ML20072K294
| ML20072K294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1983 |
| From: | Uderitz R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K285 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303300473 | |
| Download: ML20072K294 (20) | |
Text
.'. *.
J Richard A. Uderitz Public Service Electric and Gas Company P O Box 230, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 600 935 6010 vice Preident - February 4, 1983 Nuclear Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Region I - Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f'41 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Mr. Thomas T. Martin, Director Gentlemen:
NRC COMBINED INSPECTION 50-272/82-28 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 SEPTEMBER 3, 1982 The following is our response to the items of violation identified during the subject inspection.
This letter refers to your Inspection Report No.
50-272/82-28 conducted at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station on September 3, 1982, where the following violation was identified.
" Technical Specification 6.8, " Procedures" requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained for activities specified in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972.
Procedure PD-3.8.016, Revision 4, Gaseous Radwaste to Release ('alculations established in accordance with the specifications of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix "A", Section G, " Procedures for Control Radioactivity", requires in Sections 3 through 5 that gaseous activity be determined utilizing the 1R16 vent monitoring instrument.
Contrary to the above, since the revision of PD3.8.016 on July 31, 1981, the specification Section 3 through 5 regarding the use of the IR16 gaseous effluent monitor was not followed for determining gaseous activities release estimates. Rather a technique involving grab sampling exclusive of the IR16 instrument, which is not in the procedure, had been utilized".
We offer the following background information as an explanation for the cause of this violation.
Specifications outlining the frequency and location for r303300473 303248 PDR ADOCK 05000272 0 8 PDR
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 gaseous sampling and monitoring is provided in Specification 2.3.4 of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Environmental Technical Specification (ETS). A report on the radioactive discharges from the Salem site is required to be submitted to the USNRC, Director of the Inspection and Enforcement Office within sixty days after January 1 and July 1 of each year in accordance with BTS Specification 5.6.1.2. All gaseous release estimates submitted to the Commission in our Radioactive Effluent Release Report must conform to the regulatory position defined in Reg. Guide 1.21. The regulatory position of Reg. Guide 1.21 under item 4 states the following:
" Gross radioactivity measurements alone are generally not acceptable for showing compliance with effluent release limits. However, gross radioactivity measurements are often the only practical means for continuously monitoring effluents and therefore, are acceptable under certain specified conditions. Gross radioactivity measurements are acceptable for the purpose of quantifying radioactivity when; a) gross total activity concentrations are a small fraction of the maximum concentration for unidentified mixtures as specified in the notes of Appendix B of 10CFR part 20 or b) when gross radioactivity measurements are shown to be truly indicative of the actual quantity and/or concentration of radioactivity released."
PSE&G developed procedure PD-3.8.016 to estimate anomalous releases from the Salem Nuclear Generating Station using the response of channel 1R16. However, studies developed in the past have failed to prove conclusively that the gross radioactivity monitored by 1R-16 provided release estimates which were truly indicative of the actual quantity and/or concentration of radioactive material being released. Therefore, for PSE&G to utilize procedure PD-3.8.016 for submitting gaseous release estimates to demonstrate compliance with our Technical Specifications would have been contrary to the guidance of the regulatory position of Reg. Guide 1.21 which we cited above.
Therefore, for this reason, procedure PD-3.8.016 was not intended for guidance on composition of the semi-annual effluent report data. A Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Department Procedure exists for semi-annual report writing guidance. It should be noted that the original finding of the NRC Health Physics Appraisal Report team was that PSE&G did not systematically review the plant vent noble gas monitor recorder during periods between monthly grab ,
samples. The finding did not question reliance on grab l samples for quantifying releases for the semi-annual effluent report. The procedure was revised to provide the capability for anomaly surveillance.
l
1
'. * . l l
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 We were further guided by the following statement of Regulatory Guide 1.21 in preparing the official gaseous release estimates for our Radiological Effluent Release Reports.
1 "It is essential to have a degree of uniformity in the l methods used for measuring, evaluating, recording, and reporting data on radioactive materials in effluents and solid waste. The methods described in this guide provide a uniform basis for comparison of data from different sources and permit the preparation of consistent summaries of data for use by the Regulatory staff as bases for the assessment of a licensee effluent controls and the potential environmental impact of radioactive materials in the effluent and solid waste."
The uniformity, which the guide mentions, is described in Appendix A of Reg. Guide 1.21.
In reviewing the USNRC guidance, it is noted that since the Salem Station is a pressurized water reactor, it discharges the bulk of its radioactivity " intermittently" as defined in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.21. For purposes of reporting to the USNRC on the quantity of radioactive material discharged from the Salem Site, releases should b3 broken up into a CONTINUOUS MODE and BATCH MODB.
Therefore, we interpreted Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.21 to mean that the following methods should De utilized:
For CONTINUOUS MODE releases the quantification of the W
- /l". b i
~
activity discharged for any month should be based on p d" g (
db ,e r ,
the monthly grab sample, g (p For BATCH MODE releases the quantification of the 5*
- V 4 activity discharged should be based on the sampling of the gas decay tank, and all purges prior to their discharge.
ABNORMAL RELEASES should be treated as a BATCH mode \
release, evaluated as they occur, and reported to the I USNRC isotopically every six months. We have utilized this method in the past in which we treated high 1-R16 channel readings as batch releases such as release numbers 1G-DT-43-82, 1G-DT-44-82, and 1G-DT-45-82. In .\
the event that there are no ABNORMAL RELEASES, the !
quantity of activity discharged for purposes of I reporting to the USNRC under the " uniformity" )
requirements should be based on the mont_hly vent gra,b un"$ '
sample for " continuous mode" releases, and on gas decay tank samples and containment purge samples for
" batch mode releases".
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 However, as Mr. White of your staff pointed out, a formal procedure for quantifying what constituted an abnormal release did not exist. As mentioned earlier, our station staff, therefore, developed procedures PD-3.8.023 and b PD-3.8.016 in which we anticipated being able to use the !
l-R16 gross radioactivity monitor as a surveillance device for anomalous releases from our Salem station. It became d, evident to station personnel that the curie estimates using the recommended correlation factors in the procedure relating radioactivity discharged to channel 1-R16 response was suspect. As pointed out in your report, release estimates using the old R-16 channel " sensitivity" factors {
did not agree with the grab samples.
Our Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Department staff, in Newark, which prepares the Radiological Effluent Release Report, does not utilize procedure PD-3.8.016 methodology in preparing release estimates. Information provided by Salem station to the Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Department is utilized in preparation of the Radioactive Effluent Release Report (RERR) according to their procedure LE-6. Any abnormal releases identified by plant personnel g in the past were reported as BATCH MODE releases in the d5
<~~ ~ ~ ~R & ' g RERR as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.21.
We concede the fact that an abnormal release "quantifica-tion methodology" was not formally defined, and available for your inspector to review. Since PSE&G had originally I anticipated that abnormal release would occur relatively ,
infrequently and probably in a somewhat unique fashion, we had not developed a " formal" procedure which would lock us
(, into using a certain method for estimating unusual or abnormal releases if an alternative method was proven to be better. For example, any procedure developed to account for " abnormal releases" using the installed radiation g )
monitors cannot, of course, be used, if the abnormal {f - g release does not pass through the particular monitor that ,)/ -
j l the procedure specifically mentions. It has been our Nn 7,b( ${ , r
'"1 position in the past that the quantification of abnormal releases required a somewhat flexible approach which would permit the best available methods to be used to provide for the quantification of the total activity discharged. In this manner, a spill of radioactive fluid in a yard area such that the release does not pass through a radiation monitor could be accounted for in the best available manner, which may be difficult, or even impossible to pre-define in procedure form.
l l
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 Nevertheless, we appreciate the advantage of developing formal procedures for quantifying abnormal discharges which , 3 do pass through the plant vent's monitors and we_have . / /
implemented the following methodology to accomplish-this.
, i
- 1) We will define that an abnormal release has occurred whenever the IR16 channel is in an alarm state. (Warning alarm is set at 10,000, f) approximately equal to 70 uCi/sec. for fresh mixes of gas.)The operations staff has been afforded U
with a calculational procedure to determine release rate when the monitor response exceeds 10,000 cpm.
- 2) We have developed data which correlate 1-R16 response to isotopic discharges from different isotopes under various operating conditions.
