IR 05000482/1987028

Insp Rept 50-482/87-28 on 871026-30.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Radiation Protection Activities During Second Refueling Outage

ML20236W883
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Chaney H, Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236W807	List: IR 05000482/1987028 ML20236W805 ML20236W856
References
50-482-87-28, NUDOCS 8712080289
Download: ML20236W883 (5)

Text

____ .

.

MPENDIXB U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/87-28 License: NPF-42 Docket: 50-482 Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCN00)

P. O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)

Inspe'ction At: WCGS Site, Burlington, Coffey County, Kansas Inspection Conducted: October 26-30, 1987 Inspector: I ----

H. D. Cla' hey, Radiation Specialist, Facilities li fU/O Date j Radiological Protection Section i Approved: in . (D A_n a u /24/9~)

B. Murray, Chief, Facill ~ies Radiological Dat'e

'

Protection Section Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted October 26-30, 1987 (Report 50-482/87-28)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radiation protection activities during the second refueling outag Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation (surveys, see paragraph 4)

and no deviations were identifie '

8712080289 e.71203-PDR ADDCK 05000402 G PDR

.

~

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ -

__ ..

,

. .

2

,

DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee

• G. D. Boyer, Plant Manager

• W. 'J. Rudolph II, Quality Assurance (QA) Manager

• A. A. Freitag,' Nuclear Power Engineering Manager

• G. Williams, Superintendent of Regulatory

• S. Morrill, Site Health Physicist

• J. W. Johnson, Chief of Security

• C. J. Hoch, QA Technician

• E. C. Holman, Health Physics (HP) Supervisor

• L. F. Breshears, HP Supervisor

• K. M. Thrall, Senior Corporate HP Engineer

• H. M. Davis, HP Supervisor

• R. L. Taylor, HP Supervisor

• S. R. Sparks, Licensing Engineer

.

• K. O. Peterson, Supervisor, Licensing

• G. J. Pendergrass, Licensing Engineer

'J. D. Freeman, Radwaste Coordinator C. G. Patrick, Superintendent, Quality Evaluations

'G. A. McClelland, QA Auditor L. M. Kline, HP Technici a M. M. Nichols, Superintendent, Plant Support '

T. G. Moreau, Radiation Protection Training Instructor j

Others -

i

• J. E. Cummins, NRC Senior Resident Inspector i

• B. L. Bartlett, NRC Resident Inspector j

• K. H. Oh, Inspector, Advanced Energy Research Institute, Korea j

• E. W. Creel, Kansas Gas & Electric Nuclear Coordinator j

• Denotes personnel in attendance at the exit meeting on October 30, 1987. Followup on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (0 pen) Deviation (482/8712-02): Continuous Airborne Monitoring (CAM) i

'

Program - This item was identified in NRC Inspection Reports 50-482/87-12 and 50-482/85-42, and involved the failure to implement a CAM program that satisfied commitments in the Final Safety Analysis Report. The NRC inspector determined that the licensee's routine QA surveillance program (QA Surveillance TE: 53359 S-1579) identified that the licensee was still having problems implementing the CAM program as committed to in the licensee's' response to the NRC dated July 30, 1987. This is ccasidered a licensee-identified problem. This item will remain open pending further

,

review and followup by the NRC during future inspections.

I

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _

. .

_ 3. Refueling Outage-(NRC Inspection Procedure 83729)

The'NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation protection' program in effect during the refueling outage. The following specific program areas were reviewed:

Audits and Appraisals- ,

Planning and Preparation Training and Qualification of Workers External Exposure Control

.

Internal Exposure Control Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Surveys, and Monitoring Indepe'ndent. Surveys by the NRC inspector ALARA Program Staffing An apparent violation concerning dose evaluations is discussed in paragraph 4. No deviations were identifie . Contaminated Workers The NRC inspector reviewed the circumstances surrounding the contamination of two contract workers and the subsequent dose assessment of the two workers. On October 10, 1987, two contract workers were sprayed with radioactive charcoal filter media while working on a liquid waste processing syste The workers were wearing personal clothing when the contamination incident occurred. After the incident, the workers removed their personal clothing, and donned clean protective clothing before transit from the work area to the personnel decontamination station. Radiological surveys of the two workers were not performed until after donning the protective clothing. During a review of the licensee's skin dose calculations, the NRC inspector noted that the licensee had not considered the attenuation provided by the protective clothing when calculating dose values for contamination deposited directly on the ski l Surveys of the contaminated workers were performed with a RM-14 pancake prob The attenuation provided by the protective clothing for radioactive material deposited on the skin would be a'significant consideration for beta radiation which would contribute the largest portion of the dose. The NRC inspector noted that the licensee's initial L

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

_

l l .- .

l

dose calculation could increase by'a factor of 2-5. The NRC inspector also noted that even if the doses were increased by a factor of five, regulatory limits would not be exceede CFR Part 20.201(b) requires that licensees shall make or cause to be made such surveys as: (a) may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in this part and (b) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards'that may be-presen As defined in 10 CFR Part 20.201(a), " survey" means an evalustion cf the radiation hazards incident to the protection, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources-of radiation under a specific set of conditions. 'The failure to properly evaluate radiation exposures'is an apparent violation of 10 CFR Part 20.201(a) (482/8728-01).

5. Allegation Followup (RIV-87-A0074)

An allegation was made to the WCGS resident inspector concerning the radiological safety involved in working in the false ceiling area above

'

the plant radiochemistry laboratory (1984.0-foot elevation of the Control Building).

Discussion The radiochemistry laboratory was posted as a radiologically controlled area due to the potential for the radiological conditions in the laboratory to change. The subject area (false ceiling) which is accessible via a ceiling mounted access door outside of the laboratory perimeter was not posted or being radiologically controlled at the time of the alleger's presence in the area. The NRC inspector reviewed the ,

physical situation and general area radiation surveys on October 27, 1987, '

and determined the radiochemistry laboratory dose rates are maintained a below the required radiation area posting limits of 10 CFR Part 20.20 '

There is also a permanently mounted alarming area radiation monitor in the I laboratory area. The licensee conducts radiochemistry operations )

utilizing a vented fume hood and the exhaust duct transits the false i ceiling spac ,

Conclusion l

The radiochemistry laboratory and the false ceiling space above it are I properly controlled and posted. Therefore, the area above the i radiochemistry laboratory has been and would currently be a radiologically safe area to occupy, and any fume hood exhaust ventilation system leakage 3 would be inward and not cause any leakage to the false ceiling are Since the dose rates in the laboratory could possibly increase with the age of'the facility, due to radioactivity buildup in the exhaust ducts and ,

the processing of higher activity in samples, the HP group posted the J l

i

_ _

j

, _ _ _ _ .

Je .

.

L 5

.

. access. hatch to the false ceiling as a radiologically controlled area when this situation was brought to their attention by the NRC inspector. This item is considered close No violations-or deviations were identifie .' Licensee Event Report (LER)

(Closed) LER (482/87-036): Inadvertent Release of a Secondary Liquid Waste Monitor Tank Without Prior Sampling - On. July 27, 1987, the licensee discovered that during a July 26, 1987, authorized release of Secondary Liquid Waste Monitor Tank'- B (SLWMT-B) the contents of SLWMT-A was

-

siphoned out also and discharged to the environment. No release limits were exceede The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the incident and corrective actions contained in the LER, and. determined that the licensee had implemented adequate corrective actions to prevent a future recurrence of this incident. This item is considered close . Exit Interview The NRC-inspactor met with the personnel identified in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 30, 1987. The NRC inspector summarized the scope and. findings of the inspection.

l l

l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -