IR 05000254/1998010
| ML20247D109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1998 |
| From: | Shear G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247D099 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-98-10, 50-265-98-10, NUDOCS 9805140275 | |
| Download: ML20247D109 (17) | |
Text
-
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli Docket Nos:
50-254;50-265 License Nos:
50-254/98010(DRS); 50-265/98010(DRS)
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company i
Facility:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 Location:
22710 206th Avenue North Cordova,IL 61242 Dates:
April 13-17,1998 Inspectors:
R. Paul, Senior Radiation Specialist K. Lambert, Radiatior. Specialist Approved by:
Gary L. Shear, Chief, Plant Support Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety 9805140275 990506 PDR ADOCK 05000254 G
-
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units ' & 2 NRC Inspection Reports 50-254/98010(DRS); 50-265/98010(DRS)
This routine inspection included a review of the liquid and gaseous effluent programs, annual effluent ieport, continuous air and area radiation monitors, and the engineered safety feature filtration system. The inspection also included a review of the circumstances surrounding a contractor individual who had alarmed his electronic dosimeter and did not immediately leave the radiologically posted area. In addition, several open iter: from previous inspections were reviewed and closed.
Radiation protection's response to an individual who ignored ED alarms was
.
considered good and corrective actions were appropriate. One Non-Cited Violation of NRC requirements was identiiied (Section R1.1).
The as-low-as-is-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) plan for the Unit 1 bottom
.
vessel drain line repair was detailed, and included evaluations of the additional I
dose as work progressed. The radiation work plan requirements incorporated ALARA plan contingencies and special instructions. The total dose for the bottom vessel drain line repair appropriately increased due to en expanded
scope of work to include expanding the length of time the freeze seal remained j
in place, and proble ns with installing and welding the replacemerit pipe section (Section R1.2).
The liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring programs were effectively
.
implemented. Effluent monitor operability was good, with calibrations and checks performed in accordance with procedures and at the required frequencies. Effluent release data indicated that releases were well below
,
regulatory limits (Section R1.3).
j The 1996 and 1997 effluent reports were generated in accordance with the
.
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, with the total activity released well below applicable regulatory limits. The reports also appropriately documented any abnormal releases (Section R1.4).
The area radiation monitors (ARM) and continuous air monitors (CAM)
.
calibration, testing, and maintenance program was wellimplemented. However, the ARM trending and component evaluation process, and radiation protection's oversight of changes to the ARM procedures was in need of improvement (Section R2.1).
Radiological postings of equipment and facilities, and labeling of containers were
.
in accordance with procedures. Housekeeping was considered good. Minor inspector identified posting and housekeeping discrepancies were promptly corrected by radiation protection personnel (Section R2.3).
i
-
-
-
.
l Audits of the chemistry and RP programs were sufficiently detailed to identify
.
deficiencies and areas where improvements could be made. Corrective actions for the chemistry audit had been effectively implemented. Radiation protection was developing a corrective action plan for the deficiencies identified in the recently completed RP audit (Section R7.1).
Required surveillance and tests of the engineered safety feature filtration
.
systems were well implemented and performed in accordance with procedures.
The test results indicated that the Technical Specification acceptance criteria were met. The material condition of the filter systems was good (Section R2.2).
i l
.
.
I Report Detads IV. Plant Support R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry (RP&C) Controls R1.1 Personal Electronic Dosimeter Alarm a.
l_nsoection Scone (IP 83750F i
l The inspectors reviewed the circumstances surrounding a contractor's electronic
'
dosimeter (ED) alarm while performing measurements for insulation on the second level of the Unit i drywell on March 20,1998. This included a review of applicable records and discussions with per.onnel.
!
b.
Observations and Findinas L
L The inspectors noted, during a review of the Unit 1 drywell entry log, a writeup regarding l
a contractor insulator whose ED had alarmed. The insulators were measuring for insulation on N8A and N88 Jet pump lines. Due to the high dose rates around the jet l
pump lines, radiation protection (RP) had approved increases to the ED dose rate alarm l
from 300 to 650 milliroentgen per hour (mR/hr) and to the cumulative dose limit from l
100 to 300 mR.' The ED's cumulative dose alarm was to be set at 240 mR,80 percent L
of the cumulative dose limit.
i l
Two contract insulators entered the drywell on March 20,1998 and went to the second
,
level of the Unit 1 drywell. The insulator making the measurements (insulator A) was i
shown the proper location by the second insulator (insulator B), who told insulator A to call for him when he was done insulator B then left the area for a lower dose area.
When insulator A called, insulator B went back up to the second level and showed insulator A the next area to be measured for insulation. During this time, insulator B heard an alarm and after realizing it was not his EO alarming, told insulator A that he i
!
l needed to leave the drywell. Insulator A indicated that he was going to take one more measurement. Insulator B then went down to the drywell entrance to inform the j
radiation protection technicians (RPTs) that insulator A's ED was alarming. The RPTs
'
called for insulator A to come down. When insulator A reached the drywell entrance, the
!
RPTs looked at his ED and noted that it read 104 mR. The individual told the RPTs that
he did not come down when his ED alarmed, because'he knew he was approved for about 200 mR, based on bre-job discussions, and was almost finished with the measurements.
RP reviewed the ED data and noted that the dose rate alarm had been increased to 650 mR/h, but the cumulative alarm set point had not been increased from 80 mR to 240 i
mR, as had been approved. In addition, RP noted that the dose rat 6 alarm had also been activated. The ED data indicated that the individual had entered an area with a dose rate of 868 mR/hr. The licensee concluded that the individualignored the dose
t
,
a
_._
-
.
!
rate and cumulative dose ED alarms. Corrective action taken by the licensee as a result was to ben the individual f.om working in the radiologically posted area (RPA) at the station. The licensee also informed the Dresden Nuclear Station of the incident, since the individual had received his nuclear general employee training (NGET) there on March 2,1998. The inspectors' review of the incident concluded that RP's response to l
the incident was good and did not disagree with the licensee's corrective actions.
!
l Quad Cities Administrative Procedure, QCAP 0650-06, Revision 6," Unescorted Access l
& Conduct in Radiologically Posted Areas," requires that individuals issued EDs should j
verify that alarm set points have been properly adjusted by RP, and if the ED starms to leave the area immediately and contact RP supervision. The failure of the individual to i
verify the correct alarm set points and the failure to leave the area immediately upon receiving an alarm was a violation of procedure QCAP 0650-06. This non-repetitive, licensee-identified and corrected violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation,
!
consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy l
(NCV 50-254/98010-01(DRS),50 265/98010-01(DRS).
I l
c.
Conclusions j
RP's response to an individual who ignmed ED alarms was considered good and
corrective actions were appropriate. O,.., Non-Cited Violation of NRC requirements was l
identified.
R1.2 Bottom Vessel Drain Line Reoair a.
Insoection Scone (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the ALARA plan, radiation work permit, and the post job review of the Unit i bottom vessel drain line repair performed during April 1998. The review also included discussions with cognizant radiation protection personnel.
b.
Observations and Findings I
Based on discussions with RP personnel, the bottom vessel drain line repair included establishing a freeze seal on the two-inch diameter drain line, cutting out the leaking section, and installing and welding a new section of pipe in place. Due to the high dose rates and contamination levels in the area of the drain line, a detailed ALARA plan was
,
'
developed. The ALARA plan estimated a total dose for the project of eight person-rem based on the work plan and radiological surveys of the work area. During subsequent work plan reviews and discussions, a conservative safety decision was made by cperations to install a plug in the bottom of the reactor vessel at the drain line. Eel re the plug could be installed, the bottom vessel drain line freeze seal was to be insts.ied.
This decision required that the freeze seal be in place for approximately two weeks instead of the originally planned two days. According to an ALARA amendment, maintaining the freeze seal for two weeks would add four person-rem to the original dose estimate, for a total dose estimate of 12 person-rem.
.
.
The ALARA plan was amended two additional times to account for dose increases due to problems installing and welding the replacement section of pipe. The leak was along a curved section of the drain line. When the pipe was cut, the amount of pipe spring was much greater than anticipated, requiring extensive efforts to shim the pipe in place for welding. Additionally, the space between the drain line and a structural beam prevented the remotely operated automatic welder from making a complete pass on the first weld, requiring the weld head to be manually adjusted. These two problems
,
combined to add approximately six person-rem to the dose estimate, for a total dose of 18 person-rem. The maximum exposure to an individual was 1.4 rem, with 13 individuals receiving more than 500 millirem (mrem) expost.re for their involvement with the project. The remaining individuals involved with the project received between 1 and 461 mrem.
The RWP provided special monitoring requirements, instructions for HPTs and workers, and included contingency plans and specialinstructions from the AL ARA plan. Before
<
each entry into the under vessel area, a pre-job briefing was performed. The post job review was self critical providing discussion of good performance and of areas where performance could be improved. Communication and good support by all work groups were evident. In addition, lessons leamed were incorporated into the post job review.
c.
conclusions The ALARA plan for the Unit 1 bottom vessel drain line repair was detailed, and included evaluations of the additional dose as work progressed. The radiation work plan requirements incorporated ALARA plan contingencies and specialinstructions. The total dose for the bottom vessel drain line repair increased due to an expanded scope of work to include expanding the length of time the freeze seal remained in place, an; problems with installing and welding the replacement pipe section.
R1.3 Llauid and Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Proarams a.
Insoection Scooe (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the gaseous and liquid effluent control programs. This review included effluent results, effluent control instruments, monitor calibrations and alarm set points, monitor operability and material condition, and several liquid effluent batch releases. In addition, the review included discussions with system engineering, chemistry, and radiat!on protection personnel.
b.
Observations and Findings There were no significant changes in the licensee's liquid and gaseous effluent systems as described in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As described in the UFSAR, plant liquids were primarily processed and reclaimed by using filters and resin beds. Liquid effluent releases consisted primarily of batch releases from the radioactive waste facility. In addition, the Units 1 and 2 service water discharge pipes were considered effluent
.
pathways and were also continuously monitored. The Units 1 and 2 off-gas, turbine ventilation air, and the effluent from the stand by gas traatment system were discharged through the main chimney. A reactor building ventilation stack provided the discharge point for the reactor buildings ventilation exhausts. Moritoring of gaseous effluents was l
accomplished by continuously monitoring the exhausts f rom the station chimney and from the Unit 1 and 2 reactor buildings ventilation exhau st ducts, Release data for both gaseous and liquid effluents, including liquid batch releases from radwaste were reviewed. Quantification of liquid and gaseous discharges were completed in accordance with the ODCM and appropriate procedures, with no problems
identified. Effluent data indicated that releases were well below annual regulatory release limits.
The inspectors also reviewed several calibration records and alarm set points for the
,
'
gaseous and liquid effluent monitors inciuding a review of applicable calibration procedures. Calibrations, daily checks, and quarterly checks were performed in accordance with the applicable procedures and at the required frequencies. Monitor alarm set points were established using the ODCM methodology. The inspectors noted good agreement between the effluent monitors control panel measurements and control room chart recorder data.
During walkdowns of the effluent monitors, the inspectors noted that the material condition of monitors and associated equipment was good. Few work request tags were observed on the various equipment. Records of monitor availability, for the gaseous
l effluent monitors and the radwaste liquid effluent monitor, indicated few operability
!
problems over the past year. These monitors were only out of service for calibrations, checks and planned maintenance. The operability of the service water monitors was
,
also good. However, the service water monitors operability was affected by low flow
)
conditions due to both units being shut down for an extended period. During low flow
'
conditions, the monitors were declared out of service and appropriate compensatory actions were implemented.
c.
Conclusions The liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring programs were effectively implemented.
Effluent monitor operability was good, with calibrations and checks performed in accordance with procedures and at the required frequencies. Effluent release data indicated that releases were well,below regulatory limits.
R1.4 Radioactive Effluents a.
losoection Scone (IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's effluent reports for 1996 and 1997, the monthly effluent data for 1997, and the ODCM. The review included discussions with personnel involved with generating the effluent reports.
-
.
l l
. b.
Observations and Findings In 1996, the technical Specification for semiannual effluent reports was amended to I
require only an annual report. The 1997 effluent report was the first annual report issued by the station. The 1996 and 1997 reports were generated in accordance with I
the ODCM. Through discussions, the inspectors noted that the chemistry personnel
- -
responsible for generating the effluent report were knowledgeable of the process and l
were effectively tracking effluent activity released. In addition, the licensee appropriately
)
,
'
reported abnormal releases in the annual effluent report. These releases included i
L approximately 1000 gallons of contaminated turbine oil to the waste water treatment
!
plant identified in March 1997, and a Unit 2 fuel leak, which was repaired in September 1997 when the appropriate fuel bundle was replaced. The total activity released in 1996 and 1997 was low and was well below applicable regulatory requirements.
p c.
Conclusions
l.
The 1996 and 1997 effluent reports were generated in accordance with the ODCM, with j
'
the total activity released well below applicable regulatory limits. The reports also i
documented any abnormal releases as required.
R2 Status of RP&C Facilities and Equipment D
R2.1 Review of Area Radiation and Continuous Air Monitors l
a.
Insoection Scone (IP 83750)
i
~
The inspectors reviewed the operability of the area radiation and continuous air monitors (ARMS and CAMS). The review included selected calibration and maintenance records, in-field observallons, interviews with applicable personnel, and the applicable requirements in the UFSAR and Technical Specifications.
b.
Observations and Findings
!..
The ARMS and CAMS monitor plant radiologicallevels and provide early notification of elevated radiation levels. The ARMS constitute a fixed,'in-place network with each'
specific monitor location and expected background radiation levels described in the j
UFSAR. The CAMS were not similarly described in the UFSAR and were placed at the discretion of radiation protection or plant chemistry personnel. The instrument maintenance group performs the calibration and routine maintenance of the ARMS, and I
tha chemistry department provides the calibrations of the CAMS. The inspectors noted j'
that there was no specific RP oversight of the ARMS.
During a review of the 1996 and 1997 ARM calibration and functional test resuits, the
_
inspectors noted that several instruments were found outside the acceptable "as found" tolerance limits. At least two of tne ARMS (station ARMS 8 and 11) were slightly out of tolerance in both 1996 and 1997. When the APMs were found out of tolerance, instrument maintenance adjusted the "as found reading back within the tolerance limits
<
]
-
.
and then initiated a problem identification fo.m (PlF) to document the findings. The PIF was used for several purposes: to trend instrument performance; as a mochanism to address component functionality; and provided the document from which component Information is entered into a tracking data base.
It was further noted that 1997 PlFs for ARM functional problems, had not been entered into the data base or evaluated to determine if those ARMS were found out of tolerance during calibrabns in 1996. The PlFs were scheduled to be entered into the data base by September 1998. This matter was discussed with the licensee who indicated that the station was developing an ARM data tracking and component evaluation procedure. RP has also initiated a review matrix change request to ensure that RP will evaluate ARM procedural changes initiated by other departments.
During plant walkdowns, the inspectors observed ARMS and CAMS in good operating condition and evidence of routine surveillance activities by plant personnel. For selected monitors, the inspectors verified that the location, background radiation levels and remote (control room) and local (if applicable) indications were as described in the UFSAR.
,
During a previous inspection, (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-254/97003, 50-265/97003) the following problems were noted: the licensee could not readily provide the basis for certain ARM alarm set points; the weekly requirement for -
replacement of filter papers was not listed on the weekly surveillance check sheet (However, the weekly replacement of filter papers was being performed); an equation in a continuous air monitor and calibration procedure incorrectly calculated radioactive decay (Calculations were performed with the correct equation); and several examples of missing data in CAM source check and sample logbook entries. Since then, the licensee had developed a technical basis for the ARM set points. The set points had been evaluated by RP and were determined to be consistent with the appropriate ragulatory guides, station procedures, and plant radiation conditions. Also during this i
inspection, it was noted that the weekly surveillance requirement for replacement of the filter papers was placed into the surveillance check sneet, and the equation to correct for radioactive decay was revised in the above noted procedure, c.
Conclusions
,
The ARM and CAM calibration, testing, and maintenance program was well implemented. However, the ARM trending and component evaluation process and RP oversight of changes to the ARM procedures were in need of improvement.
R2.2 Review of Habitability Systems (IP 8475M The inspectors reviewed the licensee's results for the most recently performed standby gas treatment (SBGTS) and control ream emergency ventilation (CREVS) systems tests, including in place charcoal adsorber leak tests, charcoal canister lodine absorption tests, and in-place testing of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The test results were within the TS limits and were performed using proper industry standards.
I
-
..
l r
f During plant walkdowns, the inspectors no'ed that the above systems were maintained in good material condition. The inspectors also observed selacted portions of routine I
maintenance on the Unit 2 SBGTS and no problems were identified with the work.
Required surveillance and tests of the engineered safety feature filtration systems were well implemented and performed in accordance with procedures, and the test results indicated that the TS acceptance criteria were met. The material condition of the filter l
systems was good.
R2.3 Radiological Posting and I abelina of Facilities and Eauioment a.
Insoection (IP 8375Q)
!
Several inspections of the reactor, turbine, and laundry-tool decon (LTD) buildings were l
performed to review housekeeping practices, and posting and labeling.
l l
b.
Qkservations and Findings Radiological housekeeping in the reactor, turbine and LTD buildings was generally good.
l The inspectors observed that the housekeeping in the LTD maintenance shop was i
improved over previous inspections. Several minor housekeeping inconsistencies were I
brought to the attention of RP, which were promptly corrected. Containers were
!
' appropriately labeled and the labels contained the appropriate information.
Radiological postings were generally good and in accordance with station procedures and regulatory requirements. Tho inspectors determined through independent measurements that radiation areas and high radiation areas were appropriately posted in accordance with station procedures and regulatory requirements.
However, the inspectors observed that the gate across the Unit 1 equipment hatch was pushed out and up against the hatch obscuring the radiological posting. The inspectors discussed this issue with RP management, who indicated that additional postings were added to the gate. RP management also indicated, per station procedures, that posting may be limited to entrances to radiologically posted arees. Since the gate was locked, RP did not consider this area to be an entrance. The inspectors reviewed the procedures and TS for inconsistencies. The inspectors noted that while the TS i
indicated that each high radiation area shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted, the procedures only required posting entrances. The procedures further stated that placement of postings for RPAs enclosed by walls, fences, shielding, or containments may be limited to entrances to the RPA with approval frorn RP supervision. RP management indicated it would review posting procedures and the TS for discrepancies, and make changes based on their review if deerned necessary.
. c.
Conclusions Radiological postings of equipment and facilities and labeling of containers were in accordance with procedures. Housekeeping was considered good. Minor inspector
e
-
.
i j
identified posting and housekeeping discrepancies were promptly correct by RP personnel.
!
l R7 Quality Assurance in RP&C activities R7.1 RP&C Deoartment Audits a.
Insoection Scoce (IP 83750/IP 84750)
The inspectors reviewed a February 1997 audit of the chemistry program regarding i
!
liquid and gaseous effluents, the ODCM, process control program, radiological i
environmental monitoring program, and radioactive waste shipping. The inspectors also i
l reviewed the preliminary audit findings for a recently completed corporate audit of the RP program.
l b.
Observationtand_Eindings The chemistry department audit determined that the ODCM, radiological environmental monitoring program, the process control program, and the shipping of radioactive waste l
were effectively implemented. However, the audit identified several deficiencies l
including the material condition and housekeeping at the meteorological tower, and
'
discrepancies in procedures for the collection of river discharge tank sample. The chemistry department appropriately evaluated the audit findings and implemented corrective actions.
l The inspectors also reviewed a draft report of a corporate audit of the RP program l
completed in March 1998. Audit members included station quality assurance l
individuals, corporate individuals, and an individual from a nuclear power facility outside the Comed system. The audit identified deficiencies in each of the following areas:
j adherence to the corporate radiation protection procedures; control of radioactive j
materials; container !abeling; instrument calibrations; and the lead shielding program.
l Discussions with RP management indicated that a corrective action plan was being developed to address the deficiencies and would be implemented once approved, c.
Conclusions Audits of the chemistry and RP programs were sufficiently detailed to identify
,
deficiencies and areas where improvements could be made. Corrective actions for the chemistry audit had been effectively implemented. Radiation protection was developing a corrective action plan for the deficiencies identified in the recently completed RP audit.
R8 Miscellaneous RP&C issues R8.1 (Closed) Violation 50-254/265-94021-01: Failure to ensure that byproduct material was controlled, possessed, and used in accordance with the terms of the license. Corrective actions for the violation included the following: removing strontium check sources from unrestricted use in the plant; inventorying and evaluating all non-fixed sources from the
_
-
.
plant; placing an article in the station newspaper on expectations for employee conduct; and revising the contractor orientation and new station employee training to include the event in which a radioactive source was inappropriately used in addition, the station enhance <. the general employeo training, upgraded controls of all radioactive sources, and provided lessons-learned from this event to all other Commonwealth Edison (Comed) sites. These corrective actions were reviewed by the inspectors and they appear to have been effective; no similar incidents have occurred since they were taken.
This item is closed.
R8.2 (Closed) Violation 50-254/265-94021-02: Failure to perform an adequate survey of a person who had a radioactive source in their back pocket to assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.1201 which limits, in part, the annual shallow-dose equivalent to the skin of 50 rems. Corrective actions included briefing the RPTs on the guidelines for response to a contamination event, incorporating contamination response guidance into procedure QCRP 5720-04, and providing lessons learned to all Comed sites. In addition, system-wide enhancements were undertaken to strengthen the training for RPTs, including contractors. Training was also given on procedures QCRP 5770-04 " Personnel Decontamination," RPT 97-1 " Personnel decontamination," and RPT 95-2 " Source Leak Test and inventory." These corrective actions were reviewed by the inspectors and appear to have been effective in preventing recurrence. This item is closed.
R8.3 { Closed) Violation 50-254/265-98002-01: Failure to follow procedures requiring that face shields used in posted contaminated areas be issued by the radiation protection department. The corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence included clarifying the requirements for the issuance and use of face shields in the Comed Radworker Handbook, training site radworkers on the issuance and use of face shields, and distributing and accounting for face shields by the maintenance department. The inspectors verified the changes made in the handbook and reviewed the signature logs by those workers v.ho had attended the training sessions. This item is closed.
X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the
!
conclusion of the inspection on April 17,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify any items discussed as proprietary.
-___-_.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee P. Behrens, Chemistry Supervisor
!
L. Pearce, Station Manager S. Perry, Vice-President Boiling Water Reactors C. Peterson, Regulatory Affairs Manager l
G. Powell, Superintendent Radiation Protection & Chemistry W. Schmidt, ALARA Coordinator R. Svaleson, Operations Manager NBC C. Miller, Senior Resident inspector K. Selburg, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
!
l IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 84750 Radiological Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring IP 92904 Followup - Plant Support I
i l
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
'
Ooened
50-254/265-98010-01 NCV Failure of an Individual to verify his ED alarm set
'
points before entering the RPA, and the failure to i
leave the RPA when his ED alarmed.
Closed 50-254/265-94021-01 NOV Failure to ensure that byproduct material was I
controlled, and was possessed and used in j
accordance with the terms of the license.
50-254/265-94021-02 NOV Failure to perform an adequate survey of a person who had a radioactive source in their back pocket to assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.1201 which limits, in part, the annual shallow-dose equivalent j
to the skin to 50 rems.
s 50-254/265-98002-01 NOV Failure to follow procedures requiring face shields
that were found in a posted contaminated area that
'
l i
j
..
.
.
.
...- --..-
. -.
-.
.
....
.
..
.
-
!
l were not issued by the Radiation Protection Department.
50-254/265-98010-01 NCV Failure of an individual to verify his ED alarm set points before entering the RPA, and the failure to leave the RPA when his ED alarmed.
Discussed None
.i
!
,
a i
s l
e l-i
!
!
!
l
14
j
-
.
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable ARM-Area Radiation Monitors CAM Continuous Air Monitors Comed Commonwealth Edison CREVS Control Room Emergency Ventilation System ED Electronic Dosimeters HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air.
l LTD Laundry-Tool Decon NCV Non-Cited Violation NGET Nuclear General Employee Training NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual PlF Problem Identification Form
'
l RP Radiation Protection l
i RPA Radiologically Posted Area RPT Radiation Protection Technician RWP Radiation Work Permit SBGTS Standby Gas Treatment System UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report VIO Violation
!
l l
!
!
)
i
'
'
-
.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Audit Report for REMP/ODCM/PCP/RW Shipping, dated March 18,1996.
PIF No. Q1993-01441, Poor Radworker Practice QCAP 0620-01, Revision 9, "
QCCP 0300-02, Unit %, Revision 6," Radioactive Liquid Discharge Batch Analysis QCCP 0300-03, Unit %, Revision 4, " Liquid Effluent Monitors Alarm Setpoints" QCCP 0300-07, Unit %, Revision 5, " DAM 4/3 Calibration" QCCP 0300-10, Unit %, Revision 4, "G.E. Noble Gas Monitor Discriminator Setpoint" QCCP 0300-17, Unit %, Revision 2,"G.E. Noble Gas Monitor Efficiency Calibration"
!
QCCP 0400-18, l'.it %, Revision 5,"SPING 3/4 Calibration" l
'
QCCP 0400-25, Unit %, Revision 4, " Main Chimney & Reactor Vent Noble Gas Release Rate Action Levels" l
l QCTS 0430-02, Unit %, Revision 2, " Standby Gas Treatment System in Place DOP Leak test of I
the HEPA Filters"
,
QCTS 0430-03, Unit %, Revision 3, " Standby Gas Treatment System in place Charcoal Adsorber Freon 11 Leak Test"
!
QCTS 0430-05, Unit %, Revision 5," Standby Gas Treatment System Removal of Charcoal j
Adsorber Test Canister" l
QCTS 0440-01, Unit %, Revision 1," Control Room HVAC Air Filtration unit in-Place DOP Leak Test of the HEPA Air Filters" QCTS 0440-02, Unit %, Revision 2, "C7ntrol Room HVAC Air Filtration Unit in place Charcoal Adsorber Leak rate Test" QCTS 0440-03, Unit %, Revision 4, " Control Room Emergency Filtration System Removal of Charcoal Adsorber Test Canister" QCCP 1200-05 "NMC AM-2D Continuous Air Monitor" QCCP 1200 n4, Revision 3,"NMC Continuous Air Monitor and Calibration" QCTS 420-1, Revision 1,"TSC/HRSS In-Place Charcoal Adsorber Leak Rate Test"
I
.
.
OCTS 420-3, Revision 1,"TSC/HRSS Air Filtration Unit Removal Of Charcoal Adsorber Test Canisters" l
QCIPM 1800-04, Revision 2,"Numac Area Rad Monitor Calibration" QCIPM 1800-05, Revision 2,"Eberline ARM calibration" QCIS 100-08, Revision 6, " Reactor Building Ventilation and Fuel Pool Radiation Monitoring Functional Test And Fuel Pool Radiation Monitoring Setpoint Adjustment" QCIS 1700-07, Revision 5, " Reactor Building Ventilation and Fuel Pool Radiation Monitoring Calibration And FunctionalTest" OlS 0038-01, Revision 5," Chimney Gas Monitoring Calibration" RWP No. 981025, Revision 1, U-1 Drywell: 01R15 WAlkdowns (Q1PO1)
Technical Specifications, Sections 3/4.8; 6.8; 6.9; 6.11; 6.12; 6.13; and 6.14 17