ML19276H232
| ML19276H232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1978 |
| From: | Clemons P, Knapp P, Plumlee K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276H226 | List: |
| References | |
| 30-12457-78-01, 30-12457-78-1, 50-289-78-03, 50-289-78-3, NUDOCS 7910150860 | |
| Download: ML19276H232 (17) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1978003
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
OportNo.
50-2S9/78-03
30-12457/78-01
50-269
Docke: No. 30-12457
CPR-50
License No.
37-17257-01
Priority
Category
C
--
Licensee:
Metrocolitan Edison Cercany
P. O. Box 542
Readinc. Pennsylvania
19603
Facility Name:
Three Mile Islind Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania
Inspection conducted:
Februa 26 - March 1, and (offsite) March 9, 1978
Inspectors:
/ . ) ll.
/I hi,,,hj x
NS. 7h
'
/Kdrl E. 'Plumlee, ' Radiation Specialist
date signed
~
$%/h.
'aw /
$ 2)h
Percy4. Clen ans, Radiation Specialist
date signed
.
To
date signed
-
._
~5 b7!7 f
O
Ct.-
Approved by:
s
Peter J. Knapp, Chief, R5diation Support
date' signed
Section, Fuel Facilities and Materials
Safety Branch
Inscection Summary:
Inscection en February 26 - March 1,1978 (Recort No. 50-289/78-03)
Areas Insoected:
Radiation protection program, inclucing:
qualifications of
radiation protection personnel; audits of radiation protection activities;
training; procedures; instruments and equipment; exposure control; posting,
labeling, and control of radioactive materials and radiation areas; surveys;
notifications and reports; review of corrective actions en previous items of
nonccmpliance; and independent measurements by the inscectors.
The initial in-
specticn and area examination was conducted during non-regular hours (February
26,1978, S:30 p.m. - 11:15 a.m. ) .
This instection invcived 53 ins:ector-heurs
en site by two NRC inspectors.
- esu: s:
Of tre nine areas ins et:ed, nc items of ncncom liarce aere identified
m saven areas.
-we items of ncnccmciiance were identi#iec ir
-.c areas-
'n :f on
- ailera :: : s: racia-icn a-sas, raragra:n ^; :-
a:: ice -
.i:
21 a #ere :: Cr0Cecures, paragra:" l).
'
I
}
} h~ ' ~ ~ 9
. [ 4. .r:.s
o00
0FmE6 s
7 91015 0W
..
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
M. Beers, Station Shift Supervisor
- R. Dubiel, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry
E. Fuhrer, Engineer II - Nuclear
.
- E. Gee, Safety Supervisor
L. Hydrick, Foreman, Radwaste Operation
F. Huwe, Radiation Protection Foreman
- G. Kunder, Unit 1 Sucerintendent, Technical Support
L. Landry, Engineer II - Nuclear
R. McCann, Radiation Protection Foreman
- T. Mulleavy, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- J. O'Hanlon, Unit 1 Superintendent
G. Reid, Unit 1 Chemistry Foreman
J. Smith, Foreman, Raowaste Operation
P. Velez, Radiation Protection Foreman
'
R. Zeckman, Group Supervisor, Nuclear and Technical Training
.
- denotes those present at th6 exit interview, 3:45 p.m. , March 1,1978.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inscection Findincs
-
(Closed) Deviation (289/77-18):
Smoking practices, and Noncompliance
(289/77-29): Smoking in a posted no smoking area.
Review of the
licensee's corrective actions and observations during tours of the
facility indicated that corrective actions on this item are accept-
able.
(Paragraph 6)
(Closed) Noncompliance (289/77-34):
Failure to fully comolete
gaseous radioactive release records.
Review of the licensee's cor-
rective actions indicated that the current records are complete and
a review will be made of the semiannual effluent release report for
the period January 1 - June 30,1977.
(Paragraph 7)
(0 pen) Inspector Follow Item (289/76-26):
Replacement of temporary
werden doors and padlocks at High Radiation Area entrances.
The
li a nsee representative stated that one metal door is new available
and others are on order to complete this job.
1413
330
..
3
,
3.
Postinc and Control of Access to Radiation Areas. Hich Radiation
'
Areas, and Contaminateo Areas
Part of the inspection effort was to tour the facility and observe
,
1
the licensee's ccmpliance with regulatory requirements for the
control of access to and the posting of hazardous areas.
