ML19276F488
| ML19276F488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000036 |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1979 |
| From: | Axelson W, Essig T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276F487 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0036-79-03, 70-36-79-3, NUDOCS 7903300471 | |
| Download: ML19276F488 (8) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report No. 070-36/79-03 Docket No. 070-036 License No. SNM-33 Licensee:
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
P. O. Box 500 Nuclear Power Systems-Manufacturing Windsor, Cr 06095 Facility Name: Hematite Facility Inspection At: Hematite Facility Site, Hematite, M0 Nf 7-[79 Inspector:
W. L.
el, son Approved By:
T. H. Essig, Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section Summary Inspection on February 12, 1979 (Report No. 70-36/79-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced confirmatory measurements closecut inspection including comparative results on analyses of j
plant radiological effluent samples and comparative check of plant
5 environmental samples. The inspection involved 8 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
O Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6 790a306f7/
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J.
Rode, Plant Manager
- H. Eskridge, Nuclear Licensing, Safety and Accountability Supervisor L. Swallon, Quality Control Officer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Outstanding Inspection Item (70-036/78-04):
Records of emergency plan training, test and drills, and drill critiques. During this inspection, the inspector examined drill critique reports to ensure all required documentation was conducted.
The inspector noted from these reports that better documentation relating to emergency plan training and drill critiques is being conducted.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this matter.
b.
(Closed) Outstanding Inspection Item (70-036/78-07):
Monitor well sampling.
During this inspection, the inspector examined the licensee's modified well sampling device and new sampling technique.
The licensee now samples monitoring wells by letting the sampler sink to the bottom of each well several times, tending to homogenize the water column.
Therefore, each sample will be more representative of the entire water column.
This sampling technique has been employed since January 1979.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this
~ ~ '
item.
c.
(Open) Outstanding Inspection Item (70-036/78-07):
Quality Assurance Program. At the time of this inspection, the licensee was developing a quality assurance program to ensure quality control of radiological measurements of plant ef fluents and environmental samples.
The licensec stated that a periodic audit of their contractor, Controls for Environmental' Pollution, will be conducted as part of this program.
Also, the licensee stated that the QA program will be in a workable draf t stage by July 1979. The inspector will review this program during f
a future inspection.
3.
Results of Comparative Analyses of Effluents Results of followup comparative analyses performed on effluent samples collected at the plant in September 20 and October 17, 1978, are shown in Table 1.
The criteria for comparing these measurements are given in Attachment 1.
Of the cix sample comparisons, the licensee's results yielded three agreements, one possible agreement, one no comparison, and one disagreement. The inspector discussed comparative results with the licensee, with emphasis on the one comparison resulting in a disagreement.
The licensee's result for a gross alpha analys'is of the north monitoring well was greater than that of the NRC Reference Laboratory and resulted in a disagreement.
If this difference was real and representative, the licensee may have overestimated releases of alpha-emitting radionuclides near the time of the inspection. Discussions with the licensee indicated no reasons why this sample was in disagreement.
The licensee and the inspector agreed that in the future, liquid samples collected for comparative gross beta analyses will be calibrated using an NBS-traceable Cs-137 reference The inspector stated this calibration need only be source.
conducted for samples collected pursuant to the confirmatory measurements program. Other gross beta analysis should continue to be analyzed using the licensee's previous method (Sr-Y-90 calib ration). This should eliminate any errors introduced from different calibration sources when comparing split samples.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,/
4.
Results of Analyses of Environmental Samples The results of followup comparative analyses performed on environmental vegetation and soil samples collected at the plant on October 17, 1978, are shown in Table 2.
The inspector discussed the results with the licensee with emphasis on apparent disagreements.
Soil and vegetation samples, in general, yielded such low concentrations that a statistical comparison of these results would not be meaningful, s
Table,2 shows other samples collected and analyzed by the NRC only. These samples included soil and vegetation samples from Pevely, Missouri, and water samples from the north and southeast monitoring wells. Additional analyses of these samples were conducted to determine if uraniam activity released from the plant could be detected in the nearby plant environs.
From Table 2, the inspector noted that there was no statistical difference in radioactive concentration in the soil and vegetation samples located at plant location #13 when compared with the Pevely, Missouri background samples.
With respect to the two well samples, it appears that the uranium activity detected cannot be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium activity.
This is evident from the fact that the southeast well, which is located farther from the plant, yielded a higher U-238 and U-233/234 activity than the north well sample.
In general, uranium activity levels detected in the plant monitoring wells were well below MPC values listed in 10 CFR 20.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Inte rview The inspector met with licensee representatives (Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 13, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program 2.
Table 2, Environmental Sample Results
- 3., Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements
.,v e
90 66
$f ATTAClE1C;T 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASURE'!ENTS 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 Refetence Laboratory's valve to its associated one sigma 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 should be con-sidered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to f ewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding vill result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VAI.UE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
~
. <3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 2.5
- 0. 3
- 3.0 No Comparison
>3 and <4 0.4 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 0.3 3.0 T4 and <8 0.5 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 T8 and <16 0.6 - 1.67 0.5 1.67 0.5
- 2.0 T16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 551 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
- 1.67 1.25 0.75 - 1.33
][200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80
~
J "A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 kev.
/
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
i "B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma e'nergy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 kev.
Sr.-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
f
. o Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
I u
r
TABLE I U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPE CTION A ND E NF OR CE ME NT CONF IR M ATORY ME ASUREMENTS PROGR AM FACILITY: CE HEMATITE FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1978
NRC--
--NR C : L ICENS E E- --
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RE S T
SITE PomD ALPHA 8 1E-08 6 0E-09 1 2E-07 9 0 E -0 9
- 1 5E+00 1 3E +01 A
BETA 6.0E-07 2 0E-08 6 9 E -07 5 0E-09 1 1E+00 3 0E+01 A
NORTH WELL A LP M A 1 7E-09 4 0E-10 5 7E-08 0.0 3 4E+01 4 2E+00 0
SETA 3 3E-06 1 0E -0 7 1 7 E-0 6 00 5 2E-01 3 3E +01 P
SOUTHEAST ALPHA 2 3E-09 4.0E-10 4 0E-09 00 1 7E+00 5 7E +00 A
WELL BETA 3 0E-09 5 0E-09 4 0E-09 0.0 1 3E+00 6.0E -01 N
T :T E S T RE S U L T S :
A= AG REEMEN T 0;D I S A G RE E ME N T P=POSSIBLE AG REE ME N T N=NO COMP A R I SON All results in uCi/ml t.
O
TABLE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, HEMATITE, MO NRC LICENSEE 1
1 Error Result Percent MPC-Sample Analysis Result
{0.4 3.1
.37 Soil-Plant Alpha 5.6 Location #13 Beta 39.9
- 1.6 1.3
.09-Vegetation-Plant Alpha 0.43
- 0.026 5.8 Location #13 Beta 13.6
.44 5.7 OTHER SAMPLES ANALYZED BY NRC ONLY MPC !
1 Error Percent Sample Analysis Result North Monitor ng'~
Well U-238
.13 I.05
.0004 b
ND U-235
.49 I.07
.002 U-233/234b Ga=ma ND South East
.16 I.06
.0005 b
Monitoring Well U-238b ND U-235
.46 I.08
.002 U-233/234b Gamma ND Plant Well Gamma ND Soil-Plant
{015 Location #13 U-235
.12 019 Pb-212
.32 I.024 Pb-214
.34
.069 Be-7
.30 T1-208
.27
- .028 i-Cs-137
.97
- .029 Ra-228
. 32
- .032 K-40 8.9
- .28 Bi-214
.42
.044
=
Vegetation -
Plant Location #13 K-40
.306
.144 r
~ 1 Error Percent MPC-Sample Analysis Result Soil-Control from
+
3/
Pevely, M0 Alpha 6.2
.45
. 41E Beta 41.0 I 1.8
.09 Gamma 4
.096
.013 Pb-212
.99
-.040
+
Pb-214
.63
.032
.072 Be-7
.27 T1-208
.78
{.040
.072
.013 Ra-228
.88
.05 I
.027 h.007 K-40 13.0
.39 Bi-214
.55
-.059 Vegetation-Control from Pevely, M0 Alpha
.29
.02 Beta 10.8
-.326 Camma Be-7
.11
.03 K-40
.19 I
.06
).
8 1_/
Water samples are reported in pCi/ liter and soil and vegetation samples are in pCi/ gram.
All samples collected on October 17, 1978.
2/
Based on 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, MPC values for U-234 and Th-234 for alpha and beta activity, respectively.
3/
Values shown apply to soil and vegetation in combination and are based on derived MPC values.
4/
Uranium isotopic analysis (alpha spectroscopy).
Naturally occurring Attributed to fission product fallout from recent nuclear detonations