IR 05000315/1994016
| ML17332A259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1994 |
| From: | House J, Mccormickbarge, Steven Orth NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A258 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-94-16, 50-316-94-16, NUDOCS 9408240006 | |
| Download: ML17332A259 (18) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-315/94016(DRSS);
50-316/94016(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 Licensee:
Indiana Michigan Power Company 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216 Licenses No. DPR-58; DPR-74 Facility Name:
D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D. C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
July 18-22, 1994 Inspectors:
ouse Senior Radiation Specialist ate
. Ort Radiation Specialist ate Approved By:
c ormic - arger, ie Radiological Programs Section Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Jul 18-22 1994 Re orts No. 50-315 94016 DRSS 50-316 Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection of the licensee's chemistry program (IP 84750), including the chemistry comparisons program, confirm'atory measurements, self assessment program, water chemistry program, condition reports, the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP)
and closure of licensee event reports and inspection followup items.
Results:
Licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program (radiochemistry)
was excellent, with all agreements in 101 comparisons.
Performance in nonradiological chemistry comparison program was good with 30 agreements in 33 comparisons.
Water chemistry parameters were good.
A review of licensee identified chemistry performance errors indicated that problems still existed in the chemistry department and that continued and strong management (both corporate and plant) support for the program changes that had been initiated was needed.
Operation of the REMP was very good.
940824000b 940812 PDR ADOCK 05000315
DETAILS Persons Contacted
- B. Auer, Site guality Assurance Auditor
- D. Avery, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. Benedict, Site guality Assurance Auditor
- A. Blind, Site Vice President, Plant Hanager
- R. Claes, Chemistry Supervisor
- H. Depuydt, Nuclear Safety and Assessment
- R. Hershberger, Chemistry Supervisor
- S. Lehrer, Chemistry Supervisor,
- D. Horey, Chemistry Superintendent
- S. Watkins, Radiation Protection Engineer
- R. Rutkowski, Assistant Plant Hanager
- D. Hartland, Resident Inspector, NRC The inspectors interviewed other licensee personnel in various departments in the course of the inspection.
- Present at the Exit Heeting on July 22, 1994 Licensee Action on Previous I s ection Find'
IP 84750 a ~
b.
Closed Ins ection Follow-u Item IFI Nos.
315 93004-01
~169>>6-1:
Tp
6 ly plkd*
pl
iron-55 (Fe-55)
and strontium-90 (Sr-90)
and report the results to Region III for comparison.
The licensee's results for the two analyses were in disagreement with the NRC reference laboratory.
The licensee provided a review of interlaboratory results which did not indicate an analytical problem.
A spiked waste tank sample was split between the NRC and licensee for comparison in Section 6.
The results of this analysis will be compared and the results reported in a future inspection report.
Closed IFI Nos.
315 93004-02 316 93004-02:
The licensee was to analyze a spiked steam generator blowdown sample for chloride, sulfate, and fluoride and to report the results to the Region III office for comparison.
The licensee analyzed the sample and reported the results to Region III; however, the NRC reference laboratory delayed their analysis, which produced an unacceptable level of uncertainty in the NRC data.
Thus the results of the analyses could not be compared.
This item is administratively closed.
Licensee Event Re orts IP 84 50 Licensee event report (LER) 316/94003 described three missed samples that were required by technical specification (T/S) 3.3.3. 10, Table 3.3-13.
With the continuous radiation monitor (IL) SRA 2905 for the steam
jet air ejector (SJAE) inoperable, compensatory sampling was required.
Although samples were collected, the system had been modified such that there was no flow at the sample point.
The root cause analysis identified ineffective administrative controls, lack of procedural guidance and training.
Corrective actions included establishing flow prior to pulling samples, procedure revision and a review of technician training.
LER 316/93010 documented a missed reactor coolant system (RCS) total gaseous activity sample, required by T/S 3/4. 11.2.6.
The Unit 2 RCS sample was collected and prepared, however, the Unit
RCS sample was mistakenly counted for the Unit 2 sample.
The root cause analysis indicated that personnel error resulted in the missed sample.
Chemistry personnel were counseled on the importance of sample analyses and data records.
These incidents would be characterized as severity level IV violations.
However, since they were licensee identified and corrective actions were taken, they met the criteria for non-cited violations contained in Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2.
These LERs are closed.
Two non-cited violations were identified.
Mana ement and Or anization IP 84750 I
The inspectors reviewed numerous condition reports (CRs)
and two licensee event reports (LERs) which involved missed T/S required samples and a series of chemistry errors.
Based on these documents, licensee audit findings and discussions with auditors and chemistry management, the following observations were made which indicated that weaknesses had existed for some time in the chemistry operation.
~
Similar recurring errors.
Ineffective corrective actions.
Inadequate root cause analyses which tended to narrowly focus on the specific problem without looking at the big picture or for a common theme running through the documentation.
Chemistry management's inability to determine the nature of problems that existed within the department.
Licensee management, both plant and corporate, were aware of difficulties in chemistry as evidenced by a temporary management change in early 1993.
An independent chemistry evaluator was hired at the corporate level to study the chemistry operation and make recommenda-tions.
This resulted in an experienced chemistry superintendent being hired in late 199.l
The inspectors discussed management and organizational changes with the new chemistry superintendent, including functional changes in the management structure.
An improving, proactive trend in the resolution of problems was noted.
A department review had been requested from an outside industry group and was conducted during January 24-28, 1994, to identify problems and develop solutions.
Additional evaluations were performed recently by corporate personnel.
An outside consultant had been retained to review and improve performance in the radiochemistry program.
Based on the confirmatory measurements results (Section 6),
this effort was successful.
Prior management problems that had led to the many personnel errors identified in CRs, LERs and audits were being addressed.
management changes included:
~
Defining chemistry supervisors'esponsibilities Conveying management's expectations to supervisors and staff Chemistry technician empowerment for change Developing a closer working relationship with operations Rewriting procedures The inspectors noted that these changes may take time to implement and that an improvement in chemistry performance may not occur immediately.
Chemistry performance will be reviewed in future inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Chemistr Com arison Pro ram IP 84750 The inspector 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 regulatory and administrative requirements.
The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The samples were diluted by licensee personnel in order to bring the chemical concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory and then analyzed in a manner similar to that of routine samples.
The results are presented in Table 1 which also contains the criteria for agreement.
The acceptance criteria were that the licensee's values should be within 2 Standard Deviations (SD) of the reference values for agreements and between 2 and
SD for qualified agreements.
A qualified agreement may indicate a bias in the assay.
The licensee analyzed ll unknowns at 3 concentrations each and thirty of the 33 comparisons were agreements.
The low chloride and the low and high silica concentrations were conservative disagreements.
When the silica reagents were replaced with vendor supplied reagents and a new calibration curve was prepared, the reanalyses were agreements.
The low chloride was reanalyzed but remained a conservative disagreement.
This
could have been caused by contamination of the sample during dilution.
The licensee's analytical chemistry capability was good.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Con 'rmator Measurements P
o ram IP 84750 Four plant samples including reactor coolant, liquid waste, reactor coolant stripped gas and a reactor coolant crud filter were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III mobile laboratory on site.
Licensee analyses wer e made using a matrix of their three count room detectors normally used for counting plant and effluent samples.
A calibration standard.
was also counted on the licensee's detectors and the NRC detector.
Licensee data from the calibration standard was compared with the NRC count data and also with the NRC calibration source certificate.
Results of the comparisons are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved all agreements in 101 comparisons.
The licensee performed very well in the confirmatory measurements program.
