ML20198Q044
| ML20198Q044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1986 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Opeka J CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198Q048 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606090050 | |
| Download: ML20198Q044 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000213/1986011
Text
Y
'
r
.
MAY 2 3198G
'
-
Docket No. 50-213
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
ATTN: Mr. J. F. Opeka
Senior Vice President - Nuclear
Engineering and Operations Group
P. O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection No. 50-213/86-1 1
A special appraisal of the Health Physics program at the Connecticut Yankee
station and your corporate office was conducted on April 7-11, 1986.
The
appraisal was prompted by an increasing trend of radiation exposure to workers
and concerns about radiological control work practices.
The areas examined
included organization and staffing, personnel dosimetry, portable survey
equipment, with major emphasis devoted to the ALARA programs.
The results of
this appraisal are enclosed with this letter. Although the Health Physics and
ALARA programs are basically sound, weaknesses were observed regarding pre-
planning high exposure outage work and control of outage work in progress.
The findings have been characterized as program strengths or weaknesses.
These are summarized in Appendix A and B, respectively.
Future inspections
will review your progress in eliminating the weaknesses.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
originc.1 S1E"'W
[]
f
ry Ulpmas T. Martin, DirecYor
7
Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards
Enclosure: NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-213/86-11
.
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
8606090050 860523
ADOCK 05000213
G
PI)R
j
u
--
- - - - -
._
__
_ __
_ . ._
.
_
.. _ ._.
_
.__
_.
_
r
J
-
.,
'
,
l
. '
I
Ca.necticut Yankee Atomic
Power Company
2
.
cc w/ encl:
j
R. Graves, Plant Superintendent
'
O. O. Nordquist, Manager of Quality Assurance
,
R. T. Laudenat, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing
l
E. J. Mroczka, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
!
Gerald Garfield, Esquire
Public Document Room (PDR)
.
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
i
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC. Resident Inspector
State of Connecticut
!
bec w/ encl:
i
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
!
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
!
Section Chief, DRP
M. McBride, RI, Pilgrim
J. Shediosky, SRI, Millstone 1&2
T. Rebelowski, SRI, Millstone 3
J. Akstulewicz, LPM, NRR
,
,
4
l
!
l
i
!
l
1
i
i
!
-
i
!
!
!
.
I
D S :RI
DRSS:RI
SS:R
DR
D
S:RI
!
TDragoun/bc
DLeQuia
herb
MS.hanbakyRBEllamy TM
in
!
5/;//86
5/3t/86
5/2i/86
5/2//86
5/8'/86
5/
86
1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
IR HN 86-13 - 0002.0.0
j
05/20/86
i
l
u
-
.
-
.
.
.o
,-
..
-
.,
APPENDIX A
PROGRAM STRENGTHS
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
Docket No. 50-213
Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant
License No. OPR-61
The appraisal conducted on April 7-11, 1986 identified several program
strengths. A program strength is a positive rttribute which exceeds regulatory
requirements, or an innovative feature whi.:5 contributes to the effectiveness of
the radiation safety program.
-
The training and qualification requirements in the health physics
staff position descriptions significantly exceeds basic requirements.
Policies, procedures, and generic health physics procedures at all
tiers are particularly clear, well written, and comprehensive.
Management at all levels is genuir.ely concerned regarding personnel
exposures.
Post outage reviews have identified areas for improvement.
.
-
4
>
_
_
.
.-
__ ..
_
u - - _ , --
.
..--+u
..aaa+
.
a---~s---
.
,u
- - - - . . - - . - -
--
u
a
e
-.
. +.
..
4
i
.-
..
4
i
' .
1
!
!
4
!
APPENDIX B
PROGRAM WEAKNESS
!
!
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
Docket No. 50-213
'
Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant
License No. DRR-61
The appraisal conducted on' April 7-11, 1986 identified areas of concern
characterized as programmatic weakness. Weaknesses do not constitute
i
noncompliances but are matters that if left uncorrected could lead to problems
i
and/or noncompliances.
Radiation exposure goals for outage jobs and the overall corporate
goals are unrealistic and rautinely exceeded.
The goal setting
mechanisms are flawed and do not provide useful measurement tools
for management.
Corporate policies do not establish management accountability to
ensure that exposure and man-hour goals are achieved.
4
[
Preplanning for high exposure outage work is neither thorough nor
i
timely.
!
'
Control of contractors during outage is weak in that most responsi-
j
bility for the oversight of work is delegated to the contractors.
i
!
f
l
\\
l
j
!
1
I
i
i
i
l
!
!
!
!
l
l
.
-
- -