IR 05000334/1990011
| ML20034D008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Joseph Furia, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034D007 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-90-11, 50-412-90-10, NUDOCS 9006050360 | |
| Download: ML20034D008 (15) | |
Text
n g-
.
.,
.
U. S. NVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-334/90-11 Report Nos. 50-412/90-10
50-334 l
Docket Nos, 50-412 DPR-66 License Nos. NPF-73 Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company
435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Shippirigport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 30 - May 4, 1990 l
i Inspectors:
Oba,1 @. '7Vk,lnw(1ACt C a'f 90 N.T.Mc@mara,LaboratoryAssistant, Effluents date j
Radiatiotr Protection Section (ERPS)
'
I t $. c i+>9 r/
S. 2 V~9e
.
J.
. Furia, Radiation riec1 Hist, ERPS date ota m m w w m. ost she
!
J. J. Kotghn, Laboratory SpecialistP, ERPS date
!
Approved by: -
MYd$
!
R. J. Bo 4s, Chief, ERPS, Facilities Radiation date Safety and Safeguards Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 30 - May 4, 1990 (Combined Inspection Report Numbers 50-334/90-11 and 50-412/90-10 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological and l
non-radiological chemistry programs. Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements-radiological, standards analyses-chemistry, and laboratory QA/QC.
Results: Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identified. Weaknesses i
were identified in the laboratory QA/QC program, t
9006050360 900525 PIIR ADOCK 05000334 L
-
-
-
.
')
.
.o
.
/
.
+
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees J. Estermyer, Chemistry Specialist
- D. Evans, Chemistry Trend and Analysis Coordinator
- C, Kirschner, QA Supervisor
- V. Linnebom, Corporate Nuclear Chemist
- F. Lipchick, Senior Licensing Supervisor
- F. Lipta. Count Room Coordinator
- A. Mizia, QA Supervisor
- T. Noonan, General Manager, Nuclear Operation Unit
- D. Orndorf, Acting Chemistry Manager
- F. Schweitzer, Senior Chemist
- B. Sepelak, Licensing Engineer
- N. Tonet, Manager, Nuclear Safety
?R. Tonks, Chemistry Specialist
- S. Vicinie, Senior QA Specialist Other Personnel J. Beall, Senior NRC Resident Inspector
'*P. Wilson, NRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes those personnel who attended the exit meeting on May 4, 1990,
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel including other members of the chemistry and health physics staffs.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-334/87-07-03):
Chemistry personnel sampling errors which caused ESF activations.
The licensee has revised the affected sampling procedures to prevent the escape of radioactive material while i
sampling. Chemistry Specialists have been and will be trained in the use l
of the revised procedures. This item is closed.
3.
Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the following i
areas.
'
1.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems and effluent samples, and chemistry parameters in various plant systems.
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
,
- -
--
.
.
'
.
.
4.
Laboratory Organization and Operation Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 & 2 have four chemistry laboratories and two counting rooms.
Each unit has a cold laboratory, a hot laboratory and a counting room.
The cold laboratories were utilized for the chemical analysis of non-radioactive samples from the secondary plant.
The hot laboratories were utilized for the chemical analysis of both radioactive samples from the primary plant and non-radioactive samples from selected portions of the secondary plant.
Both counting rooms were utilized to quantify radioactivity in effluent samples.
However, during this inspection the Unit I counting room equipment was unavailable because the counting room ventilation system was inoperable. Therefore, all radioactive sample intercomparisons were performed with the Unit-2 counting room only.
The data listed in Tables I and II identify which counting system (detector)
or which laboratory was used for the sample analyses.
In addition, it
_should be noted that the licensee used an ion chromatograph (IC) with two different eluant streams for the analysis of anions. A borate eluant was used for the analyses of fluoride and chloride, and a carbonate / bicarbonate eluant was used for chloride and sulfate analyses.
These systems are also identified in Table II.
5.
Radiological and Chemical Measurements 5.1 Confirmatory Measurements (Radiological)
During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. The same samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC with the exception of the reactor coolant sample, which was an actual split sample. Where possible, the samples are actual effluent samples or inplant 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:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent and other samples with respect to the
'
Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
In addition, a liquid effluent 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 will be compared
,
with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be l
documented in a subsequent inspection report.
i
.
.
-
p
.,
.
The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on April 11-15, 1988 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-334/88-13 and 50-412/88-08) were also compared during this inspection.
The results of the sample measurements intercomparisons indicated
.
that all of the results were in agreement under the criteria used for
!
comparing results, with one exception. The one exception was the Fe-55 analysis on the liquid radwaste sample which was split during the previous inspection.
The licensee's result was approximately 40
.
'
times lower than the NRC result.
This appears to be indicative of a poor split of the previous sample.
The results of the Fe-55 analysis
!
obtained from the liquid radwaste sample split during this inspection l
will be compared as soon as received in order to resolve this j
disagreement. Additional follow-up action, such as sending a spiked
.
Fe-55 sample to the licensee, will be taken if necessary.
The results
'
of the radioactivity measurements comparisons are listed in Table I.
The comparison criteria are presented in Attachment 1.
The inspector had_no further questions in this area. No violations were
identified, j
i 5.2 Standards Analyses (Chemical)
During this rr.rt of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted te the licensee for analysis. The standard solutions were i
prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) 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.
i
!
The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate
'
at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration and analysis range.
Two of the lithium analyses were performed in
!
duplicate due to a lack of sufficient volume of the NRC supplied standards to perform the analyses in triplicate. The ammonia reanalyses were performed singly and some anion analyses were performed in duplicate due to time constraints.
The results of the standards measurements comparisons, presented in
^
Table II, indicated that several of the results were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 2).
,
The initial Unit 2 Cold Lab ammonia results were in disagreement at two of the three concentrations and the Unit 1 Hot Lab ammonia results for a solution of approximately 0.2 ppm indicated no ammonia was present.
The disagreements and the failure to detect ammonia were due to
.-
^
- .
.
deteriorated Nesslers reagent.
Reanalysis with a different Nesslers reagent resulted in agreement for all measurements. The reanalysis results are presented in Table 2.
Two silica results were also in disagreement, one' result from the Unit 1 Hot Lab and one result from the Unit 2 Hot Lab.
Reanalysis of the NRC silica standards at the Unit 2 Hot Lab resulted in two results in disagreement. The inspector noted that the licensee used a spectrophotometer cell with a 20 mm path length at the Unit 2 Mot Lab and a 40 mm path length at the Unit 1 Hot Lab. The-inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and stated that the ASTM procedures for silica analysis require a spectrophotometer with a 50 mm path length.
The licensee stated that this area would be reviewed and consideration given to using a spectrophotometer cell with a longer path length.
The silica data presented in Table 11 is the initial analysis data.
Many of the licensee's hydrazine results were also in disagreement.
These disagreements appeared to be due to the wide range over which
-'
the licensee calibrates the spectrophotometer for hydrazine analysis.
The licensee's calibration curves for hydrazine extend from 50 ppb to 500 ppb, but during routine operation the hydrazine concentration in the feedwater and the steam generators is normally below 50 ppb.
After the licensee recalibrated the Unit 2 Cold Lab and the Unit 2
'
Hot Lab spectrophotometers over a range of 0 to 100 ppb, the results were in agreement or qualified agreement. The inspector and the licensee discussed this matter and the licensee stated that two calibration curves would be prepared, one covering the concentration range normally encountered during routine operations and one covering-the range normally encountered during lay-up conditions.
The inspector also discussed using a spectrophotometer with a longer path length with the licensee.
The licensee stated that this would be reviewed and appropriate action taken.
Finally, a number of the anion results; fluoride, chloride and sulfate, were in disagreement.
Normally the licensee performs two point calibrations of the ion chromatograph, with the low point at 2 ppb.
Reanalysis after performing multipoint calibrations of the ion chromatograph at the Unit 2 Hot Lab resulted in all but two values being in agreement.
