ML20127N326
| ML20127N326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1985 |
| From: | Gloersen W, Kuzo G, Montgomery D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127N311 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-85-01, 50-321-85-1, 50-366-85-01, 50-366-85-1, NUDOCS 8507010535 | |
| Download: ML20127N326 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1985001
Text
- - -
>
P
>R MIO
UNITED STATES
-
%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
["
7.,
REGloN 11 '
g-
j
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
t
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,...../
FEB 151985
Report Nos.:
50-321/85-01 and 50-366/85-01
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Docket Nos.:
50-321 and 50-366
License Nos.:
Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2
Inspection Conducted: January 21-25,'1985
Inspectors:
A
h
MYW
G. B
zo
'
Date Signed
ff
L/7fW
(
W. B.
loersen
Date Signed
Approved by:
W
D.. M. Montgomery, SecVion Chief
Date Signed
Emergency Preparedness & Radiological
Protection Branch
'
,
Division of Radiation' Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 72 inspector-hours onsite
during. normal duty hours, conducting confirmatory measurements and inspecting
quality control. in the chemistry / radiochemistry laboratory and in the
environmental monitoring programs including:
review of the laboratory and
environmental monitoring quality control (QC) program organization; review of
chemical, radiochemi_ cal, and environmental procedures; review of QC records and
logs; and comparison of results of split samples analyzed by the licensee and NRC
~
Region II laboratory facilities.
Results:
One violation was - identified
failure to follow procedures for
-
monitoring for detection of releases via unplanned routes and for completion of
systematic calibration of laboratory gamma spectroscopy systems (Paragraph 6.c).
Q %$
70
1
G
n
'
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees Contacted
- H. C. Nix, General Manager
- R. W. Zavadoski, Manager, Health Physics / Radiochemistry
- W. H. Rogers, Superintendent, Health Physics
- P. E. Fornel, Site Manager, Quality Assurance
- D. Elders, Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative
R. C. Hand, Laboratory Supervisor
B. Arnold, Laboratory Supervisor
V. McGowan, Laboratory Foreman
R. C. Houston, Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative
Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- P. Holmes-Ray, Resident Inspector
- R. V. Crlenjak, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings, and status of inspector followup items
were summarized on January 25, 1985, with those persons indicated in
paragraph 1 above.
One violation (Paragraph 6.c) concerning failure to
follow procedures for routine surveys to monitor for releases via unplanned
routes and failure to conduct scheduled gamma spectroscopy calibrations was
discussed with licensee representatives.
The inspectors discussed the IFI
regarding QC data trending of radiological measurements (Paragraph 7.b) and
verification of radiological measurement accuracy using crosscheck programs.
The inspectors informed licensee representatives that groundwater and
selected plant effluent process stream samples were collected and split with
the licensee for comparative radiological analyses (Paragraphs 8.b and 9.a).
Licensee representatives acknowledged the violation and the inspectors'
comments.
On January 30 and 31, 1985, the inspectors notified licensee representatives
by telephone that significant differences between licensee and NRC gamma
spectroscopy analyses for selected spiked sampl.e geometries (Paragraph 9.a)
should be evaluated in a timely manner.
Following the licensee's
evaluation, additional spiked samples will be provided to the licensee by
the NRC for gamma spectroscopy analyses.
Licensee representatives
acknowledged the inspectors' comments and agreed to complete additional NRC
requested spiked sample analyses.
-.
- - - -
)
'
.
3
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
(Closed) Violation 50-321/83-21-03, 50-366/83-22-03 - Failure to Conduct
Adequate Surveys for Gaseous Effluent Releases.
To ensure accurate
determination of the concentration of gaseous and liquid radioactive
effluents, Laboratory Standing Order 83-12 was issued November 11, 1983,
requiring significant laboratory software changes to be separately evaluated
by cognizant personnel prior to being accepted for use.
4.
Laboratory Quality Control Program (84725, 80721)
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the Quality Assurance program
with cognizant licensee representatives and determined that organizational
structure and- program management had not changed since the previous
confirmatory measurements inspection (50-321/83-21, 50-366/83-22).
