IR 05000272/1991006
| ML18095A914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1991 |
| From: | Bores R, Kottan J, Mcnamara N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18095A913 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-91-06, 50-272-91-6, 50-311-91-06, 50-311-91-6, NUDOCS 9105160131 | |
| Download: ML18095A914 (11) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/91-06 Report No /91-06 50-272 Docket No DPR-70 License No DPR-75 Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
March 11-15, 1991 Inspectors:/ ~
- ~
~c~;_)iJ. T. McNamar, Physical Science Technician, Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS),
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB), Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
.
.,/'
\\-:---___
~v-=~
ERPS, Approved by:
Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, DRSS date s-~ /-9 /
date
-.:J,--cpJ-91
- date Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 11-15, 1991 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/91-06 and 50-311/91-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiochemistry progra Areas reviewed included:
confirmatory measurements, laboratory QA/QC and audit Results:
Of the areas reviewed, no violations were identified.
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- T. Cellmer, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Manager
- J. Dierickx, Technical Supervisor, Chemistry
- E. Galbraith, Chemistry Engineer
- M. Morroni, Technical Department Manager
- A. Orticelle, Maintenance Manager
- J. Polizzi, Operations Manager
- W. Schultz, Station QA Manager
- J. Webster, Outage Manager, Unit 1
- J. Wray, Radiation Protection Engineer S. LaBruna, Vice President, Nuclear Operations Delmarva Power Company
- P. Duca, Site Representative NRC Employees
- S. Barr, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on March 15, 1991.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel, including members of the chemistry and radiation protection staff.
Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following area.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems and effluent sample.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC progra Licensee Action on Previous Findings During a previous inspection on April 24 - May 1, 1989 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/89-08 and 50-311/89-07) an actual feedwater sample was spiked with low levels of chloride and sulfate and then split in order to verify the licensee's capability to measure these analytes in an actual sample matri The licensee performed the analyses using routine methods and equipment and the NRC analyses were performed by Brookhaven National Laborator The analyses results are presented in Table I The NRC currently has no fixed criteria for the comparisons of
analytical results from actual split sample However, the results presented in Table II are within the range normally seen for this type of split sampl.
Radiological Measurements During this part of the inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter)
and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and a gas sample were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC for the purpose of intercompariso The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the air particulate filter and the charcoal cartridge sample In these cases the samples could not be split, and the same samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NR Where possible, the samples are actual effluent samples or inplant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyse These samples were analyzed by the Chemistry Department using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laborator Joint analyses of actual effluent samples are used to verify the licensee's capability to measure radioactivity in effluent and other samples with respect to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirement In addt~ion, 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 anaiyses to be performed on the sample are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, gross alpha and tritiu The results of these analyses 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 a liquid effluent sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on. April 24, 1989 - May 1, 1989 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/89-08 and 50-311/89-07) were also compared during this inspectio Also compared was an Fe-55 spike sample sent to the licensee in June, 1989, from the NRC reference laboratory (RESL)~
.
The results of the comparisons indicated that all of the results were in agreement under the criteria used for comparing results (See Attachment 1 to Table I) with one exceptio The one exception was the Fe-55 result on a liquid sample split during a previous inspectio The licensee's Fe-55 analysis was performed by a vendor laboratory and th NRC Fe-55 analysis was performed by the NRC reference la-boratory (RESL).
The Fe-55 analysis results of a spiked sample sent to the licensee were in agreement, however, and this appears to suggest that there may be a matrix effect present in the previously split sample which was not present in the spiked sampl Previous splits of real samples for Fe-55 analyses have resulted in the licensee's Fe-55 values being higher than the NRC value A sample was split during this inspection fbr Fe-55 analysis and the possible matrix effects will be investigate In any event, the licensee's Fe-55 result was higher than the NRC results and would not
result in the licensee exceeding an effluent release limit.. The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio~.
No violations were identified in this are * Laboratory QA/QC The licensee's radiochemistry laboratory QA/QC program was detailed in a number of procedure Specifically the following procedures were reviewed by the inspecto CH-3.8.043, Interlab Agreement Criterion CH-3.8.058, Quality Control Preparation and Evaluation of Count Room Equipment M12-COP-001, Interlaboratory Quality Control Comparison Program (Nuclear Services Procedure)
The procedures provide for the control of analytical performance through a number of mechanisms i.ncluding:
an interlaboratory program of split samples, including acceptance criteria; and the use of control charts to access instrument performanc The procedures provide guidance in both the construction and use of control chart The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's QA/QC program for 1989, 1990 and 1991 to date and noted that the licensee appeared to be implementing the program as require The inspector noted that the licensee was in the process of implementing a new laboratory QA/QC progra This program was developed with input from the Chemistry Services group of the Nuclear Services Department and appeared to be quite extensiv The involve~ent of Chemistry Services will provide a measure independent oversight of the interlaboratory QC progra The inspector also noted the use of Chemistry Services by the site, not only in the development of th~ new laboratory QA/QC program, but for other areas of technical support as wel The inspector stated that the development of the new laboratory QA/QC program was a noted positive attribute of the licensee's chemistry progra The inspector further stated that the new laboratory QA/QC program appeared to be comprehensive, and its implementation will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection in this are No violations were.identified in this are Audits The inspector reviewed recent Quality Assurance audits of the licensee's chemistry/radiochemistry program performed by the Quality Assurance
. Departmen In particular, the following audits were reviewe Audit No. 87-02 Audit No.89-130 Radiation Protection and Chemistry, performed January 19 - March 3, 1987 Operations and Chemistry, performed May 8-26, 1989
- *
The audits were performed using an audit plan with an associated check list, and the audit team included a technical specialist for the chemistry area The audits appeared to be of sufficient. technical depth to adequately identify programmatic problems, and findings appeared to be resolved in a timely manne Additionally, the inspector reviewed Audit No. SNA 90-068, performed on June 5-6, 1990, of the licensee's vendor laboratory used for performing radioactivity analyses of effluent samples that require wet chemistr This audit focused on the QA program of the vendor laborator No significant findings were identified during this audi The inspector also reviewed the results 6f selected QA surveillances performed by the station QA Surveillance Group during 1989 and 199 Surveillances of site chemistry activities are performed on a quarterly basi Chemistry areas whith were covered by surveillance activities included:
counting room quality control, document control, records management, technician certification, and Technical Specification The inspector reviewed audit logs and schedules and verified that the above areas were included in the,quarterly chemistry surveillance No violations were identified in this are Exit Meeting The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on March 15, 199 The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
