ML20080H108
| ML20080H108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1984 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080H099 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402140104 | |
| Download: ML20080H108 (3) | |
Text
,- -
c TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 4
CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ot 400 Chestnut Street Tower II January 23, 1984 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Feilly:
i Enclosed is our response to your December 30, 1983 letter to H. G. Parris requesting a supplemental response to our December 20, 1983 response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-259/83-44, -260/83-44,
-296/83-44 for our Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. We inadvertently submitted this information to you on January 20, 1984 under the l
i title of Inspection Report Nos. 50-259/83-33 If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 858-2725.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained herein are complete and true.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
. M. Mills, Planager Nuclear Licensing l
Enclosure-i 8402140104 840203 PDR ADDCK 05000259 G
PDR l
l An Equal Opportunity Employer
I u
s SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-259/83-44, 50-260/83-44, AND 50-296/83-44 JAMES P. O'REILLY'S LETTER TO H. G. PARRIS j
DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1983 3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved A.
Review of Dose Records A review of dose records for all Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant employees was conducted. No other employees were found to have exceeded any dose limits.
i l
B.
Software Modifications The Monthly Close Program was modified so that the correct month ending date is assigned to each TLD badge. This change would have.
prevented the 563 mrom assigned to Mr. Kitchens' August TLD badge, number 81426, from being rejected from his H,PDT dose file.
The TLD Update Reject Report.was. changed to list entries in descending order by dose so that the largest non-zero TLD dose rejected would appear first on the list. This change effectively segregates all non-zero entries, which are most important and require immediate corrective action, from the zero entries which do not.
A software change was made that allowed a TLD update record on the REMS TLD file to be marked as processed so it would not appear on the TLD reject report if the identified update has already been made on HPDT. All fields, i.e., badge number, TLD dose, social security number, and end date (month and year), had to match exactly. This change removed all entries from the reject report that had been resolved in order to reduce the possibility of personnel error in deciding which entries needed to be corrected.
Starting January' 31,1984, a comparison of HPDT and REMS dose files will be made on a quarterly basis. In addition, REMS and HPDT TLD dose files will be compared on a monthly basis by clearing up the TLD Reject and Outstanding TLD Reports and double verification of special pull data. Corrections to HPDT will be documented and double verified.
C.
Administrative Procedures and Controls Health Physics dosimetry data processing procedure HP DSIL-4 was revised to clearly indicate the roles and responsibilities of plant
. personnel involved in clearing up the 'TLD Reject Report.. The
~
Lprocedure requires that all health' physics personnel be notified of.
those individuals Who have incomplete dose files for the previous.
month:and are restricted access to~ radiologically controlled areas (plant regulated areas or high. radiation areas at the discretion ~of
e the plant health physics supervisor). Anyone listed on the report
.c with non-zero TLD dose after three working days will be restricted from all plant regulated areas until their dose files are completed. All corrections to.HPDT dose files will be documented on the report with the initials of. the data processor responsible for the change. The report will be maintained as a quality assurance record.
D.
Training The importance of the TLD Update Reject Report was discussed with all cognizant BFNP Health Physics dosimetry personnel.
Seminars were held for BFNP Health Physics personnel to discuss current dosimetry requirements.
I e
- h r
_4 sog4 7
'-d W
3
,; '(