IR 05000266/1987014
| ML20235N025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1987 |
| From: | Greger L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235N017 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-87-14-EC, 50-301-87-13, NUDOCS 8707170406 | |
| Download: ML20235N025 (3) | |
Text
'
.
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-266/87014(DRSS); 50-301/87013 (DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
)
231 West Michigan l
Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Meeting At:
Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Meeting Conducted:
June 18, 1987
!
Approved By:
L. R. Greger, Chief 9'- d3 "d7 7 Facilities Radiation Protection Section Date Meeting Summary Meeting on June 18, 1987 (Reports No. 50-266/87014(DRSS);
No. 50-301/87013(DRSS))
Areas Discussed:
An enforcement meeting conducted to discuss two events:
one concerning skin exposure received by contractor technicians to hot particles, and one concerning extremity dose received by a company technician trainee while handling a radioactive source.
l
.
8707170406 070720 PDR ADOCK 05000T!66 G
PDR F
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
-
..
DETAILS
<
1.
Meeting Attendees Wisconsin Electric Power Company C. Fay,'Vice President, Nuclear Power Department E. Lipke, General Superintendent, Nuclear Plant Engineering i
J. Zach, Plant Manager (PBNP)
D. Johnson, Superintendent.- Health Physics (PBNP)
R. Seizert, Project Engineer - Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III C. Paperiello,-Acting Deputy Regional Administrator J. Hind, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards.
W. Shafer, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch L. Greger, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section B. Burgess, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A B. Berson, Regional Counsel W. Schultz, Enforcement Specialist D. Miller, Senior Radiation Specialist R. Paul, Radiation Specialist 2.
Enforcement Meeting Details The enforcement meeting was held to discuss two radiological events which are described in Inspection Reports No. 50-266/87011(DRSS) and No. 50-301/87010(DRSS).
The two events, one concerning skin exposure'
received by a contractor technician from hot particles and one concerning extremity dose received by a company technician trainee while handling a radioactive source, were described by regional radiation specialists.
Also discussed were possible violations, enforcement options, and perceived basic weaknesses in the licensee's Health Physics organization.
J Although neither of the events resulted in doses exceeding regulatory limits, there was a substantial potential those limits could have been exceeded for both events.
!
The perceived basic weaknesses discussed by Region III personnel included:
Inadequate packaging of highly radioactive, readily dispersible i
material that was also not properly identified to allow subsequent l
handlers to take appropriate handling precautions.
i Handling of a radioactive source by persons unfamiliar and untrained
in.the use of the source.
The source container was not clearly identified to indicate location of the source, nor were there adequate controls to prevent source removal.
.j j
]
!
-
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.
_
,
.,
Fundamental weaknesses in the radiation protection organization,
including poor staff stability which results in relatively inexperienced personnel, staffing shortages, historical lack of professionally trained health physics management onsite, and lack of full-time health physics coverage with conseqcent over-reliance on auxiliary operator radiation protection expertise.
These weaknesses appear connected to a historical failure to establish an onsite radiation protection organization with professional staffing and status equivalent to that of other onsite operating groups.
The NRC representatives acknowledged that PBNP has consistently maintained personnel doses significantly lower than the average for U.S. PWR nuclear power plants, and that this performance reflects favorably on the licensee's overall radiation protection performance; however, the two recent radiological events indicate continuing apparent weaknesses in radiation protection activities.
Other radiologically significant weaknesses precipitated an enforcement conference in September 1986 (Inspection Reports No. 50-266/86016(DRSS); No. 50-301/86015(DRSS)).
In response to the Region III comments, the licensee stated that:
A licensee group had conducted an extensive review of the two recent events and of the implications regarding the onsite radiation protection organization based on these and other recent events.
As a result, significant changes would be made in an attempt to improve the onsite radiation protection organization in addition tc correcting the specific weaknesses exhibited by the two events.
These changes include:
A new Superintendent - Health Physics position at PBNP was created
and filled by a professional Health Physicist on June 1, 1987.
An additional health physics staff position will soon be filled.
- The staffing level for radiation control operators (RCO) will be l
l increased to accommodate full-time RC0 coverage by early 1988.
Radiation work permit usage and auxiliary operator job function and
training changes are being reviewed.
Training improvements for supervisory personnel will be implemented.
- The calibration source will be labeled and secured, and implementing
procedures for its use will be written and implemented.
A general review of health physics tasks will be made in order to identify other unnecessary hazards which may exist.
Initiative has been taken to upgrade the status of health physics
personnel, including organization and remuneration changes.
The Senior NP.C representative acknowledged the licensee's comments and stated that the Region III recommendation concerning enforcement action for the two events would be forwarded to the NRC Office of Enforcement for their concurrence.
After review by that Office, the licensee would be notified in writing of the NRC's proposed enforcement action.
3