IR 05000285/1990019
| ML20034C111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1990 |
| From: | Murray B, Ricketson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C108 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-90-19, NUDOCS 9005020069 | |
| Download: ML20034C111 (7) | |
Text
.,. -
't
-
.
p-
.
.
APPENDIX-U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-REGION IV NRC Inspection Report:
50-285/90-19 Operating License:
DPR-40 Docket:
50-285
. Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)
j Inspection At:
FCS Site, Fort Calhoun, Washington County, Nebraska l
Inspection Conducted: March 6-9, 1990 Inspector:
.
er, MsM
- -r & 90 L. 7. /Ri c ketion~,
.E., Radiation Specialist Date Fact 11ti46 Radi cal Protection Section Approved:
-
d ht, M /lMd41
/
B. Murr'ay, Chief, Fac$/ities Radiological.
Dafte
,
'
i Protection Section o
i Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted March 6-9.1990 (Report 50-285/90-19).
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological (
environmental monitoring program (REMP) and portions of the radiation
!
protection (RP) program.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no deviations were identified. One-i violation was identified by the licensee (see paragraph 6).
!
The REMP staff was adequately qualified in spite of the fact that no training program exists for nonplant personnel.
The REMP met all Technical Specification (TS) requirements, but had occasional difficulty in maintaining i
all air samplers in working order.
Sample results were below TS limits. The meteorological monitoring program has failed, in recent times, to achieve its
',
90 percent information recovery goal.
.
9005020069 900420 gDR ADOCK 05000285 PDC
.
y
.{
.
-
.,
..g.
-
- '
The licensee identified an apparent violation of RP procedures involving
~
personnel entry into a very high radiation area (VHRA). - (See paragraph 6.) No deviations were identified,
'
i r
$
+
l
?
l
'i t
.
- e,
- -
l
-*
l
.
.-3--
'[
- -
.
DETAILS-
1, Persons Contacted
,
OPPD'
>
.
- G, R. Peterson,~ Manager. FCS
_.
_
_
- R. L. Andrews, Division Manager, Quality and Environmental Affairs i
- W. W. Orr, Manager, Quality Assurance / Quality Control-F. F. Franco, Manager, Radiological Services
- D.-J.'Matthews,. Supervisor, Station Licensing-
- R. K. Stultz, Supervisor, Chemistry and Environmental Services A. A.:Costanzo,-Senior Analyst M. A.- Wilson, Analyst t
J. G. Krist, Chemist-r J. P. Bobba, Supervisor, RP D. L. Lovett, Supervisor, RP. Operations A. C. Christensen, Radiological Operations Coordinator
- C, F. Simmons, Station Licensing Engineer
'
NRC T. -Reis, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at tNe exit meeting' on_ March 9,1990.
2.
Organization and Management Controls I
The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization-with regard-to,REMP
responsibilities, staffing, and. identification and correction of-
'
'
programmatic weaknesses to verify compliance with requirements-in Technical Specifications (TS) 5.0;and commitments in. Chapter.12 of _ the
Updated Safety Analysis Report -(USAR).
l
,
l The inspector verified that the organizational responsibility' for-the l
implementation of_the REMP was Chemistry and Environmental' Services, which
is part of the Production Engineering Division, as defined.in the USAR.
]
Staffing involved with the REMP included a supervisor, a senior analyst, i.
I and two other professionals. The inspector _-reviewed position descriptions
.
-
for these individuals and determined the responsibilities were well-defined.
Personnel turnover has been very low.
The inspector reviewed an audit performed in-1987.of the vendor which
!
performs. radiological sample and environmental thermoluminescent
'
,
dosimeter (TLD) analyses. -The audit team included an individual with.
I specific knowledge of environmental monitoring. The inspector determined
_
that the audits were adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
t
_
__
-
-
-
__
_ __
-
. -.
l f,
1:
,
'
.4
,
.
3.
Training and Qualifications
!
.
(
l The inspector determined that the licensee had' not' established formal
. training requirements for individuals in the Chemistry 'and Environmental-t l
Services Program.
TS 5.4.1 only addresses: training for " plant"' staff.
t L
The REMP supervisor had 17 years experience in environmental-matters at:
l OPPD, the senior analyst had 15 years (plus 2 years:part: time), and the
~ analyst had.13 years (plus 2 years part time). ' Another/ individual with a
.
degree in meteorology was hired in. June 1989. ' The ' licensee was developing i
.a training program for environmental services personnel.- The inspector..
,
l noted that training-in sample collection and accountability had not been
_
j provided to members'of the instrumentation and controls department who-perform filter changes on air samplers.
'
No_ violations or deviations were identified.
.
4.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's REMP to determine compliance with the requirements in TS 3.11 and agreement with commitments in Chapter 2.10 of the USAR.
The inspector reviewed sample collection p'rocedures.and confirmed that procedures were available for all. types-of samples required by TS.
The inspector noted that all analyses for the environmental monitoring.
program are performed for the licensee by an.offsite contractor and the results are reported annually in the " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report." The inspector reviewed the report and.noted that the contractor participates in an interlaboratory quality control comparison-program. The contractor provides the licensee wi.th a report entitled,.
" Monthly Progress Report." The inspector' reviewed selected parts-of the report and determined that the licensee's sampling frequency was in accordance with TS requirements. The inspector also:noted that sample -
-
results did not-exceed limits specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation-
'
Manual - (00CM).'
The inspector reviewed the latest land use survey conducted June 1988.
The results were reported in the'1988 annual REMP report in accordance
'
with TS.
The inspector reviewed selected air monitoring stations and verified that they were operational and as described'in the ODCM.
The inspector also reviewed the calibration program for the REMP air samplers and confirmed that selected samplers reviewed had been calibrated every 6 months as-
!
required.
However, the inspector also noted that the air sampler in Blair, Nebraska, provided either no data or questionable data for 10= weeks during the period May 31 to October 10,.1989. The' licensee's representatives stated that this was due to the unavailability.of spare
. parts and that they have since obtained a spare air sampler for use in
such cases in the future.
.
.-
-
-
.
.
'
l l
<
4,.
,
'
i i
.:
5..
L
[
Selected environmental monitoring-stations were inspected and found to'be I
as' described in the TS. The inspector also confirmed that.TLDs'are.
_
collected quarterly and sent to the vendor for processing. The licensee-
provided 32 TLDs for_ measurement in case of:an-emergency involving a
.
!
radioactive release. These were determined to have been exchanged on an:
l annual basis as required.
j;
'
t No violations or deviations were identified.
I s
5.
Meteorological Monitoring program
!
t l
The inspector-reviewed theLlicensee's meteorological monitoring program to
-
l:
determine agreement with the commitments in Chapter 2.5 of.the USAR-and.
J the recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.23.
The-inspector reviewed records of meteorological dataland interviewed the-
!
individual in charge of the meteorological monitoring-program and determined that the licensee was capable-of-measuring wind direction,d ind speed, and. ambient air temperature at a minimum of two-' levels;jsome
,
parameters at three levels.
Sensors are located at-10 meters,-45 meters, j
and 110 meters, The licensee utilizes both analog and digital technology
- !
to record meteorological data ~for analysis.. Readouts'are located in-the control room. The information is averaged over a period of'15 minutes!at-least once an hour.
l-The inspector reviewed calibration procedures and records' for the various
,
parameters and confirmed that they-were performed-semiannually. -The
- c inspector reviewed the " Semiannual Effluent Release Reports"> from -July 1, 1988, through December 31,-1989, and noted that~ data recovery, in-total or
<
in part, did not achieve the 90 percent ~ recovery goal as recommended in
'
This was explained in the reports as being due to various reasons such as damage to electronic cables and switching to an: alternate computer system.
The licensee obtains.information from;the National Weather Service as a backup source.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Radiation Protection The licensee notified the resident inspector of the following incident-which occurred March 8, 1990, and involved a VHRA:
A crew began work in the steam generator bays at approximately 9 a.m.
According to the radiation work permit (RWP), the crew was to remove the T
steam generator manway covers, manway insulation, and diaphragms. They were to install manway shield doors and air filtered ventilation on both.
<
"A" and "B" steam generators (SG).
The crew was briefed by the RP staff prior to the start of work and was l
,
l-required to have continuous RP coverage because work was to be in areas (both "A" and "B" SG bays) controlled as having very high radiation levels (1R/h or greater).
f
-.
,
. ~ -.
.,
y e
.l '
i
\\
N:
.. -'
}
~
-
)
.
6-
.
-
,
.;
'
i The entrance-area, on the 1013' level, is common to both bays and was'
-
controlled as a contaminated area, with one' step-off: pad. The doors to
[
"A" and "B" SG bays are normally locked.
During: outage operations,- one
-
key is provided to the:RP representative designated as_.the containment RP.-
s coordinator (CRPC).
,
When the crew arrived at the containment control-point, the CRPC gave the
J key to the'RP technician providing coverage for the. job and the technician O
unlocked both "A" and."B" SG bay doors. The crew began work in
"A" SG bay, on the platform between levels 1013 and 994. One of the-.
-
,
members'of the, crew was. assigned the task of moving barrels of lead >into the bay. To do this, he had to, work near the 994'-entrance to the.
!
"A" SG bay. He was aided by:the CRPC who unlocked the door on the.
,
994' leve1~ and the containment outage coordinator-(C0C) who helped pass-
.
the barrels into the control. area to the maintenance crew member. Before
- e'
leaving the 1013' level, the CRPC had transferred therresponsibility for ensuring there was no unauthorized access into the_ controlled areas totan-RP supervisor who'was stationed at the desk just inside the containment i
access point.
-
i
,
When the work was accomplished on "A" side at the 994' level, the C00-
'1 asked if the worker wanted to finish similar workion=the "B": side. The worker agreed and asked the CRPC for permission.
He consented and returned to the 1013' level to get disposable gloves and-booties..It was.
'
at this time the CRPC realized there might be a' roblem, noting (or recalling, as the case may be) the open door to B" SG bay.
He went down-
'
to the 994' level,'on the "B" SG side,.and found the worker had gone back-up to the 1013'. level through-the "A" SG bay, crossed the-common. area between bays, entered unescorted by-RP into.the "B" SG bay, and down to the 994' level to wait at the er, trance.
The CRPC 'emoved the worker and
r notified the radiological operations coordinator.
The licensee conducted an immediate investigation and determined the
,
following:
l
'
The e' vent was violation of Station Procedure RP-204 and the RWP instructions, both of which require continuous coverage by the RP staff in VHRAs.
- The CRPC failed to consider that the maintenance worker would have to
!
cross from one VHRA to another and thus not have continuous coverage.
- The RP supervisor responsible for maintaining control of the.VHRA doors in the absence of the CRPC was evidently distracted and'did not'
see the worker cross from one VHRA to the other.
(The inspector u
noted that, according to a plan view of'the area, the safety injection tanks blocked much of the-area from the RP supervisor's-view.)
~
m
._.
-
'
<
,
4.m.
j
-
.,.
l
.. #
+
The door to "B" SG' bay was atfleast partially open.
Because of.this,-
the posting on the door warning >th'at-a VHRA was contained within, was not readily visible as the worker _ entered.
-
The worker, who wore an integrating,_ alarming dosimeter received
!
- -
approximately 35 mrams.
'
q The inspector inquired as to.the content-of the prejob briefing. The
.
n RP technician-giving the' briefing stated that workers were informed that both bays were considered VHRAs
.The RP operations supervisor, who'had attended the briefing 'to critique the RP technician _'s presentation,
."
confirmed this.
,
In addition to conducting the investigation.the. licensee took:the
.,
following actions in response to the incident:
The work in process was terminated.
- Interviews were conducted with the' individuals involved.
A radiological occurrence report was written to document the-event.
- Measures were taken to ensure that postings at entrances to areas were:
visible.
All RP technicians were briefed on the circumstances of the eventLand'.
i
what should-have been the proper. actions.
The failure to follow procedures and instructions given in'the RWP is an
-
,
apparent violation of TS15.8 requiring compliance with procedures.
Because the apparent violation was self-identified, the licensee has taken prompt action to prevent recurrence, and the apparent violation was not of a reoccurring nature, the NRC has elected to use its discretion in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V.G.1 and not cite the
.
violation.
No deviations were identified.
'
7.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with the resident inspector and the licensee's representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on March 9, 1990, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as presented through paragraph 5 of this report.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by
the inspector during the inspection.
Details described in paragraph 6 of this report were presented to-the inspector by the RP supervisor and RP'
staff members following the exit meeting. The inspector informed the licensee representatives that the violation discussed in paragraph 6 appeared to meet the criteria in~10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,Section V.G.1 and that a Notice of Violation would probably not be issued.
<
...