IR 05000382/1986003

Insp Rept 50-382/86-03 on 860203-07.No Violation or Deviation Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection Program,Including External & Internal Radiation Exposure Controls & Radioactive Matl

ML20140E759
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/04/1986
From:	Baer R, Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140E756	List: IR 05000382/1986003 ML20140E752
References
50-382-86-03, 50-382-86-3, NUDOCS 8603280170
Download: ML20140E759 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ . . . . . APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/86-03 License: NPF-38 Docket: 50-382 Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174

   ~

Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (WAT-3) Ir.spection At: Taf t, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, Waterford 3 Site Inspection Conducted: February 3-7, 1986 Inspector: /z d f R7E. Bae'r, Radiation Specialist, Facilities Date Radiological Protection Section-Aprroyed: li/ M M ll/}[(J[[ hh EY Mirray, Ch'ief, Facjilities Radiological Date Protection'Section Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted February 3-7, 1986 (Report 50-382/86-03) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of portions of the licensee's radiation protection program including, external radiation exposure controls, internal radiation exposure controls, radioactive material and contamination control activities, radiation protection' facilities and equipment, and audit The inspection involved 42 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: . Within the 5 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000302 Q PDR-

. _ . - .  - -  . . - _ - . .
      '
, . ..

i

l DETAILS i

, Persons Contacted

.LP&L I

l *R. P. Barkhurst, Plant Manager i *S. A. Alleman, Assistant-Plant Manager, Technical Services i R. E. Beasley, Senior Health Physics (HP) Technician

 *K. 'L. Brewster,-Onsite Licensing Engineer

,

 *D. H. Espenan, HP Supervisor i
 *D. L. Hoel, HP Supervisor.'.
'
 *R. W. Kenning, Radiation Protection Superintendent j  *D. A. Landeche,.HP Supervisor

.

 *R. P. Lee, Quality Assurance-(QA) Representative H. C. Lesan, Engineering. Technician, Nuclear W. K. Linares, Senior HP Technician t
 *A. S. Lockhart, Site Quality Manager l  *R. C. McLendon, Dosimetry Supervisor

] *J. C.~ Messina, OA Representative

'

M. L. Mills, Emergency Plan Coordinator B. P. Rocco, Countroom Supervisor ,

 * M. Rollins, Radiological Control Unit Coordinator l  Others

)i J. E. Luehman, NRC Senior Resident Inspector .

 * Denotes those present during the exit interview on February 7,1986
!

j The NRC inspector also interviewed other licensee employees includin administrative, radwaste, and radiation protection personnel.

' Inspector Observations i

'

The following are observations the NRC inspector discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on February 7,1986. These observations are neither violations nor' unresolved items. These items ~were recommended for licensee consideration for program improvement, but they have no

!

specific regulatory requirement. The licensee indicated these items }. would be reviewe ' Respiratory Protection Forced-Air Drying Cabinet - The licensee

had not made the necessary mechanical connections and made the

! respirator drying cabinet operational for the scheduled March 1986 maintenance outag See paragraph 4 for additional details.

l Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) Hour Records - Records for

MPC hour determinations were not-receiving the proper supervisory-1 attention. See paragraph 4 for additional detail '

      .
 .   .
     .

_ _ _ _ _.

_

i < .

. .

J j 3 i'I c'. Airborne Radioactivity Survey Records --The licensee's airborne-radioactivity records do not address sampler typ See paragraph 4 for additional details.

i Air Flow Characteristics - The licensee does not verify that

ventilation air flows are from areas.of low to high contamination.

j See paragraph 4-for additional detail Radiological Condition Status Board - The radiological condition status board located in the reactor auxiliary building (RAB), minus 4

<  foot level does not indicate when last updated. See paragraph 5'for

' additional detail F ' HP Planning and Scheduling - The shift control technicians are not i involved with planning and scheduling of work activities. See paragraph 5 for additional detail , Noble Gas Leakage and Contamination Problems - The licensee has a-large number of leaking valves which are contributing to a noble gas leakage and contamination problem. See paragraph 5 for additional j details.

i Survey Records - The radiological survey record cover sheet does not

;  accurately describe the' survey sheets being transmitted to records i  storage. See paragraph 5 for additional details.

i

! External Occupatical Exposure Control and Personnel Dosimetry
!

) The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for external radiation

exposure control and personnel dosimetry to determine compliance with the

! commitments contained in Chapter 12 of the Final Safety Analysis l Report (FSAR), the requirements of ~ 10 CFR Parts 20.101(a), 20.101(b), f 20.102, 20.202(a), 20.104(a), and 20.401(a), and the recommendations.of l Regulatory Guides (RG) 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.'14, and 8.28.

I J The NRC inspector reviewed selected licensee exposure history records for

'

individuals who had been-furnished personnel dosimetry devices. The NRC inspector noted that all-individuals had the required prior' dose ' ! determination and Form NRC-4's as required by 10 CFR Part 20.102'in their i personal exposure history file.

! The NRC inspector determined the licensee had received accreditation of

     ~

. 4 the thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) system program currently in.use under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP).

The licensee has not changed from-the TLD Badge and elements as described

 'in~NRC Inspection. Report 50-382/85-21, nor processing methodology-for which NVLAP accreditation had been received.

> l The NRC' inspector noted that the licensee routinely processes TLD's on a quarterly basis and compares the results to the assigned self-readin dosimeter (SRD). When the TLD/SRD results differ by plus or minus 30

    '

i i i

i

. . . .

. , percent when either dosimetry device exceeds 300 mrem, an investigation is performed to determine the cause for the inaccuracy and documented with a dosimetry problem report as required by Procedure HP-2-10 The NRC inspector verified that the required reports and notifications'to comply with 10-CFR Parts 19.13, 20.403, 20.405, 20.408, and 50.72(b)(2) , had been prepared in a timely manne No violations or deviations were identified.

J Internal Exposure Control and Assessment i The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's internal exposure control and assessment program to determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.103 and_the recommendations of RG's 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.15 and 8.26 and NUREG-004 The NRC inspector reviewed procedures, representative records for the airborne radioactivity samoling program, MPC hourly logs, and whole body counter calibration and operational checks, and interviewed personnel to determine the effectiveness of the program. The NRC inspector determined that the licensee's respiratory protection program and associated maintenance, cleaning and supporting air sample program met the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.10 The NRC inspector discussed with licensee representatives the need to make certain improvements to the licensee's respiratory protection program.

, The licensee had purchased a forced-air drying cabinet for drying j respirator face masks. This cabinet had not been connected to the ventilation system and was not operationa The licensee maintains a sufficient quantity of respirators for routine operations, and allowing for air dryin However, the maintenance outage scheduled for March 1986 will place a much larger demand on the program than routine operation These demands will probably exceed the quantity available if non-forced air drying methods are used. The NRC inspector'also noted that the MPC hour logs generated during the December 1985 Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) seal replacement contained errors which resulted in greater MPC hours being assigned.to individuals than were actually incurred. The licensee had identified this deficiency and had initiated a review of these MPC i hour records. This review was completed. in February 1986 and appropriate i- recceds~were corrected. The NRC inspector noted that no individual had exceeded 40 MPC hours during the RCP outage and expressed concern to the licensee that greater supervisor attention should be placed on these records to maintain accurate daily input. The NRC inspector also discussed airborne radioactivity survey records. The present method used by the licensee to document the collection and analyses does not readily address what type of air sampling equipment is involved, a breathing' zone i lapel sampler or high volume sampler. Both type of samplers are used to

: determine MPC fractions for respiratory protection measures. This could i

lead to further problems in assigning the correct MPC hours to l individuals.

i e- - ., - rre. . - ,- , , . , - , , - - - - - --. , , , - - . n-, -e. ~ , n ,. e

     . . _ .
. .. ,

The.NRC inspector discussed with licensee representatives the lack of a formal documented program to verify the ventilation air flow characteristics are being maintained and that air flows are from areas of low potential to areas of potentially high radioactive contamination, either gaseous or particulate. The NRC inspector. acknowledged that the licensee had performed an extensive air flow and building ventilation balancing test as part of the pre-operational testing, but the licensee did not perform any subsequent testing (periodic) to assure that these air flow characteristics are being maintained. The licensee indicated that the observations made by-the NRC inspector would be reviewe No violations or deviations wer'e identifie _ Control of Radiological Materials and Contamination, Surveys, and Monitoring i The NRC inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's program for control of radioactive materials and contamination, surveys, and monitoring for compliance with technical specification (TS) 6.11 and 6.12, I and 10 CFR Parts 20.105, 20.201, 20.203, and 20.40 The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's Radiological Work Permits (RWP), radiation and contamination survey sheets, inspected facilities, observed work practices and radiological postings, and conducted independent radiation surveys to verify licensee dat The NRC inspectors discussed with licensee representatives the updating of the radiological status board (RSB) located at the -4 foot elevation of the RA The NRC inspector had noted that RWP's contained a statement instructing workers to " Review the RSB or contact the HP-Shift Control Tecnnician (SCT) for the most recent survey information;" however, the RSB did not indicate when it was last updated, The licensee stated that they planned to revise the RSB and would consider the inspectors observatio The NRC inspector also discussed tae HP-SCT involvement in planning and scheduling of work, particularity during outage conditions. The licensee acknowledged that while the ALARA section was closely involved, the HP-SCT had not been included, and since this group is responsible for directing radiological surveys and providing work coverage that maybe they should be

.

briefed ahead of time of scheduled wor The NRC inspector reviewed the skin contamination records for the 21

 ~

incidents.that occurred during the period December 7-22, 1985, and observed personnel performing frisking when leaving the radiological  ! controlled area (RCA). The NRC inspector discussed with the licensee the  ! problem of noble gas leakage and the resulting Rubidium-88 contamination  ! ! problem within the RCA. The licensee had identified numerous valve leaks which are contributing to this' problem and there appears to be very little ' effort put forth to currect the proble The NRC inspector expressed concern that both HP and operations personnel might become complacent about alarming the personal contamination monitor when exiting the RCA; therefore, increasing the potential for personnel-leaving.the area with ! !

. __ . _ _ _ _ ._ . __-- _ ,_.-.-. _ - _ _ _ _ _
    -_ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . , , _ _ - , . . . _ . _ . . _ . ~ , - _ . 2

. .. .

contamination on them, particularly during the off-normal hours when no direct HP coverage is at the control poin The licensee stated-that operations had been reluctant to approve some valve work during reactor power operations since it would put them into a limiting condition for operation, but that some valves may-be repaired / repacked during the

    ~

scheduled March 1986 maintenance outag i

     '

The NRC inspector noted that Health Physics Survey Record, Form HP-SM-90, used to transmit the routine weekly / monthly radiological survey data to the record storage room did not always accurately describe the surveys performed. The licensee stated that closer supervisory review would be directed toward this observatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Facilities and Equipment The NRC inspector reviewed.the licensee's facilities and equipment for routine and emergency operations including equipment'for compliance with FSAR and the Radiological ~ Emergency Response Plan commitment The licensee had not made any changes to its radiation protection equipment since the previous radiation protection program inspectio The NRC inspector reviewed the emergency kit quarterly inventory for all emergency kits performed sir.ce July _1985 to February 4,1986. The NRC inspector inspected the licensee's emergency equipment locker in the technical support center for the appropriate supplies and. equipment'as required by the WAT-3 Emergency Procedure EP-03-040. " Emergency Equipment Inven to ry. " The NRC inspector noted that the' equipment present corresponded to the checklist requirement No violations or deviations were identifie . Audits The NRC inspector reviewed licensee audits and appraisals conducted on radiation protection act.ivities during the period September 24, 1984 through January 1, 198 The licensee had conducted the following four audits-during the period under review: SA-W3-QA-85-44, Radiological Respiratory Protection Control and Protective Clothing Program, September 10-19. 1985

*
-SA-W3-QA-85-21, External and Internal Exposure Control and Dosimetry Programs, April 30 through May 27, 1985

.- . . . -. .- . - - . . . - - . - .. .-.
      {
. .. ,

t

 *

j SA-W3-QA-85-06,_ Radiation Contamination and Radiation Monitoring l Control, February 6-22, 1985 SA-W3-QA-84-48, Health Physics Program, December 10-28, 1984

The NRC inspector'noted'that all audit findings had.been resolved in a timely manner and that audit team members had sufficient technical expertise _in the area being audited.

The NRC inspector reviewed the following three appraisals-conducted by

! corporate personnel.

!

 *

i External Personnel Dosimetry Appraisal, September _ 24-27, 1984 Internal Radiation protection and Respiratory Protection Appraisal, November 26-30,.1984 -

 *

Health Physics and Radwaste Appraisal, June 10-14, 1985'

i The NRC inspector determined that the above appraisals, findings, and responses were satisfactory. These appraisa'is were not limited to , observations and record reviews, but also included procedure reviews, with j several findings being directed toward procedural improvement.

a i No violations or deviations were identified.

f 1 Exit Interview ! '

      .
      ,

The NRC inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 ' i at the conclusion of the inspection cn February 7, 1986. The NRC ' i inspector summarized the scope and findings and abservations noted in paragraph 2 of this report.

i

i

      -

l I 3 y ! )

1 ,

!
.

i }}