IR 05000213/1982009
| ML20054J729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1982 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054J725 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-82-09, 50-213-82-9, NUDOCS 8206290498 | |
| Download: ML20054J729 (7) | |
Text
.
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_____
.
.
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-213/82-09 Docket No.
50-213 License No.
DPR-61 Priority
-
Category C
Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Haddam Neck Plant Inspection at:
Haddam Neck, Connecticut Inspection conducted: May-7, 1982 h
gfuj,
[-h8h Inspector:
.C.Jang,RpiationSpecialist date signed d
~
Approved by:_
R. J. Fes, Chief, Independent Measurements date signed and Environmental Protection Section Inspection Summary:
,
Inspection on May 3-7, 1982 (Report No. 50-213/82-09)
Area Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemical and radiochemical measurements program using NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological and Environmental Service Laboratory. Areas reviewcd included:
program for quality control of analytical measurements, audit results, performance on radiological analyses of split actual effluent samples, and procedures. The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC regionally based inspector.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
8206290498 820600 PDR ADOCK 05000213 O
________
,
_ _____
____
-
_
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _____
____-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- R. H. Graves, Station Superintendent
- R. Z. Test, Station Services Superintendent
- M. D. Quinn, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. J. Waters, Chemist The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including members of the chemistry staff.
- denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Severity Level V Violation (50-213/80-22-01):
Failure to perform the quarterly duplicate sample analyses required by. Procedure CHDP 1.7 and failure to take corrective action on the ten percent discrepancy with the standard source for the Ge(Li) counting system required by Procedure CHDP 1.1.
The inspector determined that the licensee has followed Procedures CHDP 1.7 and CHDP 1.1.
(See Paragraph 3)
(Closed) Severity Level V Violation (50-213/80-22-02):
Failure to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) on each batch of liquid waste (MDC of SE-7 microcuries per milliliter), and failure to identify and quantify the antimony-125 in liquid waste required by Table 2.4-1 of the Technical Specifications.
The inspector determined during this inspection that the licensee has met the requirements to Table 2.4-1 of the Technical Specification.
(See Paragraph 5)
3.
Laboratory QC Program TFe inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the quality control of analytical measurements. The licensee's quality control program is detailed in the following procedures:
CHDP 1.1 - Chemical Analysis Quality Assurance Procedure, CHDP 1.7 - Duplicate Sample Analysis Program, CH3P 2.0 - Quality Control of Counting Instrument Calibration and Operations Checks, and CHDP 2.13 - Split Sample Program.
The inspector noted that one item of noncompliance was identified in a previous inspection report (50-213/80-22-01). The inspector reviewed the analytical results of the licensee's quarterly duplicate sampl. analyses required by Procedure CHDP 1.7 from January 1981 to April 1982. The inspector also reviewed a weekly standard check log book required by Procedure CHDP 1.1 f rom January 5,1981 to May 1,1982. The inspector
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
noted that the licensee had fallowed the aforementioned procedures and met the acceptance criteria.
The inspector discussed Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)-Effluent Streams and the Environment", and laboratory quality control in this general area with the licensee.
The inspector has no further questions in this area and no items of additional noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Audit Results The inspector determined that the licensee's effluent radiochemistry program was examined in an Environmental Review Board Audit during 1981.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's internal responses to the items identified during the audit.
The inspector had no further questions in this area and no items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Confirmatory Measurements During the inspection, actual liquid and airborne effluent samples were split between the licensee and NRC:I for the purpose of intercomparison.
The effluent samples were analyzed by the licensee using licensee's normal methods and equipment, and by the NRC using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to determine the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples. A spiked simulated particulate filter was submitted to the licensee for analysis because the actual effluent particulate filter contained less than detectable concentrations of radioactivity.
In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses to be performed on the sample are:
Sr-89, Sr-90, tritium, and gross alpha.
The results will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent report.
The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and NRC:I during a previous inspection on November 17-20, 1980 (Inspection Report 80-22) were also compared during this inspection.
The results of the sample measurement intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used fer comparing results (see Attachment 1). The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
__ _
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
The inspector noted that an item of noncompliance was identified in this area in a previous inspection report (50-273/80-22-02), which was failure to meet Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) for antimony-125 (Sb-125)
and to identify and quantify the Sb-125 in liquid waste as required by Table 2.4-1 of the Technical Specifications. The inspector noted that the licensee has increased the sample counting time to meet the required MDC. The inspector also noted that Sb-125 was identified and quantified in liquid waste samples.
Typical counting times for liquid waste samples were 10,000 seconds at the time of this inspection.
The results of the comparison for Sb-125 in liquid waste are in agreement as listed in Table 1.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
6.
Records and Procedures The inspector reviewed the following licensee records and procedures.
A.
Records (1) Gaseous Radioactive Release Permits, from January 14, 1981 to April 18, 1982 (2) Liquid Radioactive Release Permits, from January 5,1981 to April 28, 1982 (3) Standard Check Log Book for Counting Equipment a.
Ge(Li) Counting system, from January 5,1981 to May 1, 1982 b.
Liquid Scintillation Counter, from January 5, 1981 to May 4, 1982 c.
Low background, gas-flow Proportional Counter, from March 13, 1981 to March 29, 1982 B.
Procedures (1) PM 9.4-1.2 Calibration of Liquid Scintillation Spectrometer (2) PM 9.4-2.29 Gross Beta Activity by Liquid Scintillation Counting (3) PM 9.4-2.30 Radiostrontium Analysis (4) PM 9.4-3.2 Tritium Determination (5) PM 9.4-3.3 Radioactive Determination of Liquid, Gaseous, and Particulate Samples
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
(6) CHDP 2.0 Quality Control of Counting Instrument Calibration and Operational Checks (7) CHDP 2.1 Training of Chemistry Department Personnel (8) CHDP 2.13 Split Sample Program No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 7, 1982. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings.
The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in Paragraph 5 and to report the results to the NRC.
i
.
.
l
.
,
Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based ongan 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 Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to 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.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
Iodine on absorbers
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry where principal ~ gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 kev.
Sr-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Gross beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclid _ _ _ _ _
.
t TABLE 1 SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER MILLILITER Reactor Co-58 (6.5 1 0.5) E-3 (5.8 26.1%) E-3 Agreement Coolant Ru-106 (2.6 0.4) E-2 (3.8 i 37.0%) E-2 Agreement 0750 Hrs.
I-131 (8.7 1 0.5) E-3 (8.0 17.2%) E-3 Agreement 5-4-82 I-132 (2.76 1 0.04) E-1 (2.89 3.0%) E-1 Agreement I-133 (11.230 1 0.011) E-2 (9.09 3.7%) E-2 Agreement I-134 (5.0 0.3) E-1 (5.1 8.4%) E-1 Agreement I-135 (2.58 1 0.05) E-1 (2.64 4.2%) E-1 Agreement Waste Gas Kr-85 (2.48 0.10) E-2 (2.61 4.7%) E-2 Agreement Decay Tank "A" Xe-133 (1.45 1 0.06) E-4 (1.78 6.2%) E-4 Agreement 1145 Hrs.
5-4-82 Charcoal I-131 (1.2 1 0.2) E-10 (1.2 22%) E-10 Agreement Cartridge I-133 (8.1 0.4) E-10 (7.7 42%) E-10 Agreement 1140 Hrs.
I-135 (8.6 1.1) E-10 (6.2 27%) E-10 Agreement 5-4-82
"A" Waste Co-58 (1.6 0.3) E-6 (1.5 8.9%) E-6 Agreement Test Tank Co-60 (9.8 0.6) E-6 (9.5 6.7%) E-6 Agreement 1100 Hrs Sb-125 (1.07 0.10) E-5 (1.23 1 4%) E-5 Agreement 5-4-82 Cs-134 (2.5 0.4) E-6 (2.0 12%) E-6 Agreement Cs-137 (7.4 0.5) E-6 (6.6 3%) E-6 Agreement RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER SAMPLE Simulated Co-60 (2.13 0.06) E-3 (2.48 16%) E-3 Agreement Particular Cs-134 (1.40 0.05) E-3 (1.21 37%) E-3 Agreement Filter Cs-137 (4.06 0.12) E-3 (4.64 5%) E-3 Agreement 3-8-79 RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES PER MILLILITER
"B" Waste Gross Alpha (2.0 1 0.2) E-8
< 4.0 E-8 No Comparison Test Tank H-3 (5.02 1 0.02) E-2 (4.98 1 0.5) E-2 Agreement 1030 Hrs Sr-89 (0 1 1) E-8
< 4.0 E-8 No Comparison 11-19-80 Sr-90 (1.1 1 0.3) E-8 (1.4 1 0.6) E-8 Agreement
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___ __