The disagreements may have been due to a sampling or dilution error.
Recalibration of the ion chromatograph in the Unit 1 Hot Laboratory using the original two point calibration technique did not improve the chloride results. The licensee stated that the chloride standard solution used in the Unit 1 Hot Lab may have deteriorated.
The-licensee further stated that consideration would be given to performing multipoint calibrations because of the difficulty in accurately preparing standards at the two ppb level.
The inspector stated that the above areas would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No violations were identified in this are i c
'
.
-
.,
?.
6.0 Laboratory QA/QC The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC program. The review was conducted from the perspective of an interlaboratory QA/QC program and an intralaboratory QA/QC program.
Chapter 9, Conduct of Operations, of the BVPS-1/BVPS-2 Chemistry Manual details both the interlaboratory and intralaboratory comparison programs.
The interlaboratory program consisted of the analysis of spiked samples prepared by an outside laboratory.
The licensee receives radioactively spiked samples on a quarterly basis.
Included in this program was the licensee's vendor laboratory that performed radiochemical analyses of effluent samples.
This program, which was initiated in 1989 is not described in the licensee s interlaboratory comparison program. The laboratory intercomparison program does specify the analyses of spike samples for chemical parameters on a quarterly basis.
However, the procedure does not specify which chemical parameters are to be analyzed, at what concentrations they will be analyzed, and the criteria for comparing results.
The inspector reviewed data generated by the above programs for 1989 and 1990 to date and noted that the licensee was implementing the radioactivity program on a quarterly basis.
The chemical analysis program was implemented for the first and third quarters for 1989 and the first quarter of 1990.
In reviewing the data the inspector also noted that many of the spiked chemistry samples contained analytes at concentrations an order of magnitude higher than those normally analyzed by the licensee.
The inspector discussed the above findings with the licensee, and the licensee stated that the above areas would be reviewed and appropriate corrective action taken.
<
The intralaboratory program requires the analysis of blind samples of key analytes at least once per six months.
Based on a review of available data, it appeared that this program has yet to be implemented.
In addition, the program does not specify what analytes are to be analyzed and what criteria are to be used to compare results. Also included in the intralaboratory program are instrument and procedure control charts.
A review of ava11cble control chart data indicated that the licensee was implementing this program as required.
Included in the control chart program is a periodic review of the control charts and data by chemistry management. The inspector discussed the above intralaboratory QA/QC program findings with the licensee. The licensee stated that the'above areas would be reviewed and appropriate action initiated.
The inspector l
had no further questions in this area.
No violations were identified.
,
7.
Exit Interview
.
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of this report at the conclusion of the inspection on May 4, 1990. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
i
-
.
.
-'
,,
Table I Beaver Valley Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON
'
Results in microcuries per milliliter Gaseous Waste Kr-85 (9.010.3)E-4 (9.010.3)E-4 Agreement Tank 1031 hrs 05-02-90 (det. 1936)
Results in total microcuries Unit I SPING I-131 (1.00 0.09)E-3 (1,1110.14)E-3 Agreement Charcoal I-133 (6.911.2)E-4 (4.411.6)E-4 Agreement Cartridge 0825 hrs 04-30-90 (det. 1936)
Results in microcuries per milliliter Crud Filter Co-58 (7.3 0.3)E-6 (8.010.4)E-6 Agreement 1030 hrs Co-60 (1.1010.05)E-5 ( l '. 3110. 05 ) E-5 Agreement 05-01-90 Zr-95 (5.010,5)E-6 (6.010,5)E-6 Agreement (det. 1929)
Nb-95 (6.010.3)E-6 (6.5 0.3)E-6 Agreement Reactor Coolant I-132 (4.1510.08fb-3 (5.0210.08)E-3 Agreement Unit 2 I-133 (2.22 0.04)E-3 (2.1010.09)E-3 Agreement 1030 hrs I-134 (8.4t0.5)E-3 (9.010,5)E-3 Agreement 05-01-90 1-135-(5.010.2)E-3 (5.010.2)E-3 Agreement (det. 1929)
(2 hr. count)
Reactor Coolant I-131 (1.48 0.05)E-4 (1.70 0.16)E-4 Agreement Unit 2 I-133 (2.2610.02)E-3 (2.1710.05)E-3 Agreement 1030 hrs I-135 (5.010.3)E-3 (5.0610.08)E-3 Agreement 05-01-90 (det. 1929)
(24 hr count)
Reactor Coolant I-131 (1.4810.05)E-4 (1.7 0.3)E-4 Agreement Unit 2 I-133 (2.2610.02)E-3 (2.2010.08)E-3 Agreement 1030 hrs 05-01-90 (det. 1936)
(24 hr count)
.
