ML20062A082

Ack Receipt of in Response to 900606 Notice of Violation.Determined That Violation Involving Failure of PORC to Review Implementing Radiation Protection Procedures, Remain as Originally Cited

ML20062A082
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/02/1990
From:	Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Fernandez W POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
References
NUDOCS 9010190051
Download: ML20062A082 (4)

Text

- - -. .- . .

• ~

Sent by fax to Fernandez-

,, '.. 10/2/90 3:40 PM-

, . 3 W 0 2 1990 Docket No. 50-333 .;

i' New York Power Authority James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant i ATTN: Mr. William Fernandez j Resident Manager 1 P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 q

.i Gentlemen: ';

Subject:

RESPONSE.TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION >NO.: ]

50-333/90-17)

We have. reviewed your letter dated July 6,-1990, in response-to-the Notice of Violation sent to you with our letter-dated' June 16,. ,

1990. Our letter and Notice described violations identified-during the NRC inspection conducted during-the period of May 5- ,

11, 1990. Three apparent violations were identified during that '

inspection.

3 In your response to the Notice, you acknowledged:the first violation, which involved a failura to conduct routine surveys as specified in the Radiation Protection Manual.  :

Regarding the second violation, in your response you-stated'that you.do not agree with the violation. The violation-involved a failure of the Plant Operating Review Committee (PORC) to review l the implementing Radiation Protection. Procedures (RPPs) ase  !

required by Technical Specification 6.5.1(E). :You stated that~  ;

your position was that PORC review of the Radiation Protectiono i Manual is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Technical Specification 6.5.1(E).

i We have carefully reviewed your response'and have determined that the second violation should remain as originally cited. ~The Technical Specification requirements.are very specific regarding.

which procedures are required to.be reviewed by the PORC, and  :

these procedures include several RPPs'which had not been reviewed.

by the PORC. As noted in the inspection report (50-333/90-17).

the failure of requiring PORC approval' of'the implementing RPPs resulted in the implementing RPPs not being subject to the same i

administrative controls as other PORC approved procedures. The lack of administrative procedural control resultedfin a Notice;of ,

Violation being issued during the inspection. ,

If you are of the opinion that PORC approval of RPPs is not-necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements,.you may request a changa to your Technical Specification 2 Ab .. ,... or l g%,,. d. mB,u. D CCl*t w- .

9010190051 901002 ge) %o G Im PDR Q

ADOCK 05000333 PNV .,

h! W (**).

t 4/ .

d iOCT 0 g ^

l-New York Power Authority-2 requirements, but until such a change is approved,' Technical-Specification 6.5.l(E) is applicable to the RPPs specified-in

! Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1. 33, . November.1972.  !

Regarding the third violation, in your. response you stated that: ,

you agree with the violation.in that no frequency for .

surveillance of. personnel in high radiation. areas was specified L on the identified RWPs. However,.your response did not address .

the issue of allowing individuals.to enter-.High Radiation Areas ,

without adhering to one of the three options specified'in-Technical Specification 6.11(A). In a telephone' conversation-_.

between W. Pasciak, NRC, and G. Vargacof your staff, on: August 14, 1990, Mr. Varga' indicated'one of the.three options-specified in Technical Specification 6.11(A) would be followed for all-subsequent High Radiation Area entries, and in-particular, all entries made under the coverage of a Radiation Protection Technician would involve at least:an initial entry and accompaniment by the technician to-the work area'. If our ,

understanding of your intended actions is not correct, please i inform me of your intent in your response to the:following paragraph.

For the first and third violations, your immediate:-and long-term t corrective actions appear acceptable,_and full implementation ,

will be examined during.a future inspection. Regarding the second violation,'in accordance with the Appendix ~A Notice of Violation in the June 6, 1990-letter tofyou, you are required _to submit to this office within thirty days of the.date of this letter a written statement or explanation regarding the' apparent:

violation. Your response should include: '(1) the corrective- )

steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2)=

corrective steps which will be taken to. avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance-will'be achieved ~. :Where good cause is shown, consideration will'be;given to~ extending this response time.

The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and' Budget,.as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act=of 1980,-PL'96-511.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[

-Sincerely,

- ,) U

}' fl.LI

• fog Mal im . Knapp, Direc or-Division of. Radiation Safety and Safeguards it,K.7 m (' ]m_]'] g 4 l

,1;

~

. OCT O g L New York Power Authority '3-l I

i

)

L 1 1

cc:

J. Bayne, President-J. Brons, Executive.Vice President - Nuclear Generation.

A. Klausmann, Senior Vice President . Appraisal and' Compliance Services R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent G. Wilverding, Manager Nuclear Safety Evaluation '

G. Goldstein, Assistant ~ General Counsel R. Beedle, Vice President Nuclear. Support.

S. Zulla, Vice President Nuclear Engineering R. Burns, Vice President Nuclear Operations J. Gray, Director Nuclear' Licensing -.BWR.

Dept. of Public Service, State.of New York State of New-York, Department of. Law' a Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room:(LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information-Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector State of New York, SLO Designee .  ;

1 i

5 1

l l 1

en a h

-l

I

. . I

.i New York Power' Authority :4 'l 0$T0ggggg i

bec.

Region I Docket Room (w/ concurrences) _

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)- ,

t l

J. Joyner, DRSS J. Linville, DRP G. Meyer, DRP D. LaBarge, NRR K. Abraham, PAO J. Caldwell, EDO  ;

l

't i

l t

Y$'7 b l' Iff W '

RI:DRSS RItDRES I:D ' RI:DRSS M f/ (9/ b /d /90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RL NYPA 90-17' l

t i

P T

y -

James A.MePettlek

..J L8 Nuoiser Power Mont 1

P.O. Boa 41 l Lycoming. New York 13003 -

316 342 3040-

.i

$ l William Femandez 11 Resident Manager -

July 6, 1990 ]

JAFP-90-0517 r

L U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK SUILTECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION -

INSPECTION NO. 90-17 (DOCKET 50-333)'

Reference:

1. USNRC Letter Dated June;11, 1990' '

Inspection' Report 50-333/90-17'

Subject:

Enclosure Response to Notice:of'V'iolation-Gentlement In accordance with the providions of 10 CFR 2.201, the~ Authority-is submitting our response- to Annandix A Notica: of Violation j transmitted by your letter (Reference 1)', - dated : June ;11, 1990.-

This refers to the routine unannounced radiological- controls '(

inspection conducted by Mr. Peter O'Connell between May45;to-11,. -

1990 at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear. Power Plant. 4 I 3 very tr y yours, I 1

1

/

A IL IAM FER)* RZ WF/GJV ^

enclosure cc: R. Beedle, WPO J. Ellmera , _ . .

J. Brons, WPO s

Re 'R. 'Bellamy,Z NRC. Region I-DRSSir R. Liseno Document Control Center-'

G. Vargo WPO Records Management- 1 NRC Sr. Resident Inspector - JAF l l CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

. y

. . . ...1. - 1 ENCLOSURE 2 1.- I NOTICE OF VIOLATION; f

As a= result,of the. inspection conducted on.May 7 to 11, 1990 and' accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,(10 CFR 2,-Appendix!

C), the following violations were identified.

A. Technical Specification 6'.11, Radiation Protection' Program, states, in part,z that " Procedures for personnel' radiation ~

protection operations."

shall'be' prepared.and adhered:to-'for all: plant' '

)

Chapter 15 of the Radiation Protection Manual,1" Radiological j 3

Surveys", requires, in part, in secticn-15.4.9,xthat , .-,  ;

" Radiation and contamination checks!of high-occupancy areas:

such as offices, lunchrooms'and locker rooms:.are also ;j performed weekly." i Contrary to the-above high occupancy areas,s,uch radiation and' contamination as offices, t

lunchrooms and _checksiof. locker

• j 1

rooms.had not been performed-weekly from April 3,E1990 to May 7,'1990.  !'

4 -;

This is a Severity Level IVfViolationE(Supplement'IV)T 1

i l

I B. ,

Technical Specification 6.5.1 (E),-Plant Operating Reviewc 1 Committee (PORC) es onsibilities, requires PORC to review '

plant procedurek, and changes thereto,trequiredlby Technical Specification t.8, ,

Technical Specification-6.8,- Procedures,Lrequires,;in part, .j that written procedures'and administrative policies shall be '

established and maintained _that meet or exceed ithe-requirements and recommendations of' Appendix'A.of Regulatory 1

Guide 1.33, November 1972. '

Appendix A of Regulatory' Guide 1.33,'Novembers1972' ,

requires, in part, that the following are' typical safety-related procedures activities which should betcovered by written ~

Restrictions and Activities:in Radiation Areas 1 and High Radiation Areas, Respirator Equipment,l Surveys.andL >

Monitoring, Protective-Clothing, and Radiation' Work: Permit; Procedure. :i 2

Contrary to the above, as of May 11, 1990, PORC'had not. 2 reviewed Radiation-Protection Procedures, including-RPP-4, -

Radiation: Work Permit Procedure, RPP-5,: Plant Radiological Surveillance Program, and RPP-9,. Radiological Survey:

j '

Techniques.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation. (Supplement IV) 1 i

y - ,,-, -w-.-- -.,7 . , - , <, . . ~ ,o.+,~e..,. .##%u-.-2

o!

.......=.

., z.

C. Technical Specification 6.11 (A),'High Radiation Area (HRA),

requires, in part, that any individual or group of i

individuals permitted to enter a ERA shall be provided or l accompanied by either a continuously indicating radiation 1 monitoring. device, an integrating alarming dosimeter, or an- 1 individual qualified in radiation protection procedures who  !

is equipped with a radiation dose rate monitoring device who i performs periodic radiation surveillance at the frequency specified -in the Radiation Work Permit (RWP) . . j contrary.to the above, individuals, working under the- 1 control of:the various RWPs including Regular RWP 90-3169- .1 dated May 5, - 1990, Regular RWP 90-3168. dated May 5, 1990,-

Regular RWP 90-3217 dated May 7, 1990 and Continuing RWP 90-0387, entered into HRAs without being provided or .

accompanied by one of the three options specified in Technical Specification 6.111(A). In. addition, the above referenced RWPs did not specify frequencies for periodic j surveillance of the area.-

This is a Severity Level.IV Violation.- (Supplement:IV)

RESPONSE +

A. The Authority agrees with the' violation. o l

This violation resulted from.the proper' temporary-suspension- [

of portions of the-radiological surveillance program delineated in procedure RPP-5,' " Plant. Radiological Surveillance Program"~without: performing the necessary-concurrent temporary change tobthe Radiation. Protection Manual which requires. review by PORC. The temporary )

J susransion to the procedure was made with the concurrence. of -

bot s the department . superintendent ; and = Resident: Manager.

The suspension was made as a' result of a' shortage of. '

qualified radiation-protection; personnel during the early.

par: of the refueling outage.

q The corrective action for this violation was a reinstatement of ':he suspended surveillances?on May, 7,E1990. ~ Full. N compliance was achieved at that-time. H The interface betweenLthe Radiation Protection Manual' i (RPM) and implementing proceduresKis somewhat .

l confusing; that is, many details, overlap which can result in similar violations.. To correct'this situation, a review of the RPM and implementing procedures will'be performed.to reduce the overlap and:

thus clarify PORC review requirements by July 1991. ,

l 4 J

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -~ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

• ~

c.:

.. o B. The Authority does not agres-with this violation. .,

The Radiation Protection Manual, the governing document that establishes radiation protection policies and requirements, is reviewed by PORC. Implementing procedures that address the Radiation Protection Manual's requirements are prepared' and issued without PORC review. Separate procedures govern l the review and approvalaof these implementing procedures.-

l The concept of a Radiation Protection Manual-was-identified by the Authority in 1983 as a programmatic upgrade. Work on this document progressed through 1985,c' q and the existing Radiation: Protection Manual was 1 implemented on January 1, 1986.- The former " Radiation Protection Procedure", the single procedure that =i contained all radiological protection requirements,'was withdrawn-at that time in favor of separate detailed 'i implementing procedures.'This upgrade received-numerous reviews implementation.

during its preparation and following ite j

}

;{

1 During an appraisal of the radiological program at-j 4

FitzPatrick (Inspection Report 50-333/87-18), the Radiation; Protection Manual was cited as a programmatic strength.

The A'athority believes thatLPORCJreview of the:

Radiation Protection Manual meets the, requirements of 'l '

Technical Specification'6.5.1 and.6.8. I T

The practice of requiring PORC reviewcfor program.or administrative documents and not requiring a similar review of detailed implementing procedures'at FitzPatrick_has been reviewed previously by the NRC and;found1to be acceptable.

L

' Examples of this include engineering,Jweldingland non-destructive examination procedures..

C. The Authority agrees with the violation, in:that no' frequency was specified-on the-identified RWPs -however,JRES_ i technicians were assigned to provide radiological oversight of the individual work tasks. ,

i This violation was caused by a weakness =in th's Radiation Work Permit (RWP) Procedure'which did not' explicitly /requiro-that a monitoring frequency be(stated _on all:RWPs. RWPs at' .

FitzPatrick are generated from area surveys. performed i shortly before work commencement and require a pre-job meeting between Radiation Protection personnel and the-leadman for the job. Of the cited RWP. examples, RWP-90-3169 <

was for 1 3/4 hours of. work in the Torus Room; and a"RES technician provided-a follow-up inspection about half way through the job. RWP-90-3168 was'for 30 minutes of work in the clean-up hold Pump Room. RWP-90-3217 was for' work on the Drywell entrance mezzanine for about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in the

-- . . . . . , . - . _ . - . _ . . _ , . ,..& 4

+

3, 1 .... .. M ,

3 i c'.  ;

3, '

.; 3

.o* 1 morning and'3' hours in the afternoon. A1RES: technician-

' provided coverage all morning and about 1/2 hour in the. l afternoon. Continuing RWP 90-0387 was for'the removal of' ;f several large actors from'the: Crescent area over a period-of-many. days. -A RES technician provided radiological coverage i

'I for.the job and radiological surveys were performed daily.. to.-

verify conditions.

I

( v1 The short-term corrective action was a re-instatement- J p

of the high radiation: area (HRA) monitoring requirement i

.and a temporary revision =to the RWP= Procedure to l.

require that all"HRA RWPsrcontain~a'specified ~'

monitoring-frequency or require the use of alarming' '

L'- dosimetry or a dose-rate monitoring' instrument. Full.

compliance was achieved on May 7, 1990 when this .,

temporary revision was made.

The long term correctiveLaction for this event (high radiation area monitoring specified on RWPs) willebe .!

incorporated into the Authority's- planned upgrade of the:. j L FitzPatrick RWP program that is scheduled for completion by' i

December 31, 1990. M t

<r l  :

.a

[i 4

a

f I -'

s 't t  :

l'  !

4 if j

1 1

.1

-v l

l.

7 l

4 l r E

- ,~ ?