IR 05000219/1987002
| ML20211P580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1987 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Sherbini S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P530 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-87-02, 50-219-87-2, IEB-79-19, NUDOCS 8703020392 | |
| Download: ML20211P580 (8) | |
Text
..
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-219/87-02 Docket No.
50-219 License No. DPR-11 Priority Category C
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: January 12-16, 1987 Inspector:,,
/)ff.
h 2f// lf$7 g
S. SherbinT, Radiatiorv$pecialist date Facilities Radiation Protection Section Approved by:
M.
.
2///[/f[7
-
M. Shanbaky, Chief
' date Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 12-16, 1987 (Report No. 50-219/87-02).
Areas Inspected:
Status of previously identified items.
Results: Eighteen (18) items were closed and six (6) of these were re-opened to reflect modified status or to consolidate items covering common areas.
8703020392 B70212 ~
DR ADOCK 05000219 PDR
..
_
_ _.
_
_ _ _ _
__
..
-
.
.
.
Details 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel J. Barton, Deputy Director, Oyster Creek R. Beck, Radcon/ Chemistry Training Supervisor D. Cafaro, Manager, Environmental Controls
- P. Fiedler, Vice Presdident and Director, Oyster Creek
- M. Heller, Licensing Engineer R. Hurley, Dosimetry Supervisor
- J. Kowalski, Manager, Licensing
- M. Littleton, Manager, Radiological Controls D. Miller, Radiological Engineer S. Molello, Manager, Environmental Controls Radiological Program M. Slobodien, Director, Radiological Controls J. Sullivan, Director, Plant Operations A. Wacha, Radwaste Shipping Supervisor 1.2 NRC Personnel
- W. Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine, unannounced, inspection was to review the status of previously identified items.
3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items.
3.1 (Oosed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/82-11-01). Radioactive contamination was found inside a service air compressor during re-pairs.
The source of the contamination was not known. The licensee committed to review the breathing air system before the Service Air System is placed back in service.
The Service Air System in question is currently not being used, and the breathing air connectors associated with this system have been capped to prevent further use. Breathing air in the Turbine and Reactor Buildings is currently being provided by a " temporary" air supply system. That system is considered temporary because a sig-nificant fraction of the pipe runs connecting the system components are made of plastic tubing.
The temporary system is being used to supply breathing air and service air for temporary, portable equipment.
Equipment supply ports and breathing air ports have different types of outlet connectors to prevent mixed use.
Each outlet supply line is fitted with a stop valve and two check valves.
- -_
--
-
.
-
.
-
.
_
_
.
_
.__
_ _..
.__- -
__.m
,
.
.
f
'
,
- l'
-
Air is provided by two compressors connected in parallel and located outside,the north wall of the turbine building. Procedures are in
- place-to control operation of the system and sampling for radioactive
"
and non-radioactive contaminants.
i-
!
3.2 (Closed) Inspector Follow up Item (50-219/82-11-02): A Service Air i-System. air line feeding a sparger in a Reactor Water Cleanup System filter. sludge tank was contaminated by back flow of radioactive water into the line. -This was apparently caused by inadvertently
. leaving a stop valve open. The licensee committed to review the
,
design for corrective measures.
There has been no corrective action to date to review the design and to correct.the problem. Discussions with licensee indicated that l
the only action taken to.date toward correcting this problem has
- .
been a recent request for funding to install check valves on the air
"
.line in question. Also, there does not appear to be firm plans regarding the installed Service Air System, which is currently not
'
in use, or the conversion of the currently used " temporary" system i
to a permanent system. The status of service air on site will be reviewed in a future inspection. This is a new Inspector Follow-up Item to replace the one that was. closed in this section.
{
(50-219/87-02-01).
3.3 (Closed) Violation (50-219/82-23-01): The licensee failed to collect particulate air samples at environmental stations
- 1, 2, 3,-and A, as required, during September 6-16, 1982 for
[
station #1, and December 7-30, 1982 for stations 2, 3, and A.
.
(
The licensee has replaced the air samplers in place during the above
-inspection period by new, more reliable, air samplers. Also, tracking i
of sampler data and monitoring periods.has been improved by better procedural control and the use of a portable computer that is used in
the field to periodically check the data at each of the monitoring
. stations.
,
J~
l 3.4 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/82-23-02): The inspector.
i ~.
noted that there was an apparent split in responsibilities of various
-
plant departments for sample collection, station maintenance, etc.
which led to failure to collect air samples on a number of occasions because of equipment breakdowns and uncoordinated maintenance.
,
l This situation has been improved by assigning a person reporting to Environmental Controls the task of collecting the samples, packaging
,
them, and sending them out for analysis. A second person is to be
added by mid 1987 to assist in these tasks.
Previously, these tasks were performed by a person on temporary assignment from the chemistry
'
i department. Maintenance and repair of the stations is now being i
performed by the Maintenance, Construction and Facilities Department (MCF) rather than by I&C, as was the case previously.
!
i p
,
,
- -
.
.. - -.. - -. -
.... -.
. -. - - -. - -
.
- -.
.
. -
'
The licensee stated that this change resulted in improved performance in that area. The licensee also stated that there is now better control over maintenance and repair schedules.
3.5 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/82-23-03): The NRC in-spector noted that Section 3.3, "0nsite Meteorological Monitoring",
had been deleted from the Oyster Creek Environmental Technical Spe-cifications by Amendments No. 65.
It was determined that this was an inadvertent deletion. The licensee agreed to submit to the NRC a request to reinstate the provisions of Section 3.3.
The licensee stated that this matter has not been resolved. A draft request is being drafted in preparation for submittal to the NRC.
The request is expected to be submitted in late 1987. The status of this submittal will be reviewed in a future inspection (50-219/87-02-02).
3.6 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/82-23-04): The NRC inspec-tor noted that direct radiation measurements data in the semi-annual Effluent Release Reports June-November,1981 and December-June,1982, were expressed in terms of exposure per exposure period. The expo-sure period was noted to be a variable unit of time. The licensee committed to reevaluate the reporting units. The inspector also noted that one apparently unusual RA-226 measurement was reported but
-
not discussed in the " Analysis of Data". section of the report.
Reporting of direct radiation measurements was previously in units of per month, the month being from 28 to 31 days longs depending on the actual month on which the data was collected. These results are now being normalized and reported in units of a standard month, which is a fixed time unit of 30 days. The licensee is currently using a computer to examine all measurement results and to highlight those that fall outside two standard deviations on either side of an ex-pected mean value. Thera-226measurementinquestionwas34.0pCi//
andthetwostandarddeviationlimitwas26.4pCi//, This reading should therefore have been highlighted by the computer but was not.
The licensee is not sure of the reason for this error but believes that at that time the software used for that purpose was relatively new and untested. The licensee stated that the software has since been checked and validated and believes that there is little possi-bility of a recurrence of this kind of error.
3.7 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/84-02-05):
Several build-ing and area drains inside the Radiological Controls Area (RCA) were identified by a contractor study as potential pathways for unmoni-tored releases of radioactive effluents to the discharge canal. A licensee study also suggested that some of the engineering drawings pertaining to these items may be inaccurate. A study was initiated to determina if additional routine effluent monitoring is needed.
The study in question was reviewed by the inspector.
It was con-l
.
ducted by United Engineers in late 1982, TDR-393, " Drains Identifi-cation Study for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station".
Drains with potential for unmonitored releases were identified in several buildings. The licensee stated that the drains in these areas have been color coded as clean and contaminated. The object of the color coding is to prevent inadvertent dumping of radioactive waste into clean drains. The inspector was not able to determine within the time limits of the current inspection whether this measure represents an addequate solution to the problem. The matter will be further reviewed in a future inspection (50-219/87-02-03).
3.8 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/84-30-02): Workers invol-ved in maintenance and issue of respirators had no job descriptions or a formal training program. Also, there was no formal training program for the radiological engineering staff.
The licensee com-mitted to address these matters.
A formal training program for radiological engineers is not yet in place. However, a series of studies and meetings have been conducted to determine the appropriate contents of a training program and the methods of administering the program and assessing its results. The licensee stated that the target date for completion of this process and initiation of training is the end of 1987.
A job description has been developed for respirator maintenance technicians, as well as a training program for them. Training is provided by GPU instructors and also by respirator equipment vendors.
The qualification requirements for the technicians were established by the Plant Materiel Department, and is described in procedure No.
793.7.008, " Respirator Maintenance Technician Qualification". The procedure describes the minimum theoretical and practical ability requirements for qualification as a respirator technician. The training program is described in document No. 6233-GD-2647, "Respir-ator Maintenance Training Program". This document establishes in-itial and retraining programs and specifies the responsibilities in implementing the program. A trainee is expected to become qualified in 6-12 months.
Retraining for qualified technicians and supervisors is limited to required reading material plus a one-day classroom retraining and review session every two years.
3.9 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/85-04-03) and Item (50-219/86-13-01): These two open items address a number of concerns with the licensee's ALARA program.
These include lack of methodology or requirements for performing on going job reviews, lack of clear criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the ALARA program, and utility of the ALARA goals and objectives in view of the large dis-crepancies observed between these values and actual man-rem accum-ulated. These concerns will be combined into one Inspector Follow-up Item to be reviewed in a future inspection. (50-219/87-02-04).
.
.
'
3.10 (Closed) Inspector 110w-up Item (50-219/85-18-01): A worker failed to adhere to the p=
mnni dosimetry requirements specified in the RWP covering his '
ere was also a question regarding the val-idity of his
't,cuu og dosimeter (SRD) reading upon exiting from the job are'
The licensee also failed to promptly generate a Dos-imetry Inve; igation Report (DIR) to address this question.
A DIR was generated on June 7, 1985, DIR No. 013-85.
It addressed the fact that the person involved had dropped his 0-200 mR SRD while walking through the Condenser Bay area. The individual stated that his SRD had been set to zero before entry into the Radiological Controls Area (RCA) and that he checked it after it dropped and found it to be still reading zero. His total stay time in the Condenser Bay was seven (7) minutes. Based on this stay time and survey data for the Condenser Bay, a whole body dose of seven (7) mrem was assessed and entered into the individual's record.
3.11 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/85-18-02): The NRC inspec-tor noted that survey information for entry on certain Radiation Work Permits (RWP's) was not readily available.
Personnel were being allowed entry into high radiation areas without ensuring that they were aware of the latest survey data for these areas.
Discussions with the licensee indicated that one of the requirements
-
stated in the RWPs is to check with the health physics control point for survey data. The licensee stated that it is the responsibility of the persons signing in on the RWP to follow the requirements stated on the permit. The system of access control in the Radio-logical Controls Area will be reviewed in a future inspection. This is an Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/87-02-05).
3.12 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/85-25-01): The New Rad-waste packaging and shipment function was recently transferred to a new organization. The licensee should define the training and re-training program for this organization, and a letter clarifying the licensee's intent in this matter should be submitted to the Regional Administrator in response to IE Bulletin 79-19.
A letter outlining the response was sent to the Regional Adminis-trator on April 10, 1986. This letter was in response to the con-cerns raised in Inspection Report 85-25, particularly regarding Item 5 of IE Bulletin 79-19. This item addresses training and retraining in the DOT and NRC regulatory requirements, the waste burial license requirements, and site operating procedures. The licensee satisfies the training requirements by training the radwaste supervisors in the areas specified in the Bulletin.
This training and retraining is administered by the training department.
The actual training is given by contractors, mainly Chem Nuclea.
All work related to radwaste is done by people from other departments on site but is directly supervised by the radwaste supervisors. The workers are not given specific radwaste and shipping training but are trained only in the particular jobs they are to perform.
Station Services people are charged with removing radwaste generated at step-off pads and compacting it. Mechanical Maintenance is charged with such jobs as removing lids from shipping casks and replacing them before shipping.
Radiological Controls technicians are charged with providing radiological protection coverage whenever needed during waste handling.
It is the licensee's position that, since the workers are supervised directly by trained radwaste supervisors, they need not be trained 'in the regulatory and shipping radwaste require-ments. The training program for the radwaste supervisors is describ-ed in document No. 6223-GD-2651.
3.13 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/85-40-01) and Item (50-219/86-13-02):
Both of these open items address concerns re-garding air sampling practices on site. Specifically, there was concern that air samples were not always collected prior to entry into areas of potential airborne contamination and that, in some cases in which such samples were collected, they were not analyzed and reviewed in a timely manner. These items will be combined as one Inspector Follow-up Item to review air sampling and analysis on site in a future inspection.
(50-219/87-02-06).
3.14 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/86-02-04) A review by an NRC inspector of the preparations made for an underwater diving operation involving potential for exposure to high radiation fields revealed that many important safety issues had not been considered by the licensee.
The licensee has reviewed the deficiencies point out by the inspec-tor.
Subsequent diving operations were more carefully planned, taking into account the items pointed out by the inspector.
Pre-parations for these later diving operations were the subject of an NRC inspection report (No. 50-219/86-26).
3.15 (Closed) Violation (50-219/86-28-01): An improper survey around a recirculation pump resulted in some technicians working in unsurveyed radiation fields. One of these technicians received an exposure during that job that inadvertentlyresulted in exceeding his allowed administrative limit.
A critique of the incident was completed. The actions taken as a result of this critique included review of all active RWPs for the need for multiple dosimetry and review of the Radiological Incident Report for that incident by all Group Radiological Controls Super-visors ((GRCS's).
The sequence of events and causes were reviewed with the Radiological Controls Technicians (RCT's) to emphasize the need to make proper evaluations and surveys of radiation fields.
__
.
.
.
The licensee concluded the critique by stating that efforts will be made to improve the job planning process.
3.16 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-219/86-28-02): Concern was raised by an NRC inspector that the Radiological Incident Reporting (RIR) system was not being fully utilized to achieve its function of analyzing radiological incidents in a timely manner and determining the root causes of the incidents. Some reports were found to be too-brief for their intended purpose and the analyses in some cases tended to be superficial, neglecting to determine the cause of an incident.
Recently generated RIR's were reviewed during the inspection and although some were not well written, there appeared to be a general improvement in quality and depth of analysis.
The RIR record will be reviewed periodically in future inspections.
4.0 Status of a Citizen Concern Reported to the NRC A resident of Tom's River, New Jersey, communicated a concern to the Oyster Creek resident NRC inspector in December, 1986.
The citizen's concern was that a truck bearing a " Radioactive Materials" sign was parked at a local auto service station.
Regional inspectors went to the service station during a recent inspection to investigate the concern. After inspecting the premises and talking to the operators of the station, the following was determined.
The station in question is a national tire service center located just off
-
route 37 in Tom's River. The practice at the station is to bring in a large truck trailer and park it in the rear parking lot of the station.
Discarded tires and other items related to the service business are loaded into the trailer until it is full, a process that takes about two weeks.
The trailer is then hauled away and is replaced by an empty trailer. The operators did not remember seeing any radioactive signs on the premises in the reported time period.
They stated, however, that since many of the trailers they use are equipped with flip signs to indicate their contents, one of these signs may have inadvertently been placed to read " Radioactive Materials". They ensured the inspectors that the station does not handle any radioactive materials nor has such material been received at the station during the time period in question.
Inspection of the facility did not disclose any radioactive material signs. Also, the trailer in question had been replaced by another trailer.
5.0 Exit-Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on January 16, 1987. The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.