ML20024G580
| ML20024G580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1975 |
| From: | Fiorelli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102120697 | |
| Download: ML20024G580 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000263/1975010
Text
. _ , .
-
- -
. _ - _
-
_ -
_ - - - _ -
_ _ - . _ - - - - -
REACTOR FACILITIES BRANCH
,
>
-
..
,
.
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISt,.v .
REGION 111
SLEN sLLYN. ILLINol$ 60137
I
I
OCT 2 2 1975
Northern States Power Company
Docket No. 50-263
A'ITN : Mr. Leo Wachter, Vice
President, Power
Production and System
Operation
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota
$5401
Gentlemen
'Ihis refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. Bucter and
Creger of this of fice on September 30 and October 1,1975, of
.
activitica authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-22, and
to the discussion of our findings with Mr. Larson, and other
members of the plant staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
A copy of our report of this inspection is enclosed and identi-
fies the areas examined during the inspection.
Within these
areas, the inspection consisted of a selective exasination of
e
procedures and representative records, interviews with plant
personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
During this inspection, it was found that certain of your
activities appear to be in noncompliance vith URC requira-
The item and reference to the pertinent requiren;ents
ments.
are listed under Enforcement Action in the Summary of Find-
.
j
ings section of the enclosed inspection report. Prior to
the conclusion of LN inspection, the inspectors determined
that corrective acti m had been taken with respect to this
item of noncompliance and that ncasures have been taken to
assure that a similar, future noncompliance will be avoided.
Consequently, no reply to this letter is required, and we
have no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
,
4
1
.
O,
>
'"
&2120
"
ADO g y 022
'
O
P$hU
..
__
. . _ . . . . , _ _ _ , _ , _ , _ . - - . _ , _ _
,_,__,,,.__-..,_,,.-.,,_,_,,._,.___,y
, _ _ , , . - - . _ _ ,
_.
_ _ . _ _
.
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _
. _
..
.
.
.
.,
j
- +
.
,
)
Northern States Power
-2-
mpany
OCT 2 2 1975
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of
Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a
copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will
be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report
contains any information that you or your contractors believe
to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written
application to this office, within twenty days of your
receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from
public disclosure.
Any such application must include a full
statement of the reasons for which it is claimed that the
information is proprietary, and shculd be prepared to the
proprietary information identified in the application is
contakted in a eeparnte part of the dc.cuaent. Unless vc
receive an application to withhold information or are other-
wire contacted within the specified tine period, the urf tten
material identified in this paragraph will be pinced in the
Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this incpection, we
will be glad to discuss them with,you.
%
Sincerely yours,
Caston Fiore111, Chief
,
Ranctor Operations Branch
Enclosuret
'
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-15
bec v/ enc 1:
,
pDR
Local pDR
Anthony Roisman, Esq., Attorney
l
l
l
,
t
(
L
r
.
_
- , _ . .
- . ,
.
.
_ _ .
_ . . . _ _ _ _ .
_
L
,
.
.
.
'
,
SUMMARY Or Fi!1DIllCS
.
Inspeetion Summary
inspection on September 30 and cetober 1, (75-15):
Reviewed radiation
protection program implementation during refueling and maintenance
period.
One item of noncompli.ince related to personal extremity
overexposures was reviewed.
Enforcement items
The following item of noncompliance was identified during the inspection:
In f r ac t i on
Contrary to 10 CFR 20.101(a), three employees of !!orthern Stater, Power
received exposure to the hando in excess of the quarterly limit for the
third quarter of 1975, result.ing from maintenance activities on July 19.
This infraction was identified by the licensee and had the potential for
causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
(Paragraph 7)
1.feensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcer.cnt Matters
-
~
p
Not applicabic.
Other Signflicant Items
A.
Systems and Components
Revised technieni specifications associated with the augmented offgas
system are to be effective when the system is fully operational.
It
is currently estimated that the system will be fully operational
within 30 days after the Fall 1975 startup.
B.
Facility items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
C.
Managerial items
The feedwater sparger repairs scheduled for the precent refueling
period elli require ext ensive personal exposure controls.
.
-2-
.
t
+ - - - -
. . - - , ,
,
. - - - . .
- -
.
- . - .
.
--
,
-
_
___
_
_
-_ _
_ . _ .
. _ . _ .
_
. . _ _ _ _ . _ _
_
__
.
.
..
.
.
.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
-
)
None.
E.
Deviations
None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
No previously reported unresolved items within the scope of this
inspection.
gn_a_gement Interview
The inspectors conducted an interview with Mr. Larson, Plant Manager, and
other members of the plant staff, at the conclusion of the inspection on
October 1, 1975 . The following items were specifically discussed with
the licensee personnel:
A.
