ML20235T603
| ML20235T603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1987 |
| From: | Baer R, Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T600 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-87-21, NUDOCS 8710130145 | |
| Download: ML20235T603 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000285/1987021
Text
. ,,
,
I
1
APPENDIX
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-285/87-21
License:
Docket:
50-285
Licensee:
Omaha Public Power District (0 PPD)
1673 Harney Street
Omaha, Nebraska
68102
Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)
Inspection At:
Inspection Conducted:
September 14-18, 1987
- /67
Inspector:
/2#
R. E. Baer, Radiation Specialist, Facilities
Date
Radiological Protection Section
Approved:
( % h/hN){dbf
/$fbf$l
B. i4u'rray, Chief , ~Fa' cili
es Radiological
Dave
'
Prctection Section
Inspection Summary
i
Inspection Conducted September 14-18, 1987-(Report 50-285/87-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiological
environmental monitoring and external occupational exposure control programs.
An allegation was also reviewed.
Results: Within the areas inspected, two apparent violations (failure to
control a very high radiation area door and failure to follow radiation
.
protection procedures) were identified.
(see paragraph 6)
i
$$kO1$00$ $
7
0
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - - -
_ _ _ _ - _
f
6,
-2-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- W. G. Gates, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station
- K. L. Belek, Supervisor, Environmental Services
J. N. Borger, Equipment Operator Nuclear Auxiliary
M. E. Burns, Foreman, Electrical Maintenance
R. A. Cords, Senior Technician, Chemistry and Radiation Protection (C/RP)
A. A. Costanzo, Analyst, Environmental Services
C. R. Crawford, ALARA' Coordinator
- J. J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Nuclear Regulatory and Industrial
Affairs (NR&IA)
J. J. Foley, Supervisor, Electrical Maintenance and Instrument and
Controls
!
- J. K. Gasper, Manager, Administrative Services
G. R. Kopecky, Inspector, Quality Assurance
- L. T. Kusek, Supervisor, Operations.
J. M. Mattice, Plant Health Physicist
J. Mixan, Technician, Instrument and Controls
l
- D. J. Munderloh, Senior Engineer, NR&IA
C. W. Norris, Supervisor, Radiological Services
- A. W. Richards, Manager, Quality Assurance
- G. L. Roach, Supervisor C/RP
B. A. Schmidt, Chemist
F. K. Smith, Plant Chemist
- R. K. Stultz, Supervisor, Radiological and Environmental Monitoring
Services
M. A. Wilson, Analyst, Environmental Services
NRC
- P. H. Harrell, Senior Resident Inspector
I
The NRC inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor employees
including C/RP, operations, administrative, maintenance, and training
,
l
personnel.
- Denotes those individuals present during the exit interview on
September 18, 1987.
j
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings
)
(Closed) Open Item (285/8504-02):
Audits and Reviews - This item was
previously discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/85-04 and involved:
'
(1) the lack of audits of the meteorological monitoring program and the
offsite vendor responsible for analysis of environmental samples, and
(2) the limited scope of the Safety Audit and Review Committee (SARC)-
audit for the environmental program. .The NRC inspector determined that
!
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
--_
,
- _ _ - - _ _ _ .
. L.
.
-3-
SARC Audit Report 3-86 of the Radiological Effluent Program adequately
resolved the concerns noted above.
This item is considered closed.
3.
Open Items Identified During This Inspection
An open item is a matter that requires further review and ev'aluation by
the NRC inspector.
Open items are used to document, track, and ensure
adequate followup on matters of concern to the NRC inspector.
The
following items were identified.
Open Item (285/8721-03):
Audit of Vendor Activities - This item involves
the lack of an audit of the vendor selected to perform radiological
analyses of. samples of liquid effluents and waste stream characterization
determinations.
4.
Inspector Observations
The following are observations the NRC inspector discussed with the
licensee during the exit interview on September 18, 1987.
These
observations are not violations, . deviations, unresolved items, or open
items. These observations were identified for licensee consideration'for
program improvement, but the observations have no specific regulatory
requirement.
The licensee stated that the observations would be reviewed.
a.
- Spiked Samples - The licensee does not use spiked samples to evaluate
the performance'of the vendor conducting radiological analyses on
environmental samples.
b.
Sampling of Sewage Waste Lagoons - The licensee had not established a
sampling program that includes radiological analyses to. ensure that
when sludge is removed from the sewage waste lagoons the sludge does
not contain radioactive materials.
5.
Program Areas Inspected
The following program areas were inspected.
These program areas and
l
inspection procedures are identified in NRC Manual Chapter 2500.
Unless
l
otherwise noted, the inspection was completed and revealed no violations,
deviations, unresolved items, or open items.
Notations after a specific
inspection item are used to identify the following:
I = item not
inspected or only partially inspected, V = violation, D = deviation,
I
U = unresolved item, and 0 = open item.
I
Procedure
Inspection Requirements
80521
Radiological Environmental Monitoring
}
'
02.01 - Implementation of the Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Programs
02.02 - Implementation of.the Meteorological
Monitoring Program
.
1
_ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - -
- - - - - - - - _ - - -
-
J
,
s, ..
