IR 05000029/1988015
| ML20154J363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1988 |
| From: | Kottan J, Mcnamara N, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154J361 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-88-15, 50-29-88-15, NUDOCS 8809230004 | |
| Download: ML20154J363 (9) | |
Text
__
.
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-029/88-15
Docket No.50-029 License No. OPR-3 Priority Catego y C
-
_
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric fy pa_n t (
T671 worcester Road
_
Framingham, Massachusetts 0170f Facility Name:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station i
Inspection At:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: August 15-18, 1933 Inspectors)
TN (
'/ ~2 ' N N. T. McNadara,
, oratory Assistant date
,g N.d-(
f'2.*66
)
J. J. Kottan,_Jaboratory Specialist date b
k. Y ))m e..
~
Approved by:
L
~ /- 7-E i
'
-
W. J. Pgseiak Chief. Effluents Radiation date Protection Section t
'
Inspection Stemary:
Inspection on August 15-18, 1938 (Report No. 50-029/88-15)
Areas __ Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of: (1) the licensee's radiochemic'D 7 essurements program using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological
!
Meaturements.aboratory, and laboratory assistance provided by the Department
'
cf Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory; and (2) the licensee's whole body counting facility. Areas Reviewed Includtd:
Licensee
i action on previous findings, confirmatory measurements, and whole body counting.
)
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations were identifies.
i I
.
,
)
O
.
.
.
I
y
-
r
,
"
,
k
\\'
'
.
'
.
,
.
DETAILS
.
1.
, Individuals Contacted
[
Princioal Licensee Em31oyees l
r
- N.
St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent
- R.
Mellor, Technical Director
- M.
Hedges,. Chemistry Manager
- G.
Babineau, Radiation Protection Manager
- J.
Gedutis, Senior Chemist
- J.
Geyster, Radiation Protection Engi.aer
"
- P.
Hollenbeck, Radiation Protection Engineer
- J.
Spitulnik, Training Supervisor
- W.
Blackadar, Radiation Protection Technician
0.
Thano, Chemist
'
V.
Burnham, Chemist D.
Voland, Chemist
'
- Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.
Licensee Action On previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-029/86-16-02):
Results of vendor laboratory analysis for Fe-55 in spiked samples.
The inspector reviewed a revised vendor laboratory Fe-55 analysis procedure as well a: the results of spiked samples analyzed using the revised procedure.
h The results of the spiked sample analyses were in agreement.
This item is closed.
i 3.
Confirmatory Measurements
{
3.1 Split Samples
!
Ouring this part of the inspection, liquid, particulate filter, iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were split between the licensaa and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicate counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analysis.
The samples were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment, and the NRC:I Mobile Radiologi:al Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
In addit bn, a liquid effluent sample was sent to thi, NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laborator/ (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
The analyses to be performed on the sample are:
Sr-89, Sr-90,
___
__
l
'
l
.
The results will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
The results of a liquid effluent sartple split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection (Inspection Report No.
50-029/86-16, performed September 29 - October 3, 1986) were also compared during this inspection.
>
The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of the measuremer+s were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results.
(See Attachment 1).
Several samples were also split with Radiation Protection, since this department also possess a gamma spectrometry system which is used for the analysis of health physics samples.
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table I.
3.2 Laboratory QA/QC The inspector revinced the licensee's program for the quality assurance of chemistry laboratory measurement activities, in particular the licensee's radioanalytical measurements.
The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program is detailed in two procedures:
Procedure No. OP-9600, Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control Program, and Procedure No. OP-9610, Preparation of Quality Control Charts.
These procedures provide for daily source and background checks of counting instruments with the results plotted on a control chart, d elicate sample analysis, analysis of spiked samples, and periodic che:ks of vendor laboratory perform.9ce.
The inspector reviewed selected QC data fo'
>>87 and 1988 to date, including calibration dat', and noted that the licensee was meeting the requirements of the above procedures.
The licensee participates in an interlaboratory spiked sample program administered by the Yankee Environmental Laboratory on a quarterly basis.
In June, 1988 the licensee began to use the Yankee Environmental Laboratory as the laboratory for ef fluent analyses requiring wet chamistry. However, the licensee continues to split samples between, e Yankee Environmental Laboratory and a commercial laboratory as a check on the Yankee Environmental Laboratory.
The 3pector stated that the above practicos are a noted strength of the licensee's QA/QC program. The inspector also noted that while Procedure No. OP-9610 addresses the preparation of control charts, it contains little guidance on the use and interpretation of control chart data.
The inspector discussed this with the licensee, and the licensee stated that the procedure would be expanded to include information on the use and interpretation of control charts.
