ML20155D056
| ML20155D056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155D025 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-98-17, NUDOCS 9811030096 | |
| Download: ML20155D056 (17) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1998017
Text
. -.. _
._
__.
.
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _
- _ . _
__
__ _
__
..
_ . -
- -
l
l'
ENCLOSURE 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.:
50-382
l
License No.:
Report No.:
50-382/98-17
Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
Location:
Hwy.18
Killona, Louisiana
. Dates:
October 5-8,1998
,
Inspector (s):
J. Blair Nicholas, Ph.D., Senior Radiation Specialist
Plant Support Branch
Michael P. Shannon, Senior Radiation Specialist
Plant Support Branch
Approved By:
Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Attachment:
SupplementalInformation
.
9811030096 981029
ADOCK 05000382
G
,
,
_
. _ . . -
_
.
_
_
.
-2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
NRC Inspection Report 50-382/98-17
This announced, routine inspection reviewed radiation protection program activities. Areas
reviewed included: exposure controls, controls of radioactive material and contamination,
surveying and monitoring, the program to maintain occupational exposure as low as is
reasonably achievatle (ALARA), radiation protection staff continuing training program, and
quality assurance in radiation protection activities.
Plant Suocort
The external exposure control program was effectively implemented. Radiation areas
and high radiat on areas were properly posted and controlled. Visual aids used to
identify ALARA low dose waiting areas and radiological hot spots were program
enhancements. Radiation work permits were clearly written. Proper dosimetry was
worn by radiation workers. A good pre-job briefing for the removal of the chemical and
volume control system filter was conducted. Housekeeping throughout the controlled
access area was good (Section R1.1).
An effective internal exposure program was in place. Respiratory equipment was
properly stored and issued to qualified personnel. A proper air sampling program was
implemented (Section R1.2).
Radioactive material, laundry, and trash containers were properly labeled, posted, and
controlled. An effective portable radiation survey instrument program, including the
calibration and source response checks of instrumentation, was maintained
(Section R1.3).
A violation of 10 CFP 20.1501(a) was identified for the failure to survey an overhead
work area prior to wo kers entering the area. The general work area dose rate was
20-22 millirems per hour (Section R1.3).
An effective ALARA program was implemented. The 1998 exposure goal of
13 person-rem was aggressive. The station's 3-year exposure average of
109 person-rem for 1997 was below the industry average of 132 person-rem and
continued to trend downward. The projected 3-year exposure average for 1998 is 62
person-rem. However, the ALARA committee was not fully supported by the training,
instrument and controls, and system engineering departments. The lack of total station
support for the ALARA committee had been previously identified in Inspection Report
382/98-04. The hot spot reduction program was effectively monitored; however,
involving departments other than radiation protection could enhance the program
(Section R1.4).
A good radiation protection department training program was implemented. Lesson
plans were comprehensive and included site and industry lessons learned. The
-
._
_ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . .
_ _ _ _ . _ . _
_ _ _ _ _
-3-
radiation protection department was appropriately involved in developing the training
topics to help ensure that the practical and technical competence of the staff was
maintained. Facilitated training critiques were a strength to the training assessment
program. The two health physics technical training instructors had extensive technical
l
and practical radiation protection experience and were qualified for their positions
l
(Section RS.1).
l
The new radiation protection superintendent (manager) satisfied the Technical
e
Specification qualification requirements for his position (Section R5.2).
An effective quality assurance audit, quality assurance surveillances, and radiation
=
l
protection department self-assessment were completed. Timely, effective corrective
!
actions were implemented in response to audit findings. No negative trends were
identified during the review of radiological condition reports written since January 1998
(Section R7.1).
A violation of Technical Specification 6.2.2(e) was identified for the failure to limit the
l
l
nours worked by an acting health physics supervisor to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period. The
l
acting health physics supervisor had worked 82 hours9.490741e-4 days <br />0.0228 hours <br />1.35582e-4 weeks <br />3.1201e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period. This is similar
l
to a violation identified in inspection Report 382/97-04 (Section R8.1).
j
'
l
i
l
!
l
1
l
j
i
j
'
1
l
i
t
l
-.
..
.
.
..
- - . .
.
.-
-
,
.
.
. -
--
_- - - - - . - - .
.
P
-4-
ReDort Details
1
Summarv of Plant Status
The plant operated at full power during the inspection.
IV. Plant SUDDort
R1
Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls
R1.1
External Exoosure Controls
a.
Inspection Scope (83750)
Selected radiation workers and radiation protection personnel involved in the external
exposure control program were interviewed. A number of tours of the controlled access
area was performed. The following items were reviewed:
Controlled access area controls
Control of high radiation areas
Radiation work permits
Personnel dosimetry
Housekeeping in the controlled access area
b.
Observations and Findinas
I
The inspectors observed activities at the controlled access area entry / exit control point
and noted that station workers used the personnel contamination monitoring and
computerized log-in/out equipment properly. Radiation protection personnel present in
this area provided timely response and direction to station workers who alarmed the
personnel contamination monitors or needed assistance using the computerized
log-in/out equipment.
During tours of the controlled access area, the inspectors observed that high radiation
areas were properly controlled and posted. All Technical Specification required locked
j
high radiation area doors were locked and posted, and flashing lights operated properly
'
and were used where appropriate. Radiological postings and survey maps dis, played at
the entry to the rooms specified radiological conditions within the room. All radiological
postings were clearly and conspicuously posted. However, the inspectors observed that
there were no radiological postings which would indicate the general area dose rates
,
and contamination levels in the hallways. This observation was discussed with the
licensee during the exit meeting. The radiation protection superintendent agreed to
,
!
review and evaluate the inspectors' observation.
L
ALARA low dose waiting areas throughout the plant were clearly identified with bright
green signs and a green light that were activated by motion detectors. Hot spot
d
!
t
_
-.
-
. - .
- - . -
- - - _ . - . - . - - _ - - - . - -
- - - - _ .-_.- -
_. -
.-
.
.
-5-
,
identification was enhanced by amber lights activated by motion detectors. These visual
aids were considered a program enhancement.
Radiation work permits (RWPs) were clearly written. The RWPs were subdivided into
specific tasks that helped workers to clearly understand the radiological controls and
monitoring required for each task.
All radiation workers observed wore their dosimetry properly. Radiation protection job
coverage was appropriate for radiological work observed.
The inspectors attended a pre-job ALARA briefing for the removal of the chemical and
volume control system filter. The briefing was conducted in an effective manner by a
health physics supervisor, who was assisted by the ALARA coordinator. The briefing
provided the workers with radiological conditions in the work area, the expected
radioicqical conditions while the filter was being removed from the system, stop work
radiatior, levels, and RWP requirements. However, the inspectors noted that copies of
radiatior survey maps and the RWP were not distributed or displayed to the workers so
that they could actually follow along and review them during the briefing. A video of a
previously performed chemical and volume control system filter changeout was shown
to illustrate and discuss lessons learned. A mockup of an improved rope and clip
arrangement to be attached to the top of the filter for filter removal was demonstrated by
the ALARA coordinator as an improvement from a previously encountered problem.
However, the inspectors noted that the mechanics assigned to perform the filter removal
were not given an opportunity to practice using the mockup prior to performing the job.
This item was discussed with the licensee during the exit meeting, and radiation
protection department management acknowledged that the inspectors' observation
would be given cooWeration during future briefings.
The inspectors observed that housekeeping throughout the controlled access area was
good.
c.
Conclusions
The external exposure control program was effectively implemented. Radiation
'
protection personnel at the controlled access area entry / exit control point provided
.
timely response and direction to station workers who alarmed the personnel
j
contamination monitor or needed assistance using the computerized log-in/out
'
equipment. Radiation areas and high radiation areas were properly posted and
controlled. Visual aids used to identify ALARA low dose waiting areas and radiological
hot spots were program enhancements. Radiation work permits were clearly written.
Proper dosimetry was worn by radiation workers. A good pre-job briefing was
conducted. Housekeeping throughout the controlled access area was good.
l
.
I
-
-- -
.-.
-
- .
-
-
.
.
--
.
-
-. _ -
(
. - ,
. ._
.- -
_ -.-
. . -
.. --
- - - -
- - - - - ---
..
l
'
.
-6
,
l
!
R1.2 Internal Exposure Controls
a.
Inspection Scope (83750)
L
Selected radiation protection personnel involved with the internal exposure control
- program were interviewed. The following items were reviewed:
Respiratory protection program
Continuous air sampling
Portable air sampling
,
!-
b.
Observations and Findinas
l
\\
l
The inspectors noted that respiratory equipment was properly stored. Only two
l
full-faced, negative-pressure respirators were issued for radiological work during 1998.
,
l
From a review of the respirator issue log, the inspectors determined that respirators
were only issued to qualified individuals. Additionally, proper total effective dose
!
equivalent /as low as is reasonably achievable (TEDE/ALARA) evaluations were
completed to justify respiratory use.
l
l
Continuous air monitors and portable air samplers used for job coverage were properly
'
placed to evaluate airborne radiological conditions during work evolutions. Air sampling
,
was implemented properly.
'
L
c.
Conclusions
An effective internal exposure program was in place. Respiratory equipment was
properly stored and issued to qualified personnel. Air sampling was effectively
. implemented.
,
!
R1.3 Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination: Surveyino and Monitorina
1.
a.
Inspection Scope (83750)
I
,
Areas reviewed included:
Control of radioactive material
l
Portable instrumentation calibration and performance checking programs
=
Adequacy of the surveys necessary to assess personnel exposure
b.
Observations and Findinas
i
I
l'
During tours of the controlled access area, the inspectors noted that all radioactive
i
' material containers were properly labeled, posted, and controlled. All laundry and trash
containers were pronerly maintained. Contaminated areas were appropriately posted
and clearly identified. Independent radiological survey measurements performed during
' the tours of the controlled access area confirmed that area radiological postings
,
1.
l
l .T
-
!
'
..
_ _ . - . _ _
_
_ ___._ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ ___ _ _.-._
.
.
-7-
reflected general radiological conditions in the rooms and were in compliance with
regulatory requirements.
The inspectors reviewed the portable radiation survey instrument program, including the.
calibration and source response checks of instrumentation. Allinstrumentation
observed in use in the controlled access area was properly calibrated, and source
response checked in accordance with station procedures.
During a tour of the controlled assess area on October 5,1998, the inspectors noted
that a scaffolding platform had been erected in the "A" shutdown cooling heat exchanger
room. The inspectors determined that the scaffolding was erected on September 9,
1998. On September 10 and September 24,1998, operations personnel used the
scaffolding platform to perform filling and venting of the chemical volume control system.
Radiation surveys of an overhead work area were not performed and documented prior
to operations personnel entering the area. At the request of the inspectors on October
6,1998, the licensee performed a rediation survey of the overhead work area. The
survey indicated that dose rates on the scaffolding platform were as high as 36 millirems
per hour on contact and 20-22 millirems per hour general area.10 CFR 20.1501(a)
requires each licensee make or cause to be made, surveys that may be necessary for
,
the licensee to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and are reasonable under
the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation levels, concentration or quantities
of radioactive material, and the potential radiological hazards that could be present.10 CFR 20.1003 defines a survey as a means of evaluation of the radiological conditions
and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or
presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. The failure to perform
surveys that were necessary to determine and evaluate the radiation levels and potential
radiological hazards that could be present in the overhead work area is a violation of 10 CFR 20.1501(a) (358/9817-01).
l
On October 7,1998, the licensee documented this issue in Condition Report
l
CR WF31998-1314. Corrective actions documented in CR-WF3-1998-1314 were (1) a
'
cc-mail (e-mail) messages were distributed to all radiation protection personnel on
October 20 and 21,1998, reinforcing the expectations for performing and documenting
overhead and scaffolding surveys, and (2) a training request (TR-980642) was
!
submitted on October 16,1998, to provide guidance in Radiation Worker Training on the
need to ensure that a health physics scaffold tag is in place prior to using the
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's immediate and proposed long-term corrective
actions pertaining to this event and determined that, if implemented, they will likely
prevent a similar occurrence. The inspectors determined that the licensee's corrective
actions were appropriate to address this issue.
t-
I
l'
l
l
.
. , ,
-
.,
--
-
_
.
-
- - -
..
..-
-.
. - . - - .
-_- . -
-.
. .
-- ~
...-
-
,
'
f
l
t
!
'
!
-
-a.
c.
Conclusions
Radioactive material, laundry, and trash containers were properly labeled, posted, and
l
controlled. An effective portable radiation survey instrument program, including the
!
calibration and source response checks of instrumentation was maintained. A violation
'
l
was identified for the failure to survey an overhead work area prior to workers entering
the area.
R1.4 Maintainina Occuoational Exposure As Low As is Reasonabiv Achievable (ALARA)
a.
Inspection Scoce (83750)
j
Radiation protection personnelinvolved with the ALARA program were interviewed. The
j
following areas were reviewed:
l
l
Exposure goal establishment and status
l
Hot spot reduction program
)
ALARA suggestion program
!
!
i
'
l
b.
Observations and Findinas
l
l
The inspectors determined that the 1998 normal operation exposure goal of
l
13 person-rem was aggressive and established using the station's best past
l
performance. Additionally, the exposure goal was t'eing properly tracked and trended
l~
monthly by the ALARA coordinator. Exposure status was distributed to, and monitored
j-
by, station departments. The inspectors noted that the station's 3-year exposure
average of 109 person-rem for 1997 was below the industry average of 132 person-rem
t
l
and continued to trend downward. The station's projected 3-year exposure average for
'
1998 is 62 person-rem.
ALARA committee meeting minutes for the four meetings conducted since January 1,
1998, were reviewed. The inspectors noted that the meetings were conducted at the
!
suggested frequency. However, training, instrument and controls, and system
engineering departments had attended only 50 percent of the meetings. The lack of
l
total station support for the ALARA committee was previously identified in inspection
Report 382/98 04. The inspectors commented that total station support was needed to
maintain a successful ALARA program. The licensee acknowl"dged the inspectors'
comment.
Since January 1,1998,12 ALARA suggestions were submitted. All ALARA suggestions
were properly tracked and evaluated. As of October 1,1998, six of the ALARA
suggestions were closed, and five of the six were implemented.
Eighteen hot spots were located throughout the controlled access area. Hot spots were
properly updated, tracked, and trended by the ALARA coordinator. However, a priority
for eliminating hot spots had not been established. Additionally, the amount of
i
contributing dose to station personnel from these hot spots was not known. The
inspectors commented that this information was important to determine the need to
l
.
.-
.
..
-
.
.
-.
.g.
eliminate any of the hot spots. The inspectors observed that the hot spot reduction
program was the sole responsibility of the ALARA coordinator. The inspectors
commented that involving other departments, such as oparations, in the removal of hot
spots had proven to be successfulin reducing hot spots at other nuclear power facilities.
The licensee acknow! edged the inspectors' comment.
c.
Conclusions
An effective ALARA program was implemented. The 1998 exposure goal of
13 person-rem was aggressive. The station's 3-year exposure average of
109 person-rem for 1997 was below the industry average of 132 person-rem and
continued to trend downward. The projected 3-year exposure average for 1998 is 62
person-rem. The ALARA committee was not fully supported by the training, instrument
and controls, and system engineering departments. The lack of total station support for
the ALARA committee had been previously identified in Inspection Report 382/98-04.
,
The ALARA coordinator had properly tracked and evaluated the ALARA suggestions
submitted in 1998. The hot spot reduction program was effectively monitored; however,
involving departments other than radiation protection could enhance the program.
R5
Staff Training and Qualification
RS.1
Radiation Protection Staff Trainina
a.
Inspection Scoce (83750)
Personnel involved with radiation protection training were interviewed. The following
items were reviewed:
Radiation protection department training program
Radiation protection instructor qualifications
a
.
b.
Obsen ations and Findinas
The radiation protection department's training program included appropriate topics to
ensure that the radiation protection staff maintained practical and tec inical competence.
The training schedule showed that training was provided to the radiation protection staff
d riag two 5-week cycles scheduled during the year. The radiation protection training
review group meeting minutes revealed that training requests were reviewed and
evaluated. The inspectors noted that the membership of the radiation protection training
review group included appropriate radiation protection management and staff who were
involved in developing the training topics. Lesson plans were comprehensive and
l
included site and industry lessons learned.
Facilitated training critiques submitted by radiation protection personnel following
training presentations provided the training staff with critical feedback of training course
material. The inspectors considered these critiques a strength to the training program.
i
I
l
___ _.
. . _ .
_ _ -.___ _ _ _ _ _
_ . - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
l
-10-
'
l
Through interviews and a review of the two training department health physics
instructors' resumes, the inspectors determined that both instructors had strong
technical and operational radiation protection backgrounds, including a number of years
of applied radiation protection experience. Both instructors were registered by the
National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists. The inspectors determined that
both individuala were qualified for their positions. Additionally, to maintain technical
competence and remain current with station procedures and radiation protection
practices, the two training department instructors worked for the radiation protection
'
staff during outages. However, the inspectors noted that the training instructors did not
follow up their training presentations by going into the plant to evaluate the training
effectiveness. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' observation.
c.
Conclusions
l
l
A good radiation protection department continuing training program was implemented.
'
Lesson plans were comprehensive and included site and industry lessons learned. The
radiation protection department was appropriately involved in developing the continuing
training topics to help ensure that the practical and technical competence of the staff
was maintained. Facilitated training critiques were a strength to the training program.
l
The two training department health physics instructors had extensive technical and
l
applied radiation protection experience and were qualified for their positions.
l
R5.2 Radiation Protection Staff Qualifications
'
a.
Inspection Scope (83750)
l
l
The inspectors reviewed the qualifications of the new radiation protection
l
superintendent.
b.
Observations and Findinas
i
Due to a recent staff change, a new individual was designated to fill the radiation
protection superintendent position. Technical Specification 6.3.1.b requires that the
individual filling the position of radiation protection superintendent (manager) meet or
exceed the qualifications of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975. From a
review of the new radiation protection superintendent's resume, the inspectors
determined that this individual satisfied the requirements of USNRC Regulatory
Guide 1.8, September 1975.
I
l
c.
Conclusions
el
The new radiation protection superintendent (manager) satisfied the requirements of
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975.
,
I
!
i
_.
.. _ _ _ _ ,
._
__
_
,
. . . . - -
-
, _ _ . . -
-
.- -
- - - --.- . - _- _-
- - -
-._ - . - .
.
_ .
-
.
.
'
-11 -
R7
Quality Assurance in Radiological Protection and Chemistry Activities
R7.1
Quality Assurance Audits and Surveillances, and Radiation Deoartment
Self Assessments and Radioloaical Condition Reports
I
a.
Inspection Scope (83750)
Selected personnel involved with the performance of quality assurance audits, quality
assurance serveillances, and radiation protection department self-assessments were
'
interviewed. The following items were reviewed:
,
,
Quality assurance audit performed since January 1,1998
Quality assurance surveillances performed since January 1,1998
Radiation protection department self-assessment performed since
1
January 1,1998
I
Radiological condition reports written since January 1,1998
b.
Observations and Findinas
.
Quality Assurance Audit and Surveillance Reports
The two primary quality assurance auditors involved in the oversight of the radiation
protection program had a number of years of practical radiation protection experience,
and one of the auditors was registered by the National Registry of Radiation Protection
l
Technologists. The inspectors determined that the quality assurance auditors assigned
to assess the radiation protection program were properly qualified.
One audit (SA-98-014.1) was performed since the last inspection of this area in March
l
1998. The audit evaluated the effectiveness of the radiological respiratory protection
and contamination control programs. No problems were noted during the review of the
audit plan and checklist used to perform the audit. The audit identified four findings and
two recommendations. The findings were properly documented in condition reports.
Timely, effective corrective actions were implemented in response to audit findings. The
inspectors determined that the auditors who conducted the audit were also involved in
reviewing the closure of the findings.
Six operational radiation protection quality assurance surveillances were completed.
One of these surveillances reviewed the requirements of a radiation work permit for
containment power entry, two were involved with radiation protection activities
associated with the spent resin spill recovery, and the other three surveillances involved
walkdowns of various areas within the plant. Observations in the radiation protection
program areas were corrected in a timely manner.
!
,
_
__ ,
_.
.
.
.
.
_ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . _
_ _ -._.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .
. _ _
_ ._
_ _ . . _
.
.
-12-
The quality assurance audit and surveillances provided management with good
assessments of the radiation protection program areas reviewed.
Department Self-Assessments
One radiation protection department self-assessment was performed since January
1998. The self-assessment was conducted in February 1998 and reviewed the
effectiveness of radiological postings and tagging / labeling of radioactive material. The
inspectors noted that this self-assessment was performed by two technical specialists
fror., other Entergy nuclear power facilities. Thirty observations were identified during
the assessment. Many of the observations were corrected immediately during the
assessment. The inspectors determined that the self-assessment provided
management with a good evaluation of the radiation protection program areas reviewed.
!
Radioloaical Condition Reports
The inspectors reviewed selected radiological condition reports written since January 1,
1998. The review revealed that the licensee identified items at the proper threshold to
provide management with a good overview of radiological program areas. Corrective
actions to prevent a recurrence appeared to be effective to resolve the problem
addressed in the condition report and, in general, condition reports were closed in a
timely manner. The inspectors identified no negative trends during this review.
I
c.
Conclusions
A good quality assurance audit program was maintained. One audit and six operational
radiation protection quality assurance surveillances were completed since January 1998
and provided management with a good assessment of the areas reviewed. The
department self-assessment provided management with an effective assessment of the
program areas reviewed. Timely, effective correcti'.+ actions were implemented in
response to audit findings. No negative trends were identified during the review of
radiological condition reports written since January 1998.
R8
Miscellaneous Radiological Protection and Chemistry issues
i
!
R8.1
On October 7,19s3, the inspectors reviewed the time sheets for the radiation protection
personnelinvolved with the spent fuel pool re-rack job. Tte review of hours worked by
an acting health physics supervisor revealed that between August 24 and September 5,
1998, the individual worked 82 hours9.490741e-4 days <br />0.0228 hours <br />1.35582e-4 weeks <br />3.1201e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period. Technical Specification 6.2.2(e)
requires, in part, that administrative procedures be developed and implemented to limit
the working hours of individuals of the nuclear plant operating staff. Section 5.1.1 of
Procedure UNT-005-005, " Working Hour Policy for Nuclear Safety-Related Work,"
Revision 5, states, in part, working hours policies are listed below and are applicable for
members of the Waterford-3 plant staff. This includes, but not limited to, health physics
technicians and their supervisors. Section 5.1.1.1 of this procedure states, in part, an
i
individual shall not work more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period. The f ailure to limit the
hours worked by an acting health physics supervisor in a 7-day period is a violation of
.
l
_
,
_-
-
.
__
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-13-
Technical Specification 6.2.2(e) (382/9817-02). This violation is similar to a violation
cited in inspection Report 382/97-04 which identified numerous examples of the failure
to comply with the Technical Specification requirements for use of overtime.
Specifically, six individuals exceeded 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period.
On October 7,1998, the licensee issued Condition Report CR-WF319981309 in
response to violation 382/9817-02. Corrective actions address,ed in
CR WF31998-1309 included: (1) the individual violating the work hour policy was
counseled, and (2) the condition report and the details of the work hour policy will be
discussed with radiation protection personnel at the monthly training session on October
16,1998. During the review of the condition report, the inspectors determined that the
j
above corrective actions were narrowly focused on the radiation protection department
and did not address the potential process control / management oversight problems in
light of a previous identified violation.
)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions in response to violation
'
50-382/9704-01. The corrective actions included the following: (1) briefing station
departments, including the radiation protection department, on the root cause of the
violation and resultant corrective actions; (2) implementation of Revision 5 to Procedure
UNT-005-005 to clarify the working-hour policy; (3) the quality assurance department
had incorporated an evaluation of department compliance with the working-hour policy
into their audit program; and (4) the quality assurance department had audited the
operations and radiation protection departments and found these departments in
'
compliance with the working-hour policy guidelines. However, the inspectors
determined that the corrective actions for the violation identified during inspection
382/97-04 were not effective in preventirig a similar occurrence.
R8.2 (Closed) Violation 50-382/9804-01: Failure to perform adeauate surveys
The inspectors ', rified the corrective actions described in the licensee's response letter
j
dated April 2,1998, were implemented. No similar radiological survey problems were
identified.
R8.3 (Closed) Violation 50-382/9804-03: Failure to initiate a condition report
The inspectors verified the corrective actions described in the licensee's response letter
dated April 2,1998, were implemented. No similar problems were identified.
R8.4 (Closed) Violation 50-382/9807-01: Failure to perform radioloaical surveys
The inspectors verified the corrective actions described in the licensee's response letter
dated April 13,1998, were implemented. No similar radiological survey problems were
identified.
,
-
..
.
.
.-.
-
_
.
1
i
.
-14-
1
I
V. Manaaement Meetinas
,
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspectors presented the inspection results to membars of licensee management at
an exit meeting on October 8,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings
presented. No proprietary information was identified.
