IR 05000334/1983030

Ack Receipt of 861126 Ltr Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Unresolved Item 50-334/83-30-05 Noted in Insp Rept 50-334/86-25

ML20212B681
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	12/19/1986
From:	Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8612290293
Download: ML20212B681 (2)

Text

.

.

DEC 191986 Docket N Duquesne Light Company ATTN: - Mr. J. D. Sieber Vice President Nuclear Group

. Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Gentlemen:

Subject: Inspection 50-334/86-25 This refers to your letter dated November 26, 1986 in response to Inspection No. 86-25 and unresolved item 50-334/83-30-05 Thank you for informing us of the clarifications documented in your lette This matter will be examined during a future inspection of your licensed pro-gram Your cooperation with us is appreciate

Sincerely, OrislD81 Whmas T. Martin, Direct r ivision of Radiation Safety and Safeguards cc:

H. M. Siegel, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department C. E. Ewing, QA Manager W. S. Lacey, Plant Manager R. Druga, Manager, Technical Services R. Martin, Nuclear Engineering J. Sieber, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing T. D. Jones, General Manager, Nuclear Operations N. R. Tonet, Manager, Nuclear Engineering & Construction Unit Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hh a

50 4 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RL BV - 0001. {\ I 12/17/86

[

-=y-y- ,r-. wv ' -~ - - - - + - ' - " - - ' y c~ e'h -- w-* + " - -----w * " - e ~ - ---"+-+ * + 7---*' W-*-+ -"""-T ==-'T --mg

.

Duquesne L1ght-Company 2 q

bec:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)

Section Chief, ORP M. McBride, RI, Pilgrim G. Walton, SRI, BV-2 P. Tam, LPM, NRR Robert J. Bores, DRSS n

DRSS RI:DRSS RI:DRSS McFadden/ejr Bellamy Shanbap6 12//6'/86 12//[/86 12/\ /86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL BV - 0002. /17/86

.

. o 22I IIC.

-

'Af Telephone (412) 393-6000 Nuclear Group NppYgp' ort.PA 150774004 ' November 26, 1986 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attn: Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Reference: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 Unresolved Item 83-30-05 Radiation Monitor Study Particle Distribution Evaluation, June 1986 Gentlemen:

During the period of inspection BV-1-86-25, your Messrs. McFadden and LeQuia discussed, with members of my staff, some aspects of our response related to unresolved item 83-30-05. The unresolved item questioned the ability of the radiation monitoring system to collect representative sample Although the information in our report supports our conclusion that our monitoring capabilities and compensatory actions already inplace address the possible underestimation of effluent releases, the stated conclusion in the submittal cover letter contained an error, which in turn, appeared to negate our conclusio This letter draws upon information in the report and clarifies our positio As we noted in our prior responses on this item, our practice has been to add a level of conservatism to our effluent calculations by halving the actual monitor sample flow. This flow value is in the denominator and results in a factor of 2 (100%) increase estimated release activity and offsite dose. Also, we use design system flow rates in lieu of lower actual flow rates which results in additional ,

conservatis In our submittal cover letter we had erroneously concluded that )

this 100% increase would compensate for the observed worst case bias of -87% (by volume). If the particle measurement was low by -87%, it would take a correction factor of 7.7 to compensate, and not a factor ,

of 2 as our existing procedures provide. While this would seem to l

'

support the NRC concern that we are underestimating the particulate contribution to effluent release rates, we conclude that there are sufficient data in the body of our report to show with reasonable assurance that effluent release activities have not and are not being underestimate % I.A l7005 ,

,

.. .

