IR 05000213/1983018
| ML20024D317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1983 |
| From: | Kottan J, Pasciak W, Taylor M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024D310 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-83-18, NUDOCS 8308040532 | |
| Download: ML20024D317 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
Report No.
50-213/83-18 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:
June 20-24, 1983 ll /
Inspectors: d_d.
[@/d b /f-63 U. J. Kottan', Radiation Laboratory date
]){
gqh-1-l 1-f 3 M.(/l.Twlo'r oratorypsistant date d ;0 6 tut 3h
7 I
T'3 Approved by:
.
L.
"W. J PasciM, Chief, Effluents I daife Ra ation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 20-24, 1983 (Inspection Report No. 50-213/83.-18 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemical and radiochemical measurements program using NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measure-ments Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory. Areas reviewed included: program for
,
quality control of analytical measurements; performance on radiological analy-ses of split actual effluent samples; and effluent control records and proce-
dures. The inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regionally based inspectors.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified in one area (failure to follow procedures, Paragraph 2).
8309040532 830721 PDR ADDCh 05000213 G
_
_
.
.'
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- R. Graves, Station Superintendent
- R. Test, Station Services Superintendent
- M. Quinn, Chemistry Supervisor
- J. Waters, Plant Chenist
- G. Goncarous, Assiseant Chemistry Supervisor The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the chemistry and health physics staffs.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Laboratory QC Program The 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 1.2 - Duplicate Sample Analysis Program, CHDP 1.10 - Chemical and Radiochemical Analyses Quality Assurance Procedure, CHDP 1.15 - Chemical Inventory and Control, CHDP 2.0 - Q.mlity Control of Counting Instruments Calibration and Operational Checks, CHDP 2.13 - Split Sample Program, and PM 9.4-0-D, PM Program Chemistry Depa<tment.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's laboratory QA data for 1982 and 1983 to date. The inspector noted that procedure CHDP 2.13 - Split Sample Program requires that interlaboratory samples for chemical and/or radio-chemical constituents will be analyzed on a quarterly basis. A sample dated July 1,1982 was split with another laboratory and analyzed for tritium. The tritium results of this sample split were in disagreement by a factor greater than two. The licensee discussed the disagreement with his laboratory, however, the disagreement could not be resolved. Procedure CHDP 2.13 requires resampling and further analyses when interlaboratory comparisons are in disagreement. The inspector stated that the failure to follow procedure CHDP-2.13 was an item of noncompliance (50-213/83-18-01).
The inspector further noted that the subsequent to the July 1, 1982 split sample, the next sample split that could be used for tritium intercompar-
>
ison was dated April 11, 1983. Although this intercomparison was in agreement for the tritium measurement, the licensee obtained his split laboratory data in June,1983, during this inspection. A period of approximately 11 months had elapsed since the interlaboratory split disagreement in July 1982. The inspector discussed the value of inter-laboratory comparisons in a QC program with the licensee and the necessity i
l
.-
.
.'
for prompt followup of a disagreement. The inspector also discussed Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment" and laboratory quality control in general with the licensee.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
3.
Confirmatory Measurements During the inspection, liquid, particulate filter, and gas samples were split between the licensee 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 analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment and by the NRC using the NRC:I Mobile Radio-logical Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radio-activity in effluent samp1's.
Spiked simulated charcoal cartridges were e
submitted to the licensee for analysis because the actual effluent char-coal cartridge contained less than detectable concentrations of radio-activity.
.
In addition a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference labor-atory, 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 inspection report.
The results of the gamma isotopic measurement intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or possible agreement under the criteria used for comparing results. (See Attachment 1) The initial comparison of the Xe-133m analysis on the gas sample was in possible agreement.
The inspector noted the licensee was using a gamma abundance of 14*,; while the NRC was using a gamma abundance of 10*4.
The inspector noted that the licensee was not using a current reference for gamma ray energies and abundances. The inspector discussed current references with the licensee and the licensee agreed to review his gamma
isotope library against current references and make any necessary correc-
'
tions.
The recalculated Xe-133m result using the NRC gamma abundance value was in agreement.
l The results of a liquid effluent sample split between the licensee and l
NRC:I during a previous inspection on May 3-7, 1982 (Inspection Report l
50-213/82-09) were also compared during this inspection. The gross alpha and Sr-90 measurements were in agreement or possible agreement under the
,
'
criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1) the Sr-89 measure-
,
-
- - -.
_- _ =
,
..
.
J ment could not be compared because of the counting statistics. The tritium measurement intercomparison was in disagreement using the first results given to the NRC by the licensee. However, the licensee also split this liquid sample with his vendor laboratory. When the vendor laboratory results were received by the licensee and were in disagreement, the licensee reanalyzed the sample for tritium. The tritium intercompar-ison was in agreement using the licensee's reanalyzed value. The inspec-tor noted that the licensee's two tritium values obtained for the same sample differed by a factor of approximately two. The inspector reviewed the licensee's liquid scintillation QC data and noted that the licensee's interlaboratory tritium split sample intercomparison was in disagreement in July, 1982.
(See Paragraph 2.) Previous intercomparisons between the licensee and the NRC for tritium have been in agreement. Also the licen-see has purchased a new liquid scintillation counter (LSC). Although installed, the new LSC is not yet operational. The inspector stated that a sample was split during this inspection for tritium analysis, and this area would be reviewed during the next inspection.
In addition, a simulated air sample which was analyzed by the licensee's health physics personnel using the health physics gamma spectroscopy system was also compared.
The results of the intercomparison are listed in Table I.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Records, Procedures and Instrumentation The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and records in the areas of plant chemistry and radiochemistry, and effluent radiochemistry. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's effluent monitor readouts in the control room.
In addition the licensee's effluent discharge release records were reviewed for the period January, 1983 through May, 1983, as well as the licensee's procedures for the control and release of radio-active effluents.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
.
f I
.--
-, -. _ -
-_
__
_.
--
.
.
.
TABLE 1 HADDAM NECK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLf; ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE C_OM PAR I SON RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER
"A" Waste Test Cs-137 (2.72 1 0.05) E-5 (2.70 1 0.02) E-5 Ag reement Tank Cs-134 (1.83 1 0.04) E-5 (1.785 1 0.015) E-5 Ag reement 1220 hrs Co-60 (5.7 i 1.0) E-7 (5.9 i 0.5) E-7 Ag reement 6-21-83
-
"A" Waste Gas Xe-133 (4.073 t 0.005) E-1 (4.221 1 0.013) E-1 Ag reement Decay Tank Xe-135 (1.24 1 0.03) E-3 (1.16 i O.04) E-3 Ag reemen t 1300' hrs Xe-133m (2.15 1 0.11) E-3 (1.5 1 0.2) E-3 Possible Agreement
- (2.03 1 0.03) E-3 Ag reement 6-22-83 Reactor Coolant 1-131 (5.4 1 0.2) E-3 (5.8 1 0.7) E-3 Agreement 0315 hrs 1-132 (1.12 0.04) E-1 (1.25 1 0.09) E-1 Ag reemen c 6-21-83 1-133 (5.46 1 0.05) E-2 (5.47 i 0.16) E-2 Ag reement 1-135 (1.11 1 0.03) E-1 (1.16 i 0.07) E-1 Ag reement
"A" Waste Test gross a lpha (2.7 1 0.2) E-8 (2.29 i 7) E-8 Ag reement Tank S r-89 (-1 1 2) E-8 (1.2 i 7) E-7 No comparison 1100 hrs S r-90 (1.58 i O.10) E-7 (2.36 + 7) E-7 Possible Agreement 5-4-82 H-3 (4.93 1 0.02) E-2 (8.05 i 7) E-2 Di sag reement
- (4.32 1 7) E-2 Ag reement
- Note: Result obtained using NPC value for gamma abundance.
- Note: Reanalyzed result - see Paragraph 3.
e
__.
.
...
..
.
.
.
.
-.
..
.. _.
.......
..
_
_.. _ _
__
._ _
_
._.
.. _.
__
. _ _. - _. _,
-.... _ _
_. -.
-
.
,
.
.
!
.
i TABLE 1 HADDAM NECK VERIFICATION TEST RESULT _S SAMPLE
_I _SO T O P E NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUX COMPARISON RESULTS IN TOTAL MICROCURIES j.
NRC Spiked Co-60 (1.8 1 0.2) E-1 (1.46 1 0.03) E-1 Agreement i
Cha rcoa l Cartridge Cs-137 (1.32 1 0.13) E-1 (1.006 1 0.013) E-1 Agreement
(Uniform Distribution)
Co-57 (2.3 1 0.4) E-2 (1.6 1 0.4) E-2 Agreement
,
..
(3.3 1 0.5) E-2 (2.59 i ?) E-2 Ag reement Am-241 l
NRC Spiked Co-60 (4.4 1 0.7) E-2 (6.0 1 0.2) E-2 Agreement
,
Charcoal Cartridge Cs-137 (3.310.6) E-2 (4.32 1 0.09) E-2 Agreement (Face Loaded)
Co-57 (5.8 1 0.9) E-3 (6.9 1 0.3) E-3 Ag reement Am-241 (8.2 i 1.2) E-3 (1.20 1 7) E-2 Ag reement Reactor Coolant I-131 (2.1 1 0.3) E-3 (2.6 1 0.5) E-3 Ag reement Pa rticulate Fil ter 1-132 (2.60 i 0.07) E-2 (2.36 1 0.09) E-2 Agreement 1415 hrs 1-133 (2.06 0.05) E-2 (2.16 i 0.07) E-2 Ag reement 6-21-83 1-134 (1.44 1 0.10) E-2 (1.41 1 0.07) E-2 Ag reement 1-135 (3.4 1 0.2) E-2 (3.8 1 0.3) E-2 Agreement
- Reactor Coolant 1-131 (2.1 1 0.3) E-3 (2.20 1 0.08) E-3 Agreement Particulate Filter 1-133 (2.06 1 0.05) E-2 (2.32 1 0.04) E-2 Agreement i
1415 hrs 1-135 (3.4 1 0.2) E-2 (3.8 1 0.3) E-2 Ag reement 6-21-83 (counted by heaIth physics)
- Note: The sample was counted on 6-22-83.
T he re fo re, 1-132 and 1-134 had decayed below detectable levels.
~
i
'
,
,
-
- -
-
_
_
'
.
-
.
.
s i
.
,
.
Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based on 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 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.
Resolution = NRC REFERENCE VALUE RATID= LICENSEE VALUE REFERENCE VALUE UNCERTAINTY 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 s
'
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 adsorbers
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 kev.
St-89 and Sr-90 Determinations.
.
Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same data using the same r,eference nuclide.
.
y a
=