.
.
Table I (continued)
Beaver _ Valley Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE-COMPARISON Results in microcuries per milliliter Liquid Radio-Co-58 (1.13 0.07)E-6 (1.1710.14)E-6 Agreement active Waste Co-60 (6.54 0.14)E-6 (7,010.3)E-6 Agreement 1100 hrs Sb-125 (2.1010.03)E-5 (2.1710.07)E-5 Agreement 05-01-90 Cs-137 (6.010,5)E-7 (8.4tl.2)E-7 Agreement (det. 1936)
Liquid Radio-Co-58 (1.1310.07)E-6 (1,1210.08)E-6 Agreement active Waste Co-60 (6.54 0.14)E-6 (6.7310.16)E-6 Agreement 1100 hrs Sb-125 (2.10 0.03)E-5 (2.2310.04)E-5 Agreement 05-01-90 Cs-137 (6.010.5)E-7 (8.110.8)E-7 Agreement (det. 1929)
- Liquid Radio-Fe-55 (3.34 0.01)E-4 (9.3 ?)E-6 Disagreement active Waste H-3 (4.67 0.07)E-2 (5.31t?)E-2 Agreement 1130 hrs Sr-89 (1.7 1.3)E-8
<2.6E-8 No Comparison 04-13-88 Sr-90 (-7 4)E-9
<4.3E-9 No Comparison gross alpha (1.2 4 0)E-9
<2E-9 No Comparison
.
- Results from sample split during previous inspectio.
'
-
,
,
,
.:
TABLE Il Beaver Valle'y Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Sodium 2 AA 5.110.2 6.0510.08 1.1910.10 Qualified Agreement 9.910,2 11.310.2 1.1410.03 Agreement 15.210.4 16.3210.11 1.0710.03 Agreement Sodium 2 AA 5.1 0.2 5.210.2 1.0210.06 Agreement 9.910,2 10.6610.06 1,0810.02 Agreement 15.2 0.4 16.010.3 1.0510,03 Agreement Results in parts per million (ppm)
Lithium 2 AA 0.990 0.015 1.01210.0045 1.0210.02 Agreement 0.73 0.02 0.71610'
0,9810.02 Agreement 0.39510.006 0.4083 0,0015 1,0310.02 Agreement Lithium 2 AA 0,99010.015 1.078510,0007'
1.09 0.02-Agreement 0.7310,02 0.772010.00145 1.0610.03 Agreement
'
O.395 0.006 0.441310.0012 1.1210.02 Agreement
Boron 1 Tit.
1030 20 101214 0.9810.02 Agreement 299 4 303.9-10.8 1,01610.014 Agreement 510110 506,110.7 0,9910.02 Agreement Boron 2 Tit.
1030 2 101416 0.9810.02 Agreement 29914 305.110.2 1.02010.014 Agreement 510110 506.810.9 0.9910.02 Agreement
,
Ammonia 2 SP 0.20410.010 0.21
1.03 Agreement 0.62i0,02 0,5810.03 0.9410.06 Agreement 1.00 0.04 1.01710.012 1.0210.12 Agreement Ammonia 2 SP 0.20410.010 0.19 0.02 0.9310.11 Agreement 0.62 0.02 0.5610 0.9010.03 Agreement 1.0010.04 0.9810 0.9810.04 Agreement 2 Analyses performed in Unit 1 Hot Lab 2 Analyses performed in Unit 2 Hot Lab
' Analyses performed in duplicate
' Single Analysis
'Results with new Nesslers reagent
>
.
.
'
.
.
TABLE II (continued)
Beaver Valley Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value
{LIC/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per million (ppm)
Ammonia 8 SP 0.204 0.010 0.20010.010 0.9810.07 Agreement 0.6210.02 0.6110 0.9810.03 Agreement 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 1.0010.03 Agreement Ammonia'
SP 0.204t0.010 0.21
1.03 Agreement 0.62 0.02 0.605
O.98 Agreement 1.00 0.04 1.018
1.01 Agreement Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Silica 2 SP 49 4 5815 1.1810.14 Disagreement 55.021.0 5210 0,9410.02 Agreement 80.5 1.5 8012 0.9910.03 Agreement Silica 2 Sp 4934 47.7 0.6 0.9710.08 Agreement 55.011.0 4410 0.80010.015 Disagreement-80.5 1.5 7510 0.93 0.02 Agreement Silica 3 SP 4914 56 4 1.1410.12 Qualified Agreement-55.0 1.0 5618 1.0210.15 Agreement 80.5 1.5 73.310.6 0.91 0.02 Agreement
- 0.2 0.3 5.310.6 0.5210.06 Disagreement Hydrazine 42.310.9 37.310.6 0.8810.02 Disagreement 84.4 0.6 8310 0.98310.007 Agreement
' SP 10.210.3 9.7 0.6 0.95 0.06 Agreement Hydrazine2'
42.310.9 3910 0.9210.02 Agreement 84.410.6 7710 0.91210.006 Qualified Agreement Analyses performed in Unit 1 Hot Lab 2 Analyses performed in Unit 2 Hot Lab 3 Analyses performed in Unit 1 Cold Lab
' Analyses performed in Unit 2 Cold Lab L
' Single Analysis
'Results after recalibration over 0-100 ppb range.
Time did not permit i
recalibration at the Unit 1 laboratories.
'Results with new Nesslers reagent
-
-
.
'
.
.,
TABLE II (continued)
Beaver Valley Chamistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Comparison
'
Results in parts per billion (ppb)
,
Hydrazine3 SP 10.2t0.3 510 0.49010.014 Disagreement 42.3 0.9 3810 0.9010.02 Qualified Agreement 84.410.6 76 0 0.90020.006 Agreement Hydrazine*
SP 10.210.3 9.710.6 0.9510.06 Agreement 42.3 0.9 3910 0.9210.02.
Agreement 84.410.6 7610 0.90010.006 Agreement
. Iron 2 AAG 19,810.3 19.910.2 1.0010.02 Agreement 7.8 0.2 8.010.3 1.0210.05 Agreement 11.610.2 11.9 0.2 1.02 0.02 Agreement
Fluoride
IC 4.810.4 5.0610.04 10.5 0.09 Agreement 9.610.4 9.710.2 1.0110.05 Agreement 14.810.6 15.710.4 1.06 0.05 Agreement Fluoride 222 IC 4.8 0.4 5.li0.3 1.06 0.11 Agreement 9.610.4 10.410.6 1.0810.08 Agreement 14.8 0.6 16.60 0.08 1.1210.04 Agreement
Chloride,'
IC 6.0 0.4 6.1010.10 1.02 0.07 Agreement 12.4 0.8 11.510.5 0.9310.07 Agreement 19.011.0 18.4 0.5 0.9710.06 Agreement Chloride 2 s'22 IC 6.010.4 5.811.1 1.0 0.2 Agreement 12.4 0.8 10.910.7 10.9i0.7 Disagreement 19.0 1.0, 19.0 0.6 19.010.6 Agreement
,
,
2 Analyses Performed in Unit 1 Hot Lab 2 Analyses Performed in Unit 2 Hot Lab 3 Analyses performed in Unit 1 Cold Lab
' Analyses Performed in Unit 2 Cold Lab
'Results after recalibration over 0-100 ppb range.
Time did not permit i
' recalibration at the Unit I laboratories.
' Borate Eluant System i
2 Results after multipoint recalibration
l
-
..
'
.
.
TABLEII(continued)
Beaver Valley Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis *
Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRCl Compari son Results in parts per billion (ppb)
1.510.3 Disagreement
12.4 0.8 1616 1.310.5 Disagreement 19.011.0 2315 1.2 0.3 Disagreement
.
Chloride 2 i n e n t 6.0 0.4 6.2 1.2 1.010.2 Agreement 12.410.8 13.310.4 1.0710.08 Agreement 19.011,0 19.9 0.8 1.0510.07 Agreement Sul f ate ' ' " ' 2 2 IC 3.810.6
'
No Comparison
-
7.610.4 7.410.6 0.9710.09 Agreement 12.010.8 11.8 0.9 0.98 0.10 Agreement Sulfate.uin IC 3.810.6 3.610.5 1.0 0.2 Agreement r
7.610.4 8.810.9 1.1610.13 Disagreement 12.010.8 11.7 0.2 0.9610.07 Agreement 1 Analyses performed in Unit 1 Hot Lab 2 Analyses performed in Unit 2 Hot Lab
" Carbonate /biocarbonate eluant 22Results after multipoint recalibration
"Results after two point recalibration
- IC~=
Ion Chromatography SP UV-Vis Spectrophotometry
=
Tit.=
Potentiometric Titration AA Atomic Absorption Spectrometry - Flame
=
.
AAG = Atomic Absorption Spectrometry - Graphite Furnace l
-
-
.
-
.,
.
i ATTACHMENT 1 to TABLE I CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS l
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, i
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the i
comparison cf the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated
uncertainty. As the ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution",
'
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more
selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
Resolution'
Ratio for Agreement 8
'
'
<3 No Comparison 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0,80 - 1.25
i
>200 0,85 - 1.18
!
1 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
}
8 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
j
!
,
l
1 I-
.
_ _ _
-
.
'
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 to TABLE II Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing result 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 l
Reactors".
Licensee values within the plus or minus two-standard deviation i
range (12sd) of the BNL known value are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but
,
within plus or minus three-standard deviation range (13sd) of the BNL known
!
values are considered to be in qualified agreement.
Repeated results which are in qualified agreement will receive additional attention.
Licensee values
,
greater than the plus or minus three-standard deviation range of the BNL known value are in disagreement.
The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1.
i
,
The ranges for the data in Table II are as follows:
j i
Agreement Qualified Agreement
Analyte Range Range
i Sodium 4.4-5.8 4.0-6.2 J
8.5-11.3 7.8-12.0
f 13.1-17.3 12.0-18.4 Lithium 0.850-1.130 0.785-1.195
0.630-0.835 0.575-0.890 0.340-0.450 0.312-0.478 i
Boron 1008-1052 997-1063
,
292-305 289-309 499-521 493-526 l
l Ammonia 0.184-0.224 0.174-0.234
'
O.560-0.680 0.530-0.710
0.904-1.096 0.856-1.114
'
Silica 44-54 42-56
50-60 47-63 73-88 69-92 Hydrazine 9.4-11.0 9.0-11.4 39.0-45.6 37.4-47.2 77.9-90.9 74.6-94.2
-
"
i.
a
,
.
.-
' I s
+, '
(
'
-..
.
ATTACHMENT 2(continued)
,
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Range-Iron 17.9-21.7 16.9-22.7 7.08-8.60 6.72-8.96 10.48-12.72 9.92-13.28 Fluoride 4.2-5.4 4.0-5.6 8.4-10.8 8.0-11.2 13.0-16.6 12.2-17.4 Chloride 5.6-6.4 5.4-6.6 11.4-13.4 11.0-13.8 17.6-20.4 17.0-21.0 Sulfate-3.4-4.2 3.2 4.4 6.8-8.4 6.6-8.6 10.8-13.2 10.4-13.6
.
s'
t (-
h