IR 05000348/1988010

Forwards Suppl to Insp Repts 50-348/88-10 & 50-364/88-10 Consisting of Confirmatory Measurement Results.Comparative Results in Agreement for H-3,Sr-89 & Sr-90 & in Disagreement for Fe-55

ML20155C329
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	09/26/1988
From:	Dan Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8810100004
Download: ML20155C329 (4)

Text

r '

. a: ,

.

.

'

O/6cm/

'

-

SEP 2 6 E3 i

. Alabama Power Company

/ ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, III l Senior Vice President-Nuclear  ;

Operations i P. O. Box 2641 i Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 i Gentlemen: l i

SUBJECT: DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364, CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS, ;

-

' SUPPLEMENT TO INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/88-10 AND 50-364/88-10

As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples ,

were sent on June 2,1988, to your Farley facility for selected radiochemical ,

analyses. We are in receipt of your analytical results transmitted to us by your letter dated August 4, 1988, and the following comparison of your results <

to the known values are presented in Enclosure 1 for your informatio The 7 acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Enclosure l In our review of the- data, comparative results were in agreement for H-3, l Sr-89, and Sr-90 analyses and disagreement for the Fe55 analysi This '

disagreement may be indicative of a programmatic weakness and therefore your ,

attention is directed to determining the underlying cause for this disagree- j ment. Furthermore, all data should be reviewed in greater detail by cognizant i staff members for significant trends in the data among successive years in l which samples have been analyzed by your facilit Mr. D. Grissette of your Farley facility staff, was informally notified of ,

these results on September 19, 198 These results and any results from previous years pertaining to these analyses will be discussed at future NRC inspection ,

Sincerely,

'

OriginalSigned U i D. M. Collins ,j '

Douglas M. Collins, Chief  !

Emergency Preparedness and '

Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety -

and Safeguards )

!

Enclosures 1. Confirmatory Measurement 1 Comparisons l Criteria for Comparing l Analytical Measurements l cc w/ encl: (See pge 2)

@ 188# ! t(

.- _ _ _ . _ z a t

, - - - . - - - - - -

_ _

'

','

. ., .

- Al'abama Power Company 2 cc w/encis:

VB. M. Guthrie, Executive Vice President f.N.Morey,GeneralManager-Nuclear Plant VJ. D. Woodard, Vice President -

Nuclear Generation vJ. W. McGowan, Manager-Safety Audit and Engineering Review l q s. Fulmer, Supervisor-Safety l Audit and Engineering Review l State of Alabama bec w/encls:

vNRC Resident Inspector DRS Te-hnical Assistant E.' s, Project Manager, NRR VDor .e Control Desk l

l l

l l

l RII RII RII k'

PStoddart 138 Nth

_J ahle HDance 9/9 /88 /> 3/88 9/>>/88

_

- _ _ . . . . _ - - -

'

.

,

r e

C c

a h

1 .

e l w M w

> C

'! h

wtwe CCCC

= I, Itti e g@

L P

C

W Qf (&~ O44p@

< O ke3 e a:

op

.m CMCO

' e La C -

~&

we

. N. C. *OCC I @ MC

'

> E0

.D U

@D **

J A. 3O =

, @(

w e

i .E Q Cl w M o'

l E eW ~

1 3 32 *CeA

! OI ( C cAMN I 1 Of 6 .J -

I

-

g Ob C E BE k

o j.

d 24 E

,

,

'

b O ,

'

' CC O bb4C

1 ~= C. C. C. o.

,

• wwww

l Q w) seeN J, W wE m C. O. C. M.

i

' R4 -I COOC ww E E

,

wE so U Nl ceeM zglmemo 1 nw a a,

-

e w o. w. +. (

w N"*m K

>

E  ?&3C C @ ="1 CCCC i > c -j e e a e d

WE we ww Gk 4 - o q w - i, N ,.C R.@.

.

= WJ N--s C:

Ofc

. OLO 4 MS 4 4 h $, l QQQ

-! 3=0O I,

i

'l

!

!

s l

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

,...

'

.

ENCLOSURE 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS 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 progra In these criteria, the judgment limits denoting agreements of disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable. This variability is a function of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty, referred to in this program as "Resolution"8 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 decrease For comparison purposes, a ratio 8 of the licensee value to the NRC value for each individual nuclide is computed. This ratio is then evaluated for agree-ment based on the calculated resolution. The corresponding resolution and

! calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below. Values l outside of the agreement ratios for a selected nuclide are considered in disagreement.

'

Resolution = NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide Associated Uncertainty for the Value

Comparison Ratio = Licensee Value l

NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio for Resolution Agreement

<4 0.4 - 2, 5 4-7 0.5 - 2. 0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1. 66 1 16 - 50 0.75 - 1. 33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1, 25

>200 0.85 - 1. 18

_-- ________ _