IR 05000237/1988019
| ML17201J415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1988 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17201J413 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-249-88-19, 50-249-88-20, NUDOCS 8808290309 | |
| Download: ML17201J415 (14) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II I Reports No. 50-237/88019(DRSS); 50-249/88020(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection At:
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
July 25-29, August 2 and 4, 1988
/JI~
Inspectors:
A. G. Januska J"t-Accompanied ~y:
R. Bocanegra
'-?Jf.~
Approved By:
M. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Effluents*and Chemistry Section Inspection Summary
~?-/~
Date Date Inspection on July 25-29, August 2 and 4, 1988 (Reports No. 50-237/88019(DRSS);
No. 50-249/88020(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of confirmatory measurements including:
plant chemistry organization, management controls, training, and qualifications (IP 83722, 83723), quality assurance, confirmatory measurements for in-plant radiochemical analyses, and post accident sampling analysis (IP 84725); environmental monitoring results (IP 80721); and action taken on an open item (IP 92701).
Results:
.An organizational change that has the potential for an improved chemistry program is in progres Rad1ochemical analyses continue to be good as is the quality of the chemistry lab and counting room facilitie One violation (failure to analyze environmental samples in accordance with the Technical Specification requirements - Section 5) appeared to be a result of lax management oversigh No deviations were noted.
88082903o9 880822 PDR ADOCK 05000237 G
PNU
- Persons Contacted 0. Adam, Rad Chem Supervisor R. Arnoldi, Spec Room EA W. Betourne, QA Engineer 1 F. Bevington, QA Inspector DETAILS 1J. Eenigenburg, Station Manager 1 R. Janecek, Nuclear Safety Participant 1T. Lewis, Regulatory Assurance 0. Maxwell, Engineer 10. Morey, Lead Chemist 1 E. Netzel, QA Superintendent 1 R. Ralph, Regulatory Assurance J. Rund, Auxiliary Systems Chemist 2J. Ruettiger, Laboratory Foreman 1T. Schneider, Chemist 1 C. Schroeder, Services Superintendent 3J. Wallace, General Chemist 1 K. Whittum, Chemist M. Wood, Rad Chem Technician 1 K. Yates, Onsite Nuclear Safety Supervisor 1S. DuPont, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 1Attended exit meeting on July 29, 1988.
2 Participated in* a telephone conversation on August 2, 198 Participated in telephone conversations on August 2 and 4, 198.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701) (Closed) Open Item (50-237/88003-01; 50-249/88003-01):
Licensee spiked and analyzed a reactor coolant sample with anions and a feedwater sample with metals and split the samples with Brookhaven National Laborator The licensee submi~ted the results of the analyses to Region III on fluoride, chloride, sulfate; iron, copper, nickel, and chromium ion The results are shown in Table 1 with the acceptance criteria in"Attachment The licensee achieved good results with all seven reported values in agreement with those _of BN (Closed) Open Item (50-237/87008-01; 50-249/87007-01):
Analyze a liquid sample for gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and report results to Region Il The results had three disagreements and were discussed in a previous inspection report. 1 The licensee agreed to analyze a liquid sp1ke and report the results to Rll The results are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment The licensee achieved all agreement Inspection Reports No. 50-237/88003 and No. 50-249/88003
- Management Controls and Organization (IP 83722, 83723)
The inspectors reviewed the management controls and organization of the Rad/Chem (RC) Departmen The Department is headed by a Rad/Chem Supervisor who reports to the Assistant Superintendent, Technical Service In the Chemistry portion of the RC Department, the Rad/Chem Supervisor supervises a Lead Chemist who in turn supervises two Foremen, an Operational Coordinator and a Technical Coordinato Counting room personnel are supervised by the Technical Coordinator and a pool of 49 Rad/Chem Technicians (RCT) are supervised by Chemistry and by Rad Foreme When the Rad/Chem Department separates into Chemistry and Radiation Protection Groups the RCTs will be divided into 35 Rad Protection Technicians and 14 Chemistry Technician Chemistry Technicians will be subject to a continuing training program conducted quarterly by both the Dresden Training Department and the Production Training Cente This separation and a planned annual recertification requirement should strengthen the Chemistry Progra *
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84725) Quality Assurance The inspectors reviewed the radioactive measurements laboratory quality assurance program including the physical facilities, laboratory operations, and procedure The counting room and chemistry laboratory were well organized, instruments were adequate and in good working order and housekeeping was goo Pertinent laboratory and counting room operating procedures found in Dresden Chemistry Procedures (DCP) were reviewed for technical content by the inspector Procedures reviewed included Chemistry Surveillance Schedule (DCP 1020-1), Technical Specification Chemistry Sampling and Laboratory Analysis (DCP 1100-36), Calculation of Radioactivity in Liquid Samples for Discharge Permits (DCP 1400-2),
Reactor Off-Gas Isotopic Analysis (DCP 1400-7), Isotopic Analysis of Charcoal Cartridges and Particulate Filters (DCP 1400-8), Routine Off-Gas Sampling and Analysis (DCP 1600-11), and Quality Control Program for Chemistry Instrumentation (DCP 1900-2).
