ML20246L899
| ML20246L899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1989 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L892 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-89-08, 50-346-89-8, NUDOCS 8903240310 | |
| Download: ML20246L899 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1989008
Text
_,
-_-_ _ _ _
. - _ .
_ _ _
-
,
p 4,
?
]
p'
m
.-
, .
1
.
.
'l
F.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
H
REGION III
,
'
J
l
0
'
'
!
' Report No. . 50-346/89008(DRSS)
[
'
1 Docket No. 50-346
License No. NPF-3
-
~ Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company.
!
Edison Plaza
300 Madison Avenue-
,
Toledo, OH. 43652
i
. .
' Facility Name:
Davis-Besse Nuclear-Power Station
j
,
Inspection Ati _ Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Oak Harbor,:0hio
Inspection-Conducted:
February 13-17, 1989
.
0,
. amW
. Inspectors:
A.'G.(anuska
Y/f/99
.
1
Date
- o
i
.I
3//s'f/'f.
0
-Approved By:
M.
humacher, Chief
i
Radiological. Controls and
Date
,j
Chemistry Section
-i
!
Inspection Summary
i
!
,
,
Inspection on February 13-17, 1989 (Report No. 50-346/89008(DRSS))
Areas Inspected: . Routine announced inspection of confirmatory measurements
and environmental monitoring programs (IP 84750) including:
audits, quality
j
assurance, confirmatory measurements of in plant radiochemical analyses, post
accident sampling, implementation of the environmental monitoring program
j
and open items (IP 92701).
Results:
Confirmatory measurements comparisons improved.
Two of the
i
three disagreements during this inspection appear to be anomalies.
The
,
three licensee detectors tested gave results that compared closely.
The
1
Environmental Monitoring Program is well implemented.
l
!
l
<
8903240310 890315
}
ADOCK0500gj6
a
,
' ),, 7 .'
.'j$.
.-
,
y
.
.
.
. DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted
- L. Bonker, Rad Health General' Supervisor
J. Bunk,. Quality Engineer, SAI-
V. Capozziello, Chemistry Analyst
R. Claes, . Chemistry Analyst :
.
.E. Delicate,' Assistant Nuclear Technologist
- R. Edwards, Associate Chemistry Analyst
I
- G. Honma, Compliance Supervisor
- J. Magers, Associate Licensing Technologist
- J. Oldman, Associate Radiological Control Technologist
j
- J. Polyak, Rad Control Managor
R. Rinderman, QA Verification. Supervisor
- R. Scott, Chemistry Superintendent
- B.. Smith, Associate Nuclear Technologist
- D. Kosloff, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Finding (IP 92701)
a.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-346/88008-03):
Licensee spiked and analyzed
a condensate sample with anions and another with metals and split.
the samples with Brookhaven National Laboratory. The results of the
l
analyses submitted to Region III on fluoride, chloride, sulfate,
'
iron, and copper are shown in Table 1 with the acceptance criteria
!
in Attachment 1.
The licensee had three agreements in five analyses.
!
The results with disagreements were given relative standard
deviations of i 3%, uncertainties that appear to be' reasonable for
these types of analyses
The licensee appeared to have a problem
with the ion chromatograph results for chloride and sulfate.
This
.l
matter will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
'
b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-346/87023-02):
Analyze liquid sample for
gross beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and report results to
Region III.
After having difficulty with the sample collected
during inspection 50-346/87023 the licensee agreed to analyze a
spiked liquid sample supplied by RESL, the NRC's reference
laboratory.
The comparisons are listed in Table 2; the comparison
i
criteria are given in Attachment 2.
c.
(Closed) Open Item (50-346/86026-06):
Licensee to revise REMP
Surveillance Test Procedure ST 5099.03, " Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program," Revision 13 to assign responsibilities to the
current REMP management.
Revision 14, issued February 27, 1987 was
changed to reflect responsibility assignment and now includes tasks
which had not been proceduralized.
The requirements of AD 1843.00
2
_____ ____-__-___
__ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
. _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
'
1
,
.
,
. .
.
I
have been incorporated into NG-HS-00501 to update the REMP
requirements and show the transfer of responsibility for the
!
conduct, management and reporting of the REMP from Chemistry and
Health Physics to Environmental Compliance.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements
a.
Sample Split
Six samples (air particulate, charcoal adsorber, crud filter used as
an air particulate, reactor coolant, gas and liquid were analyzed
for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III
Mobile Laboratory onsite.
Comparisons were made on the licensee's
Radiological Control (RC) and Chemistry (CHM 1 and CHM 2) detectors.
The licensee achieved 101 agreements in 105 comparisons as listed in
Table 3; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment 2.
Comparisons of a particulate filter, charcoal and a Miscellaneous
Waste Drain Tank (MWDT) results yielded in all agreements.
The
licensee agreed to analyze or have analyzed a portion of the
MWDT for H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and report the results to
Region III for comparison with an analysis by the NRC Reference
Laboratory (0 pen Item 50-346/89008-01).
A reactor coolant filter (CRUD) was analyzed as a particulate to
further test this geometry.
The licensee's detectors initially
failed to identify I-134 (not shown in Table 3) and Zr-97.
Review
of the data revealed that only 20% of the normal sample size had
been used at the request of the inspector and I-134 had decayed to
approximately 3.5% of its initial value prior to analysis.
The
review also revealed that a high abundance line of the daughter of
Zr-97, normally used to quantify Zr-97, was not listed in the
licensee's library.
The licensee changed his nuclide library prior
to the end of the inspection and the results became agreements.
Sample size is believed to be part of the problem for failure to
identify and quantify Mn-54 and I-135.
A stringent quantification
test for I-135 combined with a lower detector sensitivity
,
appear.to have also contributed to the disagreements.
1
Results of comparison of primary coolant yielded a disagreement for
I-134 on all detectors (not shown in Table 3) and for Na-24 on the
RC detector.
This particular sample was counted well beyond
the procedure specified 55 to 65 minute counting window and the
I-134 had decayed to less than 10% of its initial value.
Also,
the licensee's counting efficiency was about 30% of that of the NRC.
The inspector reviewed data from past primary coolant samples analyzed
55 to 65 minutes after sampling as required by DB-CH-03000,
" Primary Coolant System Radiochemistry" and confirmed the
quantification of I-134 in all results examined.
No reason for
failure to accurately quantify Na-24 was determined.
3
-
--
-
_
_.
._
_
_
_
_
-- .
.-
-
_ _ - _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
-
. ' .
,o,.
e
-
..
. .
.
.
3
A disagreement for Xe-133 was noted on CHM-1.. A review of data did
d
not reveal the reason; however, a subsequent review of Table 3 gas-
'
results indicates a slight bias on.both chemistry detectors for this
geometry.
,
b.
Quality Assurance
The inspector examined results of the licensee's 1988
,
'
l
intercomparison results from a crosscheck program with an outside
a
'
vendor.
Analyses. included liquid for gamma.in a one liter marinelli-
L
and a 30cc bottle, alpha, beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55 and
'
A two inch filter comparison was added during the year.
y
There was only one disagreement during the year for all analyses and
it is being.. investigated.
The inspector performed a limited review of the counting room
,
quality assurance implementation.
Records and discussions with lab
personnel indicate that performance tests are being performed as
required.
j
-!
c.
Audits
'
No formal quality assurance audit of radiochemistry was performed
since the last Confirmatory Measurements inspection; however, the
i
inspector did examine plans for an audit scheduled for February 27-
'
,through March 10, 1989.
The inspector noted that qualified auditors
and Technical Specialists were to be used and that the planned audit
!
appeared to be reasonably comprehensive.
j
i
d.
Post Accident' Sampling
i
The inspector discussed the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) and
l
examined its operation with the licensee.
The system has en in-line
i
hydrogen analyzer and the capability of obtaining undiluted
reactor coolant from any of five appropriate sample points which
then can be stripped for gas.
The system is tested monthly, when
flow is available, in accordance with Procedure DB-CH-4001, Post
!
Accident Sampling Monthly Test at which time a H-3 sample is
analyzed to verify sample representativeness.
The inspector
observed the performance of this procedure by two Chemistry Testers
and the training of a Chemistry Tester'on this system by the
. Training Supervisor.
Any required liquid or gas dilutions will be
performed in the " hot" portion of the Chemistry Laboratory.
A
separate Emergency Containment Atmosphere Grab Sample system will
be used to collect a containment air particulate, radiciodine or gas
sample.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Environmental Monitoring
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Annual Environmental Operating
Report for 1987.
Results were at or below LLO or the same as previous
years.
All required samples were accounted for.
4
'
--__
__
-
_
- _
- - - - _
- _ _ _
_
~
_ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
- _ _ - _ _
_ _ _
_
_
__
-__ _ _
.
'
.'
-l
.
'-
,.
, ,
.
'No violations or deviations were identified.
"
5.
Open Items
t
Open items.are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
i
on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
Open-items disclosed during
the inspection are discussed in Section 3.
6. .
Exit Meeting
The inspector-met with the licensee representatives denoted in
Section 1.
The scope.of the. inspection and findings were discussed with
emphasis on the capability of the counting system.
'During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely
,
informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents
or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
l.icensee
e
representatives did not identify.any such documents or processes as.
proprietary.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Nonradiological
Interlaboratory Split
Sample Results, June 1988
12.
Attachment 1, Criteria for
Comparing Analytical
Measurements (Nonradiological)
.;
3.
Table 2, Radiological Confirmatory
Measurements Program Results
3rd Quarter 1987
,
4.
Attachment 2, Criteria for
'!
Comparing-Analytical
4
Measurements:(Radiological)
(
5. . Table'3, Radiological Confirmatory
j
Measurements Program Results
'
1st Quarter 1989
i
i
)
5
.
_.
.__--____-_-___________j
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
.
!
..
1
.
t
-
L
)
-
..
[
j
.
t
i
TABLE.1
I
l
Nonradiological Interlaboratory Split Sample Results
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant
I
March 1988
b
Analytical
NRC
Licensee
Ratio
Comparison
a
Analyte
Method
Y i SD-
X i SD
Z i SD
,1 2 SD
Reactor Coolant Water
Concentration, ppb
Fluoride
50.0
0.6
47.8 i 1.4
0.956 i 0.030
A
45.3 1 0.3
52.9 i 0.2
1.168 1 0.009
0*
Sulfate
41.2
0.4
50.0 1 1.6
1.214 i 0.041
D*
!
AAS/FL
490
10
527 i 11
1.076
0.045
A*
d
AAS/FL'
480
10
489 1 0
1.019 i 0.022
A
!
a.
Analytical method:
4
Ion chromatography
AAS/FL
Atomic absorption spectrophotometry / Flame
'
b.
Comparison:
A Agree
O Disagree
c.
- Assumed a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 3% for both the licensee
and BNL results.
4
l
4
1
- _ _ _ _ -
_ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ - -
_
__
-
- - -
. - - - _ - - - - - - - . - - - _ _ _ _ - - . - - _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - - - _ - - - _ _
___
I
'
a
.
.-
. .
,
-
J
i-
'
ATTACHMENT 1
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
f
!
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of the capability tests.
!
1
'The acceptance limits are based on the uncertainty (standard deviation) of the
ratio of the licensee's mean value (X) to the NRC mean value (Y), where
!
,
i
(1) Z = X/Y is the ratio, and
'
(2) S is the uncertainty of the ratio determined from the
)
pfopagationoftheuncertaintiesoflicensee'smeanvalue,
'
S , and of the NRC's mean value, S .1
Thus,
x
y
S2
32
s2
z _ x
y , so that
Tz-
y + y
[S*2
s2D
Y
S
=Z*1
+
(X2
y2)
z
The results are considered to be in agreement when the bias in the ratio
(absolute value of difference between unity and the ratio) is less than or
equal to twice the uncertainty in the ratio, i.e.
l 1-Z l < 2*S 7
1.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
-A Handbook of Radioactivity Measurements Procedures, NCRP
Report No. 58, Second Edition, 1985, Pages 322-326 (see
Page 324).
4/6/87
!
