IR 05000263/1977010
| ML20056B570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1977 |
| From: | Fisher W, Hiatt J, Miller D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056B568 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-77-10, NUDOCS 9102070511 | |
| Download: ML20056B570 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ __ _ ._ , < n.
.:
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT . '
REGION III
I ( Report No.: 50-263/77-10 Docket No.: 50-263 License No. DPR-22 ! Licensce: Northern States Power Company ' - 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 , l Facility Name: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant inspection at: Monticello, MN
Inspection Conducted: June 13-16, 1977 . , Ica
7 /'/ / 737 , inspectors: D. E. Miller
p (dste signed) J.W.biatt YI/*7 7
'). (date signed) , j[[4 . b j ' Approved by: W. L. Fisher, hief 7 // /77 f & / Fuel Facility Projects and (date signed) l Radiation Support Section , ( Inspection Summary i Inspection on June 13-16, 1977 (Report No. 50-263/77-10) ' Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of radiation protection
program, including: qualifications; audits; training; radiation protection procedures; instruments and equipment; exposure control; posting, labeling, and control; surveys; notifications and reports; previous item of noncom-pliance; and previous commitments. The inspection involved 47 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the eleven areas inspected, no item's of noncompliance or deviations were identified in ten areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (infraction - failure to follow a procedure concerning portabic survey instrument calibration - Paragraph 12.a).
, . i . 9102070511 770706
CF ADOCK 05000263 i i
CF o~ , e
! _ .. ..,, _ _...... _ _ . _ _., _.. .. .. _..... ~,. , ,....,
.. - - . . ._. --- _ -
l* ( ~ J ' J DETAILS t i i e 1.
Persons Contacted [ ( i t
- M. Clarity, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection Superintendent l
j l F. Fey, Radiation Protection Engineer j j
- L. Nolan, Engineer
R. Jacobson, Chemist , ! li R. Scheinost, Plant Quality Engineer ! J. Pasch, Training Supervisor !
- P. Yurczyk, Radiation Protection Coordinator
, ! l J. Peterson, Chemistry Coordinator
G.11athiasen, Radiation Protection Specialist ! l The inspectors also contacted five other radiation protection l j specialists during the course of the inspection.
l d ,
i I
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
! !
i 2.
General
l ' This inspection, which began with a facility tour and visual observa- ,
tion of facilities and equipment, postings, labeling, and access
" controls at 11:00 a.m. on June 13, 1977, was conducted to examine i the radiation protection aspects of routine plant operations, a pre-l vious item of noncompliance, and previous commitments made by the licensee.
, i No abnormalities were noted during the visual observations.
! i i 3.
Organization l-l The radiation protection complement consists of the Radiation Protec-i ' i tion Engineer, Engineer, Chemist, Radiation Protection Coordinator, Chemistry Coordinator, and six Radiation Protection Specialists.
l The licensee stated that a recent masters degree graduate in radio-l i logical health may be hired in the near future.
! ! 4.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings . > ! . ' (Closed) Infraction (50-263/76-07): liigh Radiation Area found ! ! unlocked and unattended. The inspector reviewed the licensee's res- ' ponse dated June 8, 1976. The corrective actions appear to be , adequate.
I (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-263/77-05): Inaccuracies in the conversion facter calculation for the offgas stack monitor may
i have resulted in erroneous determinations of offgas stack noble . '
) -2- ! >
' . I
. ! . . . -- .- -. .. -.,
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. k.
h) ~ - gas releases. While investigating this matter, the licensee dis-covered an error in the computer program used to estimate the quantity of isotopes present in concentrations which are below-
the detection sensitivity for the GeLi counting system. As a . result, the relative abundances of these isotopes changed but the ' total quantity released remained the same.
It now appears that the total quantity of release via the air ejector offgas pathway is less than ten percent of the total release from the offgas stack.
The remainder of the release is from the gland seal exhauster.
Therefore, the conversion factor in question was relatively accur-ate and did not result in a large error when quantification of ef fluent via the of fgas stack was determined using the of fgas stack monitor readings. The licensee has reissued portions of the semiannual effluent reports for 1976.
5.
Licensee Internal Audits The inspector reviewed the results of audits conducted by a station , ' Quality Engineer during 1977 to date. Two audits concerned chemistry and radiation protection procedures and included adherence to proce-dures. No significant items requiring corrective action were found.
The inspector reviewed the results of audits conducted by the Safety j Audit Committee during 1976.
Two audits were conducted concerning radiation protection and radwaste management. Na significant items requiring corrective action were found.
! !
No problems concerning the frequency or extent of licensee audits were identified by the inspector.
6.
Training The radiation protection aspects of training and retraining remain as previously reported (50-263/76-07). The licensee currently is developing new orientation training presentations, and plans to use them in the near future. This matter will be examined during a future inspection.
7.
Radiation Protection Procedures The inspectors reviewed changes made to the following procedures since the previous radiation protection inspection: E.1.7 Equipment Control E.1.3 Radiation Area Control E.1.4 Monitoring-3-( . . -
2- - - ,
' f~) l , ,- ..
r The changes examined did not alter the compatibility of the proce-j i dures with regulatory requirements.
Procedural changes were
j noted to have been made in accordance 'with the licensce's techni- ! i cel specifications and Administrative Control Directives.
Ii ! } 8.
Radiation Surveys e f i a.
Direct Radiation and Surface Contamination j d
Records of direct radiation and surface contamination surveys ! l conducted during Fby 1977 were reviewed. The surveys, per-j formed under section E.1.4.II of the Operations Manual, !
appeared to satisfy 2egulatory requirements.
In addition to ! j routine surveys, the licensee conducted specific area surveys j in connection with work in progress.
, b.
Air Sampling [ i f The licensee routinely collects high volume air particulate and halogen grab samples in plant areas where airborne concentra-
tions of radioactive materials may exist.
These samples are analyzed by a GeLi counting system which is programmed to print . ] out results by isotope, activity of each isotope identified, . the maximum permissibic concentration (MPC) ratio for each l . 1sotope, and total ITC ratio for the sample. The program con-l i servatively ties Sr-90 to Cs-137,1f present, and gives it the
1 same concentration. The licensee also counts the sampics for gross beta, and factors the detceted activity into the total MPC ratio when less than seventy-five percent of the beta acti-
i vity is gamma identified.
, i I s These sample results, along with nonroutine sample results, are } used to determine posting and respiratory protection require-ments. The inspectors noted that the licensee does not perform j
l calibrations on portable air sampler and constant air monitor flowmeters.
! c.
Source Leak Tests ! l Licensee records of leak tests performed were being microfilmed i and were not available for review. These records will be re-l viewed during a subsequent inspection.
l d.
Bioassays and In Vivo Counting ! The licensee continues to contract whole body counting ser- . , vices annually and in conjunction with major outages. The l
4_ ' I f ! ! - i
- e
_,. - - - .m.
_~___c, _ _ -_..____,_,..m_,-__, ,., _. -. -,.. .,,...., .,,. ,,,-.y7
.. -
-- -
- U J,
- last whole body counts were performed May 3-5, 1976, when 122 scans for mixed fission, corrosion, and activation products were performed on 122 individuals. The maximum
' ! internal. activity detected, other than potassium, was about two percent of the maximum permissible body burden for Co-60.
I The licensee stated that plans are in progress to purchase ! a whole body counter for use onsite.
Urine analysis is conducted in response to suspected internal deposition. Nasal smears are a routine part of the licensee's respiratory protection program. Licensee procedures establish j criteria for nasal smear collection and special whole body i ' counting. Since the previous radiation protection inspeccion (May 1976), urine analyses have been conducted for six persons.
Based on the results of urine analyses, no special whole body counting was required. The inspector noted that the extent of
airborne contamination within certain areas of the facility has j decreased significantly since the refueling outage in 1975, ' apparently as a result of better fuel cladding. Consequently, the frequency of respiratory protection equipment use and subse-
quent need for nasal smears and urine analysis has diminished.
l The inspectors noted that a discrepancy exists between Opera-tions Manual sections E.1.3.V.E.6.a and E.1.5.V.D.2.b.6 con-cerning the requirement for collection of nasal smears. The l inspectors discussed this matter with the licensee.
j 9.
Personal Dosimetry Self-reading dosimeters and TLD badges are used to measure personal radiation exposures. The TLD badges are processed monthly by an outside contractor. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's persona] dosimetry records for April 1976 through May 1977. No quarterly whr le body, skin, or extremity exposures exceeding three rems were noted. The highest yearly whole body exposure for 1976 was noted
I to be 7.4 rems. Forms NRC-4 were selectively reviewed. Two to four TLD badges are spiked quarterly by the licensee and submitted to the . i contractor. No abnorma'11 ties were identified.
l i l Self-reading dosimeters are calibrated semiannually. Records of cali-i j brations performed in January and April 1977 were reviewed by the inspectors. No problems were identified.
d i $ , -5-i ? i i ' r t I , I .....,- o .,-__l
__.
.s-
i - ( ~ 11.
Radiation Work Permits
Radiation Work Permits (RRP's) are required for posted area entries.
{
The inspectors reviewed RRP's issued in 1977.
No discrepancies ' from procedural requirements were noted. Both extended and special ! ! RWP's are utilized. As of June 4, 1977, 173 RWP's had been written ' I during 1977.
i The inspectors discussed with the licensee the desirability of
including worker names and more detailed job descriptions on radia-l tion work permits- ! 12.
Instrument Calibration ! a.
Portable Survey Instruments t
The inspectors reviewed records of portable survey instrument calibrations and spot checked calibration stickers on instruments located in the contr'o1 room, secondary containment, and access , control.
It was noted that several dose rate meters were being ! calibrated annually. Licensee Operations Manual section E.1.4.
{ III.C.1 indicates a semiannual calibration requirement. This t is considered to be an item of noncompliance.
b.
Area Radiation Monitors ! i The licensee uses a portable calibration unit supplied by the ! manufacturer of the monitors.
The licensee has independently i verified the dose rate supplied by the calibration unit. The i ' inspectors reviewed records of quarterly calibrations and monthly functional tests performed during 1977 to date. No ! ' problems were identified.
c.
Constant Air Monitors
The inspectors reviewed records of quarterly calibrations and ! j monthly functional tests performed during 1977 to date. No l l problems were identified.
i 13.
Respiratory Protection f The inspector verified that the licensee uses NIOS11 approved res-
' ' pirators and filters. Qualitative fit testing is done annually, and at first wearing for new employees.
{ i '
.
-6- ! , L.
. e
f $ .,, .. ~ _ ., ,. - ~... ,,- . -..., _ _,. -. ....#. _, _.,,
. , - - -
. s, ' .
L J _ - . The licensee continues to maintain an MPC-hour log for airbe ne
-4 radioactive material area entries. The IU'C-hour log for th. period
June 1976 to May 1977 was revic' 2d.
No exposur e exceeding the regu-f latory limit or the 40 MPC-hour action level was noted.
.
! I 14.
Reports and Postings j The inspector reviewed the following n:stters and found no items of . noncompliance: , I Posting of notices to workers as required by 10 CFR 19.11 j a.
b.
Reports required by 10 CFR 20.407 and 20.408, and t Report required by Technical Specification 6.7.A.2.c concerning c.
personal exposure by type of worker and work performed.
l
L 15.
ALARA j i The inspector asked the licensee what actions are taken to ensure f that personal internal and external doses are as low as reasonably ! achievable. The licensee stated that there is no formal station l program, but that station policy and several procedures are directed ! at this goal. The licensee related the following exampics of l station attention to the matter: l . t Extensive use of radiation work permits, which are reviewed by l a.
radiation protection supervision to determine if exposures can j be reduced,
{ i b.
Conservative use of respiratory protective devices when poten-l I tial for airborne activity exists, ! l Personal exposure update memo routed to supervisors either c.
daily or weekly, i d.
Radiation protection participation in outage planning, and ' Quarterly maintenance persons training during which radiation c.
prottetion and radiation occurrences are discussed.
16.
IE Circular No. 76-03 i Licensee response dated No" ember 2, 1976 identified that the follow-ing actions had been taken:
7- - ,
k \\ i - j ' - . , . r - t -,, , w s -, , - - - - ,e ,+ =- -- -,4ev-,----,
- y -- p
~_ -d ( ) < . ' t -- - A thorough review of plant areas and operations had been con- ! ~ i ~ * a.
ducted to identify hign radiation areas.
( i- ! b.
The licensee verified that entryways to the above areas were j { properly posted and locked.
i c.
The licensee ensured that radiation protection procedures, ! i f training, and retraining specifically address the matter of ' controlled access to these areas. Retraining on this subject , .! was completed during August atd Septcmber 1976 for all $ employees.
j l d.
Procedures novernine individual entry into all actual or not-j ! ential hich radiation areas were reviewed to ensure that-such I ! } entries are permitted only after appropriate manatement evalu- ! ation. This review resulted in issuance of a Management Memo l containing additional instructions relating to surveys, equip-j ment control, and review and approval of entries into areas j subject to changes in radiation exposure rates.
, i i 17.
Exit Interview i The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para- ! graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 16, 1977.
The following matters w ce discussed:
1 e ' The purpose and scope of the inspection, and the item of non-a.
~ compliance.
' ( b.
The apparent conflict between two sections of the Operating i Manual concerning the collection of nasal smears. The licensee stated that the matter would be reviewed.
(Paragraph 8.d) , j c.
The desirability of performing calibrations on portable and continuous air monitor flowmeters. The licensee stated that ' I the matter would be reviewed.
(Paragraph 8.b) ! ' d.
The desirability of including worker names and more detailed job descriptions on radiation work permits. The licensee acknowledged the comment.
(Paragraph 11) ' ,
l e.
Previous item of noncompliance and unresolved item.
(Para-i
graph 4).
- . ,
l ' , ' s
-8-j . l-( - i ! ! i , ' i . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _. -, }}