ML20212P107

Ack Receipt of 860717 Analytical Results of Spiked Liquid Samples Sent to Util on 860508 as Part of NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program.Comparisons of Results to Known Values & Acceptance Criteria Encl.Trends Discussed

ML20212P107
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	08/11/1986
From:	Zech G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 8609020191
Download: ML20212P107 (4)

Text

-

qquus August 11, 1986 Tennessee Valley Authority JTTN: Mr. S. A. White ,

Manager of Nuclear Power 6N 38A Lookutt Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NOS. 50-259, 50-260, AND 50-296 As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent on May 8,1986, to your facility for selected radiochemical analyses. We are in receipt of your analytical results transmitted to us by your letter dated July 17, 1986. 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 this data, all comparative results were in agreement $ This data should be reviewed in greater detail by cognizant staff members for any significant trends in the data among successive years in which samples have been analyzed by your facility. Any trends noted may be i.,dicative of programmatic weaknesses and your efforts should be expended in determining reasons for such biases.

These results and any results from previous years pertaining to these analyses will be discussed at future NRC inspections.

Sincerely, Gary G. Zech, Director TVA Projects

Enclosures:

1. Confirmatory Measurement Comparisons

2. Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements cc w/encis: (See page 2) 8609020191 860011 PDR P

ADOCK'0D000259 PDR

& of

r i

f .

Tennessee Valley Authority 2 cc w/encis:

vW. T. Cottle, Site Director ,

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant J.W.Whitt, Director, Nuclear Managers Review Group p A. Pedde, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Project Manager

/D. L. Williams, Jr. , Supervisor Licensing Section vC. J. Riedl, Project Engineer ,

1. g Wadewitz, Construction Project Manager t,# A. Mcdonald, Compliance I.SectionSupervisor C. Standifer, Engineering Project Manager bcc w/ encl:

J..N. Grace R. D. Walker M. R. Denton, NRR

.tf. L. Thompson, NRR

1. M. Taylor, IE JK J. Hayes, 01 V. R. Connelly, 0IA G. G. Zech W. E. Cline MCResidentInspector Document Control Desk State of Tennessee RII RII RII RII , RII,gg I l g GKuzo PStoddart DCot i CHunegs BDebs Cline 8/A /86 8/ 7 /86 8/q/86 8////86 8/g /86 8/g/86

(

l 1

LNQt_0SURE 1 ,

CONFIRMtTORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS OF H-3, SR-89. SR-90, Afeo FE-55 ANALYSES FOR idATTS SAR NUCLEAR PLANT, MAY 1986 Isetope Licensee IIRC ResoIution Ratio Comparison (uCJ/ unit) (uCi/ unit) ( Licensee /flRC) 1.6510.03 E-5 59 0.90 Ag reement M-3 1.48 E-5 .

Fo-55 1.13 E-5 1.2210.03 E-5 41 ,

0.93 Ag reement S r-89 2.14 E-5 2.0710.06 E-5 34 1.03 Ag reement Sr-90 1.96 E-6 1.9610.07 E-6 28 1.01 Ag reement

• % 'T

,,e #

D

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 expetience and the accuracy needs of this program.

In these 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"8

- 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 ratior 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 resciution and calculated ratios which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below. Values outside cf the agreement ratios for a selected nuclide are considered in disagreement.

NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide

' Resolution = Associated Uncertainty for the Value, I

t Licensee Value 8 Comparison Ratio = NRC Reference Value TABLE 1 - Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio Comparison Ratio for Resolution Agreement

<4 0.4 - 2.5 4-7 0.5 - 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

.