!
!
L
a
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_
1
,.
__
. _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
e
.
3
,
.
TABLE 2
)
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
l
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
i
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PPOGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS BESSE
FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987
NRC-
---
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
'J
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T.
l
l
L WASTE
5.9E-05
1.2E-06
.5.7E-05
0.0E-01
9.6E-01
5.OE 01
A
SR-89
4.5E-04
1.3E-05
5.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.1E 00
3.5E 01
A
2.7E-05-
1.1E-06
2.6E-05
1.0E-06
9.6E-01
2.5E 01
A
5.9E-05
1.2E-06
5.6E-05
4.0E-06
9.6E-01
4.9E 01
A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
-c= CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
l
l
1
!
.
.
-. _ _ _ _
_
_-
i
r ----- --------
--
,
.
i
-
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
)
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
f
,
(
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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison
of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
1
As that ratio,
referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a
.
licensee's measurement should be more selective.
!
should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. Conversely, poorer agri
The values in the
'
ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC
Referene.e Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of
acceptance.
i
!
RESOLUTION
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
5
Agreement
r
j
<4
I
0.4 - 2. s
4-
7
0.5 - 2.0
'
8-
15
0. 6 - 1.66
16 - 50
0.75 - 1.33
'
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
,
200 -
0.85 - 1.18
,
i
i
Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques,
and for some specific nuclides.
criteria and identified on the data sheet.These may be factored into the acceptance
.
I
a
- - - - . - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _
__ _
b
w
.. ,. - ,
.
-
,
.
n
....-- - - - -
.
'
.
,
,
'
TABLE 3
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS-BESSE
FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1989
l.
- - -
-NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESU'T
ERROR
RATIO
T
P FILTER CS-134
3,7E-04
4.OE-05
2.4E-04
0.OE-01
6.4E-01
9.3E 00
A
RC
7.3E-04
4.9E-05
5.0E-04
0.0E-01
6.9E-01
1.5E 01
A
1
2.9E-04
3.1E-05
2.2E-04
0.OE-01
7.7E-01
9.3E 00
A
I-133
2.3E-04
4.7E-05
2.9E-04
0.0E-01
1.3E 00
4.8E 00
A
C FILTER I-131
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
2.1E-03
0.0E-01
8.7E-01
9.2E 00
A
Rc
I-133
1.7E-03
2.2E-04
8.8E-04
0. 0E-0 3.
5.3E-01
7.6E 00
A
P FILTER CS-134
3.7E-04
4.OE-05
2.8E-04
3.OE-05
7.6E-01
9.3E 00
A
,
CHM A
7.3E-04
4.9E-05
6.4E-04
6.5E-05
8.8E-01
1.5E 01
A
!
2.9E-04
3.1E-05
2.5E-04
3.3E-05
8.6E-01
9.3E 00
A
i
I-133
2.3E-04
4.7E-05
3.1E 04
4.3E-05
1.4E 00
4.8E 00
A
I
,
CRUD FIL CR-51
7.1E-02
2.6E-03
6.9E-02
3.9E-03
9.7E-01
2.7E 01
A
R C,
1.1E-03
1.8E-04
8.0E-04
1.1E-04
7.3E-01
6.1E 00
A
7.9E-04
3.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.5E-04
1.4E 00
2.3E 00
A
CO-58
2.0E-01
1.1E-03
1.8E-01. 6.8E-03
9.0E-01
1.9E O2
A
l
1.SE-02
3.8E-04
1.4E-02
5.OE-04
9.1E-01
4.1E 01
A
W-187
3.9E-03
1.2E-Oo
c.7E-03
3.4E-04
9.5E-01
3.4E 00
A
NP-239
3.OE-03
3.OE-04
3.7E-03
6.3E-04
1.2E 00
1.OE 01
A
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
1.9E-03
1.6E-04
7.5E-01
9.2E 00
A
I-133
8.2E-03
4.6E-04
7.9E-03
5.3E-04
9.6E-01
1.8E 01
A
I-135
1.1E-02
1.OE-03
9.5E-03
5.4E-04
8.9E-01
1.0E 01
A
ZR-95
3.2E-03
3.7E-04
2.7E-03
2.OE-04
8.6E-01
8.6E 00
A
ZR-97
2.1E-03
2.4E-04
1.8E-03
1.8E-04
8.7E-01
8.7E 00
A
TE-132
8.7E-04
9.9E-05
6.1E-04
1.3E-04
7.OE-01
8.8E 00
A
P FILTER CS-134
3.7E-04
4.0E-05
2.5E-04
5.1E-04
6.9E-01
9.3E 00
A
CHni
7.3E-04
4.9E-05
5.4E-04
6.5E-05
7.5E-01
1.5E 01
A
2.9E-04
3.1E-05
2.5E-04
3.5E-05
8.6F-01
9.3E 00
A
I-133
2.3E-04
4.7E-05
3.OE-04
4.4E-05
1.3E 00
4.8E 00
A
CRUD FIL CR-51
7.1E-02
2.6E-03
6.9E-02
4.5E-03
9.8E-01
2.7E 01
A
CH M i
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
1
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
___
- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - . -
. _ _
-- ;
,
.,
, .,
.
.
.
-
'
j-
'
'
'
..
.
'
.
.
,
TABLE 3
.U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
l
FACILITY: DAVIS-BESSE
i
FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1989
-NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
!
---
' SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
- ERROR
RATIO
T
-CRUD FIL MN-04
1.1E-03
.1.8E-04
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
0.OE-01
6.1E 00
D
7.9E-04
3.4E-04
1.2E-03
2.5E-04
1.5E 00
2.3E 00
A
CO-58
2.OE-01
1.1E-03
1.9E-01
7.6E-03
9.3E-01
1.9E O2
A
1.5E-02
3.8E-04
1.5E-02
6.4E-04
9.5E-01
4.1E 01
A
W-187
3.9E-03
1.2E-03
4.5E-03
6.7E-04
1.2E 00
3.4E 00
A
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
1.7E-03
2.5E-04
7.OE-01
9.2E 00
A
I-133-
8.2E-03
4.6E-04
7.7E-03
6.3E-04
9.4E-01
1.'8E 01
A
I-135
1.1E-02
1.OE-03
0.OE-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.0E 01-
D
ZR-95
3.2E-03
3.7E-04
2.8E-03
3.2E-04
8.8E-01
8.6E 00
A
ZR-97
2.1E-03
2.4E-04
1.8E-03
2.7E-04
8.6E-01
8.7E 00
A
TE-132
1.3E-03
1.5E-04
1.1E-03
1.6E-04
8.5E-01
8.8E 00
A
C FILTER I-131
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
2.5E-03
3.1E-04
1.0E 00
9.2E 00
A
CHHg .I-133
1.7E-03
2.2E-04
1.2E-03
2.4E-04
6.9E-01
7.6E 00
A
PRIMARY
3.6E-03
7.9E-05
3.5E-03
2.2E-04
9.7E-01
4.5E 01
A
cgs g
I-132-
9.6E-03
1.3E-04
9.1E-03
4.1E-04
1.1E 00
6.5E 01
A
I-133
1.5E-02
9.8E-05
1.5E-02
8.6E-04
1.OE 00
1.5E 02
A
I-135
1.8E-02
3.4E-04
1.8E-02
6.3E-04
9.8E-01
5.3E 01
A
NA-24
1.2E-03
6.7E-05
9.5E-04
1.5E-04
7.9E-01
1.8E 01
A
CS-134
7.1E-04
4.OE-05.
7.'5E-04
7.3E-05
1.1E 00
1.8E 01
A
1.4E-03
5.OE-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-04
9.6E-01
2.8E 01
A
W-187
3.6E-03
2.5E-04
4.4E-03
2.5E-03
1.2E 00
1.5E 01
A
C FILTER I-131
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
2.6E-03
3.3E-04
1.1E 00
9.2E 00
A
j
CWH g
I-133
1.7E-03
2.2E-04
1.2E-03
2.6E-04
7.4E-01
7.6E 00
A
'
CRUD FIL CR-51
7.1E-02
2.6E-03
7.3E-02
2.7E-03
1.OE 00
2.7E 01
A
d4M g
7.9E-04
3.4E-04
1.5E-03
0.OE-01
1.9E 00
2.3E 00
A
l
.CO-58
2.OE-01
1.1E-03
2.OE-01
2.2E-03
9.8E-01
1.9E O2
A
l
1.5E-02
3.8E-04
1.6E-02
4.7E-04
1.OE 00
4.1E 01
A
!
