IR 05000454/1993009
| ML20045A837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1993 |
| From: | Kozak T, David Nelson, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045A833 | List: |
| References | |
| 05-455-93-09, 5-455-93-9, 50-454-93-09, 50-454-93-9, NUDOCS 9306150050 | |
| Download: ML20045A837 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. I, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-454/93009(DRSS); 50-455/93009(DRSS) Dockets No. 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; NPF-66 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus P1 ace, Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted: May 24-28, 1993 Inspectors: - 8'2T d $!b T. d.'Kgigk Dats i Senior Rv8iation Specialist N $$ c. h h 3 u D. W. Nelson / Date ' ' Radiation Specialist Approved By: (dOb S"</br>r,hh3 William Snell, Chief Date i</br>Radiological Controls Section 2</br>;</br>Inspection Summary Inspection on May 24-28. 1993 (Reports No. 50-454/93009(DRSS):</br>,</br>50-455/93009(DRSS))</br>i Areas Inspected:</br>Routine, announced inspection of the radiation protection i</br>program, including: external exposure control; control of radioactive i</br>materials, contamination, and surveys; and maintaining occupational exposures ALARA (Inspection Procedure (IP) 83750).</br></br>Results:</br>The licensee's radiation protection program appears to be very effective in controlling radiological work and in protecting the public health and safety. Dose expended during the just completed Unit I refueling outage was low.</br></br>Efforts continued to improve accessibility to areas containing safety related equipment through decontamination. Although the radiologically controlled areas in the plant were generally well kept, several housekeeping deficiencies were identified by the inspectors. The following non-cited violation was identified and reviewed during the inspection period:</br>a worker was found by NRC inspec+ ors to have inadvertently entered a posted contaminated area without proper protective clothing.</br></br>9306150050 930600 ADOCK0500g4 i</br>PDR G</br>-</br>.</br></br>y</br>,</br>,</br>i'</br>'</br>DETAILS</br>,</br>1.</br></br>Persons Contacted</br>:</br>Commonwealth Edison</br>.</br>*W. Bielasco, Site Quality Verification Inspector</br>*M. Burgess, Technical Superintendent</br>*L. Bushman, ALARA/0perations Lead Health Physicist</br>*P. Enge, NRC Coordinator</br>*W. Grundmann, Site Quality Verification Superintendent</br>*D. Herrmann, Radioactive Waste Staff</br>*R. Hopkins, Radwaste Coordinator</br>*S. Sober, lead Health Physicist-Technical</br>*T. Tulon, Operations Manager Nuclear Reaulatory Commission</br>*W. Snell, Chief, Radiological Controls Section 2</br>*H. Peterson, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.</br>* Denotes those present at the exit meeting on [[Exit meeting date" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid.. 2.
General This inspection was conducted to review aspects of the licensee's radiation protection program. The inspection included tours of radiologically controlled areas, the auxiliary building, and radwaste facilities; observations of. licensee activities; review of
representative records; a follow-up of outstanding items; and discussions with licensee personnel. Although the radiologically controlled areas in the plant were generally well kept, several housekeeping deficiencies were identified during the inspector's tours.
3.
External Exposure Control (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's external exposure control and , personal dosimetry program, including: changes in the program; use of dosimetry to determine whether requirements were met; planning and preparation for maintenance and refueling outage tasks, including ALARA considerations; and required records, reports, and notifications.
There were no changes to licensee's external exposure control program since the last inspection. A review of the just recently completed Unit I refueling outage indicated that the licensee's planning efforts were effective resulting in a low dose expenditure of approximately , 217 person-rem (2.17 Sv), which was below the goal of 233 person-rem (2.33 Sv).
This performance was excellent, especially considering the
$ .
f unexpected work on the reactor head which extended the outage approximately one week. The inspectors also reviewed performance during a Unit 1 forced outage during which work was performed under the reactor vessel.
Total dose expended was approximately 1.25 person-rem (12.5 mSv), which was also indicative of effective work planning and execution.
