IR 05000269/1981023
| ML15224A500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Hosey C, Jonathon Puckett NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A493 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-81-23, 50-270-81-23, 50-287-81-23, NUDOCS 8201270704 | |
| Download: ML15224A500 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-269/81-23, 50-270/81-23 and 50-287/81-23 Licensee:
Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 2178 Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name:
Oconee Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. OPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Inspection at Oc nee facility n ar Seneca, SC Inspector:
/
/X{
.Puckett e Si ned Approved by:
M. Hosey, Acting Section Chief Lte gd Technical Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on October 5-9, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 58 inspector-hours on site in the areas of radiation protection personnel selection, exposure controls, facility and equipment, effluent sampling, and H.P. job coverag Results Of the 6 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in 4 areas; 3 violations of NRC requirements were found in 2 areas (inadequate surveys and failure to follow approved procedures).
8201270704 820112 PDR ADOCK 05000269
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. Ed Smith, Station Manager
- T. Owens, Technical Services Superintendent
- J. T. McIntosh, Supt. Administration
- D. S. Kellay, Licensing & Projects
- T. E. Kribbe, Licensing Engineer
- T. C. Matthews, Licensing Engineer
- R. A. Smith, Security
- John A. Binder, Contract Services
- M. W. Rampey
- C. Yongue, Station Health Physicist Other licensee employees contacted included 3 construction craftsmen,
technicians, 3 operators, and 2 mechanic NRC Resident Inspector
- W. T. Orders
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 9, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The three violations were acknowledged by the plant manage.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items An unresolved item is one about which more information is needed to deter mine whether a violation of Commission requirements has occurre Oconee Technical Specifications, Section 3.10.4 states that during release of radioactive gaseous waste from the gaseous waste tanks to the unit vent, the particulate monitor in the unit vent shall be operabl Also, Technical Specification 3.10.7 states that gases discharged through the unit vent shall be continuously monitored for particulate activity. When the particu late monitor is inoperable, appropriate grab samples shall be taken and analyzed dail Oconee Nuclear Station Directive (TS)
3.8.6, Radiation Monitor Responsi bilities, in section 2.2.3 states that although RIA-43 and RIA-47 are listed as Effluent Monitors, it has been determined that neither monitor can perform its designated functio It further states that both RIA-43 and RIA-47 are used as samplers and do not require annual correlatio In NRC inspection report 74-3 for the Oconee station, a violation for failure to perform the required grab sample when a particulate channel was inoperative was cited. In report 75-1, this item was closed because the licensee had agreed to perform grab samples as require The licensee formed a task force to examine the problems experienced with these monitors and the following decisions were made:
1) to utilize the continuous monitor as an alert device when releases were taking place by setting the alarm at an arbitrary point slightly above anticipated "normal" readings in order to provide notification of an abnormal condition; 2) to continue to perform daily grab samples in order to quantify particulate releases; 3) to discontinue attempts to correlate the monitor reading with measured concentrations because of sample contamination due to Noble gas and associated daughter product It is not clear whether a safety analysis was conducted with regard to this change in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 (items delineated by technical specification and affecting potential releases of radionuclides to the unrestricted are safety related).
Use of grab samples for an extended period oftime in lieu of the continuous monitoring required does not appear to meet the intent of the Technical Specification. This matter will be treated as an unresolved item pending further review of the Technical Specification requirements (269/270/287/
81-23-01). Effluent Sampling The inspector accompanied a technician and observed the changing of the auxiliary building and reactor containment vent sample The licensee has approved procedures defining the required frequency for sampling these effluent release points, however, no specific steps for sample change are outlined. The inspector discussed this topic with the Heath Physics super visor who stated that the specifics were within the "scope of the craft" and that the training and experience of technicians enabled them to perform this task without recourse to a step-by-step procedur The inspector observed the technician's work and found no apparent problems in this are The technique used was adequate to ensure no cross-contamination of samples and with one exception (discussed below) representativeness of sampling was ensure On October 7, 1981, the inspector observed a gasket to be missing from the sample apparatus on the Unit 3 vent. The filter paper intended to collect particulate matter was found to have been misaligned and permitted bypass flo Although the charcoal filter downstream of the particulate filter may
have had some collection efficiency for particulates, this factor is unquan tified and there was no assurance that the required sensitivity limit in Table 4.1.3 of the Technical Specifications could be obtaine This is a violation of Technical Specifications Table 4.1-3 (269/279/287/81-23-03).
While observing the sampling process, the inspector noted that tritium (H3 )
samples were not routinely obtained on the unit vents. At the inspector's request, tritium was sampled on the operating unit vent (Unit 3) and the subsequent analysis revealed concentrations which, when extrapolated to an annual discharge value, indicated the station's gaseous effluent annunal report required by technical specification 6.6-1 part II, was potentially incorrect (low) by a factor of 9. The calculations indicated that approxi mately 90 curies of tritium instead of the reported nine curies could have been released via all plant gaseous effluent pathway CFR 201(b) requires the licensee to make or cause to be made such surveys as may be necessary for him to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR part 2 (Survey means an evaluation of the radiation hazard incident to the release of radioactive materials under a specific set of condition When appropriate, such evaluation includes measurements of concentrations of radioactive material present).
Samples of the unit vent gaseous effluent flowpath to the unrestricted area were not routinely taken to determine the amount of Tritium released for the calendar year 1980 and the first nine months of calendar year 198 Also, the report required by Technical Specification Table 6.6-1 did not include the Unit vent contribution of Tritium released from the station and was potentially incorrect (low) by a factor of This is a violation of 10 CFR 20.201(b) (269/270/287/81-23-03). Facilities and Equipment The inspector noted that portable scaler, PS-1, number 104, had been used on October 6, 1981, to analyze a smear survey. This scaler had a calibration sticker attached indicating calibration was due on October 2, 198 The licensee is granted by Technical Specification a +/-25% allowance for cali bration date The licensee representative responsible for instrument calibration stated that a memo had been issued, and followed by telephonic message, that PS-1 n was to be withdrawn from service and calibrate These messages were delivered prior to October 2, 1981. Despite their efforts, the instru ment remained in us Technical Specification 6.4.1 states that the Station shall be operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures. Health Physics Procedure HP/0/B/1004/50, Calibration Procedure:
Eberline Models PS-1, PS-2 Portable Scalers Equipped with HP-210 probe, paragraph 3.0 Limits and Precautions, sub-paragraph 3.1 states that calibration of these instruments is to be performed on a quarterly basi Also, HP/0/B/1000/55, Instrument Monitoring
and Survey Procedure, Section 4.0, Procedure, sub-section 4.2.1 states that the instrument calibration due date must be checked prior to use and that instruments due for the calibration must be removed from service immedi atel The inspector stated that failure of the individual analyzing the smear survey to remove the instrument from service rather than check the cali bration sticker and/or using it, was a violation of Technical Specifications 6.4.1 (269/270/287/81-23-04). Other Areas Inspected In the presence of a licensee Health Physics representative, the inspector questioned a maintenance worker concerning the adequacy of information provided radiation workers persuant to 10 CFR 19.12 "instructions to Workers." The amount and character of information relevant to the specific task was determined by the inspector to be accurate, complete, and adequate for the protection of the worker and if properly used would enable the worker to maintain his exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The inspector commented on this aspect of radiation protection at the exit interview at the conclusion of the inspectio He stated, that he was impressed by the knowledge of the randomly selected worker and the plant manager acknowledged this commen The inspector examined the qualifications of all contract HP technician and compared them to ANSI N-18.1, 1971 for adequacy. The inspector interviewed four such technicians to verify the accuracy of information supplied by the contractor. All technicians working at the facility were determined to meet the minimum requirement The inspector observed the routine operation of the health physics RWP (Radiation Work Permit)
issue offic Workers performing this function appeared properly aware of plant radiological conditions, performed surveys appropriately, and RWP requirements appeared correct and adequate to protect the workers.