IR 05000245/1986011

Safety Insp Repts 50-245/86-11,50-336/86-11 & 50-423/86-19 on 860602-06.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radiochemical Measurements Program,Including Program for QC of Analytical Measurements,Records & Procedures

ML20202E467
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/30/1986
From:	Kramaric M, Pasciak W, Struckmeyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202E450	List: IR 05000245/1986011 ML20202E447
References
50-245-86-11, 50-336-86-11, 50-423-86-19, NUDOCS 8607140380
Download: ML20202E467 (12)

Text

.. - - _- .. - . . . -

.

r

.

<

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

,

) Report No /86-11; 50-336/86-11; 50-423/86-19 Docket No ; 50-336; 50-423 License Nos. DPR-21; DPR-65; NPF-49 Category C

, Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3

{ Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut l

Inspection Conducted

June 2-6, 1986 I Inspectors: YWh '

//30/f/

I Richard K. StruckmeyerVRadiation Specialist /dat/

tYWAh! Ol Y lC b' $0 M rga~re~t/~E.~Kr m #i , adiatign Specialist * date

! Approved by: hQ Wl te r J . ~P h -

jd C b 6 )of8(.

j ria M hief, Effluents / dafe

Radiation P otection Section, EPRPB i

.

Inspection Summary: Inspection conducted June 2-6,1986 (Combined Inspection i Report Nos. 50-245/86-11; 50-336/86-11; 50-423/86-19)

l Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's I

'

radiochemical measurements program using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological j and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. Areas reviewed included: program for the quality control of analytical measurements, performance on radiological

!

analyses of split actual effluent samples, and records and procedure Results: Vithin the areas inspected, no violations were identified.

!

i

!

l G

l I ._ _ _

_ ._ . _ - - . - - , -

- _ . . - - - , , ..- - . _ . - - - - - - - , - - _ - -

- . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______ _ _ _ . _ . _ __ __ __ ___ _ _ _

! 1 l

.

l l

DETAILS

!

• Individuals Contacted l

l Principal Licensee Employees

! '

M. Brennan, Unit 1 Radiation Protection Supervisor T. Ittelaig, Unit 2 Assistant Chemistry Supervisor

,

"J. Kangley, Radiological Services Supervisor J. Kelly, Station Services Superintendent

• J. Laine, Unit 2 Radiation Protection Supervisor R. Langer, Unit 3 Assistant Chemistry Supervisor l F. Libbey, Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance

* Romberg, Station Superintendent t

R. Sachatello, Unit 3 Radiation Protection Supervisor

'

M. Sforza, Engineer, Operation; Quality Assurance

• J. Waters, Chemistry Supervisor

• Wilkens, Unit 1 Assistant Chemistry Supervisor The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including members of the chemistry and health physics staf l

• Indicates those present at exit meeting on June 6, 1986.

, Status of Previously Identified Items

'

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (336/85-24-01): Manual calculation of dose equivalent I-131. The licensee revised those procedures in which dose equivalent I-131 calculations are performed so as to include the

,

method for calculating this quantity when the computer is unavailabl (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (336/85-24-02): Surveillance records for l dose equivalent I-131. Chemistry form 2834-1 was revised to include a '

requirement to confirm that the acceptance criterion for dose equivalent

'

I-131 (<1.0 uCi/g) was met. No further instances were found of incomp-lete surveillance records.

i (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (245/86-08-03): Revisions of Unit sur-

veillance procedures for effluent radiation monitors. New revisions of r

SP-831 (Rev.3) and SP-836 (Rev.5) now reference correct sections of

<

Technical Specifications, and include sections on calibration with radio-

'

active liquid sources (SP-831) and radioactive gaseous sources (SP-836).

Revised procedure SP-406T (Rev.7) now includes the upper limits of the

range of the air ejector radiation monitor. All of these procedures have received PORC approval.

.

.

a

'

-- -. - - _ - - _ - . . - - . - - - - - _

_ - - -

. - - - . . - . - - . . - _ - .. .. _-- . . ._.- ._ -

-_ ,

,

-

!

. Confirmatory Measurements ,

During the inspection actual liquid and gas samples, as well as simulated

particulate and charcoal filter samples, were analyzed by the licensee l (Unit 1/2 Chemistry laboratory, Unit 3 Chemistry laboratory, Unit 1/2 i Health Physics, and Unit 3 Health Physics) and the NRC for the purpose of l intercomparison. Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent i samples or in plant samples which duplicate counting geometries used by i the licensee for effluent sample analyse Due to the low level of radioactivity present on actual particulate

filters and charcoal cartridges, the inspector submitted standards 1 i simulating nuclides typically present for these counting geometrie The

samples were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment

! and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological 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 Specification requirements and other re'gulatory requirement In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference

'

laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses to

, be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, gross alpha, tritium, and Fe-55. The results will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection repor ;

} The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and NRC:I

'

during a previous inspection on June 27-July 1,1983 (Inspection Report Numbers 50-245/83-12 and 50-336/83-15) were also compared during this inspectio !

The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of

, the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing i

results (See Attachment 1). The results of the comparison are listed in

Table The inspector intercompared a variety of gaseous samples with both the Unit 1/2 laboratory and the Unit 3 laboratory. Although all inter-comparisons ultimately resulted in agreement, there was an initial dis-agreement of Kr-85 in the Unit 2 WGDT "D" sample. The cause of this disagreement appeared to be a poor representative sample split. For the initial analysis the licensee analyzed the gas using a Marinelli beaker

.

and the NRC used a glass sphere. The sample was then reanalyzed using the

!

same sample in the licensee's Marinelli beaker and resulted in agreemen I i

A sample of the gas space in the Unit 2 VCT and a Unit 1 off gas sample were also intercompared. The inspector noted that these results appeared to be biased slightly low. The inspector discussed with the licensee its

calibrations for gaseous samples. The licensee stated that liquid

!

.

,--,,--,----+=---e- -.e, ,,--,-nv.-o, , , - , - - , . . . , ,.-,---,-+,.-,.,..-e ,y-c.w-,.-, y "-,,,,i,,-o%, . . , , , , , - - -,,~~m,

-_ - - - - ._- . . .- . --_ - .. . - _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ . - _-

.

i I

_ standards are used and correction factors are applied to compensate for

'

attenuation differences. However, the licensee was not able to provide a j written reference for the correction factors used for the off gas vial and

Marinelli beaker counting geometries. The inspector stated that the l licensee should be able to reference and justify the values used for

! attenuation corrections. The inspector also discussed with the licensee

the calibration of gaseous samples and the recent availability of gas calibration standards which can be used instead of liquid standard ; As mentioned previously, the inspector submitted a spiked charcoal cart-

,

ridge to the licensee for intercompariso The spiked cartridge has j

'

radioactivity distributed throughout the charcoal in such a manner as to simulate a uniform loading; however, the activity is somewhat greater on one side than the other. The licensee's calibration is based on the

assumption that the majority of radioactivity remains on the face of the i charcoal cartridge. Therefore the results of the analyses by the licensee l included in Table I were obtained by analyzing only the " hot" side of the 1 charcoal cartridge. The inspector discussed with the licensee the im-portance of maintaining the capability to analyze any distribution of i radioactivity throughout a charcoal cartridg i

! Laboratory QA Program The inspector performed a selected review of the licensee's program for J the quality assurance of radioanalytical measurements. The review was f perfortred with respect to criteria contained in the following:

Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)-Effluent Streams and the Environment".

! Principles of Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements (National

!

Bureau of Standards)

The inspector reviewed the following procedures:

l CP-800/2800, Rev.9, Chemistry Quality Assurance Program j CP-800/28008, Rev.1, QA Control Chart Preparation .

l

'

CP-801/2801 I, Rev.4, Liquid Scintillation Counter

}

CP-806/2806 AF, Rev.0, Preparation of Standard Calibration Geometries

!

CP-801/2801 N, Rev.6, Computer Radioisotopic Analysis System (CRAS)

!

'

The inspector also reviewed the following Unit 1/2 data:

) Interlaboratory comparisons for 1985 and 1st quarter 1986 i

Control charts for daily efficiency checks and gain checks for all 3

!

Ge(Li) detectors for 1986

,

i

!

l k

.___ - _

.

. .

Control charts for daily source checks performed on the Liquid Scintillation Counter (LSC) for 1986 LLD verification performed January 1986 (following the' calibration of the 3 Ge(Li) detectors)

Results of Sr-89 and Sr-90 duplicates and spikes submitted to licensee's vendor laboratory for 198 Within the scope of this review the following concerns were identified:

Procedure CP-800/2800 requires that semi-annually the licensee com-pare isotopic analyses with an independent laboratory using either an iodine filter, particulate filter, gas chamber, or liquid geometr The inspector noted that all intercomparisons reviewed involved a  :

liquid geometry exclusively. The inspector discussed with the licensee the importance of intercomparing all of the counting geo-metries in order assess the laboratory's accuracy for all analyses routinely performe Procedure CP-800/2800 also requires the licensee to submit Sr-89 and Sr-90 duplicate and spiked samples to the vendor laboratory. How-ever, this proceduce does not require inat quality control checks be performed for Fe-55 analysis, which is also performed by the licensee's vendor laboratory. The licensee stated that' the re-quirement for Fe-55 analysis originated with the implementation of j the new Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications. The licensee j informed the inspector that a revision would be made to the procedure

to include quality control for the Fe-55 analysis performed by the i vendor laborator '

!

] The inspector stated that these concerns will be reviewed in a subsequent

inspection report (50-245/86-11-01; 50-336/86-11-01). .

t

5. Offsite Dose Calculations The inspector reviewed the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual j (ODCM), as well as selected Unit I and Unit 2 implementing procedures for

calculating projected and cumulative doses that might result from station effluents. The inspector confirmed that calculations were performed in r accordance with these procedures, and that the results appeared to be

correct. The methodology employed is conservative, so that initial dose

calculations made by Units 1 and 2 chemistry personnel generally over-

,

estimate the doses to members of the public from liquid and gaseous l effluents. The results have shown that even these conservatively -

,

estimated doses are well below the limits of the licensee's Technical

! Specifications. More precise, though still conservative, dose estimates l are subsequently performed by NUSCO corporate staff using computer based i models which are also described in the ODCM. The results of these cal-i culations are summarized in the licensee's Semiannual Radioactive l

Effluents Release Report, f

.----~...,,..,----..,.n - .,e , -, - - - . , - - - , , -,. , . - - - , , - . . - . , ., - - , , , . __--n,_,,

_ - ___ _

.

.

To facilitate the initial dose projections performed by Chemistry, com-puter codes for its micro-computer have been developed, based on the ODCM methodology. Unit 1 Chemistry is still in the process of testing the code, including comparisons of computer-calculated results with hand-calculated results. Unit 2 Chemistry is using the code as its primary means of performing the calculations. The inspector discussed with the licensee the need for documenting the validity of the computer code. The licensee stated that the code had been checked against hand calculations, but that no documentation had been prepared to serve as a verification of these checks. The licensee agreed to establish a file containing the appropriate documentation to verify the validity of the computer cod This will be reviewed in a future inspection (336/86-11-02).

6. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on June 6, 1986. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings. The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in Paragraph 3 and report the results to the NR At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto _ .- --. -

_ . ._- . . . .._

.

. .

Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements (Table 1 only)

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 progra In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the com-parison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty, i

As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selectiv ;

'

Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease Resolution = NRC REFERENCE VALUE RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE REFERENCE VALUE UNCERTAINTY NRC REFERENCE VALUE i

!

Resolution Agreement

]

<3 0.4 - .5 - .6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25

>200 0.85 - 1.18

I

- _ . _ . _ - _ _ . , _ _ _ - - _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . - - - - - - - . . - - _ - - . - - - . _ . - . _

_ . . - - . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

__ - __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - _ . ..- - . - . . _ _ - - . - - . . .

!

. -

TABL.E 1 i

MILLSTONE 1&2 VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS RESULTS IN MICR0(URIES PER MILLILITER SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUl LICENSEE VAlul COMPARISON l

Crud F i i te r A Mn-54 (1.52 1 0.09) E-5 (1.93 1 0.07) E-5 Ag reement (Unit 1) Mn-56 (1.00 i 0.06) E-4 (1.16 1 0.07) E-4 Ag reemen t 6/4/86 0900 hrs Co-58 (3.34 1 0.11) E-5 (3.74 1 0.09) E-5 Ag reemen t 1000 ml Co-60 (1.36 1 0.11) E-5 (1.61 1 0.07) E-5 Agreement VCT (Unit 2) Kr-87 (2.86 1 0.15) E-2 (2.5510.06) E-2 Agreement i gas space K r-88 (5.8 1 0.2) E-2 (4.56 1 0.09) E-2 Ag reemen t 6/4/86 1430 hrs Xe-133 (7.5 1 0.2) E-2 (7.23 1 0.09) E-2 Ag reemen t 0.5 mi Xe-135m (5.5 1 0.3) E-2 (4.19 1 0.09) E-2 Ag reement Xe-135 (2.36 1 0.02) E-1 (1.919 1 0.009) E-1 Ag reement a Of f-gas (Unit 1)

'

6/5/86 1005 hrs Kr-85m (2.5 1 0.3) E-4 (1.87 1 0.12) E-4 Ag reement 10 ml K r-87 (1.4 1 0.2) E-3 (1.38 1 0.06) E-3 Ag reemen t Xe-135 (1.49 1 0.06) E-3 (1.25 1 0.03) E-4 Ag reement WCDT "D" Kr-85 (8.5 1 0.2) E-4 (7.7 1 0.1) E-4 Ag reemen t (Unit 2) Xe-133 (2.01 1 0.07) E-6 (1.91 1 0.05) E-6 Agreement 1260 ml 6/4/86 0850 hrs l CWRT gross beta (1.76 1 0.06) E-3 (1.4 ! 0.1) E-3 Ag reement

) 7/5/83 gross aipha (512) E-8 <1 E-7 No Comparison i

'

1200 hrs H-3 (1.17 1 0.02) E-2 (1.27 i 0.13) E-2 Ag reement S r-89 ( .2) E-6 (8.6 1 0.8) E-7 Ag reement S r-90 (814) E-8 (3.2 1 0.5) E-8 Ag reemen t l

l f

I A

i

__

-

.

- . _ . _ _ . ._ . - - _ . . - __- . .. -- _ .__ - .

. -. - . . .

!

. *

j TABLE 1 i MILLSTONE 1&2 VERIFICATION TEST RESULT _S RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER i

RCS (Unit 1) 6-131 (2.3 1 0.6) E-5 (1.6 1 0.4) E-5 Ag reemen t 6/3/86 1505 hrs 1-132 (1,134 1 0.012) E-3 (1.180 1 0.009) E-3 Ag reement 50 ml 1-133 (6.00 1 0.08) E-4 (4.93 1 0.06) E-4 Ag reement I-134 (4.64 i 0.04) E-3 (4.94 1 0.04) E-3 Ag reement I-135 (1.33 1 0.04) E-3 (1.16 1 0.02) E-3 Ag reemen t RCS (Unit 2) 1-131 (2.0 1 0.3) E-3 (1.21 1 0.10) E-3 Ag reement 6/4/86 0730 hrs 1-132 (2.07 1 0.03) E-2 (2.139 1 0.016) E-2 Ag reement 1 mi l-133 (2.34 1 0.03) E-2 (2.025 1 0.014) E-2 Ag reement (counted at 0830 hrs) 1-134 (9.01 1 0.15) E-2 (8.50 i O.06) E-2 Ag reement 1-135 (5.37 1 0.15) E-2 (4.39 1 0.05) E-2 Ag reemen t l RCS (Unit 2) l-131 (1.4 1 0.2) E-3 (1.28 1 0.07) E-3 Ag reement i 6/4/86 0730 hrs 1-132 (2.12 1 0.04) E-2 (2.14 1 0.02) E-2 Ag reement

1 ml 1-133 (2.32 0.03) E-2 (1.993 1 0.013) E-2 Ag reement (counted at 1030 hrs) 1-134 (9.1 1 0.3) E-2 (8.06 1 0.14) E-2 Ag reement l-135 (5.25 0.13) E-2 (4.20 1 0.05) E-2 Ag reemen t Radwaste Composite Co-60 (1.49 1 0.07) E-5 (1.36 1 0.04) E-5 Ag raement May 1986 Cs-134 (1.87 1 0.09) E-5 (1.99 1 0.04) E-5 Ag reemen t 6/3/86 1137 hrs Cs-137 (5.7 1 0.1) E-5 (5.35 1 0.06) E-5 Ag reement 500 mi Co-58 (2.5 1 0.5) E-6 (3.0 1 0.2) E-6 Agreement

.

I

i i

_ - _ _ _

- _ . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ m._ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __m _ _ _ _ . _ ._ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _

e *

I

,

TABLE 1

MILLSTONE 1&2 VERiflCATION TEST RESULTS 1 RESULTS IN TOTAL MICROCURIES SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRO VALUE CHEMISTRY VAlt1E HEALTH PHYSICS VALU{ COMPARISON NRC Standa rd Ce-144 (3.46 1 0.02) E-2 (4.06 1 0.14) E-2 (3.74 0.25) E-2 Ag reemen t :

Pa rticulate Fi l ter Cs-137 (1.50 1 0.02) E-2 (1.68 1 0.02) E-2 (1.69 1 0.03) E-2 Agreement

2/22/84 Mn-54 (1.47 1 0.02) E-2 (1.63 1 0.06) E-2 (1.73 1 0.10) E-2 Ag reemen t

,

1400 hrs Co-60 (2.68 1 0.02) E-2 (3.04 1 0.03) E-2 (2.85 i O.05) E-2 Ag reemen t l NRC Standa rd Co-60 (9.84 1 0.05) E-3 (1.13 1 0.03) E-2 (i.07 0.04) E-2 Ag reemen t

! Cha rcoa l Cs-137 (9.74 1 0.05) E-3 (1.08 1 0.02) E-2 (1.05 1 0.02) E-2 Ag reemen t l Cartridge S/10/83 1200 hrs

!

r

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ _ _ _ _ _

- - - . . ..- -. _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - ~ _ . . -

i j

. i

.

TABLE 1

'

'

MILLSTONE 3 VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS

,

RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER SAMPLE ISOTOP{ NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Radwaste Compsite Co-60 (1.49 1 0.07) E-5 (1.51 1 0.04) E-5 Ag reemen t ,

for May 1986 Cs-134 (1.87 1 0.09) E-5 (2.13 1 0.04) E-5 Ag reemen t 6/3/86 1137 hrs Cs-137 (5.7 1 0.1) E-5 (5.86 1 0.06) E-5 Ag reemen t 500 mi Co-58 (2.5 1 0.5) E-6 (3.4 1 0.2) E-6 Ag reemen t RCS (Uni t 3) 1-131 (3.5 1 0.6) E - f4 (2.4 1 0.6) E-4 Ag reemen t ;

6/4/86 0630 hrs 1-132 (5.7 1 0.1) E-3 (6.27 1 0.09) E-3 Ag reement '

5 ml 1-133 (3.52 i O.06) E-3 (3.33 1 0.06) E-3 Ag reement 1-134 (1.20 1 0.06) E-2 (1.35 1 0.04) E-2 Ag reement 1-135 (6.9 1 0.4) E-3 (6.9 ! 0.3) E-3 Ag reement WGDT #2 Xc-133 (2.61 1 0.07) E-6 (2.96 1 0.05) E-6 Ag reement j 6/5/86 1350 hrs Xe-135 (3.7 1 0.3) E-7 (3.84 1 0.15) E-7 Ag reemen t

1260 ml K r-85 (9.06 1 0.15) E-4 (8.5 1 0.1) E-4 Ag reement i  !

I I

,

I i

r

-

.

e *

TABLE 1 MILLSTONE 3 VERiflCATION TEST RESULTS RESULTS IN TOTAL MICROCURIES SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE CHEMISTRY VALUE HEALTH PHYSICS VALUE COMPARISON NRC Standa rd Co-144 (3.46 0.02) E-2 (3.83 1 0.15) E-2 (3.90 1 0.14) E-2 Ag reemen t Pa rticulate filter Cs-137 (1.50 1 0.02) E-2 (1.57 1 0.02) E-2 (1.54 1 0.02) E-2 Ag reemen t 2/22/84 Mn-54 (1.47 1 0.02) E-2 (1.64 1 0.06) E-2 (1.56 1 0.06) E_2 Ag reement 1400 hrs Co-66 (2.68 1 0.02) E-2 (a.93 1 0.03) E-2 (3.13 1 0.03) E-2 Ag reement NRC Standa rd Co-60 (9.84 1 0.05) E-3 (1.10 1 0.02) E-2 (8.50 t 0.42) E-3 Ag reemen t Cha rcoa l ca rt ridge Cs-137 (9.74 1 0.05) E-3 L9.89 1 0.14) E-3 (8.63 1 0.27) E-3 Ag reement 5/10/83 1200 hrs

,

__ _ _____ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______.._m __ -