IR 05000277/1980019
| ML19336A517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Baer R, Costello F, Knapp P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19336A516 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-80-19, NUDOCS 8010230628 | |
| Download: ML19336A517 (7) | |
Text
{
l
.
e
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
g 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-277/80-19 Docket No.
50-277 License No.
DPR-44 Priority Category c
--
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa.
19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 Inspection at: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: June 11, 1980 Inspectors:
hw M/3/N R. E. Baer, Radiation Specialist date signed Mdd)
ehles F. M. Costello, Radiation Specialist patg/ signed date signed e
Approved by:
'.C
%_
7 -hfd P. J. Knapp, Chief, Radit4 ion Support date signed Section, FF&MS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 11, 1980 (Report No. 50-277/80-19)
Areas Inspected:
Special, unannounced inspection to review thc licensee's evaluation of an individual's exposure to radiation, including radiation protection procedures; surveys; personnel training; erosure control; area posting and control; and dosi-metry program.
The inspection involved twelve (12) inspector-hours on-site by two (2) regional based inspectors.
Results: Of the six areas inspected no items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12
'
(Rev. April 77)
.
_. _
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Mr. W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
- Mr. R. S. Fleishman, Assistant Station Superintendent
- Mr. N. Gazda, Field Health Physicist
- Mr. J. J. Maisler, Technical Support Health Physicist Mr. J. Valinski, Health Physics Supervisor Mr. M. Simpson, Dosimetry Supervisor Mr. M. Horvatinovic, Health Physics and Safety (Catalytic)
Other Personnel Mr. E. G. Greenman, Reactor Inspector (Resident), USNRC The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee and contractor employees including members of the health physics staff, the individual exposed and his co-workers.
- Denotes those persons present at the exit interview on June 11, 1980.
2.
Notification The licensee reported on June 10, 1980 to the NRC resident inspector that an individual may have received 3113 mrem for the current calendar quarter.
Two inspectors were dispatched to the site on June 11, 1980.
3.
Interviews with Personnel a.
Radiation Protection Manaaer The inspectors interviewed the licensee's radiation protection manager on June 11, 1980.
He described the exposures as'follows:
On June 9,1980, while working in the Unit 2 Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) Isolation Valve Pit, torquing hangers, a contractor employee dropped his personnel monitoring devices (two thermoluminiscent dosi-meters (.TLD) and one self-reading pocket dosimeter (SRD) contained in a packet).
He retrieved the packet and read the self-reading dosi-meter which he found off_ scale, and exited the area imediately.
A second SRD which was worn over the chest area, and not dropped, read 150 mrem.
One TLD worn by the individual was processed by the licens-ee onsite and indicated an exposo ; of 1465 mrem for the day (1734 mrem for the month minus previously determined doses during the month).
The second TLD was returned to a vendor for processing and-indicated an exposure of 1511 mrem for the month.
The licensee assigned a whole body exposure to the individual of 2890 mrem for the period April 1 through June 9,1980, based on his
.-
- _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
current criterion of accepting the vendor's results for record pur-poses when there is less than a 250 mrem difference from the accumu-lated daily readings.
TLD EXPOSURE RESULTS TLD Licensee's TLD Vendor's Assigned Period Results Results Dose April
13
May 1366 876 1366 June 1-9 1734 1511 1511 Total 3147 2400 2890 All figures above expressed in mrem.
He stated that the daily in-house TLD program was not intended to qualify as a source of official exposure record.
The primary use of plant read TLDs is for dose management during the interim between the monthly vendor supplied reports.
Because of this, the program has not been subjected to the rigorous quality control program that would be required for an official record system.
b.
Exposed Individual and Co-Workers The inspectors interviewed the individual and his co-workers in an effort to establish exactFf where the individual was working in the pit and how such an exposure might have been received.
It was con-cluded that this individual made two entries into the RWCU Isolation Valve Pit duri.ng the day, torquing hangers located on the south wall.
In the morning he spent 30 minutes working on the west side of the
,
RWCU 6 inch line, in the afternoon he spent approximately 40 minutes working toward the east, between the RWCU line and an instrument line.
He was always accompanied by two other workers in close proximity, 18 inches to 4 feet from him.
He wore one SRD and two TLD's, in a packet, on his shoulder and one SRD on his chest.
The individual stated that he dropped the packet which fell to the scaffolding for approximately 30 seconds.
When he retrieved the packet, he read the SRD which indicated offscale and immediately left the pit.
The individual stated that he was aware of the radiation levels in the area and could not explain the high doses received by the dosi-meters in the packet.
He further stated that his co-workers worked in the same area during his entire exposure time.
i 4.
Inspectors Review of Licensees Records i
The inspectors reviewed the following documentation:
.
.
a.
The individual's NRC-Form 4 equivalent dated 5/1/80 and 6/10/80.
b.
The individual's training and qualifications report, dated June 11, 1980.
c.
Interview with individual by J. J. Maisler dated June 10, 1980 Rev. 1.
d.
Meeting with individual and co-workers, dated June 10, 1980 by J. Maisler and N. Gazda.
e.
Radiation Work Permit 2-12-0553 and associated sign-in sheets.
f.
Radiation surveys of RWCU Isolation Valves Pit.
g.
Dose extension for individuals.
h.
Daily Rac.iation Flag Report - June 9,1980.
i.
Exposure in excess of guides report for individual dated June 10, 1980.
j.
Prohibition from additional radiation exposure for individual dated June 10, 1980.
k.
Dosimetry incident report for individual (undated) by J. Maisler.
During the review, the inspectors noted that:
a.
The individual had successfully completed the licensee's indoctrination training on July 19, 1979.
He had previous experience as a radiation worker prior to July 1979, having worked for ancther licensee in addi-tion to this licensee.
b.
Self-reading dosimeters are leak tested and calibrated at least yearly, closer to a quarterly :chedule.
Those which are found with an error,
+20%, are rejected from usage.
No record is maintained by the licens-
.ee as to which SRD, by serial number, is used by the individual.
c.
Entries within the RWCV Isolation Valve Pit were covered by the Health Physics access control point on Radiation Work Permit (RWP) No.
2-12-0553.
General field readings in the work area ranged from 80 to 250 mrem /hr.
Two points of high radiation were noted, one of 5 rem /hr located approximately six feet north of the work area, four feet above the scaffold, the other of 3 rem /hr was less than one foot above the scaffold level and to the east of the work area.
The maximum time the individual was the Valve Pit as determined from RWP access and control sheets was 30 minutes and 45 minutes, for a catal of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
,
i 15 minutes for the da.__ __ __ - _____ - ________ ______
-..
,
d.
The individual had been placed or restricted duty and prohibited from any work entailing any radiation exposure or entry into any radiation area for the remainder of the current calendar quarter.
e.
The radiation exposure recorded by TLDs and SRDs worn by the three individuals perfonning work in the area is as follows:
Individual A
B fj_
SRD 190*
125 100 TLD 1465 175 192 (All doses are in millirem.)
- This self-reading pocket dosimeter was worn on the individual's chest and was not dropped.
A second self-reading pocket dosi-meter was contained in the packet together with the individual's two TLD's.
This packet was dropped by the individual as described in section 3A of this report.
The 1465 millirem was indicated by the TLD in the dropped packet which was read on site.
5.
Independent Maasurements The inspector toured and performed an independent survey of the RWCU Pit where the individual indicated he had worked during the period of concern.
The inspector identified no areas, not already reflected by survey records, in which dose rates could have been capable of producing a dose of 1465 mrem in one hour and 15 minutes.
The inspector's survey confirmed the results of the licensee's survey.
The points of high radiation listed in Section 4 of this report were not easily accessible from the work area.
The 5 rem /hr puint was obstructed by pipe, pipe laggi.ng and lead shield blankets.
The 3 rem /hr point was located beyond the southward edge of the scaffold, against the wall.
(See attached sketch.)
6.
Inspector's Evaluation These, findings are the result of a review which included independent inspec-tion of the work area, observation of the licensee's exposure control tech-nique, evaluation cf pertinent data, and discussions with the health physics group, exposed individual r,nd his co-workers.
i
,
.
The inspectors concluded that the radiation levels in the work area could not have caused the individual to receive the whole body dose indicated by the dosimeters in the packet.
The self-reading dosimeter worn by the individual throughout his work period indicated an exposure of 190 mrem, which is consistent with those of his co-workers.
This dose is the most probable indication of his exposure for the day.
The substantially higher dose recorded by the TLD in the packet could not be explained by the information gathered during the investigation.
.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 11, 1980.
The inspectors sum-marized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
,
The licensee representatives stated they would pursue a quality control
'
program for theif in-house TLD system.
!
l
!
!
l I
I l
l l
r
!
.
.
.e s
,
,
d
)~A
.
\\
h N
\\
S t
x
,,
\\
2d x
$
h h j i
(
r i
S is l
ti i
'I Ok l
@/
h j
N R
t
@_
l
+
s
g x
k<
[g{
N
N l
N l
q N
oo a
=