IR 05000280/1979039
| ML18136A055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1979 |
| From: | Jenkins G, Zavadoski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18136A052 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-39, 50-281-79-58, NUDOCS 7910150638 | |
| Download: ML18136A055 (4) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/79-39 and 50-281/79-58 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 Virginia Chief, SUMMARY Inspection on June 26, 1979 - June 29, 1979 Areas Inspected
,*.
Date Signed
- 7/;rh9 Date Signed This.rout_ine unannounced inspection involved 28 insp*ector-hours onsite in the areas of health physics practices in the containments and outside areas, control of contaminated material, personnel exposures for the SGRP to date, issuance and use of RWP Is' and solid radwaste shipments.*.
Results Of the six areas. inspec*ted,.no apparent hems of* noncompliance or deviations *.
were identified in five areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were found in one area :failure to have sh_ipping documents, (50-280/79-39-ql and so*-281/79-58-01).
paragraph 12, failure _to follow a certificate of compliance, (50-280/79-:39-02 and 50-281/79-58-02)'paragtaph 12).
7*910150 C Jg'
.e DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. M. Smith, Health Physics Supervisor-kG. E. Kane, Operating.Supervisor
- kJ. w. Patrick, Mechanical Supervisor
,',p. P. Nottingham, III, Ass't. Health Physics
- ',F. L. Rentz, Resident Q. C. Engineer
"'kJ. Goodson, Resident Q. C. Engineer (SGRP)
- E. P. Dewandel Staff Assistant
- ',c. w. Rhodes, SGRP
...
Supervisor (SGRP)
Other licensee employees contacted included 10 construction craftsman, 7 technicians, 5 operators, and 4 mechanic ;',Denotes those present at exit interview Exit interview The inspection scope *and * findings were summarized on June 29, 1979, with :
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov Items discussed included two items of non compliance on solid radwaste sh{pments discussed in paragraph 12. Licensee management acknowledged the i tenis of.noncomplianc.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not {deritified during this inspection.* Unit No. 2 Containment Tours Throughout the* course of the *inspection;*. the inspector, ac*companied by *
licensee's representatives and alone, made numerous entries.into the Uni No. 2 'containment to observe wotk in progress arid work practice The inspector observed that considera~le *effort had gone into removing iadici-acti ve wa$tes from the containment.. * He. a:l.so noted workers using waiting areas. and workers being directed by* foremtln/health physics tedmici,ms to use waiting.areas. *The inspecto.r observed health physics practices within the containment and found heal th physics technicians. thoroughly covering jobs and requesting additional shielding where* necessar Workers were trying. to minimize their 'exposures. by finding. th~ lowest radiation fields in which to work..
The inspector*noticed that the forty-seven *foot* elevation iii the containment. had no significant radiation fields
,~. ' :... -*' greater thari 5 millirem/hour and that there was unnecessary posting of waiting area The inspector brought this to the attention of licensee management and they promptly removed signs designating waiting areas on the forty-seven foot elevation in order to avoid confusion on the part o! the workers who were using waiting areas on Lhc elevations other than Lhe forty-seven foot level, The.inspector* noted no items of noncompliance and had*no further question *
Unit No. 1 Containment Tour The inspector, accompanied by a licensee's representative, toured the Unit N containmen Unit No. 1 is presently shut down for repairs and inspectio The inspector noted that housekeeping in the containment had improved (IE Rp Nos. 50-280/79-09 *and 50-281/79-10, Paragraph 6.B) but still was unsatisfactory for power operatio This item was brought to the attention of plant management who stated that the containment would be cleaned prior to power ascensio The inspector had no further questions at this poin.
Outside Area Tour The inspector, accompanied by li.censee' s representative and alone, toured the RCA _outside are The inspector noted that the majority cif soli wastes had been shipped off site for buria The inspector also*observed the ~torage of radioactive.material 6utside and found the pack~~ing and labeling to be satisfactor The inspector had. no further :questions in.
this are * Exposures to Date The inspector reviewed a draft copy of Progress Report No. 2 for the Steam Generator Repair Project for. Surry Unit No. The draft report shows that as of May 31, 1979,.1007 Man-Rem had been e~pended on the project compared to an estim.ated exposure of 1094 Man-Re Licensees' representatives estimate that as of June 29 ;* 1979, the project was 45%.*complete and 65% of the exposure.s have been expende * Issu;mce and Use of Radiation Work Permits (RWP' s)
The insp*ector observed.the' issuance of RWP Is.for special jobs' the use of standard RWP's, including the quizzing 'and checking before entering the radiation cohtrol area of each individual by a health physics technician a to. wh.ich RWP an individual wa~ working unde A rando.m survey taken by* the inspector of numero.us * individuals inside the RCA revealed that the. individuals. were cognizant o.f their RWP number and'
requirement The: inspecto.r found. no. items o.f no.ncompliance and had no*
further ~uestions in this are *
I_
-3-1 Project Area Tour The inspector, accompanied by a licensee representative, and equipped with Region II instrumentation, toured each warehouse storage area, construction shed, and selected office space in the steam generator repair project are The purpose of the tour was to verify licensee's control over.contaminated material and wastes. The inspector *did not identify any contaminated material or wastes, found no items of noncompliance and had no further question.
Control of Contaminated Tools The inspector observed the issuance and return of contaminated tools from the tool room inside the Unit No. 2 containmen Discussions with tool ro9m workers revealed that the majority of tools were accounted fo By their estimate, a normal rate of attrition prevailed.Discussions with the compactor operators inside the Unit 2 containment revealed that an insigni-ficant number of tools were found in the trash. The inspector also observed the use and storage of tools at various job locations within the containment and found no items of noncompliance. The inspector had no further question.
Solid Radwa.ste Shipment The inspector reviewed records for ~olid radwastes for the period April 1, 1979 thru June 28, 197 The inspector noted that several shipments had been made by the plant in a Chem-Nuclear cask designated by Chem-Nuclear as Model No.18-450. Licensee's representatives stated that the cask was used to ship relatively hot radioactive drums (i.e., drums which met low specific activity requirements and contained less than Type A quantities for Group III material, 3 curies by 10 CFR 71.4.(q) but had surface radiation readings of several. rem/hour). Although technically the drums could have been shipped in a rag-top trailer truck, they were shipped in a cask to take advantage of the cask's shielding properties. On April 26, 1979, a Chem-Nuclear Cask Model No.18-450 was used to ship 1~765 curies of radioactive waste weighing 9800 pound Chem-Nuclear Cask Model No. 18_.450 is licensed by Certificate of Compliance No. 9122 (issued November 1978, and expires October 1983), issued under the provisions of 10 CFR 71.12. (b). Licensee's representatives stated that they did.not have a copy of the Certificate of Compliance nor all the documents referred to in the certificate~.
The* inspector iriforined lict:nsee Is rep*resent!:ltives that failure to ha:ve. a.
certificate of compliance and referenced doc;uments was contrary to the
- provisions of 10 CFR. 71.12. b.1. i and an item of noncompliance (50-280/79.,.
39-01 a.rid 50-281/79:-58..:01).
Further, provision 5.b.2 of Certificate of Compliance No. 9122, liillits the maximum quantity of material *for the cask to 8000 pound The inspector informed licensee's representatives tha loading the* Chem;,,.Nuclear Cask, Model 'No.18-450,.on April 26; 1979 t with 9800 pounds was contrary. to the provisions of, 10 CFR.71.. 12. b. 1. ii and was an. item of noncompliance (50~280/79-39-02 and 50-281/79-58-.02..
.
.
.
.