IR 05000321/1979001
| ML19282B534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B527 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-01, 50-321-79-1, NUDOCS 7903150297 | |
| Download: ML19282B534 (7) | |
Text
.
.
UrdlTED STATES n atoog'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,
a R EOloN il
-t 101 M ARIETTA sTRE ET. N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
\\...../
Report Nos. : 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1 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 Approved by:
-
l[2.Th9 A. F. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on January 3-5, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection program, including qualification of radiation protection staff, licensee audits, training, posting, labelling and control, instruments and equipment, leak test of radioactive sources and follow-up on previously identified items. The inspection involved 26 inspector-hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas. Two apparent items of noncoinpliance were found in one area (infraction-failure to keep entrance to high radiation area locked (50-321/79-01-01, 50-366/79-01-01), paragraph 3; deficiency-failure to label containers of radioactive material (50-321/79-01-02, 50-366/79-01-02),
paragraph 3) and one apparent item of noncompliance was found ia each of two areas (infraction-failure to follow procedure for calibrating a neutron survey instrument (50-321/79-01-03, 50-366/79-01-03), paragraph 7; infraction-using technicians with insufficient experience in responsible positions (50-321/79-01-04, 50-366/79-01-04, paragraph 4).
790315029
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1-1-
?
k' [)I-T%
/
$[7 DETAILS I Prepared by:
C. M. HosiyIRddiation Specialist Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: J nuary 3-5, 1979 Reviewed by:
h 8/2.5/79 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 W. H. Rogers, Health Physicist / Radiochemist
- T. R. Collins, Health' Physics Supervisor
- D. Smith, Counting Room Supervisor D. F. Moore, Senior Methods and Training Specialist
- M. Link, Laboratory Foreman R. Hand, Laboratory Foreman B. Henderson, Instrument Foreman
- C. E. Belflower, Quality Assurance Site Supervisor
- G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative R. F. Folker, Quality Assurance Engineer R. F. Rogers, USNRC Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included chemistry / health physics techni-cians, shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators and general office personnel.
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved (321/78-34-03) Representative Sampling of Vaste Monitoring Tanks. The inspector reviews the results of a study which demonstrated that representative samples can be obtained from the liquid waste monitor tanks after less than two tank volumes have been recirculated. The inspector had no further question.
. ~.
.
-
-
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1-2-3.
Posting, Labelling and Control a.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's posting and control of radia-tion areas, high radiation areas, airborne radioactivity areas, contamination areas, radioactive material areas and the labelling of radioactive material during tours of the plant.
Technical Specifications 6.13.1 (for Unit 1) and 6.12.2 (for Unit 2) require, in part, that each high radiation area in which the radiation is greater than 1000 mR/hr. be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry into such areas. During a tour on January 3, 1979, door T-29 leading to the turbine bay on the 164 foot elevation of the Unit I turbine building was found open. Although the door was equipped with a device which activated an alarm in the control room when the door was open, the device was adjusted such that the alarm would be de-energized when the door was not fully closed and locked. The door was posted with a high radiation area sign. The highest radiation level in accessible areas of the turbine bay was 1100 mR/hr.
The inspector stated that failure to maintain the access for the high radiation area locked to prevent unauthorized entry was in noncompliance (321/366/79-01-01) with Technical Speci-fications 6.13.1 (Unit 1) and 6.12.2 (Un:. 2).
b.
During a plant tour, the inspector observed the following areas which were improperly posted:
(1) Yellow barrier tape and a " contaminated area" sign were strung on one side of the Unit I condensate demineralizer precoat tank and associated valves. No warning signs were visible on the approach to the tank normally taken by the operator, A licensee representative stated that in the event of a spill of water in this area, the area is normally posted as a "contami-nated area" as a precaution until the radiological status is known. The area around the precoat tank had been surveyed and found not to be contaminated; however, all the warning signs and barrier rope had not been removed.
(2) Unit I radioactive waste building stairway leading from the waste compactor area down to the basement (108 foot elevation)
was not posted to indicate the basement floor was contaminated.
The latest survey of the area ipdicated the contamination levels ranged from 400 dpm/100 cm to 3600 dpm/100 cm'.
Other entrances to the area were properly posted. A licensee repre-sentative stated the area had been posted as a " contaminated area"; however, the sign had been removed in error. The area was immediately posted as a contaminated area.
'
_-
'
...
.-
-
.
s
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1-3-c.
10 CFR 20.203(f) requires that each container of licensed material bear a durable, clearly visible label identifying the radioactive contents and providing sufficient information to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity thereof to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures. During a tour of the plant, a number of items of radioactive material was found stored below the stairway leading to the Unit I radioactive waste building basement (108 foot elevation).
These items included contaminated liquid transfer hoses and electrical cable.
The highest radiation level on the material was 8 mR/hr. The material was not labelled as radioactive material. Additional unlabelled bags of radioactive material with radiation levels as high as 10 mR/hr were found on the Unit I and the Unit 2 refueling floors.
The inspector stated that failure to label containers of radioactive material with a clearly visible label identifying the radioactive contents and providing the additional information required was in noncompliance (321/366/79-01-02) with 10 CFR 20.203(f).
4.
Qualifications Unit 1 Technical Specifications 6.3.15 states in part that, "Techni-a.
cians in responsible positions shall have a minimum of two years of working experience in their specialty". Unit 2 Technical Specifica-tions 6.3.1 states in part that, "Each member of the unit staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable positions".
Paragraph 4.5.2 of ANSI 18.1-1971 states in part that, " Technicians in responsible positions shall have a minimum of two years of working experience in their specialty".
b.
The inspector reviewed the training and experience records of recently hired chemistry / health physics technicians and discussed their qualifications with a licensee representative. A licensee representative stated that most of the new technicians had been hired with little or no experience in their specialty and that they would receive their working experience at the plant. The inspector reviewed the qualification program for the technicians and commented that provisions should be incorporated into the program to ensure that tasks such as performing radiological surveys, taking effluent samples and performing laboratory analyses are performed by indivi-duals who have been formally certified to perform the task or the task is performed under the guidance of a qualified individual who countersigns all records generated.
The length of technicians experience was not criterion considered in the licensee's certifica-tion program. The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comments.
., _. _
,..
...
~
_
-
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1
'
m.
and 50-366/79-1-4 '
c.
The inspector reviewed the training and experience records of seven contract chemistry / health physics technicians. All of the contract technicians apparently had the minimum related technical training; however, only five of the technicians apparently had a minimum of two years of working experience in their specialty. One technician had approximately 11 months experience and the other had approximately 18 months experience. A review of selected health physics records revealed that one of the technicians had signed Radiation Work Permits 79-24, 79-25, 79-34 and 79-35, approving the permits for the health physics group. The inspector stated that using chemistry /
health physics technicians in responsible positions who have less than two years of working experience in their specialty was in noncompliance (321/366/79-01-04) with Technical Specifications 6.3.15 (Unit 1) and 6.3.1 (Unit 2).
5.
Training a.
The inspector discussed the radiation protection phase of the general employee training / retraining with a licensee representative and reviewed selected training records for security, maintenance and administrative personnel. Plant Procedure HNP-8018, " Radiation Protection", states in part that, "all personnel will be required to demonstrate understanding of radiation protection principles at least annually". Two individual training records out of approximately 50 reviewed on January 3,1979, indicated that the individual had not demonstrated an understanding of radiation protection principles on an annual basis as required by Plant Procedure HNP-8018. The previous retraining dates for the individuals were September 14, 1977 and October 12, 1977. A licensee representative stated that an individual was normally allowed up to fourteen months to complete the retraining before action was taken to restrict access to the radiation controlled area (RCA). If this training was not completed within the required time, the security department was requested to change the individual's plant badge to allow only escorted access to the RCA. The licensee representatives stated that he was aware that one of the individuals had missed the training; however, he had been rescheduled to attend a training session in January 1979.
He further stated that the other individual had also been scheduled on January 4,1979 for retraining in January 1979. On January 4, 1979, action had been taken to allow the individuals only escorted access to the RCA, and a review of all other training records did not disclose any additional individuals who had missed the annual retraining. The inspector commented that Plant Procedure KNP-8018 requires an annual demonstration of understanding of radiation protection principles; however, plant procedures do not specify what action should be taken if an individual does not complete the
,...
.
...
.
.
.
A RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1-5-annual demonstrations. The inspector commented that such actions should be formally established.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments.
b.
The inspector discussed the training / retraining program for chemistry /
health physics technicians with a licensee representative and reviewed the training records of selected technicians. The inspector had no further questions concerning technician training.
6.
Audits The inspector discussed the audit program related to radiation protection with a licensee representative and reviewed the following audit reports:
a.
Audit Report No. 78-HP-1/1, September 25, 1978-October 11, 1978, Health Physics / Station Chemistry / Radiation Protection b.
Audit Report No. 78-RW-1, July 10-26,1978, Radwaste Activities The inspector evaluated the frequency, scope and follow-up actions of radiation protection related audits and had no questions.
7.
Instruments and Equipment a.
The inspector observed a variety of radiological instruments (survey instruments, portal monitors, friskers, pocket dosimeters) in use and available for use, checked calib, ration stickers and performed battery and source checks for selected portable instruments in the health physics office.
The inspector discussed the radiation survey instrument calibration program with health physics technicians who perform the calibration and observed the calibration of several instruments.
b.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 states in part that, " Written proce-dures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix 'A'
of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972 (applicable to Unit 1) and Revision 2, February 1978 (applicable to Unit 2).
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, paragraph H1 of the November 1972 issue and paragraph 8.a of the February 1978 issue both state in part that procedures should be provided to assure that instruments are properly calibrated, and adjusted at specific periods to maintain accuracy.
Plant Procedure HNP-8104, " Fast-Slow Neutron Counter Model PNC-4 Operation and Calibration" requires that the instrument be within + 20 percent of true field reading when exposed to a neutron source before considering the instrument satisfactory for use. During a review of instrument calibration records, the inspector noted that neutron
....._.._ m.
. _.... _ _
..
_
.
,
.*
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/79-1 and 50-366/79-1-6-survey instrument PNC-4, serial number 2650, failed to fall within 120 percent of the true field reading for several points during calibrations performed on November 28, 1978 and December 15, 1978.
The instrument was used to perform neutron radiation surveys on December 16, 1978 required by Plant Procedure HNP-2-10090, " Radiation Measurements". A licensee representative stated that it was difficult to get the instrument to fall within i 20 percent on all points; therefore, a procedut e change was bcing prepared to change the tolerance.
The inspector commented that calibrations performed November 16, 1977, February 27, 1978 and August 8, 1978 indicated that the instrument can meet the 120 percent tolerance and no procedural change appeared to be necessary. The inspector stated that failure to follow Plant Procedure HNP-8104 was in noncompliance (321/366/79-01-03) with Technical Specification 6.8.1.
8.
Other Areas Inspected The following additional items were reviewed by the inspector with no deviations or noncompliance items identified:
a.
Posting of Notices required by 10 CFR 19.11 b.
Leak test of radioactive sources 9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on January 5,1979 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
In addition, a telephone conversation was held with the Plant Manager on January 11, 1977, and the Plant Physicist / Radiochemist on January 16, 1979.
Items discussed included four items of noncompliance identified during this inspection.