IR 05000344/1982004
| ML20049J853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Cillis M, Garcia E, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J848 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-82-04, 50-344-82-4, NUDOCS 8203290159 | |
| Download: ML20049J853 (12) | |
Text
_
..
.
_
__
_..
..
,
,
,
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
82-04 Docket No.
50-344 License No.
NPF-1 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street f
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan i
Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted:
January 11-14, 1982 Inspectors:
4 P'f.
-
l M. Cillis, Radiation Specialist Ifate ' Signed
$v NS 72 E. Garcia, Radiation Spe ialist Date Signed Approved by:
b
//fA
'
m F. A. Wenslawski, Chief, Reactor Radiation Protection Dat'e Signed Approved by:
d!/
k
.
~
H. E. Book, Chief, kadiological Safety Branch Date Signed
,
Summary:
Inspection on January 11-14,1982 (Report No. 50-344/82-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of the licensee's radiation protection program, actions on previous inspection findings, licensee event report, primary to secondary steam generator leakage, fuel failure status and
,
a tour of the licensee's facilities. The inspection involved 40 inspector hours on site by two inspectors.
'
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
^
oc[o!$$$$$4 RV Form 219(2)
,
_
-
.
,
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted PorLland General Electric (PGE) Personnel
- J.LAntsch,Ph.D, Manager,GenerationLicensingandAnalysis
.
- C, P. Yundt, General Manager, Trojan
- T. Walt, Manager, Radiological Engineering
,
- T. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor for Manager of Technical Services
- C.'A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services
'
,
N. D. Dyer, Ph.D, Supervisory Health Physicist
.
M. Huey, Radiation Protection Engineer
- G. Rich, Chemistry Supervisor
- R. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations and Maintenance
G. Zielinski," Effluent Analyst
- D. Flahardy, Training Assistant L. Larsonc Unit Supervisor, Radioactive Material Control Manager
- J. D. Reid, Manager, Plant Services V. Parola;" Assistant Radiation Protection Supcrvisor D. Kenter, Operations Supervisor
- P. A. Morton, Q. A. Supervisor
- Denotes those. individuals attending the exit interview on January 14, 1982.
In-addtEiontothe'individualsnotedabove,theinspectorsmetwith and interviewef other members of the licensee's staff.
R_ad_iation Protection - Organization 2.
a An examination'of the licensee's Chemistry and Radiation Protection organization was conducted during the inspection.
The organization is as-described in IE Inspection Reports 50-344/80-16 and 50-344/81-02.
Changes in the organization have been minimal.
A total of 18 C&RPTs are currently on the staff, eight are assigned to chemistry and ten to ra'diation protection. The licensee reported that the C&RPT staffing level was to be increased during 1982 to 15 C&RPT assigned to radiation ~ protection and 10 C&RPT assigned to chemistry.
Cross training of-the radiation protection and chemistry C&RPTs appeared to be adequate.
The C&RPTs are routinely interchanged on a quarterly interval between chemistry and radiation protection groups.
The C&RPT'*, experience level and qualifications appeared to be consistent with ANSI-N18.1,1971.
Both the Radiation Protection Supervisor and Chmistry Supervisor staff are augmented with an ample engineering staff at the site and corporate office.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i
)
.
'
.
-2-3.
Training The inspector observed the portions of the general employee train-ing related to radiation protection.
This training consists of three major elements:
Introduction to Radiological Controls, Prenatal Radiation Exposure, and Radiation and Contamination Practical-Facts Demonstration.
Introduction to Radiological Controls is a video tape presentation lasting about 30 minutes. The video tape is supplemented by a nine page digest which the participants may use to follow along with the tape. Af ter the tape ends, the trainees are asked if they have any questions and a 12 question multiple choice quiz is given.
A member of the training staff was present in the room when the quiz was given.
Part Two of the radiation protection training consisted of an approximately ten-minute long video tape on Prenatal Radiation Exposure, and a copy of Regulatory Guide 8.13, Instructions Con-cerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure.
The Radiation and Contamination Practical-Facts Demonstration, the third part of the radiation protection training, consisted of a video tape and a life presentation and practical exercise.
The video tape showed a worker going through the process of registering into a controlled area by following the instructions on the proper radiation work permit (RWP), getting the required personnel dosimetry, donning and removing protective clothing, and following the rules and restrictions that were noted on the RWP, and other, posted instructions. The radiation protection training specialist complemented the tape by emphasizing the fine points during a lecture demonstration.
This demonstration culminated with the trainees dressing in protective clothing and practicing the removal of these clothes witho'ut spreading contamination to themselves, other workers, or clean areas.
The inspector commented to the training supervisor and during the exit interview that although the training met the minimum require-ments of 10 CFR 19.12, some areas received very limited presentation, often no more than a sentence in a video tape, and as such might not be understood by the trainees.
Some of the examples the inspector mentioned included the responsibility of employees to report promptly to the licensee any condition which may lead to or cause a violation of commission regulations and licenses or unnecessary exposure to radiation or to radioactive material and the right of workers to request their radiation exposure reports pursuant to 10 CFR 19.13. The training supervisor stated that the inspector's comments would be considered.
The need to improve the effective-
,
ness of the training was also discussed at the exit interview.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
-
.
.
.
__ -
l l
'
.
-3-4.
Radioactive Waste Systems - Unplanned Gaseous Releases
$
a.
Unplanned Release of November 1_7-18_,_ 19_8_1_
-
The inspector examined gaseous discharge permit records and data associated with an unplanned noble gas release in excess ~
of 5 curies that occurred on November 17 and.18,_1981.
Licensee notification of the occurrence pursuant to paragraph 1.1.5.f was made in accordance with paragraph 3.5.2.a.(3) of, Appendix.B to the T.S. on Licensee Event Report No. CPY-996-81, dated
.
December 14, 1981.
The LER reported that unplanned noble ga's releases-of-11.2 curies and 9.4 curies had occurred on November 17 and 18 respectively. The releases were less than 0.1 and 2 percent of the T.S. instantaneous release limits for radioiodines and noble gases respectively. The data reviewed revealed no obvious mistakes or anomalous measurement results.
An investigation of the occurrence was conducted by the licensee on November 23, 1981.
The results of the inves-i tigation documented on a licensee report numt;er DRK-082-81 was reviewed by the inspector.
The licensee's investigation identified that a control switch for the waste gas compressor moisture separator drain trap isolation valve had been incorrectly installed during electrical modification work performed on November 17, 1981.
The switch
had been rotated 180* so that the " closed" position opened the isolation valve and vice versa. The switch was returned to its correct position and tested satisfactorily on November 18, 1981. The event was considered as an isolated occurrence.
b.
(Closed) Followup (50-344/81-27) Unplanned Release of September 29-30, 1981 The inspector examined actions taken by the licensee with respect to an unplanned noble gas release of September 29 and 30, 1981 discussed in paragraph 4.a of IE Inspection Report 50-344/81-27.
The licensee has implemented actions to reduce the alarm set points for Process and Effluent Radiation Monitors (PERMS) as discussed in memorandum number GLR-065-81 of November 13, 1981
'
and increased the C&RPT surveillance checks of the PERMS readings. The licensee action. to minimize the recurrence of similar unplanned releases was determined to be satisfactory.
This matter is considered closed (81-27-01).
-
-
.
.-
-
.
.
.-
-.
--
.
-4-c.
(Closed) Followup (50-344/81-27) Other Unplanned / Abnormal Gaseous Releases The inspector examined actions taken by the licensee in regards to the increasing number of unplanned gaseous releases as discussed in paragraph 4.b of IE Inspection Report No.
50-344/ 81-27.
The report identified that the increasing number of unplanned releases were symptoms that were worthy of investigation.
The inspector reviewed a licensee report No. T0M-146-81 dated November 19, 1981 which indicated that strong management
,
actions had been taken to investigate the problem.
The licensee plans to continue the close review of data through June of 1982 or longer if necessary for the purpose of identifying methods for minimizing unplanned relec.ses.
The need to continue the evaluation of unplanned releases was emphasized at the exit interview. This matter is considered closed.
(81-27-02).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Radioactive Waste Systems - Prima _ryJe_cific Activity.
The status of the primary specific activity levels due to fuel failures as discussed in Region V IE Inspection Reports 50-344/81-25 and 50-344/81-27 was examined during the inspection.
The examination revealed that the primary coolant Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 activity and gross ganna specific activity levels have been increasing for several months reaching 60% to 66% and 30% to 35% respectively, of T.S. limits.
The situation is being monitored very closely by the licensee staff and management. The licensee has initiated a weekly communication link with Westinghouse Fuels Division to ' discuss and evaluate the situation.
The licensee is plotting the-Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 analysis on a daily basis.
Projections based on the plotted data to date indicate that the Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 limit of 1.0 microcurie / gram could be reached between April 15 and May 15 if the trend continues.
The need for the licensee to notify the NRC of any significant i
changes on the status of this problem was discussed at the exit interview,
'
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Steam Generator Tube Leakage The status of the primary to secondary steam generator tube leakage was examined during the inspection. The leak rate for "B" steam
-
- -.
-
.
-5-generator was approximately 16 gallons per day at the time of the inspection.
'
The' licensee'is maintaining a close surveillance on the status of
the primary-to-secondary steam generator tube leak.
The specific activity of the secondary coolant system is well below
'
the -- 0.1 uCi/ gram Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 limit specified in paragraph 4.7.1.5 of Appendix "A" to the T.S.
The licensee is plotting the leak rate results on a daily basis.
Projections based on the data plotted to date indicate the leak rate may possibly reach approximately 100 gallons per day by May of 1982.
.
The inspector reviewed all possible release paths from the steam generator secondary side as identified from P& ids for the purpose of determining whether or not they are being sampled.
The review
'
revealed that all possible release paths were being routinely sampled by the licensee.
Sample analysis results reviewed by the inspector did not reveal any anomalous measurements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Followup (50-344/81-25)
The licensee's action in regard to the preparation and issuance of liquid and gaseous effluent procedures which were
.
PRB reviewed and approved by the General Manager as required
'
by Section 6.8 of the T.S. was examined.
The inspection
,
revealed that the licensee's actions were now c....sistent with Section 6.8 of the T.S.
This matter is considered closed.
(81-25-01).
b.
(Closed) Followup (50-344/81-27)
i The_ inspector examined the licensee's actions for developing a method to determine the amount of activity contained in one Waste Gas Decay Tank (WGDT) was within the limits specified in paragraph 1.1.5e of Appendix B to the T.S.
The inspection
,
'
revecled that the Generation Licensing and Analysis Department had developed an appropriate method for determining the amount of activity contained in one WGDT.
This matter is considered closed.
(81-27-04).
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
.
J
.
. _.
-6-
-
8.
Steam Line Rupture The inspector examined C&RP logs and data associated with a steam line rupture on the number 5 feedwater line that had been reported to the NRC resident inspector by the licensee on January 8,.1982.
The log indicated that contamination surveys of the steam line pipe and areas adjacent to the steam line pipe break had been 2 obtained.
Results of the surveys were all below 1000 dpm 100 cm.
The inspectors observed the section of steam line during their tour of the licensee's facilities.
The ruptured section had been re-l moved and replaced with a new section.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
9.
Tour of Facility The inspection included a tour of the auxiliary building, radio-active storage areas, laundry room, radioactive waste compactor area, turbine building, and the refueling building.
Independent radiation measurements of the licensee's facilities were obtained during the tour. The tour included observations to determine compliance with the following regulatory requirements:
,
Areas Requirements posting of radiation areas, high 10CFR20,203(b),(c),(d),(e)
radiation areas, airborne activity, controlled areas, and radioactive material storage areas labeling of containers 10CFR20.203(f)
control of radiation and high 10CFR20.105(b) 1 and 2 radiation areas engineered Controls 10CFR20.103(b) 1 and 2 Independent measurements were made with a Eberline, R02 survey
instrument, Serial Number NRC #008985 due for calibration on
,
l March 14, 1982. The independent measurements confirmed the licensee's postings and labeling practices.
'
The areas toured were well organized and very clean.
The Radio-active Material Control Manager who is responsible for solid radioactive waste management was commended at the exit interview for his efforts in the maintenance of the facilities toured.
The tour did reveal crowded conditions existed in the radioactive j
,
waste compactor room and laundry room.
The portable HVAC system
'
. - _ _
_
_
_
.
.
- 7-used in the radioactive waste compactor room appeared to be primitive.
The-exhaust ducting from the HVAC was installed in a manner such that it prevented the closure of the compactor room c3 ors in the event of an abnormal release of airborne radioactivity. This observation was discussed at the exit interview.
Observations also revealed an increase in the number of high radiation areas which have been attributed to the fuel cladding failures discussed in IE Inspection Reports 50-344/81-25 and 50-344/81-27.
The number of high radiation areas ( > 1 R/hr) which are required to be locked have increased from five areas to eight areas. The number of high radiation areas ranging from 100 mr/hr to 51 R/hr have increased from 12 areas to 17.
The licensee's radiation protection staff and ALARA Engineer is maintaining a close surveil-lance over this problem.. Observations revealed the areas are being controlled in accordance with the regulatory requirements.
Discussions held with the ALARA Engineer revealed that preplanning efforts are currently underway for the upcoming refueling outage scheduled for May of 1982.
Plans for flushing and shielding of high reading lines are currently being considered in an effort to reduce the high radiation levels.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifieu 10.
Radiation Control - Surveys Routine surveys are performed on the basis of a schedule specified in procedures. Nonroutine surveys are performed on an as required basis.
Survey results are documented and include dose rates, contamination levels, and airborne activity.
Results of surveys are reviewed by the Assistant Radiation Protection Supervisor or RPM and are denoted on p.ostings at access control points and for the preparation of or updating RWPs.
Special survey results or items of special interest and/or_ concern are noted in the C&RP shift log.
Survey records for the period November 1 through December 15, 1981 were examined.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Radiation Protection - Exposure Control - External a.
Dosimetry Program Recent changes, as discussed in paragrpah 2 of IE Inspection
,
Report 50-344/81-27, were implemented for improving the dosimetry and radiation protection program. The changes will allow the RPM and Training Supervisor more time to concentrate on day to day operation r-8-The personnel dosimetry and whole body counting program which was previously under the direction of the RPM is now under the direction of a Ph.D Supervisory, Health Physicist recently appointed from the corporate office.
The PGE facility radia-tion protection personnel are still responsible for determining the need for extremity / multiple dosimetry and scheduling the need for special whole body counts of personnel on an indivi-dual job basis.
A Landauer, Jr. and Company Information Ser/ ices computer system which utilizes a Harshaw Automatic Tr.D Reader, Model 2271 and is accessible by data phone link is use.1 to update personnel exposures. TLDs are normally exchanged on 7. monthly basis.
PICS are used to supplement TLD data.
Daily reports are available for job and dose distribution
>
planning.
The system is programmed to accept dosimetry data for multiple dosimetry placement (e.g. head, ' chest, waist, back, right and left thighs), with the exception of extremity (e.g. finger rings) monitoring.
A two week turn around time is required for processing extremity dosimetry.
The licensee is in the process of improving their extremity dosimetry program capabilities.
b.
Exposure Control The inspector reviewed records, procedures, interviewed individuals and observed workers to determine compliance with exposure control regulatory requirements.
The licensee complies with the requirements of 20.202 by issuing thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to individuals whose anticipated exposure will exceed 10 mrem.
In addition, pocket ion chambers (PICS) are required in radiation control areas. The inspector observed the issuance of TLDs to new workers and noted during the tour of the control area that PICS and TLDs were worn by all personnel encountered.
According to a licensee's representative, PGE determines an individual's age based on the information provided on Form NRC-4 and the fact that a security badge has been issued.
Review of the list of individuals assigned TLDs as of January 11, 1982 did not identify any individual under 18 years of age.
The dosimetry records of eleven individuals selected by the inspec-tor were examined; six of the eleven had been hired at age 18 or 19.
Prior exposure had been determined on all eleven by completion of Form NRC-4 and by completing PGE's Form REB-116-D, Current Quarter Occupational External Radiation Exposure.
The above forms had been completed prior to the issuance of TLDs.
The licensee utilizes Form REB-116-G, Individual Radiation Exposure Record, to maintain the records required under 10 CFR 20.401(a).
This form, REB-116-G, contains all the
_ _ -
.-
.
.
-9-information required and it is kept in accordance with the instruction on Form NRC-5. No exposures in excess of the regulatory limits were identified.
Howevcr, the expcsure record of an 18 year old worker indicates that on October 16, 1979 the individual was granted approval to receive up to 2000 mrem in that quarter. The individual's actual exposure for the quarter was only 98 mrem.
If the approved exposure of
2000 mrem had been received, it would have constituted an overexposure under 10 CFR 20.101(a),(b)2 which establishes a limit of 1250 mrem per calendar quarter for 18 year olds.
The licensee's representative agreed to review current practices to insure that exposure extensions above the regulatory requirements would not be granted for 18 year old individuals.
This was discussed at the exit interview.
c.
Dosimetry Procedures The licensee has developed and issued station procedures which are included in t' ' Radiation Protection Manual (RPM) and Generation Licensing & Analysis Instruction Manual (GL& AIM).
Administrative exposure control requirements are established in the RPM. The GL& AIM establishes the operating instructions for processing TLDs, instructions for TLD exchange, TLD response characteristics and instructions for TLD issuance and data records used for personnel radiation dosimetry.
The RPM procedures have established administrative exposure limits of 0.3 rem per week, l'and 2.5 rem per quarter and 4.5 rem per year. Authorization to exceed these limits requires evaluation of availability of other qualified per-sonnel to perform the work, evaluation of the current cumulative exposure and administrative approval.
The inspector discussed instruction GLAI 100-16a in detail with the cognizant supervisor and made eleven minor comments.
The inspector also noted that four individuals who had termin-ated employment with the licensee had not been sent dosimetry termination reports within 30 days of PGE having determined their exposure.
None of the individuals had received quarterly exposures in excess of 25% of 20.101 limits. ~The licensee's representative stated that due to a recent decrease in the turn around time of TLD's analysis the _ submission of reports had fallen behind schedule. All the reports were submitted prior to the end of the inspection. This matter was discussed at the exit interview.
d.
Exposure Control - Internal Exposures to airborne radioactive materials are limited through the use of air samples, analysis and stay time cal-culations. The effectiveness of controls are evaluated by i
-
-
-
~
r
i
.
- 10-
.
means of whole body counting and bioassay sample analysis when
'
determined necessary.
Continuous air monitors (CAMS) at various locations are augmented with grab air samples.
If activity above background is detected, the samples are analyzed in a laboratory and concenta tions and MPCs are calculated.
Ir.,.lividual exposures are evaluatea using airborne concentra-tions and MPCs, worker location, and stay t1mes from RWPs and respiratory protection requirements in effect at the time of the exposure.
The licensee's Radiation Protection Manual (RPM) requires tritium analyses to be performed on urine samples collected from selected personnel involved in fuel handling.
Special whole body counting is normally performed to evaluate possible exposures.
The RPM identified that bioassay samples for, tritium analyses for selected personnel were not performed during the most recent refueling outage of 1981. The RPM indicated that this was inadvertently missed and added that-the need for performing the bioassays cc ild probably have been deleted based,on survey data that was au llable. The RPM indicated that the bioassay program would be implemented for the next refueling outage ~as required by the RPM.
The inspector also reviewed the individual dosimetry records for internal exposure control. No exposures in excess of the regulatory limits were identified. All eleven individuals'
records reviewed in detail indicated that medical reviews for respirator use and initial whole body counts had been con-ducted.
All but two also had records of respirator fitting.
The two without respirator fitting were not approved to use respirators. The inspector noted that one individual had not had a yearly whole body count as the licensee's procedure requires.
The need for procedure compliance was discussed at the exit interview.
No items of noncomplianca or deviations were identified.
!
12.
Exit Interview
'
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on January 14, 1982.
i The scope of the inspection and findings were summarized.
The following items were emphasized at the exit interview:
a.
The need to evaluate methods for improving the effectiveness of the general employee training program.
.
.
_
..
-_.
.
-
__
-
.,
....
_
.
....
-
-
.
..
.
.-
i
'
.
'
i-11-b.
The need to continue evaluating methods for the prevention of unplanned / abnormal releases of radioactivity.
.
c.
The need for procedural compliance.
,
'
d.
The need to review the adequacy of the procedures for approving exposure limit extensions to ensure individuals 18 years of
'
age are not inadvertently authorized extensions in excess of the regulatory limits.
e.
The need to determine if current employment hiring practices for PGE employees and temporary (e.g. contractors, consultants)
i
employees adequately verify an individual's age prior to permitti.19 the individual's entry to restricted areas where occupational exposure to ionizing radiation is possible.
]
I j
j
i
i
i
!
f
,
J t
E
,
-
- -.,.
- -
,
-,,
-
. ~..
- -. -
,
.. - -
..,,,
-