I
i
l
l
!
l
l
-
1
)
l
!.
l
l
'.
!
l'
h
l
l
!
!
l[
- . _ _ _ . ..
_ _
. . _ . .
. - _ - _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . .
l
, ,
1
'
ATTACHMENT
'
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
,
1
l
Licensee
C. Dugger, Vice President, Operations
A. Bergeron, Superintendent, Chemistry / Environmental
R. Burski, Director, Site Support
L. Dauzat, Supervisor, Radiation Protection
C. DeDeauy, Supervisor, Licensing -
R. Douet, Manager, Maintenance
E. Ewing, Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs
C. Fugute, Superintendent, Operations
)
A. Harris, Manager, Plant Engineering
P. Kelly, Supervisor, Radiation Protection
T. Leonard, General Manager, Plant Operations
j
T. Lett, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
l
B. Matherne, Supervisor, Technical Training
'
D. Miller, ALARA Specialist, Radiation Protection
D. Newman, Quality Specialist, Quality Assurance
i
J. Noehl, Radiation Protection Instructor, Technical Training
l
J. O'Hern, Director, Training and Emergency Planning
i
l;
G. Pierce, Director, Quality Assurance
l.
D. Rieder, Quality Assurance Engineer, Quality Assurance
'
R. Sebring, Acting Supervisor, Radiation Protection
'
G. Scott, Licensing Engineer, Licensing
M. VanDerHorst, Radiation Protection Instructor, Technical Training
A. Wrape, Director, Design Engineering
1
D. Young, Lead Licensing Engineer, Licensing
l
l
NRC
J. Keeton, Resident Inspector
INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED
i
!
83750
Occupational Radiation Exposure
,
1
l~
i
.
.I
'
_
_
, . _ .
. ____. _ _ . . . .
. . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _
.
. .
+
-2-
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED. AND DISCUSSED
4
ir
Opened
50-382/9817-02
Excessive overtime hours
i
!
50 382/9817-01
VIO '
Failure to survey an overhead work area created by scaffolding
Closed
,
i
- 50-382/9804-01;
- VIO
Failure to survey adequately
50-382/9804-03
Failure to initiate a condition report
50-382/9807-01
Failure to perform radiological surveys
.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1
ORGANIZATION CHART
i
,
Radiation Protection Department
i
.
!
OUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT. SURVEILLANCES. AND DEPARTMENTAL
RELF-ASSESSMENT
j
i
Audit Report SA-98-014.1, " Radioactive Contamination / Respiratory Control," conducted June
l
26 through August 6,1998
!
'
Surveillance Report OS-98-004," Quality Assurance Plant Walkdowns," conducted
'
January 1-14,1998
Surveillance Report OS-98-009," Review of Containment Power Entry and Radiation Work
Permit (RWP) 98-0037," conducted February 4,1998
Surveillance Report OS-98-019 " Radiation Protection Activities Associated with the Spent
Resin Spill Recovery," conducted February 5 through March 9,1998
Surveillance Report OS-98-022," Quality Assurance Plant Walkdowns,' conducted March 26
through April 8,1998
l
.
!
Surveillance Report OS-98-033," Radiation Protection Activities During Spent Resin Spill
!
Recovery (5/26/98)," conducted May 26-29,1998
Surveillance Report OS-98-041, " Quality Assurance Plant Walkdowns," conducted June 25
-through July 8,1998
!.
Radiation Protection Departm' ental Self-Assessment, "REdiological Postings Tagging / Labeling
l
Radioactive Material," conducted February 24 - 25,1998
4 -
--
.....m..
,
.
_
_ . _ , _
_
.
_
_ _ _
-
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ -
l
.
3-
PROCEDURES
UNT-001-016
Radiation Protection Manual, Revision 0
UNT-005-022
Controlled Access Area Entry / Exit, Revision 11
HP-001-107
High Radiation Area Access Control, Revision 12
HP-001-110
Radiation Work Permits, Revision 17
.
HP-001-117
Hot Spot identification / Action Report, Revision 3
HP-001-152
Radioactive Material Control, Revision 13
HP-001-160
Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment, Revision 15
HP-001219
Radiological Posting Requiremente, Revision 15
OTHER-
Selected radiological Condition Reports (01/01/98 - 10/01/98)
l
,
A
i
- . - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ______