IR 05000280/1988003
| ML18153B502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Cruden D VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809080024 | |
| Download: ML18153B502 (4) | |
Text
...
_,
Docket Nos. 50-338, 50-339, 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. NPF-4, NPF-7, DPR-32, DPR-37 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN:
Mr. D. S. Cruden, Vice President, Nuclear Operations P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Gentl*einen:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-338/88-03, 50-339/88-03, 50-28Q/88-03 AND 50-281/88-03 This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special, team inspection conducted by R. E. Weddington during the periods March 14-18 and April 4-8, 198 The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your North Anna and Surry facilities and at your Richmond, VA. corporate offic At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection repor Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the repor The inspection was conducted to assess the reasons for the historically higher than average collective personnel radiati.on exposure at your facilities and to evaluate the actions you have taken or are taking to reduce these exposure Within this area, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progres Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie However, several issues were identified during the inspection which reflect upon the effectiveness of your program to keep radiation exposures as low as. reasonably achievable (ALARA) and which require your attention. These issues are described in Paragraph 9 of Enclosures 1 and 2 and Paragraph 6 of Enclosure Since your resolution of these issues is also of interest to the NRC, you are requested to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter, your written assessment of each issue including actions that you have taken or planned to resolve the issue and the date that your actions will be complet In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10. Code of federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
PNU
--...:ir-
>
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact u
Sincerely, cr1c11 r11,i s1"c,nccl
-../
t*,, l,)
--"")
Jr<G J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosures: North Anna Inspection Report Surry Inspection Report 3. Virginia Power Corporate
Inspection Report
cc w/encls:
E.W. Harrell, Station Manager
N. E. Hardwick, Manager - Nuclear
Programs and Licensing
D. L. Benson, Station Manager
bee w/encls:
NRC Resident Inspectors
DRS Technical Assistant
Document Control Desk
Commonwealth of Virginia
RI I "
c~~<<
RW~ddington
RII ~.
RII
RII
RII1,
(1\\Mtl>.,
~ ~,, l,.f#\\\\~
~I\\\\ /88
rn*r-tgth
RShor~ridge
- ({§11Tns
CHi'tti6n
]I\\\\ /88 ~/t1 /88
'!I" /88 f 1\\\\ /88
RII/,._,
~*~
RIVV
~I
.
RII
Fcalell BW
. on
LReyes
GJ ins~
11 f(/88
5/
5/
/88
88 ~8
.
.,
~ ( 11-\\\\'r
~\\ t6
\\J'y"r-
\\ l t1
~
(\\J,f\\!.L-
.
RII
R~
Clio~y
o 1 ins
ii\\\\ /88f't 11 /88
- ENCLOSURE 1
Executive Summary
Between 1975 and 1986, the annual collective radiation dose for Surry has been
significantly above the national averag In addition, for five of the past
seven years (1981-1987) Surry
1s collective radiation dose has been among the
five highest for pressurized water reactor in the United State In 1987,
North Anna moved into the highest five category for collective radiation dos Projections for 1988 indicate that the collective radiation dose for Surry will
again significantly exceed the national average, unless there is significant
intervention on the part of licensee managemen During the period of March 14-18 and April 4-8, 1988, a special team assessment
was conducted of the licensee
1s program for maintaining occupational radiation
dose as low as reasonably achievable. This assessment included a review of the
c~uses for the high radiation dose; an evaluation of the licensee
1 s current
organization and programs for keeping radiation dose ALARA; a review of
initiatives the licensee has taken or is taking to bring the radiation dose to
within industry norms; and an a~sessment of licensee management
1 s awareness of,
involvement in, and support of the licensee
1 s program for keeping doses ALAR In the past, inadequate management support and involvement in the dose
reduction (ALARA) program, conflicting operational priorities, and the addition
of unplanned work items had contributed to less than total success for the
ALARA progra However, the assessment team found a high level of plant and
corporate management awareness of and support for the dose*reduction progra The licensee has taken a number of initiatives, including a corporate action
plan, to bring occupational doses to within industry norm The most recent
initiatives appear to be comprehensive with a corporate goal to significantly
reduce collective dose at both facilitie While it is too early in the
implementation stage of the licensee
1s dose reduction program to evaluate its
effectiveness, the 1 i censee appeared to have the elements of an effective
program in place and the appropriate management involvement and.support to
bring about the desired dose reduction The effectiveness of this effort
remains to be see Continued, strong management support will -be necessary as
prob 1 ems arise which may conflict with the dose reduction program goa 1 Strengths and weaknesses identified in the assessment are summarized below:
Strengths
0
Corporate management involvement and support for collective dose
reduction progra Senior station management membership in the Station ALARA committe Development of the video disc information management syste~.
Enclosure 1
0
0
General. worker knowledgi of ALARA concepts and awareness of their
responsibility to reduce doses to ALAR Development of an Action Pl an to address dose reduction at both
station Pursuit of long term dose reduction through source term reduction
effort Active participation in industry study groups for the development of
source term reduction technique Weaknesses
0
0
0
Exposure goals are based on the historic average person-rem incurred
per day of outage and non-outage periods rather than basing t~e goals
on the specific task to be performed (North Anna and Surry)..
The licensee accepts contractor-established collective dose goals for
work performed by the contractor which si gni fi cantly exceed the
collective dose received by the licensee when similar work was
performed by the pl ant staff (North Anna).
Dose *projections for some work covered by Radiation Work Permit* are
being exceeded without management review or concurrence (Surry and
North Anna).
ALARA Program procedures have not been revised in a timely manner to
conform to licensee
1s corporate radiation protection plan (Surry).
Entries into the containment building when plant is at power has
become so routine that there is little or no management involvement
in the decision process (Surry and North Anna).
The licensee's ALARA Action Plan does not include a formal schedule
with milestones for implementing the recommendations (North Anna and
Surry).