IR 05000302/1978013
| ML19317G225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1978 |
| From: | Ewald S, Gibson A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G176 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-78-13, NUDOCS 8002280858 | |
| Download: ML19317G225 (5) | |
Text
-
-
_
s t
UNITED STATES
- p ** "80 9[o
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,,
R EGloN ll y
g s
230 PE ACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217
_
g
...E i
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 I
o Y-W J'
=i Report No.:
50-302/78-13 Docket No.:
50-302 License No.: DPR-72 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 14042, Mail Stop C-4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River Unit 3 Inspection at: Crystal River Site, Crystal River, Florida Inspection conducted: May 12, 1978 Inspector:
S. C. Ewald d 's V---
d /7 /)[
-
O s
Reviewed by:
i A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on May 12, 1978 (Report No. 50-302/78-13)
Areas Inspected: Unannounced inspection pursuant to the events prior to and following a resin spill on May 11, 1978.
The inspection involved five inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were revealed.
-
V 8002280(S[
,
__
_,
_
-
_ -- _
_
.
.._ __
-
s
.
,
t O'
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-13-1-
-
_
DETAILS Prepared by:
[
.
S. C. Ewald, Radiation Specialist
'Date
-
Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
.
-Date of Inspectio : May 12, 1978 Reviewed by:
r ( A [ Le - ---
6 [7 b A. F.'Gibson, %hief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted
- G. P. Beatty, Jr., Nuclear Plant Manager
- J. R. Wright, Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
- J. L. Harrison, Assistant Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
- G. D. Perkins, Health Physics Supervisor
- G. H. Ruszala, Radwaste Management Supervisor
-
- R. E. Fuller, Plant Engineer
- J. Cooper, Jr., Compliance Engineer
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
~.
Resin Spill
a.
Region II was notified by the licensee May 11, 1978, that at 3:15 p.m. on May 11 an unplanned release of radioactive liquids occurred as the result of a resin spill during resin transfer /
solidification operations. The inspector discussed the event with licensee representatives on May 12, 1978, and inspected the vehicles and area around the spill location. The inspector's
'
determination, based on discussions with licensee representatives, of the events leading up to the spill and subseqtant recovery activity is discussed below.
-
i b.
On May 11, 1978, the licensee and vendor representatives were solidifying contaminated spent resin. The operation involved transfer of spent resin from the plant to a mobile vendor
,
processing van and then into a shielded spent resin cask on a flat bed truck. The process van and resin cask were located
~
outside the auxiliary building on an asphalt driving surface.
J p
During the filling of a second resin liner, the level control (v)
valve on the. filling head tripped closed, apparently due to an electrical problem. When the isolation valves were subsequently
.
.-
_
,, _.
, _. _..,,.,.
... _ _
. _ _,.
-
-.,,
,
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -. - - - -.
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.. _ _
,
%
)
~ O)
(
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-13-2-
_,
_
.
reopened, technicians observed resin spilling onto the asphalt from a sump under the process van and the system was immediately
-
secured. Absorbent material was quickly spread over the area to contain liquids draining from the resin toward a storm drain about 25 feet away.
Samples were taken of the liquid and resin for activity analysis. The resin leak was isolated and the spilled resin vacuumed into a 55 gallon drum. The i
sorbent was subsequently shoveled and vacuumed into 55 gallon drums and the contaminated asphalt sealed with paint. The area was promptly roped off and posted and visual surveillance implemented for access control.
Licensee representatives estimated the resin spill to include one to two cubic feet of
,
resin and a maximum of two gallons of water that got to the storm drain.
The storm drain empties to the intake structure which would provide a minimum of 10,000 gallons / minute dilution.
c.
Chem-rad personnel performed various surveys during the event as summarized below. Direct radiation surveys indicated l
levels of 300 mrem /hr from the spilled resin and high levels near the solidification process van (general area near van of 300 to 500 mres/hr with a hot spot underneath the van sump of y
7 rem /hr). Air saaples taken showed no activity and smears j
taken of the storm drain showed two spots with removable l
contamination on the order of 3000 disintegrations per minute (dpm). No personnel were contaminated or received abnormal
'
radiation expos' ires.
Acalysis of the runoff water indicated concentrations of 2.7 E-3 microcuries/ml comprised mostly of Cobalt-58.
Analysis of the resin indicated approximately 25 microcuries/ml., also mostly Cobalt-58.
Based on survey results around the process van sump, licensee representatives estimated 25 to 30 cubic feet of resin to be in the sump.
d.
The inspector discussed the possible causes of the spill with licensee and vendor representatives.
While the exact origin of the leak will be undetermined until a complete inspection of the process van is complete, licensee representatives stated the leak likely occurred in PVC piping in the process
-
van. The resin slurry leaked from a longitudinal seam along the bottom of the van sump permitting resin slurry to run onto the asphalt.
Licensee representatives stated the whole system
,
had been hydrostatically tested at 150 pounds per square inch (psi) prior to resin handling with no leakage. The system is
'
designed to handle about 500 psi and the site resin transfer pumps are capable of developing a maximum of 30 psi. The sump was not leak tested to verify integrity prior to resin processing.
i l
N
,
.
'
-
_
_,. -._.
,.
_... _ -,
...,,..
__
. _.
.
.
.g
-
r
.
-
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-13-3-
..
The inspector discussed various proposals for decontamination
-
e.
and release of the areas involved with licensee representatives.
Specific topics discussed included removal of contaminated asphalt and decontamination of the processing van.
Initial attempts to remove the asphalt involved cutting with carbon blade circular saws and subsequent breaking out of the asphalt chunks. The inspector observed the initial cuts accompanied by the Radwaste Manager.
This technique created a large amount of dust that might pose an airborne hazard. The Radwaste Manager instructed personnel.to try using jackhammers first and if that also proved un' acceptable that use of a back-hoe.
would be considered. Telephone communications with the Health Physics Supervisor on May 15 revealed all the asphalt in question was removed during the late afternoon on May 12 and the area covered with plastic.
The contaminated asphalt was loaded into 55 gallon drums for disposal. Decontamination of the process van will be performed by a special vendor work crew and tentative schedules called for removal of resin from
'
the van sump by May 16 and full decontamination accomplished j
by May 19, 1978.
The mobile van will not be moved until decontamination is complete.
-
f.
The inspector discussed with vendor and licensee representatives the implications of the spill and precaution to preclude Specir.c topics included direct communi-future similar events.
d cations between the resin processing area and the radwaste system operating panel, additional preoperation tests, and improved designs for the resin transfer and processing area.
The inspector stated that, since these operations are expected to continue over the life of the plant, installation of an area specifically designed to contain spills would be appropriate.
Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspectors comments and stated these aspects would be considered in the licensee's j
review of the event.
The inspector stated the results of this review would be evaluated during future inspections (78-13-01).
i 3.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on May 12, 1978, the inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
.
Items discussed included reporting requirements as specified in i
10 CFR 20.403, proposed decontamination plans, and proposals to preclude future similar events.
[\\
i
_ _ _
..
.-
-.
-
..
-