ML18114A545
| ML18114A545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Stallings C Virginia Power (Virginia Electric & Power Co) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18114A547 | List: |
| References | |
| 348, NUDOCS 7905110087 | |
| Download: ML18114A545 (34) | |
Text
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 23261 May 8, 1979 Hr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Hr. Denton:
Serial No. 348 PO/HSM:wbh Docket Nos. 50-280 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 Enclosed herein, pursuant to the license conditions issued under Amendment No. 46 to the operating license for Surry Power Station, is Progress Report No. 1 describing the occupational exposure expended, the dose reduction tech-niques employed and their effectiveness, and the radioactive effluents and solid waste generated by the steam generator replacement activities.
This re-port covers the period February 3, 1979 through March 31, 1979.
As explained in our letter of :May 2, 1979 this report and reports hereafter will be based on two (2) calendar months rather than 60 days.
The second progress report will cover the period of April 1, 1979 through May 31, 1979 with an anticipated sub-mittal date of June 30, 1979.
If you have any questions on this matter, we *would be please to meet with your staff at their convenience.
HSH/wbh cc:
Mr. James P. 0 1Reilly, Director Very truly yours, V. J.i)7 -, (;-.~ ";'.
.. / // /,/;-'. b1Zlt-lU-<.PJ/.,Y
~* V l
C. M. Stallings Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations Office of Inspection and Enforcement - Region II
STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR PROGRAM FOR THE SURRY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 PROGRESS REPORT - NO. 1 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 3, 1979 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1979 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 50-281 LICENSE NOS. DPR-32 DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 7 9 0 5 11 0 tfo<(, '-l
e TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES 2.1 General 2.2 Evaluation of Exposure Data 2.3 Description and Format of Exposure Data 2.4 Conclusions 3.0 APPLICATION OF ALARA PRINCIPLES 3.1 General 3.2 Initial Containment Cleanup 3.3 Shielding Techniques 3.4 Steam Generator Water Level 3.5 Plasma-ARC Cutting Equipment 3.6 Decontamination 3.7 Glove Boxes 3.8 General Techniques 4.0 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS AND SOLID WASTE 4.1 General 4.2 Airborne Releases 4.3 Liquid Releases 4.4 Solid Radioactive Waste
5.0 CONCLUSION
S TABLES Table 1 - Personnel Radiation Exposure Swnmary Table 2 - Report of Radioactive Effluents PAGE NO.
PRl-1 PRl-2 PRl-2 PRl-2 PRl-6 PRl-9 PRl-10 PRl-10 PRl-10 PRl-11 PRI-13 PRl-15 PRl-16 PRl-17 PRl-18 PRl-20 PRl-20 PRl-20 PRl-20 PRl-21 PRl-22
1.0. INTRODUCTION PRl-1 SSGP The Steam Generator Repair Program (SGRP) for Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2 commenced on February 3, 1979.
This initial progress report contains information on the radiological effects of the SGRP and the measures taken to maintain these effects "as low as is reasonably achieveable" (ALARA),
during the period February 3 through March 31, 1979.
During this reporting period, shutdown and preparatory activities were those generally accomplished, although several of the major removal activities were commenced.
Of significance with respect to radiological effects, the major tasks accomplished during the shutdown and preparatory phase included:
defueling, initial con-tainment cleanup and decontamination, installation of temporary shielding, and erection of scaffolding.
The major removal activities commenced during the reporting period included: removal of insulation from the steam generators and associated primary and secondary piping, cutting and removal of reactor coolant piping, cutting of miscellan-eous piping, and cutting of the steam generator upper shells.
The report sections which follow provide an assessment of the occupa-tional exposure expended, the dose reduction techniques employed and their effectiveness, and the radioactive effluents and solid waste generated during the reporting period.
2.0 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES 2.1 General PRl-2 SSGP A major aspect in considering the impact on public health and safety of the SGRP is the exposure of personnel to radiation.
Prior to commencement of the SGRP, an evaluation was performed to estimate the amount of personnel exposure (manrem) required to complete each of the tasks involved.
These estimates were based upon the anticipated labor (manhour) requirements and average radiation dose rates in the work area, and were presented in summary form in Table 5.3-1 of the report entitled "Steam Generator Repair Program", dated August 17, 1977 and amendments thereto, hereafter referred as the SGRP report.
2.2 Evaluation of Exposure Data In order to evaluate the bases and estimates referred to above and, more importantly, to provide an effective feedback mechanism for evaluating exposure reduction and control techniques employed during the performance of particular tasks, a program was esta-blished to compile the necessary manrem vs. task information.
Basically, the program utilizes daily worker exposure data in conjunction with contractor supplied, worker task data to evaluate current manrem expenditures.
A computer maintains the daily expos-ure breakdown for each worker, as recorded by self-reading pocket dosimeters, and, upon receipt of contractor "Activity Reports" list-ing, by worker, the activity(s) and number of hours worked on each, these daily exposures are allocated to the appropriate task.
The
e PRl-3 SSGP activity reports also allow a compilation of the manhours expended on each task.
For the reporting period however, the failure of the major contractor to supply adequate worker task data resulted in an inability to fully implement this program.
Instead, the evaluation of manrem expenditures for tasks performed during the report period was accomplished as follows:
(a)
Estimates of manhours spent on each task within the station restricted area were obtained from the contractor.
(b)
Current radiation survey data was used to determine average exposure rate values for the area in which each task was performed.
(c)
Manrem values for each task were calculated using the data from (a) and (b) above.
(d)
The total, actual manrem received by the contractor's personnel during the report period was.allocated to the tasks involved using the same relative breakdown obtained for the calculated values in (c) above.
The formula used was:
Ni x total actual manrem = manrem allocated to task (i)
IN Where Ni= calculated manrem for task (i), and IN = total calculated manrem.
PRl-4 SSGP The following example illustrates this process:
Avg. Dose Fraction Manhours Rate Calculated of Total Activity Charged (Rem/Hour)
Manrem (Ni)
(Ni/EN)
A 100 0.100 10.0 0.51 B
4500 0.001 4.5 0.23 C
so 0.100 5.0 0.26 TOTAL 4650 19.S(W) 1.00 Assuming an actual total manrem expenditure of 10.0, the allocation to the three activities involved would be:
Activity A
B C
Manrem Expended 5.1 2.3 2.6 Due to the necessity to use the above process to allocate total dose, it was possible to compile the total actual manrem expendi-ture from individual doses measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).
TLDs provide a much more accurate measurement of radiation dose than do self-reading pocket dosimeters, but are normally "read" on a monthly basis rather than daily.
This use of.TLD data reduces considerably the error associated with the total actual manrem value.
e e
I PRl-5 SSGP Several valuable conclusions which have been drawn from this ex-perience, and are the subject of planned, further discussions, are stated here to give a better understanding of the problems.
(i) The large number of workers involved in the project and the concurrent execution of many tasks within the restricted area have made it impractical to provide constant surviellance of all work crews
- to determine exact exposure related labor expenditures.
Moreover, the additional personnel which would be required to accomplish this task would not be prudent from an ALARA standpoint.
(ii) The fact that many of the tasks involve labor both within and outside the restricted area, presents a problem in the accounting process, since this time must be separated in order to arrive at meaningful correlations between manhours and radiation exposure (or manrem).
This problem is compounded further by the additional requirement to accurately assess the portion of time an individual spends in performing the actual task assigned from that time spent in preparation for work (such as donning protective clothing), rest periods, and moving to and from the work area; all of which may be included in the total time charged to the task.
(iii) The most practical solution to the problems stated in (i) &
(ii) appears to lie in placing the prime responsibility for accounting of exposure related manhours on the work crew foremen.
These foremen supervise an average of only 7 workers
PRl-6 SSGP at any one time, and due to their direct involvement in the tasks being performed, are viewed as the most reliable source of detailed manhour information.
This concept was put into practice at the start of the project, but failed to provide adequate information during the report period because insuff-icient emphasis was placed on its importance.
Instructions given to foremen by contractor management on the method of reporting this data were. inadequate.
Retraining of all fore-men was recently performed in an attempt to rectify this problem.
(iv)
The validity of information supplied to the licensee by con-tractors cannot be assumed.
Sufficient auditing and verifica-tion of supplied data must be performed to assure accuracy.
Ways to expand and improve this process are being explored, and are essential to the success of this reporting system.
The assignment of exposures received by minor contractor and station personnel to the actual specific tasks which they performed was pos-sible due to the limited scope of their work, and the relatively small numbers of workers involved.
2.3 Description and Format of Exposure Data Table 1 summarizes the results of the above evaluations and provides the original estimated values for comparison purposes.
The following comments are provided for clarification and should be considered when reviewing the data presented.
PRl-7 SSGP (a)
Several additional tasks performed during the report period which were not reported in Table 5.3-1 of the SGRP report have been included in Table 1.
Similarly, exposures received by personnel performing functions not directly attributable to any one task have been listed separately.
(b)
The manhour values listed in the column labeled "Actual Labor Expended To-Date" are, in most cases, significantly greater than the associated estimates.
The reason for these apparent discrepancies can be largely attributed to the fact that manhour data obtained from contractors included labor expended on associated peripheral or support activities, in addition to the actual labor required to perform the specific task.
The estimated values were not intended to reflect these additional activities.
As an example, the "Shielding" task performed during Phase I was estimated to involve 3600 manhours.
This estimate however, was based solely on the anti-cipated labor required to install the shielding.
The actual labor expended within the restricted area (21,612 manhours), as obtained from the contractors involved, included many hours spent in transporting the shielding material to the work area, in addition to those spent for installation.
Ways to more accurately assess the labor expended in the performance of a specific task involving radia-
PRl-8 SSGP tion exposure are presently being explored, as mentioned previously.
However, due to the s i tua -
tion described, it is impractical to attempt a realistic comparison of the estimated and actual manhour data presented in this report.
(c) It is recognized that the methods employed to allocate the total manrem received by personnel during the re-porting period to the specific,tasks in Table 1, have probably resulted in the assignment of disproportion-ate manrem values to some of the tasks.
Nevertheless, the use of current radiation survey data and the input of individuals knowledgeable in the execution of each task, has, we believe, minimized the error in this pro-cess to the degree possible.
(d)
The column labeled "Task Status" in Table 1 indicates whether or not the task was completed as of the end of the report period.
For tasks completed, it may be assumed that no additional exposure will be expended on that task; thus, a valid comparison can be made between the "Estimated Exposure" and "Actual Exposure Expended To-Date" values.
For tasks still in progress, a realistic comparison of the estimated and "actual to-date" values should not be attempted since additional manrem will be expended during the next report period.
PRI-9 SSGP (e)
The Phase Subtotals listed in Table 1 are cal-culated by a summation of values for completed tasks only.
2.4 Conclusions In concluding this section, it is important to place proper significance on the data presented.
The problems encountered during this initial reporting period are primarily related to the alloca-tion of total manrem exposure to the many discrete tasks performed thus far.
From the standpoint of project documentation, it is essential to resolve these problems to allow more meaningful evaluations of exposure data.
However, the major concern is, and will remain, the committment to maintain occupational radiation exposure to personnel, both individually and collectively, "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
The data presented in this report confirms that this committment is being met.
Total personnel exposure for tasks completed during the reporting period is approxi-mately 25% below the original estimate and, to date, no worker assigned to the Steam Generator Replacement Project has received radiation exposure in excess of federal standards specified in 10CFR20.
Section 3 of this report describes the techniques which have played a major part in accomplishing this objective.
3.0 APPLICATION OF ALARA PRINCIPLES 3.1 General PRl-10 SSGP This section summarizes the specific dose reduction techniques employed during the initial reporting period.
A more detailed discussion of these techniques, and how they relate to the overall steam generator replacement activities can be found in the report entitled "Steam Generator Repair Program", dated August 17, 1977 and amendments thereto.
An evaluation of the effectiveness of these techniques is presented below.
Where the available data permits, these evaluations include a quantitative assessment of the manrem savings which can be attributed to the technique used.
3.2 Initial Containment Cleanup After shutdown and the removal of all fuel from the reactor, a general cleaning of the containment interior was performed to remove loose radioactive contamination in the work areas and thereby reduce the potential for airborne contamination during subsequent activities.
Additional cleaning and debris removal was performed after the biological shield walls and steam generator insulation were removed.
A small work crew has been retained to periodically clean areas and remove debris as the work progresses to avoid excessive buildups.
The exposure received by personnel involved in cleaning activities totaled approximately 23 manrem for this period.
The benefit~* in terms of manrem savings, is difficult to quantify, however, the following observations give some indication as to the favorable results obtained.
PRl-11 SSGP (a)
The use of respiratory protection devices, with their inherent degrading effect on worker efficiency, has rarely been required, except for specific cutting and grinding operations involving contaminated piping or components.
(b)
An extensive whole body counting program, to monitor workers for internal radioactivity, and the use of "Friskers" and portal monitors, to detect radiation on body surfaces, have identified no instances of significant internal or external personnel contamination thus far.
The worker's ability to perform tasks more efficiently, and thus complete them more quickly, has undoubtedly resulted in a reduc,..
tion of the time spent in radiation areas.
Considering the large number of workers involved (approximately 1000),
even a small reduction in individual exposure times can produce significant savings in total manrem.
The initial cleanup effort and the main-tenance of good radiological working conditions is thus considered to meet the objective of ALARA, and has, been successfully applied to the replacement effort.
3.3 Shielding Techniques Extensive use of temporary shielding has been made during the pre-paratory and removal phases of the project.
A separate work package was devoted to the design and installation of shielding, primarily in the lower steam generator cubicles, where piping and components were shielded to achieve minimum exposure levels prior to the start of cutting and removal activities.
After cutting of
PRl-12 SSGP the reactor coolant piping, shield plugs were installed in the steam generator and pipe openings to reduce radiation streaming.
Shielding of components and work areas elsewhere within the containment has been performed whenever an evaluation identified the potential for signi-ficant reductions in total personnel exposure.
Detailed radiation surveys performed prior to and after the install-ation of temporary shielding provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of this technique in achieving an overall dose reduction to personnel.
The major benefit realized thus far from the use of temporary shielding has been observed in the completion of two tasks involving significant personnel exposure.
(a)
Cutting and removal of reactor coolant pipe was reported in Table 1 as requiring the expenditure of about 192 manrem.
Prior to the installation of lead shielding on this pipe, contact exposure rates of 200-1000 mR/hour were measured in the cut areas with an average level of approximately 500 mR/hour.
The application of shielding reduced these radiation levels to between 25 and 300 mR/hour with an average reading of about 75 mR/hour on contact.
This represents an average dose reduction factor of about 7.
Using this factor and the actual exposure value for the task, a postulated expenditure of approximately 1300 manrem would have been required to complete the cutting and removal of reactor coolant pipe without the benefit of shielding.
An assumed savings of approximately 1100 manrem can thus be credited for this task.
e PRl-13 SSGP (b)
The removal of miscellaneous piping in the steam generator cubicles accounted for the expenditure of approximately 56 manrem.
Lead shielding installed prior to this operation typically reduced contact exposure rates from 1800. mR/hour to 400 mR/hour, and from 900 mR/hour to 150 mR/hour.
An average dose reduction factor of about 5 was thus achieved.
Completion of this task without prior shielding would there-fore have required a postulated expenditure of approximately 280 manrem.
credited.
An assumed savings* of about 220 manrem are The exposure received by personnel involved in the installation of temporary shielding tptaled approximately 142 manrem, as seen in Table 1.
When compared to the exposure reductions achieved for the two tasks described above, it is clear that this technique can be of great benefit in maintaining personnel exposures ALARA.
Subsequent progress reports will provide an assessment of further "benefits and costs" which can be attributed to the use of temporary shielding, since reinstallation of removed piping must be accomplished and the exposure received in the removal of this shielding must be considered in the overall evaluation.
3.4 Steam Generator Water Level In the early stages of the Steam Generator Replacement Project, the water level of the secondary system has been maintained at a level covering the tube bundle in order to
- fully utilize the shielding quality of the water in the steam generator.
Historical survey data presented on pages 9.A.3-2 and 9.A.3-3 of the SGRP
PRl-14 SSGP report allow a comparison of the exposure rates obtained with, and without water in the steam generator.
From this data it can be seen that there is an approximate 10 to 1 dose reduction factor for the area of the steam generator above the tubesheet.
Actual surveys performed during the reporting period have confirmed this dose reduction factor.
The high water level will be maintained until the lower portion of the steam generator is ready to be removed from the containment, at which time it will be drained to remove the extra weight.
The dose reduction achieved by use of steam generator water level can be assessed from the exposure data reported for several tasks.
(1)
Removal of Insulation (upper shell, mainsteam and radwater piping).
(2)
Cut and Remove Steam Generator Upper Shell (3)
Cutting of Mainsteam and Feedwater Piping (4)
Disassembly of Steam Generator Supports (5)
Removal of Steam Generator Level Instrumentation and Blowdown Piping.
All of these tasks were performed in areas where the shielding effect of the steam generator water was beneficial.
The total exposure expended during the reporting period for these five tasks was approximately 10 manrem.
The observed dose reduction factor of 10 thus translates into a postulated exposure savings of approximately 90 manrem.
Additional savings will occur during the next reporting period, since tasks (2) and
PRI-15 SSGP*
( 4) were not yet completed.
Virtually no exposure "costs" were required to utilize this technique; therefore, it is certainly in keeping with the concept of ALARA.
3.5 Plasma-Arc Cutting Equipment In order to remove the steam generator lower shell from the containment, sections of the reactor coolant piping must be removed.
A plasma-arc cutting torch was chosen as the means*for performing these cuts.
Plasma-arc has high cutting speed and produces good cut quality for pipe reuse.
The high cutting rate was a primary factor in this choice since faster cutting means reduced exposure times.
During the evaluation of this task, alternate methods such as mechanical cutting and other flame cutting techniques were considered.
These alternatives were estimated to require 1 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per cut, as compared to 15 to 20 minutes for plasma-arc.
In actual use, most of the reactor coolant pipe cuts were performed in approximately 20 minutes with the plasma-arc torch.
One cut required about 30 minutes due to mechanical interference.
Equipment set-up times were estimated to be about the same for all methods considered, since all would require special track mounting to maintain the close tolerances necessary for reuse of the reactor coolant pipe.
The estimated exposure savings attributable to the use of plasma-arc equipment has not been assessed here, since the total manrem reported for the cutting of reactor coolant pipe includes signi-ficant contributions from equipment set-up and pipe removal.
However, this technique has proven value in reducing exposure times and its use confirms the ALARA committment.
e 3.6 Decontamination PRl-16 SSGP Sections of reactor coolant pipe cut from the primary system during the removal phase are decontaminated prior to refurbish-ment and reuse.
The decontamination process being used is elec-tropolishing and is described on page 9.C.3-1 of the SGRP report.
Radiation surveys of the removed pipe sections taken prior to decontamination revealed average contact readings of 5, 000-10, 000 mR/hour.
During the reporting period, *several sections of this pipe underwent decontamination, whereupon subsequent surveys showed average contact readings of 1-5 mR/hour.
Further decontamination activities on the remaining pipe sections are expected to provide similar results.
Based.on these preliminary observations, some projections can be made on the effectiveness of this technique in reducing manrem exposure.
It was estimated, in Table 5. 3-1 of the SGRP report, that about 6800 manhours would be required to reinstall the reactor coolant piping after replacement of the steam generators.
The average radiation level in which this task was performed was assumed to be 10 mR/hour, and thus resulted in estimated personnel exposure of about 68 manrem.
The decontamination results obtained thus far compare reasonably with the reported estimates.
Without decontamination, the installation of reactor coolant piping would require working in average radiation fields of 5,000-10,000 mR/hour (approximately 1000 times the post-decontamination average reading), and would result in a projected personnel exposure of between 34,000 and 68,000 manrem.
The manrem expenditure for
e PRl-17 SSGP pipe decontamination performed during* the reporting period was about 11 manrem and represents approximately one-fourth of the total work to be accomplished in this task.
The projected decontamination "cost" of less than 50 manrem to achieve a dose*
reduction factor of 1000 for the installation activity is obviously one of the most beneficial ALARA techniques employed thus far for the project.
Subsequent progress reports will further assess the actual costs and benefits of this technique as additional tasks are completed.
3.7 Glove Boxes The use of glove boxes to control the spread of airborne radio-active contamination while cutting or grinding small pipe was evaluated during the initial phases of removal.
Ideally, the glove box would allow personnel performing pipe cuts or other related tasks to work without the need for personal respiratory protection, thus increasing efficiency and reducing exposure times.
- However, close monitoring of several cutting operations found that more exposure was expended in installing and removing the glove boxes than in performing the actual pipe cut.
Typical exposures for installation and removal combined were, in some instances, 50 times that received by the worker performing the cut.
Also, cleaning of the pipe surfaces in the cut area has greatly reduced the potential for generating significant air-borne contamination.
Since these observations, the use of glove boxes for pipe cutting and similar tasks is being eval-uated on a case by case basis to determine if such is prudent
from an ALARA standpoint.
PRl-18 SSGP The use of respiratory equipment has been required as a
precautionary measure whenever glove boxes are not used;
- however, these tasks are normally very short (less than 1
hour),
and actual sampling for airborne radioactivity during cutting operations has confirmed that in most cases no significant hazard is created.
3.8* General Techniques In addition to the specific dose reduction techniques described thus far, it is important to note the more gene*ral procedures and. practices which have been implemented to assure adequate control of* occupational radiation exposure and to maintain this exposure ALARA.
These include:
(a)
A comprehensive Health Physics program to provide adequate control and surviellance of the radiation hazards associated with each task.
This program includes the use of Radiation Work Permits (RWP's) to familiarize workers with the specific radiological hazards involved and proper protective measures to be taken in the performance of their work.
(b)
A training program to provide adequate instruction in the biological effects of radiation exposure, radiation protec-tion practices and applicable federal regulations, to all personnel involved in steam generator replacement activi-ties.
Training for specific tasks, using mock-ups, photo-graphs or "dry runs" is conducted where appropriate.
(c)
The use of discrete "Work Packages" to assure adequate
PRl-19 SSGP preplanning and review of specific
- tasks, with special emphasis placed on minimizing the radiation exposure to personnel involved.
(d)
The use of special tools and equipment designed to minimize personnel exposure times by increasing worker efficiency and providing remote handling capability where practicable.
(e)
A consultant has b.een retained to compile an extensive photographic and. video-tape documentary of the* entire steam generator replacement project for Unit No.
- 2. Components, equipment and work areas involved in the major tasks are photographed in detail to record significant events as the tasks progress from start to completion.
Video-tapes are used to record actual operations where complex procedures or equipment is used, or where the activity is repetitive in nature.
When possible, these visual aids are used to familiarize personnel with work situations in which they will be involved and to identify good and bad techniques used previously.
The major benefit anticipated from this program will be its value in training or retraining personnel for the Unit No.
1 Steam Generator Replacement Project.
Improved worker efficiency and task performance,.resulting in lower exposures is the objective.
While it is difficult to quantify the amount of savings attribu-table to the above ttGeneral" techniques, it is evident that significant savings have been effected, especially as related to items (c) and (d).
4.0 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS AND SOLID WASTE 4.1 General PRl-20 SSGP Radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents, and radioactively contaminated solid wastes generated during the steam generator replacement project for Unit No.
2 are attributable to several sources.
In general, these sources can be distinguished with reasonable accuracy from those associated with concurrent operation of Unit No. 1, even though shared processing systems are utilized in some cases.
4.2 Airborne Releases Airborne releases during the reporting period originated primarily from the initial purging of containment following shutdown, coolant de-gassing operations during defueling, and, to a smaller degree, the continuous ventilation of the containment during the repair effort, to maintain a negative pressure while the equipment hat.ch is open.
This continuous ventilat1on is processed through appro-priate filter banks to minimize the concentration of airborne particulates which may.result from activities inside the con-tainment.
4.3 Liquid Releases Small amounts of* liquid wastes were generated during the initial shutdown and defueling phase from draining and sampling operations.
- However, the major contributor to liquid releases during this reporting period is disposal of laundry waste water.
Laundry wastes will remain the predominant source of liquid releases during the remainder of the repair effort.
4.4 Solid Radioactive Waste PRl-21 SSGP The disposal of contaminated insulation, structural material, and piping and components not intended for reuse has been the major source of solid radioactive waste for the reporting period.
- Also, liquids used in decontamination of components and equipment is generally being solidified with cement and shipped for burial as solid waste.
The quantities of radioactive materials released in liquid and gaseous effluents, and the amounts of solid radioactive waste shipped off site for disposal during this reporting period are summarized in Table 2.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S PRl-22 SSGP Based on the evaluations presented herein, it can be concluded that, for the reporting period:
(a)
The ALARA Program originally set forth is being effectively implemented and applied to the steam generator replacement activities.
(b)
The application of exposure reduction techniques has signifi-cantly reduced the amount of personnel exposure that would have otherwise been incurred if these techniques were not employed.
(c)
The total exposure (manrem) is significantly below the estimate establshed prior to commencement of work.
(d)
Radioactive effluents, although in some cases higher than original estimates due primarily to higher than anticipated laundry waste volumes, remain well below normal operating levels, as expected.
(e)
Solid radioactive waste shipped during this period represents about 50% of the total volume estimated for the project.
- However, the total activity content of approximately 4.2 curies is less than 25% of the total estimated.
Based on this data, project totals may exceed the total volume esti-mate but should remain within estimated activity.
. (f)
The allocation of total manrem has been determined by methods other than those originally planned due to the failure of the major contractor to properly report all labor expenditures.
This has had no effect on total exposure, or the stated ALARA
r PRl-23 SSGP objectives, but does not provide the historical data that was desired.
Corrective measures to improve the reporting of data for exposure analyses are being further explored and implemented.
- PHASE DESCRIPTION I
Shutdown and Preparatory Activities II Removal Activities PROJECT TOTALS (Completed Tasks Only)
I Shutdown and Preparatory Activities II Removal Activities PROJECT TOTALS (All Tasks)
TABLE l PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT ACTIVITIES -*REPORT PERIOD 2/3/79 - 3/31/79 SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO, 2 ACTUAL LABOR ACTUAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATED EXPENDED ESTIMATED FOR REPORTING LABOR TO - DATE EXPOSURE PERIOD (MANIIOURS)
(MANl~OURS)
(MAN-REM)
(MAN-REM)
- COMPLETED TASKS ONLY***
36,611 126,176 584.22 348.176 7,353 26,047 232.65 460.298 43,964 152,223 816.87 608.474
- ALL TASKS COMMENCED AS OF 3/31/79***
39,021 134,3.52 596.27 350.876 25,475
- 30,534 341. 74 275.276 64,496 164,886 938.01 626.152 ACTUAL EXPOSURE PHASE EXPENDED STATUS 10 -
DATE (C=COMPLETE)
(MAN"-REM}
ll=IN PRQGR~SS) 348.176
- (
.~60.298 I
608.474 350.876 I
275.276 I
626.152
l'.AGE 2
O:F 6 TABLE l PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
PHASE I-SHUTDOWN AND PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO. 2 ACTUAL LABOR ACTUAL EXPOSURE ACTUAL EXPOSURE TASK ESTIMATED EXPENDED ESTIMATED FOR REPORTING EXPENDED STATUS TASK LABOR TO - DATE EXPOSURE PERIOD TO -
DATE (C=COMPLETE)
DESCRIPTION (MANIIOURS)
(}IANHOURS)
(MAN-REM)
(MAN-REM)
(MAN"-REl1)
CI=IN PROGR,t~
Erect Equipment Hatch Temporary Enclosure 264 1,073 0.4 0.459 0.459 C
Prepare and Load Test Polar Crane 210 2,119 1.05 0.'76i
- o. 761 C
Open Equipment Hatch 156 0.23 C
(See Note 1)
Defueling and Fuel Storage 585 3,437
- 11. 7 22.124 22.124 C
Install Reactor Vessel Cavity Cover 130 2,084 1.3
- 1. 774
- 1. 774 C
Cutting of Pressurizer Cubicle Wall (See Note 2)
Installation of Jib Cranes 1,838 5,732 9.19 0.990 0.990 I
Disassemble Manipulator Crane 58 1,402
- 1. 74 2.387 2.387 C
Install Steam Generator Transport System 572 2,423 2.86 1.442 L442 I
Removal of Biological Shield Wall 1,296 3,920 19.44 3.337 3.337 C
Disassemble Shroud Cooling System 150 847 3.0 1.442 1.442 C
e TASK DESCRIPTION Cutting of Crane Wall at Hatch Opening Installation of Temporary Ventilation System Temporary Scaffolding Temporary Lighting and Power Cleanup and Decon Polar Crane Operator Shielding H.P., Q.A.
ADDITIONAL TASKS Installation of Service Air System Work Platform Modification Removal of Reactor Coolant Pump Motors ESTIMATED LABOR (MANHOURS) 432 50 7,500 5,200 9,000 1,500 3,600 6,480 e
TABLE 1 PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE SUNHARY PHASE I-SHUTDOWN AND PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO. 2 ACTUAL LABOR ACTUAL EXPOSURE EXPENDED ESTIMATED FOR REPORTING TO - DATE EXPOSURE PERIOD (MANHOURS)
(MAN-REM}
(MAN-REM) 1,290 2.16 0.329 9,026 0.05
- 1. 537 14,559 75 74.363 6,609 26.25 0.563 17,216 135 22.601 1,368 4.5 2.319 21,612 270 141. 758 31,286 32.4 33.584 2,013 0.014 4,958 0.084 1,357 4.621 e
PAGE ~-=3~~-or _6=--~~-
ACTUAL EXPOSURE TASK EXPENDED STATUS TO -
DATE (C=COMPLETE)
(MAN'-REH)
{I=IN PROGRe,~
0.329 C
1.537 C
74.363 C
0.563 C
22.601 C
2.319 C
141. 758 C
33.584 C
0.014 C
0.084 C
4.621 C
e ESTIHATED TASK LABOR DESCRIPTION (HANHOURS)
Protection of Con-tainment Components UNASSIGNED PERSONNEL CATEGORIES Engineering Support Craft Support and Security Eacorts Station Support Visitors and Inspectors Subtotal Phase I 36,611 (Completed Tasks Only)
Notes:
TABLE 1 PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
PHASE I-SHUTDOWN AND PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO. 2 ACTUAL LABOR ACTUAL EXPOSURE EXPENDED ESTIMATED FOR REPORTING TO -
DATE EXPOSURE PERIOD (MANIIOURS)
(MAN-REH)
(MAN-REM) 21 0.268 Not Reported 5.657 II 10.000 II 17.227 II 1.235 126, l.76 584.22 348.176 ACTUAL EXPOSURE TASK EXPENDED STATUS TO -
DATE (C=COMPLETE)
(MAN"-REM)
{I=IN PROGR~§S 0.268 r
5.657 C
10.000 C
17.227 C
1.235 C
348.176
- 1.
Labor and Exposure expenditures for this task were included in other task totals.
(_Primarily
- 11Def;ueling and Fuel Storage").
Labor and Exposure estimates are included in the Subtotal Values,
- 2.
This task was cancelled due to equipment changes.
Labor and Exposure Estimates are not included in the Subtotal values,
PAGE 5
OJ! 6 TABLE 1 PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE SlJ!,~!ARY PHASE II - REMOVAL ACTIVITIES SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO. 2 ACTUAL LABOR ACTUAL EXPOSURE ACTUAL EXPOSURE TASK ESTU!ATED EXPENDED ESTIMATED FOR REPORTING EXPENDED STATUS TASK LABOR TO - DATE EXPOSURE PERIOD TO -
DATE (C=COMPLETE)
DESCRIPTION (MANIIOURS)
(MANIIOURS)
(MAN-REM)
(MAN-REN)
(MAN"-REM)
{I=IN PROGR~~
Removal of Insulation (lower shell, RC Piping) 720 269 28.8 6.487 6.487 C
Removal of Insulation (upper shell, mainsteam and radwater piping) 864 80 12.96 1.364 1.364 C
Removal of Miscellaneous Piping 72 4,666 1.8 55.609 55.609 C
Set Up Steam Generator Girth Cut Equipment 1,152 224 28.8 0.229 0.229 C
Cut and Remove Steam Generator Upper Shell 330 1,387 8.25 1.974 L974 1
Cutting of Reactor Coolant Piping 2,982 16,822 149.1 19.2.273 192.273 C
Cutting of Mainsteam and Feedwater Piping 1,428 2,640 7 *.14 0.898 0,898 C
Disassembly of Steam Generator Supports 792 1,350 15.84 2.299 2.299 I
Removal of Steam Genera-tor Level Instruments and Blowdown Piping 135 1,346 4.05 3.438 3.438 C
TASK DESCRIPTION Cleanup and Decon Subtotal Phase II (Completed Tasks Only)
ESTIMATED LABOR nlANHOURS) 1.7,000 7,353 TABLE 1 PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
PHASE II - REMOVAL ACTIVITIES SURRY POWER STATION-UNIT NO. 2 ACTUAL LABOR EXPENDED TO - DATE (M..\\NHOURS) 1,750 26,047 ESTIMATED EXPOSURE (MAN-REH) 85.0 232.65 ACTUAL EXPOSURE FOR REPORTING PERIOD (MAN-REM) 10.705 260.298 e
J'.AGE -~6 __ O:F 6
ACTUAL EXPOSURE EXPENDED TO DATE
(~IAN"-REM) 10.705 260.298 TASK STATUS (C=COMPLETE)
{I-IN PROGR~~
i
TABLE 2
.ruJfilrL POWER STATJON STEAtf GENERAWR REPLACE.ifatIT PROJECT REPORT OF RADIOACTIVE EFFii~
,2:::S=-~
~
FRRllll.\\llV MAllf'II PAGE 1
OF 2
YEAll: ___
19_7_9 ___ _
I, LIQUID RELEASES murs~
-~
- --- -= - =
-a....... ~-== =-=s====:: --*-==-;----~-....... - *---.
. -- ":"T"":"*-*-~
='--11-------1-----------11-------11-------V--*-----1!*-------J!---.. *-------*
Curies
- ------------~---------==-=.11-------1------------------11-------------------ll--"-*---
1_,;_o_to~J_>e_s_R_e_fo_a_s_e_d_tl_P_C_U~'C_i,../_m_l ______ -j----11---,----*11--~-----tt-----------------;i-------------.. -
2.76E-5 4.62E-4 1-lJl J X 10-1 l--'="1"'3*-=-2*--------;8,---."x~l.,;-0--6=-----------lf----11--=~=-~-----'~=------*------1-------t------11-------v-------ll---- **-**----*
--....C....---------'---"'--'=-------------1------------------------1-------ll------ll--------ll--*--**------
l-lJJ 1 X 10- 6 J-lJ4 2 X 10- 5
~~o--'--------=-=-'"-"--,----------ll----ff------ll------------11-------+------ft-------+-------1i--.. ------ -
l-135 4 x 10-"
J. 21E-J
- 2. 2JE-J c-=-s""'---'1:c.cJ~t,-------c'-9-x~l:cc0'--~-
0---------1----11------------11------------1------4------*11--------li--.. --*------
7:24E-J 5.90E-J 5.54E-6
- 1. 71E-6
- 2. JSE-2 1.lSE-2 c=-s----:lc-:J::-::7~-----::-2-x--:lc-:O::-::_:i:,c--. --------1-----~~~~-t--'~~~--tt------.--------t-------11------l!-------;11-------------
-:::C-o---5=-:7=--------,.4-x-l::-O::-_-.,---------v-----tt~~~~--11-~~~~--tt---c-----------t------------11-------ll-----*-** ---.. -
- cc-o--,5"'8"------~9-x-l"'O""-::,,<""-"-------~----~~~~--i-~~~~--H------i;-------t------------l!-------tt----- -*----*--
'_..cc....;;;c.:.----------11-----11-::..<...==--=.--1f-"'==--"----l------~1-------1-------11-------ll--------11-------- **------*
'l_isJ.~o-~
5 _______
__,,__ ___,,_~~~---+-~~~~-,,------<t-------<0---------------<1-------o-- *--------
- 2. OJE-2 9.09E-J
- 1. 28E-J J.42E-4 Mn-St, 1 x 10-~
---:-:-------~--,,---------u-----11--'~~~---11--'~-~--1------11-------1-------Jl-------tt-------;1---- ------*-
Na-24 J X 10- 5 S.SSE-3 6.48E-4
~--:'--------~~'----'~-:---------1------11------,---tf-~=--,----+------11-------+-------Jl-------u---------tt--...... ___ _
Cr-51 2 x 10- 3
--~-----~~~-.---------1----~-'--'-'~---t!---,,--~--------------1-------1------1-------tt--***,, ______ _
Fe-59 5 X 10- 5 1.98E-4 8.81E-5
~-~------"---'"'-'a.c--.,-------------,1--~--,,---,--,,...,,-----1-------------1-------ft-------l!--------,1--.. ---*----.
- l!,-95 1 X 10-*
--~----------~--------11-------------------------------------------------,lt----*------*-*
Sb-124 2 X 10-,
1.2JE-4 1.IIE-5 4.06E-6 Sb-125 1 X lo-*
Zn-65 1 x 1o=1'----------<>----.~~~~---
7.0lE-6
--Zr-95-------6~0:::_,,-,--------1t----11--.,-.~--,-----Jt----,----t------1--------v------i------;i-------1t-***.. *--------
l~=~~:10=:--:9:9~-======-=====4~~x:_~1-:,o=:--,:s=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::=:=:=:=:=:=::~~~::::-:_-:_=:::~~-::;::=::-:_=:=::=:=:=:::::=:=:=:-:_-:_=:;_=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:-=_=::::::=:=:=:=:=:=:-:_-:_-:_:::_:=:-=.=:=:::::=:-:_-:_-:_=::-=.=:=:=:-:_-:_-:_-:_-:_=:=::':**:~--:-=:_-=:_-=:_-=:_-~~
5.92E-5
- 7. 48E-6 llr,-20) 2 X 10-*
J.39E-6 9.42E-5 l.19E-4 2.66E-5 i-*Xc;-13]
3 X 10-*
'j-__
-~}l~_g-,=..-'Ot=-lll=--m*-----=-J~x.....L~~o:::-:s:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~=~~~~~=*::::::::::~~::::::::::::~~=========;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*_-_--11-_:_*: _:*~---_-_.. =*
Ni-63 J x lQ-5
)';*
11-------------~--------ft------,,------_._----'---11-------1-------11--------~---1------- ---
Fe-55 Bx 10-*
9.59E-6
-~~~-c------~~~-=---------11----11-----,----t---,,.--==---:--l!---------------------11-------------- --*..
11-~C~e_-=-1~~4~-------'l"-"x~l>'-0--,.-5 ________ 11------1--~-----l--=-==-,----Jl------1---------11------+-------1--------- --*
- 1. JSE-4
~Ic-99m J x 10- 3
________ 1 Cc-141 9 x 10- 5 4.41E-6
11----11---------"ll-------1-------11-------------------------11-----* - *-------
l'-------*---------------1!-----li-------11------t--------11--------11------------"------~~--- *--.. ----
- Not Detcctc:d Sample analysis results not ycl receive~ from eervic:c vendor.
Upon recelpt, analysis data will Le i.a1l,m:i.t.ted as a snpplf>mc,1t to this report.
l
II.
AIRBORNE RELEASES TABLE 2 SURllY. l'OWER STATION STEAII GEIIERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT REPORT or MnIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS PAGE 2
OF 2
YEAH:
1979
-=*r.!1::#-~z:=- ~~~-:-:a~::.-~~~-~- -~=r~=-=~- ~~
~--~ ~==<"9f.o~*=-=-......,._-:!T-la-:: F"T--*~
,, **::--1:::9:a:n::-,*
~~Q*rs~rorJsn;;r;a!iccr:=~*=----==----~-,-~:;r;;".. r~tW!L e=-.!!i\\!!9,....,,
1 ~1=----~~-, ~~~ ---~---~ -*~-*- *~~ *~=---*-----
_____ -~--*--_--_-_----_
____(a_)_!'_nrti1:JLl.iil!~"'--'-----------1t----11-------------ll------*1---------.----i---,-.---!f------11~----- **-----.
ll---~r,,s-134 v----C-,;_-=1~3~7---------------11-----1-~~~---f!-~~~~-------9-------11------t-------t1-----1t--------------
u----C~r_-57l".'----------------11-----1--'-'---'-~~--1------------t------tt-------11-------tt-----1t--**---------
Co-.58 3.95E-6
- 1. 25E-5 4.51P-5
~~-----------------11------11--~=~'--11-........ =*=-=----11------11------11------11--------t!-----------------
8.0SE--5 4 11E-5 u----"'C-"-o-_Ci'"',o"-----------------ll-----i--==~-=--11----"--"=~a<......-1-------ll------11-c----t--------------.. ------
4~_17E--5 6.0lE-5 N,U::J.!i._ _____________ _, ___
..., ______,,_ _____ 11------------*------------11--------------------
Fc-59 1----------------------+----j-------1t------------j~-----!l------11-------------11-------------.
1---;-~--:-c---:------------------t-----it-------11------11-------11------11-------1------1t-----11--- ---- -------
(b) llnlogens
- --~---~--------------___,._ ___________ _,.._ ______ lt--------1------11------ft-------11-------11--***--- *------
6.BBE--6 1-131 u---~I~--"'1~3_2cc.-________________ l-_____ -----lf-------tl-------------l!-------l!-------tt------fl-------- ------
____ 1--_1~1~,1~---------------!1----if--~----Jt-----,----it------t------tt------11-------10-------- --------
--~T----~1~
1~----------------lli-----i!---,-----11------:-----+------t------!l------!l------11--------if-- ---*** -----
11---~l--~J J~S~----------------t---*-ll-------1-------1t-------11--------11------------fl~----11-------------
--.(~c"'")-,aG,-as---e-11----------------1-----i-------11-------1t-------11------t1-------1--------11-----~---------**
11-----*--.'!--------*~-------ll------11-------1'------H------lt------11--**--- -------
9.64E+l 3.00E+O
~X0C0~**=1=3-~]-----------------11-----tt-~-.----l!-----.,----11-------t------n-------11------1t-----"11-- --. - -----
- 1. 94E+O
--~X~,c~-U.lm-~-------------lt----!l---=--,,--,--=-,=--------------------11-------11------tt------ - -----------.
- -----~X,occ_--""13""'5'-----------------lf-------~---11-------"1-------l!------+-----+---------l!-------!I--
Kr--85m
---=-_;c"-"'---------------------~----1------11------11--------------*--------lt-------!I--.. - ------
Ki*--85
~-~=----------------ll------11---,,----11---.-------f-------ll-----------1-------11------11----------------
--~~'---r--"-87,__ _______________ -f--_----~---11--------1-------------------------11-------i!---- __ ------- _
___ K1~~~8~8,-----------------11-----;i----:r----1---,,---11-------.------11-------1------11-----~-
Ar-41
11--------lt-----11-------11-------11-------11-------- --* ------.
lJ.ll,_S.QLllLRlill.l.OAF'l'Tu11 tJI,""'" nr<:Pn<:r.1
1-------ff------1------1-------11------H-------il-*. --- --------
FT 3
- 1. 65E+3 l.11E+4 Curies 9.94E-l 3.16E+o (a) Total Amount Solid Waste Packaged
-~~~---=--~-------------1----------ll---------------------t-------ll-------------tl-**- ------ --
(b) f.stima ted Total Activity
-~7""----_;___--..:..;..--....:...------1-:...:::..c..:.:...__+..:.....-=-------1-...::.....----'-----ll-------1--------11-----r-----11------t-(c) Date of Shipment and
- Barnwell, Barnwell, Disposition
...S.~C!
s (!
3--6~79 3--17--79 e===:=":"S~=====e-'"==~=====~===* --====='b*=-==*==i=-,,-.. '*"'=~~:-.i 2--20--79 2--22-- 79 3--7--79 3--19--79 2--2 7-79 3--8--79 J--,!8--79 2--28--79 3--13--79 3--28--79 3--13--79 3--29-- 79
- Not Detected 3--15--79 3--29--79
'