A portion of a liquid waste sample will be analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, iron 55, strontium 89 and strontium 90 by the licensee and the results reported to Region III for comparison with an analysis by the NRC reference laboratory on a split of the sample.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Water Chemistr Control Pro ram IP 84750 The licensee's water chemistry program was consistent with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
PWR Primary and Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines.
A review of selected trend records indicated that plant water quality was good and no significant problems were observed.
From January 1993 through June 1994, overall water quality was about average for PWRs, based on EPRI surveys.
Licensee representatives stated that the working relationship between chemistry and operations was improving and that chemistry had established separate 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts so that chemistry technicians could work with operations personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Sel Assessment IP 84750 Site quality assurance Audit gA-93-11 of chemistry, conducted September 13 to November 29, 1993, identified performance problems involving valve verification and recurring problems with procedure adherence.
Auditors used condition reports (CRs), surveillance results and procedures in developing their audit plan.
Sample acquisition, preparation and analysis, operation of the post accident sampling system, and data analysis were evaluated, and procedures were reviewed.
The audit team included an individual from the licensee's corporate office to provide additional outside evaluation.
Audit gA-93-03 of the
REHP reviewed environmental sample collection, the REHP gA program and the annual report.
No problems were identified.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Radiolo ical Environmental Honitorin Pro ram IP 84750 The inspectors reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP)
and the 1993 Annual Operating Report which appeared to comply with the REHP requirements.
Environmental samples had been collected and analyzed as required, and missing samples were documented in the report.
A review of environmental sample data indicated that there was no discernable radiological impact on the environment from the operation of the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
A tour of selected air sampling stations was conducted with the REHP manager and a vendor employee who was changing out filters.
The air sampling equipment, which had been recently upgraded, had calibration documentation and was in very good operating condition.
The inspectors noted that the air samplers were not tested for air inleakage following sample changeout.
A licensee representative stated that this would be reviewed and implemented if possible.
The land use census had been conducted as required, and documentation of the sample collection program was very good.
Licensee personnel were knowledgeable of the REHP, and oversight of the vendor appeared good.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Post Accident Sam lin S stem PASS IP 84750 An inspector toured the post accident sampling system (PASS)
and reviewed the licensee's analytical comparisons between samples obtained at the PASS and routine sampling points.
The system was fully operable at the time of the inspection; however, monthly comparison data indicated only marginal agreement between several of the analyses performed at the PASS and routine sample points.
A licensee representative acknowledged that there was a high. degree of deviation in some comparisons and attributed the deviations to sample mixing via the liquid dilution loop configuration..
Licensee management indicated that a design modification, which would improve PASS operation, had been.
approved and was scheduled for installation during the first quarter of 1995.
An inspector reviewed the licensee's monthly PASS operating reports and semiannual vendor reviews, which provided a very comprehensive evaluation of system performance and accuracy.
These documents indicated the need for additional instrumentation upgrades, including the pH probe and the gas chromatograph.
The inspector discussed the reports and reviews with a licensee representative who appeared knowledgeable of the problems and appeared to be addressing the recommendations made by the vendor.
The licensee initiated plans to
~
'
replace the pH probe and was evaluating the necessity for replacing the gas chromatograph.
The inspector also reviewed several licensee condition reports concerning leakage of the backup air supplies to the post accident containment hydrogen monitoring system (PACHMS) and repetitive system valve misalignments.
Several PACHMS gas regulators were replaced during 1993, and the quality of the air supply was upgraded to eliminate moisture intrusion into the new regulators.
Additionally, a requirement for functional testing was added to ensure valve positioning was correct after work was performed on the system.
The cognizant licensee representative was knowledgeable of the problems and continued to monitor the system and ensure the corrective actions were adequate.
During the exit meeting (Section ll), the inspectors stressed the importance of maintaining system reliability and accuracy and of ensuring that necessary modifications were performed in a timely manner.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 22, 1994.
Areas discussed were:
Inspection Followup Items Chemistry comparison and confirmatory measurement results Management problems in chemistry Self assessment program Licensee Event Reports Post Accident Sampling System REMP observations During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Nonradiological Chemistry Comparison Results 3rd quarter, 1994 2.
Table 2, Confirmatory Measurement Results 3rd quarter, 1994 3.
Attachment 1, Confirmatory Measurement comparison criteria
TABLE 1 Nonradiological Chemistry Comparisons Results D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Generating Station Third quarter, 1994 Analyte Method Conc Ratio A
REGION III==
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY:
D.C.
COOK FOR THE 3rd QUARTER OF 1994 NRC A.P.
STD DET.¹2 NRC A.P.
STD DET.¹4 NRC A.P.
STD DET.¹5 CO-57 CO-60 AH-241 SR-85 Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 TE-123M CS-137 CO-57 CO-60 AM-241 SR-85 Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 TE-123M CS-137 CO-57 CO-60 AH-241 SR-85 Y-88 CD-109 SN-113 TE-123M CS-137 2.32E-02 9.26E-02 8.93E-02 1.14E-01 1.77E-01 6.09E-Ol 9.46E-02 2.35E-02 9.40E-02 2.32E-02 9.26E-02 8.93E-02 1.14E-01 1.77E-01 6.09E-01 9.46E-02 2.35E-02 9.40E-02 2.32E-02 9.26E-02 8.93E-02 1.14E-01 1.77E-01 6.09E-01 9.46E-02 2.35E-02 9.40E-02 1.76E-04 3.36E-04 5.24E-04 5.38E-03 1.92E-03 3.67E-03 1.52E-03 5.46E-04 2.79E-04 1.76E-04 3.36E-04 5.24E-04 5.38E-03 1.92E-03 3.67E-03 1.52E-03 5.46E-04 2.79E-04 1.76E-04 3.36E-04 5.24E-04 5.38E-03 1.92E-03 3.67E-03 1.52E-03 5.46E-04 2.79E-04 2.73E-02 1.04E-01 9.26E-02 1.31E-01 1.93E-01 7. 12E-01 9.26E-02 2.73E-02 9.46E-02 2.57E-02 9.87E-02 9.90E-02 1.31E-01 1.99E-01 6.85E-01 1.02E-01 2.80E-02 1.01E-01 2.63E-02 1. 04E-01 9.46E-02 1.22E-01 1.98E-01 7. 13E-01 8.95E-02 2.85E-02 9.92E-02 1.27E-03 4.70E-03 6.39E-03 1.20E-02 7.80E-03 6.40E-02 7.25E-03 O.OOE+00 4.96E-03 1.00E-03 3.44E-03 5.06E-03 1.05E-02 7.00E-03 4.35E-02 5.20E-03 O.OOE+00 5.60E-03 1.23E-03 4.80E-03 7.00E-03 1.19E-02 8.30E-03 7.11E-02 7.80E-03 O.OOE+00 5.44E-03 1.18 131.5 1.12 275.8 1.04 170.3 1.15 21.1 1.09 92.1 1.17 165.7 0.98 62.2 1.16 43.0 1.01 336.9 1.11 131.5 1.07 275.8 1.11 170.3 1.15 21.1 1.12 92.1 1.13 165.7 1.07 62.2 1.19 43.0 1.08 336.9 1.14 131.5 1:12 275.8 1.06 170.3 1.08 21.1 1.12 92.1 1.17 165.7 0.95 62.2 1.21 43.0 1.06 33.
REACTOR COOLANT DET.¹4 REACTOR COOLANT DET.¹5 REACTOR CRUD FILTER DET.¹2 REACTOR CRUD F ILTER DET.¹5 NA-24 CO-58 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-135 MO-99 TC-99MD CS-137 NA-24 CO-58 I-131 I-132 I-,133 I-135 MO-99 TC-99MD CS-137 NA-24 CR-51 CO-58 CO-60 NP-239 I-131 I-133 ZR-95 ZR-97 NB-95 TC-99MD SB-124 TE-132 NA-24 CR-5)
CO-58 CO-60 NP-239 I-131 I-133 ZR-95 ZR-97 NB-95 TC-99MD SB-124 TE-132 1.97E-03 2.72E-05 2. 18E-03 5.95E-03 5.28E-03 6.12E-03 1.27E-04 8.81E-05 2.39E-05 1.97E-03 2.72E-05 2.18E-03 5.95E-03 5.28E-03 6.12E-03 1.27E-04 8.81E-05 2.39E-05 8. 51E-06 5.62E-05 1.25E-04 2.98E-06 5.78E-06 1.92E-05 5. 12E-05 7.58E-06 1.99E-05 5.06E-06 1.49E-06 2.15E-06 1.97E-06 8. 51E-06 5.62E-05 1.25E-04 2.98E-06 5.78E-06 1.92E-05 5.12E-05 7.58E-06 1.99E-05 5.06E-06 1.49E-06 2. 15E-06 1.97E-06 2.33E-05 5.62E-06 1.50E-05 3.93E-04 2.57E-05 1.31E-04 3.63E-05 6.71E-06 4.50E-06 2.33E-05 5.62E-06 1.50E-05 3.93E-04 2.57E-05 1.31E-04 3.63E-05 6.71E-06 4.50E-06 1.12E-06 4.05E-06 1.34E-06 3.10E-07 1.41E-06 6.97E-07 1.98E-06 7.27E-07 1.28E-06 4.63E-07 3.48E-07 4.96E-07 4.07E-07 1.12E-06 4.05E-OG 1.34E-06 3.10E-07 1.41E-06 6.97E-07 1.98E-06 7.27E-07 1.28E-06 4.63E-07 3.48E-07 4.96E-07 4.07E-07 2.04E-03 2.98E-05 2. 18E-03 6.01E-03 5.86E-03 6. 21E-03 6.80E-05 6.63E-05 2.02E-05 2.11E-03 3.93E-05 2.24E-03 5.81E-03 5.76E-03 6.34E-03 7.88E-05 7.68E-05 1.33E-05 8.28E-06 5.05E-05 1.38E-04 3.14E-06 9.62E-06 1.72E-05 4.94E-05 8.15E-06 2.16E-05 5.33E-06 1.38E-06 1.43E-06 1.45E-06 7.37E-06 5.59E-05 1.39E-04 3.26E-06 1.03E-05 1.94E-05 4.82E-05 8.52E-06 2.30E-05 5.54E-06 1.05E-06 3.08E-06 1.63E-06 1.13E-04 4.50E-06 9.20E-05 3.07E-04 2.48E-04 1. 61E-04 1.20E-05 1.17E-05 4.20E-06 1.42E-04 3.85E-06 1.25E-04 3.17E-04 2.82E-04 2.05E-04 1.07E-05 1.04E-05 7.44E-06 7.93E-07 5.57E-06 7.30E-06 4.00E-07 9.28E-07 1.38E-06 3.47E-06 6.57E-07 1.44E-06 5.32E-07 2.70E-07 3.43E-07 2.98E-07 8.03E-07 5.92E-06 7.40E-06 3.91E-07 8.80E-07 1.52E-OG 3.60E-06 6.42E-07 1.50E-06 5.60E-07 2.16E-07 4.52E-07 2.99E-07 1.04 1.09 1.00 1.01 1.11 1.01
,0.53 0.75 0.84 1.07 1.44 1.03 0.98 1.09 1.04 0.62 0.87 0.56 0.97 0.90 1.11 1.05 1.66 0.90 0.96 1.08 1.09 1.05 0.92 0.67 0.74 0.87 0.99 1.11 1.09 1.78 1.01 0.94 1.12 1.16 1.10 0.70 1.43 0.83 84.2 4.8 145.8 15.2 205.5 46.9 3.5 13.1 5.3 84.2 4.8 145.8 15.2 205.5 46.9 3.5 13.1 5.3 7.6 13.9 93.1 9.6 4.1 27.6 25.9 10.4 15.6 10.9 4.3 4.3 4.8 7.6 13.9 93.1 9.6 4.1 27.6 25.9 10.4 15.6 10.9 4.3 4.3 LIQ.
