ML18151A035
| ML18151A035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1987 |
| From: | Hosey C, Wright F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18151A033 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-87-24, 50-281-87-24, NUDOCS 8708310205 | |
| Download: ML18151A035 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1987024
Text
'-~p.R REGul
_
UNITED STATES
"'~~~c..
_
,q"'o~.,_
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ *
'01
6
-REGION 11 .
<t
.
.
o
-101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
~ ",,,
- -':.' 1 *
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
\\),l
\\
'
~.
~
- z..
. -~~{ .. ,..,~
o'
')
.
..,.
- ~
AUG Z 5 1987 *
Report Noi.
50-280/87-24 and 50-281/87~24
Licensee: . Virginia El ectri C and Power Company
Ri chmon_d ,. VA
23261
. Docket Nos.: 50~280 and 50-281
Faci 1 ity Name:
Surry 1 and 2
Licensee No~~= - DPR-32 and DPR-37
.
.
JJ I 1 r;'lf 7 .....
-. Date .. S1 gned
Accompanying Pe.rsonnel:
M. T. * Lauer
Shortridge
- . Date,gned
- SUMMARY
Scope*: * This was a routine, unannounced- inspection in the areas of previous
enforcement matters, ** organization and management ** contra 1 s, training and
qualifications, external exposure control, internal .exppsure control,
facilities and eqµipment, program for maintaining radiation exposures as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA), and fol lowup on al legations.
-
Results:
One violation was identified:_-.. failure to adhere to radiation control
procedures~
8709310205 870825
PDR * .ADOCK,05000280
G
1.
Persons Cbntacted
J.-i Ce!'] see Employees
REPORT D~TAILS .
H. L. Anglin, Assistant Supervisor, Health Physics . *
- J. Ba*iley, Superintendent, Operations
- D. L. Benson, Station Manager.
- R.H. Blount; Superintendent, Technical Services
- H. D. Collar, Supervisor~ Quality Assurance
W. N. Cook, Operations Supervisor, Health Physics
D. W. Densmore, Assistant Supervisor, Health Phsyics
R. C. Early, ALARA .Technician, Health Physics
C. E. Foltz, Jr., Assistant ALARA Supervis_or, Health Physics
,A.H. Fried~an, Superintendent, Nuclear Training
- J. D. Lindsay, Personnel Radiation Exposure Management System (PREMS)
Manager
- J. B. Logan, Supervisor, Safety Engineering Staff
- G. D. Miller, Licensing Coordinator, Safety Engineering Staff*
R. N. Miller, Supervisor, Training, Power Station Support
P. P. Nottingham Ill, Assistant Decon Supervisor, Health Physics
- S. P. Sarver, Superintendent, Health Phys.ics *
- E. A. Schnull, Superintendent, Corporate Health* Physics
J.M. Suksoky, Technician, Health Physics
.
R. Thornberry, Planning Supervisor, Maintenance *
F~ B. Wall, Associate Training Specialist
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory_ Commission .
- w. E. Holland~ Senior Resident*rnspectot
- L. E. Nicholson, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were surrmarized on August 7,.1987, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The following items were
. discussed in detail :
( 1) one . apparent violation for failure to perf arm
daily quality control * checks on the whole body counter prior to use .
(Paragraph7); (2) an unresolved item* concerning the applicability of
Nationa*l
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH)
certification for etched respirator facepieces* (Paragraph 7); and (3) an
inspector .followup item concerning the development of a quality related
- An Unresolved Item fa a matter about which more information is required to
determine whether it js acceptable Or may involve a violation or deviation.
2
document for the licensee
1s thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) program that
would provide a program overview and integrate the various program
elements into one document (Paragraph 6).
The licensee acknowledged the
inspection findings and took no exceptions.
The licensee did not identify
as proprietary any of the .materials provided to or reviewed by the
inspector ~uring this inspection.
After a review of a plastic lens retainer with typical vibro-etching by
Region II and discussions with NRC Headquarters staff it was determined
that a violation of NRC requirements did not occur since the modificiation
did not appear to degrade the effectiveness of the respirators.
3. * Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)
4.
(Closed) Violation (50-250/87-03-02 and 50-281/87-03-02) Failure to comply
with radiation control procedures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's
response dated April 23, 1987, and verified that the corrective action
.specified in the response had been implementei:I. *
(Closed) Violation (50-280/87...:03-03 and 50-281/87-03-03) Failure to comply
with Agreement State license conditions.
The inspector reviewed the
licensee 1 s response dated April 23, 1987, and verified that the corrective
action specified in the response had been implemented.
(Closed) Violation (50-280/87-03-04 and 50~281/87-03-04) Failure to co~ply
with DOT Regulations for transportation of radioactive materials.
The
inspector reviewed the documentation and verified the implementation of
the licensee's corrective action as stated in the licensee
1s response
dated April 23, 1987.
Organization, Management Controls, and Staffing (837228)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and management controls
for radiation protection, including changes in the organizational
structure and staffing.
The inspector discussed authorized staffing levels versus actual, on-board
staffing with the superintendent of health physics.
Currently health
physics staffing is 82 with a proposed staff of 113 to be reached
gradu~lly.
A majority of these positions are newly authorized and
satisfactory progress is being made in filling them.
Two key health
physics positions, supervisor of technical services and supervisor of
operations, which directly report to the supervisor of health physics are
not currently permanently filled.
The coordinator for health physics
planning and scheduling has been assigned as temporary replacement for the
operations supervisor position.
The position of supervisor of technical
services has not been filled since its creation in or before 1984 *
Requirements for the position include an advanced degree with fourteen
years of pertinent experience.
The licensee expects to have the vacancy
filled by the end of August.
3
No violations or devi~tions were identifi~d.
- *** 5. -
T_rafoing and Qualifications (83723-)
a.
Radiation Worker Training
--The licensee is required by 10-CFR 19.12 to provide b'asic radiation
protection training tb ~orkers..
Administrative Procedure
.
No. SUADM-TR-01, . Qualification and Training, ** requires that a 11 -*
personnel granted unescorted access to .restricted areas be provided
General Employee Training (GET) which includes radiation protection
topics.
The inspector reviewed lesson plans for Basic Radiation-
- .
Worker Traini-ng and observed a GET training session.
The inspector
also observed the evaluation of a Job Performance Measure (JPM)
- covering protective clothing (PC) removal.
This JPM consisted of the
instructor observing and ~uestioning a trainee during a simulated
contro.lled area exit and PC removal.
During plant tours the
inspector randomly questioned .plant workers and verified that_ their
knowledge of basic radiati.on protection topics. met the requirements
in 10 CFR 19.12 and Regulatory Guide 8.27 *.
The licensee was in the process of providing Advanced Radiation *
Worker Training (ARWT) to*specified personnel in order to allow the~e _
workers unescorted (e.g., without.HP personnel) access to high
- _.
radiation areas. * The inspector reviewed ARWT * 1esson. plans and
verified that they covered topics in sufficient detail which would
provide a non-HP worker with information needed. to enter a high *
radiation area unescorted, provided that the worker obtains and _
retains a clear working knowledge_of the:material taught in the-*
course.
Participants of the ARWT program are evaluated in survey
. techniques and are required to pass a written examin.ation.
.
- .
.
-
.
.
'
.
.*
- .
- .
Selected Personnel Contamination Reports were reviewed by the
inspector.
The events described in the .reports could not be directly
tied to deficient training *. A review of the training records of
personnel identified -in* .the reports verified that all had been .
trained and/or retrained .as required by Procedure No. SUADM-TR-01.
Training records of personnel 1 isted on selected radiation work
permits requiring respiratory protection were reviewed and found to
include all require*d respi_ratory _training a_nd/or retraining.
No violati.ons or deviations were identified.
b.
Health Physics *Tec;hnician Training
Licensee personnel stated that the HP Technician and the HP -
Specialist Training programs received Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO) accreditation on July 17, 1986.
The 'licensee
stated that the HP Technician Training Program included continuing.
training every six weeks composed of 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> of classroom and/or
self-study instruction.
-
4
-.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Trainer Qualifications
The inspector reviewed the resumes and Instructor Qualification
Recc;>rds for GET Trainers.
The. l i cens~e * had a forml i zed two ye_ar ____ _
qualification progr~m for trainers *. This program included practicil -
demons*trations, instructional capability c*ertification, and technical
competence certification.
There were also provisions for continuing
technical training and aovanced training covering various teaching
skills and methods~ - Instructors stated that on a routine bases they
unobtrusively observe work activity in radiation areas in order to .
i den ti fy any poor work. practices which may *be corrected through
training adjustments~
No violations or deviations were identified.*
d.
Quality Assurance Audits
technical Specification 6.1.C.3 requires quality assurance audits of
facility staff training* and qualifications at least once per
12 months.
The inspector _reviewed a Quality Assurance audit of the
Surry Power Station Training Program. dated March 17, 1987. *The audit
resulted in 5 findings none of which related to the radiation
protection training program.
The inspector reviewed the resumes and
qualifications of all the auditing personnel and verified that they
met the requirements described in Section 2. 2 or VEPCO' s Quality
Assurance Topical Report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e.
Training Revisions in Response to Identified. Training Program
Deficiencies *
NRC * Inspection Report Nos *. 50-280/87-03 and 50-281/87-03 dated
March 24, 1987 noted that the number of personnel contaminations were
continuing to increase in spite of ongoing decontamination efforts
and as a possible solution to this, the licensee was *planning -
additions/revisions to the. GET program to specifically. address
personnel contamination control.
Through discussions with licensee
training personnel it was determined that this plan included the
- foll owing:
0
0
.
0
A vi.deo
tape* which specifically deals with limiting
contamination spread *.
Revised JPMs which reinforce personnel con;amination control.
'
Special HP Technician training co~ering personnel contamination
control.
0
_5
A formalized remedial training program for individuals with
_ repeat contamination events.
- No violations ~r deviations were identified.
6._ _ ~xterna_l Exposure Control and Dos_imetry (83724) * *
a.
Procedures
Technical ~pecification 6.4.B requires the licensee to have written_
radiation protection procedures to meet the requirements of
The inspector .reviewed the following plant procedures -
whi~h established the licensee's program for personnel monitoring of
external dose~tn a~cordance with 10 CFR 20.202.
HP-3.1.2, Personnel Dosimetry Control, Records and Reports,
Revision dated October 28, 1986.
- HP~3.1.3, * Personnel Dosimetry -
Issue and Dose D*e_term,nation,
- Revision dated December 8, 1986 *.
HP-3.1.4.1, Personnel Dosimetry_ -
TLD Acceptance. Testing,
Revision dated March 4, 1986. .
HP-3.1.4.4, Personnel Dosimetry - TLD Proces*sing, Revision dated
February 2, 1987.
- *
HP-3.1.4.5, Personnel Dosimetry ;. -TLD Ribbo*n Irradiation -with_
MSG-1000B, Revision dated *August 15, 19_85. -
- _ While reviewing the Hcensee'_s procedures for the external. dosimetry.
program, the inspector determined that the licensee had various
documents prepared by the licensee~* .vendors and corporate staff that
docu111ent i ndi vi dual components which make up the licensee
I s TLD
monitoring program.
However, . the licensee does_ not h~ve all of these
individual documents aff¢cting the quality of the TLD monitoring
- program referenced or described in licensee procedures.
The
inspector stated that the various program elements such as
.mathematical models, acceptance criteria,_ equipment descriptions and
interfaces could be referenced or _described in one controlled
procedure to ensure the quality assurance aspects of the program were
achieved.
Licensee* representatives agreed to consider the *
development of a licensee document that would .adequately describe the.
licensee
I s TLD monitoring prog*ram.
.
.
The inspector stated that the development -of a single. dosimetry
program procedure that describes all of the TLD monitoring program
elements would
be
reviewed during
subsequent inspections
( IFI 50-280/87-24-01 and 50-281/87-24-Ql)*.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6
b.
Notices and Instructions to Workers
. 10 CFR 19.11 requires that each licensee post current copies of
10 CFR 19 and 10 CFR 20 or if posting of the documents is not
practicable, the licensee may post a notice which describes the
document and states_ where it may be examined.
10 CFR 19.11 further
requires that copies of -any -Notice of Violation involving -
radiological working conditions be conspicuously posted within two.
working days after receipt of the documents from the Commission.
The
inspector observed the posting of notices required by 10 CFR 19.11
during tours of the plant.
No violations .or deviations were identified.
c.
Posting and Labeling
10 CFR 20.203 specifies the posting, labeling and control
requirements for radiation areas, high radiation areas, airborne
radioactivity areas arid
radioactive material.
Additional
requirements for control of high radiation areas are contained in
Technical Specification 6.4.B.1.
During tours of the plant, the inspector reviewed the- licensee's
posting and control of radiation areas,* high radiation areas,
airborne radioactivity areas, contaminated areas, radioactive
material areas and the labeling of radioactive material. -
No violations or deviations were identified.
d.
Personnel Monitoring
10 CFR 20.202 requires eath lic~nsee to su~ply appropriate personnel
monitoring equipment to specific individuals and require the use of
such equipment.
During tours of the plant, the inspector observed workers wearing
appropriate personnel monitoring devices.
The inspector determined that the l ic~nsee' s TLD program was
certified by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NVLAP).
The current accreditation is effective until January 1,
1989.
The licensee utilized a Caso4:DY TLD to measure beta and gamma
exposures.
The inspector determined that the licensee had been
certified in four of the eight NVLAP radiation test. categories~ The
licensee dosimetry was approved in the categories of:
(1) ace i dent,
high energy photons {greater than 10,000 mrem), (2) high energy
photons, (3) photons plus beta particles (mixed), and (4) beta
particles.
The licensee's routiri"ely issued TLD was not used to measure exposures
to neutron or low energy photon radiations .*
The licensee routinely
7
certified in four of the eight NVLAP radiati.on test categories.
The
licensee dosimetry was approved in the categories of:
(1) accident,
high energy photons (greater *than. 10,000 mrem), (2) high energy *
photons, (3) photons plus beta particles (mixed), and (4) beta*:
particles.
The i"icensee Is .routinely issued TLD *was -not used to measure exposures-'
tci neutron or low energy photon radiations.
The 1 icensee routinely
calculated neutron exposures for work in the instrument lab*, dry fuel
storage locations, or entries into containment (under power) by dose
rates measured by portable instruments and time-keeping.
Submersion
doses to noble gas were* also calculated from stay times and measured
radioactivity.
. The inspector determined that the licensee had. recently *purchased a
new TLD reader, badge cases and calibrator to improve dosimetry
reliability and performance.
The licensee had a 1989 target date for
operation of the new system.
No violatioris or deviations were identified.
e.
. Records
10 CFR 20.101 specifies the applicable radiation dose standards~
The
inspector reviewed the licensee's equivalent NRC Fo.rlil 5 for selected
individuals having occupational radiation exposures in 1987 and
determined that the radiation doses recorded for the personnel
reviewed were well within the quarterly limits of 20.lOl{a).
. *
. The inspector al so reviewed NRC Form 4 equivalents for determining
accumulated occupational radiation doses required by 10 crn*20.10l(b)
- to permit an individual in a**restricted area to-receive ari
occupational dose. to the whole body in excess of the standarc:ts
specified in 20.lOl(a).
The inspector determined_ that the expos~re
histories for .the individual records reviewed were completed as
required.
10 CFR 20.401 req1.Jires each licensee to maintain records showing the
radiation exposures of all individuals for whom personnel monitoring
is required. under 10 CFR 20. 202. * .
- *
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
10 CFR 20.102(a) requires each licensee to* determine personnel
occupational dose.for.the current calendar quarter prior to allowing
any individual to receive an exposure in. excess of 25% of the limits
s~ecified in 20. lOl(a).
10 CFR 20.102(b) requires each licensee to determine an individuals
accumulated occupational dose prior to allowing any individual in a
restricted area to exceed the standards specified in 20.lOl(a).
The inspector reviewed licensee .records for selected individuals.
1.
8
The inspector reviewed exposure estimates, occupational exposure
histories, and current exposure records.
.
.
'
.
.
.
No violations or deviations wer*e identified. * .*.
Internal Exposur~ Control and .Assessment _{837?5)
The licensee was required by 10 CFR 20.103, .20_.201(b), 20.401, 20.403, and
20.405 to.control intakes of radioactive material, assess such intakes and
- ke~p records of and make reports of such intakes *
. a.
Respi-ratory Protection.
b.
.
.
.
.
- 10 CFR 20.103(c) requires the licensee use equipment t_hat is
- certified or had certification extended by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health/Mine Safety and Health Administration
(NIOSH/MSHA) when respiratory protective. equipment is used to 1 imit
the inhalation of airborne radioactive material.* -
30 CFR 11.2(a) states respirators, combinations of respirators, and
gas masks sh.al 1 be approved for use in hazardous atmospheres where *
they are maintained in an approved condition and are the same in alT
aspects as those devices for which. a certificate of* approval has been
issued under this .Pa rt..
The :inspector noted that the station* was vibro-:etthing . 4 digit .
numbers in the plastic lens retainer of full face respirators.
This
cond.ition may* void the approval of the National Institute for**.
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for taking protection facto"rs
for personnel. * Although the method used to identify_ the respirator
did not appear to affect the form, fit, or fµnction; the license~ was
requested to provide documentation . from *the respiratory equipment .
vendor to this effect.
After review of a plastic lens retainer.with
typical vibro-etching by_ Region II and discussing with
NRC
Headquarters staff it was determined that a violation -of NRC
.
- requirements did not occur since the modification did- not appear to
degrade the effectiveness of the respirators~
Failure to maintain
respirators in an approved condition was identified as an unresolved
item at the. exit interview pending review by regional management,
however, upon Regional review the item is now closed.
- No.violations or deviations were identified.
Procedures *
Technical. Specification 6.4.B requires the licensee. to have* written
- . radiation protection procedures to meet. the. requirements of
..
The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures
which established the licensee 1s program for personnel monitoring of
internal dose in accordance with 10 CFR 20.103.
9
HP-5. 2B-40, Who le Body Counter Start-up and Performance Checks *-
Chair/ND 680, .Revision dated March 27, 1986~
HP-5.2B-50, Whole Body * Counter Operation -
Chair/ND 680,
Revision dated March 4; 1986.
- HP~5.2B-60, Whole Body Ci:iunter Calibration ,;, *ctiifir/ND 680*, ,.
Revision dated March 27, 1986.
The inspector determined that the procedures developed for evaluating
potential and actual intakes of ra.dioactive material provided .
adequate guidance and a systematic approach to determining internal
exposures.
No ~iolattons or deviations were identif~ed.
c.
Uptake Assess~ent
The inspector observed ope rat i oh * of the who 1 e body counter.
The
- inspector a 1 so reviewed the resu 1 ts of the analyses performed for .* *
selected positive counts during 1987.* -On May 19, 1987,.at about
3 a.m. a licensee employee cleaning shroud fans in B pump cu.bicle in
unit. one containment detected visible dust in his respirator and
exited the area.
An ipvestigation showed that the exhaust valve of
the indiyiduals respirafor failed.
The licensee determined the.
following results:.
- .
'
.
Total Body % Maximum Permissible Organ Burden (MPOB) = 3.07% *
MPG Hours
~:11.18
50 Yr Dose
= 41. 55 mrem
The inspector determined that the licensee's evaluation of the
exposure was in* accordance with licensee procedures, regula~ory
requirements, and appeared.appropriate.
No'violations or deviations were identified~
d.
Whole Body Counter Calibration and Quality Control Checks
- Technical* Specification 6.4.D requires that radiation control
procedures be-followed.
~ealth . Pt:iysics
Procedure . HP-5.2B.:.so,
Whole
Body. Counter
.* Operation-Chair/ND 680; dated March 4, 1986, requires in Step 3.12
that the systems energy calibration and. the centroid, efficiency, and
resolution of each detector be verified .in accordance with
Procedure HP-5. 2B-40, Whole Body Counter Start-up and Performance . *
Checks - *Chair/ND 680, prior to the .first whole body count following
. a startup and at l~ast once per shift when in use.
The inspector
reviewed the most recent Whole Body Counter calibration results and
reviewed the quality control checks performed during July 1987.
The
10 .
Procedure HP-5.2B-40, Whole Body Counter *start-up and Performance
Checks .;. Chair/ND 680, prior to the first whole body count following
a startup and at least one* per shift when i~ µse.
The. inspector
reviewed the most recent Whole-Body Counter.calibration results*and
reviewed the quality contra l checks performed during July 1987.
The
inspector reviewed the licensee's whole body count log book and
determined that the licensee had conductecl whole body counts on *_c,.c-
15 days during July. 1987.
The inspector reviewed the* quality control
performance checks for July 1987 and determined that the licensee did
not have records of the required quality control checks for July 17,
1987 (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift).
A licensee representative
examined the computer quality contra l file and determined that the
checks had not been made.
The inspector stated that failure to
.
perform the required quality. contra l checks on July 17, 1987, for the
8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift was an apparent violation of Technical.
Specification 6.4.D (50-280/87-24~02 and 50-281/87-24-02).
8.
Facilities and Equipment (837278)
FSAR Chapters 1 and 12 *specified plant layout and radiation protectfon
facilities and equipment.
During plant tours the inspectors observed the
following recent facilities and equipment improvements.
Video monitors
have been installed on various levels of the auxiliary building to assist
in reducing occupational exposure by providing remote monitoring of
equipment, areas and jobs.
Four PM-1, state of the art, personnel whole
body friskers.were installed at the auxiliary building control point exit~
A new system called the Visual Information Management System (VIMS) has
been installed to aid as a management and eiposure re-evaluation tool.
The system, through single photographs in series, and use of a joy stick
controlled by the viewer, can display approximately 90 percent of the
plant and systems in a movie type fashion.
This tool will allow some
- identification of components and ALARA *pre-job planning to take place
remotely which should in turn reduce entries to radiologically controlled*
areas and reduce collective radiation exposure to personnel.
The licen*see
- has expended significant resources to reduce the amount of contaminated
areas in the plant.
The areas being recovered are clean.ed and coated with
a paint that may be readily cleaned and is not conducive to adherence of
contamination or dirt.
No violations or deviations were identified *
. 9.
ALARA Program (837288)
10 CFR 20.1 ( c) states that licensees should. make *every reasonable effort
to maintain radiation exposures as low. as reasonably achievable (ALAR!\\).
Other recommended elements of an ALARA program are contained in Regulatory
Guide 8.8 and 8.10.
The inspectors looked at the __ ALARA program and
conducted interviews . with * managers and supervi sots to determine
maintenance and support of the program.
The station had made noticeable
progress in some areas of the ALARA program. * Floor .drains have been
cleaned, tanks desludged, and leaking fuel replaced *. The most significant
11
observable contribution to reduction of .occupational exposures was the
reclamation of high radiation and contaminated areas of the plant.
A
cleanup of the boric acid flats had resulted in a significant reduction in
radiation levels.
Also the removal of specific snubbers contributed to a
savings of collective exposure.
The station's-*annual goal for collective exposure *to-radiation was
719 person-rem.
On August 3, 1987, the station had accumulated
approximately 485 person-*rem or were at 67 percent of their. annual goal.
While the station was .showing progress in exposure reduction, there are
some areas that need improvement.
ALARA suggestions have declined from
100 in 1984 to 13 in 1986 and 14 to date this year.
An ALARA incentive
program, which* has been proposed should improve interest and personnel
participation in the program.
Nine of 17 departments trended for progress
in meeting their annual goal are within 10 percent or have exceeded their
annual goal and new goals have not been reestablished.
Twenty to thirty percent of radiation work permits have scope added or are
changed after undergoing an ALARA review.
This results in an inordinate
amount of work bypassing a detailed ALARA review and possible application*
of dose reduction techniques for these jobs.
Worksheets prepared by job
planners when initially planning work in radiation areas are not routed to
the ALARA coordinators for their review and inclusion of information into
detailed ALARA job reviews.
The worksheets contain such information as,
is scaffolding requirements, additional lighting need.ed and other items
that may reduce job stoppages and result in exposure reduction.*
In discussions with the superintendent of health physics it was
established that a significant savings of exposure has been attributed to
the deletion* of work by the Engineering and Construction Department and
reconsideration of the major scope of work normally performed by
contractors.
Tfris has in effect reduced the station's work force by
approximately 3,000 people thus reducing the number of people badged and
collective exposure accumulated.
The inspector determined that ALARA
coordinators from major departments at the station have not been assigned
to represent their departments in the station
1s ALARA program as intended
by the Virginia Power Radiation Protection Plan.
In response to
suggestions to reduce exposure, such as an ALARA incentive program and
department ALARA coordinators assigned by individual departments for full
time support rif the ALARA program, the position was taken that ALARA
initiatives were being taken in other areas and that the specific actions
were currently not being considered.
The licensee
I s improvements in the
ALARA program wi 11 be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
10. Allegation Followup (99014)
a.
Allegation (RII-87-A-0089)
A person employed by a local nuclear facility stated that a hardware
merchant had orange rubber anti-C gloves_for sale to the public.
Also, that if this condition were allowed the public would loose
12
confidence in our ability to control contaminated materials.
Discussion
The inspector visited the .hardware store and observed that the orange
rubber anti:-C. gloves for, s_ale qr~ th~ typ~ -~ypical ly used at_ nucl~ar _ .-
facilities for protection from contamination. * They displayed the
three bladed radiation syrribo l on each cuff.
When asked about. the
subject gloves, the store owner stated that the gloves were samples
from the manufacturer, were new and had never been used.
The store
provides. industrial supplies to both. Surry Nuclear Power Station and
Newport News Shipbuilding .and Dry. Dock Company.
- The inspector
observed the gloves were unused and therefore there were no safety
implications *. On August 6, 1987, the store owner* stated that the
gloves would 'be removed from sale to the public to prevent any
unnecessary problems that may arise from their sale and use.
Finding -
The allegation was partially substantiated 'in that new anti-C
protective clothing was being offered* for sale to the public,
however, no regulatory requirements were violated.
No violations or
deviations w~re identifi~d.
-