IR 05000454/1986044

Insp Repts 50-454/86-44 & 50-455/86-39 on 861020-23.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection & Solid Radwaste Programs,Including Organization & Control of Radioactive Matls & Contamination

ML20213E048
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/07/1986
From:	Grant W, Gregen L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213E040	List: IR 05000454/1986044 ML20213E037
References
50-454-86-44, 50-455-86-39, NUDOCS 8611120381
Download: ML20213E048 (6)

Text

-

.

.

..

U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-454/86044(DRSS); No. 50-455/86039(DRSS)

Docket Nos. . 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; CPPR-131 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Byron, Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted: October 20-23, 1986 Inspectors: ,W //-6-86 Y' Date Approved By:

D L. R. Greger, Chief //-6-8 Facilities Radiation Protection Date Section Inspection Summary Inspection on October 20-23, 1986 (Reports No. 50-454/86044(DRSS);

No.--50-455/86039(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection and solid radwaste programs including: organization and management control; control.of radioactive materials-and contamination, surveys and monitoring; ALARA; radiation protection procedures; Unit 2 preoperation tests; and solid radwast Results: No violations or deviations were identifie l l

!

B611120381 861107 PDR ADOCK 05000454 0 PDR i

. _ , --. ., . -

!

~ . - . . . -. . . . . - - - - - -. ~ .. . . . .

p'

x<

p -

,

'

<

..

'

>

DETAILS'

,

, Persons Contacted-l- R. Aken, Radwaste Coordinator-i-

"

P. Andrews, Contract,' Health. Physicist  !

• Bielasco, Station Health Physicist W. Burkamper- Quality-Assurance Supervisor

,

i L.' Bushman, ALARA Coordinator

- * R. Flahive,1 Radiation / Chemistry Supervisor

.*W..Pirnat, Regulatory Assurance

* Snow, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• E. 'Zittle, Regulatory Assurance

^

i ' * Denotes- those attending the exit meeting.

,

'

2 .- General

.

This inspection, which began at 9:30 a.m. on October 20, 1986, was

'

conducted to examine the routine radiation protection and solid radwaste-programs, the results of the increased management involvement in the-

,

radiological control program, and the preoperational status of Unit 2.

[ , Organization and Management Controls-The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and management

-

,

controls for.the radiation protection and radwaste programs including

changes in the organizational structure and staffing, effectiveness of procedures and other management techniques used to implement.these

-

programs, experience concerning self-identification and correction of r program implementation weaknesses, and effectiveness of audits of these

,

program <

.

,

Since the last radiation protection inspection the following organizational and personnel changes were'made:

I e A Health Physics Engineering Assistant was promoted to Health Physics i Forema * The Regulatory Assurance Supervisor was assigned as Radwaste

'

Operating Engineer i.

! The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance (QA) audit of the radiation /

chemistry program which had been conducted since the last radiation protection inspection.

Corrective action has been completed on the two deficiencies noted. Both E deficiencies concerned radiation detection instrument control. Five QA i surveillances of radiation / chemistry activities conducted during this

,

period were also reviewed. No problems were noted.

'

i

, , . - , , , - - - - , , . . . - . ,,,n,,, ;...-,+_,.,,,,. ,,,...n,-.-..--,..n,,---..,,, ,.n,..,,_.- ._rn.,,.-... , - , , - , - . ~ .

. . _ .. .. ..-- . - - - - . . . -. - _ _ _ _ _ _

,

.

The inspector reviewed Radiation Occurrence Reports (ROR) which were written since the last radiation protection inspection. There were three

'

RORs written during this period. Corrective actions for two RORs have been completed; one is still being investigated. All three RORs were written for plant workers not following radiation protection procedures

for contamination control. The occurrences resulted in minor shoe contamination and did not result in any unwarranted radiation exposur This apparent weakness in the Radiation Controls Program (RCP) and of workers' radiation protection awareness has received prompt management attention. Disciplinary action has been taken in one instance and is in

progress for another. The adequacy of NGET training and of radiation

control procedures is being reviewed. Additional radiation protection awareness sessions given by' station management are planned. The effectiveness of this program on worker adherence to radiation protection procedures and good health physics practices was discussed at the exit

meeting and will be reviewed during future inspections (0 pen Items No. 454/86044-01; No. 455/86039-01).

One open item was identifie . Radiation Protection Procedures The inspector reviewed the following radiation procedures to detemine if they are consistent with.10 CFR FSAR commitments, and good health physics practices. No problems were note BRP 1200-A14, Revision 1, High Range Pocket Dosimeters Source Check Settings BRP 1200-A15, Revision 1, Eberline E530/HP 270 Calibration Guide BRP 1200-A16, Revision 2, J. L. Shepherd Calibration Unit Guide

BRP 1200-3, Revision 6, Quality test and Issuance of Electronic Dosimeters BRP 1250-1, Revision 4, Dose Rate Surveys BRP 1260-7, Revision 1, Calibration of the Eberline E530/HP270 Survey Instrument for Measuring Dose Rates BRP 1260-9, Revision 0, Calibration and Use of the Eberline EC4-2/DA1-6 Radiation Monitor BPP 1280-9, Revision 1, Area Radiation Monitoring System Alert /High Alarm Setpoints BRP 1280-10, Revision 4, Process Padiation Monitoring Systems Alert /High Setpoints BRP 1300-T25, Revision 0, Mean Check Source Activities and Standard

, .

Deviations i

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ . . _

.- _ - _ . .. . .- - . -. -

,

.

5. Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Survey and Monitoring The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for control of radioactive materials and contamination, including: changes in instrumentation, equipment, and procedures; effectiveness of survey methods, practices, equipment and procedures; adequacy of review and dissemination of survey data; effectiveness of methods of control of radioactive and contaminated materials; and management techniques used to implement the program and experience concerning self-identification and correction of program implementation weaknesse '

The inspector selectively reviewed the active Radiation Work Permits (RWP). RWPs contained current survey data, appropriate approvals, and

'

ALARA reviews as required. Administrative exposure limits are use Personnel Contamination Reports (PCR) were reviewed. Personnel contaminations have not been extensive, 39 have been recorded in 1986 through October 20. PCRs are tracked.

.

No violations or deviations were identifie !

6. Maintaining Occupational Exposures ALARA a

i

~

The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining occupational exposures ALARA, including: changes in ALARA policy and

procedures; worker awareness and involvement in the ALARA program; establishment of goals and objectives and effectiveness in meeting them. Also reviewed were management techniques used to implement the program and experience concerning self-identification and correction of j program implementation weaknesse The station ALARA comittee meets quarterly to discuss ALARA goals and activities, and the refueling outage preparations. Individual department person-rem goals for 1987 are being submitted with assistance from the

,

ALARA group if requeste The ALARA group consists of the ALARA coordinator and a consultant health physicist. Current ALARA activities include: ALARA awareness sessions with each department; Unit 1 outage preparation and discussions of planned jobs with each work group; research for and purchase of state of the art contamination containment devices, shielding and mock-ups for hot outage jobs; and completion of the plant photofile. The ALARA group appears to be somewhat understaffed to effectively complete the work that remains to be done before the February 1987 Unit I refueling and i maintenance outage and the Unit 2 startup. This matter was discussed

> with the ALARA group, Rad / Chem management, and station management. The inspector was assured that the ALARA group would be strengthened so that they can effectively complete their tasks. This matter will be reviewed during future inspections (454/86044-02; 455/86039-02).

One open item was identified.

}

__ - . - . _ _ _ . . - _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ , _ _ , . , _ _ _

. - - . .. -- .- - . . ~ -- . .

.. ,

i Unit 2 Preoperational Tests

! -The inspector reviewed portions of three preoperational tests of

radiation monitors exclusive to Unit 2 operation AR2.06.61 Area Radiation Monitoring Loop 1, which includes High Range

<

Containment monitors, Main Steam line Monitors and Piping Penetration Monitors. The test results and test data were reviewed and found 2 acceptable. Acceptance criteria adequately demonstrated the proper

!

function of the system. Test change requests were found acceptable,

,

Test deficiencies were reviewed and found acceptable. Source calibration .

'

of the high range containment monitor was reviewed. The calibration was *

conducted June 16, 1986, and followed Procedure No. BIS-3.3.6-206. No problems were note ' AR2.06.62 Area Radiation Monitoring loop The test was completed i in July 1986. The test results and test data were reviewed and found

, acceptable. Acceptance criteria adequately demonstrated the proper i

~

functions of the system. Test Change Requests (TCR) and test ,

deficiencies were reviewed. TCRs were found acceptable and test '

deficiencies were acceptabl No violations or deviations were identifie . Solid Radioactive Waste The inspector reviewed the licensee's solid radioactive waste management

program, including

determination whether changes to equipment and

'

procedures were in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59; adequacy of implementing !

procedures to properly classify and characterize waste, prepare manifests, and mark packages; overall performance of the process control

, and quality assurance programs; adequacy of required records,' reports, 4 and notifications; and experience concerning identification and correction of programatic weaknesses.

]

t The inspector reviewed the function and the status of the radwaste Volume ReductionSystem(VRS). The VRS is composed of a fluidized bed dryer, a

dry waste processor, and associated equipment. The fluidized bed dryer processes the concentrates (bottoms) from the radwaste evaporators and ,

i converts them to anhydrous salts. Dry Radioactive Waste (DAW) including contaminated oil wastes can be processed in the dry waste processor and converted to an ash. Both waste steams are metered to a solidification i system where they are mixed with a polymer binder prior to onsite storage i and subsequent shipment to a burial site. The system will not be used for radioactive material until the installation of a clod or lump buster; clods or lumps currently prevent free-flowing of the salt or ash materia The irodification is expected to be completed in early 1987.

l- The licensee is using a contracted mobile solidification service for the packaging of evaporator concentrates and spent resins as radwaste. All

'

other solid Dry Active Waste (DAW) is sorted in a HEPA filtered hood, and designated as compressible, noncompressible, combustibl l l

noncombustible, or wet waste. The combustible material, which must j contain no vinyls, is set aside for Voluire Reduction (VR) when that l l '

5 l

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _

<_, .7-system becomes operationa The wet DAW is dried and stored for VR if-it is combustible. Noncombustibles and noncompressibles are packaged and shipped to a licensed burial sit No violations or deviations were identifie Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)

at the conclusion of the inspection. The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The inspector also discussed the likely information content of the inspection report with regard to documents and processes reviewed during the inspectio The licensee identified no such documents / processes as proprietar The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments concerning the possible weaknesses in the radiation control program indicated by the recent RORs concerning apparent disregard for radiation protection procedure