IR 05000282/1990005
| ML20042G526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1990 |
| From: | Grant W, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G523 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-90-05, 50-282-90-5, 50-306-90-05, 50-306-90-5, NUDOCS 9005150033 | |
| Download: ML20042G526 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- ~ -- w y;', av - 4 , . , ,.,- t - ., , , s , . s .,
. , ' <( s . u r-4.
- . 4 - , , , , <[ , e q a , , , . ,-
o . .. , . , . s t 1... ; -
3.> ., . , , . .. .. ~, ... .,U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j , -i ,'J ' ,9 ,R.EGION III - M
, , ,
- .
o . ., , ,. 4; - '
S.
.I , Reports No. 50-282/90005(ORSS); 50-306/90005(DRSS) + , , , , ' L L0ccket Nos.--50-282; 50-306; LicensesNo;DPR-42;DPR-50- ' > L ._ ,
- < a , ( , ' ' * Licensee: Northern States Power Company V '
o, 414 Nicollett' Mall.
' .y ' Minneapolis, MN 55401 m* ' . =. ,: , d ,facilityName: PrairieJslandNuc1harGeneratorPlant,UnitsIand2 . , 'l > < . . . _. .
- Inspection.at
Prairie Island Site" r . > Redwing, Minnesota:
, , ., .c . .s , Inspection Conducted: , . " _ April 9-13,c1990f ,- " s p.
- - .. _ "4 1; m o , . U O g %y! * -
' A9* ' ' Inspector:. N - .. B. Grant Date.
' w , " W . , ' , i.
.V Approved By: ( k ) [[ E $ I sA/fo ' ' , - William Snell, Chief.-i, Date~,' i L Radiological Controls and Emergency 1, ., Preparedness <Section
. , '~ 'u - % g . ,
' t-Inspection Summary R ' ' , . V ?*.. .. R ^ la= Inspection on April . r \\c . . 9-13, 1990 (Reports No. 50-282/90005(DRSS);'50-306/90005(DRSS)) . s
' Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection, , T - program during power operation including: changes in the organization; audits? .. , and appraisals; training of plant personnel; external;and internal exposure.
p l " . n control;'ALARA; control of radioactive, materials'and contamination, surveys,F (F .,,* and monitoring-(IP.83750),-
e.
' K - l Results: The licent.ee,is maintaining a good radiation protection program ' L that is effective 71tipbotecting the health and safety of the workers and - ' < - - , L the'puolic.; No violations:or deviations were identified' + , ., -
+ . . , .
+ i.'
s , , [p. ',
, . ' + y , ' ' ~
- }
's p' ., " -
+ .. , . 1, 'e
' . , p t , ,_ - s - ,
g
. , ., 4.
. , " .$- , 4005150033 900503 ~ L
4- '
' PDR ADOCK 05000282
-'
Q PDC ' '
l -
v
i
- ,
%- L ,__ _
- -
> Ie , _
'... f :: ' ,h ' - g ,
L q .. ~ ^ - h> ,n'; tv , . .
, . , . _., _
,y g v L m,, r r ,, , ..,, .(, . . , ,
q y o m - m
, , , , w , 'g y.; . . ' ' "; z< , , , L.'
,; . , ' Q + - t s.- ( $ , c - . r s sz n + . ,. . + - ' ' '
l DETAILS, ' > ,, , . _7 > . . v , , 'y _y l
+ > ? , , , ' '
- '
in 4 Persons Contacted
'
',' s '- 4 ' , , , , , c' . , "
' J
- K'.Beadell, Superintendent,Technica1' Engineering.
' s ~ , :1 - - AcJohnson, Radiation Protection Supervisor ' e ,
- J. Leve111e, Nuclear Support Services
. o m f W, ; w , G. Malinowski,. Radiation; Protection Coordirdition
- ,
- '...,,
' ' ' -
- D. Mendele, General Superintendent,. Engineering and, Radiation' Protection; * _ '. g
' '
- M. Sellman,yQuality Control Specialist o
'% 'J. Oelkers,
- i
~:
. , General. Superintendent, Operations +r. ly a . <
- D.' Schuelke. Superintendent, Radiation Protection D 1.,
' ' ~ , s , s".
, p *P. Wildenborg,' Health Physicist 3 4.
'* > g -
t ,
Er Watzl., Plant Manager.
- yg
- , l
- i
' "
- "
,. .-, , L ~ The inspector. also interviebe,d other licensee personnel during 1.he Oi > ! ' , . , inspection.; '
w . > , , , y - .[*PresentktheexitmeetingonApril,12,1990.
. ^ , "
> w,
m , - , ' oc Y
' 2.
General ' > ,j ' - ,, e ,
+ ' s 4"~ The. inspection was' conducted to' review aspects of the licensee's
3 - t . . c ? ' ", , ', J . ' radiation protection proaramiduring power operations l iricluding: +- . ' . changes since the last inspection, audits ;and survei.11ance, exposure; ?,' control', control of: radioactive materials, ALARA and the licensee's;
', ' , . actions regarding-1.dentified concerns.
During the performance of- ' 'planttours,nosignificant;accesscontrol, posting,or#ocedurel 3- ,..* ' adherence ~ problems were identified.' Hous~ekeeping and material. conditions. . _,"
- Were good.
L i " < .
, , ,, , . . j ' 4.
Changes (IP 83750): '
w .; , - , j ' < . ' ~ The inspector reviewed changes in the organization,ipersonne11facilitie's., l.o equipment, programs, and procedures that could affect the occupational ' -
4 radiation protection program.' ' '
, , , The Radiation Protection _ Group (RP)' staffing'has remained very stable.
One experienced radiation-protection specialist-(RPS) was hired ins - . ," December 1989 and a new RPS position has been budgeted, butihas not yet - been filled.
The staffing appears adequate to effectively. implement the l . radiation protection program.
, , , ' =1- , ^ .
No violations or deviations were identified.
a m - ., ! -
- m , ..,... ,, ~ e - 5.
' Planning and Preparation (I'P 83750) ' v . .
, . . The inspector reviewed the' planning and. preparation performed by-the - licensee, i'cluding: additional staffing, training, increased equipment ~ n , and ' upplies..and job related health: physics considerations.
~ ' s . t - < ' g < , y ' +
f
? - g i i ~ , . , '
L l l-t y m . t .,9.- , 4-t je
..
^s
'
+ , t ., ' [ m
- k
' I h< 1 / __ i i
._ - -- - _ _ _ . , ' m v .. - . , , .. '
. , - M-s - - . . > , , . , ~ o y , . ,
.. . t . The licensee plansIto conduct a' formal training course for RP helaers, tihe course is supposed to include; basic health physics,,decon teciniques, industrial safety and' plant' systems.
This additional training should. > , increase the helpers' effectiveness and efficiency and' increase safety. m 1_ The licensee plans to upgrade.the electronics of the' older whole'b'ody.
' C friskers prior to the Fall 1990 outage.; The" upgrade will bring the ' ' , friskers up to: state of the art efficiencies., The licensee is also-V considering_a " fast scan":whole body counter'(WBC) to replace the-leased
- c model they are currently using.
The fast scan WBC is used with.a- - , person 'in the upright position and takes about'60 seconds.' The -,
' licensee's current WBC is a coffin.. type which counts worker:in the prone- , '
, y.. position and takes about four. minutes..The licensee'has reviewed several, M " " models;.no decision has been made.
. '4 a.
, Radiation protection personnel are involved:inlthe planning for the- ' ' - upcoming Unit 2 refueling / maintenance outage scheduled for September 1990.
, x . ' 'No violations or deviations,were identified.
>
c 6.- Audits and Surveillances (IP 83750), ' y . , .ij y, . RE , s .Theinspectorreviewedreportsof'auditsandsurveillancesconductedbf ' the licensee, including audits required by the Technical Specifications.
Also reviewed were management techniques used to implement and audit,the ' . program, and experience concerning, identification!and correction of ' x i ",, programmatic weaknesses.# ' ! f, y _ ., ,w .
- % ?
,J s; f* * The inspector. reviewed QA Surveillance ~ Report 90-022'w'hich wasW,= _ ' *n-n , conducted March.16, 1990 to review recommendation $' associated'with~ Audit. ! .n , ~ Report'AG-01-15.
Six recommendations were madep fivelhave.been! completed.
- '4 M
- y and.one'is being considered..NoproblemswerenoQd*- [f i ' ( 1, e , c, y -.3 _ . .. . t > , Noviolationsordeviationswereiden%ified.
l-Q
1.
Y '
, , .mu. ... .. , o, , 'f ' b @ 7.
ExternalExposure' Control (IP8375@ t ' ' t.
t s s , The inspectors reviewed the'11censee's extemalf exposuy_e contr'J '. - n > s ol aiidi
- i ic
f ~" n-personal. dosimetry programs including: changes'in'thesprogram to meet vs , 1.,*: outage needs; use of dosimetry to determine whether.requir.ements?are. met; L.
m ~
L
planning and preparation for maintenance and, refueling tasks, including, ' ALARA considerations; and. required records,Lreports, and notifications.
Q _* , , , m -
,- s, ,. Exposure records of plant and contractor personnel were selectively " i reviewed for 1990 through March.
No exposures greater than regulatory limits (10 CFR 20.101);or the' Plant's quarterly whole body administrative' ~ < , "' limits were.noted.
'; ' " - - During.t'oursoftheplant,theinspectornNedthatpersonswereadhering-l . , to procedural and regulatory requiremsnts.
Posted radiation fields and' ' '
' ' areas'were controlled as required.
- No" vio1'ations or deviafions'were. idintif,ied.' .e-
. , "; m - 9, . , .' + . . . i %* , , e _ , ! '
(%' - p ' ' ' -> LL ) . ,,, . , s W (,k. j' [ j% [1 , . . > , ,
.. ( 'p" g.
3 l ' ~ w ,A.
.. u k
' t. r ,1 3 3 , , s
. s . N 8.
Internal Exposure Control and Assessment ~(IP 83750) f< , L ' s a= ' ' c.
The, inspector reviewed the licensee's internal exposure control and a .. assessment-programs including: changes in facilities and equipment; >- l ' ' determination whether engineering controls'and assessment of individual ?[ . intakes meet. regulatory requirements; planning and preparation for - . ,' ! ~ . maintenance and refueling tasks, including ALARA considerations; required , .4
records,. reports, and notifications; effectiveness of management' records,'. ~j - reports,4 and notifications; effectiveness of management techniques ussd g f " ' . to implement these programs, and experience.concerning self-identification s and correction of program implementation weaknesses.L The inspectors also C observed whole-body counter operation, and respirator cleaning and . n . distribution facilities.
Nomajorproblemswerenoted.
- A review of.1990 whole-body count (WBC) and' air' sample' records,'and a
- ie discussion with licensee representatives indicated that, to date,
.no individual had been exposed:to airborne radioactivity greater than the.
c 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 average contamination levels in posted contamination areas at.
2000 dpm/100 cm2 or less, and use of' automated respirator test ,, equipment, , No violations or deviations'were identified.
9.
Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination, Surveys, and Monitoring (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.
'The licensee conservatively controls areas as contaminated when surface-contaminatiori 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 scintillaton-based (" walk-in") whole body ' contamination monitor at the auxiliary building's 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 1990 to date, the licensee has recorded 91 . personal contaminations of which 31 were skin contaminations.
~ '
' ,. s u ' ' The inspector performed several tours of the' radiologically ' controlled s -< , < areas, these included walkdowns of auxiliary, turbine, and.radwaste , < j, . building The inspector observed the following: ! - y m_ .. , , , )' '*y.
")
' i ? fv f ' 'g ( .,) "
,i+ g- + h A . k .;
- i @ en , . .e.
' < - s 7.
.
s jy ' ,f ,i s.;. <
' o [. , . , , , , ,;; o;
~_y , - - s' < \\r \\
- a
> e ,a' ,,, , .. , a ' - - ,
i s , , . . , , , r . . .. . n. .
- . , i
- -
te
- .
' Posting and' labelling-for~ radiation, high radiation','ccataminated . " <and radioactive material. storage areas. ' Posting and labelling were
r L in accordance with regulatory requirements and approved station
u h
'O procedures;
,, . '
y ,
' , . 3#
. *1 Radiation worker access an~d egress from the containment, the RHR / '* , sj pump pit, and the cask decon pit.
Protective clothing was worn and removed in a proper manner.
Personnel use of frisking stations and r F portal monitors was acceptable.
Radiation Work Permits (RWP) for the - ,above work were reviewed and found acceptable.
Worker use and- " knowledge of-RWPs was acceptable; _ Contamination monitoring, portable-survey.and area radiation
. ' monitoring instrumentation)in use throughout the plant.
All.
" < instrumentation observed had'been recently source checked and had current calibrations;; Radiological conditions in access control, respirator. issue room,
radwaste storage' area and various posted, roped off contaminated areas.
Radiological controls in these areas were acceptable.
NoviolatIonbordeviationswereidentified.
' ' 10.
Maintainin~o Occupational Exposure ALARA (IP 83750) - The inspector' reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining < , occupatiorial exposures ALARA, including changes in ALARA policy-and-procedures; ALARA considerations for maintenance and refueling outages;r , worker awareness and involvement in the ALARA program; and establishment , ' ' of goals and_nbjectives, and effectiveness in meeting them.
Also reviewed were management techniques used tt 'mplement the program and experience concerning'self-identification and correction of ' ,* ' implementation weaknesses.
. The plant radiation' proteci. ion staff has the responsibility'of reviewing
all plant modifications ~within.the controlled areat-The Superintendent of Radiation Protection,tasia! member of the Operations Committee, reviews ' . procedures with' consideration'for minimizing radiation exposure and I . radioactive' waste generation., The radiation protection group also reviews-seneduled 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 I rem has__a pre-job review by radiation protection and the group performing ! the work, z The review considers methods to reduce dose,,such as, mockups,' g ' trial runs, and shielding.
For large work activities, such as plant; ,' f modifications, the pre-job ALARA review is usually,done by the Radiation.
- 2' Protection Supervisor.
This review Which includes 'a. check' list for.
material control and equipment 1 accessibility, isLintended to reduce- < ' use of materials containing cobaltoto minimize cru'd, traps., and*to e ensure appropriate shielding.- ' '
o , e /,
. ' ~, y*
i . e-. ' <
, , ' ' ' s w , ,.
" 5.
.. > .
- 4.._ , . y ,.
, , , I- = n'-.
" y p - y cyy -'r; - a j
- 1
_
-- - , g ,%e,,,# fa.
, , q,
4+ - 3;. , (. s>
4 c. p ,g, , , r .- , , , Q' 'gN:/ ' $ , .94 , ' '~ ' < < + , \\- ,F , '
- , w:
y
, , ' . ,
.,oy ^,, m
e + - , . g , -- }', ' t .. y . . .. m M for 'large work activities and certain other jobs,;a post job evaluation T . ~
- -
s N.
or ALARA review i's done to determine any problem areas, required changes
at A.
involving ALARA,:and suggestions.
' - " , ,
, p 'A' selective: review of post job'ALARA evaluations'found them to be y y . y - , , , . . w .4 . . Lt.horough and apparently, complete and effectivetinHimproving. future.
' " ' ' ,
E tasks.' No problems were' identified.
y , , Ty ThetotAl1989'radiationdosewasabout'92 person-rem.'tThe'1990
% ie
' 'f ' radiation dose through March is~about 107 person-rem, most of which}m . ,p. . ( Lis attributable to,the Unit 1 outage.
The station goal.for 1990 is- , ' - ~ ' ' -
' , , ,P 200 person-rem.
> .
.: -4 , s ' . - , a,. .c , ,; . .. . ,. Noviolations'otdeviali,on.s?werkidentified.
. J.
",I . ., m " ' - .
. , . > . ~ - , ~ ' 11. " Exit Meetina (IP 30703)
^
,. . . ,. . , . m .? . .e . > + ' ' 'Theinspectorsmetwithlfcenseerepre'sentatives(denotedin'Section1).,, . f, ,. -% 4 .,
at'the conclusion ofithe inspection on" April 12,.1990. 3 The inspectors y, " u summarized the scope and findings _ of ?the inspection, and the 11kelyN s, L f " 1 informational contentiof theiinspection-report.. Thel licensee ~ 'did notr W^# d % identify anylof the.information as proprietaryc' ? e ' - . c .-
- . , . a . , ' A F, $ - , - g ' , ' ,
W, .
, ., . , .'[.l.
4 j' ' _[ lg '4 ,F' i ~ , - < i l' t _ ;. _, ,- 4.. , , ,. g-y A , - ,
th }. / ~ b' l'
g , + ,. t
- f g#
' I f,
J ):
4 .. , , ,
- ^
' ' + , y , , h.
i
e > s 1e r e-e , . , . < A . $ g , - =
<" "s: ^+, k ,4 , gf, '
[' ~)
- y t
.,..
s) > i i f
> t
- t
. , s, ' by * N. ). , * ' % f,
g
? ,
"
, , g , , 4 .
- 3
' J
- g3
j , , i t- +- ,(
y e.
' l[ .
T-
i .* c, ,3 , ' ' ' ' }-.
- o
. N.
~P j ., s g - b); s e s - f.
s ,, r- ' ' t.
- f d y
- s
' + ,, '
-g , s , , ,f.
s
, ',
' . , , , _
t q < n , a 7--
4 , e . p s , y ' t' b . [. g ) j , g , { , ,
a , L F y
c,+ + # ..-( , g d -' g g - , _
, - - f . - _ h,,
s '
g% ? ' y y n , n ~ h
v _.
??, . s ' i'. , i k. j .; i y e 9.' ' t _,
' ^ 'Y
- h?
, e"~ n - 'm g- ,
t > , .9 '14 ' 'n , t '. q i ' . , , s ( i j . - }}