ML20058E234
| ML20058E234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1993 |
| From: | Mccormickbarge, Steven Orth NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D614 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-93-27, 50-265-93-27, NUDOCS 9312060220 | |
| Download: ML20058E234 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1993027
Text
_
_ . _ . _
_
__
_ _ _
_
_
'
,.
, . -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-254/93027(DRSS); 50-265/93027(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265
,
,
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
1400 Opus Place
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Facility Name:
Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and'2
l
Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, Illinois
l
Inspection Conducted: ;0ctober 25 - 29, 1993
ih %
,
,
y
Inspector!- S. K. Orth
o/G'/ d
i
'
Date
Q . W .ni M L k la
- . W. McCormick-Barger, Chief
f I [I 7 [4 3
'
Approved By:
J
Radiological Programs Section 1
Date
i
Inspection Summary
inspection on October 25 - 29. 1993 (Reports No. 50-254/93027(DRSS): 50-
265/93027(DRSS))
-
,
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the chemistry program
including:
(1) radiological confirmatory measurements (Inspection Procedure
!
'
(IP) 84750), (2) quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) program in the
'
laboratory (IP 84750), and (3) post accident sampling system (IP 84750); the
i
radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) (IP 84750); and the
l
review of previous inspection findings (IP 84750),
i
Results: Two violations were identified concerning the REMP.
The licensee's
'
contracted sample collector had not obtained the sediment and fish samples
'
required by the licensee's Technical Specifications (TS) and Offsite Dose
Calculation Manual for over ten years. Upon identifying the missed samples
i
during an audit, the licensee failed to provide an adequate report to the NRC
as required by TS (Section 6).
>
The radiological confirmatory measurements indicated that the licensee's
.
chemistry measurements continued to be very good. The. licensee did have a
.
-
minor nonconservative bias in one sample geometry, which was identified by the
l
confirmatory measurements and corrected during the course of the inspection
'
(Section 4).- The chemistry group continued to be very stable and experienced.
'
The laboratory quality control program and post accident sampling system were
-
-
well implemented and maintained.
'
6
9312060220 931118
'
ADOCK 05000254-
G
'
c
-
-
-
4
w
,_.
.m
a
.nua
4
A
2
4
m
9.-
--
+s-wAi,,,
f,
h_.
,, , , ,
+.
i
.
.
I
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
!
i
G. Campbell, Station Manager
4
- D. Kanakares, Regulatory Assurance NRC Coordinator
A. Misak, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
!
J. Burkhead, Nuclear Quality Programs Superintendent
.
P. Behrens, Chemistry Supervisor
J. Buccifero, Chemistry
i
'
J. Wooldridge, Chemistry
,
G. Powell, Radiation Protection
P. Moore, Radiation Protection
i
J. Dierbeck, Maintenance
i
P. Prescott, Resident. Inspector, NRC
!
T. Taylor, Senior: Resident Inspector, NRC
l
>
The above personnel were present at the exit meeting on October 29,
!
1993. Other licensee personnel were contacted during the course of the
inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 84750)
l
!
(Closed) Inspection Followup Item (IFI) Nos. 50-254/92009-01: 50-
i
265/92009-01:
Licensee was to analyze a split liquid sample from a
waste discharge tank for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90,: and Fe-55
'
activity. The results of the analyses are provided in Table l' with the
!
criteria for comparison in Attachment 1.
The licensee and NRC- results
did not agree for the gross beta, Fe-55, and H-3 comparisons.
The
j
activities of Sr-89 and Sr-90 were below the licensee's. lower limit of
!
!
detection. The inspector reviewed the results of the analyses with a
licensee representative but could not determine the cause for the
disagreements.
This item will be closed; however, during the
'
inspection, another liquid waste sample was split between the licensee
- i
and the NRC for comparison (Section 4),
(Closed) IFI Nos. 50-254/92009-02: 50-265/92009-02:
Licensee was to
i
devise a standardized procedure for evaluating trend charts' including
l
such aspects as the reviewing frequency, evaluation guidance, and
appropriate actions. The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures
r
'
QCCP 900-5, " Chemistry Instrument Quality Control Program," Revision 0,
October 22,1993; QCP 1400-11, " Quality Control . for Chemical
Measurements," Revision 6, January 1991; and the " Nuclear Stations .
!
.
Chemistry Quality Control Program Manual," Revision 11, November 13,
l
4
1992. The combination of the above procedures- defined the review
- li
frequency, evaluation guidance, and appropriate corrective actions for
adequately evaluating trend charts. The inspector also reviewed the--
,
last year of data for the high purity germanium (HPGe) spectrophotometer-
i
and the. proportional counters'and verified that performance trends were
}
identified and appropriately evaluated.
j
I
2
l
!
!
.
.
.
-
.
._
_ _
_
-
_
-
_
._
_
_
_
,
J
.
'
,
.-
i
(Closed) IFI Nos. 254/92009-03: 265/92009-03:
Upgrade of post accident
'
sampling system (PASS) maintenance system.
Following the vendor's
evalcation of the PASS in July of 1992, the licensee evaluated the
-
vendor's recommendations and resolved several system deficiencies. The
i
chemistry group also gained three, routine, one-week maintenance periods
for general chemistry equipment repairs for both units and PASS
maintenance. The chemistry supervisor indicated that these additions
,
were instrumental in resolving PASS maintenance problems. The chemist
assigned to the PASS also calculated a monthly performance index based
on the operability of the system. These performance indices were
contained in the annual chemistry report, which was reviewed at'various
,
levels of plant management. The inspector reviewed the outstanding work
,
requests for the system and the trends in the performance index, ihich
-
both indicated a marked improvement in PASS maintenance from prror
i
inspection findings.
