IR 05000213/1994001
| ML20059L474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1994 |
| From: | Jang J, Joustra J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L473 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-94-01, 50-213-94-1, NUDOCS 9402070046 | |
| Download: ML20059L474 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
- REGION I Report No.
50-213/94-01 Docket No.
50-213 License No.
DPR-61 Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Comnany P.O. Box 270 Hanford. Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At:
Northeast Utilities Service Comnany. Berlin. Connecticut Inspection Conducted:
January 10-14. 1994
.
M Inspector:
J:2p)L
-
Ja sfi C. Jang, Senior Radiation Spe. ist Date Huents Radiation Protection Secti (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRS&SB)
Approved by:
uk h,
(w h
//27/99
- Jpith A. Joust'a, Chief, pPS, FRS&SB, Dltte
/
r DJi'ision of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected:
Annotmced safety inspection of the projected dose calculation capability
,
from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, the licensee implemented an excellent projected dose calculation. Excellent knowledge of the RAB staff in this area was notewonhy. No
-
safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.
I 9402070046 940128
ADOCK050002y3 PDR
,
G
,
,
,
1,
..
DETAIIS 1.0 Individuals Contacted at Northeast Utilities Service Company (NU)
- R. Crandall, Supervisor, Radiation Assessment Branch
- W. Eakin, Senior Engineer
,
- L. Landry, Scientist
- R. Schmidt, Manager, Radiation Assessment Branch
- Attended the exit meeting on January 14, 1994.
2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to verify the licensee's capability to calculate projected offsite dose from radioactive liquid and airborne (noble gases and particulates) efnuent releases during normal operation.
3.0 Responsibility and Procedures The RAB of Nt1 had the responsibility to perform the final offsite dose calculations and used them for the radiological semiannual effluent reports. These' calculations were performed after releases but not used for controlling efnuent releases. The Haddam Neck site had the responsib lity to calculate projected offsite doses, using its Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) methodology, to control actual efuuent releases. The ODCM contained many conservative parameters in order to ensure that effluent release limits would not be exceeded.
The inspector reviewed the following procedures as part of the inspection of the
,
implementation of the Technical Specincation and the ODCM requirements.
i o RAB 4-3, Liquid Dose Calculations-LADTAP 11 o RAB 4-4, Gaseous Dose Calculations-GASPAR I
i The inspector noted that the above procedures were well written to allow performance of all necessary steps. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
4.0 PCDOSE Code
The PCDOSE code was developed by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (EG&G
!
Idaho, Inc.) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The code was designed to-
calculate the maximum projected radiation dose to an individual and the average dose to the population due to radionuclides released in radioactive liquid and airborne efDuent releases from a nuclear power plant. The code was designed for normal
.___-____
_--
.
,
I
.
i
operation rather than for emergency situations. The code was developed from the methodology found in both NUREG-0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1).
The PCDOSE code is to serve as a basis of comparison with similar programs
,
conducted by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plants.
'
5.0 Verification of the Proiected Dose Calculation Program 5.1 Routine Effluents During the previous inspection conducted in August 1992, the inspector performed an independent verification (using the PCDOSE Code) of the licensee's capability fo'r calculating projected doses to the public using radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge permits at the Haddam Neck site.
The licensee calculated the projected dose to the public prior to discharge of radioactive liquids and/or gases based on the data incorporated into the discharge permits. The results of the liquid and particulate dose projection comparisons were not in good agreement due to the conservative parameters
'
being used by the licensee. The noble gas dose projection comparison results were in excellent agreement. The inspector, however, was not able to perform the iodine and particulate dose projection comparisons during' the inspection, because the licensee was not able to separate an individual parameter in its computer code. The inspector determined that the dose projection comparisons
,
needed to be performed at the NU Berlin office during a subsequent inspection.
During this inspection, the inspector conducted intercomparisons at the NU Berlin facility. The inspector reviewed the ODCM for site specific parameters and current methodology for the noble gas, liquid, and particulates release
,
pathways. The inspector noted that the licensee used the LADTAP computer code for radioactive liquid releases and the GASPAR computer code for noble gases and particulates, including iodines and tritium releases. Both LADTAP and GASPAR computer codes were developed and published by the NRC.
The inspector evaluated the licensee's computer code by assuming site specific parameters and certain release information. The intercomparison results for the liquid, noble gas, and particulates release pathways are listed in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
The results of the radioactive liquid release pathway intercomparisons were.
excellent, as shown in Table.
.
.
.
a
..
,
!
!
The results of noble gas release pathway intercomparisons were also excellent,
]
as illustrated in Table 2.
The results of particulate release pathway (inhalation pathway)
i intercomparisons were also excellent, as shown in Table 3. The
intercomparison results of cow-milk and leafy vegetation pathways were not as
!
good as the others due to the different computer code and dose factors. The '
'
,
.
NU results were higher than the PCDOSE results with the exception of bone dose from _ milk and vegetable pathways, as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. The GASPAR code was published by the NRC in 1980 (NUREG-0597). The
PCDOSE code was developed in 1989, and used more current dose factors as l
well as more current models than the GASPAR code.
- l The NRC currently does not have specific criteria for comparisons. However,
,
up to about a 50% difference in projected dose values is acceptable as long as
!
the cause of difference can be identified.
r Based on the above comparisons, the inspector determined that the licensee
.;
conducted an excellent projected dose calculation program at the NU for thel Haddam Neck site. The inspector also noted that the responsible individuals -
had excellent knowledge in this area and the effluent control programs.as well.
j 5.2 Eyent Release
'l On January 13,1994, about 5 curies of noble gas were released, during a 10-i minute period, from the volume control tank (VCT) to the environment. The i
licensee, at the NU' facility, performed dose calculation. Even though the PCDOSE code could not be used for the event / emergency release, the inspector calculated the projected dose for the event using the licensee's isotopic mixture of noble gases and the actual meteorological data, use of x/Q.
(5.2E-6)instead of D-stability at the site boundary. The NU result was 3.02E-
,
'
3 millirem (mrem) while the PCDOSE results was 3.32E-3 mrem, which was in excellent agreement.
6.0 Exit Interview
,
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of this
,
inspection report at the conclusion of the inspection on January 14,-1994. The j
inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. The j
licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
.I i
.
>
-
D
.
..
<:
c Table 1. Dose Projection Comparisons (Release Sources : Liquid)
Adult Dose (mrem / quarter)
l Bone Liver T. Body Thyroid Kidney Lung Gi-Lli NU 1.26E-2 1.88E-2 1.35E-2 1.44E-3 7.17E-3 3.49E-3 2.07E-3 NRC 1.26E-2 1.88E-2 1.35E-2 1.44E-3 7.17E-3 3.49E-3 2.07E-3
'
.
Table 2. Noble Gas Dose Projection Comparisons Beta Air Gamma Air (mrad / quarter)
(mrad / quarter)
NU 6.79E-3 9.45E-3 NRC 6.80E-3 9.47E-3
,
Table 3. Dose Projection Comparisons (Release Sources : Particulates)
-
Inhalation Pathway : Adult Dose (mrem / quarter)
,
Bone Liver T. Body Thyroid Kidney Lung Gi-Lli NU 2.80E-4 2.04E-1 2.04E-1 2.03E-1 2.04E1 2.04E-1 2.03E-1 NRC 2.80E-4 2.04E-1 2.04E-1 2.03E-1 2.04E-1 2.04E-1 2.03E-1
i
.
,-
.
Table 4. Dose Projection Comparisons (Release Sources : Particulates)
Cow Milk Pathway : Adult Dose (mrem / quarter)
.
,
Bone Liver T. Body Thyroid Kidney Lung Gi-Lli NU l.68E-2 1.40E-1 1.30E-1 1.20E-1 1.30E-1 1.30E-1 1.20E-1 NRC 9.02E-3 9.48E-2 8.69E-2 7.00E-2 7.84E-2 7.28E-2 7.05E-2 Table 5. Dose Projection Comparisons (Release Sources : Particulates)
Leafy Vegetation Pathway : Adult Dose (mrem / quarter)
Bone Liver T. Body Thyroid Kidney Lung Gi-Lli NU 8.90E-3 3.80E-1 3.80E-1 3.70E-1 3.70E-1 3.70E-1 3.70E-1 NRC 1.81E-2 2.34E-1 2.26E-1 2.07E-1 2.16E-1 2.10E-1 2.08E-1
I-P.
I I
)
,
i
,