IR 05000259/1987028

Insp Repts 50-259/87-28,50-260/87-28 & 50-296/87-28 on 870727-31.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Actions on Previous Enforcement Issues.Previous Violation for Failure to Provide Complete Termination Exposure Repts Identified

ML20237K543
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	08/06/1987
From:	Hosey C, Weddington R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237K536	List: IR 05000259/1987028 ML20237K532
References
50-259-87-28, 50-260-87-28, 50-296-87-28, IEIN-87-003, IEIN-87-007, IEIN-87-3, IEIN-87-7, NUDOCS 8708270209
Download: ML20237K543 (6)

Text

- -.

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

l .-

,

, pCAkEc og .. .

UR$1TED STATES i- p ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!

[' ' T , Dy REGION ll

.g' - 101 MARIETT A STREET, * I j'- ATI.ANTA, GEORGI A 30323 e

% ... .. / . AUG l'4 1987  ;

Report Nos.: 50-259/87-28,50-260/87-28,50-296/87-28 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place

'1101 Market Street

.. Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 L Docket Nos.: .50-259,.50-260, 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, L DPR-68'

Facility Name: Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: July 27-31,.1987

. Inspector: 9fd]IdkW S/

Date Sioned R. E.'Weddingtgn l Approved by: [st #ddL E 7 7'

C[/M. Hosey, Section Chief Date 41gned Divisfon of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This was a routine, announced, onsite inspection in the areas of licensee actions on previous enforcement issues, organization and managenent controls,. training and qualifications, control of radioactive material, internal exposure control, control for the drywell during spent fuel movement, and followup on.IE Information Notice Results: A continuing example of a previous violation for failure to provide complete termination exposure reports was identified, h

G

-

D

_ = _ _ __ _ __ _ -

, - - _ - _ _ _ _ - ._

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

,.o

?., .( ]

'

,

,

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted-Licensee Employees

• R. L. Lewis, Plant Manager

'

.*P. Carier Compliante Manager

• D. R. Gallien, Technical Support Supervisor

• J. M. Corey, Radcon Supervisor

• M. Crowson,'Radcon Superviscr

• W. Miller, Quality Assurance

• Reed, Corporate Radcon

• E. Schaus, Quality Assurance

• C. Mims, Superintendent, Technical Services

• A. Pullen, Office of Nuclear Power Site Representative

• J. D. Partin, Assistant to the Plant Manager

• D. E. Kriemelmeyer, Radwaste Controller

• F. S. Tsakeres, Radcon. Supervisor

• L. T. Politte, Corporate Radcon

• J. Lewis, Technical Support Supervisor

• A. H. Feltman, Quality Assurance

• R. Albright, Radeon Supervisor

• A. W. Gordon, Plant Operations Review Staff

• J. Walker, Deputy. Site Director

• R. D. Erickson, Plant Operations Review Staff

• D. C. Smith, Chemistry Supervisor

• E. G. Pugh, Engineering and Technical Training D. S. Hixon, Radwaste Supervisor B. Brooks, Training Instructor P. Hill, Compliance Engineer R. Weeden, Site Radiological Assessor Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, security force members, and office personne i Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• G. L. Paulk, Senior Resident Inspector

• C. A. Patterson, Resident Inspector

• C. Brooks, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 31, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The failure to correct a previous violation concerning radiation exposure termination reports was discussed in detail (Paragraph 3). The licensee acknowledged the a

_ _ _ . ___-___-__.__J

- _ - _ _ .

-

.

inspection findings and took no exception The licensee'did not identify as proprietaryJany of the mate./ials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)

(Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/80-21-01) Excessive radiation levels on the exterior of a packag The inspector reviewed the licensee's !

response of July 11, 1980, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been take (0 pen) Violation (3-259, 260, 296/84-12-03) Failure to report an overexposure to the individual and failure to send termination exposure reports to contractor personnel. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of June 4, 198 The response stated that the licensee would be in full compliance with the termination exposure reporting requirements by January 1,1985. The inspector reviewed a termination exposure report dated June 24, 1987, that had been sent to one of the resident inspector The report contained information back to 1985, but did not include exposure information for the nine months in 1984 that the inspector had been assigned to the sit Licensee representatives stated that the current corrputer program used to generate termination reports would not i list exposure information for contractors which was received prior to i 198 The inspector stated that 10 CFR 20.408(b) and 10 CFR 20.409(b)

requires that the NRC and individual be given reports upon termination of the individual's radiation exposure incurred during the period of employment or work assignment in the licensee's facility. The licensee therefore was not in full compliance with termination radiation exposure reporting requirements for contractor personnel in that exposures received prior to 1985 were not reported to these persons upon terminatio (Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-26-01) Excess water in a resin liner. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of December 12, 1986, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been take (Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-26-02) Improperly completed shipping records. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of December 12, 1986, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been take (Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-26-03) Failure to retain radioactive material receipt record The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of December 12, 1986, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been take (Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-26-04) Failure to control access to a locked high radiation are The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of December 12, 1986, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been taken.

u__________

__

-

.

l

,

(Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-29-01) Failure to have an authorized individual sign a shipping manifest and failure to perform surveys of packages to demonstrate they met the limits for an empty container. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of November 21, 1986, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response j had been take "

(Closed) Violation (50-259, 260, 296/86-38-01.c, e, and f) Failure to verify transferee's license to receive SNM, failure to properly manifest SNM and failure to take into account package shielding when perfonning dose to curie calculations. The inspector reviewed the licensee's responses of February 11 and 19, and June 12, 1987, and verified that the corrective action specified in the response had been take . OrganizationandManagementControls(83722)

Technical Specification (TS) 6.1.B describes the licensee's radiation protection organization. The inspector reviewed the organization and staffing of the licensee's radcon and radwaste groups. Within the radcon group, the position of Rad Health Supervisor had been recently filled and an ALARA engineer had been added to the staff. Two experienced contractor personnel had been added to the radwaste group as radwaste controllers (i.e. , radioactive material shippers).

No violations or deviations were identifie . TrainingandQualifications(83723)

TS 6.1.E requires each member of the facility staff to meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-197 Paragraph 4.3.2 of ANSI N1 stated that a supervisor was required to have a minimum of four years experience in the craft or discipline he was to supervise. The inspector compared the experience levels of a new supervisor in the radcon group with the qualification requirements and discussed their qualifications with licensee representative The inspector determined that the supervi;,vr met the qualification requirement s No violations or deviations were identifie . Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination, Surveys and Monitoring (8372M The inr,pector discussed with licensee representatives their current progran,'tc minimize the amount of material brought into the controlled area. One of the initiatives was color coding of tools to be used in the controMed area and controls on the introduction of new tools into the area. The inspector toured a recently established scaffold, ladder and lumber storage and issue area that had been set up in the turbine building. Licensee representatives suted that they were also in the j proteis of evaluating current release survey techniques and would be  ;

considering use of automatic tool monitoring equipmen !

l

--- a

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

L

.

,

i

!

No violations or deviations were identifie . Internal Exposure Control and Assessment (83725)

10 CFR 20.103(c)(2) provides that the licensee may make allowance for use of respiratory protective equipment in estimating exposures of individuals to concentrations of radioactive material in air provided that the licensee maintains and implements a respiratory protection program that includes, as a minimum, written procedures regarding selection, fitting and maintenance of respirators, and testing of respirators for operability immediately prior to each use and written procedures regarding supervision and training of personnel and issuance record The inspector reviewed the process for issuing respirators from one of the i health physics equipment issue stations. A computer terminal was located ,

'

at the issue station to verify that the person requesting the respirator had a current whole body count, training and fit test and medical examinatio The serial number of the respirator was entered into the computer as a record of issuanc The inspector toured the licensee's respirator repair and testing room and observed operations in progres Licensee representatives showed the inspector new items of special use respirator equipment. The inspector verified that the equipment had been certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health /Mine Safety and Health Administration (NIOSH/MSHA). Licensee representatives stated that they are pursuing obtaining dedicated l compressors to supply breathing air to supplied air respirator users {

instead of using plant service air. The inspector observed a supplied air i station in operation and noted that unique fittings are not used for breathing air connections, meaning that breathing air lines could be attached to other plant service lines such as water lines or equipment such as air powered tools could be attached to the breathing air outlet ;

Licensee representatives agreed that this was not a desireble situation  !

and stated that was one of the reasons why they were obtaining dedicated breathing air compressor The inspector reviewed the training and testing portion of the respiratory protection qualification program. Respiratory protection and general employee training (GET) testing were combined in one 50 question examination. In grading the test, the respiratory protection questions were not graded separately, presenting the possibility that someone could miss all or a significant portion of the respiratory protection questions and still be considered respirator qualified if an overall score of 80 percent was obtained on the GET test. Some of the tests that have been given contained as few as one respiratory protection question. The maximum was six of fifty questions. The inspector reviewed selected test results for the most recent GET classes and did not identify an example of someone missing a significant number of respiratory protection questions and still being considered qualifie Licensee representatives stated that i.ney would pursue developing a separate test for respiratory protection qualificatio _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ._ _a

- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . __ _ -. _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -- ___ _-_-_ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _

., -

No violations or deviations were identifie .- Radiological Controls for Drywell During' Spent Fuel Movement (TI 2500/23)

During certain spent fuel handling operations, very high dose rates can exist in BWR drywells due to a lack of design shielding. This situation requires the licensee to control access to :the drywell during fuel movements and place administrative controls .on movement of peripheral spent fuel bundles to preclude excessive radiation exposure The inspector verified the licensee had received General Electric generic communications on this subject and had taken action in response to these notices. The licensee installs supplemental shielding in the form of a lead fuel chute and a radiation alarm system is installed in the drywell during fuel movements.- Personnel access is also restricted above the 605'

elevation of the drywell during fuel movemen No violations or. deviations were identifie . IE Information Notice (IEN) (92717)

The inspector determined that the following information notices had been received by the licensee, reviewed for applicability, distributed to appropriate personnel and that action, as appropriate, was taken or schedule IEN 87-03: Segregation of Hazardous and Lew-Level Radioactive Wastes IEN 87-07: Quality Control of Onsite Dewatering / Solidification  !

Operations by Outside Contractors i

!

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _