ML20245J243
| ML20245J243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1989 |
| From: | Holtzman R, House J, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J228 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-89-04, 50-456-89-4, 50-457-89-04, 50-457-89-4, NUDOCS 8903060215 | |
| Download: ML20245J243 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000456/1989004
Text
--
_ _ _ _
_
_.
.
_- -
_ _ . .
,
/{ , M
'
,
,i
p,
o
U.- S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
..
-
.
REGION III-
,
h
Reports No. 50-456/89004(DRSS); 50-457/89004(DRSS)
.,[
~
' Docket Nos.. 50-456;.'50-457
Licenses No. NPF-72; NPF-77- -
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago,-IL 0690
g
'X
= Facility Name:
Braidwood Nuclear Power. Station, Units 1 and 2
l
Inspection At:
Braidwo;od:-Site,.Braceville, Illinois
.
! Inspection Conducted:
January 10-13 and 18-20, 1989.(Onsite)
h
J7 4'?$-
Inspectors:
R. B. Holtzman
.
Date.
.
.
h/ x
~
J. E. House
.2- F1- ? i
Date
!
d? d)M
'
Approved By:
M. Schumacher, Chief
Radiological Controls and
Date
Chemistry Section'.
Inspection Summary
Inspection on January 10-13 and 18-20, 1989 (Reports No. 50-456/89004(DRSS);
!
No. 50-457/89004(DRSS)
't
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of: (1) the chemistry program,
including procedures, organization, and training (IP 84750); (2) primary and
secondary systems water quality control' programs (IP 84750); (3) quality
assurance / quality control program in the laboratory (IP 84750); and
(4) nonradiolgical confirmatory measurements '(IP 79701). .
Results: The licensee has an extensive water quality control program that
,
?-
conforms to the EPRI Steam Generator Owners and Primary Systems Guidelines.
The' steam generator (S/G) blowdown showed moderate, but decreasing levels
of chloride and sulfate (but generally within the EPRI guidelines), apparently
due to. cleanup of the relatively new reactor systems.
The nonradiological
confirmatory measurements results were good, but demonstrated some weaknesses
in the QA/QC program. The licensee identified weaknesses in the measurements
program and corrected them.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
8903060215 890221
"
ADOCK 05000456s
l
G
puu
_ _ _ - -
_ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Lh
.
.
.
..
,
I'
L
'
- Y
DETAILS
1.
Persons Co~ntacted
1R. Legner, Assistant Superintendent-Technical Services, Bwd
IR. E. Aker, Radiation-Chemistry Supervisor, Bwd
1J. R. Petro, Assistant Rad Chem Supervisor, Bwd
1J. B. Cronin, Station Chemist, Bwd
IW. E. Lloyd, Chemist, Bwd
1P. L. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor, Bwd
1P.-Holland, Regulatory Assurance, Bwd
1E. W. Carroll, Regulatory Assurance, Bwd
1R. D. Kyrouac, QA Superintendent, CECO
1M. J. Harper, QA Inspector, CECO
1L. W. Raney, Nuclear Safety, CECO
G. Vickery, Chemist, Bwd
R. F. Rysner, Chemistry Engineering Assistant, Bwd
R. H. James, Chemistry Engineering Assistant, Bwd
J. McLenighan, Chemistry Technician (CT), Bwd
J. Price, CT, Bwd
D. Hildson, CT, Bwd
1T. M. Tongue, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
-
2Present at the Exit Meeting on January 20, 1989.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel in various
departments in the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
(Closed) Open Item (50-456/81999-01):
NRC to collect water samples
from Braidwood city wells and wells from a farm in Wilmington,
Illinois after the Braidvood Station is in operation.
Samples were
collected from the city wells and the farm.
Gamma scans and
analyses for H-3, Sr-89 and Sr-90 were done by the NRC Reference
Laboratory, RESL, Idaho.
No appreciable levels of reactor produced
i
'
activities were found, as shown in Table 1.
Further, gamma scans
with longer counting times done in the Region III laboratory showed
l
the Minimum Detectable Activities (MDA) of the Cs-137 and Co-60 to
'
be at about 11 pCi/ litre.
No activity from Cs-137, Co-60, H-3,
Sr-89, or Sr-90 was identified.
Letters from the Region III Office
will be sent to the Mayor of Braidwood and to the owners of the farm
j
to inform them of the findings.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-456/87008-01; 50-457/87007-01):
Licensee
to analyze a spiked sample from RESL for Fe-55 and reported the
1
results to Region III.
The licensee's analyses performed by its
contractor (SAIC) was 30% greater than that of the NRC reference
laboratory (RESL).
This disagreement, may have been caused by the
contractor's use of an x-ray analysis.
The licensee subsequently
,
analyzed a split radwaste sample and a spiked sample from RESL.
1
These are discussed in the following section (2.c).
!
2
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-
.
. - - - -
-
--
-
'
e
.
.
.
,
c.
(Closed) Open Item (50-456/88017-03; 50-457/88817-03):
The licensee
to split and analyze a radwaste liquid sample for gross beta, H-3,
Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and report the results to the Region III
office for comparison to those from RESL.
The results of the analyses
are given in Table 2 (" Split Radwaste").
The gross beta and H-3
results are in agreement based on the acceptance criteria in
'
Attachment 1, while the Sr-89 and Sr-90 results were not compared
due to poor statistics; the Fe-55 value is a disagreement.
The
problem appeared to be due to the low concentrations of the nuclides
in the sample which was exacerbated by the submission of too little
sample to the contractor laboratory.
Subsequently, the NRC submitted
a spiked sample to the licensee for analysis.
The results in the
third' group in Table 2, resulted in agreements in the Sr-89
and Sr-90, but still a disagreement for the Fe-55 value.
However,
the licensee vendor reanalyzed the Fe-55 in the radwaste split
sample and obtained an agreement (Liquid Radwaste rerun) shown as
the last item of Table 2.
3.
ManagementControls, Organization,andTraining(IP84750]
The management structure of the Chemistry Group was substantially modified
since the previous inspection in this area,1 and is still in a state of.
flux.
The most significant recent event has been the dropping of the
rotation of the Rad-Chem Technicians (RCT) between health physics and
chemistry and the permanent assignment of 21 of them as Chemistry
>
Technicians (CT) to the chemistry laboratory.
Currently 13 are
qualified as technicians under ANSI N18.1, 1971.
Further, the Chemistry
Department staff is also being reorganized.
At present the Station
Chemist position has been replaced by the newly-appointed Assistant
Rad-Chem Supervisor who reports to the Rad-Chem Supervisor and is
supported by four Chemists, four Engineering Assistants (EA) and
three chemistry foremen.
They are planning a division into two groups,
Operations and Analytical under the Chemistry Supervisor.
The inspectors looked into the qualifications of the new supervisor for
Chemistry.
He has a Bachelors degree in biology with a minor in
chemistry, and has been with the company in various capacities
since 1974 in environmental affairs and the last three years as the
Radwaste Planner (Coordinator).
He has good supervisory experience in
t
the related field of radwaste, and will have the support of experienced
Chemists and EAs, including that of the former Station Chemist.
He noted
that until he has had more experience with chemistry (for about a year),
he will not make any decisions without help from the staff.
Most of the
signoffs on data and decisions are riade by the staff members, in any case.
.
It appears that he should be able to supervise the department
'
satisfactorily.
The separation of the technicians should result in
improved technician proficiency, laboratory continuity and a reduction
in the burden on the laboratory supervisors to continually train and
track the proficiencies of a large number of technicians.
1 Region III Inspection Report Nos. (50-456/87046; 50-457/87047).
3
____
h
'l
J
-
'
,
!
4
,
.
L w;
1
.
'
L
$
1
L
The' Chemistry Technician training program was accredited by the National
,
H
. Nuclear Accrediting Board of_INP0 on October 21, 1988.
l
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
l
'.4.
