IR 05000250/1987018
| ML17347A507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1987 |
| From: | Harris J, Kahle J, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347A505 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-87-18, 50-251-87-18, NUDOCS 8706030366 | |
| Download: ML17347A507 (15) | |
Text
~gS AE0y P0 4~*~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-250/87-18 and 50-251/87-18 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and
Inspection Conducted:
April 20-24, 1987 Inspector:
arras
/
C arston Accompanying Personnel:
J.
B. Kahle G. Froemsdorf License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41 ate Signed uate igne a
e, ect se Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Ja Ff Date signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of quality control and confirmatory measurements including review of the laboratory quality control program; review of chemical and radiochemical procedures; review of quality control records and logs; and comparison of the results of split samples analyzed by the licensee and NRC Region II Mobile Laboratory; and review of the contaminated demineralized water event reported to the NRC April 20, 1987.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
870b030~
~ 05pppp50 gag 870520 pDR ADOC PDR
REPORT. DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. M. Wethy, Site Vice President
- C. J. Baker, Plant Manager
- D. Grandage, Operations Superintendent
- W. Bladlow, gA Superintendent
- W. C. Miller; Training Superintendent
- F. Southworth, Maintenance Superintendent
."B. Abrishami, Acting Technical Department Supervisor
- D. E. Meils, Chemistry Department Supervisor
- P.
W. Hughes, Health Physics Supervisor
- J. Arias, Jr., Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
- G. A. Warriner, gC Operations Supervisor A. Byrnes, Auxiliary Building Supervisor E. LaPierre, Chemistry Supervisor B. Schimkus, Plant Supervisor, Nuclear
- G. 0. Conzales, Acting Service Manager
- A. D. Rice, Radiochemist J.
W. Anderson, Supervisor, Regulatory and Compliance M. Lauzon, Shift Supervisor, Health Physics S. gusnn, Count Room Coordinator J.
Webb, Operations
- Maintenance Coordinator
- G. Salamon, Compliance Engineer
- J. L. Montgomery, JPE Lead E/IC Engineer J.
D. Ferrare, gA Engineer Other Organizations D. Morris, Technical Representative, Duratek Inc.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- D. R. Brewer, Senior Resident Inspector
- K. W.
Van Dyne, Resident Inspector
- J. B. MacDonald, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 24, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector'during this inspectio.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or
. deviations.
One new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 9.
5.
Audits (84723, 84724, 84725)
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8 'equires that audits of facility activities be performed under the cognizance of the Company Nuclear Review Hoard (CNRB)
encompassing the conformance of facility operation to provisions contained within the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions at least once per year; the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and implementing procedures at least once every two years; and the performance of activities required by the guality Control Program to meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, June 1974, and Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 1, April 1975, at least once per year.
The inspector reviewed the following audit reports:
a.
Audit No.
08.03.ANALA.86. 1, October 1986, Evaluation of vendor programs b.
Audit No.
gAO-PTN-85-682, September-October 1985, Implementation of parameters outlined in FPL Nuclear Plant Chemistry Manual c.
Audit No.
(AO-PTN-86-758, July-August 1986, Implementation and compliance with Technical Specification 3.9, Radioactive Material Release d.
Audit No.
gAO-PTN-86-780, September 1986, Post Accident Sampling System compliance to Technical Specifications and Nuclear Chemistry Procedures e.
Audit No.
gAO-PTN-86-788, November-December 1986, Implementation of Nuclear Chemistry's Procedure for performances of periodic tests and equipment and instrument performance the audits appeared to be thorough and in-depth.
No major deficiencies were noted.
The audits verified the adequacy of technical specification effluent release requirements and guality Assurance criteria specified in Regulatory Guide 4. 15 and implemented by the licensee.
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Laboratory equality Control Program (84725)
The inspectors discussed changes in the program with cognizant licensee representatives.
Licensee representatives stated that several personnel upgrades had taken place and a
new intrinsic gamma spectrometer had been added.
The licensee started using Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications in 1985, and a new liquid radwaste system was installed.
The Radiochemistry guality Control Program was described in Nuclear Chemistry Procedure NC-7,
"Radiochemistry guality Control Program,"
April 3, 1985.
The procedure specified record requirements and retention for the three programs.
a.
External Interlaboratory Program The licensee purchased sources from a vendor, which were analyzed and the results compared with the vendor's results.
b.
Intralaboratory Program This program was accomplished by analyzing duplicate samples or reanalysis of a sample.
c.
Internal Interlaboratory Program This program involved analysis of split effluent samples between St. Lucie and Turkey Point plants.
Split sample analyses were also performed between the Nuclear Chemistry Laboratory and the Health Physics Laboratory.
The inspectors reviewed selected records for this program for calendar years 1985 and.1986 and determined that the licensee was conducting the program in accordance with Procedure NC-l.
Agreement in measurement results were noted between the laboratories.
The inspectors reviewed calibration and gC source records and determined that those sources were traceable to NBS standards.
The inspectors reviewed selected records for calendar years 1985 and 1986 for calibration of the Nuclear Chemistry Labs Ge-Li Detector Galena Spectroscopy system, the Liquid Scintillation system and the Proportional Counter system.
The inspectors also reviewed a selection of the 9C logs and graphs, background counts, and voltage plateaus.
The inspectors reviewed selected calibration records for the following Chemistry Lab instruments and equipment for calendar years 1985 and 1986:
Atomic absorption spectrophotometer Analytical balance Conductivity bridges
Gas chromatograph Specific ion meters Boron meter pH meter Chloride meter Fluoride meter Spectrometer Ihe records reviewed indicated that the calibration and gA programs for the Nuclear Chemistry Lab and the Hot Lab were conducted in accordance with Technical Specifications and appropriate procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Procedures (84725)
Technical Speci f i cation 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented and maintained meeting the applicable requirements and recommendations of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 and the guality Control Program for effluent monitoring using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, June 1974.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures in the Nuclear Chemistry Manual covering guality Assurance and guality Control in sampling, handling, analysis, and the liquid and gaseous effluent program.
Equivalent Health Physics Department Procedures were also reviewed.
The inspectors noted that procedures were being reviewed, updated, and approved in accordance with administrative control directives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Confirmatory Measurements (84725)
Reactor coolant and selected liquid and gaseous process streams were sampled with the resultant samples analyzed by using licensee and NRC RII laboratory gamma-ray spectroscopy systems.
The purpose of these comparative measurements was to verify that the licensee has the capability to measure radionuclides accurately to account for radioactivity in various plant systems, and radioactivity released to unrestricted areas.
Since both units were shutdown, taking samples with detectable levels of nuclides was difficult.
The pressure in the waste gas decay tanks was down to 5-10% of the normal level, resulting in the inability to take representative samples.
The inspectors supplied spiked charcoal cartridges and spiked particulate filters.
Some disagreements occurred with the charcoal cartridges, since the licensee's Nuclear Chemistry Department's system, was calibrated with a different type cartridge than the NRC uses.
It was necessary to make up a "simulated" liquid radwaste sample in a Marinelli container due to the plant being shutdown.
Reactor Coolant System samples were counted and were in agreement.
Spiked charcoal cartridges and particulate filters were counted and compared with the licensee's health physics lab.
There was disagreement for one nuclide
on the new'ype (FSJ) cartridge, but the comparison was in agreement for the old type cartridge.
The older cartridge used by the licensee has a
metal rim which allows the filter media to rest close to the detector while being counted.
The newer (F&J type) cartridge used by the NRC has a
plastic frame and grid which holds the filter media farther from the detector.
Comparisons of licensee and NRC results are given in Table l.
The acceptance criteria is given in Attachment l.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Contaminated Demineralized Water Event (93701)
On April 20, 1987, the licensee reported to the resident inspector that contamination of portions of their demineralized water storage and supply system had occurred.
The major contaminants were identified as Co-58 and Co-60.
The licensee formed an event response team to assess the contamination and find the root cause.
During this inspection, the licensee's progress on resolving the issue was monitored and the inspectors reviewed the design and operation of related systems.
One concern discovered during the licensee's investigation was an unplanned, unmonitored release occurring through a
storm drain.
This drain flows to the discharge canal in close proximity to the normal discharge point, and dilution was available at this point.
Concentrations of Co-58 and Co-60 were found to be approximately 2.0 E-5 and 5.4 E-6 uCi/ml, respectively.
This release was traced back to the secondary chemistry sampling sink to two demineralized water supply lines flowing at approximately one to two liters per minute which were then isolated.
As of May 1, 1987, the licensee had not yet established a firm time period for the unmonitored portion of the unplanned radioactive release to the storm drain.
The release was discovered at 11:00 a.m.
on April 20 and
'the contamination flow was stopped at 5:00 p.m. April 20.
The release was monitored for this period and until the release at the storm drain was less than the licensee's lower limit of detection.
The time that the release started was still unknown.
Until the licensee has determined the complete circumstances of the unmonitored release, this item will be considered unresolved (50-250, 251/87-18-01).
The extent of contaminated demineralized water included the Demineralized Water Storage Tank, Laboratory Demineralized Water Tank, Battery Room sinks, Secondary Sampling sink, Hot Machine Shop sink and the above mentioned west storm drain, along with portions of the demineralized water header.
Concentrations of Co-58/60 were approximately 1 E-4 in the lab tank and 1 E-5 uCi/ml in the other areas.
By comparing isotopic ratios, the licensee has determined that the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit is the likely source of the contamination.
Several systems and associated operations during the likely time frame that interconnect the demineralized water system to the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit were being evaluated.
As of May 1, 1987, the licensee indicated that one system was the most likely suspect.
Demineralized water is supplied to a decontamination station near the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit.
Decontamination operations were conducted using a hose from this supply point during the period in question.
If the
hose fell into the Spent Fuel Pit and its associated valve was faulty and leaked, it would be possible for Spent Fuel Pit water to siphon into the Demineralized Water Header.
Due to the difterence in heights between the two systems and low pressure in the demineralized water header caused by the water treatment plant being out of service, this scenario appears credible.
However, the licensee was continuing to evaluate other possible pathways.
One unresolved item was identified.
10.
Plant Tour (84'/23, 84724)
The inspectors toured the Auxiliary Building and radioactive waste facilities in the company of cognizant licensee representatives.
There was a
large processing load on the radwaste facilities due to both units being in outage.
The licensee has no formal leak reduction plan to reduce liquid waste processing loads.
During the tour the inspector noted corrosion on walls, temporary tubing and hoses used on radwaste equipment, and inadequate lighting in some areas.
The licensee also has three different systems for radwaste processing, causing some congestion in the radwaste facilities.
The inspectors discussed these concerns with licensee management.
The licensee stated that these areas were already addressed in their performance improvement program.
Due to the prioritization mechanism required in such a large program, the inspector noted that although these areas required attention, other improvement areas were being addressed at present.
Ihe inspectors had no further questions.
No violations or deviations were identifie ATTAC8MENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests 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 judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC's value to its associated uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution,".increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurements should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
RATIO =
LICENSEE VALUE NR R
NC V LU Resolution
) 4
7 8-15 16-
51 - 200 ( 200
~Ar cement 0.4 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.0 0.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 -'1.25 0.85 - 1.18
~-
ATTACHMENT 1 Table
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT TURKEY POINT, APRIL 20-24, 1987 ( NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY LAB)
SAMPLE TYPE ( Licensee Geometry)
I SOTOPE CONCENTRATION LICENSEE NRC RESOLUTION RAT I 0
~LICENSE IIRC COMPARISON Charcoal Cartridge, Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
Co-60 Co-57 Cd-109 Cs-137 1. 69 4. 15 2. 66 1.95 E"2 E-4 E-2 E-2 1. 74 4. 12 2.69 1. 96
+.03
+.71
+.16
.03 E-2 E-4 E-2 E-2 58.0 5.8 16.8 65.3
.97 1.01
.99
.99 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement iiCharcoa I Cartridge, Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
Co-60 Hg-203 Co-57 Cd-109 Ce-139 Sn-113 Cs-137 Y-88 5.96 9.88 4.87 2. 16 4.60 9.00 7.01 1. 20 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 4.81 8.89 3.81 1.83
+.08
+.10
~.04
+.01 3.69
+.07 7.84
+.20 5.88
+.07 1.09
+.03 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 60. 1 88.9 95.3 183.0 52.7 39.2 84.0 36.3 1.24 1.11 1.28 1. 18 1.25 1. 15 l. 19 1. 10 Ag reemen t Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement iiCharcoa I Cartridge, Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
iiCharcoa I Cartridge, Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
"Charcoal Cartridge, Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
Co-60 Hg-203 Co-57 Cd-109 Ce-139 Sn-113 Cs-137 Y"88 Co-60 Hg-203 Co-57 Cd-109 Ce-139 Sn-113 Cs-137 Y-88 Co-60 Hg-203 Co-57 Cd-109 Ce-139 Sn-113 Cs-137 Y-88 5.35 7.86 4.68 2.06 4'1 8.29 6.41 1. 09 5. 18 7.45 4.50 2.04 4. 12 8. 31 6.23 1. 05 5. 51 8.38 4.88 2. 11 4.68 8.51 6.64 1.13 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 E-2 E-2 E"2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 4.81 8.89 3.81 1.83 3.69 7.84 5.88 1. 09 4. 81 8.89 3.81 1.83 3.69 7.84 5.88 1.09 4.81 8.89 3.81 1.83 3.69 7.84 5.88 1.09
+.08
+.10
+.04
+.01
+.07
+.20
+.07
+.03
+.08
+.10
+.04
+.01
+.07
+.20
+.07
+.03
+.08
+.10
+.04
.01
+.07
+.20
+.07
.03 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 E-2 E"2 E-2 E-0 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 60. 1 88.9 95.3 183.0 52.7 39.2 84.0 36.3 60. 1 88.9 95.3 183.0 52.7 39.2 84.0 36.3 60. 1 88.9 95.3 183.0 52.7 39.2 84.0 36.3 1.11
.88 1.23 1.13 1,19 1. 06 1.09 1.00 1. 08
.84 1.18 1.11 1.11 1. 06 1.06
.96 1. 15
.94 1. 28 1,15 1. 27 1. 08 1.13 1.03 Agreement Ag reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement Ag reement Ag reement Disagreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
<<The licensee is not formally ca I ibrated for thi s charcoal cartridg ATTACHMENT 1 Table 1 (cont')
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY HEASUREHENTS AT TURKEY POINT, APRIL 20"24, 1987 (NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY LAB)
SAMPLE TYPE ( Licensee Geometry)
ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION LICENSEE NRC RESOLUTION RATIO
~LICENSE NRC COHPARISO Wide Mouth Plastic Bottle Det.
(RCS Sample)
Large Plastic Bottle Oet.
(RCS Sample)
Large Plastic Bottle Oet.
(RCS Sample)
Largo Plastic Bottle Oet.4 (RCS Sample)
Co-58 Co-60 CI-51 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 5.50 4.7 1.65 3'4 5.77 5.06 1. 56 2.84 5.57 4.85 1. 67 3.15 5.64 5. 18 1.59
12 E-3 f-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E" 3 E-4 E-3 f-4 E-3 E-4 5.63 5.83 1.43 3. 10 5.63 5.83 1. 43 3. 10 5. 63 5.83 1. 43 3. 10 5.63 5. 83 1.43 3. 10
+.08
+.34
+.17
+.29
+
~ 08
+.34
+.17
+.29
+.08
+.34
.17
+.29
.08
+.34
+.17
+.29 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E"4 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 70.4 17. 1 8.4 10.7 70.4 17.
8.4 10.7 70.4 17. 1 8.4 10.7 10. 4 17. 1 8.4 10.7
.98
.81 1.15 1.08 1. 02
.87 1. 09
.92
.99
.83 1.17 1.02 1.00
.89 1.11 1.01 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag reement Ag reement
I lter Harinelli Det.
(Simulated Liquid Radwaste)
I iter Harinel I i Det.2 (Simulated Liquid Radwaste)
Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 Co"58 Co-60 CI-51 Cs-137 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 6. 15 5.58 1. 74 3.49 E-3 E"4 E-3 E-4 5. 98 5. 25 1. 88 3. 24 5.49 5. 17 1. 60 3. 14
+.04
+.16
+.10
+.12 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 5.49 5. 17 1.60 3. 14 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4
+.04
+.16
+.10
+.12 137. 7 32.3 16.0 26.2 137. 3 32.3 16.0 26.2 1. 08 1. 01 1. 18 1.03 1. 12 1.08 1.09 1.11 Ag reement Agreement Agreement Ag reemen t Agreement Agreement Ag reement Agreement 1 liter Marinelli Det.
