IR 05000354/1987019

Insp Rept 50-354/87-19 on 870727-30.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous NRC Findings,Organization & Staffing,Audits & External Exposure Control

ML20235U024
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/01/1987
From:	Nimitz R, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235U009	List: IR 05000354/1987019 ML20235U007
References
50-354-87-19, NUDOCS 8710130326
Download: ML20235U024 (19)

Text

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I.

i Report No. 50-354/87-19 Docket No. 50-354 Category C

License No. NPF-50 Priority

--

Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101

Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station Inspection At:

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey i

Inspection Conducted:

July 27-30, 1987 and August 11, 12 and 14, 1987 Inspectors:

k. L. NM i k ?ok'itfl R. L. Nimitz, Senior Ra'diation Specialist--

date

/

Approved by:

M.

% dr

/s//h7

'

'date M. M. Shanbaly, Chief Facilities Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 27-30, 1987 and August 11, 12 and 14, 1987 (Report No. 50-354/87-19)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, announced radiation protection inspection. Areas-reviewed were: Licensee action on. previous NRC findings; organization and staffing, audits and external exposure control.

The inspection was performed by one Region based inspector.

Results:

No violations were identified.

?hkOlq3 a

-

_

!

'

!

l

-

j

l

Details I

1.0 Individuals Contacted

1.1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company

• 5. LaBruna, General Manager - Hope Creek Operations (HP0)

• P. Krishna, Assistant to General Manager - HP0

• J. R. Lovell, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager i

i

• T. Cellmer, Radiation Protection Engineers - HC

• D. Mohler, Radiation Protection Engineer - Salem

• E. Galbraith, Chemistry Engineer l

• J. Molner, Senior Radiation Protection Supervisor

{

• E. Karpe, Senior Radiological Engineer i

R. Griffith, Quality Assurance Surveillance Supervisor

?

A. Giardino, Manager Station, Quality Assurance C. Johnson, General Manager, Quality Assurance (QA) Programs and Audits W. Schultz, Manager, QA Programs and Audits M. LaVecchia, Principal QA Engineer 1.2 NRC

l R. Borchardt, Senior Resident Inspector

• D. Allsopp, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those individuals attending the exit meeting on August 14, 1987

I The inspector also contacted other personnel.

i 2.

Purpose of Inspection j

l This inspection was a routine announced radiological controls inspection.

'

The following areas were reviewed.

,

Licensee action on previous inspection findings Organization and staffing Audits ALARA External Exposure Control

"

3.0 Licensee Action on Previous Findings 3.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/87-08-03)

Licensee to upgrade access control to the Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) Room. The licensee reviewed the access controls for access to

.

,

i i

^

3-the TIP Room. The licensee revised procedure RP-TI.XX-004 (Q) to provide'for red-tagging of the TIP panel in the control room prior to personnel entry. Also radiation protection personnel are required to verify tagging prior to allowing personnel entry into the room.'

3.2- (Closed)

Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/85-52-22)-

. Licensee to revise procedure to show correct-protection factor (PF)

for full face powered air purifying respirators. The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide the correct. protection factor.

3.3 (Closed)InspectorFollow-Item'(50-354/87-08-02)

'

Licensee to upgrade; Radiological Occurance Report (ROR) Program.

The licensee upgraded his ROR Program to address the weaknesses i

identified. The licensee established a new Radiological Occurrence

'

Procedure..The program provides for tracking and trending of RORs for the purposes of identifying degrading performance.

3.4- (Closed)

Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-07-02)

Licensee to evaluate and revise, if necessary, air sample analysis; self absorption factors to address-filter loading. The licensee evaluated the factors and revised them to address filter. loading.

3.5 (Closed)

Inspector Follow item (50-354/86-26-03)

Licensee to establish and 10plement a program for inspection and.

testing of non-safety related ventilation systems. The licensee-established and implemented an inspection:and testing program for these systems through the Inspection Order Program as defined in Procedure SA-AP.ZZ-010.

Inspection and testing procedures have been established and implemented.

3.6 (Closed)' Violation (50-354/86-59-02)

Licensee personnel did not adhere to radiation protection procedures.

The licensee implemented the corrective actions described in his February 10, 1987 letter to the'NRC. The implementation of the corrective actions were independently verified by the inspector.

3.7 (Closed)

InspectorFollow-Item (50-354/86-37-02)

This item involved five. inadequacies in the area of high radiation area control. The licensee adequately addressed three of the five items. The two remaining items, as follow, are considered an unresolved item:

(50-354/87-19-01)

q 1he radiation work permit procedure did not provide adequate

]

guidance relative to clearly describi_ng.the method cf high j

radiation area access control to be utilized.

-(e.g. continuous d

radiological control coverage, use of' alarming dosimeters)

'l

!

I l

a

. - - -

_ _.

_ _ _ _ -

_ __-__. _._____- _ -___ _ - -

--

H

.

,

The procedures for high radiation area' access control-did not.

.{

clearly define / describe terms'to be written on the radiation

'

work permit to implement the periodic surveillance requirements ~

of Technical Specifications (e.g., continuous,. intermittent).

These terms were not adequately defined.

3.8 (Closed)

Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-01)

This item contained two subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

y During the first attempt at taking an undiluted reactor coolant sample, the sample needles were bent and no sample was obtained.

When a second attempt was made to obtain an undiluted reactor coolant sample, the sample vial did not contact the position indicating switch.

Findings

"

The licensee initiated Design change No. 4 HC-0075. This change is scheduled to be completed by September 1,.1987. The change will involve installation of tracks to guide the sample cask into position.

Item 2 (Closed)

The liquid sample vial septum retaining ring was.d'maged during a

sampling (split) to the extent that it no longer retained the septum. This can result in sample loss during shipment to an offsite laboratory.

Findings The licensee obtained and is using vials with a solid (non-split)

aluminum cap.

3.9 (0 pen)InspectorFollow-Item (50-354/86-45-02)

'

This item involved three subitems; Item 1 (Closed)

The licensee requires collection of. airborne iodine on silver

zeolite cartridges.

However, charcoal cartridges were used for the test. Suitable silver zeolite cartridges were not available at the Hope Creek site but were available' at the neighboring Salem site.

Also the cartridges were not purged.

Findings The licensee obtained and now has a supply of silver zeolite cartridges for use.. Also procedures were revised to provide for purging cartridges.

)

l i

__________z_______

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

~

Item 2 (0 pen)

The licensee was unsure of the method used to calculate the airborne particulate and-iodine activity: whether to use the air sampler rotometer reading or the flow maintained by the limiting flow orifice.

The PASS sampling procedure does not specify how to perform the calculation.

Findings The licensee selected the rotameter as the instrument to be used to obtain flow. However, the licensee was-unable to provide information to demonstrate that the rotometer was properly calibrated or that the sample flow / volume equations incorporated appropriate correction factors (e.g. sample density).

Item 3 (Closed)

Tne PASS sampling procedure requires that an airborne particulate and iodine sample be taken for a preset time rather than allowing the technician taking the sample to vary the time based on the amount of radioactivity being collected on the sampling media. This may lead to unnecessary handling and analyzing samples with high activity.

Findings The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide guidance and precautions for collection of short duration samples.

l 3.10 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-03)

This item involved two subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

l

.

The licensee was found not to be a registered user of the shipping l

cask which was designed for shipping out PASS Undiluted liquid l

samples. Also no procedures were established for sample loading and l

closure for the cask. The licensee could, however, ship the samples

'

out in other Type B casks but was primarily relying on the PASS cask l

for this purpose.

Findings

,

The licensee sent a letter to NRC requesting to be designated as a registered user of the PASS Cask. The licensee anticipates. approval

l of his request.

In the interim, the licensee may ship samples using i

a Type B cask for which he is a registered user.

Procedures are in

'

place for the Type B cask. The licensee wdi establish and implement procedures for the PASS cask when needed by approving the PASS Cask Manual as a procedure.

l l

.

'

Item 2 (Closed)_

The licensee has not established maximum d0se rate criteria for'use in determing when a PASS Liquid sample can be analyzed in-house without exceeding GDC-19 criteria. The licensee should establish limiting dose rate criteria for in-house analyses of PASS samples for chlorides.

Findings Appropriate limiting criteria were incorporated into approved procedures 3.11(Closed)InspectorFollow-Item (50-354/86-45-04)

The licensee will review his core damage assessment methodology to ensure all appropriate radionuclides are determined in order to implement procedure CH-TI-ZZ-011.

The licensee reviewed this matter and determined that adequate radionuclides information was available to perform core damage assessment.

3.12 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-05)

The procedure for performing dissolved gas sampling at the PASS did not provide guidance for re-initiating sample flow following the collection of a liquid sample.

Findings The licensee revised applicable procedures to address this matter.

3.13 (0 pen) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-06)

This item included three subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

The licensee technicians, which were assigned to perform the PASS sampling, were not qualified on the use of self contained breathing apparatus.

Technicians may need to wear SCBAs.

Findings The licensee trained and qualified an appropriate number of technicians.

Item 2 (0 pen)

Dose limits have not been established for removing from the transport shield and handling an undiluted vial of reactor water in the chemistry laboratory.

Findings The cognizant individual was not available to discuss this matte _ _ _ _ -

.-_ _ _ _ _ _

_ -.

__

-

i l

,

Item 3 (Closed)

The tongs used for removing the containment gas sample vial from the sample vial holder do not work. The vial was removed by turning the holder upside down and hitting it against the floor until the vial fell out. This can result in viel breakage and loss of sample.

Findings The licensee modified the tongs to provide for ease in' sample handling.

!

l 3,14(0 pen)InspectorFollow-Item (50-354/86-45-07)

'

This included six subitems:

Item 1 (0 pen)

The logic of the CRCONV program to correct detector response to total concentration appears to be conceptually correct. However, its use requires an additional correction in the dose assessment procedure.

Findings The cognizant individual.was not available to discuss this item.

Item 2 (Closed)

The licensee indicated the concentrations of 133Xe and 85Kr at which the vendor performed the original type test of the RD-72 detectors would be verified.

Findings The licensee verified the concentrations.

In addition, the licensee performed his own in-situ calibration using these gases.

Item 3 (Closed)

The licensee indicated the linearity50fthegD-72detectorsasthey approach maximum concentration of 10 uCi/cm would be verified.

Findings The licensee verified the linearity of the detectors. Corrections l

have been made to address detector dead-time.

Item 4 (0 pen)

i I

The licensee indicated the reproducibility of the volume viewed by the high-range detectors as installed in the shield would be verified.

q i

a i

- _-_

.

'

Findings The licensee reviewed.and evaluated the volume reproducibility. The-licensee determined that a " positive detector placement device" was needed to assure reproducibility. This device is on order.

However, in the interim, the inspector was unable to determine if the licensee had placed any precautions in calibration procedures to ensure reproducibility when calibrating the detectors.

Licensee personnel indicated this matter would be reviewed.

Item 5 (Closed)

The licensee will consider the regular verification of data set points in the proposed revision of RP-AP-SP001(Q)

Findings The licensee included guidance in procedures for verification of data set points.

Item 6 (Closed)-

The licensee will consider the need for a list of required spare parts for the GA RMS.

Findings The licensee has generated a required spare parts list. Appropriate parts are on hand or on order.

3.15 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-08)

This item included five subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

Procedures [(RP)ST-003(Q)] for the operation of the NPV and SPV skids may need provisions for the locally controlled collection of a brief grab sample in the idle sample position.

Findings

!

The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide for collection of a brief grab sample.

Item 2 (Closed)

>

Procedures [RP-ST-004(Q)] for the operation of the FRVSV skid may need to be modified so as to limit the time (and therefore the collected activity) of the first grab sample that is obtained I

following the onset of post-accident concentrations of radiogases, so as to facilitate its removal from the shield and u s transport.

,

..

i

..

I Findings j

The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide for collection of a short duration grab sample to facilitate sample removal, transport and analysis.

Item 3 (Closed)

Spare loaded particulate filter and iodine cannister holders may need to be provided, so that the sample holder does not have to be unloaded on the spot by hand when grab (or other high activity)

samples are removed from the shielded mid-high range sample shield in order to install a fresh particulate filters and-iodine cannister.

Findings

The licensee provided spare cartridges and cartridge holders.

The holders will be loaded prior to sample change out.

Item 4 (Closed)

The procedures for the operation of the NPV and SPV skids may need to include the requirement that samples from them be purged prior to their tra1 sport.

Findings The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide for purging of l

the samples prior to their transport.

Item 5 (Closed)

The local readout for the FRVSV may need to be moved to a location that would be visible to personnel performing a sample changeout, or

a supplementary visible readout provided.

j l

Findings i

The licensee reviewed this matter and determined that it was not I

necessary to move the read out.

Among other items, personnel J

performing sample change out will be using continuously indicating dose rate meters.

3.16 (0 pen) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-09)

This item involved three subitems associated with the high range containment monitor. The licensee was unable to provide information

'to demonstrate that the items have been resolved due to an apparent lack of management follow-up on this item.

3.17 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-45-10)

This item involved six subitems:

i i

i

~

I

Item 1 (Closed)

Evaluate the acceptability of using a silver zeolite cartridge

" spiked" with a radioactive button source for use in determining the-efficiency of EAM-2 single channel analyzers.

This geometry is not

.

consistent with iodine deposition to be expected (i.e. face loaded, uniformiodinedeposition).

Findings The licensee purchased " face-loaded" cartridge sources.

Recalibrations and procedure changes were made, as_ appropriate, to utilize the sources.

Item 2 (Closed)

Provide periodic " hands on" training with emergency sampling equipment.

Currently, training consists of procedure walk throughs with some hands on training during emergency exercises.

Some l

technicians were uncertain as to how to set-up and operate emergency j

sampling equipment.

,

Findings The licensee provided hands on training to appropriate personnel.

In addition, hands on training is currently being incorporated into the licensee's training / retraining program.

i Item 3 (Closed)

This item involved 15 subitems associated with procedure adequacy and also clarification. The licensee adequately addressed each of the 15 subitems by revising and clarifying applicable procedures, as appropriate.

Item 4 (Closed)

Ensure all appropriate controlled procedures are located in the i

Technical Support Center.

Procedure RP-SA-ZZ-002 was missing from the controlled procedures.

I Finding i

l The Technical Support Center does not contain all procedures. The

'

missing procedure was readily available from a controlled set of procedures located in an adjacent office.

I l

I

- - _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ -. - -

--

-_

_

a

_ _ _ _

__

.

l

'

l

)

Item 5 (Closed)

Establish procedure RP-TI.ZZ-031.

This procedure is referenced in other emergency procedures. The procedure is to replace a chemistry sample analysis procedure.

,

a Findings The licensee established and implemented the procedure.

Item 6 (Closed)

Consider dedicating additional SAM-2s to Emergency Lockers. Only one SAM-2 is dedicated for the TSC, OSC and in-plant activities.

Findings

.

The licensee obtained and dedicated additional SAM-2s. One each is i

now located in the TSC, OSC, and In-Plant Locker respectively.

Also several spares are available.

3.18(0 pen)InspectorFollow-Item (50-354/86-45-11)

This item consisted of four subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

Procedure No. CH-E0.SH-007(Q) for transporting the PASS sample does not address operator action required to ensure availability of'

elevator 31-04RM in transporting of PASS sample to the chemistry laboratory at elevation 124.

Findings

!

The licensee revised applicable procedures to provide guidance for energizing the elevator.

Item 2 (Closed)

)

The PASS Operation and Maintenance Instruction Manual dated November,1981 does not reflect the as-built configuration, j

Findings The licensee obtained an update manual for his PASS.

Item 3 (0 pen)

Calibration stickers on PASS instrument components indicate a 3 year calibration schedule.

General Electric's Operation and Instruction

____________L

- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

_

___

_

_

_ _.

l

'

I

'

!

i Manual (GEK-83344, pg 4-12 for PASS) requires quarterly readings and yearly operation of the sampling system.

FSAR section 9.3.2.3.2, item J.6 states:

" equipment used for post accident sampling analysis will be calibrated or tested approximately every six montM.:" At the present ti.ne, the licensee's program requires that sampling be done every six months with instrument calibration every

18 months.

Findings The cognizant individual was not available to discuss this matter.

Item 4 (Closed)

,

During the sampling exercise for PASS on September 24, 1986, the inspector noted that licensee personnel conducting PASS tests were using an eight inch crescent wrench to turn and hold the control switch no. HC-652.

Personnel indicated excessive spring tension in the switch made it difficult to rotate and hold for the required three minutes.

Findings The licensee constructed an adapter to provide additional leverage.

3.19 (Closed) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-07-11)

This item consists of three subitems:

Item 1 (Closed)

Licensee to review the need for establishment of position specific qualifications for Radiological Controls Supervisors. The licensee a rrently references applicable ANSI standards which provide

" generic" personnel qualification guidance.

Findings The licensee has elected to maintain the " generic" qualification criteria for selection and qualification of Radiological Controls Supervisors.

The licensee plans to evaluate each new candidate for a vacancy and provide additional training as appropriate.

Inspector review of the qualifications of current Radiological Controls Supervisors found them to meet Technical Specifications.

Qualifications and performance of supervisors will be reviewed during future inspections.

Item 2 (Closed)

Licensee to review the need for specific operation procedures for radiological controls instrumentation.

The licensee currently

_-_

!

.

'

relies on training and qualification of personnel to ensure acceptable operation of instrumentation.

Findings The licensee has specific operating procedures for operation of

!

laboratory instrumentation. Also radiological survey procedures provides general guidance for use of infield survey instrumentation.

Inspector tours of the facility did not identify any performance l

deficiencies regarding use of instruments.

l Item 3 (Closed)

Licensee to review the need to upgrade the qualification criteria for evaluating radiological controls technicians knowledge of

]

procedure requirements.

]

i Findings

'

The licensee upgraded the criteria for use in qualifying

radiological controls technicians on procedure knowledge.

l

3.20 (0 pen) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-37-01)

This item contained four subitems:

Item 1 (0 pen)

l The NQA audits (e.g.85-048) of Radiological Control Group activities appeared to be compliance oriented audits. The audits did not examine program or procedure adequacy.

Consequently, the inspector was unable to determine the effectiveness of the audit.

Findings The inspector reviewed audit NM-87-02, Radiation Protection / Chemistry. The chemistry portion of this audit was found to be broad scoped and examined such items as program adequacy, organization, staffing, qualification, and work load of personnel.

-)

The chemistry portion of the audit was performed by a contractor technical specialist.

By contrast the radiation protection portion

of the audit was considered of limited depth and quality for identifying program weakness (See Section 5 of this report). The audit was considered compliance oriented in the area of radiation protection, not broad scope and of limited value for identifying program weaknesse '

..

..

-

14 Item 2 (0 pen)' -

The Radiation Protection Services Group performed assistance assessments.of the Hope Creek Radiation Protection Program. Thel inspector was unable to identify any formal mechanism whereby. RPS tracked their. findings to resolution.

Findings -

The licensee has not finalized his corporate' Radiological Controls Assessment Program..

Item 3-(0 pen)-

The inspector was unable to identify a mechanism requiring the site radiation protection organization'to respond to.the findings identified by the corporate Radiation Protection Services Group.

Finding The licensee has not finalized his Corporate. Radiological Controls Assessment Program.

Item 4 (Closed)

The licensee has obtained contractor' support to audit the Hope' Creek Radiation Protection Program.

Inspector review of audit. findings indicate a number of findings were identified. However, no program / methodology was in place to-track significant' findings to resolution.

The licensee' subsequently established a method to track significant-findings to resolution..

Findings

'l The onsite Radiation Protection' Group established a detailed

)

program / methodology to track findings to resolution.-

3.21 (0 pen) Inspector Follow-Item (50-354/86-59-01)-

A contractor audit of radiation protection personnel qualification sign-offs found that'some personnel authorized to perform tasks.had not been signed off to indicate they had.been qualified to perform the tasks.' The licensee has moved applicable qualification records to the area where first line supervisors are located.

Previously, qualification records were not readily available-to supervision.

However, it was' found that a number of individuals had not: reviewed and signed off required reading material.

In one case, 'a first. line

)

radiation protection supervisor had not~ signed off a number'of-required reading items.

This item remains open pending licensee review of this matter.

q

- - ___ _-

_ _ - - _.

_

_-

-._ - - _

l

.

)

'..

4.0 Organization and Staffing The inspector reviewed the organization and staffing of the onsite Radiological Controls Group. The review was with respect to criteria l

contained in Technical Specifications and applicable licensee procedures.

,

Findings Within the scope of this review, the following was noted:

.i The Radiological Controls Group Organizational Structure is consistent with Technical Specification.

Applicable administration procedures properly depict the group and lines of authority.

Procedures describe lines of succession for the Radiation Protection I

Manager.

Within the scope of the review, the following item needing. licensee attention was identified:

One ALARA engineer has transferred from the_ site Radiological Controls Group to the Corporate Radiological Controls. Group.

This transfer, in conjunction with the planned leave of absence to be taken by the onsite Senior ALARA engineer, may result in-the need to ' augment the onsite ALARA Group in order to provide for effective ALARA oversight of planned Spring 1988 outage activities. The licensee indicated that he is aware of potential problems in this area and plans to augment the staff, as appropriate, to address this matter.

5.

Audits and Surveillance The inspector reviewed the implementation and adequacy of au'dits required by Technical Specifications.

The inspector also reviewed selected scheduled and unscheduled surveillance.

The evaluation of the licensee's performance in this area was based on.

review of audits and scheduled and unscheduled surveillance.

Surveillance The licensee is implementing generally adequate surveillance of the Radiological Controls Program.

Both scheduled and unscheduled surveillance are conducted.

Findings are followed-up and resolved in a timely fashion.

_ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-_

- _ _ _ _

- _. - - _ - _

_-,_ - _ _ _

_ _

_ _ _

_ _ _ _.

_

_

_

..

,

l

~

The following item for improvement was identified:

The licensee had not developed surveillance checks list for use

-

in surveilling the instrument counting room.

The licensee has.not been aggressively reviewing in-field-

-

implementation of radiation work permit requirements. -Reviews to date have focused on completion of radiation work permit paperwork at the main Health Physics Control Point.

'

The licensee concurred in'the above findings in the area of surveillance and initiated action to address.these weaknesses.

5.2 Audits The licensee performed an. audit of the Radiological Controls Program in December,1986.

During the audit the QA group used a Radiological Controls Supervisor from the site's Radiological Controls Group to assist in performance of the audit. A supervisor from Salem was used at Hope Creek while a supervisor from Hope Creek was used at Salem.

The following weaknesses were'noted relative to the audit:

Audit depth was. considered limited,

Aud' its performed were considered compliance oriented and did a

not examine program-adequacy as compared-to current industry standards or practice.

l The audit did not examine the qualifications of all appropriate

'

members of the Radiation Protection Organization.

Supervisors

and managers qualifications were not audited.-

Note: Although the onsite QA group performed surveillance of Radiological Group Supervisors qualifications; the findings of their review were not transmitted consistent with the normal distribution for audits.

Consequently, weaknesses in this area would not be brought to senior management's

'

attention.

The licensee concurred with the need to provide for and use j

technical specialist during audits.

j

Regarding qualification of supervisors and managers, the licensee indicated he would review this matter.

,

-.-_--__---__._.___.__._-

- _ _ _ _

-

_ _.

.

'

6.0 ALARA The inspector reviewed licensee planning and preparation for the upcoming outage.

In addition, the inspectcr reviewed and discussed licensee initiatives to reduce and maintain occupational exposure to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) over the life of the plant.

6.1 Planning and Preparation Findings Within the scope of this review, the following was noted:

The licensee has placed radiological controls personnel in his

planning and scheduling group.

These individuals act as initial reviewers for work packages and intermediaries between the radiological controls group and other station groups.

These individuals develop and transmit detailed work schedules-to the radiological controls group for their use in planning and scheduling. The schedules are used in part to plan person-loading. The licensee's efforts in this area were commendable.

6.2 New Initiatives to Reduce Exposure

'

Findings i

Within the scope of the review, the following was noted:

A remote Control Rod Drive (CRD) removal system has been purchased and will be installed during the early 1988 outage.

This system is expected to reduce CRD removal exposure by a

,

factor of 3.

]

The licensee has initiated a zinc passivation program.

This

program will limit Co-60 plateout in the primary system.

The licensee is completely re-designing his CRD disassembly, rebuild, inspection and storage facilities in order to minimize personnel exposure.

The licensee is using remote TV cameras in place of visual inspection by operators in certain areas of expected above normal personnel exposure. This effort reduces exposue of

.

i operators during plant tours.

7.

External Exposure Controls The inspector reviewed the implementation of licensee external exposure controls. The review was with respect to criteria contained in the following:

_ _ _. _ - -__ _--

a

_ _

_

I

.

l

18-10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation Technical Specifications

Applicable licensee procedures Licensee performance in the area was evaluated by the following methods:

inspector tours of the facility and performance of independent radiation surveys; independent verification of access control to locked high radiation

l areas;

inspector discussions with cognizant licensee personnel;

'

review of documentation.

Findings i

Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified.

The licensee was implementing acceptable external exposure controls.

l Within the scope of the review the following area needing improvement was l

identified:

The licensee has tasked first line Radiological Controls Supervisors with the requirement to verify performance of High Radiation Area Key Audits by technicians.

Review of audits by the inspector identified a number of errors in dates as to when the audits were performed.

If one were to take the dates literally it appears that the required audits were not l

performed. However, the dates of performance were in error.

Although no violations were identified, additional attention to i

detail by supervisor in this area is needed to identify and correct

performance deficiencies by technicians.

j 8.

Licensee Meeting On July 29, 1987, the inspector attended a licensee requested meeting held at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. The meeting was attended by licensee and NRC Region I representatives. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's plans for establishing a site specific radiological controls program.

The meeting is summarized in combined inspection report No. 50-272/87-23; 50-311/87-24.

i

_ _. _ _ - _ _ - - - - - _ _. - _ - - _ _ _

- _ - _ - _ - _ - _

_ _ _

__-.

,

..

.

9.

. Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee's representative denoted in Section 1 of this report at the conclusion of the inspection.

The inspector summarized the purpose scope and finding of the inspection.

i