ML20204C859

IE Inspec Rept#70-036/78-07 on 780920 & 781017 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspec Incl:Comparative Results on Analyses of Plant Radiological Effluent Samples & Radiol Environ Samples

ML20204C859
Person / Time
Site:	07000036
Issue date:	11/02/1978
From:	Axelson W, Essig T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204C857	List: ML20204C853 ML20204C859
References
70-0036-78-07, 70-36-78-7, NUDOCS 7812050269
Download: ML20204C859 (7)

Text

- ,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report No. 70-036/78-07 Docket No.70-036 License No. SNM-33 Licensee: Combustion Engineering, Inc.

P. O. Box 500-Nuclear Power Systems - Manufacturing Windsor, CT 06095 Facility name: Hematite Facility .i Inspection at: Hematite. Facility Site, Hematite, M0 Inspection conducted: September 20 and October 17, 1978 Inspector: W. L. Axels n /01,2 7 T. H. Essig (October 17 only) b I I Approved by: T. H. Essig, ief 10 T7[76 Environmental and Special Projects Section 1

Inspection Summary Inspection on September 20 and October 17, 1978 (Report No. 70-036/78-07)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced confirmatory measurements inspection, including: comparative results on analyses of plant radiological effluent samples; comparative check of plant radiological. environmental samples; and followup collection of radiological effluent and environmental samples for future comparative analyses. The inspection involved 18.5 inspector-hours ,

onsite by two NRC inspectors.

Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

I l

1 502Gq

. 1 1

DETAILS l

'1. Persons Contacted I

• J. Rode, Plant Manager

• H. Eskridge, Nuclear Licensing, Safety and Accountability Supervisor

• A. Day, Maintenance Supervisor C. Lovell, Heath Physics. Technician 1

1

• Denotes those present at the exit interview. ,

l

2. Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Outstanding Inspection Item (70-036/78-04): Condition of emergency response equipment. The inspector determined the licensee had repaired defective emergency equipment located in the_offsite 1

. emergency center and had no further questions regarding this matter. I During this inspection, the licensee was in the process of upgrading  ;

records of emergency plan training, test and drills, and drill critiques. ^

These records will be examined during a future inspection.-

3. Results of Comparative Analyses of Effluents The results of comparative analyses performed on effluent ' samples -

split at the plant in May 1978 are shown in Table 2. The criteria i for comparing these measurements are given in Attachment 1. Of six sample comparisons, the licensee's results yielded three disagreements.

The inspector discussed comparative results with the licensee, with emphasis on those comparisons resulting in disagreements.

The licensee's result for a gross alpha analysis of an air particulate sample yielded a disagreement in that the licensee's result was about 25 times greater than that of the NRC Reference Laboratory. If this difference was real and representative, the licensee may have over-estimated releases of these nuclides near the time of the inspection.

Discussions with the licensee indicated no reasons why this sample was in disagreement.

The licensee's results of gross alpha and beta analyses of a liquid waste sample (L. Waste 2.) resulted in disagreements in that the licensee's results were about 17 times smaller than those of the-NRC Reference Laboratory. If this difference was real and repre-sentative, the licensee may have underestimated liquid effluent I

1 l

]

l releases of those nuclides near the time of the inspection. However, assuming this sample consists entirely of uranium, the licensee would have been less than one percent of the effluent limits based on 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II.

1 Because of the apparent disagreements of the liquid waste sample l No. 2, the inspector requested another split sample be conducted.  !

Consequently, the licensee and inspector split an effluent sample i from the site discharge pond. The inspector observed the sample collection and preparation. The results of this sample will be compared during a future inspection.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

4. Results of Comparative Checks of Environmental Samples During the last environmental protection inspection, the inspec-tor and licensee split various environmental samples. The results of these samples are shown in Table 1.

Although the NRC has not established formal criteria for comparative analyses of environmental samples, it is noted in Table 1 that the licensee is in disagreement with the NRC Reference Laboratory for the soil and vegetation samples. Additional samples were collected during this inspection to further investigate these differences. Water samples from the Joachim Creek and site monitoring wells in general, yielded such low concentrations that a statistical comparison of these results would not be meaningful. These results were discussed with the licensee at the exit interview.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

5. Followup Sample Collection On October 17, 1978, the inspectors collected additional environ-mental samples from the north and southeast monitoring wells and soil and vegetation at the northwest monitoring station, all of i which were split with the licensee. The inspectors also collected a soil and vegetation control sample from a nearby town (Pevely, 1 Missouri) and a plant well sample. These samples will be compared l with the licensee's results during a future inspection.

At the time of this inspection, the southwest monitoring well was dry. The licensee stated that a new well (approximately forty feet deep) will be installed in the general vicinity of the dry well. The licensee also stated that an apparent shift in the ground water table probably caused the southwest well to become dry and therefore the drilling of a replacement well was indicated. j i

Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that monitoring well samples are generally taken from the top of the water column in the well. The licensee stated that because only soluble radio-nuclides migrate with the groundwater, this sampling method adequately characterizes movement of radionuclides. While they could find no significant technical flaws with this approach, the inspectors indicated to the licer.see that it would be prudent to employ a sampling technique which permits the collection of water from a larger portion of the water column. The licensee agreed to employ a sampling technique in the future which ensures that samples are collected in the manner described above. This matter will be examined during a future inspection.

Split samples from monitoring wells collected on October 17, 1978 were representative of the entire water column in the well, i.e.,

care was taken to ensure the sampling device was allowed to slowly fill and descend through the entire well depth.

During this inspection, the licensee stated that Tc-99 was being detected in the north monitoring well and that concentrations had been increasing since this nuclide was first noted to be present (May 1978 sample). The most recent sample (August 1978) indicated a Te-99 concentration corresponting to 1.6% of the MPC. Tg ii of the Tc-99 was discussed in previous inspection reports. p or g n

6. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 20 and October 17, 1978. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspectors discussed the apparent disagreement of effluent and environmental samples (Paragraph 3 and 4). In response to remarks made by the inspectors relative to the apparent need for improvements in the area, the licensee stated that a quality assurance program ensuring quality control of these analytical measurements will be developed and implemented.

Attachments:

1. Table I, Environmental Sample Results

2. Table II, Confirmatory ,

Measurements Program l Attachment 1, Criteria for l 3.

Comparing Analytical l Measurements

)

1/ IE laspection Reports No. 70-036/76-01 and No. 70-036/76-03.

TABLE I ENVIRORMENTAL SAMPLES, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, HEMATITE, MO ResultgRC----- ----Lignsee----

Sample Analysis Error Result- Error Percent MPC2/

Joachim Creek. Alpha 1.6 + 0.4 4.0 + 2.0 0.005 (Upstream) Beta ND* <3.0 Joachim Creek -Alpha 1.4 1 0.3 2.0 _i 2.0 0.005 (Downstream) Beta .ND <3.0 North Monitoring Alpha 1.2 1 0.3 7.0 1 3.0 0.004 Well Beta -950 1 40 611 1 8.0 5.0 Pb-212 73 1 12 Not Required **

K-40 542 Not Required ***

1 72 Bi-214 116 37 Not Required **

South East Alpha 4.7 i 0.5 <2.0 0.02 ,

Monitoring Well Beta ND <3.0 Pb-212 ND Not Required +

Pb-214 ND Not Required T1-208 46 1 17 Not Required ** i Ra-228 31 1 14 Not Required **

Plant Well Alpha 3.0 1 0.5 Not Required 0.01-Beta ND Not Required

• Not Required **

Pb-214 60 ~+ 24 Ru-106- 200 60 Not Required 2.0 1 Ra-228 ND Not Required 3

Site Spring Output Cs-137 ND Soil Alpha 6 12 8.9 1 1.1 0.4****

Beta 45 13 4.4 1 0.6 0.1****

4 I

Vegetation Alpha 0.27 1 0.05 4.6 1 0.9 Beta 5.6 1 0.2 10.7 1 0.3 1

1/ Water samples are reported in pCi/ liter and soil and vegetation samples ]

are in pCi/ gram. All samples were collected during May 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/ Attributed to fission product fallout from the most recent nuclear deton- .,

ation conducted by the People's Republic of China.

'* ND - Not detected'(2-sigma counting error associated with result included zero). -

• • MPC not shown because nuclide is part of U-238 or Th-232 decay chain. l s *** Naturally occuring. .;

• • • • Values shown apply to soil and vegetation in combination and are based j on derived MPC values.

i

9 TABLE II ,

U S NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION A ND E NF ORCE ME NT CONFIRM ATCR Y ME ASUREMENTS P ROGR A M' FACILITY: COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, HEMATITE FOR THE 2 QUARTER OF 1978

---

NRC------- ---L IC E N SE E ----- ---N RC s L IC E N S E E ----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T P FILTER ALPHA 1 5E-13 3 0E-15 ' 3 7E-12 00 2 5E+01 5 0E +01 0 ALPHA 1 8E-12 1 0E -14 1 6E-12 00 8 9 E-01 1.EE+02 A ALPHA 4 8E-13 7 0E-15 4 1 E -13 00 8 5E-01 4 9E+01 A

'L WASTE 1.* ALPHA 8 7E-06 3 0E -0.7 4 4 E -06 00 5 1 E -01 2 9E+01 P EL WASTE 2.** ALPHA 7.4E-08 3.0E-09 5.0E-09 2.0E-09 6.8E-02 2.5E+01 D BETA 8.0E-08 7.0E-09 4.0E-09 2.0E-09 5.0E-02 1.1E+01 D T TEST RESULTS:

A^ AGREEMENT 0=0 !S AGREE ME NT P = P O S S I BL E AGREEMENT N=NO C OMP A R I S ON all results in pC1/ml l

l i

l l

l l d

AL Waste 1. laundry waste sample

• • L Waste 2. site pond sample I l

l L

ATTACl&fENT 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 judgment limits are variable in relation to the

, comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program ac

" 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 fewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported-by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will 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 VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"

<3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison

>3 and <4 d.4 -

2.5 0. 3 - 3.0 No Comparison T4 and <8 0.5 -

2.0 0.4 -

2.5 0.3 -

3.0 I8 and <16 0.6 -

1.67 0.5 -

2.0 0.4 - 2.5 I16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 -

1.67 0.5 -

2.0 ISI and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 -

1.33 0.6 - 1.67 I200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 -

1.25 0.75 - 1.33 "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.

"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:

Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-cation is less than 250 kev. ,

Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.

Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.

. . . - . -