ML18086A964: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Frederick W. Schneider Vice President Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430-7373 Production
{{#Wiki_filter:Frederick W. Schneider         Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430- 7373 Vice President Production August 21, 1981 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director Off ice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region.I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa.             19406
* August 21, 1981 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director Off ice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region.I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa. 19406  


==Dear Mr. Grier:==
==Dear Mr. Grier:==
NRC INSPECTION 50-272/80-28 UNIT NO. 1 SALEM GENERATING STATION Our letter of March 13, 1981, responded to Inspection No. 50-272/80-28.
 
We are now providing supplemental information, as requested,which is based upon further analyses, investigations, and changes implemented following the inspection.  
NRC INSPECTION 50-272/80-28 UNIT NO. 1 SALEM GENERATING STATION Our letter of March 13, 1981, responded to Inspection No.
*rnspe*ctio*n Report Details F'ue'l' Tra*nsfe*r*
50-272/80-28. We are now providing supplemental information, as requested,which is based upon further analyses, investigations, and changes implemented following the inspection.
Tube Event Personnel Intake Estimates  
            *rnspe*ctio*n Report Details F'ue'l' Tra*nsfe*r* Tube Event Personnel Intake Estimates
*c5*0'-272/80-'28-0l).
            *c5*0'-272/80-'28-0l). of your report states:
of your report states: The licensee has indicated an intake evaluation is to be submitted to the Director, Region I. This evaluation will include evaluation ef possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting.
The licensee has indicated an intake evaluation is to be submitted to the Director, Region I.                 This evaluation will include evaluation ef possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting.
An evaluation for possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting has been completed.
An evaluation for possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting has been completed.
The evaluation, which consisted of an examination of analyses J!>erf,ormed on primary coolant samples and resin samples of primary coolant derriineralizers, indicated that intake exposure due to alpha and beta emitters, which are not readily detected by whole body counting, would result in insignificant doses to the personnel involved in the event. In addition, all previous station gross alpha analyses of air samples and liquid rad waste samples have been undetectable.
The evaluation, which consisted of an examination of analyses J!>erf,ormed on primary coolant samples and resin samples of primary coolant derriineralizers, indicated that intake exposure due to alpha and beta emitters, which are not readily detected by whole body counting, would result in insignificant doses to the personnel involved in the event.             In addition, all previous station gross alpha analyses of air samples and liquid rad waste samples have been undetectable. We will continue to examine and quantify the
We will continue to examine and quantify the alpha and beta emitters for possible dose contribution to workers . Any s*ignificant differences between our find in gs and those that might result from this review will be reported to your office. ,/8110090237 810929\ ADOCK I
* alpha and beta emitters for possible dose contribution to workers .
* Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8/21/81 Fuel Trans*fer Tube Event Personnel Radiation Exposure (50-272/80'-'28-02) of your report states: The licensee is to submit personnel exposure estimates in a. report to the Director, Region I. Re*spohse:
Any s*ignificant differences between our find in gs and those that might result from this additiona~ review will be reported to your office.
The personnel exposure estimates have been revised. The dose commitments to their skin, eyes, GI-tract, and lungs are summarized below. Details on the methodology and assumptions are available at the Salem Station. As*s i'gned no*s*e* Commitments Individual A Individual Dose to Skin (mrad) 830 830 Dose to Eyes (mrad) 30 30 Assigned MPC Hours 14 8 13 Week Dose to Lung (mrem) 28 13 1 Year Dose to Lung (mrem} 54 25 50 Year Dose to Lung (mreml 61 28 13 Week Dose to GI-Tract (mrem} 23 30 1 Year Dose to GI-Tract Cmrem) 41 55 50 Year Dose to GI-Tract (mrem} 46 62 (50-272/80'-28-10) bf your report states: Licensee's representatives indicated .action will be taken to ensure that the equivalent to Form 5 will reflect incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an date exposure history. *Re*st>on:se:
  ,/8110090237 810929\
The station's equivalent of Form NRC-5 has been revised to reflec't incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an*up-to-date exposure history. * (5'0'-272/80:-2s-111 o*f your report states:
      ~DR ADOCK 05000~b~          I
radiation protection representatives indicated all contractor resumes will be required to be written in a manner to provide a concise time break down versus function which had been performed
 
* B
Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   8/21/81 Fuel Trans*fer Tube Event Personnel Radiation Exposure (50-272/80'-'28-02) of your report states:
* Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8/21/81 Response:
The licensee is to submit personnel exposure estimates in a.
report to the Director, Region I.
Re*spohse:
The personnel exposure estimates have been revised. The dose commitments to their skin, eyes, GI-tract, and lungs are summarized below.     Details on the methodology and assumptions are available at the Salem Station.
As*s i'gned no*s*e* Commitments         Individual A     Individual B Dose to Skin       (mrad)                     830             830 Dose to Eyes       (mrad)                     30               30 Assigned MPC Hours                             14               8 13 Week Dose to Lung       (mrem)             28               13 1 Year Dose to Lung       (mrem}               54               25 50 Year Dose to Lung       (mreml             61               28 13 Week Dose to GI-Tract (mrem}                 23               30 1 Year Dose to GI-Tract         Cmrem)         41               55 50 Year Dose to GI-Tract (mrem}                 46               62 (50-272/80'-28-10) bf your report states:
Licensee's representatives indicated .action will be taken to ensure that the equivalent to Form 5 will reflect incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an up-to~
date exposure history.
  *Re*st>on:se:
The station's equivalent of Form NRC-5 has been revised to reflec't incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an*up-to-date exposure history.
  * (5'0'-272/80:-2s-111 o*f your report states:
Licen~ee      radiation protection representatives indicated all contractor resumes will be required to be written in a manner to provide a concise time break down versus function which had been performed *
* Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                         8/21/81
 
===Response===
All contractor resumes are reviewed upon arrival of contractor on site. This review assures that the individual meets the time and experience requirements for which he was hired.
All contractor resumes are reviewed upon arrival of contractor on site. This review assures that the individual meets the time and experience requirements for which he was hired.
of your report states: Licensee representatives indicated action will be taken to ensure routine entry permits will not be used.for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential and the control of access sign in forms. Response:
  *c5*0*~272/8ff-28-T3}. of your report states:
A review of Procedure PD 15.1.013, "REP and EREP Usage", which ensures routine entry permits will not be for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential, has*been completed.
Licensee representatives indicated action will be taken to ensure routine entry permits will not be used.for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential and the control of access sign in forms.
Your report suggests REP No. 0541, "Routine Surveys, Valving and Inspection for HP, Chemistry Operations, and Station QA", was used for routine as well as non-routine entries. This REP had specific requirements for survey points outside the biological shield. It also had specific requirements for entries inside the biological shield where workers were required to be accompanied oy' a heal th physics technician.
 
The title of this REP may-have been misleading but the functional role of REP was correct. At Salem, an EREP is used for routine entries. Normally, REP/EREP Access Sign-in forms are utilized at the control points. As noted in your report, inspector discussions with the* entry party personnel did indicate that the individuals had signed i.n and out, however, the sign-in form apparently had been misplaced.
===Response===
This occurrence is considered to be an isolated case and present controls are adequate.
A review of Procedure PD 15.1.013, "REP and EREP Usage", which ensures routine entry permits will not be us~d for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential, has*been completed.       Your report suggests REP No. 0541, "Routine Surveys, Valving and Inspection for HP, Chemistry Operations, and Station QA", was used for routine as well as non-routine entries.         This REP had specific requirements for survey points outside the biological shield.       It also had specific requirements for entries inside the biological shield where workers were required to be accompanied oy' a heal th physics technician. The title of this REP may- have been misleading but the functional role of REP was correct. At Salem, an EREP is used for routine entries.
The REP rooin supervisor has Been made aware of the continued need for control of access si:gn-in forms. Sincerely, cc D.trector, Off,i;ce of :i:nspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash;tngton, DC. 20555 IA
Normally, REP/EREP Access Sign-in forms are utilized at the control points.       As noted in your report, inspector discussions with the* entry party personnel did indicate that the individuals had signed i.n and out, however, the sign-in form apparently had been misplaced.       This occurrence is considered to be an isolated case and present controls are adequate.       The REP rooin supervisor has Been made aware of the continued need for control of access si:gn-in forms.
* STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS: COUNTY OF ESSEX COUNTY OF ESSEX FREDERICK
Sincerely, cc   D.trector, Off,i;ce of :i:nspection and Enforcement
: w. SCHNEIDER, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says: I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our response dated August 21, 1981 to the NRC's inspection report 50-272/80-28 are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. ;FREDERICK W. SCHNEIDER Subscril5ed and sworn to before me th+/-s.JtfYA-day , 1981 Jersey My Commission expires on (flet.0 /91'-:J'}}
:Uc;.~s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash;tngton, DC. 20555
* IA
* STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS:   COUNTY OF ESSEX COUNTY OF ESSEX FREDERICK w. SCHNEIDER, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our response dated August 21, 1981 to the NRC's inspection report 50-272/80-28 are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
                                            ;FREDERICK W. SCHNEIDER Subscril5ed and sworn to before me th+/-s.JtfYA-day of*~            , 1981 Jersey My Commission expires on   (flet.0 /91'-:J'}}

Revision as of 13:29, 21 October 2019

Responds to NRC 810313 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-272/80-28.Corrective Actions:Personnel Exposure Estimates Revised & Evaluation of Possible Beta & Alpha Emitter Intakes Completed
ML18086A964
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 08/21/1981
From: Schneider F
Public Service Enterprise Group
To: Grier B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML18086A963 List:
References
NUDOCS 8110090237
Download: ML18086A964 (4)
v • d • e


Text

Frederick W. Schneider Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430- 7373 Vice President Production August 21, 1981 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director Off ice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region.I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

Dear Mr. Grier:

NRC INSPECTION 50-272/80-28 UNIT NO. 1 SALEM GENERATING STATION Our letter of March 13, 1981, responded to Inspection No.

50-272/80-28. We are now providing supplemental information, as requested,which is based upon further analyses, investigations, and changes implemented following the inspection.

  • rnspe*ctio*n Report Details F'ue'l' Tra*nsfe*r* Tube Event Personnel Intake Estimates
  • c5*0'-272/80-'28-0l). of your report states:

The licensee has indicated an intake evaluation is to be submitted to the Director, Region I. This evaluation will include evaluation ef possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting.

An evaluation for possible beta and alpha emitter intakes which are not readily detected by whole body counting has been completed.

The evaluation, which consisted of an examination of analyses J!>erf,ormed on primary coolant samples and resin samples of primary coolant derriineralizers, indicated that intake exposure due to alpha and beta emitters, which are not readily detected by whole body counting, would result in insignificant doses to the personnel involved in the event. In addition, all previous station gross alpha analyses of air samples and liquid rad waste samples have been undetectable. We will continue to examine and quantify the

  • alpha and beta emitters for possible dose contribution to workers .

Any s*ignificant differences between our find in gs and those that might result from this additiona~ review will be reported to your office.

,/8110090237 810929\

~DR ADOCK 05000~b~ I

Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8/21/81 Fuel Trans*fer Tube Event Personnel Radiation Exposure (50-272/80'-'28-02) of your report states:

The licensee is to submit personnel exposure estimates in a.

report to the Director, Region I.

Re*spohse:

The personnel exposure estimates have been revised. The dose commitments to their skin, eyes, GI-tract, and lungs are summarized below. Details on the methodology and assumptions are available at the Salem Station.

As*s i'gned no*s*e* Commitments Individual A Individual B Dose to Skin (mrad) 830 830 Dose to Eyes (mrad) 30 30 Assigned MPC Hours 14 8 13 Week Dose to Lung (mrem) 28 13 1 Year Dose to Lung (mrem} 54 25 50 Year Dose to Lung (mreml 61 28 13 Week Dose to GI-Tract (mrem} 23 30 1 Year Dose to GI-Tract Cmrem) 41 55 50 Year Dose to GI-Tract (mrem} 46 62 (50-272/80'-28-10) bf your report states:

Licensee's representatives indicated .action will be taken to ensure that the equivalent to Form 5 will reflect incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an up-to~

date exposure history.

  • Re*st>on:se:

The station's equivalent of Form NRC-5 has been revised to reflec't incomplete previous history for those individuals who do not have an*up-to-date exposure history.

  • (5'0'-272/80:-2s-111 o*f your report states:

Licen~ee radiation protection representatives indicated all contractor resumes will be required to be written in a manner to provide a concise time break down versus function which had been performed *

  • Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8/21/81

Response

All contractor resumes are reviewed upon arrival of contractor on site. This review assures that the individual meets the time and experience requirements for which he was hired.

  • c5*0*~272/8ff-28-T3}. of your report states:

Licensee representatives indicated action will be taken to ensure routine entry permits will not be used.for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential and the control of access sign in forms.

Response

A review of Procedure PD 15.1.013, "REP and EREP Usage", which ensures routine entry permits will not be us~d for entries into areas with significant radiological hazard potential, has*been completed. Your report suggests REP No. 0541, "Routine Surveys, Valving and Inspection for HP, Chemistry Operations, and Station QA", was used for routine as well as non-routine entries. This REP had specific requirements for survey points outside the biological shield. It also had specific requirements for entries inside the biological shield where workers were required to be accompanied oy' a heal th physics technician. The title of this REP may- have been misleading but the functional role of REP was correct. At Salem, an EREP is used for routine entries.

Normally, REP/EREP Access Sign-in forms are utilized at the control points. As noted in your report, inspector discussions with the* entry party personnel did indicate that the individuals had signed i.n and out, however, the sign-in form apparently had been misplaced. This occurrence is considered to be an isolated case and present controls are adequate. The REP rooin supervisor has Been made aware of the continued need for control of access si:gn-in forms.

Sincerely, cc D.trector, Off,i;ce of :i:nspection and Enforcement

Uc;.~s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash;tngton, DC. 20555
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS: COUNTY OF ESSEX COUNTY OF ESSEX FREDERICK w. SCHNEIDER, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our response dated August 21, 1981 to the NRC's inspection report 50-272/80-28 are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

FREDERICK W. SCHNEIDER Subscril5ed and sworn to before me th+/-s.JtfYA-day of*~ , 1981 Jersey My Commission expires on (flet.0 /91'-
J'
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18086A964&oldid=1942817"