STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TANK 18F FLOOR SAMPLE RESULTS

Harris, S.

关键词: AR FACILITIES;    RADIOACTIVE WASTES;    SAMPLING;    STORAGE FACILITIES;    STATISTICS;    DATA ANALYSIS;    CHEMICAL ANALYSIS;   

DOI  :  10.2172/993640
RP-ID  :  SRNL-STI-2010-00401
PID  :  OSTI ID: 993640
Others  :  TRN: US1008125

美国|英语

来源: SciTech Connect

【 摘 要 】

Representative sampling has been completed for characterization of the residual material on the floor of Tank 18F as per the statistical sampling plan developed by Shine [1]. Samples from eight locations have been obtained from the tank floor and two of the samples were archived as a contingency. Six samples, referred to in this report as the current scrape samples, have been submitted to and analyzed by SRNL [2]. This report contains the statistical analysis of the floor sample analytical results to determine if further data are needed to reduce uncertainty. Included are comparisons with the prior Mantis samples results [3] to determine if they can be pooled with the current scrape samples to estimate the upper 95% confidence limits (UCL{sub 95%}) for concentration. Statistical analysis revealed that the Mantis and current scrape sample results are not compatible. Therefore, the Mantis sample results were not used to support the quantification of analytes in the residual material. Significant spatial variability among the current sample results was not found. Constituent concentrations were similar between the North and South hemispheres as well as between the inner and outer regions of the tank floor. The current scrape sample results from all six samples fall within their 3-sigma limits. In view of the results from numerous statistical tests, the data were pooled from all six current scrape samples. As such, an adequate sample size was provided for quantification of the residual material on the floor of Tank 18F. The uncertainty is quantified in this report by an upper 95% confidence limit (UCL{sub 95%}) on each analyte concentration. The uncertainty in analyte concentration was calculated as a function of the number of samples, the average, and the standard deviation of the analytical results. The UCL{sub 95%} was based entirely on the six current scrape sample results (each averaged across three analytical determinations).