IR 05000272/1986013
| ML18092B166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1986 |
| From: | Dragoun T, Kaminski M, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B165 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-86-13, 50-311-86-13, NUDOCS 8606100057 | |
| Download: ML18092B166 (6) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/86-13 Report N /86-13 50-272 Docket N DPR-70 License N DPR-75 Category C
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas C P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name:
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
April 21-25, 1986 Inspectors: ~
~
~~Radiation Specialist
~~NKJ}ei)
M~, adiation Specialist Approved by: ~..S ~- ~
M. Shanbaky, Chief, Facllties Radiation Protection Section f da e r d/te
~~Ao/fl date Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 21-25, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-272/86-13 and 50-311/86-13).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation safety program including:
training and qualification of contractor HP technicians, an incident involving entry into the Reactor Vessel Sump Room, control of work in radiologically hazardous areas, review of procedure revision project, and implementation of ALARA for the outag Results:
No violations were identifie *
DETAILS Persons Contacted During the course of this routine safety inspection the following P.ersonnel were contacted or interviewed: Licensee Personnel
- L. Miller, Assistant Superintendent
- J. Trejo, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager
- W. Britz, Radiation Protection Services
- R. Dulee, Station Quality Assurance
- J. Rupp, Licensing NRC Personnel
- K. Gibson, Regional Inspector
- Attended the exit interview on April 25, 198.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee 1 s radiation protection program with respect to the following elements:
Training and Qualification of Contractor HP Technician Reactor Vessel Sump Room Inciden Control of Work in Radiation Area Status of HP Procedure Revision ALARA Implementation for the Outag.0 Training and Qualification of Contractor HP Technicians The licensee 1s program for the training and qualifications of contractor technicians hired to provide outage support was reviewed against criteria contained in:
Technical Specification 6.3 "Facility Staff Qualifications 11 *
Technical Specification Training 11 *
1-.
0 ANSI Nl8.l-1971 "Selection and Traininq of Nuclear.Power Plant Personnel".
- Radiation Protection Program Manua Salem Radiation Protection Qualification Manua Nuclear Department Training Procedure #40 The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from:
0
Interviews with RP supervisors and training department personne A review of selected records, lesson plans, qualification cards and exam A tour of training facilitie Within the scope of this review no violations were identifie The licensee's program conforms to standard industry practic Contractor RP technicians are screened to ensure that ANSI 18.1 training and experience criteria are met, are given a written test to verify basic knowledge, and are provided with copies of station procedures for revie The licensee has ;~proved this program by instituting a practical factors requirement, i.e., technicians must demonstrate the ability to perform assigned tasks such as use of survey instruments during the training phas A weakness was noted in that the technician training lesson plans did not include information on the station ALARA progra The licensee stated that this information will be incorporated prior to the upcoming Unit 2 outage (86-13-01).
In addition the inspector noted that no formal guidance had been provided to the RP supervisors who screened the resumes submitted by the contractor The licensee stated that written guidance will be provided (86-13-02).
The inspector observed that instructors from the training center were assigned various in-plant responsibilities to support the outag Besides providing additional supervisory oversight during the outage, this action could provide instructors with valuable insight into the stations training need.0 Reactor Vessel Sump Room Incident The licensee briefed the inspector regarding an incident that occurred on March 30 involving an improper entry into the Reactor Vessel Sump Room while the flux thimbles were retracted creating very high radiation lev-el A shift supervisor (SS), unaware of the status of the room, directed an Equipment Operator and HP technician escort to check the Reactor Vessel Sump for leakage through the inflatable refueling cavity seal. The key used by the SS would not open the lock so the Operator defeated the lock
and entered with the technicia During descent from the main level the technician noted abnormally high readings and directed an evacuatio A subsequent short entry was made by the Refueling SRO to the main level since a leak was suspecte Personnel doses were less than 50 mre Although there was no significant exposure to personnel, the licensee identified problems including procedure inconsistencies, communications breakdown, procedure nonconformances, and weak locking devices on other high radiation exclusion area The licensees investigation of this in-cident was thoroug The short term and long term corrective actions were appropriate and judged to be effective in P!eventing a recurrenc Al-though violations of refueling and HP procedur~s occurred no NRC citations will be issued in accordance with 10 CFR 2 Appendix The licensee is to be commended for his aggressive and timely corrective actions and for his initiative for self-identification and correction of problem.0 Control of Work The licensee's program for the control of worker access to radiological areas and the radiation work permit system were reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:
0
0
10 CFR 19.12 Instructions to worker CFR 20. 206 Instruction of personne CFR 20.101 Radiation dose standards for individuals in restricted area CFR 20.103 Exposure of individuals to concentrations of radioactive materials in air in restricted area Station Procedure RP 1.013 Revision 10 including Advance Change Notices 1 and 2, "Radiation Work Permit/Extended Radiation Work Permi The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by observation of control point operations, review of selected RWPs, and observation of work in progres Within the scope of this review no violations were observe Licensee program improvements were noted as follows:
The main control point for access to the auxiliary and containment buildings has been completely renovated including a new floor pla A new 11 open 11 concept allows technicians to observe all personnel and material entering and leaving the radiological area This change significantly improves the control Computer terminals are used by workers to record the RWP used and to track the self reading dosimeter result Automated frisking stations are used to check workers prior to exit in lieu of the commonly used pancake GM probe/
I
-
- .
RM-14 frisker This equipment provides for improved control of radioactive material due to increased sensitivity and consistent results by eliminating errors in frisking techniqu The radiation work permits are now generated by a computer progra Additional information for the worker has been included on the for Storage of the inform~tion in the computer files allows analysis, trending, and retrieval for use in future outage.0 Procedures Revision In early 1984 the licensee began a major project to restructure and rewrite the controlling procedures for the radiation protection departmen This effort was prompted by the excessive number of procedures and inconsistencies between procedure The licensee 1 s progress on this project was determined from discussions with senior HP supervisors and the Radiation Protection Manage The inspector deter-mined that the person in charge of the project has left the station, other major programmatic changes have,diverted attention from the project, and the project remains incomplet The licensee stated that a firm schedule for completing this project will be issued by June 1, 198 The schedule wil~ include periodic progress reviews by upper level managemen This matter is unresolved and will be reviewed in a future inspection (86-13-03). ALARA The licensee 1s efforts to achieve ALARA :-w~.r~J!?Viewed)gainst criteria contained in:
10 CFR 20.l Purpose
Nuclear Department ALARA Manual
Administrative Procedure 24 - Radiological Protection Program
Administrative Procedure 7 - ALARA Program The licensee 1 s performance relative to these criteria was determined from:
0
Reviews of ALARA Committee meeting minutes and other ALARA *
meeting Reviews of printouts of exposure data tied to RWPs, ALARA estimates and ALARA budget Discussions with the ALARA coordinator, RP supervisors and the station superintendent.
- 6 Review of policy statements and presentation to workers during General Employee trainin Within the scope of this review, no violations were observe The li-
. censee1s ALARA performance continues to be outstandin The ALARA goal for 1986 was established at 190 man-Rem per plant (380 man-Rem site total).
This was increased to 250 man-Rem per plant (500 man-Rem site total) due to additional outage wor However, this level of exposure remains well below average PWR exposure level The licensee has introduced an innovative technique to limit exposure by including an ALARA goal in contract specifications. A contractor (West-inghouse) was required to complete all refueling evolutions including reactor disassembly and miscellaneous work with an ALARA budget of 100 man-Re As a result, extensive preplanning resulted in documentation of all work with generation of RWPs prior to the beginning of the outag The exposure goal was achieved as a result of this excellent progra The licensee modified approximately 400 valves by installing a low leakage packing offered by Chesterto Among the benefits anticipated are reduced personnel exposures due to reduced valve maintenance and reduced contaminated areas as radioative liquid leakage is stoppe.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1.1 at the conclusion of the inspection on April 25, 198 The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed at that tim During this inspection effort no written material was provided to the licensee by the NRC Inspector.