IR 05000298/1989016: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20244C949
| number = ML20247K761
| issue date = 06/02/1989
| issue date = 09/14/1989
| title = Insp Rept 50-298/89-16 on 890501-05.Violations Noted.No Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Selected Areas of Radiation Protection Program as Set Forth in Core Insp Program,As Related to Outage Activities
| title = Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-298/89-16. Implementation of Corrective Actions Will Be Reviewed During Future Insp
| author name = Baer R, Ricketson L
| author name = Milhoan J
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Trevors G
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
| docket = 05000298
| docket = 05000298
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-298-89-16, NUDOCS 8906150219
| document report number = NUDOCS 8909220012
| package number = ML20244C941
| title reference date = 07-03-1989
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 8
| page count = 2
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -_ __
{{#Wiki_filter:ge  <
  -
db d; w
    ,
m .. n ,
        ,
                .y
'~ 9d  %-. l-    M ,
        '
        ,3p
        ' '#      * -
_ .-  4-w
  '
o  ,
      ,. n      '
t  .
    *
$hi v : :> u 'S __
    ^~dc _,
'A5  f.4 c  .
      ,.I1%
      ,
_
        '
  * ;3 % . , , .      .m
    ,
;
  -
  ? lInl Reply: Refer.To::.
s.;.-  c;  - y~ g g y' '    "
  ,
iDocket: :.50-298/89-16s .
J      ,' .y ,
  '
  ,
      ~A J
_
                * '
    ,,
  ""
  : Nebraska Public< Power District          +
,m  1 ATTN: George.A.1Trevors
' *
  ,  ,
    . j Division: Manager f.;Wuclear Support:
  -P.O.: Box:4991    .
F Columbus,.NebraskaL 68602-0499          .,
'
  #'! Gent,lemen:
  -
y
[ ,
  ,
Thank'you for' your, letter of July 31989, in response.to our letter and :
s
  ,
  ,
NoticeLof Violation dated June 15, 1989.- We have" reviewed.your reply and find-
        ~
M'                ..
Libresponsive' to the con ~cerns raised in our Notice of Violation. :We will'
' <    .
  ,  . . .    ..
review the' implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection
      .
    .
              '
tjs '  /itodetermine'thatfullcompliancehasbeenachievedandwillbemaintained,
      '
n
  ,
  ,
APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


==REGION IV==
Sincerely
NRC Inspection Report:    50-298/89-16 Operating License: DPR-46 Docket: 50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
...
P.O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68602-0499 Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
      -"'
Inspection At: CNS, Brownsville, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: May 1-5, 1989 Inspector:    h fA ,9,u n b n og:y s , m ,-  4 ~L -Pf L.' T. R! cketsorp,~ PkE. , Radiation Speciali st  Date Facilit- eyRapologfM1' Protection Section
    -
       '
James L. Milhoan,' Director Division of-Reactor Projects
l
  " CCi-  . .
Cooper; Nuclear Station ATTN: Guy Horn, Division Manager-            -
  '
    . . .
of Nuclear Operations- '
  'P.0L Bcx 90 Brownville,; Nebraska- 68321:
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska--Radiation Control Program Directo '
      ,         p0fa v'
  - .RIV:FRP
      }  C:FRPSF C:RPB4 Ab fyb  )
            '
DP  l'
LRicketson/ sir   RBaer      JMil.)oan 4 /g/89    7/3/89pMurray 7/p/89  hlBec
        /  9/l}/89  {/89 j@92ggg[j $?%jge a y,
! '
  '
       ''
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - -


Approved:        6- SE9 Rf E. Baer, Chief, Facili..es Radiological   Date l     Protection Section Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted May 1-5, 1989 (Report 50-298/89-16)
w wy    , , ,         .-q:
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of selected areas in the radiation protection program as set forth in the core inspection program (83750), as they related to outage activitie Results: Planning and preparation for outage activities supported ALARA principle Staffing of Health Physics (HP) appeared adequate to handle the demands brought about by outage work. The HP technicians were judged to be technically qualified. The radioactive material transportation program was adequate. Two examples of one apparent violation were identified in the area of radioactive material and contamination controls (see paragraph 8). No deviations were identifie ~
gsMM e. p u .g   . . . im t : it . . 1
8906150219 DR  890605 ADDCK 0500029s PNU
        '     , s'
  - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
              '
                '
s
                ,
                ,
                  "  '
                      '
                        < !
                        ~
                          ' \
i ..-
hf            '
      '
_,           ,
  . .i'',--    : .
c
        ,
jj;an'yf m    ""s
              ,
_%_ ,
              ' ' '  <
_ m' ,
                    '  '
                        ,


     - . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.
                        ;
                        ,
                        '? g ', ,-  7@ '
                        -
e k N.:q'
w%),f;,qi;;;
     ' *                    '
                +
; ..'  g.3,                F- 5
                      '
            >
        -            'IL e  , ,.
      ''-
        - - -
          ,.,,
          .
          .d. . . ,  s  ,
s[    j j-,A, ,                    r
                +
5    i +  j j
            , . , ,,o, h :j' .g ,,
    ...r.1y  --    : t .i .
              *
              )
                ,
                ',


,
  ;'[.+ -
.
[f'6    >6, . - .
  *
            , , . 5            o q q g'''.'
  .
MfGJf -    ' I''      !W    *   s hy'?        - - - , . , , -. .. .
.


DETAILS l Persons Contacted NPPD
x t -1 E ' e' ' ras N *b ' a' Public. Power, District k-o c
  * H. Horn, Nuclear Operations Division Manager
              .
*J. V. Sayer, Radiological Manager
                '
*T. J. Chard, HP Supervisor R. L. Beilke, Radiological Support Supervisor
                -2- ',,'   '        1
*D. R. Robinson, Quality' Assurance Suptrvisor G. R. Smith, Licensing Supervisor
, , . _
*L. E. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist B. L. Hall, Health Physicist T. E. Carson, ALARA Coordinator J. H. Kuttler, HP Specialist D. P. Oshlo, Lead HP Technician J. P. Morris, Chemistry Technician NRC, Reaion IV
              'hc lY NY_.)&        ___
  * A. Pick, Resident Inspector
      ' -. ..P...,,
* M. McNeill, Reactor Inspector In addition to the above, the NRC inspector contacted other licensee and contractor personnel during the intra etio * Denotes those present at the exit meeting on [[Exit meeting date::May 5, 1989]]. Inspector Observations The following observations were discussed with the licensee during the exit meeting. Inspector observations are not violations, deviations, or open items, but were identified for the licensee's consideration for possible program improvement. Observations have no specific regulatory requirement ALARA packages documenting prejob planning and other efforts taken by the licensee to reduce radiation exposure did not contain attendance lists for prejob briefings given by HP or ALARA personne Increased surveillance of contract workers in less frequented controlled areas by the HP staff would have improved contamination control .
      ,
  . _ _ - - _ . . _ - _ _ - - - _--
        '  ; .
    -    a  .
            "
    '
f,;Q(* Q,, h *. ^
l bcc Lt'otDMBl(IE06)!  ' , . v,
                    ,
                      t-
                        ,- ,
g ',
afo              ''        '
  '


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ __
S'y,.,
       - - - -
    }
*
i
.
      'N  . .. . , , . , , ,,,
          , ,
                        $'
      ";bec~withllicensee'iletter:"
      - ,
m          '  ,
-
                    ,
@.e          '
L'
                ' '
1        .-
                          "
9g      /RE D.LMartin, RA:i      "
              ,
                    '
                    '
                      '  ,;,
rDRP;.      -
,u
~
    . , ,
    ,
a lResidentEIns' * . - . .. ' . . '
          ,..
pecto ,
              '.
                    '
                    "
                        ''
       :SectioniChief,DRP/C      t;
    ,
            '
                    "      4
,-             '
                        *
Me
    '
      ' Li sa' She'a ,! RM/ALF -           *
" '
  ~
4 .RPB-DRSS.-   4
          '
          '
i      ,
                        .
                          ' '
  ,
  ,
L DRS - .                  L W<    LMIS System!    W          ,
M  '
      'RIV: File'
s?  '
v  fRSTS'OperatorH -
m
    '
    .. PInspectori    '
Mm'    SSection'Chisf
      .B. Murray) '
  '  '
V i
  '
      'B.1Beachf v.-    o
  . ,    ;                      ^
l,
  '
      ' Project Engineer,'DRP/C:                  '  L R'W    7PT 0' Conner,(NRR-Project Manager        '
,  p    4              ,


  . Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (298/8910-01) - Hot Particle Controls Around Laundr Monitor. This item was discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-298/89-10 and involved the lack of controls around the laundry monitor and the handling of potentially contaminated protective clothing. After the previous inspection, the licensee's radiological protection staff evaluated the operation and instituted contamination controls. The NRC inspector verified that a rope barrier surrounded the laundry monitor and -
  :p',~,
the area was labeled as contaminated. Individuals working inside the barrier wore gloves, booties, and lab coats. Laundry to be monitored was treated as contaminated until monitored and found to be clean.
  ' '
, ..::
        "
1                  %
  .


s Individuals were required to clear personnel contamination monitors upon completion of work in the are . Planning, Preparation, and ALARA In order to review the licensee's planning and preparation, the NRC inspector attended daily meetings of department supervisors in which the progress of outage activities was discussed, along with upcoming projects. The NRC inspector noted that the discussions were open and participants seemed cooperative. The NRC inspector also attended meetings >
  , , il--
of the ALARA committee and of the HPs at shift change. All involved a good exchange of information; such as job progress, problem areas, possible alternate work methods, radiation levels, and special precaution The NRC inspector verified that the ALARA coordinator received a listing of work to be performed and that an ALARA review was performed when deemed '
  ''..,
appropriate. The NRC inspector reviewed selected ALARA packages and found them to be comprehensive, except lists of attendance for prejob briefings ,
were not included in the package l The NRC inspector determined that individuals involved in the ALARA reviews had adequate knowledge of plant systems and maintenance procedures. The NRC inspector noted, however, that the former ALARA'
coordinator, still working half time reviewing ALARA packages', had attended a formal course in ALARA training, while the new ALARA
:oordinator had not. The individual's supervisor stated to the NRC inspector that the training was planned, but had not yet been schedule The licensee's representatives stated that, in way of preparation, a mockup was used for training purposes in preparation for work on the control rod drives. In addition, a film of the drywell was used to help
      ,
i orient individuals with that area before they performed work _there,_and a  i vendor representative conducted training in the procedure for the removal of the source range monito _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
y
  '
  '
        .,
  :     .d'-' *
  '    ^'
Q _. ( _
  * ,
s S ~ jp ,
4-
     '
     .
r s L
          , n q
k 'a'h                          ,
The licensee established a' goal:of 185.5 man-rem.for.the outage, which i began April 8, 1989, and.a' goal of 275 man-rem for.the. year. The total; !
,.f,.',
exposure through week 17 was' approximately 101 man-rems for the outage
}4  ,. -
      ~
.7,.
     (based on pocket dosimeter data thusfar) and 133 man-rem'for'the year, No violations'or deviations were. identifie b Staffing and Qualification    l The NRC inspector reviewed the staffing plan for the outage and!noted that; the licensee had recruited 20 senior contract technicians and 8 junior- ,
          .-                 .
contract technicians for additional HP supportLduringithe outage. ?Before-hiring the technicians, a background check was made''to determine as.much as possible about 'the' work history and qualifications ofe the individual All' senior technicians were qualified in accordance with recommendations of Industry Standard ANSI N18.1-1971. Technicians were given the~ site-
'   *
          ~
..
specific HP procedures for review and were required to' demonstrate-a ..
e 1 !
i practical knowledge of them. The NRC inspector reviewed selected _ record documenting this process. During the course of.the inspection,'the NRC_ a inspector interviewed approximately eight. technicians at random and found-them to be sufficiently qualified. The work force of house technicians remained fairly stable over the last 16 months with a turnover. rate'o about 10 percen ~
j n[[    ,
The NRC inspector also reviewed station radiation protection procedures identified in the attachment to this repor No violations or deviations were identifie . Radiation Exposure Controls    )1 The licensee's external and internal controis were examined for agreement with 10 CFR Parts 20.101, 20.102, 20.103, 20.104, 20.105,~' 20.202, 20.203, 20.205, 20,206, and~ recommendations of'RG 8.1 As determined during the previous inspection, the license'e 'uses thermoluminescent dosimeters from a vendor. Representatives of the'
                          -
licensee stated that, should it;be necessary, the' vendor could process:the badges and provide exposure data in 3-4 days. The licensees'
representatives stated that there would be jobs requiring individuals t i; wear multiple. badges and that'there were an adequate number of dosimetry i devices. The NRC inspector confirmed that there had been' no instanceLo an individual receiving more than the allowable ~1imits of exposur :
l
'
The NRC inspector confirmed that air sampling was performed in work areas l and that' calibrated continuous air monitors were in use. The licensee's representatives stated that, based on whole body counting, there has been no ingestion of radioactive materia '
No violations or deviationr, were identifie .i i
i
          !
          :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -


____
  ,  ,
_,
t
        .- !- V
'
        '
  '
':
  '[.h
  ,
   , i=
   .,
  .    ,
      ,
i
i
    .,
f
  *
,_.j%
',. . , x'
t
  ,.'L'
  'o
  )-
      ' -
      .'J'
j
    .
p,.., e j
x        '
          -  --  ._ ._  - - - - - - - - - - - ---. __ _ __  _ _ ____ _ _ _


  .
.
   '
   ,y , - - - . -. .-
i i
_(
Posting, Labeling, and Worker Controls
  .
        .!
1.( C ; i
The licensee's program of! posting, labeling, and' worker controls were examined for agreement with 10 CFR Parts 19.12, 20.203, 20.205, and-20.20 j]
  ,l, .
        .:
.A' ']
        *
  .
The NRC inspector observed that posting andlabeling were appropriate and adequate. HP coverage at main stepoff pad was judged, by the NRC inspector, to be adequate but, as noted in paragraph 7, lessl often :
COOPER NUCLEAR STATION .
used stepoff pads needed.to be checked more ofte . Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination,' Surveys, and Monitoring Thelicensee'sprogramofcontrolofIradioactive'materialand  ..
Nebraska Public Power. District "" " * "A*S 4" NRM 5""^"^ "''
contamination, surveys, and monitoring was' examined for. agreement with:
.
Technical Specification (TS) 6.3.4.and 10 CFR Parts 20.201, 20.301, and 20.40 i TS 6.3.4 requires that procedures shall be mainta'ined and made availabl to all station personnel . . . and shall.be. consistent with the-requirements of 10 CFR 20. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that-the licenseeL make such radiation surveys as may be necessary to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. HP Procedure 9.2.3, Section VIII.B.I, requires that equipment and tools used in a controlled
  . _ _ _ _ _  ..._ m
        .
  .CNSS896747'
I   area be surveyed by instrument or smear prior to removal from the are While observing in-service inspection activities, the NRC inspector'
  ,
observed an individual working in Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Heat  '!
July 3, 1989 UE S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Exchanger Room A, a contaminated area, hand a' piece of electrical conduit ?
  ~
!
  . Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC. 20555
'
   -- Subj ect : NPPD Response to Notice'of Violation - NRC Inspection Report No. 50-?.98/89-16
to another individual standing outside the area boundary without first having the conduit checked for-contamination by HP. The individual accepting the conduit stated that he had just handed it to the person inside the contaminated area, who tried to put in place, found it to be  j too long, and returned it for trimming. . He' stated that he accepted the : q item with his bare hand and immediately put it in a: plastic bag.and that-he had forgotten that all items removed from the area should have been surveyed first. HP personnel directed the individual to a hand and foo monitor. No contamination was found. The conduit was not checked at the~  +
    .
time and therefore no information was available about its actual contamination leve The NRC inspector also observed, in RHR Heat Exchanger Room B, that hangers made from steel I-beams were laying across the stepoff pad and partially'
  <
      -
Gentlemen:
        ] ;
  .This. letter is written in response to your letter dated June 5, 1989, transmitting Inspection Report 50-298/89-16. . Therein you indicated that
outside a controlled area. These hangers were removed from the walls in the contaminated part of the room and were later found to have approximately 300 disintegrations per minute of radioactive coritaminatio .
  'certain'of our activities were in violation of NRC requirement Folleving is a statement of the' violation and our response in accordance with 10CFR2.20 STATEMENT OF VIOLATION-'
The failure to perform smear surveys on both the conduit and the hanger to -
l Failure To Follow Procedures
determine contamination levels are two examples of an apparent' violation  l of TS 6. J
        !
l


_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ ___ _      .\
TS 6.3.4 requires that " Radiation Control Procedures shall be maintained and made available to all station personnel. These procedures shall show permissible radiation exposure, and shall be consistent with the requirements of 10CFR20."


_ _ _
Health Physics Procedure 9.2.3, Section VIII.B.1 requires an instrument and/ smear survey prior to removal of equipment and tools from a controlled are Contrary to the above, the NRC inspector observed, on May 4, 1989, an
      - - _ _ _ - _ - - _
    .
,. ., .
individual pass a'section of electrical conduit from a controlled area in
  -
;,  the Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room A to an individual outside the controlled area without first performing or having performed a survey to determine the level of radioactive contamination on the condui Additionally, the NRC inspector observed, on the same day, unsurveyed  ;
  ,
sections of steel hangers which were partially removed from the !
controlled area in Besidual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room B.


