IR 05000043/1976009
| ML20050D022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, 05000043  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1976 |
| From: | Knapp P, Neely D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050D017 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-003-76-09, 50-3-76-9, NUDOCS 8204090483 | |
| Download: ML20050D022 (8) | |
Text
.
...
. _. _.,
(
(
-
,
..
-
NOTICE
.
a 12
,
(Rev)
AS OF _
TCT 5 1976 REGION 1 HAS fl0T OBTA!NED PROPRIETARY CLEARANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CTR 2790
-
,
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:CIISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDtENT
REGION I
50-003
.
50-003/76-09
.
50-247 50-247/76-21
_ Docket No:
,
DPR-5 rection Report No:
License No: DPR-26 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
'
g;
--
__ Priority:
4 Irving Place e
_ Category:
Safeguards
__
' Group:
..
Buchanan, New York
',
- on
PWR, 2758 MWt (W)
__
'
pf Licensee: _
'
Routine, Unannounced pf Incpection:
_
'
September 13-16, 1976
-
lof Inspection:
50-003/ August 23-26, 1976 0 1976 of Previous I
. _ lon:wn ?l.7 /Anence 40-Sentenber 2 and September 1,
'
-
N.
{O" l -[4
>
Me% #
DATE '
.
sting Inspector:
D. R7 Neely, Radiation Specialgt
~.
panying Inspectors:
__
-
DATE -
.
DATE
-
_
~
DATE pr coripanying Per
}
IB - \\ - 7A
-
Na%Q
_
DATE P. J. Knapp, Chief. Radiation Suppkb Section dewed By Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
!
'
8204090483 761005
'
gDRADOCK 05000003 PDR t __
..
.
.
l
.
'
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Enforcement Action f
-
l Itemo of Noncompliance
!'
.
,
A.
Violations _
None.
B.
Infractions I
.
Technical Specification 4.11.A.4 requires that the liquid vaste discharge monitor be calibrated at least quarterly by means of a check source and annually with a known radioactive source.
28, 1975 to Contrary to the above, during the period Februaryan annual calibration using a k March 11, 1976, source was not performed on the liquid waste discharge monitor.
(Details, 4)
-
C.
Deficiencies
.,
t None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action
.
t Not inspected.
-
D sign Changes Not inspected.
.
Licensee Events
'
Not inspected.
.
-
Other Significant Findings
!
A.
Current Findings _
l
,
i 1.
Acceptable Areas _
.
No inadequacies were identified during inspection of the following areas:
_ _ _ _ _
_
.
.
(
i
.
.
.
,
-2-m
'
Radioactive Effluent Releases Liquid and' Gaseous a.
b.
Records and Reports of Radioactive Effluents I
c.
Testing of Containment Air Cleaning Systems
d.
Reactor Coolant Water Quality c.
Solid Radioactive Waste l
I f.
Effluent Control Instrumentation
!
g.
Procedures for Controlling the Release of Effluents
-
2.
Unresolved Items
!
None.
-
-
,
3.
Infraction Identified by the Licensee Contrary to Technical Specification 6.11, radiation protection procedures were not followed on September 7, 1976, when ;n individual whose film badge had been removed for evaluation and who was restricted from entering the Controlled Area, entered the Unit 2 Vapor Containment using another individual's j
film badge.
(Details, 5)
i.
-
4.
Deviations None.
B.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items Not inspected.
,
Management Interview A management interview was conducted at Buchanan, New York (site) on September 16, 1976.
'
'
Pnraons Present E. F. Kessig, Acting Manager, Nuclear Power Generation R. W. VanWyck, Manager, Nuclear Services
'
T. M. Law, Manager, Qual.ity Assurance J. Mckepeace, Director, Technical Engineering
P. Epson, Quality Assurance Monitoring and Review L. J, Kawula, Test Engineer
-
-,
---
-
- -. - -
- - _
__
-
_
.
~
t
.
-
,
.
.
"
.
t-3
i
i
-
Items Discussed
.
,
.
.
,
l A.
Purpose of the Inspection
!
t The inspector stated that the purpose of the inspection was to
review the Unit 1 and Unit.2 Radioactive Waste Management System.
f.
.
.
B.
Acceptable Areas
!
)
The items discussed are as identified under the "Other Significant Findings" section df this report.
C.
Items of Noncompliance
!
The items discussed are as identified under the " Enforcement
Action" section of this report.
'
,
i
.
l
,
I i
.
,
!
{
.
i
!
'
,
.
i a
E I
-
i i
i l
.. _ _
_
.., _..-...
.,
..
__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
.
...
.
.
.
.
(
,
(
-
,
'
.
'
~
.
'
I
,
-
,
.
DETAILS i
I 1.
Persons Contacted
,
i R. VanWyck, Manager, Nuclear Services i
J. Kelly, Station Chemistry Director l-T. Nespoli, Operations Engineer - Unit 2
J. Cullen, Director, Health Physics j
G. Liebler, Radiological Engineer i
J. Perrotta, Health Physics Supervisor
.
I P. Gaudio, Health Physics S'upervisor
.
M. Anderson, Watch Foreman
J. Higgins, General Supervisor, Chemistry
W. Carson, Test Engineer
-
C. Cuputo, Test Engineer L. Kawula, Test Engineer J. Odendahl, Senior Electrical Technician, Radiation Safety Steward 2.
Scope of the Inspection
.
The scope of the inspection consisted of a routine review of the l
operation of the radioactive vaste systc=s, specifically, radic-active effluent release records, effluent control instrumentation,
!
procedures, containment air cleaning systems, solid waste shipments,
.
and reactor coolant water quality.
3.
Plant Records i
The inspector reviewed the following records for the periods indicated and found that they appeared to be acceptable.
,
a.
Radioactive Waste Shipment Records, 2/2/76 - 9/10/76 b.
Liquid Waste Discharge Permits, 8/1/75 - 7/27/76 c.
Gaseous Waste Release Permits, 8/1/75 - 8/28/76
,
,
!
d.
Solid Waste Isotopic Analysis, 7/75 - 6/76 j
e.
Reactor Coolant Water Quality, 9/1/75 - 9/13/76-j f.
Radioactive Release Reports, Liquid and Gaseous, 7/1/75 -
'
6/30/76 g.
Containment A1.r Cleaning Systems, Periodic Tests, 7/30/75 -
.
8/10/76 l
h.
Periodic Smear Tests of Sealed Sources, 7/30/75 - 7/15/76 l'
i.
Process Monitor Calibration and Functional Tests, Unit 1
.
t 7/15/75 - 9/13/76
!
j.
Process Monitor Functional Tests, Unit 2, 2/28/75 - 7/28/76 k.
Process Monitor Calibration Checks, Unit 2, 3/76 - 6/76
~
.
v w
n.
,n4
-
--
--_,w--
r
,
,..,,..
, -.
e w
. - -,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
!
,
.
.
.
-5-
.
.
4.
Effluent Monitor Calibration Unit 2 Technical Specification 4.11.A 4, requires that the liquid least quarterly by means waste dipcharge monitor be calibrated at of a check source and annually with a known radioactive source.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector reviewed efflu-ent control instrument records for the period February 28, 1975 to March lik 1976 which indicated that the required annual calibration using a known radioactive source was*not performed on the liquid i
waste discharge monitor (R-18).
The inspector asked the licensee representative why the liquid waste discharge monitor was not cali-The licensee brated annually using a known radioactive source.
representative stated that the program for surveillance requirements had been established using Table 4.1-1 " Minimum Frequencies for Checks, Calibrations, and Tests of Instrument Channels", of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications, as the basis for minimum sur-Table 4.1-1 does not specify a requirement veillance requirements.
for an annual calibration using a known radioactive source for the liquid waste discharge conitor. The inspector noted that the annual calibration requirement was located in 4.11.A.4 " Radioactive Materials", of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
The licensee representative stated that he had not realized that the annual calibration was required; and noted that as a result of using Table 4.1-1, a calibration would have been performed during refueling.
The licensee representative stated that recently issued (December i
Environmental Technical Specifications for Unit 3 require I
12, 1975)
I the liquid waste discharge monitor to be calibrated with a radio-I active source o'f known activity on a quarterly basis and that since
.
the initial criticality of Unit 3 in April 1976, the licensee has elected to perform the calibration of the Unit 2 liquid waste
.
The discharge monitor on a quarterly basis instead of annually.
licensee representative stated that the Unit 2 liquid waste dis-charge monitor (R-18) was calibrated using a known radioactive source at the end of March, 1976 and in June, 1976.
The inspector reviewed the calibration records for March, 1976 and June, 1976 and found the results to be satisfactory.
The licensee's current surveillance practice should prevent re-I
,
currence of this item.
The inspector had no further questions f
regarding this matter.
!
l l
i
<
. -.
-
i I
(
.
-
,
,
,
'
-6-
~
.
5.
Licensee Identified Item of Noncompliance i
.
Technical Specification 6.11 requires that proce'dures 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.
l
Station Administrative Order No.120, Revision 3, " Control of j
Personnel Whole Body Radiation and Airborne Radiation Exposure -
'
Issuance of Film Badges," dated August 30, 1974, requires that when an individual's indicated exposure (as shown by dosimeter readings)
reaches 1250 mrem for a quarter or 5000 mrem for the year, the
-
individual shall be restricted from further entry into the Con-
!.
trolled Area until the exposure is verified.
In addition, General Administrative Directive RS-GAD-2, Revision 1,
" Radiological Health'and Safety Procedures," dated February 24, 1975 was issued in accord with the Technical Specification Require-ments.
It requires that all employees comply with safety rules. A
.
I specific requirement, 7.1.18, states, "Do not use, or otherwise improperly handle, any other individual's exposure monitoring
--
device."
Contrary to the above, on September 7, 1976, an individual whose film badge had been removed for evaluation and who was restricted from entering the Controlled Area, entered the Unit 2 Vapor Con-l tainment using another individual's film badge.
This item of noncompliance was reported to the Region I Office by telephone on September 8, 1976. The details concerning this item
'
(
.
were discussed with the Indian Point Project Inspector.
,
During the course of inspection, September 13-16, 1976, the in-l spector reviewed,the above described item of noncompliance.
l It was stated to the inspector by a licensee representative that on i
l September 5, 1976, the individual's accumulated indicated exposure (as shown by dosimeter readings) was 1280 mrem.
The individual's film badge was removed for exposure verification (film badge readout) at i he was restricted from further entry into the Con-i trolled Area.
j
On September 7, 1976 at approximately 4:00 p.m. the individual was asked by his supervisor where a piece of equipment was located.
,
The individual told his supervisor that the equipment vas located
'
in the Unit 2 Vapor Containment, outside the Crane Wall.
A short l
I
.
..
,
C'
(
-
-
.
.
-7-time later, the individual's supervisor exited the Controlled Area (Unit 2 Vapor Containment) and informed the individual that he could not locate the equipment. At this point, the individual i
using!another employee's film badge, entered the Unit 2 Vapor Containment to locate the equipment.
,
!
The individual stated to the licensee representative that he knew wherethe equipment was located, that he made the entry in a minimum amount of time and that he did not think of the problems involved as a result of his entry into the Controlled Area.
The licensee representative stated that on September 7, 1976 at approximately 7:35 p.m. he explained to the individual that his actions were in violation of station procedures and that all procedures must be followed. The individual said that it would never happen again.
,
The film badge belonging to another employee was immediately
. I
-
processed for exposure evaluation.
The film badge results were reported as minimal.
The licensee representative stated to the inspector that additional management action is being considered in regard to this matter.
.-
The inspector had no further questions in regard to this matter at this time.
-
.
.
.
%
e t
I,,
-
e
%
l
l
.
-