IR 05000400/1986054
| ML18019B104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1986 |
| From: | Adamovitz S, Gloersen W, Stoddart P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18004A426 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-54, NUDOCS 8608110244 | |
| Download: ML18019B104 (20) | |
Text
c yS AECII P0
UNITEDSTATES ',
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 JUL 30
>986 Report No.:
50-400/86-54 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 Facility Name:
Harris
Construction Permit No.:
CPPR-158 Inspection Conducted:
June 23-27, 1986 Inspectors.
. Gloersen
/~I g+ / g@
D te Signed S.
S. Adamovitz D
e Signed Accompanying Pe
.
G. St dart, R.
R. Marston Approved by P.
G.
odda
, Acting Chief Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Da e Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine announced inspection involved an onsite assessment in the areas of liquid and gaseous radwaste systems, effluent treatment systems, radiation monitoring systems, and quality assurance and confirmatory measurements for in-plant radiochemical analyses.
Results:
No apparent violations or deviations were identified; however, one unresolved item was identi<fied.
Ih 08110244 860730 R
ADOCK 05000400 PDR
IP (
P I
'I tl C
l (
k il
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Applicant Employees
- J. L. Willis, Plant General Manager
"J.
L. Harness, Assistant Plant General Manager H.
W. Bowles, Director, Onsite Nuclear Safety
~G.
L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC Construction
~C.
L. McKenzie, Acting Director, QA/QC Operation
"J.
R. Sipp, Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control D.
C. Whitehead, Operations QA Supervisor
~0. Tibbitts, Acting Director, Regulatory Compliance
"M. G. Wallace, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- A. J.
Howe, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
~J.
L. Dority, Startup Supervisor
- F. L. Smith, Jr., Startup Engineer
"W. Lei, Senior Specialist, Environmental and Radiation Control
- B. Sears, Environmental and Chemistry Foreman
- E. A. Morgan, Principal Specialist, Environmental and Chemistry C.
S.
Bohanan, Director of Special Programs L. Aspray, Startup Engineer L. J.
Woods, Startup Supervisor J. Bradley, Radwaste Supervisor J.
Leonard, Project Specialist J.
W. McKenzie, Senior Engineer J. Mc0uffie, Radiation Control Supervisor NRC Resident Inspectors
- G. Maxwell
~S. Burris
~Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 27, 1986, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors described the areas examined and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
One unresolved item~
was identified in the area of containment atmosphere particulate sampling (Paragraph 3).
Additionally, two inspector followup items were identified in the areas of nuclear air-cleaning filter testing (Paragraph 4)
and confirmatory measurements (Paragraph 8).
The applicant did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
"Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviation l
Process and Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation (84523, 84524)
The inspectors, accompanied by applicant representatives, toured the facility and reviewed the installation of several process and effluent monitors and sampling devices.
At the time of the inspection, preoperational tests and checks had not been completed for any of the process and effluent monitoring instrumentation systems, which prevented the inspectors from completing the preoperational inspection modules for these items.
The 'ontainment atmosphere hydrogen monitors had not been satisfactorily tested at the time of the inspect'ion.
An applicant representative stated that difficulties had been encountered in delivering an adequate sample to the instrumentation hydrogen sensors.
The hydrogen monitors employed the Exo-Sensor (T.M) detectors rather than the catalyt,ic detectors noted in I.E. Information Notice 84-22.
The preoperational tests of the containment atmosphere hydrogen monitors wi 11 be inspected at a later date.
The containment atmosphere post-accident particulate, iodine and noble gas sampler/monitor (NUREG-0737, II.B.3) had not been tested satisfactorily at the time of the inspection.
The preopererational tests of these monitors will be inspected at a later date.
The radioactive gaseous effluent monitors had not been calibrated and tested at the time of the inspection.
This category included the normal-range monitors and samplers as well as the post-accident monitors and samplers (NUREG-0737, Item II F. 1, Attachments I and 2).
In general, the sampling lines were observed to have been installed in accordance with the criteria of ANSI N13. 1-1974; however, the sampling skid for the turbine building effluent particulate and iodine sampling system was observed to incorporate two 90-degree sharp bend elbows immediately upstream of the sample collection point.
