IR 05000220/1992023
| ML17056C037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1992 |
| From: | Kottan J, Mcnamara N, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17056C036 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-92-23, 50-410-92-26, NUDOCS 9210010083 | |
| Download: ML17056C037 (36) | |
Text
0 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.:
50-220/92-23 2-2 Docket No.:
-22 '41 gl N.:~D-NPI-Licensee:
Ni M h wk P wer
~II I fh I 2 ue NewYrk 1212.
i n Facility Name:
Inspection At:
in Mil P in nit 1 and 2 ri ew Y rk Inspection Conducted:
1-mer4
2 Inspectors:
I IN'.~'. i:
N. T. McNamara, Laboratory Specialist Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
date J. J. Kot, Sr. Laboratory Specialist, ERPS Facilities adiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
g-u t2 date Approved By:
~iAA7.
M. T. Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards g-gi-f2 date RNDIIN'
N I
'
gh I gl 2 I
-
Ph I gh N I programs.
Areas reviewed included:
Confirmatory Measurements
- Radiological, Standards Analyses - Chemistry, Laboratory QA/QC, and Audits.
Results:
The licensee had in place effective programs for measuring radioactivity in process and effluent samples and for measuring chemical parameters in plant systems.
No violations or deviations were observed.
5'210010083 920923 PDR ADOCK 05000220
DETATL$
1.0 Individuals Contacted rinci al Licensee Em lo ee
- J. Blasiak, Manager, Unit 2 Chemistry
- J. Burton, Manager, QA
- J. Clark, Generation Engineer, Unit 2 Chemistry W. Connoly, QVSA Supervisor, Unit 2
- . J. Conway, Acting Plant Manager, Unit 2 J. Doyle, QVSA Supervisor, Unit 1
- B. Holloway, Generation Engineer', Unit 1 Chemistry
- R. Magnant, Site Licensing
'
J. Perry, Vice President, NQA
- N. Rodemacher, Acting Plant Manager, Unit 1
- C. Senska, Acting Manager, Unit 1 Chemistry W. Wambsgam, QA Supervisor Em
ees R. Laura, Resident Inspector W. Mattingly, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on September 4, 1992.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel, including members of the chemistry and radiation protection staff.
2.0 Purgose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following areas.
The licensee's ability to measure. radioactivity in plant systems samples and effluent samples, and the ability to measure chemical parameters in various plant systems samples.
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability ofanalytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
3.0 aborato r anization and ration Each unit at the Nine MilePoint site had a dedicated chemistry laboratory and dedicated gamma spectroscopy systems.
The chemistry laboratories were similarly equipped with
. the exception of the plasma emission spectrometer gCP) which was located in the Unit 1 laboratory.
All site metal analyses were performed using this ICP.
The laboratory of
each unit operated under the direction of a chemistry manager, who in turn reported to the respective unit superintendent.
The data listed in Tables I and IIidentify which counting facility (and detector) or which laboratory was used for the sample analyses.
4.0 i
I nd hemical M rement 4.1 onfirm Mea rement
- Radi chemist During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee's chemistry department and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison.
The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filters and offgas samples.
In those cases the samples could not be split and the same samples were a'nalyzed by the licensee and the NRC. Where possible, the samples were actual effluent samples or in-plant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses.
The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC Region I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory.
Joint analyses of actual effluent samples were used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent and other samples with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, a liquid sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
The analyses to be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, H-3 and gross alpha.
The results of these analyses willbe compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date and willbe documented in a subsequent inspection report. The results of a liquid sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on July 23-27, 1990 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-220/90-20 and 50-410/90-19) were also compared during this inspection.
The licensee's Radiation Protection Department possessed a gamma spectrometry system which was used to quantify radioactivity on in-plant samples for radiation protection purposes.
During this inspection, the charcoal cartridge and particulate filter were also analyzed by the licensee's Radiation Protection Department and compared with NRC results.
These types of samples were those normally analyzed by the licensee's Radiation Protection Department.
The results of the comparisons for all of the above samples, which are presented in Table I, indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment 1 to Table I) with the exception of
the Fe-55 and the H-3 results for the liquid sample split during the previous inspection.
The specific reason for the Fe-55 and H-3 disagreement could not be determined during this inspection. However, as stated above, a liquid sample was split for Fe-55 and H-3 analyses during this inspection, and these results willbe compared as soon as received in order to resolve this discrepancy.
Some possible reasons for the Fe-55 disagreement could be a poor sample split or a matrix effect present in the sample.
Additional precautions were taken and new techniques employed during this inspection in order to ensure and verify a good sample split.
Additionally, the results from the particulate filter analyses indicated that the filters are subject to distortion when dried and placed into the petri dish prior to counting.
The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee, and the licensee stated that this area would be reviewed and appropriate action taken to ensure a-consistent reproducible counting geometry. No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
4.2 tandard Anal
-
hemical During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysis.
The standards were prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical. Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration and analysis range.
The boron analyses were performed in duplicate due to the lack of sufficient volume of the NRC standard.
Also, the boron analyses were performed at only two concentrations because one of the NRC boron standards was below the licensee's normal analysis range.
A condensate demineralizer sample was spiked with a standard anion solution and sent to ORNL for analysis.
The analyses to be performed on the sample are chloride, fluoride, and sulfate.
The licensee willperform the same analyses on an aliquot of this spiked sample.
The results of these analyses willbe compared when received at a later date and willbe documented in a subsequent inspection report.
The analysis of spiked samples permits comparisons from an actual sample matrix, The results of the standard measurements comparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment I to Table II). The Unit 2 anion data were reanalysis results and, because of time constraints, were analyzed in duplicate only.
The original Unit 2 anion analysis results indicated that the Unit 2 ion
chromatography system gC) reagents had become contaminated with chloride and sulfate anions.
The Unit 2 chemistry laboratory was a small laboratory which also included the Unit 2 gamma spectrometry systems.
Due to the small size of this facility, it is difficultto set aside areas for specific analyses, such as low level anions, and prevent contamination from other laboratory activities'.
The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee.
The licensee stated that in the future some laboratory activities would be moved to another facility in order to help alleviate this situation. The inspector stated that this area. would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection in this area.
The data are presented in Table II.
5.0
~tb A
The inspector reviewed the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program.
The program was described in Procedure S-CAD-CHE-0102, Analytical Quality Assurance Program.
This procedure provides for both'an intralaboratory and an interlaboratory QC program.
The intralaboratory program consisted ofinstrument and procedure control charts for trending performance, and the interlaboratory program consisted of the analysis of unknown samples from outside laboratories for both chemical and radiochemical constituents.
These spiked samples were also used by the licensee as technician proficiency checks.
Included in the interlaboratory program was the vendor laboratory utilized by.the licensee for performing selected radiochemical analyses of effluent samples, Additionally, the
. procedure contained detailed instructions for the preparation and use of control charts.
The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's laboratory QC program for 1991 and 1992 to date and noted that the licensee appeared to be implementing the program as required.
In reviewing the above data the inspector noted that the licensee trended the chemical analyses interlaboratory= results but not the radiochemical results.
In addition, the inspector noted that some of the radiochemistry interlaboratory QC samples were,not counted promptly, and had, in fact, decayed to less than detectable levels.
Also, some radionuclides were reported as present in the'QC samples when they were not because of misidentified photopeaks.
These types of results were reported as disagreements by the offsite laboratory.
The inspector discussed the need for detailed review of the data generated by the interlaboratory radiochemistry cross-check program with the licensee.
The licensee stated that the area would be reviewed and appropriate corrective action taken.
Finally, the inspector noted that the instrument and procedure control charts which were maintained in the laboratory were used by the chemistry technicians on a real-time basis and provided good control of the measurement processes.
The inspector stated that this was a noted strength in the laboratory QC program.
No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
6.0 irveillance and Audit Activiti The inspector reviewed selected surveillance activities of the chemistry area for 1991 and 1992 to date.
The licensee performed both scheduled and unscheduled surveillances of
the chemistry area.
The surveillances were performed using comprehensive checklists and the findings were described in detail. In addition, an annual summary of surveillance activities was prepared by the Quality Verification and Safety Assessment Groups.
The inspector also reviewed QA Audit No. 91017-RG/IN, "Radiological and Chemistry Controls", which was performed on November 4-15, 1991.
This audit, which was performance based, was conducted using a detailed checklist, had comprehensive comments on each reviewed area, and the audit team included a technical specialist, Of particular note in this audit were the chemical and radiochemical samples which were split between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 laboratories.
The inspector stated that introduction of actual sample analyses into the audit process was an excellent initiative on the part of the licensee.
The inspector noted that the above audits and surveillances appeared to provide adequate independent oversight and assessment of chemistry activities.
No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
7.8 R*'
i~
The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on September 4, 1992.
The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspectio TABLE I Nine Mile Point nits I and 2 Verification Test Results SAMPLE Waste Collector Tank 1436 hrs 09/03/92 (Unit 2, Detector 4)
Waste Collector Tank 1436 hrs 09/03/92 (Unit 1, Detector 1)
IS(~T)PE Na-24 Cr-51 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60
~VALU Results in micro uries r milliliter (2.4J0.2)E-6 (6.5+0.2)E-S (1.48+0.04)E-S (8.40+0.07)E-S (1.280+0.009)E-4 (2.4+0.2)E-6 (6.5+0.2)E-S (1.48+0.04)E-S (8.4+0.07)E-S (1.280+0.009)E-4 LI EN EE VALUE (1.97+0.12)E-6 (6.9+0.8)E-S (1.57+0.05)E-S (8.5%0.3)E-S (1.33+0.04)E-4 (1.94J0.11)E-6 (6.7%0.3)E-S (1.54J0.05)E-S (8.5+0.2)E-S (1.34+0.04)E-4 OMPARIS N Agreement Agreement Agreement
. Agreement
. Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLEI - continued Nine Mile P int nits 1 and 2 Verification Test Results SAMPLE
~IT+PE N~RVALUE Results in Total Microcuri LI EN EE
~VAL E MPARTS N Main Stack Charcoal Cartridge 1947 hrs 08/26/92 (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Main Stack Charcoal Cartridge 1947 hrs
,08/26/92 (Unit 2, Detector 4)
Main Stack Charcoal Cartridge 1947 hrs 08/26/92 (Rad Protection)
(Detector 6)
I-131 I-131 I-131 (3.2%0.3)E-4 (3.2%0.3)E-4
~(3.2+0.3)E-4 (3;0+0.2)E-4 (3.2+0.4)E-4 (3.4+0.2)E-4
- Agreement
'greement Agreement
TABLEI - continued Nine Mile Point Uni 1 and 2 Verification Test Results AMPLE
~I(~T)PE NR VAL E Results in micro uries r milliliter LI EN EE V~AL E MPARI N
Reactor Water Anion Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Unit 1, Detector 1)
I-131 I-133 (1.57J0.07)E-S (2.53 <0.08)E-4 (1.74+0.10)E-S (3.18+0. 12)E-4 'greement Agreement Reactor Water Anion Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Unit 2, Detector 5)
I-131 I-133'1.57+0.07)E-S
~
(1.70+0.07)E-S (2.53<0.08)E-4 (2.94+0. 12)E-4 Agreement Agreement Reactor Water Anion Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Rad Protection)
(Detector 6)
I-131 I-133 (1.57J0.07)E-S (2.53+0.08)E-4 (1.68+0.07)E-S (3.00+0.11)E-4 Agreement Agreement
TABLEI - continued Nine Mile Point Units l and 2 Verificati n T Results AMPLE
~IT~PE NR VAL E Results in micro uries r milliliter LI ENSEE VALUE MPARI N
Reactor Water Cation Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Reactor. Water Cation Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Unit 2, Detector 5)
Reactor Water Cation Filter 0330 hrs 09/01/92 (Rad Protection)
(Detector 1)
Na-24 Co-58 Co-60 Na-24 Co-58 Co-60
¹24 Co-58 Co-60 (8.2+0.7)E-.S (1.15020.014)E-4 (1.30+0.02)E-4 (8.2J0.7)E-S (1.150J0.014)E-4 (1.30J0.02)E-4 (8.2+0.7)E-S (1.150J0.014)E-4 (1.30+0.02)E-4 (8.7%0.5)E-S (1.35+0.04)E-4 (1.45+0.05)E-4 (1.01+0.07)E-4 (1.38+0.04)E-4 (1.53+0.04)E-4 (7.0%0.4)E-S (1.16+0.03)E-4 (1.27+0.04)E-4 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLE I - continued Nine Mile Point nits 1 and 2 Verification Test R ul SAMPLE
~ITOPE NR VAL E Resul in micr uries r'milliliter LI ENSEE VALUE MPARI N
Reactor Water 0913 hrs 09/02/92 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> decay (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Reactor Water 0913 hrs 09/02/92 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> decay (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Reactor Water 0913 hrs 09/02/92 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> decay (Unit 2, Detector 4)
Reactor Water 0913 hrs 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> decay (Unit 2, Detector 5)
I-132 I-134 I-135 I-131 I-133 I-135 I-132 I-134, I-135 I-131 I-133 I-135 (1.11+0.05)E-3 (3.2+0.2)E-3 (8.7+0.8)E-4 (1.74<0. 13)E-5 (3.00>0.04)E-4 (9.020.5)E-4 (1.11J0.05)E-3 (3.2+0.2)E-3 (8.7+0.8)E-4 (1.74+0.13)E-4 (3.00+0.04)E-4 (9.0+0.5)E-4 (1.29+0.07)E-3 (4.1+0.2)E-3 (8.7+0.9)E-4 (2.2<0.3)E-5 (3.31+0.15)E-4 (9.3+0.8)E-4 (1.31+0.08)E-3 (4.5%0.2)E-3
.
(9.2+0.9)E-4
. (1.84+0.13)E-5 (3.25+0.13)E-4 (9.2+0.6)E-4 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLE I - continued Nine Mile P int nit 1 and 2 Verificati n Test Results
/AMPLE Condenser Offgas 1412 hrs 09/02/92 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> decay (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Condenser Offgas 1412 hrs 09/02/92 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> decay (Unit 1, Detector 1)
Condenser Offgas 1449 hrs 09/02/92 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> decay (Unit 2, Detector 4)
ISOTOPE Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135 Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135 Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135
~NR VAL E Results in micro uries r milliliter (6.0+0.3)E-4 (2.8+0.2)E-3 (1.90J0.11)E-3 (8.4<0.5)E-4 (3.27+0.06)E-3 (6.3+0.3)E-4 (3.2+0.2)E-3 (2.11+0.12)E-3 (7.0+0.2)E-4 (3.51+0.04)E-3 (6.7+0.2)E-4 (3.020.2)E-3 (2.16+0.07)E-3 (6.7+0.2)E-4 (3.43+0.03)E-3
~LI EN EE VALUE (5.0~0.5)E-4 (3.8+0.3)E-3 (2.2+0.2)E-3 (8.0+0.8)E-4 (3.4+0.2)E-3 (6.4+0.3)E-4 (3.3+0.2)E-3 (2.24+0.12)E-3 (8.0+0.5)E-4 (3.58J0.15)E-3 (6.1+0.3)E-4 (2.8+0.2)E-3 (2.07+0. 12)E-3 (7.2+0.5)E-4 (3.13+0.13)E-3 MPARI N
Agreement Agreement Agreement.
Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLEI - continued ine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2 Verification Test Result SAMPLE
~JTgPE U~RULUU Results in micro uries r milliliter
~LI ENSEE VALUE MPARI N
Liquid Radioactive Waste Tank 1A 1445 hrs 07/25/90 Fe-55 gross alpha H-3 Sr-89 Sr-90 (3.52+0.01)E-4 (-2+4)E-8 (1.20+0.01)E-3 (5.3+0.7)E-7 (1;6<0.4)E-8 (1.0+0. 1)E-4
<2.7E-8 (2.0J0.1)E-3 (3.3+0.3)E-7
<5.8E-9 Disagreement No Comparison Disagreement Agreement No Comparison Note:
Reported uncertainties are one standard deviation counting uncertainties for both licensee and NRC result ATTA HMENT 1 T TABLE 1
'I RITERIA F R
MPARIN A ALYTI ALMEA EMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution", increases the acceptability ofa licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. ~Rlution'ati f r A reemen~
<4 4-7-8-15 16-50 51 - 200
>200 No comparison 0,5 - 2.0 0.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 1.Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty)
2.Ratio = (Licensee Value/NRC Reference Value)
TABLEII Nine Mile Poin nit 1 and 2 hemist Test R ul Chemical
~Anal sl Method of
~Anal sls NRC Known Value Licensee Value Percent Difference
~om arison Result in arts r billion b
Chloride (Unit 1)
Chloride (Unit 2)
Fluoride (Unit 1)
Fluoride (Unit 2)
Sulfate (Unit 1)
IC IC ISE IC IC 1.90+0.03 3.60+0. 12 7.5+0.3 3.80+0.06 7.5+0.3 15.1J0.6 20.2%1.0 40+3 85+5 4.04+0.02 8.5+0.5 17.0+1.0 1.94+0.03 3.88+0.08 7.9+0.2 2.0970+0.0010 3.92+0.06 7.9+0.2
'4.00+0.03
'7.64+0.06
'15.13+0.07 18.8+0.2 36.8+0.7 79+2 4 036g0 003 8.41+0.06 16.24+0.16 2.01+0.09 4.022+0.007 8.2+0.2
+10%
+9%
+5%
+5%
+2%
0%
-7%
-8%
-7%
0%
-1%
-4%
+4%
+4%
+4%
Qual Agree Qual Agree Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
'Agreement
= Agreement Agreement
TABLEII - continued Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2 hemis T t R ul Chemical
~Anal sl Method of
~Anal sls NRC Known Value Licensee Value Perce'nt Difference goamarison Results in arts r billion b
Sulfate (Unit 2)
Silica (Unit 1)
Silica (Unit 2)
Boron (Unit 1)
Boron (Unit 2)
Iron IC SP SP ICP 3.88+0.06 7.9+0.2 15.9+0.4 15+2 28.4+0.4 60.1+1.0 15+2 28.4+0.4 60.1+1.0 3040+40 5060+80 3040+40 5060+80 199+2
'98+4 795+7 4 106+0.005
'8. 14+0.02
'15.93J0.13 13.2+0 27.3%0.4 60.2+0.6 12.8+0.3 27.0+0 61.0+0.4
'3080+16
'5083+13
'3096+10
'5078+9 204+3 403+3 799+7
+6%
+3%
0%
-12%
-4%
0%
-15%-
-5%
+2%
+1%
0%
+2%
0%
+2%
+1%
0%
Agreement Agreement Agreement Qual Agree Agreement Agreement Qual Agree Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
TABLEII-continued Nine Mile Point nit 1 and 2 hemist Test R ult Chemical
~Anal sls Method of
~Anal sls NRC Known Value Licensee Value Percent difference
~om arlson Results in arts er billion.
b Copper Nickel Chromium Zinc ICP.
ICP ICP ICP 202+2 403+4 810+10 199+2 400+4 800+8 200+2 402+4 804+7 109+3 522+7 1030+10 209+4 413+ 10 811+8 208+6 407.3%0.6 802+7 200+4 400+3 793.7+1.5 103~3 483+6 1010+10
=
+3%
+2%
0%
'4%
+2%
'0%
0%
0%
-1%
-6%
-8%
-2%
Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement IC = Ion Chomatography ICP = Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry ISE = Ion Specific Electrode SP
= UV-Vis Spectrophotometry T
= Titration with PHT endpoint 1.Duplicate analysis only
TTA HMENT 2 T TABLEII ri ri f r m grin An
i 1M remen from T l II This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests.
In these criteria the judgement limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, "Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors".
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviation range (J2Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but within the plus or minus three standard deviation range (+3Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in qualified agreement.
Repeated results which are in qualified agreement willreceive additional attention.
Licensee values greater than the plus 'or minus three standard deviations range of the ORNL known value are in disagreement.
The standard deviations were computer using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of the NUREG.
The ranges for the data in Table II are as follows.
~An ~le Chloride Fluoride Sulfate Silica Chromium Copper Iron Nickel Boron Zinc Agreement
~Rn e
+ 8%
~
+ 12%
+.10%
+ 10%
+ 10%
+ 10%
+ 10%
+ 6%
+ 2%
+ 10%
Qualified Agreement
~lt
+ 12%
+ 18%
+ 15%
+ 15%
+ 15%
+ 15%
+ 15%
+ 9%
+ 3%
+ 15%