IR 05000237/1992031
| ML17179A640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1992 |
| From: | Michael Kunowski, Steven Orth, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17179A638 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-92-31, 50-249-92-31, NUDOCS 9212220190 | |
| Download: ML17179A640 (5) | |
Text
- .
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. REGION III Reports No. 50-237/9203l(DRSS); 50-249/9203l(DRSS)
Docket.Nos. 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-*25 Licensee: * Comrnonwea l th Edi son Company Opus West I II 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Station, UnitS 2*and 3 Inspection At:
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois Inspection Conducted: October 29 - November 24, 1992 Inspectors: ~~k:
.*
.
. *. S.. Otth
.
.
.
~fo M. Kunowski
- * '
Approved. By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Radiological Controls Section 1
- Inspection Summary Date Date
- Dat Inspection.on October 29 - November 24. 1992 (Reports No. 50-237/9203l(DRSSl:
50-249/92031(DRSSll
.
.
.
Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the radiological controls (Inspection Procedure (IP) 83750), radioactive materials shippi~g (IP 86750),
- and solid radioactive waste (IP 86750) programs. Several previous inspection items were also*reviewe Results:
No violations were identified. Station exposure for 1992 is trending.toward the lowest total in almost twenty year An example of the ki~d -0f effort contributing to this was the good coordination of work groups seen for the ongoing cleanup of the reactor building equipment drain tank AlSo, the station's performance in radioactive waste shipping continued to be excellent. A weakness, however, was seen io the use of Nuclear* General Employee training instructors with little or no plant experience..
. 9212220190 921209 PDR ADOCK 05000237 *
.* G
- 'PDR. *
DETAILS Persons Contacted. ~D. F. Ambler, Health Physics Services* Supervisor T. Britt, Radioactive Waste (Radwaste) Shipping Supervisor
- R. *coen, Safety and Quality Verification
- R. Flahive, Technical Superintendent
- M. Hayworth, Lead Health Physicist-Operations
- L. Jordan, Lead Health Physicist-Technical
- J. Kinsella, Safety and Quality Verification
- D. Lowenstein, Regulatory Assurance J. McGowan, Radwaste Special Projects M. Mikota, Radwaste Shipping Supervisor
- R. Radtke, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- R. Stobert, Operating Engineer
- S. Tulley, Technical Training Group Lead
- R. Weidner, Training Supervisor
- R. Winslow, Lead Health Physicist-Operations (Incumbent)
M. Peck, NRC Resident Inspecto*r
- W. Rogers, *NRC Senior Resident Inspector A. M. Stone, NRC Resident Inspector
.
.
- Denotes those at tending the ex*i t meeting on N~vember 24, 199 The inspectors also spoke with other licensee employees during the inspectio Previously Identified Inspection Findings (IP 83750)
(Closed) Inspection Followyp Item CIFI) No. 50-237/92011-0lCDRSS); 50- *
249/92011-0lCDRSSl:
Licensee to retrieve documentation of health physics staff (HP) qualifications. Pertinent information has been compiled for the staff health physicists and first-line* supervisors. A review of selected records by the inspector identified no problem with staff qualification *
- cc1~se~) IFI No. 50-237/9i011~02(DRSS); 50-249/92011-02(DRSS):. Licensee to retrieve information on the technical basis for requiring respirator use at various procedurally defined contamination levels. The licensee evaluated recent Dresden air sample and contaminatio~ data, and respirator use criteria-for several other stations.* Based on this evaluation, the licensee stated that the respirator use procedure will be-revised to raise the contamination level that requires respirator use from.22;000 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per 100 centimeters squared (cm2 ) to 100,000 dpmflOO cm2 *
.
.
.
.
CClosedl Violation No. 50-237/90026-0lACDRSS): 50~249/90025-0lACDRSS):
This violation was written for a continuing weakness in high radiation area job exposure control. The last of five specific.corrective actions
. committed to by the licensee was recently completed with a revision of the Nuclear General Employee Training program (NGET).. The effectiveness of these actions.and other related enhancements and of changes to NGET made in response to recent NRC concerns discussed in Inspection Report Nos. *50-237 /92019(DRSS); 50-249/92019(DRSS) wil 1 be reviewed during future, routine inspections. * St~ffing CIPs 83750 and 867501 4.
Recent vacancies in the lead health physicist-operations and lead health physicist-technical positions were filled with qualified personne Ori was fi.lled from the neighboring LaSall_e County Station and one from.the Dresden staff. Efforts are continuing to fill two vacancies in the.
radiation protection supervisor (foreman) group and two vacancies in the RP Improvement Team (made up tif consultants); Ten of approximately 50 contract RP technicians hired for the Unit 2 refueling outage scheduled
.to begin in mid-January 1993 were onsite receiving training. The remaining technicians were expected shortl In the operations grou responsible for radwaste shipping, there have been no si_gnificant changes in staffin *
No violations of N~C requirements were identified.
