ML19295C033
| ML19295C033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1975 |
| From: | Oconnor P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010150744 | |
| Download: ML19295C033 (6) | |
Text
~
w-FEB 2 81975 Docket No. 50-10 Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2, RL FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH C@NONWEALTH EDISON - DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 Date and Time:
March 12, 197S 9:00 a.m.
Location:
Room 372 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland
Purpose:
To discuss additional information required by the A
Regulatory staff in its review of Commonwealth Edison's plan for the chemical decontamination of the Dresden 1 primary coolant system.*
Participants:
Commonwealth Edison James Abel, Bill Worden, Warren Klodesch Dow Chemical Company Dr. Harmer, Dr. Nesbitt, Tom Boyce I-General Electric Company Dale Bridenbaugh Argonne National Laboratory Craig Cheng Suntac Nuclear Corporation Jim llolloway NRC - Staff Paul O'Connor, Richard Silver, Joe Youngblood, Dick Knop, Karl Seyfrit, Bill Kreger, Stefan Pawlicki, Richard Vollmer, Jay Lee and Daniel Swanson original signed by 'P.0'dennor-Paul W. O'Connor Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Reactor Licensing 1%*D )
- See attached Tentative Agenda ana su
,v RL:0RB #2 RL:0RB #2 orric *
~
~
~~
a PN0'Connor/' c DLZiemann
.u.N..,*
2f.p/75
,,.,,,,2/g75
- omrs, Foria AIC.318 (Rev. 9 53) AICM 0240 W u. s. aOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEt 1974 826 144 ao a ors o 7W p
--
DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING NOTICES Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading File Branch Keading File E. G. Case A. Giar.busso R. S. Boyd R L Assistant Directors RL Branch Chiefs T. J. Carter J. M. Hendrie TR Assistant Directors TR Branch Chiefs A. Kenneke OIGE (3)
SD (3)
OELD R. Fraley, ACRS (3)
Principal Staff Participants Receptionist J. Peters e
e 9
TENTATIVE AGENDA Discussion o'f Commonwealth Edison's application of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I.
B to the Chetical Cleaning Operation as follows:
1.
Use and control of qualified instructions and procedures.
2.
Identification of inspections and tests and the control of qualified personnel performing these inspections and tests.
3.
Control of procurement.
4.
Identification and control of hardware cleaning status.
5.
Control of cleaning area.
6.
Control of nonconformances.
7.
Planned audits.
8.
QA Records.
II.
Discussion of Environmental Considerations related to the proposed Cleaning Operation including:
1.
The chemical composition of.the decontaminating solutions.
~~;r 2.
1he nature of the reactions of these chemicals with (a) the corro-sion products, (b) deposited radioactive materials, and (c) the constituent alloys of the vessels to be decontaminated.
3.
Availabic data to show that these reactions do not produce hydrogen or other possibly explosive, radioactive or chemically noxious gases.
4.
The nature of the process used to remove radioactivity and chemicals from the used decontaminating solutions.
5.
The nature of the solid radioactive wastes, the amounts of activity contained therein (compared to solid waste generated during reactor operation), and the proposed methods for safe disposal.
III.
A description of Commonwealth Edison's proposed Liquid Waste Facility including:
1.
Process Flow Diagrams and PSID's, showing the major equipment, instruments, interconnecting piping and valves.
The diagrams should E
also include operating temperature, pressure, flow rate and expected i
activity concentration on each itemixed process line.
2.
Tables listing the maj or equi ment and components giving their l
capacities.
3.
An estimate of chemical cleaning waste water volumes and radioactivity concentrations produced by each step in the testing, cleaning, flushing, and rinsing operations and of the radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents.
4.
A description of your proposed solid waste facility including:
a.
Provisions for decontaminating waste containers and for handling waste spillage in the process areas.
b.
Provisions for solid waste storage and xpected onsite residence times prior to shipping offsite.
5.
A description of the process and effluent radiological monitoring provisions for monitoring the level of radioactivity in the chemical cleaning process streams and for monitoring releases of radioa-tive materials in the plant effluents.
IV.
A discussion of the following items relating to the hadioactive Assessment of the proposed cleaning:
1.
The organizational structure for this project, including any corporate, plant, contractor, and consultant health physics personnel involved.
Describe the qualifications and responsibil-tie; of the individual (s) in this structure who is responsible for the radiation protection program for the projects. Describe his responsibility related to procedure development, project design review, training and other health physics aspects of the project.
2.
The system layout of the facilities involved in the proj ect such as the primary loop; the chemical cleaning equipment, s ampling systems; and waste processing, handling, and storage.
Include the layout of these facilities with respect to the rest of the plant and show the radiation dose rate ones for the project.
Specifically identify all added piping, equipment and tanks that will carry the radioactive decontaminant solutions.
4
r.
3.
Information relating to shielding for the various components such as radwaste tanks and radwaste pipe trenches.
4.
The ventilation system to be provided for the project.
Discuss the capability of this system to keep airborne concentrations of radioactivity below 10 CFR 20 limits and ALAP under postulated leakage or breakage conditions.
The discussion should include air flowrates and directions, sources of airborne. radioactivity, and isotopic breakdowns of expected airborne concentrations of radioactivity in the work areas.
5.
The area radiation and airborne radioactivity monitoring, both fixed and portabic, to be used for this project.
The description should include alarm setpoints, methods of alarm (horns, lights),
detector types, and detector locations.
6.
A man-rem analysis for the project.
Break the analysis into categories:
(1) contractor, station, and utility personnel as in Regulatory Guide 1.16, Rev. 3 Appendix B - Include that Guide 2s breakdown by personnel types, (2) specific operations, and (3) external and internal doses.
State assumptions made.
Include the following specific operations in the estimate:
a.
procedure writing, if occupancy of radiation areas is involved.
b.
defueling, other than done during regular refueling.
c.
equipment installation and hookup.
d.
equipment operation.
transfer, storage, and processing of decontamination fluids and c.
wastes.
f.
waste solidification, drumming, storage, and shipping.
g.
dismantling of equipment and cleanup.
Compare this estimate to projected future man-rem savings to be gained by this project.
7.
The training that will be given to company and contractor personnel to assure that occupational radiation exposures be as tlow as practicabic for this project.
8.
The plans for decontaminating the storage tanks and other equipment associated with the project.
g,.
am
. ~
9.
The plans for concentrating, drumming, handling and preparing for shipment of the radioactive wastes from the project.
10.
Any implementation in this project of the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 8.8 or proposed alternatives.
V.
Discussion of the following items relating to the compatability of the c1 caning solution with reactor materials:
1.
A description of the chemical composition of the solvent sufficient to permit known corrosive species to be identified.
The maximum range of pH should be stated.
2.
Possible effects of residual solvent on primary coolant chemistry control upon retu to operation. The interference of any residual solvent with conductivity measurements used for continuous water chemistry surveillance during reactor operation should be addressed.
3.
Additional information describing the material testing program including methodology and a description of the methods of test int erp retation.
4.
Additional information schich provides assurance that the cleaning solvent will not accelerate stress corrosion cracking.
The effects of pH, impurity concentration temperature, material conditions and concentrating mechanisms should be taken into account.
5.
Citations for various references given should be provided and original reports of tests and results should be presented so that conclusions can be substantiated.
6.
A discussion of potential radiation induced changes to the chemical properties of trace quantities of the c1 caning solvent remaining in the primary coolant system after return to operation.