IR 05000416/1988005

Forwards Confirmatory Measurement Results Re Spiked Liquid Samples Sent for Selected Radiochemical Analyses as Suppl to Insp Rept 50-416/88-05.Comparative Results in Agreement for H-3 & Fe-55 Analyses

ML20155J266
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	10/07/1988
From:	Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Kingsley O SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
References
NUDOCS 8810250452
Download: ML20155J266 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

.

'

OCT 0 71988 diu'4)

-

,.

System Energy Resources, In / ATTN: Mr. O. D. Kingsley, J Vice President Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 23054 Jackson, MS 39205 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 50-416, CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS, SUPPLEMENT TO INSPECTION REPORT NO 50-416/88-05 As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent on June 2, 1988, to your Grand Gulf Facility for selected radiochemical analyse We are in receipt of your analytical results transmitted to us by your letter dated August 2,1988, ard the comparison of your results to the known values are presented in Enclosure 1 for your information. The acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Enclosure In our review of the data, comparative results were in agreement for H-3 and Fe-55 analyses and disagreement for Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyse These results were discussed with Mr. J. Lassiter of your Grand Gulf facility by telephone

, conversation on September 8, 1988. Mr. Lassiter requested that an additional liquid sample spiked with Sr-89 and Sr-90 be sent to your facility for reanalysis. The additional spiked sample is due to be shipped to your facility within the next 30 days and we request that the analyses be completed as soon as practicable but no later than 60 days from receipt of the sample. Results should be sent to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Mr. J. B. Kahl These results and any results from previous years pertaining to these analyses will be discussed at future NRC inspection

Sincerely,

'

Thomas R. Decker, Acting Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Enclosures:

1. Confirmatory Measurement Cocparisons Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Cc w/encls: (See page 2)

8910250452 681007 i PDR ADOCK 05000416 g 0 PEC ((

un

.*

, .

.

System Energy Resources, In cc w/encis:

IT.H.Cloninger.VicePresident, Nuclear Engineering and Support

/W.T.Cottle,GGNSSiteDirector dC R. Hutchinson, GGNS General Manager JJ. G. Cesare, Director, Nuclear Liccasing ;

JR. T. Lally, Manager of Quality ,%ssurance Middle South Services, In JR.B.McGehee, Esquire i

, Wise Carter, Child, Steen and Caraway l 1N. S. Reynolds, Esquire

/ Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds R. W. Jackson, Project Engineer State of Mississippi jbecw/encls:

1 NRC Resident Inspector l a(DRS.TechnicalAssistant

, ,

L. Kintner, NRR l Document Control Desk

.

O

!

I l

.

'

!

.

II g fp I fth

SA3amovitz /g9Kahle HDahje 10/p /88 // 10 7 /88 10/) /88

l

,_ _ .

_ _ , _ _ _ _ . ._ _ . _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _

. _ - - - _ - .~_ ..

. .

'

.

f I

,

ENCLOSbRE 1 >

CONFIR!tATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS OF H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89, AND Sr-90 ANALYSES ,

l FOR GRAND GULF NUCLEAR PLANT ON AUGUST 2, 1988 [

I  ;

I Licensee NRC Ratio f Isotepe (uCi/ml) (uti/ml) Resolution (Licensee /NRC) r,omparisen [

!

.

H-3 1.92F-5 1.80t0.04E-5 45 1.07 Agreement l Fe-55 1.77E-5 1.7720.04E-5 44 1.00 Aarcement

-

!

Sr-89 7.78E-5 1.3610.04E-6 34 0.57 Disagreement

.,

Sr-90 5.2SE-6 8.1910.33E-6 25 0.04 Disagreement

.

I l

.

1 i i

!

.

a a i

, t

,

!

l l l

l a

' f l  !

l i  !

!  !

'

l l

l

!

!

l i

f ,

! >

l

' .

, .

. . ,

..

.

ENCLOSURE 2 CRITERI A FOR CCMPARING ANALYTIC AL MEASUREVENTS This enclosure provides criteria for co? paring results of capability tests and verification reasurements. The criteria are basec on an empirical relat'.onsnip which ccmbines prior ex;erience and the accu'aey reeds of t*'s pecg'4*-

In these criteria, the jucgeent limits dercUng agreements of dist;*ee-ent between licensee and NRC results are variable. Inis variability is a function of the NRC's value relative to its associatec uncertainty, referred to in te,is program ss "Resolution"3 increases, the rarge of acceptable differenses tet.een Cor e'sely, pocrer the NRC and licensee values shculd te more restrictiv agree ent between NRC and licensee values must Oe considered acceptable as the resolution decrease For comparison purposes, a ratio 8 of the licersee value to the NRC value for each individual nuclide 15 cc?puted. This ratio is then evaluated for agree-eent based on the calculated resolution. Tre correspoecing resolutionValues and calculated ratics which denote agree ent are listed in Table 1 celc ,

outside of the agreement ratios for a selected nuclide are ccesicered in disagreetec ,

8 Resolution = NRC Reference Value fcr a Particular Nuclide Associated Lncertainty for the Vafue

-

-- ^'

8 Comparison Ratio s Licensee value  :

NA7~AeTerence Value TABLE 1 Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria

,

Resolutions vs. Coeparison Ratio

,

j

[

l i

Cceparison Ratio for i Resolution Agreement

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

>200 0.S5 - 1. 18

1