IR 05000213/1978026
| ML20062D835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1978 |
| From: | Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062D834 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-78-26, NUDOCS 7811300342 | |
| Download: ML20062D835 (4) | |
Text
.
_
~
'
~
VoS. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSf0N OFFICE OF INSPECTZON AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 79-?g Docket No.52-213 License No. OPR-61 Priority Category c
--
Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Comeany P. O. Box 270 Hartford. Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
_Haddam Neck Plant
,ispection at:
Haddam Neck, Connecticut Octofer Inspection conducted:
11, 1978 Inspectors:
2, !fM AU
/O!13 78 J. J. Kottan, Radiation Specialist d*** 'I9"'
date signed date signed
/d[J3/7[
Approved by:
EsA >
. P. Stohr[ Chief. Environmental and p[?
d*** 8I
"'d
Special Projects Section, FF & MS Branch
\\
inspectionSummary Inspection on October 11, 1978 (Report No. 50-213/78-26)
Areas Inspected: This report contains tne results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and NRC:I during a previous inspection which was conducted on Marc.h 13-16, 1978 and which was documented in Inspection Report 50-213/78-08.
The comparison of these results involved no onsite time.
Results: Withia the area inspected, no items of noncompliance were observed.
Jc4t<wg1
~
_
~) 7/ I 3 O O 3 41 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
. -.
.-
.. -
_
_
_ _.
.
.
i
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Xangley, Chemistry Supervisor 2.
Confirmatory Measurements
In a previous inspection conducted on March 13-16, 1978, Inspection Report 50-213/78-08, a liquid effluent sample was split with the licensee and NRC:I.
Analyses were performed by the licensee using his normal methods and procedures, and the NRC:I analyses were perfonned by the Department of Energy's Radiological and Environ-I mental Services Laboratory (RESL).
The comparison of the analyticai results indicated that all the measurements were in agreement or possible agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment 1) with the exception of the Sr-89 results which were not compared.
Due to a delay by the licensee in sending the sample to his contracting laboratory for analysis, the contracting (MDA)
labora-tory could not achieve a lower minimum detectable activity because of half life considerations. The sample was taken on March 14, 1978 and analyzed by the contracting laboratory on September 26, 1978.
The inspector noted that in previous sample splits the licensee's contracting laboratory was able to achieve the Technical Specification MDA of SE-8 uCi/ml for Sr-89.
The inspector deter-mined that the licensee's routine liquid effluents were analyzed for Sr-89 on a monthly basis (for composite samples), and the licensee's contracting laboratory was able to achieve the Technical Specification MDA.
The inspector stated that a sample would be split for Sr-89 during a subsequent inspection in this area (78-26-t 01).
The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
The results of the comparisons are presented in Table I.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Exit Interview i
The inspector discussed the results of this inspection in a tele-l phone conversation on October 11, 1978 with the licensee represen-l tatives denoted in Paragraph 1.
l
..
-
_
-
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
__. _ _
.
. _ _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -..
. _.
.-.
-
-
.
.
^
-
'.
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HADDAM NECK PLANT VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS i
SAMPLE IS0 TOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER MILLILITER
Test Tank
"A" H-3 (3.4010.01) E-1 (4.17 1 0.20) E-1 Possible Agreement 1000 hrs'
Sr-90 (6 1 1) E-8 (7.4 1 0.7) E-8 Agreement 3/14/78 Sr-89 (7 1 4) E-8 Less than 2E-7 No Comparison
!
,
?
h
.
.
'
!
.
.
-
.
.
'
..
Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provided criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based en an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty.
As the ratio, referred in this program as " Resolution",
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable
,
as the resolution decreases.
.
LICENSEE VALUE RATIO = NRC REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Resolution Agreement Agreement A Agreement B
<3 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 No Comparison 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - 2.0 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66
>200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 - 1.25 0.75' - 1.33
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
'
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is greater than 250 Kev.
I Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
l Ganna Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 Kev.
l l
89Sr and 90Sr Determinations.
Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same i
reference nuclide.
i