ML20237F912

Forwards Health Physics Appraisal Insp Rept 50-333/87-18 on 870615-19.Lack of Knowledge Re Fundamental Health Physics Concepts Should Receive Mgt Attention.Program Weaknesses Listed on App a & Strengths Listed on App B

ML20237F912
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	08/19/1987
From:	Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Radford Converse POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
Shared Package
ML20237F915	List: IR 05000333/1987018 ML20237F912
References
NUDOCS 8708210612
Download: ML20237F912 (8)

See also: IR 05000333/1987018

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

.

.

AUG 19 1987

Docket No. 50-333

Power Authority of the State of New York

Janies A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

ATTN: Mr. Radford J. Converse

Resident Manager

P. O. Box 41

Lycoming, New York 13C93

Gentlemen:

Subject: Health Physics Appraisal No. 50-333/87-18

An appraisal of the Health Physics program at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear

Power Plant was conducted June 15-19, 1987 by a team of Region I-based inspec-

tors using guidance provided in NUREG-0855. The areas examined and the results

of the review are described in the enclosed report.

A similar appraisal was conducted in November 1980 (Report No. 50-333/80-20)

and several significant weaknesses were noted at that time. Most of those

weaknesses are being adequately resolved although corrective action is incom-

plete in certain instances. Areas of good performance were observed during

this appraisal including the Chemistry program, Personnel Dosimetry program and

the Training Department Apprentice program. Your station policies and pro-

cedures were found to be clear and unambiguous. The ALARA effort is well

organized, and a strong committment to ALARA is evident at all levels, includ-

ing corporate management. Additional strengths are recognized in Appendix 8.

We have a significant concern with the lack of technical proficiency among the

health physics staff. The team found that certain health physics technicians

and supervisors demonstrated lack of knowledge regarding fundamental health

physics concepts. This persistent weakness should receive management attention.

Additional observed weaknesses are as follows:

1. Delays - a lack of aggressive follow-up was found in that new equipment

on site was not in use, open positions remain unfilled, available training

is not fully utilized, no in-vitro bioassay or hot particle programs have

been developed, and ALARA goals are not challenging.

2. Understaffing was noted at the management and HP technician level. There

is an excessive use of overtime during outages.

Weaknesses within specific areas are found in Appendix A.

We recognize that an explicit regulatory requirement pertaining to each sig-

nificant weakness discussed in this report may not currently exist. However,

in the interest of the health and safety of plant workers and the public, you

8708210612 870819 TICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0001.0.0

PDR ADDCK 05000333 08/12/87

G PDR

)\

t

- _ _ _ - . ._

, .

-

- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ --

4'

.

. Power Authority of the State AUG 19 1987

'

of New York 2

,

are requested to submit within 60 days of receipt of this letter a written

reply stating (1) your review of the weakness, (2) corrective steps that will

be taken, and (3) a schedule for completion of action. The responses requested

by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of

Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL

96-511. ,

You and your staff were cooperative during the appraisal, and acknowledged our j

findings in a positive manner. Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ori nul Signed y:

L i L

Thomas T. Martin, Director

Division of Radiation Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosures:

-

1. Appendix A, Program Weaknesses

2. Appendix B, Program Strengths

3. Appraisal Report No. 50-333/87-18

cc w/encls:

J. Phillip Bayne, President

John C. Brons, Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation

R. E. Beedle, Vice President Nuclear Support

S. S. Zulla, Vice President Nuclear Engineering

R. Burns, Vice President Nuclear Operations

J. A. Gray, Director Nuclear Licensing - BWR

, A. Klausmann, Vice President - Quality Assurance and Reliability

R. L. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent I

George M. Wilverding, Chairman, Safety Review Committee

Gerald C. Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel

'

NRC Licensing Project Manager

Dept. of Public Service, State of New York l

Public Document Room (PDR) I'

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector J

State of New York

!

1

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0002.0.0

08/12/87

r-- .

1

i

1

-

i

, Power Authority of the State

of New York 3 AUG 19 1987

l

bcc w/encis: '

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences) i

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encis) .

Section Chief, DRP

Robert J. Bores, DRSS l

1

l

i-

!

!

l

l

i

.

.

RI:DRSS RI:DRSS

Dragoun ms plShanbaky

Ud fdM V lVlI[]

8/it/8 8/<t/87

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0004.0.0

08/11/87

!

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

.

,

\

l,

APPENDIX A

PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSES

Power Authority of the State of New York Docket No. 50-333

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant License No. DPR-59

Based on the results of the NRC Health Physics Appraisal conducted on

June 15-19, 1987, the following program weaknesses were observed. Details

regarding these weaknesses are found in the attached appraisal report.

1.0 Radiation Protection Organization

a. Excessive overtime work by-the technicians is allowed. One tech-

nician worked 68 days consecutively at 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per day. Overtime

guidance of Plant Standing Order No. 26 is frequently waived.

b. Technicians and first line supervisors are weak in the technical {

knowledge although technicians receive 4 days of training every

'

6 weeks and training programs are well controlled.  ;

c. The position of " Senior Appraisal Specialist - Radiological" has been

vacant 50". of the time since it was created in 1985.

d. The Exempt Position Descriptions for Assistant Emergency Plan

J

Coordinator and Radiation Protection Supervisor are not accurate l

reflections of position responsibilities. i

l e. Insufficient numbers of technicians during routine operations pre-

vents effective cross-training or scheduling flexibility.

l

l f. RP Supervisors are assigned to areas where they have no training or

prior experience (e.g. , respiratory protection).

g. The corporate " Tables of Organization" do not accurately reflect ~the

site organization. )

1 i

l h. Insufficient lead time was used when bringing the Corporate Radiolog -)

j ical Engineer on site to assist during outages.

2.0 Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training j

a. A retraining program developed specifically for supervisors has not

been implemented.

l b. Training and qualification records are not consolidated to allow

I verification of ANSI status.

1

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0005.0.0

08/11/87

F 1:

f

'

.

, Appendix A 2

c. Requirements are frequently waived. For example, staff technicians

are waived from certain requirements of Apprentice program and

ex-Navy ELT are granted ANSI status.

3. Exposure Centrol

a. No program has been developed to identify and control " hot

particles." The skin dose assessment procedure for hot particles was

incomplete.

b. No program has been developed for the collection and analysis of

in-vitro samples to evaluate intakes which cannot be quantified by

in-vivo whole body counting.

4.0 Radioactive Waste Management

a. Management has not been aggressive in implementing a chemistry

organization expansion or bringing state-of-the-art equipment on site

! into routine operation.

b. Criteria for radiochemistry QC checks are not clear.

5.0 AlARA Program

a. Exposure goals are not challenging or aggressive.

!

b. Need active participation in ALARA program by work groups and design

engineers.

6.0 Health Physics Facilities and Equipment

i a. The whole body counting facility is improperly located for use under

accident conditions.

b. The calibration facility is too small and crowded.

c. An excessive number (50 to 80*;) of survey instruments are out of

service,

'

d. Portal monitors are neither calibrated nor source checked. Friskers

will not detect hot particles at observed frisking speeds,

e. Respiratory group is understaffed to support the scope of work. j

, f. There is a lack of coordination of RP responsibilities for equipment  ;

l purchased by other groups.

I I

g. The review of routine surveys does not detect technical errors.

l

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0006.0.0

08/11/87

.

,

,

Appendix A 3

h. High alpha activity detected during routine surveys is not

investigated. High volume air samples are not periodically checked 3

d

for alpha activity.

1. Responsibilities for various facets of the surveillance program is

fragmented.

1

i

i '

l

l l

l -

l

!

i

l

i

1

l

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0007.0.0

08/11/87

1

J

f~ ]

l

J

.

l

APPENDIX B

PROGRAMMATIC STRENGTHS i

)

l

Power Authority of the State of New York Docket No. 50-333 )

Jame:. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant License No. DPR-59 j

Basd on the results of the NRC Health Fhysics Appraisal conducted on

June 15-19, 1987, the following program strengths were observed. Details 1

regarding these strengths are found in the attached appraisal report. )1

1.0 Radiation Protection Organization

t. There are two qualified Senior Reactor Operators on the RP staff

providing operational experience.

l

b. Communications between various groups and individuals is good with I

numerous meetings. j

I

.

'

c. An effective personnel award and discipline program are used. l

I

d. Unusual Radiological Incident Reports are effectively reviewed with l

i timely action to resolve deficiencies.

e. The corporate staff is frequently involved with on-site activities,

f. The Corporate Compliance and Appraisal Group has two dedicated

appraisers to identify improvement in the chemistry and environmental

programs.

2.0 Personnel Selection, Qualification and Training

a. Training offered by the Training Department is well structured and >

controlled although effectiveness appears limited. (See Weakness

1.0-b)

b. The site access training for NRC inspectors was promptly revised

after requests for expedited access.

c. The training facilities are well equipped with extensive technical

reference handout material given to students.

d. The Apprentice program is a well controlled training program that

assures RP technicians in training have received and absorbed the

training material.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0008.0.0

08/11/87

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

- _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

Appendix B 2

3.0 Exposure Control

l

a. The Radiation Protection Manual is comprehensive and contains most of

the essential elements of an effective exposure control program.

b. The procedures for the dosimetry program, and for conducting surveys,

r

posting and labeling hazards are clear and detailed. Explicit

l instructions are provided by RP technicians to guide them in the

performance of their duties.

'

c. The personnel dosimetry equipment is state-of-the-art used by a well

trained staff and making maximum use of computers to process and

report data.

d. Exposure records are well maintained and easily retrievable.

l

l e. Respiratory Protection policies and programs are clear with appro-

l priate selection and use limits incorporated.

4.0 Radioactive Waste Management

a. There is good control of effluents with evidence of planning to keep

releases ALARA.

b. The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM) computer programs and PCP

were improved to better address RETS Technical Specifications.

5.0 ALARA Program

1

a. The ALARA program is well documented and controlled with good ,

reporting and oversight by management.

b. Interaction between ALARA, corporate and work groups is good.

6.0 Health Physics Facilities and Equipment

a. New state-of-the-art monitors, alpha scintillation detectors and

automatic friskers have been purchased. j

b. The program for maintenance, decontamination and accountability of

respirators is good. Very good facilities are provided.

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0009.0.0

08/11/87