7
(Closed) IFI Nos. 254/92013-01: 265/92013-01:
The licensee was to
I
analyze a spiked sample of reactor coolant for chloride, fluoride, and
!
sulfate and report the results to the Region III office for comparison.
The licensee completed the analyses; however, the NRC reference
laboratory was not prepared to analyze the sample until one year after
j
the sample was collected and split. At this date, the stability of the
j
sample would be questionable. This item is administratively closed.
'
3.
Manaaement Control and Oraanization (IP 84750)
The licensee's chemistry group remained virtually unchanged from the
.!
last inspection.
The individuals holding the positions of Unit 2
l
chemist and counting room chemist were voluntarily switched about one
!
year ago.
Both individuals were degreed chemists / chemical engineers and
-t
had been in their former positions for over five years.
Additionally,
.;
one chemistry technician (CT) position was eliminated.
The individual
,!
'
formerly in that position returned to the radiation protection
department.
Overall, the high degree of staff experience was a strength
.i
in the department.
{
i
No violations or deviations were identified.
j
4.
Radioloaical Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84750)
i
i
Five samples (reactor crud filter, charcoal filter, spiked liquid waste,
.j
primary coolant, and gas) were analyzed by.the licensee _ and n the
Region III mobile laboratory. Comparisons were made on a random
-l
selection of the licensee's four high purity germanium (HPGe) detectors.
l
Additionally, an air particulate filter (AP) standard was counted on
each of the licensee's detectors. The results of these comparisons are
!
listed in Table 2 with the comparison criteria in Attachment 1.
-l
The licensee achieved 146 agreements out of.154 comparisons.
Six of the
!
!
comparisons were disagreements, and two comparisons were below the
licensee's detector's detection limit.
k
$
'
'
3
~
. .
_
_
_ - - _
i
.
-
.
-
. - .
.-
.
Evaluation of the results-from the AP standard and the five
disagreements in the crud filter comparisons indicated a minor
nonconservative bias in the licensee's calibration.
The licensee
analyzed a newly purchased AP standard with the current efficiency
calibration, which did indicate a bias resulting from a slight error in
the Hg-203 activity in the 1992 standard. Subsequently, the licensee
calibrated all four detectors with the 1993 AP standard.
Re-analysis of
the original reactor crud filter indicated normal statistical
fluctuations and full agreement.
The higher efficiency and resolution of the RIII mobile laboratory
contributed to the remaining disagreement and non-identified nuclides,
each of which was at an activity approaching the lower limits of
detection of the RIII detector. These comparisons were at a very low
resolution and do not appear to indicate a problem with the licensee's
analyses.
<
A liquid sample from a liquid waste discharge tank was spiked with
reactor coolant and will be analyzed by the licensee for gross beta, Fe-
55, Sr-89, Sr-90, and H-3 activity.
A portion of this sample will be
analyzed by the NRC reference laboratory.
The results of these analyses
will be tracked as Inspection Followup Item Nos. 254/93027-01 and
265/93027-01.
The inspector observed licensee personnel collecting and preparing
samples.
Overall, the cts demonstrated good technique and radiation
protection practices. However, the inspector observed a CT manipulating
the vacuum pump motors at the unit I and 2 steam jet air ejector (SJAE)
sample points with his foot. Apparently, the motors were in need of
repair and had to be forced to overcome binding. The inspector
'
identified this problem to the chemistry supervisor who indicated that
the repair of the motors had remained in the work request system for a
number of years, but they were scheduled for repair during the week of
January 17, 1994.
The inspector discussed this at the exit meeting with
the site manager who indicated that the several year delay was
.
'
unacceptable and that the pumps would be repaired during the scheduled
week.
The licensee completed a remodelling project of the chemistry
-
laboratory, which better utilized the working space, and was in the
process of upgrading the HPGe detectors. Overall, laboratory
housekeeping appeared to be very good. However, the inspector
identified a chromium standard which had expired in April 1993.
The lab
supervisor informed the inspector that expired reagents and standards
were stored in a separate cabinet for reanalysis and quality control
comparisons. Apparently, the standard had been removed for such a
purpose, and a CT mistakenly replaced it with the active chemicals. The
lab supervisor verified that the expired chemical had not been used in
any analyses, acknowledged the inspector's concerns, and agreed to
implement a formal method of marking expired standards to clearly
indicated that they were not to be used in laboratory analyses.
4
.
No violations or deviations were identified; however, one inspection
followup item was ' identified.
5.
Imolementation of the OA/0C Prooram in the Laboratory (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the chemistry QA/QC program as defined by QCCP
900-5, " Chemistry Instrument Quality Control Program," Revision 0,
-October 22,1993; QCP 1400-11, " Quality Control for Chemical
Measurements," Revision 6, January 1991; and the " Nuclear Stations
Chemistry Quality Control Program Manual," Revision 11, November 13,
1992. Quality control of the laboratory instruments was very good.
Instruments were well maintained, and proper reviews were provided by
chemistry management.