'

B'nv;r e Vollcy Power Staticn, Unit No. 1

,-

Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 Unresolved Item 83-30-05 l Radiation Monitor Study Particle Distribution Evaluation, June 1986 Page 2 ,

The sample line efficiencies listed in the conclusion section of i the referenced report are worst case observations based on particles  ;

found per electron microscope frame and on concentrations detarmined by the area under the normalized distribution curves. These data are provided on page 83 of our report, ,

These data indicates that the bias between monitors varies widely '

between number, surface area and volum This is because for an equal amount of 1pM-10pM particles, their respective ratios are:

1/1 on a number basis, 1/100 on a surface area basis, and 1/1000 on a volume basi If only particle number distributions are used, then the conclusions could be grossly misleadin Assuming that the !

density of the sample is the same, then the volume concentration would be equivalent to mass concentratio The response of the radiation monitor to particulate activity deposited on filter paper i is best represented by the mass concentratio '

As we noted in the report, the statistical quality of the 1984 particulate study results were affected by the very low particulate radioactivity presen This was the reason for having the electron microscope particle study performe However, as we have noted in the report, the data is affected by statistical considerations related to the number of samples and the requisite sampling condition An increased number of samples would reduce the error term associated with each mean ratio, and we believe, the mean ratio cs wel We call your attention to Figures 8-13 (pages 72-77) of our report which present the average bias for the sampling combination While these figures show some negative bias as expected, it must be recognized that these regions of negative bias fall primarily outside -

of the 0. lpm -

10WM particle size range supported by the particle oize distribution results (Figures 14, 15; pages 79, 80).

Qualitatively integrating the particle size distribution on the cpecial isokinetic sample rig with the average bias shown on Figures 8-13 leads us to conclude that it is likely that our effluent measurement program overestimates rather than underestimates particulate radioactivity, and that our present effluent analysis correction factors provide additional assurance to this effec ,

.. - .-

- . }

.

BeCvar VallOy Power Station, Unit No. 1

Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 Unresolved Item 83-30-05 Radiation Monitor Study Particle Distribution Evaluation, June 1986 Page 3 while additional sampling and analysis could be performed to reduce the analysis errors associated with the current results, we do not believe that additional data thus gained would significantly cffect our conclusion. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by confusion over our submittal cover lette Attached are revised ccrrected pages for insertion in our June, 1986 Particle Distribution Evaluatio Please contact my office if there are additional questions regarding this issu .

.

Very truly yours,

• I . D. Sieber Vice President l Nuclear Operations

,

cc

Mr. W. M. Troskoski, Resident Inspector i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{ Beaver Valley Power Station i Shippingport, PA 15077

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i c/o Document Management Branch Washington, DC 20555 Director, Safety Evaluation & Control Virginia Electric & Power Ccmpany P.O. Box 26666 One James River Plaza Richmond, VA 23261

.

I i

i

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

. , , . . .

_ _ _

=

. .

'

Beav0r Vollcy Power Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 Unresolved Item 83-30-05 Particulate Distribution Evaluation, June 1986 Revised Pages, November 1986 Pages:

Remove Insert Description of Change iv iv The last paragraph of the abstract was revised to remove the reference to correction factors below 100%.

12 12 A typographical error was corrected in Table 1 "8/13/85 SLCRS Samples Particle Size Distribution". The SPING Volume % Bias From Test should have been "+116%" and not

"+1516%".

71 71 The percent bias from the test equipment for all monitors was about -50% instead of always within -100%.

72-77 72-77 The horizontal axis scales in Figures 8 through 13 were clarified to indicate that the data was converted to Log prior to plottin The IWM to 10pM area was highlighted along with correction factors assumed in the effluent release calculations. The data remains unchanged.

,

83 83 The Gaceous Waste worst cacc % bias from the

'

test for the SPING-4 on a volume basis was revised from -59% to -87%. This agrees with the 11/25/85 Sample Data on pages 50 and 60.

84 84 Previous correction factors assumed in effluent release calculations were revised as follows:

Ventilation Vent: The 100% was corrected to 1 -50%.

SLCRS: The 170% was corrected to -63%.

Gaseous Waste: The 150% was corrected to j -60%.

i

.

- _ - _ _-. _ . _ , _ _ ~ , _ . _ _ _ _ ._,,,_,___,,_-___..__,_-., _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ , , . _ , , , _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ , . , . . . . _

_ _ _

' '

. Unresolved Item 83-30-05 Particle Distributicn Report

- .

Abstract Nuclepore Membrane Filter Samples were obtained from the Eber11ne SA 9/10 and SPING 4 monitors and compared with special test equipmen Samples were obtained on August 13, 1985, November 25, 1985 and March 11, 1986, from the air effluent release system Each sample was electron microscope analyzed by Mellon Institute to determine effluent particle distributions and key element constituent Particle average diameters, surface areas and volumes were determined over various range Statistical comparisons were made between the monitors and effluent system A majority of the particles collected consisted of silicates and sulfate A few iron (or rust) particles were also detected. Most particles were within a 0.1pH to 10pM rang While particle plateout was the major purpose of this study, other particle behavior characteristics were also evident. They include:

1) particle agglomeration or the coagulation of smaller particles to form larger ones; 2) particle splitting or fracturing upon impact with the sample line interior walls; 3) re-suspension of large particles in sample line It is likely that our effluent measurement program overestimates rather than underestimates particulate radioactivity, and that our present effluent analysis correction factors provide additional assurance to this effec Correction factors were also calculated using the guidelines in Appendix B of ANSI N13.1-1969 and found to be minima iv-

. .

TABLE NO. 1 8/13/85 SLCRS Sampica P;rticio Size bictribution ,

.

Diameter (uM) Surface Area (uM2) Volume (uM3)

Range - Numbe r o f Pa rt ic l e s Range Number of Pa rticles Range Number of Particles fuM1 SPING SA 9/10 Test fuM21 SPING SA 9/10 Test fuM31 SPING SA 9/10 Test 0 - .063 0 0 0 0 .01 0 0 0 0 .0001 0 0 0

.063 .1 5 2 15 .01 .016 1 0 0 .0001 .00022 7 1 19

.1 .16 36 58 130 .016 .025 7 1 22 .00022 .00046 24 27 60

.16 .25 101 119 245 .025 .040 20 21 59 .00046 .001 38 71 148

.25 .40 214 203 500 .040 .063 32 64 103 .001 .0022 58 59 129 40 .63 349 292 506 .063 .10 52 60 154 .0022 .0046 114 102 230

.63 - .10 .16 90 94 185 .0046 .010 79 87 182 .6 393 153 51 16 .25 92 80 212 .010 .022 157 96 219 .5 142 27 30 .25 .40 130 100 211 .022 .046 175 148 264 .0 26 1 11 .40 .63 151 128 244 .046 .1 256 186 227 .3 4 0 2 .63 - .1 -

.22 275 154 161 .6 260 164 171 .22 .46 219 118 58 .5 197 110 79 .46 - .5 - .0 - .0 - .2 - .3 - 10 89 20 13 to 1 8 22 - 46 5 0 1 25 - 40 3 0 6 40 - 63 5 0 1 0 Smallest: .0659 .0879 .0879 .0149 .0219 .0172 .000133

.450

.0002 .000156

.193 y Ave ra ge: .869 .631 .490 2.34 1.25 .949 167 Std.Dev.: 1 569 1 392 1 401 1 .72 12.83 11.77 1 415 11.21 Median: .761 .551 .397 1.20 .689 .353 .928 .043 .016 La rge st : .64 4.22 5 .9 4 .6 6.47 2 pode: .815 .815 .515 1.30 1.30 .515 160 .073 .034 Total Total Pa rt ic le Total Pa rt ic l e s Surface Pa rt ic l e s Analyzed: 1748 1148 1760 Area : 4090 1435 1670 Volume: 787 192 340 Pa rt ic l e Surface Pa rt ic l e og e A res Volup9 # p Particles F rame*/C F .2 70 .6 F rare */CFM: 112 .8 49 Fram(+/CFM: 21 .5 100 *m 22

% Bias (-7%)  % Blas +128% +80% % Blas +116% +18% 0 O from Test:

+37%

F rom Test: F rom Test: e7l N

m O n

'1 e

;8

• 1 Electron Microscope frame " picture" is equal to 6.42 E-5 cm2 gg P'-

O w D C JD

.

• *b .

O N

_ _ _ -

.

' '

. Unrassived Itea 83-30-05 Particle Distribution Repsrt

.

G. Analytical Discussion of Data A statistical evaluation of the sample data was also performed using the volume data. The volume range was first calculated for each sample and monitor:

1(S,R,M) Where S = Sample number R = Range of Volume M = Monitor The difference between the monitors was calculated as follows:

D(S,R,1-2) = [V(S,R,1) - V(S,R,2)] / V(S,R,2)

D(S,R,1-3) = [V(S,R,1) - V(S,R,3)] / V(S,R,3)

D(S,R,n-m) = [V(S,R,m) - V(S,R,m)] / V(S,R,m)

where n = monitor n m = monitor m The average difference was calculated as follows:

y = Avg. = I D(S,R,M)

No. of Samples The error was calculated as follows:

ERR (R,M) =p/(D(S R,1) - Avg)2 + (D(S,R,2) - Avg)2 = (D(S,R,m) - Avg)2 No. of Samples The mean (p) and the error for each volume range was calculated for each monitor and plotted in Figures 8 thru 13. The curve profiles are indicative of submicron particle agglomerating to form larger particles and the splitting of larger particles. The percent bias from the test equipment for all monitors was about -50% considering a 1 standard deviation erro ,

l

. , , ._ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .

.- _ .. .

I

,

. .

i FIGURE 8 i

SLCRS SPING 4 VS TEST I % BIAS 700%

.

l 1 j AVERAE BIAS 600% -

y

_ 's + +1 Std Dev s

; 6 -1 Std Dev i k

;i .

J00% - l,i .(. ,.-e

,

'

i1 ,

> .

.: ,

-

4 +

l 400% ~  ? '.{

a#

+.

-f t i 3 .:.. . V

' c i ? 'Q 4 300% - ,' s .Ri +.li "P

? .: i?

si C I i M  ?!, R o

'f .. ja' . ,JJ,..',,.':. .

.

i ,

-

' $.

.

e a

-

o 200% ~ 4 n,alkT[;f;<

.

3'

i i

4 *f,f"h$['k,'.'.,

. y , j s. <idi ,

,

e

l 100% ~ .

.

g

.

O. ) .P $%

'.$/'S . ,' '

r- ?'...

.

e

'i

+ + '

- -

'

. . .

j g I

.

_N -.y t- . -

.

a g---

.. . - - . - - - . .

I o O O e-100% - 6 2

! W F

O I

F

.I I I I I g

.0001 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 l g

-

-

,

! *

l VOLUME (uM3)

l

NOTE: DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN ....... .c o u . . .. . .. .v c . . c. u s . . . . . . .

l 1- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _

. _ _ . . _ __

.

.

.

SLCRS SA 9/10 VS TEST

'

% BIAS 700%

'

AVERAGE BIAS i e005-

-

F +1 Std Dev I <

> -1 Std Dev i

5005 -

i

!

'l i 400%~ '. . ,

!

'

Y!;k' e 3005 - ; 1 a I

i 4 f I I, 3 o

. , '. '

ff s.f, . ' ,

m- + e ,; . g

>

,

,> * *

, f ' j' > e F ,y,',ip;;

j -)' S

!

100% - ,

. 'j ,

3,

!

+

+ .; - g, pA ta i

~9- u cj., .; '

4 9

og . . r

,

e

'

. . . 6 A-- #-- - -- - '

-63% -

- - - - - - - -

P

-,005 - . . . . . g O

F

1 1 i I I I

{

l .0001 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100  !

(m VOLUh4E (uM3) 0 '

&

NOTE: DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN l 89-e s99 MamCULENE. A40 SMITM CO.. PGM., P4 LT3998-9st

__ _

. .

FIGURE 10 i

.

'

VENTLATION VENT SPNG-4 VS SLCRS TEST ,

i % BIAS 300%

,i AVERAGE BIAS 4- +1 Std Dev i

! o -1 Std Dev

'

+

200% ~

i

!

+ *

! j"

'

'O' . .*

,

100% - '

"'

_;. .i . $. ;l ;-

!

\

'

' q.j :. c R

I 4 I* -93. t

y , . ::.6 ts,' ,

.

o

' * #  : -- l l !

0% -: 4 N - .. l + 9 h-' "

.

p j s

l-s0s _ ___ + _ _ + _, _________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

4 o 9 o * * O O

_ , -

"

F

F I

'

I I i i l I g

.0001 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 l

"

VOLUME (uM3)

l NOTE: DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN l

!

OS-ISSS MElBCULEseE. A&S SaSITH CO.. PGN.. PA LT3SSS SSS

1

-_

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

_

. - .

i l

FIGURE 11 .

i I

! VENTLATION VENT SA 9/.10 VS SLCRS TEST

% BIAS 300%

AVERAGE BIAS

+ +1 Std Dev i o -1 Std Dev t

l 200% - .g.

!

h, l

i . t. '

!

+ t!

! 10G% - I

+ '

+ c l

.

, .la

+ ~

ps~ . . M'e ' v Q T '(, ')?).. S

+

.

If?.$*.Y:

E,N.h(~,~ ^ 'K. ' ,k t

' '

o ~

j

'

. , + . , 5: , ' ' J% , , , I.

j 0% - .

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

,

o , , , , ,

. 4

• ' ,N,s.S, M I

- - -- N- -

-50% - ---------------- - - - - - - - - - -- -----

. + h i .

~

o *

,

-100% ,

. e

, 2 J K J

F O

F I I I I

.0001 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 l g

{ 2 VOLUME (uM3)

l NOTE: DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN !

I so.siss nuncutans. aae easivw co., row.. ra LTaoss-ses

_ _- ___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

._ . . _ _ _ __ - . _ _ _

-

. .

,

.

,

-

FIGURE 12 .

l

,

GASEOUS WASTE SPW4G-4 VS SLCRS TEST

% BIAS 1000% ,i e005 - AVERAGE BIAS

,

i I

. 800% -

+ +1 Std Dev

! , -1 Std Dev { i P*%,

, * . ,-

-

700% \ f' M if;'

.a[.

Si

.

.

.

600%~ yJ .

y. ...,-,

I d - I' .t .

500% - ,fl,l . ;i :.ffd ,N i

a

[ '

r: c f. ' V '1 R

400% '

.

5:-' 'N

,

.'['$

sy y . ;;

9 b. lh- lz i

300%~

f'))f

.- 5,, s

'y.fgg' [ + $.

i.v. o I

' *

~' G5fa i !i> )

. . .' , ,k O I Nf ,

l l 200% ~ 4 .a .: 8

? -? y i

_t*

.x.Y,1f:-:*U 't

.. .y;j;: "gl$h'. ..:

g f

100% ~ .

,

og _ _ . 1 + -

r _________

> . / . .

(g l _ __ ______ _ , _ . ___,__m ,

o * O o @

! _ioos - o .

'

,

"

.

-200% I I l I l I E

'. .0001 .001 .01 .1 1 to 100 l g i

-

a I

3 '

l VOLUME (uM3) 3 I

j NOTE: DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN !

l ....... - cut. .. ... .v c. . .. on.......

l

- _ _ - _ _ _ - .

. ..

.

FIGURE 13 .

GASEOUS WASTE SA 9/10 VS SLCRS TEST I

% BIAS 1000%

AVERAGE BIAS 900s - -F +1 Std Dev

> -1 Std Dev

,

.

I 700s -

l a00s -

s00s -

f

+ 2 a- &

4 i MA 7 1

=

' s

+ 2;I, % $

.:. 't.,.q , +

m- -

,

.w h I 1 l

+ * *

,

[b ' }: , , .

'

}y

'

$ : _ '_ _' _ _ _ _ _7 _ y _. e. _ _ _W___ .

o *

• Al ( _ _* _ *_o _ to -_

o 0 # o l -100s "" F W

i I I I I

!

{

.0001 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 {

,

VOLUME (uM3) g NOTE: ' DATA IS CONVERTED TO LOG PRIOR TO PLOTTIN !

...........................m.......

. _ _ __ _____ - __ _ __ .

, . .

- -

Unrasolved Itea 83-30-05 Particle Distributien Raport

.

H. Conclusion (cont.)

Compared with the test equipment, worst case percent bias for the SA 9/10 and SPING-4 was as follows:

Worst Case % Bias from the Test SA 9/10 SPING-4 Surface Surface Number Area Volume Number Area Volume SLCRS: -21 -48% -63% - 7% -38% -46%

Ventilation Vent: -77% -70% -61% -10% -45% -47%

Gaseous Waste: -95% -91% -87% -93% -68% -87% l The Victoreen monitors have sample line configurations very similar to the SPING-4 monitors. From our earlier report, the Victoreen Cs-137 and Co-60 activities were higher than the other two monitors. The SPING-4 Cs-137 and Co-60 activities were also a little higher than the SA 9/10 activities previously reporte Therefore, the Victoreen monitor correction factor should be no worse tha, the SPING-4 correction facto Based on ANSI N13.1-1969 calculations, plateout corrections factors would be negligible. Sample line loses were calculated to be minimal mainly because the effluent streamcontains small particles which travel through sample lines in a turbulent environment at high average velocitie At Beaver Valley, effluent releases are conservatively calculated to account for sample line-loss. Another licensee has performed studies on line-loss and have arrived at correction factors from 50% to 99%(7).

Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 3/4.11, Table 4.11-2, notation f (applicable to continuous sampling on the ventilation systems) states,

"The average ratio of the sample flow rate to the sampled stream flow rate shall be known for the time period covered by each dose or dose rate calculation made in accordance with Specifications 3.11.2.1, 3.11.2.2, and 3.11.2.3".

Sample flow rates are averaged on a weekly basis and recorded on RCM Form 2.29 which documents iodine, particulates, and noble gas sampling and analyse The effluent stack flow rates are recorded each shift in the

" Radiological Control Shift Information Log". Average ratios of the two streams for each effluent path GW-108, VS-101 and VS-107 are known but are not used for monthly dose or dose rate calculations made on continuous release system permit Instead of using the average ratio of the sample flow to the stack flow required, for the implied purpose of determining doses or dose rates based on representative samples, maximum stack flow rates listed in ODCM Section 2.1 are used. These discharge rates result in conservatively over estimated doses and dose rates but all doses and dose rates are far below Technical Specification limit .

.

' '

- -

Unresolved Item 83-30-05 Particle Distribution R; port e

H. Conclusion (cont.)

In the past, the actual ratio of these two averages was not used for dose and dose rate determinatio Previous correction factors used are described in the calculation below:

ODCM Values + Average System Flows = Conservative Factors Stack Flow , 62,000 cfm + =62,000 cfm = =2 or -50% (Ventilation Vent)

Sample Flow I cfm = 2 cfm Stack Flow = 49,300 cfm + =36,000 cfm = =2.7 or -63% (SLCRS)

Sample Flow I cfm = 2 cfm Stack Flow 1,200 cfm + =_ 950 cfm = =2.5 or -60% (Gaseous Waste)

Sample Flow, I cfm = 2 cfm This method of estimation was done intentionally when the hand calculation procedures for gaseous doses and dose rates were prepared. These procedures were prepared during the last calendar quarter of 1983, ie., after the NRC inspectio In conclusion, the correction factors determined in this report are all within the conservative calculational factors used for effluent release data, g

i-84-

. _ __ _ _ - _ _