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM DATA July through December, 1995 FILTER FILTER FXLTER FILTER MILK MILK MXLK MXLK MILK WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER Alpha Beta Cs-137 Sr-90 X-131 Cs-137 KSr-89 Sr-90 Alpha Alpha Beta Beta Co-60 Zn-65 Ba-133 Cs-134 Cs-137 H-3 I-131, Sr-89 Sr-90 Media Nuclide Collection Mon Day Yr 08 25 95 08 25 95 08 25 95 08 25 95 09 29 95 09 29 95 09 29 95 09 29 95 09 29 95 07 21 95 10 27 95 07 21 95 10 27 95 11 03 95 11 03 95 11 03 95 11 03 95 11 03 95 08 04 95 10 06 95 07 14 95 07 14 95 EPA Known 25 86.6 25 30 99 50 1654 20 15 27.5 51.2 19.4 24.8 60 125 99 40 49 4872 148 20 8

Units N

pCi/Fil pCi/Fil pCi/Fil pCi/Fil pCi/L pCi/L mg/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L ormal.

Range 0.141 0.396 0.000 0.709 0.295 0,000 0.306 0.945 0.945 0.231 0.120 0.567 1.413 0.236 0.409 0.059 0.'118 0.354

0. 039 0,591 0.118 Mean of Analyses 28.30 79.57 28.00 21.33 98.67 53.00 1687.33 12.00 16.00 23.33 24.90 23.60 32.97 60.33 134.67 92.67 37.33 54.00 148. 67 8.00 9.33 N.D.K. Action Level 0,91

-1.22 1.04

-3.00 1

-0 '6 1.04 0.70

-F 77 0.35

-1.05

-3.56 2

1.45 2.83 0.12 1.29

-1.10

-0.92 1.73 NDP 0.08

-4.16 3

0,46

0 r

P a'E gI

1

NOTES:

Normal.:

N.D.K.:

Normalized range.

As defined in "Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies Program Fiscal Year 1981 1982", Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.

S. Environmental Protection

Agency, P.

0, Box 93478, Las Vegas,

Nevada, 89193-3478.

EPA-600/4-81-004,

February, 1981.

Normalized deviation of the mean from the known value, as defined in EPA-600/4-81-004.

NDP:

NA:

No data provided.

No data was provided to EPA for inclusion in their reports Not available.

Report containing this data has not yet been received from EPA, Las Vegas.

ACTION LEVEL:

(1) Cause:

Chemical recoveries too low and inconsistent.

Corrective Action: Try to improve recovery and consistency.

(2) Cause:

Please see attached note from EPA, Corrective Action: Try EPA's suggestions.

(3) Cause:

Insufficient number of counts on sample, Corrective Action: Count samples more time.

P 4

II k'

t I

4 I

~

~

n t'

,ceo st~

"I OaO'~

UNITED TATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO ENCY NATIONALEXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY P.O. BOX 93478 e LAS VEGAS, NV 89l93 3478 OFFICE OF RESEAACH ANDDEVELOPMEMl' note regarding the Gross Alpha portion ofthe October 27, 1995 Gross Alpha-Beta in Water Performance Evaluation Study:

Both the July 1995 and October 1995 Gross Alpha-Beta in Water Performance Evaluation (PE) Studies showed a significant difference between the grand average and the known value for the gross alpha. This strongly implies there is bias in the method.

Our research indicates that matrix differences between the salt solids used to prepare the calibration curve and the salts in the sample are the source ofthe bias.

The attached figure illustrates the changes in efficiency due to salt composition and nuclide energy. The bottom curve was prepared with serial dilutions oflaboratory tap water. Laboratory tap water is also used to add variable amounts ofdissolved solids to the

'E gross alpha/beta study samples. The second curve was prepared with serial dilutions ofsodium sulfate solution. The top curve was prepared the same way as the second curve

. except that Am-241 was used as the alpha emitter. Allthe usual precautions apply. The curves reflect the efficiencies for our counter; the curves in the figure are illustrative only; and lastly, results for your laboratory may be different than shown in the figure.

At zero mass all the curves converge to the extent that the bias would not be noticeable in a PE study. As the mass ofsolids increases, the difference between the two Th-230 curves becomes pronounced. For sample masses between 30 and 40 mg, typical range for a 200 mL sample ofthe July 1995 or October 1995 study, the difference is between 50 to 70 percent.

To address the bias, we are recommending the procedure used in our laboratory. To a volume ofsample equal to that used for analysis (100-150 mL) add 120 pCi ofTh-230.

Acidifythe sample with 20-40 mL ofconcentrated nitric acid and evaporate by the procedure attached to the PE study report sheet. The volume ofPE sample provided is sufficient to prepare triplicate 150 mL samples and duplicate spiked samples. Count the spikes until approximately 1600 counts above background are acquired to a maximum of 200 minutes. Background in this case willbe that ofthe PE samples. Subtract the average count rate ofthe triplicate samples from the average count rate ofthe spikes and calculate the efficiency. Use this efficiency to calculate the concentration ofgross alpha in the PE sample.

> ecyc!eche yc ladle

~ Prn:Y. ~r~ v~IQ> oil Basec In0 on 1(L. ~ Recy5od Pape I,~

<0, ~ PoeIconsv~f)

P

-k III I

Q 1

An alternate procedure. After counting the triplicates, redissolve/reslurry the solids oftwo ofthe samples in the planchet with dilute nitric acid (3-6M). Add the spike, mix well, redry and count the spikes. This technique, though simple on the surface, requires sufficient care so as not to lose sample volume, and that the Th-230 is thoroughly incorporated into the dissolved salts. We recommend this orily for laboratories with a high degree ofconfidence in the analyst's ability to prepare the spikes by this technique.

You may use more or less spiked activity ifyou choose. The recommended activity ofthe spike and the maximum count time were determined to provide 5 percent precision at 95 percent confidence for the spike at an efficiency as low as 3 percent. For higher efficiencies the count time willbe much shorter than 200 minutes. Additionally, we recommend several practice runs to gain experience with the technique you choose.

So, why not send out our laboratory tap water and have the participating laboratories prepare a curve? The tap water supplied to our laboratory varies in dissolved salt composition. This was observed during our verification ofthe July 1995 PE sample. Our QC samples showed a 40 percent bias when samples and spikes were quantified using a calibration curve. Repeat measurements demonstrated the bias was consistent and not due to analyst error. Therefore, preparing a curve with water from our laboratory does not guarantee that the bias willbe eliminated.

Collectively these procedures are single point calibration techniques and are not prohibited by the approved methods. The curve concept was introduced in recognition of the variable dissolved solids ofwater in given geographical areas.

Ifyou have any questions or comments please call Stephen Pia at 702 798-2102.

p I K

ALPHAATIENUATION CURVES FOR RADQATENNELEC GP COUNTER 0.2500

.0.2250 0.2000 0.1750 0.1500 0.1250 0.1000 0.0750 0.0500 V

0 Am-241 sulfa Th-230 8ulfate system

}

ate sys 1

230

'I nitr TH-0 te system 0.0250 0.0000 0, 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120 Mg RESIDUALSOLIDS EQUATION:Y = AD+AUX+A2X + A X Th-230 sulfate Ao = 0.2199 A1 = -2.914E-3 A~ 1,8422 E"5 A3 = -4.4449E-8 Th-230 nitrate 0.2016

-4.495 E-3 3.918 E-5

-1.154E-7

0

,0..

4 ~

~"

,w A

hl 4

va 4N' 4

rl I'