IR 05000397/1993039
| ML17290A807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1993 |
| From: | Beaston V, Brewer K, Nader Mamish, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17290A805 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-93-39, NUDOCS 9312130028 | |
| Download: ML17290A807 (25) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V
Report No.:
License:
Licensee:
Facility:
Inspection location:
Inspection duration:
50-397/93-39 NPF-21 Washington Public Power Supply System (MPPSS)
P.O.
Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, WA 99352 Washington Nuclear Project
(WNP-2)
WNP-2-Site, Benton County, Washington November 1-5, 1993 Inspected by:
easto
,
a s tron pecsa 1st ate igne r,
ia
>
n pecsa est te igne
//i/ l3 Approved by:
,
Ra iat eel a 1st ate igne JI H /s
~Summer:
ames
. Reese, C ie Fa it s Radiological Protection Branch ate cygne Areas Ins ected:
R'outine, announced inspection of plant chemistry in the areas of radiological confirmatory measurements, quality assurance audits, organizational and management controls, training and qualifications, and facility tours.
Inspection procedures 84750 and 92701 were used.
Results:
The licensee's plant chemistry programs were adequate in the areas inspected.
The results of the confirmatory measurements verified the licensee's ability to sample and measure radioactivity.
One open item was closed.
No violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identified in the areas inspected.
~Stren ths:
The technical knowledge of the individuals responsible for radioactivity measurements was considered a strength in the licensee's plant chemistry program.
Weaknesses:
(I) The licensee's practice of only performing monthly background counts on its gamma-ray analyzer systems was considered a
weakness.
(2) The licensee's practice of not including spectral peak reports as a part of official records maintained to verify compliance with NRC requirements was also considered a weakness.
9312130028 931116 PDR ADOCK OS000397 PDR
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee
~A. Alexander, Technical Specialist
- J. Baker, Technical Training Manager
- J. Benjamin, guality Assessments Manager
- D. Bennett, Chemistry Supervisor
- D. Coleman, Acting Manager, Regulatory Programs
- A. Davis, Radio-chemist
- C. Fies, Licensing Engineer
- K. Lewis, Technical Specialist
- T. Love, Chemistry Manager
- J. Huth, Plant Assessments Hanager
- L. Nolan, Radioactive waste Supervisor
- W. Shaeffer, Operations Manager
- J. Swailes, Plant Manager
- R. Webring, Technical Division Manager NRC 2.
- R. Barr, Sr. Resident Inspector
- D. Proulx, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those individuals who attended the exit meeting on November 5, 1993.
The inspectors met and held discussions with additional members of the licensee's staff during the inspection.
a e b.
Item 50-397 93-14-02 Closed
This item involved missed weekly source checks of AHS-3 continuous air monitors.
The licensee revised the Health Physics routine checklist to make the division of responsibilities clearer.
The licensee's corrective actions also included the immediate issuance of a Night,Order to reinforce the policy of having workers sign off their completed routines and the performance of Health Physics communication training.
During tours of the radiation controlled area, the inspectors did not find any discrepancies in this area.
Additionally, the inspectors verified the implementation of the Ticensee's corrective actions.
The inspectors had no further concerns regarding this matter.
Item 50-397 93-14-03 0 en
This item involved the licensee's method for controlling the installation and removal of temporary shielding.
The licensee's proposed corrective actions included the formation of work planning teams for high dose jobs during the upcoming R9 refueling outage.
The work planning teams wer e to consist of personnel from multiple departments (e.g.,
Maintenance,
II,
Plant Technical, Health Physics, Projects, etc.).
The licensee was.also evaluating the need to revise the applicable procedures associated with the installation and removal of temporary shielding.
At the time of this inspection, the licensee's corrective actions were not complete.
The inspectors discussed concerns with licensee representatives that this item also involved a lack of
'oordination among licensee departments.
This item will remain open for further review, during the upcoming R9 refueling outage, to assess the effectiveness of licensee corrective actions and coordination among work groups.
Radioactive Waste Treatment and Effluent and Environmental Monitorin 84750 a ~
Audits b.
The inspectors reviewed Technical. Assessment 92-001,
"The Chemistry Program,"
issued in October 1992.
The assessment examined approximately thirty-five analytical procedures for adherence to American Society for Testing and Heasurements (ASTH)
standards and industry practices.
The inspectors noted that the assessment recommended several procedural changes, including procedural changes in the area of laboratory quality control.
The inspectors verified that three of the procedures recommended for change did incorporate the assessment's recommendations.
The assessment, appeared very detailed, and made several recommendations for improving the licensee's chemistry program.
A discussion with the chemistry supervisor indicated that many of the assessment's recommendations had been implemented.
The inspectors concluded that the assessment appeared to be effective in improving the quality of the-licensee's chemistry program.
Or anization and Mana ement Controls The licensee's chemistry staff consisted of seventeen Chemistry Technicians who reported to a Chemistry Operations Supervisor.
The staff also included two Radiochemists who reported to a
Chemistry Support Supervisor, a Chemistry Specialist, a
Radioactive Waste Processing Supervisor, three Staff Engineers, and two administrative assistants.
During this inspection, the Chemistry Support Supervisor was temporarily serving in the capacity of both the Chemistry Support Supervisor and the Chemistry Operations Supervisor, while the Chemistry Operations Supervisor was attending operator training.
The chemistry staff
The following five samples were analyzed by both the licensee and the Region V mobile laboratory:
~
A charcoal cartridge from the Radioactive Waste Building (Sample 1)
~
Insoluble particulates from the Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
filtered on a
47mm filter (Sample 2)
~
A liquid sample from a Radioactive Floor Drain Tank No.
(Sample 3)
~
An off-gas sample from the Steam Jet Air Ejector (Sample 4)
~
"
A liquid sample from the RCS (Sample 5)
The results obtained by the two laboratories were compared to evaluate the licensee's ability to sample and analyze radioactivity.'he results of the analyzed samples were compared using the criteria outlined in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750 (see attachment 1).
(I)
~Sam 1 in The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures listed below, and accompanied a chemistry technician during collection and preparation of samples 2, 4, and 5 to verify procedural compliance.
Additionally, the inspectors observed a chemistry technician prepare sample 3 for analysis.
~
PPH 12.5.3, Rev.
10, "Liquid Effluent Discharge Determination"
~
PPH 12.5.23A, Rev. 0,
"Recombiner Sampling and Analysis"
~
PPH 12.5.33, Rev.
1, "Reactor Coolant Sampling"
~
PPH 16.10.1, Rev.
2, "Radioactive Liquid Waste Discharge to the River" The inspectors noted that the chemistry technicians observed were familiar with these procedures, and had no concerns regarding the sampling and preparation methods used by chemistry technicians.
No violations or deviations were observe reported to the Chemistry Manager, who in turn reported to the Operations Manager.
The Chemistry Manager was hired in April, 1993.
Three new Chemistry Technicians were also hired within the last seven months.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's level of chemistry management and supervisory oversight.
The inspectors noted the following:
A daily morning meeting was held by the Chemistry Manager with exempt personnel (i.e. the entire chemistry organization except technicians and administrative
~ assistants).
Tuesday and Friday meetings were held 'by the Chemistry Operations/Support Manager with technicians and chemists, with intermittent participation by the Chemistry Manager.
~
The Chemistry Hanager made frequent plant entries and completed monthly plant tour reports.
The licensee's chemistry staffing appeared to be consistent with the facility's Technical Specifications Section 6.2,
"Organization,"
and chemistry management and supervisory oversight appeared adequate.
ualifications and Trainin The inspectors examined the qualifications of the Chemistry Manager, three new Chemistry Technicians, and the Radiochemist in charge of the chemistry counting laboratory.
The inspectors noted that the technicians'ualifications met the minimum requirements of ANSI 3.1-1987,
"Selection, gualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," for their designated positions.
The inspectors also noted that the Chemistry Manager'
and Radiochemist's qualifications were adequate.