Water Chemistry Control Program (IP 84750)'
The inspectors reviewed t'he water chemistry control program based on
,
the~ corporate directive NO Directive N0D-CY.1, "PWR' Secondary Water
'
Chemistry Control Program," Revision 0,. March 22, 1988 (revision of
i;
,the previous NSD Directive NSDD-S01) and, implemented in BwCP PD-4,
"Braidwood Station Secondary Water Chemistry Program,"' Revision _4,
-
August 22,.1988. :This document commits the. licensee to and is
consistent with the EPRI.0wners Group Guidelines.
Approval to waive _ _
the: guidelines must come from the Vice President-PWR Operations or the,
General Manager-PWR Operations.
-In-line monitor's: provide' data for secondary wat'er systems including
condensate, feedwater and main steam.
Chemistry parameters tracked
'
include pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, hydrazine and sodium.
The
steam generator blowdown (S/G BD) sample panel is located in the
chemistry laboratory.
The panel's in-line monitors provide data on
conductivity, pH, sodium and dissolved oxygen levels.
The in-line
instrumentation data from the secondary and S/G BD panels are transmitted-
to Autograph 800 Dataloggers located in the laboratory area; the data are
sampled and processed by computer.
Water _ chemistry parameters are
monitored daily by Chemistry.and Operations.
Trend charts for secondary water quality lare maintained by the licensee.
A review of selected data for the previous year indicated that plant-
water quality is. fair.
Sulfate, chloride, conductivity and silica
levels have been high (near the Action Level 1 values) and sulfate has
risen significantly above the guideline levels on.several occasions.
Other parameters, such as sodium and chloride, have remained generally
within the guidelines.
As this is a new plant and systems are undergoing
a general cleanup, secondary water. quality should improve with time.
The
levels parallel those of other plants in the same time frame relative
to startup.
Feedwater metals are not presently analyzed awaiting
installation of the filtration system for dissolved and suspended
metals.
This is to be accomplished during the next refueling outage.
This will be reviewed in subsequent inspections.
Various levels of management review the chemistry parameters and their
trends.
Chemistry prepares a status sheet for the plant morning meeting
with a copy to Operations and the Plant Manager.
Chemistry trends are
also submitted to corporate management in a monthly report.
The water quality control programs appear to be satisfactory and
well run.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.,
,
5.
Implementation of the Chemistry Program (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry programs, including physical
facilities and laboratory operations. . Housekeeping was good and
bench space was adequate for the analyses performed.
The laboratories
were well equipped.
The hot laboratory has acquired three PC
computer-controlled Dionex AI 400 Ion Chromatography used for anion
and cation analyses.
One system uses tetraborate gradient eluant for
anion analyses.
The licensee also uses an inline IC system for anion
and cation analyses on the S/G BD.
The inspector observed several cts analyze several of the confirmatory
measurements samples on the ion chromatography, and the boron autotitrator.
They appeared to be generally knowledgeable about the work and followed
the procedures.
They appeared to do well in the analyses.
Overall, the laboratory appeared to be adequate for the proper operation
of the plant and to be operating satisfactorily.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Nonradiological Confirmatory Measurements (IP 79701)
The inspectors submitted chemistry samples to the licensee for analysis
as part of a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to monitor
nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems with
respect to various Technical Specification and other regulatory and
administrative requirements.
These samples had been prepared,
standardized, and periodically reanalyzed (to check for stability)
for the NRC by the Safety and Environmental Protection Division of
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The samples were analyzed by the
licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The samples were diluted by licensee personnel as necessary to bring the
concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory, and
run in triplicate in a manner similar to that of routine samples.
The
results are presented in Table 3 and the criteria for agreement in
Attachment 2.
These criteria for agreement are based on comparisons of
the mean values and estimates of the standard deviations (SD) of the
measurements.
Consideration was given to the fact that the uncertainties
(SD) of the licensee's results were not necessarily representative of the
I
laboratory's because they were obtained by one analyst over a short
period of time.
Consequently, when the licensee SD was less than that of
BNL, and a disagreement resulted, the BNL value was substituted for that
of the licensee in calculating the SD of the ratio Z (S in Attachment 1).
Additionally,arelativestandarddeviation(SD)of3%isconsidered
acceptable for all analyses except boron.
l
The licensee will also prepare a sample of secondary system water spiked
with fluoride, chloride and sulfate to be split with BNL.
The licensee
will determine the concentrations of the analytes and the results will be
!
sent to Region III for comparison with the values determined by BNL.
This
will be followed under the Open Item Nos. (50-456/89004-01;
50-457/89004-01).
I
l
>
i
l
5
!
,
,
. . . _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
_
. _ _ _ - _ . _ _
-_
._
._
_
- _ _ _ _
__
.
.
.
,
L
The licensee determined 11 analytes at three concentrations each.
Of the
l
initial 33 analyses 24 were in agreement (73%).
The chloride results
showed an decreasing bias with increasing concentration, which indicated
contamination of the dilution water.
The licensee confirmed this
indication by showing the blank to contain over 2 ppb; the blank also
showed the presence of fluoride, consistent with the high biases in the
lower-level samples, even though in agreement.
The blank correction
improved but did not fully compensate for the low-level chloride bias.
The silica results showed substantial negative biases. This effect
appears to have been due to inaccuracies caused by the low absorbances
when using a 1-cm path length sample cell.
Repetition of the analyses
using a 5-cm cell resulted in agreements with very small biases.
There are possible problems with the calibration techniques. The
low-level lithium disagreement may have been caused by sample
concentrations below the calibration range or by the licensee's use of a
linear calibration curve when the instrument is actually nonlinear.
Reruns in the range of calibration showed agreement.
The low-level
sodium was in disagreement, but appears to have been resolved on rerun.
The cause of the ammonia disagreement was not ascertained, but
two results with low biases suggests that the standard is high.
The boron analyses of the two lower-level samples showed a nega+.ive
bias of about 4%.
This is substantial in view of the inherently high
precision of the analytical method.
In this analysis the licensee used
a dead-stop endpoint of pH 8.6 which is consistent with the inflection
point on the titration curve.
Similar negative biases were observed at
other licensees in Region III.
The source of the bias has not yet been
ascertained; but BNL is investigating the problem.
The licensee will modify the silica procedure to use the 5-cm cell for
low-level measurements and to check the water blanks on the IC daily, and
examine the chloride biases.
These will be followed in subsequent
inspections under Open Item Nos. (50-456/89004-02; 50-457/89004-02).
Overall, the results of the analyses were fairly good.
Laboratory
personnel demonstrated a willingness and good ability in determining the
causes of the disagreements,
llo violations or deviations were identified.
7.
pplementationoftheOA/QCProgramintheLaboratory(IP84750)
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry laboratory quality assurance program
as specified by Nuclear Operations Chemistry Quality Control Program,
Revision 2, March 15, 1988.
The licensee maintains statistically based
cortrol charts on which the mean i 2 standard deviations (SD) are plotted.
Independent controls are in use and this data is used in preparing control
charts.
The inspectors noted to the licensee that several charts
,
currently in use lacked a mean value line although this value was on the
t
accompanying data sheet.
The licensee agreed to review and correct the
6
_____________a
- - - -
.
____
-
.
._ -
_ _ _ .
_
._. . _ _ .
_
p,
O
.
.
t
'S
charts. Multiple point calibration curves are in use for'a11' assays.
.
Curves for UV/VIS spectrophotometric assays (Beckman DU 30
Spectrophotometer) are calculated by a linear least squares reg'ression
analysis from'4 points not including zero.
The inspectors noted'that the
,
zero point should be included in the analysis and the licensee. agreed to
investigate incorporation of.this point into the curve fitting procedure.
Atomic absorption (AA) analyses use a-4 point least squares curve derived
~
l
from a computer' external to the AA instrument. The ion chromatograph
L
(Dionex Auto Ion 400) uses a three point curve but a least squares fit is.
not performed.
Instrument calibration procedures' appear.to be adequate.
I
l
The licensee's Interlaboratory comparison program is managed by the .
I
corporate Technical Center for all stations.
Data for the first
three quarters of 1988 indicate an improvement in licensee's performance.
- First quarter agreements were 32%, second quarter 68% and the
l
third quarter results showed 100% agreement. .The intralaboratory
'
. comparison program is defined by BwCP PD-8, Braidwood Station Chemistry
Performance Evaluation Program, Revision 4, August 22, 1988.
Technicians
.
are required to be tested annually on a variety of analyses including
those required by Technical Specifications.
A statistically derived
,
J
', acceptance criterion is used (mean +.2 SD).
Technicians whose results
fall outside of these limits are refrained and retested.
A' review of
. selected data suggests that technicians.are' undergoing the required
testing.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Audits and Appraisals (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the most recent off-site audit of the chemistry
laboratory conducted from August 15-19, 1988 and the laboratory's
'
subsequent response.
No findings, one observation and one open item were
made.
The auditors appeared to address in adequate detail the
nonradiological chemistry quality assurance program.
Items identified in
the audit appear to have been addressed in a timely manner.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
9.
Open Items
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
4
will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve some action
on the part'of the NRC or licensee, or both.
Open items disclosed during
the inspection are discussed in Section 6.
I
10.
Exit Interview
The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on
January 20, 1989. The inspectors discussed the Open Items in Section 2 ,
and observations on_the quality control program and the confirmatory
measurements.
Licensee representatives noted modifications to be made
to the chemistry proc 9dures, as discussed in Section 6.
7
- _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ,
s.
.
..
.
,
DuringtheexitLinterview,theinspectorsdiscussedthelikely
informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents
or processes reviewed by the inspectors.during the inspection.
Licensee
representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as
}
proprietary.
Attachments:
"
1.
Table 1, Radioactivity Levels in Well Waters,
Braidwood, Collected April 4, 1988
2.
Table 2, Radiological Interlaboratory -
Test Results, 2nd Quarter 1988.
3.
Table 3,- Nonradiological Interlaboratory
<
I
Test Results,, January 10-20, 1989.
4.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
Radiological Measurements
5.
Attachment 2, Criteria for Comparing
,
Analytical Measurements (Nonradiological)
>
8
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
_, - _-
.__ ..
_
__
. - - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.;~.
Table 1
i
-
Radioactivity Levels in Well Waters
Braidwood Area
Collected April 6, 1988
Determined by RESL
Depth,
Nuclide,
Sample
ft
pCi/ Litre i SD
O
b
Sr-89
Braidwood City
Wells
- 1
1000
<11
-60 i 40 -100 1 300
1i1
-2 1 2
- 2
1000
<11
16 1 26 -100 1 300
011
-212
- 3
-2200
<11
0 1 30 -200 1 300
111
-012
Farm Wells
- 1 (household)
285
<11
-40-1-30 -160 1 310
1i1
-3 1 2
- .
- 2 (Drinking)-
12
<11
0 1 30 -200 1 300
111
-2 1 2
- 3 (Livestock)
12
<11
40130 -170 1 310
1i1
0i2
.
a.
Determined in the Region III laboratory, only.
b.
In the Region III laboratory,where the t
iting times were much
longer than at RESL, the minimum detectable activities (MDA)
for Co-60 and Cs-137 were each determined to be about 11 pCi/L
(<11),each.
1
I
.- _--_i
y,
n.;.
,
s.
<
>
,
y
,
'
'
M ,.
. 'j
c.
ff
, l
'
'
> i
(f :
,y.
<
,
,
.. , N
L
r
"
m
,<r
>W
,
g
. . .
,;
,
',-
- -9
. ,* .
9;
'
,
,
,
,
,
y
y
,
r
i,;
a
E
..
Table'2-
..
, <;
t
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
L
E0ffice 'of. Nuclear.. Reactor Regulation
Confirmatory Measurements Program
i
Facility:
Braidwood'
,
v.
Date:
January 25, 1989
Sample Nuclide.
NRC
NRC-
-Lic.
Lic.
Ratio Resol.: Result'
'value
value
SD'
Li uid . H-3.~
5.26E-3
8.00E-5
5.21Ev3' '2.50E-4'
O.99 ~ ' 65.8-
A^
rahwaste Sr-89 1.20E-8-
1.30E-8- <4.90E-7
0.00
0.9
N:
t-
2. 00E- 9
3.00E-9
<1.1E-7 -
0.00
.0.7
N
- 1.52E-5
2.00E-7. '<2.5E-6:
0.00 -76.0:
.D-
.
