IR 05000528/1985039
| ML17299A874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1985 |
| From: | Hamada G, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17299A873 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-85-39, 50-529-85-40, NUDOCS 8512130272 | |
| Download: ML17299A874 (12) | |
Text
8512130272 851127 PDR ADOCN, 05000528
PDR U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos. 50-528/85-39, 50-529/85-40 Construction Permit No.
CPPR-142 Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 Iicense No. NPF-41 Licensee:
Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.
O. Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Facility Name:
Palo Verde No.
1 and No.
Inspection at:
Wintersburg and Tempe, Arizona Inspectors:
Xnspection conducted:
October 21-25, 1985 G. Hamada, Radiation Laboratory Specialist (/- z-7-fs Date Signed Approved By:
G. Yuha
,
ief Faciliti diological Protection Section Da e Signed
~Summa Ins ection of October 21-25 1985 (Re ort Nos. 50-528/85-39 and 50-529/85-40)
Areas Ins ected:
This was an unannounced inspection of Unit 2 chemistry laboratory capability to perform the required chemical and radiochemical measurements.
This inspection also involved Unit 1 chemistry laboratory participation in the confirmatory measurement tests with Unit 2.
A total of 29 man hours were expended on mo'dule 84525 and 4 man hours on module 79501.'odules 84525 a'nd 79501 are now closed.
Six man hours were expended on module 84725 with 10 percent'ompletion.
u't Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas inspected.
u f u
r
'p(
II (
I Ipf ~
" t I I I
I Pl f
)I t
I It
)'
I (
)I I
tl
'I tt tp
)4'. ',
I II I")
I I
I I
ll IP I
ll
DETAILS
,J Per
"Z.
"R
~'D.
R.
>".L.
-R.
'"B.
"<W.
'"R.
-D.
- G
~K.
Mp AL-R.
AD.
PJ.
"R.
dL
"T
'~T.
s'ons Contacted, it L. 'Abrahamson - Bechtel Resident Engineer Adney - Unit 2 Superintendent R. Anderson - Bechtel Resident Engineer Badsgard - Nuclear Engineer Brown - Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager M. Butler - Technical Services Cederquist - Chemical Services Manager Chavet - Chemist F. Fernow - Plant Services Manager D. Poster - Bechtel Quality Control D. Goodwin - Unit 1 Chemistry Lead Hawkinson - Bechtel Project QA Manager A. Hierzer - Bechtel D. Hodges - Vnit 2 Chemistry Lead Hopkins - Nuclear Licensing Johnson - Nuclear Safety Engineer G. Johnson - Unit 2 Chemistry Supervisor E. Karner - Assistant V.P. Nuclear Production E. Malik - Compliance Engineer Matteson - Transition QA/QC Ozment - S/U Admin. Manager G. Papworth - Op. Eng.
Manager Shriver - QSSE Manager Warren - Unit 1 Chemistry Supervisor-Indicates personnel present at exit interview.
2.
Discussion The thrust of this inspection was to assess the capability of Unit 2 Chemistry to adequately perform the required chemical and radiochemical analyses under routine operating conditions.
Because Unit 1 chemistry had earlier been determined to be "qualified" to perform the required measurements, the results of the various sample categories measured by Vnit 2 were compared against resuls obtained by Unit 1 for these same samples.
The test results are tabulated belo l II L
Jl g
F g
$
il il,
~
L J,
$
J
L
'k S
Y J
e Table
(One Liter Marinelli Geometr
)
Nuclide Na-24 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-122 Sb-124 Cs-136 Cs-137 Unit 2 uCi/ml 4.27E-7 3.70E-7 7.12E-6 2.01E-6 1.35E-6 1.36E-5 2.06E-7 1.61E-6 Unit l nCi/ml 4.71E-7 4.25E-7 6.90E-6 2.11E-6 1.15E-6 1.36E-5 2.35E-7 1.45E-6 Ratio Unit 2/Unit 1 0. 91 0.87 1.03 0.95 1.17 1.00 0.88 1.11-Agreement R~an e 0.50-2.00 0.50"2.00 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.6o-1.66 0.80"1.25 0.50-2.00 0.75-1.33 See enclosure for explanation of agreement criteria.
For all tests described in this report, use Unit 1 data in place of NRC results.
Table 1 shows the results for a liquid waste holdup tank sample contained in a one liter Marinelli beaker geometry.
The results indicate good agreement for this geometry.
Table
Charcoal Cartrid e Unit 1 Containment Air Sr-82 I"131 I-133 Unit 2 uCi/cc 1.09E"10 6.68E-11 6 '4E-11 Unit l UCi/cc 9.55E"ll 5.38E-ll 5.02E-ll Ratio Unit 2/Unit
1.14 1.24 1.20 Agreement R~an e
0.60-1.66 0.50-2.00 0.50-2.00 Table
Gas (1 Liter Marinelli)
Unit 1 Containment Air Nuclide Kr-85M Xe-133 Xe-133M Xe-135 Unit. 2 uCi/cc 1.10E-7 8.04E-5 l.o4E-6 1.50E-6 Unit
uCi/cc 1.35E-7 8 '1E-5 1.03E-6 1.58E-6 Ratio Unit 2/Unit 1 0.81 0.93 1.01 0.95 Agreement R~an e 0.50-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.60-1.66 0.75-1.33 Table 2 summarizes the results for a charcoal cartridge sample obtained by sampling Unit '1 containment air.
Despite the relatively low activity levels of the nuclides detected, reasonably good agreement, was achieved.
Table 3 gives the results for a large volume gas sample obtained from containment air.
Good agreement gs indicated for all nuclides liste L Cl FI lf
%h V
s l
i'I
a Nuclide Na"24 Sb 122 l I-131 I-132t
')
X-133",'-134 I-135 Cs-138 M-187 Table
f I
Unite, 2... ', ~/Unit"1 uCi/all ,, "" ",,uCi/ml, 4.14E-,3 ',';
4<18K-,3,-
9,. 94K-4
'
'"1.
,,'$.82E-3~
, 1.25K-2~
( j
',",~.'15E'-2 2.62E-',2,,
"',:", ',
'2;36E-'2,',.98E-2'
's j ~~,1'73E-2.
2. 24E-2';
'
""2. 32E-'2 3 51E-,2 '-
. 3.43E",2 5. 44E-3
.
'-,4. 06E-'3" Ratio Unit 2/Unit
0.99 0.93 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 0.97 1.02 1.34 Agreement R~an e
0.75-1.33 0.50-2.00 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.80-1.25 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.60-1.66 Table
Nuclide Unit 2 uCi/ml U
a
Unit 1 Ratio Agreement uCi/ml Unit 2/Unit
R~an e
Kr-85H Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-133 Xe-133M Xe-135 5.62E-2 6.19E-2 1 ~ 15E-1 4,32E-1 1.18E-2 1.60E-1 4.92E-2 5.26E-2 1.00E-1 3.70E-1 1.04E-2 1 '7E-1 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.17 1.13 1.17 0.80-1.25 0.80-1.25 0.80-1.25 0.80-1.25 0.60-1.66 0.80-1 '5 Tables 4 and 5 list the results for reactor coolant liquid and reactor coolant stripped gas samples respectively.
The results indicate that adequate agreement was obtained for both categorie E U
Table
Particulate Silter Geomet (Reactor Coolant Sus ended Solids)
Nuclide Unit 2 uCi/ml Unit 1 uCi/ml Ratio Agreement Unit 2/Unit
~Ran e
Na-24 Cr-51 Mn-54 Mn-56 Co-58 Co-60 Pe-59 Ni-65 Zr-95 Nb-95 Sb-122 Sb-124 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-135 Cs-138 W-187 Np"239 0.60-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.60-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.60-1.66 o.6o-1.66 o.60-1.66 0.50-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 o.6o-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.60-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.50-2.00 1.86E-5 1.37E-5 1.36
'1.68E-4 1.48E-4 1.14 8.51E-6 8.83E-6 0.96 5.05E-4 4.62E-4 1.09 1.29E-4 1. 24E-4 1.04 1.33E-5 1.41E-5 0.94 1.24E-5 9.82E-6 1.26 5.36E-5 5.96E-5 0.90 9.33E-6 1.10E-5 0.85 6.60E-6 7.14E-6 0.92 1.56E-4 1.32E-4 1.18 2.16E-5 2.03E-5 1.06 2.00E-5 2.23E"5 0.90 3.35E-5 3.61E-5 0.93 8.50E-5 7.86E'-5 1.08
,7' 54E-5 9.23E-5 0.82
'3.70E-4
- 4.89E-4'e 0.76 1.91E-4 2.05E-4 0.93 3.78E-.5'
, 2.15E-5 1.76 Table 6,lists the results'for a particulate filter geometry.
The sample was obtained'Sy filtering suspended, solids from reactor coolant.
This procedure was used because Palo'Verde uses a moving filter roll to filter particulates and thus, a filter sample pith the appropriate geometry for test purpos'es, could not be obtained.
Also, grab particulate filter samples often 'do not contain enough activity to be useful for intercomparison tests.",
As can be seen",
the agreement is adequate.
a1 j
A review of the capability of Unit 2 chemistry to perform high sensitivity trace containment: a'nalysis was also conducted.
The laboratory has sufficient'. space'and is equipped with state-of-the-art instruments such as the ion chromatograph and atomic absorption systems.
The capabilities of the staff are good and at least one member from each of the six laboratory teams-is qualified to operate the ion chromatograph and atomic absorption units'.
On the other hand, however, based on current information about laboratory personnel and the expected functions to be performed by each, the laboratory appears to be understaffed.
The quality assurance procedures and practices which apply to Unit 1 also apply to Unit 2.
While Palo Verde does not participate in the EPA crosscheck program, they do participate in a commercially administered (Analytics) unknown spiked sample analysis program for both chemical and radiochemical measurements on a quarterly schedul V I>>
V Vr
'I
II II
V
$ 4$
44(
I ~
I'>>
Vh
, (
I I"
I
/4 (V]d I
<<I I
('I (4'
t~(k
,I Ig
While the emphasis was on Unit 2, because of Unit 1 involvement in these tests, it was possible to compare the peak stripping algorithm of the Unit 1 system against that of Unit 2.
Unit 1 uses a different gamma spectroscopy system and thus a different peak strip algorithm from Unit 2.
Unit 2 has a Nuclear Data system similar to that of the NRC.
Because of previous questions regarding the software associated with the Unit 1 gamma spectroscopy system, it was recommended that comparisons be made with other systems to further evaluate the Unit 1 system.
Based on this review, it can be concluded that the two systems are comparable.
3.
Exit Interview Inspection findings were discussed with licensee personnel indicated in paragraph 1.
Licensee management was informed about the agreement achieved for the cross-measurement checks, and the overall adequacy of the chemical and radiochemical measurement program at Unit 2.
The finding of a potential understaffing problem was also discusse 't lt l