IR 05000482/1993028
| ML20058A484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1993 |
| From: | Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A479 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-93-28, NUDOCS 9312010098 | |
| Download: ML20058A484 (35) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' .. . APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/93-28 Operating License: NPF-42 Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation , P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station Inspection At: Burlington, Kansas Inspection Conducted: October 18-22, 1993 Inspectors: J. B. Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Section A. D. Gaines, Radiation Specialist Facilities Inspection Programs Section Approved: . tI2 b7fdh Blaine Murray, Chief, Fac ities Inspection Uate / Programs Section ! Inspection Summary Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's water chemistry and radiochemistry programs including water chemistry and radiochemistry confirmatory measurements.
Results: The chemistry department's organizational structure and staffing level
met the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requirements in the Technical Specifications (Section 1.1).
The chemistry department had implemented an excellent chemistry program
(Section 1.1).
The chemistry department had experienced a very low turnover of
personnel.
An excellent quality assurance audit and excellent surveillances of the
chemistry program had been performed.
9312010098 931116 PDR ADOCK 05000482 O PDR
.. . ' . -2-An excellent water chemistry program had been implemented (Section 3.1).
- The water chemistry confirmatory measurements performanc2 was
outstanding and showed a significant improvement in perr'orniance since the previous inspection of this area (Section 3.1).
An excellent radiochemistry program had been implemented (Section'4.1).
- State-of-the-art radiochemistry counting instrumentation was calibrated
' and maintained (Section 4.1).
The radiochemistry confirmatory measurements performance was )
outstanding.
J Attachments: Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
Attachment 2 - Water Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements Results
(Turbine Building Chemistry Laboratory) Attachment 3 - Water Chemistry Confirmatory Heasurements Results
(Primary Chemistry Laboratory) Attachment 4 - Criteria for Comparing Water Chemistry Analytical
Measurements Attachment 5 - Radiological Confirmatory Measurement Results
Attachment 6 - 1992 Quality Assurance Liquid Capability Test Sample
Results Attachment 7 - Criteria for Comparing Radiological Analytical
Measurements
- . -3-DETAILS 1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS (84750) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's organization, management controls, and staffing of the chemistry department to determine agreement with the commitments in Cnapter 12 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance ' with the requirements in Technical Specification 5.2.
, 1.1 Discussion The inspectors reviewed the organizational structure of the chemistry department and noted several structural changes since the previous NRC inspection of the chemistry program conducted in July 1991. These included the addition of a senior chemistry engineer position which reports directly to the chemistry manager and six new lead chemistry technician positions. The ' inspectors determined that the chemistry organization was in agreement with the corr.aitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and met the Technical Specification requirements.
The management control procedures included the assignment of responsibilities for the mar.1gement and implementation of the chemistry program. The inspectors determined that the chemistry department activities were well managed.
The chemistry department was fully staffed. Since the previous NRC inspection of the enemistry program conducted in July 1991, the chemistry department had experienced a very low turnover of personnel.
Two chemistry technicians had left the department.
1.2 Conclusion The chemistry department's organizational structure and staffing level met the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requirements in the Technical Specifications. The chemistry department had experienced a very low turnover of personnel. 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (84750) The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance audit and surveillance programs , .regarding the chemistry program activities to determine agreement with the commitments in Chapters 13 and 17 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.
2.1 Discussion The inspector reviewed tne quality assurance biennial audit schedule, Revision 11, issued April 23, 1993. This schedule reflected a reorganization of audit topics in association with the development of the new Audit Planning Guide Manual. This Audit Planning Guide Manual replaced the former Essential
-- . . . . .. -.
, - i-4-Element Manual with a more performance-based outline of information to be used j by the quality assurance auditors when preparing an audit plan. The current ' biennial audit schedule indicated that the Chemical / Radiochemical Control audit (Audit Planning Guide No. 40) frequency had been reduced from annual to biennial and was to be performed in December of the even numbered years.
It was also noted that the Indoctrination and Training - Unit Staff audit (Audit.
Planning Guide No. 2) was scheduled to be performed annually in February. The audit schedule was in compliance with the Technical Specification audit frequency requirements. The inspectors reviewed the new Audit Planning Guides ' Nos. 40 and 2 and determined that they were comprehensive and provided appropriate guidance to satisfactorily evaluate the chemistry program.
The inspectors reviewed the quality assurance audit plans and checklists and the qualifications of the quality assurance auditors who performed the audits of the chemistry program. The audits were in compliance with the. Technical Specification audit frequency requirements.
Reports of quality assurance audits performed during the time period July 1991 through October 1993 related to the performance of the chemistry program and the training of chemistry personnel were reviewed for' scope, thoroughness of program evaluation, and timely followup of identified deficiencies. The audits were performed by qualified auditors in accordance with quality assurance procedures and schedules. The audits of the chemistry program and indoctrination and training of chemistry personnel were comprehensive and of excellent quality and to evaluate the licensee's performance in implementing ' , the chemistry and chemistry personnel training programs.
Quality Assurance Audit TE: 50140-K377, "Chemistr y/ Radiochemistry," was conducted December 1-31, 1992, and assessed the ef fectiveness and adequacy of the chemistry program. The audit verified that the required samples and analyses were performed and documented in acccr. dance with chemistry department procedures; that primary, secondary, and steam guerater chemistry parameters ! were maintained within established limits; that a chemistry quality control program was properly implemented to control reager qu< 8ty and provide dependable and correct analytical results; and t' t W pst accident sampling system was adequately maintained. No audit find S w ve identified as a result of this audit.
Quality Assurance Audit TE: 50140-K329, " Indoctrination and Training," was tenducted during the month of July 1991, and reviewed, in part, the adequacy and effectiveness of the training program for chemistry personnel. The audit ! scope was satisfactory to evaluate the licensee's performance of chemistry department training activities. No audit findings were identified concerning the chemistry training program.
{ Quality Assurance Audit TE: 50140-K350, " Indoctrination and Training of Unit Staff," was conducted during the month of February 1992, and reviewed, in part, the implementation of the chemistry training program. No audit findings were identified concerning the chemistry training program.
. - -
. . -5-Quality Assurance Audit TE: 50140-K382, " Indoctrination and Training of Unit Staff," was conducted during the month of February 1993, and review in part, the implementation of the chemistry training program. Based cr he results of the audit, the chemistry department's training program was satisfactorily implemented in accordance with applicable requirements, standards, and procedures. No audit findings were identified concerning the chemistry training program as a result of this audit.
The inspectors reviewed four quality assurance surveillances performed during ' the time period July 1991 through October 1993 related to the performance of chemistry department's activities: Quality Assurance Surveillance TE: 53359 S-1966, " Secondary Chemistry,"
was performed intermittently from February 3 through March 20, 1992, and monitored chemistry personnel performing the required sampling and analyses of secondary chemistry systems. No audit findings were identified.
Quality Assurance Surveillance TE: 53359 S-1968, " Primary Chemistry,"
was performed intermitt'ntly during March 1992, and coasisted of approximately 5 days of monitoring chemistry personnel implementing the established primary chemistry control program requirements. No audit findings were identified.
Quality Assurance Surveillance TE: 53359 S-2013, " Plant Shutdown
Chemistry," was performed March 1-11, 1993, and evaluated the control of plant chemistry parameters during plant shutdown for refueling VI, and monitored compliance with established chemistry program requirements.
No audit findings were identified.
Quality Assurance Surveillance TE: 53359 S-2054, " Plant Startup
Chemistry," was performed May 8-31, 1993, and evaluated the control of plant chemistry parameters during plant startup from refueling VI, and monitored compliance with established chemistry program requirements.
No audit findings were identified.
2.2 Conclusion An excellent quality assurance audit of the chemistry program had been performed as required. The audit was technically comprehensive and provided excellent program evaluation and management oversight. Excellent quality assurance audits of the indoctrination and training program for unit staff, which included chemistry personnel, were performed as required. Excellent ' quality assurance surveillances, which monitored chemistry program activities, had been performed.
3 WATER CHEMISTRY CONTROL, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, AliD CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS (84750) The inspectors reviewed the water chemistry control and analysis program ' including implementation of a water chemistry control program, facilities and l
. . , -6-equipment, quality control program for chemical measurements, analytical procedures, and water chemistry confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Chapter 9 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.4.7, 6.8.1, and 6.8.4.c.
3.1 Discussion , The inspectors' review of the water chemistry program determined that the ' licensee had revised and approved administrative procedures, surveillance procedures, chemical control procedures, sampling procedures, analytical instrument calibration and quality control procedures, and analytical procedures. A review of selected water chemistry procedures indicated that the licensee had established and implemented excellent water chemistry programmatic procedures to meet the commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the requirements-in the Technical Specifications.
The inspectors inspected the primary and turbine building laboratory.
..ilities and analytical and process instrumentation used by the chemistry staff for water chemistry analytical measurements and control.
The chemistry laboratories and the water chemistry process instrument panels were equipped with the necessary chemicals, reagents, and state-of-the-art analytical ' instrumentation to perform the required analyses and process instrumentation to monitor the various water system chemical parameters.
' The inspectors reviewed selected chemistry analytical procedures and procedures for the operation, calibration, and quality control of the analytical instrumentation used for the analyses of the NRC water chemistry standards. The licensee's records for the period January through October 1993 involving chemistry analytical instrument calibration and quality control were reviewed.
It was verified, by review of records and direct observation, that the chemistry laboratories analytical instruments had been calibrated, and an instrument quality control program had been implemented in accordance with > licensee's procedures.
During the inspection, the inspectors provided prepared standard chemical solutions to the licensee for confirmatory measurement analyses. The standard solutions were prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Analytical Chemistry , Division, for the NRC. The NRC standards were analyzed by the licensee in the
primary chemistry and turbine building chemistry laboratories using routine analytical methods and instrumentation. The analytical results of the
chemical standards were used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various station water systems with respect to Technical Specification requirements and industry standards.
In addition, the chemical ! analyses of the NRC deidards were used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision.
As part of the water chemistry confirmatory measurements inspection, a steam generator blowdown sample was collected on October 27, 1993.
The sample was split into three equal aliquots. An aliquot of the sample was analyzed for chloride, fluoride, and sulfate in the turbine building chemistry laboratory, , )
. . s-7-and the other two aliquots were shipped to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for confirmatory analyses of chloride, fluoride, and sulfate. The comparisons of the analytical results will be reported in a future NRC inspection report.
The results of the initial water chemistry confirmatory measurement analyses and their comparison with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations are listed for the turbine building chemistry laboratory and primary chemistry laboratory in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. Attachment 4 contains the ' criteria used to evaluate the analytical results.
, The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses performed in the turbine building chemistry laboratory indicated minor problems with the analyses for chloride. The original analytical results showed that 22 of the 24 analytical results compared (92 percent) were in agreement or qualifled agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4: ' The licensee's original chloride low range and mid-range concentration analytical results were in disagreement.
Both analytical results were biased high indicating possible contamination. The licensee prepared new dilutions of NRC chloride standards 92A-29 and 92B-24 and performed retest chloride , analyses. The retest analytical results were in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the turbine building chemistry laboratory, after the retest analyses to resolve the original disagreements, indicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations based on 24 analytical results compared.
The licensee's original analytical results from the analyses performed in the primary chemistry laboratory indicated a minor problem with the analyses for chloride. The original analytical results showed that 14 of the 15 analytical results compared (93 percent) were in agreement or qualified agreement using the criteria presented in Attachment 4: ,
The licensee's original chloride low range concentration analytical results were in disagreement. The analytical result - was biased high indicating possible contamination. The licensee prepared new dilutions of NRC chloride standards 92A-90 and performed a retest chloride analysis. The retest analytical . ! result was in agreement.
The licensee's final analytical results from the analyses performed in the primary chemistry. laboratory, after the retest analysis to resolve the , original disagreement, indicated that 100 percent of the compared analytical results were in agreement or qualified agreement with the NRC's certified known analytical concentrations based on 15 analytical results compared.
The licensee's performance in the area of water chemistry confirmatory measurements in the turbine building and primary chemistry laboratories showed ,
- , . . -8-a significant improvement in performance when compared to the 81 percent agreement and 75 percent agreement achieved, respectively, during the previous NRC inspection of this area in July 1991.
3.2 Conclusion , An excellent water chemistry program had been implemented. The chemistry laboratories and analytical instrumentation were being maintained ' satisfactorily. The licensee's performance in the water chemistry confirmatory measurements was outstanding and showed a significant improvement in performance since the previous inspection of this area in July 1991.
4 RADIOLOGICAL CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS (84750) The inspectors reviewed the radiochemistry program including analytical procedures, facilities and equipment, implementation of a quality control program for radiochemistry measurements, and performed radiological confirmatory measurements to determine agreement with commitments in Chapters 5 and 11 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report and compliance with the requirements in Technical Specifications 3/4.4.8 and 6.8.1 and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Sections 2.1 and 3.1 and Tables 2-1 and 3-1.
4.1 Discussion The inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry analytical procedures revised and approved since the previous chemistry inspection conducted in July 1991
and determined that the licensee had implemented satisfactory procedures to meet commitments in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the Technical Specifications and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
- The inspectors inspected the radiochemistry laboratory and radiochemistry counting facility and determined that the licensee had sufficient state-of-the-art radiochemistry analytical instrumentation to perform the required radiochemistry analytical measurements. The inspectors reviewed selected radiochemistry analytical instrument calibration and quality control records for the period July 1991' through October 1993.
It was verified that the radiochemistry counting facility instruments had been properly' calibrated and that an excellent quality control program had been implemented.
During the inspection, radiochemistry confirmatory measurements were performed on split samples analyzed by the chemistry department staff in the radiochemistry counting facility and the radwaste building laboratory, and analyzed by the inspectors in the Region IV mobile laboratory on site. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and instrumentation.
. . - -
__ . . _g_ Radiochemistry confirmatory measurements were performed on the following samples: Waste Gas Decay Tank No. 6 Sample (1 liter gas Marinelli beaker)
Containment Gas Purge Sample (charcoal cartridge)
Spent Fuel Pool liquid Sample (1 liter liquid Marinelli beaker)
, Reactor Coolant Liquid Crud Sample (filtered sample in a petri dish)
Reactor Coolant Gas Sample (33 cc gas bulb)
Reactor Coolant Liquid Sample (20 mi scintillation vial)
Containment Atmosphere Sample (1 liter gas Marinelli beaker)
The radiochemistry confirmatory measurement tests consisted of comparing the analytical results from the licensee's radiochemistry and radwaste counting instrumentation with the NRC Region IV mobile laboratory's analytical results.
The NRC Region IV mobile laboratory's measurements were referenced to the National Institute of Standards and lechnology by laboratory intercomparisons.
The radiochemistry confirmatory measurement comparisons were made only for those nuclides identifled by the NRC as being present in concentrations great r than 10 percent of the respective isotopic values for liquid and gas concentrations as stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix 3, Table II.
At the time of the inspection, the licensee was utilizing three high purity germanium detectors in the radiochemistry counting facility and one in the radwaste laboratory. These detectors were used routinely for isotopic analysis of radioactive samples to demonstrate compliance with Technical _' Specification and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual requirements.
Because, the radwaste laboratory detector was used primarily for liquid waste samples, this , detector was only used for comparison of the Spent Fuel Pool sample analytical results.
Individual sample analytical results and their comparison with the NRC analytical results are tabulated in Attachment 5.
The tabulated analytical results from the licensee's four detectors are listed in the following order: Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.1366
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.1215 '!
Radiochemistry Counting Facility - Detector No.1192
Radwaste Building Laboratory - Detector No. 1185
The licensee's radiochemistry and radwaste counting facilities isotopic analytical results from the samples listed in Attachment 5 showed 100 percent i agreement with the NRC's isotopic analytical results based on 152 analytical results comparisons.
The licensee's performance in the area of radiochemistry ) -
l . . ' -10-confirmatory measurements was consistent with the excellent high quality performance of 99 percent agreement achieved during the previous NRC inspection of this area in July 1991.
' The licensee performed radiochemistry confirmatory measurements on a quality assurance liquid capability test sample prepared by the NRC's reference laboratory, the Department of Energy's Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The licensee's analytical results were , compared to the certified sample radionuclide activities and the results of the comparisons are presented in Attachment 6.
The analytical results from the gamma isotopic and tritium analyses performed by the licensee were in agreement. The analytical results from the strontium-89 and strontium-90 analyses performed by a contract laboratory were in agreement. However, the initial analytical result from the iron-55 analysis perfonned by the licensee's contract laboratory was in disagreement. The licensee submitted an iron-55 quality control follow-up sample to be analyzed by the contract laboratory. The analytical result from the follow-up iron-55 analysis was in agreement. The licensee had implemented an analytical quality control program for the contract laboratory which included sending a quality control sample - for strontium and iron analyses on an annual frequency.
, The criteria used to compare the analytical results is presented in Attachment 7.
4.2 Conclusion ' An excellent radiochemistry program had been implemented. The licensee had satisfactorily calibrated and maintained state-of-the-art radiochemistry counting instrumentation. The licensee's performance in the area of radiochemistry confirmatory measurements was outstanding and consistent with the high quality performance achieved during the previous NRC inspection of this area in July 1991.
l
- -. -. - - - - - - - - - -
. . ATTACIMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- T. M. Damashek, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Surveillances
- S. A. Henry, Supervisor, Chemistry W. M. Lindsay, Manager, Quality Assurance
'
- R. L. Logsdon, Manager, Chemistry O. L. Maynard, Vice President, Plant Operations
- T. S. Morrill, Manager, Radiation Protection W. B. Norton, Manager, Technical Support
- C. L. Palmer, Supervisor, Chemistry R. B. Parker, Supervisor, Chemistry C. C. Reekie, Quality Assurance Auditor T. L. Riley, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance
- J. A. Tarr, Regulatory Compliance Engineer
- S. G. Wideman, Supervisor, Licensing
- M. G. Williams, Manager, Plant Support
- J. L. Yunk, Compliance Specialist, Regulatory Compliance 1.2 NRC Personnel G. A. Pick, Senior Resident Inspector J. F. Ringwald, Resident Inspector
- J. L. Minns, Health Physicist, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspector contacted other personnel during the inspection period.
.
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting on October 22, 1993.
2 EXIT MEETING ' An exit meeting was conducted on October 22, 1993. During this meeting, the lead inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the report. The licensee did not express a position on the inspection findings documented in this . report. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector. _.
- -. _ ._ . . _ _ .y._ . .- .-
Attachment 2 WATER' CHEMISTRY-CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS q
Turbine Building Chemistry Laboratory I WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION j I NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-482/93-28
(i[Ch5Eih in n ! WCGS Results NRC Results-WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm).
(ppm) - - _. _' Decision Ratio _ _ _ 92A-38 25.010.00 19.010.3 1.316 Disagreement 92B-85 42.010.82 36.011.2 1.167 Disagreement 92C-38 73.010.82' 75.313.0 0.969 Agreement l ! and 928224?andipstfsraediretestfan}. ems,s.M2.. s.-.+g star $laN dlistions 9tAittig .y antest ~'preparedMNRCsANIMid$y ..... ., i alysesD%IsMEs' As ' s' ' 92A-29 19.910.33-19.010.3 1.047 Agreemen't 92B-24 36.710.33 36.011.2 1.019-Agreement
, , i i $ _ ~ _
. . -2-Attachment 2 (cont'd) 2 Fluoride Analysis- (lon Chromatography). WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Compari son Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92A-38 21.310.14 20.2 1.0 1.054 Agreement 92B-85 43.4*0.28 40.222.6 1.080 Agreement 92C-38 88.6i0.09 85.114.9 1.041 Agreement 3-Sulfate Analysis (lonChromatography).
' , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92A-38 20.010.00 19.410.3 1.031 Agreement 928-85 39.610.47 38.810.8 1.021 Agreement 92C-38 78.020.00 79.3i2.1 0.984 Agreement , .
. - - - . ._ . . , I '
-3-Attachment 2 (cont'd) ,t 4 Elron Analysis -(Atomic Absorstion' iFlameh ' ! i' - . WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC-Comparison . Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92G-4 19.210.39 19.9*0.2 0.965 Agreement . . 92H-103 38.010.46 39.810.4 0.955 Agreement 921-19 76.010.99 79.5t0.7 0.956 Agreement 5-~ Sodium * Analysis-1IonChroma'tsgrashy)\\ ^ ' ' WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison i Sample-(ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision , 92J-137 5.3t0.22 5.310.2 0.996 Agreement i 92K-164 10.510.05 10.2i0.3 1.029 . Agreement , i
92L-271 16.1*0.21 15.5 0.4 1.039 Agreement ! , t F .J l i i i - - - - - m - - - . m.
. ,, , ... _. _,, .. L. _
. -4-Attachment 2 (cont'd) _ 6 Ansonia Analysis '(Ion Chromatography)- WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92M-48 115.010.00 109.7812.86 1.048 Agreement 92N-76 325.010.00 304.98i5.13 1.066 Agreement 920-46 514.6f3.30 481.8717.43 1.069 Agreement 7 Hydrazine Analysis -(UV-VIS Spectroscopy) - WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92P-55 13.210.25 13.2310.06 0.998 Agreement 92Q-47 35.610.26 34.1220.32 1.043 Agreement . i 92R-97 58.810.17 56.5210.95 1.040 Agreement i , f
. .. .. . . -5-Attachment 2 (cont'd) unummusuunnumann WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison h (Ppm) (ppm) _ Ratio _ _.
, Decision 92S-173 13.210.28 15.44tl.68 0.855 Agreement 92T-128 26.7*0.25 28.3610.36 0.941 Agreement 920-227 58.320.56 60,1410.99 0.969 Agreement h l
, - - . -,.. .-
. . -_._ . _ _ _.
_ ._ _ .. . f. c_ Attachment 3
WATER CHEMISTRY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS RESULTS Primary Chemistry Laboratory i WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION . NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-482/93-28 idensmaam_mmansumammmm%NW '
- Wstijdide h%n "" ^ vi
^ sf >, s' mmmmmmm menssammans WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision . _.. _... . -.. - - -.. _.. _ -.- .. - - -. _ _. -. -.. - _ -. ......... - _. -
92A-90 26.011.41 19.010.3 1.368 Disagreement-92B-75 34.3*0.69 36.011.2 0.945 Agreement- ' 92C-42 68.710.94 75.313.0 0.912 Qualified ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. . - -... ,,,Ag,r,e,e,m,e,n,t,,,, , . dkbkkf7:f phhhkfikkkkfhhfhkkh hfkhhhith kfkk' 'k)k . <a C rformedi+etestianal hier T es%sm ' x-~ < mummmmune mammmmmmemumm mmmmmmmmmmmm============== 92B-90 19.310.47 19.0i0.3 1.017 Agreement
__ _ ) i i i j i
.-
.. .-. . . . ..- -. -. --.... -......_ .. . s .: -2- .
Attachment 3 (cont'd) 2 Fluoride AnalysisO (Ion Chromatography)i !
- , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision , , 92A-90 18.010.00 20.211.0 0.891 Agreement , 928-75 38.010.00 40.212.6 0.945 Agreement' 92C-42 82.712.05 85.114.9 0.971 Agreement i ! '3 Baron Analysis! NMannitol Titration)* Sk' ' WCGS Results-NRC Results WCGS/NRC.
Comparison
Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision.
, 92D-15 103915.65 1049til 0.990 Agreement
i 92E-60 304910.81 3038136 1.004 Agreement ' i j 92F-92 5047 11.43 5062180 0.997 Agreement
! ! '! -; ! , i l ) '; > ! f -,, _.. ._ -_ o ., , - -
. . -3-Attachment 3 (cont'd) 4-' Lithium Analysis: (Atomic Absorption -- Flame) WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92JJ-28 5.0510.01 4.9310.07 1.024 Agreement 92KK-39 12.40i0.00 12.4420.2 1.000 Agreement 92LL-98 23.8710.21 24.3010.3 0.982 Agreement 5 Silica Analysis (UV-VISSpectroscopy}- WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Sample (ppm) (ppm) Ratio Decision 92S-17 15.6710.47 15.4411.68 1.015 Agreement 92T-151 28.67*0.94 28.3610.36 1.011 Agreement 92U-193 59.67i0.94 60.1410.99 0.992 Agreement l i - . .--- !
. . Attachment 4 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING WATER CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of the capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria for the judgement limits was based on the data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR- . 5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors," applied to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data.
Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviations range of the known values are considered to be in agreement.
Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviations range but within the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the know values are considered to be in qualified agreement. Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the known values are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244.
Agreement? M* ~1ifiN[AgrtMeanQ _.m . ._ ,LAalytei; .sampis: taanges T nonge * J "
,. - , ,;r _ , , , Ammonia 92M 99.02 - 120.54 93.64 - 125.92 92N 275.70 - 334.26 261.06 - 348.90 920 436.48 - 527.08 413.85 - 549.71 - m Boron 92D 1028 - 1070 1018 - 1080 92E 2977 - 3099 2947 - 3129 92F 4941 - 5183 4880 - 5244 ~ n , .. Chloride 92A 17.6 - 20.4 16.9 - 21.1 92B 33.7 - 38.3 32.5 - 39.5 92C 69.1 - 81.5 66.0 - 84.6 . - - - - -
. . -2-Attachment 4 (cont'd) AgreemenM' [9ediij@Agressesi' if N 7;[:': ~ '
canais,ier samploi '. nange >, ey tr:12 aangejgg,p,k . .x gg <c, w .;, m , y gg.;,, g , , , ... ..... . Chromium 92G 18.0 - 22.0 17.0 - 23.0 92H 35.9 - 44.5 33.8 - 46.6 921 73.5 - 87.3 70.0 - 90.8 , -. .... . .u ,' u % h. / d AA A, z Copper 92G 18.3 - 22.1 17.3 - 23.1 92H 36.0 - 44.6' 33.9 - 46.7 921 74.2 - 87.8 70.8 - 91.2
%
+
, , , Fluoride 92A 16.5 - 23.9 14.6 - 25.8 92B 36.8 - 43.6 35.1 - 45.3 92C 77.9 - 92.3 74.4 - 95.8 _.
x, > 459:4, s.
"...,, a$ - . ,.
3.x x , , < :. t.. vn m > x . Hydrazine 92P 12.83 - 13.63 12.63 - 13.83 . 92Q 29.96 - 38.28 27.88 - 40.36-i 92R 52.00 - 61.04 49.74 - 63.3 j ,mm
. ;; - - , ., Iron 92G 18.6 - 21.2 17.9 - 21.9 92H 35.9 - 43.7 33.9 - 45.7 921 69.6 - 89.4 64.7 - 94.3 , ,, , . s i gpf g 4: @ ?%
g ,x < Lithium 92JJ 4.05 - 5.81 3.61 --6.25 92KK 10.9 - 13.9 10.1 - 14.7 92LL 21.4 - 27.2 20.0 - 28.6 ... . . . .. __ __-_ - __-_-____- __-- _____-
. . -3-Attachment 4 (cont'd) iAgreement-Qualifledfddreement/ Analyte-Sample. l flange Range -.. Nickel 92G 18.6 - 21.2 17.9 - 21.9 92H 36.6 - 43.4 35.0 - 45.0 _ 921 77.1 - 82.9 75.7 - 84.3 Silica 925 13.15 - 17.73 12.01 - 18.87 92T 26.32 - 30.40 25.30 - 31.42 92U 56.53 - 63.75 54.73 - 65.55 Sodium 92J 4.37 - 6.27 3.90 - 6.74 92K 9.00 - 11.4 8.30 - 12.1 92L 13.7 - 17.3 12.8 - 18.2 l Sulfate 92A 17.5 - 21.3 16.5 - 22.3 f 92B 35.8 - 41.8 34.4 - 43.2 92C 70.9 - 87.7 66.7 - 91.9 Zinc 92X -- 92Y -- 92Z . l. . Attachment 5 RADIOLOGICAL CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-482/93-28 ' ._, 1 WASTE GAS DECAY TANK 6 SAMPLE - 1260 cc Sampled: -14:45..CDT,. October 20,.1993 . - RadiochemistrLDetectors: -1366,.1215,--and 1192; WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/cc) (pCi/cc) Ratio Decision Kr-85 1.65210.0llE-2 1.56310.006E-2 1.06 Agreement 1.652i0.008E-2 1.06 Agreement 1.63010.001E-2 1.04 Agreement Xe-133 9.85110.481E-6 8.43520.252E-6 1.14 Agreement 10.45010.360E-6 1.24 Agreement 9.83610.415E-6 1.17 Agreement 2 CONTAIMENT PURGE CHARC0AL CARTRIDGE SAMPLE-Sampled: 11:24,. COT, October 19, 1993' . .. . Radiochemistry Detectors:- 1366, 1215, and 1192 _- WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (pCi/ Sample) (gCi/ Sample) Ratio Decision i 1-131 8.678tl.095E-4 9.87410.667E-4 0.88 Agreement 8.91410.823E-4 0.90 Agreement 8.963tl.351E-4 0.91 Agreement - l
.,~ - - , ... - .. -. _ . -~.. . , !' -2-
Attachment 5 (cont'd) 31 SPENT) FUEL POOL LIQUID SAMPLE a 1000 ml - , Sampied::: :14:00,1CDT, October 18,-1993L. .. J Radiochemistry Detectors:: '1366, 1215,.,1192J > ' <Radwaste Detector: 1185- ' ' ' namensammum
- -.. - -.. - - - - - - - - - --- _ ----- -- umammaisessamamm WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison , Nuclide (pCi/ml) (pCi/ml) Ratio Decision ! Mn-54 2.03010.135E-6 1.93810.159E-6 1.05 Agreement 1.91620.126E-6 0.99 Agreement 1.91910.183E-6 0.99 Agreement
2.01610.517E-6 1.04 Agreement i i Co-57 1.613*0.118E-6 1.63410.105E-6 0.98 Agreement 1.66110.077E-6 1.01 Agreement
' 1.79010.104E-6 1.09 Agreement 1.703i0.185E-6 1.04 Agreement .
00-58 1.21020.005E-4 1.24710.005E-4 0.97 Agreement , 1.17910.004E-4 0.95 Agreement 1.20420.004E-4 0.97 ' Agreement 1.18110.11E-4 0.95 Agreement
+ Co-60 1.04310.005E-4 1.03910.005E-4 1.00 Agreement ' 1.013*0.004E-4 0.98 . Agreement '! 1.03510.005E-4 1.00 Agreement , 1.02810.011E-4 0.99 Agreement ~ 'l ,
h i < y ' . t I - .. - - -. --
- -. 6* . -3-
Attachment 5 (cont'd) j I 3:. SPENT FUEL POOL LIQUID!SA W LE !!000al.,(cont'd) . T ~ Sampled:1114:00,:CDT October 18,-s1993.~ .Radiocheststry Detectors:::1366,;-:1215k.:L1192F . _ ' ' ' Radwaste Detector: C1185 ~ ' ' - mammmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmum WCGS.Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (gCi/ml) M/ml) Ratio Decision ummmmmmmmmm ummmmmmmmmmmmmesummmmmmmmmmmmmm - -Sb-125 1.52610.059E-5 1.48910.059E-5 1.03 Agreement-l 1.33910.038E-5 0.90 Agreement 1.423*0.055E-5 0.96-Agreement i 1.35110.115E-5 0.91 Agreement
Cs-137 3.887*0.035E-5 3.82010.033E-5 1.02 Agreement 3.781*0.024E-5 0.99 Agreement 3.91510.034E-5 1.03 Agreement 3.794i0.076E-5 0.99 Agreement Ce-144 2.53010.640E-6 '3.11910.710 E-6 0.81 Agreem t 2.30910.526E-6 0.74 Agreement 2.58820.604E-6 0.83 Agreement 4.35111.120E-6 1.40 Agreement
.. - - . .- -. . . - . 4. -4-
! Attachment 5 (cont'd) .. _.. . _.,.. . x _.m .... _.. _ _.. ~... ,, <,, , i43.-HEACTWl.CDDIAIIItSYSTEILCRISlFILTEt!$AIFLEs i_r* " g< "m_fgd[f4, g ![-. W2 ~
&Samplodis09:00hCDTh0citobeN19M19931 ~ Zij$M@f('M, LJ ERadiochgens d!61192 , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide h- (pCi/ sample).
Ratio Decision muermusman ensammmmmmmmmmminimummmmmmmmmmu Be-7 3.308i0.260E-2 3.17310.162E-2 1.04 Agreement.
, 3.196*0.216E-2 1.01 Agreement 3.12610.323E-2 0.99 Agreement: l Cr-51 4.95010.275E-2 4.92120.148E-2 1.01 Agreement 5.507*0.197E-2 1.12 Agreement ' 5.04610.269E-2 1.03 Agreement Mn-54 6.45710.310E-3 6.43110.162E-3 1.00 Agreement ' 5.88410.206E-3 0.91 Agreement ' 5.897*0.342E-3 0.92 Agreement Co-57 2.68111.221E-4 3.73510.652E-4 0.72 Agreement
4.22921.011E-4 1.13 Agreement
i 6.595tl.566E-4 1.77 Agreement Co-58 2.55010.012E-1 2.56910.001E-1 0.99 Agreement i 2.52510.009E-1 0.98 Agreement-2.524*0.011E-1 0.98 Agreement , , Fe-59 1.19810.485E-3 1.73410.303E-3 0.69 Agreement 0.97410.278E-3 0.56 Agreement 1.45110.321E-3 0.84 Agreement
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _. . -5-t Attachment 5 (cont'd) i;! REACTOR.[C00UUl65YSTEN CRIDJILTERTSAIPLEi[(dont% ', j M,~ %.;gg , !
- $ampled#09;00KCDTn0ctoberJ1981993). ';J
- 1 3 3\\ N
hens h d01192? 4.y.., '.-
' :1 Radioch - ' ' ' ' . . , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (pci/ sample) (pCi/ sample) Ratio Decision
' i i Co-60 2.46410.053E-2 2.44120.024E-2 1.01 Agreement t t 2.39210.037E-2 0.98 Agreement l 2.35410.047E-2 0.96 Agreement l Nb-95 1.86710.045E-2 1.82510.021E-2 1.02 Agreement ' 1.81810.032E-2 1.00 Agreement 1.79610.041E-2 0.98 Agreement
I Zr-95 1.53220.064E-2 1.461*0.029E-2 1.05 Agreement r ' 1.45310.041E-2 0.99 Agreement i 1.39910.057E-2 0.96 Agreement j I . Zr-97 1.69310.335E-3 1.623i0.151E-3 1.04 Agreement j 1.55410.212E-3 0.96 Agreement j 1.77910.276E-3 1.10 Agreement ! ! I Tc-99m 8.03712.338E-4 7.79910.924E-4 1.03 Agreement
12.470il.840E-4 1.60 Agreement
5.982il.271E-4 0.77 Agreement f I I Sn-113 1.78710.249E-3 1.60510.184E-3 1.11 Agreement- . 1.37920.242E-3 0.86 Agreement [ 1.39810.366E-3 0.87 Agreement i ! . . _ _ _ - _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -
.. - - - .. _ ~ . -. ._ O l . I -, -6-i Attachment 5 (cont'd) l
[4lREACTORMMEAlli)SYSTER CBS[FN.TEi$5AfrLEITEmedId[[Ms N WN?4g i ! lSampled$09:00f CDTnOctobe619k1993; 2;Ei.1 ~' ";'kgjg
- g l'f i
6Radiochemi
- Detectors h d411923 dame i
x M mm [ - WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide h (pCi/ sample) Ratio Decision 1.26510.323E-3 1.84510.158E-3 0.69 1.94210.208E-3 1.05 Agreement 2.174i0.333E-3 1.18 Agreement l t ! I-133 9.27010.565E-3 9.60110.241E-3 0.97 Agreement l 9.469i0.409E-3 0.99 Agreement 10.530*0.530E-3 1.10 Agree:aent l I-135 4.38410.863E-3 3.88010.444E-3 1.13 Agreement j 2.88110.583E-3 0.74 Agreement j 3.44510.640E-3 0.89 Agreement
Ba-140 1.21510.183E-2 1.37020.093E-2 0.89 Agreement - 1.14710.109E-2 0.83 Agreement
1.08110.163E-2 0.79 Agreement i
, La-140-9.41610.329E-3 9.08610.162E-3 1.04 Agreement' , t 9.77410.251E-3 1.08 Agreement 8.92010.301E-3 0.98 Agreement - . I i Ce-144 2.17310.977E-3 1.95810.513E-2 1.11 Agreement.
, ,
2.62210.725E-3 1.19 Agreement 2.633*0.947E-3 1.34 Agreement i . ., _ ' i,.,. J . . . _
. -7-Attachment 5 (cont'd)
51 REACTOR C00UWTJSYSTEM GASLSAWLE - SIcc -
- Sampled:4.-10:34, CDT. October-20 '19931 Radioch h s_]I366,;1215,;and;
_ ,
- __
WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (gCi/cc) (t1Ci/cc) Ratio _ Decision - Ar-41 1.39710.015E-2 1.38910.014E-2 1.01 Agreement l 1.441i0.017E-2 1.04 Agreement-1.387i0.020E-2 1.00 Agreement , Kr-85M 3.20510.036E-3 3.04510.039E-3 1.05 Agreement i 3.24410.037E-3 1.07 Agreement
3.212*0.044E-3 1.06 Agreement i Kr-87 7.67410.119E-3 7.203i0.117E-3 1.07 Agreement 7.41410.147E-3 1.03 Agreement 7.56210.159E-3 1.05 Agreement Kr-88 7.90210.128E-3 7.60510.122E-3 1.04 Agreement 7.91010.114E-3 1.04 Agreement 7.96810.145E-3 1.05 Agreement Xe-133M 8.462il.985E-4 8.933*1.621E-3-0.95 Agreement.
7.01411.122E-4 0.79 Agreement 6.19911.642E-4 0.69 Agreement _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ -- . . r h F-8-i i Attachment 5 (cont'd) 5 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM GAS. SAMPLE -!S cc (contid); ~ -Sampled:;10:34 CDT,10ctober 20,71993._ l -. < - h s h d[1192j.
. , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison
- Nuclide (pCi/cc)
(gCi/cc) Ratio Decision Xe-133 2.04810.014E-2 1.85410.012E-2 1.11 Agreement 2.04910.009E-2 1.11 Agreement ^ 2.06810.012E-2 1.12' Agreement Xe-135 2.640f0.009E-2 2.39510.007E-2 1.10 Agreement 2.66610.007E-2 1.11 Agreement 2.64810.008E-2 1.11 Agreement ,
.
. . .. -- - -- . - k-9- ' ! ^ Attachment 5 (cont'd) 61 REAtt0R C00U d SYSTEM (IQUID SAMPLE - 95'cc; L '
Sampled:: ~ 10:34,! CDT, October 20,-1993 - < ' Radiochemistry Detectors: :1366,11215,:and.1192 . WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (pCi/cc) (pCi/cc) Ratio Decision-Na-24 4.87510.457E-4 4.48110.224E-4 1.09 Agreement , 5.70010.520E-4 1.27 Agreement 4.42210.557E-4 0.99 Agreement . Nb-95 i 5.21910.658E-4 6.63210.277E-4 0.79 ' Agreement 5.68910.540E-4 0.86 Agreement j 5.11210.544E-4 0.77 Agreement ! I-131 10.37010.840E-4 8.77110.378E-4 1.18 Agreement 10.88010.710E-4 1.24 Agreement j l 10.01010.750E-4 l 1.14 Agreement J
I-132 2.78710.018E-2 2.455*0.010E-2 1.14 Agreement 2.68110.012E-2 1.09 Agreement fgreement 2.78810.022E-2 1.14 i I-133 1.21910.001E-2 1.16310.005E-2 1.05' Agreement 1.16310.008E-2 1.00 Agreement 1.16210.009E-2 ,1.00 Agreement Cs-134 2.51310.601E-4 1.98510.299E-4 1.27 Agreement-
4 3.50210.610E-4 1.76 Agreement
3.56010.631E-4 1.79 Agreement i . - - - . . ._., , _ _
a , i-10-Attachment 5 (cont'd) ' 6 REACTOR C00UUli SYSTEN LIQUID..SAWLE - 15 ccf(cont'd):. - Sampled::J10:34, CDT,i;0ctober 20C.1993 . ' - , ., hhshd , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide M c) M__ Ratio _ Decision .. -.... , I-134 4.93410.068E-2 4.42010.033E-2 1.12 Agreement 4.68310.032E-2 1.06 Agreement 4.61910.090E-2 1.05 Agreement . 1-135 2.55820.039 E-2 2.43410.018E-2 1.05 Agreement
2.40610.031E-2 0.99 Agreement 2.44510.035E-2 1.01 Agreement i Cs-137 1.69010.511E-4 1.15110.263E-4 1._A 7 Agreement 1.59210.511E-4 1.38 Agreement 1.82220.206E-4 1.58 Agreement Cs-138 4.86310.108E-2 4.71110.052E-2 1.03 Agreement 4.71510.039 E-2 1.00 Agreement 5.04310.262E-2 1.07 Agreement i
5 .i > P - _ _.
.. ,.,..
. .. -. .
i I J f-11-Attachment 5(cont'd)
- 7 ' CONTAll0G!T/ATMDSPHERE SAMPLE - i,238 cc
~ ' Sampled: 11:24,LCDT, October'19, 1993: < ... . . _Radiochemistr" Detectors: 1366, 1215,-and _11924_' .. _ . _... , _ , WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (gCi/cc) (uCi/cc) Ratio Decision .... .. _.. mmmmmmmmmmmmmme Ar-41 0.98210.104E-6 1.04620.059E-6 0.94 Agreement i 1.08110.019E-6 1.00 Agreement 1.07510.062E-6 1.00 Agreement i Xe-133 1.403*0.295E-7 1.66010.266E-7-0.85-Agreement 1.505*0.212E-7 0.91 Agreement t 1.25210.213E-7 0.75 Agreement i f ! v .t >
' < i i Attachment 6 1992 QUALITY ASSURANCE LIQUID CAPABILITY TEST SAMPLE RESULTS WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION NRC INSPECTION REPORT: 50-482/93-28 . !18 Canna IsotopiiAnslyses' ~ - > WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (pCi/ml) (uti/ml) Ratio Decision Mn-54 9.4810.16E-6 9.01*0.24E-6 1.05 Agreement Co-60 7.9910.16E-6 7.5310.26E-6 1.06 Agreement Cs-137 1.1910.02E-5 1.1710.04E-5 1.02 Agreement '2??Be i Isoispi d An51yses; ' ~ WCGS Results NRC Results WCGS/NRC Comparison Nuclide (uCi/ml) (uCi/ml) Ratio Decision - H-3 1.3010.08E-4 1.03*0.03E-4 1.24 Agreement Sr-89 1.0010.10E-4 1.13*0.03E-4 0.88 Agreement Sr-90 1.6010.01E-5 1.87*0.06E-5 0.85 Agreement Fe-55 1.9010.60E-6 9.9610.30E-6 1.91 Disagreement > Retest -Tsecond sample 1 submitted LforTanalysisi Fe-55 9.3015.50E-6 9.9610.30E-6 0.93 Agreement t
_.
_.
_ _ _ - . - . Attachment.7
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING RADI0 CHEMISTRY
' ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS The following are the criteria used in comparing the results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical relationship established through prior experience and this program's analytical requirements.
, , In these criteria, the judgement limits vary _in relation to the comparison of the resolution.
Resolution = NRC VALUE , NRC UNCERTAINTY Ratio = LICENSEE VALUE .; NRC VALUE , Comparisons are made by first determining the resolution and then reading.
across the same line to the corresponding ratio. The-following. table shows - the acceptance values.
r RESOLUTitNil AGMBENliRhTI6f j ' <4 0.40 - 2.50 4-7 0.50'- 2.00 , 8 - 15 0.60 - 1.66 ! ' 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 , i > 200 0.85 - 1.18 _.
The above criteria are applieu to the following analyses: (1) Gamma Spectrometry ' ' (2)Tritiuminliquidsamples (3) Iodine on adsorbers (4)89Sr and SR determinaticas
(5) Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using.the same reference nuclide.
, ,
- . .. . . - - - - - - . - }}