IR 05000528/1985003
| ML17298B941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1985 |
| From: | Hamada G, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17298B940 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-85-03, 50-528-85-3, 50-529-85-03, 50-529-85-3, NUDOCS 8503110177 | |
| Download: ML17298B941 (6) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
50-528/85-03, 50-529/85-03 Docket Nos.
50-528,59-529 License Nos
~
NPF-34, CPPR-142 Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Arizona Public Service Company P.
O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Palo Verde Units 1 and
Wintersburg and Tempe, Arizona Inspection conducted:
January 14-17, 1985 Inspector:
G.
Hamada, Radiation Laboratory Specialist Date Signed Approved By:
G. Yuha
,
hief Facilitie adiological Protection Section Date Signed Summary:
Ins ection of Januar 14-17 1985 (Re ort Nos. 50-528/85-03 and 50"529 85-03 unresolved items identified during the previous inspection.
The inspection involved 28 onsite hours by one inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas inspected.
8503110177 850212 PDR ADOCK 05000528
~
~
'U
DETAILS Persons Contacted
-"R.
M.
"-L.
~J-R.
-"K.
'R L.
"D M.
G.
""C.
'"I.
Adney, Unit 2 Operations Superintendent Allen, OPS Manager Bimson, Quality Assurance Engineer Brown, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager Cederquist, Chemical Services Manager Goodwin, Unit 1 Chemistry, Iead Technician Gross, Compliance'OPS)
Supervisor Hamilton, Quality Monitoring Supervisor Johnson, Nuclear Safety Group Karner, Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Production Lantz, Radiological Services Manager Perkins, Radiation Protection Support Supervisor Russo, Quality Audits and Monitoring Manager Zeringue, Technical Support Manager
"-Indicates those present at exit interview.
Discussion This inspection was performed to followup on items that were not fully resolved during the previous inspection and also to check on the status of commitments made by the licensee to develop additional quality assurance (QA) procedures and perform certain calibrations needed for gamma spectroscopy.
The latter two actions have been completed satisfactorily.
Questions regarding the gamma spectroscopy system software, however, still remain an issue that will require some attention.
These questions pertain to anomalies associated with the peak analysis routine and sensitivity criteria.
The existing system appears to be adequate for the routine programs normally encountered.
The questions are more connected with unusual circumstances such as when a
large nuclide library is required for performing the analysis of complex spectra.
It should be pointed out that this particular gamma spectroscopy system is relatively new and a feel for its full capabilities and limitations has not yet been established.
With more experience and a better understanding of all the interactive parts, the previously observed anomalies perhaps can be 'eliminated or at least be made manageable.
Meanwhile it will be important to closely observe and monitor the system so that all unusual occurrences are identified and evaluated to determine whether or not these occurrences impact on the validity of the data.
A useful procedure for doing this would be to compare results obtained with another system.
The Unit 2 laboratory does have a "stand alone" multichannel analyzer system of another make which could be used for this purpose.
It was agreed that this would be done and all measurements performed, with the primary system would continue to be scrutinized for anomalies.
The subject of secondary liquid releases to the onsite evaporation ponds was discussed with the licensee.
At issue was what constitutes compliance or noncompliance with the limiting conditions imposed by the technical specifications.
Because the limits are expressed in terms of
L
relatively small concentration units (uCi/ml), the sensitivity of the measurement system must be adequate to provide valid results at these levels.
Also, it would be desirable 'to be able to state with some statistical confidence (usually 95/) that the limits are not exceeded.
Because of the statistical nature of radioactivity, a range of values is obtained for repeated measurements made on a sample containing a given concentration of radioactivity.
This, coupled with the different criteria used for defining terms such as minimum detectable activity (MBA) and lower limit of detection (LLD) create a situation where the interpretation of "limiting activity" can take many different forms.
Because of such considerations, a clear understanding of a "limit" as used in the regulatory sense needed to be established.
The discussion concluded with the understanding that the NRC would provide additional guidelines on what a procedure must include to be considered adequate for the purpose of complying with the release limits.
A statistical approach, which appears to contain the necessary elements mentioned earlier, was discussed with the licensee and will be further evaluated for acceptability.
(Open Item No. 85-03-01)
Because Unit 2 is tentatively scheduled for fuel load in September, a
review was performed to determine whether or not the laboratory was ready to participate in qualification tests for various categories of radioactivity analyses.
Physically and organizationally, the laboratories for all three units function as separate entities.
This means that each laboratory unit must be qualified individually.
While the Unit 2 laboratory is not 100 percent in place, the current status from the equipment and personnel standpoints are sufficient or will be in a short time to permit qualification tests to be conducted any time in the near future.
As a part of this inspection, a visit was made to the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) in Tempe to review the environmental monitoring quality assurance program (gA) ARRA conducts for the NRC.
Through a
contract with the NRC, ARRA performs split sample gA measurements on selected environmental media samples obtained from the environs of the Palo Verde site.
Among the topics discussed with ARRA was the consideration whereby ARRA's program would be modified to include split sample analysis of liquids and sediments from the evaporation pond at the Palo Verde site. If implemented, this effort would commence in January, 1986 when a new agreement with ARRA will need to be arranged.
The current agreement expires on December 31, 1985.
Exit Interview Inspection findings were discussed with licensee personnel indicated in paragraph 1.
The issues connected with the open item and the reasons for keeping this matter open was discusse ~
P
'4 4