ML18094A475
| ML18094A475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1989 |
| From: | Joseph Furia, Jang J, Kottan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18094A471 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-89-10, 50-311-89-09, 50-311-89-9, NUDOCS 8906020262 | |
| Download: ML18094A475 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1989010
Text
50-272/89-10
Report Nos. 50-311/89-09
50-272
Docket Nos. 50-311
U.S. NUCIFAR RmJIA'IORY CXM-fiSSION
RmION I
License Nos. DPR-75
Priority __ _
category .£
Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company
P.O. Box 236
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
Facility Name: Salem Generating station
Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted: May 1-5, 1989
- ----
Inspector:
Inspector:
Approved by:
J. Kattan,
- Clti.ef, Effluents
Radiation Protection Section
s-1rer9??'
date
s--1a-e/ *
date
Inspection SUmmacy:
Inspection on May 1-5, 1989 (Combined Inspection
Report Nos. 50-272/89-10; 50-311/89-09)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the effluent,
environmental nx::mitoring, transportation am solid radioactive waste programs
including:
management controls; audits; quality assurance; and implementation
of the above programs.
Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation (Radwaste/Quality
Assurance) and one unresolved item (Air Cleaning Systems) were identified.
_f
R906020262 890522
P
~D.R
ADOCK 05000272
Q
1. Personnel Contacted:
1o1 Licensee Personnel:
DEI'AII.S
- L. Miller, General Manager, Salem
- D. Schultz, Licensing Engineer
J. Balletto, Erwironmental Licensing
J. Russell, Engineer, Nuclear Services
P. McNulty, Effluent Engineer, Nuclear Services
- J. Wray, Radiation Protection Engineer
D. Perkins, Manager, Station Quality Assurance
B. Preston, Manager, Licensing & Regulation
J. Gomeringer, Radiation Protection
N. Allman, Research. and Testing laboratory
R. Farrington, Research. and Testing I.aboratory
K. Harris, Research. and Testing laboratory
w. Schultz, Manager, Q.A Programs and Audits
P. Benini, Principle Engineer, Q.A Audits
R. Yewdal.l, Radiation Protection Services
J. Trejo, Manager, Radiation Protection Services
- E. Galbraith, Chemistry Services
- G. Reggio, station Licensing Engineer
- D. Mohler, Manager, Radiation Protection/Chemistry
- J. Kersch, Radiation Protection Services
- M. I.eFevre, Radiation Protection Tech SUpervisor
- M. Pollack, I.ER Coordinator
- D. Lyons, Technical Engineer
- J. cumam, I.ead Engineer
L. Rajkowski, system Engineer
w. !J::Mry' System Engineer
1. 2
NRC Personnel:
- S. Pima.le, Resident Inspector
- K. Gibson, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes personnel who atterrled the exit interview on May 5, 1989.
2.
Scope:
'!his routine safety inspection reviewed the licensee's program for the areas
of liquid and gaseous effluents, radiological environmental monitoring,
transportation and solid radioactive waste.
3.
Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items:
(Closed) ~r
Follov.r-up (50-272/84-26-02; 50-311/84-26-02) Procedure
incorrectly identifies supplier of 'Ihenoolt.nninescent Dosimeters for use in the
Erwironmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
'!he licensee has written a new
procedure Rl'L No. 1.2.1, which properly identifies the source of the
dosimeters. This item is closed.
- . **-;:.*.*
3
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up (50-272/87-20-01; 50-311/87-22-01) Revise procedure
to include volmne of ~le to be shipped. Licensee procedure RP 909, Revision
1 incozporates the revisions needed for proper transportation of radioactive
materials. '!his item is closed.
4. Transportation and Solid Radioactive Waste:
Responsibility for the processing am transportation of radioactive materials is
conducted by the licensee's rad.waste personnel who report through the Radiation
Protection Engineer to the Radiation/Chemistry Manager.
Waste is collected,
processed, :r;>ackaged and prepared for transportation by the Radwaste staff.
Transportation am waste classification is determined by the use of a vendor
supplied camputer code. In addition, the licensee also provides transportation
services am manifesting of shipments of radwaste originating from the H6pe
Creek Nuclear Generating station 'Which is located adjacent to the Salem
facility.
4.1 Radwaste:
'!he licensee currently dewaters resins in High Integrity containers (HIC),
compacts low level dry active waste, and infrequently solidifies certain wastes.
Plant liquid wastes are processed am dewatered using a vend9r supplied process.
As part of this inspection, the following licensee procedures related to the
radwaste program were reviewed:
RP 902, Rev o, Radioactive Waste Sampling and Classification"
RP 903, Rev o, Use of RAI:l-1AN
RP 904, Rev 1, "I:bse curie Corwersion calculations"
RP 905, Rev 1, "Transfer of Radioactive Waste to SNGS"
RP 906, Rev o, "Shipment of Radioactive Waste for Burial"
RP 907 I Rev o, Use of CNS! 8-120A Radioactive Material Shipping Package"
RP 908, Rev o, Use, Dewatering and Harxiling of CNS! 8-120 or larger Liners"
RP 911, Rev o, Use of the NUPAC 14/210 or CNS! 14/215 Radioactive Materials
Shipping Package"
At the present tine the licensee rents one NUPAC 14/210H Type A shipping
container for use in the rad.waste program.
Docurrenta.tion was available 'Which
demonstrated that the licensee has followed procedures as outlined in the
certificate of Coupliance for this cask.
As part of this inspection, the
records of 4 waste shipments were reviewed to ensure compliance with NRC and
Department of Transportation requirements. one of these shipments, #89-01, was
4
one of five shipments of bmnable poison rod assemblies made by the licensee in
Januai:y and February 1989. Activities in these packages ranged from 8000 to
19000 OJries, and involved the loading of a, shipping cask in the spent fuel
pool.
'lhese documents demonstrated the careful planning and execution of this
packaging and shipping campaign conducted by the licensee.
'!he licensee currently composites samples of resins and filters for the purposes
of determining appropriate scaling factors. Isotopic analysis is performed by a
vendor laboratory.
4.2 Transportation:
'!he licensee utilizes a vendor supplied computer code for the purposes of
classification of radioactive materials shipments.
'!he licensee also uses this
program for the shipment of radioactive wastes generated at the Hope Creek
Nuclear Generating station. Shipments of contaminated laundry are made in
conjunction with the Hope Creek station, and are coordinated by the Radiation
Protection Sel:vices Manager.
As part of this inspection, the following
procedures were reviewed:
RP 901, Rev o, "Receipt and Inspection of Radioactive Material"
RP 909, Rev 1, "Shipment of Radioactive Material Excluding Waste for Burial"
RP 913, Rev 1, "Shipment and Receipt of laundry"
4. 3 Training:
In response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-19, the licensee has developed a comprehensive
training program for personnel who perfonn tasks in the processing and shipment
of radwaste. Initial training of employees in Radwaste is contained in training
lesson plan No. 45004-IES002-00, which is presented over a three day pericxi,
and a series of qualification cards signed by supervisory personnel upon
satisfactory completion of assigned tasks. Retraining is conducted annually,
utilizing lesson plan No. 49988-IESOlO-OO, and consists of an eight hour
classroom presentation.
4. 4
Quality Assurance:
'lhe licensee's Q.A program includes surveillances of selected waste shipments and
audits of the waste program.
Audit NM-88-005 conducted July 25, 1988 through
August 22, 1988 was reviewed and founi to be comprehensive in scope and
technically accurate, with all identified items promptly addressed and resolved.
'!he licensee has elected to apply its 10 CFR 50, Appendix B Quality Assurance
program to the area of transport packages. Quality Assurance Procedure 6-1
requires that contractors supplying transport packages be evaluated on*an annual
basis. Contrary to this, the licensee has utilized an NRC approved transport
package, rented from NUPAC, since 1987, but has only evaluated NUPAC once, in
March 198.7.
'Ih:i,s is an apparent violation (50-272/89-10-01; 50-311/89-09-01).
~
5
5.
Envirornnenta.l Monitoring:
'lhe Radiological Envirornnental Monitoring Program (REMP) at the licensee's
facility is conducted in cooperation with the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating
station, located immediately north of the Salem Nuclear Generating station.
~
administration is by the Public Service Electric arxl Gas (PSE&G)
Radiation Protection services Deparbnent (RPS).
RPS contracts with the PSE&G
Research arxl Testing I..aborato~ (Rl'L) for the sampling arxl analysis of
- envirornnental media.
In addition, 'lhenooltnninescent Dosimeters are placed by
the Rl'L staff, but are procured from arxl analyzed by a vendor laboratory.
As part of this inspection, the licensee's 1987 arxl 1988 REMP reports were
reviewed and found to be comprehensive in scope and.to properly address any
anomalous data. In addition, the following Rl'L proCedures were reviewed:
Rl'L 1.2.1, Rev 2, "Installation of 'lhennoluminescent Dosimeters in the Field"
Rl'L 1. 3. 3. 2, Rev 3, Radiochemical Analysis in Raw Milk"
Rl'L 3. 2. 2, Rev 1, "Quality Control Clleck for Gamma Colll'lting Systems"
Rl'L 3.0.1, Rev o, "Development of Alpha, Beta, arxl Tritium Control <l'larts"
'!he licensee's Q.A department conducts annual audits of the REMP as part of its
Appendix B Technical Specifications audit. In addition, the licensee has
conducted an audit of the vendor laboratory, which performs TID services in
support of the REMP.
'Ihese audits were found to be comprehensive in scope, with
all fimings addressed in a timely manner.
'!he Rl'L laboratocy participates in the EPA crosscheck program, splits samples
with a second verrlor laboratory, arxl analyzes duplicate samples within the
laboratory. Results of these 1 Quality Control analyses perfonned by the Rl'L
demonstrated that the licensee is capable of making acx:urate measurements.
calibration of the meteorological tower instrumentation is the responsibility of
the Radiation Protection Services Deparbnent.
A contractor is utilized for
sw:veillance arxl calibration of the tower instrumentation, arxl a second
contractor evaluates the meteorological data. At the present time, the licerisee
perf ontLS full charmel calibration of the meteorological tower instrumentation
every three ioonths, conducts brief monthly calibration verifications, arxl
performs meteorological parameter behavior checks" every three days.
6.
Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Control
6.1 Liquid Effluents Controls
.
'!he inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to detenni.ne implementation of
the following technical specification ('IS) requirements for both units:
~-.;.~--.~-;:***---- --- .
. -***---*-:-:--*_;-*'.*"
. **-.---------- - -
. -
--~ -*-**-**---*':"-7-:--.*-*
6
o TS 3/4.11.1, "Liquid -Effluents"
o TS 6.14, "Offsite Dose calculation ManUal (ODCM)"
'!he inspector reviewed selected lic;iuid discharge pennits to detennine compliance
with the above requirements. '!he inspector detenni.ned that the licensee was
meeting the requirements for ~ling am analysis at the frequencies and lower
limit of detections established m Table 4.11-1 of the Technical Specification.
All reviewed discharge pennits required met the above requirements.
'!he licensee uses a computer program to perfonn offsite dose assessment in order
to deronstrate compliance with TS requirements using ODCM methodology.
The
inspector perfonned hand. calculations in order to verify the dose assessment
using liquid effluent discharge pennit rnnnber llr2037. 'Ihe results are:
IX>SE (:mrem)
Isotope
Activitv(uCiLml)
Total Body
Co-58
l.97E-5
4.95E-5
4.92E-5
4.19E-6
2.95E-5
2.96E-5
2.7QE-6
4.04E-5
4.0lE-5
'!he cxnnparisons indicate good agreement.
6.2 Gaseous Effluents Controls
Orqan
4.43E-4(GI-LLI)
4.45E-4(GI-LLI)
2.51E-5(GI-LLI)
- 2.52E-5(GI-LLI)
6.17E-5(Liver)
6.20E-5(Li.ver}
Perf onned by
Licensee
NRC
-
Licensee
NRC
Licensee
NRC
'Ihe inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine the implementation
of the following technical specification (TS) requirements for both units:
o TS 3/4.11.2, "Gaseous Effluents"
o TS 6.14, "Offsite Dose calculation ManUal"
'!he inspector also reviewed selected gaseous discharge pennits to detennine
compliance with the above 'IS requirements. '!he inspector also perfonned hand
calculations in order to verify the licensee's dose assessment using the gaseous
disc.barge pennit number Dl'-2065. '!he results are:
Isotope
Activitv(uCiLml)
Gamna. Dose (mrad)
Beta Dose (mrad)
Perf onned by
l.45E-4
1.98E;-8
2.24E-6
Licensee
l.97E-8
2.24E-6
NRC
8.73E-4
2.44E-6
7.27E-6
Licensee
2.44E-6
7.26E-6
NRC
' -.
- ~ ...... , :
7
The comparisons inlica.te goo:i agreement.
The inspector reviewed semiamrual radioactive effluent release reports for 1988.
'Ihese reports provided total :released radioactivity for liquid and gaseous
effluents includin;J radiation dose to the public.
No violations were identified in the areas of liquid and gaseous effluents
control program during this inspection.
6. 3 ca.l.ibration of Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Monitors
The inspector reviewed the liCensee's procedures to detennine the implementation
of the following technical specification requirements for both units:
o TS 3/4.3.3.8, Radioactive Liquid Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation"
o TS 3/4.3.3.9, "Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monito~ing Instrumentation"
'!he inspector reviewed the most recent calibration records for the following
monitors for both units:
o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Line Monitor (1,2-Rl8)
o steam Generator Bl~
Line Monitors (1,2-R19)
o Containment Fan Coolers-sei:vic::e Water Line Discharge Monitors (1,2-Rl3)
o Waste Gas Holdup system Monitors (1,2-R41)
o Contairnnent Purge Gas Monitors (1,2-R12)
o Plant Vent Header~ Monitors (1,2-R16)
o Main steam Line Radiation Monitors (1, 2-R46)
Based on the review of the above monitor calibration records, the inspector
detennined that the calibrations were perfonned as required by the appropriate
procedures and technical specifications.
6. 4 Review of Special Reports and Licensee Event Reports
The inspector reviewed three Special Reports (SRs) and eleven Licensee Event
Reports (IERs) regarding the radiation monitoring system during this inspection. *
'lhese fourteen (14) reports were submitted to the NRC in .the ~icx:l of January,
1988 to April, 1989 to meet Section 6. 9. 2 of Technical Specifications and
10 CFR 50.73 requirenelts, respectively.
Reviewing the above IERs, the inspector noted that the licensee identified three
technical ~if
ica.tion violations due to ~rmel errors and an inadequate
administrative control. '!he inspector revietYed root ca.use analyses and
corrective actions.
'!he corrective actions were additional training, revised
procedures, and improved interdeparbnental cammunica.tion.
The inspector
~-- *- ... - ---- .. **-*- **-;-* .. -- **- .. -- .* *. *.* -*
. . ,.. . ....
~.-*** .
8
verified these corrective actions through discussion with the licensee. 'lhese
are licensee self-identified Severity Level rv: or V violations and in accordance
with 10 cm 2, Appen:lix c, subparagraph G (Exercise of Discretion) the NRC is
not issuing a Notice of Violation due to the corrective actions taken by the
licensee.
'Ille inspector also noted that the major root cause of SRs and IERs was equipment
failure.
'!he ~discussed with the licensee the maintenance of the
radiation monitormg system.
'!he licensee stated that they established the
following short and
long tenn projects for the system:
o Short Tenn Project; (1) installation of voltage regulators to prevent channel
spiking in 1989
(2) installation of a central process unit in 1990
o Long Tenn Project;
(1) replacement of En'1e1:9ency Safety Feature radiation
monitoring systems m 1991
'!he progress of the projects will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
'!he inspector also noted that there was no dose impact to the public due to
these I.ERs.
6. 5 Air Clean.in:;f System
'!he inspector reviewed the licensee's tedmical specification (TS) requirements
in the area of air cleaning systems for both units:
o TS 3/4. 7.6 "Control Room Emergency Filtration System"
.
o TS 3/4.7.7 "AllXiliai:y Building Exhaust Air Filtration System"
o TS 3/ 4. 9 .12 "Fuel Handling Area Ventilation system"
'Ille inspector reviewed the following procedures arrl the most recent
surveillance testing results to detennine the implementation of the above TS
requirements:
o RP 1131 Rev .1 Ventilation System-Visual Inspection"
o RP 1132 Rev.l Ventilation system in-Place Filter Testing (Air Flow capacity
Test) II
o RP 1133 Rev.l Ventilation System Pressure Drop Test"
0 RP 1134 Rev.l Ventilation System in-Place Filter Testing (HEPA Filter Banks)
o RP 1135 Rev.l Ventilation System in-Place Filter Testing (Adsorber)
o RP 1137 Rev .1 RenDval. of Adsorbent Samples for laboratory Testing"
I)Jring the previous inspection corxlucted during the week of September 19-23,
1983, a followup item was identified in this area (50-272/83-29-03;
50-311/83-31-03) * '!his inspection report reads in part :
"'!he inspector examined the auxiliai:y building air cleaning system and noted
that a heater was not a part of the ventilation system.
Section 9. 4. 3 .1 of the
SGS-FSAR, Revision o, July 22, 1983, "Design Bases of the Fuel Handling Area
" .
.
9
Ventilation", reads in part, 'Although there is no direct control of the
humidity in the building, and there can be instances of 100% relative humidity
around the spent fuel pool when the outdoor air is damp, the relative humidity
under desi~ corxlitions is expected to be less than 70%'.
'!he inspector noted
that the licensee has not measured the relative humidity since the ventilation
systems *began operation.
'!he inspector reviewed selected licensee Deficiency
Reports reganling ventilation systems and IER 83-027/03L.
'!he IER 83-027/03L
described a problem in which the fuel handling area ventilation ~
was
inoperable on June 3, 1983, due to the saturation of water va:por in the charcoal
adso:tber.
'Ihe inspector stated that the neasurement of the moisture content in
the ventilation systems should be made periodically to ensure the system
integricy for the nonnal and emergency operations.
'!he actions taken by the
licensee b;> control humidity will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
'Ihe licensee perfonned a Safety Evaluation (S-C-M941-M.SE-234, Rev.O) to resolve
the above follawup item. A contractor (MSA Colrpmy) perfonned a charcoal
canister test for the methyl iodide penetration at 95% relative humidity as
required by Regulatory Guide 1. 52.
'!he test method used was as detailed in AS'IM
D-3803 except that the test sample was exposed to 80 c and to the high humidity
condition for two hours (120 minutes) prior to testing. '!he AS'IM D-3803
requires 300 minutes.
'!he ~tion results was less than 0.4% and the result
was accepted (acceptance criteria :::;: less than 1%) * Iii this Safety Evaluation,
the licensee did not measure the IOC>isture content in the ventilation systems as
stated in the follawup item.
During this inspection, the ~r
noted that the laboratory testing results
for methyl iodide penetration did not meet the acceptance criteria in the .
following systems:
o Unit 1 Control Room,
May 1986,
- 3. 0%, Failed
Possible cause ; Unknown
o Unit 2 Control Room,
October, 1987, Penetration
- 1. 88%, Failed
Possible cause ; Painting
o Unit 2 Aux. Building, March-April 1989, Penetration
- 30. 28%, Failed
Possible cause r Unknown
o Unit 2 F\\lel Han:ll.ing Bldg. , March-April 1989, Penetration
- 11. 8%, Failed
Possible cause ; Unknown
'!he charcoal in the above systems were replaced as required by the Technical
Specifications.
On March 29, 1989, Unit 2 shutdown was required to replace the
Auxiliary Building Ventilation system charcoal filter adsomer bank (IER 89-006) * 'Ihe visual inspections for the fuel handling building and the
auxiliary building identified sane problems such as: 1) minor corrosion problem,
2) danpm; are not leak tight, and 3) *no seal installed for fan-shaft seal.
10
'!he licensee stated that the air balance test for the systems will be perfo:nned
in the near future as the short term project.
Based on the air balance testing,
the licensee will detennine the long term project. '!he relative hmnidity in the
systems will be ireasured to verify the SGS-uFAR commitments (70% relative
hmnidity). '!he inspector requested to the licensee to send those test results
to the NRC for review as soon as possible.
Based on the above findings, this is
an unresolved item pending results of above tests. (50-272/89-10-02;
50-311/89-09-01).
7. Exit Interview:
The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted .in Paragraph 1 at the
conclusion of the inspection on April 7, 1989.
'!he inspector surmnarized the
purpose and scope of the inspection, and discussed the f~s. At no time
during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the
inspector.