WASTE DET.¹2 LIQ.
WASTE DET.¹5 STRIPPED GAS DET.¹2 STRIPPED GAS DET.¹4 NA-24 MN-54 FE-59 CO-57 CO-58 CO-60 NB-95 CS-134 CS-137 NA-24 MN-54 FE-59 CO-57 CO-58 CO-60 NB-95 CS-134 CS-137 KR-85M KR-87 KR-88 XE-133 XE-135 AR-41 KR-85M KR-87 KR-88 XE-133 XE-135 AR-41 1.01E-05 4.53E-06 1.28E-06 1.14E-06 9.31E-05 2.58E-04 9.04E-07 4.96E-05 7.37E-05 1.01E-05 4.53E-06 1.28E-06 1. 14E-06 9.31E-05 2.58E-04 9.04E-07 4.96E-05 7.37E-05 7.66E-04 1.25E-03 1.54E-03 2.39E-02 5. 13E-03 7. 63E-02 7.66E-04 1.25E-03 1.54E-03 2.39E-02 5. 13E-,03 7.63E-02 1.47E-07 1.70E-07 2.67E-07 7.01E-08 3.24E-07 5.15E-07 1.27E-07 2.42E-07 2.54E-07 1.47E-07 1. 70E-07 2.67E-07 7. 01E-08 3.24E-07 5.15E-07 1.27E-07 2.42E-07 2.54E-07 5.00E-05 1.69E-04 1.55E-04 2.92E-04 8.60E-05 5.71E-04 5.00E-05 1.69E-04 1.55E-04 2.92E-04 8. 60E-,05 5. 71E-04 1.01E-05 4.15E-06 1.66E-06 1.20E-06 8.90E-05 2.53E.-04 9.45E-07 5.03E-05 6.64E-05 9.64E-06 4.59E-06 9.93E-07 1.28E-06 8. 91E-05 2.53E-04 8.46E-07 5.09E-05 6.51E-05 9.28E-04 1.39E-03 1.93E-03 2.90E-02 6.21E-03 9.53E-02 8.56E-04 1.37E-03 1.73E-03 2.93E-02 5-84E-03 9. 12E-02 6.30E-07 2.94E-07 3.76E-07 1.17E-07 4.49E-06 1.11E-OS 1.69E-07 1.48E-06 3.99E-06 6.43E-07 3.27E-07 3.01E-07 1.12E-07 4.42E-06 1.15E-05 1.64E-07 1.45E-06 3.47E-06 6.02E-05 1.96E-04 1.28E+02 1.79E-03 4.06E-04 5.06E-03 5.92E-05 1.48E-04 1.74E-04 2.01E-03 4.04E-04 4.96E-03 1.00 0.92 1.29 1.05 0.96 0.98 1.05 1.01 0.90 0.96 1.01 0.78 1.13 0.96 0.98 0.94 1.03 0.88 1.21 1.12 1.25 1.21 1.21 1.25 1.12 1.10 1.12 1.23 1.14 1.20 68.5 26.6 4.8 16.2 287.1 501.5 7.1 204.5 290.1 68. 5 26.6 4.8 16.2 287.3 501.5 7.1 204.5 290.1 15.3 7.4 10.0 81.7 59.7 133.6 15.3 7.4 10.0 81.7 59.7 133.6 TEST RESULTS:
A AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT
- CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
l
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 in a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
<4.,
4 -
8-
16 -
51 200 200-
~Areement NO COMPARISON 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, and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.