ML20148H725

Ack Receipt of 880212 Submittal of Analytical Results of Spiked Liquid Samples,Per Insp Rept 50-424/87-64.Comparison of Results to Known Values & Acceptance Criteria of Comparisons Encl.All Comparative Results in Agreement

ML20148H725
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/10/1988
From:	Dan Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Head G GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8803300070
Download: ML20148H725 (4)

See also: IR 05000424/1987064

Text

P '

.

,

$flL&W

MAR 101988

Georgia Power Company

ATTN: V.r. George F. Head

Senior Vice Dresident-

Nuclear Operations

P. O. Box 4545

Atlanta, GA 30302

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 50-424, CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT RESULTS,

SUPPLEMENT TO INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-424/87-64

As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples

were sent on November 5, 1987, to your Vogtle facility for selected

radiochemical analyses. We are in receipt of your analytical results

transmitted to us by your letter dated February 12, 1988, and subsequent to

verification of your values as per our conversation by telephone on fiarch 1,

1988, the following comparison of your results to the known values are

presented in Enclosure 1 for your information. The acceptance criteria for the

comparisons are listed in Enclosure 2.

In our review of these data all comparative results were in agreement. These

data should be reviewed in greater detail by your cognizant staff members for

any significant trends in the data among successive years in which samples have

been analyzed by your facility.

These results and any results from previous years pertaining to these analyses

will be discussed at future NRC inspections.

Sincerely,

Douglas M. Collins, Chief

Emergency Preparedness and

Radiological Protection Branch

Division of Radiation Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosures:

1. Confirmatory Measurement Comparisons

2. Criteria for Comparing Analytical

Measurements

cc w/encis: (See page 2)

8803300070 880310

PDR ADOCK 05000424

0 PDR

.C Eca.

F ,, .

Georgia Power Company- 2

cq w/encis:

'

9'. D. Rice, Vice President, Project

' Director

p W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality-

Assurance Manager

(G( Bockhold, Jr. , General Mar.ager,

Nuclear Operations

M Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety

and Licensing

g A. Bailey, Project Licensing

Manager

g W. Churchill, Esq., Shaw,

fittman, Potts and Trowbridge

W. Kirkland, III, Counsel,

Office of the Consumer's Utility

Council

(p'. Feig, Georgians Against

Nuclear Energy

bSc w/encis:

LE.f Reis, 0GC

W. Hopkins, NRR

M. Sinkule, RII

D y Technical Assistant

WC Resident Inspector

Dv.:ument Control Desk

"State of Georgia

RII RII RII ,y

>kV J

oorsen f abl(e kule

MSip/88

3/f/88 3/7/88 3/4

ll

!

.~ -_

. . _ _ .

..*

."

ENCLOSURE 1

Conri rmatory Measurement Compa ri sons of' H-3, Fe-55, and Sr-90 Ana lyses

for Vogtle Nuclear Plant, November 5, 1987

Licensee NRC tio

Isotope Lupi/mi ) (uCi/mi1 Hesolut193 LLi',ensee/NRC) Compa ri son

H-3 2.1 E-5 2.0310.084 E-5 52 1.01 Ag reement

Fe-55 1.3 E-5 1.27 1 0.03 E-5 f2

4 1.02 Ag reement

$r-90 2.2 E-6 2.57 i O.10 E-6 26 0.86 Ag reement

NOTE: Due to the extended decay time for the isotope Sr-89, the analytical resu l ts we re no t compa red.

v

.

.

-

p- -

,

.

.

ENCLOSURE 2

Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements

This enclosure provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and

verification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical relationship

which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.

In this criteria, the judgement limits denoting agreement or disagreement

between licensee and NRC results are variable. This variability is a function

of the NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty. As the ratio of the

NRC value to its associated uncertainty, referred to in this program as

"Resolution"2 increases, the range of acceptable differences between the NRC

and licensee values should be more restrictive. Conversely, poorer agreement

between NRC and licensee values must be considered acceptable as the resolution

decreases.

For comparison purposes, a ratio 2

of the licensee value to the NRC value for

each individual nuclide is computed. This ratio is then evaluated for

agreement based on the calculated resolution. The corresponding resolution and

calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below. Values

outside of the agreement ratios for a selected nuclide are considered in

disagreement.

NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide

2

Resolution = Associated Uncertainty for the Value

Licensee Value

2

Comparison Ratio n NRC Reference Value

TABLE 1

Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria

Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio

i Comparison Ratio

for

Resolution Agreement

< 4 0'.4 - 2.5

4- 7 0.5 - 2.0

8- 15 0.6 - 1.66

! 16 - 0 0.75 - 1.33

'

51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25

>200 0.85 - 1.18