IR 05000443/1993004
| ML20035C199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1993 |
| From: | Eckert L, Joseph Furia, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C194 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-93-04, 50-443-93-4, NUDOCS 9304060301 | |
| Download: ML20035C199 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
'
Report No.
93-04 Docket No.
50-443 l
License No.
NPF-56 Licensee:
Public Service Company of New Hampshim
,
P.O. Box 330
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Nuclear Station
!
Inspection Period:
Febmary 16-19, 1993 i
_ 64.4 Y
!UN Inspector:
L. Ecken? Radiation Specialist Date
!
Facilities Radiation Protection Section '
Inspector:
M 38fi3 J. Furia,lSenior Radiat6n Specialist Date
.
Facilities
- ' n Protection Section
'
Approved By:
- h<
&Nc 3-2Y-73 W. Pasciak, Chief Date
!
.
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Areas Inspected: Quality assurance audits and surveillances; changes in the radwaste organization; training and qualifications of personnel; implementation of the solid radwaste
'!
pmgram; review of radioactive material shipping reconis; review of interim radwaste
storage; scaling factors analysis; and contamination control.
l
!
Results: The audit and training programs were well implemented. Staffing was sufficient to implement responsibilities. The solid radwaste program and transponation programs were j
well implemented. Interim radwaste storage and scaling factor development were acceptable.
'
Contamination control was good and helped make the Dry Active Waste generation minimization program to be successful. No radiological safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
t h
9304060301 930329 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
,
,
,.
,
..
DETAILS
,
1.0 Jknonnel Contacted
.
1.1 Seabrook Station Personnel
- M. Anderson, Radwaste Department Supervisor
- M. Bianco, Radwaste Decon Supervisor
- R. Campion, Chemist
!
- J. Dolan, Technical Projects
- R. Donald, Auditor
- T. Grew, Technical Training Manager
- J. Grillo, Operations Manager
.
- W. lxland, Manager Chemistry and Health Physics J. Linville, Chemistry Department Supervisor i
- J. Malone, Assistant to Executive Director Nuclear Power l
- G. Mcdonald, Nuclear Quality Manager
- J. Rafalowski, Health Physics Department Supervisor j
- J. Sobotka, NRC Coordinator
!
- E. Sovetsky, Technical Projects Supervisor
- F. Straccia, Senior Health Physicist
>
R. Thompson, Tmining i
- W. Walker, Radioactive Waste and Shipment Supervisor
J. Watts, QA/QC
!
Other licensee personnel were contacted during the inspection.
f i
1.2 NRC Personnel
!
!
i
- N. Dudley, Senior Resident Inspector i
'
- R. Laura, Resident Inspector
- Denotes attendance at the exit meeting.
i 2.0 Purpose
!
!
The purpose of this announced inspection at the licensee's facility was to review the following program aspects: quality assurance audits and surveillances, training and
_
-!
qualifications of personnel, implementation of the radwaste program, radioactive material shipping records, interim radwaste storage, scaling factors, and contamination control.
!
Changes in the radwaste organization and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) were also
{
reviewed.
i r
r
!
'
I
--
-
- -
. - -.
--..
-, - -. - -
...
-
..
+
,.
'
3.0
_ Quality Assurance (OA) Audits and Suneillances _
i Technical Specifications required a biennial Process Control Progmm (PCP) audit. The inspectors mviewed QA audit 92-A03-01. The final audit report was dated April 24,1992, f
The audit team included a technical specialist from another utility. The audit msulted in
three findings (msponse and corrective actions required) and four observations (response'
,;
required). Safety significance of these findings wem minimal. For example, the licensee j
audit team found that there was no procedural guidance for the documentation of shipment of'
!
radioactive material packages that were received,.not opened, and later shipped. This was
resolved by revising WS0598.032, " Shipment of Radioactive Material," to mquire radwaste
&
personnel to be present when packaging radioactive material for shipping. Resolution of
'
findings were thorough and prompt (all findings were closed by July 15,1992). The
[
inspectors noted that the audit was thorough and performance based.
- i
!
An appraisal of the licensee's transponation prognm was conducted by a consultant. The
inspectors reviewed a draft copy of the appraisal mpon, dated February 11,1993. The
consultant determined that Seabrook Station had established a good program and did not j
a-identify any significant weaknesses. Nine recommendations were made as potential impmvement areas. The licensee had not had sufficient time to evaluate these
recommendations. Resolution of appraisal items will be reviewed in a future inspection,
,
The licensee conducted seveal QA sun'elllances during 1992. Five QA Surveillance Reports
(QASRs) were reviewed. Four of the surveillances conducted were perfonned to observe'
_
resin sluicing. One finding was identified concerning valve CS-V-742 (demineralizer resin
..
header cross connect) configuration control. The licensee audit noted that there was a
!
I difference in valve position guidance between the procedure and Plant and Information Drawing (P&ID). The licensee resolved this discrepancy in a Station Opemting Review
.
Committee meeting prior to the conduct of this inspection. One QASR was conducted to l
observe the handling, receipt inspection and storage of empty, unused mdioactive material j
shipping containers in accordance with federal requirements and station programs. No l
~
findings or recommendations were identified. Another topic that was discussed was the need l
for Quality Control surveillances of radioactive material shipments. The licensee does not j
nomially conduct them. The inspectors noted that the licensee should consider evaluating the
- !
need for inemased Quality Contml suneillances of mdioactive material shipments.
!
i
!
4.0 Trainine and Oualifications of Personnel i
l Three levels of training have evolved in the areas of tmnsponation and radwaste based on
-
worker experience / status. The inspectors reviewed the Qualification Guides currently in use i
and found them to be good. Although genemtors in the State of New Hampshire do not
. j currently have low level waste disposal privileges, the licensee provided training sufficient to j
meet NRC expectations described in NRC IE Bulletin 79-19. Licensee instructors attended a l
contractor provided course on Depanment of Tmnsponation requirements concerning
l
,
+
-
.
n.
-
-
.m.-
,
..
..
+
transport of mdioactive material. The inspectors noted that Radwaste Department personnel
[
were being provided with a good mix ofin-house and vendor training.
The inspectors reviewed a draft of the Rad Waste Training Program Description. This r
document was being developed to provide a better defined training program. The inspectors
!
noted that development of this document was a good initiative and it will be reviewed in
.
greater detail in a future inspection.
l
.
.5.0 Organization The Radwaste Department was headed by the Radwaste Department Supervisor. The Radw=!e Department Supervisor continued to report to the Chemistry and Health Physics Manager. Me Radwaste Department Supervisor was assisted by the Radwaste-Decon/ Support Supervisor, the Radwaste Shipping / Operations Supervisor, and the Radwaste
,
Coordinator. The Radwaste Decon/ Support Supenisor was assigned four Radwaste Technicians, one HP Technician, and laborers and was responsible for coordinating decontamination efforts. The Radwaste Shipping / Operations Supervisor was assigned three Radwaste Technicians and a Chem Nuclear Services, Inc. (CNSI) demineralizer skid operator. The Radwaste Shipping / Operations group was responsible for operating radwaste systems, treating radwaste, and shipping / storing radwaste. The Radwaste Coordinator was responsible for resolving technical issues and training program development; this individud l
had no reporting support staff. The Radwaste Department has assumed all responsibilities t
concerning shipping of radioactive materials. Department supervision has been stable and the organization appeared sufficiently staffed to carry out current program responsibilities.
.
!
6.0 Radioactive Waste Program
,
As described in the FSAR, the following sources ofliquid waste pass through a strainer and were stored in the Floor Drain Tanks (FDTs) for further processmg.
i i
Liquid from the chemical drain treatment tanks
Effluent from the resin sluicing system
'
Liquid from the Steam Generator (SG) blowdown system when that system
needs additional processing capability.
Liquid from boron waste storage tanks when that liquid is unacceptable for
reuse for reactivity control
Recycled effluent from liquid waste evaporation and testing and
e demineralization when reprocessing is required
Demineralized water for system start-up and flushing operations
,
Waste liquid from the spent fuel pool skimmer pump e
All sumps in contaminated plant areas, and the Administration and Service
Building sump and the RCA walkway sumps
!
,
f
,
..
f i
,.
,
From the FDTs, liquid was transferred to one of the following:
waste evaporator (bypassed) for processing, e
waste test tanks,
+
boron recovery system evaporator when the waste evaporator was inoperative,
and a
waste feed tanks of the waste solidification system The solid waste management system processes waste liquids, spent resins and dry wastes for dispostl (currently interim storage). As described in the FSAR, the licensee had the
'
equipment to process plant water through filters and demineralizers, waste water through evaporators, and concentrates through a crystallizer, resin centrifuge and/or
!
evaporator / extruder. The licensee has not used the waste evaporators, crystallizer, resin centrifuge, or asphalt evaporator / extruder systems. There were no plans to make these
,
'
systems operable.
t The station continued to utilize the services of CNSI, to demineralize water from the FDTs.
i The accumulation of Dry Active Waste (DAW) has been minimized by a station-wide radwaste volume minimization campaign.
.
The inspectors noted that there was no permanent piping which would allow sluicing of spent resins from either the condensate system demineralizer beds or the SG blowdown system demineralizer bed to the Waste Handling Building. At some time in the future, these i
demineralizer beds will need to have their resin replaced. Spent resins from these beds I
might become radioactive waste depending on fuel quality and primary to secondary leakage.
The licensee agreed to evaluate this matter further.
As part of this inspection, the following procedures were reviewed by the inspectors:
t
CP 5.1, Revision 12,7/30/92, " Isotopic Characterization of Radwaste"
HD0958.38, Revision 1, 8/20/92, " Evaluation of Isotopic Mix"
WN0598.032, Revision 1,12/1/92, " Shipment of Radioactive Material"
WN0598.036, Revision 1, 7/14/92, " Storage of Radioactive Materials / Wastes Controlled by the Radwaste Department"
>
No procedural inadequacies were noted.
- 7.0 Transportation
,
Generators in the State of New Hampshire did not currently have radwaste burial priv3eges i
at the time of the inspection. Seabrook Station continued to store all low level radwaste
generated since start-up on-site. A number of Iow Specific Activity (LSA) shipments and
'
limited quantity shipments were made.
,
J
-.
..
The following shipment records were selected and reviewed.
Shipment No.
Activity (Ci)
Volume (Cu. Ft.)
Lg i
92-047 2.70 E-03 440.8 Laundry 92-048 9.56 E-03 446.0 Laundry 92-050 1.93 E-03 2618.0 Scaffolding 92-052 1.35 E-02 661.2 Laundry 92-053 5.37 E-03 0.1 Samples These records were found complete. The licensee maintained copies of the consignee's licenses as required. No discrepancies were noted.
8.0 Interim Radwaste Stomge and the Final Safety Analysis Report The Unit 2 side of the Service Water Cooling Tower was utilized for interim on-site DAW storage. The inspectors toured this location and reviewed survey data. The inspectors had no further questions on this matter.
Updated FSAR (UFSAR) Section 11.4.2.6, " Storage Facilities," states that " processed solid radioactive wastes,..., are stored in 55 gallon drums and 85 ft' shipping containers in the shielded storage room in the ground floor storage area at elevation 25' of the Waste Processing Building next to the loading dock area." During a tour of the Waste Processing Building the inspectors noted that polyethylene liners containing watered resins (not processed) were stored in the area noted in the UFSAR. The inspectors brought this inconsistent (with the UFSAR) practice to the attention of the Radwa' te Department Supervisor. The licensee stated that they would initiate a 50.59 safety review to determine
whether the noted storage of watered resins was bounded by past safety reviews. This matter is unresolved and will be reviewed further (URI 50-443/93-04-01).
The polyethylene liners containing watered resins did not have readily available information concerning their contents as required by 10 CFR 20. This matter also was brought to the attention of the Radwaste Department Supervisor, who identified and documented the polyethylene liner's contents prior to the end of the inspection. The Radwaste Department Supervisor informed the inspectors that these records will be maintained at the Health Physics access control point and Radwaste Department office in the future. The inspectors had no further questions on this matter.
..
-
.
.
.
..
,
.,
9.0 Spaline Facion
!
To determine if 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8), " Determination of Concentrations in Wastes," had been
met, the inspectors conducted interviews, reviewed procalutes, and reviewed Chemistry f
Study / Technical Information Document (CHSTID) 92-0006, " Evaluation of 10 CFR 61 Data For Dry Active Waste.*
Chemistry procedure,5.1, Revision 12,7/30/92, " Isotopic Characterization of Radwaste,"
specifies the methods to be utilized for isotopic characterization of radwaste streams. The
!
procedure directs that scaling factors for Class B and Class C waste should be re-evaluated annually, Class A waste biennially. High activity filter cartridges were evaluated about once every two months by analyzing liquid which had flowed through the filter. Filters were collected and analyzed on an annual basis, and smears were taken in various plant locations
-
in order to determine a scaling factor for DAW. The licensee sent their samples to the
,
Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) for the 10 CFR 61 analysis. YAEL provided sample gamma analyses which the licensee then utilized to develop scaling factors
using RADMAN, a computer code.
-
CHSTID 92-0006 provided a review of the process utilized to determine the distribution of radionuclides present for the determination of Dry Active Waste (DAW) classification for use in 1992. Floor Drain Tank (FDT) samples taken in July 1991 were compared with smear _
samples collected by Health Physics. The FDT and smear sample results did not correlate well and, therefore, a correlation between the FDT results and the plant smear data was developed to account for the beta emitters not measured in the plant smears. A ratio was -
!
developed between the FDT Co-58 activity and the beta emitters measured in the FDT sample. Then the percent abundance of Co-58 in the plant smear was multiplied by the ratio
,
to develop a relative activity value for the beta emitters. The relative activity values were
'
then totalled. The total relative activity was then divided into each of the relative activity values for each radioisotope which provided the percent abundance of that particular beta emitting radioisotope in the plant smear. No inadequacies in this detr ination were noted.
'
At the time of the inspection, the licensee was awaiting the 1992 sample results from YAEL (to be used in 1993).
10.0 Contamination Control
!
e As noted in Section 5.0, one of the primary functions of the Radwaste Department is j
contamination control. The inspectors reviewed the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA)
!
contaminated area status for the weeks of February 7 and February 14,1993 (week ending).
.
I i
!
-
-
- .
!
,.
,
..
'
i Week Endine 7-Feb 14-Feb
!
square feet
'
.
Total eligible for decontamination 733 547
'
Total impractical for decontamination 2178 2178 To:al of eligible and impractical areas 2911 2725
!
Administratively controlled areas 2314 2314
!
Areas impractical for decontamination efforts included Residual Heat Reraoval (RHR)
!
pumps, the letdown line area (-26' elevation), and the demineralizer alley (7' and 17'
,
elevations). Areas impractical to decontaminate are areas in which work was in progress l
and/or were impractical to decontaminate due to ALARA concerns. Administratively controlled areas included the containment personnel hatch area, the Waste Processing Building decontamination room, and the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) canal area. The inspectors
,
noted that the efforts taken in regards to minimizing RCA contaminated area square _ footage -
!
were good and had the added benefit of helping the DAW waste generation minimization program to be successful.
t 11.0 Exit Meetine
,
!
The inspectors met with licensee representatives at the end of the inspection, on February 19, l
1993. The inspectors reviewed the purpose and scope of the inspection and discussed the findings. The licensee stated that they would evaluate the findings and institute corrective
actions as appropriate.
!
\\
!
.
l
I
,
.-