IR 05000348/1987018
| ML20238E530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1987 |
| From: | Adamovitz S, Gloersen W, Kahle J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238E518 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-87-18, 50-364-87-18, IEIN-86-030, IEIN-86-042, IEIN-86-076, IEIN-86-30, IEIN-86-42, IEIN-86-76, NUDOCS 8709150050 | |
| Download: ML20238E530 (16) | |
Text
..
'
r p Rio
..
UNITEo STATES
.E[
o..
NUCLEAR GEGULATORY COMMISSION
[
]*
'n REGloN ll
- o
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
if~
A1 LANTA, GEORGI A 30323 -
%,g.../
L SEP 0 41987 Report Nos.:
50-348/87-18'and 50-364/87-18
"
Licensee: Alabama Power Cempany 600 North.18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos..
NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name: - Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: August 17-20, 1987 l
/
P/ff l
Inspector:
js&
m /fp S. S. Adamovitz V
date Si'gned.
'
Y Sr; k 4 cr l (9 9 7
, u.
s W S( % fbtT sip ( W N '
'Date Signsd, Accompanying Personnel:
J. B. Kahle o
Approved 'y: NM9h4 N-(g/&r!4 Je>ohmbir Y lfE7 o
sf J. B.vK 51e, Sect 1on Chief
'Date Signed
~
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
,
SUMMARY Scope: This. routine, unannounced inspection involved an examination in the areas of quality control and confirmatory measurements including review of the laboratory quality control program; review of procedures and instructions; review of the counting room quality control records and logs; and results of split. samples analyzed by the licensee and the NRC Region II Laboratory facilities. The inspection also involved followup on IE Information Notices and previously identified inspector followup items.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8709150050 870904 PDR ADOCK 05000348 G
PDR-i
_.__________.._.s____..__..______.____._-__a
_.
___- -. __
-
_
_
.
-
,
-. >
- '
REPORT DETAILS 1;
Persons Contacted Licensee-Employees J. K. Osterholtz,. Supervisor, Safety Auditing and Engineering Review
.
Group
,
C. D. Nesbitt,. Technical Superintendent
<
.
R., T.: Wood, Chemistry. and Environmental Supervisor (Acting)
D. N. Morey,' Assistant Plant-Manager, Operations
J. Bryan, Count Room Foreman
T. M. Burr, Data Control Technician,. Chemistry and Environmental
P. Patton, Plant Health Physicist
R. D.:H111,10perations. Manager
D.'E..Grissette, Environmental and Emergency Planning Supervisor
_
J. E. 0 dom, Unit Supervisor
,
J. M. Walden, SAER Lead Auditor R. R. Martin, SAER Lead Auditor J. Geiger, Radiation Chemistry Technician
-
NRC Resident Inspectors W. H. Bradford
W. H. Miller, Jr.
- 2.
Exit Interview 1he! inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 20, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. One unresolved item * concerning gaseous geometry calibrations for gamma spectroscopy systems (Paragraph 68) was identified.
Licensee' management-representatives acknowledged the inspectors' comments and expressed no contrary opinions. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
'3.
' Laboratory Quality Control Program (84725)
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the Quality Assurance Program and determined that organizational: structure and program
- management had not changed since a previous inspection (50-348, 364/85-27). The inspectors noted the licensee had initiated additional crosscheck programs for radiochemical analyses and gamma isotopic determinations. Beginning 1987, two contractors will
- Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviations.
'
(.'
mmm.Am__.n__.2_._____-_m____._________,______________.m.__.m
___
gp -
]
,
,
y
.;
.
'
a
,.
I-
)
,
provide a variety of sample types and forms for aralysis.
One vendor will provide spikes quarterly and the other vendor's frequency has yet to be determined.
No violations or deviations were~ identified.
4.
Audits (84725)
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8 states that audits shall be_ conducted under the direction of APCO's-Manager-Safety Audit and' Engineering
~
Review to determine conformance of facility operations to provisions contained within. Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions at least once per 12 months.
The inspectors reviewed the following audit reports-
1 a.
SAER Audit, Counting Room Activities, January.28-March 19, 1987.
b.
SAER Audit,-Environmental Surveillance Test Procedures-(STP),
January 27-31, 1986.
c.
SAER Audit, Chemistry STP's, October 28,'1985-January 14, 1986.
d.
SAER Audit, Chemistry, October 28, 1985-January 14, 1986.
t The inspectors also reviewed selected portions of the accompanying checklists and noted detailed guidance was'given and procedural or Technical Specification requirements were referenced.
The licensee had utilized Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Program (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment," as guidance for chemistry audits.
Responses to audit findings were documented in corrective action reports.
Estimated completion dates were also identified and corrective actions were assessed for completeness by audit personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Procedures and Changes'(84725)
a.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Rev. 2, November 1972. The inspectors reviewed selected portions of procedures dealing with detector calibration and operation, radiochemical analyses, count room activities, and data review.
In reviewing Procedure FNP-0-RCP-728, " Operation and Calibration of the Multichannel Analyzer Systems," Rev. 8, May 22, 1987, the inspectors noted the procedure did not indicate proper placement of a charcoal cartridge with respect to the detector during counting (i.e., direction of the flow arrow pointing upward).
..
.
.
. _
. -_
l I
.
.
i l
t The licensee's g6mma spectroscopy system was calibrated for a face-loaded geometry and improper placement of the cartridge would yield erroneously low results.
Discussions with various count room personnel indicated all were ki:owledgeable of correct cartridge positioning; however, during the course of this inspection, licensee representatives provided the inspectors an approved procedural change form to incorporate specific instructions for cartridge placement during counting.
b.
The inspectors discussed count room equipment with licensee representatives and noted the equipment was not state-of-art since it was procured in the early 1970s.
Licensee l
representatives informed inspectors that new count room equipment had been ordered and was expected onsite by January 1988.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Records (84725)
a.
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the following records:
(1) Ortech Low Background Alpha-Beta Counter NSL15ABC002, Unit 1 Daily Performance Checks, August 1987 Background Checks, August 1987 Quarterly Calibrations, 1987
(2) Gamma Spectroscopy Systems:
MCA 1 - Unit 1, MCA 2 -
Unit 1, MCA 1 - Unit 2, MCA 2 - Unit 2
_
(a) Daily Performance Checks including:
Peak Channel, August 1987 Efficiency, August 1987 Resolution, August 1987 (b) QA Plots:
i Efficiency, March 1987-August 1987 Resolution, March 1987-August 1987 l
_ _ - _ _
-
>
o
,
,
'
-
- '
..
I l
' (3)
1987 Annual Efficiency Calibrations for Gamma Spectroscopy Systems'
'
..
-(a).MCA 1 - Unit 1
.
Charcoal Cartridge 1" Liter Marinelli - Gas 4 Liter Marinelli - Gas
-
1 Liter Marinelli - Liquid (b) MCA 2 -' Unit 1 Vial (20 m1 liquid)
Disk Charcoal Cartridge (c) MCA 1 - Unit l'
4 Liter' Marinelli - Liquid Vial (20 mi liquid).
Disk
' Charcoal Cartridge (d) -MCA;2 - Unit 2 Charcoal Cartridge Silver Zeolite Cartridge 14 cc Vial - Gas (4) NMC Proportional Counters (a) NSL 151PC001 Beta Plateau, July 28, 1987 Background Checks, July-August 1987 Source Checks, July-August 1987 (b) NSL151PC002 Alpha Plateau, August 3, 1987 Background Checks, August 1987
,
' Source Checks, August 1987
'
(5). EPA Crosscheck Results i
(a) Performance Evaluation-Intercomparison Study, L
April 20, 1987
!.
'
Alpha, Beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, Co-60, Cs-134, Cs-137 (b) H-3 in Water, February 13, 1987
,
l L-i___-______._______
__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. - - -
i
,
_
. - _. - _ _ - _
,
,
-
< t.q
'
(6) Analytics Crosscheck - First Quarter 1987 1 Liter' Solid'- Mixed Gamma 1-131, Xe-133, Kr-85, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55
'
.(7). Gas Calibration Crosschecks March 1986 and April 1987 for.the following geomotries:
'l Liter Marinelli
<
4 Liter'Marinelli 14 cc Vial b.
The inspectors discussed the.results of the gaseous calibration crosschecks conducted in March 1986 and April 1987 with licensee'
E
. representatives.
Due to current computer software restraints, energy peaks were fixed in computer memory..This caused count room personnel to calibrate all' gaseous geometries - 14 cc vial, 1 liter.Marinelli and 4.11ter Marinelli - using a solid resin.
standard containing nine mixed gamma isotopes.
The purpose of the gas calibration crosschecks was to determine if the'.'
efficiencies calculated from a solid. resin standard would give accurate results for a gaseous spike.
For the gaseous-crosschecks, a known amount amount of a gas standard containing Xe-133, Xe-127, and Kr-85 was injected into the various geonetries and counted on all available-gamma systems..The results of the two studies are summarized in the table below
<
which lists the ratios for the " counted" activities to the
"known" spike values:
h-Geometry:
1 liter Marinelli Ratio Range Counted /Known Isotope March.1986 April 1987 Xe-133 0.86 - 1.03 0.83 - 1.00 Xe-127 1.00 - 1.01 1.22 - 1.45 Kr-85 1.00 - 1.01 1.08 - 1.21 Geometry:
4 liter Marinelli Ratio Range Counted /Known Isotope March '1986 April 1987 Xe-133 0.81 - 0.95 0.87 - 1.17 Xe-127 1.22 - 1.32 1.63 - 1.76 Kr-85 1.05 - 1.08 1.35 - 1.42
)
i___.__________.___ -. -. _
--
.
.
The table indicates differing results for the two crosscheck
,
studies.
In general, results from the March 1986 study trended j
closer to known activities than the April 1987 study.
The
!
results of the April 1987 crosscheck showed a high bias with d
j
" counted" values as much as 76% higher than "known values.
Licensee representatives agreed to conduct further. crosschecks
in order to evaluate the differences. The inspectors informed licensee representatives that this area would be considered an unresolved item and would be reviewed during a future inspection.
URI 50-348, 364/87-18-01:
Validation studies of 1 liter and 4 liter Marinelli gaseous calibrations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Confirmatory Measurements (84725)
During this inspection, samples of reactor coolant and selected liquid and gaseous process streams were collected and the resultant sample matrices were analyzed for radionuclides concentrations using the gamma-ray spectroscopy systems of the licensee's coJnting laboratory and the NRC r.egion II mobile laboratory.
The purpose of these comparative measurements was to verify the licensee's capability to measure quantities of radionuclides accurately in various plant systems. Analyses were conducted using the licensee's four gamma spectroscopy systems.
Sample types and counting geometries included:
(1) reactor coolant-liquid scintillation vial; (2) liquid waste - one liter marinelli; and (3) waste gas decay tank
- 14 cc gas vial. A spiked charcoal cartridge, particulate filter, and a' simulated liquid waste sample (one liter Marinelli resin source) were provided for analysis in lieu of licensee samples which did not have sufficient levels or quantities of radioac'ivity for analysis.
A comparison of licensee and NRC results is listed :n Attachment 1, Table 1, with the NRC acceptance criteria listed in Atte.chment 2.
All four of the licensee's detectors were in disagreement and biased low for I-135 for the reactor sample.
Additionally, Detector 2-Unit I and Detector 2-Unit 2 were in disagreement for I-132.
It was also observed that Detector 1-Unit 1, Detector 2-Unit 1, and Detector 2-Unit 2 did not identify I-134. The licensee initially analyzed the reactor coolant sample on Detector 1-Unit 2 within approximately 30 minutes of the time of sample collection.
Because of miscommunication the reactor coolant sample was not analyzed on the remaining three detectors until approximately thirteen hours after the time of sample collection.
The disagreements and the inability to identify the I-134 isotope noted above may be due to the relatively short half lives of the
'
iodine species.
The inspectors also observed that for the waste gas decay tank sample (14 cc gas vial geometry) all licensee measurements (
- _ _ _
,
.
- - _.
_ _ _ - -
_
.
.
-
_
_
_-
-
__.
'
!
7<
..
3 ci: %
.I were biased low. Specifically, the licensee's' measurements for Kr-88 were in disagreement on all of the detectors. ' Additionally, the
, licensee's measurements were,in disagreement for Xe-133 on Detector 1-Unit-l', Detector 2-Unit:1,.and Detector'l-Unit 2 and.in i;
d disagreement for.Xe-135 on Detector l:1-Unit 2..The' inspectors.
discussed these biases with the licensee.and noted that the negative:
bias could be attributed to gas. sample-transfer losses or, sample
-preparation techniques.
The inspectors also provided th-eL11censee.
with a: spiked particulate-filter and noted a. negative bias on all thei nuclides detected for Detector.1-Unit I and Detector.1-Unit 2.
'
,
Additionally, the inspectors noted some limitation in the. licensee's nuclide. identification library used for identifying the nuclides in-
the particulate filter in that Cd-109 (88 kev) was 'not icentified.
<
The licensee was' also provided with a simulated liquid waste sample-
?n May 1987, by the NRC Contract Laboratory and was requested to complete radiochemical analyses for H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55. A comparison of licensee an'd NRC results is listed in Attachment 1,
!
Table 2-with the acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 2.
The results.were in agreement for all analyses.
No violations or deviations were identified.
>
8.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspector Followup Items (92701)
a.
(Close.d) 50-348, 364/85-27-01:
Validation studies'of large volume gas geometry calibrations.
The inspectors rev h;ed two calibration studies conducted March 1986, and A1ril 1%7 and noted conflicting results regarding "known" versus "counteo*'
gaseous activiti.es. This item was upgraded to an unresolved item and is discussed in greater detail in Paregraph.6.b of this
. report.
~
b.
(Closed) 50-348, 364/85-27-02:
Evaluation of gamma spectroscopy system No. 3 for noted inconsistencies of sample analyses.
This
' item was identified during a previous confirmatory measurements inspection conducted June 17-20, 1985.
At that time, particulate filter results counted on the licensee's Gamma System No. 3 were in disagreement with NRC's results and differed from results generated by the licensee's Detector Nos. I and 2.
Subsequent investigations conducted by licensee personnel concluded isotopic disagreements resulted from the Sample Analysis System (SANS) gamma. spectroscopy software
'
utilized solely by the System No. 3.
The inspectors reviewed Site Effluent Software Action Plan, February 28, 1986, Rev. 0, t
L and noted that the SANS program was considered inoperable and b
was removed from service.
This item is considered closed, c.
(' Closed) 50-348, 364/87-01-01: Definition of zero in the semiannual effluent reports. The inspectors reviewed the Farley i
_
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ - - _ _. - - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - -
-
,
'
8.
I m
J L
Semiannual Effluent Report July-December 1986, and noted tables were provided listing typical gas and. liquid minimum detectable i
concentrations. This item is considered closed.
9.
Information' Notices (92703)
a.
(Closed) 50-348, 364/86-IN-30:
IE Information Notice.86-30,
" Design Limitations of Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Systems."
This' notice identified two design limitations of Eberline's SPING-4 monitoring systems which included (1) limitation of the detection capability of the system,.and (2) noble gas adsorption by-the plastic scintillator. The first design limitation was-discussed in detail including the licensee's response in a previous inspection report (50-348, 364/87-01).
The inspectors reviewed a memo from H. Nguyem to File, Subject:
IE Information Notice (IEN) 86-30, FNP-87-0431, dated May 21, 1987. 'The licensee's response to the second part of the IEN included procedural revision of FNP-0-RCP-732 to require an evaluation of
'the SPING-4 baseline after calibration.
Subsequent followup actions were detailed in the event that post calibration
. baselines were elevated. This item is considered closed.
b.
(Closed) 50-348, 364/86-IN-42:
" Improper Maintenance of Radiation Monitoring Systems." The inspectors: reviewed a memo from J. G. Wood to File, Subject:
IE Information Notice (IEN) 86-42, FNP-86-0982, dated February 19, 1987. Actions detailed in the memorandum included a' review of applicable procedures concerning surveillance and equipment maintenance.
Licensee personnel concluded proper adherence to current plant procedures provided adequate guidance to control the installation, documentation, and removal of electrical jumpers. This item is considered closed.
.
c.
(Closed) 50-348, 364/86-IN-76:
" Problems Noted in Control Room Emergency Ventilation Systems."
At the time of the in gection, the licensee had initiated a plant change notice PCN 85-0-3846, which detailed replacement of the control room emergency ventilation system converter by an environmentally qualified one.
This converter is utilized by the ventilation system to operate the supply dampers. The
.
'
licensee had also initiated an interim procedure for daily checks of system operability.
This item is considered closed.
a_-_--_.
-. _. _ _ _
_
r;
,,
_, -
(u j { J6 t
i q,
.
.
L.
.f s: i
-
L;
,
,,
St.
ATTACHMENT 2-Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements A
This enclosure'provides criteria for comparing..results of capability tests: ;
- and. verification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical J'
relationship which. combines prior exp'erience-and the accuracy'needs-of this. program.
'In this criteria, the,iudgement limits.. denoting agr'eement or disagreement
,between licensee'and NRC results are variable. This' variability is a.
. function of the NRC's value'. relative to its associated:-uncertainty. As t
u the: ratio.of the'NRC value to its associeted. uncertainty referred to.in
-
this program as " Resolution"2 increases, the. range of acceptable t
differences between the NRC~and licensee values should be more restrictive.
Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and licensee.. values must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
For comparison purposes, a. ratio: c.f the licensee'value to the'NRC'value is computed.. This ratio is then evaluated for agreement based on the calculated resolution.
The corresponding resolution and calculated ratios-which denote agreement are lis?!cd i*c7able.1 below.
Values out. side of the
' agreement. ratios ~are considered 6 disagreement.
2 Resolution'=
NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty for the>Value
.j*.
8 Comparison Ratio =
Licensee:Valuei NRC Reference Value
'
TABLE 1 Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio-for..
'
Resolutioj Agreent/at
< 4
.4
- 2.5 4-
'7
.5
- 2.0 8-
'/
.6
- 1.66 l'
16 - 50
.75 - 1.33 51 - 200
.80 - 1.25
>200
.85 - 1.18
.I.
!
)
l
.
,
,
,
,
L--
- - -
-
x
N re e re e
e re O
tttam tmtam ttttm tmtam t
t t
t S
nnnpe nenpe nnnne nenpe n n n n eeeme eeeme eeeee eeeme e e e e I
mmmor mrmor mmmmr mrmor m m m m RA eeecg egecg eeeeg egecg e e e
e P
eee a
eae a
eeeea eae a e e e e M
rrrts rsrts rrrrs rsrts r r r
r O
gggoi e goi ggggi gi g o i g g g
g C
AAAND /' uND AAAAD ADAND A A A A
.
.
s
-
C
'
R N
/
Oe
-
I e
017 6 270 8 61597 707 9
3
2
-
-
820.
821
99887 750.
8 0 9 Ts
. -
.
An Re 011 - 0 011 0 00000 011 - 0
0
0 c
-
i L
N O
T I
A T
-
U 05344 05344 05344 05344 8 8 8 8 N
L 28236 28236 28236 28236 O
O
1
1 I7 S
T8 E
C9 R
E1 P
S,
N1 I2 L
2121P 21211
-
-
S7 21211 21211
7
7
T1
- - - - -
- - -
-
- - - - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
N EEEEE EEEEE EEEEE EEEEE E E E E 1'Q, ET ES 52803 52803 52803 52803 0 0 0 0 00010 00010 00010 00010 5 5 5 5
1 EO i
00000 00000 0000O 00000 0 0 0 0 l
.
.
- hC
.
hU mC T
?
N
_ SA l N 1i1t1 111i1 1it1i 1'i1iA A i i 1
/R
-
Ek, E
L C
-
M B NT u
19081 19081 19031 19081 5 5 5 5 H
06839 06839 06839 06839
7
7 C A N
f A
T YA
.
3
3 T
RL N
11931 11931 11931 11931 T
O".
O A
T I
d d
d AR T
e e
e MA A
i i
i RE R
f f
f IL T
i i
i TC N
t t
t NU Ee 311 n1 311 n1 31211 311 n1 7 7
7 ON Ce e-
- - - e-
-
e-
-
-
-
-
C Ns EEEdE EEEdE EEEEE EEEdE E
E E
E Y
On i
,
i FE Ce 045i
9
_
!'3 4
18 235
6
2 4
_
1
_
R i
100.t4 0. t 4 75304 850.t5
. 8
31
_
OL c
.
o
. o o
-
SA L
821 n1 821 n1 91831 721 n1
3
3
_
_
TF
-
L U
-
S E
_
-
R
_
_
_
_
_
,
E
-
-
P
-
~
O 12345 12345 12345 12345 0 0 0 0
~
T 33333 33333 33333 33333 6 6 6
_
O 11111 11111 1111 1 11111
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
S
- - - - -
- - -
-
-
- - -
-
o o o o
_
-
_
-
I 11 111 lI111 11111 II111 C C C C
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
_
.
_
)
.
de
_
_
)
)
)
)
ikd d
_
t
)
)
)
)
1
ti
2
2 uii
)
nt
_
y ai
riu
- # # # qpu #
_
.
r l n onq iSq
_
t oU A A
A A
tUi A A A A L i A
_
_
m ClM M
M M
n-i M M M M dR
-
e o lC C
C C
i l)C C C C Cl
-
_
eNrl
_
o a(
(
(
(
o rl(
(
(
(
_
e rei M2el t(el
_
2
- te1
2 2 a
t C
olV1
_
tp e
in l ein t
t t
tkli t t
t t
utli
_
.
e cm.t i
i i
sn r3 i i i ms
-
a a S.i
_
e eS n n
n n
aa1 a r*
n n n i a1 an
_
s
_
En R(LU U
U U
_
_
Le
_
_
Pc
_
.
Mi
.
.
_
_
.
_
3
.
S(
_
_
.
_
<
l
l:l ll
!llI
.
.
_
U.
-
t t
t t
t tt t
n n n
n nn n-e
-
ene e ee e
.-
N
-
tmtwt tmtmt tmtmm tmttt.
tttt O
tttt tttt tttt S
nnnn nnnn nnnn nenen nenen nenee nennn nnnn eeee eeee eeee eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
. eeee R
mmmm mmmm mmmm mrmrm mrmrm mrmrr mrmmm mmmm
I A
eeee eeee eeee egege egege egegg egeee eeee P
eeee eeee eeee eaeae eaeae eaeaa eaeee
. eeee M
rrrr rrrr rrrr rsrsr rsrsr rsrss rsrrr rrrr O
gggg gggg gggg gi gi g gi gi g gi gi i gi g g g gggg C
AAAA AAAA AAAA ADADA ADADA ADADD ADAAA
. AAAA
_
-
C
.
R
.
N
.
_
/
_ ?
_ '
oe
-
.
m e
e 3594 4'1'69 6579 30439 93246 03083 17086 9055
_
T s 0999 9998 9998 96988 86888 96978 96988 8999
.
-
A n
-
-
R e 1000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 00000
.0000
_
.c
-
-
i
.. L
-
_
.
NO I
TU 8648 8648 8648 07500 07500 07500 07500 9287 L
5751 5751 5751 72200 72200 72200 72200
. 8521 S
-
22
22
1 O
>>
>>
>>
>>
E R
1O 1O 1O 1O 3223 3223 3223 211+
211+
.
211+
211+
2232
)
d
-
-
-
EE EE EE EE
- - - -
EEEE EEEE EEEE EEE EEE EEE EEE EEEE
't
-
34800 34800 34800 34800 5105
2h
24 n
2440 2440 2440 1002 1002 1002 10000 10000 10000 10000 0030 o
i
.
.
c (
mC OO00 0000 0000 00O00 00000 0O000 00000 000O
/R
-
E iN ii11 i111 i111 1i i 1 i. 1i1i1 1i11i 1i11i i11i L
c
.
T B
u 7251 7'251 7251 69087 690C7 69087 69087 ~
4264 9016 9016 9046 00024 00024 00024 00024 4548 N
A f
E T
.
M N
6323 6323 6323 91211 91211 91211 91211 4185 H
O
'
C I
A T
T A
T R
A T
NE e 3223 3223 3223 2211O 2211O O21OD 2211O 2232 C e
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
- - - -
N s EEEE EEEE EEEE EEEEE EEEEE EEEEE EEEEE EEE2 O n Ce 9848 7462 9683 29961 63387 22162 46127 5753 c
1813 5702 6802 45803 08602 19892 22812 9305 i
.
L 7223 6223 6223 86111 86111 86191 87111 3185 E
m m
m m
P
7
m 335 m
335 m
335 m
335
O 730 730 730 58333 58333 58333 58333
3 T
5168 5068 5168 88111 88111 88111 88111 6581 O
8
-
-
-
-
- - 8-S oso-oso-oso+
rreeu rreee rreee rreee oo s CCCY CCCY CCCY KKXXX KKXXX KKXXX KKXXX CCYC I
eg
)
)
)
y
))
)
)
)
d
)
)
1
a l1
1
i
y #
c a#
r #
r e
t t
A A
A D ivA A
A A
r)A e C C
C C
C C
C aeC m M M
M s sM M
M M
ClM t
(
(
(
a a(
(
(
(
i(
o l p e
G6g G
2
1
2 aS1
-
e c o
t t
cCt
.
t t
t tkct t
i i
rRi sn4i e
i i
i i
s n n
n aa1 n n
n n
ann En U U
U WT(U U
U U
C(U L e P c Mail
.
.
S(
5
.
.
d d
d s
+
e e
e e
.
'm.
,.
m r
r r
r
<
.. '
N'
%
tttt tttt tttt ttta ttta t *. t a ttty-
.
S nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnp 9nnp nnnp nnnp
\\
, m~
eeee eeee eeee eeem eeem eeem eeem
"
I mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmo mmmo mmmo mmmo
'
RA eeee eeee eeee eeec eeec eeec eeec
.
P eeee eeee eeee eee eee eee eee rr rrrr rrrt rr*t rrrt rrrt
-
rrrr r "g g g g
gggg gggo.ggge gggo gggo g
-
gggg
-
AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAN.%1AM AAAN AAAN
.
-
~
w'
.
,;
~ g g'
%
yv
.
C g
R N
s
/
g
,
Oe
-
.
639-571 -
I e 8592 3835 2994 91 2-024-6 9 9.-
0 0 0.-
8 8 8.-
9 9 0.-
.
-
-
-
,
Ts 9990 9899 9899 An
.
m 000~ 001 -
.
Re 0001 0000 0000 000-111 -
c s
.I-
-
,.
r
-
'
._
NO
%
I T
.
U 9287 9287 9287 9325 9328 9328 9328
-
L 8521 8521 8521 5293 5293 5293 5293
, ~
O
1
1
1 S
'
ER
W s^
V x
X
% 422
,
'2 2232 2232 2232 2422 2422 2422
%
!
- - -
.
d
- - - -
-
- - - -
- - - -
-
-
rtEP EEEE
~,
-
-
EEEE.
EEEE EEEF EEEE EEEE
't
.
n 5105 5t25 5105 3621 3621 362l 3621
,
)
0030 0630 0030 0301 0333 0 3 0.i 0301
-,W a
tmC 00ff0 0000 0000 0000 000O 000L 00OG
%
.
.
f
,
/R
E iN 11i( 211i ii +
ii11 ii1i i11i i1ii
'
n/
L c
6556 6556 6556 6556 4'.45 i B u
426h 4264
<
7481 7481 7481 7481 4...
h A l
4548 4548
.
.
N" E
T 4185 4185 4115 1814.
1814 1844 1 G 14,g
_
-
-
a
-
-
'I O"
d d
t d
?
s AC C.
i i
l im.
,
e e
e e
ie
-
T f
f i
f
-
(.;
T i'.
'.
A T
i I.
t N
t
i
-
'
Ee 2232 2232 2232 242n 242n 2h2t 242nw Ce 6 - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - e -
e
-
e - - - e Ns 5 TEE EEEE EEEE EEEd EEEd EEFd E L E 't 9n
,i, i
'084I i
s 2A14 1345 7541 721 642 887 m
,
0 Ps'
t 3 r. 4 9 1385 0335 5 7 7. t 7 6 9.t 5 9 6.t
."
o
.
o o
o m
IL 4185 4175 4185 171 n 181 n 161 n 181 n l
.
,
.
r
s
-
E
'
P
7
79
7
073% 0730
-
O
3
3
3 0730 0730
%
,
i 6581 6581 6581 6511 6511 6511 5511
- - 8-
-
8-8-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
yM oo s oo s oo s o0sd o0sd o0sd 0osd
,l_
CCYC CCYC CCYC CCCC C 0 C J-C0CC CCCC
,
-
s
~
%*
'
%*
. -
e s
.
r t
.
,
)
)
)
l
)
)
)
)
)
1
i
2
y #
F
J
,
r t
A A
A e)A A
A A
g e C C
C teC C
C C
,
m M M
M akM M
M M
oe (
(
(
li(
(
(
(
up
2
icS1
E
G
,
e t
t t
tCt i
i i
t t
t e
I i
i rRi s
n n
n ann n
n n
En U U
U P(U U
-
U U
Le
.
-
Pc
_
Mi
~.
A *.
-
.
S(
,
-
'
-
I l
,'
l
N O
t t
t t
S n n n n I
e e e e R
m m m m A
e e e e P
e e e e M
r r r r O
g g g g
C A A A A S
I S
)
Y C
L R
A N
N
/
A e
Oe
I s 8 5 6 4
Tn 9 0 0 0
-
Ae r
Rc 0
1
S i
L D8 (
N9 A1
,,
82
- -
r7 s1
,T 5S 5U N
G O
eU I
.
FA T
U 6 2
6
,N i
5 5
2 3O o
T
-
s N
HT E
E E
N R
M L
FA H
B OL C A P
A T S
T NR
-
T O?
5 5 5 6 A
1L E E E E SE
-
-
-
-
9C
)
2
8
?. U l
0 0 0 0 PN M
m OY C/ 0 0 0 O CE Ri L
N_C i 1 i i TR U
(
3
9 NA 6 0
0 EF M
EE
1 2 2 RH UT S
5 5 5 6 R
El
-
-
-
-
I Sm E E E E F
N/
N E4 6 8 5 8
_
O CC 6 0 4
.
C I u
.
L(
1 2 2
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
.
_
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
E
_
.
P
.
O 5 9 0
_
_
_
T 5 8
_
_
.
O
-
-
-
_
_
S
- e r r
_
I H
F S S
_
.
_
_
.
_
_
.
_
- - _ _
- - - _,
p
.
(
l
.
j 5>;,
q
,
ATTACHMENT 2
!]
)
~..
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements i, O
u This enclosure 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 this criteria, the judgement limits denoting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.
This variability is a function of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty.
As the ratio of the NRC value to its associated uncertainty referred to in this program as " Resolution"1 increases, the range of acceptable differences between the NRC and, licensee values should be more restrictive.
Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and licensee values must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
For comparison purposes, a ratio 2 of the licensee value to the NRC value is computed. _This ratio is then evaluated for agreement based on the calculated resolution.
The corresponding resolution and calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below.
Values outside of the agreement ratios are' considered in disagreement.
2 Resolution =
NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty for the Value 2 Comparison Ratio =-
Licensee Value NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio for Resolution Agreement
< 4
.4
- 2.5 4-
.5
- 2.0 8-
.6
- 1.66 16 - 50
.75 - 1.33 51 - 200
.80 - 1.25
>200
.85 - 1.38
-
.__. _ - _ _ _.
. -.
.
.
_, _ _
_
- _.. _ _ _ - _
_ _ _.
.-
.
.
.
-
..
.r
$
a inC3 4 i0
'y
-
- CC
.l
.
2:
'
iM Oh ts i
uM l
-
t.
.
l
!
4
]
.
I i
,
a i
f f
.
1 l
i I
l
_-.