IR 05000321/1979030
| ML19260D426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1979 |
| From: | Jenkins G, Macarthur T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260D408 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-30, 50-366-79-34, NUDOCS 8002110030 | |
| Download: ML19260D426 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
- % n are k' UNITED STATES Y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ n i - ,E REGION ll [[ o, 101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, G EON GIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-321/79-30 and 50-366/79-34 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley, Georgia, and Environmental Affairs Division, Decatur, Georgia Inspector: 1 6 2'/,, 4 r -[[e / 2-[ / 7 7 T. MacArt.r Date Signed
- b
- /J.
f Approved by.
- ' - G. R. Jenk , Acting Section Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on October 16-19, and October 23, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of radiological environmental monitoring including management controls, quality control of analytical measurements, inspection of environmental monitoring stations and sample collection, review of environmental monitoring data, review of environmental procedures and their implementation.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of concompliance or deviations were identified in four areas, one apparent item of noncom 3.liance was round in one area (Deficiency - failure to follow procedures in performing daily observation acks at the meteorological station.) (50-321/79-30-01 and 50-366/79-34-01) . m M 1939 030 8002110 O %
. . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Superintendent
- J. Greene, Arsistant Plant Superintendent
- G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative
- C. R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisot
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- D. Smith, Laboratory Supervisor
- T. Collins, Laboratory Supervisor
- R. C. Hand, Laboratory Foreman
- B. Maulsby, Senior Design Engineer
- J. Adams, Senior Biologist k'. 011inger, Nuclear Licensing Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians.
NRC Resident Inspector .
- R.
F. Rogers, III
- Attended exit interview at Hatch site
- Attended exit interview at Decatur Laboratory 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 19, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above at the Hatch Site and on October 23, 1979 at the Decatur Laboratory.
3.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspection Findings No items were inspected during this inspection.
1939 U,31 4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls . Assignment of responsibility for conducting the radiological environ-a- mental monitoring program was assigned to organizations and individuals with designation to responsible manarement and supervision. There have been personnel changes within the organization that appear to afford the same or higher level of management control.
b.
There appears to be serious management concern about the retention of qualified technical personnel at the Hatch Nuclear Plant. The inspector was informed at the time of the inspection that of the thirty-one personnel
. . -2-listed as actively employed as radiological monitoring technicians, more than half (17) were still in school and therefore not yet qualified to fulfill their job functions.
Because of the severe shortage of qualified personnel, the inspector was informed that HNP was forced to use a " Rent-a-Technician" system which licensee representatives felt was less than an optimum solution. As further evidence of difficulty in maintaining a desired number of qualified personnel in these technical areas, the inspector was shown a document listing the names and employ-ment dates of more than fifty former employees in this field. With the exception of three former employees on this list with employment tenure of more than five years, the inspector noted that the average length of employment of 50 technicians was about 11 and one-half months. The apparent inability to maintain a sufficient staff has led to many short term reassignments resulting in technicians not fully familiar with all of the duties of any particular assignment.
c.
Section 5.3.1 of the Environmental Technical Specifications contain requirements for audits of the program. The inspector reviewed the results of an audit performed by the licensee's Quality Assurance Department, QA-79-147 of June 19, 1979.
The audit provided for the identification of deficiencies in the program and followup for correc-tive action. The procedures provide for the results of audits and a system for reporting results to supervision and management.
The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that during the time of the inspection a licensee representative from the Atlanta, Georgia office was in process of conducting an audit of vendor services relative to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
6.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program Environmental Technical Specification, Section 3.2, Figures 3.2-1 and a.
3.2-2 contain requirements for sampling locations, monitoring and measurements frequency. The inspector reviewed data and reports and determined that the licensee was 'apparently taking required samples and making required measurements. The inspector reviewed the licensee's interpretation and evaluation of data and found that these were being accomplished.
b.
The inspector inspected all air particulate and charcoal filter moni-toring stations and found these to be consistent with the number and location as required by ETS, Section 3.2.
All of the stations were found in operating condition.
In addition, TLDs located at these , stations, and other solely TLD stations were inspected. The inspector _ also observed the collections of river water samples and determined that an annual milk animal census was,made as required by ETS 3.2.
It was noted by the inspector at the time of water collection that at each collection station the Silica-Gel dessicant indicator on the electronics package was a very pale pink to white. The sampling technician appeared }939 '
. . . -3- . not to fully understand the significance of this indication or what appro-priate action should be taken. The laboratory foreman was informed of the condition and provided technical guidance.
c.
Procedure HNP 7900, paragraph 4.b reads: "The room temperature of the meteorological station should be less than or equal to 75 degrees F and above freezing." At the time of entry, the room temperature was 77 degree; F and at the time of exit, after scraping a large amount of condensate off the air conditioner, the temperature registered 78 degrees F.
Additionally, procedure HNP-7900, Paragraph 4j, requires the following: " Compare the top and bottom wind directions, they should be in approximate agreement.
A difference of more than 20 degrees between the top and bottom could indicate a malfunction. Visually inspect the wind direction vane to see if it corresponds with the value being recorded. Check back on the chart to verify that the wind direction transmitter is tripping at 0 degrees and 540 degrees.
Check for excursions that continuously go between 0 degrees - 360 degrees or 180 degrees - 540 degrees, this would indicate a malfunction."
Contrary to the above, the wind direction at the 150 foot level regis-tered 45 degrees and the direction indicator at the 75 foot level showed 75 degrees, the difference being 30 degrees. The wind directions were recorded on the strip chart and no further action was taken. The technician indicated to the insp tor that he was unfamiliar with the requirements and was not quite sure of what to do.
Licensee represen-tatives,ere informed that the above described two instances of not following written procedures constitute an item of noncompliance (deficiency) with Section 5.6 of the Environmental Technical Specifica-tions. (50-321/79-30-01 and 50-366/79-34-01) Licensee representatives indicated that corrective measures would be taken.
d.
The inspector reviewed licensee reports and determined that required reports have apparently been submitted to the NRC as required by ETS, Section 5.7.
The inspector reviewed the reports for missing data, obvious mistakes, e.
anomalous measurements and observed biases or trends. The licensee provided the inspector with an edited copy of HNP Annual Report, Chapter 2, Radiological monitoring. The inspector reviewed the licensees statistical evaluation of data for determination of biases and trends in relation to data being reviewed and had no further questions.
. . m,9s 033 s }}