IR 05000445/1996015
| ML20132F138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132F129 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-96-15, 50-446-96-15, NUDOCS 9612240137 | |
| Download: ML20132F138 (19) | |
Text
... . .. . _ . - = _ . _ - . . - _ _ _ _ - - . . . . . - _ _ - - . .~ .. _- - . _. . _- .
,
)
.
i i 1 i
- l
]
! ENCLOSURE !
t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j REGION IV i
i !
Docket Nos.: 50-445 50-446
'
!
License Nos.: NPF-87
< NPF-89 I
$
l' Report No.: 50-445/96-15 .
50-446/96-15 '
i Licensee: TU Electric
! i Facility: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 1
Location: FM-b6 j Glen Rose, Texas Dates: November 18 22,1996
_
inspectors: J. Blair Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist Gilbert L. Guerra, Jr., Radiation Specialist Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachmer Supplemental Information
i ~
l l
4 9612240137 PDR 961213 G
ADOCK 05000445 i PDR i J
-..w
.- ,
l
\
-2- ,
i i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-445/96-15:50-446/96-15 I This routine, announced inspection focused on the licensee's radiation protection program ;
and its conduct during the Un:t 1 Refueling Outage 1RF05. The inspection occurred during the startup of Unit 1 following the refueling outag Enaineerina e
Reviewed practices, procedures, and parameters were consistent with Updated Safety Analysis Review commitments (Section E2.1).
I Plant Support l
Personnel were wearing dosimetry properly. The personnel dosimetry, access controls and postings, and high radiation control programs were wellimplemented and maintained. Housekeeping conditions in the radiological controlled area were very good (Section R1.1).
Internal exposure controls were effectively maintained and implemented. Personnel l
contamination events were properly investigated and documented (Section R1.2).
Good programs concerning radiation surveys, personnel contamination monitoring equipment, and contamination controls were maintained (Section R1.3).
l
'
The ALARA program was effectively lmplemented. Goals were set based on past performance and industry experience. Person rem annual and 3-year averages were below industry averages (Section R1.4).
- Good ALARA pre- and post-job reviews were conducted. Lessons learned and improvement items noted in past post-job ALARA reviews were used as applicable (Section R1.5).
l
- Good quality refueling outage ALARA reports tracked personnel doses and presented management with the appropriate information to evaluate and assess the performance of the ALARA program (Section R1.6). l
- Management supported the ALARA program and was involved in the implementation of the program (Section R1.7).
- The licensee effectively used methods available for dose reduction including startup and shutdown chemistry, temporary and permanent plant modifications, and advar ced technologies for monitoring and surveying (Section R1.8).
.
.
-3-
"
The licensee trained and maintained an adequate staff of qualified refueling outage contract radiation protection personnel to supplement the permanent radiation
, protection department staff. Mock-up training was provided for ALARA planning l (Section R5.1). )
l
- An appropriate organization was maintained to effectively implement the radiation protection program and the ALARA program (Section R6.1).
- Very good, effective audits and surveillances provided a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of the radiation protection program. The licensee performed ,
wellin identifying and implementing enhancements to the radiation protection '
program (Section R7.1).
_ _ . . _ . ._ .- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ m -__
- i
,
-
.
-
-4-i
,
j Reoort Details
'
.
Summarv of Plant Status t
, Unit 1 was shut down during the time period October 4 through November 11,1996, to i conduct planned Refueling Outage 1RF05. The inspectors were onsite immediately i following the outage. During the inspection, Unit 1 was in Mode 6 and nerforming power
'
accession testing between 25 percent power and 85 percent power, and Unit 2 was in Mode 6 at 100 percent power. Units 1 and 2 experienced no operational events that
affected the results of this inspection.
,
! 111. Enaineerina j
E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment E Updated Safety Analysis Report Review (USAR)
a. Insoection Scoce The inspectors reviewed selected topics presented in the USAR to ensure agreement with any commitments contained therein that pertained to the inspection, b. Observations and Findinas While performing the inspection discussed in this report, the inspector reviewed the applicable portions of the UFSAR that related to the areas inspected. The inspectors verified that the UFSAR wording was consistent with the observed plant practices, procedures, and parameters, Conclusion Reviewed practices, procedures, and parameters were consistent with USAR commitment !
IV. Plant Support R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls R1.1 External Exoosure Controls Inspection Scope (83750)
The inspectors reviewed the external exposure control program, which included the personnel dosimetry program; access control into the radiological controlled area; and posting and labeling, control of high radiation areas, and housekeeping in the I
._ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ -_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ .
.
,
.
5-radiological controlled area. Additionally, the inspectors conducted several independent radiation surveys of various areas within the radiological contro!!ed area to verify that these areas were properly surveyed, posted, and controlled, Observations and Findinas l
l The licensee used electronic dosimetry and thermoluminescent dosimetry to monitor l all personnel entering the radiological controlled area. The inspectors observed workers in the radiological controlled area to ensure proper placement of the dosimetry devices. No problems were noted with the proper placement of both dosimeters on the torso and in the immediate proximity to each othe Based on the inspectors' review of the access control requirements, specified on selected radiation work permits and general access permits, and interviews with workers, the inspectors determined that workers were aware of their dose limits
, and electronic dosimeter alarm settings. The inspectors also determined, by l
interviews with workers and observation that the electronic access control system
'
was a user friendly system. The inspectors reviewed selected radiation work permits and general access permits and determined that radiological controls were consistent and that the permits were written clearly and were easy to read and understan The inspectors verified that appropriate access control was established for high radiation areas greater than 100 millirems per hour. Appropriate barricades and postings were found to be in place in accordance with Technical Specifiestion !
Locked high radiation control, required for areas greater than 1000 millirems per hoer, was effective. All doors challenged by the inspectors were found to be secure The inspectors conducted several t surs of the radiological controlled area and performed independent radiation surveys to confirm the appropriateness of radiological postings. All areas were found to be appropriately surveyed, posted, and controlled in ac<:ordance with regulatory requirements. The inspectors noted housekeeping conditions in the radiological controlled area were very good.
I t Conclusions
!
r
! Personnel were wearing dosimetry properly. The personnel dosimetry, access
- controls and postings, and high radmtion control programs were wellimplemented
! and maintained. Housekeeping conditions in the radiological controlled area were very goo ;
.
j i
1
. _ . _ _ _ _ _
.
_ _ _ _
.
.
6-
,
l R1.2 Internal Exoosure Controls l l Inspection Scoce (83750) ;
i The inspectors reviewed the internal exposure control program, which included the respirator use program and the air sampling program. Personnel contamination ,
event reports issued during 1996 were reviewed. Selected workers who had I received personal contaminations were interviewe I l Observations and Findinas During tours of the radiological controlled area, the inspectors observed the use and placement of beta aerosol beacons and continuous air monitors. The beta aerosol beacons were placed close to the work location to allow collection of representative samples. The beta aerosol beacons were close enough to the work areas to provide alarm functions should conditions change unexpectedly. In addition to job-specific air samplers, the licensee also had appropriately positioned continuous air monitors throughout the radiological controlled area. The inspectors observed that all air monitoring equipment located in the radiological controlled area had current calibration dates and documented operational check ,
I l
For the refueling outage work, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's assessments regarding the benefits of not using respirators and determined that they were acceptable. The inspectors noted that bubble hoods were used during the pressurizer heater electrical maintenance work performed during the refueling outage to protect the workers from intake of fiberglass insulation associated with the work. The licensee did not issue any respirators for radiological work during the refueling outag During the Refueling Outage 1RF05,415 personnel contamination events were logged. Sixty-six events were investigated. Of those 66 events,3G events had estimated skin dose greater than 100 millirem, and 9 events involved f ace contaminations. The inspectors interviewed selected personnel who's contamination events were investigated and determined that the investigations were performed thoroughly, and the workers were properly informed of their dose and ways of preventing further contamination in the future. The licensee had assessed the doses received by workers from personnel contaminations and had not identified any elevated whole-body counts that required an internal dose assessment as a result of radiological work. Doses resulting from the intakes of material were small compared to the external doses received from work in the area. The external and internal doses received by personnel were within regulatory limit .
.
-7- Conclusions Internal exposure controls were effectively maintained and implemented. A good program was established for selection and use of respiratory protection. Air sampling was performed in appropriate locations to allow collection of representative samples and to alert workers to changing conditions. Personnel contamination events were properly investigated and documente R1.3 Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Survevs and Monitorina Insoection Scope (83750)
The inspectors toured the radiological controlled area on numerous occasions during the inspection period with focused attention on radiological activities. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program concerning adequacy of the radiological surveys, proper use of personnel contamination monitors, performance testing of portable radiation survey instrumentation, and the control of contaminated area Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed radiation survey maps and compared them with postings identified in the areas covered by the maps located at the entrances to specific areas and rooms within the radiological controlled area. The inspectors observed that the nmps accurately reflected the current postings in the areas / rooms reviewe The inspectors noted that the radiological survey maps were written in a clear, consistent manner and were easy to read and understand. High radiation areas and contamination boundaries were properly identifie The inspectors verified that radiological survey and monitoring instruments, which were in use or ready to be issued, were calibrated and that performance checks l were performed and documented at the required fregesocy. Personnel j contamination monitors were properly maintained and performance checked. This 1 equipment was properly used by radiological worker l Good controls were provided to prevent the spread of radicactive contaminatio Contaminated areas were posted and marked with tape or rope. Step-off pads were j placed at the entrances and exits to these areas to alert workers to a change from a !
contaminated area to a noncontaminated area. Receptacles were provided for the j collection of potentially contaminated protective clothing, contaminated waste j materials, and clean waste materials. The undressing areas were neatly kept to i prevent inadvertent spread of contamination. Appropriate radiologicalinstruments ;
were maintained for workers to check their hands and feet for contamination upon l leaving a contaminated are ;
I
!
l
,
- . - ._ __ . . -
.
.
.
'
-8-l Conclusion Good programs concerning radiation surveys, personnel contamination monitoring 1 equipment, and contamination controls were maintaine I l
R1.4 Maintainino Occupational Exoosure ALARA l l
l insoection Scope (83750)
!
The inspectors reviewed the ALARA program for adequacy in establishing and tracking performance related to ALARA goab and objectives and its effectiveness in maintaining doses ALARA. The inspectors conducted interviews of ALARA personnel and reviewed the results of selected tasks to assess the licensee's ALARA progra Observations and Findinas The personnel dose trend for the past three years compared to industry average pressurized water reactors is shown belo Cornanche Peak - Actual 115 person rerns 92 person rems 159 person rerns 290 person rerns'
Comanche Peak - 3 year 142 person rems 123 person rems 122 person rems 180 person rems'
Average
PWR Average 194 person rems 131 person rems 170 person rems
PWR - 3 year Average 207 person rems 180 person rems 162 person rems
' Projected values. The licensee had accrued 279 person rems at the time of the inspectio * Not yet determine Single unit refueling outages were conducted during 1993,1994, and 1995. Both units conducted refueling outages during 1996. The licensee's actual and rolling 3-year average doses were below the national averages for pressurized water reactor Overall, planning for jobs during the refueling outage was good. One notable l challenge was associated with the chemical cleaning of the steam generator According to ALARA personnel, good feedback was provided by workers associated with various jobs. The inspectors noted that ALARA input was collected during job debrief i l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
.
.
-9-The inspectors interviewed several craft personnel concerning the tasks they performed during the refueling outage. These interviews indicated that there was a good working relationship between radiation protection technicians and craft personne The inspectors reviewed selected job packages and observed that the licensee had incorporated comments and suggestions from previous outages. Personnel preparing the packages were familiar with the task and included recommendations for potential dose reductions as appropriat The licensee established goals based on previous performance and observations of industry performance. Exposures for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station facility were budgeted by major departments. The licensee set a goal of 200 person rems for the planned Refueling Outage 1RF05, which was revised to 150 person rems mid-way through the refueling outage. The accumulated exposure for the refueling outage was 144 person rems. The trend for refueling outage exposures is shown belo Outage Goals and Results
Outage 1RF01 1RF02 1RFo3 2RFoi 1RFO4 2RFO2 1RF05 Goal 205 145 120 109 55 75 200'
Resun 131 141 103 60 145 118 144 l i
" Revised to 150 person rems mid-way through the refuehng outag The licensee effectively tracked doses for the facility as a whole, by department, refueling outage, and radiation work permits. Goals were continuous ly monitore Generally, the licensee met its refueling outage exposure goals, Sonclusions The ALARA program was effectively implemented. Goals were set based on past performance and industry experience. Doses were effectively maintained ALAR Person rem annual and 3-year averages were below industry average R1.5 ALARA Reviews Insoection Scoce (83750)
The licensee's program for conducting ALARA reviews was reviewed to determine whether it was sufficient to perform; (1) effective pre-job ALARA reviews of planned work, (2) active review of on-going work to identify anomalies, and (3)
effective posi job ALARA review of work periorme '
.
.
-10- Observations and Findinas Licensee reviews of work tasks were conducted. These included pre- and post-job ,
ALARA review i The pre-job reviews adequately addressed the work to be performed. The l licensee's radiation work permit system allowed for lessons learned from post-job l reviews of prior work to be factored into future work. The radiation work permit numbering system used the same numbers for similar jobs year after year except for the year designation. This allowed for ease of retrieval of information for dose estimation and lessons learned for dose reductio The licensee actively tracked doses by radiation work permit. ALARA reviews of on-going work activities were performed when neede Conclusions Good ALARA pre- and post-job reviews were conducted. Lessons learned and improvement items noted in post-job ALARA reviews were easily retrieved for performing future pre-job ALARA reviews and estimating dose R1.6 ALARA Reports i i Insoection Scope (83750)
The inspectors reviewed past refueling outage ALARA report l l Observations and Findings Past refueling outage ALARA reports provided management with appropriate information on personnel doses received, comparisons to previous performance, relative position with regard to established goals, and the tracking of doses by budgeted department Conclusion Good quality refueling outage ALARA reports tracked personnel doses and presented management with the appropriate information to evaluate and assess the performance of the ALARA program.
e
.
.
-11-R1.7 Manaaement Sucoort of Plannina and Preoaration Insoection Scope (83750)
The inspectors reviewed selected records and discussed refueling outage planning with licensee representatives to verify that the necessary planning, preparations, and management support for radiation protection planning was performe Observations'snd Findinos l l
,
The inspectors noted the following examples of good management support of the l ALARA program and planning and preparation for the refueling outage: I
- The radiation protection staff was increased during refueling outages, and permanent licensee employees were designated as lead radiation protection technicians to provide a method of ensuring supervisory control over contract radiation protection technician * Special training, including the use of mock-up training for general and j specific high dose jobs, was provide i
- Supplies, including clothing, monitoring instrumentation, and temporary shielding materials, were provide * ALARA considerations, including work package reviews by radiation protection personnel, dose reduction methods, and radwaste reduction methods, were pursue * The ALARA improvement system allowed any employee to make suggestions regarding dose reduction, Cor'clusion Management supported the ALARA program and was involved in the implementation of the progra R1.8 Radiation Source and Field Control Insoection Scope (83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's initiatives to implement operational methods and practices in the pursuit of maintaining doses ALAR i
.
1 .
f
.
- 12- ,
,
c
! Observations and Findinas i'
A primary system chemistry prograrn for reducing radiation sources / fields during plant startup and shutdown utilized lessons learned from previous refueling outages and industry experience and guidelines in achieving source reduction. During Refueling Outage 1RFOS,1,400 curies of radioactivity, primarily cobalt-58, were removed by the Boron Thermal Regeneration System demineralizers, in addition to the radioactivity removed,8.2 pounds of nickel and 0.5 pounds of iron were removed from the primary syste The licensee used process and engineering controls such as tele-dosimetry, tele-monitoring, portable air monitors, cameras and radios, and temporary shielding to reduce dose , Conclusion The licensee effectively used methods available for dose reduction which included startup and shutdown chemistry, temporary and permanent plant modifications, and '
advanced technologies for monitoring and surveyin R5 Staff Training and Qualification i
R5.1 Trainina and Qualifications of Contract Radiation Protection Personnel (83750) Insoection Scoce (83760)
The inspectors reviewed the applicable education, experience, qualifications, training program, and records of the contract radiation protection technicians that
]
were onsite during the Unit 1 Refueling Outage 1RFOS, to supplement the licensee's '
permanent radiation protection department staf Observations and Findinqs Through interviews with the licensee's training staff, the inspectors determined that ;
80 contract outage personnel were utilized in the radiation protection departmen '
Of these contract workers,47 were senior radiation protection technicians,4 were junior radiation protection technicians, and 29 were decontamination personnel. To ,
'
satisfy the licensee's qualification criteria, contract radiation protection technician personnel had to have passed the Northeast Utilities examination for radiation protection technicians within the last 5 years. Also, one week of site-specific training encompassing lessons learned from facility and industry events, Technical Specifications, site-specific radiation protection procedures, systems, and communications was given to the contract radiation protection technician l
!
-~ _ . - - - _ - - _ - . - . - . . ~ . . . . - . - - - - . _ - ~.. .. -
_ . - - - . -
.
-
!
.
,
-
l-13-i
- Proper training records for contract radiation protection personnel were maintained.
- The inspectors noted that the licensee hired only qualified contract radiation protection personnel as specified in American National Standards institute 3.1, based on their training and experience. Files of resumes and work experience for
-
- the contract radiation protection personnel were in order and were reviewed and
- app' roved by a radiation protection superviso The licensee used industry events and lessons learned related to health physics in its ALARA training program. As a planning aid to the refueling outage work, mock-
- up training was provided. This served to facilitate dose and stay time estimates and j provided for adequate work preparation.
I Conclusions The licensee trained and maintained an adequate staff of qualified refueling outage l contract radiation protection personnel to supplement the permanent radiation j protection department staff. Mock-up training was provided for ALARA planning.
i
R6 Radiation Protection aM Cheinistry Organization and Administration R6.1 Radiation Protection Oraanization Insoection Scope (83750)
The radiation protection organizational structure was reviewed and discussions were held with licensee personnel concerning the implementation of the radiation protection progra Observations and Findinas The licensee's organizational structure for implementing the radiation protection program responsibilities had a clear delineation of authority and responsibilit Under the radiation protection manager, five supervisors administered the radiation proicction progra A dedicated ALARA group implemented the ALAR A program on a daily basis, as well as during outages. The inspectors noted that staffing of the ALARA group included seven fully trained senior radiation' protection technicians and a superviso The ALARA group's supervisor reported directly to the radiation protection manager, who in turn reported to the plant manage The ALARA committee membership was comprised of department managers, who also functioned as the station operations review committee. The station operations review committee (ALARA committee) reported to the vice president, nuclear operation . - . - . - - - . -- - - - - .- . _- . - - - - ~ - . - . - _
,
l
. j e :
.
-14- Conclusion The licensee maintained an appropriate organization to effectively implement the radiation protection program and the ALARA progra R7 Quality Assurance in Radiological Protection and Chemistry Activities R7.1 Audits and Surveillances Inspection Scope (83750)
The inspectors reviewed annual audits and periodic surveillances coruucted during 1995 and 1996 that evaluated the implementation of the radiation protection program and it.s effectiveness, Observations and Findinas Audits and surveillances were used by the licensee to ensure the effective l
'
implementation of the radiation protection and ALARA programs. The scope of the annual audits conducted in October 1995 and September 1996 included a thorough review of several key areas of the radiation protection program, including control of procedures and records, contamination control, radioactive material control, l instrument calibration, ALARA, respiratory protection and internal dosimetry, and i radiation protection operations. A list of the audits and surveillances review is attached to this repor Surveillances were performed periodically to review routine radiation protection activities. The inspectors noted that the licensee performed wellin identifying items for improvement and implementing needed corrective actions to enhance the radiation protection progra Through the conduct of these audits and surveillances, the licensee ensured that the commitments of the radiation protection program were met. Any deficiencies or problems were documented and changes were made to the program as necessar l ALARA suggestion forms provided a mechanism for improvement items to get management's support and to ensure an effective ALARA program. The licensee i tracked the number of ALARA improvement forms submitte Conclusions Very good, effective audits and surveillances provided a comprehensive and ;
thorough evaluation of the radiation protection program. The licensee performed i wellin identifying and implementing enhancements to the radiation protection progra I
--
~. _ _ _ _ - - _ ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _
.
l
.
(
.
-15-R8 Miscellaneous Radiological Protection and Chemistry issues R8.1 (Closed) Violation 445.446/9608-04: Locked Hiah Radiation Area This violation identified the failure to lock a high radiation area on the 810-foot elevation of the fuel building. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective l
actions stated in their response to the violation dated September 12,1996. The .
inspectors verified that the corrective actions were completed and were satisfactory to prevent recurrenc V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary
't he inspectors presented the results of the inspection to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on November 22,1996. The )
licensee acknowledged the findings presente '
The inspectors asked the licensee whether materials examined during the inspections should be considered proprietary. . No proprietary information was identifie )
I l
i
!
I l
.
!
.
ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee D. Bozeman, Manager, Chemistry S. Bradley, Supervisor, Radiation Protection A. Burnette, Supervisor, Radiation Protection R. Carr, Supervisor, Radiation Protection D. Caughron, Supervisor, Electrical Maintenance J. Curtis, Manager, Radiation Protection D. Davis, Manager, Nuclear Overview R. Fishencord, Supervisor, Radiation Protection N. Harris, Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist T. Hope, Manager, Regulatory Compliance R. Hutyea, Supervisor, Valve Team Maintenance T. Jenkins, Manager, Electrical Maintenance D. Kay, Supervisor, Radiation Protection D. Moore, Manager, Operations D. Perkins, Staff Chemist D. Stearns, Lead Auditor, Nuclear Overview NRC A. Gody, Senior Resident inspector H. Freeman, Resident inspector V. Ordaz, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure ITEMS CLOSED Closed )
445;446/9608-04 VIO Failure to Lock a High Radiation Area LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Oraanization Charts Radiation Protection Department - November 1996
.
i
,
.. . . . . . . _ _ . . _- . . __ _-._ _ _ _ _ __ . . _ _ . . _ _
7 ,
.
!
-2-Quality Assurance Documents 1994 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Schedule, Revision 4, dated January 16,1995 1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Schedule, Revision 4,
- dated January 5,1996 1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Schedule, Revision 3, dated November 11,1996 I
Quality Assurance Audits Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000211," Radiation Protection," conducted October 4-20,1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000155, " Radiation Protection Program," conducted September 3-13,1996 Quality Assurance Surveillances Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000021, " Digital Radiation Monitoring System," conducted January 23-27,1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000034," Routine Radiation Protection Activities," conducted January 1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000051, " Radiation Protection Activities,1RF04," conducted February 20 through April 6,1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000146, " Routine Radiation Protection Activities," conducted May 1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000175, " Routine Radiation Protection Activities," conducted June 1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000189, " Routine Radiation Protection Activities," conducted July 1995 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-95-000210, " Routine Radiation Protection Activities," conducted August 1995
_
. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ . _
1 !
. 1 l
!
.
-3- l l
Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000102, " Control of ,
Radioactive Material," conducted April 17-23,1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000111, " Radiation Protection Bioassay Program," conducted May 1-10,1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000117," Plant Support Outage Activities," conducted February 20 through April 5,1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000133, " Radiation Worker Compliance with GAP /RWP Requirements," conducted May 22 through June 5,1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000144, " Radiation Protection Dosimetry Program," conducted June 24 through July 2,1996 Nuclear Overview Department Evaluation Report: NOE-EVAL-96-000150, " Radiation Protection ALARA Program," conducted July 15-19,1996 Procedures Station Administrative Procedures STA-651 "ALARA Program," Revision 7, January 20,1995 STA-660 " Control of High Radiation Areas," Revision 6, August 9,1996
.
Trainino Documents
" Radiation Protection Surveillance and Control Conduct of Operations," Revision 3, September 13,1996
" Radiation Protection Site Specific Procedures Training," revised September 10,1996
" Radiation Protection Technician Contractor Administrative Training," revised September 15,1996
" Returning Radiation Protection Contractor and Outage Support Technician Training,"
! revised September 10,1996
" Contract Radiation Protection Technician Operation of the Alpha-Beta Aeroso! Beacon OJT Card," revised January 15,1996 i
l
'
-- -
_ - _ _ _
.
.
" Contract Radiation Protection Technician Qualification Certification Sheet," revised September 10,1994
" Contract Radiation Protection Technician Qualification Matrix," dated November 19,1996 Refuelino Outaae Reports
" Unit 1 Fourth Refueling Outage Radiation Protection Report," dated May 25,1995
" Unit 2 Second Refueling Outage Radiation Protection Report," dated June 14,1996 Radiation Work Permits
'
RWP No. 96-1204 " Room 161B 842 foot Elevation, PZR Heater Room Activities During 1RF05" RWP No. 96-1400 "1RF05 Eddy Current Testing and Nozzle Dam Installation in S/G 1-01,1-02,1-03, and 1-04" RWP No. 96-1404 "lSI Activities Prior to and During 1RF05"
!
RWP No. 96-1600 " Refueling Activities for 1RF05" Miscellaneous Documents l
"1RF05 Primary Chemistry Report," dated November 15,1996 i l
!
A