IR 05000269/1979030
| ML19211D183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1979 |
| From: | Jenkins G, Macarthur T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211D182 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-79-30, 50-270-79-28, 50-287-79-30, NUDOCS 8001170002 | |
| Download: ML19211D183 (3) | |
Text
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g a
REGION il
,
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-269/79-30, 50-270/79-28 and 50-287/79-30 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Inspection at Oconee Nuclear Station, Seneca, South Carolina Inspector:
.' ' ( * ///,< [,f, [k
//k/ h?
T. C.'Mac ur Date Signed A
~
//
77[
Approved by
.
.
. K. Ue ns, Acting Section Chief, D6te Signed FFMS nch SUMMARY Inspection conducted on October 29 through November 2, 1979 Areas Inspected This routire, unannounced inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of radiological environmental monitoring program including management control, quality control of analytical measurements, inspection of environmental monitoring stations, review of environmental monitoring data, review of radio-logical environmental monitoring procedures and implementation of the monitoring program.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncomplaince or deviations were identified.
i'
F761 228
_
8 001170 Qb
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- J. N. Pope, Superintendent of Operations
- R. T. Bond, License and Pr3jects Engineer
- T. S. Barr, Performance Engineer C. T. Yongue, Station Health Physicist
- R. T. Brackett, Station Senior Quality Assurance Engineer J. J. Sevic, Biologist M. R. Killough, Associate Biologist Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians.
NRC Resident Inspector F. Jape
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 2, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Deficiency (50-269/78-14-01, 50-270/78-14-01 and 50-287/78-14-01),
Procedure HP/0/B/1000/62R not followed. Enclosure 5.1 of Procedure HP/0/B/1000/62R requiring the signature of the station health physicist indicating distribution has been deleted.
Since the radiological environ-mental monitoring program has been transferred to the environmental group, new procedures, covered by procedure NE/0/B/1000/R, covers distribution of anomolous reports. A copy of these reports is received and filed by the environmental group and no longer redistributed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls
__
A recent reorganization of Technical Services assigns responsibility a.
to the Station Biologist for collection of all types of samples,ob-tained outside of the protected area which includes all of the various types of environmental samples and TLDs associated sith the radio-logical environmental monitoring program. Responsibility for the
~
'
,
.
1761 229
.
-2-
.
interpretation of the resulting data and the writing of reports required by the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications is assigned to the Station Health Physicist. The inspector determined that the organization and assignments of responsibility apparantly afford management control equal to that of the previous program.
b.
Sections 6.1.3.4(a) and 6.1.3.5(a) and (d) provide for audits under the Technical Specifications. The inspector reviewed the results of licensee audit number 0-579-11 of March 15-23, 1979 dealing with the radiological environmental monitoring program. The audit apparently provided a method of identifying deficiencies, procedure for recording the results of the audits and followup on deficiencies and provision for reporting results of audits to supervision and management. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
6.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program Environmental Technical Specification 4.11.1, Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 provide requirements for types of sample media, sampling locations and monitoring frequencies. The inspector inspected all of the air particulate and charcoal filter sampling stations with attendant TLDs and numerous other solely TLD stations.
In addition, the inspector examined the raw and finished water sampling stations, surface water sampling areas, all the rain and settled dust stations and the meteorological tower. At one sampling station (009, Microwave tower, Six Mile) the air particulate filter was observed to be damaged. The filter was replaced the same day without loss of signficant sampling data. Other sampling stations appeared to be func-tioning normally and were in satisfactory repair. Analysis of the results of the TLD monitoring stations showed that during some sampling times the measured doses at two stations showed increases of two and three hundred percent while three other stations showed decreases of three and four hundred percent for the same periods. Futher analysis indicated that these numbers by themselves were not signficant but appeared unusual because of the lack of adequate trend analysis. A licensee representative during the exit interview agreed to a commitment to perform a trend analysis relative to results at TLD stations.
In addition, it was noted by the inspector _
that the G-M meter readings taken at the TLD stations appeared to be too insensitive.
It was suggested that a scintillation or equivalent type sensitive detector be utilized in the future. A licensee representative informed the inspector that some of the TLD boxes which had deteriorated from weather would be replaced. Through the inspection of monitoring stations for various environmental media, review of the annual environmental monitoring report and laboratory sample analysis results, the inspector determined that the requirements of ETS 4.11.1 apparently have been met in
_the implementation of the program. Missed samples were minimal and apparently caused by reasons beyond the licensee's control such as non-ava,ilability of sample, temporary malfunction of equipment and vandalism,.which are accom-modated by the ETS.
.
.