IR 05000315/1997005
| ML17333A862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17333A861 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-97-05, 50-315-97-5, 50-316-97-05, 50-316-97-5, NUDOCS 9704180188 | |
| Download: ML17333A862 (13) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Docket Nos:
Licenses No:
50-315; 50-316 DPR-58; DPR-74 Reports No:
50-315/97005(DRS); 50-316/97005(DRS)
Licensee:
American Electric Power Company Facility:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Generating Plant Location:
1 Cook Place Bridgman, Ml 49106 Dates:
Inspectors:
February 18 - March 21, 1997 R. A. Paul, Senior Radiation Specialist D. B. Hart, Radiation Specialist Approved by:
Thomas J. Kozak, Chief, Plant Support Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety 9704i80i88 970416 PDR ADOCK 050003i5
I
R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry (RP&C) Controls R1.1 f
i I
I a.
The inspectors reviewed the radiological controls implemented for the Unit 1 refueling outage (U1R97), including ALARAgoats and results.
Several inspections inside containment were made.
The following high dose jobs were reviewed:
Reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal inspections and related activities, including realignment and re-coupling; Valve work on 1-NRV 163 & 164, including the refurbishment or replacement; Installation of pipe supports in lower containment; and Reactor nozzle inspections hatch plugs (i.e. sandboxes)
and nuclear instrument (Nl) cover modifications.
During this review, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's ALARAplanning and observed work in progress.
b.
The inspectors noted that radiological postings and boundaries were generally well maintained, and housekeeping was good in the reactor containment.
Bags containing radioactive material were secured and appropriately labeled.
Low dose waiting areas were well posted and easy to find. Workers were observed using these areas effectively. When questioned by the inspectors, workers in containment were aware of the dose rates in their work areas.
Although pre-job ALARAbriefings were held for most radiological work activities, a review of radiation work permits indicated that, while workers needed to check in with radiation protection technicians prior to initiating work, there were no formal requirements on when briefings should be held and what should be covered during them.
The radiation protection manager indicated that this issue would be reviewed.
I The Unit 1 outage was shortened from 48 days to 43.5 days and the scope was expanded to include 100% ISI work which presented the licensee with a challenge to meet the established dose goals.
The dose goal for the station was set at about 197 person-rem (1.97 sievert (Sv)). At the time of the inspection the station dose
was about 110 person-rem (1.10 Sv) which was the projected dose for that period.
The following specific high dose jobs were reviewed by the inspectors:
the reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal inspections and related activities (5.25 rem), the 1-NRV 163 5 164 valve work (6.5 rem), valve repairs in the rage'nerative heat exchanger room (6 rem), and the installation of pipe supports in lower containment (10.512 rem). The controls used during these jobs were effective in maintaining the
'xpended dose, which is noted in parenthesis above, low for these activities.
Approximately 8 rem was expended during the sandbox and nuclear instrument cover modification. Discussions with the responsible construction engineer revealed that the dose expended due to rework on this job was approximately 300 mrem.
Problems with welding Ied to three of the sandboxes needing to be rewelded.
Other problems with this job included the lack of sufficient scaffolding, incomplete preparatory work on the weld areas, and the need to use full face respirators due to the unavailability of half face respirators.
This was an example where inadequate planning and poor work practices affected the plant's radiological performance.
However, discussions with ALARAplanners and reviews of other outage tasks indicated that, with the exception of this job, rework has not significantly contributed to the total dose expended at the station.
Qgn~li~i Radiological controls in the Unit 1 refueling outage were well implemented.
The inspectors concluded that overall radworker practices were good.
Effective use of low dose waiting areas was observed.
Although some problems were identified with the sandbox modification job, rework did not significantly contribute to the overall dose expended at the site.
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the licensee's liquid and gaseous radwaste program including radwaste discharge papers and procedures and effluent results, dose quantification methodology, technical documents to determine compliance with effluent requirements, effluent control instruments, area radiation monitor (ARM) and accident monitor calibration procedures and results, establishing monitor alarm set points, and conduction of discharge batch releases.
rv F'n To date there were no significant changes in the licensee's liquid and gaseous
>effluent systems as described in the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) and
'he final safety analysis report (FSAR). Quantification of gaseous and liquid discharges were completed in accordance with the appropriate procedures, and the inspectors established that offsite doses and effluent release monitor set points were calculated using ODCM methodolog li
Calibration of the TS effluent monitors were accomplished in 1992 using national bureau of standards (NBS) primary (gas and liquid) sources to establish efficiencies and demonstrate linearity; subsequent calibrations used secondary sources.
No problems were identified in review of functional test and calibration data for the systems which were performed in accordance with approved procedures and were technically sound.
During tours of the station and the control room, the inspectors verified that area radiation and effluent monitors, and associated read out systems were in good operating condition.
Operability problems with the closed cooling water and blowdown effluent radwaste monitors were addressed by installing new monitors which were intended to be operational by the end of May 1997. The flows on the isokinetic and main vent pathway exhaust systems were periodically measured and no significant problems were identified.
c.
Overall, the liquid, gaseous, and ARM monitoring program is an excellent program which was effectively implemented.
Radioactive releases and dose to the public from the releases were well below the regulatory permissible limits.
R1.3 i
a.
The inspectors reviewed the latest test results of the non-TS required engineered-safety-featured atmosphere cleanup filtration and absorption units.
b.
F'n Charcoal and HEPA filters for the air ejectors and for the containment, auxiliary, and service building vents were tested to the same standards as those for the TS control room systems.
The inplace leakage test criterion specified both the DOP testing of HEPA filters and freon testing of charcoal adsorbers was equal to or less than one percent penetration.
The laboratory test criterion for carbon sample removal efficiency for methyl iodide was equal to or greater than 90 percent.
A selective review of surveillance test data showed that the surveillances for the above ventilation systems had met test acceptance criteria.
FSAR Section 9.10.3, "Control Room Ventilation System," states that a high radiation alarm from the control room radiation monitor or a safety injection signal automatically initiated closure of the isolation dampers in the air conditioning system and the toilet exhaust discharge.
The inspectors noted that there was no surveillance requirement in the plant technical specifications to verify that this non-safety related monitor was able to perform its control function as described in the FSAR. Although the control room radiation monitor was calibrated at the same frequency as the licensee's other liquid and gaseous effluent monitors, no tests were routinely performed to ensure the control function worked as stated in the FSAR. This monitor was not assumed to function during an accident when control
'
room dose calculations were made.
The licensee indicated that an evaluation addressing this issue would be done.
C.
Required surveillances were performed on TS-required monitors and the results indicated the TS criteria were met.
However, the absence of a required surveillance for the control room radiation monitor resulted in the inability to ensure that the monitor was able to perform its control functions as defined in the FSAR.
X1 Exit Meeting Summary On March 21, 1997, the inspectors presented the inspection results to licensee management.
The licensee acknowledged the'indings presented.
The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary.
No proprietary information was identifie PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED J. Sampson, Plant Manager D. Noble, Radiation Protection Superintendent P. Holland, General Supervisor Radiation Support P. Hoppe, General Supervisor Radiation Controls P. Leonard, Outage Coordinator H. Springer, Radiation Protection Supervisor D. Foster, Radiation Materials Specialist L. Smart, Nuclear Licensing C. Golden, System Engineer D. Bronicki, Radiation Protection Supervisor T. Lechenet, Radiation Protection Supervisor E. Young, Construction Engineer INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 83750:
IP 84750:
Occupational Radiation Exposure Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent, and Environmental Monitoring LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ALARA CFR ISI NBS ODCM RCP RP RP&C RWP SRD Sv TS As Low As Reasonably Achievable Area Radiation IVlonitor Code of Federal Regulations In Service Inspection National Bureau of Standards Offsite Dose Calculation IVlanual Reactor Coolant Pump Radiation Protection Radiation Protection and Cnemistry Radiation Work Permit Self Readin~ Dosimeter Sievert Technical Specifications
J"
e DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RWP 971076 "U1R97 RCP Seal Inspections and AllAssociated Activities RWP 971062 U1R97 / 1-NRV-163 h 164 Valve Work" RWP 971066 "U1R97 / Regen HX Room, Valve Repairs 5 Testing" RWP 971109 "1DCP046 U1R97 Fab/Install U1 Lower CTMT. Pipe Supports RWP 971055 "U1R97 /12-DCP-28 Sandbox & Nl Cover Modification UFSAR Section 9.9 "AuxiliaryBuilding Ventilation Systems" 1996 Draft Effluent report Liquid and Gas Decay Tank Discharge Papers Liquid and Gaseous Process and Area Radiation Monitor Calibrations Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
(