ML20202D959

Partially Deleted Ltr Re Allegation Rept RII-97-A-0027 Related to Concerns Over Control of on-site Hazardous Matl, Maint Mgt Practices & Industrial Safety Conditions at Plant

ML20202D959
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/30/1997
From:	Landis K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20202D873	List: ML20202D870 ML20202D926 ML20202D959 ML20202D990 ML20202E039 ML20202E061 ML20202E076
References
FOIA-97-484 50-335-97-01, 50-335-97-1, 50-389-97-01, 50-389-97-1, NUDOCS 9802180036
Download: ML20202D959 (1)

Text

_ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - -..

~

cP"so 080, o

4 U%ITED STATES

. NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMt#lSSION 8

[g PEGION il

/.t ATLANTQ F EDER AL CENTER

[t b1 FORSYTH STREET. SW. SUITE 23T85

$,*T g g [

ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 C

May 30. 1997 v

a i-Tr-W

SUBJECT:

RII-97 A-0027 CONCERNS OVER CONTROL OF.ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INDUSTRIAL SAFITY CONDITIONS r

4 This refers to our letters dated February 7 and 12.1997 in which we advised you that we were continuing our review cf the concerns yo,u exprassed regarding control of on-site hazardous material, maintenance management practices, and industrial safety conditions at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

Our actions regarding this matter have been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosures to this letter.

Based on the information provided, we were able to partially substantiate the allegations, however we conclude that no violation of NRC requirements occurred.

This concludes the str.ff's activities regarding thit matter.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at 1-800 577 8510 or (404) 562-4530 or by mail at P.O. Box 845. Atlanta, GA 30301, Sincerely.

7 v

Kerry D. Landis. Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects

~

~

Certified Mail No. P 291 242 587 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Enclosures:

1. Statement of Concerns

2. Allegation Evaluation Report

3. NRC Summary of Licensee Allegation Response

4. Report Nos. 50-335.389/97-01 alc'-[.r,f,NI.X.d';;g5,*g.y

• [ '

• vu d '.l.]h t'm (gg A:i, t.E.l;pjons 'i[] gj "N

F01A. _

Y 7-9802180036 980123 PDR FOIA BAR TO_N97-484 PDR

((eato u

UNITED STATES

'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

REGION il j

ATLMTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORWTH STREET SW, SUITE 23T85 g

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 AC May 30. 1997

..o

[

d T'

h

SUBJECT:

RII-97-A-0027 - CONCERNS OVER CONTROL OF.0fL, SITE HAZARDDUS HATERIAL.

HAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CONDITIONS l

U o

This refers to our letters dated February 7 and 12. 1997. in which we advisec

~

you that we were continuing our review of the concerns you expressed regarding i

control of on-site hazardous material, maintenance management practices, and industrial safety conditions at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

Our actions regarding this matter have been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosures to this letter.

Based on the information provided, we were able to partially substantiate the allegations, however we conclude that no violation of NRC requirements occurred.

This concludes the staff's activities regarding this matter.

If you have any l

questions, you may contact me at 1-800-577-8510 or (404) 562-4530 or by mail at P.O. Box 845, Atlanta, GA 30301.

Sincerely.

M Kerry D. Lancis Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects m,

Certi,*wl Mail No. P 154 543 027 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Enclosures:

1. Statement of Concerns

2. Allegation Evaluation Report

3. NRC Summary of Licensee Allegation Response

4. Report Nos. 50-335.389/97-01

!*rmata in this record was deleted n

.1 R:ctdance wi h ti ' frechm of 'nictmation Ad. CXC..'d003 F0iA-F/f l

f)3 M -/? % %

/ A 1

___]

1. "p* 88 0p,%

UNIT ED STATES l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATLANTA ERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET, SW, SUITE * '.T85 4,

.f ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 May 30. 1997 t

u 4-p

SUBJECT:

RIl-97-A-0027.- CONCERNS OVER CONTROL OF ONzSITE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.

4 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INDUSTRIAL SAFEif CONDITIONS g

f b o This refers to our letters dated February 7 and 12, 1997, in which we advised you that we were continuing our review of the concerns you expressed regarding control of on-site hazardous material, maintenance management practices, and indastrial safety conditions at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

Our actions regarding this matter have been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosures to this letter.

Based on the information provided, we were able to partially substantiate the allegations, however we conclude that nc violation of NRC requirements occurred.

This concludes the staff's activities regarding this matter.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at 1-800-577 9510 or (404) 562-4530 or by mail at P.O. Box 845. Atlanta, GA 30301.

Sincerely, Kerry O. Landis. Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects n.

Certified Mail No. P 154 543 026 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Enclosures:

1. Statement of Concerns

2. Allegation Evaluation Report

3. NRC Summary of Licensee Allegation Response

4. Report Nos. 50-335.389/97-01 IDI0rm!!0a in this record w33 debted a cordance with thJ Freedoin of Information kt, utnptions 7f folk-W' V}'

1. wson w

--_ -_ __ --_ _----_g333m y, y

• • *8 84,q'e,d vmTEo states NUCLEAR REGUll. TORY COMM!OSION AEGloN 11

-j j

tot MAAlffTA LTREET. N.W., SUITE 300 o

g ATLANTA, GEoAGIA 3052H1H

~s,,,,./

Ja u ry 3, 1997 nC n

Y-

SUBJECT:

RII 96 A 0150. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CONCERNS AND CONCERNS W CALIBRATION AND TESTING OF RADIATION HONITORS AT S"4,tlCIE'

.F' TURKEY P0Ilff NUCLEAR PUWfTS v U LQ a In our letter of August 12, 1996, we advised you that we would review your concerns and inforn you of our findings. Our inspections regarding this matter have been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosed

~~

Allegation Evaluation Report and iru,pection reports.

Your technical concerns were partially substantiated in that numerous problems were found with the calibration and maintenance of plant radiation monitors and three violations have been issued. We also believe concerns have been adequately a,ddressed by the licensee.your industrial safety This concludes the staff's activities regarding 'this matter., We appreciate-your cooperation and assistance.

l information, you can contact me atIf you have any questions or need additional 1800 577-8510 or 404 331-0335 or by mail at P. O. Box 845. Atlanta, Georgia 30301.

Sincerely.

/

q*

Kenneth P. Barr, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety

~

Enclosures:

1. AllegaEion Evaluation Report 2 St. Lucie Inspection Report

. 50-335, 50-389/96-17

3. Turkey Point Inspection Report 50 250. 50 251/96 H Cert

...ified Mail No. Z 238518.018 W ESP'T Ep

.....a

,.3. a,,..n ina ireedom of information

.....x 6 0ns 1 L m,.,c,, % g. G T 4 W Yne"o ann W ' s,M a

3 w

-v v--

mr oms rrra

r. u j

January 3,1997

-wh v

L

SUBJECT:

RII.96 A 0150 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CONCERNS AND CONCERNS WIT

'"9 U

CALIBRATION AND TESTING OF RADIATION HONITORS AT ST.

N TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANTS

~

s

-m

-. s, -

- o In our letter of August 12, 1996, we advised you th6t we would reyh your

~

concerns and infom you cf our findings. Our inspections r this mattei les been gleted and our findings are docuuEnted i enclosed Allegaticii Evaluation Report and inspection reports.

Your technical concerns were partielly substantiated in that numerous problems were iaund with the calibration and maintenance of plant radiation monitors and three violations have been issued. We also believe concerns have been adequately addressed by the licensee.your industrial safety

~

This concludes the staff's activities regarding this matter. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance.

If you have any questions or need additionel information, you can contact me at 1-800 577 8510 or 404 331-0335 or by mail at P. O. Box 845 Atlanta, Georgia 30301.

Sinceraly,

~

.(Original signed by K. P. Barr)

Kenneth P. Barr Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. Allegation Evaluation Report 2 St. Lucie Inspection Ryort 50-335,50-389/96-1,

3. Turkey Point Inspection Report 50 250, 50 251/96-11

=>

Certified Mail No. Z'238 518 018 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED bec W/encis: 0.beMiranda,EICS(SignedLetterhead&E-Mail an - norris em atr = 7 amam affter att. me /

art ans _

art.amo w /

IL

' ' 's6imir p

O} Q (..l

. '. y,

/

meg i $t CJulian (S.*W3 :t '.

A/.

• %:- MN t'd S

DA hel / D / 97 01 / 3 / 97 91/ h J.a7 Y l '."' I /'97l 01 l'

/ 97

' 01

'" * / 97 copy?

YES to its so YES

([

TO / NO Tr

YIs, ac

• TES '*; ND attic 4Al. =E J carY: ua v

yg

_g_

ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT l

ALLEGATION RII 96 A 0150 INDU$ TRIAL SAFE 1Y CONCERNS AND CONCERN RADIATION HONITORS l

ST. LUCIE AND TURXEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANTS DOCKET NOS.

M 50 335, 50 389, 50 250, AND 50;,25j i

ALLEGATION:

t j

i

. The aDTg@r had the following concerns:

w-----

i Concern fi: The concerned individual stated that St. Lucie Contair Radiation Honitors cannot be safely worked on.

top of ladders in containment, have no associated work platfonns and scaffolding is not erected for the work i

I control room radiation monitors was performed info guidance by lead I&C Specialist, who ave instructions on making bias

~

.ad.justments wh 7

(Cht/

er, a e

unspec ra 1on moni or was calibration with the bias setting approximately 3 turns out of position.

indicating that a sirailar adjustment had been made which affected the monitor's accuracy.

Concern #3: The concerned individual stated that a containment airb radiation monitor, located in St. Lucie contairment above the 62' elevation the e1evator

. a

• e g>

.ro :.

~

s u

4

. 1 *.' 'm,

'. y1 1.

t i

. - ' d '- r

.. rygg '

i.,

Concern #4: The concerned individual stated tha fallen into the lower 4

refueling Point during a recent ue to a lack of i

f, hafierails.

i p

phe would had it not been for the cavity being filTT of water, l

DISCUSSION:

e-Con:ern#1: The inspector determined that this is a non-radiological occupational health and safety issue. This industrial safety concern was

,,,,,,...repor.ted to the licensee with the concerned individual's identity withheld.

Concern #2: The inspector was unable to verify the specific event discussed in the allegation occurred. However, during the allegation review.. the inspector found numerous problems with the licensee's maintenance and i

calibration of plant radiation monitoring systems relative to the allegations.

1

u~

m nmem a meneo

~

m r se rrra r;w j

j i

2 j

These findings are documented in NRC Inspection Report Nos.

r i

The licensee's docueentation o'f maintenance and calibration ac minimal and generally poor.

4 Pl.nt radiation monitor maintenance and i

calibration documentation and procedure weaknesses were discussed with i

licensee and R3.1) personnel and doamented in the inspection report (paragraphs H3.1 Three violations concorriing the Unit 1 plant radiation monitor i

maintenance and calibration' activities were identified in NRC Inspection l

Report Nos. 50 335, 50 389/E17. Specifically,

,,,,g g.

IE.p'ersonnel pefoming calibrations on Unit 1 ant r on 4

y gf were not fully trained to form etivities

)

ISC oorsonnel performity calibrations of the Unit one Control Rms Outside Air Intake Moninors (CROUN) failed to follow procedure (paragraph R3.2); and i

CaITrdion procedures for the CROMM did not proyide adequate

. cor...mina specific detectoesettings (including detector bias) guidance 4

. provide for cmer documentation of activities performed or i

(paragraph R3.2).

?" :

i Concern 13: The inspector determined that the licensee's procedures did not 5

I require the testina of,the local alarms on plant process monitors and that r,one of the revjewed'doctamentation of the performance of a local alarm test. process manitor calibrations indicated..

i The testing of local alarms for i

process monitors is a good practice, however. it is not a requirement. The inspector confirmed the licensee was not testing the local alarms on process radiation monitors having thee, however no requirements had been violated.

The value of the local alarm test was dis ussed with licensee representatives and discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50 335.389/96 17 (paragraph R3.1).

Concern #4: The inspector reviewed and discussed condition resort 95 857 that was originated due to an incident that occurred on September 13.1995-during the Unit 3 refueling outage. The in.,p/511* ection results are doce Inspection Report Nos. 50 250, 50 251

. mragraph 4.1.

The incident i

involved a contractor employee falling into tw lower refueling cavity from i

the upper refueling cavity inside Unit 3 containment.

W ind' vidual was not j

injured due to the fall as the lower cavity was filled with water,_gg the time.

The*Thdividual was suesersfully decontaminated, and as ismediate

.ctive i

action, the licensee recuired all personnel workiry in the cavity to wear life vests. No pteke of raciation occurred.

No re exceeded. M the' time of the fall, there was n(ioogical exposuce Msits were l

installed !atucen the upper a.m lower cavity to preclude a fall.o barrier, suc l

As corrective active action, the licensee revised procedures 3 and 4 0P 201.

Fil.1jq1/ Draining the Refuel.ing Cavit to inc ude a requirement to have a :y and the Spec fnel Prol Transfer Canal,

~ ~ ' '

afety barrier

• alloc between the uyer 1

and lower cavity during refueling cavity relatd

4. inc1Mi a refueling outage. Further, the licensee has plans te uist-reactor ca ty ladder 1

4, j

i.

3 reils and this issue is carried as open as an item in the

• Ten Highest Priority Safety Items". Licensee plans are to install the rails during tha March 1997 Unit 3 outage.

CONCLUSIORS:

The inspector was able to substantiate Concerns 1 and 4 and determined that the licensee appropriately 6ddressed them.

The inspector was aim able to substantiate Concern 2 associated with the calibration of 9hab radiation monitors and three violations relating to the calibration cf plant _radiatian monitors were identified during the review.

testin@ local alarss for process monitors was substantiateum noConcern.3

~

reguirary. requirements were violated.

~ '

6 m.

e As O

T W

as e em 4

M F

e I

9g g,

Og.

• g om O

.