Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
. .
.
.
.
|
.
B OOKEAVEN RATIONAL LABORATORY,
TECHNICAL RIVIN REPORT
BATES OF INSFECTION: OCTOBEE 8 AND OCTOBER 22-25, 1985
SITE: ZION STATION
LICENSEE: 00BeORfEALTD DISON CD.
IACATION: ZION, ILLINDIS
ML TECENICAL 5FECIALISTS:
pCg' L . A L .k
B. Sistyind
h fd Aew -
Wad ~ L.. Beogy6 [
] |. c.~ ,
8606100330 86060DPDR ADOCK 05000295
PORO*
,
i
1
- - - _ _ . .__ ____ .- .,, .. - ,--.-- -- , .,___ , . , . . . . , , , - . _ . _ , _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - ., ,
. . _ _ . - - - _ - ~ .._ _
,
. .
-11-
CONTENTS
P,,,a, gg
1sUnnAmT..............................................................:
2J 1. PERSONS CONTACTED...............................................
2: 2. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED..............................................>
3>
3. DESIGN CHANGE EVALUAT10N........................................
44. QU ALITY AS SURANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5i
5. FACILITY DESIGN.................................................
96. OBSERVATION OF ONGOING W0RK.....................................
97. AS-BUILT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW....................................,
11! 8. TEST 1NG.........................................................I
119. PROCEDURAL CONTR0LS.............................................
1410. OFFSITE D0SE....................................................
TABLE 1 - ESTIMATED DOES RATES AT FIVE SELECTED LOCATIONS. ...... 18
;
i
h
4
1
I
|.
.
1
,
i
- - - - , - - -- -,,-,~, , wn-a ,---- ---- .,r- ,--- ....n ---.vm-,-,,,,w,p, -----------w -_,n--,,,-- -nm-mn.m .- - .,- -- ,, m, -mn -e
. .
-1-
SmMARY
On October 8,1985 a preliminary trip was made to Eton for site andfacility f amiliarisation and document collection. The full review of the In-terim Radweste Storage Facility (IRSF) was conducted October 22-25, 1985. Thereview was performed by three representatives of Brookhaven National Labora-tory (BNL) for NRC, Region III. A representative of Region III attended boththe entrance and the exit meetings. The review was conducted both at the ZionStation and at the Architect-Engineer's of fices (Stearns-Catalytic in OakBrook, Ill.).
Commonwealth Edison Co. (CECO) has decided to construct Low Level Rad-waste Storage Facilities at each of its operating plants due to the potentialinterruption of offsite radwaste disposal. A common design is being built atLaSalle, Quad Cities, and Zion. This facility will be used only to storesolidified radwaste already prepared for over the road shipment. The ZionIRSF will be located within the site owner-controlled area but outside of theprotected area and will serve both units. The facility was built under thedesign change provisions of 10CFR50.59. Areas reviewed by BNL included:design change evaluation, quality assurance, facility design, ongoing work,completed construction, procedures, and of f site dose / shielding calculations.
As a result of the review the following three overall conclusions havebeen drawn:
1. No significant discrepancies were identified and the IRSF shouldmeet its design objectives.
2. No formal Quality Assurance program has been implemented for thefacility (4).
3. Specifications and procedures for design and construction weregenerally followed but not rigorously (4).
The following open items, needing further action or information, wereidentified:
1. Concrete compressive test failure (7).
2. Structural bolting discrepancies (7).'
3. No test procedures available for IRSF (8).
f4. Backup analyses for 50.59 evaluation not . completed (3).G-
5. Frocedural and administrative guidelines for operation of IRSP notdeveloped (9).
6. Y streaming from vent duct holes not analyzed (10).
7. Near well radiation dose due to shadowing effect in question (10).
8. Actual offsite dose to maximally exposed number of the public inquestion due to measurement locations not determined (10).
;
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _, - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _
T ,
-2o. .
The number in parent.heses indicates the paragraph of this report wherethe details of the open ites may be found.
DETAILS~
1. PERSONS CONTACTED
*R. Basso SCC
D. Caus SCC
D. Dahlen CECO
P. LeBlond CECO
J. Marx SCC
.
*H. Massin CECO
N. Nicholson - NRC+P. Reichert SCC
*J. Reiss CECO
*J. Suermann NRC
R. Thompson CECO
R. Welch SC"
C. Willis NkC
* Present at the exit interview on 10/25/85
SCC - Stearna Catalytic Co.
Ceco - Commonwealth Edison Co.;
NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The reviewers also held discussions with other engineering, construction, and '
operations personnel.
2. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Engineering Design Change Notice (EDCN) Log and File of EDCNs for theZion IRSF.
SCC QA Surveillance, letter dtd 10/15/85 from Hyland to Basso.
Concrete test packages.
Soil test packages.
Letter P. LeBlond to J. Higgins dtd 10/4/85.
ANS1/ANS - 6.6.1 - 1979, " Calculation and Measurement of Direct andScattered Gamma Radiation from LWR Nuclear Power Plants."
.
x. - - _
_.
. .
-3-
SCC offsite dose calculation package for CECO IRSF (Calc. No. 70160-13).
Eton Station Modification Package #M22-0-84-35.
NRC Region III Inspection Report No. 50-295/85034 dtd 10/8/85.<
" Storage of Low-Level Radactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites" A reportto the Utility Nuclear Weste Management (UNWMG). R. Lawroski and Assoc.
4
and Tankee Atomic, 5/1/83.
3. DESIGN CHANGE EVALUATION
NRC Cuidance issued in Generic Letter 81-38 stated that utilities could:
increase onsite radweste storage under the design change provisions of 10CFR-50.59 provided the guidelines of the Generic Letter were followed. The designof the Zion IRSF was reviewed against the Generic Letter guidelines in para-
The Generic Letter also referred to I&E Circulargraph 5 of this report.80-19 which provided information on preparing 50.59 evaluations for radweste 1
The 50.59 saf ety evaluation for IRSF was reviewed by BKL and is Ifacilities.described below. The Zion IRSF was designed and built essentially as new
The only parts of the facility that were handled under the Zionconstruction.station modification procedures were the tie-ins to existing systems, namely
.
service water, service air, and alaras. Electric power for the IRSF wasbrought from offsite. The station modification paperwork for the tie-ins wasalso reviewed.
The 50.59 safety evaluation was completed and approved using the appro-priate CECO procedures, and determined that
1. The probability of occurrence or consequence of an accident perthe FSAR was not increased.
2. The possibility of an accident dif ferent from the FSAR was not !
created.
3. The margin of safety was not reduced.
The evaluation used a check sheet format to ensure a large number ofareas were considered for the above. A conclusion was reached that 10CFR100limits would not be exceeded in the event of building collapse. However, noof ficial backup calculations and evaluations were available to justify this
One unofficial calculation was produced to show acceptability.statement.The reviewers also requested information to document that, in the event of anaccident such as a radwaste cask drop from the crane, no offsite limits wouldbe exceeded. The licensee said that they had evaluated these types of occur- ,
rences based on engineering judgement but that no written evaluations or ,
calculations were available. Overall it was thus concluded that the 50.59safety evaluation did not have suf ficient documentation to show that duringdesign basis events or anticipated operational occurences, no un-reviewedsafety question existed. This documentation or evaluation is called for by10CFR50.59, Generic Letter 81-38, page 2 and Item V(c), CDC-60, and IE
,f Circular 80-18 Item 4. The licensee stated that such evaluations would beformalized, reviewed, approved and included as part of the 50.59 safetyevaluation for the IRSF. This is open item No. 4.,
- - - _ - - _=- . - . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ -______ _
- _ ,
. .
1
-4-
The 50.59 anfety evaluation was siso reviewed against Circular 80-18,which provided guidance for such safety evaluations for changes to radioactive
The licensee's 50.59 safety evaluation on Worksheet~
wtste treatment sy st ems.-
InE, item 9, Issue ST6/R9, stated that the intent of Circular 80-18 is met.i addition to reviewing 50.59, Circular 80-18 identified four specific areas forreview. These areas were not specifically addressed in the licensee's safetyevaluation, but the licensee stated verbally that they had been considered asfollows:
1. Modifications should be evaluated against the quality assurancecriteria in R.G. 1.143.: The licensee stated that since the rad-waste would not be processed in this f acility Quality Assurance,
per R.G.1.143 Ites C.6 was not required.
2. Radiological Controls should be evaluated against R.G. 1.21 andStandard Review Plan (SRP) 11.5.: Again this was deemed notapplicable since there would be no radwaste processing.
3. Potentially explosive mixtures should be evaluated against SRP11.3.: This was not originally considered applicable but will nowbe reviewed per NRC open Item 295/85034-04 ,
4. System design and operation should be evaluated to assure that theradiological consequences of unexpected and uncontrolled releasesof radioactivity that is stored or transferred in a waste systemare a small fraction of the 10CFR100 guidelines.: This was notoriginally formalized and is considered open item f 4 as describedin the above paragraph.
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE
NRC has a number of guidelines recommending appropriate quality assurancefor structures, systems, and components of a nuclear power plant that are not
|strictly safety related. 10CFR50 Appendix A GDC-1 also calls for qualitystandards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be per-i
formed. Regarding radwaste specifically:i
|
1. IE Circular 80-18 states that prior to modification of radwastesystems the modifications should be evaluated against the seismic,quality group and quality assurance criteria in Regulatory Guide1.143.
2. 'I&E Inspection Procedure 65051 directs NRC inspectors to ascertainwhether QA has been established per position C.6 of R.C. 1.143.
'
3. R.G.1.143, " Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Sys-, tess, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Plants," Position C 6 " Quality assurance for Rad-waste Management Systems' providea a limited scope QA program forthese systems which includes: quality standards, independent de-
# sign and procurement verification, survey of suppliers, storagecontrol, inspection, states control, nonconformance control andrecord keeping.
,
= -- . _ _ _ - - - _ _ .
. _ _ . . _ _ _
- .
-5-1
1
)
Discussions with Ceco and their Architect-Engineer, Stearne CatalyticCo. (SCC) indicated that there was no formal quality assurance program estat-
|11shed for the design and construction of the IRSF. The utility nuclear wastemanagement group, of which CECO is a member, determined that the IRSF is not asafety class building; theref ore, no Quality Assurance was deemed necessary.They further stated that, since all material was prepared for over the road
,
I
shipment and so further processing of radweste would take place in the IRSF,that R.C. 1.143 did not apply. As a result an evaluation was made by RNL asFor de-to what controle were actually utilised for design and construction.sign SCC has generally utilized the Project Procedures Manual and the NuclearProject Design Procedures (NPDP) Manual. In areas where they determined thatj
1
compliance with these manuals was not appropriate they have made individualto follow them. It was also noted that paragraph 5.03.2 of thejudgements not
SCC Project Proceduren Manual for Zion states that design control and documentapproval for non-safety related documents will be in accordance with theNuclear Project Design Procedures Manual except for seven listed areas. Asmentioned sove for the IRSF, additional areas of the NPDPs beyond those sevenlisted, were not followed. The judgements and the areas not followed are notdocumented, however, the various design controls actually utilized appearedappropriate. Areas reviewed by BNL included standards utilized, surveillancesperformed, drawing revision and control, change control, and calculations.
At the site actual construction was reviewed, as discussed in Sections 6& 7 of this report, to determine the degree of conformance to specifications.Areas reviewed included concrete work, structural steel and bolting, electri-
Overall it wascal, overhead crane, piping, soil, fire detection, and HVAC.infound that construction was completed professionally and for the most part,
accordance with specifications despite the lack of a QA program. However, itwas noted both in the design area and the construction area thatspecifications and procedures were not rigorously followed as would berequired by a QA program. Some examples are given here: floor bolting in the;
control room and auxiliary equipment room not per drawings, crane festoon railbolting not per drawing, holes burned in structural steel, dimensions en cranerail not per drawing, concrete HVAC foundation dimensionr, not per EDCN,concrete slump tests out of specification, concrete compressive test low,concrete tests not always done at 3 days as required, EDCNs not handled perprocedures, different routing sheets used for vendor prints, not allcalculations were controlled, concrete surf ace voids not filled in perspecification and then painted over, the latest version of the UniformBuilding Code was not used per specification, and incorrect electrical breakerwith incorrect rating installed. While these items are examples of programinadequacies none appeared significant and therefore, should not compromisethe ability of the IRSF to perform its design function.
5. FACILITY DESIGN
In Generic Letter 81-38 the NRC has provided guidance regarding low-levelIt is noted inradioactive waste (LLRW) storage facilities at power reactors. ,
81-38 that the safety of a proposal for an increase in the LLRW storage capa-city must be evaluated by the licensee under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.The NRC will judge the adequacy of the 50.59 evaluation based on the compli-ance with the 81-38 guidance, which is to be used in the design, construction,and operation of the storage facility. The following review of the InterimRadwaste Storage Facility (IRSF) design at the Commonwealth Edison Company
:
!
I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _.
_-
. .
6-
(Ceco), Eton Nuclear Plant is based on the applicable sections of GenericLetter 81-38. Procedural controle necessary to implement this guidance arediscussed in section 9. An asterith (*) is used in the paragraphs below toindicate further discussion in Section 9.
5.1 Generally Applicable Guidance
The following discussion is organised in the same manner as Section IIIof Generic Letter 81-38 but with different numbering.
5.1.1 Quantity of Radioactive Material
This paragraph of the Generic Letter calls for limiting the quantity ofmaterial stored in the f acility to ensure of fsite dose within 40CFR190 limits(= 1 area / year), onsite dose limits within 10CFR20 limits and also includesthe ALARA principle. Zion and SCC performed dose calculations to ensure thatonsite and offsite limits would not be exceeded. The dose calculations werereviewed in detail by BNL as discussed in paragraph 10 of this report. Inorder to ensure that the material actually stored in the IRSF does not go be-yond that assumed in the analyses, procedural controls will, be required *.The design and construction of the IRSF was reviewed and it was determinedthat ALARA was appropriately considered.
5.1.2 Waste Container and Waste Form
Compatibility of the container materials with the waste forms and withenvironmental conditions external to the containers in accordance with the8138 guidance is necessary to prevent significant container corrosion.
According to J. Reiss of CECO, cement-solidified LLRW in steel liners will bestored in the Zion IRSF. Compatibility of the steel container material withthe cement solidified waste form may be optimized by maintaining alkalineconditions in the cement binder material and by avoiding free liquid in thefinal waste form; control of free liquid and pH are part of the ProcessControl Program (PCP) established for the power plant's solid radioactivewaste management system. Compatibility of the container material with theIRSF environment may be optimized by maintaining the relative humidity in theIRSF as low as possible throughout the year. According to the Project Plan,the storage area / truck bay ventilation system shall maintain the sp+ acetemperature at +50'F when it is 10*F outside, and at a maximum of 110*F whenit is +95'F outside. It shall consist of a supply fan, exhaust reliefopening, distribution system, electric duct heaters, and control system. Thestorage area / truck bay ventilation system described in the Project Plan shouldbe capable of heating and drying incoming air as needed to preventcondensation and in general, maintain a low relative humidity. Proceduralcontrols for the PCP and for operation of the ventilation system to optimizecompatibility of the container material with the waste form and with thestorage f acility environment, respectively, are needed*.
Gas generation from stored LLRW is an open item (295/85034-04; 304/85036-04) from the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. P. C. Lovendale andMs. N. A. Nicholson of the Region III office on September 17-19 and 26,1985.
- _ _ _ _
l
. .
_7i
According to the IRSF Project Plan, the overhead crane will include TV i
cameras, lighting, and a position indexing system to facilitate a program ofProcedural controls are 1
periodic visual inspection of container integrity. I
also required *. i
5.1.3 Security
According to the Project Plan, the f acility shall have a lock on all ac-cess doors. Since the IRSF st Zion is located outside the security fence, itshall also be surrounded with a locked, chain-link fence. Security proceduresare required *.
5.1.4 Low-Level Dry Waste and Solidified Waste Storage
It was noted by J. Reiss of CECO that no low-level dry waste will bestored in the IRSF.
5.1.4.1 Release Pathways, Surveillance, and Decontamination of Containers
Potential radionuclide release pathways shall be monitored, according tothe 81-38 guidance. Joe Reiss of CECO noted that isokinetic sampling of theair in the storage area was planned by using aspirating collection devicesmounted at an angle in holes through the wall. See Section 9, below.
Surveillance programs for detecting failure of container integrity andmeasuring releases to the environment are required *.
Procedures for decontamination of containers before storage are needed*.
5.1.4.2 Collection and Sampling of Liquid Drainage
According to the IRSF Project Plan, floor drains shall direct incidentalexcess water or condensation to sumps servicing the truck bay and storage
The rectangular stainless steel construction of the sumps is intendedareas.to prevent leakage of radioactive fluids into the soil. The sumps shall bedesigned to allow for pumping to portable tanks for transportation to a pro-cessing location. See Section 9, below for procedural considerations *.
5.1.4.3 Waste Stored in Outside Areas
Not applicable.
5.1.4.4 Corrosion From External Environment
The only applicable part of this 81-38 guidance is the following: Stor-age containers should be raised off storage pads where water accumulation canbe expected to cause external corrosion and possible degradation of containerintegrity. This is also an open item from the routine inspection of September17-19 and 26,1985 (295/85034-06; 304/85036-06).
5.1.4.5 Total Curie Limits for Storage
According to the IRSF General Design Critera, shielding thicknesses forthe IRSF were determined based on a solid 5 Rem /hr array of containers.
i
.
- B-
However, it is also~ noted in the General Design Criterie that some administra-be re-tive control over placement and specific higher activity containers um7
quired to achieve the radiation sone criteria *.
5.1.4.6 Inventory Records
Use of a peg-board for the purpose of inventory records was mentioned byJoe Reiss of CECO. (See Section 9, below*.)
5.2 Wet Radioactive Waste Storage
According to CECO, wet radioactive waste will not be stored in the IRSF.Therefore, Section IV of the 81-38 guidance document is not applicable.
5.3 Solidified Radioactive Waste Storage
The following discussion is organized in the same order ac Section V ofGeneric Letter 81-38.
5.3.1 Definition of Solidified Radwaste
Cement-solidified LLRW meets the definition of solidified radwaste asgiven in Paragraph V (a) of the 81-38 guidance document.
5.3.2 Container Protection and Reprocessing Requirements
See Section 9, below*.
5.3.3 Uncontrolled Released Due to Handling Transportation on Storage
Since the containers intended to be used for storage in the IRSF are alsointended for use in transporting LLRW to the disposal site, they should meet
Certifica-the various NRC and DOT handling and transportation requirements.these re-
tion vendor should be obtained from the container to insure that| quirements are met.
| 5.3.4' Applicable Design Objectives and Criteriai Restricted areas were discussed in Section 5.1.3, above and accountabil-j' ity was discussed in Section 5.1.4.6, above. According to CECO, dewatered re-
Corrosion of the container bysins or sludges will not be stored in the IRSF.the waste was considered in Section 5.1.2, above.
There is no provision for additional reprocessing or repackaging due tocontainer f ailure. CECO maintains that such provision is unnecessary.
5.4 Uniform Building Code
Section 1.1.2 of the Zion IRSF General Design Criteria states that the| latest version of all design documents shall be used. Among the design docu-
ments listed is the Uniform Building Code. Upon review it was found that
ii
_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __
_ _
.
. p.
design was done to the 1979 Revision vice the latest which is 1982. Stearns-Catalytic (SCC) agreed to review the 1982 Revision to determine any differ-ences as they apply to the IRSF. This review was completed during the week ofthe onsite review. SCC determined that for the IRSF the 1979 and the 1982 re-visions were equivalent.
6. OBSERVATION OF ONGOING WORK
At the time of the IRSF review the f acility was approximately 85% com-plete. There was not extensive work in progress but the work being performedwas observed. Work actually observed included concrete finishing, painting,and roof insulation work. Work techniques, methods, and quality appeared ap-propriate for the facility. Surface finishing work being performed on the ex-terior walls of the main building was being performed in accordance with the
70160-2700-05.requirements of the Reinforced Concrete Work specification
7. AS-BUILT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
7.1 Discussion
Various completed portions of the IRSF were reviewed and compared withspecifications, procedures and drawings to determine their acceptability.Areas reviewed included: concrete work, structural steel and bolting, theelectrical overhead crane, service air and water piping, soil, HVAC ducts,and the grounding system.
7.2 Structural Steel and Mechanical Equipment
A number of structural steel and mechanical areas were reviewed includingthe overhead crane, crane rails, festoon rails, steel columns and girders,HVAC ductwork, and base plates. The main documents used for guidance were SCCSpecification for Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel (No. 701601800-7), structural drawings, equipment drawings, and the IFSF Specification (No.El-70160-2000-01 ) . Installed steel and equipment was checked for conformancewith the various documents and for overall good construction techniques. Withthe exception of the below items no discrepancies were identified.
| 1. Fage 6 of the Structural Steel Spec. item 4.02.7 states that no holes|
will be made or enlarged by burning. Contrary to this a number of boltholes were noted to have been burned in the crane festoon rail, whichcarries the crane cabling.
2. The structural bolting of the festoon rail to the overhead girders wasnot per drawing in that: shims were added; bolt heads, shims and nutsI
were not flush or level with steel; and all bolts were not double-nutted. 1
!
3. The one inch dimension on the drawing for the supports for the craneretrieval rail was only 3/8" installed. This did not appear to affectthe function of the rail or support. ,
,
4. Inspection of the control room / equipment room wing revealed that the four froof support columns were not properly bolted to the floor slab as
!
.. . . . . _ ___ . _ - __-- - _
. . - - -
. .
-10-.
required by drawing 5-1136. Two columne had nuts missing due to theembedded bolts being too short. The rest of the embedded bolte had lessthan full thread engagement with their respective outs.
The bolting items above (1, 2, and 4) constitute Open Item No. 2.
7.3 Soil Excavation
Actual excavation and ccupaction was completed some time ago. SCC Speci-fication No. 70160-2100-06, Excavation, Filling and Backfilling, item 7.013 )requires compaction of backfill to a minimum of 95% relative density. Test
'
records were examined to determine if actual compaction had achieved the 55%density. All test results showed acceptable compaction.,
7.4 Concrete
Actual concrete work and concrete test records were examined for com-pliance with Specification No. 70160-1700-05, " Reinforced Concrete Work" andwith drawings. The following areas were reviewed: concrete slump tests;concrete compressive tests at 3, 7 and 28 days; proper rebar installed; con-crete surface finish; and concrete thicknesses in wall and ceiling. The con-crete thicknesses were independently measured since they were an importantinput to the shielding calculations. The lower portion of the wall was atleast 30" thick, the upper portion of the wall was 15", and the ceiling alter-nated between 12" and 15" thick. These were all as specified and as used inthe calculations. All other areas reviewed were acceptable, except for thefollowing discrepancies:
1. Concrete slump test results exceeded the maximum spec in a number ofGenerally, however, the required strength was still achieved.cases.
2. Concrete tests at 3 days were not always met, but the 7 day and 28 daytests were generally performed acceptably.
3. For two test cylinders (both in Test #56) the 28 day concrete compressive! strengths came out below the 3500 psi minimum. This is open iten No. 1.
4. Concrete surface finish was not always repaired to remove any voidsgreater than 1/4" as required. A number of these were then painted overwithout repair.
5. The concrete base mat for the HVAC unit was originally specified on Draw-ing B-1129 to be 10'6" x 10' . EDCN No. 09 changed this to 10'6" x 11' .The actually installed base mat was measured in place and found to be10'6" x 10'6": and no further change notices were issued. This discre-pancy should not impact any function of the equipment or structure.
7.5 Electrical
Because electrical panels and equipment were not installed yet,inspection of the grounding system consisted of verifying the requirements ofthe IRSF General Design Criteria, section 3.4.3 to determine if groundingcables had been installed to the equipment areas as shown on drawing22E-0-6502. The grounding cable installation was satisfactory.
!
|l
-. , - - . a, , n - - , _ - . , - - . - - - - . . - . - _- - - - - - - . - - - - - ----- - -
_ ___ ._
. .
-11-
The project plan requires a 480 volt, 70 amp welding receptacle to beprovided, whereas electrical drawing 22E-0-650 shows a 400 volt, 60 ampbresker supplying the welding receptacle. Either should suffice.
7.6 Sumps and Piping
Inspection of the embedded drain and sump system of the main building todrawing M805 indicated a satisf actory installation.
|'
A review of the pneumatic test package of the service air piping to theIRSF indicated that the installation was satisf actorily inspected by the plant ,
OC group. Test gauge calibration check sheets indicated that the test gaugehad received a calibration check prior to and af ter the test.
8. TESTING ,
A number of the systems, equipments, and instrumentation designed for andinstalled in the IRSF requires final post-installation testing to ensure thatthey are functionally ready to operate. Although the facility was 85%construction complete during the review, no test procedures were available forreview. Purther, there was no outline or list of precisely which test
*
procedures would be written, approved, and implemented. At the minimum thereshould be documented test procedures for the HVAC system, the overhead crane,the fire detection system, and the sump alarms. This is an open item (#10).
9. PROCEDURAL CONTROLS
In this section, a review is given of the procedural controls which may4
be necessary to implement the guidance in Generic Letter 81-38 at the IRSF atCECO's Zion Power Plant. This section is organized in the same manner as thereview of facility design in Section 5, above. The needed procedural andadministrative controls are collectively designated open item f 5.
9.1 Generally Applicable Guidance
9.1.1 Quantity of Radioactive Material
The dose analysis assumes containers of radwaste which are 5 Rem /hr onSome containers are periodically generated for storage in the IRSFcontact.
which exceed this 5 Rem /hr. In this case certain steps must be taken (shield-ing, placement, etc.) to ensure that the dose calculations are not invali-dated. Procedural controls are needed to ensure that the needed steps aredetermined and implemented.
9.1.2 Waste Container and Waste Form .
The procedural controls for the Process Control Program (PCP) and foroperation of the ventilation system to optimize compatibility of the containermaterial with the waste form and with the IRSF environment have not been madeavailable. Procedures for operation of the ventilation system should assurethat incoming and/or recirculating air will be heated and dried as needed toavoid condensation and high humidity. This is of particular concern since the
. __ . .. ._ - - _ -
._- .- - .
. . l
-12-.
automatic temperature control setpoint will not prevent condensation duringall seasons and onsite tours during this inspection noted heavy condensationinside the IRSF.
The PCP available from the vendor of the radwaste solidificaton process'
and reportedly includes provision for control of pH in a narrow basic range aswell as for elimination of free liquid from the final solidified product. ;
This was not available for review. At present, procedural controls for the 1
PCP and for the operation of the ventilation system remain open items.! As noted in Section 5.1.2, above, gas generation from stored LLRW is an
open item (295/85034-04; 304/85036-04) from the routine safety inspection ofSeptember 17-19 and 26,1985.
The development of a container inspection program to assure container in-tegrity is also an open item from the routine safety inspection of September17-19 and 26, 1985. (Open item 295/85034-05; 304/85036-05).
9.1.3 Security
The development of security procedures remains an open ites.
9.1.4 Low-Level Dry Waste and Solidified Waste Storage
9.1.4.1 Release Pathways. Surveillance, and Decontamination of Containers
The isokinetic sampling of the storage area air mentioned above in See-tion 5.1.4.1 responds in part to an open item (295/85034-02; 304/85036-02)from the September 17-19 and 26,1985, safety inspection. Regarding this openitem, CECO agreed to establish an air and direct radiation monitoring programfor the storage area and occupied areas'.
A surveillance program incorporating adequate methods for detecting fail-.
f ure of container integrity is an open item from the routine safety inspectionof September 17-19 and 26,1985. (open Item 295/85034-05; 304/85036-05).
Since containers of LLRW are presently being shipped from the Zion Plantfor disposal, the containers are presumably decontaminated to below the limitsspecified in 10 CFR 20.202, 20.205, and 49 CFR 173.397 and thus are in accordwith the 81-38 guidance. The specific procedural controls for such decontani-nation prior to storage are not available, however, and thus remain open.
9.1.4.2 Collection and Sampling of Liquid Drainage
Monitoring of water runoff collected in the sumps is an open ites fromthe routine safety inspection of September 17-19 and 26,1985 (open Item 295/85034-03; 304/85036-03).
9.1.4.3 Monte Stored in outs ;a Areas
Not Applicable.
.
. . _ _ _ _ - . -. . . _ , _ _ .-. _.
- .
-13-
9.1.4.4 Corrosion from External Environment
The procedure as well as the design for raising the storage containersoff the floor is an open item. This is also an open ites from the routinesafety inspection of Septester 17-19 and 26,1985, in response to which thelicensee agreed to consider placing the first layer of containers on a metal
!grating to minimize condensate collection. (0 pen Item 295/85034-06; 304/
I
85036-06)
9.1.4.5 Total curie Limits for StorageI
As mentioned in Section 5.1.4.5, above, the shielding thicknesses for theIRSF are based on a solid array of 5R/hr containers and, therefore, adminis-trative controls on >5R/hr containers will be necessary. The description ofadministrative controls on >5R/hr containers remains an open ites.
9.1.4.6 Inventory Records
Procedures for the the maintenance of inventory records remains an openitem.
9.2 Wet Radioactive Waste Storage
Not applicable.
9.3 Solidified Radioactive Waste Storage
9.3.1 Definition of Solidified Radwaste
See Section 9.3.2, which follows.
9.3.2 Container Protection and Reprocessing Requirements
The specification that only cement-solidified radwaste not requiringfurther processing will be stored in the IRSF does not appear to be in theGeneral Design Criteria. J. Reiss of CECO stated that such a specificationvill be issued by Station Nuclear Engineering, but until then, the specifica-tion of the type of stored waste remains an open item.
9.3.3 Uncontrolled Releases due to Handling, Transportation on Storage
Procedures should be developed and implemented for early detection, pre-vention, and mitigation of accidents such as fire, cask drops, etc.
9.3.4 Applicable Design Objectives and Criteria
Restricted areas and accountability were considered above in Section9.1.3 and 9.1.4.6, respectively.
Procedural controls, such as the PCP, for avoiding corrosion of the con-tainer by the waste were considered in Section 9.1.2, above.
_
. .
-14-
As noted in Section 5.3.4, above, there is no provision for additionalreprocessing or replacement due to container failure. CECO maintains that
>
such provision is unnecessary.
