ML20082U228
| ML20082U228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1983 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080C383 | List: |
| References | |
| 299A, 99A, EA-83-036, EA-83-36, NUDOCS 8312160277 | |
| Download: ML20082U228 (2) | |
Text
-
y..
)
I VIRGINIA ELzcTnIc Axn Pownn COMPANY Ricnwoxn,VraGINIA 20261 W. L. SrawAarr Vac. P...annwr win...o,.. mon.
June 15, 1983 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No. 299A Attn: Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director N0/WDC:acm Office of Inspection and Enforcement Docket Nos. 50- 280 Washington, D. C. 20555 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 Gentlemen:
This letter corrects our response to IE Inspection Report No. EA 83-36, Vepco letter dated June 3, 1983 (Serial No. 299).
On Page 3 in our Response to Example I under Section (2) a sentence was omitted.
The following sentence has been added as the third sentence of the paragraph: "Whole body counts stemming from terminations of transient workers, and other outage related requirements had disclosed no incidents of internal contamination." Also in our Response to Example 1 under Section (3) in the first sentence of the second paragraph the word " contaminated" has been deleted and replaced by the word "expoced".
A corrected Page 3 is attached.
Very truly yo
'f f
W. L. Stewart s
Attachment (MQJiaAIP70Reilly" ec:
Regional l.Administretorj dR_ogfon,11a,i]
Mr. D. J. Burke NRC Resident Inspector Surry Power Station
?*
8312160277 830723 PDR ADOCK 05000280
.O PDR._
(
>e Attachmant Pagn 3 RESPONSE to Example 1:
Serial No. 299 (1) ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION:
The violation is correct as stated for Example 1.
(2) REASONS FOR VIOLATION:
The need to obtain adequate air samples in the breathing zone of the workers stated in the example was not recognized due to the lack of f
appropriate procedural guidance for air sampling criteria. Additional-ly, respiratory protection policies in effect at the station were deemed conservative for the situations encountered. Whole body counts stemming from terminations of transient workers, and other outage related requirements had disclosed no incident of internal contamination. Thus, health physics personnel failed to obtain more representative air samples l
to verify that protection factors afforded to the workers were adequate.
l l
(3) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED:
l Health Physics Procedure HP-3.3.2, Health Physics Survey-Air Sampling, was revised and approved on April 7,
1983 to provide more detailed guidance for the evaluation of airborne radioactivity.
Health Physics Technicians were provided specific training on the revised procedure and were tested to ensure adequate understanding.
The revised procedure specifically directs technicians to assess airborne radioactivity at the workers breathing zone to ensure these measurements are suitable.
To confirm the adequacy of respiratory protection provided to workers during the Unit No. 1 outage, whole body counts were obtained of all potentially exposed personnel (770) and an evaluation was performed to l
determine if significant uptakes had occurred. This evaluation showed no evidence of such uptakes.
(4) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS:
Further review and evaluationwill be performed to improve the procedural guidance provided to technicians in the assessment of airborne radio-activity. Improvements will be investigated in the development of specific action points, quick assessment techniques and guidance on immediate follow-up actions.
(5) THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED:
Full compliance will be achieved by June-15, 1983.
Example 2.
Notwithstanding 10 CFR 10.201(a) and (b), the requirements to conduct surveys to ensure compliance were not met in the following instances:
a.
Beta radiation surveys performed by the licensee failed to identify the presence of significant beta radiation levels in Unit 1 containment.
b.
The evaluation performed prior to decontamination of six reactor coolant pump bolts on March 24, 1983, did-r.ot result.
in the placement of the whole' body TLD on the par:.~of the whole body that would receive the highest dose and did not result in the use of extremity monitoring.
L_