ML19339A843
| ML19339A843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A837 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-80-27, 50-366-80-27, NUDOCS 8011050516 | |
| Download: ML19339A843 (2) | |
Text
._,_
f s
SEP 121980 APPENDIX B 1
il NOTICE OF VIOLATION 3
' Georgia Power Company.
License Nos. DPR-57 I
Hatch NPF-5 e
Based on the NRC inspection June 16-27, 1980, certain of your activities were apparently not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below. These items have been categorized as described in' correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.
A.
As required by Technical Specification 6.8.1, written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering'the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix ' A' of Regulatory Guide 1.33. Regulatory Guide 1.33, 4
Appendix A states in part that procedures should be provided which control
. radioactivity and limits personnel radiation exposure.
t 1.
Plant Procedure HNP-8009, Personnel Contamination Survey, Paragraph G.1 states that all personnel contamination should be immediately reported i
to health physics.
, Contrary to the above, a worker, who was not a member of the health 3
physics staff, was observed on June 24, 1980 leaving a hand and foot monitor after it alarmed indicated his hand and feet were contaminated.
The worker proceeded to decon-his hands and shoes without notifying i
health physics. On June 23, 1980 a chemistry technician was observed 3
' leaving the hand and foots monitor after it alarmed indicating his hands were contaminated. The technician proneded to the chemistry lab.
2.
Plant Procedure HNP-8013, Airborne Radioactivity Concentration Determina-tion, Paragraph F.12 states, in part, that if the results of a particulate filter or charcoal cartridge exceeds 1 X 10 8 pCi/ml for all radioactivity the filter or cartridge will be counted using GeLi detectors to identify each radionuc).ide present.
Contrary the the above, the results of at least twelve particulate filters or charcoal cartridges analyzed between April 1, 1980 and June 19,:1980 exceeded 1 X 10 8 pCi/ml for all radioactivity and no j
analysis was performed to identify each radionuclide present.
3.
. Plant Procedure HNP-8005, Radiation and Contamination Control, Paragraph E.3-a, states. in part that material and equipment will be given. an unconditioned release by health physics personnel for use outside the boundary of-a radiation control area if no smearable contamination is found and radiation levels are less than 0.1 mR/Hr using an E-400 l
survey instrument.
1
' 8 0110pt
[/[
-.=
=
l SEP 121980 Georgia Power Company Appendix B 9
License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Notice of Violation Contrary to the above, a worker was observed on June 24, 1980 taking a bag of tools out of the radiation control area without a survey and unconditional release by health physics.
4.
Plant Procedure HNP-8010, Use and Care of Respirator, Paragraph H.17 states, in part, that respiratory protection equipment will be returned to the health physics staff following use. Paragraph P.2.dstates, in part, that the face piece is to be surveyed for radioactive contamina-tion by smearing accessible surfaces.
Contrary to the above, on several occasions between June 16-27, 1980 the inspectors observed full-face respirators discarded on the floor at the exit point for work areas. Surveys for smearable contamination are not performed on respirators following cleaning and prior to reuse.
5.
Plant Procedure HNP-8012, Radiation and Contamination Surveys, Para-j graph F.2.c states that the results of beta and/or gamma surveys are to be recorded on Figure 3, radiation survey record.
Contrary to the above, the resulta of contamination surveys performed at 2:20 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on June 18, 1980 were not documented.
This is an infraction.
B.
As required by 10 CFR 50.59, the holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facilty may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question. The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility which shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, lead shielding was placed on at least two sections of residual heat removal system piping located in the northeast diagonal of the Unit I reactor building without performing an safety evaluation to determine that the installation did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
This is an infraction.
_ _