ML20236F220
| ML20236F220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F186 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-98-10, NUDOCS 9807020081 | |
| Download: ML20236F220 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1998010
Text
- _ - - _ _ - _ _ - - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __- . _ _ _
._
-_
.
_
n
. . .
.
.
. '
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION lil
Docket No:
'50-346
License No:
j
Report No:
50-346/98010(DRS)
-
Licensee:
Centerior Service Company
. Facility:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Location:
5503 N. State Route 2
Oak Harbor, OH 42449
.
Dates:
. June 8-11,1998
Inspectors:
Wayne Slawinski, Senior Radiation Specialist
Nirodh Shah, Radiation Specialist
,
Approved By:
- Gary Shear, Chief, Plant Support Branch 2
Division of Reactor Safety .
f
i
l'
9907020001 990627
$
ADOCK 05000346
s
,
G
s
- - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _
. - - - _ _
_
. - - _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
'
.
'" '
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.
l
l
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power station
f
NRC Inspection Report 50-346/98010
This was a routine inspection of the solid radioactive waste management and transportation
program, the radiological effluent monitoring and control program and the maintenance program
.
for the station emergency and control room emergency ventilation sys' ems. This inspection
also verified that observed equipment was maintained as described in the Updated Safety
j
Analysis Report (USAR), and that the solid, liquid and gaseous waste programs were
conducted in accordance with the Process Control Program (PCP) and Offsite Dose Calculation
1
Manual (ODCM). In these areas, one violation of NRC requirements was identified, and the
following conclusions were formed:
Plant Sucoort
l
l
Radiological effluent releases were well controlled and effluent monitoring was
.
conducted consistent with the ODCM and USAR. The total released activity and
associated dose remained low and were well below regulatory limits. One recurrent
problem was identified with documentation errors in the ODCM and effluent release
reports (Section R1.1).
The solid waste processing systems were as described in the USAR. The PCP was
.
consistent with the waste streams described in the USAR and was implemented by
knowledgeable staff in accordance with station procedure. However, a weakness was
identified with the development of the PCP, concerning the frequency that dewatered
wet wastes were sampled and verified to ensure that regulatory limits for free standing
liquid were met, and that all pertinent 10 CFR 61.56 requirements were addressed
(Section R1.2).
The radioactive waste (radwaste) packaging and transportation program was technically
.
sound and program oversight was good. Radwaste shipments were appropriately
classified, manifests were completed in accordance with regulatory requirements, and
training was provided for personnel involved in packaging and shipping. A scaling factor
program for classifying waste streams was applied consistent with regulatory guidance;
however, program implementation was not govemed by station procedure to ensure its
consistent application (Section R1.3)
The effluent process radiation monitors were operable and well maintained. One poor
.
practice was identified concerning a lack of review of Instrument and Control technicians
in the performance of monitor calibrations (Section R2.1).
The station and control room emergency ventilation systems were maintained in good
condition and associated air filtration / adsorption tests and surveillance were performed
as required. System engineers maintained good oversight and closely tracked system
maintenance activities and performance history (Section R2.2).
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
- - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _
_ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
.
.
.
.
.'
Radioactive material and radwaste storage containers were maintained in good physical
'
.
condition, were properly labeled, and storage areas were posted and controlled in
accordance with regulatory requirements. A radioactive materials management
'
inventory system adequately tracked material movement at the site (Section R2.3).
Audit and surveillance activities conducted by the licensee were adequate to assess the
radiological effluent monitoring and control program, the ODCM and the packaging and
transport of radwaste. However, a violation was identified concerning the failure to audit
the PCP and the implementation of procedures for processing radwastes as required by
Technical Specification (Section R7.1).
..
!
3
!
e
_
- _ - _ _
_ _ _ - _ -
_-___-_
_ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
______
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
. _ = _ _ - _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =
.
.
.
.
l
l"I'
Report Details
l
L
fV. Plant Support
R1'
Radiological Protection and Chemistry (RP&C) Controls
R1.1
Gaseous and Liould Effluent Monitorina and Control
a.~
Insoection Scone (IP 84750)
1
L
l-
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for monitoring and controlling' gaseous
l.
and liquid effluent releases. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed effluent release .
I
- packages and effluent control procedures, reviewed the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
l
(ODCM), interviewed chemistry and radiation protection (RP) staff, and performed liquid .
'
!
and gaseous radwaste system walkdowns.
I'
b.
Observations and Findinos
Walkdowns of the effluent release pathways were performed to verify that they were as
L
described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and ODCM. Liquid releases
l
were conducted primarily on a batch basis from either of two Clean Waste Monitor
'
. Tanks, the Miscellaneous Liquid Waste Monitor Tank or the Detergent Waste Drain
Tank. Gaseous releases were either continuous through the station vent stack, or batch
released through one of three Waste Gas Decay Tanks (WGDTs) o"hrough
l-
containment purge. The inspectors observed that the source tanks for liquid batch
,.
releases were well maintained and that selective inputs to the station vent stack were as
2
4
-described in the USAR.
[
Owing to past radioactive contamination of the secondary side, a potential existed for -
activity to be released from the storm sewer drain and turbine building sump effluent.
The inspectors verified that these pathways were monitored by the licensee and that
j
identified radioactivity was reported in the, Annual Effluent Release Report,
j
r
. After a resin breakthrough, occurring on April 10,1998 (see inspection report no. 50-
l
346/98007), the licensee had measured increased fission and activation product activity
y
in liquid releases. . Through May 1998. about 1.45E-1 curies (Ci) of these products were
released compared to a total of 7.06E-3 Cl in 1997 The resin breakthrough also
increased the volume of liquid effluent released from 349,955 gallons in 1998 to date,
l
compared to 460,000 gallons total for 1997. However, the overall activity released and
l'
associated doses continued to be low and were well controlled by the licensee.
L
L
in 1997, a total of 7.4E-3 Ci and 4.5 CI (both excluding tritium) were released through
liquid and gaseous pathways, respectively, compared to 1.45E-1 Ci and 2.59 Ci through
-
May 1998. The associated doses for both the 1997 and 1998 release data were well
j
below regulatory limits. - The inspectors verified that doses were determined consistent
1
1
4
e,
l
!
i
'
_ _ . .
._ _ _ _
_ _ __
_ _ - -
,~.
.
.'
with the methodology in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 and, through independent
calculation, that the associated dose from a May 15,1998, liquid and a May 10,1998,
gaseous batch release were correct.
The inspectors identified several errors in the ODCM and 1997 Annual Effluent Release
Report. These errors were minor in nature and were attributed to personal error during
the review and/or data entry process. For example, Table 20 in the 1997 effluent report
incorrectly stated that 4.26E6 Cl (versus 4.26E-6 Ci) of dissolved and entrained gases
were released in liquid effluents in the third quarter. Similar problems had been
identified through station audits and surveillance since 1997, indicating that this was a
recurrent problem. This was acknowledged by the licensee and corrective actions were
planned.
c.
Conclutinas
Effluent releases were well controlled and effluent monitoring was conducted consistent
with the ODCM and USAR. The total released activity and associated doses remained
low and were well below regulatory limits. One recurrent problem was identified with
documentation errors in the ODCM and effluent release reports,
R1.2 ' Radioactive Waste (Radwaste) Processing
a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 86750)
The inspectors reviewed the solid radwaste management program inclucSng the process
control program (PCP), and associated implementing procedures for the processing of
radwaste for disposal at a low level waste burial site,
b.
Observations and Findings
The solid radwaste processing program remained as described in the USAR. The waste
products handled by the solid radwaste systems include bead-type resins, filter
cartridges and filter media, powdered resins and solid dry active waste (DAW). Spent
resins from primary systems were transferred from the spent resin storage tank (SRST)
and along with filter media and higher activity secondary resins, were dewatered in high
integrity containers (HICs) and shipped to a licensed low level waste burial site.
Secondary resins with concentrations less than one microcurie / cubic centimeter were
also dewatered, but typically transferred in metal containers to a licensed vendor for
processing and subsequent disposal. The waste solidification and evaporation systems
originally installed at the plant were no longer used, and have been abandoned in place.
The licensee developed a PCP to provide assurance that the processing of wet
radwaste will result in a waste form that meets the requirements of both 10 CFR 61.56
and the low level waste disposal site licenses. The PCP was consistent with the waste
processing program described in the USAR and adequately addressed the 10 CFR 61.56 limits for free standing liquid in the final waste form. However, the PCP did not
address other requirements in 10 CFR 61.56, such as those related to the generation of
5
.
..
_ _ _ _
,
-
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - . _ - - _ _ _ - -
_ _ - - _ - _ - _ - ,
..
.
.-
'
harmful fumes or void spaces within the processed waste form. While some 10 CFR 61.56 criteria other than the free standing water limits were addressed, to a limited,
extent in a wet waste dewatering procedure, RP management agreed that the PCP
should be expanded to address all pertinent requirements, and planned to address this
matter through a revision to the PCP.
In 1997, the licensee developed a wet waste dewatering procedure and a companion
verification procedure for the sluicing and dewatering of primary resins, secondary
system resins, filters and other media in vendor supplied HICs. Prior to procedure
development, dewatering was accomplished using separate vendor dewatering
instructions for each type HIC used. According to the licensee, the vendor instructions
were not clear and consistent, despite the fact that the dewatering processes for
different HICs were nearly identical. The dewatering procedures developed by the
licensee were reviewed by the inspectors and were clear, concise and included
appropriate precautionary steps in accordance with vendor manuals. Inspector
discussions with licensee staff involved in dewatering activities revealed that the staff
was well versed in the dewatering procedure and the that the process was implemented
appropriately.
The PCP specified that the dewatering process be verified to ensure that the final waste
form meets the free standing liquid requirements for at least one representative test
,
specimen from 10% of the batches of each type of wet radwaste that is processed.
Although the one in ten batch test criteria was consistent with industry standards and
testing was completed in accordance with the PCP, it was not always appropriate for the
licensee's operations because dewatering activities occurred infrequently. Specifically,
only eight liners of wet waste were dewatered and shipped to a burial site since the last
verification was conducted in 1994. Moreover, changes to the dewatering hardware
were made since the dewatering process was last verified, which could have affected
the amoent of free standing liquid in the final waste product. The failure to verify the
efficacy of the dewatering process at intervals that better coincided with waste
)
processing activities and after changes to process systems or procedures, was a
I
weakness in the development of the PCP. Radiation protection management planned to
evaluate and address these concerns through a revision to the PCP.
{
c.
Conclusions
The solid waste processing systems were as described in the USAR. The PCP was
consistent with the waste streams described in the USAR and was implemented by
j
knowledgeable staff in accordance with station procedure. However, the PCP was not
j
sufficiently developed to address all pertinent 10 CFR 61.56 requirements, nor did the
l
PCP adequately establish a dewatering verification program that provided an early
j
indicator of processing problems.
l
l
6
l
l
I
l
l
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
__- _ _-
_
_ _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ ,
.,
=
.
~
R1.3 Radwaste Packagino and Transportation
.
a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 86750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radwaste packaging and transportation program
.
for compliance with NRC, Department of Transportation (DOT) and waste burial site
requirements. The review included interviews of plant staff and review of implementing
procedures and records of past shipments. The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's
program for determining waste stream scaling factors, and independently verified that
recent waste shipments were properly classified.
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspectors verified that the licensee maintained current copies of NRC and DOT
regulations, burial site and waste processor licenses, and that the shipping coordinator
was knowledgeable of their content. The shipping coordinator provided oversight of the
radioactive material shipment program and ensured by direct involvement that all
aspects of the program were implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements
and station procedure. Additionally, the inspectors verified that staff involved in
preparing radwaste shipments had completed training commensurate with their duties.
Procedure DB-HP-01500, Shipping Radioactive Material, was reviewed and contained
appropriate guidance for determining waste classification and the proper shipping name
based on radiological criteria, and included guidance regarding packaging, labeling,
marking and other shipment criteria. The licensee used a vendor supplied computer
program (i.e. RADMAN) to classify waste pursuant to 10 CFR 61.55, to determine
reportable quantity (RQ) values, and to generate shipping papers. The inspectors
selectively verified that the computer program data base contained correct RQ values,
and that waste concentration information for determining waste classification was
consistent with 10 CFR Part 61 requirements.
Three shipments of radwaste were made to licensed burial sites through June 8,1998,
and consisted of two shipments of dewatered filter media and one DAW shipment. The
inspectors independently verified that these shipments were correctly classified, that
package labeling and marking was satisfactory, that results of package and transport
vehicle surveys satisfied DOT requirements, and that independent verification turveys
were performed by the licensee for each shipment, as required by a recent procedural
revision. Four radwaste shipments were made to burial sites in 1997, comprised of
quantities and kinds of radioactive material similar to those shipped to burial sites in
1998. No shipments of irradiated hardware took place in 1997 or 1998 to date. The
inspectors also verified that the licensee prepared shipping papers consistent with the
regulatioris, and that the shipments were tracked and logged as required.
Scaling factors for 10 CFR Part 61 waste characterization analyses were generated
consistent with the NRC Branch Technica! Position for waste classification and waste
form. These factors were reevaluated by the licensee at intervals ranging from one to
two years, depending on the waste stream, and after significant changes in reactor
7
-
_ - -
- _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
__
-_ ___ .
.,
.
' . '
water chemistry that could potentially affect the waste stream classification. However,
'
the scaling factor program was not addressed by procedure to ensure its consistent
application, and its implementation was based primarily on the judgement of certain RP
staff. Radiation protection management had recognized that the scaling factor process
should be formalized, and was currently drafting a procedure,
c.
Conclusions
The radwaste packaging and transportation program was technically sound and
program oversight was good. Radwaste shipments reviewed by the inspectors were
appropriately classified, manifests were completed in accordance with regulatory
requirements, and training for personnel involved in packaging and shipping was good.
A scaling factor program for classifying waste streams was developed and applied
consistent with regulatory guidance; however, program implementation was not
governed by station procedure to ensure its consistent application.
R2
Status Of RP&C Facilities and Equipment
R2.1
Effluent Radiation Monitors
a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 84750)
The inspectors evaluated the operability of the process effluent radiation monitors
I
through a review of maintenance and calibration records and procedures, walkdowns of
the monitors and interviews with personnel. The specific monitors reviewed included the
Waste Gas Effluent Monitors (nos.1822A and B), the Clean Radwaste Effluent Monitors
j
(nos.1770A and B), the Station Vent Normal Discharge and Accident Monitors (nos.
4598AA, AB, BA and BA) and the Storm Sewer Outlet Monitor (no. 4686).
b.
Observations and Findinas
Effluent monitors were observed to be operable, in good condition and in locations
consistent with the USAR and/or ODCM. Monitor alarm set points were reviewed
annually by the RP group and were determined using ODCM guidance. Through
I
independent calculation, the inspectors verified that selective set points were
appropriate for the source term pathway and background radiation levels.
The inspectors verified that the 18-month channel calibration records for the above
listed monitors had been performed as required. These calibrations were performed by
Instrument and Control (l&C) technicians using radioactive sources and electronic pulse
equipment. Although the I&C technicians received periodic training by the RP group in
the use of the radioactive sources, the RP group had not reviewed the actual
performance of the calibration. This was considered a poor practice and was discussed
with the RP group, who acknowledged the observation and planned .to evaluate the
concem.
8
_ - - _ - _ _ _
___ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
.
"
Inspector review of maintenance records and discussion with the system engineer
revealed no recurrent operability problems with the monitors. The inspectors verified
that confirmatory sampling was performed in accordance with the ODCM, when a
monitor was inoperable. Additionally, the inspectors confirmed that the lower limits of
detection (LLDs) for the chemistry sample analysis instrumentation were appropriate.
c.
Conclusions
The effluent process radiation monitors were operable and well maintained. The RP
group had not reviewed the performance of monitor calibrations by l&C technicians
which was considered a poor practice acknowledged by the RP group.
R2.2 Station Emerge _nev and Control Room Emergency Ventilation Systems
a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the operability and maintenance of the station emergency and
control room emergency ventilation systems. The inspection consisted of system
walkdowns, review of system test, surveillance and maintenance records, and interviews
with the respective system engineers.
b.
Observations and Findinos
Emergency ventilation systems were well maintained with no observed problems in
either the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter banks or the charcoal filter beds.
System operability tests were performed at the Technical Specification required
frequency and test results were trended by the system engineers. The inspectors
reviewed these results and noted good system performance. During walkdowns, the
inspectors also verified that the systems were as described in the USAR.
The inspectors verified that dioctyl phthalate and methyl iodide tests for the HEPA filters
and charcoal banks, respectively, were performed at the required frequency and in
accordance with industry standards. These results were also trended and a review of
test results identified no problems.
System engineers were aware of maintenance activities and had instituted maintenance
requests for deficiencies identified during periodic walkdowns. Historical maintenance
results since January 1997, showed no recurrent operability issues with either system.
System engineering notebooks were appropriately maintained and periodically reviewed
by station management. Other necessary documentation, such as vendor manuals and
industry events, were also well maintained.
c.
Conclusions.
The station emergency and control room emergency ventilation systems were observed
in good condition and associated tests and surveillance were performed as required.
9
__
._.
__
. _ _ _ _ _ - - _-- _ _
..
.
.
- 5*
System engineers maintained good oversight of these systems and closely tracked
I
i
maintenance activities and performance history.
l
.
R2.3 Storage of Radioactive Material
l
a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 86750)
The inspectors conducted walkdowns of selected radioactive material storage areas,
performed independent radiation measurements, and reviewed radioactive materials
management inventory information.
b.
Observations and Findings
The licensee developed a radioactive materials management inventory system, to track
l
l
the location of material throughout the site. The inventory was updated regularly and
reflected the description of the material, its location, and custodian. Tags affixed to
individual storage containers coincided with the material managernent list, and were
noted to adequately describe the materials stored within.
l
Radioactive material located in open (non-storage cell) areas of the low level radioactive
'
waste building (LLRWB) and in the north pad (outdoor) storage area was consistently
labeled, and the areas posted and access controlled by the RP organization. Posting
adequacy was confirmed for selected containers through independent inspector
radiation surveys. Storage areas were observed to be in good condition and there were
no signs of leakage or corrosion from the materials being stored. The physical condition
,
of containers stored in outdoor areas was likewise good. The licensee was in the
j
process of updating the inventory to reflect radioactive materials transferred to the
LLRWB inventory since completion of the refueling outage in May 1998. Walkdowns of
the auxiliary building disclosed no problems with radioactive material or radwaste
storage containers or storage areas.
c.
Conclusions
Radwaste and radioactive material storage containers were maintained in good physical
condition, were properly labeled, and storage areas were posted and controlled in
accordance with regulatory requirements. A radioactive materials management
inventory system adequately tracked material movement at the site.
R7
Quality Assurance in RP&C Activities
R7.1
Audits and Aooraisals
a,
insoection S.coggfffjZ50)
The inspectors reviewed the audit and appraisal program implemented by the licensee's
quality assurance (QA) and quality control (OC) organizations, relative to the
processing, packaging and transport of radwaste, the PCP, and radiological effluent
10
l
r
_
_
__
___
-
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
. ,
.
.
.-
.
monitoring and control. The inspectors discussed the audit program with QA and QC
management and staff, and reviewed audit reports and surveillance packages
generated since 1996.
b.
Observations and Findinas
The licensee's QA group conducted annual audits of the RP program that included
radiological effluent monitoring, the ODCM and aspects of the radwaste program. The
QA/QC organization also conducted periodic surveillance of radwaste packaging and
shipping activities. However, the audit and surveillance activities conducted since 1996
had not encompassed the PCP, to ensure it was adequately developed and that waste
etreams were properly processed to meet the waste characteristics required by 10 CFR 6?.56. Specifically, annual audits of the radwaste program conducted in 1996,1997
an11998, focussed on the material condition of radioactive material storage areas,
innntory control, and posting and labeling of areas and containers. Similarly, while two
1
QA surveillance conducted in 1996 and two QC surveillance conducted in 1997,
verified that radwaste shipment manifests were completed properly and that packages
were marked, labeled and blocked / braced for shipment, the surveillance did not review
the implementation of the PCP or procedures for processing radwaste. The QA/QC
organization initially believed that annual audits and periodic surveillance of radwaste
activities included the PCP and waste processing activities. However, the licensee was
unable to demonstrate that the PCP and waste processing activities were audited since
1996, and subsequently realized that these areas were not included in the audit and
surveillance program.
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8 required that audits of facility activities be performed
under the cognizance of the Company Nuclear Review Board and encompass, in part,
the PCP and the implementation of procedures for processing of radwastes at least
once per 24 months. The failure to audit the PCP and the implementation of procedures
for processing radwaste within at least the 24 months preceding the inspection, is a
violation of Technical Specification 6.5.2.8 (Violation No. 50-346/98010-01).
While the annual audits did not include the PCP as required, audits effectively assessed
the effluent monitoring program, the ODCM and the controls for the storage of
. radioactive material. Audits of these program areas were relatively thorough and of
sufficient depth to assess the area reviewed. The 1997 audit identified problems with
inconsistent documentation of isotopic analyses for effluent releases, a problem with the
application of dose conversion factors in the ODCM, and a problem with the
development of the ODCM for quantifying primary to secondary system leakage. These
problems were verified to be adequately corrected and closed during the licensee's
follow up audit in 1998.
Audits were also conducted of offsite waste processing vendors. Specifically, a 1996
Nuclear Procurement issues Committee (NUPIC) audit of a waste processor whose
services were routinely used by the licensee, identified no problems that impacted the
licensee's use of the vendor's products or services. The licensee plans to lead a NUPIC
audit of another waste processor later in 1998.
l
11
l
l
l
1
1
!
(
i
i
- _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - __ - __ _ ________ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ ____ _
.
.
.
1
.
, .-
c.
Conclusions
-
Audit and surveillance activities conducted by the licensee were adequate to assess the
!
radiological effluent monitoring and control program, the ODCM and the packaging and
transport of radwaste. However, a violation was identified concerning the failure to audit
j
the PCP and the implementation of procedures for processing radwastes as required by
I
Technical Specifications.
V. Management Meetings
XI
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspectors presented the preliminary inspection findings to members of licensee
management on June 11,1998. On June 16,1998, the inspectors discussed the violation
concerning the audit program in separate tclephone conversations with the Manager of Quality
Assessment and a representative of the station's Regulatory Affairs staff. The licensee
acknowledged the findings presented and did not identify any of the documents reviewed as
proprietary.
i
l
l
I
12
1
j
- _ - - ______ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - _ -
,.
.
.
'
'
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
M. Beier, Manager, Quality Assurance
L. Bonker, Supervisor, ALARA Services
L. Bowyer, Supervisor, Radwaste Operations
R. Coad, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
R. Edwards, Chemistry Technician
D. Eschelman, Manager, Operations
J. Feckley, Supervisor, Radiation Operations
A. Garza, Senior Radiation Protection Technician
B. Geddes, Senior Health Physicist
G. Gillespie, Superintendent, Chemistry
J. Kalmbach, Health Physicist, ALARA Services
W. Klippstein, Supervisor, Surveillance and Analysis
C. Kraemer, Engineering / Licensing, Regulatory Affairs
J. Lash, Plant Manager
D. Lockwood, Supervisor, Regulatory Affairs
R. Martin, Senior Radiation Protection Technician
J. Michaelis, Manager, Maintenance
J. Rogers, Manager, Plant Engineering
R. Scott, Manager, Radiation Protection
' H. Stevens, Manager, Nuclear Safety and inspections
L. Worley, Director, Nuclear Assurance
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive
Materials
ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED
Ooened
i
!
50-346/98010-01
Failure to audit the Process Control Program and
radioactive waste processing activities at required
i
intervals.
l
Closed
l
l
None
'
l
13
l .
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _
-_
__
. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
. - *
.,.
.
. ..
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
- r
Ci
Cune
DAW.
Dry Active Waste
!
Department of Transportation
j
High Efficiency Particulate Air
'
High Integrity Container
]
l&C
Instrument and Control
Lower Limit of Detection
LLRWB
Low Level Radioactive Waste Building
!
Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee
ODCM.
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
!
Quality Assurance
!
Quality Control
Radwaste
Radioactive Waste
Radiation Protection
Reportable Quantity
I
Updated Safety Analysis Report
WGDT
Waste Gas Decay Tank
i
14
l
l
l
L
_
.*,
.
,
PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Uodated Safety Analysis Reoort (USAR) Sections:
l
l
6.2.3 Containment Vessel Air Purification and Cleanup Systems
l
I
9.4
Air Conditioning, Heating, Cooling and Ventilation Systems
11.2
Liquid Waste System
11.3
Gaseous Waste System
11.4
Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring Systems
11.5
Solid Was'e System
Station Procedure Nos:
RPA I 007
Liquid Release / Contaminated Water Management Guidance
RPA 1012-11
Recommendation of Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent
Releases for Approval
DB-HP-10000 (rev. 4)
Radiation Monitor Set point Control
DB-OP-03011 (rev. 2)
Radioactive Batch Liquid Releases
DB-OP-03012 (rev. 2)
Radioactive Gaseous Batch Release
DB-MI-03404 (rov. 0)
Channel Calibration of 72C-1SR18228, Waste Gas System Outlet
Radiation Monitor
DB-MI-03401 (rev. 0)
Channel Calibration of RE 1770A&B, RE 1878A&B, RE 4686
Liquid Process Monitors and RE 1822A Waste Gas System Outlet
Radiation Monitors
DB-HP-01502 (rev.1)
Dewatering of Filter Media
DB-HP-03002 (rev.2)
Dewatering Verification
DB-HP-01500 (rev.1)
Shipping Radioactive Material
DB-HP-01510 (rev.2)
Solid Radioactive Waste Processing and Handling
QA-QC-00530 (rev. 0)
Inspection of Radioactive Material Packaging and Shipping
Activities
15
_ _
_
--
-
._-
_ _ _ _, - -_ _ -_ _ --- _
_
_________
- 2
4, e
,
Omiraration and Test Records
i
Channel Calibration of RE-1878B Liquid Process Outlet Radiation Monitor, dated 9/2/97
Channel Calibration of RE-1878A Liquid Process Outlet Radiation Monitor, dated 4/3/98
Channel Calibration of RE-1822A Waste Gas System Outlet Radiation Monitor, dated 12/29/97
T
,
[/;
Channel Calibration of RE-1822B Waste Gas System Outlet Radiation Monitor, dated 8/12/97 .
Channel Calibration of RE-1770A Liquid Process Radiation Monitor, dated 10/3/97
.
- Channel Calibration of RE-1770B Liquid Process Radiation Monitor, dated 8/1/97
Channel Calibration of RE-4686, Storm Sewer Outlet Radiation Monitor, dated 7/17/97 ~
Emergency Ventilation System Train 1, .18 month Special Test, dated 1/29/97
'
' Emergency Ventilation System Train 2,18 month Special Test, dated 2/7/97
. Control Room Emergency Ventilation System Train 1,18 month Special Test, dated 1/29/97
Control Room Emergency Ventilation System Train 2,18 month Special Test, dated 2/7/97
Miscellaneous
un
' Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (rev.11), dated 9/5/97
1997 Davis Besse Annual Environmental and Effluent Release Report
- Quality Assurance, Radiation Protection Annual Audit Reports for 1996 (SR-96-RPRWP-01), .
1997 (SR-97-RPRWP-01), and Draft Report for 1998 (SR-98-RPRWP-01)
!
Quality Assurance Surveillance Reports No SR-96-RPRWP-02 and SR-96-RPRWP-03
- Quality Control Surveillance Reports No. 97-lR-RW0001 and 97-IR-RW0002
Miscellaneous Waste Monitor Tank batch release package (release no. 2431), dated 5/17/98
- #1 Waste Gas Decay Tank batch release package (release no. 425), dated 5/10/98
?,
'
Radiation Monitor Set point Manual
. Process Control Program (rev. 5):
16
i.
l
,
t:
- - - - - _ _ -
_ - - _ _ - - - - _ - - - - -
- - - - - -
-