IR 05000302/1989013

Insp Rept 50-302/89-13 on 890529-0602.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection Program,Radwaste Mgt,Transportation of Radioactive Matls & Followup on Previous Inspector Identified Items

ML20246B877
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	06/23/1989
From:	Collins T, Potter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246B869	List: IR 05000302/1989013 ML20246B865
References
50-302-89-13, IEIN-89-027, IEIN-89-27, NUDOCS 8907100153
Download: ML20246B877 (6)

Text

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

• . .

,

UNITED STATES

{

cg3 EEGuq'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

'

I n REGION Al I ( -

i g , y, 101 MARIETTA STREET, )

• 't ATLANTA, GEORGt A 30323 l

\,*****/ JUN 2 31989 l

Report No.: 50-302/89-13 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation {

3201 34th Street, South l St. Petersburg, i:L 33733 Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 Inspection Conducted: M.y 29-June 2, 1989 Inspector: Ydw T. R. ColTins

//D6tedLA[b Si ned'

Approved by: .

J. P. P/Cter, Chief

[7 D6te/ Signed Facilities Radiation Protection Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Rediation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of the radiation protection program, radioactive waste management, transportation of radioactive materials, follow-up on previous inspector identified items, follow-up on previous enforcement issues, follow-up on Information Notices, and ALARA safety Concern Results:

Based on interviews with licensee management, supervision, personnel from station departments, and records review, the inspector found that the radiation protection program was adequate. The inspector observed that the radiation protection program continued to be effective and adequate management involvement was provided to support the radiation protection program. No violations or deviations were identifie !

Q 3 a i t

l l

!

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

1' . . .

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

.

R. Browning, Dosimetry Supervisor G. Clymer, Nuclear Waste Manager

• R. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer

• J. Gilbert, Radwaste Supervisor

• S. Horvath, ALARA Specialist

• P. McKee, Director, Nuclear Plant Operations

• S. Robinson, Chemical / Radiation Superintendent W. Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance

• M. Siapno, Health Physics Supervisor D Vanosternky, Respiratory Protection Supervisor

• Williams, Nuclear Regulatory Specialist Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, maintenance mechanics, technicians, and administrative personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector

• J. Tedrow, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Occupational Exposure, Shipping, and Transportation (83750) Organization The licensee is required by Technical Specification (TS) 6.2 to implement the plant organization specified in Table 6.2.2- The responsibilities, authorities, and other management controls are further outlined in Chapters 12 and 13 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). TS 6.5.1 specifies the members of the Plant Safety Review Committee (PSRC) and outlines its functions and authoritie Regulatory Guide 8.8 specifies certain functions and responsibilities to be assigned to the Radiation Protection Manager (Chemical /

Radiation Superintendent) and certain radiation protection responsibilities to be assigned to line managemen The inspector reviewed recent changes to the plant organization, to determine their effect on plant radiological controls, by examining the resulting changes to administrative procedures and position descriptions and discussing the changes with the Chemical / Radiation Superintenden i j

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

L.- -

l '

-

.

No violations or deviations were identifie Staffing

'

s TS 6.2.2 specifies minimum plant staffin FSAR Chapters 12 and 13 also outline further details on staffin The inspector discussed

,

cuthorized staffing' levels vs. actual on-board staffing separately with the Health Physics (HP) Supervisor and ~ the Chemical / Radiation

'

Superintenden The inspector examined shift staffing for the midnight shift May 30, 1989, to determine if it met minimum criteria for radiation protectio The' inspector also determined that the licensee had sufficient contract HP technicians on-board to support the present maintenance outag No violations or deviations were identified, Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination, Surveys, and Mon 1 sring

The li:ensee is required by 10 CFR 20.201(b), 20.401, and 20.403 to perforn surveys to show compliance with regulatory limits and to maintt.in records of such surveys. Chapter 12 of the FSAR outlines i survey methods.and instrumentation. TS 6.8 requires the licensee to follow written procedures. Radiological control procedures further outline survey methods and frequencie The inspector observed, durir.g plant tours, surveys being performed by the radiation protection staff. The inspector reviewed selected Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) during the inspection to determine if adequate controls were specifie The inspector discussed the controls and monitoring with the assigned radiation protection technician and one worker for each task. The inspector performed independent radiation level survey During plant tours, the inspector observed radiation level and contamination survey results. The inspector performed independent radiation level surveys of selected areas and observed satisfactory comparison with licensee survey results. The inspector reviewed selected survey records for the period of April and May 1989, and discussed with licensee representatives, methods used to disseminate survey result No violations or deviations were identifie As low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) Program 10 CFR 20.1(c) states that persons engaged in activities under licenses issued by the NRC should make every reasonable effort to l maintain radiation exposure ALARA. The recommended elements of an '

ALARA program are contained in Regulatory Guide 8.8, Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposure at Nuclear l l

l

._ __

'

'

.

!

i 3 j

-

Power Stations will be ALARA; and Regulatory Guide 8.10, Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures ALAR u

]

The inspector discussed the ALARA goals and objectives for 1989 with !

licensee representatives and reviewed the person-rem estimates and result The licensee's goal for 1989 has been established at l 250 person-rem of which 175 person-rem was established for outage I However, initially, the licensee estimated a 200 person-rem goal for ;

1989, of which 125 person-rem was estimated for outages. The 1 licensee increased the person-rem goals due to an unanticipated '

reactor. coolant pump (RCP) maintenance outage. The outage duration was approximately 95 days. As of June 1,1989, the licensee has expended approximately 201 person-rem of which approximately 180 !

person-rem was expended for the unanticipated RCP outage. Even though the licensee increased its person-rem goals for 1989, the 250 person-rem estimate is still well below the national average of 346 person-rem for a single unit pressurized water reactor (PWR). {

No violations or deviations were identifie . IE Information Notices (ins) (92717)

The inspector determined that the following IN had been received by the licensee, reviewed for applicability, distributed to appropriate personnel and that action as appropriate was taken or scheduled:

IN 89-27: Limitations on the Use of Waste Forms and High Integrity Containers for the Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste Allegation Follow-up (99014)

Allegation (RII-89-A-0020)

,

Workers were required to stay in the Reactor Building (Containment) while scaffolding was being erected, rather than wait outside in a lower exposure area to maintain personnel exposures ALAR Discussion and Finding The allegation was reviewed by the NRC Region II Allegation Review Committee, and it was decided to refer the allegation to the licensse for review and investigatio The inspector discussed the allegation with licensee representatives and reviewed the licensee's investigation dated May 31, 1989. After review of personnel exposure results for the period of the stated allegation in March 1989, the inspector concluded that personnel exposures were well below the station's administrative controls and 10 CFR 20 limits. Based on the minimum data presented in the allegation, it was difficult to determine to exactly what incident the alleger was referencin m . - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _mm.-__ _ m

_ _ _ - _ __

. .

..

,,

'\

The inspector concluded, after discussions and review of licensee records,

. that this allegation could not be substantiated. However, the licensee's controls for maintaining personnel exposures ALARA, as discussed in Paragraph.2.d., were considered adequat . ActiononPreviousInspectionFindings(92701,92702) (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-302/87-29-02: Review Whole Body Counting Analysis Quality Control Progra The inspector discussed this issue with licensee representatives and '

verified that the licensee has developed a Canberra / Radiation Management Corporation whole body counting quality control progra However, the licensee is in process of writing an administrative procedure for the implementation of the program. The inspector concluded that the program appeared adequate and considered the item close (Closed) Violation (VIO) 50-302/87-35-01: Inadequate High Radiation Area Controls Inside the Reactor Building (Containment).

The inspector reviewed and verified the licensee's corrective actions as stated in Florida Power Corporation's (FPC's) letter dated May 16, 1988. This item is considered closed, (Closed) VIO 50-302/87-35-02: Failure to Adequately Train an Auxiliary Operator on Cavity Razards.

l The inspector reviewed ano verified the licensee's corrective actions'

l as stated in FPC's letter dated May 16, 198 This item is considered close (Closed) VIO 50-302/87-35-03: Inadequate Procedures (1) Shielding; (2) HP Notification; (3) Unexpected Conditions; (4) Posting After a Shutdown; and (5) Checking for leakag The inspector reviewed and verified the licensee's corrective actions as stated in FPC's letter dated May 16, 198 This item is considered closed, (Closed) VIO 50-302/87-39-01: Failure to Properly Solidify Liquid Waste Transported for Buria The inspector reviewed and verified the licensee's corrective actions as stated in FPC's letters dated January 14 and August 12, 198 This item is considered closed, (Closed) IFI 50-302/87-39-02: Review Administrative Procedures for Controlling Activities in the Spent Fuel Pool Area for Adequate J Safety Precaution !

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- - - - - _ - - _ _

-

, . - .

..

.

The inspector discussed this issue with licensee representatives and reviewed. selected procedures related to tasks associated with work in

[ the spent fuel pool area and determined that adequate review and safety precautions were established. This item is considered close , (Closed) VIO 50-302/88-03-01: Failure to Have a Dose Rate Instrument in a High Radiation Are The inspector reviewed and verified the licensee's corrective actions as stated in FPC's letter dated May 16, 198 This item is j considered close i (Closed)VIO 50-302/88-03-02: Failure to Have a Procedure for Timely Corrective Action on Radiation Safety Violations and Failure .to Follow Radiation Control Procedure The inspector reviewed and verified the licensee's corrective actions as stated. in FPC's' letter dated May 16, 198 This item is considered close . Exit Interview i

The inspection scope and results were summarized on June 1,1989, with '

those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described in l details the inspection findings and informed the licensee that the items in Paragraph 5 were considered closed. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and took no exceptions. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio .

l

\ l l

u______---_-- - - _ -