IR 05000272/1992018
| ML18096B131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1992 |
| From: | Jang J, Mark Miller, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18096B129 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-92-18, 50-311-92-18, NUDOCS 9212080034 | |
| Download: ML18096B131 (10) | |
Text
Report Nos. -
Docket No * License No Licen~ee:
Facility Name:
Inspection At:
U.S. :NUCLEAR P~GULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/92-18 and 50-311/91-18 50-272 and 50-311 DPR-70 and DPR-75 Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station. Units 1 & 2 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
Inspectors:
Approved by: Jang, Sr. Radiation Specialis uents Radiation Protection Section S), Facilities Radiological Safety Jd.~
(FRS&SB)
~so, Radiation Specialist ERPS,FRS&SB
~
--
...-.---~
~A-.
. ~
I. ~~
Marie T. Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRS&SB, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 11-:Z'f-f 2-date Inspection Summary: Announced safety inspection of the licensee's programs for the Radiological Effluent Control Program, projected dose calculation ability, and implementation of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
Results: Within the scope of this.inspection, excellent implementation of the above programs by the Chemistry Department was observed. The completion of the short-term project for the RMS was noteworth PDR ADOCK 05000272-G PDR
- DETAILS 1. 0 Individuals Contacted
. I. I
- Licensee Personnel
- D. Branham, RP/Chemistry Services '
S. Brano sky, Maintenance Supervisor
- T. Carrier, Maintenance Engineer
- * T. Cellmer, RP/Chemistry Department Manager G. Cranfield, Technical Supervisor, RP/Chemistry Department
- J. Crouch, Radiation Monitoring System Project Engineer J. Dierickx, Technical Supervisor, RP/Chemistry Department
- E. Galbriath, Principal Chemistry Engineer *
J. Grimm, System Engineer
- E. Lawrence, QA Audits
- M. Morroni, Technical Department Manager
- R. Oakes, Atlantic Electric-Salem Site Representative
- V. Polizzi, Operations Manager
- W. Schultz, Station QA Manager
- M. Shedlock, Maintenance Manager
- E. Villar,. Licensing Engineer R. Yewdall, RP/Chemistry Services NRC
- T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Pindale, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on November 20, 1992. The
. inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee employee.0 Purpose The puipose of this inspection was to review the licensee's program in the following area o The licensee's ability to control and quantify effluent radioactive liquids, gases, and particulate The licensee's ability to calculate projected doses to the public from radioactive liquid and gaseous (airborne) effluent releases during normal operatio. 0 Management Controls 3.1 Program Changes There were no significant changes in the licensee's radioactive *liquid and gaseous effluent control programs since the previous inspection conducted in July 1991. The Chemistry Department has the responsibility to conduct the
~dioactive liquid and gast;0us effluent control programs and to implement the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
3. 2 Review of Semiannual Effluent Reports and Annual Dose Assessment Report The inspector r~viewed the semiannual radioactive effluent release reports for 1991 and the first.half 1992. These reports provided total released radioactivity for liquid and gaseous effluents. These reports also contained any changes to the ODCM as necessary and meteorological data. The inspector also noted that the licensee summarized historical radioactive liquid and gaseous release data since 1987 for trending purposes. The inspector
. determined that including the trending analysis data in the semiannual reports was noteworthy. There were no obvious anomalous measurements, omissions or trend.0 Audits The inspector reviewed the audits (Audit Numbers: 91-151 and 92-151) conducted by
- the Quality Assurance (QA) Department.for the Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Surveillance Programs and implementation of the ODCM. Three deficiencies in the area. of radiation monitoring systems (Nuclear Engineering Design) were identified by the QA audit conducted in 1991. These deficiencies were followed by the QA Department. There were no deficiencies identified for the effluent control programs during the QA audit conducted in 1992. The QA Department used a tracking system to follow the corrective actions. The inspector noted that the scope and technical depth of the audits were very good to assess the effluent control program.0
- Implementation of the.Effluent Control Programs The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Control Programs through discussions with licensee personnel, review of se~ective radioactive liquid and gaseous release permits and procedure *.
The Chemistry Department has the responsibility to conduct the effluent control programs. During discussions with the members of Chemistry Department, the inspector noted that the responsible individuals had excellent knowledge concerning:
(1) radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent controls, (2) effluent Radiation Monitoril:ig
- Systems (RMS), (3) quantifying the total amount of liquid and gaseous effluent release using the RMS, (4) protection of the public health and the environment, and (5) all aspects and requirements of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). *
The inspector determined that radioactive effluent control procedures were sufficiently detailed to control all routine effluent releases effectively. The inspector also determined that the reviewed release permits were complete and met the requirements for sampling analyses at the frequencies and lower limits of detection established in the Technical Specification *
Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee was implementing an excellent radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control program.0 Calibration*and Manual of Effluent/Process Radiation Monitoring Systems <RMS) Calibration The inspector reviewed the most recent calibration test results for the following effluent/process RMS to determine the implementation of the Technical Speeification requirements for both unit o Liquid Rad waste Effluent Line Monitors (Rl 8)
o Main Steam Line Monitors (R46)
o Containment Vent Monitors - Noble Gas.(Rl2), High Range (R44)
o Plant Vent Effluent Monitors (Rl 6)
The I&C Department has the responsibility to perform electronic and radiological calibrations. All reviewed calibrations were performed at the required frequencies and results were within the licensee's acceptance criteri The inspector, however, noted that the methodology in the final steps of the radiological calibration procedures for the liquid effluent monitors require improvement. The Radiological Protection/Chemistry Services supplies the calibration sources to the I&C Department without the soQ.rce strength information. Therefore, the determination of the calibration factor (sensitivity)
and the linearity for the RMS were very difficult. The inspector discussed
- with the licensee better radiological calibration practices. The licensee stated
- that the current calibration technique and procedures will be reviewed and upgraded, as necessary, in the near fµture. The inspector stated that procedures will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee has an acceptable calibration technique for the effluent/process RM.2 RMS Manual The licensee's Radiation.Protection and Chemistry Services issued the RMS
.
.
Manuals for both units in November 1991 as a final draft document. The inspector reviewed the manuals and noted that the manuals contained the
- following useful information for process and* effluent monitor o Description* of the Monitor o Location of the Monitor o Charactenstics of the Detector o Calibration Data o Setpoints o Conversion Factor (µCi/cc/cpm)
- The Manuals, however, were not being used by the appropriate groups (Chemistry,. Operations, I&C, and Radiation Protection) due to the final review stage. The inspector stated that final issuance and implementation of the Manuals will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio *Based on the review of the RMS Manuals, the inspector stated that the
- issuance of the Manuals was an excellent effort to maintain the monitoring system integrity and operabilit. 0
. Upgrading Status of RMS During the previous inspection conducted in July 1991, the inspector reviewed the Engineering and Plant Betterment Project Scope Proposal (BWR No. 062-89-1116),.
"Radiation Monitoring System - ~hort Term RMS Modifications". This proposal contained (1) statement of problem, (2) objectives*, (3) project team matrix, (4) project schedule, and (5) issues and consideration During this inspection, the inspector reviewed and discussed with the_ licensee the completion of the short-term RMS project. The licensee completed the short-term RMS project (e.g., upgrading electronic components for many process and effluent
- RMS and installation of several new RMS). The inspector also reviewed the revised long-term project. The long-term project has three phases: (1) Phase 1; Competitive Scoping, by end of 1992, (2) Phase 2; Competitive Installation, by end of 1993, and.
(3) Phase 3; Remaining Scope, by end of 199 Based on the review of the long-term project and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee was pursuing the long-term project vigorously in the right direction. The progress of the RMS upgrading will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspectio *
8. 0 Air Cleaning Systems The inspector reviewed the licensee's most recent surveillance test results as part of the examination of the implementation of the Technical Specification requirement The reviewed systems were (1) the Containment, (2) Fuel Handling Area Ventilation Systems, (3) Auxiliary Building Exhaust Air Filtration Systems, and (4) the Control *
Room Emergency Filtration Systems for both units. The following test results were reviewe * o Visual Inspections o In-Place HEPA Leak Tests o In-Place Charcoal Leak Tests o *System Air Capacity Tests o Delta Pressure Tests o Laboratory Tests for the Iodine Collection Efficiencies All reviewed test results were found to be within the licensee's Technical *
_Specification limits. During the review of the test results, the inspector noted that the licensee had.difficulties determining the flow rates of the Fuel Handling Buildings i both units. This test was performed many times with mechanical adjustments before satisfying the acceptance criteria. The licensee has had difficulty obtaining the designed flow rate for the Auxiliary Building Exhaust Air Filtration System due to possible air b~ance problems. The inspector also noted that the licensee performed several trials to obtain the designed flow rate. during the recent tests. The inspector
. noted similar problems during previous inspections. These problems would be resolVed after the completion of the air balance test for the plant which was listed' in the Salem Revitalization Program (See Inspection Report Numbers 50-272/91-20 and 50-311/91-20 for details).
Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee implemented the Technical Specification requirements f9r the above air cleaning system **
9. 0 Comparisons of the Projected Dose* Calculation Program During this inspection,_ the inspector performed an independent verific~tion of the licensee's capability for calculating projected doses to the public resultitig from discharges of radioactive liquids and gases to the environment. The licensee calculated the projected dose to the public based on the data incmporated into the radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge. The inspector also used the same
'
'
-
parameters contained in the discharge (e.g., dilution factor, total amount of radioactivity released, meteorological data, etc.) to calculate the maximum projected doses to the public for intercomparison. The licensee used its computer code and the NRC used the "PCDOSE code".
The PCDOSE code was developed by Idaho 'National Engineering Laboratory (EG&G Idaho, Inc.) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The code was designed to calculate the maximum projected radiation dose to an individual and the average dose -
to the population due to radionuclides in radioactive liquid and airborne effluent releases from a nuclear power plant. The code was designed for normal operation rather than for emergency situations. The code was developed from the methodology found in both NUREG-0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Reyision 1). The PCDOSE
~ode serves as a basis of comparison with similar programs conducted by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plant During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for site specific parameters and current methodology for the noble gas, liquid, and particulates (including tritium and iodines) release pathways. The ODCM.
exactly coincides with the licensee's computer code, which follows the NRC *
Regulatory Guide 1-.109 for all parameters with one exception. In the case of the noble gas release pathway, the licensee uses the shielding factor from NRC NUREG-.-
0133, which is acceptable to the NR The comparison results of all pathways were in agreement as shown in Tables 1-4 with the exception of Table 3 Grass-Cow.:.Milk Pathway. The licensee's results were higher than the NRC's results because the licensee's computer code did not incorporate decay-correction for that pathway. The licensee, therefore, performed hand calculations with decay corrections. The-results were same as the NRC's result *
Based on the above comparison results and reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted an excellent-projected dose calculation program. The inspector noted that the responsible individual had excellent knowledge-to implement the effluent control program *
10. 0 EX.it Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.1 of this inspection report at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1992 at the Salem site. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
r.
9.
. * Table 1.. Dose Assessment Comparisons for Adult (mrem) *
Source: Liquid Effluent Release Bo1;1e Liver Total Thyroid Kidney Lung GI-L Body Salem 1.0lE-3 2.24E-3 2.23E-3 6.83E-4 6.lOE-4 1.96E-4 8.16E-3 NRC 1.0lE-3 2.24E-3 2.23E-3 6.83E-4 6.llE-4 1.96E-4 8.13E-3 Table 2. Dose Assessment Comparisons for Noble Gases Release Beta Air Gamma Air Skin Dose Tot3.1 Bod (mrad)
(mrad)
(mrem)
(inrem)
SALEM:
6.37E-5 1.99E-5 4.22E-5 1.65E-5 NRC 6.37E-5 1.99E-5 4.24E_;5 1.65E-5 Table 3. Thyroid Dose Assessment Comparisons for Iodine Release Inhalation Pathway Adult (mrem)
Teen (mrem).
Child (mrem)
Infant. (mrem)
- SALEM 7.07E-8 8.67E-8 9.62E-8 8.79E-8 NRC 7.08E-8 8.70E-8 9.65E-8 8.81E-8 Grass-Cow-Milk Pathway Adult (mrem)
Teen (mrem)
Child (mrem)
Infant (mrem)
SALEM 1.60E-6 2.54E-6 5.0lE-6 1.21E-5 NRC 8.02E-7 l.27E-6 2.50E-6 6.09E- *
'
Table 4. Total Body Dose Assessment Comparisons for Particulates Release Inhalation Pathway Adult (mrem)
Teen (mrem),
Child (mrem)
Infant (mrem)
SALEM:
l.98E-9 1.48E-9 6.73E-10 2.56E-10 NRC 1.98E-9 1.48E-9 6.75E-10 2.56E-10 Vegetation Pathway Adult (mrem)
Teen (mrem)
Child (mrem)
SALEM:
5.27E-8
. 4.56E-8 3.91E-8 NRC 5.27E-8 4.56E-8 3.91E-8