IR 05000237/1990014
| ML20042E898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Byron, Braidwood, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1990 |
| From: | Greger L, Michael Kunowski, Paul R, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042E895 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-90-14, 50-249-90-13, 50-254-90-07, 50-254-90-7, 50-265-90-07, 50-265-90-7, 50-295-90-10, 50-304-90-11, 50-373-90-07, 50-373-90-7, 50-374-90-08, 50-374-90-8, 50-454-90-13, 50-455-90-12, 50-456-90-11, 50-457-90-14, NUDOCS 9005040048 | |
| Download: ML20042E898 (4) | |
Text
p.[
q.,y
,
,
Eif,
,
,
o W
.
.;
,
,
....
. ru
-
vn,
$
I ' ' lb it f!?\\
"(.
d
,..
--3 A,,,,.
-, >.
+ ' n, t e
,
F
,
-
4 -
4, y
,
,
,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
'
Jp 4 '; "
" &
a t
- 3
-
,
.
.!
<
REGION III-
',
N
'
'
\\. ? -
.
e';s
.
,
,
7.
J
~
.
l Reports No. 50-456/90011(DRSS); 50-457/90014(DRSS)-.
'
50-454/90013(DRSS); 50-455/90012(DRSS)/
,L*
,
r.. t
'50-237/90014(DRSS); 50-249/90013(DR35)
)-
'
(
,/50-373/90007(DRSS); 50-374/90008(DRSS)
,j
<
J 0-254/90007(DRSS); 50-265/90007(DRSS).
-
'
' "
,40 295/90010(DRSS); 50-304/90011(DRSS)
>
>
Docket Nos. 50-456;.50-457-Licenses No.'NPF-72;.NPF 77--
,
50-454; 50.455
'
'
50-237; 50-249 DPR-19; DPR-25-
,
50-373;-50-374 NPF-11; NPF-18 50-254; 50-265 DPR-29; DPR-30
'
.,
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company-Post Office Box 767-Chicago, IL 60690
,
.,
Facility Name:
Braidwood Nuclear. Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 -
Dresden Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2.and 3 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 ::nd 2.
. Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, Units'1 and-2 Zion Nuclear. Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection-At:
Braidwood' Site, Braidwood, Illinois,
!
.
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois, and Production Training Center,'Wilmington, Illinois q
i Inspection Conducted:
February 20 through April 4, 1990
.kh'
' gjlp
-
'
Inspectors:
M. A. Kunowski
Ra ti n p ial Date Ot. A.
aul
-
f
,
Senior Radiation Specialist'
Date 6
.
V Q.Sc/41b**n d 4/ff/f%)
l Reviewed By:
M. C.
humacher, Chief
~
l c
-
<
'/
Radiological Controls and Dates c
'
,
., j -
Chemistry Section
- +,
<
,
-
.3s
^
aa
'
.
Approved By:
L.
U E
'
}
'v Reactor Programs Branch p [Uh+.e
.
,.
'
-(
j.
,
~
F ',\\
t t~
t
\\
s
,
i
{ y..+, ' ' ' ( *lIl*}9005040048 900420
,
,i 4 g
,
,
f'*
' ' '
I i,a4
. =;
,J PDR ADOCK 0500023'7 P
A L l'
l
,*'
p,
}, 7 o
,#
'
'
'
,
.-
M ir
,
f
-.-
.
.)
.1~
'!!
>
-
.
a
.+-
-
~
-7
=
.s
"
'
l-t
,
,
,
.y
,
+
-+ :
.'
.,- '
t.
~;
+.
.
':
>
~
.
,
,
,
_
,., (,
i
"
,,
'
,
-Inspection Summary
,"i
,.
y ky
'Ihspection from February 20'thhouah Aprill4 199'O (Re) orts No: 50-456/9b011(DRSS);
' "
'
,
t 50-457/90014(DRSS), 50-454/90013(0RSS);= 50-455/90012()RSS),-- 50-237/90014(DRSS);
- <
50-249/90013(DRSS), 50-373/90007(DRSS);.50-374/90008(DRSS), 50-254/90007(DRSS); 1
' dj; 50-265/90007(DRSS). 50-295/90010(DRSS);' 50-304/90011(DRSS)),.
h /t
-
2.
d,. 4 - U Areas Inspected:: Special unannounced inspection;of an allegation about;
}qn
!
E
- the adequacy of training,a_t Commonwealth Edison nuclear plants on risks
- ;:J
'
i
-
to fertile female workers from radiation exposure..
.
.
p 'lF
'
-
..
q Results:
The allegation was not substantiated.. Training at Commonwealth A '
g> 7 Edison nuclear plants on risks to fertile female' workers from rad.iationj
.
o se
,
jexposure-is-adequate. Jo violations of NRC, requirements were identifie'd,<".
, ;4 [
h
-
%'
9
- i( ' '(
.
.
-
1- -w
.
m
.
"'
'
>
.
'
E
' I
,,
-
s
'
s.,
'
t.
.
~
l
' i
'
'
. f
.
3[
'l
,.
- *
'g
..
,$
i
.N.!
-
N~-
,
.
' $~
'
\\
.
,
I
'h
.
.#
fj"A(+
,
-r
-
/
(s
[
]
'
A
%
-
-
.
U
..)
'
I
.
,!
,
-
'
'
- 2
. c :-
.j w
i
.
.
.y-s
_
s
-
Y T
'*
- '
y Li
^
i i
[
,
. **
s
%
>
I t
'
'
k.
y
"'
- _f si p' {,
_
-
l
'
'
'4 (
.
~I i
$
e
^hl,
.
'
'
,
,+
'
,
,
,
m
,
i
,-.
.
'g
~ 'j>
.
-
"
"'
.jf,
,
s p
'ri
, >
,
,
.
. m
=e a
,
-jA
- I
- [,f '. l
., l '4
',.. y
't g,
- I(L
,
j { ;'
.
. ' :!){j
.'
f
't (
~
f 3a Y,
?..l J_
,; j g-
'
'@ y-9 4 P y%~ !l
.1;
~
'
'
~
_2
.
"
A p
7s
-
c.
>
,
^
.e
'4 DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted D. F. Ambler, Health Physics Supervisor, Braidwood
+R. Burns, Lead Instructor, Dresden E. W. Carroll, Regulatory Assurance, Braidwood
'
+E. D. Eenigenburg, Station Manager, Dresden
>
+R. Falbo, Regulatory Assurance Assistant, Dresden
.
D. Marec, General Training Instructor, Dresden
,
V. Miller, Lead Instructor, Braidwood D. O'Brien, Technical Superintendent, Braidwood D. P. Overbeck, Training Group Leader, Braidwood
+K. W. Peterman, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor, Dresden
+D. Saccomando, Health Physics Supervisor, Dresden J. K. Van Horn, General Instructor, Production Training Center T. M. Tongue, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Braidwood S. DuPont, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Dresden
.
+Deaotes those present at the exit meeting on April 4,.1990.
2.
Allegation Followup (Closed) Allegation (AMS No. RIII-89-A-0160)
The NRC Senior Resident Inspector at Dresden received an anonymous allegation about the adequacy of training at Dresden and the'other Commonwealth Edison (CECO) nuclear plants on risks to fertile female
,
workers from ra'diation exposure.. The allegation was evaluated through record and procedure review and discussions with licensee and contractor personnel at the Dresden and Braidwood stations, attendance at'a two-day Nuclear General Employee Training (NGET) session at the Braidwood station, and discussion with a licensee representative at the Production-l Training Center (PTC).
As discussed in Inspection Reports l
No. 50-45S/9007(DRSS); 50-457/9007(DRSS), the PTC has overall
!
responsibility for the content of the NGET program in which information l
concerning prenatal radiation exposure is given.
!
Allegation:
Regulatory Guide 8.13 training was not being given to female l
personnel at Ceco nuclear stations, but females are required to sign a-
!
form that they had received the training.
t Discussion:
A review of lesson plans, examinations, student handouts; l
and discussions with training department personnel and numerous female employees indicated that adequate training on Regulatory Guide 8.13, l
l
" Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure," is being given.
A copy of the Regulatory Guide and a booklet titled " Nuclear General
'
Employee Training," which contains a summary of information from the Regulatory Guide, are available to each student at the two-day NGET session and the half-day refresher session.
In addition, at each session, NGET instructors and the NGET videotape presentation highlight the l,
3-
'
i
+
.
~
'.
.-
.
,
.
Regulatory Guide and explain CECO policy on pregnant radiation workers.
The answer sheet used for the NGET test has a statement for students to sign acknowledging receipt of training on the Regulatory Guide.
In-addition, the answer sheet has a statement for female workers to sign acknowledging that they understand the Ceco policy and that they are responsible for promptly notifying Ceco-if. they become pregnant.
The inspection identified only one instance where a worker declined to sign the answer sheet acknowledging receipt of the training.
The individual annotated the sheet with the statement that she could not sign because she had not reviewed the Regulatory Guide.
She also did not sign the Ceco policy statenient. The instructor who presented the NGET training to the individual stated to the inspector that he had presented _information from the Regulatory Guide to her and had copies of the Regulatory Guide and
,
NGET booklet available for her. A review of the answer _ sheets of the other i
persons.who attended the same NGET session indicated that they had signed Y
the tt aining acknowledgment.
Several months later, the individual was given retraining on the Regulatory Guide and signed the acknowledgment.
She did not, however, sign acknowledging that she understood the CECO l
policy statement and agreed to notify CECO if-she became pregnant. The licensee indicated that lacking such statement they would not allow her to work in a radiologically controlled area.
Findings: The allegation was not substantiated. Training on Regulatory Guide 8.13 is an integral part of CECO NGET and is adequate. Only one instance was identified of an individual who may have thought the. training was inadequate and declined to sign a form acknowledging receipt of the training. Retraining was subsequently provided to her. No violations of
'
NRC requirements were identified.
3.
Exit Meeting (IP 30703)
The inspectors met with the individuals, denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion of the inspection, and summarized the findings. The licensee
,
acknowledged the findings and did not identify any inspection material-
!
,
or information as proprietary.
l k
!
i l
-!
!
I i
q