IR 05000254/1993006
| ML20034H764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1993 |
| From: | Paul R, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034H760 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-93-06, 50-254-93-6, 50-265-93-06, 50-265-93-6, NUDOCS 9303220038 | |
| Download: ML20034H764 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, '1 U U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION.III Reports No. 50-254/93006(DRSS); 50-265/93006(DRSS)- Dockets No. 50-254; 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, Illinois Inspection Conducted: February 23 through 26, 1993 Inspector: +/
M ' Rf A'. Pa61 ~ Date/ / Approved By:
- JM M. C. Schumacher, Chief Date Radiological Controls Section 1 Inspection Summary Insoection on February 23 throuah 26. 1993 (Recorts No. 50-254/93006(DRSS):
50-265/93006(DRSS)) Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the radwaste program including, liquid and gaseous radwaste (IP 84750), the review of open items, condition reports of HRA control problems, and violations from previous inspections (IP 83750,84750).
Results: The licensee's gaseous and liquid radwaste programs-appear to be well conducted. Operational problems with the service water monitors were noted and are being addressed (Section 6).
Problems associated with HRA controls (Section 11) and ARM calibrations (Section 10) were identified. No violations or deviations were identified.
, a
9303220038 930311 ' PDR ADOCK 05000254 O PDR i
_ _ $ DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Bax, Station Manager P. Behrens, Chemistry Supervisor
- D. Kanakares, Regulatory Assurance NRC Coordinator
- A. Lewis, Radiation Protection Manager
- R. Wiebenga, Lead Chemist
- T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
- P. Prescott, Resident Inspector, NRC
- Present at the Exit Meeting on February 26, 1993 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 83750 and 84750)- (Closed) Open Item (50-254/92005-02: 50-265/92005-02): Daily check source techniques used on whole body friskers (WBFs) do not correctly verify the alarm set point and aging standards are used for instrument source checks and calibrations. New cobalt-60 sources (about 100 nanocuries each) are now used for the calibration of the WBFs and technicium-99 sources (about 5 nanocuries each) are used for their daily checks. The inspector reviewed the source vendor's certificates.
(Closed) Violation (50-254/92027-01: 50-265/92027-01): Failure to survey a truck used to transport radioactive material in accordance with 49 CFR 173.443(c) requirements. Corrective actions included enhanced training for persons working in the receiving department, tighter controls over vehicles unloaded outside the protected area, and ' strengthened vehicle control procedures. These actions were reviewed by the inspector and found sufficient to prevent recurrence.
(Closed) Violation (50-254/92027-02: 50-265/92027-02) and (50-254/92027-03: 50-265/92027-03h Transfer of licensed radioactive material to persons not authorized to possess the material as required. by 10 CFR 30.41(a) (b)(5), and failure to perform a survey _in accordance with technical specification requirement. Corrective actions included stronger radiation protection oversight of materials in the stores area, revision of stores procedures, and enhanced training on unconditional release policies. These actions were reviewed by the inspector and found sufficient to prevent recurrence.
3.
Chanaes (IP 84750) There have been no significant changes to the overall administration of the liquid and gaseous programs from that described in Inspection Report No. 50-346/89004. The radwaste systems (processing and discharges) are operated by the operations department; the responsibility for the effluent radiation monitoring system is shared between the radiological control, instrumentation and control, operations, chemistry and system
2 ,
, - - ~ . , y.
- , , , . -
.
. engineeringfdepartments. Although several departments.are involved -in - the_ organization and. management controls for the liquid and gaseous' y " , radwaste program..it appears to operate _ efficiently.
t ' ' - No violations' or deviations were identified.
h f 4.
Audits'and Appraisals (IP 84750 and 86750) , There were no audits conducted of the liquid and gaseous.radwaste.- . .j program'since that described in Inspection Reports No. 50-315/92015 and; 50-316/92015.
~ ,] No violations-or deviations were identified.
, 5.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste (IP 84750) ! The-inspector reviewed the' licensee's gaseous-radwaste management- ' program, including changes in equipment and procedures, gaseous process , and effluent monitors, records of effluent releases, and-off-site dose i4 calculation methodology.
Tnere has been no significant change in.the' implementation of the ,[ gaseous effluent program described in Inspection Reports - ' No. 50-254/92015 and 50-265/92015. :The program continues to be well- 'j managed and no significant problems were identified.
~ ~ ' Review of the' semiannual effluent reports for 1992 indicated nos instances of a release exceeding T/S limits. Total noble gas'. released ' in 1992 was low at about' 43 curies. There 'were no. abnormal _ gaseous releases'during this period.
a No violations or deviations were identified.1 j ' 6.
Liouid Radioactive Waste (IP 84750) The inspector-reviewed the licensee's ~ liquid radioactive. effluent- . program including information concerning:. waste sampling, process and , ' effluent release paths,. verification 'of adequate ~ tank liquid discharge j tank mixing, batch releases and procedures for waste and effluent -
streams. There have been no significant changes;in the program!since-l described 11 Inspection. Reports No. 50-254/92015 and 50-265/92015. The l program was. reviewed for calendar year 1992 and 1993 to date. Some-
minor ~ discrepancies found in some of the liquid discharge papers were discussed with chemistry and radwaste personnel. As a result, a; review- .' of the current' procedure and liquid discharge form will performed and.
improvements'will be made as necessary.
' ! As.noted in_ Inspection Reports No. 50-254/92015 an'd 50-265/92015 there-l were considerable out of service problems with.both units service water - , monitors.:(SWMs). To review this matter a task-force comprised lof:
- !
! representatives from chemistry, engineering and operations was~ formed.
As a result, a modification to replace.the existing method of providing'
'
( ! ,
..' b a continuous sample flow to the SWMs will be initiated in 1993.
The effect of this modification will be reviewed during future inspections.
! [ No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Dose Assessment (IP 84750) s The inspectors reviewed the licensee's methodology for measuring offsite doses from liquid and gaseous releases. Confirmatory calculations using the ODCM for typical gas and liquid releases were in agreement with the licensee's.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Air Cleanino Systems (IP 84750) A review of the surveillance test data for the T/S ventilation system high efficiency particulate filters and charcoal absorbers was not performed during this inspection because no tests were required since the last time they were inspector reviewed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Effluent Control Instrumentation (IP 84750) The inspector selectively reviewed calibration and channel functional test records and selected setpoint records for effluent radiation. monitors on the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems.. Technical specifications require calibration of the monitors at 18 month intervals and quarterly functional tests. No significant problems were identified - in review of functional test and calibration data-for the monitors,- and they appeared to have been performed in accordance with an approved procedure which appears to be technically sound. The licensee has performed tests with known quantities of gaseous and liquid from their waste streams and verified the detector response was within acceptable limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Calibrations and Surveillance of Area Radiation Monitors (ARMS). Air-Eiector Off Gas Monitors. Steam line Radiation Monitors. and Drywell Monitors The inspector reviewed selected calibration records, surveillance records and governing procedures for ARMS, air ~ ejector off gas, steam line and drywell monitors. The calibration and functional tests of ARMS.
are performed by Instrument Maintenance (IM) and the others are calibrated and tested jointly by Radiation Protection and the IMs._ The inspector' identified problems in the ARM calibration sheets, weaknesses in the governing procedure and areas of concern ;about the ARM - calibration program. As a result, health physics will conduct a general overview of the program to identify programmatic weaknesses.
This
-* ,- m
at h t*# -
7 "g gf
l a a0 a pd s sf t ei
sD W"5 OCO Cs
0 c9
t e 0metg u" S a $ ay d p.c e
- te ope f
s 0",f* w d p s i oe9ra1 u fa I [o M*\\ a r , s e it r s s t St g B i D' h Nm[y r
" g 0" j e etgre (f %
'. N g i I [*f r a h '
- eepo To eqc aTt 4uk T
ahd i
i a ece c *\\ r WR v f s c 6g 3,e e N
t t* v a ef e u e n# s"d f
i
s e
tg
6Od s u ur 5u 9 t t 7 h ft t \\ f r o e3e r 3k d*n l.' n
o c
x
sw$,$i g 9 gedc U t g[* f e et5op x f i 9a ' e f h "f e [ ng6o0n i f pnbrsreC 6s p a C t t c i 2 [5 NriB9eas C C * [n 89[g* dR 0 p u s 0e9 v f s t a# f e e A 3 $a(i $" fga o
-
- d B
d f n$ 0 c# b S** - f f f t e
eS d
f o y ab wp[[UE*'g p esp
d 9ua g
f $' edf0 *t q af s sa T n v e e 8sf
- ef cd i
V e ba e o e ettdrnfadu1s D i i ue15 d "# h t n y 5$n$ ggt c nd f
t t s
U e 6 f N nw o 0 O 8 d 3(S p
f0 f e C v u n. d 9We ' u wh aec n a t N e i O c O 8 O 9 t \\g"9
O d o C o C adem
ug
w U U4 Nf r vialo d P g ** g t W C"** h g e L o f ob e$ etrhf So u g e r eT g r e cetyraSsi g t e u s) i f e
" f "C. i@e B 0'e sns e s e f W m e e"*9* f
i93g tge [i gt W"O g f s eO aK " W
9
et 4*U d. s eA m ef9M0*
9 e a 0 i s "9 o #a [g *s 9"C S brW t VC
- a $
i i DB n ey9g Tre ct s c d.
e Y 1\\B
e
t ps sW9 aO o [c t,{ b S C3" 9 t o*est re s e o n e ""\\ h stsI
g[S 5 eg sh y
- \\
p t* s e0t o & d r , B m f f C e aoVv g a i i t,p e i oTd I n l* v *"i [g 't e g"
- a
B r d ee e t e e ecd
- b 9 b *$ a g ve g
o f t dentu9 o ef s#y* 0 " id s s e e ~
dDot t f o* fetth g
g c
- "\\ e n g
fa
t t h O w
- n d g
f i i9e d t
h e d wt e s t e sh o n D"p ds p e u
p Ie e YcC "5 e t f
f y n nce [[f n dr s su e e ut c W9 e h
b f 9 t e ge ~ // /
)
b, l, * t.
w; - 6. # - matter was discussed-at the exit meeting and willibe~ reviewed during a ' . future inspection (IFI:50-254/93006-01; 50-265/93006-01).
- No violations = or deviations were identified.
" ' 11.
. External Exposure Control (IP 83750)- , , During the past eight months the-licensee identified several problems , - associated with High Radiation Area-(HRA) controls.s One' involved a malfunctioning. lock in a door controlling a an area with greater than? 1000 mrem /hr (requires locked doors) and the others for areas =less than 1000 mrem /hr (requires posting and barrier controls). _ With' the. exception of the control problem. caused by a malfunctioning' lock,11t appears the others were caused by personne1 either:failing to close n doors or replace the rope barriers.
If inadvertent entry was madelinto-any of the areas the safety: consequences were minimal becaus'e electronic dosimeters' are worn that alarm at an accumulated exposure of 90. mrem.- _ To help alleviate personnel errors the licensee recently. installediswing arm gates across' step off pads. lead]ng into HRAs which provide assurance- . the area 'is~ barricaded and conspicuously. posted. They have'also.
cautioned station personnel about the seriousness of the problem.and: indicated disciplinary action may be taken against identified offenders.
This matter was discussed with the plant manager'and will be~ reviewed at a future inspection (IFI 50-254/93006-02; 50-265/93006-02).
No violations;or deviations were identified.
12.
- Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with theIlicensee representatives (Section 1);at the conclusion of the inspection on February 26 1993.- LThe inspector._ discussed closure of previous inspection findings, observations of. the liquid and ~ gaseous' effluenti program, and apparent weaknesses associated with HRA controls ~and the-ARM calibration program; During the exit interview the: inspector discussed the likely informational' content'of the inspection report with regard to documents or; processes reviewed by the. inspector during the inspection. Licensee. representatives did not identify any. such-documents or processes as proprietary.
'
. ' - . a , }}