IR 05000266/1987014

Enforcement Conference Repts 50-266/87-14 & 50-301/87-13 on 870618.Major Areas Discussed:Skin Exposure Received by Contractor Technicians to Hot Particles & Extremity Dose Received by Company Technician Trainee

ML20235N025
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/08/1987
From:	Greger L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235N017	List: IR 05000266/1987014 ML20235N014
References
50-266-87-14-EC, 50-301-87-13, NUDOCS 8707170406
Download: ML20235N025 (3)

Text

'

.

!

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

REGION III

Reports No. 50-266/87014(DRSS); 50-301/87013 (DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company )

231 West Michigan l Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Meeting At: Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Meeting Conducted: June 18, 1987  !

Approved By: L. R. Greger, Chief 9'- d3 "d7 7 Facilities Radiation Protection Section Date Meeting Summary Meeting on June 18, 1987 (Reports No. 50-266/87014(DRSS);

No. 50-301/87013(DRSS))

Areas Discussed: An enforcement meeting conducted to discuss two events:

one concerning skin exposure received by contractor technicians to hot particles, and one concerning extremity dose received by a company technician trainee while handling a radioactive source.

l

.

8707170406 070720 PDR ADOCK 05000T!66 G PDR F

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

-

..

DETAILS

<

1. Meeting Attendees Wisconsin Electric Power Company C. Fay,'Vice President, Nuclear Power Department i

E. Lipke, General Superintendent, Nuclear Plant Engineering J. Zach, Plant Manager (PBNP)

D. Johnson, Superintendent.- Health Physics (PBNP)

R. Seizert, Project Engineer - Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III C. Paperiello,-Acting Deputy Regional Administrator J. Hind, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguard W. Shafer, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch L. Greger, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section B. Burgess, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A B. Berson, Regional Counsel W. Schultz, Enforcement Specialist D. Miller, Senior Radiation Specialist R. Paul, Radiation Specialist 2. Enforcement Meeting Details The enforcement meeting was held to discuss two radiological events which are described in Inspection Reports No. 50-266/87011(DRSS) and No. 50-301/87010(DRSS). The two events, one concerning skin exposure'

received by a contractor technician from hot particles and one concerning extremity dose received by a company technician trainee while handling a radioactive source, were described by regional radiation specialist Also discussed were possible violations, enforcement options, and perceived basic weaknesses in the licensee's Health Physics organizatio J Although neither of the events resulted in doses exceeding regulatory limits, there was a substantial potential those limits could have been exceeded for both event !

The perceived basic weaknesses discussed by Region III personnel included:

• Inadequate packaging of highly radioactive, readily dispersible i material that was also not properly identified to allow subsequent l handlers to take appropriate handling precaution i

• Handling of a radioactive source by persons unfamiliar and untrained in.the use of the source. The source container was not clearly identified to indicate location of the source, nor were there adequate controls to prevent source remova .j j

]

!

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

_

,

.,

• Fundamental weaknesses in the radiation protection organization, including poor staff stability which results in relatively inexperienced personnel, staffing shortages, historical lack of professionally trained health physics management onsite, and lack of full-time health physics coverage with conseqcent over-reliance on auxiliary operator radiation protection expertis These weaknesses appear connected to a historical failure to establish an onsite radiation protection organization with professional staffing and status equivalent to that of other onsite operating group The NRC representatives acknowledged that PBNP has consistently maintained personnel doses significantly lower than the average for U.S. PWR nuclear power plants, and that this performance reflects favorably on the licensee's overall radiation protection performance; however, the two recent radiological events indicate continuing apparent weaknesses in radiation protection activitie Other radiologically significant weaknesses precipitated an enforcement conference in September 1986 (Inspection Reports No. 50-266/86016(DRSS); No. 50-301/86015(DRSS)).

In response to the Region III comments, the licensee stated that: A licensee group had conducted an extensive review of the two recent events and of the implications regarding the onsite radiation protection organization based on these and other recent event As a result, significant changes would be made in an attempt to improve the onsite radiation protection organization in addition tc correcting the specific weaknesses exhibited by the two event These changes include:

• A new Superintendent - Health Physics position at PBNP was created and filled by a professional Health Physicist on June 1, 198 * An additional health physics staff position will soon be filled.

l

• The staffing level for radiation control operators (RCO) will be l increased to accommodate full-time RC0 coverage by early 198 * Radiation work permit usage and auxiliary operator job function and training changes are being reviewe * Training improvements for supervisory personnel will be implemente * The calibration source will be labeled and secured, and implementing procedures for its use will be written and implemente A general review of health physics tasks will be made in order to identify other unnecessary hazards which may exis * Initiative has been taken to upgrade the status of health physics personnel, including organization and remuneration change The Senior NP.C representative acknowledged the licensee's comments and stated that the Region III recommendation concerning enforcement action for the two events would be forwarded to the NRC Office of Enforcement for their concurrence. After review by that Office, the licensee would be notified in writing of the NRC's proposed enforcement actio