IR 05000528/1990056
| ML17305B321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1990 |
| From: | Coblentz L, Tenbrook W, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305B320 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-90-56, 50-529-90-56, 50-530-90-56, NUDOCS 9101220075 | |
| Download: ML17305B321 (20) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
50-528/90-56, 50-529/90-56, 50-530/90-56 License No.
NPF-41, NPF-51, NPF-74 Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Company P.
0.
Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Facility Name:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and
Inspection at:
Mintersburg, Arizona Inspection Conducted:
December 3-7, 1990 Inspected by:
roo
,
a a )on pecia ss
a e
igne
o n z, a
>a
>on pec)a )s yZ a
)gne Approved by:
~Summer:
u s,
1e Reactor d)ological Protection Branch a
e igne Areas Ins ected:
Inspection of water chemistry control and chemical analysis, ra roc em>ca analysis, inspector followup items and allegations.
Inspection procedures 92701, 84750 and 79701 were used.
Results:
The licensee's performance in analytical chemistry and system water qqua q> y had improved.
However, the licensee lacked several recommended on-line monitoring instruments for important secondary chemistry measurements.
The licensee s capabilities for gamma isotopic measurements had declined, given errors in the details of the nuclide libraries and the inconsistent nuclide identification by counting systems from different units.
One item concerning quantification of particulates on iodine cartridges remained unresolved.
9101220075 90l23i PDR ADOCK 05000528 PDR
DETAILS Persons Contacted W. Blaxton, Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 1 T. Bradish, Manager, Compliance J. Draper, Site Representative, Southern California Edison Company R. Ferro, Supervisor, Chemistry Technical Services P.
Guay, Chemistry Manager, Unit.3 R. Hazelwood, Supervisor, Quality Assurance R. Henry, Site Representative, Salt River Project H. Hurley, Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 3 L. Johnson, Chemistry Manager, Unit 2 D. Larkin, Senior Engineer, Compliance W. Lui, Supervisor, Instrumentation 8 Control Engineering J. Santi, Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 2 J.
A. Scott, General Manager, Site Chemistry T. Shriver, Assistant Plant Manager, Unit 2 R. Siddell, Technical Advisor, Chemistry Unit 1 R. Sorensen, Manager, Chemistry Technical Services The persons listed above attended the exit meeting held December 7, 1990.
~F11
[927lll)
0 en Item 50-528/89-17-01 Closed)
50-529/89-17-01 (Closed)
ose
is i em concerne e consis ency and accuracy o
measuremen s of radiostrontium in interlaboratory blind samples.
With the exception:of one Unit 3 analysis during the first quarter of 1990, the Unit laboratories had achieved consistent agreement with the certified strontium activity.
The inspector had no further questions in this matter.
0 en Item 50-528/89-17-02 Closed):
This item concerned the i en i ica ion o wa er samp es o be distilled prior to tritium analysis.
Procedure 74CH-9ZZ59, "Tritium," had been revised to provide appropriate guidance.
0 en Item 50-528/89-17-03 (Closed)
50-529/89-17-02 (Closed ose
is i em concerne correc ive ac ions for spray pon c emica a
i ion problems identified in Quality Audit Group Reports89-004 and 89-025.
The audits documented that the spray pond chemical addition systems had been chronically failing at all Units and that spray pond chemistry had not been consistent.
The inspector noted that bulk chemical additions were no longer necessary, as the chemical addition systems had been made more reliable.
Intermittent problems with chemical addition hardware occasionally occurred, but spray pond chemistry was consistently maintained within specification.
The inspector had no further concerns regarding spray pond chemical additions.
Corrosion of the balance of the spray pond system will be addressed during routine inspection Confirmator Measurements and Radiochemical Anal sis (84750)
The regional mobile laboratory trailer was brought onsite for gamma isotop)c intercomparisons with the licensee s counting laboratories.
Sample types commonly analyzed for compliance with regulatory requirements were analyzed by the licensee and the NRC, and the results were compared using the NRC verification test criteria.
The first samples analyzed were a particulate filter and charcoal cartridge removed from Unit 1 process monitor RU-l, containment atmosphere monitor.
The particulate filter analys)s was compared with Unit 1 only.
The results are presented in Table 1.
Table
Unit 1 Containment Atmosphere Particulates NRC Licensee NRC Random Ratio:
Agreement Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range I-131 1. 74E-14 2. 19E-14 2. 88E-15 Cs-137 9. 23E-15 1. 28E-14 3. 26E-15 0. 8 0. 5-2. 00 0.72 No Comparison The measurements agreed well considering the high counting uncertainties.
The activity on the filter was a very small fraction of tfie Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table I.
The iodine cartridge was exchanged between all Unit laboratories and the NRC.
The results are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Unit 1 Containment Atmosphere Halogens NRC Licensee NRC Random Ratio:
Agreement Unit Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Ul Br-82 Ul Cs-134 Ul I-131 U1 I"133 Ul Cs-137 U2 Br-82 U2 Cs-134 U2 I-131 U2 I"133 U2 Cs-137 8.22E"12 2. 39E-13 3. 64E-10 2. 76E-11 2. 64E-13 6. 11E-12 2. 10E-13 2. 50E-10 2. OOE-11 3. 08E-13 5. 86E-12 8. 40E-14 1. 79E-13 2.41E-14
.
2. 63E-10 3. OOE-13 2. 05E-11 1. 50E-13 2.85E-13 3.16E-14 5. 86E-12 8. 40E" 14 1. 79E-13 2. 41E"14 2. 63E-10 3. OOE-13 2. 05E-ll l. 50E-13 2. 85E-13 3. 16E-14 1.4 l. 33 1. 39 l. 35 0. 93 l. 04 1. 17 0. 95 0. 97 1. 08 0. 80-1. 25 0.5-2.00 0. 85-1. 18 0.80-1.25 0.6-1.66 0.80-1.25 0.5-2.00 0.85-1.18 0.80-1.25 0. 6"1. 66 U3 Br-82 U3 Cs-134 U3 I-131 6. 29E-12 5. 86E-12 8. 40E-14 O.OOE+00 1.79E-13 2.41E-14 2. 88E"10 2. 63E-10 3. OOE-13 1.07 0.80-1.25
0'-2.00 l. 1 0. 85-1. 18
U3 I-133 2'1E-11 2.05E-11 1.50E-13 1.08 0.80-1.25 U3 Cs-137 0. OOE+00 2. 85E-13 3. 16E-14
0. 6-1. 66 The results for Unit 2 agreed.
Unit 3 did not identify Cs-134 and Cs-137 on the cartridge, as their library was prepared for halogens only.
Technical Specification Table 4.11-2 specified that grab samples (short duration particulate and iodine samples)
were to be obtained from containment prior to each release.
No particulates were observed on the required grab samples from RU-1.
The inspector and Unit 3 effluent/Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) personnel discussed the need to survey cartridges for particulates.
The licensee stated that particulates detected on iodine cartridges were accounted for by reanalysis with a library containing particulates.
The inspector will verify the licensee's surveys for particulates'n cartridges during a subsequent inspection.
This item is unresolved (50-530/90-56-01).
An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, a deviation, or a violation.
The Unit 1 analysis for radioiodines disagreed with NRC and the other Unit laboratories.
The inspector requested that the licensee verify the detector efficiency calibration by analysis of a calibration standard and reproduction of the certified activity.
The Unit 1 analysis of the standard agreed very closely with the certified activity.
An independent analysis by another Unit confirmed the standard activity.
After reviewing the data from the initial comparison and the results of the standard verification, the inspector concluded there was no systematic
~
~
roblem with the cartridge analysis, but that the Unit 1 analysis had een affected by an undetermined and isolated error.
Based on verification of the standard activity, the inspector considered the disagreement resolved.
'I The third sample was reactor coolant obtained from Unit 2.
The results are presented in Table 3.
Table
Reactor Coolant System Mater NRC Licensee 'RC 'andom Ratio:
Agreement Unit Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Ul Cs-134 Ul Tc-99m U1 I-131 U1 I-132 U1 I-133 U1 I-134 U1 I-135 Ul Cs-137 Ul Cs-138 3.06E-03 O.OOE+00 2.32E-02 3. 15E-02 3. 31E-02 4.73E-02 3.66E-02 4. 17E-03 1. 79E-01 3.08E-03 2.80E-04 7.60E-04 1.36E-04 2.40E-02 3.90E-04 2.96E-02 6.40E-04 3.49E-02 4.00E-04 4.04E-02 2.88E-03 3.57E-02 1.53E-03 3.94E-03 2.08E-04 1. 93E-01 2. 01E-02 0. 99
0. 97 1. 06 0. 95 l. 17 1. 03 1. 06 0. 93 0.6-1.66 0.5-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.75-1.33 0.80-1.25 0.6-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.6-1.66 U2 Cs-134 U2 Tc-99m U2 I-131 2.55E-03 3.08E-03 2.80E-04 5.32E-04 7.60E-04 1.36E-04 2.37E-02 2.40E-02 3.90E-04 0. 83 0. 6-1. 66 0. 7 0. 5-2. 00 0. 99 0. 80-1. 25
U2 I-132 U2 I-133 U2 I-134 U2 I-135 U2 Cs-137 U2 Cs-138 2. 65E-02 2. 96E-02 6.40E-04 3,30E-02 3.49E-02 4.00E-04 3. 80E-02 4. 04E-02 2. 88E-03 3.43E-02 3.57E-02 1.53E-03 3 ~ 70E-03'. 94E-03 2. 08E-04 1. 63E-01 1. 93E-01 2. 01E-02 0. 89 0. 95 0. 94 0. 96 0. 94 0. 85 0. 75-1. 33 0.80-1.25 0. 6-1. 66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0. 6-1. 66 U3 Cs-134 U3 Tc-99m U3 I-131 U3 I-132 U3 I-133 U3 I-134 U3 I-135 U3 Cs-137 U3 Cs-138 2.44E-03 4.77E-04 2.17E-02 2.78E-02 3.26E-02 3. 65E-02 3. 65E-02 3.75E-03 1. 41E-Ol 3. 08E-03 2. 80E-04 7. 60E-04 1. 36E-04 2.40E-02 3.90E-04 2.96E-02 6.40E-04 3.49E-02 4.00E-04 4.04E-02 2.88E-03 3.57E-02 1.53E-03 3.94E-03 2.08E-04 1. 93E-01 2. 01E-02 0. 79 0. 63 0.9 0. 94 0. 93 0.9 1. 02 0. 95 0. 73 0.6-1.66 0.5-2.00 0. 80-1. 25 0. 75-1. 33 0.80-1.25 0. 6-1. 66 0. 75-1. 33 0.75-1.33 0.6-1.66 The Unit 2 and Unit 3 analyses agreed with NRC.
All units demonstrated good correspondence of radioiodine activity, demonstrating accurate dose equivalent I-131 measurements.
The initial Unit 1 analyses detected the 140.5 keV emission of Tc-99m, but rejected the identification based on very high counting uncertainty.
This gamma ray was also rejected from the sample of coolant suspended solids.
The results of the coolant suspended solids filter analysis are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Reactor Coolant Suspended Solids NRC Licensee NRC
'",. Random Ratio:
Agreement Unit Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Ul Cr-51 Ul Co-58 Ul Co-60 U1 Sb-122 Ul Sb-124 Ul Ba-139 Ul Nb-95 U1 Nb-97 Ul Zr-97 Ul Tc-99m U1 I-131 U1 I-132 U1 I-133 Ul Cs-137 U2 Cr-51 U2 Co-58 U2 Co-60 U2 Sb-122 U2 Sb-124 7. 10E-05 3. 87E" 04 9. 13E"06 4. 10E" 04 1. 76E-04 5.47E-04 6.77E-OG O.OOE+00 7.13E"06 O.OOE+00 3.69E-05 4.94E"05 5.07E-05 2.96E-05 6.98E-05 4.04E-04 1. 18E-05 4.07E-04 1.63E-04 7.95E-05 1.11E-05 3.74E-04 3.70E"06 9.54E-OG 1.28E"06 3.94E-04 4.40E"06 1.50E-04 4.70E"06 6.16E-04 3.37E-05 5.85E-OG 9.74E-07 7.50E-OG 1.24E-OG 4.85E-06 9.24E"07
'.89E-OG 6.30E-07 3.58E-05 2.08E-06 5.07E-05 4.89E-06 5. 15E-05 2. 61E" 06 2. 71E-05 1. 44E" 06 7.95E-05 1.11E-05 3.74E-04 3.70E-06 9.54E-OG 1.28E-06 3.94E-04 4.40E-06 1.50E-04 4.70E-06 0. 89 1. 04 0. 96 1. 04 1.17 0. 89 1. 16
1. 47
1. 03 0. 97 0. 98 1. 09 0. 88 1. 08 1. 24 1. 04 1. 08 0. 5-2. 00 0.80-1.25 0.5-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.75-1.33 0. 75-1. 33 0. 5-2. 00 0. 5-2. 00 0.5-2.00 0.5-2.00 0.75-1.33 0.6-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0. 5-2. 00 0.80-1.25 0.5-2.00
'.80-1.25 0.75-1.33
J0
U2 Ba-139 6. 87E-04 U2 Nb-95 7.17E-06 U2 Nb-97 1.45E-04 U2 Zr-97 6. 10E-06 U2 Tc-99m 2.33E-OG U2 I-131 3.31E-05 U2 I-132 1.06E-05 U2 I-133 5.07E-05 U2 Cs-137 2. 79E-05 U3 Cr-51 8. 01E-05 U3 Co-58 4.18E-04 U3 Co-60 1. 17E-05 U3 Sb-122 4. 32E-04 U3 Sb-124 1.68E-04 U3 Ba-139 7.83E-04 U3 Nb-95 8.09E-06 U3 Nb-97 1. 21E-05 U3 Zr-97 l. 08E-05 U3 Tc-99m O.OOE+00 U3 I-131 3.91E-05 U3 I-132 4.53E-05 U3 I-133 5.51E-05 U3 Cs-137 2.79E-05 6. 16E-04 3.37E-05 5.85E-OG 9.74E-07 7.50E-06 1.24E-06 4.85E-06 9.24E-07 2.89E-06 6.30E-07 3.58E-05 2.08E-06 5.07E-05 4.89E-06 5. 15E-05 2. 61E-06 2. 71E-05 1. 44E-06 7.95E-05 1.11E-05 3.74E-04 3.70E-06 9.54E-06 1.28E-06 3.94E-04 4.40E-06 1.50E-04 4.70E-06 6. 16E-04 3.37E-05 5.85E-06 9.74E-07 7.50E-06 1.24E-06 4.85E-06 9.24E-07 2.89E-06 6.30E-07 3.58E-05 2.08E-OG 5.07E-05 4.89E-OG 5. 15E-05 2. 61E-06 2. 71E"05 1. 44E-06 l. 11 l. 22 19. 36 1. 26 0.8 0. 93 0. 21 0. 98 1. 03 1. 01 1.12
.1. 22 1.1 l. 12 l. 27 1. 38 1. 61 2. 24
1. 09 0. 89 1. 07 1. 03 0.75-1.33 0.5-2.00 0. 5-2. 00 0.5-2.00 0.5-2.00 0.75-1.33 0.6-1.66 0. 75"1. 33 0. 75-1. 33 0.5-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.5-2.00 0.80-1.25 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 0.5-2.00 0. 5-2. 00 0.5-2.00 0.5-2.00 0.75-1.33 0.6-1.66 0.75-1.33 0.75-1.33 Again the initial Unit 1 analysis did not quantify Tc-99m from the ident>fied 140.5 keV line because'f high uncertainty.
In addition, the Unit 1 analysis did not resolve the low-level 657.9 keV gamma ray from Nb-97 from the compton scatter resulting from the 661.6 keV gamma ray from Cs-137.
A software adjustment for discrimination between background counts and net gamma counts differed between the Unit counting systems.
The Unit 1 gamma peak detection software was adjusted to conform to the methods used by Units 2 and 3, and the Tc-99m was identified.
Nb-97 was not identified despite the adjustment, but accounted for less than 0.4X of sample gamma activity, and therefore was not significant to the identification of 95K of radionuclides in coolant per the definition of E-BAR and Technical Specification 4.4.7, and typically was identified after the decay..of shorter-lived radionuclides during E-BAR sur veil 1 ances.
The inspector verified that Unit 1 analyses identified nuclides at the required detection limits for liquid releases to the evaporation pond, and concluded that the Unit 1 software would adequately identify radionuclides as required.
Unit 1 personnel stated that a
gamma spectrometer system similar to those used by Units 2 and 3 1iad been rocured and was expected to yield more consistent results between the aboratories.
The Unit 3 analysis of the filter also did not identify Tc-99m.
The compton scattering from the predominant 165.8 keV gamma ray from Ba-139 obscured the low-level Tc-99m.
During later analyses by the other laboratories, Ba-139 had decayed and Tc-99m was more easily identifie Both the Unit 2 and Unit 3 analyses differed from NRC in their assumptions on equilibrium between Zr-97 and its daughter, Nb-97.
The NRC assumed these radionuclides were in equilibrium.
The Unit 2 radionuclide library did not assume an equilibrium; and assigned Nb-97 its own half-life.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's assumption would result in a conservative measurement.
The Unit 3 library improperly assigned the half-life of Nb-97 to its parent, Zr-97, resulting in a conservative disagreement.
Unit 3 chemistry personnel were informed of the error and immediately corrected the library.
The Unit 2 analysis of I-132 disagreed due to the use of the parent Te-132 half-life for daughter I-132 in the library.
The library was specifically intended for filters allowed to decay during E-BAR surveillances and outages.
Unit 2 analyzed effluent and reactor coolant dose equivalent I-131 surveillance samples using the appropriate I-132 hal f-life.
The next sample was gas from Unit 1 containment.
The results are given in Table 5.
Table
Unit 1 Containment Gas NRC Licensee NRC Random
,Ratio:
Agreement Unit Analyte Result Result Uncertainty Licensee/NRC Range Ul Ar-41 2. 67E-06 U1 KF-85 2. 02E-05 Ul Kr-85m 2. 54E-07 Ul Xe-131m 1. 28E-05 Ul Xe-133 1.11E-03 Ul Xe-133m 6. 80E-06 Ul Xe-135 5. 72E-06 U2 Ar-41 2. 59E-06 U2 Xe-131m 1. 80E-05 U2 Xe-133 1. 03E-03 U2 Xe-133m 6. 59E-06 U2 Xe-135 5. 37E-06 2. 88E-06 1. 54E-07 2.64E-05 5.60E-06 2.57E-07 3.90E-08 1.73E-05 '8.30E-07 1.08E-03 1.00E-OG 7.37E-06 2.83E-07 6.15E-06 7.60E"08 2. 88E-06 1. 54E-07 1.73E-05 8.30E-07 1.08E-03 1.00E-OG 7.37E-OG 2.83E-07 6.15E-06 7.60E"08 0. 93 0. 77 0. 99 0. 74 1. 03 0. 92 0. 93 0.9 1. 04 0. 95 0. 89 0. 87 0.75-1.33 0.5-2.00 0.5-2.00 0.75-1.33 0. 85-1. 18 0. 75-1. 33 0.80-1.25 0.75"1.33 0.75-1.33 0.85-1.18 0.75-1.33 0.80-1.25 U3 Ar-41 3.03E-06 2.88E-06 1.54E-07 U3 Kr-85 1.72E-05 2.64E-05 5.60E-OG U3 Kr-85m 2.26E-07 2.57E-07 3.90E-08 U3 Xe-131m 1. 52E-05 1. 73E-05 8. 30E-07 U3 Xe-133 1.14E-03 1.08E-03 1.00E-OG U3 Xe-133m 6.97E-OG 7.37E-06 2.83E-07 U3 Xe-135 6. 02E-06 6.15E-06 7.60E-08 1. 05 0. 65 0. 88 0. 88 1. 06 0. 95 0. 98 0.75-1.33 0.5-2.00 0.5-2.00 0.75-1.33 0.85-1.18 0.75-1.33 0.80-1.25 The results of the gas sample from Units 2 and 3 agreed.
Kr-85 and Kr-85m were not compared with Unit 2 because of high counting uncertainties.
The Unit 1 measurement of Xe-131m was in marginal disagreement.
The inspector observed that the half-life employed for
Xe-131m was 12 days, not 11.8 days per the literature.
The licensee immediately changed the half-life to the correct value.
The licensee's quality control of radioanalytical instruments was consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 4. 15, "equality Assurance for Radiological Mon)toring Programs - Effluent Streams and the Environment."
The results of quality control checks demonstrated satisfactory instrument performance.
The inspector requested the licensee obtain an additional reactor coolant sample for confirmatory measurement of Sr-89, Sr-90 and tritium.
The coolant sample was split between each Unit and the NRC.
The results will be compared in a subsequent inspection (50-528/90-56-01, 50-529/90-56-01; 50- 530/90-56-02).
The licensee's capabilities had declined in this area, given several errors in the details of the nuclide libraries and the inconsistent nuclide identification by counting systems from different manufacturers.
One item concerning quantification of particulates on iodine cartridges remained unresolved.
4.
Chemistr Control and Anal sis (79701 The inspector toured unit laboratories and reviewed current and long-term chemistry data for condensate, feedwater (FM), steam generator (SG)
blowdown and the reactor coolant system (RCS) to establish compliance with procedure 74AC-9CY04, Revision 3, "Systems Chemistry Specifications,"
and owners group chemistry guidelines.
The following trends were observed at Unit 1:
~Anal te Values Observed S ecification Limit RCS Chloride RCS Fluoride RCS Oxygen RCS Sul fate RCS Dose Eq. I-131 SG Sodium SG Chloride SG Sul fate SG Cation Conductivity Condensate Oxygen Feedwater Iron
< 10 ppb 8 ppb 5-15 ppb 5 ppb 5E-2 uCi/gm 5 ppb 2-5 ppb 2 ppb O.l uS/cm 2 ppb 5-10 ppb
< 150 ppb
< 100 ppb
< 100 ppb 50 ppb 1 uCi/gm 20 ppb 20 ppb 15 ppb
< 0.8 uS/cm 10 ppb 20 ppb The following trends were observed at Unit 2:
~Anal te RCS Chloride RCS Fluoride RCS Oxygen RCS Sulfate Values Observed 4-10 ppb 2-4 ppb 5 ppb 2 ppb S ecification Limit
< 150 ppb
< 100 ppb
< 100 ppb 50 ppb
RCS Dose Eq. I-131 SG Sodium SG Chloride SG Sulfate SG Cation Conductivity Condensate Oxygen Feedwater Iron 2E-2 uCi/gm 2-5 ppb 2 ppb 1-2 ppb 0.08 uS/cm 2 ppb 10 ppb 1 uCi/gm 20 ppb 20 ppb 15 ppb
< 0.8 uS/cm 10 ppb 20 ppb The following trends were observed at Unit 3:
~Anal te Values Observed S ecification Limit RCS Chloride RCS Fluoride RCS Oxygen RCS Sulfate RCS Dose Eq. I-131 SG Sodium SG Chloride SG Sulfate SG Cation Conductivity Condensate Oxygen Feedwater Iron 2-3 ppb 2 ppb 5 ppb
<
2 ppb 4E-2 uCi/gm 4-9 ppb 1-2 ppb 1-2 ppb 0.08 uS/cm 1 ppb 5-10 ppb
< 150 ppb
< 100 ppb
< 100 ppb 50 ppb 1 uCi/gm 20 ppb 20 ppb 15 ppb
< 0.8 uS/cm 10 ppb 20 ppb The inspector noted several significant improvements since the last inspection.
A new constant lithium RCS chemistry was employed to maintain a higher RCS pH.
Logs demonstrated good coordination of boron and lithium within the required range at each unit.
'This chemistry has been shown to decrease rates.,of activation product plateout in RCS piping and components, resulting in..lower radiation dose rates.
Anion impurities and cation conductivity in steam generators were improved at each unit.
Operation of the secondary system at a pH of 9.0 to 9. 1 had appeared to benefit the condensate polishing demineralizer systems, improving decontamination factors for these ions.
Also, contaminants from the polisher system itself were reduced.
Condensate dissolved oxygen was also very low at each unit, indicative of good condenser integrity.
e Feedwater metals were within a'cceptable limits, and well-controlled considering the relatively low pH maintained in the secondary system.
The chemistry general manager stated that an ongoing study of corrosion roducts in the secondary system versus system pH would assist the icensee in identifying the best pH regime for the system.
equality control data and calibration regimes for chemistry instrumentation were consistent with the licensee's laboratory analytical control program.
The inspector noted that instruments were calibrated at multiple standard concentrations; no single point calibrations were observed for atomic absorption/emission spectrophotometers metal analyses or ion chromatographs.
equality control standards were prepared from independent reagent stock and at independent concentrations appropriate for the analysis.
The results of quality control analyses demonstrated satisfactory instrument performanc In recognition of the increasing sophistication of the analytical chemistry instrumentation, the licensee had designated individuals to serve as technical advisors for instrumentation.
Mithin their assigned areas the, technical advisors were assigned instrument calibration, quality control, development of analytical methods and troubleshooting.
This allowed in-depth specialization by the advisor to improve instrument performance while freeing technicians to perform other duties.
The improvements in the laboratory analytical control program were confirmed by the analytical chemistry cross-check program data.
The licensee's measurements of vendor-supplied chemistry blind samples were competitive with other participants in the program.
No severe outliers were observed.
Intralaboratory control samples showed technician proficiency steadily improving for virtually all analyses, with the exception of the total organic carbon analysis.
The licensee suspected that samples for organic carbon analysis had been affected by shipping and storage conditions and intended to improve performance by careful handling of the blind samples.
The inspector inventoried the available on-line monitors for those variables recommended for continuous monitoring by industry secondary chemistry guidelines.
The inspector noted that the inventory of on-line monitors had improved since the previous inspection.
For example, new sodium monitors for the steam generators and a microcomputer for monitor control and trending had been installed.
However, the inspector also observed that some of the monitors were not reliable.
Sodium, a control variable, could only be measured by grab samples at Unit 2, and sodium monitors were only partially available at Units 1 and 3.
Condensate dissolved oxygen monitors were not operating at Units 2 and 3.
Many of the inoperable monitors were'.under work clearances for replacement.
The licensee did not possess on-line ion chromatography.
This capability was due to be instal'led during the 1991 and 1992 refueling outages.
The license'e's performance in analytical chemistry and system water quality had improved.
However, the licensee lacked several recommended on-line monitoring instruments for important secondary chemistry measurements.
Alle ation RV-90-A-0069 In November 1990, Region V had received an allegation that a licensee employee had been intimidated and discriminated against by licensee management for discussing technical information with an NRC inspector.
During the course of this inspection, the inspectors interviewed the licensee employee and several other cognizant individuals.
The inspectors discovered no evidence to substantiate that licensee management had acted to intimidate or discriminate against the employee.
The inspectors presented the substance of the allegation to the licensee at the exit meeting.
Exit Meetin The inspectors met with licensee management on December 7, 1990, to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspectors explained the sequence of events surrounding Allegation RV-A-0069 and informed the licensee of their conclusion Enclosure Criteria for Acce tin the Licensee's Measurements Resolution Ratio
<4
8
Sl 200
15
200 No comparison 0.5
"
2.0 0.6
"
1.66 0.75 -
1.33 0.80 "
1.25 0.85 "
1.18
~Com arison 1.
Divide each NRC result by its associated uncertainty to obtain the resolution.
(Note:
For purposes of this procedure, the uncertainty is defined as the relative standard deviation, one sigma, of the NRC result as calculated from counting statistics.)
2.
Divide each licensee result by the corresponding NRC result to obtain the ratio (licensee result/NRC).
3.
The licensee's measurement is in agreement if the value of the ratio falls within the limits shown in the preceding table for the corresponding resolutio I'