ML17342A922
| ML17342A922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1987 |
| From: | Dan Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709290503 | |
| Download: ML17342A922 (7) | |
Text
REGUL*TOR FORMATION DISTRIBUTION 8 EM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 87092'90503 DQC. DATE: 87/09/22 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET N
FACIL: 50-250 Turkey Point Planti Unit 3i Florida Poeer and Light C
05000250 50 251 Turkey Point Planti Unit 4i Florida Poeer and Light C
05000251
- UTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION COLLINS'. M.
Region 2, Office of-Director REC IP. M*ME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION WOODY'. O.
Florida Power
- 8. Light Co.
SUBJECT:
Forwards comparison of util radiochemical analyses results to known values 5 acceptance criteria for compar isons.
Comparitive results in agreement for Fe-55'r-89 8c Sr-90 analyses 5 in disagreement for H-3 analyses.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE01D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR I ENCL Q SIZE:
TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of-Violation Response NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-2 PD INTERN*L: AEOD NRR MQR ISSEAUi D NRR/DREP/EPB NRR/DRIS DIR OE LIEBERMANiJ yR 2
FILE 01 EXTERNAL:
LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME McDONALDiD DEDRO NRR/DOEA DIR NRR/DREP/RPB NRR/PMAS/ILRB OGC/HDS2 RES DEPY GI NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 2
2 1
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 20, ENCL 20
F orida Power and Light Company TN:
Mr. C. 0.
Woody Group Vice President Nuclear Energy Department P.
0.
Box 14000 Juno
- Beach, FL 33408 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS, SUPPLEMENT TO INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-250/87"39 AND 50-251/87-39 rn CA CA Cfl As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements
- Program, spiked liquid samples were sent on May 11,
- 1987, to your Turkey Point facility for selected
,radiochemical analyses.
We are in receipt of your analytical results transmitted to us by your letter dated July 8, 1987.
The following comparison of your results to the known values are presented in Enclosure 1 for your information.
The acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Enclosure 2.
In our review of the data, comparative results were in agreement for Fe-55, Sr-89, and Sr-90 analyses and disagreement for the H-3 analysis.
This disagreement may be indicative of a programmatic weakness and therefore your attention is directed to determining the underlying cause for this disagreement.
Furthermore, all data should be reviewed in greater detail by cognizant staff members for significant trends in the data among successive year s in which samples have been analyzed by your facility.
These results and any results from previous years pertaining to these analyses will be discussed at future NRC inspections.
Sincerely, 0 ~II
~,
- .(~,',;~I@,t e~~
~
~~GLAS Q g()). ~,
Douglas M. Collins, Chi ef Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Confirmatory Measurement Comparisons
'2.
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements cc w/encls:
(See page 2)
+7092~
~O ggp0250 7OW>
PDR ggoCl pDR
Florida Power and Light Company cc w/encls:
S.
Odom, Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
~C J.
Baker, Plant Manager urkey Point Nuclear Plant W. Bladow, Plant QA Superintendent
~ Arias, Jr.,
Regulatory and Compliance Supervisor bcc w/encls:
Document Control Desk S
te of Florida C Resident Inspector RII RII kdalaovitz a le i
9/7- '/87 9@1/87 RII DCollins 9/
/87 h~k BWi lson 9/(+87
ENCLOSURE 1
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS Of Il-3, Fe-55, Sr-89, AND Sr-90 ANALYSES FOR TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT ON MAY 25, 1987 SAMPLES
~iaoao e
H-3 Fe-55 Sr -89 Sr-90 Licensee
~oei mi 5.95 E-5
- 1. 72 E-5 3.35 E-5 3.91 E-6 NRC
~oo mi 2.66
+ 0.05 E-5 1.62
+ 0.03 E-5 3.63
+ 0. 11 E-5 3.29
+ 0.13 E-6 Resolution 53 54 33 25 Ratio Licensee NRC
- 2. 23
- 1. 06
- 0. 92
- 1. 19
~Com artisan D i sag reement Ag reement Agreement Ag reement
ENCLOSURE 2
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This enclosure provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In this criteria, the judgement limits den'oting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.
This variability is a function of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty.
As the ratio of the NRC
" value to its associated uncertainty referred to in this program as "Resolution"'ncreases, the range of acceptable differences between the NRC and licensee values should be more restrictive.
Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and licensee values must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
For comparison
- purposes, a ratio'f the licensee value to the NRC value is computed.
This ratio is then evaluated for agreement based on the calculated resolution.
The corresponding resolution and calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below.
Values outside of the agreement ratios are considered in disagreement.
'Resolution
=
NRC Reference Val e
Associated Uncertainty for the Value
'Comparison Ratio =
Licensee Value NRC Reference Value TABLE 1
Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs.
Comparison Ratio Resolution Comparison Ratio for A reement 4 -
7 8"
12 16
50 51 200
)200
.4
- 2.5
.5
" 2.0
.6
- 1.66
.75 - 1.33
.80 1.25
.85 " 1.18