ML20245J214

Ack Receipt of 890331,0522 & 0526 Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-413/89-02 & 50-414/89-02.Requests Description of Steps Taken to Correct Violations within 30 Days of Ltr Date

ML20245J214
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	08/02/1989
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8908170581
Download: ML20245J214 (6)

See also: IR 05000413/1989002

Text

c ,, h (h)

>F .

.

Aus 02 m i

.

Duke Power Company .j

-ATTh: Mr. H. B.-Tucker, Vice President '

Nuclear Production Department

422 South Church Street

' Charlotte, NC: 28242

'l

Gentlemen: -li

!

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-413/89-02 AND 50-414/89-02

_Thank you for your responses of March 31, 1989, May 22, 1989, and May 26, 1989, j

to our Notice of Violation-issued on Mcrch 3,1989, concerning activities .l

conducted at your Catawba facility. We have examined your responses and found

~

that they meet the requirements of _10 CFR 2.201.  !

.

.

!

'

In' your_ response, you' admitted and denied portions of the violation and -

-

requested the NRC: review the-violation to see if the remaining examples of .!

inadequate corrective action were substantive enough to warrant a violation.  !

!

. After. careful consideration.of the bases for your denial of the violation, we i

have concluded,' for the reasons presented in the enclosure to the letter, that

the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation. Therefore, in

accordance with 10'CFR 2.201(a), please submit to this office within 30 days of .)

.the date of this letter a written statement describing'the steps which have been  !

taken to correct the violation and the results' achieved, corrective steps which )

will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance. j

will be achieved.- )

i

In accordance with Section 2.790 'of the NRC's " Rule of Practice," Part 2, 'j

Title.10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this . letter and its enclosure  !

will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. j

i

The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the l

clearance procedures of. the Office of Management' and Budget as required by the '

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No.96-511.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,  !

OfIfOCLI Glhned l

hy I

Stewart D. Ebneter a

,

Regional Administrator  !

' Enclosure: i

Evaluations and Conclusions  !

'cc w/ enc 1: (Seepage 2) l

l

89081'70581 890802 E  !

. '

PDR ADOCK 05000413 @ I

G- PNU j pf  ;

hj _ - ----______--_________________a

- -__ ___

1 4

.

Duke Power Company 2

.

cc w/ encl:

T. B. Owen, Station Manager

State of South Carolina

bec w/ encl:

K. N. Jabbour, NRR

NRC Resident Inspector

Document Control Desk

. - ~

R R11 , /R1 , 15 rig

Jdter DCollins/ Stohr MS6ycrio6K iinsMJWigginton

FWright

6 89 6/24 /89

6/26/89

6/J[/89 6/77//89/ 6/g89 6/p/89

l

R11..

iErnst

6/ /89

4fild

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

_-_- ._ .

'

.

.-

'

l

. l

l

I

.

.

ENCLOSURE

EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSION

'

On March 3,1989, a Notice of Violation (50-413/89-02-01) was issued for a

violation identified during a routine NRC inspection. Duke Power Company

responded to the Notice on May 22, 1989, and admitted and denied portions of the

i violation. The licensee also requested that the NRC review the denied violations

and determine if the admitted violations warranted the issuance of a violation.

The NRC's evaluations and conclusions regarding the licensee's arguments are as

follows:

Restatement of Violation A

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI states that measures shall be established

to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as deviations, and

nonconformances, are promptly identified and corrected.

Contrary to the above, measures have not been established nor adequately

implemented to assure that corrective actions for an identified failure to

follow radiological procedures preclude recurrence, as evidenced by the

following:

1. In September 1987, NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-413, 414/87-31 identified

a failure to follow radiation control procedures relative to proper

contamination monitoring and use of daily dose records.

2. In November 1987, NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-413, 414/87-40 identified

an example of failure to follow radiation control procedures relative to

proper contamination monitoring.

3. In July 1988, NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-413, 414/88-27 identified the

failure to implement all of the corrective actions for the above violations

by a March 1, 1988 completion date.

4. A licensee audit conducted in December 1988 (LN-88-34) identified the

failure to frisk hand held items leaving the Radiological Control Area

(RCA) in- accordance with licensee procedures, dose cards not being

completed for each entry / exit of the RCA, and employees exiting the RCA

from areas that were not normal exit points.

Summary of Licensee's Response

Duke Power Company admitted and denied portions of the violation.

Partial Admission of Violation A

The licensee admits that their actions associated with NRC Violations

50-413/87-40-03 and 50-413/88-27-01 were not of sufficient timeliness or

effectiveness to preclude repetition.

_ _ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _

>

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

• '

.

.

.

Enclosure. 2

,. .

L .I

NRC violation 50-413/87-40-03 was issued for fcilure to have adequate

written procedures for controlling contaminated tools in the licensee's hot tool

room. The licensee admitted that training on the proper controls for

,

contaminated tools in the hot tool room had not occurred by the licensee's

I

corrective action completion date. The licensee stated that failure to conduct

the training was a personnel error and that the individual was counseled on

the importance of meeting commitment dates.

NRC violation 50-413/88-27-01 was issued for the failure of operations personnel

to follow radiological control procedures, on two occasions, while responding to

leaking radioactive systems. The licensee admitted that they had failed to take

timely and effective corrective actions following the first event which could

have prevented the subsequent event. The licensee's corrective action included

,

discussing the incidents with the individuals involved and discussing the event

!

in an Operations Shift Supervisor's Meeting.

partial Denial of Violation A

The licensee contends that their corrective action program for radiological

protection procedure violations has been timely and effective for frisking and

dose card activities (50-413/87-31-02) and radioactive waste shipment surveys

(50-413/88-27-01).

Regarding the 50-413/87-31-02 violation, the licensee reported that numerous

changes in the frisking and dose card activitics had taken place in the last

five years and these program changes had kept the licensee from 100 percent

compliance and full proficiency.

The licensee also discussed the activities associated with the purchase and

introduction of new whole body friskers in their contamination control program.

The licensee stated that the NRC was incorrect in assuming that it was the

licensee's intent to install and operate the whole body friskers by the end of

1988. Although Attachment I to their Reply To A Notice Of Violation

50-413/88-27-01, dated October 28, 1988, cledrly specified that the equipment

would be " delivered" late that year, Catawba did not commit to have the

equipment functional by December 1, 1988.

The licensee reported that another example of ineffective communication with the

NRC involved a corrective action commitment for NRC Violation 50-413/87-31-02.

In order to improve overall management involvement in correcting frisking and

dose card problems, the licensee committed to implement a program of routine

observations to monitor employee compliance with dosimetry, dose cards, frisking,

and general radiological protection program requirements. The licensee conducted i

a program of management observations for a six week period. The licensee l

reported that the results of the survey apparently were not discussed with the  !

NRC Inspector during the July 1988 inspection (Inspection Report No. 88-27) even

though the program review had been completed in February,1988. The licensee 1

stated that an attachment to the response to NRC Violation 50-413/88-2/-01 was

designated to clarify any misunderstanding concerning their commitment to have

i

!

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- *

. .

,

l

,

Enclosure 3

in place a program of continuing management involvement. However, the Duke Power

response to Violation 50-413/88-27-01 did not reference the attachment nor

describe its purpose.

l The licensee reported that 'during the 1989 inspection (Inspection Report

No. 89-11), the inspector discussed an additional example of inadequate

corrective action concerning the licensee's response to Violation

! 50-413/87-11-01. Violation 50-413/87-11-01 documented the licensee's failure to

adhere to radiation control-procedures by not listing the required radiation

levels inside the cab of a transport vehicle and at a point two meters from the

vehicle. The licensee stated that they had implemented additional corrective

action for the violation that had not been included in their proposed corrective

action to the NRC. The licensee reported that in addition to revising the

radiot.ctive waste shipping procedures they had covered the procedure revisions

with hot tool room workers in a formalized Employee Training and Qualification

Program.

The licensee's response also stated that a significant misunderstanding existed

between the licensee and the NRC and that communications could be improved with

additional effort on the part of both groups. The licensee concluded that the

use of certain performance examples by the NRC (frisking errors, dose card

errors, management involvement, missed whole body frisker commitments) as the

basis for the violation are the result of poor communication and not poor

performance.

NRC Evaluation

The NRC staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's response and has concluded

that the licensee did not provide any information that was not already

considered in determining the significance of the violation. The NRC does

agree that the communication could have been better on behalf of the licensee

and the NRC concerning the scope of proposed corrective action and the

implementation schedules. However, the NRC does not agnee with the licensee's

assessment that there was only a communication problem between both parties.

As stated in NRC Violation (50-413/89-02-01), the NRC identified failure to

adhere to radiological control procedures for personnel contamination monitoring

and completion of daily dose cards in September of 1987. The NRC documented

failure of licensee personnel to properly perform personnel contamination

monitoring again during a subsequent inspection conducted in November of 1987.

Furthermore, Licensee Surveillance CN-88-34 conducted in December of 1988,

documented continuing failure of licensee personnel to comply with licensee

radiological protection procedures for frisking, exiting the RCA, and

completing daily dose cards. These series of examples of failure to perform

proper personnel contamination monitoring formed the basis for the violation for

failure to take adequate corrective action. Although the licensee did in fact

take several steps to correct the problem with such surveys, the failure to

perform adequate contamination surveys continued.

,

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

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

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

L

.' , . 2

.

Enclosure 4

~

.With respect to the licensee's corrective action for NRC Violation

-50-413/87-31-02, the NRC staff concluded that there was a communication

problem with both parties concerning the licensee's plan for management

review of radiological protection procedural compliance. During NRC

Inspection Report No. 50-413/89-11, the NRC Inspector considered the results of

i~ the Catawba's management review which was completed by the licensee in February

l of 1988. The inspector informed the licensee that the corrective action for NRC

l Violation 87-31-02 appeared to be complete. Accordingly, our records concerning

the licensee's corrective action for management review of radiological practices

will be revised.

There were several reasons for closing NRC Violation 50-413/87-31-02 even

though corrective action for the violation was still a concern for the NRC

staff. During the 50-413/89-11 inspection, the inspector determined that the

licensee had installed the new whole body friskers at the main RCA exit and in

the licensee's change rooms. The installation of the whole body friskers

improved the licensee's personnel contamination program significantly and

reduced the potential for personnel frisking errors associated with the use of

small thin window Geiger-Muller detectors.

NRC Conclusion

For the above reasons, the NRC staff concludes that the violation occurred as

stated.

!

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