Two minor problems were found in DCP 1400- Net count rate is specified in one calculation instead of disintegration rate which can lead to a nonconservative valu The error is of minor consequence because the calculation is required only when water is discharged to the river while the in-line monitor is not operational and CECo administrative policy prohibits discharging water to the river while the in-line monitor is not operationa The wording in the procedure allowing for a shorter gamma count time if a lower limit of detection (LLD) of 5 x 10- 7uCi/cc can be attained is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretatio The licensee.has agreed to make the necessary changes to correct both problem The inspectors also found that no written procedures exist for counting room instrument calibration and operatio The Dresden chemistry group is currently involved in a proced~res upgrade which includes developing the missing procedure The procedures upgrade is described in a document titled 11 Dresden Chemistry Procedures Upgrade Program
- The program schedule found in Table 5 of the document calls for first and second drafts of procedures to be completed by November 1, 198 The procedures are expected to be in place by the end o( 198 The inspectors also reviewed Quality Control records and related supporting documentatio Documents inspected included results for germanium detector calibrations and daily quality control charts for the germanium detectors and the alpha/beta counter The inspectors also verified that calibrations for release geometries were current and noted that these: along with analyses records, are well kep Rad/Chem Technicians were observed and evaluated on sample acquisition and preparation, and general laboratory practice No improper actions or practices were observe Sample Split Eight samples (air particulate, charcoal, reactor coolant, liquid wa~te, a liquid waste standard, and gas) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory onsit Comparisons were made on six routinely used detectors and on.the Post Accident Radionuclide Analysis Portable System (PARAPS).
Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 3; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment The licensee achieved 74 agreements out of 75 comparison Chimney air particulate and charcoal samples yielded all agreement A liquid waste sample tank analysis initially resulted in a disagreement for Co-60 on detector 26-P45 (results not shown).
The licensee's portion of the split sample subsequently counted by the licensee and the NRC resulted* in an agreement indicating that the disagreement was due to a nonrepresentative sample spli To further test this geometry a liquid standard was analyzed as an unknown resulting in. all agreements (L SPIKED) on both detector The licensee agreed to have a portion of the liquid waste sample analyzed for gross ~-. H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and have the results. sent to Region III for comparison with a split sent to the NRC Reference Laboratory (Open item 50-237/88019-01; 50-249/88020-01).
A diluted filter building inlet sample was analyzed to test the licensee's four liter release geometry after a filter building outlet sample yielded only one nuclid All results were agreement In addition, a recombiner outlet sample yielded all agreement * * A primary coolant sample yielded the licensee's only disagreement, Mn-5 The peak at approximately 835 kev was attributed to I-134
@ 836 kev rather than to Mn-54 @ 834 ke The licensee stated that such longer lived nuclides are quantified by counts made after a one week decay and provided evidence that Mn-54, not always quantified on an initial analysis, was being identified on decayed sample Audits The inspectors reviewed (1) several corporate and site audits of Radiochemistry and chemical control and (2) auditor qualification No findings related to the inspection were noted; however, findings and observations that were identified were addressed properly and in a timely manne The qualifications of three of seven auditors listed as chemistry qualified were examined and appear satisfactor A fourth auditor, with very strong qualifications by virtue of education, experience, and continuing training has been assigned the primary chemistry audit responsibility at Dresde His qualifications were examined recently while he was at another sit Post Accident Sampling Analysis The inspector discussed the post accident sampling system (PASS) and its operation with a cognizant individua Although the system is not used to obtain routine samples, samples are drawn to verify the operability of the system during weekly QA performance testin QA tests range from weekly to annually with calibrations performed semiannually using appropriate standard High and low hydrogen calibration data, calibration curves and performance traces are posted in the facilit The inspector observed that a technician performing a weekly QA test adhered to the proper procedur The minimum gas and liquid sample size used with the unit has not been recently verified nor has the representativeness of a reactor coolant sampl The licensee acknowledged that these parameters are important and agreed to verify the representativeness of an actual primary coolant sample collected from the PASS panel, verify the posted sample size and determine a method for verifying the minimum gas sample siz These three items are to be completed by November 1, 1988 (Open item 50-237/88019-02; 50-249/88020-02).
