ML20010D108
| ML20010D108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Lovendale P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010D102 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-295-81-15, NUDOCS 8108210507 | |
| Download: ML20010D108 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000295/1981015
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-295/81-15; 50-304/81-11
Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name:
Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At:
Zion Site, Zion, IL
Inspection Conducted:, June 19, 22-26, and July 6-8, 1981
61tittlt2h
/ /
,
Inspector:
P. C. Lovendale
5"/JP//$/
l
Datef '
1
Approved By:
L R
rg
ing Chief
/
Facilities Radiation
Date
Protection Section
i
I
!
Inspection Summary
Inspection on June 19, 22-26, and July J-8, lo81 (Reports No. 50-295/81-15;
50-304/81-11)
,
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions +.aken
in response to Health Physics Appraisal findings and items of noncompliance.
The inspection involved 71 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found
in three areas. One item of ncncompliance war found in one area (Level 5
violation - failure to adenuately control contaminated tools Section 4.1).
,
l
8108210507 010805
T
DR ADOCK 05000295
.
.
-
-.
-
.
.
DETA1(S
1.
Persons Contacted
- K. Graesser, Superintendent
- G. Plim1, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative and
Support Services
- D. Howard, Rad / Chem Supervisor
- J. Marianyi, Radwaste Operating Engineer
- E. Fuerst, Unit 1 Operating Engineer
- B. Harl, Quality Assurance
- R. Cascarano, Radwaste Group Leader, Technical Etaff
- M. Krysiak, QC Inspection
F. Osr., Health Physicist
F. Rescek, Lead Health Physicist
D. Shamlin, QC Inspection
B. Schramer, Station Chemist
L. Minejevs, Lead Foreman, Rad / Chem
M. Davis, Foreman, Rad / Chem
l
L. Lanes, Foreman. Rad / Chem
- J. Kohler, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
'
- J. Waters, Resident Inspector, NRC
l
The inspector also contacted several other licensee and contractor
employees including, Rad / Chem Technicians, Rad / Chem Engineering
Assistants, and members of the technical and engineering staffs.
l
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
l
2.
General
This inspection, which began at 8:00 a.m. on June 19, 1981, was
conducted to examine licensee actions taken in response to the
Health Physics Appraisal.
The inspector performed independent
surveys and reviewed radiation controls and postings during
tours of the radiologically controlled areas. Housekeeping and
cleanliness appeared good considering the extent of TMI related
modifications in progress.
l
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
I
(0 pen) Infraction (50-295/80-05; 50-304/80-04):
Failure to control
.
l
contaminated tools in accordance with radiation control procedures.
The licensee's corrective actions were not effective. This matter
is the subject of additional noncompliance as stated in Section 4.
4.
Contamination and Radioactive Material Control
During the Health Physics Appraisal, it was noted that improvements
in contamination contiol were needed in order to reduce the potential
for personal exposure and inadvertent removai of contamination from
controlled areas.
- 2-
.
4.1
Contaminated Tools
Use
- ontaminated tools is governed by RP-1190-1, " Hot Tool
Pro
tre," which specifies limits for unshielded storage (6000
-
cpm above background) and coctaminated tool marking (purple naint).
Failure to properly control the use of contaminated tools was
the apparent cause of a personal contamination incident which
occurred on April 14, 1981. The incident occurred when a worker
used an unmarked contaminated file which had been stored in a
tool box located in the auxiliary building. As a trPdt, the
worker's hands became contaminated up to 625,000 dpm and clothing
up to 150,000 dpm.
Further problems associated with this
1.tcident are discussed in Section 4.2.
During a facility tour, the inspector selectively nurveyed con-
tractor and maintenance tool boxes. An electrical maintenance
tool box, located in the fuel building, read about 240 mR/hr at
contact, and tue first contractor box surveyed contained a sinall
unmarked wrecking bar reading 10 mR/hr at contact and had about
50,000 dpm/100cm renovable contamination.
Also, at the inspec-
tor's request, about nine contractor tool botes were surveyed by
contract technicians. Numerous unmarked, contaminated tools were
found and moved to the decontamination area.
This is considered noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.2.B
which requires adherence to radiation protection procedures.
4.2 Personal Contamination Incident
On April 14, 1981, a worker became contaminated when he used an
unmarked cot aminated file. During shift change, the worker
passed throu
the portal monitor at access control and caused
an alarm. A
stionman (qualified to perform certain RCT func-
tions) was in .ructed to survey and decontaminate the worker.
Contamination, found on the worker's hands, was successfully
removed except for about 400 cpm on one thumb. The worker was
then sent home with a rubber covering over the thumb and was
instructed to have his thumb checked the next morning. Upon
leaving access control and the guardhouse, the worker set off
the parta' monitor alarms. He was permitted to pass because
it was believed that the contaminated thumb set off the alarm.
The following morning, the worker was again surveyed and several
spots of contamination ranging up to 13,000 cpm were focad on
his pants. Additional surveys of the worker's car and house
and a co-worker's car and house were conducted.
Licensee
surveys indiceted that low levels of contamination, round in
the worker's souse and in both cars, had been removed.
The licensee stated that the stationman who surveyed the worker
was qualified to issue face masks and perform surveys on material
whi t eas to remain at the station, but was not qualified to
r, t. ,se material for unrestricted use or perform personal de-
contamination. The stationman failed to survey the wor' - r's
-3-
. -
.
.
!
entire body, stopping when the hand contamination was detected.
Also, it appears unlikely that the 400 cpm (as measured with a
pancake type GM detector) on the worker's thumb would cause an
alarm on the portal monitor at access control.
It appears that inadequate supervision and failure to believe
the portal monitor alarms were the causes of this incident.
This matter was discussed with licensee representatives during
l
the inspection; corrective measures w.11 be reviewed during o
l
future inspaction.
On July 6,1981, the inspector survey ed the worker's house and
auto to verify the results of the lic asce's survey and decon-
l
tamination efforts. An Eberline E-530 with an llP-210 probe was
!
used for direct readings and smears were taken in selected areas
l
to check for transferable contamination.
Low levels of contamina-
l
tion sere detected in the house and auto. The maximum direct
l
reading was about 600 cpm above background.
No significant
l
transfe able contamination was detected.
l
l
On July 7, 1981, four licensee health physics personnel returned
l
to the worker's house and removed the contamination to below the
'
licensee's unconditional release limit (100 cpm above background).
!
The inspector was present during the cleanup.
The licensee
could provide no reason why this contamination went undetected
l
during previous surveys.
4.3 Radioactive Material
In February 1981, the licensee began surveying all clean vaste
before disposal offsite. The results of these surveys indicated
that radioactive material was apparently being removed from the
l
controlled area withcut being surveyed.
Items reading up to 80,000 cpm on contact with a " pancake type
GM detector were found in the waste dumpstars.
Since all waste
is now surveyed before removal from the station, it is unlikely
that any radioactive material is currently leaving the station
in the clean waste. However, there is a possibility that some
low-Icvel radioactive material lef t the station with the clean
waste before the licensee began the clean waste surveys.
To
determine if significant amounts of radioactive material lef t
the station with the clean waste, the inspector visited the
!
local landfill where the clean waste from the station ic
buried and conducted a limited survey of the area using an
l
Eberline PRM-7, micro-R meter. No radiation levels exceeding
l
background were found.
4.4 Corrective Actions
During the inspection, the liu nsee initiated the following
ceracctive actions in response te the contamination control
problems identified by the inspector.
-4-
__
-
.
_
.
.
-
..
-
.
.
.
i
(1) A laboratory foreman was assigned full-time to the taok
of correcting contamination control problems.
(2) The laboratory foreman has assigned five stationmen, two
,
l
contractor laborers, and one contracted health physics
technician to collect, decontaminate, and mark contract r
tools.
(3) The laboratory foreman has been provided with per,
from electrical and mechanical maintenance to decon.
. mate
l
and mark their tools with the aid of a contracted health
physics technician.
i
!
(47 One contracted health physics technician has been assigned
to each shift to survey tools before before they are re-
turned to the tool boxes.
I
(5) All teol boxes are being surveyed daily. The survey itsquency
will be changed to weekly after all other controls are fully
instituted.
(6) A stationman has been posted at access control to stop persons
l
from removing unsurveyed material.
!
(7) Plans to construct a tool crib for contaminated tools are in
l
the approval process. Construction will probably not be
i
complete until early in 1982.
!
!
The results of these corrective actions will be reviewed during
!
a future inspection.
i
5.
Management and Management Support
!
!
During the IIcalth Physics Appraisal, it was noted that management and
manageuent support of the health physics program needed strengthening.
The following actions have been taken to improve management and manage-
l
ment support of the health physics program:
The Rad / Chem Department is now represented in the station morning
a.
meetings as follows:
1.
The laooratory foreman attends the daily Maintenance Department
<
meeting.
2.
A chemist or health physicist attends the daily outage or
Operations meeting.
i
l
l
3.
The Rad / Chem Supervisor attends the Administrative Assistants'
l
and the Station Superintendent's meetings each morning. Also,
l
he attends the department head meeting each Monday.
b.
An ALARA coordinator has been named and will start his duties on or
about July 15, 1981.
-5-
,
___ _
.
.
B
c.
RCT evsiuations are being completed annually and health physicists
and laboratory foremen are being evaluated every six months.
d.
An additional clerk has been assigned to the Rad / Chem Department.
However, this assignment apparently has not reduced the workload
placed on the foremen.
e.
A radiation chemistry technician log has been implemented to enhance
identification of significant items and to follow their status,
i
f.
The rad / chem office area has been enlarged and redesigned to provide
a better work environment. However, office partitions are still
needed to reduce the noise level in .he area. The partitions were
ordered, but the order was canceled due to budget constraints.
.
g.
To ensure enforcement of the radiation protection standards, all
I
radiation occurrence reports are reviewed by the Assistant Super-
intendent of Administratinn. Repeat offenders are brought to the
attention of the Station Superintendent.
l
The actions listed above appear to have improved the licensee's management
l
and management support of the health physics program. Other actions taken
l
in this area will be reviewed during a future inspection.
!
6.
Vandalism
l
i
The Health Physics Appraisal team noted that vandalism of station equip-
ment had affected the health physics program. Vandalism no longer appears
to be a problem. Around-the-clock health physics supervision and an
increase in management support for health physics have apparently been
effective in reducing the vandalism.
i
7.
Exit Meeting
The inspector met with licensee representatives on June 26, 1981, and
l
at the conclusion of the inspection on July 8, 1981. The inspector
l
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
!
l
In response to certain items discussed by the inspector, the licensee
l
stated that the presence of 250 contractors performing TMI related work
l
made control of contaminated tools a difficult task but that corrective
actions would be implemented in an attempt to correct the problem.
(These corrective actions are discussed in Section 4.4 of the Report
Details.)
-6-