IR 05000333/1988022

Insp Rept 50-333/88-22 on 881031-1104.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Outage Radiological Controls Insp

ML20196B432
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	11/29/1988
From:	Oconnell P, Shanbaky M, Thomas W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196B431	List: IR 05000333/1988022 ML20196B426
References
50-333-88-22, NUDOCS 8812060261
Download: ML20196B432 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _______________________ ________ __ _ _

. .

, . .

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0K'4!SS10N

REGION I

Report N /88-22 Dock 6t No.50-33J License No. OPR-59 Category 1 Licensee: New York State .oewer Authority '

D7. lox 41 Ly_ coming, New York 13093 Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Inspection At: Scriba, New Yor_k

_

Inspection Conder.ted: October 31 - Novy ber 4, 1983

-.

' ?

l " J IE h<r kp3gy

Inspectors: N l.2. P h f v. T h:ta',, s n16n Specialist / dati

% #.

cc OtVI \ -b7* Z?

'

\

. O'Connell~Tactition kWa' list / [date Approved by: #f, _//29 '[

H. Shanbaky, Cnie ,

'

lit,tes Radiation dite i Protection Section  !

Inspection Sugary; Inspecticn Report No. 50-333/EE-22 l

!

/reas Inspected: Routine, Unannounced Outage Radiological Controls inspectio ;

i Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were identifie l The radiological controls were adequate to support the refueling outag '

I t

I l

l est:o60:st sat 130 i FDR ADOCK 05000333 o FEC

_ .-

. .

.

. .

I

!

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel During the course of this inspection the following personnel were contacted or interviewed:

B. Caley, H. P. Tesn. Radiological and Environmental Services Department (RES)

J. Collins, H. P. Tech. RES

• R. Converse, Resident VJnager

.

D. Dull, Radiation Protection Supervisor, RES

• Fernandez, Superintendent of Power R. Graben H. P. Tech. RES D. Johnson, Operations Waste Management General Superintendent O. Lindsey, Operations Superintendent J. Lochamy,QA/QC Technical Advisor

"J. McCarty, RES Radiattos Protection Supervisor

• E. Mulcahey, RES, Superintendent R. Patch, QA/QC, Superintendent D. Rebarchik, H. P. Tech. RES

'J. Solini, RES, Health Physics, General Supervisor

• G, Tasick QA/QC Supervisor

• G. Vargo, RES, Radiological Engineering, General Supervisor K. !zeluga, RES, Radiation Protection Supervisor 1.2 NRC Personnel

• Schmidt. Sr. Resident Inspector

"P. O'Connell, Radiation Specialist Region I

.

• Thomas, Radiation Specialist, Region I

• Cenetes attendance at the exit meeting held on November 4, 1958, 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to complete the inspection of the I radiological controls and practices in use during the decontamination l effort and the refueling outage.

.

3.0 External Exrosure Control l

l The inspector reviewed the fo11 ewing elements of the licensee's externa'

l exposure control program.

posting, barricadd ig, and access control of radiation and high radiation areas, i

l l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__

,

O

. .

-adequacy and implementation of radiological controls specified on Radiation Work Permit The review was conducted with respect to criteria contained in:

-10 CFR 20, "Standards for Frotection Against Radiation".

-Applicable Licensee Procedure The licensee's radiation protection manua Technical Specification 6.11 "Radiation Protection Program". i l

The evaluation of the licensee's performance in this area was based I on:

-observation by the inspector of ongoing work during tours of the facilit discussions with licensee personne review of documentatio Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. However, the following concerns were noted and brought to the licensee's attention, i Vntle conducting a tour of the 252 foot elevation radwaste area on l

November 3, 1988, the inspector observed that the spent resin storage tank room was not secured by a locked door or gate. The inspector and the licensee verified the general area dose rates to be 300-350 meem/ hour inside the room. The inspector brought to the RES Superintendent's attention that this could cause a problem in the future. The dose rates observed did not constitute a Technical 5pecification Part 6 11(a)(2)

violation of failure to lock the area since radiation levels were less than those which constitute a locked High Radiation Area (1000 mrem / hour).

The inste: tor pointed out that the spent resin storage tank has the potential to hold spent resin with sufficient activity to generate general area dose rates in the room well above 1000 mrem / hour. The RES superin-tendent stated that the shield / access wall surrounding the spent resin storage tank had just been constructed prior to the outage. He also stated that a locked gate will be installed prior to the end of the yea This item Niil be reviewed during a future inspectien. (50-333/SS-22-01)

While touring the plant, the inspector cbserved the licensee's posting of areas for compliance with 10 CFR 20 requirements and determined by direct observation and radiation reasurements that the radiological caution postings were adequat _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

.

The inspector reviewed the docurrentation of an event, which occurred October 14, 1988, where a worker perfoming testing on welds in the drywell had to be transported to a local hospital to remove contamination from his eye. Medical corsonnel were able to remove the contanination and an isotopic analysis of the contamination was used to rniculate a dose to the lens of the eye. The inspector reviewed the dose hssessrent and determined it to be adequate, and also determined that the exposure (1.6 mrem) was within regulatory guidelines. The inspector also chose six Radiological Incident Reports (RIRs) involving hot particle contamination on the skin. The licensee's skin dose assessments for these incidents were in agreement with the inspectors skin dose assessment. Based on this review, the licensees prograrc, for dose assessment from hot particles on the skin was adequate to ensure compliance with federal requirement In conjunction with this review, the inspector reviewed management eversight of the RIR system. The RIRs reviewed indicated proper rnanage-ment review and the corrective actions, rang ng from rebriefing to i suspending workers were adequate. No v b!ations were observed in this are .0 Internal Exposure Control The licensee's program for evaluating and controlline internal exposure was reviewed against the following criteria:

-10 CFR Part 20.103-NUREG 0041 "Hanual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Paterials,"

-Regulatory Guide 8.15. "Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection".

The evaluation of the licensee's perfomance in this area was based on:

-discussions with supervisory and technician level staf review with supervisory and technician level staf tour of the respirator issue, maintenance and whole body counting facilitie On November 3,1988, the inspector toured the respiratory protection equiprent maintenance building. The inspector discussed several aspects of the care and raintenance program for respirators with the cognizant Senior Radiation Protection Technician. The inspector observed the cleaning and surveying of respirators. The senior technician derenstrated the in-spection and tests which are perfomed after the respirators are cleaned or had maintenance perforred. The inspector reviewed the licensee's recnrds

_ ___ ___

.

.

. .

!

, ,

5 L which track for each the datesWithin respirato of cleaning, the scopemaintaining, inspectingthe of this inspection, and testing 's licensea i program for the cleaning, monitoring, inspecting and testing of respiratory l protection equipment was adequate.

4 i The inspector observed the fit testing of an individual and reviewed the !

, licensee's documentation verifying that only trained personnel are j performing fit tests, i

During a tour of the drywell the inspector noted that a respirator had ,

been left on top of a beam inside the drywell. The licensee provided the 1 inspector with a list of over 100 pieces of respiratory protective i equipment (mainly particulate full face respirators) which were i unaccounted for when the last quarterly check of equipment in storage was complete The inspector noted that there are no controls for the {

.

accountability of used respirator l L

Licensee staff stated that respirators are sometimes mistakenly thrown in f with the contaminated trash and at other tires respirators are tradvert- l ently sent off-site with the contaminated laundry. Licensee staff stated '

that workers had also been known to hoard a supply of respirators so that i they would always have a supply of respirators to use. The inspector t noted that verkers could wear respirators thtt did not have a periodic !

inspection test or that had not been stored properly in accordance with !

part 12.6 of the Radiation Frotection Manua The RES ;upervisor stated ['

that the licensee would evaluate how they could control the return and accountability of respirators. This is an unresolved item and will be reviewed during a future inspection. (50-333/88-22-02)  ;

On November 4,1933 the inspector toured the whole body counting facility !

and spoke with cognizant personnel. The licensee performs an annual [

caw . ton, a weekly efficiency check and a daily backgrour.d and source !

check of the three detectors in the whole body center (organ counter).

[

Inspector review of documentation verified that tr,e required tests are being performed adequatel N.* violations were observed in this are j I

5. ALARA

[

primary and Recirculation System Decontamination f The decontamination ef fort was begun on Septe'rber 16,19ES and co p eted [

on September 22, 1928. Overall the decontaminetien effort resulted in the ;

removal cf approxicately 60 curies of cobalt-f0 and the reduction of the :

radiation dose rates in the dry ell to 5-10 mr/hr. Gereral area dose rates in the drywell prior to the decontamination ranged between 40-50 mr/hr. The cecontamination s.ut. ions were peged to ion exchange colyans

,

,

,,

.

s

,

.

6 '

'

!

l for treatment to remove radioactivity. The resins from tne ton exchange !

columns were transferred to steel liners within shipping containers for l 6ransfer after solidification to a licensed burial facilit !

!

,

The licensee made three shipments of solidified decontamination process l resin to the burial facility at Barnwell, S However, one of the i containers was inspected at the burial facility and found to be unsolidi-l fled. The unsolidified liner was subsequently returned to the license The state of South Carolina fined the Itcensee and enjoined the licensee l from ft,rther shipments of LOMI process solutions to Barnwell until the

! Itcensee determined why the resin cencrete mixture did not solidify. The l licensee is presently attempting to determine why the resin concrete

,

mirture did not set up and solidify. This item will be folloi<ed up in a l future inspection. (50-333/83-22-03)

l l Although the ifcensee has con'.inued an intensive ALARA program tffort during the refueling outage the plant goal of 650 Man-Rem for 1988 will not be met. The goal of 650 Man-Rem for a refuel year was ambitious and could only have been met by the elimination of several unplanned work

,

items which have contributed sub*.tantially to the Man-Rem total.

l Unplanned work activities have increased the outage by 14 days and present plans are to end the outage by Nove.tber 15, 1938. As of November 4, 1988,

'

I the station expo:ure "or ICSS totaled 646 Man-Re The licensee ir.tends to implement continuing efforts to further reduce exposur personnel are continuously aware of the ALARA goals and are actively involved in the ALARA program. The completion during this outage of the final addition of barrier fuel to the reactor core will also result in significant Man-Rem reduction in the futur .0 Exit Meeting The inspector ret with licensee rnanagement representatives (denoted in Section 1) at the conclusion uf the inspection on Noverber 4. 19SS. The inspector su-earized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.

{

,