IR 05000295/1993024
| ML20059L398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1994 |
| From: | Louden P, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L396 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-295-93-24, 50-304-93-24, NUDOCS 9402070009 | |
| Download: ML20059L398 (5) | |
Text
_ _.
_
.
1, i
'
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
REGION III-l Reports No. 50-295/93024(DRSS); 50-304/93024(DRSS)
Dockets'No. 50-295; 50-304 License Nos. DPR-39; DPR-48
'
'
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
,
Executive Towers West III
1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515
^
Facility Name: Zion Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2-Inspection At: Zion Station, Zion, Illinois Inspection Conducted: January 10 through 14, 1994 Inspector:
M
// 3
'
P. L. Loude'n V
'
Date
/
Radiation Specialist
Approved By:
Ltjh_ C.O kh+
William G. Snell, Chief Date Radiological Programs Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on January 10 throuah 14. 1994 (Recorts No. 50-295/93024(DRSS):
50-304/93024(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's radiation protection (RP) program (Inspection Procedure (IP) 83750) during the current dual unit refueling / service water outage.- Inspection activities included reviews in the areas of organizational changes, audits and appraisals, external exposure controls, initial Revised Part 20 implementation, maintaining occupational exposures as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA),
source term reduction and general station tours.
Results: No violations of NRC requirements were identified. The activities of the newly formed source term reduction task force appeared to be functioning as desired. The task force is currently. accumulating'and assessing data to ascertain appropriate recommendations to provide to the station to effect the source term problem. One improvement area noted was with respect to dose ownership and responsibility of the various respective departments. To date, the overall responsibility of establishing and monitoring personnel exposures has been the responsibility of the radiation
'
protection department. ' If the station is to effectively reduce station doses, responsibility of personnel exposures must be accepted by the various station departments.
9402070009 940127 PDR ADOCK 05000295
<
G PDR
-_
-
..
.
_
,
.
,
- .
j DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted-Commonwealth Edison
- A. Broccolo, Station Manager
- T. Cook, Supervisor, Mechanical _ Maintenance
- K. Dickerson, Regulatory Assurance, NRC Coordinator
- 0. Fick, Senior Radiation Protection Technician
,
- K. Hansing, Director, Station Quality Verification
- G. Kassner, Health Physics Services Supervisor
- F. Rescek, Corporate Radiation Protection Director
- B. Robinson, Lead Operational Health Physicist
- S. Stern, Radiation Protection, Source Term Reduction Coordinator
- D. Wozniak, Superintendent, Operations
-
'
'
The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel in various departments in the course of the inspection.
Nuclear Reaulatory Commission
- J. D. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector f
- Denotes those present at the Exit Meeting on January 14, 1994.
>
2.
Draanizational Chanaes (IP 83750)
The inspector reviewed changes in the organization and structure of the a
station radiation protection department to determine if such changes
,
effected consistent operation of the RP department.
.
The Superintendent of Technical Services (whom RP reports to) was moved i
to the position of Superintendent of Operations. This change left the Technical Superintendent position vacant. The Station Manager noting this break in the established reporting chain and noting the importance r
of RP concerns to be reviewed and addressed at an upper management
level, changed the RP direct report to himself until the Technical
Superintendent position is filled.
l
Within the RP department the inspector noted the r.hange of two l
professional health physicists (HPs) which were moved to the technical i
group. These HPs will assume the responsibilities of shipping and internal dose assessment. The shipping HP was assigned to replace an engineering assistant who was leaving the company. This will create a
.
'
vacancy in the operational group which was not determined how this position was to be filled at the end of the inspection.
j Overall, the inspector noted no detrimental effects of the changes with the reporting chain of the RP department or those changes within the department.
.
,
,
'
... _. _
__
.
.
-
-
-
.!
Y d
j
'
No violations of NRC requirements were. identified.
3.
Audits and Aporaisals (IP 83750)
The inspector reviewed recent Quality Verification (QV) department of
'
,
various field monitoring reports and audits which included observations of radiation protection as part of the subject review. The items reviewed by the inspector addressed fundamental radiation protection practices and appeared to be adequately responded to by responsible departments.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
4.
External Exoosure Control HP 83750)
The licensee had recorded about 663 person-rem (6.63 person-Sieverts)
for 1993.
This was less than the anticipated 1993 goal of about 1,000 person-rem (10 person-Sieverts). The station had recorded 492 person-rem (4.92 person-Sieverts) for the current dual unit outage.. The outage goal is 600 person-rem (6.0 person-Sieverts) and station personnel
indicated that this goal should be achieved.
The inspector reviewed the depth of responsibility various departments
<
applied to their respective exposure goals.
Based on previous
inspection reviews and interviews performed during the current
.
i inspection, it was determined that even though the station has instituted a source term reduction task force to develop source term reduction techniques, the station still.has a significant challenge in the area of dose reduction with respect to exposure accountability within each respective department.
The station currently is in the lowest quartile for personnel exposures-i for pressurized water reactors in the country.
In order for the station
'
to realize exposure reductions, the licensee must enhance its program for dose accountability and encourage more involvement by each department to provide suggestions and/or other efforts to assist in maintaining occupational exposures ALARA.
In a recent inspection report (IR #50-295/93021(DRSS; 50-304/93021
,
(DRSS)) the inspector discussed the dose equalization methods used at
-
the station were. performed on too short a time basis and led to the creation of discontinuity in job performance and efficiency.
The licensee has since attempted to address this problem by presenting a new proposal to bargaining unit employees to perform such equalization on a-
longer time frequency. This new proposal will track doses over a two
!
year period rather than the nearly daily monitoring that is currently-i employed.
However, the station still needs to encourage more involvement from each department to take more responsibility to develop',.
monitor, and, achieve their exposure goals. This item was discussed with upper station management at the exit meeting'(Section 8).
No violation of NRC requirements were identified.
,
,
i
-
--
_
..
.
e
5.
Revised Part 20 Implementation-The inspector briefly reviewed the early implementation of the revised Part 20.made by the licensee. Areas reviewed included the training
'
given radiation workers on the new annual exposure limits and on the controls which must be applied to declared pregnant women. All areas reviewed appeared to be adequately implemented. The full implementation
'
of the revised rule will be reviewed in a future special inspection.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
6.
Maintainino Occupational Exposures ALARA (IP 83750)
A.
Work In Procress Reviews
The inspector reviewed a job package to repair the gripper on the fuel crane in the Unit I containment..The job was to be performed via a diver entering the Unit I cavity to remove the broken gripper. One of the pre-job meetings was attended during the review. The meeting was very well managed. The leader of the-
,
meeting (an RP individual) was thorough in the identification of responsible people involved with the job, and. work related issues
,
were discussed by all in attendance. Attendees at the meeting
were required to sign an attendance sheet to ensure that they
would be allowed access to the containment during the job. All
'
individuals at the meeting appeared to understand their specific role in the job and the contract diver was very knowledgeable of
specific RP practices which applied to his diving operation.
The inspector monitored activities during the actual evolution of
the job. The job had to be delayed due to suit problems H
encountered by the diver. The inspector was unable to review any.
other aspects of this job due to delays beyond the length of the inspection period.
Even though the job was not completed, the inspector did note that the pre-job meeting and knowledge of specific tasks by the various workgroups was an improvement from previous outages. The conduct-
of pre-job meetings had been a concern in the past, and based on this review it appears that such meetings are improving.
B.
Source Term Reduction The inspector attended a Source Term Reduction Task Force meeting-during the course of the inspection. The meeting was well attended and representatives from many different departments including contractors and the corporate office were'noted. The station is currently still in the fact / data assessment mode in their effort to determine what operational activities contribute to the overall station source term. Once the data has been evaluateo, the station plans to implement recommendations provided
.
- -
. -,
.
n".-
,
x
by'the task force to attempt to rede;e the source term at the station. This item was discussed with upper station management at
the exit meeting (Section 8).
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
7.
Plant Tours The inspector conducted several plant tours during the course of-the inspection.. Worker adherence to radiation protection procedures, calibration of meters, and posting and labeling requirements were reviewed during these tours. ' No problems were noted during these tours and all instruments and meters reviewed were in current calibration.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
8.
Exit Meetina The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives (Section.1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 14, 1994. Specific items discussed during the exit meeting are summarized below.
Licensee representatives did not identify any-documents or processes reviewed during the inspection as proprietary.
,
The observations of the pre-job meeting attended by the inspector.
.
The effectiveness of the source term reduction task force. This
.
,
area also included a. discussion to evaluate the level of support
'
that this task force is receiving from upper station management.
The observation.of dose accountability by each department and the
.
need for the station to enhance its efforts in this area.
i l
.-
1 l
- -
. -