IR 05000003/1977013
| ML20042A100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1977 |
| From: | Knapp P, Neely D, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A090 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-003-77-13, 50-247-77-31, 50-286-77-30, 50-3-77-13, NUDOCS 8203230082 | |
| Download: ML20042A100 (8) | |
Text
'
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM. aION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50-003/77-13 Region.I 50-247/77-31 Report No. 50-286/77-30 '50-003 Docket No.
50-247; 50-286 DPR-3 License No. DPR-26; DPR-64 Priority Category 0, C, C
--
Licensee:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Facility Name:
Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Buchanan, New York Inspection conducted:
September _26 28,and October 20-21, 1977 Inspectors:
G-cMJ 4,
/c /A% ?
Donard R. Neely, Radiation Specialist date signed
/k'
b
/,
-
/z Gregory P. Yuhas, Radi'ation Specialist date signed
.
-
date signed
-
.
Approved by:
M v
, /m
/2/I/[7 Peter J. Knapp, Chief, Radiation Support date signed Section, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on Septembe'r'~26-28 and October 20-21,1977 (Report Nos. 50-003/77-13; 50-247/77-31; 50-286/77-30)
Areas Inspecte_d:
Special, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection pro-gram during the Unit 3 maintenance outage, including Radiation Protection Pro-cedures; Instrumentation; Training; Exposure Control; Surveys; Outage Pre-Plan-ning.
In addition, the retraining program for health physics technicians was reviewed and licensee action on previously identified noncompliance items were inspected.
Upon arrival, areas where work was being conducted were examined to review radiation safety control procedures and practices. The inspection in-volved 45 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8203230082 771220
~
~ ~ " ~
l PDR ADOCK 05000003
'
O PDR
.
e
.
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
-
Consolidated Edison Company
- Mr. E. McGrath, Manager, Nuclear Power Generation Department
- Mr. T. Law, Plant Manager
- Mr. J. Makepeace, Technical Engineering Director
- Mr. S. Wisla, Chemistry and Radiation Safety Director
- Mr. R. Landwaard, Quality Assurance Engineer, QA&R Mr. J. Cullen, General Health Physics Supervisor
- Mr. M. Shatkowski, Nuclear Training Director Mr. G. Imbimbo, Nuclear Training Specialist Mr. T. Teague, Supervisor, Health Physics Power Authority of the State of New York
- Mr. J. Bayne, Resident Manager Mr. J. Killduff, Assistant to Resident Manager
- Mr. S. Cantone, Superintendent of Power
- Mr. J. Kelly, Radiation and Environmental Services Superintendent Mr. J. Perrotta, Health Physics Supervisor Mr. S. Dodge, Health Physics Supervisor Mr. E. Brockbank, Trainin[ Coordinator The inspector also interviewed 7 other licensee and contractor per-sonnel during the course of the inspection. They included contractor health physics technicians, contractor health physics supervisors and the employee representative.
denotes those present at the September 28, 1977 meeting
'
denotes those present at the October 21, 1977 meeting
~
denotes those present at both the September 28 and October 21,
1977 meetings
,
2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-247/77-02-02 and 50-286/77-03-02):
Develop-ment and documentation of a health physics retraining program by Septem-ber 1, 1977.
The inspector verified that the administrative controls for the retraining program were developed and documented by September 1,1977.
<
The inspector determined from his review of the document entitled, " Health Physics Training," issued August 24, 1977, that the retraining program contained the necessary elements and if properly implemented would result in an effective program.
,
.
.
-
,
.
%
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-247/77-19-03; 50-003/76~-12-04):
Failure to post high radiation areas.
The inspector verified that the licensee's corrective actions as delineated in the licensee's written responses to the above listed recurrent items had been implemented. The cor-rective action appeared adequate to prevent further recurrence of Items of Noncompliance in the associated area.
.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-286/76-25-01; 50-286/7617-01; 50-286/76-14-01):
Failure to adhere to radiation control procedures.
The inspector veri-fied that the licensee's corrective action as delineated in the licensee's written responses to the above listed recurrent items had been imple-mented.
The corrective action appeared adequate to prevent further recurrence of Items of Noncompliance in the associated area.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-286/77-19-01; 50-286/77-12-01; 50-247/77-19-02; 50-247/76-08-01; 50-003/77-04-01; 50-003/77-04-02; 50-003/77-07-01):
Failure to conduct surveys required by 10 CFR 20.201(b).
The inspector verified that the licensee's corrective action as delineated in the licensee's written responses to the above listed recurrent items had been implemented.
The corrective action appeared adequate to prevent further recurrence of Items of Noncompliance in the associated area.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-286/76-14-02):
Failure to post a radiation During tours of controlled areas of the plant, the inspector de-area.
termined the licensee's corrective action had been implemented and was satisfactory.
The inspector verified by independent measurements that the posting of radiation areas was being done as required by 1-0 CFR Part 20.
(Closed) Noncomplicnce (50-247/77-19-01):
Failure to control a high radiation area.
The inspector determined from reviewing records of daily audits of the controlled area and plant tours that the licensee's corrective actions appeared to be adequate, based on the fact that no high radiation doors were found unlocked, and that control was being maintained for entry into the Unit 3 Vapor Containment during the outage.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-286/77-03-01; 50-247/77-02-01):
Failure to maintain training and qualification records.
The inspector verified that the licensee had assigned the Nuclear Training Director responsibility for maintaining the training and qualification records of all health physics technicians. The inspector determined from a review of records for recent retraining of health physics technicians that the licensee's corrective action appeared to be adequate to prevent further noncompliance
-
of this type.
.
- -
-
-
.
._
-
'
j
-
.
.
.
j 3.
Plant Tours An initial tour of the Unit 3 controlled areas and Vapor Containment was made upon arrival at the site.
General Access Radiation Work Permits (RWP) were posted at the main change room and the inspectors noted that personnel were signing in on the RWPs as required.
The inspectors noted that the main change room and the cont actor change room were controlled by using contractor health physics technicians.
These technicians had the responsibility to assure that all personnel were following change room procedures.
During tours of the areas the inspector selected approximately 10 self-reading pocket dosimeters and approximately 10 portable radiation monitors (friskers) and verified that they had been calibrated within the required time interval.
At the entrance to the Unit 3 Vapor Containment the licensee has assigned contractor health physics technicians around the clock to assure that positive control is maintained over entries into the Vapor Containment.
The inspectors verified that a copy of the control point procedure was available at the control point and that it was being followed.
The inspector noted that high radiation areas and radiation areas inside the Vapor Containment were properly posted and the contamination control measures were adequate.
Radiation Work Permits. were reviewed and, of these, specific RWPs were selected to determine if their requirements and instructions were being followed.
The inspectors found that in all cases, personnel were edhering to the RWP requirements.
No items of noncompliance were observed in the tours.
4.
Surveys The inspector determined from observations, independent measurements and inspection of survey results for the following Radiation Work Permits that the required surveys were done as necessary and were adequate:
RWP #0733
-
-
RWP #0905
-
RWP #0927
-
During the tour of the controlled areas the inspectors noted that recent routine radiation and contamination surveys had been performed and that the entrances to these areas were posted with the results.
Approximately twenty of the routine surveys (October 19-20) were reviewed by the inspectors and were found to be performed and docu-mented in accordance with procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
_
_
_.
'
.
,
1 5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the following tamporary radiation protection procedures developed for the Unit 3 outage:
Procedure Title Date Issued
-
Instrument Calibration Check October 11, 1977
,
Use of BC-4 Counter October 10, 1977
-
Use of Portable Single Channel October 10, 1977
-
Analyzer for Determination of i
Airborne Iodine
-
Removal of Protective Clothing Cctober 10, 1977 Frisking Instructions October 10, 1977
)
-
Instructions for HP Monitoring October 10, 1977
-
of Personnel for Contamination at the Contractor Frisker Control Point
.
Use of Hand and Foot Monitor October 10, 1977
-
-
Contractor Control Point HP October 10, 1977
'
Instructions The inspector noted that these procedures were developed, reviewed and approved in accordance with Unit 3 Technical Specifications and RS-AD-4, Revision 0, " Temporary Procedures."
It was noted by the inspector that personnel appeared to be following these procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
'
6.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control During tours of the Unit 3 Vapor Containment, Primary Auxiliary Building and controlled areas of Unit 1 and Unit 2, the inspector noted that radioactive material storage appeared to be satisfactory
in relation to control and housekeeping requirements; and radioactive material appeared to be adequately identified and labeled in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203(f).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
.
%
.
.
-
'
'
7.
Posting and Control The inspectors determined from plant tours that controlled areas of the plant were properly posted in regard to high radiation areas, radiation areas and airborne radioactivity areas.
The inspectors interviewed the health physics technician assigned to control access to the Unit 3 Vapor Containment and determined that the individual was aware of his responsibilities and was following plant procedures.
During several visits to the Vapor Containment, the inspectors noted the the licensee was maintaining positive control over each individual entry into the containment where high radiation levels were present.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
8.
Exposure Control Several items were observed or reviewed by the inspector to determine if the licensee had taken appropriate measures to control exposure.
_
a.
At about 9:00 AM, Octo6er 20,1977, a Radiographer requested permission to begin work in an uncontrolled area.
The actions
of the Health Physics 3taff were observed in response to this request.
The Health Physics Staff took the necessary pre-cautions and followed the requirements of procedure RS-GAD-5.
b.
The reactor coolant pump seal replacement task was reviewed and observed by the inspector.
It was noted that the licensee took steps to insure that the task was completed with as low as reasonably achievable dose.
Temporary shielding was installed and measures to minimize contamination continued throughout the job.
The RWP 0929, was properly completed and contained pro-tective measures appropriate for the radiological conditions present.
Surveys specified by the RWP were performed and ap-peared adequate.
The contractor Health Physics Technician as-signed to the task was observed and interviewed by the inspector.
He was knowledgeable of the conditions, requirements and pre-cautions necessary to ensure exposure controls.
Observation of his action in the performance of the job was consistent with good exposure control.
j
.
%
'
.
.
.
c.
During tours of the Vapor Containment, the inspector observed several evidences of the licensee's efforts to control and
.
.
reduce exposure.
Many localized sources of radiation were i
shielded with lead blankets and warning signs affixed. Ac-cumulations of radioactive waste were controlled and general contamination levels were kept to a minimum.
_
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
9.
Planning and Preparation The inspector reviewed the following areas of the licensee's planning and preparation for the current outage:
a.
Health Physics Staffing
.
The Health Physics Staff appeared to be sufficiently augmented by contractor personnel to assure that health physics aspects of the refueling and maintenance operations were adequately covered.
The contracted health physics personnel appeared to be acceptably qualified in regard to previous training and outage experience.
b.
Supplies, Materials and Equipment
'
The inspector reviewed the licensee's available instrumentation, protective clothing and repiratory protection equipment. The supplies of this material appeared to be adequate to cover the demands of the outage.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
,
10.
Training The training and qualification records of Unit 3 contractor Health Physics personnel were reviewed.
a.
The inspector reviewed the resumes of all contractor health physics personnel with respect to the requirements of ANSI N18.1.
.
.
-.
~
.
'
,
a
.
.
.
b.
The inspector reviewed the content of the one week indoctrination course provided by the licensee to the contractor health physics personnel.
The examination administered by the licensee at the conclusion of the course and the results were also reviewed.
c.
The licensee's action based on the test results were reviewad.
The licensee insured that personnel were not assigned positions beyond the level of competendency demonstrated on their examina-tion.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of each period of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee accepted the findings of the inspection.
-
O e
.
.
e v