IR 05000029/1986016

Insp Rept 50-029/86-16 on 860929-1003.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Radiochemical Measurements Program, Including QC of Analytical Measurements & Performance on Radiological Analyses of Split Actual Effluent Samples

ML20213D094
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	10/31/1986
From:	Pasciak W, Rabatin K, Struckmeyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213D084	List: IR 05000029/1986016 ML20213D083
References
50-029-86-16, 50-29-86-16, NUDOCS 8611100421
Download: ML20213D094 (11)

Text

. *

t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-029/86-16 Docket N License No. ~ DPR-3 Category C Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection C'onducted: September 29 - October 3, 1986 Inspectors: [ /o/30/P(

Richard K. Struckmeyer, Yadiation ' dats Specialist LLLt 1 L 10 36 Yl Kar'en bati ',' Radiat4en!Shecialist dat '

Approved by: 1A hM MCO Witter J.Mastiak, Chief, Effluents (0 9 8C Radiation Protection Section daye

/

Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 29 - October 3, 1986 (Report No. 50-29/86-16)

Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the licensee's radiochemical measurements program using the NRC: I Mobile Radiological Measurements Lab-oratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological and Environ-mental Sciences Laboratory. Areas reviewed included: program for the quality control of analytical measurements, performance on radiological analyses of split actual effluent samples, and records and procedure Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations were identifie Nk G l

-

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted

• G. Babineau, Radiation Protection Manager B. Drawbridge, Assistant Plant Superintendent

• J. Gedutis, Senior Chemist

~

• T. Henderson, Technical Director

• P. Hollenbeck, Radiation Protection Engineer

• J. Kay, Technical Services Manager

• R. Mellor, Chemistry Manage *N. St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent M. Thise11, Chemist

• Denotes those present at exit meeting on October 3, 1986. Management Controls The inspector reviewed the licensee's management controls for the chemistry and effluent programs,' including assignment of responsibility, program audits, and corrective actions for identified inadequacie Assignment of Responsibility The inspector reviewed the management structure as it pertains to the chemistry and effluent control programs. .The chemistry department is responsible for analyses of reactor coolant, as well as liquid and gaseous waste streams prior to release to ensure that regulatory and administrative limits are met. The Chemistry Manager reports to the Technical Director, who in turn reports to the Plant Superintenden This organization is in conformance~with Amendment 74 to the licensee's Technical Specification Audits The inspector reviewed the following audits related to chemistry and effluent control:

• Y-86-02, conducted April 5-11, 1986

• Y-85-02, conducted July 9-12, 1985 These audits are performed as part of the licensee's fulfillment of the requirements of Section 6.5.2.9. of Technical Specification These audits appeared to be reasonably thorough, and timely responses to audit findings were provided by the plant staff for the 1985 audit. Responses to 1986 audit findings were not available at the time of this inspectio . .

.

3 Reactor Coolant Water Chemistry The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records for chemical and radiochemical analyses of primary and secondary coolant. The analyses include those for dissolved oxygen, fluoride, chloride, I-131 dose equivalent, E-bar, and gross activity in the primary coolant, and gross activity and I-131 conceatration in the secondary coolant. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's method for scheduling and verifying that required surveillances are performed. The review indicated that all required surveillances were performed on time, and that the results of analyses were within Technical Specification limits. The inspector noted thay many analyses are done more frequently than require The inspector noted that procedure number OP-9244, "Radionuclide Analysis of Primary Coolant and Purification System," (Rev 6, 9/85) contains the method for determination of doss-equivalent I-131, but does not contain a form for performing the calculation and recording the results. The licensee stated that the calculation is normally performed as part of the compute.r software that is used for.radionuclide analyses. The inspector stated that a form for manual calculation of dose equivalent I-131 should be provided in case of computer failure. The licensee stated that the procedure would be revised to include a form for this purpose. This will be reviewed in a future inspection (50-029/86-16-01).

4. Confirmatory Measurements During the inspection, liquid, particulate filter, charcoal cartridge, and gas samples were split between the licensee and NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent samples, or inplant samples which duplicate counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples with respect to Technical Specification requirements and other regulatory requirement In additinn, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference lab-oratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses to be performed on the samples are Sr-89, Sr-90, gross alpha, tritium and Fe-55. The results will be compared with the licensee's results when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection repor The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and NRC Region I during a previous inspection on April 28-30,1981(Inspection Report No. 50-029/81-07), were also compared during this inspection and

.

. .

are included in Table 1. The licensee stated that the sample split during

'

the current inspection would be shipped promptly. The results of this split sample analysis will be reviewed in a subsequent inspectio The results of the sample measurements comparison completed during this

' inspection indicated agreement, with the exception noted below. The results of the comparisons are listed in Table I and the agreement criteria are included as Attachment The first intercomparison of the Activity Dilution Decay (ADD) tank resulted in disagreements for all six radionuclides. The reason for these disagreements was determined to be the large dead-time (approxi-mately 13%) experienced by the licensee in its analysis of the sample. A large dead-time indicates that the detector is unable to record some fraction of the gamma rays incident upon it. In this case, the licensee's results were between one-half and two-thirds of the NRC results. The licensee diluted the sample to reduce the concentration of radioactivity, and reanalyzed it. This resulted in agreement for five of the six nuclides. The result-for Co-60 was not in agreement, possibly due to loss of Co-60 in particulate form during the dilution process. A second sample from the ADD tank was obtained and diluted prior to splitting between the licensee and the NRC. The results of this inter-comparison indicated agreement for all six radinnuclides. With the exception of Co-60, the licensee's results were 91% to 93% of the NRC results. For Co-60, the result was about 78% of the NRC value, but in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (given in Attach-ment I). This indicates possible loss or settlement of particulate Co-60

,

during the splitting of the sample, and/or plate-out of the metallic form of this nuclide on the walls of the sample container (s). The licensee stated that ADD tank samples are not routinely acidified prior to analysis by gamma spectroscopy. The inspector stated that acidification would help to achieve more accurate results by preventing plate-out of the metallic nuclides, and by dissolution of small particulate The licensee analyzed simulated charcoal cartridges supplied by the NR The results of the first comparison of the face-loaded cartridge, although in agreement, were biased high by about 25 to 30 percent. The licensee determined that the cartridge had been inadvertently analyzed directly on the detector instead of in a sample holder, per normal procedure. When reanalyzed using the sample holder, the results were in closer agreemen . Laboratory QA/QC The inspector performed a selected review of the licensee's program for the quality assurance of radioanalytical measurements. The review was performed with respect to criteria contained in the following:

. -

• Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment"

• Principles of Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements (NBS)

• ANSI N42.14 1978, " Calibration and Usage of Germanium Detectors for Measurement of Gamma-Ray Emission of Radionuclides."

The inspector reviewed the following procedures:

• OP-9600, Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control Program, Rev. 4, February 1986

• OP-9404, Split Sample Program, Rev. 5, November 1985

• OP-9415, Radioactive Gas Sampling, Rev. 5, June 1985

OP,-9406, Primary Plant Liquid Sample Points, Rev. 7, September 1986

• DP-9514, Calibration of the Canberra Spectrometry System, Rev. O, October 1985

• DP-9610, Preparation of Quality Control Charts, Rev. O, September 1985

• DP-9504, Analysis of Radiological Samples for Gamma Emitters Using the PDP 11/23 Plus Computer Based System, Rev. O, October 1985 The inspector also reviewed the following data:

• efficiency calibrations performed during 1985 and 1986

• interlaboratory and intralaboratory comparisons performed during 1985 and 1986

• control charts for daily saurce checks for 1986 of the two Ge(L1)

detectors in the counting room

• results of vendor analyses of spiked samples (prepared by Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory)

Within the scope of this review the following items were' identified:

• The licensee prepares a spiked sample annually for its vendor laboratory as a quality control check on the analysis of Sr-89, 90 and Fe-55. The results of the spiked samples submitted in May 1986 showed that Fe-55 values were outside the licensee's agreement criteria. One sample concentration was reported 34% lower than the

. .

! .

6 >

,

known value and a second sample concentration was'under reported by 39%. The licensee has submitted a split sample to the vendor and a

'

reference laboratory for analysis and comparison. As soon as a new supply of Fe-55 is received, the licensee stated that another spiked sample will be sent to the vendor. The results of these analyses i

will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (50-029/86-16-02).

The licensee's intralaboratory quality control program includes analyzing triplicate samples at least semiannually for gamma emitters. Although the licensee measures tritium in effluents, tritium analyses are not included in the intralaboratory progra The licensee stated that analysis of duplicate samples for tritium will be added to the quality control progra * Procedures OP-9415 and OP-9406 included purge volumes for radioactive gas sampling and flush times for liquid sampling, respectively, to ensure representative sampling. The inspector discussed the deter-i mination of these values with the licensee. However, the licensee I

st.ated that no formal documentation was present to support the sample volumes used. Subsequent'to the inspection, the licensee evaluated twenty sample line purge volumes by system walkdowns and by refer-encing engineering drawings. The purge volumes determined for these systems agreed with_those stated in the procedures above.

j 6. Procedures and Records The inspector reviewed. selected procedures and records in the areas of

.

radiochemistry and detector calibrations. Calibration records for all I

detectors and geometries were available; those selected for review appeared to be accurate and complete. The licensee normally calibrates its gamma spectrc, metry equipment at two year intervals, but may do so more frequently if problems, such as instrument drift or failure, are experience No problems were noted with procedure . Exit Interview i The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Para-l graph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 3, 1986. The l inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the l inspection finding The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in Paragraph 4 and report the results to the NRC.

I

._ ._ _ _ . . . .

ATTACHMENT I 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 progra In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the com-parison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated 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 must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.

'

Resolution = NRC REFERENCE VALUE RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE

, REFERENCE VALUE UNCERTAINTY \ NRC REFERENCE VALUE Resolution Agreement

<3 0.4 - .5 - .6 - 1,66 16 -

50 0.75 - 1.33 51 -

200 0.80 - 1.25

>200 0.85 - 1.18 l

4

$

r- _

~

l

'

.

TABLE 1 e

i YANKEE ROWE VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER COMPARISON

,

NRC VALUE* LICENSEE VALUE**

Reactor Coolant 1-131 (3.44 1 0.15]E-2 (2.77 i O.19)E-2 Ag reement 2-Oct-86 8-132 (2.37 1 0.03)E-1 (2.55 1 0.06)E-1 Ag reement l 0915 hrs 8-133 (1.822 1 0.019)E-1 (1.854 1 0.06)E-1 Ag reement l l-134 (4.31 i O.15)E-1 (4.14 1 0.13)E-1 - Ag reement ( 8-135 (2.89 1 0.08)E-1 (2.93 1 0.10)E-1 Ag reement CS-138 ( .5)E-1 ( .1 0.4)E-1 Ag reement

Rh-106 (1.20 1 0.12)E-1 ( .5)E-1 Ag reement

!

Waste Holdup H-3 (4.73 1 0.02)E-2 (5.00 1 0.15)E-2 Ag reement Tank Sr - 89 (3.2 1 0.1)E-4 ( i O.1)E-4' Ag reement 28- Ap r-81 Sr - 90 (1.60 1 0.07)E-5 (1.5 1 0.1)E-5 Ag reement 1025 hrs I

Activity Dilution Mn-54 ( .2)E-5 (5.14 1 0.12)E-5 Di sag reement Decay Tank Co-60 (4.68 1 0.17)E-5 (2.29 i O.04)E-5 Di sag reement 1-Oct-86 N6-95 (1.61 1 0.16)E-5 (9.34 1 0.44)E-6 Disagreement 1100 hrs 8 -431 ( .3)E-5 (5.2 1 0.3)E-5 Di sag reement Cs-134 (9.90 1 0.06)E-4 (6.55 1 0.08)E-4 Di sag reement Cs-137 (1.105 1 0.006E)E-3 (7.2 1 0.2)E-4 Di sag reement Activity DiIution Mn-54 (4.51 1 0.16)E-5 (4.09 1.0.15)E-5 Ag reement

, Decay Tank Co-60 (2.23 1 0.13)E-5 (1.74 i O.06)E-5 Ag reement l 2-Oct-86 Mb-95 ( i 1.3)E-6 (7.7 1 0.7)E-6 Ag reement 1000 hrs 8 -131 ( .3)E-5 (5.0 1 0.2)E-5 Ag reement Cs-134 (6.04 i O.05)E-4 (5.60 1 0.08)E-4 Ag reement Cs-137 (6.61 1 0.05)E-4 (6.13 1 0.18)E-4 Ag reement Test Tank 34-1 3-131 (6.8 1 0.4]E-7 (6.4 1 0.4]E-7 Ag reement 02-Oct-86 8-133 (2.5 i O.5)E-7 ( i O.3)E-7 Ag reement 1025 hrs Co-60 ( .4)E-7 ( .3)E-7 Ag reement Cs-134 (1.35 1 0.05)E-6 (1.36 1 0.04)E-6 Ag reement Cs-137 (1.33 1 0.05)E-6 (1.41 1 0.07)E-6 Ag reement W2ste Gas K r-85 (1.177 1 0.009)E-2 (1.10 i O.07)E-2 Ag reement Surge Drum Xe-131m ( .5)E-5 (1.02 i O.18)E-4 Ag reement 01-Oct-86 Xe-133a (1.68 0.09)E-5 (1.33 1 0.33]E-5 Ag reement 1530 hrs Xe-133 (4.438 i O.004)E-3 (4.46 1 0.29)E-3 Ag reement Xe-135 (1.18 1 0.11)E-6 (1.10 i O.38)E-6 Ag reement

• Result i 1 signa

• • Result i 1.64 sigma OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR YR-86-16 TABLES - 0001. /29/86

.

'

, 1

,

-'

.,- s .

2._,----

,

,j , .3 .%- _ _-- -

-- __

,5 . t 6 s

'

' ~ *

,

, s g j j .,

-

. , e

.

. ,, 1 x

• ' l TABLE 1

. ..

[ ,

i l

MMMEF F0WE VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS

'

/ )' \r l -SAMPLC ISOTOPE RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLitfTER f- * COMPARISON l

,

a g%

.', 3. ') / . -- ( <

NRC VALUE' LICENSEE VALUE** '. .

\f ~* <

g I (2.12 1 0.12]E- '

Crud Filter 1-131 (1.90 1 0.10)E-4 Agreement ?.- f 01-Oct-86 I-133 (1.141 2 0.018]E-3 (1.29 2 0.05)E-3 Agreement ' '

,

i 0920 hrs CS-134 ( .8)E-5 (4.6 ! 0.3)E-5 Ag reement ..

'

a-135 (2.00 1 0.09)E-3 (2.01 1 0.13)E-3 Ag reement , -O Analysis by CS-137 ( i O.9)E-5 (4.8 2 0.4)E-5 Ag reement *l Chemistry Crud Filter 1-131 (1.90 1 0.10)E-4 (1.66 1 0.03)E-4 Ag reement *

01-Oct-86 I-133 (1.141 1 0.018)E-3 (1.06 1 0.01)E-3 Ag reement Cs-134 ( .8)E-5 (4.39 1 0.18]E-5 Ag reement

Analysis by 1-135 (2.00 1 0.09)E-3 (1.65 1 0.11)E-3 Ag reement l

.

Health Physics Cs-137 ( .9)E-5 (3.8 1 0.2)E-5 Ag reement I

I l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l 0 Result i 1 sigma l *O Result + 1.64 sigma OFFICI AL RECORD COPY IR YR-86-16 TABLES - 0002.0.0 i 10/29/86 l

,

l l

.

.

3 .,-

-TA8LE 1

. ,.

YANKEE ROWE'ERIFICATION V TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULTS IN TOTAL MICROCURIES COMPARISON NRC VALUE* LICENSEE VALUE**

NRC Simulated Cd-109 (2.37 1 0.12)E+0 (3.04 i O.11)E+0 Ag reement Cha rcoa l (Face Loaded) Cartridge Co-57- (4.04-1 0.20)E-2 .(5.05 i 0.14)E-2 Ag reement Ce-139 (9.97'i O.62)E-2--

'

01- Ap r-85 (7.9 1 0.4)E-2' Ag reement

'

1200 hrs Sn-113 (1.72 1 0.86)E-1 (2.25 1 0.14)E-1 Ag reement Analysis by Cs-137' (1.02 1 0.51)E-1 (1.26 1 0.40)E-1 Ag reement Chemistry Co-60 (1.06 1 0.53)E-1 (1.30 1 0.14)E-1 Agreement .

