ML19322B793

Responds to Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-269/76-05, 50-270/76-05 & 50-287/76-05.Corrective Action:Task Force Organized to Review Difficulty in Correlating Lab Analysis Results & Expected Monitor Readings

ML19322B793
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/08/1976
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19322B762	List: IR 05000269/1976002 ML19322B768 ML19322B774 ML19322B784 ML19322B789 ML19322B793 ML19322B802
References
NUDOCS 7912050783
Download: ML19322B793 (3)

Text

. -..

.. ~ - -

.. - - ~

e DUKE POWER COMPANY Pewen Buttonwo

.= sourn cou c., stomer. c,momtre. s. c. aem g

wlLLt AM O. PA R M E R, J R.

TELcraow t:Anta 704 Vict PetSsDem?

37 3-4 C 8 3 Stem Paoovctio=

April 8, 1976 Mr. Norman C. Moselay, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi.msion Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re:

IE:II:TNE 50-269/76-2 50-270/76-2 50-287/76-2

Dear Mr. Moseley:

1 Duke Power Company does not consider information contained in Inspection and Enforcement Reports 50-269/76-2, 50-270/76-2, and 50-287/76-2 to be roprietary.

Please find attached responses to Items I.A.1, I.A.2, I.A.3, and I.A.4.

As indicated by my letter of March 11, 1976, a response to Reportable Occurrence R0-269/76-3, identified during this inspection, is addressed in the attached information.

Specifically, answers to Items I.A.1 and I.A.2 provide a response to this incident.

Very truly yours,

/

William O. Parker, Jr EDB:mmb Attachment

/

P 29u0507

= = -

i t

O*

RESPONSE TO IE INSPECTION REPORT

~/

i 50-269/76-2, 50-270/76-2, 50-287/76-2 I.A.1 Contrary to Technical Specification 3.9.6 liquid waste effluent monitor readings were not compared with expected readings for liquid waste releases i

76-111 and three batches released in February 1976.

)

l

Response

Presently, because of the high background readings seen on RIA-33 and RIA-34, correlation of lab analysis results and expected monitor readings is difficult.

A task force, consisting of representatives from Oconee Nuclear Station and 7

the Steam Production Department General Office staff, has been organized to j

~

review this situation and make recommendations for its resolution. This task force has met and is actively pursuing measures to correct the background problem. A supplemental report will be submitted by August 1, 1976 to further describe the status of this matter.

I.A.2 Contrary to Technical Specification 3.9.7, the effluent control monitor was ot set to alarm or automatically close the waste discharge valve to assure that appropriate requirements were met for liquid waste releases made during February 1976.

Response

As noted in the above response to item I.A.1, the background problem prevents a setpoint from being determined which will assure that the release limits of i

Specification 3.9.3 are not exceeded.

Resolution of the background problem should allow a setpoint to be assigned as required by Technical Specification 3.9.7.

I.A.3 i

^

Contrary to the survey requirements of 10 CFR 20.201(h), surveys, the inspectors found on February 23, 1976, that the interim waste building vent gas monitor, RIA-52, was not operating.

Response

To assure continued operation of the interim waste building vent gas monitor pump, a sign has been prominently displayed requiring that the pump be periodically checked and kept in operation.

In addition, a station modification which will cause an alarm to be sounded if the pump fails to operate is being

( implemented.

i

.~_. __

o

.alibration records are available on this monitor and periodic iodine and particulate samples are being taken to supplement its operation.

I.A.4 Contrary to Technical Specification 4.11.1, analysis of environmental samples has not been performed to the sensitivities listed in Table 4.11-3 for all water and milk samples as evidenced by analysis results in the licensee's semi-annual report of January to June 1975 and verified by the inspectors with licensee personnel during the inspection.

Response

The details of this infraction specifically refers to the measurement of gross beta and iodine-131 in water samples and of iodine-131 in milk samples, stating that in a number of instances analyses of results did not meet applicable sensitivities.

With regard to milk samples, it has been identified to the analytical laboratory that analyzes milk samples, that the I-131 analyses must be It is performed to a minimum sensitivity of 0.5 picoeuries per liter.

expected that this action will assure that future milk semples are analyzed within prescribed sensitivities.

Concerning the analysis of water samples, there are no requirements in

'able 4.11-2 of the Technical Specifications to analyze water samples for I-131.

This nuclide is listed with other gamma emitters which were evaluated to fulfill the requirement in Table 4.11-2 for a " gamma analysis".

It is considered that analysis of I-131 to a sensitivity of 0.5 picoeuries per liter is only required when I-131 is called for as a specific nuclide in the right hand column of Table 4.11-2.

The minimum sensitivities for gross beta have not been met.

In consultation with a vendor who can analyze to lower sensitivities than the Duke environ-mental laboratories, the vendor has indicated that an analysis to 0.03 picoeuries per liter would require an unreasonably large volume of water.

Consequently, Duke intends to request a Technical Specification change to provide for a minimum sensitivity for gross beta of 1.0 picoeuries per liter.

This sensitivity is considered the lowest practicable value.

Similarly, a change in the gross alpha sensitivity to 0.5 picoeuries per liter will be

~

requested.

Additionally, a review is being made of other sensitivities in Table 4.11-3 to determine that all other analyses meet the minimum sensitivities given.