IR 05000272/1988010
| ML18093A822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1988 |
| From: | Kirkwood A, Kottan J, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18093A821 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-88-10, 50-311-88-10, NUDOCS 8805090287 | |
| Download: ML18093A822 (10) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/88-10 Report No ~311/88-10 50-272 Docket No DPR-70 License No DPR-75 Priority ---
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Category _C_
Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
February 29 - March 4, 1988 Inspectors:
C\\_.~.l~.
Specialist Laboratory Approved by:
LJ-- z.o-88 date if 1hf daf,e Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted on February 29 - March 4, 1988
{Report Nos. 50-272/88-10 and 50-311/88-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiochemical measurements program using the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE's Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laborator Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements, quality assurance, audits and management organization and staffin Results:
Within the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
DETAILS
--LO-I-ndividuals-Gontacted --- - ---
Principle Licensee Employees * * * * * * Zupko Jr., General Manager White, Maintenance Manager-Actin~ General Manager Trejo, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Manager Dierickx, Count Room Supervisor Perkins, Manager Station QA Clancy, Principle HP Roggio, Station Licensing Engineer Dolan, Chemistry Engineer Gray, Station Licensing Engineering The inspectors also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees, including various members of the chemistry staf * Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.0 Confirmatory Measurements 2.1 Split Sample Results During this part of the inspection, liquid, particulate filter, charcoal cartridge, and gas samples were split between the licensee and the 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 analysis. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measure-ments Laboratory. Joint analyses of effluent samples are used to
_
verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirement In addition, a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental
-
Sciences Laboratory (RESL), for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses to be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, gross alpha and tritium. 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:I, during a previous inspection on February 10-14, 1986, (In~pecti9n ~eport ~os. 50-272/86-02; 50-311/86-02)-were also compared during this inspectio *
- The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of the measurem~nts, except one, were in a9reement under the cr]~eri~-
used for comparing results *(See Attachment*). The results of the comparisons are listed in Table I. The RESL comparison results, which were split with the licensee in 1986, were in agreement with the exception of the Fe-55 analyses. This result had a positive bias of 40%. Both the 1983 and 1984 licensee Fe-55 results were positively biased as well, by factors of two and three respectively. Continued high Fe-55 results with respect to the NRC reference laboratory *
(RESL), will require a spiked sample be sent to the licensee, by RESL, for Fe-55 analyse The licensee is currently operating three multichannel analyzer systems. Two older systems will soon be entirely replaced by the new
. system. The new system is currently being phased i.2 Laboratory !IBL.Qf The inspectors 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 Envi~onment" Principles of Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements (National Bureau of Standards)
The inspectors reviewed ~he following proced~res:
CH-3.8.004, Rev. 4, Interlab Comparison Analysis CH-3.8.043, Rev. 1, Interlab Agreement Crite~ion CH-3.8.053, Rev. 0, Preparation and Use of Counting Room Control Charts CH-3.9.017, Re ~ Chemistry Laboratory Quality Contro Requirements CH-3.9.028, Rev. 2, General Instrument Calibration Procedure CH-3.9.055, Rev. 1, Nuclear Training Center Portion of the Salem Chemistry Laboratory Quality.Control Requirements
l
.
The inspectors also reviewed the following quality control data and records:
Interlaboratory comparisons from the third quarter, 1987 Gas standard efficiency calibration data Daily Control Chart data for the gamma spectrometry system and the liquid scintillation counter for the period January, 1988 thru the inspection date Shift Turnover Log for the period January 1988 thru the inspection date Corrective Action Forms for the period January 1988 thru the inspection date Within the scope of this review, the following observations and concerns were identified:
The inspectors observed that the counting room, in its current status, allows very little separation between desk*
work stations and sample counting stations. Samples to be prepared and sorted, must pass through this narrow corridor, to the back of the lab. Good practice would separate the counting area into a separate room, apart from sorting, preparation, and storage areas. The licensee stated that another room would be used as the entrance in the near future. Also, that modifications to upgrade the quality of electrical power have been complete Several aspects of an industry acceptable, quality control program for radioanalytical countin9 activities, have not been addressed by the licensee. No 1ntralab program of spikes, blanks or duplicates has been established to assure the precision and accuracy of counting room measurement Also, the interlab comparison program consists only of actual plant samples being jointly analyzed by the licensee and three independent laboratories. Spiked samples have not been sent to the vendor labs to verify their accuracy. No independent labs have sent spiked samples to the licensee as a check on their accuracy. These three quality control techniques would increase confidence in the licensee's counting lab measurement No violations were noted in this are.0 Audits The inspector reviewed audit NSBS-019, Chemistry, dated July-August, 1985, and responses to audit NM87-02, Chemistry, conducted in February, 1987.
The audit and responses were reviewed with respect to a corrective action request and a management action request pertaining to review of procedures
-- - -
-- -- - -on a-two year--cycle. A Salem Generating-Stafion-Respohs-e Request -isstiec:r --
March 18, 1987, was answered in a memo signed by the Radiation Protec-tion/Chemistry Manager on September 14, 1987, and nQted complete as of August 11, 1987. The licensee stated that confusion on responsibility resulted in the delayed corrective action. -.
No violations were identifie.0 Chemistry Organization and Staffing
-'
The inspector reviewed the or~anization and staffing for management control and adequate personnel to administer the chemistry program. Chemistry and Radiation Protection are under one manager. All radioanalytical measurements are done under the supervision of the Count Room Supervisor, who reports directly to the Radiation Protection/Chemistry Manager. All positions are filled and staffing appears adequate with twenty-three technicians, of which thirteen are fully qualified. No contractor personnel fill positions in the Chemistry Departmen.0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in section 1.0) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 4, 1988, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio *
TARLE 1 SALEM VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE Steam I-133 Generator
- Error at 1 Sigma ( old H.P. counting system)
- Error at 2 Sigma (old chem. counting system)
RESULTS IN MICROCURIES/~L NRC VALUE*
LICENSEE VALUE**
(9.6+/-1.5)E-7 ( 1. 5+/-0. 3) E-6 (7. 6+/- 1. 4) E-7 (9 +/- 3)E-7 ( 1. 44+/-0. 01) E-4 ( 1. 52+/-0. 03 )E-4 (5.54+/-0.09)E-5 (5.3+/-0.2)E-5 (l.Ol+/-0.04)E-5 ( l.08+/-0.09)E-5 (3.8+/-0.2)E-5 (4.3+/-0.3)E-5 (3.3+/-0.5)E-6 (4.0+/-1.0)E-6 (2.4+/-0.5)E-6 (4+/-l)E-6 (l.07+/-0.06)E-5 ( l.23+/-?)E-5 ( 1. 28+/-0. 05 )E-5 (1.4+/-0. l)E-5 ( 1.68+/-0. 06) E-5 (l.78+/-0.12)E-5 COMPARISON Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Ag,reement
- l_ __
TABLE 1 SALEM VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULTS IN MICROCURIES/ML COMPARISON NRC VALUE*
LICENSEE VALUE**
Liquid Co-58 (1.44+/-0.0l)E-4 ( 1.44+/-0. 07 )E-4 Agreemen Waste Co-60 (5.54+/-0.09)E-5 (5.3+/-0.2)E-5 Agreement 22CVCSMT Ag-llOm ( 1. 01+/-0.04) E-5 ( 1. 05+/-0. 05 )E-5 Agreement 0850 hrs Sb-125 (3.8+/-0.2)E-5 (3.9+/-0.2)E-5 Agreement 3/3/88
. I-131 (3.3+/-0.5)E-6 (3.4+/-0.5)E-6 Ag'reement I-133 (2.4+/-0.5)E-6 (2.6+/-0.5)E-6 Agreement Cs-134 ( 1. 07+/-0. 06 )E-5 (l.09+/-0.06)E-5 Ag'rt:ement Cs-137 (l.28+/-0.05)E-5 ( 1.2+/-0. l)E-5 Agreement Mn-54 ( 1. 68+/-0.06 )E-5 ( 1.6+/-0.1 )E-5 Agreement Crud Cr-51 (3.8+/-0.5)E-5 (3.2+/-0.3)E-5 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (4.2+/-0.6)E-6 (3.8+/-0.3)E-6 Agreement Rx H20 Co-58 (4.91+/-0.ll)E-5 (5.3+/-0.3)E-5 Agreement 1255 hr Co-60 (2.87+/-0.ll)E-5 (2.9+/-0.l)E-5 Agre~ment 3/2/88 Zr-95 ( 1.09+/-0. 09 )E-5 (1.18+/-0.06)E-5 Agreement Ag-1 lOm (5.3+/-1.5)E-6 (5.0+/-0.4)E-6 Agreement I
W-187 (2.5+/-0.3)E-5 (2 *. 4+/-0. l)E-5 Agreement Tc-99m ( 7 * 8+/-0 * 7) E-6 (5.5+/-0.4)E-6 Agreement
!
- l Sigma Error
- 1.650 Sigma Error (new counting system)
TABLE 1 SALEM VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE Charcoal I-131 Cartridge I-133 Unit 2 1130 hrs 3/1/88 I-131 RxH 20 Na-24 0725 hr I-132 3/3/88 I-133 I-134 I-135 Na-24 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135
- Error at 1 Sigma (old H.P. counting system)
- Error at 1.65 Sigma (new counting system)
- Error at 2 Sigma (old chem. co*unting system)
RESULTS IN MICROCURIES/ML NRC VALUE*
LICENSEE VALUE ( 3. 8+/- 1. 3) E-11 (3.7+/-0.5)E-11*
(4.2+/-1.4)E-11 (4.7+/-0.8)E-11*
( 3. 8+/- 1. 3 ) E -11 ( 2.4+/-0.4 )E-11**
(2.63+/-0.0l)E-3 (2.5+/-0.2)E-3***
(2.5+/-0.2)E-3 (2.9+/-0.2)E-3***
(2.75+/-0.lO)E-3 (2.9+/-0.2)E-3***
(9.2+/-0.5)E-3 (1.00+/-0.07)E-2***
(6.l+/-0.5)E-3 ( 5. 3+/-0. 7) E-3***
(2.63+/-0.0l)E-3 (2.4+/-0.2)E-3**
(2.5+/-0.2)E-3 (2.5+/-0.l)E-3**
(2.75+/-0.lO)E-3 (2.7+/-0.2)E-3**
(9.2+/-0.5)E-3 (8.4+/-0.3)E-3**
(6.l+/-0.5)E-3 (5.l+/-0.2)E-3**
COMPARISON Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agre~ment Agreement Agreement Agreement Agrt::ement Agreement
TABLE 1 SALEM VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE ISOTOPE Gas Dt:cai'.
Xe-133 Tank Xe-135 23 GOT 1005 hr /4/88 Xe-133 Xe-135 llCVCMT Fe-55 1650 hr gross alpha 3/26/86 H-3 Sr-89 Sr-90
- Error at 1 Sigma
- Error at 1.650 Sigma (new counting system)
- Error at 2 Sigma (old chem counting system)
RESULTS IN MICROCURIES/ML NRC VALUE*
LICENSEE VALUE
{7.31+/-0.0B)E-3 (9+/-2)E-3***
(2.5+/-0.5)E-5 (2.8+/-0.5)E-5***
(7.31+/-0.08)E-3 (6.6+/-0.7)E-3**
(2.5+/-0.5)E-3 (2.3+/-0.2)E-3**
(2.79+/-0.02)E-5 (3.9+/-0.2)E-5 (7+/-4)E-9 less than 5 E-8 (8.28+/-0.12)E-3 (8.4+/-0.l)E-3 (2.l+/-0.9)E-7 ( 1. 8+/-0. 3) E-7 ( 2. 8+/- 1. 3) E-8 (2.6+/-0.5)E-8 COMPARISON Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Disagreement No. Comparison Agreement Agreement Agreement
- ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 decrease Resolution1
<3 4 -
8 -
16 -
so
-
200
>200 Ratio For Agreement~
No comparison 0.5 -. 6 1. 66 0.75 1.33 0.80 1.25 0.85 1.18 1Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty}
2Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)