U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Qualification of Reactor HP Technician
HPPOS-022 PDR-9111210126
Title: Qualification of Reactor HP Technician
See the letter from R. C. DeYoung to J. A. Jones (Carolina
Power and Light Company) dated December 1, 1981.
Sufficient time and breadth of experience are important for
an HP Technician placed in a responsible position. The
licensee used an HP Technician with only eleven months
experience, most of which was observing personnel
monitoring themselves for contamination, to control
radiation exposures to workers during steam generator
maintenance.
A radiation exposure to the head in excess of NRC limits
was received by a worker during steam generator maintenance
at a licensee facility. The exposure of the worker was
controlled by chest-worn, self-reading pocket dosimeters,
despite the fact that evaluation of working conditions had
previously revealed the head would receive a higher
exposure than the chest. Additionally, the use of an HP
Technician (or so-called HP Tech) who did not meet the
minimum experience level required by TS, appeared to be
among the causes of the radiation exposure in excess of NRC
limits.
Technical Specification 6.3.1 requires that each member of
the facility staff shall meet or exceed ANSI N18.1-1971
with regard to the minimum qualifications for comparable
positions. Paragraph 4.5.2 of this ANSI standard states,
in part, that technicians in responsible positions shall
have a minimum of two years of working experience.
Contrary to the above, the Reactor HP Tech only had eleven
months of experience consisting primarily of observing
other workers surveying themselves for contamination. This
level of experience was far below that required for
performing survey work during steam generator maintenance.
The overexposed worker was marking steam generator tubes, a
high radiation exposure task requiring vigilance on the
part of the HP Tech to carefully monitor and control
radiation dose rates and total worker doses. If the HP
Tech had been more vigilant and experienced, he most likely
would have been aware of the need for monitoring the
exposure to the worker's head and to control the four
entries into the steam generator by the overexposed worker.
While the magnitude of the radiation dose received by the
worker only slightly exceeded the regulatory limit in this
instance, NRC was concerned that, notwithstanding the
previous civil penalty for a similar problem, the licensee
did not adequately evaluate radiological conditions,
establish effective protection measures, and implement
applicable plant procedures. These concerns were expressed
in an enforcement conference held on September 16, 1981, at
the Region II office. One of the issues discussed was the
requirement for continuous HP coverage of steam generator
maintenance work. During the enforcement conference, the
Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control, denied the
allegation of failure to provide continuous HP coverage of
the steam generator tube marking operation. NRC
acknowledged the presence of an HP Tech, but more than mere
presence was required during a high exposure task. Civil
penalties in the cumulative sum of $85,000 were imposed for
the three items in the Notice of Violation.
Regulatory references: ANSI N18.1-1971, Technical
Specifications
Subject codes: 1.1, 1.2, 12.7
Applicability: Reactors

