ML20237F912
| ML20237F912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1987 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Radford Converse POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F915 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708210612 | |
| Download: ML20237F912 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000333/1987018
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
-
.
.
AUG 19 1987
Docket No. 50-333
Power Authority of the State of New York
Janies A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
ATTN: Mr. Radford J. Converse
Resident Manager
P. O. Box 41
Lycoming, New York 13C93
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Health Physics Appraisal No. 50-333/87-18
An appraisal of the Health Physics program at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
Power Plant was conducted June 15-19, 1987 by a team of Region I-based inspec-
tors using guidance provided in NUREG-0855.
The areas examined and the results
of the review are described in the enclosed report.
A similar appraisal was conducted in November 1980 (Report No. 50-333/80-20)
and several significant weaknesses were noted at that time.
Most of those
weaknesses are being adequately resolved although corrective action is incom-
plete in certain instances. Areas of good performance were observed during
this appraisal including the Chemistry program, Personnel Dosimetry program and
the Training Department Apprentice program.
Your station policies and pro-
cedures were found to be clear and unambiguous.
The ALARA effort is well
organized, and a strong committment to ALARA is evident at all levels, includ-
ing corporate management. Additional strengths are recognized in Appendix 8.
We have a significant concern with the lack of technical proficiency among the
health physics staff. The team found that certain health physics technicians
and supervisors demonstrated lack of knowledge regarding fundamental health
physics concepts.
This persistent weakness should receive management attention.
Additional observed weaknesses are as follows:
1.
Delays - a lack of aggressive follow-up was found in that new equipment
on site was not in use, open positions remain unfilled, available training
is not fully utilized, no in-vitro bioassay or hot particle programs have
been developed, and ALARA goals are not challenging.
2.
Understaffing was noted at the management and HP technician level.
There
is an excessive use of overtime during outages.
Weaknesses within specific areas are found in Appendix A.
We recognize that an explicit regulatory requirement pertaining to each sig-
nificant weakness discussed in this report may not currently exist.
However,
in the interest of the health and safety of plant workers and the public, you
8708210612 870819
TICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0001.0.0
ADDCK 05000333
08/12/87
G
)\\
t
-
_ _ _ - .
._
,
.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - -
_ _ _ _
--
4'
.
Power Authority of the State
AUG 19 1987
.
'
of New York
2
,
are requested to submit within 60 days of receipt of this letter a written
reply stating (1) your review of the weakness, (2) corrective steps that will
be taken, and (3) a schedule for completion of action. The responses requested
by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of
Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL
96-511.
,
You and your staff were cooperative during the appraisal, and acknowledged our
j
findings in a positive manner.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ori nul Signed y:
L
L i
Thomas T. Martin, Director
Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Program Weaknesses
-
2.
Appendix B, Program Strengths
3.
Appraisal Report No. 50-333/87-18
cc w/encls:
J. Phillip Bayne, President
John C. Brons, Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation
R. E. Beedle, Vice President Nuclear Support
S. S. Zulla, Vice President Nuclear Engineering
R. Burns, Vice President Nuclear Operations
J. A. Gray, Director Nuclear Licensing - BWR
A. Klausmann, Vice President - Quality Assurance and Reliability
,
R. L. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent
I
George M. Wilverding, Chairman, Safety Review Committee
'
Gerald C. Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel
NRC Licensing Project Manager
l
Dept. of Public Service, State of New York
Public Document Room (PDR)
I
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
'
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
J
NRC Resident Inspector
State of New York
!
1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0002.0.0
08/12/87
r--
1
.
i
1
i
-
Power Authority of the State
,
of New York
3
AUG 19 1987
l
'
bcc w/encis:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
i
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encis)
.
Section Chief, DRP
Robert J. Bores, DRSS
l
1
l
i-
!
!
l
l
i
.
.
RI:DRSS
RI:DRSS
Dragoun ms
plShanbaky
V lVlI[]
Ud
fdM
8/it/8
8/<t/87
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0004.0.0
08/11/87
!
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _
.
\\
,
l
,
APPENDIX A
PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSES
Power Authority of the State of New York
Docket No. 50-333
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
License No. DPR-59
Based on the results of the NRC Health Physics Appraisal conducted on
June 15-19, 1987, the following program weaknesses were observed. Details
regarding these weaknesses are found in the attached appraisal report.
1.0 Radiation Protection Organization
a.
Excessive overtime work by-the technicians is allowed. One tech-
nician worked 68 days consecutively at 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per day. Overtime
guidance of Plant Standing Order No. 26 is frequently waived.
b.
Technicians and first line supervisors are weak in the technical
{
knowledge although technicians receive 4 days of training every
'
6 weeks and training programs are well controlled.
The position of " Senior Appraisal Specialist - Radiological" has been
c.
vacant 50". of the time since it was created in 1985.
d.
The Exempt Position Descriptions for Assistant Emergency Plan
J
Coordinator and Radiation Protection Supervisor are not accurate
reflections of position responsibilities.
i
l
Insufficient numbers of technicians during routine operations pre-
e.
vents effective cross-training or scheduling flexibility.
l
l
f.
RP Supervisors are assigned to areas where they have no training or
prior experience (e.g. , respiratory protection).
g.
The corporate " Tables of Organization" do not accurately reflect ~the
site organization.
)
1
i
l
h.
Insufficient lead time was used when bringing the Corporate Radiolog
-)
j
ical Engineer on site to assist during outages.
2.0 Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training
j
a.
A retraining program developed specifically for supervisors has not
been implemented.
l
b.
Training and qualification records are not consolidated to allow
I
verification of ANSI status.
1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0005.0.0
08/11/87
F
1:
f
'
.
Appendix A
2
,
c.
Requirements are frequently waived.
For example, staff technicians
are waived from certain requirements of Apprentice program and
ex-Navy ELT are granted ANSI status.
3.
Exposure Centrol
a.
No program has been developed to identify and control " hot
particles." The skin dose assessment procedure for hot particles was
incomplete.
b.
No program has been developed for the collection and analysis of
in-vitro samples to evaluate intakes which cannot be quantified by
in-vivo whole body counting.
4.0 Radioactive Waste Management
a.
Management has not been aggressive in implementing a chemistry
organization expansion or bringing state-of-the-art equipment on site
!
into routine operation.
b.
Criteria for radiochemistry QC checks are not clear.
5.0 AlARA Program
a.
Exposure goals are not challenging or aggressive.
!
b.
Need active participation in ALARA program by work groups and design
engineers.
6.0 Health Physics Facilities and Equipment
i
a.
The whole body counting facility is improperly located for use under
accident conditions.
b.
The calibration facility is too small and crowded.
c.
An excessive number (50 to 80*;) of survey instruments are out of
service,
'
d.
Portal monitors are neither calibrated nor source checked.
Friskers
will not detect hot particles at observed frisking speeds,
e.
Respiratory group is understaffed to support the scope of work.
j
f.
There is a lack of coordination of RP responsibilities for equipment
,
l
purchased by other groups.
I
I
g.
The review of routine surveys does not detect technical errors.
l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0006.0.0
08/11/87
.
,
,
Appendix A
3
h.
High alpha activity detected during routine surveys is not
investigated.
High volume air samples are not periodically checked
3
d
for alpha activity.
1.
Responsibilities for various facets of the surveillance program is
fragmented.
1
i
i
l
'
l
l
l
-
l
!
i
l
i
1
l
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0007.0.0
08/11/87
1
J
f~
]
l
J
.
l
APPENDIX B
PROGRAMMATIC STRENGTHS
i
)
l
Power Authority of the State of New York
Docket No. 50-333
)
Jame:. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
License No. DPR-59
j
Basd on the results of the NRC Health Fhysics Appraisal conducted on
June 15-19, 1987, the following program strengths were observed.
Details
1
regarding these strengths are found in the attached appraisal report.
)
1
1.0 Radiation Protection Organization
t.
There are two qualified Senior Reactor Operators on the RP staff
providing operational experience.
l
b.
Communications between various groups and individuals is good with
I
numerous meetings.
j
I
.
An effective personnel award and discipline program are used.
l
c.
I
'
d.
Unusual Radiological Incident Reports are effectively reviewed with
l
i
timely action to resolve deficiencies.
e.
The corporate staff is frequently involved with on-site activities,
f.
The Corporate Compliance and Appraisal Group has two dedicated
appraisers to identify improvement in the chemistry and environmental
programs.
2.0 Personnel Selection, Qualification and Training
a.
Training offered by the Training Department is well structured and
>
controlled although effectiveness appears limited.
(See Weakness
1.0-b)
b.
The site access training for NRC inspectors was promptly revised
after requests for expedited access.
c.
The training facilities are well equipped with extensive technical
reference handout material given to students.
d.
The Apprentice program is a well controlled training program that
assures RP technicians in training have received and absorbed the
training material.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0008.0.0
08/11/87
_ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
Appendix B
2
.
l
3.0 Exposure Control
a.
The Radiation Protection Manual is comprehensive and contains most of
the essential elements of an effective exposure control program.
b.
The procedures for the dosimetry program, and for conducting surveys,
posting and labeling hazards are clear and detailed.
Explicit
r
l
instructions are provided by RP technicians to guide them in the
'
performance of their duties.
c.
The personnel dosimetry equipment is state-of-the-art used by a well
trained staff and making maximum use of computers to process and
report data.
d.
Exposure records are well maintained and easily retrievable.
l
l
e.
Respiratory Protection policies and programs are clear with appro-
l
priate selection and use limits incorporated.
4.0 Radioactive Waste Management
a.
There is good control of effluents with evidence of planning to keep
releases ALARA.
b.
The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM) computer programs and PCP
were improved to better address RETS Technical Specifications.
5.0 ALARA Program
1
a.
The ALARA program is well documented and controlled with good
,
reporting and oversight by management.
b.
Interaction between ALARA, corporate and work groups is good.
6.0 Health Physics Facilities and Equipment
a.
New state-of-the-art monitors, alpha scintillation detectors and
automatic friskers have been purchased.
j
b.
The program for maintenance, decontamination and accountability of
respirators is good. Very good facilities are provided.
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
HP APPRAISAL FITZ - 0009.0.0
08/11/87