IR 05000155/1977013
| ML20002E451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Cook, Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1977 |
| From: | Baker K, Fisher W, Foster J, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002E447 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-77-13, 50-255-77-12, 50-315-77-14, NUDOCS 8101280071 | |
| Download: ML20002E451 (10) | |
Text
'
"
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY CO:C!ISSION '
.
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCD1ENT'
<
REGION III
i-(
,
'
IE Investigation Report No. 50-315/77-14 IE Investigation Report No.- 50-255/77-12
,
.
g
_ 1E Investigation. Report No. 30-155/77-13 Subjects:.American Electric Powcr Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company'
2 Broadway New York,_NY 10004 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 License No. DPR-58
.
.
"
Consumers Power Conpany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant License No. DPR-20 Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
.
' License No. DPR-6
'
Allegations - an individuni alleged various deficiencies in
.
'
quality control, design, and radiation protection.
Date of Interview with Alleger: March 31, 1977
Investigator:
h. [
q%
j e
E. Foste -
Aaty g/gt,k.,.3W f/ g M9 l
Accompanying Inspecto :
K. R. Baker Date)
s
-
7//6/77 Reviewed liy:
'.
4 m.
W. L. Fisher, Chief
'(Da t'c)
Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section SO4 2W f -_
l
.27
.
R. F. Warnick, Chief
.- (Date)
Reactor Prcjects Section 2
,
(
.
.
.
7/6 9 7607/
.
.
-.
..
.
. -
.
._
.
.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Following the receipt of a letter which alleged deficiencies in the construction of the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, and in the design and f
radiation protection at the Palisades Huclear Power Plant, Rlll initiated an investigation into the allegations.
,
,
SUMMARY OF FACTS Individual "A", in a handwritten letter sent to Individual "B" on February 24, 1977, stated that he had personal knowledge of various defi-ciencies at the D. C. Cook (Unit 1) and Palisades nuclear power plants.
On March 21, 1977, Individual "B" forwarded this letter to Rill with the request that the allegations made by Individual "A" be investigated by the NRC.
.
In the letter (See Exhibits I and II), Individual "A" made the following allegations:
(1) that welds on the cooling loop of containment #1 at the D. C. Cook plant were improper, (2) that he had advised the Indiana and Michigan Power Company that the velds were improper, and that they had concealed the deficiencies, (3) that the fuel loading tanks (fuel pool) at the Palisades plant were inadequate in design, (4) that the steam generators at the Palisades plant were improperly constructed, (5) that an individual had died due to radiation exposure from radiography of welds, and (6)
that he may have been overexposed to radiation at the Palisades plant.
Individual "A" was contacted by telephoae on March 29, 1977, and was inter-viewed on March 31, 1977. During the interview it was found that Indivi-dual "A" lacked first-hand knowledge er technical understanding of several (
of the matters included in his letter to Individual "B."
Each allegation was discussed uith Individual "A," and technical details were explained for several matters.
Following the interview and discussion with Individual
"A,"
three allegations from hi-Ictter were understood to exist, and one additional allegation had been developed during the discussions. The allegations w;re as follows:
(1) Welds on the reactor to steam generator loop at the Cook Unit 1 plant were improper.
(2) An individual died from leukemia caused by radiation exposure from radiography.
(3) Individual "A" might have been overexposed to radiation at the Palisades plant.
(4) Workers at the Palisades plant traded film badges during a repair outage.
-2-
.
l
.
.
.
-.
-
None of the four allegations were substantiated by the information devel-
~
oped during the Investination. Ilowever, definitive inforratlon which v.*nid show that a specific allenation van invalid could not be developed lei cach case. This was due or partially due to the time span since the alleged (
itym, the unavailability of other possible witnesses, and/or the lack of specificity of the particular allegation.
.
No items of noncompliance with NRC ret;ulations were observed during the course of this investigation.
.
I j-3-
.
,
, -
.
DI: TAILS Personnel Contacted Consumers Power Company
-
.
J. Mills, Radiation Protection Supervisor V. Schockley,llcalth Physicist C. Axtel, Plant 11ealth Physicist (Big Rock Point)
T. Brun, Chemical 6 Radiation Protection Supervisor Individuals Individuals "A" through "H" Scope
.
This investigation focused on the specific allegations made by Indivi-dual "A," as understood after the discussiun of the allegations with Individual "A."
Interview with Individual "A" Individual "A" was interviewed by two representatives of RIII on bbrch 31, 1977.
lie stated that he had worked for the Bechtel Company at the Palisades nuc1 car plant at various times during the period 1969-1973, and for the Livscy Company at the D. C. Cook (Unit 1) nuclear plant at various times during the period 1973-1974 (no specific dates).
He indicated that he had been employed as a pipefitter-welder, and was qualified to weld copper pipe.
I Each of the allegations contained in Individual "A"'s letter were discussed at length with Individual "A."
Indivi_ual "A" indicated that he had been aseigned to work on the final nuclear cicanup of piping and welds at the D. C. Cook Unit I plant.
This cleanup, intended to remove foreign matter which could become a hazard
.during plant operation, was done with acetone and rags.
Individual "A" stated that the surface of the welds that he cleaned was rough feeling to the hand, and that sometimes the lint from his cleaning rag would get caught on the welds. lie said he knew that the welds were improper because the welds which he had cleaned at the Palisades plant had not been as rough.
Individual "A" stated that such rough velds would not have been accepted at the Palisades plant.
-4-(
,
Individual "A" stated that he had questioned a utility representative about the roughness of the welds, and the utility representative had prom-ised to get back to him with an answer. The man did return, Individual
"A" said, and told him that all of the welds had been examined, radiographed, (
and approved.
Individual "A" indicated that he had not meant to say tint the matter had been " covered up," but he felt that the welds were too rough to have been properly done.
.
The operation of the fuel pool at the Palisades plant was discussed with Individual "A," revealing several technical misunderstandings of the operation of the fuel pool.
Individual "A" was under the impression that the fuel pool could not operate as a spent fuel pool and be used to load anew fuel into the reactor at the same time.
The operation of the fuel pool was explained and diagrammed, and Individual "A" indicated that he had no further concerns related to the fuel pool's operation.
~
Discussion with Individual "A" indicated that he was not familiar with the design or operation of the steam generators used in the Palisades plant.
A diagram of a typical steam generator tube was discussed with Individual "A,"
and the various problems which had occurred concerning the steam generator tubes at the Palisades plant were explained.
The RIII representatives advised Individual "A" that the steam generator tubes for the Palisades plant were made in Chatanooga, Tennessee.
Individual "A" indicated that he was not personally involved in the steam generator tube plugging operation at the Palisades plant, but that the men involved had told him about it.
When advised that tha NRC was aware of the steam generator tube problems, and that cracked welds had not been indicated as a problem, Individual "A" stated that the cracked welds were probably just a rumor. Ile stated that he had no further concerns in this area.
Individual "A" stated that he had not worked in a radioactive area for six months after having received his radiation limit, as suggested by his letter. lie indicated that he had intended to convey the fact that there had been sr months between the times that he had worked at the Palisades plant.
Individual "A" stated that he had gotten contaminated with radioactive material when he inadvertently cut a line in the Palisades plant laundry room (date unknown). lie indicated that he had lef t the area immediately, washed, changed clothes, and was checked by Individual "11." It was pointed out to ludividual "A" that what was done was proper procedure for any con-tamination incident, and that no noncompliance with NRC regulations was evident from what he had said.
Individual "A" indicated that this was understood.
-5-(
a
Individual "A" stated that when the job which involved the incident above had finished, and he was laid off, he received a letter from the utility which indicated his radiation exposure for the period of his employment. lie stated that. he had received no other notification of his (
radiation exposure, and that he had not requested radiation exposure date from the utility.
,
.
Individual "A" stated that sometime during 1975 or 1976, a union organi-zer had told him that Individual "C" had died from leukemia.
Individual
"A" said that Individual "C" had probably been overexposed to radiation from radiography conducted on the various projects that Individual
"C" had worked on.
Individual "A" indicated that he might have been exposed to radiation in 1969, in late June or early July of that year.
lie stated that one evening he and several others were working on the cold leg of the reacter (described
as being between the pump and the generator).
When the men took a break
'
from work, at sometime between 11:30 - 12:00 p.m.,
they discovered that they were on the wrong side of a radiography exclusion rope strung across the reactor containment door.
Individual "A" indicated that radiography was being done on the opposite side of the reactor, where 360 degree radio-graphs of pipe welds were being made. lle stated that neither himself nor the other men with him had film badges or dosimeters.
Individual "A" stated that some of the workmen who worked at the Palisades plant during the steam generator plugging operation would switch or steal film badges from workers who did not work in radioactive areas.
This was done, he said, s9 that the workcrs would be allowed to work on the tube plugging for a longer period of time, and therefore make more money.
('
Findings 1.
Allegation Welds on the reactor to steam generator loop at the Cook Unit 1 plant are improper; the welds are rough to the touch, and when c1 caned, lint from the cleaning rags caught in the welds.
Finding The type of piping used at the D. C. Cook Unit 1 plant differs from the type of piping used at the Palisades plant, and different-6-
.
.
e
welding procedures were used for each type of piping.
The different welding procedures may account for the difference in Llie final surface of the weld.
~
Through discussion with D. C. Cook plant personnel, it was found that there had been some prchlems with lint and small pieces of cleaning ran sticking to the welded surfaces during the f inal nuclear cleanup. To alleviate the problem, a different type of cleaning rag was used which did not have this problem.
Interviews with several licensee personnel also involved in the Cook I nuclear cicanup indica-ted that they had not observed any problema related to welds mentioned by Individual "A."
The welds in question, en the inside of a reactor cooling loop, are not accessibic at the present time, llowever, these welds have been checked during the in-service inspections of the plant, using ultra-sonic examination techniques, and have been found to be acceptable.
.
Individual "A," during the interview with RIII personnel, indicated that he was told that the welds had been radiographed and accepted, and that the welds had been polished.
Radiography is the final accep-tance test of a weld done on a reactor primary coolant boundry, and the weld is polished to facilitate the in-service inspections to be done in later years.
There may exist a certain amount of surface defects (determined by the applicabic code), and the weld can still be acceptable and strong.
2.
A_113 ation (
An individual died from leukemia caused by radiation exposure frer, radiography.
Finding It was foaed that Individual "C" had died from myeloblastic leukemia on January 3, 1975, as substantiated by a certificate of death filed with the appropriate department of health.
Individual
"D,"
Individual "C"'s widow, contacted on June 14, 1977, indicated that Individual "C" had contracted leukemia due to a radiation overexposure which took luace at the Big Rock point nuclear plant in late 1969 or carly 1970.
She stated that Big Rock Point was the only plant which had operated (and was radioactive) that her hus-band had worked in.
It was indicated that another individual, Individual
"E," was with her husband when he was overexposed, and was likeuise overexposed to radiation.
-7-(
,
e
Individual "E" was contacted on Augunt 24, 1977, and he stated that he did not recall any such incident, lie stated that he had been given a tour of the areas to be worked at the Big Rock Point Plant during the repair outage, but that he and the others with him had been
.
I closely iconitored by utility personnel, and they had not been over-exposed to radiation.
Individual "F," the attending doctor for Individual "C," w s con-tacted on August 26, 1977, and the case discussed.
Individual "F" stated that there were no notes as to radiation exposure in Indivi-dual C"'s medical file, and that Individual "C" had not mentioned any such radiation exposure to him.
Individual '_'F" stated that myelobinstic leukemia can be caused by many factors besides radia-tion.
The radiation exposure history for work at the Big Rock point and Palisades plants uas obtained.
During raonitored periods from
' August, 1966 to August, 1971, Individual "C" had a total recorded exposure of 330 millirem, far below regulatory limits.
On September 2, 1977, Individual "G," who had been in charge of the Bechtel work at the Big Rock Point plant, was contacted.
lie $ndi-cated that he had no knowledge of Individual "C" having been exposed to radiation, and that Indiv2 dual "C"'s position at the Big Rock Point job site was not one where he would have been exposed to radiation.
Individual "C" stated that Individual "C" did not visit t he Big Rock Point plant of ten, and would be present at the plant for a day or two at a time during a visit.
3.
Allegation g
Individual "A" stated that he might have been overexposed to radia-
tion at the Palisades plant.
Finding Individual "A" indicated that in 1969, in late June or early July, he and neseral other men who were working on the cold Icg of the reactor found that 'they were inside of a radiography exclusion rope.
An inspection of licensee records indicated that monitoring of personnel for exposure to radiation commenced on a limited basis during July 1969.
Prior to that time, personal monitoring equipment was not provided by Palisades, i-8-
.
Individual ' A"'s radiation exposure recorda at the Palisades plant indicated t.iat he was monitored during the second quarter of 1972, and the first, second, and third quarters of 1973.
The only exposures to radiation were indicated as June, 1973, 125 millirems, and July,
!
1973, 75 millirems of radiation dose.
The licensee's health physics Jog was reviewed for t'he period includ-ing June and July, 1969, in an attempt to determine if any radiography was being performed during that period, and if any incidents such as described by Individual "A" were recorded.
The log did not indicate that radiographers were on the site during June or July, 1969, but log entries were extremely sparse.
The records reviewed did not provide sufficient information.to sub-stantiate or to disprove Individual "A"'s allegation. Assuming that the incident did occur as stated by Individual "A," (1) it is not certain that radiography was being performed while the individuals were in
.
the area, since the presence of a radiography exclusion rope does not indicate that radiography was actually being performed while the men were working on the cold leg of the reactor, (2) the area indicated by Individual "A" as the area he was working in would provide more than enough shielding from the type of radiography described if performed in the location described (A major portion of the reactor, its contain-ment, and concrete flooring separate the two areas.), and (3) the radio-grapher, not the Palisades plant, would be responsibic for evaluating the incident, and assessing any possible radiation exposure to personnel.
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 34, indicates the require-ments for radiographers, and specifies the records that they cust keep.
Records for source utilization, radiographic exposure device, the g~
identity of the radiographer, and the plant or site where the source was utilized are require ' to be kept for two years.
Likewise, ree-ords of radiation survey lc during radiographic operations must be kept for two years. At this date, a reconstruction of the allegcd incident would be difficult or impossible due to the lack of these records, even if a specific date for the alleged incident could be ascertained.
A review of the licensee's health physics log did not substantiate Individual "A"'s statements concerning a laundry contamination incident.
Individual "11" was queried concerning the alleged inci-dent, but could not recall any such incident.
As Individual "A"'s highest dosimeter reading for a single day was 57 millirens, and assuming the incident occurred as described by Individual
"A," the licensce's response appears appropriate for a contamination incident.
-9-
,.
- -.
-
. -
- -..
. -
,
Th'e liccusee apparently furnished Individual "A"#and:the NRC with.a
'
-
- report 'of: Individual "A"'s exposure to radiation. incurred during his
'
work assignment at Palisades.
Such a report in required by-10 CFR
<
- 20.409.
Telephone confirmation was received from the Office of
'
, (
Management Information.and Program Control (NRC) that a termination report had been received for Individual "A."
The reported exposure
,
Information was in agre(ment with.'the licensec's exposure records.
.
The dates that the cyposure information'ves' furnished to Individual.
,
- "A" and the NRC could not be verified.
It is possible that the exposure information was not submitted within-the time frame speci-fled in 10 CFR 19.13 and 10 CFR 20.409, since the licensee was cited in IE Inspection Report No. 050-255/75-06 (April 22, 1975) for not
- furnishing these reports'on a timely basis.
,
4.
Allegation Individual "A" stated that workmen at the Palisades plant-involved
-
- bi the steam generator plugging operation would sometimes switch
'
or steal film badges from workers who did not work in radioactive areas, so that they would be allowed to work on the tube plugging
,
- isr longer periods.
.
Findings
,
The' licensee's personal exposure records were reviewed with licensee personnel for the plant outages during 1973 and 1974 in an attempt to determine if personal monitoring devices had been switched as alleged. It was assumed that if such switching actually did occur, I
some individuals who would have been expected to receive relatively low exposures would have relatively high exposures recorded in the
~ I'
licensee's personal monitoring records.
No significant anomalous
,
exposures were identified in the licensce's records..It should be
'
noted that the 'icensce's routine review of the results of personal monitoring should identify unusual exposures.
Individual "A" indicated that he could not identify any particular
~
individual who. switched. badges as alleged.
None of the information obtained substantiated the film badge switch-ing as alleged.
.
'
Attachments:
Exhibits 1 and 11
'
,
b
.y--
.
- 10 -
.
s
,
.
m-
--e ww-r--
W fr
'M'
+ -
e-T
'
'"'"a
9
" -- #
=w-------
T 4---w*-
-7--w-eg-n*m
-
--Pt