IR 05000354/1987028
| ML20149F455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1987 |
| From: | Kirkwood A, Kottan J, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149F435 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-87-28, NUDOCS 8801140249 | |
| Download: ML20149F455 (18) | |
Text
. -
>
.
'
e
'
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION I
Report No.,50-354/87-28 Docket No.
50-354 Category B
License No.
NPF-50 Priority
--
,
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza-17c Newark, New Jersey 07101 l
!
Facility Name: _ Hope Creek Generating Station
,
J Inspection At:
Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
November 16-20, 1987 t
T.d-M -d/- 8 7 Inspector -
g. Kirkwood, Rddiat on Specialist cate
-
~~~---
N N*
A l2.-8 )~ S 7
-
J. Kottan, Radi ion Laboratory SpeciaTist date Approved by:
i.M M (A hN
[7._k 1.\\ k BQ-
,.
iak, Chief, Effluents date'
W. U. Paf:n Prctection Section Radiatio u
i Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 16-20, 1987 (Inspection Report No.
~
50-354/87-28 )
"
,
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's
'
radiochemical measurements program using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE's Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. Areas reviewed included:
previously identified items, confirmatory measurements, audits and boron analysis.
<
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
8801140249 871230 PDR ADOCK 05000354
'
.
.
_
_
_
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
Details 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Principal Licensee Employees
- J. Lovell, Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager I
- J. Molner, Radiation Protection Senior Supervisor j
- R. Beckwith, Station Licensing Engineer
- J. Clancy, Principal Health Physicist
- J. Wray, Radiation Protection Senior Supervisor
- K. Heath, Chemistry Counting Room Supervisor
<
- E. Karpe, Senior Radiological Engineer
!
- E. Galbraith, Chemistry Engineer
- W. Schell, Technical Engineer
- T. Cellmer, Radiation Protection Engineer
- S. LaBruna, General Manager
- S. Hilditch, Station QA Senior Staff Engineer
- A. Schettino, Station QA Senior Staff Engineer
- M. Shedlock, Maintenance Engineer
- J. Hagan, Maintenance Manager
- R. Griffith, Principal Engineer-QA
>
i S. Spiese, Radiation Protection Technician R. Gary, Radiation Protection Technical Supervisor
The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee i
W employees, including nembers of the chemistry and health physics i
staff.
2.0 Previously Identified Items
(Closed)
InspectorFollow-upItem(50-354/85-59-03): software documentation for fitting IC recalibration data. The inspector reviewed i
procedure CH-TI.22-017(Q), Chemistry Computer Code Software Documentation i
Procedure, and noted that the program used for calibration data curve
'
fitting was documented and verified as required.
3.0 Confirmatory Measurements
3.1 Split Sample Results
'
During this part of the inspection, liquid, particulate filter, and gas samples were split between the licensee and NRC for the purpose
,
of intercerparison. Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicate countirig geometries used by tLt licensee for effluent sample analyses.
In
!
addition, spiked charcoal cartridge standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis because radiciodine was not present on any t
.
effluent charcoal cartridge samples. The samples and standards were
,
analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment, and by the NRC: 1 Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint i
j
.
_ -
.
.
.
- _ -
..
_
_
_
.
.
-
t
.
.
.
,
.
,
-
.
I analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples with respect to 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, gross alpha, and tritium.
The results will be compared.with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results.
(See' Attachment 1.)
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
Arsenic-76 was not identified by the licensee in several samples although this
,
isotope was present. As-76 was not identified and quantified because it was not in the licensee's nuclide identification library.
,
.
l The licensee stated that the isotope library would be reviewed and
'
made complete.
The radiation protection gama spectrometers are
used for counting airborne effluent samples: charcoal cartridges,
]
particulate filters, and gas samples; and chemistry gamma
{
spectrometers are used for snalyzing liquid radioactive effluents i
and inplant prncess and reactor water samples.
!
3.2 Laboratory QA/QC
,
The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program is described in procedure
,
,
CH-AP.22-017(Q), Chemistry Quality Control Program. The inspector reviewed this procedure with respect to radiochemical measurements.
Chemistry is responsible for the overall calibration and QC of both I
the radiation protection and chemistry gama spectrometry systems,
although radiation protection personnel perform the actual QC checks and source placement for calibration. The QC checks for the gama spectrometry and liquid scintillation counter (LSC) systems include efficiency and background, and where applicable, gain on a daily basis. LSC calibrations are performed annually and gama d
spectrometry calibrations are performed semi-annually.
