IR 05000338/1982020
| ML20058C425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1982 |
| From: | Barr K, Wray J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C399 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-82-20, 50-339-82-20, NUDOCS 8207260343 | |
| Download: ML20058C425 (6) | |
Text
..
.
f ** *' %,,
t UNITED STATES
['g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
,,
{
,
g REGION 11 g
3 *g a
101 MARIE TTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 0,
AT L ANTA, G EORGI A 30303
,
,,
$9.....,o'
JUN 3 01982 Report Nos. 50-338/82-20, 50-339/82-20 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261
Facility Name:
North Anna 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-338, and 50-339 License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 Inspection at North Anna site near Mineral, Virginia Inspector:
.
[ 1 9 8 2-7%). R. Wr ate Signed
'
Mr --Y J8 $ A'
Approved by: K. P. Barr, Se{ction Chief
/
Da tt. Signed A Technical Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on June 14-18, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 38 inspector-hours on site in the areas of instrument calibrations, technician qualifications, radwaste shipping, licensee actions on inspector follow-up items, and the potential overexposure of a contract worker.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
i
8207260343 820630 PDR ADOCK 05000338 G
_-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. H. Leasburg, Vice President-Nuclear Operations
- W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager E. W. Harrell, Assistant Station Manager
- A. L. Hoggs, Jr., Manager-Quality Assurance
- A. H. Stafford, Supervisor-Health Physics
- J. W. Martin, Jr., Director-Emergency Planning (Corporate)
- F. P. Miller, Supervisor-Quality Control
- M. E. Fellows, Staff Assistant to the Station Manager C. D. Bradley, Assistant HP Supervisor M. L. Johnson, Assistant HP Supervisor NRC Resident Inspector
- D. F. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector M. B. Shymlock, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 18, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee telephoned the Region 2 office June 12, 1982, reporting a possible overexposure and indicated the same in a telegram to the NRC on June 14, 1982. On June 16, 1982, the inspector informed the Vice President-Nuclear Operations and the Station Manager that based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence a'nd interviews with the principals, it has been determined that no overexposure occured on June 12, 1982.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (82-11-01) Inadequate contamination check at RCA exit point. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this violation in his letter dated June 16, 1982, and verified that the corrective discipli-nary actions were taken.
Interviews with those workers involved in the incident appeared to indicate that these corrective actions would be sufficient to prevent recurrence. The inspector had no further questions.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph..
o
5.
Instrument Calibrations a.
The inspector reviewed the facility's instrument calibration program for compliance with Tecnnical Specification 4.3.3, Environmental Technical Specification 2.2.2, plant procedures, and the recommenda-tions of ANSI N323-1978, " Radiation Protection Instrumentation Test and Calibration."
Periodic test procedures have been written and a schedule conforming to the requirements of the Technical Specification has been computerized to ensure that adequate calibrations are performed within the required frequency for Technical Specification monitors.
The inspector reviewed completed periodic tests conducted on the ventilation vent particulate and gas monitors, containment particulate and gas monitors, steam generator blowdown tank monitors, process vent particulate and gas monitors, and the manipulator crane monitor and verified that channel functional tests and channel calibrations were completed on time. No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
The licensee maintains a tickler file and a computer tracking system for health physics survey instrument calibrations.
Plant procedures require quarterly calibrations.
The inspector reviewed records and calibration sticker dates on the portable instruments available for use and verified each had been calibrated within the past three months.
The inspector verified that the licensee maintains copies of calibra-tion papers from the National Bureau of Standards for on-site sources where required. The inspector noted that the calibration procedure for the R0-2A portable survey instrument requires a three point calibration on each scale. However, the rest of the instruments only receive a one point calibration on each scale.
ANSI N323-1978, recommends that at least a two point calibration be performed on linear readout instru-ments and a single point (near the midpoint on each decade) calibration be performed on logarithmic instrumentation. The inspector stated that plant procedures should be revised to incorporate those recommendations for the calibration of health physics instrumentation (82-20-01).
6.
Personnel Qualification a.
Technical Specification 6.3.1 states that each member of the facility staff shall meet or exceed ANSI N18.1-1971 with regard to the minimum qualifications for personnel in compariable positions. The inspector reviewed resumes of contract health physics technicians hired to supplement the facility health physics staff during the current outage.
It appeared that all contract health physics technicians used by the licensee in a responsible position meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the ANSI standard.
The inspector noted that the licensee has instituted a new policy beginning with the current outage whereby all contract senior technicians and above are given a compre-hensive health physics test which they must pass before being accepted on-si te. The inspector reviewed the exam and stated that this policy appeared to be appropriate to ensure the quality of contractor services.
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _.
..
.
l
b.
The inspector reviewed available data on the contractor's qualifica-tions to wear respiratory protective equipment.
10 CFR 20.103(c) (2)
states that a physician must determine prior to initial use of respirators, and at least every 12 months thereafter, that the individual user is physicially able to use the respiratory protective equipment.
The inspector was informed that a letter signed by the president of the contractors company stating which of his employees were authorized to wear respiratory protective equipment pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 20.103 and NUREG 0041 is accepted by the licensee as proof that contractor health physics technicians are physically capable to wear respirators. The president of the contract company is not a physician. The inspector stated that only a physician can make the appropriate evaluation and that proof of a physician's evaluation must be obtained for each individual.
For future opera-tiens, a periodic audit of the contractor would suffice to ensure proper physical evaluations.
The inspector stated that this matter would remain unresolved pending evidence of contract technician physical evaluations by a medical physician (82-20-02).
The licensee asked if a physician must now perform individual evalua-tions and physical examinations on perspective respirator users or if the physician could establish a program which specifies minimum acceptable results for pertinent physical examination tests and designates the authority to determine individual user qualification to another person (i.e. registered nurse).
In order to clarify the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103(c)(2) the inspector stated that determi-nation on an individual basis must now be provided by a physician.
However, it is permissible for another individual to sign for the determining physician if the physician desires.
It is not acceptable for a physician to solely establish a program and designate his authority to determine individual user qualifications to another person which was acceptable prior to change documented in Federal Register April 23, 1982.
7.
Radwaste Shipping The inspector reviewed records of radwaste shipments for 1981 and 1982 and selectively examined shipping papers for radwaste shipments in 1982. North Anna had 27 shipments in 1981 containing 2624 curies of total activity in 304 cubic meters of waste material. A total of 2521 curies was associated with seventeen resin shipments (2449 curies in just five shipments of solidified or aewatered depleted primary resins). A total of 201 cubic meters of the total volume shipped of f site was associated with compacted waste. All shipments were made to Barnwell, South Carolina, for burial. No violations or deviations were identified.
Up to the time of this inspection, there had been thirteen radwaste shipments during 1982.
There have been nine resin shipments totaling 133 curies of activity of the total off site shipping activity value of 142
.
. - - - - -
_
. _.
__
_-
...
-
-. - - - _ -
i.
.
.a j
,
curies. Four dry compacted or bulk trash shipments have occurred totaling almost 105 cubic meters of the total volume shipped offsite of approximately
.
146 cubic meters. The inspector identified no buildup of radwaste onsite
during the current outage.
The inspector selectively reviewed shipping
'
papers for 1982 and identified no violations or deviations.
8.
Licensee Action on Inspector Follow-up Items.
'
(Closed) (82-03-01) Procedural guidance for use of extremity TLD's.
The
inspector reviewed HP procedure HP 3.1.2 which was modified to include guidance for use of extremity badging. The revised procedure appeared to be l
adequate. The inspector had no further questions.
(Closed) (82-03-02) Air cylinder hydrostatic test beyond five years. The inspector verified that the air cylinders overdue for their hydrostatic test
,
i were taken out of service and sent offsite for the test. In addition, the
)
licensee established a periodic test (PT) procedure addressing this five
,
year hydrostatic test requirement and, because PT schedules are comput-
,
'
erized, a recurrence of this item should not occur.
The inspector had no further questions.
(Closed) (80-21-13) Operability of containment gas monitor. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this item which included their response to a similar question in the FSAR (Comment 5.19 in FSAR Supplement). The inspector stated that comment 5.19 appeared to adequately address this issue. The inspector had no further questions.
9.
Possible Overexposure i
At approximately 11:40 am on June 12, 1982, a contract worker entered the
!
platform area of "A" steam generator cold leg in Unit 1 to work on eddy i
current equipment which was malfunctioning. The worker was to replace and repair instrumentation on the platform. No entries into the steam generator channel head were necessary nor authorized.
The radiation fields on the platform varied from approximately 300 mrem /hr threa feet from the open i
manway to approximately 2 rem /hr one foot from the open manway. Dose rates
!
as high as 15 to 20 rem /hr were recorded inside the. steam generator. Dose i
rates at the manway opening were approximately 3.5 rem /hr.
I
!
The individual was dressed in cloth and plastic protective clothing, wore i
respiratory protection, and had extremity dosimetry (head and wrist TLDs:
head high range self reading pocket dosimeter) in addition to chest worn TLD and high and low range pocket dosimeters on the inside of his protective clothing.
The worker was in voice contact with an eddy current equipment
operator and a health physics technician at all times. Although not in l
visual contact due to ALARA considerations and physical steam generator l
platform design restrictions, the health physics technician was within 20 feet of the worker.
-..
.
- -
.
,.__ _ _ _ _ -.. _ _ _ _ _. _. _.
-
i
..
e
At approximately 12:00 noon, the HP technician read the worker's head (
pocket dosimeter which indicated a dose of 80 millirem. The worker returned to work and about 30 minutes later fell on his chest dosimetry.
He was unhurt in this fall. At approximately 12:30 pm. the HP technician read the worker's head and chest pocket dosimeters and all were offscale. Subsequent processing of the individual's TLDs revealed the head TLD - 149 millirem, wrist TLD-157 millirem, and the cnest TLD - 5158 millirem.
Combined with the workers previous exposure, it appeared the individual had received a quarterly whole body dose of 5429 millirem.
During the inspection, the inspector reviewed survey data, calibration records, dosimetry test data, exposures of workers performing similar tasks and exact description of work activities.
The inspector also conducted independent tests of the dosimetry devices, interviewed the contractor worker and toured the "1A" steam generator platform in the Unit 1 contain-ment building.
Based on review of the available data and interviews with involved personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee assigned whole body dose of 150 millirem for this incident appeared to be represen-tative of the individual's real occupational dose.
No violations of 10 CFR 20.101 were identified.
l
l l