IR 05000321/1981032
| ML20051D601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Albright R, Franklin L, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20051D342 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0041, RTR-NUREG-41, RTR-REGGD-08.015, RTR-REGGD-8.015 50-321-81-32, 50-366-81-32, NUDOCS 8205140566 | |
| Download: ML20051D601 (6) | |
Text
.
/
o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
<r REGION il
"o
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/81-32 and 53-365/81-32 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name:
El Hatch Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia c -7 wf
'
Inspectors:
,s erw.df m
L. A. Frank 114
~~
~
/J.-?/-F.i
-
Date Signed
$bh JY (L
._j : W-?:
R. H. Albri t1C /[
Date Signed Approved by:
s 7"
/hh/
/
C. M. Hosey,'d Acting S sction Chief Dite Sigiied
~
Technical Inspection Branch Engineering and Tech ical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on December 14 - 18, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 70 inspector-hours on site in the areas of organization and qualifications, exposure controls, respiratory protec-tion, posting and control, surveys, instrumentation, and open items.
Results Of the seven areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in six areas; one item of violation was found in one area.
820514o566
-
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- C. T. Jones, Assistant Plant Manager
- W. H. Rogers, Supervisor-Chemistry and Health Physics
- C. R. Miles, Jr. Quality Assurance Field Supervisor
- C. E. Belflower, Quality Assurance site Supervisor
- R. W. Ott, Quality Control
- I. Kochery, Health Physicist
- D. Smith, Laboratory Supervisor (H(alth Physics)
R. C. Hand, Laboratory Supervisor (Chemistry)
M. T. Squires, Laboratory Foreman P. E. Fornel, Senior QA Field Representative W. B. Thigpen, Senior QA Field Representative W. P. Wagner, QA Field Representative D. F. Moore, Supervisor, Nuclear Training B. C. Arnold, Laboratory Foreman J. D. Bennett, Laboratory Foreman R. Houston, QA Field Representative Other licensee employees contacted included eight technicians, four opera-tors, and five office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Rogers
- P. Holmes-Ray
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 18, 1981, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The Plant Manager acknowl-edged the violation and one item concerning the respiratory protection program.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings t
(Closed) (Violation) 81-10-03. This violation concerned a failure to post radiation areas. The inspectors toured the area plus additional tours of other areas within the facility. No posting violations were noted.
(Closed) (Violation) 81-07-04. This item concerned the licensee's failure to record and review analyses for Chlorides and Silica.
The inspector examined the records for these analyses and determined that a review was
.
-
.
being performed. In addition monthly quality control inspections are being.
made. The inspectors had no further questions.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspector's Identified Items a.
Closed (IFI) 78-SI-01. This item concerned whole body counting proce-dures.
Updated procedures were examined and appear adequate.
The inspectors had no further questions.
b.
Closed (IFI) 79-FI-06. This item concerned a followup memorandum to IE circular 79-21 dealing with unplanned releases of radioactivity. A memorandum, from the licensee plant health physicist to the plant manager, was examined and appeared adequate.
The inspector had no further questions.
c.
Closed (IFI) 80-27-12. This item concerned quality control checks of internal monitoring systems.
Licensee procedure HNP-8021 had been revised and appears adequate. The inspector had no further questions, d.
Closed (IFI) 81-10-01. The item concerned the lack of a formalized procedure for the removal of high efficiency particulate filters (HEPA). The licensee has written a procedure HNP-698.
The procedure was examined and appears adequate.
The inspector had no further questions.
e.
Closed (IFI) 81-10-04. This item concerned the failure of the licensee to identify and label " Hot Spots" on radioactive waste drums.
The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that this was being done at this time. During tours of the radwaste buildings no failure to post was noted by the inspectors.
The inspector had no further questions.
6.
Organization and Qualifications a.
The organization for this licensee is basically unchanged however some new positions have been added and additional new positions are contem-plated for 1982. At the time of this inspection four additional health physicists are working in this group. These positions are essentially training positions and two of these health physicists are in training to fill positions at Plant Vogtle.
The other two positions are assigned varying duties.
One health physicist has been assigned as the Emergency Planning Coordinator and a second health physicist is-assigned the ALARA program.
These are primary duties in conjunction with their training.
.
..-..
.
e
b.
Technical Specification 6.3.1 States that each member of the staf?
shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable positions.
The inspector selectively reviewed resumes to determine if technicians and supervisors satisfy the requirements of the ANSI standard. During this selective review it was determined that two laboratory foremen did not meet the minimum qualifications. As two cases of insufficient qualifications were noted during this selective review, the inspector reviewed all licensee employees in the Chemi st ry-Heal th Physics Department.
One additional foreman was determined to have insufficient experience to satisfy the ANSI standard. ANSI N18.1-1971, 4.3.2 requires a minimum of four years of experience in the craf t or discipline he supervises.
In the three cases noted the experience level ranged from two years to three years and three months. This is a violation of Technical Specification 6.3.1 (50-321/81-32-01; 50-366/81-32-01).
7.
Exposure Controls An inspector selectively reviewed records of personnel exposures.
Data indicated that no worker was exposed to levels of radiation in excess of the applicable regulatory limits in 10 CFR 20.101.
The inspector noted that extremity dosimeters were issued when appropriate.
External personnel exposure information, indicating remaining exposure which could be received before an administrative limit is reached, was posted on the bulletin board in the HP office.
An inspector selectively reviewed whole body counts.
Data indicated that no worker was internally exposed to levels of radio-activity in excess of the regulatory limits in 10 CFR 20.103.
-
8.
Respiratory Protection a.
The inspectors evaluated the licensee's respiratory protection program as it pertained to air sampling, use of engineering controls, and incorporation of the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103 and recommendations of Regulatory Guide 8.15 and NUREG 0041.
b.
The overall program appears to be functioning adequately however during the course of this inspection eight self contained breathing apparatus air cylinders were found to contain less than 2200 lbs. pressure, seven cylinders contained approximately 2000 lbs. and one cylinder contained 17C0 lbs.
Licensee procedure HNP-8010 page 11, 6. A states *, hat the recommended pressure should be 2216 lbs. and page 12, 6.E states the pressure shoul6 read approximately 2200 lbs.
The inspector requested that the procedure be revised to state that the cylinder pressure be 2216 lbs. ISO or 100 lbs. and that cylinders with less than that pressure be removed from service and recharged.
It was further noted by the inspector that the cylinders were not clearly labeled as recommended by NUREG-0041 9.8.
A licensee representative stated that these changes would be made (50-321/81-32-02; 50-366/81-32-02).
_ _ _ _
'
.
.
.
s
c.
The licensee's stock of respirators, available for use, was examined and the supply appears adequate. Respirators. selected at random were smeared and counted and fall within the limits as specified by 10 CFR 20.103 and Regulatory Guide 8.15.
,
9.
Posting and Control
~
a.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's posting and control of radiation areas, high radiation areas, airborne rhdioactivity areas, contamina-tion areas, radioactive material areas, 'and the labeling of radioactive material during tours of the plantc No violations or deviations were observed.
,
~
b.
The inspector reviewed licensee fadiat1on work permits currently in effect.
Survey records that were pertinent to these radiation work permits were also examined and appear adequate. Personnel working on these permits were selected at random and training records, form 4's, etc., were examined. The records appeared to be in good order.
The inspector had no further questions.
.
.
c.
The posting of notices, as requi ed -by'10 CFR-19.11, was examined by the inspector and appears to meet the requirements.
10.
Instrumentation
-
.
a.
An inspector reviewed the supply, calibration,- alarm' set points, and operability of selected portable survey instruments.
During the inspection survey instruments in use at the health physics laboratory, radwaste, refuel floor, and exits from various areas, were found to have current calibrations and appeared to be in good operating condi-tion. Alarm set points, including friskers, appeared to be proper and in keeping with licensee procedures.
11.
Bulletins, Circulars and Notices a.
IE Information Notice Number 81-26, Compilation of Health Physics Related Information Items was answered by a memorandum from the plant health physics supervisor to the plant manager. This memorandum as shown below appears adequate. The inspector had no further questions.
Part 1:
Use of Recirculating - mode (closed circuit) self contained breathing apparatus (Rebreather).
The plant does not use these devices.
Part 2:
Use of Chemical "D0P".
For quantitative respirator fit testing Chemical "DOP" is not used. When "00P" is used for HEPA filter testing, engi-neering safeguards are in place which preclude unnecessary exposure to individuals performing the test.
In the per-formance of this test, a negative pressure is maintained and
_.
..
_
_
.
..
.
l since the rated efficiency of HEPA filters is 99.99';; when samples are collected after the test, there is very little possibility of any unnecessary exposures.
~
Part 3:
Placement of personnel monitoring devices for external radiation exposure.
Workers are instructed by H.P. staff to wear the dosimeters at a location of highest dose, i.e., if a worker is involved in a job that causes his head to receive highest dose, dosimeter and TLD must be worn on the head.
Similarly extremity dosimeters are worn where significant hand exposures occur.
Part 4:
Personnel entry into inerted containment.
Plant policy i s to not allow personnel to enter inerted containment. Personnel entry is limited to 19'; of oxygen by
volume and in addition the individual must be fitted with
self contained breathing apparatus for initial entry.
Part 5:
Evaluation of instrument characteristics when using portable survey instruments.
During calibration, instruments are positioned in a manner that is approximately similar to the way it is actually placed during surveillance.
Thus, any error due to geo-tropism is reduced. A spot check of response of various instruments routinely used for surveillance did not display any significant angular dependance.
.
f
..
m
-
-
,
-
--
-.
,_