IR 05000133/1980004
| ML20008E842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1981 |
| From: | Book H, Garcia E, Wenslawski F, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008E838 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-80-04, 50-133-80-4, IEB-80-10, IEC-80-14, NUDOCS 8103100010 | |
| Download: ML20008E842 (13) | |
Text
(q)
-
v U. S. *.0C1.EV1 cec 0! ATC'.Y CC:iI5 3IC!;
CFFICE OF I!!3PT.CTIO:1 A ;D E!'FC2CE:'T!.T P.EGlo:i V Report ?!o.
80-@
Docket !;o.
60-l33 Licoee ?b.
FDU-7 Safcguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Ccreany
,
"
3 ale Strcot
'
enn Franciern. Califnenia calnF Facility t;arre:
u.. w, u; pm, gn4; 3
- nvestigation at:
r...',
m 4 m,-r 4,
Investigation conducted:
Oce +ar 1
. 1C80 e-/ 2 '< i.
In;pectors:
-_
-
E. ". Garcia, Radiation Specialist.
Date sir,ned
~
- q:.
.- :
r.i NC Sipd G. '>. Yuqas, Raciation. Specialist
'
'
/ / ! U ?,-
- y /, < nwi
?.
.'enslawski, Chief, Reactor P.adiaticn Safety
'Da t e 's i gned
'
/ -/yb-i a
p 4Eection
-/ // #
/
'~
U'
7 r -" ~s.' -
Approved Ly:
H. E. Ecek, Chief, Fuel Facilities and "aterials cate signed Tafety Branch Su:' ra ry :
Insnecticn cn Occrbar 1-5, 1050 (Recort.*:o. 50-133/80-04)
Areas Instocted: 2cutine unannounced inspecticn by regional-based inspectors of the environmental conitoring, emergency planning and radiation protection ::rograms during extended shutdown conditions.
Licensee action regarding previously-identified inspection findings, response to IE Bulletin 80-10, IE Circulars 80-14 and 80-13 were also reviewed.
The inspection involved 60 inspector hours en site by two regional-based inspectors.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, one iten of noncompliance was identified in cne area (Infracticn - failure to properly ccmplete radioactive material shipping papers,10CFR71.5, Paragraph 2).
RV Forr 219 (?)
e810310 0D10
.
.
-
-
-
. -.- -
. -
.
._
. - _ _
- _ _ _ -.-
.
- - -
.-.-.-_.
~ -
'
.
j
.
]
DETAILS r
1.
Persons Contacted
- E. Weeks, Plant Superintendent i
- R. !!elson, Power Plant Engineer
'
j
- R. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Padiation Protection Engineer D. Petersen, Ouality Control Suoervisor
R. Sargent, Training Coordinator R. Lund. Radiation Protection Foreman R. Lawis, Padiation and Process Monitor H. Connerly, Radiation and Process Monitor
.
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview oa
Decerber 5, 1980.
In addition to the individual'. noted above the inscectors met with and interviewed otner memoors of the licensee's and contractor's staff.
.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findines (Closed) (50-133/80-01-07) Unresolveo item involving identification and quantification of Transport Group I and II radionuclides present in spent resin shipments identified as HB-Cri-1 thru HB-Cri-16 made ir. the paried August 3 through October 3,1979 to the radioactive waste burial facility at Richland, Wasnington. The licensee collected samples of r? sin remaining in the resin storage tank. The samples were analyzed on site by the license 2 and sent to Radiation Management Corporation (R"C) for independent analysis off site.
'
'
The licensee and FJ:C's analysis of the sample were in agreement and indicated that strontium CD was about 7:; of the Cesium 137 activity and that transuanic isotopes including: Americium 241, Curium.242, 243, 244,
,
Plutonium 230, 239 and 240 were present in an aggregate specific activity of not greater than 13.3 nanocuries per gram of solidified resin.
Failure to_ identify the transuranic radionuclides on the shipping i
papers as required by_49CFR172.203(d) represents noncompliance with i-10CFR71.5.
i In a letter dated August 12, 1980 the licensee notified the fluclear Engineering Company Inc., operator of the Richland burial site, the State of "ashington, and the f RC of the revised curie and isotopic content of the identified shipments.
In' addition the -licensee has ' revised Radiation Control Procedure 6C,
!
l
Shicping of Radioactive I:tatorials," to insure that shipping papers
.
contain the appropriate radionuclide identificaticn..
..
4-w
-
,.#,
e, -
- ~
..r
,-m--,
s-.
.. -, - -
..
.-4-4
,,,.-evw-
--
-, -,
,.r-r-
-
-
-
-m
_
.
.
-2-(0 pen) (50-133/80-01-01)
Inspector identified item involving the lack of a formal quality control prcgran for laboratory counting equipment.
Temporary Procedure !!o.10-9-80, "Countina System Calibration Progran" has been implemented to provide basic control of counting equipment.
.
The following procedures have been developed for the new Geli multi-channel analyzer
,
,
i C&RCP H-1 "Use of the !!CA Control Program (GSMCA)"
CLRCP H-2 "Use of the Detector Backcround Quality Check Proaram (OCBKG)"
CIRCP H-3 "Use of the Daily Energy Calibration and Quality Check Program (OCf!DLY)"
The following additional actions have also been takea by the licensee.
J I
flational Bureau of Standards traceable sources have been purchased and are available on site. A samole solitting program involving Humboldt Bay, Diablo Canyon and the San Ramon facility has been drafted. The licensee has conti ted with Allied Nuclear Inc. to develop procedures for calibration and control of other counting equipment including the internal proportionai counter, llaI multi channel analyzer and single channel analyzer.
.The licensee is engaged in documenting the calibration of the Geli multi-channel analyzer.
This item will remain open pending completion and implementation of the quality control program.
(Close) (50-133/80-01-02) Results of intercomparison of tiRC reference sources and independent analysis of a liquid waste sample collected in liarcn of 1980 are presented as Attachment A to this report.
.
Attachment 3 describes the flRC criteria for accepting the licensee's resul ts. The areas of disagreement noted in Attachment A were discussed with the Sanior Chemical and-Radiation Protection Engineer on September 9, 1980.. The observed disagreements are explained by the difference in analytical ability between the NaI system used by the licensee and the GeLi systan used by the flRC contractor. Since the licensee has purchased a GeLi systa it is expected that future intercomparisons will show closer agreement.
(Close) (50-133/80-01-03)
Inspector identified item involving perceived-weaknesses in the radioactive material shipping program. Temporary Procedure fio. 8-26-80 #1, " Disposal Project-Organization of Responsibility" has been developed and inplemented for the present program to solidify concentrated liquid radioactive waste. Procedure TP 8-26-80 #2, " Program for Solidification of Wet Radioactive Waste Using the CflSI Portable Solid System" has been reviewed and approved for the current effort. Radiation Control Procedure 6C, " Shipping of Radioactive Materials" has been extensively revised to include methodoligies for radionuclide determination /quantification, and verification of burial license conditions.
.e
'
.
i
.
-3-i
!
i (Closed) (50-133/80-01-04, 05, 05) Nonconpliance associated with posting, labeling and control of radioactive materials.
During a tour of the controlled t
area on December 3,1980 the inspector made independent measurement to verify I
the licensee's compliance with the requiremants of 10CFR20.203. The
licensee's corrective actions acpear to have been effective, I
i
Licensee Resconse to IE Bulletins and Circulars a.
IE Bulletin 80-10, "Centamination of Nonradioactive Systems and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release to
Environnent." The licensee received this bulletin and responded in
'
i a letter dated June 26,1980.
In their response the licensee stated that a monitoring program for the instrumaf. air and auxiliary boiler system would be established by June 20,1980.
Precedure K-9 " Chemical Control and Radiological tionitoring Program"
-'
was revised to identify several systems tnat require periodic sampling.
,
P.adiatien Control Procedure No. 6G, "Centamination of a Nonradioactive Systen" delineates actions to be taken in the event a system aescribed in K-9 becomes contaminated.
This proceoure references 10CFR50.59 and 40CFR190.
,
,
!
Chemical and Radiation Control Procedure A-1 (CARPA-1) has not been revised to incorporate sampling frequency, methodclogy, or action criterion.for those systems described in K-9.
A samaling point and methodolgy has not been established for the
. instrument air systam. Other systems described in K-9 have been
'
i samoied and analyzed, however the results of the analysis have not
' ban datarmined in terms 'of uCi/al.
For example, samples from the.
Unit 1 and 2 boilers, fuel pool liner, caisson sump, french drains i
and gecund water have been ganna scanned but the activity has not been calculated or trended.
Review of ground water well number 3,
,
!
located in the controlled area between the Radwaste and Fuel Handling Euildings, indicates the presence of Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60. The
'
activity level of these isotopes had not been calculated.
,
!
Review of the licensee's evaluation indicates that the yard drain
system was not identified as one requiring periodic sampling.
From
a review of facility system drawings and discussion with licensee
,
l representatives the inspectc* concluded the yard drain system has a potential of becoming contarainated and _ presenting an unmonitored release path.
Since CORP A-1 has not been revised, the instrument air system sampled,
activities of sampled systems determined and evaluated, and the yard
<*
[
drain system considered, the licensee's response to'IE Bulletin 80-10
[ _
is considered incomplete and will _be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
.
I.
~
-
,
&
.
.
-4-b.
IE Circular !!o. 80-14:
" Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel."
The licensee received and reviewed this circular. As a result of their review the licensee plans to revise Procedure E-2, " Demineralized Water System Equipment Description and Operating Instruction" to include the recorrendations of this circular. The use of demineralized water for human consumption has been routinely prohibited by the licensee.
c.
IE Circular ffo. 80-18:
"10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations for Changes Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems." The licensee representative stated that they received, reviewed ~and appreciated the guidance on this topic.
Since no Engineering Change Notices (ECNS) involving radioactive waste treatment systems are pending at this time the guidance has not been utilized.
4.
Environnental fionitorino Proaram Technical Scecification Section VII, paragraph A.8, requires thirty off-site environnental monitoring stations.
Each station consists of two O to 10 mr stray radiation chamoers and a film dosimeter. Paragraph B.7 requires that the stray radiation chambers be read at least once each 15 days. This paragraoh further requires that an invest.igation and corrective action be taken if the results of any station indirste that 500 mr above background would be reached in any one year.
For the period April 1,1979 thrcugh March 31,1980 the quarterly environmental monitoring. reports were submitted as required pursuant to technical specification section IX, paragraph I.3.a.
These reports were reviewed by the inspector. The stray radiation chambers were read as required and the maximum integrated dose measured for any one location was 22 mr for a one year period.
The inspector noted that the stray radiation chambers at station 27 consistently read higher than at any other station..The on site licensee representative stated that he had not noted this trend and attempted no explanation. The inspector observed the absence of written procedtres for the use, maintenance and calibration of the stray radiation chamber system.
While it is common industry practice to have procedures for these items there is no specific requirement for this site. The inspector informed the licensee of these areas of concern. The licensee acknowledged that there are problems with their environmental monitoring program and that these problems had been identified in the audit of !!ay 12-16, 1980. A June 1980 goal was established to bring the environmental monitoring.
program to contemporary standards.
!!o item of noncompliance was identified.
..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
____
_ - _
___
_
>
r
.
.
!
-
,
,
>
'
'
-5-i
Ecergency Planning i
a.
Facilities. Ecuiorent and Procedures
!
ine Emercency Plan was substantially revised in Aoril 1980. The
licensee intends to further revise the olan if the olant is returned to service. Scre revision of the iroler.enting procedures was conducted in "ay 1980 orirarily to comply with new recorting reouirements.
The current source term that can be exnected in an accident is signi-ficantly smaller than that present ff the plant were in operation.
,
l There have been no significant changes in the facilities and equipment
'
available for an emercency.
The eTercency kit in the conference room was inventoried by the inscector.
The kit contained tne items listed in Table III-3,
!
Rev. 39 4/80, of the Emergency Plan, except tnere were only 8 Halogen cartridces instead of 10. Cutie Pie (CP) radiation survey instruments i
were within tne calibration period. The licensee does not routinely in.ver, tory the emergency kits.
!
t The licensee has one Geiger-Mueller Thyac II, one 0-5000 r/hr CP anc four 0-50 r/nr CP survey instruments dedicated to the emergency
k1ts. There are additional portable survey instruments available on the site.
These instruments are discussed in paragraph 6.e below.
Calibration records for 1979 and 1980 of five randomly selected area monitors indicated compliance with Operational Test Procedure lio,13
" Calibrate Area Monitors, Isolation Monitors, Rad Waste Vent Monitors, Etercency Condenser Vent Monitor, and Check Response of Continuous Air Monitors (RN1)."
The Meteorological Tcwer was last calibrated in January 1975. The licensee intends to replace the netcorological equipment with new equiprent prior to the plant returning to operation. At that time new orocedures for periodic calibration of the equipment will be instituted.
t
..
.
.
-6-b.
First Aid PG&E Standard First Aid Kits are available throughout the plant. An Operations Form calls for inventorying and replenishing the kits every tuo weeks.
Inventories were conducted at least monthly throughout 1979 and 1920. A raview of accident reports did not indicate that supplies were not available when needed.
Records of the first aid training of the five senior centrol operators indicate that all but one individual had ccmpleted. heir study assignments. Off-site medical arrangements were not reviewed during this inspection.
c.
Training
The Emergency Plan specifies an Emergency Radiological Monitoring course for selected operations and technical personnel.
Due to existing plant conditions and limited personnel, this course is not currently being offered. However, licensed operators and other non-licensed sucervisors have partaken in emergency radiological monitoring training in license recualification lessons of 1979 and 1980.
Radiation and Process Monitors (RPMs) received a short Emergency Plan Training session in 1979 and participated in the licensed operator requalification training on THI Lessons Learned in 1980.
The lessons were related to the Humooldt Unit 3 conditions. A comprehensive written examination was given.
For the existing plant conditions these classes appear to fulfill the intent of the Emergency Plan Training requirements, d.
Drills and Tests A series of announced drills were conducted in October 1979 to test the cormunication and reporting capabilities of the different shift crews. Senior Control Operators and Auxiliary Operators practiced taking surveys and air samples as part of these drills.
An unannounced drill was conducted on December 24, 1979, simulating the dropping of irradiated fuel bundle which caused damage to itself
- "d other fuel bundles. The Senior Control Operator and Auxiliary
.Ceerators conducted surveys and took air samples.
On October 14 and 15,1980 announced drills simulating radioactive waste spills were conducted.
The licensee representative stated that as a result of the internal audit of-May 12-16,1980 there was a. recommendation to revise the emergency plan procedures and further that a new emergency plan would
,
be issued. The recommended completion date for the revised procedures l
is. July 1,1981.
l tio items of ~ noncompliance were identified.
..
k
.
.
-7-6.
Radiation Protection Procran a.
Radiation Protection Staff Since the last inscoction (Inscection Report No. 50-133/80-01)
one R4diation and Process Penitor has left the facility to acceot a Fcreran positicn at the Giablo Canyon facility. The vacancy created has been filled by a technician from Diablo Canyon meeting the cualifications stated in the Technical Specifications.
The existing radiatien orotection staff includes the Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer, Radiation Protection Foreman, and two Radiation and Process Monitors.
TPe licansee reoresentative stated that a third RP" cosition is about to be filled. The licensee, althoucn actively soliciting, has been unacle to fill a Chemical anc Raciation Protection Engineer positicn.
Recogni tng tne neec for continuec revis1on and uocrace of the raciation oratection program anc tne continued difficulty in obtaining a qualified Chemical anc Radiation Engineer tne licensee nas optec to centract for professional radiological engineering support in tha interim. At present, one contractor-supplied raciological engineer is engaged in radiation protection procedure review and revisicn.
No iten of noncocpliance was identified in this area.
b.
Licensee Audits Sinca January 1379'tnere nave been six audits involving aspects of
~
raciaticn protection and four audits involving packaging and shipment of ractoactive waste. Cne radiation protection and three radwaste
-
aucits included participation of outside expertise.
" cst signific:nt of tna audits was that conducted May 12-16,-1980
'by representatives ot; the corporate radiation protection and quality assuranca staffs, site quality control, and outside radiaticn protecticn centractors.
. In a letter frem'the Supervising Engineer to the Manager Nuclear Power Operaticns dated September 17, 1980 seventeen specific areas where the
_ progran could be improved were identified.- A recommended ccmpletion -
- date _and responsible engineer was also identified for each specific-item.
The inspector reviewed the progress.to date on several of the items-uith the licensee representatives..
"o item of' noncompliance was identified in this area.
-
.
-8-c.
Trainino Radiation protection training was reviewed to detemine cenpliance with the requirements of 'CCFR19.12, Technical Specifications, and nuclear Plant fdministF.ve Procedure flo. B-2, " General Requirements for Training of On-Site Personnel."
In review of the one and one-half hour video taoe training progran the inscectors observed that the program did not include the discussion of ecoloyee rights and responsibilities called out in 10CFR19.12 and Table 1, Section F. of Procedure B-2.
This was brought to the licensee's attention.
- Review of radiation protection training attended by members of the radiation protection staff indicates that useful training is being croviceo. The retraining procram titled " Radiation and Process Ponitor Training, Radiaticn Protection Practical Factors" is intended to be completed in six months by both RPMs. This will then provide a base on unich the formal RPM retraining program,:an be ir.plemented.
'haknesses in the radiation protection training and retraining were idantified and scheduled for corrective action during the licensee's
"ay 1920 audit.
Based on discussions with licensee representatives t.re inspector concluded that action is proceeding toward completion of the icentified weaknesses.
"o itam of noncompliance was identified in this area.
d.
.ladiation Protection Procedures The inscector reviewed all radiation protection procedures revised since tne last inspection to determine compliance with Technical Speci fications and 10CFR20.
Sveral ninor ancmalies were discussed with the Senior Chemistry and Odiatien Protection Engineer.
Cr.e topic not clearly addressed in the procedures includes the requirement to obtain a written esticate of current quarterly dose
'cr each individual who enters the restricted area under circumstances that they receive or are likely to receive 25% of the exposure limits expressed in 10CFR20.101.
Using the contractor involved in liquid radwaste solidification as an example, the inspector demonstrated to licensee representatives how failure to procedurally address the requirement of 10CFR20.102(a)
could easily lead to nonccmpliance.
Mo item of noncompliance was ideatified at this tire, however procedural revisions will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (50-133/80-04-02).
..
.
.
-.
.
_-
-
- _ _ - _ _ -
.
-
.
-g-e.
Instruments and Eautoment
,
!
During tours of the facility the inspectors observed the inventory,
,
j_
ccarability and condition of radiation survey equiprent.
The licensee raintains an inventory of 20 Cutie Pie radiation survey instruments. Four are raintained available for use, two additional
r.eters are kent in the ccnference ronm erercency locker and one
,
in each of the other two emergency lockers. The calibration records develoced oursuant to Onerational Test Procecure No.15A, " Calibration of tha 0-50 r Cutic Pies" were reviewed for the period 1979 and 1980.
Two hich range (5000 r/hr) Cutie Pies are cent off site for
!
calibration.
Both had been calibrated at the scheduled frequency and r:ccrds raintained.
!
Eccercs of calibraticn of the reven Thya II cortable survey instruments reviewaa for 1979 and 1980 indicated compliance with Goerational Test Prococure No.15-B, "Calibraticn of tne Thyac II Portable Survey Meter."
Recercs of calibrations of three portable air samolers reviewed for 1979 and 1930 indicated complianci'witn Operational Test Procedure No.18,
,
'" Stack Gas Particulate Monitor ano Air Sampler Flow Rate and Low Flow Alara Test." However, Ine' procecure does not call for checks on 0-rings and filter gaskets, nor does it call for leak test of the filter holders.
Further, the calibration check is done right after the instrument is turned l
o n.- No check of flow after the pump is warm is conducted.
These observa-l ticns were brought to the licensee's attention.
"a item of noncospiiance was identified in this area, i-f.
Excosure Ccarroi The exposura records of ten individuals selected by.the inspector ware reviewed to detennine compliance with the following requirements:
.
-P.eaui rement Area p
lCCFR20.'101 Permissible external dcse
!
ilCCFR20.102-Exposure history 10CFR20.103 Permissible. internal dose f
lCCFR20.202 Personnel conitoring
10CFR20.401 Exposure records-
.
!:o item of noncompliance was identified in. this area.
-
i-
,
t
.e
,. _ _
.
.
.__
.. _ -- -_.-. --_
- _ _
_
_ _
. ____ __ _. _.___ _ _._-.
,
l
.
..
- -
-10-
g.
Postino, Labelina and Control An extensive tour of the controlled area was made on December 3,1980 l
to verify cetoliance with the follcwing requirements:
Recuirement Area 1CCFR20.203 b Radiation area t
ICCFR20,203 c High radiation area 10CFR20.203 e Radioac"tive materials areas 10CFR20.203 f Centainer labeling 10CFR19.ll Posting of notices
- .
,
'
The inscector furnished the licensee three coDies of the most recent revisien of Form NRC-3, " Notice to Employees," to replace the outdated version wnich was posted.
I No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
h.
Surveys
The ins:ector reviewed routine survey data for radiation, contamination and aircorne radioactivity measurements made in the Refueling Building
'
curing the period Cecember' 1979 thru eky 1980 and uncontrolled area surveys cade in the period February thru July 1980.
,
Leak check and inventory records of sealed sources were also reviewed for ~the. period of January 1979 to October 1980. The-inspector pointed out to the radiation protection staff that Instrument and Control personnel that'naintain the Tracerlab-TA-6' remote area detectors are under the false impression that the contained 1 uC1 Strontium 90 sources are leak checked every six cenths.
The insoector discussed
[the advisability of. leak checking these sources any time the detector heads are' disassembled.
,
!!o item of noncenpliance was identified.
'
i.
Motifications and Recorts From a; review of expcsure records selected at random the inspector.
verified'that of 10 individuals who had terminated their work assigrsent-durinq 1930 all had received a report of their exposure as required by 10CFR20.409.
-
-
i.
l
-..
t
- p-ste < M e -
-pgW y
g
r,r'
grwh-g
'a wye-ev--y a -y M gw w y- *
y www-+$y-w r-vt,--
m w ' am-t y
g-yevv ve+
m--
t-y-I rww y-vr--
w
l
\\
.
\\
-11-Of 10 reviewed requests for orevious exoosure history rade pursuant
,
!
to 1CCP19.13, all individuals had been sent the recorts as required within the tire aerici wecified.
4 iten of rnecc-oliance was identified.
7.
Exit Interview At the conclusien of the inscecticn on necember 5,1980 the insoector ret with the licensee reoresentatives denoted in Paraaraoh 1 of this recort.
The inspector su:r.arized the scope anc findings of the inspection.
i
..
_
_
_.
__
.
_
_.
..
. _.
.
ATTACHMENT A
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND EllFORCEliENT C0flFIR!!ATORY MEAS" REMET 4TS PROGRAll FACILITY: HUf'BOLDT BAY FOR THE IST QUARTER OF 1980 liRC LICENSEE firi:LICEfiSEE SAMPLE ISOTCPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T
1 WASTE SETA 1.4E-C6
.1.0E-07 8.8E-07 5.EF-07 6.3E-01 1.4E+01 A
CR 90 5.1E-08 5.0E-09'
8.9E-08 5.2F-08 1.7E+00 1.0E401 P
G SPIKED Y 91 2.4E+05'
l.2E+04 9.7E+05 7.0E+03 4.0+00 2.0E+01 D
'KR 87 1.0E+05 7.0E+03 8.7E+04 1.2EiO4 8.7E-01 1.4E+01 A
KR 87 2.5E+06 2.0E+05 2.0E40G-1.0E404 8.0E-01 1.3E401 A
KR 87 4.lE+05 3.0E+04 2.lE405 2.2E404 5.lE-01 1.4E+01 P
KR 87 1.2E+06 7.0E+04 1. lE406 2.0E404 9.2E-01 1.7E+01 A
KR 87 1.4E+06 8.0E+04 1.2E+06 3.0E+04 8.6E-01 1. 8E+ 01 A
KR 87 2.0E+06 1.2E+05 1.8E406 4.0E404 9.0E-01 1.7E+01 A-C SPIKED BA 133 1.2E+05 6.0E+03 1.4E+05 2.8E+04 1.2E+00 2.0E+01 A
BA 133 6.4E+04 3.2E+03 8.0E+04 3.0E403 1. 3E+00 2.0Et01 A
F SPIKED CE 144 5.6E-03 2.0E-04 1. l E-02 2.7E-03 2.0E+00 2. 8E+ 01 P
CS 137 1.2E-03 3.0E-05 1.4E-03 4.0E-05 1.2E+00 4.0E+01 A
MN 54 1. l E-03 2.0E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5E+01 D
Zli 65 2.7E-03 9.0E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0E+01 D
C0 60 1.2E-03 3.0E-05 1.5E-03 7.0E-05 1.2E+00 4.0E+01 A
T = TEST RESULTS Uli1TS:
'
A = AGREEMEtiT LIQUIDS = f1ICR0 CURIES / MILLILITER D = DISAGREEMEllT GAS = MICR0 CURIES /flILLILITER P =;POSSIBLE AGREEMEt1T C FILTER = MICR0 CURIES N = NO COMPARISON
.
.-
ATTACH'IENT 3
.
TROCEDURE FOR CC*iPARING MEASURE"ENTS
.
For Each Cercarison:
Divide each of the values in the NRC lab's results by its associated uncer-tainty to obtain the RESOLUTION.
-
,
Divide each of the values in the licensee's results by the corresoonding value of the NRC lab's reasurerents of the same samole and obtain the RATIO.
Find the RESOLUTION in the lef t-hand column of the Table and reading across on the same line, the corresponding RATIO for the measurement under the col-umns h2aded " Agreement" or "Possible Agreement." The licensee's measure-rent is in " disagreement" if the value of the ratio is outside the ratio linits for the corresponcina RESOLUTION in the Table.
Note that the Table contains two different values for "Possible Agreement" (A and B) according to the kinc of measurement tnat was mace; an explanation of this is given following the taole. Make sure you're reaoing uncer the proper column.
Criteria for Accenting the Licensee's Feasurements ( Licensee Value )
'
!3C Lab Value Resolution
..a ti o P d s "' 9 Possible
.
-areement Agreen.
Agreement B
-"
0.4 - ?.5 0.3 - 3.0 Mo Comoarison 4-7 0.59.3 0.4 - 2.5 9.3 - 3.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1,66 0.5 - 2.0
- 2.5
'
16 - 50 0.75-1.33 0.6 - 1.66 0.b 2.0 51 - 203 0.30- 1.25 0.75-1.33 0.6 -
203 0.35-1.13 0.80- 1.25 0.75.
In the Table the "A" criteria are.used for:
Gar.na spectronetry where principal garna energy used fc'
l identification is greater than 250 key, tritium analyses
of liquid samples, and iodina on adsorbers.
In the Table the "B" criteria are used for:
Garma spactrometry where principal garma energy used for i
identification is less than 250 key, strontium-89 and strontion-90 analyses, and gross beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
r
..
,. - -