IR 05000321/1978034
| ML19289C569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1978 |
| From: | Gibson A, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C560 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-78-34, 50-366-78-42, NUDOCS 7901170343 | |
| Download: ML19289C569 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES
[g* M%,(o,,
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
.
REGloN il
,
{
)
g-p.
-
t 101 M ARIETT A STRE ET. N.W.
,
6, y} /
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 s
- ...+
Report Nos.:
50-321/78-34 and 50-366/78-42 Docket Nos.:
50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name:
E. I. Hatch Units 1 and 2 Inspected at:
Hatch Site, Baxley, Georgia Inspector:
C. M. Hosey
f/
'I
Approved by:
A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Surnary Inspection on October 17-20, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-321/78-3 and 50-366/78-42)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of radiation measurements and chemical and radiochemical startup testing (Unit 2), radiation protection and radioactive waste management programs, including radioactive effluent release monitoring and records, personnel dosimetry (Units 1 and 2), shipments of radio-active material, review of IE Circulars and Bulletins, followup on licensee event reports and followup on previously identified items. The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the nine areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in eight areas.
An apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction -
Failure to follow procedure for response checking neutron survey instrument (366/78-42-01, paragraph 5).
[h 7901170 9'/3
.
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34
-
and 50-366/78-42 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
4N
-
Ik2u b C. M. Hosey, Radiation Specialist Date
'
Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection:
Octob 17-20, 1978 Reviewed by:
A
-
U [2 y /
'
A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- H.
C. Nix, Assistant Plant Manager
- T.
R. Collins, Health Physics Supervisor
- D. Smith, Counting Room Supervisor N. E. Shuman, Jr., Safety and Health Adviser (Corporate Of fice)
W. T. Barr, Shift Engineer C. R. Miles, Jr., Quality Assurance Field Supervisor
- C.
E. Belflower, Quality Assurance Site Supervisor G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative
- R.
F. Folker, Quality Assurance Engineer F. H. Walsh, GE Startup Engineer
- R. F. Rogers, USh3C Resident Inspector The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees, including health physics technicians, shift supervisors and plant operators.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-321/78-15-01) Neutron Calibration Factor
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective action in response to this item. The licensee established the calibration factor by comparing neutron radiation levels (measured with a PNR-4 Rem-meter) and exposure time with the TLD response.
A separate calibration factor was established for evaluating TLDs exposed to neutron radiation in the drywell and those exposed to the neutron instrument calibration source. The inspector had no further question.
'
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34
,
- and 50-366/78-42 I-2 b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-321/78-15-02) Recording Neutrons Types on Form NRC-5 The inspector reviewed the dosimetry reports reviewed from the TLD vendor (Form NRC-5 equivalent) for June and July 1978 and verified that neutron doses are being entered in the reports. The inspector had no further questions.
c.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-321/78-15-03) Visual Inspections of SBGT System Components Prior to Testing The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective action in response to this item. Plant Procedures HNP-1-3653 " Standby Gas Treatment System Operability" and HNP-1-3975 " Testing of CR and SBGT Filter Trains by Vendors" have been revised to include a visual inspection of components to be tested before each test.
The inspector had no further questions.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
One unresolved item was identified during this ins,ection.
321/78-34-03 Representative Sampling of Waste Monitoring Tanks The results of a study performed to demonstrate that representative samples can be obtained from the liquid waste monitoring tanks was not readily available for review. Failure to recirculate at least two tank volumes before taking a sample of a waste monitor tank or failure to demonstrate that a representative sample can be obtained with a smaller recirculation volume would be in noncompliance with Environmental Technical Specification 2.1.2.C.
This item is discussed further in paragraph 8.
4.
Plant Tour a.
The inspector toured the reactor building, turbine building and radwaste building for Units 1 and 2 on October 17, 1978, and the Unit 2 drywell on October 18, 1978.
Items observed included posting and control of radiological areas, control of radioactive and contaminated material, and performance of maintenance on radioactive system.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34 and 50-366/78-42 I-3 b.
10 CFR 20.203(c)(3) states in part that the access controls for high radiation areas "shall be established in such a way that no individual will be prevented f rom leaving a high radiation area."
During the plant tour, the inspector observed that the spent fuel pool heat exchanger room and the reactor water cleanup sampling room for Unit I were posted as high radiation areas. The door to each room was secured with a padlock. No mechanism was provided for individuals to exit the areas in the event the door was inadvertently locked while the area was occupied.
Radiation surveys in the rooms revealed that neither room was a high radiation area. A licensee representative stated that the high radiation area signs would be replaced with radiation area signs.
5.
Radiation Measurements (Unit 2)
a.
The inspector reviewed the results of radiation surveys of Unit 2 performed in accordance with plant procedure HNP-2-10090
" Radiation Measurements" for open vessel, beatup and test condition 2 (25.95% power, 39.1% flow) phases of startup testing.
The radiation survey results indicated that the radiation levels in the surveyed areas were apparently less than the design dose rate limits specified in the FSAR.
b.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 states, in part, that " Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering the.
. applicable procedures recommended in Appendix
.
"A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February, 1978.
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, paragraph 7e(2)
recommends that the performance of radiation surveys be covered by written procedures. Plant procedure HNP-2-10090 requires that radiation survey instruments be checked against a known source strength with +20% accuracy.
When questioned concerning the performance of the checks for neutron instruments, a licensee representative stated that a neutron source was not readily available for performing the instrument response check.
The licensee further stated that he had questioned the individual who performed the surveys required by proce. dure HNP-2-10090 and the individual acknowledged that the neutron instruments had not been checked against a known source, although the procedure had been checked indicating the procedural step had been completed. The inspector stated that failure to follow the procedure was in noncompliance (366/78-42-01) with Technical Specification 6..
.
,
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34
- and 50-366/78-42 1-4 6.
Chemical and Radiochemical Startup Test (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed the results of chemical and radiochemical analyses performed in accordance with plant procedure HNP-2-10080
" Chemical and Radiochemical Startup Test" for open vessel, heatup and test condition 1 (15-20% power) phases of startup testing. The test results appear to be within the limits specified in the FSAR and Technical Specifications.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this phase of startup testing.
7.
Effluent Radiation Monitors (Unit 2)
a.
Environmental Technical Specification 2.1.1.d requires that the liquid effluent monitor be set to alarm and to initiate the automatic closure of the discharge valve if the limits of ETS 2.1.1.a are reached. ETS 2.1.1.a states that "The concentration of radioactive material released in liquid waste effluents shall not exceed the values specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2."
The inspector reviewed the calibration of the Unit 2 liquid effluent monitor (2D11-K604) and the data used to establish the monitor set points prior to each release. The inspector noted during the review that the monitor ala rm setpoints for discharges made during September, 1978 ranged from approximately 14 esunts per second to 580 counts per second for approximatgly the same effluent concentration (1.4 x 10 pCi/ml).
A licensee representative stated that the monitor setpoint was established based on a count of an effluent sample in a well counter, and that late in September it was determined that the well counter had a defective cable which caused the erratic monitor setpoints. Bascd on a review of the data, the inspector concluded that, the requirements of Environmental Technical Specification 2.1.1.d had apparently been complied with.
The inspector commented that the individuals reviewing the discharge permit prior to the release should have detected the problem with the well counter early in the month and taken action to correct the problem. A licensee representative acknowledged the inspectors comments. The inspector stated that establishment of setpoints for the liquid ef fluent monitor would be identified as an open item (366/78-42-02) for followup at a later date.
b.
The inspector discussed with a licensee representative an event which occurred at another facility involving the condenser air ejector monitor. The monitor spiked momentarily but then went downscale due to saturation of the G-M detector. The licensee
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34
.
- and 50-366/78-42 I-5 representative said that the gaseous effluent monitors use either ion chambers or scintillation detectors, both of which are not subject to saturation and the resulting erroneous readings.
c.
The inspector also discussed an event at another facility wherein a continuous iodine stack monitor gave erroneous readings due to the adsorption of noble gases in the charcoal filter media. Hatch routinely uses charcoal adsorbers in the airborne lodine effluent monitors; however licensee representatives stated that they were aware of the charcoal adsorption of noble gases if high activity occurs, and plant procedures call for the removal and laboratory analysis of the applicable charcoal filter in the event the effluent monitor spikes.
The plant also has silver zeolyte adsorbers available, if needed.
The inspector had no further questions.
8.
Recirculation of Liquid Waste Sample Tanks (Unit 1)
Environmental Technical Specification 2.1.2.C states, in part, that
" Prior to tak:.ng samples from a monitoring tank, at least two tank volumes shall be recirculated, unless it can be demonstrated that a representative sample can be obtained with a smaller recirculation volume."
During a review of liquid waste discharge records, the inspector noted that the floor drain sample tank had only been recirculated for 30 minutes.
Based on the tank volume (11, 240 gallons) and recirculation pump discharge (78 gpm) insufficient recirculation time was used. A licensee representative stated that the tank was equipped with an eductor which enabled the plant to obtain a representative sample with a 30 minute recirculation time.
The licensee representative also stated that a study had been conducted to demonstrate the reduced recirculation time was satisfactory for obtaining a representative sample, however, the study was not readily available.
The inspector stated that the item would be unresolved (321/78-34-01) pending review of the study.
9.
Dosimetry Program
.
The inspector reviewed the procedures for. investigating lost and damaged TLDs.
Three out of four Replacement Exposure for Lost or Damaged TLD Badge forms reviewed were incomplete in that they indicated only the individual's name, social security number and the exposure estimate.
The sections of the form which provided the information necessary for determining the exposure estimate had not been completed.
A licensee representative stated that the exposure estimate was usually based on the individual's accumulated pocket ion
.
.
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-34 and 50-366/78-42 I-6 chamber readings. The inspector commented that for the record to be complete, the basis for the exposure estimate should be recorded on the replacement exposure fo rms.
A licensee representative stated that procedure HNP-1-8004 " Personnel Dosimetry Program" was being revised and the inspector's comments would be considered in the revision. The inspector had no further questions.
10.
IE Circulars and Bulletins Circular 78-03, " Packaging Greater Than Type A Quantities of Low a.
Specific Activity Radioactive Material for Transport".
The inspector selective reviewed radioactive shipment records for 1978 and discussed the solid waste disposal program with a licensee representative. The shipment records reviewed indicated that shipments had apparently been made in accordance with 10 CFR 71 and 49 CFR requirements. The inspector discussed IE Circular 78-03 with a licensee representative.
The inspector commented that procedures for the shipment of radioactive material sbould specifically include a review of the shipment of greater than Type A quantities of radioactive material to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 71 and the appropriate NRC certificate of compliance are being complied with. The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comments.
b.
Bulletin 78-07 " Protection Afforded by Air-Line Respirators and Supplied-Air Hoods."
An inspector discussed Georgia Power's letter of August 10, 1978, in response to the subject bulletin.
Air-line or supplied-air respirators operated in the demand mode are not used at plant Hatch. Plant Hatch procedures do not allow protection factors to be applied when using supplied-air hoods.
The inspector had no further questions.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on October 20, 1978,.and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Items discussed include one item of noncompliance and one unresolved item identified during this inspection.