No violations or deviations were identifie Environmental Monitoring Implementation The inspectors examined the implementation and results of the licensee's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for 1986 and 198 Although the licensee collected 17 weekly airborne particulate samples and 17 biweekly airborne radioiodine samples, during the first two_
quarters of 1986 weekly gross beta analyses were performed only on six of 17 airborne particulate samples and biweekly I-131 analyses were performed on only six of 17 airborne radioiodine sample This is contrary to the requirements of the Dresden ODCM (Revision 11)
Table 8.4-1 in accordance with T/S Surveillance Requirement 4.8. *
and TIS Table 4. In addition, the licensee collected and analyzed surface water samples composited monthly of weekly samples from only of one of two locations during this period contrary to the requirement stated abov This is a violation of Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 4.8. Although analyses were not performed as required until Revision llA was approved in July 1986, the licensee did not report the reactor or the corrective action taken to prevent recurrence contrary to Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.8. This is a violation of Technical Specification Limiting Condition For Operation 3.8.E.8 (Violations 50-237/88019-03; 50-249/88020-03).
The airborne particulate and airborne radioiodine portions of the violation appear to have occurred when the licensee attempted to revise the ODCM after learning of an error in Revision 1 Revision llA which describes the current REMP did not receive final review and approval until July of 198 The inspector also noted that the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Revision 11 did not agree with the REMP described in the 1986 Dresden Station Operating Report and that the 1986 Operating Report did not, in all cases, report the correct number of analyses actually perform.e The failure to adequateiy review the ODCM revision and to allow the issuance of the Operating Report with errors cited above indicate lax management oversight in this are One violation was identifie.
Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action 6n the part of the NRC or licensee or bot Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section.
Exit I~terview The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the.onsite portion of the inspection on July 29, 198 The scope of the inspection and findings were discussed with emphasis on a violation discussed in Section *
During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspect6r during the inspecto Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar Attachments: Table 1, Nonradiological Interlaboratory Split Sample Results, March 1988 Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements (Nonradiological)
- Table 2, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 2nd Quarter 1988 Attachment 2, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Table 3, Confirmatory Measurement Program Results, 3rd Quarter 1988
TABLE 1 Nonradiological Interlaboratory Split Sample Results Dresden Nuclear Power Station Analyte Analysis a
Method NRC y +/- D March 1988 Licensee x +/- SD Concentration, ppb Reactor Coolant Water Flouride IC 49.2 +/-.5 +/- Chloride IC 47.2 +/- 4. 7 53.5 +/- Sulfate IC 48.8 +/-. 5 +/- Feedwater Iron AAS 450 +/- 20 490 +/- 22 Copper AAS 465 +/- 10 467 +/- 2 Ni eke 1 AAS 460 +/- 20 499 +/- +/-0 Chromium AAS 495 +/- 20 459 +/- 7 Analytical method:
IC Ion Chromatography Ratio Z +/- SD 0.965 +/- 0.081 1.133 +/- 0.127 1. 055 +/- 0.125 1. 089 +/- 0. 069 1. 004 +/- 0. 022 1.085 0.052 0.927 +/- 0.040 AAS Atomic absorption spectrophotometry/Flame Comparison:
A Agree D
D.i sagree C
.
b ompar1son
+/- 2 SD A
A A
A A
A A
ATTACHMENT 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of the capability test The acceptance limits are based on the uncertainty (standard deviation) of the ratio of the licensee 1 s mean value (X) to the NRC mean value (Y), where (1) Z = X/Y is the ratio, and*
(2) 5 is the uncertainty of the ratio determined from the pfopagation of the uncertainties of licensee's mean value, 5x, and of the NRC 1s mean value, 5y. 1. Thus, 5z
5x
~ so that TL"" = v- + yr'
5 = z * ~
+ ~
(
52)~
z x2 y2 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,.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, A Handbook of Radioactivit~ Measurements Procedures, NCRP Report No. 58, Second Ed1t1on, 1985, Pages 322-326 (see Page 324).
