ML20213G175
| ML20213G175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1986 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611170356 | |
| Download: ML20213G175 (2) | |
Text
DnL6 4
I r
DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Itox 33180 CHARLCYrrE, N.C. 28242 HAL H. TUCKER t'f TELEPHONE 0 0' // g / j 2 p 3 (704) ora-4sai
==
n 14 November 6, 1986 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Subject:
Catawba Nuclear Station RII/BKR 50-413/86-20-01
Dear Dr. Grace:
As requested by your letter of October 7,1986, we are submitting herewith a response concerning the subject violation. This response supersedes our original response of August 14, 1986 and reflects the clarifications provided by the Region II Staff in a telephone conference held November 3,1986.
Very truly yours, si Hal B. Tucker LTP/50/slb Attachment xc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station r611170356 861106 ADOCK0500g3 PDR 0
'J LEb l
0 Response to Violation 50-413/86-20-01 Failure To Maintain Radiation Records In Accordance With The Instructions Contained in Form NRC-5 (1) Duke Power Company does admit the Violation in that we did not assess in accordancewithformNgC-5thewholebodydoseequivalentatadensity thickness of 300 mg/cm for wo3 ers when the lenses of the eyes were not k
shielded by at least 700 mg/cm of material.
(2) As we stated in our conversations with your Staff, we have dete3 mined that the doses we have recorded thus far represent the dose at 300 mg/cm within an additional 1% to 11%. This difference has been determined empirically, through the use of dose vs. depth curves under actual conditions of exposure in the workplace and the laboratory. The results have been confirmed by statistical studies of worker beta and gamma doses as well as theoretical calculations We have also modified some of our TLD badges so that one filter y
is 300 mg/cm and exposed them to in-plant radiation.
These results again support the 1% to 11% figure.
Inresponsegoyourconcernregardinglowenergygammaradiationtothedose at 300 mg/cm we took measurements at the McGuire and Oconee Stations in December, 1984, which showed that thia impact is negligible.
(3) In order to determine the whole body dose equivalent required to be reported on NRC-5, we will take the following actions:
Beginning with the January, 1987 TLD badges, we will process the TLD results using a modified computer program.
This modification will increase the whole body dose calculated for each TLDbadgebyaddingacorrectiontoallowforthe{ractionofthebeta radiationwhichpenegratestoedepthof300mg/cm The fraction of the 2
beta dose at 7 mg/cm which penetrates to 300 mg/cm will be measured quarterly at each stat For each individual TLD badge, the beta dose determinedfor7mg/cm{on.
will be multiplied by this fraction of penetrating beta radiatiog. The product will then be added to the dose determined for 1000 mg/cm for that badge, which is the whole body dose.
In cases where multiple badges are worn as a group, the correction will be applied to that badge result that most likely represents the dose to lens of the eye, e.g. the badge worn on the head.
Also, by mid 1987, we will perform an annual survey for low energy photons at the stations.
(3) We will be in full compliance with the record keeping instructions on form NRC-5 coincident with the whole body dose assessment for January, 1987, and thereafter.
-..