IR 05000269/1977013
| ML19322B845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1977 |
| From: | Bangart R, Peery W, Ritchie J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B831 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-77-13, 50-270-77-13, 50-287-77-13, NUDOCS 7912050821 | |
| Download: ML19322B845 (5) | |
Text
,p
[eg#UGot,k UNITED STATES
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q {od v g,. c
,V
' y> ( ; g REGION ll j
-x j
230 PEACHTREE STREET. N.W. SUITE 1217 i
g ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
,
g
- ....
.
Report Nos.: 50-269/77-13, 50-270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13 Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at: Oconee Nuclear Plant, Seneca, South Carolina Inspection conducted: July 12-13, 1977 Inspectors:
W. W. Peery J. C. Ritchie Reviewed by:
[/
8/L o a 8//[77 R. 'L.' Bangarii, Clyilef bate Environmental anf Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on July 12-13, 1977 (Report Nos. 50-269/77-13, 50-270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13)
Areas Inspected:
Radiological environmental monitoring program including:
,
l management controls; annual environmental report results and supporting (
data; review of licensee environmental model dose calculations; review of licensee reports submitted pursuant to Technical Specification 6.6.2.2c and 6.6.2.2d; and review of corrective action for a previous unresolved item, 77-2/1 (RII Report Nos. 50-269, 270, 287/77-2).
Results:
Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in four areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (deficiency - failure in several instances to meet prescribed analytical sensitivities - paragraph Sa).
(
--_
_- -
,.
.,
4.
--
-
~)
.-
. RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-13, 50-270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13 I-l DETAILS I Prepared by:
h/
77 W.W.Pe'ery,RrgationSpecialist Date Environmental bnd Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch h
b 7b 77 (Jj C. Ritchie, Radiation Specialist Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection:
July 12-13, 1977 Reviewed by:
[.
& ga4!
6 2 /77 R. L. Bangart/ Chief Dat'e Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Oconee Nuclear Station
- R. M. Koehler, Acting Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station
- R. Bond, Technical Services Engineer
- C. T. Yongue, Health Physics Supertisor
- M. D. Thorne, Assistant Health Physicist S. Morgan, Labman b.
Corporate Office
- M.
Birch, Health Physicist
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (269/77-2/1; 270/77-2/1; 287/77-2/1): A procedure for anomalous environmental results had been written.
The inspector reviewed the approved procedure dated February 25, 1977 and had no further questions.
3.
Unresolved Items No additional unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
_
i
.
)
-RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-13,
50-270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13 I-2 4.
Licensee Reports a.
The inspectors reviewed and held discussions with licensee plant and corporate personnel concerning seven reports, dated March 28, 1977 (2); April 26, 1977 (2); May 3, 1977; lby 16, 1977; and May 24, 1977 submitted to NRC pursuant to Technical Specifications 6.6.2.2.c. and 6.6.2.2.d.
In all cases the reports involved measured levels of radioactivity in environ-mental samples exceeding control levels by greater than four
!
times but less than ten times.
The discussions with licensee personnel clarified and resolved questions raised by the inspectors concerning the reports.
The reporting requirements of Technical Specifications 6.6.2.2.c and 6.6.2.2.d. appeared to be satisfied.
b.
Effective June 16, 1977, Technical Specifications 6.6.2.2.c.
and 6.6.2.2.d. were amended.
There is no longer any reporting required when a measured level of radioactivity in any environ-mental medium exceeds four times but does not exceed ten times the control station value.
5.
Annual Environmental Report Results and Supporting Data a.
An inspector reviewed the annual environmental report for 1976 and found four instances in which analytical results did not meet required sensitivities.
This finding represents apparent non-compliance with Facility Environmental Technical Specifica-
,
tion 4.11.1 that requires that analyses be performed to the sensitivity listed in Table 4.11-3.
The inspector compared actual environmental data result sheets to data in the annual repert and discovered errors in the report that could have been corrected in the review process.
The inspectors stressed that the annual report must be carefully reviewed for such errors prior to submittal.
b.
In reviewing a case in which the results of an environmental j
sample exceeded fcur times the control value, the inspectors
'
noted the sample results had not been reviewed until 60 days after analysis. The licensee stated that the turnaround of samples from a vendor was the cause for the delay. The inspector stated that a program should be developed with the vendor to assure timely review of samples exceeding predeter-mined levels if vendors are to be utilized routinely.
The licensee acknowledged inspectors comments that timely review of anomalous results is a recuisite for a viable environmental
-
monitoring program.
.
-
.,
..
.
-
-
.
- - _ - _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
--
i
~
t
. RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-13,
.
50-270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13 I-3 i
6.
Review of Licensee Environmental Model Dose Calculations
.
a.
The inspector reviewed the analytical model for dispersion of
'
radioactive material in a stream and questioned the assumption of an instantaneous slug release for releases of radioactive effluent to the Keowee River. The licensee agreed to evaluate the validity of this assumption by submitting calculations comparing instantaneous slug release results to continuous release results.
This item will remain open until the addi-l tional information is received and reviewed.
b.
The inspector reviewed the standard man fluid intake model and found that the licensee was using 2000 m1, 1200 m1, and 1000 ml depending on the situation.
The inspector stated that a uniform fluid intake should be assumed based on recognized sources, e.g. ICRP;, and any deviation from that intake should be fully documented.
This item will remain open pending the receipt of additional information regarding fluid intake from m
the licensee and review of that information.
c.
The inspector reviewed the model for accumulation of radio-
activity in shoreline sedimentation and found it to be a
'
derivation of the WASH - 1258 model.
The inspector noted that the current reporting method dictates that sediment samples be taken to a depth of "1".
Current procedures list the Peterson dredge as the sampling device.
This device takes more than
"1" of sample as required by the model.
Plant personnel stated that the procedure would be modified to ensure samples
.
would be taken no deeper than "1".
The inspector also questioned the value of 20 years for station age.
The licensee stated that 20 years was a mistake and the correct age was 4 yrs.
The inspector had no further questions.
7.
Management Controls a.
In reviewing the annual environmental report, an inspector noted that definitive headings were not labeled on water supply results contrary to a prior commitment as specified in
!
IE Rpt. No. (50-269, 270, 287/76-2). Upon further discussion j
with licensee representatives it became apparent that corporate
personnel were not aware of any commitments. The inspector noted an apparent lack of communication from plant personnel i
to corporate personnel. This item will remain open.
)
b.
The inspectors noted an apparent lack of definition in attemp-
,
'
ting to determine who was responsible for environmental sample
'
result data review and interpretation and analysis of that
.- -
-
-
_
.. _
,-,
i-,-----
,m-
-
-
,-
~ gun--9g
-
,
_
_
__ _.-_.__._ -
____-- _____
'
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-269/77-13, 50.270/77-13 and 50-287/77-13 I-4
,
data.
Based on discussions with licensee representatives it was unclear who was responsible for data review and interpreta-tion and documentation thereof. Licensee representatives agreed to clearly delineate corporate and plant responsibilities for cognizant data review and documented trend analysis of the data.
8.
Exit Interview a.
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 13, 1977 at the Oconee Nuclear Power Station.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
b.
Licensee acknowledged the statement by an inspector with respect to the item of noncompliance in paragraph 5.a.
c.
Licensee acknowledged inspector comments in regard to timely review of environmental sample results.
d.
Licensee agreed to submit calculations comparing instantaneous slug release results to continuous release results in reference to Oconees dispersion model for radioactive material in a stream.
(See paragraph 5.a)
e.
Licensee agreed to furnish additional information on the assumed fluid intake for the standard man referenced in Oconee internal dose calculations.
(See paragraph 5.b)
f.
Licensee agreed to modify site procedures for sampling of sediment for radioactivity to agree with the current sedimenta-tion model used.
(See paragraph 5.c)
g.
Licensee acknowledged inspector comments on the labeling of water supply results in the annual report.
(See paragraph 7.a)
h.
Licensee agreed to clearly define and delineate corporate and plant responsibilities for review of environmental radiological monitoring data and documented trend analysis associated with that review.
..
- ,-e