IR 05000155/1976005
| ML20002D718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1976 |
| From: | Finn J, Fisher W, Hueter L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D717 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-76-05, 50-155-76-5, NUDOCS 8101220220 | |
| Download: ML20002D718 (6) | |
Text
..
.
.f
.
,0
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0betIPSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCF. MENT
REGION III
Report of Radiological Protection Inspection IE Inspection Eeport No. 053-155/76-05 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-6 Cnarlevoix, Michigan Category:
C Type of Licensee:
BWR-240 Mwe Type of Inspection:
Refueling, Announced
'
Dates of Inspection:
February 3-5, 1976
-
/9 /7/;
~
Principal Inspector:
J. A. Finn 6
'
(Date)
f
~
~
Accompanying Inspector:
L. J. Hueter 3//(,/7(,
(Date)
,
Other Acccmpanying Personnel:. Nont
,f LL '
~
Reviewed By:
W. L. Fisher, Chief
%'A'
F//h/7(,
Fuel Facility Projects (Date)
'
Radiation Support See; ion f
.
T/s/aaoa.26 t
,
..
.
,
,
,
.
.
_
.
(
. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,
-
Inspection Summary
-
Inspection on February 3-5, (76-05) : Reviewed radiation protection
. program during refueling outage.
Enforcement Items None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
None.
Other Significant Items A.-
Systems and Components None.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures).
!
LNone.
-
.
,.
.
C.
Managerial Items
-
..
.
,,
None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
E.
Deviations
-
None.
F.
' Status of Previously Reported. Unresolved Items None.
Mar.agement Interview The following individuals _ were present during the management interview.
at the conclusion of the inspection:
,
-2-
.
.
f
..
.
.
.
..
.
C. J. Hartman, Plant Superintendent
..
C. E. Axtell, Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisot T.' M. Brun, Assistant Chemical and Radiation-Protection Supervisor
.
The following matters were discussed : -
A.
The scope of the inspection.
B.
The inspectors expressed concern about air bubble occurrences.
The February'4 "oir bubble" occurrence was discussed.
Dae inspectors questioned the prrctice of remaining in the immediate area when an air bubble is ob:ceved approaching the. pool surface.
. The licensee stated that many bubbles show no activity 'and that the reactor deck CAM is relied on ro indicate airborne radio-activity problems..They stated that there have been no'over-exposures to iodine due to air bubbles and that there had been no previous CAM-failures.
The operability of the CAM is routinely checked daily on the day shift. A second check vill be made on the evening shift.
CAMS are set to alarm at two times the ETC:
for unidentified radionuclides.
The licensee added that area radiation monitors located-on the reactor deck are set to alarm at 15 milliroentgens per hour and should detect significant.
airborne noble gas activity.
.
C.
The inspectors stated that due to incomplete air sampleJ ata, d
air c'oncentrations to which the three employees on the reactor deck were exposed on February'4-vere.not.available., The licensee stated that urine samples had been taken and that.the individuals vould be in vivo counted-to determine possible burdens and exposures.
-
D.
On February 19, the licensee telephoned'the results'of the in
'
vivo counts to the inspector.
Based on these counts, exposures of the employees to iodine-131 appear to be about 419C-hours.
,
(Paragraph 7, Report Details)
,
-3-
.
e-
,
,
e
.~
_ -, - _.,. -
. - - - -,. -
,
,.
, - - -
,m y
-
-
.
_.
.
.
_ REPORT DETAILS (
.,
1.
Persons Contacted.
_
.
C. E. Axtell, Chemical and. Radiation Protection Supervisor T. M. Brun, Assistant Chemical and Radiation Protection i
Supervisor 2.
General
,
-
The inspection was limited to radiation safety practices and experiences during a refueling and maintenance outage.
The inspector toured the plant and observed fuel' bundle removal and piping installation inside containnent.
Radiation protection records relative to the
,
outage were reviewed.
.
3.
Exposure Control During outages, daily and quarterly exposures obtained from dosimeters are tabulated daily and reviewed by Radiation
.
Protection supervision. A review ~of'the latest tabulation showed no exposure problems to date.
'
4.
Radiation Protection Ecuineent The inspectors noted that there were adequate supplies of survey instrucents, protective clothing, and respiratcrs.,
~
5.
Radiation Centrol
.
.
'
r
,
Entry into radiation work areas is through the access cantrol station located at the radiation protection office.
Information regarding status of work a.eas.and radiation protection requirements is available at this locatica.
The licensee keeps track of who is in containment by means of tags placed on "in" and "out" boards for regular assigned
,
This is supplemented by an "in-out" log for others.
personnel.
High radiation areas and radiation areas are posted.-
Status boards at the various locations include radiation lev' els, airborne radioactivity status, and protective clothing and radiation monitoring requirements.
During tour of the plant, the inspectors observed that the status boards were kept current.
-4-(
,
i
.
,
%
e e
m w
m
~
q
~
e
-
e
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - - - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
- - - - - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.High radiation areas are locked, with the keys controlled
'
by the shift supervisor. A log is maintained of'the use of the keys.
The inspectors observedfstepoff.boundatfes-and frisker stations at appropriate locations,'inclualog the Acce'ss Control itation. Portal monitors are located at the building exit and at the guardhouse.
6.
He<h Physics Staffing Staffing for the outage included nine radiation. protection; technicians, consisting of six Big l Rock Point employees and three employees'on loan from other plants. The three employees on loan had no prior experience and were used only for taking smear surveys and performing other routine duties.
Six technicians were assigned'to the day shift _and three to the evening shift. No technicians were assigned to the morning
!
shift, unless maintenance work was scheduled.
Radiation protection technicians are assigned to monitor maintenance. work.
Plant operators, who are RWP exempt, perform-
.
their own monitoring.
7.
Iodine-131 Exposure
During removal of a fuel bundle from the core at about 3:30 a.m.
'
on February 4, 1976,_three employees received an apparent
-
exposure of 4 MFC-hours to iodine-131, due to an'" air bubble",
rising to the surface of the water. No increase in activity showed on the chart of the constant air =enitor (CAM) sampling the vicinity, so the e=ployees continued'to work.
About this time a fourth e=ployee, who was exiting.the contain=ent, observed an increase on the CAM located near the' airlock.
Radiation Protection was notified and high volu=e air sa=ples- -
for iodine-131 were taken at the reactor deck loc ~ation at 3 :40 a.m. and 4 :40 a.m.
The 3:40 a.n. sa=ple showed a concen-tration'of 1.2E-9 pC1/ml.
The 4:40 a.m. sa=ple showed a concen-tration cf 4.25-10,uci/=1.
MPC for soluble iodine-131 is 9E-9_uC1/ml.
-
The e=ployees left the reactor deck at 3:55.a.m. and fuel bundle removal operations were discontinued.
l A check on the CAM on the reactor deck revealed a broken hose connection which prevented the CAM sa=pling the air where l
the men were working.
The CAM was repaired and placed back i-S-
'
l (
'
,
t
..
.-
-
.
. _.
-
__
.
...
,
..
.
,
- in s;rvica during tha dcy shif t cn Fabru ry. 4, cnd. fu21 bundla removal operations were resumed. The three employees were
- restricted from~further radiation ~ work perding determination of their exposures.. Urine samples were taken and arrangements were made for in vivo counts.
- La vivo counts made at Big Rock Point February 9,-11, 1976, showed approximately one per cent.of a maximum permissible body
. burden (MPBB) for iodine-131 in the two' employees' handling.
the fuel bundle. No iodine-131:was detected in the third
~
empicyee (crane operator.)
A maximum of 3% cf a'MPBB for cobalt-60 was detected and lesser amounts of cesium-114, cesium-137, and manganese-54 were detected.
Results of urine samples.have not been received. Based of the in vivo counts, an exposure to airborne concentrations of iodine-131 of 4 MPC-hours is estimated for the two employees
. handling the fuel bundles, with a lower exposure for the crane operator.
8.
Records Reviewed Radiation Protection Log Daily Radiation and Contamination Survey Sheets Air Sa=ple Log i
Radiation Protection Procedures Radiation Protection Procedures
-
.
.
,
t
i-6-
.
(
-
.
4MMD
%
g
.e,
-
,.,,,, - - - -
,
-
,
,
-
,