The inspectors reviewed the chemistry organization's training program.
The inspectors reviewed various training records, the Chemistry Technical Training Manual, and observed technician practices during facility tours and the confirmatory measurements portion of this inspection.
The inspectors had no concerns regarding the adequacy of the chemistry organization's training program.
The licensee's initial training, on-the-job training, and quarterly retraining programs appeared capable of training and maintaining a knowledgeable chemistry staff.
Confirmator Measurements and Radiochemical Anal sis The regional mobile laboratory was brought on-site to perform measurements and intercomparisons of gamma-emitting radionuclides with the licensee's counting laborator (2)
Radionuclide Anal sis The five samples were analyzed by the'licensee and the Region V mobile laboratory.
A comparison of the licensee's results and the Region V mobile laboratory's results is given in Tables 1-5.
A summary of the results is as follows:
(a)
Charcoal Cartrid e from the Radioactive waste Buildin Sam le I The original results provided to the NRC did not correct the iodine activities for decay during collection of the sample.
After the licensee made the correction, no disagreements were found in the six comparisons performed.
The inspectors verified that the licensee does correct sample data for decay during collection prior to using the results for the 31-day off-site dose projection calculations.
(b)
Insoluble Particulates from the Reactor Coolant S stem Sam le
(c)
(d)
Three disagreements were identified in the twenty-seven comparisons made.
The disagreements involved the lack of identification of Y-93 in the filter sample.
Following a review of the results, the. licensee informed the inspectors that Y-93 was not present in the library used to analyze the spectral data.
After the licensee added'Y-93 to the appropriate library, the reanalyzed results agreed with the NRC's value for subject nuclide.
Li uid from Radioactive Floor Drain Tank No.
~Sam le 3 The inspectors determined that the split samples used in this comparison were not identical.
Therefore, the inspectors requested the licensee to count and analyze the sample provided to the NRC and compared the results.
No disagreements were found in the three comparisons performed.
Off-Gas from the Steam Jet Air E 'ector Sam le 4 I
No disagreements were found in the fourteen comparisons performed.
The licensee's chemistry technician obtained three separate gas samples to be
analyzed in these comparisons.
The lack of disagreements was attributed to the skills of the technician who obtained the gas samples.
(e)
Li uid from the Reactor Coolant S stem Sam le
Six disagreements were identified in the thirty-six comparisons performed.
The disagreements were due to short-lived radionuclides which had decayed prior to the licensee analysis of the sample.
The inspectors had no concerns regarding these disagreements because it was the licensee's normal practice to allow sufficient time for these short-lived radionuclides to decay prior to analyzing. RCS samples.
(3)
NRC Conclusions Overall, nine disagreements out of eighty-six comparisons were identified.-
The licensee's ability to* sample and analyze radioactivity was adequate, and the inspectors had no concerns.
The technical knowledge of the individuals responsible for radioactivity measurements was considered a
strength in the licensee's plant chemistry program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Laborator ualit Control (I)
Detector Calibrations The inspectors reviewed the licensee's calibration records and Procedure PPH 12.8.7,
"Chemistry-Ortec Gamma-Ray Analyzer System,"
and determined that the licensee was properly performing detector calibrations at the frequency specified in PPH 12.8.7.
The inspectors verified that the licensee was using National 'Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standards to perform detector calibrations.
Mhile inspecting the NIST traceable standards used by the licensee, the inspectors noted a vendor attached label on the standards which listed an expiration date.
The inspectors additionally noted that two of the standards (normally used to calibrate the efficiency of the gamma-ray detectors)
had been used past the vendor's expiration date to calibrate one of the licensee's detectors.
The individuals responsible for calibrating the detectors informed the inspectors they were unaware of the vendor's expiration date on the standards.
In response to the inspectors'uestions, the licensee contacted the vendor of the standards and learned that.the expiration date was based on the half-life of the nuclides and the expected stability
of the matrix.
The vendor transmitted a letter to the licensee stating, in part, that:
"The expiration date for a mixed gamma standard is one year from the calibration date.
