IR 05000293/1977021
| ML20029A396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1977 |
| From: | Knapp P, Neely D, Plumlee K, Jason White NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029A392 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-449 50-293-77-21, NUDOCS 9102210172 | |
| Download: ML20029A396 (21) | |
Text
y+~#.tpwnstw>nJ.cewiNQ'eyp EENU7F'TJ;T.e; r.54'f: p.%cs,%h;},.5&;Im; i h-fGWSSf$fE"MR.C,jdd.2 ~mm e,i%W*M'QUZE?t'TF
&, &i% %% ::=$Trm hb.XGS.itR$GEC+Eirk Mu% AsM d
.
l m
m.ch plN_
'l t'.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OfflCE OF INSPCCTION AND ENTORC[ MENT.
e.;;
f)J,fe$
W.f A
W
'
y&
gg
'
.
"s'*"'
. m p.. y.
q;p Ed
' Report No. 77*2I g
k[v.(
,6 [. ". "
"
.
r wagq
.,.
.
fff
- ~
Doc ht No. 5_0 291
y.
,,h License No, 0PR 35-Priority Category c
I g
-
.
__,
~
w,,
Licensee:
Boston Edison ComaLny j
A00 Boylston Street
! h, e
-
--
u.a..
Boston,-Hassachusetts 02199
%
'
h'
.,
.s n
Unit I g
$
. Facility Name:- Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 3 bM Inspection at:
Plymouth, Massachusetts-kf EbA M
m.
,
r hh:
gspection conducte : Ay ust 9-12T August 15 August 31-Septembcr 2 September 3-6, vg; e ter6 16, 1977
.:
.
W"
@*
J Nspectors:
-
/
n
-.
_.
.
.
date signed J,eil White, Radiati n Speciast
p af m _ \\I ~1 ~7 &, ~ n c ,- $d 'g-0 Nei N ajiatio5 Speci\\ list $ te' signed g= ff p4 /v/ >~' 7 P.g NYM-in .#K.? ' PIImi , Rad ation Specialist date signed - -% proved y:
M/2-- M l , g ned .__.
g h' ' P. J. Knapp, Chief, $ is: i - Radiation Support Section M s ' e o M T 4)j . Ihspection Spury: C ! $. Au M .IdnsectiononAucust9-12,15T 1977'TVepy~rt No. Sc-293/7 bust 31-Septegber. 2, Sy
~ [. t >T
. wes$d Xrea s,Inspeq3ed,: Rou(EGnannounced inspection of thefpTdfRTo?)MW er ~ (;' i e.a Trogram during a rajor outage, including Radiation Protection Procedures;- , fwr,M i 0F 5ntzation; Training;1 Exposure Control; Respiratory. Frotection Program; ri
LPosting and Control; Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control; Surveys; and Q h' f a\\ p; . tours of 'the plant areas y ttpon arrival, areas where work was being conducted Ji . _ q iwere examined.,'.o review radiation safety control procedures and practices, with
hMb 7particular attention being focused in areas where high radiation levels were e , [4 ' W = present. -The initial inspection and area examination was conducted during non-J@.7 p regular hours (Aagust 9,1977, 7:00 p.m.-II:00 p.m.)- and several times during subsequent visits to the site non regular hour inspections were condu::ted to A , ,.74
- observe selected wrk activities. The inspection. involved 18') inspector-hours -
C g~~ M
- ? site-by three NRTinspectors.
4' . b t= w { Q[$.k . - E % #] Region ! Fonn112 er : ! . . & (Rev. April 77.). ' . y . w - . '4
' 9102210172 910a06 ~
- yaNmfam aga,cw
- r.,404h 1 kp nun L. 2.L..N. hhbh{.h, $$Yw+e--Arm,hqqpphahh b$
e
k~ .
- >, a - ,. -,- , _ - . . . ,
Q%9223%'M@INIfdk35$$$bhMNhN$0U55 Rh:=g.g).--_ ._. _ ___ _.
"gTft%$W%;=m7---. 44MM . _._ _ i ' i Iki$$$$$$ i '.Of"A. =;;,s.madW an i E*IT4',wp 43r - y%N%
.
. f.%tk .
NRW.R .. .
My;,y.m.u. r.e. L trEction Sumary ompliance were found in /?if'".!il,. found in one area (Inf raction - ,2ffl6Ni.g 5~re~e~ areas; two apparent items of noncomplianc itIG }7.df.%jv; infraction - failure . . ith 10 CFR 20.101;103. Paragraph 5)and i h 10 CFR 20.
ehn.
!sults: allure to survey to assure compliance wsuitable air samples-in accorda liance was found in each of the following areas:diation ar ( 4,d? dance %5%O 4h1
a container of radioactive material in accor L'(infraction f ailure to post or barricade high ra o take ane apparent item of noncomp ( At ?*W
(infraction failure to complete Form NRC-4 10 CFR 20.101, Paragraph 7); (infraction ion - ,i}s$~f*% it; deficiency failure to idei tif ith the requirements of 10 CFR 20,drech k}$.dil,.Y alth 10 CFR 20, 203, Paragraph 6 ;- ' for an Individual in accordance with W 8. U
failure to obtain required approval for proce u t dhere to Health Physics procedures, ' rw failure'to prepare a procedure consistent w .h 'M h $w,'j& Paragraph 3 ; (tr. fraction failure to a dh kf Paragraph 2 D$If y g.
ch. t,d,f- . 9'%
h.. . N "
- W-i' ;*%
$;j h J (" hifs5 '5kff i ' JM It) QnG N .t.w u(.Ny*M'd.
- .. -e !!!S:MW*y a t $w.w$QW o J sy
mm. I'.. - .n} Y} Jrc} i-9;
. % 's' 'e . IO; D [Y ' $
55 J .. mw ,t.'] Vf1M
.-Dt $}$$fi AZ s?.9f U.
, :.. .h
Th . gm?u; h; - O w tdfp h g , b-a> _en.... A_s__nm a.= _... _, % - ~~~ ---,.-.__,__ m,_,
f I hh hhY[*M$ti,-dg.dg#j;. . A $$d,t L
P7 dj;p
5@"M Qi - t& , - r%. jg; f Wf g.
TV b,2;: 1 w
- 1
.. ') [ WM g, EG.U 5 , s.. N" b[ N, ; gew i 1,. Persons Contacted- [kY h Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PitM) - f',' + .. [ h'h] P. McGuire,' Hanager, . R. Swetnam, Radiological Health and Safety Engineer, Boston ' N ld]l - Edison,(BEco) M. Haughton, Chief Technical Engineer, (PHPS) f'$ , @j{-j W.'Hoey, Health Physics Engineer, (Pf(PS)) .: t% R. Shult, Health Physics Engineer, (PNPS E,j _ r.
I g These persons were also in attendance at the management exit interview ( g
conducted.on September 16.-1977.
i ]. -$ y - The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee
-m
- M e@loyees, including exmbers of the Health Physics (HP) staff U, . gyg (station and centractor), reactor and auxiliary operators and '$p
~r 'n corporate quality assurance personnel.
. ': . g$g. , Radiation Protection _Prccedures ~ , . 2.
E Oi-s.7 ' The inspector reviewed the licensee's HP procedures for consistency $
- '
E " with the~ following requirerents: (i) .- s Technical Specification 6.8, " Procedures" t to - < y#w@sl ^N- -- Q ' Technical Specification 6.11. " Radiation Protection Program" l, bl. -- y --- -10 CFR 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation" , .x " .: o-ANSI N 18.7-1972, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power { nd ~
o -- Plants.
k g e Regulatory Guide 1.33, PQuality Assurance Program Requirements" g } - < -- ? The inspector noted that Technical: Specification 6.11, "P.adiation = f L
- d
- Protection Program," states the following: ?- ' c; " Procedures for personnel radiation prutection shall'be prepared L( ' ' - ~ consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall Le . u,
- approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving[ . I.
personnel radiation exposure."
igg '
, r ,n
, J .m kkhd != i R$
IA f jf Mf,iW h % $ % Atw q M % is w M m.~~g;yr"rp! b h i? M *M M M 35h, p
- evti,Tgigggg@Wiw p.x,.
- N N tE TarM[ONh, $MNGOEh .Udh l y.?:xx.;: ~; h[
- S
$ <3j ?, &q;,A!)h . -
-
., , g ' -
I ' ' {,lf.,$y.kh .a. t.t..:e . -e fffWeh !x t.n., Contrary to this requirecent, the following exanoles of nnncompliance ', &,?,g;gy , with this requirerent were nbserved: . w a a a.
s. A.
Procedure 6.1022. " Radiation Work Permit (RWP),* Revision Ot.
m$-vi@ "E*b$? -W.
dated May 11, 1977, states in Precauti_on_, Paragraph 1. "It is - MN tnc responsibility of the firsi Tine supervisor and the individuals
M "h.$"[/,,oT working for the supervisor under the control of an RWP, to ~Q-q follow all instructiorson the RWP"; and in-Urocedure, Paragraph 3, "The work group supervisor obtains a blank U..T an_d fills in g.iWre the date, location and description of the job, estimated tire gg' w.,g( E of job and lists the nanes of personnel to perform the work . . DJ under the control of the RWP..." i ' (1) Contrary to this procedure, on August 31, 1977, on the ,$..c3 s % h*th'*h4 Turbine Operating Floor, three individuals were observed d 'O in the work area without the protective clothing, i.e.
-,$ g.jg hoods, that were required Pursuant to RWP 77 696, Control ' tyg[I. 'r Valve Work.
(.fe.,j [! Upon notification, a licensee representative initiated corrective action particular to this finding.
- g a (2) Contrary to this procedure, on September 2, i977, the !n, q .. L Torus Cocpar+. rent Cover (flW) was opened without coverage J s k.F f(g;p;mR!ph being provided by the Health Physics Departrent pursuant to stated instructions on RWP 77-819, " Opening tN Torus , - tn }u.4iQ Coerartrent Manway."
w.
n.' .s m N .+9l ~ B.
Procedure 6.1-023. " Extended Radiation Work Permit issuance .' r and Use, Revision 1, dated June 28, 1977, states the following: ! ~pt ~ b i ,.- -o entry requirecents shall be updated at least conthly."
. $ N'?.; a Prerequisites. Paragraph D.1 " Posted survey data and i R a , Phi 'D - Procedure, Paragraph F.2.
"If an extended RWP is feasible.
- 3' k;.e,g-;.g g qi IIealth Physics supervisory personnel will establish a lg' g survey frequency for the area not to exceed one month."
Procedure Paragraph F.6.
" Survey data and entry requirements - - GTTTTe70sted at the entrance to each area and controlled ?O
f by an extended RWP " h,weg? - Contrary to-these procedural requirements the following were -* j% (Ei-g g 5 e't u-observed: % C>'t . x%asta @M.Q.w q.RNI c @$NfI ---a_ -. n + e _
Q -?5'%E%y, t'MAh'AL*2?,^W 79.v.;'f:i ' N '.f:p '..h. 9l Og%'D 8.::..e, F.'.. e. -.,,h,g.y.g,;,;.u a,,, ,. ;,.y. J, 1 V. ..t - . ,..
- -
' ww y.r- -4 c. '. e% iv . t . e -.. m r. Q H * %[A. C. g.s.. Q f g y0 N N ' W R W r O * W L Fa .v . . . W G * yO A 3 + hd .@h idsWih h .. - buq ( INhisT - W?LM@ F '.' N.Kh GDfT .,i h[h!h] O '
M & '
Augus', In.107 7, Chemical '.ht te T illar Cuhirl+, " A" l 14 thad - f,' l
. -- ) Filter - The inwetter noted tha t vceu to these twv
' -
.. areas was permittad by estended RWP 17-1 A. hewever, it . . was observed thit the *nt.rancas tn the ercas did not have
- 't survey data posted as srecified by proredore. PM ag a;ch
'J.
3L epj r.6.
- ' August 10, 1977, War.te Compactor - The inspector noted -- k'M.
that operation of the compactor was p'ermitt:sd by extended Li-9 $4
RWP 77-1 A, however, it was cbserved that the entrance to ? kb the watte compactor area did not have any survey data Mfsg posted as specified by, Pro _codure, Paragraph F.6.
[.' T )$ghb August 10, 1977 Monitor Tank Room - The inspector noted
i N l,/ht -- y that entrance to this room is permitted by extended RWP
- !
5 9 p',y$ os 77-1A however, it was observed that the posted survey ? !
N was perform d on July 4, 1977, and therefore, the up- . - p dai,ing requirment of Prerequisite., Paragr6ph 0.1. and R T v l,Lp Procedur_e,, Paragraph FIT,~hafnot been ret, j ' e
- MC August 11,1977, "B" Rad Waste Cubicle - The inspector I
-- ' Mf,E*,1 noted that entrance to this cubicle is pemitted by %. W M extended RWP 77-1A, however, it was observed that the f V M lI51 f) posted survey was perfortred on July 9,1977 and there.
. ' M WEM fore, the updating requirement of Prerequisite, Paragraph [ F~il 0.1 and Procedure, Paragraph F.2. iia'd not iieen tret.
l ~ "
- ,
August 9,1977. Reactor Sludge Transfer Cubicle - The t t'd O inspK'.or acted that access to this cubicle is permitted ) i -
-- pani l ql by extended RWP 77-1A.- however, it was observed that the [; gJM$b O entrance to the cubicle did not have any survey data ' posted as specified by Procedure, Paragraph F.6.
,l
MDi C.
Procedure 6.1-024 " Radiological Postiriq of Areas in the i Qbi .4 Station," Revision 0, dated June 28, 1977, states in Procedure, Paragraph 8, " Areas having surf ace contamination - greRer J{M,,' t["h 1 '
- t
than 1000 dpm per 100 cm2 of beta-game activity or 50 dpm per ' M0 cm2 of alpha activity, shall be posted as a surface contamination area with appropriate signs."
t M.
- b .@h Contrary to this procedure, on August 31, 1977, contamination M.7.%q g p)Q g5 present in areas on the Turbine Operating Floor were verified c by t.he inspector to be in excess of 1000 dpm per 100 cm2, but the areas were not posted pursuer.t to the procedural require-j{ggi s i nent.
- ,yg e so
$wn & 5ilh r.v. 7 A . , ,h i w $o_E55am 55.M-@ 55 5 _-
. - - m - ,,,.d.,bbNh sam.. h_j _ y[b.:h.'*,,...h.k.E.e[dhhhhhh-@yg,N.
Nh, ._. . . u,, g. s..., y,. _.. m.. 9., e.. [ .,, MI, -)i? N
- -- - m (%,, M[}N h ' ,, i'
.
~ 9 f.
$[, y h $N e sin D.
Procedure 5.2-001, "PNPS Radiation Exposure Control Program," hN1 E Revision 1A, dated June 28, 1977, requires previous authoriza.
J # '# tion at each administrative perscr.nel exposure limit greater
- #'
than 1000 mrem in a calendar quarter.
The authorization fonn
...
prop am, were unaware that e procedure detailing the require-M k
ments of personnel frisking existed in procedure 6 a 067, f.8)$
F *I@i Q N
k8 consequently the specifications of the precedure were not
%t h[.{
observed.
$$td Upon notification, a licensee representative initiated action fg$$
s%
up,1 7 45
hr to assure the frisking procedure would be enacted and observed.
b 7F edl
$
i F.
Procedure 6.7-104, " Respiratory Training," Revision 0, dated fj < 5;f IM@
May 9,1977, states in Procedure, Paragraph E.2., " Respirators L..
g@g; Tgi
shall not be worn when conditioiis prevent a good face seal.
TtF ETJf Such conditions nwi be a growth of beard, sideburns, a skull {4 cap that, projects under the facepiece, or tefnple pieces on fg m l g 4au
N glasses.
$@m4 ' 26k>h, yff NM Contrary to this procedure, on the following dates personnel t
- --
were observed wearing full face respirators with a skull cap , g$$ or sweatband protruding under the facepiece, consequently f;p;g$v ,g preventing an acceptable seal: , Nq 'u " b August 10, 1977 - Coe person was observed preparing to e 9,y -- enter the refueling floor.
Ya N h. b - Djl August 11, 1977 - Two persons were observed preparing to Z'.4% enter the drywell.
".ygt q -- l@hy wN August 12, 1977 - One person was observed preparing to B N[f o Q --- W.q O enter the drywell.
y$ V::.Wv 119 In all of the cases mentioned, it was apparent to the inspector $h.' r > M that the personnel would have been able to enter areas in b& which respiratory protection was required directly, had not hT/ MQ
- he L[f the inspector noti'ied a licensee representative.
e4ih Upon notification, a licensee representative initiated corrective WNM f.S action and prevented the personnel from entering the areas.
[}GQ; , f(py.y M "t'f $ G.
The findings set forth in paragraphs 2A, 28. 2C, 20. 2E and 2F, renresent noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.11, ! is & ??fd and the inspector noted that items of this nature had been . T.y W g'(g.
previously cited in Inspection Reports 77-09, 77-16, 76-27 and (-?, 76-12; and are therefore recurrent. (293/77-21-01) g,% . < . jlI '$ a:0 nwm
d $' T/N2 M}id . sdhwwhft . " gpglh% % fpp%y ; dMJgd99 hcypmmm pWmgimN ams wq y ? wym?m $ggg,a gg%pA a % dip &mm.!,k_AugMM&%%@am . 4Ka He Mihm& e
gg wom , - - - - _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _____
" h '4.
n . - Q2.. d I-rt & tav ~h @PL l , Q gNM Y h-. by:% Oc
Ey A <g - e; r. - , hm$ ..r H.
Tuhnical SpecificAtton 6.8, "Procedores", s'.stes in part: IM8c PW g
- h3 A.
Written proceduret and cdministrative pol'cles shall be y'AE , @MP l established, irpicmented and reintained t' 3t reet or , exce::d the requirements and recorventations of Section i b.4 5.1 and 5.3-of JNst (118,7 - 1972 and Apper.dtx 'A" of -~/a ptd USHRC Gagulatory Guide 1.33, except as provided in 6.8.6 fh@ g g' -; ? and 6.8.C below.
5 '
B.
Each p.tcedure and administrative policy of 6.8 A above, UNdl1 e and changes thereto, shall be reviewed by the Operctions GE [Lg'M Review Comnittee, (ORC) and approved by the Station
' O' Hanager prior to implementation and periodically as set n forth in statim procedures.
& o.
. M ' .3 C.
Temporary changet to procedures of 6.8.A above may be . &;yj i made provided: Mib P h~. . 1.
The itatent of the original procedure is not altered.
R@p - The change is approved b/ two members of the plant 2.
a I L manageocnt staf f, at least one of whom hold a Senior M* _ Renew Operator's licer.se on the unit affected.
ik$ +e . s Q'-$g.
t. 3.
Tha change.is documnted, reviewed subsequently by W y- -the ORC, and approved tj the Station Manager within F 7 days of implementation.
. , . ,.s Appendix ?A" cf USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.30. " Quality h[$j o O, Assurance Frogram Requirements," identifies.in Section " ';. ; G.S.e. "Radiaticn Work Pemit Pmcedure," as an essential h
.
h instruction required for the operation of a nuclear power P4i h g plant; k m, ' - Contracy to these requirements, the inspector noted the fM ; S % following:. . W3 r . 14,- 1977,: it was observed that the @'d. j Qn On September ' )icensea had established and implemented a program-i - . gd for evaluating an individual's current quarterly El t l exposure control required when (Se individual.is . $' . exposure status for the purpose of detennining the
@(@ assigned to perfom work in accordance with,a Radiation l (fork Permit. This program,was based upon a document ig l Wj h$l
- f w
y$ W y $ su gh . t <yk il di l > > e, < - .
$N.$@$$'N S$b[EE/I8f3d$I N $$5E 5 $ $ $@3 p% f k [M.EINN-9 AdWJMNy;.'. j bf h$bNkN.h . MdlNdiis < su h.*Tgb l %Y:'; Pa % 6(.$,1-fl .. >hf*"RM 4. Or:
'* K.# Q.;$ S if , ,.. .
.<(',p J m / ' ' i !g ?,t,c g q .
k f d h-that the licensee referred tr af a RadtAtton Esposure Permit (PEP Card), which prov ded a rsnning total of fr.MdMS. T ' ' an individual's current quarterly exposur t as AQ)hpM~. determined frtm TLD and pocket c'mimter rtadeuts, g yi kww 1his RET program was used h lieu of the requirerent fj'IfJr.<piegt M:&rgihkpA in procedure 6.1022. "Radistion Work Permit," Rev.
.gd'T!;4: 0, Section 6.f which indicates *. hat a ficalth Physics F,y/2;W:dW;pfh :
- Q --
hr "$m[YN representtttive is assigned the retoonsibility of 3;n evaluating the accesla ti"e current quarterly exposure P' ;W.
M h@. for those individuals previcas(y listed on the RWP by the work grcup supervisor pursuant to Section 3 of thet proceder t.
The SEP card system had been in use fer rnore than 7 M{ijgg p( G z (hg'Q2.W['y[Q days and none of the rev'tws and approv ls requircJ p by Technical S ecificat.ict 6.8 had been cabined, y*g.;.; Npk"h'h. hs The inspector noted tha'c the REP program as i racticed i e
' (and as described by licensee representathes) was an . , O essential elertent of the Radiation Work Fermit (RWp) in /# e M t3at it allowd rapid assessenent of an individual's M ? a current quarterly exposure prfor to allcuing the person bq A
to perform wntk controlled by a RWP. The inspector F
' ~ observed thtt the REP program wL not discussed in sny
- fM.?
d$y approved procedure nor was procedure 3.1-022. " Radiation d,,, j 8, g.-f2.Q Work Permit," arnended, pursuant to the requirev.nts of $@P EW,.. My Technical Specification 6.8. to reflect the use and
g purpose of REP cards for RWP controlled work.
&*c L 4.< u.
. idhg@ysN W+- e - N The inspector identified this item as noncompliance with g%, h%jqil Tec..ical Specification 6.8 in that the licensee had instituted
/d
- [%g&g ~ a chai.y to procedure b.1-022 without the review and appron1 O required by Technical Specification 6.8 (293/77-21 02).
, kj..f $@AM$ r ~ .e
a Upon notification, the licensee's representative indicated %[q@ jig ~ W that action would be takett to. assure that the PJP progya 4 was M addressed in an approved w? itten procedure parsuant to tae A.-::m ?jh [ g,TJ appitcable requirements.
, .O, g:fjeh ' g[ f d.,i. g I Procedure 6.1-020, "Hesitii Physin Guideltr.es," Revision 1, 'I. dated June 28,19P, indicates the regulatory 11: nits as expressed in 10 CFR 20.101, " Exposure of individua? s to radiation in y w h hitt w fikd$, pWW[Y[M restricted areas," as guidelines and states in Bismsfon s Mr "The indicated guidelines tre no: absolute limiis Fit rey be h .D incrfeased or decreased as retermined by Her.1th Ry',1cs SuperVis0r*/ l Personnel."
, dfy,.gg S S% gJ kwr!. ::bW r Qug's-:p'%m t / 6vi$ sr'.w - a,4 - % d M S $ $ R N @ 2 9 M. S $ 1
- s
- ' -
-i.- s
~ v w. A.. w,T W R.5, j;GG5EE m ?.han.3;MhRh2iMi$$w?2 b %:w.,%ca.a m mam wpf,ute.we,u.m._;, w r 4WGif~k.Ns' *.v;;.CW.
R... &w.m 3w~= wf tj d n u rsu m 9 2 W Lii M MA: Ki.s s.
s.[~.y.n: s ?, ', a)? ]
y.5.15., s .ag D.,.y4 y ter T '( *.. q / k dM).7 O
r,.w 'wr ,(1 yp m
- i
'[<imh cre.w . I t ,
- -. **
The inspector observed on August 10,19N, that the statemnts 1. W.Y 4 < expressed in this procedure are not consistent with 10 CFR 20 RPO.F .{ as is required by the Technical Specification 6.11, ir that W7
, the limits specified in 10 CfR 20.101 are absolute requ!!rmnts.
K.4fMC ' t and in fact my not ba amnded, i.e., increased in the normal $2K situations. This finding c presents noncompliance with 'echt.ical P fi, f :.
- ,
. (.N.7 p t
Specification 6.11 which sta tes, "Proceduns for personnel l l radiation protection shall be nreparad.onsistent with tt r y requirements of 10 CFR 20... " ( ?P/i i-03) Mitsi
QR.
& W[e M Upon notification, a 11censeo regamtative incMed that %:E j action LM1d be taken to amnd the procedere to c< f *. rm with t/ Q, L.$b H the intent of 10 CFR 20.
NW , rfqa n.' r a_t i_o n_, ,%y. . 3.
a ca [i h, 'JI 2 ' I M The outage organi:t N, of the HP function is as cusc.. bed b.
j;~$h1 O t'lgui-e o; the noms 1 su '. tir' organizatiov of the HP function it , n described in Technitai !pecification 6.2.8, and is depicted in f,% t;C.
, g s'ygi, j Figurr.A.
. y (fM. ,...:- p@h . _.
$ Q %! 11censee has s ta ted the fi.. lowing regan'ing the mnagerent of ^ M.,, the HP function q;: O[~ ~FCC c%r.
l A.
Under both outage and normal conditions, the responsibility [ O to fcr ir'pleenting and mnaging the !!adiation Frotection Program pr.gia.$. ./! is assigned to the Chief Technical Engineer (C1E).
Eb eq m;w.
/l Under normi conditions, the Corporate Radiological Fealth and i.h - + " op.0 ( S.
W Safety Engineer (Corporate Health rhysicist) is charged with hW6 '" !fy#y j the responsibility to provide an overview of the BECo HP iho.
o I < program; and to provide technical assistance and consu' : tion
7 o in the area of health physics for individual BEco plants. For M'd i S the duratinn of the current outage at Pilgrim, Unit 1, the N?d } Corporate Health Physicist augmnts the unageenent of the $U2$h = station HP program and adviscs the Station Man d!'MN '@ CTE as necessary in the implementation of the ha er and P'6"&E .T prog ram. The 'G Y 4; inspector noted that the Corporate Health Physicist is indicated 4]f .by BECo as the individual that is presently parforming the % > function of Radiation Protection Panager as described in %b ' h Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and Training." The kM3 inspector has verified that this individual does reet the b%#.4 !; minimum qualifications for this position but is not considwed f"+ h
, ' as a nember of tre facility staff under normal operating .z.'- ' conditions is required by the forthcoming amndment to Technical .M ' Specification 6.3, " Facility Staff Qualifications."
' g 3 0 ksM N QW.
' (h 4; ;
- .3:
3: . }
7.' '.Yl.
WnTWM. MW - M1FT!!*WWOKf*"?F*T?!y.,9MWM6?tF.qrgif(uq M b.{M?W37ROMWD? 'y:n.d Q%p.%W%m%p@k AWM gp%qpw94@564Ma$@s$$@7Yg?M ^ M h k 4 %; gJ sg.
g $!& w@M W@w% W W M y1$ "*"NE W Mkw! S$9 d li M E M _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Me$. '
cot 25 V393
~ Mj - .. .7 m ry-n, mm.,.,. mm. w . e.ap m*. %e. - s . . _ , . - { 7.n . t r u, +o 1.w... -. - - - A7sE $ $ h;4.r.
m - - n ,m -- f>.' sgy% mj FIG'RE A M00'At. OP.CMU.ATICr4
, wap%. m..s.
-. 15-- xj e X < Rih n
- ;
l'Qift.,n,a..if - 5tzttsn Y.ans9er in s.
m;m i
- ..
.h.n.igT W }*2. W. g l 5:. - .-,- - [bgdt$h Chf er Technical Engfrmar ~,, e e34A&Q Y. O. Mambten w=iSs.%. n - t.
% ea wFR -- E.m r < . s: ' y w-(Q b;a:g.
j gg o f,.s.
- nh - hgG,%p. h..n e.c,., < <- 3 y
- ffd ITechMcal Staf 4 kpt-
.- %,[mu b hb D 4: s@.%r.Q - a , , [i'. *Q jg! Feactor Engtreer(sfj T..eetcal Engineer (s) IWalm aymstgmee g i i - T, .,,~,.,*s2,< -pt . S#.wc, .. r,g %.w;.~m.n-#j,
.. . .r..s. , a J!al! 3:M.'" @ Muclear Techn! clans Cheatcal Technic 1ans Fealth Physics Technfcfans
- ~.,4 b.e i
m v.p. pe aa.u. r
- , -.
- -
5,. %c.4 5.,y+w%,j . g, y i . gg11 Q sy p u ~? ff a. -- e r-G.NT$, ' s
p 4, ' Ab* IIo.iM [
,L-v',. i g ffff,;. I, a;w'c - h, p-g
- -e,.c.r; c ;
. Q ' *+ ha,7 b#*, w 4 S l,, .i.
.
. J e isk t 1]r* $. N " 'Y7 .q p r.L b] - }v)* 94.. - $ 3., ;n,G ':r M N bfrf ' e . m a m A s,.: r4- - F :- >l;a.3 o. q y f Jt y,,, y
p*d. x
4.,g %.v:,!w '.ty'. h,.cd 4i.- .
- 2,
- -s - WVQe ' W A A. e Q '/E*-#, gfg g.
l "; '. :-
. V; , %.1. % ~r%t hr -.
- / f-e Qfv-Q'" -b Mvf8'M' d. L) *
-
. tne3 . F e'3*V TyM.
..i. . - g
- 1
- <r s o~4 %s t i. As,4.3 ;. ' W ;,a .M *w ~. r% g. - H' .<%r'i$u *^fWi b- ,J &,. '
I.;s ) W; :ticW. s Qh:f.- p= a & c - h. a :b J. r. ,n @ut 'M WsD WT . 4quw' -1 #vs ?:. .;i6_N6'i@d A p4 Q
w.,s:, ;ym . r - s a n ,1 9.e* * 6 b.h_ h.% ,'J
s % ~ ~3 :.y ,. . 1. e - ~ .m g J w O7 -
. Il. * ~I .f^ .E [ ' A..q%,.ym:=.-:(;i>%,,),y W s.:s..9cy w,ww'sa%-(;n? rcnu . , k
' ' ~ 3.R w w:ww.'n - w w.w; Pe et: -
r..a. t.Wp,g. ;.:n.-..n.
%.. ~ch m., t .S&-7U %. :~.4.%ysS 4'J; :,g Y - wv9e ~;,,ngi / _'i;, MC;_ Mast.a..Al% 1'Wi.+% ~ q' ": x m.,. . aru - - .' R f4 )u"1,03.3 '. 9 7,,. M.. /.l 4 e W'j e ; g%. +e W,',,p.?. m. - G . c . . T , Di 3.:w, y9 "p.". T. 3,-4.a..,. Gg< hy Nf,.n - - - - - - - n,..t,.*a n < s e t +. %, a.. M 4. :8 f. P. : , . ., p.y ; - y;*stp-.~.pa c, .w. N O) e;..3. OsN,f,.k. &MM,b~ < . -r
-- z, ..h.4t4; d.5; r.
,a ..-., e.
h h y[...'.; w b.; i ~h ,. 5bOh h b+. w..N.b; ids.IdN N ~MED Mph g'$[[ Nhb u..k $ pu)hb 1.d O M N h d.. +: k e n.,bh.m f' 'D[1'd E $ N.. : .c.e, - , mpu . ,o . .:. : Nt2M DES" fYE'-Nb[EE bh7E
~ o o as - 04 s og o gi $o
- - kgt .
~ CUTAE OPGANIZATIOPt C - A FIGUFE B 3.,.,5 - . v1,. u n<v F // pt et . O'* *.j' tf .<h Station Manager Wn e 'c g r
k ri.I),I 2, w, ' (1) - .5 - cT-
- S d */6<
ygj; '4' . hp s g g,1J . th - Chief Techntcal Engineer gp$ - ft) ' g* M. D. Naut;hten yf 4, J M i I AbIl j P3ua1itv Cmtml Auditori 10fftre stafd b.- l hkE^ M.'4 D, h . b. y"d, ca u.
- (2) _ ! I l = I I IActing NP Encina rl' IMP En9 reerl IMP En W eerl %$. ', .4 I *R. L. Swetnmari ! Site Coordinator ~ l
- [
b;ki! N*ff -
- Nuclear Support 3
3,hs*J' t Tervices I.
Au s z.. W}*. ? J l# Q s' a=. . s GyC ~ Exposure h)f I k@a,k Condenser Bay. Bicorss Tra inin't Refueling Floor RQ*gg I l l Turbine Dect gy, i ,, ! 3(p@ ww m3 s 3 H.P. Supervisors Adefnistration TLD-TRAP C. U. resineralizer d
- 8 H.P. Technictans 6 clerks 3 clerks Drywl1 r 7[V,]
- 5 clerks i, f Counting Roon
$ @JD-Balance of Plant NS it ' {Ih?.
(C5;E fh. j ij
- 20 H.P. Technicians h'gh.
(1) Designated as the person responsible to fg5"j s 7 Clerks manage and iglement the H.P. function; 4.f.z l ~%u bL member of the facility staff - bh f
[
- f2) a.
Designated as the P>tdfation Protection [.[' ;j j[, j; Manager pursuant to Regulatory Guide 1.8 d.
(27.$ -w :, " N[fU"fM).
- the cutage but is not a member of hiii6, b.
Temporarily assigned to Pilgrim for TAlb h6 %;)t.ce.g$.h]g J . cr.. l7 the **ctlity staff . a.n 4.m.
7__r e. >
- 3 v,y.,t.<g.
pwnauw=, . +.n.= u:p p v.a.~ L-~ n %. ,f fh h (' i ~Q r n.
k A kb " - . ' -- ,., , " -r--- v.
. ., _,,,....
. -. _ _ _. _ - .._.. .. _... _ _ .._ _ _ E.'iNdNN'lyME$dkMdhh,wpg*[b w.%'m".ps."Ly?" .,:Q. -r ~ p ea rpmy32R.mmqMdiGa m m g h M t * Q:. : m - .u - . . dW hd Wmu .Mank MMm2 if%y hs5%nm mr&.%,W.'"), - 'd Tr*l.u Wa.
- p ~ o-w.- v > u.. . . . V, h a ' e p$ < q . ' , $,h' d.h Xf5 Q'
liC [! ".T kp& s b.k The inspector noted tbst the individual designated to fulfill' tM D' position of Radiation Trotection Panager (RPM) is not charged with b.P.. , W'@M
th6 responsibility of mamging the Pilgrim, l' nit 1, Radiation p.4 Protection Program and is not a rvmber of the facility staff as is 4*J' g the intent of the Technical Specification 5.3 and Regulatory Guide f?' *' Wa flig This finding is considered unresolved pending a review of the h h.N W@ 4-mnage' rent of the Radiation Protection Program upon issuance of the t 8:1 arendment to Technical Specification 6.3.
(77 21 04) % m d
Posting _a_n.,d Control iylJ
In reviewing the licensce's control of high radiation areas, the
o inspector noted that Technical Specification 6.13A "High Radiation k3.
? ~' f Area,' states the following y: . "In lieu of the " control device' or ' alarm signal' required by gh: s n el[., b paragraph 20.203(c)(2) of 10 CFR 20 an acceptable alternate d -* E to controlling access to a high radiation ares is as follows: %yn-j%. j m
i g A.
Each High Radiation Area in which the intensity of radiation it.:
- h%
is greater tLsn 100 mrem /hr tvt less than 1000 mrem /hr b 9 x M shall be barricaded and conspicously posted as a H1 h a6 @M Rad'.nion Area and entrance thereto siall be contro led fjM fdj by 125mnce of a Radiation Work Permit and any individual C.L.
or group of individuals permitted to enter such areas C 4/5 - M shall be provided vith a radiation renitoring device M O which continuously indicates the radiation dose in the
. y '** -O h.: .
- y Contrary to this requirement, on August 9,1977, during a tour of the facility, the inspector noted the following examples of non-Mga
- .s cervitance
g, .
Wa-A.
Radioactive Waste i.evel,13' elevation - The inspector noted fy as V that the Control Panel for the Vrte Concentrator Cubicle was I pi . provided with doors that gave access to an arca in which a Ld j Njor portion of the body could be exposed to dose rates in p.: excess of 100 mrem /hr; the inspector observed that r.either the fS - area nor the doors in question were posted as a H1 h Radiation M Area. The accompanying licensee representative in tiated I?-J.' cc5 action to establish the required posting.
$1 y-ipp
- %
y t '.' & 'r .#.~;e p ., W $ $ .. {$ R; ' . w w anm e% m sm m y% m m [ Q IB M PL*3 fit % Q *j f R 5 & T m.mmm.m .m h- $; db
WW*Y.Yk.m+$ f M[t -~- $h 'ldNNh$6$hhh 1[d bhMN.hhh! . ,
MN$hbbk$$[jy@Abbk!NbEkhhkhkki!k,Thif-fk
${ & WCW*"GdCT3SdgAIRf WHW9 $
Etl R"41 . ' ' ~ un h MR %' " M Ro $3 b IhD B.
Radioactive Waste level,13' elevation - The inspector noted N' Gjs that the Turbine Building Equipment and floor Drain $urnp Ares ,k.
' M was barricaded and posted as a High Radiation Area on this fwlN date with the exception of the step off pad access which
(TK provided entry to the area. The inspector reasured dose rates pm 6f as high as 260 mrem /hr at epproximtely 3 feet above the sump SW M deck plates.
Q,; re rM , !$ On August 15, 1977, the inspector again examined this area and >$ g% found that ',ns entire barricade and High Radiation Area postings
- g d 6 were reecve0. Jroviding complete unrestricted access to the W
'3 e now unposted 'rea.
The inspector confirfred that th* area WG n radiation 1r. vel was still as high as 260 mrem /hr at approximtely fk* Lt y 'O 3 feet atme tre sury deck plates.
'y ) M The accomptnying licensee representative initiated action to 4k d7 establish the required barricades and postings.
f k"i $p f C.
.Radioactise elaste level 13' elevation The inspector noted g I M 'd that a pip, located on top of the Chemical Vaste filter Cubicle i.' Of was poste9 with a hot spot sticker indicating 1 R/hr. The @h g sticker tes dated September 27, 1976. The inspector observed .j; IO Wg that acc ess to this area ms provided by a permanently affixed ja 7, N ladder s t.tacl ed to-the cubicle. The inspector performed a qi j survey in tha area and noted that radiation levels existed in ,#e# {i the area such that a mjor. portion of the tody (i.e. the headt a ~ il lenses o' the eyes) could be exposed to dose rates as high as p (fSj 140 mree,hr. The area was not barricaded and was not posted 4y O o as a high Miation areas 3.
Itd$ The accenying licensee representative initiated action to ad m@t post aad t'arricade the area.- p' a (*f' D O.
Reactor silding, 51' elevation - The inspector noted that a gr stai'rel providing ingress to the 51' elevation ws posted as
- R;4 g<.
un Aadiation Area but did not have a barricade in place.
g4 ! p*[Q a n Irspector verified that radiation levels in the stairwell Mi ' id The were such that a mjor portion of the body could be exposed to Q: e.h dose rates in excess of 100 inrem/hr.. H[f M 3" The licensee representative indicated that actico would be h ph, taken to adequately post and barricade the area as required, S'U n ic; -.y , am .w N g w - $ I , G} . h - o . t 3lh $?SII( W[[EEM B M [$ M W M , $f i ! d.. he5 W M k $8$nih M W M !Pn M R R $ y $ % $ % g - --. . .
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ k~y"ThhG 7 [ 4 Ea M E S $ $ M $ M.M.E E*?i3 hilh/a E M & I M O M u = m N X.G . !4u.Mk rbmduMM% data *h8""****** - '-~" """ * ~ * " V '* A*w"gn' ~M :n. n m
D.
- youp
?dMCJG
. s . i
k.3 Rx; ' )$ O Xff . f f.
. Fuel pool Cooling and Heat Exchanger Room The insper. tor noted on Septecber 5.1977, that the access to the subjer.t G.a.gg,. E.
l room was not posted as a High Radiation Area and that one $'1k g. l could enter the high radiation area without cblerving any high d,;q:g 14Cre.a radiation area pnsting. The inspector verif f *4 by reviewing . 9'y&@*! previous survey records and by actual ressurecent that the WW.(u i , radiation levels in tha room were sufficient to cause esposure . l to a major portion of the body in excess of 100 mrtm/hr.
" ill.E ', , Upon notification, the licensee representative initiated ky'illh ' a y action to post the access to the area at required.
g g: 6DN g U These findings represent nonecmpliance with Technical Spe ft- & cation 6.13A. The inspector noted that items of this nat.r3 ' cr @ had been previously cited in inspection reports 77-07 and 76- ' f.d.p N 12. (293/77-21-05) ga, .i e
[ M . . fh, o 5.
Suryeyi !
7-In reviewing the licensee's radiological survey program, the inspector 'kW.q s,, , .: to ' O noted the followingt e " - fM$hh k g' 10 CFR 20.201(b) " Surveys," requires the licensee to roke such y h A.
as may be necessary to assure compliance with all eytg survevt W sections of 10 CFR 20, including 10 r.rR 20.101.
b gh $ . 6d cj 10, 1977, the inspector in Contrary to this regulation, on August - noted that a record of a " survey" of the Chemical and Treated g-i f Water Tank and purp Room was posted at the entrance to the h,al y N 9d room as required by Procedure 6.1023, Paragraph F.6 and dated h(p+?g e? July 4,1977. The inspector observed that entry to the room The inspector also noted Og - was permitted by extended RWP 17-1A.
t o $h. tnat the " survey' infornstion recorded indicated levgls of 3@U radiation and contamir.ation as "> 1 x 106 dpm/100 cm<" and *> W * 4 ?/ Q l E-The " survey" was conducted July 4,1977.
M 5000 mrem /hr."
Personnel entry to this area took place since that time under
h the provisions of the extended b'P.
y,cg
g##~^ . .., ,The inspector observed that the instrument used for the survey - s ad (Eberline R0-2) had a nsximum scale reading of 5000 mrem /hr; '$ consequently, the inspef ter identified that the survey hsd not f(d A been done bec.euse the inetrumnt used had insufficient range Q.iW1.
to pertnit a detemination of the radiation levels present.
WJT The inspector noted that t.ased on this survey, the licensee 2y$M
could not assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.101, " Exposure of ,p e individuals to radiation in restricted areas."
NM $w a~ r#7 a - - - - enaPNGra Q3 gwy'gW Q9&r=w c ={ mn tt h Wryarwmanmem ' ... ?' R$h
- %
m gigQ wxx a f ' kh % hN5 2. m. Lw %,.. ; w... n aw=was W
M le. @e.%w mac &=< awn w$g$*w"Ne%g:nm",;;;E Qf Qy l. _S*$,k " * M g: %nk.w&.i.w% &ffb - $ !. lMvi t , ppg w.
- n - -._ _.., _ _ _ __ , _. __ _ - .. - --
- M. c l M*MIi M @..= g i .
Q $, s.n.,. . ,
y ' . bd.
QM~l ' I6 v
h p%m : ' v.
. % Q W w,;- id$Ed ?Q lipon notification, a licensee representative initiated action to perfom another survey of the area with appropri Ate instru.
f r,%"; ~ e rs {U o agr, y renta tinn, o ? .d @ NI.-^ riq this finding represents noncornpliance with 10 CTR 20,201(b), @ k '- fih 1.e., f ailure f 7 perform a survy suf ficient to pertnit com-bm%'Sh e (293/77 21-06) !M !g.1 p11ance with 10 CrR 20.101.
I
th 10 CFR 20.103 states in part that, "no licensee shall... W /; p-pemit any individual in a restricted area to inhale a quantity B.
E [M of radioactive material in any pertoi of one calendar quarter M[6 $, l greater than the quantity which would result from inhalation '^ 7W' $}$ for 40 hours per week for 13 weehs at uniform con-strations of radioactive mterial in air specified in Appendu B. Table pr.;f.t.
Wi W C I, Column 1... M hp ... for the purposes of determining compliance with the require.
fi t [fg h h a Qq[h ments of this section, the licensee shall use suitable measure- '( w rents of concentrations of radioactive mterials in air for M hh~j detecting ard evaluating airborne radioactivity in restricted Ip;%c; arcat..." This section also states that it is assumed that an - M -- g individual inhales the radicactive m terial at the airborne jf4 - concentration in which the person is present (unless respiratory @1Ji g N.
protection is used pursuant to paragraph (C) of this section.
M@hD T F4 , Contrary to this regulation the inspector observed the following: & tn j ' On August 31. 1977 or the Turbine Operating Floor, qq Q.4 (1) personnel, without respiratory protective equipment, werg h involved in the decontaminat'on of the low Prtssure L@d.
,,,, The inspector observed by reviewing T@*J
gij .. O Turbine blades.
recnrdtofprevious' surveys (August 22,23.and29,1977) w and by actual rneasurement on Au ust 31,1977. thet the D O %* blades had loose surface contam nation - atleast as high k at 160,000 dpc/100 cm2, a level suf ficient to cause is
j,.i b airborne concentrations to exceed, under certain circum = g M stances, the values of 10 CFR 20. Appendix B. Table 1; w but that air samples had not been taten un thest d tes e to permit evaluation of the airborne radioactivity as is %1 g required by 10 CFR 20.103. "Dposure of individuals to icted ' aj ' '"' concentrations of radioactive mterials in air in restr g
a rea s."
b_ M, Upon notification, the licensee representative initiated action to have air samples taken, and to verify that the ffe : ' g current 1cvels of airborne activity were less than the hy;( '
3gp listed values in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table 1.
y W{.py g gp-
- q..
. u , ,m [ ~ a i - m e. _ _n ~ ,__,m, ___ . _._ ~ > - + - - -, -., , "*8" t trwsx ,,,,,
- hMD@(64g;4yjp%#$
- y p;mf.n.xeua.idri.u.QKiay sjr f % H E K.2 i j K O ~ k Q
- N Apdihtkw M!M MM:.:rNn@&jM3w
f h pCOL % =:~39!5! $ M ii5 6 1 6 M E % %. .1L x:w,zmaa.ssumnw% W - = w - Q pk . ' n .. m19 b W g?g.iQ .. .. m .g.
Wik.-. h .
17 h' d y%ny t.
w g@h @( (2) On August 9,10 and 12,19/7, the inspector observed that V air in the Weste Compactor work area. (located on Radioactive
30 Waste 13 foot elevation), ws samled t4y use of a fixed b,r.w $ air sanpling device that was not suitable for the measurement kif ' ' $@J of concentrations of radioactive mterial in air for the Rich purposes of detection and evaluating airborne radioactivity MifiQ /, for the following reasons: j% rip- ,g,N @ . The air sampilng device was located such that it was $ - 5; not monitoring the airborne concentration of radioactive mterial in which the individual was present ${nce [tX2U f it was positioned at least 6 feet from the individual's L~NN
breathing zone; was near the individual's waist MYd / 1cvel and was stationed around a corner and not in a ' ** tr
a direct line with the individurl. The inspector also ,
% -o observed that due to the ventilation arrang* rent,
H air flow ws away from the samplert toward the $
individual and the comsctor, an additional reason a r.
' $ why the cir sampling arrarpment prevented collecting
- Mt:y.4 1j a semple which ws representative of the air in the
~ [% e% (p g vicinity of the operator's breathing zone.
y '". The mode of operation of the air samling device was p continuous, regardless of whether actual waste - 6} --
14 compacting was performed and the filter redium ws "' $wg.V
J evaluated once each 24 hour period. The inspector i e g noted that the ef fect of such operation would te to Wp; ' }E dilute-the air concentrations caused by actual wste Ng/": cc.mpacting with relatively clean air. The result'of E ? O such action is that the assessrent of the Waste f, - f Comacte Operator's intake of radioactive mterial i t; .N O is tesed on airborne concentrations which may be %y j much lower or higher than those to which he was - g: s ! v ] l actually exposed.
' e L.
' The inspector observed that the FWp requirements for this j' q operation specified respiratory protective equipment.
( %. , fj lJpon notification, the licensee representative initiated gg g action to amend the position and operation of the air i g 4,. sampling device.
2,., ; These findings represent noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.103.
"h : ft The inspector noted that an item of this nature had teen d-
previously cited in report 76-27.
(293/77-21-07) .y ' ) $ { t: [t . b
hb ibh -,% g _p p p %w,a n,h,% _.hkk hka#w mp y g
- mwwww
_- _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ _ _. _..G3HSun,,.,. _ __, _ Y Y E$ E& ELM: h . n' a ' s f q ;.
- .' '
n .% s F W6..cPf,
l^ fy;.7Q ;
. O 4%q$
$
Radioactive and Contaminated Faterial Control $!;ff' NA , ' 6.
the in reviewing the 11censee's control of radioactive raterialsIgns.T* y . '* inspector noted that 10 CfR 20.203(f)(1) and (2). ' Caution s k ?
! @M latels, signals and controls," requites that each container of >$ Itcensed roterial bear a durable, clearly visible label showing the i t".
t t Nf radiation caution syntc), the words, ' Caution - Radioactive Fater sE'M & e the identification of its radioactive contents, and that the label I provide sufficient information to pennit individuals h k l ^ lr r . 7 Contrary to this requireeent, on Septeser 3,1977, the inspector[y yffn% ,,; in the noted that a 6' x 6' shipping cask (lousted on a trailer ,4
d vicinity of the Fire System Water Starage Tankst inside a poste M) plg,Wfb radiation arta) contained radioactive mterial sufficient to S ' h produce a radiation level of N 100 nrern/hr at contact
w % ) . requirecents.
? e Open notification, the licensee initiated action 'to resurvey and fTn ",' label the container accortling to the applicable requirements.
O
representsnonccq11ancewith10CrA20.203(f).
' L
xi This findi d - (293/77-21 08) j,.
tt*st - Exposure control
. 7.
in reviewing the licensee's exposure control pitgram, the, inspecto i noted that 10 CFR 20.101(a). ' Exposure of individ ' h n.f qq :. exposure of an individual in a restricted area to one and one-in paragraph tn ,V yW quarter retts per calendar quarter,)except as providedallows a whole to [/ ) )q h d
Paragraph (b 3 rtes per calendar quarter provided certain specified conditions - <<j g,- (b) of that section.
One of these conditions is that the licensee determine M the individual's accumulated occupational dose to the whole body o t Q6 ~ [ ' are riet.
Fom HRC-4, or on a clear and Icgible record contaihing all the o M inferr,ation required in that fom, in accordance with 10 CFR C c .4 20.102, "Dotermination of. acetnulated dose.' f4* ' y Contrary to this requirernent, the inspector cbserved on Septeebe 9l the current calendar quarter without having a c - 16, 1977, m , The inspector noted that there was no reed of the / i ? licensee's effort to obtain reports of the individual's previous on file.
occupational exposure nor was any calculation performed in acco y
- .
- with 10 CFR 20.102.
.. .; .g %@
- / M
- ;&M&Q& Qfjf.,n
. ,.. .. ' + 2 E...E,E,E,m aEEE5 .. s;... E ~ ag ggg - -- -...
dh k"DZ" Fab bk$lnk [
- h [.kf h M O Nl N b $ h d [ ' &f { s h d % % 2& s2&M & M $En & B M M M
fY YEMEUb $W .& $f5N ' w&L % D C'
- %d
" Miisuw c Wh .. gwww WWI5; . , Swe.t . khN b,3s$ .O' to uan;< ssm.tw y '*@ 7 % P- ,%,yj,i 'Upon notific:uun, the licensee representative indicated that endb efforts wvuld be mde to obtain the individual's records of pre- ' vious exposure and that the Tom NRC 4 would be completed.
' This finding represents noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.101. The $l inspector noted that an item of similar nature was cited in report E % 76-27. (293/77-21-09) C' 2lk.
! c in the course of reviewin-the licensce's personnel exposure program,
- g the inspector noted cases where accumulated exposure, as reasured g3nyg;:
by pocket dosimeter, was higher than that reported by the licensee's permnent exposure recording device (TL dosimeter) by a factor as r
.i high as s 1.5; and that the licensee routinely amended pocket
- W
~ <
desireter readouts with the lower TL dosineter readouts without an ( apparent evaluation as to the cause of the inconsistency.
rh' '"" 'n an.V The inspector noted'that the following factors may have a bearing M+ d - on the credibility of the licensee's exposure data.
I "'\\'i.
- i .et - [b;d(2 l 1.
For the duration of the outage. TL do?imeters were read-out oniite on a. frequent t> asis. The process involved reading out ^ @Tn (2) NG-67 types, and two ( ) G-7 types) and determining statis.
w!4 38Q.
' the entire dosinetry packa e (i.e., four (4) TLD chips, two , tical consistency tetwen individual chips.
- .
mi C {[oThu.
N 2.
The pocket dosireter readings were accumulated on the indi.
- ~ " -
vidual's Radiation Exposure Permit (REP)' record and was subject 1 W W II.
g to the discretion of the various persons who read-out and Q recorded the data.
(Failure to define the PIP program by s&&.1 o procedure is noted in Paragraph 2.H of this report.)
j ... .. Y, 3.
Pocket dosireters (self-reading ion chambers) are known to.be > sensitive to a variety of conditions that may affect the l K '
- '
indicated exposure; anong these are shock, temperature, and humidity.
In comparison, these conditions have little or no a c.
effect on the indicated exposures of TL dosineters.
,n(F &<h z.
Quality control of Tt dosincters is generally of a higher degree than for pocket dosireters, since the TL dosimeter is P expected to be the dosireter from which an individual's per-
manent record of exposure is developed.
- 4.w g.
o m t. - This item is regarded as unresolved pending a closer review of the licensee dosimetry capability.
(293/77-2110) ., &..a -
e eL rd - L e awawnmum w758mm:5Mkgy&w
, mma z,,.% wr%M - -_-anns, M.=~Wat;veema ~ m w m.
me swu u hrweAw:s.#dE'hs , cr mE n . -:c m !W: s.1 _, __, -- , . . _.
, ~ _ - --
~ .hy *,u a e f'-,VM.UAf79 . ' pr.a.,s.: e u, .. A.%s.q .. ; ' v
.*
. .h.I ! - '
20 (o Npm M b w,7 $ $ i 4..mia t 8.
Ee.spira tory Protection Proqram_ MffMTQ ' fyk#.N&W
Jr _ ) The inspector reviewed the licensee's respiratory protection pro.
? gram for compliance with the fo11cving specifications:
GyJ.W.
10 CTR 20.103 " Exposure of individuals to concentrations of [$ -- )M]M/// gg/M@~ radioactive r.aterials in air in restricted areas" !$.bf: Ir$ 'wG, Regulatory Guide 8.15, " Acceptable Programs for Respiratory ' d -- Protection * M[i,M;i,M,t '
6.7-101, "FNPS Respiratory Protection Program" -- .. %@ M {".".QW 6.7-102, " Respirator Issuance Field Testing and Wearing"
--
?OTl 6.7-103,Msintenance, Cleaning. Disinfection Decontamination h N -- and Storage of Respirators" [.N _ % 6.7-104, ' Respiratory Training" t 2 % Wi O l. 6;#s.g t
- /narent item of noncompliance (77-21-01) described in Section
2.c.
? p"' f f} .e.VM k p The inspector ncted on Septemter 14, 1977, that the Itcensee had generally reduced efforts to ruintain accountability of exposure of (3 g).@k.
l persoanel to concentrations of radioactivity in air. The inspector j . W%' m deteruirred that this reduction in accountability effort appeared to f r g fp,@h , TT % N be justified in that the concentration of radioactivity in air was Q sufficiently 1cv as not to cause intakes geester than 2 hours in
g d, W4< any one day or 10 hours in any ene week at the unifom concentrations g/fh(pes ~ T6 specified in Appendix B, Table 1, Colum 1 of 10 Cf R 20. The
- T 1 O
inspector observed that such a reduced assessacnt requirerent was Ip %,b 7i fI provided by 10 CFR 20.103, " Exposure of individuals to concentrations (h9 cts 5 1 o of radioacthe auterials in air in restricted areas."
(h c The inspector found that the-licensee appeared to administer the program in accord with the above specifications except as noted in gje - other sections of this report.
mW 6 lf. f vr.
9.
Training Wh.
- t'
. The inspector reviewed the licensee's General Egloyee Training f I'M,9%.h c (GET) program for radiation workers and found that it appeared to meet the requiremnts of 10 CFR 19.12, ' Instructions to workers."
!. Ngl' .
m 4: M h: k wm t b , Dk"'R.'4$ n - fih,&:= ff*IN'EfMf m u m u.rp .
- ff
- .
'b r E0 J.' ' ' '* &k']f.'qi . ggy rammp up y$ y y w}id y n$ N-g y y[4N C 4 W A f$ gdd li$ . , Mig l NM wi WNhn e ' man e s;wrm w en w~~w~nm m,= . m. ( w~. w w'2i.,w.. a ;g g:,; a
. . 5 n a> & m m. & h & f, ng.,gp g, - -wy g. u , wurd ua = '; w y 4 'W2
- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _~._._.._...[ [iC)Z~~E EEszmmensaimM. N.ND !irJ 5 M m$ 7, m y n, ....,s Ws.masm m h. ht k mm2 f' hh '
- y g
' - gb d, . .,4 + ,, M'd2Wid . g '[d,['T$$ ining
- 'pr!
s y P,p % 5j the inspector also revitved the lir.ensee's Health Phy @W$}nM; M ification and Training
N with the licensee's procedure 6.1 112. "Qualof Contract h 5, MA %
- sa '
,,Ih? S,7f.
.
I 1977.
6 W{h 9" y' Unresnived items _ i ed Unresolved items are matters abnut which more infortation is req ') 10.
- ( 4, ! items of % @g a in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, Unresolved itemsd Up.
h 7.
noncompliance, or deviations.the inspection are discussed in Paragrap '}$jA"e - %Ak %"d,@" Exit interview t d in W
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (deno e 11.
b 16, c.% i Taragraph 1) at the conclu$1on of the inspection on Septem er h f#.. . The inspector su u rized the scope and findings of W! M . 1977.
tor .. response to certain of the items discussed by the inspec ' I tiispection, dd b* $ ' E The licensee ackncwledged that a REP card procedure wa y5 w" M
i w@.s j',?% A.
! G (ItemNo. 77 21 02) [$6h"p% [ i such a procedure.
'# ;. % The licensee indicated that he would respond to the other ' items upon receipt of the Hotice of Violation.
B.
<' $.$$ (A s
- !
N hW3h[ i.
g - . . c,
N] V W o . . , , 8@h
- 7h b
. h . % g ik & mg S.: dT - g t @ug RE N . $ bbkh! b f hw a x h f w e ~% A n g % _ e,e m a,k ot m - - - - - -_- }}