ML003711014
| ML003711014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/2000 |
| From: | Ronald Bellamy Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | Doering J PECO Energy Co |
| Dimitriadis A | |
| References | |
| -RFPFR IR00-001 | |
| Download: ML003711014 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-1415 April 28, 2000 Docket No.
05000171 License No.
DPR-12 John Doering, Jr.
Vice President PECO Energy Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1848 Lay Road Delta, PA 17314-9032
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION NO. 05000171/2000-001
Dear Mr. Doering:
On March 8, 2000, Anthony Dimitriadis of this office conducted a safety inspection at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 of activities authorized by the above listed NRC license.
Mr. Dimitriadis was accompanied by the NRCs project manager for Peach Bottom Unit 1, Mr.
Stewart Brown. The inspection was an examination of your licensed activities as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Commissions regulations and the technical specifications. The inspection consisted of observations by the inspector, interviews with personnel, and a selected examination of representative records. Additional information provided in telephone conversations on March 31, 2000 and April 11, 2000 between Steve Beck and Joseph Volz of your organization and Mr. Dimitriadis of this office were also examined as part of the inspection. The findings of the inspection were discussed with Steve Beck of your staff on March 8, 2000 at the conclusion of the inspection.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were identified.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRCs Rules and Practices, Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room. No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Original signed by Ronald R. Bellamy Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Decommissioning and Laboratory Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
Enclosure:
NRC Inspection Report No. 05000171/2000-001
J. Doering, Jr.
2 PECO Energy cc w/encl:
Andy Winter, Manager, Experience Assessment Steve C. Beck, Regulatory Engineer Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
J. Doering, Jr.
3 PECO Energy Distribution w/encl:
J. Shea, OEDO S. Brown, NMSS DOCUMENT NAME: C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: C = Copy w/o attach/encl E = Copy w/ attach/encl N = No copy OFFICE DNMS/RI N DNMS/RI NAME ADimitriadis/ad RBellamy/rrb DATE 4/28/00 4/28/00 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Document Name: C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I INSPECTION REPORT Inspection No.
05000171/2000-001 Docket No.
05000171 License No.
DPR-12 Licensee:
PECO Energy Location:
1848 Lay Road Delta, PA 17314-9032 Inspection Dates:
March 8, 2000 Date Follow up Information Received:
April 11, 2000 Original signed by:
04/28/2000 Inspector:
Anthony Dimitriadis date Health Physicist Original signed by:
04/28/2000 Approved By:
Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief date Decommissioning and Laboratory Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
1 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
PECO Energy Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report No. 05000171/2000-001 This routine decommissioning inspection included a review of management oversight and control, facilities and equipment, radiation protection, posting and labeling, and independent measurements by the inspector. The licensee does not plan to begin actual decommissioning activities on this Unit until approximately 2015. Some limited decommissioning work was done from 1974 through 1978 during shutdown and shipment of fuel. Currently, the licensee conducts semi-annual surveillance activities of the facility and focuses on assuring that the site is free from structural deficiencies and that no abnormal conditions exist.
Management Oversight and Control The organizational structure and staffing levels of the facility appeared effective in conducting the decommissioning and surveillance activities currently in place. Licensee management appears to be expending adequate resources on the semi-annual surveillance activities.
Facilities and Equipment The licensees surveillance test team verified that the fence and entry gates were locked in accordance with the surveillance test procedures. The team also checked in the containment building for the presence of water. The licensee could improve the lighting in numerous areas of the containment building where there was reduced lighting or none present.
Radiation Protection The licensee provided good radiological controls for access to Unit 1 and all work in the restricted and unrestricted areas. Licensee surveys of the exclusion areas were performed in a well planned and organized manner. The licensee used operable and properly calibrated survey instruments.
Posting and Labeling The licensee provided adequate posting and labeling throughout the site in a manner that clearly identified all hazards.
Independent Measurements Independent radiological measurements were made by the NRC inspector and confirmed exposure rates measured by the licensee. Wipe samples collected by the inspector in clean areas of the plant and analyzed in the Region I Analytical Laboratory indicated no removable contamination.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations of NRC requirements were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
2 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd The Peach Bottom, Unit 1 facility is in a SAFSTOR condition and final decommissioning will not occur until 2015 when the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 are tentatively scheduled for shutdown and decommissioning. The Unit 1 reactor is defueled and no fuel remains on site. Few radiological concerns exist for the licensee. The facility has been shut down for over 26 years.
Licensee management appears to be expending adequate resources on the execution of surveillance activities, surveys, posting and labeling, and ALARA practices.
I. Management Oversight and Control a.
Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the licensees systems for overall facility management and control of the Unit 1 responsibilities. The licensees organization, staffing, and qualifications were reviewed and evaluated to verify that licensing commitments were being met.
b.
Observations and Findings Unit 1 Technical Specifications require that a semi-annual inspection/surveillance test be performed of the exclusion area in the containment building.
The Radiation Protection group conducts the actual surveillance activities which are reported to the Plant Manager, who has the responsibility for all Unit 1 functions. The inspector met with the Plant Manager and licensee staff during the entrance meeting of the inspection. The inspector reviewed a copy of the surveillance test procedure and Technical Specifications for Unit 1. The staff had reviewed the work activities including the radiological data, estimated man-hours, type of work and considered engineering controls and protective equipment. The team had informed the security department of the beginning of the surveillance test. The team had been trained and well prepared for the surveillance evolution and answered all of the inspectors questions.
c.
Conclusions The semi-annual inspections and assessments were performed in a well planned and professional manner. The team was prepared and properly equipped to perform the surveillance test as specified in the technical specifications.
II.
Facilities and Equipment a.
Inspection Scope The inspector walked the perimeter of the containment building and observed the exclusion barrier surrounding the reactor building. The inspector observed the lighting, ventilation and general housekeeping conditions of the containment building.
b.
Observations and Findings
3 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd The inspector observed licensee staff obtain the confined space entry permit for entry into Unit 1 containment. The team energized the lights in the areas of inspection, verified that the gate in the exclusion area fence and personnel access door was locked, and looked for any abnormal conditions. The HP technicians were equipped with survey meters, flash lights and two-way radios. The team verified that the containment personnel access air lock door was locked and checked for the presence and amount of water in the containment sump. The inspector observed no water present in the containment sump.
Prior to entry into the containment personnel access air lock door, the licensee posted a team member outside the containment building for support and emergency notification via two-way radio. The inspector observed a noticeable reduction in lighting since the last inspection throughout the containment building. Improvement in lighting could prevent any potential trips and falls, and reduce the amount of time spent in the containment building.
All areas were generally clean and well maintained for a facility that has been shut down for 26 years. No combustible materials were observed.
c.
Conclusions The containment building had low lighting, and in several areas, no lighting at all. The licensee could improve the lighting in numerous areas in the containment building. The licensees housekeeping and overall control of the facility were well established to address the existing hazards.
III.
Radiation Protection a.
Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the licensees radiation survey and contamination control program, reviewed the licensees instrumentation, interviewed Radiation Protection personnel, and toured restricted areas in the containment building.
b.
Observations and Findings Radiation Protection staff obtained a confined space permit for entry into Unit 1 containment in accordance with their Industrial Safety & Health Manual. The procedures require that at least one person shall be an ANSI qualified Health Physics Technician. The inspector verified that one of the members of the surveillance team was ANSI qualified. The workers wore hard hats, safety glasses and safety shoes/boots. Individual workers were observed wearing external and self-reading dosimeters.
The inspector observed personnel performing radiation safety surveys and examined the instruments used by the licensee for surveys and monitoring, and observed that they were operable, suited for the survey and calibrated. The radiation levels in the general area in the containment building measured approximately 8-12 micro-roentgens per
4 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd hour (µR/hr), which closely coincided with the inspectors measurements. The technicians obtained ten contamination smears in various locations including the Chemistry Laboratory Office, Chemistry Laboratory, counting room and the refueling floor.
The inspector observed the HP technicians conducting frisking surveys upon exit of the restricted areas. The instruments used included an RM-14 survey meter connected to an HP-210 probe for gamma contamination. A Bicron Model Delta 5 was used for contamination with an alpha/beta probe during frisk out upon exit from the containment building. The inspector observed licensee staff inspect the exclusion area barriers and gates to ensure that the integrity and locking apparatus were intact.
The survey team performed air monitoring in the containment building with a high volume air sampler.
In addition, the licensee monitored for oxygen and hazardous gases by using an oxygen/carbon-monoxide analyzer.
The inspector checked the calibration of the air sampler and found that the equipment was calibrated. All air samples taken during the surveillance test yielded no detectable activity. According to the licensees procedures, if the air concentrations exceed 30% of the derived air concentration (DAC), workers are not permitted to enter the containment building and are required to follow the station procedures for resuming activities, which includes donning respiratory protection.
The licensee provided good radiological controls for the surveillance test/entry into containment building restricted areas as outlined in the Technical Specifications.
c.
Conclusions Licensee surveys of restricted areas and stations were thorough in assessing the radiological conditions. No violations or safety concerns were identified.
IV.
Posting and Labeling a.
Inspection Scope Posting and labeling of the facility areas were reviewed.
b.
Observations and Findings During the facility walkdown, the inspector observed that exclusion barriers had been established on the perimeter of the restricted areas around the containment building and verified that they were conspicuously posted with the appropriate signs as required by 10 CFR 20.1902.
The licensee had posted an NRC Form 3 on a bulletin board in the main lobby of the training facility, an area where individuals would pass through to gain entrance to Unit 1.
5 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd c.
Conclusions The licensee provided good posting and labeling throughout the site in a manner that clearly informed all occupants of the hazards.
V. Independent Measurements a.
Inspection Scope The inspector obtained numerous independent measurements and wipe samples to verify that the licensees measurements are valid and reproducible and to ensure that removable contamination was not present throughout the facility.
b.
Observations and Findings The inspector took gamma exposure rate measurements during the inspection, in the containment building and outside the exclusion zone. The measurements were made with a Ludlum Micro-R meter and Ion Chamber (NRC Serial No. 033514 and 027853 respectively) calibrated to cesium-137.
Background exposure rates were measured at six locations with a Ludlum Micro-R meter (NRC tag no. 033514) and ranged from 5 to 7µR/hr. The highest gamma exposure rate measured in the restricted area was 0.9 mR/hr in the vicinity of valve 1S solenoid on the refueling floor in the containment building. The highest exposure rate in the unrestricted area (outside the exclusion area fence), was 7 µR/hr, which was equivalent to background.
The inspector took wipe samples from various locations in the exclusion area for analysis by the NRC. The wipe samples were analyzed by the Region I laboratory on a Tennelec Model LB-5100 gas flow proportional counter for gross alpha and gross beta activities. The samples were counted for 1200 seconds in planchettes with efficiencies for alpha and beta detection of 21.3% and 26.7% respectively. The wipe samples contained no removable contamination.
c.
Conclusions The general area radiation levels measured by the inspector were consistent with the licensees measurements. The wipes results indicate no removable contamination from the licensees exclusion area.
6 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd VI.
Exit Meeting The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on March 8, 2000, and during a telephone conversation on March 31, 2000.
The licensee did not discuss any personal privacy, proprietary or safeguards information with the inspector.
7 Inspection Report No. 050171/001 C:\\ldpr-12.001.05032000.wpd PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee
- Dennis Burgard - Experience Assessment
- Steve Beck - Experience Assessment Mark Warner - Plant Manager
- Joseph Volz - Radiation Protection Supervisor
- Jerry Phillabaum - Licensing S. Chris Baker - Chemistry/Radwaste Vince LaMantia - Security Scott Lilley - H.P. Technician J.R. Poteet - HP Technician
- Ned Weisenreader - HP Supervisor Andy Wink - Experience Assessment Manager NRC Stewart W. Brown - Project Manager The asterisk denotes the individuals present at the Exit Meeting conducted on March 8, 2000.