ML17285A682
| ML17285A682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1989 |
| From: | Cicotte G, Garcia E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285A680 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-89-20, NUDOCS 8908180346 | |
| Download: ML17285A682 (21) | |
See also: IR 05000397/1989020
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION
V
Report,No.
License
No.
Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
50-397/89-20
Washington Public Power Supply System
P. 0.
Box 968
Richland,
99352
Washington Nuclear Project
No.
2
WNP-2 Site,
Benton County, Washington
Inspection
Conducted;
July 10-14
198
Inspected
by:
G.
R. Cicotte,
Ra iation Sp cia ist
Approved by:
. N. Garcia,
cting Chi
'acilities
Radiological Protection Section
~Suamar:
s-i-8'L
Date Signe
P r
ate
igne
Ins ection durin
the
eriod of Jul
10-14,
1989
(Re ort No. 50-397/89-20
Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced
inspection
by
a regionally based
inspector
o
iquids and liquid wastes,
radioactive waste
management,
and follow-up of open
and unresolved
items.
Inspection
procedures
30703,
84723,
84850,
83728,
90712,
90713,
92701,
and 92702 were addressed.
Results:
Of the four areas
addressed,
no violations were identified in two
areas.
In one area,
a violation of Technical Specification 6.5.2
was
identified, regarding audit of personnel
performance, training,
and
qualifications
(paragraph
2.A).
In another area,
one violation of Department
of Transportation
requirements
pursuant to 49
CFR 173, regarding
packaging
was
identified (paragraph
4.C).
A non-cited violation was also identified in
paragraph
4.C, related to
a shipment manifest error.
Overall, the licensee's
programs
appeared
capable of meeting their safety objectives.
DETAILS
I.
Persons
Contacted
- J.
W. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. D. Arbuckle, Compliance
Engineer
- T. N. Brun, Plant guality Assurance
(gA) Engineer
A. I. Davis, Senior Radiochemist
- R. -G. Graybeal,'Health
Physics/Chemistry
(HP/C) Manager
- D. A. Kerlee, Principal
gA Engineer
- D. E. Larson, Radiological
Programs
and Instrument Calibrations
(RPIC)
Manager
P. J. NacBettt; Engineering-Supervisor
L. L. Nayne,
Chemistry CrrR~jervisor
D. B..0&fey, Radiological
Assessments
Supervisor
- R. F.
PatcCc;
ALA'RA Coordinator
- D. J. Pisarcik,
HP Support Supervisor
- L. A. Pritchard,
HP Craft Supervisor
E.
R. Ray, Instrumentation
and Controls
(ISC) Supervisor
K. A. Smith,
Radwaste
Program Leader
D. N. Werlau, Manager of HP/C 5 General
Employee Training (GET)
\\
- Denotes
those present at the exit interview held
on July 14,
1989.
In addition to the individuals identified above,
the inspector
met and
held discussions
with other members of the licensee's
and
contractors'taff.
2.
Li uids and Li uid Wastes
84723)
A,
Audits
The following audits
were examined for applicability and content
related to .this program area:
88-453, Trainin
, Oualification and Performance of Plant
2 Staff
date
cto er
0,
19 8
89-490,
Radiolo ical Effluents, Environmental Monitorin
and
Offsite Dose Calcu ation Nanua
, dated
June
19,
1989
Audit 889-490 contained
no significant findings in the area of
liquid wastes.
At the time of the inspection,
responses
to the
findings were not yet due.
Audit 88-453 contained
a number of
findings related to records of training, mostly in departments
other
than
HP, Chemistry,
and radioactive waste handling.
The inspector
examined audit 888-453 to determine if licensee
personnel
having responsibilities
in the area of liquid waste
processing
had
been audited.
It was determined that the audit did
not list Equipment Operators
(EO), who operate
the liquid waste
processing
and effluent svstems.
II
Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.2.8 states
in part:
"Audits of unit activities shall
be performed
under the
cognizance
of the
CNSRB
t Corporate
Nuclear Safety Review
Board].
These audits shall
encompass:
"b.
The performance,
training and qualifications of the
entire unit staff at least
once per
12 months;"
When the matter was discussed
with the licensee's
audit personnel,
they stated that the
had been purposely excluded from the audit.
They further stated that this was
done in order to allow more time
to examine the other areas
more thoroughly,
as
numerous findings had
already
been
made in those areas.
The inspector
asked the audit
personnel if they had
a system'atic
method for assuring that
representative
populations
are audited,
such
as minimum sample size
and composition,
or if they had any guidance
on the matter.
They
stated that they relied
on their experience
to determine
proper
audit scope.
They further stated that they had not recognized
the
exclusion
as being contrary to TS 6.5.2.8.
The
CNSRB meeting
minutes of January 5, 1989, did not address
the change
in the scope
of audit 888-453.
The licensee
acknowledged that
does
not allow exclusion
of a major group of personnel
on the unit staff, such
as
EOs.
The
last performance of an audit in this area
was conducted
in audit
b87-416,
dated October 9, 1987.
At the time of the inspection,
the
next scheduled
audit was to be performed in August/September,
1989.
The licensee
stated that an audit of training was conducted in May,
1989,
and that
some elements of EO training had
been
addressed.
The
inspector
asked if that portion of the audit had been
performed to
address
the lack of audit in 88-453.
The licensee
stated that it
had not,
and that there
had been
no findings specifically related to
EOs.
The inspector
concluded that
no audit of
EO performance,
training,
or qualifications
had
been
performed for the purpose of satisfying
TS 6.5.2.8.b,
from October 9, 1987,
when audit 887-416
was issued,
until the time of the inspection,
a period of 21 months.
This
appears
to be
a violation of TS 6.5.2.8.b(50-397/89-20-01).
Chan<hes
No major changes
to the licensee's
processing
and monitoring systems
had
been
made since the last inspection of this program area.
Revision
6 to the Offsite Dose Calculation
Manual
(ODCM) was
submitted with the July-December
1988 Semi-Annual Effluent Release
Report.
Most of the changes
were to correct previously identified
deficiencies.
The licensee
responded
by separate
correspondence
to
NRC concerns
regarding
the .licensee's
rationale for
some of the
changes.
N
C.
Effluents
D.
Radioactive liquid effluent release
records for the first half of
1989 were reviewed.
No major concerns
were identified.
However,
several
omissions
were noted in release
permits,
PPM 7.4.11.1. 1.1,
Radioactive Li uia Waste Dischar
e to the River.
The omissions
were
a ministrative in nature,
an
i
not signi scantly affect the
release itself.
However, the number,
about
one third of those
permits reviewed, did indicate
a certain lack of attention to detail
by technicians
and in the review process
by Chemistry supervision,
the Shift Support Supervisor,
and the Shift Supervisor.
Similar
concerns
were identified in review of radiation surveys
performed
for radioactive waste shipping (see
paragraph
4.C).
Liquid
effluents were within Technical Specification 3.11;
Appendix B; and
10 CFR 50, Appendix I, limits.
Instrumentation
Representative
maintenance
records for liquid process
e'F,.luent
monitors were reviewed."
The effluent monitoring instrumentation
appeared
to be maintained in a manner consistent with the licensee's
program,
although several
discharges
were performed without the
monitor
due to unavailability.
Licensee
procedures
provided for
increased
sampling
and analysis
in accordance
with TS 3.3.7.11
action statements.
Overall, the licensee's
program appeared
capable of meeting its safety
objectives.
Other than that noted in paragraph
2.A above,
no violations
or deviations
were identified.
3.
Radioactive
Waste
Mana ement
(84850)
A.
Mana ement Controls
The following licensee
documents
and Plant Procedure
Manuals
(PPfl)
were reviewed to determine if they addressed
the regulatory
requirements
contained in 10 CFR 20 and
10
CFR 61:
PPM 1.12.1,
Radioactive
Waste
Mana ement
Pro ram,
$g/14/87
PPM 1.12.2,
Radioactive
Waste
Process
Contro
Pro Am, 12/14/87
PPM 1. 12.3, Contract
Yen or
Waste
rocessin
,
12
1 /88
PPM l. 12.4,
Process
F uids - Water
Ba ance
and
Consum tive Use,
10/27/87
NOS-40, Radioactive
Waste
Manaqement
NOS-41,
ua itv
ssurance
ro ram
or Radioactive Materials
Shi
in
Pac
a es
Responsibilities
and authority of licensee
personnel
were clearly
assigned
by the above referenced
procedures.
The licensee
was
conducting waste operations
and shipping in a manner consistent with
their established
implementing procedures,
with some exceptions
as
noted below.
One problem,
discussed
in paragraph
C, below,
was the
manner in which the licensee
had been assigning
HP personnel
to
perform shipping functions.
No major concerns
were identified.
The licensee
maintains
a
QC program consistent with 10 CFR 61.
Results of the most recent audits
and corrective actions
were
addressed
in Inspection
Report 50-397/88-41,
paragraph
2.A.
Due to
the
number of findings in audit ¹87-420,
the licensee
had conducted
an additional audit, ¹87-420-A.
No additional
concerns
were
identified by the audits in the area of shipping.
C.
Waste Hanifests
'Representative
radioact'ive waste
shipment records
were reviewed to
determine if the manifests
contained all the information required
by
regulations
and the burial facility's license.
Except for minor
typographical errors,
and one shipment discussed
below,
no concerns
were identified.
On June
13,
1989, the licensee
sent shipment ¹89-32-02 to the U.S.
Ecology licensed burial site located at Richland, Washington,
about
18 miles from the licensee's facility.
On June
14',
1989, the
licensee
was informed by the State of Washington
Department of
Health and Social Services that the manifest
was incorrect, in that
the
number
on one of the packages,
an
LSA box,
was not listed on the
manifest,
and that one
number
on the manifest
was not represented
by
an accompanying
LSA box.
It should
be noted that the regulatory
requirements
regarding manifests/shipping
papers
are prescribed
in
49
CFR Parts
172.200-204,
and (c) and in the
applicable burial sites'icense.
Each regulatory requirement
requires
the waste, generator to certify on the manifests that the
transported
materials
are properly classified,
described,
packaged,
marked
and labeled.
The inspector
noted that the
numbers differed
by one digit, that is, the manifest indicated the inclusion of box
¹94196,
which was not shipped.
Box ¹94186,
which was shipped,
was
not on the manifest.
The licensee
was further informed that the drain plugs
on
LSA boxes
94184,
94195,
94853,
95077,
95078,
95079,
95082,
105094,
and 105095,
were loose, constituting
a failure to maintain strong tight packages
in accordance
with 49
CFR 173.425(b)(1),
and that
a radiation dose
rate reading in the 'sleeper'ortion
of the truck cab
was in excess
of 2 mi llirem per hour (mr/hr), contrary to 49
CFR 173.441(b)(4).
49
CFR 173.411 states
that radiation levels must not exceed
2
millirem per
hour in any normally occupied
spaces.
The information provided to the licensee
on June
14, 1989,
was
followed by a written citation dated
June
21, 1989, identifying the
above three violations.
The inspector
reviewed the records for shipment ¹89-32-02 and,
discussed
the matter with licensee
personnel.
The licensee
was
taking the following corrective action:
Licensee
procedures
were being revised to assure
that
personnel
would specifically match manifests to packages
immediately prior to shipment,
and that labor personnel
would
be warned to inform HP personnel
of changes'
The licensee's
sign-off function for gC personnel
was being
revised
such that in future they will sign for tightness of
drain plugs,
as contrasted
with signing for presence
thereof,
as
had
been previously done.
The Radwaste
Pro'gram Leader
(RWPL) had been instructed to
personally verify manifest information, and provide more
specific guidance to
HP technicians
on how surveys
are to be
performed.
The procedures
addressing
surveys of the truck cab were being
clarified to prevent recurrence
of the greater
than
2 mr/hr
reading cited by the state of Washington.
The licensee
stated
that the
HP technician
had non-conservatively
assumed
that
"normally occupied positions
on the vehicle" as delineated
in
PPM 11.2.23.4,
LSA Radioactive Materials Shi ments
and other
related
procedures
did not apply to the sleeper portion of the
cab
on an
18 mile trip.
The matter of the qualifications of the
HP technician
was discussed
with the licensee.
The
HP technician
was
a contractor
who had
been
terminated at the end of the most recent refueling outage.
The
licensee
stated that
an in-depth review had revealed that although
the technician
met the qualifications for ANSI N18.1-1971,
he had
no
prior experience specifically in shipping,
and
had not attended
the
special
radioactive waste shipping training provided to virtually
all of the licensee
HP technicians.
The licensee further stated
that future shipments
would be conducted
using only those
personnel
who had attended
the training.
The inspector
asked
the
HP/C Manager
how that would be assured.
The
HP/C Manager
responded
by stating
that
a memorandum to personnel
responsible for assignment
of
technicians
would be promulgated stating that commitment.
The
inspector verified that the technician
had met the qualifications
for ANSI N18. 1-1971,
and that the above noted
memorandum
had
been
developed for distribution.
The following observations
regarding this matter
were made:
The manifest errors
appeared
to have
been administrative in
nature,
as the result of a single digit transposition.
The citation by the state of Washington
had stated that
a
radiation reading of 2.8 mr/hr was obtained at the back wall of
the 'sleeper'ompartment
of the transport vehicle.
It did not
indicate that this was
a whole body penetrati'ng
dose rate.
The
driver's position
had measured
a dose rate of about
1 mr/hr.
The 'sleeper'ompartment
was not occupied during the transport
of shipment f89-32-02 to the burial site.
The licensee
had
made only one shipment of radioactive waste
since
shipment 889-30-02,
regarding which no significant
problems
were identified.
The licensee
had just developed
a
new lesson
plan for the
special
radioactive
waste handling training, to address
issues
identified by licensee
audits
and evaluations.
The state of Washington did not withhold authorization to use
the burial facility, but did request
a 30-day response,
which
would be due July 21, 1989.
A'eview of records did not reveal
any recent
examples of the
same violation, although the State of Washington report of the
violation noted that previous transposition errors
on manifests
had occurred in 1988.
The changes
to the licensee's
procedures
appeared
adequate
to
prevent recurrence of the violation.
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, section
V.A, Notice of Violation, states
in part that for isolated Severity Level
vio atsons,
a notice of
violation normally will not be issued
regardless
of who identifies
the violation provided that the licensee
has initiated appropriate
corrective action before the inspection
ends.
The inspector
determined that the manifest error met the criteria necessary
to not
cite the violation (NCV-50-397/89-20-02).
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, section V.G.1, allows
NRC to exercise
discretion to not cite
a Severity Level
IY violation, provided in
part that the violation is identified by the licensee.
The failure to make the
LSA boxes of shipment II89-30-02 strong tight
packages
in accordance
with Department of Transportation
requirements
appears
to be
a violation of 49
CFR 173.425(b)(1)
(50-397/89-20-03).
D.
Waste Classification
The licensee's
waste classification
procedures
and program provide
reasonable
assurance
that low-level wastes
are classified in
accordance
No examples of improperly classified
wastes
were observed.
The licensee
was evaluating whether
classification would be affected
by the analysis errors
discussed
in
paragraph
E, below.
E.
Waste
Form and Characterization
The licensee's
methodology of waste
form and characterization
were
consistent with 10 CFR 61.56.
The licensee
uses
a contractor to
perform analyses
for the purpose of developing input to their
computerized
waste characterization
program.
Computer output is
routinely verified by independent calculation,
and documented with
the codes.
At the time of the inspection,
the licensee
had just received
a
letter from their contractor for waste
stream characterization,
which stated that calculations for some radioactive isotopes
were
incorrect.
The error was the responsibility of the contractor,
and
the letter indicated that the contractor
had already contacted
NRC.
The change
in activity shipped
was quickly determined
by the
licensee
to affect approximately
130 packages.
The recalculation
F.
factors were relatively low, for isotopes
which do not-predominate
in the licensee's
waste
stream. 'he licensee-determined
that no
notifications were necessary
at the time of the inspection,
but had
concluded that three
semi-annual
effluent release
reports
would
likely be affected.
Waste
Shi ment Labelin
No examples of improperly labeled radioactive material
were
observed.
The licensee's
procedures
contain
a sign-off function for
verification of the presence
of the -proper
Class
-A, B, or
C label.
One shipment of radioanalytical
samples,
which was shipped offsite,
was observed
to have
been
shipped
by using licensee
procedure
11.2.~,
Shi
in
Other<han
LSA Radioactive Materials, Revision
6, dated 10/24/88.
Th~pment
was categorized
as
Radioactive
Matexial., N.O.S.,
UN2982." . PPM 11.2.23.6 states,
in part:
"C.
This procedure
address
the following shipping categories:
1.
RAN, Limited guantity, N.O.S.,
UN2910
2.
RAN, Instruments
and Articles,
UN2911
3.
RAM, Special
Form, N.O.S.,
UN 2974
4.
RAM, N.O.S.,
UN2912"
H.
However, the checklist includes
a portion for category
UN 2982.
While the material
was not shipped
as waste, it was handled
by
radwaste
personnel.
The inspector
noted to the licensee that
although the material
was properly categorized,
the procedure
did
not authorize its use for that category,
and this procedural
logic
error was not recognized
by their personnel.
The licensee
acknowledged
the observation.
Trackin
of Waste
Shi ments
The licensee's
procedures
contain provisions for investigation if
re'ceipt acknowledgement
from the consignee
is not received within
one week, -in accordance
with 10 CFR 20.311.,
The licensee
stated
that no instances
of late receipt acknowledgement
had
been
experienced.
Dis osal Site License Conditions
The licensee
had
a current version of the disposal site's license,
WN-I019-2.
No examples of failure to meet disposal site license
conditions were observed.
Overall, the licensee's
program appeared
capable of meeting its safety
objectives.
Other than that noted in paragraph
C above,
no violations or
deviations
were identified.
4.
Maintainin
Occu ational
Ex osures
ALARA (83728)
A.
Audits and
A
raisals
B.
No audit of this program area
was
due or conducted
since the last
inspection.
ALARA Pro ram Chan
es
C.
The licensee
had
made personnel
changes
in ALARA. Responsibilities
for various tasks
had
been divided among area coordinators,
to allow
the
ALARA Coordinator to focus attention
on overall function of the
program.
In an effort to improve access
controls, the licensee
had
modified their pre-job briefing procedure
such that two levels of
briefing would be done,
depending
on the level of hazard present.
Worker Awareness
and Involvement
D,
Worker involvement in the
ALARA process,
via the licensee's
Im rovement
Su
estion
Pro
ram AIS
, had increased.
Although some
workers were not fu
y aware of t eir role in the program,
knowledge
of ALARA goals
had improved.
ALARA Goals
and Ob'ectives
E.
The licensee
had revised estimates
of collective exposure,
usually
in reaction to unscheduled
outage activities.
ALARA committee
meeting minutes indicated that the licensee is regularly reviewing
their goals
and objectives to assure
ALARA principles are met.
The
licensee's
goal of 400 person-rem for the July 1989-July
1990
(fiscal year 1990) period is less
than the previous actual
accumulated
dose,
noted in paragraph
4.E, below.
The licensee
had conducted
several
dose-reduction activities during
the
1989 refueling outage.
The ALARA Coordinator stated that these
activities are expected
to result in improved estimates
and lower
doses
during
some tasks.
ALARA Results
The licensee
had revised estimated
outage collective dose from 170
person-rem prior to the outage,
to
a dose estimate
during the outage
of 270 person-rem.
The final dose
had
been approximately
397
person-rem.
Much of this dose,
however,
had
been
accumulated
during
extensive
maintenance
which had not been decided
upon prior to the
outage.
The licensee's
total
dose for calendar
1988 was
353
person-rem,
which was less than for 1987.
The total accumulated
dose for 1989
was approximately
457 person-rem at the time of the
inspection.
The inspector
noted that the licensee
had performed
some tasks with
less
dose
expended
than is experienced
in many plants of the
same
design.
Overall, the licensee's
program appeared fully capable of meetina its
safety objectives.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
5.
~Fol low-u
A.
Inoffice Re;i=;; -, Periodic
and
S ecial
Re orts
90713
1988 Radiolo ical Environmental Nonitorin
Pro ram Annual
Re ort:
e'eview in icate
t at t e
icensee.provi
e
ata
an
ana ysis
results for radiological environmental
samples
and measurements
for
the period, in accordance
with the program
as described
in Technical
Specification 3/4.12.
Comparison with pre-operational
data
and
previous environmental
surveillance reports indicates that their
conclusion that airborne radioactivity, direct radiation, water,
milk and food crops,
among other dose
pathways
from the environment
to man, did not affect plant environs.
All sample results
were
~ below regulatory reporting levels.
The report included. maps,
deviations
from the monitoring program that were corrected
so that
no long-term effect will result,
achievement of all LLDs at or below
the levels required- by the Technical Specifications,
aud results of
EPA Intercomparison
which help to assure
continued guality Control.
The Land Use
Census
did not change significantly from the previous
year.
Annual Environmental
0 eratin
Re ort 1988:
A report
on plant effects in soil and vegetation,
which is prepared
for the State of l'ashington,
has
been s'tudied annually since
1980
(preoperational
to 1984).
The
MNP2 Environmental
Protection
Plan
(EPP) requires
a year monitoring program to assure
the effects of
the cooling tower draft.
Results for 1988 soil chemistry
and
vegetation
analysis
shows
no trends or abnormalities
in relevant
chemistry parameters.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
B.
Follow-u
92701
,
92702)
(90712
50-397/88-41-01
Closed:
This matter refers to adequacy of airborne
monitoring in the breathing
zone,
and
use of extremity dosimetry,
during spent resin handling
(see Inspection
Report (IR)
50-397/88-41).
The licensee
had concluded that the ratio of
extremity dose to whole body dose
when standing
on top of resin
liners was not sufficient to warrant the additional monitoring.
They had decided to continue
an increased
level of airborne
radioactivity sampling for the evolution.
The inspector determined
that both actions
were adequate
to achieve
the safety objective.
This matter is considered
closed.
50-397/88-41-03(Closed):
This matter refers to an unauthorized
entry of personne
into a posted
(HRA) (see
IRs
50-397/88-41,
89-02,
and 89-09).
The licensee
had conducted
additional training,
and
had
made
changes
as noted in paragraph
4.B,
above,
as committed to in their timely response
to the Notice of
10
Violation.
The inspector
noted that there did not appear to have
been
a recurrence.
This matter is considered
closed.
50-397/89-09-Ol(Closed
This matter refers to the licensee's
e
orts to construct
an enclosure of an area
on the Turbine Building
501'levation of greater
than
1000 mrem/hr (see
IR 50-397/89-02).
The inspector
observed that the enclosure
had
been constructed.
This matter is considered
closed.
50-397/89-09-02
Closed
This matter refers to a failure to
maintain
a ra iation area posting
(see
IR 50-397/89-02).
The
licensee,
in their timely response,
had committed to evaluate
the
effectiveness
of HP management
tours,
upgrade postings,
and train
supervisors
in recognition of radiation safety issues.
The
corrective actions
were verified to have
been performed.
This
matter is considered
closed.
50-397/89-OI-XO Closed
This matter refers to an inoperability of
the Post-Accident
Samp ing System
(PASS) containment
atmospheric
radiation monitor.
The inspector verified that the licensee
had
addressed
concerns
expressed
by
NRC at the time the inoperability
occurred
on March 6,
1989.
The licensee
had submitted
a timely
.
Special
Report,
dated
March 22,
1989, detailing additional
maintenance
which was performed or which was expected
to be
performed.
No concerns
were identified.
This matter is considered
closed.
50-397/IN-88-10 Closed
This is Information Notice 888-101,
S i ments of Contaminate'd
E ui ment Between Nuclear
Power Plants,
which t e licensee
a
received
an
distribute
.
T e inspector
verified that the licensee
had considered
and incorporated
the
information in their program.
This matter is considered
closed.
50-397/85-20-04
Unresolved):
This refers to plateout of iodine on
samp ing
ines
un er accident conditions.
The licensee
had
conducted
some of the in-plant testing which was discussed
in IR
50-397/88-33.
The licensee's
staff stated that the laboratory
testing
was in the approval
process prior to award of the contract.
The data from the in-plant testing
was preliminary at the time of
the inspection.
This matter will remain
open pending further
testing
and evaluation
by the licensee.
An unresolved
item is one about which more information is required
in order to determine if it is an acceptable
item,
a violation, or a
deviation.
6.
Tours of the Facilit
Tours of the Radwaste
Building (RWB), Reactor
Building (RB), and Turbine
Building (TB), were conducted.
Independent
radiation surveys
were
performed with NRC ion chamber
survey instrument
model
836100, serial
b009162, that was
due for calibration
on September
2, 1989.
11
Radiological postings,
contamination control stepoff pads,
and other
access
controls which were observed
were consistent with the licensee's
procedures
and
TS requirements.
Radiological
work practices
appeared
to
have
improved over those
observed
during previous inspections.
The licensee
was expending significant effort to restore cleanliness
after the outage.
Little clutter was observed.
In one room, bR316,
which was
an electrical
panel
room,
a large volume of combustible
cleaning materials
had been stocked.
The room was marked with a large
sign which read:
"Combustible materials
not allowed in this room."
The
licensee
removed the material
when it was brought to their attention.
On July 13, 1989,
one portable contamination frisker, model
RN-20, and
a
portal contamination monitor, model
IPN-8, had not had their daily source
response
checks
recorded
on the attached daily instrument source
check
tag.
The RN-20 had
been
marked
as satisfactory
on the licensee's
inventory sheet for the day.
Licensee staff personnel
stated that the
attached
tag is the only record of the check for the IPN-8.
However, the
individual who performs the checks stated that the IPN-8 had
been
checked
that day.
Both monitors were checked satisfactorily the next day.
7.
Exit Interview
The inspector
met with those individuals, denoted
in paragraph
1, at the
conclusion of the inspection
on July 14,
1989.
The scope
and findings
of the inspection
were summarized.
The licensee
committed to perform an
audit of eouipment operators
as corrective action for the apparent
violation (paragraph
2.A).
The licensee
was informed that
a
determination
as to enforcement
action regarding
the three identified
49
CFR 173 violations would be made
subsequent
to the inspection.
The
licensee
was informed by the Senior Resident
Inspector
that an issue of
. non-HP personnel
adherence
to good radiological work practices
would be
examined in later inspections.