ML20137U674

Insp Repts 50-424/97-02 & 50-425/97-02 on 970210-0307.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Support,Solid Radwaste,Radioactive Liquid & Gaseous Waste & Radioactive Matl Transportation Programs

ML20137U674
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/27/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137U658	List: ML20137U654 ML20137U674
References
50-424-97-02, 50-424-97-2, 50-425-97-02, 50-425-97-2, NUDOCS 9704170065
Download: ML20137U674 (17)

See also: IR 05000424/1997002

Text

_. ._.. _ . , - _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ . . - . _ . . . . _ . . _ _..__ ___.. _ _,

. -

.

4

i

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

REGION II

i

Docket Nos.: 50 424, 50 425-

License Nos: NPF 68, NPF 81

<

! Report Nos: 50 424/97 02, 425/97-02

r

j- Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

i

+

,

Facility: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

'

I

. Location: 8805 River Road

Waynesboro GA 30830

i

b Dates: February 10-14, and March 3 7, 1997  ;

1

!

I Inspectors: George B. Kuzo. Senior Radiation Specialist

J. Kreh, Radiation Specialist

l Approved by: K. Barr, Chief. Plant Support Branch

, Division of Reactor Safety ,

I

i

.

!

.

6

i

k

I-

1

i

i

9704170065 97 y clo m e

,

7

!

$DR ADOCK 0 PDR

424

-

- . . . . _ - -

.

. I

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50 424/97 02, 425/97 02 l

l

This routine announced inspection reviewed and evaluated occupational

radiation protection, radioactive liquid and gaseous waste, solid radioactive

i waste (radwaste), and radioactive material transportation programs. Specific

program areas reviewed and evaluated by the inspectors included general

employee training; radiation monitoring system (RMS) equipment operability;

radioactive effluent processing and release; meteorological station ,

operations; and status of radwaste processing equipment and storage l

facilities. The adequacy of associated procedures and radiological controls,

i and staff proficiency for radioactive waste processing and transportation

rogram activities were evaluated. In addition, selected Safety Audit and l

Engineering Review (SAER) audit findings and corrective actions were discussed

-

and evaluated. Conclusions included the following:

4 . In general, controls for low-level radioactive waste (radwaste) and

material processing and storage met Technical Specification (TS) and

10 CFR Part 20 requirements. Labels for containers of radioactive

naterials and waste and radiological controls for high radiation and

locked high radiation areas were in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and

TS requirements. Housekeeping was acceptable within the auxiliary

buildings, radwaste processing and storage facilities. An example of a

non cited violation (NCV) of TS 5.4.1(a) was identified for failure to

follow radiation protection procedures for maintaining radioactive waste

processing facility dose rates within procedural limits. (Section R1.1).

• In general, RMS and meteorological equipment and systems were operable

and calibrated ap3ropriately. Corrective actions to address RMS

equipment or cali) ration issues identified in a recent SAER audit, e.g.,

inadequate electronic calibrations requirements, were adequate. An

unresolved item (URI) was opened regarding adequacy of the containment

'

high radiation monitor sensitivity to meet criteria detailed in

NUREG 0737, Clarification of Three Mile Island (THI) Action Plan

Requirements, Item II.F.1-3 (Section R1.3).

'

. Excluding an October 23, 1996, radioactive material shipment,

transportation and packaging activities for radwaste or radioactive

material shipments reviewed were implemented appropriately and met

10 CFR 71 and 49 CFR requirements. For the October 23, 1996 shipment,

an apparent violation of 49 CFR 173.475 requirements was identified for

the failure to prepare a radioactive material package for transport such

,

that, under conditions normally incident to transportation, radiation

levels on the external surface of the package exceeded 10 millisievert

per hour (mSv/hr) [1000 millirem / hour (mrem /hr)] (Section R1.2). The

licensee provided appropriate hazardous material (hazmat) training and

implemented, as required, revised Department of Transportation (DOT)

guidance (Section R5.2).

• In general, sampling, analyses and processing of a liquid radioactive

waste tank for release was conducted in accordance with Operations and

Chemistry procedures, and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM)

-- --- --

'. .

!

i

l

2

methodology. During observation of the liquid radioactive waste tank

release, a second example of a NCV of TS 5.4.1(a) was identified for i

failure to follow procedures regarding analysis of liquid waste tank I

radionuclide concentrations. (Section R1.3).

. The Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) ventilation systems were maintained ,

appropriately and tested in accordance with TS requirements. Test

results for selected ESF systems were acceptable (Section R2.3).  ;

. General employee training was conducted in accordance with established  :

commitments and procedures (Section R5.1) l

. Counting room quality control (QC) activities associated with effluent

measurements were technically adequate (Section R7.1). Audits of

radioactive waste, effluent and transportation program activities were j

thorough and met TS, ODCM, 10 CFR Parts 20 and 71 requirements i

(Section R7.2).

1I

1

l

l

l

!

,

- .. - - - . - - ,

-

'.. .

Report Details

!

,

IV. Plant Support

4

L R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls

R1.1 Radioloaical Controls

a. Inspection Scope (84750. 867501

During numerous tours of site radiologically controlled areas (RCAs),

the inspectors reviewed radir, logical controls associated with liquid and

gaseous waste processing Scilities, and with radioactive material and

waste storage areas and observed general housekeeping and cleanliness.

The toured areas included the auxiliary building and remote radioactive

material storage and processing buildings located within the Owner

Controlled Area. Radiation dose rate and contamination surveys were

conducted for selected areas and storage equipment.

Established controls were compared against procedural requirements,

Technical Specification (TS) 5.7 and 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart J

requirements, as applicable.

b. Observations and Findinas

Postings and physical controls to limit personnel exposure from external

sources in restricted areas were in accordance with TS and 10 CFR

Part 20 requirements. Administrative and physical controls for high

radiation and locked high radiation areas were in accordance with TS

requirements. Label information for containers of radioactive materials

and waste met 10 CFR Part 20 and procedural requirements.

Excluding the radwaste processing building, dose rate and contamination

surveys conducted verified proper radiological controls were implemented

and corroborated current survey results. On February 11, 1997,

following tours of the dry active waste (DAW) processing facility,

surveys conducted on the outside surface of the facility walls

identified dose rates of approximately 2 millirem >er hour (mrem /hr),

which exceeded the procedural limit of 0.250 mrem /1r specified in

arocedure, 46102 C, Operation of the Support Systems in the Dry Active

Waste Processing and Storage Facilities, Rev. 2, approved March 28,

1994. The procedure requires that material stored inside the DAW

storage and processing facilities must be arranged so that the dose rate

on contact with facility walls is less than 0.25 mrem /hr. The inspector

noted that the failure to follow procedures for maintaining dose rates

within the established limits was a violation of TS 5.4.1(a). Licensee

followup and root cause investigation determined that boxes of outage

equipment in close proximity to the inside walls resulted in the outside ,

wall dose rate limits being exceeded. The infrequent use of the

facility and reduction in survey frequency resulted in misinterpretation

by Health Physics (HP) technicians regarding completion and

documentation of the required surveys. Immediate corrective actions

documented in Radiological Incident Report (RIR) No. 97 003, included

rearrangement of the boxes and verification that dose rates were within

limits and posting of storage requirements for the facilities. In

- . =_. . - - - .- -.

.

.

,

i

2

'

addition, signs were posted at both DAW processing and storage 1

4 facilities specifying surveys re  !

map documents were revised and )reprinted

quired, and dose

with rate surveylimits.

established and survey

The

, RIR was to be included in all s11ft briefings. In addition,

I

i

improvements were made to survey maps and documentation for Spent Fuel  ;

i

Rack storage area and the Alternate Radwaste building.  ;

I

c. Conclusions

,

In general, controls for low level radioactive waste (radwaste) and

material processing and storage met TS and 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.

Labels for containers of radioactive materials and waste were in

, accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. Consistent with Section IV

of the Enforcement Policy based on corrective actions taken prior to the

end of the inspection, the DAW Processing dose rates exceeding l

4

procedural limits was identified as a non cited violation (NCV) 50 424, )

50 425/97-02-01: Failure to follow radiation protection procedures for l

'

.a DAW processing facility dose rate limits. l

,

R1.2 Radioactive Waste and Material Transoortation Activities

,

a. Inspection ScoDe (86750. TI2515/1331

1

The inspectors evaluated and discussed the licensee's current guidance

i for radioactive material and waste packaging and transportation program

activities. The following procedures were reviewed and evaluated

against recently revised 10 CFR Part 20, 49 CFR Parts 100 179 and ,

,

10 CFR Part 71 regulations.

.