4/6/87
TABLE 2 U '.3 NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMM I 3'.3 I !JM OFF I CE OF I N'.::PECT I OH AND ENFORCEMEt'lT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: DRESDEN FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF l. '783
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
SAMPLE
! :::;OTOPE RESULT ERROR
- RE'.3UL T ERROR L *.1.*ASTE H-3
'.3R-8'?
A=AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT 7.SE-05 5.6E-04 3.4E-05 7.4E-05 ITERIA RELAXED COMPARISON 1. SE-06 1. 7E-05 1.4E-06 1. SE-06
..,. 3E-05 7.3E-06 I
4. '?E-04 4.9E-05
OE-05 3.0E-06
~**
7. lF.-*05
..,
I a 1 E ***06
---LICENSEE:NRC----
RATIO RES T
9.BE-01 5.0E (11 A
8.7E-O.3E (l A 8.BE-01 2.4E 01 A
9. 6E.. -O.9E 01 A
- ATTACHMENT CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS *
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests
~nd verification measurement The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this progra In these criteria, the j~dgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertaint As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease 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 acceptanc RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE r
\\
Agreement
<4 0.4 -.5 -.6 - 1.66 16 -
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 nuclide These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identified on the data shee *
TABLE 3 U '.::; NUCLEAP REC3ULA TOR',' COMM I '.:/:.~ I ON OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT COHFIRMATORY MEASUF'.EMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: DRESDEN FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1983
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
ISOTOPE RESU ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES
- T c FIL TEF: I-131 6.7E-04 2.4E-05 6.3E-04 1.5E-04 9.4E-01 2.9E 01 A
~ 'l *?Be/
1-133 1. 2E-03 4. 7E***. 2E-*03 1. 1.E-04 9.8E-O.6E (J A PRIMARY NA-24 2.5E-04 9.6E-06 2.7E-04 2.4E-05 1. 1E (l (l 2.6E 01 A
.26' -..2184 MN-54 1. 6E-05 3.9E-06 O. OF.***O, OF.--0!.
O.OE-01 4. lE 00 D
MN-56 8. lE-05 1. 9E-05 9. lE-05 O.OE-01 1. 1E 00 4.3E (I 0 A
C0-58 7. lE-05. 6.4E-06 6. 5E*-05 7.2E-06 9.2E*-01 1. 1E 01.. A C0-60 2.0E-04 7.6E-06 2.0E-04 1. BE-05 1. (>E 00 2.6E 01 A
AS-76 6.7E-04 1. 5E-05 7. 2E-*04 7.0E-05 L 1E 00 4.4E 0 A
I-132 4.0E-04 1.2E-05 4.2E-04 3.9E-05 1. 1E 00 3.2E 01 A
I-1.33 1. 7E-*04 7.3E-06 1. 7E-04 1. 6E-05 t. OE 00 2.. 3E 01 A
1-134 1. 7E-03 3. lE-05 1. 4E-03 1. 8E-04 8.3E-01 5.5E 01 A
I-135 3.BE-04 3. 3E-*05 3, 7E-*04 3.'?E-05 9.7E-01 L2E 01 A
SF:-91 1. 6E-04 2.3E-05 1. 8E-04 2.2E-05 1. lE (l(l 7.0E 00. A SR-92 5.7E-04 1. 4E-05 5.6E-04 8.4E-05 9.8E-O. 1E 01 A
1110-9'?
1. 3E-04 3.6E-05 1. 6E-04 3.3E-05 1. 2E 00 3.7E 00 A
CS-138 5.4E-04 8.SE-05 5.BE-04 9.4E-04 1. 1E 00 6. 1E 00 A
BA-139 1.0E-03 4.9E-05 7.BE-04 O.OE-01 7.7E-01 2.0E 01 A
BA-14. 4E-03 1. 6E-04 1. 5E-03 3. lE-03 L 1E 00 8.8E oo A
c FILTER 1-131 6.?E-04 2.4E-05 6.2E-04. 5.3E-05 9.2E-01 2.9E 01 A
..28 *?~oo;J. I-133 1. 2E-03 4.7E-05 1. '.!.E-03 t. lE-04 1. l.E 00 2.6E 0 A L '"ASTE MN-54 2.2E-07 2.3E-08 1. 7E-07 2.7E-08 7.7E-01 9.6E 0 (I *A 11,-1111 C0-60 1. lE-06 4.6E-08 1. 2E-06 8. OE-08 L 1E 00 2.4E 01 A
OFF GAS KF.:-85M 6.6E-05 2.9E-06 7.2E-05 4.8E-06 1. 1E 00 2.2E 01 A
ca 1-?s~ KR-88 1. 3E-04 7.?E-06 1. 4-E-04 1. SE--05 LOE 00 1. 7E O A XE-133 7.?E-05 4.9E-06 8.6E-05 7.9E-06 1. 1E C)(l 1. 6E 0 1 A
XE-135 6.3E-04 7.2E-06 7. 1 E-*04 6.4E-05 1. OE 00 9.4E 01 A
L *1.i.IASTE MN-54 2.7E-07 3. lE-08 1 I 9E-(17 2.7E-08 7. lE-01 8.7E 00 A
a.1.-?¥£"
EST RESULTS:
GREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT
>+==CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
!
TABLE 3 U ::;; NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMM I:;:; I OM OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMEMT:3 PROGRAM FACILITY: DPESDEN FOR T~E ~ QUARTER OF 1988 SAMPLE
NRC-----~
I ::;;oTOF'E RESULT E~:F:OF.:
L 1,,JASTE Gou 'r P FILTER
- J.I.* p.J~
OFF GAS ti.-,,,,
PRIMAPY PAfA PS C0-60 C0-60 CS-137 BA-140 1. 7E-06 4.4E-05 1. 5E-05 2.5E-04 KP-85M 2.3E-03
~::~:**-87 1. 4E-02 l<P-88 8. lE-03 XE-135 1..3E-02 XE-135M 7~5E-02 XE-138 3.4E-01 NA-24 MN--56 C0-58 C0-60 CU-64 AS-76 I-132
. 1-133 I-134 I-135
~;F:-91 BA-139 2.4E-04 1. 3E-04 6. 1E-05 1. BE-04 2.5E-03 6.9E-04 4. 1 E-04 1. 6E-04 1. 9E-03 3.6E-04 2.0E-04 5.9E-04 9.5E-04 OFF GA:::;
KR-85M 0t1- ?84'
1. 1 E-06 P FIL TEF: C0-60 d.~- IPS "3 SR-91 c::;-137 ST RESUL T:3 :
- 4. 4E-05 3.4E-04 1. 5E-05-AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT
- =CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON 5.3E-08 4.5E-06 3.7E-06 1. 4E-05 4.6E-05 1. 9E-04 1 *. 6E-04 7.9E-05 1. 2E-03 3.2E-03 9.2E-06 3. 1E-05 5.BE-06 7.5E-06 7.9E-04 1. 4E-05 1. 5E-05 6.5E-06 3.BE-05 2. 3E-*05 2.BE-05 1. 5E-05 5.7E-05 3.2E-07 4.5E-06 2. 4E--05 3.7E-C>6
LICENSEE----
RE:::;UL T EPROP 1. BE-06 3. 1 E-*05 1. 4E-05 2.BE-04 1. 2E-07 O. OE-0.2E-06 3.0E-05 1.9E-03 3!4E-04 1. 6E-*02 0. OE-01 6.9E-03 1. 1E-03 t * 2E-0:2 1. 2E*-03 6.BE-02 1. 1E-02 3.0E-01 3.SE*-02 2.7E-04 1. 1 E-04 6.7E-05 2. 1E-04 1. 4E-03 6.BE-04 4.5E-04 1. 6E-04 1. BE-03 3. SE*-04 1. BE-64 5. BE-*04 9.2E-04 7.BE-07 4. lE-05 3.4E-04 2.3E-05
