IR 05000373/1981011
| ML20003G005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Lovendale P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G006 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-81-11, NUDOCS 8104280043 | |
| Download: ML20003G005 (4) | |
Text
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 MISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/81-11 Docket Pa. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Seneca, IL Inspectioc. Conducted,: March 9-10, 1981 Gtchtb
.
2// 9,I/
Inspector:
P. C. Lovendale A '} ' ^--
Approved By:
L. R. Greger, Acting Chief-J[
/
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
'
Inspection on March 9-10, 1981 (Report No. 50-373/81-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced preoperational inspection of the radwaste management program, including progress made on certain preoperational and system demonstratin-tests and conformance to FSAR commitments. The inspection involved 15.nspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8104280043
-_
. _ _ - _ _ _
__- _ - _-_______________ _
O f
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
+
. *R. Bishop, Assistant' Superintendent, Administrative'an'd Support.
Services
.*J. Williams, Radwaste Coordinator - Operations
- P. Manning, QC ~ Supervisor :
-*R. Kyrovac,-QA Coordinator t
E. Bowker, Radwaste Foreman R. Walker, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
- S. Shepley, Resident Inspector, NRC
.
i
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
.
2.
General This inspection, which began with a tour of radwaste. facilities at
.9:15 a.m. on March 9, 1981, was conducted to examine progress made on
certain radwaste preoperational and system demonstration tests.
!
Preoperational System Demonstrations f-According to licenree personnel, the following system demonstration tests are in progress and at the percentage completion indicated:
,
SD-WE-101A Liquid Radwaste Equipment Drain Reprocessing 100%'
SD-WE-101B Floor Drain Reprocessing 54%
SD-WE-101C
. Laundry Equipment and Floor Drain 46%.
Reprocessing SD-WE-101D Chemical Waste 58%
SD-WE-101E Equipment and Floor Drain 80%-
,
'
SD-WX-101 Solid Radwaste 89%
f
!
The inspector reviewed the completed documentation for the system demonstration of the Liquid Radwaste Equipment Drain Reprocessing System.
,
'No problems were noted.
'
.
4.
. Solid Radwaste 4.1 Location of Flow Control Valve
,
1/it was noted that the cycle During a previous inspection condensate flow control valve (0WX-141), which is used to flush the decant tanks, was located about three feet from the tank 1/ IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/80-51.
,
-2-
-._;.,
- -,--._ - - -
-,
-..
-
-
,..
,
. _ -,.
.
_
. -
-. -.
. - _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _
_ __
____ _.
.
i with no intervening shielding.
Failure of this valve could prevent decontamination of the decant tanks and associated piping.
Because of its location, maintenance-of this valve may have to be performed it. a very high radiation field.
As a solution to this. problem, the licensee has~ submitted and received approval of a' design change which calls for replacing-the present valve with two valves in parallel. This change means that a single failure would not prevent decontamination of the system. The installation of these valves will be reviewed during a future inspection.
4.2 Decant Tank Overflow Lines During a previous inspection, it was noted that the decant tank overflow lines and drumming station drain lines are directed to floor drains which drain into the truck bay sump. Overflow of the decant tanks could cause high radiation fields in the truck
,
bay due to inadequate shielding of the truck bay sump. Also, considerable splashing occurs when the overflow or drainage hits the floor drains, which could cause high levels of contamination-in the areas. This matter was discussed during the exit meeting and will be reviewed during a_ future inspection.
4.3 QA/QC of Solidification Process The licensee's formulas for solidification of resins, evaporator bottoms, waste filter sludge, etc., are being developed based on the use of Type 3 Portland Cement. The licensee stated that they had no quality control program which would ensure that.the cement purchased was Type 3.
Use of a different type of cement with the established formulas may result in increased amounts of free stand-ing liquid remaining after the cement cures. This' matter was discussed during the exit meeting and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The licensee stated that no program has been established to period-ically inspect solidified waste for excessive amounts of free standing water. The solid radioactive waste section of the li-
~
censee's proposed technical specifications requires the licensee to periodically verify solidification of each type of radioactive waste from liquid systems. The final technical specifications are expected to contain similar requirements. This matter was discussed during the exit meeting and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
5.
Radwaste Operating Procedures The inspector reviewed the following radwaste' operating procedures.
-3-
- _ _ _ - -.
_..
_,
,
-_
r
..
LOP-WX-01, Rev. O, Drum Processing Unit Operation LOP-WX-02, Rev. O, Bridge Crane Operations for Radwaste Shipping Cask Loading LOP-WX-03,-Rev. 3, Cement Bulk Storage Tank Filling LOP-WX-04, Rev. O, Cement Day Tank Filling and Drum Cement Loading
'
LOP-WX-05, Rev. O, Dry Waste Compactor Operation LOP-WX-06, Rev. O, Concentrated Waste Tank Recirculation LOP-WX-21, Rev. O, URC Sludge Transfer to the Decanting Tanks LOP-WX-23, Rev. O, Drum Washdown LOP-WX-22, Rev. O, Drum Processing Unit Washdown and Drain Filter Removal and Installation The inspector found several problems with the above procedures. The licensee stated that all radwaste operating procedures are being re-vised and will be issued in about six weeks. These revised procedures will be reviewed during a future inspection.
,
6.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on March 10, 1981. The inspector summarized the scope and ' findings of the inspection.
In response to certain items discussed by the inspector, the licensee:
a.
Stated that a deficiency had been written on the decant tank overflow and drumming station drain lines which should result in a solution to the splashing problem.
(Section 4.2)
b.
Stated that the radiation levels from the truck bay sump would be closely monitored and that shielding of this sump is under consideration.
(Section 4.2)
c.
Stated that they would review the need for quality control of bulk cement purchases.
(Section 4.3)
d.
Stated that they are reviewing the need and methods for verifying solidification of liquid wastes.
(Section 4.3)
-4-
.
.
-.