Errors of DWPF Frit analysis. Final report [report]

R.F. Schumacher
1992 unpublished
DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of rely information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned fights. Reference herein to any
more » ... herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. ii qll_. lt WESTINGHOUSE WS R C-RP-9 2.37 SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY Rev. 0 SUMMARY Glass frit will be a major raw material for the operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility. The frit will be controlled by certificate of conformance and a confirmatory analysis by a commercial laboratory. The following effort provides additional quantitative information on the variability of frit analyses at two commercial laboratories. Identical Samples of IDMS Frit 202 were chemically analyzed at two c3mmercial laboratories and at three different times over a period of four months. Similar samples were analyzed once by SRL's ADS labor_,:ory. The vendor also supplied an analysis for one of the samples. The variability of the oxide determinations was shown to be critical to the frit acceptance process. Ali of the laboratories provided reasonably good chemical analyses. However, the CELS laboratory consistently provided a better level of precision. The standard deviations of the Monarch analyses for individual elements were two to ten time_ greater than the CELS analyses. The variabilities of the results were analyzed and it was concluded that a single CELS laboratory analysis was sufficient to confirm the certification of SRL Frit 202 with a high level of confidence. The Monarch analyses were more variable and twice as many analyses would be required to obtain similar levels of confidence. It is strongly suggested that the CELS laboratory be used as a sole source supplier of the chemical analyses for DWPF Frit until such time as it is shown that other laboratories can provide similar levels of analytical precision. N.J. inec,-TI3-A Authorized Derivative Classifier d ql., -M.J. Piodinec -2-WSRC-RP-92.37 • Rev. 0 The SRL-ADS analyses, after correction with the reference standard and normalization, provided confirmatory information, but did not detect the low siiica level in one of the frit samples. A methodology utilizing elliptical limits for confirming the certificate of conformance was introduced and recommended for use when the analysis values are close to the specification limits, lt was also suggested that the lithia specification limits could be reduced as long as CELS is used to confirm the analysis.
doi:10.2172/10104486 fatcat:qf5kq4dke5gannsuqgw5rbu2cy