Finally, procedures must be developed to address normal operation of theIRSF to include both placement of radweste in the facility and removal fromthe facility.
10. OFFSITE AND ONSITE DOSE ASSESSMENT
10.1 Introduction
Stearns Catalytic has performed onsite and offsite dose calculations ofdirect and skyshine gasma radiation from an interim radwaste storage facilityat the Zion nuclear plant. The f acility is expected to accumulate twenty four
3 3170 ft liners and twelve 85 ft liners per year for up to five years. Thenominal contact dose of the liners is 5 Rem /hr. The facility is shielded withvertical concrete walls 30 inches thick to a height of 36 feet. Above thisheight are 15 inch thick concrete walls reaching to a concrete roof at aheight of 49 feet. The roof thickness varies between 12 and 15 inches. Thesouth vertical wall has penetrations for five intake ducts and one exhaustduct centered approximately 2 1/2 feet below the roof level. The intake pene-trations are each 16 inches high x 40 inches wide, while the exhaust penetra-tion is 30 inches high x 60 inches wide. The skyshine dose calculations havebeen made wigh both the Monte Carlo code, SKYSHINE II, and the single scattercode code, G , which uses the Klein-Nishina formula and corrects for multiplescatter by applying buildup factors. Both direct and skyshine dose rates havebeen calculated as a function of the distance from the facility wall.
10.2 Calculational Method and Results
The direct gamma dose rate has been calculated in a straight forwardmanner using source buildup factors and mass attenuation coefficients. Fctof fsite dose calculations a 17-group source spectrum was reduced to an equiva-lent 4-group spectrum. The source isotopic mix ' chosen was identical to thatused in the UNWMG study and is a representative composition of wastes fromboth PERs and BWRs. The skyshine calculations were performed with programsinstalled and controgled by the service bureau of the University ComputingCompany. Both the G and SKYSHINE II codes have been used in the past forreference calculations of scattered radiation in an ANSI /ANS standard.
Several simplifications were made in the calculations regarding effec-tive source strengths, combination of buildup factors for different media,angle of incidence of the radiation on the ceiling, etc. The effect of thesesimplifications on the expected accuracy of the results has been discussed inSection III of calculation 70160-13 and Section IV of Calculation 70160-15.The effect of the duct penetrations on the vertical wall of the facility hasnot been calculated, although rough estimaten were provided in telephoneconversations with representatives of Consonwealth Edison Company and SternsCatalytic. The largest uncertainties in the calculations that have been
.
- -- --- , --- -._y-r _ . ___
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
-15-
identified by the licensee are (1) a factor of two in the non-conservativedirection associated with the representation of the source as a slab source of5 Rem /hr dose rate, and (11) a 50% -200% conservatism, depending on sammaenergy, due to the multiplicative contination of buildup f actors for thesource self-shielding and the roof shielding. In the opinion of the licenseethe overall impact of the conservatisms and non-conservatisms is a netreasonably conservative result for the skyshine calculation; and a reasonableestimate of the direct dose provided a margin of about 50% of the calculatedvalue is maintained below the acceptance criterf s.
.
10.3 Discussion
10.3.1 Uncertainties,in Theoretical Modeling
A major source of uncertainty that was not identified nor accountedfor in the licensee dose calculations is that associated with the mathemat-ical and physical modeling of the complex skyshine phenomenon. Thesignificance of this uncertainty is readily discernable in Figure 3 of cal-culation7g160-13,whichshowsthatevenwithconsistentinputandsourcemodeling G and SKYSHINE II predictions differ by as much as a factor ofthree. A review of the results of the reference calculations presented inANSI /ANS Standard 6.6.1-1979 for simple problems with well defined inputsalso indicates a spread of approximately a factor of two for the variouscodes used. We, therefore, regard the results of the licensee calculations i
as "best estimates," and conclude that the doses calculated by the licenseeneed to be multiplied by a factor of two to account for uncertainties inthe theoretical modeling.
10.3.2 Effect of Penetrations for Inlet and Exhaust Ducts
Dose calculations by the licensee do not account for unshielded gammarays escaping through the penetrations for inlet and exhaust ducts. In re-sponse to our concern regarding this effect, the licensee indicated thatthe ef fects would be small based on rough estimates made using extremelysimplistic models. We believe that a proper estimation of this effect canonly be made using a much more detailed calculation that acccunts for,among other things, the directionality of the unshielded gamma rays. Wealso believe that the contributions of these unshielded gamma rays to thedose at vulnerable locations (e.g., at locations in direct line of the
|ducts such as the Turbine Building) may be quite significant. In the ab-
sence of detailed calculations we are unable to arrive at a quantitativeevaluation of this effect.
10.3.3 Effect of Wall Shadowing on the Near Building Dose
The licensee estimates that immediately adjacent to the building the.
skyshine dose rate will be reduced by a factor of two compared to that ati
20 feet due to building shielding of the receiver from the skyg This esti-
mate is based on the prediction trends at small distances of G , which mod-els vall shadowing, and SKYSHINE II, which does not (Fig. 3, Calculation70160-13). Although the physical basis of the shgdowing effect is plausi-ble, due to the substantial differences between G and SKYSHINE II it is
|
|
|'
. _ . _ _ _ _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _
- -- . . . _ . . .- __ .-_ _ _.
. .
-16-
3not evident that the difference between C and BKYSHINE 11 predictions atsmall distances is due to the shadowing. In the absence of a demonstration ofthe magnitude of the wall shadowing ef fect, a conservative estimate of the
: near building dose rate should not take credit for this effect.'
10.3.4 Location of the Maximally Exposed Individual
EPA Regulations, 40CFR190.10, state that operations from the uranium fuelcycle shall be conducted so that the annual dose does not exceed 25 area wholebody to any member of the public. NUREG-0133 discusses methods for calcula-tion of these and other offsite doses and refers to the utilities' OffsiteDose Calculation Manual (ODCM) as containing the methodology and parametersfor these calculations. Generic Letter 81-38 states that offsite doses fromonsite radweste storage must be sufficiently low to account for other uraniumfuel cycle sources (e.g. it states that an additional dose of ;[ 1 arem peryear is not likely to cause the limits of 40CFR190 to be exceeded). Review ofvarious documents and discussion with NRC personnel lef t the method of deter-mination of the maximally exposed individual to be used in these calculationsuncertain. It was not clear whether one should use the site fence, the siteboundary, the Lake, the nearest business, or the nearest permanent residence.It was also not clear if, or how residence time, such as number of businessshif ts, should be taken into account. The approved Zion ODCM was notavailable for this inspection but ODCM Table 7.2-4, Rev. 2 entitled, " CriticalRanges" was given to the reviewers. This table tabulates the " nearest resi-dent" for each of the 16 cardinal compass directions from Zion. The closestvalue was 1609 meters in three directions: South, West, and West North West.the reviewers requested documentation as to where onsite these distances weremeasured from and precisely to what " resident" offsite they were measured.The licensee was unable to provide this documentation. This is a concern
! since this table is used for many routine offsite exposure calculations, notjust a new design of the IRSF. In response to the questions, the licenseestated verbally that these distances were measured from the center of the twocontainments and to the following nearest residents or maximally exposed indi-viduals: Burgess-Anderson-Tate (WNW), to a bakery (W), and to the IllinoisState Park (S). The licensee's calculation for dose from the IRSF also usesthe same 1609 meters to determine offsite exposure. Independent measurements
a
and tours of the Zion facility environs by BNL identified some discrepancieswith this information. Namely, in the WNW direction, Burgess-Anderson-Take is'
! on the order of 3500 feet from the center of containment and from the IRSF;and in the westerly direction the American Air Filter Company is closer thanthe bakery, has both a day and a night shif t, and is about 3000-3500 feet fromthe containments and the IRSF. Additionally, while there are no residences orpermanent businesses situated in the following locations, the nearest landsite boundary to the IRSF is 1421 feet and the Lake Michigan shoreline is only240 feet from the IRSF. Fisherman were observed in the areas offshore of thefacility.
In the light of the above facts, it is concluded that there is consider-able uncertainty as to where the dose to the maximally exposed individual off-site should be measured. As a result it can not be determined if the limitsof 40CFR190 have been met for the IRSF. Additionally, there appears to besome uncertainty regarding offsite dose measurements for the site in general.!
This is open item #8.
- . _ - - . - _ - . - - _ _ _ . - _ _ - - . - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - -- . - - _.
.
-17-
10.3.5 Dose mates for Selected Onsite and offsite Locaticne
We have selected five representative locations (onsite and offsite) whichaddress the concerne stated above. Table-1 presents the dose rates at theselected locations based on (1) the Stearns Catalytic analysis, and (2) theBNL estimate which is the SKYSHINE II plus direct dose rates (each component)increased by a factor of two for modeling uncertainties, as recommended in theabove sections. Neither set of estimates accounts for the unshielded gamma
rays escaping through the ducts.
10.3.6 Open Items
1. A detailed calculation of the effect of the unshielded gamma raysescaping through the inlet and exhaust ducts has not been made (Itemf6). .
2. In order to take credit for the suggested conservatism in the SKYSHINE.
II near-building calculations, the effect of wall shadowing on thenear-building dose should be quantified (Item #7).
3. The location of the maximally exposed of fsite individual has not beenclearly determined either for IRSF calculations or other offsite dosecalculations (Item #8).
.
.
.m . , -- - . - - - - _ - - - - , - - - - , . - - _ - . - - - - - - - . _ _ - - - - -
.
-18- j
TABLE-1
ESTIMATED DOSE RATES AT FIVE SELECTED 14 CATIONS
Distance From Estimated RevisedLocation Facility Wall (ft) Dose Rate * Dose Rate *t
Adjacent to Facility 0 0.57 area /hr 2.06 area /hr
Lake Michigan3 3
Shore Line 240 2.6x10 mrea/yr 5.2x10 area /yr
Nearest Site 1421 50 aren/yr 100 arem/yrBoundary
Nearest OffsiteBusiness =3500 0.2 ares /yr 0.4 mrem /yr
Nearest Resident 5280 -0.1 aren/yr -0.2 area /yr
Contribution of gamma rays escaping through ducts not included.*
t SKYSHINE II and direct dose rate each increased by a factor of two tosecount for modeling uncertainties.
|!
|
|
|
|
|
