IR 05000269/1975003
| ML19308A634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1975 |
| From: | Epps T, Long F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308A632 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-75-03, 50-269-75-3, 50-270-75-03, 50-270-75-3, 50-287-75-03, NUDOCS 7911270799 | |
| Download: ML19308A634 (22) | |
Text
.__._
UNITED STATES
,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
_f REGION 11
-
230 PE ACHTREE STREET, N. W.
$UITE S1S
'
ATLANT A. G EO RCI A 30303 IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287/75-3 Licensee:
Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Name:
Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket No.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License No.:
DPR-38, 47 and 55 Category:
C, B2 and B2
Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of License:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced j
Dates of Inspection: February 19-21 and 25-28, 1975 Dates of Previc, Inspection: February 18-21, 1975 Inspector-in-Charge:
G. R. Jenkins, Radiation Specialist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch (February 25-28, 1975)
i Accompanying Inspectors:
W. L. Britz, Radiation Specialist r
Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch J. W. Hufham, Radiation Specialist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
(February 19-21, 1975)
FI
/!/
3-// -7f Principal Inspector:
/
,
T. N. Epps, Rgaptor Inspector Date Facilities Opefations Branch Reviewed by I
9 h d~
v F. J. Long, Chief
'Date
Facilities Operations Branch
?
.
,
4o W TIC 9
%1 i
-
a$
/
s e
[
'!?6 19b l
'
anim 777
,
--
-
.
.
.
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3, 50-270/75-3,
and 50-287/75-3-2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Items A.
Infractions 1.
Contrary to Technical Specification 3.9.7, the effluent control monitor was not set to alarm and automatically close the waste discharge valve so that the appropriate requirements of the specification are cet.
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
(Units 1,2 and 3)
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Noncompliance items identified in R0 Inspection Report 50-269/74-9 are closed.
III.
New Unresolved Items 75-3/1 Analysis of Liquid Waste Samples The licensee has based the determination to release liquid radwaste on the results of the degassed gross beta sample analyses.
Subse-quent gamma spectrometry analysis results have indicated that con-centrations are significantly greater than as determined by the gross analyses.
In addition, discrepancies between ga==a spectro-
=etry data from NRC and licensee laboratories have revealed apparent errors in the licenseek ga==a analysis results.
Apparently, no specific release limits have been exceeded as a result of this problem.
(Details 1, paragraph 3)
IV.
Status of Previously Report i Unresolved Itens 74-9/1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Procedures Additional written procedures for implementing and controlling the radiological environmental monitoring progran have been developed.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
Other previously reported unresolved items as listed in IE inspection report 75-1 were not inspected.
,
a
,
.
.
.
'
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3, 50-270/75-3, and 50-287/75-3-3-V.
Unusual Occurrences Not inspected.
VI.
Other Significant Findines None.
VII.
Management Interview A management interview was held on February 28, 1975, with J. E. Smith
,
Plant >bnager, and membecs of his staf f.
Items discussed included the item of noncompliance in Section I of this su= mary, the new unresolved i
item in Section III, and the closecut of three items of noncompliance and one unresolved item previously identified in R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/74-9.
J. W. Hufham discussed review of the site emergency plan with C. L. Thames on February 21, 1975.
.
.-
'4
--
. _
_ _ _ -
-
.
.
,-
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3, I-l 50-270/75-3 and 50-287/75-3
,
b2 -
/cf 7[
DETAILS I Prepared By:
.__
Date G.R.JpnKns,RadiationSpecialist
_
Reactor 64acility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch b!
b /Y 9[
'Z,
.
!
W. L. Britz, Radiati6n Specialist Date Reactor Facility Section j
Radiological and Environmental i
Protection Branch
_
Dates of Inspection:i
. February 25-28, 1975 Reviewed By: f 5 /36'
IS l 5
>
A.'F. Gibson, Senior Health Physicist Date
Reactor Facility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch All information in the details applies equally to Units 1, 2 and 3 except where information is identified with a specific reactor.
.!
1.
Individuals Contacted
Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Manager R. M. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services C. L. Thames - Health Physics Supervisor D. L. Davidson - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor M. C. Willians - Assistant Health Physics Supervisor J. Stewart - Laboratory Technician j
D. C. Smith - Chemist 2.
Liquid Waste Management The inspector reviewed liquid waste release records to determine i
a.
if releases were within Technical Specification limits, and made spot-check comparisons with the values reported in the Semi-Annual Report for the period ending June 30, 1974.
Based I
on this review, it appeared that the licensee had not exceeded any Technical Specification release limits nor had the design
objectives been exceeded.
An inspector noted a discrepancy
in the semi-annual report, in that 2.18 X 10 Ci of Kr-87 was reported as released in April 1974 and no Cr-51 was reported
.
_., -
r-7 g
i,y,-
w -
-
3e e
pg---4m
y s*yvwa-
~
.
,-~
IE Rpto Nos. 50-269/75-3, I-2 50-270/75-3 and 50-287/75-3
-
for that month.
The review of licensee recgrds showed that the report should have reflected 2.18 X 10 C1 of Cr-51 and no Kr-87.
A licensee representative stated that this error apparently occurred in preparing the report in Charlotte based on data supplied from the station.
b.
In reviewing the Liquid Waste Release Form, which is Enclosure 3 to OP/162/A/1104/07, an inspector noted that the procedure had been changed such that the ALERT alarm setpoint for the liquid effluent monitor (RlA-33) was set at "1/2 decade above detector background activity or tank activity (whichever is higher)." A licensee representative stated that the ALERT alarm is used to automatically close the discharge valve to terminate a release.
The inspector stated that the licensee's method of setting the alarm does not comply with Technical Specification 3.9.7, which requires that the effluent control monitor be set to alarm and automatically close the waste
discharge valve such t..at the appropriate requirements of the specification are met.
The inspector noted that Technical Specification 3.9.3 requires that the instantaneous concentrations released from the Restricted Area not exceed the values listed
)
in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.
A licensee representative stated that the procedure had been changed because the excessive liquid monitor background had prohibited use of the setpcint value previously specified in the procedure.
He stated that the liquid monitor had recently been relocated to the turbine building floor, and the chamber decontaminated, in order to reduce the background.
He stated that although this reduced the background, it was still excessive.
The licensee has ordered another monitor cha=ber to permit removal of or-. chamber at a time for decontamination.
Licensee ma igement stated that a review would be made to determine nat action could be taken to insure compliance with Technical Specification 3.9.7.
3.
Liquid Waste Analysis
.
a.
The licensee is required to =easure the quantities and concentra-tions of radioactive material in effluents from his facility to assure that they are within the limits specified in his license and the NRC Regulations.
The inspectien consisted of
,
testing the licensee's measurements of radioactivity in samples j
of his effluents and prepared test standards by comparing his measurements with those of the NRC's reference laboratory.
The measurements made by the NRC laboratory are referenced to the National Bureau of' Standards radioactivity measurements system by laboratory intercomparisons.
~
y l
,
"
]
.
.
-
_
.
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3 I-3
-
.
'_/
50-270/75-3 and 50-287/75-3
,
.
b.
The test results from previcus split sample measurements in June and September 1974, showed the licensee's measurements to have several discrepancies.
Capability test standards were sent to the licensee in June and October 1974, to resolve the dis-crepancies.
See Tables 1-4.
The discrepancies were partially resolved by the analysis of the test standards.
Except for strontium, most remaining discrepancies are in the conservative direction.
The strontium procedures are currently being evaluated by our reference laboratory to resolve the disagreement in measure-mente.
On February 19, a particulate filter test standard with a complex ganma spectrum was brought to the licensee to analyze.
The purpose was to further resolve the licensee's large differences on previous split sample measurements and his failure to identify I
all the isotopes present.
It was determined that previously used efficiency curves were not good in certain energy ranges, that the computer program was inadequate to identify many isotopes found in their liquid waste, that is6 tope spectrums were not being fully analy:cd by the computer or personnel, and that the computer program contained some constants which were wrong.
The computer program is now being updated and licensee management stated that this would be completed by April 1, 1975.
New calibrations have been
'
and are being performed.
The results of the charcoal adsorber and particulate filter standards are now it. agreement.
See Table 5.
The criteria used for comparisons are attached.
Apparently, no specific isotopic release limits have been exceeded as a result of the above findings.
c.
Liquid waste discharge records were examined.
It was found that
several releases a day were being made based on the analysis of degassed gross beta samples.
One release per day was being analyzed by gamma spectrometry.
This analysis was used to i
quantify releases and was consistently significantly higher than the gross beta measurement.
Gross beta analysis had not been normalized against results of the specific isotopic analysis.
Apparently, no specific isotopic release limits have been exceeded.
l An inspector stated that future releases by gross measurements should be normalized to the isotopic analysis, and that this normalization factor should be verified periodically for changes in the isotopic spectrum.
Licensee management stated that a
'
normalization factor would be applied beginning March 10, 1975.
This item is carried as an unresolved item.
4.
Tests of Reactor Coolant Quality i
The reactor coolant chemistry records were examined and discussed with the chemistry supervisor.
The records examined were in order and
'
indicated no apparent Technical Specification noncompliance.
.
,e ml
..g
,
_ _, _
y g
.
-.
-
-
.
.
. - _. -
i
i
,-s, IE Rpt Nos. 50-269/75-3, I-4
'.,3 50-270/75-3 and-50-287/75-3
'
}
i 5.
Caseous Waste Manage =ent
,
The inspectors reviewed gaseous vaste release records to determine if
releases were within Technical Specification limits, and made spot-
!
check comparisons with the values reported in the Semi-Annual Report for the period ending June 30, 1974.
Within the scope of this review it appeared that the licensee had maintained gaseous releases within the design objectives and had not exceeded any Technical Specification release limits.
Also, the release values reported in the semi-annual report appeared to agree with the licensee's records.
6.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Procedures (74-9/1)
An inspector reviewed the following procedures which had been developed for implementing and controlling the radiological environmental monitoring program:
HP/0/B/1000/62/A through HP/0/3/1000/62/P a.
b.
Radiological Environmental Procedures Manual, Section 4.0,
" Sampling Procedures" c.
Check-lists used to insure that periodic sampling requirements are met.
The inspector had no further questions.
'-
s e-p
_
.
_
I'm 1 2ff'un-.: x
--" *-
2:wirenuca;al
.
NRC and. Licennec Sampic Results Compilation Laboratory EcinC Tested oconce, June 1974
\\*crificction X Cepcbility
-
.
I Type of
Analy::cd 11RC Result 4 Licenscc Results MR7 Liconocc/11RC Licengee S.--:lc Description For uCi/ml uCi/nl Resciution Ratio Ay,reerry_t_
_
Liquid Co 57 2.0 +.4E-6
--'
'
--
,
I Co 141 3.1 +.5E-5
--
--
D (1)
Cr 51
+ lE-5 3.17E-5
1.05 A
I-131 5.8 +.06E-4 8.37E-4
1.44 D
Cn 134 3.7 +. 5E-5 1.59E-5
.42 P
,,
dW_
Cs 137 1.96 +.02E-4 2.69E-4
_ _,,,
1J7
_
D w
\\
105
.43 l
Zr 95 1.05 1,.01E-5
.458E-5 D
-
p
%@
!!b' 95 1.79 +.00E-5 24.5E-5
33.7 D
_
I M
Co 58 9.81 +.03E-4 14.4E-4 327 1.47 l
- D
,
.
~
i wO Mn 54 5.'35 +.06E-5 7.35E-5
1.37 D
-
-
W
.
Ag llom 7.5 i.5E-6 7.81E-6
1.04 A
,
l Fe 59 4.2 +.9E-6
4.42E-6
1.05 A
-
i i
.
.
Lucnd b
A,, rec. ment (1) Present in concentrations greater.than 10'h of 10 CFR 20 and thus in disagreement.
?e l'r.:::ible Agree: rent
. ' = = Din reccen-
!
-
- - -
TaMc 01 !continuc6D e
2Cfitent x
Enviren catal
, -.~.iiRC and Licen':ce Sampic l'.ccults Compilation Laboratory Ecing Tested Oconce, Jun3 1974
'
Verification x
.Ccachility
_
m Type cf Analyzed rinc Rer:ults Licenace Results rmc _
ticenceeganc Licen3ee Sem21c Description For uCi/ml uCi/ml Renolution Ratio Aa. rec: ent Co 60 6.5 +.07E-5 11.5E-5
1.7f D
La 140 1.8 +.2E-6 79.lE-6, 9,
(2)
_
A
-
97.7E-6
88.5 D
Sb 124 1.1 +.3E-6 w@
Co 144 4 + lE-6
' --
---
D (1)
Gas Xe 133 3.7 i. ole-2 4.76E-2 370 1.29 P
Xc l'33m
,2.1 +.7E-3
.827E-3
.39 A
g CM D (1)
Kr 85 1.3 +.3E-3
---
"h
.
Charc 1 Adso p I-131 17 + SE-11 1.82E-ll
.11 D
_._
Particulate Filter Cs-13 7 '
4 + 4E-12'
-
Co 60
'
1.13E-10
-
..
Liquid Alpha 8 + 2E-8 6.75E-8
.84 A
,
,
,
.
Deta 7.2.+.4E-4 6.18E-4
.85 A
i
-
,
I.e-end (1) Present in concentrations greater than lot of 10 CFR 20 and thus in disagreement.
~$~2~!3rcement (2) Not cour.ted on came date and therefore not comparable.
P = _Poncibit: A0rcement o
D.= Di(~reement j
reime h1 woannued)
laga J R __ _g. ar.:
x
..
2nvirer.=catal
!!RC.and, I.icencce Sa?.ple Ecsultc Campilation
.
.
Laboratory ::cinr; Tested Oconce, June 1974 Verificction x
Cepcbility
.
'
.
Type of Analyzed itRC. Results Liconoce Results
.tmc Licenecc/ nc Licencee N
,
,
,
For uCi/ml uCi/ml Reeolution Ratic Ar, rec ~ nt e m'le Description
.
Sr 89 2.4 i.lE-5 68E-5
.28 D
.
i Sr 90 1.2 +.lE-6 3GE-G 12,
.30 D
.
11 - 3 3.61 +.01E-2
' 4.43E-2 361 1.22 P
T W
I-
--c::3
.
p
.__
WN~or cN P
--r-""
.
,
.
a l
'
l
,J
.-
,
.
.L.e..c n.!
A - A:; rec. ment Pe l'eucible A3 rec =ent
.;.
D. 9 Di(
rcement
.
-,
Envirent:cata '.
'. IIRC:and I.icennec Samplc Results Compilation
.
Laboratory Ecing Tected oconce 3, June 1974 Verification
.
Capability x
,
,
-
Type of Analyzed
. !!nmenult s Liccaccc Results ERC Licenace/IRC I,icen ce Sne-ic Description For uCi/ml uCi/ml Renolution Ratio Agree ent Charcoal I-131 8.4G +.01E4 4.25 +.06E4 846
.50 D
..
Particulate Filter Cc 144 1.57 +.09E4 2.17 +.05E4
1.38 P
_
Cs 137 3.7G +.09E3 6.39 +.3E3
1.69 D
.
.
I A
Co 60 1.12 +.02E4 1.37 _+.03E4 SG 1.22
^
l
-
.
!
Sr 89 4.52 +.05E3 3.1 _+.4E3
.69 P
.
-
_
Sr 90 10.4 +.lE2 3.55 +.4E2 104
.34 D
_____
Liquid, IISL #3
!!-3 2.41 +.04E3 3.53 +.706E3
1.46 D
I
~.04E3 6.57 +.986E3 167
.98 A
'
tin 54 6.68 &
~
-
Zn 65 1.21 +.03E4 1.56 +.234E4
1.29 A
.
.
'I Cc 144 1.32 +.05E4 1.3G +.204E4
1.03 A
I
.
.
g
.I_/.?.'.*.0 N d
_
d " S'; rec!r.Ont P " POSSih10 A$rc e'"Ca t Q
D = Discgreement
,
,
.
t
. _ _ _.
.
-
l
ll2I t
cn f e -
o,e
-
-
ne D
p e
eee pc r yi g TL/
'
-
l
.
i
.
CRy cc c
t r. i
S, t
na eR c
i
.
n L
o i
t
.
a4 n_
l
i 1 p
o m
i C
o t
,
C "2 C u
7, J'
ml
4
i o t
s
'
e l3 u
R G0 cC R"
.
cC iO s
p t
m l
ad u
S e sl
3 t
en n
E
.
cs R/
i m
ii ee
1 C
S T eC
2 n
cu e g o
cn n
+
+
o i
L c c
4
D i
4,
L
.
n' y a ro C t l,
R a U r s
.
o t
b ll
3 a
um C
E L
s/
6 ei RC
0 u
C
+
+
m i
3
9
-
-/.,
2
.
-
.
dezr yo lFa
O n
"
A
-
r r
S S
.
tnen n
e X
x e-o W3 c
l
,i TmO3 7, t r
5" t
n E
p ll c Ae E
l
,i t
m l
l a
n r
nne t
o c
eic n
i y s
mbr o
t t e
ci
- m.
ci D
er, "u d r. r cl cC ii c
d
- oi u!
fb i
n i. P D li i a p
f V r c.
e
_
c_"
N.
" '
C l'.
,c
.
c ':
.
c.
f
.
/C a
L./*. P D'
.
'
.
.e Ef f1 :cnt x
F.nvirennent:1 JIRC and Litcaccc Sampic Result Corpilation inboratory E2ing Tested Oconec, Odteber 1974 Verification Capability x
,
Type of
'
fiRC Results Licensc0 Results I RC Licengec/ t:RC Licencee Analyzed Scenic Description Tor uCi/ml uCi/nl Renolutien Rctio Ar. rec ~ nt
,
Particulate Filter Ce 144 4.9 + 0.lE-3 6.7 + 0.2E-3
1.37 P
_
Cs 137 1.03 + 0.02E 3 1.13 + 0.05E-3 51.
1.10 A
l 9.90 + 0.60E-4
1.05 A
Mn 54 9.4 + 0.2E-4 l- -..
Zn 65 2.34 + 0.05E-3 3.00 + 0.20E-3
1.28 A
Co 60 1.07 + 0.02E-3 1.48 f_ 0.09E-3
1.30 D
Charcoal Cartridge Ba l'33
,3.26 + 0.09E4 3.61 + 0.05E4
1.11 A
T
.. _
___
_
e
-
O l
M
_ _ _ _
r-
'
_
l
_
N-
_
bd *=
.
==
i t
P"~~
\\
r
i i
.!.a -c r d
-..
it
.V;rcement
? = Po;ci* ole Isgrececnt i,2 D
.n Di
- rcement
,
hbics f.d i'N d 1
,
f.nvirer.ren tal
~~ NRC and Licenoco Sample Result Compilation Laboratory Ecing Tested Oconce, September 1974 Verification x
Cco. cbility
,
,
.
i
'
Type cf Analyced rinC Recults Licenccc Results Imc Licenceepinc Licenccc Eg.rgic Dencription For uCi/ml uCi/nl Resoluticn R.,tio Ar.rcyr an t Gas Xe 133 5.2 +.2E-2 8.(E-2
1.54 P
Liquid Gross Beta 1.79 +. ole-3 45E-3 179,
.25 (1)
II-3 2.12 +. ole-2 1.9E-2 212
.90 A
Sr 89 6.0 +.4.3-6
15 D
D Sr 90 5 + 1E-7
5 l
T Cr 5'1 14+-.1E--4 5.4E-4
3.R5 D
_
O I-131 2.88 +-.0GE-3 3.lE-3
1.08 A
m
~
l nauma Cd 137 1.08 +.02E-3
.08E-3
.91 A
f-c Zr 95 4.1 +.9E-6 13E-6
3.17 D
g
_
ho ar
D(2)
@_
Cs 134 2.83.+.06E-4
--
_
Co 58 5.0 +.lE-4 8.6E-4
1.72 D
E
!
.32 D
""
Cs 136 3.4 _+. 2E-5 l1.lE-5
,
a
.
MON-(1) IIot counted on came date and therefore not ccmparabic.
ie A3reement (2) Present in concentrations greater than 101 of 10 CFR 20, thus in disagreement.
- ' c Pounible A rcement
,,i -
3 =. D i (
reem nt
Tabic #4 (continued)
rugy t5 hfiluent'~
x Tr.viron=catal -
~:', IIRC and Licensec Sampic Recults Compilation
,
Laboratory Icing Tested oconec, September 1974
.
'
6'c 6.
. tion x
$cycbility'
.
,
.
Type of
.
Analyzed flRC Resul.ts Licensco Results tiRC Licenccc/11RC Licensec S.a..plc Deccription For uCi/nl uCi/ml Recolution Ratio Ar.rcenent
1.36 P
Mn 54 2.7 2 '+.07C-5 3.7E-5-
-
Ag 310m 7.5i.9E-6 6.3E-6 9..
1.40 A
Fo 59-1.9 i.1E'S 3.3E-5
1.74 D
43'
2.12 D
Co 60 4.3 +.10-5 9.1E-5 Sb 124 1.1 1. 2E-6 2.8E-4
254 D
__
(1)
iib 95 1.5 +.lE-5 1.0E-3
--
_,
-
.
(1)
La 140 2.1 i.2E-6 91E-6
--
.
.
.
.
_
.
I
i l
-
.
.
,,,-U,",
(1) Not counted on same date and therefore not comparabic.
- ' -
Ae A*; rec::ent f
Pm Pos:r;nic A3 rec:::ent
.7 U '=.D1 bree.,?nt
?
,
..
O
"'
-
- -
-
-
,
Tabic #5 Effluent x
Invirennental_
~ rmC and Licen;ce Sampic Recults Cenpilatien Laboratory Ecing Tcsted Ocnnec, Februaty 1975 Verification X
Cccability
.
-
w
-
._
Type of tiRC Licengee i
ICC'
Licenccc/
IIRC Results Licencec Pecultc Analyzed Sample Descripticn For uCi/ral uCi/ml Recclution Ratio Anrecrent
.
Charcoal, 11-3 l'a 133 2.54 +.01E-2 2.5E-2 251 1.00 l
A
_
i
-~
A Particulate sb 125 3.9 +.1E-2 3.8E-2
.97
{,
Cs 134 5.3 +.3E-2 5.GE-2
1.06 A
Ag 110m 2.4 +-.lE-2 2.4E-2
1.0
,
A
.
11a 22 1.05 +.04E-2 1.0E-2
1.05 A
.__
-
--
'
--
'
c:D
,
_ _ _
M g
.
- - -
,
w
_
_
,
I I.c ?. cT$
-
A ~ A';rcCNer.t
- ? :: PO "" I*31 C Agree:r.Cnt
' r,)
N " D2,jrCcCOn t
,-
-
,,
'
-
CRITERIA FOR CO:2ARING ANALYTICAL MEASURF.:E':TS
.
General The following provides criteria for comparing results of verification ueasurecents.
Tbc criteria are based on an empirical relationship which conbines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this progran.
'
In these criteria, the agreenent limits vary in relation to the ratio of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this progran as "Resolu-tion", increase; the acceptability of a licensee's neasurerent should be r. ore selective.
Conversely, poorer agree aat must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
LICENSEE VALUE Criteria RATIO (------------------)
NRC; REFERENCE VALUE Possible Possible Resolution Agreenent
. Agreement A Agreement E
.
~
<3 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 No Conparis
,
4-7 0.5 - 2.0 0.4
.2.5 0.3 - 3.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - 2.0 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66
'
>200 0.85 - 1.13 0.80 1.25 O.75 - 1.3"
"A" criter'.a are applied to the following analyses:
Ganma Spectrc=etry where pri$cipal ganna energy used for
'
identification is greater than 2-0 Kev.
,
l Tritium analy;es of liquid samples.
Iodine on adsorbers.
.
.
.6
".,
.
-
-2-
,
<-
.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
.
Camma spectronetry where principal garna energy esed for identification is less than 250 Kev.
90Sr Determinations.
Sr and Gross Eeta where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
Procedure a.
The NRC Reference Laboratory value shoull he divided by its associated uncertainty (Ic) to obtain t'ia resolution.
b.
The ratio of the tuo neasurecents to be compared should be determined by dividing the result to be compared by the amC Reference Laboratory result.
Agreement is considered obtained if the ratio falls within c.
the ranga given in the " Agreement" column for the asgociated
resolution.
For e::: ple, consider a comparison of Sr determinatiuns.
A licensee obtains a valus of 1.97 +.08 x 10-5 uCi/el and the NRC Reference Laboratory reports a reIult of 2.53 1 05 x 10-3 uCi/cl.
The resolution would be' 42, i.e. 2.53/.06, and the ratio is 0.78, i.e. 1.97/2.53.
This pair of neasurements would be consid2 red to be in. " agreement" because for this resolution o
the "agreenant" range is 0.75 - 1.33.
d.
If " agreement" is not achieved, the ratio.should be evaluated for "possible agreement".
In this case, consideration,is cade for the type of analyses conducted by selecting a range in the appropriate colunn; i.e., "A" criteria or "B" criteria, e.
If the ratio falls outside the appropriate "possible agreement" colurn,.the two ceasurements uill be consicered to be in
"disagreenent".
i f.
Licensee results are :OT ACCEPTA3LE for isotopes that are not identified by the licensee but are identified by the n3C reference lab as being preseat in concentrations greater than 10% of their respective ??C's as specified in 10 CF2 20, Table II.
P0010RGHR j
,
,
,
-.
__-...
"
t
.
a g
s>
-IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3, 50-270/75-3, and 50-287/75-3 II-l
'
DETAILS II Prepared by:
m J td, hu L
,1 m i
lE i
J.'. Hufham, Radiatio!;. Specialist Date
- Rea or Facility Sect!qn Rad logical and Environmental Protection Branch Dates of Inspection *
Pepruary 19-21, 1975 Reviewed by:
i
./
~
ND
'
A. F. Gibson, Senior Health Physicist Date
!
Reactor Facility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
1.
Individuals Contacted A.
Individuals Contacted Throuch Meetings i
(1) Duke Power Company (0conee Nuclear Station)
Ed Smith - Plant ibnager Charlie Thames - Health Physics Supervisor Jerry Itin - Industrial Safety. Supervisor Roger Nichols - Training Supervisor (2) State of South Carolina - Radiation Protection Branch Heyward G. Shesly - D4 rector Division of Radio'.ogical Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (3) Oconee County Civil Defense Bunyan Black, Jr.
Civil Defense Director (4) Oconee Memorial Hcspital Dr. D. A. Richardson (Duke Power Physician)
Ms. Billie >byle - Assistant Hospital Administrator
.
^
m._
,
Ph
-
-
-.
..
-
. -. -
.
-.. _ _ _
.
-
.
'^-
-IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3, LO-270/75-3, and 50-287/75-3 II-2
~
'
B.
Individuals Contacted By Telephone
,
(1) Pickens County Civil Defense
' Jack Wood
Civil Defense Director I
t (2) Oconce County Sheriff Department
!
M. F. Green - Oconee County Sheriff
'
!
(3) U.S. ERDA - Savannah River Radiological Assistance Team l
D. C. Collins - Coordinator-, Radiological Assistance Team
.
2.
Coordination of Emergency Plan With Offsite Agencies
'
j A.
The inspector made arrangements to meet with selected offsite officials to determine if emergency agreements between agencies
had been completed and maintained current.
,
(1) State of South Carolina - Division of Radiological Health
.
On February 19, 1975, the inspector met with a representative of the State of South Carolina, Division of Radiological
Health, to thoroughly determine the responsibilities of the State and the licensee in an emergency situation relating to
the Oconee Nuclear Station.
The inspector was informed and observed that the State of South Carolina has a well equipped and organized radiological assistance team. The state also has a comprehensive radiation emergency plan that is maintained current every si" conths.
In addition to the existing radiation emergency pla:., the State is presently developing specific
radiation emergency plans for each of the eleven major nuclear facilities within the' State.
The State of' South Carolina l
recently purchased a large mobile van that is being converted i
-
into a laboratory and will ine equipped with emergency supplies, The van will be used as a mobile laboratory for routine sur-j veillance and as an emergency laboratory for emergency situations.
'
,
.
In addition to the mobile laboratory the State has a central
!
radiological laboratory that is well equipped and appeared to be
!
adequately staffed.
(2) Oconee County Civil Defense The inspector cet with the Oconee County Civil Defense Director on February 20, 1975, to discuss the many responsibilities of the civil defense office in emergency situations relative to g
the Oconce Nuclear Plant.
The civil defense director was aware of his evacuation responsibilities and appeared to be capable
i
,- -
.
. __
_
,.
. _
_
,_,,
,. -.,
-.
- -. _
. _, _
-
,
<-
.
'
IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/75-3,
,
50-270/75-3, and 50-287/75-3 II-3 of executing his functions in an emergency.
The director has participated with the Oconee Nuclear Station in emergency drills and is presently developing an Oconce County Civil Defense E=ergency Plan that will be specific for the plant.
(3) Offsite Medical Treatment Facilities The inspector cet en February 20, 1975, with officials of the offsite medical treatment facility, Oconee Mecorial Hospital, to determine that the arrangements for medical
.*
support and treatment were complete.
Emergency treatment
'
procedures were discussed with the hospital officials and a visual inspection of the energency treatment rooms was performed.
The hospital is presently constructing a new addition to the hospital and the new structure will house
~
a decontamination area and shower.
B.
Telephone Contacts With Offsite Support Agencies Telephone contacts were made with the Pickens County Civil Defense, Oconee County Sheriff's Department, and the U. S. ERDA Radiological Assistance Team at Savannah River.
All of these agencies had been recently contacted by the licensee and were aware of their emergency responsibilities.
3.
Facilities and Equipment A.
Emergencf Kits The availability of emergency kits located in the control room and the offsite emergency centrol center was confirmed.
The kit equipment was contained in large metal drums that were sealed for security purposes.
During this inspection the seals were not broken to visually inspect the kits, but the contents appeared to be adequate based on review of inventory lists that were posted on the outside of the drums.
B.
Onsite First Aid Facilities The Oconee Nuclear Station has two onsite first aid facilities.
One first aid station is located in the administrative building and the other is located in the restricted area of the auxiliary building.
Both facilities were inspected and appeared to be adequately supplied and equipped.
i i,j N
-
.
J
IE Rpto Nos. 50-269/75-3, 50-270/75-3,and50-287/75-3 II-4 p-'
,_/
C.
Ambulance Transoortation Service
,
The ambulance that was available at the site has been assigned to the construction contractor until all construction work is complete.
After construction is complete ambulance arrangements have been made with the Oconee Memorial Hospital.
The time required for an ambulance to reach the site and return to the hospital with an e=crgency individual was discussed with a representative of the licensee.
The total time of approximately thirty minutes for the round-trip service appeared to be a satisfactory arrangement with the licensee representative and in accordance with the ambulance procedures of the Emergency Plan.
D.
Training All phases of training were discussed with the training supervisor in order to assess the completeness of the emergency training and retraining.
Emergency training and emergency retraining has previously been performed by the health physics section.
A training supervisor has been employed by the station and will be responsible for coordinating all training, retraining, and training records.
E.
Offsite Control Center The offsite control center, located at the visitors information center, was observed to assure that a control area had been esta-blished offsite and that an emergency kit was available.
The director of the information center was interviewed to verify that she had been trained in emergency procedures and especially in emergency procedures involving groups of visitors at the center.
F.
Emergency Drills In accordance with the Technical Specifications, quarterly emergency drills have been performed to verify co==unications with effsite agencies and assembly procedures for evacuation offsite.
The inspector was inforced that an extensive emer-gency drill that involved numerous support agencies was con-ductei on February 27, 1974.
The drill included the participa-tion of other licensees, State personnel, and several Federal f
government agencies.
On the date of this inspection no plans
)
had been made to perform a drill of this magnitude for 1975.
'
G.
Implementing Procedures l
The emergency procedures that were approved February 18, 1975, vere reviewed by the inspector.
The inspector reccarended to the licensee representative that additional crergency procedures were warruated concerning locations and inventories of energency
'
kits, drill procedures, emergency training procedures, and procc-dures defining the specific responsibilities of support agencies.
_.