IR 05000315/1988010
| ML17325A667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1988 |
| From: | Holtzman R, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A666 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-88-10, 50-316-88-11, NUDOCS 8803180253 | |
| Download: ML17325A667 (15) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-315/88010(ORSS);
50-316/88011(ORSS)
Docket Nos.
50-315; 50-316 Licensee:
Indiana Michigan Power Company 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216 Licenses No.
DRP-58; DRP-74 Facility Name:
D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D.C.
Cook Site, Bridgeman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
February 10-18, 1988 Inspector:
R.
B. Holtzman ~
Date Approved By:
M.
C.
Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Date Inss ection on Februar 10-18 1988 Re orts No. 50-315/88010 DRSS; No. 50-316/88011 DRSS Areas Ins ected:
Routine announced inspection of:
(1) the chemistry program, including procedures, organization, and training; (2) primary and secondary systems water quality control program; (3) quality assurance/quality 'control program in the laboratory; and (4) nonradiological confirmatory measurements.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8803180253 880311 PDR ADOCK 05000315
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
~R.
A.
S.
G.
S.
K.
J.
xB.
J.
G. Smith, Jr., Plant Manager S. Gibson, Assistant Plant Manager-Technical A. Blind, Assistant Plant Manager-Operations and Administration Kriesel, Technical Superintendent, Physical Science Wojcik, Plant Chemical Supervisor Fitzgerald, Technical Physical Science Environmental Coordinator M. Haglund, Technical Physical Science, Chemistry Supervisor J.
Gumns, Technical Physical Sciences, Administrative Compliance Coordinator T. Huerter, Site gA Supervisor/Auditor, AEPSC Jones, Rad Supervisor, Columbus (by phone)
Puppies, Senior Performance Engineer, Operations Department McLea, Chemical Supervisor (gA)
Cook, Scientist Coffiog, Senior Chemical Technician Vogel, 5enior Chemical Technical Shields, See'ior C'femical Technician Jorgensen, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC Heller, Res: dent Inspector, NRC The inspectors also. intervie~d other licensee personnel'in various departments in the course of t~ inspection.
2.
Denotes those present at, the plan) exit interview on February 18, 1988.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection ~Findin s
a ~
(Closed)
Open Items (No. 60-315/8504/-02; No. 50-316/85040-02):
Licensee to consider modifications of 'he boron analysis procedure to include control standard; and to cheq k the effects of the pipetting procedure on the ana]ytica] ace+racy.
The boron procedure (12 THP 6020 LAB.003, "Determination of bort>>n in aqueous solutions,"
Revision 6., January 21, 1988)
was suitably motdified so that the O.l N
sodium hydroxide titrant was standardized with a standard acid (potassium acid phthalate)
after ~hich a ypOO-pp,.>> boron control standard is used to check the NaOH titer.
The acc'>>acy was further improved by the use of a semiautomat1c Brinkmann Dosq'.mat Titrator in which the the titrant is delivered frag an electronica, ly-controlled buret, but the end-point is determined by the analyst.
The licensee modified the above procedure to remove the nonst2nda<<
laboratory technique for the collection and dilution of boric aci'<
samples in which a 500-ml volumetric flask was filled to the calibration mark with water, after which 25-ml was removed with a volumetric pipet.
The boron sample was then added to the fill the
flask to the mark and the dilution factor was assumed to be 25.0/500.
By the this procedure, the exact volume removed was somewhat uncertain because the pipet was calibrated "to deliver", while the procedure was designed for a "to contain" pipet.
Tests by the licensee and the inspector showed that the bias introduced was less than 0.5 percent.
Further the procedure was modified to use a 100-ml cassia type volumetric flask which has a 10-ml graduated volume above the calibration mark.
In this procedure, water is added to the lower mark, the boron sample (at 135-145 F) is added to flask, allowed to cool to room temperature, and the volume noted.
The dilution factor is then calculated and the sample analyzed.
This procedure appears to be suitable for the analysis.
(Closed)
Open Items (No. 50-315/86037-01; No. 50-316/86037-01):
Licensee to modify the water makeup system to improve water quality by the end of 1987.
A licensee representative noted that extensive changes had been made to the makeup water system that improved the water quality.