The inspectors verified through a review of personnel exposure records that no exposure reports or notifications to the NRC were required since the last inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Control of Radioactive Material. Contamination. and Surveys (IP 83750) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for control of radioactive materials and contamination, including: adequacy of supply, maintenance, and calibration of contamination survey and monitoring equipment; effectiveness of survey methods, practices, equipment, and procedures; adequacy of review and dissemination of survey data; and effectiveness of radioactive and contaminated material controls.
The contaminated square footage at the station was under three percent at the time of the inspection.
Progress in improving accessibility to safety related equipment continued through the decontamination of areas frequented by operators on their shiftly rounds.
The residual heat removal pump rooms and portions of the penetration areas were the only areas routinely entered by operators that remained contaminated.
The inspectors noted that the licensee's system for marking drums containing radioactive material was somewhat inconsistent and, in several cases, was not clear as to what was in the drums.
Labels had been crossed out and information about the drum's contents was written on the lid of the drum in some instances.
Shipping labels indicating information about the drum's exterior but no information about the contents were also used in many cases. The licensee was responsive to the inspectors' concerns and placed legible labels on all the drums used to store radioactive material in the auxiliary building.
The inspectors indicated that procedural changes may be required to ensure consistent labeling of packages containing radioactive material and this will be reviewed during a future inspection.
During a tour of the auxiliary building, two NRC inspectors noticed an insulator lying on his back preparing a pipe for insulation installation. His legs had inadvertently extended beyond a posted contamination area.
The worker did not have the proper protective clothing on that was required by the radiation work permit for entry into the area.
This is a violation of Technical Specification 6.11 which states that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and shall be approved, maintained, and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure. The inspectors determined that this event
. . t was of minor safety significance. The licensee did a thorough review of the event and developed corrective actions which should be effective in preventing a recurrence of the event.
During the course of this inspection, certain of your activities, as described above, appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements.
However, the violation was categorized at Severity Level V and it is not being cited because the criteria specified in Section VII.B.2 of the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), were satisfied.
One non-cited violation was identified.
5.
Maintainina Occupational Exposures ALARA (IP 83750) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining occupational exposures ALARA, including: ALARA group staffing and qualification; changes in ALARA policy and procedures, and their implementation; ALARA considerations for planned, maintenance, and refueling outages; worker awareness and involvement 1.1 the ALARA program; establishment of goals and objectives; and effectiveness in meeting them.
No changes in the ALARA group's staffing, policies, or procedures were noted since the last inspection. As mentioned above, the dose expended during the Unit 1 refueling outage was significantly below the licensee's goal and was low. One factor contributing to this excellent performance was the reduction of protective clothing and respirator use for jobs completed during previous outages in radiologically challenging environments that had not resulted in significant airborne radioactive contamination and subsequent intakes of radioactive material.
One such job was reactor head installation which includes reactor vessel level indication system connection. During previous outages, this job was performed in plastic protective clothing with respirators and took several shifts to complete. Although contamination _ levels can be high in this area, no positive air samples had been detected during this evolution during previous outages. To save time and dose, the licensee reduced protective clothing requirements and required the use of a face mask in lieu of a respirator. The job was completed in approximately four hours with a dose savings of about 2 person-rem.
However, several workers were found to have low level internal contamination after the job. No general area air samples were found to be positive during the job.
It was determined that the use of acetone on the conoseal seating surface created a localized airborne area and resulted in the low level contaminations.
The highest internal dose to a worker was calculated to be 10 millirem.
The licensee indicated that engineering controls will be considered in the planning process for the next time this job is done. Overall, the results of this job were very good' as far as total dose expenditure is considered.
No violations or deviations were identified.
1 t
77 o - k.
c.
Jr f.- 6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1) , at the conclusion of the inspection on May 28, 1993, to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection.
During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
The inspectors specifically discussed the following: . The excellent performance with respect to dose expended during the t
t ', Unit I refueling outage.
"
The non-cited violation concerning the entry of a worker into a
contaminated area without proper protective clothing.
- The need for improvement in housekeeping in radiologically
controlled areas.
. I
}}