ML20203C683

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Model 660 Hypothetical Accident Condition Tests
ML20203C683
Person / Time
Site: 07109033
Issue date: 02/18/1998
From: Roughan K
AMERSHAM CORP.
To:
References
74, NUDOCS 9802250233
Download: ML20203C683 (17)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:FEB-18-1999 15136 FROM R1ERSHAM SENT!PEL cE***TO P.21 I Y r// - 9052 i. MJ ttAsh Facsinelle j u 30 * ~ '56 ' SENTINEL 1.,.s. 40 North Avenue Location: b(4h b(1dus hon From: Massachusetts 01803 USA Py: Dl: (617)272-2000 Ib b Fax:(617) 273 2216 Date: Pages to follow: If this message is ow>tfully receta iplease telephone VAmershamOSA 4 1 ( cW is The 13- [egcA y Td k S n, Thant su u k<-{ gn22;gg;;giggg;g [ .... s l i r l J

FEB-10-1990 ast37 FROM AMER $ HAM SENTINEL ***** TO 91301415e553 P.02 9 BENTINEL TrST PLAN No. 74

r '9k[.$ 'k p y E 'l

] ?"g : M ~ Q.:1Xx I ' G yh..);i,.'*' f..t;n _.. _3 f.., m% %ilv l l ~:_J ~-2 :--.- F ~. =r*. l 3 1 -. ~.. v . ~,- r 5h- -. _ ~ ~ ??_. .k __ >; wb': - - A:Y.h - = Y lt.S f TliLE: AAede.l bimCD Nypo M M M c! d I* M fl e Id54% PRODUCT MODEL: / /* (wW $ tdelcSL 6 hoc.l tc.dt.ws) t DATE ORIGINATED BY:

s. C UC6ClW7 kik -

hh[h - ~ ~ t. ENGINEE O L. DATE: n N-97 .QUALdIddNCE APPROVAL: lhlih IT bu17 DATE: a DATE: REGULATORY AFFAIRS APPROVAL:bik 11336 N 8. b COMMENTS: \\ W .E [ DATE: ENGINEERING APPROVAL: 18 b '18 j., QUALITY ASSURANCE AMRO/Ad: C g. DATE: p l by[uffM\\ t$ h.t DNb 9l REGULATORY AFFAIRS APPROVAL

  • d. Of1 I

V PAmersham QSA

FEB-10-1990 13137 FROM RMS$ti SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158555 P.03 y SENTINEL Test Plan #74 Results Amoreham Corporation Fetmery it.1996 Bwington, Massachusetts Page 1 of11 Test Plan #74 Results This document describes the results of package design tests conducted for s Hypothetical Accident Conditions (10 CFR 71.73)by Amersham to determine whether Model 660 Series projectors meet NRC requirmnents for Type B(U) peekages. The Model 660 Series includes the ' allowing models: 660,660A,660B,660E, 660 AF., and 660BE. Reference Certificate of Comptinnee 9011. The tests were conducted in accordance vith Amersham Test Plan #74 (dated December 16,1997). The test plan also covers the criteria stated in IAEA, Safety Series 6 (1985, as amended 1990). The purpose of the plan was to evaluate the perfonnance of the Model 660 Series projectors that incorpora*: a proposed design change in which stainless steel end-plate screws are used instead of carbon steel screws This document reports on the manufheturing and acceptance of the test specimens, execution of the tests, test inspections, and assessment of the units as to their conformity with the requirements of 10 CFR 71. 4 Y

FEB-10-1990 13:38 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158533 P.04 y o l ~ SENTINEL Test Plan M74 Resutts Amersham Corpo stion February 18.1996 Burtngton, Massachusetts ' Page 2 of 11 Section 1 Transport Package Overview The Model 660 Series projector consists of a source tube enclosed in a depleted-uranium shield. an end-plate wirb a lock assembly, a second end-plate wkh a storage plug assembly, four stwhonnecting rodr, a sheet metal shell and foam packing material (Figure 1). I"' c-3 c:d N:' [ _ Cawino Handle l Rear End Plate _ pigng,, End-Plate 3 Lock Attachment Screw-i _"_"Cnic".eitir Rid _~2@~.-9 ~ N, kAseembly g ~' Depleted-Uranfhm",,'. '/ 0 E Cover Sh' eld NV p.. J E y I Front End-Plate - l l( Y 4 l Selector lW Mmh,, I 1 Source Tubin / h'z ,./, { Ring ((1 1 , 7... _ / p' * -,'./

4 gt Metal Shipping Plug i

i y_ '. Polyurethane {iO___,b_on_t_B6C______ q Foam ec!QI c; ______________ m Figure 1: Side View of a Model 660 Series Projector The shield consists of a 1/2 inch outside diameter source tube with its mid seebon set in depleted uranium. One end of the source tube is inserted into a 1/2 inch hole in the lock assembly at the rear end-plate. The other end of the shield's source tube is inserted into another 1/2 inch hole in the shipping plug at the front end-plate. Both 1/2 inch holes allow enough radial clearance for a slip fitting attachment. Here is approdmately 1/8-inch axial ekarance at the front end for assembly. The source is contained in a special-form, encapsu!sted capsule assembly which is attached to the source wire assembly. I his source wire assembly is secured in the package by the lock assembly. The lock assembly, in turn, is attached to the rear end-pir.te by four #10 stainless steel screws. There are two versions of the lock assembly used on the Model 660 series projectors, ne size, material and location of the end-plate screws are identical on both versions. 'the shield, end plates and the sheet metal shell are connected by four 3/8-inch thick steel rods which are threaded at each end to accept 1/4-inch screws securms the end-plates to the rods.

FEB-10-1998 15:30 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 313014158533 P.05 SENTINEL Test Plan' #74 Resulls' Amersham Corporetkm Fotruary 18,1998 Bur 9ngton. Massachusetts Pt;pe 3 of11 A polymethane iam is used to ful the spece armred the shieki and to fdl the void within the shoemotal shell. ne foam acts as an impact absorber. The depleted uranium shield provides the primary redistion protection for the Model 660 Series projector, The shield accomplishes this by limiting the transmission of gamma rays to a dose level at or below 200 mR/hr at the package surface and limiting the dose level at or below 10 mR/hr at one meter froin the i surface of the package. The location of the source relative to its stored position in the shield is also an ' important safety element. A large displacernent of the source reistive to its stored position ovuld elevate tlw dow at dw musraus ul'tlw package above s*5ulatory limits. The m two posibic scenarios to displace the source rolstive to ite stored 4 position: The shield could move away fmm the source if the source tuben were hent or fractured during testing. The source could move away from the shield if the lock assembly became loose or was removed from the end. plate or if the end-plates tho ssolves became loose or were removed during testing. De tests in this plan focu ed on damaging those components of the package which could cause the displacetant of the source relative tn its stored posinon within the shield.

