IR 05000334/1990016

Radiological Controls Insp Repts 50-334/90-16 & 50-412/90-16 on 900604-08.No Violations Noted.Weaknesses Noted.Improvement Noted in Quality of Audits & Appraisals. Major Areas Inspected:Status of Previously Identified Items

ML20055G427
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	07/10/1990
From:	Oconnell P, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055G426	List: IR 05000334/1990016 ML20055G425
References
50-334-90-16, 50-412-90-16, NUDOCS 9007230164
Download: ML20055G427 (5)

Text

.s >

.,

4

I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

REGION I

Report No /90-16 50-412/90 16 Docket No Z License No DPR66 Category C RpT73 c Licensee: Duquesne Light Company One Oxford center 301 Grant street Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 152]9 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station. Units 1 and 2 Ir.spection At: Shippinoport. Pennsylvania inspection Conducted: ' June 4 - 8, 1990 Inspector: SL O N A~ 7 lo Go

' P. O'connell, Radiation \ppecialist d a1.e'

Approved by: w/ h v- '/!/CkO w. Pasclak, cntergfacilittes/ Radiation date Protection Section Inspection Summary:. Inspection conducted on June 4 - 8, 1990. NRC Combined Inspection Report Nos. 00 334/90-16; 50 412/90 1 Areas Inspected:: Routine' unannounced Radiological Controls Inspection of the following: status of Prevlously Identified Items, Audits and Appraisals, and-Internal and External Exposure Control Results Within the scope of this review no apparent violations were identifie The inspector noted improvement in the quality of audits and appraisals. One unresolved item, associated with long term corrective actions for licensee identified weaknesses in the area of respiratory protection, was identifie C PDR ADOCK 05000334 Q PDC

.

..

,

. .

.

.

'

DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted

• J. Beall, Senior Resident inspector Beaver Valley D. Blair, Director Radiolo ical Health Services

• D. Canan, Senior Health Ph sics Specialist Senior Health P ysics Specialist Radiological Operations (BV1)

• R.Freund,d,

• D Girdwoo

• M. Helms. Senior Hea1Director {hPhysicsSpecialist Manager, Health Physics

• J. Kosmal, General Manager, Nuclear Operations Services

• W.Laceyick,SeniorLicensingSupervisor

• F. Lipch A. Mizia Su>ervisor Quality Assurance

• B. Sepela,k, .icensing Engineer

• R. Vento, Director Radiological Engineering

• P. Wilson, Res'senf Inspector Beaver Valley

• Denotes those individuals who attended the Exit Meeting on June B,199 .0 brpose The inspection was a routine, unannounced Radiological Controls Inspection of the following areas: Status of Previously Identified items, Audits and Appraisals, and Internal and External Exposure Control .0 Status of Previously ' Identified items b(Closed) Unresolved ody dose to an record the highest Item individual wearing dose to the (50-374/89-21-03)L dosimetry dole which was not body. On September licensee 198928, to determine an positioned to individual performing Foreign OWt Search and Retrieval work on the secondary side of the Unit 1 D n eam generator exceeded his administrative extremity dose 1 Mit. Upon review of the working conditions, it was determined that the individual's whole body dosimetry, which was positioned above the elbow, may have moved further up the individual's arm and not positioned to monitor the area of the whole body receiving the highest dose. The circumstances surrounding the exposure were reviewed in detail during Inspection 50-334/89 2 The inspector reviewed the licensee's dose assessment for the individual involved as discussed in Incident Report No. 1-89-97 dated November 8, 1989. The licensee determined the individual's quarterly whole body exposure to be 2.076 rem. The inspector reviewed the adequacy of the dose assessment and concluded that the dose assessment methodology was adequate and no regulatory limit was exceeded. This item is close ,

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

, . I

• .

9

l 4.0 Audits and Appraisals  ;

i The inspector Pro ran reviewed which had several audits been conducted b of the Radiation Protection (RP)it 1 Aud$ts and Surveillances Departmenf.the licensee's Quality Services UnThelicenseej contractor to provide additional technical expertise in conducting the j

,

"Ra11ological Control-Calibration and Documentation" audit, conducted l Dece?ber 1989 through February 1990. The use of an independent contractor J to assist in the uality assurance audits was partially in response to NRC I conceri's regardin the lack of independent assessaents of the RP Program, i The inspetor not d that the findings of the audits indicated that an '

adequate assessment of the RP Program had been conducted. Ap 1 corrective actions had been taken to address audit findings.propriate 1 The licensee !rovided theprovide inspector with a expertise copy of a p$osal f an independen contractor technical the bid nextto have scheduled audit. The licensee also stated that they are planning on

,

conductina an audit during the third quarter of 1990 to address two 1 l

concerns Identified in NRY Combined Inspection Report No. 50-334/89 21; i 50-412 i vendor /89-20. The concerns regarded the lack of audits to ensure thats who state!

their em)loyees actually have the required records and physicals and to j ensure tie adequacy of the physicals. The licensee has been responsive to the NRC concerns in this are ]

The inspector reviewed the internal surveillances conducted of the RP )

Program. The different types of internal surveillances of the RP Program i are detailed in Appendix I of the Radeon Manual and include Radiation I Deficiency Reports, Supervisory, Technical and Administrative I Surveillances. The number of these surveillances and the associated findings indicated that supervisors were routinely reviewing ongoing

,- work activitie )

In general the licensee had been responsive to surveillance findings however the inspector did note an apparent need for long term correcfive i actions for re) eat findings of weaknesses in the area of respirator I maintenance. T1ese weaknesses are discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, l 5.0 Internal and External ExpoAure Controls The inspector conducted several tours of the facility and verified that 1 areas were properly posted, barricaded or locked as required. The inspector -1 also noted that the housekeeping throughout the facility was goo !

,

The inspector toured the respirator maintenance and storage area. By j reviewing training records, licensee procedures, and respirator issue logs

!-

the inspector determined that the licensee has an adeguate program to <

l ensure that only individuals who have current physicals and fit tests are issued respirators. The inspector did note a weakness in the area of retraining the individuals assigned the task of respirator maintenanc _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ __ _ _ . _ __ __ _ ._ _

- - -

..

. .

.. ,

d

! *

Currently the responsibility for various aspects of the respirator maintenance program is divided between four groups. Building maintenance is disinfecting, storino and issuing air purifying responsible for washing,l Controls is responsdie for inspecting and respirators. Radiologica performing maintenance on air purifying respirators. Operations is responsible for inspecting and performing maintenance on SCBAs. Maintenance is responsible for inspecting and performing maintenance on supplied air respirator The inspector reviewed the training records of several of the individuals who perform maintenance on respirators and noted that the individuals did not receive periodic retraining on maintaining the respirators. The licensee stated that individuals involved with respirator maintenance are only given initial training and that under their current program they do not receive periodic retraining. An individual could be assigned the task of performing maintenance on respirator.y protection equipment even if the individual had not been retrained or otherwise involved in respirator maintenance for several years. The lack of a retraining program for these individuals is an area that needs improvemen The inspector reviewed the 1989 Respirator Protection Program Evaluation which included the results of severai surveillances of the respirator maintenance program. These surveillances identified several weaknesses which included: improper fittings on the air line regulators in the Control-Room, SCBA facepieces missing parts, and the lack of proficiency in caergency respirator inspection and repair by the res>onsible foremen. The inspector also noted that some of these deficiencies ind been noted during surveillances in 1988. Although the licensee immediately corrected the noted weaknesses, the licensee does not appear to have addressed long term corrective actions to address the root cause of-the weaknesses. The inspector noted that weaknesses in the retraining protection workers was also a concern identified. program for respiratory The need to address the root causes of the identified weaknesses was discussed in a July 10 1990, tele oftheNRCRegion1officeandMr.phoneconversationbetweenMr.R.Nimitz S. 1.acy, General Manager, Nuclear Operations Service The long term corrective actions to address the root causes of the weaknesses identified in the respiratory protection program is an unrasolveditem(50-334/90-16-01).

The inspector reviewed records of the quality assurance checks of the counting room instruments and the whole body counters. The inspector also reviewed calibration records for selected counting room instruments and portable radiation survey noters. No deficiencies were note The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for issuance and control of portable radiation survey meters. The licensee has implemented an adequate program to ensure that only individuals who are trained and qualified to use portable radiation survey meters are issued the instrument . .

.

.

. .

. . .. .

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ..

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

. .

-.

..

~

l

'

l l

I 5 .

i The inspector did identify an area for improvement regarding the periodic i i performance testing of portable radiation survey meters. Currently the licensee conducts a daily response check to ensure the operability of survey meters. During the daily response check, due to the low activity of the check source used, the licensee cannot ensure the operability of the ;

'

scales of survey meters normally used for surveying High Radiation Area The operability of these scales is only verified during the instrument

'

calibration, which is conducted every six month ractice was not in accordance with American l Theinsectornotedthatthis-!ndardN3231978'RadiationProtection Nationa Standard Institute st i Instrumentation Test and Calibration". This standard recommends, in Section !

'

4.6 that to assure proper operation of the instrument between calibrations,theinstrumentbetestedwithachecksourceduring operation or prior to use. Reference readings should be obtained for one e point on each scale or decade normally use l The licensee stated that they were aware of the limitations of the check source currently used and have been evaluating purchasing new check source ,

devices which would address this matter. The licensee stated that prior to 4 l- thenextrefuelingoutage,scheduledforSeptember1990,theywouldeither I have the new check source devices in place or they would utilize the l calibration source when conducting the daily response checks of survey

'

meters. This item will be reviewed during a future inspectio The inspector noted that the licensee is planning on making several improvements in their Radiological Controls Program. Planned improvements include:

- Rewriting the RWP procedure in order to streamline the paperwork requirements.

l

!

- Computerizing the generation of RWP Developing custom work packages for radiologically significant repeat

'

evolution Purchasing additional monitoring and training equipment such as ('

-

personnel contamination monitors, alarming dosimaters, and a steam generator mock-u ,

'

- Developing an ALARA incentive progra The licensee is also evaluating conducting a full system decontamination in order to reduce the source term and therefore personnel exposures at the facilit .0 Exit Meeting )

The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 of !

this report on June 8,.1990. The inspector summarized the >urpose scope and findings of the inspection. Thelicenseestatedthatt1eywould evaluate the noted concerns in the area of respirator maintenanc j l

l'