IR 05000416/1981026
| ML20010B885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Hosey C, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010B882 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-81-26, NUDOCS 8108180434 | |
| Download: ML20010B885 (6) | |
Text
.
.
-
.
,9
'h UNITED STATES s
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
E REGION ll o,
g 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 4,
O ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 o
.....
Report No. 50-416/81-26 Licensee: Mississippi Power & Light Jackson, MS 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf.clea ion near Port Gibson, Mississippi Inspector:
_
7!Z F/
G. L. Troup"
'Dat'e Signed Approved by:
7 S/M /
C. M. Hose 9,Vcting Sec.t. ion Chief Date Sign 6d Engineering li;spection/ Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on July 6-10, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 33 inspector-hours onsite in.the areas of health physics staffing and qualification, procedures, training, facili-ties, instruments and equipment and respiratory protection.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations of NRC requirements or deviations were identified.
,
8108100434 810724 PDR ADOCK 05000416 G
PDR.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - -
. _
.
.
~
--
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
,
!
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- G. B. Rogers, Site Manager
- C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager
- C. L. Stuart, Assistant Plant Manager
- C. R. Hutchinson, Startup Manager
,
- R. R. Weedon, Chemistry and Radiation Control Superintendent
J. E. Custer Administrative and Training Superintendent
- J. W. Yelverton, Quality Assurance Supervisor
.
F. Walsh, Maintenance Engineering Supervisor
'
G. D. Williams, Radiation Control Supervisor T. G. Lee, Staff Health Physicist
'
J. Shaver, Nuclear Instructor Other licensee employees contacted included 3 technicians and 2 operators.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
'
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 10, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector stated that the status of several areas inspected, such as procedures and training, did not appear to be consistent with the licensee's schedule. The inspector also discussed the scope of the inspection program in the health physics, rad-waste and chemistry areas'and the timeframe for several milestones.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
-4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection..
5.
Health Physics Organization and Staffing a.
The inspector reviewed the organization of the health physics group and compared it with FSAR Section 12.5.1 and Figure-12.5.1. A discrepancy exists between the' writeup and the figure; a licensee management representative acknowledged this and stated.that an FSAR change was being submitted. A licensee representative provided the inspector with
'
an organization chart ' for the current structure which agrees with Figure 12.5-1.
.
-.-, -, - -, - -,., _, _... _.. _
, _. -., _ _. _,. - - -,
_
... - -
..
--
.
. _. _
..
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
b.
Regulatory Guide 1.8, revision 1-R, " Personnel Selection and Training" lists the training and experience requirements for the Radiation Protection Manager (RPM). The inspector reviewed the qualifications of the Chemistry and Radiation Control Superintender.t (RPM) and Radiation Control Supervisor (alternate RPM) and compared them with R.G.1.8.
The inspector had no questions concerning the basic qualifications but noted that the RPM has no experience / training on boiling water reac-tors.
A licensee management representative acknowledged this and stated that the RPM would attend training on the plant systems.
'
c.
The organization shown in FSAR Figure 12.5-1 includes one supervisor and fourteen health physicists (technicians). At present the super-visor and seven technicians are on staff.
Licensee representatives stated that recruitment efforts are being pursued to hire the addi-tional staff members. The inspector reviewed the qualifications of three " qualified" technicians against the requirements of ANSI N18.1;-
the inspector had no questions concerning the qualifications.
,
6.
Radiation Protection Procedures FSAR Section 13.5, " Plani. Procedures" describes the procedures which will be issued to implement Regulatory Guide 1.33, rev.
1, including radiation protection procedures. A licensee representative inforn.ed the inspector that the radiation protection procedures are being revised and updated and that none of the revised procedures have been approved.
The licensee representative stated that August I had been established as a target date for completion of the procedures. The inspector stated that the procedures.
need to be issued in a timely manner so that plant personnel can become familiar with the contents; this was acknowledged by licensee representa-tives.
7.
Radiation Protection Training a.
FSAR Section 13.2 specifies the requirements for training of various groups of the station staff.
The inspector discussed the status of training with licensee representatives.
While General Employea Training (FSAR 13.2.1.3) is being conducted, radiatica worker training has not started; the radiation worker training program and - the retraining program have not been completed and approved.
'
b.
The training / retraining program for chemistry personnel (Procedure 01-S-04-8) has been approved and some training has been conducted. The program for health physics personnel (Procehre 01-S-04-9) has not been
,
approved. The inspector reviewed both crocedures and provided comments to the cognizant supevisor regarding the health physics training; these comments were acknowledged and the supervisor stated that they would be incorporated.
.
-
-
- -.
-
-
-
,
.
-
.
.
.
c.
The inspector asked what training contractors would receive since some construction craftsmen and other contractors will require acct:ss to the radiation controlled area.
10 CFR 19.12 requires that all i.-dividuals working in or frequenting a restricted area shall receive instructions concerning radioactive materials and radiation ha:ards.
A licensee representative stated that neither the content nor the method of presentation had been decided yet.
8.
Instruments and Equipment I
l a.
FSAR Table 12.5-1 lists the projected inventory of portable survey instruments. The inspector discussed the current inventory and pro-jected procurement of portable survey instruments with a licensee representative. The instrument inventory includes several high range instruments capable of measuring 1000R/hr as suggested in NUREG-0578.
Although most instruments are on site, the instrument calibrator is not
'
in service. Tha inspector stated that the final inventory and instru-ment calibration would be reviewed during a subsequent' inspection.
b.
FSAR Table 12.5-2 lists the fixed laboratory instrumentation fe r the various laboratories. The inspector toured the labs and observed that the instrumentation was available although one instrument was in a differe,t facility for the present.
c.
FSAR Section 12.3.4.1.3 describes the area radiation monitoring system.
FSAR Table 12.3-3 lists the location and range of the various monitors.
The inspector observed that the alarms and failure lights on the individual modules were as described in the FSAR.
The inspector compared the modules on the D21 panc, and compared the read-outs with FSAR Table 12.3-3.
The inspector observed that two modules (K621-containment sample station and K634-turbine building instrument rack area) have instrument ranges different from those listed in the FSAR and two additional modules have been installed which are nnt described in the FSAR. The inspector stated that the FSAR should be revised to reflect the monitor installation and that this would be an open item (81-26-01); '..is was acknowledged by a licensee management representa-tive.
d.
Since all oi the area radiation monitors alarm a single window on the main panel, the inspector asked if a single module alarm " locked in" the window or if a second alarm would cause the window to reflash. A licensee management representative stated that at present a single alarm on the panel " locks in" the alarm window but, as the result of a human factors review, the panels are being modified so that reflash will occur on the windows.
The inspector stated that the reflash modification would be reviewed late _.
.
.
-
.
.
.
e.
The inspector discussed the personnel dosir 3try system, including-exposure records and quality control checks, with licensee representa-tives. The dosimetry system uses an automatic reader system with a computer system to process, evaluate, document and record the exposure data. A licensee representative informed the inspector that manual processing was available as a backup to the automated system.
The inspector had not further questions at this time.
9.
Facilities FSAR Section 12.5.2.1 describes the facilities which will be available a.
for health physics work and for access control. -The inspector toured plant areas with a licensee representative and observed the areas and essociated equipment. The health physics area at the access point and the clean lab and counting room are complete and instrumentation is-in place.
t.
The hot machine shop is provided with two dcors, one of which permits bypassing of the access control point.
A licensee representative stated that this door will be barricaded or otherwise controlled to prevent bypass of the control point.
The principal equipment is installed in the hot machine shop.
The inspector noted that the installed ventilation ducts are on one side of the room and do not appear adquate to provide ventilation for the work areas; also, there are no provisions for running portable exhaust. ducts to the work areas.
The inspector stated that the exhaust ventilation appeared to be inadequate for the type of work to be done and could. result in airborne and/or contamination control problems in the machine shop. The venti-lation in the hot machine shop will be considered an open item (81-26-02). A licensee management representative acknowledged this and stated that an engineering review was being made of the ventilation for this area.
c.
The equipment decontamination area is located in one corner. of the hot machine shop. The inspector questioned whether adequate ventilation existed in this area.
Since none of the decon equipment has been installed in this area, the material control and contamination control methods could not be assessed. The inspector stated that the co.itrol methods in the decon room would be an open item (81-26-03) and would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
d.
Controlled exhaust hoods are provided in the labs and at sample loca-tions in the plant. Since pressurized samples _and volatile chemicals-may be handled in the hoods, the inspector inquired as to what steps will be taken to assure that the air flow is balanced and that the average face velocity is at least 100 linear feet per minute (based on industrial standards). A licensee representative stated that the
-_
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ - __ - --_ _
.
.
.
.o.
,
,,,.
verification of the flow had not been accomplished but was under consideration. The inspector stated that. this would be considered an open item (81-26-04).
e.
FS!R Section 11.2.1.1 states that contaminated laundry facilities are provided in the Control Building. A licensee representative.i.nformed the inspector that the laundry would not be installed. MP&L letter of June 29, 1981 to NRR confirmed that the laundry will not be installed.
A licensee representative informed the inspector that the contract for l
the offsite laundry was under negotiation.
10. Respiratory Protection Program 10 CFR 20.103 requires that when respiratory protection devices are used to reduce exposure to airborne materials the use shall be in accordance with a program established in accordance with Reg.-Guide 8.15 and NUREG-0041. The inspector discussed various -aspects of the respiratory protection program with licensee representatives. The applicable procedures'and training have not been approved, a medical examination program is being negotiated, and the fitting of the device.s has' not started. A respirator fit test booth has
.
been procured but is not set up.
[
t I
-
_ _ - - _ _ _ -
_ - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _