IR 05000454/1990015
| ML20055D027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1990 |
| From: | Grant W, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D026 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-90-15, 50-455-90-14, NUDOCS 9007030107 | |
| Download: ML20055D027 (6) | |
Text
y
,
4- ' '..
s
-,.
.
...
.,
t-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
REGION III
Reports No. 50-454/90015(MSS); ~ 50-455/90014(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; NPF-66
'
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: ' Byron Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: Byron Station, Byron, Illinois
Inspection Conducted: June ~11-14, 1990
V (b fd k Inspector:
W. B. Grant.
y 2c q.
Date h.
.
Approved By:
W. Snell, Chief
. 6/2GM Radiological Controls and Da'te Emergency Preparedness Section
!
Inspection Summary-i Inspection on June 11-14, 1990 (Reports No. 50-454/90015(DRSS); 50-455/90014(ORSS))
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced Inspection of the radiological protection program including:
changes; audits and surveillances; external exposure-control; internal exposure control; control of radioactive materials and contamination; e
and maintaining exposures ALARA (IP'83750). Also reviewed were actions taken
'
in response to previous inspection findings (IP 92701).
Results:
The licensee's radiation protection program appears to function well.and to be effective in protecting the health and safety of workers and the public. No violations or deviations were identified.
Strengths observed during tne inspection were:
'
Good management support of the radiation protection program.
Continued improvement in reducing plant contaminated areas,
,f Y'
6i O.2 i
O l
!
i
pn w
- jf
'
'
- f ;f
%
.
'h yH-DETAI_LS
,
'
g l'.L Persons' Contacted-M-m
- L) Aldrich,-St'aff Health Physicist, NSRP
- S. Barrett,l Radiation Protection Supervisor
- W.-Bielasco,oLead-Health Physicist, Technical n
- L. Bushman, ALARA/0perations HP Group Leader o
' E" ' '
- W. Dean, Safety Assessment.-
- S. Kraus,; Nuclear Quality Programs B.' McNeill, RCA Coordinator.
,
- F. Rescek Radiation Protection Director, NSRP
,
.
- R. Ward, Technical Superintendent f
D. Winches _ter QA; Superintendent
- E. Zittle, Regulatory Assurance Group Leader a
- R. Sutphin, NRC Resident Inspector The' inspector also contacted other license representatives, l
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
g
,
2.'
General'
This inspection was conducted to review aspects of the licensee's j
radiation protection program and the licensee's response' to previous
- l inspection findings..During plant tours, the inspector noted:that area I
".
.
postings,. access control n and housekeeping were: good.-
!
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
>
' '
(Closed)OpenItem-(454/87003-01;455/87005-01):.- Establish an improved
]'
management system to assure a continuing. proper review, evaluation and.
.quantification:of gaseous effluent releases.- The= licensee has provided an oversite system through procedure BRP 1750-5 which provides
,
appropri. ate methods and instructions to review, evaluate and quantify
'
-gaseous-effluent releases from Byron Station. The inspector reviewed the procedure; no problems were noted.
This item is closed.
-
(Closed) Open Item (454/87003-02; 455/87005-02): Leak discovered in
,
cooling system blowdown /radwaste effluent line to the river. The
""
licensee applied in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302 to allow onsite burial
,
eet of radioactive soil contaminated by the leak.
However, before that
'l reques.t was acted upon, the State-of Illinois was given jurisdiction under
' '
a June 1987. agreement with the NRC. The licensee has applied to the State of Illinois for permission to bury onsite by letter dated March 2,1989.
p" jme a
This open item is closed.
+-
~'
4.
Changes (IP 83750)
E The inspectors reviewed changes in personnel, facilities, equipment,
- "
pr_ogram and procedures that could affect the occupational radiation protection program.
.
!
'
.]
}
-
,
,
,
,
y%
ay
,.
_,
-
'
p
'
Anexperiencedhealth' physicist-(HP) accepted'apositionasa: technical.
-l f
HP 's tarting June. 11, 1990.-- The HP is a Purdue graduate and_hast fives i
'
!
years field-experience.
~The: licensee _is in the process of' developing and writing procedures for:
abnormal radiological events. -The procedures are intended to provide'
,
~
_
r instructions-to personnel on how to handle abnormal radiological events
,such as high airborne radioactivity, high radioactive contamination,.
unplanned high radiation levels, high skin contamination and'overexposures.
- The procedures-are written in an event / response format so that important
-'
steps are not; forgotten or. inadvertently omitted. RP foremen have been-
-
,
givenLinitial1 training and RP technicians have been briefed on' the Byron
J Radiologica.1 Event (BRE) procedures.
Formal training for, all' RP
,
,
personnel'on the procedures is scheduled to start.in' July 1990. -The h
inspector reviewed the-procedures and the training lesson plans; no-
M problems were noted.
'
-
y No violations or' deviations were identified.
-5.
Audits and Surveillances (IP 83750)
T The inspector reviewed station quality-assurance (QA) audits of the radiation protection program conducted since the last inspection.
Extent-
,
of audits, qualifications of-auditors,- and adequacy of corrective actions were reviewed.
One audit of radiation protection was conducted during this period..The one finding regarding an error in the semi-annual effluent report has a licensee commitment for corrective action.
Surveillances-of radiation protection activities were selectively
,
reviewed. -~ Corrective action on findings appeared to be timely and technically sound.
o The quality assurance surveillance program has undergone a-significant change.which-enables the' auditors to conduct a significantly larger-
-?
-
< number of:perfcrmance based surveillances.
The' inspector reviewed documentation of surveillances performed; no problems were noted.
l No violations or deviations were identified,
,
6.
External Exposure Controls (IP 83750)
The licensee's external exposure control program was reviewed, including:
. changes in facilities, equipment, personnel, and procedures; adequacy of-dosimetry program to meet routine and emergency needs; dose tracking capabilities; required records; reports and notifications; effectiveness
.'of management techniques used to implement these programs; and experience concerning self-identification and correction of program implementation y
- weaknesses.
-
'
!
!
n
.
N'
g Q*f =?
' '
,
z
.
.
%
.
'
" '
Exposure recordsof. plant and contractor personnel were selectively 1
-
reviewed for 1990 to date. No exposures greater thani10 CFR 20.101.
- or licensee administrative limits were noted.
No violatiors or deviations were identified.:
.7.
Internal-Exposure Control (IP 83750)
i The;11eensee's internal exposure control and assessment program was reviewed including:
changes in-facilities, equipment, personnel, respi_ratory protection training; and procedures affecting internal exposure-control and personal assessment;; determination whether engineering controls, respirai.ory equipment, and assessment of individual intakes meet regulatory requirements; planning and preparation for maintenance and refueling tasks-including ALARA consideration;- required records,. reports and notifications; effectiveness of management techniques used to implement these programs;
,
and experience concerning self-identification and correction of program-implementation weaknesses.
A review of the licensee's whole body count records indicated that no
'
exposures in excess of the 40 MPC-hour control measure occurred during;
1990 to date.
l No -violations or deviations were identified, d
u 8.
Cor, trol of~ Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Surveys and
- s
' Monitoring-(IP 83750),
'
LThe inspector reviewed the licensee's program for control of radioactive
,
- _
materials and contamination, surveys and monitoring, including:
adequacy of supply,Lmaintenance and calibration of contamination survey and:
-monitoring equipment; effectiveness of survey methods, practices, d
equipment,:and procedures; adequacy of review and. dissemination of survey data; effectiveness of methods of control of radioactive and contaminated materials.
The licensee's reporting criterion for Personnel Contamination Events-
'
-(PECRs)is100cpmabovebackgroundonskinorclothing. As of June 13, 1990,i297 PECRs were identified. The licensee is developing a new program for investigating, documenting and trending PECRs which is
' intended to reduce the numbers of these events by identifying the root-
'
causes and implementing corrective action.
Program implementation is scheduled for July 1,1990. The results of the program will be reviewed during future inspections.
-Several tool and equipment cages, tool cabinets, and about 40 gang boxes located throughout the Auxiliary Building are used for storage of fixed i
contaminated and potentially contaminated tools and equipment. Tools
and equipment which are used for work on contaminated systems or in contaminated areas are surveyed, decontaminated if necessary, and returned to these storage locations. Tools and equipment are not allowed to be taken out of the RCA on a routine basis.
Radiation
j'
y.
_
'
e
-
.
!; g ", :4-
' '
ldy-
~+
-
..s N
! protection' personnel survey the tools and equipment in gang boxes on a_ monthly frequency; so far, there is no-evidence that tools / equipment
.
are being returned to these_ storage areas without being surveyed and-Ldecontaminated.
In. response to; inspector concerns, the licensee has-
+
reviewed the storage of potentially contaminated tools and equipment
withinL the RCA. _ Past concerns included the large number of storage -
!
-locations and the use of non-standard locks on storage boxes. The
,
review committee had the following recommendations:~
'
'
Departments were told to minimize the total number of boxes and l
to combine existing storage locations if possible. All boxes and.
j g^ ~
-
equipment are'to be stored at the designated cage locations if
'
they are not required to support' work in progress.
,
All tool, boxes must be properly labeled, identifying the responsible
' department and a specific number identifying the equipment.
For
-
example, a box containing Mechanical Maintenance equipment would be
g labeled.M-1.
j
All locks.must be compatible with the-currently used station locks-
-
i, Departments should minimize different locks used for equipment
'
control. t Radiation Protection must have a key for access to
equipment / tool 1 storage boxes ~ located inside'the RCA.
J Improperly identified boxes or storage will be identified through-I the Station Housekeeping-Program, and the appropriate Department-L1
' Head will-be informed of control problems for resolution.
The current status of the review committee recommendations by department
- are as t follows:
ENC -.The paint equipment storage locker on-the 401' elevation will be.
movedito'the cage area on the 346' elevation.. Box labels'are being made 'at this time and wil.1 be _ installed-as.available.. All non-station locks.will be removed. Currently all tools ~are stored on the 346'-
'
i h
elevation.
,
K
_IM - All tools are currently stored in the existing cages on 346' and i
401' elevations. The inventory which was done prior to the start E
of BIR03 is correct. The IM Group was asked to verify that the -
list is all inclusive and that all containers are properly-t
"
identified.
-
EM All tools and storage boxes _have been identified and labeling is in
progress. Security has been contacted to provide a standard lock series for the individual tool boxes. The Electrical Group was
'
,
L asked to remove any non-station locks currently still in use.
MM Several boxes of equipment have been combined.
All equipment is located in the caged areas on the 426' elevation and the 346' elevation Compressor Room. The majority of the tools are located in the tool case on the 426' elevation and are inventoried (not boxed).
,
ey
.
.,
'
p,
,.
,9 _ l,l, l
[h c:
C i
yv+
In addition it hasibeen-stressed to the departments that no non-station
,
,
locks are'to'be-used and that radiation protection must have access to
!
storage locations toicomplete' monthly survey requirements.
"
s Based.on the current results and the planned corrective actions, the
- inspector's concerns have been satisfied.
l
,
No. violations or~ deviations were identified.
'
'
,
- 9 -
Plans and Preparations (IP 83750)
l
.
"
.The, inspector reviewed the licensee's planning and preparation for the
~ Unit 2 refueling / maintenance outage scheduled for September 1990.
The licensee is adding to the photo files of cubicle systems, and: piping i
and valve sy!.tems for use in modification and maintenance work during.the-upcoming outage. All work. requests for the outage were supposed'to have been submitted by the various-departments by June 8, 1990. The outage is.
'
scheduled.to start September 1, 1990.
,
.No violations or deviations were identified, i
10. Maintaining Occupations' Exposures ALARA (IP 83750)
,
The inspectors reviewed ths licensee's program for maintaining occupational exposure ALARA, including: ALARA group staffing. and qualifications;' changes in ALARA policy and procedures, and their implementation; ALARA consideration
, for; maintenance -and refueling outages; worker awareness and involvement in the!ALARA program; establishment of goals and objectives, and effectiveness'
-
in meeting them.
The total station dose for 1990 through June 12 is approximately 279 person-rem of which about 260 person-rem was attributed to the
' Unit 1 refueling / maintenance outage. The station dose goal for 1990L is'510 person-rem.
o No violations:or deviations were identified.
t 11.. Exit Meeting (IP 30703)
<
>
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion-of the inspection on June 14, 1990,- to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection. -The inspector discussed the licensee's development of-procedures for abnormal radiological events and
the progress to date in the handling of hot tools and equipment.
In both
. cases, the licensee has satisfied the inspector's concerns; no problems were noted. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of'the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by
~the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
?
L: