IR 05000301/1981012
| ML19351A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Lovendale P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351A159 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-301-81-12, IEB-80-10, NUDOCS 8106260158 | |
| Download: ML19351A163 (9) | |
Text
,
'
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION
~
OFFICE-OF INSPECTION AND ENFCRCEMENT FmGION III
,
Report No. 50-301/81-12-Docket No. 50-301 License No. DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company-231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection Conducted: 'May 18-22, 1981 1MN 4 /{/e/
Inspector:
P. C. Lovendale Approved By:
L. R. Greger, Acting Chief k /N/
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 18-22, 1981 (Report No. 50-301/81-12)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of refueling radiation protection activities including:
radiation protection procedures; advanced planning and preparation; training; exposure control; instruments and equipment; posting and control; material control; and surveys.
It also included review of transportation activities, IE Bulletin No. 80-10, inplant iodine instrumentation, IE Information Notices, and IE Circulars.
The inspection involved 41 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
U 06260
'
< -..
t-DETAILS-
~
.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
- G2 A. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Operations
'*J.-J. Zach. General Superintenoant.
-*C. H. Harris, Superintendent,1 Chemistry and Health Physics
- R. E. Link, Superintendent, Engineering, Quality and Regulatory
- R. S. Bredvad, Healch-Physicist EF. A. Zeman, Office-Supervisor M. Moseman, Nuclear. Plant Specialist T._Fredrichs, Nuclear Plant Engineer P. Stramstad, Radioct smist
~
- W. G. Guldemond, Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC
- R. L. Hague,_ Resident Inspector, USNRC The inspector.also interview other licensee employees and contractors,
-including radiation control operators.
- Denotes-those present at the exit meeting.
2.
-General
- This inspection,' which began with a plant tour and visual cbservation -
of facilities and equipment,. posting, labaling, access controls, and
.
general employee training at 8:00 a.m. on May 18, 1981, was conducted to examine routine aspects of the radiation protection program during refueling operations. During this and subsequent tours, the inspector used an NRC survey instrument (Xetex 305-B) to monitor selected areas-throughout the' plant. Measurements made were in agreement with posted survey data. - Area postings, access controls, and housekeeping were very good.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Commitment (50-301/80-06; 50-266/8-07):
Institute a ravised program and procedure for evaluation of discrepancies between TLD and s
dosimeter results (Section 5).
4.
Organization The licensee's radiation protection organization remains as described in a previous inspection report (50-301/80-16). The Health Physicist terminated 'in February 1981 and a health physics supervisor was promoted to fill the vacated position. A radiation control operator was promoted to health physics supervisor.
,
-2-
-
-
_,.. _. _. _ _..
_., _. ~ _ _ -. _ _ _ _., _.
..
.
. -
..
-
..
..
..
~
.
- <
w 5 '.
Radiation Protection Procedures
~
'
The inspector reviewed'the following health physics' procedures to
. determine if they are consistent with 10 CFR 20,'49 CFR, and good-
- health physics practices. No problems were'noted.
HP 11.2'
, Revision 3 Radioactive Material Shipments - General
,
and Appendices A through J
}W 2.7
' Revision 3 Radiation Work Permits HP 2.8 Movision 1 General Rules for Work in the Controlled Zone-HP 8.3 Revision 3.
Posting of' Radiation and High Radiation Areas
.HP_8.4.1'
Revision 1 Extended Outage Survey Schedule HP 8.5 Revision 2 Airborne Radioactivity Surveys HP 10.1.2 Revision 4 TLD - Pocket. Dosimeter Comparison Procedure HP 12.4 " Steam-Generator Explosive Tube Plugging Procedure" is.being completely revised. The licensee no-longer uses explosive
,
i plugs. Defective tubes are now plugged using_ hydraulically expanded plugs.
During a previous inspection (50-301/80-06), the inspector noted an apparent problem with procedure HP 10.1.2 "TLD - Pocket Dosimeter Comparison." This procedure allowed subtraction of up to 25 mR per day from an individual's monthly dosimeter totals as allowable drift
,
without examining day-to-day dosimeter totals or the possibility that the TLD results may be in error. This-procedure was revised and now provides for a = more detailed analysis of large TLD dosimeter differ-ences. Additional problems with dosimetry are discussed in Section 9.a
No items of noncompliance were identified.
I 6.
Orientation Training i~
.
.
~
The inspector reviewed the site specific radiation protection slide l
program presented to contractors and new employees upon entry to the i
plant. The Health Physicist normally augments this training with an additional lecture. The scope of these lectures depends on the type of work the group will perform. Written tests are given at the con-
- -
clusion of training. This training appears to meet the requirements
[
of 10 CFR 19.12 " Instructions to Workers."
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i t-3-I
!
!
-., -.. -. -. _. _ _. - - - -. -.-
. - - - - - -
-
-
.
-.
,
n
-
7.
Planning and Preparation The licensee's planning and preparation for this outage;has provided-Jan adequate supply of equipment and personnel to ensure the radiation protection program is fully implemented.
The plant health physics staff _has bean augmented with 16 contracted health physics' technicians. Approximately eight of_the technicians meet or exceed thef qualifications required by Technical Specification 15.6.3. 'The remaining eight technicians do_not meet these qualifica -
tions, b'ut 'are only used - to perform jobs which do not entail a level-of: responsibility that would require them to. meet ANSI N18.1-1971-standards, 'or they work under the direct supervision of one of the
. senior technicians.
No problems were identified.
- 8.
Surveys
- The inspect, reviewed records of contamination,. radiation, and airborne radioar*.vity surveys conducted to meet the requirements of radiation
.
work permits and plant procedures. Also, the inspector made independent measurements of radiation levels in several areas throughout the plant and compared the results with licensee survey records.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Exposure Control
,
a.
External Exposure l
l The licensee's vendor TLD badge.results were reviewed for January l
1980 through April 1981. No exposures exceeding 10 CFR 20.101 limits were noted.
A review of records for individuals who received greater than 1250
l mrems 63 ring a quarter indicated that the licensee had completed
'
forms ARC-4 for these individuals.
During the inspection, it was noted that the licensee's vendor TLD results for April 1981 were in error. Unused badge results showed doses of 0 to 480 arems and virtually all of the individual exposures varied greatly from dosimeter totals. The licensee had contacted the TLD vendor who stated that the problem had most likely been the result of an in transit exposure and that no equip-ment problems could be found. The licensee made a graph of TLD number (in order read by the vendor) versus dose. This graph l
indicated that an in transit exposure probably had not occurred and that the problem was likely caused by vendor faulty equipment-4-
-
.
.....
. -
-
.
-.
. -
_. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _, _. _... -, _ _. - _
.
T
,
'-or. operator error. sThe licensee has completed exposure.investi-~
~
-
gations for all individuals involved and assigned appropriate. doses to their records. ~This matter was discussed at the exit meeting.
The licensee's dosimeter' totals usually exceed the~TLD results. :The difference between these readings is often as high as a factor of:
eight. One possible way to reduce these' differences would be'to refrain from rezeroing the dosimeters daily,fand allowing them to-accumulate dose until a rezero point (50 mR) 'is attained. This pro-
~
cedure would help to eliminate inaccuracies resulting from reading the dosimeters at the low end of the scale and the error that is introduced each time the dosimeter is rezeroed. This matter was dis-cussed during the exit meeting and will be reviewed during a future inspection..No other problems were-identified.
(50-301/81-12-01)
b;
' Internal Exposure
'
'Whole body counting data.for January 1980 to date were reviewed.
No body burdens indicative of an exposure greater than'the 40 MPC-hour control measure were noted. Plant personnel and other company employees who. work in controlled areas during refuelings
'
and other major outages are routinely whole body. counted following the outage. Contract employees who are expected to use respirator
<
or.have previously. worked at nuclear facilities are whole body countediboth when they begin work at the site and upon termination.
No problems were identified.
c.
ALARA The inspector noted the following examples of the licensee's
commitment to maintaining personal exposures as low as reasonably L
achievable.
l l
1.
Health Physicist's active involvement with contractor and plant staff planning meetings.
2.
Video observation of steam generator platform to reduce health j
physics technician presence and to monitor the technicians'
I overall job contesl.
t
.3.
Health Physicist meets with each contractor and/or plant group
before work begins on high exposure jobs.
4.
Use of hydraulically expanded plugs for steam generator tube
,
I plugging. These plugs are readily removable and installation does not cause the airborne radioactivit, problems which were experienced with explosive tube plugging.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
.
5-
-
.-.
.. -
- - -... _ _. - - - -.,. - -.. -.. -.. - - - - -. - -
-.. _, -. -. -.
..
.
.
,-
,
.
-
"
10.
Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) =
The inspector selectively reviewed RWPs written for the Unit 2 refueling and steam generator work. These-permits expire after one work shif t.
The permits' include the names of persons permitted to work on the job, the. permitted dose -for: the shift,: and the dose received by each person.
No problems were noted.
11.
Instruments and Equipment The inspector reviewed the licensee's instrument calibration records and procedures.
Instruments in use were in calibration. To ensure an adequate supply of instruments, the licensee requested ~ that the contracted health physics technicians bring five additional _ instruments with them to the' plant. The licensee calibrated these instruments before use.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
r 12.. Unit 2-Steam Generator Work Major work performed on both Unit 2 steam generators during this outage included eddy ~ current testing and sludge lancing.
In addition, 24 tubes were plugged in "A" steam generator and 16 tubes were plugged in "B" steam generator. One-tube was removed from
"A" steam generator. The total dose received in performing the steam generator work was about 60
_
man-rems.
13.
Transportation Activities The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for receipt, packaging, and transport of radioactive materials. Radioactive material shipping responsibilities are assigned to a nuclear plant engineer, who reports to the Superintendent, Chemistry and Health Physics. Written precedures are used which specify all the necessary documentation, notification, l
survey, and package preparation requirements for each type of shipment.
Each step of the procedure requires a sign off by the cognizant individual.
t l
All personnel involved in the waste preparation and shipping process are trained annually in shipment procedures and DOT /NRC regulations.
l Records of shipments for CY 1980 and 1981 to date were reviewed for compliance with 49 CFR Parts 170-189 and 10 CFR 71.
No problems were noted.
On May 19, 1981, the inspector observed the preparation and loading of forty-seven 55 gal. drums of LSA radioactive waste for shipment to Barnwell, S.C.
No problems were noted.
.
No items of uoncompliance were identified.
!
i.
l-
-6-
_ _ - _ -, _.. _.. _ _ _ _.. _ _. _ _. _ __ _ _ __ _
...
_... _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -.. _ - _ _ -
.
.
.
14.
Improved Inplant Iodine-Instrumentation Under Accident Conditions
"
~ Licensee actions in response to NUREG-0737, item III.D.3.3 were reviewed.
.The licensee's response to NUREG-0737 is contained in 'a letter dated December 23, 1980, to NRR, which-states that both fixed and. portable instrumentation is available for inplant iodine monitoring.
A shielding study showstthat direct radiation levels in the counting-room would be about 6 mR/hr during a worst case accident. This radiation level should not create significant counting problems since the Ge(Li)
detectors are well shielded. Also, the detector well can be purged with service air or nitrogen, if necessary, to purge any noble gases that might interfere with' iodine detection capabilities. Considering the
. above, the present Ge(Li) systam would likely be available for deter-mining airborne iodine concentrations during an accident.
Other equipment available for inplant iodine monitoring includes, a single ~ channel Na(I) system located at the health physics station, about 40 silver zeolite cartridges, battery and gasoline powered air samplers, and all of Kewannee's equipment (located about 5 miles away).
Emergency sampling procedures have been developed and implemented. These procedures are contained in the plant's emergency plan implementatiou procedures.
No problems were noted.
15.
IE Bulletin No. 80-10 The licensee's action in response to IE Bulletin No. 80-10, " Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncon-i trolled Release of R lioactivity to the Environment," were reviewed. The licensee identified several systems which could become contaminated through interfaces with radioactive systems. All of these systems have radiation monitors or are sampled under an existing program except the demineralized water system and the service water system.
!
The demineralized water system could become contaminated if check valve leakage occurs in the supply line to the reactor water makeup tank or l
the Atcor'radwaste system.
The service water system could become contaminated if blowdown evaporator distillate cooler leakage occurs or through other component leakage into the system.
The licensee has established a routine sampling program for the deminer-alized water system and service water system. No problems were noted.
l I
!
.
l
\\
-7-
.
-
. - - -
..
-. -. -. - - - - - - -. -,,,,. - - -., _. -.. -
- - - - - - -
.
'
.
.
-. r 16.
IE Information' Notice No. 80-22
-
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions in response to IE Information Notice No. 80-22, " Breakdowns in Contamination Control Programs." The licensee maintains strict controls over materials and equipment leaving the controlled area and, Las a~ check on these controls, surveys the clean area on a routine basis. _ However, 'the inspector noted that the clean area survey did not include a routine check of the clean waste trailer which is parked next to the outside controlled area. This matter was discussed during the exit meeting and will.be reviewed during 1 future inspection.
17.
IE Information Notice No. 80-32 The inspector reviewed the contents of this information notice with the Nuclear Plant Engineer, and explained the NRC's current _ position regard-ing compliance with 49 CFR 173.393(i) and 393(j) of the Department of Transportation regulations. No problems were noted.
18.
IE Circular No. 80-14 The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions in response to IE Circular No. 80-14, " Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System
. and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel."
,
Plant personnel are not allowed to consume any water from any source other than the potable water system. Also, the only " authorized" coffee pots are located in the control room and in the cafeteria.
The incident described in this circular was discussed at a manager's staff meeting. No problems were noted.
19.
IE Circular No. 81-18 The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions in reponse to IE Circular No. 80-18, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations for Change; to Radioactive l
Waste Treatment Systems." This circular was reviewed during a manager's i_
staff meeting and the person responsible for these safety evalutions was reminded of the requirements. No problems were noted.
l 20.
Exit Meeting i
The inspector cet with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
!
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 22. 1981. The inspector j
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
In response to certain items discussed by the inspector, the licensee:
a.
Stated that the evaluation of the April 1981 vendor TLD results l
!
ould continue and that.the vendor would be pressed for a reason-l able explanation (Section 9.a).
!
I
.
I i
l l-8-
__..~
..
..
.
.
.
-
..
.
..
...
.c
... - -
,
.
.
'.b.
Stated that the dosimeters 'of a test group would-be allowed to -
.
.
.
-accumulate dose instead of' daily rezeroing to determine if_this will reduce the large differences'between dosiceter readings'and TLD results.(Section 9.a).
.
Stated that they'would consider implementing a routine survey of-
. c.
the clean waste trailer (Section 16).
.
J t
i '
- ..
{
l
!-
l
,
l.
l
.
l
,
I (
l-
.
l f
9-
-
,
I
,
.~-wm-- *e, v e. w e
,7<-
m,+w y
y++,
~w-e w m er*veur w - y e s o c - e v e-
+-n-w.y
<-c=wtw w - > e w * e-iir w wm *e - +- e e e-+-w m we e -- s w e a-e- + n ee e n v e n-r--w
.-ww*
- -se
- - - + * * + +.e---m--e-a v re,'