In addition, the licensee participates in a semi-annual interlaboratory J
comparison for tritium, gross beta, and gama isotope measurements.
J'
The primary source of the interlaboratory samples is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
However, most of the EPA crosscheck samples contain too little radioactivity for obtaining
'
l meaningful comparison results for nuclear power plant effluent j
radioactivity measurement systems.
The licensee stated that i
beginning in 1988 an interlaborctory cross check program with a comercial laboratory will be implemented.
This program will i
include all routine effluent counting geometries at appropriate
.'
'
,
_ _ _ _
.
._
._
__
.
.
.
.
.
!
l
!
activity levels.
The licensee further stated that procedure
'
CH-AP.22-017(Q) would be modified to include the new interlaboratory l
crosscheck program. The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program also l
includes provisions for repeat sampling and analysis in order to
,
l verify sampling results.
No violations were identified in this i
area.
3.3 Procedures The inspector reviewed the following selected licensee effluent and inplant analysis procedures:
, Gross Beta by Liquid Scintillation
-
, Liquid Scintillation System
-
, Gamma Spec}roscopy Sample Counting
-
, Tritium (H ) Analysis by Liquid Scintillation
-
, Gamma Spectroscopy Sample Counting,
-
In addition the inspector also reviewed selected calibration and
,
l laboratory QA/QC data.
,
l In reviewing the above procedures and data the inspector noted that, l
in many cases, the gamma spectrometry calibration data had counting l
uncertainties of 7%-10% or greater.
The licensee's procedures did
not require a minimum number of counts in each photo peak of the calibration spectrum. The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and stated that a minimum number of counts should be required in order to minimize the counting uncertainty relative to i
the uncertainty of the standard.
The licensee stated that action
'
would be taken on t'.is matter. Also the inspector noted that the printout of the radiation protection gamma spectrometric systems contained only peak search data and final results. This type of data format, when used with an abbreviated nuclide identification
!
library, can result in isotepes not being identified and quantified because they are not in the nuclide identification library and no i
other indication of their presence is given.
The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee since the licensee does, in fact, use an abbreviated nuclide identification library for some of l
the radiation protecticn gama spectremetry systems printouts.
The
licensee stated that this area would be reviewed, and an expanded I
printcut including unknown photopeaks, as a minimum, would be used in the future.
This would permit hand calculation of the isotopes (
,
'
not in the library. An example of this is the charcoal cartridge data pr e.ted in Table I.
The Co-57 and Cd-109 lines are not in
,
l the licensee's library, but the printout used by chemistry allowed
'
for hand calculation of these results, whereas the radiation l
protection printout did not.
Additionally, the chemistry results from the charcoal cartridge analyses were in better agreement with
'
the NRC than the radiation protection results, although the same standards had been used for both calibrations.
The licensee stated that chemistry would be more involved in the calibrations of the
,
i
.
,
radiation protection gamma spectrometry systems in order to ensure proper source placement during calibration.
The inspector stated that the above areas, including modifications to the isotope library identified in 3.1 and modification to the laboratory QC procedure discussed in 3.2, would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(50-354/87-28-01)
No violations were identified.
4.0 Audits The inspector reviewed Nuclear Quality Assurance Department Audit No.
NM-87-02, Radiation Protection / Chemistry which was conducted on January 19-March 3, 1987. Areas audited included organization, training and qualifications, procedures, sampling, laboratory analyses QC program, and instrument calibration.
The audit appeared to cover the stated objectives and resulted in three quality action requests in the chemistry area. The corrective actions in response to the quality action requests were timely and technically sound.
The inspector also reviewed an assessment of the licensee's counting program conducted in October, 1987, by a contractor.
This assessment was conducted by experts in the field and was initiated by the Radiation Protection Services organization.
This assessment evaluated the quality of the licensee's radioactivity measurements program and did not identify any programmatic weaknesses.
No violations were identified.
5.0 Boron Analysis During a previous inspection. Inspection Report No. 50-354/87-40, conducted on January 27-30, 1987, the licensee's method of post accident sampling system (PASS) boron analysis was discussed. At that time the inspector questioned the ability of the licensee to use the ion specific electrode for boron determinations without a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> conditioning period.
The licensee's current PASS boron procedure, CH-CA.22-025(Q), Boron by Specific lon Electrode, requires a ten minute soaking period prior to use.
In order to verify the licensee's capability to measure PASS boron using the procedure, three boron standards of approximately 1000, 3000, i
and 5000 ppm were submitted to the licensee for analysis. The standards were diluted 1:100 in order to duplicate the concentrations normally--
enecuntered in PASS samples.
The results are presented in Tabic II.
The 1000 ppi result met the licensee's FSAR commitment.
6.0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in
,
Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1987, and j
suntarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
I l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
..
..
- -. -
-
-
.
.__
..
,
-
t
.
.
.
.
!
>
.
TABLE 1
!
HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE IS0 TOPE COMPARISON
,
't
Crud Filter Na-24 (2.5 0.5)E-4 (2.210.2)E-4 Agreement 0915 hrs.
Cr-51 (5.610.3)E-3 (5.4810.14)E-3 Agreement 11/17/87 Mn-54 (1.24 0.05)E-3 (1.2510.03)E-3 Agreement
',
,
Chemistry analysis Mn-56 (1.7810.04)E-2 (1.7610.03)E-2 Agreement l
j Detector 3, Shelf 1 Co-58 (7.110.4)E-4 (7.7103)E-4 Agreement
Fe-59 (1.6210.10)E-3 (1.72i0.05)E-3 Agreement j
Co-60 (6.10.4)E-4 (5.910.2)E-4 Agreement Zn-65 (2.6310.12)E-3 (2.7810.07)E-3 Agreement i
Zn-69m (2.620.3)E-4 (2.620.2)E-4 Agreement
!
'
As-76 (5.71.1)E-4 i
.
W-187 (1.1510.14)E-3 (9.620.7)E-4 Agreement
,
-
l Tc-99m (4.320.3)E-4 (4.2510.14)E-4 Agreement l
,
'
Ce-144 (9.91.3)E-4 (6.920.5)E-4 Agreement As-76 (5.711.1)E-4
- (7.020.5)E-4 Agreement
'
,
i
- Hand calculated value.
^
l
5
)
a t
._
.
.
...
,,.. -.,
--.. -..
,. - -
..,,, _
..
.
-
.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 i
,
HOPE CREEX VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE COMPARISON Reactor Coolant Cr-51 (7.5 0.3)E-3 (7.2420.12)E-3 Agreement 0950 hrs.
Hn-56 (1.220.09)E-3 (1.13f0.03)E-3 Agreement 11/18/37, 2n-65 (5.61.2)E-4 (5.5 0.4)E-4 Agreement Chemistry Analysis 2n-69m (1.60.3)E-4 (1.38 0.10)E-4 Agreement Det. 3 Shelf 1 Tc-99m (7.9410.06)E-3 (7.92i0.02)E-3 Agreement I-132 (2.1 0.4)E-4 (1.710.2)E-4 Agreement Na-24 (4.170.12)E-3 (4.1110.14)E-3 Agreement
-.,,
_-.
.
-.... -
.-
~.
.. -
.
...
.
-.
,
.
',
,
TABLE 1-HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS.
SAMPLE ISOTOPE,NRC VALUE LICENSEE'VALUE COMPARIS0N
~
~
Results in Microcuries/mi i
.
Floor Drain CR-51
'(8.6tl.1)E-6 (9.110.7)E-6 Agreement
!
Sample Tank Zn-65-(4.810.6)E-6 (4.910,5)E-6 Agreement.
!
11/18/87 Na-24 (6.8310.08)E-5 (6.3810.06)E-5 Agreement 1430 t.rs.
Chemistry aralysis Det.2
,
!
i
,
!
i l
.
!
,
l
-
.
.