This is considered the maximum useful life for such a standard to perform efficiency calibrations over the entire energy range since Hg-203 and Y-88 would have decayed by more than a factor of eight after one year.
These sources can be used beyond the expiration date for efficiency and energy calibrations if they have been properly handled and measurements show that there have been no changes in the source geometry.
Such a source would be considered HIST traceable for those nuclides that can be corrected for decay without adding a significant uncertainty to the original calibration."
The inspectors verified the licensee had followed PPH 12.8.7, Rev.
4, when. calibrating its detector (for the two standards used after the vendor's expiration date)
by only using peaks for calibration which contained at least 10,000 counts.
The izspectors, however, noted that the licensee was unaware of the expiration date on the standards.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors'bservation and added that while the chemistry department has a program for controlling traceable non-radioactive standards, methods and basis for using traceable radioactive standards had'ot been evaluated.
(2)
Ener Efficienc Checks and Back round Verifications The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for energy efficiency checks and background verifications, and interviewed personnel to evaluate the licensee's method of assuring detector reliability between calibrations.
The inspectors noted the licensee was performing only one six-hour background verification count per month.
The inspectors additionally noted that Regulatory Guide 4. 15,
"guality Assurance for Radiological Honitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and Environment,"
recommended the performance of daily background checks.
The inspectors concluded that while the licensee was in compliance with PPH 12.8.7,
"Chemistry-Ortec Gamma-Ray Analyzer System,"
the practice did not conform to the frequency specified in Regulatory Guide 4. 15, "guality Assurance for Radiological Honitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and Environment."
The inspectors additionally concluded that one background count
per month was not adequate for identifying detector contamination, and considered this practice a weakness in the licensee's laboratory quality control program.
The inspectors had no further concerns in this area.
(3)
Records The inspectors reviewed official records used by the licensee to document its analysis of radioactive gases and liquids, and noted that the licensee was not including peak
'reports or other spectral information as a part of the official records.
The inspectors questioned this practice, because the official records did not contain enough information to evaluate the licensee-'s analysis.
The inspectors determined the licensee's practice of not
'ncluding peak reports in official records was a weakness.
The licensee's management acknowledged the inspectors observation, and stated they would review the matter to determine the records that should be kept and the information that should be included in official records.
The inspectors had no other concerns in this area.
(4)
Interlaborator uarterl Cross-Checks The inspectors reviewed interlaboratory cross-checks performed by the licensee for the last four quarters.
Records indicated that the licensee's radiochemistry results were very good.
There was only one disagreement for the records reviewed, and this was due to a typographical error by the licensee when it reported its results for comparison to the cross-check laboratory.
The inspectors had no questions or concerns in this area.
Facilit Tours The inspectors toured the plant and observed the following:
All personnel observed were wearing proper dosimetry and eye protection as required.
Contamination monitoring and air sampling equipment was c'alibrated and properly maintained.
Posting and labeling observed complied with NRC requirements.
W General housekeeping continued to show significant improvement Exit Interview The inspectors met with members of licensee managdment at the conclusion of the inspection on November 5, 1993.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors'bservation ATTACHNENT
Criteria For Accepting The Licensee's
'Heasurements Comparison Divide each NRC result by its associated uncertainty to obtain the resolution.
The uncertainty is defined as the relative standard deviation, one sigma, of the NRC results as calculated from the counting statistics.
b.
Divide each licensee result by the corresponding NRC result to obtain the ratio.
c ~
The licensee's measurement is in agreement if the value of the ratio falls within the limits shown in the following table for the corresponding resolution.
Criteria Resolution Ratio
<4 4-7 8-15 16-50
200
> 200 0.50 2.00 0.60 - 1.66 0.75 1.33 0.80 1.25 0.85 - 1.18
TABLE 1 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM Washington Nuclear Plant
November 1-5, 1993 di NUCLIDE NRC VAL.
NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.
RESULT Detector:
ORT
I-131 1. 47E-13 1. 75E-14 1. OOE-13 9. 02E-15 I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 45E-13 2. 67E-13 1. 65E-14 Detector:
ORT 3 I-131 1.47E-13 1.75E-14 1.13E-13 6.40E-15 I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 45E-13 2. 52E-13 1. 13E-14 Detector:
TEN
0.68 0.18 0.77 0.17 8.4 10.0 8.4 10.0 A
Dl A
Dl I-131 1. 47E-13 I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 75E.-14 1.45E-13 1. 08E-13 2. 74E-13
'I 7.18E-15 0.73 1.39E-14 0.19 8.4-10.0 A
Dl Charcoal Filter Sam le Deca Corrected Durin Collection Detector:
ORT
I-131 1. 47E-13 1. 75E-14 1.36E-13 N/A 0. 93 8. 4 A
I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 45E-13 1. 21E-12 N/A 0.83 10. 0 A
Detector:
ORT 3 I-131 1. 47E-13 1. 75E-14 1. 43E-13 N/A 0. 97 8. 4 A
I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 45E-13 1. 17E-12 N/A 0. 80 10. 0 A
Detector:
TEN
I-131 1. 47E-13 1. 75E-14 1. 37E-13 N/A 0. 93 8'. 4-A I-133 1. 45E-12 1. 45E-13 1. 27E-12 N/A 0. 87 10. 0 A
1.
These disagreements resulted because the licensee did not decay-correct the results provided to the NRC for the collection time of the sample and the NRC did correct its results for collection time decay.
The licensee corrected its results for decay during collection and the new values agreed with the NRC' l
Sam le T TABLE 2 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM,
Washington Nuclear Plant
November 1-5, 1993 Sam le
NUCLIDE NRC VAL.
NRC ERR.
LIC.VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.
RESULT Detector:
ORT
Cr-51 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Cu-64 Zn-65 W-187 Y-93 I-133 Detector:
4.15E-05 1.71E-06 3.39E-06 3.52E-05 3.35E-04 1.14E-05 1.17E-05 3.96E-05 1.96E-06 ORT 3 8.10E-07 1.47E-07 1.35E-07 3.20E-07 4. 14E-05 4.10E-07 7.20E-07 2.99E-06 1.60E-07 4.69E-05 2.06E-06 3.77E-06 3.73E-05 3.34E-04 1.31E-05 9.14E-06 No ID.
2.68E-06 1.78E-06 2.30E-07 2.32E-07 1.17E-06 4.59E-05 7.29E-07 4.88E-07 No ID 3.04E-07 1.13 1.20 1.11 1.06 1.00 1.15 0.78-0.00 1.37 51.2 11.6 25.1 110.0 8.1 27.8 16.3 13.2 12.2 AA-A A
A A
A Dl A
Cr-51 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 CU-64 Zn-65 W-187 Y-93 I-133 4.15E-05 1. 71E-06 3.39E-06 3.52E-05 3.35E-04 1.14E-05 1.17E-05 3.96E-05 1.96E-06 8. 10E-07 1. 47E-07 1.35E-07 3.20E-07 4.14E-05 4. 10E-07.
7.20E-07 2.99E-06 1.60E-07 4.50E-05 2.'20E-06 3.86E-06 3.68E-05 3.70E-04 1.26E-05 9.50E-06 No ID 1.65E-06 7.79E-07 1. 51E-07 1.42E-07 2.61E-07 2.71E-05 3.72E-07 2.94E-07 No ID 1. 45E-07 1.09 1.29 1.14 1.05 1.10 1.10 0.81 0.00 0.84 51.2 11.6 25.1 110.0 8.1 27.8 16.3 13.2 12.2 A
A A
A A
A A
Dl A
Detector:
TEN
51.2 11.6 25.1 110.0 8.1 27.8 4.0 16.3 13.2 12.2 17.8 spectral data.
The reanalyzed results agreed with the NRC's value for Y-93.
Cr-51 4. 15E-05 8. 10E-07 4.40E-05 1.55E-06 1.06 A
Mn-54 1. 71E-06 1. 47E-07 1. 99E-06 1. 42E-07 1. 16 A
Co-58 3.39E-06 1.35E-07 3.70E-06 1.54E-07 1.09 A
Co-60 3 '2E-05 3.20E-07 3.65E-05 1.15E-06 1.04 A
Cu-64 3.35E-04 4.14E-05 3.39E-04 2.72E-05 1.01 A
Zn-65 1. 14E-05 4. 10E-07 1.22E-05 4.89E-07 1.07 A
Zn-69 7.21E-07 1.81E-07 6.34E-07 8.49E-08 0.88 A
W-187 1.17E-05 7.20E-07 9.12E-06 4.46E-07 0.78 A
Y-93 3.96E-05 2.99E-06 No ID No ID 0.00 Dl I-133 1.96E-06 1.60E-07 2.10E-06 1.57E-07 1.07 A
Ce-141 9. 73E-07 5. 46E-08 4.17E-07 7. 28E-08 0. 43 D
1.
These disagreements were due to the fact that Y-93 was not in the licensee's library.
The licensee added Y-93 to its library and reanalyzed the
IJ
TABLE 3 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONFIRMATORY HEASUREHENTS PROGRAM, Washington Nuclear Plant
November 1-5, 1993 di i
i k
k NUCLIDE NRC VAL.
NRC ERR.
LIC.VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.
RESULT Detector:
ORT 3 Co-60 4.56E-06 1.02E-07 3.42E-06 4.94E-08 0.75 Zn-65 4.83E-07 1.07E-07 No ID No ID 0.00 Cs-137 3.80E-07 5.03E-08 3.49E-07 2.20E-08 0.92 Detector:
TEN
44.7 4.5 7.5 A
D!
A Co-60 4.56E-06
~ 02E-07 3.39E-06 1. 16E-07 0.74 44.7 Zn-65 4.83E-07 1.07E-07 4.05E-07 5.49E-08 0.84 4.5 Cs-137 3.80E-07 5.03E-08 3. 17E-07 4.29E-08 0.84 7.5 D1 A
A NRC Sam le Floor Drain Tank No.
Counted b
Licensee Detector:
ORT 3 Co-60 4.56E-06 1.02E-07 4.06E-06 4.45E-08 0.89 44.7 A
Zn-65 4.83E-07 1.07E-07 4.26E-07 6.62E-08 0.88 4.5 A
Cs-137 3.80E-07 5.03E-08 4;13E-07 2.00E-08 1.09 7.5 A
1.
These disagreements were due to the fact that the split samples were not identical.
The licensee counted and analyzed the sample provided to the NRC.
The licensee's and the NRC's results for the single sample agree 'ABLE 4 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM Washington Nuclear PIant
November 1-5, 1993 f <<
i E'UCLIDE NRC VAL.
NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.
RESULT Detector:
ORT
Ar-41 9.60E-04 Kr-85m 1.65E-03 Kr'-87 1.08E-02 Kr-88
5.92E-03 Xe-133 7.26E-04 Xe-135 1. 04E-02 Xe-135m 5.37E-02 Detector:
ORT 3 3.48E-05 7.00E-06 6.00E-05 2.90E-05 1.38E-05 2.00E-05 1.40E-03 9.47E-04 1.61E-03 9.59E-03 5,63E-03 6.66E-04 1.01E-02 5.29E-02 4.95E-05 4.77E-05 3.03E-04 1.94E-04 2.35E-05 3.00E-04 2.29E-03 0.99 0.97 0.89 0.
95'.92 0.97 0.98 I
27.6 236.1 180.3 204.2 52.6 522.0 38.4 A
A A
A A
A A
Ar-41 Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-135 Xe-135m 9.60E-04 1.65E-03 1.08E-02 5.92E-03 7.26E-04 1.04E-02 5.37E-02 3.48E-05 7.00E-06 6.00E-05 2.90E-05 1.38E-05 2.00E-05 1.40E-03 9.78E-04 1.67E-03 1.04E-02 6.03E-03 7.26E-04 1.05E-02 6.20E-02 4.38E-05 5.13E-05 3.27E-04 2.05E-04 3.06E-05 3. 10E-04 2.70E-03 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.02 1.00 1,01 1.15 27.6 236.1 180.3 204.2 52.6 522.0 38.4 A
A A
A A
A A
0
I t
TABLE '5 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM, Washington NuclEar Plant
November 1-5, 1993 Sam le T fr om the Reactor Coolant S stem Sam le
NUCLIDE Detector:
NRC VAL.
ORT
NRC ERR.
LIC. VAL.
LIC. ERR.
RATIO RESOL.
RESULT Cr-51 Mn-56 Co-60 Cu-64 Zn-65 Zn-69 W-187 Sr-91 Tc-101 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135 Cs-138 Ba-141 1.32E-03 6.88E-03 5.22E-04 4. 13E-02 5. 21E-04 6.05E-05 3.56E-04 7. 21E-04 2. 18E-02 7.33E-05 3.02E-03 1.24E-03 9.50E-03 2.88E-03 1.04E-03 6.02E-03 1. 11E-04 1.19E-04 1.65E-04 3.32E-03 3.28E-05 1.12E-05 5.02E-05 5.36E-05 6.80E-04 1.35E-05 3.00E-05 1.70E-05 1.10E-04 7.50E-05 1.31E-04'.45E-04 1. 77E-03 8.09E-03 5.20E-04 5.31E-02 6.14E-04 5.74E-05 3.53E-04 7.79E-04 No ID 8.94E-05 3.03E-03 1. 21E-03 9.57E-03 3.06E-03 No ID No ID 8.51E-05 1.34 2.46E-04 1.18 1.64E-05 1.00 2.23E-03 1.29 2.77E-05 1. 18 6. 41E-06 0. 95 2.50E-05 0.99 2.84E-05 1.08 No ID 0.00 1.23E-05 1.22-9. 12E-05 1. 00 3.61E-05 0.97 3. 16E-04 1. 01 9.73E-05 1.06 No ID 0.00 No ID 0.00 11.9 57.8 3.2 12.4 15.9 5.4 7.1 13.4 32.1 5.4 100.5 73.1 86.2 38.4 7.9 13.5 A
A A
Dl A
A A
A Apl pl Detector:
ORT 3 Cr-51 Mn-56 Co-60 Cu-64 Zn-65 Zh-69 W-187 Sr-91 Tc-101 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135 Cs-138 Ba-141 1.32E-03 6.88E-03 5.22E-04 4.13E-02 5. 21E-04 6.05E-05 3.56E-04 7. 21E-04 2.18E-02 7.33E-05 3.02E-03 1.24E-03 9.50E-03 2.88E-03 1.04E-03 6.02E-03 1.11E-04 1. 19E-04 1.65E-04 3.32E-03 3.28E-OS 1.12E-05 5.02E-05 5.36E-05 6.80E-04 1.35E-05 3.00E-05 1.70E-05 1.10E-04 7.50E-05 1.31E-04 4.45E-04 1.62E-03 8.48E-03 4.89E-04 5.28E-02 6.26E-04 5.66E-05 3.43E-04 7.76E-04 No ID 9.41E-05 2.88E-03 1.17E-03 8.94E-03 3.03E-03 No ID No ID 5.18E-05 1.23 5.77E-05 1.23 6.92E-06 0.94 1.49E-03 1.28 1.32E-05 1.20 6.62E-06 0.94 2. 13E-05 0. 96 1.26E-05 1.08 No ID 0.00 1.02E-05 1.28 1.66E-05 0.95 6.73E-06 0.94 1.32E-04 0.94 3.32E-05 1.05 No ID 0.00 No ID 0.00 11.9 57.8 3.2 12.4 15.9 5,4 7.1 13.4 32.1 5.4 100.5 73.1 86.2 38.4 7.9 13.5 A
A A
A A
A A
A D'
A A
A A
D'l 1.
These disagreements were due to the fact that the licensee's sample was countedafter these nuclides had decayed away.