Gross B 2.89E-6
1.20E-7'
'2.30E-6
0.80
24.1
A'
,
-(rerun).FE-55
1.52E-5
2.00E-7
1.51E-6
0.99
'76.0
'A
. Liquid
Sr-89 .5/17E-4'
1.50E-5-
5.18E-4
5.20E-5
1.00
34.5
A
,
. Spike b.Sr-90-
3.11E-5
1.20E-6
2.39E-5
2.39E-6
0.77'
25.9
.A-
.RESL #2 Fe-55 - 6 ~. 74 E-5 -
1.30E-6
1.66E-5
1. 66E-6
0.25
51.8
D
Liquid 1Fe-55
1.52E-5
2.00E-7.
1.51E-6
.0.99
76.0
A
radwaste
'
(rerun)
See Open~ Item Nos.-.(50-456/87008-01; 50-457/87007-01), Section 2.b.
a. .
This report.
b.
See Open Item Nos. (50-456/88018-03; 50-457/88017-03), Section 2.c.
This rep' ort.
c.
Comparison
A'= Agreement
D = Disagreement
N.= No Comparison
-
i
'.
- ,
(
"l.'
-
.
-
_
,
._
- -
_
-
t
'
'
.:
y7 ;* '
'
- '
Table 3'
.
.
u
H'
'Nonradiological.Interlaboratory Test Resultsl.
.
,Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station, Units' 1: and 2
l January 10-20, 1989~
,,
[ Analyte;
. Analytical.
NRC"
' Licensee
Ratio
Comparison
a
c-
Method :
Y i SD
X i SD:
Z.i SD
i 2 SD
b
,
Concentration, ppb
Fluoride-
IC-
5.63 1 0.50
5.96 1 0.04
1.060 1 0.094'
A
10.6 i.0.2
11.4
0.4
1.075 1 0.043
A
20.7 1 0.4
21
i 0.3
1.014 1 0.024-
A-
-(rerun)
5.63 i 0.50
5.23 i 0.2
.0.930 i 0.090
A
10.6 i 0.2
10.4 si 0.3
0.983 i 0.034
A-
"-
.
Choride-
.IC
'4.63,1 0.03
7.49 i 0.40
1.619 1 0.087-
D
- 9.33 1 0.15
11.73i 0.2~
1.255 i~O 029 ..
D'
-19.1 1 0.3'
'20
i 0.1'
1.046 i 0.023 *
-A*
-(rerun)
4.63 1 0.03
5.44 i 0.20
1.176 1 0.044
0
9.33 i 0.15
9.95 i;0.20 '1.067 1 0.027;
A**
"
,,
,
'
Sulfate
4.88 i.0.35
5.09 1 0.18. 1.044 1 0.084
A
9.58 i 0.68
9.39 i 0.13
0.981 1 0.070
A
'
-
19.5 i 0.58
18.4 i 1.3
0.944 i 0.072
A-
(rerun)
4.88'i 0.35
5.14 i 0.60.
1.054'i 0.144'
A
9.58 i 0.68
9.42 i 0.20
0.984 i O.072
A
'
'"
Silica-
Spec /1
26.4
1.1. 4
17.3 i 1.2'
O.655 1 0.049
D*-
5'. .
.* 2
43.5 1 1.8-
0.837 i 0.046
D*'
'
' 8. 5 i1
69.4 1 2.2
0.884 i 0.'030-
D
,
'
.
.(rerun)
Spec /5
26i4 1 1.4
,26
i 0.9
0.985 1 0.062
A
F
"
52
12
51
2.5
0.981 1 0.061
A
"
78.5 i1
80.7 11
1.028 i 0.018
A
I
Fe
AA/FL
372
10
392
1 0
1.054 1 0.028
A
796
i 10
803
1 0
1.009 i 0.013
A-
1170
1 30
1215
i 0
1.038 i 0.'027
A
Cu-
AA/FL-
400
i6
403
1 0
1.007 i 0.015
A
806
i 30
793
1 10
0.984 i 0.039
A
a
1200
1 30
1185
i 10
0.988 i 0.026
A
Na
AA/FL
30.2 i 3.5
21.1 1 0
0.698 i 0.114
D*
53
i3
52
1 6
0.985 1 0.130
A
79
i4
75
1 4
0.949 1 0.074
A
'
(rerun).
12.1 1 1.4
16.1 1 0.2
1.331 i 0.218
A*
,
..
_ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
. - _
-.
,
s
4
- .-
.
,
>
l.
.
Li
AA/FL
394
8
356
1-
5
0.904 1 0.026
D*
600
-1 14
591
1 5
0.985 1 0.024
A
826
1 20
800
1 10
0.969 i 0.026
A
(rerun)
788
1 16
756
1 2
0.959 1 0.028
A*
"
1200
1 28
1211
1 0
1.009 i 0.024
A
"
1652
1 40
1610
1 12
0.975 1 0.025
A
NH
104
1 5
84
1 2
0,812 1 0.055
D*
3
300
1 3
296
1 3
0.987 i 0.014
A
492
1 23
437
i 6
0.888 1 0.059
A*
Hydrazine
39.8 1 0.6
41.1 1 1.1
1.033 1 0.032
A
!
100
i 1
104
1.2
1.042 1 0.023
A
'
'200
1 2
206
i3
1.030 1 0.018
A
Concentration, ppm
,
Doron
Titr
1040
i 10
1000
12
0.962 1 0.013
D*
l
t
3089
t 41
2957
i3
0.957 1 0.018
D*
5000
1 90
4981
16
0.996 1 0.018
A
'
a.
Value i standard deviation (50); number of BNL analyses is 6 to 9.
The number of licensee analyses is 3.
b.
Analyticai methods:
Titr
- titration
- Ion chromatography
Spec /1 - Spectrophotometric, 1-cm cell
Spec /5 - Spectrophotometric, 5-cm cell
AA/FL - Atomic absorption Spectroscopy
(flame)
c.
A = Agreement
D = Disagreement
- Substituted the BNL uncertainty for licensee's uncertainty.
- Substituted 3% RSD for licensee's uncertainty.
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
,,_ _ _ ,
. . .
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
>
k
i
!
1
.
ATTACHMENT 1
' CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
'
This attachment provides- criteria for comparing results of capability tests .
.c
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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison
of the NRC's value.to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio,
referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a
, _ j
licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement
,
should be considered. acceptable as the resolution' decreases.
The values in the
,
'-
ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC
Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of
acceptance.
!
'
RESOLUTION
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
Agreement
'
<4
0.4 - 2.5
,
4-
7
0. 5 - 2.0
8-
15'
O.6 - 1.66
16 - 50
0.75 - 1.33
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
200 -
0.85 - 1.18
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.
sn
e
- . - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
pw
n
.a
4.,
.
. ,;
..
.
-
(
e
ATTACHMENT 2
.
'
,
1
i
- Criteria for Comparing Analytical' Measurements
y
.i
1
This attachment provides criteria-for comparing results of the capability tests.
The acceptance limits are based on the uncertainty (standard deviation) of the
ratio of the. licensee's mean value (X) to the NRC mean value (Y), where
(1) Z = X/V'is the ratio, and
(2) S is'the uncertainty of the ratio determined from the
propagation of the uncertainties of licensee's mean value,
S , and of.the NRC's mean value, S .1
Thus,
x
.
y
S2
32
< s .2
ZY ~ X Y + V , so that-.
z _ x
y7
[S*2- 32D
+ 1-
S =Z*
(X2'
y2)
Z
The results are considered to be in agreement when the bias in the ratio
(absolute value of difference between unity and the ratio) is less than or
equal to twice the uncertainty in the ratio, 1.e.
l
'l 1-Z l 5 2*Sz*
1.
National Council on Radiation Protection and' Measurements,
A Handbook of Radioactivity Measurements Procedures, NCRP
.
Report No. 58, Second Edition,1985, Pages 322-326 (see
F
Page324).
4/6/87
. _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -