IR 05000003/1977011
| ML20042A957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1977 |
| From: | Knapp P, Thonus L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A940 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-003-77-11, 50-247-77-27, 50-286-77-26, 50-3-77-11, NUDOCS 8203240332 | |
| Download: ML20042A957 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l
77-11 Region I
77-27
-
Report No.
77-26 CU U
~
33 op to paoeniaanv C R CE A R
Docket No.
OU-400 License No.
DPR-5 Priority Category 0; C; C
--
U V K -(. O Licensee:
ConEibktedEdisonComoanyofNewYork,Inc.
4 Irving Place
.
New York, New York 10003 Facility Name:
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection at:
Indian Point Station, Buchanan, New York
.
Inspection conducted: August 30 - September 2, and September 6-3, 1977
/d/9[7 7 Inspectors:
-
--
1.. H.
inonus, Radiation specia61st date signed date signed f
h-
,
.
cate signed Approvedbbs k ELL,, _
,e / u f7/
-
_mv P. N Knapp, Chief, RadiatTon Support date' signed Section, FF&MS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inscection en Auaust 30 - September 2, and Sectember 6-8, 1977 (Recort No.
50-03/77-11; 50-247/77-27; and 50-286/77-26)
Areas Insoected:
Routine unannounced inspection of Units 1 and 2 radioactive waste systems, including facility tour, effluent releases, records and reports, instrumentation, procedures, testing of air cleaning systems, and reactor coolant quality.
Plans for the upccming outage and plant tour were inspected in Unit 3.
Upon arrival, areas where work was being conducted were examined to review radiation safety procedures and practices.
The inspection involved 50 inspection hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected for Units 1 and 2, no apoarent items of noncompliance were found in seven areas.
Of the two areas inspected for Unit 3 no apparent items of noncompliance were found in one area.
One apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area common to all three units (Deficiency -
Fai!Jre to follow procedure - Paragraph 3).
l Region I Form 12 l
(Rev. April 77)
l 8203240332 771005
'
PDR ADOCK 05000003 O
,
,
__ _
.
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted
- Mr. E. McGrath, Manager, Nuclear Power Generation Department
- Mr. T. Law, Plant Manager
- Mr. J. Higgins, General Chemistry Supervisor
- Mr. J. Cullen, General Health Physics Supervisor
- Mr. B. Moroney, Chiei Operations Engineer
- Mr. J. M. Makepeace, Director, Technical Engineering
,
Mr. W. Grassi, General Labor Supervisor Mr. L. Kawula, Test and Performance Engineer Mr. R. Orzo, Watch Supervisor, Unit 2 Mr. A. Nespoli, Operations Engineer, Unit 2 Mr. W. Carson, Test Engineer, Unit 2 Mr. S. Profeta, Chemistry Nuclear Supervisor Mr. S. Wisla, Chemistry and Radiation Director Mr. J. Odendahl, Radiation Safety Representative Power Authority of the State of New York
- Mr. J. P. Bayne, Resident Manager
- Mr. J. Gillen, Chemical Supervisor Mr. J. Kelly, Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent Mr. S. Cantone, Manager, Indian Point 3 Other Personnel
Mr. M. Hensch, Field Supervisor, NUMANCO The inspector also interviewed 12 other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included health physics technicians, reactor and auxiliary operators, chemistry techni-cians, and members of the security force.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findines - Unit 2 (Closed) Unresolved Item (247/77-14-03):
Evaluation of extremity exposure during incore thimble removal.
Final review of the licensee's evaluation of the extent of-the extremity exposure revealed that an appropriate calculation method had been employed and that the total extremity dose was approximately 10.8 rem.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-
'
.
.
3.
Facility Tours - Units 1, 2, and 3 The inspector conducted facility tours on August 30 - September 2, and September 6,1977, to:
(1) inspect waste solidification and shipment; (2) determine if Radiation Work Permit requirements and procedural requirements were being met; (3) make independent measure-ments of radiation; (4) determine the adequacy of posting and control of radiation and high radiation areas; and (5) inspect the installation of radiation monitors. The inspector found one item of noncompliance in the area of adherence to procedural require-
,
ments.
Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.2.6 and Units 2 and 3 Technical Specification 6.11 require that procedures for personnel radiation
<
protection be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and be approved, maintained, and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
General Administrative Directive RS-GAD-2, Revision 1, " Radiological Health and Safety Procedures," dated February 24, 1975, developed pursuant to Unit 1 i
Technical Specification 3.2.6 and Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifi-cation 6.11 requires that all employees obey certain general radia-tion safety rules, including 7.1.18 which states "Do not use or otherwise improperly handle any other individual's exposure monitor-ing device.
.
l Contrary to the above requirement, on September 6,1977, an escorted subcontractor entered the controlled area, which is defined as a radiation area, wearing an exposure monitoring device assigned to the NRC inspector. When the inspector discovered his badge missing, the individual's identity was revealed by reviewing Radiation Work Pennit sign-in sheets. The individual was contacted by the security guard and directed to return to the security desk immediately.
The individual's exposure was estimated to be 0 mrem by a health physics supervisor. The individual had made frequent entries the previous month using film badge No. 6061; in September his number was changed to 6041. The individual who was familiar to the guard asked for his old film badge number when making an entry to the controlled
!
area on September 6; neither the guard nor the individ al nor his escort checked to ensure that the name on the film badge matched the individual's name. The control point through which the in-dividual entered and General Administrative Directive RS-GAD-2, Revision are common to all 3 units.
I i
- _ - - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ __
.
.
Inunediate corrective action included suspension of t.1e guard who issued the wrong film badge, suspension of the individual's escort from escort duty, erecting a gate to prevent excess traffic behind the security desk, and reinstructing guards at the security desk to check identification prior to issuing film badges.
The licensee will clarify his procedure governing the issue of film badges by November 1,1977 to delete uncertainty in identification requirements.
The licensee will also install a pennanent gate by the security desk by January 1, 1978.
(50-03/77-11-01, 02); (50-247/77-27-01, 02); and (50-286/77-26-01, 02)
4.
Radioactive Effluent Releases - Liquid and Gaseous - Units 1 and 2
~
The inspector reviewed selected data for liquid and gaseous releases made during the interval January - August 1977 for compliance with
!
Environmental Technical Specification Requirements (ETSR) and Technical Specifications (TS).
The rate and quantity of the li-censee's effluent releases were a small fraction of allowable limits specified in 10 CFR 20, the ETSR, and TS. Points of release to the environment were being monitored per the ETSR, and TS. Isotopic analysis of 3rab and composite samples were being performed in accordance with ETSR and TS.
The ETSR and TS limits on maximum curie content of gas decay tanks and liquid waste tanks were not exceeded.
Data reviewed included isotopic analyses of samples, i
effluent release pennits, recorder charts, station effluent release records, and the licensee semi-annual effluent release report. The licensee's calculational methods appeared accurate and his account-ing techniques appeared conservative.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
5.
Records and Reports of Radioactive Effluents - Units 1 and 2 The inspector reviewed Semi-Annual Effluent Release Reports for July - December 1976, January - June 1977, and station records of effluent releases. The reports were submitted in a timely manner and the records appeared complete.
The inspector found a few minor errors (involving less than 1". of release limits) in the reports and a few missing data items. The licensee will submit an amend-ment to the report correcting these minor shortcomingi.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
J
'
_ _ _.
_
.
-
-
.
.
.
6.
Effluent Control Instrumentation - Units 1 and 2 The inspector reviewed the licensee's effluent control instru-mentation in the following areas:
a.
Calibration and Functional Tests The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for daily checks, monthly tests, and refueling interval calibrations.
The licensee's methods appeared adequate and frequency was in accordance with Technical Specification (~S) requirements.
b.
Correlation of Monitor Readings and Laboratorv Measurements The licensee verifies the calibration of radiogas monitors by comparing laboratory results of grab samples of effluent with the monitor readings.
Particulate monitor calibrations are verified by analyzing a contaminated filter paper in the laboratory, the placing of the filter paper at the location where the moving paper is read on the particulate monitors, and comparing results.
Liquid monitor calibration factors are verified by comparing laboratory results of grab samples of effluent with monitor readings.
c.
Settings for Trios and Alarms The licensee is currently using R-12 and R-14 (radiogas monitors for containment and the plant vent) to limit noble gas effluents within Technical Specification limits.
Particulate activity is kept within limits by R-ll and R-13 (particulate monitors for the containment and plant vent). Gaseous radiciodine 13 also limited by R-ll and R-13 using conservative particulate to iodine ratios and setting alarm points to trip before the iodine limit is reached. As the alarm point is reached, effluent samples are taken and the fraction of the iodine limit is determined.
The licensee expects to have a contin-uous iodine monitor operational by the next Unit 2 refueling outage.
The licensee uses the liquid radwaste moniter to assure that 10 CFR 20, ETSR, and TS requirements are met.
Liquid effluents are discharged at 25 gpm with a minimum dilution flow of 100,
'
000 gpm, the effluent monitor will automatically trip / isolate at 10-3 uCi/ml to insure discharges are within limits.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i
!
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
?
.
.'
l
I
'.
Procedures for Controlling Release of Effluentr. - Units 1 and 2 l
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure for controlling the release of effluents. No changes had been made since the last NRC inspection in May 1977. The licensee's checklists and permits appeared adequate to assure compliance with Technical Specifica-tions and procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
8.
Testing of Air Cleaning Systems - Unit 2 The inspector reviewed the results of air cleaning system testing and inspection.
The frequency, test criteria, and results were in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.1 of the Technical Specifications. The test methods used were in accordance with ANSI N510 (1975), " Testing, ' Air-Cleaning Systems."
l
,
No items of nonccmpliance were ' identified.
9.
Tests of Reactor Coolant Water Quality - Unit 2 The inspector reviewed the licensee's periodic analysis of reactor coolant for conformance with Technical Specification (TS) require-ments for activity, tritium, chloride, oxygen, and flouride. The licensee's analyses were performed in a timely manner. The methods of analysis and results were in accordance with TS requirements.
The licensee also maintained graphs of the results to alert him to any trends which might occur so that action could be taken prior to exceeding a limit.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
I 10.
Plant for Unit 3 Outage The inspectors discussed licensee plans for the planned Unit 3 outage with licensee representctives and with representatives of the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY).
PASNY employ-
-
ees will be placed on loan to Consolidated Edison Company, report-ing to the plant manager for the outage.
Contractor health physics technicians will arrive a week prior to the outage for training.
Contractor personnel perfonning the duties of health physics tech-nicians will meet the requirements of ANSI N18.1, " Standard for Selection and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."
No items of noncompliance were identified.
_
f s
.
%
'
l
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licen:ee representatives (denoted in Para-grnph 1) at the conclusion of tha inspection on September 8,1977.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Licensee representatives stated that the guard who issued the wrong film badge to the contractor had been suspended for two days, the contractor's escort had been suspended from escort duty until he was retrained, a temporary gate had been erected to prevent excess traffic behind the security desk, and a permanent gate arrangement would be installed in the future.
The licensee also stated that ided regarding monitoring of further information would be proy31 and that an amendment to the instantaneous release rates of I Semi-Annual Effluent and Waste Dispaal Report covering January through June 1977 would be provided.
.