A tie-in was made to the Lake Township water system to assure the availability of clean water during storms when the Lake Michigan water had a high solids content.
New, more accurate and reliable conductivity monitors and flow-totalizing meters were installed along with new bed resins.
The administrative limits on the conductivity were lowered from 0. 15 to 0. 10 umho/cm and maintained at 0.06-0.08 umho/cm due to improved procedures and administrative controls.
The addition of a supervisor with specific responsibility for this system appears to have been a major contribution to the improvements.
The representative estimated that the system was only about 40K complete and the plant would achieve about 80K completion by the end of the year.
Since the water quality appears to be high, this item will be closed and progress will be followed when necessary in subsequent routine chemistry inspections.
(Open)
Open Items (No. 50-315/87037-02; No. 50-316/87037-02):
By 1987, the licensee to install new in-line instrumentation in the secondary system and a computer to monitor 150 parameters at different sampling locations.
The licensee has upgraded many of the conductivity and pH monitors at various points of the secondary sampling system under RFC OC-12-2915
"Secondary Side Chemistry Instrumentation Upgrade."
Output data are plotted on strip recorders.
The steam generator blowdown sampling racks are to be rebuilt with additional sample chiller systems and new conductivity instrumentation.
'Additional pH instrumentation will be installed on condensate and feedwater systems and dissolve oxygen and hydrazine and control systems will be added with new chart recorders.
Management expects to complete the instrumentation upgrade prior to the end of 1988.
The licensee cancelled the previously-schedule central computer due to its high cost.
They expect to replace it with data loggers used in conjunction with small computer systems for data collection and manipulation.
This progress will be followed in subsequent routine chemistry inspections.
This item will remain open pending completion of the instrumentation upgrad,
d.
(Closed)
Open Items (No. 50-315/86038-01; No. 50-315/86038-01):
Determine sample size and calibrate geometry for tank content dete'rmination.
The licensee satisfactorily solved this problem by discontinuing the use of the 30/30 geometry on November ll, 1986 and replacing it with the 1-liter geometry '(Geometry 11) for which effici'ency calibration data were already available.
A program was added to the Batch Program File to allow the computer to automatically account for the sample dilutions (Chemical Section Update No. 313, January 28, 1987).
e.
(Open)
Open Items (No. 50-315/87030-03; No. 50-316/87030-03):
Licensee to generate new nuclide libraries dedicated to EBAR requirements before the next required EBAR measurement and to apply the corrected values to the last two required EBAR determinations to determine that they complied with the T/S.
Laboratory personnel corrected the errors in the calculation of the beta particle EBAR values and recalculated the values of EBAR for the previous three determinations.
While they were substantially greater than previously determined, they were well within the T/S requirements.
However, the inspector noted that the licensee had omitted the beta energies of several positron-emitting nuclides.
To be in compliance with the T/S definition of EBAR (Ev +
E ) the energies of Sr-89, Sr-90 and Y-90 should also be included, )long with factors relating them to some gamma-emitting nuclide, such as Cs-137.
Licensee representatives agreed to revise thetable within, 60 days.
3.
Mana (Open)
Open Items (No. 50-315/87030-02; No. 50-316/87030-02):
Licensee will analyze for gross beta, H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90 in split sample of a monitor tank and report the results to Region III for comparison with results from the NRC Reference Laboratory.
The results of the analyses are presented in Table 1 and the comparison criteria for radiological analyses in Attachment 1.
Four of the five analyses were in agreement.
The gross beta results were substantially lower than those of the NRC.
This appears to be due to the presence of a boron matrix in the sample that increased the sample'self-absorption of the beta particles, a phenomenon that had not been taken into account.
The licensee agreed to do another gross beta analysis in spiked sample to be supplied by the NRC Reference Laboratory and report the result to Region III for comparison.
ement Controls Or anization and Trainin IP 84722 IP 84723 The Chemistry Department has been reorganized since the previous inspection in this area.
Four Chemical Supervisors, each with a responsibility in one of the areas of primary-secondary, environmental, counting room and gA, and a Scientist and a Training Specialist report to the Plant Chemical Supervisor.
He, in turn, reports to the Technical
~Region III Inspection Reports (No. 50-315/86037; No. 50-316/86037)
Superintendent-Physical Sciences.
Another Chemical Supervisor, in charge of the plant makeup water system, is on loan to the Operations Department.
The laboratory has 19 house and ten contract technicians.
The Chemistry Department staffing is stable with chemists'mployment in the plant ranging from 7-15 years and the technicians averaging 4.2 years.
It appears to be adequately staffed to perform the required chemical analyses for plant operation.
The licensee's Chemical Technician training program was accredited by INPO in April 1987.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Water Chemistr Control Pro ram IP 79701 The inspector reviewed the water chemistry control program based on Procedure No.
THP 6020 LAB.041,
"Data Sheet Instruction," Revision 10, December 17, 1987.
The specifications of the administrative limits on the parameters of the various systems given in Appendix B, "Chemical Constituent Specifications" are mostly consistent with the relevant EPRI Steam Generator Owners Guidelines (SGOG).
Exceptions are limits of silica concentrations in the steam generators (S/G) of 500 ppb at >30% power compared to 300 ppb in the Guidelines and minimum pH levels of 7.0 or 7.5 with a range of 8.2-9.2.
The licensee is working on various aspects of the problems in the secondary system to improve water chemistry.
A boric acid addition program is used in the secondary system (5-10 ppm at power) which appears to have contributed to the slowing of S/G tube corrosion, especially in the Unit 2 S/Gs, which have somewhat different construction than the Unit 1 S/Gs.
Because the system does not have condensate demineralizers, the chloride levels are in the 5-10 ppb range, which while below the 20 ppb Action Level 1 of the SGOG, is greater than normally found in similar system.
The levels are maintained as low as possible by increased S/G blowdown.
The licensee is spending considerable effort to determine the source(s)
of the chloride ingress, such as condenser leakage or makeup water.
In general, the various parameters representing contamination are maintained in an apparently satisfactory manner.
The plant has not been out of Technical Specifications limits for chemistry.
They maintain the performance indicator out-of-specification times on various parameters
. and,- including S/G chloride and sodium, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity.
The parameters are trended graphically only by corporate headquarters quarterly, which the inspector noted is not useful to the chemists in the short term.
The parameter data, including pH, conductivity, and concentrations of boron, chloride, lithium-7 are stored in computer files which may be printed out and plotted on a line printer for better
r assessment of the results.
Licensee representatives demonstrated computer output and agreed for the near future to print the files and graphs on a timely basis.
Progress in this and the improvements in water quality will be followed in future inspections under Open Items (No. 50-315/88010-01; No. 50-316/88011-01).
The licensee is putting considerable effort into improving and maintaining water quality.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Im lementation of the Chemistr Pro ram IP 79701 The inspector reviewed the chemistry programs, including the physical facilities and laboratory operations.
Housekeeping was adequate.
Most analyses, except for the environmental ones, are done in the hot laboratory, which may be crowded at times.
No changes in the space and facilities, have occurred since the previous inspection in this area.~
The Dionex Ion Chromatograph (IC) in the hot laboratory is in regular use and has had,.an automatic sample changer added for improved accuracy and versatility.
A second IC unit in the cold laboratory is being prepared as for backup use for nonradioactive samples.
The boron analytical method was modified to use a Dosimat partially automated titrator (Section 2a).
The inspector observed several technicians analyze the confirmatory measurements samples for boron by titration, metals by atomic absorption flameless spectrophotometry (furnace), chloride and sulfate by IC, and fluoride by specific ion electrode.
They appeared to be generally knowledgeable about the work and followed the procedures.
They appeared to do well in the analyses.
Overall, the laboratory appeared to be adequate for the proper operation of the plant and to be operating satisfactorily.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Nonradiolo ical Confirmator Measurements IP 79701 The inspectors submitted chemistry samples to the licensee for analysis as part-";;,.of.a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to monitor
- -= nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems with respect:;to various Technical Specification and other regulatory and administrative requirements.
These samples had been prepared, standardized, and periodically reanalyzed (to check for stability) for the NRC by the Safety and Environmental Protection Division of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipmen The samples were diluted by licensee personnel as necessary to bring the concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory, and run in triplicate in a manner similar to that of routine samples.
The results are presented in Table 2 and the criteria for agreement in Attachment 2.
These criteria for agreement are based on comparisons of the mean values and estimates of the standard deviations (s.d.) of the measurements.
Consideration was given to the fact that the uncertainties (s. d. ) of the licensee's results were not necessarily representative of the laboratory's because they were obtained by one analyst over a short period of time.
Consequently when the licensee s.d.
was less than that of BNL, and a disagreement resulted, the BNL value was substituted for that of the licensee in calculating the s. d. of the ratio Z (S in Attachment 2).
The licensee also prepared two samples to be split with BNL.
To these were added analytes supplied by the inspectors.
Reactor water was spiked with the anions, chloride and sulfate, and samples of feedwater were spiked with copper, iron, and chromium ions.
The licensee will determine the concentrations of the analytes in each and the results will be sent to Region III for comparison with the values determined by BNL.
This will be followed under the Open Items (No. 50-315/88010-02; No. 50-316/88011-02)
.
The licensee determined ten analytes at three concentrations each.
Of the initial 30 analyses, 25 of the results (83K) were in agreement with those of BNL.
The disagreements included the three fluoride, the high chloride and the two lower concentration ammonia results.
The consistently low bias of the fluoride values indicated a bias in the calibration standard, which was supported by the results of a rerun with a different standard.
Two difficulties with this analysis were that an independent control standard was not used to check the calibration and the meter had a
sensitivity of only one millivolt, rather than 0. 1 mv recommended for the specific ion electrode used in this analysis.
The licensee representative noted that they would replace the meter with a more sensitive one and consider the conscious use of independent calibration and control standards.
The disagreements in the ammonia analysis may have resulted from the low concentrations of the samples run; i.e., the resultant optical absorptions on the UV/vis spectrometer were very small, less than 5X, resulting in a very, poor accuracy in the analysis.
The laboratory agreed to revise the procedure, so that in the future they would use 50-mm path length
- -- cells when the absorption was low with the 10-mm cells usually used.
Although the sodium results were in agreement, the considerable imprecision of the analysis indicated the presence of a problem.
This appeared to be due to the very low concentrations of the sodium samples with a resultant high sensitivity to sample contamination.
The licensee is looking into this problem.
Progress in the improvements in the fluoride, ammonia and sodium analyses will be followed in subsequent inspections under Open Items (No. 50-315/88010-03;.
No. 50-316/88011-03).
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Im lementation of the A Pro ram in the Chemistr Laborator The inspector reviewed the nonradiological gA/gC program in the laboratory based on Procedure No.
12 THP 6020 LAB.044, "Laboratory guality Assurance,
"Revision 8, August 13, 1987.
Control charts with 3-sigma control and 2-sigma warning limits were maintained for most of the analytical methods, including hardness, fluoride, chloride (both at ppm and ppb levels), sulfate, pH, hydrazine, lithium, and silica.
In many cases two controls were used, one near the lower, and one near the upper end of the calibration range, e.g., silica at 0. 1 and 1.0 ppm.
The inspector noted some concerns to licensee representatives.
The control limits were determined approximately yearly, so that many of the controls showed substantial drift in on direction or jumps in the mean values.
There was no evidence that adjustments were made to the charts (recalculation or recalibration of the procedure).
Many of the control data sets were well within the 2-sigma limits, which meant that these limits no longer represented the analytical variabilities.
The limits should be recalculated at more frequent intervals, e. g., monthly or possibly quarterly bases (approximately after the collection of every 30-60 data points).
Further, it appeared that the data were not assessed regularly; e. g.,
when the boron control standard value jumped from an apparent concentration of 1003 to greater than 1010 ppm (control limit 1008, and the manufacturer's value was given on the bottle as 997 ppm)
no apparent action was taken.
Another weakness of the system was that all of the analyses of a given type were logged in serial order in the respective logbook, so that the control data were difficult to scan.
They would be much more amenable to assessment if the results were tabulated on a data sheet, with each control having its own column.
The data would then be tabulated for new calculations at the end of the accumulation period.
The licensee appears to have a good technician performance testing program.
Semiannually, they analyze approximately different 14 unknowns which cover most of the laboratory analyses, including boron, silica, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, lithium, and hydrazine.
These appear to be extensively assessed by the supervisors with agreement criteria (usually within 10K of the known value)
and corrective actions, appraisal sheets for each technician, listings by technician and by analysis, and summaries of the results.
Agreement criteria have been set at 110K of the known value.
- --- The licensee's gA/gC program has the basic elements of a satisfactory program,. but it needs some adjustments to make the gC charts useful tools to demonstrate the credibility of the laboratory results.
Licensee representatives will consider the above concerns and submit a letter to Region III on their. resolution.
This will be followed under Open Items (No. 50-315-88010-04; No. 50-316/88011-04).
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Environmental Monitorin
TLD Collocations IP 80721 TI 2500/22 The inspectors examined NRC and licensee environmental TLD's at selected field locations.
No badge were missing.
Three NRC TLDs (Location 2, 19, and 20)'.'r'equired adjustment as they were partially shadowed by their mounting poles from direct line of sight toward the plant.
Review of the licensee's records showed that TLD system appeared. to lack an inner ring dosimeter in Sector G and the one in the outer ring in Sector J was only approximately two miles from the plant, considerably short of the four to five miles recommended.
Licensee TLD locations in reference to the plant have not been precisely established on accurate maps.
Several apparent discrepancies were noted in location designations, and directions were described simply by sector (e.g.,
E.,
ENE, etc.)
rather than by azimuth angle.
Licensee representatives indicated these weaknesses would be addressed.
Resolution of these problems will be followed in subsequent routine environmental inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
~0en Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee, or both.
Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Sections 2 and 6.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 18, 1988.
The inspectors discussed the Open Items in Section
and observations on the quality control program and the confirmatory measurements.
Licensee representatives agreed to consider modification of the QC char ts and to consider other modifications of the program, as discussed in Section 7 and report their conclusions to Region III within 60 days.
The inspectors noted the significant progress in the QA/QC program since the previous inspections.
During the exit interview, the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
Licensee
-
. representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
Attachments:
2.
3.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1987 Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements (Radiological)
Table 2, Nonradiological Interlaboratory Test Results, February 10-18, 1988 Attachment 2, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements (Nonradiological)
TABLE t t Nt tCLEAR RB.it JLATGRY CGt'ltlIS'Gt't GFF ICE GF It lSPECT IGN AND EflFGRCFf 1ENT CGtlFIPt1ATGRY t 1EASUREtfENTS PRGGRAt1 FACILI TY:
D.
C.
CGGK FGR THE 4 Qt tARTFR GF 198>'
tilRC LICEfilREE-
-LI CEtilSEE: filRC--
. AttPLE I.'.GTGPE RESLtLT ERPGR RESULT EPPGR
.
PAT ICI RE=
T L MASTE G BETA H-3 FE-5 SP-8<
RP ao
~ 1E-05 2. 1E-02 4. 2E-06 2. 5E-08 4. OE-09 2. OE-06 3. OE-04 1. OE-07 9. OE-O9 4'E-09 1. ""E-06
~ 8E-02
~ 1E 00 8. 3E-01 6. OE-01 9. OE-01 3.6E Oi D
7.1E Oi A
4 ~ 2E
A 2. 8E
A 1.0E
A T TEST RESt.lLTS:
A=AGREEt>1Et>lT D = D ISAGREEfifENT TFF IA RELAXFD
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS 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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result i,n a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
~Areement
<4 4 -
8-
16 -
51 - 200 200-0.4
- 2.5 0.5
- 2.0 0.6
- 1.66 0.75 " 1.33 0.80 " 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, arid for some"specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and"identified on the data sheet.
a
TABLE 2 Nonradiological Inter laboratory Test Results D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
February 10-18, 1988 Analyte Analysis Dilution Method 1:x b
NRC s.d. (n)
Licensee Ratio Comparison X 2 s.d. (n)
1 + s.d.
f2 s.d.
Concentration SIP F
SIP (Rerun)
1000 23. 10 1000 43. 50 1000 23. 10 1000 43. 50 1000 83. 50 0. 50 1. 90 0. 50 1. 90 2. 80 18. 00 37. 00 21. 00 41. 00 78. 3
+
0.00 0. 00 3. 00
+
3.5 0. 779 0. 851 0. 909 0. 942 0. 938 0. 024 D~
0. 053 D"
0. 131 A
0. 041 A
0. 052 A
C1 IC 2000 12. 05 2000 18. 70 2000 40. 20 l. 55 0. 60 1. 10 12. 50 20. 50 48. 80 l. 60
+
1. 30 t
1.30 l. 037 1. 096 1. 212 0. 188 A
0. 078 A
0. 046 D
Sul f-IC lica Spec
~
~
AAS 2000 10. 00 2000 20. 50 2000 40. 50 250 217. 20 250 436. 00 250 640. 00 250 18. 72 250 38. 64 250 58. 00 0. 45 1. 20 1. 50 22. 40 28. 00 20. 00 0. 96 1. 96 2. 40 12. 20 20. 90
'42. 40 183. 00 387. 00 600. 00 18. 00 39. 30 59. 30 1. 00 l. 90 1. 70 21. 00 23. 00 0. 00
+
0. 00 0. 60 l. 20 1. 220 1. 020 1. 050 0. 843 0. 888 0. 938 0. 962 1. 017 1. 022 0. 114 A
0. 110 A
0. 057 A
0. 130 A
0;078 A
0. 041 A"
0. 049 A
0. 0,54 A
0. 047 A
Fe AAS AAS 250 19. 56 250 38. 20 250 58. 80 1000 4.58
,1000 9.23
'1000 14.40 1. 40 1. 36 1. 68 0. 50 0. 80 0. 80 18. 70 39. 30 59. 00 6. 80 12. 40 15. 60 0. 60
+
2.30 1. 70 3. 30 3. 00 3. 30 0. 956 1. 029 1. 003 1. 485 1. 343 1. 083 0. 075 A
0. 070 A
0. 041 A
0. 739 A
0. 345 A
0. 237 A
Hydra-Spec zine
" 2000,11.15 2000 28.45 2000 52.00 0. 70 0. 35 0. 50 10. 30 27. 30 51. 30 0. 60 0. 924 2. 30 0. 960 2. 30 0. 987 0. 079 A
0. 082 A
0. 045 A
NHs Spec 500 175. 20 500 628. 00 500 1876.00 10. 60 58. 00 52.00 450.00 2 170.00 1900.00 14. 00 50. 00 2 100.00 0. 331 0. 717 1. 013 0. 082 D
0. 084 D"
0. 106 A
Analyte Analysis Dilution NRC Licensee Ratio Comparison a
~
~
c Method 1:x Y + s.d.(n)
X + s.d.(n)
Z + s.d.
+2 s.d.
Concentration b
B Titr
1000
10 1001. 06
+
4. 0 1. 002
0. 011 A
3024
46 2957
+
0.978
0.016 A
4947
+
5122
73 1.035
+
0.020 A
a ~
Value t standard deviation (s.d.);
n is number of BNL analyses.
The number of licensee analyses is 3 unless otherwise noted.
b.
Analytical methods:
Titr - titration IC
- Ion chromatography Spec - Spectrophotometric SIP
- Specific ion probe AAS
- Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (furnace)
c.
A = Agreement D = Disagreement A
= Borderline Agreement Substituted the BNL uncertainty for licensee's uncertaint ATTACHMENT 2 Criteria for Com grin Anal ticaT Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparinq results of the capability tests.
.~The acceptance limits are based on the uncerta)nty (standard deviation) of the ratio of the licensee's mean value (X) to the NRC mean value (Y), where (1)
Z = X/Y is the ratio, and (2)
S is the uncertainty of the ratio determined from the pf'opagation of the uncertainties of licensee's mean value, S, and of the NRC's mean value, S
.
Thus, 2S2S2 z
x
+
v
,
so that V
V S
=Z ~ "+~
X~
The results are considered to be in agreement when the bias in the ratio (absolute value of difference between unity and the ratio) is less than or equal to twice the uncertainty in the ratio, i.e.
I.1-Z I
2 Sz 1.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, A Handbook of Radioactivit Measurements Procedures, NCRP epor o.
,
econ
>>on,
,
ages
-
(see Page 324).
4/6/87