- 2 -
8.9E-06 2.3E-05 8.3E-06 7. 1E-06 1 * OE-03 1. 5E-05 1. 2E-05 6.7E-06 6.BE-05 2.5E~0~
2.6E-05 1. 6E-05 9.0E-05 6.3E-08 O.OE-01 7. lE-05 4.BE-06
---LICENSEE:NRC----
1. 1 E 00 7.0E-O.3E-01 1. 1 E 00 8.4E-01 1.1E 00 8.5E-01 9.4E-01 9. lE-01 3.BE-01 1.1EOO 3.BE-01 1.1E 00 1.1E 00 5.5E-01 9. BE-*O 1 1. 1E 00 1. OE 00 9.6E-01 9.6E-*01 9. 1E-01 9.BE-01 9.6E-01 7. 1E-O.3E-01 LOE 00 1. 5E 00 3.2E 01 9.9E 00 4. 1E 00 1. BE O l 4.9E 01 7.2E 01 4.9E 01 1. 6E 02 6.3E 01 1. 1 E 02 2.6E 01 4. 1E 00 1. OE 01 2.5E 01 3. lE 00 4.BE 01 2.7E 01 2. 4E 0.9E 01 1. 6E O 1 6.9E 00 A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
3. '?E 01 A
1. 7E 01
. A 3.4E 00 9.9E 00 1. 4E 0. 1E 00 A
A A
A
- TABLE 3 1_1
...,. OUARTEF'. OF.1.'?88
- -'
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RE'.::;UL T EF.:ROR RE'.::;IJL T ERROF.:
p FILTER BA-140 2.SE-04 1.4E-05 2. '?E-04 2. ?E:-05 eot.>'I L SPIKED C0-*57 4.9E-02 3. 4E-*04 4.6E-02 0. OE-*01 11..-1111 C0-60 9.6E-02 7.?E-04 9.9E-02 O.OE-01 HG-:203 3.7E-02 3.BE-04 3.3E-02 o. OE-*0 Y-88 1. 1E-Ol *9. 1E-04 1. 3E-O 1 0. OE-01 CD--109 2.5E 00 t.3E-02 2.4E 00 o. OE-01 SN-113 8. OE-02 7.2E-04 7.5E-02 O. OE-01 CS-* 1.37 9.3E-02 8. OE-04 8.7E-02 o. OE-01 CE-139 4. 1E-02 3;8E-04 3.9E-02 O. OE-01
,_
GAS KR-35M 1. OE-06 3. 5E-**07 7.?E-07 6. 7F._;**08
- J5'-~~4'3 L s:PI KED C0-57 4. '?'E-02 3.4E-04 4.6E-02 O. OE-0 ~1.-P./( C0-60 9.6E-02 7. 7E-'04 9, '?E-02 O. OF.-01 H13-203 3.?E-02 3.8E-04 3.3E-02 O. OE-01 Y--88 1. lE-01 9. 1E-04 1. 3E-O o. OE-01 SN-113 8. OE-02 7.2E-04 7.6E-02 0. OE-Cl'1 C:S-137 9.3E-02 a. OE-04 8.6E-02 (l, OE--0 CE-139 4. 1E-02 3.BE-04 3.9E-O::
O.OE...,.Oi OFF 13A~5 KP-85M 6.BE-05 2.9E-06 7. 2E-**05 6. '?E-06 d~-t.~i.13 KR-88 1. 5E-04 L C>E-05 1. 4E-04 1. 5E-05
.XE-*1, OE-**05. 4.7E-06 8.6E-05 8.2E-06 XE-135 6.8E-04
..,. 4E-06 7.2E-04 6.7E-05 I
T TEST RESUL r:;:
A=AGREEMENT D=DISAGREEMENT
- =CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON
- 3 -
---LICENSEE: NRC-----
RATIO RE'.::;
T 1. 1E 0 (l 1. BE 01 A
'?, :!E-01 L4E 02 A
1. OE 00 1. 2E 02 A
8.BE-01 9.7E 01 A
1. 2E 00 1. 2E 02 A
9.SE-01
,24 OE- 02 A
9.4E-01 1. lE 02 A
9. 3E*-*O 1 1. 2E o*-::-*
~-
A 9.SE-01 1. lE 02 A
7.~E-01 2.9E 00 A
9.3E-01 1. 4E (12 A
1.0E 00 1.2E 02 A
8.8E-01 9.7E 01 A
L2E 00 L2E 02 A
9.5E-01 1. 1E (>2 A
9.2E-01 1. :2E 02
.A 9.5E-01 1. 1E 02 A
L 1E 00 243E 01 A
9.5E-01 1. 4E 01 A
1. 1E 00 L 7E 01 A..
1. 1E 0 ()
9.2E 01 A