IR 05000322/1993001
| ML20045E781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1993 |
| From: | Nimitz R, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045E771 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-93-01, 50-322-93-1, NUDOCS 9307060035 | |
| Download: ML20045E781 (67) | |
Text
-.
..
. -
P Docket No.
10.-322 Report No.
50-322/93-01 License No. NPF-82 (POL)
Licensee:
Long Island Power Authority P.O. Box 628. North Country Road Wading River. New York 11792 f
Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Wading River. New York Inspection Period:
January 1. - May 7.1993 Inspector:
0 L N vvw4 Qz s/93
"
R. L. Nimitz, CHP date -
Senior Radiation Specialist B. Norris, Project Engineer J. Caniso, Operations Engineer / Examiner L. Eckert, Radiation Specialist Approved by:
4EMI
/W. J. incigjf date-Facilities Radiation Protection Section Areas Inspected: On-site and in-office inspection by Region I staff, consisting of facility tours, observation of work-in-progress, and review of various licensee procedures and repons. The areas reviewed included decommissioning status and activities; action on previous findings; tennination surveys; organization, staffing, training and qualifications; radiological controls; radioactive waste activities; maintenance and surveillance; quality assurance; fire protection and security.
Findings: The inspectors' review indicated that, overall, decommissioning and tennination
_
' survey activities were conducted in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Tennination Survey Plans. Training of personnel perfonning tennination survey activities was-considered very good. Quality assunmce oversight during decommissioning was significant.
Several unresolved items were identified. These involved replacement of out of date procedures,
maintenance of final termination survey records, soil sampling, identification of isolated contamination on the main turbine, and personnel entry into the hotwell. These items will be reviewed further during a future inspection. Weaknesses associated.with document control for temporary modifications were identified but corrected. Concerns associated with lifting of heavy loads were identified and are the subject of SpecialInspection No. 50-322/93-02.
9307060035 930625 PDR ADOCK 05000322
,
O PDR
,
..m m
-
--
-
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel The inspector met with cognizant licensee personnel periodically throughout the inspection period. In addition the inspector periodically held telephone discussions with licensee personnel during the inspection period. Individuals contacted included:
-
L. Hill, Resident Manager
-
A. Bortz, Operations and Maintenance Depanment Manager
-
F. Petschauer, Radiological Controls Division Manager
-
R. Grunseich, Fire Safety and Administration Division Manger
-
N. Nilsen, Decommissioning Department Manager
-
R. Patch, NQA Depanment Manager
-
J. Welsh, Security Operations Supervisor
-
L. Britt, Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Manager
-
L. Henry, Quality Systems Manager
-
R.' Pauly, Compliance Engineer
-
M. Bowden, Audit Supervisor
-
B. Maloney, Nuclear Operations and Suppon Division Manager
-
S. Schoenwiesner, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Depanment Manager -
1.2 NRC W. Pasciak, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety Section, NRC Region I L. Pittiglio; Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC~
Headquarters The inspector also contacted other personnel during the inspection.
2.0 Scone of Areas Reviewed During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed the following activities:
-
previous findings
-
status of decommissioning
-
termination survey program activities
-
organization, staffing (including maintenance of staff), and training and qualifications audit and surveillance activities
-
-
radioactive waste shipping activities
-
radiological controls
-
maintenance and surveillance activities
-
security controls
,
- -
- -
- -
. - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
-
.
-
- - - - -
..
.
.
-
.
,.
.
-
general plant conditions including housekeeping, fire protection, and industrial safety 3.0 Previous Findings 3.1 (Closed) Violation (50-322/92-04-01)
The licensee did not keep the NRC apprised, in writing, of changes that had been made to the proposed Decommissioning Plan that was under review by the NRC's Office of.
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards group. This was identified as a violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions relative to those outlined in the licensee's January 4,1993, response letter (LSNRC-2018) to the violation.
The licensee implemented the corrective actions outlined. In addition inspector reviews indicated the licensee has been keeping appmpriate NRC offices aware of plan changes as required by license conditions. This item is closed.
3.2 (Open) Unresolved Item (50-322/92-04-02)
During a previous inspection (Reference NRC Inspection No. 50-322/92-04), the inspector noted that the limiting conditions and surveillance requirements for fire protection equipment in the vicinity of the emergency diesel generators (EDGs), the
-
emergency switch gear, and the batteries had been deleted from the Fire-Hazards -
Analysis Report (FHAR). The Technical Specifications (TS) require that this equipment be operable to support fuel handling. The fire protection program, as described in the FHAR, includes only that equipment used to protect the reactor building. Specifically, TS-3.4.1.1 requires one diesel generator (and the associated emergency switch gear and_
'
batteries) to be operable during fuel handling evolutions. The suneillances related to the diesel generator, switch gear, and batteries are covered by the maintenance program.
The inspector's concern is: ifthe fire detection or protection equipment becomes
,
inoperable, there is no requirement to repair the equipment in a timely manner, nor is there a requirement to implement compensatory measures.
'
During the referenced inspection, the inspector indicated that the level of fire protection provided for an area, including limiting conditions, compensatory actions, and suncillance requirements, should be commensurate with the equipment opembility requirements. The licensee's management noted and agreed to evaluate this concern and provide the results of this evaluation to the NRC.
LIPA submitted to the.NRC an amendment request (dated December 14,1992) that would remove all electrical distribution requirements from the TS. The licensee's basis, in-part, for deleting the Gre protection equipment limiting conditions and surveillances was that the EDGs were not needed to maintain the fuel in a safe condition in the event of a Gre and that the A.C. sources do not perfonn safety related functions. In addition,
,
in a letter from LIPA to the Regional Administrator (dated February 18,1993), the r
.
,,es.
y--
m
.
.
.y
'
licensee stated that the changes made to the approved fire protection program were consistent with the requirements of License Condition 2. D. and that there was no need to revise the FHAR. The inspector noted that surveillances of Hm protection equipment were being perfomled under the maintenance program.
,
,
Until such time as a final decision is reached on the request, this item remains unresolved.
3.3 (Closed) Unresolved item (50-322/92-04-03)
During a previous inspection (Reference NRC Inspection No. 50-322/92-05), the inspector reviewed documentation being prepared to suppon a shipment, for disposal, of irradiated control rod blades (Shipment No. RWS-92-31). The inspector's review of shipping paper documentation indicated that ponions of the shipping checklist, used for documenting completion of marking, labeling and placarding, had been signed-off even though cenain activities had not been performed; specifically, the sealing of the package with a non-removable (tamper proof) seal. Subsequent inspector review indicated the
.
individual had signed off the steps with the intent to complete them. The inspector's and licensee's review of completed shipping papers did not identify any apparent -
discrepancies. The shipping papers reviewed included those previously completed by the individual.
This matter was discussed with licensee representatives, who indicated that the applicable -
paperwork would be re-done and that this concern would be reviewed. The inspector
'
detennined during the current inspection that the above actions had be taken and that the-individual had been counseled. The inspector's review of procedures further indicatedm that station procedures did not provide guidance regarding when procedure steps should be signed off. This was considered a program weakness.
The inspector detennined that the licensee's Resident Manager directed on February 16,
_'
1993, that all station department managers revise applicable procedures specifying that activities be completed prior to sign-off of procedure checklist steps. The inspector's review indicated applicable procedures were revised. This item is closed.
3.4 (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-322/92-05-01)
During a previous inspection, it was noted that unqualified maintenance personnel operated the refueling floor polar crane. As a result, a strongback attached to the main
,
hook of the crane came in contact with the 480 VAC mnway conductor, damaging about 20 feet of the conductor. The individuals moved the crane to allow their access to the trolley area. The inspector noted that procedure SP32X002.01, Revision '2, requires that
,
only qualified personnel operate the crane. The inspector further noted that Technical Specification 6.7, Procedures and Programs, requires that the recommended procedures in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, be implemented. Regulatory Guide Section 9,
.
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
._
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
specifies that maintenance, that can affect the performance of safety-related equipment, be properly pre-planned and perfonned in accordance with written procedures, documented instructions, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances.
.
A LIPA Deficiency Report, LDR 92X060, was initiated for maintenance action and root cause analysis. The maintenance action involved inspection and repair / replacement ofL the damaged bus bar conductors. The root cause was attributed to: "I&C technicians involved used questionable judgement in deciding to operate the polar crane, and also by ~
not positioning themselves with an unobstructed view...". The corrective action to i
prevent recurrence included meetings with allI&C technicians to advise them that only qualified personnel are allowed to operate the crane.
The inspector reviewed the
documentation that all personnel had attended the requisite training. The licensee subsequently provided similar training to other work groups (i.e., contractors and other maintenance personnel) when it was noted by the inspector that these individuals may be working near or around the crane. The inspector did note that only certain maintenance i
personnel are qualified to operate the crane.
The inspector concluded that the above observation was a licensee identified violation of procedum SP32X002.01, Revision 2, which required that only qualified personnel opemte the crane. The inspector reviewed this matter relative to the criteria for exercise
,
of discretion (for non-issuance of a Notice of Violation), specified in 10 CFR 2,
'
Appendix C, and concluded that the licensee met the criteria.
As a-msult,' this unresolved item is administratively closed and considered a non-cited licensee identified violation of Technical Specification 6.7.
4.0 Facility Status
[
The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station was shut down in 1989. The maximum power attained was 5% reactor power, with a total core history of 2 megawatt (MW) days. In June 1991, a Possession Only License (POL) (effective July 19, 1991) was issued to
-
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo). On February 29,1992, the NRC approved the transfer of the license to the 12mg Island Power Authority (LIPA). On June 11,1992, the NRC issued an Order authorizing the decommissioning of Shoreham.
The LIPA Board of Trustees voted on November 30,1992,-to award a fuel disposition contract to Compagnie General des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA) for shipment of the fuel to France. The contract was signed on December 1,1992. However, the licensee-has not been successful in obtaining an export permit for the fuel.
.
On February 25, 1993, LIPA reached an agreement with the Philadelphia Electrie Company (PECO) to transfer the slightly irradiated fuel from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to PECO for use at PECO's Limerick Nuclear Power Station. The agreement provides for transpon of Shoreham Station's fuel (560 fuel elements
,
representing the reactor's initial core load) in special shipping casks by rail from Long
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
. -
-
-
- -
. - -
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
._
_ - -
-
- -
- -
.
.
Island to the Limerick Station. The shipments will use solely designated trains. The transfer would require about 33 separate shipments. Transfer of the fuel from Shoreham to the nearest rail head will be accomplished by use of heavy haulers.
,
LIPA has encountered local opposition to shipment of the fuel via rail. At the close of this inspection period the licensee was evaluating other shipping alternatives including.
shipment of the fuel by barge. The licensee's plans were to stan fuel shipping activities -
'
in June 1993 and end by Febniary 1994. The licensee indicated that fuel transfer will result in all fuel being removed from the Shoreham site, provide for earlier completion of the Tennination Survey Progmm, and provide for earlier license tennination, The reactor vessel has been segmented and the segments have been disposed of. The reactor vessel bottom head was left intact and the licensee was attempting to decontaminate and leave it in place. The reactor vessel head remains on site. All fuel remains in the spent fuel pool.
Contaminated systems continued to be removed and segmented and shipped off-site for burial. Essentially all contaminated systems were removed and disposed of with the exception of the liquid radwaste system and the fuel pool clean-up system. These systems were needed to support decommissioning activities and maintain fuel pool water l
quality. The licensee installed a temporary fuel pool Glter demineralizer to allow for removal of portions of the spent fuel pool clean-up system.
The licensee was conducting activities in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan or,
as necessary, has requested appropriate changes.
5.0 Termination Survey Plannine and Performanc_q 5.1 Planning and General Information
$
On December 2,1992, the licensee formally submitted the Shoreham Decommissioning
-
Project Tennination Survey Plan (Survey Plan), Revision 0, to the NRC for review and
approval. The Survey Plan describes the methodology and techniques to be used by the
;
licensee to survey the site for unrestricted access. The NRC reviewed the Survey Plan
<
and provided comments to the licensee in a letter dated December 16,. 1992. The licensee subsequently responded to the comments in a letter (LSNRC-2045) dated April-15, 1993. The NRC reviewed the response and subsequently approved the Shoreham Decommissioning Project Termination Survey Plan, Revi.sion 0, on April 16,1993
.
Attachment I to this inspection report contains the licensee's tennination survey schedule.
5.2 Prngedure Reviews r
As part of this inspection, the inspectors reviewed the following documents pertaining l
.
..
.
.
.
_
.
..
_
..
.
to the licensee's Tennination Survey Plan:
-
67X001.01, Rev 0,10/1/92, Tennination Survey History File Content and Preparation
-
67X001.02, Rev 2, 3/24/93, Shoreham Decommissioning Project Tennination Survey Procedure
-
67X001.03, Rev 2,3/29/93, Termination Survey Quality Control
-
67X001.04, Rev 1, 4/6/93, Tennination Survey Unit Turnover and Contml Procedure
-
67X001.05, Rev 1,1/8/93, Tennination Survey Data Receipt and Managemeat -
'
-
67X001.06, Rev 2, 5/7/93, Tennination Survey Release Record Content and Preparation
-
67X001.07, Rev 0,1/8/93, Tennination Survey Document Control and File Management
-
67X001.08, Rev 2,4/6/93, Survey Unit Classification Description
-
67X0019, Rev 2,3/23/93, Termination Survey Background Assessment
.
-
67X001.10, Rev 1,2/10/93, Tennination Survey Design
-
67X001.12, Rev 0,1/20/93, Termination Survey Section Conduct of Operations The inspectors concluded that these procedures provided adequate direction for the -
implementation of the Tennination Survey Plan.
5.3 Tennination Survey Work In Progress
'
The inspectors reviewed tennination survey work in progress for the following survey.
units.
.
Survey Unit Survey Unit Name i
SUO60, package 2 RWCU Pump Room "A" SUO60, package 6 Old contamination storage room
.
SG004 Site Grounds
Properly qualified personnel were performing the tennination surveys.
.
-
The following unresolved item was identified:
-
During inspector observation of on-going tennination survey activities, the inspector noted that each tennination survey crew was provided with a " kit bag" of documents and other materials to be taken and used in the field during the
,
tennination survey activities. Apparently there were at least 30 such " kit bags" put together for as many survey teams.
F
,-
- - -
-
-
.
-
<-
-
,
.,,
--
-
.. -...
-
-
-
-
.
.
. -.
_.
. - -
..
.
.
.-
i The inspector 's review of procedures in selected " kit bags" identified that they contained controlled tennination survey program procedures. However, the inspector noted that the tennination survey procedure in the selected bags was one revision out of date. The new revision had been issued about one month prior to the inspector's observation (Revision 2, dated March 29,1993). The licensee immediately suspended on-going surveys to evaluate the matter. The licensee concluded that surveys were being conducted in accordance with procedure
,
requirements and that the difference between the latest and previous procedure
'
revision involved minor administrative changes that were not safety significant.
The licensee also indicated that personnel had apparently been provided training-on the correct revision but that the older revision in the kit bags had not been replaced.
The licensee concluded, however, that the observation indicated apparent weaknesses in the document control program. The inspector indicated that the circumstances surrounding this matter, including personnel adherence to
,
applicable procedures, and the licensee's corrective actions are umesolved and will be reviewed further during a future inspection. (50-322/93-01-01)
,
5.4 Instrumentation e
The inspectors selected radiation smvey instrument calibration records for instmments used to conduct tennination surveys. Appropriate calibmtion records were reviewed.
<
No discrepancies were noted.
5.5 Review of History Packages and Survey Plans Two survey packages were selected and reviewed to detennine whether history packages and survey plans were prepared in accordance with the tennination survey plan
.
implementing procedures. The following packages were reviewed.
{
,
Survey Unit Survey Unit Name System Number
SU005 Feedwater Control C32 i
SUO33 Moisture Separator Reheater
.N35
!
and Reheater Drains
'
No discrepancies with existing tennination survey plan implementing procedures were
'
noted.
'
5.6 Confinnatory Surveys On February 23 and 24,1993, members of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education's Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) perfonned
'
,
,
,
..
_
_
..
_
..
..
.
_
.
_
_;
,
'
independent confinnatory surveys of the internal components of the main turbine. The purpose of the surveys was to provide independent document reviews and comparative radiological data for use by the N'RC in evaluating the adequacy and accuracy of the.
licensee's termination survey mport' relative to NRC established criteria. The ESSAP-members were observed by licensee personnel and the inspectors during performance of the measurement-s. The ESSAP members made surface scans, direct surface activity.
measurements, and removable surface activity sampling.
.
The ESSAP members also reviewed the licensee's facility termination survey plan and-termination final survey repon for the steam turbine ' system for. adequacy, appropriateness, and consistency between documents. The termination survey data was
also reviewed for accuracy, completeness, and compliance with guidelines.
Preliminary results received by the inspector indicated surface activity levels were within guidelines and were consistent with the licensee's results.
,
The following matter was noted:
!
-
The licensee informed the inspector that during the initial surveys of the. high pressure turbine on February 10,1993, an apparent low activity hot panicle was
!
detected. A second survey team confirmed the survey results using a different
,
survey meter. However, a third survey team, using a third meter, was. unable to
'
locate the apparent hot panicle. A fourth meter was used to scan the area'.. This
.
meter did not indicate the presence of hot particles. The licensee was not able to re-identify the apparent hot particle during extensive surveys of the area, The
licensee issued Radiological Incident Report 93-04 for this matter and initiated.
,
'
extensive surveys of turbine dunnage prior to handling. Radiological controls personnel maintained positive control of the ama. No personnel contaminations were identified.
i l
.
.
.
i i
The inspector indicated that the results of the mmainder of the main steam system surveys, including eview of conformance with Termination Survey Plan
_
,
requirements and evaluation of the potential for hot particles, will be reviewed further during a future inspection. This matter is unresolved. (50-322/93-01-02)
j l
'
6.0 -
Oreanization. Staffine. Trainine and Oualifications
6.1 General
,
,
!
The' inspector reviewed the on-site organization, staffing and the training.and qualifications of personnel. The review was with respect to the following Possession i
-
Only Licensee Technical Specifications:
-
Technical Specification 6.2, Organization
-
.
.
--
-
. - -
-..
- - -.
--
.
-
--. -
..
t e
9-
-
Technical SpeciHcation 6.3, Unit Staff Qualifications The inspector reviewed matters such as Control Room manning, use of overtime, and training and qualification.of radiological controls personnel.
The maintenance' of
sufHcient numbers of qualified personnel to oversee and perfonn on-going decommissioning activities was also reviewed.
The following organization changes occurred during the inspection period:
-
Mr. Larry Britt was named the Nuclear Operations and Support Division Manager.
.
The licensee also notiGed the NRC by letter dated March 19, 1993, of organizational changes involving consolidation of the Nuclear Engineering Division, deactivation of the
.
Special Process Division and Transfer of the Fuel Disposition Division from the Nuclear Operations Support Department to the Decommissioning Department.
The licensee
.
indicated the changes were administrative and procedumi in nature, did not involve.
,
technical or programmatic changes, and were designed to strengthen management of decommissioning activities.
The licensee, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.74, Notification of Change in Operator or Senior Reactor Operator Status, requested in a letter dated Febmary 18,'1993, that the licensees of all reactor and senior reactor opemtor licenses for the Shoreham Nuclear
,
Power Station be allowed to expire. The individuals were permanently reassigned to the non-licensed positions of senior cenified fuel handling operator or certi0ed fuel handling operator.
On March 31,1993, the NRC sent license tennination letters to the remaining 13 Senior Reactor Operators and 10 Reactor Operators at the Shoreham Station. The licensee maintains an adequate compliment of cenined fue1 handlers to support fuel handling operations.
No safety concems or violations were identined. The licensee was very sensitive to the need to maintain adequate numbers of technically qualined personnel to oversee and perform on-going decommissioning activities.
6.2 Special Tmining Review Activities i
During the inspection period, the licensee formally implemented the termination survey program. The inspector reviewed the training and qualincation program for individuals performing surveys to suppon license tennination.
In addition, the inspectors
,
independently reviewed termination surveys in progress and reviewed the knowledge of personnel and adherence to tennination survey program procedures.
!
.
_
_
_
_
..
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-.
,
,
.
6.2.1. Trainine Progmm Administration LIPA Nuclear Management Control Manual PDXON-11, Rev 0,- 8/30/91, Nuclear
.
Organization Management Program Description for Shoreham Nuclear Training and i
Qualification, provided administrative controls for the policies and objectives for the nuclear training program Survey Section and denoted personnel responsibilities. Training
,
records were maintained by database and were thereby casily retrievable.
The inspector considered tmining program control and records maintenance to be good.
6.2.2 Trainine Program Description Initial training for Health Physics technicians consisted of five training phases.
Phase 1 Basic academic training in mathematics and science j
Phase 2 Health Physics fundamentals Phase 3 Systems
_
,
Phase 4 Applied Health Physics fundamentals Phase 5 On-the-job training and functional area task evaluation / qualification i
The licensee segmented the technician training program into 25 areas. _ Each area has an associated " qualification code" and qualification description for each area. The following areas are provided as examples.
Oual-Code Oualification Description
'
HPRCP5 Phase 5 Qualification HPRCTS Tennination Survey Technician.
l As pan of the inspection of Tennination Survey Plan implementation, the inspectors
reviewed the Termination Survey Technician Qualification Card, Rev 1, 3/8/93. The i
!
licensee detennined that successful completion of the following tasks demonstrated sufficient knowledge to perfonn the duties of Health Physics Tennination Survey Technician.
-
performance of general area, contact and beta dose rate determinations
-
performance of contamination surveys
-
performance of radiological surveys to release tools / materials for unrestricted use
,
-
perfonnance of daily checks of in-plant personnel monitoring equipment
-
performance of routine daily radiological surveys around the station
-
perfonnance of a system tennination survey
-
perfonnance of a structure tennination survey The inspectors reviewed the training records of technicians conducting tennination surveys. No discrepancies were noted. Additionally, the inspectors observed junior
t
!
f
,_
. - -..
._
_
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _.
.-
e
technicians perfonning unsupervised termination surveys. The inspectors questioned junior technicians about the extent and quality of their training, especially concerning the Bicron ESP-2 (which most junior technicians had not used in the past).
These technicians expressed general satisfaction with their training in this regard. Based on the q
discussions and review of training records the inspector concluded that the individuals l
were properly task qualified for performing the surveys, l
J In addition, the inspector reviewed the training records-for personnel performing-hydrolazing activities and reviewed hydrolazing work in progress. No discrepancies y
were noted.
!
l The inspector also reviewed the training records of personnel perfonning surveys of-material to be released from the radiological controlled area (RCA). The inspectors also observed personnel perfonning surveys of material to be released from the RCA. No discrepancies were noted.
i 6.2.2 Personnel Oualifications
'
The qualification requirements, as 'they relate to required years of experience,- for contractor technicians.was specified in Station Procedure (SP) 61X040.01, Rev 3, 4/14/93, Health Physics Technician Selection, Training and Qualification Training. The procedure provided the implementing guidance specified in Technical Specifications. The procedure provided generally acceptable guidance, however,.the following areas..for enhancement were identified:
-
The procedure did not provide clear guidance for evaluation of personnel whose_
principal experience was obtained at military non-commercial facilities.
Specifically, the inspectors asked about time accredited as a Navy engineering laboratory technician (ELT). The inspectors were infonned that one-to-one credit would be given (the procedure allowed full time accreditation for Navy ELTs (for-senior technician status)). The inspector infonned the licensee that some non-commercial activities may involve a combination of both chemistry and radiation protection experience and that the experience should be evaluated and credited as separate experience. The inspectors indicated that it may not be appropriate to accept all chemistry experience toward qualification as a radiation protection _
technician.
l
-
There was no procedural direction concerning accreditation for time spent as a Control Point radiological controls technician or chemistry technician.
The licensee indicated that these matters would be reviewed.
The inspectors' review of qualifications did not identify an unqualified personnel perfonning tennination survey activities. No discrepancies were note.___ _
____. __
.
.
7.0 Ouality Assurance Procram Review j
j The inspectors reviewed the implementation and adequacy of the Quality Assurance.
Program. The review was with respect to criteria contained in Technical Specifications (TSs), the Defueled Safety Analysis Repon (DSAR), the Shoreham Decommissioning
Plan, other licensing and regulatory requirements, and Q luy Assurance implementing procedures associated with the decommissioning phase.
The inspection included the verification of quality assurance implementation, technical adequacy of various programs, including the aedit and records programs, quality assumnce auditor training and qualification, and a review of previous licensee audit l
findings and surveillances. Attachment 2 contains a list of the documents reviewed during this inspection.
7.1 Audit Procram l
I The inspectors verified that the licensee's audit pmgram had completed all TS required audits and was in conformance with the commitments established in the DSAR as well l
as with guidelines in the Quality Assurance Procedure (QAP) 18XI for conducting I
audits.
The inspector reviewed eight completed audits and had the following observations:
-
Audit plans were well written
-
Audit check lists were generally relevant and comprehensive
__
-
Findings and observations were generally substantive and well documented
-
Corrective actions were timely and appeared to be adequate to resolve the findings and observations. In addition, the preventive actions for identified findings appeared in most cases to be adequate to prevent or at least minimize the possibility of recurrence.
The inspector's review indicated that the Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) department issues a weekly status report to site management, which provides current status of the.
Ieng Island Power Authority (LIPA) Deficiency Repons (LDRs), Audit Findings,.
Quality Hot Line Items, and the Corrective Action Request. The inspector's review of this report, dated January 12, 1993, indicated that NQA, LDRs, and Audit Findings were, for the most pan, quickly resolved, verified, and closed within 30-day established guidelines. A review of a status repon of Open 1992 Audit Observations, dated January 21, 1993, indicated that audit " observations" were also generally closed in a timely manner per the established guidelines.
Finally, the inspector reviewed the training records of five lead auditors (including two contract auditors), and verified that their qualifications met the requirements of
__-___ - __ _ ___
-
....
_- _ __- ___ ---__-
s
.
implementing procedure QAP 2X3, " Training, Qualification, and Certification of Audit Personnel," as well as established industry standards. This program requires an annual supervisory review and receni0 cation of auditor qualifications, which was also verified to be completed.
The inspector's review concluded that the licensee's audit program was clearly defined and was well implemented.
7.2 Records Program Review i
A records program review was conducted to verify that the licensee is implementing a l
records program in confonnance with TS requirements, DSAR commitments, industry guides and standards, as well as local implementing procedures. Twelve completed records were reviewed, which included TS required surveillances, preventive maintenance, and Maintenance Work Request packages. Additionally, computerized j
training and qualification records were reviewed for ten selected individuals, which
!
represented a cross section of the site organization (i.e., management, engineers, and workers). The inspector reviewed Nuclear Operations Suppon Department Procedure, NOSDX29, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Records Management," and verified that-the records reviewed wen: being maintained in accordance with the administrative -
controls established in this procedure.
The inspector concluded that the current records program appears to be in compliance -
with established requirements and guidelines. The inspector also reviewed audit NQA-92X010 of Nuclear Operations Support Depanment, dated January 20,1993. This audit performed a detailed review' of~ the Records Management and Document Control-P Program. This audit included that records management is satisfactorily maintaining the l
required LIPA quality assurance records and provides proper maintenance, storage, and retrievability, consistent with ANSI-N45.2.9. This audit identified several observations concerning the present records program that will enhance the current program, if implemented In addition, Observation No. 2 in the report identified that there is currently no fonnal management plan available to indicate how the official Shoreham records wRI be dipositioned after license termination.
At the exit meeting, site management agreed with this observation. The inspectors will review the implementation of applicable record retention requirements during a future inspection. This item is unresolved. (50-322/93-01-03).
7.3 NOA Surveillance Program The requirements for planning, preparation, performance, and reporting are established in procedure QAP 10X7, "NQA Surveillance Progmm." The inspector reviewed seven completed surveillance repons for compliance to these requirements and found that (1)
the completed repons appeared to meet all progmm requirements, (2) surveillance check lists were generally relevant and comprehensive, and (3) canments/ conclusions were
- - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
.
.
.
.-
+.
m
detailed and indicated a proactive involvement of the NQA personnel at the work sites.
-
Two work activities wem observed in the plant, loading of control rod drives into strong -
tight shipping containers and movement of a shipping cask to the refueling floor. The QA inspectors involvement in these work activities was significant and included the use of detailed suiveillance check lists; no deficiencies were observed.
The inspector concluded from this review that NQA departments involvement during the decommissioning phase has been significant and this program appears to be well defined and properly implemented.
7.4 Ouality Assurance Procedures
!
The inspector reviewed a selected sample (see Attachment 2 listing) of quality assurance procedures to verify adequacy and implementation of QA program controls.
For
,
example, eight recently completed Maintenance Work Requests were reviewed to verify
"
compliance with the requirements established in QAP 10X6, " Review of Maintenance Work Requests,"
including:
(1) preparation, and " Adequacy of MWR Tmveller
'
Inspection Preplans," (2) completion of inspector verincations, and (3) completion of post-work QA reviews.
The inspectors review of these selected QA procedures indicated adequate programmatic controls were established.
7.5 Corrective Action Repon Corrective Action Repon (CAR) 92X01, dated June 8,1992, was issued documenting;.
a series of occurmnces which collectively demonstrated a failure to comply with written f
procedures. The immediate corrective actions taken by LIPA were previously reviewed in the NRC Inspection Report No. 50-322/92-04.
.
The inspector reviewed NQA surveillance report 92X236, which was a verification of CAR 92X01 commitments by all depanments issued December 10, 1992. In addition,
the inspector reviewed the " Draft" LIPA QA Program Trend Analysis Report for the period October 1 through December 31,1992. This repon showed that the total number of deficiencies and audit findings related to procedure noncompliance had decreased (i.e.g from 17 to 14) during the previous quarter, but increased again.this quarter (18).
Discussions with QA management' indicated that the problems identified involve a variety of work site activities not involving a common root cause. A rela'ted cause is the unique
,
nature and diversity of many of the work activities involved in the decommissioning -
effort have caused mistakes due to general unfamiliarity and lack of experience with the processes involved.
Senior site managers, as part of their long term corrective / preventive action plan, are monitoring. work control fundamentals, including
'
an emphasis on effective pre-job briefings and all procedure noncompliances are reviewed -
and considered for possible disciplinary actions.
_.___
_
.i
.
.
.
.
_.
-.
.
.
,
The inspectors' review concluded that although procedure compliance problems have continued, management involvement and oversight appears to be appropriate.
'
8.0 Plant Modifications The inspector reviewed the programs for modifications to the plant systems, stmetures, and equipment. Modifications can be either pennanent or temporary; a temporary modification is intended to be minor in nature and of short duration (i.e., less than twelve.
months). Temporary modifications may not be used if it affects a TS requirement,-
surveillance, or procedure.
The inspectors reviewed a sampling of pennanent and temporary modification packages; technical justification was adequate, required reviews were obtained, and supporting documentation was included in the package.
i Permanent modifications were controlled by procedure SP 12X010.02, Station ModiDeation Activities, Revision 4. The inspector reviewed the modiGcation package for removal of the traversing in-core probe (TIP) system, SMD 92-012. Due to the extensive amount of work involved with removal of this system, the licensee decided to divide the work into four maintenance work packages:
MWR 92-1470, Removal f TIP System from Drywell and Reactor Building
MW'R 92-1471, Electrical Isolation of TIP System
MWR 92-1472, Mechanical Isolation of TIP System
MWR 92-1554, Pressure Testing of Caps Installed at System Interface Lines-
,
Temporary modifications were controlled in accordance with SP 12X035.02, Control of Tempomry Modifications, Revision 2. The following packages were reviewed:
TM 92-08-03, Temporary Electrical Services to RPV [ Reactor Pressure Vessel]-
Segmentation Station TM 92-11-03, Radwaste Equipment Drain Header to Regen Liquid and
Evaporator Feed Tanks (REFT) (TK-060A&B) Cross-Connect TM 92-11-01, Radwaste Floor Drain Sump (lG11-TK-054) Discharge Piping
TM 92-12-01, Temporary Spent Fuel Storage Pool Cleanup Sysam (in process)
The inspector identined two weaknesses within the program for temporary moaiDeations as follows:
-
(1) The Document Control organization is not involved in the process and not all holders of controlled copies of drawings are infonned of the changes. Temporary -
modifications are reflected only on the Control Room drawings; i.e., other controlled copies of the drawings are not completely update.
.
'h
,
-
(2) As a Temporary Modification reaches a year old, the procedure allows it to be extended for an additional twelve months; this is accomplished by issuance of a revision to the original modification. A review of the Control Room log for
!
temporary modification showed that earlier revisions of modifications are not removed fmm the book. This results in numerous versions of the same document:
,
being active.
The inspectors indicated that these two conditions could potentially result in-some-personnel not being made aware of temporary modifications. However, this was unlikely -
because all surveillance and maintenance work activities were processed through the-
,
control room. The inspectors' review and discussions with cognizant licensee personnel indicated there were no safety related modifications associated with these observations.
The inspectors noted that the lack of updating documents and reissuing temporary modi 6 cations and leaving previous revisions in the same location was considered a
,
document control weakness.
i
,
The licensee took the following actions to enhance document control associated with temporary modincations:
-
The Systems and Modifications Engineering Group will, on a monthly basis, inform the Document Control Group which Control Room drawings are affected by outstanding temporary modifications.
-
The Systems and Modifications Engineering Group will notify Document Control
'
whenever a Control Room drawing is affected by a newly implemented or removed temporary modification.
.-
-
Temporary Modification renewal numbers will no longer be designated as revisions.
All temporary modincations renewals (i.e., pennit and safety evaluations) will continue to be kept in the control room along with the initial temporary modification package. The Control Room log fonn will be revised to clarify pennit renewals.
.
-
The document Control Group will post tempomry modification identification against the affected controlled drawings.
J The inspectors indicated control of temponry modifications will be reviewed diaring future inspections. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
9.0 Radiological Controls
9.1 General The inspectors reviewed the implementation and adequacy of radiological controls. The
.
-
..
. -
.
.
.,
.
evaluation of the licensee's perfonnance was based on discussions with cognizant personnel and independent inspector observations during tours. The following elements of the program were reviewed:
-
posting, barricading and access control (as appropriate) to Radiation, High Radiation, and Airbome Radioactivity Areas
-
personnel adherence to radiation protection procedures, radiation work pennits,
'
and good radiological control practices
-
maintaining occupational mdiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
-
use of dosimetry devices
.
-
airborne radioactivity sampling and controls including installation and use of
,
engineering controls to minimize airborne radioactivity
-
adequacy of radiological surveys to support pre-planning of work and on-going
work
-
calibration and checking of radiological survey instmmentation
-
contamination controls, including hot particle controls.
.
'
The inspectors reviewed the following matters:
-
segmentation of the reactor vessel
-
radiological control summaries of dry cutting station activities
'
-
personnel entry into the condenser of the main turbine The inspectors' review indicated that overall, very good mdiological controls were implemented for the work activities reviewed. ALARA controls were commendable.-
No concerns were noted. Radiation, contamination, and airborne mdioactivity surveys were appropriate for the conditions encountered.
The following specific matters were reviewed:
-
The inspectors reviewed the cutting and decontamination of the reactor vessel.
The inspectors noted that during a ponion of the decontamination activities on November 5,1992, an air sample indicated about 13 % of MPC. A supervisor requested that five individuals involved with the activity be whole body counted-One individual exhibited low level skin contamination and no individuals showed.
any intake of airborne radioactivity.
The individuals were involved with vacuuming dust near the jet pump ledge. The contamination appeared to be associated with a slight increase in airborne radioactivity. The entry was made under Radiation Work Pennit (RWP) No.92-260. The licensee subsequently issued a separate RWP for decontamination activities. The licensee authorized continued vacuuming and provided for constant radiation protection covemge,
,
continuous air sampling and sampling of the air exhaust. The previous pennit also provided for continuous sampling. The new pennit provided for enhanced
.
-w.
,
r-.,.
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _,. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _
- - - -
.
-..
.
-
._
.
.
.- -
_- -..
..
...
.
t
surveillance of the exhaust of the vacuum cleaner. The inspector's preliminary review of this matter indicated radiological controls for the activities were adequate and that appropriate evaluations were initiated when air samples indicated elevated readings.
-
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's entry 'into the turbine hot well for inspection activities including radiological surveys. The inspectors noted that entries had been made into the hotwell-in eerly 1990. -Inspectors' review of radiation and contamination surveys made during the entries did not identify any
significant contamination or radiation levels requiring implementation of radiological controls. Removable contamination levels were detennined to be
<
well below 1000 dpm/100 cm, and no signincant fixed contamination was
'
identified. As a result of these previous findings, personnel made entries into hot well in early 1993 apparently without the use of protective clothing. The inspectors' did not do independent reviews of applicable radiation and
contamination surveys associated with the subsequent entries. The inspectors will
'
review the complete survey package for the hotwell during a future inspection to detennine if appropriate surveys were made prior to entry. This matter remains -
unresolved. (50-322/93-01-04)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1992 Annual Person-Rem Summary Report dated February 25,1993. The report indicated an aggregate exposure of 2.245 person-rem for calencar year 1992.
This was well below the exposure estimate provided in the Decommissioning Plan. In addition it was considered consistent with radiation dose mte levels present and ALARA measures taken to reduce exposure. The value indicated very good licensee efforts to minimize occupational exposure.
.
...
,
No safety concems or violations were identified.
9.2 Use of Personnel Dosimetry The inspector noted that on January 1,1993, the licensee significantly reduced issuance and use of personnel monitoring equipment (i.e., thermolumninescent dosimeters). The dosimeters are used to measure personnel exposure to radiation. The licensee previously processed about 1100 dosimeters a month but now processes about 400 dosimeters per-quarter of which only 225 are for personnel use. The licensee indicated that general issuance of personnel monitoring devices was not needed due to the lack of any significant radiation fields thmughout the majority of the station.
l The inspector reviewed this matter relative to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.202, Personnel Monitoring, and 10 CFR 19.12, Instructions to Workers. The inspector noted
,
that the licensee had planned the phase out of general use of dosimetry during late 1992.
The licensee evaluated all locations throughout the Radiological Controlled Area, and associated radiation fields, and concluded that general issuance of dosimetry was not
'
l y
b b
e
__----m_,--
.,+
s.
,
,
,
,p.
,,
y
._
-. _ -
.
4_
19.
needed. The licensee indicated that dosimetry was only to be worn in radiation work
-
pennit (RWP) areas. Currently an RWP is required in an area with contamination levels
greater than 1000 dpm/100 cm, dose _ rates greater than 0.6 mR/hr or an area with
"
airborne radioactivity concentmtions greater than 25 % MPC. The licensee informed all personnel regarding this matter in an information bulletin issued in late December 1992.
The licensee also revised on January 1,1993, the applicable access control procedure (No. 61X010.10) and the posting procedure (61X010.03) to reflect the new requirements.
The program changes were approved by the Site Review Committee. In addition, the licensee pmvided final whole body counts for individuals whose dosimetry was pulled.
No intakes of radioactive material were identified.
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
9.3 Contamination Controls The inspector reviewed the implementation of contamination controls. In particular, the inspector reviewed the actions taken by the licensee to prevent re-contamination of
,
surveyed areas. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's actions taken following spills or over flows of drains. The inspector's review indicated the following:
The licensee has taken a number of actions to preclude re-contamination of
-
surveyed ares. These actions were:
-
In February 1993, the licensee implemented a " green is clean" progmm.
Areas within the Radiological Controlled Area that have been surveyed are posted and barricaded as health physics clean areas. -Step-off pads have.,
been set up to provide access and personnel entering the areas are required to frisk themselves as well as personal belongings.
Larger tools or equipment require surveys by radiation protection personnel.
An infonnation bulletin to all station personnel describing the program was issued on Febniary 23,1993.
-
The inspector reviewed a number of spills and drain overflows as follows:
-
On July 30,1992, at about 11:30 p.m., an equipment operator touring the-63' elevation of the drywall observed water backing out of a floor drain -
used to support draining of the reactor vessel. The operator was able to secure the leak but, in doing so, slipped and fell into the water wetting his
.
body and clothing. The operator was not injured or contaminated. The water was sampled and detennined to exhibit no significant contamination.
The area was posted as contaminated, RWP required, subsequently cleaned, then released. A Radiological Incident Report (92-10) was issued.
A policy statement on control of system breeches was also issued. The licensee properly responded to this matte,
.
-
.
a
..
-
On October 13, 1992, at about 12:20 p.m., radwaste floor drains overflowed onto the mdwaste 15' elevation.
The area was quickly isolated and surveyed, found to exhibit generally low levels ~of
~
contamination by direct frisk, decontaminated and subsequent.ly released.
'
The overflow was attributed to hydro-lazing operations and the inability.
of the drains to collect all water due to the concurrent-feeding and bleeding of the turbine building closed cooling water and the radwaste floor drain pumps A and B not pumping to capacity. The licensee issued a Radiological Incident Repon (No. 92-15) for this. matter and work, request to repair the pumps. No personnel contamination occurred. The
,
licensee properly responded to this matter.
-
On October 20,1993, a drain trench on the 15' elevation of the radwaste
,
building overnowed during hydrolazing causing a small amount of water to nm out the radwaste tmek bay roll-up door opening. The overflow was i
attributed principally to a clogged drain and leakage past the hydrolazer clean water supply isolation line. The area was isolated and posted as a
'
contamination area (RWP required). Direct frisking of the overflow areas did not identify any contamination. The licensee issued a Radiological.
Incident Repon and provided training to personnel regarding control of water lines with the potential for leakage. The licensee collected and analyzed a sample of water from the trench. ' No arJvity was indicated.
The licensee also sampled soil from outside the roll-op door. ' No activity.
was indicated. The licensee will resurvey the area during termination survey work.
The inspector noted that the licensee's analysis of the soil did not meet lower limits of detection values specified in termination survey procedures. The licensee's personnel indicated that the procedures were not to be applied to spills. The inspector was not able to verify, during the inspection, what procedures applied and if they had been followed.
This matter is unresolved. (50-322/93-01-05)
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
10.0 Radwaste Shinning Activities The inspector reviewed radioactive waste shipping activities for the period January.1, 1993, through May 4,1993. The review was with respect to the criteria contained in 10 CFR 71, " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material," and applicable licensee procedures. The inspector reviewed applicable documents and discussed the shipping pmgram with cognizant personnel. The inspector selectively verified, by review of documents, that the licensee was authorized to use the shipping casks in use.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
. - -
- -
-
-
--
. _ -
-
- _ -
-
-
.
.
'
e f
l The following matters were noted:
,
-
The licensee made 39 shipments of radioactive material from the station in calendar year 1993 (as of May 4,1993). The largest shipment (by activity) was a shipment of irradiated local power range monitors. The shipment (No. RWS
,
93-08) weighed 827 pounds and contained a total of 190 curies. The material was shipped in an NRC approved cask (Certificate of Compliance No. 9081, Revision
'
10). Other shipments generally ranged in the low millicurie ranges (2 - 80 millicuries). The majority of shipmcats consisted of surface contaminated objects packaged in strong-tight containers.
'
-
The inspector noted during review of contamination control matters that the
,
licensee had received a cask on July 15,1992, that upon initial survey subsequent to entry into the licensee's security area was found to be free of contamination.
'
However, when the cask was lifted off of the flat bed trailer in the reactor building tmck bay, a small area of the truck trailer bed was found to exhibit low level fixed contamination (about 300 counts per minute (CPM) above back ground).
The activity was below Department of Transportation shipping requirements. The licensee subsequently decontaminated the floor of the trailer.
The licensee also sampled the soil where the trailer had been parked.
No contamination, other than naturally occurring radionuclides, was identified. The
licensee provided ample documentation to support disposition of this matter.
'
-
The inspector also noted that on December 17,1992, a cask was received into the licensee's security area. No large area wipes were taken due to a rain stonn.
However, the trailer, with cask, was moved into the reactor building. Upone lifting of the cask, a large area smear was taken which indicated 4,000 l
2 dpm/100cm A second smear indicated 2,000 dpm/100 cm and a third smear
indicated less than 1000 dpm/100 cm. No other contamination was found.
,
Levels were well below Department of Transportation shipping requirements.
The licensee attributed the contamination to residual contamination from the burial site and replaced the wood on the trailer. The carrier was notified. The wood was disposed of as contaminated material. The licensee also performed soil sampling in the area where the trailer had been in the outdoor yard area. No soil contamination was found. The licensee provided ample documentation to support.
disposition of this matter.
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
11.0 Securitv/ Fitness for Duty
.
The inspector toured the protected area during the inspection period and observed security controls. The inspector also reviewed security compensatory measures (as appropriate) and discussed these measures with the Security Operations Supervisor. The
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
inspector reviewed the licensee's July a December 1992 Fitness for Duty Program Perfonnance Summary, dated February 29, 1993. The inspector also reviewed the msults of the fitness for duty and security audits.
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
t 12.0 Surveillance and Maintenance The inspector reviewed on-going work activities, reviewed procedures, and discussed on.
going activities with cognizant personnel. The inspector reviewed personnel adherence to procedures, industrial safety matters, and housekeeping.
t The inspector's observations of on-going activities and discussions.with cognizant personnel identified that overall, activities wem good. The following matter was noted:
,
-
On January 29,1993, the NRC-approved a change to the Decommissioning Plan authorizing installation of a temporary filter-demineralizer to perfonn the function of maintaining the water chemistry in the spent fuel storage pool. The inspector discussed operation of the system with cognizant licensee operations personnel.
,
As of May 7,1993, the system had been operating for about 2.5 weeks. No:
operational concerns were identified.
The system was being-operated in accordance with approved procedures.
13.0 Plant Tours t
During tours' of the facility,'the inspector reviewed general housekeeping and fire, protection matters.
No safety concerns or violations were identified. Overall housekeeping was considered good.
14.0 Meetings The inspector attended the following meetings:
-
On Febmary 23, 1993, NRC staff members and members of the Oak Ridge.
Institute of Science and Engineering met with members of the licensee's organization to discuss plans for perfonnance of confirmatory surveys. Also
,
l discussed were the licensee's quality assumnce oversight effons. Attachment 3 l
is a copy of the licensee's presentation. The licensee's termination survey documentation for the high pressure turbine was also discussed.
-
On April 13, 1993, the inspector attended a meeting at NRC headquaders to
'
discuss the licensee's' fuel shipment plans.
Attachment 4 is a copy of the L
l
.
.
.
.
.
-~
.
. - _.
.
.
.-
.
. -.
.
-..
.- -.
--
.;
y J
J
.
,
licensee's presentation at the meeting.
15.0 Other Inspection Activities i
On April 29, 1993, a refueling jib crane fell onto the refueling floor while being transpocted by another crane. A special inspection was conducted during May 6-7,1993, to review : hat matter. The results of the inspection are detailed in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-322/93-02. Inspector reviews indicated weaknesses associated with lifting of heavy loads.
.
16.0 Exit Meeting The inspector discussed the scope and purpose of the inspection activities during the inspection period. The inspection findings were discussed with licensee personnel periodically during the inspection. On May 7,1993, the inspector provided a general
-
summary of fm' dings to licensee management.
The licensee's representatives
-
acknowledged the inspectors' findings.
r
,
)
i e
9-e m
m
-
r.
- -.
-
%
(F9 SHOREHAM DECOMMISSIONING
\\/
e g* HON MM N M
-
1992 1993 1994 12/1 In 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 j
i l
l I
I
I I
I I
i i
i I
I I
i i
l i
I i
!
I I
I I
i
I
.
OUISIDE SURVEYS g
/
COMPLETE OUTSIDE SURVEYS PERFORM OUTS!DE SURVEYS (STRUCTURAL)
FUEL ' OFFSITE TURBINE BUILDING SURVEYS TURB!NE OPEN O 'M COMPLETE TB SURVEYS UCENSE TERWINATED y
^
O d
/
(STRUCTURAL)
C.
Q
$.
'
p t
COMPLETE RB SURVEYS REACIDR BULLDING SURVEYS O
'
SURVEY RB SURVEY RB SYSTEMS (STRUCTURAL)
V COMPLETE RADWASTE BUILDING SURVEYS
'
SURYEY RW SYSTEMS O
> O (STRUCTURAL)
,
NRC NOUFICATION AND VISUS
___ _____________
_______
_______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
________
___
NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY HRC NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY NRC TURBlNE OPEN TB/OUTSIDE COWPLETE R9 COMPLETE '
RW COMPLETE FINAL SURVEYS COWP
... _ _ _ - -
.m.
-~=
_. _.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Audit Renons NC-92-01 Corrective Action, dated March 20, 1992 NQA-92-TS2 Defueled Technical Specifications Compliance, dated April 7,1992'
NQA-92-TS3 Independent Audit and Assessment of LIPA Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, dated May 28, 1992 LNQA-92X04 SNPS Decommissioning Program, dated Augue 19, 1992-
,
NQA-92X05 SNPS Plant Alaintenance and Lilco Non-Destructive Examination (NDE Section), dated September 10,1992 NQA-92X07 Radiological Controls, dated October 21,1992
' LNQA-92X011 Site Review Committee and Independent Review Panel, January 13,1993
. NOA-92X010 Nuclear Operations Support Department (Administrative Division), dated -
January 20, 1993 Ouality Asrurance Procedures QAP-2X3 Training, Qualification and Certification of Audit Personnel, Rev. 0
-
QAP-2XI Training of Nuclear Quality Assurance Personnel, Rev.1'
QAP-18XI Audit Program, Rev. 2 QAP-10X7 NQA Surveillance Program, Rev. 2 QAP-15XI Control of Nonconfonnances, Rev. 3 QAP-10X6 Review of Maintenance Work Requests, Rev. 2
QAP-5XI Quality Assurance Procedures, Rev.1 QAP-5X2 Quality Assurance Manual, Rev.1
,
QAP-5X3 Nuclear Quality Assurance Review of Procedures, Rev.1 J
i l
QAP-4XI Review of Procurement Documents, Rev. 2
.
.-
.
.
.
.-.
.
.
..
...
QAP-3XI NQA Review of Specifications, Rev.1 QAP-3X2 Review of Design Documents, Rev.1 NOA Surveillance Reports
'
92X110 Shipment of Radioactive Material, Rev. 5 92X083 In-process System Removal, Rev. 2 92X025 Labeling Verifications, Rev. 0 92X041 RPV Internals /RPV Removal and Segmentation, Rev. 2 92XO31 Administmtive Control for In-Process Activities, Reactor Building EL.
175', Rev. 0 92X026 Training and Position Qualification, Rev. I 92X36 Verification of CAR 92X01, Commitments By All Departments Related Documents Shoreham Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR), Chapter 13, and 17 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Safety Related Components List
_,.
Shoreham Decommissioning Plan, Section 7.0, Quality Assurance Provisions for Decommissioning, dated December 1990 Technical Specifications Shoreharn Nuclear Power Station, Appendix "A" to License No. NPF-
'
82, Amendment 9, dated September 4,1992 NRC Question I.9 & II (47) to the Shoreham Decommissioning Plan Quality Assurance Manual, Appendix N, Decommissioning Activities, dated June 15, 1992 LIPA ANSI N18.7-1976, " Compliance Summary Document Decommissioning Phase," dated July 23,1992, Rev. 0 1993 LIPS, NQAD,- Audit Schedule Site Procedure 67X001.07, Termination Survey Document Control and File Management, dated
,
January 8,1993
-
.
..
..
.
'.
,
3 Nuclear Operations Support Depanment Procedure, NOSDX29, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Records Management (RM)," dated March 25,1992, Rev. O DD5XO4, Decommissioning Department Procedure, " Labeling of Systems and Ponions of Sys_tems to be Removed During Decommissioning," Rev.1,. dated April 1 - 5, 1992
.
.
L
.
.
_
_
.
.
. _.
ATTACHMENT 3
..
.,'
.
TERMINATION SURVEY OF THE
,
'
MAIN TURBINE PRESENTATION TO'
THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
,
LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION FEBRUARY 23,1993
>
l l
.
~
,
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
. - - - -
- - - -
- - -. - - - -
-
-
- - -
_ _ _
.
.
..
.
UNIQUE ASPECTS OF SHOREHAM DECOMMISSIONING LIMITED REACTOR OPERATING HISTORY O 2 EFFECTIVE FULL POWER DAYS O 5 % POWER NOT EXCEEDED l
l v
FUEL INTEGRITY LIMITED ACTIVATION LIMITED COOLANT
- MINIMALLY CHALLENGED PRODUCTS CIRCULATION O NO FISSION -PRODUCT C FEWER SPECIES RELEASE O SMALLER QUANTITIES V
i L
T TA.EEON SPREAD OVER FEWER SYSTEMS AND AREAS
..
.
.
m
-~w,-
, -
-
,
.
-
,
'
.
.
TERMINATION SURVEY IMPLICATIONS AND CIIALLENGES O FEWER "AFFECTED" AREAS AND SYSTEM.S-O MORE EQUIPMENT LEFT IN PLACE; FEWER EMPTY ROOMS O NO ALPHA CONTAMINATION O NO CONTAMINATION OF SITE GROUNDS
,
.
.
i l
.
.
.
.
..
..
g&
SHOREHAM DECOMMISSIONING
'
TERMINATION SURVEY BACKOUT PIAN
~
1992 1993 1994 L
12/1 1/1
3/1
5/1
7/1 8/1 9a 10 /1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 I
I I
i I
I i
i I
i l
1 i i i
i l
l I
i l-
I I
I I
I i
l
--
OUTSIDE SURVEYS
'
-
- COMPLETE OUTS!DE SURVEYS PERFORu OUTSIDE SURVEYS (STRUCTURAL)
'
' FUEL OFFSITE TURBINE BUILDING SURVEYS
-
TUR8tNE OPEN COMPLETE TB SURVEYS UCENSE
/
TERMINATED ^
O Oi
^
SURVEY T8 SURVEY TB SYSTEMS (STRUCTURAL)
C O
COMPLETE R8 SURVEYS SURVEY RB SURVEY RB SYSTEMS (STRUCTURAL)
V COMPLETE
.
RADWATfE BUILDING. SURVEYS
.
Rw SURVEYS O.
O SURVEY RW I\\
SURVEY RW SYSTEMS O
> O (STRUCTURAL)
,
NRC NOTIFICATION AND VISIIS
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
______
_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _
_ _ _. _.
NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY NRC-NOTIFY NRC NOTIFY NRC TURBINE OPEN TB/GUTSIDE COMPLETE-RB COMPLETE '
RW COMPLETE FINAL SURVEYS COMP
,
... _ _
_ _
..
,
-.
--
.
-
,
.
.
-
...
..
..
.
..
.
-
.-
-
.
_
-
.
.-.
...
W '
TERMINATION SURVEY SECTION-
ORGANIZATION - CHART u
-
a i
Manager l
Radiological i
Controls ' Div.
i F. Petschauer
,
'
l l
e Health Termination
. Physics -
Survey
-
. Engineer Section Head D. Williams M.' Tucker i
i i
Termination i
Survey
- '
i Engineer i
B. Mann
I
!-
!.
!
i i
Rad' Engineer Red Engineer Rad Engineer Red : Engineer-
'
)
Cad, Graphics Data, instrum'n Systems..
Documentation-l R. - Yetter
. P. Cassidy -
C. Newson
-- D. ' Menard '
i j
E. Alsing
'
i S. Geyer
I I
Survey Rad Engineer (s)
Database -
Data ~
Supervisor (s)
Survey Programmer Clerk-
,' Og W..Brunkow D. Raab J. Walker
. G. Wood M. Clary
W. Gwinn l
L. Rutland i
D. Ceglio j
M. Faivus D. Hayes sumey S. Jao Technicians J. Maloney A. McCall
"*'"U"'*-
' * " ' ' * ' "
~
.
.
-.
. -.
-.
..
-, -
.
-
.
.
..
.
'
.
Survey Technicians I.
Current Compliment - 35 Qualified II.P. Technicians Supporting the following activities:
'
Survey Design Gridding Clean Area Verifications Termination Surveys Embedded Piping Background Assessment Instrument Control II.
20 additional personnel to be added to the survey team.
,
Overhead #3
_.
-
.
.
..
+
,
L'
TERMINATION SURVEY DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
-
o DECOMMISSIONING PLAN QUALITY ASSURANCE y
MANUAL s
P TERMINATION SURVEY
'
TERMINATION
,
PROGRAM
,
DESCRIPTION SURVEY PLAN- -
?
PROCEDURES
'
I INSTRUMENTATION SURVEY AND (HP PROCEDURES)
IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION
!
l
sal tittM2 DOC 2_ORGDWG
,
, -.
.
-
,_.
.
.
.
...
.
...
_
.
]
TERMINATION. SURVEYf PROCEDURES
.
=
,
!
i
.i
,
,
'i PROCEDURES
.
!
l l
'
SURVEY DESIGN
'
INSTRUMENTATION SURVEY AD (HP PROCEDURES)
IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION DATA LOGGER TERMINATION SURVEY SURVEY UNIT
"
(63X022.02)
(67X001.02)
CLASSIFICATION (67X001.os)-
.
TURNOVER & CONTROL HISTORY FILE :
FLOOR MONITOR (67X001.04)
(67X001.01)
MICRO REM METER HP POSTINGS & StGNS SURVEY DESIGN (63X011.01)
(61X010.03)
(67X001.10) _
.
BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT DATA RECEIPT &
PRESSURIZED lON CHAMBER (67X001.09)
MANAGEMENT (67X001.06).'
(63X014.01)
,
CANBERRA COUNTER CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS DATA PROCESSING ($3X026.02)
(67X001.12).
(67X001.11)
TENNELEC COUNTER RELEASE RECORD GRIDDING (67X001.06) -
($3X026.01)
p3)
TERMINA110N SURVEY OC -
GM RS (67X001.03)
ALPHA SCINTILLATION (63X024.03)
i INSTRUMENT CONTROL l
(61X081.01)
CONTROL CHARTS
'
(61X041.01)
'
CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
,
,
sm imaer oocs_onomwo -
,
. -,.
.
.,
_..
.
.
.. ~
..
.
.
,
~,
TERMINATION SURVEY PROCESS
.
DEFINE SURVEY UNIT l
initial
!
Classif; cation
.
- T "*
Walkdown Preparation
=
dA Prepare Maps tu ur s)
Turnover for Prepare Survey Survey Design Prepare m^
MWR Scaffolding.
Prepare Survey Tag out, Open Instr. & Assemble Components Survey Package l
I M
Pedorm Survey Perform QC Verification Survey l
Isolate, Data Control Access Evaluation Prepare Release Records Independent Review of Release Record y
Release Record y
to SRC for Mgmt Approval Prepare Final
<
Report
. sm tutar poce_omewo
..
--
. -
.
- -
-
.
..
.
.
.
.
Assessment Observations 1.
Survey should be optimized so that only cursory surveys are required for areas known to be free of contamination.
2.
Use different terminology to avoid confusion with draft NUREG/CR-5849.
Specifically the term " survey unit" as used in the Plan may be confusing because of the introduction of " subunits".
_
.
3.
Reduce measurements in " unaffected" areas; especially system survey units where a minimum of 10 locations may be excessive.
4.
Reduce the work content (complexity) of the survey unit survey packages including history files, reduced details of instructions, need for survey maps. Shift emphasis from what is required to what is done.
5.
Streamline measurement process. -Consider using pen / paper approach rather than digital instrumentation.
.
6.
Specify a release criteria for soils and possibly for other media.
.
7.
Accelerate the "small bore" embedded piping survey program.
8.
Define the " Final Configuration" of the SNPS site.
Specifically, identify the "to-be-left" condition of systems.
,
9.
Accelerate the completion of the Site Backout Plan. Keep changes to a minimum.
Overhead #5
-..
-.
-
-
- ---
-
.
.
.
-
.. -..
..
._~
.
._
..
.
..
.
-_
O'
"
Legend :
,
j }
AB = Office Building Annex '
-
-
'
OB = Office & Senice Building
'h
-
( ti CB = Control Building --
.
RB = Reactor Building h
Intake RW= Radwaste Building
_
TB = Turbine Building 4:
i-
- ---
+-e- = Secured Area Boundary n
'
'
L
)
.
.
cinna
]
~
[cumk:
- '
SECURED AREA I'
BOUNDARY FENCE
'O s
\\-
'
j
,
,
/
AB-l a
I
'
A[_
I 4)
\\
t og
,
h
\\
/
/
i TB
/
<LJ \\
'
j
~~
l'1 h
CB RW
_
,
j)'y ~ x } (-
[
ul l i
/
/ (/ ;
b k
(/
j/.
7 4 /
,_,
RD
-
j f
/
N f,
p
'
I
,
I ll I I ! ! ! /
-s I
/\\\\
-\\
l?,'Q i (
N $\\(k_djo O
l, h;
'
-Qh));/l'//
l'i
/
\\
LMM Wo
'
~
~
mw u.
.
,
,-
,
'
i
'
'
_
,
/.
/,
'
ll h
'
!
)
l (/
LONG
/
I Q
/
.
f. [ j,
'
~
,
h l/0'l j p:
.Q
\\
U
!='d "
/
IM
\\
f,$ >/ ]!
,
j
]
',
.0 l
l POWER
>
/
7,
.k>
, /
AUTHORITY
/
,,
i i i,
/
' //
l l jk f
'
j/
'
i j j i i l i ii--
,,
,
Aj
//
h\\
Q'"
h fs/
'
SIIOREHAM DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT '
'
,
Q/
,/ /
V,\\
b'
/
N
'
+
LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY k ( /,/
- /
K
!
/
TERMINATION SURVEY SECTION h.yj L'/
SHOREHAM SITE ( PARTIAL)
"I
/
SHOWING TERMINATION SURVEY AREA Drawn Dr. R F. V. l Date: 2122i93 l Drameng Na : hRC_00t Awg r. -
, -....
,
.. _. _. _ _
....
. _.. _ -.
_-
_.. -..... _ _. -. _..
.. _
.. - _ _.
-
.
-.-
.
>
.
- _,
Appendix.
-
-12.1-i
- -
Page 1 of.26
.i
Survey Unit Classification Description
. Total No.
No. of Affected No. of Unaffected DESCRIPTION CODE of Survey Units Survey Units Survey Units
-
STRUCTURF3
.
"
- Reactor Bldg.
RB 100 100 Drywell PC
21-Suppression Pool SP
13
Turbine Bldg.
TB 103
91 Radwaste Bldg RW
74 Control Bldg CB
4 O & S Bldg OB
4'
O & S Bldg Annex AB
4 Other Site Bldgs OS
3
Structure Totals 332 223 109 OUTSIDE AREAS Site Grounds SG
7 Structure Exteriors SE
14-Outsi'.;e Area Totals
0
PLANT SYSTEMS SU
38
TOTALS 437 261 176 SP 67X001.08 Rev. 1 Page 7
,
-
.
,
-
_
.
-.
-..
.
- - _ _ _ -
.-
.
."
.
Survey Unit Status I.
First Survey Units were " functional" systems.
,
Total Number of System Survey Units - 84 -
--
Number of Surveys Designed - 50 (60%)
Number of Surveys Complete - 12 (14%)
Total Number of Components to be surveyed - over 1,000 MWRs Wriiten - 636 Components Opened - 306 (30%)
Components Surveyed - 139 (14%)
All above excludes the Main Turbine Survey.
l l
Overhead #7
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
.
.
SURVEY SUMMARY
.
9 Functional Systems Survey Unit /
Number of Average Maximum Number of Average Maximum Number of System Name Direct Readings Reading Reading Removable Reading Reading Alpha Readings Dommuc Water
1050 2118
4.1 13.5 6'
(1247)
QC Data
1147 1235
1.9 3.53 Fire Protection
374 1588
33
8 (579)
OC Data
647 705
1.2 11.9 Sanitary Sewage
3W2 5529
23 103
(3718)
OC Data
529 529
-2.9
- 2.9 Iluilding Service Muc.
578 1823
3.7 122
(793)
OC Data
705 705
11.9 11.9 i
Olorination
6 32 1588
3.6 18.9
(759)
OC Data
118 352
0.4 5.8 Securitylluilding
1071 1294
3.7 10.6
(1290)
OC Data
1294 1294
22
Sec. Acass Facility
779 1471
22
5 (100 1)
QC Data
529 529
2.6 SE Response Facility
1323 2000
2.1 9.6
(2314)
OC Data
2M 2M
53 6.4 SU0S4
571 1294
2.8
8 (718)
OC Data
353 7%
3.5 11.9 Alnw data not from approved release records.
I
-;
.
,
- _ -. -
-
-
.
.
--
=.
.
~
.
..
.
.
BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS UNIT AC-3 HP260 FT126 FT252 FLM uREM PIC
-
CPM CPM CPM CPM CPM uRem/ uR/h STATIC -----
- --
TB013
' 6.2
109 215 710 2.7 3.7
-
TB018
. 7.8
121 211 716 3.1 3.7 TB019 5.2
132 215 2.7 3.6 ~
TB029 5.8.
120 231 723 2.8 3.8
,
TB037 3.9 21.
121
.213 757 3.2 4.6 TB045
'5
'139 234 757 3.1 - 4.5 TB053 7.1
127-202 713 2.5 3.5-TB062 6.7.23-136 216 812 2.6 4.3 TB064 4.7 21 --
140-214 797 3.1 4.1 TB075 6.5
144 217 897 3.3 4.7 TB082 4.7
131 200 803 2.8 3.8
>
GMEAN 5.7
124 218 732
3.9 SYSTEM SUO40
18
10
,
GMEAN
OTHERS
+
AB001 6.6
175 298 1028 4.4 6.2
,
AB004 11.6
161 286 944 3.5 5.8 -
CB002 3.9
166 190 715 2.3 3.6-
OB003 8.8
170 342 1002 3.8. 5.9
'
OS002 6.7
129 228 -825 3.2 4.1 OS007 16.6
199 385 1091 3.5 6.9-FH1FLR 9.2
215-49? 1383' -. 4.5 7.4 FH2FLR 9.9
232'
517 1381 4.2 7.5 SG002 3.2 6.1
^[
SG005 2.6 5.6
SUO19RW
,
SUO19RW
i SUO20RW
[
'
( / sy/o
.
,
,
.
'
. - -.
-
-
.
, _...
.
.a
.
Survey of Main Turbine I.
Scope of Survey A.
57 Survey Locations on Iligh Pressure Section All Fourteen Moving-Blade Sections
_. _
-
Upper Stationary Diaphragms
-
Upper Casing
-
-
Steam Inlet Lines Steam Exhaust Ports
-
Labyrinth Gland
-
Seal Steam Exhaust Connections
-
B.
Selection Criteria for Locations
,
Inlets
-
Outlets
-
System Interfaces
-
Flow Impingement Points
-
.
II.
-Instrumentation A.
Main Survey Instrument was the HP260/ ESP-2 combination; scan survey /, and fixed measurements B.
Smears were analyzed on the Tennelee low-background alpha / beta counter.
,
,_
.
.
.
Main Turbine Survey Results I.
Background Values / Instrument Efficiencies.
A.
As Stated in Release Record:
14 cpm for fixed beta-e uma - 0.017 efficiency I cpm for remov 2e seta-gamma - 0.312 efficiency 0.05 cpm for removable alpha - 0.238 efficiency B.
Results Survey Unit Systems Summary Report (DPM/100cm2)
Survey Unit Id. SUO29 Survey Unit Name: TURBINE beta-gamma beta-gamma alpha alpha r.icro rem direct removable direct removable per/ hour Count 1091 2247
108
-Min-588-179-2 Max 1388
Std D 304
1 y val 232
0 N:g Cnt 230 1008
_,_
_-.
Survey Unit Systems QC Summary Report (DPM/100cm2)
Survey Unit Id. SUO29-Q Survey Unit Name: TURBINE
'
l beta-gamma beta-gamma alpha alpha micro rem direct removable direct removable per/ hour
.'
,
'
Count 119 238
15
Min-353-4
,
l Mnx 706
2 l
Masn 14?
-0 i
Std D 252
1 l
p' val 187
0
'.N:g Cnt
120
l l
!
'
.
-
.
. -
-.
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
.
-
.
.
,
-
ATTACHMENT 4
.
i Shoreham/LIPA Activities i
>
'"
/
Q
-_-
'
\\
w r ul/
'
y
/
u...-.
x i:FiiEi$
N nvamm,
.
- ^
'
- ,,
~
,
_
.:'
, Q's
~
J-
._...........
--
,
y
- --- MI _.
g,,.5
---
.r
._
,,
,
- a
,
Shoreham-Limerick
.
Fuel Transfer
-
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
. -.
.
-
..
.-
f.
- '.
-
-
FUEL DES _CBIPTION
,
1N o N
- SHOREHAM FUEL CONSISTS OF 560 FUEL' BUNDLES-EACH BUNDLE WElGHS APPROXIMATELY 700 POUNDS-14 FEET LONG
- 61NCHES SQUARE
SHOREHAM FUEL BUNDLE ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE 1.
- FUEL SLIGHTLY IRRADIATED AT LOW POWER
-
'
-2 EFFECTIVE FULL POWER DAYS OPERATION-LESS THAN 0.1 % " BURN UP" OF NORMAL SPENT FUEL-NEVER EXCEEDED 5% POWER
'
FUEL RADIATION LEVELS REFLECT LIMITED OPERATION
-LESS THAN 100 REM PER HOUR ON CONTACT-BETWEEN 10,000 AND 100,000 TIMES LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN NORMAL SPENT FUEL FUEL CONDITIONS LESS THAN NRC's CRITERIA FOR T'ENT FUEL.
>
-EXPOSURE RATE FOR UNSHIELDED SHOREHAM FUEL LESS THAN 100 R/ HOUR AT THREE FEET-
-QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM RESULT IN LOWEST NRC CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR. MATERIAL SHIPMENT (i.e., LOW STRATEGIC i
SIGNIFICANCE)
,
l
,
i
!
,
,
,
,,1.--
-
. - -
. 1.
_ _.,
-,, ~
,
.
'
-
.
_
.
CASK DESCRIPTION C Lf Y'
/
SHOREHAM FUEL TO BE TRANSPORTED IN TWO OR THREE (DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY)IF-300 SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CASKS.
-
APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET LONG AND 5 FEET IN DIAMETER 70 TON WElGHT (EMPTY)
-
-
CASK PAYLOAD IS 17 FUEL BUNDLES
ILLUSTRATION OF IF-300 CASK ENCLOSED AS FIGURE 2.
- ILLUSTRATION OF IF-300 CASK LOADED ON HEAVY HAULER ENCLOSED AS FIGURE 3.
- IF-300 DESIGNED FOR " NORMAL" SPENT FUEL.
DESIGNED FOR FUEL WHICH IS BETWEEN 10,000 AND 100,000
-
TIMES MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN SHOREHAM FUEL.
- IF-300 CASKS ARE CERTIFIED BY NRC TO RIGOROUS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
SPECIFICATIONS CONSIDER ALL ACCIDENT CONDITIONS WHICH
-
MAY CONCEIVABLY BE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE COURSE OF TRANSPORTATION.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE NO. 9001
-
,
i
-
17-ELEMENT BASKET DESIGN FOR SHOREHAM FUEL SUBMITTED TO NRC FEBRUARY 25,1993 WITH SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
EXTENSIVE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE WITH IF-300.
'
OVER 300 SPENT FUEL SHIPMENTS CARRIED OUT INVOLVING
-
OVER ONE-THOUSAND TONS OF FUEL
.
.
_ - _ * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - -. - - - _ - -. _ - - - - - - - -
.
_.
.. _
_
..
_ _
_.._
. _ - -
.
._
_ - -
.
__.
.
-l
.
.
..
i
,
CASK HANDLIN.Gi. OPERATIONS
.
.
e REACTOR BUILDING POLAR CRANE MAIN HOOK TO PERFORM ALL CASK LIFT OPERATIONS g
e 125 TON CAPACITY dY g
4-e NUREG - 0612 OUALIFIED:
SINGLE FAILURE-PROOF DESIGN
-
INSPECTED, TESTED AND MAINTAINED' PER NUREG M
--
STANDARDS M-
,y
,
ASSOCIATED' LIFTING DEVICES IN. ACCORDANCE.
p
-
WITH NUREG STANDARDS M.M I
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER NUREG - 0612 GUIDELINES:'
AP DETAILED PROCEDURES IDENTIFYlNG ALLl
-
NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, SPECIFYlNG INSPECTIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, DEFINING SAFE LOAD:
PATHS, AND INCLUDING APPLICABLE SPECIAL -
PRECAUTIONS.-
CRANE OPERATORS TRAINED AND QUALIFIED PER -
-
NUREG STANDARDS fgr
- 4 g
kxN 5-WW 8" 'N O V g
- u,.n n a p p. :s M 2 p "
,
p
,,
p
.
- !
.:
.
.
-, _ _
_
..
-
.
_
.
.
,
,
.
__
.
.
-
..
..
.
_
.
$
MAJOR C'ASK/ FUEL HANDLING TASKS y
FUEL POOL PREPARATIONS:
b
'
LJ REMOVE CONTROL ROD RACK N
-
INSTALL CASK BASE PLATE
-
INSTALL FUEL INSPECTION EQUIPMENT-
-
INSTALL FUEL DECHANNELING AND PACKAGING EQUlPMENT
-
,
DECHANNEL, INSPECT AND PACKAGE FUEL
-
CASK RECEIPT:
'
Hr> INCOMING SURVEY
-
-
SECURITY SEARCH MOVE CASK TO REACTOR BUILDING TRUCK BAY (EL. 40FT.)
-
e PREPARE CASK AND LIFT TO REFUEL FLOOR (EL.175FT.)
'
ATTACH UPPER YOKE AND RIGGING APPURTENANCES-
-
-
UPEND CASK TO VERTICAL POSITION ON TRUCK USING POLAR-CRANE MAIN HOOK LIFT CASK, MOVE TRUCK AWAY, LOWER CASK INTO CRADLE,
-
CONNECT UPPER YOKE TO CRADLE LIFT CASK AND YOKE / CRADLE ASSEMBLY-TO REFUEL FLOOR
-
AND PLACE IN CASK-DECON AREA'
!
,
.
I s
-
.-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
,
..
e DECON CASK DISCONNECT AND REMOVE UPPER YOKE
-
VENT AND FILL CASK WITH WATER
-
WASH / WIPE ROAD DIRT FROM CASK SURFACE
-
REMOVE MOST LID CLOSURE NUTS
-
e MOVE CASK INTO FUEL POOL
-
REINSTALL UPPER YOKE ON CASK CONNECT AND ALIGN LIFT CABLES BETWEEN YOKE AND CASK
-
LID LIFT CASK AND YOKE / CRADLE ASSEMBLY FROM DECON PAD
-
AND MOVE TO FUEL POOL LOWER INTO POOL UNTIL CASK LID IS JUST OUT OF WATER
-
REMOVE REMAINING LID CLOSURE NUTS
-
LOWER TO FUEL POOL FLOUR
-
DISCONNECT UPPER YOKE FROM CASK BODY AND CRADLE
-
-
LIFT UPPER YOKE AND CONNECTED CASK LID FROM FUEL POOL e
LOAD FUEL INTO CASK ESTABLISH COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CONTROL ROOM AND
-
REFUEL BRIDGE E"SURE PROPER SUPERVISION IN PLACE
-
LOAD FUEL BUNDLES FROM RACKS INTO CASK USING REFUEL
-
'
BRIDGE MAST l
<
.
.
.
PREPARE AND REMOVE CASK FROM FUEL POOL
-
INSPECT CASK / LID SEAL AREA LOWER THE CONNECTED LID AND UPPER YOKE ONTO THE CASK
-
CONNECT UPPER YOKE TO CASK BODY AND CRADLE
-
-
RAISE CASK AND YOKE / CRADLE ASSEMBLY UNTIL LID IS JUST OUT OF WATER INSTALL SEVERAL LlD CLOSURE NUTS
-
-
LIFT COMPLETELY OUT OF POOL AND MOVE TO DECON AREA e
LOADED CASK DECON AND PREPARATION DISCONNECT AND REMOVE UPPER YOKE
-
-
WIPE CASK DOWN WITH DECON AGENT
-
REINSTALL REMAINING LlD CLOSURE NUTS AND TIGHTEN ALL NUTS PURGE WATER AND PRESSURIZE CASK WITH HELIUM
-
-
DECONTAMINATE CASK TO SHIPPING LIMITS
-
LOCK WlRE VALVES AND NUTS l
RECONNECT UPPER YOKE TO CASK AND CRADLE
-
MOVE AND PLACE LO/DED CASK ON TRUCK i
MOVE CASK AND YOKE / CRADLE ASSEMBLY OVER HATCHWAY,
-
AND LOWER ONTO CRADLE DOLLY AT EL. 40FT.
DISCONNECT UPPER YOKE FROM CRADLE
-
-
LIFT CASK AND UPPER YOKE, REMOVE CFtADLE, BACK TRUCK UNDER CASK j
. - _ _ _ _
.
_
.
.
.
- -
..
-.
,
'.
,
.
LOWER CASK ONTO TRUCK PlVOT POINT
-
LOWER CASK INTO HORIZONTAL POSITION AND SECURE
-
PREPARE TRUCK / CASK FOR SHIPMENT PERFORM OUTGOING SURVEY
-
f CLOSE AND LOCK SKlD ENCLOSURE, AND INSTALL SECURITY
-
SEALS PERFORM VEHICLE INSPECTION
-
ATTACH D.O.T. PLACARDS
-
VERIFY ALL SHIPMENT PAPERWORK IS EXECUTED
-
ENSURE ALL ADVANCE NOTIFICATIONS ARE MADE'
-
!
.
A
_.
.
.
-
.
.
CASK HANDLING EVALUATIONS
SEISMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR CASK WHEN POSITIONED IN THE WASHDOWN AREA AND IN THE FUEL POOL
FLOOR LOAD ANALYSIS FOR CASK WHEN POSITIONED IN THE WASHDOWN AREA AND IN THE FUEL POOL
.
.
-
.
.'
.
.
TRANSPORTATION ROUTE
.
!
HEAVY HAUL (TRUCK) TRANSPORTATION TO RAll SIDING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES FROM SHOREHAM.
- TRANSFER AT RAll SIDING TO RAll CAR USING HEAVY RIGGING EQUIPMENT.
f
RAll TRANSPORT TO LIMERICK AS FOLLOWS:
F-L.I. " EAST END" WEST TO NEW YORK CITY (QUEENS) '[
-NEW YORK CITY NORTH TO ALBANY-ALBANY SOUTHWEST TO BINGHAMTON-BINGHAMTON SOUTH TO LIMERICK SITE gg
- +
b
RAll ROUTE SELECTION LIMITATIONS a yh e 90 NEAREST HUDSON RIVER FREIGHT CROSSING LOCATED AS FAR
-
NORTH AS ALBANY.
USE OF DEDICATED, SINGLE PURPOSE TRAIN WITH
-
CONSERVATIVE SPEED LIMIT PRECLUDES USE OF HEAVILY USED FREIGHT CORRIDORS.
ROUTE SELECTION IS BIASED TO FAVOR ROUTE (S) WITH
-
"BETTER" TRACK CONDITIONS.
- PROPOSED ROUTE, WHICH APPEARS CIRCUlTOUS, IS THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE BECAUSE OF THE ROUTE SELECTION LIMITATIONS.
..Luq LJ ~ L$wL
--
- -
.. -
-
.
.
_
_
_
.
e
,
.
EUIL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
SHOREHAM FUEL RADIATION LEVELS ARE LOW AND POSE NO THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
10,000 TO 100,000 TIMES LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN NORMAL
-
SPENT FUEL.
VERY CONSERVATIVE MARGINS OF SAFETY PROVIDED BY IF-
-
300 SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CASKS WHICH ARE DESIGNED FOR NORMAL SPENT FUEL..
,
RADIATION DOSE RATE ON SURFACE OF LOADED IF-300 CASK.
-
WELL BELOW REGULATORY LIMITS.
- SHOREHAM FUEL RADIATION LEVELS AND SOURCE TERM COMPARABLE TO AND IN MANY CASES LESS THAN LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. E.G. CONTROL ROD BLADE SHIPMENTS HUNDREDS OF SHIPMENTS LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
-
SAFELY TRANSPORTED FROM SHOREHAM AS PART OF DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT; MANY SHIPMENTS INVOLVED RADIATION LEVELS AND SOURCE TERMS COMPARABLE TO UPCOMING FUEL SHIPMENTS.
- SHOREHAM FUEL SHIPMENTS ARE CLOSER TO SHIPMENT OF "NEW" FUEL TO OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANTS.
NEW FUEL SAFELY TRANSPORTED TO OPERATING NUCLEAR
-
POWER PLANTS ON A ROUTINE BASIS.
wuh
_ g g (fet-@M '- (AIM
.
--
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
W N4.u>OpnJ ' p%
=
gp SCHEDULE
FUEL TRANSFER WILL CONSIST OF 33 INDIVIDUAL SHIPMENTS FROM SHOREHAM TO LIMERICK.
IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS
-
IF AN ADDITIONAL (i.e.,
THIRD) IF-300 CASK IS IV'ADE AVAILABLE.
- FIRST EMPTY CASK TO BE DELIVERED TO SHOREHAM FOR CASK HANDLING " DRY RUNS" DURING MAY,1993.
<j s
s
FIRST FUEL SHIPMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR LY JUNE,1993.
e BASED ON A "TWO CASK" SCENARIO, THE FUEL TRANSFER IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED DURING JANUARY,1994.
-
IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE USE OF A THIRD IF-300 CASK WILL REDUCE THE SCHEDULE SUCH THAT THE FUEL TRANSFER IS COMPLETED BY THE YEAR'S (i.e.,1993) END.
- ANTICIPATED SHIPMENT SCHEDULE DETAILS AS FOLLOWS:
CASK LOADING AND PREPARATION AT SHOREHAM 48 HOURS TRANSFER TO RAll SIDING 5 HOURS RAll TRANSPORT TO LIMERICK 48 HOURS CASK UNLOADING AND PREPARATION i
FOR RETURN AT LIMERICK
, 56 HOURS.
~
'
RAll TRANSPORT OF EMPTY CASK
-
TO LONG ISLAND 40 HOURS
$e@b TRANSFER OF EMPTY CASK FROM RAll SIDING TO SHOREHAM 5 HOURS l
TOTAL SHIPMENT CYCLE DURATION 202 HOURS
l l
.
.
-
-
- -
. - - - -
- -
- - - -
_ -..
.
.
,
.
WITH CERTAIN RAll AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION LIMITATIONS (e.g: SHIPMENTS MADE DURING OFF-PEAK RAIL PERIODS), IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL SHIPMENT CYCLE WILL AVERAGE BETWEEN 8 AND 10 DAYS.
t
'
.
-_
. -
..
..
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
fh z0'O PROJECT STATUS
>
J4
'
gs Sp
PROJECT SCHEDULE WARRANTS RAPID PROJECT START-UP AND MOBILIZATION IN KEY AREAS SUCH AS NRC LICENSING, PLACEMENT OF SPECIALTY CONTRACTS, AND SPECIAL FUEL PACKAGING DESIGN,.
QUALIFICATION AND FABRICATION.
NRC LICENSING ACTIVITIES WELL UNDERWAY vPECO REQUEST TO AMEND LIMERICK LICENSE TO ALLOW FOR
-
RECEIPT OF SHOREHAM FUEL FILED WITH NRC ON
.d g d # k
,
'
MARCH 8,1993.
A f Qf REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE IF-300 CASK LICENSE
-
TO PERMIT A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE CASK INTERNALS FILED BY PACIFIC NUCLEAR (IF-300 : CASK OWNER)- ON FEBRUARY 25,'1993.
-
SECURITY PLAN REQUIRED UNDER 10CFR73 FILED WITH~ NRC ON MARCH 26,1993.
- PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY RELATED TO SPECIALTY CONTRACTS WELL UNDERWAY.
COMPETITIVELY BIDDING THE CONTRACT FOR CASK HANDLING
-
'
BETWEEN SHOREHAM AND THE RAIL-SIDING; BIDS RECEIVED LATE MARCH.
'
t INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH RAILROADS TO ARRANGE'FOR
-
RAll TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.
INITIATED NEGOTIATIONS WITH PACIFIC NUCLEAR TO LEASE
-
THE IF-300 SHIPPING CASKS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE FUEL TRANSFER.
'
DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF SPECIAL FUEL PACKAGING SYSTEM AND HANDLING EQUIPMENT WELL UNDERWAY.
N Co # a s u.J w h Ap &l.f pt<.Ju A FP ] L -
'
,
,
_
..,
m
-....
-.
+
,
.
,
.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES ON TRACK FOR THE FUEL TRANSFER' TO COMMENCE DURING EARLY JUNE.
- PLAN FOR INTERFACING WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MEDIA AND PUBLIC ESTABLISHED AND IN INITIAL STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION.
l l
l l
l
1 l
-
.
.
--
-
-
-
-
~
,
.
.
.
Mcy 10VERNMENT INTERFACE ACTION PLAN L
r
MEET WITH NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES EXPLAIN FUEL TRANSFER PROJECT
-
SOLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERFACING WITH
-
COUNTIES
MEET WITH NEW YORK CITY OFFICIALS
-
EXPLAIN FUEL TRANSFER PROJECT
<
MEET WITH MTA (LIRR AND METRO NORTH)
-
EXPLAIN FUEL TRANSFER PROJECT
-
COORDINATE CREW TRAINING
-
COORDINATE INTERACTION WITH COMMUNITIES ALONG TRANSFER ROUTE.
- MEET WITH SHOREHAM LOCAL OFFICIALS (SUFFOLK COUNTY, TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN AND TOWN OF RIVERHEAD)
EXPLAIN FUEL TRANSFER PROJECT WITH EMPHASIS ON " HEAVY
-
HAUL" SEGMENT OF TRANSFER ROUTE.
-
COORDINATE SECURITY ACTIVITIES WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. AGENCIES.
n
MEET WITH PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES i
-
EXPLAIN FUEL TRANSFER PROJECT
-
SOLICIT FEEDBACK
-
SOLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR. INTERFACING WITH
.
'
COUNTIES cd s
.g 00 f' W LN
_ na-r m aa-~ A A gq, H Tifl< 4c7 15. -..
.
_
_..
.._
..
.
.-
,
- .-
.;
.
-
>
,
,
NEW YORK STATE
'
-AND NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT INTERFACES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH-l
'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
!q EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE
NEW YORK STATE POLICE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (LIRR AND METRO NORTH)
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
>
-
,
GOVERNMENT INTERFACES l
'!
~
PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY-
BUREAU OF RADIATION PROTECTION / DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE-
!
16-
_
-
- -,
.
.
.
.
..
__
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -. _ _ _
.. _.
-.
..._,
_-
-
,
.
'
.
j y a.... pr m r.w
"?
.
,
, g;
~
-
,.-
.
n
,.
.
],f '
-
.i e
.
l
}
.
,
? ;}[;[ g.
(
- (
'
.
.a
!d P
!r
1
-
l1
.,,..J P
.
<
,
'
,l.h'g
,
..
FUEL
. P.
ASSEMBLIES
/.
,
,
i... # ?
!
& CONTROL
..k t.I /
i i
'r
,
,
,
i ROD MODULE 4;
+
'
f kI i
.
.)
n g.
1. TOP FUEL GUIDE i
a
'
!
i a'
2.C H ANNEL
.
FASTENER
- ['.
. *
'
?
A'
!
3. UPPER TIE
l PLATE
/
'
/I j
4. EXPANSION I
I '.
E $'k
.
,
.
SPRING l
r.
,
l 5. LOCKING TAB t '
'
,'
6.C H A N NEL
<
kj
,
l 7. CONTROL ROD kif
.
l
!
9. SPACER
'
[
8. FUEL ROD i'
's
-
~
10. CORE PLATE
'\\
'
'
,
{
ASSEMBLY
-[
'
.
11. LOW E R
- - '!
..
,
,
l TIE PLATE
'.
.
)h}(
,
12. FUEL SUPPORT
'
.-
.
,
PIECE
)..
g
.
13 FUEL PELLETS
,,.'.
. ;
,,
.
'f, ;4,.
14.END PLUG
'
.,
- j,';(q -
'
15.C H ANNEL SPACER 16.PLE N U M
- - -"y N f
SPRING
-,g
.,7
'
.
-
.
N Y
'
'
..
GENER AL h ELECTRIC
.
~ '
'
'(}
/
'
.
'
.
.
.
. ;..
_
_
,
.
.
.
.
g
/. - s.,
c
,.
..
.;
.r-
-
r, y :,
- !
'
-
f jf,j./j[
'
Figure 1 l
- ~ " "
Fuel Bundle
-. ~.
... -.
'
s
--_
'
.. - - ~
_
- '%.
' - ~._
~.. ' ' ~.
- - _,
!
.
h.,'
,
! * Rl ;.
l
/
l * lw a-
/
,
-
v I,
r
.{
/
I.
/
$l
[
{ll
.
l
-
.,
.
l I
/
iff t,
4.
,
?
'
%
1]
-
/
,
I
?$ ':l7
'
-
'
i i
/
I
-
/
'
i
'
.
.,.
~,
l
!
b I
,
.
l'
,
,
'
l
,
/
l
/
l
.
l
!
/
!
l l
l
,
l o
/
'
l
.
'
r i
1W.
ljh; +
l
- f,: -
~
+m
/
'>
,
l
,
- p j
V'
_
g]';g
.
j p
0"42 i
i, r
,
If.3g ShippI'19 Cask l;
/
.
,
_ _ _ _. - _ _. _ _ _ _. _ __ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.. _. _
_ _
_
_
_. _ _ _ _ _
__
_. _..
. _
... _. -... _ _ _ _ _.
.
n
-.
.
..=
s 1;igs 17 5ar
'Q Js_
s
.,,
,
.
.
yo
,
, 5f '
- ;*h ' l~ W v
~
y l
/
,,
,,
i
'
.:,...
+
.
-
..+r w.
.
.
,
p
.
e l
l
- -
.
3 he
-
l
'
l
{[ j \\f"f i
_
l BRLi gg,
,
,et '
,
,
-
u i,;" : %
c.
1 %- -.
tt-s
,
(;
'?
.
-
'^
_.
,_
wa
.
?~*
rg g t V i
sataEd i
m i
e l
,
--
o
.-
~
f l
1'
l
. ;;. k,df t
'
.
tW n s~
,.
\\
.
w
-.
..... -
-
.
.
. -
.
..
-
-
.
-
.
.
. -
-
.
,
,
,
.
1-
. p*-
g-
- i
.
'
!c, -
.e
.
'
ff f,,f
'
_.e
.
y :c. ;
.y r
a
.a
..
\\w y
.,
(
!
FUEL
~
N.$)f,
.- k
.
,
.u.- u,
..
,
.
,
,
ASSEMBLIES
- ,
,
"g.) fj"
%g
Tg y,
& CONTROL
^ '
'
ROD MODULE
]Q ;
,
'
S
-
.f
'
,. Y i, s '
rl
- ', ')
'
1. TOP FUEL GUIDE
-
2.CH ANNEL '
.!j j
,..,
l FASTENER
,'
. c'
J
'
'
i 3. UPPER TIE
,.;}
-
'
,
e PLATE
-
-
l
^
,
'
l 4. EXPANSION I
,
l
..
SPRING
-
5. LOCKING TAB
'
{
- e u,.
l 6. CHANNEL
,
!
-
,
7. CONTROL ROD 1,
-;
- .%
'
.J I
",.
l 8. FUEL ROD j
-'
-
.
!
'
l 10. CORE PLATE
..
j
,
I
.
'
ASSEMBLY
11. LOWER
.
.
.'
'
'
,
TIE PLATE
~
t
'
.
'
12. FUEL SUPPORT
'
' I.
PIECE
..
I
'
[.
13. FUEL PELLETS
,.
'I ;4
..
.L
.. '
14.END PLUG
-
g
.,
-
-':'
15.C H ANNEL
.
SPACER
?
b-
[
-
!
16. PLENUM
. I ' ()
(
SPRING
.
'
'
.
.
.,
.
l GEN ER Alh ELECTRIC
.i h
'
'
'
- -
'
.
'
.
i (' _
_
'
i0
.
..
. ks(
,.:<,
I h
,,. '
,
.
t,
/
.
.
l4 _
-
!
_ ]. j. 'f *
_
,
Figure 1
- [,j"q
.
..
- ~~
'
'
j Fuel Bundle
_ _ -
..__...___ ____._ _ _ _._
_ __ _.._ _ _._.. _ _....__._. _ - _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _.
.
.
YkNhI
\\
.
!
\\
!
l ' h.h.
/
\\
s.
3.
l
\\
E
,
r M '?ti
.
.
ff>n,;
-
f l
l g
!,
N,
j
/M )3
/
^ ';:
-
l
't s(?
!
'
<
,
!
i f
,
?
pt
.
i
/
i
/
l
>
,
l, %:
,
+
f
.
r8 3' k
'
(
?i i
- t yhjll Ibi
,
y pf!j
,.
,
'
y
y,
,
p;M..
.:
,
.
.
w;f M,
'
- ' l,
i
,
l
' i!
-
l
,s,,,'
$$bhk
,
.
<z
- yif
.*
k
-
j=';g; ;,
f--,
'
$? l-g;:,
IF.390 ipp7gO Cask i
.
s
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _., -.
,,
,__-____,_-----------------w-
- ~ - -
- -"##-
'
' ' '
k g
. RjfSTM g
,
i e
- $
!
'd k';r ;, clh g
- .4
~
'
9), j
'l
.
. -
,
A.
< MPall I
g
.
.
4 19 #da "
..,f $,
,
l q.hj%
t.
_,
J;
%
g
u L
,
cp a.*MI
'-
-
1.
.
,
22,,$iLY
""
_
s
_
A g
_
s-l-
u =23
.
'
,
. *: - M
,
\\
f
'
- _n
\\
s c
'
,
,
,,, i g.g
,
_
.-
I
'
..
t I
"
-
v %
W 3i
s.',
nm z
'
g if asn
~
E as
,
o
.
e O
ig
'
,
,
.
iA.
- - - - _
_.
_
,.
,.
,
.
N I
'
l
.
5
&
C A
.
...
n
-
g
-
-
f
.,
_
i _u, f
,
.
,
-m z
t
.
=
l-I
,O
- h j
' '
x@ as%
A
g m
'
-
Jg
'
c m
,
n
~ r _Y,
.
-_
c
'
W Q
m
'
-~
O
_
j
_
\\
'
'
i g
--
EEE f
_
=
_
- u
-
=
m h
,
II 11L
@ +
. -,.
...
,
o g,s SHOREHAM - LIMERICK FUEL TRANSFER
SHOREHAM REACTOR BUILDING
~-+
H NNNNNN//////
,,, _ _ _
rr n
n-n
. i LL i
I
!
E m-0
-
l
..,.:.y y
..
-
st.
rt h
-
i E
'"-8
_
,
n
-
aucron
-
E 128 -9 E 112-0
{
\\
J F
-
EL 78-0 EL 83-0
_
_
_,
_
_
E 40-0 l
I f
cO w, w seseg
_
_
_
_
E 8-0 Figure 5
... - - - - -
-. ________._____ _.__
.
._ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _
_
- - - _ - _ _ _ _
_
_
,
.
n.
c
.,
.. ;
....
,
E SHOREHAM LIMERICK FUEL TRANSFER
'
5HOREHAM ELEVATION 17S
- -*-"'
MAPR DESCRPTICN a
l c"$7a,T"" ""
'
- = :.= -
,
l A MM#"a F
pEtxse veut sine r-]
M HEUUW GAS 90T1LES IHATCH SHIPPING CHANNEL STORAGE I
I
-
.
AND PREPARATION AREA t VAT 0f
,
,
l
-
-
,
A
J mm
__
s
,
/
f
\\
~~
Q
f
\\
-
f
.4/
'
j-REFUEL g)
l%
- BRIDGE-DRYER & SEP.
E IDM" l \\
!'
l STORAGE POOL
nemmep$ 9
\\
/
_
w najW 2[$jg@ll CX'D i
[p te
\\.
f.
'
s
-
g
,
.mes
'?m"$ o
-
i
,i j
w
&l -
i L
-.
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
A
%ATCH'
I
/- -
t HATCHWAY '
g jj
/
'
N
-
s I
)
$$c O"
rigur. s
'
ac DECON-G 0000 e.
-
. aa m m
- ' ~ = * =
-**r
- ' -
f m 'n
-
-'+4'
9w
'e'+=+
ww
--t-
'veh-*re
--v
'-r'
S-r
-
-+-+w'-=
w
- e-
'--m'-'
e g
-.+w--
3.w-t
,,vv-
- 4
- -. -, ~
ycu y
nx m
e--m*,-,
=6
-
'
___
._
_
_ _ _ _.
,_
__
~
x.vm
t.
g~
- SHOREHAM - LIMERICK FUEL TRANSFER
- -'
'
SHOREHAM SPEb7 FUEL S1DRAGE POOL
!
'
I N
NWORK TABLE (STORED)
MARK DESCRIPDON A
SEPARATOR INSERTION MACHINE'
r )
ASSEMBLY AREA
~)
B SEP ARATOR MACHINE LOCATION.
_
g J
)
C.
FUEL PREP MACHINE y
D
- CHANNEL HANNNG BMM i
@
'
E FUEL HANDUNG JB CRANE-TABLE StPPORTS
/
F REDUNDANT YOKE STAND -
CENTERLINE z
c Toot sox
q q\\[ JIB CRANE HOOK
-
H HEUUM CAS BOTTLES
/DEMIN j'
UNIT r ""!R L CKS
__
_
[
\\x'E
-
i<>
s n
i
~
l\\
11 it __
D
~
/I FUELN
-
C
't-CASK
g l
,
LOADING
,
_/
t'
AREA Figure 7
'
-
I
-
l f'
l
...
.__
,.,
,,
-
,
~~+nv
,r
- -
,~+n-e
-,o, arm 4 - es w,
,
e
.--v
-
,
-,w-.,,,---s s
v
,n-.-
.
'.m