IR 05000272/1980034
| ML18086A259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1981 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A255 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-80-34, 50-311-80-23, NUDOCS 8104130415 | |
| Download: ML18086A259 (8) | |
Text
"
'
.
50-272/80-34 Report No. 50-311 /80-23 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-272 Docket No * _5i.un.::.-..i..3l1..1l.__ __
_
c DPR-70 License No. Q"""~f"o'g_7
...,,5 ___ _
Pri.ority -------
Category --~B~-...::2=-----
Licensee:
Puhl jc Seryjce Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Hancocks Bridge, *New Jersey Inspection conducted:
Inspectors:
Approved by:
Inspection Summary:
Specialist Environmental and Special FF&MS Branch 1-20-8/
date signed date signed date signe date signed Inspection on December 15-18, 1980 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/80-34, and 50-311/80-23 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemical and radiochemical measurements program using NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory and laboratory ass.istance provided by DOE Radiol6gical and Environmental Services Laborator Areas reviewed included: program for quality control of analytical measurements, audit results, and performance on radiological analyses of split actual effluent sample The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on-site by one NRC regionally based inspecto Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three area One item of noncompliance (failure to follow procedures) was identified in the other area.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8104130 L\\15
...*
- Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- J. Driscoll, Chief Engineer
- L. Miller, Performance Engineer E. Keating, Associate Engineer G. Dziuba, Chemistry Technician DETAILS T. Vannoy, Senior Supervisor, Chemistry (telephone only)
The inspector also interviewed other licensee emplo~ees including members of the chemistry and health physics staf *denotes those present at the exit intervie.
Laboratory QC Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the quality control of analytical measurement The licensee's QC program is detailed in procedure PD-3.9.017, 11Quality Control Requirements.
This procedure require~ known and unknown spiked and duplicate analyses of reactor
~
coolant system chloride, fluoride, and boron along with quarterly inter-laboratory sample splits for radioactivity comparison Procedure PD-3.9.017 also requires instrument efficiency, background, and where applicable, energy gain check In addition, individual analytical pro-cedures include steps to assure quality, such as provisions to control reagent The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's QC program and noted that the unknown chloride, fluoride, and boron spikes were not performed for the first quarter of 1980 as required by procedure PD-3.9.01 Also, the Second Quarter fluoride unknown spike analysis was not performed as require The inspector stated that the failure to follow this procedure as required by Section 6.8.1 of the Technical Specifications was an item of noncomplianc (272/80-34-01 and 311/80-23-01) The inspector also discussed laboratory QC in general and Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment, with the license The inspector had no further questions in this are.
Audit Results The inspector determined that the licensee's effluent analyses and chemistry program were covered by a station quality assurance audi The inspector reviewed audits numbers 79-3-C.2-10, 79-3-C.2-1 The inspector had no further questions in this are *
3 Confirmatory Measurements During the inspection actual liquid effluent, particulate filter and reactor coolant samples were split between the licensee and NRC:I for the purpose of* i ntercompari so The samples were analyzed by the l i cen-see using his normal methods and equipment, and by the NRC using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory. Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to determine the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent sample Simulated charcoal cartridges were submitted to the licensee for analysis because both Units l and 2 were shutdown and this type of effluent sample was not availabl Also, effluent gas samples were not available because of the shutdow In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet-chemistr The analyses to be performed on the sample are:
Sr-89, Sr-90, gross alpha, and tritiu These 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 the sample measurement intercomparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or possible agreement uhder the criteria used for comparing result (See Attachment 1.) The results
- of the tompari son are 1 i st*ed in Table. The inspector reviewed the licensee's effluent analysis procedures and ob$erved the analysis of actual sample The inspector noted that the licensee could meet his Technical Specification minimum detectable activity (MDA) for liquid effluent samples by counting a one-liter poly bottle for 1000 second The inspector discussed the definition of MDA, as contained in the DOE Environmental Measurements Laboratory Procedures Manual, HASL-30 The inspector also noted that Sb-125 was present in some of the licensee's liquid radwaste sample The licensee was using the 427 keV
- and 636 keV photopeaks for identifying and quantifying the Sb-12 The 427 and 636 keV photopeaks have the following gamma abundances: 29.5% and 11.3%, respectivel The inspector discussed the possibility of the
-~- 636 keV photopeak not being identified in the gamma ray spectrum peak search at concentrations approaching but above the licensee's Technical Specification MD This would result in the licensee's system not identi-fying and quantifying Sb-125 in the sample since the presence of both photo-peaks are require The inspector discussed the HASL MDA definition and the Sb-125 identifying and quantifying criteria with the Senior Supervisor, Chemistry in a telephone conversation on December 19, 198 The Senior Supervisor, Chemistry, stated that the liquid waste release permits would be reviewed and any Sb-125, which was not identified and quantified because the 636 keV photopeak was not present, would be quantified and included
4.
in the licensee 1s effluent release report In addition the Senior Super-
. visor, Chemistry, stated that updated software was planned for use in the licensee.*s computer-based counting system and the HASL-300 definition of MDA would be used by the license The inspector stated that the review of the liquid release permits for unidentified and unquantified Sb-125 above Technical Specification MDA requirements and the use of updated software for SB-125 identification and quantification would be considered an Unresolved Item (272/80-34-02 and 311/80-23-02) and would be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio The inspector had no further questions in this are No items of noncom-pliance were identifie.
Unresolved Items Unresolved 1tems are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviation An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representativei (denoted l) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 18, 198 inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection inspection finding in Paragraph The and the The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in Paragraph 4 and report the results to the NRC.
TABLE l SALEM VERIFICATION - TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER 21 CVCMT 1145 hrs Cr-51 (l. 74+0.05} E-4 (l.65+9.22%} E-4 Agreement 12-16-80 Mn-54 (l.Ol+0.01} E-4 (l.19+2.08%} E-4 Agreement Co-58 (6.74+0.02} E-4 (7~79+0.62%} E-4 Agreement Fe-59 (3.0+0. l) E-5 (3.62+10.81%} E-5 Agreement Co-60 (2.62+0.02) E-4 (3.09+1. 18%) E-4 Agreement Zr-95 (2. 49+0. 11) E-5 (3. 13+11.76%) E-5 Agreement Nb-95 (4.65+0.08) E-5 (5.66+3.99%} E-5
.Agreement RESULTS..I.N.. JOTAl.. MlCROCURJES NRC Simulated charcoal Ba-133 (l.73+0.05) E-1 (l. 39+0. 66%) E-1 Agreement cartridge 3-19-79 Cs-134 (1. 32+0. 04} E-2 (l.00+4.68%} E-2 Agreement Cs-137 (3. 74+0. 11} E-2 (2. 97+1. 78%) E-2 Agreement Co-60 (2.09+0.07) E-2 (l.83+3.33%} E-2 Agreement
- SAMPLE ISOTOPE Unit 1 Reactor Coolant Cr-51 0910, hrs 12-17-80 Co-58 Cs-134 Cs-137 Zr-95 Nb-95 Mn-54 Co-60 TABLE 1 SALEM VERIFICATION ~ TEST RESULTS NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE ( 2. 6+0. 3) E-4.
( 1. 00+0. 01 ) E-3 (5.39+0.10) E-4 (5.06+0.10) E-4 (9.3+0.8) E-5 (l.48+0.05) E-4 (2.35+0.07) E-4 (4.52+0. ll) E-4 RESULTS IN MICROCURIES PER MILLILITER (3.54+43.72%) E-4 ( 1. 33+/-_3. 54%) E-3 (6.59+/-_5.32%) E-4 (5.90+6.25%) E-4 (l.21+32.86%) E-4 (2. 10+12.51%) E-4 (3.20+8.31%) E-4 (5.67+7.31%) E-4 COMPARISON Agreement Possible Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Possible Agreement Possible Agreement Agreement
- -
.-----,.-- ----,--- - - -
1 J
! *
_Attachment l Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements -
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurement 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'
comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertaint As that ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution",
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selectiv Conv~rsely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease LICENSEE VALUE RATIO= NR(-REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Resolution Agreement Agreement A Agreement B
<3 0.4 -.3 - No Comparison 4 - 7 0.5,...4 -.3 -.6 - 1.66 0.5 -.4 -.75 - 1.33 0.6 - l. 66 0.5 -.80 - 1.25 0.75 l. 33 l. 66
>200 o. 85 - l. 18 0.80 - l. 25 0.75 - 1.33 11A 11 criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is greater than 250 Ke Tritium analyses of liquid sample Iodine on absorbers 118 11 criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 Ke Sr and 90Sr Determination Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.