ML18026A539: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 8
| page count = 8
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000387/1996004]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Pennsylvania
{{#Wiki_filter:Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Gompany Two North Ninth Street~Allentown, PA 18101-1179
Power 8 Light Gompany Two North Ninth Street~Allentown, PA 18101-1179
~610/774-5151 Robert G.Byram Senior Vice Preslderr r-iVuclear 610/774-7502 Fax: 610i774-5019 Jl.iw 24 1996 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Stop P 1-137 Washington, D.C.20555 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (50-387/96-04-02; 50-388/96-04-02 AND 50-387/96-04-03; 50-388/96-04-03)
~610/774-5151
Docket Nos.50-387 and 50-388 This letter provides Pennsylvania Power and Light Company's response to the Notice of Violation (50-387/96-04-02; 50-388/96-04-02 and 50-387/96-04-03; 50-388/96-04-03) contained in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-387/96-04 and 50-388/96-04 dated May 23, 1996.I The notice required submittal of a written reply within thirty (30)day of the date of the letter.We trust that the Commjssion will find the attached response acceptable.
Robert G.Byram Senior Vice Preslderr r-iVuclear
If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.R.D.Kichline at (610)774-7705.Very truly yours, Attac nt copy: NRC Region I Ms.M.Banerjee NRC Sr.Resident Inspector Mr.C.Poslusny, Jr.NRC Sr.Project Manager ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 1 of 6 (387/96-04-02; 3SS/96-04-02)
610/774-7502
Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, a high radiation area is an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in excess of 0.100 rem in 1 hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates.
Fax: 610i774-5019
Contrary to the above, on January 4;1996, through February 1, 1996, a high radiation area in the decontamination building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation), with dose rates up to 0.800 rem in 1 hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source (a vacuum), was not conspicuously posted as a high radiation area.RLQHHLSc: pe~On January 4, 1996, a radiation source (under-water vacuum housing)was placed in the decontamination building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation).
Jl.iw 24 1996 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
The dose of the vacuum housing warranted that the decontamination building be posted as a high radiation area.This posting was performed on February 1, 1996.The causes for the failure to post the decontamination building between January 4, 1996, and February 1, 1996, are:~On January 4, 1996 only one door of the decontamination building was posted indicating that the building was a high radiation area.The need to post the~remaining doors went undetected because of a lack of clear procedural and work practice guidance which resulted in human error.As a result no survey of the decontamination building was completed after the vacuum housing was placed in it, and the need to post all doors went uncorrected until February 1, 1996, when the vacuum housing was identified as a high radiation source.~Surveys that were conducted subsequent to placing the vacuum housing in the decontamination building also failed to identify the posting deficiencies.
Commission
Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Stop P 1-137 Washington, D.C.20555 SUSQUEHANNA
STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (50-387/96-04-02;
50-388/96-04-02
AND 50-387/96-04-03;
50-388/96-04-03)
Docket Nos.50-387 and 50-388 This letter provides Pennsylvania
Power and Light Company's response to the Notice of Violation (50-387/96-04-02;
50-388/96-04-02
and 50-387/96-04-03;
50-388/96-04-03)
contained in NRC Integrated
Inspection
Report 50-387/96-04
and 50-388/96-04
dated May 23, 1996.I The notice required submittal of a written reply within thirty (30)day of the date of the letter.We trust that the Commjssion
will find the attached response acceptable.
If you have any additional
questions, please contact Mr.R.D.Kichline at (610)774-7705.Very truly yours, Attac nt copy: NRC Region I Ms.M.Banerjee NRC Sr.Resident Inspector Mr.C.Poslusny, Jr.NRC Sr.Project Manager  
ATTACHMENT
TO PLA-4473 Page 1 of 6 (387/96-04-02;
3SS/96-04-02)
Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, a high radiation area is an area, accessible
to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in excess of 0.100 rem in 1 hour at 30 centimeters
from the radiation source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates.
Contrary to the above, on January 4;1996, through February 1, 1996, a high radiation area in the decontamination
building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation), with dose rates up to 0.800 rem in 1 hour at 30 centimeters
from the radiation source (a vacuum), was not conspicuously
posted as a high radiation area.RLQHHLSc: pe~On January 4, 1996, a radiation source (under-water
vacuum housing)was placed in the decontamination
building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation).
The dose of the vacuum housing warranted that the decontamination
building be posted as a high radiation area.This posting was performed on February 1, 1996.The causes for the failure to post the decontamination
building between January 4, 1996, and February 1, 1996, are:~On January 4, 1996 only one door of the decontamination
building was posted indicating
that the building was a high radiation area.The need to post the~remaining doors went undetected
because of a lack of clear procedural
and work practice guidance which resulted in human error.As a result no survey of the decontamination
building was completed after the vacuum housing was placed in it, and the need to post all doors went uncorrected
until February 1, 1996, when the vacuum housing was identified
as a high radiation source.~Surveys that were conducted subsequent
to placing the vacuum housing in the decontamination
building also failed to identify the posting deficiencies.
The initial survey performed on January 4, 1996, was incomplete.
The initial survey performed on January 4, 1996, was incomplete.
Another survey of the building was conducted on January 8, 1996, but was only performed at one corner of the building and did not identify any unusual radiation conditions.
Another survey of the building was conducted on January 8, 1996, but was only performed at one corner of the building and did not identify any unusual radiation conditions.
Subsequently, a survey conducted on January 15, 1996, did identify slightly elevated dose rates at one location-outside
Subsequently, a survey conducted on January 15, 1996, did identify slightly elevated dose rates at one location-outside the building.However, the slightly elevated dose rates were considered insignificant because the health physics technician performing the survey did not recognize that the elevated dose rates were from a high radiation source, i.e., the vacuum housing.  
the building.However, the slightly elevated dose rates were considered
 
insignificant
ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 2 of 6 W'll doors to the decontamination building on the refueling floor were immediately posted on February, 1, 1996, following identification that the vacuum housing was a high radiation source.Subsequently, a new rope barricade was erected to prevent access to the decontamination building.Therefore compliance with high radiation area posting requirements was achieved.b.Although functionally adequate, numerous procedures have been revised to clarify station survey, posting, and work practices when working with radioactive equipment.
because the health physics technician
These procedural revisions will strengthen the station's radiation controls program.C.The health physics technician involved in this event was counseled'as to the necessity to complete survey and posting requirements pursuant to station procedures.
performing
d.Health Physics training was conducted which will enhance a"questioning attitude" regarding radiological changes noted during routine surveys.The purpose of this training was to sensitize the health physics technicians on the need to follow-up and perform additional investigative surveys when elevated radiation levels are measured.e.Locking devices were placed on the decontamination building doors so that in the future this facility can be locked when radiation levels require locked radiation controls.A"radiological safety note" was distributed to station personnel reiterating the necessity of controlling radiological postings.Appropriate radiological controls work programs, and work priorities and communication enhancements associated with outage management activities have been developed.
the survey did not recognize that the elevated dose rates were from a high radiation source, i.e., the vacuum housing.  
These programs will increase the sensitivity of station personnel to station radiological control concerns, thereby reducing the occurrence of'imilar events.h.Areas of the plant which were not already under locked high radiation controls were surveyed and upgraded as necessary to ensure the station was in compliance with NRC posting and barricade requirements.
ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page3 of6 An independent walk-down, by first line supervisors, of high radiation posting changes is now required.This corrective action, which is in response to a subsequent posting event, adds assurances that the 10CFR20 and plant Technical Specification posting and barricading requirements are'being promptly and correctly implemented.
ATTACHMENT
W'P&L management immediately commissioned an intensive investigation to establish the cause and recommend corrective actions in response to this event.The resultant corrective actions taken to address this event were expeditiously dispositioned.
TO PLA-4473 Page 2 of 6 W'll doors to the decontamination
PP&L, therefore, considers the corrective actions identified above to satisfactorily address this violation.
building on the refueling floor were immediately
Based on the action taken in 2.a above, PP&L is in full compliance.
posted on February, 1, 1996, following identification
ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 page4of6'g jgQ~~(387/96-04-03; 388/96-04-03)
that the vacuum housing was a high radiation source.Subsequently, a new rope barricade was erected to prevent access to the decontamination
Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, survey means an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation.
building.Therefore compliance
Contrary to the above, as of April 4, 1996, the licensee did not make surveys to assure compliance with 10CFR20.2001(a), which describes authorized meaits of disposing of licensed material.Specifically, on September 21, 1995, (Note: The tanker was released offsite on September 14, 1995, as stated in Inspection Report 50-387/96-04 and 50-388/96-04) the licensee did not perform a survey before disposing of sludge in a tanker truck as normal, non-radioactive waste.On prior occasions, the tanker truck contained radioactive water above the lower limits of detection for effluent releases.4 RcBQ~H1K On February 29, 1996, PP&L was notified, by an organization in Montreal, Quebec Canada, that a tanker truck previously used by PP&L (PP&L identification
with high radiation area posting requirements
¹255-216)had a radioactive materials label affixed to the tanker.Prior to releasing the tanker offsite, the tanker (which had previously contained slightly contaminated water)was surveyed using existing procedures, and determined to be acceptable for offsite release.Prior to transport to Montreal, Quebec the tanker was thoroughly cleaned at a truck washing facility in Pennsylvania.
was achieved.b.Although functionally
To determine if the tanker may have been contaminated or if other potentially radioactive material may have been in the tanker following release from the site, a tanker (PP&L identification
adequate, numerous procedures
¹255-212)that had been used in a similar manner, was surveyed.The survey identified a small amount of slightly radioactive sludge in the bottom of the tanker.Dose calculations performed on this sludge concluded that any dose received would have been a small fraction of applicable dose limits for a member of the public and, based on transportation regulations, the sludge found would have been classified as an"exempt quantity." Because of the process used by PP&L to determine if radioactivity was associated with the tanker, the tanker may have contained similar or slightly lower amounts of slightly radioactive sludge.Therefore, it was concluded that an inadequate survey had been performed on tanker¹255-216.~The reason for the inadequate survey performed on the subject tanker, prior to its release offsite on September 14, 1995, was that:
have been revised to clarify station survey, posting, and work practices when working with radioactive
ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 5 of 6~No procedural guidance existed that specifically looked for or removed unnecessary labeling prior to release from the radiologically controlled area (RCA)or the site.~The procedure used to survey for contamination (HP-TP-602) was less than adequate in that it did not specifically require an internal survey of the tanker.~No overall procedure existed to control the process for use, surveying, sampling, or release of the tanker by the several affected functional organizations within PPAL.Although each functional organization has procedures to address their specific activity, the lack of a comprehensive governing procedure contributed to a lack of training related to aspects of releasing of material offsite, weak programmatic control of tankers for release from the RCA and site, less than adequate contamination control of empty containers, and less than adequate work plans for completely emptying the tanker.a.The remaining tankers at Susquehanna that are utilized for similar purposes have been relocated within the protected area, and have been physically secured.This will ensure positive control of these tankers prior to release offsite.b.Nuclear Department procedures (NDAP-00-0627 and HP-TP-0602) have been revised to require that the internal surfaces of tankers be surveyed prior to exiting the site..C.Nuclear Department Administrative Procedure (NDAP-00-0627) has been revised to incorporate steps that remove unnecessary labels on tankers prior to release offsite.Incorporation of a specific procedural step to remove labels in this NDAP, which applies across functional organizations, provides assurances that only required labeling will be attached to tankers exiting the site.The truck wash facility was surveyed.No nuclides attributable to nuclear power.plant operation were identified.
equipment.
The internal structure of several tankers has been inspected to determine if there are any physical obstructions that will prevent the complete draining of material from the tanker.This inspection concluded.
These procedural
that there are no major structural internals that should prevent the complete draining of a tanker.At least two designs have been identified; however, they present no significant impediments to emptying the tankers.
revisions will strengthen
ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page6of6 PP&L correspondence was sent to the organization in Montreal, Quebec, who received the tanker, stating that there was not a radiological hazard associated with the tanker, and that the label could be removed.W W'1 Surveys of the remaining tankers that were utilized for similar purposes will be performed to assure that they are not radioactively contaminated nor contain.radioactive sludge above station release limits.These surveys are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.b.Inspections of the remaining tankers that, were utilized for similar purposes will be conducted to assure that inappropriate labels have been removed.These inspections are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.C.Requirements associated with tanker activities within the protected area will be enhanced to assure that adequate controls exist for the use, surveying, sampling, labeling, etc.of tankers.These requirements are scheduled to be developed and implemented by July 31, 1996.The overall program for controlling and coordinating the process for removing material from the RCA and site will be evaluated.
the station's radiation controls program.C.The health physics technician
This evaluation is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.Training will be provided, to applicable functional organizations, that addresses the release of materials from the RCA that may be slightly radioactive.
involved in this event was counseled'as to the necessity to complete survey and posting requirements
This training will contain elements associated with appropriate.
pursuant to station procedures.
lower limits of detection (LLD's), plate out mechanisms and the diferent requirements for release of materials from the RCA and offsite.Initial training for key functional organizations is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 1996.Based on 2.a and 2.b above, PP&L is in full compliance.}}
d.Health Physics training was conducted which will enhance a"questioning
attitude" regarding radiological
changes noted during routine surveys.The purpose of this training was to sensitize the health physics technicians
on the need to follow-up and perform additional
investigative
surveys when elevated radiation levels are measured.e.Locking devices were placed on the decontamination
building doors so that in the future this facility can be locked when radiation levels require locked radiation controls.A"radiological
safety note" was distributed
to station personnel reiterating
the necessity of controlling
radiological
postings.Appropriate
radiological
controls work programs, and work priorities
and communication
enhancements
associated
with outage management
activities
have been developed.
These programs will increase the sensitivity
of station personnel to station radiological
control concerns, thereby reducing the occurrence
of'imilar events.h.Areas of the plant which were not already under locked high radiation controls were surveyed and upgraded as necessary to ensure the station was in compliance
with NRC posting and barricade requirements.  
ATTACHMENT
TO PLA-4473 Page3 of6 An independent
walk-down, by first line supervisors, of high radiation posting changes is now required.This corrective
action, which is in response to a subsequent
posting event, adds assurances
that the 10CFR20 and plant Technical Specification
posting and barricading
requirements
are'being promptly and correctly implemented.
W'P&L management
immediately
commissioned
an intensive investigation
to establish the cause and recommend corrective
actions in response to this event.The resultant corrective
actions taken to address this event were expeditiously
dispositioned.
PP&L, therefore, considers the corrective
actions identified
above to satisfactorily
address this violation.
Based on the action taken in 2.a above, PP&L is in full compliance.  
ATTACHMENT
TO PLA-4473 page4of6'g jgQ~~(387/96-04-03;
388/96-04-03)
Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, survey means an evaluation
of the radiological
conditions
and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive
material or other sources of radiation.
Contrary to the above, as of April 4, 1996, the licensee did not make surveys to assure compliance
with 10CFR20.2001(a), which describes authorized
meaits of disposing of licensed material.Specifically, on September 21, 1995, (Note: The tanker was released offsite on September 14, 1995, as stated in Inspection
Report 50-387/96-04
and 50-388/96-04)
the licensee did not perform a survey before disposing of sludge in a tanker truck as normal, non-radioactive
waste.On prior occasions, the tanker truck contained radioactive
water above the lower limits of detection for effluent releases.4 RcBQ~H1K On February 29, 1996, PP&L was notified, by an organization
in Montreal, Quebec Canada, that a tanker truck previously
used by PP&L (PP&L identification
¹255-216)had a radioactive
materials label affixed to the tanker.Prior to releasing the tanker offsite, the tanker (which had previously
contained slightly contaminated
water)was surveyed using existing procedures, and determined
to be acceptable
for offsite release.Prior to transport to Montreal, Quebec the tanker was thoroughly
cleaned at a truck washing facility in Pennsylvania.
To determine if the tanker may have been contaminated
or if other potentially
radioactive
material may have been in the tanker following release from the site, a tanker (PP&L identification
¹255-212)that had been used in a similar manner, was surveyed.The survey identified
a small amount of slightly radioactive
sludge in the bottom of the tanker.Dose calculations
performed on this sludge concluded that any dose received would have been a small fraction of applicable
dose limits for a member of the public and, based on transportation
regulations, the sludge found would have been classified
as an"exempt quantity." Because of the process used by PP&L to determine if radioactivity
was associated
with the tanker, the tanker may have contained similar or slightly lower amounts of slightly radioactive
sludge.Therefore, it was concluded that an inadequate
survey had been performed on tanker¹255-216.~The reason for the inadequate
survey performed on the subject tanker, prior to its release offsite on September 14, 1995, was that:  
ATTACHMENT
TO PLA-4473 Page 5 of 6~No procedural
guidance existed that specifically
looked for or removed unnecessary
labeling prior to release from the radiologically
controlled
area (RCA)or the site.~The procedure used to survey for contamination (HP-TP-602)
was less than adequate in that it did not specifically
require an internal survey of the tanker.~No overall procedure existed to control the process for use, surveying, sampling, or release of the tanker by the several affected functional
organizations
within PPAL.Although each functional
organization
has procedures
to address their specific activity, the lack of a comprehensive
governing procedure contributed
to a lack of training related to aspects of releasing of material offsite, weak programmatic
control of tankers for release from the RCA and site, less than adequate contamination
control of empty containers, and less than adequate work plans for completely
emptying the tanker.a.The remaining tankers at Susquehanna
that are utilized for similar purposes have been relocated within the protected area, and have been physically
secured.This will ensure positive control of these tankers prior to release offsite.b.Nuclear Department
procedures (NDAP-00-0627
and HP-TP-0602)
have been revised to require that the internal surfaces of tankers be surveyed prior to exiting the site..C.Nuclear Department
Administrative
Procedure (NDAP-00-0627)
has been revised to incorporate
steps that remove unnecessary
labels on tankers prior to release offsite.Incorporation
of a specific procedural
step to remove labels in this NDAP, which applies across functional
organizations, provides assurances
that only required labeling will be attached to tankers exiting the site.The truck wash facility was surveyed.No nuclides attributable
to nuclear power.plant operation were identified.
The internal structure of several tankers has been inspected to determine if there are any physical obstructions
that will prevent the complete draining of material from the tanker.This inspection
concluded.
that there are no major structural
internals that should prevent the complete draining of a tanker.At least two designs have been identified;
however, they present no significant
impediments
to emptying the tankers.  
ATTACHMENT
TO PLA-4473 Page6of6 PP&L correspondence
was sent to the organization
in Montreal, Quebec, who received the tanker, stating that there was not a radiological
hazard associated
with the tanker, and that the label could be removed.W W'1 Surveys of the remaining tankers that were utilized for similar purposes will be performed to assure that they are not radioactively
contaminated
nor contain.radioactive
sludge above station release limits.These surveys are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.b.Inspections
of the remaining tankers that, were utilized for similar purposes will be conducted to assure that inappropriate
labels have been removed.These inspections
are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.C.Requirements
associated
with tanker activities
within the protected area will be enhanced to assure that adequate controls exist for the use, surveying, sampling, labeling, etc.of tankers.These requirements
are scheduled to be developed and implemented
by July 31, 1996.The overall program for controlling
and coordinating
the process for removing material from the RCA and site will be evaluated.
This evaluation
is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.Training will be provided, to applicable
functional
organizations, that addresses the release of materials from the RCA that may be slightly radioactive.
This training will contain elements associated
with appropriate.
lower limits of detection (LLD's), plate out mechanisms
and the diferent requirements
for release of materials from the RCA and offsite.Initial training for key functional
organizations
is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 1996.Based on 2.a and 2.b above, PP&L is in full compliance.
}}

Revision as of 03:57, 17 August 2019

Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/96-04 & 50-388/96-04.Corrective Actions:All Doors to Decontamination Bldg on Refueling Floor Immediately Posted on 960201
ML18026A539
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/24/1996
From: Byram R
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
PLA-4473, NUDOCS 9606280252
Download: ML18026A539 (8)


Text

Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Gompany Two North Ninth Street~Allentown, PA 18101-1179

~610/774-5151 Robert G.Byram Senior Vice Preslderr r-iVuclear 610/774-7502 Fax: 610i774-5019 Jl.iw 24 1996 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Stop P 1-137 Washington, D.C.20555 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (50-387/96-04-02; 50-388/96-04-02 AND 50-387/96-04-03; 50-388/96-04-03)

Docket Nos.50-387 and 50-388 This letter provides Pennsylvania Power and Light Company's response to the Notice of Violation (50-387/96-04-02; 50-388/96-04-02 and 50-387/96-04-03; 50-388/96-04-03) contained in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-387/96-04 and 50-388/96-04 dated May 23, 1996.I The notice required submittal of a written reply within thirty (30)day of the date of the letter.We trust that the Commjssion will find the attached response acceptable.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.R.D.Kichline at (610)774-7705.Very truly yours, Attac nt copy: NRC Region I Ms.M.Banerjee NRC Sr.Resident Inspector Mr.C.Poslusny, Jr.NRC Sr.Project Manager ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 1 of 6 (387/96-04-02; 3SS/96-04-02)

Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, a high radiation area is an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in excess of 0.100 rem in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates.

Contrary to the above, on January 4;1996, through February 1, 1996, a high radiation area in the decontamination building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation), with dose rates up to 0.800 rem in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source (a vacuum), was not conspicuously posted as a high radiation area.RLQHHLSc: pe~On January 4, 1996, a radiation source (under-water vacuum housing)was placed in the decontamination building on the refueling floor (818 ft.elevation).

The dose of the vacuum housing warranted that the decontamination building be posted as a high radiation area.This posting was performed on February 1, 1996.The causes for the failure to post the decontamination building between January 4, 1996, and February 1, 1996, are:~On January 4, 1996 only one door of the decontamination building was posted indicating that the building was a high radiation area.The need to post the~remaining doors went undetected because of a lack of clear procedural and work practice guidance which resulted in human error.As a result no survey of the decontamination building was completed after the vacuum housing was placed in it, and the need to post all doors went uncorrected until February 1, 1996, when the vacuum housing was identified as a high radiation source.~Surveys that were conducted subsequent to placing the vacuum housing in the decontamination building also failed to identify the posting deficiencies.

The initial survey performed on January 4, 1996, was incomplete.

Another survey of the building was conducted on January 8, 1996, but was only performed at one corner of the building and did not identify any unusual radiation conditions.

Subsequently, a survey conducted on January 15, 1996, did identify slightly elevated dose rates at one location-outside the building.However, the slightly elevated dose rates were considered insignificant because the health physics technician performing the survey did not recognize that the elevated dose rates were from a high radiation source, i.e., the vacuum housing.

ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 2 of 6 W'll doors to the decontamination building on the refueling floor were immediately posted on February, 1, 1996, following identification that the vacuum housing was a high radiation source.Subsequently, a new rope barricade was erected to prevent access to the decontamination building.Therefore compliance with high radiation area posting requirements was achieved.b.Although functionally adequate, numerous procedures have been revised to clarify station survey, posting, and work practices when working with radioactive equipment.

These procedural revisions will strengthen the station's radiation controls program.C.The health physics technician involved in this event was counseled'as to the necessity to complete survey and posting requirements pursuant to station procedures.

d.Health Physics training was conducted which will enhance a"questioning attitude" regarding radiological changes noted during routine surveys.The purpose of this training was to sensitize the health physics technicians on the need to follow-up and perform additional investigative surveys when elevated radiation levels are measured.e.Locking devices were placed on the decontamination building doors so that in the future this facility can be locked when radiation levels require locked radiation controls.A"radiological safety note" was distributed to station personnel reiterating the necessity of controlling radiological postings.Appropriate radiological controls work programs, and work priorities and communication enhancements associated with outage management activities have been developed.

These programs will increase the sensitivity of station personnel to station radiological control concerns, thereby reducing the occurrence of'imilar events.h.Areas of the plant which were not already under locked high radiation controls were surveyed and upgraded as necessary to ensure the station was in compliance with NRC posting and barricade requirements.

ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page3 of6 An independent walk-down, by first line supervisors, of high radiation posting changes is now required.This corrective action, which is in response to a subsequent posting event, adds assurances that the 10CFR20 and plant Technical Specification posting and barricading requirements are'being promptly and correctly implemented.

W'P&L management immediately commissioned an intensive investigation to establish the cause and recommend corrective actions in response to this event.The resultant corrective actions taken to address this event were expeditiously dispositioned.

PP&L, therefore, considers the corrective actions identified above to satisfactorily address this violation.

Based on the action taken in 2.a above, PP&L is in full compliance.

ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 page4of6'g jgQ~~(387/96-04-03; 388/96-04-03)

Pursuant to 10CFR20.1003, survey means an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation.

Contrary to the above, as of April 4, 1996, the licensee did not make surveys to assure compliance with 10CFR20.2001(a), which describes authorized meaits of disposing of licensed material.Specifically, on September 21, 1995, (Note: The tanker was released offsite on September 14, 1995, as stated in Inspection Report 50-387/96-04 and 50-388/96-04) the licensee did not perform a survey before disposing of sludge in a tanker truck as normal, non-radioactive waste.On prior occasions, the tanker truck contained radioactive water above the lower limits of detection for effluent releases.4 RcBQ~H1K On February 29, 1996, PP&L was notified, by an organization in Montreal, Quebec Canada, that a tanker truck previously used by PP&L (PP&L identification

¹255-216)had a radioactive materials label affixed to the tanker.Prior to releasing the tanker offsite, the tanker (which had previously contained slightly contaminated water)was surveyed using existing procedures, and determined to be acceptable for offsite release.Prior to transport to Montreal, Quebec the tanker was thoroughly cleaned at a truck washing facility in Pennsylvania.

To determine if the tanker may have been contaminated or if other potentially radioactive material may have been in the tanker following release from the site, a tanker (PP&L identification

¹255-212)that had been used in a similar manner, was surveyed.The survey identified a small amount of slightly radioactive sludge in the bottom of the tanker.Dose calculations performed on this sludge concluded that any dose received would have been a small fraction of applicable dose limits for a member of the public and, based on transportation regulations, the sludge found would have been classified as an"exempt quantity." Because of the process used by PP&L to determine if radioactivity was associated with the tanker, the tanker may have contained similar or slightly lower amounts of slightly radioactive sludge.Therefore, it was concluded that an inadequate survey had been performed on tanker¹255-216.~The reason for the inadequate survey performed on the subject tanker, prior to its release offsite on September 14, 1995, was that:

ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page 5 of 6~No procedural guidance existed that specifically looked for or removed unnecessary labeling prior to release from the radiologically controlled area (RCA)or the site.~The procedure used to survey for contamination (HP-TP-602) was less than adequate in that it did not specifically require an internal survey of the tanker.~No overall procedure existed to control the process for use, surveying, sampling, or release of the tanker by the several affected functional organizations within PPAL.Although each functional organization has procedures to address their specific activity, the lack of a comprehensive governing procedure contributed to a lack of training related to aspects of releasing of material offsite, weak programmatic control of tankers for release from the RCA and site, less than adequate contamination control of empty containers, and less than adequate work plans for completely emptying the tanker.a.The remaining tankers at Susquehanna that are utilized for similar purposes have been relocated within the protected area, and have been physically secured.This will ensure positive control of these tankers prior to release offsite.b.Nuclear Department procedures (NDAP-00-0627 and HP-TP-0602) have been revised to require that the internal surfaces of tankers be surveyed prior to exiting the site..C.Nuclear Department Administrative Procedure (NDAP-00-0627) has been revised to incorporate steps that remove unnecessary labels on tankers prior to release offsite.Incorporation of a specific procedural step to remove labels in this NDAP, which applies across functional organizations, provides assurances that only required labeling will be attached to tankers exiting the site.The truck wash facility was surveyed.No nuclides attributable to nuclear power.plant operation were identified.

The internal structure of several tankers has been inspected to determine if there are any physical obstructions that will prevent the complete draining of material from the tanker.This inspection concluded.

that there are no major structural internals that should prevent the complete draining of a tanker.At least two designs have been identified; however, they present no significant impediments to emptying the tankers.

ATTACHMENT TO PLA-4473 Page6of6 PP&L correspondence was sent to the organization in Montreal, Quebec, who received the tanker, stating that there was not a radiological hazard associated with the tanker, and that the label could be removed.W W'1 Surveys of the remaining tankers that were utilized for similar purposes will be performed to assure that they are not radioactively contaminated nor contain.radioactive sludge above station release limits.These surveys are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.b.Inspections of the remaining tankers that, were utilized for similar purposes will be conducted to assure that inappropriate labels have been removed.These inspections are scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.C.Requirements associated with tanker activities within the protected area will be enhanced to assure that adequate controls exist for the use, surveying, sampling, labeling, etc.of tankers.These requirements are scheduled to be developed and implemented by July 31, 1996.The overall program for controlling and coordinating the process for removing material from the RCA and site will be evaluated.

This evaluation is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1996.Training will be provided, to applicable functional organizations, that addresses the release of materials from the RCA that may be slightly radioactive.

This training will contain elements associated with appropriate.

lower limits of detection (LLD's), plate out mechanisms and the diferent requirements for release of materials from the RCA and offsite.Initial training for key functional organizations is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 1996.Based on 2.a and 2.b above, PP&L is in full compliance.