IR 05000250/1979010
| ML17338A798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Wray J, Zavadoski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17338A790 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-79-10, 50-251-79-10, NUDOCS 7906260501 | |
| Download: ML17338A798 (21) | |
Text
~h h!Pp~Np
~4 O
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.
50-250/79-10 and 50-251/79-10 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Hiami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida Inspector:
R.
. Zavadoski Y-zo-st Date Signed J.
. Wr y-tn -7 Date Signed Approved A. F. Gi
- Section Chief, FFHS Branch ate igned SVHHARY Inspection on Harch 19-23, 1979 A~I This routine unannounced inspection involved 84 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of licensee actions on previous inspection findings, plant tour, external radiation exposure control, exposure records, radiation vork permits, respiratory protection program, surveys, posting and control, airborne radioactivity areas, training and qualifications, AMQ considerations
- exposure estimates, AMQ consideration - pressurizer job, radioactive and contaminated material control, 1978 man-rem report and radioactive effluent release report.
Results Of the 15 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations vere identified in 13 areas; 2 apparent items of noncompliance vere found in 2 areas (deficiency - failure to post airborne radioactivity area
{79-10-01)
(paragraph 12); infraction - loose contamination on respirators
{79-10-02)
(paragraph 9))..
l'
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee E
lo ees
+H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager
+J. K. Hays, Plant Superintendent, Nuclear
- H. F. Storey, Corporate Health Physicist
- P. W. Hughes, Health Physics Supervisor J. S. Wade, Jr., Chemistry Supervisor D. W. Haase, Technical Supervisor R. L. Logsdon, Documentation Specialist A. T. Hall, Results Assistant
- R. J. Spooner, Quality Assurance, Operations Supervisor T. Coleman, Health Physics Shift Supervisor
+J. Bates, Health Physics Shift Supervisor
- J. L. Danek, Health Physics Training Supervisor J. Ferguson, Health Physics Administrative Assistant M. S. Peck, Health Physics Administrative Supervisor
+D. W. Jones, Quality Control Supervisor E. R. Lapierre, Radiochemist Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
construction craftsmen, 8 technicians, 3 operators, 5 mechanics, and 3 office personnel.
+Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 23, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Mr. H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager, acknowledged the noncompliance item (paragraph 12) of not posting the Unit 4 containment as an airborne radiation area and stated that it was now posted as such.
He also acknowledged the problem of loose contamination on respirators (paragraph 9)
and stated that this aspect of the respirator program would be looked at in detail in the near future.
3 ~
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s a.
(Closed)
Noncom lianke (250/25]/77-05-02 and 250 251 78-26>>05)
Im ro er Locks on Hi
, adiation Areas i/
The inspector observpd that locks which could be opened from the inside were installe on all high radiation areas requiring locks and hqd no further qu stlop e
"2-b.
(Closed)
Noncom liance (250/251/78-11-01 and 250/251/78-26-03)
Failure to Post Hi h Radiation Areas The inspector verified by independent measurements
'<that all,high radiation areas vere properly posted and had no further questions.
c.
(Closed)
Nonco liance (250/251/78-11<<02 and 250/251/78-26-02 Failure to Follow Health Ph sics Procedures The inspector observed numerous bags of radioactive vaste vhich were properly sealed in accordance with plant procedures and had no further questions.
d.
{Closed) Noncom liance (250/251/78-21-01)
Issuance of Res irators The inspector observed the current procedure for respirator issuance and reviewed recent records of respirator issuance and had no further questions.
'I e.
(
en)
Noncom liance (250/251/78-21-02)
Solid Shi ments in Accord-ance with 10 CFR 71 The inspectors reviewed records of solid radioactive vaste shipments and noted that the new procedures are not yet effective.
f.
{Closed) Nonco liance (250/251/78-21-03)
I,ocked Hi h Radiation Fields in Containment The inspector observed the installation of locked fences around high radiation fields and had no further questions.
g.
(Closed)
Noncom liance (250/251/78-26-01and 250/251/77-24-03)
Locked Hi h Radiation Field The inspector verified that each entrance to each area vith a
radiation field'in excess of 1000 mrem/hr vas appropriately locked and had no further questions.
h.
{Closed) Noncom liance (250/251/78-26-04)
Lack of Cleanliness In the Unit 03 Containment The inspector reviewed the overall cleanliness in the Unit f3 containment and discussed future cleanup operations with licensee representatives'and had no further question '0
(Closed)
Noncom liance {250/251/78-29-01)
Te ora Lead Shieldin on Safet Related Pi in The inspector verified that the temporary lead shihlding had been removed from the piping in the Unit g4 containment and had no further questions.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Tour a.
b.
During the course of the inspection; the inspector toured:
(1) the Unit 3 containment from the TIP.(transverse incore probe)
room sump to the polar crane,
{2) the Unit 4 containment from the basement level to the operating deck,
{3) the auxiliary building including the two foot elevation, ten foot elevation pipe chase, residual heat removal pits, ground elevation cubicles, chemical volume control systems on the roof elevation, and (4) the radwaste building.
It was obvious to the 'inspector that considerable progress in clean-liness had been made in each building as compared to past recent inspections (IE Report Nos. 50-250/78-11, 50-251/78-11, Details I, paragraph 4.c., 50-250/78-21, 50-251/78-21, paragraph 9.c., 50-250/
78-26, 50-251/78-26, paragraph 4,
and 50-250/78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 10.a.) by the same inspector.
The inspector noted:
(1) the absence of large quantities of anti-contamination clothing left at step-off pads in the auxiliary building, (2) the large majority of the step-off pads were new, (3) the change out area in the RCA was relatively well stocked with clean anti-contamination clothing.
At the entrance to the waste gas decay tank pipe and valve room, the inspector noted a survey sheet which indicated smearable contamination levels of less than 1000 dpm/100 cm (IE Report 50-250/78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 7).
In the auxiliary building the inspector noted that the storage areas under the tool room and on the rampway from the two foot elevation to the ten foot elevation (IE Report 50-250/78-26, 50"251/
78-26, paragraph 4.c) were clear and all articles stored under the tool room were properly packaged.
The inspector observed numerous instances where contaminated material was properly packaged in double polyethylene bags as required by procedure HP-41,
"Movement of Materials Inside the Radiation Control Area".
The inspector had no further questions or observations in this area.
Co With the unit in hot standby, the inspector, accompanied by licensee representatives entered the Unit 4 containment, toured all three levels of the containment.
The inspector noted that the temporary
-4-lead shielding on the regenerative heat exchanger, located on the basement level inside the biological shield wall and on the "C" leg of the residual heat removal (RHR) piping, located on the basement level outside the biological shield wall, had all bden removed (IE Report 50-250/78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 10.b).
The inspector also observed considerable improvement in housekeeping, i.e., tool boxes had been removed from containment, scaffolding, ladders and electrical cables still remaining in containment was secured with metal wire, plastic and asbestos gloves were not in evidence (IE Report 50-250/ 78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 10.a).
The inspector also noted that barrels for the collection of anti-contamination clothing were located inside the personnel hatch, and not in contain-ment (IE Report 50-250/78-26, 50-251/78-26, paragraph 4.e).
The inspector had no further questions or observation in this area While touring the two foot elevation in the auxiliary building the inspector noted that pipe fitters were installing some new piping for the renovated laundry system in the hallway to the waste holdup tank room.
The inspector noted that a liquid leak appeared to be coming from the ceiling above as described in a previous report (IE Report 50-250/78-26, 50-251/78-26, paragraph 12).
After discus-sions with the pipe fitters and other licensee representatives, the inspector learned that the leak had been quiessant for the past months and had only restarted in the past day or two and then only o
an intermittant basis.
When the inspector informed the health on an i physics supervisor of the leak, the area was xmnediately evacua ed and all work terminated until the leak was fixed.
Air samples t k n before and after the inspector's visit to the area indicated The no significant levels of airborne radioactivity present.
T e inspector had no further questions in this area.
Accompanied by licensee representatives, the inspector toured the boric acid batching tank room and noted that some progress had been made in stopping the boric acid from leaking on the floor (IE Report No. 50-250/78-21, 50-251/78-21, paragraph ll). Specifically, leaks from the diaphgram valves in the room appeared to have been terminated.
However, leaks from the pump seals are still evident.
Licensee representatives stated that they are continuing their efforts to stop the leakage into the room.
The; inspector had no further questions or observations in this area.
The inspector, acco pn ed by licensee representatives toure d the Unit f3 Containment uj ding.
Although the unit was in the last t
weeks of a major efueling, the amount of visible debris and wo ee e traneous material w s noticeably small (IE Report No. 50-250/7-8-26 X
50-251/78-26, paragraph 4.e).
Licensee representatives stated that extraneous material ould be removed prior to power ascension and that those items le in containment would be securely tied down.
/
~ ~
During the containment tour, the inspector noted that locked gates had been supplied around the regenerative heat exchanger and the liquid cavity filters (IE Report 50-250/7S-26, 50-251/78-26, para-graphs 8.b.i and S.b.ii).
The inspector had ao further questions or observations.
g.
Accompanied by licensee representatives, the inspector toured the radwaste building and outdoor storage area.
Again, a high degree of cleanliness and order were noted by the inspector.
Each item in the storage was properly double-bagged and labelled
{IE Report 50-250/78-11, 50-251/78-11, Details II, paragraph 10.a).
The inspector had no further questions or observations.
6.
External Radiation E
osure Control a.
The inspector observed the wearing of TLD badges and pocket chambers by workers during tours of the RCA.
The inspector discussed the control and monitoring of radiation exposure vith operators, RPN and licensee representatives and had no further questions.
b.
The inspector asked licensee representatives how radiation exposures were
<<aintained below the limits established in
CFR 20.101.
Licensee representatives stated that each vorking day the exposure of each individual working ia the radiation controlled area (RCA)
is updated with pocket dosimeters information obtained the precediag day.
The information is posted on the bulletin board near the change out area in the RCA.
The information is presented by groups, e.g.,
health physics, instrumentation and control,
<<aiateaance, operations nuclear, electrical, visitors and sub-contractors.
In addition, the names of those individuals vho are restricted from the RCA because they have reached an administrative limit are put on a restricted list and those vho reach 80% of an administrative limit are put on an alert list.
Each supervisor is sent a copy of the current exposures for each individual vorkiag for him so that he can uniformly distribute exposures over his vork force (IE Report 50-250/78-26 and 50-251/78-26, paragraph 10.c).
The inspector noted the posting of the current radiation exposure report in the RCA, noted vorkers consulting the list, noted foremen coasulting the list, and had no further questions.
7. E~R The inspector examined computer printouts of individual vhole body and skin exposures for calendar year 1978.
No limits of exposure as specified in
CFR 20. 101(b) vere exceeded.
The licensee is required by 10 CFR 20.101{b){3) to have on file a Form NRC-4 for each person vho has exceeded the exposure limits of 10 CFR 20.101(a).
The inspector examined records of those individuals vhose yearly exposures indicated a potential for quarterly exposures in excess of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a)
and verified that NRC-4 fopys vere include The inspector commented to a licensee representative that certain entries showed no birthdate although lifetime exposure bank calculations as determined from 10 CFR 20.101(b)(2)
were present.
Upon fqrther investi-gation, the inspector discovered that birthdate informatioh was available from their personnel files.
A licensee representative said that the computer program had not been completely debugged and that this item would be cleared up at a later date.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
8.
Radiation Work Permits (RWPs)
The inspector selected RWPs posted at the entrance to the Radiation Control Area (RCA).
The inspector selected records from the file
"Terminated RWPs" for the period January 1 through March 22, 1979.
The inspector observed a Health Physics Shift Supervisor discussing with maintenance personnel the radiation safety requirements for specific work and issuing RWPs.
The inspector toured the auxiliary building, Units 3 and 4 containments, and radwaste building, and observed the implementation of RWP requirements for selected operations.
Procedure HP-l, "Radiation Work Permit", requires that specified work be done in accordance with the conditions of an RWP.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed by the inspector.
9.
Res irato Protection Pro ram I
a.
By review of records, observations, and discussions with licensee representatives, an inspector evaluated the program for air sampling, bioassay, engineering controls, MPC-hour controls, respirator medical evaluation, training, fitting, operational testing, main-tenance, issuance controls, and determined that the respiratory protection program appeared to be in compliance with 10 CFR 20.)03.
b.
Health Physics Procedure H0-60, "Respiratory Protection Manual",
Section 12.6, requires that no detectable removable contamination be allowed on respirators made available for reissuance.
On March 21, 1979, the inspector randomly selected three used, cleaned and packaged respirators from the issuance shelf and took smear surveys on the outside of each facepiece.
One respirator, Number F68-B, showed levels of removable contamination greater than 3000 dpm as measured by licensee representatives.
This respirator was immediately removed from service for further decontamination.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that having removable contamination on respirators was contrary to the requirements of Technical Specifications',
Section 6.11, "Radiation Protection Program",
which requires that procedures required of 10 CFR 20 be adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation protection and was an item of noncompliance (79-10-01).
After the inspectors findings,
0
licensee representatives selected an additional 20 respirators from the shelf, smeared the facepieces and found no removable contamination above background.
The inspector had no further questions or observa-tions in this area.
10.
~Surve s
a ~
The licensee is required by 10 CFR 20.201(b) to perform such surveys as may be necessary to comply with regulations.
The inspector accompanied by a licensee representative performed an independent contamination survey of the Chemical and Volume Control System Holdup Tanks A and B cubicles, the Residual Heat Removal Pump cubicles for Unit number 4, the Boron Injection Tank cubicle for Unit number 4, and the Boric Acid Batching Tank Pump area.
Twenty-eight swipes were taken by the inspector and the licensee represen-tative and were independently counted on both NRC RII and licensee equipment.
Results were found to be essentially the same.
b.
The inspector then asked that an isotopic analysis be performed by the radiochemistry lab using their germanium-lithium detector on two of the more contaminated samples.
The results of this test were compared to the results obtained from the RII laboratory after these samples were returned to Atlanta.
The results compared favorably.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
c ~
The licensee is required by
CFR 20.401(b) to maintain records showing the results of their surveys.
The inspector examined. the surveys for the, first quarter of calendar year 1979 and had no further questions.
11.
Postin and Control a.
P~ostin The inspector observed the posting on bulletin boards throughout the plant of the notices and reports required by 10 CFR 19.11.
b.
I~4'
'he inspector toured the Radiation Control brea and observed the posting of warning signs and the locking of access points to certain areas.
The inspector took radiation level readings at selected location's and requested~ that air samples be taken at selected locations to assure (hat areas were posted and locked as required by
CFR 20.203(c)(1)/and Technical Specification 6.13.1 respec-tivel c.
Radiation Level Surve s
The inspector discussed the radiation level survey program with licensee representatives.
The inspector accompanied 14'M and observed them making radiation level surveys.
The inspector made confirmatory surveys of radiation levels using NRC instruments.
The inspector examined selected records of radiation level surveys inside Unit 3 containment for the period January 1 through March 20, 1979.
The inspector had no further questions.
J d.
"Radiation Levels From Fuel Element Transfer Tubes" This bulletin described potential problem of radiation streaming from fuel transfer tubes during fuel movement.
The inspector examined the results of a survey of the Unit 3 fuel transfer tube performed during movement of fuel in the tube.
The inspector had no further questions.
12.
Airborne Radioactivit Areas The inspector reviewed the records of airborne radioactivity levels inside the Unit 4 containment.
The records showed levels of Xe-)33 exceeding 1 X 10-~ pCi/cc for the period of time January 3, 1979 thru March 22, 1979.
Xenon 133 levels of 1 X 10-pCi/cc represent the maximum permissible concentration in air, as stipulated in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 1, Column 1.
CFR 20.203(f)
requires that each airborne radioactivity area be conspicuously posted with a sign bearing the radiation caution symbol and the words "Caution Airborne Radioactivity Area".
The inspector, accompanied by a licensee representative noticed that the entrance to the Unit 4 containment was not posted as an airborne radioactivity area and informed licensee representatives that this was an item of noncompliance (79-10-02).
Afterwards, licensee representatives properly posted the area.
13.
Trainin and ualifications a.
Technical Specification 6.3.1 states that
"each member of the facility staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-)971 for comparable positions."
Section 4.5.2, ANSI N18.1-1971, states that technicians in responsible positions shall have a minimum of two years of working experience in their speciality, and that personnel should have a minimum of one year of related technical training in addition to their experience.
A licensee representative stated that all shifts were assigned an H.P. supervisor with more than two years experience.
The inspector examined various personnel files of members of the health physics staff as well as a
number of contract health physics technicians hired for the refueling outage.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observe b.
Technical Specification 6.4.1 states that a retraining program for the facility staff shall meet or exceed the requirements and recom-mendations of Section 5.5, ANSI N18.1"1971 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55.
The inspector discussed the program for retraining station personnel with a licensee representative.
The inspector was told that individuals who possess red security badges (unescorted access in the Radiation Control Area) are retrained every two years.
A twenty-five percent or six month extention time period is used in order to overcome scheduling problems around= outages, vacation period, etc. If an employee does not attend his scheduled retraining classes, his red badge is revoked.
The inspector reviewed training records of red-badged station employees and confirmed that all individuals had been retrained within the specified time.
The inspector had,no further questions in this area.
14.
ALARA Considerations - E osure Estimates a.
The inspector reviewed with licensee respresentatives the functioning of the licensee's program for accumulating radiation exposure data for each task carried out under a radiation work permit (RVP) (IE Report 50-250/78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 9.b).
The licensee representative stated that the purpose of the program is to establish a data base of the cost in radiation exposure for each task required for normal plant operation, including refuelings.
The overall objective of the program is to identify areas in the future where the expenditure of effort and capital would lead to the greatest reduction in exposure or man-rem.
b.
Basically the program requires the egress of an individual from the radiation control area be monitored.
Egressing individuals give readings from their pocket dosimeters, thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) numbers and RWP number, to the guard at the RCA exit.
The guard enters the information into a computer via a teletype.
The correctness of the information given is periodically monitored by knowledgeable health physics personnel stationed in. the guard area.
C.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector requested an estimate of the total radiation exposure resulting from the refueling outage on Unit number 3.
Not only could the licensee representative supply a current estimate (615 man-rem as of March 20, 1979, based on pocket dosimeters),
but each task could be identified by man-rem and, further, each group participating in a task, e.g., maintenance, health physics, electrical, contractors, etc., cauld be identified by man-rem (IE Report 50-250/78-26, 50-251/78-26, paragraph 10.a).
Licensee representatives stated that they anticipate analyzing the results of the man-rem exposures for the current Unit 3 and Unit 4 refuelings and use their analysis to make decisions which will lead
to exposure reductions'n future refuelings.
After reviewing the current radiation exposure program, its present capabilities, and projected use, the inspector had no further questions.r 15.
ALARA Considerations
- Pressurizer Job As previously identified (IE Report 50-250/78-21, 50-251/78-21, paragraphs 6.c. through 6.g.,
TE Report 50-250/78-26, 50-251/78-26, paragraph 10.b, IE Report 50-250/78-29, 50-251/78-29, paragraph 8.a) considerable preplan-ning had gone into the job preparation for the removal and replacem'ent of the lagging on the Unit 3 Pressurizer.
Licensee representatives estimated the entire job to have cost approximately 50 man-rem.
The inspector discussed the pressurizer job with the laggers who actually did the work and found that they were of the opinion that the job was well thought out, preplanned and smoothly executed.
They also noted that health physics coverage was constant.
Some of the laggers have been returning to the site for more than five years.
The inspector had no further questions or observations in this area.
16.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control The licensee is required by 10 CFR 20.203(f) to properly label containers of radioactive waste material.
The inspector observed numerous containers of radioactive waste material properly stored throughout the plant.
Each package was wrapped in double bags and labelled as required.
The inspector also observed containers labelled "Radioactive LSA" ready for shipment offsite.
No items of noncompliance were found and the inspector had no further questions.
17.
1978 Man-Rem Re ort The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1978 Man-Rem Report which is required by section 6.9.3 of the Technical Specifications.
The inspector was told by licensee representatives that the special maintenance items listed in the man-rem report included repair of the spent fuel pits and changing system modifications.
The inspector had no further questions or observations.
18.
Radioactive Effluent Release Re ort The inspector reviewed the licensee's March 1, 1979, submittal, entitled
"Semiannual Radioactive Ef~fl~ynt Release Report for the period Ju)y 1, 1978 through December 31, 1,978".
The licensee is required to submit the report by Technical Specific Cion 5.6. 1.c.
The inspector had no questions
I 1f