IR 05000373/1989013

Insp Repts 50-373/89-13 & 50-374/89-13 on 890522-26.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Confirmatory Measurements Including Review of Action Taken on Open Item (92701)

ML20245B519
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	06/16/1989
From:	Bocanegra R, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245B511	List: IR 05000373/1989013 ML20245B508
References
50-373-89-13, 50-374-89-13, NUDOCS 8906230207
Download: ML20245B519 (11)

Text

y .. gm ,-

- - - - - - - -

}M :f * *' '

" +

'

)

+4 ,

,

.- ,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'

'

'

l REGION III

!. Reports .No'..~50-373/89013(DRSS);.50-374/89013(DRSS)

y Docket Nos.50-373;'50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 DLicensee: Commonwealth Edison Compan ~

-Post Office Box 767 4

<

Chicago, IL. 60690-

,

Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2

. l Inspection At: LaSalle' County Station Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: May 22-26, 1989 Inspectors: . nus a

• -//< r /6 - 69

.

.Date o e a &/6-89 Date-s . Approved By:

Wu h M. Schumac er, Chief 4 ~/4-89 Radiological Controls Date and Chemistry Section

't Inspection' Summary

' Inspection on May 22-26, 1989 (Reports No. 50-373/89013(DRSS);

.No. 50-374/89013(DRSS))

-Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of confirmatory measurements

. including review of action taken on an open. item (92701), quality assurance, confirmatory measurements for in plant radiochemical analysis, plant chemistry organization, management controls, post accident sampling, and audits

'

(IP 84750 and IP 84725). ,

Results: Confirmatory measurements results were good. Laboratory and counting room quality assurance was good. Disagreements on comparisons of a solit l

!

sample (beta analysis) appear to reflect a quality assurance weakness for

. vendor' laboratory services. Licensee auditors appear to be well qualified to perform chemistry related auMt No violations or deviations were identified during this inspectio ;

8906230207 890616 PDR ADOCK 05000373 Q PDC g a . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . i

_

,

1, m

.. .-  ;

l DETAILS i i

1. Persons Contacted I 2G. Diederich,. Station Manager 2P. Nottingham, Chemistry Supervisor  !

2L. Aldrich, Staff J. Terrones, Chemistry Department E. j

,

2J. Schuster, Chemist K. Kociuba, Q. A. Inspector W. Betourne, Station Q. A. Manager R. Kohlman, Chemist R. Sayers, Laboratory Foreman C. Kalotz, GSEP Coordinator R. Williams, Corporate Off-site Audit Coordinator 2W. Huntington, Technical Superintendent 2J. Renwick, Production Superintendent'

2R. Kopriva, NRC Resident Inspector 2Denoter, those present at the exit meetin . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)

(Closed) Open Item (373/87031-01; 374/87031-01): Analyze liquid sample for gross beta, tritium, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55 and report results to Region III. The results of a dilute l> nit-1 reactor water sample analyzed for beta emitters are. contained in Table 1; the criteria for comparing analytical results are contained in Attachment 1. The results show agreements for gross beta and Sr-89 and disagreements for Fe-55 and H- Sr-90 was not compared because of the low concentration and poor statistic The strontium values were below the required lower limit of detectio Because of the disagreements, the licensee was supplied an unknown liquid sample for analysis, the results of which are also contained in Table There was an improvement in H-3, however, Fe-55, and Sr-89 became disagreements and the Sr-90, nui. compared before, is now a disagreemen See Section 4 for further discussio . Organization (IP 84750)

Effective May 22, 1989, the Rad / Chem Department underwent a reorganizatio The Rad / Chem Supervisor position has been repieced by Health Physics Supervisor and Chemistry Supervisor positions. The former Lea.1 Chemist is now the Chemistry Supervisor and the former Lead Health Physicist became the Health Physicist Supervisor, both report to the Technical Superintenden The former Rad / Chem Supervisor continues to report to the I Technical Superintendent and is currently assigned to short-term project )

