IR 05000010/1976026
| ML19340A860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1977 |
| From: | Essig T, Fisher W, Hiatt J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A841 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-76-26, 50-10-76-26, 50-237-76-27, 50-249-76-29, NUDOCS 8009040677 | |
| Download: ML19340A860 (11) | |
Text
..
- -..
.
- -.
-
. - _ _ _ _. _...
_--.
.
.-
_ _ _
, _ _ _.
--.
_
o r
.
,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
~
REGION III
!
Report of Operational Radwaste Inspection f
IE Inspection Report No. 050-010/76-26
!
.IE I.tspection Report No. 050-237/76-27 j
IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/76-29 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
!
P. O. Box 767 l
Chicago, Illinois 60690 Dresden Nuclear Power Station Licenses No. DPR-2
'
Units 1, 2, and 3 No. DPR-19 Morris, Illinois and No. DPR-25
Category:
C Type of Licensee:
BWR, 200 MWe - Unit 1 i
BWR, 809 MWe - Units 2 and 3
]
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
-
l Dates of Inspection:
December 14-17 and 20, 1976 l
Principal Inspector:
\\
N (Date)
Accompanying Inspector:
W. Hiat I (4 (Date)
,
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None Reviewed By:
W. L. Fisher, Chief I //V[~7 7 Fuel Facility Projects and (Date)
Radiation S'ipport Section i
.
.
8009040
-
'
,
p
.
-
..
.
.
...
. - _ _
. _. --
-
__
__
... _..
_
_. _. _
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
__
._
. ~ _
_.. _ _.
.
.
!
Commonwealth Edison-2-JAN 141977 Company
-
errors identified by the inspectors are substantiated, and issue
'
an errata sheet, as appropriate.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of i
Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this notice, the enclosed inspection report, and your
-
response to this notice will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows. If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this notice, to withhold such
-
information from public disclosure. The application must include ~a full statement of the reasons for which the infor-mation is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
-
Sincerely yours,
=2y N.
..es M. Allan, Chief Fuel Facility and l
Materials Safety Branch
[
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Reports
,
No. 050-010/76-26, No. 050-237/76-27 and No. 050-249/76-29 cc w/ encl:
Mr. B. B. Stephenson, NCentralFiles Station Superintendent
,
Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Anthony Roisman, Esq.,
Attorney i
l L
-..-
-.
-
,
- - - -
,
. _._
_ _.....
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-
.
Inspection Summary Operational Radwaste Inspection conducted December 14-20,1976, (Unit 1, 76-26), (Unit 2, 76-27) and (Unit 3, 76-29):
Reviewed procedures and records relating to radioactive effluents, shipments, effluent monitor calibrations, licensee followup to previous commitments, and Licensee Event Reports related to radioactive effluents. One item of noncompli-ance related to unlocked, unattended high radiation area doors (Unit 2).
Enforcement Item Infraction Contrary to 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2)(iii), the door to the Unit 2 High Pressure
'
Heater Area /"X" Area and the door to the Unit 2 Turbine Pipeway were found unlocked and unattended on December 14 and 15, 1976, respectively.
(Paragraph 8.b, Report Details)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Calibration of the Unit 2/3 chimney monitor, referenced in enforcement Item A.1 in the IE:III letter of July 8, 1976, was in progress.
The chimney monitor had been isolated on two occasions, samples of pre-
~
analyzed off-gas introduced, and the monitor response was noted.
This item remains open, pending collection and analysis of additional data.
Calibration of the Unit 2/3 liquid radwaste monitor, referenced in enforce-ment Item A.3 in the IE:III letter of July 8,1976, was in progress.
Although the aonitor appeared to respond adequately when the contents of a radwaste tank were pumped through it, the licensee indicated that a problem had developed regarding radioactive materials remaining in the vicinity of the detector after the di<.harge had been terminated.
This item remains open, pending collection and analysis of additional data and development of a method to remove the residual activity.
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components None.
.
-2-r1
.
_
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ -.
._
___
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _
_ _.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __
....
.
.
'
-
.
z
,
l
l lB.
Facility Items (PJans and Procedures)
None.
.
,
.
l C.
Managerial Items
'
i
]
A radiation protection foreman transferred to the' licensee's corporate l
headquarters, effective December 20,~1976.
This reduces the number of foremen to two until a replacement is found.
,
Six additional radmen (trainees) were added to the staff, increasing
!
the total number of radmen to 31.
D.
Deviations
,
l None.
,
^
E.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
,
i None reviewed.
Management Interview The following items were diccussed on December 20, 1976, with Messrs.
j Stephenson, Abels Budzichowski, Schilgen, Adam and Bergen:
,
f A.
The inspector stated that the inspection was the first half of the
,
annual radwaste inspection and was limited primarily to Unit 1.
B.
The inspector identified an item of noncompliance related to unlocked, i.
unattended high radiation area doors at Unit 2.
The inspector
]-
pointed out that this was a recurring problem and questioned
'
whether the licensee's previous attempts to solve the problem containe?
the ultimate answer.
(Paragraph 8.b, Report Details)
-
C.
The inspector noted fulfillment of the following commitments made
-
]
by the licensee:
i 1.
Inclusion, in radiation protection training, of-the need for keeping exposures as low as resonably achievable.
2.
Calibration of the GeLi spectrometer for charcoal cartridges.
i
- - -
3.
Requiring radwaste operators to record the actual duration of
.
liquid releases, rather than the pump shutoff time, on
.
discharge permits.
(Paragraph 2.a Report Details)
,
4
.
3-
-
-
<
f
k
,
.
,.
n..n-..,-
.,
,..n
. +,,
--.m
-
.,n.,
,v
--
m
.
,,~~e n
,
~~. - - -..
--.,w.
- -.
.O., -
,.e-
,
.-
.
. - -
. -
. -. _ -
-.
-....
._
-
,
.
. - -. -. -..
i
.
,
A D.
The inspector noted that, with respect to a prior commitment, equipment to prevent tank overflows had not yet been installed in the Unit I radwaste vault.
,~.
- ]
~
The licensee indicated that installation of this equipment was
'
.
i part of the Unit I radwaste modification oc ba completed by April j
1978.
E.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the licensee's prior
,
commitment to improve maintenance of ARM recorders and noted the
'
Unit 2/3 recorders appeared to be in a better s/ste of maintenance.
However, the Unit I system did not a pear to be working properly; i.e.,
most, if not all, of the recorded exposure rates appeared to l
be constant.
(Some variability would be expected).
!
The licensee indicated that the Unit 1 equipment was old and probably
!
would eventually be replaced. As an interim measure, the licensee
-
indicated that they would look into the possibility of recording ARM data on the process computer.
F.
The inspector. noted that routine surveillance of chimney monitor
charts by the chemists was not yet an accomplished fact.
.
The licensee indicated that instructions to this effect had been
_
i interpreted dif ferently by each chemist and that the matter would
'
be clarified.
-
G.
The inspector noted that his review of the Unit 1 portion of the January through June 1976 report of effluent releases revealed five apparent errors.
,
The licensee indicated that they would review the matter and issue
.
an errata sheet, as appropriate.
l I
-
l
'
4 t
-
.
,
j J
-4-
!
.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.- -- -
-.
.- -
--
.-
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
'
B. Stephenson, Plant Superintendent E. Budzichowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 1 C. Sargent, Technical Staf f Supervisor J. Testa, Radwaste Supervisor J. Skory, Radwaste Foreman D. Adam, Radiation-Chemistry Supervisor G. Bergen, Lead Chemist T. Schnieder, Chemist D. Eggett, Chemist L. Scott, Chemist J. Parry, Health Physicist D. Simpson, Health Physicist
-
D. O'Keefe, Radiation Protection Foreman D. Schildgen, Quality Assurance Inspector J. Abel, Administrative Assistant C. Rapp, Engineering Assistant 2.
Radioactive Effluent Releases a.
Liquid Releases
.
Records of liquid radwaste releases from Unit I were reviewed for the period June through November 1976.
The review included selective examination of discharge permits, valve lineup sheets, and tank level records.
No instances of noncompliance with regulatory requirements for releases were noted.
The inspectors exam { ped the licensee's followup actions to a previous commitment-to have radwaste operators record (on the discharge permits)
the actual time the tank reached empty (as determined by the liquid level chart) rather than the time that the pump was shut off. A revicw of selected liquid level charts indicated that about 87% of the time the operators had been recording the actual time the tanks became empty.
The licensee indicated that the actual time the tank reached empty was not recorded all of the time, simply because the old habit of recording pump shutoff time had not been completely broken. The insocetors judged that this commitment had been adequately met.
- 1/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-010/76-12.
-5-rT
..
..
.-
-
.-
-
.
-
_-
-
~
-.
.
-,..
. -
.
L
.
,
.
i I
The licensee stated that since January 1976 discharges from
the Unit I radwaste system have been limited to laundry wastes, l
T and that all other liquid discharges from Unit I have been
.
j.
made via the augmented ifquid radwaste (Maximum Recycle)
system in Unit 2/3. Release rates (excluding tritium and
- .
dissolved noble gases) for the six month period ending November t
!
1976 average 31 mci /mo, which is essentially the same as the j
average release rate during the first half of the year (32 j
mC1/mo). Total. volumes discharged averaged 1.4E+05 and 2.3E+05 1/mo., respectively, for the two periods.
No problems were
'
]
noted in the review of analyses and quantification of radio-nuclides discharged.
'
a
.
On October'5 and 14, 1976, the licensee reported having
)
discoveredleaksintheUnit2/3pggItestreturnlinenear the "B" condensate storage tank.2 - The leak reported on i
!
October 5, 1976 was small and was above ground. A radiation
'
survey of the ground where the leak occurred indicated that no j
radioactivity above backgrou,d was measurable.
The leak
.
l reported on October 14, 1976 was estimated to have a maxirum flow rate of 5 gpm and was located underground.
The licensee estimated that this offsite release did not exceed 5% of the
,
Technical Specifications. The inspector reviewed the licensee's
!
analysis of the release, including the bases for the many
assumptions which had to be made.
No ptoblers were noted as a
_
'
result of that review.
Records of radioactivity contained in outside tanks were reviewed against the requirements of Technical Specification 3.8.D and'4.8.D.
No problems were noted.
b.
Gaseous Effluents Records of gaseous effluent releases from Unit 1 for the period June through November 1976 were reviewed. No releases in excess of regulatory requirements were noted.
,
Noble gas release rates are determined from daily grab samples, using holdup times based on flow rates. The sample is collected
'
near the beginning of the holdup pipe and is normally assumed
,
to represent the entire 24-hour period unless a system upset
- -
occurs. A formal program for reviewing the chimney monitor record to verify that the grsb sample is representative has not
'
yet been fully established.
,
.
2/
Reportable Occurrence No. 50-237/76-60.
- 3/.
Reportable Occurrence No. 50-237/76-61.
J i-6-i
.
,
ye,
,
.
--.
.
.
.
-
--
-
- - -
-
.-.
-
--
.
u.
,
.
.
On December 7, 1976, the licensee reported 4/ that a required
)
'
daily off-gas sample had not been collected on November 8, 197o. The licensee indicated that, due to a high flow rate
-
condition in the off-gas system (because of air inleakage),
.
flow measuring instrumentation which necessitated the assistan i
of a chemist at the time of sample collection had to be used.
The sample collection was switched from the midnight to the day shif t until the air inleakage problem was corrected. On November 8, 1976, the Unit I chemist was absent and the sample was missed. The inspector verified that no significant changes in the off-gas release rate occurred during the period, and did
,
not identify any concerns with respect to the licensee's
,
actions.
3.
Records and Reports of Radioactive Effluents
'
,
Effluent releases reported in the licensee's reports for January through June 1976 for Unit I were reviewed for internal consistancy.
Selected comparisons were made between reported data and those contcined in the licensee's discharge records. A total of five
,
apparent errors were found in the reported data, including two related to solid radwaste.
4.
Effluent Control Instrumentation
-
)
Licensee records of calibrations and functional tests of gaseous
!
and liquid effluent monitors for Unit I were examined for the period June through November 1976. The licensee's program consists of a quarterly electronic calibration of all monitors by instrument
,
maintenance personnel and, for some monitors, a monthly functional check. Radiological calibrations are performed quarterly on the off-gas and chimney monitors by isotopically analyzing gaseous waste samples and comparing the measured activity with the monitor's response for several dif ferent release rates.
No problems were noted during this review.
5.
Procedures for Controlling Release of Effluents I
The inspectors reviewed the following newly added or revised procedures related to the control of effluent releases (the change in the procedure numbering system relative to that reported previously j
reflects an overall change in the Dresden procedures system implemented
~
in June 1976):
.
DCP 1100-36 (Rev. 0), 7/76 Routine Laboratory Analyses
-
DCP 1100-39 (Rev. 0), 7/76 Reactor Water Isotopic Analysis
-
.
,
4/
Reportable Occurrr..ce No. 50-010/76-17.
i
'
-7-
.
'
.
. -
- -
-
--. _
.
..
.
-. - -
,
,
_ _.
,
DCP 1400-2 (Rev. 1), 11/76 - Calculation of Radioactivity in Liquid Samp19s for Discharge Permits Counting Reactor Water Iodine
~
DCP 1400-5 (Rev. 0), 6/76
-
Separation Samples in the Well Counter DCP 1500-4 (Rev. 0), 8/76 - Efficiency Calibration of Gamma
,
Spectrometer Multichannel Analyzer System DCP 1500-5 (Rev. 0), 6/76 - Recorder Cali'>ra.lon DCP 1500-6 (Rev. 0), 8/76 - Set-up and Quality Control Performance Check for Ortec GeLi Gamma Spectrometer System DCP 1500-7 (Rev. 0), 8/76
- Set-up and Quality Control Performance
-
Check for Hewlett-Packard Multichannel Analyzer / Basic System 5402A DCP 1500-9 (Rev. 0), 8/76 - Set-up and Quality Control Performance Check for Harshaw NaI(Tl) Gamma Spectro-meter DCP 1600-2 (Rev. 0), 6/76 - Preparation of Samples for Counting
.
DCP 1600-7 (dev. 0), 7/76 - Sampling and Analysis of Radwaste Tanks DCP 1700-9 (Rev. 1), 11/76 - Unit 1 Chimney Filter Sample Replacement DCP 2500-2 (Rev. 0), 7/76 - Well Counter Calibration for Iodine Separations DRP 1710-3 (Rev. 1), 11/76 - Counting and Release Rate Determination of Chimney and Vent Stack Charcoal and Particulate Filters.
No problems were identified during this review.
6.
Tests of Reactor Coolant Qualfty Reactor coolant surveillar. e for radioactivity was reviewed for the period June through Nosemoer 1976. The sample collection frequency and radioactivity concentrations were compared with the requirements contained in Sections 3.6.C.1 and 4.6.C.1 of the Technical Specifica-tions; no anomalies were found. The maximum concentration noted in Unit I reactor coolant was 0.092 pCi/ml, which was well within the 20 pCi/ml permitted by the Technical Specifications.
i i-8-
.
l l
_ _
,.__ _ _ ~
__
. - -.
-
.
.
-_-..
-
.-
,
-.
'
.
i 7.
Solid Radioactive Wastes i
a.
Shipments
.
Solid radwaste shipment records for Unit 1 for the period May
through November 1976 were reviewed.
The following data are
>
summarized from that review:
Activity Volume Type of Waste Shipped (Ci/mo)
Shipped (m /mo)
Solidified (resin, etc.)
'13
Dry Active Waste 0.47 470
,
Approximately 1100 of the 3300 m of dry active wastes shipped
during the seven-month period consisted of low-level contaminated soil removed from an area north of the Unit I radwaste facility.
-
On October 14, 1976, the_ licensee reported discovering ground contamination over most of an 100-foot-square area where the excavation for the Unit 1 HPCI building had just begun.
Although the surface contamination level was up to 30,000 cpm l
(GM), the activity was not. uniformly distributed and the specific activity of the soil (as shipped) averaged less than 0.5 nCi/g (due to:
Co-60, 70%; Cs-137, 20%; and Mn-54 and Cs-
'
134, 10%). All of the soil was shipped by truck to a licensed burial facility near Barnwell, South Carolina. No problems
_
were noted during shipment. The source of this ground contamination has not been explained, but the licensee is plycertainthat it is not related to the May 1975 reaso spill b.
Leakage From a Shipment of Contaminated Soil On November 10, 1976 the licensee reported that a shipment of contaminated soil bound for a licensed burial site near Sheffield, Illinois had to be terminated because the shipping container had fractured and was leaking water.
i The shipment consisted of two open-topped steel boxes, each of which contained a concrete septic tank (approximately 4' x 5'-
x 6' long) full of soil. The driver was in the process of
.
exiting from westbound I-80 at milepost 97 when the contents of one of the septic tanks shif ted, causing the tank wall,to fracture. This in turn caused the_ wall of the steel outer container to buckle, splitting the seam where the vall and.
bottom of the box were joined. Contaminated liquid flowed out 5/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-010/75-10.
.
-9-
-
<
I
.-- - - ---.
- -
-
,-
,
.--
.,,.. ~ _...,,
_.
.
.
.
..
. _ _. _ _
-.
.
.
<
of the split seam onto the truck bed and then onto the ground.
The ground contamination was low level ( 41000 cpm direct T
using on end-window GM survey meter) and was confined to a
-
l strip along the roadway about 40 fcet long and 1 foot wide
,
'and an adjoining area approximately 5' x 10' adjacent to the i
final position of the truck. The licensee removed the contam-
.
inated soil and returned the shipment to Dresden after
,
'
securing the load. The inspector verified by radiation survey that the ground contamination had, in fact, been removed.
The tank which ruptured contained. a significant quantity of j
liquid (perhaps 75% of the total volume).
The licensee was
!
unaware that the tank contained anything but conttminated soil
!
(the tanks were filled by a contractor), and had no explanation for the presence of the water. Af ter their return to the
'
site,thesetwotanks,alongwithfiveoggersremainingasa result of cleanup of the May 1975 spill,- were demolished and
>
the water from the one tank was allowed to evaporate.
The
'
seven demolished tanks plus contents were hauled by the same trucks mentioned in paragraph (a) to Barnwell, South Carolina.
8.
Inspection of Facilities
a.
Unit 1
.
During the inpection, visits were made by the inspectors to
-
selected areas of the plant, emphasizing rudvaste facilities.
A licensee-furnished portable survey instrument was used to j
assess radiological conditions in various areas.
il Conditions in the Unit I radwaste area unchangedfromthepreviousinspection,ypreessentially
except the northern perimeter fence hs? been removed and a new fence constructed
.
'
further south (immediately north of the radwaste facility).
'
'
This change, which redu.ed the radwaste area (a high radiation area) to about half of its former size, was necessary to make room for the HPCI Building construction.
The radwaste basement was reasonably dry and' clean.
Exposure rates were in the range of 10-100 mR/hr and the airborne radioactivity concentration (according to licensee measurements)
was about 3E-9 pCi/cc. The ventilation system, including pre and HEPA filters, was found to be intact and operating during the inspection.
6/
Ibid.
1/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-010/76-12.
j
- 10 -
,
S T~ ~
.
_
_. _ _
.
_
.
-
_
.
- -- -
.. _
-
.
~
-
. -..
_ _.
. -.. -
_
.A.'
-
..
b.
Units'2 and 3
,
'
During this inspection, brief tours were made of Units 2 and 3
l to review housekeeping, with emphasis on radiation protection.
-
Radiological housekeeping was generally found acceptable.
However on December 14, 1976, the entrance to the Unit 2 High i
Pressure Heater and "X" Areas (a high radiation area) was
.
found_to be unlocked and unattended. On December 15, 1976, the entrance to the Unit 2 Turbine Pipeway (a high radiation area) was found to be unlocked and unattended.
The fact that
^
these doors were unlocked and unattended represents noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2)(iii).
'
i
.
doors has been a recurring one.g)gpggp high radiation area The problem of unattended aa.d u
,
- - - -
The licensee's efforts to solve this problem have included covering this topic in
,
safety meetings, radiation protection training, and in memoranda i
to station supervision, as well as posting signs throughout the facility to remind individuals to make sure that high radiation area doors are locked. While these efforts have, for periods of time, prevented recurrence of the problem, it i
does not appear that they alone contain the ultimate solution.
i
'
l
-
!
.
!
,
,
.
,
!
,
.
i 8/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-237/75-25.
9/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-237/76-05.
10/ 'IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-237/76-25.
- 11 -
,
[
i-
.
.
.-
..
_
.
-.
. - -
-
-
. - -
-
--
- _ - _ _.