IR 05000010/1975014
| ML19340A980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1975 |
| From: | Fisher W, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A976 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-75-14, 50-10-75-14, 50-237-75-20, 50-249-75-16, NUDOCS 8009150638 | |
| Download: ML19340A980 (19) | |
Text
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
_
y-
~
,
,.
o
'
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
i Report of Operational Radwaste Proj!;r.tm Insp~ection
.
IE Inspection' Report No. 050-010/75-14
-
IE Inspection Report No. 050-237/75-20 IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/75-16 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company l
P. O. Box 767
-
Chicago, Illinois 60690
'
Dresden Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-2 Units 1, 2, & 3 License No. DPR-19 Morris, Illinois License No. DPR-25 Categories: C
"
_
Type of Licensee:
GE BWR 210, 810 and 810 MWe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
June 10-11,16-17,19-20, 34 July 1 and
.
July 14, 1975
- w.,W. A%
4 /..
6D Principal Inspector:
M. C. Schumacher
'7
/
(Date)
Acccmpanying Inspector: None Other Acco=panying Personnel: 'None Mf. /klNoratl10l Reviewed By:
W. L. Fisher
[
J'
Senior Health Physicist (Date)
Facilities Radiological Protection Section
,
Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
.
'
800915o' 6'3 8
.
- -
.
l
-
.
.
i
-
i
.
.
.
,
l Sm1HARY OF FINDINGS
~
_
Inspection Summarv
~
Inspection en June 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 30, and July 1 and r.
14 (75-14, 75-20, and 75-16): Review of radwaste management for Dresden Units 1, 2, and 3.
Inspection included reviews of abnormal occurrences and unusual events, followup on previously identified noncompliance items and commitments, records and procedures related
to radioactive effluents, vaste shipments, and process monitor calibrations. Three noncompliance items related to. coolant sampling
.
requirements,. evaluation of abnormal events,.and reporting requirements.
.
Enforcement Items The following items of noncompliance were identified during the
-
inspection.
A.
Infractions 1.
Contrary to Technical Specification 4.6.C.2, the licensee failed to sample the Unit I coolant between 1020 and 2230 on f.pr!1 6, 1975, when the unit was in startup mode without ateam flow established.
-
2.
Contrary to 10 CFR 20.201(b), the licensee failed to make adequate evaluation of events which resulted in contamination below the ground surface near the Unit I radwaste building.
.
'
'These infractions had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to health and safety.
B.
Deficiencies Contrary to Technical Specification 6.6.A, the. licensee failed to make timely notification to the Commission of what was initially thought to be a halogen and particulate release exceeding that
'
permitted by Technical Specification 3.8.A.2.
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Items A.
Corrective actions listed in the licensee's response to IE:HQ enforcement 1cteer of December 11, 1974, were reviewed during this inspection.
Items I.and II are considered to be resolved.
(Paragraphs 3a, 3b, 5, 6a, 7, and 8)
-
O B.
Corrective action taken by the licensee concerning the noncom-
'
pliance ites identified in IE:III letter of May 7, 1975, was reviewed. The matter is considered resolved.
(Paragraph ~8b)
,
'
.
e-2-
!
.
p
,
+
.]
.
.
o
..
,
.
.
- s
,'
C.
Corrective action taken by the licensee concerning the noncom-
,
pliance item identified in IE:III letter of July 15, 1974, was reviewed. the matter is considered Tesolved.
(Paragraph 6f)
Other Significant Items
.
v.
A.
Systems and Co=ponents
'
The Unit 2 RECHAR System was put in service on June 18.
Sig-nificantly lower liquid radwaste releases appear to be the result of operation of the maximum recycle system.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
-
A new monitoring /sa=pling system with real time surveillance of iodine and particulate filters is being installed on the Unit #2/3 reactor building stack.
C.
Manag'erial Items
.
None.
.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
_
None.
E.
Deviations
.
-
None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 1.
The licensee is now quantifying iodine and particulate
~ releases from the Unit 2/3 reactor building stack on the basis of an isokinetic sampler. This item from IE:III Report No. 050-237/74-07 is considered resolved.
(Para-graph 3a)
2.
The licensee completed a study of liquid effluent monitors by October 1,1974, in accordance with their commitment.
This item from IE:III Report No. 050-010/74-03 is considered resolved.
(Paragraph 5)
.
.
-3-
'
.
.
,'
-
.
.
.
.
.
%
.
.
.
(~
Management Interview
.
-
A management interview was conducted on July 1, 1975, with Messrs.
Stephenson, Roberts and other plant personnel.
A.
The inspector stated that failure to make a timely' report to
'
the Commission of what initially appeared to be a release exceeding an LCO was in conflict with Technical Specification 6.6.A.
He further stated that he had reviewed the licensee's corrective action'and had no further questions at this time.
(Paragraph 9b)
B.
In connection with the above event, the inspector noted that the licensee's procedure for a 7-day delay before counting iodine and particulate samples appeared unnecessarily long.
-
The licensee stated that 7 days was chosen to avoid interferences in the iodira count and to avoid repeated counting of these samples. Ee also stated that the availability of spectrometer instruments suitable for use by the radmen to do earlier counting of these samples is being explored.
(Paragraph 6e)
C.
The inspector stated that failure to sa=ple Unit 1 primary
-
coolant,between 1020 and 2230 on April 6, 1975, appeared to
~
conflict with Technical Specification 4.6.C.2.
(Paragraph 7)
D.
The inspector made the following com=ents regarding the licensee's followup actions on previously identified enforcement items:
1.
He had reviewed the revised procedure governing shipment
-
of solidified resins by ANEFC0 and had no further questions.
(Paragraph 6f)
,
2.
The licensee's postings pursuant to 10 CFR 19 appeared to be adequate.
(Paragraph 8b)
3.
Quarterly off-gas isotopic analyses appeared to be satis-factorily done.
(Paragraphs 3a, 8c)
'
4.
Monthly reactor coolant isotopic analyses appeared to be satisfactorily done.
(Paragraph 8e)
5.
The licensee's commitments made following the improper laundry discharges of August 25 and December 16, 1974, appeared to have been met.
(Paragraphs'6a, 8a)
-
,
6.
He had reviewed the licensee's revised proceiure for above-ground storage tank surveillance and had no.'urther questions.
(Paragraph 6b)
'
-4,
.
.
_
,_
.
_
_ -
.
'
'
-
,
,
._...
-
.
.
.
.
%
i
.
,
7.-
Steps taken to avoid missing required off-gas isolation
~
.,.
monitor calibrations appeared to be adequate.
(Paragraph 8d)
~
.
E.
The inspector noted that.the laund.
aldup tank level recorder
'
was still rcmote from the main laundry tank pump controls, a
!
fact which was probably_a factor in the late recognition of f
the event of August 25, 1974.
The licensee stated that the recorders will be moved to a location adjacent to the pump controls and that the materials necessary to do so were on order.
-
i F.
The inspector noted an apparent gap between instrument main-tenance shop and radiation-chemistry department procedures with regard to setpoint changes 1for off-gas and effluent monitors.
_
The licensee stated this would be resolved.
(Paragraph 5)
.
G.
The inspector stated that although off-gas and chimney monitor calibrations appeared to be satisfactory, some of the control room plots which relate activity flow (uCi/sec) to monitor
'
,
reading appeared to be out of date.
'
The licensee acknowledged this' comment, noting that new curves
~
f are not always drawn unless the need for a change is indicated by new date. He stated.that instructions would be given to the.hemists to maintain the plots up-to-date.
(Paragraph 5)
'
^
The :nspector stated that he had no further questions regarding H.
s licensee followup actions to the following commitments made durir.g earlier inspections, i
1.
Revised p:.ocedure for calcula' ion of curie content in t
,
.outside taaks.
(Paragraph 6c)
,
2.
Flow surveillance at Unit 2/3 chimney monitor.
(Paragraph 5)
!.
3.
Gatehouse portal monitor time delay.
(Paragraph 10b)
4.
. Radiation protection shift routine checklist.
(Paragraph 10a)
5.
Locked trash box at station storeroom.
(Paragraph 10c)
>
J
'6.
Removal of sharp bend in Unit I chimnef monitor hose.
-
(Paragraph 5)
.
!
i
-5-
'
.
{L
'
.
.,i-,
-
w w
.
,. -. -
-
--
,,-r
.-
,,
-#,
..-
_<., -.-
.
.
- _
,
,
,
'
o
.
..
.
%
I.
The inspector noted that improper flow had persisted in the
-
("
Unit 1 chimney monitor in December 1974 and January _1975.
.
The licensee stated a procedure change would be written to require daily observation of flow and immediate reportine to management of improper flow.
(Paragraph 5)
,
J.
The inspector questioned the licensee's ability to prevent
!
contaminated material from getting into trash bound for offsite disposal.-
.
A licensee representative stated that cont'asinated trash problems that have occurred were at locations within the station at which trash is collected before it is taken to the trash boxes.
(Para-graph 10c)
.
-
K.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions regarding the radiological aspects of the Unit 2 off-gas explosion of May 26,, 1975.
(Paragraph 9a)
L.
The inspector discussed the licensee's radioactive effluents, noting encouraging trends shown in liquid releases with maximum
,
.
recycle operation and in off-gas with operation of the Unit 2 RECHAR system. He noted that release records were generally
_ _
satisfactory but called attention to minor discrepancies in the semiannual report for July to December 1974 The licensee stated that the report would be reviewed for cor-rections.
(Paragraphs 3 and 4)
,
s s
M.
The licensee stated that the problem of formaldehyde in station reactor water is'being studied and that the addition of hydrogen peroxide to facilitate rc= oval via decinerali crs is one of the
alternatives being considered.
(Paragraph 7)
N.
The inspector acted improvements in the handling of filled solid waste drums and asked when the new drum decontamination facility would be in operation.
The licensee estimated about a month.
(Paragraph 11)
O.
The licensee describem the scope of the cleanup of the Unit 2/3 radwaste basement underway.
(Paragraph 11)
'
'
P.
The inspector noted the proposed new monitors for the Unit 2/3 reactor building ventstack and stressed the importance of assuring that representative sampling takes place.
The licensee acknowledged the comments.
(Paragraph 5)
'
-6.
.
8
. -,
-
.
--
-
.
.
,
~. _ _..
.
'
.
%
Q.
The inspector stated that the licensee appeared to have met his
-
,.
(
-commitment for completion of a study of liquid monitors but-i stated that installation appeared to be taking too long.
The licensee replied that installation is-being held up because the monitor receiving tanks which are on. order h, ave not been received. These are expected in early July.
(Paragraph 5)
R.
The inspector stated that preliminary data obtained by the li-
censee indicated the possibility of leakage from the Unit 1 radwaste vault.
-
,
The licensee r,tated that his evaluation was continuing.'
A second management interview was conducted on July 14, 1975, with
~
Messrs. Stephenson, Roberts, Butterfield, Golden, Klopp, Adam, and Hayes of Commonwealth Edison, Messrs. Heim and Siefken of Sargent
,
and Lundy and Mr. Traut=an of Eberline.
A.
The question of Icakage from the Unit I radwaste vault was discussed. The licensee and his consultants presented evidence in support of the following conclusions:
.
1.
No leakage through the vault valls or floor has occurred.
-
2.
Contamination observed in core samples at depths of 21 to 25 feet resulted from material that originated with a
-
surface event (s) with subsequent seepage downward through
.the backfill to a relatively impermeable layer where it
'
accumulated.
'
3.
The event (s) occurred at least a year or two ago.
Evidence offered in support of the first conclusion were core
.
boring logs showing water table at 509 ft. in the backfill, several feet above the maximum level believed to have been attained by the vault contents, and the licensee's statement that seepage problems had not been encountered on occasions when the vault was empty of water. The pressure head of up to 19 feet offered by the water table was said to be maintained
'
by the pool behind Dresden Dan, which varies little from 504.5 ft.
Evidence offered in support of the second conclusion consisted
.
of the following:
-
1.
Core logs showing relatively compacted material at a depth just below the observed radioactivity at 21-25 feet, 2.
The similarity of top to bottom ratios for diffdrent isotopes,
-7-r-
_
_
_
-
_
l
,~
.
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
%
3.
The lower values observed at depth compared to the surface,
-
,.( l and
-
4.
The similarity of cesium 137 to cesium 134 ratios at top and bottom.
,
Evidence offered in support of the third conclusfo'n was the absence of short-lived isotopes and the fact that the cesium 137 to cesium 134 ratios in the backfill indicated material
of the order of two years older than that in the vault.
To confiru that the water table level remains relatively constant and thus that a positive hydrostatic pressure exists outside the vault, the licensee agreed to install a well in the backfill in the direction of ground water set and to monitor water table
-
level biweekly for a year. Radioactivity concentrations will be determined quarterly.' The well will be installed by mid
-
August.
The licensee also proposed to re=ove water and sludge from the vault, to install equipment necessary to avoid overflow of tanks to the vault floor, and to monitor the vault for inleakage.
-
Vault cleanup is expected to occur within 3 months with co=pletion of equipment installation expected in about a year.
-
The licensee also stated that station records are being reviewed in an effort to identify a contaminating event (s) which may
- have been the origin of the subsurface contamination. At the
,
same time, additional measurecents are being made to define s
,
the extent and magnitude of surface contamination.
~
B.
The 'aspector stated that the licensee apparentl7 had failed to make an adequate evaluation of the original contamination event (s) and was therefore in noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.201(b).
.
.
'
-8-
.
i e
,
p
,. -
-
_
.
-
.
-
u.
.
.
-
.
,
%'
REPORT DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
-
( \\
-
s
)
3. Stephenson, Plant Superintendent
,
A. Roberts, Assistant Superintendenc L. Butterfield, Administrative Assistant G. Klopp, Operating Engineer g
.
,,
E. Budzichowski, Operating Engineer T. Watts, Technical Supervisor D. A m, Radiation-Chemistry Supervisor R. cra dall, Health Physicist
D. Simpson, Health Physicist G. Bergan, Chemist T. Schneider, Chemist L. Noring, Chemist V. Chaney, Radiation Protection Foreman
_
R. Schumacher, Radiation Protection Foreman
.
J. Almer, Radwaste Foreman D. Stoxen, Radwaste Foreman R. Thomas, Instru=ent Maintenance Foreman R. Campbell, Instrument Maintenance C. Rapp, Engineering Assistant J. Golden, Co=monwealth Edison
,
P., Hayes, Com=onwealth Edison
-
G. Heim, Sargent and Lundy Engineers
>
D. Siefken, Sargent and Lundy Engineers M. Trautman, Eberline Instrument Corp.
2.
Organization Changes
.
'
The radiation-chemistry department structure has been changed with the appointment of a lead health physicist and a lead chemist who report directly to the radiation-chemistry super-visor. The complement of radmen wa's reduced to 23 when two men, who have not yet been replaced, left the department. The current organization is shown below.
Rad-Chem Supervisor, I
l I
Lead Chemisti iPoremen (2)l Lead HealtW Physicist l
-dChemists (2)l-4Radmen (23)]
--Health Physicist 3 (21
'
Engineering l fEngineering
~~
~~ Assistant
[ Assistant
-9-
.
,
!
--
.
-
-.
-
,
,
-_
I
,
-
- 1. l
,
.-
.
,
'
3.
Radioactive Effluents
.
(
a.
Gaseous Releases
.
The inspector examined records of gaseous radioactive effluents for the period August 1974 to June 1975. No releases in excess of technica specification were revealed other than a previously noted1 release ass 6ciated with a Unit 3 off-gas explosion on November 9, 1974. Technical specificationrequirementsforreleasemonitoringappegyed to have been satisfied. An earlier identified problem-concerning particulate and iodine sampling of the units 2 and 3 reactor building vents had been resolved; these releases are now quantified based on isokinetic samplers.
Noble gas releases are obtained from daily off-gas sample measurements with the use of holdup times based on off-gas
-
flow. Isotopic analyses of off-gas samples using a GeLi spectrometer are used to determine isotopic distribution of the releases. Licensee records indicate that these analyses were done at least quarterly since early 1974.
>
The charcoal off-gas treatment system for unit 2 was placed
-
in service during the inspection.
Release rates observed during the first few days of operation with the recombiner
_
plus all charcoal beds in series were about 50 uCi/second, about a factor of 300 lower than treatment with holdup alone and about a factor of 20 lower than operation with a recombiner plus holdup. With the "RECHAR" system in operation, releaser are quantified with samples taken dcwnstream of the charcoa?.
.
The level of release is below the sensitivity of the chi =ncy monitors and new monitors have been saaed at the header downstream of the charcoal beds to moritor the effluent before it becomes diluted in the main shimney.
The monitors-had not been calibrated.
b.
Liquid Releases Records of liquid radwaste releases were reviewed for the period August 1974 to June 1975.
Except for a previously cited laundry tank discharge of August 25, 1974,31 no releases occurred in excess of technical specifiestion limire. Except for that event and a previously cited inau ertent discharge of a laundry tank.on December 16,1974,$/
it appeared that releases were properly sampled and analyzed.
'
1/ IE:III Rpt. No. 050-249'75-09.
,2] RO Rpt. No. 050-237/74-L7.
3/ RO Rpt. No. 030-10/74-09.
4/ IE:III Rpt. No. 050-10/75-05.
- 10 -
.
F
.
.
.-_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _.
s.1 l
'
'
'
.
.
.
,-
.
~
.
%
I The maximum recycle syst2m become operational during the
~ l
,.
(
fourth quarter of 1974. Additional evaporators (2 - 25gpm),
-
'
demineralizers, and tankage were added to'the floor drain
.
treatment system. The new demineralizers were not yet in service and the existing waste decineralizer was being used to " polish" evaporator distillate. A, comparison between the first five months of 1975 and the first five
months of 1974 shows the following:
. Period Activity Discharged (mC1)
Volume Discharged (liter
6 January-May 1974 1.6 x 10 3.0 x 10
6
,
January-May 1975 7.6 x 10 2.5 x 10 c.
Solid Radwaste
.
-
Solid radwaste shipments for 1975 were reviewed. Approximately
"
450 curies were shipped to Sheffield, Illinois and Barnwell,
,.
South Carolina for burial through May 1975. Detailed ex-amination of the April 1975 records showed 115 curies in 71 shipments divided between 43 shipments of drums (90 curies in 1000 drums) and 28 shipments of polyethylene liners (25 curies) containing resins and sludges solidified by ANEFCO.5/
~
,
The maximum activity recorder for a liner shipment was
-
2.6 curies. Truck and container surveys appeared to have been made and recorded properly, i
4.
Semiannual Report
.
Effluent releases reported in the licensee's semiaantal report for the period July-December 1974 were reviewed for internal consistency and selective comparisons vere mcde with the licensee'c discharge records.
Inconsistencies were noted in the unit 2/3 reactor building vent stack iodine End particulate releases for September and October. No problems were noted in the liquid
,
'
release data.
5.
Effluent Control Instrumentation Licensee records of calibration and functional tests of effluent and off-gas monitors were reviewed.
Surveillance appeared to have been done in accordance with approved procedures at fre-quencies specified by the technical specifications. Documentation
,
had been improved and use of obsolete data sheets was not observed.5./
,
Calibrations are done by the instrument maintenance shop. Alarm 5/ RO Inspectr;a Rpt. No. 050-010/74-05.
6/ RO Inspection Rpt. No. 050-237/74-07.
- 11
-
.
-
-
,, --
.-.
B s
- - -
-
.
.
ui
,
.
."
i
.
.
.
.
,
%
setpoint changes are made in response to setpoint change requests
-
(-
initiatad by the radiation-chemistry department on the basis of
,
,.
. case curves relating measured effluent release monitot i
(curie /sueond) and monitor reading.
It was noted that radiation-chemistry procedure 37-5-4, revision 2 May 1974, did not include an instruction to initiate a setpoint change request and the instrument shop calibration procedure did "not include an instruc-tion to inquire if such a change was necessary. It was also observed that the copies of these curves posted in the control room for Units 2 and 3 off-gas monitors were dated October 1974.
,
Improved surveillance of unit 2/3 chi =ney moaitor/ sampler flow was noted with a new procedure 37-3-5 (October 1974) "D 2/3 Chimney-Filter Sa=ple Replacement," which requires daily flow adjustment and immediate reporting to management if proper flow
.'
cannot be obtained. The procedure is posted at the monitor.
'
A comparable requirement is not in effect for the Unit 1 monitor /
sampler.
It's flow, being not adjustable, depends only on pump flow, which appeared to.be low during the period December 10, 1974, to January 19, 1975.
Since that time, flow has been approximately isokinetic (5 cfm). The inspector also confirmed that a sharp bendearliercbservydintheflexiblehosebetweentheparticulate
_
and iodine filters 1 had been, removed.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's records concerning cali-I bration of liquid process monitors noting that a study titled
"An Engineering Study of Ways to Improve the Sansitivity and
.
Si=plify the Calibration of Service Water and Other Monitors"
by National Nuclear Corporation of Pedwood City, California wasdatedSeptg7er5,1974,therebyfulfillingacommitment d
b to this office-A recommendation to install' monitors on the
!
Unit 2 service water line and on the Unit 2/3 radwaste discharge line was made in late Septe=her and a letter requesting the modification was written by the station on October 10, 1974.
An installation work request was written in January 1975. The monitors have been received and assembled and installation awaits the receipt of the monitor receiving tanks which are expected in early July.
The licensee has underway a modification to replace the individual
reactor building vent samplers with a monitoring / sampling ;ystem installed on~ the connon reactor building exhaust stack.
It will provide real time monitoring of iodine and particulate filters,
.
noble gas monitoring, and flow and activity alar =s in the control room. Instc11ation of this system is awaiting procurenent of an isokinetic sampling probe.
2/ RO Inspection Rpt. No. 050-10/74-05.
8/ Ibid.
- 12 -
,
.
,-m.
_ _
_ _ _. _
, - -,
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-.
u. t
'
- o
-
.-
.
.
.
.
.
%
'
.
.
[
'
'
6.
Effluent Discharge Procedures
'
The following pr'ocedure changes reviewed by the inspector were noted to have been properly reviewed and approved.
.
,.
a.
Unit 1 Radwaste Discharge Procedures Thesia procedures were rewritten as partial corrective action 16,1974.gpggpdischargesmadeonAugust25 to inadvertent laundry
---
The new procedures, which and December include valve line-ups, are color coded by tank and taquire supervisory verification of proper valve status before and
-
after discharge. A " locked valve" check lisc and surveil-
'
lance procedure was implemented.
-
b.
Procedure 2000-S-1, " Unit 2/3 Aboveground Storace Tank Surveillance" The procedure was modified in November 1974 to require the adwaste department to initiate sampling after each liquid
.
ification4.8.Dwillbemaintained.ggwithTechnicalSpec-addition to a tank so that complian
-
A logshe't showing the status of each tank 'after each addition is included.
-
,
c.
Procedure 2000-20, " Curie Content Calculation for Unit 2/3
,
Radwaste Storane Tanks"
i The procedure was revised to requirc curie content calculation after each sampling. Nomograms to facilitate calculation were added. The results are kept an the logsheets associated with procedure 2000-S-1.
d.
Procedure 37-3-3, " Routine Off-gas Sampling and Analysis D1/D2/D3" The procedure was revised to accommodate samples taken at other locations in the off-gas train in addition to the steam jet air ejector, depending on the mode of off-gas treatmeot being used.
.
.
9/ RO Report No. 050-10/74-09.
10/ Ltr. CE to D. Knuth, dtd 1/6/75.
11/ Ibid.
- 13 - '
r
.
-
-
i
.
.
-. \\
--
.
.-
.
.
.
.
,
'9
- -
2.
Procedure 37-3-9, " Stack Particulate and Iodine 131 Analysis"
,
(
The procedure was written to formalize instructions to the
-
radmen for counting iodine and particulate samples of gasecus effluents. These instructions were formerly part of the radmen shift routines or were implicit in the makeup of the counting data sheet. The procedure specifies counting of the samples on a gam =a we11 counter 7 days following
,
- removal of the sa=ple.
Formerly the practice was to count
'
the samples at 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> and again at 7 days with the latter result being used for release quantification.
f.
Procedure 37-1-13, " Shipment and Receipt of Radioactive Materials at DNPS" The procedure was revised to reflect 10 CFR 71 requirements materials.M.ppment of Type B quantities of radioactive regarding sh
'
'
7.
Reactor Coolant Quality Primary coolant surveillance for conductivity, chloride ion, and
,
radioactivity were reviewed for the period August 1974 to June 1975.
No problems were identified, except for the occurrence in Unit 1 primary of high conductivity;on April 7, 1975 and high chloride
-
ion on April 7 and April 9, 1975. These by the licensee as abnormal occurrences.-g7ygys were reported
---
Surveillance
,
appeared to in accordance with tt: technical specification except on April A, 1975, when no sample was taken between 1030
.
and 2230 although Unit I was in startup mode without established steam flow. Startup had occurred at 0730 on April 5 and steam flow was established at about 1330 on April 7.
This lapse appears to be in conflict with Technical Specification 4.6.C.
During the inspection, the innpector was informed that formaldehyde was found to be present generally in reactor grade water throughout the site.
It is believed to have originated with the ANEFC0 solidification process from which it was returned with excess water to the Unit I waste collector tank. From there it was
,
l passed through the waste treatment processes of evaporation and demineralization, without being removed, to various storage tanks. There appears to be no technical specification regarding formaldehyde. However, it does affect conductivity somewhat and the licensee is studying ways of eliminating it.
A possibility being considered as an alternative to replac'ement of the station
water inventory is the addition of hydrogen perioxide to facilitate formaldehyde removal by the demineralizers.
12/ Ltr. CE to J. Keppler dtd 8/5/74, 13/ A0 Rpt. No. 50-10/75-4, dtd 4/15/75.
14/ A0 Rpt. No. 50-10/75-5, dtd 4/16/75.
- 14 -
-
-
-
..
-
- - - - - -
-
-
.
-
-
-
. - -.
- - -. -
- - -
-
- - -
. -
-. -. -
- -.
+
. '. '
-
-
.
o
.
.
.
%
8.
Noncompliance Followup
.
('
Corrective actions taken by the licensee in response to the
-
following previously identified enforcement items were reviewed.
a.
Unit 1 Laundrv Discharges of August 25 and December 16, 1975 The corrective actions stipulated in the lic'ensee's response to IE:HQ enforcement letter of December 11., 1974, were examined.15/ Procedure changes were noted in paragraph 6a.
In addition, a requalification ~rogram for equipment attendants p
was started. As originally intended, about 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> of training was given on unit 2/3 radwaste systems. Radwaste training for auxiliary operators in training to be equip-ment attendants was aug=ented and about 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> was given to the most recent gro'ups.
_
The inspector observed that laundry discharge valves were properly tagred and locked. Piping and instrumentation diagrams redraun by a licensee consultant were in the process of review.by the station, s
!
~
b.
Posting of Documents Pursuant to 10 CFR 19 A glass-enclosed bulletin board with the requisite documents
-
has been mounted in the gate house, through which all persons who enter the station must pass.
i c.
' Isotopic Analyses of Off-gas Samples
,
Spectrometer difficulties which led to a failure to perform timely isotopic analyse of Unit 3 condenser off-gas in the firstquarterof19731Lyappeartohavebeenresolved.
No further occurrences of the problems were apparent, d.
Off-3as Isolation Monitor Calibration
.
Proble=s associated with missing the required calibration oftheygJt2off-gasisolationmonitorinthesecc..dquarter of 1975 appear to be resolved.
Surveillance forms initiated by cte instrument mechanic after completing the work are then revicaed and initialed by a supervisor. The completed surveillance is logged on a computer-generated master surveil-lance list.
-
.
15/ Ltr. CE to D. Knuth dtd 1/6/75.
-'
16/ IE:III Inspection Rpt. No. 050-010/75-06.
11/ RO Inspection Rpt. No. 050-249/74-09.
18/ RO Inspection Rpt. No. 050-237/74-07.
- 15 -
I l
?
.
F
.
__
- _
.-
-
.
..
'
'l
.
.
.
,
s-
.
e.
Primary Coolant Isotopic Analyses
,
Licensee records indicate that monthly isotopic analyses of primary reactor water have been carried out in accord-ance with the technical specifications and that they were usually done well before the end of'the month.19/
9.
Unusual Occurrences
,
.
The radiation: protection aspects of the following unusual events
,
were reviewed.
,
!
a.
Unit 2 Off-gas Explosion of May 26,1975 (A0 237/75-35)
,
~
An off-gas explosion at 1759 on May 26, 1975, caused the B air ejector rupture disc to fail and resulted in damage
to off-gas filter A.
Release rates were elevatet for a period of approximately one hour.
"*1e inspector revieued the licensee's estimate of a peak release rate of 1400 uCi/second and found no problems. Environmental samples
'
examined by the licensee were negative.
.
.
b.
Unit 2/3 Vent Stack Release of May 31, 1975 i
-
The inspector was notified on June 10, while onsite, that
i release of particulates via the unit 2/3 reactor vent stack on Hay 31, 1975, had apparently exceeded Technical Spec-ification 3.8.C by a factor of three. >Information was based
on a gross count of the filter made seven days after removal --
on Saturday, June 7.
Because of a procedure inadequacy, management did not become aware of the occurrence unef1 June 10.
An isotopic analysia of the filter was done with a GeLi Spectrometer. The inspector uns informed that the actual release was a factor of ten lower than originally indicated and that no LCO had in fact been exceeded.
Licensee procedure 37-3-8, " Counting Room Reporting Criteria
_for Radiation Protection Personnel," requires i==ediate
l notification of management when gross counting results indicate releases above specified thresholds.
Inadvertently, no threshold was specified for unit 2/3 vent stack.
Before the close of th? inspection a procedure modification
'
was submitted to correct 6 mis deficiency.
,
-
19/ -Ibid.
,
4 i
4*
.
- 16 -
~
.i
.
f~
.
- _ _ - - _ _
.
.
,.'
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
s Examinat.lon of licensee alr sampling records showed the
'
,
release to be associated with an airborne condition on
-
the refueling floor that occurred on the evening of May 30 and early morning of May 31.
The work in progress was
'
grinding in the reactor vessel as part of the sparger replacement job.
k'ork was done wearing supplied air, and constant air monitors were used to monitor conditions in
'
the vessel and on the refueling floor above. A licensee representative stated that the airborne condition occurred
,
after a failure in a temporary exhaust system being used to filter and exhaust air from the cavity. Air sample i
results indicated a peak level of 30 times the MFC for cobalt 60, the principal isotope involved.
10. Licensee Commitment Follow-dp
.
Follow-up actions by the licensee on the following commitments
-
were also reviewed.
a.
Shift Routine Check List
'
The inspector confirmed that day shift routines for the
,
radiationmenvjg7 divided between two men beginning April 19, 1975
-
b.
Gate House Portal Monitor The inspector noted that an electronic time delay circuit
,
had been incorporated into the gatehouse portal monitor so that a checkout of less than ten seconds duration would sound an audible alarm.2,lf c.
Locked Trash Box a
The inspector observed the use of a locked trash box for disposalofgeanmaterialsoriginating'inthestation store room.--.
He also observed that the large trash boxes, into which trash collected throughout the station i
is placed after a contamination survey, are open at the top and easily accessible. The contents of these boxes, which are located just inside the west boundary of the security area, are transported offsite for disposal. A similar box is located near the screen house for disposal of6 trash removed from the traveling scrden.
-
20/ IE:III Rpt. No. 050-010/75-06.
21/ Ibid.
22/ Ltr. IE:III to CE dtd 6/11/74.
.
- 17
'
i
.
-
- -
-
-
.
. -
-
-
.
.
.
-_
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
%
.
.
11. Unit 2/3 Radwaste
~
Operations in the unit 2/3 radwaste building were observed several times during the inspection. The main floor storage bays appeared to be relatively empty with an estimated 150 drums awaiting
,
capping and shipment. Drums are no longer added to lower level t
storage because of problems with the elevator.
.A new capping station, added within the two months. prior to this inspection, permits the remote capping and securing of drums.
It was observed.that a new drum decontamination facility was in the process of fabrication. Using high pressure spray from a
,
ringheader to effect remote decontamination, it is intended to largely replace the currently used immersion tub with bn th scrub.
Conditions in 2/3 radwaste basement remains improved. The sumps have been cleaned out and new sump pumps were installed with a partial recirculation line installed to wash down sump walls and to' agitate to prevent build up of solid materials. By the close of the inspection a general cleanup of radwaste basement
'
area had started. Beginning with rooms containing the resin and sludge tanks, this will progress throagh the collector tank roem to the main basement, which will be decontaminated and painted. A licensee representative stated that level indicators
~
have been installed on the resin tank to signal overflow problens.
If they prove effective, they also will be installed on the i
sluoge tanks.
.
12.
Unit 1 Radwaste Spill of May 10, 1975 (A0 50-10/74-15)
.
The inspector reviewed licensee cleanup work following the radwaste spill of May 10, 1975. With core borings and surface samples the area in which activity greater than background reference values by two sigma was identified and designated for removal. By July 14 about one third of the soil removal had been a:complished.
To evaluate possible leakage from the storage vault, three borings were made in the backfill along its east side as shown in the figure.
.
.
e
- 18
-
l
.
'
pe
!
.--
-
.
-
,
{
'
,
.
....
..
-
-
o*
,.
'gacia Gil
-
- -
g
,,- - - _ _ _ _ _
91 i i
Rcsm. n' -.:
I i
i
.
I es;
-
w i
,
-
,
l Sid1'
w a, -,I
-
est
-
,
i
- __
_
'
Pta ri
.
v.
~
- --- V,, ' _
agt 7 I
s.i I
'
I
_m___._
,
!
e
.
'!g
'
- I
'
i c
.
k l
sa i f
~
I.'.j
'f 9
-
- p.
,.. _.
Eleva hin
,
.
.
The borings were to a depth of about 35 feet in order to take
'
them belcw the level of the vault floor slab which is givan as elevation 490 feet (above MSL). The surface elevation is
-
,
described as 519 feet.
Sections from the cores were analyzed
'
for radioactivity by the licensee's environmental contractor.
!
The data show cesium 137, cesium 134, and cobalt 60 activity at depths of 21 to 24 feet. The maximum level observed was
,
cesium 137 at 24.5 feet (17pCi/g). Levels on the surface
'
(obtained July 7) ran to about 300 pC1/g cesium 137 and 600 pCi/g cobalt 60.
These results were discussed during the j
management interviews on July 1 and July 14.
.
l
e
.
19 -
-
D**D *]D'3~}$
o Ju l A lni _,
wo r
.
.
..-. -.
...,
--..