IR 05000423/1987007
| ML20209D491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1987 |
| From: | Kaminski M, Shanbaky M, Weadock A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D490 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-87-07, NUDOCS 8704290297 | |
| Download: ML20209D491 (7) | |
Text
._ _.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 87-07 Docket No.
50-423 License No.
NPF-49 Category C
Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3 Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: March 23-26, 1987 Inspectors:
Mk d'
/
f7 A. padock, Radiatiorf 5pecialist date Cu A (stb v/ah7 M. pinski, Radiatior/ Specialist date /
'
Approved by:
M M4 4'[/7 !f'7 M. Shanbaky, Chief'
/
date Facilities Radiation Protection Section, EPRPB Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 23-26,1987 (Report No.50-423/87-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection to review the licensee's implementation of their Radiation Protection Program during outage conditions.
Areas inspected included external exposure controls, internal exposure con-trols, facilities and equipment, training, and outage ALARA.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations were identified. Good performance and strong positive controls over radiological activities were noted in the areas reviewed.
8704290297 870420 PDR ADOCK 05000423 G
PDR l
,_
._
. -,
-
-
-
.
_
-
-
-
..
,
_
__
.
.
Details 1.0 Personnel Contacted
- C. Clement, Unit 3 Superintendent
- J. Kangley, Radiological Services Supervisor
- B. Granados, Health Physics Supervisor
- R. Sachatello, Unit 3 Radiation Protection Supervisor P. Simmons, Radiation Protection Support Supervisor
- T. Mcdonald, Training Supervisor - Mechanical
- P. Strickland, Training Supervisor-Health Physics and Chemistry
- S. Turowski, Unit 3 ALARA Coordinator
- M. Bellman, RAB - Radiation Protection Support Supervisor
- B.
Collins, RAB - Radiation Protection Associate Scientist i
Other licensee personnel were also contacted during the course of this inspection.
- Attended the exit interview on March 26, 1987 2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this routine, unannounced safety inspection was to review the licensee's implementation of their Radiation Protection Program during outage conditions. The following areas were included
in this review:
-
-
external exposure controls,
-
internal exposure controls, i
-
facilities and equipment,
-
outage ALARA,
-
personnel staffing, qualifications, and training 3.0 External Exposure Controls The licensee's program for evaluating radiological conditions and provid-ing controls over worker exposure was evaluated by the following methods:
,
-
discussion with Health Physics (HP) supervisor and technician personnel,
-
tour of various radiological areas and observation of ongoing work activities,
-
review of the following documentation:
procedure SHP #4912, " Radiation Work Permit (RWP) Flow Control"
RWP 87-0439, "B Reactor Coolant Pump: Change out Seal,"
i
RWP 87-0440, D Reactor Coolant Pump: Change out Seal,
RWP 87-0261, Remove S/G Secondary handhole cover, RWP 87-0377, Remove PORVs,
'
RWP 87-0417, Inspect Snubbers, i
i i
f
..,., -,.
. -,
,, _.
,,,,. -
,
. _..,, - - -,
.,,
w
--
.-
.-..
-
.
.
radiological surveys and ALARA exposure control sheets associated with the above RWPs,
personnel exposure history files for selected radiation workers.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identified. The licensee's HP staff was noted to be positively controlling on-going radio-logical work activities in an effective fashion.
Substantial supervisory oversight was noted in the field. The inspector also noted the follow-ing:
-
scope and content of controling RWPs was appropriate for the work being performed, pre-job and during-work radiological surveys were performed as
-
required, updated radiological status boards, surveys and ALARA exposure
-
control sheets were available at the various control points,
_
workers were noted to be receiving thorough briefings prior to work activities, the control point was well-organized and appropriately staffed.
-
A potential area for improvement was identified during the above review.
The inspector noted no phone or intercom system was used to establish communications between the control point and the Reactor Coolant Pump work areas.
Such a system may be valuable in improving communication and control over the worksite while minimizing technician exposure. The licensee stated that such a system will be used in the future.
4.0 Internal Exposure Control 4.1 Respiratory Protection The licensee's respiratory protection program was reviewed with respect to the criteria contained in 10 CFR 20.103 ' Exposure of individuals to concentrations of radioactive materials in air in restricted areas."
The licensee's performance in this area was reviewed by the following means:
examination of radiation work permit sign-in sheets, examination of respirator qualification records of several randomly selected workers,
examination of respirator issuance logs,
examination of air sample records, interview of respirator issue technician, review of training and qualifications of responsible technicians.
Licensee personnel responsible for the issue, maintenance, and repair of respirators were trained and qualified.
Respirator inventory was adequate to meet the demand for respirators. The issuance of respir-ators was well controlled. A completed respirator authorization
..
.
-
_
_.
-.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
card, indicating the holder has received a medical, training, and fit-test, must be submitted before an individual may be issued a respirator.
To corroborate the data on the card, a computer print out of the data for all site personnel is placed at the respirator issuance point.
This printout is updated on a weekly basis.
The licensee was found to have a well documented respiratory protection program.
Respira-tors were issued by qualified technicians to personnel who were properly qualified in their use.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identified.
4.2 Air Sampling and Bioassay The licensee's programs for evaluating airborne radioactivity con-centrations and intakes of radioactive material were evaluated by the following means:
review of randomly selected air samples and accompanying radiation work permits, interview of count room technician,
review of whole body count data,
review of whole body counter procedures and calibration data, telephone _ interview of Camberra. whole body counter development staff.
Licensee count room personnel indicated that air samples taken during the outage were of low activity and did not approach MPC levels. A review of randomly selected air samples substantiated this statement.
Further evidence of low amounts of airborne radioactivity was seen in the fact that whole body counts conducted during the outage showed no activity except for two minor external contamination incidents.
The inspector reviewed 1986 calibration records for the licensee's
,
two whole body counting chairs and determined that calibrations were being performed at the frequency required by the procedures.
The licensee has also obtained a Canberra Fastscan whole body count-er. The counter has been in service since January 1,1987. Approx-imately two dozen counts of individuals have been done since this date. Currently, the licensee's Fast Scan calibration procedure HP 908/2908/3908L calls for a monthly energy calibration using a mixed isotope source.
Licensee personnel stated that this is not current practice; instead the licensee relies on a daily Co-60, Cs-137 source / energy check.
Through examination of the Canberra Fastscan vender documentation and discussions with licensee and canberra per-sonnel, the inspector determined 'that this practice is acceptable ~.
Licensee personnel stated that procedure HP 908/2908/3908L would be revised to reflect this requirement. This area will be examined on a subsequent inspection.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identified.
- - -.
-
-
.
.. -
.
.
5.0 Facilities and Equipment The licensee established and was utilizing several new facilities in support of the current outage. A personnel briefing / frisking area was established outside the personnel access to containment. Although this was not used as a control point to control specific work activities inside containment, several HP technicians were statfored at this area to frisk equipment and answer general questions.
Radiological survey and ALARA status boards and pictures of the various work areas and components inside containment were available for review prit>r to entry into containment.
A glass bead decontamination facility, located on a mobile truiler, was brought on-site to support maintenarice activities. As a result of using this facility, equipment was effectively decontaminated.
The licensee also established a herculite tent work area on the 24'6" elevation of the Fuel Building to support pressurizer relief valve main-tenance activities.
The inspector noted that, although adequate to sup-port the ongoing level of activity, the tert did not represent an effec-tive air-tight enclosure. The licensee indicated that a permanent plexi-glass enclosure had been ordered and once on-site, would probably be located in the same area. This enclosurc,,culd yrovide 4 high visibility, air-tight and controlled work area which would eilow work activities involving high levels of contamination.
A stand-up whole body counter facility has been established for operation adjacent to the North Access Point. This counter is intended primarily for initial body counts of new employees; no shower facilities are avail-able for decontamination efforts. Details of whole body counter calibra-tion are discussed in Section 4.0.
6.0 Outage ALARA The inspector reviewed the performance of the Unit ALARA staff in support of the current outage.
Staffing for the outage consists of the ALARA coordinator, an ALARA helper on both shifts, and an administrative aide.
An overall outage exposure goal of 32 man-rem had been estimated for the current outage. Significant work activities contributing to this overall estimate included the following:
Activity Estimate (man-rem)
RCP Seal Work 9.0 Snubber Replacement 7.8 Valve Repacking 4.2 Containment Lighting 3.4 j
As of March 24, 1987, overall outage exposure had reached approximately 66% ofthe goal.
No work specific exposure estimates had been exceede.
.
____ _ _.
.
i
The inspector noted the following items had been or were being effectively
,
j performed:
Job-specific outage exposure goals were in place prior to the outage.
-
Actual exposure and man-hour accruals were tracked and updated
-
against the goals daily.
Results of actual mar.-rem versus goal analyses were regularly includ-
-
ed and discussed in outage meetings.
ALARA exposure control checklists were available at the worksite.
-
The ALARA coordinator and ALARA helpers wcre routinely noted in the
-
field preparing for and reviewing work activities.
The ALARA staff was notad taking extensive photographs of components
-
and work activities to augment their picture history files.
The inspector also noted the Unit I and 2 ALARA coordinators at the Unit 3 HP. offices during the course of this inspection.
The licensee indicated efforts have begun to cross-train the site ALARA coordinators by having them all participate and review activities as each unit undergoes outage.
Performance of the Unit 3 ALARA group, in addition to final exposure results of the current outage, will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
7.0 Personnel Selection, Qualification and Training 7.1 Radiation Protection Personnel i
The licensee's selection of contractor radiation protection techni-cians was reviewed against the following criteria:
-
ANSI N18.1, 1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,"
-
Procedure SHP 4920, " Contracted Health Physics Personnel Training Program."
The licensee's performance in this area was reviewed by discussion with supervisory personnel and review of selected technician resumes and training records.
Within the scope of the above review no violations were identified.
The licensee has augmented their operating staff with the addition of 31 fully qualified and 4 " helper" vendor technicians. The inspec-tor verified that resumes of incoming technicians received appropri-ate supervisory review and that vendor technicians received training in station procedures and instrumentation in accordance with SHP 4920.
i
!
i
..- -.--
,
_ - _ - _,.
- - -
- _. -..
.-_
--
.
_-
_.
-
_
..
.
7.2 Radiation Workers The licensee's ALARA review for the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Seal work required that involved workers receive, in addition to Radiation Worker training, RCP mock-up training. The inspector reviewed implementation of this criterion by the following methods:
discussion with various radiation workers,
-
-
review of training history files for selected workers.
Within the scope of the above review, no violations were identified.
Current radiation worker training was verified for all workers reviewed.
In addition, RCP mock-up training was verified for workers identified in performing maintenance on the RCPs.
An initial review of the Unit 3 RCP mock-up was performed during a pre-vious inspection and is described in NRC Report No. 423/87-01. At that
,
time, training on the mock-up had just begun.
During the current inspec-
'
tion, the inspector followed-up on the use of the RCP mock-up by inter-viewing ALARA personnel, various radiation workers, and station training personnel. Use of the RCP mock-up resulted in two significant benefits in addition to the increase in worker familiarity with the component and work conditions that is the typical benefit gained from mock-up training.
During acck-up training the licensee significantly modified the RCP main-tenance procedure to reflect recommendations from the various work groups attending training.
The mock-up was also used to develop RCP specific tools and "go-no go" tolerance gauges to increase worker efficiency and
decrease stay-time and subsequently may decrease the collective job exposures.
8.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1 of j
this report) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 26, 1987. The
)
inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection at
'
that time.
j
!
l
,
$
,.., -. - -
__
, - - _ _ -, - _ _
-.
-
., _, -., - - -
- _.,,. - - - -,,., _ - _, -,, -
..,.m-
.. - - -.,
.
-