IR 05000309/1993011
| ML20045J113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045J111 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-93-11, NUDOCS 9307230060 | |
| Download: ML20045J113 (4) | |
Text
. _
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.: 50-309/93-11 Docket Nos.: 50-309 License Nos.: DPR-36 Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta. Maine 04336 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At:
Wiscassett. Maine Inspection Conducted:
June 14-18.1993
-
Inspectors:
[< /d>
7 - ' l 'I $
edi. McNantara, Laboratory Specialist Date Effluents Radiation / Protection Section (ERPS)
_ l
[],
1 - 12 sts J. kottan, I/boratory Specialist, ERPS Date Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved By:
mv7'ht f!/.2!93
,v-Robert JTBhghief, ER/S, FRSSB
'Date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insoected: Announced inspection of the radiological and non-radiological chemistry programs. Areas reviewed included: Confirmatory Measurements - Radiochemistry, Standards Analyses - Chemistry and Laboratory QA/QC.
Results: The licensee had in place effective programs for measuring radioactivity in process and effluent samples znd for measuring chemical parameters in plant systems samples. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were observed.
9307230060 930713 PDR ADDCK 05000309.
O PDR,
.
.
Details
)
1.0 hullyiduals Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
'
N. Caristo, Radiological Programs Section Head
E.
Heath, Radiological Controls Section Head J.
Hebert, Manager, Licensing and Engineering Support
W. Lach, Analytic Chemist
D. Lemieux, I & C Section Head
S.
Nichols, Manager, Technical Support
]
J.
Niles, Assistant Manager, Operations
-
P.
Radsky', Chemistry Section Head
,
J.
Stevens, Lead Chemist i
L. Thornburg, Secondary Systems Chemist
M. Veilleux, Acting Plant Manager
J.
Weast, Licensing Engineer
H. Winicov, Chemistry Specialist Sinte of Mnine Employees
P.
Dostie, Nuclear Safety Inspector USNRC Employees W. Olsen, Resident Inspector
K-.
Battige, Reactor Engineer, Intern
.
Denotes those present at the exit meeting on June 18,1993. The inspectors also
interviewed other personnel,- including the chemistry assistants who performed the analyses for this inspection.
2.0 Ltrpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following areas.
1.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems samples and effluent samples, and the ability to measure chemical parameters in various plant systems samples.
2.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC program.
l
j
_
_
_
.
.
-3-3.0 Rndiolonical and Chemical Measurements 3.1 Confirmatory Measurements - Radiochemistry During the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge),
and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee's chemistry section and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filter and charcoal cartridge. In these cases, the samples could not be split and the same samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC. Where possible, the samples were actual effluent samples or in-plant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC Region I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual samples were used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent and other samples with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
,
In addition, a liquid 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,
H-3, and gross alpha. The results of these analyses 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 a liquid sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on October 22-26,1990 (Inspection Report No. 50-309/90-22) were also compared during this inspection.
The licensee's Radiation Control Section performed gamma spectrometry analyses ofin-
plant samples for radiation protection purposes. During this inspection, the charcoal i
cartridge and reactor water particulate filter were also analyzed by the licensee's Radiation Control Section and compared with NRC results. These types of samples were j
those normally analyzed by this section.
The comparisons for all of the above sample results that were available indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment I to Table I) with one exception. The one exception was the Fe-35 result from the sample which was split during the previous inspection. The specific reason for the Fe-55 disagreement could not be determined during the inspection. However, as stated above, a liquid sample was split for Fe-55 analysis during this inspection, and these results will be compared as soon as received in order to resolve this discrepancy.
Some possible reasons for the Fe-55 disagreement could be a poor sample split or a matrix effect present in the sample. Since additional precautions were taken and new techniques employed during the inspection in order to ensure and verify a good sample i
.-
_
_
.
.
.
-4-split, an NRC spiked sample will not be sent to the licensee at this time in order to attempt to resolve the disagreement. The data are presented in Table I. No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
3.2 Standards Analyses - Chemical During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysis. The standards were prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements. In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision. The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at t
three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration and analysis range.
.
Also, a sample was spiked with a standard anion solution and sent to ORNL for analysis.
The analyses to be performed in the sample are fluoride, chloride, and sulfate. The
.
'
licensee will perform the same analyses on an aliquot of this spiked sample. The results of these analyses will be compared when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection report. The analysis of spiked samples permits comparisons from an actual sample matrix.
The results of the standard measurements comparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for comparing results. (See Attachment I to Table II.) The ammonia data presented in Table II were obtained with a quadratic fit to the ionchromatography system (IC)
calibration data rather than the linear fit originally used by the licensee. The licensee stated that since the IC ammonia response was nonlinear, a_ quadratic fit would be used in all future calibrations. The inspector stated that this would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection in this area. The data are presented in Table II. No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
4.0 Laboratory OA/OC The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program was described in a number of procedures, including the following:
- Procedure No. 7-02-01, Chemistry Quality Assurance / Quality Control Programs
- Procedure No. 7-201, Operational Quality Control Checks of Laboratory Instruments
- Procedure No. 7-211, Chemistry Qualification Program B
v
._.
_
.
-5-The procedures provided for both an intralaboratory QC program and an interlaboratory QC program. The intralaboratory program consisted of the analysis of spiked samples on an annual basis and instrument and procedure control charts for assessing and trending instrument performance. The interlaboratory program consisted of the analysis
!
of unknown samples received from outside laboratories.
The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program for 1991,1992, and 1993 to date and, based on this review, noted that the licensee was implementing the laboratory QA/QC program as required. In particular the inspector noted the thorough and comprehensive documentation of reviews of the laboratory QC data by the licensee, the licensee's use of the QC program results to improve analytical capability, and the licensee's commitment to laboratory QA/QC in
'
general. The inspector stated that these aspects of the laboratory QA/QC program were noted strengths.
Additionally, the inspector reviewed QA Audit Report No. MY-92-02, Chemistry /RETS/REViP/ODCM, which was performed on May 4-8 and 12-13,1992.
The audit team included a chemistry technical specialist and the technical depth of the
-
audit was excellent, sufficient to identify any programmatic breakdowns. Based on the
+
review of the above audit, the inspector determined there was independent oversight and assessment of chemistry activities.
No safety concerns or violations were identified in this area.
5.0 Exit Mnting The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on June 18, 1993. The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
I
'
.
.
TABLE I Maine Yankee Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries ner Milliliter Waste Gas Decay Tank B Ki-85 (1.7i0.2)E-2 (1.70 0.10)E-2 Agreement 1411 hrs
-
6-16-93 Xe-133 (1.183i0.003)E-1 (1.17i0.08)E-1 Agreement (Detector #2)
Air Ejector 1452 hrs Kr-85m (1.7i0.2)E-7 (1.9i0.2)E-7 Agreement 6-16-93 Xe-133 (2.62i0.04)E-6 (2.7 0.2)E-6 Agreement (Detector #1)
Xe-135 (1.76i0.03)E-6 (1.69i0.09)E-6 Agreement
'
Reactor Coolant 1-131 (7.0i0.4)E-3 (5.0i0.3)E-3 Agreement 0912 hrs I-132 (7.70i0.06)E-2 (7.90i0.13)E-2 Agreement
'
6-16-93 1-133 (4.46i0.05)E-2 (5.0i0.02)E-2 Agreement (Detector #2)
1-134 (1.430i0.016)E-1 (1.55 0.02)E-1 Agreement 15 Minute Count I-135 (8.7i0.2)E-2 (9.3i0.2)E-2 Agreement Reactor Coolant 1135 hrs I-131 (5.6i0.2)E-3 (5.2 0.3)E-3 Agreement 6-15-93 I-133 (4.56i0.04)E-2 (5.0i0.2)E-2 Agreement
,
(Detector #2)
I-135 (9.1i0.2)E-2 (9.0i0.2)E-2 Agreement 4 Hour Count
.
-
-
. -. - ~ - - - -.,
<-n
-
--
--
-
--
a,
_,
.
-
.
.
TABLE I - continued Maine Yankee Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE Epr' VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON
Results m nilcrocuries per Milliliter Reactor Coolant 1135 hrs I-131 (4.93i0.12)E-3 (5.2iO.2)E-3 Agreement 6-15-93 I-133 (4.6510.04)E-2 (4.8i0.2)E-2 Agreement (Detector #1)
I-135 (9.li0.4)E-2 (8.8i0.4)E-2 Agreement 24 Hour Count
>
Reactor Coolant Cr-51 (2.5810.10)E-4 (2.53i0.14)E-4 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (1.24i0.08)E-5 (1.31i0.10)E-5 Agreement 0247 hrs Co-58 (2.77i0.02)E-4 (2.92i0.09)E-4 Agreement
'
5-31-93 Co-60 (5.6010.16)E-5 (5.5i0.2)E-5 Agreement (Detector #2)
Ba-140 (6.56 0.10)E-4 (6.510.2)E-4 Agreement Plant Vent Charcoal Cartridge I-131 (8.3i0.5)E-10 (8.9i0.7)E-10 Agreement 1039 hrs 6-16-93 I-133 (9.1 1.0)E-10 (9.410.8)E-10 Agreement
(Detector #2)
.
.m.
.
-
. -.
.
.
-
--
. --
.-
-.
--
.
.
.
rw e-
.
e
' ' -, + -
g
"
v*
-
v
~
N*W Du
.
.
TABLE I - continued Maine Yankee Radiochemistry Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON
.
Results in Microcunes per Millilitgr
!
Liquid Radioactive Co-58 (1.11i0.02)E-5 (1.20i0.05)E-5 Agreement Waste Co-60 (7.76i0.05)E-5 (7.8i0.2)E-5 Agreement
'
ADT Tank B Ag-110m (3.14 0.03)E-5 (3.58i0.06)E-5 Agreement
1440 hrs Tc-99m (2.13i0.14)E-6 (2.0i0.2)E-6 Agreement
'
6-15-93 I-131 (3.73i0.03)E-5 (4.04 0.12)E-5 Agreement (Detector #1)
Cs-134 (1.82i0.03)E-5 (1.81i0.07)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (1.511 0.006)E-4 (1.61i0.06)E-4 Agreement -
Ba-140 (8.0 0.7)E-6 (7.4i0.8)E-6 Agreement Liquid Radioactive Sr-89 (-5 7)E-9 (9i5)E-9 No Comparison Waste Sr-90 (3 3)E-9 (-7i4)E-9 No Comparison
'
Test Tank A Fe-55 (1.34i0.04)E-6 (1.9i0.3)E-6 Disagreement 1015 hrs H-3 (1.37i0.01)E-1 (1.26i?)E-1 Agreement 10-23-90 gross alpha (6i3)E-9 Not Reported No Comparison Reactor Coolant Cr-51 (2.58i0.10)E-4 (2.56i0.16)E-4 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (^.24 0.08)E-5 (1.09i0.12)E-5 Agreement 0~247 hrs Co-58 (2.77i0.02)E-4 (2.84 0.10)E-4 Agreement 5-31-93 Co-60 -
(5.60i0.16)E-5 (5.2i0.2)E-5 Agreement (Health Physics Ba-140 (6.56i0.10)E-4 (6.7i0.2)E-4 Agreement Analysis, Detector #3)
.
. -
- -
-
-
-
.
.
,
.
.
TABLE I - continued Maine Yankee Radiochemistry Test Reselts SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries ner Milliliter
,
Plant Vent Charcoal Cartridge I-131 (8.3i0.5)E-10 (8.7i0.9)E-10 Agreement 1039 hrs 6-16-93 I-133 (9. lil.0)E-10 (8.4il.1)E-10 Agreement (Health Physics Analysis, Detector #4)
,
.
,
,
w,
-
ser
--r-+c-
.~
,
,.m.r
-
..-w w
-
,-v m-
--
v m
i-r-o v
A-
- - -
=r
-
- - - -. - - - - - - - - = * - - --- + *----
_
.
_
_
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO TABLE I Criteria for Comparine Analytical Measurements of Table I 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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC
Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty. As the 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'
Ratio for Agreement
<4 No comparison
-7 0.5
- 2.0 8 - 15 0.6
- 1.66 16 - 50 0.75-1.33 51 - 200 0.80
- 1.25
> 200 0.85
- 1.18 P
i Resolution = NRC Valueh sigma counting uncertainty
,
2 Ratio = Licensee Value/NRC Value I
I
u
.i
.-
.
.
TABLE II Maine Yankee Analytical Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of E
LicenJieg Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts per million (com)
Iron AA 0.199 i 0.002 0.193 i 0.006 Agreement 0.398 i 0.004 0.423 i 0.006 Agreement 0.795 0.007 0.833 i 0.006 Agreement Copper AA 0.202 i 0.002 0.21 i 0.02 Agreement t
0.403 i 0.004 0.42 i 0.02 Agreement 0.810 0.010 0.823 i 0.012 Agreement Nickel AA 0.199 i 0.002 0.207 i 0.006 Agreement 0.400 0.004 0.420 i 0.010 Agreement 0.800 i 0.008 0.793 i 0.015 Agreement Chromium AA 0.200 1 0.002 0.217 i 0.015 Agreement 0.402 i 0.004 0.373 i 0.006 Agreement 0.804 i 0.007 0.763 i 0.015 Agreement Boron T
1049 11 1035.3 i 0.9 Agreement 3040 i40 3044 i 3 Agreement 5060 i 80 5069 i 10 Agreement Lithium AA 0.493 i 0.007 0.5023 i 0.0006 Agreement 1.24 i 0.02 1.225 i 0.006
- Agreement 1.94 i 0.02 1.939 i 0.006 Agreement
.
,-n
,
,
,-..
w v-
,-,e
,
_a,_-
- ---.-- -
--
- - - --
- --
.
.
TABLE II - continued Maine Yankee Analytical Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of E
Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison t
Results in parts per million (oom)
Ammonia IC 1.1010.03 0.93 i 0.02 Qualified Agreement 3.05 i 0.05 2.77 i 0.11 Agreement 4.82 i 0.07 4.54 i 0.10 Agreement Results in oarts ver billion (oob)
Chloride IC 7.3i0.2 7.52 i 0.10 Agreement 15.4 i 0.6 15.05 0.11 Agreement 19.4 0.5 21.li0.2 Qualified Agreement Fluoride -
IC 8.0i0.4 8.14i0.13 Agreement 16.8 0.8 15.3io.2 Agreement 20.2iO.8 19.010.2 Agreement Sulfate ~
IC 7.76 i 0.12 8.04 i 0.13 Agreement 15.8 i 0.4 15.59 i 0.03 Agreement 19.4 i 0.3 20.04 i 0.10 Agreement Sodium AA 53 i 2 53.0il.0 Agreement 102 3 105 i 5 Agreement 155 i 4 160 3:
Agreement
.
..
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
..
..
-
.. -.
...
. -..
.
.
-
.
TABLE II - continued Maine Yankee Analytical Chemistry Test Results
.
- Chemical Method of E
Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts ner billion (ppb)
. ydrazine SP 13.23 i 0.06 12iG Qualified H
Agreement 34.li0.3 34 i 0 Agreement 56.5il.0 54.7 i 0.3 Agreement Silica SP 12.17 i 0.13 12.3 0.6 Agreement 28.4 i 0.4 29 0 Agreement 60.lil.0 60iG Agreement-
,
Notes:
Ion Chromatography IC
=
= - Potentiometric Titration T
UV-Vis Spectrophotometry SP
=
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry-AA
=
.
S u
.m
.-
--
2.
.
.
s
- -
m e.
t-v
"
-
,
,-m--
-
..
_
,
-
-
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO TABLE II Criteria for Comparine Analytical Measurements from Table II This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests. In these criteria the judgment limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, " Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors." Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviation range (i2Sd) of the.ORNL known values are considered to be in agreement. Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but within the plus or minus three standard deviation range ( 3Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in qualified agreement. Repeated results which are in qualified agreement will receive additional attention. Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the ORNL known value are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using the average percent standard deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of the NUREG.
The ranges for the data in Table II are as follows.
Agreement Qualified Agreement Analyte Range Rance Chloride 8%
i 12 %
Fluoride i 12 %
i 18 %
Sulfate 10 %
i 15 %
Silica i 10 %
i 15 %
Sodium i 14 %
21 %
Copper 10 %
i 15 %
Iron 10 %
15 %
Boron 2%
i 3%
Ammonia i 10 %
i 15 %
Hydrazine 8%
f 12%
Lithium i 14 %
i 21 %
Nickel i 6%
i 9%
Chromium 10 %
i 15 %
l I
I j
..
.
.