IR 05000322/1987006

Insp Rept 50-322/87-06 on 870330-0403.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Alara,Worker Training,Exposure Recordkeeping,Area Posting,Matl Labeling,Maint of Survey Meters & Status of Previously Identified Items

ML20215K194
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Dragoun T, Loesch R, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215K179	List: IR 05000322/1987006 ML20215K174
References
50-322-87-06, 50-322-87-6, IEIN-84-82, NUDOCS 8705110111
Download: ML20215K194 (8)

Text

. , _ _ _ _ - . _

-

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-322/87-06

.

Docket No. 50-3??

License No. NPF-36 Priority --

Category C

,

!

Licensee: -Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618

Wading River, New York 11792 Facility.Name

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

! Inspection At: Wading River, New York Inspection Ccnducted: March 30 - April 3, 1987-t

.

Inspectors: b {L T. Dragouri, SenioG Radiation h 30!E7 Date Specialist h. (A 1 -

30 8]

R.Loesch,RadiationSpecialist Date

, Approved by: d// %

M. Shanbaky ( Ch~ief, Factfities

/ //Iv/F7 Date Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on March 30 - April 3, 1987 (Report N /87-06)

, Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection of radiological controls including: ALARA, worker training, exposure recordkeeping, area posting, material labeling, maintenance of survey meters, Q/C surveillances, and status of previously identified item ;

Results: No violations were identified, i

i

?DR hgh 05000322 870505 a

PDR

- . , _ - - _ . _ . ._ - - _ - - - _ - , . _ , _ _- . - . - _ _ _ _ , _ - - _ .__

- - . . - . _ . . .

J

i. -

! o

DETAILS l-1.0 Persons Contacted During the course of this routine inspection, the following personnel were contacted or interviewed: ,

1.1 Licensee Personnel S. Skorupski, Assistant Vice President - Nuclear

• J. Notaro, Acting Director, Quality Assurance, Safety and Compliance

• M. Buring, Health Physics Engineer l *J. Carey, Licensing Engineer

• R. Crowe, Operations Staff Manager E. Cubeta, Instrument Services Foreman 3 M. Cuppola, Technical Support Training Supervisor

• N. DiMascio, Rad. Controls Division Manager i M. Donegan, Radiological Support Supervisor

• R. Glazier, Supervisor, QCD

• R. Grunseich, Operational Compliance En *J. Manso, Compliance Engineer

S. Petty, Instructor, Production Training

,

• J. Ramanuja, Health Physicist, NED i i

• J. Scalice, Assistant Plant Manager

{ *J. Schmitt, Radiological Affairs Manager i *C Seaman, Quality Control Division Manager

• D. Smith, Complianct Engineer K. Taylor, Secticn Supervisor, Rad. Protection Division, NED

• D. Terry, Manager, Production Training Department R. Thompson, Dosimetry Supervisor

• Attended the exit meeting on April 3, 1987.

2.0 Purpose

,

The purpose of this safety inspection was to review.the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following elements:

,

• Status of Previously Identified Items J

j * ALARA Program  ;

• General Employee Training '

Personnel Exposure Recordkeeping and Reporting

Posting of Radiation Areas and Labeling of Radioactive Material

• Quality Control Surveillances l

I

!

j

i

._ _ _ ,, -

_ . _ . , _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _c, ,__ _ . . _ _ . , , - , _

.

. .. ._ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

, 2

• Calibration and Maintenance of Portable Survey Meters 3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items I

3.1 (0 pen) Follow-Up Item (85-04-10(a)) - Evaluate and establish appropriate sample system purge times. The licensee's engineering evaluation indicates that about ten sample volumes will be' purged during normal sampling. Methods to verify correct flow rates are being evaluate .2 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (85-04-11(c)) - Consider computer assisted decay corrections for source terms in Modcomp software. The Modcomp program has been modified to include decay corrections.

, 3.3 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (85-04-12(b)) - Perform study to ensure that

! personnel exposures are within GDC 19 during sampling. A time and I motion study indicating that dose criteria will be met was completed by a contractor in August 198 .4 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (86-15-01) - Provide survey maps. A large number of survey maps have been generated and provided with identification numbers. Procedure SP 61.018.01, " Radiological Survey Schedules and Location", has been revised to specify use of these maps along with other scheduling controls to improve routine survey .5 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (86-15-02) - Improve airborne survey records and actions required on a CAM alarm. Procedure SP 63.030.03 has been revised and includes CAM alarm actions with requirements for grab sampling and recordkeepin .6 (Closed) Follow-Up Item (85-04-10(k)) - Establish several operating /

sample collection procedures for the PASS facility. Procedure EPIP 2-11 covers air sampling while EPIP 2-9 provides for coolant I

sampling. Each procedure has detailed instructions for lineups to 1 various sample points provided as attachment I 4.0 ALARA Program The status of the licensee's ALARA program was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:

• 10 CFR 20.1, Purpose

• USNRC Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10 i i

67 FR 1716, Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational  !

Exposure dated January 27, 1987 i

International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication #26 and #30

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ -

.

.

.

, 3

i

LILCO Nuclear Operations Corporate Policy 20, " Corporate Responsibilities for the As Low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

Program"

'

• LILC0 PD-NE-02, "ALARA Program Description" I *

Licensee procedures RPD 5.22, RPD 5.23, NE-01-02, 12.012.02, 62.070.10, 62.070.08, 62.070.06, 62.0/0.04, 62.070.0 The licensee's perforranco relative to these ' criteria was determined from:

Discussions with the ALARA Engineer, Corporate Health Physicists, Corporate Materials Engineer, and Rad. Controls Division Manage *

Review of Corporate ALARA Reviev. Committee meeting minutes, QA Audit QS-86-02 (ALARA Program audit) and station ALARA exposure goals for 198 *

Review of ALARA input for several Design Output Package Within the scope of this review no violations were observe The procedures and policies that describe the Shoreham ALARA program are comprehensive and of excellent quality. The corporate and station ALARA

positions are filled by qualified health phy.ics personne One major dose saving action is completed - the stellite rollers have been ,

removed from the reactor control rods (a major source of Co" activity).

In addition, negotiations are underway with a vendor to supply a zine injection system for the plant condensate system. Continuous injection of zine to condensate water has been shown to significantly reduce build-up of radioactive contamination in BWR systems. The licensee-is also renewing bids for a new dasign Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger that

,

'

will reduce the frequency of maintenance on this contaminated componen .

In early 1986 station Q/A auditors found that the ALARA program was not I fully implemented in accordance with station policies. Various actions l to resolve the audit findings are underway. For example, a two dav ALARA i

course will be given to all design engineers in April 1987. A computer-ized dose tracking system was declared operational during this inspection.

l 3'

The licensee exposure goal for 1987 is 37 man-Rem. This goal was chosen to be 15% lower than tAe averagefor arecently licensed BWR station during startu i i

l l

l

'

.

_ _ , . _ _ _ - _ ---.

__..,U

__ .- . _ _ -

. _

.

,

, 4 5.0 General Employee Training The licensee's general employee training program was reviewed with respect'

to criteria contained in:

'

-

10 CFR 19.12, Instruction to workers

-

10 CFR 20 Standards for protection against radiation

-

USNRC Regulatory Guide 8.29 " Instruction Concerning Risks from Occupational Radiation Exposure"

-

FSAR Section 12.5.3.5, " Health Physics Training Program"

-

Station Procedure 12.014.04, " Training Responsibilities"

-

Station Procedure 12.014.03, " General Employee Training" The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from:

-

Review of lesson plans: Health Physics Level I (#0601), Health Physics for General Employee Training Level II, and Respiratory Protectio Review of written examinations and student handout Interviews with instructors, the training supervisor and training manage Review of the instructor qualification program, including a review of l educational background and experience of current staff instructor Observation of a classroom presentatio Tour of on-site training facilities and a new training complex in Central Islip, i i  !

l

'

Within the scope of this review no violations were observe The )

licensee's lesson plans, training aids and instructor qualification ]

program are adeauat The licensee has made a strong commitment to training as reflected by policies and procedures and construction of a very large training complex. The complex, scheduled to be fully operational in August 1987, will have a staff of 125 personnel and the latest equipment for hands-on trainin The health physics and radiochemistry " laboratories" alread have state-of-the-art equipment installed as do most of the training

" shops".

l

.

9 5 6.0 Personnel Exposure Recordkeeping and Reporting The licensee's method for recording and reporting personnel radiation exposures was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:

-

10 CFR 19.13, Notification and reports to individual CFR 20.102, Determination of prior dos CFR 20.202, Personnel monitorin CFR 20.408, Notification and reports to individual USNRC Reg. Guide 8.7, Occupational Radiation Exposure Records System ANSI N13.6, uccupational Radiation Exposure Records Systems.

-

Station Procedures 62.004.01, 62.004.02, 61.012.01, 61.012.05 and 61.012.0 The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from disct'ssions with dosimetry personnel and a review of selected record Within the scope of this review no violations were observe The licensee uses a computer to track and compare direct reading dosimeter (DRD) and TLD badge result Summary reports are printed out daily and made available to various departments on site. Termination reports are completed by extracting data from the computer files and completing a standard form. A supervisor checks and signs the final repor The record keeping and dose reporting appears to be adequat The inspector noted that for the special situatian where several extra l TLD/DRD sets would be issued, e.g. fuel pool diving operations, the procedure requires a supervisory " evaluation". No specific requirements i are provided for the issuance or collection of special dosimetry. The computer record keeping program can only accommodate one special entr h.9 licensee stated that the appropriate policies and procedures would be revised as required to clarify the processing of special dosimetry. This matte.r will be reviewed in a future inspection (87-06-01).

7.0 Posting and Labeling of Areas and Material The posting end labeling of radiation areas and radioactive material were reviewed with respect to criteria contained in 10 CFR 20.203, " Caution signs, labels, signals and controls" and IE Notice 84-82, " Guidance for Posting Radiation Areas". Various areas within the turbine building, reactor building and the drywell were inspecte ag<-+. en ---J.-

-

.

I 6 ,

l Within the scope of this review no violations were observed. Radiation

levels and amount of radioactive material in the plant remains very low.

,

8.0 -Quality Control Surveillances The licensee has an ongoing program for surveillance of health physics (HP) activities by Quality Control inspectors to ensure compliance with HP t'

~

procedures. Between January 1986 and February 1987 a total of 27 sur-veillances were performed. The inspector discussed surveillance QC-86-471

.

'-

completed in November 1986 with the Quality Control Division Manager, Radiological Controls Division Manager and one of the QC inspectors. This

-

surveillance was selected for detailed review due to the number of significant " observations" recorded, the hazardous nature of the work (IRM replacement), and apparent disagreement between QC and HP regarding the validity of some observations. The remaining 26 other surveillances were l also reviewe The inspector concluded that the QC Surveillance program continues to

,

make a positive contribution towards improving the HP program. Manage-ment support for the surveillance program is goo ,

9.0 Survey Instrument Control and Calibration The licensee's program for the control and cal 1bration of portable survey instruments was reviewed against criteria contained in the following:

10 CFR 20.201 Surveys ANSI N323-1978 "American National Standard Radiation Protection Instrumentation Test and Calibration"

! Licensee Procedures:

"

66.002.01 "Use of I..strument Calibration Unit"

66.002.03 " Calibration Check of ' Instrument Calibration Unit"

66.020.11 " Calibration of G.M. Detectors"

66.010.11 " Calibration of Eberline MOL R0-7 High Range Survey System" The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined from:

Discussion with cognizant personne *

Tour of the Health Physics (HP) calibration facilit Review of Condenser "R" meter calibration certificates to verify NBS traceabilit *

Review of radioactive source decay curves for the sources used in the

calibrato Observation of the performance of instrument tource check i Review of instrument calibration and maintenance record Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.

,

J e

- .

.

. 7 The licensee has implemented a special training program to qualify technicians to perform calibrations and limited repairs of portable survey instrumentation. Currently, seven (7) technicians are qualifie Calibrations are being performed utilizing Eberline 1000B and Shepard Mooel 89 calibrator, effectively covering the entire range of dose -rates necessary. Vendor generated calibration curves are validated using Con-denser "R" chambers which are NBS traceable. -The licensee has the capability to determine beta correction factors with measurements taken on a uranium slab. A moderated Californium 252 source allows for source checking the response of neutron instruments which are routinely calibrated by the University of Arkansas. Plutonium 239 and Americium

,

241 sources are available for alpha calibrations.

i

Instruments due for calibration are flagged and scheduled by computer weekly. Health Physics Operations collects the required instruments and i delivers them to the calibration facilit Newly calibrated instruments are then returned to the storage lockers. The Health Physics Foreman for

'

,

each section projects the instrument needs and ensures that the necessary

'

instruments are available for use. An inspection of the instrument storage locker and accountability logs indicated an ample supply of instruments to support the Radition Protection Progra The overall Survey Instrument Program seems more than adequate for

'

-

i existing plant conditions and should be able to support any approved power ascension phases. The program's capability during a major refueling i

outage will be evaluated when appropriat ,

10.0 Exit Interview

.

The inspectors met with the personnel denoted in section 1.0 at the

conclusion of the inspection on April 3, 1987. The scope and findings of

^

the inspection were discussed at that tim l l

l t

l

1 I I I

l l

l

,