IR 05000321/1987004

Insp Rept 50-321/87-04 & 50-366/87-04 on 870223-27.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:External Exposure Controls,General Employee Training,Facilities & Equipment & Licensee Program to Maintain Low Exposures

ML20207T393
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	03/04/1987
From:	Cooper W, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207T378	List: IR 05000321/1987004 ML20207T377
References
50-321-87-04, 50-321-87-4, NUDOCS 8703230516
Download: ML20207T393 (6)

Text

n

'

j; ' lQ*%

>f

• O,"

• f ,

Y,

"

,

g

, . -a . < * fi'. . .i - - .

. , -

.g , 2 EE4 , * E . \ 1 ; ,jUNITED STATES ,

j 'o ' -

g> < ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,p " y-. <

, , , . . REGION 11 ~ ,

y* j g- j ,

,'

-

101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W. ,

• ' b, 2- .

ATI.ANTA, GEORGIA 3032 \,*

,

o -

-

.

_ .' -

.*  ; ' Hgg1.0;gg7

,

,

Report.Nos.: 50-321/87-04 and 50-366/87-04' x E Licensee: Georgia Power. Company'

~

P. 0. Box 4545 -

Atlanta, GA~ 30302 '

Docket Nos.:- 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: ' Hatch Inspection Conducted:- February 23-27, 1987 InspectorL C4f b}d

'W. T.' Cooper g d fh Date Signed Approvedby:$, h .M

'lC. M. Mosey, Sect 1(n Chief MV k/

Date Signed

/ Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: ' This routine unannounced inspection involved a review of the licensee' external exposure controls, General Employee Training, facilities and

~ ~

. equipment, the licensee's program to maintain exposures as . low as reasonably

-

achievable, solid radioactive waste processing and storage and transportation of radioactive waste Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

e % 'N

(

4

--' a

, j i

~

s

% /

-

8703230516 870310 PDR ADOCK 05000321 G PDR n

.

m

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• H. Nix, Plant Manager

• J. Lewis, Operations Supervisor

• T. L. Elton, Plant Engineering Supervisor

• K. C. Dyar, Security Superintendent

• R. W. Zavadoski, Manager, Health Physics / Chemistry Support Supervisor

• M.Ewald,

• S. Dixon,Manager, Quality Assurance RadiologicalEngineering Safety (Corporate)

• H. _ Rogers, Health Physics Superintendent

• P. E. Fornel, Maintenance Manager

• D. J. Elder, Senior Quality Assurance Field Representative

• D. Smith, Health Physics Supervisor

• M. Link, Laboratory Supervisor S. Tipps, Superintendent, Nuclear Safety and Compliance R. Ott, Supervisor, General Employee Training M. Rigsby, Health Physicist P. Moxley, Health Physicist W. Prince, ALARA Health Physics Technician B. Morris, Health Physics Foreman A. Collins, Health Physics Foreman J. Redoick, Health Physics Foreman M. Squires, Health Physics Foreman Other licensee employees contacted included eight technicians, three operators, six mechanics, four security force members, and five office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 27, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the inspection findings with licensee representatives. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio m

'

,

.

_

4.- .TrainingandQualifications(83723)

The licensee was required by 10 CFR 19.12 to provide basic radiation protection training to worker Regulatory Guide 8.27, 8.29 and 8.13, outlined topics that should be included in such training. Chapters 12 and 13 of the FSAR contained further connitments regarding training. The inspector discussed the initial general employee radiation protection training (GET) with the GET Training Supervisor and reviewed selected lesson plans to determine the scope of the training. The inspector verified that the lesson plans reviewed included appropriate plans and procedures, modules addressing radiological health and safety, industrial safety, plant controlled access areas, security procedures, and the use of protective clothing and equipmen The inspector also discussed respirator training with the Supervisor. The inspector verified that the respiratory protection training included a briefing on the respirator use policy statement and included the use of practical engineering controls instead of respirators; routine, non-routine and emergency use of respirators, periods of respirator use and relief from respirator us The inspector also verified that the licensee advised each respiratory user that he may leave the area at any time for relief in the event of equipment malfunction; physical or psychological distress; procedural or connunication failure or significant deterioration of operating conditions, et No violations or deviations were identifie . Facilities and Equipment (83727)

FSAR Chapters 1 and 12 specified plant layout and radiation protection facilities and equipment. During plant tours, the inspector observed traffic patterns in the Units 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings, Turbine Building and Control Building. The inspector also observed the use of temporary shielding in plant areas which was used to limit the general area dose

rate Plant housekeeping appeared good and the inspector observed the

licensee's labor force performing cleaning operations in the operating i buildings. The inspector also observed the use of ventilated enclosures

,

in use at the reactor water cleanup pump rooms in Units 1 and 2, which

! were being used to limit airborne radioactivity in the building during

pump wor No violations or deviations were identifie . Program for Maintaining Exposures as Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

(83728)

10 CFR 20.1(c) specified that licensees should implement programs to keep workers' doses ALARA. FSAR Chapter 12 also contained licensee commitments regarding worker ALARA action n

.

.

The inspector discussed dose control measures with ten workers on the job to determine their degree of involvement in dose reduction. The workers interviewed by the inspector appeared to have an adequate knowledge of ALARA principles and means to be used to reduce their exposure to ionizing radiatio The inspector discussed the tracking of ALARA goals with licensee representatives. Licensee representatives stated that the facility's goals were tracked on a monthly basis while job goals are tracked on a daily basis. During outage operations, dose reports were forwarded to plant managers and supervisory personnel to allow the tracking of their employee's exposur The inspector discussed the ALARA group's review of plant modification design packages with licensee representatives. Licensee representatives stated that adequate time was allowed for a review to be performed prior to the start of outage related wor The inspector noted that the turnaround time for engineering group review of shielding load analysis was greater than one month. Licensee representatives stated that due to seismic constraints, the engineering group was required to do a load evaluation for each shielding request. Licensee representatives stated that previous shielding load packages were being archived and resubmitted to the engineering group when the dose rates in the area required that temporary shielding be installed, provided that no changes had taken place in the equipment where the shielding was designated to be hun No violations or deviations were identifie . SolidWastes'(84722)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's method for determining the isotopic distribution in waste packages and the method used by the licensee to determine the curie content of the package prior to shipmen The licensee had recently installed an air drying system to be used when preparing spent resins for shipment to the disposal sit Licensee representatives stated that time savings in the processing of the resin were expected to average 30 to 40 percent. The inspector reviewed the QA Topical Report from the vendor and discussed the report with licensee representatives. The inspector also reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation performed for the resin dewatering syste Licensee representatives stated that no changes in facility design were incorporated as a result of the drying system installation and therefore an additional safety evaluation was not performed. The inspector reviewed the operating procedure for the resin drying system and verified that the procedure had been reviewed by the Plant Review Boar The inspector reviewed the licensee's use of High Integrity Containers (HICs) and verified that the licensee was tracking ultraviolet (UV)

exposure to the HICs and that the HICs were used prior to 365 days of UV exposur _ _ _

.

4 The inspector verified that the licensee had not received any notification from their vendor for 10 CFR 61 analysis that any samples shipped by the licensee had exceeded the vendors radioactive material possession limit The inspector also verified that the licensee had an up-to-date copy of the vendor's radioactive material license available for reference prior to sample shipmen The inspector reviewed operations in the licensee's Waste Sorting and Temporary Storage Facility (WS-TSF). The inspector reviewed the procedure for the operation of the facility and verified by a review of records that the surveys and inventories required by the procedure were being completed as required. At the time of the inspection, the licensee was in the process of designing and building a low background monitoring system to be used to survey scrap wood. Licensee representatives stated that the testing of the system was expected to begin in the near future, and that the system would be located in the WS-TS No violations or deviations were identifie . Transportation of Radioactive Material (86721)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization for the transportation of radioactive waste and verified that individuals and organizations assigned responsibility for the processing and transport of radioactive waste were designated within the management organizatio The inspector also verified that written, management approved instructions had been established in the area, and that there was a clear delineation of assignments and responsibilitie The inspector reviewed licensee procedures and verified that procedures were available for selection of packaging; preparation of waste for shipment; maintenance of packaging; marking, labeling and placarding; monitoring for radiation and contamination and disposal site acceptance criteri The inspector reviewed radioactive waste manifests and miscellaneous shipment manifests for the fourth quarter of 1986 and the first quarter of 1987. The paperwork was being completed and maintained as require The inspector discussed the licensee's method for the updating of procedures when regulations changed or additional guidance was provided in IE Information Notices. Licensee representatives stated that an updating service was used to ensure that the most recent guidance available was incorporated into procedures. Licensee representatives further stated that when regulations changed, the Quality Assurance group performed a surveillance to ensure compliance on the effective date of the chang No violations or deviations were identifie .

.

5 External Exposure Control and Personal Dosimetry (83724)

The inspector performed a walk-through inspection of Units 1 and 2 on February 23, 1987. During the inspection the inspector observed licensee personnel wearing appropriate personnel monitoring device During the walk-through inspection on February 23, 1987, the inspector checked the security of six locked high radiation area The inspector found the door to the Unit I reactor water cleanup pump room to be unlocked. The area was posted as a high radiation area, health physics escort required for entry. The inspector discussed the open door with the health physics supervisor (HPS) accompanying the inspector. The HPS stated that that with therepairs were being the pump dismantled, made to thearea general pump (located in the area andGA) dose r 18 inches from the source would be greater than 1,000 millirem per hour (mr/hr). The HPS stated that lead blankets had been placed over the pump impeller after it had been removed and that this had reduced the dose rates attributed to the impeller to less than 1,000 mr/hr at 18 inche Information provided to the inspector subsequent to the finding indicated that there was possibly a health physics technician (HPT) in the area at the time the door was found to be open, although the technician was not visible to the inspecto The inspector reviewed the radiation work permit sign-in log for the day in question and interviewed the HPT that was logged into the area. The inspector determined that the HPT was in the area, and provided positive access controls for the are The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure for calculation of skin dose due to skin contamination. The inspector also reviewed personnel contamination reports for the period of September and October 1986, and January 1987. The highest skin contamination reviewed by the inspector was 30,000 counts per minute (cpm), to which the licensee had assigned a skin dose of 40 millirem. The inspector stated that it appeared that the conversion from cpm to millirem appeared to be non-conservative. A licensee representative stated that the calculation would be reviewe The inspector's calculations of skin dose fe skin contamination cases indicated that no NRC limits were exceeded. A licensee representative stated that a new procedure was in the procen of development for the calculation of skin doses and was expected to be finished in the near future, and would be based upon a study of the predominant isotopes found in various areas of the plant. The inspector also stated that the current procedural guidance did not instruct the licensee personnel performing the decontamination that if the contamination was found to be due to a hot particle, every effort should be made to save the particle for analysi A licensee representative stated that this directive would be incorporated into the new procedure. The inspector stated that licensee's skin dose calculation methodology review, the new procedure for skin dose calculation and the study of area isotopic distributions in the plant would be an inspector follow-up item to be reviewed during a future inspection (50-321/87-04-01,50-366/87-04-01). <

...

~

The' inspector reviewed the licensee's method for the control of keys- to high radiation areas. = Administrative. Control Procedure 30AC-SEC-002-05,.

Key and ' Annunciated Door Control, . outlined the -responsibilities of the health Physics / Chemistry group -in the control of ' keys. The licensee -

maintained a record of key issuances on a shiftly basis.- The Health Physics Foreman ~ on duty reviewed the record at the end of his shift to insure all keys were accounted for. As a part of the key control program, the licensee utilized a color coding method for key issue, with specific colored keys requiring a health physics escort for entry into the locked area. Although there was no specific health physics procedure which addressed key control, a series of departmental memoranda were in plac A licensee representative stated that the health physics group was required to use the Security procedure as guidance for the key control program but that the memoranda for instruction to the technicians issuing high radiation area keys would be put into the form of a departmental directive or procedure. ' The licensee also identified two areas that could possibly require special attention due to the.very high dose rates-that could be present in the areas. These areas were the Clean-up Phase Separator Tank Room / Reactor Water Cleanup Heat Exchanger area and the Traversing Incore Probe Room / Steam Chase. Licensee representatives stated that the keys to these areas would possibly be relocated to a Laboratory Supervisor's office or other controls would be placed upon the issue of those . keys. .The inspector stated that the formalization of the health

. physics key control program would be an inspector follow-up item to be reviewed during a future inspection (50-321/87-04-02, 50-366/87-04-02).

No violations or deviations were identifie .~FollowuponInspectorFollowupItems(92701)

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) (86-34-01). This IFI dealt with a licensee commitment to review pocket ion chamber (PIC) response in relation to source term. The licensee performed an extensive evaluation and subsequently issued a memorandum outlining the importance of properly positioning PICS such that the active volume of the PIC was exposed to the

source term. The inspector reviewed the evaluation and determined the

, evaluation to be adequate.

!

!

!

!

i f

i

!

!

l.