ML18086A961
| ML18086A961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1981 |
| From: | Clemons P, Knapp P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A959 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-311-81-20, NUDOCS 8110060359 | |
| Download: ML18086A961 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000311/1981020
Text
,.---------
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Report No. 50-311/81-20
Docket No. 50-311
Region I
License No. DPR-75
Priority ---
Category _c_
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Place
Newark, New Jersey
07101
Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2
Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted:
July 29-31, 1981
Inspectors:
~c~
date 7f gned
P. Clemons, Radiation Specialist
Approved By:
Branch
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 29-31, 1981 (Report No. 50-311/81-20)
Routine, unannounced i_nspection by one NRC regional based inspector of three
startup tests as required by Section 13.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
The tests, required at various power levels, are Radiation Monitoring
and Shielding Evaluation, Effluent Monitoring Systems, and Chemistry and Radio-
chemistry.
This inspection was concerned with tests performed at low power
(up to 5%), 30%, and 50%.
The inspection involved 15 inspector-hours
onsite by one regional based NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, the inspector observed that the
Chemistry and Radiochemistry tests had been completed satisfactorily.
The
inspector noted that deviations from the test procedures occurred in the
Radiation Monitoring and Shielding Evaluation test and the Effluent Monitoring
Test-Paragraphs 5 and 6.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
" ...
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
2.
Mr. E.
Mr. s.
Mr. P.
- Mr. H.
Mr. J.
- Mr. J.
- Mr. R.
- Mr. T.
NRC
Keating, Associate Engineer
LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer
Mergen, Technical Supervisor, Chemistry
Midura, Manager-Salem Generating Station
O'Connor, Senior Performance Supervisor-Radiation Protection
Stillman, Station Quality Assurance Engineer
Swetnam, Radiation Protection Engineer
Vannoy, Technical Supervisor, Chemistry
- Mr. W. Hill, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (311/78-13-05).
Resolve the development
of a Technician-Nuclear Retraining Program.
The inspector reviewed
the Radiation Protection Department Training Manual that was developed
and put into effect around January 1981, which incorporates the requirement
to retrain personnel in the Radiation Protection Department.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (311/78-52-05).
Verify in-place
testing of air cleaning systems.
The inspector reviewed the
11 In-place
Test Report of Air Filtration Systems
11 that was done during August
1980.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (311/80-15-01).
Effluent Monitoring
System Test.
The inspector verified that the Effluent Monitoring
System Test was performed at low power on April 20, 1981.
3.
Startup Test Program
Section 13.1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) states,
11A
carefully conceived and executed startup testing program, under the
control, responsibility, and authority of PSE&G, will be implemented
to accomplish a safe, orderly, and comprehensive startup.
This program
will demonstrate that the plant operates satisfactorily and presents
no danger to the health and safety of the public.
11
Table 13.4 of the FSAR specifies performance of the following tests.
The inspector reviewed the test results to verify compliance with the
startup test requirements .
A.
B.
c.
4.
3
Test
Condition
Objectives
Comments
Chemistry
Specific analyses
To demonstrate
Ability to con-
and Radio-
at low power and
ability to
trol water
chemistry
30%, 50%, 75%, and
control water
quality verified
Tests
100% power.
quality.
at each power
1 eve l .
Radiation
Low power and
To measure and
Radiation
Monitoring
during power
record radiation
levels are
and Shielding escalation at
levels in access-
verified to be
Evaluation
30%, 70%, 100%
ible areas of
within the
power.
the plant.
shielding de-
sign criteria.
Effluent
As early in
To verify cali-
Verification
Monitoring
power operation
bration of effluent of calibration
Systems
as possible and
monitors by lab
of plant effluent
repeated after
analysis of radio-
monitors.
operation at 30%
active waste
50%, 75%, and 100%
samples.
power .
Chemistry and Radiochemistry Tests
Objective
To verify the water chemistry and radiochemistry control requirements
of the reactor coolant system and the radiochemistry control requirements
of steam generator blowdown in accordance with the vendor specifications.
The inspector reviewed Startup Procedure No. 81.15,
11 Chemi stry and
Radiochemistry Tests
11 to determine the test requirements.
Procedure No. 81.15 referenced the following Performance Department
Chemistry Instructions to be used for the various analyses.
These
instructions were reviewed by the inspector:
PD-3.2.002,
11 pH
11
PD-3.2.005, "Chloride by Mercuric Nitrate Fil trat i on
11
- PD-3.2.008,
11 Fluoride by Specific Ion Electrode"
PD-3.2.011,
11Atomic Absorption General Procedure
11
PD-3.2.013,
11 Dissolved Oxygen by Indigo Carmine
11
PD-3.3.001,
11 15 Minute and 7 day Degassed Gross Beta-Gamma"
4
PD-3.3.003,
11 Dose Equivalent Iodine by Spectroscopy
11
PD-3.5.001,
11Sampling of the Reactor Coolant
11
PD-3.5.018,
11Steam Generator-Sampling
11
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria specified by Procedure No. 81.15 were as
fo 11 ows:
Tabl~ I lists the analyses to be performed on the reactor coolant at
the various power levels and the limits for acceptance.
Table II lists the analyses to be performed on the steam generator
blow-down at the various power levels and the limits for acceptance.
Table I
Reactor Coolant Specifications
Analysis
Procedure Number
Acceptance Criteria
pH
PD-3.2.002
4.2 to 10.5
PD-3.2.005
< 0.15 ppm
Fluoride
PD-3.2.008
< 0.15 ppm
PD-3 .1. 011
0.7 to 2.2 ppm
Dissolved oxygen
PD-3.2.013
< 0.10 ppm
Gross beta-gamma
PD-3.3.001
N/A
Dose equivalent I-131
PD-3.3.003
< 1. 0 mCi/gram
Table II
Steam Generator Specifications
Analysis
Procedure Number
Acceptance Criteria
Gross beta-gamma
PD-3.3.001
N/A
Dose equivalent I-131
PD-3.3.003
< 0.10 uCi/gram
The inspector reviewed the test data for tests performed on July 6,
1981 at 30% power, and on July 20, 1981 at 50% power, for the reactor
coolant and the four steam generators associated with Unit 2.
The
data indicated that all of the required analyses had been performed
and all were within the acceptance criteria.
. ' *
5
5.
Radiation Monitoring and Shielding Evaluation
The inspector reviewed Startup Procedure No. 81.13,
11 Radiation Monitoring
and Shielding Evaluation,
11 to determine the objectives and the acceptance
criteria.
Objectives
The objectives of the shielding test were:
(a)
To obtain baseline radiation level data at 0%, 30%, 70% and 100%
reactor power by measuring radiation levels at desired locations
in the plant.
(b)
To detect and identify localized high radiation levels and streaming
to protect personnel from overexposure during plant power escalation
and power operation.
(c)
To obtain radiation data necessary to correct or reduce localized
high radiation levels.
Acceptance Criteria
Dose rates were considered acceptable if the measurements taken were
within the levels designated by the Radiation Zone in which each dose
point was located.
The radiation levels acceptable for each zone were as follows:
Radiation
Dose Rate
Zone
Occupancy
(mR/hr)
1
Unlimited
< .25
2
Normal-continuous
.25-2.5
3
Periodic
2.5-15
4
Controlled 15-100
5
Contro 11 ed
>100
If any measured levels exceeded the calculated design levels by more
than 50%, or if in the judgement of the Sponsor Engineer or the Health
Physicist the measured radiation levels could be significantly reduced,
the procedure required that a recommendation for such reduction be
made .
6
Procedure No. 81.13 required that beta-gamma and neutron surveys be
made at specific, designated locations in reactor containment, the
auxiliary building, the fuel handling building and the outside surfaces
of the above buildings at grade.
The inspector reviewed data of surveys performed at 30% power on July
1, 1981 at the locations specified above.
The data indicated that all
survey results were within the acceptance criteria.
In addition, the inspector noted that Section 10.l.5 of Startup Procedure
No. 81.13 required the individuals performing surveys to initial and
date the section after surveys were completed at the various power
levels. Section 10.1.5 also required a
11QA notification signoff.
11
Section 13.6.2 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) states,
11All
tests are performed in strict accordance with approved written test
procedures. . . A detailed step-by-step procedure is provided for each
.. test.
11
A licensee representative noted that the copy of Procedure No. 81.13
being reviewed by the inspector was not initialed and dated.
The
inspector was informed that the master copy of Section 10 was located
in the engineering office.
Accompanied by the Senior Performance
Supervisor-Radiation Protection, the inspector proceeded to the engineering
office and reviewed the master copy of the radiation surveys performed
on July 1, 1981.
The inspector observed that the appropriate areas had been initialed
and dated by the individual performing the surveys, but noted that the
QA notification sign off had not been signed and dated as required.
The inspector reviewed the survey data obtained during the zero power
test performed during August 1980, and also noted that the QA notification
signoff had not been signed and dated during this test.
This QA notification signoff requirement is significant because it
alerts the Quality Assurance Department to the fact that certain
confirmatory actions are required of them.
The failure to sign off as required by Section 10 of Startup Procedure
No. 81.13 is considered to be a deviation from the licensee's commitments
in the FSAR.
( 81-20-01)
6.
Effluent Monitoring System Test
The inspector reviewed Startup Procedure No. 81.14,
11 Effluent Monitoring
System Test,
11 to determine the objectives and the acceptance criteria .
7
Objective
The objective of the effluent monitoring system test was to verify
that the calibration of the effluent monitors, accomplished under lab-
oratory conditions prior to installation was valid for the isotopes
and quantities released during actual operation.
Startup Procedure No. 81.14 required that the individual monitor
channels tested at each power level have a minimum upscale reading in
order to properly correlate to lab analysis.
If the listed minimum
reading criteria was not met, the test could not be performed at that
power level.
The minimum readings necessary were as follows:
Minimum Reading
Monitor
Counts ~er Minute
2-RllA
100
2-R12A
100
2-R12B
100
2-R16
100
2-R41A
100
2-R41B
100
2-R41C
100
2-R18
100
Acce~tance Criteria
The actual response of the monitor compared to the calculated response
expected from radio-analysis in the laboratory was required by the
procedure to be within a factor of +2 to -0.5.
If the actual response
fell outside these acceptance criteria, the Senior Performance Supervisor-
HP/Chemistry was required to initiate an investigation to determine
the need, if any, for correction of calibration data or recalibration
of the monitor channel.
Procedure No. 81.14 required a description of
the corrective action taken as a result of the investigation to be
attached to the data sheet for that channel test.
The inspector noted that Section 8.0, "Data Collection", of Startup
Procedure No. 81.14 stated, "Record test data in the spaces provided
on the attached individual channel data sheets.
11
The inspector also
noted that Section 10.0, "Detailed Procedures,
11 required certain data
to be recorded on data sheets for each monitor .
The inspector requested the data for tests performed at the various
power levels.
The data indicated that tests had been performed at
- .
I
7.
8
zero power, 30% and 50%.
The inspector reviewed the 50% test data.
It was noted that at 50% power, at least three monitors exceeded the
minimum upscale reading:
2-RllA, 2-R12A and 2-R12B.
The inspector
reviewed the data sheets for the three monitors to determine if the
requirements of Section 10 were satisfied.
Specifically, Section 10.1.3 required a containment sample be analyzed
for gross beta activity. *This data was required to be recorded on the
data sheet.
The isotopic information and activity were not recorded.
The estimated net response of the instrument was required to be cal-
culated and recorded on the data sheet.
This information was also not
recorded.
Section 10.2 required a containment sample be analyzed for
noble gas activity and the data recorded.
These data were not recorded.
Section 10.3 required a containment sample be analyzed for total radio
iodine and the data recorded.
These data were not recorded.
The
inspector was told by the Associate Engineer that the samples had been
taken and analyzed as required.
There was no explanation as to why
the results of the analyses were not documented.
The inspector noted
that failure to document the data did not constitute a significant
safety problem.
The Associate Engineer indicated that while the data had not been
recorded on the test forms, the information was available and would be
documented immediately.
This data will be reviewed during a sub-
sequent inspection.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the
purpose, the scope, and the findings of the inspection .