The applicant was notified of the existence of the two elbows at the exit meeting but no specific commitment was made on this item.
This item will be inspected at a later date.
Radioactive liquid process and effluent monitors were being calibrated and tested during
'the inspection.
These monitors wi 11 be inspected at a later date.
A containment atmosphere radioactive particulate air. monitor is used at Shearon Harris as a principal means of detecting reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage to the containment atmosphere to meet the requirements of proposed Technical Specification 3/4.4.6, Reactor Coolant System Leakage/Leak Detection Systems.
The applicant's preliminary tests of the monitor, including the sampling line (which is shared with the containment atmosphere hydrogen monitor and the containment atmosphere post-accident particulate, iodine and noble gas monitor) indicated that the system vacuum pumps were inadequate to achieve the design volumetric flow rate of six to eight scfm.
In FSAR Section 5.2.5.3.2, the applicant committed to install the sampling system in accordance with the gesign criteria of ANSI N13. 1-1974.
During the inspection, the inspectors pointed out to
applicant representatives several examples of system components and installation practices which were contrary to the design criteria of ANSI N13. 1-1974.
During conferences with applicant personnel and at the exit meeting, the inspectors discussed the system design in detail and pointed out the following most significant items:
(1) excessive overall length of sampling line; (2) the existence of multiple sharp low-radius bends in the sampling line; and (3) the presence of multiple restrictions, transitions, and diameter changes in the sampling line.
At the exit meeting, the applicant was informed that due to apparent inadequate design, the system appeared incapable to deliver a
representative sample of particulate aerosols from the containment atmosphere to the sample collection point.
The applicant was informed, at the exit meeting and in telephone conferences with applicant representatives on July 1, 10, and 11, 1986, that if the sampling system was not capable of delivering a representative sample of containment atmosphere particulate aerosols to the sample collection point, it would constitute an apparent violation of
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II (Design Control), for inadequate design of Engineered Safety Feature instrumentation to meet a Technical Specification requirement.
The applicant acknowledged an awareness of the problems with the sampling line and stated that efforts were ongoing to resolve the problems.
The applicant verbally committed to bring in a contractor to perform an in-place empirical test of the sampling line to demonstrate that a representative sample of containment atmosphere particulate aerosols could be delivered by the sampling system.
In a
telephone conference on July 11, 1986, an applicant representative stated that discussions were being held with contractors for the purpose of conducting the necessary tests, but that no agreement had yet been reached.
Based on the applicant's commitment to test the sampling system, the applicant was notified on July 11, 1986, that this item would be carried as an Unresolved Item (URI), pending evaluation of the results of the projected system test.
(Opened)
Unresolved Item (URI)
50-400/86-54-01:
Review results of contractor test of transmission of containment atmosphere particulate aerosols through installed sampling line to demonstrate compliance with FSAR commitment to design and install the sampling system in accordance with the guidance of ANSI N13. 1-1974.
Procedures (84523, 84524, 84525)
a
The inspector s reviewed selected portions of the following procedures'-
that were related to radiological effluent management:
(1)
RCP-701 Operation of the Canberra Series
Gamma Spectroscopy System, Rev.
1, June 19, 1986 (2)
RCP-710 Operation of the Packard Nodel 4530 Liquid Scintillation System, Rev.
1, June 20, 1986
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
RCP-720 Operation of the Tennelec LB 5100 Phoswich Detector System, Rev.
1, June 20, 1986 TI-114 Related Technical Training and OJT for E
and C and RC Technicians, Rev.
1, April 9, 1986 TI-116 Training Programs for Technical Staff and Managers, Rev.
1, March 25, 1986 CRC-001 SHNPP Environmental and Chemistry Sampling and Analysis Program, Rev.
1, February 28, 1986 CRC-002 Chemistry Corrective Actions Program, Rev.
1, February 27, 1986 CRC-004 Chemistry Logs, Records, and Sample Handling, Rev.
1, November 15, 1985 CRC-260 Secondary Waste Treatment System Chemistry Control, Rev.
0, July 22, 1985 CRC-261 Equipment Drains Treatment System Chemi stry Control, Rev.
0, July 29, 1985 CRC-265 Chemistry Control of Laundry and Hot Shower, Chemical Drains, and Floor Drains Waste Treatment System, Rev.
0, August 1, 1985 EMP-001 NPDES Permi t Monitoring, Rev.
1, January 10, 1986 RST-004 Air Filtration Testing Requirements, Rev.
0, October 1,
1985 OMM-RO-Ol Radwaste Conduct of Operations, Rev.
1, November 1,
1985 1-8352-P-02 Fuel Handling Building Emergency Exhaust Preoperational Test Procedure, Rev.
0, June 16, 1986 1/2-9000-P-08 HEPA/Charcoal In-place Filters Efficiency Generic Preoperational Test (Draft)
OP-120.01.01 Secondary Waste Low Conductivity Subsystem, Rev.
0, May 10, 1985 OP-120.01.02 Secondary Waste Sample Tank, Rev.
0, April 22, 1985 OP-120.01.03 Secondary Waste High Conductivity System Operating Procedure, Rev.
0, February 22, 1985 OP-120.01.04 Secondary Waste Concentrate Tank A (B) Operating Procedure, Rev'. 0, February 19, 1985
(21) OP-120.03 Chemical Drain Operating Procedure, Rev. 0, December 18, 1984 (22) OP-120.06.01 Waste Holdup and Evaporation System Operating Procedure, Rev.
0, June 18, 1985, Advance Change, April 16, 1986 (23) OP-120.06.02 Waste Evaporator Condensate Tanks, Rev. 0, August 9, 1985 (24) OP-120.07 Waste Gas Processing, Rev.
0, April 27, 1985 (25) OP-120.08 Radioactive Equipment Drain System Operating Procedure, Rev.
0, 1984 (26) OP-120.09.03 Radioactive Floor Drain Waste Monitor Tank, Rev.
0, May 29, 1985 (27) OP-120. 10.04 Treated Laundry and Hot Shower Tanks, Rev.
0, June 24, 1985 (28) OP-120. 11 Waste Processing Sampling System Operating Procedure, Rev. 0, October 17, 1984 (29) OP-125 Post Accident Hydrogen System, Rev. 0, July 3, 1984 (30) OP-133 Main Condenser Air Removal System, Rev.
1, December 18, 1985, Advance Change 1,
May 14, 1986 (31) OP-134 Condensate System, Rev.
1, December 20, 1985 (32) OP-135 Condensate Polishing Demineralizer System, Rev.
0, February 20, 1985 (33) OP-143.04 Waste Neutralization System Operating Procedure, Rev.
2, November 11, 1985.
The inspectors reviewed the revised procedures for system operation of the Canberra Series
Gamma Spectroscopy System (RCP-701),
the Packard Model 4530 Liquid Scintillation System (RCP-710)
and the Tennelec LB5100 Phoswich Detector System (RCP-720).
The inspectors noted that the revised RCP-701 did not include the system calibration as did RCP-710 and RCP-720 and discussed this discrepancy with the applicant.
Applicant representatives indicated that due to the length and complexity of the HPGe system calibration, a separate procedure was being prepared and was still in draft form.
The inspectors informed the applicant that this procedure would be reviewed during a future inspection.
The inspectors reviewed the routine surveillance procedure (RST-004)
and the preoperational procedure (1/2-9000-P-08)
for HEPA filter and charcoal adsorber in-place leakage testing.
The inspectors noted that
the preoperational procedure references ANSI N510-1980 while the routine surveillance procedure references the obsolete ANSI N510-1975.
It was indicated to the applicant that to perform the preoperational tests according to the 1980 standard and then to perform subseque'nt routine surveillance tests to the 1975 standard would not be practical.
The inspectors also noted that the draft Technical Specifications 4.'7.6, 4.7.7, and 4.9. 12 still make reference to the-ANSI N510-1975 standard.
The inspectors and applicant representatives discussed the discrepancies between RST-004 and 1/2-9000-P-08 and, in addition, the applicant indicated that a
proposal to revise the
'pplicable portions of the technical specifications containing the references to ANSI N510-1975 would be made.
This item was identified as an inspector followup item and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
(Opened)
Inspector Followup Item (IFI)
50-400/86-54-02:
Review procedural discrepancies referencing both 1975 and 1980 versions of ANSI N510.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Records, Logs, and Reports (84525)
a
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the following records, logs, and reports:
(1)
Evaluation of the Shearon Harris Counting Room, Analytics, May 13-16, 1986 (2)
Counting Room Improvement Plan, Memo from W. Lei to Distribution, June 20, 1986, File:. SHF/10530-10 (3)
Preliminary Review of SHNPP Counting Room Instrumentation Quality Control Program,
~ Memo from W. Lei to B. 0
~ Sears, April 15, 1986, File:
E and C 10530-10 (4)
Sur veil lance Report No.86-129, Memo from C.
L.
McKenzie to J.
R. Sipp, June 12, 1986, File:
17510 (5)
QA Surveillance Report 86-129, Memo from W.
Lei to B. 0. Sears, June 23, 1986, File:
SHF/10530-10 (6)
HPGe Performance Test Data Sheets, Daily QC Data Sheets, Detectors ¹1 12841159R),
¹2 (12841185R),
¹3 (12841137)
and
¹4 (12841146),
January-June 1986
= (7)
Tennel ec Model LB5100 Alpha/Beta Counter Oai ly QC Systems
¹1 (5120-281)
and 2, (5120-282) January-June 1986 (8)
Packard Model 4530 Liquid Scintillation Counter Daily QC, January-June 1986
(9)
Daily gC Control Charts, January-June 1986 (a)
HPGe Detectors
¹1 (12841159R),
¹2 (12841185R),
¹3 (12841137),
and ¹4 (12841146)
1)
Gai and 2665 3)
FWHM 4)
Background (b)
Tennelec Model 5100 II, Systems
¹1 (5120-281)
and
¹2 (5120-282)
1)
Efficiency Alpha Source and Beta Source 2)
Background - Alpha Source and Beta Source (c)
Packard Model 4530 Liquid Scintillation Counter (B4530-44-35629)
1)
Background-2)
Efficiency - H-3 and C-14 source (10) Analytical Intercomparison of RCS from BSEP, Memo from W. Lei to B. 0. Sears, May 21, 1986, Fi 1 e:
E and C 10530-10 (ll) Analytical Intercomparison of RCS Sample 81273, Memo from W. Lei to B. 0. Sears, April 14, 1986, File:
E and C 10530-10 (12) Packard Liquid Scintillation Counter 4530, Test Number "A," May 5, 1986 (13) Environmental and Chemistry Counting Room Action Plan Status Reports, April 4, 1986, April 16, 1986, Apri 1 28, 1986, May 2, 1986, May 9, 1986, May 16, 1986, May 23, 1986, June 6,
1986, and June 13, 1986 (14) Repeated Analyses for IG System, 85-0048E, Filter Unknown, Geometries 31 and 32, April 3, 1986 (15) Annual (1986)
HPGe Detector Efficiency Calibrations (a)
Detector ¹1, (12841159R) April-May 1986 1)
One liter Marinelli 2)
135 ml bottle 3)
47mm filter
(b)
Detector ¹3, March 5, 1986 1) 'ne liter Marinelli 2)
135 ml bottle 3)
mm filter (16) Packard Model 4530 ¹B4530-44-35629, Liquid Scintillation Counter, (a)
Experiment ¹1:
March 10, 1986 1)
2)
3)
4)
To determine initial efficiency To determine e'ffect of not making up the cocktail volume to a set volume To assess quenching effect of water To determine need for quench correction if water is sample matrix (b)
Experiment ¹2:
May 5, 1986 To re-determine counter efficiency with cocktail made up to a
constant 23 ml (c)
Experiment ¹3:
June 20, 1986 To assess system stability over time b.
The inspector discussed various aspects of the records with the applicant and the following observation was made:
The inspectors noted daily gC data sheets for the HPGe systems (form RCP-701-1),
the Tennelec Model LB5100 Alpha/Beta Counters (form RCP-720-1),
and the Packard Model 4530 Liquid Scintillation Counter (form RCP-710-1)
did not include any standard identification.
