IR 05000440/1990019
| ML20062A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1990 |
| From: | Michael Kunowski, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062A867 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-90-19, NUDOCS 9010230180 | |
| Download: ML20062A869 (8) | |
Text
gs"H*F
<g
_
_
'
<
'
'
,
' j
,
,
'"
Ly
',
'
n
-
y
<
L" l
, y'. ' ;, i
,
..
,
,
,
,
,
- .# l ~
y,
,..
e
'
'i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
[4 7-
-
<
'
g 3.y
,
.
$
,
i[.
.
...
.
,
'
~ReportNo.50-440/90019(DRSS)-
l
. Docket No.'50-440i License i;o..NPF-58 h
,
,
,
(
.Licensse:' Clevelan'd_Electsic Illuminating Company
,
- Post Office Box =5000
,l g'
Cleveland, OH 44101 i
w-
..
.
.
M LFacilityNameD Perry Nuclear Power Plant
!
,
I'nspection 'At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio
- '
'
'
<
.
Inspection Conducted:
September 5-21, 1990
>
,
7 Inspect 0r:
A'.
Run w
/ o/A/9 e
? 4
. Radiation Specialist
'Date '
'
m'-
.
'
Accompanying Inspector:- N. Shah
,..
Y jo&c).
%
Approved By.;
M. C.LSchumacher, Chief
'
Radiological Controls and Date Chemistry Section
.
.
Inspection Summary
! Inspection on September 5-21, 1990 (Report No. 50-440/90019(DRSS)):
Areas ~ Inspected: -. Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection
,1
program (Inspection' Procedure (IP) 83750), including: changes in organization, outoge:planniagiand preparation, internal exposure assessment. zinc-65 i < contribution to shutdown dose rate, a discrete particle problem associated e
";
- with fuel handling equipment,- andia worker concern with protective' clothing.
'
TheLinspectors'also reviewed previous inspection findings and'the licensee's
-
J
' reviewLof a'recent Infonnation Notice (IP 92701), and a Licensee Event Report
'
,
& g'
.(IP192700):..
'b
- Results:' Tne licensee's second refueling outage, scheduled for 83 ' days and projected to result-in. 575 person-rem, began during the _ inspection.
The
'
<licenseo's implementation of its radiation protection program was adequate.
7,
,
N-
- Strong performance was noted in the licensee's overall planning 'and -
Jpreparation for-the outage (Section 5) including anticipation of possible
<
- g J"'
Tproblems withizinc-65 during reactor shutdowns (Section 7).- One~ violation f
(failure to perform a? Technical Specification-required action in the specified,
"
'
time _ period--Section 3) was identified, but not cited,'because the provisions E%
? of:Section?V.G.I. xof the NRC Enforcement' Policy were satisfied, a
s
,
>.
I
$0k*$@f@K05o004o0
.
O 901015 L
a
,-
,
pdc w
u
'3
_
n
'
?
y;
'
.
M
'
'
n, -
DETAILS s
1. : -Persoas contacted
,
-+T. A. iBoss, Supervisor, Onsite Quality Unit
+R. R.- Bowers, Manager, Radiation Protection Section (RPS)
_.
LD. W.:Conran, Compliance Engineer, Licensing and Compliance Section (LCS)-
J. J. Grimm, Plant Chemist-
,
H. L. Hegrat, Lead Engineer, LCS s
+T. S. Hogan, Operations Engineer, LCS G. W. Kindred, Health Physics (HP) Planning Supervisor, RPS P.'M. Moskowitz, HP Supervisor, f,PS
. C. Reiter, Technical Support Supervisor, RPS
+E.?Riley, Director, Perry Nuclear Assurance Department
+C. A. Shelton General Supervisor, Chemistry Section
.
.
+R.
M. Stiffler, Shif t Supervisor-R.' A. Stratman, General Manager, Perry Plant
+L. L. VanDerHorst, Plant Health Physicist, RPS The inspectors also contacted other licensee and contractor personnel.
P.- Hiland, NRC. Senior Resident Inspector
+G. F. O'Dwyer, NRC Resident Inspector
+ Denotes those.present at the exit meeting on September 21, 1990.
2.
General This inspection was. conducted-to review the implementation of the licensee's radiation protection program. At the time of the inspection, the_ licensee had just begun its second refueling outage. The outage is scheduled for.83 days, with a projected person-rem total of 575.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins)ection Findings and an Information Notice (IP 92701), and Licensee Event leport Followup-(IP 92700)
a.
(Closed) Open Item No. 440/84013-01(DRSS): Assure-post-accident gaseous effluent representative sampling by empirical predetermina-tion of -radiciodine plateout/ deposition loss correction factors.
By letter dated March 3, 1989, the licensee proposed a change to Commitment 16, Gaseous Effluent Sampling System Representative Sample, in Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Appendix 1B, Perry Nuclear Power Plant Licensee Commitments.
Unless prior approval is
=obtained from the-NRC, no commitment changes may be made to this appendix by the licensee.
By letter dated' July 14, 1989, the NRC notified De licensee that the proposed commitment change would be acceptable with one minor clarification.
Subsequently, Connitment 16 was revised in USAR Appendix 1B in March 1990. The connitment now states that the licensee shall perform measurements on the radiciodine and particulate sampling systems on a schedule to be determined after NRC staff guidance is provided on the method for determining line loss, if the NRC staff concludes that such
2
'
s
I
<.
} ',b D
'!
i A
y ;" w m
.
.
j i
)
,
Jy
&
a.
j
.,
,
- , 9,, a (D.
,
&
.
q
,
,(
,
[
,
. mea su rements ~ a re. neces sa ry ffo r. these ; sys tems ;
Since the licensee-
'
-
E*m has'completedfalliNRC identified: actions regarding this matter, l
s
{q
'this item is closed.:
l
'
'
.
m-
?..
b'. -
.
o
.,
p[ 3-
.
'(Closed)LER90013:
Personnel Error-DuringiSurveillance Results; j
.
' '
+
cin an Inoperable Main Steam Line Radiation Monitorfin Excess'of
['
- 2 Technical SpecificationLAllowances.
--
N
'
'
L0n Jun'er19,:1990~. during a; post-surveillance review by.arainstrument -
,
,
.
'and control (I&C) engineer, the licensee determined that'the "C"'
'
main steam line' radiation monitor was inoperable and the required raction, placing the' trip system in 'a tripped condition within 1:
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> :had not:been performed. This action-is required by both
'
.
Technicalj Specification 3.3.1; Reactor'. Protection System Instru :
'
mentation, and Technical ' Specification '3.3.2 Isolation Actuation
'
's LInstrumentation. The surveillance of the monitor had been.ccmpleted -
a
.on. June 18, 1990, approximately 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />' prior to-theLreview by thet
-
'l
-
- engineer -
'
'
,
LThe ulicensee's evaluation identified the cause of this event was l
-
. personnel error, as the I&C technician.who. performed.the i
surveillance, and the Control Room Unit Supervisor who reviewed d
,
,the results, faile~d to recognize that one of the tested values was-
-
a coutside of.the allowable' values.
q
,
The. licensee!s" corrective actions were as follows.
_
.+
- The' monitor was declared inoperable.
-.
.
.
+:
The trip system for this channel was tripped.
+.
The monitor instrumentation drawer'in the control room was
ireplaced'and retested.
_iq The monitor.was declared operable and-the system trip was j
- +
removed, w
.u
+
The I&C technician'and the Control-Room Un_it. Supervisor were-counseled on the importance of surveillance reviews Land a
attention to detail, and training on the lessons. learned.
,
,
from this event will be provided to all I&C technicians and-licensed' operators during continuing traini.ng. sessions.
!
.:
ms Ths inspectors concludea, based on their review, that this event received prompt evaluation by licensee _ management personnel.- The-i
,,
root cause evaluation and corrective actions lwere adequate, and.
'
s the ' event appeared to be of. minor. safety significance. The
p t~ inspectors'treview of this LER noted it was similar to LER'90-012
,
!
1<
which involvedifailure to-identify several out-of-specification valuest on -an auxiliary operator's round sheet.
This concern was
,
- discussed with a licensee representative, who acknowledged the need to improve review of data sheets and agreed to make plant personnel aware of this matter.
c~
.
I
>
.
_,
m
..
o.h h
'
'
v
-
< w$'
+
y.) j s
- [
'} ) ;
,
.
s
,
,
-
'
,
.,
!
ha%id
'_
.
.
-
r M:W JE $
LThe failure'ofithe licensee,to comply with the^ action. statements
- a
~
,
@
tofdTechnical Specifications 3.3.1: andL3.3.2 during'. the surveillance
,
@ w > y-y y ' on? June 118,L1990, !ist a 'y101ation-(NCVi 440/90019-01(DRSS)).e However H
M
..
1because!itimeetssthe," licensee-identified violation"' criter:ia of,
'
o je * '
10 CFR 2,_ Appendix CLSection V.G.I.. at Notice _ of ViolationLwill-
&
p'
Enot'betissued.
j
.
i
'
i en [(Elosed)!'Open< Item No. '440/90016-02(DRSSh NRCitoLperform furthe'r.
l
,
f W
'
. review of two-instances; (documented in LERs:90-012 and 90-013)
f
$R, '" N where operations staff. supervisorsi performingfrev"ew of equipment
" status data sheets failed.to' recognize that certen ' values were -
'
.;
F'
- outsideiallowable limits. The
- licensee's-corrective. action for,
- 1
-LER 90-013?is discussedLin'Section.3.b. above.
j L
,
e..
' LER 90-012 involved in' operability of the chillers for the control
'
d
'
,
P*
I room emergency ventilation system. Operators recorded data 'on a
'
>
'
G single sheet of _ p' per -(Plant Equipment. Rounds: Sheets).but failed a
-
q b
to recognize that 3 values, of the approximately 72 values on the.
y' y
.;
j~
'
5 sheet, wereLoutside allowable limits. : Operations staff supervision
'also missed this during'an initial review of the sheet.
The
-
.
.
a
- problem was identified during a subsequent; review by the
- operations -
~
, s;;
"
,
tstaff.. The licensee's corrective action.-included a. memorandum'to
-operations 1 staff emphasizing the.need.for attention-to-detail by
'
t operators Ja'nd their supervisors when ' recording and-reviewing plant
!
+
,
'$
. operating data on the. Plant Equipment-Rounds Sheets.
Problems with
' the Plant" Equipment Rounds Sheets have not reoccurred to date..
a This open item is considered closed._ Review of LER-90-012 will be g
completed by the resident inspector during-a future inspection, l
,
y id.
NRC Information Notice No. 9'0-44: ' Dose Rhte Instruments j
,
,
'
r Underresponding-to the-True Radiation Fields: The licensee's P
- review'of this Notice was good.
The. licensee has a'large stock?
,+
nof the type of survey meters named Lin' the Notice. Discussions A
with personnel responsible for:the. maintenance of this equipment _-
w
'
indicated they were aware of the potential problem.and demonstrated:
l
-
to;the inspectors the;use of a source holder constructed by the N
l_icensee to verify that survey meters' responded properly.on each s
- scale.within a range of-predetermined' values. The source ' check;
(is performed daily by this individual'or the health physics.
'
,"
'
. technicians ~who use'the equipment and is recommended in the_ Notice
__
'
y casLa meansjof identifying the potential problem.~ In addition to?
'
A
~
constructing and using the source holder, the licensee circulated'
o'
the Notice among the health physics technicians as required
[
reading.-
D R
,
.
..
..
- NoJviolations of NRC requirements were cited..
.
,
O T4.-. Changes'in Organization (IP'83750)
TheU1ic' ensee recently hired the former Radiation Protection Manager 4(RPM) at Nile Mile Point to take over as the.radiat%n protection i'C
.section manager by the end _of the current outage.
During the outage,
'
he.is gradually assuming responsibilities from the current manager of
,
4-
.~
P
.
<
'
j
,4
t
>
,
-
W bp
,'
3e
,
s
a Hdi lu u
'
~
"
-
.
- >
.-
l
.
.'
'
'
the section, which; includes supervision of both the chemistry and
'
',
health: physics groups. No change is_ planned for. the licensee's
-
radiation protection manager position..The current section manager will-resumeLhis former position as the corporate health physicist.
The licensee's radiological assessor, an individual with many_ years of experience.at Perry and several other nuclear power plants, recently transferredLto the Davis-Bcsse plant. The licensee is currently assessingithe need to replace him.- These changes are not expected by-the inspectors to adversely affect: Perry's radiation protection program.
.No violations _of NRC requirements were identified.
5.
Outage Planning and Preparation (IP 83750)
Consistent with findings during a previous NRC health physics inspection (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-440/90016), the licensee's overall efforts in this area were good. This determination was based on discussions with licensee representatives..and observations at several planning meetings involving 1the station health physics group, outage planning
' group, and'various work groups.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
-6.
Internal Exposure Assessment (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the licensee's internal-dosimetry program,' including, calibration and source checks of'the whole-body counter, evaluation of positive whole-body count results, and adherence to other procedural. requirements for performing whole-body counts and maintaining records. No problems were identified. Specific items that were reviewed are discussed below.
..
- Semi-annual energy calibrations are performed using six different isotope sources _in a phantom. The energy range-of the sources encompasses the energies.of the isotopes commonly encountered at the plant.
Daily energy checks are-performed with a Eu-152 source. To provide overall better accuracy and-to maintain similarity between whole: body counting operations at the dosimetry office and at the training center, the licensee's routine whole-body count is two minutes.in length.
In the past year, licensee personnel have not identified any iniakes of radioactive material at Perry near or exceeding the 40 MPC-hour regulatory action level. Typically,_ positive whole-body count results, are attributable-to workers who have recently had medically administered radioactive material, usually T1-201/T1-202, and individuals externally contaminated while working at Perry.
No violations'of NRC requirements were identified.
~ 7 Consideration of Zn-65 Contributing to General Area Dose Rates after
' Reactor Shutdown Discussions with licensee representatives and a review of records and
. procedures by the inspectors indicated the licensee was aware of the
.
.
_
.
-
-
- K '
'
~
,
,
,
'
ir 6,
,
). '
- .
x , pg*+
v - , 1, 'h ' ' ~ potential:?plateout._of Zn-65 duringL reactorfshutdown and the attendant' >y Lincrease in' areaidose rates (This problemfrecentlyf occurred at another. ~ p s De ' power ' plant). Changes in the operations group procedures 2on: reactor- < U
- shutdown;were.made-prior to the start-of the current outage to mitigate;
'
/ these proble'ms, and chemistry. sampling and dose rate surveying were increased during shutdown to maintain staff knowledge of changing o ' ' ' radiological conditionsj as the shutdown proceeded. :. The licensee's overall efforts in 'this' area were good.
< , = Although-the shutdown prior to the start of the outage was atypical ~ because of problems with the main steam isolation = valves and the feedwater pumps (see'NRC Inspection Report No. 50-440/90018(DRP) for details), the licensee stated that general area dose rates did.not
increase significantly. - Analysis of-the reactor cavity pool water - " .during the outagelindicated that Zn-65 was a major radioactive constituent compared to the previous outage when zinc injection was
- w
- I not.inplace; however, according to the licensee, dose rates around'
the cavity-have not' increased significantly, because _of a-concomitant reduction in Co-60.': The licensee attributed this reduction-to increased use of the reactor' water cleanup system. The licensee further stated that the effectiveness of the zinc injection system
at_ Perry has not yet been -established.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified, 18.. Discrete Particles Associated with Fuel Sipping Equipment ! r ,
-0n; September.16-17,1990,' during the unpackaging, inspection, and repair r of some fuel handling equipment belonging to the' GeneralL Electric Company '
-(GE),'the licensee discovered' numerous ~ discrete (" hot") particles on the equipment and in the posted contaminated area in which the equipment was located.- The licensee implemented its procedure HPI-L9, " Hot Particle Detection'and Control," for the remainder of the work on the equipment.
' Norpersonnel contaminations with hot particles resulted from the work h' and the. particlesdid not spread beyond the contaminated area boundaries.
^ j ( Licensee representatives stated-that prior to'the work, GE personnel W indicated that the equipment had been partially decontaminated before j
iT t was shipped to Perry.
In addition, the. inspectors' review of the j .cZ ? shipping papers, indicated that only Co-60 was listed.
Isotopic analysis ' f
- by
- the licensee of one of the hot particles and of several area smears
/ identified not only Co-60, but also similar quantities of Nb-95, Zr-95, i " sSb-125,' Sn-113, 2n-65, and smaller quantities of Co-58, Mn-54, and Hf-181.
u y j
The~ fuel handling equipment.on which the particles were found was , a ' ' contained in'one of:four boxes of fuel handling' equipment that had
'been shipped to Perry-as a single shipment from GE's Vallecitos ! - ' Nuclear Center on August 24, 1990. 'The shipment was made as a ' g ' low-specific activity (LSA) shipment. The apparent failure of GE to accurately list the name of each radionuclide in the shipment is contrary to the. requirements of 49 CFR 172.203(d)(1).
Because GE , shipped this material under a State of California license (California is an Agreement State), this matter will be referred to the NRC Region V office for~ referral to the State.
\\ m
' V' ,, ' s _ m
.- , lN%, ' l % , ,
, , ,
- 4
, l
- q;j s g r
Sft [37 hp > p h > m i , - - l
< h $ 9h Protective Clothino Cleanliness ' , ? g3 ? During the current inspection, a plant worker expressed;a concernito y., M ~ the inspectors that protective clothing he wore recently~ had an odor > Z t that indicated to him' that 'it 'had not been cleaned' priorLtoihim donning; ' < - _ . ,
- ~
T i t.D E The' failure to: clean-protective clothing lafter each use could pose a1 personal hygiene as well as a. personal ~ contamination problem.; The-J ' inspectors! review of this matter identified.no odorous protective.
! - clothing; hcwever.plicensee.-representatives, stated: that'approximately.
l o ' one week 1priorito the' inspection, they also received several-complaints-about the. odor'of the clothing and statements'of concern:that indicated ,,
- the; clothing was not clean. -Their-review of the problem-determined that-j s
?,
. clothing was.being cleaned (wet-washed) and surveyed after,each use,
but'that the commercial; laundry service used for cleaning most of the j . J W, m protective clothing had recently been out of scented fabric softener- -! " ~ for-approximately one week. As a result. some of the protective clothing m recently; issued for-use did not have a " fresh" scent. The licensee added that commercial: laundry detergent is not scented and that: addition:of the: scented fabric softener is,necessary to mask the odor that is typicallyn o , imparted during commercial laundering.
, The-odorous ~ protective clothing appears to have been a transitory problem that did'not; involve health'and safety-issues.
,, ]! No' violations.of NRC requi.rements were identified.
' 10.. Plant Tours (IP' 83750). Tours of:the plant and independent dose rate measurements'were made by
E the inspectors.
No major-problems;were identified. -Notwithstanding M: ' -outage activities, housekeeping had improved since the previous health physicsinspection(NRCInspection.ReportNo. 50-440/90016(DRSS)).
- Plant' personnel = observed in the : radiologically controlled areas by the
, '
- inspectors exhibited acceptable radiation worker practices. Dose rate
- measurements indicated-that areas 'were properly posted.
' No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
s ,c 11.._ Exit' Meeting ' "Thelinspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1) '4 atuthe conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and ' tentative findings. Specifically, the following items were discussed: n . closure of LER 90-013 and Open Item 440/90016-02(DRSS); a '.. b.
the improved sensitivity resulting from the use of a two-minute
, ',, -count' time for routine whole-body counts (Section 6); the licensee's actions taken as a result of NRC Information Notice c.
No. 90-44-(Section 3);
i s
',, e
,. , - - -, , ' , - . ,9.- ' ' -, d' ' ' ' - - ,- . ', _ E ' 2 ' t. '}. h y.a y:: f. W.-
- ' "
' ' ' - * >;a., , -- , , ,fif'l f \\ \\ , , , Q.3, (g~, m.plpy - ~ " [' ,p r , - ' r lJ' ,, , r ' w m p., ,-, ..n , , - - , : n.e - - > .-- 7 1 , > m[&: :'. . . .:t - N}l,n
s' ' ' , - - < > ' ,
> &::y :: s ! . ? . i Q ^ }h.'1 ygen[ rally 5goid outNhelpl[ ann'ingleffortst y the!ALARAfgroup, b ht L(Sectidn:5);? ' ~ . '
, > g' ia ,. s
. , e - - - . - s s ...,... .. . . .. .., -'- , q/ % i D e.7 igood(collaboration between chsmistry " health physics landioperationst
, , $@ l - . ' i groupsstoiminimize thelcontribution of 2n-65Lto'doseLrate during7 + ' ~. y e m..,. .. ", , rea c to r.L, s h u tdown s?, ( Se c t i o n T 7 ) ~; ; a nd :. < ' $ r .g : r-z-i . \\ oh ,, fy c. thh woNer concerriL ab'out 6doriferou~s protective clothing..(Section 9).
. " o
' , ,3 o
k m g c , .., , s, 5.. -. ... ,.- .. ,. WThe licenseeldidunot. identify as proprietary any material (-thatithst . > - Li-Tinspectors reviewed-.duringlthe = inspection.. - ' v-
.. ~ ~ ,e }p;" -' ' ' e. ; y > r
i a f.
b.
g: ' ' , , $1
m ' , t I .p y - s s ,.. I ' j. i l t f.
.-, "5 .# .j'. i' f ) n $ ' ', .. ~
. s,s~ p - t' ( j'T4 r
) n,- .h ' .g.
,i-[:? .J'. '
- - > ,, a .u ', ~
, ( q. > r;::
j. ' i, ~ >4 'i: - t , j c..'. "t
n.
! ' ' ';.i / ^ 4 i.U. ; ,
l'" '. - .j
- y
' - ! -_ h.
, e .3 yi q t ..
. % f, -] ' ' . .l . - -' ,1 l.
- ) 4.' 17, .;: . -;, ,, Y-l::1: ? l ri. i 't . c a,,
! k u.
. ) < s' I.
k.1 l' ['+ . > i 1; l: \\.
j Q (f ' .j l , , ..'f,
- '
- }
' !! , L. s .v i> = . f ' lih, c. 0 1- <
< - .R,*' . i; 'M . . , _ - , , .
s , - }}