IR 05000382/1991005
| ML20217B917 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1991 |
| From: | Murray B, Nicholas J, Wilborn L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217B916 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-91-05, 50-382-91-5, NUDOCS 9103120280 | |
| Download: ML20217B917 (5) | |
Text
_
.
.
.
.
.
-
'
...
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-382/91-05 Operating License:
NPF-38 Docket:
50-382 Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.(E01)
P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (WAT-3)
Inspection At: WAT-3 Site, Killona, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Inspection Conducted:
February 19-22, 1991 Inspectors: k b
/[
3/V/W J. <t). Nicholas, Senior Radiation Specialist Date Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Section uno Cbku sH/v
. Wilb Mn, Radiation Specialist, Radiological Date Pr tection and Emergency Preparedness Section Approved:
/D QC, (6 48/
N/
,
Blaine Murray, ThieQadiological Protection Date and Emergency Preparedness Section Inspection Summary Inspectior. Conducted February 19-22, 1991 (Report 50-382/91-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiological effluent dose calculations of offsite doses resulting from liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents released to the environment.
Results: The inspectors determined that the licensee was calculating offsite doses _using methods described in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM).
Initial confirmatory dose calculations were performed during the inspection using~the NRC's PC-DOSE computer code for offsite dose-calculations.
The
' licensee's and the NRC's calculated doses were in agreement for the radioactive liquid effluents and the noble gas effluents. Comparisons between the licensee's and the NRC's calculated dose results indicated differences for organ doses resulting from radioactive airborne _ tritium, iodines, and particulates effluents. These differences in tne calculated offsite doses were g3120200910306 g
ADOCK 05000382 PDR
.
.
-
.
-
. _.
-
..-- -.
'
.
the result of the licensee adding the ground plane dose contribution to each of the organ doses calculated as a result of ingestion (see paragraph 2).
Some minor differences were noted between the licensee's and NRC's computer codes concerning infant breathing rates and residential shielding factor; (see paragraph 2).
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
I
!
i (,
a l
.
..
,
-3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted E_01
- J. R. McGaha, General Manager, Plant Operations
- D. E. Baker, Director, Nuclear Operations Support and Assessments
- D. F. Boan, Quality Assurance (QA) Auditor
- T. J. Gaudet, Operational Licensing Supervisor
- G. L. Hood, Radiation Protection Engineer
- W. T. LaBonte, Radiation Protection Superintendent
- A. S. Lockhart, QA Manager
- B. R. Lee, Radiation Control Group Manager P. V. Prasankumar, Technical Services Manager
- S. Ramzy, Assistant Radiation Protection Superintendent I
- J. A. Ridgel, Lead Supervisor Radiation Protection Operations
- R. S. Starkey, Operations Superintendent NRC
- W. F. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector, WAT-3
- J. E. Bess, Reactor Inspector
- Indicates those present at the exit meeting on February 22, 1991.
.
2.
Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Dose Calculations (84750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radioactive effluent dose calculations to determine compliance with the requirements in-the ODCM and Sections 3/4.11.1 and 3/4.11.2 of the Technical Specifications (TS).
The inspectors conducted initial confirmatory calculations of the offsite doses from the plant's liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents released to the environment.
Radioactive effluent dose calculations were performed by the inspectors for liquids, noble gases, and airborne tritium, iodines,
.
and particulates using the NRC's computer code, PC-DOSE, which was developed to verify the dose calculations described in the liceasee's ODCM.
The licensee performed effluent dose calculations using methodologies, l
assumptions, and equations described in the ODCM and implemented by a computer code supplied by a vendor. The inspectors compared test cases.
!s with the licensee based on typical effluent radionuclide concentrations L,
ard release rates for radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents.
The p
inspectors and the licensee performed dose calculations using the same l
radionuclide concentrations for the liquid effluent test case.
The
'
calculated dose results for the radwaste liquid effluents were all in agreement between the licensee's and the NRC's dose results for the adult total body and adult organs for all radionuclides compared, l
l l
_
.
. _
-g a
,
-4-In addition to the radioactive liquid effluent test case, a test case for noble gas dose and a test case for airborne. tritium, iodines, and particulates dose were run.
The licensee's dose results for the total body gamma-air dose and the total body beta-air dose from exposure to radioactive noble gases were in agreement with the NRC's calculated doses.
The-licensee's dose data from the radioactive airborne tritium, iodines, and particulates was greater (conservative) when compared to the NRC's
~
dose results.
For example, the dose data comparisons between the licensee's and NRC's calculated doses for the infant age group organs indicated that the licensee's calculated doses were greater than the NRC's calculated doses except for the t>tal body dose which was identical to the NRC's: calculated dose. The differences in the dose results between the licensee's results and the NRC's results were determined to be caused by the licensee add ng the ground plane dose to each of the organ doses calculated by the licensee as a result of ingestion.
The NRC's computer i
code, PC-DOSE, adds the ground plane dose contribution to only the total body dose.
Therefore, if the ground plane dose was added to the NRC's calculated organ doses, the licensee's and the NRC's calculated dose results would be in 100 percent agreement for all examples tested.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee's computer calculations of offsite doses resulting from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents discharged to the environment were confirmed to be accurate and in accordance with the methods, assumptions, bioaccumulation factors, and equations described and defined in the ODCM.
The inspectors observed during the performance of the noble gas and airborne tritium, iodines, ard carticulates dose calculations that the
<
breathing rate for the infant age group was entered into the licensee's computer data table as 1430 cubic meters per year rather than the value of 1400 cubic meters per year as described in the computer documentation table and listed in Table E-5 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, dated October 1977.
The.use of the larger value in computing infant inhalation dose resulted in a slightly conservative dose value. The inspectors also observed that the attenuation factor accounting for shielding provided by residential structures was 1.0 when the licensee calculated their noble gas doses, but the shielding factor was 0.7 when the licensee calculated their doses as a result of airborne tritium,
- iodines, and particulates. Table E-15 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, specifies a value of 0.7 for the maximum individual.
The NRC:s PC-DOSE computer code uses the values for the infant breathing rate
'and residential shielding factor as recommended in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1.
These observations were discussed with the licensee during the inspection and at the exit meeting on February 22,
'1991.
The licensee stated that they would evaluate the values used by their computer code for calculating doses as a result of gaseous effluente and make changes as deemed necessary.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
-
......
.;
-; 4 a q j
5-
._
3.
Repcrts of Radioactive' Effluents- (84750)-
Therinspectors reviewed the licensee's' reports concerning radioactive
R waste systems and-effluent releases to determine _ compliance with the-
. requirements of 10 CFR'Part.50.36(a)(2) and Sections 6.9.1.8, 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15 of the-Ts.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's semiannual-effluent release report for the period January 1 through June 30, 1990. -This report was written in the format described in NRC: Regulatory Guide 1.21 and contained the Einformation required by TS. During the period January 1 through June. 30,-
-
.1990,--.the licensee-had performed 51_ liquid batch releases and 3 gaseous batch-rele_ases.
The-. licensee reported one unplanned release during the
,
time period reviewed.
The-unplanned release did not violate or exceed any TS requirrment. -No. changes were made to the Process Control Program and the-00CM during theitime period reviewed.
No major changes had been made-j-
'
sto'the_-liquid and. gaseous radwaste systems during-the time period.
reviewed..TheLinspectors reviewed the licensee's explanation of the-inoperable Waste _ Gas Holdup System-Noble Gas Activity Monitor and why it A
.had not been repaired and put'back in service within-30 days.
The
~ inspectors found-theilicensee's explanation satisfactory and the TS i
r reporting requirements met.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'4.
Exit Meeting-The. inspectors _ met with the senior resident inspector _and the licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1:of this report a_t the conclusion
--
gof the-inspection on February 22, 1991. 'The-inspectors summarized the scope and~ findings'of the inspr ; ion and discussed the results of the offsite dose calculations: performed during the inspection. The licensee did not-identify. as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or Ereviewed by, the inspectors during the inspection.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - -