IR 05000272/1993007
| ML18096B370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1993 |
| From: | Kottan J, Mcnamara N, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18096B368 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-93-07, 50-272-93-7, 50-311-93-07, 50-311-93-7, NUDOCS 9304060101 | |
| Download: ML18096B370 (13) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.: 50-272/93-07 50-311/93-07 Docket Nos.: 50~272 50-311 License Nos.: DPR-70 DPR-75 Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark. New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Generating Station. Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
March 1-5. 1993 Inspectors:
Approved By:
N. McNamara, Laboratory Specialist Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
J. Kottan,,
boratory Specialist, ERPS-Facilities adiological Safety,and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
M. Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
- 3/ '}, '6 / Date j.. 2)--93 Date Date Areas Inspected: An inspection of the radiological and non-radiological -chemistry programs including Confirmatory Measurements - Radiological, Standards Analyses - Chemistry, Laboratory QA/QC, and Audit Results: The licensee had in place effective programs for measuring radioactivity in process and effluent samples and for measuring chemical parameters in plant systems samples. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
9304060101 930326
!!DR'
ADOCK 05000272
\\.Z PDR
-- 'I
- . DETAILS Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- R. Antonow, Unit 2 Outage Manager
- T. Cellmer, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Manager
- J. Dierickx, Sr. Nuclear Performance Supervisor - Chemistry
- R. Dolan, Principal Engineer, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Services
- G. Dziuba, Sr. Nuclear Performance Supervisor - Chemistry
- E. Galbraith, Principal Engineer - Chemistry J. Livermore, QA Lead Engineer H. Lowe, Senior QA Engineer
- R. Maza, Nuclear Technical Supervisor - Radiochemistry
- D. Miller, Sr. Staff Engineer, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Services
- S. Miller, Nuclear Technical Supervisor - Analytical Chemistry
- M. Morroni, Technical Department Manager
- P. O'Donnell, Operations
- V. Polizzi, GM - Salem Operations (Acting)
- W. Schultz, QA Manager
- M. Shedlock, Maintenance Manager Delmarva Power CQ.!llpam
- P. Duca, Site Representative NRC Employees
- S. Barr, Resident Inspector
- S. Pindale, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on March 5, 1993.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel, including the chemistry technicians who performed the analyses for this inspectio.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the following area.
The licensee's ability to measure radioactivity in plant systems samples and effluent samples, and the ability to measure chemical parameters in various plant systems sample.
The licensee's ability to demonstrate the acceptability of analytical results through implementation of a laboratory QA/QC progra **
3 Radiolo~cal and Chemical Measurements Confirmatory Measurements - Radiochemistry*
During this inspection, liquid, airborne particulate (filter) and iodine (charcoal cartridge), and gas samples were analyzed by the licensee's chemistry department and the NRC for the purpose of intercomparison. The samples were actual split samples with the exception of the particulate filter and the charcoal cartridge. In
- these cases, the samples could not be split and the same samples were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC. Where possible, the samples were actual effluent samples or in-plant samples which duplicated the counting geometries used by the licensee for effluent sample analyses. The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment and by the NRC Region I Mobile Radiological Measurements Laboratory; Joint analyses of actual samples were 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 addition, a liquid sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Env~ronmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) for analyses requiring wet chemistry. The analyses to be performed on the samples are Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, H-3, and gross alpha. 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 fuspection report. The results of a liquid sample split between the licensee and the NRC during a previous inspection on March 11-15, 1991 (Combined Inspection -Report Nos. 50-272/91-06 and 50-311/91-06) could not be compared during this inspection because the samples*
were inadvertently shipped to the wrong laboratories. The licensee*' s sample was sent to the NRC reference laboratory, * and the NRC sample was shipped to the licensee's vendor laboratory. Because the NRC and the licensee used different sample preservation methods, the samples could not be analyzed and the results compare The comparisons for all of the above sample results that were available indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement under the criteria for comparing results (see Attachment I to Table I), with one exception. The one exception was the measurement of I-131 on a charcoal cartridge. The licensee's result was lower than the NRC result. This appeared to be due to the fact that the licensee calibrated the gamma spectrometer with a charcoal cartridge that contained the radioactivity near the face of the charcoal cartridge (face-loaded)~ while, in this particular sample, the radioiodine was distributed more evenly throughout the charcoal cartridge. The inspector discussed* this matter with the licensee and noted that for routine effluent samples, which have a seven day collection period, the licensee's calibration appeared to be appropriate. However, for this specific
- *
in-plant sample that was intercompared, the licensee used a one month collection period which resulted jn a more uniform rather than a face-loaded distribution of radioiodine on the charcoal cartridge. The licensee stated that this area would be reviewed and appropriate action taken to ensure that any encountered distribution of radioiodine on a charcoal cartridge could be accurately quantified, and also that the adequacy of the sample would be ensured. The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. The data are presented in Table I. No safety concerns or violations. were identified in this are Standards Analyses - Chemical During this part of the inspection, standard chemical solutions were submitted to the licensee for analysis. The standards were prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the NRC and were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment. 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 requirements. In addition, the analysis of standards is used to evaluate the licensee's analytical procedures with respect to accuracy and precision. The standards were submitted to the licensee for analysis in triplicate at three concentrations spread over the licensee's normal calibration and analy.sis range. The fluoride standards were analyzed at only two concentrations due to the licensee's narrow fluoride calibration rang Also, a sample was spiked with a standard anion solution and sent to ORNL for analysis. The analyses to be performed on the sample are chloride and sulfat The licensee will perform the same analyses on an aliquot of this spiked sampl The results of these analyses will be compared when received at a later date and will be documented in a subsequent inspection report. The analysis of spiked samples permits comparisons from an actual sample matri The results of the standards measurements comparisons indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement or qualified agreement under the criteria used for comparing results. (See Attachment I to Table II)'. The hydrazine results were obtained after a recalibration over the range 0 to 100 parts per billion (ppb).
The licensee's original calibration curve extended from 0 to 250 ppb, but the licensee did not routinely analyze samples with hydrazine concentrations above 100 ppb. Also, the license's ammonia results were obtained after redrawing the calibration curv For ammonia, the ion chromatography system c~ibration curve was non-linear, but the licensee used a linear fit to the calibration dat Some of the licensee's results obtained with the linear fit were in disagreement with the NRC result However, after drawing a smooth curve through the calibration points, the licensee's ammonia results were in agreement with the NRC results. The licensee discontinued the practice of using a linear fit to the
- *
ammonia calibration dat The data are presented in Table I No safety concerns or violations were identified in this are Laboratory QA/QC The licensee's laboratory QA/QC program was described in Procedure SC.CH-TI.ZZ-0903(Q), "Chemistry Quality Control Policy." This procedure defined the administrative policy used by the licensee to assure the quality of analytical measurements and referenced specific procedures which described and implemented the laboratory QC program. These specific procedures provided for both intralaboratory and interlaboratory QC programs. These programs consisted of instrument and procedure control charts for trending performance and the analysis of unknown samples from outside laboratories for both chemical and radiochemical constitutes, respectively. Included in the interlaboratory program was the vendor laboratory utilized by the licensee for analysis of radioactive effluent samples that require separation chemistry. The licensee's QA/QC procedures*
provided for a comprehensive laboratory QA/QC program. In addition, the inspector reviewed Radiation Protection/Chemistry Procedure ND.CS-TI-ZZ-:0300(Z),
"Interlaboratory Quality Control Comparison Program." This procedure provided the process for implementing and evaluating the interlaboratory QC programs at both Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations by the Radiation Protection/Chemistry Services Department, which is an independent licensee support group located at the Salem/Hope Creek site.
The inspector reviewed selected data generated by the licensee's laboratory QA/QC program for 1992 and 1993 to date, and based on this review, noted that the licensee was implementing the laboratory QA/QC program as required. In particular, the inspector concluded that the detailed data reviews and trending of the analytical chemistry interlaboratory QC results which were performed by the Radiation Protection/Chemistry Services Department were noteworthy strengths of the licensee's QA/QC program. An additional strength was the implementation of the Island Crosscheck Program (ICC) by the Radiation Protection/Chemistry Services Department. This program provided for the intercomparison of samples for radioactivity analyses between the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. However, the inspector determined that the Salem interlaboratory radioactivity crosscheck data was not being reviewed by the Chemistry Services grou The inspector discussed this matter with the licensee and stated that detailed data reviews and trending provided by the Chemistry Services Group for the interlaboratoty analytical chemistry data would also be useful for the interlaboratory radioactivity dat The licensee stated that this area would be reviewed and appropriate action take The inspector stated that this area would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. No violations were identified in this area.
- .0
Audit Activities The inspector reviewed QA Audit Report No. 91-55, "Chemistry," which was performed on November 4 - December 3, 199 This audit was conducted using a detailed checklist, and the audit team included a technical specialist. Comprehensive comments were included for each reviewed area. Through discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that QA audits of chemistry were performed on a biennial basi The next chemistry QA audit was scheduled for October 1993. The inspector also reviewed the results of selected QA surveillance reports for 1992 and 1993 to date. The surveillances were not conducted at a fixed frequency, but tjle data review indicated that approximately &ix surveillances per year were performed. The surveillance activities were performed using detailed checklists and included various areas of laboratory Q Based on the review of the above audit and surveilfance activities, the inspector determined there was independent oversight and assessment of chemistry activities. No safety concerns or violations were identifie Exit Meetin~
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on March 5, 1993. The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and. findings of the inspection.
TABLE I Salem Radiochemistry Test Results LICENSEE SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE VALUE COMPARISON Results in Total MicroCuries Unit 1 I-131 (l.79+/-0.09)E-4 (l.16+0.06)E-4 Disagreement Sample Room Charcoal Cartridge 0755 hrs 03/02/93 (Detector No. 4)
Results in MicroCuries per Milliliter Unit 1 1-131 (3.83+0.13)E-3 (3.66+/-0.15)E-3 Agreement Reactor Coolant 1-132 (4.61 +/-0.14)E-3 (4.99+0.12)E-3 Agreement 0945 hrs 1-133 (7.96+/-0.13)E-3 (7.6+0.2)E-3 Agreement 03/02/93 1-134 (8.0+/-0.5)E-3 (8.8+0.3)E-3 Agreement (Detector No. 6)
1-135 (7.3+/-0.4)E-3 (7.4+0.2)E-3 Agreement Unit 2 Containment Xe-133 (2.67 +0.02)E-5 (2.65+0.09)E-5 Agreement Atmosphere Ar-41 (7.5+/-0.6)E-7 (8.7+/-0.7)E-7 Agreement 1325 hrs 03/04/93 (Detector No. 2)
TABLE I - Continued Salem Radiochemistry Test Results LICENSEE SAMPLE ISOTOPE NRC VALUE VALUE COMPARISON Results in MicroCuries per Milliliter Waste Gas Decay Kr-85 (6.3+/-0.5)E-4 (6.3+/-0.7)E-4 Agreement Tank Xe-13lrri ( 1. 58 +/-0. 07)E-4 (l.90+/-0.13)E-4 Agreement 1400 hrs Xe-133 (3.950+/-0.00S)E-3 (3. 78+/-0.'13)E-3 Agreement 03/03/93 (Detector No. 4)
Unit 1 Co-58 (2.16+/-0.03)E-5 (2.27 +/-0.09)E-5 Agreement Reactor Coolant I-131 (l.16+/-0.09)E-5 (1.17 +0.12)E-5 Agreement Particulate Filter Cs-134 (2.22+0. l l)E-6 (1. 73 +O. ll)E-6 Agreement 1355 hrs Cs-137 (2.43+/-0.14)E-6 (2.3+/-0.2)E-6 Agreement 03/02/93 (Detector No. 4)
Liquid Radwaste Mn-54 (l.04+/-0.02)E-5 (l.15+/-0.04)E-5 Agreement (11 eves MT)
Co-58 (l.126+/-0.006)E-4 (l.28+/-0.04)E-4 Agreement 1415 hrs Co-60 (1.055 +/-0.006)E-4 (l.18+0.03)E-4 Agreement 03/02/93 Co-57 (3.02+/-0.14)E-6 (3.4+0.2)E-6 Agreement (Detector No. 4)
Cs-134 (8.14+/-0.05)E-5 (9.05 +/-0.15)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (l.103+/-0.006)E-4
- (1.26+/-0.0S)E-4 Agreement
ATTACHMENT I TO TABLE I 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
<4 4-7 8 - 15 16 - 50 51 - 200
>200
- No comparison due to the large uncertainty of the result Ratio for Comparison2 No Comparison*
0.5 -.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18 l.Resolution = (NRC Reference Value/Reference Value Uncertainty)
2.Ratio = (Licensee Value/NRC Reference Value)*
TABLE II Salem Analytical Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts per million (ppm)
Boron T
304+/-4 304.8+/- Agreement 506+/-8 507+/-4 Agreement 1049+/- 11 1026+/-2 Agreement Lithium AA 0.493 +/-0.007 0.516+0.003 Agreement 1.24+/-0.02 1.289+0.004 Agreement 2.43+/-0.03 2.501 +0.008 Agreement Copper AA 0.403+/-0.004 0.430+/-0.004 Agreement (Secondary Lab)
0.810+/-0.010 0.861+/-0.003 Agreement 2.02+/-0.02 2.06+0.06 Agreement Iron AA 0.398+/-0.004 0.421 +0.006 Agreement (Secondary Lab)
0. 795 +0.007 0.84+0.02 Agreement 1.99+/-0.02 1.98+/-0.03 Agreement Iron AA 0.398+/-0.004 0.450+0 Qual Agreement (Primary Lab)
0.795+/-0.007 0.837+/-0.006 Agreement 1.99+/-0.02 1.95+0 Agreement
TABLE II - Continued Salem Analytical Chemistry Test Results Chemical Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
Silica SP 12.17+/-0.1.9+/-0.8.
Qual Agreement 28.4+/-.1+/- Agreement 60.1+/-.8+/- Agreement Sodium IC 0.53+/-0.02 0.61+/-0.08 Qual Agreement 1.02+/-0.03 1.23+0.11 Qual Agreement 1.55+/-0.04 1.85+0.04 Qual Agreement Chloride IC 1.94+/-0.05 2.01+0.07 Agreement (Secondary Lab)
3.65+/-0.11 4.04+/-0.06 Qual Agreement 7.7+/-.19+0.09 Agreement Fluoride IC 2.02+/-0.08 2.34+/-0.04 Qual Agreement (Secondary Lab)
4.0+/-.88+0.ll Agreement Sulfate IC 1.94+/-0.03 1.80+0.07 Agreement (Secondary Lab)
3.88+/-0.06 3.86+/-0.08 Agreement 7.9+/-.80+/-0.03 Agreement Sodium AA 53+2 52.7+/- Agreement (Primary Lab)
102+/-3 102.7+ Agreement 155+/-4 157.3+ Agreement
...
Chemical Analysis Hydrazine Chloride Sulfate*
Fluoride Ammonia Notes:
TABLE II - Continued Salem Analytical Chemistry Test Results Method of NRC Licensee Analysis Known Value Value Comparison Results in parts per billion (ppb)
SP 13.23+/-0.06 12.6+ Agreement 34.l +/-.5+/- Agreement 56.5+/-.87+/-0.15 Agreement IC 7.3+/-.4+/- Agreement (Primary Lab)
15.4+/-.2+ Agreement 19.4+/-.6+ Agreement IC 7.76+/-0.12 8.3+/- Agreement (Primary Lab)
15.8+/-.72+0.05 Agreement 19.4+/-.2+ Agreement IC 4.0+/-.72+/-0.12 Agreement (Primary Lab)
8.0+/-.0+/- Agreement IC 110+/-3 112.3+/- Agreement 152+/-3 154+/-6 Agreement 241+/-4 259+/-2 Agreement
= Ion Chromatography T
= Potentiometric Titration
= UV-Vis Spectrophotometry AA
-
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry The licensee maintains a primary laboratory for the analysis of samples from the reactor or primary systems and a secondary laboratory for the analysis of samples from non-reactor or secondary systems.
ATTACHMENT I TO TABLE II Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements from Table II This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests. In these criteria the-judgement limits are based on data from Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244, "Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors". Licensee values within the plus or minus two standard deviation range (+/-2Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in agreement. Licensee values outside the plus or minus two standard deviation range but within the plus or minus three standard deviation range (+/-3Sd) of the ORNL known values are considered to be in qualified agreement. Repeated results which are in qualified agreement will receive additional attention. Licensee values greater than the plus or minus three standard deviations range of the ORNL known value are in disagreement. The standard deviations were computed using the average percent deviation values of each analyte in Table 2.1 of the NURE The ranges for the data in Table II are as follow Analyte Chloride Fluoride Sulfate Silica Sodium Copper Iron Boron Ammonia Hydrazine Lithium Agreement Range
+ 8%
+/- 12%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 14%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+ 2%
+ 10%
+/- 10%
+ 14%
Qualified Agreement Range
+ 12%
+/- 18%
+ 15%
. +/- 15%
+ 21%
+/- 15%
+ 15%
+/- 3%
+ 15%
+ 15%
+ 21%