!. Records of surveys were examined during the previous -inspection and the; survey program was found to be comprehensive. Selected examples of surveys, involving work performed during the outage, were examined and-they too were found to be adequate. An adequate supply of calibrated
l i
  . survey instruments was availabl ~The NRC inspector observed that both hand and foot monitors and personnel contamination monitors were available in sufficient' numbers and were used appropriately by individuals leaving the contaminated areas. The NRC inspector determined that the number (92)- of personnel contamination incidents for the outage thusfar was approximately double the number for the similar time period of the last outage. The licensee's representatives stated they felt, based on the type and location of the contamination found on individuals, the reason for the. increase was poor undressing techniques used by employees of.the primary contractor and not-the lack of hot particle control Licensee management addressed this point on April 22, 1989, in a memo to the contractor, emphasizing the need  !
)
for following the proper undressing. procedure. The licensee's representatives further stated that remedial training would be used if the rate of personnel contamination did not significantly decreas No deviations were ident1fie . Transportation The licensee's transportation program was inspected to' determine  )
e IS0b F
compliance with 49 CFR 170-179 and 10 CFR 7 The licensee made 32 shipments in 1988 and 12 thusfar in 1989. Shipments were made using steel liners., drums, and casks. Preparation and documentation of shipments is the responsibility of the radiological support portion of the radiological departmen i The NRC inspector examined a shipment consistinc of compacted (except for one container) dry waste which was being prepared for shipment to'
.SSG7110277M FDR ADOCK 05000298 f  \f,
Richland, Washington. The NRC' inspector noted that the strong, tight-containers (crates) appeared to be adequately braced and blocked to prevent shifting during transportation. The NRC inspecto'r randomly verified the licensee's surveys of the surfaces of the trailer containing the radioactive waste. No radiation levels above 15 mR/h on contact were detected. The shipment was labeled as low specific activity. The licensee supplied calculations supporting the classificatio The NRC inspector reviewed documentation of various previous shipments of  i radioactive materials and concluded that it was adequate for those examples. The NRC inspector verified that a certificate of compliance was on file for the cask used and that the licensee was listed as a use No violations or deviations were identifie :
        '
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _
f I Q  PDC h .
      --  -- _ 1


      . - - - - - _ _ _ _ -
_ _     _
  . . .
,
-
  ;.
U.S. Nucl0 r FrguletorJ Commission
- July 3, 1989 iPage;2
  .
  .
n
REASON FOR THE VIOLATION NPPD agrees that the events described in this violation occurred as writte Both events were the _ result of poor judgement and inadequate attention to detail by_the contractor craft personnel involved. The individuals involved with the first event (Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room A) were_ interviewed on May 4, 1989, by the CNS Eealth Physics Superviso .
  .
The individuals acknowledged awareness of the radiological survef requirements necessary for removing equipment from a contaminated area, as emphasized in General Employee Training (GET). The individual (s)
7 Exit Meeting The NRC inspector met with the resident inspector and the licensee's representatives, denoted in Section 1, and summarized the. scope and the-findings of the inspection and the inspector's' observations as presented in this repor i i
involved with the second event could not be identified. However, it can be assumed that they were also aware of the radiological survey .
i
requirements necessary'for removing equipment from a contaminated area, since successful completion of GET is required for all personnel prior to entering a. contaminated are CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED The individuals involved in the first event were immediately restricted from handling radioactive material and working in radiologically contaminated areas until such time as they had been counseled by the Health Physics Supervisor and had successfully completed remedial GET - Radiation Protection. These actions were completed by May 10, 1989, at which time the individuals were allowed to return to working in radiologically contaminated area Regarding the second event, the Health Physics Supervisor reviewed this event with the Health Physics Staff on May 5, 198 This review precipitated a rigorous plant walkdown of outage activities to ensure that contamination control practices were being adhered t This walkdown was completed on May 5, 198 CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS The Health Physics Supervisor discussed these events at the CNS/ outage maintenance contractor supervisors' planning meeting and stressed the importance of practicing prope.r contamination control principles and ensuring appropriate radiological surveys are conducted prior to removing equipment from radiologically contaminated area The Outage and Modifications Manager conveyed to the Outage and Modifications staff and the CNS/ outage maintenance contractor craft supervisors the concerns expressed by CNS management over the control of radioactive material as described in this violatio More frequent surveillance of contract workers in radiologically  !
controlled areas were implemented by the Health Physics Staff to ensure contamination control practices and policies are being adhered t This increased frequency continued until startup and subsequent reduction of contractor msnpower from the 1989 Refueling Outag _ _ _ __ ___ _ _-


       -- .._.-______________]
       ,
_ , ,,
        . ' , ,
            ,
v- ,
                +
5 V 3 ]) p;;pfg 40[;!4 % TV      b,,
      ,    .
'      -
      , '.s. .,
        :
          ,
e,
' Q- ~ ,.,
t
    . f,-.
        .
        >


m , -
        ,
      ,
          ,
         - >
          .
        ,
          ;,
            ,
            ,y TSf f UkSENticidiar .Regul$ tory [CommiSpion.:    'M I
. @sn',4Jul'f3[1980j  y    .?5 '
          ',.
t < .
q, y;
< p a k;,;? age 3 Jb      ;
         + >
>
  --
  . ,
      ,
        ,
i
_
i
              .
              (
s
s
          , 9
    ^
     ,.    -
it ' % ~ T , '    ,
          :.j
    .
   -
    '
a-     , , _
      . .,
          ;
     " : The -l actions'11sted above were - complete'd'. on' Mayj l0', - 1989. ,
  =- -i
ft  ,g
      '
19qb,  .( g DATE WHEN FULL' COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED 5    -
                -. . ,
n. . . , . , "
                > r
',  ./,.
'
    'Thelcorredtive  stepsLnoted have been dmpismented.on the dates.specified
    ,
   '
    :
_
    ,
    ,,: herein,':withifull: compliance' achieved by May. 10, 1989; _        . ,
                ,
l A
.
  $
  '
   's
    ;[ w
    :If you/ have"atiy quest' ions- regarding'.this responses. please contact myself -      ,
                "
        '
C      0 g
. .
Fj$
    -
f'or;G.l.R.LHorn'at'the site    ,
m, ,
    ;  
 
