IR 05000295/1993017

Insp Repts 50-295/93-17 & 50-304/93-17 on 930817-20.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiochemistry Program,Lab Organization,Confirmatory Measurements,Audits, Quality Assurance & Radiological Environ Monitoring Program

ML20149D560
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	09/15/1993
From:	House J, Kozak T, Steven Orth NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149D556	List: IR 05000295/1993017 ML20149D553
References
50-295-93-17, 50-304-93-17, NUDOCS 9309210074
Download: ML20149D560 (12)

Text

. - - . s

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-295/93017(DRSS); 50-304/93017(DRSS)

Dockets No. 50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; DPR-48 ,

l Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300  !

Downers Grove, IL 60515 facility Name: Zion Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

'

Inspection At: Zion Station, Zion, Illinois Inspection Conducted: August 17 through 20, 1993 i Inspectors: Y' House

- /f'/f3

[Date'

Senior Radiation Specialist ,

,

S. Orth V Au f/n/zz D'a t e '

Radiation Specialist  ;

Approved By: YWb Thomas 02 Kozak, Acting Chief 9/r43 Date t Radiological Controls Section 2 l

t Inspection Summary Inspection on Auoust 17 throuah 20. 1993 (Reports No. 50-295/93017(DRSS):

I 50-304/93017(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the radiochemistry program (IP 84750) including: laboratory organization, confirmatory measurements, audits, quality assurance, radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) and one inspection followup ite Results: The laboratory's new organization plan, which is based on function, emphasizes increased individual responsibility for supervisors and technicians. Licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program ,

was excellent with the laboratory achieving all agreements in 114 comparison Laboratory quality assurance (QA) was functioning well. The licensee had achieved all agreements in the interlaboratory comparison program fer the previou; six quarters. Audits were performance based, thorough and conducted by auditors knowledgeable of the chemistry program. Oversight of the REMP was excellent and station oversight personnel were well qualified. No violations or deviations were identifie PDR i

O ADOCK 05000295 PDR

.. .

. _ . __ . _ . . _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ .

,

.  ;

!

DETAIM l

1. Persons Contacted ,

Commonwealth Edison M. Beaumont, Analytical Team Leader, Chemistry

• E. Broccolo, Station Manager i

• D. Bump, Superintendent, Quality Verification

• L. Finney, Operations Team Leader, Chemistry R. Hastings, Iaboratory Supervisor, Chemistry l

• A. Janikowski, Quality Control  :

• H. Karnezos, Counting Room Chemist )

• L. Lanes, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator I

• B. Schramer, Superintendent, Chemistry j

• R. Smith, Regulatory Assurance j

• W. Stone, Director, Performance Improvement ^

M. Wegemer, Chemist R. Whittier, Inspector, Quality Verification

• D. Wozniak, Technical Superintendent Nuclear Reaulatory Commission

• J. D. Smith. Senior Resident Inspector, NRC

• Present at the Exit Meeting, August 20, 199 . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 84750)

(Closed) Inspection Followup Item (50-295/91024-01; 50-304/91024-01):

The licensee split a liquid radioactive waste (radwaste) sample with the NRC and had their vendor . laboratory analyze it for gross beta, tritium, strontium-89 and strontium-90. The results of the analyses were forwarded to Region III for comparison with results from the NRC reference laboratory. The comparisons are contained in Table 1 with the acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 1. The gross beta and tritium were agreements. Although Strontiums 89 and 90 were not compared due to poor counting statistics, they would have been agreements had the comparisons been made. The poor counting statistics for these isotopes resulted from the low activity present in the radwaste sample. This l item is close '

3. Oraanizational Chanaes (IP 84750) -l The inspectors reviewed staffing and organization changes in the chemistry department which had occurred since the last inspection (IR 50-295/92016(DRSS); 50-304/92016(DRSS)). The department has .

undergone a significant organizational change in which two teams, i operations and analytical, along with the waste products chemist, _ report to the Chemistry Services Superintendent. The operations team consists .;

of:

'

- . .

