ML20211Q425
| ML20211Q425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1986 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Weadock A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211Q372 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-146-86-02, 50-146-86-2, NUDOCS 8612190260 | |
| Download: ML20211Q425 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000146/1986002
Text
.__
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 86-02
Docket No.
50-146
License No. DPR-4
Priority
-
Category
D
Licensee:
Saxton Nuclear Experiraental Corporation /GPU Corporation
1 Upper Pond Road
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Facility Name: Saxton Reactor
Inspection At:
Saxton, Pennsylvania and TMI EOF, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted: November 6, 7, and 10, 1986
.
.
/E!//8b
Inspector:
A. Weadock, Radiation Specialist
date
Approved by:
- ,
/2 /v[f/
M. Shanbaky, ChTef, FacWities Radiation
'date
Protection Section, EPRPB
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 6, 7, and 10, 1986 (Report
No. 50-146/86-02).
Areas Inspected: Announced, routine inspection by one region-based
inspector of the decommissioned Saxton facility. Areas reviewed included
procedures, records, and facility upkeep and radiological monitoring
activities.
Results: One apparent violation, concerning a failure to make required
notifications to the HRC, was identified.
(Section 3.0)
g2Qhh
O
_ _ _ _
.
.
Details
1.0 Persons Contacted
1.1 Licensee Personnel
J. Auger
GPUN/SNEC - PWR Licensing Engineer
-
G. Baker
SNEC General Manager
-
W. Craft III
-
SNEC Radiation Safety Officer
J. Garry
GPUN Environmental Controls
-
1.2 NRC Personnel
M. Shanbaky, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section, EPRPB
A. Weadock, Radiation Specialist
2.0 Purpose
This was a preliminary inspection of records and radiological monitoring
activities associated with the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation
(SNEC) reactor site. This inspection was performed to review the current
status of the Saxton site and ongoing custodial duties and monitoring
activities. Areas reviewed included:
procedures and records,
-
site monitoring activities.
-
3.0 Procedures and Records
On November 6, 1986, the inspector performed a review of Saxton site
procedures, radiological surveys, and records maintained at the Three Mile
Island Emergency Offsite Facility (EOF) in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
During the course of this review one apparent violation, concerning a
failure to make required notifications to tne NRC, was identified.
Licensee Technical Specifications (T.S.) section 5, " Report", requires the
licensee to notify the NRC of any occurrence of a "possible unsafe condi-
tion".
Such notification should be made by telephone or telegraph with-
in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery, followed up by a written report within 15 days.
Technical Specifications section 5.a.3 requires such notification be made
after any confirmed analysis of residual water from the Containment Vessel
indicates activity concentration above the limits of Table II, 10 CFR 20
limits for unrestricted release.
Review of radiological analysis results contained in the licensee's annual
status reports indicated that, when present, water in the Containment
Vessel sump generally exceeded 10 CFR 20 activity concentration limits for
.
2
.
unrestricted release. Cross-checking of licensee analysis results against
notification reports to the NRC indicated that the required 15 day written
notification report was not submitted to the NRC for the following Con-
tainment Vessel sump samples:
1.
A May 13, 1982 sample, identified in an addendum to the licensee's 1982
status report,
2.
A June 14, 1983 sample, identified in the licensee's 1983 annual
report.
3.
A February 7, 1986 sample.
Analysis results for these samples and the corresponding 10 CFR 20
Appendix B Table II limits are included in attachment 1.
Failure to make the required 15 day written notification for the above
samples constitutes an apparent violation of Technical Specification
section 5.a.3 (146/86-02-01).
The inspector stated to the licensee that the potential for the above
violation was identified in an internal licensee audit, completed in May,
1981, which identified that the licensee was not performing all analyses or
making required reports to the NRC.
The Saxton General manager provided the following additional information
concerning the above analyses:
1.
The May, 1982 sample was collected prior to the " official" 1982
second quarter facility surveillance, performed in June, 1982.
The
General Manager indicated that sample results may not have been
reported since personnel at that time may have thought only the
" official visit" samples were required to be reported.
2.
Internal telephone logs indicate that sample results for the June,1983
sample were communicated by phone to the individual responsible for
making reports to the NRC; however, the report apparently was then
never generated.
3.
The licensee produced an internal file memo indicating that the
results of the February 7,1986 sample were communicated by phone to
the NRC on February 20, 1986.
Although this memo indicates that a
15 day written notification report would be sent to the NRC,
apparently no further action was taken.
The licensee also indicated that increased attention is now paid by
both GPUN Environmental Controls and Licensing staff to insure all
required notifications are made to the NRC.
- - -
. -
. - -
.
- -
.
3
.
The inspector also noted during reviews of Saxton annual status
reports that the reported lower limit of detection (LLD) for Sr-90
was often greater than the 10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II limit for
unrestricted release. The licensee indicated that Saxton wate'r
samples were counted twice after collection; once by the TMI Unit 2
chemistry -laboratory, followed by analysis at Teledyne, _ the licen-
see's _ vendor laboratory. The licensee indicated that the LLD's
included in the annual report were for the TMI laboratory, and that
the_ subsequent analysis of samples at Teledyne was performed at
substantially improved sensitivities such that all 10 CFR 20 limits
could be detected. The licensee indicated, however, that a list of
required LLD's would be submitted to the TMI Unit 2 lab to insure all-
preliminary analyses were sensitive enough to detect 10 CFR 20
limits. This memo was issued during the course of this inspection.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
The inspector also reviewed surveys and facility inspection
checklists from the completed quarterly site surveillances for
1986, 1985, and 1984. No problems were noted and the licensee
appeared to be meeting the requirements of their Technical Specifi-
cations and procedure 9400-SUR-4523.01, " Quarterly Facility Inspec-
tion Procedure". The inspector noted that, although not required by
their Technical Specifications, the licensee has been implementing a
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) around the
environs of the Saxton site.
The inspector received copies of REMP
monitoring results for 1982, 1983, and 1984 during this inspection.
Although time did not permit during the course of this inspection,
these results will be reviewed and reported on during a subsequent
inspection report (146/86-02-02).
4.0 Site Monitoring Activities
On November 7, 1986, the inspector toured the Saxton site in Saxton,
Pennsylvania and observed licensee quarterly surveillance activities. The
majority of radiological survey activities were performed in the Contain-
ment Vessel; radiation and contamination levels were surveyed on the
operating level as required. A physical and radiological examination was
also made of the HEPA filter installed on the containment breather pipe.
The inspector noted that radiation levels were generally non-detectable on
the operating level of the Containment Vessel. Contamination levels were
generally also not detectable on this level, except for minimal levels
found at the access area to the Containment Vessel lower levels.
Licensee surveillance activities also included verification of the physical
security of the site, tour of the buildings, and taking of water samples
from the RWDF basement and pipe tunnel.
The inspector noted that the
condition of the auxiliary buildings at the site was generally very poor,
due to age and weathering.
In particular, the Control and Administration
building was in an advanced state of disrepair; portions of the ceiling
had fallen and there was evidence of wildlife infestation inside the
building.
.
4
.
Duplicate water samples from the RWDF basement and pipe tunnel and a soil
sample taken from outside the exclusion area fence west of the Filled Drum
Storage Area were obtained for NRC' analysis during this inspection. These
results will be used for NRC review and comparison with the licensee's
results only and do not represent or are intended to be part of a formal
decommissioning sampling program.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were noted.
Licensee
onsite surveillance and monitaring activities appears adequate to meet
Technical Specification requirements and support the current level of
site activities. The inspector noted, however, that the level of
monitoring effort will have to be commensurately upgraded as the status
of site activities switches from custodial upkeep to dismantlement.
Exit Meeting
The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the
conclusion of the inspection on November 10, 1986.
The scope and findings
of the inspection were discussed at that time. During this meeting the
licensee also discussed upcoming plans for pumping residual groundwater
from the RWDF basement to the Raystown branch of the Juniata River. The
licensee outlined sampling methodology and committed to informing the NRC
Region I at the commencement of this activity.
r<
-
.
.
Attachment 1
Results of Containment Vessel Sump Water Analysis
All results given in uCi/ml
5/13/82
6/14/83
2/7/86
10 CFR 20, Appendix B*
Isotope.
sample
sample
Sample
Table II, Col.2 limits
1.3E-3
1.3E-3
1.9E-3
2.0E-5(S)
Cs-134
2.2E-5
1.5E-5
1.1E-5
9.0E-6(S)
1.4E-5
4.8E-5
5.6E-5
3.0E-7(S)
- Values listed are the more restricted between soluble (S) and insoluble (I)
limits.
4
-