Table I Salem Units I and II Verification rest Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Total Microcuries Particulate Air Cr-51 (2.58+/-0.08)E-1 (2.60+/-7%)E-1 Agreement Filter Mn-54 ( 1. 74+/-0. ll)E-2 ( 1. 66+/-6%) E-2 Agreement ( L&S 11&13 SIG)
Co-58 (5.85+/-0.03)E-1 (5.74+/-5%)E-1 Agreement 3-8-91 Co-60 (3.06+/-0.03)E-1 (3.04+/-4%)E-1 Agreement 1730 hrs Zr-95 (3.0+/-0.2)E-2 (2.67+/-5%)E-2 Agreement (Detector #1)
Particulate Air Cr-51 (2.58+/-0.08)E-1 (2.72+/-6%)E-1 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (1.74+/-0.ll)E-2 (l.64+/-6%)E-2 Agreement ( L&S 11&13 SIG)
Co-58 (5.85+/-0.03)E-1 (5.59+/-5%)E-1 Agreement 3-8-91 Co-60 (3.06+/-0.03)E-1 (3.03+/-4%)E-1 Agreement 1730 hrs Zr-95 (3.0+/-0.2)E-2 ( 2. 75+/-5~b) E..,2 Agreement (Detector #2)
Particulate Cr-51 (2.58+/-0.08)E-l (2.79+/-8%)E-1 Agreement Filter Mn-54 (1.74+/-0.ll)E-2 ( 1. 58+/-13%)E-2 Agreement ( L&E 11&13 SIG)
Co-58 (5.85+/-0.03)E-1 (5.62+/-5%)E-1 Agreement 3-8-91 Co-60 (3.06+/-0.03)E-1 (3.20+/-4%)E-1 Agreement 1730 hrs Zr-95 (3.0+/-0.2)E-2 ( 2. 58+/-10%)E-2 Agreement (Detector #6)
Results in Mi crocuri es Per_ Mil 1i1 i ter Liquid Radwaste Mn-54 (1.25+/-0.03)E-5 ( 1. 34+/-9%) E-5 Agreement 22 eves MT Co-58 ( 1. 307+/-0. 006) E-4 (L38+/-6%)E-4 Agreement 3-13-91 Co-60 (7.31+/-0.05)E-5 (7.77+/-4%)E-5 Agreement 0630 hrs I-131 (1.36+/-0.03)E-5 (1.44+/-8%)E-5 Agreement (Detector #2)
Cs-134 (3.72+/-0.04)E-5 (3.97+/-4%)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (4.34+/-0.04)E-5 (4.77+/-7%)E-5 Agreement *
Liquid Radwaste Mn-54 (1.25+/-0.03)E-5 ( 1. 28+/-7%) E-5 Agreement 22 eves MT Co-58 (1.307+/-0.006)E-4 ( 1. 37+/-6%) E-4 Agreement 3-13-91 Co-60 (7.31+/-0.05)E-5 (8.0+/-4%)E-5 Agreement 0630 hrs I-131 (1.36+/-0.03)E-5 (1.47+/-7%)E-5 Agreement (Detector #3)
Cs-134 (3.72+/-0.04)E-5 (4.0+/-4%)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (4.34+/-0.004)E-5 (4.52+/-7%)E-5 Agreement
Table I (~ontinued)
Salem Units I and II Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Liquid Radwaste 22 eves MT 3-13-91 0630 hours0.00729 days <br />0.175 hours <br />0.00104 weeks <br />2.39715e-4 months <br /> (Detector #6)
Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 (1.25+/-0.03)E-5 (1.307+/-0.006)E-4 (7.31+/-0.05)E-5 (1.36+/-0.03)E-5 (3.72+/-0.04)E-5 (4.34+/-0.04)E-5 ( 1. 35+/-7%) E-5 ( 1. 37+/-6%) E-4 (7.66+/-4%)E-5 ( 1. ~4+/-7%) E-5 (3.9+/-4%)E-5 (4.7+/-7%)E-5 Results in Total Microcuries Unit 1 Containment I-131 (1.178+/-0.00S)E-1 (1.168+/-3%)E-1 Charcoal Cartridge 3-11-91 1300 hrs (Detector #1)
Unit 1 Containment I-131 (1.178+/-0.00S)E-1 Charcoal Cartridge
.3-11-91 1300 hrs (Detector #2)
Unit 1 Containment I-131 (1.178+/-0.00S)E-l Charcoal Cartridge 3-11-91 1300 hrs (Detector #6)
(1.11+/-3%)E-1 (l.08+/-3%)E-1 Results in Microcuries per Milliter Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.05)E-3 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 Tank Xe-133 3-13-91 1340 hrs (Detector #3)
(Licensee's Johnson Bomb Geometry)
Waste Gas Decay Tank 3-13-91 1340 hrs (Detector #6)
(Licensee's Johnson Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.0S)E-3 Xe-133 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 Bomb Geometry)
-2-(2.27+/-11~nE-3 (7.19+/-6%)E-3 (2.52+/-11%)E-3 (7. 09+/-6%)E-3 COMPARISON Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
- Table I (continued)
Salem Units I and II Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.05)E-3 ( 2. 56+/-10%) E-3 Agreement Tank Xe-133 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 (7.Ei2+/-6%)E-3 Agreement 3-13-91 1340 hrs (Detector #2)
(Licensee's Johnson -
Bomb Geometry)
Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.05)E-3 (2.60+/-8%)E-3 Agreement Tank Xe-133 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 ( 6. 84+/-10%) E-3 Agreement 3-13-91 1340 hrs (Detector #2)
(Licensee's Marinelli Beaker Geometry)
Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.05)E-3 (2.90+/-9%)E-3 Agreement Tank Xe-133 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 (7. 31+/-10%)E-3 Agreement 3-13-91 1340 hrs (Detector #3)
(Licensee's Marinelli Beaker Geometry)
Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (2.25+/-0.05)E-3 ( 2. 42+/-10%) E-3 Agreement Tank Xe-133 (6.68+/-0.06)E-3 (6.93+/-10%)E-3 Agreement 3-13--91 1340 hrs (Detector #6)
(Licensee's Marinelli Beaker Geometry)
Reactor Coolant I-131 (7.2+/-0.6)E-4 (6.88+/-14%)E-Agreement 3-12-91 I-132 ( 1. 280+/-0. 013) E-2 (1.46+/-3%)E-2 Agreement 0845 hrs I-133 (8.58+/-0.07)E-3 (8.90+/-5%)E-3 Agreement (Detector #2)
I-134 (2.24+/-0.05)E-2 (2.58+/-3%)E-2 Agreement I-135 (1.68+/-0.03)E-2 ( 1. 60+/-3%) E-2 Agreement
-3-
Table I (continued)
Salem Units I and II Verification Test Results SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Microcuries Per Milliliter Reactor Coolant I-131 (7.2+/-0.6)E-4 (5.65+/-15%)E-4 Agreement 3-12-91 I-132 (1.28D+/-0.013)E-2 (1.41+/-2%)E-2 Agreement 0845 hrs I-133 (8.58+/-0.07)E-3 (8.45+/-5%)E-3 Agreement (Detector #1)
I-134 (2.24+/-0.05)E-2 (2.53+/-3%)E-2 Agreement I-135 (1.68+/-0.03)E-2 (l.68+/-3%)E-2 Agreement Reactor Coolant I-131 (7.2+/-0.6)E-4 (6.90+/-14%)E-4 Agreement 3-12-91 I-132 (1.280+/-0.013)E~2 (1.49+/-3%)E-2 Agreement 0845 hrs I-133 (8.58+/-0.07)E-3 (8.51+/-6%)E-3 Agreement (Detector #6)
I-134 (2.24+/-0.05)E-2 (2.46+/-4%)E-2 Agreement I-135 (1.68+/-0.03)E-2 (1.66+/-4~~)E.,.2 Agreement Liquid Radio-Fe-55 ( 1.28+/-0. 01 )E-5 (2.2+/-0.2)E-5 Disagreement active Waste H-3 (8.01+/-0.09)E-3 (9.1+/-0.l)E-3 Agreement 0800 hrs Sr-89 (1.9+/-0.3)E-7 (2.l+/-0.5)E-7 Agreement
4-24-89 Sr-90 ( 1. 34+/-0. 09)E-7*
(1.6+/-0.2)E-7 Agreement RESL Supplied Fe-55 (1.37+/-0.04)E-4 (1.1+/-0.l)E-4 Agreement Spike Sample 1-3-89 = Reference Date
-4-
ATTACHMENT 1 TO TABLE I Criteria for Comparille Analvtical 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 jtidgementlimits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty. As the ratio, referred to in this program as "Resolution", fucreases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decrease Resolution 1
<4 4-7 8 - 15 16 - 50 51 - 200
>200 Ratio for Agreement2 No comparison 0.5 -.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 1 Resolution = * (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty)
2Ratio = (License Value/NRC Reference Value)
Chemical Parameter Chloride Sulfate
- Chloride Sulfate TABLE II Salem Units 1 and 2 *
Chemistry Test Results in Parts Per Billion*
NRC Licensee Measured Va 1 ue *
Measured Value 21.3+/-.4+/- +/-5 37.2+/-.3+/- +/-2 27+/-5 26.9+/- Ratio.
(LIC./NRC)
1. 29+/-0. 09 1. 38+/-0. 3 1. 46+/-0.13 1. 0+/-0. 2
- These are the results of a spiked feedwater sample prepared during inspection 50-272/89-08; 50-311/89-07 during April 24-May 1, 198 NOTE:
The first set of results were obtained by the licensee using his Dionex Model 16 Ion Chromatograph (IC).
The second set of results were obtained by the licensee using his Dionex Model 2020i I (This analysis required a 1:10 dilution of the sample.)
The NRC analyses were also performed using ion chromatography.