IR 05000277/1979016
| ML19254E627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1979 |
| From: | Stohr J, Thonus L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254E621 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-79-16, 50-278-79-18, NUDOCS 7911010589 | |
| Download: ML19254E627 (4) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 79-16 Report No. 79-18 50-277 Docket No. 50-278 DPR-44 License No. _DPR-56 Priority
--
Category C.C Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: August 8-10, 1979 Intpectors: $.
kb
[ cn_
9 - 2 d r7 9 L. H. Thjnus, Radiatihn Specialist date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
b.
b der 9-M '79 J.P.Stohk, Chief,RadiatMnSupport date signed Section, FFaMS Branch Inspection Summary:
Ir.3pection on August 8-10,1979 (Combined Inspection Reoort Nos. 50-279/79-16; 50-278/79-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector radiation protection program during refueling including licensee action on previous inspection findings, procedures, advance planning and preparation, training, and exposure control.
The inspection invloved 21 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
1284 329 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
7911010 6 8 7
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees W. M. Barley, Engineer Health Physics N. Gazda, Health Physics Support Supervisor S. Nelson, Training Assistant M. Sullivan, Health Physics Staff Assistant W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent J. Valir. ski, Plant Health Physicist Others E. Green %n, Resident Reactor Inspector, NRC The inspector also interviewed approximately 6 otner licensee employees during the course of the inspection.
They included Health Physics area supervisors, technicians and clerks.
" denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved (50-277/79-07-02; 50-278/79-06-02; 50-277/77-30-01; 50-278/79-31-01.
The licensee health physics technician training program is continuing.
The first " class" of technicians is completing the requirempnts for "B" level technician on a progression from "D" to
"A".
The "B" level technicians will meet the requirements of ANSI N-18.1 - 1971. Most of these technicians will continue with training required for "A" technician.
Those who do not will be required to recomplete the "B" technician training manual as their retraining.
The licensee's training program for supervisory and staff personnel is under developement.
This area will be examined in a subsequent inspection.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (50-277/79-07-03; 50-278/79-06-03) Failure to evaluate TLD results.
The inspector examined several licensee evaluations of discrepancies between TLD's read onsite and vendor supplied TLD's read offsite.
The licensee is currently taking actions to eliminate the discrepancies (see paragraph 6).
The effectiveness of the licensees revised TLD program will be evaluated at a subsequent inspection when data from the revised system becomes available.
3.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the following procedures to verify that they had been prepared in accordance r th the requirements of Technical Specification 6.8 " Procedures".
1284 330
.
.
.
.
M 1.3 " Main Steam Isolation Valves Maintenance", rev. 5 dated August 17, 1978.
M 1.4 " Relief Valve Pilot Repair", rev. 2 dated December 12, 1978.
M 3.1 " Control Rod Drive Replacement" rev.10, dated December 15, 1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Adyance Planning and Preparation Increased Staffing Licensee representatives stated that contractor health physics technicians would be used to augment the current staff for the outage.
TN contractors would be trained ar.1 examined on instruments and procedures used at the station as well as the normal radiation worker training.
Job Planning The inspector reviewed a selection of tasks planned for the outage with regard to respiratory protection, contamination control, and maintaining exposure "Ss low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
Items covered in the review included:
design of special shielding for a crud trap on the reactor water
--
cleanup system (RWCU)
--
design and use of a boot to catch water while removing control rod drives use of air supplied suits and hoods.
--
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
5.
Training The training program which the licensee utilizes to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12 (radiation worker training) was reviewed.
The licensee uses a combination of videotapes and lectures to present the information, which is followed by a written examination.
The licensees retraining interval for radiation worker training is once per year.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's respiratory protection training and fitting against the criteria given in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
The licensee's routine respiratory protection training covers the use of full-facepiece type respirators.
Training for hoods and bubble suits which are used on special tasks is handled on a case 1284 331
.
-
.
.
.
by case basis depending upon the task.
Initial training includes a man-fit test in a respiratory booth and a loss of ain drill.
The retraining interval for respiratory protection training is once per yen.
The licensee currently has no stated interval for man-fit testing but licensee representatives stated that a refit requirement would be incorporated in the next revision of the respiratory protection procedure. This will be followed on a subsequent inspection.
(50-277/79-16-01, 50-278/79-18-01).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Exposure Control Bioassay The inspector examined the field installation of the licensee's whole body counter.
Results of several whole body counts (WBC) taken of individuals were reviewed. The inspector noted that while the licensee whole body counted many individuals; the licensees procedures did not specify any criteria which would require whole body counts of individuals, i.e. exposure to greater than 40 MPC-hrs of airborne activity in a week. A licensee representative stated that criteria for requiring whole body counts wtuld be incorporated into the licensee's procedures (currently under revision). This area will be further reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
Dosimetry Devices The licensee utilizes a thennoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) system with onsite reader to read TLD's on a daily basis for exposure estimates.
Vendor supplied TLD's are read offsite at less frequent intervals to provide a permanent record of integrated exposure.
As noted in combined inspection report (50-277/19-06; 50-278/79-06) there existed a difference in exposures obtained using the two systems; the onsite TLD's read consistently high.
The licensee evaluated the differences and found several potential causes including pronounced self-dosing of some onsite TLD's.
The licensee has institued a program to eliminate the differences which included replacing all the TLD cards and switching to a higher temperature glow peak for TLD reading. Data from the revised onsite TLD system will be available in September,1979.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 10, 1979.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings.
1284 332