IR 05000272/1980025
| ML18085A745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Knapp P, Plumlee K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18085A744 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-80-25, NUDOCS 8102050441 | |
| Download: ML18085A745 (10) | |
Text
'*.t
..
...
.:
'\\
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I Report N /80-25 Docket N License No. DPR-70
Priority -------
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
,
Inspection conducted:.*October 7 - 17, 1980 Inspectors:
Approved by:
- r
- ~ -al/VL<,&,\\
K. E. Plumlee, Radiation Specialist P. J. Knapp, Chief, Radi Section, FF&MS Branch Support Inspection Summary:
Category -------
c 12 /r do date'signed date signed date signed Inspection on October 7 -.ll, 1980 (Report No. 50-272/80-25)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of radiation protection during refueling including:
Procedures, advanced planning
- and preparations, training, exposure c*ontrol, posting and control, radioactive and contaminatedmaterial control, independent measurements, and outstanding items from previous inspections. This inspection involved 55 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspecto Results:
Inspection findings resulting from the personnel entries into the fuel transfer tube on October 4, and the cavity below the in-core flux detector seal table, on October 9, 1980, are reported in Report No. 50-272/80-2 Routine observation of ~efueling activities did not identify any items of noncompliance.
. :
\\ ~ 1-
-
/'/-
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.!$]. c 2 0 5. 0 L\\'i \\
- DETAILS Persons Contacte PSE&G Personnel W. Britz, Corporate Health Physicist R. Cislo, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- J. Driscoll, Chief Engineer--Salem L. Fry, Operations Superintendent R. Lowenstein, Operations Supervisor
- H. Midura, Manager--Salem Generating Station
- L. Miller, Performance Engineer
- A. Pittman, Assistant to the Corporate Health Physicist M. Pollack, Health Physics Engineer W. Rahl, Station Shift Supervisor
- J. Stillman, Station Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. Swetnam, Senior Radiation Protection Supervisor Rad-Services Personnel M. Bell, Assistant Training Supervisor M. Clary, Level II Health Physics Technician L. Davis, Shift Radiation Protection Supervisor F. Dickey, Shift Radiation Protect ion Supervisor P. Greenbaum, Training Supervisor R. Shult, Radiation Protection Supervisor NRC Personnel, Present During Exit Interview
- R. Nimitz, Radiation Specialist
- L. Norrholm, Senior Resident Inspector
- K. Plumlee, Radiation Specialist
- denotes presence at the exit interview conducted October 17, 1980, at l P.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Item of noncompliance (78-30-03):
Air sampling during trash compactor operatio Observation during this inspection, and a review of recent records of air sampling, did not identify any examples of omissions to operate this air sample The licensee corrective actions appeared to remain in effec (Closed) Inspector follow item (78-30-04):
Review the licensee air sampling practice Observation of air sampling conducted during this inspection,
- *
and a review of air sampling records, did not identify any examples involving jobs of which the radiation protection personnel were aware prior to or during the work, without adequate air sampling and respiratory protectio (Inspection report No. 50-272/80-28 reviewed an example of an entry into the fuel transfer tube on October 4, 1980, without notification of radiation protection personnel.)
Radiation Protection Procedures Part of the inspection effort was to tour the facility and to review the licensee's procedural cqntrol of radiation work pursuant to the requirements of Technical Specifications Sections 6.8, "Procedures," and 6.11, "Radiation ProtectiOn Program," as carried out during the outag The inspector reviewed the following sections of Administrative Procedure AP-5 and the records maintained in accordance with these section.0 Procedures 8. 1. Procedure adherence 8.2 Surveillance procedures 8.3 Check-off sheets 9.0 Access control 9.2 Containment 9.3 Fuel handling building 9.4 Keys The inspector observed work being done and also reviewed recent records maintained in accordance with the following procedure Pd--15. l. 001-15. l. 004-15. l. 005
. -15. 1. 006-15. 1. 007-15. 1. 008-15. 1. 009-15.1.010-15.1.013-15.1.014-15. 1.016-15.1.018-15.2.003-15.2.012-15.2.013-15.3.019-15.3.020-15.3.021 Access control point management Issuing of radiation protection instruments Nasal swabs Decontamination of personnel Decontamination of equipment Decontamination of areas, floors Respiratory protective equipment quality assurance Radiation signs and barriers REP & EREP usage Liquid rad waste volume reduction program Issuance and control of high radiation area keys Administrative personnel radiation exposure control Respiratory protection training and fit test Technician--Nuclear retraining Technician--Nuclear training requirements Lost - damaged off-scale dosimeter or TLD Report of overexposure to ionizing radiatio Special personnel monitoring
-15.3.027 Whole body counting frequency and action level.3.033 Operation of Helgeson whole body counter-15.4.001 Routine survey - schedule-15.4.002 Contamination survey - survey meter-15.4.003 Contamination survey - wipe test-15.4.004 Radiation survey - gamma dose rate-15.4.008 Airborne particulate activity determination-15.4.009 Airborne iodine determination
- -15.6.009. Respiratory protective equipment selection and issue-15.7.014 Proper use of CNSI-21~300 shipping task-15.7.015 Use of the CNS! LL-50-100 radioactive material shipping r
package-15.7.016 Securing dem*ineralizer operations and dewatering.
...:15. 11. 009 Bi oassay program-15. 11.011 MPC hour accounting The inspector noted that these procedures appeared to be reviewed and updated frequently and to contain the provisions necessary to comply with the regulatory requirement No items of noncompliance were observe.
Review.of Advanced Planning and Preparation for the Outage Increased health physics staff A licensee representative stated that about 105 Rad-Services contract personnel were on site and 50 of these were brought on site two or three months before the outage for various purposes including prepara-tion for the outage, and commencing a formal training-retraining program for the PSEG personne Review cif 25 Rad-Services personnel records taken in an alphabetical sequence indicated that 20 (i.e. 80% of the samp 1 e) were 1eve1 I (junior level) and were working as clerks, counting room technicians and control point monitors, as example Review of their individual assignments verified that the licensee* maintained records of each *
individual's qualification performed on site including site specific training and demonstrations of proficiency with various procedures and equipmen No examp 1 es were observed of inadequate superv1 s l on, or assignments of.
these individuals to jobs without prior completion of the specified job qualification Review of the records and resumes of the remaining five individuals in the sample showed that one was a Rad-Services crew leader and four were ievel II technician All were qualified for responsible positions in accordance with the recommendations of ANSI Nl8. 1-1971, "Selection
r".
and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, 11 and their records ver.ified they had either received or conducted the training and job qualification described abov _,
The inspector interviewed 10 Rad~Services personnel and no problems were identified with their apparent responsibilities and assignment The inspector was informed that during the off-shifts only one PSEG technician-nuclear was prese11t and he looked after liaison functions, chemistry, TLD reader operation, counting, and similar duties, and Rad-Services contract personnel were responsible for most of t~e health physics activitie '
The inspector noted that the delegation of health physics activities to contractor personnel was previously described in report No. 50-272/80-03, paragraph 1.2, and the licensee has committed to qualify additional PSEG personnel in order to reduce the dependence on contractor personne The qualification program is being develoRed as indicated abov No items of noncompliance were observe Other radiation protection-related staff A licensee representative stated that a 42-man crew was contracted to perform housekeeping, collection of trash and contaminated materials, and continuing area decontaminatio A four-man crew accompanied the portable (trailer.;.mounted) protective
'clothing laundry facility that was obtained for the o.utag (Paragraph 4d)
The inspector contacted several of these individu~ls during the inspectio No items of noncompliance were identified involving these personne Special training and eguipment Personnel on the following jobs were specifically instructed and trained, or had previous experience on these assignment Equipment was provided that permitted the completion of these jobs without continual personnel exposures to high radiatio Fuel transfer system modifications, Hydro-lancing of steam generator tube sheets, Inservice inspection of:
steam generator tubes piping and nozzles reactor vessel welds
The licensee provided enclosures and ventilating systems for steam generator work, grinding, and decontamination jobs involving potential airborne contaminatio The.inspector observed work in progress on several of the above job The inspector observed licensee corrective actions on licensee-identified problem Arrangements for supplies The licensee maintains a routine restock procedure to keep from exhausting the stock of any consumable materials required during outage A trailer mounted laundry for protective.clothing was set up on site for use during the outag Typically the day's collection of discarded
- protective clothing appeared to be laundered and availabe for reuse by the next* da The inspector reviewed the handling of coveralls that ignited on removal from the dryer on October 10, 1980, at about 4:00 PM - paragraph Equipment such as empty waste containers was stocked in advanc No shortage was observed in items such as protective clothing, respirators, shielding, barricades, and sigf) The inspector observed that all of the 1 i censee survey instruments appea.red to be in us This caused some obvious delays in obtaining instruments for jobs that were being initiate.
.
The inspector and the licensee representative checked the instrument repair room and no undue turnaround time was identified with instru-ments that were readily serviced or repaire It appeared that the large number of instruments in daily use resulted in an increase in the number requiring attention, and occasionally an instrument was not readily returnable to servic The licensee representative stated that the availability of supplies, including survey instruments, was a~continuing responsibility which would not be omitte The inspector observed that two separate personnel access routes into the plant were maintained during the inspectio No i terns.of noncompliance were i dent ifi e "
-*
7 Training The inspector observed the training of arriving personnel, and also the retraining of PSEG personne The inspector observed respirator training, fitting, and us The inspector noted that arriving personnel were escorted until they were badged, if allowed inside the facility before they had completed trainin The inspector reviewed the administrative controls that restricted the assignments of non-respirator-trained personnel so that they were not allowed to work on jobs requiring resp1rators..
The inspector reviewed the t~aining and the job assignments of sevetal
- individuals (paragraphs 4a and 4b).
The inspector contacted several individuals on the jo No training problems were identifie *
The inspector reviewed the background of and the training provided to, each.
. 1 individual who conducted the training that he observed, the respirator fit,
!
and the whole body count. * The inspector revfewed the 1 i censee commitments
to establish a formal training/ret~aining program (paragraph 4a).
No new problems were identified involving the training progra Exposure Control Part of the inspection effort was to review licensee compliance with 10 CFR 20. 101, "Radiation dose standards for individuals in restricted areas, 11 10 CFR 20. 102, "Determination of prior dose, 11.and 10 CFR 20.202, 11 Personnel monitoring;" and with licensee procedures, listed in paragraph 2, for control of personnel exposure This effort included a review of dosimetry practices and records, and observation of :the licensee controls as exercised throughout the facilit The inspector observed the licensee corrective action following the occurrence of off-scale self-reader dosimeters; licensee-identified problems including an individual who extended his hands close~ to a radiation source than was allowed by the health physics technician during hydrolancing in the secondary Side of the steam generator; and licensee-identified failures to adhere to
- REP condition Toe inspector reviewed current records of dosimetr observed in which the licensee failed to take timely following the identification of a problem, such that exceeding the above regulatory limits.
No examples were corrective action, no exposures occurred
- 8 Respiratory Protection The inspector observed air sampl1ng and records of sample analyses, the issue and fitting of respirators, and the use of respirators, during which one individual identified a faulty respirator before its use on the job. *
The review of procedures listed* in paragraph 3 for the cleaning, recondi-tioning, checking, selection and issue of respirators did not identify any problem *
The review of selected records did not identify any errors in mpc-hr calcula-tion No examples were identified of any individual receiving in excess of 40 mpc-hrs inhalation of radioactive materials in any week. Records of whole body counts and bioassays appeared adequate, and no excessive uptakes were identifie The review of REP's which specified the use of respirators did not identify any selection of inadequate protective equipment for any job. The review of REP's which did not specify the use of respirators did not identify any examples where respirator use should have been specifie The.inspector noted that contamination control and decontamination (para-graph 4.b), ventilation (paragraph 4.c) and access controls were employed to minimize the need for respirator us The inspector observed that the licensee training identified the hazards of the fire suppr~ssion systems and specifically identified th~ respirators
. that were capable of sustaining life in an oxygen-deficient atmospher.
Posting and Control The inspector toured the facility to verify compliance with 10 CFR 20.203,
"Caution signs, labels, signals and controls"; Technical Specifications Section 6.12, "High Radiation AreaJ'; and licensee procedures, listed in paragraph 3, for access and key contro The inspector made confirmatory measurements of radiation dose rates. No items of noncompliance were observe.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control Protective.clothing fire at the laundry* trailer At about 6 PM on October 10, 1980, a laundry worker noticed that clothing being removed from the electric clothes drier was smolderin He transferred the clothing to a 55 gallon steel drum outdoors, and reported the fir Water was used to control the fire that broke out in the dru *Note:
The process is actually a drycleaning operation using a non-
.flammable halogenated flui >
'
~~ ---------
While the burnt material was being wetted down the licensee placed a battery-powered air particulate sampler (lapel model) downwind of the dru Analysis of the sample, which was taken from 6:17 PM until 6:30 PM, did not identify any airborne radioactive material~ The minimum detectible activity of this analysis appeared to be about 2E-9 uCi/ml for gross beta-gamma activity, and somewhat less for each of the activities described belo The licensee evaluation dated October 14, 1980, stated that 13 sets of protective coveralls appeared to be lost in the fir Based on analyses of samples of remnants identified after the fire, the evaluation stated that 6 uCi comprised of Co-58, Co-60, and Cs-137 could have been release The evaluation attributed the fire to "flammable material remaining on one or more coveralls."
The licensee representative stated that the sorting out of protective clothing that is not suitable for cleaning and/or re-use would be re-emphasi~ed. The in~tructions, in effect before the fire, are to sort out any stained, greasy, oily, grossly contaminated, torn, or worn-out coveralls before these items are cleane The inspector noted that the fire was confined by prompt licensee action and no release in excess of the conditions of the license appeared to have occurre The inspector conducted a confirmatory survey at the laundry traile No damage to the facility was eviden No contamination resulting from the fire was identified and no evidence of smoke or water damage was observed in the area where the fire occurre The inspector has no further questions on this ite Worker's reguest for a survey A worker conta~ted an NRC inspector and questioned the licen~ee's survey and air sampling in the main turbine, which was being inspected and repaire The worker stated that he had asked his foreman, a contractor employee, if surveys and air samples were taken and was told there was none and none was needed, as the steam was from the secondary system and not the primary syste The inspector reviewed the survey records and noted that records of surveys were retained showing that a survey was made before and again during work on the main turbin No need for air sampling was eviden *
'.
The inspector made a confirmatory surve No problems were identified on the turbine deck. or on the turbine component The inspector was contacted by the worker on completion of the surve The above information was discusse The worker.stated that he was satisfied with the immediate conditions, however he hoped to see NRC inspectors more frequently.out in the plant, in the event of any chang The worker discussed concerns *following the 1 i censee press releases after high radiation area entries on October 4 and 9, 198 The inspector stated that the turbine deck appeared to be properly*
surveyed and cont roll e The licensee representative was informed of the above and he stated that better information would be made available to the foremen in order to alleviate any further concerns of this sor Observation of materi~l controls The inspector observed the collection of tools, the placement of equipment, and the collection and dis~osition of discarded protective clothing and wast The inspector surveyeq a waste truck and reviewed shipping record The inspector interviewed personnel involved in laundering, repa1r1ng respirators, decontamination, repairing a.rad-waste demineralizer system, and surveyin The inspector observed the processing, storage and shipping of rad wast No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the individuals denoted in paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspectio The findings of the inspection were reviewed.