- 3) When the channel goes into an alarm, a curie estimate will be performed by the operator.
Afterward, we will utilize the correlation data to more accurately estimate the curies discharged using the 1-R16 detector response if no other data is available.
- 4) This information will be forwarded to the Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Department for analysis and incorporated into the HERR in accordance with procedure LE-6.
In your letter, you also requested that in our response to your violation notice that we comment on the validity of prior effluent release reports, our management control methods, and " incongruities" in our 1982 reports.
It is our position that the methods we used in our preparation of the Radiological Effluent Release Reports were consistent with the Technical Specifications and with Regulatory Guide 1.21. It is our position that the only thing which would make these reports inaccurate would be if abnormal releases occurred during the reporting period which were not concurrently reported to the USNRC as batch releases.
Since the 1-R16 channel setpoint was set at 500,000 cpm in the past based on Environmental Technical Specification limits, the operators did not consider count rates above background, yet below 500,000 cpm as an abnormal condition. By applying our new set point of 10,000 cpm developed in 1982 retrospectively, abnormal discharges can be said to have occurred in prior years which were not
. l i
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 l
included in our Radiological Effluent Release Report. We i have identified those discharges and have quantified them l for your review in to Attachment 1 of this letter. j As concerning the " incongruities" in our 1982 data, we have discussed this matter with our consultant who informed us that his draft, unofficial reports were taken "out of context". On page 4 of your report, you reference three i values concerning the activity discharged from our Salem Station in the first half of 1982. We reported to the Commission that we discharged a total quantity of 0.545 curies of a gaseous mixture of Xe-133 and Xe-135, etc.,
from the Salem Station. Our consultant noted that if th lb MDA values for our analyses were utilized ,
of activity from 0 curies up to a maximum of thenanyamountg,)5*3j'g 0 {agl 245 Curies could have been discharged. However, since well over six o 'g hundred isotopes are produced in the nuclear fission process, each with their own respective MDA, for PSE&G to declare that each isotope, even those not specifically analyzed by PSE&G, definitely existed at their respective MDA would be misleading and technically unsound. It is our position that omitting isotopes which are not detected by our equipment is valid and consistent with item 13.C of Regulatory Guide 1.21. Therefore, the <245 curie value quoted by our consultant does not constitute an
" incongruity" in our opinion but is actually consistent with the data we have reported.
The 1059 curie value which you referenced in your letter as being reported by our consultant was based on one of his earlier reports and is based on his use of a " sensitivity factor" of 3.6E7 cpm /uCi/cc for Xe-133 only. As you noted in your report, PSE&G data indicated that when an actual sample of the vent was analyzed and the response of the 1-R16 was noted, the actual sensitivity factor of the j channel was 4.9E9 cpm /uci/cc for the mixture of isotopes present in the vent which included many short-lived isotopes, pure beta emmitters and annilation energy from high energy photons. The two sensitivities are substantially different, but are for different sample conditions. When we originally calibrated our 1-R16 monitor, we utilized pure Xe-133 gas which was traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Since the Xe-133 gas has a relatively weak gamma photon, it causes a much lower response on our 1-R16 detector than a mixture of higher energy photons which may be present in our vent during an abnormal release, when some of the very short lived nuclides such as Kr-88 may be present.
Contrary to the statement on Page 5 of your letter that we have " changed" the specified sensitivity of channel 1-R16, we maintain that both values are correct. Under laboratory
. s
, N U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 conditions when 1 uCi/cc of pure Xe-133 is injected into the 1-R16 channel, the instrument would sense approximately l 3.6E7 cpm. If 1 uCi/cc of a fresh fission gas isotopic mixture is injected into the 1-Rl6 cklannel,' thksinstrument '
i would sense approximately 4.9E9 cpm. When a different mix of isotopes is present in the vent, the " sensitivity" of channel 1-R16 would differ.
