ML20137R373

Insp Repts 50-413/85-50 & 50-414/85-60 on 851209-13. Violation Noted:Failure to Have Adequate Procedures to Implement QA Program for Effluent Measurements

ML20137R373
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	01/16/1985
From:	Cline W, Gloersen W, Golersen W, Harris J, Krzo G, Kuzo G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137R365	List: ML20137R361 ML20137R366 ML20137R373
References
50-413-85-50, 50-414-85-60, NUDOCS 8602130094
Download: ML20137R373 (16)

See also: IR 05000413/1985050

Text

.,. . . -.

9

'

.

. UNITE 3 STATES

[ pct!u o- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

y

, ', ' REGION ll

-

-

-g j 101 MARIETTA STREET N.W.. -

• * ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

'.....*' JAN 311986 ~

~

Report Nos.: 50-413/85-50 and 50-414/85-60 -

'

Licensee: Duke Power Company. _

422 South Church Street

Charlotte, NC -28242 .

Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.:i NPF-35 and CPPR-117

Facility Name: Catawba.1 and 2

Inspection Conducted: December 9-13, 1985

Inspectors: m ,, O bo '

ll 5m liRL

G.B. juzo i Date Signed..

,A b// i h & O J+ r & W&

St 970dfSC' r/g '

~

,

Date/ Signed

. 0 )O ]hsm, l- ib [T

J. D. Harris Date Signed

J

Accompanying Per nel-/ Fro

Approved by: /#

K E. Cline,LSection Chief Date Sidned

Emergency Preparedness and Radiological

Protection Branch

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

SUMARY

Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection iiivolved 115 inspector-hours onsite

in the areas of quality control-and confirmatory measurements including review of

the laboratory quality control program; review ~of procedures and instructions;

review of quality control records and logs; review of counting room and chemistry

laboratory facilities; results of split samples analyzed.by the licensee and the

NRC Region II Mobile ' Laboratory;-.and whole-body counter measurements using a

. fission product phantom.

Results: One violation was identified - failure to have adequate procedures to

implement the Quality Assurance Program for effluent measurements.

,

8602130094 060131

PDR ADOCK 05000413

G PDR

-

% -4 4 - ,, . . - . - - -

, y m- -. emv .- c-w, ---**g w -7--- r- w - -+

-

,

2

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

• H. B. Barron, Superintendent of Operations

W. P. Deal, Station Health Physicist

• G. T. Mode, Health Physics Coordinator

• C. V. Wray, Health Physics Coordinator

G. L. Courtney, Staff Health Physicist

• M. J. Geer, Assistant Engineer, Corporate

• B. Chundtlik, Health Physics Supervisor

• C. L. Hartzell, Licensing and Project Engineer

• P. G. LeRoy, Licensing Engineer

Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and

>

office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspector

• P. K. Vanuocrn

" Attended exit interview

'

2. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 13, 1985, with

those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector noted that the

temporary power supply provided by the licensee for th'e NRC Region II Mobile

was inadequate and discussed the need for a permanent power supply to be

established in a timely manner. The inspector discussed the following

inspector followup items: updating of counting room procedures

(Paragraph 6.b); evaluation of alpha / beta and beta / gamma analysis

instrumentation performance biases (Paragraph 7.b); resolution of Fe-55

analysis methodology and verification analyses (Paragraph 8.b); and review

of calibration and quality control data for the whole-body counting

instrumentation .(Paragraph 9.b). One violation concerning inadequate QA

procedures (Paragraph 6.c) for effluent measurement instrumentation was

discussed. Licensee ~ representatives acknowledged the inspectors' comments

and committed to completing resolution of Fe-55 analysis concerns and

requesting an additional spiked sample from the NRC Region II Office by

March 31, 1986, to demonstrate Fe-55 analysis capability. The licensee did

not _ identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by

the-inspectors during this inspection.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

- - - - . . ._-

- = ._- . _ ~

.

3

4. Laboratory Quality Control Program (84725)

The inspectors noted that the licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) program for

effluent measurements had not changed since previous inspections

(50-413/84-42, 50-413/84-64, .50-413/84-76). _The inspectors reviewed and

discussed with cognizant licensee representatives concerns regarding quality

control (QC) procedures and records, and results of interlaboratory

comparisons. for radiological effluent measurements conducted by the Catawba

Nuclear Station (Paragraphs 6 and 7). The inspectors further noted that

results of the split sample analyses between the licensee and the.NRC

Region II Mobile Laboratory gamma spectroscopy systems (Paragraph 8.a)

identified concerns regarding the adequacy of the effluent measurements QA

program to ensure accurate effluent measurement capability. Details of

these concerns are discussed in Paragraphs 6.b, 6.c, and 8.

