IR 05000498/1990027

Insp Repts 50-498/90-27 & 50-499/90-27 on 900813-17.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Radiation Protection Program

ML20059M704
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/20/1990
From:	Murray B, Ricketson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059M702	List: IR 05000498/1990027 ML20059M700
References
50-498-90-27, 50-499-90-27, NUDOCS 9010050205
Download: ML20059M704 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.-

. -,

 .
 ,; . ...-
       ,

APPENDIX l j U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

REGION IV

       :
       '

NRC Inspectvon Report: 50-498/90-27 Operating License: NPF-76 50-499/90-27 NPF-80 f Docket: 50-498 , 50-499

       :

Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)  ! P.O. Box 1700 ., Houston, Texas 77251

Facility Name: South Texus. Project Electric Generating Station (STP) Inspection At: STP Site, Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas

       ?

Inspection Conducted: August 13-17, 1990 '!

       -

o

 ; Inspector:  4   9-Jao - 9o ,
  -L. ck tsjon, b'P.E , Se~nior-Radiation Date i Speci st, FaciTities Radiological
       ~

Protection Section j .s Approved: [ M' Blaine Murray, Chief, Fap11 ties Radiological Efate ' Protection Section

,

Inspection Summary [

,        ,

Inspection Conducted August 13-17,1990 (Report 50-498/90-27; 50-499/90-27). ,

  ,

j Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of portions of the. licensee's radiation protection' program, including organization and management controls H ~ and training and qualification Results: .Within the areas inspected..no' violations or deviations were  :

 . identified. The radiation protection program was-. adequately staffed. There t

wasg a : slight increase -in the turnover rate in the-healtn physics (HP) department. Quality assurance (QA) audits appeared.to be. comprehensive and- 3 0 performance-based. An adequate training program had been implemented for t g radiation protection'(RP)' personnel. All HP personnel mat qualification "i . requirement n u .

    ,

l

<

n c { .

 . +
, ,

q ;;w

..

     . . - ,
       ,

o

- *

s 1

.;' A   . [ ;

i DETAILS 7 Persons Contacted t HL&p

       ,
       '
 *W. ; Kinsey,^ Jr. , Vice President, Nuclear Generation
 *
 - Ayala, Supervising Engineer, Licensing   !
 *H. Bergendahl, Manager, Health Physics (HP)   !
.
'

J. Bowles,- Lead Instructor, General Employee Training (GET) R. Cook', Auditor, Nuclear Assurance H. Dudley, Supervisor,_ Support Services, Nuclear Training-  ! R. Erickson, Supervisor, Surve111ances, Nuclear Assurance _

       '

B. Franta,' Manager, Professional and Support. Services, Nuclear Training' R. Goodwin, Surveillance Specialist, Nuclear Assurance  ;

-
 *A. Harrison, Supervising Engineer, Licensing   '
 *W. Isereau, Audit Supervisor, Nuclear Assurance
 *A. Khosla, Senior Engineer, Licansing J. Kubenka, Division Manager, 5$ ff Training
  .
 *J; Loesch, Plant Operations Manager S. Longchar,. Lead' Instructor, HP .
       -

W. Parish, General Supervisor, HP Technical' Support H. Russell', Technical Training Supervisor S. Torrey,. HP~ Training: Coordinator

 *M. Wisenburg, Plant Manager NR ,
 *J. Tapia, Senior Resident Inspector
 ~R. Evans, Resident Inspector    :t J
 * Denotes those present at the exit meeting on August 17, 1990.

2. - Organization and' Management Controls The inspector reviewed the organization and'msnagement controls with  ! respect to the radiation protection program'co determine: compliance with

'
 -Technical Specifications (TS) 6.2 and 6.5; commitments in Chapter:13^of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFFAR); and agreement with l  Regulatory Guide (RG) l'.3 The HP disision continued to be part of technical services. The manage'r of HP had:no-designated assistant, but had a general supervisor for eac of the following functior,a1 arear,: HP technical support, HP operations
     -

support, Unit 1 HP. operations, and Unit 2 HP operations. There was no , independent corporate HP support. group to provide support'and oversight of '

  .the-onsite'HP departmen glV 'G        'l c.g s >

M-V>

 ,
? ! j . [[
\ !.b-h NI-      . .. .

_ .., _ _

, .c
!/
 
:

9; 'P H had developed comprehensive position descriptions for supervisory . personne The inspector reviewed the position descriptions for onshift radiation protection supervisor, radiation work permit (RWP)/ work contrci .

 . center (WCC) radiation protection supervisor, radwaste supervisor, i decontamination' supervisor, dosimetry supervisor, health physics outa0e !

supervisor, ALARA health physicist, assessment and procedures health ! physicist, and health-physics training coordinato The_ descriptions listed the. responsibility of each in detail. ' The licensee does not yet _

have similar position descriptions for technici6ns,.but plans to have them

       ~

issued by the end of.199 The HP staff consisted of approximately 80 people, 46 of whom were - ' technicians. HP operations in each unit used six shifts,-five of them rotating, consisting of a supervisor and three t9chnicians. One shift' worked only days to maintain a continuity of personnel. There was no dependence on contract HP technicians during nonoutage condition ; Sixteen contract decontamination personnel and their coordinator were employed and had recently been placed under the supervision of the general

 .superyisors of the units. The HP program lost (and replaced) eight

_ technicians during the last 12 months. Staffing was_ determined to be-adequate for a two-unit plan ? The~ inspector reviewed the results of Audit 90-08, " Radiological-Controls," conducted' April 16 through_May 25, 1990. The audit identified i four deficiencies and one concern. The audit team included c former i

      ~

member of the HP department and made seven recommendations 'or consideration for improvement of the HP program. The audit appeared to be comprehensive. :The HP department made timely responses'to' the audit finding The inspector noted that all auditors'had attended a training course entitied,'" Performance' Based Auditing."

Auditors had access to adequate technical reference material-and stated I

      "

that'they.had enough time to prepare for the: audit. Licensee

 ; representatives stopped short of saying that QA was short-handed, bu+ they did say that auditors' schedules were very ful Standing Order 31 was another management tool which required that supervisors and above within the.HP organization take part_in plant ,
 -inspection tours on a rotating basis to identify potential violations.of .

regulations or plant procedures. The inspector reviewed the inspection

 ' schedule and'results of~past inspection tours and confirmed that the
    ~~
,

inspections were planned and performe , The licensee continued to rework and restructure its' radiological proce6 res with the intent being to provide more guidance and to make the procedures easier to use. - Licensee represar.catives estimated that they were approximately 50 p e cent complete with the task.

'

 .No violations or deviations were identifie '
      ;

i

'

a-*

   ~
       .
 ,
,~.,
  .      p
 *
... ,
 -

    ,4, Training and Qualifications The inspector interviewed members of the training organization and reviewed lesson plans and student handouts to determine compliance with TS 6.4: the commitments in Chapter 13 of the UFSAR; ant agreement with RGs 8.10, 8.13, 8.15, 8.27, and 8.2 Because the licensee scheduled training classes on a 2-week cycle, the inspector was unable to review actual presentations of general employee training (GET, Category I), radiation worker training (GET, Category II),

respiratory protection training (GET, Category III), and sei'-contained breathing apparatus training (GET, Category IV). The inse uor reviewed Interdepartmental Procedure-(IP) 8.22Q which outlined the content of the-different GET and assigned responsibilities. The inspector also reviewed, in-office, copies of lesson plans and student handouts for each of the i courses and found them to be adequate to comply with the guidance given in ; the RGs listed abov . The hspector noted that training facilities were fragmented, with traiaing-being presented in-four different locaticn Licensee management stated-that additional space for training was being planned and that training-would eventually oe given in only two general area The training instructors had adequate reference material available and adequate time-to prepare for. classes.. Some felt the lack of adequate clerical ~ support. diverted them from their primary duties at time Instructors, for the most part, had not been to other sites for exchanges-of -information with their counterpart The inspector reviewed selected resumes of instructors and determined'that they were qualified. Licensee representatives felt that an adequate number of instructors were available_ for GET (between 2500 and 3000 people were given GET in 1989); however, , some vendor-support would be needed to support the HP training need , i

       '

Training representatives stated a desire to increase the use of audio / video media in GET, if resources can be found. They felt this could save time in the early part of the presentation and more attention.could , be devoted to the practical factors which are addressed in the latter part of the course. Once per quarter, studenis enrolled in GET are asked to , take part in a survey in order to provide feedback on the effectiveness of-E 'the training provide , The licensee received accreditation from the Institute of Nuclear-Power Operations in July 1990 for its radiation protection techiiician training (RPTT). The licensee also had programs'far recurrent training,

training in-industry events, and continuing supervisor training. .' Course 1* content and responsibilities for the letter were outlined in IP 8.250 ' Several~ supervisors or general surervisors were sent'to industry-related f seminars or offsite training courses suct as the HP certificatica training + b Cours ,

       !

!

       .
 ,

I

,,
 '.

l [ i

u ,

'b-a's!.

c _ ( *- .. i. l _

        ,

       ^

The~ inspector reviewed the results of a licensee evaluation of the RPT Feedback from the studente indicated that the course was satisfactory, but would have benefited from increase " -'< on hands-on experience and

     .

increased use of mockup Commu" aetween training and HP was ' described by all interviewed as .o even though there was no l requirement-for organized training ret .ings.- , Licensee representatives stated that they supported and encouraged career advancement by the HP technicians such as their becoming certified members ", of the National Registry of Radiological Protection Technologists-(NRRPT).

Approximately 10 people had received NRRPT certification and the licensee

       '

was exploring the possibility of having a vendor present a course which-would prepare HP personnel for taking future certification examination ~ The inspector reviewed the resumes of individuals hired since the previous

  . inspection and determined that those filling the position of HP technicians were qualified in accordance with regulatory requirement No violations or deviations were identifie '

l Exit Meeting l

  e inspector met with the resident inspector tnd the licensee's
  . gresentatives denoted in paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection i  on August 17, 1990, and summarized the scope and' findings of the L   inspeccion as presented .in this report. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by,- the

'

       ;

inspector during the inspectio l i-

"
~
>

t- ! l'

       ..
       <

i s I '

       ,
       .
       '

l

l? 'i > :# .

       >
 '
 ,      -b

}}