IR 05000454/1999006
| ML20207A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207A219 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-99-06, 50-454-99-6, 50-455-99-06, 50-455-99-6, NUDOCS 9905260216 | |
| Download: ML20207A222 (16) | |
Text
l
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lll Docket Nos:
50-454;50-455 License Nos:
50-454/99006(DRS); 50-455/99006(DRS)
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed)
Facility:
Byron Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Location:
4450 North German Church Road Byron,IL 61010 Dates:
April 19-23,1999
- Inspectors:
K. Lambert, Radiation Specialist A. Kock, Radiation Specialist Approved by:
Gary Shear, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety
$
050$054 I
PDR b
g
. - - -
--
i
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-454/99006(DRS); 50-455/99006(DRS)
This routine inspection of the radiation protection program included the liquid and gaseous effluent program, the radiological environmental monitoring program, the auditing program, and outage activities.
Although the dose goal was exceeded, the licensee adequately evaluated
-
planned work activities and integrated past performance to prepare dose estimates and goals for the Byron 1 Refueling Outage (B1R09).
As-Low-As-Is-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA) plans were detailed and included
-
special instructions and lessons leamed from previous job evolutions. The licensee effectively initiated steps to reduce the number of personnel contamination events during the outage (Section R1.1).
The licensee's effluent release program was well implemented, and estimated
-
public doses due to radioactive effluent releases were well below regulatory limits (Section R1.2).
The radiological environmental monitoring program was well implemented by
-
contractor personnel who were knowledgeable of the sampling procedure.
Material condition of the air sampling equipment was good. Environmental sample results did not indicate any discemable environmental effects from plant operations (Section R1.3).
Overall, the calibration and effective tracking of instrument operability ensured
that liquid and gaseous process and effluent radiation monitors accurately measured radioactivity in station effluents (Section R2.1).
One weakness was noted in the station's calibration methodology, which did not
-
include verification of accurate instrument response to the types of radionuclides or the geometry present during release conditions (Section R2.1).
Meteorological tower inctrumentation surveillances and calibrations were
-
appropriately performed and contractor personnel were knowledgeable regarding the monitoring equipment and the calibration process. The meteorological monitoring equipment was maintained in good material condition (Section R2.2).
.
.
Radiological postings and container labeling were well maintained and
.
appropriately informed workers of current station radiological conditions.
Material condition of radiation protection equipment was good. Overall, housekeeping was good and there was a significant improvement in the timely processing of radioactive waste stored in the radioactive waste building (Section R2.3).
The master audit plan was detailed and ensured that critical areas of the radiation
-
protection program were reviewed over a two-year period. Audits were of sufficient scope and depth to identify deficiencies and areas where improvements were warranted. Corrective actions to identified deficiencies were being effectively developed and implemented by the radiation protection staff (Section R7.1).
.
i
i
-
n i
'
'e
..
Report Details IV Plant Support R1
' Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls R1.1 B1R09 Outaae Activities a.
Insoection Scooe (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the radiation protection staff's preparation, planning and implementation of the Unit 1 refueling outage (B1R09) activities. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed as-low-as-is-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) planning, radiation work permits, post-Job briefings, outage dose estimates, and personnel contamination events, b.
' Observations and Findinas On March 27,1999, the licensee began a refueling outage that was scheduled to be j
J
. completed on April 23,1999. The refueling outage included the following scheduled work and estimated doses:
Steam generator eddy current testing (7.5 person-rem);
.
In Service Inspection (ISI) activities (3.7 person-rem);
Miscellaneous valve work (7.5 person-rem); and
-
I Steam generator work (initial equipment staging, platform installation / removal,
.
and manway removal / installation) (9.3 person-rem).
ALARA staff performed ALARA reviews on those jobs where the estimated total dose was greater than one person-rem. The inspectors reviewed several ALARA plans and noted that the plans appropriately considered the work to be performed, job location, lessons leamed, previous evolutions' exposures, and contingency plans. In addition, the ALARA staff designated certain initiatives and comments that were to be incorporated into the radiation work permits (RWPs) as special instructions. The inspectors reviewed several RWPs, noted that they were detailed, including appropriate special instructions, protective clothing requirements, shielding requirements, dose and dose rate limits, and contingency plans for unexpected dose rates or contamination levels.
Post-Job briefings were planned for those jobs that had ALARA reviews. In addition,' the i
ALARA staff intended to perform evaluations of all jobs where the actual dose exceeded the estimated dose by greater than 0.5 person-rem. More formal evaluations, including discussions with work groups, to determine improvements for future evolutions to reduce
dose, were planned forjobs with actual doses that exceeded the estimated dose by
'
more than 1.0 person-rem. The inspectors discussed the importance of reviewing those
_ jobs where the actual dose was significantly under the estimated dose, to identify those j
activities that reduced dose and determine if the dose estimates and work hour estimates.were faulty. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' discussion and indicated it also planned to review those jobs. In addition, the licensee was compiling a list of lessons leamed from the outage based on feedback from station and contractor
,
<
a
.
personnel and from the technicians covering job evolutions. These lessons learned were to be incorporated into the planning process for the Unit 2 refueling outage scheduled for October 1999.
The Radiological Protection (RP) staff developed a collective dose goal of 110 person-rem for the B1R09 outage, based on the original scope of work. The licensee revised the total outage dose goal to 126 person-rem, based on emergent work involving the pressurizer valves, a loop stop isolation valve, and a loop stop bypass valve. This emergent work accounted for 18 person-rem. An additional dose (4 person-rem) was attributed to radiation protection staff support, set up of steam 9enerator platforms and equipment in containment during the crud burst, an additional reactor head lift due to a loop stop isolation valve repair, and a new style of manway bolts which required additional installation efforts. The licensee's outage dose as of April 22,1999, was 132 person-rem.
The station initiated steps to reduce the number of personnel contamination events (PCEs) during the B1R09 outage. These steps included the following: (1) increasing management involvement in efforts to reduce the incidence of PCEs; (2) a pre-outage stand-down during which radiation protection personnel emphasized good radiation worker practices; (3) establishing zone technicians to provide oversight in designated areas of the plant; and (4) adopting industry practices recommended by a team of corporate personnel. As a result of these initiatives, the number of PCEs during B1R09 significantly decreased in comparison to the last outage. The licensee reported 35 PCEs during the first month of B1R09, in comparison to 124 PCEs reported during the first month of the previous outage. Based on the number of PCEs that occurred during the outage, the licensee expected to meet the station goal of 140 PCEs during 1999.
c.
Conclusions Although the outage dose goal was exceeded, the licensee adequately evaluated planned work activities and integrated past performance to prepare dose estimates and goals, for the B1R09 refueling outage. ALARA plans were detailed and included special instructions and lessons leamed from previous job evolutions. The licensee effectively initiated steps to reduce the number of personnel contamination events during the outage.
R.1.2 Liould and Gaseous Effluent Monitorina Proarams a.
Insoection Scooe (IP S4750)
The inspectors evaluated whether effluent releases were properly quantified and controlled at the site. Specifically, the inspectors interviewed radiation protection and engineering personnel and reviewed 1997 and 1998 annual effluent release reports, 1999 monthly effluent release reports, and procedures followed during liquid and gaseous effluent releases.
4
L
.
.
b.
Observations and Findinos The inspectors reviewed the procedures used to calculate the concentration of radionuclides released to the environment and associated public doses and determined that the station's methodology for quantifying effluent releases was technically sound.
For liquid batch releases, the licensee utilized a spreadsheet calculation that limited the effluent release rate to maintain effluent radioactivity concentrations below 50 percent of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B limits. The inspectors' independent calculations confirmed that the spreadsheet calculations were accurate. Additionally, documentation of gaseous and effluent releases indicated that associated procedures were technically valid and appropriately applied by station personnel. According to radiation protection personnel, station staff ensured that representative samples were obtained before releases through mixing the contents of effluent hold up tanks, in accordance with the recommendations of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21. The station utilized a software program that calculated an estimated public dose based on Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology. The licensee's
,
corporate office had reverified the accuracy of the software at the end of 1998.
)
'
The licensee estimated the quantities of difficult to measure isotopes in liquid and gaseous effluents through a composite sampling program. Licensee personnel collected samples from each waste stream daily and submitted a composite sample to a contractor for analysis monthly. As a consequence, analysis results were not always obtained before effluent releases. The licensee's data showed that the concentration of most difficult to measure isotopes was typically less than the lower limit of detection;
therefore it was unlikely that regulatory limits would be unknowingly exceeded.
J However, licensee management agreed that estimating the concentration of difficult to
'
measure isotopes before effluent releases, would provide additional assurance that i
pertinent regulatory limits were not exceeded during changing plant conditions. The licensee planned to investigate methods for estimating the concentrations of difficult to
)
measure nuclides.
The inspectors' review of annual and monthly effluent rele'ase reports indicated that estimated dose to the public due to station effluent releases was well below regulatory limits. During 1997 through 1999, the maximum dose to a member of the public due to gaseous and liquid effluents was 0.01 millirem, which was less than 0.5 percent of the applicable limit provided in 10 CFR, Part 50. The steam generator replacement during July through December 1997 created the following new effluent release pathways:
(1) Temporary decontamination building; (2) Temporary containment access for steam generator movement; (3) Maintaining the main steam isolation valves room doors open; and (4) Maintaining the radioactive waste building doors open. Releases from these additional pathways did not contribute significantly to public doses, and no additional abnormal releases were noted. Although the licensee tracked the accumulated public dose to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20 limits, station personnel did not compare current and previous annual calculated public dose to identify commonalities and
~
_
.
.
variances in the data. These program elements would provide additional assurance that the dose to the public from station effluents was ALARA. Radiation protection management personnel agreed that formal trending of the public dose would provide a mechanism for proactively identifying problems with the effluent control program, and planned to trend the calculated public dose in the future.
c.
Conclusions The licensee implemented a technically sound effluent relesse program, and estimated public dose due to radioactive effluent releases were well below regulatory limits.
R1.3 Radioloalcal Environmental Monitorina Proaram (REMP)
a.
Inspection Scope (IP 84750)
.
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) including the 1997 Annual Monitoring Report, the Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), applicable procedures, interviews with cognizant individuals, and observed the collection of environmental air and water samples, b.
Observations and Findinas The REMP program was implemented as described in station procedure QCAP 0610-01, Revision 4, " Environmental Monitoring Program," and in chapters 11 and 12 of the ODCM. The inspectors reviewed the ODCM and determined that there were no significant changes that affected environmental monitoring. The program was well implemented by a contract vendor and effectively overseen by the radiation protection staff.
The collection of environmental samples was performed by a contract technician. The inspectors observed the collection of air particulate filter samples and noted that the instrumentation was operable, in good material condition, and was appropriately calibrated. During these observations, the inspectors observed the contract technician conduct an air in-leakage test of an air sampling filter train. The technician observed an unacceptable in-leairage and took appropriate steps to identify the problem and institute corrective actions. The technician identh'ed that the air sampling charcoal cartridge sealing surface was dented, causing the leak. Once the cartridge was replaced, the leak test was performed with an acceptable result. The inspectors also observed the i
collection of surface water samples from the Rock River. The contractor appropriately collected the sample in accordance with the procedure. During discussions with the contractor, the inspectors determined that the individual was knowledgeable of the j
sampling procedure.
'
- The inspectors reviewed the 1997 annual monitoring report and concluded that it complied with ODCM requirements. Environmeatal samples had been collected and analyzed and any sample anomalies and their corrective actions were documented. The land use census was performed as required. The environmental sampling data indicated no discernable radiological impact on the environment from the operation of the facility.
f..
,
.
c.
Conclusions The radiological environmental monitoring program was well implemented by contractor personnel who were knowledgeable of the sampling procedure. Material condition of the air sampling equipment was good. Environmental sample results did not indicate any discemable environmental effects from plant operations.
R2 Status of Radiological Protection and Chemistry Facilities and Equipment R.2.1 Process and Effluent Radiation Monitorina Instrumentation a.
Insoection Scope (IP 84750)
l The inspectors reviewed the calibrations and operability of the liquid and gaseous process and effluent radiation monitors. This review included a walkdown of the radiation monitors, a review of a selective calibration records and procedures,
' observations of a channel operability surveillance, and interviews with system engineers.
b.
Observations and Findinas
,
The inspectors noted that the station staff appropriately performed calibrations and equipment operability tests. Calibration records reviewed indicated that calibrations and equipment operability tests were performed in accordance with pertinent procedures and at the frequency required by the ODCM. The station's calibration methodology was based on sound health physics practices, in that alarm set points were established to ensure regulatory limits were not exceeded, calculations were accurately performed, and any necessary adjustments were properly conducted. In addition, station personnel indicated that problem identification forms were generated to document and resolve any equipment problems identified.
The inspectors noted that the licensee's calibration procedure did not include a provision to ensure that the detectors would respond appropriately to the actual mixture of radionuclides and source geometry expected during a release. Specifically, the station l
compared the activity measured by the effluent radiation monitors to the activity of a solid cesium-137 or cobalt-60 calibration source. Regulatory Guide 1.21 states that conducting a comparison of monitor readings to grab samples of effluents released should be performed, because the detector response may differ depending on the energy of the isotopes measured and the geometrical configuration of the source.
i Licensee management agreed with this observation, and planned to evaluate the need for a secondary verification of detector response.
The inspectors found that the radiation monitors were in good material condition, and that the station maintained programs for tracking operability of the monitors. During walk downs of the process and effluent radiation monitors, the inspectors noted that the monitors were in acceptable condition and observed few work request tags on the instruments. The inspectors observed a channel operability surveillance on the l
component cooling heat exchanger outlet radiation monitor and noted that the instrument alarmed at the applicable set points, and that the equipment was isolated upon alarm
!
!
.
.
initiation, as designed. Personnel performing the surveillance were knowledgeable regarding the purposes of various steps of the procedure, alarm set points and tolerances, and equipment performance.
The station maintained a database that tracked out of service detectors. A system
,
engineer trended this information to detect common failures. This trending identified several design issues with specific process radiation monitors, which the licensee had corrected. The inspectors reviewed the out-of-service database information for the past two years, and verified the trends noted by the system engineer. In addition, in October 1998 the licensee began tracking monitors that were out of tolerance during calibrations.
Although there were a significant number of process and effluent out of tolerances noted, the licensee's preliminary analysis of the failures indicated that they were due to overly conservative performance criteria. The licensee was investigating this issue, and expected to definitively determine the cause of the failures as the tracking system developed. The inspectors' review of these tracking systems did not identify any generic issues.
c.
Conclusions Overall, the proper calibration and effective tracking of instrument operability ensured that liquid and gaseous process and effluent radiation monitors accurately measured radioactivity in station effluents. One weakness was noted with the station's calibration methodology, in that it did not include verification of accurate instrument response to the types of radionuclides or the geometry present during release conditions.
i R2.2 Y;::arciocical Monitorina Instrumentation a.
Inspection Scope UP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the operability of the meteorological instrumentation at the
)
meteorological met tower. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed instrument performance i
trends and calibration and maintenance records, discussed instrument performance with the cognizant radiation protection staff, and observed the calibration of the met tower instrumentation.
]
b.
Observations and Findinos The licensee maintained a met tower near the station to provide weather information for the purposes of offsite dose projections and emergency response actions. The met tower measured temperature, wind speed, and wind direction at 30 and 250 feet elevations. A vendor implemented the monitoring program and provided monthly data reports to the station.
The vendor performed monthly visits to the met tower to gather data, review the condition of monitoring equipment, and conduct scheduled maintenance activities. The vendor performed quarterly in-place calibrations of the temperature, wind speed, and wind direction detectors. The inspectors observed a quarterly calibration and noted that contractor personnel were knowledgeable regarding the calibration process and the monitoring instrumentation. During the monitoring instrumentation calibration,
-
.
Instruments were found to be within the calibration criteria and the contractor did not identify any problems with the equipment. The inspectors reviewed monthly vendor reports for 1998 and 1999 with no problems noted.
c.
Conclusions Meteorological tower instrumentation surveillances and calibrations were appropriately performed and contractor personnel were know!sdgeable regarding the monitoring equipment and the calibration process. The meteorological monitoring equipment was maintained in good material condition.
R2.3 Radioloaical Postinos. Labelina. and Housekeepina a.
Insoection Scope (IP 83750)
The inspectors performed walkdowns of the radiologically posted area (RPA) to review radiological postings, labeling of containers, housekeeping, and material condition of radiation protection equipment.
b.
Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed that radiological postings and boundaries in the RPA were generally well ma!Mained. The inspectors verified, through independent measurements, that radiological postings reflected the actual area radiological conditions. Containers in the auxiliary building were labeled in accordance with station procedures and regulatory requirements. Material condition of radiation protection equipment was good.
During a walkdown of the radioactive waste building, the inspectors noted a significant improvement in housekeeping regarding the amount of processed radioactive waste stored in the building compared with the previous radiation protection inspection in October 1998 (Inspection Report 50-454/455/98021(DRS)). The inspectors also noted that there were no bags of radioactive waste waiting to be sorted. Discussions with radiation protection management revealed that all radioactive waste generated during the day was sorted the following moming and that the sorted trash was surveyed daily and placed into storage either daily or every other day. Discussions revealed that the staff was aware of the expectation that radioactive waste would be sorted daily and placed into the proper storage location.
The inspectors also noted, during the walkdown of the radioactive waste building, that l
the building's truck bay contained many drums and containers. Discussions with I
radioactive waste staff revealed that most of the drums and containers were related to the recently completed outage, and that the drums and containers were scheduled to be
moved to storage locations within the next two weeks.
I
.
.
.
c.
Conclusions Radiological postings and container labeling were well maintained and appropriately informed workers of current station radiological conditions. Material condition of radiation protection equipment was good. Overall, housekeeping was good and there was a significant improvement in the timely processing of radioactive waste stored in the radioactive waste building.
R7 Quality Assurance in Radiological Protection and Chemistry activities R7.1 Quality Assurance Prooram implementation a.
Inspection Scope (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the nuclear oversight group's quality assurance program implementation related to the radiation protection program. This included reviews of the new quality assurance audit plan, surveillances and assessments of the liquid and gaseous effluents and the REMP programs, and radiation protection activities. This review also included discussions with cognizant radiation protection and nuclear oversight staff.
b.
Observations and Findinos l
The licensee implemented a new master audit plan in the first quarter of 1999. This plan included a plant support section on radiation protection activities and included 19 critical areas to be reviewed. These areas were reviewed on either a one or two-year
- frequency. The plan was to perform an audit of plant support activities every quarter; for example, during September 1999, the audit was scheduled to include corrective actions and self assessments, management e#ectiveness, effluent releases, sampling practices, and transportation of radioactive materials. The inspectors reviewed the planning schedule and noted that the schedule included quarterly audits of plant support activities through December 2000. The inspectors concluded the new audit plan was sufficiently detailed to identify deficiencies and areas for improvement.
The inspectors reviewed radiation protection program audits performed in 1998 and 1999, determining that the audits were of sufficient scope and depth to identify deficiencies. The 1998 audit reviewed the radiation protection organization and administration, intema'. and extemal communication, qualifications of radiation protection staff, surveys, control of radioactive sources, exposure control, radiation worker practices, and source term reduction. The audit concluded that radiation protection staff performance had improved since the 1997 audit; however, the audit identified several areas where improvements were warranted. Radiation protection management had daveloped and was implementing corrective actions for these findings. The 1999 audit reviewed the REMP and the ODCM, including training of the meteorological contractor technicians, material condition of eouipment, meteorological tower building
I
-
housekeeping, and environmental sampling. The audit concluded that these activities were effectively implemented, with only a few minor deficiencies, which were being adequately addressed by radiation protection management. Through the audit reviews, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's findings were similar to the inspectors'
'
findings.
The nuclear oversight staff also performed an audit of plant support corrective actions.
The purpose of the audit was to verify the adequacy and effectiveness of the corrective actions associated with deficiencies identified during audits by nuclear oversight staff.
The audit determined that corrective action identification, implementation, and effectiveness were acceptable.
c.
Conclusions The new master audit plan was detailed and ensured that critical areas of the radiation
'
protection program were reviewed over a two-year period. Audits were of sufficient i
scope and depth to identify deficiencies and areas where improvements were warranted.
Corrective actions to identified deficiencies were being effectively developed and implemented by the radiation protection staff.
R8 Miscellaneous Radiological Protection and Chemistry issues R8.1 (Closed) VIO 50-454/455-97023-02: A work crew was found loitering, with one worker sleeping, in Unit 1 containment during the steam generetor replacement. Corrective actions included escorting the work crew out of containment, revoking radiological area access to the worker found sleeping, reminding the remaining workers of the rules of conduct in a radiologically posted area, and instructing all job supervisors of the station's policy to prevent loitering in radiologically posted areas. In April 1998, during the Unit 2 outage, in the licensee's containment coordinator identified several steam generator eddy current testing operators inattentive to duties at their job location in containment; therefore, this item remained open. During the Unit 1 outage in April 1999, sleeping, i
loitering or inattention to duties by outage workers was not observed by the licensee. In
'
addition, the inspectors did not identify any concems relating to workers loitering in containment. This item is closed.
R8.2 (Closed) VIO 50-454/455-98010-01: Failure to post a radiation area surrounding a sodium-24 source. Immediate corrective action to post the area as a radiation area.
Additional corrective action included counseling the technician, who had performed the j
original survey of the sodium-24 source, on the expectations of roping and posting radiological areas as stated in procedure BRP 5010-01, " Radiological Posting and Labeling Requirements." The incident was also discussed with all technicians, with an emphasis on complying with the procedure. These corrective actions were reviewed by the inspectors and appeared to have been effective in preventing recurrence. This item is closed.
.
R8.3 (Closed) VIO 50-454/455-98010-02: Release of radioactive material offsite. The licensee unconditionally released two items offsite in February 1998, which had removable contamiration greater than the limit stated in procedure BAP 720-3, Revision 18, * Control of Materials for Conditional or Unconditional Release from
L
j
.
Radiologically Posted Areas." Corrective actions included discussing the events, including their cause, with all radiation protection staff. In addition, the applicable procedures and controls were reviewed, which were acceptable. The corrective actions were effective in preventing recurrence. This item is closed.
R8.4 (Closed) VIO 50-454/455-98010-05: Poor radiation worker practices. During the
'
April 1998 Unit 2 outage, several poor radiation worker practices were identified in violation of BRP 5000-7, Revision 7, " Unescorted Access To and Conduct in Radiologically Posted Areas." Corrective actions included counseling the individuals involved on proper work practices, having radiation protection staff discuss radiation worker practices during pre-job briefings, meeting with all maintenance and construction personnel to discuss good radiation worker practices, and increasing radiation protection technicians awareness of radiation worker practices during the second quarter 1998 re-qualification training. The corrective actions were effective in preventing a recurrence of poor radiation worker practices during the April 1999, Unit 2 outage. This item is closed.
R8.5 (Closed) IFl 50-454/455-98021-01: Lack of attention to processing radioactive waste and poor housekeeping in the radioactive waste building. During a tour of the radioactive waste building, the inspectors noted a large amount of processed radioactive waste stored in a non contaminated area of the building. The inspectors noted that some of these bags were not labeled, while others had holes in them. Dates on some bags were from June 1998, indicating that radioactive waste had been accumulating for several months. The inspectors also noted a large amount of processed radioactive waste stored in a contaminated area of the building and a third large area of radioactive waste waiting to be processed. During a walkdown of the radioactive waste building the inspectors noted a significant improvement in housekeeping regarding the amount of processed waste stored in the building as discussed in Section R2.3 of this report. This item is closed.
V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary
>
The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on April 23,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify any information discussed as proprietary.
L
p
.
.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee
,
B. Adams, Regulatory Assurance Manager R. Colgiazier, NRC Coordinator
. A. Creamean, Lead ALARA Coordinator W. Grundmann, Chemistry Manager
,
' W. Israel, Nuclear Oversight Manager J. Kuczynski, Lead Health Physicist, Technical j
W. Levis, Site Vice President i
R. Lopriore, Site Manager W. McNeill, Radiation Protection Manager NRC i
B. Kemker, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 83750:
Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 84750:
Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
- IP 92904:
Followup - Plant Support LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed I
50-454/455-97023-02 VIO Worker sleeping in containment 50-454/455-98010-01 VIO Failure to post a Radiation Area 50-454/455-98010-02 VIO Radioactive material offsite 50-454/455-98010-05 VIO Poor radiation worker practices l
50-454/455-98021-01 IFl Lack of attention to processing radioactive waste Discussed None
L'
p
'
.
,
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ALARA As-Low-As-Is-Reasonably-Achievable CFR Code of Federal Regulations DRS-Division of Reactor Safety IP inspection Procedure NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM
'Offsite Dose Calculation Manual PCEs Personnel Contamination Events PDR Public Document Room REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report RPA Radiologically Posted Area RWP Radiation Work Permit
,
I
u
p o
,
.
..
. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Procedures.
BAP 700-1, Rev. 8, ALARA Program BAP 700-2, Rev.14, ALARA Action Review NSP-RP-6102, Rev. 2, Station responsibilities for Comed's Meteorological Program and REMP BISR 11.a.4-200, Rev. 2, Surveillance Calibration of Liquid Effluent Radiation Monitor BISR 11.b.4-200, Rev.1,- Surveillance Calibration of Auxiliary Building Vent Stack Effluent Radiation Monitor OBISR 11.b.4-200, Rev.1, Surveillance Calibration of Dual Gas Channel Radiation Monitor 2BISR 11.a.3-001, Rev.1, Channel Operation Test of Component Cooling Heat Exchanger -
.
Outlet Radiation Monitor 2PR09J
Audits EP/REMP/ODCM Audit, Comed-98-03 Radiation Protection Audit,1998 Plant support Corrective Actions, NOA-06-99-010 l
Miscellaneous
'
ALARA Action Review Log for 1999 ALARA Action Review, RWP 991830/1831 ALARA Action Review, RWP 991582 ALARA Action Review Post Job Report, RWP 991830/1831
- ALARA Brief Checklist, RWP 991582 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report,1997 and 1998 BIR09 Over Dose Justification Monthly Reports, Meteorology Monitoring Program,1998 and 1999 Nuclear Oversight Master Audit Plan Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev.1.1 REMP Quarterly Surveillance Environmental Vendor Checks for 1998 Sample Collector Evaluation Teledyne Midwest Laboratory, Sampling Procedures Manual, Rev. 3
i l
l
,
L