IR 05000354/1990015
| ML20058L760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1990 |
| From: | Nimitz R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L757 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-90-15, NUDOCS 9008080081 | |
| Download: ML20058L760 (6) | |
Text
.
-
..
-
. -. -
i g
e
.,
j
>.
'.
'.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-354/90-15 e,
Docket No. 50-354 Category C
'
License No.
NPF-57 Priority
-
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company J
P. O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l
Facility Name:
Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: June 25-29, 1990 t
Inspector:
R.L d uwv[
'l Ib Pu R. L. Nimitz, SenJ)or Radiation Specialist date
,m
- b e-
~7 9O Approved by:
W. Pasciak, Chief, Facilities Radiation datt Protection Section
- Inspection Summary 1 Inspection conducted on June 25-29, 1990 (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-354/90-I5T.
Areas Inspected: The inspection was a routine, unannounced inspection of the Radiological controls Program. Areas reviewed-included: organization and audits and staffing, training and qualifications of personnel p
assessments, external and internal exposure controls',roceduresradioactIveand L
'
contaminated material control', ALARA, and licensee action on previous NRC findings.
Results: No apparent violations were identified, s
9008080081 900723 PDR ADOCK 05000334 PDC g
p pp
,
%,.
.
>f,,
e
!
n
.
I L
flh
't DETAILS
,
1.0 Individuals Contacted I
1.1 Public Service-Electric and Gas Company L
l
- J. Hovey, Operations Manager -(Acting General Manager)
- J. Clanc Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager
'
' *B. Hall,yiechnical Manager
-
.
- J. Trejo, Manager-Radiation Protection / Chemistry. Services i
- R. Gary, Senior Radiation Protection Supervisor
- R. Beckwith, Station Licensing Engineer
,
L
'
'1.2 Nuclear-Regulatory Commission
- S. Barr, Resident Inspector, Hope Creek
,
Other licensee personnel were also contacted or interviewed during the
-
course of this inspection.
- Denotes those personnel attending the exit meeting on June 29, 1990.
2.0 Purpose and Scope of Inspection
This inspection was a routine, unannounced radiological controls inspection.
Areas reviewed were:
licensee' action on previous NRC findings
--
organization'and staffing of the radioMgical controls group
-
training d assessments-and qualification of. radiologh ol controls personnel
-
audits-an
-
external-and internal exposure controls
-
radioactive and. contaminated material control
-
'
-
,
3.0 Licensee Actions on Previous Findings i
L-(Closed)' Unresolved Item (50-354/86-59-01) The licensee's training and
'
qualification records for radiological controls technicians did not reflect all appropriate qualification information. It was not clear that certain g
personnel were qualified to perform their assigned tasks.
L The inspector's review indicated that the records reviewed during Inspection Number 50-354/86-59 were not official training and qualification records, but were records kept at the main radiological controls access point for the convenience of supervisors. The licensee reviewed and updated the training records.
i
-
-
-
. - -
.-
.
.
.
_-
.,o
,
,
.
1 The licensee's review did not identify any individuals who were performing
-
i tasks they were not qualified to perform.
The inspector selectively
.
reviewed qualification documentation, including required continuing-
training documentation and no apparent deficiencies were identified.
i Training and qualificaf. ion documentation appeared to be complete, up to l
date and well maintained.
This item is closed,
4.0 Organization, Staffing, Training and Qualifications
!
The inspector selectively reviewed the organization, staffing, training and j
qualifications of selected radiological controls group members with respect I
to criteria contained in Technical Specification 6.2, Organization, and applicable licensee procedures, o
Evaluation of the licensee's performance in this area was based on
'
discussions with personnel, review of documents, and observation of l
activities.
.
~ Within the scope of this review, no apparent violations were identified.
l Appropriately trained and qualified personnel were filling key positions L
within the radiological controls organization.
5.0 Audits, Assessments and Corrective Action System The inspector reviewed selected li".2r.see audits, surveillances, and
self-assessments' of the radiological controls program. Also reviewed was
'
the 11censee's corrective action system in the area of Radiological Occurrence Reports (RORs). The review was with respect to criteria contained in Technical Specification 6.5.2.4.3, Audits, and applicable licensee procedures.
Evaluation of licensee performance in this area was based on review of
L audits and surveillances performed the past year, and review of selected L
licensee self-assessments.
Within the scope of this review, no apparent violations were identified.
~:
Audits were considered to be thorough relative to verification of procedure
' compliance and were noted to review on-going work. Audit findings were resolved in an appropriate manner.
The ins!ementation of radiological controls procedures.ector noted that the license the' imp However, the surveillances dio nct review implementation of radiation work permits. The
,
l licensee indicated this matter would be reviewed.
,
t
-
L l
l-l-
!
.
m l
'
'.
,
,
The inspector noted that both station management and radiological controls group management stress the need for station supervisors to spend a considerable amount of their time in the field reviewing plant conditions, reviewing on-going work activities, and reviewing other matters such as-housekeeping.
Observations by the supervisors are transmitted to management for review.
Corrective actions for areas in need of improvemen' were initiated by the supervisor.
6.0 ALARA The inspector reviewed selected aspects of the licensee's program to maintain occupational radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable follow?. The review was with respect to criteria contained in the (ALARAing:-
Regulatory Guide 8.8, Information Relevant to Ensuring that
-
Occupational Exposure at Nuclear Porar Stations Will Be As low As Is Reasonably Achievable; Regulatory Guide 8.10, Operating Philosophy for Maintaining
-
Occupational Radiaf lon Exposure As Low As is Reasonably Achievable; applicable license, procedures.
-
Within the scope of this review, no apparent violations were identified.
The licensee's efforts in the area of ALARA were considered good. The licensee.had performed pra-outage reviews of work activities that accounted for at least 89% of.the occupational radiation exposure received during the outage. The licensee developed a detailed
)ost-outage ALARA manual.
The manual identified all major outage work. T1e manual identified what ALARA actions were. beneficial and areas for improvement. The licensee's three year average occupational radiation exposure compares favorably with the three year median collective occupaMonal exposure of all boiling water reactors for the period January 1981 through December 1989 (290 person-rem versus 429 person-rem).
7.0- External and *nternal Exposure Controls and Contamination Controls The inspector toured the radiological controlled areas of the plant and-reviewed the following matters:
[
kostin!diation,andAirborneRadioactivItyAreas;priate,toRadiation, barricading and access control as appro
-
igh R High Radiation-Area' access point key control;
-
control of radioactive end contaminated material;dures, radiation work
-
personnel adherence to radiation protection proce
-
permits and good radiological control practices; i
fJ
._
.
.
.
- -.
.
.-
.
.
--
_ _.
- -
.
.c
,
y,,'
)
J use of personnel contamination control devices,
-
,
use of dosimetry devices external and internal exp;osure results for the recent outage.
-
-
The review was with respect to criteria contained in applicable licensee procedures and 10 CFR 20. Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Evaluation of licensee performance in this area was based on discussions with cognizant personnel and observations during plant tours.
Within the scope of the above review, no apparent violations were identified.
Licensee performance in the above areas was cood. The inspector noted that the licensee was utilizing appropriately certified dosimetry for use in monitoring of personnel radiation exposure.
- The licensee's dosimetry personnel were monitoring the performance of the dosimetry and inter. comparing the various types of dosimetry used to Identify anomalies.
The inspector noted that the inter-comparison results
!
L (between the integrating alarming dosimeter and the licensee's personnel monitoring device) was usually within 10%.
The inspector noted that tha licensee installed a local and remote reading area radiation mo.:itor to monitor radiation levels near the incore instrumentation drive mechanisms.
The remote reading reads out in the i
control room.
The licensee has improved procedure guidance and controls for granting
'
access and providing radiological controls for personnel working in the upper areas of the drywell during refueling outages.
The procedures provide access control requirements monitoring requirements, periodic reviewrequirements,radiationmoniforingrequirements,andradiation monitor alarm set point requirements.
8.0 Plant Tours The inspector toured the station tiriodically during the inspection. The following matters were discussed with the licensee.
Station housekeeping was commendable.
-
Workers were observed )ainting a room. The room appeared to have
-
limited ventilation.
)aint fumes were considered strong. The licensee immediately initiated a tuview of this matter.
wearing either their hard lats or their safe (painters) to not be$y goggles. The The inspector noted a grou) of individuals
-
immediately initiated a review of this matter.
_
..
.
-
-
-
- -
r,
'
!'
,
l.
,
.._
-i
.
i t
9.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives, denoted in section 1 of this report, on June 29, 1990. The inspector summarized the purpose,the scope
,
and findin No written material was provided to licensee. gs of the inspection.
-
t l
l l
r
+
,
f
.
I
.