_ __ _ _ _

_

.  ;

l Operations Team Leader i Two Unit Chemists i Auxiliary Systems Chemist ,

High Radiation Sampling System /In Line Monitor Chemist The analytical team consists of:

'

Analytical Team Leader Two Laboratory Supervisors for 21 Chemistry Technicians Analytical Chemist Count Room Chemist

!

'

The laboratory organization is now based on function and has only three managers / technical persons reporting to the Chemistry Services .

Superintendent. The quality assurance chemist position was eliminated and those duties were assumed by the Analytical Team Leader. A licensee ,

representative stated that these changes were part of downsizing within :

the utilit The department plans to decrease its management and !

professional staff from 15 to 13. This new structure places more ,

management responsibility on team leaders, and the department has .

empowered the chemistry technicians with greater decision making i authority for altering plant system chemistry parameters. This decision making ability, which was formerly held by professional degreed .

.

chemists, has been made possible by the acquisition of a new computer !

data base system which tracks plant parameters and based on analytical results tells the technician what chemical changes are necessary to maintain chemistry parameters within limit !

!

The inspectors discussed these changes with the Chemistry Services !

'

Superintendent and verified that the individuals placed in the various positions were qualified for their respective position The inspectors determined that the organizational changes would not adversely effect '

the performance of the chemistry department and informed the licensee that these organization changes and laboratory performance would be reviewed in subsequent inspection j

,

No violations or deviations were identifie >

4. [_onfirmatory Measurements Proaram (IP 84750)

,

Four plant samples including reactor coolant, charcoal adsorber, liquid waste and a reactor coolant crud filter were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory on sit Comparisons were made on combinations of the licensee's five high purity germanium detectors normally used for counting plant and effluent samples. An NRC calibration standard was also counted on these detectors and the NRC detector. This standard was prepared by a -

different vendor than the licensee purchases calibration standards fro However, the geometry (air particulate) was the same as the licensee used for the air particulate efficiency calibratio ;

!

!

3  :

i

'

. - , - .-. - .. .

. _ . . __ . . .

.

Results of the sample comparisons are given in Table 2; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 1. The licensee achieved all .

agreements in 114 comparisons. Data from the calibration standard indicated that two detectors, 31SC and 48RB, could have a small negative (nonconservative) bias of approximately 5-8%. While this did not appear to affect the comparison of plant sample data, the licensee agreed to review the efficiency calibrations of these detectors and recalibrate them if necessary. No biases were observed in the remaining three ;

detectors. The licensee's performance in the confirmatory measurements program was excellen ,

No violations or deviations were identifie . Chemistry 0"ality Assurance (IP 84750) '

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiochemistry quality assurance :

(QA) program which incorporated statistically based control charts for the detectors. Check sources were run daily and the activities of the ;

356 kilo electron volt (kev) line of Barium-133 and the 1332 kev line of j Cobalt-60 were charted along with the full width half maximum (FWHM) for 6 the 1332 line of Co-60. A review of these charts indicated that the i detectors were generally operating within statistical contro r Performance check data was first reviewed by computer software when samples were analyzed. Two sequential failures at the same energy

'

requires that the dete: tor be placed out of service until it can be inspected. The count rcom chemist reviews all detector QA data. The ,

licensee participates in e interlaboratory cross-check program with an outside vendor and a review of that data for the previous six quarters found that all comparisons were agreements. The licensee's radiochemistry QA program appeared to be well manage No violations or deviations were identifie l Analysis Reouired by Technical SDecifications (IP 84750)

Primary coolant dose equivalent iodine-131 (DEI) data for both units was reviewed. DEI levels for both units were well below the Technical Specification (T/S) limit of 37 kiloBequerels of DEI per gram (kBq/gm)

of reactor coolant (1 microcurie of DEI per gram ( Ci/gm) of reactor coolant). Unit one DEI levels from August 1992 to the present averaged less than 5.5 E-1 kBq/gm (1.5 E-2 Ci/gm) and Unit two levels from February 1993 to the present averaged less than 5.5 E-2 kBq/gm (1.5 E-3 Ci/gm). A l uensee representative stated that since there had been no positive indicators of leaking fuel in Unit one, such as iodine and noble gas spiking during a scram, and since the DEI levels for Unit one were low and probably attributable to tramp uranium from known previous i'

fuel failures, fuel inspection during the upcomir.g refueling outage was not warranted. Primary coolant radiochemistry Jata including DEI and the occasional appearance of Np-239 indicated that Unit two may have one or two leaking rods. The licensee also stated that there were no plans for inspecting Unit two fuel during the next refueling outage. However, since reactor coolant is constantly monitored for indications of fuel

i

-, - , -

. _ _ _ .. . i

• l failure, this could change. The licens'ee representative stated that' the higher DEI levels in Unit one were the result of tramp uranium from previous failed fuel. It should be noted that the DEI levels in both units were below the T/S limits by a factor of 50 or more and the licensee indicated that fuel leakage problems were mino Reactor coolant from Unit one was used in the sample comparison with-the literisee (Section 4). Filtered coolant and the crud filter were both ,

used for comparisons and fission isotopes were detected in both sample '

There was no evidence of Np-239 in either sample. This is consistent with the liceme's explanation of tramp uranium from previous fuel failures. Fuel condition will be reviewed in subsequent inspection E-Bar calculations were current and primary coolant activity was a small percentage of the T/S limit of 100/E-Bar megaBequerels per gram (;Li/gm).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Audits (IP 84750)

Quality Verification (QV) Audits QAA 22-92-11, conducted August 13

, through September 8, 1992 and QAA 22-93-02 conducted June 14 through l July 15,1993, reviewed the chemistry quality assurance program. The

! audit team. observed sample preparation and analysis, reagent control, j instrument calibration, analysis of performance check standards, data documentation, procedural adherence and in-line instrumentation. Audit QAA 22-93-02 also covered the Radiological Environmentz' Monitoring l

Program (REMP). Auditors reviewed the annual report ft 4 1992 and the

'

sampling program. Both audits were performance based, focused on quality assurance and were sensitive to program deficiencie The inspectors reviewed station quality verification field monitoring reports of chemistry for the previous 12 months. Figid monitors observe

~

actual activities in the field to identify adverse + rends. Areas observed included: primary chemistry technical specification requirements; chemical control and use; sampling; high radiation sampling system operation; reagent shelf life; chemical analyses; sample preparation and labeling; procedure usage; condition of flammable storage cabinets and use of laboratory safety equipment. Findings from field reviews are passed to the responsible supervisor for action.

l Findings in the audit and field monitoring program had been adequately

'

addresse The inspectors discussed the operation of the Quality Verification (QV)

Group with a licensee representative who stated that the group had gone from eight persons to six and was understaffed for to its assigned tasks l of performing audits and field monitoring work. The QV manager stated that the two individuals lost from the group would be replaced and that discussions were underway to increase the size of the group beyond I eight. QV inspectors, who have expertise in all areas of plant  !

operations, conduct audits and field monitoring. Audits are performed l

., , - - - -

. . . . - - .- .. -. .. - - , - - - .

+

t

!

.

by a team consisting of QV, corporate specialists and outside personnel !

while field monitoring is performed by one or a few persons from Q '

Field monitoring covers a specific area within a department, is of short duration and is an ongoing process. Audits are performed less frequently,.but are broad in scope covering an entire department and are conducted over a period of weeks. Although the licensee's self '

assessment program (QV) appeared to be well managed, a licensee i representative stated that the group should be larger in order to ;

improve their capability for identifying program and performance weaknesse ,

,

No violations or deviations were identifie ! Radiolooical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (IP 84750) l The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including the 1992 Annual Environmental Report which appeared to comply with the REMP requirements. All of the required samples were ,

collected and analyzed, except as noted in the repor .

