ML17157B163
| ML17157B163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1992 |
| From: | Chris Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sparkes P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9205040244 | |
| Download: ML17157B163 (15) | |
Text
~$ REpII, (4
tp0 Co 0
C 4's
/y/p +**+4C UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 April 20, 1992 Do gg7 r4-8A Mr. Paul S.
Sparkes 19 Misty Lane
- Drums, Pennsylvania 18222
Dear Mr. Sparkes:
I am responding to your letter of March 31, 1992, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Selin, in which you raised concern over the effectiveness of the resident inspector's in covering the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),
Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, you expressed concern about the need for an additional resident inspector and the performance of the resident inspectors presently at the site.
You had also cited occurrences that you believed indicate that the resident inspectors are complacent or provide inadequate coverage.
Your concerns are addressed below.
The NRC allocates regional resident inspectors to nuclear facilities according to the administrative policy in its N+1 Inspector Program.
This administrative policy states that the number of resident inspectors assigned to cover a site is recommended to be one more than the number of units at a
site (N).
This program is administrative guidance, not a regulation or a requirement.
Thus, the program allows the flexibilityto assign inspectors to positions based on the performance and inspection needs of the plant.
Therefore, the number of resident inspectors assigned to a site may fluctuate and not be exactly one more than the number of units at the site.
Upon reviewing the performance record of the facility, NRC management determined that N+1 resident inspectors are not needed to cover SSES at this time.
In your letter, you indicated your belief that the operational events and conditions you noted indicated weaknesses in the coverage provided by the resident inspectors.
Unfortunately, events arise in any industry on occasion in spite of efforts to prevent them and the diligence of inspectors.
The resident inspectors, assisted by. additional NRC inspectors, thoroughly inspected each of the events you described, as discussed in the following responses.
Upon reviewing the inspector's conclusions, the NRC issued the licensee a
notice that it had violated its technical specifications.
This notice prompted the licensee to correct the problem 9205040244 920420 PDR ADQCK 05000387r P
PDR L
".30068 shortly after it was found.
mmmm mv
'~'.
During a planned safety inspection conducted on August 13 through 17,
- 1990, a regional inspector discovered that the licensee had long been under reporting the levels of radioactivity in the spent resins that it had processed.
The NRC documented these findings in NRC Combined Inspection Reports 50-387/90-16 and 50-388/90-16.
Since 1984, the licensee has been sampling and analyzing spent resin waste streams in a slurry form, while shipping these resins to a low-level radioactive waste disposal site in a dry form.
The licensee had been under reporting the Ci activity levels for most isotopes in these shipments because it had not accounted for the shielding effect of water.
k% f k
5i'l~~> A~m f,sftie
Hr. Paul S. Sparkes April 20, 1992 2.
On August 31,
- 1989, a contractor received an unplanned exposure while taking samples of the reactor coolant.
On September 1 and 2, 1989, the resident inspectors and three inspectors from the regional office inspected this incident and documented their findings in NRC Inspection Report 50-388/89-25 of September 14, 1989.
The contractors did not follow the proper radiological precautions or procedures when an individual unknowingly retrieved a radioactive
- sample, put it in his breast
- pocket, took an elevator from the 779 foot elevation to the 676 foot elevation of Unit 2, and proceeded to the chemistry laboratory.
Personnel in the chemistry lab detected the active sampl'e.
Upon reviewing the inspectors'onclusions, the NRC took regional enforcement action and issued notices of four technical specification violations.
This event did not meet the criteria that require the licensee to declare an unusual event.
The NRC established these criteria in Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.72.
3.
On January 18,
- 1992, hydrogen in an open ended section of offgas pipe ignited and detonated when a worker began a planned grinding activity.
On January 18 through February 10, 1992, the resident inspector inspected this event and documented his findings in NRC Combined Inspection Reports 50-387/92-02 and 50-388/92-02 of February 29, 1992.
The inspector found that the hydrogen had escaped from a leaking valve that had not been repaired although the repair had been listed as completed on a work authorization form.
On June 12, 1989, the licensee staff had signed a
work authorization for the repair activities for the actuator and the valve seat.
This signature indicated that the repairs had been completed, although the licensee had not repaired the valve seat.
This oversight was discovered by the licensee during the post-event investigations and therefore was not a known condition of the valve.
The worker received first and second degree burns to his chest,
- throat, and face and was transported to the Berwick Hospital.
While surveying the individual's chest before transport, the licensee detected very low levels of radioactivity (3000 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters).
The radioactivity resulted from activated dust particles bl'own at the worker's chest when the hydrogen ignited.
The licensee staff removed these particles using decontamination cleaning procedures.
This amount of contamination does not constitute a radiation release.
The NRC reviewed the inspector's conclusions and issued notices of two technical specification violations.
The license declared an unusual event as required in 10 CFR 50.72.
Hr. Paul S.
Sparkes April 20, 1992 4.
One of the goals of the NRC and industry groups like the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) is to have the nuclear industry aspire to outstanding performance.
INPO provides licensees with recommendations for improvement to assist them in achieving outstanding performance.
These recommendations are not indications of poor performance.
The Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, the licensee for Susquehanna, is aggressively pursuing outstanding performance in the areas you have listed in your letter.
Be assured that the resident inspectors at Susquehanna are attentive and responsible professionals.
The NRC rotates resident inspectors from'their assigned site every 5 years.
The two current resident inspectors have been assigned to the site for 3 years and less than 1 year, respectively.
The resident inspectors are the NRC's eyes and ears at the site serving in our mission to ensure the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely, 88%8 ~~gN pg Charles L. Hiller, Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION See Attached List,
- Previously Concurred OFFICE P
2 LA
'DI-2 P
PDI-2 D
TECH EDITOR*
DRPE AD*
NAME DATE JRalei
.rb 92 4
92 CHil JHain
/ 92 04 15 92 JCalvo 04 17 92 OFFICE NAME DATE PHAS/
lies ie M/92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
SUGREEN.TKT
DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50-387/388 NRC and Local PDRs EDO 0007631'Taylor, 17G-21
- JBlaha, 17G-21
- JPartlow, 12G-18
%58-NRR Hail
- Room, 12G-18 CNorsworthy JRaleigh (w/incoming)
MO'Brien (w/incoming)
PDI-2 Green Ticket File
- WHehl, RGN-I
- RBlough, RGN-I
- JWhite, RGN-I
4 J I
I
(
j II 1
N Cl
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTOht, O. C. 20555 EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
Paul S.
Sparkes
- Drums, PA TO:
Chairman Selin FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Murley DESC:
DUE: 04/29/92 GRN EDO CONTROL: 0007631 DOC DT: 03/31/92 FINAL REPLY:
CRC NO ROUTING:
ASSIGNED TO:
NRR CONTACT:
Mur1ey SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
CONCERNS RE.SUSQUEHANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DATE: 04/07/92 Taylor Sniezek Thompson Blaha
<TTMartin, RI
l
~
~
II'
CkI/J~
Og.
~V~~ X~fl~
.. AJR's 6.'
fa cv'WA-
. m.
~ r~~
/
/Iv~. c,/ds z..
7 a
+Ac-Suing uc AwM~A fl/vc.xI/II Pc.w.~II. p/nqckI~.Pa~nr~
+c.cvvfly If
~%~M I c. MP.'j6Mccv
. 44~ +.
//If.c.
~cI / y
+l//Qc 7tu<p~c+c~ Z F~~ f,Pg, ~Lc R=~pu1~k a
S c;~/l /=~~. 3, 8k'w3.m /
.P cIM da
//c u Pl~
ovfl W~l=c>mcf~g lV8 + M<g u.l+7 fa.mz M Ass>
Az~
+M
/~s
~-<4'g8 cccvu~ly==
6 lk~ /:o c I$ /~MS cf~ PIcccu/'K+~/uDfP
~ass~
g4dc~~/"4> v<
. lums 4z KQ Dacu A
u/ uIIu Gle,c.fwIcII AcI cg~ us u re / Eu~
~ A,fi~~..-
8 gJ ac f v
8&l~yg I P
+NcugAcu'/
+II~
P/wM
- 3).. ~ ffcl AcI egp Ao SI~~
.IcI Sack.4g~
. p/Vf-,~ =
/t cctu fIfMI~A'1 <2 "lhdMctlcE If'~w If wc. i~J ~
dc%/cl ZDO 007631
~
~
L a
e
- L
-" r" n
~ I a
~
he DOCKET NO(S)." 5Q 387 anEI.56-388 August 15, 1991 DISTRIBUTION
< 'Docket~le PDZ-2 Reading JRaleigh JStone NO'Brien
SUBJECT:
See belotr
, The following documents concerning our'review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT.
Notice of Receipt of Application Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment
~
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Facility Operating License DATED" I
1 Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involvin No Si nifIcant Hazards Conditions See Page(s)
Exemption Construction Permit No. CPPR-Facility Operating License No.
Order Monthly Operating Report for Annual/Semi-Annual Report:
,Other
, Amendment No.t
,Amendment No.
transmitted by Letter transmitted by Letter Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As Stated CC:
$7 OFFICE>
SURNAME>
OATEN P g
/
/91 NRC FORM 318 tto/80I NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD'OPY
5
, i1 c
ATTACHMENT SUSQUEHANNA UNITS 1 5 2
Ouarterly Hazerdous lrlaste Report for second quarter 1991, dated July 26, 1991 Discharge Monitoring Report for June 1991, dated July 19, 1991
Chief Division of Ecological Services Bureau of Sport Fisheries 8 Wildlife U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 Dr. William Cunningham FDA Research Chemist National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor Building 235 Room B-108 Gaithersburg, HD 20899 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office ATTN: