IR 05000245/1979007
| ML19241A948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Crocker H, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A940 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-79-07, 50-245-79-7, 50-336-79-07, 50-336-79-7, NUDOCS 7907110460 | |
| Download: ML19241A948 (10) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO'O!ISSION OFFICE Or' INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-243/79-07; 50-336/79-07 Docket No. 50-243; 50-336 License No. DPR-21; DPR-65 Priority --
Citegorf C Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.
O, Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Millstone Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
'4a t e r f o rd,
7necticut Inspection Conducted:
March 19-23, 1979
/ l-r*
22/
vNhf Inspector:
-
.
.
G.
P. Yuhas, Radiaqion Specialist date signed
~
Approved By:
(M %
[
@
J
,
.-
H.
'4.
Crocker, % ting Chief diath sikned Radiation Support Section, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Surarv:
Inspection on March 19-23, 1979 (Recor Nos. 50-245/79-07 and 50-336/79-07')
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of the radiation protection program at Unit 2 during refueling outage conditions including:
Procedures; planning and preparations; training; exposure control; posting and area control, and surveys.
In addition, solid radwate canagement and followup on previous inspection findings were reviewed at coth units.
Upon arrival at 6:00 p.m.,
March 19, 1979, areas where work was being conducted were examined to review imple-mentation of radiation safety practices and procedures.
This inspection involved 35 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
_Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
4W
- m(.
-
790n 10 k
'/'
-2-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J.
F. Opeka, Station Superintendent
- E.
J. Mroczka, Station Services Superintendent
- A.
G.
cheatham, Health Physics Supervisor R.
Brisco, General Services Supervisor R.
Le-t, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Unit 1
- L.
Van Der Horst, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Unit 2 J. Moffat, Safety Administrator (SUSCO)
R.
Ayala, Safety Connittee Chairman P.
Przekop, Engineering Supervisor, Unit 1
- Denotes those present during the exit interview conducted on March 23, 1979.
The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees and contractors including members of the hecith physics, engineering and maintenance staff.
2.
Licenset Action on Previous Insnection Findings (Closed) Soncompliance (30-336/77-30-02, 30-336/76-26-01):
Failure to control high radiation areas at Unit 2.
The licensee was issued Acendment 50. 45 to Operating License No. DPR-65 on '
'aber 8, 1973.
This amendment modified the Technical Specit
._
s to provide alternative methods to assure control of hi rc.iation areas.
The licensee incorporated these methods and __quiremenes into procedure HPP 902/2902, " Radiological Areas."
During tours of the facility, al high radiation areas were posted and controlled in accordance with these requirements.
(Closed) Soncompliance (50-245/77-22-01):
Failure to perform survejs of airborne radioactive material in the Radwaste area.
Procedure HPP 915/2915, " Health Physics Surveys" has been revised to specifically require appropriate reasurements of airborne radioactive materials.
A record review indicated that all required air surveys had been performed in the Radwaste area for the period February 26 through March 21, 1979.
(Closed) Nonco:pliance (50-245/78 _'9-01).
Fa ilure to perform a survey of beta radiation.
The inspector reviewed the evaluation or beta dose performed by the licensee and verified the appropriate entries have been cade on each individual's Forn SRC-5.
,.
.I
-3-(Closed) Soncompliance (50-245/78-39-02, 05).
Failure to periorm suitable messurements of the concentration of radioactive material in air.
Ten additional air samples have been procured by the licensee.
Several job locations were observed, in each case. air samples collected appeared representative of the workers breathing zone.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50 045/78-39-03):
Failure to maintain a survey record.
Procedure HPP 931/2931, " Monitoring for Personnel Contamination" was revised January 26, 1979, to include a personnel contamination survey form that is reviewed and signed by a member of health physics supervision.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-245/78-39-07):
Failure to post a radiation area.
The entrance to the Unit i Turbine Building had been properly posted.
Procedure HPP 902/2902 " Radiological Areas" was revised January 26, 1979, to more clearly define posting requirenents.
(Closed) Previously Identified Item (50-245/78-39-04).
Review licensee's evaluaticn of extremity dose for two individuals.
The inspector reviewed licensee's evaluation of the individual's extremity dose and verified that the results of the evaluation have been incorporated in their exposure records.
(Closed) Previously Identified Item (50-245/78-36-01, 50-336/
73-33-02):
Review health physics procedures.
The below listed procedures have been revised on the dates noted.
Procedure 50.
Section Date of Revision HPP 902/2902 5.2.6 January 26, 1979 HPP 903/2903 5.9.2 March 15, 1979 HPP 906/2906 5.1.1.1.4 January 26, 1979 HPP 906/2906 5.2.1.2.4 January 26, 1979 HPP 906/2906 5.3.1.2 January 26, 1979 HPP 907/2907 Exposure January 26, 1979 Comparison (Closed) Previously Identified Item (50-245/78-36-02, 50-336/
78-33-03):
Review centrol of keys to high radiation areas.
Proce-dure ACP-7.04 was c vised February 26, 1979, to improve high rauiction area key control.
The Health Physics Department has been delegated control of these keys.
bbh
'I -
QI
_4_
(open) Previously Identified Iten (30-336/78-33-01):
Review evaluation and survey associated with fuel transter tube.
At the time of inspection, the licensee had not yet transferred any irradiated fuel through the transfer tube.
This catter will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
3.
Procedures The following procedures were reviewed to determine if recent changes have been made in accordance with ACP-0A-3.02, " Station Procedures and F,res"; Technical Specification 6.8,
" Procedures";
and are consistent with tne requirements of 10 CFR 20.
Procedure No.
Revision Title HPP 901/2901
Dosinetry and Exposure Control HPP 901/2901A
Radiation Exposure Cards HPP 902/2902
Radiological Areas HPP 903/2903
RWP HPP 905/2905
Control and Accountability of Radioactive Material HPP 906/2906
Radiation Incidents HPP 907/2907
Personnel Exposure Evalua-tions and Investigations HPP 910/2910
Respiratory Protection HPP 915/2915-11 Health Physics Surveys HPP 93u/2936
Implementetion of ALARA HPP 941/2941
Performance Audits for Personnel Monitoring Equipment No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
4.
Planning and Preparation The licensee's planning and preparation for this outage has provided an adequatg supply of equipment and personnel to insure the radiation protection program is fully implemented.
The station health physics staff has been augmented with 33 cuntractor supplied health physics technicians.
Ten of these individuals' qualifications were reviewed to determine compliance with the requirements specified in Unit 2 Technical Specification 6.3.
This review consisted of detailed evaluation of information provided on the contractor supplied resumes and interviews with two individuals.
g,>
,: g
,
.c
,
..
- 5-The licensee has or;;anized the Unit 2 health physics svaff into two twelve hour shifts.
Each shift is organited a.d manned as noted below:
Un i '_ 2 Health Physics Operations
! Radiation Protection Supervisor
,
i lContractorH.
P.
Supervisorj l
'
Stean Generctor ggp Control'
Routine Work Office I
Points Surveys i
l g
Foreman Reactor Cavity Cc en '_ing
- Auxiliary Building Work hoom i
i i
!
'
3 Technicians 2 Techaiciansi l3 Technicians, l2 Technicians i
!
=
i_
l l
,2 Technicians:
j 1 Chemisti
' 1 Technician '
l
l
'
l
,
,
,
-3
_
I
-6-Unit 2 Health Physics Suoport Health Physics Support Foreman l
"P #
Protection and Health Physics Doaimetry
, raining and t
Miole Body Computer Instruction Counting Instrument Dosimetry Calibration Clerk
!
t 2 Technicians 1 Technician
'
1 Clerk 1 Technician 2 Technicians i
Frequent independent audits of the radiation protection program are being performed representatives of Northeast Utility Service Company.
Tours of Unit 2 incicate an adequate supply of calibrated instru-mentation, and equi ment has been made available for use.
e To maintain the supply of protective clothing, the licensee has contracted a portable dry-cleaning system.
This system is operated by the contractor's representative snder this facility's license.
The operator received training by the licensee and will operate the system in accordance with the licensee's radiation protection pro-cedures. At the time of inspection, this system had not been put into use.
No item of noncomplianc2 was identified in this area.
(ly
,*'
g, av\\
-7-5.
Training The names of ten individuals were selected from those that had participated in the steam Senerator maintenance performed during this outage.
Records were reviewed to verify that these individuals had received the training specified in 10 CFR 19.12, " Instruction to workers."
The licensee proviced this instruction in two ways.
First, each individual completed the " General Employee Training" then all received specialized job specific training using the steam generator cock-up.
Each individual had also received training in the use of respiratory protective devices.
The 33 temporary health physics technicians repor~ed to the facility two weeks prior to this outage for training and familiari-zation.
During this period, each individual completed the " General Employee Training," a review of selected facility procedures, and familiarization with the licensee's equipment and inrtrumentation.
The records indicate that each technician successfully passed a written exanination prep tred by the Health Physics Supervisor prior to assuming his responsibilities.
The training records of two female radiation workerc were reviewed to verify that they had been provided informarion concerning prenatal radiation exposure.
No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
6.
Exposure Control a.
The inspector reviewed the exposure records of 15 individuals selected at random frcm the licenree's exposure control records.
These records reviewed against the following requirements:
Area Reauirement Dosimetry 10 CFR 20.202, HPP 901/2901 External Exposure 10 CFR 20.101, HPP 901/2901A Internal Exposure 10 CFR 20.103, HPP 907/2907, HPP 908/2908 Exposure Records 10 CFR 20.401, HPP 901/2901 Survey records indicate airborne concentrations of radioactive xenon in the Containgent Building during the period March 10-13, 1979, of up to 4X10 uCi/cc.
Frca a review of Containment entries during this period, the inspector verified for six
'
tr.
,
.,
g zou
-8-individuals, that the licensee had calculated their dose due to this noble gas.
The largest single exposure in this group was 904 crud.
b.
On March 12, 1979, an individual working under Radiation Work Permit (RWO) 790404, " Reactor Pool" passed out when his air supply was stopped.
Due to high levels of surface contamination in the work area this RWP required the use of an " Air Supplied Hood."
The hood used by the licensee is not recognized by the NRC as an approved device for which protection factors may be applied.
The licensee does not apply protection factors for the use of this hood.
When notified of this incident, the licensee stopped all use of the hoods until an evaluation could be made.
The evaluation concluded the air had been cut off when the 18-inch thin wall PVC tubing pig tail became twisted.
The corrective recurrence of this problem was to reduce action to prevent a the length of the pig tail to less than six inches.
On March 21, 1979, the inspector toured the containment and noted that of 15 air supply hoods available for use, the thin wall PVC pig tail ranged in length from about two to eight inches.
A six inch length of this tubing, when twisted 90, severly restricted the air flow.
The inspector met with licensee representatives on March 22, 1979, to discuss the use of these hoods.
The licensee issued a letter MP-1859 on March 23, 1979, to clarify restriction on the production and use of these hoods.
No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
7.
Postine and Area Control Eeveral tours through the controlled areas were made to verify a.
compliance with the following requirements:
Area Requirement Posting 10 CFR 20.203, HPP 902/2902 Labeling 10 CFR 20.203, HPP 905/2905 Area Control Technical Specification 6.13, HPP 902/2902, ACP 7.04 All areas inspected were adequately posted and properly controlled.
)
, T,
,
,
- 9-b.
Several RWPs in progress were re11ewed by the inspector.
Particular attention was give.. to RWP 790613,
"-22'
Steam Generator No.
1, Eddy Cur ent Testing."
The requirement-of procedure HPP 2920A. ' Radiological Control Procedure for Steam Generator Work" were also reviewed.
No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
9.
Surveys Independent measurements were made and licensee survey rccords reviewed to determine compliance with the below listed requirements:
Area Requirement General 10 CFR 20.201, 10 CFR 20.401 Dosimetry 10 CFR 20.202, HPP 941/2941 External Radiation HPP 915/2915 Internal Radioactive
' CFR 20.103, HPP 908/2908E Material No item of noncompliance was identified in this area.
10.
Solid Radioactive Waste a.
Procedures The following procedures were reviewed to determine if they have been developed consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 71.
ACP-QA-6.04, " Radios,:ive Material Shipping Requirements,"
_
Revision 3.
HPP 928/2928A1 through AS, " Shipment and Receipt of Radioactive Materials" 78-1-03 "CNS 4-45 Cask Handling" 78-1-42 " Loading of ATCOR AL33-90 Cask" 78-1-4 3 " Loading of Chem-Nuclear Systems, CNS 21-300, and 14 '.95H Casks" MP-27210 " Loading of the LL-50-100 Cask" The inspector discussad the need to refine procedure HPP 928/2928B regarding receipt of radioactive materials with licensee representatives.
lk
,
esgav
- *
- 10 -
In reviewing implementation of the above procedures for severai si.i.pment s, the inspector noted that no specific methodology for heat load calculation has been incorporated into these procedures.
A licensee representative stated that standard methodology will be written inco procedures for each cask prior to their next use.
This matter will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (30-245/79-07-01).
11.
Exit In t e rview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Pa agraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on 51 arch 23, 1979.
.
The inspector su=tarized the scope and findings of the inspection as presented in this report.
C.
'
.3
.z,,.. ::2
. - -