IR 05000282/1989027
| ML19351A669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1989 |
| From: | Grant W, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351A668 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-89-27, 50-306-89-27, NUDOCS 8912200339 | |
| Download: ML19351A669 (7) | |
Text
- ' t, q.
j
.
,
'
l
.-
,-
-
,
'
v. - )
-
c
.
'
~
l
,
-
c
-
'
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
,
i
.
3.
>
.
,
REGION III
l
- ,
d.
,
u e
.
,
,
,
Reports No. 50.-282/89027(DRSS);50-306/89027(DRSS)
j
'
-
,
Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60
'
Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nico11ett Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
'
Facility Name:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Prairie Island Site Redwing, Minnesota
,
Inspection Conducted:
November 27 through December 1,1989.
Inspector:
fc42<4-dt.
M"/3~#9
.
W. B. bTaht -
Date i
Approved by: _I d
/4'/8-89
<t-Williarri SrielF. Chief Date i
Radiological Controls and Emergency
Preparedness Section
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 27 through December 1. 1989. (Reports No. 50-282/89027; 50-306/89027(DR55)).
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the radiation protection program curing power operation including:
changes in the organization; audits and appraisals; training and qualification of new personnel; external and internal exposure control; ALARA; control of radioactive materials'and contamination, surveys, and monitoring)(IP 83750); and licensee actions on previous inspection findings (IP 92701.
!
Results:
The licensee is maintaining a good radiation protection program
,
that is effective in protecting the health and safety of the workers and the
'
public. No violations or deviations were identified, i
s 8912200339 891213 PDR ADOCK 05000282
PDC e
-,--
--
-
-
<
..
'
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted M. Gruber, System Operations Engineer
- A. Hunstad, Staff Engineer
,
'
A. Johrson, Radiation Protection Supervisor D. Lariner, Radiochemistry Supervisor
- D. Mendele, General Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection
- J. Oelkers, Quality Control Specialist
- C. Propst, Quality Control Supervisor
- D. Schuelke Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- E. Watzl, Plant Manager
- P. Hartmann, NRC Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the inspection.
'Present at the exit meeting on December 1, 1989.
2.
_ General The inspection was conducted to review the licensee's radiation protection program.
The inspection included tours of the auxiliary building, turbine building, and radwaste building, observation of work in progress, review of records, and discussions with licensee personnel.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection findings (IP 92701)
(Closed) Unresolved item (282/89009-04; 306/89009-04):
Evaluate the current surveillance testing program for the Emergency Air Treatment System and revise os appropriate to meet current NRC regt:latory t
i positions.
The licensee has evaluated the testing program and has revised surveillance procedures. This matter is consiocred resolved.
4.
Changes (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed changes in organization, personnel, facilities,
,
,
equipment, programs, and procedures that could affect the occupational
'
'
radiation protection program.
i The Radiation Protection Group (RP) staffing has remained very stable.
The staff consists of 20 radiation protection specialists (RPSs), two L
coordinators (foremen), en RP Supervisor, four radiological (production)
l engineers, and an experienced Health Physicist.
The staffing appears to be l
adequate to effectively implement the radiation protection program. The technical RP staff meets the technical specification stipulated ANSI qualifications.
!
_1
h
.
,
.
The licensee has increased the use of computers.
Software developed
,
i in-house is utilized to write RWPs, to compute and document air samples, schedule work, and to trend programs.
This computerization has had a
,
positive effect on retrieval, and manipulation of data.
Original records are still maintained as required.
I No' violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Planning and Preparation (IP 83750)
y The inspectors reviewed the outage planning and preparation performed by the licensee, including:
additional staffing, special training, increased equipment and supplies, and job related health physics considerations.
The licensee had contracted about 44 RP technicians to support work to
,
be performed during the upcoming January 1991 outage.
The RPS's (both
'
licensee and contractors), will provide radiation protection coverage and overview for contract and licensee workers on all shifts.
About 60 percent of the contractor RP technicians supporting the outage will consist of personnel who have worked for the licensee during previous outages, as well as about 12 new junior technicians.
Radiation protection personnel have been involved in pre-outage reviews, have been informed of major jobs in advance of the outage, and are conducting pre-job ALARA reviews.
Lessons learned from previous outages are being used in planning this outage.
Major job planning activities have included replugging and sleeving of steam generator tubes, eddy current testing of steam generator tubes, sludge lancing, and inservice inspection (ISI) activities.
Training on steam generator mockups is planned for the contractor personnel who will perform the replugging, sleeving, and eddy current testing.
Training is also planned for the RPSs who will be performing radiation protection coverage for the steam generator work.
No problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Training and Qualification of New Personnel (IP 83750)
The inspector reviewed the education and experience qualifications of new plant and contractor radiation protection personnel, and the training provided to them.
Also reviewed was radiation protection training provided to other contractor personnel.
Initial selection of contracted radiation protection technicians includes contractor recommendations and a review of technician resumes by the Radiation Protection Supervisor.
A large fraction of contract radiation protection technicians return for additional outages.
Each incoming technician who has never been at the plant or has not been at the plant for two years is required to take classroom training and afterward to pass a 45 question exam with a score of 75 percent or greater.
The exam consists of moderate to fairly difficult questions in radiation protection /
r
.
-
e
.
health physics theory and problem solving; those who fail receive additional
'
training and cust pass a different exam.
No problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Audits and Surveillances (IP 83750)
'
The inspector reviewed reports of audits and surveillances conducted by the licensee, including audits required by Technical Specifications.
Also reviewed were management techniques used to implement and audit the
program, and experience concerning identification and correction of programmatic weaknesses.
!
The inspector selectively reviewed QA audit reports and QC surveillance reports for 1989.
A brief discussion of the audits is outlined below.
QA Audit No. AG 89-01-15 (ALARA).
It was noted that the items of
concern identified during the audit were either corrected prior to the end of the audit or have been corrected since the audit.
QA Audit No. AG 89-11 (Outage activities including radiation
protection).
No significant finding.
- QA Audit No. 89-24-15 (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual).
A finding (FG-89-17) was issued regarding liquid radiation monitor set point calculations.
The corrective action was technically sound and completed in a timely manner.
In addition to the QA audits, the inspector also selected several QC surveillances for a similar review.
These included:
No. 8903 (Eddy current testing and sludge lancing of steam generators); No. 89049 (liquid release drills); and several radwaste shipment surveillances; no problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
External Exposure Control (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's external exposure control and personal-dosimetry programs including:
changes in the program to meet outage needs, use of dosimetry to determine whether requirements are met, planning and preparation for maintenance and refueling tasks including ALARA considerations, and required records, reports, and notifications.
All personnel who enter the controlled area are monitored using vendor TLDs and in-house Self-Reading Dosimeters (SRDs).
Extremity badges and multiple dosimetry badges are available for use when significant extremity dose or doses to various areas of the whole body are expected.
The vendor TLDs are used for the official dosimeter record if the TLD and SRD readings compare within 20 percent.
In accordance with Radiation
f
o
<
p
-
.
,
I-.
.
.
Protection Implementing Procedure 1116, if the TLD and SRD readings differ r
by more than 20 percent, and the difference between the two is more than
50 mR, an Exposure Correction Radiation Occurrence Report (ROR) is written.
The ROR documents the even and describes the cause if determined, and assigns the dose believed to be the most accurate based on reviews of
.
survey data and interviews with personnel.
Exposure records of plant and contractor personnel were selectively reviewed for 1989 through March.
No exposures greater than regulatory limits (10 CFR 20.101) or the Plant's quarterly whole body administrative
'
limits were noted.
.
The licensee's Technical Specifications (T/S) require each High Radiation
- -
Area (HRA) in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 1000 mrem /hr to be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry.
It was noted during tours of the plant that HRAs were locked.
Keys to
the HRAs are maintained by the RPSs at access control, Entrances to HRAs are pasted and controlled by RWPs.
Very High Radiation Areas (VHRAs) are areas in which the intensity of radiation is high enough to result in doses above regulatory limits for a few moments exposure.
These areas include the incore thimble chase area when the the thimbles are withdrawn
.
(Sump C) and the reactor head area during power operation.
Access to these VHRAs requires approval of the plant manager or his designee.
The keys to these areas are not issued unless review of plant status assures that these areas are not at dangerous radiation levels.
In addition to the postings required by regulations, the licensee posts dose rate and contamination levels on maps at the entrance to many areas and on floor plan maps of the containments and auxiliary building at access control.
During tours of the plant, the inspector noted that persons were adhering to procedural and regulatory requirements.
Posted radiation
-
fields and areas were controlled as required.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Internal Exposure Control and Assessment (IP 83750)
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's internal exposure control and assessment programs including:
changes in facilities and equipment, determination whether engineering controls and assessment of individual intakes meet regulatory requirements, planning and preparation for maintenance and refueling tasks including ALARA considerations, required records, reports, and notifications, effectiveness of management techniques used to implement these programs, and experience concerning self-identification and correction of program implementation weaknesses.
The inspectors also observed whole-body counter operation, and respirator cleaning and distribution facilities.
No major problems were noted.
A review of whole-body count (WBC) and air sample records, and a discussion with licensee representative indicated that in 1989, to date, l
no individual had been exposed to airborne radioactivity greater than the
.
l
!
.
.
- .
i
-
.
h 40 MPC-hour regulatory investigation level.
Several favorable features of the licensee's internal exposure control and assessment programs include mandatory nasal smears of workers after respirator use,
'
maintaining /100 ceaverage contamination levels in posted contamination areas at 2000 dpm 2 or less, and use of automated respirator test equipment.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
'
10.
Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination, Surveys, and Monitoring i
(IP 83750)
The inspector reviewed portions of the licensee's program for control of radioactive materials and contamination, surveys, and monitoring.
No
,
problems were noted.
Conservatively, the licensee controls areas as contaminated when surface contamination exists above 10 dpm/100 cm2 alpha and/or 100 dpm/100 cm2 beta gamma.
In addition, average contamination levels in the contaminated areas are about 2000 dpm/100 cm2 or less.
All area smears are counted for alpha and beta contamination on a gas-flow proportional,
,
-low-background counter.
For personal contamination monitoring, the licensee uses a plastic scintillator-based, (" walk-through") portal monitor and a plastic scintillator-based, (" walk-in") whole body < )ntamination monitor at the auxiliary building access control point; another portal
.
'
monitor at the station's main guardhouse; and a plastic scintillator-based, hand-and-foot monitor at the common exit from the contamination area around the spent fuel pool deck and the Units 1 and 2 maintenance hatches.
Hand-held friskers are located throughout the radiological controlled areas and are usually equipped with shielded, pancake G-M probes.
In 1989 to date, the licensee has recorded 113 personal contaminations of which 43 were skin contaminations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Maintaining Occupational Exposure ALARA (IP 83750)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining occupational exposures ALARA, including changes in ALARA policy and procedures; ALARA considerations for maintenance and refueling outages; worker awareness and involvement in the ALARA program; and establishment of goals and objectives, and effectiveness in meeting them.
Also reviewed were management techniques used to implement the program and experience concerning self-identification and correction of implementation weaknesses.
.The plant radiation protection staff has the responsibility of reviewing all plant modifications within the controlled area.
The Superintendent of Radiation Protection, as a member of the Operations Committee, reviews procedures with consideration for minimizing radiation exposure and
'
-
.
.
.
-
f
'
,
s
- -
3:
'
.
.-
=
radioactive waste generation.
The radiation protection group also reviews scheduled work for ALARA considerations. Any work activity that can result in a collective dose of 10 person-rem or an individual dose in excess of one rem has a pre-job review by radiation protection and the t
group performing the work.
The review considers methods to reduce dose,
,
such as, n.ockups, trial runs, and shielding, for large work activities, I
such as pl6nt~ modifications, the pre-job ALARA review is usually done by the Radiation Protection Supervisor.
This review, which includes a check
,'
list for material control and equipment accessibility, is intended to reduce use of materials containing cobalt, to minimize crud traps, and to ensure appropriate shielding, r
l A selective review of proposed outage tasks for which an ALARA review was intended to be done indicated that ALARA concepts are being considered.
The effectiveness of the ALARA program is reflected in the Licensee's low exposure history.
The 1989 radiation dose through November, is about 92 person-rem (TLD),
most of which is attributable to the Unit 2 outage.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
' 12. - Exit Meeting (IP 30703)
'
.The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on December 1,1989.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection, and the likely informational content of the inspection report.
The licensee did not identify any of the information as proprietary.-
l L
d
L 1:
i
!
l l
l l
- )