IR 05000289/1976026
| ML19261E876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1976 |
| From: | Knapp P, Plumlee K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261E865 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-26, NUDOCS 7910170925 | |
| Download: ML19261E876 (18) | |
Text
_ __
IE:I Form 12 (Jan 75) (Rev)
!
.m
\\
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMitISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDiENT
REGION I
,
50-289 50-289/76-26 Docket No:
IE Inspection Report No:
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No: DPR-50 P. O. Box 542
--
Priority:
,
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 C
Category:
Safeguards
__
Group:
Three Mile Island I, Middletown, Pennsylvania Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced O
Date.s of Inspection: November 16-19, 1976
'
Dates of Previous Inspection:
November 15, 1976 L
O Reporting Inspector:
-
.
K. E. Plumlee, Radiation Specialist
' D ATE l
None Accompanying Inspectors:
DATE I
DATE
!
DATE Other Accc=panying Perse. el:
None D TE
[W@
,[
6 7b Reviewed Sy:
P. J. Knapp, Chief, Radiation Support Section
/
DAtg 1,b Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
~
h 1483 074
~
- -
--
._
.
_
N91ono f2 7
_---
. - - - - -
.
I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,
Enforcement Action
!
.
Items of Noncompliance
!
l A.
Violations i
None.
B.
Infractions 1.
76-26-01 - Failure to Post Radiation Area i
10 CFR 20.203(b) " Caution signs, labels, signals, and controls" requires that each radiation area be conspicuously posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation caution symbol and the words " CAUTION RADIATION APJA."
Contrary to this requirement, an area accessible to personnel in which a radiation level of 15 mren/hr was measured near the precoat recirculation piping was not posted as a radiation area when
! -
inspected on November 16, 1976.
(Details, 6.a)
2.
76-26-02 - Failure to Calibrate Survey Instruments When Due Technical Specification Section 6.11 requires adherence to proce-dures for all operations involving personnel radiation exposures, and Health Physics Procedure 1749 requires quarterly calibrations of PAC-45 survey instruments, plus or minus 1b weeks.
Contrary to the above, two PAC-4S survey instruments were identi-fled on November 19, 1976, Serial Nos.1357 and 2752, that were
available for use and had not been caltbrated since July 14, 1976, l
and were more than three weeks overdue for calibration. '(Details, 7)
-
C.
Deficiency 76-2C-03 - Transfer of Byeroduct Materials (Contaminated Pumo) to Unauthorized Transferree 10 CFR 30.41(c) " Transfer of byprocuct =aterial" requires that before transferring byproduct material the licensee transferring the material shall verify that the transferree's license authorizes the receipt of the type, form, and quantity of byproduct material to be transferred.
1/
.
'
1483 075
_ _.
_
_.
.
- -.
.
,
.
'
-2-
-
Contrary to this requirement, a pump was shipped on April 6, 1976, to a repair shop and the transfc;ree's license did not authorize the receipt or possession of the byproduct materials present in the ship-ment.
(Details, 8)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action
!
A.
Infractions 1.
76-17-01 - Failure to Adhere to Radiation Protection Procedures.
(Licenaee reply dated October 7, 1976)
l Review of licensee audits and corrective actions indicated that this item is complete.
(Details, 11.a)
i This item is closed, and there are no further questions on this item.
l 2.
75-28-01 - Failure to Make An Adequate Survey Before Entering
a Roem.
(Licensee reply dated January 28, 1976, and acknowledgment letter dated February 25, 1976)
I ~
t')
Review of additional information and interviews of the personnel on s-l shift during the entry indicated that the licensee's evaluation prior to entry was acceptable.
(Details, 13)
i
l This item of noncompliance has been withdrawn and is considered
!
closed, and there are no further questions on this item.
B.
Deficiency 76-19-01 - Incorrect 1v Posted Radiation Area.
(Licensee reply dated September 12, 1976)
An unposted radiation area was identified on this inspection.
(Item 76-26-01)
This item is considered closed.
Posting of radiation areas will be reviewed in closing out Item 76-26-01, and there are no further questions on Item 76-19-01.
Design Changes Not inspected.
p
/
-.
. - ~ _,.
.
.__n..
.. _.
.
-3-
.~ s I
'
'
i
~
,
.
Licensee Events Reviews of the following events were completed.
The licensee's corrective actions, records, and reports on these events appeared to be acceptable and these items are considered closed.
A.
Unplanned gaseous release on November 25, 1975 - licensee Report 75-09, November 26, 1975.
(Details, 14)
B.
Unplanned gaseous release on December 6, 1975 - licensee Report 75-10, December 7, 1975.
(Details, 14)
C.
Unplanned liquid release on January 2, 1976 - licensee Report 76-01, i
January 3, 1976.
(Details, 14)
i Other Significant Findings
!
A.
Current Findings l
1.
Acceptable Areas No inadequacies were identified during inspection of the following areas:
-)
'-
.
.
a.
Qualifications of radiation protection personnel.
(Details,
5)
b.
Radiation protection training.
(Details, 11.c)
c.
Exposure control.
(Details, 15)
-
2.
Unresolved Itema None.
3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Licensee None.
4.
Deviations None.
3.
Status of Previousiv Identified Unresolved Ita=s None.
1483 077
'
._
_
_
..
__
_
- %,
-4
-
r_-
Management Interview A management interview was conducted at the Three Mile Island Facility on November 19, 1976.
Persons Present J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent W. Cotter, Supervisor of Quality Control
'
R. Dubiel, Radiation Protection Supervisor G. Kunder, Supervisor of Operations J. Romanski, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry
,
Items Discussed
'
i A.
Purpose of the Inspection This was a routine unannounced inspection of the radiation protection l
program, and of outstanding items from previous inspections and events.
B.
Acceptable Areas i
"
( >T The items discussed are as identified under the "Other Significant Findings" section of this report.
-
C.
Items of Noncomoliance
'
The items discussed are as identified under the " Enforcement Action"
'
section of this report.
,
.
D.
76-26-04 - Radiation Protection Procedures i
The licensee representative questioned the feasibility of performing frequent enough surveys to avoid recurrent citations on the posting of areas where radiation Icvels change, and he referred to enforcement
Items 76-26-01 and 76-19-01 as examples.
!,
The inspector stated that Item 76-26-01 appeared to be the result of manually starting precoat recirculation, thus the procedure for starting and stopping precoat recirculation should be improved to cover the resulting radiation hazards.
1483 078 i
%. /
_ _ _ _... _. _
.__;..
_
_ _ _.
__
' N.
-5-
,
l s.
/
The inspector stated that Item 76-19-01 appeared to be the result of a
!
manual transfer of radweste containers, thus the area survey and posting should have been updated as the job progressed.
j The inspector also reviewed tne status of procedures for talibrating the personnel hand and foot monitors and the portal monitors.
(Details,
i ll.b)
The inspector stated that procedures will be followed-up on a subsequent inspection.
.
1483 079
.,
,
..
.
l
,
k.,
.
-.. - -
-
.-
-- _.
..
.. -
.
.
i (_)/
.-
,
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted i
M. Beers, Shif t Supervisor R. Dubiel, Radiation Protection Supervisor V. Heilman, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Technician
,
F. Huwe, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 1
'
R. McCann, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 1
,'
T. Mulleavy, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 2 J. Reed, Acting Chemistry Supervisor, Unit 1 J. Romanski, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry D. Zechman, Group Supervisor, Nuclear and Technical Training 2.
Scopa'of'the Inspection
.
This was an inspection of the radiation protection program and of outstand-ing items from previous inspections and events.
The inspector observed the status of the facility and work in progress, and reviewed selected records and procedures. The inspector observed work performed during the day shift and both back shifts.
3.
Plant Records b--
The inspector reviewed the following records for the periods indicated f
and found that they appeared to be acceptable.
I
!
a.
Personnel exposures, January through September,- 1976.
(Details, 15)
I b.
Personnel decontaminations, March through October, 1976.
c.
Nasal swipes, March through October, 1976.
j d.
NRC form 4's, for 10 individuals employed during 1976.
NRC form 5's, for 10 individuals.(current).
e.
f.
Exposure authorizations for 10 individuals, issued after June 1, 1976.
g.
Lost dosimeters, January 1 to November 8, 1076.
h.
Pccket-dosimeter calibrations, June 1 through October 31, 1976.
1.
Radiation work permits (RWP's), August 1 through N 7 ember 15, 1976.
x0 1483 080
.
._
_
. --
_ _ _.
.
.
h-7-
<
j.
Reactor building entry surveys, March through October, 1976.
k.
Area surveys, April 1 through November 15, 1976.
1.
Radioactive source leak tests, February through September, 1976.
Log of waste drum shipments, April through October, 1976.
m.
Fuel receiving surveys, October and November, 1976.
n.
Radioactive shipment records, April through October,1976.
o.
,
!
p.
Quarterly calibration tests for Area Radiation Monitors, July 1 l
through November 15, 1976.
I q.
Monthly functional tests for Area Radiation Monitors, July 1 through November 15, 1976.
I r.
Unit vent senpling, Augast through October, 1976.
s.
Unmonitored release path sampling, July through October, 1976.
(Details, 11.a)
,
i
N
t.
Quarterly calibration tests of portable instruments, July through
!
October, 1976.
!
Counting room instrument log sheets, January through October, 1976.
i u.
i
!
4.
Facility Status
Unit 1 was in an outage for maintenance of valve DEV-1 during this i
inspection.
This valve is scheduled for a complete overhaul during the next scheduled refueling (nominally Maren 18, 1977).
Startup following DEV-1 maintenance was scheduled for November 20, 1976.
5.
Radiation Protection Staffing Changes in the Radiation Protection Staff since a review on Inspection No. 50-289/75-06 (March,1975) were as follows:
The Radiation Protection Supervisor terminated on August 27, 1976, and an Engineer-Nuclear II was assigned to this position.
d 1483 081
-
.
--
"~
O
.
A Radiation Protection Foreman terminated on March 12, 1976.
!
A Radiation Protection Foreman was employed on October 11, 1976.
A Radiation Protection Foreman who was previously shared with Unit 2 is now assigned full time to Unit 2.
Review of documented education, experience, and training (Details,11.c)
w1th respect to guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.8 " Personnel Selection and Training" and ANSI N18.1 - 1971 (referenced by the guide) did not identify any problems with these assignments.
The inspector has no further questions on this ites.
,
i'
6.
Signs, Container Labels, Signals and Controls Part of the inspection effort was to observe the licensee's use of signs, labels, signals and controls pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203.
a.
76-26-01 - Radiation Area j
i
,]-
During the observation of confirmatory measurements performed by the licensee representative at the inspector's request a radiation
'
level of 15 mrem /hr was identified at a distance of 18 inches from
.
the precoat recirculation piping located outside the entrance to j
the precoat filter room.
The inspector noted that the pipe extended from the floor to the ceiling in an area that was accessible to percennel, and i.his area was not posted as a radiation area.
!
The inspector identified this as a recurrent item of noncompliance I
with the requirement of 10 CFR 20.203(b) that each radiation area be conspicuously posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation caution symbol and the words " CAUTION RADIATION AREA."
l Previous items of noncompliance with posting requirements were i
76-19-01 -a Radiation Area that was incorrectly posted as a High Radiation Area, and 75-06-01 -three unposted radiation areas.
This area was promptly posted as a Radiation Area.
The licensee representative's comments on this item, and the inspector's evaluation, ace su=marized under Management Interview Item D.
1433 082 L >,
,
. - - -. -
i ()
o-b.
High Radiation A.ma Siens, Signals, and Controls l
(1)
76-26-05 - Temporary Locks and Doors
'
Inspection No. 50-289/76-17 reviewed the licensee's job order to replace three temporary padlocked wcoden doors, located at entrances to the makeup system valve alley and to the decant slurry pump room.
On this inspection no change was identified in the status of these three doors and another door was identified as being padlocked, controlling the entrance to the contaminated tool storage room.
The licensee representative stated that each of the above doors was to be changed to a standard snap-lock door that would require
a key for entry but not for exit.
The licensee representative stated that the job orders for these doors would be carried out.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
[]
(2) Other High Radiation Areas The inspector observed the signs, signals and controls at High Radiation Area entrances and observed confirmatory radiation measurements pertormed by the licensee representative to substantiate the posting.
No problems were identified.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
!
c.
Incoming Fuel Shipoing Containers The inspector observed the sh pment of fuel into the facility, receiv-ing surveys, keeping of shipping records, and the receiving inspec-
tion performed by the licensse's representatives.
The inspector
conducted brief interviews with two individuals who performed part of these duties.
No problems were identified.
The inspector has no furths.r questions on this item.
1483 083
O
'
- - - -..-.
--
-
-. -
-
.. -
...
-
-10-t 7.
Calibratien and Testing of Instruments Part of the inspection effort was to review the licensee's performance of calibrations and functional tests of area radiation monitors, vent i
monitors, survey instruments and personnel dostmeters.
!
76-26-02 - Tcchnical Specification Section 6.11 requires adherence to procedures for all operations involving personnel radiation exposures,
,
l and Health Physics Procedure 1749 requires quarterly calibrations of
'
PAC-4S survey instruments, plus or minus 12 % which is equal to 1 weeks.
l Record review and observation revealed that two PAC-4S instruments,
Serial Nos. 1357 and 2752, that were on the shelf and available for
'
use on November 19, 1976 had not been calibrated since July 14, 1976, and bore erroneous stickers indicating that calibration was due November 14, 1976.
,
The inspector noted that the due date vas October 14 plus or minus 1 weeks and these instrument calibration. were more than three weeks overdue when inspected on November 19, 1976.
The inspector stated that this was an item of noncompliance, and it
-'
- '
appeared to be recurrent in that overdue calibrations were identified j
.
on Inspections 50-28S/76-07 and 50-289/76-22.
i l
The licensee representatives completed the overdue calibrations before j
the completion of the inspection.
8.
76-26-03 - Pumo Shipment From TMI Facility The inspector was notified by telephone on April 16, 1976 (Resner -
IE:HQ to Plumlee - IE:I) of the receipt of a pump at the Bingham Williamette Pump Company, Portland, Oregon, which was not authorized to receive or possess the radioactive (byproduct) materials contained in the shipment.
The inspector contacted the TMI representative (Plumlee to Romanski, April 16, 1976), and this item was followed up by telephone (MORAN to Plumlee, April 20, 1976) and onsite (July 20 and November 19, 1976).
A review of the TMI documentatien indicated that the shipment exceeded the exempt quantities and concentrations allowed by 10 CFR 30.14 and 30.18, and the licensee representative stated that he had not established
a basis for claiming such an exemption.
The recorded measurements were 1483 084
.
,
- - ~ ~. ~., -...
.n-
-
_
.
_.
_-
l
.
l-11-
'
,U>
i I
<1,000 dpm (surface smears), <0.15 mrem /hr (S-y at contact), and
<0.01 mrem /hr (S-y at 3 ft).
Discussion, and a review of TMI records, indicated that the shipment
!
vas made on April 6, 1976, without waiting for receipt ot' the transferee's letter dated April 5 containJng a copy of the agreement state license.
}
There was no indication that TMI personnel rscognized the authorization problem before the telephone notification on April 16, 1976.
The licensee i
representative stated that the shipment was not considered to be an
'
emergency item.
!
The agreement state subsequently authorized the completion of the pump i
repair, and the pump was overhauled and returned to the TMI site.
A l
condition of the authorization was that IMI Radiation protection personnel
!
were to cover the repair job as work was done.
t The TMI and Metropolitan Edison Company _ representatives stated that hereafter before a shipment is made, the transferree's license will be verified.
The inspector identified the pump shipment as an item of noncompliance with the requirement of 10 CFR 30.41(c) to verify before transferring ('
byproduct material that the transferee's license authorizes the receipt
'-
of the type, form and quantity of byproduct material to be transferred.
9.
76-20-01 - Readiness Checks of Emergenev Ecuipment t
i Inspection No. 50-289/76-20 identified a problem with inventories and j
checks of emergency equipment.
The licc.nsee's reply, dated October 7, 1976, stated that corrective action included a review and the revision
'
'
of Procedures 1670.12 and 1778 and a followup by the Radiation Protection Supervisor for the next two calendar quarters.
i f
Review of this item on this inspection indicated that an inventory and readiness check was scheduled and due and that procedural changes were being processed in accordance with the licensee's reply.
The inspector has no further questions on this ites at th's time.
10.
76-18-01 and 76-18-02 - Environmental Samulinz Inspection No. 50-289/76-18 identified a problem with procedures for the determination of I-131 in environmental samples, and a failure to follow a procedure requiring compositing of weekly air particulate samples for quarterly determinations.
The licensee's replies dated
.
t-1483 085
._
__
.
__._
_
.
-12-h October 11 and 19, 1976, indicated that the revised procedures were expected from a consultant by November 30, 1976, and that these revised procedures would be implemented by December 15, 1976.
Review of these items on this inspection indicated that th'e licedsee representative expects to proceed as stated in the referenced replies, and that the compositing of samples is now being performed in accordance with procedures.
The inspector has no further questions on these items at this time.
i 11.
Radiation Protection Procedures and Training a.
76-17-01 - Adherence to Procedures
!
Inspection No. 50-289/76-17 identified problems with adherence to radiation protection procedures.
The licensee's reply dated l
Occober 7,1976, stated that additional emphasis was being j
given to auditing, identification, and counseling of individuals l
who fail to follow procedures; and that a procedure for sampling
'
of unmonitored release paths had been fully implemented.
,T In addition to reviewing records (Details, 3) and instrument calibra-
~
g'
' J tions (Details, 7) the inspector observed maintenance work, fuel receiving and inspection, area decontamination, and housekeeping
,
during this inspection.
!
A review of unmonitored release path sampling indicated acceptable j
performance during August through November, 1976.
!
No further problems were identified, and this item is considered
'
closed.
b.
Procedures For Calibration of Personnel Hand and Foot Monitors and Portal Monitors The inspector requested ccpies of the following procedures for review.
(1) Calibration of hand and foot monitors.
(2)
Calibration of portal monitors.
(3) All radiation protection procedures revised since July, 1976.
1483 086
- _ - -
. _ _
-
-
-
- -.
-
.
()
-13-The licensee representative stated that no procedure revisions were issued since July, 1976, that changed the way in which Unit 1 surveys, RWPs, or other radiation protection activities were performed. He referred the inspector to handwritten calibration procedures for the hand and foot monitors and the portal monitors.
These procedures were in use but had not been formally reviewed and issued as procedures.
Review of the handwritten procedures, and a discussion with the individual who performs these calibrations did not identify any further problem.
The inspector discussed the status of these
.
procedures during the management interview, Item D.
The licensee representatives plan to formally review and issue these procedures.
l c.
Radiation Protection Training The inspector reviewed training curricula, attendance records, test scores and remedial actions for consistency with the licensee's
'
procedural requirements for training, and for compliance with requirements of 10 CFR 19.12 to inform workers of the radiation hazards and health problems of their assignments as well as to instruct in the procedures and the regulations for licensee control
-]
of these hazards.
The following categories of personnel were included in the record sample.
(1) Licensed Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators.
(2) Non-licensed TMI employees.
(3) Radiation protection and radiochemistry technicians and foremen.
(4)
Security personnel (contract service).
(5) Bell Telephone servicemen.
(6)
Contaminated laundry truck drivers.
(7)
B&W employees.
(8) Miscellaneous escorted visitors and servicemen.
No problems were identified in this area of the inspection.
1483 087
..
-
.-
-
---
-
--
--.
--
.
..
I-14-( )
12.
76-16-01 Blind Duplicate Analvses of Waste Tank Samples Inspection 50-289/76-16 identified emissions of blind duplicate analyses,
of samples from the waste evaporator condensate storage tank (WECST) and the waste gas decay tank (WGDT). Duplicate analyses are required monthly, or prior to discharge of the tank if less frequent than monthly.
The licensee letter dated August 20, 1976, stated that in addition to performing the required sample analyses there would be a monthly audit to ensure the performance of all the required analyses.
Review of records, and discussion, indicated that duplicate analyses
,
were performed on a vaste tank sample at least once during each month of August, September, and October, 1976; however, there was no indica-tion that auditing had been done to ensure the performance of all the required analyses.
The scheduling of this requirement is now included in the master schedule printout and its completion apparently will be audited; however, this remains to be demonstrated to the inspector.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
13.
75-28-01 Additional Information on a Survey of the Boric Acid Tank Room S-
)
Inspection 50-289/75-28 identified an apparent failure to survey prior to entering a room to service a leaking boric acid storage tank vent loop seal.
The licensee letter dated January 28, 1976, objected to this citation and provided additional information on the authorization to enter the room.
On this inspection the inspector interviewed a shift supervisor who stated that it was he who authorized the entry.
He stated that, prior to the entry, he checked the radiation monitors for the auxiliary building ventilation exhaust and tha tank vent header to verify the airborne conditions in the room to be entered.
The shift supervisor stated that he determined the allowable stay time on this job based on routine sampling of the tank and the vent header, radiation monitor and vent monitor readings, and previous occurrences of the same problem where air samples had been taken prior to entry. He stated that the procedure to be followed in any future occurrence would include respiratory protection as stated in the letter dated January 28, 1976.
1483 088
-..
. - -.
.
__ _
.-
..
.
t-15-The licensee representative stated that the documented corrective
'
action to prevent loop seal leaks had been completed and no recurrences of this proble:2 are anticipated.
The inspector stated that in view of the additional information provided on this item and the completion of the corrective action the enforcement
'
action would be withdrawn.
14.
Review of Unplanned Releases Part of the inspection effort was to complete a review of re,.c,rts of l
unplanned releases that occurred during November, 1975 through September, 1976.
The review included:
timeliness of reports; licensee evaluations of concentrations, volumes, and causes of releases; and corrective actions.
The following were reviewed and no further problems were identified.
LER 75-09 - A licensee identified unplanned release of 0.118 C1 of noble
'
'
gases over a period of 41 minutes on November 25, 1975.
Release to the environment was through the Auxiliary Building Ventilation exhaust which is continuously monitored.
The licensee evaluated the ventilation exhaust monitor recorder chart and local air samples to determine the duration composition and quantity of this release.
Facility limits on releases
..)
were not exceeded.
(
The cause of the release was an overflow of reactor coolant into the Auxiliary Building Sump which is not a closed system.
The licensee evaluation was that an erroneous tank selection occurred.
The licensee's corrective action was to correct the tank selection
and to emphasize the procedures for management of fluids.
LER 75-10 - A licensee identified unplanned release of 0.262 Ci of
,
I noble gases over a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on December 7, 1975.
Release was through the Auxiliary Building Ventilation exhaust which is l
continuously monitored.
The licensee evaluated the ventilation exhaust monitor recorder chart and local air samples to determine
,
the duration composition and quantity of this release.
Facility
,
limits on releases were not exceeded.
The source of the release was not positively identified as a specific valve or gasket leak; however, the material was typical of gas present in the Reactor Coolant Makeup Tank and the vent header system.
The licensee's corrective action was to check over the suspect valves and gaskets. No subsequen. problem occurred.
.
1483 089
'
__
.
. -
_
I
.
.
.
.
-16-l})
LER 76-1 - A licensee identified unplanned release of a reported 0.017 C1 of radioactivity in 117 gallons of waste water over a period of 25 minutes on January 2, 1976. Analyses of the WECST contents from which this water originated indicated that the majorisotope was 133-Xe, and lesser quantities of 133-I, 134-Cs, 137-Cs, 58-Co and tritium were present.
Facility limits on releases were not exceeded.
The initial licensee evaluation was that a valve failed to close fully and leakage occurred during servicing (flushing) of the liquid waste discharge
'
monitor. Valve checks subsequently indicated a possibility that leakage was the result of slow closure instead of failure to close during flushing.
The licensee's corrective action included a check of the valve and a revision of the vaste monitor flush procedure to prevent premature circulation before the discharge valve frily closes.
No subsequent leakage occurred.
15.
Exposure Control Part of the inspcetion effort was to review records of exposures to individuals for the period January through September,1976, and to review the dosimetry program.
()
a.
Film Badges and TLD Badges I
The licensee representative stated that a changeover was being made to TLD badges.
Review of these records indicated that no overexposures occurred; however, the following noticeable differences were identified in cases where both badges were worn.
Interval Individual Film Badge (crem)
TLD (crem)_
i July 1 - 31 (1)
1,450 1,020 August 1 - 30 (2)
1,670
<1,000 July 1 - 31 (3)
1,550 656 Discussion with the licensee representative indicated that the film badge information would not be entered in the offical record unless the TLD information was suspect for some reason.
The licensee representative stated that it was not their policy to use the most conservative value where differences were evident but the TLD was not suspect.
1483 090
. -.
-.
_
- _.
--
.
.
.
.
.
/)
-17-
.,
.
.
The inspecter noted that the above differences were extreme cases screened frem a large number of data, and that neither tae TLD nar the film badge results indicated any problem involving regulatory requirements.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this cine, b.
NRC Form 4s and 5s I
i Selection of 10 individuals for checks of current records did not
identify any outdated or missing records.
c.
Reports to NRC and to Individuals Selection of 10 individuals who terminated during mid-1976 for checks on the licensee's reporting of information required by 10 CFR 20.408 and 10 CFR 19.13 did not identify any problems, i
,
i
'
O 1483 091 i
i
>
f
%,
_
-
.__
-
_ _ _
_
-