IR 05000289/1975028
| ML19256D546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1975 |
| From: | Meyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D542 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-29, NUDOCS 7910190503 | |
| Download: ML19256D546 (12) | |
Text
-
.
.
..
-
.
.
IE:I Form 12 T
~
'
~
(Jan 75) (Rev)
O
'
'
'
(
'
b
'
' '
.
,
,
\\.-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CC.' MISSION
z..
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDIENI
.
,
.
-
.
.
-
,'
REGION I.
..
-
.,
.
2 Inspection Report No:
5'0-289/75-28 Docket No:
_50-289
- *
',1c ensee :
Eetrop'olitan Edison Comoany License No:
DPR-50 P. O. Box 542
~
Priora.ty:
Reading, Pennsylvania Category:
C
.
Safeguards Group:
ocation:
ns, go m1, T.1 3,,,4
w u 3,,,,.
,
e,,.,, e..,.., u,
ype of Licensee:
PWR 2535 we niu3
.'
Ja of Inspection:
Routine, Health Phvstes
.
_
'f Inspection:
November 25-26 1975
s
'
-
" " " '
.
- of Previous In ion:
November 17-21. 1975
"
.
.
\\
' '
M
/
/
2 porting Inspector:
'N)
s*
A (L/Zi/75-
'.
.
"
,
R. J. Meyer, Radiation * Specialist
/ DATE
- companying Inspectors:
NONE
.
.
DATE y::
h DATE e
DATE
- hcr Accompany 1n rsonnel:
NONE
-
DATE
- viewed By:
W.-
/J Q !7 5
..
P. D. Knapp, Sectioit Leader, Fuel Facil2.ty
/DATE and Material Safety Branch 1451 235
.
$
/
-
'
7910190
_
'
-
,
,
-
.
.
.
, $ h.
.
,
.
.
m e
,
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncomoliance
.
m.
1.
Violations None 2.
Infractions
,
Failure to survey in accordance with 10 CFR 20.201(b)
(Details, Paragraphs 10.a-b).
3.
Deficiencies
..
None Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Action A.
Inspection Report 50-289/75-08
.
---
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions relating to emergency kit inventories and found it to be in accordance with.that described in the licensee's letter, R. C. Arnold to Paul R. Nelson, dated June 16, 1975.
Inventories and readiness checks (monthly) have been performed in accordance with Procedure HPP-1778 dated May 20, 1975.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
B.
Inspection Recort 50-289/75-16 The inspector reviewed *.he licensee's corrective actions relating to the alarm setpoint o.1 the Liquid Uaste Monitor and found it to in accordance with that described in the licensee's letter,
'
R. C. Arnold to Paul R. Nelson, dated September 16, 1975.
The b
inspector had no further questions at this time.
(Details. Paragraphs b
9.d-e).
U Design Changes A.
Variable Alarm Setpoint Modification, RM-L6.
(Details, Paragraph 9.d).
B.
Sample Chamber Flushing, RM-L6.
(Details, Paragraph 9.d).
~
1451 236
-
..
.
.
.-
.
.
-3-
-
/
d.
Gamma Monitoring of Gas From Condenser Vacuum Pump.
(Details, Paragraphs 6.a-c).
e.
Air Sample Analysis for Iodine - 131.
(Details, Paragraphs 7.a-b).
~
wa f.
Secondary System Iodine - 131 Activit,r.
(Details, Paragraphs 8.a-c).
-
2.
Unresolved Items
"
.
None 3.
Open Items
..
None
.
4.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by Licensee
a.
Infractions (1)
Failure to follow the requirements of Technical Specification 6.6.2.a., Reportable Event A0 50-289/75-26,
_,,,
'
i dated October 29, 1975.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.a-d).
_
(2)
Failure to follow Operating Procedure as required
.
by Tecnnical Specification 6.2.3 Reportable Event No.. A0 50-289/75-41, dated Nove=ber 24, 1975.
(Details, Paragraphs 11.a-b).
.
b.
Deficiencies
^'7..
..
None
B.
Status of Previcusiv Unresolved Items (Reference Insoection Renotts 50-289/75-06 ana 75-17)
The licensee's evaluation of radiation monitor annunciator delays has been completed.
This matter is considered resolved.
(Details, Paragraphs 12.a-b).
.,,
Management Interview The following individuals attended the m aagement interview at the conclusion of the inspection on November 26, 1975.
.,
1451 237
.6.-
.
.
,
,
,
--
,
.
.
-4-
J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent
__
R. Dubiel, Project Engineer
==
The following subjects were discussed:
A.
The inspector described the scope of the inspection and identified
~~
the areas in which no items of noncompliance had been noted as
"
described under Acceptable Areas, Summary of Findings Section of this report.
~
B.
Th'e inspector described one item of noncompliance relating to failure to survey.in accordance with 10 CFR 20.201(b).
(Details, Paragraphs 10.a-b).
~
C.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed corrective actions relating'to previously identified items of noncompliance a d findings were as noted below:
.
" *:
1.
Emergency Kit Readiness Checks - Corrective actions co=pleted
.
as described in in letter dated June 16, 1975.
No further questions at this time.
-
p 2.
Alarm Setpoint, RM-L6 - Corrective actions completed as described-(
,
i
)
in latter dated September 16,.1975.
No fdrther questions
[_.
at this time.
(Details, Paragrsphs 9.d-e).
.
D.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the circumstances, eval-untions and corrective actions relating to reportable events des-cribed in Nonroutine 10-Day Report 75-05 through 75-08-and had no further questions at this time.
E.
The inspector discussed other reportable events as noted below:
{
1.
Nonroutine 10-Day 75-04 - Identified an item of noncompliance
..
associated with the event.
(See item B above)(Details 10.a-b).
2.
Report No. A0 50-289/75-36 - The inspector stated that noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.a. appeared to have occurred during the time period selected for review; however, in that the licensee, subsequent to this time period, had identified and reported noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.6..
a.,
="
it would appear as a licensee identified noncoepliance item.
There vere no further questions on this matter.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.a-d).
..
1451 238
-
/
.-
.
.h
.
.. -.
U
.
.
~
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
-5-
.
F.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the matter of radiation
. _.. _.
~
monitor annunciator delays, had no further questions and considered
"~"
it resolved.
(Details, Paragraphs 12.a-b).
~-
e-;;
-
.
1451 239 z
.
..
..
-.
,.
'
i
-
t
.
-
.
".
N
'
- .
..
..
e b
$
.._
-*
. =-i
_
...
.
/
~
G..
.
.
.
.
rs
.
-.
DETAILS r-.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent
=-
J. Romanski, Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry K. Beale, Health Physics Supervisor
[Q T. Mulleavy, Radiation Protection Foreman i
R. Dub 1el, Project Engineer E. Showalter, Engineer 1, ' Nuclear hb V. Orlandi; Lead ISC Engineer W. Herman, Associate Nuclear Engineer M. Coleman, Auxiliary Operator M. Feary,. Maintenance Craf tsman
._.
2.
Sensor Checks of Caseous Effluent Radiation Ibnitors
, a.
The inspector reviewed per:inent procedures and data sheets to ascertain whether sensars of the Auxiliary and Fuel Eandling Building and Reactor Bui; ding Purge Exhaust Monitors were
,.
checked as required by Technical Specification 2.3.2.C. to assure (
)
that the readout device was indicating as expected during the tine
'
period of July 1 through August 31, 1975.*
_~
b.
Technical Specification 2.3.2. C. requires that the above radiation monitors, designated RM-A8 and RM-A9, be checked daily to verify that the readout devices are indicating as expected.
With respect ot this requirement the inspector deter-
'mhted that these checks are defined and conducted in accordance with Surveillance Procedure 1301-1, entitled, " Shift and Daily Checks." The inspector determined that the existing procedure was approved and the contents appeared consi: tant i;ith the need to assure compliance with the above referenc'ed Technical Specification.
b c.
The results of the daily checks are recorded on Data Sheets 1SP-1301-1.
The inspe ;or determined that the data sheets were on file tor the time period of July 1 through August 31, 1975.
A review of the data sheets showed that the daily checks had
,
been made as required by Technical Specification 2.3.2.C.
-
1151 240
,
/
.-
_
'.
--
'
.
,
.
.
'r
_g_
(.)
It was noted, however, that the licensee, subsequent to
~e the time period that the inspection was covering, did identify m,.
and report an event in which a like situation occurred.
This was reported as noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.a. by the licensee in a reportable event A0 50-289/75-36,
.
dated October 29, 1975.
Occurrence date was October 19, 1975.
d.
The inspector reviewed the above noted event and determined that the circumstances were investigated, evaluations made, and corrective actions accomplished by the licensee.
Corrective actions included, i= mediate investigation and discus ~sions with' personnel involved, tighter ad=inistrative controls, procedure changes, additional training specific to the require-ment, and visual aid reminders posted at applicable high radiation areas.
The inspector, by direct observation and measurements, determined that high radiatica areas existing i
in the. Auxiliary Building on November 26, 1975 were posted in E=
accordance with Technical Specification 6.6.2.a.
It was further noted that dose rate conitoring'instrucents were available
_
at the entrances to the referenced areas.
Individuals inter-viewed verified the above training and were familiar with the s
requirements.
-
!
,
.
-
5.
Iodine - 133 and 135 Monitorine at Vent Releas'e Points
'
""""
a.
The inspector reviewed pertinent procedures and records to
~
ascertain whether sampling and activity analysis of gaseous
[.{
vastes were perfor=ed during the time period of July 1 through
[
September 30, 1975 as required by Technical Specification 2.3.2, E
'"
Table 2, Item D.-
b.
The referenced Technical Specification requires that one weekly charcoal iodine collection cartridge per conth shall be analyzed for Iodine-133 and 135.
These samples are collected at the exhaust release points for the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building and the Reactor Building Purge.
The inspector det: mined that these samples are collected in accordance with
Surveillance Procedure 1301-4.7 and analyzed in accordance I
with Plant Chemistry Procedure 1958.
The inspector's review showed that the procedures were approved and consist.ent with the need to assure compliance with the Technical Specification.
~~
,i c.
Performance and analysis results were recorded on Data Sheet
-
1301-4.7b.
The inspector's review of data sheets, for the period July 1 through September 30, 1975 showed that J
~
1451 241
,a
.
~~
'
r
.
..
-
- - - -
.
D D
&f k h
-'-
_e ee e hu@l XhLa
_-
Technical Specification 2.3.2., Table 2, Item D requirements
.._
had been satisfied for the reference time period.
d.
Iodine-133 monitoring for the period September 1 through
... _
October 31, 1975 was also reviewed.
Requirements and le
'
inspection findings were the same as that detailed in paragrapho 5.a-c above.
Technical Specification ~ requirements 2.--
had been satisfied for the referenced Septe=ber - October time period.
6.
Gamma Monitoring of Gas From Condenser Vacuus Pumo
-
a.
The inspector reviewed pertinent procedures and records to
,
ascertain uhether sampling ac.d activity analysis of gaseous
-
waste were performed during the time period July 1 through September 30, 1975, as required by Technical Specification
.
2.3.2, Table 2, Item C.
Ebn
.
i=
b.
The referenced Technical Specification requires that individual
.
gamma emitters be determined on a conthly frequency.
The
,
inspector determined that sa=ples are collected and analyzed
,'
in accordance with surveillance Procedure 1301-5.9 and Plant
'
Chemistry Procedure 1951 and 1958.
The inspector determined
,
'
that the procedures were approved and consistent with the need
-
to assure compliance with the referenced Technical Spe'cification.
c.
Performance and analysis results are recorded on Data Sheet, entitled, " Condenser Vacuum Pump Releases." The inspector's review of data sheets for the period July 1 through September 30, 1975l
'
showed that the requirements of Technical Specification 2.3.2.,
.
Table 2, Ites C had been satisfied.
7.
Air Sample Analysis For Iodine-131
Environmental Technical Specification 4.4., Table 3 requires a.
that air sampling for Iodine-131 be accomplished at three Iodice Indicator and one Iodine Background Stations.
Colle tion and analysis of the samples (charcoal cartridges) is required on a weekly frequency.
-
..
b.
With respect to the above, the inspector determined 'that the sampling program and analysis is conducted by a contractor under the auspices of the Corporate Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineers.
Collection and analysis procedures were not available at the plant site.
A computer printout showing collection and analysis dates and analysis results was available at the site.
The inspector's review showed that j
1451 242
.
.
'
'
-
.
,
.
-10-
.
-
samples had been collected and analyzed at the frequencies required by the above referenced Technical Specification.
-
- ,_
'
The review covered the time period from September 1 through
'
October 31, 1975.
8.
Secondary System Iodine-131 Activity
.
a.
The inspector reviewed procedures and records to' ascertain
.
whether Iodine-131 activity levels in the secondary side of the steam generators was less than 1 uCi/cc as required by Technical Specification 3.13.1 during the period July 1
-
through Septe=ber 30 1975.
.
b.
Secondary system sempling and analysis is acco=plished in accordance with the Plant Chemistry Surveillance Procedure No. 1301-4.5 and Plant Chemistry Procedure 1950, respectively.
Existing procedures were approved and appeared consistent with the need to assure compliance with the Technical Specification.
c.
Performance and analysis results were recorded on Data Sheet 1301-4.5.1.
The inspector's review of data sheets for the period July 1 through Septe=ber 30, 1975 showed that Technical
=-
Specification 3.13.1 had bean satisfied for the referenced
'
time period.
'
'
.
s 9.
Liquid Gross Activity Monitor a.
The inspector reviewed procedures, data sheets and other pertinent records to ascertain whether the alarm. settings, automatic isolation functions and operability of the Liquid Gross Activity Monitor (RM-L6) were in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specification 2.3.1.a. and b. for the period July 1 through September 30, 1975.
b.
The referenced Technical Specification requires that RM-L6 be operable and the alarm set point be established such that automatic isolation valve will close prior to exceeding g
limits specified in 10 CFR, Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.
i"s With respect to RM-L6 and WDL-\\*-257 (isolation valve)
operability, the inspector determined that verification is
'
accomplished in accordance with the below noted procedures.
isi-
.
1451 243
..=..:.
'
,
.
,
.
.
.
,s-11-
)
-
,
.
(1)
Surveillance Procedure 1301-1, Shift and Daily Checks
,
.
,,.,.
(2)
Surveillance Procedure 1303-4.33, Monthly Instrument T.1 Channel Test
=
"
(3)
Surveillance Procedure 1302-3.1, RMS Calibrations
,-
Quarterly
--
c.
It was noted that the above procedures were approved and con-sistent with the need to assure compliance with Technical Specifications.
Associated data sheets were reviewed which showed the requirement of Technical Specification 2.3.1.a. and b. with respect to operability of RM-L6 and UDL-V-257 had FJ.
been satisfied for the period of July 1 through September
- ,.
,
30, 1975.
.
d.
The alarm setpoint for automatic closure of WDL-V-257 had previously been reviewed and it was determined that the established setpoint would not provide for closure of the valve prior to exceeding 10 CFR, Part 20 limits.
Details are documented
""=
in Inspection Report 50-239/75-16, dated August 12, 1975.
The licensee has since responded (letter dated September 16, 1975)
--
to this item of noncompliance.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective action, as described in the referenced t--
letter and verified that it had been accomplished.
These in-cluded, modification to RM-L6 for replaceable liner to maintain low background, capability to flush RM-L6 af ter each discharge, modification to provide for variable set point, and procedure and release permit changes.
,
-
-
.
The inspector reviewed alarm setpoints for the period' subsequent e.
to the referenced period in 9.a. above and determined that they provided for valve closure prior to exceeding the applicable
'
limit as specified in Technical Specification 2.3.1.b.
10.
Nonroutine 10-Dav Recort 50-289/75-04 a.
The inspector reviewed the circumstances, licensee evaluations and corrective actions relating to the above referenced event.
The review showed that the report was generally consistent with the inspector's findings.
The inspector did however,
=-
determine, from licensee representative statements, that two individuals entered the Boric Acid Storage Tank Room (BAST) to investigate and terminate ' ne gas leak, without the benefit of a survey.
This survey was required to determine if the concentration of airborned radioactive material to which the individuals would be exposed was within the limits specified in 10 CFR, Part 20.103.
The inspector identified the failure
-
to survey as noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.201(b).
,
1451 244
-
'
-
.
"-
..
-12-
-
..
_
.
/
b.
The above referenced event occurred on August 21, 1975.
Subsequent to the event, the licensee's investigation
- -
and evaluations showed that concentrations of airborne -
radioactive material to 1.97 x 10-2 uci/m1, Xenon-133,
-
existed in the BAST Room.
Based on the residence ttne of individuals and applying the 10 CFR, Part 20, Appendix B,
-
Table 1, limit for Xenon-133 the individuals received an
"^
exposure of approximately 32 !TCa hours.
This is 'ess than the exposure specified in 10 CFR, Part 20.103,
_
11.
Reportable Event A0 50-289/75-41 a.
This event, occurring on November 14, 1975 related 'a an unplanned release of radioactive material from the. Reactor Building via the plant vent.
Technical Specificacion limits were not exceeded.
The release resulted from the failure to follow procedure during venting of the reactor while
-
draining the reactor coolant system.
Failure to follow pro-cedure was noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.2.3.
b.
The inspector's review showed that event circumstances were consistent with those reported by the licensee.
With respect to corrective action, the inspector verified that they had been accomplished.
Corrective action included the reinstruction of personnel to follow procedure requirements.
The need for review and approval in changing or modifying procedures was also stressed.
x 12.
Radiation Monitor Annunciator Delavs
ir i
a.
Annunciator delays associated with the Radiation Monitoring System (See Inspection Reports 50-2S9/75-06 and 75-17)
$a were further reviewed with the licensee.
The licensee has determined that the delay is inherent in the system.
This delay
...
however, only affects the radiation monitors as individual
~
entities and does noc prevent receipt of an alarm annunciator from other monitors in the total system.
That is to say, that a mcnitor goes into alarm and annunciatts on the main annunciator panel.
Acknowledgement of the annunciator clears the panel.
Immediately upon clearing, an alarm annunciation from another monitor can be received.
Reflash capability is sustained.
"
Each monitor, after clearing, from an alarm mode, has a delay or recovery period of approximately 80 seconds, 6ning which annunciation will not occurr.
This as previously stated does not affect receipt of annunciation from another monitor.
-
,
/
1451 245
+