IR 05000416/1982002
| ML20041A671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1982 |
| From: | Albright R, Barr K, Collins T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A667 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-82-02, 50-416-82-2, NUDOCS 8202220397 | |
| Download: ML20041A671 (4) | |
Text
.
.-
- *
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
!.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
O a
. REGION 11
101 MARIET TA ST., N.W SUITE 3100 o
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report No. 50-416/82-02 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light P._0. Box 1640 Jackson, MS 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Docket No. 50-416 s
' License No. CPPR-118
)
Inspection at Grand Gulf site near Port Gibson, MS Inspecto s:
! k'
b
/ T. R. Co ins i
Date Signed-
'
4 4;s dah-
,
~
,[R. H. AlbriMt
DatW Signed-
'
'
Approved by:
(
/
9!B L K. Barr, Section Chief
/ atV Signed D
Technical Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on January 4-8, 1982 At aas Inspected
.This routine, unannounced inspection involved 48 insoector-hours on site in the areas of pre-operational test program for solid, liquid and gaseous radwaste systems, solid radwaste disposal, the plant radiation protection procedures arid the health physics organization.
Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in these areas.
.
8202220397 820201 PDR ADOCK 05000416 G
.
r;,
.
..
5.
_ Preoperational (pre-op) Test Program.
.The inspector toured the radwaste facility and observed that the major components were ' in place.
The. inspector observed the _ installation and operation of the Modocon computerized liquid radwaste process. control system and concluded that the system seems to be functional.
The pre-op test procedures.for the liquid, solid, and gaseous radwaste
-
systems appeared to be approximately 50 percent complete.
Actual system testing has not begun.
The inspector concluded that the pre-op testing will not be complete for the projected fuel load date.
6.
Solid Radwaste Disposal The licensee has signed agreements _ with the states of South Carolina ard Washington for transporting solid radwaste into those states for burial.
The licensee also has a contract with Chem Nuclear for radwaste burial in South Carolina. However, this contract does not give the licensee a monthly allocation since the space available is allotted on a first come first served basis.
The licensee is still negotiating for radwaste burial space in the state of Washington.
The licensee plans to store low level' radwaste on site temporarily _ until a permanent burial allocation is received. The inspector stated. to the licensee that if they expect to store low level radwaste on site fer greater than five years they will have to apply to the commission for a license under 10 CFR part 30.
7.
Laundry Decontamination The licensee plans to use a mobile laundry contractor initially to decon-taminate radioactive laundry.
Their long term plan is to contract with Interstate Nuclear Services for laundry decontamination. Interstate Nuclear Services is currently negotiating with Greenville,' Mississippi as the loca-tion for the laundry. Current status of this laundry facility is not known.
The inspector had no further questions.
8.
Health Physics Organization The licensee has eight contract health physics personnel on site to augment the licensee health physics staff.
The contract health physics personnei are handling the fuel receipt and other' routine health physics functions inorder to free the licensee personnel for procedure writing. The curre'nt health physics staffing appears adequate for fuel loading through start-up.
However, there does not appear to be adequate first line supervision of the 10 health physicists (3 more positions are approved) and the eight contract personnel for normal operation. The inspector concludes that one (1) first line supervisor is not adequate for 7-day operation.
.
r
- 3
.
,
,
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager
- R. A. Ambrosino, Nuclear Support Manager
- D. L. Hunt, Plant Quality Superintendent
- R. R. Weedon, Chemistry and Radiation Control Superintendent
- J. C. Bell, Field Quality Assurance Representative J. C. Roberts, Start-Up Engineering Supervisor D. O' Brian, Start-Up Supervisor R. Shaddix, Rad Waste Supervisor L. R. McKay, Corporate Health Physicist G. Dalton Williams, Radiation Control Supervisor T. G. Lee, Staff Health Physicist
- J. W. Yelverton, Quality Assurance Field Supervisor
- D. F.1:ahoney, Quality Assurance Representative NRC Resident Inspector
- A. G. Wagner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 7, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspectors identified to plant management that several health physics procedures have not been completed and prior to receiving an operating license these procedures must be in place.
The plant management acknowledged the inspector's concerns about the health physics procedures.
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Closed (IFI) 81-26-01.
This item concerned area radiation monitors installed in the plant which had instrument ranges different from those listed in the FSAR. Amendment 49 to the FSAR has been issued and reflects actual instrument ranges. The inspector concluded this action to be ade-quate and had no further questions.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio {...
9.
Health Physics Procedures Several procedures defining the health physics program are not complete.
The inspectors stated to licensee management that all health physics pro-cedures must be in place prior to fuel load. Licensee management acknowl-edged the inspector's concerns.
10.
Health Physics Facilities and Equipment The inspector toured the health physics area including the Health Physics Office and personnel decontamination facility.
The number and type of health physics instruments available for use appeared to be adequate for plant start-up.
The health physics office does not appear to be in a good location for personnel access control and contamination control. The health physics lab is located on the lower level of the control building and does not allow visible contact for personnel entering or exiting the operating power block.
The inspector concludes that with the health physics lab located in its present location, the licensee must establish appropriate monitors and surveillence to ensure adequate control.
.
_