. 46004 C, Shipment of Radioactive Material, Rev.13, approved

_

3

April 4, 1996.

. 46100 C,10 CFR61 Waste Classification Sampling Program, Rev. 2,

approved April 4, 1996.

. 46102 C, Operation of the Support Systems in the Dry Active Waste

Processing and Storage Facilities, Rev. 2 approved March 28,

1994.

'

. 46110 C, Shipment of Radioactive Waste, Rev. 6 Approved April 4,

1996.

1

Records associated with packaging and shipping of radioactive material

and waste to either vendor processing facilities or directly tc a

4

licensed burial facility were reviewed and discussed with responsible

personnel. The following shipment records were reviewed in detail.

~.

. Radioactive Waste Shipment (RWS) Number (No) 96 001, Radioactive

Material, Low Specific Activity, NOS. 7, UN 2912, Reportable

i Quantity (RQ) Fissile Exempt, containing dewatered Ion Exchange

Resin (Bead) from Plant Demineralizer System, shipped March 16,

1996.

+

Y

i

,s

,

l

.

\

1

[ 3

• RWS No. 96 004 Radioactive Material, Low Specific Activity,

NOS. 7. UN 2912, Reportable Quantity (RQ) Fissile Excepted, a

. containing dewatered Ion Exchange Resin (Bead and Powdex) from '

Plant Demineralizer System, shipped September 27, 1996.

l

i e RWS No. 96 005, Radioactive Material, Low Specific Activity,

NOS. 7. UN 2912, Reportable. Quantity (RQ) Fissile Excepted,

containing dewatered Ion Exchange Resin (Bead and Powdex) from

Plant Demineralizer System, shipped December 13, 1996.

l . 96 10 002, Radioactive Material Shipment, Surface Contaminated

.

Object 2, NOS. 7. UN 2913, containing a-reactor coolant pump,

' dated October 13, 1996.

i'

i . 96 10 005, Radioactive Material Shipment, Surface Contaminated

.

Object 2, NOS. 7, UN 2913, containing seven strong tight packages

l of Fuel Sipping, UT, Fuel Reconstitution and RCCA equipment

[ returned to a vendor dated October 23, 1996.

b. Observations and Findinas

i The insmetors verified that changes to 49 CFR Parts 100 179 and )

, 10 CFR ' art 71 regulations were incorporated into the current procedures

! Excluding material shipment No. j

i and

96 10were

006, implemented asreviews

rethe of

inspectors'

shipping paper.quired.

documentation i

j . verified that ' applicable regulatory requirements were met. ~ As l

applicable, the inswetors verified the licensee was a registered user  !

of the shipping casts'and that the appropriate Certificates of '

Compliance and associated documents were maintained at the facility.

! Notifications and licensee followup regarding package surface dose rate l

j concerns for'an October 23, 1996, shipment were reviewed and discussed '

in detail. On November 6,.1996, an NRC Region II (RII) Radiation  !

[ Specialist was informed by NRC Region I staff of an October 23, 1996

i Vogtle shipment received at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill,. PA. vendor

i facility which contained a package having maximum surface dose rates of

approximately 20 millisievert per hour (20 mSv/hr) (2000 millirem per

hour [ mrem /hr]), which exceeded.NRC/ DOT 49 CFR 173.475 package surface

limits of 10 mSv/hr [1000 mrem /hr]. Subsequent discussions during

i November 7, 1996, teleconferences between RII and the Vogtle Radiation

Protection supervisors, indicated that plant management was unaware of

i. the identified issue. Preliminary review of Vogtle survey records for

! the out-going shipment documented a maximum surface dose rate of

I approximately 120 mrem /hr.for the subject package. Review of additional

j. survey records for the individual pieces of equipment and the transport

i

vehicle' indicated that the package contained fuel reconstitution

equipment having an initial maximum dose rate of 800 mrem /hr associated

4 with a camera stand,-a one inch diameter hollow tube which had been

,

stored in the sgnt fuel p l. Recorded dose' rates associated with the

I transport vehicle were within regulatory limits. The package was part

i' of. an exclusive use, closed transport vehicle shipment. Upon arrival at

the vendor facility on October 25, 1996, measured dose rates for the

F transport driver's position and on the outside of the transport vehicle

,

were within regulatory limits..

i

h

. . - . . .- - . . . . .- .

-

", ,

4

1

On November 11, 1996, a Vogtle transportation specialist was dispatched )

to the Waltz Mill, PA site to review and evaluate the identified issue.

The Vogtle specialist independently verified that within a localized 1

area on the package surface, dose rates exceeded regulatory limits of 10

'

mSv/hr (1000 mrem /hr) specified in 49 CFR 173.475. Further review,

determined that the equipment was Jackaged appro)riately and that

elevated dose rates, up to 50 mSv/1r (5000 mrem /1r), were measured at

one end of the camera stand. The investigation determined that the j

elevated dose rates resulted from a small, microscopic piece of crud l

material which had not been identified during the original surveys and

was located at one end of the camera stand at the time of survey.

The licensee's root cause determination documented insufficient

preparation time allocated for the task and less than adequate task

distribution for work organization methods. In addition, the lack of

standard policy or administrative controls were documented as an

additional root cause of the event. Documented corrective actions

included ensuring all Health Physics (HP) and Decontamination

Technicians are trained in the requirements for removing material from

the spent fuel pool and subsequently shipping the objects offsite. The

vendor was also to complete cleanliness procedures regarding materials

and equipment stored in the spent fuel pool. Also, the need for

additional shielding of boxes was to be reviewed by the vendor.

c. Conclusions ,

In general, transportation and packaging activities for radioactive

waste or material shipments met 10 CFR Part 20, 71.5 and 49 CFR 100179

requirements. The licensee was implementing, as required, revised DOT

guidance. The failure to prepare a radioactive material packaga for

transport on October 23, 1996, such that, under conditions normally

incident to transportation, radiation levels on the external surface of

the package did not exceed 10 millisievert per hour (mSv/hr) [1000

millirem / hour (mrem /hr)] was identified as an apparent violation of

49 CFR 173.475 requirements: Escalated Enforcement Item (EEI) 50 424,

425/97 02 02: Failure to meet 49 CFR 173.475 package dose rate limits.

R1.3 Padioactive Waste Analysis. Processina and Release

a. Insoection Scooe (84750)

During the onsite inspection, liquid radioactive waste analysis,

processing and release activities were reviewed. Evaluated program

areas included equipment operability, procedural adequacy and staff

proficiency.

On March 4,1997, the ins)ectors directly observed and evaluated

activities associated wit 1 a Unit 2 (U2), No. 9 Waste Monitor Tank

(WMT 9) liquid effluent release. The review included pre-release sample

collection and radiological analyses, determination of the liquid

effluent radiation monitor (RE 18) setpoints, and operations associated

with subsequent release to the environment.

-_ -_ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

.

.

-

. .

'

,

4

? 5

4 4

'

. -The following procedures were reviewed and evaluated during observation

j of the WMT processing and release:

,

] e . Procedure 33035 C, Gamma Spectroscopy for Radiochemistry, Rev. 17. ,

! '

• Procedure 34311 C, Operation of Digital Radiation Monitoring  ;

System-(DRMS) Liquid Release Monitors 1(2)RE 0018) '

-

l

l e -Procedure 34331 C, Management of DRMS Status and Parameter,

f Rev. 9.-

. * Procedure 35420 C, Monitoring of Radioactive Liquid Waste  :

Management System Rev. 15.

'

!

.

'

e Procedure 36015 C, Radioactive Liquid Effluent Release Permit

Generation and Data Control, Rev.14.

! * Procedure 37000 C, Sample Handling, Rev. 2. .

'

Personnel observed and interviewed regarding the liquid radwaste

processing and release evolutions included Operations and Chemistry

staff.

I^ b. Observations and Findinas

a.

l- The inspectors noted that the current procedures were adequate for 1

sample collection preparation, analysis, set point determination and

'

!

,

final release documented in liquid release permit No. 97 0018 L.

3 During observation of the release, concerns were noted for procedural

adherence and for the material condition of a radiation flow indicator- 1

! (FI) used to. verify the liquid waste monitor' flow rates. Procedure I

i 33035 C, Rev.17 required a 1000 milliliter sample to be analyzed by

.

gamma spectroscopy analysis to quantify the release radionuclide

concentrations. The inspectors noted that the technician failed to l

, accurately determine the exact volume. Evaluation of the sample used i

L for the analysis verified that the volume did not meet the procedural

t

requirements. Review of the gamma spectroscopy data verified that the

i

error was conservative and for this specific case, did not affect the

i' ' final set points nor release data and dose estimates. Licensee

management reviewed procedural guidance, training provided and stated

that all responsible personnel would be instructed in the need for

accurate sample volume for completing the quantitative analyses. In

addition, the visibility of the float within Flow Indicator 2 FI 0018,

. was marginal. Licensee representatives stated that corrective actions i

regarding the flow indicator were initiated prior to the end of the ]

j onsite inspection.

j .c. . Conclusions

i In. general, release of a Unit 2 WMT 9 was conducted in accordance with

0perations and Chemistry. procedures, and Off site Dose Calculation Manual

. methodology. Consistent with Section IV of the Enforcement Policy based

,

on corrective actions taken prior to the end of the inspection, the

failure.to analyze a 1000 milliliter sample for gamma spectroscopy

.

- . . - - -. - . - ,

.

.

l

l

6

analysis was identified as a second example of NCV 50 424, 425/97-02 01:

Failure to follow procedures in accordance with TS 5.4.1(a) for a liquid l

waste processing gamma spectroscopy analyses. '

R2 Status of Radiation Protection and Chemistry Equipment and Facilities

R2.1 Meteoroloaical Monitorina Proaram and Instrumentation

a. Inspection Scope (84750) l

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's meteorological program and

equipment against specifications detailed in FSAR Section 2.3.3, Onsite

Meteorological Measurements Program. In addition, instrumentation and i

equipment operability, calibration and maintenance were verified,

b. Observations and Findinas

On February 13, 1997, the inspectors observed licensee personnel  !

performing daily checks of the meteorological data collection center '

(MDCC) instrumentation, located at the base of the 60-meter tower at the

periphery of the plant site. The observed checks were conducted in

accordance with procedure 36030 C, Meteorological Tower Monitoring and

Data Control, Rev. 11. The individual conducting this surveillance was

systematic and thorough.

Selected records of calibrations and surveillances performed during the

past 18 months were reviewed. The records reviewed were for eight

procedures associated with the meteorological monitoring system. The

subject surveillances were performed correctly and within schedule, and

instrumentation calibrations were completed as required.

c. Conclusions

The licensee was maintaining the meteorological equipment appropriately,

and implementing the meteorological monitoring program in accordance

with established procedures and FSAR commitments.

R2.2 Radiation Monitor System Installation and Calibration

a. Inspection Scope (84750)

The inspectors reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of installed process

and effluent Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) detectors, particulate

and iodine samplers, electronics, sampling lines and flow meters, as

applicable, to meet FSAR commitments and to implement Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual (ODCM) and 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. The

evaluation included, as applicable. RMS equipment walk-downs with

comparisons against configuration control documents, design changes and

vendor design specifications, as appropriate. Further, the installed

sample line bend radii and piping specifications were evaluated against

recommendations detailed in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N13.1-1969, American National Standard Guide to Sampling Airborne

Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities. General comparisons were

made between radiation monitor local and remote readout data, where

possible.

. .

-

.

7

Approved guidance and resultant data for selected RMS detector

calibrations were reviewed and discussed. For each detector reviewed,

source calibration packages were reviewed, evaluated and discussed with

licensee representatives. The following RMS detectors and associated

electronics were included in the review: Unit 1 Waste Liquid Effluent

Monitor (RE-18): Steam Generator Sample Liquid Process Monitor (RE-19),

Steam Generator Sample Liquid Process Monitor (RE 21) Plant Vent Wide

Range Monitor (1RE12444C); Containment High Range Monitor (RE-0005).

The RMS source calibration guidance and results were evaluated against

applicable sections of the FSAR, Technical Specification (TS) and ODCM

requirements. In addition, guidance for the containment high range

monitor was compared against special calibration requirements s)ecified

in NUREG 0737, Clarification of Three Mile Island (TMI) Action )lan

Requirements, Table II.F.13 Containment High Range Monitors (CHRMs).

b. Observations and Findinas

For the RMS equipment reviewed, no significant issues regarding design

specifications, installed system equipment and sample line

ex, figurations, and operating parameters were identified. Housekeeping

practices associated with RMS equipment skids, cabinets and general

areas were appropriate.

From direct observation of RMS equipment and discussiens with

responsible personnel, operability of selected monitors was verified.

Comparison of selected monitor remote and local readouts did not

identify any significant discrepancies. Sample flow rates were within

limits specified within vendor manuals. In addition, the inspectors

verified that corrective actions were in progress regarding degraded

heat trace conditions identified in Safety Audit and Engineering Review

(SAER) audit No. OP05-97/03 dated February 7, 1997.

Excluding the containment high range monitor, no calibration concerns

were identified. Surveillances were conducted at the required

frequencies and the reported results were acceptable. For the

containment high range monitor calibration data, the inspectors noted

that the source strength, approximately 17 Roentgens per hour (R/hr)

used to conduct the in situ calibration exceeded the 1 10 R/hr range

specified in NUREG 0737, Table II.F.13. Initial review of FSAR

commitments and discussions with licensee representatives indicated that

no exception was taken from meeting the requirements of NUREG 0737,

Table II.F.1-3, nor was an analysis of changes from the FSAR commitments

available. Review of vendor calculations and documents indicated that

the stronger source strength was selected to minimize interference from

system noise. The inspectors noted that additional NRC review of vendor

calculations and data for the installed containment high range monitors

to meet sensitivity requirements would be conducted.

c. Conclusions

The RMS equipment was designed, installed, and operated appropriately.

Maintenance issues regarding heat tracing degradation identified during

a recent SAER audit were being tracked and corrected by the licensee.

The adequacy of the containment high range monitor to meet FSAR

. -- . . .- . _ . . .. .-

..

.

-

,

8

requirements based on the calibration source concerns was identified as

an unresolved item (URI) 50 424, 425/97 02 03: NRC review and evaluate

17 R/hr source strength and installed containment high range monitor to

meet NUREG 0737 sensitivity and calibration requirements.

5 R2.3 Enaineered Safety Feature (ESF) Ventilation System

a. Insoection Scope (84750)

The inspectors verified implementation of Engineered Safety Feature

(ESF) ventilation systems filter testing surveillances recuired by TS

3.7 in accordance with TS 5.5.11 test requirements. In acdition, the

material condition of selected ESF filter ventilation systems was

<

observed during system walk downs. Equipment walk downs were conducted

and the most recent surveillance results reviewed for the following ESF

ventilation systems.

l . Unit 1. Piping Penetration Area Filtration and Exhaust Train A

'

. Unit 1 Control Room Emergency Filtration Room Trains A & B

i . Unit 2 Control Room Emergency Filtration Room Trains A & B

b. Observations and Findinas

,

The material condition of the ESF equipment and cleanliness of

associated areas was adequate. From reviews of maintenance work orders,

i the inspectors verified that selected equipment issues noted during

licensee walk downs or routine surveillances were identified, tracked

and completed in a timely manner.

,

From review of licensee records, the inspectors verified that ESF 18- I

month surveillances were conducted at the specified frequency. Test

results for the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, in place

' charcoal adsorber and laboratory analysis of charcoal adsorber material

met established TS acceptance criteria.

c. Conclusions

The ESF ventilation systems were maintained appropriately and tested in

,

accordance with TS requirements. Test results for selected ESF systems

were acceptable.

>

R5 Training and Qualifications in Radiation Protection and Transportation

R5.1 Gen (ral Employee Trainina

a. Inspe: tion Scope (83750)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for providing General

Employee Training (GET), also known as Badge Training, for personnel

permanently or temporarily employed at the Vogtle facility.

.

.

-

.

n

9

b. Observations and Findinas

The licensee's program for GET was addressed in plant procedure 00700 C,

General Employee Training, Rev. 18, approved January 17, 1997. To

obtain unescorted access and dosimetry for the Protected Area and

selected Vital Areas, employees were required to receive formal initial

,

training and annual retraining in plant overview, emergency

preparedness, fire protection, industrial safety, quality assurance,

security, and radiation protection, and to pass a written examination

covering those various areas. Approximately 55 percent of the 110-page

initial GET handbook provided to employees was devoted to radiation

protection matters. A different handbook (73 pages) was provided for

'

employee study as part of annual retraining, with approximately

50 percent of its content dedicated to the subject of radiation

protection. Prior to Revision 17 of procedure 00700 C in October 1995,

each em)loyee was required (on a triennial basis) to read the GET

handboo(, and to so certify in writing, before attending the retraining.

Employees were encouraged and expected (but not required) to review the

GET retraining handbook before attending the annual training.

The inspectors discussed the GET program with cognizant licensee

mannement, and reviewed selected lessons plans, particularly with

regard to the area of Radiation Protection (RP). The inspectors

scrutinized training records for a total of 12 employees selected from

Operations, HP/ Chemistry, and Security. No discrepancies were

identified in the GET records of these licensee personnel for the period

1987-1996.

c. Conclusions

The licensee was effectively administering its GET program in accordance

with established commitments and procedures.

R5.2 Hazardous Material Training

a. Insoection Scooe (86750. TI 2515/133)

The training provided to meet the recuirements of 49 CFR Part 172

Subpart H were reviewed and discussec with licensee representatives.

Further, training details provided to staff regarding implementation of

recent Department of Transportation (DOT) changes to 49 CFR Parts 100-

179 were evaluated.

From discussion with responsible staff members, the inspector evaluated

the training effectiveness regarding recent D0T changes implemented for

49 CFR Parts 100 179.

b. Observations and Findinos

From review of training records, the inspectors verified that staff

members involved in handling and packaging of radioactive materials were

receiving hazardous material (hazmat) training at the required

frequencies. From review of training material presented to staff in

November 1996, the inspectors verified that recent DOT changes to

shipping and packaging requirements were provided to responsible

,

. . i

-

!

l

10

)

'

personnel. Applicable hazmat training was provided to HP staff in June

1995 and in December 1996. The most recent training was conducted as

part of the corrective actions for the issue involving improper

packaging and transportation of surface contaminated object (SCO)

material detailed in Section R1.2. Additional training regarding the i

new DOT regulations is scheduled. From discussion of shipping

procedures and records, the inspectors determined that resaonsible i

licensee representatives were knowledgeable of the recent X)T changes. j

c. Conclusions I

Hazmat training provided to personnel handling radioactive materials was

conducted at the ap)ropriate frequency, and included recent changes to l

DOT regulations. T1e training provided wa.s effective. i

l

R7 Quality Assurance (QA) in Radiation Protection and Chemistry Activities l

R7.1 Radioloaical Measurement Quality Control

a. Insoection Scope (84750)

]

The inspectors reviewed implementation of the counting room cuality l

control (QC) activities to meet the intent of Regulatory Guice (RG)  ;

4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal l

Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment. Specifically, the l

results of the 1995 and 1996 inter laboratory cross check radiological

analyses were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee i

representatives. Also, the inspectors reviewed and discussed composite I

sample preservation to maintain sample representativeness.

b. Observations and Findinas

All individual inter laboratory analyses were within the established

acceptance criteria. No regulatory concerns nor negative trends were

identified from review of the counting room tritium and gamma-

spectroscopy QC performance data. Licensee methods for preservation of

composite samples were appropriate.

c. Conclusions

.

'

Sample ) reservation, and gamma spectroscopy and tritium inter laboratory

cross cleck QC activities were implemented appropriately and met the

intent of RG 4.15.

R7.2 Licensee Self Assessment Activities (84750. 86750)

a. Inspection Scope (84750. 867FM

During the inspection period, the following Safety Audit and Engineering

Review (SAER) audit repor;s and associated checklists were reviewed and

discussed with cognizant licensee representatives. Specific radioactive

_.._ _ . _ ._-_ _ -_. _ _ _._ _ ...___ _ _. _ _ . _ __ _ _ _

.

.

, -

.

l

i

11

waste, transportation. effluent monitoring and chemistry, Radiation

Control (RC): and radioactive waste (radwaste) processing, packaging and

, trans>ortation program activities required by TS, 10 CFR Part 20, and

10 CFR Part 71 were reviewed and discussed with licensee

'

'

representatives.

i .o SAER Audit of Radioactive Waste Control OP05 97/03, dated

February 7, 1997,

. e SAER Audit of Radioactive Waste Control OP05 96/17, dated

i July 1,1996.

e SAER Audit of Plant Chemistry OP04 96/28, dated September 12,

1996.

! e SAER Audit of Plant Chemistry OP04 95/25, dated November 20,

1995.

e SAER Audit of Radioactive Waste - OP05 95/16, dated October 23,.

1995,

b. Observations and Findinas

^

The audits met recuired frequencies and addressed 00CM, effluent,

. Chemistry, RC, racwaste and trans>ortation program guidance and

!. implementation. Both compliance-)ased and performance based audit

"

' techniques were used to identify documented strengths, issues,

i weaknesses and recommendations. The inspectors verified from review of

i

'

audit checklists and discussions with responsible personnel that the

audits included review and followup of previously identified items.

I

From review of audit team participants and discussions with licensee i

i management, the inspectors determined that audit teams included

j

.

experienced individuals from outside of the Vogtle facility.

c. Conclusions

Audits of the radioactive waste, effluents and transprtation program

i

activities were thorough and comprehensive, and met TS, 10 CFR Part 20,

and 10 CFR Part 71 requirements.

,

k

.

I

,

, .-

.

.

.

,

, 12

VI. Manaaement Meetinas

X1 Exit Meeting Sumary

The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of the licensee

i management on February 14, 1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings

j presented.

. The inspectors noted that no proprietary information would be contained in the

report.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee

.

B. Beasley, General Manager

R. Brown, Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager

R. Carter, Su mrvisor Safety Audit and Engineering Review

1

S. Chestnut, ianager, Operations

a

J. Gasser, Assistant General Manager Operations

K. Holmes, Maintenance Manager

I. Kochery, Health Physics Superintendent

M. Kurtzman, Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry Training

A. Parton. Chemistry Superintendent

M. Sheibani, Supervisor, Nuclear Safety and Compliance

C. Tippins, Jr., Nuclear Specialist

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

IP 83750: Occupational Radiation Exposure

IP 84750: Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental

Monitoring

IP 86750: Solid Radioactive Waste Manags ,t and Transportation of

Radioactive Materials

TI 2515/133: Implementation of Revised 49 CFR Parts 100-170 and 10 CFR

Part 71

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

i

Ooened  !

50 424, 425/97 02 01 NCV Failure to follow radiation protection

procedures for a DAW processing facility dose

"

note limits (Section R1.1) and for a liquid

waste processing gamma spectroscopy analyses

(Section R1.3)

50 424, 425/97 02-02 EEI Failure to meet 49 CFR 173.475 package dose rate l

limits (Section R1.2).  ;

l

<

._ . ._ ._ _ . ._ . _ . . . . . _ . - _ . . ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

. .

< ,

,

1

13

,

50 424, 425/97 02 03 URI NRC review'and evaluate 17 R/hr source strength

and installed containment high range monitor to

, meet NUREG 0737 sensitivity and calibration l

i

requirements (Section R2.2).  !

Closed

)

50-424, 425/97-02 01 NCV Failure to follow radiition protection

procedures for a DAW processing facility dose

rate limits (Section R1.1) and for a liquid

.

waste processing gamma spectroscopy analyses

(Section R1.3)  !

l- 1

f

i

n

4

i

l

'

,

!

,

4

.

--- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. . . _ . . _ _

'

, .

14

.

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

ANSI American National Standards Institute

DAW Dry Active Waste

DOT Department of Transportation 1

ESF Engineered Safety Feature

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

Hazmat Hazardous Material

HP Health Physics  !

MDCC Meteorological Data Collection Center  !

mrem /hr millirem per hour  ;

mSv/hr millisieverts M r hour

'

NCV Non cited Violation

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 1

QA Quality Assurance j

QC Quality Control '

R/hr Roentgens per hour l

radwaste Radioactive Waste i

RCA Radiologically Controlled Area

RG Regulatory Guide ]

RIR Radiological Incident Report i

RMS Radiation Monitoring System i

RP Radiation Protection l

RQ Reportable Quantities

RWP Radiation Work Permit

RWS Radioactive Waste Shipment

-SAER Safety Audit and Engineering Review

TMI Three Mile Island i

TS Technical Specification

URI Unresolved Item ]

VHRA Very High Radiation Area

VIO Violation

l

.