'
10 CFR 20.202(b)(2) (in part) defines a Radiation Area as any area
accessible to personnel in which there exists radiation, originating
,
in whole or in part within licensed material, at such levels that
a major portion of the body could receive in any one hour a dose
in excess of 5 millirem, and 10 CFR 20.203(b), " Radiation Areas,"'
requires that each Radiation Area shall be conspicuously posted
with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words,
" Caution, Radiation Area."
During tours, escorted by licensee representatives, the inspectors
noticed there were no Radiation Area or High Radiation Area signs
at the Nuclear Sample Room and at the Reactor Building personnel
entrance on the morning of February 27, 1978.
.
'
During subsequent reviews of records of Radiation Work Permitt (RWPs)
and radiation surveys it appeared that personnel had access to the
Nuclear Sample Room and to the Reactor Building, and the radiation
levels were up to 10 mrem and up to 50 mrem, respectively in tcese
'
areas, thus posting was required.
The inspector made confirmatory measurements in the Nuclear Sample
Room.
The inspector briefly interviewed personnel emerging from
the Reactor Building.
Based on this information, the inspector
identified the above as examples of noncompliance with requirements
(78-03-01)
l
The licensee posted these areas before the completion of the in-
spection.
The licensee representatives stated that the Radiation
'!
Protection Supervisor and the Foremen would give increased attention
!
to posting during their routine checks of conditions in the facility.
!
(Paragraph 13)
.
1413
331
. . -
4
0
4
Radiation Protection Procedures
,
Part of the inspection effort was to observe the workers' adherence
to procedures and to review procedures and practices for the control
of personnel exposures and contamination.
-
Technical Specification Section ?.11 requires adherence to precedures
for all operations involving personnel radi-ation exposure,
a.
Self-Monitorina at a Stecoff Pad
Health Physics Procedure HP 1612 requires individuals to
monitor themselves for contamination on leaving contaminated
areas, going to a controlled area. The procedure states that
monitoring devices have been provided in the restricted area
for this purpose.
The inspector observed at about 10:45 a.m., on February 27,
1978, that an individual who was removing a 50 cubic foot
radwaste container from the Radwaste Process Area, elevation
-
305 feet, failed to monitor himself for centamination when he
left this contaminated area at a stepoff pad, going to a
controlled area. The individual was working under RWP 16384
e
which showed a maximum contamination level of 14,800 dpm/100cm2
in this contaminated area.
The solidified radwaste containers
being transferred were Nos. 78-C-25, -26, -27, and -28.
The inspector observed that the procedure placed the primary
responsibility on the individual, and there was no instruction
and no monitoring equipment at the stepoff pad and no reminder
in the RWP that the individual shall monitor on leaving the
contaminated area.
The inspector stated that this failure to self-monitor was
an example of noncompliance with the above requirements.
(78-03-02)
.
O
1413 92
5
'
b.
Determination of Container Contamination
Health Physics Procedure HP 1620 requires a determination that
-
solidified radwaste containers are free of contamination before
they are moved from the Radwaste Process Area to a temporary
,
storage area, and that Form 1620-1 be used for the survey.
.
The inspector observed that the transfer of a solidified
radwaste container (described above) apparently was made with-
out any determination that this container was free of surface
-
contamination. The technician who had surveyed the container
stated in the inspector's presence that the determination that
the container was free of contamination had been inadvertently
omitted.
The inspector noted that the solidified radwaste containers
j
were being transferred from one level to another in the facility
(305 ft to 281 ft elevation) and the transfer path included
t
controlled area corridors and an elevator. The applicable
RWPs for this. transfer were Nos.16383 and 16384.
.
The inspector stated that the failure to determine that the
container (No. 78-C-25) was free of contamination before it
- 9
was moved from the Radwaste Process Area to a temporary storage
area constituted nonccmpliance with the above requirements.
(78-03-02)
.
c.
Wearina of Personnel Dosimeters
A requirement of Procedure AP 1003 Section 2.2 is that a dosimeter
will be worn by each person when entering a controlled area of
the plant.
Part of the inspection effort was to determine compliance with
the above requirement.
The inspector toured the facility and checked the wearing of
personal dosimetry equipment daily on February 25., 27, 28,
and March 1, 1978.
No problems were identified on those dates.
,
1413
133
6
An individual had informed an NRC:I representative by telephone
that on two occasions an individual had been sent into a
controlled area without a dosimeter even though the imediate
superior (a contractor employee) had been reminded of the
requirement on the second occasion; and that two additional
.
individuals were present without dosimeters on that occasion.
The inspector did not identify the above individual to the
licensee althcugh the individual freely consented to be identi-
fied.
The individual requested an evaluation of the radiation
exposure received.
The licensee representative stated that a watchman, employed by
a security contractor, had been found in a controlled area on
February 22 and again on February 24, 1978, without the required
personnel dosimetry equipment, and on the 24th the watchman
announced that NRC would be informed of these circumstances.
The licensee representative stated that this watchman had been
assigned a position outside an open door during a waste shipoing
operation and had not entered the building.
The licensee had
evaluated the watchmen exposures to be less than 10 mrem (total)
based on a survey of each loaded vehicle before its departure,
and on the truck drivers' dosimeters.
The inspector observed radioactive waste transfers and shipping
during the inspection. The inspector also contacted an individual
by telephone on March 9, 1978, who stated that this information
appeared to be correct, based on direct observation of these
_
events on February 22 and 24,1978.
The inspector reviewed the records of the loaded vehicle surveys
and, based on the above informaticn, found that the licensee's '
evaluation of the watchmen's exposures appeared to be acceptable.
The inspector informed the individual who had called NRC:I on
this matter that the exposure received appeared to be less than
one percent of the allowable exposure during a calendar month.
The individual stated that the infomation was welcome and
nothing more was needed.
The inscectar noted that the licensee had identified the above
_
cccurrences and appeared to have corrected tne cause.
The
~
inspector had no further questions on this item.
lb . 34
~
)
d.
Review of Procedures
The in pector noted, during a review of selected procedures,
that the frequency of neutron surveys was not specified,
although a survey had been performed under Health Physics Pro-
cedure HP 1603 "!1eutron Survey" following the most recent re-
fueling outage.
The licensee representative stated the intent to perform a
neutron survey after each refueling outage to determine the
fast-to-thermal neutron ratio and also any changes in levels
that fol. lowed refueling and any change to the facility during
the outage.
Before the completion of the inspection, the licensee initiated
a temporary change notice (TCil 78-55) requiring this determination
to be perfomed following each refueling cutage.
The review of procedures did not identify any further problems.
,
The inspector had no further questions on this area of the
-
inspection.
5
9
.
Control of Internal and External Ex osures
'
Part of the inspection effort was to review the dosimetry program
and the bicassay and in-vivo assay results for compliance with regu-
latory limits and requirements.
a.
Excosure Levels
.
The licensee dosimetry records indicated that only one Metro-
politan Edison Company employee received in excess of 1 1/4
Rems whole body exposure during any calendar quarter of 1977,
and none exceeded 5 Rems during the calendar year 1977.
One
employee exceeded 4 Rems, three additional emolayees exceeded
2 Rems, and 73 additional employees exceeded 1 Rem exposure to
the whole body during the year 1977.
The licensee bioassay and in-vivo counting records indicated
that no significant uptakes of radioactive materials occurred
during 1977.
The licensee's control of ex:osures o ;errennel a:: eared to
be acce: table.
1413
335
8
b.
Dosirt.etry Records
The inspector reviewed the personnel dosimetry records to
determine the licensee's compliance with recordkeeping require-
ments.
10 CFR 20.102, " Determination of accumulated dose."
and 10 CFR 20.401, " Records of surveys, radiation monitoring,
and disposals," require records to be clear and legible, and
in any case where the licensee is unable to obtain recorts of
an individual's previously accumulated occupational dose infor-
mation, require the assumption that the dose received is as
shown in 10 CFR 20.102(c)(1).
This assumed dose is 1 1/4 or
3 3/4 Rems dose to the whole body for each calendar quarter
after the individual's 18th birthday.
The inspector noted thac the personnel dosimetry reccrds were
recently orinted out by a computer.
It appeared that the
licensee r.aintained the correct information required by Forms
NRC-4 and NRC-5 for each individual for whom the licensee was
required to maintain the (lifetime) total accumulated dose
and the unused part of the permissible accumulated dose.
The licensee had not supplied the previously accumulated dose
information for several other individuals to the computer.
'
The computer took these doses to be zero rather than the values
'
given by 10' CFR 20.102(c)(1).
The total accumulated doses and
ur.used parts of the permissible accumulated doses printed out
for these individuals were incorrect.
In one example, the
correction would change these values by greater than 150 Rems.
The inspector found that the computer printout contained inter-
mixed correct and incorrect information with no identificatica
which was correct. The inspector stated that the record could'
be cleared up (as an example) by striking out the incorrect
information.
(78-03-03)
A licensee records audit is described
in Paragraph 9.a.
6.
Housekeepino Practices
.
Part of the inspection effort was to observe the control of smoking
and eating in prohibited areas, area decencamination and cleanliness,
ventilation. balance, and the status of radiochemistry hoods and
sample sinks.
l4!O
53b
'
9
,
a.
Smoking and Eating Practices
(289/77-18): Smoking while transferring a contaminated
--
container; and,
(289/77-29):
Smoking in a posted no smoking (fire pro-
--
tection) area.
Observation during tours of the facility showed that receptacles
were provided at the entrances to no smoking areas and appro-
priate signs were posted for the control of smoking in pro-
hibited. areas.
No indication was found, on this inspection,
of any unacceptable smoking or eating oractices.
b.
Ventilation Control
A standard design objectiva is that, where such areas are not
isolated, the air flow is from areas of low radioactivity
potential to areas of high radioactivity potential.
This ob-
jective is indicated in the TMI-l FSAR, Section 9.S.3 and
Figure 9-21, and in the TMI-2 FSAR, Section 12.2.1, " Ventilation
Design Objectives."
,
The inspector observed on February 27, 1978,.th'at the ventil-
ation flow was from the Nuclear Sample Room (a posted contam-
inated area) into the Radiochemistry Laboratory and through
an open door into a busy corridor. The door was blocked open
although a sign indicated it is to be kept closed.
'
The licensee representative promptly closed the door.
Subse-
quent measurements showed that the ventilation flow was reduced
but the direction of flow was not changed.
The licensee subsequently corrected the direction of flow by
shutting off a blower. The inspector verified that the direction
of flow was corrected (i.e., into the contaminated area) at
11:00 a.m. , on March 1,1978.
The licensee found that the
blower was inadvertently started later in the day. The blower
has now been tagged off.
1413
337
.
10
The licensee subsequently initiated a ser vice request for
assistance by the ventilatien designer in order to improve
the ventilation balance.
The completic of the ventilation balance will be reviewed
on a subsequent inspection.
(78-03-04)
The inspector also checked the face flow velocities at the
radiochemistry hoods and the nuclear sample sink, using an
l1RC instrument.
tio problems were identified.
The inspector had no further
questions on the control of face flow velocities.
c.
Area Cecontamination Practices and Cleanliness
The inspector observed that the licensee's decontamination
-
practices and the cleanliness of and maintenance of floors
and radiation protecticn supplies and equipment appeared to
be acceptable within the quicance crovided by Regulatory Guide 1.39, " Housekeeping Requirerents of Watercooled fluclear Power
Plants," and "?SI Standard ti 45.2.3-1973.
'
The inspector had no further questions on area decontamination
practices ahd cleaniiness.
7.
Radioactive Release Rec 6rds and Reports
-
(289/77-34):
Failure to fully complete gaseous radioactive release
records.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions
and observed that the current records are being fully ccmpleted.
The licensee representative stated that any significant corrections
will be provided on any previous information reported to the NRC;
however, the licensee review of a previcus report had not been
finished.
The licensee release records and recorts will be reviewed on a
routine inspection of radioactive waste systems.
The * inspector
had no further questions on this item at this time.
1413
338
11
8.
Organization and Oualifications of Personnel Performino Radiation
-
Protection Cuties
Part of the inspection effort was to review the staffing and organ-
ization for rediation protection activities and the qualifications
and training of these personnel,
a.
Organization
Technical Specification Section 6.2.1, by reference to Figure
.
6-1, indicates that the Supervisor, Radiation Protection a'nd
Chemistry, is assisted by a Radiation Protection Supervisor
and a Chemical Supervisor, with Radiation Chemistry Technicians
reporting to 'these two supervisors.
Review during this inspection showed that no Chemical Supervisor
was designated; however, a Chemis-try Foreman was assigned to
each reactor (Unit -1 and -2).
Personnel reporting to the Supervisor, Radiation Protection
-
and Chemistry, include:
9
(1) Radiation Protection Supervisor
'
(2) Two Chemistry Forernen
-
(3) Two Engineers - II Nuclear
(4) Staff Chemist
(5) Technical Analyst
In addition to these personnel, three Radiation Protection
Foremen and two Radwaste Foremen report to the Radiation Pro-
tection Supervisor.
The organization appeared to ce acceptable.
The inspector had
no further questions on this item.
b.
Cualifications of Technicians
Technical Specification 6.3.1 states "Comorising the station
staff shall be supervisory and professional personnel encom-
passing the qualifications described in Section 4 of ANSI
N 18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant
Personnel." Section 4.5.2 of ANSI N 18.1-1971 states " Technicians
in respcnsible cositions shall have a minimum of two years of
14i3
339
..
.
12
working experience in their specialty. These personnel should
have a minimum of one year of related technical training in
addition to their experience."
The inspector reviewed the records of the 12 Radiation Chemistry
Technicians and noted that each one had at least four years
work experience in this specialty.
The licensee has 12 Junior Radiation Chemistry Technicians that
do not meet the above requirement, but these individuals work
under the direct supervision of the Radiation Chemistry Tech-
nicians and the Raciation Protection Foreman.
The Junior Radiation Chemistry Technicians initially received
formal instruction conducted onsite by a contract employee,
'
and also on-the-job training ccnducted by the Radiation Chemistry
Technicians and the Foremen.
Except for three who are scheduled
to attend during June 1978, they have completed a chemistry
laboratory training course conducted offsite by Sabcock and
Wilcox Corporation.
-
The inspector noted that training records are being maintained
that show edch task for which the technicians have been qualified.
6
.
.
No items of' noncompliance were identified in the technician
qualifications and training.
_
c.
Qualifications of Radiation Protection Foremen
ANSI N 18.1-1971 does not indicate any minimum qualification
requirements for Foremen.
The licensee representative stated that the designation of
each Foreman was based on his experience and his evaluated
ability to carry out the assigned responsibilities of the
position including, among others, the performance and evaluation
of each task routinely performed by personnel under the Foreman's
direction.
.
The inspector observed that the Radiation Prote: tion Forecen
each had five or more years work experience in radiation cro-
_
tection.
"e Fore en's cualificatiens accear :: be accertable.
The in-
s:ector nac ne further cuestions en this item.
1413
340
13
d.
Qualifications of the Radiation Protection Sucervisor, and
,
tne Sucervisor of Radiation Protection anc Cnemistry
The Technical Specifications, by reference to ANSI N 18.1-1971,
require the responsible person for radiation protection to
-
have a minimum of five years experience in radiation protection
at a nuclear reactor facility and two years of related technical
training.
Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and
Training," indicates that the Radiation Protection Manager
should have at least five years of professional experience in
applied radiation protection and a bachelor's degree or the
equivalent in a science or engineering subject (or additiona'l
years of experience).
Additional documentation of this information was supplied in
a licensee letter dated October 6,1977 (Technical Specification
Change Request No. 58), and in the FSARs for Units 1 and 2.
-
The inspector reviewed the resumes of these individuals, and
supporting documents.
The Radiation Protection Supervisor has in excess of 16 years
of experience in radiation protection. This included four
years as the Plant Health Physicist at a nuclear power plant
prior to hi' accepting employment at Three Mile Island Unit 1
s
in 1974.
The licensee representative stated that tile incumbent has
held the position of Radiation Protection Supervisor since
July 1977.
The Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry has in
excess of five years of experience in radiation protection
and he has a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's degree
in health physics.
-
These qualifications acpear to be acceptable within the above
ccmmitments, requirements, and guidance.
.
The inspector hac no further questions on this item.
1413
341
14
e.
Staffino and Oualifications of Temcorarv Personnel
The licensee representative stated that in preparation for
a refueling outage scheduled to ccmmence fiarch 18, 1978,
twenty contract radiation protection technicians and three
contract supervisors have been selected to assist during the
outage.
These individuals will train onsite prior to the outage.
.
Selection was based on resumes and recommendations.
The licensee
representative requirec experience on jobs similar to those
scheduled during the outage.
In addition to routine refueling
.
I
these jobs include the replacement of a letdown system heat
I
exchanger, incore flux detector replacement, reactor coolant
pump seal replacement, and setpoint checks of the pressurizer
safety valve.
,
!
l
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
'
f.
Trainina for Scecific Jobs
In addition to obtaining contract personnel who have worked
on these jobs at other sites, the licensee has planned each
major job scheduled during the outage.
,
A training tig was assembled and the crew was trained on the
,
',
equipment to be used in removing the in-core detectors.
Per-
sonnel who changed out the first letdown system heat exchanger
last year planned tne changeout of the second unit this year.
'
Pump seal replacement has been rehearsed.
!
The inspector had no further questions on preparations for
-
the outage.
g.
Resoiratory Protection
The inspector reviewed the respiratory protection program to
determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103
and Regulatory Guide 8.15, " Acceptable Programs f.or Respiratory
Protection."
1413
342
..
15
The inspector reviewed Health Physics Procedure 1616, "Use
of Respiratory Protection Devices." This procedure contained
,
the written procedures required by the regulations.
The inspector also reviewed data which indicated that the
licensee has instituted a medical program to assure that per-
sonnel are physically able to wear respiratory protective equip-
ment.
At the time of the inspection approximately 400 empicyees
had been examined.
A licensee representative informed the inspector that a written
policy statement on respirator usage had been developed, and
was being presented to the Union for information, and was
expected to be issued to the employees in the immediate future.
According to the licensee representative, the policy _will pro-
bably be signed by the Site Superintendent.
The inspectors observed that the licensee has recently installed
a DCP aerosol test system, including a test chamber, and they
witnessed approximately 5 employees being tested for respirator
fi t.
All of the employees passed the test.
O
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
.
9.
Licensee Audits 'of Radiation Protection Activities
a.
Offsite Orcanization's Audits of Radiation Protection
Technical Specification Section 6.5.2.A.2.k requires the
Met Ed Corporate Technical Support Staff to audit the radio-
logical controls and the training and qualifications of the
station staff at least once every two years.
The most recent audit was of dosimetry records.
The licensee
representative stated that the audit report was due March 15,
'
1978.
The inspector reviewed reports of audit Nos. 77-10, " Radiation
Control," and 77-29, " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment."
The inspector noted that the auditing appeared to be acceptable
and that the problems identified therein were followed up.
The audit cf icsime ry records will be felicwed ua with res ect
0 item 73-C'
'2, described in Paragra:n 5.0.
1413
343
16
b.
Other Auditina
The Radiation Protection Supervisor audits the monthly and
weekly schedules for completion.
The Foremen check on the
completion of dosimetry determinations, laboratory sample
-
analyses, and contracted services such as contaminated laundry.
The Foremen review the completed RWPs.
The licensee's auditing appeared to bt acceptable.
The inspector
-
had no further questions on this item.
f
10.
Instruments and Ecuioment
Part of the inspection effort was to review the availability and
the upkeep of instruments and equipment used for radiation protection.
The inspector reviewed the availability of friskers at contaminated
area stepoff pads (Paragraph 4.a) and discussed the licensee's
policy (Paragraph 13).
.
The inspector noted that the instruments that were in use appeared
-
to be in the current calibration status required by the licensee's
procedures.
'
The inspector had no further questions on this item,
11.
Radioactive Sources (License tio. 37-17257-01)
'
The licensee is authoeized by the above license and also by condition
2.b(2) of License DPR-50 to possess several radioactive sources.
The Technical Specifications, in Section 4.13, require specified
categories of sealed radioactive sources to be tested for leakage-
at intervals not to exceed six months, and the licensee maintains
Surveillance Procedure tio::G -72to acccmplish these tests.
The inspector reviewed the leak test and inventory records for
15 sources that were tested on March 31, 1977, and September 12, 1977.
tio omissions and no items of nonccmpliance were identified. The
inspector had no further questions on this item.
k b bkq1
17
12.
Notifications and Recorts to NRC and to Individuals
Part of the inspection effort was to review the licensee's compliance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 19 and 10 CFR 20.408 to report per-
.
sonnel radiation exposure summaries and any overexposures to the
NRC, and to inform individuals of their occupational exposure at
this facility on reguest and on termination.
The records did not indicate any overexposures during 1977 or 1978
to the date of the inspection.
The licensee reports appeared to be acceptable.
The inspector ha~d
no further questions on this item.
13.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in
Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the onsite inspection on March 1,
1978.
.
The insp3ctor reviewed the findings of the inspection and stated
that on co oletion of a review of the #indings in the regional
9
office the iicensee would be contacted bv telephone.
(The telephone
contact was completed on March 21,1978.)
.
,
The inspector reviewed the 1.icensee's adherence to procedures.
The inspector stated that the dosimetry records could be improved
if the licensee chose to do so, by striking out the incorrect infor-
mation printed by the computer. The inspector stated that the
required information appeared to be correct.
The inspector stated that he had checked the radiation hoods and
the sample sink area, and on a recheck made earlier in the day the
air ficw appeared to be acceptable. The inspector stated that ven-
tilation balanca would be reviewed again on a subsequent inspection.
.
.
g
1413
345