-
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE IS0 TOPE
.NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARIS0N Results in Microcuries/ml Crud Filter Mn-54 (1.2410.05)E-3 (1.18 0.03)E-3 Agreement 0915 hrs Co-58 (7.1 0.4)E-4 (6.910.2)E-4 Agreement 11/17/87 Fe-59 (1.6210.10)E-3 (1.69 0.05)E-3 Agreement Radiation Co 60 (6.li0.4)E-4 (5.410.2)E-4 Agreement Protection Zn-65 (2.6310.12)E-3 (2.5310.06)E-3 Agreement Det.4, Shelf 1 Na-24 (2.5 0.5)E-4 (1.810.2)E-4 Agreement Cr-51 (5.620.3)E-3 (4.69 0.14)E-3 Agreement W-187 (1.1510.14)E-3 (9.620.6)E-4 Agreement Mn-56 (1.78i0.04)E-2 (1.56 0.03)E-2 Agreement Zn-69m (2.6 0.3)E-4 (2.310.2)E-4 Agreement As-76 (5.7 1.1)E-4 Not identified No comparison Tc-99m (4.3 0.3)E-4 (3.68 0.13)E-4 Agreement Ce-144 (9.9 1.3)E-4 (6.910.5)E-4 Agreement
- - _.
.
-
..
.
.
.
.
-
..
'
- s 3.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
,
SAMPLE IS0 TOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARIS0N Result in Microcuries/ml Crud Filter Mn-54 (1.2410.05)E-3 (1.2810.12)E-3 Agreement-0915 his Co-58 (7.110.4)E-4 (6.510.9)E-4
' Agreement 11/17/87 Fe-59 (1.6210.10)E-3 (1.610.2)E-3 Agreement Radiation Co-60 (6.1 0.4)E-4 (4.510.7)E-4 Agreement Protection Zn-65 (2.63 0.12)E-3 (2.310.2)E-3 Agreement Det.4, Shelf 3 Cr-51 (5.6 0.3)E-3 (6.60.8)E-3 Agreement W-187 (1.1510.14)E-3 (1.310.3)E-3 Agreement Zn-69m (2.6 0.3)E-4 (3.5 1.1)E-4 Agreement As-76 (5.7tl.1)E-4 Not identified No comparison
,
Tc-99m (4.30.3)E-4 (3.810.9)E-4 Agreement Ce-144 (9.9 1.3)E-4 (1,110.4)E-3 Agreement
,
.-.
-
..
.
-
.
- -.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE IS0 TOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON, Results in Microcuries/mi Offgas Kr-85m (3.6 0.2)E-4 (3.37 0.11)E-4 Agreement 1120 hrs Kr-87 (1.4610.09)E-3 (1.4610.05)E-3 Agreement 11-17-87 Kr-88 (1.13 0.07)E-3 (1.0210.07)E-3 Agreement Chemistry analysis Xe-135 (1.1010.03)E-3 (8.7 0.2)E-4 Agreement Det. 3 Shelf-2 l
l l
l l
t i
.
._
..
_
.
_ __ _-.
_.
._
-
..
.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE COMPARIS0N Crud Filter Na-24 (2.510,5)E-4 (2.2 0.2)E-4 Agreement 0915 hrs.
Cr-51 (5.6 0.3)E-3 (5.48 0.14)E-3 Agreement 11/17/87 Mn-54 (1.2410.05)E-3 (1.25 0.03)E-3 Agreement Chemistry analysis Mn-56 (1.7810.04)E-2 (1.7610.03)E-2 Agreement i
Detector 3, Shelf 1 C0-58 (7.10.4)E-4 (7.7103)E-4 Agreement Fe-59 (1.62 0.10)E-3 (1.7210.05)E-3 Agreement Cc 60 (6.110.4)E-4 (5.910.2)E-4 Agreement Zn-65 (2.6310.12)E-3 (2.78 0.07)E-3 Agreement 2n-69m (2.6 0.3)E-4 (2.610.2)E-4 Agreement As-76 (5.7:1.1)E-4 W-187 (1,15 0.14)E-3 (9.610.7)E-4 Agreement Tc-99m (4.310.3)E-4 (4.25i0.14)E-4 Agreement Ce-144 (9.9 1.3)E-4 (6.9 0.5)E-4 Agreement-As-76 (5.7 1.1)E a
- (7.010,5)E-4 Agreement-
- Hand calculated value.
. -.
.
-
-
-
._
,_ -.
..-
-.
. -......
,, _ - -
,-
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE IS0 TOPE COMPARIS0N Recctor Coolant Cr-51 (7.5 0.3)E-3 (7.2410.12)E-3 Agreement 0950 hrs.
Mn-56 (1.2210.09)E-3 (1.1310.03)E-3 Agreement 11/18/87, In-65 (5.6fl.2)E-4 (5.5 0.4)E-4 Agreement Chemistry Analysis Zn-69m (1.6 0.3)E-4 (1.38i0.10)E-4 Aareement Det. 3, Shelf 1 Tc-99m (7.94 0.06)E-3 (7.9210.02)E-3 Agreement I-132 (2.1 0.4)E-4 (1.7 0.2)E-4 Agreement Na-24 (4.1710.12)E-3 (4.11 0.14)E-3 Agreement
.
.. _ _ _ _,
.
... _.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE IS0 TOPE LNRC~VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARIS0N Results in' Total Microcuries Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (9.80.4)E-2 (7.9910.08)E-2 Agreement
.
Radiation Co-60 (1.0210.05)E-1 (8.8810.12)E-2 Agreement-Protection Detector 5 Shelf 1 Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (1.0210.05)E-1 (8.45 0.08)E-2 Agreement Radiation Co-60 (1.060.05)E-1
'(9.0610.12)E-2 Agreement
Protection Detector 5 Shelf I Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (9.80.4)E-2 (8.410.11)E-2.
Agreement Radiation Co-60 (1.02i9.05)E-1 (9.6 0.2)E-E Agreement Protection Detector 4 Shelf 1 Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (1.0210.0-5)E-1 (6.6010.11)E-2
' Agreement Radiation Co-60 (1.0610.05)E-1 (9.410.2)E-2 Agreement Protection Detector 4 Shelf 1
. -.
,,..-
..
.
...
-.,,,
. - - -,,.
-
-
..
... _. -. -,
'
.
..
,
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE IS0 TOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPA RISON
.esults in Total Microcuries
)
Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (9.8i0.4)E-2 (9.030.10)E-2 Agreement Chemistry Co-60 (1.02 0.05)E-1 (1,000 0.014)E-1 Agreement analysis Cd-109-(2.29i0.11)
- *(2.4210.04)
Agreement Detector 1 Co-57 (3.9 0.2)E-2
- (4.00.2)E-2 Agreement Shelf 1 Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (1.02 0.05)E-1 (8.9010.08)E-2 Agreement Chemistry Co-60 (1.0610.05)E-1 (9.84t0.11)E-2 Agreement Analysis Cd-109 (2.37 0.11)
- (2.46 0.03)
Agreement Detector 3 Co-27 (4.0 0.2)E-2
- (4.2 0.2)E-2-Agreemer.t Shelf 1
- Hand calculated values
,
b
,
..
_
_
_
.
. _..,
__.
. - _.
p<
.
.
,
-
.
.
TABLE 1 HOPE CREEK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE
_NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARIS0N R.esults in Total Microcuries Charcoal Cart.
Cs-137 (9.8 0.4)E-2 (8.910.2)E-2 Agreement Chemistry Co-60 (1.0210.95)E-1 (1.0010.03)E-1-Agreement Analysis Cd-109 (2.29 0.11)
- (2.40 0.07)
Agreement Detector 1 Co-57 (3.9 0.2)E-2
- (4.510.4)E-2 Agreement Shelf 2 Charcoal Cart Cs-137 (1.02 0.05)E-1 (9.4710.15)E-2 Agreement Chemistry Co-60 (1.06 0.05)E-1 (1.0110.02)E-2 Agreement Analysis Cd-109 (2.370.11)
- (2.6710.05)
Agreement Detector 3 Co-57 (4.010.2)E-2
- (3.90.3)E-2 Agreement-Shelf 2
- Hand calculated values
.
I
.
--
s v
,
,
,
.
,
a
.
Table 2 Boron Analysis Results Standard Licensee Commitment in FSAR Known Parameter Concentration Meas. Conc.
Difference Table 9.3-7 Boron 1000 10 ppm 1030 ? ppm
+30 ppm 50 ppm over range 50-1000 ppa 3024146 ppm 3250t? ppm
+226 ppm
<
4947 61 ppm 5300i? ppm
+353 ppa
.
.
.
_. -
,
.,.
_
- - _.
..y-
,
.-
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS 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 judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated 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 must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
Resolution Ratio For Agreement 2
<3 No comparison
0.5 - 2.0
-
8 - 15 0.6 - 1.'66
0.75 - 1.33
-
200 0.80 - 1.25 j
-
>200 0.85 - 1.18 I Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
_
-
.
.
_. _ _
.
_
_ _.
.
_