IR 05000219/1980003
| ML19331E200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1980 |
| From: | Nimitz R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331E197 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-80-03, 50-219-80-3, NUDOCS 8009090189 | |
| Download: ML19331E200 (17) | |
Text
..
,
,.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/80-03 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
OPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Licht Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
January 21-25, 1980 Inspectors:
R.L. N Jmf ak/eo R. L. Nimitz, Radi4 tion Specialist datte R.L. MJ k Ale n 1D Yuhas, Radia 'onLSpecialist
'datt Approved b
.
b 2 kd
,
Peter J. Knapp, Chief, Radi%tMon Support Section
' date
,
Inspection Summarv:
Inspection on January 21-25, 1980 (Inspection Report No. 50-219/80-03)
-Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspec-tors of the Radiation Protection Program during refueling including:
training; advanced planning and preparation; qualification of personnel; exposure control; radiation protection procedures; radioactive and contaminated material control, plant tours and follow-up on previous enforcement action.
Upon arrival at 1:40 p.m. on January 21, 1980, areas where work was being conducted were exa-mined to review radiation safety control procedures and practices.
The inspec-tion involved 86 inspector-hours on site by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-fied in 4 areas; four items of noncompliance were identified in three areas; (Infraction - Failure to perform evaluation as required by 10 CFR 20.20lb suffi-cient to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20.202, Paragraph 6b; Infraction - Failure to use respiratory protection equipment as stipulated in 10 CFR 20.103, Paragraph 6c; Infraction - Failure to adhere to procedures in accordance with Technical Specification 6.11, Paragraph 7a; Deficiency - Failure to label radioactive mate-rial as required by 10 CFR 20.203(f), Paragraph 8.)
R009090 h Region I Form 12
.1 (Rev. April 1977)'
.-
.
-
-
-..
,-.
.. - -
.
..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- T. Crimmins, Manager, Generation Engineering
- G. Evigan, Director, Safety Generation
- W. A. Garvey, Director, Station Administration
- A. Jackson, Safety Representative
- R. Pelrine, Chemical Supervisor
- W. Popow, Director, Construction and Maintenance J. Riggar, Security Supervisor
- D. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generation (Via Telecon)
- J. L. Sullivan, Jr., Unit Superintendent
- D. W. Turner, Supervisor Health Physics
- Denotes those persons present at the exit interview on January 25, 1980.
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the Health Physics (HP) staff (station and contractor), main-tenance personnel and reactor operation personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Noncompliance (219/78-23-05):
Failure to Label Containers of Radioactive Material in Accordance with 10 CFR 20.203.
Inspector tours of the controlled areas identified several containers of radioactive material not labeled in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203 (Details, paragraph 7).
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (219/78-23-11):
Upgrading of Calibration and Maintenance of Radiation Monitoring Instruments.
Inspector review of instrument source checks prior to instrument use indicates no acceptance criteria were established and implemented (Details, paragraph 10b).
3.
, Training The inspector audited the licensee's radiation worker training course for
,
conformance to 10 CFR 19.12, " Instructions to Workers" and Licensee Radiation Protection Procedure 915.6, Rev. O, " Training in Radiation
'
Protection."
The inspector noted the licensee is in the process of reviewing and
,
upgrading the existing radiation worker training course as a result of Inspection 79-18 conducted October and November of 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
_
_
_
. _. -
-
_ _ _ _ _
,
4.
Advance Planning and Preparation The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's planning and preparation for the current outage in the area of radiation protection.
The following was noted:
The licensee supplemented his staff of radiation protection person-
-
nel by use of contractor technicians.
These are discussed in paragraph 5.
The licensee provided instructions and procedures for the contractor
-
technicians at their work location.
The instructions and procedures addressed the technician's job function.
The licensee appeared to have adequate supplies in the area of pro-
-
tective clothing, respiratory protective equipment and radiation survey meters on hand.
In discussing the torus decontamination, the inspector noted the licensee became aware of substantial changes in the radiation exposure levels associated with work in the torus as compared to previous outages.
The discussions indicated radiation levels had increased by a factor of 8 above normal levels.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives and questioned them with regards to special actions taken
,
to reduce exposure prior to start of torus work.
The discussions indicated an attempt was n:ade to obtain a hydro-lazer device to decontaminate the inside of the torus prior to working, however, this device was not used.
The licensee utilized crews of personnel with brooms and shovels to clean and decontaminate the torus.
The inspector noted crews at times worked in radiation fields as high as 500 millirem /hr.
Additionally, floor surveys of the torus indicated exposure rates of 1500 millirem /hr gamma and 1500 millirad /hr beta.
The inspector noted that as a result of the exposure rates associated with this decontamination, the radiation work permit (RWP) for this job was changed to increase the allowable exposure from 300 millirem / day to 600 millirem / day for person-nel performing the torus decontamination.
Inspector discussions with the facility Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) indicated he was not aware of the exposure increase implemented for this RWP (No. 1288, "Decon Inside of Torus").
The inspectors expressed concern with the torus work, particularly since the licensee had been aware of the increase in radiation associated with this work prior to commencing.the outage.
The inspector noted no apparent advanced planning or preparation was performed by the licensee to reduce the personnel exposure on this job to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The' inspector also expressed concern with regard to the decon-l
-
.
.
tamination methods used by the licensee which resulted in additional per-sonnel exposure.
In addition, the inspector noted no procedures to be in use for decontamination of the torus.
The inspector indicated the licensee's ALARA program would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection to ensure high personnel exposure jobs receive adequate ALARA review prior to start of the job (50-219/80-03-06).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Qualification of Personnel The inspector reviewed the qualifications, through examination of resumes, of all contractor radiation protection technicians indicated by the licensee to meet or exceed the requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel." The contractor technicians are being utilized by the licensee to supplement his radiation protection staff during the current refueling outage.
,
The inspector randomly selected 10 contractor technicians, performing various responsible radiation protection functions throughout the con-trolled area.
Inspector review of the selected technician's qualifica-tions indicated the individuals did meet or exceed the qualification requirements of the ANSI N18.1.
Inspector review of the remaining contractor radiation protection techni-cians' qualifications, however, identified several individuals, who did not appear to meet ANSI qualifications.
The inspector discussed these individuals with licensee representatives who indicated the individuals were not performing work requiring their need to be ANSI qualified.
The inspector reviewed the individual's job functions and concurred.
No items of noncomp1.iance were identified in this area.
6.
Exposure Control a.
Exposure Records The inspector reviewed 100% of the exposure records for those indivi-duals who received in excess of 1250 millirem for the first quarter of 1980.
The inspector reviewed the exposure records against the requi.ements of 10 CFR 20.101, " Radiation dose standards for indivi-duals in restricted areas" and 10 CFR 20.102, " Determination of prior dose."
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
l i
.
I
, --,
n
. -
.
.
.
-
-.
.
-
..
.
b.
Personnel Monitorina 10 CFR 20.201, " Surveys", states in Paragraph (b), "Each licensee shall make or cause to be made such surveys as may be necessary for
.htm to comply with the regulations in this part.
A survey as defined
,
in Paragraph 20.201(a) means, "an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions. When appropriate, such evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of materials and equipment, and mea-
surements of levels of radiation or concentrations of radioactive material present."
10 CFR 20.202, " Personnel Monitoring" states in paragraph (a) that
,
"Each licensee shall supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment to, and shall require the use of such equipment by... (1) Each l
individual who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent of the applicable value specified in paragraph (a) of 9 20.101."
i In reviewing licensee radiation and contamination survey records,
the inspector noted several~ areas to exhibit high beta radiation
'
fields.
These areas included:
Area Dose Rates Bottom of 500 millirem /hr gamma torus (Floor area near-1000 - 2000 millirad /hr beta south hatch)
'
Main Steam 600 millirem /hr gamma
~
Line Relief 6800 millirad /hr beta Valves Reheater 1-4 250 millirem /hr gamma (Screen)
1000 millirads/hr beta
!
The inspector noted from the above data that, depending on stay times and the protection factors afforded by protective clothing, individuals may be likely to receive a quarterly dose to the skin in
excess of 25% of the applicable value specified in 20.101.
The inspector discussed the above dose rate information with licensee representatives to determine if surveys (i.e., evaluations) were
>
-performed to determine if appropriate personnel monitoring devices
>
-. -. - -. -.
_.
-
.. - -.
- -
. -
-. -.
were required or provided as required by 10 CFR 20.202.
The discus-sions indicated that as of January 25, 1980 no surveys had been performed by the licensee to determine if worker protective clothing provided adequate skin protection from beta radiation or the monitoring equipment (i.e., thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs)) provided by the licensee was capable of monitoring the beta dose accurately.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the above and conducted a preliminary TLD test to determine TLD beta response characteristics.
The TLD dose was compared to that obtained by use of a radiation survey meter with the capability to monitor doses thru skin equivalent
material (*7 mg/cm ).
The following data was obtained:
Monitoring Device Gamma Dose (mrem)
Beta Dose (mrad)
TLD 425 515*
(No Shielding)
R0-2A 438 2230
- TLD response low by a factor of * 4.4 The inspector expressed concern with the above particularly since the TLD appeared to respond low by a factor of 4.4 and the licensee had not performed an evaluation to determine if the protective clothing was providing adequate protection from beta radiation.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives and indicated that failure to survey as required by 10 CFR 20.201(b) to ensure the requirements of 10 CFR 20.202 were met constitutes r.oncom-pliance with 10 CFR 20.201(b) (50-_219/80-03-01).
Inspector discussions with licensee representatives indicated the following actions will be taken by the licensee to resolve the con-cerns identified by the inspector:
the licensee plans to contract for an independent laboratory to
-
perform beta dosimetry tests on the licensee's TL0s.
the licensee will have a beta quality assurance program in
-
place, including procedures as necessary, after the current outage ends.
a complete review of high beta radiation jcas will be accomplished
-
by February 1,1980 to determine if any individual has exceeded the allowable quarterly dose limits.
A preliminary review con-ducted on January 28, 1980 indicated no individuals had exceeded regulatory limits for skin exposure.
.
_
,.
.
_
_.
.
. -__
_
.
.
,
-
.
Inspector telephone discussion with licensee representatives on April 2, 1960 indicated the maximum exposure was approximately 150 millires, which the inspector noted to be 20% of the allow-able quarterly limit.
c.
Respiratory Protection
The inspector viewed the ifcensee's respiratory protection program
'
against the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103, " Exposure of individuals to concentrations of radioactive materials in air in restricted areas."
10 CFR 20.103(c) requires that when respiratory protective equipment is used to limit the inhalation of radioactive materials pursuant to 20.103(b)(R), the licensee may make allowance for such use in estimat-ing exposures of individuals provided that such equipment is used as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 18.15, " Acceptable Program for Respira-tory Protection."
The inspector noted the licensee is using respiratory protective equip-ment to limit intake of radioactive materials and has made allowance for such use.
Regulatory Guide 8.15, Regulatory Position C.4 states in part:
"The licensee is to maintain and implement a respiratory protection pro-gram that includes, as a minimum...e.
Written operational and adminis-trative procedures for control, issuance, proper use, and return of respiratory protective equipment...(NUREG-0041, Sections 2, 9, 10, 12)."
In touring.the controlled areas, the inspector noted that breathing air fittings, normally used by the licensee to supply breathing air
<
to personnel usir,g airline respirators, were also being used to sup-
' ply air to non respiratory protective equipment such as pneumatic tools.
In one instance, during a tour on March 23, 1980, the inspec-tor observed air being supplied to a control rod drive wench using breathing air fittings. -The inspector noted that the licensee was using an airline sparger for supplying this air.
The licensee repre-sentatives indicated the Service Air System is used to supply both
,
breathing air and operating air from these spargers.
During further review of-the system, the inspector noted that "in-line oilers" (to provide an oil mist) are at times attached to these spargers to pro-vide an oil mist to certain pneumatic tools.
,
The inspector discussed the above findings with licensee representa-tives and questioned them as to the nature of controls placed on
"
breathing air fittings to prevent inadvertent attachment of breathing air fittings to the oiler system.
The discussions indicated the
'
licensee had no written operational and administrative procedures for
'
<
.
.,
,.
_
. _ - - - _. _. _ -.
__-_,_ --~ ~. ___-,__._ _._. _ ~.
,m
.
controlling the use of these fittings.
The licensee has established procedures 915.5, Rev. 3, " Respiratory Protection", however, this procedure did not address fittingscontrol.
The inspector expressed concern with the above since no control was in place to prevent workers from breathing air which may have been passed through an in-line oiler through compatable fittings.
Inspec-tor review of procedure 915.5 did locate a note (Section 5.4.2) not to connect to an oiler, however, inspector questioning of a licensee Radiation Protection Technician revealed the technician believed the oiler to be a flow control device.
In reviewing this item further, the inspector noted through discussions with licensee representatives that breathing air fittings are readily available from the facility storeroom, even though the fittings may be
,
used for a non respiratory protection function.
The inspector no'ed NUREG-0041, " Manual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Materials" requires in section 9.8 that all fittings and components shall be standardized so that introduc-tion of gases other than pure breathing air or oxygen into a respira-tor system is impossible.
As a result, the inspector indicated to licensee representatives that the current procedures in use were inadequate to prevent introduction of other than pure breathing air or oxygen, i.e., oil mist into a respirator system and indicated that failure to establish such proce-dures for control and issuance of breathing air fittings, i.e., res-piratory equipment as required by Regulatory Guide 8.15 as referenced in 10 CFR 20.103(c) constitutes noncompliance with that requirement (50-219/80-03-02).
The inspector noted licensee representatives to immediately take steps to collect and control all breathing air fittings.
d.
Whole Body Counting The inspector reviewed the licensee's whole body counting program with respect to 10 CFR 20.103, " Exposure of individuals to concentra-tions of radioactive materials in air in restricted areas", Technical Specification 6.3, " Procedures" and licensee procedure 915.8, Rev. O,
" Bioassay Program".
The inspector selected 12 individuals and reviewed their whole body counting records to ensure counting frequency and results were con-sistent with the above requirements.
Additionally, the inspector
'
reviewed the whole body count data for all individuals counted for-the period November thru December of 1979.
.-.. --
.
'
-
In reviewing the licensee's whole body counting program during the inspection, the inspector noted that, 1) no procedures have been established or implemented addressing verification of whole body counter results and 2) no method was in place to correlate whole body counting results with the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program.
The inspector noted the above items had been identified in an NRC inspection conducted during October of 1979 and later transmitted to the licensee in a letter dated January 4, 1980 (Inspection Report 50-219/79-18).
Based on telephone conversations held with licensee radiation and protection representatives on April 2, 1980, the licensee:
has established and implemented procedure 915.11, " Calibration
--
Surveillance of the Helgeson Whole Body Counter," Revision 0, dated March 14, 1980.
is in the process of revising procedure 915.8, " Bioassay Program"
--
to correlate whole body counting to the respiratory protection program.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
7.
Radiation Protection Procedures The inspector reviewed selected radiation protection procedures for con-sistency with the following:
Technical Specification 6.8, " Procedures"
--
Technical Specification 6.11, " Radiation Protection Program"
--
10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
--
ANSI N18.7-1972, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants"
--
Regulatory Ouide 1.33-1972, Appendix A, " Typical Procedures for
--
Pressurized Water Reactors and Boiling Water Reactors" Technical Specification 6.11, " Radiation Protection Program", states that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
a.
Procedure Adherence (1) Procedure 902.7, Revision 1, "Drywell Occupancy and Evacuation During Fuel Handling Operation", developed pursuant to the above, requires in section 5.4 that the alarm set point of the
.
radiation monitors shall have alarm set points set between two and five times the value of the background in the area of the detector.
During inspector review of drywell activities during fuel move-ment on January 24, 1980 at 9:00 p.m. the inspector noted the following readings on the radiation monitors used for evacuation monitors:
Alarm *
Setpoint Monitor Reading (mr/hr)
(mr/hr)
Background (mr/hr)
North
300
- 25 Scuth 110 500
+ 100
- As determined by licensee test conducted at + 9:15 p.m. on
'
January 24, 1980.
The inspector noted that the alarm setpoint for the north radiation monitor was set at approximately 12 times the value of the background in the area of the detector.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee operations shift supervision who indicated that procedure 902.7 implementation was a prerequi-site for fuel movement.
The inspector noted licensee shift supervision to halt fuel movement and subsequently reset alarm setpoints prior to continuation of refueling.
(2) Procedure 915.7, Revision 0, " Personnel Monitoring", developed pursuant to the above, states in section 5.3, "the TLD and self-reading dosimeters shall normally be worn in the front of the body between the head and waist".
The inspector reviewed activities associated with operation and use of a 161.4 curie Cs-137 instrument calibrator.
In reviewing calibration of instruments on January 21, 1980, the inspector observed the individual operating the calibrator to be wearing his TLD and self-reading dosimeters suspended about three inches below and behind his belt against tne left rear pocket.
The individual was positioned in front of the calibrator in
,
such a manner that in the event of the failure of the calibrator malfunction radiation monitor, the individual's TLD and dosimeter i
location would preclude proper personnel monitoring.
l The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives
'
who immediately reinstructed the individual in the proper placement of the TLD and self reading dosimeters.
--
_
.
11 (3) Procedure 9.11.1, Revision 0, " Radioactive Waste Material Storage", developed pursuant to the above, states in procedure section 5.1, that "all radioactive waste material shall be stored in such a manner so as to reduce to a minimum:
.. 5.1.2 The radiation exposure dose rates for working personnel."
During tours on January 24, 1980, the inspector observed radio-active waste drums at the entrance to the torus and on the torus catwalk emanating contact dose rates of 40 millirem /hr and 3000 millirem /hr, respectively. The drums were stored in such a manner that personnel were routinely passing by the drums on their way to and from their work locations.
At times, the inspector observed. individuals leaning against the drums at the torus entrance.
This practice was immediately halted by licensee representatives.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives.
The inspector noted the drums were subsequently removed and properly stored by licensee personnel.
The inspector indicated to licensee representatives that, the above instances of failure to follow procedures represents non-compliance with Technical Specifications 6.11 (50-219/80-03-03).
b.
Drywell Initial Access The inspector reviewed data associated with initial drywell entry and general access.
The review included licensee adherence to the following licensee procedures:
902.5, Rev.13, " Preparation for Initial Orywell Entry"
-
902.6, Rev. 9, " General Drywell Clearance"
-
902.8, Rev. O, "Drywell Fuel Handling Radiation Testing
-
665.5.002, Rev. 2, "Secora ry Containment Leak Rate Test"
-
The inspector reviewed the secondary containment leak rate test per-formed January 4, 1980.
The test indicated the licensee was able to maintain 0.266 inches of water vacuum on the secondary containment with a standby cas treatment system flow rate of 2500 cfm.
The inspector noted this met the requirements of Technical Specification 4.5.J.2.
In reviewing procedure 902.6, the inspector noted that section 5.7 requires that radiation protection personnel shall check out the content if it is to be for breathing air.
service air system for 02 The inspector requested tests of the service air and was presented
'
.
-
.
tests results dated June 19, 1978.
The inspector noted this test to have been conducted approximately 1.5 years prior to the use of the service air for breathing air during the current outage.
The inspector expressed concern with this and noted licensee representatives to indicate a more recent sample was obtained, however, this sample
data could not be located.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives.
As a result, licensee representatives indicated meetings will be held with the Safety Department to ensure air samples air taken as required.
The inspector indicated this will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-219/80-03-05).
8.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control The inspectors toured the controlled areas and reviewed licensee control of radioactive and contaminated material with respect to the following:
10 CFR 20.203, " Caution Signs, Labels, Signals and Controls"
-
Radiation Protection Procedure 911.1, Rev. O, " Radioactive Waste
-
Material Storage" Radiation Protection Procedure 915.4, Rev. O, " Contamination Control"
-
10 CFR 20.203(f), " Containers", requires that each container of licensed material shall bear a durable, clearly visible label identifying the radioactive contents.
The label shall bear the radiation caution symbol and the words " Caution Radioactive Material" or " Danger Radioactive Material".
The label shall also provide sufficient information to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity thereof to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures.
During tours of the areas located outside and around the old and new rad-waste buildings on January 21, 1980, the inspector identified two 4' x 4' x 6'
metal containers of bagged radioactive trach.
The in:pecter noted the containers to indicate 8-10 millirem /hr on contact with same.
The con-tainers were not marked in any manner to indicate the nature of the radioactive material found in them or the radiation dose rates emanating from them as a result of the radioactive material contained therein.
The inspector discussed the use of the containers with licensee represen-tatives and noted that the licensee representatives were unaware that I
these containers were being used for storage of radioactive waste and could therefore not label them.
The inspector noted the licensee repre-sentatives to survey and subsequently label the containers as Radioactive Material.
_
-
-
-
..
'.
.
-
During tours of the torus area on January 25, 1980, the inspector noted two 55 gallon drums located on the floor of the torus area.
The inspector discussed the cc.itents of the drums with licensee representatives and learned the drums contained radioactive material.
Upon further review, the inspector noted the drums indicated up to 5000 millirem /hr on contact, as determined by licensee radiation surveys, and were not labeled in any manner.
The inspector noted the licensee to subsequently label and remove the drums.
The inspector discussed the above instances of failure to label containers of radioactive material with licensee representatives.
The inspector noted that the containers did not meet any of the labeling exemptions listed in 10 CFR 20.203(f)(3) and as a result were required to be labeled.
The inspector indicated to licensee representatives that failure to label containers of radioactive material as specified in 10 CFR 20.203(f)
represents noncompliance with that requirement (50-219/80-03-04).
9.
_P_lant Tours The inspectors toured the controlled areas upon initial arrival and at various times during the inspection.
The inspectors performed radiation intensity measurements where necessary to verify licensee compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203(f), " Caution Signs, Labels, Signals, and Controls" and Technical Specification 6.13, "High Radiation Area".
The inspector tours indicated Radiation and liigh Radiation Areas are being posted, barricaded and/or locked in accordance with the above requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
10.
Additional Items
.
a.
Industrial Safety During tours of the controlled areas, the inspector noted several items which appeared to be of an industrial safety concern.
These items included:
personnel walking across nonsecured planks placed as c walk way
-
from the torus vent header to the catwalk.
This walkway was approximately 40-50 feet off the floor of the torus.
drums blocking the catwr.;k used as an exit from the torus.
-
numerous hoses and cables strewn throughout the drywell making
-
walking difficult.
Some of the hoses, used for breathing air purposes, were piled on the contaminated drywell floor.
-
-
m
~
.
'
.
-
.
'
sections of grating missing from the catwalks of the drywell.
-
The sections were missing from walkways 30-40 feet off the floor of the drywell.
The inspector expressed concern with the above and brought the above
,
items to the attention of the licensee's Safety Department and plant
'
management.. Licensee representatives indicated the above items were corrected after their identification by the inspector.
!
b.
Instruments and Equipment On January 23, 1980, subsequent to the inspector's tour of the con-
'
trolled areas, the inspector examined the supply of portable radia-
tion monitoring instruments maintained at the monitor and change
,
room.
The inspector noted approximately 10 instruments in the
cabinet.
The calibration stickers indicated the instruments had
!
been calibrated and were within the calibration due date.
'
The inspector attempted to source check several R0-2s and PIC-6As for response using the wall mounted check sources near the instru-ment cabinet.
The licensee representative accompanying the inspector j
was unable to state what the acceptance or rejection criteria was
'
for_the check sources including whether the instruments should be checked with open or closed beta windows.
The inspector noted no acceptance criteria to be posted near the sources.
The inspector selected 2 PIC 6A instruments and 1 R0-2A and requested that they be source checked on the licensee's calibration source.
The instruments, Serial Nos. 1284, 1476 and 591 appeared to respond properly.
The inspector expressed concern with licensee representatives regarding i
the check sources used by the technicians prior to use of the instrument.
i The inspector noted this item had been addressed in Inspection 78-09
,
and 78-23.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
- j
-
.
4 l
t t
.
._.
..
.. _ _ _
_
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
c.
Security i:
,
THE INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY l
DELETED; IT CONTAINED 10 CFR 2.790(d) INFORMATION -
i NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
,
i
l I
,
p
..
?
-
1
!
i i
i
!
[.'
i l.
- -.
_ _,
.-
..
..
, _...
....
..
.
....
..
- -. _ _
..,
.u is.
J ea-A
&
,o q
=
THE INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY
,
'
DELETED; IT CONTAINED 10 CFR 2.790(d) INFORMATION -
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
..
i
4
<
,.
.
u e
y
,.
.
,.
.,. - -
,....----,-.,.w,
,.,,-.
,.c-,
,,
,y,,
.= r
-
.
_.
. _. -
.. _ _ _
~
.
-
.
- 17 11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
,
at the conclusion of the inspection on January 25, 1980.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection.
,
i a
i j
l i..
e
- *
-, -. - - -,.., - - -
w
,
,+c.--
,,-r
,, -,,
--,.-.-e
--.-.,w--
-