__
_ _ _ _ _
'
.
.
.
4.
Whole Body Counting This part of the inspection assessed the capability of the licensee to adequately perform radiological bioassay using a whole body counting system.
A whole body counting phantom containing radioactive sources traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was submitted to the licensee for analysis.
The phantom duplicated the nuclides and organ burdens that the licensee might encounter during normal operation.
The phantom was analyzed using the licensee's routine methods and equipment.
4.1 Results Comparison The licensee's whole body counting system consists of a collimated Ge detector coupled to a multichannel analyzer which is interfaced to a computer.
The system software is supplied by a vendor.
The licensee has several counting positions:
a whole oody scan mode, a lung isolation mode, a GI tract isolation mode, and a thyroid mode.
The results comparisons for the sources placed in the lung in the whole body scan made are based on an average of five measurements.
The m a hder of the comparisnes are based on an average of two measure-ments.
Results of the r~
-risons are listed in Table II. Based on
.
these results, no violat
,were identified in this area.
The phantom was fire submitted to the licensee with the sources in the lungs. With the detector in both the whole body scan position I
and lung isolation position, the results were in good agreement.
With the sources removed from the lungs and placed in the GI tract the licensee did not detect the radioactivity in the GI tract.
The inspector discussed this with the licensee, and it appears that the detector was well collimated, and, therefore, unable to detect the radioactivity in the GI tracs area of the NRC phantom.
The licensee stated that this counting mode configuration would be reviewed.
In addition, the first measurements made with the system in the GI tract isolation mode resulted in the results being low by a factor of approx 19ately one-half.
Upon investigation by the licensee, it was
'
determined that the detector was not properly positioned.
Recounts in this mode resulted in the comparisons being in good agreement.
The licensee compared his phantom to the NRC phantom.
The licensee
)
i calibrates using the same phantom as the NRC, but without the hud and lower GI tract. The GI tract difference between the two phantoms resulted in the detector positioning difference when the first s6t of GI tract measurements were made.
4.2 Procedures and Data The following procedures for operation and calibration of the whole body counting system were reviewed:
DP-8525, Operation of the Rad Protection In-Vivo Bioassay System DP-8565, Calibration of the AP0 GEE Based In-Vivo Bioassay System
-
y
.
.
__________
_
.
..
_
l
i
.
.
The procedures provide for periodic source and background checks of the whole body counter. However, the licensee does not plot this
,
data on control charts to trend changes in detector response and background.
The inspector discussed this with the licensee, and the licensee stated that control charts would be implemented after the next system calibration which was' scheduled for August and September, 1988. The licensee also participates in a quarterly analysis of a phantom supplied by the Yankee Enviromental Laboratory.
The inspector reviewed the results of this intercomparison for 1987 and 1988 to date.
No violations were identified in this area.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1
'
at the conclusion of the inspection on August 18, 1988.
The inspector summ.rized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
'
'
.
<
l
I e
P
i l
!
.
t
- _ _ _ _., _ _. - _ _., _ _
_.. _
,,
,. _
_,
. _ _ _ _ _... _,
_-. _, _ _,.
_ -,.
., _,,,
e
_ TABLE I YANKEE R0WE VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS*
_
Sample Isotope NRC Value Licensee Value Comparison Test Tank gress alpha (3 2)E-9
<8.1E-10 No Comparison 1200 hrs Sr-89 (5 7)E-9
<2E-8 No Comparison 10-2-86 Sr-90 (-313)E-9
<7E-9 No Comparison H-3 (1.56 0.02)E-1 (1.63 0.08)E-1 Agreement C-14 (1.0 0.2)E-6 (1.110.1)E-6 Agreement Fe-55 (711)E-7 (1.3 0.8)E-6 Agreement Leactor Coolant Cr-51 (1.06 0.04)E-4 (8.3 1.0*;)E-5 Agreen.ent Crud Filter Mn-54 (4.6 0.4)E-6 (4.77 8.6*;)E-6 Agreement (1918 hrs Co-58 (8.110.4)E-6 (8.016.3*;)E-6 Agreemer:t 11-9 - 8 8 Fe-59 (1.32 0.12)E-5 (1.2 7.7?;)E-5 Agreement Co-60 (1.4910.09)E-5 (1.22 4.3*;)E-5 Agreement Zr-95 (2.50i0.07)E-5 (2. 34 3.6*;)E-5 Agreement Ru-103 (3.44 0.06)E-5 (3.08 4.8*;)E-5 Agreement
'
I-131 (9.8 0.6)E-6 (9.14 8.1?e)E-6 Agreement Ba-140 (i.17. '.02)E-4 (1.02 3.8?;)E-4 Agreement Ce-141 (2.24 0.05)E-5 (2.04 4.9?;)E-5 Agreement Gas Decay Tank Kr-85 (1.48 0.11)E-2 (1.22 5.3?;)E-2 Agreement 0944 hrs Xe-133 (7.46 0.14)E-4 ( 7. 2116. 5?;)E-4 Agreement 8-17-88 Stack Gas Xe-133 (6.810.4)E-7 (6.0 1.8*;)E-7 Agreement 1040 hrs Xe 135 (3.0 0.2)E-7 (2.7 2.3*;)E-7 Agreement 8-17-88 Reactor Coolant I-131 (1.79 0.03) E-2 ( 1. 49110*;)E-2 Agreement 1026 hrs I-132 (2.628 0.009)E-1 (2.755 2.6*;)E-1 Agreement 8-16-88 I-133 (1.733 0.005)E-1 (1.708 4.7?o)E-1 Agreement I-134 (4.0810.03)E-1 (4.29 3.4?;)E-1 Agreement 1-135 (3.2510.03)E-1 ( 3. 2113. 0*;) E-1 Agreement
.
- Note:
Results in units of pCi/mi
_
_
J
_
_
.
%
_ TABLE I - continued YANKEE ROWE VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS*
Sample Isotope NRC Value License Value Comparison Evaporator Cs-134 (7 2)E-7 (5.8 6.6%)E-7 Agreement Distillate Cs-137 (8.2!1.6)E-7 (7.1 9.0'4)E-7 Agreement 1233 hrs Xe-133 (3.69 0.04)E-5 (4.32 3.8?;)E-5 Agreement 8-17-88 Xe-135 (3.4t0.9)E-7 ( 4. 219. 4?;) E-7 Agreement Vapor I-131 (4.6 0.3)E-9 (5.0 5.9?;)E-9 Agreement Containment I-133 (1.31 0.05)E-8 ( 1. 315. 7';) E-8 Agreement Chercoal Cartridge 1038 hrs 8-16-88 Vapor 1-131 (4.610.3)E-9 ( 5. 34 12?J) E-9 Agreement Containment I-133 Charcoal (1.31 0.05)E-8 (1.26 9.4'4)E-8 Agreement Cartridge 1038 hrs 8-16-88 Particulate Cr-51 (1.2010.07)E-2 (1.10 7.5';)E-2**
Agreement Filter Zr-95 (1.80 0.12)E-3 (2. 0 8.2'4)E-3" Agreement 1026 hrs Ru-103 (2.28 0.10)E-3 ( 2. 4 6. I's)E-3" Agreement 8-16-88 I-131 (1.3620.10)E-3 ( 1. 4 317. 8';) E-3 * *
Agreement Ba-140 (1.89 0.04)E-2 ( 2. 07 4. 6*;) E-2" Agreement Ce-141 (1.5810.06)E-3 ( 1. 4415. 9'o) E-3" *
Agreement l
l l
l l
- Note:
Results in units of pCi/ml
- Note: Radiation Protection Department result in unit of total pCi
_
_ - _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - -
--
- - - -
K
a
-
l
.
TABLE II WHOLE BODY COUNTING PHANTOM, TEST RESULTS Counting NRC Licensee Ratio Isotope Organ Mode Know Value Result (Licensee: NRC)
Cs-137 Lung Body Scan 90 ?.2 102 3 1.1320.16 Co-60 Lung Body Scan 55 7 61 3 1.11 0.15 Cs-137 GI Body Scan 81 11 not detected Co-60 GI Body Scan 50 7 not detected Cs-137 Lung Lung Isolation 90 12 113 2 1.26 0.02 Co-60 Lung Lung Isolation 55 7 63.510.7 1.15510.013 Cs-137 GI GI Isolation 81 11 102 4 1.3 0.2 Co-60 GI GT Isolation 50 7 60 8 1.2 0.2 O
.
.
_
. _ _..
. ~..
.
.. _.
'
l
'
-
.
,
,
,
.
,
ATTACHMENT 1
,
-
r CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
!
t This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests
and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an emirical
relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this
!
program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the
,
l comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated l
'
uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution",
.
increases the accpetability of a licensee's measurement should be more i
selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the
<
resulution decreases.
j Ratio For Agreement *
!
Resolution 1
<3 No comparison 4-7 0.5 - 2.0
8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 i
16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.85 - 1.18 2 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/ Reference Value Uncertainty)
'
2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
I
I
l l
'
l
!
.
$
l
.
l i
i
~
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
-