IR 05000413/1993016
| ML20045J228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1993 |
| From: | David Decker, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045J223 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-93-16, 50-414-93-16, NUDOCS 9307230194 | |
| Download: ML20045J228 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- [(gtA8MGuy[ . UNITED STATES . 9,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFAMISs!ON - ~ REGION 11 l o . L2 ,, $ 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
't ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 ' ..... $N l}M ' Report Nos.: 50-413/93-16 and 50-414/93-16 , Licensee: Duke Power Company i 422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF-52 ! Facility Name: Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: May 10-14, 1993 - Inspector: hhN /c!//!f3 D. W. Jongs' Date Signed j - i Approved by: s[ [[ (? X h_- 5 /// b3 ' T. R. Decker, Chief Date Signed , Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ! ! SUMMARY l Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological effluents, radiological environmental monitoring, and radiation dose i calculations.
i ,
Results: One unresolved item was identified regarding a significant increase in the ' radiation dose _from gaseous effluents (Paragraph 2).
i
The licensee had implemented and maintained an effective program to control liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The projected offsite doses , resulting from those effluents were well within the limits specified in the
d Technical Specifications and 40 CFR 190 (Paragraph 2).
, , The licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program'was effectively implemented. The program requirements for sampling, analysis, and reporting were met. Dose estimates calculated from environmental monitoring program data.
were. in reasonable agreement with dose estimates calculatei from effluent data and were within 40 CFR 190 dose limits. The program results for 1992.-indicated that there was no.significant radiological impact on the health and safety of 9307230194 930611 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G PDR ,
.. . ._- __ ._ . - . , ~ . , ' .the general public resulting from plant operations. One inspector followup item was identified regarding installation of improved water sampling-equipment (Paragraph 3).
The results of the licensee's participation in the EPA's interlaboratory crosscheck program indicated that an effective quality assurance program had i been maintained for the analysis of environmental samples (Paragraph 4).
' The licensee had adequately implemented the methods delineated in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for radiation dose calculations (Paragraph 5).
! k b i
f e . . -.. . -
._ i: . ' REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons-Contacted Licensee Employees ,
- T. Crawford, Manager, Systems Engineering B. Cripe, Scientist, Radiation Protection
- P. Deal, Manager, Radiation Protection
- R. DeShazo, Supervisor, Radiation Protection C. Ingram, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Technical Services K. James, Specialist, Radiation Protection
- J. Lowery, Compliance Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- W. McCollum, Station Manager K. Nicholson, Compliance Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- P. Simbrat, System engineer, Systems Engineering R. Wright, Shift Supervisor, Radiation Protection
. Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
' Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. Hopkins, Resident Inspector W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Zeiler, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview.
2.
. Radiological Effluents (84750) Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.7 and Section 16.11-16.2 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) described the reporting schedule and content requirements for the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports. The reports were required to be submitted within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year covering the operation of the facility during the previous six months. Summaries of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released from the facility and an assessment of the radiation doses due to those releases were required to be included in the reports.
The effluent data presented in Table 1 below were compiled from the licensee's effluent release reports for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The inspector reviewed the reports for the year 1992 and discussed their content and the data presented in Table I with the licensee. As shown_in the table, there were no significant changes in the quantities of activity released during 1992 but there was a significant increase in the air doses from gaseous effluents. The air dose due to gamma radiation ranged from 2 to 4 percent of the. limit during the 3 previous years but increased to 31 percent of the limit during 1992. Similarly the air dose due to beta radiation also increased to 7 percent of the limit from less than 4 percent during the three previous years. The licensee's methodology for calculating the amounts of activity released and gaseous effluent release records were reviewed . ..
. with the licensee in an effort to determine the cause of the increased air doses. The gaseous effluents included both batch and continuous releases. The batch releases included purges and vents of the reactor buildings and releases from waste gas decay tanks. The activities and doses for the batch releases were determined from sampling and analysis of the gases prior to each release. The licensee determined the amount of activity in the continuous releases on a monthly basis by subtracting the total activity in the batch releases from the total activity released through the unit vents. The isotopic distribution of the radionuclides in the continuous releases was _ assumed to be the same as the distribution found in the batch releases. Examination of the release records revealed that the predominate contribution to the air doses during 1992 was from the calculated amount of Ar-41 in the continuous releases and that the isotopic distribution had changed such that the Ar-41 activity was a much higher percentage of the total activity.
released than for previous years. As of the end of the inspection the licensee was continuing their investigation of the changes in the gaseous effluent isotopic distribution and the appropriateness of the methodology used for calculating the activity content of the continuous gaseous releases. This issue has been deemed to be an unresolved. item pending NRC review of the licensee's investigation * esults. (URI 50-413, 50-414/93-16-01).
The effluent reports indicated that there were no unplanned releases during 1992 but two effluent monitors were inoperable for an indeterminate period of time. Leaking valves had allowed the water to drain from the loop seals on the Unit 1 and the Unit 2 condensate evacuation system noble gas activity monitors (1&2 EMF-33).~ The loss of the water in the loop seals allowed air inleakage to the sampling system which caused sample dilution and lower monitor count rates. No unusual activity was observed by downstre m effluent radiation' monitors or in routine effluent samples. The licensee implemented daily surveillances of the loop seals to assura tnat an-adequate water level was maintained and an equipment modifi. tion is planned to remove unnecessary valves and piping. The target upletion date for the modification is June
1993.
Based on the above reviews, it wh concluded that the lie see had implemented and maintained bn effective program to contr licuid and gaseous radioactive eff1Lents. The projected offsite dov . M.:lting from those effluents we.e well within the limits specifi 1: 'r. TSs ano 40 CFR 190.
One unresolved item was identifie,
, Table 1 Effluent Release Summary for Catawba Units 1, and 2 Activity Released (curies) Liouid Effluents Gaseous Effluents Fission and Dissolved Activation Noble Noble Year Products Tritium Gases Gases Halocens Particulates Tritium 1989 0.68 890 1.77E-1 630 7.16E-3 3.92E-2
. -1990 1.96 594 8.66E-2 1068 1.19E-2 6.14E-2
1991 0.76 646 5.52E-2 804 9.00E-3 3.92E-2 125 1992 0.93 772 9.96E-3 856 1.17E-3 1.26E-3 166 Annual Doses Lig'iid Effluents Maximum Total Body Dose Percent of Organ Dose Percent of Year (Limit: 3 mrem) Limit (Limit: 10 mrem) Limit 1989 Unit 1 0.27 9.0 0.40 4.0 Unit 2 0.27 9.0 0.40 4.0 1990 Unit 1 0.52 17.3 0.87 8.7 Unit 2 0.52 17.3 0.87 8.7 1991 Unit 1 0.35 11.7 0.95 9.5 Unit 2 0.35 11.7 0.95 9.5 1992 Unit 1 0.33 11.0 0.70 7.0 Unit 2 0.33 11.0 0.70 + .
. Gaseous Effluents Maximum Organ Dose.
Air Dose [From lodine, Tritium, (Limits: Gamma 10 mrad, Perce of and Particulates] Percent of Year Betta 20 mrad) Lim.c (Limit: 15 mrem) Limit 1989 Unit 1 Gamma 0.38 3.8 0.19 1.3 Beta 0.56 2.8 Unit 2 Gamma 0.38 3.8 0.19 1.3 Beta 0.56 2.8 1990 Unit 1 Gamma 0.23 2.3 0.33 2.2 Beta 0.75 3.8 Unit 2 Gamma 0.23 2.3 0.33 2.2 Beta 0.75 3.8 1991 Unit 1 Gamma 0.43 4.3 0.33 2.2 Beta 0.58 2.9 Unit 2 Gamma 0.43 4.3 0.33 2.2 Beta 0.58 2.9 1992 Unit 1 Gamma 3.14 31.4 0.34 2.3 Beta 1.41 7.0 Unit 2 Gamma 3.14 31.4 0.34 2.3 Beta 1.41 7.0 3.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (84750) TS 6.8.4.g required the licensee to provide a program to monitor the radiation and radionuclides in the environs of the plant as described in Chapter 16 of the FSAR. The sampiing loca# s, types of samples or m m2asurements, sampling frequency, types c <- 6 equency of sample analysis, reporting levels, and analytical tr er limits of detection (LLD) were specified in FSAR section 16.11 2.
