ML20128D793
| ML20128D793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1985 |
| From: | Holley W, Martin L, Murray B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128D739 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-85-09, 50-313-85-9, 50-368-85-09, 50-368-85-9, NUDOCS 8505290204 | |
| Download: ML20128D793 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1985009
Text
.
APPENDIX B
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC~ Inspection Report:
50-313/85-09
Licenses:
50-368/85-09
Dockets:
50-313
50-368
Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Facility Name:
Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2
-Inspection At: AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas
- Inspection Conducted:
April 15-19, 1985
/k8I
Inspector:
8
7
4
Ws'ld9' L. F olley, Radi,
ion Specialist
Date
Facilities Radiolog al Protection Section
$$$$i:'""hh$nl}]//blO6L
5//!/f5
Blaine iurray,' Chief
acilities Radiological
Dhte '
Protection Section
Approved:
M
f/8/80
/
l
Blaine Murray, ChiefpFacilities Radiological
Bate'
Protection Section
'
3
/
J
a gence Marti~n,
roject Section A,
pate /
ReactorProje
Branch 2
$$$$$$13
L
J
,.
.
y,2 .
,
, , . .. m
.
. . . .__
___ . ._,-_ _ _-
.
, . _
_
m
_
. __
-
-
.~.
.h'
-
2.1
'
3-
. ,
,
,
>
'
- %
+
,
,
C
. .
-
+
.
%
i
.
- ;
.-
,
.
.
m
~ .
__
-
-
-
_
_
a-
. 4
-
-
~
,
-
.
-
s:<,,
'
-2--
-
- -
<
f
.s
t
G $
_
'
-
- Inspection Summarv<
'
~ " ~
'
_
J,
x,
.
. .
.
,
~
Inspection Cohducted April 15-19, 1985 (Report 50-313/852 9;'50-368/85-09)
i
-
-
% .f
0
.:
< ^'-
l ~.:
.
.
.
.
.
,
'
' Areas-Ins'pected:
Routine,. unannounced ' inspection of the licensee's radiation
.J
.
,~
~
protection activitie~s.during the Unit 2 refueling outage including: -advanced-
,
planning and preparation;, staffing,U; training, and qualifications; ALARA;-
_ _
external. exposure control; internal exposure control;' posting,' labeling, and.-
u
' '
worker. controls;, radioactive and contaminated material controls; surveys;
Jhealthi hysics!1ogs and records; and' independent confirmatory surveys.
An
p
,
?
-
allegation regarding. improperly performed personnel 'monito' ring was also-
investigated.
TheLinspection involved 44 inspector-hours _onsite by one NRC
- inspector.~
-- *-'
-
1
.
.Within the areas inspected, one deviation was identified (portable
'
-
.
. . ,
-
.Results:
'
P~
' continuo'us" air monitors,' paragraph 9).
The allegation could not be
substantiated.
'
>
-
m
.
.
.
,
-
4
-
, . . ::
,
,
,
,
'
i
)*
-
t
,-
j-
.
t
r,p
21
f
~
' 4 -~
%.
'
A 4-j +-
.A
+
<
,
'
'
M.
'
~ ~
. >
, ,,
i
. $.
~ r
l-
F
e ,
- ,
'
, .
,
+
+'
'-'
.y.
f'} ;~ _
- ,', .
4
'
. . ,
r
(-
.
^
j
-
1
- s
u-
'
- ~
[.nem _ q.;
,
t
f*.
,s
4
f -# "4;
--..g
j
3
,
g. . . , . _
g
.
,
'
p
'
> ?
.
' ' <-
.%5
m
,
- g-
,
,
- -
,
.
,
,
'""
f w.z
t
f!,, ._
->[
' ,
.,
,
~
'
r
.
,
? 4.
't
,
.
.
'y
.
-
t
$
x
,
-
.
.
- P_
- ' h'
l..X .1
'
t
h
,
?:
^
1.
w
s
f"
p
.
y
a
r.
,
'
t
>
'
,
4
,
- N
n
.i_
a
.,y
n . ,.
+
t
y
$
r <
' 44-
.
4 ,- - , - . - . -
.,,..,4....--
, - , , . -
-
,_ . . -,
,--,m4
4.,-
. . , _ , ,-, ..
..,,,,.,..,._,,..~,..,,_.._,.,.,_-v
,-_..m.
I
e
."-
- ,
~ <.
.
'
<
y
-
_
.
,
V
4
%
~
z
I
q
"
'
'
-3-
,
'"
.
_
1r
DETAILS
Q
~
-
1. ' Persons Contacted
~
.
'
AP&L.
'
'
4
- J. M. Levine, ANO General Manager
<
4
I. D. Akins, Health Physics (HP) Supervisor
B. Baker, Operations Manager
4?
- M. J. Bolants, HP Superintendent
>
C. Burchard, HP' Supervisor
"
- P. Campbell, Plant Licensing Engineer
E
_
- T. H. Cogburn, Special Projects Manager
,
W. Hada, HP Supervisor
I. D. Helm, HP Specialist (ALARA. Coordinator)
,
a
R. Green, HP Dosimetry Supervisor
'
- D.-B. Lomax, Plant Licensing Supervisor
- M. L. Pendergass, Engineering and Technical Support Manager
g'
,
.
T. M. Rolniak, HP.. Trainer-2
- J. D.' Vandergrift, Training Superintendent
-
'
D. Wagner, Assistant HP Superintendent
Others
- P. H. Harrell, NRC Resident. Inspector
.
The NRC inspector also contacted other licensee employees, including HP
+
,
,
-and administrative personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit-interview.
,
2. .- Open Item Identified During This Inspection
-
'
Open items are matters that require further review and evaluation by the-
inspectors or the licensee. ,Open items are used to document, track, and
[
-
.
ensure adequate followup on matters of concern to the inspector.
'
.0 pen Item
Description
Reference Paragraph
313/8509-02; 368/8509-02
Portable HP Inst'rumentation
12
t
Radiation Response Check
'
,
,
'
"
3.
SAllegationFollowup
1
,
,
- I
An' allegation was made to the' NRC on April 2,~1985, by a contractor
'
~
employee concerning improper frisking upon exiting a radiological
controlled area l(RCA).
Thel specific con _cern identified was that the HP
A
1-
'
'h I
.
i';
^
d
_
_
'
.
-4-
monitor at the RCA control point allowed the licensee's HP personnel to
frisk improperly.
a.
Observation: The NRC inspector observed, at various times on day and
night shifts, the practices of the HP monitors at the RCA control
point as well as the frisking procedures of licensee and contract
personnel. The NRC inspector observations determined that the
practices and procedures were adequate and that there was no
indication that selected personnel were allowed to violate frisking
procedures.
b.
Personnel Interviews: .The NRC inspector interviewed the licensee
employees with respect to frisking procedures for personnel exiting
the RCA control point.
Included in the interviews were eight HP
monitors who manned the RCA control point on various work shifts.
It
was ascertained from the interviews that the licensee's HP personnel,
other licensee personnel-and contractors were not deficient in their
frisking procedures.
c.
Conclusion
The NRC inspector did not substantiate the allegation that the
licensee's HP personnel were frisking improperly.
4.
- Advanced Planning and Preparation
The NRC inspector determined that the licensee had made adequate plans in
advance of the refueling outage.
The results of this planning and
preparation were evident by the availability of adequate supplies,
manpower, instrumentation, dosimetry, and ALARA activities.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Staffing
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's functional organization
regarding the radiation protection program to determine compliance with
~ the Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs),- Sections 12 and 13 and
Technical Specifications (TS), Section 6.2.
The HP staffing appeared sufficient to support the refueling outage. The
licensee had hired 54 contract HP technicians to supplement the permanent
plant staff. 'The licensee was utilizing one HP supervisor per shift as a
roving HP observing the tasks being performed for the outage.
Radiation
' work permits (RWPs) were reviewed and approved by AND ANSI-N18.1-1971
qualified personnel,
t-
.
.-. .
..
. - -
_
- .
.
gnu
. y-
s
-
T
-
,
.
_
yhYs
i;'
'
-)
.
-
'"
^
3
.
f. N
y
l
'
,-
.
,,
.,
.
,
_
tw
g
q
-
y
-
a
.
.
-
,
g
s_ ,
.
.
-
' ' l
-
.s.
[
'
,
.,
,
.
~
'
- _
y
The licensee's HP'organi ation changes included the designation of a
' permanent HP dosimetry, supervisor and the addition of a'HP specialist.
,
~ .
.
.
%y
' .No violations or deviations,were identified.
-
.
.
.
>
..
.
'
6.-
1 Training'and Qualifications
m.
,,
TheNRCinspectorreviewed'thetrainingandqualificat'i$nsofHP. contract
'
a
'
.a
personnel related to the' refueling outage activities to determine -
~
conformance to the FSAR, Sections 13.1 and 13.'2 commitments and-
_.S-
- requirements.of TS, Section 6.4'and'10 CFR 19.12.
'
> -
The NRC inspector performed a review of the qualifications of the contract
,
-
HP, technicians.. This review included evaluation criteria used by the
.
s
' licensee to' establish ANSI-N18.1-1971 qualification for contractor HP
technicians! ;The NRC' inspector also reviewed the licensee's screening,.
,
-
ttraining,'and. examination program for contractor personnel.
-
>
-
.
. .
No violations ~ or deviations were identified.
(
,7.
The~1icensee's refueling outage ALARA program was reviewed to determine
,
compliance.with the requirements.of 10 CFR Part 20.1 and the
'
,
recommendations of Regulatory Guides (RGs) 8.8 and 8.10.-
>
<
.
4
.Th' NRC: inspector determined that the licensee had set a goal not to
'i
e
e
.-
l
i
exceed 233 man-rem for this refueling outage (2R4). . At the time of this
,
'\\
inspection,199 man-rem had been expended.
The: outage skin contamination-
.
'
", goal.was set'not to exceed 120. incidents and 74l incidents-had occurred as
%
w
,
l (~
.
'
t
j f ' s'"
of this inspection. The licensee is investigating. skin contamination
pML'3
incidentsiand taking positive corrective actions'(counseling and
- /
f^-
(.. ; : retraining),to reduce skin contamination incidents.
ALARA personnel are
i
F
3 actively; involved in planning and scheduling of maintenance activities -
'
,
!during the outage. Outage tasks received an initial evaluation and jobs
7
-
w (which are estimated.to require the expenditure of greater than 1 man-rem
- J s
+
.
w
i
.; require-a: separate ALARA review.
The licensee tracks both man-rem and:
'
'
.-
_
.' man-hours expended on each task on a daily basis by implementing'the
,
.
A
,M
- !'ALARA' Data: Bank" computer program.
This computer code is updated with' . '
%_'
'
.,
O 'iRWPl data; -Each outage task is assigned a man-rem goal.
The major tasks
>
~
R.
- . i i h y $ ;were not performed because the ALARA coordinator
are reviewed for dose reduction by the ALARA committee.
The NRC' inspector.
-
J
?*
-available, time to complete these functions.
F
'a;y
7 +
- 1
+ ; ... A No violations or deviations were -identified.
d -
.-
+
,
.. J
-
,
-
-
,
--g.
.
.-.
l
_
-
'
.
-6-
,
f
8.
External Exposure Control'
'The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's external exposure' program to
'
determine compliance with 10 CFR 20.101, 20.102, 20.202,-20.401 and 20.403
and commitments of the FSAR, Section 12.3.2.
'The NRC inspector determined that each person entering the RCA was
routinely issued a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and self reading
. "
' dosimeter (SRD). Additional dosimetric devices, such as high range SRDs
or extremity TLDs, were issued when required in certain areas such as high
radiation areas, steam generator work, or as specified on an RWP. The NRC
inspector reviewed a selected sampling of the RWPs issued during the .
'
< refueling outage.
The RWPs incorporated sufficient radiological controlsL
,
.
-
'The.NRC inspector reviewed NRC Form-4 and NRC Form-5 information for the
-
. permanent plant staff, contractors, and visitors.
The information
'
' required by the forms was current and complete.
The licensee had
'
,
established a program to provide a daily listing of current worker
.
'
,
y
,7_ exposures based-on SRD results.
The listings were posted for review by .
,
,
,
the workers. The' licensee' maintains an in-house TLD system which allows
'
'_
for immediate processing of TLDs to verify SRD results.
An administrative
,
limit procedure had been established to track workers with high exposures
_
~'
,
I
or the potential for high exposures.
,
No v'iolations or deviations were identified.
-
,
' 9.
Internal Exposure Control
.
^
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's internal exposure program to
'
determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 10.103 and
i
.-
commitments in Sections 12.3 and 12.4 of the FSAR.
The NRC inspector did not identify any problems regarding the respiratory _
protection program.
The NRC inspector noted that the licensee routinely-
performs whole body counting on individuals prior to entry into an RCA and
upon completion of the work assignment at the site.
The NRC inspector
reviewed the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) hours record in the
MPC-hour log.
'
The NRC inspector reviewed the' licensee's continuous air monitoring (CAM)
program for gaseous, particulate, and iodine airborne concentrations.
The
NRC inspector noted that about 13 out of 15 CAMS were out-of-service.
The
two operable CAMS were dedicated to the Technical Support Center and a
separate radwaste storage building. As such, a continuous air monitoring
program was not in place for work activities in the power block areas.
~The' licensee stated that the vendor that had supplied their original CAMS
had gone out of. business and they had been unable to obtain replacement
parts.
.
"
1
-
+
L,
.
^
-
r -
-7-
y
The Unit 1 FSAR,'Section 11.3.2.3 and the Unit 2 FSAR, Section 12.4.2.3
states that for each unit, " portable air monitors consist of four air
samplers that~are capable of continuously monitoring and recording
particulate and gaseous activity.
In addition, these monitors can be
equipped with an iodine collection cartridge that can be counted in the
laboratory." The failure to maintain instrumentation capable of
implementing a continuous air monitoring ~ program is considered a deviation
of FSAR commitments.
(313/8509-01; 368/8509-01)
' No violations were identified.
10.
Posting,- Labeling, and Worker Controls
_
The NRC inspector examined posting, labeling, and control for radiation
areas, high radiation areas, and contaminated areas against-requirements
of 10 CFR Parts 20.203, 20.204, and 20.207 and station procedures
developed in accordance with TS 6.11 and 6.13.
'
The NRC inspector performed several inspections of the facility, including
the RCA, and observed the RCA and Unit 2 access control, contamination
control, and exit radiation monitoring controls.
All areas observed
appeared adequately posted, labeled, and properly controlled.
F
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Controls
The NRC inspector examined the radioactive material labeling and
identification against the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.203.
The NRC
inspector observed the licensee's control of contaminated tools and
4
equipment during the refueling outage. Within the RCA, several areas were
dedicated to storage of radioactive tools,' equipment, and components.
-
Containers were marked.with labels that identified the radioactive
!-
contents.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Survey Program
The NRC inspector reviewed portions of the licensee's survey program to
determine compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20.201 and 20.401.
The NRC inspector observed the use of portal monitors and personnel
ifriskers by various personnel.
The NRC inspector reviewed a sampling of'
the survey records compiled for the refueling outage.
These records
included radioactive airborne surveys, radiation surveys, and
contamination surveys.
These survey data appeared to be adequate,
.
disseminated in a timely manner, and were used in work planning and deso
control.
,
.7
.L
..
,
-8-
The NRC inspector noted that the licensee's prior-to-use response test
procedure for portable survey meters did not include full-range radiation
test levels. The licensee's response test procedure involved the use of
small sealed sources which only provided radiation levels at about
10 mR/hr.
However, a survey instrument might be used to measure actual
radiation levels of several hundred mR/hr.
This concern was discussed
with the licensee during the exit interview on April 19, 1985.
The
-
licensee stated that their present response test program would be reviewed
to ensure that survey meters are response tested, prior to use, for the
radiation level expected to be measured.
The license stated that the
review and any necessary procedure changes would be completed by
October 1, 1985.
This is considered an open item pending review of the
NRC inspector's concerns by the licensee.
(313/8509-02; 368/8509-02)
No violations or deviations were identified.
13.
Health Physics Loos and Records
-The NRC inspector examined various records to determine compliance with
10 CFR Part 20.401 and the requirements of TS, Section 6.10 and FSAR,
Section 13.6.
The NRC inspector reviewed selected entries of the HP log for the
refueling outage, TLD/SRD discrepancy reports, and radiological incidents.
No violations or deviations were identified.
14.
Independent Confirmatory Surveys
The NRC inspectors made confirmatory radiation surveys to verify the
licensee's survey results.3
During inspections of the ANO, Unit 2 containment and auxiliary buildings,
the NRC inspector made independent measurements and determined that the
designated areas in the' radiation control area were properly posted and
~
controlled.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspectors met with licensee representative's and the NRC resident
inspector identified in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on
April 19, 1985.
The NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of
the inspection presented in this report.
The licensee stated that the NRC
inspector's concern regarding the survey meter response tests and the FSAR
'
commitments for CAMS would be reviewed.
1
_