It is our standard practice to reference the' calibration
" sensitivity" response of Re-133. This yields the most conservative estimate of rel6ase estimates. Therefore, the 1059 curie value originally reported using our.,
referenced " sensitivity" and based on the preliminary 7 assumption that only pure Xenon 133 exists in'the vent is l just a reference value which require's clarification. It is .
our position the integrated count data produced-on our -
/ ':. I l-R16 strip chart would have required 1059 cur'ies of Xenon hk./ h ,)*S 133 to have produced it, (using a sensitivity of 3.6E7 p* b#
cpm /uCi/cc) or would have required 7.9 curies or a fresh Mu' fission gas mix of isotopes.(using the observed sensitivity e of 4.9E9 cpm /uCi/cc) to have produced it. SincO Regulatory Guide 1.21 states that'certain isotopes (particulate) with ,)
short half-lives not be includeo'in the RERR's, we believe that the 1059 (curie pure Xe-133) or 7.9 curie (fresh
)pfj, fission gas mix) value reported by our consultant is not / ts necessarily inconsistent with what \ we reported. .
Conclusion and Summary 1 '
- 1) The general methodology used by PSELG,in preparing its Radiological Effluent. Release Reports ate valid and ,
consistent with the Environmental Technical Specifications an'd Reguiatory Guide 1.21, however, the accounting and reportingsof abnormal releases which pass through the plantsvent needed improvement.
ss '
- 2) Although we originally developed procedure PD 3.8.016 l to satisfy USNRC concerns for identification of anomalous releases, PSE&G could not follow a procedure which clearly yielded suspect results and incorporated them into the' RSRR's . Thus , the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.21 to which we are committed and procedure LE-6 were used for the RERR.
- 3) PSE&G Management was not able to finally resolve the monitor sensitivity variation until several studies on the instrument response were completed and properly interpreted by our technical personnel. Detailed l
. 1
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 studies of monitor sensitivity for this geiger-muller detector have yielded a more realistic sensitivity value. We are modifying the procedure PD-3.8.016 to reflect this sensitivity improvement. We will continue to follow the guidance of Reg. Guide 1.21 for consistent reporting of that data which is considered most appropriate.
- 4) Although the mechanism currently exists for quantifying all abnormal releases, we are reviewing all related procedures to make them simpler to use and to eliminate any confusion.
The procedures will be reviewed again by our Station Operations Review Committee after any revisions are made.
- 5) Procedure 3.8.016 was not intended to describe the manner in which the RERR is prepared or submitted. This guidance is provided in Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Department's Procedure LE-6.
- 6) Procedure PD-3.8.016, Revision 4, Gaseous i Radwaste Release Calculations, mentioned above, required a reading trom the gaseous effluent monitor 1R16, however, it was not utilized in the release calculation. The_proceduvo hac h9en revised to incorporate the E 6 raading inte-the T stima ted~gss~ril e a s e ca l c u l a t i o n . Grab samples are-still-being-taken-iW*"co5idf'i ance with
~
Environmental Technical Specification Requirements, Table 2.3-2.
- s Efficiencies have been determined for the IR16 gs detector for fresh fission gas and decayed gas j (over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />). The efficiency for fr9sh fission gas is included in the Operations Department procedure for radioactive gas release.
In order to upgrade our management controls over effluent monitoring, these actions will be implemented:
Related chemistry procedures for Units 1 & 2 will y be reviewed and revised by May 1, 1983,.
We will audit the effectiveness of the revised J effluent monitoring program to ensure compliance, commencing in the second quarter of 1983, and to be conducted on a quarterly basis for one year.
U.S.N.R.C. 2/4/83 Chemistry personnel will be trained on the revised procedures immediately following revision and station approval. Operations personnel will be briefed on the item of violation, and instructed on the revised procedures during their normal retraining cycle.
Very truly yours, Attachment cc: Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem i
h
ATTACHMENT I Development of Release Estimates Using the Reeponse of the 1-R16 Geiger Mueller Tube for the Salem Station Unit 1.
Introduction PSE&G has reviewed our radiological releases from our Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 using the count rate trace from radiation monitor 1-R16. We identified all occurrences in which 1-R16 read in excess of 10,000 cpm. We reviewed historical data on the 1-R16 channel trace from 1976 to determine if abnormal releases occurred which were not previously reported to the USNRC in our Radiological Effluent Release Reports.
We contracted with a consultant to perform the study for us. We requested that the consultant review and develop the response of the 1-R16 channel to various radionuclides.
Using analytical techniques and laboratory data we determined the response of the G.M. tube 1-R16 to various isotopes. The results were striking. The calculated response of channel 1-R16 to other isotopes is provided as Table 3 of our consultant's report. In reviewing the data, it should be noted that it would require forty times more @
Xe-133 gas to cause the same response on channel 1-R16 as (f.
Kr-87 gas. It requires thirty times more Xe-133 than Kr-88 to cause the same response. Any assumption which assumes
f'e A' that Xe-133 is the only gas present in the vent would yield \
much higher curies estimates if gases such as Kr-87 or Kr-88 were present. But these gases do indeed exist in reactor effluent if they are " fresh" from leaks. Because of their short half lives, these gases will decay away from long storage such as in a gas decay tank. The amount of these gases contained in fresh coolant is given in Table 4 of our consultant report which we also provided. It is reasonable to infer that these isotopes are present in " fresh" gas leaks. These gaseous isotopes are more readily seen in the reactor coolant phase than the plant vent gas phase because of the significantly higher concentration in the coolant and thus better sensitivity for detection.The amount of Kr-87, Kr-88 and Xe-138 is approximately 20%. These isotopes will affect the response of the 1-R16 channel greatly. The channel will also respond to annilation energy. The quantity of the short lived fission gases will be a function of time. It is difficult to determine the relative concentrations of these fission gases for an abnormal release beforehand. A gross monitor can not' provide any information as to what isotope is causing it to respond. As mentioned earlier, one curie of Kr-87 causes the same response as 40 curies of Xe-133. When isotopic information is not known or may vary greatly in terms of effect rather
than concentration, it is often times more instructive to reference releases to a single isotope aich as Xe-133 or to a reference mix of isotopes. In the tables which follow, we will reference release estimates to two values representing two sets of operating conditions. The sensitivity of channel 1-R16 while the reactor is at power is quoted to be SE9 cpm /uCi/cc for a mixture of isotopes. The sensitivity of channel when the reactor power is zero is quoted to be 6E7 cpm /uCi/cc for a sample dominated by Xe-133. When the reactor is shut down, the short lived isotopes decay away.
The remaining Xe-133 gas causes a lower response rate cpm in the 1-R16 detector. Whenever the reactor power level is zero, and during waste gas decay tank releases, we will use a sensitivity of 6E7 cpm /uCi/cc. Whenever the reactor is at power, we will use a factor of SE9 cpm /uCi/cc.
In reviewing the curie release estimates, the reader should ;
be cognizant that higher curie release estimates will occur at shutdown than when the reactor is at power for the same lR16 monitor reading.. We consider this to be somewhat misleading, but it is a conservative artifact of the methodology employed.
Commentary on Year by Year " Abnormal Unit NO. 1 Gas Release Summary" 1976 Our review of the 1-R16 strip chart shows one unexplained spike which lasted 15 minutes on December 15, 1976. The spike occurred while the reactor power level was zero. !
, \-
The spike would have required the discharge of 63.4 curies of Xe-133. Theoretically, the same spike could have been y,A caused by 1.3 curies of Kr-87. The reactor achieved sustained criticality on December 11, 1976 and was maintained at low power levels. There is reason to believe.
that the 15 minute spike was an isolated abnormality which should be discounted.
I 1977 The bulk of the curie values developed in the " summary" were developed by use of the zero power level sensitivity of 6E7 cpm /uCi/cc. We, therefore, believe the curie value developed to be conservative. It is our opinion that the earlier submitted release reports need not be revised.
1978 The bulk of the curie values developed in the summary were for a " release" which occurred on June 8, 1978 while at zero power level. A sensitivity of 6E7 cpm /uCi/cc was used. The release estimates based on fresh fission gases were not significantly higher than what we previously reported. It is our opinion that the earlier submitted Radiological Release Report need not be revised.
4 1979 The bulk of the curie values developed were based on the "zero power level" sensitivity. Some elevated 1-R16 responses were observed white at power levels. The curie estimates developed for September 18, December 19 and 20, 1979, are based on zero power level sensitivities, but are quite substantial. It_ appears at this time that the earlier submitted release reports should be~revi~ sed. )/
1
I l
i 1980 l 1
The bulk cf.the curie values noted in the consultant's study were based on the sensitivity assigned for fresh fission gas releases. The reactor was at power levels during that elevated monitor responses. The estimated releases are higher than previously submitted.
,/ Therefore, it appears at this time that the earlier submitted release reports should be revised. i i
i i
1981 The bulk of the activity developed were based on the zero power level sensitivity. The power level curie estimates will not significantly alter our earlier estimates.
We recommend that the release reports not be revised.
1982 High 1-R16 readings are being treated as abnormal batch releases. These will be reported in the semi-annual Effluent Release Report.
COMPARISON OF SGS UNIT 1 RELEASE ESTIMATES Curies Reported in This Previously Reported Year Summary in HERR 1976 63.4 0.0 1977 43.4 12.1 1978 35.4 3.0 1979 1633.0 0.3 1980 41.3 0.54
1981 396.0 287.0 l9 YZ-
TABLE (3)
RELATIVE RESPONSE OF 1R-16 TO COMBINED BETA AND GAMMA EMISSIONS OF N0BLE GASES Absolute Relative Sensitivity Isotope Half-Life Sensitivity CPM /uCi/cc Kr-85m 4.48 h 0.5 3.0E7 Kr-87 76.3 m 48 2.9E9 Kr-88 2.84 h 30 1.8E9 Xe-133m 2.19 d 0.8 4.7E7 Xe-133 5.25 d 1 6.0E7 Xe-133m 15.3 m 4.3 2.6E8 Xe-235 9.09 h 7.5 4.5E8 Xe-138 14.2 m 29 1.7E9 Ar-41 1.83 h 24 1,5E9 TABLE (4)
CONCENTRATIONS OF NOBLE GASES MEASURED FROM A FRESH COOLANT SAMPLE Isotone Gas uCi/cc % Gas l
Kr-85m 2.203E-1 5.35 Kr-87 2.956E-1 7.18 Kr-88 3.407E-1 8.28 Xe-133m 3.146E-2 0.76
, Xe-133 1.996 48.49 Xe-135m 6.953E-2 1.69 Xe-135 6.687E-1 16.24 Xe-138 1.807E-1 4.39
- j Ar-41 3.134E-1 7.61 1
l l
SGS Unit I 1976 Abnormal Noble Gas Release Summary
- Gross Gross Approx.
Date Release IR-16 1R-16 Release Vent of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micro- Total Release Time Ref.
cpm cpm minutes Power cfm Ci/sec Curies
- Notes llDec76 Note: -
criticality. 1 16Dec76 10:00 800000 100000 15 0 90000 70446.00 63.40140 2 Total Curies Released = 63.40140
- 500 cpm background subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
Ref: . -
1 - Per Radiological Effluent Release Report fl.
2 - Conservative vent flow used (not recorded in logs).
l t
8 e
e l
e
SGS Unit I 1977 Abnormal Noble Gas Release Summary -
Gross Gross Approx. -
Date Release lR-16 1R-16 Release Vent of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micro- Total Ref.
Release Time cpm cpm minutes Power cfm Ci/sec Curies
- Notes f 4Feb77 10:46 Microfilm not legible thru 16Feb77 909:52. NA NA 14 Mar 77 08:57 Microfilm'not legible thru 18Apr77 909:38. NA NA
- 14May77 10:04 35000 20000 7 52 63000 115.9704 .0487076 4
23May77 Microfilm not legible thru 3Jun77 910:56. NA NA 10Ju177 01:45 22000 17500 60 0 90000 12036.00 43.32960 1 5Nov77 14:00 Chart torn, repaired SNov77 920:10. NA NA . ..
14Nov77 10:22 Microfilm not legible thru SDec77 009:59. NA NA 14Dec77 09:26 Microfilm not legible thru 3Jan78. NA NA .
Total Curies Released = 43.37831
- 500 cpm background subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
Ref:
1 - Operations logs could not be located. Conservative power level and vent flow used.
I, i
e o
se a e emmem e
SGS Unit I 1978 Abnormal Noble Gas Release Summary .
I
~
Gross Gross Approx.
Date Release IR-16 1R-16 Release Vent
, of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micrc- Total Ref.
j- Release Time epm cpm minutes Power cfm Ci/sec Curies
- Notes
~
4Jan78 23:30 85000- 80000 30 52 46000 345.2208 .6213974 18May78 11:30 46000 '15000 15 0 48000 5475.200 4.927680 31May78 09:20 Note: No data availa'ble until 31May78 916:05 NA NA i 8Jun78 19:15 17000 14700 75 0 58000 6478.987 29.15544 20Jun78 01:45 15000 13000 30 60 68000 80.24 .144432 30Jun78 10:21 Note: No data available until 10Ju178 910:37 NA NA
- 12Ju178 12
- 30 14000 11000 60 100 70000 69.384 .2497824 '
, 13Ju178 10:00 50000 26000 15 98 68000 163.6896 .1473206
! 25Ju178 10:30 15000 14500 30 83 70000 92.512 .1665216, i SSep78 10:34 Note: No data available until 7Sep78 924: 00 NA NA i 190ct78 09:32 Note: No data available until 230ct78 ell:15 NA NA l 3Nov78 10:05 Note: No data available until 6Nov78 919:30 NA NA 1 7Dec78 10:24 Note: Recorder out of service until 8Dec78 909:40 NA NA
- 8Dec78 09:40 Note: No data available until 13Dec78 624:00 NA NA 21Dec78 12:55 Note: No data available until 27Dec78 920:48 NA NA Total Curies Released = 35.41257
- 500 cpm backgro'und subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
l
- I e
O
j SGS Unit I 1979 Abnormal Noble Gas Release Summary
- Gross' Gross Approx.
Date Release 1R-16 1R-16 Release Vent of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micro- Total XA-9194 Release Time cpm cpm minutes Power Ci/sec
- cfm Curies
- checked 7 i -
2Jan79 09:07 Note: No data available untf1 9Jan79 911:30 NA I
16Jan79 NA NA 17:57 18000 15000 35 92 48000 63.4368 .1332173 i 13Feb79 19:45 17000 12000 Yes 90 90 89000 92.4176 .4990550 Yes l, 14Feb79 13:58 57500 20000
- 11 98 75000 134.52 .0887832 i 14Feb79 16:15 20000 12000 Yes '
6 97 46000 47.7664 .0171959 Yes
{ 14Feb79 16:56 NA 12000 15 99 46000 47.7664 .0429898 15Feb79 05:30 NA 13000 60 Yes, 95 42000 47.5776 .1712794 Yes
- 18Feb79 07
- 46 20000 16000 7 60 66000 1 Mar 79 11:52 NA 47000 93.456 .0392515 Yes 53 94 66000 286.5984 .9113829 Yes 3Apr79 21:00 52000 28000 60 19 100000 4Apr79 02:15 31000 254.88 .917568 Yes 16000 105 0 100000 11800 74.34
] 7Apr79 04:45 Note: Yes No data available until 05:45 NA NA NA j 18Sep79 11:00 90000 44000 30 18Sep79 19:30 250000 0 94000 31797.07 57.23472 Yes
! 61000 75 0 94000 44368 199.656 i
195ep79 17:15 925000 Yes 332000 45 0 95000 247367.3 667.8 alp Yes 19Sep79 19:45 260000 144000 60 0
- 4Dec79 04:14 46000 95000 106868.7 384.7272 Yes 30000 24 0 82000 18706.93 26.93798 See note i 19Dec79 02:07 320000 212000 13 0 l 20Dec79 03:42
- NA 123000 14 78000 129469.6 100.9863 See note 0 62000 59503.47 49.98291 See note t 26Dec79 00:46 NA 150000 11 0 26Dec79 ,03:28 NA 76000 72000 84393.60 55.69978 See note 5 0 72000 42480 12.744 See note Total Curies Released = 1633.021 l *1000 cpm background subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
1 December 1979 XA-9194 microfilms are illegible.
i
, Note: -
l RMS Spare recorder is the only record available.
l l
/
e
SGS Unit I 1980 Abnormal Noble Gas Release Summary -
Gross Gross Approx.
Date Release IR-16 1R-16 Release Vent of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micro-Release Time Total XA-9194 cpm cpm minutes Power cfm Ci/sec Curies
- checked?
7Jan80 16:37 O/S~ 47000 32 50 70000 14Jan80 06:00 220000 . 148000 307.272 .5899622 See Note 5 95 71000 988.604 .2965812 Yes 12 Mar 80 06:30 58000 35000 30 100 78500 255.6588 .4601858 Yes 7Apr80 09:15 430000 414000* 75 100 71600 2794.863 12.57688 See Note 7Apr83 12:00 165000 11000 15 100 71600 70.96992 .0638729 See Note 7Apr80 16:45 260000 115000 15 100 7Apr80 17:15 800000 539000 71600 773.9101 .6965191 See Note 120 100 71600 3639.743 26.20615 See Note 26Jun80 16:47 87000 36000 5 100 llJul80 19:00 12000 88000 294.9056 .0884717 Yes 11000 20 100 72000 71.3664 .0856397 Yes 19Jul80 10:53 105000 35600 15 100 2Aug80 67000 222.0005 .1998004 Yes 05:10 33000 15000 8 90 64000 87.6032 .0420495 Yes 30Nov80 08:30 Note: No data available until 1Dec80 0 08:30 NA NA NA Total Curies Released = 41.30612
- 500 cpm background subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
4 Note: XA-9194 RMS strip chart could not be located to verify the 7Jan80 release.
7Apr80 release information is based on XA-9194 Strip Chart, RMS Spare S/C failed.
l e
i8
1 i :' ,
i l SGS Unit I 1981 Abn mal Noble Gas Release Summary H Gross Gross Approx.
Date Release 1R-16 1R-16 Release Vent ,
of Starting peak average Duration Percent Flow Micro- Total XA-9194 Release Time cpm cpm minutes Power cfm Ci/sec Curies
- checked?
l 6Feb81 23:52 65000- 30800 30 100 68000 194.5018 .3501032 See Note i llMar81 06:30 14000 12000 90 100 70000 75.992 .4103568 See Note l 24 Mar 81 10:05 480000 95800 75 100 62000 557.7718 2.509973 See Note-29 Mar 81 09:00 35000 28000 255 0 66000 14278.00 218.4534 Yes 14Apr81 11:15 85000 27200 195 0 64500 13547.58 158.5067 Yes 30Apr81 10:15 500000 30000 15 68 86000 239.4928 .2155435 Yes i SMay81 03:00 22000 14500 45 96 78000 103.0848 .2783290 Yes 1
13Jul81 19:00 24000 16000 90 40 86000 125.8352 .6795101 Yes 1 14Jul81 02:45 250000 78500 30 95 82000 603.7824 1.086808 Yes 22Ju181 10:00 16000 11500 30 98 81500 84.6296 .1523333 Yes
! 19Aug81 23:00 12000 12000 15 55 73000 79.2488 .0713239 Yes
! 20Aug81 01:00 26000 20000 15 96 80000 147.264 .1325376 Yes j 20Aug81 01:45 20000 11000 15 96 80000 79.296 .0713664 Yes
] 21Aug81 00:15 18000 15000 15 97 90000 123.192 .1108728 Yes i
23Aug81 08:15 24000 14000 15 97 80000 101.952 .0917568 -
24Aug81 02:45 85000 19500 30 96 80000 143.488 .2582784 Yes!
Yes,
- 24Aug81 06
- 30 105000 24700 45 96 78000 178.1894 .4811115 Yes' 24Aug81 08:30 46000 20000 15 96 78000 143.5824 .1292242 Yes 1 3Sep81 03:38
- 16000 14700 45 96 76000 101.8765 .2750665 See Note
{ 3Sep81 06:15 18500 12000 15 97 76000 82.5056 .0742550 See Note
- 29Sep81 ,10
- 00 120000 36500 15 97 76000 258.2784 .2324506 See Note.
- 140ct81 10:30 55000 23500 60 98 80000 173.696 .6253056 Yes; I
. 140ct81 13:30 30000 18000 15 99 830Q0 137.116 .1234044 Yes*
310ct81 23:00 230000 67000 195 83 70000 439.432 5.141354 See Note 8Nov81 13:15 140000 35700 330 80 84000 279.1219 5.526614 Yes Total Curies Released = 395.9880
- 500 cpm background subtracted. Sensitivity used: SE9 at power, 6E7 when shutdown.
Note: Data obtained from XA-9194 Strip Chart. RMS Spare was not legible, missing or otherwise unusable.
t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __