IR 05000255/1981022
| ML18046B075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Lovendale P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046B074 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-81-22, NUDOCS 8111200767 | |
| Download: ML18046B075 (5) | |
Text
,----- ---
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-255/81-22 Docket No. 50-255 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At:
Palisades Site, Covert, MI License No. DPR-20 Inspection Conducted:
September 15-16 and October 7-8, 1981 Inspector: f'{~~~
P. C. Lovendale
~~
Approved By:
L. R. Greger, Chief Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary Date I 11/3/t:J/
Date Inspection on September 15-16, and October 7-8, 1981 (Report No. 50-255/81-22)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of radiation protection activities during refueling, including:
radiation protection procedures; advanced planning and preparation; exposure control; posting and access control; material control; and surveys. It also included a review of allegations made by a contractor employee during a telephone call on September 14, 1981, and in a letter to NRC Region III dated September 17, 198 The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- .
- DETAILS Persons Contacted R. Montross, Plant General Manager
- J. Rang, Operations and Maintenance Superintendent 1~A. Kowalczuk, Chemistry and Health Physics Superintendent
- G. Petitjean, Technical Engineer
- L. Kenaga, Radiation Protection Supervisor N. Campbell, Radiation Protection Supervisor W. Mullins, Plant Health Physicist W. Wattson, Health Physicist - ALARA R. Glendenning, Health Physicist (CPCo)
The inspector also contacted other licensee employees and contractor *Denotes those present during the exit meetin General This inspection, which began with a plant tour and visual observation of personnel contamination monitoring practices, access controls, facilities and equipment, posting, and labeling at 6:45 p.m. on September 7, 1981, was conducted to examine routine aspects of the radiation protection program during refueling operations, and to review allegations made by a contractor employe During this and subsequent tours, the inspector used an NRC survey instrument (Xetex 305-B) to monitor selected areas throughout the plant. Measurements made were in agreement with posted survey dat Area postings, access controls, and personal monitoring appeared goo Advance Planning and Preparation The licensee's planning and preparation for this outage has provided an adequate supply of equipment and personnel to ensure the radiation protection program is fully implemente The plant's health physics staff has been augmented with about 65 con-tracted technician About one-half of the contracted technicians meet or exceed the qualifications required by Technical Specification 6. which references ANSI N18.1-197 The remaining contracted technicians do not meet these qualifications, but are only used for jobs which do not entail a level of responsibility that would require them to meet ANSI N18.1-1971 standard The inspector noted that an adequate supply of anticontamination clothing and survey instruments were available; however, fullface respirators appear to be in short suppl Workers are apparently leaving their respirators in containment instead of returning them to containment access for cleaning and reissu This matter was discussed during the exit meetin No items of noncompliance were identifie *.
Radiation Protection Procedures The inspector reviewed the following procedures to determine if they are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and good health physics practice No problems were note HP Revision 2 Respirator Fitting HP Revision 2 Health Physics Orientation Procedure HP Revision 2 Control and Regulation of Personnel Radiation Exposure HP Revision 3 Entry Control for High Radiation Areas Over 1000 mR/hr HP 2.14 Revision 3 Routine Radiation and Contamination Surveys HP 2.16 Revision 3 Radiation Work Permit (RWP)
HP 2.18
.Revision 3 Personnel Decontamination HP 2.19 Revision 1 Determining Concentrations of Radioactivity in HP 2.28 Revision 4 TLD Badge Procedure HP 2.31 Revision 5 TLD Dosimetry Procedure No items of noncompliance were identifie Posting and Access Control Air The inspector examined the posting of contaminated areas, radiation areas, and high radiation areas in the containment and auxiliary building No problems were noted.
The inspector observed access control points at the containment and auxiliary buildings for adherence to contamination control and exit procedures. It was noted that personnel exiting controlled areas were generally thorough when monitoring themselves for contaminatio No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Exposure Control External Exposure Exposure records for the period January 1981 to date were selec-tively reviewed, including; Forms NRG-4, pocket dosimeter totals, and TLD record No problems were note Internal Exposure The inspector reviewed records of respirator training, MPG-hour accumulation, bioassays, and air samplin No body burdens indicative of exposures greater than the 40 MPG-hour control measure were note Procedure HP 8.4, "Whole Body Counting Program," provides instruc-tions for performing entry, exit, routine, and emergency whole body counts for worker In general, all contractor personnel are whole body counted upon arrival onsite and before terminatio Licensee personnel are whole body counted either semiannually or annually
- 3 -
- depending on an individual's job function and exposure histor The inspector determined that the required whole body counts were being conducte No problems were note ALARA The licensee's ALARA program i'sentially remains as described in the Health Physics Appraisal.-
Although corporate guidelines have been developed, plant implementing procedures have not been writte The licensee's response to the Health Physics Appraisal significant findings, dated January 30, 1981, includes a commitment to complete the implementing procedures by the end of 198 One improvement in the licensee's program is the filling of the ALARA Coordi_nator positio The incumbent was hired about three weeks before the start of the outage and appears to be well qual-ified and highly motivate Most of his efforts to date have been directed at selected high man-rem outage wor Progress on.implementation of the plant's formal ALARA program will be reviewed during future inspection (255/80-14-06) Surveys The inspector reviewed records of contamination and airborne radio-activity surveys conducted to meet the requirements of radiation work permits and plant procedure The inspector conducted independent radiation and contamination surveys in the containment and auxiliary building The results compared favorably with licensee survey record No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Contractor Employee Allegations
}j During a telephone call to NRC on September 14, 1981, and in a letter to NRC Region III dated September 17, 1981, a contractor employee expressed concern about certain activities at the plan The employee stated that: Workers were not properly using available contamination monitoring equipment, and that no friskers were available for use in contain-ment or near containment entrance Tools were being removed from the controlled area without a proper surve Workers had been told to ignore a sign at the entrance to contain-ment which read, "respiratory equipment required.
11 Workers' TLDs were placed in plastic bags which prevented the TLDs from recording the beta dose. Returned dosimeters were not being surveyed for contamination before reissu IE Inspection Report No. 50-255/80-1 *
The inspector observed workers exiting the refueling floor, containment, and the gatehous No problems were noted concerning portal monitor and frisker usag Although personal contamination monitoring instru-mentation is not used within the containment building, the use of anticontamination clothing in potentially contaminated areas appears effective in preventing the spread of contaminatio A contamination survey performed by the inspector in the areas between containment and the change room did not reveal any abnormal contamination level The inspector did not observe the removal of any tools from the controlled area that had not been properly surveyed at access contro According to licensee personnel, the sign requiring respiratory equipment had been left posted when respirators were no longer require The sign had been removed at the time of this inspectio At the inspector's request, the licensee experimentally determined that there was about a 25 percent reduction in the recorded beta dose due to placing a TLD in a plastic ba However, the inspection did not reveal any problems regarding evaluation of beta dose for worker If necessary, corrections are applied to the recorded beta dose to account for the attenuation caused by the plastic ba This is rarely a problem since allowable beta dose is considerably higher than whole body (gamma) dose limits (7~ vs. 3 rems per quarter).
The inspector selectively surveyed pocket dosimeters available for issu No contamination was detecte No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 8, 198 The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio In response to certain items discussed by the inspector, the licensee: Acknowledged that the respirator supply and demand problem needed correctio (Section 3) Stated that the contractor employee's concerns could have been resolved had he communicated with health physics managemen (Section 8)
- 5 -