ML20008F332
| ML20008F332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F325 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103120841 | |
| Download: ML20008F332 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1980031
Text
-
.
.
tA ttouq'o,
UNITED STATES
f'N
,.
' O ! j ).
q
j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
c
REGION il
s .' \\
'. #
101 MARIETTA si., N.W., SUITE 3100
o,
'V
ATLANTA, G EORGI A 30303
o
.....
JAN 2 0 EB1
In Reply Refer To:
RII:CMH
50-269/80-31
50-270/80-27
50-287/80-24
Duke Power Company
ATTN:
W. O. Parker, Jr.
Vice President, Steam Production
P. O. Box 2178
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
Subject: Health Physics Appraisal
During the period of September 8-19, 1980, NRC conducted a special appraisal of
the health physics program at the Oconee facility. This appraisal was performed
in lieu of certain routine inspections normally conducted in the area of health
physics.
Areas examined during this appraisa? are describeu in the enclosed
report (50-269/80-31, 50-270/80-27, and 50-287/80-24).
Within the areas, the
appraisal team reviewed selected procedures and representative records, observed
work practices, and interviewed personnel. It is recommended that you carefully
review the findings of this report for consideration in improving your health
physics program.
The appraisal conducted at the Oconee facility was part of the NRC's general
program to strengthen the health physics program at nuclear power plants. As a
first step in this effort, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement is conducting
these special appraisals of the health physics programs at all operating power
reactor sites.
These appraisals were previously identified to you in a letter
dated January 22, 1980, from Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director, NRC Office of
Inspection and Enforcement. One of the objectives of the health physics appraisals
is to evaluate the overall adequacy and ef fectiveness of the total health physics
program at each site and to identify areas of weakness that need to be strengthened.
We also intend to use the findings from these appraisals as a basis for improving
NRC requirements and guidance. Consequently, our appraisal encompassed certain
areas which may not be explicitly addressed by current NRC requirements. The
next step that is planned in this overall effort will be the imposition of a
requirement by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) that all licensees
develop, submit to the NRC for approval, and implement a Radiation Protection
Plan.
Each licensee will be expected to include in the Radiation Protection
Plan suf ficient measures to provide lasting corrective action for any significant
weaknesses identified during the special appraisals of the current health physics
program.
Guidance for the development of this plan will incorporate pertinent
findings from the special appraisals and will be issued for public comment prior
to the end of this calendar year.
8103.120 %
L-
,
.
,
.
Duke Power Company
-2-
JAN 2 01981
The findings of this appraisal at the Oconee facility indicate that, although
your overall health physics program is adequate for present operations, signi-
ficant weaknesses exist. These include the following:
a.
instrumentation used to monitor personnel for contamination does not have
the sensitivity necessary to assure that personnel are not exiting the
radiation control area contaminated above the station limit; and
b.
the safety evaluation performed to determine if the operation of the contami-
nated auxiliary boiler was acceptable did not include an assessment of the
consequences of potential release of radioactivity to the environment nor did
it include a comparison of such releases with the radioactive effluent limits
of 10 CFR 20 and the facility's Technical Specifications.
These findings are discussed in more detail in Appendix A, " Notice of Significant
Appraisal Findings". We recognize that regulatory requirements pertaining to
the significant weaknesses identified in Appendix A may not currently exist.
However, to assist us in determining whether adequate protection will be provided
for the health and safety of workers ar i the public, you are requested to submit
a written statement within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this letter
describing your corrective actioa for the significant weaknesses identified in
Appendix A, including:
(1) steps which have been taken; (2) steps which will be
'
taken; and (3) a schedule for completion of action. This request is made pursuant
to Section 50.54(f) of Part 50, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
The findings of this appraisal also indicate certain activities which apparently
were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as set forth in the
Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix B.
The items of noncompliance
in Appendix B have been categorized into the levels of severity as described in
our Criteria For Enforcement Action dated December 1,
1974. Section 2.201 of
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, requires you to submit to this
office, within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this notice, a written state-
ment or explanation in reply including:
(1) corrective steps which have been
[
j
taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken
'
to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance
wi).1 be achieved.
l
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 the enclosures
will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this material contains any
l
Information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a
i
written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information
from public disclosure. Any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit
i
executed by the owner of the information, which identifies the document or part
sought to be withheld, and which contains a statement of reasons which addresses
,
with specificity the items which will be considered by the Commission as listed
in Subparagraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790.
The information sought to be withheld
I
shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, this
,'
letter and the enclosures will be placed in the Public Document Room.
,
4
-,
-
,.
,
.-.s
,
,
- - . . - ,
s
7..____
-
.
._ .
_
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
_.
_
-- .
_-
-
.
~
r
.
.
,
I
1
-
Duke Power Company
-3-
JAN 2 01981
1
l
Should you have any questions concerning this appraisal, ve will be pleased to
. discuss them with you.
,.
't
Sincerely,
,
i
c
i
'
(L WLh
'-
mes P. O'Reilly
Di ector
J
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Significan
Findings
2.
Appendix B, Notice of Violation
'
3.
Office of Inspection-and Enforcement
Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/80-31,
50-270/80-27, and 50-287/80-24
l
cc w/ encl:
J.-E.
Smith, Station Manager
,
1
.
1'
.
1
i
t
d
- .
-
4
!
,
,
t
t
4:
y:
,
~
- , , , ,,
,,..a,--
- . - , -
+.n,
v.,,,.r,,
,,,,,,...,-nm
,,_c
,.-,_w.
. - . . , , .
,--~ne,---.~,
, - , - . - ,
-.,--....-c
,
..
.
4
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
Duke Power Company
Oconee Facility
and DPR-55
Based on the Health Physics Appraisal conducted September 8-19, 1980, the following
items appear to require corrective action:
A.
The instrumentation used for contamination monitoring of personnel does not
have the necessary sensitivity to assure that personnel exiting the radiation
controlled area are not contaminated above the station limit. The minimum
detectable contamination level for the RM-14 with pencil probe used for
contamination monitoring was approximately twice the station limit.
B.
The safety evaluation performed to determine if the operation of the contami-
nated auxiliary boiler was acceptable (i.e., does not involve an unreviewed
safety question or a change to Technical Specifications) did not. include
the following elements specified by IE Bulletin 80-10: (1) consideration of
levels of contamination, (2) an assessment of potential releases of radio-
(3) comparison of such releases with the
-activity to the environment, or
radioactive effluent limits of 10 CFR 20 and the facility's Technical
Specifications.
I
i
!
!-
i
r
_ _ - _ . _