IR 05000280/1979011
| ML18114A648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Millsap W, Zavadoski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18114A647 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-11, 50-281-79-13, NUDOCS 7906070076 | |
| Download: ML18114A648 (7) | |
Text
,:
. ::,..
,
,
.
c (
,,
s_
<
,
,
.... *_-~-** _. : ____.. :., ___ *~-** *"
- ...*'-*-~"-*-'-'Ch',~... *_.**'"'***"'"-"~.*,,_,..,..,, *.,..,;_.* *.'<,_,*,
.
'. ~- *',,...
-,,-:.. *-
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
~Report Nos'. ~~:d s0-281/79-~3 Licensee: \\Virginia.Electric *and Power Company P. 0. Box 2666
- . '.Richmond; Virginia :,23261
- ....
- - _.,..:..*:..,:..'
Facility Naine:: *.*Surry Power"*station Units 1 and 2*
Docket Nos~*. 50-280 and 50-281 *... *
License Nos. ~-DPR-32.and DPR-37
- lnspection *at'. Surry Power Station Site near Surry, *virginia l(\\_ R. w. 7fTadorti Approved ~y: A 1"'
/:j h-- F. Gibson,Section Chief,FF&MS Branch SUMMARY Inspection on February 26 -.March 2, 1979 Areas Inspected
,.. :~ ', -.. *;, *~*. *,
- )'7 M~ /"1 )4, Date Signed Date Signed
- JlL'i{1°1 Date Signed This routine, unannounced *inspection involved 48 inspector-hours onsi te in the areas of respiratory protection, ALARA program and trainin Results Of the 3 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- *~,--
_--*-,.. *,:***;,,: __ - ---* --
- -----*--------*--*--** *.--._ -*.. *.*,c-
.*. c,:c-.,_.ec* =
';*.:*
- ,
-
'
DETAILS
--.J.-'.
Persons Contacted
_:*-. ---**'.
- ...
- ....-...:..*.. *
- - Licensee Employees
-- *w. L Stewart, St1tion Manager
- A.,*i. Parrish, -III, Project Manager - SGRP
. "'R. * M~ Smith,'* Health*-,physics Supervisor
- s: Sarver,-System Health.Physicist
- P. P. Nottingham, III, Health Physics Coordinator SGRP
- F. L. Rentz, QA Engineer
- E. P. Dewandel, Administrative Assistant
- R. L. Baldwin, Supervisor - Administrative Services
- T. -A. Peebles, * Superintendent '-* Tec~ical Services, *
- D. * Densmore, Senior He_al th Physics Technician
. '.
... ~
..
.
. '~
. ~
Other Organizations*
- Daniels Construction Company
- -* *J. *tanzafame ~,:Daniel" "".- Corporate Office
- J. C. Ard, Jr.; Project :Manager H. 0. 'Ford, Assistant Project Manager.:*
_ _ _
A. Philp, Shift-Superintendent
-:, J. Hooks,: Shift Superintendent -***General Services *
Numerous Craftsmen and Workers
.',;..,,
- NRC Resident ::tnspect.ot
- D. * J. _'Burke
- -:**Attended exit interview -
j I*
'
2*. - -Exit Interview* * *--
,**: "*i
- "'
~ *
- ~. " *,.
.r* *
.... **.*'. :*~.:"'
TlleJnspectioil scope:;and findings were summarized on March 2,--1979,,with
_*those persons.inqicated _in P~ragraph 1 abov. - --
a*. - 'Idle Workers in _the Unit Two Containment Building
. -. ~~... '.
The inspector stated that personal observations as well as discussions with various* individuals had led him to believe that workers may be spending unnecessary time in the containment and therefore receiving unnecessary radiation exposure.. The inspector also stated that two causes of this problem may be:
delays in getting workers through security aµd dose control points and inadequate preplanning and/or
'.-.~----*
--- --**---. -*** *--*--.. *-**** ---.. ----~=-**=--.. *=*-*-:-:-,
.... :----
.. --:-----:--:---::-.. -=-:_ ----~-,------.:-:--~~-:--.:-:-::
... ::::-
... ::-
... -:-::.
--~--::--:-:---:---:---:----~....,................ ------
. '*'.,. *: ", ~: -2-
'. c-l>ri~fi~k. oi ';~r'i~~rs p'ao~*to entering conta'inment.. Th~ inspector
- * asked a *licensee representative to make efforts to streamline the movement of workers through the control points; the licensee repre-sentative stated that this problem was under active consideration.
. A Danie_ls Construction Company representative stated that* increased efforts would be made in job preplanning and worker briefings. The Daniels representative stated._that e{forts -~ere. in,,progress to
.reduce delays getting _to _the work. pl~ce.s. * The_ inspector stated that worker idleness in the containment buq.ding was an unresolved item against 10 CFR 20. l(c)_. and that it* would be examined further during a subsequent inspection (50-281/79-13-0l).. _
- . -b:.. Additional Radiation Training* for Workers The inspector *stated* that the large number of questions addressed
_to him as well:as discussions with various individuals (see paragraph
.. _ *-* 8) iqdicated that many.workers could benefit from additional training
,:,, on the basic elements of good radiological work practices now that
- _ they had gained actual work experience and could better understand this type of instructio Licensee representatives stated that such training would be provide The inspector stated that the worker training would be an unresolved item against 10CFR19.12 and that this would be examined further during a subsequent inspection (50-281/79~13-02).
.
'. Licensee Action on Previous Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved.Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviation New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 2. _
Respiratory Protection As a check ~n."the effectiveness of his respiratory protection program, the licensee performs weekly whole body counts on individuals chosen from a respirator user's l_o The results of these whole body counts are documented i_n Periodic Test Critique 38.25 entitled Respiratory Protection -: Whole Body Coun The_ inspector _reviewed the results of these whole body counts made between November 30, 1978, and January 26, 1979,.and noted that_ in no case did the per cent maximum permissible body burden exceed th~ee per cent for any individual. The.inspector had no further questions concerning these test * First Tour of the Unit Two Containment Building and the Adjacent
- Work Areas The inspectors toured the unit two containment building and the outside
... ; -* work are~s -adj a cent* to the containment building. During this tour, the inspector perf o_rmed independent radiation surveys and held interviews
- and dis:cussions -with workers..
- R~diation Surve-ys -*
The *iO:s-pectors*; using NRC instruments, performed independent radiation suryeys as a_ch.eck on the licensee's posting of radiation areas and high radiatlon areas as required by 10 CFR 20.203 (b).& (c). Of the numer:9us_areas ~~rv~yed, most were conservatively posted and in no case:waif a_ vlolatfon-of the above regulations observed.
. Dµring tli.~: tour, the lnspectors interviewed workers and discussed with them the radiological conditions and practices at the work places arid answered numerous questions concerning radiological matter The i~spectors_also dfscussed numerous unsolicited.questions from other
--. workers ;c--J)ufof these interviews and questions, the following general problems and concerns emerge.
- -
- .
-
-*
(1) - The most general -*questi'oii -encountered by the inspectors -con-cerned the safe and legal limits of external exposure to ionizing radiation. The questions were apparently triggered by a newspaper
_
0article, which had been circulated among the workers, which stated
- ---..
--
-that the maximum safe:whole body dose equivalent was* 170 mrem per
- year; since many of these workers had already exceeded 170 mrem
- ,;:,~*-> dose equivalent and the limits explained to them were muc::h higher than this, there was genuine concern among many of them that they
'were being over-expose The inspectors discussed this article
- with.the workers and reviewed with them* the safe and legal limits of radiation exposure and the control mechanisms established by the licensee for their protectio (2.) ***.The *most* general* concern 'expressed by workers was the dose
- . * --
received while standing idle in the unit two containment.
buildin A, few workers stated that they had been left idle in the containment for periods of hour The inspector told several of these workers that their concern would be brought to the attention of Surry Station managemen The inspector noted several workers waiting in the containment outside the low backgi::ound "Personnel Stand-by" areas which had been
- established in various levels of the building; the inspector
,_. J__.
,__
,
,,;
_
_
. -4-discussed this with :sever.al workers and informed them that while waiting they should do so in these areas in order to minimize their. exposure to radiatio :.-.-;.,*.,.,..
_..
(3) * Another general concern expressed by workers was the actual
- -,,.,. :,cc_,"-*--6PhYsical (bodily) effects of exposure to radiation and how the
.*
effects relate to the level of exposur The inspectors
~".-,..._discusse*d with these workers the effects of acute exposure to
- .;--:*. ionizing radiation at. variou_s. dose levels and explained to
/:.c theID -that -rtlleir. allowed. _dose was very much less than that
- -*:,** :r~quired: for detectable acute effect *
,
-.,..*
... :
':..... ~,;-:_.:.~.. -
. "
?o*,**:I>urin,g all-of. these discussions, the inspectors emphasized *to*
- .,,...,... the. workers.-.the ;.avafl~bility of their own management, VEPCO
.,,., \\,;,health physic;s personnel,: ~nd.NR~. p~rsonnel to answer their
~questions and.:encouraged_ :.~hem_*t_o. :seek answers if. further
._J!.:, q11estions arose. -: r
.
...
- **.....
7.. NRC Meeting.with VEPCO and Daniels Management Representatives
_Dµe. _tQ. th~,.unu,suatc.mµngef.:.. and frequency of the radiological concerns
.. _ezj,re-ss*e*cr *by workers, * mostfy employees. of Daniels Construction Company, ian inspector requested. that.a* meeting be. held to discuss these concerns
- and. possibl_~ means ",Qf addressing them. * Those present at this meeting, held in the St_ation _Manager I s,Office on February 28, 1979, were:
the Surry St.ation Manager,.t)1e SGRP Project Manager (VEPCO); the. Daniels
- . ~Project Manager, '.,the Danieb Assistant Project Manager,* the NRC Resident
- -Inspector -.:and.,another NRC ;;Inspector (Radiation Specialist).
At the meeting~ the inspector (Radiation Specialist) reviewed the re~ults of -
.,his discus*!>ions* with. workers (see Paragraph 6) and their concerns about
- radiological hazards.. The inspector emphasized that it was necessary to
. ~stablish open communications between* the workers. and management/heal th physics, -and -that* all radiological concerns, whatever.their nature.,
, should.be promptiy.. and fully.addresse A Licensee. *representative
- stated that. a suggestion box had been established to allow workers to communicate their problems, without signature, to Surry plant management.
.. The subject of possible worker fear of reprisals for voicing concerns *
- .was. ad!}ressed. and both VEPCO.. and. Dani~ls -representatiyesistc1ted. that*.n : r~prisal~,"70Uld be:.,taken ;agains_t,.,;_anyone for expressing concern over
.radiological working conditions... The point was also made that some
__ workers,had,_.in "the past, failed_to. recognize the _presence of h~alth physics technicians in containment since they bad no means of identi-fying them; this condition had been. rectified by putting healtll *pbysics _c:
personnel. i.n.. da_rk,blue,.coveralls. -:-,After discuss.ion by.. all present, i *
was decide_d tbat,<the _proper.: response would _be ~<t. is~ue, as soon as..
possible,,a brief. pamphlet to the workers _addressing their general_-:
concerns,.reviewing their_.responsibilities in an overall. radiological control. l)r<>gram, -and providing clear inst,ructions -as to.-means of getti~ ~.,,,.
~.
-s-their concerns addresse A Daniels representative stated that an
. * *instruction-would be issued :urging his~*employees *to* feel free to* discuss
--* any radi-ological concerns that- -they might have with their superviso This :.cinstruction; -dated February 28,- -1979, was issued promptl The pamphlet,- <dated March 2, * 1979, * entitled *General Information Healt Physics *Briefing, *was *issued promptly and discussed the following infor-mation::,A,discussion of the ALARA concept; *means of identifying various personnel;: : personnel. available to * answer questions; the presence and use of.*a *suggestion box; use of radiological-work permits; the respiratory protection program*; - the administrative,. 'control -of exposure; brief; general-, instructions 'to** works. concerning their *'.responsibilities;* -the answers*,to typital"'ques*tions;**-a'*'brief discussion of the difference between external radiation and contamination; the*work and home tele-
phone numbers of* key personnel -(the Surry* Station Manager, the Surry Health Physics Supervisor, the SGRP Health Physics Coordinator and the NRC Resident Inspector):who may be contacted at any time; a swmnary*of the clinical-effects of acute ;exposure to :ionizing radiation; a simple instruction on -reading -pocket dosimeters; 'and maps of the unit two con-tainment building showing the '~Personnel Stand-by" are_a.
Further -Tours of Unit Two Containment" Building* *arid Adj a cent Areas
'.' ~ ;.
.' :
.
.
The * inspector. toured. the_: uni t--two. :containment building * arid adj a*cent areas on: two* -other' '~-'occasions and * continued his interviews * and discus:-
sions with'*workers ai::td management representatives. During these tours, the inspector noted that two of the "Personnel Stand-by" areas were cluttered.with equipment and-that a box being used as a desk was in a 20 mr/hr general area radiation leve The inspector discussed these observations* with members of the health physics staff and they were promptly correcte In general, the work areas appeared to be orderly
- and more * wo_:tkers appeared to be utilizing the "Personnel Stand-by" area..* *.:,,;:**:.
- a. * Interviews with Daniels Supervisors
-*, The* inspector interviewed two members of Daniel shift supervision and discussed with them their views on the effectiveness of the
- .,*
- * * -* radiological controls relative to the Steam Generator Repair Projec Both of these men seemed to be quite satisfied with the radiological controls exercised and both stated that the VEPCO health physics group had been -very cooperative' and helpful. * Both men stated that many problems are caused by-delays in getting workers through the security *and dose *control points** into *the work areas during shift c;hanges ~nd that increased attention should be given to this proble The inspector asked-both'men if they felt some additional rad1.ation training for.. workers would be- 'of value; both stated that it would.
These men,. both experienced *radiation *workers, stated that the
- c,
- ' ;_*health physics training given at Surry for this project was above
,,
,
,
,
,
'.- :f., *-----* --****-*,,., -::-*----~* *,_-...u.. ~-----*-*-.,,..;, **--*--- _ -*** _ --
-6-
':.. : :,. ~1J~,~~i~*, *1ut \\i;t :~ome ~o'ricers failef to fully benefit from this training, due in some cases to the inability of an inexperienced
.,,... 19.. orker.to i.:eJ~te t:.o t~e ins.truct.ion. given and,in.some cases. to lack
. ::-c,.. <>f.~ttenti.on:~n cla.~. *":
- *
,....
..
},..
b~-.,.lntervie~s.. ~iith.. Workers
-,,*.
.
.
,o:al'.h~ 0.,JnspectoL:COntinued to* intervie~. workers and discussed with them the radiological conditions and practices on the jo The
,:<:inspector continued _.to re.ceive, in general, the.same expressions of
.... concern -and. questions. _discussed, in paragraph 6.... One. individuc1.l...
- -**.discussed with.the inspector some concerns about common industrial
- . :safety such as.. ladders and gas cylinders.not properly.secured and
<,,in- :Pa.rticlilar,,,the.Jack of Jiard h~ti, in the,containment building
- where.. ' considerable * overhead work is being don The inspector
- .. ~lain~d that t,he.se. types of safety problem were outside his legal jurisdiction but that he would bring these concerns to the attention
,. of _lj.ce_n~ee D1anagement represent,atives....
..,.
'
-.
- -
- .
.
- -
.
..
..!~- '~-~*-
-,
!
'
=."
"' -;:- -, --;"..
- - ;~ : -
r
,,.;'.. ~, -
'
. ",.... -- *,...,-*..
,: "*'..":--*-...
,.,.
-~ ~: -,
_,.; __ :,,._:.*
'... - :. i'. :.,. ~-. **,
.;.. *,
. :;-* -~**.
- _.' -.