1
-4-
02.03 - Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies
02.04 - Documentation
02.05 - QA Program - 0 (see paragraph 3)
02.06 - Contractor Activities
80721
Radiological Environmental Monitoring
02.01 - Audits and Appraisals
02.02.- Changes
02.03 - Implementation of the Radiological
-Environmental Monitoring Program
02.04 - Implementation of the Meteorological
Monitoring Program
02.05 - QA Program
02.06 - Contractor Activities
83524
External Occupational Exposure Control and
Personal Dosimetry
02.01 - Physical Controls
02.02 - Administrative Controls - V (see paragraph 6)
02.03 - Personal Dosimetry
6.
Apparent Violation (Procedure 83524, Item 02.02)
'
a.
Failure to Control Very High Radiation Areas
Technical Specification (TS) 5.11.1, requires that entrance into each
l
high radiation area in which the intensity of radiation is greater
than 1000 mrem /hr (very high radiation area) shall be controlled by
<
the use of locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry.
)
)
During a plant inspection at approximately 10:30 a.m. on September 9,
j
1987, the NRC Resident Inspector found the door to the spent fuel
I
storage pool heat exchanger, pump, and filter room (Room No. 5)
unlocked.
Room No. 5 was posted outside the door as a very high
radiation area.
At the time of discovery, no personnel were in
Room No. 5.
The NRC inspector review of this occurrence determined that the
operations auxiliary building equipment operator had entered
Room No. 5 at approximately 8:00 a.m. on September 9, 1987, to take a
reading on spent fuel pool instrumentation. The equipment operator
stated that when he exited Room No. 5, he believed he locked the
door.
However, he did not verify the door was indeed locked.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the radiation surveys performed by
,
the licensee in Room No. 5 on September 7, and 16, 1987.
These
'
surveys indicated the highest direct radiation levels were approximately
15,000 mrem /hr.at contact with spent resin piping and general levels
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
. . . .
-5-
of about 4000 mrem /hr were present within the room. .The failure
to control a very high radiation area door is considered an
apparent violation of TS 5.11~.2.
(285/8721-01)
This is a repeat violation regarding the failure to control very high
radiation areas as previously identified in NRC. Inspection
,
Report 50-285/86-01.
j
b.
Failure to Follow HP Procedures
Technical Specification 5.11, Radiation Protection Program, requires
that procedures for personnel radiation protection shall be prepared
consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and adhered to.
The FCS Radiation Protection Manual states in Section 3.1.7.2.b. that.
an individual may enter a very high radiation area pr.ovided that
continuous health physics coverage is afforded by a technician
equipped with a radiation dose rate instrument.
The NRC inspector determined that on September 9, 1987, an equipment
operator entered into Room No. 5 through a locked door to an area
.
designated as a very high radiation area without obtaining continuous-
'
health physics coverage by a technician equipped with a radiation
dose rate instrument.
Room No. 5 contains the spent fuel storage
pool heat exchanger, pump, and filters.
Radiation surveys indicated
that radiation levels of 15,000 mrem /hr were present in the room on
September 9, 1987.
-
l
The failure to follow radiation protection procedures is an apparent
violation of TS 5.11.
(285/8721-02)
7.
Allegation Followup
Allegation (4-87-A-076)
This allegation relates to individuals exposure during maintenance
l
activities.
Specifically, the allegation stated that only two of the six
'
electrical maintenance persons assigned to the FCS Electrical Maintenance
Department are qualified to add oil to reactor coolant pumps and the other
four persons should be trained and qualified.
This would distribute the
radiation exposure among all workers.
Also, the ALARA coordinator and
Supervisor C/RP refused to allow an unqualified individual to enter the
containment building during power operations for training purposes.
Discussion
The NRC inspector discussed the alleged circumstance with licensee
representatives and reviewed related records such as radiation work
permits, ALARA work packages for containment entry at power, and personnel
,
radiation exposure records.
,
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_.
_. .
._
_-
_ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ .
_ _ - _ _ _ _ -
- .o
-6-
The licensee representatives stated that four of the electrical.
maintenance persons, not two, are qualified to perform work such as adding
oil to reactor coolant pumps and that the remaining two individuals are
new hires and are scheduled to be qualified in this work during the next
maintenance / refueling outage.
The licensee also stated that prior to
assigning an individual to perform this work, a current copy of the
radiation exposure record is obtained from the C/RP group and those
individuals with the' lowest exposures are assigned these tasks.
The
September 14, 1987, Personnel Accumulative mrem Radiation Exposure Record'
indicated that the four qualified individuals had exposures of.1043 mrem,
785 mrem, 744 mrem, and 134 mrem.
The ALARA coordinator could not recall a conversation relating to.not
allowing an individual to enter the reactor containment (accompanying a
work crew) for training purposes.
The Supervisor C/RP did remember such a
conversation and acknowledged that entry into the reactor containment
during power operations for training purposes would be discouraged and
would only be allowed in a last resort type situation.
Conclusion
The allegation was partially substantiated in that all persons are not
qualified to perform maintenance activities on reactor coolant pumps and
that entry into the reactor containment during power operations for
training was discouraged.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspector met with the licensee's representatives identified in
paragraph 1 of this report at the conclusions of the inspection on
September 18, 1987.
The NRC inspector summarized the scope and results of
the inspection.
1
- -_- _ __ -_-_ -
- _ _ - - . -