The inspectors discussed with applicant representatives the need to include this information on the data sheets and control charts.
The applicant agreed with this comment and during the inspection provided the inspectors an approved advance change form which incorporated this change.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
- Gaseous Radwaste System (84524)
The inspectors examined the gaseous waste processing system (¹7070)
including the ten waste gas decay tanks and the catalytic hydrogen recombiner packages.
The applicant plans to use eight of the gas decay tanks for normal operation and two for shutdown and startup operations.
The inspectors reviewed 1-7070-P-01, Gaseous Waste Processing System Preoperational Test, Rev.
1, July 17, 1985.
The preoperational test was conducted between May 3, 1986, and May 23, 1986.
The preoperational test was designed to demonstrate the capability of the gaseous waste processing
system to receive, transport, process, store, and dispose of gaseous waste.
System sampling capability was demonstrated including the verification of sample line input and operability of the purge and recycle of sample lines.
The operational performance of waste gas. compressors, recombiners, tanks, gas decay tank drain pumps, controls, valves, automatic isolation, and protective features was verified; however, approximately 16 preoperational/functional test exceptions were identified.
The applicant indicated that when the gaseous waste process system exceptions are resolved, the system will be turned over to the operations group.
The applicant indicated that once the preoperational test'package is completed, a joint test group wi 11 review, approve, and ultimately accept the completed package (preoperational procedure, exception forms, test comment sheets, and test report).
The inspectors indicated that completed preoperational test, of the gaseous waste processing system wi 11 be reviewed durin'g a future inspection.
The inspectors also noted that the preoperational testing of the engineered safety feature (ESF) filter systems (Fuel Handling Building Exhaust System, Reactor Auxiliary Building Exhaust System, Control Room Emergency Filtration System)
and non-ESF filter systems were not completed at the time of this inspection; The non-ESF ventilation exhaust treatment systems included the reactor auxiliary building normal exhaust system, containment building ventilation exhaust system (purge),
main condenser vacuum pump effluent treatment system, and the waste processing areas filtered exhaust system.
The preoperational tests of both the ESF and non-ESF HEPA filters and charcoal adsorber systems will be reviewed during a future inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Liquid Radwaste System (84523)
The inspectors toured the liquid waste processing system (¹7060) including the waste monitor tanks, secondary waste sample tank, treated laundry and hot shower tanks, chemical drain tanks, various liquid waste pumps, deminer alizers, reverse osmosi s units, and the waste processing building Control Room.
The preoperational test for the liquid waste processing system had not been completed at the time of this inspections The preoperational test package will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The inspectors discussed the overall concept of operations of the liquid waste processing system, including a review of selected radwaste operating procedures with radwaste operations personnel (see Paragraph 4, Procedures).
The cooling tower blowdown is the main liquid release point into the lake.
The applicant identified four sources of potentially radioactive liquids that would flow into the cooling tower blowdown line:
(1) secondary waste sample tank, (2) treated laundry and hot shower tanks, (3) waste monitor tanks, and (4) waste evaporator condensate tank.
No violations or deviations were identifie Counting Room Radioanalytical Capability Tests (84525)
The applicant was. provided with simulated liquid waste, reactor coolant, spiked particulate and charcoal filter samples for gamma spectroscopy, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 analyses.
The purpose of these samples was to verify the applicant's capability to accurately detect and measure radionuclides in plant effluents.
For gamma spectroscopy analyses the spiked samples were analyzed using detectors
¹1 (12841159R),
¹2 (12841185R),
and ¹3 (12841137).
Results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses are presented in Tables 1 and 2 with the acceptance criteria in Attachment 1.
All gamma spectroscopy results.for various geometries were in agreement with known values.
The inspectors noted, however, that the results for the simulated reactor coolant sample (135 ml bottle) consistently trended high for all three detectors.
Applicant values ranged from 9% to 15% above known values.
Inspectors also noted that Hg-203 results for the spiked particulate filter varied from one detector to another.
For Harris detectors
¹1 and ¹2, Hg-203 results were 10% and 4% below known values while results for detector
¹3 were 23% below known values.
Inspectors discussed with the applicant; the high trend of reactor coolant sample results and the variability of the particulate filter Hg-203 results and the applicant acknowledged the inspectors'omments.
The analysis of the simulated liquid waste sample for H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Fe-55 was not completed during the inspection.
Applicant representatives agreed to provide results of these analyses to the Region II Office in a timely manner.
The inspectors informed applicant representatives that the results would be reviewed during a
subsequent inspection.
(Opened)
Inspector Fol lowup Item (IFI) 50-400/86-54-03, Review results of applicant analyses of spiked simulated liquid waste sample.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Applicant Action on Previously Identified Inspector Followup Items (92701B)
(Closed)
(50-400/83-06-01:
IE Information Notice No. 82-49:
Correction for sample conditions for air and gas monitoring.
The inspectors discussed IE Information Notice No.
82-49 with applicant representatives and examined several gaseous radioactive effluent sample collection stations.
The inspectors noted that the applicant made the appropriate corrections and employed the use of Kurz mass flow meters.
This item is considered closed.-
TABI E
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - JUNE 23-27, 1986 SAMPLE TYPE (Geometry)
ISOTOPE TRATIO CONGE APPLICANT (uCI/Unit)
NRC RATIO APPLICANT NRC RESOLUTION COMPARISON (1) Spiked Charcoal Ca rtridge Co-60 Cd-109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y-88 Cs-137 5.95 1. 49 7.68 4.44 9.57 2.40 1,11 5.65 E-2 EO E"2 E"2 E"2 E-2 E-1 E-2 5.90 2 0.05 E-2 1.65
+ 0.01 EO 7.92
+ 0.08 E-2 4.32
+ 0.03 E-2 9. 55 R 0. 16 E-2 2.36 2 0.02 E-2 1.16
+ 0.01 E-1 5.69
+ 0.04 E-2 1.01 0.90 0.97 1.03 1. 00 1.02 0.96 0.99 118 165
144
118 116 142 Ag reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement (2) Spiked Charcoal Ca rtridge Co-60 Cd" 109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y"88 Cs-137 5.97 1. 51 8.00 4.47 9.49 2.43 E-2 EO E-2 E-2 E-2 E-2 1. 13.E-l 5.80 5.90 1. 65 7.92 4.32 9.55 2.36 1.16 5.69 0.05 E-2 0.01 EO 0.08 E-2 0.03 E"2 0. 16 E-2 0.02 E-2 0. 01 E" 1 0.04 E-2 1. 01 0.92 1.01 1.03 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.02 118 165
144'0 118 116 142 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement (3) Spiked Charcoa I
Ca rtri dge Co-60 Cd-109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y-88 Cs-137 5.76 1.48 7. 71 4.40 9.72 2.39 1.12 5.78 E-2 EO E-2 E"2 E-2 E"2 E-1 E-2 5.90 1.65 7.92 4.32 9.55 2.36 1.16 5.69 0.05 E-2 0. 01 EO 0.08 E-2 0.03 E"2 0. 16 E-2 0.02 E-2 0.01 E-1 0.04 E-2 0.98 0.90 0.97 1. 02 1. 02 1.01 0. 96 1.02 118 165
144
118 116 142 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement ( 1) Spiked Particulate Filter (2) Spiked Particulate Filter Co-60 Cd-109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y-88 Cs-137 Co-60 Cd-109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y-88 Cs-137 6. 56 1.72 9. 17 5.04 8.85 2.76 1. 30 6.62 7. 13 1. 71 9.78 5.56 9.49 2.83 1.33 6.51 E-3 E-1 E-3 E"3 E-3 E-3 E-2 E-3 E-3 E-1 E-3 E-3 E-3 f-3 E"3 E-3 6.45
+ 0.15 E-3 1.70 i 0.02 E-1 9.14
+ 0.21 E-3 4.88
+ 0.08 E-3 9.84 2 0.40 E-3 2.58 2 0.04 E-3 1.28 X 0.04 E-2 6.37
+ 0. 11 E-3 6.45
+ 0.15 E-3 1.70
+ 0.02 E-1 9.14 2 0.21 E-3 4.88
+ 0.08 E"3 9.84
+ 0.40 E-3 2.58
+ 0.04 E-3 1.28
+ 0.04 E-2 6.37 i 0. 11 E"3 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.03 0.90 1.07 1. 02 1.04 1.11 1.00 1.07 1.14 0.96 1.10 1.04 1.02
85
61
65
58
85
61
65
58 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Ag reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement Ag reement Agreement Agreement
TABLE
con inued SAMPLE TYPE ISOTOPE APPLICANT NRC APPLICANT NRC RESOLUTIO COHPARISO (Geometry)
(3) Spiked Particulate Filter Co-60 Cd-109 Sn-113 Ce-139 Hg-203 Co-57 Y-88 Cs-137 6.53. E-3 1.68 E-1 9.39 E-3 4.72 E-3 7.61 E-3 2.72 E-3 1.34 E-2 7.23 E"3 6. 45 + 0. 15 E-3 1.70
+ 0.02 E-1 9.14
+ 0.21 E-3 4.88
+ 0.08 E-3 9.84
+ 0.40 E-3 2.58
+ 0.04 E-3 1.28 + 0.04 E"2 6.37 2 0.11 E"3 1.01 0.99 1. 03 0.97 0.77 1. 05 1.05 1.14
85
61
65
58 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement NOTES:
( 1)
HPGe Detector System No.
( 12841159R)
(2)
HPGe Detector System No.
( 12841185R)
(3)
HPGe Detector System No.
( 12841137)
TABLE 2 RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - JUNE 23-27, 1986 SAMPLE TYPE (Geometry)
1.
Simulated Liquid Radwaste (1 I iter Ma rinc I I i )
ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION (uCI/ml)
APPLICANT NRC RAT I 0 RESOI UTION COMPARISON a.
HPGe No.
( 12841159R)
b.
HPGe No.
(12841185R)
c.
HPGe No.
(12841137)
2.
Simulated Reactor Coolant (135 ml Bottle)
a.
HPGe No.
( 12841159R)
b.
HPGe No.
(12841185R)
c.
HPGe No.
( 12841137 )
Cs-137 Co-60 Mn-54 Cs-137 Co-60 Mn-54 Cs-137 Co-60 Mn-54 Cs-137 Co-60 Mn<<54 Cs-137 Co-60 Mn-54 Cs-137 Co-60 Mn-54 8.67 E-6 7.46 E-6 5.28 E-6 8.60 E-6 7.42 E-6 5.28 E-6 8.54 E-6 7.39 f"6 5.18 E-6 4. 56 E-4 3.97 E-4 2.82 E"4 4.65 E-4 4.05 E-4 2.90 E-4 4.60 E"4 4.07 E-4 2.91 E-4 8.18
+ 0.25 E"6 7. 28 + 0. 15 E-6 5.05
+ 0.10 E"6 8. 18 + 0. 25 E-6 7. 28 + 0. 15 E-6 5.05 R 0.10 E-6 8. 18 + 0. 25 E-6 7.28 + 0.15 E-6 5.05 A 0.10 E-6 4. 09
+ 0. 12 E-4 3.64
+ 0.07 E-4 2.53
+ 0.05 E-4 4. 09 + 0. 12 E-4 3.64
+ 0.07 E-4 2.53
+ 0.05 E-4 4.09
+ 0.12 E-4 3.64
+ 0.07 E-4 2.53
+ 0.05 E-4 1.06 1.02 1. 05 1. 05 1.02 1. 05 1.04 1.02 1.03 1. 11 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.11 1.15 1.12 1.12 1. 15
49
33
51
49
34
51
52
34
51 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
Attachment
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.'he 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"'ncreases, 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 ratio2 of the licensee value to the NRC value for each individual nuclide 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 for a selected nuclides are considered in disagreement.
NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide
'esolution
Associated Uncertainty for the Value Licensee Value 2 Comparison Ratio
NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 Confirmato'ry Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs.
Comparison Ratio Resolution (44-7 8-15 16 - 50 51 - 200
>200
~Ar cement 0.4
- 2.5 0.5
- 2.0 0.6
- 1.66 0.75 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18
c5 lr I
C 4