FEB-10-1998 15:39 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158555 P.06 i SENTINE'. Test Plan #74 Results Amersha 4 Corponutsn February 18,1996 Bairgton, Massachusetts Page 4 of 11 Section 2 Test Specimen Production and Acceptance The test units specified for this plan were seven test specimens manufactured for the Normal Tranmort Conditions testing under Tett Plan #73. The tasts in Test Plan #74 were designed to furthn the damage inflicted on the units in Test Plan #73. The tests units were manufactured in the Amersham Burlington, Mar. facility in accordance with Amersham Dnwtng TP73, Rev. A. As required in both test plans, the TP73 test units are standart! Model 660r> projectors with the following modifications: Shields weighing 37 to 39 pounds Supplemental lead added to the shield to increase shield assembly weight to 40 pounds Stainless steel screws used for end-plate fasteners instead of carbon steel screws End-plate screws with torque values set to either 10 in lbs or 120 in-lbs These modifications enabled us to produce test spec; mens that weighed at least 14 pounds, and to test the use of stainless steel end-plate serrws as original equipment and as retrofit componeMs. Four test units (A, D, C and D) and three spares (SI, S2 and S3) wre built according to the Drawing TP73, Rev. A. The units enabled us to test two different impact targets on units with end plate screws set to different torque values (Table 1), Table 1: TP73 Units hkkh!I' ( AMN 'h, impact hnttom edge of rear Specimens A. Si and S3 Specimens C and S2 , plate: Impacttop edge of ficat plate Specimen B Specimen D The test specimens were manufactured in accordance with the Amersham Quality Assurance Program. The program provides for documentation of the manufacturing procen, assures that the units comply with the relevant dmwings and manufacturing instructions, and specifies radiological profiling of the completed product Tat:c 2 mummaxim key manufacturing and pmfiling data.

FEB-10-1998 15:39 FROri AMERSHAM SENTINE TO 91301 158533 P.07 SENTINEL Test Plan #74 Results Amershe'n Corporation February 18.1996 - Burington. Massectonetts Page 6 of 11 Table 2: Test Specimen Manufacturing Data ,v,

  1. .E

[ teamptenenome iment avis /9/ ivism tvi6m l tvis/97 l 12/tiv97 l st6/98 l s 55.9lbs l 54.8lbs l 55.1lbs l 55.3lbs l [c4Weightp ' S 55.1 lbs 54.9 lbs 55.3 lbs YromaMhilaximunilleadings' ' 1 "-

c q >

a'-tc ' l Pac 45arfibet4retW(): 142.5 142.5 133.0 133.0 l52.0 152.0 147.0 l 1.6l A 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6 9 foneMce(ndt/ht)': At the conclusion of Test ?lan #73, represematives fh>m Engineering, Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs reviewed test inspections and damage assessments on the test specimens. The assessment included radiation profiles on Specimens A, B, C, and D in acordance with Amersham Work Instruction Q09. The radiation profile worksheets are included in Appendix A. "Ibe maximum readings for each specimen are ab wn in Table 3. These readings, which are corrected for maximum capacity, demonstrate that the units met the requirements of 10 CFR 71.71 for normal conditions of transport. Specimens S1, S2 and S3 were not subjected to Test Plan #73 testing until they were required as spar.s in Test Plan #74. The units were not profiled at the conclusion of the Normal Transport Conditions tests, as the purpose of the teeting was to quah@ the units for use in Test Plan #74 and proliling of A, B, C and D had already demonstrated corrTonnity with 10 CFR 71.71 for all orientations. Table 3: Maximum Readings from Test Plan #73 Final Test inspection Nh, !AckageO faaeenR/h!) 159.0 174 0 188 0 188 0 N/A. N/A N/A ' At One UMerfmR/hr)y 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.3 N/A N/A N/A j Representatives from Engineering, Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs jointly confmned that: The seven units selected for Test Plan #74 were adequately tested andrr Test Plan #73. There were no changes to the units since the final tcat impactium and assessments performed under Test Plan #73. No changes in mmtation were required for the hypothetical accident conditions tests in Test Plan #74 because ofdamage sustained in Test Plan #73 testing. 1

FEB-18-1998 15843 FROM AMER $ HAM SENTINEL cc ce TO 913014158553 P.08 a SENTINEL Test Plan art 4 Rmas Amershem Corporaten February 18,1996 Batngton, Massachusetts Page 6 of11 i Section 3 Hypothetica! Accident Conditions De TP73 test units undetwent Hypothetical Accident Conditions tests in December 1997 and January 1998. De testing demonstrated that the stainless steel end-plate screws maintained the end plate connection througbot.t the tests. However, Specimen A had unacceptable radiation pmfile measurements aRer the thermal tests. Based on the data available, it is inconclusive whether the specimen failed because ofa design flaw or because of damage incurred during handling and shipment. his section describes the execution of the tests, results and the assessments made by representatives from Engineering. Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance. 3.1 Test Execution The following Hypothetical Accident Conditions tests were conducted to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 71.73 and Test Plan #74: 30 foot free drop Puncture test Thermal test Tabic 4 summarizes information about execution of the tests. In the table, pecksse orientation is described as: RRE where the impact surface is the bottom edge of the rear end.~ plate TFE where the impact surface is the top edge of the front end-plate NTP for nottnal transport position, that is, resting on the bottom Table 4: Hypothetical Accident Conditions Tests (10 CFR 71.73) .t <- 130-foot Fred Drop (Valley Tree, Groveland. Mass.) jl; @ ;,. }, - yest%;q 12/23/97 12/24/97 12/23/97 12/24/97 1/8/98 12/24/97 1/1158 l l ' AtteingitW One One One Two One One lTwo l jodeldatk&l!, DRE ITE BRE TFE BRE EM BRE 'Cdmments.R Good bit Good hit Missed 1st hit on Missed Good hit 1st hit I "e b l..! hit right side: hit toward l..f?[.[ f Replaced 2nd hit Replaced base;2nd {$dM3 by S2 good byS3 tnward lock ,wp; u

FEB-10-1990 15KO FROM R1ER$ HAM SENTINEL oc0** TO 913014158533 P.09 l l SENTINEL. Test Plan #74 Results Amersham Corporation February 18.1996 Burtogton, Massadiueetta Pa0e 7 of 11 Table 4: HypothetK:al Accident Conditions Tests (10 CFR 71.73) (Continued) [Mf~ 3 Punettu Test (Valley '1 Tee, Groveland, Mass) p J,i $,g: 4,2 -;. d /teiftDatel 4 12/23/97 12/23/97 Not 12/24/97 Not 12/24/97 1/11/98 'l Tested Tested ] .AWityts h ( One One One One One 'Offe6tetion f BRE TFE BRE TFE BRE BRE BRE l j.7Kermal Test (Manbfseturioj science. Oak 6dge, Terra) - .] l (, Test Date,Q 12/30/97 Not See Note 1 12/30/97 Not 12/30'77 1/13/98 Tested Tested l ll6fienSts " NTP NTP NTP NTP Note 1: Specimen C was subJrcsed to she thermal test only to provide information to help in evaluating other specimens. Testing began on December 23,1997, with the four units that wre used in the first round of Test Plan #73 testing. In the 30-foot free drop, Specimen C missed its intended impact surface, and was replaced by Specimen S2. S2 underwent normal testing under Test Plan #73 and on December 24,1997, began testing under Test Plan #74. The puncture test orientation for Specimens B and D was changed after the 30-foot drop to impact the top edge of the tront end-plate to mduce more damage, specifically to peel back the area of the end-;iate left by the removed handle. Specimen B did not uudeigo the 04camal test lwause it wa not a dwunged== die other units. Specifically, there was no opening between the end plate and the package, and therefore, it would sustain less damage from thermal testing. Specimens A, D and S2 underwent thermal testing on December 30,1997. Tbc units were positioned in the normal transport position, that is, upright and resting on the bottom, to allow uptinud mittlow in und urown! the open gap crouted by damage to the shell and end-plates. The units were shipped to Amersham's Burlington, Mass., facility on January 2, 1998, for radiographs and profiling. Amersham persormel were not on site in Oak Ridge to supervise the packaging and shipment of the test units. The radiographs after the thermal tests shond displacement of the shield relative to the positions shown in radiographs taken after the puncture tests. In all three cases, a significant portion of the displacement was on the horizontsi plane, indicating that the movement may have been caused during handi'mg or shipment from Oak Rid e to Burlington. The thermal test orientation for these specimens E would not have cuesd me.cment in the horizontal planc. I

e.-- FEB-10-1999 15:41 FROM AMERSHR1 SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158535 P.1R p SENTINEL. Tset Plan M4 Results Amersham Corpore 6on Fotruary 18.1998 a Bunrngton, Massachusetts Page 8 of11 Profile results of Specimen A showed 9.3 IVhr at one meter. The other units (Specimens B and D) were wittun acceptable levels. To determine whether handling during transport caused the fail,3re of Specumen A, we prepared Specimen Si for testing and planned to measure the source position after the thermal test and before shipment. In the 30-foot free drop, Specimen Sl missed its impact surface, creating the need for another substitution. A new unit, Specimen S3, was built and subjected to testing under Test Plan #73. 'the new unM underwent the 30 foot free drop and punctum test on January 11 and the thermal test on January 13. The Specimen S3 was radiographed on she to detennine source location befbre shipment and then radiographed upon receipt in Burlington. Comparison of the two radiographs showed no significant movement of the source. Subsequently the unit passed the radiation profile. 3.2 Damage Inspections The test uni's incurred levels of mechanical damage as a result of the 30 foot free drop that were seen in pievious testing: The rear end plates were bowed on Specimens A, S2 and S3, producing a 3/ + 16-inch (amimum) gap between the shcIl and end-plate. 4 The tops of both end-plates were bent on Specimens B and D. No gap was - = produced on R; thero wmu iD inch (mnimum) gap on D. End-plate comers were crushed on Specimens S1 and C when these units j + i missed their tarttet impact surfaces. Both units were replaced. [ In addition, the handle of Specimen B broke. i No additional mechanical damage to the tested units was evident as a result of the puncture test, i All of the stainless steel end plate screws, including those set to 10 in-lb torque values, held the end plates to the connecting rods, and there was no breakage. J J Inspection of the units, including radiographs, showed that they maintained their structuralintegrity throughout the 30 foot drop and puncture test, that is,the source remained in the secured and shielded position and the end-plate screws held. Four units were subjected to the thermal test: A, D, S2 and S3. As W, the handle melted on each of the four units, and all or some of the foam burned off. There was no substantial oxidation of the shields as occurred in Test Plan #70.1he end plate screws held the end-plates to the package throughout the testing and did not allow for increased airflow around the shield. ~.

l REB-10-1990 15:42 FROM AMERSHeti SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158533 P.11 SENTINEL Test Plan #74 Resu'ts Amersham Curporation Februarv 18,1996 Burington, Massachusetts Page 9 of 11 3.3 Test Assessment The primary ma ofintmg was the performance of the stainless steci end plate screws. The test proved that the design thange resolves the problem of shield performance caused by oxidation as occurred in Test Plan #70 and reported in the Test Plan #70 Test Results. In Test Plan #70, the cnr.idation h M when the end-plate was r40t fully secured because of the breaks in the carbon steel end plate screws. Appendix A includes the wo ksheets for the radiation profiles taken as part of the final test inspection. Table 5 shows the maximum radiation measured in these profiles. ne readings have been corrected for maximum capacity. Table 5: Maximum Readings from Test Plan #74 Final Test inspection k h fh $2WMN ( g) ane. u W 1/5/98 1/5/98 Not in/98 Not Not l 1A9/98 l NEnge surfa'oe (mR/hr). ]l lts62 3000 390 2s1 [AtoneMterl(mR/ht) a 9300 2.7 4.7 ) l 9.3 The evaluation of Specimen A and the subsequent testing of Specimen S3 did not resolve whether the movement of the source from its ideal shielded position wss the result of a design Nw or the result of damuge caused in inedling and tnespurt of the package. We were unable to exactly replicate the mechanical damage to Specimen A. He measurement after the S3 thermal test showed that the source had moved only 0.2 inch, which resulted in acceptable levels ofradiation. Test inspection revealed that the source wire had severed. The Specimen A source wire did not break and remained engaged in the lock assembly when the shield mwed, pulling the sot'tce from the center of the shield which provides maximum shielding. Although Specimen S3 satisfactorily niet all of the test requirements, the damage was not identical to to Specimen A, and therefore, it could not be used as a replacement for Specimen A. No conclusion can be drawn as to whether the Specimen A failed because of transport damage.

FEB-10-1998 13 42 FR0ri AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***e* TO 913014158533 P.12 SENTINEL Test Plan #74 Results Amershem Corporation Fetruary 18.1998 BurErgton, Messedweetts Page 10 r,f 11 3.4 Conclusions Based on the testing pctfortued under Tot Plau #74, lies tenun wtwluded that: The stainless steel end plate screws satisfactorily met all of the test reqdrements nad the screws should be used on all Model 660 Series projectors. The twque value of the screws is not a significant factor in thet performance and retrofitting of projectors with new nerews can he acenmplished in the field. Because of the difficulty ofreplicating specific mechanical damage, continued testing of TP73 units will probably not resolve the question of whether Specimen A failed because of design or damage from handling. Amersham should proceed with design evaluation as (f Specimen A had failed because of its design, and examine design changes that would restrict shield movement during thermal testing.

FEB-10-1999 15:43 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158533 P.13 1 i SENTINEL Test Plan #74 8tesults Wham cow February 18.1998 Bodington. Massachusetts Page 11 of11 Appendix A: Radiation Profile Worksheets 1 I l i 4 I

FEB-10-1990 13:43 FROM RTRSHAM SENTINEL co*** TO 913314158553 P.14

l.

CEN71NEL J.. 660/660B DEVICE PROFILING FORM pf esGW s -rPTs

  • A "

Device Model No.: to 6 o R Device Serial No.: Oltr-7M i ~To o I(o h Model 4iM 9 Source Seriai Number: I o o I f, Activity: 4 3. A C * < soo m /w c A..i cc Survey Instrument: AM/M rial No:M ' "bl Due: ~5 // s'l 9 7 d[ Survey Instrument:T8 d ' E Serial No: B - Si Mal Due: ~7}.b.I96' Og nc'. N#' F^# SURFACE READINGS ONE METER READINGS mR/hr mR/hr j, g GQyIsk EXhtlM Al?_ d Actual 111c.;d Actual f6 msc % Top "'1 TD tao top V/v a R/L? ucrr uca I,# o,4 '/oS .r7 raon raon 3 r/v .a R / L* z.m x.irr !, e /v a alk# M9.3th,aFJLJ am /,r//4 /..a g/L* so ron tr /a,o .orrox ' >IR/W. c.*MR m s n.4, M. low m cAus a.. INSPECTOR

  • I DATE:

u NCR No.: y Comments: - A/o Surkce, c ocN c.bL M. Mwd '~ Ac.c. ec f eg., M 9Ashc 6 % u k' cA v ua J '.< ace % Pe 1 in V-t". a l Sche 4.o m N & i nh em]M% ~ 4. N acq ' 9 e poc= q pro 9,tt wo b i saan & M M M N. S & e r w a.f c. n sA f h <.e... o a k.A. Mam wu TAmersham QSA $r x h4_)q c.n'. 4 a L a g.# s.-hA=. M W1005 A c O. # oD N+ M i c.g. g b ; c,, R w 4 d M C 4o P M4 p. m mm ek 1,6M AP- ,: a,.e, n