The
inspector discussed the laboratory QA program with cognizant licensee
representatives and noted that the in plant radiochemistry QC program does
not incorporate a detailed crosscheck program for radiological measurements.
The inspectors noted that the licensee participates in the EPA crosscheck
program for environmental samples, and that review of results and followup
actions are conducted by the corporate office.
Licensee representatives
stated they would evaluate the QA program associated with laboratory QC data
as noted in Paragraph 7.b and 8.a.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Audits (84725, 80721)
a.
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8 requires that audits of unit activities
shall be performed under the cognizance of the Safety Review Board
(SRB) encompassing the conformance of unit operation to provisions
contained within the Technical Specifications and applicable license
conditions at least once per 12 months.
Specification 5.3.2.2 of the
Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) requires that audits of
facility activities shall be performed at least once a year under the
cognizance of the SRB to ensure conformance of facility operation to
all provisions of the ETS. The inspectors reviewed the following audit
reports:
(1) QA-84-468, QA Audit of the Chemistry & Radiochemistry Program
(84-SC-1) October 1984.
(2) QA-84-HPA-2, Health Physics and Chemistry Assessment, May 1984.
(3) QA-84-047, Quality Assurance Audit of the Environmental Technical
Specification Program, February 1984.
(4) QA-84-298, Quality Assurance Audit of the Environmental Technical
Specification Program, July 1984
The inspectors discussed audit results with cognizant licensee
representatives and noted that the program areas were audited against
Technical Specifications and procedural requirements. The inspectors
.
._
_
.
4
discussed the use of Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for
Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations), Effluent Streams
and the Environment" for the QA audit program. The inspectors noted
that this document was referenced in approved licensee chemistry /
radiochemistry procedures
and would be applicable to audits.
Significant adverse findings in the QA audits included failure to
follow procedures for selected laboratory and monitoring activities and
failure to prepare written environmental evaluations for inclusion in
normal Design Change Requests.
The inspectors informed licensee
representatives that audits for the chemistry / radiochemistry programs
were adequate but that corrective actions were not complete as noted by
the examples of the procedures violation identified in Paragraphs 6.c
and 6.d.
b.
The inspectors reviewed the December 1984 INP0 Evaluation Report. No
significant findings in the chemistry and radiochemistry QA programs
were reported.
The report noted the ongoing Health Physics and
Chemi stry Department Improvement Program and increasing corporate
support of Health Physics.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Procedures (84725, 80721)
a.
Technical Specification 6.8.1.a requires that written procedures shall
be established, implemented and maintained covering the applicable
<
procedures recommended in Appendix
"A"
Rev. 2, February 1978. Section 5.6 of. the ETS requires that detailed
written procedures shall be prepared and followed for all activities
involved in implementing the ETS. Procedures shall apply to sampling,
data recording and storage, instrument calibration, measurement and
,
analysis, and actions to be taken when limits are approached or
exceeded. All procedures shall be maintained in a manner convenient
for review and inspection. The inspector reviewed selected portions of
the following procedures:
(1) HNP-0-CCP-07050,
Preparation,
Standardization & Storage of
Standard Solutions for Chemical Analyses, Rev. 3, 09/15/81.
(2) HNP-0-CCP-07116, Gaseous Waste Sample Analysis, Rev. 8, 05/18/83.
(3) HNP-0-CCP-07129, Iodine & Particulate Release Monitoring, Rev. 11
11/03/84.
(4) HNP-0-CCP-07133, Radioactive Sampling Rev. 3, 11/02/83.
(5) HNP-0-CCP-07136,
Radioactive
Standards
Preparation,
Rev. 4,
03/24/83.
,
(6) HNP-0-CCP-07137, Preparation of Samples for Counting, Rev. 5,
07/29/83.
(7) HNP-0-CCP-072C5, Conductivity Bridge (L&N), Rev. 3, 11/03/84.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
, - _
. - _
.
5
(8) HNP-0-CCP-07210, Internal Gas Flow Proportiona1 Counter (NMC),
Rev. 4, 09/18/81.
(9). HNP-0-CCP-07215,
Gamma
Spectrometer System Ge(Li),
Rev. 4,
11/10/84
-(10) HNP-0-CCP-07250, Lab Measuring & Test Equipment Control, Rev. 3,
09/18/81.
'(11) HNP-0-CCP-07252, Tennelec LB 5100 Low Background Alpha / Beta
Automatic Counting System, Rev. 2, 08/30/82.
(12) HNP-0-CCP-07501, Sampling of Process Streams for Laboratory
Analysis, Rev. 3, 06/30/83.
(13) HNP-0-CCP-07600,
Gaseous Waste
Discharge
Program,
Rev. 7,
09/12/84.
(14) HNP-0-CCP-07601, Liquid Radwaste Analysis & Discharge Program,
Rev. 16, 09/12/84
(15) HNP-0-CCP-7602, Monitoring Program for Detection of Releases via
Unplanned Routes, Rev. 9, 10/31/84.
(16) HNP-0-CCP-7608, NPDES and Environmental Sample Program, Rev.13,
10/30/84.
(17) HNP-)-CCP-07628, EPA Crosscheck Program, Rev. 1, 07/24/82.
(18) HNP-0-CCP-07650, Quality Assurance Program for Environmental Tech
Specs, Rev. 2, 10/14/84.
'
(19) HNP-0-CCP-07651, Quality Control for Chemical Analysis, Rev. 6,
05/14/84.
(20) HNP-0-CCP-07655, Laboratory Instrument Calibration and Preventive
Maintenance, Rev. 4, 09/17/84.
(21) HNP-0-CCP-7800, Airborne Radioactivity, Rev. 10, 09/30/82.
(22) HNP-0-CCP-7802, External Radiation, Rev. 11, 03/20/84.
(23) HNP-0-CCP-7820,
Environmental
Air
Filter Air
Flow
Rate
Determination Rev. 4, 10/06/81.
The inspectors noted that procedures were being reviewed, updated and
approved in accordance with established procedures. Additional results
of the procedure review were discussed with cognizant licensee
representatives as noted in Paragraph 6.b - d.
!
b.
=The inspectors discussed the sequence of reporting requirements as
'
addressed in HNP-0-CCP-7602 " Monitoring Program for Detection of
Releases via Unplanned Routes".
The inspectors noted that the
- - - - -
- - -
-
-
- - -
-
- -
- -
- - - -
- - -
-
- - - - - - . .
-
-
-
j
.
6
procedure did not describe clearly the sequence of actions required by
10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)iv during unplanned or uncontrolled offsite releases
of radioactive materials. Although the procedure contained a " Note"
mentioning
requiring
1
hour
notification to NRC of any uncontrolled releases and referred to
HNP-424,
" Notification
of Significant Events",
the inspectors
recommended that HNP-7602 be revised to denote the requirements of
Cognizant licensee representatives agreed to evaluate
this procedure.
c.
The inspectors noted that HNP-0-CCP-7602, " Monitoring Program for
Detection of Releases via Unplanned Routes," requires quarterly samples
from selected locations to sample for unmonitored releases from the
plant.
Following discussion with cognizant licensee representatives
and review of records (Paragraph 7.a) the inspector determined that the
samples required by HNP-7602 were only collected for the second quarter,
of 1984. The inspectors informed licensee representatives that failure
to follow approved written procedures was a violation of Technical Specification 6.8.1.a (50-321/85-01-01, 50-366/85-01-01 Failure to
follow procedures for the Monitoring Program for Detection of Releases
via Unplanned Routes and for Completion of Scheduled Calibration of
GeLi Gamma Spectroscopy Detector Systems). The inspectors expressed
concern that failure to follow procedures had been identified
previously during a Chemistry and Health Physics Assessment dated
April 1984 and that the corrective actions did not appear to be
adequate.
d.
The inspectors discussed HNP-0-CCP-7215, " Gamma Spectrometer System
Ge(Li)" with licensee representatives and noted Section 3 which states
the rotation and calibration of standards will be assured by a schedule
maintained by the counting room.
The inspectors reviewed the
calibration schedule and calibration records (Paragraph 7.a) and noted
that recent scheduled calibration data of selected geometries were not
available for review.
Licensee representatives were unable to provide
the missing data.
The inspectors informed licensee representatives
that failure to have completed all scheduled Ge(L1) gamma spectroscopy
detector systems was another example of a failure to follow procedure
violation as noted in Paragraph 6.c.
One violation was identified in this area.
l
7.
Records (84725, 80721)
a.
The inspector reviewed selected portions of the following records:
(1) Tennelec LB 5100 No. D31-N139, Daily Calibration Data for
January 1985 including:
1.
Alpha / Beta Performance Checks
11. Alpha / Beta Trend Charts
111. Alpha / Beta Background Data
.. -
-
-
-
- -
-
.
-
-
.
.
e
7
(2) NMC Internal Gas Flow Proportional Counter No. D31-N003 Daily
Calibration Data for January 1985 including:
'i.
Alpha / Beta Source Checks
-11.
Alpha / Beta Background Data
iii. Efficiency Determination
iv. Dead-time Test Results
v.
Alpha Abson, ion Results
(3) Well Counter Nos. D31-N121 & D31-N122 Daily Calibration Data for
January 1985 including:
1.
Daily Calibration Checks
ii. Background Checks
(4) Gamma Spectroscopy Detector System Nos. 1 & 3 1984 Efficiency
Calibration Records for the following Geometries: 14 cc gas vial,
47 mm millipore filter, charcoal cartridge, liter bottle, 100 m1
bottle, 500 ml bottle, and liter marinelli beaker.
(5) Spiked and Duplicate Sample Logs for the following chemical
analyses:
1.
Silica
11.
111. Boron
iv. Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
(6) Chemistry Instrument Calibration Curves for the following
instruments and analyses:
1.
Orion No. 801 Specific Ion Electrode, January 1984
-
January 1985.
ii.
Perkin Elmer Lambda 3 No. 35374 - low range silica, medium
range silica, and boron - September 1984.
(7) Daily Calibration Records for Sybron/Barnstead TOC January 1985.
(8) Standardization &
Performance
Data
Checks
for Chemistry
Instrumentation including:
1.
Turbidity Meters Nos. 120, 7711A120
11.
pH Meters Nos. 612553, 4021
111. Analytic Balances Nos. H-30, H-26, P2000 & PS
(9)' 1983 - 1984 EPA Cross Check Results
(10) Semi-annual Dwyer Magnehelic Gauge Calibration Records, 1983.
'(11) Primary & Backup Meteorological
Instrumentation Calibration
records.
,
.
8
(12) 1984 Data for Monitoring for Release via Unplanned Routes - July
1984 (2nd Quarter) (Only data collected).
Results of the record review were discussed with cognizant licensee
representatives as noted in Paragraph 7.b.
b.
The inspectors discussed trend analysis records with cognizant licensee
representatives as follows.
i.
The inspectors noted that trends in source check data for the.
Tennelec LB 5100 were conducted; however, proper review of the
data was not apparent.
For example, the inspectors noted that
alpha emitter source check data conducted during January 1985 were
consistently near the upper control limits, however, from a review
of records and discussion with cognizant individuals there was no
indication that the trend was properly noted, evaluated and/or
corrective action conducted,
11. The inspectors noted that failure to evaluate trends for high
tritium results was noted during a previous inspection (IE
50-321/83-21,
50-366/83-22).
Similar biases in groundwater
results
are
noted
in
this
inspection
report
(Paragraph 8.a).
The inspectors informed licensee representatives that review of
laboratory QC trend data and systematic biases in split sample analyses
were important components of the laboratory QA program and that
licensee's actions -in this area would be reviewed during a subsequent
inspection (IFI 50-321/85-01-02,50-366/85-01-02).
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Collection of Groundwater Samples for Tritium Analyses (80721)
a.
The inspector reviewed licensee and NRC Region II results for tritium
in 10 water samples collected from wells that had been established for
monitoring the potential for tritium contamination of groundwater.
Comparison of results for samples split between the licensee and NRC
Region II facilities were conducted for the purpose of verifying
licensee measurements and as an independent measurement of tritium
concentrations in the sampling wells. Comparisons of licensee and NRC
analyses are listed in Table 1, with acceptance criteria listed in
Attachment 1.
The results showed agreement for seven samples and
disagreement for three samples.
In general, licensee results were
systematically higher than NRC results. The inspectors noted that this
systematic bias had been identified during previous inspections
(50-321/82-26,
50-366/82-26,
50-321/83-21,
50-366/83-22).
The
inspectors noted that although a systematic error had been identified
and corrected at the vendor laboratory and results of a spiked sample
were in agreement (Paragraph 9.b), results for groundwater samples
collected were biased, having elevated concentrations compared to NRC
results.
Licensee representatives agreed to evaluate these results.
Results of NRC Region II Laboratory analyses confirmed previous
-
.
9
observations that the potential for exposure of the general public for
releases to unrestricted areas are negligible.
b.
A licensee representative collected eleven groundwater samples for
tritium analyses from previously established wells.
Sample locations
included:
T-2, T-3, T-4, T-8, T-12, T-13, T-16, P-15A, P-158, P-17A,
and N-7A.
These samples were split for comparison between the licensee
and NRC Region II facilities.
Licensee and Region II results will be
compared during a subsequent inspection
(IFI
50-321/85-01-03,
50-366/85-01-03).
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Confirmatory Measurements (84725)
a.
During the inspection, reactor coolant and selected liquid and gaseous
plant effluent process streams were sampled and the resultant sample
matrices analyzed for radionuclide concentrations using licensee and
NRC Region II Laboratory gamma ray spectroscopy systems.
The purpose
of these comparative measurements was to verify the licensee's
capability to adequate measure radionuclides in various plant systems.
Analyses were conducted etilizing as many of the licensee's gamma
spectroscopy
systems
as
practicable.
Samples
included
the
following:
a reactor coolant (RCS) sample, liquid waste sample, and a
14 cc pretreatment gas sample. Spiked particulate filter and charcoal
cartridge sample types were provided for analyses in lieu of those
licensee sample types not having sufficient levels of activity for
analysis.
Due to low concentrations of radionuclides in the
pre-treatment gas and improper preparation of the RCS and liquid waste
samples, comparative measurements were not conducted for these sample
matrices. Comparison of licensee and NRC results for the particulate
filter and charcoal cartridge spikes are presented in Table 2, with the
acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 1.
Excluding Cd-109 results
which were in disagreement and systematically high, values were in
agreement for the charcoal cartridge for both detector systems.
For
the particulate filter analyses, results from detector system No. I
were in disagreement for Cd-109 and all results from detector system
No. 3 were systematically high and in disagreement for all
radionuclides. The inspectors noted that analyses for the particulate
filter differed by approximately 15% between the licensee's two
detectors. On January 30-31, 1985, the inspectors notified licensee
representatives by telephone regarding the above detailed differences.
Differences between the licensee and NRC results were not resolved and
licensee representatives agreed to conduct further evaluation of their
systems in regard to the systematically high Cd-109 results and high
values for particulate filter analyses conducted using detector system
No. 3.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that subsequent
to their evaluation, additional spiked samples would be provided by the
NRC
for
gamma
spectroscopy
analyses
(IFI
50-321/85-01-04,
50-366/85-01-04).
,
.
10
b.
The inspector reviewed licensee results for H-3, Sr-89, and Sr-90
analyses of a spiked sample prepared by the NRC contract laboratory.
'
Comparison of the licensee results with the NRC contract laboratory
results are listed in Table 3 with the acceptance criteria outlined in
Attachment 1.
Initial reported results were in agreement for tritium
and Sr-90 analyses and were in disagreement for the Sr-89 analyses.
Review of the Sr-89 data indicated a decay correction error and the
recalculated Sr-89 value using the proper correction factor was in
agreement. The inspectors noted that the tritium analysis results for
the spiked sample, 81% of the known value, was opposite the systematic
bias identified for the groundwater samples (Paragraph 8.a), indicating
a possible special treatment / processing of the sample.
Licensee
representatives agreed to evaluate this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Implementation (80721)
a.
The inspector reviewed implementation of the licensee's radiological
environmental
program as
required
by
Environmental
Technical
Specification (ETS) 3.2.
The licensee utilized the following contract
laboratories for routine analyses:
University of Georgia Center for
Applied Isotope Studies, Teledyne Isotopes, and Hazelton Environmental
Laboratories. As of January 1, 1985, Georgia Power Company's Corporate
Office assumed responsibility for the collection of vegetation, river
water and milk samples, and chargeout of TLD's, particulate filters,
and charcoal filters. Hatch Nuclear Plant retained responsibility for
collection of groundwater, and maintenance and/or calibration of
instrumentation utilized in the meteorological and environmental
monitoring stations. The inspectors reviewed the Annual Environmental
Operating Report for the period ending December 31, 1983, and noted
that the licensee's review of the University of Georgia's quality
assurance program did not identify the biased tritium results noted in
j
Paragraph 8.a.
b.
The inspectors, accompanied by a licensee representative, examined six
offsite environmental monitoring stations and verified the operability
of the continuous air samplers, and the presence of NRC and licensee
co-located TLD packets. The inspectors verified by direct observation
and record review that the required primary and backup meteorological
monitoring stations sensors and local readouts were operable and being
adequately maintained.
Both primary and backup stations contained
instantaneous readouts while the Emergency Operations Facility and the
Control Room contained strip chart recorders.
A meteorological
.
automatic data recorder with magnetic tape storage capability has been
l
installed for approximately one year, however the system has been
inoperable due to an apparent logic error. Currently, data is stored
on strip charts.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
-
- -
-
-
- - - .
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
. - -
,
.
11
11.
Irispector Followup Item (92701)
(Closed) IFI 50-321/83-21-01, 50-366/83-22-01 Corrective Actions Regarding
Systemic Bias in Tritium Analyses. The inspectors reviewed the vendor's
evaluation and corrective actions for tritium analyses and the most recent
NRC spiked sample tritium analysis data. Corrective actions and results of
the spiked sample were adequate. However, the inspectors noted that the
vendor's tritium analyses of groundwater samples from monitoring wells
located in the E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant environs were systematically higher
than NRC results (Paragraph 8.a). This systematic bias will be reviewed as
a part of groundwater tritium concentration analyses conducted as part of
this inspection (IFI 50-321/85-01-03,50-366/85-01-03).
-(Closed) IFI 50-321/83-21-02, 50-366/83-22-02 Groundwater Tritium Results-.
The inspectors reviewed ground water tritium results (Paragraph 8.a).
Additional samples were collected during this inspection and will be
reviewed as the followup item identified in Paragraph 8.b.
o
e
.
.
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF GPOUNDWATER TRITIUM MEASUREMENTS AT E. l. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, AUGUST 1983
CONCENTRATION fuCi/Unitl
RATIO
SAMPLE
LICENSEE
RESOLUTION
LICENSEE /NRC
COMPARISON
T-2
1.25 E-3
1.410.09 E-3
16
0.89
Ag reement
T-3
5.58 E-2
4.Sio.02 E-2
225
1.24
D i sa g reemen t
T-4
4.74 E-3
3.110.30 E-3
10
1.53
Ag reemen t
T-8
2.57 E-3
2.610.10 E-3
26
0.99
Ag reement
T-12
9.50 E-3
7.110.10 E-3
71
1.34
Di sag reement
T-13
8.68 E-4
7.310.90 E-4
8
1.19
Agreement
T-16
5.77 E-4
3.8to.90 E-4
4
1.52
Ag reement
P-15B
1.74 E-2
1.410.02 E-2
70
1.21
Ag reemen t
P-17B
5.72 E-3
5.5io.10 E-3
55
1.04
Ag reemen t
N-7A
4.15 E-3
2.510.10 E-3
25
1.66
D i sa g reement
ND = Not Detected
NC = Not Compared
i
.-.
.
.
-.
.
-
.-
-
-
l
'
%
9
TABLE 2
,
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT E. I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, JANUARY 1985
l
l
!
CONCEMIRATION fuCi/ Unit)
-
RATIO
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
LICENSEE
RESOLUTION
LICENSEE /NRC
COMPARISON
(1) Particulate Filter
2.5 E-1
8.9210.66 E-3
13
28-
Di sag reement
,
!
Spiked Sample
1.92 E-2
1.6610.02 E-2
83
1.16
Ag reement
!
2.02 E-2~
1.7710.02 E-2
88
1.14
Ag reement
'
(2) Particulate Filter
3.53 E-2
8.9210.66 E-3
13
3.96
Disagreement
,
Spiked Sample
2.18 E-2
1.6610.02 E-2
83
1.31
D i sag reement
i
2.23 E-2
1.7710.02 E-2
88
1.26
D i sag reemen t
!
( 1 ) Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge
6.33 E-3
7.5210.16 E-3
47
0.84
Ag reemen t
l
Spiked Sample
4.34 E-2
4.1210.05 E-3
82
1.05
Ag reement
l
8.04 E-1
2.0510.03 E-1
68
3.92
Disagreement
3.91 E-2
3.6710.03 E-2
122
0.97
Ag reement
l
(2) Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge
6.61 E-3
7.5210.16 E-3
47
0.88
Ag reemen t
Spiked Sample
4.34 E-2
4.1210.05 E-2
82
1.05
Ag reement
8.04 E-1
2.0510.03 E-1
68
3.92
Di sag reement
3.91 E-2
3.6710.03 E-2
122
1.06
Ag reement .
l
(1) Analyzed Using Ge(LI) Gamma Spectroscopy System No. 1
(2) Analyzed Using Ge(LI) Gamma Spectroscopy System No. 3
!
!
!
!
!
l
i
!
i
i
I
,
-
, _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_ - . _ _ .
_ , _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ , . . - _ . . .
. _ _
__ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .
-
_
.
, n .-
..
TA8tE 3'
. RESULTS Or. H-3 Sr-89 AND Sr-90 ANALYSES FOR E. 't.
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, APRll 1984
.I
CONCERNTRATION fuCi/Unitt
^ RATIO
SMPLE
ISOTOPE
LICENSEE
MRQ
RESOLUTION
LICENSEE /NRC
COMPARISON
NRC Contract Lab
2.69 E-5
3.3310.10 E-5
33
0.81
Ag reement
Spiked Liquid
sample April 1984
S r-89
5.97 E-5
9.1910.18 E-5
51
0.65
Di sag reement
S r-90
1.40 E-5
1.5110.04 E-5
38 '
O.93
Ag reement
- Sr-89
1.03 E-4
9.1910.18 E-5
51
1.12.
Agreement
- Corrected Value - initial value improperly decay corrected
.
1
!
.
b
,
. -
,
Attachment 1
'
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
s
This attachment 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 these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the
comparison of the NRC's value to its associated uncertainty. As that ratio,
referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases. the acceptability of the
licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement
must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
,
i
RATIO =
LICENSEE VALUE
NRC REFERENCE VALUE
- Resolution
Agreement
<4
0.4 - 2.5
4 - 7-
U.5 - 2.0
8 - 15
0.6 - 1.66
16 - 50
0.75 - 1.33
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
-
>200
0.85 -1.18
,
/
~
'
r
<
I
', ;.
r
8
1
.