IR 05000272/1989008
| ML18094A494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18094A493 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-89-08, 50-272-89-8, 50-311-89-07, 50-311-89-7, NUDOCS 8906060236 | |
| Download: ML18094A494 (12) | |
Text
Report N Docket N U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/89-08 50-311/89-07 50-272 50-311 DPR-70 License N DPR-75 -
Priority Category _c_
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey, 07101 Facility Name:* Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
April 24 - May 1, 1989 Inspectors: if."!. ~t (\\aJ~~--
N. McNamara, Laboratory Assistant
/
date date '
Approved by: ~Effluents S-3; -8°;
Radiation date Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 24 - May l, 1989 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/89-08 and 50-311/89-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the radiological and non-radiological chemistry progra Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements - radiological, standards analyses - chemistry, and laboratory QA/Q Results:
Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identifie F'DF~
p:,nr1r:f:*
osooo2~.,.*:::.*
1-_ *. * *-* *-
-
"
~
F'DC
- DETAILS Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- 0. Schultz, Licensing Engineer
- J. Balletto, Environmental Licensing
- J. Russell, Engineer
- P. McNulty, Effluent Engineer
- J. Wray, Radiation Protection Engineer
- S. Branosky, Supervisor, Maintenance
- W. Lowry, System Engineer
- L. Rajkowski, System Engineer
- R. Wation, Supervisor, Maintenance
- 0. Perkins, Manager, Station QA
- E. Galbraith, Chemistry Services
- G. Dziuba, Senior Engineer
- F. Thompson, Licensing
- J. Dierickx, Counting Room Supervisor
- C.. Gregory, I&C Supervisor
- L. Miller, General Manager, Salem Operations
- B. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation S. Lehman, Chemistry Technician M. Kubiak, Chemistry Technician D. Robinson, Chemistry Technician 0. Hurka, Chemistry Technician
- denotes those personnel who attended the exit meeting on May 1, 1989. Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the following areas:
The licensee 1 s ability to measure radioactivity and non-radiological chemistry parameters, and The licensee 1 ~ ability to demonstrate the acceptability of his analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC progra.
Radiological and Non-Radiological Chemistry Confirmatory Measurements (Radiological)
During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were split
between the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercompariso Where possible, the split samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyse The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laborator Joint a~alyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples with respect to Technical Specification 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 chemistr The analyses to be perform~d on the sample are:
Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, gross alpha, and tritiu The results will be compared with the licensee's results wheA 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 the NRC during a previous inspection on February 29 - March 4, 1988 (Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/88-10 and 50-311/88-10) were also compared during this inspectio The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (see Attachment 1) with the exception of one measurement resul The result in disagreement was an Fe-55 analysis of a liquid radioactive waste sampl The inspector noted that the Fe-55 result from the previous inspection in this area was also in disagreemen The inspector stated that in addition to the sample split during this inspection, an Fe-55 spiked sample would be sent to the licensee from the NRC reference laboratory (RESL) so that the reason for the disagreements could be determine It should be noted that although the licensee's Fe-55 results have been in.disagreement with the NRC results, the licensee's results have been higher than the NRC results and, therefore, would not have resulted in the licensee exceeding any effluent release limit The results of the RESL spiked sample will be documented in a subsequent inspection repor The results of the comparisons are listed in Table The particulate filter results are reported for a sample counted both on the detector and approximately five centimeters away from
- the detecto The inspector discussed with the licensee the geometry related problems associated with counting these types of samples directly in contact with or very near the face of the detecto In addition, the inspector and the licensee reviewed the comparison results from both counting geometries and noted the
differences associated with counting the particulate filter near and away from the detecto The licensee responded-to this discussion by stating that this area would be reviewed and appropriate actions would be take The inspector had no further questions in this are No violations were i de.nt if i e.2 Standards Analyses (Non-Radiological Chemistry)
During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysi The standard solutions were prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipmen The analysis of standards is used to verify the licensee's capability to monitor chemical parameters in various plant systems with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirement In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's procedures with respect to accuracy and precisio Also, a spiked sample was *sent to BNL for analysis.* The analyses to be performed on the sample are chloride, fluoride, and sulfat The licensee will perform the same analyses, and the NRC 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 analysis of an actual spiked sample permits comparison of results from an actual samp 1 e matri The results of the standards measurements comparison indicated that 14 of 45 measurements were in disagreement under the criteria used for comparing result (See Attachment 2.)
The results of the comparisons are listed in Table I The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration rang Of the 14 results in disagreement under the NRC criteria, 12 of the results were within ten percent of the NRC known valu These disagreements were due to the statistical nature of the NRC comparison criteria and were not judged to be significan The silica measurement at 53 ppb differed from the NRC known value by 18 percen In fact, all of the silica measurements were lower than the NRC known value, with the values at 104 ppb and 157 ppb differing from the NRC values by 10%
eac This bias in the data suggests a discrepancy with the spectrophotometer calibration curv The inspector discussed this with the licensee, and the licensee stated that the silica calibration curve would be reevaluate The other measurement result which differed from the NRC known value by greater than 10% was the ammonia value at 104 pp This disagreement was attributed to sampling/dilution erro During the previous inspection in this area several concerns were identified by the inspector including:
calibration of Oxford pipets, single point calibrations at concentrations well above those encountered in routine samples, large calibration ranges for multi-point calibrations exceeding the concentrations normally encountered in real samples and obscuring nonlinearity, and the failure to statistically fit calibration curve The inspector noted, during this inspection that the licensee had responded to the above concern The Oxford pipets had been calibrated, instrument calibrations were performed over the concentration range expected for real samples, and the calibration curves were statistically fi In addition, the inspectcir noted that where single point calibrations were performed, the concentrations were near those expected in various sample The i~spector discus~ed the single point calibration techniques with the license The licensee stated single point calibrations were performed on some instruments such as the atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA) and ion chromatograph (IC) because of limitations with the capability of the instrument for storing calibration dat The licensee stated that a new AA had been purchased and received which would permit multipoint calibrations with curve fittin The licensee further stated that evaluations were underway regarding a computer interface to the IC which would permit multipoint calibrations with curve fitting technique The inspector noted the licensee 1 s responsiveness to NRC identified concerns and stated that the above area, single point calibrations, would be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio The inspector further noted that the licensee is also in the process of gathering and assessing random uncertainty data for several analytical instruments used for chemical analyses so that the detection limit and limit of quantification can be determine The inspector also toured the licensee 1 s new planned secondary side laboratory and noted that the new laboratory would provide needed ~dditional space, particularly for instrumentatio.3 Laboratory QA/QC Program The licensee 1 s chemistry and radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC programs are contained in a number of licensee procedure Specifically, the following procedures were reviewed by the inspecto CH-3.8.004, CH-3.8.043, CH-3.9.017, CH-3.8.058, Interlab Comparison Analysis Interlab Agreement Criterion Chemistry Laboratory Qua 1 ity Contra 1 Requirements Quality Control Preparation and Evaluation of Count Room Equipment These procedures provide for the control of analytical performance through a variety of mechanisms including:
an interlaboratory program
- of split samples for radioactivity analyses, including acceptance criteria; an intralaboratory spike program for chemical analyses; and the use of control charts to assess instrument performanc The procedures provide guidance in both the construction and use of the control chart The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee 1 s QA/QC program for 1988 and 1989 to date, and noted that the licensee appears to be implementing the program as required by his procedure In particular, 'the inspector also noted that the licensee had a contractor perform a statistical assessment of his previous years 1 chemistry laboratory control chart The inspector further noted that this was a good initiative on the part of the licensee and provided a mechanism for chemistry management to review and assess this particular aspect of the laboratory QA/QC progra In reviewing the QC data the inspector noted that the licensee does not partici-pate in an interlaboratory QC program us}ng spiked samples in either the chemistry or radiochemistry are Discussions with the licensee indicated that during the first quarter of 1989 spiked radioactivity samples were received from an outside laboratory and were sent to the licensee 1 s vendor laboratory which is used for effluent radioactivity analyses in order to assess the performance of this laborator Also, the licensee receives known chemistry standards from another outside laboratory on a quarterly basis, and these are used as part of the licensee 1s chemistry intralaboratory spike progra The inspector stated that the use of these standards as part of an interlaboratory program to assess accuracy should be formally documented in the licensee 1s laboratory QA/QC procedures and a formal schedule for their use establishe This.area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio The inspector observed that the licensee is participating in an intercomparison program with NIST (National Institutes of Standards and Technology,. formerly NBS) for radioactivity measurement The inspector had no further questions in the are No violations were identifie.
Exit Interview The inspectors met*with the licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 1, 198 The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
TABLE I SALEM UNITS I & II Verification Test Results Sample Isotope NRC Value Licensee Value Comparison Results in Microcuries Per Millilit.er Reactor I-131 (7.l+/-l.6)E-4 ( 5. 8+/- 19. 2~0 E-4 Agreement Coolant I-132 (l.39+/-0.02)E-2 ( 1. 37+/-3~6) E-2 Agreement 4-25-89 I-133 (9.2+/-0.2)E-3 ( 8. 1+/-6. 3 9~~) E-3 Agreement 0930 hours0.0108 days <br />0.258 hours <br />0.00154 weeks <br />3.53865e-4 months <br /> I-134 (2.92+/-0.09)E-2 ( 2. 72+/-2. 55~6) E-2 Agreement (Detector #2)
I-135 (l.78+/-0.08)E-2 (l.62+/-3.65%)E-2 Agreement Na-24 (1.9+/-0.2)E-3 ( 1. 63+/-9.14~6) E-3 Agreement Liquid Co-58 (l.76+/-0.02)E-4 c i. 76+/-5. onn E-4 Agreement Radioactive - Co-60 (l.18+/-0.06)E-5 ( 1. 3 0 +/- 3. 9 9~;) E - 5 Agreement Waste Sb-125 (2.2+/-0.2)E-5 ( 2. 23+/-5. 72~~) E-5 Agreement
- 22 WMHT Cs-137 (7.6+/-0.7)E-6 ( 8. 33+/-7.10?~) E-6 Agreement 4-24-89 Mn-54 (1.00+/-0.05)E-5 ( 1. 04+/-5. 65~6) E-5 Agreement 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> Unit 2 -
(Detector #4)
Containment Mn-54 (6.7+/-0.3)E-3 (6.42+/-7.83%)E-3 Agreement Particulate Co-58 (1.048+/-0.007)E-1 ( 9. 80+/-4. 98~~) E-2 Agreement Filter Co-60 (7.97+/-0.08)E-2 (7.~7+/-3.55%)E-2 Agreement 4-24-89 Cs-134 (3.3+/-0.3)E-3 ( 2. 76+/-13. 64~~)E-3 Agreement Unit 1 Cs-137 (3.6+/-0.3)E-3 (3.15+/-12.06~6)E-3 Agreement (Detector #4) Zr-95 (3.8+/-0.4)E-3 ( 3. 96+/-10. 29~6) E-3 Agreement (counted away from detector)
Containment Mn-54 (6.7+/-0.3)E-3 (8.11+/-6.31~nE-3 Agreement particulate Co-58 ( 1. 048+/-0. 007) E-1 (1.18+/-4.77%E-1 Agreement filter Co-60 (7.97+/-0.08)E-2 ( 9. 31+/-3. 3 8~~ ) E-2 Agreement Unit 1 Co-134 (3.3+/-0.3)E-3 (2.77+/-7.67%)E-3 Agreement 4-24-89 Cs-137 (3.6+/-0.3)E-3 ( 4.10+/-9. 25%) E-3 Agreement (Detector #6) Zr-95 (3.8+/-0.4)E-3 (4.40+/-7.34%)E-3 Agreement (counted on detector)
GOT #11 Xe-133 (7.84+/-0.08)E-4 (7.31+/-12.n6)E-4 Agreement 4-26-89 1026 hours0.0119 days <br />0.285 hours <br />0.0017 weeks <br />3.90393e-4 months <br /> (Detector #4)
Sample Isotope GOT #12 Xe-133 4-25-89 1405 hours0.0163 days <br />0.39 hours <br />0.00232 weeks <br />5.346025e-4 months <br /> (Detector #2)
GOT #11 Kr-85 4-27-89 Xe-133 0912 hours0.0106 days <br />0.253 hours <br />0.00151 weeks <br />3.47016e-4 months <br /> Xe-135 (Detector #4) Xe-131m (Gas Marinelli)
Charcoal I-131 Cartridge U-1 Aux. Bld hours (Detector #6)
Liquid Radioactive Waste 3-10-88 1350 hours0.0156 days <br />0.375 hours <br />0.00223 weeks <br />5.13675e-4 months <br /> H-3 Gross Alpha Fe-55 Sr-90 Sr-89 TABLE I (Continued)
SALEM UNITS I & II Verification Test Results NRC Value Licensee Value Comparison Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter (9.53+/-0.07)E-4 (5.4+/-0.2)E-4 (8.99+/-0.02)E-4 (1.l+/-0.2)E-:-7 (8.5+/-0.2)E- (1.05+/-0.12)E-3 (1.42+/-0.02)E-2 (1.6+/-0.8)E-8 (1.66+/-0.02)E-5 (5.0+/-0.9)E-8 ( 2. 4+/-0. 7) E-8 ( 8. 52+/-12. 6?6) E-4 (6.46+/-9.05%)E-4 (9:85+/-8.45%)E-4 (1.63+/-19.22%)E-7 ( 1. 05+/-8. 72~~) E-4 ( 9. 39+/-9. 1 rn) E-4 (1.6+/-0.l)E-2
<5 E-8 (2.6+/-0.l)E-4 (4.0+/-0.S)E-8 (9.8+/-2.l)E-8 Agreement Agreement Agreement -
Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
- No Comparison Disagreement Agreement No Comparison
TABLE II SALEM UNITS 1 and 2 Chemistry Test Results Chemical
- Method of NRC Licensee Ratio Parameter Analysis Known Value Measured Value (LIC/NRC)
Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Ammonia IC (2020i)
104+/-5 122+/-3 1.17+/-0.06 Disagreement 301+/-
299+/-2 0.993+/-0.012
.Agreement Fluoride ISE 22.5+/-.7+/-. 96+/-0. 03 Agreement 42.3+/-. 8+/-0. 8 0.99+/-0.02 Agreement 83+/-2 84+/-4*
1.01+/-0.05 Agreement Chloride IC (#16)
18.5+/-.9+/-. 08+/-0. 02 Disagreement 37.3+/- +/-2 1. 10+/-0. 05 Agreement 76.5+/-.3+/-. 08+/-0. 02 Disagreement Chloride IC (2020i)
1.85+/-0.01 1. 8+/-0. 2 0. 97+/-0.11 Agreement 3.73+/-0.03 3.55+/-0.15 0.95+/-0.04 Agreement 0.765+/-0.012 0.8+/-. 0+/-0. 3 Agreement Sulfate IC (#16)
19.5+/- +/-2 1. 23.+/-0.14 Agreement 38+/-3 43.6+/-.15+/-0.10 Agreement 78+/-2 77.0+/-.99+/-0.03 Agreement Sulfate IC (2020i)
1. 95+/-0. 14 2.09+/-0.15 1. 07+/-0.11 Agreement 3.8+/-.3+/-.1+/- Agreement 0.78+/-0.02 0.9+/-. 2+/-0. 3 Agreement Hydrazine SP 19.9+/- +/-0 1. 06+/-0. 02 Disagreement 49.9+/- +/-. 042+/-0. 010 Disagreement 100+/-1.
103.7+/-. 037+/-0. 012 Disagreement Sodium IC (2020i)
0.61+/-0.07 1. 3+/-0. 7 No Comparison 1. 06+/-0. 06 1. 8+/-0. 5 1.7+/- Agreement 1. 58+/-0. 09 2.5+/-. 6+/-0. 3 Agreement
- Chemical Parameter
- <.,,.
SALEM UNITS 1 and 2
- Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Known Value Measured Value Results i. n 12a rts 12er SP 53+/-3 43.7+/- +/-4 93.7+/- +/-2 142.3+/- Results in 12arts 12er Ti +/-10 999+/-2 3100+/-100 2973+/-6 5000+/-90 4868+/-7 AA 1.86+/-0.05 1. 92+/-0. 03 3. 98+/-0*. 05 3.91+/-0.04 0.585+/-0.015 0.583+/-0.015 AA 1. 98+/-0. 05 1.917+/-0.006 1.155+/-0.015 1.217+/-0.015 3.85+/-0.05 3.97+/-0.04 0.58+/-0.01 0.627+/-0.006 AA 2.00+/-0.03 2. 000+/-0. 010 4.03+/-0.15 4.00+/-0.05 0.600+/-0.015 0.603+/-0.006 AA 0.197+/-0.004 0.211+/-0.00.300+/-0.007 0.327+/-0.002 1. 65+/-0. 04 1.640+/-0.014
= Ion Specific Electrode
= Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
= Ion Chromatography Spectrophotometry
= Potentiometric Titration Ratio (LIC/NRC2 Com12arison billion (12pb2 0.82+/-0.05 Disagreement 0.90+/-0.04 Disagreement 0.904+/-0.014 Disagreement million (1212m2 0.961+/-0.009 Disagreement 0.96+/-0.03 Agreement 0.97+/-0.02 Agreement 1. 03+/-0. 03 Agreement 0.98+/-0.02 Agreement 1. 00+/-0. 04 Agreement 0.97+/-0.02 Agreement 1. 05+/-0. 02 Disagreement 1. 03+/-0. 02 Agreement 1. 08+/-0. 02 Disagreement 1. 00+/-0. 02 Agreement 0.99+/-0.04 Agreement 1. 00+/-0. 03 Agreement 1. 07+/-0. 03 Disagreement 1. 09+/-0. 03 Disagreement 0.99+/-0.02 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 uncertaint As that ratio, referred to in this program as 11 Resolution",
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selectiv Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease Resolution 1
<3 4 - 7 8 - 15 16 - 50 51 - 200
>200 Ratio For Agreement 2 No Comparison 0.5-2.0*
0. 6 - 1. 66 0.75-1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 1 Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty)
2 Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
"
ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability test In these criteria the judgement limits are based on the uncertainty of the ratio of the licensee 1 s value to the NRC valu The following steps are performed:
(1)
the ratio of the licensee 1 s value to the NRC value is computed (ratio =
Licensee Value NRC Value
) ;
(2)
the uncertainty of the ratio is propagated. 1 If the absolute value of one minus the ratio is less than or equal to twice the ratio uncertainty (11-ratiol ~ 2 uncertainty), the results are in agreemen X S2z 1Z = -' then I y z2 x2 y2 1 (From:
Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969)