IR 05000424/1987018

Insp Rept 50-424/87-18 on 870309-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Items Re Licensee Application for Full Power License,Including NUREG-0737 Items & Mgt of Health Physics Group

ML20205P379
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/23/1987
From:	Cooper W, Hosey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205P337	List: IR 05000424/1987018 ML20205P334
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM 50-424-87-18, NUDOCS 8704030251
Download: ML20205P379 (7)

Text

- . . - . _ _ _ _

w +

2 Frou a UNITED STATES

/ ' q'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

"

[ o REGION 88 g*

• -

j 101 MARIETTA STREET, * ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%,"***f MAR 2 61937 Report No.: 50-424/87-18 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 License Nos.: NPF-61 Facility Name: Vogtle Inspection Con cted: rch 9-12, 1987 Inspector: ,/ A 3-2J -@7 W. T. Cdege Date Signed Approved by: / '

3/2.3/27 C. M. iosbf,' Sectipn Chief .

Date Sidned-Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This special, announced inspection involved a review of items related to the licensee's application for a full power licens Areas reviewed included NUREG-0737 items; programs for external exposure control; control of radioactive material and contamination, surveys and monitoring; organization and management of the health, physics group;- facilities and equipment and solid waste processing and storag Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

>

l l

l fo@*SOOEkE50Shj4 , l a l

__

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• T. Greene, Plant Manager

• G. R. Frederick, Quality Assurance Engineering Support Supervisor

• C. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist

• A. E. Desroiers, Health Physics Superintendent J. Daniel, Radwaste Operations Supervisor J. Brenenborg, Health Physics Foreman M. Hobbs, Instrumentation and Control Supervisor G. Fussell, Health Physics Specialist

.'

I. Kochiri, Health Physics Specialist M. Kurtzman, Health Physics and Chemistry Training Supervisor C. Kitterman, Operations Training Coordinator Other licensee employees contacted included seven technicians, two operators, four security force members, and eight office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Miller, NRR C. Willis, NRR J. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations R. Schepens, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 12, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector discussed the inspection findings in detail with licensee managemen Licensee management acknowledged the inspection findings and took no exception The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Area Radiation Monitoring System (83626)

i

, Containniant High Range Radiation Monitors NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1- l directed the licensee to install a minimum of two physically separgted ]

in-containment radiation level monitors with a maximum range of 10 rad i per hou '

i

. - - . .- _

-- -- ,, , -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

<

.

,

I'

i FSAR Section 12.3.4 and Table 12.3.4-2 described the Area Radiation Monitoring System and provided the locations of -the fifteen monitors,  ;

including the containment high range monitors. The inspector verified

~

installation of the . monitors and reviewed records of operational testing and calibration for each of the monitor .;

During a tour of the Unit 1 containment, the inspector verified 4 installation of the two Westinghouse containment high range radiation monitor The monitors had been installed on opposite -sides of the reactor cavity approximately five feet above the refuel floo The inspector reviewed the licensee's Safety Evaluation Report dated June 1985, and verified that the installation of monitors in this location had been reviewed and approve The inspector also. discussed the

placement of the monitors with the NRR Licensing Project Manager and another member of the NRR staff. The inspector observed the readout and

strip charts for the monitors in the Control Room. The inspector reviewed the vendor's literature and information provided by the licensee and determined that the monitor met the range and . sensitivity' criteria-

, established in NUREG-0737. The inspector reviewed the results of the i initial calibration of the monitors. The licensee used a Cs-137 source to i response check the instrument in the range of 1-10 rem per hour (R/hr)

with electronic calibrations performed on decades greater than 10 R/hr.

'

j The inspector also reviewed . the type-test data for the monitors and

'

verified linear monitor response through all scales up to 1 E+7 R/h .

Licensee representatives stated that the containment high range monitors would be recalibrated on an eighteen month frequency.

'

Based on the review by the inspector, the requirements of NUREG-0737 Item II.F.1-2.c have been me . Organization and Management Controls (83522)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's staffing level related to radiation protection and preparation for startup of Unit 1. The inspector also

! discussed the staffing level with licensee management. At the time of the-j inspection, the licensee employed twenty-seven health-physics technicians

=

(HPT), of which twenty-one were house techs and six were contractors. The-

,

inspector stated that the staffing level appeared to be low when compared with other plants of similar size. The inspector noted that the licensee

experienced difficulty in providing HPT coverage for-startup surveillances and for the completion of routine task The licensee's response to the -

inspector's observation was to increase the amount of overtime HPTs were allowed to work to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> per week. The inspector stated that routine observations for fatigue and stress should be made to ensure that the number of hours worked by HPTs did not impact performance. The inspector stated that health physics staffing would be an inspector followup ite (IFI) to be reviewed during a future inspection (50-424/87-18-01).

!

l-i

. -,._ , -_ = _ - , - - - . . - _ , _ -

. . _ _ - - . . _ - . , . , - ,_. __ -

-. .. .. - - -.- - - - , . . -

I

'

l

! External Exposure Control and Personal Dosimetry (83524)

' During tours of the containment on March 10 and 11,1987, the' inspector reviewed the controls in place to control entry into the reactor vessel sump area. The entry into the keyway was through an access hatch located in the seal table room. The inspector, accompanied by a HPT entered the-

,

seal . table area and accessed the door leading to the keyway hatch. The

inspector noted that neither the door to the seal: table room nor the doo to the keyway access area were posted or secured. .The inspector also -

noted that the metal hatch providing access to the sump was secured by a non-locking hasp and pin arrangement. The inspectcc dfscussed the need

for positive access controls -for the reactor vessel sump area with i licensee management.. Licensee management stated that positive controls would be provided for the area. The inspector stated that a review of the

controls installed to prevent entry into the reactor vessel sump area j would be an inspector followup item and would be reviewed during future

'

inspections (50-424/87-18-02).

i Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination, Surveys and Monitoring

(83526)

!

The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for instrument calibration,

, personnel surveys, surveys of materials exiting the radiation control zone (RCZ) and methods for self surveys performed by non-health physics,

'

l radiation worker qualified individuals.

} During tours of the facility on March 16 and 17,1987, the. inspector noted

! that there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the HP staff as to

+

how materials were to be released from the RCZ when ~the licensee's NaI

tool monitoring system was out of service. One health physicist stated

!

that a self survey by the individual was adequate, and a HP foreman stated

that a survey by a HPT would be required prior to releasing material i Licensee management stated that definitive guidance would be provided to

l licensee personnel specifying actions to be taken when the tool ~ monitor is

out of servic Licensee management also stated that _ following i development of the guidance, personnel would be trained.. The inspector-l stated that the development of guidance for releasing materials from .the i RCZ and training of personnel would be an inspector followup item to be i reviewed during a future inspection (50-424/87-18-03).

t The inspector reviewed the operation of the licensee's IPM-7 personnel whole body frisking devices. During the review, the inspector noted that

several variables existed in using the monitor. The most notable was that the monitor would not~ provide a frisk for the area from the mid-forearm to

,-

'

the shoulder. Also, depending on body size, the frisker may not provide

'an adequate frisk of the front and back of the body due to the required

body configuration while standing in the monitor.-- The inspector' discussed

-

this issue with licensee HP management who stated that due to this deficiency, the HP staff would develop additional training and procedural

requirements for the use of hand-held friskers after personnel exited

!

contaminated areas and would require a - hand-held frisk to be performed

-

i

. . . _ - - , , - - - - , . . - - - - - ~ - - .-, ., , , . . n, ,,-,.-.--n . - n. . - - - - . - -- -- -.- - - - , . - . .

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

,

i 4 i

prior to using the IPM-7. The inspector stated that the implementation of -

j additional training and procedural controls for frisking would be.an inspector fellowup item and would be reviewed during future inspections (50-424/87-18-04).

The inspector toured the . licensee's instrument. calibration and storage area and discussed operations in the area with licensee personnel. During the tour, the inspector noted that many survey instruments in storage had

calibration stickers affixed which had been signed by the HPT that i

performed the calibratio However, on the instruments observed by the j inspector, no calibration dates had been placed on the calibration

'

sticker. When questioned by the inspector, licensee representatives

! stated that the date the instrument was issued .was noted as . the calibration date. Records for two instruments reviewed by the inspector l indicated that the instruments. had been in storage for more than two

months after calibration had been performed. The inspector determined

that until the instruments were issued, they would not be placed into the

recalibration cycle. The inspector discussed this issue with licensee HP

management who stated that this practice was allowed by the FSAR and  !

! 1mplementing procedure However, HP management stated that the current program would be changed such - that the date of instrument calibration would be noted on the calibration sticker. The inspector stated that the j review of instrument calibration practices would be an insoector followup item and would be reviewed during future inspections (50-424/87-18-05).

During tours of the facility, the inspector observed personnel performing i

frisks prior to exiting RCZs. The frisking technique employed by most i licensee personnel was poor, with a whole body frisk being completed in one minute or less. HP personnel accompanying. the inspector were

! continually required to re-instruct personnel on proper frisking .

technique. The inspector discussed the adequacy of personnel frisks with- l 4 licensee HP management. HP management stated that it was the intent of l

, management to establish the RCZ approximately two weeks prior to startup l and then provide additional training to personnel. On March 17 1987, the i i licensee relocated the RCZ boundaries and installed IPM-7 portal monitors '

j at the exits in an effort to reduce the. number of frisks required to be l performed by hand. The inspector stated that a review of personnel i

frisking practices would be an inspector followup item to be reviewed I

,

during future inspections (50-424/87-18-06)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for allowing non-HP

. radiation workers to survey work areas and discussed the program with

! licensee representatives.- The inspector noted that' the training in the

use of various survey instruments did not address modes 'of instrument failure and the actions to be taken in the event an instrument was suspected of failur Licensee management stated that the training program for self-survey by radiation workers would be reviewed to ensure the criteria specified in 10 CFR 19.12 were met. Also, there appeared to

,

be some confusion among plant staff members as to what dose rate limits would require HPT job coverage in lieu of allowing self surveys to be- )

>

performed. HPs stated that self surveys would not be allowed at dose I

- ,_ ,__ _ - . .

__ . _ . - ___ . . - .

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

~

.

rates exceeding 200 millirem per hour, while Radwaste Operations personnel stated that self-surveys could be performed up to 1 R/h Licensee management stated that upper limits for dose rates at which self surveys could be performed would be administratively established. The inspector stated that the modifications to the training program to encompass 10 CFR 19.12 requirements and establishment of upper limits for dose rates at which self-surveys could be performed would be an inspector followup item to be reviewed during future inspections (50-424/87-18-07). Solid Waste (84522)

The inspector reviewed the training records for those Operations personnel assigned to work in the radioactive waste processing are Records for sixteen personnel were reviewed. Of the records reviewed, none of the personnel had received training on the procedure for radiation work permits, and one individual had not received radiation protection orientatio Five of the operators had not been qualified to operate various processes. A licensee representative stated that one of the operators had only recently transferred into the Radwaste Operations group and was just beginning his qualification journa Licensee management stated that the use of RWPs was discussed and demonstrated during a two day course for radwaste self-monitoring conducted for all radwaste operations personne Licensee management stated that most of the operators were qualified except for crane and rigging training and additionally, for two people just entering the group, qualification had not been completed in several areas. The inspector stated that the qualification journals did not reflect that the operators were qualified-as many sign-offs denoting completion of subjects were blank. Licensee management stated that a review of the qualification journals would be performed. The inspector stated that a review of radwaste operations qualifications would be an inspector followup item and would be reviewed during future inspections (50-424/87-18-08).

1 Followup on Inspector Followup Items (92701)

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 50-424/86-12-08. This item was for i completion of general employee training (GET) for all personnel onsite to be badged for entry into the protected are The inspector selected random personnel from various plant groups and verified that each employee had received the required GET trainin (Closed) IFI 50-424/86-12-4 This item was for review of the installation, calibration and operational testing of all plant area radiation monitors (ARM). Review of the ARM system is discussed in Paragraph 4 of the inspection repor (0 pen) IFI 50-424/86-126-0 This item was to track a management commitment for the relocation of at least one ARM to the new decontamination area. At the time of the inspection, the monitor had not been relocated, therefore, this item will remain ope '

.- .__

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

r

. ...

(Closed) IFI 50-424/86-126-02. This item was for the incorporation of a quality control review of waste characteristics into a procedur The inspector reviewed Procedure No.10200, Radwaste Management, and verified that a quality control checklist addressing waste characteristics had been incorporated into the procedure.

.

t i

l

, -

!

.l l

l

l I

!

I i

- . . - - - - - , - - , , , - , - . , . - . ,. , , , - . , , --,~ .- , , ,