Sincerely, g w , A-'  :g
    -
  ,, A b  .
  .  .G. A.-Trevors
  ' *
LDiviston Manager.of-FL '    Nuclear. Support  .
                .
  .
g'i   : GAT:js/sg'
                .
  ,
  ,
t* .
  ,
   .      >  u  .-
    .'cc: U.'S.jNuclear Regulator c  Commission Region'IV-Arlington,' Texas'-
      ,
NRC, Resident l Inspector)
  *
,,.
Cooper Nuclear? Station          ,
u :c
   .
     -


  - -     >
E L
          , -j
f
        >
  <k .
        .,
  --
  . .
,
'
    %
  ,
.:'
          ,
,d:.h -
i f ,.
[[
\


d ATTACHMENT-PROCEDURES REVIEWED Ittle    Bevi si en Date 9.1.1.2: CNS Hot Particle _. Program    L '
h.-   *
      '
j .:
9.1. Speci al Work Permit:   . 17 ~2-23-89 1 9. Protective Clothing (Anti-C)    L8; 9-24-87::
' '
9. Radiation and Contamination' Survey Frequency 15=    2-20-8 . Radiation Survey
   .o .         - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
      '
L 1 . Contamination Surveys    L7' 12-08-88- ,
9. Surveying Materialifor. Release Offsite   1~ 7--01-87-9. Constant Air Monitors (CAM)    6' 2-23-89 9. Radioactive Sources Control.and    6  6-30-88 Accountability 9.S. Radioactive Waste Shipment for Burial  .6  8-11-88-9.5. Radioactive Material Shipment    4l -8-11-88'
,.
f -
s
____._________._m___ _ _ . _ . - _ - --
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:11, 30 January 2022

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-298/89-16. Implementation of Corrective Actions Will Be Reviewed During Future Insp
ML20247K761
Person / Time
Site: Cooper Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/14/1989
From: Milhoan J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Trevors G
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8909220012
Download: ML20247K761 (2)


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:ge < db d; w

   ,

m .. n ,

        ,
               .y

'~ 9d  %-. l- M ,

       '
       ,3p
        ' '#      * -

_ .- 4-w

  '

o ,

      ,. n       '

t .

   *

$hi v : :> u 'S __

    ^~dc _,
'A5   f.4 c   .
     ,.I1%
     ,

_

       '
 * ;3 % . , , .      .m
    ,
;
 -
 ? lInl Reply: Refer.To::.

s.;.- c; - y~ g g y' ' "

 ,

iDocket: :.50-298/89-16s . J ,' .y ,

  '
 ,
      ~A J

_

                * '
   ,,
 ""
  : Nebraska Public< Power District          +
,m   1 ATTN: George.A.1Trevors
' *
 ,  ,
   . j Division: Manager f.;Wuclear Support:
  -P.O.: Box:4991     .

F Columbus,.NebraskaL 68602-0499 .,

'
  #'! Gent,lemen:
  -

y

[  ,
 ,

Thank'you for' your, letter of July 31989, in response.to our letter and : s

 ,
 ,

NoticeLof Violation dated June 15, 1989.- We have" reviewed.your reply and find-

        ~

M' .. Libresponsive' to the con ~cerns raised in our Notice of Violation. :We will'

' <     .
 ,   . . .    ..

review the' implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection

      .
    .
              '

tjs ' /itodetermine'thatfullcompliancehasbeenachievedandwillbemaintained,

     '

n

,

Sincerely ...

     -"'
   -

James L. Milhoan,' Director Division of-Reactor Projects

  " CCi-  . .

Cooper; Nuclear Station ATTN: Guy Horn, Division Manager- -

  '
    . . .

of Nuclear Operations- '

  'P.0L Bcx 90 Brownville,; Nebraska- 68321:

Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska--Radiation Control Program Directo '

     ,         p0fa v'
  - .RIV:FRP
     }  C:FRPSF C:RPB4 Ab fyb  )
           '

DP l' LRicketson/ sir RBaer JMil.)oan 4 /g/89 7/3/89pMurray 7/p/89 hlBec

       /   9/l}/89   {/89 j@92ggg[j $?%jge a y,

! '

  '
     

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

w wy , , , .-q: gsMM e. p u .g . . . im t : it . . 1

       '     , s'
             '
               '

s

                ,
                ,
                 "   '
                      '
                       < !
                        ~
                         ' \

i ..- hf '

      '

_, ,

. .i,--    : .

c

       ,

jj;an'yf m ""s

             ,

_%_ ,

              ' ' '  <

_ m' ,

                    '   '
                       ,
                       ;
                       ,
                        '? g ', ,-  7@ '
                       -

e k N.:q' w%),f;,qi;;;

    ' *                     '
                +
; ..'  g.3,                 F-  5
                     '
            >
        -             'IL e   , ,.
     -
       - - -
         ,.,,
         .
          .d. . . ,   s   ,

s[ j j-,A, , r

                +

5 i + j j

           , . , ,,o, h :j' .g ,,
   ...r.1y  --    : t .i .
              *
              )
               ,
                ',
 ;'[.+ -

[f'6 >6, . - .

            , , . 5            o q q g.'

MfGJf - ' I !W * s hy'? - - - , . , , -. .. .

x t -1 E ' e' ' ras N *b ' a' Public. Power, District k-o c

              .
               '
                -2- ',,'   '        1

, , . _

              'hc lY NY_.)&        ___
     ' -. '   ..P...,,
      ,
        '   ;  .
   -     a   .
            "
    '

f,;Q(* Q,, h *. ^ l bcc Lt'otDMBl(IE06)! ' , . v,

                    ,
                     '  t-
                       ,- ,

g ', afo '

 '

S'y,.,

   }

i

     'N  . .. . , , . , , ,,,
         , ,
                        $'
     ";bec~withllicensee'iletter:"
     - ,

m ' , 1 -

                    ,

@.e ' L'

               ' '

1 .-

                          "

9g /RE D.LMartin, RA:i "

              ,
                   '
                    '
                      '  ,;,

rDRP;. -

,u
~
    . , ,
    ,

a lResidentEIns' * . - . .. ' . . '

         ,..

pecto ,

              '.
                    '
                    "
                        
     :SectioniChief,DRP/C      t;
   ,
           '
                    "      4
,-             '
                        *

Me

   '
     ' Li sa' She'a ,! RM/ALF -            *
" '
  ~

4 .RPB-DRSS.- 4

         '
          '

i ,

                       .
                         ' '
,

L DRS - . L W< LMIS System! W , M '

     'RIV: File'

s? ' v fRSTS'OperatorH - m

    '
    .. PInspectori     '

Mm' SSection'Chisf

     .B. Murray) '
  '  '

V i

  '
     'B.1Beachf v.-     o
 . ,    ;                      ^

l,

 '
     ' Project Engineer,'DRP/C:                  '  L R'W     7PT 0' Conner,(NRR-Project Manager        '
,  p     4               ,
:p',~,
 ' '

, ..::

       "

1  %

 .
, , il--
..,
'
:     .d'-'  *

Q _. ( _ s S ~ jp ,

    '

r s L k 'a'h ,

,.f,.',
}4  ,. -

.7,.

          .-                 .
'   *
..

e 1 ! j n[[ ,

                         -
 ,  ,

t

'
  '
'[.h
 ,  i=

i

    .,

f

 *
,_.j%
',. . , x'

t

  ,.'L'
  'o
  )-
     ' -
      .'J'

j

   .

p,.., e j x '

          -   --  ._ ._  - - - - - - - - - - - ---. __ _ __   _ _ ____ _ _ _
.
  ,y , - - - . -. .-

_(

 .

1.( C ; i

 ,l, .
.A' ']
 .

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION . Nebraska Public Power. District "" " * "A*S 4" NRM 5""^"^ " o .

  . _ _ _ _ _  ..._ m
 .CNSS896747'
 ,

July 3, 1989 UE S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  ~
 . Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC. 20555
 -- Subj ect : NPPD Response to Notice'of Violation - NRC Inspection Report No. 50-?.98/89-16
   .
<

Gentlemen:

 .This. letter is written in response to your letter dated June 5, 1989, transmitting Inspection Report 50-298/89-16. . Therein you indicated that
 'certain'of our activities were in violation of NRC requirement Folleving is a statement of the' violation and our response in accordance with 10CFR2.20 STATEMENT OF VIOLATION-'

l Failure To Follow Procedures

TS 6.3.4 requires that " Radiation Control Procedures shall be maintained and made available to all station personnel. These procedures shall show permissible radiation exposure, and shall be consistent with the requirements of 10CFR20."

Health Physics Procedure 9.2.3, Section VIII.B.1 requires an instrument and/ smear survey prior to removal of equipment and tools from a controlled are Contrary to the above, the NRC inspector observed, on May 4, 1989, an

    .

individual pass a'section of electrical conduit from a controlled area in

, the Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room A to an individual outside the controlled area without first performing or having performed a survey to determine the level of radioactive contamination on the condui Additionally, the NRC inspector observed, on the same day, unsurveyed  ;

sections of steel hangers which were partially removed from the  ! controlled area in Besidual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room B.

l i ) e IS0b F

.SSG7110277M FDR ADOCK 05000298 f   \f,
        '

f I Q PDC h .

      --  -- _ 1

_ _ _ ,

-
;.

U.S. Nucl0 r FrguletorJ Commission

- July 3, 1989 iPage;2
.

REASON FOR THE VIOLATION NPPD agrees that the events described in this violation occurred as writte Both events were the _ result of poor judgement and inadequate attention to detail by_the contractor craft personnel involved. The individuals involved with the first event (Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Room A) were_ interviewed on May 4, 1989, by the CNS Eealth Physics Superviso . The individuals acknowledged awareness of the radiological survef requirements necessary for removing equipment from a contaminated area, as emphasized in General Employee Training (GET). The individual (s) involved with the second event could not be identified. However, it can be assumed that they were also aware of the radiological survey . requirements necessary'for removing equipment from a contaminated area, since successful completion of GET is required for all personnel prior to entering a. contaminated are CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED The individuals involved in the first event were immediately restricted from handling radioactive material and working in radiologically contaminated areas until such time as they had been counseled by the Health Physics Supervisor and had successfully completed remedial GET - Radiation Protection. These actions were completed by May 10, 1989, at which time the individuals were allowed to return to working in radiologically contaminated area Regarding the second event, the Health Physics Supervisor reviewed this event with the Health Physics Staff on May 5, 198 This review precipitated a rigorous plant walkdown of outage activities to ensure that contamination control practices were being adhered t This walkdown was completed on May 5, 198 CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS The Health Physics Supervisor discussed these events at the CNS/ outage maintenance contractor supervisors' planning meeting and stressed the importance of practicing prope.r contamination control principles and ensuring appropriate radiological surveys are conducted prior to removing equipment from radiologically contaminated area The Outage and Modifications Manager conveyed to the Outage and Modifications staff and the CNS/ outage maintenance contractor craft supervisors the concerns expressed by CNS management over the control of radioactive material as described in this violatio More frequent surveillance of contract workers in radiologically  ! controlled areas were implemented by the Health Physics Staff to ensure contamination control practices and policies are being adhered t This increased frequency continued until startup and subsequent reduction of contractor msnpower from the 1989 Refueling Outag _ _ _ __ ___ _ _-

     ,

_ , ,,

       . ' , ,
            ,

v- ,

                +

5 V 3 ]) p;;pfg 40[;!4 % TV b,,

     ,     .
'       -
      , '.s. .,
        :
         ,

e,

' Q- ~ ,.,

t

    . f,-.
       .
       >
       ,
         ,
         .
         ;,
            ,
            ,y TSf f UkSENticidiar .Regul$ tory [CommiSpion.:    'M I
. @sn',4Jul'f3[1980j  y     .?5 '
          ',.

t < . q, y;

< p a k;,;? age 3 Jb       ;
       + >
>
  --
  . ,
     ,
       ,

i _ i

              .
              (

s

   ^

it ' % ~ T , ' ,

    .
    '
     . .,
   " : The -l actions'11sted above were - complete'd'. on' Mayj l0', - 1989. ,

ft ,g

     '

19qb, .( g DATE WHEN FULL' COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED 5 -

                -. . ,

n. . . , . , "

               > r
',  ./,.
'
    'Thelcorredtive  stepsLnoted have been dmpismented.on the dates.specified
    ,
  '
    :

_

   ,
   ,,: herein,':withifull: compliance' achieved by May. 10, 1989; _        . ,
                ,

l A

.
 $
 '
  's
   ;[ w
    :If you/ have"atiy quest' ions- regarding'.this responses. please contact myself -       ,
                "
        '

C 0 g

. .

Fj$

   -

f'or;G.l.R.LHorn'at'the site , m, e ,

   ; 

Sincerely, g w , A-' :g

   -
,, A b  .
 .  .G. A.-Trevors
  ' *

LDiviston Manager.of-FL ' Nuclear. Support .

                .
 .

g'i  : GAT:js/sg'

               .
,
 ,
   .'cc: U.'S.jNuclear Regulator c  Commission Region'IV-Arlington,' Texas'-

NRC, Resident l Inspector)

  *
,,.

Cooper Nuclear? Station , u :c

 .
    -

E L f

<k .
 --
,
   %
.:'

,d:.h - i f ,. [[ \

h.- * j .: ' '

 .o .         - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _

}}