TS 6.9.1.6 and f5 - Lection 16.11-16.1 delineated the requirements for submitting, tne submittal dates, and the content of the Annual Radiological linvironmental Operating Reports. The reports were required to be submitted prior to May I of each year and to provide an assessment of the observed impact on the environment resulting from plant operations during the previous calendar year.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1992 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and discussed its content with the , licensee. The report was submitted on April 26, 1993, and included 'the i following: a description of the program, a summary and discussion of the results for each exposure' pathway, analysis of trends and comparisons with previous years and preoperational studies, and an assessment of the impact on the environment resulting from plant operations..The report.
i also included the results of the Land Use Census and the results of the ] i
.. ... _ - - ..,.. . . -. . . ,. i t . l l '
. Interlaboratory Comparison Program. The following observations for the various exposure pathways were produced by the_ licensee's evaluation of i the 1992 environmental monitoring program data, and documented in the report, or were noted by the inspector during the review of.the report.
. Airborne - Cs-137'was detected in two of the samples collected I = from indicator-locations and in one sampl.e collected from the l control location but the concentrations were less the required ! LLD. Beta activity was detected on all particulate samples collected from both indicator and control locations. The. observed' gross beta activity was near or below the required LLD.
l ' Surface Water - H-3 was detected in seven of the eight samples - collected from indicator locations.and in two of the four samples
collected-from the control locations. The highest concentrations
observed were less than half of the required reporting limit and
- were found in the discharge. canal from the plant to Lake Wylie.
, Comparison of surface water H-3 concentration in-the discharge' ' canal and H-3 activity released in liquid effluents since 1985 ' indicate that those two statistics are correlated and that the H-3 concentration is on an increasing trend. The report indicated that ' H-3 concentrations-in the discharge canal will be closely i monitored during 1993.
~ - ; Ground Water - K-40, which occurs naturally, was the only !
radionuclide_ detected in ground water samples collected during.
1992 and the concentrations were consistent with' ambient j background levels.
l Drinking Water - H-3 was detected in five of the eight samples
~
collected from the 2 indicator locations and in one of.the four ' ' samples collected from the control' location. The observed . concentrations were less than the required LLD and were con'si.; tent > with ambient background levels.
Shoreline Sediment - Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137 were
, detected in most of the shoreline samples collected from the discharge canal. Evaluation of the data collected since 1987
indicate that the concentrations of these radionuclides in:the -! discharge canal shoreline sediment exhibit an increasing trend and '! are correlated with their activities released in liquid effluents.
That evaluation also indicated that the rate of deposition from liquid effluents was greater than the rate at which the material l was removed by environment. No reporting levels for sediment were
specified in the FSAR but radiation doses from shoreline sediments > were well below environmental dose limits. The total body dose to the maximally exposed individual was less than one tenth of a mrem
per year.
Milk - 0w137 was the only radionuclide, other than naturally- . l - occurring F-40, detected'in the milk samples. A total of 78 milk umples were collected from three dairies. Cs-137 was detected in .: ,+ ,. , - ,
.
' . . two samples collected from one indicator location dairy and in one sample collected from the control location dairy. The concentrations were less than the required LLD. Evaluation of data collected during both preoperational and operational periods indicated that the low levels of Cs-137 were not attributable to plant effluents.
Fish - Mn-54,Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137 were detected in the
fish samples collected during 1992. The highest concentrations _.
i observed for those radionuclides were below or near the required LLDs.
Broadleaf Vegetation - CS-137 was the only radionuclide, other
than those that occur naturally in the environment, detected in the samples collected from the indicator locations. It was detected in 8 of the 36 samples collected from the indicator locations and the highest concentration observed was less than 10 percent of the required reporting level for food products. (No reporting level was specified in the FSAR for vegetation.)
Evaluation of data collected during both preoperational and operational periods indicated that the low levels of Cs-137 were not attributable to plant effluents.
Direct Gamma Radiation - Exposures measured at 40 locations during
1992 were not significantly different form exposures measured during preoperational studies.
Dose estimates calculated from environmental monitoring program data correlated well with dose estimates calculated from effluent data and were within 40 CFR 190 dose limits. The reports summary section indicated that the contribution to the environmental radioactivity resulting from plant operations was small and had no significant radiological impact on the health and safety of the general public.
Appendix C to the report provided a listing of sampling deviations and unavailable analyses. That listing indicated that there had-been a significant number of malfunctions of the equipment used for air and surface water sampling. Licensee records indicated that new air samplers had been installed at all 5 sampling locations on May 12, 1993, and that installation of improved water sampling equipment was planned for 1993.
The licensee's progress on the water sampling modifications will be reviewed during subsequent inspections and this issue will'be tracked as an inspector followup item (IFI) (IFI 50-413,414/93-16-02).
Based on the above review, it was concluded that the licensee had complied with the sampling, analytical, and reporting program requirements and that the radiological environmental monitoring program had been effectively implemented.
No violations or deviations were identifie. '
. 4.
Environmental Monitoring Quality Assurance Program (84750) TS 6.8.4.g.3 and FSAR section 16.11-15 required the licensee to - participate in an interlaboratory comparison program and to include a summary of the program results in the Annual-Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The licensee's report for 1992 provided a summary of the results from the licensee's participation in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Crosscheck) Program. The report also included descriptions of the various types of samples analyzed and the analyses performed, and an evaluation of the analytical results. A total of 34 samples were analyzed and one analytical result, gross beta in water, exceeded the EPA control limit. The licensee investigated the indication that the measurement system may have been out of control and determined that no program changes were warranted. Analyses of subsequent crosscheck samples pcrformed on that system were within control limits.
Based on the licensee's overall performance in the EPA crosscheck program it was concluded that an effective quality assurance program had been maintained for analysis of environmental samples.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Radiation Dose Calculations (84750) TS 6.8.4.f.5 required the licensee to provide a program for the control of radioactive effluents which included determination of radiation dose in accordance with the methodology and parameters in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). TS 6.8.4.f.7 and FSAR section 16.11-6 specified the limitations for the dose rate resulting from radioactive material released in gaseous effluents.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's dose rate calculation methods for gaseous effluents which was described in section C2.2 of the ODCM. The dose rate was expressed as a function of the concentration of radionuclides in the effluent, the effluent release rate, dose factors, ano dispersion and deposition parameters. The licensee rearranged the expression for dose rate in order to calculate. the maximum release rate which would meet the dose rate limit, given the measured radionuclide concentrations. This provided the licensee with a means of assuring - compliance with the dose rate limit by controlling the release rate. The inspector examined the licensee's records for a reactor building vent of Unit I which was performed.on May 1-2, 1993, and verified the licensee's calculation of the maximum release rate. Those records indicated that the actual release rate was several orders of magnitude less than the calculated maximum. The licensee performed the above calculations with the aid of a computer and the printout listed the maximum release rates for each of the specified dose rate limits, i.e., total body, skin, and organ. The inspector noted that the projected offsite dose rate resulting from the release did not appear in the licensee's records for -
A . _ . .'
. the release. Using the expressions in the ODCM, the measured radionuclide concentrations, and the recorded release rate, the inspector calculated the total body dose rates. The' calculated dose rate was less than one mrem /yr and were well below the specified limits.
Based on the above, it was concluded that the licensee had adequately implemented the methods delineated in the ODCM.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on May 13, 1993, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed above. Propriety information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
Item Number Description and Reference 50-413,414/93-16-01 URI - Regarding a significant increase in the radiation dose frcm gaseous effluents (Paragraph 2).
50-413,414/93-16-02 IFI - Regarding installation of improved water sampling equipment (Paragraph 3).
. }}