The licensee maintained performance trend charts for each of the HPGe
spectrophotometers and proportional counters. Daily, cts analyzed
performance standards and entered the results into a computer program
which graphically displayed the results and indicated if the results
exceeded the two standard deviation acceptance criteria.
The chemist
assigned to the counting room reviewed the trends daily and weekly to
identify performance problems. The inspector reviewed these trends and
noted that they were properly maintained and that biases were properly
identified and evaluated.
The licensee participated in an interlaboratory comparison program
administered quarterly by a vendor. Overall, the licensee's results for
1991 and 1992 were excellent.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (RMPj(IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the 1992 Annual Radiological Environmental
Operating Report. The report contained sample collection and analysis
results as required by Ge licensee's Technical Specifications (IS) and
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM), with exceptions discussed beles.
All samples were below TS reporting limits. The report documented th"ee
missed samples and four sample variances at one air sampling station.
The inspector discussed this with a licensee representative who
indicated that the power supply was struck by lightning and required
-
extensive repairs.
Overall, implementation of the REMP program improved since the last
inspection, and station overview of the program increased. The station
point of contact reviewed the vendor's monthly report for sample
anomalies and missed samples. However, the station ~has not yet
accompanied the sample collector at all sample locations ._to verify
proper sampling.
The inspector toured selected air sampling stations with one of the
.
licensee's contracted sample collectors. The stations were in good
material condition and did not show indications of sample train
j
j
5
9
f
_.
.-
.
.
.
_
_
_
_.
_ _ _ _ ~
.
.
.
-
-
inleakage, when tested by the sample collector. The sample collector
was knowledgeable of the program and the equipment.
The 1992 station audit of the REMP program identified significant
concerns regarding sample locations. The audit reported that the
sediment sample had been collected at a point approximately two miles
upstream of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (Q-6 - Hansons Marina)
j
instead of Q-23 (Lock and Dam No.14), a downstream location specified
'
in Table 4.8-4 of TS and Table 11.1 of the ODCM.
Sample Q-6 had been
y
collected annually for approximately 12 years; no samples at Q-23 had
?
'
been collected during the same period. The station REMP point of
1
contact indicated that the sample collector was probably instructed by
1
'
someone at the station to change the location several years ago-
however, no formal documentation of the change was available.
Additionally, the semiannual fish sample had been collected at a
different location than specified in ODCM Table 11.1.
The required-
1
-
market had closed approximately 18-19 years prior to the audit, but the
i
'
ODCM had not been revised to reflect the change.
Prior to the audit,
i
the licensee was unaware of the sample location changes; consequently,
the annual reports incorrectly listed the ODCM locations as the sample -
l
collection points.
,
i
Technical Specification 4.8.D.1. requires that the environmental
j
monitoring program be conducted in accordance with Table 4.8-4.
Table
4.8-4 requires the annual collection of one downstream sediment sample-
,
and the semiannual collection of a fish sample at the locations
l
described in the ODCM. The ODCM in Table 11-1 (revision February 1991)
'
required a sediment sample at Q-23 Lock and Dam No.14 and a fish sample
l
.
at Q-24 Davenport Fish' Market (Pool No.14 of Mississippi R.).
The
i
failure to collect fish and sediment samples at the locations specified
.
.
in Table 11-1 of the ODCM and Table 4.8-4 of TS is a violation of TS
l
4.8.D.I. (Violation Nos. 254/93027-02 and 265/93027-02).
l
r
Although the NRC has the ability to exercise discretion in licensee
'
identified violations in-Section VII.B. of the " General Statement of
'
Policy for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy,10 CFR Part 2,.
!
Appendix C), the NRC has cited this violation because of the extended
duration of the violation and because the licensee's corrective actions,
j
described below, did not appear to address the root cause of the
!
violation.
The licensee revised Table 11-1 of the ODCM in May of 1992 to correct
the fish and sediment sample locations. The revision of the ODCM
'
required that the fish sample be taken from a specific pool of the'
j!
Mississippi River and that sediment samples be collected at an upstream
and downstream location (Q-27 and Q-28, respectively). The licensee
also reviewed weekly sample collection forms to ensure the proper
samples were collected.
However, the licensee did not implement .
!
corrective actions to ensure the revision of the ODCM when a sample
.;
location was changed.
The process of changing sample locations was
<
still very informal, consisting of only correspondence between the
i
station REMP point of contact and the vendor's sample collector,
j
6
i
i
!
,,
-
.
--
.
. . . . - . .
...
--
r
.-
.
.-
_.
.-
-
.
.
-
!
-
.
..
,
f
The licensee reported in the 1991 and 1992 annual reports that the REMP
,!
!
sediment sampling point was evaluated and was found to be
nonrepresentative of the downstream sample point. The report stated
that the program would be revised- to include one upstream and one
downstream sampling point. The report did not contain a description of
the missed samples, reasons for the occurrence, or plans to prevent
recurrence.
In a telephone conference following the inspection, the
licensee indicated that the issue of missed samples h?d been discussed
i
between the former radiation protection supervisor, the licensee's
1
regulatory assurance staf f, the NRC resident inspector and a region
based inspector, and they agreed that a notification was not required by
10 CFR 50.73. The licensee indicated that the telephone conference
occured in the middle of 1992 and only partial notes were available.
However, the licensee was required by TS to report the deviation and the
corrective actions to the NRC in the annual report. The 1991 and 1992
annual reports did not contain any description of-missed sediment or
fish samples. The inspector discussed this at the exit meeting.
The
site manager acknowledged the inspector's concerns and requested the
i
radiation protection department complete a problem identification form
~
documenting the concerns.
TS 3.8.D.2 requires the licensee to provide to the NRC in the Annual
Radiological Environmental Operating Report a description of the reasons
!
for not conducting the environmental monitoring program as required by
j
TS Table 4.8-4 and to state the plans for preventing recurrence. The
j
failure to properly inform the Commission of the sampling deviation as
required by TS 3.8.D.2 in the 1991 and 1992 Annual reports is a
violation of TS (Violation Nos. 254/93027-03 and 265/93027-03).
t
,
Two violations were identified.
7.
Audits and Appraisals (IP 84750)
)
The inspector reviewed the 1992 and 1993 environmental monitoring audits ~
-l
(NQP Nos. 4-92-02 and 04-93-11, respectively) and 1992 and 1993
chemistry audits (QAS 04-92-001 and 04-93-02,_respectively). The audits
1
were of good detail and focussed on sampling techniques, lab trending,
adequacy of analyses, and conformance with TS.
The 1993 chemistry audit-
contained few negative findings which were corrected as appropriate.
The 1992 REMP audit was very comprehensive and identified several
concerns including information not contained in annual report and missed
samples (Section 6). The 1993 REMP audit indicated _ improvements in the
program but noted that some information reported in the 1991 and 1992
annual reports was incorrect. The licensee corrected the concerns in an-
errata issued to the NRC on June 30. 1992.
The inspector discussed the station quality assurance functions and the
qualification of station auditors with the. superintendent of Nuclear
Quality Programs. The superintendent emphasized the wide scope of
chemistry and REMP audits. He indicated that the scope of audits
focussed more on the processes than in the end results. ' Overall, the
scope of the audits appeared appropriate.
-l
7
_,
.-
. - .
..
-. - - . - .
.
.
.
-.
.
I
I
+
The inspector reviewed the qualification of auditors performing REMP and
chemistry audits. The auditors successfully completed certification by
the station's procedures and had backgrounds consistent with chemistry
and radiation protection. Overall, the auditors were well qualified.
,-
l
'
The chemistry group began implementing procedure QCCP 100-12, " Chemistry
Department Trending," revision 0, April 28, 1993. The chemistry _
supervisor indicated that this program was designed to review chemistry
evaluations, reports, and trending. Although it had just recently been
implemented, the chemistry supervisor indicated that it would be a good
mechanism for self evaluation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Post Accident Samplina System (IP 84750)
The inspector discussed the maintenance and quality control of the PASS
with a licensee representative. Overall, the maintenance program was
improved, as described in Section 2.
At the time of the inspection, all
but one of the sample points (Unit I cleanup inlet) were operational.
This sample point, which malfunctioned on October 12, 1993, was a
redundant point and was scheduled for corrective maintenance.
A review of the licensee's documentation indicated that the PASS was
tested as required by the licensee's procedures. The cts routinely
obtained a PASS sample from various sample points on a weekly- frequency,
and a PASS sample was compared to a routine sample on a semiannual
frequency.
The inspector observed the CT obtain the weekly sample.
The
CT appeared familiar with the sampling equipment, and aside from one
self-identified error, followed the sampling procedure correctly.
The
inspector reviewed comparisons of the PASS isotopic and the routine
isotopic analyses which indicated that the PASS sample was
representative of reactor coolant.
The cts received retraining on PASS as a part of the CT annual
retraining, which consisted of classroom instruction / discussions, on-
the-job training, or a combination of both. The inspector verified that.
each CT attended and successfully completed the sessions in 1992 and
1993.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview
The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on .
October 29, 1993. Additional telephone conversations were conducted
'i
between the inspector and licensee personnel on November 16, 1993,
concerning the REMP violations. During the exit interview, the
,
l.
inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection
l
report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector
l
during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any
8
. . .
_.
_
.
_.
...
-
.
.
__
-
-
.
.
such documents or processes as proprietary.
The inspector emphasized
'I
the following areas of review:
a.
the results of the radiological confirmatory measurements (Section
l
4);
'
.i
b.
the operability of the SJAE sampling vacuum pump (Section 4); and
!
c.
the violations identified in the REMP (Section 6).
!
!
Attachments.
!
1.
Table 1, Radiological Confirmatory Measurements
Results, Second Quarter of 1992.
2.
Table 2, Radiological Confirmatory Measurements
Results, October 25-29, 1993.
!
3. ' Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical
Measurements
.
)
c
.
.
1
,
.
i
!
!
!
r
l
i
I
1
[
~
r
h
i
!
.!
!
!
.
9
>
I
.!
h
'
i
!
,
=.
?
.
.
_ _
_
.
.
__
. .
.
_
_ .
.
. _.
._
!
.
t
4
I
.
!
TABLE 1
J
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: QUAD CITIES
l
,
FOR THE 2nd QUARTER OF 1992
!
6
i
SAMPLE NUCLIDE
NRC VAL.* NRC ERR.' LIC. VAL.' LIC. ERR.' RATI0' RES' RESULT'
.
>
!
l
R.D.T
GR 8 ETA 3.00E-07 6.00E-08 8.70E-07 5.30E-08
2.90
5.0
0
5
7.00E-03 1.00E-04 2.48E-03 2.00E-04
0.35
70.0
D
SR-89
6.00E-08 6.00E-08
< LLD
0.00
1.0
NC
'
NC
i
< LLD
< LLD
-----
2.40E-07 3.00E-08 9.34E-08 2.90E-08
0.39
8.0
D
.
r
h
I.
These are dimensionless quantities and are compared on a relative basis
l
only.
2.
Ratio - Licensee Value / NRC Value
'
[
3.
Resolution - NRC Value / NRC Error (one standard deviation)
[
4.
Result :
The result of the comparison is based on the criteria in
!
Attachment I and is expressed by the following:
!
A = Agreement
- = Criteria Relaxed
j
D - Disagreement
NC - No Comparison
i
,
!
5.
River Discharge Tank
j
i.i
!
!
{
t
t
!
i
i
!
f
r
P
5
i
.- . . _ _
_
_ . , . ,
.
-
_ . , _ . _
-
_
, , . . . . _
,
_,
t
-
. . . ~ ,
.-
<
-
1
!
TABLE 2
i
r
j
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
-l
i.
.
L
FAC7LITY:
QUAD CITIES
l
OCTOBER 25 - 29, 1993
SAMPLE NUCLIDE
NRC VAL.* NRC ERR.* LIC. VAL.* LIC. ERR.* RATI0' RES' RESULT'
,
5
,
l
r
RCS,U-l NA-24
1.71E-03 1.89E-05 1.78E-03 1.49E-04
1.04
90.5
A
l
'
DET#
CR-51
6.32E-03 1.10E-04 5.93E-03 4.66E-04
0.94
57.2
A
-
'
29-TP10 MN-54
1.49E-04 9.llE-06 1.39E-04 1.19E-05
0.93
16.3
A
MN-56
5.50E-03 3.35E-05 5.10E-03 2.85E-04
0.93 164.0
A
l
C0-58
1.31E-04 8.85E-06. 1.38E-04 1.19E-05
1.06
14.8
A
!
C0-60
6.10E-04 1.27E-05 6.60E-04 3.97E-05
1.08
48.0
A
!
ZN-65
5.79E-05 1.39E-05 8.26E-05 1.36E-05
1.43-
4.2
A
!
AS-76 -3.78E-04 1.72E-05 3.63E-04 3.51E-05
0.96
22.0
A
I-132
4.61E-04 1.82E-05 4.50E-04 2.07E-05
0.98
25.3
A
i
1-133
1.74E-04 8.58E-06 1.52E-04 1.41E-05
0.87
20.3
A
i'
1-134
1.22E-03 7.45E-05 1.21E-03 6,50E-05
0.99
16.4
A
I-135
3.93E-04 4.20E-05' 3.95E-04 2.23E-05
1.01
9.4
A
SR-91
8.55E-05 2.19E-05 5.24E-05 5.98E-06
0.61
3.9
A
SR-92
3.01E-04 1.58E-05 3.18E-04 4.83E-05
1.05
19.0
A
M0-99
1.74E-04 4.78E-05 1.75E-04
1.01
3.6
A.
,
CS-138 2.97E-04 5.43E-05 1.89E-04
0.64
~.5
A
!
BA-139 5.23E-04 7.03E-05 5.03E-04 5.55E-05
0.96
1.4
A
l
RC3, .' '
%-24
1.71E-03 1.89E-05 1.75E-03 1.34E-04
1.02
90.5
A_
l
Di?
'0-51
6.32E-03 1.10E-04 5.84E-03 E.06E-04
0.92
57.2
A
25 v
,FN-54
1.49E-04 9.llE-06 1.51E-04 'l.36E-05
1.02
16.3
A
.t
5.50E-03 3.35E-05 4.98E-03 2.77E-04
0.91
164.0
A
l
C0-58
1.31E-04 8.85E-06 1.18E-04 1.08E-05
0.90
14.8
A
a
C0-60
6.10E-04 1.27E-05 6.55E-04 3.62E-05
1.07
48.0
A
!
IN-65
5.79E-05 1.39E-05 4.39E-05 1.24E-05
0.76
4.2
A
!
'
AS-76
3.78E-04 1.72E-05 3.49E-04 3.32E-05
0.92
22.0
A
i
I-132
4.61E-04 1.82E-05 4.56E-04 2.15E-05
0.99
25.3
A-
I-133
1.74E-04 8.58E-06 1.61E-04 1.46E-05
0.93
20.3
A
j
1-134
1.22E-03 7.45E-05 1.24E-03 7.60E-05
1.01
16.4-
A
a
'
1-135
3.93E-04 4.20E-05 -4.lSE-04 2.18E-05
1.06
9.4
A__
SR-91
8.55E-05 2.19E-05 6.66E-05 7.95E-06
0.78
3.9
A
'
SR-92
3.01E-04 1.58E-05 3.30E-04 4.64E-05
1.10
19.0
A
M0-99
1.74E-04 4.78E-05 8.19E-05
0.47
3.6
A
i
CS-138 '2.97E-04 -5.43E-05 1.99E-04 0.00E+00
0.67
5.5
A
j
BA-139 5.23E-04 7.03E-05 4.17E-04 5.74 E-05
0.80
7.4
A
l
-
.
.
!
.
1
.
--
.
. -
-
._ .
-.
-
.
-
-. . . _ .
-
-
- - -.
.
. .-
-
'
,
s
!
SAMPLE NUCLIDE
NRC VAL ' NRC ERR.' LIC. VAL.' LIC. ERR.2 RAT 10' RES' RESULT'
-
i
RCS CRUD NA-24
1.42E-06 2.09E-07 1.21E-06 1 84E-07
0.85
6.8
A:
DET#
CR-51
1.74E-04
1.94E-06 1.30E-04 1.19E-05
0.74
89.8
0
i
DIP-787 MN-54
5.44E-05 4.54E-07 4.45E-05 3.14E-06
0.82 119.9
A
MN-56
4.79E-04 2.90E-06 3.85E-04 1.93E-05
0.81
165.5~
A
1.88E-05 6.03E-07 1.59E-0E 9.10E-07
0.84
31.2-
A
[
00-58
1-.60E-05 2.93E-07 1.23E-05 0.10E-07
0.77
54.4
0
'
C0-60
1.03E-04 6.08E-07 8.60E-05 4.39E-06
0.83 169.4
A
i
ZN-65
3.77E-06 5.28E-07 2.35E-06 4.60E-07
0.62
7.1
A
AS-76
2.58E-05 5.05E-07 1.85E-05 1.56E-06
0.72
51.1
D.
l
W-187
9.56E-06 8.llE-07 7.59E-06 5.55E-07
0.79
11.8
A
3.87E-06 6.87E-07 2.88E-06 4.48E-07
0.75
5.6
A
SR-92
9.50E-06 9.32E-07 7.37E-06 1.12E-06
0.78
10.2
A
Y-92
2.76E-05 4.76E-06 2.24E-05 3.88E-06
0.81
5.8
A-
ZR-97
1.15E-06 2.54E-07 8.40E-07 1.78E-07
0.73
4.5
A.
RU-105 9.56E-06 1.16E-06 6.76E-06 6.28E-07
0.71
8.2
A
58-122 3.20E-06 2.38E-07 2.21E-06 2.88E-07
0.;9
13.5
A
5B-124 2.09E-06 2.21E-07 1.45E-06 3.62E-07
0.70
9.4
A-
>
BA-139 2.80E-05 8.33E-06 1.42E-05 1.40E-06
0.51
3.4
A
,
CE-144 6.72E-06 6.97E-07 6.49E-06 9.34E-07
0.97
9.6
A
.
1
RCS CRUD NA-24
1.42E-06 2.09E-07 9.99E-07 3.83E-07
0.70
6.8
A
1
DET#
CR-51
1.74E-04 1.94E-06 1.38E-04 1.11E-05
0.79
89.8
D-
i
30-P106 MN-54
5.44E-05 4.54E-07 4.56E-05 3.29E-06
0.84 119.9'
A
.
MN-56
4.79E-04 2.90E-06 3.97E-04 2.14E-05
0.83. 165.5
A
1.88E-05 6.03E-07
1.62E-05 1.19E-06
0.86
31.2
A
u
C0-58'
1.60E-05 2.93E-07 1.35E-05 1.12E-06
0.85
54.4
A
C0-60
1.03E-04 6.08E-07 9.00E-05 4.91E-06
0.87 169.4
A
,
ZN-65
3.77E-06 5.28E-07 1.96E-06 8.14E-07
0.52
7.0.
A.
AS-76
2.58E-05 5.05E r-
1.85E-05 1.90E-06
0.72
51.1
D
W-187
9.56E-06 8.llE >
?0E-06 8.33E-07-
0.86
11.8
A
AM-241 3.87E-06 5.87E-0
4 E-06 5.95E-07
0.77
5.6
A
'
SR-92
9.50E-06 9.32E-07 F.91E-06 1.48E-06
0.83
10.2.
A-
"
Y-92
2.76E-05 4.76E-06 3.31E-05 6.24E-06
1.20
5.8
A
j
1.15E-06 2.54E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
4.5
NC
RU-105 9.56E-06 1.16E-06 7.30E-06 9.99E-07
0.76
8.2
A
!
SB-122 3.20E-06 2.38E-07 2.78E-06 5.75E-07
0.87
13.5
A
SB-124 2.09E-06 2.21E-07 1.69E-06
0.81
9.4
A
BA-139 2.80E-05 8.33E-06 1.64E-05 .1 85E-06
0.58
3.4
A
CE-144 6.72E-06 6.97E-07 5.78E-06 1.27E-06
0.86
9.6
A.
,
,
CH. F ll'
l-131
4.65E-13 6.75E-14 4.58E-13 6.65E-14
0.98
6.9
A
!
DE1 #
l-133 4.90E-12 7.97E-13 3.03E-12 3.76E-13
0.62
6.1
A
29-TP10
,
I-131 4.65E-13 6.75E-14 5.25E-13 7.02E-14
1.13
6.9
A
'
DET #
I-133 4.90E-12 7.97E-13 2.33E-12 4.25E-13
0.48
6.1
-0
!
30-P106
i
l
1
.
w
, , - ,
,.w
.
-,e
i-
-
-
-p
. _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _
_
___
_
_ _ . . -
.
._
.
. _ _ _
,
. . -
,
.
l
..
,
'
SAMPLE NUCLIDE
NRC VAL.2 NRC ERR.* LIC. VAL.* LIC. ERR.' RATIO' RES' RESULT'
.;
i
UNIT 2 KR-85M 5.93E-04 1.24E-05 7.36E-04 6.26E-05
1.24
47.6
A
'
0FF GAS KR-87
4.29E-03 6.55E-05 4.64E-03 3.61E-04
1.08
65.5
A
DET#
KR-88
2.22E-03 4.54E-05 2.74E-03 1.88E-04
1.23
49.0
A-
29-TP10 XE-133 2.66E-04 3.27E-05 2.59E-04 4.58E-05
0.98
8.1
A
l
XE-135 3.64E-03 2.57E-05 4.llE-03 -3.12E-04
1.13
141.5
A
i
XE-135M 2.24E-02 4.56E-04 2.51E-02 2.43E-03
1.12
49.1
A
-
XE-138 8.97E-02 1.37E-03 9.66E-02 5.84E-03
1.08
65.7
A-
!
UNIT 2 KR-85M 5.93E-04 1.24E-05 7.20E-04 5.llE-G5
1.21
47.6
A
0FF GAS KR-87
4.29E-03 6.55E-05 4.42E-03 3.11E-04
1.03
65.5
A
'!
DET#
KR-88
2.22E-03 4.54E-05 2.65E-03 1.59E-04
'I.19
49.0
A
DTP-787 XE-133 2.66E-04 3.27E-05 2.91 E-04 3.39E-05
1.09
8.1
A-
.
XE-135 3.64E-03 2.57E-05 3.97E-03 3.26E-04
1.09
141,5
A
XE-135M 2.24E-02 4.56E-04 2.42E-02 2.20E-03
1.08
49.1
A
"
XE-138 8.97E-02
1.37E-03 1.01E-01 7.60E-03
1.12
65.7
A
R.D.T.'
NA-24
3. 70E- ; 1.86E-07 3.60E-05 2.49E-06
0.97 199.2
A
DET#
CR-51
1.28E-Li 6.52E-07 1.17E-04 8.40E-06
0.91
197.0
A
25-P844 MN-54
3.57E-06 8.13E-08 3.20E-06 2.73E-07
0.90
43.9
A
j
MN-56
3.69E-05 3.40E-07 3.51E-05 2.85E-06
0.95 108.4
A
CO-58
2.83E-06 6.55E-08 2.72E-06 2.30E-07
0.96
43.2.
~A-
'
C0-60
1.55E-05 1.17E-07
1.53E-05 7.80E-07
0.99 132.4
A
,
ZN-65
1.22E-06 1.29E-07 1.42E-06 2.79E-07
1.16
9.5
A
AS-76
6.64E-06 1.20E-07 6.65E-06 6.04E-07
1.00
55.4
A
2.02E-07 3.68E-08 1.06E-07 5.50E-08
0.53
5.5
A
l-132
1.85E-06 1.80E-07 2.27E-06 1.88E-07
1.23
10.3
A
~ '
I-133
2.77E-06 5.38E-08 2.56E-06 2.16E-07
0.93
51.5
A
i
1-135
5.06E-06 3.28E-08 4.47E-06 3.45E-07
0.88 154.3
A
!
i
SR-91
1.97E-06 2.53E-07 1.99E-06 1.79E-07
1.01
7.8
A-
P
2.llE-06 3.10E-07
<LLD
6.8
NC
,
i
R.D.T.'
NA-24
3.70E-05 1.86E-07 3.78E-05 2.71E-06
1.02 199.2
A
,
DET#
CR-51
1.28E-04 6.52E-07 1.llE-04 1.26E-05
0.86 197.0
A
-
4
DTP-787 MN-54
3.57E-06 8.13E-08 3.29E-06
?. 58E-07
0.92
43.9
A
.)
MN-56
3.69E-05 3.40E-07 3.37E-05 2.82E-06
0.91
108.4
A
C0-58
2.83E-06 6.55E-08 2.70E-06 2.18E-07
0.96
43.2
A
1
C0-60
1.55E-05 1.17E-07 1.56E-05 8.20E-07
1.01- 132.4
A
2
ZN-65
1.22E-06 1.29E-07 1.23E-06 1.63E-07
1.00
9.5
A
AS-76
6.64E-Go 1.20E-07 6.21E-06 6.08E-07
0.94
55.4
A
2.02E-07 3.68E-08 1.98E-07 4.09E-08
0.98
5.5
A
,
1-132
1.85E-06 1.80E-07 1.67E-06 1.57E-07
0.90
10.3
A
j
I-133
2.77E-06 5.38E-08 2.46E-06 2.93E-06
0.89
51.5
A
l
'
l-135
5.06E-06 3.28E-08 4.76E-06 2.73E-07
0.94 154.3
A-
SR-91
1.97E-06 2.53E-07 1.96E-06 1.38E-07
0.99
7.8
A
,
M0-99
2.llE-06 3.10E 07 2.16E-U6
1.02
6.8
A
,
,,
__~
._
. _ _ _
___
._.
. . -
.
-
__
_
. _ _
..
j
. +
-
.
..
>
.
SAMPLE NUCLIDE
NRC VAL.2 NRC ERR.' LIC. VAL.2 LIC. ERR.' RAT 10' RES' RESULT'
,
NRC A.P. CR-51
7.90E-01 4.48E-02 7.05E-01 7.33E-02
0.89
17.6
A
STAND. CO-57
2.37E-02 1.90E-04 2.48E-02 1.69E-03
1.04
124.9
A
'
DET.
C0-60
9.24E-02 4.74E-04 9.29E-02 4.99E-03
1.01
194.7
A
29-TP10 SR-85
1.20E-01
1.05E-03 1.13E-01
0.94 114.9
A
Y-88
1.80E-01
1.20E-03 1.71E-01 9.30E-03
0.95 150.5
A
CD-109 6.llE-01 4.49E-03 5.66E-01 0.00E+00
0.93 136.1
A
SN-ll3 9.55E-02 7.17E-04 8.41E-02 0.00E+00
0.88 133.3
A
,
TE-123M 2.29E-02 2.31 E-04 2.26E-02 0.00E+00
0.99
99.0
A
?
CS-137 9.41E-02 4.40E-04 8.87E-02 6.34E-03
0.94 214.1
A
,
'
NRC A.P. CR-51
7.90E-01 4.48E-02 7.10E-01 8.05E-02
0.90
17.6
A
'
STAND.
2.37E-02 1.90E-04 2.50E-02 -1.64E-03
1.06 124.9
A
i
DET.
C0-60
9.24E-02 4.74E-04 9.46E-02 5.15E-03
1.02 194.7
A
30-P106 SR-85
1.20E-01
1.05E-03
1.15E-01
0.96 114.9
A
Y-88
1.80E-01
1.20E-03 1.79E-01 9.20E-03
1.00 150.5
A
l
CD-109 6.llE-01 4.49E-03 5.60E-01 0.00E+00
0.92 136.1
A
i
SN-ll3 9.55E-02 7.17E-04 8.68E-02 0.00E+00
0.91
133.3
A
!
TE-123M 2.29E-02 2.31E-04 2.37E-02 0.00E+00
1.04
99.0
A
,
CS-137 9.41E-02 4.40E-04 9.02E-02 6.79E-03
0.96 214.1
A
NRC A.P. CR-51
7.90E-01 4.48E-02 8.20E-01 8.69E-02
1.04
17.6
A
STAND.
C0-57
2.37E-02 1.90E-04 2.51E-02 1.62E-03
1.06 124.9
A
,
DET.
C0-60
9.24E-02 4.74E-04 9.30E-02 5.25E-03
1.01
194.7
A
i
25-P844 SR-85
1.20E-01 1.05E-03 1.1]E-01
0.92 114.9-
A
Y-88
1.80E-01 1.20E-03 1.73E-01
9. 20E-03
0.96 150.5
A
I
CD-109 6.llE-01 4.49E-03 5.31E-01 0.00E+00
0.87 136.1
A
SN-113 9.55E-02 7.17E-04 8.4]E-02 0.00E+00
0.88 133.3
A
.
TE-123M 2.29E-02 2.31E-04 2.34E-02 0.00E+00
1.02
99.0
A
!
CS-137 9.41E-02 4.40E-04 8.84E-02 6.32E-03
0.94 214.1
A
.
NRC A.P. CR-51
7.90E-01 4.48E-02 6.72E-01 7.05E-02
0.85
17.6
A
STAND.
C0-57
2.37E-02 1.90E-04 2.27E-02 1.26E-03
0.95 124.9
A
,
DET.
C0-60
9.24E-02 4.74E-04 9.11E-02 4.64E-03
0.99 194.7
A
i
DTP787
1.20E-01
1. 05 E-03
1.07E-01
0.89 114.9
A
Y-88
1.80E-01
1.20E-03
1.69E-01 8.40E-03
0.94 150.5
A
'
CD-109 6.llE-01 4.49E-03 5.69E-01 0.00E+00
0.93
136.1
A
l
J
SN-ll3 9.55E-02 7.17E-04 8.31E-02 0.00E+00
0.87
133.3
A
TE-123M 2.29E-02 2.31E-04 2.19E-02 0.00E+00
0.96
'99.0
A
I
CS-137 9.41E-02 4.40E-04 8.64E-02 6.17E-03
0.92 214.1
A
,
!
i
1.
These are dimensionless quantities and are compared on a relative basis
only.
l
2. . Ratio - Licensee Value / NRC Value
!
~!
_
3.
Resolution - NRC Value / NRC Error (one standard deviation)
l
!
,
i
,
j
.
. ~.
_
_
_
-.
._-
_
.
._.
,
,
'
r
!
.-
!
4.
Result : The result of the comparison is based'on the criteria .in
,
Attachment I and is expressed by the following:
,
'I
A - Agreement
- - Criteria Relaxed
>
D = Disagreement
NC - No Comparison
5.
Charcoal filter
6.
River Discharge Tank
-
?
- .
I
!
$
!
i
,
,
'I
!
!
>
'I
!
f
i
l
!
i
'I
l
1
1
I
i
_ . ._
- . .
_
_
. _ _ .
. . _ _ _ _
.-
_ . _.
_
l'
-!
.
3,
b
'
,
1
ATTACHMENT 1
3
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
l
'
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests
'
and verification measurements. The criteria aie based on an empirical
-
relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this
l
'
program.
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to
f
comparisons of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
As
,
that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the
.l
acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution
i
decreases. The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer
!
significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such
l
rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
j
!
!
RESOLUTION'
AGREEMENT CRITERIA
i
(RATIO * RANGE)
l
.
<4
NO COMPARISON
4-7
0.5 - 2.0
l
8 - 15
0.6 - 1.66
16 - 50
0.75 - 1.33
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
> 200
0.85 - 1.18
1.
Resolution - NRC Value / NRC Error (one standard deviation)
2.
Ratio - Licensee Value / NRC Value
Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques,
and for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance
criteria and identified on the data sheet.