FEB-10-1990 13f43 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 91301413855~i P.15 ) CEN71NEL _660/660B DEVICE PROFILING FORM 33588 h TP u *6" Device Model No.: t,f n B Device Serial No.: M i. %,._ 0 $ u 3 0 ' H"' e D c4 k, c f gTQ 'Tio I(c 3 Model4244 Source Serial Number: Y a o I l, Activity: 93.1 O An/Pog. g.m p g f 'l /3f 67 077" _ Serial No: Cal Due: Surface Survey instrument:_ One Meter Survey instrument: Serial No: Cat Due: ~ + yen.la^&Ah"6 "'d % f @ - ' ~ - ~ ~ ONE METER READINGS Cay e. $4 SURPACE READINGS mR/br mR/hr / &m E ) ALFemett Aetual v bp Allr i b.C.tala.). (pr.4-G,. IsD O.7 mP 6 104.9 b0 TOP o.9 o.u ucur 1,3r m3 t, Tb user )O [. N l.t 3 _ W 9 S30 TRONT raowT _0.T og LxrT f,39 Il6.1 l... Larr l' S I'D anR l.13 M2 b 90 arm sorrowl,j9_l07.I (00 normx _o9 0 i(o ./ jd DATE _E.Cf d NCR No. : IxsPacToR-Ccamentst lL PAmersham QSA Wi-005

FEb-10-1998 13163 FROM AMERSHAM EENT!PEL coc3* TO 913014158533 P.16 CENTINEL 660/660B DEVICE PROFILING FORM gy10gg gf a 3,, g Device Model No.: to k o B Device Serial No.: AGforEml W o/ 63 Model 4244 Source Serial Number: Y o o / 6. Activity: E9. "'? O/ Surface Survey Instrument:A ' Serial No:6' 3/Y ~8 Cal Due: ~7,/.tlL/ O ~ CalDue: One Meter Survey Instrument:X,q Seria! No: Ac e' A SURFACE READINGS ONE METER READINGS rnR /hr mR/hr G ,lh) i \\ j \\ Allowed Actum1 3_1 r-r d Actual top f top 2,3 l.f \\/ 16 0 uca: 1.4 to ucer E 90 rnon 2.n I ') anon /\\ so .u r.v ,.em 2.m / \\ 'to 9,, s.o m, sorron in /,i / \\ fo .orron INSPECTOR 21 DATE:i NCR No s' 1 Comuments : I 6Vb C4-80 Ne b VCl o Ca d e v\\ rhl IC, l kAfhC.. %Q:c%e c.e:~Am cA st A t - e t An. s., va r:< s % io yj",

  • 8"^ h W h o hk Ne a;cp o% c mM M pWom d

T i g. O t>E'lg PAmersham OSA WI.005

FEB-10-1990 15:44 FROM AMERSHAM SENTINEL ***** TO 913014158533 P.17 .CEN71NEL 660/6608 DEVICE PROFILING FORM 'TP W

  • g 335T6 Wi3*SS" Device Model No.:jr/ nod Device Serial No.: A9er% M u

"TTL/ 4 3 Model 4244Sourw Serial Number: [0 0 / 9 Activity: I o c . e (- AA/[iPE-rfi~ Serial No:Mf-Mado/ Cal Due:18 Adar$ Surface Survey Instrument: One Meter Survey instrument:y!rM-7_71" Serial No:AM-197/of Cal Due:(8 AGr N% / FURPACE READINGS ONE METER READINGS mR/hr mR/hr ( --f Muh) h11 owe 8 Aetual M 1 owed Aetual \\ 70 * [, k Is4 J I r TOP TOP 1.s t.1 z/w \\l ao - n. n-I m 7- /~ ^ 6b N. '/- m V' rnorrt rnoxT lN I lo o,- V ars ),3 ArO n W urT e.s 7.o me/tc /\\ <4co e4 mn m, [Nm h[ I. b /~2 x 4/" BOTTOM soTTOM /ih e A NCR No.: 84' IMSPECTOR: S __ DATE: c_ _ e.,

  • suh m cLao p +ua gg go= ~E iJvv we g%

x yms Wu AH-Anaa.tstNO sox >,S6/ 1857 6 M c4l O 2$ 6c[ ih /1 fm 16 j. FAmersham OSA WI.005 TOTAL P.17}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203C683&oldid=4077037"