. Exposure Control CIP 83750)
Station dose, currently about 527 person-rem, ~as expected to be about 600 petsori-rem at the end.of 1992. This would be the lowest since 197 For 1993, the exposure estimate is 850 person-rem, with the upcoming 14-week Unit 2 outage accounting for 600 persori-re Chemical decontamination of the reactor recirculation,reactor water cleanup, and shutdown cooling syste~s is expected to yield significant savings.during the outag The inspectors reviewed progress on the cleanup of the Unit 2 and 3 reactor building equipment drain tanks (RBEDTs).
This work involved dose rates in excess of 1 rem/hour and high contamination levels. There appeared to be good planning* and coordination among the various work gro.ups involved. A remote video camera and high powered vacuuming equipment were in use an4 should result in significant dose savings.*
The inspectors~ review of RP records for the job indicated that complete answers had been provided for questions iri the ALARA pre-job checklist. lack of complete answers to checklist questions for other jobs was previously identified as a problem (Inspection Report Ntis~ 50-237 /92019(DRSS); 50-249/92019(DRSS)).
Completion of the RBEDT cleanup i$ expected by early 199 No ~iolations of NRC requirements were identifie * Solid Radwaste and Transportation of Radioactive Materials (IP 86750)
The inspectors ob-served the loading and health physics surveillance of *
several radwaste shipments and interviewed involved personnel.from the
..
..
radwaste operations, radwaste processing vendor, and RP grou~ Personnel were knowledgeable and experience No problems were
- identified. *Dose rates measured by the-inspectors agreed with those made by the licensee, and shipping records reviewed met requirements in 10 CFR 20.311 and 49 CFR 17i.202 and 172.203. * *
One i tern of note* came from. a review of licensee dose-to-curt e calculations for classifying waste per 10 CFR 61.5 The calculat*ions appeared to assume an effective density of about 0.6 for resins, although the resin is actually more dense than water~ This was *
discussed with a licensee representative who agreed to obtain the technical basis for the density value used. This wfll be reviewed during a future inspectior *
The inspecto.rs also reviewed progress on the solidification of the Unit 1 chemical decontamination (NS-1) resin waste, being.conducted by a
. vendor specifically hired to solidify NS-1 wast An initial attempt to solidify resin in a liner was unsuccessful when only the top several inches solidified. The inspectors observed some of the ensuing troubleshooting of the vendor's process-control program, which was also unsuccessful. Because of these problems, the licensee decided to
- dewater the resin using Hs normal onsite radwaste processing vendor.*
At the exit meeting {Sectiori 7), the licensee agreed to submit a letter to the NRC describing the change from solidification to dewatering a followup to an earlier letter (dated.October* 4, 1991), in which another change to the ove~all process of disposing of the NS-1 wa~ describe No.violations of NRC requirements were.identifie.
. Radiation Protection Program Concern CAMS No. RIIl-92-A-0098}
Concern:
An instructor ~ho provided basic radiation protection training at one.of the licensee's fossil power plants to enable workers to work at Dresden was not knowledgeable of the.~ffects of ionizing radiatio The training pro~ided was the 1992 annual NGET requalification training for Commonwealth Edison fossil plant workers (so called *imobiles") who may perform work at Dresden, usually during-outage Prior to 1992, Dresden instructors gave the training at the fossil stations or the.
mobiles came to Dresden for training, but because of staffing constraints.at Dresden, fossil plant instructors.who met Dresden reqtiirements gave the training. Included in the training were video tapes explaining basic radiation protection topics including the effects of.ionizing radi~tion. These tapes were found to be adequate in previOus NRC inspections. According to the licensee, as assurance that the mobiles were adequately trained, those who failed the tests given at the fossil plants were required to retake the training at Dresden and* *
pass a test. A review by the inspectors of tests taken by the mobiles at the fossil.plants or at Dresden identified no problem Of
.
approximately 200 mobiles who received ~GET, 13 failed the test and r~-.. *
. r
- ...-,... ____ **..
took the training and test at Dresden, where they passed. According to the licensee, despite the time spent on training, the mobiles will not be used during the upcoming outage because of needs at the fossil plant *
Although the concern could not be substantiated, it was noted.that the failure rate (6.5%) of this group was at least twice that normally seen at the station. One weakness noted by the inspectors, however, was that two of the three instructors who gave th~ training did not have Dresden work ~xperienc Beca~se the mobiles generally spend little time throughout the year at Dresden a.nd have been the subject of a number of.
radiological problem reports over the recent years, the use of NGET instructors with littl~ or.no recent work experience at Dresden is a weakness. This matter will be reviewed*during future inspection No violations of NRC requirements were identifie.
Exit Meeting
- The icope and findings of the inspections* were reviewed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection..
Specifically, the inspector discussed the change in processing NS-1 resin for burial (Section 5) and the concern about offsite NGET instruction (Section 7). The licensee acknowledged the inspectors'
findings and did not identify any likely inspection report material as proprietary *.
- .:,.*-.**