Text

Insp Repts 50-321/85-01 & 50-366/85-01 on 850121-25. Violation Noted:Procedures for Routine Sampling of Unmonitored Releases & Calibr of Ge(Li) Detectors Not Followed
	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: ML20127N309; ML20127N322; ML20127N326;
References
	50-321-85-01, 50-321-85-1, 50-366-85-01, 50-366-85-1, NUDOCS 8507010535
	Download: ML20127N326 (15)
	v • d • e

- - -

>

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.: DPR-57 and NPF-5

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:

D.. M. Montgomery, SecVion Chief

W

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).

70

Q %$ 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" of Regulatory Guide 1.33,

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 IE Information Notice No. 80-06 requiring 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />

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

10 CFR 50.72. 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. Chloride

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

tritium 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 MRC 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

! CONCEMIRATION fuCi/ Unit) - RATIO

SAMPLE ISOTOPE LICENSEE MRC RESOLUTION LICENSEE /NRC COMPARISON

,

(1) Particulate Filter Cd-109 2.5 E-1 8.9210.66 E-3 13 28- Di sag reement

! Spiked Sample Co-60 1.92 E-2 1.6610.02 E-2 83 1.16 Ag reement

!

Cs-137 2.02 E-2~ 1.7710.02 E-2 88 1.14 Ag reement

'

, (2) Particulate Filter Cd-109 3.53 E-2 8.9210.66 E-3 13 3.96 Disagreement

i

Spiked Sample Co-60 2.18 E-2 1.6610.02 E-2 83 1.31 D i sag reement

Cs-137 2.23 E-2 1.7710.02 E-2 88 1.26 D i sag reemen t

! ( 1 ) Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge Co-57 6.33 E-3 7.5210.16 E-3 47 0.84 Ag reemen t

l Spiked Sample Co-60 4.34 E-2 4.1210.05 E-3 82 1.05 Ag reement

l Cd-109 8.04 E-1 2.0510.03 E-1 68 3.92 Disagreement

Cs-137 3.91 E-2 3.6710.03 E-2 122 0.97 Ag reement

l

(2) Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge CO-57 6.61 E-3 7.5210.16 E-3 47 0.88 Ag reemen t

Spiked Sample CO-60 4.34 E-2 4.1210.05 E-2 82 1.05 Ag reement

Cd-109 8.04 E-1 2.0510.03 E-1 68 3.92 Di sag reement

Cs-137 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

,

-

, _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ , . . - _ . . . . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ .

, 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 H-3 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

.

ML20127N326

Text

Navigation menu

Search