IR 05000269/1991027
| ML16148A571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1991 |
| From: | Decker T, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16148A572 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-91-27, 50-270-91-27, 50-287-91-27, NUDOCS 9111200044 | |
| Download: ML16148A571 (13) | |
Text
p REG(,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION il 101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-269/91-27, 50-270/91-27, and 50-287/91-27 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: September 9-13, 1991 Inspector:
,
/____/
D. nes Date Signed Approved by:'
A-T. R. Decker, Chief Date Aigned 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 Control Room air filtration systems and confirmatory measurement Results:
The licensee had complied with the operational and surveillance requirements for the control room pressurization and air filtering syste The licensee demonstrated adequate capability to.quantify radionuclide concentrations in various matrices normally encountered in nuclear power plant operation No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK' 05000269 G
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees M. Broyles, Nuclear Production Engineer, Performance
- J. Davis, Superintendent, Technical Services
- B. Dolan, Site Office Manager, Design
- 0. Kohler, Licensing Coordinator, Compliance M. Patrick, Supervisor, Performance S. Perry, Licensing Coordinator, Compliance
- W. Pursley, Assistant Scientist, Radiation Protection
- D.'Robinson, Shift Supervisor, Radiation Protection
- R. Rogers, Manager, Station services
- M. Thorne, General Supervisor, Radiation Protection Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission B. Desai, Resident Inspector K. Poertner, Resident Inspector P. Harmon, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit intervie.
Control Room Pressurization and Air Filtration Systems (84750)
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.15 and 4.12 described the operational and surveillance requirements for the control room pressurization and air filtering systems. The common control room for Units 1 and 2 and the Unit 3 control room each had a dedicated pressurization and air filtering system. Each system had two separate trains which included outside air booster fans with prefilters, HEPA filters and activated charcoal filters. When the reactors were above hot shutdown conditions the systems were required to be capable of maintaining a positive pressure within the control room, and both outside air booster fans and both filter trains within a system were required to be operable. operability tests of the systems were required to be performed quarterly. The operability tests included external visual*
inspection, air flow measurements, pressure drop measurements across the filters, one hour operation of the fans,.and functional testing of all louvers. on a refueling frequency, the licensee was required to demonstrate that the systems could maintain a positive pressure in the control rooms and to perform leak tests on the HEPA filters and the charcoal filters. The leak testing media were specified as DOP for the HEPA filters and freon for the charcoal filter The inspector noted that TS 4.12 did not include a requirement for an iodine removal test of the charcoal as was required by TS 4.5.3.1 e for the penetration room ventilation system. During discussion of this issue with the licensee, the licensee indicated that an iodine removal test would be added to TS 4.12 the next time the TSs were update The inspector toured the plant areas in which the Units 1 and 2 control room and the Unit 3 control room pressurization and air filtering systems were located. The licensee's cognizant system engineer located and identified, for the inspector, the major components of the systems, including the fans, filter banks, dampers, and the associated ductwork from the air intakes to the control room air conditioning systems. The components were well maintained and no physical deterioration of the ductwork sealants was observed on either syste The inspector reviewed the following procedures and determined that they included provisions for performing the above operability and performance tests at the required frequencies:
No. PT/O/A/0110/05A
"Control Room Filter System Test" No. PT/O/A/0110/15
"Control Room Pressurization" No. PT/O/A/0170/03
"Control Room Filtering System
-
Operational Test" The inspector also reviewed the results of the following tests and determined that the tests were being performed at the required frequencies:
Procedure N Control Room Date Performed PT/O/A/0010/05A Units 1 & 2 10/ 8/87 3/ 9/89 3/10/89 9/5-10/90 Unit 3 7/21-26/88 11/ 6/89 11/18/89 11/21/89 11/20,21/89 12/18/8 /30/91 2/ 5/91
Procedure N Control Room Date Performed PT/O/A/0110/15 Units 1 & 2 5/20/90 9/ 6/91 Unit 3 11/20/90 3/17/91 3/18/91 3/21/91 PT/O/A/01710/03 Units 1 & 2 7/ 9/91 7/11/91 9/ 9/91 Unit 3 1/30/91 3/18/01 3/20/91 7/ 1/91 Generally the test results indicated that the equipment either met the acceptance criteria or was repaired and restored to operable status within the allotted time specified in the TS. The inspector noted that there were two instances in which the charcoal filters in the Unit 3 system failed to pass leak tests. The licensee's records indicated that the failures were caused by excessive moisture in the filters and that the presence of the moisture was a result of the weather conditions at the time the tests were performed, either rain or high humidity. In one case the corrective action was to replace the charcoal, after which the filters were tested and found to be acceptable. In the other case the corrective action was to retest after weather conditions improved. The results of the retest were acceptable. The inspector discussed this issue with the licensee and the licensee indicated that the moisture interfered with adsorption and release processes between the freon and the carbon. The licensee also indicated the initial tests were considered to be invalid, due to the presence of the moisture, and that the acceptable results of the retests demonstrated that the filters had not been leakin Based on the above reviews and discussions, it was concluded that the licensee had complied with the operational and surveillance TSs for the control room pressurization and air filtering syste No violations or deviations were identifie.
Confirmatory Measurements (84750)
10 CFR 20.201 (b) required the licensee to perform surveys as necessary to evaluate the extent of radiation hazard In an effort to evaluate the licensee's analytical capabilities, samples of reactor coolant, liquid radwaste, and containment atmosphere were collected and analyzed for radionuclide concentrations by the licensee and the NRC Region II mobile laboratory..A simulated particulate filter was prepared by spiking a filter with reactor coolant. The licensee was also provided with a spiked charcoal cartridge for analysis. Each of the above samples were analyzed by the licensee's five currently operational gamma spectroscopic systems and the results were compared to the results obtained by the mobile laboratory. The purpose of these measurement comparisons was to verify the licensee's capability to accurately detect and identify gamma emitting radionuclides and to quantify their concentration Attachment 1 provides a comparison of the licensee's results to the NRC's results for each sample. Attachment 2 provides the criteria for assessing the agreement between the analytical result As indicated in Attachment 1, the results for reactor coolant were in agreement except for 1-134 on detector # The sample used for these comparisons was taken from Unit 3 and the licensee indicated that analysis of Unit 3 reactor was routinely performed on detector #5. A second sample of Unit 3 reactor coolant was taken and analyzed on detectors
- 3 and #5 for 1-134 and those results were in agreement. The results for the liquid radwaste and containment atmosphere samples were in agreement for all of the radionuclides compared. The particulate filter was spiked with reactor coolant in order to assure that activity would be present on the filter used for comparative analysis. The licensee indicated that the activity level on the spiked.filter was much higher than the activity normally found on particulate filters and that the higher activity introduced interferences into the resolution of key energy peaks for some of the radionuclides. The interferences were the most probable cause of the four disagreements observed in the 25 comparisons made for the particulate filter. Forty comparisons were made for the charcoal cartridge and only one disagreement was observed. The ratio of the analytical results for that radionuclide exceeded the acceptanc criteria by less than one percent. In general, there was very good agreement between the licensee's and the NRC's analytical result Based on the above comparisons, it was concluded that the
licensee had demonstrated adequate capability to quantify radionuclide concentrations in various matrices normally encountered in nuclear power plant operation No violations or deviations were identifie.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 12, 1991, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the results listed above. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to the inspector during this inspectio ATTACHMENT 1 COMPARISON OF NRC AND OCONEE ANALYTICAL RESULTS September 9-12, 1991 Type of Sample: Reactor Coolant Sample Container:
NRC 50 ml bottle Oconee 50 ml bottle (different geometry)
Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #1 1-131 1.45E-2 (1.30 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.12 Agree 1-134 1.18E-1 (1.47 +/- 0.02)E-1
0.80 Agree Cs-137 1.71E-2 (1.80 +/- 0.03)E-2
0.95 Agree Detector #2 NOT IN SERVICE Detector #3 1-131 1.31E-2 (1.30 +1- 0.05)E-2
1.01 Agree 1-134 8.11E-2 (1.47 +/- 0.02)E-1
0.55 Disagree Cs-137 1.62E-2 (1.80 +/- 0.03)E-2
0.90 Agree Detector #4 1-131 1.34E-2 (1.30 +/-
0.05)E-2
1.03 Agree 1-134 1.53E-1 (1.47 +/- 0.02)E-1
1.04 Agree Cs-137 1.72E-2 (1.80 +/- 0.03)E-2
0.96 Agree Detector #5 1-131 1.37E-2 (1.30 +/-.0.05)E-2
1.05 Agree 1-134 1.35E-1 (1.47 +/-
0.02)E-1
0.92 Agree Cs-137 1.76E-2 (1.80 +/-
0.03)E-2
0.98 Agree Detector #6 1-131 1.35E-2 (1.30 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.04 Agree 1-134 1.71E-1 (1.47 +/-
0.02)E-1
1.16 Agree Cs-137 1.84E-2 (1.80 +/- 0.03)E-2
1.02 Agree
Attachment 1
Type of Sample: Liquid Radwaste Sample Container:
NRC 1000 ml liquid marinelli Oconee 3500 ml liquid marinelli Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #1 Co-58 1.83E-6 (1.87 +/- 0.10)E-6
0.98 Agree Co-60 7.88E-7 (7.04 +/- 0.71)E-7
1.12 Agree Ag-110m 1.31E-6 (1.19 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.10 Agree Detector #2 NOT IN SERVICE Detector #3 Co-58 1.69E-6 (1.87 +/-
0.10)E-6
0.90 Agree Co-60 8.74E-7 (7.04 +/-
0.71)E-7
1.24 Agree Ag-110m 1.34E-6 (1.19 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.13 Agree Detector #4 Co-58 2.02E-6 (1.87 +/- 0.10)E-6
1.08 Agree Co-60 9.OOE-7 (7.04 +/- 0.71)E-7
1.28 Agree Ag-110m 1.31E-6 (1.19 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.10 Agree Detector #5 Co-58 1.82E-6 (1.87 +/- 0.10)E-6
0.97 Agree Co-60 1.01E-6 (7.04 +/- 0.71)E-7
1.43 Agree Ag-110m 1.37E-6 (1.19 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.15 Agree Detector #6 Co-58 1.89E-6 (1.87 +/- 0.10)E-6
1.01 Agree Co-60 8.10E-7 (7.04 +/- 0.71)E-7
1.15 Agree Ag-110m 1.72E-6 (1.19 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.44 Agree
Attachment 1
Type of Sample: Containment Atmosphere Sample Container:
NRC 1250 cc gas marinelli Oconee 4400 cc gas marinelli Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #1 Ar-41 1.63E-6 (1.66 +/- 0.15)E-6
0.98 Agree Xe-131m 6.82E-6 (8.65 +/- 1.42)E-6
0.79 Agree Xe-133m 2.69E-6 (2.11 +/-
0.33)E-6
1.27 Agree Xe-133 3.12E-4 (3.52 +/- 0.01)E-4-352 0.89 Agree Xe-135 3.89E-6 (3.50 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.11 Agree Detector #2 NOT IN SERVICE Detector #3 Ar-41 1.66E-6 (1.66 +/- 0.15)E-6
1.00 Agree Xe-131m 9.64E-6 (8.65 +/-
1.42)E-6
1.11 Agree Xe-133m 2.59E-6 (2.11 +/-
0.33)E-6
1.23 Agree Xe-133 3.69E-4 (3.52 +/- 0.01)E-4 352 1.05 Agree Xe-135 4.28E-6 (3.50 +/-
0.08)E-6
1.22 Agree Detector #4 Ar-41 1.74E-6 (1.66 +/- 0.15)E-6
1.05 Agree Xe-131m 9.18E-6 (8.65 +/- 1.42)E-6
1.06 Agree Xe-133m 2.69E-6 (2.11 +/- 0.33)E-6
1.27 Agree Xe-133 3.57E-4 (3.52 +/-
0.01)E-4 352 1.01 Agree Xe-135 4.39E-6 (3.50 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.25 Agree Detector #5 Ar-41 1.76E-6 (1.66 +/- 0.15)E-6
1.06 Agree Xe-131m 8.67E-6 (8.65 +/- 1.42)E-6
1.00 Agree Xe-133m 2.74E-6 (2.11 +/- 0.33)E-6
1.30 Agree Xe-133 3.64E-4 (3.52 +/-
0.01)E-4 352 1.03 Agree Xe-135 4.44E-6 (3.50 +/-
0.08)E-6
1.27 Agree Detector #6 Ar-41 1.97E-6 (1.66 +/- 0.15)E-6
1.19 Agree Xe-131m 9.20E-6 (8.65 +/- 1.42)E-6
1.06 Agree Xe-133m 2.76E-6 (2.11 +/- 0.33)E-6
1.31 Agree Xe-133 3.58E-4 (3.52 +/- 0.01)E-4 352 1.02 Agree Xe-135 4.56E-6 (3.50 +/- 0.08)E-6
1.30 Agree
Attachment 1
Type of Sample: Particulate Filter (Simulated; reactor coolant)
Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #1 Cr-51 2.19E-4 (2.37 +/- 0.17)E-4
0.92 Agree Co-58 1.54E-3 (1.54 +/-
0.01)E-3 154 1.00 Agree Tc-99m 2.03E-5 (2.62 +/-
0.10)E-5
0.77 Agree 1-131 5.66E-5 (4.57 +/-
0.18)E-5
1.24 Agree Cs-134 6.92E-5 (5.74 +/-
0.17)E-5
1.21 Agree Detector #2 NOT IN SERVICE Detector #3 Cr-51 1.91E-4 (2.37 4/- 0.17)E-4
0.81 Agree Co-58 1.14E-3 (1.54 +/-
0.01)E-3 154 0.74 Disagree Tc-99m 2.21E-5 (2.62 +/-
0.10)E-5
0.84 Agree 1-131 4.30E-5 (4.57 +/-
0.18)E-5
0.94 Agree Cs-134 5.70E-5 (5.74 +/-
0.17)E-5
0.99 Agree Detector #4 Cr-51 2.02E-4 (2.37 +/-
0.17)E-4
0.85 Agree Co-58 1.48E-3 (1.54 +/-
0.01)E-3 154 0.96 Agree Tc-99m 2.39E-5 (2.62 +/-
0.10)E-5
0.91 Agree 1-131 5.42E-5 (4.57 +/-
0.18)E-5
1.19 Agree Cs-134 7.26E-5 (5.74 +/-
0.17)E-5
1.26 Agree Detector #5 Cr-51 1.67E-4 (2.37+/- 0.17)E-4
0.70 Agree Co-58 1.36E-3 (1.54 +/-
0.01)E-3 154 0.88 Agree Tc-99m 1.54E-5 (2.62 +/-
0.10)E-5
0.59 Disagree 1-131 5.18E-5 (4.57 +/- 0.18)E-5
1.13 Agree Cs-134 5.90E-5 (5.74 +/-
0.17)E-5
1.03 Agree Detector #6 Cr-51 2.52E-4 (2.37 +/- 0.17)E-4
1.06 Agree Co-58 1.52E-3 (1.54 +/-
0.01)E-3 154 0.99 Agree Tc-99m 1.97E-5 (2.62 +/-
0.10)E-5
0.75 Agree 1-131 6.81E-5 (4.57 +/-
0.18)E-5
1.49 Disagree Cs-134 7.82E-5 (5.74 +/-
0.17)E-5
1.36 Disagree
Attachment 1
Type of Sample: Charcoal Cartridge (NRC spike)
Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #1 Co-60 4.97E-2 (4.87 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.02 Agree Cd-109 5.46E-1 (6.12 +/-
0.03)E-1 204 0.89 Agree Sn-113 1.47E-2 (1.40 +/- 0.02)E-2
1.05 Agree Ce-139 9.22E-3 (9.03 +/- 0.11)E-3
1.02 Agree Hg-203 1.30E-3 (1.16 +/- 0.09)E-3
1.12 Agree Am-241 6.08E-2 (6.04 +/~ 0.06)E-2 101 1.01 Agree Co-57 1.20E-2 (1.11 +/-
0.01)E-2 111 1.08 Agree Cs-137 5.07E-2 (4.74 +/- 0.04)E-2 119 1.07 Agree Detector # NOT IN SERVICE Detector #3 Co-60 4.88E-2 (4.87 +/-
0.05)E-2
1.00 Agree Cd-109 5.16E-1 (6.12 +/- 0.03)E-1 204 0.84 Disagree Sn-113 1.48E-2 (1.40 +/-
0.02)E-2
1.06 Agree Ce-139 8.93E-3 (9.03 +/-
0.11)E-3
0.99 Agree Hg-203 1.24E-3 (1.16 +/- 0.09)E-3
1.07 Agree Am-241 5.41E-2 (6.04 +/- 0.06)E-2 101 0.90 Agree Co-57 1.12E-2 (1.11 +/- 0.01)E-2 111 1.01 Agree Cs-137 4.83E-2 (4.74 +/-
0.04)E-2 119 1.02 Agree Detector #4 Co-60 5.06E-2 (4.87 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.04 Agree Cd-109 5.51E-1 (6.12 +/- 0.03)E-1 204 0.90 Agree Sn-113 1.49E-2 (1.40 +/-
0.02)E-2
1.06 Agree Ce-139 9.OOE-3 (9.03 +/- 0.11)E-3
1.00 Agree Hg-203 1.44E-3 (1.16 +/-
0.09)E-3
1.24 Agree Am-241 6.30E-2 (6.04 +/- 0.06)E-2 101 1.04 Agree Co-57 1.19E-2 (1.11 +/- 0.01)E-2 111 1.07 Agree Cs-137 4.99E-2 (4.74 +/-
0.04)E-2 119 1.05 Agree Detector #5 Co-60 4.92E-2 (4.87 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.01 Agree Cd-109 5.29E-1 (6.12 +/- 0.03)E-1 204 0.86 Agree Sn-113 1.40E-2 (1.40 +/-
0.02)E-2
1.00 Agree Ce-139 9.31E-3 (9.03 +/- 0.11)E-3
1.03 Agree Hg-203 1.19E-3 (1.16 +/- 0.09)E-3
1.03 Agree Am-241 5.76E-2 (6.04 +/- 0.06)E-2 101 0.95 Agree Co-57 1.12E-2 (1.11 +/- 0.01)E-2 111 1.01 Agree Cs-137 5.03E-2 (4.74 +/-
0.04)E-2 119 1.06 Agree
Attachment 1
Type of Sample: Charcoal Cartridge (NRC spike)
Radio-Licensee's NRC Reso-Compar nuclide Value Value lution Ratio ison Detector #6:
Co-60 5.17E-2 (4.87 +/- 0.05)E-2
1.06 Agree Cd-109 5.54E-1 (6.12 +/- 0.03)E-1 204 0.91 Agree Sn-113 1.50E-2 (1.40 +/- 0.02)E-2
1.07 Agree Ce-139 9.42E-3 (9.03 +/- 0.11)E-3
1.04 Agree Hg-203 1.40E-3 (1.16 +/- 0.09)E-3
1.21 Agree Am-241 6.36E-2 (6.04 +/- 0.06)E-2 101 1.05 Agree Co-57 1.20E-2 (1.11 +/- 0.01)E-2 111 1.08 Agree Cs-137 5.06E-2 (4.74 +/- 0.04)E-2 119 1.07 Agree (11)
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 2Resolution = NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty