IR 05000269/1977002
| ML19316A285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Alderson C, Robert Lewis, Peery W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A270 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-02, 50-269-77-2, 50-270-77-02, 50-270-77-2, 50-287-77-02, NUDOCS 7912050854 | |
| Download: ML19316A285 (15) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, . -p8"Crq UNITED STATES g ig NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jy [ , c.
g REGION il , ' ^ g 230 PEACHTREE STOEET. N.W. SUITE 818 .' ' k
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 r s *... *.e s- ' IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/77-2, 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2 Licensee: Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Name: Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Location: Seneca, South Carolina Type of Licenses: B&W, PWR, 2560 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: February 1-4, 16-18, and 22, 1977 Dates of Previous Inspection: December 20-23, 1976 January 18-21 and 25-28, 1977 Principal Inspector: C. E. Alderson, Reactor Inspector l Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch (February 16-18, 1977) Acco panying Inspectors: W. W. Peery, Radiation Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Material Safety Branch (February 1-4, 1977) G. T. Gibson, Radiation Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Material Safety Branch (February 16-18 and 22,1977) i M. P. Carson, Radiation Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Material Safety Branch (February 16-18 and 22, 1977) 1912050 [
_..- . . k/) IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-2, - , 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2-2-t l - 3[1G[77 Principal Inspector: . LA.t(st-C. E. Alderson, Reactor Inspector ' Dake Reactor Pr'ojects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by: [. d, jM M/0/77 R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch . .! s S e e i l > --.- , .., -. - . - - ,-. - _.,,-, -,. , ,.,...,- y
.. _.. _ _ _ . _ - _ . ( '2 N IE Rp t. No s. 50-269/77-2, ~ ' 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2-3- . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Items Infraction Contrary to the requirements of Technical Specification 3.9.8, liquid radioactive waste sampling and activity analysis did not the sensitivity requirements of Table 4.1-3 for several gamma meet er.itting nuclides on February 18, 1977, and on other occasions.
(Details II, Paragraph h) II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not inspected.
III.
New Unresolved Items 77-2/1 Inadequate Environmental Monitoring Procedures
Oconee radiological environmental monitoring procedures , apparently have not contained provisions for initiating additional environmental sampling, to evaluate: (1) ab-normal releases of radioactive material to unrest-icted areas; and (2) unusual analytical results for environmental samples.
(Details III, Paragraph 4.d) 77-2/2 Audits of Radiochemistry The licensee's audit program does not include annual audits of radiochemistry activities including radio-chemical analysis to verify compliance with Technical Specification Table 4.1-3 sensitivities.
(Details II, Paragraph 3.d) IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 76-13/1 Verification of Redundant Equipment Operability It has been determined that the licensee's interpretation of Technical Specification 3.3.7 is correct. This item is closed.
_
- F ( )' IE Rpt. Noa. 50-269/77-2, 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2-4- . . , V.
Unusual Occurrences
None l VI.
Other Sigrificant Findings
None VII.
Manag emen t Interviews !
A meeting eas held by W. W. Peery on February 4, 1977, with ! J. E. Smite and members of his staff.
The findings presented in Details II of this report were discussed.
A meeting sas held by C. E. Alderson on February 18, 1977, with J. E. Smit! and members of the Oconee staff to discuss the findings presented i Details I and II of this report.
The findings in Details II were discussed further with J. E. Smith and others at a meeting held by G. T. Gibson on February 22, 1977.
l l l ! t t . n w
. __ __ - - _ _ - _____________ () IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-2, 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2 I-1 ' . DETAILS I Prepared by:
etb- _ IL _ C. E.
erson',' Reactor Inspector (Dath Reactor Erojects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: February 16-18, 1977 Reviewed by: j. 6.
dh6/27 R. C.
Le'wis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC) J. E. Smith - Station Manager O. Bradham - Maintenance Superintendent C. Yongue - Health Physics Supervisor i M. Tuck =an - Nuclear Licensing Engineer D. Murdock - Assistant Design Engineer T. Harrell - Engineer Associate B. Rice - Staff Electrical Engineer J. Cox - Senior QA Engineer M. Harris - Operr'?ng Engineer R. Koehler - Superintendent of Technical Services J. Brackett - Assistant QA Engineer W.
Knight - Assistant Shift Supervisor W. Helcombe - Maintenance Supervisor Five Maintenance and five Operations personnel 2.
Audits The inspector reviewed audit reports for all Level I audits conducted at Oconee during calendar year 1976 to verify that the audit program was being conducted in conformance to Technical Specification 6.1.3.4; Criteria XVI and XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50; Sections 17.2.16 and 17.2.18 of the DPC Quclity Assurance Program Topical Repert; and Section 2.6 of the Administrative Policy Manual.
Documentation for the eighty-nine audits performed was reviewed to verify that: the audits were conducted in accordance with written procedures and checklists at the required frequencies; the results had been documented, and reported to and reviewed by management; , any required corrective actions had been identified in written
( IE Rp t. Nas. 50-269/77-2, 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2 I-2 ' . responses; and the ste" 2s of corrective actions was being tracked and reaudited when complete.
The inspector also reviewed auditor qualification records for those individuals performing the audits.
Within the areas inspected one discrepancy was identified. Audit No. 76-31 dealing with the area of Containment Integrity identified possible conflicts between the Technical Specifications and the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 regarding " Type C" leak tests of containment isolation valves.
This information was transmitted to IE:HQ by memorandum on August 10, 1976, for their evaluation.
Region II will followup on this item after resolution of the conflicts has been accomplished.
3.
Emergency Power to Engineered Safeguards Equipment The inspector met with corporate engineering personnel to discuss the operation of the Engineered Safegu rds Protective System, the Emergency Power Switching Logic Syste-md the emergency power system. Vendors manuals, electrical wings, and operating and periodic test procedures dealing with.nese systems were reviewed by the inspector. As stated in IE Inspection Report No. 50-269/77-1, ' Details I, Paragraph 3, the purpose of this review was to determine: - (1) whether the system design and operating procedures allow manual reset of safeguards equipment following automatic initiation; (2) the conditions under which such reset would be allowed; and (3) systems response to a loss of offsite power after having been actuated automatically and then reset prior to the loss of offsite power. The information obtained has been forwarded by memorandum to NRR for evaluation, as requested by the Chief, Light Water Reactor Programs Branch, IE:HQ.
The inspector has no further questions at this time.
4.
Verification of Redundant Equipment Operability This item, originally identified as unresolved in IE Inspection Report No. 50-269/76-13, Details I, Paragraph 6.e, dealt with tne interpretatics or Technical Specification 3.3.7, which requires that the operability of redundant equipment be verified prior to removing equipment from service for maintenance.
This matter was discussed with IE:HQ personnel, and Region II has determined that the licensee's interpretation of " redundant component" as used in Technical Specification 3.3.7 is correct. Unresolved Item 76-13/1 is closed.
! s . -
() IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-2, '
50-270/77-2 and 50-287/ 77-2 I-3 ... 5.
Contamination of Turbine Building and Personal Clothing The inspectors interviewed five operations and five maintenance personnel and two supervisors, who were directly involved in the isolation of the Hydrogen Cooler leak on January 17, 1977, that resulted in the release of radioactively contaminated water to the Turbine Building end the subsequent repair of the leaking cooler.
The events leading up to the leak and the subsequent off-site release are discussed in IE Inspection Report No. 50-269/77-1 and were not the subject of this inspection.
Based on the interviews, the inspectors determined the following: The majority of persons involved in isolating the leaking a.
Hydrogen Cooler were aware of the possibility that the water was contaminated, but believed that immediate action to secure the leak was necessary due to the size of the leak.
b.
Health Physics personnel were immediately called to the area of the leak and determined the area to be contaminated.
c.
After isolating the Hydrogen Cooler, operations personnel in the area placed protective covers over their shoes and went to the Health Physics office where they were checked for contamina-tion.
d.
A total of eight pairs of shoes and three pairs of pants were found to be radioectively contaminated and were retained by Health Physics personnel. With the exception of one pair of shoes, all of these items had been cleared and returned to the owners at the time of this inspection.
Af ter removing the contaminated clothing, all personnel were e.
rechecked and no further contamination of personnel or clothing was identified.
f.
Each of the operatiors personnel interviewed was asked if he took a shower before leaving the facility and each responded negatively, stating that they did not believe it necessary in view of the fact that no personal contamination was found.
g.
Contaminated areas of the Turbine Building were roped off and access control, including protective clothing requirements, was initiated to prevent spread of the contamination.
Within the areas discussed, no items of noncompliance were identified.
. em
( IE Rp t. No. 50-269/77-2, II-l 50-27.0/77-2 and 50-267/77-2 O ' DETAILS II Prepared by: WW h /4/77 f 'Da t'e ? n G. T. Gibson, Radiftfon Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: February 16-22, 1977 Reviewed by: //A we
) % R. L. Bangart, Chf4f 'Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Scope of Inspection The confirmatory measurements inspection consisted of: a review of the licensee's radiochemical laboratory procedures; examination of selected equipment and instrumentation relating to radiochemistry; review of records and documentation pertaining to laboratory quality , ' ' control and quality assurance; and an examination of selected radiological analytical data.
In addition, the inspector obtained a liquid waste, gaseous waste, particulate filter, and charcoal adsorber samples, and submitted to the licensee a spiked liquid waste sa=ple the results of which will be examined during a sub-sequent inspection.
2.
Individuals Contacted J. E. Smith, Plant Manager (ONPS) C. Yongue, Plant Health Physics Supervisor (ONPS) M. Thorne, Associate Health Physicist (OhTS) S. Morgan, Health Physics Labman (ONPS) R. Bond, Quality Assurance Coordinator (ONPS) J. Cox, Supervisor Quality Assurance (ONPS) N. Rutherford, Chairman NSRB (ONPS) M. Birch, Health Physicist (Duke Power) J. Lochamy, Health Physicist (Duke Power) M. Tuckman, Licensing Coordinator (Duke Power)
() IE Rpt. No. 50-369/77-3, 11-2 l j 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2
1 - 3.
Licensee Program for Quality Control of Analytical Measurements a.
Equipment and Instrumentation The inspector examined selected equipment and instrumentation utilized in radiological analyses.
The equipment and instru-mentation, except for the GeLi system, was determined to be adequate to perform the required radiological analyses of Technical Specification 3.9.8 and 3.10.9.
The GeLi system is discussed further in Section 4 of this report.
b.
Procedure's The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiochemical laboratory manual. The inspector noted the manual procedures require interpretation of analytical data by laboratory technicians.
As discussed with licensee personnel, the licensee stated a review of laboratory procedures would be made to more clearly define the evaluation techniques to be utilized by the labora-tory technicians in analytical data review.
This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
In addition, as discussed in Section 4 of this report, the - licensee has been unable to meet selected minimum detectable concentration limits of Technical Specification Table 4.1-3.
Licensee representatives stated a review of the laboratory procedures will be initiated to assess the adequacy of the procedures to meet the Technical Specifications requirements of Table 4.1.3.
c.
Laboratory Quality Control (1) Instrumentation and Equipment Calibration The inspector reviewed selected records and documentation pertaining to equipment and instrument calibration and maintenance. The inspector verified, for selected instru-mentation, that the calibration frequency and ILmits of the laboratory procedures were met.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this item at this time.
(2) Calibration Sources The inspector examined several licensee calibration sources.
The inspector examined the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) certification documents which referenced these sources to the NBS.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this item at this time.
. . _
() IE Rpt. No. 50-269/77-2, II-3 ' 50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2
- '
d.
Quality Assurance The inspector reviewed the area of radiochemistry quality assurance. The Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB), pursuant to Technical Specification 6.1.3.1, is charged with independ-ent review and audit of designated activities in the areas of chemistry and radiochemistry.
Licensee personnel stated to the ins';ctor that no NSRB audits of radiochemistry have been performed to date.
In addition, pursuant to Technical Specifi-cation 6.1.3.4.a, requiring the NSRB to perform audits to determine the conformance of station operation to provisions contained within the Technical Specifications at least once per year, licensee personnel confirmed the NSRB has never audited conformance of station operation to Technical Specification 3.9.8 requiring the laboratory to meet labora-tory minimum sensitivity requirements of Table 4.1-3.
This item shall be considered unresolved until the NSRB conducts reviews or audits pursuant to Technical Specifications 6.1.3.1.c and 6.1.3.4.a. in the areas of radiochemistry and laboratory minimum sensitivity, respectively.
4.
Licensee Analytical Measurements ' The inspector reviewed selected records and documentation per-taining to licensee measurements of radionuclides in liquid and gaseous effluents.
The analytical results were reviewed to assess compliance with plant procedures and facility Technical Specifica-tion 3.9.8 and 3.10.9 requirements.
The inspector reviewed the GeLi gamma spectroscopy system and computer coftware. The inspector discussed with licensee representatives operational limitations of the GELL system.
The inspector observed from analytical data, instances in which the licensee: Apparently overreported Sn125m activity in liquie release a.
76-1013 (November 22, 1976).
b.
Apparently overreported Cs137 activity in liquid release 76-1018 (November 24, 1976).
Apparently could not resolve the overlapping peaks at c.
836 kev of Mn54 and Kr88, when the presence of Kr88 was expected due to the presence in the sample of the daughter product Rb88, in liquid releases 76-1012 (November 22, 1976), 76-1016 (November 24, 1976), and 76-1021 (November 26, 1976).
d.
Did g9t quantify Zr95 activity at the apparent level of 9x10 uC1/ml in liquid release 76-1006 (November 19, , 1976).
__ __ _ (} IE Rp t. No. 50-269/77-2.
II-4 50-270/77-2 cnd 50-287/77-2 ~' ' e.
Could not meet the 5x10~ pCi/ml sensitivity limit requirement of Technical Specification Table 4.1-3 for Sn125, Cr51, Cel44, sb125, Mo99 and Rb88 for liquid release 77-94 (February 18, 1977).
f.
Can not meet the 5x10 uCi/ml sensitivity limit require-ment of Technical Specification Table 4.1-3 for Cel44 and Sn125 even under blank sample analysis (lowest background) in liquid samples using present equipment and procedures.
Therefore, contrary to Technical Specification 3.9.3, requiring the , liquid radioactive vaste sampling and activity analysis to be conducted in accordance with Table 4.1-3, the lab sensitivity requirements of Table 4.1-3 were not met for several gamma emitting nuclides on February 18, 1977, and on other occasions.
This failure constitutes an item of noncompliance with the referenced Technical Specification.
The inspector noted, however, the referenced item of noncompliance did not result in the licensee exceeding the release quantity limitations of Technical Specification 3.9.
5.
Confirmatorv Measurements The confirmatory measurements program consists of an independent , 'g test of the licensee's measurements of radioactive effluent samples, comparing the licensee's measurements with those of the NRC's reference laboratory.
The results reported by the licensee and the NRC reference laboratory (Health Services Laboratory (HSL). Idaho Falls, Idaho) are compared using the " Criteria for Comparing Analytical Results" (Attachment 1).
The inspector discussed'with the licensee the results reported for the March 11, 1976, sample comparisons.
A summary of the HSL and licensee results by sample type and isotope is presented in Table I.
The inspector noted the only disagreement among the March 11, 1976, samples occurred between HSL and the licensee on Mn54 activity on the spiked pe-ticulate filter.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent 1-apection on an actual particulate filter.
The inspector obtained from the licensee a liquid waste, gaseous vaste,-articulate filter and charcoal adsorber effluent sample.
,
In addition, the inspector submitted to the licensee a spiked liquid waste sample. The results reported for these samples will be examined during a subsequent inspectio i . DETAILS II () \\ ATTACHMENT 1 , , . , CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASURMENTS ., This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements.
The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio, refereed to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFEP7NCE VALUE Possible Possible Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B" ' <3 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 2,3 and <4 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 No Comparison >4 and <8 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 2,8 anc <l6 0.6 - 1.67 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 2,16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.67 0.5 - 2.0 2,51 and <200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.67 2,200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 "A" criteria are applied to the following analyses: Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifica-tion is greater than 250 kev.
Tritium analyses of liquid samples.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses: Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifica-tion is less that 250 kev.
Sr-89 and Sr-90 detet ! nations.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
Taptr I w O S l'JCLI4Q RFrULaTOR. COMMISSION ' ..
OFrl[[ OF INSerfil0M AN9 EHF6hfENENT . C ONF I DN a 10k V MFASHptHrNIS PHbCRAM rACILIIYr brorEE - FOR 18tr 1 CHAPTEh DF 1"70
HSL-------
---L I C F N Sc r -- --- SAMPLE ISOTOPE PTSULT ekh0R kFSUt i eqR09 4 VALUE FL1 E A TIO RFS T - ---- - - - -- -- H S L L I C E N S F E - - -- - - -- - - --- L waste PFTA 7.Vr-97 T.uE -f u 1. 4 F -PA 1. r F - 17 3.?E n0 7.7t+r,1 1.ar+00 2.60.ul P
131 7.65-Po 3.(c-Os 3.TF-06 9. A F -9a 2.2E+00 2.7F+01 1 3F+00 8.7r+60 A Drr GAS Ar 1'3 7.8E-02 T.br -n3 o.3E n2 1.1E-04 1 70 + 90 6.4L+30 1 1F+06 2.6r.u1 A FR C' 2.bF-73 2.Uc-04 2.4E-93 '.01 - 04 1.1E*09 1.4 t + 91 8.6F-01 1.1F+01 A C SPIKr0 PA I?3 2.1E-02 6.Or-04 2 2E "2 9.0 1. /E + "O 4.8E+00 1.Or+00 3.5c+ot a F SPIKr0 SG 125 ' 9F-12 1.0E-03 3.9E-02 7.a b.9 9.0 1.Or*00 3.90+01 A . CS 137 1.5 E -03 7.Gr -L ! 1 4E-O' 3.d 1.LE+01 3.3E+01 6. 7F -d 1 5.9F+of F CS 118 '.3c-02 ' 0c "3 6.2E-02 '4 1.4F+"1 1.7E+01 1.2r.Do 1.Fr eul A . . AG 110M 2. 5 F -0 2 1.0C-93 2.*E n2 7,q o.9E - n1 r.. i t e n d 1.br+Jo 2.4r.n1 A Na 22 1.1p-92 4. Or -L. 4 1.1E-02 7.u D.9 0.0 1 0F +0 0 2. 7F + 01 A CF 1&& 6.9F -9 ? 2.0E -L 4 6.4L-4T 1.3 1.9c+d7 7.2E +1a 9 3F-ul 3.5F+01 A PN T4 1. 3 E -13 2. b-b 5 S. ll -34 n.0 1.61-.01 3.10+11 6.9r-01 o.cr+ot o ' IN 65 3. 3E -03 9. U~ -o. 2. 6F -9' '0 6.1F+0J 2.1F+31 7.vF-01 3. 7F + L 1 A r . CO 60 1.5 r -0 3 4.UE -05 1.4F a3 1.3 1. wr. + qa 6.fr+q0 9.3r-01 3. SF + 01 A T TFST DESUL TS : 40scRFrppyy n=0!SACPEEMcN1 P= POSSIPLE ACEFFMENT NaND C0YPARtSUN
. . . O IE Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-2, '
50-270/77-2 and 50-287/77-2 III ' ! a, . DETAILS III Prepared by: [d k h 6/77 rm W. W. Peery, Radiat ecialist ' Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection February 1-4, 1977 Revteuedpy:,
m ~,;' Y. }l//// ? f 'g R. L. Bangart, Environmental an)d Special Projects Sec C def 'Da t e < Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company J. E. Smith - Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station R. M. Koehler - Technical Services Superintendent R. Bond - Technical Services Engineer C. T. Yongue - Health Physics Supervisor M. D. Thorne - Assistant Health Physicist S. Morgan - Labman 2.
Management Controls
Responsibility for the radiological environe=ntal monitoring a.
program is assigned and provides the same or higher level of management control as the previous program.
b.
Provision has been made for audits and review of the environ-mental monitoring program results.
Procedures to identify deficiencies, record results of audits, followup and reporting the results to management were previously inspected (IE Report Nos. 50-369/76-9 and 50-370/76-8). Oconee Technical Specifica-tions 6.1.3 and 6.6.2 contain the requirements for management controls and it appeared that these requirements and accepted industry practice had been met.
3.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements Responsibility for audits and QC of analytical measurements is established.
Technical Specification 6.1.3.1 provides the require-ment for audits of radiological safety.
The inspector reviewed the results of QC information furnished to the licensee by contractors doing some sample analysis. The contractors and the licensee laboratory have made comparative analysis with independent laborato-
. .. IE Rpt. N:3. 50-269/77-2, ,- f 50-270/77-2 cnd 50-287/77-2 III-2 , , ries including EPA and the State of South Carolina.
In addition, the inspector had inspected QC at the licensee's laboratory on a previous inspection of another licensee site.
(IE Report Nos. 50-369/76-9 and 50-370/76-8). The finding was made that the QC program apparently satisfied the Technical Specifications, licensee procedures and accepted industry practice.
4.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program a.
Technical Specification 4.11.1, Table 4.11.1, 2, 3, 4.11.4, 6.5 and 6.6 contain the specific requirements for the radio-logical environmental monitoring progra=. The inspector reviewed licensee records and determined that the licensee was complying with Technical Specifications, license conditions and commitments in the environmental monitoring program.
b.
All of the licensee's airborne sampling stations were inspected as well as several TLD stations, water and milk sampling locations.
The actual collection of sa=ples was observed by the inspector.
The sampling program was compared to the requirements of Technical Specfication Table 4.11.1 and found to be apparently as required.
c.
Technical Specifications 6.6.1.2.c.6 and 6.6.2.2 contu.n reporting requirements for routine and nonroutine reports.
The inspector reviewed licensee reports and records and found that the licensee has apparently satisfied the reportirg requirements.
d.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's reports for missing data, mistakes, anomalous measurements and biases or trends.
Technical Specification 6.6.1.2.c.6 contains requirements regarding anomalous results and trends.
The inspector found the data complete with only minor errors of a typographical nature.
The licensee has identified and reported anomalous results and trends.
Followup and evaluations have been made of the anomalous results and reports made to the NRC as required.
It was pointed out by the' inspector to licensee personnel and management during the exit interview that although followup has apparently been made for anomalous results there was no specific Oconee procedure covering this activity.
Licensee management and staff agreed that such a procedure will be written and should have final approval in about two months.
The inspector informed management that this woult. be held open as an unresolved item, 77-2/1, pending completion of the procedure.
I }}