IR 05000266/1980007
| ML19318A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1980 |
| From: | Fisher W, Lovendale P, Miller D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318A182 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-80-07, 50-266-80-7, 50-301-80-06, 50-301-80-6, NUDOCS 8006180581 | |
| Download: ML19318A185 (7) | |
Text
_.
-
.
)
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-266/80-07; 50-301/80-06 Docket No. 50-266; 50-301 License No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201
,
Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection Conducted: April 8-10, 1980
-
...
{ f. ")]tallot, Inspectors:
D. E. Miller V/Ji/G-C f
VIr.V/PO P.
. Lovendale
'
h. i. UA~/p Approved By:
W. L. Fisher, Chief V/29/9<>
Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 8-10, 1980, (Report No. 50-266/80-07; 50-301/80-06 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of radiation protection program associated with a refueling outage, including:
radiation protec-tion procedures; advanced planning and preparation; training; exposure control; instruments and equipment; posting and control; IE Information Notice No. 79-08; IE Circular No. 79-15; contract radiation protection technician qualifications; and specific matters concerning radioactive materials transport. The inspection involved 36 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8006180G9l
O
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C, Harris, Radiochemical Engineer
- R. Weedon, Health Physicist
- G. Reed, Plant Manager
- F. Zeman, Office Supervisor
- J. Zach, Superintendent, Technical Services
- E.
Lipke, Sr. Project Engineer, Nuclear Project Office
- J. Schweitzer, Nuclear Plant Engineer R. Bredvad, dealth Physics Supervisor M. Moseman, Technical Assistant
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
General This inspection, which began with a plant tour and visual observa-tion of facilities and equipment, posting, labeling, and access controls at 12:30 p.m. on April 8, 1980, was conducted to examine routine aspects of the radiation protection program during the recently completed steam generator work on Unit 1, and planning and preparation for refueling and steam generator work on Unit 2.
During the tour, the inspectors noted that housekeeping was good; no problems concerning access controls or postings were noted.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-266/77-09; 50-301/77-11):
concerning failure to properly evaluate an exposure to airborne radioactive material.
Licensee procedure HP 10.8, which specifies evaluative requirements for ascertaining compliance with 10 CFR 20.103, has been implemented.
(Paragraph 9)
4.
Organization The licensee's radiation protection organization remains as de-scribed in a previous inspection report (50-266/78-18), except that a radiation control operator has recently been promoted to an additional health physics foreman position. The vacated radiation control operator position remained unfilled at the time of this inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-2-
._.
.
.-.
_
!
t
5.
Radiation Protection Procedures Procedure HP 12.4 " Steam Generator Explosive Tube Plugging Pro-cedure" was revised on July 14, 1979.
The changes appear to be consistent with regulatory requirements and good health physics practices. Some problems were identified with procedure HP 10.1.2 "TLD-Dosimeter Comparison." These problems are discussed in Paragraph 8.
No other problems were identified.
6.
Orientation Training The inspectors reviewed portions of a site specific radiation pro-tection orientation slide presentation and a videotape presentation concerning airborne radioactive materials and the use of respiratory protective devices. These presentations are normally given to con-tractor personnel upon entry to the station.
In addition, several handouts containing general information about the facility and its procedures, response to emergencies, and radiation hazards are given to contractor employees. Testing is performed at the comple-tion of training.
The station health physicist frequently gives an additional oral presentation to contractor groups at the conclusion of the formal presentation.
The inspectors noted that the presentation concerning airborne radioactive materials and respiratory protective devices contained all the information required by regulatory requirements but that an attendee's attention may not be held because of *he method of presentation.
This matter was discussed at the exit interview.
.
No other matters of concern were identified.
7.
Contract Radiation Technician Qualifications The inspectors asked the licensee how the qualifications of con-tract radiation technicians are determined and how they are utili-zed. The licensee stated that they normally contract two senior technicians and the remainder junior technicians. During the re-cent steam generator work about ten technicians were employed.
The contract technicians provide health physics services for con-tracted work such as steam generator inspection and maintenance.
The licensee stated that the two senior technicians have been on-site for some time. The contractor supplies resumes for the junior technicians which are reviewed by the licensee.
In addition, the licensee conducts personal orientations for the junior technicians l-3-
!
L
.
and attempts to assess qualifications through discussica. The technicians are required to review specific station procedures.
Contract technicians are permitted to operate only portable survey and smear counting equipment and are not allowed to authorize radiation work permits. Junior technicians, working under the direct supervision of contract senior technicians, perform nsinly routine and repetitive jobs.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
External Exposure Control The licensee's vendor TLD badge results were reviewed for 1979 and the first quarter of 1980; no exposures exceeding 10 CFR 20.101 limits were observed.
A review of records for individuals who received greater than 1250 mrems during a quarter indicated that the licensee had completed forms NRC-4 for these individuals.
