ML18086B416
| ML18086B416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B414 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-247-82-01, 50-247-82-1, 50-311-82-02, 50-311-82-2, NUDOCS 8204200216 | |
| Download: ML18086B416 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1982002
Text
.. .
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Region I
50-272/82-02
Report Nos. 50-311/82-02
50-272
Docket Nos. 50-311
~DP~R~-~7~0--
L i cen se Nos. DPR-75
Priority
c
Category _c_
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Place
Newark, New Jersey 07101
Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted:
Inspectors:
,3*-2-r-B'L
Specialist
date signed
3--:<</-~L
date signed
Approved
3 -.J-9-~
date signed
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 18-21, 1982 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/82-02,
and 50-311/82-02
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's chemical and
radiochemical measurements program using NRC:I Mobile Radiological Measurements
Laboratory and laboratory assistance provided by DOE Radiological and Environmental
Services Laboratory.
Areas reviewed included:
program for quality control of
analytical measurements, performance on radiological analyses of split actual
effluent samples, and procedures.
The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours
onsite by two NRC regionally based inspectors.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified
in 'two. areas.
Two items of noncompliance (failure to have a procedure and an
inadequate procedure) were identified in one area .
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
DETAILS
1.
Individuals Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- H. J. Midura, Manager Salem Operations
- J. D. Driscoll, Assistant Manager Salem Operations
- L. K. Miller, Technical Manager
- J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer
- A. Darelius, QA Engineer
- W. Jocker, Senior Supervisor
- D. Zak, Technical Supervisor
G. Dziuba, Chemistry Technician
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including
members of the chemistry and health physics staffs.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Severity Level V Violation (272/80-34-01, 311/80-23-01):
Failure to follow QC procedures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee
1 s
QC data for all of 1981 and noted that the licensee was making the
required QC checks.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (272/80-34-02, 311/80-23-02):
Sb-125 Identifi-
cation.
The inspector verified that the licensee had modified his
nuclide identification library so that Sb-125 would be identified.
3.
Laboratory QC Program
The inspector reviewed the licensee 1 s program for the quality control
of analytical measurements.
The licensee 1 s QC program is detailed in
Procedure PD-3.9.017,
11Quality Control Requirements.
11
This procedure
requires known and unknown spiked and duplicate analyses of reactor
coolant system chloride, fluoride, and boron along with quarterly
interlaboratory sample splits for radioactivity comparisons.
Procedure
PD-3.9.017 also requires instruments efficiency, background, and where
applicable, gain checks.
In addition, individual analytical procedures
include steps to assure quality, such as provisions to control reagents.
The inspector reviewed the licensee 1 s QC data for 1981 and noted that
the licensee was implementing Procedure PD-3.9.017.
The inspector
discussed laboratory QC in general and Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality
Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)-
Effl uent Streams and the Environment, with the licensee.
The inspector
had no further questions in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
..
4.
Confirmatory Measurements
During this inspection actual liquid and airborne effluent samples
were split between the licensee and NRC:I for the purpose of intercomparison.
The effluent samples were analyzed by the licensee using his normal
methods and equipment, and the NRC using the NRC:I Mobile Laboratory.
Joint analysis of actual effluent samples determines the licensee's
capability to measure radioactivity in effluent samples.
In addition a liquid effluent sample was sent to the NRC reference
laboratory, Department of Energy, Radiological and Environmental
Services Laboratory (RESL) for analyses requiring wet chemistry.
The
analyses to be performed on the sample are:
and gross alpha.
These results will be compared with the licensee's
results when received at a later date and will be documented in a
subsequent inspection report.
The results of an effluent sample split between the licensee and NRC:I
during a previous inspection on December 15-18, 1980 (Inspection
Report 80-34, 80-23) were also compared during this inspection.
The results of a routine health physics air particulate sample and
charcoal cartridge sample, which were analyzed by the licensee's
health Physics personnel using the health physics gamma ray spectroscopy
system, were also compared.
The results of the sample measurements comparison indicated that all
of the measurements were in agreement or possible agreement under the
criteria used for comparing results with the exception of the tritium
comparison.
The licensee's tritium result was higher than the NRC
result and therefore, was in a conservative direction and would not
have resulted in the licensee exceeding any effluent release limits
(See Attachment 1).
The results of the comparisons are listed in
Table I.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's effluent analysis procedures and
observed the analysis of actual samples.
The inspector discussed the
definition of MDA, as contained in the DOE Environmental Measurements
Laboratory Procedures Manual, HASL-300 with the licensee.
The inspector
noted that the 163.9 keV photopeak of Xe-131m was present in the waste
gas decay tank sample, but was not identified by the licensee. The
licensee stated that waste gas decay tanks are allowed to decay and do
not contain Xe-131m. The inspector stated that if a non decayed waste
gas decay tank was released, the Xe-131m ~ould be present and should
be quantified and reported.
The licensee stated that Xe-131m would be
added to his nuclide identification library.
The inspector reviewed
the gamma spectrum peak samples of waste gas decay tank releases for
November and December, 1981 and noted that Xe-13lm was not present in
any of the samples.
Also the reactor coolant sample which was split
to compare the iodine concentrations resulted in I-131 and I-134 not
5.
I_
being detected by the licensee, and the I-135 being in disagreement.
The inspector noted that Procedure.PD-3.3.003, Dose Equivalent Iodine
by Gamma Spectroscopy," does not specify a time for counting the
sample to ensure that both the long and short lived iodines are identified.
In addition, the licensee's nuclide identification library requires
that a photopeak with a low gamma abundance must be present for the
identification of I-134.
This will result in I-134 not being detected
even though higher gamma abundance photopeaks are present in the
sample.
The licensee stated that his nuclide identification library
would be modified to prevent this from happening and his procedure
would be modified to specify times for counting the sample.
A recount
of the reactor coolant sample at a later time, after the decay of
short lived interfering nuclides, resulted in I-131 being identified
and the I-133 comparison was in agreement.
The inspector had no
further questions in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Procedures
The inspector reviewed the licensee's chemical and radioc~em~cal
analyses procedures.
The inspector noted that the licensee had no
procedures for the calibration of his liquid scintillation counter.
The inspector stated that Section 5.5.1 of the Environmental Technical
Specifications (ETS) requires procedures for all activities involved
in carrying out the ETS requirements.
Section 5.5.1 of the ETS also
requires that procedures include instrument calibration.
The inspector
noted that the tritium measurement comparison made during this inspection
was in disagreement (See Paragraph 4).
Another sample was split
during this inspection for a tritium comparison.
The inspector stated
that the failure to have. a procedure for the calibration of the liquid
scintillation counter was an item of noncompliance (272/82-02-01,
311/82-02-01).
The inspector also noted that Procedure PD-35.036,
"Composition of Liquid Samples," contains no provisions for adding a
preservative, such as mineral acid, to the sample in order to prevent
adsorption of various nuclides on the walls of the sample container.
The inspector stated that Section 5.5.1 of the ETS requires procedures
for activities involved in carrying out the ETS requirements.
Also
Section 5.5.1 requires that procedures include sampling, measurements,
and analyses. In addition Section 2.3.2 of the ETS requires that
liquid waste samples be analyzed in accordance with Table 2.3-1 to
demonstrate compliance with Section 2.3.1 of the ETS.
The inspector
stated that failure to make provisions for preserving composite samples
was an item of noncompliance (272/82-02-02, 311/82-02-01).
The inspector
discussed adsorption of nuclides on the walls of sample containers and
methods of preserving samples.
The inspector stated that unless a
preservative was added to the composite samples, there was no way to
ensure that an analysis of the composite liquid was representative of
the nuclides present in the original liquid aliquots.
The licensee
currently has no method to account for nuclides adsorbed on composite
sample container walls.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
6.
Ex~t Interview
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the
purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings.
The licensee agreed to perform the analyses listed in paragraph 4 and
report the results to NRC.
(
TABLE 1
SALEM .:. VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
NRC VALUE
. LICENSEE. VALUE
- coMPARISON
Results in microcuries per milliliter
In Plant Airborne Particulate
Filter Sampled
by Health Physics
0850 hours0.00984 days <br />0.236 hours <br />0.00141 weeks <br />3.23425e-4 months <br />
(2.15+0.09)E-9
(2.91+0.lO)E-9
Agreement
1-19-82
Analyzed by Health
(9.6+0.3)E-9
( 1. 20+/-_0. 02) E-8
Agreement
Physics on their
Cs-134
(L7+0.2)E-9
(2.21+/-_0.09)E-9
Agreement
counting system
(4~9+/-_0.2)E-9
(6.67+/-_0.12)E-9
Possible Agreement
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
In Pl ant Charcoal
Ca rtri dge-Samp l e*d
by Health Physics
0820 hours0.00949 days <br />0.228 hours <br />0.00136 weeks <br />3.1201e-4 months <br />
1-20-82
Analyzed by Health
Physics on their
counting system.
In Plant Charcoal
Cartridge-Sampled
by Health Physics
0820 hours0.00949 days <br />0.228 hours <br />0.00136 weeks <br />3.1201e-4 months <br />
1-20-82 .
Analyzed by
Chemistry*
TABLE 1
SALEM ~ VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
Results in microcuries per milliliter
(3.62+/-_0.26)E-ll
(4.1+/-_0.2)E-11
(3.62+0.26)E-ll
(5.52+/-_5.2%)E-ll
- Note:
An effluent charcoal cartridge was not available during this inspection.
COMPARISON
Agreement
Agreement
.. TABLE 1
. SALEM. - VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISON
Results in microcuries 12er mi 11i1 iter
Gas Decay Tank
(5. 77+0.03)E-3
(6.576+/-_0.26%)E-3
Agreement
1130 hours0.0131 days <br />0.314 hours <br />0.00187 weeks <br />4.29965e-4 months <br />
1-19-82
Xe-133m
( 1. 9+0. 7) E-5
(l.29+/-_15%)E-5
Agreement
(3.0+0.B)E-4
(2.25+/-_40%)E-4
Agreement
Xe-13lm
( 1. 6+/-_0. 2) E-4
Not Identified
Results in microcuries 12er mi 11i1 iter
Liquid Rad Waste
11 CVCMT
(4.4+0.2)E-5
(4.57+/-_7.5%)E-5
Agreement
0430 hours0.00498 days <br />0.119 hours <br />7.109788e-4 weeks <br />1.63615e-4 months <br />
Co-58
(2.19+0.07)E-3
(2. ll+0.4%)E-3
Agreement
1-19-82
(3.25+0.03)E-4
(3.12+/-_1.3%)E-4
Agreement
( 1. 88+0. 13) E- 5
(2. 05+11. 5%)E-5
Agreement
Cs-134
(l.25+0.02)E-4
(l.18+3.8%)E-4
Agreement
(l.30+/-_0.03)E-4
( 1. 32+/-_3. 0%) E-4
Agreement
SAMPLE
Unit 2 Reactor
Coolant
1150 hours0.0133 days <br />0.319 hours <br />0.0019 weeks <br />4.37575e-4 months <br />
1-20-82
Unit 2 Reactor
Coolant
1150 hours0.0133 days <br />0.319 hours <br />0.0019 weeks <br />4.37575e-4 months <br />
1-20-82
(recounted the
fo 11 owing day)
ISOTOPE
Results
I-132
I-133
I-134
I-135
I-133
I-135
TABLE 1
SALEM~ VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISON
- i Ii* rili crocuri es ~er mi 11i1 iter
(4.8.:'.:_0.8)E-4
Not Detected**
No Comparison
(3.8+0.2)E-3
(4.9.:'.:_8.2%)E-3
Agreement
(3.48+0.09)E-3
(2.07+/-_18%)E-3**
Disagreement
(6;3+/-_0.5)E-3
(5.2+/-_7%)E-3*
Agreement
(5~0+0.4)E-3
(5.0+22%)E-3
Agreement
(5.8.:'.:_0.2)E-4
(6.26+5.2%)E-4
Agreement
(3.50.:'.:_0.05)E-3
(3.62+2.8%)E-3
Agreement
( 5. 8+0. 6) E-3
(5.49+/-_29%)E-3
Agreement
- Note:
I-134 was not reported by the licensee as not detected although the major photopeaks
were present.
See Paragraph 4.
The value compared was hand calculated based on peak
search data from the sample analysis and the licensee's nuclide identification library.
- Note: The sample was recounted the following day to allow for the decay of short lived nuclides.
This resulted in I-131 being detected and the I-133 being in agreement.
.,
,,
1
'
(
TABLE 1
SALEM ~ VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE
NRC VALUE
LICENSEE VALUE
COMPARISON
Results in microcuries ~er mi 11i1 i ter
Liquid Rad Waste
Sr-89
(1.8~0.8)E-7
1 ess than 2.5E-8
No Comparison
21 CVCMT
1145 hours0.0133 days <br />0.318 hours <br />0.00189 weeks <br />4.356725e-4 months <br />
(O~l)E-8
1 ess than 2.5E-8
No Comparison
12-16-80
(1.24+0.02)E-3
(1. 78~0.02)E-3
Disagreement
Results in microcuries ~er mi 11 il i ter
Unit 2 Reactor
Cr-51
( 5 . l+O . 7) E- 5
( 8. 0~11. 3%) E-5
Agreement
Coolant Crud
Filter*
Co-58
( 9 . 7 ~O . 3 ) E-5
(1.5~3.4%)E-4
Possible Agreement
0835 hours0.00966 days <br />0.232 hours <br />0.00138 weeks <br />3.177175e-4 months <br />
1-19-82
Zr-95
( 9. 4+ 1. 2) E-6
(1.45~14%)E-5
Agreement
(3.9+0.9)E-6
(3.63~36%)E-6
Agreement
(6.7+0.9)E-6
(9.64+14%)E-6
Agreement
Na-24
(3.2+/-_0.4)E-5
(5.0+5.2%)E-5
Agreement
I-133
(6.0+1.8)E-6
(7.17~23%)E-6
Agreement
- Note:
An airborne effluent particulate filter was not available during this inspection.
'.ii
'
u
j-
Attachment l
Criteria for Comparing Analytical 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 program.
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
11Resolution
11
,
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more
selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptable
as the resolution decreases.
LICENSEE VALUE
RATIO= NR(-REFERENCE VALUE
Possible
Possible
Resolution
Agreement
Agreement A
Agreement B
<3
0.4
2.5
0.3
3.0
No Comparison
4 - 7
0.5 - 2.0
0.4 - 2.5
0.3 - 3.0
8 - 15
0.6 - 1.66
0.5 - 2.0
0.4
2.5
16 - 50
0.75
1.33
0.6 - l. 66
0.5 - 2.0
51 - 200
0.80 - 1.25
0.75 - l. 33
0.6 - l. 66
>200
0. 85 - 1.18
0.80 - l. 25
0.75 - 1. 33
11A
11 criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification
is greater than 250 Kev.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
Iodine on absorbers
118
11 criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma Spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification
is less than 250 Kev.
89Sr and 90Sr Determinations.
Gross Beta where samples are counted on the same date using the same
reference nuclide.
l