Without sample Y-88 (2.66 1 0.13)E-1 (3.34 1 0.11)E-1 Ag reement ho l de r. * **

NRC Simulated Cd-109 (2.37 i 0.12)E+0 (2.58 1 0.10)E+0 Ag reement Cha rcos I (Face Loaded) Cartridge Co-57 (4.04 1 0.20)E-2 (s4.27 1 0.15)E-2 Ag reement 01-Apr-85 Ce-139 :(7.9 i O.4)E-2 (8.2 1 0.6)E-2 Ag reement 1200 hrs Sn-113 (1.72 1 0.86)E-1 (1.90 1 0.15)E-1 Ag reement Analysis by -

Cs-137 ( 1. 02 1 0. 51 ) E- 1 - (1.09 1 0.04)E-1 Ag reemert Chemistry *

, Co-60 , (1.06 i O.53)E-1 (1.14 i 0.18)E-1 Ag reement __

with sample , Y-88 J (2.66 i Gi13)E-1 (2.93 1 0.16)E-1 Ag reement

1. .

'.., _

ho l de r. *** , , , ,

'

NRC Simulated 'C -109 ,(2.31.1 0.12)Et0 (1.82 1 0.03')E+ Ag reement -

Cha rcoa l Ca rt ridge , Co-57 ' (4:04.1 0.20)E- ( -1.15 1 0. 06 ) E-2~ "~ Ag reement -

( Face Loaded) Ce-139 (7.9 i 0.4)E-2 '. (6.6 i O.3)E-2 - Ag reement - ,

~

01 - Ap r-85 Sn-113 (1.72 i 0.09)E-1 ~-

(1.55 1 0.13)E-1 Ag reement -

--

1200 hrs Cs-137 ( 1.02 i O.05 )E-1 "

(8.74 1 0.15)E-2 Ag reement

• *

Ana1ysis by Co-60 (1.06 1 0.05)E-1 (9.04 1 0.17)E-2 Ag reement --

H3alth Physics Y-88 (2.66 i O.13)E-1 (2.75 i O.18)E-1 Ag reement T NRC Simulated Cd-109 (2.29 i 0.12)E+0 - (2.22 1 0.03)E+0 Ag reement Cha rcoa l Ca rt ri dge Co-57 (3.95 1 0.20)E-2 'e (3.62 i O.08)E-2 Ag reement (Uni formly Loaded) Ce-139 (7.6 1 0.4)E-2 (7.0 1 0.3)E-2 " Ag reement 01- Ap r-85 .. Sn-113 (1.66 1 0.08)E-1 (1.74 1 0.12)E-1 . Ag reement 1200 hrs Cs-137 (9.02 1 0.05)E-2 (9.41 i O.17)E-2 Ag reement Analysis by Co-60 (1.02 1 0.05)E-1 (1.02 1 0.016)E-1 Ag reement Health Physics Y-88 (2.57 1 0.13)E-1 (2.85 1 0.24)E-1 Ag reement

- -

"

• Result i 1 sigma '

'** Result i 1.64 sigma ~ #

• • • See Text, pa ragraph 4

-

"

. ..

- - ,

'

-

,e

,

b ,. ' -r

~

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1R YR f 86-16' TAB'LES - 0003.0.0 " '

10/29/86

-

s r_ ,

n .... , , , _ _ _

• .

'y ' .f

- . v

- ,

,

.s ~,

'4 TABLE 1 h, YANKEE ROWE VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLC ISOTOPE RESULTS IN TOTAL MICROCURIES CO*4 PAR I SON NRC VALUE* LICENSEE VALUE**

l

'

-NRC Simulated Ce-144 (3.46 1 0.02)E-2 '(3.21 1 0.23)E-2 Ag reement -

'

Pa rt icu la te ' F i l te r Cs-137 '(1.50 1 0.02)E-2 (1.47 1 0.05)E-2 Ag reement 11-Feb-84 .Mn-54 (1.47 1 0.02)E-2 (1.41.1 0.09)E-2 Ag reerent 1400 hrs- 'Co-60 -(2.68 i O.02)E-2 (2.51:1 0.04)E-2

'

Analysis by Chemistry

.

l

,.

s

i i

,1

2

.

l * Result i 1 sigma

• • Result i 1.64 sigma i

OFFICI AL RECORD COPY 1R YR-86-16 TABLES - 0004. /29/86 a

'l J

. . . .-