ML18152B091
| ML18152B091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Cruden D VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152B092 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808240269 | |
| Download: ML18152B091 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1988003
Text
. -~
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
AUG 1 7 1988
Docket Nos. 50-338, 50-339, 50-280, 50-281
License Nos. NPF-4, NPF-7, DPR-32, DPR-37
Virginia Electric and Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. D. S. Cruden, Vice President,
Nuclear Operations
P. 0. Box 26666
Richmond, VA
23261
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-338/88-03, 50-339/88-03, 50-280/88-03
AND 50-281/88-03
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special, team assessment
conducted by R. E. Weddington and team during the periods March 14-18 and
April 4-8, 1988, at your North Anna and Surry facilities and your Richmond, VA
corporate office.
At the conclusion of the assessment, the findings were
discussed with those members of your staff i denti fi ed in the enclosed
inspection report.
The assessment was conducted to assess the reasons for the historically higher
than average collective radiation dose for personnel at your Surry facility and
the upward trend in collective radiation dose at your North Anna facility. The
assessment also evaluated the actions you have taken or are taking to reduce
collective doses at your facilities.
The assessment consisted of selective
exami nati ens of procedures and representative records, interviews with
personnel, and observation of activities in progress. Particular attention was
directed to assessing management 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.
8808240269 880817
ADOCK 05000280
G
PNU
-::(to I
I I
.*
Virginia Electric and Power Company
2
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC
1 s
11 Rules of Practice,
11 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 Ma~agement 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.
Enclosures:
1.
Executive Summary
2.
North Anna Inspection Report
3.
Surry Inspection Report
4.
Virginia Power Corporate
Inspection Report
cc w/encls:
E.W. Harrell, Station Manager
N. E. Hardwick, Manager - Nuclear
Programs and Licensing
D. L. Benson, Station Manager
Sincerely,
~o~~._
- Regional Administrator
.*
ENCLOSURE 1
Executive Summary
Between 1975 and 1986, the annual collective radiation dose for Surry has been
significantly above the national average.
In addition, for five of the past
seven years (1981-1987) Surry's collective radiation dose has been among the
five highest for pressurized water reactor in the United States.
In 1987,
North Anna moved into the highest five category for collective radiation dose.
Projections for 1988 indicate that the collective radiation dose for Surry will
again significantly exceed the national average, unless there is significant
intervention on the part of licensee management.
During the period of March 14-18 and April 4-8, 1988, a special team assessment
was conducted of the licensee's program for maintaining occupational radiation
dose as low as reasonably achievable.
This assessment included a review of the
causes for the high radiation dose; an evaluation of the licensee's current
organization and programs 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, and the addition
of unplanned work items had contributed to less than total success for the
ALARA program.
However, the assessment team found a high level of plant and
corporate management awareness of and support for the dose reduction program.
The licensee has taken a number of initiatives, including a corporate action
plan, to bring occupational doses to within industry norms.
The most recent
initiatives appear to be comprehensive with a corporate goal to significantly
reduce collective dose at both facilities.
While it is too early in the
implementation stage of the licensee's dose reduction program to evaluate its
effectiveness, the licensee appeared to have the elements of an effective
program in place and the appropriate management involvement and support to
bring about the desired dose reductions.
The effectiveness of this effort
remains to be seen.
Continued, strong management support will be necessary as
problems arise which may conflict with the dose reduction program goals.
Strengths and weaknesses identified in the assessment are summarized below:
Strengths
0
0
0
Corporate management involvement and support for collective dose
reduction program.
Senior station management membership in the Station ALARA co111T1ittee.
Development of the video disc information management system.
-'
Enclosure 1
2
0
0
0
0
General worker kn owl edge* of ALARA concepts and awareness of their
responsibility to reduce doses to ALARA.
Development of an Action Plan to address dose reduction at both
stations.
Pursuit of long term dose reduction through source term reduction
efforts.
Active participation in industry study groups for the development of
source term reduction techniques.
Weaknesses
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exposure goals are based on the historic average person-rem incurred
per day of outage and non-outage periods rather than basing the goals
o~ the specific task to be performed (North Anna and Surry).
The licensee accepts contractor-established collective dose goals for
work performed by the contractor which significantly exceed the
collective dose received by the licensee when similar work was
performed by the plant staff (North Anna).
Dose projections for some work covered by Radiation Work Permit are
being exceeded without management review or concurrence (Surry and
North Anna).
ALARA Program procedures have not been revised in a timely manner to
conform to licensee's corporate radiation protection plan (Surry).
Entries into the containment building when plant is at power has
become so routine that there is little or no management involvement
in the ~ecision process (Surry and North Anna).
The licensee's ALARA Action Plan does not include a formal schedule
with milestones for implementing the recommendations (North Anna and
Surry).