ML17228B468

1995 Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept St. Lucie Plant,Units 1 & 2. W/960412 Ltr

ML17228B468
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
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.

50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, Florida Power & Light Co. -, ,05000389 05000335 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 St. f facie Plan't,Units 1 & 2." W/960412 ltr.

D.'STRIBUTLON CODE: IE25D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Environmental Monitoring Rept (per Tech Specs)

NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME PD2-1 LA LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME PD2-1 PD l TTR EhJCL 3 3 1 1 0 NORRIS,J 1 1 R

TNTi Hki': A( RS 1 LAMENTER 1 1 1 NRR/DRPM/PERB 1 6N2~TGR 1 1 EXTERNAL: LITCO AKERS,D 1 NRC PDR 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

I ~

y 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 Atlanta D.

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

~ f j ~ N I

~ I V' 7'PQ)gg p~

~

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 Media Nuclide Collection EPA Units Normal. Mean of N.D,K. Action Mon Day Yr Known Range Analyses Level WATER Alpha 01 27 95 5 pCi/L 0 '36 5.00 0.00 WATER Beta 01 27 95 5 pCi/L 0.236 7.33 0.81 WATER Co-60 06 09 95 40 pCi/L 0.236 39.00 -0.35 WATER Zn-65 06 09 95 76 pCi/L 0.517 82.67 1.44 WATER Ba-133 06 09 95 79 pCi/L 0.148 74.33 -1.01 WATER Cs-134 06 09 95 50 pCi/L 0.000 47.00 -1.04 WATER Cs-137 06 09 95 35 pCi/L 0.354 37.67 0.92 WATER H-3 03 10 95 7435 pCi/L 0.193 7355.00 -0.19 WATER I-131 02 03 95 100 pCi/L 0.118 97 00 -0.52 F

WATER Sr-89 01 13 95 20 pCi/L 0.354 14.33 -1.96 WATER Sr-90 01 13 95 15 pCi/L 0.236 10.33 -1.62 NOTES:

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

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

NA: Not available. Report containing this data has not yet been received from EPA, Las Vegas.

,c'

$ 6 ~

Ega

FLORIDA DEPT. OF HRS EPA INTERLABORATORY CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM DATA July through December, 1995 Media Nuclide Collection EPA Units N ormal. Mean of N.D.K. Action Mon Day Yr Known Range Analyses Level FILTER Alpha 08 25 95 25 pCi/Fil 0.141 28.30 0,91 FILTER Beta 08 25 95 86.6 pCi/Fil 0.396 79.57 -1.22 FXLTER Cs-137 08 25 95 25 pCi/Fil 0.000 28.00 1.04 FILTER Sr-90 08 25 95 30 pCi/Fil 0.709 21.33 -3.00 1 MILK X-131 09 29 95 99 pCi/L 0.295 98.67 -0 '6 MILK Cs-137 09 29 95 50 pCi/L 0,000 53.00 1.04 MXLK K 09 29 95 1654 mg/L 0.306 1687.33 0.70 MXLK Sr-89 09 29 95 20 pCi/L 0.945 12.00 -F 77 MILK Sr-90 09 29 95 15 pCi/L 0.945 16.00 0.35 WATER Alpha 07 21 95 27.5 pCi/L 0.231 23.33 -1.05 WATER Alpha 10 27 95 51.2 pCi/L 0.120 24.90 -3.56 2 WATER Beta 07 21 95 19.4 pCi/L 0.567 23.60 1.45 WATER Beta 10 27 95 24.8 pCi/L 1.413 32.97 2.83 WATER Co-60 11 03 95 60 pCi/L 0.236 60.33 0.12 WATER Zn-65 11 03 95 125 pCi/L 0.409 134.67 1.29 WATER Ba-133 11 03 95 99 pCi/L 0.059 92.67 -1.10 WATER Cs-134 11 03 95 40 pCi/L 0 .'118 37.33 -0.92 WATER Cs-137 11 03 95 49 pCi/L 0.354 54.00 1.73 WATER H-3 08 04 95 4872 pCi/L NDP WATER I-131, 10 06 95 148 pCi/L 0. 039 148. 67 0.08 WATER Sr-89 07 14 95 20 pCi/L 0,591 8.00 -4.16 3 WATER Sr-90 07 14 95 8 pCi/L 0.118 9.33 0,46

0 P

I

a'E g

r 1

NOTES:

Normal.: 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.

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

NDP: No data provided. No data was provided to EPA for inclusion in their reports NA: 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 I

k' t 4 I ~

~

n t'

,ceo st~ ENCY UNITED TATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO NATIONALEXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY P.O. BOX 93478 e LAS VEGAS, NV 89l93 3478 "I OaO'~

OFFICE OF RESEAACH AND DEVELOPMEMl' note regarding the Gross Alpha portion of the 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 of the bias.

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

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

. except that Am-241 was used as the alpha emitter. All the 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 of solids 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 of the 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 of sample equal to that used for analysis (100-150 mL) add 120 pCi of Th-230.

Acidifythe sample with 20-40 mL of concentrated nitric acid and evaporate by the procedure attached to the PE study report sheet. The volume of PE 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 will be that of the PE samples. Subtract the average count rate of the triplicate samples from the average count rate of the spikes and calculate the efficiency. Use this efficiency to calculate the concentration of gross alpha in the PE sample.

> ecyc! eche yc ladle ~ Prn:Y. ~r~ v~IQ> oil Basec In 0 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 of two of the 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 of confidence 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 of the 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 will be 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 of the 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 will be 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 of water in given geographical areas.

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

p I K

ALPHA ATI ENUATION CURVES FOR RADQA TENNELEC GP COUNTER 0.2500

.0.2250 Am-241 sulfa te system 0.2000 V

0 Th-230 8 ulfate s ystem 0.1750 1 'I

}

TH-230 nitrate sys 0.1500 0.1250 0.1000 0

0.0750 0.0500 0.0250 0.0000 0, 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120 Mg RESIDUAL SOLIDS EQUATION: Y = AD+AUX+A2X + A X Th-230 sulfate Th-230 nitrate Ao = 0.2199 0.2016 A1 = -2.914E-3 -4.495 E-3 1,8422 E"5 3.918 E-5 A~

A3 = -4.4449E-8 -1.154E-7

,0..

4~

0 ~" ,w A

hl 4 va 4N' 4

rl I'