.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Audits and Reviews (84725)

a. Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.2.9 states that audits of unit

activities shall be performed under the cognizance of the Nuclear

Safety Review Board (NSRB) encompassing: the conformance of unit

operation to provisions contained within the Technical Specifications

and applicable license conditions at least once per 12 months; the

radiological environmental monitoring program and the results thereof

at least once per 12 months; the-Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and

implementing procedures at least once per 12 months; and the

performance of activities required by the Quality Assurance Program to

meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 4.15, December 1977 at least once

per 12 months. The inspectors reviewed the following audit report:

QA Audit NP-85-89(CN) Technical Services and Operations Activities,

April 15 - May 1, 1985.

< The inspectors noted that the counting room and body burden analysis

programs were audited against- Technical Specifications, Regulatory

Guide 4.15, and Catawba Station Health Physics Manual. One concern

regarding the inability to verify algorithms used in the Ortec ADCM

Analysis Systems was identified. The inspectors discussed and reviewed

licensee action regarding this item. Cognizant licensee personnel

presently are developing computer software which will allow review and

verification of algorithms utilized for each separate system.

b. The inspectors discussed the following technical reviews completed by

licensee personnel:

(1) . Quality Assurance, Teledyne Isotopes Technical Review, GS-750.00,

110.70, 10/24/85.

!

'

(2) Catawba Nuclear Station Radioanalysis Program Review, GS-750-05,

768, 11/26/85.

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

~

.

4

'

The inspectors noted that several technical items concerning

. radiological measurement capability and QA were identified in the

reviews. Identified items included inaccurate Fe-55 measurem mts,

improvement of instrument performance acceptance criteria, initiation -

of intralaboratory crosscheck program, Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)

capabilities, updating of procedures, improvement in gamma spectroscopy

efficiency graphs, and quality control performance analyses. The

inspectors noted that licensee action regarding Fe-55 analysis concerns

was being finalized (Paragraph 8.b) and responses to and/or action

concerning the other identified items were in progress.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Procedures (84725)

a. Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.1 states written procedures shall be

established, implemented and maintained covering the applicable

procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33,

Revision 2, February 1978, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

implementation, and the Quality Assurance Program for effluent and

environmental monitoring. The following selected procedures were

reviewed by the inspector.

~

(1) HP/0/8/1001/07 Operation and Calibration of Liquid Scintillation

Counters, Rev. 6, 11/21/84.

(2) HP/0/8/1001/09 Operating / Calibration Procedure for Body Burden

Analyzer, Rev. 4, 3.16.84.

(3) HP/0/8/1001/12 Technical Specifications Gaseous Waste Sampling and

Analysis, Rev. 11, 12/3/85.

"

(4) HP/0/8/1001/15 Preparation of Sources, Rev. 2, 8/24/84.

(5) HP/0/8/1001/16 Operation and Calibration: ORTEC ADCAM GAMMA

ANALYSIS System, Rev. 2, 7/5/84.

(6) HP/0/8/1001/21 Operation ' and Calibration: Canberra Fastscan

- Body Burden Analysis, Rev. O, 10/22/85.

The inspector discussed results of the procedure review with cognizant

licensee representatives as detailed in Paragraphs 6.b. .c.

b. The inspectors discussed the need for improved review and update of

radiochemical analytical procedures. For example, selected procedures

(HP/0/8/1001/12, HP/0/8/1001/15) detailed a volume of 4400 cc for the

marinelli beaker geometry utilized to monitor gaseous effluents whereas

the actual volume is 4600 cc. The inspectors verified that the correct

volume was used for effluent sample measurements. The inspectors noted

that all procedures should be periodically reviewed and updated by

cognizant licensee personnel as part of the QA program. The inspectors

.- _ _

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

.-

.r

.

5

informed licensee representatives that a review of radiological

analytical procedures for effluent measurement methodology and changes

in QA procedures to ensure adequate analytical nuclide measurement

capabilities would be considered an open item to be reviewed during a

subsequent inspection (50-413/85-50-01, 50-414/85-60-01).

c. The inspectors noted that QC procedures for the gamma spectroscopy

. systems required review of daily background, performance checks, energy

calibration, and Full Width Half-Maximum (FWHM) results by cognizant

count room personnel. Procedures required only performance checks to

be graphed using trend charts. The inspectors discussed with cognizant

licensee representatives the need for improved review and trending of

the QC data collected. Furthermore, the inspectors noted that QA

procedures to maintain consistency and accuracy of analytical

measurements and minimize differences observed between detectors, i.e.,

standardization of plotted efficiency graphs for all geometries for

each detector system, verification of efficiency calibration algorithms

for all detectors, and the implementation of intralaboratory. and

interlaboratory crosscheck programs were not adequate. The inspectors

informed licensee representatives that the inaccurate licensee

measurements noted for the confirmatory measurements split sample

analyses (Paragraph 8.a) may have been identified by the licensee with

an adequate QA program. An adequate program should include a tnorough

review and evaluation of all analytical QC trend data, and proper

technical review of intralaboratory and interlaboratory crosscheck

results for trends and anomalous data. Furthermore, criteria for

-

initiating action regarding trends and anomalous data should be

>

established. The inspectors informed licensee representatives that

10 CFR 20.201(b) requires the licensee to make surveys that are

reasonable under the circumstance to evaluate radiation hazards that

may be present and TS 6.0.1.g requires procedures to be established,

implemented and maintained for QA Program implementation for effluent

and environmental monitoring. The inspectors informed licensee

representatives that failure to have adequate procedures for QA Program

implementation to ensure accurate effluent measurements as demonstrated

by the inaccuracies noted in the licensee's gamma spectroscopy

measurements (Paragraph 8.a) was considered a violation

<

(50-413/85-50-02),50-414/85-60-02).

Open Item (50-413/85-50-01, 50-414/85-60-01) - review of effluent

measurement procedures for inconsistencies, improved methodology, and

improvement in QA Programs to ensure adequate effluent measurements.

Violation (50-413/85-50-02, 50-414/85-60-02) - failure to have adequate

QA procedures to implement QA programs for effluent measurements.

7. Review of Records and Logs (84725)

a. The inspector reviewed selected portions of the following records and

logs:

. . -

_ - - _

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

-

.

6

(1) LS 1800 Liquid Scintillation Counter Nos. CHP 1127-CE and

.

CHP 1128-CE Instrument Quality Control Logs for August

- December 1985 including:

~(a) Daily Background & Performance (H-3, Gross Beta) Log Sheets

(b) Monthly Performance Data & Charts

(c) Weekly H-3 Alignment Log Sheet

(di Monthly Background Log Sheet

(e) Monthly Performance Data Sheet

(f) Quarterly Quenched H-3 Standard Preparation Data

'(2) Alpha / Beta Proportional Counter Nos. CHP-1131-CE and CHP1133-CE

Quality Control Logs for January - December 1985 including:-

(a) Daily Background and Alpha / Beta Performance Check

-(b)- Alpha / Beta Check Source Data Sheet

(c) Efficiency & Monthly Performance Worksheet

(d) Efficiency & Monthly Performance Value Determination

(3) Manual APC Beta / Gamma Counter Nos. CHP-1116, CHP-1117 CHP-1118 and

CHP-1119 Quality Control Logs for January - December 1985

including:

(a) Daily Performance and Background Data Sheets and Graphs

(b) Check Source Data Sheets

(c) Efficiency and Monthly Performance Worksheet

(4) Ge(Li) Detector System Nos. 24-N-1096, 24-P-94VC, . 24-P-92-VA and

24-P-04TC Quality Control Logs- for August - December 1985

including:

(a) Daily Performance Checks

(b) . Performance Graphs

(c) Daily Background Data

(d) Daily Energy Calibration & FWHM Data

(5) Annual (1985) Gamma Spectroscopy Efficiency Calibration data for

Detector Nos. 24-N-1096, 24-P-94VC, 24-P-92VA, and 24-P-04TC

including the following geometries: 50 ml bottle, 1000 & 3500 ml

liquid marinelli beaker, 2" filter paper, face-loaded charcoal

cartridge, 12 cc gas vial, 100 cc gas bomb, and 4600 gas marinelli

beaker.

(6) Interlaboratory Crosscheck Results, December 1984

- September 1985.

(7) Daily Quality Control Checks and Performance Plots for the

Canberra Fastscan Whole-body Counter, October - December 1985.

,. _

-_

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

~

%

-

.

.

7

(8) Annual (1985) Efficiency Checks and Performance Plots for Canberra

Fastscan Whole-body Counter, August - Septen;ber 1985 for the

following geometries: lungs, GI tract, and thyroid.

Results of the record review are discussed in Paragraphs 7.b .c.

b. The inspectors discussed systematic biases noted for performance checks

of all alpha / beta and beta / gamma counting systems. The inspectors

noted that the observed biases were not correlated with the following:

changeout of counting gas, contamination problems, location (systems

are located in different rooms), and technician errors. The inspectors

noted that biases for background counts were not observed. Cognizant

licensee representatives presently are investigating the performance

data and have detailed their concerns to an approved vendor. The

inspectors informed licensee representatives that resolution- of this

problem would be considered an inspector followup item and would be~

reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-413/85-50-03,

50-414/85-60-03).

c. The results of the 1985 interlaboratory crosscheck program were

discussed with cognizant licensee representatives. The inspectors

noted that gamma spectroscopy results for liquid samples met

established licensee acceptance criteria and were~ consistent among the

station's gamma spectroscopy systems. However, the inspectors noted

that results for a July 1985, charcoal cartridge crosscheck met the

licensee's acceptance criteria but showed a maximum difference of 26%

between detectors. The inspectors noted that this large difference was

not observed for a January 1985 charcoal cartridge crosscheck sample

and informed licensee representatives that the July 1985 difference

among detectors indicated improper efficiency calibrations. The

inspectors informed licensee representatives that the failure to

identify and resolve the noted differences was indicative of poor

Quality Control (QC) review for effluent measurement instrumentation.

Furthermore resolution of these differences may have identified

licensee measurement problems noted for the confirmatory measurement

samples (Paragraph 8.a). Licensee representatives informed the

inspectors that procedures for an improved QA program for effluent

measurements capability, including an intraloboratory crosscheck

program were in progress. The inspector informed licensee

reprer 'tatives that these procedures would be reviewed as part of the

inspe _ followup item regarding procedure review discussed in

Paragraph 6.b.

Open Item (50-413/85-50-03, 50-414/85-60-03) - review of licensee's

evaluation of alpha / beta and beta / gamma performance check biases.

No violations or deviations were identified.

'

-

8

8. Confirmatory Measurements (84725)

a. During the inspection, reactor coolant and selected liquid and gaseous

plant effluent process streams were sampled and the resultant sample

matrices analyzed for radionuclide concentrations using licensee and

NRC Region II Laboratory gamma-ray spectroscopy systems. The purpose

N of these comparative measurements was to verify the licensee's

capability to measure radionuclides accurately in various plant

systems. Analyses were conducted utilizing as many of the licensee's

gamaa spectroscopy systems as practicable. Sample types and counting

geometries included the following: Reactor Coolant System (RCS) sample

- 50 ml polybottle; Liquid Waste - 3500 ml marinelli beaker; RCS Gas

sample - 12 cc vial; Waste Gas Decay Tank Sample - 100 cc bomb; and

Effluent Gas Grab Sample 4600 cc marinelli beaker. Spiked particulate

filter and charcoal cartridge sample types were provided for analyses

in lieu of licensee samples which did not have sufficient levels of

activity for analysis. Comparison of licensee and NRC results are

listed in Table 1 with the acceptance criteria listed in Attachment 1.

Results were in agreement and no significant trends in comparisons were

noted in liquid waste, particulate filter and the 100 cc gas bomb

geometries. Concerns regarding the RCS, charcoal filter; and selected

gas sample geometries were discussed with licensee representatives as

noted below.

(1) For the reactor coolant sample, Co-58, a major plant contaminant,

was in disagreement for all detectors, with concentrations

underestimated by 27 to 39%. Also, I-131 was in disagreement (29%

underestimate) for Detector No. 24-P-94VC. The inspectors noted

that these differences were not identified for the liquid waste

geometry which also contained these isotopes, ' thus the observed

differences most likely resulted from inaccurate efficiency

calibration of this geometry. Furthermore, the inspectors noted

that the 36% difference between the licensee's detectors for RCS

I-131 analyses was considered inadequate for the quantitative

measurements conducted with these detector systems.

(2) For the charcoal cartridge sample geometry, Ba-133 results.were in

disagreement for Detector No. 24-P-92-VA and overall results were

biased high, approximately 5 to 26%. A reanalysis of an

additional NRC spiked sample (multiple isotopes) and the

licensee's original calibration source confirmed that the noted

bias resulted from inaccurate calibrations.

(3) Xe-135 analysis for the 12 cc gas vial geometry was in

disagreement. All other gas results for this geometry were biased

low. For this geometry, efficiency calibrations were suspect in

that the 100 cc gas bomb analyzed using this detector were in

agreement, thus eliminating sof tware nuclide identification and

quantification problems.

-

.

9

(4) For the 4600 cc gas marinelli geometry analyzed using Detector

No. 24-P-04TC5 results were biased low for all nuclides and in

disagreement for .Xe-133. Because results for this geometry on

Detector 24-N-1096 were in agreement, the inspectors again

suspected inaccurate calibration resulted in the observed

differences.

The inspectors noted that the above detailed differences demonstrated

and supported the violation regarding inadequacy of the QA Program

procedures for effluent measurements detailed in Paragraph 6.c.

Furthermore, the inspectors informed cognizant licensee representatives

.that large inconsistencies for nuclide identification and

quantification among detectors were identified in a previous inspection

(50-413/84-64-02) and thus, initial licensee _ actions regarding that

item are now considered inadequate. Licensee representatives

acknowledged the. concerns and stated that an evaluation of all

geometries to ensure accurate effluent measurements woul_d be

-implemented in a timely manner.

b. The inspectors noted that the licensee was provided with a simulated

liquid waste sample by the NRC Contract Laboratory, July 1985, and was

requested to complete radiochemical analyses for H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89, and

Sr-90. Results of these comparisons were issued to the licensee in a

. letter from Roger D. Walker, Director, Division 'of Reactor Projects,

'

NRC R.cgion II, dated November 29, 1985. Results were in agreement for

all nuclides. However, the inspectors noted that a significant bias,

4 overestimation of. Fe-55 concentrations by 24 to 45%, has been

identified in three NRC samples analyzed since June 1984. The~

inspectors discussed licensee actions regarding this systematic bias

with cognizant licensee representatives. Licensee actions have

included a technical audit of the vendor laboratory, suggested

technical changes to established procedures, and providing the vendor

with spiked liquid samples for Fe-55 analysis capability verification.

'

Iicensec representatives committed to completing verification of Fe-55

analysis method 31ogy and stated that they would request by March 31,

1986, additional spiked samples from the Region II Office to

demonstrate Fe-55 analysis capability. The inspectors informed

licensee representatives that review of the licensee's Fe-55 results

for the NRC spiked sample would be considered an open item and would be

reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-413/85-50-04,

50-414/65-60-04).

No violations or deviations were identified.'

Open Item (50-413/85-50-04, 50-414/85-60-04) - Review of licensee's

Fe-55 analysis of NRC spiked samples.

. _ _ _ , ._ __ . _ _

.

10

9. Use of Fission Product Phantom for Checking Whole-body Counter Measurements

(84725)

During the inspection, the inspectors verified the licensee's capability to

perform radiological bioassays using their whole-body counter system. A

fission product phantom containing radioactive sources was provided to the

licensee. The phantom duplicated nuclide and organ burdens that the

licensee might encounter during normal operations. The phantom was analyzed

using the licensee's normal methods and equipment.

The licensee had one whole-body counting system which had recently been

placed into service. This system was a " stand-up" linear geometry counter

referred to as "FASTSCAN" manufactured by Canberra. The FASTSCAN

incaporated two large NaI(TL) detectors, configured in a linear array on a

common vertical axis. The dimensions of the crystals were 4" x 4" x 16" and

each was viewed by a single photomultiplier tube. The subject stands inside

the shield on an axis parallel with the detectors. The inspectors reviewed

the licensee's procedures for operating and calibrating the whole-body

counting system. In addition, the Quality Assurance program was reviewed.

Calibrations were conducted using a vendor supplied block phantom containing

an NBS traceable mixed gamma source. The mixed gamma source was contained

in a cylindrical solid matrix and consisted of Cd-109, Cc-57, Ce-139,

Hg-203, Sn-113, Sr-85, Cs-137, Y-88, and Co-60. The licensee calibrated the

whole body counting system for three geometries: lung, thyroid, and

gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The inspectors noted that the licensee's

calibraticn phantom was a Radiation Management Corporation (RMC) REMCAL

Transfer phantom which was designed as an analog to the Alderson REMCAL

Phantom. The REMCAL phantom assembly consisted of the following separate

cavities: GI, lung, and thyroid. The calibration source was placed

approximately in the center of the air space in each cavity. The inspectors

questioned whether or not the GI cavity should be filled with water and the

lung cavity. with a lung tissue equivalent matrix. The inspectors reviewed

QA records including daily source checks. Daily source checks were plotted

and tracked on control charts. The inspectors noted that daily background

checks were performed and the analytical results compared to previous

background analysis results. The computer system prints the " minimum

detectable activity" (MDA) amounts as the background. The inspectors and

the licensee discussed plotting the gross background counts from each

detector to note' any significant change in detector background

characteristics.

Subsequent to discussions with NRC inspectors, cognizant licensee

representatives agreed to evaluate the following areas as related to review

of HP/0/8/1001/21:

Trend gross background counts from each detector to note any

significant change in background or detector characteristics.

Provide methodology to plot and tabularize efficiency versus energy

data for each geometry used on the FASTSCAN.

__

,

n

-

- .

11

_

• -

Evaluate 'the use of ' the REMCAL Transfer Phantom with air-filled

-

-

cavities'and 'a point calibration source.

The inspectors informed licensee representatives that .these items will be

considered an open. item and will be reviewed during a future inspection

~

(50-413/85-50-05,.50-414/85-60-05).

Results of the'intercomparisons are presented.in' Table 2.

'

The results were

based on an average of five measurements, each measurement counted for 60

seconds. All licensee results were higher than; the know values, with

-measurements ranging from 23 to 54% above the know values. The inspectors

noted that longer counting times, approximately 180 seconds, did not improve

. comparison results.

~No violations or deviations were. identified.

'Open Item (50-413/85-50-05, 50-414/85-60-05) - Review of Calibration

and QA Data Required for Operation of Whole-body "Fastscan" BBA System.

10. Review of Counting Room Procedures for Unit 2 (84525)

The inspectors reviewed procedures and discussed with cognizant licensee

- representatives . radiological analytical capabilities for Unit 2 ~ effluent

measurements. The inspectors noted that the counting room is a shared

- facility between Units 1 and 2' and . thus all . analytical procedures are -

identical.

l

.

1 -

'

.,

i

I

-

t.

,

'

.

i

.

TABLE 1

RESULTS OF CONFlRMATORY MEASUREMENTS AT CATAWBA NUCLEAR PLANT - DECEMBER 9-13, 1985 ,

CONCENTRATION fuCl/ Unit) .

~ RATIO . . . .

SAMPLE ISOTOPE LICENSEE HRQ . RESOLUTION LICENSEE /NRC . COMPARISON-

. ' ( Geome t ry )

(1) Reactor Coolant Co-58 7.23 E-3 1.18 0.03 E-2 39 0.61 Disag reement

(50 ml Bottle) 1-131 ~7.13 E-3 8.23 0.27 E-3 30 0.87 Ag reement

1-133 1.28 E-2 1.48 .0.04 E-2 37 0.86 Ag reement

I-135 1.13 E-2 1.18 0.11 E-2 '11

-

0.96 Ag reemen t '

(2) Reactor Coolant Co-58 '6.89 E-3 1.18 0.03 E-2 39 0.58 Disagreement

(50 ml Bottle) 1-131 5.84 E-3 8.23 0.27.E-3 30 0.71 Di sag reement

1-133 1.27 E-2 1,48 0.04.E-2 37 'O.86 Ag reement

I-135 1.10 E-2 1.18 0.11 E-2 11 0.93, Ag reement

(3) Reactor Coolant Co-58 8.09 E-3- 1.18 0.03 E-2 39 0.68 Disagreement

(50 ml Bottle) 1-131 8.81 E-3- 8.23 0.27 E-3 30 - 1. 0 7.' Ag reement

1-133 1.48 E-3 1.48' O.04 E-2 .37 1.00 Ag reement

l'135 1.40.E-2 1.18 0.11 E-2 ~ 11 1.19 Ag reement -

(4) Reactor Coolant Co-58- 8.67 E-3 1.18 0.03.E-2' 39 0.73 Disagreement

(50 ml Bottle) 1-131 7.67 E-3 8.23 0.27 E-3 30 0.93 Ag reement

1-133 1.36 E-2 1.48 0.04 E-2 37 0.92 Ag reement

1-135 1.36 E-2 1.18 0.11 E-2 11 '1.15 Ag reement

(1) Liquid Waste Mn-54 9.10 E-7- 1.28 0.18 E-6 7 0.71 Ag reement

(3500 ml Marinell:) Co-58 3.04 E-5 2.96 0.06 E-5 49 1.03 Ag reement

Fe-59 2.13 E-6 2.06 0.27 E-6 8 1.03 Agreement

Co-60 2.28.E-6 1.82. 0.24 E-6 8 1.25 Ag reement .

1-131 2.58 E-6 2.48 0.24 E-6 10 1.04 Ag reement

1-133 9.97 E-7 1.02 0.37 E-6 3 c 0.98 Ag reemen t

Cs-134 1.24

~

4.04 E-6 3.27 0.29 E-6 11 Agreement

Cs-137 7.42 E-6 6.82 0.39.E-6 17 1.09 . Agreement

(2) Liquid Waste Mn-54 9.28 E-7 -1.28 0.18 E-6 7 0.72 Ag reement

(3500 mi Ma rine l l : ) Co-58 3.03 E-5 2.96 0.06 E-5 49 1.02. ' Ag reemen t .

Fe-59 1.76 E-6 2.06 0.27 E-6 8 0.85 Ag reement

Co-60 1.93 E-6 1.82: 0.24 E-6 8 1.06 Ag reement

1-131 2.67 E-6 2.48 0.24 E-6 10 1.08 Ag reement

I-133 7.88 E-7 1.02 0.37 E-6- 3 0.77 Ag reement

Cs-134 3.79 E-6 3.27 0.29 E-6 11 1.16 Ag reement

Cs-137 7.64 E-6 6.82 0.39 E-6 17 1.12 Ag reement

(3) Liquid Waste Mn-54 9.86 E-7 1.28 0.18 E'-6 '7 0.77 Ag reement

(3500 ml Ma rine l l: ) Co-58 3.08.E-5 2.96 0.06 E-5 49 1.04 Ag reement

re-59 1.86 E-6 2.06 0.27 E-6 8 0.90 Ag reement

.Co-60 2.13 E-6 1.82 'O.24 E-6 8 '1.17- Ag reemen t

1-131 2.72 E-6 2.48 0.24 E-6 10 1.10 Ag reement

1-133 1.12 E-6 1.02 0.37 E-6 .-3 1.10 Ag reemnnt

Cs-134- _3.68 E-6 '3.27 0.29 E-6 '11 1.12 Ag reement

Cs-137 7.59 E-6 6.82 0.39 E-6- 17 1.11 Ag reement

+~

'

, < 1

'

~ ,

I . -

, TABLE 1-(Cont'd) f

'

C95GENTRAT10N fuCl/ Unit 1' RATIO'

SAMPLE ISOTOPE LICENSEE HRQ RESOLUTION' LICENSEE /NRC , COMPARISON *

(4) Liquid Waste <Mn-54 9.40 E-7: 1.28 0.18 E-6 7- 0.73- Ag reemen t .-

( 3500 ml . Ma ri ne i I : ) Co-58 3.07 E-5 2.96 0.06 E-5 49- 1.04 Agreement

Fe-59 2.20 E-6 2,06~ 0.27 E-6- 8 .1;07: - Ag reement -

'

> Co-60 2.17 E-6 s1,82 0.24.E-6 8' 1.' 19 _ ' Ag reement

1-131 2.86 E-6 2.48' O.24 E-6 .10 1'15 -

. <

~

Ag reement -

I-133 1.21 E-6_ '1.02 0.37 E-6' .-3- 1.19 '.

Agreement

Cs-134 3.83 E-6 3.27 0.29 E-6 11 1.17 - Ag reement

Cs-137 7.56 E-6 6.82 0.39 E-6 17 1.11- Ag reement

(1) Particulate Filter .Co-60 8.23 E-3 .9.40 0.28.E-3- 34 0.88 ' Agreement

(47 mm Filter Paper) Cs-137 1.13 E-2 1,32 0.03 E-2' 44 0.86 Agreement-

(2) Particulate Filter Mn-54 3.32 E-3 .3.62 0.21 E-3 17 0.92 Agreement.

(47 mm filter Paper) Co-60 . 1.82 E-2 2.02. 0.04 E-2 50 0.90 Ag reement '

4

Cs-137~ 1.36 E-2 1.34 0.03 E-2 45 1.01 Agreement.

1 Ce-144 5.92 E-3. 6.64. 0.42 E-3 16 0.89 . Ag reement L

f-

(3) Particulate Filter Mn-54 3.34 E-3 3.62 0.21 E-3 17 ~0.92 Agreement

(47 mm Filter Paper) Co-60 1.84 E-2 2.02 0.04 E-2 50 -0.91 Ag reement

4 Cs-137 1.38 E-2 1.34 0.03 E-2 45 1.03 Ag reement

j- Ce-144 6.53 E-3 6'64

. 0.42 E-3 16 -0.98 Ag reement

.(4) Pa rticulate Filter Co-60 9.55 E-3 9.40 0.28 E-3 34 1.02 Ag reemen t .'

(47 mm Filter Paper) Cs-137 1.38 E-2 1.32 0.03 E-2 44 1.04 Ag reement

I

(2) Charcoal Cartridge Ba-133 5.01'E-2' 4.08 0.03 E-2 136. 1.23 'Ag reement

(Face Loaded)

4

( 3 ) Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge Ba-133 -5.16 E-2 4.08 0.03 E-2 136 1.26 Di sag reement

,,

(Face Loaded)

(4) Cha rcoa l Ca rtridge Ba-133 4.60 E-2 4.08 0.03 E-2 136 1.13 Ag reement

( Face Loaded)

(1 ) Cha rcoa l Ca rtridge Ba-133 4.30 E-2 4.08 'O.03.E-2 136 1.05 Ag reement

( Face Loaded)

(1) Cas K r-85m 4.94 E-3 6.21 0.11 E-3 56 0.80 . Ag reement

(12cc Vial) Kr-88 1.20 E-2 1.40 0.05 E-2- 28 0.86 Ag reemen t ~

Xe-133 3.70'E-2 4.02 0.02 E-2 201 0.92 Ag reement

.

Xe-135 2.18 E-2 2.81 0.02 E-2 140 0.78 Di sag reement

( 3 ) Ca s .

Xe-133m ~1.11 E-5 1.00 0.06.E-5 17 1.11 ' Ag reement

(4600cc Ma ri ne l l i ) Xe-133 6.88 E-4 6.30 0.02 E-4 315 1.09 Agreement

Xe-135 1.09 E-5 9.86 0.15 E-6 66 1.10 Ag reement

(4) Gas .

Xe-133m 9.24 E-6 1.00 0.06 E-5 17- 0.92 Agreement

( 4600cc - Ma rine l l i ) Xe-133. 4.47 E-4 .6.30.'O.02 E-4 315 0.71 Di sag reement

Xe-135 .8.52 E-6 9.86 'O.02 E-6 66 0.86 'Ag reement

U

-. _

_ =

- . , . . _. -

'( l

-

TABLE 1 (Cont'd) .

C0fLCERTRATION f uci/Uniti- .. RATIO . .

>

SAMPLE- ISOTOPE- LICENSEE  ![RC ' RESOLUTION LICENSEE /NRC . COMPARISON '

(1) Cas Xe-131m .1.48 E-3 1.38 0.12 E-3 12 ~ '1.07 Ag reement

- ( 100cc Ca s Bomb ) Xe-133m .1.04'E-3' 1.10 0.03.E-3 37- 0.94 Ag reement *

'Xe-133 7,77 E-2 7.82' O.01 E-2 782 0.99 Ag reement

Xe-135 4.69 E-4- 4.78 0.07 E .4 68 0.98 Ag reement -

(2) Gas- Xe-131m 1.26 E-3 1.38 0.12 E-3 12 0.91 Ag reement

(100cc Gas Bomb) Xe-133m 9.78.E-4 1.10 .0.03 E-3 37 0.89 Ag reement

,

Xe-133 7.29 E-2 7.82 0.01 E-2' 782 0.93 Ag reement

Xe-135 4.26 E-4 4.78 0.07 E-4 68 0.89, Ag reement

ND Not Detected

NC Not Compared

(1) Analyzed using Gamma Spectroscopy System No. SN.24-N-1096

(2) Analyzed Using Camma Spectroscopy System No. SN 24-P-94VC

( 3 ) Ana lyzed Using Gamma Spectroscopy System No. . SN 24-P-92VA

(4) Analyzed Using Gamma Spectroscopy. System No. SN 24-P-04TC

V

4

_- .: -

, -

,

.

TABLE 2 ,,

RESULTS OF WHOLE BODY. COUNTER MEASUREMENTS

USINC A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FISSION PRODUCT PHANTOM AT

CATAWBA NUCLEAR PLANT, DECEMBER 11, 1985

Licensee (1) NRC Ratio

Nuclide O rga n (nCl) (nCl) ( Licensee /NRC)

MN-54 Lungs 30.9 20.1 1. 54 ..

Co-57 Lungs 51.9 33.7 1.54

Co-60 Lungs 211.5 172.4 1.23

-Cs-137 Lungs 120.3 87.8 1.37

1. Licensee value represents the arithmetic mean of five measurements, each measurement was counted for 60 seconds.

NOTE: Licensee's calibration procedure used a point source.

r-

.

ATTACHMENT 1

CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS

This ~ enclosure 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 denoting agreement or disagreement between

licensee and NRC results are variable. This variability is a function of the

.NRC's value relative to its associated uncertainty. As the ratio of the NRC

value to its associated uncertainty, referred to in this program as " Resolution"2

increases, the range of acceptable differences between the NRC and licensee

values should be more restrictive. Conversely, poorer agreement between NRC and

licensee values must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.

For comparison purposes,-a ratio2 of the iirensee value to the NRC value for each

individual nuclide is computed. This rath- ls then. evaluated for agreement based

on the calculated resolution. The corr...anding resolution and calculated ratios

which denote agreement are listed in Table 1 below. Values outside of the

agreement ratios for a selected nuclides are considered in disagreement.

NRC Reference Value for a Particular Nuclide

1

Resolution = Associated Uncertainty for the.Value

Licensee Value

2

Comparison Ratio = NRC Reference Value

TABLE 1 - Confirmatory Measurements- Acceptance Criteria

, Resolutions vs. Comparison Ratio

Comparison Ratio

for

Resolution Agreement

<4 0.4. - 2.5

4-7 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

,

L