IR 05000016/1981001
| ML20010F113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 03010525, Fermi |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Hueter L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010F107 | List: |
| References | |
| 30-10525-81-01, 30-10525-81-1, 50-016-81-01, 50-16-81-1, 50-341-81-13, NUDOCS 8109090382 | |
| Download: ML20010F113 (9) | |
Text
.
.
!
.
.
U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No.. 50-16/81-01; 50-341/81-13; 30-10525/81-01
' Docket Nos. 50-16; 50-341; 30-10525 Licenses No.
DPR-9: CPPR-3?;
21-02335-10 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Enrico Fermi, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Fermi Site, Monroe, MI Inspection Conducted: July 13-17, 1981 Yfh i
Inspector:
L.'J. Hueter
/
E/
Approved By:
L cting Ch.ief 8/ _
Facilities Radiation Protection Section
. Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 13-17, 1981 (Reports No. 50-16/81-01; 50-341/81-13; 30-10525/81-01).
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection program for the decommissioned Unit 1 facility, for the preoperational Unit 2 facility, and for the byproduct material license authorizing sources at the Unit 2 facility for testing and calibration purposes. The inspection included organization and staffing; training; radiation protection procedures; facilities, instruments and equipment; annual reports of the Unit 1 facility; and survey and surveillance records for both the Unit I facility and the byproduct material license. The inspection involved 41 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inapector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in any of the six areas inspected.
_
8109090392 810821 PDR 4 DOCK 05000016 PDR g
>
-
.
..
-
-,
,
.
.-
'
'.3
.
.
,
..
>
DETAILS
[
1.
Persons Contacted.
,
- E. Alexanderson, Director, Nuclear Engineering
- R. Eberhardt, Chemistry General Supervisor
- R. Emmitt, Health ~ Physics Supervisor
- E. Griffing, Superintendent, Nuclear Production
,.
- D.-Halper, Health Physicist (Student / Summer Help)
'
W. _ Harrison, Fermi 1 Plant Supervisor l
- P. Lavely, Health Physics General Supervisor
'
'
- R. Lenart, Assistant Superintendent, Nuclear Production
R. Miller, Supervisor, Nuclear Training Program
- E. Newton, Plant QA Engineer l-E. Wilds, Radwaste General Supervisor
!
l
- B. Little, NRC Senior Resident Inspector l
K
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
!
2.
General t
!
-This inspection of the radiation protection program for all three licenses (the decommissioned Unit 1, the preoperational Unit 2,.and the byproduct material license) began about 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 1981.
It included a tour of the Unit I facility, the onsite dump where rubble of the dismantled l
Unit I health physics building was placed, and selected areas of the Unit
2 facility.
,
'3.
Organization, Staffing, and Training At the time of initial preoperational inspection of the radiation pro-tection proEram conducted in November 1980, the Rad-Chem Group was found
,
j to have minimal staffing, and a change in the organizational structure and staffing levels for the Rad-Chem Section from that described in the FSAR was under consideration. Also noted at that time was the apparent weak status of the radiation protection training program.
In May 1981,
,
!
Amendment 35 to the FSAR included a total revision to Section 13 of the l
FSAR titled " Conduct of Operations." Included in Section 13 is the i
revised organizational structure and planned staffing of the Rad-Chem l
Group as well as qualification and training requirements. Qualification requirements reflect Section 4 of ANSI N18.1 and Regulatory Guide 1.8.
!
!
The latter differs from ANSI N18.1.only in specifying more stringent I
requirements for the position of Radiation Protection Manager, a responsi-
~
bility assigned to the Health Physics General Supervisor in the licensee's
,
!
new organizational structure. This individual has direct access to the Superintendent Nuclear Production (Plant Manager) on radiation protection
'
matters.
-
-2-
,
u
___ _ -__________.
.
.
.
The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Fermi Unit 2 was recently issued, July 1981. As noted in the SER, the licensee intends to fill the Chemical Engineer position by December 1981 and the Health Physics Supervisor of Dosimetry by six months before fuel load.
Fuel load is scheduled for i
November 1982. The Radiation Protection - Chemical Engineer (Rad-Chem Engineer) terminated employment with the licensee about two months ago.
AL interim replacement selected from within the company to fill the position was not available for interview during this inspection. The inspector was informed that the individual has a chemistry background but no experience in radiochemistry or radiation protection. Although the licensee stated that he will function in an administrative capacity the interim Rad-Chem Engineer does not appear to meet the qualifications for this position as given in the FSAR, Section 13.1.4.3.3.
The qualifi-cation calls for five years experience in chemistry of which a minimum of one year shall be in radiochemistry Also, the Rad-Chem Enginner, as noted in Section 12.4 of the SER will influence decisions on plant opera-tions that can affect the radiation safetv of workers since he is a mamber of the On-Site Review Organization (OST0). A part of this function is to review plant procedures of other work groups such as operations and maintenance for health physics concerns. The interim Rad-Chem Engineer's background does not appear adequate to make health physics evaluations.
These matters were discussed in the exit interview.
l According to Section 13 of the FSAR (Amendment #35), the Chemic31 General
!
Supervisor and the Health Physics General Supervisor report to the Red-Chem Supervisor.
The two sections under the Chemistry General Supervisor are nonradioactive water management, supervised by a Chemical Engineer (position scheduled to be filled in December 1981 per SER), and radio-I active water management, supervised by a Chemist (position recently filled). With a former Fermi 1 technician, a recently hired techn. raa.
and another technician committed to start work in November 1981 the l
latter two having nuclear navy ELT training and experience, the licensee l
has a nucleus of three of the seven technicians under the Chemist.
An offer for employment has been made to a fourth technician (also with ELT training and experience) for this section.
Reporting to the Health Physics General Supervisor are an HP Specialist i
l (position unfilled), and two sections. A small section is to be headed by a Health Physics Superviser of Dosimetry (position scheduled to be filled six months before fuel load per SEF) as the licensee plans to
process their own TLD personal monitoring devices and record and control
'
individual exposures on an in-house computerized system. An associate technician and two clerks are to assist in the dosimetry program. Of these three positions, cae clerk position is filled. The larger rec: ion is headed by the HP Supervisor of Operations who is to be over 16 radia-tion protection technicians, 4 of whom will eventually be selected as a: aior technicians. The HP Supervisor of operations has nuclear navy PAT training and experience, and has been a technician at Fermi 2 for
.the past few years working on various projects. The licensee plans in the near future to send him to an operating nuclear power plant to obtain j
nuclear power plant experience. Four technicians, all recently hired,
)
-3-
.
.
.
are curren'ly in this section. One technic!sn has two years nuclear power plant experience with a' contractor orgsnization and the other three
'
have nuclear navy training and expericace. One of these techniviins is
-
working at Fermi 2 as liaison with the training department. The Nuclear Operation Training plan in the SER notes that by Fuel Load (currently scheduled for November 19821, five individuals in Chemistry and ten individuals in Health Physics are to complete a training program of about 58.3 man-days per person.
It further notes that the primary training for these 15 individuals should begin in January 1981 for
,
timely completion.
Several college level students working on a part-time basis, including one working on a masters degree program in health physics, are currently working on special projects in the Health Physics Section.
Training in radiation protection is divided into four areas, (1)
general employee training, (2) radiation worker training (job oriented),
(3) respirator training, and (4) health physics group training. To expedite training, the licensee has contracted or is in the process of contracting with commerical firm (s) to develop and prepare most of the four training programs. The IIealth Physics General Supervisor assists in outline preparation of material as requested and reviews training material for technical cortectness before acceptance of the material.
Implementation of each training program is to begin as soon as the material is complate, not later than January 1981, except for the health physics group training which is planned to begin in the second quarter of 1981. Only the general employee training is nearing comple-tion. Reevaluation er refresher training is planned for all training p rograms.
!
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
l 4.
Radiation Protection and Chemistry Procedures Chemistry procedures are essentially complete. Radiation protection l
procedures are an estimated 75 percent complete. Recodification of l
these procedures is nearing ccapletion. The inspector reviewed the following procedures; 12.000.04 Revision 1 On-Site Review Organization (OSPO)
12.000.13 Revision 1 Radiation Work Permit 12.000.20 Revision 0 Posting of Regulatory Matters 61.000.02 Revision ALARA Pregram 61.000.03 Revision 1 Access Control A few suggestions for minor changes and correction of discrepancies were discussed with licensee representatives.
,
-4-
.,
.
.
_
_.
.
-
.
5.
Instruments and Equipment Some additional equipment and instruments were on hond from that noted at the time of the November 1980 inspecti m.
Among these are a Nuclear Data, three detector, shielded chair type whole body counting unit (currently being " debugged," pregrammed, and calibrated) and two IRT portal monitors (being modified by adding detectors for the feet and decreasing the width from 36 inches down to 24 inches to increase the sensitivity). The GeLi systems for gamma analysis are set up and operable for both the chemistry group and the radiation protection group. The respirator fit-test booth and associated equipment (for testing respirator equipment following repairs) is being assembled for permanent use in the training center. The manual and automatic TLD readers and the computer for dose tracking and reporting are completely onsite now.
A limited number of survey meters and air samplers are onsite and more are on order. The large source instrument calibrator is onsite and will soon by ready for use.
6.
Facilities The chemistry laboratory is now fairly well set up and equipped. The licensee intends to start practicing use of procedures with nonradioactive sources in about a month, to be followed by use of procedures with spiked samples.
It is noted that significant changes exist or are planned from that described in the FSAR involving facilities for chemistry, radiction protection, and radwaste. Major changes exist in the Radwaste Building facility, the west end of whien also was to house the Rad-Chem Laboratory complex. This laboratory will now be used totally i'or the Chemiutry Laboratory. The large source instrument calibrator is nov planned to be located in a caged area on the second floor of the turbine building.
The licensee now plans to use an asphalt-type radwaste solidification system rather than cement. A new structure is tentatively plar.ned to house the radiation protection technicians and related space for survey instruments, records, etc.
A temporary structure may be necessary in the interim.
7.
Fermi Unit 1 The facility status and condition of the decommissioned Enrico Fermt Unit 1 Reactor Facility is essentially unchanged from that noted at the time of the December 1978 inspection.
The licensee has no nuclear fuel onsite.
Scaled sources of byproduct material currently possessed under license No. 21-02335-10 have been moved to the Fermi Unit 2 facility as authorized in the byproduct material license. Contamination in accessible controlled areas remains near background levels as determined by routine smear surveillaace.
Environmental surveys continue to show essentially background levels or radioactivity.
-5-
~.
.
-
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
i~
,
'
p
~.
.
-
,
,
,
.
s.
si
.
..
..
-
'The' inventory of slightly contaminated sodium is still about 69,000 gallons of which 38,000-gallons are stored in the three sodium storage tanks in the Sodium Building'and'31,000 gallons which are stored in
.
,
,
614, 55-gallon drumslin:the Reactor Building.
Based on an analysis of this sodium conducted in.1973 and applying appropriate radioactive decay
. factors since that time, the total activity in the sodium would now be
'about 0.726 curies,~ about 50 percent of which is Na-22 which has a 2.6 year half-life. The remaining activity is about 34Lpercent Cs-134 and about 16 percent Sr-90, both of which have half-lives of about 30 years.
The' highest. levels of direct radiation found in the' accessible controlled-
,. -
-
areas was about 7 mR/hr.between barrels of sodium. Routine direct radia-tion surveys have shown an expected gradual reduction in levels due to
'
radioactive decay. Review of personal monitoring records for those who i
L enter the facility for tours, surveillance, and necenary maintenance j
show no appreciable exposure.
,
Required surveillance and testing of the water intrusion alarm system and the pH mary system carbon dioxide cover gas has been conducted-l-
timely. - Replacenent of a pump in the Fuel and Repair Building (FARB)
l hot sump resulttd from corrosion and binding of both the switch and j
the intermals of the original pump. A leak around a capped pipe l
penetration of the FARB foundation resulted in some water intrusion
!
to the esp. Rcpair was made to stop the' leak. The watar was pumped to the ME-15 tank which increased from about 49 percent of capacity to about 60 percent of capacity. The licensee has released no radwaste since 1975.
l Physical barriers including fence, gates, and doors were intact and access points secured. The Review Committee and the Audit Subcommittee continue to convene and perform their required functions.
The Adminis-l trative and Surveillance Procedures titled "Decommisr, toned Enrico Fermi
!
Unit 1 Reactor and Associated Buildings and Equipment," dated July 8, 1976, it being updated to reflect changes in personnel (including a replacement for the custodian who recently retired) and to eliminate references to the Health Physics Building which was demolished in late
,
L 1980. Annual reports of activities are being preparcd and submitted to the NRC.
The Fermi Unit 1 Health Physics Building m s contracte1 for denolition in late October 1980 due to deterioration of the building roof. This j.
activity was planned following a change'in procedures (as provided for
_ ;
in the license), and a determination that the change did noc constitute
a significant increase in hazards associated with the facility activities.
The licensee plans were also discussed with both a representative of NRR and'the I&E Resident Inspector.
,
p Plc.nc called for removal of all building contents and pluggitig all contamin.ted or potentially contaminated drains with concrete followed l
L-6-
_
a
~
-
y r_
'
,.
.
"
e e
.-
,
~
by severance of the drain pipes at. floor level..The remaining " clean" building shell~was to be pushed down and disposed of at the onsite_,
-dumping ground west of.the'outfall lagoon ~(directly west of the north-cooling tower) inside th'e outer fenced property of the Fermi site
'
complex. -The concrete floor slab was to remain,- with plugged floor u
drains permanently marked to identify location and contamination -
,
status. The floor slab will remain inside the' locked fence area of Fermi Unit 1.
The inspector' reviewed licensee records of surveya and activities regard-
'
ing the demolition-effort... Surveys were conducted of all areas, fixtures, furniture, and'other. building. contents on September ~ 30, 1980, using a calibrated Eberline Model RM-14 survey meter with a pancake type probe.
to evaluate boti..emovable and fixed contamination. Clean items including
' desks, file cabinets, lockers, books, etc., were removed to Warehouse A-at Fermi I.
The.only contaminated items, those' displaying' greater than 100 cpm, including background with the survey meter referenced above, were the washer, both dryers, the g?cve box for handling sodium, the filter vent for the laundry area, and' pipes cut from the floor drains. These items were :noved to the nearby locked sodium cold trap room in the Sodium Building at Fermi I.
A small fire developed on October 15, 1980, and damaged approximately a six-foot area of the roof before being extinguished by the. local fire departr. lent.
It was attributed to ignition of insulation in the ceiling from use of a cutting torch to remove a fan motor earlier in the day.
All contaminated material had previously been surveyed and removed to another location and floor drains had been cut and capped at the floor.
_
Demolition and onsite disposal took place as planned in late October 1980.
The remaining concrete slab floor and capped dreins were surveyed on October 27, 1980,- using an Eberline Model RM-14 survey meter with pancake type probe for net count rate evaluations and an Eberline Model E-500B survey meter with cyli. drical type G-M tube for exposure rate evaluations.
Review of the licensee's survey records indicated thag the count rate meter readings for wipes ranged from 30-50 cpm /100 cm including a back-ground of 30-40 cpm.
The count rate meter readings for-fixed activity ranged from 30-80 cpm ir.cluding a background of 30-40 cpm. The maximum exposure rates measured by the meter with the cylindrical type G-M tube was 0.03 mR/hr including a background exposure rate of 0.02 to 0.03 mR/hr.
The licensee's report of the demolition and removal of the Health Physics Building will be included in'their 1980/1981 annual report, The Health Physics Building rubble in the dump was cursorily surveyed.
-
during this inspection using the licensee's Ludlum Micro R Meter (Model 125, Si-ial No. 12139) which was calibrated by the vender on Septe~mber 15, 1980, a.J which has co cinued to show uniform response to checks since receipt of the instrument. The_ radiation level measured at 1 meter above'
.
the-rubble ranged from 3 to 5 micro R/hr greater than the background-level of 5 micro R/hr.
.
e f
-
7.--
'
w.~..
- -
. -
_
.
,a _
...a.
-
_ - - -. -,
aQ
.
.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified with the Fermi I program.
8.
. Byproduct Material License No. 21-02335-10 The above license, amended in its entirety by amendment No. 6 issued on November 4, 1980, has an expiration date of November 30, 1985.
It authorizes a number of sealed sources of varying activities (some contained in commercial type calibrators) and up to 300 millicuries cotal of any byproduct material in any chemical and/or physical form.
The material is authorized far storage, installation, testing, and calibration. A partial review of inventory identified no sources except those authorized. A number of authorized sources not yet re-ceived include the antimony-124 startup sealed sources, uranium-235 in scaled fission chambers (1 3 mg per detector), and krypton-85 for instrument calibration.
No disposal of radioactive material under this license has been made. Authorized transfer or disposal is com-L-mplated for Fermi Unit I sealed sources no longer useful to the licensee.
The byproduct material. program was inspected against license conditione (including referenced documer*s and procedures) and applicable parts of Title 10 CFR (Parts 19, 20, and 30).
The inspection included inventory, labeling, posting, leak testing of sealed sources, area radiation and contamination surveys, instrumentation, and personal exposure. No problems were identified.
Procedures for receipt and unpacking sources are being revised to be more specific in detail.
It was stated that aff sampling will be initiated before any work with unsealed sources begins. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified with the byproduct material program.
l 9.
Exit Interview L
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph l
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 17, 1981.
The following matters were discussed:
The purpose and scope of the inspection.
a.
b.
The appointment of an interim Radiation Protection - Chemical Engineer who apparently does not meet the FSAR qualifications, (one year of radiochemistry experience) and who does not appear qualified to fulfill the radiation protection functions assigned to him as a member of the On-Site Review Organization (OSRO).
The licensee acknowledged these concerna. Regarding the FSAR qualification for this position, the licensee stated that this criterion was based on the qualification of the individual formerly holding this position. The licensee believes-that this criterion is not necessary if duties are limited to administrative-8-
<
,
-
-
.
,..
'
'.
(
)
-
'
r.
' functions.
If'this situation exists for more than an interim
-
period (6-9 months), the licensee stated that an FSAR revision would be initiated..Regarding qualifications to fulfill the radiation protection functions assigned to the Rad-Chem Engineer as a member of1the OSRO,-the-licensee stated that the Health Physics-
..,- General Supervisor would review procedures for radiation protection concerns before submittal to OSR0 for review.
c.
.The inspector noted that although progress has been made in staffing and training, much remains to be done in these areas to meet the SER commitments scheduled before fuel load.
d.
.The inspector noted that, although all four radiation protection technicians have previous nuclear experience, only one has previous power plant experience.- The need for more of this experience,-
whether by hiring such individuals and/or sending them to. operating plants during refueling outages, was discussed.
e.
Current and planned significant. changes in facilities iavolving chemistry, radiation protection,' and radwaste from that described in the FSAR were noted. -The need to update the FSAR to reflect these changes was discussed.
f.
Inclusion of the byproduct material license in the reactor facility operating licensee, when it is issued, was discussed. - The licensee j
stated that this course would be pursued.
l l
l-
.
N
-9-
,
y
-.
-
,
rr~<.
, - - -
-
,,,.5-g-#
w
.,
.e