IR 05000293/1979007
| ML19323A393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Gallina C, Knapp P, Thonus L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323A391 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-293-79-07, 50-293-79-7, NUDOCS 8004210173 | |
| Download: ML19323A393 (5) | |
Text
_ - _ _
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-293/79-07 Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 Priority Category C
--
Licensee: Boston Edison Company M/C Nuclear 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Facility Name: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection conducted: October 9-10, 1979 Inspectors:
F 2-27-80
'
"
L. H. Thonus Radiation Specialist date signed
'
t-)-- t H^""
2 n-Ge C. O. Galli'na, Investigator date signed
.
.. - - - -..
}
date signed Approved by:
b a% o l' 35-D
~
P. J. Knap~p, Chief, Radiatih Support Section, date signed FF&MS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 9-10, 1979 (Report No. 50-293/79-07)
Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors of the licensee's radiation protection program during operations. Areas inspected included training, surveys, posting and control, and facility tours.
The inspec-tion involved 17 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
'
Region I Form 12 8 0 0 4 210r73 (Rev. April 77)
...
_____
..
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The following technical and supervisory licensee personnel were contacted:
i
- Mr. C. Gaffney, Office Manager
- Mr. M. Hensch, Chief, Radiological Engineer Mr. W. Hoey, Senior Health Physics Engineer Mr. R. Machon, Assistant Station Manager
- Mr. P. McGuire, Station Manager Mr. B. Sklar, Senior Mechanical Engineer Mr. A. Trudeau, Senior Health Physics Engineer The inspectors also contacted approximately 20 other licensee and contractor
,
personnel including members of the security force, health physics technicians, and the members of the Cap-Gun decontamination crew.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
I 2.
Background On October 5, 1979, NRC Region I received two telephone calls from decon-tamination workers at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, expressing concerns with the radiation protection program. The calls were in reference to the decontamination of the torus area.
The concerns of the first worker (Worker A) were satisfied after he discussed them with plant management.
This was confirmed in a subsequent telephone call that day.
The second worker's (Worker B) concerns were similar to those of Worker A and continued after the resolution of Worker A's concerns. The concerns included:
Adequacy of instructions to workers.
--
Adequacy of radiation protection coverage.
--
Adequacy of respiratory protection.
--
Keeping exposures ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable).
--
3.
Task Review The inspectors discussed the scope of the decontamination task with several licensee management, technical, and radiation protection personnel. The training given to the workers was reviewed.
The decontamination task involved hosing, sweeping, and removing trash and sweepings from the area
,
.
of the reactor building immediately outside the torus.
The job was being
'
accomplished utilizing a work force of contractor decontamination technicians.
The individuals had completed the licensee's radiation worker training course and were briefed prior to the job.
A scale mockup of the torus was used to provide job specific training.
'
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 4.
Worker Interviews The inspectors interviewed the members of the decontamination crew one at a time in private to discuss the situation.
All of the individuals but one stated that they had no questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the radiation protection program. The one individual had questioned the fitting of respirators but stated that all his concerns were cleared.
The licensee does not take credit for protection factors when using respiratory protection devices.
Several of the individuals questioned the NRC's exposure limits.
Their main concern was that they might approach their quarterly exposure limits on this job and that other nuclear power stations would be reluctant i
to hire them. They had apparently been told by their management (contractor)
that exposures for this job would be limited to 50-60 mr/ day.
However, the licensee had not participated in this agreement.
Initial exposures of some
,
'
individuals exceeded this level causing the concerns of layoffs and decreased employability due to accumulated exposures.
Rotation of the higher exposure work assignments and decreasing radiation levels due to the effectiveness of the decontamination lowered the rate at which they accumulated exposure and had
.
apparently dissipated the concerns of the workers.
The inspectors determined from the interviews that radiation monitoring instruments had been provided to the decontamination crew and that at least two crew members were familiar with their use.
Intermittent health physics coverage was also provided.
Certain of the individuals were provided with lapel type air samplers; from their work descriptions it appeared that
'
these individuals were the most likely to be maximally exposed to airborne activity.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveys The inspectors reviewed licensee radiation, contamination, and airborne activity surveys associated with the decontamination of the torus area.
Surveys of and controls placed on bags of trash generated by the job were also reviewe _ _ _ _
__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
__ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
,
,
Air surveys taken during the time period October 2-10, 1978, were generally less than 10% of the concentrations listed in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table I, Column I (MPC). The inspectors did find a few cases greater than 10%
MPC including 1 case approximately double MPC. One lapel air sample was i
contaminated when, to prevent it from falling, it was grabbed by an individual wearing contaminated gloves.
'
,
The inspector noted that the licensee does not take credit for protection factors when utilizing respiratory protection equipment.
The licensee uses an "MPC-hr log" to keep records of and to control exposure to airborne radioactivity.
Stay times from radiation work permits and airborne concen-trations from air surveys were compared against records kept in the MPC-hr log.
The licensee uses a whole body counter as part of his bioassay program to
'
evaluate potential uptake of radionuclides. The inspector reviewed whole body count results of two individuals, one of whom had the highest exposure to airborne activity of the members of the decon crew. This same individual was wearing the lapel sampler which became contaminated and for which no results were available.
No body burden peaks were found for either indivi-dual.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 6.
Facility Tours The inspector toured the licensee's radiation control area (RCA) including the area being decontaminated.
The licensee's control point and the radiation work permit used to control the job were examined.
Independent measurements were made of selected licensee surveys.
Posting and control of radiation areas and high radiation areas were observed.
,
While the inspectors were on-site, the Region I (Philadelphia) office received an anonymous allegation of drug use at Pilgrim.
The caller declined to provide any specific details.
During a tour of the facility and subsequent interviews with licensee and contractor personnel, the inspectors noted no readily noticeable use, drug paraphenalia, or workers who might have been working under the influence of drugs at the time.
Due to the lack of specific details and based on inspector observation, the allegation was considered to have been unsubstantiated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observe._
_
l l
.
.
i l
'
i l
.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee management representatives (denoted in
.
Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 10, 1979.
The
'
inspectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the
'
findings.
.
i l
i
.
I
-
-