IR 05000250/1987023
| ML17347A499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1987 |
| From: | Hosey C, Weddington R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347A498 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-87-23, 50-251-87-23, NUDOCS 8706030025 | |
| Download: ML17347A499 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MAR I ETTA ST R E ET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 NAY 36 587 Report NoseI 50-250/87-23 and 50-251/87-23 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos:
50-250 and 50-251 Facility Name:
Turkey Point License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41-Inspection Conducted:
April 28 - May 1, 1987 j
e Inspector:
e 1ng on Approved by:~i C..
o e, ect on hse Division of Radia ion Safety and Safeguards s/yi/S.7 ate gne 5 /5
ate
>gne SUMMARY Scope:
This was a special, unannounced inspection in the area of followup on worker health physics concerns.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
870b03002 05000250 5 87052b PDR ADOCH PDR
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. J.
Baker, Plant Manager
- D. D. Grandage, Operations Superintendent
- R. G. Hende, Operations Supervisor
- P.
W. Hughes, Health Physics Supervisor
- W. Blandow, guality Assurance Superintendent
- J. Arias, Jr., Regulation and Compliance Supervisor
- J. A. Labaraque, Technical Department Supervisor
- D. W. Haase, SEG Chairman
- R. D. Hart, Licensing Engineer
- R. A. Longtemps, Maintenance Engineer
- G. Warner, equality Control
- G. C. March, Reactor Engineer R. Brown, Health Physics Operations Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included health physics technicians and foremen and contractor employees and'upervisors.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- D. R. Brewer, Senior Resident Inspector K. Van Dyne, Resident Inspector J.
MacDonald, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 1, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and took no exceptions.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Allegation Followup A.
Allegation (RII-87-A-0057)
The health and safety concerns within the allegation were as follows:
2.
Due to the rush because of the outage, deconners were not afforded the opportunity to take the time to read RWPs.
On April 13, 1987 the RWP for electrical decon work required a
respirator.
The alleger acquired a respirator and took it to the. work area, but the foreman told him the respirator was not required as there was only 5,000 dpm on the cables (subsequent
0
3.
4 ~
information supplied by the alleger indicated that the event occurred on April 15, 1987 and that he had signed in on RWP 87-4701).
After the decon work was completed, the contamination level on the conduit was checked by an electrician and found to be 20,000 dpm.
The alleger signed in on RWP 87-4/14 without reading it and was later informed by health physics that he was dressed in the wrong protective clothing in that he should have been wearing a
double pair of gloves.
B.
Discussion The inspector discussed the substance of the allegation with licensee representatives and interviewed licensee employees who may have had first hand knowledge of the alleged events.
The inspector also reviewed licensee records and procedures related to the allegation.
As a result of the review, the following was determined:
Radiation work permit (RWP) 87-4/01 concerned environmental qualification inspection in Unit 4 containment.
The special instruction on the RWP included a statement that respirators were required in highly contaminated areas and as directed by the health physics shift supervisor.
Another special instruction required a health physics survey prior to welding or grinding.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
RWP 87-4714 concerned cleaning, inspection, and repairing the Unit
normal containment cooler system.
The special instructions on the RWP included a statement that respirators were required in highly contaminated areas and as directed by the health physics shift supervisor.
RWP 87-4011 concerned cleaning and decontamination in the Unit 4 containment.
The special instructions on the RWP included a
statement that respirators were required in highly contaminated areas and as directed by the health physics shift supervisor.
Health Physics Operating Instruction XV, Standardization Levels for Protective Clothing Requirements on Working RWPs, stated as a
guideline that respirators should be worn when work area contamination levels exceeded 50,000 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm~).
Contamination survey records tor the period April 12-lb, 1987 for RWPs 87-4701, 87-4714 and 87-4011 do not document any contamination levels in excess of 50,000 dpm/100 cm~.
Ihe health physics shift supervisor's log for this time period does not document any decision concerning requiring that respirators
(e)
(7)
(8)
be worn for any of these RWPs.
The health physics shift supervisor and Unit 4 containment health physics technicians on duty during the time period in question could not recall any particular problems associated with these RWPs, any unusual survey results or any decision that respirators were required,to be worn for any of these RWPs.
Health physics personnel stated it was their practice to provide continuous coverage for work requiring respiratory protection and that they would likely have remembered providing such coverage for the RWPs.
Health physics personnel stated that whenever an area was designated for respiratory protection, it was their practice to post the area 'as an airborne radioactivity area.
None of the personnel interviewed recalled the RWP work areas in question as having been posted.
The inspector determined that there was no radiological incident reports, skin contamination reports, unexpected positive whole body counts or any other indication of problems associated with the RWPs during the time period in question.
The inspector determined from reviewing the sign-in records that the alleger had entered the radiological controlled areas under the following RWPs for the dates in question:
April 13, 1987 RWP 4011 April 14, 1987 RWPs 4011, 800, 100 April 15, 1987 RWPs 4701, 100 RWP. 800 concerned inspection, repair and issuance of tools from the contaminated tool issue room.
RWP 100 concerned radiological controlled area entries to perform nonradiological work.
(9)
(10)
(11)
The licensee's records of respirator issuance indicated the alleger had last been issued a respirator on April 9, 1987 for work on RWP 87-4714.
The inspector reviewed records of other personnel who had signed-in on the RWPs on the dates in question and determined that none had been issued respirators.
The inspector reviewed the records of air samples performed in the Unit 4 containment during the time period in'question.
All sample results were less than ten percent of a
maximum permissible concentration as defined in 10 CFR 20, Appendix 8, Table 1, Column C.
Findings (1)
No objective evidence could be found that personnel were being rushed and not given an opportunity to read the RWP.
fach person was required to sign a
statement when entering the radiological controlled area that the RWP being entered under had been read and understood.
None of the other workers interviewed stated that they were not allowed to read RWPs.
(2)
Objective evidence indicated that respirators had not been required for the work in question.
The respirator issue record indicated that the alleger had not been issued a respirator on the dates, in question.
During the interviews, two workers stated that they saw the alleger entering the Unit 4 containment with a respirator in his hands.
This apparent contradiction could not be resolved.
There was no record of the cable having been surveyed and found to measure 5000 dpm.
Health physics personnel did not recall this survey.
(3)
There was no record of the cable having been surveyed after the decontamination and found to measure 20,000 dpm.
The worker who performed the survey stated that
'he performed the" survey by wiping the cable with a large cloth, therefore the survey results were not necessarily inconsistent with the alleged predecontamination survey results of 5000 dpm/100 cm'.
The health physics personnel who would have surveyed the cloth did not recall such a survey.
(4)
RWP 87-4714 did not require that double protective gloves be worn.
There was no documentation of this alleged event in the health physics log or in the incident reporting system.
(5)
The alleger was given a whole body count at the request of the inspector.
The results were negative.
D.
Conclusion The allegations were not substantiated.
No violations or deviations were identifie e