ML14191B054

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Repts 50-261/88-26,50-325/88-33 & 50-324/88-33 on 880912-16 & 19-23 & 1003-05.No Violations or Deviations Noted
ML14191B054
Person / Time
Site: Brunswick, Robinson, 05000000
Issue date: 01/12/1989
From: Ernst M
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Utley E
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML14191B055 List:
References
NUDOCS 8901260197
Download: ML14191B054 (5)


See also: IR 05000261/1988026

Text

ACCELERATED

DISTIBUTI1ON

DEMONSTRATION

SYSTEM

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

  • %Cn1SSION'NBR:890l260l97

DOC.DATE: 89/01/12 NOTARIZED:NO

DOCKET #

FACIL:50-261H.B. Robinson Plant, Unit 2, Carolina Power & Light C 05000261

50-325 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1,.Carolina Powe

05000325

50-324 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Carolina Powe

05000324

W

AUTH.NAME

AUTHOR AFFILIATION

ERNST,M.L.

Region 2, Ofc of the Di'rector

RECIP.NAME

RECIPIENT AFFILIATION

UTLEYE.E.

Carolina Power & Light Co.

SUBJECT: Forwards Insp Repts 50-261/88-26,50-325/88-33 & 50-324/88-33

on 880912-16 & 19-23 & 1003-52& notice of violation.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE01D COPIES REC EIVED:LTR I ENCL j

SIZE: 5-4 9

TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-InspRept/Noticeof Vioation Response

NOTES:

RECIPIENT

COPIES

RECIPIENT

COPIES

ID CODE/NAME

LTTR ENCL

ID CODE/NAME

LTTR ENCL

(

PD2-1 PD

1

1

LO,R

1

1

TOURIGNY,E

1

1

INTERNAL: ACRS

2

2

AEOD

1

1

AEOD/DEIIB

1

1

DEDRO

1

1

NRR SHANKMAN,S

1

1

NRR/DEST DIR

1

1

NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11

1

1

NRR/DLPQ/QAB 10

1

1

NRR/DOEA DIR 11

1

1

NRR/DREP/EPB 10

1

1

NRR/DREP/RPB 10

2

2

NRR/DRIS DIR 9A

1

1

NRR/PMAS/ILRB12

1

1

NUDOCS-ABSTRACT

1

1.

OE LIEBERMAN,J

1

1

OGC/HDS1

1

1

02

1

1

RGN2

FILE

01

1

1

EXTERNAL: LPDR

2

2

NRC PDR

1

1

NSIC

1

1

RESL MARTIN,D

1

1

IR

S

A

D

NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE

ELP US TO REDUCE WSTE!

CDNTACr THE DOENT CDIROL DESK,

ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELDMTE YOUR NAME FIU4 DISTRIBUTIN

LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NE!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR

28

ENCL

28

Docket Nos. 50-261, 50-325, 50-324

License Nos. DPR-23, DPR-62, DPR-71.

Carolina Power and Light Company

ATTN: Mr. E. E. Utley

Senior Executive Vice President

Power Supply and Engineering

and Construction

P. 0. Box 1551

Raleigh, NC 27602

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-261/88-26, 50-325/88-33 AND

50-324/88-33

This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special, team assessment

conducted by T. R. Collins and team during the periods September 12-16,

September 19-23 and October 3-5, 1988.

The inspection included a review of

activities authorized for your H. B. Robinson and Brunswick facilities.

Members of the team also visited your Harris Environmental and Energy Center

and your corporate office. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings

were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed

inspection report.

The assessment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of actions you have

taken or are taking to reduce collective dose at your facilities.

This

inspection was conducted because of the historically higher than average

collective radiation dose for personnel at your facilities.

The team used

selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews

with personnel,

and observation of activities in progress to perfomr the

evaluation. Particular attention was directed toward assessing management's

awareness of, involvement in and support of your facilities' program to keep

radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

A number of notable strengths and improvement efforts identified in your

programs are described in Enclosure 1 and are discussed in detail in the

enclosed reports.

Within the scope of the assessment,

no violations or deviations were

identified. However, several weaknesses identified during the assessment could

reduce the effectiveness of your program to keep radiation exposures ALARA, and

thus require your attention.

The weaknesses are described in Enclosure 1 to

this letter. Since 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 of the weaknesses including actions

that you have taken or plan to take to correct the weaknesses and the dates

when your actions will be completed.

8901260197 890112

PDR ADOCK 05000R61

PNU

Carolina Power and Light Company

2

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 Room.

The responses directed by this letter and its enclosures are not subject to the

clearance procedures of the. Office of Management and Budget as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511..

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Malcolm L. Ernst

Acting Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

1. Executive Summary

2., H. B. Robinson Inspection Report

3. Brunswick Inspection Report

4. CP&L Corporate Inspection Report

W w/encls:

v.

B. Starkey, Vice President

Brunswick Nuclear Project

v'.

R. Dietz, Vice President

H. B. Robinson Nuclear Project

. L. Harness, Plant General Manager,

Brunswick

. E. Morgan, Plant General Manager,

H. B. Robinson

c w/encls:

[IA RC Resident Inspectors

DRS, Technical Assistant

Document Control Desk

State of North Carolina

RII

RII

RI

RH

R

T

i:es

CBassett

RSort idge

CHosey

Decker

124;//88

12/M\\/88

12/tf/88

12/41/88

12/4A /88

R

RII

RI

RI

DCollins

4'PFredrickson

eyes

JPS ohr

12R2/88

12/1/88

2/ 7/88

/V-/88

ENCLOSURE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Between 1974 and 1987, the cumulative annual collective radiation doses for

H. B. Robinson and Brunswick have been significantly above the national average

at each plant. H. B. Robinson ranked second highest nationally for PWRs and

Brunswick ranked third highest for BWRs for the same period. During the past

three years

(1985-1987) .H. B. Robinson's collective radiation dose has

averaged 449 person-rem which was slightly above the three year

average of 393 person-rem per unit for PWRs in the United States.

Conversely,

Brunswick's collective radiation dose for the past three years (1985-1987) has

averaged 1,022 person-rem per unit which was almost twice the three year average

of 648 person-rem per unit for BWRs in the United States. Although collective

dose at H. B. Robinson and Brunswick have decreased each year .since 1985,

increased management attention to support and involvement in the ALARA Program

is necessary to continue this trend and reach the industry norm.

During the period of September 12-16, September 19-23, and October 3-5, 1988, a

special team assessment was conducted of the licensee's program for maintaining

occupational radiation dose ALARA. This assessment included a review of the

causes for the high radiation dose; an evaluation of the licensee's current

organization and program 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 assessment of licensee management's awareness of,

involvement in, and support of the licensee's program for keeping doses ALARA.

In the past,

inadequate management support and involvement in the dose

reduction (ALARA) program, conflicting operational priorities, the addition of

unplanned work items,

elements within the ALARA program,

and number of

personnel with measurable exposure had contributed to less than total success

for the ALARA program. The assessment team found a high level of plant and

corporate management awareness of the dose reduction program; however, there

were indications of a lack of management support and involvement to reduce

collective doses.

The licensee's five year plan for both facilities did not

set a goal to have collective doses at the facility at or below the industry

average by 1992.

Strengths and weaknesses identified in the assessment are

summarized.below:

Strengths

0

Pursuit of long term dose reduction through source term reduction efforts.

o

General worker knowledge of ALARA concepts and awareness of their

responsibility to reduce doses to ALARA.

o

Active participation in industry study groups for the development of

source term reduction techniques.

Enclosure 1

2

Holding all levels of plant management accountable for projected exposure

goals in their annual performance appraisals.

Weaknesses

o

Unchallenging current and future annual exposure goals (Brunswick).

o

Less than full management involvement in the ALARA program as evidenced by

lack of management direction in achieving established goals (Brunswick and

Robinson).

Consistently high numbers of personnel on site with measurable exposure

relative to similar plants (Brunswick and Robinson).

o

An ineffective audit program which results in a lack of problem

identification and program improvements (Brunswick and Robinson).

o

Lack of an effective mechanism for identifying jobs which require

additional

ALARA reviews prior to exceeding the dose projections

(Brunswick and Robinson).

Poor attendance at ALARA Sub Committee meetings resulting in limited ,

input and support (Brunswick and Robinson).

Failure to formally incorporate lessons learned from previous outages into

planning for future outages (Robinson).