The inspectors stated that they had reviewed the item of noncompliance,
identified by the licensee and reported timely to the Commission,
involving exposure to the hands of three maintenance employees in
excess of the quarterly limits.
The cont ributing factors to the
exposures and corrective measures taken to minimize potential for
recurrence were discussed.
The licensee was informed that the
n
inspectors had no further questions at this time'iegarding the
matter.
(Paragraph 7)
B.
The inspectors stated that gaseous effluent data shows that the
average release rate of iodine 131 for the year through mid-September
has been running about 100% of the annual averact limit.
Licensee
personnel stated that they planned to be well within the limit by
the end of the year, due to the large reduction in the release rate
l
during the current outage (expected to last for at least 7 weeks)
and due to the replacement during this outage of all fuel with
known cladding failure.
(Paragraph 8)
C.
The licensee stated that utilization of the new form entitled
i
" Specific RLT Status Summary" would be reviewed in light of the
,
l
inspection findings.
(Paragraph 5)
l
l
l
t
-3-
.
._
, - . , ,
- - ---.
,,--
,
6
.
'
.
.
~
.
..
I
REP' ORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
C. 1. arson, Plant Manager
L. Eliason, Radiation Protection Engineer
P. Smith, Radiation Prot ection Supervisor (Nuc1 car Plant Servicco)
2
Ceneral
This inspection was conducted
in order to observe the conduct of
the licensee's radiation protection program during a refueling
and maintenance period.
In addition to a general inspection of
plant working conditions, the inspectors observed work in progress
o.. the s of ueling floor and in the drywell.
The inspectors reviewed
the licensee's health physics staffing, radiation protection
equipment, and radiation surveys and controls.
No deviations from
regulatory requirements nor prudent health physics practices were
observed during the inrpection.
3.
Health Physics Staffing
The licenr.ce provides continuous health physics coverage through
the use of the normal Monticello health physics staff plus two
radiation protection personnel from the licensee's Prairic Island
1
plant and eighteen contract health physics personnel.
The najority
of the contract radiation protection personnel are provided by
Nuc1 car Plant Services, Frecuent, California.
providing health physics coverage for the torus work.
Delineation
of rndiation protection responnihilities and interactions between
the health physics personnel are specified in a re o trem the
Monticello Radiation Protection Engineer.
I
4.
Radiation Protection r;quirnent
l
No inadequacies were identified by the inrpectors with respect to
instrument, protective clothing, or respiratory protection supplies,
Protective clothing was observed to be reused o..ly on a personal
j
basis and only after a radiaticn survey yicided acceptabic results.
Protective clothing is shipped offsite for. laundering.
5.
Radiation Protcetion Surveys
The inspectors selectively reviewed the licensee's airborne radio-
activity, direct radiation, and contanination survey records for
'the September 11 through September '30,1975 period.
The licensee
i
was noted to be conducting surveys on a frequency dictated by job
4-
l
1
-
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a
,
-
.
bequirementswithaminimumobservedfrequencyofoncepertwelve-
our shift. The survey package for each access control point was
noted to be reviewed daily by supervisory personnel, although not
necessarily by all specified personnel.
The " Specific Rk'p Status
.)
Summary" sheets were observed to be missing one or more of the
four specified signatures on a significant number of occasione.
The final review signature was noted to be present on all of the
j
'
summary sheets reviewed.
The licensee stated that the matter would
be investigated.
6.
Exposure Control
At the cime of the iuspection there were four me;-
ac en. c -*rol
areas:
1) drywell, 2) torus, 3) refueling floor, and -1 off ..
recombiner.
Each of the four creas had a securitj guard 4
a
Ac
s to rh' at ;.r
radiation protection man assigned full time.
.
was controlled by security badges and radiation work permit ,
Protective clothing requirements were specified on Li e radiation
'
work permits.
Personal exposures are controlled by L .:e~
and
'~ are
specific exposure authorizations.
Perscnal exporure re:
'
tabulated by the guards and totaled daily by radiation pcv ection
personnel.
In addition to the four major access centrol points,
two additional access control points were in use:
1) control rod
drive repair and steam chase area and 2) reactor water cicanup
pump ..ca.
These two control points were manned by radiation
protection personnel on1; when work was actually in progress. Due
to the limited nunbers of personnel working within the latter two
areas, security guards were not utilized.
The licensee utilized:
1) a 50 mr
daily dose limit for personnel
without special authorization to exceed this limit, 2) a 1000 mrem
quarterly dose limit for personnel without Form NRC-4 conpleted,
and 3) a 2000 mrem quarterly dose limit (2500 mrem in special cases)
for personnel with Form hTC-4 cenpleted.
Review of the licensee's
exposure records for the quarter ending Septe.ber 27 indicated the
highest quarterly dose received to be 2600 mrems, with six persons
receiving in excess of 2000 mrems.
Airborne exposures are calculated
and records naintained for personnel who are exposed to airborne
concentrations greater than ten percent of MPC (after ut111 zing
respiratory equipment protection factors).
The licensee utilizes
a 20 MPC hours per seven consecutive Jays administrative limit.
Nasal smears are taken from personnel exposed to airbor,ne concen-
trations greater than ten percent of MPC.
Urinalyses are performed
if the nasal smears are great er than 1000 dpm; the individual is
not allowed back in a controlled area until the urinalysis results
are back if the nasal srear is greater than 5000 dpm.
k' hole body
counting was being conducted during the inspection period.
Selected
!
maintenance operations personnel plus personnel with high nasal
smears during the current outage were scheduled to be counted.
-5-
-
l
l
'
.-
__ _ _
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
. _ _ _ _ _
___ _ _
.
6.
.
,
.
)
7.
Hand Exposure in Excess of Quarterly Limit
.
By 1ctter1/ the licensee notified the Commission of exposure to
the hands of three employees in excess of the quarterly 11mit
stated in 10 CFR 20.101(a).
The exposure occurred during
replacement of a seal on a reactor water cican-up pump.
Factors
contributinr, to the higher than expected hand exposure included:
1) difficulty in removal of a setscrew and 2) the loss of a puller
for removal of the impeller, ter.ulting in the use of vedges.
The licensee has since obtained approval from the pump manufacturer
to discontinue use of the setscrew on the basis that it is not
necessary, and another puller has been made.
The puller and other
tools are now being separately naintained for this specific job.
The impeller of one pump has recently been replaced with a new
one during a seal change and another inpeller is on order for the
accond pump.
These replacen.ents should minimize exposure during
pump reassembly and possibly during future seal replacements.
Instructions on the Radiation Work Permit used for a recent pump
seal replacement were observed to caution against any direct
handling of the impeller.
Past study has abovn the activity
to be " fixed" corrosion products, consisting of about 50% cobalt
69, 25% cobalt 58, 20% manganese 54 and about 2% cach of zine 65
and iron 59.
The licensee is involved in a study cosponsored by
GE to determine the source of the corrosion products,
f%
.mn
8.
lodine 131 Release Rate
Licensee data show that L.ie average release rate of iodine 131
for the year as of mid-September has been running about 100% of
the annual average limit.
The release rate has dropped off
substantially with time into the current outage, which began
on September 11 and is expected to last for at least 7 weeks.
All fuel with known cladding failures is being replaced during
this outage. Therefore, the licensee is anticipating a
significantly reduced iodine release rate for the renainder of
the year.
Although problems have been experienced with the augmented of fgas
systen, it has been used most of 1975 with resultant low levcis
of iodine released to the atmosphere via the stack from the air
ejector offgas.
Effluent from the reactor building vent, which
is unaffected 1:y the augmented offgas systen, has becone the
major source of iodine 131 release.
Reactor building vent releases
,
are attributed primarily to the venting of 11guld and solid waste
procest.ing vessels and storage tanks.
1/
NSP ltr to 1E dtd 8/15/75.
'
-6-
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - -
4
.
.
9.
Feedwater Sparr.cr Repairs
The licensee has identifled cracking prob 1 cms with the feedwater
sparger and anticipaten corrective maintenance during the current
refueling period. The job will require maintenance personnel
to work under radiation exposure conditions which will limit
stay times to fifteen to thirty minutes in order to prevent
exceeding quarterly dose limits.
The exposure control methods
utilized by the licensee and t!
e q vaures received by the
maintenance personnel will be e 'c.a.h .ed in greater detail during
a subsequent inspection.
2 '1
10.
Followup on items from Previous Inspection ~
a.
Review of the licensee's respiratory protection records
indicated that the licensee has discontinued use of the
combination (charcoal sorbent and particulate filter)
cartridges with air purifying r(spirators.
Airline supplied
suits are utilir.ed occasionally, but only in conjunction with
other respiratory protection equipnet.t.
In such cases, no
protection factor is claimed for the airline supplied suit,
b.
The licensee has modified the radiation protection survey
and radiation work permit procedures to allow for schedule
slippage.
r
2)
1E Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-10.
l
-7-
a