(Simulated Liquid Radwaste)
Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 5.77 5.29 1.59 3.08 E"3 E-4 E-3 E-4 5. 49 5. 17 1. 60 3. 14
+.04
+,16
+.10
+.12 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 137. 3 32.3 16.0 26.2 1. 05 1. 02
.99
.98 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement 1 liter Hal inel I i Oet.4 (Simulated Liquid Radwaste)
Co-58 Co-60 Cr-51 Cs-137 E-4 E-3 E-4 5.20 1. 64 3.31 5.93 E-3 5.49 5. 17 1.60 3.14
+.04
+.16
+.10
+.12 E-3 E-4 E-3 E-4 137. 3 32.3 16. 0 26.2 1.08 1. 01 1. 03 1. 05 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1 Table 1 (cont'd)
RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT TURKEY POINTS APRIL 20-24, 1987 (NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY LAB)
SAMPLE TYPE ( Licensee Geometry)
I SOTOPE CONCENTRATION LICENSEE NRC RESOLUTIO RAT I 0
~LICENSE NRC COMPARISON Particulate Det.
(NRC Spiked Particulate Det.2 (NRC Spiked Particulate Oet.3 (NRC Spiked Pa rt icu I a te Oet.4 (NRC Spiked Fi Iter Sample)
Fi I ter Sample)
Fi l ter Sample)
Fi I ter Sample)
Co-60 Cs-137 Co-60 Cs-137 Co-60 Cs-137 Co-60 Cs-137 8.78 E-3 1.25 E-2 9.17 E-3 1.29 E-2 8.97 E-3 1.24 E-2 8.91 E-3 1.27 E-2 7.96
+.18 E-3 1.24 1 0.2 E-2 1.96 X.18 E-3 1.24
+.02 E-2 1.96 i.18 E-3 1.24
+.02 E"2 1.96
+
. 18 f-3 1.24
+.02 E-2 44.2 62.0 44.2 62.0 44.2 62.0 44.2 62.0 1. 10 1.01 1. 15 1. 04 1.13 1.00 1. 12 1.02 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
~-
ATTACHMENT 1 Table 2 RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT TURKEY POINT, APRIL 20-24, 1987 (HP LAB)
SAMPLE TYPE ( Licensee Geometry)
I SOTOPE CONCENTRATION LICENSEE NRC RESOLUTION RAT I 0
~LICENSE NRC COMPARISO
+Charcoal Cartridge Det.2 (NRC Spiked Sample)
Cd-109 Co-57 Ce-139 Hg-203 Sn-113 Cs-137 Co-60 Y-88 1.50 E 0 3.27 E-2 3.22 E-2 6.31 E-2 6.60 E-2 5.01 E-2 4.26 E-2 8.72 E"2 1.83
+.01 3.81
+.04 3.69 ~.07 8.89 +.10 7.84 +.20 5.88
+.07 4.81 2.08 1.09
+.03 E-0 E-P E-2 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-1 183.0
- 95
~ 3 52 '
88.9 39.2 84.0 60.1 36.3
.82
.86
.87
.71
.84
.85
.88
.80 Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Charcoa I Cartr idge Det.
(NRC Spiked Sample)
Cd-109 Cs-137 Co-60 2.49 E-2 1.88 E-2 1.60 E-2 2.69
+.16 E-2 1.96
+.03 E"2 1.74
+.03 E"2 16.8 65.3 58.0
.93
.96
.92 Agreement, Agreement Agreement Particulate-Fi I ter, Det.
Cs-137 (NRC Spiked Sample)
Co-60 Particulate Filter, Det.
Cs-137 (NRC Spiked Sample)
Co-60 1.25 E-2 8.96 E-3 1.24 E-2 8.92 E-3 1.24
+.12 E-2 7.96
+.18 E-3 1.24
+.02 E-2 7.96 2.18 E-3 62. 0 44.2 62.0 44.2 1.01 1.13 1. 00 1. 12 Agreement Ag reement Agreement Agreement
+The licensee is not formally calibrated for this charcoal cartridge.
E