IR 05000269/1986007

Insp Repts 50-269/86-07,50-270/86-07 & 50-287/86-07 on 860317-0512.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Low Level Radwaste Burial Site & Startup Review of Low Level Radwaste Incinerator

ML20198J199
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/15/1986
From:	Kuzo G, Stoddart P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198J197	List: IR 05000269/1986007 ML20198J193
References
50-269-86-07, 50-270-86-07, 50-287-86-07, IEIN-84-22, NUDOCS 8606020319
Download: ML20198J199 (8)

Text

1

,_

p Lic UNITED STATES oq'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

"

[\. p REGION 11 g j 101 MARIETTA STREET, *' 's ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323

%

'N . . . #'$ MAY 151906 Report Nos.: 50-269/86-07, 50-270/86-07, and 50-287/86-07 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 ,

Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and OPR-55 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: March 17 - May 12, 1986 Inspector: Oby 6 kne l { M % S'.

G. B. K 6% ~Date Signed Approved by: v P. G. StoddartTActing Sec' tion Chief MM 4 Date Signed Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This special, unannounced inspection concerned the low level radwaste burial site, startup review of the low level radwaste incinerator, and review of previously identified inspector followup item Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

(

!

I f

8606020319 860515 PDR ADOCK 05000269 O PDR

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

T

REPORT DETAILS

. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager

• • • C. T. Yongue, Station Health Physicist

• M. D. Thorne, Health Physicist

• C. L. Harlin, Health Physicist

• • • S. A. Coy, Associate Health Physicist

• • • D. J. Berkshire, Associate Health Physicist

• J. J. Sevic, Plant Chemist

• S. Spear, Health Physicist

• K. George, Rad Waste Superintendent

• R. W. Elliot, Health Physicist

• T. C. Matthews, Compliance, Technical Specialist G. Davenport, Performance Engineer S. L. Morgan, Health Physics Supervisor

• R. P. Todd, Performance Test Engineer L. S. Hawthorne, Performance Assistant Engineer D. Hubbard, Nuclear Technical Services B. Loftis, Assistant Engineer, I&E T. D. Curtis, Shift Engineer D. Sweigart, Support Operations Engineer

H. Lowery, Shif t Operating Engineer C. Lan, Associate Health Physicist, Corporate

• • M. L. Birch, System Engineer, Corporate

"*L. Lewis, Health Physics, Corporate Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians,

!. operators, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector

• C. Bryant

• Attended exit interview March 21, 1986

.

• • Attended teleconference exit interview May 12, 1986

• • • Attended exit interviews March 21 and May 12, 1986 Exit Interview

'

The inspection scope, findings, and status of inspector followup items were summarized on March 21, 1986, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector discussed concerns regarding radiation surveys of the low-level radioactive waste burial ground (Paragraph 4). The inspector requested all additional records and procedures regarding pre- and post-burial surveys of the onsite waste burial are Licensee

- . - - . . , - , - - _ . - . _ . - - - ., . . - - _ . . ,

._

.

.

representatives agreed to send all the documentation to the NRC Region II office for revie In addition the inspector discussed procedure development regarding the incinerator facility (Paragraph 5) and close out of inspector followup items (Paragraph 6). Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comment During a telephone conference on May 12, 1986, between NRC Region II personnel and cognizant Duke Power Co. representatives, the inspector discussed environmental monitoring of the Oconee Nuclear Station contaminated waste burial area to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 190 requirements. Licensee representatives agreed to conduct periodic gamma spectroscopy analysis of soil and vegetation samples of the waste burial are The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the ' inspectio . Low Level Radioactive Waste Burial Site (92706)

By letters dated May 29, and September 18, 1984, Duke Power Company (DPC)

requested from NRC, NRR pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203 permission to bury low level radioactive wastes on company property 1.e. , sandblasting decontamin-ation media and five pressure feedwater heaters. Estimated total volumes of the contaminated decontamination media and feedwater heaters were 400 ft3 and 4,525 ft3, respectively. Major radioactive contaminants were identified as Mn-54, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137. Average nuclide concentrations for the decontamination media ranged from 6.34 E-1 pCi/g (Mn-54) to 3.65 E-1 pCi/g (Cs-13 Contamination levels for the heaters were <200 dpm/100 cm (external) and 200-10500 dpm/cm (internal). Burial was to be in the owner-controlled area and would be conducted following station HP procedures and directives. The contaminated material would be placed in seven - 12 f deep trenches and covered with a three foot layer of uncontaminated soi Total waste volumes and inventories were to be documented and the total accumulated doses periodically evaluated. Estimated whole body dose rates for continuous occupancy was estimated to be 0.26 and 0.13 mrem / year continuous occupancy from the decontamination and heater material respectivel The NRC retains jurisdiction only over interim storage and handling of radioactive waste at the licensee's site and thus, the proper state agency approval was necessary for final disposal. Permission for site disposal of the wastes was granted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control in letters dated August 14 and October 23, 198 By letter dated January 14, 1986, DPC notified the South Carolina Bureau of Radiological Health that burial of the contaminated materials had been completed during the period of December 12-23, 1985. The licensee reported .-

-

. _ . _

_ _ _ - - . _ - - _ - .-

- ._ .- ._ - . _ _ _ - . .-

I '

>

i

no significant increase in. background dose rates relative to pre-disposal survey result The inspector noted that pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302(a), the licensee's application . stated that administrative procedures will be established to determine and document the total weight, qualitative radioactive analyses, and periodic cumulative dose. The inspector reviewed qualitative gamma spectroscopy analyses of the contaminated materials and discussed the results and calculated dose assessments with cognizant licensee representatives. The inspector noted that contamination measurements were conducted using approved plant procedures. In addition, the inspector noted that the station Health Physics Manual Section 5.5, Enclosures 4.4 and ,

require quarterly instrument surveys of burial locations as specified in Procedure HP/0/B/1000/5 Following review of HP/0/8/1000/54, Plant Radiological Status, Rev. 12, 3/14/85, the inspector noted that details for

'

conducting appropriate burial site surveys were not included in the current procedur Licensee representatives informed the inspector that the referenced procedure had not been approved at the time of the inspectio The inspector questioned whether this procedure should have been in place to conduct pre-burial survey Licensee representatives stated - that the initial pre- and post-burial procedures were conducted following station directives and Special Radiation Work Permits (SRWP). The inspector reviewed all relevant procedures and SRWPs used for burial and surveys of the contaminated materials. All surveys were conducted using approved procedures. The inspector noted that general area surveys of the burial site were not conducted prior to burial. Licensee representatives stated that nearby TLDs used in the routine environmental monitoring program provided adequate pre-burial dose estimates to be used in comparing pre- and post-burial dose rates.

i During a telephone conference on May 12, 1986, the inspector discussed environmental monitoring of the burial area with cognizant licensee representative Licensee representatives stated that the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) environmental monitoring program should ensure that the buried contaminated material remains in plac The inspector noted that the original ONS environmental program was designed and implemented to monitor for normal plant effluent releases and thus additional monitoring should be provided for the burial sit Furthermore, the burial site represents a 1 potential dose contribution to the offsite area and an appropriate survey / monitoring program should be implemented to demonstrate compliance

'

with 40 CFR 190 limit Licensee representatives acknowledged' the inspector's comments and stated that they would evaluate the need for additional environmental monitoring of this are The inspector informed licensee representatives that their evaluation and actions would be

-

considered an inspector followup item (50-269/86-07-01, 50-270/86-07-01, 50-287/86-07-01).

No violations or deviations were identified.

!

i i

i I

m , - . - , , _ - - , ..-m--,,-,.--,,-,_,,... .- ,-m . - , , , . , _ , _ _ - - , . . . . , _ . _ , , , , . , . - - - - - - - , , - _ - - . , ~ _

.

5. Low' Level Radioactive Waste Incinerator (84522)

By letter dated June 10, 1985, DPC requested approval to operate a low level radioactive waste incinerator at the Oconee Nuclear Statio The incinerator is being installed as part of a comprehensive low level radioactive waste processing facilit The incinerator is described in detail in Aerojet Energy Conversion Company (AECC) Topical Report No. AECC-3-P. The purpose of the incinerator is to reduce the volume of low level wastes prior to disposal. Products produced by the system include vapors and gases and a free flowing mixture of salt granules and ash. Gases and vapors will be processed through scrubber and filter systems prior to discharge to atmosphere. Salt granules and ash will be solidified and packaged prior to approved disposa The incinerator will receive contaminated wastes from the trash storage hopper, the contaminated oil skid, and the resin batch tank. ' Based on recent ONS operating experience for nuclide types and quantities, and on conservative design base decontamination factors for particulate and iodine removal efficiencies, the calculated maximum individual annual offsite doses for a limiting routine release case were 6.3 mrem / year total body and 18.6 mrem / year maximum organ dose (infant thyroid). There will be no liquid effluents released as a direct result of the incinerator syste The inspector toured and discussed operation of the radwaste facility with cognizant licensee representative Following discussions with licensee

<

representatives, the inspector noted that gaseous sampling lines within the facility were constructed using copper materials. However, the licensee stated that prior to operation, the copper sample lines, which would increase iodine plate-out, would be replace The inspector noted that instrumentation in the radiochemistry laboratory had not been installe Licensee representatives stated that measurement equipment to be installed included a liquid scintillation counter, a low background automatic proportional counter, and a gamma spectroscopy system for counting effluent and resin sample geometries. The licensee informed the inspector that extensive evaluation regarding calibration of the resin counting geometry was in progress. The inspector questioned what precautions the licensee planned to implement for counting resin samples in a laboratory where low

.

level effluent samples were to be processed and counte Licensee representatives noted that resins would be counted in a separate area of the laboratory and only when low level process and effluent samples were not being counte The inspector discussed process ventilation systems for the radwaste facility. Two major systems within the radwaste facility are the Tank Vent System and the Incinerator Off-Gas System. Cognizant licensee represen-

'

tatives detailed that the tank vent system would be operated and tested according to the applicable ANSI standards. Proposed normal operational inspection and testing will include visual inspection, air flow capacity and distribution tests, leak tests and adsorber residence tim Licensee representatives stated that evaluation of testing requirements needed for the off gas ventilation system to meet the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.140,

- . . __ - - , --. _ _ - _ ,- - - - _ _ - . -_ -

.

6

" Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Normal Ventilation Exhaust System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-water-cooled Nuclear Power Plants," was in progres <

The inspector discussed the licensee's response to specific incinerator off gas ventilation system operating and testing issues as detailed in an October 25, 1985, letter from H. B. Tucker, DPC, to H. R. Denton, NRR. NR In particular, the inspector discussed the following specific areas of the response: The assumptions that airflow distribution and air-aerosol mixing are acceptable to perform an initial acceptance test of the system should be supported by dat Monitoring of daily releases for activity does not assure that the exhaust gas filter system is operating properly. The indicated levels of effluents within TS limits may only be the result of effluents from extremely low level wastes being processe In the event that the system is not functioning properly, input of higher level material could result in elevated releases. Thus, the exhaust gas filter system should be shown to meet its intended function both prior to startup of the system and periodically during routine operatio The charcoal adsorber material should be tested for iodine retention efficiency at the system design temperatures, i.e., approximately 210 Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments and stated that all questions and concerns would be evaluated prior to operation of the syste The inspector noted that the licensee did not have approved procedures for use in the counting laboratory or for operation and testing of the ventilation systems. Licensee representatives stated that procedures were being developed for the referenced areas. The inspector informed licensee representatives that all procedures prepared for use in the facility should be approved and implemented prior to startup of the syste The licensee was informed that action regarding proceduro development for the counting laboratory and testing and operation of the ventilation system would be considered an inpsector followup item and would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-269/86-07-02, 50-270/86-07-02, 50-287/86-07-02).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Inspector Followup Items (IFI)(92701)

(Closed) IFI 50-269/84-18-02, 50-270/84-17-02, and 50-287/84-15-02:

Licensee Action Regarding IE Notice 84-22, Containment Monitor Catalyst Bed *

,

Deficienc Following discussion with cognizant licensee representatives and review of NSM records, the inspector noted that corrective action, f

,e,- , , . . , . . . -,, - - - , . - . - - -- ,..-,4 ,..,-.-.-.,,.-,g -

n-- - - - ..,..~. *

,

1.e., changeout of the deficient catalyst bed, had been completed and QA reviewed by cognizant licensee personnel prior to July 1985 for all unit (Closed) IFI 50-269/84-19-03, 50-270/84-18-03, and 50-287/84-20-03:

Evaluation of ONS Environmental Sampling Program. The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions regarding this item. A corporate audit of the ONS environmental procedures and sampling program was conducted in March 198 The environmental monitoring program was considered adequate; however, selected deficiencies were identified. The inspector reviewed licensee's corrective actions regarding the identified deficiencies in the audit and noted that corrective action was complete or in the process of being completed. The inspector informed licensee representatives that this item was considered closed; however, detailed review of the environmental program would be continued during subsequent inspection (Closed) IFI 50-269/84-19-04, 50-270/84-18-04, and 50-289/84-20-04:

Evaluation of Dose Assessment for Multiple Environmental Pathway The inspector reviewed the licensee's dose calculations for selected above-background concentrations of cesium nuclides in fish and additional environmental pathways near the Oconee Nuclear Plant. The inspector noted that dose calculations were conducted for ingestion and direct shoreline radiation pathways. The inspector noted that an evaluation of doses from normal plant radwaste gaseous releases in addition to the previously mentioned pathways was needed to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 190 dose limits. A cognizant licensee representative acknewledged the inspector's comments and agreed to complete the evaluatio For administrative purposes, this item is considered closed and will be followed as a current inspector followup item (50-269/86-07-03, 50-270/86-07-03, 50-287/86-07-03).

(Closed) IFI 50-269/84-30-03, 50-270/84-29-03, and 50-289/84-32-03:

Evaluation of Gas Flow Proportional Counting System High Background Problems. The inspector discussed this issue with cognizant Duke Power Corporate support and site licensee personnel. The licensee has initiated a program (1) to define and evaluate drift problems associated with the low background proportional alpha-beta counters, (2) to correct any identified deficiencies in equipment electronics and detector counting gas, and (3) to realistically define QC control charts using both the instrument and counting standard deviation Licensee actions regarding this item were detailed in a memorandum, " Meeting Regarding Instability of Tennelec LB-5100 Efficiency," dated January 30, 198 The inspector considered the licensee's actions adequat (Closed) IFI 50-269/85-18-01, 50-270/85-18-01, 50-289/85-18-01: Development of Adequate Maintenance Program for Effluent Monitor The inspector discussed corrective actions regarding this issue with cognizant licensee personne Three tracking systems are utilized by cognizant licensee representatives to periodically review the status of the effluent monitor system The inspector reviewed both the " Outstanding RIA Corrective Maintenance Work Requests" and the " Compliance Notification Form" and noted that use of these tracking systems regarding monitor status were initiated in October 1985. In addition, the inspector noted that cognizant licensee

. - . _ . - - - -- - ._ . _ _ _ _

. -. -, -

'

-

..

personnel maintained an " Equipment History Log" for individual RIAs. All records reviewed were current and no deficiencies were identifie No violations or deviations were identifie _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _