|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000285/1985025]] |
| | number = ML20141E125
| |
| | issue date = 12/13/1985
| |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-285/85-25 on 851104-08.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Unresolved Items Identified:Lack of Documentation for Calibr of Constant Air Monitoring Instrumentation & Inoperability of Gas Stack Monitor
| |
| | author name = Baer R, Murray B, Spitzberg D
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000285
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | case reference number = RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.B.3, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM
| |
| | document report number = 50-285-85-25, NUDOCS 8601070565
| |
| | package number = ML20141E109
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 13
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000285/1985025]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:__ _.-
| |
| .
| |
| .
| |
| :
| |
| APPENDIX
| |
| ,
| |
| 1,
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| REGION IV
| |
| NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/85-25 License: DPR-40
| |
| Docket: 50-285
| |
| Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
| |
| 1623 larney Street
| |
| Omaha, Nebraska 68102
| |
| Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)
| |
| Inspection At: FCS Site, Blair, Nebraska
| |
| Inspection Conducted: November 4-8, 1985
| |
| ,
| |
| Inspectors:
| |
| R. 4. Baer, Radiation Specialist, Facilities
| |
| / M TA/ b ' '
| |
| ! Date
| |
| Radiological Protection Section
| |
| FIN W /Z-13M
| |
| a
| |
| D.B.Spitzbsrg,RadFhtfinSpecialist Date
| |
| Facilities Radiological Protection Section
| |
| i
| |
| Approved: $ IM62/ / / b
| |
| [BlaineMurray,~ Chief,Fp111tiesRadiological
| |
| ~
| |
| '
| |
| Date
| |
| : Protection Section
| |
| Inspection Summary
| |
| Inspection Conducted November 4-8, 1985 (Report 50-285/85-25)
| |
| '
| |
| Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiation
| |
| protection program for controlling occupational exposures during a refueling
| |
| outage including advanced planning and preparation, training, external exposure
| |
| '
| |
| control, internal exposure control, radwaste and contaminated materials control,
| |
| posting, labelling, worker control, and independent measurements. In addition,
| |
| the NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's actions on three open items related
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| to NUREG-0737.TMI Action Plan Requirements. The inspection involved
| |
| 82 inspector-hours onsite by 2 NRC inspectors.
| |
| 8601070565 851EG23
| |
| PDR
| |
| O ADOCK 05000285
| |
| 4
| |
| PDR
| |
| )
| |
| w,a--- evic.-w=-- m e, - ,.,..-.x .*ww.,-ew-rvw., ,,w. e wy, .,w. . + - - - - - - - . - - - gr, .-,ee.-e.,- y 4-, , - - - - - - --,---s,---,-a- --,--,--to.9 -- e er - - ew,--
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| 2
| |
| Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
| |
| identified. Two unresolved items were identified in paragraph 3.
| |
| :
| |
| - - - - . . - , .- -. . . - .
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| 3
| |
| DETAILS
| |
| 1. Persons Contacted
| |
| 0."D
| |
| *W. G. Gates, Manager FCS
| |
| A. Bilau, Radwaste Coordinator
| |
| : M. R. Christensen, Training Instructor
| |
| R. A. Cords, Chemistry and Radiation Protection (C/RP) Senior Technician
| |
| C. R. Crawford, ALARA Coordinator
| |
| S. Dixon, C/RP Technician
| |
| M. L. Ellis, Instrument and Control (I&C) Coordinator
| |
| *J. J. Fisicaro, Supervisor - Nuclear Regulatory and Industry Affairs
| |
| S. W. Gebers, Acting C/RP Crew Chief
| |
| J. Glantz, C/RP Technician
| |
| J. M. Hale, C/RP Specialist
| |
| D. A. Jacobson, Training Instructor
| |
| T. W. Jamieson, Acting C/RP Crew Chief
| |
| *J. M. Mattice, Plant Health Physicist
| |
| *K. J. Morris, Manager, Quality Assurance (QA)
| |
| *G. L. Roach, Supervisor C/RP
| |
| B. Schmidt, C/RP Technician
| |
| F. K. Smith, Plant Chemist
| |
| Others
| |
| G. O. Maloy, Contractor Training Instructor
| |
| *P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
| |
| The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor
| |
| employees including C/RP, administrative,. maintenance, and construction
| |
| personnel.
| |
| * Denotes thor >e individuals present during the exit interview cn
| |
| November 8, 1985.
| |
| 2. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Open Items
| |
| (Closed) Open Item (285/8226-14): NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3, Postaccident
| |
| Sampling (PASS) Capability - This item had remained open pending the
| |
| licensee's demonstration to the NRC of the PASS to perform its designed
| |
| function. In reviewing this item, the NRC inspectors found that site
| |
| acceptance testing, development of approved operating procedures, and
| |
| operator training on the system had been found satisfactory as documented
| |
| in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/84-28. Operation of the PASS was verified
| |
| 1
| |
| I
| |
| , _ _ _ . - . . , _ _ . . - _ _ __ __ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . ___
| |
| | |
| - _ _ _ - . . - . . - . --- - - . . - - - - . . - .
| |
| .
| |
| j
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| ! 4
| |
| i
| |
| j
| |
| j
| |
| j by the NRC resident inspector during the period July 1 through
| |
| } August 31, 1985, and was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/85-15.
| |
| i The NRC inspectors also reviewed records of PASS dilution calibrations '
| |
| performed in September 1984. The licensee had not as yet performed an
| |
| '
| |
| evaluation of particulate and iodine plateout in the PASS containment
| |
| atmosphere sampling line. This finding is noted as an observation in
| |
| paragraph 4 of this report.
| |
| '
| |
| Open item 285/8226-14 is considered closed.
| |
| !
| |
| ; (Closed)~0 pen Item (285/8226-17): NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1 ( Attachment 3),
| |
| ;
| |
| ' Containment High Range Radiation Monitor - This item, discussed in NRC
| |
| ; Inspection Reports 50-285/82-26 and 50-285/83-22, was left open pending a
| |
| ; revision of the monitors' calibration procedures to include calibration
| |
| ;
| |
| below 10 R/hr using a calibrated radiation source. The NRC inspectors
| |
| i reviewed containment high range radiation monitor calibration procedures
| |
| , CP-RM-091 A and B and found that they had been revised on November 11,
| |
| i 1984. to include radiometric calibration at 8.9 R/hr. Records showed the
| |
| 3 monitors to have been calibrated according to the revised procedures on
| |
| November'20, 1984. Open item 285/8226-17 is considered closed.
| |
| !
| |
| ; 3. Unresolved Items Identified During This Inspection
| |
| l An unresolved item is a matter about which mor.e information is required in
| |
| i order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item-,a
| |
| deviation,'or a violation.
| |
| '
| |
| Unresolved I'.am (285/8525-01): Calibration of Constant Air Monitoring
| |
| Instrumentation - The licensee did not have documentation av&ilable for
| |
| review of a calibration performed on particulate, iodine, and noble gas
| |
| l (PING) monitor serial number 214 in August 1985. See paragraph 8 for
| |
| ,
| |
| details.
| |
| )
| |
| : Unresolved. Item (285/8525-02): Inoperability of Wide Range Noble Gas Stack
| |
| Monitor RM-063L.M.H - The licensee did not have documentation available
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| for review of a special report on the inoperability of the wide range
| |
| noble gas stack monitor RM-063M.H beyond September 14, 1984. See
| |
| paragraph 11 for details.
| |
| j 4. Inspectors Observations
| |
| The following are observations the NRC inspectors called to the licensee's
| |
| attention. These observations are neither violations nor unresolved
| |
| items. These items were recommended for licensee consideration for
| |
| !
| |
| program improvement, but they have no specific regulatory requirement.
| |
| : The licensee indicated that these items would be reviewed:
| |
| !
| |
| a. NRC Form 4 - The date the individual signed the NRC Form 4~was not
| |
| i always present and the previous exposure history units were sometimes
| |
| ; . missing the decimal point. See paragraph 7 for details. i
| |
| I
| |
| j b. Instrument Repair - The licensee had a.large quantity of. radiation '
| |
| i . protection survey meters, airborne radiation monitors, and personnel
| |
| r
| |
| I
| |
| :
| |
| L j
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| 5
| |
| contamination monitoring instruments out-of-service. See paragraph 5
| |
| for details,
| |
| c. Decontamination Personnel - The ccntractor personnel assigned to
| |
| decontamination duties in the auxiliary building were not performing
| |
| all duties in a manner considered radiologically safe. See
| |
| paragraph 5 for details.
| |
| d. General Employee Training Building Decontamination Showers - The
| |
| licensee had not developed procedures for controlling, sampling, and
| |
| discharging the contents from the decontamination shower holding
| |
| tank. See paragraph 9 for details,
| |
| e. Radiographic Work - The licensee needs to exercise more control over
| |
| radiography work being performed onsite including surveys of incoming
| |
| and released vehicles and equipment. See paragraph 10 for details.
| |
| f. Wide Range Noble Gas Monitor (WRNG) Calibration Procedures - The
| |
| licensee's procedure for WRNG monitor calibration referenced model
| |
| numbers for the count rate meter and detector element. The recorded
| |
| data for these devises was not consistent with the procedure. See
| |
| paragraph 11 for details.
| |
| g. Particulate and Iodine Plateout Studies - The licensee had not
| |
| performed a plateout study for particulate and iodine on the WRNG
| |
| monitors. See paragraph 11 for details.
| |
| h. Job Preplanning - The C/RP and ALARA groups are not involved with job
| |
| preplanning. See paragraph 5 for details.
| |
| ,
| |
| 5. Advanced Planning and Preparation
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the C/RP. organization and determined that the
| |
| licensee had augmented the radiation protection group with contractor
| |
| technicians. The liccnsee assigned 17 senior and 8 junior technicians to
| |
| operational support, 2 senior technicians to ALARA, and 2 senior and 4
| |
| junior decontamination technicians to containment building decontamination-
| |
| work. The licensee also contracted for 10 non-nuclear trained
| |
| . housekeeping personnel for cleanup and decontamination duties in the
| |
| auxiliary building and 24 laundry workers. The licensee had established
| |
| two 10 nour shifts with staggered working hours to provide 24-hour
| |
| coverage.
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the resumes and work histories of the contract
| |
| senior technicians and determined that they met the recommendations of ANSI
| |
| Standard N18.1-1971. The licensee had also evaluated the contractor
| |
| technicians and provided site specific training and individual testing in
| |
| accordance with Health Physics Procedure HP-16, " Selection of Contract
| |
| Health Physics Technicians."
| |
| l
| |
| '
| |
| --. , -.- . _ . . - - . - . - - . , - , - .,. .-, . , . - - , , . .-- _ . - . - - - -
| |
| | |
| __ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| 6
| |
| The NRC inspectors were concerned that personnel assigned to cleanup and
| |
| decontamination duties in the auxiliary building were not demonstrating
| |
| work practices which were radiologically acceptable when handling
| |
| contaminated radioactive material. The licensee stated they had initiated ,
| |
| a training course to provide these individuals with a better understanding i
| |
| of radiation and precautions for handling radioactive material.
| |
| The licensee had obtained additional portable s.urvey instruments,
| |
| personnel contamination monitors, and constant air sampling equipment
| |
| prior to the refueling outage. The NRC inspectors expressed concern
| |
| .
| |
| regarding the inoperability of a large quantity of dose rate survey
| |
| instruments and personnel monitoring equipment. Although this
| |
| inoperability of equipment created an inconvenience, the health and safety
| |
| of personnel was not compromised. The licensee stated that an additional
| |
| I&C technician had been assigned to radiological instrument repair and
| |
| calibration and that should rectify this concern.
| |
| The NRC inspectors expressed concern that the C/RP and ALARA groups were
| |
| not involved with job preplanning in the early development phase. The
| |
| C/RP and ALARA groups were using daily briefings to update work on progress
| |
| and delays in the outage schedule. Licensee representatives stated that on
| |
| occasion, work was delayed because either ALARA reviews or radiation
| |
| surveys were needed prior to starting work and that radiation work permits
| |
| (RWPs) had been prepared for scheduled work that were not used.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 6. Training and Qualifications
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the routine and specialized training programs
| |
| associated with the outage with emphasis on that training provided to
| |
| contractor personnel. The NRC inspectors determined that the requirements
| |
| of 10 CFR Part 19.12 were being met.
| |
| The NRC inspectors noted that the licensee had received a full size
| |
| mock-up of the bottom portion of a steam generator, including the tube
| |
| plate, for training. The licensee nad used the mock-up to train personnel
| |
| for eddy current testing and tube repair work.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 7. External Exposure Control
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for external radiation
| |
| exposure control to determine compliance with the requirements of
| |
| 10 CFR Parts 20.101, 20.102, and 20.202.
| |
| ;
| |
| | |
| . . . .
| |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| 7
| |
| The NRC inspectors determined that all personnel entering the radiation
| |
| controlled area (RCA) were issued a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)
| |
| which are processed monthly. The individual entering the RCA also wear
| |
| direct-reading dosimeters (DRD) as required by the RWP. The licensee uses
| |
| the DRD results for tracking personnel exposures with dose totals updates
| |
| being made once per shift.
| |
| The NRC inspe'ctors reviewed selected personnel exposure history files to
| |
| determine that current NRC Form 4 and previous exposure histories were
| |
| available prior to exceeding the 1250 mrem quarterly exposure limit. The
| |
| NRC inspectors determined that individuals were not always dating the NRC
| |
| Form 4 and that when previous radiation exposures were entered on the form
| |
| the decimal point used to denote rem was not always in place. The
| |
| licensee stated they had placed additional emphasis on these areas of the
| |
| form.
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed selected records of work functions performed
| |
| by the licensee and contractors that required other than routine radiation
| |
| exposure monitoring, such as multibadging or extremity badging with TLDs.
| |
| ! The licensee program for recording other than routine exposures appeared
| |
| to be adequate.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 8. Internal Exposure Control
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's internal exposure control
| |
| program to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103,
| |
| and the recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.15, and NUREG-0041.
| |
| The NRC inspectors inspected the reactor auxiliary and containment
| |
| buildings on several occasions during the inspection to observe internal
| |
| exposure control practices. Procedures and associated records were also
| |
| reviewed and discussions were held with licensee and contractor employees
| |
| to determine if internal exposures during the outage were being controlled.
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed a representative sample of the active and
| |
| inactive RWPs posted for the outage and records associated with their
| |
| implementation. This review verified that the permit process had been
| |
| effective during the outage at disseminating the proper internal exposure
| |
| control methods to be implemented by individuals for each task. The NRC
| |
| inspectors observed the acquisition of area grab air samples and reviewed
| |
| nonroutine breathing zone sample results used to track maximum permissible
| |
| concentration-hours (MPC-hr) personnel exposures.
| |
| i
| |
| . , . . . - - - . - . , - , , - . - , . --, -, -. ~ . . . . - - . - , . - - - , - - ~ . - - - . - . - - . - . - - - - - - .
| |
| | |
| -- _. __ - - - . .~
| |
| '
| |
| ,
| |
| 8
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed during a facility inspection on November 6,
| |
| 1985, that a particulate, iodine, noble gas (PING) monitor in room 69 of
| |
| the auxiliary building was alarming at the high level for the iodine
| |
| channel. The sarae afternoon, one of the containment building PINGS was in
| |
| alert level while the other was in high level alarm for the iodine channel.
| |
| Action taken by the licensee in response to the alarms was to order
| |
| special grab fr samples to assess the airborne concentration of iodine.
| |
| The NRC inspectors examined the PING calibration procedures and records of
| |
| the.f r calibration to ascertain the significance of the iodine alarms. In
| |
| the course of this review it was determined that PING unit 214 located in
| |
| room 69 of the auxiliary building did not have documentation on file
| |
| showing the calibration performed on this unit on August 15, 1985. The
| |
| licensee stated that the necessary calibrations had been performed, but
| |
| the calibration records could not be located. This was identified as an
| |
| unresolved item (285/8525-01) pending the licensee's search for this
| |
| record.
| |
| The NRC inspectors examined the post alarm grab air samples in addition to j
| |
| the routine air samples and found that while iodine concentrations had
| |
| showed an increase during the outage, measured levels had not exceeded
| |
| 10 percent of MPC in ary of the sample results reviewed. Special whole
| |
| body counting resul s performed during the outage also provided verification
| |
| of the absence of a significant iodine problem with the highest body
| |
| burden showing 50 nanocuries (7.1 percent of ICRP maximum permissible body
| |
| burden). Air sample results showed other isotopes to be near or below the
| |
| lower limit of detection (LLD).
| |
| The NRC_ inspectors reviewed the licensee's use of respiratory protection
| |
| equipment and verified that all users including outage contractor personnel
| |
| had completed the licensee's qualification program. The NRC inspectors
| |
| observed the cleaning of used respirators and reviewed the records of
| |
| surveys of respirators prior to bagging and reissuance and found this to
| |
| have been performed in accordance with Procedure RPP-6.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 9. Radioactive and Contaminated Materials Control
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed the efforts being implemented during the
| |
| outage to control contamination and radwaste in the RCA. The NRC inspectors
| |
| observed instances of poor radiation safety practices among a few of the
| |
| auxiliary building decontamination teams in the packaging of used protective
| |
| clothing (PC) and improper controls at step off pad control points.
| |
| _~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - . . , _
| |
| - , _ . . . . . __-
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| 9
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| .,
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed that worke'rs. sere properly suited out in PC'
| |
| for the areas in which they were worJ'nq and that removal of PC and step
| |
| off pad procedures were being.fo llowe'bf All personnel exiting the RCA -
| |
| were required to monitor themselves in o'ne of four gas proportional
| |
| personnel contamination monitors. The NRC inspectors observed that -
| |
| articles which had been carried into the RCA were being surveyed prior to
| |
| removal.
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed changes to facilitids which had occurred since~
| |
| the last radiation protection program inspection. The NRC inspectors
| |
| discussed with licensee representatives the status and basic design for
| |
| the shower facilities in the general employee training building. The
| |
| licensee stated that the effluent is collecy.ed in a 1000 gallon retention
| |
| tank, fitted with a high level alarm, and has the ability to be discharged
| |
| to either the sanitary sewer system or an external vessel. The NRC
| |
| inspectors expressed concern that the licensee had not developed
| |
| procedures to prohibit the discharge of potentially contaminated effluents
| |
| -
| |
| via an unmonitored pathway. The licensee needs to: (1) determine the
| |
| level the high alarm is activated, (2) provide for positive controls on
| |
| the valve connecting the retention tank to the sanitary sewer line, and
| |
| (3) develop a procedure which would address the isolation of the tank, ','
| |
| collection of a repretentative sample from the tank, and an approved '
| |
| discharge or disposal torm. -
| |
| .-
| |
| No violations or deviations were, identified.
| |
| Posting, l.abelling, and Worker Control
| |
| ~
| |
| 10.
| |
| The NRC inspectors verified that the radiologically controlled areas were
| |
| properly posted and they appeared to be in compliance with 10 CFR 20.203.
| |
| A temporary storage area for pack, aged radwaste awaiting shipment had been
| |
| roped off and posted outside of the fuel building. The NRC inspectors
| |
| made independent exposure rate' surveys and found them to be in agreement ,
| |
| with licensee surveys ar.a area postings. '
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed RWPs to ensure that station and contractor
| |
| personnel were following approved instructions in radiologically controlled
| |
| areas. - Specified RWP approved procedures appeared to have been followed
| |
| in each case, and sign-in logs and dispensation of expired RWPs were found
| |
| to be in order.
| |
| Ok November 6,1985, the NRC inspectors observed that a byproduct material
| |
| user licensed by the State of Nebraska had been on site to perform
| |
| radiography in non-radiologically controlled areas. The NRC inspectors
| |
| noted that no procedures had been established for controlling this type of
| |
| ,
| |
| I
| |
| \
| |
| , k -
| |
| .
| |
| -- _ _ _
| |
| ._ .
| |
| . _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ __- _ _ - _ _ . -
| |
| | |
| .
| |
| , .
| |
| 10
| |
| work although station health physics personnel had monitored the radiographic
| |
| activities. The licensee was in agreement that more control over such
| |
| activities in the future should be exercised to monitor radiographers
| |
| entering the site protected area.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 11. Wide Range Noble Gas Stack Monitor
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's progress to resolve open item
| |
| (285/8226-15) NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1 (Attachment 1), Noble Gas Effluent
| |
| Monitor. The licensee had completed calibration of the low range
| |
| channel of the wide range noble gas (WRNG) stack monitor RM-063L.M.H.
| |
| The midrange and high range channels had not been calibrated. The NRC
| |
| inspectors reviewed the calibration for the low range channel of the WRNG
| |
| monitor. The NRC inspectors noted that this calibration procedure
| |
| i referenced count rate meter and detector model numbers that were not the
| |
| same as those recorded during performance of the calibration. The NRC
| |
| inspectors discussed with licensee representatives this inconsistency in
| |
| equipment data and determined that the recorded data more accurately
| |
| identified the count rate meter and detector. The licensee agreed that
| |
| the calibration procedure needed to be revised to include. consistent model
| |
| numbers.
| |
| The NRC inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the status of
| |
| the midrange and high range detector systems and FCS TS section 2.21
| |
| requirements. Table 2-10 requires that when less than the minimum number
| |
| of channels are operable, alternate methods for monitoring be initiated
| |
| and if the channels are not returned to operating status within 7 days a
| |
| special report shall be submitted within 14 days to the Commission
| |
| containing plans and schedules for returning the monitors to operable
| |
| status. The licensee provided a copy of a letter LIC-84-301 dated
| |
| September 5, 1984, which stated the monitors were expected to be operable
| |
| by September 14, 1984.
| |
| The licensee stated that a second letter was written after September 5,
| |
| 1984, which extended the date of expected operability for the mon! tors.
| |
| However, the licensee was not able to locate a copy of the second letter.
| |
| The NRC inspectors stated this is considered an unresolved item
| |
| .(295/8525-02) pending resolution of the notification to the Commission and
| |
| expected operability of the monitors.
| |
| The NRC inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the status of
| |
| particulate and iodine plateout studies for the WRNG monitors. The
| |
| licensee-had not performed any calculations using ANSI Standard 13.1-1969
| |
| as a guide. The licensee stated that they expect to start the plateout
| |
| studies during calendar year 1986.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
| |
| | |
| . . . . .- . . _. . . . - . .
| |
| . . .
| |
| '
| |
| 11
| |
| .,
| |
| 12. ALARA Program
| |
| ~
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's ALARA program to determine
| |
| compliance with the requirement bf 10 CFR Part 20.1 and the recommendations
| |
| of Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10.
| |
| ,
| |
| l The NRC inspectors determined that the licensee had established a goal of
| |
| i
| |
| 491 manrem for the year 1985 and had expended 224 manrem as of November 6,
| |
| ~1985. The licensee projected that less than 400 manrem would be expended
| |
| for the year. The licensee stated that the lower ~ exposure was due to less
| |
| steam generator work and decontamination efforts prior to working in the
| |
| RCA.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 13. Surveys
| |
| .The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for implementing and
| |
| performing radiation, contamination,- and airborne radioactivity surveys
| |
| to determine ccmpliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20.103,
| |
| 20.201, and 20.401. '
| |
| i
| |
| The licensee's survey program appeared to be adequate for contamination
| |
| and radiation surveys for prework evaluations and RWP generation. The
| |
| NRC inspectors noted the licensee routinely collected an airborne
| |
| radioactivity sample for particulate and radiotodine analysis from the
| |
| auxiliary building once each day and from the containment building once
| |
| each work shift. The NRC inspectors determined that the licensee
| |
| performed other airborne surveys on an as needed basis when conditions
| |
| warranted. ,
| |
| At various times during the inspection period, the NRC inspectors
| |
| '
| |
| conducted independent surveys of the containment and auxiliary buildings
| |
| to verify that radiological. conditions were as recorded on radiation
| |
| , survey logs and depicted on station area maps. The NRC inspectors also
| |
| observed housekeeping and temporary radioactive waste storage areas. All
| |
| areas observed appeared to be acceptable.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 14. Notifications and Reports
| |
| The NRC inspectors-reviewed selected reports to determine compliance with
| |
| 10 CFR Parts 19.13, 20.407, 20.405, and 20.409.
| |
| t
| |
| l
| |
| , - . . - ,
| |
| .
| |
| . . - . - . _ . . _ . - _ . , - , _ . . . . . _ . - - . - . - _ , _ . - - - -
| |
| | |
| . .. .
| |
| 12
| |
| The NRC inspectors' review, in addition to radiological worker training,
| |
| respiratory fit training, radiation exposure history, and radiation
| |
| exposure data, included the radiation protection shift turnover log,
| |
| radiological incident reports, and personnel contamination reports. The
| |
| NRC inspectors noted the licensee had revised the criteria used for
| |
| i documenting personnel contamination incidents and now records all
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| incidents where contamination is detected on an individual. This
| |
| procedure sho'uld allow the licensee to track contamination incidents
| |
| _
| |
| by craft, area of contamination, work function, repeat incidents, and
| |
| determine the root cause and prescribe corrective action to prevent
| |
| reoccurrence.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| > 15. Exit Interview
| |
| The NRC inspectors met with the_FCS NRC senior resident inspector and
| |
| licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the
| |
| inspection on November 8, 1985. The NRC inspectors summarized the scope
| |
| and findings of the inspection including the unresolved items identified
| |
| in paragraph 3, and the observations noted in paragraph 4 of this report.
| |
| The licensee stated that these items and observations would be reviewed.
| |
| .
| |
| *
| |
| - . - -
| |
| -.
| |
| | |
| ! \ 1
| |
| .,_
| |
| s =e- '
| |
| .5 ca .3 ~5 d
| |
| a mv )
| |
| U
| |
| ,
| |
| l
| |
| _
| |
| ;
| |
| a s2 C.*
| |
| l
| |
| V L m sJ
| |
| C C- O e
| |
| T ,
| |
| = s e >,a = o-
| |
| co L > O in N
| |
| -Je Q- O
| |
| C
| |
| u=a20- s
| |
| eOL EL O Od^ \
| |
| ._
| |
| c. e o - auo
| |
| EOC*D> C OM D 9
| |
| H fr 11 11 . li 11 N T CU
| |
| ECCHD> CU *
| |
| a=
| |
| '
| |
| C h *
| |
| e C L
| |
| " 2 W
| |
| a
| |
| C a
| |
| e. n .O Un
| |
| --a v
| |
| ~
| |
| s
| |
| QQ3 CD \J
| |
| Q v-= U -w D -
| |
| - e-- L> .d -
| |
| -
| |
| r-- D- 0 O LJ
| |
| < CO O O D J
| |
| tt il 11 te Il 11
| |
| <mvCwa q
| |
| Dk ^M
| |
| ,s
| |
| *
| |
| 2 ~M V
| |
| + . o
| |
| $
| |
| '
| |
| 0 *
| |
| C
| |
| *
| |
| D
| |
| *
| |
| m m
| |
| w
| |
| c. a
| |
| a-
| |
| V u%
| |
| r
| |
| E
| |
| w r
| |
| h -e Qs
| |
| r H L C3 y
| |
| $ C
| |
| = = a
| |
| U C C
| |
| cC -
| |
| >- >--
| |
| P-- U
| |
| < < ^
| |
| - o
| |
| r v r--
| |
| DA
| |
| W
| |
| C. C m TN
| |
| o .e- Ov
| |
| T
| |
| .
| |
| C
| |
| 3
| |
| o
| |
| m C
| |
| h O
| |
| L -
| |
| a mC
| |
| C C O
| |
| O O e- ^
| |
| < C. a <
| |
| .C mUv
| |
| O OO
| |
| C %m
| |
| C o
| |
| %
| |
| 0 s
| |
| %
| |
| "U .C
| |
| C C.
| |
| 'ag N
| |
| -
| |
| h Lm^ N
| |
| to - " ges
| |
| am i
| |
| m E C. 1
| |
| L '
| |
| ^ c g b
| |
| i S o 0 0<
| |
| n
| |
| N
| |
| .
| |
| b - (/]
| |
| -2 5.^ N N
| |
| ..
| |
| "
| |
| x
| |
| " '" e 5 (a
| |
| O C
| |
| E E
| |
| a i e *e '
| |
| D M @ O5
| |
| *
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| }}
| |