IR 05000254/1986004
| ML20214E291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1986 |
| From: | Greger L, Miller D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214E280 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-86-04, 50-254-86-4, 50-265-86-04, 50-265-86-4, NUDOCS 8603070245 | |
| Download: ML20214E291 (6) | |
Text
-.
-.
.-
_
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION III
<
i Reports No. 50-254/86004(DRSS; 50-265/86004(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-29; DPR-30
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 l
Facility Name: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
February 10-13, 1986
-
h $. Y74fk?v Inspector:
D. E. Miller
@/a7/#4'
Date (O D 6kr"4 Iief f - 9 7- $$
t.-
L.R.Gregy(r,
.
Approved By:
Facilities Radiation Date Protection Section Inspection Summary Inspection on February 10-13, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-254/86004(ORSS);
50-265/86004(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the licensee's solid radwaste management and transportation programs.
Also reviewed were planning and preparation for outages, ALARA goals, audits, external and internal I
exposures, and a selected IE Information Notice.
The inspection involved 31 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
g=nanBM6r
'
O
,
,,..e
,r,.
. - - - - -
--w--
-
-.,.,-,-n,-.--.,-,-m-m-n-+-----,,-~w,,-n----,-------y,-ww
-,cwr,
-,-v, w e r m, e-- --,
-r--~,m--nr-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Carson, Lead Health Physicist J. Forrest, Radwaste Planner
- N. Kalivianakis, Station Manager R. Petri, Radwaste Engineer J. Piercy, ALARA Coordinator J. Sirovy, Rad / Chem Supervisor
- T. Tamlyn, Services Superintendent The inspector also contacted several other licensee personnel including members of the technical staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
!
l 2.
General j
This inspection, which began at 9:30 a.m. on February 10, 1986, was
'
conducted to examine the licensee's solid radwaste management and transportation programs.
Also reviewed were planning and preparation for outages, ALARA goals, audits, external and internal exposures, an unresolved item, and a selected IE Information Notice.
3.
Licensee Actions on Previous Unresolved Item (Closed) Unresolved Item (254/85019-01; 265/85021-01):
New organizational structure not in accordance with that shown in the technical specifications.
i This matter was resolved through communications between NRR and Region III.
4.
Solid Radioactive Waste
'
]
The inspector reviewed the licensee's solid radioactive waste management
'
program, including:
determination whether changes to equipment and procedures were in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59; adequacy of i=plementing procedures to properly classify and characterize waste, prepare manifests, and mark packages; overall performance of the process control and quality assurance programs; adequacy of required records, reports, and notifications; and experience concerning identification and correction of programmatic
>
weaknesses. Audits are discussed in Section 9.
The licensee's solid radwaste management program remains as described in Inspection Reports No. 254/85025(DRSS); No. 265/85028(DRSS).
Radwaste facilities remain as previously described, except that some feed lines for the previously used DOW packaging system have been removed from the truck bay where Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. solidifies filter sludges.
!
The truck bay is now less cluttered.
i
!
_. _ _
,_
_. _. - _ - _,, _.. _. _
_._._
_ _ _ - - -. -, _. -._-. _. _ -
-
.
The licensee has no significant backlog of packaged or unpackaged wastes.
Temporary storage in the radwaste areas was orderly and control of radiation and high radiation areas was in accordance with regulations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Transportation of Radioactive Materials The inspector reviewed the licensee's transportation of radioactive materials program, including:
determination whether written implementing procedures are adequate, maintained current, properly approved, and acceptably implemented; determination whether shipments are in compliance r
with NRC and DOT regulations and the licensee's quality assurance program; determination if there were any transportation incidents
'
involving licensee shipments; adequacy of required records, reports, shipment documentatior, a d notifications; and experience concerning identification and correction of programmatic weaknesses. Audits are discussed in Section 9.
One radwaste problem involved a radioactive waste shipment which arrived
<
at the Chem-Nuclear burial facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, on September 10, 1985.
The shipment contained a type A quantity of resins solidified in a steel liner shipped in a shielding cask.
About two gallons of contaminated liquid was found trapped within the interstitial
,
space between the cask and liner; no quantitative measure of the
'
radioactive contents of the liquid was apparently made.
The South Carolina Bureau of Radiological Health issued a warning communication (letter) to CECO on September 16, 1985, stating that the contaminated liquid in the cask was contrary to South Carolina Radioactive Material License No. 097, issued to Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.; a response to the warning communication was requested.
In a letter dated September 30, 1985, the licensee stated that a review of handling practices did not indicate a probable cause, but that each cask shipment would be inspected to determine if interstitial water exists.
No similar problem was identified before or since the subject shipment.
The inspector selectively reviewed records of radwaste shipments made from December 1, 1985, to date. Also, changes to previously reviewed
"
procedures were selectively reviewed.
The licensee's implementing procedures are well written, maintained current, and are adhered to.
Maintenance of records is adequate.
No problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
External and Internal Exposures The inspector reviewed selected TLD and whole body counting resu',ts for portions of 1985 through February 1986.
The maximum whole body dose received by an individual at the station during 1985 was 4,329 millirem.
The inspector selectively reviewed Forms NRC-4 for persons who received greater than 1,250 millirem during a calendar quarter; all such forms appeared to meet regulatory requirements.
.-
-
-
-
.
- -
-
-
-
-
-
.
Whole body count data for company and contractor personnel were selectively reviewed for about 900 counts performed between September 12, 1985, and January 29, 1986.
Several followup counts were performed on persons who showed elevated initial counts.
Followup counting was adequate to verify that the 40 MPC-hour control measure was not exceeded.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Planning and Preparation for Outage The major work being performed during the Unit 1 outage in progress is performance of In-Service Inspection (ISI), weld overlaying of portions of the recirculating system, and snubber testing.
In preparation for performance of this work, the licensee:
Performed a task analysis of anticipated ISI and weld overlay work
to identify radiological problems and possible solutions, and to make plans for efficient performance of physical work.
Contracted for decontamination of the recirculation system piping.
- After performance of a normal decontamination procedure, it was found that little decontamination had occurred.
The contractor theorized that a previously identified chromate layer had not been removed.
A different chemical mix was introduced into the piping in an attempt to remove the chromate layer.
Then, a second system decontamination was performed with greater success; an average decontamination factor (DF) of about five was attained.
The first piping decontamination was done in early 1984.
The total average DF for the system from before the first decontamination to after the last (recently completed) was about a factor of ten.
There is insufficient history to predict the lasting effect of recirculation system piping decontaminations.
The drywell was hydrolased to reduce surface contamination levels.
- Weekly meetings between the radiation protection and maintenance
groups are held, time permitting, to review methods of improving performance of work in radiological areas.
A radiation protection representative attends the daily outage
meeting to help coordinate work activities.
Each radiation work permit for work to be performed in
radiologically significant areas is ALARA reviewed.
Other planning and preparation matters are as discussed in Inspection Report Nos. 254/85019(DRSS); 265/85021(DRSS)
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
.
-
.
8.
ALARA Goals The licensee's ALARA goal for 1985 was 1,220 person-rem; the total whole body dose received was 990 person-rem.
The total whole body dose received in 1984 was 1535 person-rem, and about 2,200 person-rem in 1983.
The licensee's ALARA goal of 1,120 person-rem for 1986 is an increase over 1985 because two outages are scheduled.
It appears that the station's commitment to dose reduction programs / methods is a major factor in the lowering of person-rem at the station.
Circulating system piping decontamination, also a major factor, is discussed in Section 7.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Audits The inspector reviewed onsite and offsite audits of the radiation protection and radwaste management programs conducted from August 1, 1985, to date.
Extent of audits, qualifications of auditors, and adequacy of corrective actions were reviewed.
One onsite quality assurance audit was performed; the audit subjects were mainly compliance with selected radiation protection procedures concerning performance of radiological surveys and maintenance of records.
One observation was made concerning documentation of entrance and exit surveys performed on radwaste vehicles.
Corrective actions were completed and considered acceptable.
No problems were noted.
The licensee has increased the number and extent of surveillances performed to review the operational health physics program.
The surveillances include observation of radiological work in process, access controls, survey instrument calibration, radiological access controls, corrective actions on radiological occurrence reports, and housekeeping.
Twenty-one such surveillances were conducted and documented; several minor observations were identified and have since been corrected.
A surveillance check of each radwaste shipment was made by QA representatives; identified were several mechanical or structural
,
problems on trailers and an improperly placarded trailer.
Corrective measures were completed oefore shipments left the site.
No problems were noted.
The annual offsite quality assurance audit of station activities was conducted on October 22-25, 1985; included was a technical audit of rad / chem procedures, policies, and organizational structure.
This audit was partly performed by a contracted consultant.
The concultant performed similar audits at the other CECO nuclear stations and supplied to the licensee a summary report of his observations; he presented recommendations on several subjects including possible increased Quality Assurance review of the radiation protection and chemistry programs, and reduction in rad / chem technician rotation between radiation protection and chemistry jobs.
By memorandum dated January 20, 1986, the licensee's Nuclear i
Services department responded to the CECO Quality Assurance department
..
..
concerning the contracted consultant's recommendations.
The licensee's Nuclear. Services department disagreed with some of the licensee's findings and agreed with others.
The increased QA. surveillance of rad / chem matters resulted partly from the consultant's recommendations; also, the licensee agreed that a reduction in rad / chem technician rotation between radiation protection and chemistry jobs was needed, and that this matter was already under active review. The subject in which there was disagreement concerned the extent of corporate participation in the rad / chem programs of individual stations; the consultant had not discussed this matter with corporate personnel and, according to Nuclear Services personnel, had not obtained a complete understanding of past and ongoing interfaces.
No problems were noted.
'
Tne inspector reviewed the report of an INPO audit conducted during September 1985.
There were seven findings related to the radiation protection and radwaste programs.
The findings relate apparent weaknesses or areas of possible improvement in licensee programs.
The licensee has implemented, and plans to implement several programmatic changes to address the findings.
The changes appear to address the findings.
No problems were noted.
The extent of audits, qualifications of auditors, and adequacy of corrective actions appear good.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
IE Information Notice
,
The inspector reviewed licensee action in response to the following selected Information Notice.
The actions are considered adequate.
No. 85-81:
Problems Resulting in Erroneously High Reading with Panasonic 800 Series Thermoluminescent Dosimeters.
The CECO Nuclear Services department responded to this notice by generic letter dated November 7, 1985. According to the letter, the licensee had ' observed some anomalous readings from phosphors covered by lead filters while performing acceptance tests on the dosimeters; due to this, and other quality / design
!
deficiencies, all dosimeters were returned to the vendor for repair or replacement.
According to licensee representatives, no problems have since been encountered.
The licensee stated that appropriate precautions would be taken to protect TLDs if they are required to be worn in adverse environmental condition, such as those discussed in the notice.
,
11.
Exit Meeting The inspector. met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1) at i
the conclusion of the inspection on February 13, 1986.
The inspector
!
discussed the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspector also discussed the likely information content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
The licensee identified no such documents / processes as proprietary.
!
t
_
_._ _ _. _. -
_
__
_ _ _
_ _. - _ - - _ - -
_
_ _ _
_
_. _