IR 05000483/1993015
| ML20057E511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1993 |
| From: | House J, Kozak T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057E509 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-93-15, NUDOCS 9310120231 | |
| Download: ML20057E511 (12) | |
Text
. - -
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
REGION III
Report No. 50-483/93015(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-483 License No. NPF-30 Licensee:
Union Electric Company Post Office Box 149 - Mail Code 400 St. Louis, MO 63166 Facility Name:
Callaway Nuclear Plant Inspection At:
Callaway Site, Steedman, Missouri Inspection Conducted: August 30 through September 3, 1993 Inspector:
[Icah,
$/27/PJ gJ'.'E. House'
Dhte' '
Senior Radiation Specialist Approved By:
'
g/.Je/f3 Thomas /,J. Kozak, Acting Chief Date Radiological Controls Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on Auaust 30 throuah September 3. 1993. Report No. 50-483/93015(DRSSH Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the radiochemistry program (IP 84750) including:
action on previous inspection findings, confirmatory measurements, analyses required by technical specifications (T/S), chemistry quality assurance, audits and the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP).
Results:
Licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program was excellent with the laboratory achieving 115 agreements in 119 comparisons.
The 4 disagreements were resolved.
Laboratory quality assurance (QA) was functioning well.
The licensee had performed very well in the interlaboratory comparison program. Audits were performance based and thorough. Auditors were knowledgeable and experienced in plant operations. The REMP was well
,
managed and personnel were well qualified. The licensee determined that j
several fuel rods were leaking from increasing levels of dose equivalent
,
iodine 131 (del-131), noble gases and reactor coolant specific activity.
,
DEI levels were approximately 35% of the T/S limit and stable at the time of
<
the inspection. One inspection followup item relating to a radiochemistry sample split was opened and one IFI relating to the post accident sampling
'
system was closed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
)
9310120231 930930
,
PDR ADOCK 050004-83
PDR I
.
.
.
-
.r
DETAILS i
'
,
1.
' Persons Contacted
Union Electric l
l
- J. Blosser, Plant Manager
- C. Graham, Supervisor, Health Physics Technical Support i
G. Hamilton, Supervisory Engineer, Quality Assurance R. Kelley, Supervisor, Chemistry J. Kerrigan, Supervisor, Counting Room
- J. Kovar, Engineer, Quality Assurance
- J. Laux, Manager, Quality Assurance Department
- D. Martin, Engineer, Quality Assurance
- J. Neudecker, Supervisor, Health Physics Operations
- E. Olson, Supervisor, Chemistry
- J. Polchow, Superintendent, Chemistry and Radwaste S. Petzel, Engineer, Quality Assurance A. Stevens, Health Physics Technician
- C. Stretch, Senior Health Physicist, Technical Support Nuclear Reaulatory Commission
- B. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
- D. Calhoun, Resident Inspector, NRC
- Present at the Exit Meeting, September 3, 1993.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinos (IP 84750)
(Closed) Inspection Followup Item (50-483/92003-01):
The licensee was to perform an isotopic comparison of reactor coolant samples obtained from the post accident sampling system (PASS) and the_ primary coolant sample panel in order to fully satisfy the NUREG 0737 requirements for demonstrating that the PASS samples were representative of the bulk reactor coolant. The licensee obtained the samples, performed gamma spectroscopic analysis and compared the data.
Isotopic data for the two samples must be within a factor of two in order to satisfy the NUREG 0737 requirement.
The isotopic data for the two samples agreed within a factor of two.
This item is closed.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements Procram (IP 84750)
Comparisons of a filtered reactor coolant sample, a liquid waste sample and a reactor coolant crud filter for gamma emitting isotopes were made using the licensee's five high purity germanium detectors and the NRC detector in the Region III Mobile Laboratory. An NRC calibration standard was also compared using these detectors. The calibration standard was prepared by a different vendor than the licensee purchases calibration standards from and the geometry was common to the licensee and the NRC.
.-
..
.
.
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison
,
criteria are given in Attachment 1.
The~1icensee achieved 115.
agreements in 119 comparisons. Data from the calibration standard indicated that the efficiency and energy calibrations for the five detectors were very good.
Tellurium 123m was not in the licensee's nuclide software library which resulted in two disagreements with licensee detectors 4253 and 4205.
The licensee agreed to consider adding this isotope to the library. 'The remaining two disagreements, Cobalt 57 and Strontium 91, occurred in comparisons with licensee detector 4205. This detector is approximately 10 years old and has a relatively low efficiency (19%) compared with licensee detector 4253 (30%) or the NRC detector (>35%),
These two disagreements occurred with the reactor coolant crud filter comparison which contained a large number of fission products which were the result of failed fuel rods.
Cobalt 57 was a conservative disagreement and
,
appeared to be caused by the detector not resolving two energy lines
,
which were very close together. As this was a conservative
disagreement, no action by the licensee is necessary.
Strontium 91 was
,
a nonconservative disagreement and was caused by low sample activity
,
which resulted in poor counting statistics, and the and the lower i
effeciency of detector 4205.
Irregularities in the crud layer could
'
result in a somewhat different geometry than the detectors were j
calibrated for.
Considering that the disagreements vere resolved, j
licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program was excellent.
A liquid waste sample will be analyzed for strontium d9, strontium 90 and iron 55 by the licensee and the results will be reported to Region 111 for comparison with an analysis by the NRC reference laboratory on a split of the same sample. The results will be detailed in a future inspection (Inspection Followup Item 50-483/93015-01).
No violations or deviations were identified. One inspection followup item was identified.
4.
Analyses Reauired by Technical Specifications (IP 84750)
Primary coolant dose equivalent iodine-131 (DEI) levels were below the Technical Specification (T/S) limit of 37 kiloBequerels of DEI per gram (kBq/gm) (1 microcurie of DEI per gram ( Ci/gm)) of reactor coolant.
During April 1993, DEI levels were less than 2% of the T/S limit but began to rise in early May, and by June had reached 10% of the T/S limit.
The upward trend continued through August with levels exceeding 30% of the limit by early September.
In addition to the DEI levels,
,
trend plots for reactor coolant fission gases Kr-85m, Kr-87, Kr-88, Xe-133 and Xe-135 increased during the May-June time period but tended to stabilize during July and August.
Reactor coolant specific activity increased from May through August from 93 kBq/gn (2.5 pCi/gm) to 222 i
kBq/gm (6 Ci/gm). Using the available data the licensee estimated that 3 to 8 fuel rods had failed. This seems to be a reasonable estimate given the available coolant activity data. However, because there is no
u
l i
accepted method to definitely quantify the fuel problems based on the available data, the fuel problems may be either worse or better than the estimates.
During the confirmatory measurements portion of this inspection, the licensee prepared a filtered reactor coolant sample using a 0.45 micron (v) filter.
The filtrate and filter were counted by the licensee and the NRC (Table 1). All comparisons from the filtrate were agreements.
There were four disagreements on the filter, but these were minor and easily resolved (Section 3).
The filtrate contained significantly more A ivity than the filter.
However, most of this activity came from radioactive iodines fl-131, 1-132, 1-133, I-134 and 1-135) as few other
.
isotopes were present Numerous fission products were deposited on the filter, including Np-239, indicating that the f ailed full rods have released particulates ;nto the reactor coolant system.
Containment air samples (charcoal filters) had few halogen fission prodects (iodines),
j and levels were low indicating that reactor coolant lealage was minimal and was not effecting the containment environment.
<
The inspector discussed exposure potential during the upcoming outage from the increased reactor coolant system (RCS) activity.
The licensee
'
is planning to perform an early boration and hydrogen peroxide addition during the unit shutdown followed by a three day cleanup with the chemical volume control system (CVCS).
The consequences of this cleanup will be increased activity in the CVCS.
Elevated dose rates in the demineralizer resin beds and on the 0.45 micron reactor coolant letdown filter has the potential for increased dose accumulation by workers during and after the outage. A licensee representai.ive stated that the resin beds would be allowed to decay for 6 months before sluicing thc resin to a high integrity container. During the outage, the licensee i
plans to perform fuel sipping and inspection of all fuel rods.
The licensee is aware of the radiological control implications of the known fuel failures and was factoring these problems into the upcoming outage
,
pl ans.
These activities will be followed during a future inspection.
Primary sample room dose rates have increased from 50 microSieverts per how (50 Sv/hr) (5 millirem per hour (mr/hr)) before the fuel failures to 110 Sv/hr (11 mr/hr) without reactor coolant recirculation and 250-300 Sv (25-30 mr/hr) with recirculation.
Technician doses for reactor
,
coolant sampling have increased from 30-50 Sv (3-5 mr) to 100-150 Sv
!
(10-15 mr) for pressurizer reactor coolant samples.
The dose for
!
'
changeout of the reactor coolant letdown filter has not increased since the fuel failures occurred.
During the inspection, the contact dose rate for a 500 milliliter (ml) bottle of reactor coolant was
,
approximately 7000 pSv/hr (700 mr/hr); prior to the fuel failures, the dose rate was approximately 2000-2500 Sv/hr (200-250 mr/hr).
E-Bar calculations were current and primary coolant activity was well within the T/S limit of 100/E-Bar megaBequerels per gram (#Ci/gm).
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
)
,
5.
Chemistry Ouality Assurance (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiochemistry quality assurance (QA) program. Statistically based control charts were used to monitor i
detector operation.
Performance check sources were run three times per day and the average activities of the 81 kiloelectron volt (kev) line of Barium-133 and the 1332 kev line of Cobalt-60 were charted.
The full width half maximum (FWHM) of the 122 and 1332 kev lines were tracked along with the peak centroids of these energies. A review of selected chart data indicated that the detectors were generally operating within statistical control. The count room technician reviewed detector QA data when the check samples were run and the count room supervisor reviewed all detector QA data daily.
The licensee participated in an interlaboratory cross-check program with an outside vendor and a review of that data for the previous eight j
quarters indicated that performance was excellent. Analysis of the most recent cross check samples (second quarter 1993) indicated that cerium 144 was not reported on two detectors resulting in disagreements. A licensee representative stated that an investigation showed that the system had identified cerium 144, but a combination of software parameters and the failure of laboratory personnel to manually review the cross check spectral analysis data prior to release resulted in the disagreements. The licensee also stated that this was unusual as. all i
other data is reviewed.
In the future, a review of cross check data will be required prior to release. When plant samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC, Ce-144 was identified by both and the comparisons were agreements.
The licensee used the interlaboratory comparison program to identify and correct QA problems. The radiochemistry QA program was well managed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Audits (IP 84750)
The Quality Assurance (QA) Department has 5 groups, each managed by a Supervisory Engineer who reports to the QA department Manager.
The Operation Support Group consists of seven QA engineers who are-
.
responsible for conducting audits and surveillances of Radiation
)
Protection, Chemistry, Radioactive Waste, Fitness for Duty, Emergency
Planning, Ser.urity and Environmental Monitoring. These individuals have strong technical backgrounds including undergraduate and graduate
degrees in various engineering areas, and are experienced in the nuclear
!
power industry.
Audits are regulatory driven, performed by a team of 4 - 7 persons, have a specified time frame and utilize checklists for topics covered.
Surveillances are performed by at least one auditor, cover a specific-area in detail within a department, and are not limited to a specified time frame. Audits are performed less frequently, but are broad in scope covering an entire department or program.
4
)
j
.
,
The following audit and surveillance reports were reviewed:
Audit Report AP92-012, Quality Assurance Audit of the Radiological
Environmental Effluent and Monitoring Program, conducted June 30-July 16, 1992.
Audit Report AP93-013, Quality Assurance Audit of Radiological
Environmental Monitoring, conducted June 29-July 30,1993.
Surveillance Report SP93-051, Implementation of the Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program, conducted April-July,1993.
Surveillance Report SP93-047, Land Use Census, conducted May 25-
June 15, 1993.
Surveillance Report SP92-028, Reactor Coolant System Optimized
Shutdown Chemistry, conducted March 19-July 7, 1992.
These audits and surveillances covered the environmental sample collection program, and training and qualifications of environmental technicians. Auditors observed technicians collect and prepare samples.
Interaction among departments having responsibilities for environmental-programs was reviewed. The shutdown chemistry program including system cleanup, dose rates from various components of the-reactor coolant system, residual heat removal system and chemical volume control system piping were reviewed.
Findings and observations appeared to have been addressed in a timely manner.
Audits and surveillances were performance based and indicated that the QA engineers were familiar with the programs being reviewed. Auditors looked into program details and at the overall picture. The licensee's self assessment appeared to be well managed and capable of-identifying weaknesses in plant operations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina P,tparam (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including the 1992 Annual Environmental Report which complied with the REMP requirements. All of the required samples were collected and analyzed, except as noted in the report. Based on this document, there appeared to be no radiological impact on the environment from the operation of the Callaway Nuclear Plant.
The inspector toured selected air sampling stations and observed the technician responsible for the sample collection program replace air particulate filters and charcoal cartridges.
From field observations and record reviews, the. inspector concluded that the air sampling equipment was in good operating condition and was properly calibrated.
Air inleakage was detected at one station (A-1) but this equipment was changed out during the tour as part of the routine calibration and
e
_
_
_
_-
.
I i
.
.
maintenance program. Station personnel managed and conducted the REMP i
,
including collection of most samples.
In some cases, farmers participating in the REMP collected vegetation samples which were then
!
given to station personnel.
Environmental samples were shipped to a
vendor laboratory for analysis.
Licensee personnel were very l
knowledgeable of the REMP and the program appeared to be performing.
-
well.
There has been no noticeable effect on the environment to date
'
due to the' fuel problems.
j No violations or deviations were identified, l
,
!
8.
Exit Interview
,
l The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee j
representatives--(Section 1) at the conclusion of the-inspection on -
September 3,1993. The inspector discussed the Inspection Followup Item
'
in Section 2, licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program along with observations of the radiochemistry quality control
program, audits and the REMP. During the exit interview, the inspector
'
discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with
!
regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or
'
processes as proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurement Results
3rd Quarter 1993
2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
!
Radiological Measurements
I
!
!
t i
t
>
[
[
t
!
!
!
l i
!
!
!
P
$
$
-. -.
-
.
.. -
_
-,. _ -
'l l
.
\\
-
TABLE 1
- l U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
REBION-III l
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM i
FACILITY: CALLAWAY
!
FOR THE 3rd QUARTER OF 1993
'!
_________________________________
- - - - - _ _
________
-_- -
-
-
!
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.- ______
RESULT l
j
_______
_-
--
_
___________________
-=-
-
__
_____
AIR CR-51 7.89E-01 1.23E-02 8.07E-01 2.04E-02 1.02 64.1 A
i PARTIC CD-57 2.29E-02 1.65E-04 2.43E-02 3.20E-04 1.06 138.5 A
,
STD CO-60 9.21E-02 5.11E-04 9.67E-02 7.30E-04 1.05 180.1 A
!
DET 4296 SR-85 1.21E-01 6.23E-04 1.24E-01 9.OOE-04 1.03 193.7 A
,
Y-88 1.77E-01 9.86E-04 1.84E-01 1.50E-03 1.04 179.2 A
CD-109 5.95E-01 4.48E-03 5.90E-01 8.70E-G3 0.99 133.0 A
!
SN-113 9.34E-02 5.97E-04 9.22E-02 8.20E-04 0.99 156.5 A
'
TE-123M 2.21E-02 2.09E-04 2.34E-02 0.OOE+00 1.06-105.7 A
i l
CS-137 9.32E-02 4.47E-04 9.44E-02 6.50E-04 1.01 208.7 A
AIR CR-51 7.89E-01 1.23E-02 7.94E-01 2.49E-02 1.01 64.1 A
!
PARTIC CO-57 2.29E-02 1.65E-04 2.33E-02 3.10E-04 1.02 138.5 A
[
STD CD-60 9.21E-02 5.11E-04 9.37E-02 1.01E-03 1.02 180.1 A'
!
DET 4205 SR-85 1.21E-01 6.23E-04 1.20E-01-1.30E-03 1.00 193.7 A
Y-88 1.77E-01 9.86E-04 1.87E-01 1.90E-03 1.06 179.2 A
]
CD-109 5.95E-01 4.48E-03 5.97E-01 7.90E-03 1.00 133.0 A
l SN-113 9.34E-02 5.97E-04 9.36E-02 1.05E-03 1.00 156.5 A
!
TE-123M 2.21E-02 2.09E-04 2.35E-02. O.OOE+00 1.06 105.7 A
'
CS-137 9.32E-02 4.47E-04 9.21E-02 8.60E-04 0.99 208.7-A
!
AIR CR-51 7.89E-01 1.23E-02 7.8BE-01 2.06E-02 1.00 64.1 A
i PARTIC.
CO-57 2.29E-02 1.65E-04 2.37E-02 2.70E-04 1.03 138.5 A
f STD CD-60 9.21E-02 5.11E-04 9.62E-02 7.70E-04 1.05 180.1 A
i DET 4253 SR-85 1.21E-01 6.23E-04 1.24E-01 1.OOE-03 1.03 193.7 A
I Y-88 1.77E-01 9.86E-04 1.88E-01 1.60E-03 1.06 179.2 A
[
CD-109 5.95E-01 4.4BE-03 6.08E-01 5.30E-03 1.02 133.0 A
!
SN-113 9.34E-02 5.97E-04 9.36E-02 8.20E-04 1.00 156.5 A
I TE-123M 2.21E-02 2.09E-04 2.24E-02 0.OOE+00 1.01 105.7 A.
[
CS-137 9.32E-02 4.47E-04 9.55E-02 7.10E-04 1.02 208.7 A
!
!
I i
!
,
$
I
-
'
-
__
,
1
,
.
,
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
L5C75RRI~~ RAT 50~~ 555L. RESULT R
l
__________________________________
=____________________________________
AIR CR-51 7.89E-01 1.23E-02 7.79E-01 2.27E-02 0.99 64.1 A
PARTIC CD-57 2.29E-02 1.65E-04 2.39E-02 2.70E-04 1.04 138.5 A
STD CD-60 9.21E-02 5.11E-04 9.48E-02 1.03E-03 1.03 180.1 A
DET 4219 SR-85 1.31E-01 6.23E-04 1.22E-01 1.40E-03 1.01 193.7 A
l Y-88 1.77E-01 9.86E-04 1.84E-01 2.10E-03-1.04 179.2 A
CD-109 5.95E-01 4.48E-03 5.93E-01 6.40E-03 1.00 133.0 A
j SN-113 9.34E-02 5.97E-04 9.26E-02 1.OBE-03 0.99-156.5 A
TE-123M 2.21E-02 2.09E-04 2.39E-02 0.OOE+00 1.08 105.7 A
CS-137 9.32E-02 4.47E-04 9.42E-02 8.90E-04 1.01 208.7 A
I AIR CR-51 7.89E-01 1.23E-02 7.90E-01 2.35E-02 1.00 64.1 A
PARTIC CO-57 2.29E-02 1.65E-04 2.41E-02 3.OOE-04 1.05 138.5 A
STD CD-60 9.21E-02 5.11E-04 9.21E-02 7.10E-04 1.00 180.1 A
DET 4276 SR-85 1.21E-01 6.23E-04 1.23E-01 1.OOE-03 1.02 193.7 A
Y-88 1.77E-01 9.86E-04 1.85E-01 1.50E-03 1.05 179.2 A
CD-109 5.95E-01 4.48E-03 6.01E-01 7.40E-03 1.01 133.0 A
SN-113 9.34E-02 5.97E-04 9.40E-02 9.10E-04 1.01 156.5 A
TE-123M 2.21E-02 2.09E-04 2.25E-02 0.OOE+00 1.02 105.7 A
CS-137 9.32E-02 4.47E-04 9.39E-02 6.70E-04 1.01 208.7 A
RCS NA-24 3.83E-03 6.84E-04 4.74E-03 5.69E-04 1.24 5.6 A
FILTRATE CO-58 2.14E-03 4.96E-04 2.71E-03 5.89E-04 1.27 4.3 A
j DET 4205 I-131 7.76E-02 1.27E-03 7.94E-02 1.25E-03 1.02 61.1 A
I-132 6.15E-01 6.62E-03 6.83E-01 7.40E-03 1.11 92.9 A
I-133 5.02E-01 2.49E-03 5.25E-01 2.70E-03 1.05 201.6 A
I-134 7.88E-01 6.84E-02 1.OOE+00 1.12E-01 1.27 11.5 A
I-135 6.84E-01 9.17E-03 6.91E-01 1.11E-02 1.01 74.6 A
i RCS NA-24 3.83E-03 6.84E-04 3.92E-03 7.20E-04 1.02 5.6 A
FILTrmYE CO-58 2.14E-03 4.96E-04 2.61E-03 4.78E-04 1.22 4.3 A
DET 4296 I-131 7.76E-02 1.27E-03 8.20E-02 1.12E-03 1.06 61.1 A
I-132 6.15E-01 6.62E-03 6.84E-01 6.20E-03 1.11 92.9 A
l I-133 5.02E-01 2.49E-03 5.19E-01 2.20E-03 1.03 201.6 A
i 1-134 7.8BE-01 6.84E-02 9.65E-01 0.OOE+00 1.22 11.5 A
!
I-135 6.84E-01 9.17E-03 7.26E-01 8.60E-03 1.06 74.6 A
l LIQUID CO-58 5.57E-07 4.57E-08 5.75E-07 1.57E-08 1.03 12.2 A
!
WASTE CO-60 3.41E-07 3.87E-08 2.52E-07 1.47E-08 0.74 8.8 A
DET 4219 SB-125 3.49E-06 1.49E-07 3.20E-06 5.90E-08 0.92 23.5 A
CS-134 3.27E-07 3.69E-08 3.28E-07 1.44E-OB 1.00 8. 8 A
i CS-137 9.71E-07 4.96E-08 7.65E-07 1.89E-08 0.79 19.6 A
l CE-144 1.29E-06 2.9BE-07 1.42E-06 6.40E-08 1.10 4.3 A
i a
t
..
-
_
_
J
.
_____________________________________________________________________________
SAMPLE NUCLIDE NRC VAL. NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL. RESULT
__________________________________..__________________________________________
LIQUID CO-58 5.57E-07 4.57E-08 5.OBE-07 1.05E-08 0.91 12.2 A
WASTE CO-60 3.41E-07 3. BYE-08 2.45E-07 1.11E-08 0.72 8.8 A
l DET 4296 SB-125 3.49E-06 1. 49tI-07 3.17E-06 4.30E-08 0.91 23.5 A
l CS-134 3.27E-07 3.69E-08 3.37E-07 1.02E-08 1.03 8.8 A
!
CS-137 9.71E-07 4.96E-08 7.46E-07 1.23E-08 0.77 19.6 A
,
CE-144 1.29E-06 2.98E-07 1.29E-06 5.30E-08 1.00 4.3 A
!
RCS CR-51 4.59E-03 5.98E-05 4.89E-03 3.80E-05 1.06 76.8 A-CRUD MN-54 8.38E-04 7.04E-06 8.98E-04 4.80E-06 1.07 119.0 A
FILTER FE-59 4.17E-04 9.55E-06 4.49E-04 6.60E-06 1.08 43.7 A
DET 4253 CD-57 3.40E-05 2.83E-06 2.85E-05 1.27E-06 0.84 12.0 A
CO-58 1.42E-02 2.40E-05 1.52E-02 2.OOE-05 1.07 592.0 A
CO-60 7.05E-04 7.59E-06 7.36E-04 4.70E-06 1.04 92.9 A
NP-239 3.45E-03 2.60E-05 3.76E-03 1.40E-05 1.09 132.8 A
I-131 2.09E-04 6.78E-06 2.18E-04 4.40E-06 1.04 30.8 A
I-133 1.33E-03 4.12E-05 1.38E-03 2.70E-05 1.04 32.2 A
SR-91 1.69E-03 3.63E-04 1.09E-03 0.OOE+00 0.65 4.6 A
ZR-95 1.33E-03 1.14E-04 1.42E-03 7.OOE-06 1.07 11.7 A
ZR-97 2.32E-03 7.38E-04 2.41E-03 0.OOE+00 1.04 3.1 A
NB-95 1.51E-03 9.31E-06 1.61E-03 6.OOE-06 1.06 162.2 A
MO-99 2.22E-04 4.60E-05 2.49E-04 3.10E-06 1.12 4.8 A
RU-103 3.42E-04 7.91E-06 3.51E-04 4.70E-06 1.03 43.2 A
SN-113 8.29E-05 6.88E-06 8.59E-05-4.17E-06 1.04 12.0 A
TE-123M 6.74E-05 3.24E-06 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 20.8 D
TE-132 4.97E-04 8.49E-06 5.29E-04 3.80E-06 1.06 58.5 A
CS-134 8.07E-05 7.73E-06 6.37E-05 3.23E-06 0.79 10.4 A
CS-137 4.47E-05 4.92E-06 4.91E-05 3.80E-06 1.10 9.1 A
BA-140 9.71E-04 3.01E-05 1.01E-03 2.10E-05 1.04 32.2 A
LA-140 1.34E-03 1.60E-05 1.35E-03 5.10E-06 1.01 84.0 A
CE-141 8.42E-05 5.60E-06 9.61E-05 3.40E-06 1.14 15.0 A
CE-144 1.80E-04 2.35E-05 1.58E-04 1.38E-05 0.88 7.7 A
RCS CR-51 4.59E-03 5.98E-05 4.81E-03 3.60E-05 1.05 76.8 A
CRUD MN-54 8.38E-04 7.04E-06 8.76E-04 5.80E-06 1.04 119.0 A
FILTER FE-59 4.17E-04. 9.55E-06 4.30E-04 8.60E-06 1.03 43.7 A
DET 4205 CO-57 3.40E-05 2.83E-06 9.64E-05 2.79E-06 2.83 12.0 D
CO-58 1.42E-02 2.40E-05 1.48E-02 2.OOE-05 1.04 592.0 A
CO-60 7.05E-04 7.59E-06 7.14E-04 6.OOE-06 1.01 92.9 A
NP-239 3.45E-03 2.60E-05 3.73E-03 1.70E-05 1.08 132.8 A
L -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.
- - -
- - -
-
..
..-
-
.
.-
.
.
EERFEE-~~ DEEiBE-sEE DEET sEE EE5-~~ETE UEET-EiETERE!- REii5-REE5ET EEEDET
- - - - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RCS I-131 2.09E-04 6.78E-06 2.17E-04 5.60E-06 1.04 30.8 A
CRUD I-133 1.33E-03 4.12E-05 1.42E-03 3.70E-05 1.07-32.2 A
FILTER SR-91 1.69E-03 3.63E-04 8.07E-04 0.OOE+00 0.48 4.6 D
DET 4205 ZR-95 1.33E-03 1.14E-04 1.40E-03 9.OOE-06 1.06 11.7 A
CONT'D ZR-97 1.63E-03 3.48E-05 1.73E-03 0.OOE+00 1.06-46.8 A
NB-95 1.51E-03 9.31E-06 1.57E-03 8.OOE-06 1.04 162.2 A
)
MD-99 2.22E-04 4.60E-05 2.55E-04 3.70E-06 1.15 4.8 A
RU-103 3.42E-04 7.91E-06 3.42E-04 6.50E-06 1.00 43.2 A
l SN-113 8.29E-05 6.88E-06 8.40E-05 5.36E-06 1.01 12.0 A
TE-123M 6.74E-05 3.24E-06 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 20.8 D
TE-132 4.97E-04 8.49E-06 5.51E-04 5.80E-06 1.11 58.5 A
CS-134 8.07E-05 7.73E-06 6.46E-05 4.85E-06 0.80 10.4
- A CS-137 4.47E-05 4.92E-06 3.72E-05 4.49E-06 0.83 9.1 A
BA-140 9.71E-04 3.01E-05 1.02E-03 2.70E-05 1.05 32.2 A
<
LA-140 1.34E-03 1.60E-05 1.49E-03 6.30E-06 1.11 84.0 A
l
'
CE-141 8.42E-05 5.60E-06 9.68E-05 4.07E-06 1.15 15.0 A
CE-144 1.80E-04 2.35E-05 1.75E-04 1.48E-05 0.97 7.7 A
TEST RESULTS:
.
A= AGREEMENT
!
D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON B
E
,
&
!
i J
!
L
-
..%..
,. _,
_
_
., _,,
,,,_,--y.
,
,.m.m.,
.-
<m
.n
..
.
't
' 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 l
relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this
program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the
'
'
comparison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma 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 should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in' a narrowed category of acceptance.
i RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
!
Agreement
<4 NO COMPARISON
!
..
4-
0.5 - 2.0 8-
0.6 - 1.66
,
16 -
0.75 - 1.33.
,
51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 200 -
0.85 - 1.18
.;
Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques,
,
and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data sheet.
,
!
,
!
t
-
i
~
!
!
k