ML20210H345
| ML20210H345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1986 |
| From: | Collins T, Cooper W, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210H331 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-86-07, 50-324-86-7, 50-325-86-06, 50-325-86-6, NUDOCS 8604030042 | |
| Download: ML20210H345 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000324/1986007
Text
.
uNITIO STATES
n 8 Recoq'o,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
4
[
~' $
REGloM11
~
j
j
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
- '-
2
ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 3o323
%,
/
-
a n ses
Report Nos.: 50-325/86-06 and 50-324/86-07
Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602
Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324
License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62
Facility Name: Brunswick 1 ..nd 2
Inspection Co ucted:
Feorua
1
14, 1986
Inspectors: //
ed.J.
MN8S
.
W. T. Cooper ]/
Date Signed
kTM
.3lll r
6'
T. R. CollYns
Date Signed
Accompanying Personnel:,
C. M. Hosey
Approved by:
)
3b/
h
__
,
C. M. Hosef, Sectf on Chief
Date Signed
Divisten of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 88 inspector-hours on site
in the areas of evaluation of the licensee's program to maintain exposures as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA), internal and external exposure controls,
qualifications of contract health physics staff, and transfer and storage of
radioactive material.
Results: One violation - failure to adequately assess airborne contamination.
0604030042 860321
ADOCM 05000324
G
..
- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
2
REPORT DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- P. Howe, Vice President-Brunswick Nuclear Plant
- J. Chase, Assistant to General Manager
.
- E. Bishop, Manager-Operations
- J. Smith, Director-Administrative Support
-
- B. Hinkley, Manager-Technical Support
- J. O'Sullivan, Manager-Maintenance
- R. Mayton, Manager-Corporate Health Physics
- A. Cheatham, Manager-Environmental and Radiological Controls
- L. Tripp, Su;>ervisor-RC-1
- J.
Kiser, Project Specialist-RC
- L. Jones, Director-Quality Assurance / Quality Control
- K. Enzor, Director-Regulatory Compliance
. R. Poulk, Senior Specialist-NRC
,
- J. Holder, Outage Management
- T. Wyllie, Manager-Engineering and Construction
- R. Groover, project Construction Manager
- J. Brown, Resident Engineer
- P. Foscolo, Construction Supervisor
- J. Gdido, Senior Health Physics Specialist
D. LaBelle, Shift Operations Supervisor
S. Carr, Radwaste Operations Shift Supervisor
R. Warden, Instrument and Control Unit 1 Supervisor
S. Smith, Senior Specialist I&C-
J. Henderson, Supervisor-Radiation Control-2
J. Terry, Project Specialist-ALARA
C. Barnhill, Radiation Control Foreman
T. Priest, Radiation Control Foreman
Other licensee employees contacted included 3 construction craf tsmen, 5
technicians, 2 operators, and 4 office persennel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- W. Ruland, Senior Resident Inspector
L. Garner, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 14, 1986, vith
those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
The inspector discussed the
itcensee ALARA program in detail with licensee management (Paragraph 10).
-
.
3
The inspector also discussed an apparent violation of 10 CFR 20.103 for
failure to adequately sample airborne contamination (paragraph 9) and an
unresolved item * concerning the transfer of radioactive materials through
the unrestricted area
to
the
Low Level Waste Storage Facility
(paragraph 11).
A licensee representative stated that exception may be
taken with the apparent violation for failure tc adequately sample airborne
contamination. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the
materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Trainir.g and Qur.lifications (83723)
i
a.
Contract Technician Training and Qualifications
The inspector reviewed the program for qualification of contract
radiation protection technicians.
The inspector discussed separately
-
with one contract technician his previous experience and training to
determine if it was comprehensive or if it had been limited to selected-
r
tasks.
The inspector also discusse0 the training and qualificattori
orogram the licensee had provided, what limits had been placed on their
i
activities, and controls that should be established for several tasks
f
they were qualified to perform.
The inspector reviewed the resumes,
I
training records, and tests for selected technicians.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
.
5.
Organization and Management Controls (83722)
,
a.
Organization
[
i
The licensee was required by Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.2 to
implement the plant organization specified in Figure 6.2.2-1.
The
!
responsibilities, authorities, and other management controls were
further outlined in Chapters 12 and 11 of the FSAR.
specified the members of the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) and
t
t
"An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to
e
determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviation.
I
I
.
. - -wm ww w w w-w w
,wn-
m-<-m,-
eme.--,
em,,--m-n-~w-m
-
r,---~
]
r
-
.
4
outlined its functions and authorities. Regulatory Guide 8.8 specified
certain functicas and responsibilities to be assigned to the Radiation
Protection Manager and radiation protection responsibilities to be
assigned to line management.
The inspector reviewed recent changes to the plant organization to
determine their effect on plant radiological controls, by examining the
resulting changes to administrative procedures and position descrip-
tions.
These changes were discussed with the Radiation Protection
Manager and the Radiation Control Supervisor.
The inspector discussed with an operations shif t foreman, radiation
protection foreman, chemistry foreman, and shift foreman, the type,
methods of, and degree of interaction between plant groups.
The
inspector discussed with the Radiation C>rotection Manager and Radiation
Control Supervisors, how frequently they toured the plant and radiation
control areas.
b.
Staffing
Technical Specification 6.2.2 specified minimum plant staffing.
Chapters 12 and 13 outlined further details on staffing. The inspector
discussed authorized staffing levels versus actual on-board staffing
with the Radiation Control Supervisor.
The inspector examined shift
staffing for the d&yshift on February 12, 1986, to determine if it met
minimum criteria for radiation protection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Surveys, and Monitoring
(83726)
The licensee was required by 10 CFR 20.201(b) 20.403, and 20.401 to perform
surveys to show compliance with regulatory limits and to maintain records of
such surveys.
Chapter 12 of the FSAR outlined survey methods and
instrumentation. TS 6.8 required the licensee to follow written procedures.
Radiological control procedures further outlined survey methods and
frequencies.
a.
Surveys
The inspector observed, during plant tours, surveys being perforwed by
radiation protection staff and reviewed several Radiation Work Permits
(RWPs), to determine if adequate controls were specified.
The
inspector discussed the controls and monitoring with the radiation
protection technicians assigned.
During plant tours, the inspector observed radiation level and
contamination survey results outside selected cubicles.
The inspector
performed independent radiation level surveys af selected areas and
compared them to licensee survey results.
The inspector reviewed
r
.
5
selected survey records for the month of February 1986 and discussed
with licensee representatives methods. used to disseminate survey
results.
The inspector noted that there were several locked high
radiation areas outside containment.
b.
Frisking
During tours of the plant, the inspector observed the exit of workers
and movement of material from contamination control to clean areas to
determine if proper frisking was performed by workers and if proper
direct and removable contamination surveys were performed on materials.
c.
Instrumentation
During plant tours, the inspector observed the use of survey instru-
ments by plant staff and compared plar.t survey meter results with
results of surveys made by the inspector using NRC equipment.
The
inspector examined calibration stickers on radiation protection
instruments in use by licensee staf f and stored in the radiation
protection laboratory,
d.
Release of Materials for Unrestricted Use
The inspector discussed, with a radiation protection technician, the
program for survey-out of items from contaminated areas and reviewed
the procedures for such release.
The inspector observed release
surveys performed by radiation protection technicians and documer.tation
c f results. The inspector performed confirmatory direct contamination
surveys on several items released.
During tours of plant areas, the
inspector observed labeling of containers and performed independent
surveys to determine if containers of radioactive material were
properly icentified.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Facilities and Equipment (83727)
FSAR Chapters 1 and 12 specified plant layout and radiation protection
facilities and equipment.
During plant tours, the inspector observed the
flow of traffic through change rooms, the use of temporary shielding, glove
bags, and ventilated containment enclosures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
8.
External Occupational Dose Control and Personal Dosimetry (83724)
During plant tours, the inspector checked the security of the locks at
several locked high radiation areas, observed posting of survey results and'
reviewed the controls specified on several RWPs.
1
!
!
L
y
.
L
6
r
a.
Use of Dosimeters and Controls
The licensee was required by 10 CFR 20.202, 20.201(b), 20.101, 20.102,
, .
. 20.104, 20.402, 20.403, 20.405,19.13, 20.407, and 20.408 to maintain
!'
worker's doses. below specified levels and to keep records of and make
reports of doses.
The licensee was required by 10 CFR 20.203 and
TS 6.12 to post ar.J control access to plant areas.
FSAR Chapter 12
l
also contained commitments regarding dosimetry and dose controls.
l
During observation of work in the plant., the inspector observed the
wearing of thermoluminescent-dosimeters (TLDs) and pocket dosimeters by
i
i
workers. The inspector discussed the assignment and use of dosimeters
!
with selected radiation protection technicians.
During plant tours,
the inspector observed the posting of areas and made independent
r
l
measurements of dose to assure proper posting. The inspectnr reviawed
i
recent changes to plant procedures regarding the use of TLDs and
dosimeters.
l_
b ',
Dosimetry Results
i
'
The inspector reviewed the TLD results for 1985 and for the first
quarter of 1986.
These results showed that two individuals had
received greater than four rems in 1985.
For several individuals who
received greater than 1.25 rems in one quarter, the inspector examined
each individual's dosimetry file to determine if Form NRC-4 had been
,
j
completed.
l
c.
Management Review of Dosimetry Results
l
The inspector discussed the dosimetry results with an operations
(
supervisor to determine his understanding of radiological controls for
l
his staff.
The inspector reviewed . records of administrative dose
'
control extensions for the year of 1985 and discussed the extensions
with selected supervisors and staff. The inspector reviewed records of
cases where workers exceeded ' administrative controls without dose
extensions,
l
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Internal Exposure Control and Assessment (83725)
The licensee was required by 10 CFR 20.103, 20.201(b), 20.401, 20.403, and
20.a05 to control uptakes of radioactive material, assess such uptakes, and
keep records of and make reports of such uptakes.
FSAR Chapter 12 also
included commitments regarding internal exposure control and assessment.
a.
Control Measures
l
During plant tours, the inspector observed the use of temporary
l
ventilation systems, containment enclosures, and respirators.
The
!
inspector discussed the use of this equipment with radiation protection
l
l
l
l
l
L
-
.
7
technicians and reviewed recent changes to respiratory protection
procedures.
'
b.
Uptake Assessment
The inspector observed operation of the whole body counter and
discussed its operation and results with the counter operator.
The
inspector reviewed the results of the analyses performed for two
maintenance mechanics who had positive counts during 1985.
The
inspector discussed the resulting assessments and corrective actions-
with the Radiation Control Supervisor. The maximum count observed was
a 44 percent ( *.)
Maximum Permissible Organ Burden (MP08).
The
inspector reviewed the event which led to the uptake of the apparent
44* MP0B. The licensee was in the process of installing equipment in
the reactor cavity during a refueling outage.
The individual in
question, entered the reactor cavity on December 8, 1985 to ' provide
support for equipment installation. Previous survey results performed
by the licensee revealed that removable contamination levels in the
area were less than 100,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per 100
square centimeters (cm ) and that airborne radioactivity levels were
r
less than the licensee action limit for respiratory protection. During
the time the individual was working in the reactor cavity, he was told
to clean up some paint chips w the vicinity of the fuel canal.
Upon
exiting the reactor cavity, the individual performed a whole body frisk
and found his face and nostrils contaminated.
Subsequent surveys
performed by the Health Physics Staff substantiated that the individual
had received an intake of radioactive material. ' Whole body count
results revealed a 44*. MP0B which calculated to approximately 35
maximum permissable concentration (MPC)-hours. The inspector concluded
from his review that the area where the individual had been working had
contamination levels as high as 400,000 dpm/100 cm* and that the
licensee did not take representative breathing zone air samples to
adequately evaluate the radiation hazards present to workers. The air
rample taken, which was not representative for the work performed, was
not evaluated until approximately two hours af ter the event. Failure
to adequately monitor the airborne radioactivity levels in the work
area was identified as an apparent violation of 10 CFR 20.103(a)(3)
(50-324/86-07-01 and 50-325/86-06-01).
10. Maintaining Occupational Exposures ALARA (83528)
10 CFR 20.1(c) specified that licensees should implement programs to keep
worker's exposures ALARA.
FSAR Chapter 12 also contained licensee
commitments regarding worker ALARA actions,
a.
Worker and Supervisor Actions
The inspector interviewed selected members of the plant staf f to
determine their understanding of ALARA and ALARA concepts.
The
inspector discussed with supervisory personnel the methods used to
_
.-
.
-
8
disseminate information concerning ALARA good practices, goals and
objectives to their employees.
b.
ALARA Reviews
The inspector discussed with the ALARA Coordinator the review of
proposed plant modifications by the ALARA group. The ALARA Coordinator
stated that approximately 100 modification packages had been reviewed
by his staff during the month between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 outages.
The number of reviews required to be completed within the one month
time frame appeared to be more work than the assigned staff could
complete and be able to give each package the necessary attention.
Plant management stated that the licensee had requested that the NRC's
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) allow the facility to
operate until the end of core life in March 1986, so that planning and
preparartion for the outage could be completed. The Brunswick facility
had requested an exemption from the regulations in order to operate
with non-environmentally qualified equipment.
This exemption was
denied by the Commissioners on October 4, 1985. The licensee chose to
begin the Unit 2 outage at the time of shutdown, even though some
outage planning had been assumed a later shutdown time and even though
some ALARA reviews were not complete.
c.
ALARA Program Evaluation
During interviews with workers, the inspector found that ALARA aware-
ness was increasing when compared to the previous inspection.
Plant
management was dedicated to reducing the exposures of plant personnel
and that dedication was reaching to the worker level. The licensee was
implementing a program for exposure accountability whereby a supervisor
would have ALARA incorporated as a critical element into his annual
performance evaluation. The critical element would require that each
foreman, supervisor and manager be responsible
for maintaining
exposures ALARA.
The inspector discussed the following additional ALARA program items
with licensee representatives. At the conclusion of the discussion,
licensee management stated that these items would be evaluated:
1)
As stated above, more than 100 modification work packages had to
be reviewed in four weeks by two licensee personnel, causing an
apparent inattention to detail due to the amount of work requiring
review by the group.
2)
The Brunswick Construction Unit (BCU) ALARA Coordinator operated
his section in compliance with plant procedures but acted
independently of the plant ALARA program.
No specific point of
contact in the plant organization was designated for BCU ALARA,
3)
Senior members of the plant staff were not members of the ALARA
Subcommittee.
Licensee management stated that the PNSC reviews
-
- - -
-
-
.
_
. _
_
-.
__
.
. .
.
.,
l.
l
'
?
!
The inspector noted increased awareness of ALARA and its goals and
objectives during this inspection.
Licensee personnel interviewed
l'
during this inspection exhibited an adequate knowledge of exposure
,
reduction methods and techniques.
The licensee had relocated check-
t
points, dress-out and staging areas from the reactor building to the
L
breezeway.
The licensee estimated that the move would save an
estimated 15 to 45 man-rem during the present outage.
Chemical
"
decontamination of the recirculation piping . prior to performing weld -
overlays was estimated to save the licensee approximately 1000 man-rem
during the outage.
Licensee management appeared to be taking a considerably more
aggressive posture in attempts to reduce the cumulative exposures for
the plant, and as a result, the ALARA program appears to be improving.
11.
Solid Wastes (84722)
On February 11, 1986, the inspectors observed the movement of thirteen
80-25 boxes containing low level radioactive waste between the
licensee's protected area and the Low Level Waste Storage Facility.
Movement of this material required that the boxes be loaded onto a
!
flatbed wagon for transport, exit the licensee's protected Area, and
move through a parking lot enroute to the Storage Facility, a distance
4
of approximately one-fourth mile. The transit route was entirely on
owner-controlled property.
The inspectors reviewed the survey data
associated with this transfer, which indicated dose rates on contact
with the boxes of 1 millirem per hour to 135 millirem per hour. A
licensee representative stated that such transfers were under the
control of an ANSI qualified health physics technician and that
calculations performed prior to such transfers indicated that exposures
.
to personnel outside the protected area would be less than regulatory
limits. The inspector stated that the boxes being transferred were not
>
placarded in accordance with 49 CFR 172, no shipping papers accompanied
the transfer in accordance with 10 CFR 71.5 and the box lids were not
r
secured in accordance with 10 CFR 71.43. Alsr, radiation levels on the
exterior surfaces of the packages indicatsi's %at an individual, if
.
continuously present in the area, could re.eive a dose in excess of two
millirems in any one hour.
This item vas identified as unresolved
l
pending review by the Regional office staff.
The Regional staff
I
reviewed the unresolved item detailed above. The staff determined that
i
with the radiation level limits the licensee had in place, a person
present during tha transfer of material could not recieve a dose in
'i
excess of regulatory limits, therefore, this item is closed.
,
!
.
t
+
.
.m
m .
.
. .