IR 05000146/1998202

Insp Rept 50-146/98-202 on 980511-13.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Programs Re Protection of Public Health

ML20249A692
Person / Time
Site:	Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png
Issue date:	06/11/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20249A691	List: IR 05000146/1998202 ML20249A690
References
50-146-98-202, NUDOCS 9806180105
Download: ML20249A692 (9)

Text

. ..

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No: 50-146 License No: DPR-4 Repon No: .1998202 Licensees: GPU Nuclear Corporation and Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation Facility: Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility Locatior.: Saxton, Pennsylvania Dates: May 11-13,199 Inspector: Thomas F. Dragoun, Reactor inspector Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director j Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The chairman of the Citizens Task Force and local officials expressed satisfaction with status information being provided by Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC)

management. The licensee's programs were directed toward the protection of public g health and safety and were found to be in compliance with NRC requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identifie i l

l f.

N l

,

I Q

'

& PDR i

) l

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _- - - - - -

.

.

.

.

Reoort Details Summarv of Plant Status An opening had been cut in the containment vessel (CV) shell to allow access from the 3 Decommissioning Support Facility (DSF) to the 812' elevation. An I-beam and steel plate bridge was fabricated to span the pipe tunnel and equipment access hatch to allow a drop-bed trailer to be backed into containment for removal of shield blocks. Use of security badges on site had been implemente .0 Exclusion Area Security Insoection Scooe (Insoection Procedure 71801)

The inspector reviewed the following areas:

e physical barriers, e locks and key control, e intrusion detection devices, e unauthorized entry response, e system installation, e daily securing, and e alarm operability checks, Observations and Findinas Physical barriers, use of locks, and key control conformed to generally accepted practices. Intrusion detection devices were properly installed and provided adequate coverage. The procedure for response to unauthorized entry was incorporated into the Emergency Plan. The intrusion detection system was professionally installed, included smoke detectors, audible local alarms, and annual inspections by the contracto The first quarterly verification of alarm operability was satisfactorily conducted on April 27,1998. Daily shutdown of the DSF and CV (Exclusion Area) and activation of alarms was accomplished by the HP group in accordance with a detailed procedure and checklis Conclusions Control of the Exclusion Area satisfied requirements specified in the Technical Specification I I

- _ _ _ - _ - .

_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _____ __ ______--------- ______ _ _____ -._ _ ___ __ _ _______ ___ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -

,

. ,

I

.

l

'

2 Change Reviews a .' Insoection Scooe (Insoection Procedure 37801)

The inspector reviewed:

• initiation of 50.59 reviews, e conduct of 50.59 reviews, e management oversight, and i e completed reviews {

I Observations and Findinas  !

i The Program Director stated that all component removals and installations require a specific work procedure. Instructions for development of the work procedure are found in SNEC Procedure #6575-ADM-4500.07. Exhibit 3 of this procedure consists of a series of questions to determine if a 50.59 review was needed. The questions were recently reworded for clarification. Completed Exhibit 3 answers and data were independently reviewed by an engineer from the Decontamination  ;

and Decommissioning Engineering (DD&E) group and a management team called the l SNEC Activities Review Group (SARG). This oversight ensured that 50.59 reviews were initiated when required.-

Another series of questions in Exhibit 3B provided guidance for completing the j 50.59 review. Justification for each answer was documented and attached to the  !

Exhibit and constitute the record of the 50.59 evaluatio l A review of records indicated that 50.59 reviews were completed for the removal or ,

installation of systems and components described in the TS or SAR. The quality of i these reviews has steadily improved. A recent review, SWl-98-037, "CV Shield Block Disposition" issued May 11,1998. also included a determination relative to requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(6) and (7). Based on improved performance of this program, inspector Follow-up Item 50-146/96-01-01 is close ;

' ,C,q[1plusions Use of the 50.59 evaluation process conformed to regulatory requirement .0 Shield Block Shipment l jatPection Scone ( Insoection Procedure 86750 )

The inspector reviewed the following areas:

• characterization and classification of the blocks, e radiation surveys, e packaging,

.____________-__________-__n

- - . - . - _ - - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

d

.

e load blocking and bracing, and a vehicle placardin Observations and Findinas Each shield block, except for the key block, consisted of approximately 20 tons of steel rebar and concrete. Activation of internal materials from exposure to neutron flux was measured by analysis of core boringe. This analysis was completed by two independent laboratories and results were in agreement. Surface beta-gamma contamination levels were measured by the on site HP technicians. This data was used to assign a total contamination level to each face of the block using gamma ratios determined during the detailed site characterization study For example, the side of the block facing the reactor compartment (called area 6 in the characterization study) was assigned a surface concentration of alpha emitter transuranic isotopes. Based on survey data, the shipment was conservatively classified as "LSA exclusive use".

The blocks were shipped to a contractor (Hake) for processing. The contractor's byproduct license (T-TN004-L9P) authorized receipt of the radioactive materia Blocks were packaged for shipment by painting with epoxy to seal the surface and wrapping in prefabricated tarpaulin sleeve Tractors and trailers were inspected prior to loading for compliance with DOT requirements using a checklist. After loading, blocking and cribbing appeared appropriate. Vehicles were placarded as require Conclusions DOT and NRC transportation regulations were properly implemente .0 CV/DSB Ventilation System . Insocction Scone (Insoection Procedure 718011 The inspector reviewed:

e engineering drawings and records, e as built configuration, e startup test results, and e periodic surveillance, Observations and Findinas The installation, startup and testing of the ventilation system was completed in accordance with procedure SWl-97-008, revision 1. A tour of the system indicated that acceptable construction techniques were used. Some records of startup test results consisted of margin notes and initials written on the procedure. A licensee I

i

)

o _--- i

O

.

.

quality assurance audit team on site indicated that a thorough review of documentation for this system would be don The procedure for routine operation and surveillance, "CV/DSB Ventilation System Operation and Alarm Response" procedure #6575-OPS-4524.41, revision 0 issued April 23,1998, was adequate. Records of periodic tests were well maintained. A recommendation from HP technicians to turn off the air sampler (AMS-3)

background compensation for improved detection sensitivity and ease of calibration was under evaluatio ConclusiQDs The ventilation system confnrmed to the design described in SAR section 1.3.2(15.8) and its operation satisfied technical specification requirement .0 Environmental Monitoring Insoection Scooe (Insoection Procedure 84750)

The inspector reviewed:

e sample station locations, e collection frequency, and o environmental dose Observations and Findinos The location of selected environmental TLDs, air sample stations, sediment, and monitoring wolls as described in procedure #6575-ADM-4500.22 revision 4 were verified by a tour of the site accompanied by the RSO. Data records indicated that sample collection and analysis were conducted at the frequencies specified in Table 2.3-1 of the SNEC Facility Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The type of laboratory analysis performed on samples appeared appropriate. The RSO has co-located personal TLDs at certain locations to obtain monthly data since environmental TLDs are processed quarterly. The RSO also indicated that he has requested installation of three additional ground water monitoring wells (one shallow and two deep wells)

in the " yard" area onsit Public dose recorded by the various sampling media were within NRC limit Conclusions

)

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program was acceptably implemente .0 Exit interview (Inspection Procedure 30703)

The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management

l L _ - - _ ______ _ ___ _ ._ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

at the conclusion of the inspection on May 13,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

\

i

_ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - -

.

__ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - -

.

.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee

- Perry Caramel, Site Supervisor

. David Etheridge, TMl Safety Director

__ William Heysek, Licensing Department Douglas Hosking, Nuclear Safety Assessment Manager Joe Kuehn,Jr., Program Director SNEC Arthur Paynter, Radiation Safety Officer Lawrence Simon, Radwaste Shipping Supervisor Michael Williams, Decontamination and Decommissioning Engineer

.

- Saxton Citizens Task Force Charlie Barker, Task Force Member Roger Granlund, independent Assessor. (Penn. State RSO)

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED c IP 30703: ENTRANCE AND EXIT INTERVIEWS iP 37801 - SAFETY REVIEWS, DESIGN CHANGES, AND MODIFICATIONS IP 71801 DECOMMISSIONING PERFORMANCE AND STATUS REVIEW IP 84750 RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT IP 86750 SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

.

l

,

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED s

Opened None 1 i

Closed

'

50-146/96-01-01 'IFl Revise policy for conduct of 50.59 safety reviews j

i

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _-

-

_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . .

- - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _

,,

'

..

.

.

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulations CV Containment Vessel DD&E Decontamination and Decommissioning Engineering DOT Department of Transportation DSF Decommissioning Support Facility GPU General Public Utilities Corporation IP inspection procedure LSA Low Specific Activity NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission l QA Quality Assurance l SAR Safety Analysis Report SARG SNEC Activities Review Group l- TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TMl Three Mile Island power station TS Technical Specifications l

l l

.

O

l

-

.

O IF S

C e

L O

S 3 A (

A _

A

6 (

2I NE

/

/ T C F

U F F

O R

E m 1 (

F F

E C

T N D U

M O C

)3ST E S

C

/

2E B E K D /D E A

L 3 RT S

)

U A N

_

_

V V TI T T I

_

I IV I Y E E T O O O P D S EM I

T _

E

.

MM

0 TI S

F Y T E E

O N

M P EM _ _ -

A L Y M l

- - -

N ) 0 U 9 M

B M .- 1 I N

E R M 6 SS 4 P P

. . . . E E -

_ - -

N I

e EC S

P DT I M 0 NE O N UC FRR C L N O 0 MIT AEE O V M BO CVS F I

D 1 R EN I

I LE I

P O

S E O OLL I

U N

T E TWN YE S UO

_ . _ . . . - M :

DI B M

B E BL TW

/ -

R M 0 S: YE UU a

x I

N P P

D D M A S t

o I Y

n SV i

. T S _

R E C m 9 N

u WU D

I E T

_

_

_

F E

_

L

- - - PU O OP m 8 R E

C L

c eA l

OM

_

RD S i

PU O e s L E R

.

. . .

OP S a s: _

TA O M

_ _ _ -

RD E r M F(I _

NET U

_

T 2 TAO E T S

.O M TU x o

.

)

/

NE T e D 0 .O / r M r i

a 2 m g M e o I n u EN I t a n NS EN l DPE 6 NS F

DC

/

1 DPE a AT 3

/ DC c AT I i T

E O 9 I l

i N 8 T E O t

y N

S S TI TI AT A T T E UM S

m C T E UM S