IR 05000269/1991004

Insp Repts 50-269/91-04,50-270/91-04 & 50-287/91-04 on 910225-0301.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Areas of Liquid & Gaseous Effluents & Followup on Previously Identified Items

ML15224A768
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	03/28/1991
From:	Decker T, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML15224A767	List: IR 05000269/1991004 ML15224A765
References
50-269-91-04, 50-269-91-4, 50-270-91-04, 50-270-91-4, 50-287-91-04, 50-287-91-4, NUDOCS 9104100250
Download: ML15224A768 (8)

Text

ty RLGU UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

.

APR 01 1991 Report Nos.:

50-269/91-04, 50-270/91-04, and 50-287/91-04 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and and 50-287 DPR-55 Facility Name:

Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted:

February 25 - March 1, 1991 Inspector: z( O

/

D. nes ate Signed Accompanying Personnel: T. R. Decker Approved by:

..

,

T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of liquid and gaseous effluents and followup on previously identified item Results:

In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identifie The licensee had maintained an adequate program to monitor and control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The projected offsite doses resulting from those effluents were well within the limits specified in 10 CFR.50, Appendix I (Paragraph 4).

The Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW)

radiation monitors for Units 1 and 2 (1RIA-35 and 2RIA-35) remained inoperable (Paragraph 3).

The licensee had completed installation of new Post Accident Liquid Sampling (PALS) systems on Units 1 and 2. The new PALS systems have been brought to operational status for all three units (Paragraph 7).

91104100250 910401 R

A C

000269 PDR

REPORT DETAILS 1. Persons-Contacted Licensee Employees

.*H. Barron, Station Manager

• T. Curtis, Manager, Compliance

• W. Elliott, Scientist, Chemistry P. Grant, Shift Supervisor, Radiation Protection

• 0. Kohler, Supervisor, Compliance E. Lampe, Scientist, Radiation Protection C. Mcllwain, General Supervisor, Chemistry

• B. Norris, Engineer, Chemistry

• S. Perry, Clerk, Compliance J. Sevic, Manager, Chemistry

• M. Thorne, General Supervisor, Radiation Protection E. Wehrman, Scientist, Radiation Protection

• C. Yongue, Manager, Radiation Protection Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• T. Decker, Chief,Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section B. Desai, Resident Inspector K. Poertner, Resident Inspector

. Skinner, Senior Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview on February 28, 1991 2. Changes in Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Control Program (84750)

Pursuant to Generic Letter 89-01, the licensee submitted a license amendment request to relocate procedural details of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) from the Technical Specifications (TS)

to Chapter 16 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The amendment request also included provisions for revising the TSs to incorporate the programmatic controls for radiological effluents and radiological monitoring into the Administrative Controls section of the TS The amendment request was dated February 7, 1990, and supplemented May 7, 199 The amendment request was approved by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on January 22, 199 No violations or deviations were identifie. Process and Effluent Radiation Monitors (84750)

Sections 16.11-3 and 16.11-4 of the FSAR described the operational and surveillance requirements for the radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentatio The inspector was accompanied by a licensee representative on a tour of selected areas of the Hot Machine Shop, Interim Radwaste Building, Radwaste Building, and Units 1, 2, and Sixteen sampling and/or monitoring, stations located in those facilities were examined and it was determined that either the monitors were operable or grab samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with. the pertinent sections of the FSA The Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW)

monitors for Units 1 and 2 (1RIA-35 and 2RIA-35)

continued to be inoperable due to clogged sample line The Semiannual Effluent Reports submitted since 1986 have consistently reported that the LPSW monitors for all three units were inoperabl The licensee indicated that the LPSW monitor for Unit 3 (3RIA-35)

was now operable and the modifications for Units 1 and 2 were expected to be completed during this year (1991).

No violations or deviations were identifie.

Radiological Effluent Controls (84750) Radioactive Liquid Effluents Section 16.11-1 of the FSAR established the conditions for the controlled release of radioactive liquid effluent Limits were established for the concentration of radioactive material in the liquid effluents, the dose to members of the public from the radioactive material in liquid effluents, and quantities of radioactive material in the Chemical Treatment Ponds. The inspector reviewed procedures CP/0/B/5200/45 "Liquid Waste Release From RWF" and CP/0/B/5200/48 "Resin Recovery System Operation" and determined that the conditions for releasing radioactive liquid effluents were adequately addresse The inspector also reviewed the licensee's documentation for four liquid releases made during February 1991, three of which were from waste monitor tanks and one from the resin recovery syste From that review the inspector determined the following:

the concentrations of radionuclides in the diluted effluents were well below the limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B; the calculated doses from the releases were well below the limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I; and the quantities of radioactive material in the Chemical Treatment Ponds were less than the inventory limits specified in the FSA b. Radioactive Gaseous Effluents Section 16.11-2 of the FSAR established the conditions for the controlled release of radioactive gaseous effluent Limits were established for the dose rate and dose resulting from the release of radioactive materials in gaseous effluent The inspector reviewed procedure HP/0/B/1000/60/B "Reactor Containment Building Sampling and

Release Rate Determination for Gaseous Purge" and determined that the conditions for releasing radioactive gaseous effluents were adequately addresse The inspector also reviewed the licensee's documentation for four gaseous releases made during February 1991, three of which were from gas decay tanks and one from the Unit 3 Reactor Building Containment Purge Syste From that review the inspector determined that the calculated doses from the releases were less than one percent of the limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix No violations or deviations were identifie. Radiometric Analysis of Reactor Coolant (84750)

TS 4.1.3 describes the sampling frequency and type of surveillances required for reactor coolant. As part of the reactor coolant surveillance the licensee routinely. determines the Dose Equivalent Iodine (DEI)

on a daily basi The licensee provided the inspector with a listing of the DEI evaluations performed for all three units between June 1990 and February 199 A review of that data indicated that during that period the DEI was typically less.than 0.02 uCi/ml for Unit 1, and 0.1 uCi/ml for Units 2 and 3. These data would tend to indicate that the integrity of the fuel cladding had been maintaine No violations o.r deviations were identifie.

Confirmatory Measurements (84750)

10 CFR 20.201(b) requires the licensee to perform surveys as necessary to evaluate the extent of radiation hazard In an effort to evaluate the licensee's analytical capabilities, the licensee was provided with spiked liquid samples for analysis pursuant to the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program. The licensee was requested to analyze the -samples for tritium, iron-55, strontium-89, and strontium-9 The analytical results were provided to the inspector during this inspection. Attachment 1 provides a comparison of the licensee's analytical results to the prepared activity levels for each isotope. Attachment 2 provides the criteria for assessing the agreement between the licensee's analytical results and the prepared concentration As indicated in Attachment 1, the licensee's analytical results were not in agreement with the prepared concentrations for tritium, strontium-89, and strontium-9 This issue will be further discussed with the licensee during subsequent inspection No violations or deviations were identifie. Followup on Inspector Identified Items (92701)

(Closed)

Inspector Followup Item 50-269,270,287/89-13-01:

Installation and performance testing of new Post Accident Liquid Sampling (PALS)

Systems for Units 1 and During the inspection conducted on May 8-11, 1989, the licensee indicated that they planned to install new PALS systems for Units 1 and 2 during 198 During this inspection the inspector reviewed procedure CP/1/A/2002/04D "Test Procedure for Operation of the Post Accident Liquid Sampling System" and determined that the program requirements specified in TS 6.4.4 were adequately addresse (TS 6.4.4 requires the licensee to have a program that ensures the capability to obtain and analyze reactor coolant and containment atmosphere samples under accident conditions).

The procedure included provisions for quarterly performance testing of the systems and delineated the acceptance criteria for each attribute required to be teste The inspector also reviewed the results of performance-tests conducted during 1990 and found that the acceptance criteria had been met. This item is considered close.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 28, 1991, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio The licensee had maintained an adequate program to monitor and control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluent The projected offsite doses resulting from those effluents were well within the limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I (Paragraph 4).

The LPSW radiation monitors for Units 1 and 2 (1RIA-35 and 2RIA-35)

remained inoperable (Paragraph 3).

The licensee had completed installation of new PALS systems on Units 1 and 2 and the systems had been brought to operational status for all three unit The Inspector Followup Item concerning this issue was closed (Paragraph 7).

During the inspection conducted.on May 8-11, 1989, the licensee indicated that they planned to install new PALS systems for Units 1 and 2 during 198 During this inspection the inspector reviewed procedure CP/1/A/2002/04D "Test Procedure for Operation of the Post Accident Liquid Sampling System" and determined that the program requirements specified in TS 6.4.4 were adequately addresse (TS 6.4.4 requires the licensee to have a program that ensures the capability to obtain and analyze reactor coolant and containment atmosphere samples under accident conditions).

The procedure included provisions for quarterly performance testing of the systems and delineated the acceptance criteria for each attribute required to be teste The inspector also reviewed the results of performance tests conducted during 1990 and found that the acceptance criteria had been met. This item is considered close.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 28, 1991, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio The licensee had maintained an adequate program to monitor and control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluent The projected offsite doses resulting from those effluents were well within the limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I (Paragraph 4).

The LPSW radiation monitors for Units 1 and 2 (1RIA-35 and 2RIA-35)

remained inoperable (Paragraph 3).

The licensee had completed installation of new PALS systems on Units 1 and 2 and the systems had been brought to operational status for all three unit The Inspector Followup Item concerning this issue was closed (Paragraph 7).

ATTACHMENT 1 CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS OF H-3, Fe-55, Sr-89, AND Sr-90 ANALYSES FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT REPORTED ON DECEMBER 27, 1990 NRC Licensee Ratio Isotope (uCi/ml)

(uCi/ml)

Resolution (Licensee/NRC)

Comparison H-3 3.45+/-0.14 E-5 9.03E-04

26.17 Disagreement Fe-55 4.16+/-0.17 E-5 3.64E-05

0.88 Agreement Sr-89 6.35+/-0.25 E-5 4.44E-05

0.70 Disagreement Sr-90 3.73+/-0.15 E-6 2.76E-06

0.74 Disagreement

ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment.provides criteria for the comparison of results of analytical radioactivity measurement These criteria are based on empirical relationships which combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity analyses, the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive emission, and the accuracy needs of this progra In these criteria, the "Comparison Ratio Limits"'

denoting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variabl This variability is a, function of the ratio of the NRC's analytical value relative to its associated statistical and analytical uncertainty, referred to in this program as "Resolution"'.

For comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and the NRC's analytical value is computed for each radionuclide present in a given sample. The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement based on "Resolution."

The corresponding values for "Resolution" and the

"Comparison Ratio Limits" are listed in the Table belo Ratio values which are either above or below the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in agreemen TABLE NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolution vs. Comparison Ratio Limits Comparison Ratio Limits Resolution for Agreement

<4 0.4 -.5 -.6 -

1.66 16 -

0.75 -

1.33 51 -

200 0.80 -

1.25

>200 0.85 -

1.18

'Comparison Ratio = Licensee Value NRC Reference Value

'Resolution NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty