IR 05000321/1989021

Insp Repts 50-321/89-21 & 50-366/89-21 on 890906-07.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Insp of Radiation Protection Activities Including Review of Personnel Dosimetry Records & Allegation Followup

ML19325D244
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	09/28/1989
From:	Potter J, Wright F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19325D243	List: IR 05000321/1989021
References
50-321-89-21, 50-366-89-21, NUDOCS 8910190275
Download: ML19325D244 (5)

Text

W

--

(

,

w.

.

,

pq ' E.;

Moa g

,.

'

p.

- 4L

.

.

UNITED STATES

i s-Es NUCLEA.R REGULATORY COMM!SSION ~

'

[o, REGION 11--

4',g.

.

- 101 MARIETT4 ST N.W.'

,

.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3C323

- J

.'

SEP 2 81989 a

'

-Report Nos.:' 50-321/80-21 and 50-366/89-21-

'

Licensee:. Georgia Power Company

'

>

.P. O. Box 1295 i

Birmingham, AL 35201 Docket Nos.i 50-321 and 50-366 License No.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2

,

j V

Inspection. Conducted:. September 6-7, 1989

/

Inspector: db //[

t -r _i h/-

kM/k F. N. Wni V"

.Date Si ned'

]

Approved by:'

'W

[

fry J M. Potter, Ch~1ef

..

1/.

Dr.eSigned Facilities Radiation Protection Section

'

' Emergency: Preparedness and Radiological

-

i-y Protection branch

,

,

'

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i

SUMMARY

) Scope:

~

,This announced inspection of radiation protection activities included a review

'

'of personnel dosimetry records and allegation ~ follow-up.

,

- Results:-

s

-

^

The licensee was maintaining personnel exposure records as required by 10-CFR Part 20.. Two allegations concerning personnel. exposure were reviewed

,

'

and are discussed in Paragraph 3.

No violations or deviations were identified.

.

.'

'

,

-

.

F

.

7, i

<

g PDR

,

'

=0.

~

>

.

. -

-

-

-

-

.

-

-.

-- ;

-

g x

O.,*f,

'

'

_

1.

,

,

,

,

.

L, F

.

,

REPORT DETAILS

'

1.

l Persons Contacted

<

' Licensee Employees

'

• P. Fornel, Manager of Maintenance

~

• W. Kirkley, Acting Mcnager, Hecith Physics & Chemistry i

M.~ Link, Supervisor, Health Physics & Chemistry l

~'

• E.Moxley, Dosimetry Health Physics Foreman P. Moxley, ALARA. Health Physics Specialist

~7

,

.

• H; Nix, General _ Plant Manager

• S. Tipps, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Compliance -

t Other. licensee employees contacted during this inspection included technicians, maintenance and office-personnel.

-* Attended exit interview 2.

Personnel Dosimetry Records 101 CFR 20.101~- specifies the applicable radiation dose standards.

The inspector reviewed the computer printouts (NRC Form 5 equivalent) for the fourth quarter of 1988, and verified that the radiation doses recorded for

.

_ plant personnel were well within the quarterly limits of 20.101(a).

-10 CFR.20.101(b)(3) requires the licensee cc determine an individual'S accumulated occupational dose to -the whole body on an NRC Form 4 or

equivalent record; prior to permitting the individual to exceed'the limits of. 20.101(a ).

The -inspector reviewed selected occupational exposure

-

-

- histories for individuals who exceeded' the. values in 10 CFR 20.101(a).

The exposure records were being completed and maintained as required by 10 CFR 20.102.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3.

AllegationFollow-up(99014)

a.

Allegation (RII-88-A-0072)

'

Vendor employees working at Hatch were directed by a vendor supervisor not to wear uosimetry in high radiation areas to mir.imize occupational radiaticn worker assigned dose.

Discussion The ellegation was received on October 27, 1988, The alleger reported that she was concerned about some of the tnings her husband had told her.

She reported that on October 26, 1988, her husband's

.

w e

-

,

-

gng

,

,

, %

,

,

'

,

m

"

,

,

s

,

l superintendent' had said tinat the workers could remove and hide their l

dosimetry'in order that they-could go into another area and health j

"

'

e physics would nct know..

s

,

.

0n October 31, 1988, alleger contacted the NRC and reported that her

'

husband had told.her'that his supervisor-had approached the work-crew

!

"-

and said, "I hope you guys know I was only joking when I told you to

_

leave your TLDs."

-The inspector determined that there war. no supervisor having the name

'

• '

- given by the al'1eger but that the alleger's husband had a supervisor

-

a

~'

with a simi_lar name.

The inspector asked the supervisor if he had-ever told his workers. to remove their personnel dosimetry before entering radiation areas.

The supervisor reported that he had never directeo.his workers to do such a thing.

However, the supervisor reportad that he_ could have kiaded with his wo-kers abost removing

~their. dosimeters.

The alleger's-husband was working in the Unit i drywell welding reactor water -clean-up piping and pipe supports. _ Health physics

,

representatives Teported that personnel monitoring devices were.

checked prior to' entering the drywell-and that leavit g the dosimetry

.

in a' low dose rate area'would be difficult, but possible.

'

The inspector reviewed the licensee's dosimetry records and s'

determined 1that the alleger's husband had been authorized to receive

_1 an' occupational radiation exposure up to 2500 millirem for the fourth quarter of-1988 in accordance with regalatory and procedural requirements.

The workers exposere was greater than 1250 millirem for -the quarter but significantly below the authorized allowable

' limit.

Finding

-

'The allegation was substantiated.

It appears that' a licensee's vendor. supervisor did joke about removing personnel dosimetry before entering a radiation area.

However, no violations of NRC requirements were-discovered during the review.

b.

Allegation (RII-88-A-0076)

.

(1) Contractor forces workers to sign forms utilized for increasing occupational ' radiation exposure limits above the Hatch

. administrative exposure guidelines under duress.

Federal regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation allow occupational radiation workers to receive whole body radiation exposures up to 3000 millirem per quarter provided the licensee has determined and

-

documented the workers accumulated occupational dose to the m.

a

-

r

-

m

y-

-

-

,

.

g.

.

py.-n..

,

,

C

..

M y

1,

]

.

o iQ J

~

whole body and determined that the 1ifetime exposure-limit will-w not be exceeded.

j

-;

The-licensee's' radiation control procedures specify

'

administrative' exposure limits which are utilized by the 11::e'nsee-to control a worker's occupational radiation exposure H

.

.

and keep it below the. federal ' radiation exposure limits.

The

_

licensee assigns.an administrative whole. body exposure limit of-l

'y 1000 millirem per quarter to most workers and. increases the '

.

personnel -exposure administrative limit-in 500 millirem-

-)

'

increments up to'the federal limit with escalating management

approval.

N-The licensee utilizes a vendor to do some of the maintenance work.

During the fall of_1988 the vendor brought in additional pipe ~ fitters to do some of the welding work in.the Unit I drywell.

The licensee was _ replacing reactor water clean-up -

piping and had some trouble _~ approving wcids.

The high radiation m

exposure rates and need; to rework some of the welds resulted in

the-. licensee raising worker administrative exposure limits for

'many of the welders.

Since the workers were. brought in to weld j

,

L

' pipe -in high radiation-areas the workers were only needed. if they-could do the work > and maintain personnel exposures below.

regulatory limits.

The inspector. reviewed the. licensee's

'

personnel exposure records for the alleger and other pipe fitters and verified that exposures received were below regulatory limits. Several of the pipefitters had more than one

l administrative dose limit during1 the-fourth-quarter.

If. the contractor's workers did not wish to receive allowable-p radiation exposures in 1500 millirem increments up to tne-allowable -federal limit, it is possible that they would have

'

been dismissed from the assignment.: However, no violations-of NRC or licensee requirements were identified.

l Finding The allegation was not substantiated.

.(2) Plant-ALARA will not allow workers to place lead blankets over sources of radiation in order to reduce personnel radiation exposures.

]

Discussion lhe licensee's general employee training program discusses the common methods utilized in the industry to keep exposures As Low J

,

As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).

Shielding the worker from

!

radiation is one such methed.

The alleger reported that health physics ALARA staff would not allow lead blankets to be placed il'

over sources of radiation.

The inspector determined that the b

_

_

_

....

.

y

'

,

,,

'

'

4{;

• d cs, 6 [^.

V 5/ " 7,3.,

Q ~(

-4;

}

y/

,

alleger was working in the Unit I d ywell during the fa11l1988 ~

refueling. outage.

The worker was a welder working on thei t

'

..*

'

reactor. water clean-up ~ pipe-replacement job.

The-inspector determined that the licensee bad utilized lead shielding where -

'

ever possible in the drywell ;uring the outage when evaluations.

showed the installation of the shielding'would result'in-a net

,

radiation dose reduction.

The licensee's portable shielding-

a-progrom would not allow lead shielding blankets to be placed

,

directly on 'some runs-of pipe' in the drywell for engineering safety reasons.

However, whenever possible the licensee erected shielding sr) ports around such eauipment to allow shielding to-

,

be utilized.-

Finding-y

-

t The allegation was not substantiated.

'

F

~4-Exit Interview

.

The ' inspection scope and results were summarized oh September 7,1989,

.with those persor.s indicated in Paragraph 1.

The inspector. reported' to

management that while:no violations of NRC requirements were identificd concerning the allegations' reviewed during the inspection, the fact that a:

vendor supervisor would joke about violating licensee and NRC requirements f

,

was inappropriate.

The - plant manager agreed with the inspector and directed a _ management -. bulletin be issued addressing appropriate

- supervisory. behavior asso:iated with the licensee's policy on-regulatory

'

,

l'

compliance.

Tne licensee-did not ident'fy as proprietary any of the-

~

material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.

,

. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

,

l l

r

{

\\

.

l wp'

t.

1 -

-

-

... -

- -

..

- -

- -.