During the review of TLD badge results, the inspector noted an apparent problem with procedure HP 10.1.2 "TLD-Pocket Dosimeter Comparison." This procedure states that up to 550 mR per month (25 mR per work day) may be subtracted from an individual's month-ly dosimeter totals as allowable drift. This is based on a design maximum drift of five percent of full scale per day of dosimeter usage. The procedure does not take into account the day-to-day dosimeter totals, which may vary greatly. The procedure allows this dose subtraction before the dosimeter in question is drift checked and it does not consider the possibility that the TLD re-sults may be in error. The inspector noted many instances where the dosimeter totals were up to eight times greater than the vendor TLD results and no apparent investigatior tas conducted to determine the individual's true exposure. However, based on the instances reviewed it does not appear that any 10 CFR 20.101 limits were ex-ceeded. This problem was discussed during the exit interview and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Internal Exposure Whole body counting data for the fourth quarter 1979 and the first quarter 1980 were reviewed. No body burdens indicative of an ex-posure greater than the 40 MPC-hour control measure were noted.
Several repeat counts on individuals and subsequent evaluations were necessary to show that the control measure was not exceeded.
Station personnel and other company employees who worked in con-
]
-4-
,
trolled areas during refuelings or other major outages are routine-o ly whole body counted following the outage. Contract employees who are expected to use respirators are normally whole body counted both when they begin work at the site and upon termination.
Since the last radiation protection inspection, the licensee has implemented procedure HP 10.8 "Eioassay" which includes a program for flagging and evaluating elevated whole body counts.
No problems were identified.
10.
ALARA The inspectors asked the licensee what actions are taken to ensure that personal internal and external doses are as low as reasonably achievable. The licensee stated that there is no formal station ALARA committee but there is a strong supportive commitment by management. The licensee gave the following examples of licensee attention to the matter:
a.
Use of HEPA filtered exhaust ventilation and strict contamina-tion control during steam generator work.
b.
Steam generator work is performed by health physics procedure under the control of health physics supervision.
c.
Use of steam generator mockup for worker training is currently proposed and under review. The use of video observation of the work site to reduce health physics personnel presence is being considered.
d.
Active review of planned outage work by health physics per-sonnel, An ALARA program whereby any station employee may submit a c.
suggestion for consideration by plant management.
f.
A dose accounting by job system has been initiated. The in-formation is distributed to plant supervisors on a routine basis.
The licensee's program seems to be effective in keeping internal and external doses ALARA.
11.
Radiation Work Permits (RWPs)
The inspectors selectively reviewed RWPs written during the first calendar quarter 1980 for work in the Unit I steam generators.
i These permits are written for one work shift only and automatically i-5-P
e terminate at the end of the shift. The permits include the names e
of persons permitted to work on the job, the permitted dose for the shift, and the dose received by individuals.
The inspectors reviewed records of air sampling and analysis and direct radiation and contamination surveys performed in support of work done in the steam generators.
No problems were ident.ified.
12.
Unit 1 Steam Generator Work During March and early April 1980, eddy current testing and tube plugging was performed on both Unit I steam generators. Three tubes were removed from steam generator "B" at the request of NRR.
According to licensee records of accumulated dose based on self-reading pocket dosimeter results, the total dose received in per-forming the steam generator work was about 270 man-rems. Of this total, about 210 man-rems were received by persons removing the three tubes.
According to licensee records, the general area gamma dose rate within the steam generators which required occupancy during tube removal was about 18 R/hr.
13.
Instruments and Equipment The inspectors reviewed the licensee's instrument calibration records and procedures.
Instruments in use were the proper type and in calibration; there was an adequate supply of instruments available; no problems were found.
The inspectors compared deze rate readings between the licensee's PIC-6A No. 6581 and the NRC's Xetex 305B. The instruments agreed within 10 percent.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
14.
IE Information Notice No. 79-08 The licensee uses the service air system as a source of breathing air. The service air system is interconnected with the resin transfer system by a check valve and " tagged shut" isolation valve.
This interconnection is a possible means of contaminating the breathing air system if valve leakage chould occur.
Service air is no longer used in resin transfer.
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) on April 10, 1980. The following items were discussed:
-6-
.
r
/
e a.
The purpose and scope of the inspection.
b.
Problems identified with procedure HP 10.12 "TLD-Dosimeter Comparison" (Paragraph 8).
The licensee stated that a revised program and procedure for evaluating discrepancies between TLD and dosimeter results will be instituted by May 31, 1980.
c.
Interconnection of servi. air system with resin transfer system.
(Paragraph 14).
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' comments and stated that removal of the connec-tion would be investigated.
d.
" Quality Assurance Criteria for Shipping Packages for Radio-active Materials" (Paragraph 15).
The inspectors stated that the videotape presentation con-e.
cerning respiratory protective equipment contains all the necessary information, but the method of presentation may not hold the attendees' attention. The licensee stated that the matter would be reviewed (Paragraph 6).
-7-
<