The inspector toured selected air sampling stations with the station Emergency Preparedness Coordinator who was responsible for monitoring ,

the REM The air samplers had current calibration stickers, along with a folder containing maintenance and calibration documentation. Air sampler equipment was in good operating condition and no air inleakage could be detected. Station personnel were very knowledgeable of the REMP and maintained oversight of contractor sample collectors. Station !

personnel performed surveillance and reviewed collection records in

'

order to assure that required samples were collected. The contractor provided station personnel with copies of sample collection and !

'

equipment maintenance record Licensee oversight of the REMP was aggressive and the program appeared to be performing wel No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview i l

The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 20, 1993. The inspector discussed the Inspection followup Item in Section 2, licensee performance in the confirmatory measurements program along with observations of the radiochemistry quality control program, audits, laboratory organization and oversight of the REM During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection. Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar

Attachments:

Table 1, Radiological Chemistry Split Sample Results 4th Quarter, 1991 6 ,

i

_ . _ _ . .. . . __ _ _. _ _ _ _

'

,

,

<

t Table 2, Confirmatory Measurement Results >

3rd Quarter 1993  !

3. - Atta'chment 1, Criteria for Comparing  !

Radiological Measurements  !

P C

C

>

,

i

>

b

i

!

!

!

i a

s I

L i

)

+

- ,__ .

_ _ _ . -. - - - -. ~

L

'

s b

-

I

.

]

l ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS l

,

l 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 a

REGION III [

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM .

i r

FACILITY: ZION i

FOR THE 4th QUARTER OF 1991  !

i sER EE-- DEEiBE- EEE- EET EEE EER - EiE! EET- EiETERET- REii5- REs5E! EEEGEi'

---

------------------- ----------------------------------------

LIQUID GROES i RAD BETA 4.20E-06 3.OOE-07 2.84E-06 0.OOE+00 0.68 1 A l WASTE GR-89 3.80E-08 1.40E-08 3.56E-08 0.OOE+00 0.94 N R

'3 R-9 0 4.OOE-09 3.OOE-09 2.35E-09 0.OOE+00 C.59 N H-3 3.62E-02 5.OOE-04 4.28E-02 0.OOE+00 1.18 7 A l i

i

TEST RESULTS: ,

,

A= AGREEMENT l

D= DISAGREEMENT

• = CRITERIA RELAXED )

N=NO col 1PARISDN l

!

l

- l l

.. . . . _ _ . . .

.. _

. .

.. .

-

!

i

.

.

!

,

TABLE 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

REGION III

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM i FACILITY: ZION FOR THE 3RD QUARTER OF 1993 sERPEE-~~EDEEiBE-~ NEE UEET EEE EEET- ETETUEET- ETETEERT- EETI5- REE5E! EEsGEi

!

---

--- _-------------------------------------------------.------

AP STD CR-51 7.97E-01 1.01E-02 7.26E-01 5.15E-02 0.91 7 A .

DET. NO. CO-57 2.27E-02 1.59E-04 2.25E-02 1.19E-03 0.99 14 A 31SC CO-60 9.16E-02 4.74E-04 8.80E-02 4.23E-03 0.96 19 A SR-85 1.23E-01 6.63E-04 1.14E-01 8.10E-03 0.92 18 A Y-88 1.77E-01 {

9.35E-04 1.69E-01 8.10E-03 0.95 18 A i CD-109 6.OOE-01 4.95E-03 5.57E-01 4.17E-02 'O.93 12 A SN-113 9.47E-02 5.89E-04 8.86E-02 5.28E-03 0.94 16 A '

'

TE-123M 2.26E-02 2.34E-04 2.14E-02 1.46E-03 0.94 9 A CS-137 9.28E-02 4.66E-04 8.58E-02 5.95E-03 0.92 19 A AM-241 ]

9.02E-02 1.15E-03 8.97E-02 1.17E-02 0.99 7 A 1 AP STD CR-51 7.97E-01 1.01E-02 7.07E-01 5.11E-02 0.89 7 A I DET. NO. CO-57 2.27E-02 1.59E-04 2.17E-02 1.14E-03 0.96 14 A 48RB CO-60 9.16E-02 4.74E-04 8.66E-02 4.16E-03 0.95 19 A

{

l SR-85 1.23E-01 6.63E-04 1.13E-01 8.10E-03 0.92 10 A l Y-88 1.77E-01 9.35E-04 1.66E-01 7.90E-03 0.94 18 A

'

CD-109 6.OOE-01 4.95E-03 5.47E-01 4.10E-02 0.91 12 A SN-113 9.47E-02 5.89E-04 8.89E-02 5.29E-03 0.94 16 A

' TE-123M 2.26E-02 2.34E-04 2.10E-02 1.46E-03 0.93 9 A CS-137 9.28E-02 4.66E-04 8.51E-02 5.85E-03 0.92 19 A AM-241 9.02E-02 1.15E-03 8.41E-02 1.09E-02 0.93 7 A AP STD CR-51 7.97E-01 1.01E-02 3.10E-01 5.84E-02 1.02 7 A DET. NO. CO-57 2.27E-02 1.59E-04 2.49E-02 1.34E-03 1.10 14 A 2305 CO-60 9.16E-02 4.74E-04 9.62E-02 4.68E-03 1.05 19 A SR-85 1.23E-01 6.63E-04 1.27E-01 9.OOE-03 1.03 18 Y-88 1.77E-01 9.35E-04 1.84E-01 9.OOE-03 1.04 18 A 6.OOE-01

'

CD-109 4.95E-03 6.OOE-01 4.50E-02 1.00 12 A SN-113 9.47E-02 5.89E-04 9.79E-02 5.86E-03 1.03 16 A i TE-123M 2.26E-02 2.34E-04 2.29E-02 1.60E-03- 1 . 0 1- 9 A CS-137 9.28E-02 4.66E-04 9.08E-02 6.40E-03 0.98 19 A AM-241 9.02E-02 1.15E-03 1.02E-01 1.20E-02 1.13 7 A

,

a -

]

_

, _, -

. .. _ ._ _ _ _ _ ._

.

.

i (

EE FEE--~~DEEiEE- EEE UEET EEE EEET- ETETUEET- ETETEEET- EEii5- EEE5ET EEEDET

---

AP STD CR-51 7.97E-01 1.01E-02 7.79E-01 5.55E-02 0.98 7 A DET. NO. CO-57 2.27E-02 1.59E-04 2.38E-02 1.21E-03 1.05 14 A l 30P1 CD-60 9.16E-02 4.74E-04 9.20E-02 4.42E-03 1.00 19 A

'

SR-85 1.23E-01 6.63E-04 1.20E-01 8.60E-03 0.97 18 A Y-88 1.77E-01 9.35E-04 1.77E-01 8.70E-03 1.00 18 A CD-109 6.OOE-01 4.95E-03 6.02E-01 4.50E-02 1.00 12 A l SN-113 9.47E-02 5.89E-04 9.55E-02 5.57E-03 1.01 16 A i TE-123M 2.26E-02 2.34E-04 2.27E-02 1.58E-03 1.00 9 A l CS-137 9.28E-02 4.66E-04 9.14E-02 6.44E-03 0.98 19 A i AM-241 9.02E-02 1.15E-03 1.03E-01 1.34E-02 1.16 7 A AP STD CR-51 7.97E-01 1.01E-02 7.96E-01 5.98E-02 1.00 7 A *

DET. NO. CO-57 2.27E-02 1.59E-04 2.28E-02 1.29E-03 1.01 14 A 22PO1 CD-60 9.16E-02 4.74E-04 9.08E-02 4.38E-03 0.99 19 A SR-85 1.23E-01 6.63E-04 1.23E-01 8.80E-03 1.00 18 A >

Y-Ba 1.77E-01 9.35E-04 1.78E-01 8.60E-03 1.01 18 A CD-109 6.OOE-01 4.95E-03 5.98E-01 4.53E-02 1.00 12 A I SN-113 9.47E-02 5.89E-04 9.19E-02 5.64E-03 0.97 16 A !

TE-123M 2.26E-02 2.34E-04 2.24E-02 1.56E-03 0.99 9 A l CG-137 9.28E-02 4.66E-04 9.06E-02 6.51E-03 0.98 19 A l AM-241 9.02E-02 1.15E-03 8.35E-02 1.44E-02 0.93 7 A i

RCS NA-24 1.32E-03 3.62E-05 1.67E-03 1.50E-04 1.27 3 A l UNIT til MN-56 2.41E-03 1.65E-04 3.63E-03 3.98E-04 1.51 1 A l DET. NO. 1-131 1.23E-03 4.37E-05 1.31E-03 1.14E-04 1.07 ' 2 A

'

30P1 I-132 2.36E-02 2.20E-04 2.66E-02 1.OBE-03 1.13 10 A 1-133 1.46E-02 7.85E-05 1. 53E- 02 9.40E-04 1.05 10 A I-134 4.16E-02 2.84E-03 4.23E-02 4.86E-03 1.02 1 A I-135 2.62E-02 3.21E-04 2.56E-02 7.30E-04 0.95 8 A CS-134 1.95E-04 2.60E-05 1.78E-04 4.18E-05 0.91 A CG-137 3.OOE-04 3.22E-05 4.OOE-04 7.24E-05 1.33 A RCS NA-24 1.32E-03 3.62E-05 1.45E-03 1.77E-04 1.10 3 A UNIT 41 MN-56 2.412-03 1.65E-04 1.88E-03 4.19E-04 0.78 1 A DET. NO. 1-131 1.23E-03 4.37E-OS 1.35E-03 1.39E-04 1.10 2 A 23DB I-132 2.36E-02 2.20E-04 2.61E-02 1.18E-03 1.11 10 A 1-133 1.46E-02 7.95E-05 1.51E-02 9.60E-04 1.03 18 A I-134 4.16E-02 2.84E-03 3.23E-02 7.29E-03 0.78 1 A I-135 2.62E-02 3.21E-04 2.59E-02 8.OOE-04 0.99 8 A CS-134 1.95E-04 2.60E-05 2.28E-04 4.26E-05 1.17 7. 5 A CS-137 3.OOE-04 3.22E-05 1.91E-04 6.26E-05 0.64 A l

CHARCOAL BR-82 3.26E-11 1.15E-12 2.90E-11 1.11E-12 0.89 2 A DET. NO. 1-131 2.99E-11 7.17E-13 2.86E-11 1.89E-12 0.96 4 A 230B I-133 3.04E-11 1.27E-12 3.68E-11 3.27E-12 1.21 2 A CHARCOAL BR-82 3.26E-11 1.15E-12 3.02E-11 1.10E-12 0.93 2 A {

DET. N T-131 2.99E-11 7.17E-13 3.13E-11 1.96E-12 1.05 4 A 48RB I-123 3.04E-11 1.27E-12 3.57E-11 2.94E-12 1.17 2 A

.

. , ._,_____m_ - - - - - - - -

-

W e.4 s-N3 -,- -4. -- :nsu-- 1-- * J- +- 4 A,. - nMh--' u. A

• I

..

,

O

,

sEREEE~~~EDEEiEE~~EEE- EET EEE EEET-~ETETUEET~~ETETERE~~~EEiiB- REE5ET~EEEDEi .

---

. LIQUID CO-58 9.96E-07 1.18E-07 1.07E-06 1.31E-07 1.07 A WASTE CO-60 6.32E-06 1.78E-07 6.60E-06 3.45E-07 1.04 3 A DET. NO. I-131 9.14E-07 1.01E-07 9.05E-07 1.17E-07 0.99 A i 30P1 I-132 2.83E-06 2.53E-07 2.9bE-06 2.03E-07 1.04 1 A !

I-133 7.77E-06 1.71E-07 8.06E-06 5.97E-07 1.04 4 A CS-134 4.OOE-06 1.25E-07 4.4bE-06 2.30E-07 1.11 3 A I-135 8.57E-06 5.53E-07 9.26E-06 4.05E-07 1.08 1 A CS-137 8.89E-06 1.85E-07 9.47E-06 7.61E-07 1.07 4 A BA-140 2.79E-06 3.93E-07 2.53E-06 3.52E-07 0.91 A SB-125 3.98E-06 3.29E-07 4.56E-06 2.70E-07 1.15 1 A LIQUID CO-58 9.96E-07 1.18E-07 1.12E-06 1.76E-07 - 1.12 A WASTE CO-60 6.32E-06 1.78E-07 6.56E-06 3.50E-07 1.04 3 A DET. NO. I-131 9.14E-07 1.01E-07 8.84E-07 1.15E-07 0.97 A l 22PO1 I-132 2.83E-06 2.53E-07 3.15E-06 1.92E-07 1.11 1 A !

I-133 7.77E-06 1.71E-07 7.91E-06 6.01E-07 1.02 4 A ,

CS-134 4.OOE-06 1.25E-07 4.41E-06 2.33E-07 1.10 3 A I I-135 8.57E-06 5.53E-07 9.53E-06 4.41E-07 1.11 1 A CS-137 8.89E-06 1.85E-07 9.29E-06 6.88E-07 1.04 4 A I BA-140 2.79E-06 3.93E-07 3.25E-06 4.12E-07 1.16 A !

SB-125 3.98E-06 3.29E-07 4.17E-06 2.80E-07 1.05 1 A l

!

RCS CRUD NA-24 4.29E-07 8.14E-08 4.74E-07 1.23E-07 1.10 A l DET. NO. CR-51 2.52E-06 3.22E-07 3.01E-06 5.91E-07 1.20 A 48RB CO-58 8.95E-06 1.10E-C7 9.OVE-06 6.46E-07 1.02 ' 8 A

'

CD-60 2.20E-06 8. 34E- 38 2.21E-06 1.46E-07 1.01 2 A 2R-95 2.79E-07 5.85E-08 4.20E-07 6.85E-08 1.50 A

'

ZR-97 2.72E-07 5.25E-08 2.15E-07 8.55E-OB O.78 A NB-95 3.95E-07 3.39E-08 4.04E-07 8.51E-08 1.02 1 A

BA-139 1.12E-04 1.06E-Ob 1.01E-04 1.02E-05 O.90 1 A BA-140 1.14E-05 2.66E-07 1.30E-05 6.20E-07 1.14 4 A LA-140 7.49E-06 1.43E-07 7.47E-06 2.90E-07 1.00 5 A RCS CRUD NA-24 4.29E-07 8.14E-08 5.66E-07 1.80E-07 1.32 A DET. NO. CR-51 2.52E-06 3.22E-07 2.59E-06 4.66E-07 1.03 '/ . 8 A 315C CO-58 8.95E-06 1.10E-07 9.5DE-06 6.91E-07 1.07 8 A CD-60 2.20E-06 8.34E-08 2.42E-06 1.52E-07 1.10 2 A ZR-95 2.79E-07 5.85E-08 3.91E-07 8.57E-08 1.40 A ZR-97 2.72E-07 5.25E-08 3.97E-07 1.02E-07 1.46 A NB-95 3.95E-07 3.39E-08 3.79E-07 7.41E-08 0.96 1 A BA-139 1.12E-04 1.06E-05 8.72E-05 8.11E-06 0.78 1 A BA-140 1.14E-05 2.66E-07 1.23E-05 6.20E-07 1.08 4 A LA-140 7.49E-06 1.43E-07 7.29E-06 2.90E-07 0.97 5 A TEST RESULTS:

c A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT o= CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON

.

t vr