ML16342D689
| ML16342D689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342D687 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-97-08, 50-275-97-8, 50-323-97-08, 50-323-97-8, NUDOCS 9706040164 | |
| Download: ML16342D689 (32) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1997008
Text
ENCLOSURE 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket Nos.:
License Nos.:
Report No.:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspectors:
Approved By:
50-275
50-323
DPR-82
50-275/97-08
50-323/97-08
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units
1 and 2
7 1/2 miles NW of Avila Beach
Avila Beach, California
May 12-16, 1997
Michael P. Shannon,
Radiation Specialist, Plant Support Branch
Gilbert L. Guerre, Radiation Specialist, Plant Support Branch
Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
ATTACHMENT:
Supplemental
Information
9706040lh4
970602
ADOCK 05000275
8
-2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units
1 and 2
NRC Inspection Report 50-275/97-08; 50-323/97-08
Plant Su
ort
The external exposure control program was effectively maintained.
High radiation
areas were properly controlled and posted.
Radiation work permits were clearly
written. Workers knew the proper response
to electronic dosimeter alarms
(Section R1.1).
Housekeeping
was very good (Section R1.1).
In general,
a good internal exposure control program was in place.
The use of
continuous
air monitors and high efficiency particulate air filter ventilation units
were utilized appropriately to monitor and limit airborne exposures.
The respiratory
protection program was effectively implemented
(Section R1.2).
A violation was identified regarding the failure to perform air sample surveys as
required by the radiation work permit (Section R1.2).
An inspection followup item was opened regarding an air sample hose factor
evaluation (Section R1.2).
Radiological outage work planning was good.
Management
provided good support
for the radiation protection program.
ALARApersonnel were appropriately involved
in outage planning activities.
Lessons
learned from past work were captured
and
incorporated into radiological work packages
(Section R1.3).
Effective controls were implemented to prevent the spread of radioactive
contamination.
Station workers used the personnel contamination monitors
properly.
Radiation protection personnel
provided timely response
and appropriate
direction to station workers who alarmed the personnel contamination monitors.
Radioactive material was properly labeled and posted (Section R1.4).
A good ALARAprogram was maintained.
The ALARAreview committee was
appropriately involved in station goal setting and monitoring.
The ALARAhit team
was a program str'ength.
Challenging exposure
goals were set based
on past
performance.
A good temporary shielding program was effectively maintained.
The
program and hot spot reduction program were properly
implemented
(Section R1.5).
-3-
A good temporary additional radiation protection technician training program was in
place.
Radiation protection management
was appropriately involved in the
development
of the temporary additional radiation protection technician training
program.
The on-the-job training and evaluation programs did not ensure that an
individual being evaluated
had first completed the formal classroom
required training
(Section R5.1).
Overall, an effective nuclear quality services program was maintained.
The nuclear
quality services auditors were well qualified to perform radiation protection
audits/assessments.
The nuclear quality services assessments
and field
observations
were good; however, improvement could be made to the timely
response
of nonquality radiological action requests.
The radiation protection section
self-assessment
program was in the developmental
stage and not yet effectively
implemented
(Section R7.1).
REPORT DETAILS
Summar
of Plant Status
Unit
1 was in a refueling outage.
Unit 2 operated
at full power.
No events occurred that
affected the inspection activities.
Plant Su
ort
R1
Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls
R1.1
External Ex osure Controls
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Selected radiation workers and radiation protection personnel
involved in the
-.
external exposure control program were interviewed.
A number of tours of the
radiological controlled area, including the Unit 1 containment building, were
performed.
The following items were reviewed:
Radiological. controlled area access controls
Control of high radiation areas
Radiation work permits
Job coverage by radiation protection personnel
Dosimetry use
Housekeeping
within the radiological controlled area
Observations
and Findin s
Field radiological work briefings performed by radiation protection technicians
provided workers with current radiological conditions and stressed
ALARAcold
waiting areas.
ALARAcold waiting areas were areas of significantly less dose rates
than the work area.
High radiation areas were properly posted and controlled in the radiological
controlled area and containment building.
All Technical Specification required doors
were locked.
Flashing lights were used where appropriate
and were operational.
Radiation work permits were written in a clear consistent manner and contained
appropriate radiological control information.
The radiation work permit numbering
system, which used the same number for similar work with the exception of the
year designator,
made it easy to review job history information.
1
~ ~
~
-5-
Field interviews with outage workers revealed that the workers were knowledgeable
of the general radiological conditions in their work area.
These workers were
questioned
on general dose rates, general contamination levels, and airborne
information.
All radiation workers observed wore their dosimetry properly.
When questioned,
workers knew to leave their work area and contact radiation protection personnel if
their electronic dosimeter alarmed.
Housekeeping
throughout the radiological controlled area was very good.
c.
Conclusions
The external exposure control program was effectively maintained.
High radiation,
areas were properly controlled and posted.
Radiation work permits were clearly
written. Workers knew their work area radiological conditions and proper response
to electronic dosimeter alarms.
Housekeeping
was very good.
R1.2
Internal Ex osure Controls
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Selected radiation protection personnel
involved with the internal exposure control
program were interviewed.
The following items were reviewed:
Air sampling program, including the use of continuous
air monitors and
filtration units
b.
Respiratory protection program
Whole body counting program
The internal dose assessment
program
Observations
and Findin s
Continuous
air monitors were properly used throughout the radiological controlled
area.
High efficiency particulate air filter ventilation units were appropriately used
to limit airborne exposures
to workers.
Five tasks required respiratory protection equipment for radiological work during the
outage.
Total effective dose
quivalent/as low as is reasonably
achievable
(TEDE/ALARA) evaluations for these tasks determined that respiratory protection
was appropriate.
As of May 13, 1997, no positive whole body counts exceeded
the licensee's
action level for recording internal dose.
'l ~
-6-
In general, job coverage
air sampling was appropriate.
However, on May 13, 1997,
during a tour of the Unit
1 containment building, the inspectors noted that air
sampling was not performed in accordance
with the instructions in Radiation Work
Permit 97-01067 for work in the Unit
1 residual heat;
moval recirculation sump.
Radiation Work Permit 97-01067 required a particulate airborne survey when
grinding [needle gun work], welding, cutting, or wire brushing on contaminated
material.
The radiological survey, which was performed on April 20, 1997, for tQe
residual heat removal recirculation sump, showea the area general contamination
levels to be 1,000 - 3,000 dpm, and one smear was as high as 60,000 dpm (inside,
a pipe)
~ After a review of the radiation work permit job history section, the
inspectors determined that the needle gun work began on the evening of May 11,
1997.
The inspectors determined from interviews with radiation protection foremen
that approximately six radiation protection technicians were involved in providing
job coverage for needle gun work in the residual heat removal recirculation sump
during this period.
Technical Specification 6.8.1.a. states,
in part, that written procedures
shall be
established,
implemented,
and maintained, covering the applicable procedures
recommended
in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision, 2, February 1978, Appendix A.
Appendix A, Section 7.e.1, requires procedures
for the
radiation work permit program.
Section 4.2.5 of Procedure
RPI.ID9, "Radiation
Work Permit," Revision 1, requires radiation protection personnel to perform
radiological surveys and sampling as required by the radiation work permit.
After the inspectors discussed
the fact that air sampling was not performed in
accordance
with the requirements
listed on the radiation work permit on May 13,
1997, the licensee performed
a contamination
and airborne concentration
survey of
the residual heat removal recirculation sump which showed the area was not an
airborne area and no longer a contaminated
area.
Additionally, the licensee
performed whole body counts of workers who were working in the residual heat
removal recirculation sump.
The results of the whole body counts were negative.
Although the safety consequences
of this incident were minimal, due to the low
levels of contamination, the major concern was that approximately six radiation
protection technicians were involved in providing job coverage,
and none recognized
that air sampling was required by the radiation work permit.
The failure to perform an airborne survey as required by the radiation work permit is
identified as a violation of Technical Specification 6.8.1 (50-275;-323/9708-01).
During the review of the primary side steam generator work, the inspectors noted
that air sample holders were located near the sample pump and not attached to the
job location side of the sample hose.
The inspectors determined that hose lengths
varied from approximately 15 to 30 feet.
The inspectors noted that this sampling
method is atypical.
From interviews with radiation protection technicians, the
inspectors concluded that no hose factor was applied to the air sample results.
The
inspectors reviewed
a technical evaluation performed by the licensee dated 1993.
0
-7-
The inspectors determined that the technical evaluation for the use of the air sample
holder location appeared
to be inadequate,
in that, there,was only one set of
samples which was performed in a noncontaminated
area and not in similar
radiological conditions to which this sample method was implemented.
After this
issue was discussed
with radiation protection management,
the inspectors were
informed that additional evaluations would be performed in similar radiological areas
in which the sampling setup was implemented.
This item will be subject to further
NRC review and is identified as an inspection followup item (50-275;-323/9708-
02).
c.
Conclusions
The use of continuous
air monitors and high efficiency particulate air filter
ventilation units were appropriate to monitor and limit airborne exposures.
The
respiratoryprotection program was effectively implemented.
A violation was
identified regarding the failure to perform air sample surveys
as required by a
radiation work permit. An inspection followup item was opened
regarding air
sample hose factor evaluation.
,R1.3
Outa
e Plannin
and Pre aration
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Radiation protection section personnel
involved in outage radiation protection
planning and preparation were interviewed.
The following items were reviewed:
ALARAjob planning
Job scheduling
and sequencing
ALARApackages
Incorporation of lessons-learned
from similar work
Supplies of radiation protection instrumentation,
protective clothing, and
consumable
items
b.
Observations
and Findin
s
Radiological work package tasks were well planned, and.ALARA personnel were
appropriately involved during the outage planning stage.
Lessons-learned
from past
similar work were incorporated
into the radiological work packages.
Post job
briefings captured lessons-learned
from craft level personnel,
engineers,
and ALARA
planners.
However, the inspectors noted that radiation protection foremen and/or
J
-8-
technicians did not normally attend the post job briefings.
The inspectors were
informed by the licensee, that job history comments were written in the radiation
work permit packages
by the radiation protection technicians during the
performance of work. At the completion of the task,,'ob history comments were
provided to the ALARAjob planners for evaluation and incorporation into future
similar radiological work packages.
The inspectors attended radiation protection foreman shift turnover meetings.
Good
communication between shifts was noted, and turnovers were performed in a
professional
manner.
Discussions
on work status and problems encountered
during
the shift were communicated.
Appropriate inventories of clothing, monitoring instrumentation,
protective clothing,
and consumable
items were provided.
c.
Conclusions
Management
provided good support for the radiation protection program.
personnel were appropriately involved in outage planning activities.
Lessons-learned
from past work were captured
and incorporated
into radiological work packages.
R1.4
Control of Radioactive Materials and Contamination
Surve
in
and Monitorin
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Areas reviewed included:
Contamination monitor use and response
to alarms
Control of radioactive material
Portable instrumentation calibration and performance checking programs
Adequacy of the surveys necessary
to assess
personnel
exposure
Observations
and Findin s
Observations
at the containment access
revealed that all personnel
exiting the
radiological controlled area used the personnel contamination monitors properly.
Radiation protection personnel
assigned to monitor the control point responded
properly to personnel contamination alarms and provided proper guidance to station
workers who alarmed the monitors.
'I
-9-
The review of personnel contamination logs revealed that all information was
recorded
in accordance
with station procedures.
The inspectors noted that the
amount of personnel contaminations
was greatly reduced when compared to the
previous refueling outage
(61 verses 227).
The inspectors reviewed selected
personnel
contamination investigation reduction action plans developed
from an
evaluation of the previous refueling outage
and determined that a number of ideas
were developed
and implemented,
ranging from modified face shields to improved
decontamination
of an area.
The licensee provided good controls to prevent the spread of radioactive
contamination.
Contaminated
areas were properly posted and marked with tape
and rope.
Trash and laundry barrels were properly maintained.
Step-off pads were
placed at the entrances
and exits to contaminated
areas.
The inspectors observed
radiation worker activities, while exiting contaminated
areas,
and noted use of good
health physics practices.
All containers of radioactive material observed
were properly labeled.
Radioactive
material areas and high efficiency particulate air vacuums were properly posted and
controlled.
The inspectors performed independent
radiological survey measurements
during
tours of the radiological controlled area and containment building.
The inspectors
confirmed that radiological postings were in compliance with regulatory
requirements.
All portable radiation protection survey instrumentation was
calibrated and source response
checked
in accordance
with radiation protection
procedures.
In general, surveys were documented
in a clear and consistent manner and were
easy to read and understand.
c.
Conclusions
Station personnel
used the personnel contamination monitors properly.
Radiation
protection personnel
provided timely response
and appropriate direction to station
workers who alarmed the personnel contamination monitors.
Good controls to
prevent the spread of radioactive contamination were maintained.
Radioactive
material was properly labeled and posted.
Radiological surveys were documented
in
a clear manner.
R1.5
Maintainin
Occu ational Ex osure As Low As is Reasonabl
Achievable
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Radiation protection personnel
involved with the ALARAprogram were interviewed.
The following areas were reviewed:
-10-
ALARAcommittee support
Exposure goal establishment
and status
Temporary shielding program
program
b.
Observations
and Findin
s
The ALARAreview committee was appropriately involved in station goal setting and
monitoring.
Senior management
and all major work groups provided good station
support.
The inspectors noted that in addition to the ALARAreview committee,.
the station had developed
an ALARAhit team program.
This team was made up of
first-line supervision arid craft level personnel representatives
from all major
station work groups.
The member's duties, among other things, were to gather
ALARAmethods of performing work from their peers and aid in incorporating these
methods
in work packages.
The inspectors noted that the ALARAhit teams were
headed
up by the outage control center.
The inspectors concluded that this
program provided proper station ownership of the ALARAprogram and determined
this a program strength.
Station, department,
and individual radiation work permit exposures
were
appropriately tracked and trended by the ALARAgroup.
Station exposure goals
were challenging and set based on past best performance
and industry experience.
The 1996 exposure
goal, which included Unit 2 refueling outage activities, was
175 person-rem.
The licensee's
actual exposure for 1996 was 178 person-rem.
The goal was exceeded
by 3 person-rem
due to unplanned radwaste activities.
The 1997 goal was set at 185 person-rem.
The higher goal for 1997 was due to
the Unit 1 outage activities where the source term is approximately 25 percent
higher than Unit 2's source term.
The inspeqtors noted that site exposures
have
been trending down and were in line with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators
3-year averages.
The inspectors noted that a very good temporary shielding program was in place.
Sixty-one temporary shielding packages
were installed during this outage.
The
licensee projected
a dose savings of approximately 40 person-rem.
Randomly
selected temporary shielding packages
contained engineering
evaluations
and
appropriate
radiological survey information, and they were maintained in a neat
orderly manner.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's ALARAsuggestion
program which was part
of the station's "Campaign for Ideas" program.
Ninety ALARAsuggestion
were
received and evaluated during 1996.
Approximately 20 ALARAsuggestions
had
been received year to date for 1997.
No concerns were identified by the inspectors
during this review.
1
~
~
~
The hot spot reduction program was effectively implemented,
and the operations
section was appropriately involved.
c.
Conclusions
Overall, a good ALARAprogram was in place.
The ALARAreview committee was
appropriately involved in station goal setting and monitoring.
The ALARAhit team
was a program strength.
Challenging exposure
goals were set, based
on past
performance.
A good temporary shielding program was effectively maintained.
The
program and hot spot reduction program were properly
implemented.
R5
Staff Training and Qualification in Radiological Protection and Chemistry
R5.1
Radiation Protection Staff Trainin
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Personnel
involved with temporary additional radiation protection technician training
and resume evaluation were interviewed.
The following items were reviewed:
Radiation protection instructor qualifications
Radiation protection technician training lesson plans
On-the-job training/evaluation
program
Radiation protection management
involvement
Resumes
of temporary additional radiation protection technicians
b.
Observations
and Findin
s
All training instructors had a strong operational radiation protection background.
Appropriate topics were covered for assigned
outage tasks in the training schedule.
Lesson plans were well developed
and radiation protection management
was
appropriately involved in developing the training topics.
Site and industry lessons
learned were included in the training program.
The licensee did not utilize a contractor organization for temporary radiation
protection help.
The licensee maintained
a pool of temporary additional workers
which were Pacific Gas and Electric Company employees.
Sixty-nine temporary
additional senior radiation protection technicians were hired to support outage
radiological activities.
The inspectors noted during a review of temporary additional
radiation protection resumes, that approximately 95 percent were returnees.
The
inspectors determined that this high percentage
of returnees was a program
strength.
All senior radiation protection technicians met, or exceeded,
the
requirements
of American Nuclear Standard Institute 3.1 (3 years of radiation
protection experience).
Junior technicians were task-qualified and approved
by
radiation protection management.
E
-1 2-
Temporary additional radiation protection technicians were tested on site-specific
material.
The inspectors noted that the Northeast Utilities screening
program was
not used to evaluate the general radiological knowledge of the temporary additional
radiation protection technicians brought onsite to support outage activities.
The
Northeast Utilities program is recognized
ar 6 approved
by a number of utilities as an
acceptable
method to evaluate
a radiation protection technician's general
radiological knowledge.
The licensee stated that the training program was being
evaluated to determine whether the Northeast Utilities screening
program would be
of benefit to the temporary additional radiation protection training program.
On-the-job training and evaluation qualification programs utilized during the
temporary additional radiation protection technician training program were reviewed.
The inspectors determined that the tasks were appropriate,
and the training and
evaluation guidelines were clear.
Station radiation protection management
were
appropriately involved in the development of these programs.
However, the inspectors commented that prior to performing on-the-job training and
evaluations,
the current program did not ensure that the individual being evaluated
had first completed the formal classroom required training.
Radiation protection
management
acknowledged
the inspectors'omment
and stated they would review
their on-the-job training and evaluation programs.
Conclusions
An appropriate
number of trained and qualified temporary additional radiation
protection technicians were onsite to support outage work. A large percentage
of
temporary additional radiation protection technicians were returnees.
Radiation
protection management
was appropriately involved in the development of the
temporary additional radiation protection technician training program.
Radiation
protection instructors were well qualified and had a number of years of applied
radiation protection experience.
All temporary additional senior radiation protection
technicians were ANSI 3.1 level technicians.
The on-the-job training and evaluation
programs did not ensure that the individual being evaluated
had 'first completed the
formal classroom required training.
Radiological Protection and Chemistry Organization and Administration
The inspector reviewed the present organization chart and compared it to an
organization chart obtained during the previous inspection.
No major changes
were
identified.
The licensee maintained
an appropriate organization to effectively
implement the radiation protection program.
-1 3-
R7
Quality Assurance
in Radiological Protection and Chemistry Activities
R7.1
Nuclear Qualit
Service Audits Assessments
and Field Observations
and Radiation
De artment Self-Assessments
and Radiolo ical Occurrence
Re orts
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 83750
Selected personnel involved with the performance of nuclear quality service audits,
assessments,
and radiation department
self-assessments
were interviewed.
The
following items were reviewed;
Qualifications of personnel who performed nuclear quality service audits and
surveillances
Nuclear quality service audits performed since July 1996
Nuclear quality service surveillances performed since July 1996
Radiation protection department self-assessments
performed since July 1996
Radiological action requests written since July 1996
Observations
and Findin s
The two individuals involved with nuclear quality services radiation protection
activities had strong auditor backgrounds
and appropriate technical and operational
radiation protection experience.
However, the inspectors noted that one of these
auditors was recently transferred to the radiation protection section.
The nuclear quality service audit schedule
and plans covered the appropriate
program areas to provide management
with a good overview of the radiation
protection program.
Radiation protection management
and nuclear quality services
management
were appropriately involved in developing the audit plans.
In addition to the monthly quality plan reports compiled by the radiation protection
section, nuclear quality services personnel
independently
tracked and trended
radiological action requests to identify programmatic weaknesses.
Five radiological assessments
were performed by nuclear quality services personnel
since the last NRC inspection of this area in July 1996.
These assessments
covered
a broad range of radiation protection activities and provided management
with a good assessment
of tlute radiation protection program.
Two radiological action requests
were written by nuclear quality services personnel
during the performance of the above assessments.
Both nonquality action requests
remained open as of May 13. 1997.
One was written on October 18, 1996, and
-1 4-
the other was written on January 21, 1997.
The inspectors concluded that
recommended
corrective actions were appropriate to resolve the issues.
The
inspectors
did not identify any time requirement to respond to nonquality action
requests;
however, the inspectors commented that improvement could be made in
timely closure of nonquality action requests.
The licensee acknowledged
the
inspectors'omments.
The inspectors
also noted that nuclear quality services personnel
did not followup
on nuclear quality services originated action requests
until the next scheduled
audit
of the program area.
The inspectors commented that timely followup could
enhance
the program.
Nuclear quality services supervision stated that they would
review this comment for program improvement.
Field observations
performed by nuclear quality services personnel were clearly
documented.
No problems were identified during the review of these observations.
The inspectors noted that the self-assessment
program was in the developmental
stage and not yet effectively implemented.
However, a good radiation protection
outage self-assessment
was performed on May 6, 1997, using technical specialists
from another utility. A number of good improvement items were identified, but
have yet to be evaluated
due to outage work.
Conclusions
Overall, an effective nuclear quality services program was maintained.
The nuclear
quality services auditors were well qualified to perform radiation protection
audits/assessments.
The 1996 and 1997 audit schedule
covered the appropriate
program areas to provide management
with a good overview of the radiation
protection program.
The nuclear quality services assessments
and field
observations
were good; however, improvement could be made to timely response
of nonquality radiological action requests.
The radiation protection section self-
assessment
program was in the developmental
stage and not yet effectively
implemented.
V. Mana ement Meetin s
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspectors presented
the inspection results to members of licensee management
at an, exit meeting on May 16, 1997.
The licensee acknowledged
the findings
presented.
No proprietary information was identified.
ATTACHIVlENT
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
C. Belmont, Director, Nuclear Quality Services
B. Crockett, Manager, Nuclear Quality Services
R. Gray, Director, Radiation Protection
T. Grebel, Director, Regulatory Services
T. Irving, General Foreman,
Radiation Protection
S. Ketelsen, Supervisor,
Regulatory Services
S. LaForce, Engineer, Regulatory Services
G. Lautt, Engineer, Radiation Protection
J. Molden, Manager, Operations Services
M. Mosher, Supervisory Engineer, Nuclear Quality Services
D. Oatley, Manager, Maintenance
Services
R. Rogers, Foreman,
Radiation Protection
R. Snyder, Training Leader, Learning Services
M. Somerville, Senior Engineer, Radiation Protection
D. Taggart, Director, Nuclear Quality Services
INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED
83750
Occupational
Radiation Exposure
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED
~Oened
50-275;50-323/9708-01
Failure to follow radiation work permit requirements
50-275;50-323/9708-02
IFI
Air sample hose factor evaluation
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Radiation Protection Procedure
RPI.ID1, "Requirements for the Diablo Canyon ALARA
Program," Revision
1
Radiation Protection Procedure
RPI.ID2, "Use and Contro'I of Temporary Shielding,"
Revision 2
Radiation Protection Procedure
RPI.ID3, "Respiratory Protection Program," Revision 2A
Radiation Protection Procedure
RPI.ID9, "Radiation Work Permits," Revision
1
Radiation Protection Procedure
RCP D-205, "Performing ALARAReviews," Revision 8
-2-
Radiation Protection Procedure
RCP D-220, "Control of Access to High, High-High and
Very High Radiation Areas," Revision 11
Radiation Protection Procedure
RCP D-240, "Radiological Posting," Revision 7
Radiation Protection Procedure
RCP D-260, "Radiological Control for Steam Generator
Repair and Maintenance,"
Revision 6
Radiation Protection Pr'ocedure
RCP D-500, "Radiation and Contamination Surveys,"
Revision 11A
Radiation Protection Procedure
RCP D-610, "Control of Radioactive Materials,"
Revision 10A
Nuclear Quality Services Procedure
OM4, "Nuclear Oversight Program," Revision OA,
Nuclear Quality Services Procedure OM4.ID13, "Internal Auditing," Revision 4
Nuclear Quality Services Maintenance Assessment
962350024, dated August 22, 1996
Nuclear Quality Services Radiation Protection Program Asse sment 962920014, dated
October 22, 1996
Nuclear Quality Services Radiation Protection Program Assessment
9<3130006, dated
December 19, 1996
Nuclear Quality Services Radiation Protection Program Assessment
963030010, dated
January
15, 1997
Nuclear Quality Services Radiation Protection Program Assessment
970150015, dated
January 21, 1997
Radiation Protection Section Self-Assessment,
dated May 2, 1997
Radiation Protection Section Monthly Quality Plan Reports for January,
February, and
March 1997
A summary of radiological action requests written since July 1, 1996