ML051240118

Semi-Annual Quality Assurance Status Report, January - June 2004

ML051240118
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	06/30/2004
From:	AREVA, Framatome ANP
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NRC-05-0034
Download: ML051240118 (128)

Text

-

I-i I

t

-0

-=0~

t:

0-? i;5

n 0;SEMI-ANNUAL QUALIlY 0:;:

7 5i 0 ASSURANCESTATUS REPORT -;

lanuary June 2004 --

29REERC RIVEA RAWE.STAORUGHRAP0581391 (508) 8 70 (0 8

~~~~~~~I so,--f;-0.?.-.;

-;;de-0nL;---a00a f

I I :-

I

, t I.

I r-10--,

. I I.

I

'1 A

AR EVA FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANALYTICAL SERVICES SEMI-ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE STATUS REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2004 EL 116/04 Prepared By.

Reviewed By:

Approved By.

Date:

a/15 1zy Date:

g1 /2-1 2o o4

Date:

?

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory 29 Research Drive Westborough, MA 01581-3913

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae INTRODUCTION.................................................

1 A.

Quality Control Program Scope................................................

1

1.

Inter-laboratory and Third Party............................................... 1I

2.

Intra-laboratory...............................................2 B.

Quality Assurance Program (Internal and External Audits)

................................ 2 II.

Performance Evaluation Criteria................................................

4 A.

Acceptance Criteria...............................................

4

1.

Internal Process Control Samples..................................

4

2.

Backgrounds...........................................................................................6

3.

Blanks.....................................................................................................6

4.

NRC Resolution Criteria.................................

6

5.

DOE Evaluation Criteria..................................

6

6.

ANSI 13.30 Relative Bias Criteria for Bioassay..................................

7 B.

QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting...............................................

8

1.

QC Investigation Criteria...............................................

8

2.

Reporting of Analytical Results to Laboratory Customers............

.......... 8

3.

Self-Assessment Program..............

................................ 8 Ill.

ANALYTICAL SERVICES QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS........................................ 8 A.

Result Summary............................................

8

1.

Radiological Environmental Services Quality Control............................. 9

2.

Part 50/61 Quality Control............................................

11

3.

Bioassay Quality Control.......................

13 B.

Status of Condition Reports (CR).......................

13 C.

Status of Audits/Assessments.......................

14

1.

Internal.......................

14

2.

External.......................

14 IV.

UPDATED PROCEDURES ISSUED DURING JANUARY-JUNE 2004....................... 14 V.

REFERENCES 15 F:MADMIN\\CORRE5\\EL 116-04

-ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A INTER/INTRA-LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING: ANALYTICS, DOE, ERA AND NIST QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS APPENDIX B EFFLUENT MONITORING AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS (IOCFR PART 50/61)

APPENDIX C BIOASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS ATTACHMENT 1 RESULTS OF THE BLIND DUPLICATE PROGRAM FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

,jjj_

I LIST OF TABLES

1.

Analytics Environmental Crosscheck Program Results by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

2.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Analytics Environmental Cross-Check Program Performance Evaluation

3.

NIST Environmental Analysis Results by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

4.

Summary of Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Traceability Results, January-June 2004

5.

Environmental Measurements Laboratory Quality Assessment Program QAP 60 (0403)

6.

Department of Energy Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP W1i)

7.

Environmental Resource Associates Proficiency Test Results Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory

8.

Intra-laboratory Environmental Process Control Results by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

9.

QC Charcoal Activity Screening Results

10.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Intra-Laboratory and Inter-Laboratory Data Summary, Bias and Precision by Media, January-June 2004

11.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Intra-Laboratory and Inter-Laboratory Data Summary, Bias and Precision by Analysis Type, January-June 2004

12.

Environmental Bias and Precision by Year

13.

Analytics Radiochemistry Crosscheck Results by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

14.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Analytics Radiochemistry Cross-Check Performance Evaluation

15.

NIST Part 50/61 Analysis Results Breakdown by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

16.

Summary of Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Part 50/61 Traceability Results, January-June 2004

17.

Intra-laboratory Part 50/61 Process Control Results Breakdown by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004 F:AADMIWMCORRE5EL 116-04

-v

-iv-

LIST OF TABLES

18.

Part 50/61 Analysis Results Breakdown by Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory, Acceptance Criteria, Media and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

19.

Part 50/61 Bias and Precision by Year

20.

Bioassay Analysis Results Breakdown By Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Acceptance Criteria, Media, and Measurement Categories, January-June 2004

21.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Bioassay Thyroid Radioiodine Intercomparison Project (TRIP)

22.

Condition Report (CR) Status, January-June 2004

23.

Updated Instrumentation GrouplAnalytical Services Section Procedures Issued During January-June 2004

- FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

INTRODUCTION This report covers the Quality Assurance (QA) Program for the Analytical Services function of the Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory (E-LAB) for the first half (January-June) of 2004. Due to the broad scope of QC inter-comparison programs in which the E-LAB participates, the report consolidates wherever possible, text and results into three service categories: Radiological Environmental Monitoring, Part 50/61, and Bioassay.

This report includes:

intralaboratory QC results analyzed during the reporting period, -

interlaboratory QC results, analyzed prior to the reporting period, for which

'known values" were not previously available, and interlaboratory QC results, analyzed during the reporting period, for which

'known values" were available.

Any other inter-laboratory QC results will be included in the next semi-annual report.

Manual 100, Revision 7 (Reference 1) became effective on June 18, 2004. The text of this report reflects the latest revision of this manual, as do the trending graphs and any data evaluations performed after the June 18, 2004 date. Any data evaluations performed prior to June 18t, however, were conducted in accordance with Manual 100, Revision 6.

A.

Quality Control Program Scope

1.

Inter-laboratory and Third Party The Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory QC Program is designed to monitor the quality of analytical processing associated with environmental, bioassay, effluent (10CFR Part 50), and waste (10CFR Part 61) sample analysis.

Inter-laboratory and third party quality control programs for environmental radioanalyses include: the Environmental Crosscheck Program, administered by Analytics, Inc., the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Measurement Assurance Program (MAP), the Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) Proficiency Test (PT)

Prograrmi, the Department of Energy (DOE) Quality Assessment Program (QAP), and the Mixed Analyte performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).

The QAP program is administered by the (DOE) Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) and consists of four media; (e.g., water, vegetation, soil, and air filters) submitted twice per year. The DOEQAP was suspended by the Department of Homeland Security following the results of QAP 60 (contained in this report). The MAPEP program is administered by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) and consists of one soil and one water sample submitted each F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 year. The MAPEP samples are designed to evaluate the ability and quality of analytical facilities performing sample measurements that contain hazardous and radioactive (mixed) analytes. The EML has determined that some of the cancelled DOEQAP will be included in future sample distributions. The ERA PT program consists of radionuclides in water submitted twice per year. This program is used to maintain certification with the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). The certification is necessary to perform analysis for projects that must meet EPA regulations for the Clean Water Act (CWA),

Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Inter-laboratory and third party quality control for Part 50/61 radioanalyses, is provided by the Radiochemistry Crosscheck Program, administered by Analytics, Inc. and the NIST MAP.

2.

Intra-laboratory The internal Quality Control program is designed to include QC functions such as instrumentation checks (to insure proper instrument response),

blank samples (to which no analyte radioactivity has been added),

instrumentation backgrounds, duplicates, as well as overall staff qualification analyses and process controls. Both process control and qualification analyses samples seek to mimic the media type of those samples submitted for analysis by the various laboratory clients. These process controls (or process checks) are either actual samples submitted in duplicate in order to evaluate the precision of laboratory measurements, or blank samples which have been "spiked" with a known quantity of a radioisotope that is of interest to Laboratory clients. These QC samples, which represent either "single" or "double blind" unknowns, are intended to evaluate the entire radiochemical and radiometric process.

To provide a sense of direction and consistency in administering the quality control program, E-LAB has developed and follows an annual quality control and audit assessment schedule (Reference 2). The plan, which is approved on or before January 15t of each year and reviewed for adequacy at monthly LQARC meetings, describes the scheduled frequency and scope of Quality Assurance and Control actions considered necessary for an adequate program. The magnitude of the process control program combines both internal and external sources targeted at 5% of the routine sample analysis load.

B.

Quality Assurance Program (Internal and External Audits)

During each semi-annual reporting period at least one internal assessment is' conducted in accordance with the pre-established E-LAB Quality Control and Audit Assessment Schedule. In addition, the Laboratory may be audited by prospective customers during a pre-contract audit, and/or by existing clients who wish to conduct periodic audits in accordance with their contractual arrangements. A National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program F:AADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 (NELAP) audit is performed every two years as part of maintaining certification to perform EPA-related analyses.

F:'\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 1 16-04 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA A.

Acceptance Criteria E-LAB has adopted a QC acceptance protocol based upon two performance models:

For those inter-laboratory programs that already have established performance criteria (i.e., DOE QAP, MAPEP, ERA, and TRIP), the Laboratory will utilize the criteria for the specific program.

For inter-laboratory or third party QC programs that have no preset acceptance criteria (e.g. the Analytics Crosscheck Programs, NIST MAP),

results will be evaluated in accordance with E-LAB internal acceptance criteria.

1.

Internal Process Control Samples Internal Process Control (PC) results are evaluated in accordance with two separate E-LAB acceptance criteria. A full discussion of the analytical services acceptance criteria can be found in Reference 1. The first criterion concerns bias, which is defined as the deviation of any one result from the known value. The second criterion concerns precision, which deals with the ability of the measurement to be faithfully replicated by comparison of an individual result with the mean of all results for a given sample set. Quality control deviations falling outside the Laboratory acceptance criteria are discussed in the appendices.

(a)

Bias For each analytical measurement tested, the bias is the percent deviation of the reported result relative to the expected value (value of the spike known by comparison with or derivation from a standard reference material). The percent deviation relative to the known is calculated as follows:

(Hi' -Hi)10 Hi where:

Hi = the value of the iP measurement in a category being tested Hi = the actual quantity in the test sample as defined by the spike The Laboratory internal criterion for bias is that an analysis is considered in agreement if the value is within +/-15% of the known value. If this condition is not met, the two-sigma range about the analyzed value is established. If the known value falls within the specified range, the analysis is considered in agreement.

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRE5\\EL 116-04 Deviations from this general criterion, for specific radionuclides, are given in Tables I and 13 and Reference 1.

E-LAB acceptance criteria are applied when the sample concentration is 10 or more times the method MDC. Otherwise, the 'known value" and associated uncertainty are compared to the measured result and uncertainty using a two-tailed standard statistical test at the 95% confidence level.

(b)

Precision For a group of test measurements containing a given spiked level, the precision is the percent deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported measurement. At least two values are required for the determination of precision. The percent deviation relative to the mean reported measurement is calculated as follows:

(H:_ iJ100 where:

H =

the reported measurement for the ith analytical measurement H = the mean analytical measurement ZH=

E n n =

the number of samples in the test group The Laboratory criterion for precision is that an analysis is considered in agreement if the individual value is within +/-15% of the mean value. If this condition is not met, the two-sigma range about the analyzed value is established. If the mean value falls within the specified range, the analysis is considered in agreement. In the case of duplicate or replicate analyses where there is no "known" value, the two-sigma range is established for each duplicate analysis (three-sigma range for replicates) for each analysis. If the ranges overlap, the analyses are considered in agreement for precision.

Deviations from this general criterion, for specific radionuclides, are given in Tables 1 and 13 and Reference 1.

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 (c)

Mean Bias For each group of analytical measurements tested, the mean bias is the percent deviation of the mean reported result relative to the expected value. The mean percent deviation relative to the expected value is calculated as follows:

([( -,)1000 where:

H = the mean analytical measurement Hi =

the actual quantity in the test sample as defined by the spike

2.

Backgrounds As discussed in Reference 1, backgrounds represent the ambient signal response, recorded by measuring instruments, which is independent of radioactivity contributed by the radionuclides being measured in the sample. Backgrounds will not normally contain any three-sigma statistically positive activity of the target parameters. The background signal is subtracted from the sample's signal.

3.

Blanks Wherever possible equivalent media for preparing laboratory processing blanks will be used. Synthetic matrices may be used for bioassay if equivalency is proven.

4.

NRC Resolution Criteria Some Laboratory clients use the NRC Resolution Criteria to evaluate double blind Part 50 performance. NRC Resolution Criteria are based on an empirical relationship that combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of the program. As "Resolution" increases, the acceptability of one's measurement becomes more selective. Conversely, as "Resolution" decreases, agreement levels are widened to account for the increase in uncertainty.

5.

DOE Evaluation Criteria (a)

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) has implemented an evaluation system where control limits are established based upon percentiles of historic data distributions.

The criteria are described as follows: "Participants' analytical performance is evaluated based on the historical analytical capabilities for individual analyte/matrix pairs. The criteria for acceptable performance, 'A' has been chosen to be between the FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 I

i 15th and 85th percentile. The acceptable with warning criteria, W',

is between the 5th and 15th percentile and between the 85th and 95 percentile. In other words, the middle 90% of all reported values are acceptable, while the outer 5th-15th (10%) and 85-95th (10%) are in the warning area. The not acceptable criteria, "N" is established at less than the 5th percentile and greater than the 95th percentile, that is, the outer 10% of the historical data."

(Reference 3)

(b)

The Radiological & Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) inter-comparison program, MAPEP defines three levels of performance: Acceptable (flag = "A"), Acceptable with Warning (flag = "W"), and Not Acceptable (flag = "N"). Performance is considered acceptable for a mean with a bias <20% of the reference value for the analyte. Performance is acceptable with warning for a mean result bias of >20% but <30% of the reference value. If the bias is greater than 30% the results are deemed not acceptable.

6.

ANSI 13.30 Relative Bias Criteria for Bioassay The relative bias statistic is defined for the ith measurement in a category with respect to the expected value (value of the spike known by comparison with or derivation from a standard reference material) is defined as:

B.=(A, -A,)

A.,

Where:

A, = the value of the ith measurement in a category being tested A., = the actual quantity in the test sample, as defined by the spike In order to avoid the expense of a large number of replicates at each radioactivity level in each category, the relative bias B. is calculated from the individual relative biases B. and defined as Br =(4) r N)

Where: N is the number of test samples measured by an individual service laboratory in a given test category.

For testing purposes B, shall be within -0.25 to +0.50 FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 B.

QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting

1.

QC Investigation Criteria Summarized below are the investigation criteria applied to QC analyses that failed E-LAB bias criteria. The Condition Report process tracks investigation results.

(a)

No investigation is necessary when an individual QC result falls outside the QC performance criteria for bias.

(b)

Investigations shall be initiated when the mean of a QC process batch or the mean of three consecutive individual QC processes is outside the performance criterion for bias.

(c)

An investigation shall be initiated when the trending of at least 12 consecutive results for a given process indicates that the mean bias from the known is greater than 60% of the bias performance criterion.

2.

Reporting of Analytical Results to Laboratory Customers A similar set of guidelines was developed, applicable to reporting of results. The guidelines are as follows:

If an investigation is required for a process (normally after consecutive QC process check failures), and if the QC results requiring the investigation have a mean bias from the known of greater than i (applicable E-LAB bias criterion +5%) for environmental and bioassay processing and +/- (applicable E-LAB bias criterion +10%) for Part 50/61 processing, then the LQARC shall meet to determine the disposition of client results.

3.

Self-Assessment Program In accordance with Reference 1, E-LAB has established a Self-Assessment policy where all Laboratory staff members are strongly encouraged to continually evaluate laboratory activities for quality enhancements, cost savings, and time savings.

Ill.

ANALYTICAL SERVICES QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS A.

Result Summary Two-year (2003-2004) trending graphs are provided in Appendices A-C of this report to give temporal perspective regarding possible trends or bias. In the event an analysis does not meet E-LAB performance criteria, the individual analysis sheet(s), in addition to a brief explanation, are included to augment the graph. It should be noted that DOE and ERA samples are evaluated against criteria specific to the DOE samples. Therefore, only sample results which fell in the "Warning" or Non-Agreement" categories will be addressed in the Appendices. If any questions arise regarding previous analyses, please refer to FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 the semi-annual status report corresponding to the sample analysis date. In all cases an analysis sheet is available for each individual analysis to back-up the data presented on the graph.

1.

Radiological Environmental Services Quality Control During this semi-annual reporting period, twenty-seven nuclides associated with media types were analyzed by means of the Laboratory's internal process control, DOE, NIST, ERA and Analytics quality control programs. Media types representative of client company analyses performed during this reporting period were selected. Presented below is a synopsis of the media types evaluated.

Air Filter Sediment/soil Charcoal (Air Iodine)

Water Milk (a)

Analytics Environmental Cross Check Program During this semi-annual period the Analytics Cross Check Program provided 173 individual environmental analyses for bias and 171 for precision evaluation (Table 1). Of the 173 analyses evaluated for bias, 98.3% (170/173) of all results fell within E-LAB acceptance criteria. Of the 171 analyses evaluated for precision, 100% (171/171) came within E-LAB tolerance limits. Appendix A graphically summarizes the results by two-year trending graphs.

Table 2 provides a report of the Laboratory's participation in the Analytics' cross check program for the fourth quarter of 2003 and first quarter of 2004. Using the Laboratory's internal acceptance criteria as the basis of evaluation, all 58 of mean results came within agreement criteria.

(b)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Measurement Assurance Program (MAP)

The E-LAB has been a participant in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)/National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Measurements Assurance Program since June of 1987.

Continued participation is documented by dated Reports of Traceability issued for particular radionuclides, which indicate the deviation of the participant's reported value for a given measurement technique from that measured and certified by the NIST.

During this reporting period there were three NIST MAP samples consisting of a total of 5 radionuclides and 36 measurements performed. Detailed information on Environmental NIST MAP data is provided in Tables 3 and 4. All of the 36 measurements met the E-LAB acceptance criteria and 10 of 12 mean results met the administrative limit of +/-5% for traceability.

F:AADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

_9 _

(c)

Summary of Participation in the Department of Energy (DOE)

Monitoring Programs During this semi-annual reporting period, a combination of three different media types and six different nuclides were analyzed by means of the DOE Quality Assessment Program (DOE QAP 0403, Table 5). All of the ten mean analyses evaluated were in uAgreement."

The E-LAB participated in the semi-annual Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) for water analysis (MAPEP-03-W1 1, Table 6). All of the nine analytes were evaluated as "Acceptable."

(d)

Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) Proficiency Test (PT)

Program During this semi-annual period, a total of 9 mean results (n=3) were evaluated by ERA. Using the evaluation criteria set by NELAP, 100% (9/9) of the radionuclides were in "Agreement."

Appendix A graphically summarized the results by two-year trending graphs. Table 7 provides a report of the Laboratory's participation in the PT program.

The Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory (Lab ID# 11823) maintained NELAP accreditation from the New York State Department of Health through the Environmental Laboratory Approval Program for the following methods for both potable and non-potable waters:

Gross Alpha, Method EPA 900.0 Gross Beta, Method EPA 900.0 lodine-131, Method ASTM D4785-88 Photon Emitters, Method EPA 901.1 Radioactive Cesium, Method EPA 901.1 Tritium, Method EPA 906.0 (e)

Intra-Laboratory Process Control Program The Environmental Laboratory internal process control program evaluated 423 individual analyses for bias and 217 analyses for precision. Trending graphs associated with the performance results for this program are given in Appendix A, and the results are summarized in Table 8.

Of the 423 internal process control analyses evaluated for bias, 99.3% met Laboratory acceptance criteria. Also, 99.1 % of the 217 results for precision were found to be acceptable.

Table 9 lists QC samples used to qualitatively screen calibrated geometry air charcoals for activity above the Minimum Detectable F:AADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 11 6-04

-1 0-

Concentration (MDC). All 54 QC charcoals evaluated during this semi-annual period reported positive activity as expected. The bias data for each individual measurement is presented in Table 9.

(f)

Analytical Blanks During this semi-annual reporting period, none of the 167 environmental analytical blanks analyzed reported positive activity, greater than three (3) times the standard deviation.

(g)

Instrumentation Backgrounds None of the instrumentation backgrounds processed between January-June 2004 reported activity that was above the three standard deviation investigation level.

(h)

Blind Duplicate Results Blind duplicate results for 2004 are presented in Attachment 1.

Based upon the summary evaluation, 100% of all paired measurements met the acceptance criteria. This data is not included in the summary tables (Tables 10-12).

(i)

Overall Data Summary for the Reporting Period January-June 2004 The compilation of intra-and inter-laboratory comparison data by analyzed matrix for this reporting period is summarized in Table 10. Table 11 presents the same data grouped according to analysis type. In either case, the cumulative bias for the three programs evaluated to internal E-LAB performance criteria shows 99.1% of the 632 individual results were observed to fall within the E-LAB bias acceptance criteria, while 99.5% of the 424 analyses passed the acceptance criteria for precision.

(I)

Summary of Environmental Quality Control Results by Year The historical summary of the E-LAB process control program performance for the environmental monitoring function is provided in Table 12. For the first half of 2004, 99.1% of the analyses fell within the E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias as compared to a historical percentage of 96.6. Similarly, 99.5% of the analyses evaluated for precision met the E-LAB acceptance criteria as compared to 99.4% of analyses for the 27-year operating history.

2.

Part 50/61 Quality Control During this semi-annual reporting period, twenty-one nuclides were analyzed by means of the Laboratory's internal process control, National Institute for Standards and Technology Measurement Assurance Program FAADMIN\\CORRESEL 116.04 A-11

(NIST MAP) measurements of Part 50/61 radionuclides, and the Analytics Radiochemistry Crosscheck Program.

(a)

Analytics Radiochemistry Cross Check Program During this semi-annual period the Analytics Cross Check Program provided 18 individual analyses to be evaluated for bias and precision (Table 13). Of the 18 analyses, 100% fell within the E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias and 100% for precision.

Appendix B graphically summarizes the results by two-year trending graphs.

Table 14 provides a report of the Laboratory's participation in the Analytics' cross check program for the first half of 2004. Using the Laboratory's internal acceptance criteria as the basis of evaluation, all 6 results passed the agreement criteria.

(b)

NIST Measurement Assurance Program (MAP)

There were 36 NIST MAP process control analyses evaluated for both bias and precision during the first half of 2004 in the Part 50/61 area. Of these, 100% (36/36) met the E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias and for precision (Table 15).

Table 16 summarizes the percent deviation of the E-LAB's mean measurements from the NIST reported known values for each source standard. Of the 12 mean results evaluated, all 12 were within E-LAB performance criteria for bias and precision.

Traceability certificates from NIST were received for the twelve radionuclides in water. Ten of the twelve mean measurements met the target traceability criteria of +/-5%.

(c)

Intra-Laboratory Process Check Program There were 109 internal Laboratory QC process control analyses evaluated for bias and 97 for precision during the first half of 2004 in the Part 50/61 area. Of these, 91.7% (100/109) met the E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias. A total of 100% (97/97) Part 50/61 process control samples met E-LAB acceptance criteria for precision (Table 17).

(d)

Analytical Blanks During this semi-annual reporting period, none of the 219 Part 50/61 analytical blanks analyzed reported positive activity greater than three (3) times the standard deviation.

F:ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 1 16-04 (e)

Instrumentation Backgrounds One hundred percent (100%) of the instrumentation backgrounds processed between January-June 2004 reported activity that was below the three standard deviation investigation level.

(f)

Overall Data Summary for the Reporting Period January-June 2004 The compilation of intra-and inter-laboratory comparison data by analyzed matrix for this reporting period is summarized in Table 18. The cumulative bias shows 94.5% (154/163) of the individual results fell within E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias. A total of 100% (151/151) of the results met Laboratory precision criteria.

(g)

Summary of Part 50/61 Quality Control Results by Year The historical E-LAB summary of process control performance for the Part 50/61 monitoring program is provided in Table 19. For the calendar year 2003, 94.5% of the QC analyses fell within E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias as compared to the sixteen year historical percentage of 94.0. For precision, 100% of the results met the precision acceptance criteria as compared to 99.2%

historically.

3.

Bioassay Quality Control There were no bioassay QC analyses performed during this semi-annual period as indicated in Table 20.

For the past several years, the E-LAB has participated in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Thyroid Radioiodine Intercomparison Project (TRIP). This program allows laboratories and facilities to self-assess their performance for in-vivo measurements of radioiodine isotopes in the thyroid. The LLNL established the intercomparison project to provide participating facilities with an independent means of evaluating their thyroid radio-iodine measurement using the IAEA/ANSI thyroid calibration neck phantom and well characterized NIST-traceable isotopes for 1-125 and 1-131. As shown in Table' 21, there were no TRIP tests this semi-annual period.

B.

Status of Condition Reports (CR)

Table 22 provides a synopsis of CR activity for sample processing during the first half of 2004. Twelve items were closed while eight were opened during this reporting period.. As of June 30, 2004, a total of three CRs remain open, none of which are older than 6 months.

FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 C.

Status of Audits/Assessments Internal Supplier Audit CW-01-04 The E-LAB audited vendor Caley & Whitmore Corporation on April 6, 2004 as a part of the QA Manual required control of suppliers of primary calibration services. Caley & Whitmore Corporation provides calibration and maintenance of the laboratory balances. The audit identified three (3) findings: 1) a procedure was not signed by management prior to implementation, 2) a technicians training file was missing required educational information, 3) a balance calibration traceability certificate referenced an incorrect certified weight set. Caley & Whitmore corrected these items and the findings were closed by April 30, 2004. There was no affect on the actual calibrations of any of the laboratory balances.

Supplier Audit AL-02-04 The E-LAB audited supplier Analytics, Inc., from April 19-20, 2004 as part of the QA Manual required control of suppliers of primary calibration services. Analytics, Inc., provides radioactive materials with NIST-traceability that are used for instrument calibrations, process checks, third-party interlab test samples, and creating radioactive sources.

Overall, the Analytics' quality process was found adequate and properly implemented. Personnel are highly qualified and trained to perform their activities. A total of four (4) issues were identified during the audit.

Analytics personnel adequately addressed each of the items prior to the issuance of the final audit report.

2.

External State of New York, Department of Health, Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) Audit Finding Report, dated April 13, 2004.

The State of New York Department of Health performed an audit of the Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory on March 30, 2004 as part of the ELAP accreditation program. The auditor noted six areas that were not in full compliance with the State of New York ELAP regulations. The items noted were: 1) no equipment master list is on file, 2) 5 instances of failing to document ELAP qualifications on special forms, 3) receipt surveys for contamination are not documented, 4) the uranium test method differs from the EPA method, 5) e-mails do not contain required confidentiality statements, and 6) reports are missing page numbers.

IV.

UPDATED PROCEDURES ISSUED DURING JANUARY-JUNE 2004 A list of Analytical Services Section procedures, which were updated during this semi-annual period, is included in Table 23.

FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

~

,., 1_....................

t __...

V.

REFERENCES

1.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Manual 100 "Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan", Revision 7, June 18, 2004.

2.

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory 2004 Quality Control and Audit Assessment Schedule.

3.

State of New York, Department of Health, Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) Audit Finding Report, dated April 13, 2004.

FMADMINMCORRES\\EL 116-04 TABLE 1 ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 2

3 4

1 2

3 4

I. Air Particulate Alpha 2

1 0

3 6

0 0

0 Beta 0

6 0

0 6

0 0

0 Gamma 7

15 5

0 27 0

0 0

Sr-89 0

1 0

0 0

Sr-90 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 II. Milk Gamma 47 9

4 0

56 4

0 0

Iodine (LL) 5 0

4 0

3 2

4 0

Sr-89 0

0 3

1 0

2 1

0 0

Sr-90 1

2 0

0 3

0 0

0 Ill. Water Alpha 3

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 Beta 2

0 1

0 1

2 0

0 Gamma 23 7

0 0

29 1

0 0

H-3 2

1 0

0 2

1 0

0 Iodine (LL) 1 2

0 0

1 2

0 0

Sr-89 3

2 4

0 8

1 0

0 Sr-90 2

3 1

0 5

1 0

0 Total Number In Range:

99 49 22 3

152 15 4

0 Percentage of Total Processed:

57.2 28.3 12.7 1.7 88.9 8.8 2.3 0.0 Sum of Analyses:

173 171 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1 Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding F:AADMINMCORRESMEL 1 16-04

-Al-

TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS CONTROL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 (Continued)

(1)

Percent Bias by Deviation Category 1 = >0 and <5 2=>5and<10 3 = >10 and *15 (orwithin 2 sigma of known, see Reference 1)

For Gross Alpha and Beta In water 3 = >10 and <25 (or within 2 sigma of known)

For Sr-89/90 mixtures 3 = >10 and *25 (or within 2 sigma of known)

For Alpha Spectrometry*,

3 = >10 and <20 (or within 2 sigma of known)

For Uranium-Total, Pu-241, Zn-65 on an air filter 3 = >10 and *20 (or within 2 sigma of known) 4 = Outside criteria (2)

Percent Precision by Deviation Category 1 = >0 and <5 2 = >5 and <10 3 = >10 and <15 (or within 2 sigma of mean, see Reference 1). Exceptions as above.

4 = Outside criteria Isotopic Uranium (U-234, 235, 238)

Isotopic Thorium (Th-230, 232)

Np-237 Am-241/Cm-242, 243/244 Pu-alpha (Pu-238, 239, 240)

Ra-226 Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A2-

I TABLE 2 FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Ratio Sample Quarter/

Sample Reported Known E-LABI Number Year Media Nuclide Units Value Value Analytics Evaluation E3937-162 4th/03 Water H-3 pCi/L 2307 2290 1.01 Acceptable E3938-162 4th/03 Water Sr-89 pCi 99 100 0.99 Acceptable E3938-162 4th/03 Water Sr-90 pCi 11 10 1.10 Acceptable E3939-162 4th/03 Filter Gross Alpha pCi 15 16 0.94 Acceptable E3939-162 4th/03 Filter Gross Beta pCi 50 47 1.06 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Ce-141 pCi 110 100 1.10 Acceptable E3940-162 -

4th/03 Filter Cr-51 pCi 171 153 1.12 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Cs-134 pC!

75 74 1.01 Acceptable E3940-162 4th103 Filter Cs-137 pCi 75 71 1.06 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Co-58 pCi 64 61 1.05 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Mn-54 pci 103 95 1.08 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Fe-59 pCi 64 56 1.14 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Zn-65 pCi 117 108 1.08 Acceptable E3940-162 4th/03 Filter Co-60 pCi 82 85 0.96 Acceptable E3941-162 4th/03 Filter Sr-89 pCi 103 109 0.94 Acceptable E3941-162 4th/03 Filter Sr-90 pCi 11 11 1.00 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk 1-131 pCUL 84 90 0.93 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk 1-131 LL(1) pCUL 91 90 1.01 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk 1-131 LL(2) pCUL 89 90 0.99 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 191 202 0.95 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Cr-51 pCUL 275 280 0.98 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L 135 135 1.00 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Cs-1 37 pCi/L 126 129 0.98 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 107 1'11 0.96 Acceptable E3942-162 4thW03 Milk Mn-54 pCUL 173 173 1.00 Acceptable E3942-162 4thl03 Milk Fe-59 pCUL 106 102 1.04 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Zn-65 pCi/L 203 197 1.03 Acceptable E3942-162 4th/03 Milk Co-60 pCi/L 148 155 0.95 Acceptable (1) 131 sample measurement by beta-gamma coincidence counter (2) 131 sample measurement by proportional counter F:%ADM1N\\CORRESXEL 116-04

-A3-

TABLE 2 (Continued)

FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANALYTICS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS-CHECK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Ratio Sample Quarter/

Sample Reported Known E-LABi Number Year Media Nuclide Units Value Value Analytics Evaluation E4057-162 1 st04 Water Gross Alpha pCi/L 72.3 74.5 0.97 Acceptable E4057-162 1 st04 Water Gross Beta pCiUL 285.7 301 0.95 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water 1-131 pCUL 94 90.2 1.04 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st/04 Water 1-131LL pCi/L 88.7 90.2 0.98 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water Ce-141 pCi/L 87.5 85 1.03 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st/04 Water Cr-51 pCiUL 335 326 1.03 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st/04 Water Cs-134 pCi/L 86 89.7 0.96 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water Cs-137 pCiUL 185.6 185 1.00 Acceptable E4058-162 1st/04 Water Co-58 pCi/L 1132 112 1.01 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water Mn-54 pCi/L 112.3 114 0.99 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water Fe-59 pCi/L 60.8 56.7 1.07 Acceptable E4058-162 I st04 Water Zn-65 pCi/L 149.1 143 1.04 Acceptable E4058-162 1 st04 Water Co-60 pCi/L 151.4 153 0.99 Acceptable E4059-162 1 st04 Water Sr-89 pCi 107.7 123 0.88 Acceptable E4059-162 1 st04 Water Sr-90 pCi 14.85 14.5 1.02 Acceptable E4060-162 1 st04 Filter Gross Alpha pCUL 48.09 58.9 0.82 Acceptable E4060-162 stV04 Filter Gross Beta pCiUL 231.1 218 1.06 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk 1-131 PCVL 77.73 77.7 1.00 Acceptable.

E4061-162 1stV04 Milk 1-131 LL pCi/L 83.6 77.7 1.08 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Ce-141 pCiUL 92 85.2 1.08 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Cr-51 pCUL 314 327 0.96 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L i

88.7 90 0.99 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Cs-137 pCi/L 188.6 185 1.02 Acceptable E4061-162 1stV04 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 115 112 1.03 Acceptable E4061-162 stV04 Milk Mn-54 pCi/L 114.7 114 1.01 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Fe-59 pCi/L 59.7 56.8 1.05 Acceptable E4061-162 stV04 Milk Zn-65 pCUL 145.5 143 1.02 Acceptable E4061-162 1 st04 Milk Co-60 pCUL 154.8 153 1.01 Acceptable E4062-162 1 stV4 Milk Sr-89 pCi 86.2 103 0.84 Acceptable E4062-162 1 st04 Milk Sr-90 pCi 12.7 12.1 1.05 Acceptable F:ADMIN\\CORRESXEL 116-04

-A4-

TABLE 3 NIST MAP ANALYSIS RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 I

I....

I Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 l

2 l

3 1

4 1

1 2

1 3

4 I. Water Gamma 31 5

0 0

36 0

Total Number In Range:

31 5

0 0

36 0

0 0

Percentage of Total Processed:

86.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

____0.0 0.0 Sum of Analyses:

36 36 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted In Table 1, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A5-

TABLE 4

SUMMARY

OF FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

TRACEABILITY RESULTS JANUARY-JUNE, 2004 NIST Reference E-LAB Mean Percent Standard Date of Measurement Deviation From Number Standard Radionuclide Matrix Technique NIST 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Ba-1 33 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-0.69 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Ba-1 33 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 3.25 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Cs-1 34_

Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-4.08 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Cs-1 34 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 0.96 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Eu-152 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-1.22 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Eu-152 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 1.85 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2 0.10 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid -

Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-0.55 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2 0.44 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy#2

-6.97 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-4.94 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-5.01 Data on NIST MAP program is repeated in Table 16 for Part 50/61 QC data.

F:AADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A6-

I --

~

TABLE 5 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS LABORATORY QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM QAP 60 (0403)

REPORTED EML REPORTED MATRIX/

RADIO-MEAN VALUE REPORTED -VALUE EML TO KNOWN UNITS NUCLIDE Bq/Units ERROR Bq/UnIts ERROR RATIO EVALUATION Soil (Bqgkg)

K-40 596.000 19.000 539.000 29.110 1.106 Agreement Soil (Bq/kg)

Sr-90 47.000 2.400 51.000 5.900 0.922 Agreement Soil (Bqlkg)

Cs-137 1515.300 44.000 1323.000 66.170 1.145 Agreement Soil (Bq/kg)

Ac-Th-228 50.700 2.100 49.000 1.960 1.035 Agreement Vegetation (Bqfkg)

K-40 751.700 23.000 720.000 37.920 1.044 Agreement Vegetation (Bqgkg)

Co-60 14.920 0.310 14.470 0.640 1.031 Agreement Vegetation (Bq/kg)

Cs-137 593.1 17.3 584.67 229.23 1.014 Agreement Water (Bq/L)

H-3 218.700 7.900 186.600 3.300 1.172 Agreement Water (Bq/L)

Co-60 153.700 4.500 163.200 5.900 0.942 Agreement Water (Bq/L)

Cs-137 48.400 1.500 51.950 2.700 0.932 Agreement EML has notified the industry that QAP 60 is the final set of samples to be issued. Further information may be found site, URL http://www.eml.doe.gov/qap/

F:AADMIN\\CORRESMEL 1 16-04

-A7-

TABLE 6.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (MAPEP-03-WII)

E-LAB MAPEP RADIO-MEAN VALUE VALUE BIAS MATRIX NUCLIDE BqIKg BqIKg Evaluation Water Cs-1 34 305.9 322

-4.99 Agreement Water Cs-137 114.1 124

-7.96 Agreement Water-Co-57 158.2 173

-8.56 Agreement Water Co-60 117.6 121.8

-3.49 Agreement Water H-3 361 379

-4.75 Agreement Water Mn-54 145.2 155

-6.32 Agreement Water Sr-90 15.6 17.7

-11.86 Agreement Water Tc-99 26 28.8

-9.72 Agreement Water Zn-65 317.8 320

-0.70 Agreement FAADMINMCORRESNEL 1 16-04

-A8-

- --- I -

I.

l - -. -

I I - -

I I

,

. I 11 I TABLE 7 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES PROFICIENCY TEST RESULTS FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ERA REPORTED ERA ERA ERA LOT #/

MATRIXI RADIO-MEAN VALUE VALUE CONTROL WARNING REF. DATE UNITS NUCLIDE pCiIL pCiIL LIMITS LIMITS EVALUATION RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCiL Gross Alpha 34 38.8 22.0-55.6 27.6-50.0 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCi/L Gross Beta 57.8 559.6 42.3-76.9 48.1-71.1 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCilL Tritium 31200 30900 25600-36200 27300-34500 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCi/L Ba-133 98.6 101 83.5-118 89.3-113 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCi/L Cs-1 34 49.8 50.5 41.8-59.2 44.7-56.3 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCilL Cs-137 82.4 82.5 73.8-91.2 76.7-88.3 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCi[L Co-60 40.5 41.6 32.9-50.3 35.8-47.4 Acceptable RAD-57 May 2004 Water pCi/L Zn-65 75.6 75.2 62.2-88.2 66.5-83.9 Acceptable RAD-57 May2004 Water pCi/L 1-131 26.4 25.1 19.9-30.3 21.6-28.6 Acceptable F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116404

.-A9-

I.

'.i TABLE 8 INTRA-LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS CONTROL RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2), (3) 1 2

3 4

1 2

3 4

I. Air Particulate Beta 131 l

7 l

0 l

0 l

0 0

0 0

Gamma II. Air Charcoal Gamma-Quantitative 2

I 2

T 0 °0 T0 °0 T0 ° 0

Gamma - Screening 25 17 12 0

0 0

0 0

Ill. Milk Gamma Iodine (LL)

Sr-89 Sr-90 X

IV. Soll/Sed.

Amn-241 I

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Gamma Pu-239 V. Water Am-241 0

8 6

0 2

0 14 0

C-14 8

3 7

2 2

0 18 0

Fe-55 4

4 8

0 0

2 16 0

Gross Alpha 7

3 15 0

2 0

12 0

Gross Beta 15 6

7 0

6 2

6 0

Gamma 30 2

0 0

0 2

28 2

Iodine (LL) _

___l__77_

Ni-63 9

2 3

0 0

0 16 0

Pu-238 8

5 1

0 0

0 16 0

Pu-241 6

7 1

0 0

2 15 0

Sr-90 5

5 5 -

0 0

0 18 0

Tritium 12 2

1 0

4 4

8 0

Tc-99 12 3

3 1

0 0

20 0

Total Number 275 76 69 3

16 12 187 2

in Range:

Percentage of 65.0 18.0 16.3 0.7 7.4 5.5 86.2 0.9 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

423 217 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (2)

(3) Most Precision data generated from non-positive client samples for specific contractual evaluation

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A10-

TABLE 9 QC CHARCOAL ACTIVITY SCREENING RESULTS i

SPIKE FILTER ANALYSIS ACT.

NUMBER LSN TYPE DATE REPORTED

% BIAS 67296162-D 6794-01 SAIC-1 17-Jan-04 YES 10.15 6804-01 SAIC-1 20-Jan-04 YES 9.70 6805-01 SAIC-1 22-Jan-04 YES 7.87 6846-01 SAIC-1 30-Jan-04 YES 10.50 6917-01 SAIC-1 12-Feb-04 YES 7.95 6939-01 SAIC-1 17-Feb-04 YES 10.62 67296162-F 6794-03 SAIC-2 17-Jan-04 YES 8.75 6804-03 SAIC-2 20-Jan-04 YES 10.47 6805-03 SAIC-2 20-Jan-04 YES 9.87 6846-03 SAIC-2 30-Jan-04 YES 13.12 6917-03 SAIC-2 13-Feb-04 YES 10.21 6939-03 SAIC-2 21-Feb-04 YES 8.05 67296162-E 6794-02 SA2C 17-Jan-04 YES

-4.89 6804-02 SA2C 20-Jan-04 YES

-4.87 6804-02 SA2C 20-Jan-04 YES

-1.52 6846-02 SA2C 30-Jan-04 YES

-5.05 6917-02 SA2C 12-Feb-04 YES

-4.55 6939-02 SA2C 18-Feb-04 YES

-4.07 67795162-C 6975-01 SAIC-1 26-Feb-04 YES 11.07 7005-01 SAIC-1 4-Mar-04 YES 13.07 7028-01 SAIC-1 11 -Mar-04 YES 15.20 7059-01 SAIC-1 15-Mar-04 YES 17.82 7098-01 SAIC-1 30-Mar-04 YES 14.24 7132-01 SAIC-1 2-Apr-04 YES 10.84 67795162-D 6975-02 SA2C 26-Feb-04 YES 0.62 7005-02 SA2C 4-Mar-04 YES 1.82 7028-02 SA2C 10-Mar-04 YES

-2.63 7059-02 SA2C 15-Mar-04 YES 0.47 7098-02 SA2C 26-Mar-04 YES

-1.59 7132-02 SA2C 31 -Mar-04 YES

-0.66 67795162-E 6975-03 SAIC-2 27-Feb-04 YES 2.76 7005-03 SAIC-2 4-Mar-04 YES 1.60 7028-03 SAIC-2 11-Mar-04 YES 3.49 7059-03 SAIC-2 15-Mar-04 YES 3.34 7098-03 SAIC-2 29-Mar-04 YES 3.44 7132-03 SAIC-2 2-Apr-04 YES 0.93 F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-All-

TABLE 9 (continued)

QC CHARCOAL ACTIVITY SCREENING RESULTS SPIKE FILTER ANALYSIS ACT.

NUMBER LSN TYPE DATE REPORTED

% BIAS 67795162-J 7176-01 SAIC-1 7-Apr-04 YES 8.82 7211-01 SAIC-1 13-Apr-04 YES 8.32 7239-01 SAIC-1 19-Apr-04 YES 8.11 7270-01 SAIC-1 26-Apr-04 YES 5.72 7351-01 SAIC-1 6-May-04 YES 9.20 7380-01 SAIC-1 10-May-04 YES 6.69 67795162-L 7176-02 SA2C 8-Apr-04 YES 3.63 7211-03 SA2C 13-Apr-04 YES 2.26 7239-02 SA2C 19-Apr-04 YES 1.49 7270-02 SA2C 26-Apr-04 YES 2.89 7351-02 SA2C 5-May-04 YES 3.68 7380-02 SA2C 11-May-04 YES 3.88 67795162-K 7176-03 SAIC-2 7-Apr-04 YES 4.36 7211-02 SAIC-2 13-Apr-04 YES 5.68 7239-03 SAIC-2 20-Apr-04 YES 8.62 7270-03 SAIC-2 26-Apr-04 YES 4.80 7351-03 SAIC-2 6-May-04 YES 7.45 7380-03 SAIC-2 11-May-04 YES 7.74 1-131 source was unavailable from the supplier during the month of June.

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A12-

TABLE 10 FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY DATA

SUMMARY

BIAS AND PRECISION BY MEDIA JANUARY-JUNE 2004 j

Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2), (3) 1 2

3 4

1 2

3 l

4 I. Air Filter GrosseAlpha 1

13 0

3 6

l0 r

0 Gross Beta 131 13 0

0 6

0 0

l Gamma 7

15 5

0 27 0

l 0

0 Sr-89 0

1 0

0 0

0 l

° 7

Sr-90 1

0 0

0 0

0 l

° 7

o

11. Charcoal Gamma-Quantitative 2

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 Gamma-Screening 25 17 12 0

0 0

Ill. Milk X

Gamma 47 9

4 0

56 4

0 0

Iodine (LL) 5 0

4 0

3 2

4 0

Sr-89 0

l

_0 3

0

__2 1

10 0

Sr-90 1

2 0

0 3

0 0

__° IV. Soil/Sediment Am-241 I

0 0

0

° 0

° 0

Gamma V. Water Am-241 0

8 6

0 2

0 14 0

C-14 8

3 7

2 2

0 18 0

Fe-55 4

4 8

0 0

2 16 0

Gross Alpha 10 3

15 0

5 0

12 0

Gross Beta 17 6

8 0

7 4

6 0

Gamma 84 14 0

0 65 3

28 2

iodine (LL) 1 2

0 0

1 2

0 0

Ni-63 9

2 3

0 0

0 16 0

Pu-238 8

5 1

0 0

0 16 0

Pu-241 6

7 1

0 0

2 l

15 0

Sr-89 3

2 4

0 8

1 0

0 Sr-90 7

8 6

0 5

1 l

18 0

Tritium 14 3

1 0

6 5

8 0

Tc-99 12 3

3 1

0 0

20 0

Total Number In 405 130 91 6

204 27 191 2

Range:

Percentage of 64.1 20.6 14.4 0.9 48.1 6.4 45.0 0.5 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

632 424 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 1, Footnote (2)

(3) Most Precision data generated from non-positive client samples for specific contractual evaluation

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

• • Totals summarize Intemal PCs, NIST MAP, and Analytics Cross Check programs F:AADMIN\\CORRESMEL 116-04

-A13-

TABLE 1 1 FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY DATA

SUMMARY

BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE JANUARY-JUNE 2004 t

I Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2), (3) 1 2

l 3

4 1

2 3

4 I. Gross Alpha Air Filterl 2

l 1

0 3

6 0

0 0

Water 10 3

15 0

5 0

12 0

II. Am-241 Soil 1

1 0

0 7

0 0

0 0

0 Waterl 0

T 8

7 6

1 0

1 2

T 0

1 t4 1

0 III. C-14 Waterl 8

1 3

1 7

1 2

1 2

1 0

1 18 1

0 IV. Fe-55 Waterl 4

1 4

1 8

1 0

1 0

1 2

1 16 1

0 V. Gross Beta Air Fllterl 131 l

13 l

0 l

0 6

l 0

l 0

l 0

Waterl 17 1

6 1

8 1

0.

.7 1

4 1

6 1

0 VI. Gamma Air Filter 7

15 5

0 27 0

0 0

Charcoal-Quantitative 2

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 Charcoal-Screening 25 17 12 0

0 0

0 0

Milk 47 9

4 0

56 4

.0 0

Soil Waterl 84 14 0

0 65 3

28 2

Vll. Iodine (LL)

Milkj 5

1 0

1 4

0 1

3 1

2 4

0 Waterl Nl6 1

2

°

° 1

2 1

0 1

0 Waterl 9

1 2

1 3

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 16 1

0 IX. Pu-238 Waterl 8

1 5

I 1

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 16 1

0 X. Pu-241 Water7 6

1 7

1 1

0 l

0 1

2 7

15 l

0 XI. Sr-89 AIr Filter[

1 1_0 0

l 0

l 0

0 Milk:

0 13 2

1 0

0 Water 3

2 4

0 8

0 Xli. Sr-90 Air Filter7 1

0 l

0 7

0 0

0 0

0 Milkl 1

2 0

1 0

3 0 1 0 0

Waterl 7

8 6

l 0

l

-5 1

1 18 0

XIII. Tritium Waterl 14

]

3 1

1 1

0 1

6 1

5 8

1 0

XIV. Tc-99 Water 12 3

3 1

0 0

20 0

Total Number In 405 130 91 6

14 27 191 2

Range:

_1 Percentage of 64.1 20.6 14.4 0.9 48.1 6.4 45.0 0.5 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

632 424 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted In Table 1, Footnote (1)

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A14-

TABLE 12.

ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS AND PRECISION BY YEAR Percent Bias Percent Precision Deviation from Known Deviation from Mean Bias Criteria' (1)

Precision Criteria' (2)

Outside Outside Criteria

% Within Criteria

%Within Year 1

2 3

4 Criteria 1

2 3

4 Criteria 2004 405 130 91 6

99.1 204 27 191 2

99.5 2003 572 182 74 13 98.5 354 55 106 1

99.8 2002 619 170 74 7

99.2 411 44 16 3

99.4 2001 383 115 80 22 96.3 330 45 19 2

99.5 2000 368 143 63 18 97.0 342 70 36 1

99.8 1999 323 100 44 13 97.3 301 46 10 2

99.4 1998 375 100 21 7

98.6 355 56 21 4

99.1 1997 351 118 46 11 97.9 306 46 11 0

100.0 1996 616 187 104 24 97.4 696 71 33 3

99.6 1995 291 75 37 12 97.1 200 43 24 0

100.0 1994 359 116 54 14 97.4 265 61 10 1

99.7 1993 262 121 60 29 93.9 227 59 26 1

99.7 1992 438 206 84 21 97.2 656 112 29 1

99.9 1991 504 174 92 19 97.6 710 82 30 4

99.5 1990 519 153 56 34 95.5 644 97 20 2

99.7 1989 448 171 70 28 96.1 599 76 35 4

99.4 1988 425 141 66 22 96.6 536 76 20 1

99.8 1987 450 187 65 27 96.3 623 80 15 3

99.6 1986 558 185 70 27 96.8 700 82 33 0

100.0 1985 449 177 92 25 96.6 561 93 28 0

100.0 1984 479 254 104 31 96.4 699 127 24 0

100.0 1983 475 211 108 36 95.7 639 113 46 4

99.5 1982 341 109 135 30 95.1.

496 112 135 12 98.4 1981 175 116 152 29 93.9 286 72 46 1

99.8 1980 160 115 167 37 92.3 335 96 59 1

99.8 1979 80 51 68 20 90.9 230 73 51 16 95.7 1978 112 90 40 20 92.4 259 73 29 14 96.3 1977 28 18 12 8

87.9 75 39 5

7 94.4 Total #

10,565 3,915 2,129 590 96.6 12,039 2,026 1.108 90 99.4 in Range:

% of all

.61.4 22.8 12.4 3A 78.9 13.3 7.3 0.6 Analyses In Range*

Total Number 17,199 15,263

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

(1) Deviation Categories 1-3 as noted In Table 1, Footnote (1)

(2) Deviation Categories 1-3 as noted in Table 1, Footnote (2)

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A15-

- 1

---

-

4 -

I TABLE 13 ANALYTICS RADIOCHEMISTRY CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 12 13 1

4 2

1 3

4 I. Water Fe-55 0

2 4

0 5

1 0

0 Sr-89 2

1 3

0 6

0 0

0 Sr-90 0

2 4

0 5

1 0

0 Total Number in 2

5 11 0

16 2

0 0

Range:

Percentage of 11.1 27.8 61.1 0.0 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

18 18 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 12, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 12, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding F:AADMINUCORRES\\EL 116-04

-A16-

TABLE 13 PART 50/61 PROCESS CONTROL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY - JUNE 2004 (Continued)

(1)

Percent Bias by Deviation Category 1 = >0 and <5 2 = >5 and <10 3 = >10 and *15 (or within 2 sigma of known, see Reference 1)

For Gross Alpha and Beta In water, 3 = >10 and <25 (or wil For Alpha Spectrometry*,

3 = >10 and *20 (or wil For Uranium-Total, Pu-241, Zn-65 on an air filter, C-14, 3 = >10 and *20 (or wil 4 = Outside criteria (2)

Percent Precision by Deviation Category 1 = >0 and <5 2=>5and<10 3 = >10 and <15 (or within 2 sigma of mean, see Reference 1) 4 = Outside criteria thin 2 sigma of known) thin 2 sigma of known) thin 2 sigma of known)

Isotopic Uranium (U-234, 235, 238)

Isotopic Thorium (Th-230, 232)

Np-237 Am-241/Cm-242, 243/244 Pu-alpha (Pu-238, 239, 240)

Ra-226 Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

F:'ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A17-

TABLE 14 FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANALYTICS RADIOCHEMISTRY CROSS-CHECK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Mean Ratio Sample Quarterl Sample l_l l_Reported Known E-LABI Number Year Media Nuclide Units Value Value Analytics Evaluation Al 7776-162 1 st/2004 Liquid Fe-55 7ucicc 1.39E-04 1.58E-04 0.88 Agreement A17777-162 1stV2004 Liquid Sr-89 uCilcc 1.35E-03 1.54E-03 0.88 Agreement A17777-162 1 st2004 Liquid Sr-90 uCitcc 1.1OE-04 1.24E-04 0.89 Agreement A18125-162 2nd/2004 Liquid Fe-55 uCi/cc 9.99E-05 1.12E-04 0.89 Agreement A18126-162 2ndl2004 Liquid Sr-89 uCi/cc 3.76E-03 3.96E-03 0.95 Agreement A18126-162 2nd/2004 Liquid Sr-90 uCi/cc 3.27E-04 3.60E-04 0.91 Agreement FMDMIN\\CORRESTEL 116-04

-A18-

I i

i TABLE 15 NIST MAP ANALYSIS RESULTS BREAKDOWN BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding FAADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A19-

I TABLE 16

SUMMARY

OF FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

TRACEABILITY RESULTS JANUARY-JUNE 2004 NIST Reference E-LAB Mean Percent Standard Date of Measurement Deviation From Number Standard Radionuclide Matrix Technique NIST 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Ba-133 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-0.69 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Ba-133 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 3.25 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Cs-134 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-4.08 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Cs-1 34 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 0.96 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Eu-152 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-1.22 1623-17 27-Aug-03 Eu-1 52 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #5 1.85 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2 0.10 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-0.55 1649-4 29-Dec-03 Co-60 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy#2 0.44 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy#2

-6.97 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-4.94' 1657-12 28-Jan-04 1-131 Liquid Gamma Spectroscopy #2

-5.01 Data on NIST MAP program is repeated in Table 4 for Environmental QC data.

F:AADMIN\\CORRE5\\EL 116-04

-A20-

TABLE 17 INTRA-LABORATORY PART 50161 PROCESS CONTROL RESULTS BREAKDOWN BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 2

3 4

1 2

3 4

I. Filter Alpha l

l l

ll Am-241 1

1 1

1 1_1 Fe-55 1

1 1

1 1

Gamma

_ l l

l l

Sr-89 l

il. Liquid Alpha 5

1 6

1 3

2 0

0 Am-241 0

6 0

0 6

0 0

0 Beta 2

2 2

0 4

1 0

0 C-14 2

2 2

0 5

1 0

0 Cm-24314 3

0 3

0 6

0 0

0 Fe-55 3

0 1

2 6

0 0

0 Gamma 1

4 1

0 3

0 0

0 H-3 10 1

2 0

13 0

0 0

1-129 0

7 1

0 6

2 0

0 Ni-63 3

1 2

0 6

0 0

0 Np-237 3

3 0

0 6

0 0

0 Pu-238 6

0 0

0 6

0 0

0 Pu-241 2

1 3

0 3

2 1

0 Sr-89 0

1 2

3 6

0 0

0 Sr-90 0

3 0

3 6

0 0

0 Tc-99 0

3 0

0 3

0 0

0 Total Number 40 35 25 9

88 8

1 0

in Range:

Percentage of 36.7 32.1 22.9 8.3 90.7 8.2 1.0 0.0 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

109 97 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A21-

= ' -'.

- --,, -.'
..., -

-, -... I TABLE 18 PART 50/61 ANALYSIS RESULTS BREAKDOWN BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 l

2 l

3 l4 l1 lI 2

3 4

I. Filter Alpha 1 _

I A m -241 Fe-55 I _

1 1

X Gamma ll Sr-89 X

l l

S r-9 0 II. Liquid Alpha 5

1 6

1 3

2 0

0 Am-241 0

6 0

0 6

0 0

0 Beta 2

2 2

0 4

1 0

0 C-14 2

2 2

0 5

1 0

0 Cm-243/4 3

0 3

0 6

0 0

0 Fe-55 3

2 5

2 11 1

0 0

Gamma 32 9

1 0

39 0

0 0

H-3 10 1

2 0

13 0

0 0

1-129 0

7 1

0 6

2 0

0 Ni-63 3

1 2

0 6

0 0

0 Np-237 3

3 0

0 6

0 0

0 Pu-238 6

0 0

0 6

0 0

0 Pu-241 2

1 3

0 3

2 1

0 Sr-89 2

2 5

3 12 0

0 0

Sr-90 0

5 4

3 11 1

0 0

Tc-99 0

3 0

0 3

0 0

0 Total Number 73 45 36 9

140 10 I

0 in Range:

Percentage of 44.8 27.6 22.1 5.5 92.7 6.6 0.7 0.0 Total Processed:

Sum of Analyses:

163 151 (1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (2)

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

• • Totals summarize Internal PCs, NIST MAP, and Analytics Cross Check programs F:AADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A22-

-.11-1 I -.

II TABLE 19 PART 50/61 BIAS AND PRECISION BY YEAR (1)

Percent Bias Percent Precision Deviation from Known Deviation from Mean Bias Criteria (2)

Precision Criteria (2)

Outside Outside Criteria

% Within Criteria

% Within Year 1

2 3

4 Criteria 1

2 3

4 Criteria 2004 73 45 36 9

94.5 140 10 1

0 100.0 2003 144 91 51 9

96.9 249 18 2

0 100.0 2002 215 94 49 8

97.8 300 24 5

2 99.4 2001 159 90 46 24 92.5 238 46 6

0 100.0 2000 151 72 28 23 91.6 220 38 16 4

98.6 1999 111 59 14 7

96.3 168 13 5

2 98.9 1998 90 68 24 7

96.3 160 22 7

0 100.0 1997 99 43 33 8

95.6 168 13 2

0 100.0 1996 194 80 33 17 94.8 285 31 8

0 100.0 1995 112 47 35 7

96.5 173 15 4

0 100.0 1994 125 39 25 5

97.4 158 22 5

1 99.5 1993 154 51 32 17 93.3 208 34 7

0 100.0 1992 116 86 38 7

97.2 207 27 5

0 100.0 1991 126 77 53 35 88.0 223 28 10 5

98.1 1990 116 65 31 21 91.0 199 35 6

0 100.0 1989 73 71 51 26 88.2 152 40 24 8

96.4 1988 30 19 13 13 82.7 43 13 6

9 87.3 Total#

2,088 1,097 592 243 94.0 3,291 429 119 31 99.2 in Range:

% of all 51.9 27.3 14.7 6.0 85.0 11.1 3.1 0.8 Analyses in Range*

Sum of Analyses 4,020 3,870

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

(1) This breakdown excludes the 71 verification analyses associated with the startup of this area of the Laboratory during 1988-89.

(2) Deviation Categories 1-4 as noted in Table 13, Footnote (1)

F:\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A23-

TABLE 20 BIOASSAY ANALYSIS RESULTS BREAKDOWN BY FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES JANUARY-JUNE 2004 Bias Criteria (1)

Precision Criteria (2) 1 1

2 3

4 1

1 2

{

3 4

1. Urine (3)

Gamma I

H-3 Total Number in Range:

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Percentage of 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Processed*:

Sum of Analyses:

0 0

(1) Percent Bias by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (1)

(2) Percent Precision by Deviation Category as noted in Table 13, Footnote (2)

(3) There were no internal or external bioassay QC samples analyzed during this period.

• Total may not equal 100 due to rounding FA\\ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A24-

TABLE 21 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY (LLNL)

BIOASSAY THYROID RADIOIODINE INTERCOMPARISON PROJECT (TRIP)

• - No testing was performed during this period.

F:%ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

-A;25-

TABLE 22 CONDmON REPORT (CR) STATUS (JANUARY-JUNE 2004)

(OPEN)

(CLOSED)

INITIATION CLOSE-OUT CR#

DATE DATE DESCRIPTION STATUS AS OF 06130104 MAPEP water sample for Pu-239/240 Sample count data was reviewed and no contaminants were Identified. A 1

was evaluated 8 False Positive.

detailed evaluation of the uncertainty evaluation for the MAPEP samples CR 03-14 8-May-03 11I-May-04 wasevaluatdas_'FalsPos__ive_

was performed.

No dilution errors were identified In sample preparation. Sample dilution techniques were enhanced by requiring the addition of chemical caniers to NIST sample for Fe-55 had negative he diluted sample aliquot as Is normally done for source preparation. The bias greater than Laboratory sample was reanalyzed successfully using the new dilution technique. An acceptance criteriah 10% error was Identified In the vendor Iron carrier used In the recovery i

determination. NIST Iron standards are now being used to determine chemical recovery. The Liquid Scintillator calibration curve was verified to be CR 03-16 26-Jun-03 25-Jun-04 free of statistically significant bias.

An Internal process check for Fe-55 An -10% error was identified In the vendor iron carrier used In the recovery (Part 50161) fell just outside the determination. NIST Iron standards are now being used to determine Laboratory acceptance criteria for chemical recovery. The Liquid Scintillator calibration curve was verified to be CR 03-18 30-Jun-03 25-Jun-04 bias.

free of statistically significant bias.

Analytics 2nd quarter 2003 Fe-55 Pa An -10% error was Identified In the vendor Iron carrier used In the recovery

.50 sample had negative bias greater determination. NIST Iron standards are now being used to determine t0samplehadne abiasgreacetae chemical recovery. The Liquid Scintillator calibration curve was verified to be CRthan Laboratory acceptance criteria.

free of statistically significant bias.

The procedure for standardization Procedure 730 was revised to Include detailed steps for the verification of and verification of carriers does not radiotracers. A new form was added to Improve the clarity of the verification completely address all the activities data.

CR 03-27 15-Oct-03 28-May-04 required to perform the verifications.

data.

Corporate OA Audit - Procedure 200 was not revised to account for Procedure 200 and OA Manual 100 were revised to clarify the sample activities controlled by the new receipt process.

CR 03-29 14-Nov-03 3-Feb-04 Procedure 201.

I NUPIC/PPL MDC values for three contracts are The MDC values for two clients have been entered Into LIMS. The third 2003-061-not being controlled as specified In contract MDC values, for Part 50161 analysis, has been entered Into the 002 4-Dec-03 15-Apr-04 QA Manual 100.

contract file and the staff has been notified of these values.

- Gaps in the CR numbenng sequence are due to either closed CRs from previous report or CRs dealing with Issues that are not applicable.

FAADMINICORRESEL 116-04

-A26-

TABLE 22 CONDmON REPORT (CR) STATUS (JANUARY-JUNE 2004)

(continued)

(OPEN)

(CLOSED)

INITIATION CLOSE-OUT CR#

DATE DATE DESCRIPTION STATUS AS OF 06130104 3 Analytics filters were not processed Training was provided to the Sample Receipt tech concerning the expeditiously, appropriate LIMS template for these samples. A contromed holding area was CR 04-01 14-Jan-04 2-Maru04 created for samples requiring resolution of processing questions.

Sample was recounted In triplicate, verifying the original result. Three DOEOAP gross beta air particulate previous DOEQAP analyses using the same Instrumentlcalibration were all sample fell in Warning" range.

within 10% of the known. EML has suspended the DOEQAP program. CR CR 04403 11-Feb-04 6-May-04 closed since this calibration Is specific to the DOEOAP matrix.

The CA manual was revised to include specific requirement for management A sample of pecans was unable to be to oversee daily sample processing. A processing procedure was also analyzed to the required MDC.

revised to address the potential hazard of ashing 'oily' samples, such as CR 04-04 24-Feb-04 9-Mar-04 nuts.

Client requested investigation Into Required MDCs for these samples were all met, several though did not meet concerns over timeliness of sample the specific time frames. Management Is monitoring the processing of these processing and explanation of several special samples during routine sample status meetings. Each unusuar CR 0406 16-Apr-04 sample results.

sample result was Investigated and explanation provided.

A C-14 analysis on well water failed Debris from construction near the well was determined to be the root cause the matrix spike but passed the of the failure. The sample was filtered (client requested previously not to CR 04-07 1 8-May-04 25-May-04 laboratory control spike.

filler this sample) and re-analyzed successfully.

Process check for Fe-55 failed with CR 0408 25-May-04 negative bias.

A detailed Investigation Into the Fe-55 analysis Is ongoing.

Four water samples were entered Into LIMS with the incorrect requested The Sample Receipt tech was counseled concerning self-checking. Another analysis, causing the required MDC to individual is cross-checking the LIMS data entry for all samples.

CR 04-09 10-Jun-04 be missed.

- Gaps in the CR numbenng sequence are due to either closed CRs Irom previous report or CRs dealing with Issues that are not applicable.

FA~ADMINXC0RRES\\EL 116-04 A7

-A27-

TABLE 23 UPDATED INSTRUMENTATION GROUP/ANALYTICAL SERVICES SECTION PROCEDURES ISSUED DURING JANUARY-JUNE 2004 iI I

i i

I PROCEDURE TITLE REVISION APPROVAL EFFECTIVE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER DATE DATE Control of Framatome ANP 010 Environmental Laboratory 19 06/01/04 06/01/04 Manuals and Procedures 200 Sample Receipt And General 19 01/15/04 01/15/04 Chain-Of-Custody using Foxpro 20 02/03/04 02/10/04 201 Sample Receipt And Chain Of 7

02/12/04 02/24/04 Custody Using LIMS 8

05/11/04 05/31/04 Preparation and Analysis of 320 Environmental Water and 21 05/11/04 05/11/04 Soil/Sediment/Sludge Samples for Gross Alpha and/or Gross Beta The Determination of lodine-131 340 in Environmental Media Using 25 03/08/04 03/10/04 Anion Exchange Chromatography 730 Standardization and Verification of 15 05/25/04 05/25/04 Carriers__

765 Guidelines for Maintaining the 05/18/04 05/18/04 Milli-Q Deionized Water Systems 0

02/24/04 02/29/04 780 Purchasing Controls 1

05/28/04 05/28/04 The Sequential Determination of 1123 Iron-55 and Nickel-59,63 in 10 8

01/16/04 01/16/04 CFR 50/61 Media F:%ADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04 A-29

APPENDIX A INTER/INTRA-LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYTICS, DOE, ERA AND NIST QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS FMADMIN\\CORRES\\EL 116-04

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP GROSS ALPHA RESULT BIAS 1 00 80 z 60 o

40 Z

Upper-0ntr ipm

'(

2 20 _E o

0 _

.S0

-20w LL

-20 20

-40I

-60

-*R

• PC

-80 A NIST V ANALYTIS

-100 I

I I

I I

IDOE I

I I

I I

AN FEB W APR MAY M) 31 KG SEP OCT VO EE JI FM ' MAR M MAY 1i 11 NJ O'CCI 0 HE ANALYSIS& PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP GROSS ALPHA WATER RESULT BIAS N, 100 80 0

0 LL LL U-N 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

T r U n i I

T I

I 1

1 1

T I

I T

T 1

I 1

Upoof Cntrcd Lfirt (+25.0X) 0*

0 0t T.

0 I,-

+-w 0

0.*.

p

~ ~~ -ti ERn (-27se5-.--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -t - --- - - - - - - -

00

0.

%l 0

• ERA

• PC A NIST V ANALYTMS

-80

-100

., PmfA.

A AB Na A

VL Y SM P oc r

N O

2 3

0 FM 04 A My A A M 9 C N ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

OC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05124/2004 REF. DATE: 03/19/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO:

709919 ANAL DATE: 04/26/2004 UNITS: pCI/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 KEAN KNOUN X

VALUE DIFF.A DIFF.2 DIFF.3

• Atpha

( 450 i 52)E-01 62.20E 00

-27.70 Beta C 491 t 42)E-01 47.1OE 00 4.20 Internal spike for Gross Alpha in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP GROSS ALPHA AIR PARTICULATE RESULT BIAS 100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I

z 0

0 LL U-80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Limit (+250.%)

I 4

- Cor~iic Oml (--2

-ro - -

• ERA

-80

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

.rC A NST v ANALYTICS

• DOE A NS P E R I O 2 0 0 3 - a N HI a

E4 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Am-241 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

zc:0m l-L-

LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I II I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I I

I I

Upper Controd Limit (+20.0%)

f itp 4*

o S 0 C (

Lower Conirl Lim~t (-20+0%).

". ' i

• ERA

• PC

-80

-100

-_ A NIST

_ ANALYTICS I

I I

I I

I I

1 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I,

F J

FEM W MR VAY JN A

AD SEP OCI V

CM l FEB WR AM MAY Mn 11 K3 SEP CM MY [C ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA RESULT BIAS z

0 z

0 0 -

u-100 80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40 II I lT I

T i

I I

I i

I r

r I

I T

1 Upper Contro Limil (+15.0X)

Lower Control Limi (-150%)

8,~,-60,

-80

-100

_

• ERA I -

+

• PC A NIST v ANALYTICS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A a M a W 1 A

aaAN A L S I S a

0 W

20a 0 2 a

O2 0

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2002-2003 wc

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP BETA (NON-AP) RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0rc LL U-)

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100 AN FEB MSR AM AY IN Ri3i SP OCT JR [EC A B TR WM M AY IN A U

9P OCT N

[C ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

OC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: UATER REF. DATE:

03/08/2004 ISSUANCE DATE: 05/03/2004 LAS SAMPLE NO: 702516 ANAL DATE: 04/22/2004 V..

UNITS: pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KN0WJN X

X VALUE DIFF.l DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Alpha t 491 !

52)E-01 55.40E 00

-11.40 Beta

( 757 t 45)E-01 59.60E 00 27.00 Internal spike for Gross Beta in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED UITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Ba-133 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

z 0cc:

11 u-

"OX U -

60 40 20 0

-20

-40 Uppor Contro Lirrit (+150%)

4*

L--Gr Conlrol Limit (-15.0%) -

-60

-_

• ERA OPM

-80 _

-_ A NIST V ANALYTICS

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

Jl a

a Y

w JI a

f a

OT N

C JAN FA B WIR R a

WY IN IL a.I SP 0 OCT a

(

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP C-14 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 zy 0

LL U-OX 60 40 20 0

-20

-40 I

I I I 1 - I I

III I

Upper Gcntro Limit (+20 0%)

0 Lower Ctrol Limit (-200X)

I

-60

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A NMST V ANALYTICS

• DOE I

I I

1 I

I I

lI I

I I

I I

I I

1 1

I I

I I

I AIB F

M AIUR Y JIM A M

ST i

i NY E

Aw FMB u R

WY A

IL M

Cl V

O CM ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

QC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05/24/2004 REF. DATE: 03/19/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 709919 ANAL DATE:

04/06/2004 UNITS: pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 C-14 C 1460 i 32)E O0 19.31E 02

-24.40

.1 Internal spike for C-14 in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

QC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05/24/2004 REF. DATE: 03/24/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 713909 ANAL DATE: 04/30/2004 UNITS: pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 C-14

( 1250 t 41)E 00 19.80E 02

-36.90' REF. DATE:

03/24/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 713909 ANAL DATE:

05/17/2004 UNITS: pCI/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 C-14

( 1160 i 55)E 00 19.80E 02

-41.40*

REF. DATE:

03/24/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 713912 ANAL DATE: 05/20/2004 UNITS: pCI/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 C-14 C 1860 a 57)E 00 19.80E 02

-6.10 Internal spike for C-14 in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The analysis and reprocess results were outside the client's acceptable limits. Debris and color In sample were filtered from sample with client's approval and the spike was analyzed successfully.

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Ce-141 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0 z

0 Uy-LL U-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Uppor Control Unit (+15.0%)

Ir f

Lower Control Limit (-15.OX)

-80

• ERA epC A NIST V ANALYTICS DnE

-100 I

Il I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

X.

B a

N aWY AR a a

E E v 1

AB aM W Ma mH a 0

M v 1EV ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP CHARCOAL RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 ff

\\U-U-

LL-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 T

I r

T I

I T

I III IT I

I.

I I

I1 1

UppWr Control Limit (415 0%)

pw- 0---v Lower Control Linrt (-150%)

ERA

-80

-100

• PC A MST V ANALYTICS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A 4 FSB MW APR MAY JJA AJ KG SE OCT NYI [H A FEB INR AMf UAY IM IL RO-VP 0CI NW' H ANALYSIS PERIOD 2002-2003

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Cm-244 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0 LL U-60 40 20 0

-20

'-40

-60 Uppor Control Llruit (+200%)

Lowr Contro Llmil (-200%)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

II I

I I

I I

I

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A NIST V ANALYTICS

_ nv^F AN F wM N Ir Ja l a K a

oT

(

[a C Jv FEB A

A N

Ja MY M

IL a cT v H

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Co-57 RESULT BIAS 100 80 7 60

¢ 40 0

I-z 2-40 60

-80

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i I

III I

I I

I I

I Upper Contrd Limit (+15OX)

Loser Conrtd Limit (-15.0X)

-_

• ERA

• PC ANST V ANALYTICS

• DOE I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Co-58 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

v a:i 0

LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Umlt (+15.0%)

Ir

_t T-

-VI I -

Lower Control Limit (-15.0%)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

1 1

1 1

1 1

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A NIST V ANALYTICS DnF 4M ISB VMA AM VAY IN 1

kG SEP OCT W1 DEC M FEB W R AFR MAY IN 1L U

V CT 01 EV C

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Co-60 RESULT BIAS ioo 80 0z 0

LL U-LL 60, 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

1 1

1 1

1 1. III I

I I

I I

I Upper Control Limit (W15.0)

• e*

£&

A&

2.. 'ZY

.....U

.UF 1'

a lb

• V 7

Lower Control Limit (-150%) -

I I

I I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l 1

HI

-80

-100

• ERA

.PC A MST V ANALYTICS

. a ry-f;

. ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Cr-5 1 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0 OU-0 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I T -

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I UPPer CcntrdA Lirrlt (+ 15.0)

Lower Control LWrnt

(-150%)

-Y.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A "ST T ANALYTICS nrs a-A fM W^ A MAY IN AJ KGo s OcT NW IC 1

A FM W AMY In J

U i

OCT ?

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Cs-134 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 3:

0 z

0 LL I-LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Llt (* 150X) k C

mt (

• e I -L-ea-r Cc;r-Cnclr LDrinl (-150X) %F - - - - -

-

• ERA epC

-80

-100

-_ A NST v ANALYTICS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0 Uu,:

A J

R N a

Y w

N m

L aUG m

OT a

[IC FB W0 Wa IN 1

a C

v a

IC ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Cs-137 RESULT BIAS z

0 z

0 LL u-100 80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I

I

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

1 Upwer Control Lkit (+ 15.0%)

t V t 4L

~

Lower Contro Unit (-1i5OX)_

I I

I i

I I

I I

I III I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

• ERA

• pC A NST V AMALYTICS

-80

-100 DOE JA tEB IIM W

UY a1IN a a

a T

v 0 H B

m N t a

W a A u v

a 10 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Fe-55 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

z 0

LL l-

-1 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80 Upper Contro Llm~t (+150%)

a v

L o

(

i----a ------

Lowe Control L~ini (- 15 0%)

-

• ERA

• PC

-_ A NIST V ANALYTICS

. DOE

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A FI IN APR WY MN J1 MJ V OC NOV EC A

BR M

AMWY IN IL G

E OCT M1 [CM ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

QC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05/12/2004 REF. DATE:

03/09/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO:

707019 ANAL DATE:

04/07/2004 UNITS:

pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWJN X

X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe-55 C 1241 +/- 39)E 00 16.26E 02

-23.70 Internal spike for Fe-55 in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

QC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05/24/2004 REF. DATE:

03/08/2004 t&

LAB SAMPLE NO:

709902 ANAL DATE:

04/26/Z004 UNITS:

pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe55 5 1255 +/-

31)E 00 15.43E 02

-18.70 Internal spike for Fe-55 In water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

CC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER ISSUANCE DATE: 05/24/2004 REF. DATE:

03/24/2004 VI LAB SAMPLE NO: 713909 ANAL DATE: 05/17/2004 4'

UNITS: pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe-55

( 1439 t 42)E 00 19.53E 02

-26.30 Internal spike for Fe-55 in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the client's QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED CA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Fe-59 RESULT BIAS 100 80 0

z

.0 IL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-~

- LUpr Control Limit (#150%)

Laowr Contro Umr~t

(-150%)

I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

'1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I A

FB W

VAR AM WY IN i U

SP CO V DEC A FMB M MAY Jy ILt Rw S

OO 1 cE ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

• ERA ePC A NMST V ANALYTCS

• DOE

-100

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP H-3 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0m7 LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100 A FM '

N AM ML YS I an S

OC 0 o A FM W AM lAY V1 at a ST OCT 2 0 -2 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP 1-131 LOW LEVEL RESULT BIAS z

0 z

0 LL LL 100 80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 1

1 1

I I

I I

I I

I i

i I

I I

I I

I I

I Upper Contro Umit (150X)

T I,

41 X.

w* v Lower Contro Umit (-15.0X)

-

• ERA gPC

-80

-100

-_ A MST v ANALYtiCS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I l I

I I

I ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP 1-131 (Gamma) RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

v 0

r-l-

LL 0"o 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 1.

Upper Control Limit (+15.0X)

Lowver Ccntrd Limit (-1 5.0X)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

[EC JN FE W.RU~

IWA JIN 1L Nf aP (E Nl OEC SN FEB W6R WlMY J.IiRE J1 NG l? CIO llIC

• ERA IPC

-80

-100

_A N*ST v ANALYTICS ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP K-40 RESULT BIAS 100 80 60

~~~~..

z 0

z 0

Uy-

• I LL L-L-

o\\

Upper Control Linit (+150%)..-

40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

LCwor Coltro Urrnit (-150%)

• ERA OPM

-80

-100 A

• MST V ANALYTICS

_ U vk I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I II L _

I I

I II I

II I w LAI-A8 tl INt a1 1N ll aJ aE OC 10 vS H~ ANS a lf aU IN IL aiU aP oc vo v ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

100 80 2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Mn-54 RESULT BIAS Upper Control ULmit (4150%)

v_ -

"Wt- /

it 0z 0

U1-LL 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 N-I

-Lower Co ntrcd Limit (-150%)

I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

• I 1

1 1

• ERA

• PC A NIST v ANALYTICS

-80

-100

. E UV-v

,K4 Fe wu 0 VY M A w kG s OCr V s[E

FB VM A WY A A M V ocT fw u ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Ni-63 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 0mr U-U-

U-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100 Upper Control Limit (+15.0%)

a a

a U

0------

Lower Control Limit (-15.0%)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

• ERA

• PC

_ A NIST v ANALYTICS

- DOE AN FEB Wt al:

JN M

IRt aE vC aN v

J0 A

al 0

nlt IN a

Rm aP OC Ni v ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Pu-238 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0m LL-I I 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Co 1I itrd Limit (#200X)

-0 U.

U w

Lower Control Unit (-20.0X)

-

• ERA

• PC

-80 1

-100

_ A "ST I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 1 V ANALYTiCS

• DOE ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Pu-239 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

0 z

LL 11 LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Uppor Control bmlU (+200%)--

0r

~

owerR~imPil.O ni

-)-

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A "ST v ANALYTICS

-uuc A

aE w

aY N

11 AS a

T a v

9 A

0 wY a

w 0

a C1 w m

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Pu-241 RESULT BIAS 100 I

I II I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 80I-60 P z

0, LL 40I-20 0

-20

-40*

-60 Upper Controd Umit (+200X)

At 0

Lower Control Limit (-20.0%)

+ ERA

• PC A MST V ANALYTICS

- DOE:

-80I

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Ra-228 BY GAMMA RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I

1. 1 I I

I I

I I I 1-I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I z

0:

0a:

LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Limit (*150X)

Lower Control minti

(-15 0%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-80

.-100 sPo A NIT V ANALYTICS

_ D~

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I R FMB W AM UAY JJ1 An S EP 101 FEC A FEB W MR VAY JN W a

SE P

F 1 NY I

C ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Sr-89 (COMBINED WITH Sr-90) RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I.

I I

I z

0 z

0 LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

... Upe ntrd Unrrit (25CX)-

+

-___ter cnlriol D25.t)-

L

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A NST v ANALYTICS

• DOE I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

.I AlI Wa ;R Ia IN JI a

13 a

P OCT I0I OE J'l EB a

Aw Ma JN a

1 a

SP OCT 01 I C ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Sr-90 (COMBINED WITH Sr-89) RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

7 60

0.

40 z

v 20 o

0 cr LL

-20 L1 7

-40 N

-60

-80

-100 g_

_ _o Unit_ (

2 5 O.CL_

Corwer Zontrd L imit t:-2'5 5)-

-

• ERA

• PC A NtST v ANALYTCS R DOE I

I I

I I

I L

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A RB w

AM AY N IL Y SS O

2W 0 2

4 A

CC] N C

ANALYSIS PERIOD 200372004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Sr-90 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0 0mr LL LL U-)

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 H

Upper Control Urrit (+150%)

I.1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

i I

I I

I I I

1 1 I

• ERA

• PC

-80

-100 A NST V ANALYTCS

• DOE ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Tc-99 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

II I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I z

0 z

\\11 0

Ur-U -

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Controd Lirmi (+15 0X)

T U

4--U------

wie W I 0 Low Control Limit (-15.0%)

• ERA ePC

-80

-_ A NIST V ANALYTCS MP

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A aB WR af F

Mr fl a P ocr a

9 c

I A E

a

>1 Pffi a a

A Ea u a

Ec ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

CC CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: WATER REF. DATE: 03/08/2004 ISSUANCE DATE: 05/12/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 707002' ANAL DATE:

04/28/2004 1&

UNITS: pCi/L NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Tc-99 C 135 +/- 22)E 00 17.46E 01

-22.70 Internal spike forTc-99 in water was analyzed according to specific client protocol. The result met the clients QC criteria.

ALL RESULTS PASSED QA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP URANIUM-ISOTOPIC RESULT BIAS 100 I-I I

T I

IF I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I z

0 0

Ui-U-)

80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Lkmn (+200%)

Lower Control Limin (-200X)

• ERA

• pC

-80

_ A NIST v ANALYTICS

-100 I I I I. -

I I

1 -

I I

-1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

WL JA fM W APR lAY JJr J1 A R s

I KY N lA E WR A

W Y J JI U

SP MX L E ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP U-234 RESULT BIAS 100 801 60 z

0 z

0 LL LL 0-0 I

I I I

I -I I

I I I I

II I

I

~

I-Upper Control Limit (+200%)

401 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Lower Contrd Limit (-200%)

-80

-100

• ERA

• PC A NIST V ANALYTICS

_ DOE I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A FEB WR AM MAY MT JN G]

sP OCT V1I MD cJ FIB WMI VAY 1N 11 A

i S

CCI I CEO ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP U-238 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

3:

0 z

0 rT-LL LL u-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100 IB UW N0 I N JI NX SP ST M U0 A B M f AM Y a A

m P CS 1 V CM ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS REMP Zn-65 RESULT BIAS 100 80 0

~-5 U-U-

I 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upmer Controd ULmit (*15.0%)

Lower Contrld UrLit (-150%)

l ii 11 1

1 I

II l

-80

-100

• ERA

$13C A NlST V ANALYTICS S DOE iY rr W M

J a

M SE OC C

MC A

FB VM A

M a

U U

0 CE ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

APPENDIX B EFFLUENT MONITORING AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS (1 OCFR PART 50/61)

F:\\ADMINMCORES\\EL 116-04

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Gross Alpha RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0z y

0 U-r LL LL-X.

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I1 I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

Up-w Controt g (+25%

S ft 0

0 0

W

-

0 WI0 LowVer ntcd Urit -23

%)

- 1

_ A NST

-80

-100 v ANALYTICS

• pC 4 OTHER I

I I

I I

I I

-1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A B Wa N

aw a a

m P m1 E

AN B a m a

Jl IuL P T a

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

PART 50/61 CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: LIQUID ISSUANCE DATE: 06/11/2004 REF. DATE:

11/19/2003 V:.

LAB SAMPLE NO:

X21565 ANAL DATE: 04/20/2004 UNITS: uCI/g NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X X

VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Alpha

( 774 t 81)E-09 10.77E-07

-28.10*

Beta

( 671 t 37)E-09 82.OOE-08

-18.20 Internal Spike for Gross Alpha in water exceeded the 25% bias limit. No CR was Initiated since the mean of 3 consecutive spikes (-18.3%)

and the mean of 12 consecutive spikes (-6.4%) were well within the bias limit (IAW QA Manual). All client samples analyzed with this spike were reprocessed with a new spike sample.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Am-241 RESULT -BIAS

• 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

0m' w1 L-U-

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Limit (4200%)

0 A

w I

if 0

S I

Lower Crntr d Lnlt (-20 0%)

A MST v ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHER

-80

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I' I

I I

I I

A B

a N

w a

a a

P 1

0 A

FEB a

la AY I A

a se C T la

[tm ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Ba-133 RESULT BIAS 100 80 1 z

0 z

0cc lL-LL

\\11 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I

I Upper ContrA Umit (+15.0X)

Lower Control Limit (-150X)

I I

I I

I 1

I I

1 I 1 I

I 1 I

-80

-100 gPC A MST v ANALYTICS ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Beta RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

z 0

LL U-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Controd LLUrt (+25.0) 9 L-o--- t&Fd DR R-2UNa) -I

-80

-100

• pc A NIST V ANALYTICS I 'I I

I II I

I I

I I

I 1

1 1

1 1

I I

I I

I JA B

aS N

a JN 1

R a

1P CCT Y I A

a aEB W R a

a J

C CT 0

[1 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 C-14 RESULT BIAS 100 80 7

0 7

0 IL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Contro Lmiut (+200%)

Lower Contrdo Lbihit (-20.0%)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

.I1 1

-80

-100 -

A NST v ANALYTICS fpC 4 OTHER A

l F

E AN U

A W

AL J h AM MAY A 11 SIP OCT 20 0

.ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Cm-243/244 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I z

0z 0

U-1 LL 60 40 20 0 0 Upper Cntrol Dit (420.0%)

a

_ p a

I IF Lower Coctrcl Linit (-20.0%)

-740

• -60

-_ A MST

-80

-100

,I I

I I

I I

I 1 I

I I '

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

, ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHER FEB Va AR VA Y

a M

A W U

cr S

iN r

W FE R

M VAP W lY IL R sP oc O

CI ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Co-60 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0cc LL U-60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upw Control Llinit (.15.0%)

Lowr Contrd LUrnit

(-15.0%)

I I I

I I

I.

I i

_ *MST v ANALYTICS

-80

-100

• PC 4 OTHER AN fE WM PR WAY iJ A U s' c I tM V

c IU fE M W

MAY N IM QJ K OCIT V EC ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Cs-134 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

1 I/

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

z 0

0 LL LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80 Upper Ccntrcl Liit (*15.0X)

Lower Control Limit (-150O)

Al FM W AMR uAN L J

Y1 S

IS V T N c A FPB E

D 2 0 3 A

SEP OCT N0 0

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

• PC A NIST

, ANALYTICS 9

-100

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Cs-137 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

.1 I I I

I I

z1 0

z 0

LL U-0 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Contrd Urrit (+1 5.0%)

A 0

6 v

w Lowr Contrd LUit (-15 0%)

-80 A NST v ANALYTICS lPC 4 OTHER

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A B

E N

a L

a a

aJ v v

v EE s FA WR N

AMY IN JU AM SEP Tcl N cm ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Eu-152 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0cc LL LL LLi.

G"1\\

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I iI I

I

.1 II I

Upom Control Lrit (4150%)

Lower Conrtr Ltnit (-150X)

• pC

-80 _

• N6ST v ANALYTICS

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

JA F

VM PR VAY M J A

SEP OCT Y DC MI I W AM MAY MJ J 1 M

OT VY B ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Fe-55 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I

I I

I I

I z

0z V

0 LL oN0 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 CoUppeControl Limit (415.0)

I F'-8 -t; I L

Is A N~r V ANALYTIS

• PC 4 OTHER

-80

-100 I

I L _II_

L I

I 11 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

YAR W a a

0C a

F AN AL I

N 2 0 0

i3 0 04 a

11 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

PART 50/61 CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: LIQUID ISSUANCE DATE: 05/11/2004 REF. DATE: 12/31/2003 I

LAB SAMPLE NO:

Z21005 1v LAB SAMPLE NO:

Z21006 LAB SAMPLE NO: Z21007 ANAL DATE: 03/09/2004 ANAL DATE:

03/09/2004 ANAL DATE: 03/09/2004 UNITS:

uCI/g NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOUN X

X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe-55 NI-63 Sr-89

( 808 t 66)E-05 t 1018 t 80)E-05

( 753 t 26)E-05

( 1222 +/- 59)E-06

( 865 l 44)E-05 C 783 t 64)E-05 t 1007

• 79)E-05 C 748 i 26)E-05

( 1257 t 61)E-06

( 846 t 43)E-05 C 778 t 63)E-05

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

- C 985 t 78)E-05 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

93.70E-04 78.97E-04 10.07E-03 10.03E-03 C 758 t 26)E-05 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

75.30E-04 84.10E-04 13.44E-04

-13.80

-16.40*

-17.00*

2.30

-0.80

-1.50 1.10 0.00

.2.20 1.50 0.40

• 1.80

-10.50

-11.10

-9.90 0.00

-0.70 0.70

-9.10

-6.50

-8.90

-1.00 1.80

-0.80 11.00 8.60 7.60 1.80

-0.40

-1.40

- i

a Sr-90 Co-60 (1225 +/- 59)E-06 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

( 838 t 42)E-05 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

12.35E-04 77.90E-04 84.97E -04

- Mean of three spikes for Fe-55 (bias = -15.7%) In water exceeded the 15% bias limit. CR 04-08 was initiated to Investigate the failure.

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 H-3 RESULT BIAS*

100 80 J z

0 z

0 LL

• 2 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I

I I

l W l I

_Upper Control Limit (+15.0X)

• I I * -

Lower Control Limit (-15.0%)

_ A NIST

-80

-100 v ANALYTICS

• pC 4 OTHER I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

II I

I A 0 u R A M AAN A L YSISO J I

APR PERI D 2 0 3 - 2 0C0 EC ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 1-129 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I

I I

I 0z 0

UT-U-)

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Control Limii (415.0%)

0 Lower Contrd L~t (-15.0%)

-80

-100 A MSr V ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHEt I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

I I

FIB W UM W J 1N 1L A

S IST Nll [C JN EB W2 A 2

MAY0 a

P mi (Cl 1

(

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 1-131 (Gamma) RESULT BIAS z

a:

0 z

\\110 lL u-u-

u-100 80 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I

1, 1I Upper Contrd Umit (+15 0%)

Lower cntrd Limt (-15.0%)

-80

-100 A NS v ANALYTICS

'Pc 4 OTHER

' I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

It I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Ni-63 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 0cr LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

T ~

Upper Control LkTji (#15.0%)

It 0

w K

a Lower Control Lhiit (-150%)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

A MST V ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHER

-80

-100 AN EB WF JW IJMY i A

AM O

CP cci A

W MkY U

it U

SP OcT a C

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Np-237 RESULT BIAS 100 80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i- - I I

z 0

z

\\110 F-)

LL LL 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 Upper Corntrd LUmit (;200%)

s S

f A

w e Lozwe Control Umit (-20.0%)

-_ A NST

-80

-100 v ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHEt I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 1-I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I AN Fa UU AY 0

1N 11 a

a P OT N

CEC P FA Ma N

R Ma Y 1N ii A3 a

E v

a IC ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Pu-238 RESULT BIAS 1 nn l

80 60 z

0 z

0 U-U-

LL l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

'l I.,I I

I I

I I

Upper Control Lirit (4200%)

0 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 U

Lo--

er Corntrd Lirnit (-200X) 0 A NIST V ANALYTICS

• PC

• OtHER

-80

-100 I

I.

I I

I I

I IIIII I

I I

I I

I I

I A

FEBM aR fR U

J 1

U OCTI) iA FM L

UUMAY J11 1L Nl SP OCT N IE:

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Pu-241 RESULT BIAS 100 80 S..

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I z

0 z

0 lL LL F-)

60 40 20 0

-20.

________________ Cntr_ Limit (420f0_) --

1-F a

I w

so

' r S

Lower Co-ntrdo LhLit (-200%)

-40

-60

-* NAST

-80

-100 V ANALYTICS

• PC 4 OTHER I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I N FEB W AP VAY 0J M

SP CCT EC A B

RWi APR WY D a KG V

OCT O EEC ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Sr-89 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

Y 0

LL LL 60

• 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I I

I I I i

I I

I I

I I

~ II I

I I

I II Upper Contrl ULmit (415.0%)

I*

C Ui (

Lowr Contrdl Umnt (- 15.0X)

V ANALYTICS

-80

-100

-4_PC 4 OTHER I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

PART 50/61 CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: LICUID ISSUANCE DATE: 07/15/2004 REF. DATE: 04/01/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: 221488 ANAL DATE: 06/14/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO: Z21489 ANAL DATE:

06/14/2004

-LAB SAMPLE NO: Z21490 ANAL DATE:

06/14/2004 UNITS:

uCi/g NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN X

X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe-55 C 1168 t 95)E-05 C 1183 t 96)E-05

( 1195 t 97)E-05 12.22E-03

-4.40

-3.20

-2.20 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

11.82E-03

-1.20 0.10 1.10 Ni-63 C 868 t 68)E-05 C 883 t 70)E-05 C 879 t 69)E-05 78.90E-04 10.00 11.90 11.40 X DIFF FROM MEAN:

87.67E-04

-1.00 0.70 0.30 Sr-89 C 803 i 40E-05

( 811 l 42)E-05 C 804 a 42)E-05 99.80E-04

-19.50*

-18.70*

-19.40*

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

80.60E-04

-0.40 0.60

-0.20 Sr-90 C 798 t 48)E-06 C 813 t 49)E 06 C 805 t 50)E 06 98.80E-05

-19.20*

-17.70*

-18.50*

% DIFF FROM HEAN:

80.53E-05

-0.90 1.00 0.00 Cs-137 (1130 a 57)E-05 C 1185 t 60)E-05 C 1174 a 59)E-05 10.89E-03 3.80 8.80 7.80

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

11.63E-03

-2.80 1.90 0.90 Mean of three spikes for Sr-89 (bias = -19.2%) in water exceeded the 15% bias limit. CR 04-11 was initiated to investigate the failure.

ALL RESULTS PASSED QA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Sr-90 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0 LL Li-U-

On 60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60 I

I 1

1. i I

I I

I I

I i

i 1

1 I

I T

I 1

1 1

_Upper Contrd Urrit (4150%)

Lawe Contrd Umit (-15.0%)

A MST V ANALYTICS

• PC

-4 OTHER

-80

-100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

PART 50/61 CROSS CHECK ANALYSIS SHEET SAMPLE TYPE: LIQUID ISSUANCE DATE: 07/15/2004 REF. DATE: 04/01/2004 LAB SAMPLE NO:

Z21488 tV, LAB SAMPLE NO:

Z21489 LAB SAMPLE NO:

Z21490 ANAL DATE: 06/14/2004 ANAL DATE: 06/14/2004 ANAL DATE: 06/14/2004 UNITS: uCi/g NUCLIDE RESULT 1 RESULT 2 RESULT 3 MEAN KNOWN

. X VALUE DIFF.1 DIFF.2 DIFF.3 Fe-55 t 1168 t 95)E-05 C 1183 t 96)E-05 C 1195 t 97)E-05 12.22E-03

-4.40

-3.20

-2.20

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

11.82E-03 1.20 0.10 1.10 Ni-63 Sr-89 C 868 i 68)E-05

( 803 t 40)E-05 C 798 i 48)E-06 C 883 t 70)E-05 C 811 t 42)E-05

( 813 l 49)E-06 C 879 l 69)E-05

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

C 804 t 42)E-05

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

C 805 t 50)E-06

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

87.67E-04 80.60E-04 80.53E-05 78.90E-04 99.80E-04 98.80E-05 10.00 11.90 11.40

-1.00 0.70 0.30

-19.50*

-18.70*

.19.40*

-0.40 0.60

-0.20

-19.20*

-17.70*

-18.50*

-0.90 1.00 0.00 Sr-90 I

Cs-137

( 1130 +/- 57)E-05

( 1185 l 60)E-05

( 1174 +/- 59)E-05

% DIFF FROM MEAN:

10.89E-03 3.80

-2.80 8.80 7.80 1.90 0.90 11.63E-03 Mean of three spikes for Sr-90 (bias --19.2%) in water exceeded the 15% bias limit. CR 04-11 was initiated to investigate the failure..

ALL RESULTS PASSED OA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EXCEPT THOSE NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK

2003-2004 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRENDING ANALYSIS PART 50/61 Tc-99 RESULT BIAS 100 80 z

0 z

0cc U-)

60 40 20 0

-20

-40

-60

-80 I

I I I

II Upp& Contrd Limit ( 15 0%)

S a

Lower Conlrod Limit (-150%)

I I

I I

I.

I I

A MST V ANALYTICS

_ *PC 4 OTHER

-100 sN FIB Wm R MY Jil L AA SEP I PER[O D 20B 3 2 00A 4N J i r

0C NT IO E0 ANALYSIS PERIOD 2003-2004

APPENDIX C BIOASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS FAADMIN\\CORES\\EL 116-04

There are no charts for the bioassay quality control program for this semi-annual report period.

FM\\ADMIN\\CORES\\EL 116-04

ATTACHMENT I RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY BLIND DUPLICATE PROGRAM F:\\ADMIN\\CORES\\EL 116-04 ATTACHMENT 1

Dt I

AREVA August 2, 2004 EL 115/04 Distribution

Subject:

First Half of 2004, Blind Duplicate Program Results The Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory (E-LAB) participates in a Blind Duplicate Program administered by the participating utility companies. For the first half of calendar year 2004, 100% of the paired sample measurement results were within the program's criteria for acceptance.

The Blind Duplicate Program began in 1979 as a cooperative effort among the participating companies. Samples are collected and split in the field and submitted to the E-LAB for analysis. The E-LAB Quality Assurance Officer verifies and reports the program results to the participants. The results are evaluated against the E-LAB acceptance criterion established in Reference 1, which states that a paired measurement is in agreement if the individual values are within +/-15% of the mean value. If this condition is not met, a two-sigma range is established for each of the results, which are in agreement if the two ranges overlap.

Table 1 summarized the types of media submitted as part of the Blind Duplicate Program by each participant for a total of 11 paired samples.

Table 2 presents the results of the Blind Duplicate Program by analysis type for each participating company. For the first half of 2004 program, 100% of the paired measurements met the acceptance criteria as specified in Reference 1. The number of paired measurements falling outside the acceptance criteria is listed before the dash LI_) in each company column.

For example, the number 1/2 should be Interpreted as 1 paired measurements out of 2 falling outside the acceptance criteria. Totals are presented for each participating company as well as for the entire program.

REFERENCES

1. Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Manual 100, Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan,' Revision 7, June 18, 2004.

o Quality Assurance Officer Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory CAS/cas Attachment Distribution:

J. Raimondi J. Pelczar N. Panzarino E. Mercer (MY)

D. Perkins (SB 02-12)

M. Strum D. Montt (YR)

E. Moreno FRAMATOME ANP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY: 29 Research Drive. Westborough. MA 01581-3913 Phone: 508 8989970 Fae 508 838-9815 www.us.framatome-anpoom

EL 115104 August 2, 2004 Table 1 Summary of Paired Samples Submitted January through June 2004 Sample Yankee Maine Seabrook Total Media Atomic Yankee Station Ground Water 1

0 0

1 Surface Water 2

2 4

8 Algae 0

0 1

1 Mussel 0

0 1

1 Total 3

2

-6 11 Table 2 Summary of Paired Measurements Analyzed January through June 2004()

Analysis Yankee Maine Seabrook Total Type Atomic Yankee Station Gammar' 0178 0152 01104 0/234 Gross Beta 0/3 0/0 010 0/3 Tritium 0/3 0/0 0/2 0/5 Total 0/84 0/52 0/106 0/242 (1)The number of measurements that fail to meet the acceptance criteria is shown before the slash.

(2)Tbe gamma numbers represent the total radionuclide measurements in a gamma Isotopic analysis.

AR EVA March 2, 2004 EL 027/05 TO:

Distribution FROM:

J. M. Raimondi

SUBJECT:

Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory Analytical Service Semi-Annual Quality Assurance Status Report (July - December 2004)

Attached is the Semi-Annual Status Report covering the Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory's (E-LAB) Quality Assurance Programs comprising radiological environmental, Part 50/61, and bioassay analytical services for the second half of 2004.

For the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), 99.4% of 672 Individual QC analyses evaluated during this semiannual period met E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias, while 100% of 439 QC analyses met the Laboratory QC acceptance criteria for precision. To provide a perspective of the overall environmental quality program since Its inception In 1977, 96.7% of the 17,871 environmental QC analyses processed In the past 27 years met acceptance criteria

.for bias, whereas, 99.4% of 15,702 QC samples evaluated for precision met Laboratory criteria for this performance category. DOE program participation (MAPEP) resulted in 22 of 23 mean results evaluated as in 'AgreementM with the acceptance criteria. DOE data Is not Included In the above summary values.

The Framatome ANP Environmental Laboratory (ID# 11823) received full certification for six radiological analytes In the Potable water and Non-Potable water categories from the State of New York Department of Health under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). A total of 9 Proficiency Test (PT) results, 8 of which were rated "Acceptable,"

were received during this period. The single failure was the result of an incorrectly entered value in the PT website.

During the second half of 2004, 95.4% of the 175 Part 50/61 individual analyses evaluated for bias and 100% of the 162 analyses evaluated for precision met E-LAB acceptance criteria.

During the past sixteen years of processing Part 50/61 samples, 4195 QC analyses have been evaluated for bias along with 4032 samples for precision. Overall performance statistics indicate an acceptance rate of 94.0% for bias and 99.2% for precision.

.M. Raimondi Manager, Environmental Laboratory CAS/cas ATTACHMENTS

Distribution Page 2 EL 027/05 March 2, 2005 Distribution R. Abrams - FP & L J. Amato - Entergy/Waterford V. Ballestrini - Dominion/Millstone D. Barcomb - Constellation/Nine Mile Point J. Barnette - Texas Utilities/Comanche Peak P. Blount - Dominion/Surry J. Breeden - Dominion/North Anna S. Bromstrup - FP&L/St. Lucie J. Bundick - Indiana Michigan/D. C. Cook D. Burnett - Entergy/River Bend A. Castagnacci - FENOC/Beaver Valley K. Comisky - CY R. Croxton - Amergen/Clinton J. Cruickshank - Ameren UE/ Callaway J. Doroski - Dominion/Millstone M. Doty - FENOC/Perry J. D'Souza - PSEG B. Eakin - Dominion/Millstone R. Edwards - FENOC/Davis-Besse J. Frick - PSE&G/Hope Creek R. Gasper-RG&E/Ginna B. Gorman - Entergy/Fitzpatrick S. Grondahl - Dominion/Millstone W. Hamblin - Entergy/Fitzpatrick N. Hansen - Southem Califomia Edison G. Harper-Framatome ANP P. Harris - Dominion/Surry R. Heath - Entergy/River Bend F. Hickey - PPL Susquehanna A. Hoomick, Jr. - PSEG/Hope Creek G. Jones - Rochester Electric/Ginna P. Lashley - FENOC/Perry T. Lashley - Detroit Edison/Fermi 11 T. Lonnett - FENOC/Beaver Valley J. Luna - Texas Utilities/Comanche Peak P. McNulty - Entergy/Pilgrim C. Medenciy - Wolf Creek G. Mendoza - FP&LlTurkey Point E. Mercer-MY D. Montt - Rowe/CY K. Payne - FP&USt. Lucie J. Pennington - Entergy Operations, Inc.

D. Perkins - FP&L/Seabrook J. Ratchen - FENOC/Davis-Besse H. Riley - PPL Susquehanna D. Robinson - FP&L/Seabrook F. Sabadini - Framatome ANP M. Sanger-Framatome ANP K. Sejkora - Entergy/Pilgrim S. Skibniowski - Entergy/ Vermont Yankee P. Skinner - FP&LiTurkey Point P. Sobottke - Indiana Michigan/D. C. Cook G. Stephenson - Entergy/ANO P. Stokes - Entergy/Grand Gulf M. Thomhill - Constellation/Nine Mile Point R. Tolbert - Entergy/Grand Gulf T. Vandermay - Detroit Edison/Fermi 11 B. Vaughn - Texas Utilities Comanche Peak M. Walden - PG&E/Trojan B. Webber - Detroit Edison/Fermi 11 V. Withee - MY Document Control