)

e

_ __- -.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

, ,

1. E

'y *

'

,

[4 g e

, <

N L4.- [ Confirmatory Measurements (IP 84750 and'IP 84725)

' Quality As'surance-il ~The inspectors reviewed the radioactivity measurements laboratory

• , quality assurance -program including the physical facilities, laboratory. operations, and procedures. Pertinent laboratory and i counting room operating procedures were reviewed for technical content. ' Procedures reviewed. included " Calibration and Performance

,

-Test of the Ortec Gamma Spectrometer System Using AAIS Software"-

"

-(LCP-810-3), " Calibration and Performance Test of the Nuclear Data ND66-XP Gamma Spectrometer System" (LCP-810-25), " Calibration and

. Performance Test of the Packard Tri-Carb Liquid Scintillation Counter, Model 460C":(LCP-810-12), " Calibration and Performance Test of the Canberra Alpha / Beta Proportional Counter, 2201(s)" (LCP-810-11),

and the Nuclear Operations Chemistry Quality Control Program Manua Th. inspectors also reviewed. quality control (QC) records and related supporting documentation. Documents inspected included germanium detector calibrations results, and efficiency curves. The inspectors reviewed a sampling' of calibration records for geometries being used for radiological effluent gamma analyses and found them to be curren The licensee receives quarterly radiological standards traceable to NIST and uses'these standards to check detector calibration. Daily-QC charts for.the germanium detectors were inspected. Chemistry-

-

personnel were observed and evaluated on sample acquisition and F

preparation, and general laboratory practices. No improper actions-or practices'were noted.

i

' As discussed in Section 2, the licensee's vendor laboratory for beta analysis has problems accurately quantifying beta radioactivity.

L

'

These problems bring into question the adequacy of the vendor's quality controls. The licensee has agreed to implement a program to monitor the quality of their vendor laboratory services. (0 pen Item 50-373/89013-01) Sample Split Five samples (spiked charcoal filter, reactor coolant, crud, liquid waste, and gas) were analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory on sit Comparisons were made on the licensee's counting room detectors and the Post Accident Radionuclides Accident Portable System (PARAPS). The licensee achieved 71 agreements in 76 comparisons as listed in Table 2.

L The inspectors analyzed a stack air particulate sample which yielded no nuclides and were unable to analyze the licensee's charcoal adsorber because of geometry differences. A reactor coolant filter

-

______ _ _ _ _

j

y a; - - - - - - - - '

- - - - - - - - - - -

3,, -

,

%",,

';.. y a

' ' <

-(CRUD) was substituted for the air particulate. filter, and the licensee

"'*> 1 analyzed'an unused charcoal adsorber standard as an unknown and

'

compared the results-against the source certificate values. No stack gas.' activity was present and two attempts to simulate a stack

'

L

,

. gas effluent failed; this pathway will be. examined during a future

' inspection. All agreements were obtained for the liquid waste :

sample and the' charcoal adsorber standar Since the prev.ious sample analysis for beta emitters (See Section 2),

'

, the licensee has changed analytical, contractors. A portion of the liquid' sample split during this inspection and 'a spike will be analyzed by the new contractor and the results sent to Region II (0 pen Item 50-373/89013-02)

, i The licensee failed to. identify Ba-139 on both' analyses of a reactor y coolant sample (RCS) and' failed to correctly quantify I-134 on the second pr_imary analysis. Although the Ba-139 peak was not initially identified, the licensee' changed the sensitivity of.the PARAPS. system and.was then able to detect the peak. I-134- has a peak at 647 key

,

which interferes .with Mn-56, and the manner in which activity is assigned to each nuclide from this-common peak may have contributed-to this disagreement. The. inspector verified that RCS activity is reported by using the best value from at least'four decay count n-65.was not identified on the. initial CRUD filter analysis and NB-95 was not identified on the second CRUD filter analysis. No explanation for these disagreements are obvicus. It is possible that the presence of a Co-60 peak may have masked the Zn. peak which caused rejection by the system. The licensee agreed to examine the RCS and CRUD geometries for adequate count time,. larger geometries,

' increased sensitivity, etc. by September 1, 1989, and report their findings and solution to Region II (0 pen Item 50-373/89013-03)' Audits The licensee performs annual audits of the chemistry departmen Numerous surveillance are also performed throughout.the yea The inspectors reviewed the annual chemistry audit reports for 1988 and 1989, and six surveillance reports covering the same time

. period. In general, the auditor's work appears to be well planned, executed, and documented. The auditors appear to show good depth of knowledge of the area being audited and follow-up of identified deficiencies was timely and consistent. Chemistry department's response to QA findings was adequat 'No violations or deviations were identifie . Open Items Open-items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section 4.a and ____ _ __ - _ -

.

._

'

(Q n

<

.. ..

m '

-l Exit Meetind l The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the: conclusion of the _ inspection ~on May 26, 1989. The results of the inspection were discussed including the' apparent vendor laboratory QA weaknes During.the inspection:the inspectors discussed the likely informational content of-the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. Licensee representatives

p did. not identify any such documents or procedures as proprietar Attachments

Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements-2 . Table 1,l Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 4th Quarter 1987

'3. Table 2,' Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 2nd Quarter 1988 '

. . t

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

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

g; y -.

1L F <. ,

, ,.

'

ATTACHMENT 1

}

Criteria!for Comparing Analytical Measurements

,,

ThisLattachment provides criteria for comparing results of the capability test 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-

.

t (1) Z =;X/Y is the ratio, and

'

(2) S'

pfo.istheuncertaintyoftheratiodeterminedfromthepagation of the unce S ,.and of the NRC's mean value, S Thus, x

32 , so th'at z _ 32 s2 x #-

Z2- rz s 2%

S='Z:*f5*2 Z

' +1 1

. (X2 Y2)

The results are considered to be in agreement when the bias in the ratio 1 ,

(absolute value of difference between unity and the ratio) is less than or

, equal to twice the uncertainty in the ratio, l.1-Z l < 2*S z- 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

.

f I

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

_ - _

r_

'

.

'

- .

ATTACHMENT 1 1 NOTES l

l The uncertainties may be modified in cases of disagreement: 'If the licensee's SD, S is smaller than that of the NRC, the NRC's relative. standard deviafion (RSD) (S Y

/Y) will be substituted for that of the licensee (S /X),

x and the agreement criteria. recalculate If a disagreement and the RSDs appear to be unreasonably low, RSDs of 3% will be substituted for those of both the NRC and the license This will not be done for the boron analyses where the expected RSDs are 0.5-1%.

I Due to some uncertainties in the values.of the 1987 (87) boron standards, the mean values of the concentrations obtained by the plant laboratories in Region III are used as the NRC values. These results appear to have-resolved the problem of the consistently negative biases between the licensees and BNL boron analyses. The licensees generally reported similar values of the 1000 ppm standard with a relatively small RSD of 11.7%, although the analytical methods differed.

- _ - _ _ _ _ - -

_ - -

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

__;._

• ^

_f

. ~.v

"

.,

'i

. ,.

'g.,_

. TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,,

.M - OFFICE'.0F. INSPECTION 'AND ENFORCEMENT

!

,

CONF.IRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY LASALLE e FOR.-THE 4 QUARTER OF 1987

---

NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T L L%STE G BETA ~ 5.0E-06L 2.0E-07 4.7E-06 0.0E-01 9.4E-01- 2.5E 01 A

H-3J ' 1.6E-05 6.0E-07- 6.5E-06 8.0E-07 4.2E-01 '2.6E 01 D^

SR-89- 1.4E-08 7.0E-09' 9.6E-09- 3.3E-09 6.9E-01 2.0E 00 'A

'

SR-90 -1.1E-09 3.7E-09 7.OE-10 0.0E-01 0.0E-01'-3.0E-01 N FE-55 - 2.4E-06 1.0E-07 2.3E-07 0.0E-01 9.6E-02- 2;4E 01- D

.L SPIKED G' BETA. 1.7E-058.0E-07 1.4E-05 'O.0E-01- -8.4E-01 2.1E 011 A H-3 1 5.2E-05, 1.1E-06' 5.4E-05 1.0E-06- 1.0E-00 4.8E 01 A

'SR-89 4.0E-04 1.2E-05 2.2E-04 3.0E-05 5.6E-01 3.3E 01 D

'SR-90 2.4E-05- 1.0E-06 1.6E-05 '1.0E-06 6.7E-01- 2.4E 01 D

FE-55 .5.2E-05 1.0E-06 6.8E-05 9.0E-06 1.3E 00 5.2E 01 D T TEST RESULTS

A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

• • CRITERIA RELAXED LN=NO COMPARISON

-

l

' -

.

- . _ ..

_ _ _ _ _ _

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

.

'

6

. .-

l TABLE 2 E-U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LASALLE FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1989

--

--NRC- ---

---

LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T PRIMARY NA-24 4.4E-03 2.8E-05 4.0E-03 2.1E-04 9.1E-01 1.6E 02 A CR-51 2.1E-02 2.0E-04 1.9E-02 1.1E-03 9.0E-01 1.1E 02 A MN-54 1.7E-04 1.3E-05 1.5E-04 1.4E-05 8.8E-01 1.3E 01 A MN-56 1.0E-03 1.5E-05 8.4E-04 8.0E-05 8.4E-01 6.8E 01 A CO-58 2.5E-04 1.3E-05 2.1E-04 0.0E-01 8.4E-01 1.9E 01 A CO-60 4.4E-04 1.4E-05 4.3E-04 1.9E-05 9.8E-01 3.1E 01 A AS-76' 9.1E-04 2.5E-05 7.8E-04 5.9E-05 8.6E-01 3.6E 01 A I-132 3.5E-04 1.6E-05 3.6E-04 1.9E-05 1.0E 00 2.2E 01 A I-133 1.7E-04 1.2E-05 1.5E-04 1.4E-05 8.8E-01 1.4E 01 A I-134 8.6E-04 1.2E-05 8.1E-04 9.6E-05 9.4E-01 7.0E 01 A SR-92 2.2E-04 1.5E-05 1.6E-04 2.5E-05 7.3E-01 1.5E 01 A MO-99 2.5E-04 5.3E-05 3.5E-04 6.9E-05 1.4E 00 4.7E 00 A

'BA-139 2.4E-04 5.8E-05 0.OE-01 .0.0E-01 0.0E-01 4.2E 00 D

'C SPIKED CD-109 2.7E 00 1.2E-01 2.1E 00 1.2E-01 7.8E-01 2.3E 01 A CO-57 6.1E-02 2.6E-03 5.3E-02 2.9E-03 8.7E-01 2.4E 01 A CE-139 1.0E-01 4.4E-03 9.6E-02 5.1E-03 9.6E-01 2.3E 01 A HG-203 1.9E-01 8.4E-03 1.9E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E'00 2.3E 01 A SN-113 2.2E-01 9.2E-03 2.1E-01 1.1E-02 9.5E-01 2.4E 01 A CS-137 1.7E-01 7.5E-03 1.6E-01 9.0E-03 9.4E-01 2.3E 01 A Y-88 4.0E-01 1.6E-02 3.7E-01 2.0E-02 9.3E-01 2.5E 01 A CO-60 2.1E-01 8.5E-03 2.1E-01 1.1E-02 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A CO-60 2.2E-01 9.2E-03 2.1E-01 1.6E-02 9.5E-01 2.4E 01 A Y-88 3.9E-01 1.6E-02 3.9E-01 2.1E-02 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A NA-24 4.4E-03 2.9E-05 3.8E-03 2.0E-04 8.7E-01 1.5E 02 A PRIMARY CR-51 2.0E-02 1.4E-04 1.9E-02 1.0E-03 9.5E-01 1.4E 02 A MN-54 1.6E-04 1.1E-05 1.4E-04 1.0E-05 S.7E-01 1.5E 01 A MN-56 9.9E-04 2.1E-05 8.7E-04 7.2E-05 8.8E-01 4.8E 01 A CO-58 2.4E-04 1.1E-05 1.9E-04 0.0E-01 7.9E-01 2.2E 01 A CO-60 4.5E-04 1.1E-05 3.9E-04 1.6E-05 8.7E-01 4.1E 01 A AS-76 9.3E-04 1.9E-05 8.2E-04 5.8E-05 8.8E-01 4.9E 01 A

'T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT D* DISAGREEMENT c= CRITERIA RELAXED

.N=NO COMPARISON

_____-__-

,jp g a p q ,, , ,, - z:----

-

=

. - ,

,

,

.

.A % , -

,

+y

...-- .i /

y

%'

• TABLE 2 nw -J ,

l U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION'AND ENFORCEMENT i e I

^

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM

= FACILITY: LASALLE'

FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1989 U

---NRC- =-

---

LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC'---- d SAMPLE ~ ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT- ERROR RATIO RES- T ,

!

' ~

PRIMARYI-132- 3.9E-04-'2.2E-05 3.4E-04 1.5E-05 8.6E-O1 :1.'BE 01 A'

~

<I-133

.I-134-

1.3E-04- 7.7E-06'

1.4E-03.-3.0E-05-1.2E-04 7.6E-04 1.0E-05 2;3E-04-9.2E-01 5.4E-01 1.7E Ol':A 4.8E 01 D-d -

I

^ SR-92 2.2E-04 1.8E-05 1.7E-0 .0E-01 7.7E-01 1.2E 01 A MD-99 ' 2.8E-04 4.7E-05 ~1.9E-04- 4.0E-05 6.8E-01 6.0E 00 A BA-139 2.7E-04 7.8E-05 0.0E-01 .0.0E-01 0.0E-01' 3.5E 00 D L WASTE;'MN-54~ ~4.6E-05s 6.4E-07 4.2E-05 3.1E-06 9.1E-01 7;2E 01 CO-58' 1.6E-06: .3.8E-07 1.4E-06 2.4E-07 8.7E-01 4.2E 00 A CO-60' 1.6E-041 1.0E-06- 1.5E-04 8.0E-06 9.4E-01 1.6E'02 A- 1 CS-137' 2.1E-06- 4.4E-07' 1.3E-06 2.0E-07 6.2E-01 4.8E.00l Al ,

l CRUDFIL NA-24: 1.3E-05 15.9E-07 1.2E-05 1.0E-06 9.3E-01- 2.3E 01' A FE-59 9.3E-05 1.8E-06' 7.9E-05 2.6E-06 8.4E-01 5.3E 01 A CR-51: '1.6E-04 3.1E-06- 1.5E-04 6.0E-06 9.4E-01 5.2E 01 A'

L :MN-54 1.1E-04 .1.2E-06 9.8E-05 1.7E-06 8.9E-01 9.2E 01 A

/CO-58 3.1E-05 7.7E-07 3.'OE-05 1.1E-06 9.7E-01 4.0E 01 A CO-6 .2E-04 1.2E-06 1.1E-04 1'.9E-06 9.2E-01 1.0E 02 A j AS-76- 1.8E-05 1.2E-06 1.9E-05 2.0E-06 1.1E 00 1.5E 01 A .

d W-187 3.9E-05 2.2E-06 3.6E-05 3.4E-06 9.2E-01' .1.8E 01 A I NB-95 1.4E-06 5.OE-07 2.4E-06 7.0E-07 1.7E 00 2.8E 00 A j

'

'ZN-65' 5.3E-06 1.3E-06 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 4.2E 00 D L WASTE 'MN-54 -4.7E-05 6.BE-07 4.1E-05 2.2E-06 8.7E-01 6.9E 01 A-CO-58 :1.6E-06 3.4E-07 1.7E-06 2.4E-07 1.1E 00 4.7E 00 A CO-60 1.6E-04 1.0E-06 1.4E-04 5.0E-06' 8.7E-01 1.6E 02 A zCS-137 9.0E-0 .2E-07 8.2E-07 1.9E-07 9.1E-01 4.1E 00 A i

CRUDFhL NA-24 1.2E-05 1.9E-06 1.5E-05 1.8E-06 1.2E 00 6.4E 00 A CR-51: 1.5E-04' 3.3E-06 1.4E-04 9.0E-06 9.1E-01 4.6E 01 A MN-54 1.0E-04 1.2E-06 9.2E-05 5.0E-06 8.8E-01 9.1E 01 A FE-59 8.9E-05 1.9E-06 8.2E-05 3.5E-06 9.2E-01 4.7E 01 A T TEST RESULTS A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

'*= CRITERIA RELAXED NANO' COMPARISON p-2-

-- _ _ _ -

q33; -

. . . .

,,

L'

k "

,

.-p +t

'

.

n ETABLE 2

,,

U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF

INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

"

CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: LASALLE-p FOR'THE 2 QUARTER OF 1989

=-NRC-- -

LICENSEE-- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE' RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

.CRUDFIL CO-58 3.1E-0 .4E-07 2.7E-05 1.6E-06 8.6E-01 3.7E.01 A CO-60 1.1E-04' 1.2E-06 1.1E-04 4.0E-06 9.6E-01 9.7E 01 A o ZN-65 5.2E-06: 8.6E-07- 3.6E-06 1.1E-06 7.0E-01 6.OE 00 A AS-76' 1.7E-05 3.7E-06 1.3E-05 1.8E-06 7.5E-01 4.7E 00 A W-187 3.7E-05 5.'OE-06 3.2E-05 3.0E-06 8.7E-01 7.'3E 00 A NB-95- 1.5E-06' 3.7E-07 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 0.0E-01 4.0E 00 D'

SB-122.'5.6E-06 1.0E-06 4.3E-06 5.5E-07 7.6E-0 .6E'00 A SB-124- 3.3E-06' 5.2E-07 2.0E-06 4.0E-07 6.0E-01 6.4E 00 A

~

C SPIKED'CD-109 :2.7E 00 1.2E iO1- '2.1E 00 1.1E-O'1 7.BE-01 -2.3E O1 A

~CO-57 '6.1E-02 2.6E-03 5.3E-02 2.8E-03- S.7E-01 2.4E.01 A CE-139 1.0E-01 4.4E-03 9.UE-02 5.0E-03 9.5E-01 1?.3E 01 A HG-203 <1.9E-01L 8.4E-03 1.8E-01- 1.OE-02 9.5E-01 2.3E 01 A SN-113 2.2E-01 9.2E-03- 2.1E-01 1.1E-02 9.5E-01 2.4E 01 A CS-137- 1.7E-01 7.5E-03 1.6E-01 9.0E-03 9.4E-01 2.3E.01 A Y-88' 4.0E-01 1.6E-02 '3.7E-01 2.0E-02 9.3E-01 2.5E 01 A CO-60 2.1E-01 8.5E-03' 2.1E-01 1.1E-02 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A

.CO-60 2.2E-01 9.2E-03 1!.1E-01 1.1E-02 9.5E-01 2.4E 01 A Y-88 3.9E-01 1.6E-02 3.9E-01 2.1E-02 1.0E 00 2.5E 01 A TLTEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

.

o= CRITERIA RELAXED

NsNO COMPARISON-3-

-_ _ __: -