W-187
3.9E-03
1.2E-03
4.7E-03
4.9E-04
1.2E 00
3.4E 00
A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
c= CRITERIA HELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - .
_ _ _
_
w.
. . . . . .
-.-----:----------g-----
g-
-
-- c - - - - . .
.-
.:
- x . mu a.;.
- . ny.= _; a ;-. =;-a-
.
..
..
,.
,
'
~
l
1
TABLE 3
i
U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
4
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS-BESSE
FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1989
NRC-------
'----LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
CRUD FIL I-131
2.5E-03
2.7E-04
2.1E-03
2.2E-04
8.3E-01
9.2E 00
A
I-132
'5.8E-03
9.5E-04
6.3E-03
4.7E-04
1.1E 00
6.1E 00- A
I-133
8.2E-03
4.6E-04
8.7E-03
4.5E-04
1.OE 00
1.8E-01
A
I-135
1.1E-02
1.OE-03
1.1E-02
7.8E-04
1.OE 00
1.OE 01
A
ZR-95
3.2E-03
3.7E-04
2.3E-03
3.5E-04
7.3E-01
8.6E 00
A-
ZR-97
2.1E-03 -2.4E-04
1.9E-03
2.6E-04
8.9E-01
8.7E 00
A
-TE-132
1.3E-03
1.'5E-04
1.OE-03
1.4E-04
7.7E-01
8.8E 00
A
L' WASTE- MN-54
4.3E-06
1'.OE-06
3.6E-06
3.7E-07
8.3E-01
4.2E 00
A
CO-58
2.3E-05
9.2E-07
2.3E-05
1.2E-06
1.OE 00
2.5E 01
A
CHH l
-6.4E-05
1.4E-06
6.6E-05
2.1E-06
1.OE 00
4.6E 01
A
AG-110M 5.7E-05
1.4E-06
5.2E-05
1.OE-06
9.2E-01
4.1E 01
A
1.8E-04
2.2E-06
1.7E-04
5.8E-06
9.9E-01
8..E 01
A
O
CS-134
2.2E-04
'2.2E-06
2.1E-04
4.4E-06
9.4E-01
1.OE O2
A
CS-136
1.7E-05
9.9E-07
1.3E-05
4.7E-07
7.8E-01
1.7E 01
A
4.6E-04
2.8E-06
4.6E-04
2.2E-05
9.9E-01
1.6E O2
A
PRIMARY. -I-131
3.6E-03
7.9E-05
3.6E-03
2.3E-04
1.OE 00
4.5E 01
A
g e;
I-132
8.6E-03
1.6E-04
8.1E-03
3.8E-04
9.4E-01
6.5E 01
A
I-133
1.5E-02
9.8E-05
1.3E-02
7.6E-04
9.1E-01
1.5E O2
A
I-135
1.8E-02
3.4E-04
1.6E-02
5.9E-04
9.2E-01
5.~3E 01
A
NA-24
1.2E-03
6.7E-05
7.9E-04
1.4E-04
6.5E-01
1.8E 01
D
CS-134
7.1E-04
4.OE-05
6.5E-04
6.4E-05
9.3E-01
1.8E 01
A
1.4E-03
5.OE-05
1.5E-03
1.4E-04
1.OE 00
2.8E 01
A
W-187
3.6E-03
2.5E-04
3.7E-03
2.6E-04
1.OE 00
1.5E 01
A
OFF GAS
KR-85M
2.7E-05
3.2E-06
2.7E-05
3.7E-06
9.9E-01
8.7E 00
A
XE-131M 3.1E-04
5.5E-05
2.2E-04
5.6E-05
7.3E-01
5.6E 00
A
.c gg g
2.1E-02
5.OE-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
8.6E-01
4.2E O2
A
XE-133M 2.3E-04
1.7E-05
2.1E-04
2.5E-05
9.1E-01
1.4E 01
A
XE-135
5.5E-04
6.4E-06
5.4E-04
3.2E-05
9.8E-01
8.5E 01
A
C WASTE
4.3E-06
1.OE-06
3.2E-06
3.1E-07
7.4E-01
4.2E 00
A
T TEST RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
'D= DISAGREEMENT
- =CRfTERIA RELAXED
N=NO' COMPARISON
3
- _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _
gr.w=- w=---
= n-==a ma g - xww.
a <
v=.
- .
. . 7-m .a - ~
.
.c =
.w - . = - , . . - , -
- - - -
.
e,-..
...
. . .
.-
u
,,
,
.
(
,
TABLE 3
-U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
OFFICE 0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
. CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS-BESSE
t
FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1989
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
'---LICENSEE:NRC----
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T-
L' WASTE
CO-58
2.3E-05
9.2E-07
2.5E-05
6.4E-07
'1.1E 00
2.5E 01.
A
cgg A
6.4E-05
1.4E-06
6.8E-05
8.6E-07
1.1E 00
4.6E 01
A-
AG-110M 5.7E-05
1.4E-06
5.5E-05
5.6E-07
9.6E-01 -4.1E 01
A
1.8E-04
2.2E-06
1.8E-04
1.7E-06
1.OE 00
.Gl.OE 01
A-
CS-134
2.2E-04
2.2E-06
2.1E-04
1.4E-06
9.8E-01
1.OE O2
A
'CS-136
1.7E-05
9.9E-07
1.3E-05
3.3E-07
7.8E-01
1.7E 01
-A
4.6E-04
2.8E-06
4.7E-04
4.1E-06
1.OE 00
1.6E O2
A
T: TEST RESULTS:
s A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT.
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
l
l
!
I'
!
!
4
l
l
L_i____
_._ _
_________ _
'
=
., .
-
.
.
. -
.
.
. . - . ~ . _ , . . . _ . . -
__
.
,
.
'
,
,
.
.
Y
.
TABLE 3
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
-
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: DAVIS BESSE
FOR THE 1 QUARTER OF 1989
I'
i
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEE:NRC----
' SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
OFF GAS
KR-85M
2.7E-05
3.2E-06
2.4E-05
3.9E-06
8.7E-01
8.7E 00
A
c y pr.;
XE-131M 3.1E-04
5.5E-05
2.7E-04
7.1E-05
8.7E-01
5.6E 00
A
2.1E-02
5.OE-05
1.7E-02
1.7E-03
8.0E-01
4.2E 02
D
!
XE-133M 2.3E-04
1.7E-05
1.9E-04
2.5E-05
8.1E-01
1.4E 01
A
XE-135
5.5E-04
6.4E-06
5.2E-04
3.2E-05
9.4E-01
8.5E 01
A
l
L WASTE
4.3E-06
1.0E-06
3.4E-06
3.2E-07
7.8E-01
4.2E 00
A
Rc
CO-58
2.3E-05 .9.2E-07
2.5E-05
1.2E-06
1.1E 00
2.5E 01
A
6.4E-05
1.4E-06
6.8E-05
2.1E-06
1.1E 00
4.6E 01
A
AG-110M 5.7E-05
1.4E-06
5.3E-05
1.0E-06
9.3E-01
4.1E 01
A
1.8E-04
2.2E-06
1.8E-04
5.7E-06
1.0E 00
8.0E 01
A
CS-134
2.2E-04
2.2E-06
2.1E-04
4.4E-06
9.8E-01
1.0E 02 .A
CS-136
1.7E-05
9.9E-07
1.3E-05
4.5E-07
7.9E-01
1.7E 01
A
4.6E-04
2.8E-06
4.7E-04
2.3E-05
1.0E 00
1.6E 02- A
T TEST'RESULTS:
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
NANO COMPARISON
\\
l
l
l
5
1
!
- -
-
- - -
-
-. - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - -
__
j