IR 05000309/1983011
| ML20024B712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1983 |
| From: | Pasciak W, Tang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024B700 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-83-11, NUDOCS 8307110265 | |
| Download: ML20024B712 (6) | |
Text
.
_
_
__
__
-
.
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-309/83-11 l
Docket No. 50-309 License No. DPR-36 Priority Category C
--
Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection Conducted: May 17 -/20, 1983 Inspectors:
.
J
. Jang, Radiatio pecialist
/
date Approved by:
@(/ cv
\\
[f /6 h 3
'
W. [/. PascTak, Chief, eft 1uents Radiation
/
fat'b Profection Section, Radiological
/
Protection Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 17 - 20, 1983 (Report No. 50-309/83-11)
Area 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 Service Laboratory. Areas reviewed included: program for quality control of analytical measurements, audit results, performance on radiological analyses of split actual effluent samples, and effluent control procedures.
The inspection involved 25 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC regionally based
'
inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-t fied in three areas.
One item of noncompliance was identified in one area.
(Severity Level IV - failure to have Plant Operation Review Committee (PORC)
approved procedures, paragraph 6).
.
8307110265 830622 PDR ADOCK 05000309
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
- J. Brinkler, Assistant Plant Manager
- A. Cayta, Head, Licensing Section W.' Lach, Radiochemist
- P. Radsky, Head, Chemistry Section
- R. Schwartz, QA Engineer
- D. Sturniolo, Assistant Technical Support Department Head L. Thornbugh, Secondary Chemist The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including members of the chemistry staffs.
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Laboratory QC Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the quality control of analytical measurements. The inspector noted that the licensee's 7.200 procedure covers quality control for both reactor coolant chemistry analyses and radiological analyses of effluent samples. The licensee's effluent radiological analysis QC program consists of timely splits with a contracted laboratory. The operating procedures for the various count-ing instruments specify daily background and source checks and, where applicable, gain checks. The licensee maintains this information in log and charts. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Audit Results The inspector determined that the licensee's chemistry and effluent monitoring programs were on the Quality Assurance Division audit list.
The inspector reviewed Audit Numbers MY-81-02 dated November 4 - 6, 1981, and MY-82-02 dated April 27 - 29, 1982. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Confirmatory Measurements c
During the inspection, actual liquid and airborne effluent sample,s 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 offluent samples are used to determine the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples. A crud filter was split between licensee and NRC:I
,
_,,
. -.
.
- -
-.
.
.
because the actual effluent particulate filter contained less than detect-able concentrations of radioactivity.
In addition, a liquid effluer,t 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, gross alpha, and gross beta.
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 July 21 - 24, 1981 (Inspection Report Number 81-16) were also compared during this inspection.
The results of the sample measurement intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were either in agreement or possible agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table 1.
5.
Records and Reports The inspector reviewed several records: raw cata counting logs, surveill-ance sheets, daily counter check logs and QC control charts, and inter-laboratory ana intralaboratory QC records. The inspector noted that the results of intralaboratory and interlaboratory QC samples were not compared because the related procedures did not contain the acceptance criteria. The inspector stated that this item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (309/83-11-01).
The inspector also reviewed semiannual effluent release reports for 1981 and 1982. The lower limit of detections (LLDs) were not included for 1982 reports. The licensee stated that the pages including LLDs were omitted from the semiannual reports by mistake.
The licensee provided the pages to be added to the 1982 semiannual effluent reports. The inspector reviewed LLDs during this inspection and verified that the required LLDs were met.
6.
Procedures The inspector noted that the licensee has ninety-nine (99) active chemis-try procedures as of May 2, 1983.
The inspector also noted that all chemistry procedures were classified as A, B, C, and D, required by Procedure 0-06-1; " Procedure Preparation, Classification and Format",
Revision 0, Issue Date August 28, 1981. Class A and B procedures were reviewed and approved by the Plant Operation Review Committee (PORC), as required by Procedure 0-06-2; " Procedure Review, Approval and Distribu-tion", Revision 3, Issue Date December 29, 1982. The inspector noted that ten (10) chemistry procedures were classified either A or B and were reviewed and approved by PORC.
Section 5.8.1 of the Technical Specifications requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained that meet
,
__
..
.
- _-
.
,
.
the requirements of Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33-1972. Appendix
"A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires procedures for control of chemistry, radiochemistry, and calibration of laboratory equipment. Section 5.8.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that each procedure of Section 5.8.1 of the Technical Specifications and changes thereto, shall be reviewed by the PORC and approved by the Plant Manager prior to implementation and reviewed periodically as set forth in administrative procedures.
Contrary to the above requirements, analytical procedures for effluent samples (i.e., tritium in water and vent stack, and gross beta) and calibration procedures for radionuclide counting equipment (i.e., gamma counting system, liquid scintillation counter, and proportional counter)
were not reviewed by PORC and approved by the Plant Manager prior to implementation. These noted analyses are required by Sections 3.16 and 3.17 of the Technical Specifications.
The inspector stated that the failure to follow the Technical Specifications requirement is an item of noncompliance (309/83-11-02).
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 20, 1983. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspector findings.
The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in paragraph 4 and report the results to the NRC.
.
L
.
_.
e e
TABLE 1.
THE RESULTS OF THE COMPARISONS SAMPL(
ISOTOPE NRC VALUE
- LICENSEE VALUl COMPARISON RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER TTA-Cross Alpha (312) E-9
<9.27 E-9 No comparison-7/22/81 Gross Beta (7.6 1 0.3) E-5 (1.10 1 0.01) E-4 Possible Agreement 1040 H-3 (1,09 i O.02) E-3 (1.12 1 0.03) E-3 Ag reement S r-89 (1.9 1 0.1) E-6 (2.2.1 0.1) E-6 Ag reement Sr-90 (1.4 1 0.1) E-7 (1.3 i O.1) E-7 Ag reement RIcc to r. Coo l a nt I-131 f2.1 1 0.3) E-3 (1.68 1 0.21) E-3-Ag reement 5/17/83 1-132 (2.63 i 0.08) E-2 (2.32 i O.05) E-2 Ag reement 10:00 1-133 (1.07 1 0.04) E-2 (1.33 i O.04) E-2 Ag reement 1-134 (3.9 i O.3) E-2 (4.31 1 0.07) E-2 Ag reement 1-135 (3.0 i O.2) E-2 (2.69 i O.11) E-2 Ag reement TTA l-131 (2.9 i O.5) E-7 (2.2 1 0.7) E-7 Ag reement 5/18/83 Co-58 (1.29 i 0.08) E-6 (1,13 i O.10) E-6 Ag reement 10:20 Filter Mn-54 (3.7 i O.3) E-6 (4.0 1 0.2) E-6 Ag reement ( C risd )
Co-58 (6.4 i O.2) E-5 (7.1 i O.2) E-5 Ag reement u-9:00 Co-57
-,. (4.4 i O.7).E-5 (4.7 1 0.6) E-5 Ag reement 12/17/82 Co-60 (2.6 i O.7) E-7 (2.4 1,0.5) E-7 Ag reement
"
Results in Microcurie's___ per Cubic _ Centimeter
(7.9 1 1.7) E-10 Ag reement
' e Cha rcoa l I-131 (8.4 i 1.1) E-10
'
s 5/17/83 1-133 (8.2 1 0.8) E-10
. (6.6 1 2.6) E-10 Ag reement 8:30 Gas 5/18/83 K r-85m (6.5 1 2.1) E-5 (4.2 1 0.7) E-5 Ag reement 10:30 Xe-133 (2.9 i 0.2) E-3 (2.6 1 0.1) E-3 Ag reement Xe-133 (3.044 1 0.007) E-I (2.61 i O.14) E-1 Ag reement Xe-135 (1.83 i O.04) E-3 (1.50 1 0.08) E-3 Ag reement
.
.
,
s
<
e i
i r
a
-
v.-
w w
.. - -..
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 it's associated uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution",
increases, the acceptability of a licensee's neasurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the L
resolution decreases.
RESOLUTION = NRC Reference Laboratory Valve RATIO = LICENSEE 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 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.
l-
!
Iodine on absorbers.
!
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
.
,
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification istless than 250 kev.
[
Sr-89 and Sr-90 Determinations.
. Gross Beta where samples are counted on the'same date using the same reference nuclide.
'
-
(
,
%
- g.jn
~
-
-