IR 05000280/1979012
| ML18114A697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1979 |
| From: | Ewald S, Gibson A, Wray J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18114A696 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-12, 50-281-79-15, NUDOCS 7906180680 | |
| Download: ML18114A697 (6) | |
Text
- -~.~c:...... --.. --*------ *---*****-*---*... *.----~~-*-*---*-. ----... *--;--...::_-::... ------
.
( _)
j._. '~2-.
-
~-..
' Training A... An inspector _reviewed training materials used for routine radiation protection training of new worker The general employee training booklet.was reviewed and the inspector verified, with one exception, that'all items.specified iri 1o*cFR '19.12 were addresse The one i~em not included in the training booklet concerned advising workers
- of radiation exposure reports they may request pursuant to 10 CFR 19.13.. The inspectors interviewed approximately 15 workers and
- *verified an* workers *were aware of their right to request exposure reports. ~~he inspectors had no further question B... During a previous inspection (RII Report Nos. 50-280/79-11; 50-281/
- 79-13) an inspector discussed with licensee representative imple-menting a retraining program for the contract workers involved in
. the Steain Generator Replacement:,Project (SGRP).
The licensee agreed to develop and implement such a progra The program was in progress and involved.: severaL-informal discussion sessions conducted
. :': _..by--the Health Physics Supervisor or the SGRP Health Physics* Coor-
-}-. dinator with 20_,.to 2.5 workers per session. *. Sessions were conducted
- -~.t~ie~-per,day _and :attendance recorded _to assure complete. coverage of the contract work forc The inspectors attended a session on March 7, 1979 lasting 2 1/2 hour Discussion topics focused on
. :**.***worker concerns expressed-to the licensee and the NRC. In addition,
- .. * a _handout-addressing ALARA concepts, dose limits, radiation v.contamination,- -_arid *various. feedback mechanisms for worker comments
.and suggestions was distributed.*..The inspector had no questions relative to this retraining progra.** Unit 2.Condenser
... ~
- ** * : A; : * During a previous inspection (RII Report Nos. 50-280/79-9; _50-281/
...f*."'.
... :: '.
79.-10) fixed contamination was found on the steam dump and air
- ejector lines in the Unit 2 condense Discussions witµ the NRC
_Resident Inspector reveale4 the lines in question had been cut for
-*- - *,removal *and.had :been *tagged* as *c:ontaminated material. -The inspector
. *obseryed several sections of the steam dump line. outside the condenser
. J,.-and verified the tagging.* Discuss.ions with the Health Physics Supervisor revealed the iicensee had: analyzed shavings from the pipe and identified the contamination as cobalt-60 and cobalt-5 Air samples, witnessed by -the inspector, taken during pipe cutting revealed no detectable airborne radioactivit The inspector discussed disposal of the pipe_sections with licensee.representa-
.. tives who' stated tentative plans call for -onsite storag The * * *
- inspector had no further. question *.,:.L*
- **
-3-Dosimetry-SGRP An inspector reviewed dose records (Form HP-1) for SGRP workers for
- ' :*_1979. * This *review revealed 12 individuals with whole body exposures in excess*of 1250 mre An inspector examined personnel files for
- ::_9 *of _:thes<<Lindividuals and verified appropriate dose history forms and accumulated exposures met the criteria of 10 CFR iO.lOl(b).
In addition, dose extension forms, for these 9 files examined, were
- also *verified.*,.
- ,,.i.... _,-,.. *.,:-, :,, Driring: the *inspection; the.licensee modified* the administrative system for *,issuing pocket *aosimete_rs to,*sGRP worker Originally
- each worker had an assigned* set of pocket dosimeters (a high and
- -"low* range) **that *was kept with his TLD and dose summary* cards (Form
.
HP-2 ).
However, problems with return of dosimeters, and the large
- ~t* *number 61 c*ontrac:'t. wor:kers made this system imp:r;-actical. * The
- * *
modified system involves a worker being assigned a dosimeter set
- ,* 'from a pool of dosimeters each time he passes dose control. All
- ....... workers will continue to have assigned TLD The inspector commented
. '. :* that :a' faulty pocket dosimeter might be difficult to identify with
. t4e new syste The inspector discussed possible means to identify faulty dosimeters and health physics representatives agreed to record the pocket dosimeter identification numbers when they are assigned to a worke If a significant discrepancy between pocket dosimeter dose estimates and TLD data is noted, the pocket dosimeters used by'the worker could be identified and teste c/ The inspector* dis*cussed the use <>f special and/or extremity dosimetry
'.-.. _,-'"*for* sGRP workers.. *** Workers *around primary piping (hanging lead
,;.:'.shielding~ insta1.liri.g gloveboxes, etc.) might be-in non-uniform
- radiation fields'requiring*special dosimetry.to.assess doses to the head, lens of eye, or gonads and assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.101~ *Licensee*representatives discu~~ed various possible means of identifying workers requiring extra dosimetry ~nd providing
_the dosimetry. "Options discus_sed included:, (1) more specific
'identif~cation of.variations in radiat~on_fields by health *physics*
technicians prior _to *starting work, (2) 'provid:i.ng extra pocket**.**
dosim.eters in containment for use when surveys performed during work indicate the. need, and (3) requiring workers to exit contain-
.
mentand return to dose control to get extra-TLDs.--Licensee repre-sentatives:stated the problem of special dosimetry would be promptly
_ieviewed ~nd ~ro~isions made to*aisure acttirate ~ssessment~o * occupational exposures*. The *inspector stated. this item would be
- < -
examined during* subsequent inspections (281/79-15-01). *
I Use of Temproary Containments (Gloveboxes) Amendment*No.,46 to*the*unit 2 facility operating license includes license conditions,applicable to the SGRP. *Item 3.G(2)(b) requires temporary containment and ventilatio~ systems to be operating for all_ cutting ~nd ~-r~n~ing. operations involving c:ompon~nts with removable*contam1nat1on in excess of 2200 dpm/100 c lmplementa-
. tion of' this *requirement is* accomplished by the use of special gloveboxes*- fabricated oil.site for miscellaneous pipe cuts and the
- use of ten.ts for large (i.e., reactor coolant) pipe cut '
~ -
,. :. ::~..
. *... :
- - The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the use of gloveboxes and* operational experiences with installation; use, and
- removal; These discussions revealed licensee concerns as to whether the use of~gloveboxes was consistent with the principles of main-taining occupational* *exposures as ~low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Specific instances_discussed included glovebox uses where installation and removal efforts resulted in approximately one
.man-reni* of exposure while the pipe cut operation involved 0.01
... man-rem exposure~ In addition, licensee representatives stated
. *::samples_ of -.:air.and 'liquid: -contained * by a glove box had been analyzed with no.significant levels of radioactivity identified. Licensee
,representativesstateda request for.modification of the specifica-
. ::_ tion was being considered,. however,. it was not believed *a change
... request would -be -~completed prior to completion of miscellaneous pipe,*cuts * in Unit 2..
The inspector noted the licensee * had
~pparently**complie~ '!:i.th_"the. requirements of the specification..
Worker Briefings During a previous inspection (RII Report Nos. 50-280/79-11; 50-281/
.*. 79"'.'13),.an inspector *expressed concern at the large number of* idle workers in Unit 2 containment and whether this practice was consistent
.with ALARA *principles (Unresolved Item 281/79-13-02). During tours
... of Unit 2 containment/ the._inspectot:s noted a number of. workers *
- Waiting in -the designated low :doserate * standby area The inspectors
. :* observed no *idle. workers *who remained in various work areas where a*:.
. * ;.... : significant radiation le~el>_existed.,* *
.. '.. ~*
- :. *.:..:.*:
- . : ' '~ :.
.. *::
~ ' *'. ' ~
. The inspector-discussed the'idle worker item with licensee repre-
- sentatives and questioned whether pre-work briefings were being
. *conducted.. -* The inspector stated part of* the problem of idle workers in *_containment* might* stem from a lack of definite work assignment
.. for time spent in *containment*:* 'Discussions with licensee repre-sentatives revealed/ in general, workers had not reviewed the Engineering Task Assignment (ETA) prior to entering containmen The inspector observed copies of ETAs were available near work location The inspector stated that while failure to conduct
- 1,
- '.
0 --'" pre-bd.efings was not consistent with licensee ALARA commitments, the inspector observed no instances where this failure resulted in
'unnecessary exposure* as workers were *waiting in designated low
.. -00.serate ~standby areas. "The inspector stated 'that this. item would
. continue to be -examined during subseqU:erit inspections.'
Worker Concerns. : '-'. *
--;.:.*
\\:.
-~ 4
A. -* *During -the *i:nspection a number of concerns were expressed to the inspectors by workers relative to radiological working conditions, i,recautibns, and oc'<:upational exposures. 1 'The :specific concerns and the *inspectors review.are summarized belo.:1***
/ *Several**wo:tkers *expressed concern :-at spending* a significant amount
- of.time in Unit 2 !Containment without performing any SGRP related*
~work.. *This 'item was discussed i'n Ril Report *No.' 50-281/79-13 and is also. discussed in paragraph 9 of this report.. '.. :concerns we.re express~d relative* to pote~tial to'i1tamination
- .. :~.eating -~freas... An *inspector surveyed *the large eating a*rea in
- t:i:ie constru*ction area and found n*o~ coritaminad.oii.. *..
',,
....
'. :.. -...
. ~' Several workers *expressed concerns that while assisting in removal
. of.the biotogical shield walls (removing broken pieces of concrete for disposal) thet were_not provided respirators_while*workers breaking the walls were required to wear respirator The inspector
. discussed this item with the Heal;h Physics Supervisor who state "respirators had* been issued for dust protection and not' for radio-* *
_logical' reasons:
Thnt item' wa*s* discussed by liceh'see* representatives in a worker train'ing session on March 7 '(see p*aragraph 5) arid the
- Health Physics Supervisot* stated it.. was a* topic in all_ such sessions
- to clear up any misunderstandings.* -~.
- *-~ '. Concerns relative to the use of oiockup*training were expressed tb
. the inspecto The* inspector noted mockup training was prov_ided
- ' fot workers* involved: in the large* re*actor coolant pipe cuts, and for
. workers cutting lines in gloveboxes.* No mockup training was*.
- _apparently given for the installation and removal 6f gloveboxes.
. The inspector discussed this with licensee representatives who;,,
agreed to* review the possibility of conducting such training... :
.
- .
~
.
-
- .
.
!
'.-.-. ~' -
- -;-.
.
.. *.
.
,
-
- -
.
- Several workers expressed concern that, 'due to escort requirements,
,workers in containment were unable to *1eave *containment for* extended periods of time.*:The *inspector discussed escort requirements with licensee representatives who stated escorts are required as part of the facility security program and not for radiological reason AI.ARA aspects of individuals in containment are discussed in paragraph 9.