IR 05000313/1975001
| ML19320A041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1975 |
| From: | Burke D, Robert Lewis, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A034 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-75-01, 50-313-75-1, NUDOCS 8004140661 | |
| Download: ML19320A041 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . l O.
m -
. > . . UNITED STATES l { %) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM*.alSSION ) (\\'~# DIRECTORATE oF REGULATORY JPERATIONS REGloN 11 230 PEACHTREE STR EET. N. W. SUITE 888 ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303
RO Inspe: tion Report No. 50-313/75-1 ' Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.: 50-313 ' License No.: DPR No. 51 Category: B2 Location: Russellville, Arkansas ! Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: January 8-9, 1975 \\ ) %_./ Dates of Previous Inspection: November 20-22 and December 10-13, 1974 Inspector-in-Charge: G. L. Troup, Radiation Specialist Reactor Facility Section '
Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch !
Accompanying Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None i .; ab'._.- //v /pr Principal Inspector: ,e</ D. J. Burker;' Re' actor Inspector, Facilities ~/ Date . Sect n, Facilities Te e and Startup Branch . ?h /
- 2 [[7 i N
,4 Reviewed by: s R. C. Lewis,( yenior Reactor Inspector, Facilities ' Date Section, FKcilities Test Md Startup Branch , .! .: COPY SENI TO: PDR i LPDR NSIC j u)Tro9 TIC to %. < U m I 8004140tgf i ,.. e
... . . - - . . _ - _ _ _ - _-__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - .. X - . . . RO Rpt. No. 50-313/75-1-2- , y SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations None- ' B.' Safety Items l None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations , 1.
Control of Portable Radiation Survey Instruments (R0 Report No.
50-313/74-14, I. A.1) A licensee response on this discusses corrective actions to be taken but all actions have not been completed and implemented.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 2) 2.
Completion of Form AEC-5 (R0 Report No. 50-313/74-14, I.A.2) A licensee response has been received on this matter which discusses corrective actions. This item is considered closed.
(Detr.ils I, paragraph 3) B.
Safety Items Not applicable III.. New Unresolved Items 75-1/1 Effluent Monitoring System Test The test of the liquid arid gaseous radwaste effluent monitoring system failed to meet the test acceptance criteria for the correla-tion between the monitor results and laboratory analysis results.
(Details I, paragraph 4) IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items 74-14/3 Radiation Levels Inside Reactor Containment Corrective actions for the radiation levels in the reactor con-tainment which exceed the design bases has not been determined.
, This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 5) , r ' . .. . - . . . _ _ -_
.. -. .. . .- m - - .
l a R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/75-1-3-Q ' t !.j 74-14/4 Contamination and Airborne Radioactivity Survey Forms
The airborne radioactivity survey form has been revised and the general recordkeeping for survey forms has been improved. This . ! item is considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 6) V.
Unusual Occurrences l None ' ! VI. Other Significant Findings Ten AP&L es::ployees were authorized to receive a whole body dose in excess of 1.25 rem / quarter without the determination of accumulated . whole-body dose.
(Details I, paragraph 7) , l VII.. Management Interview j A management interview was conducted January 9, 1975, to discuss the findings of the inspection. The following licensee personnel attended: Arkansas Pos _ oight Company (AP&L) ' G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent =C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer T. C. Baker - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer , .j R. G. Carroll - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer - J. L.,0rlicek - QC Engineer . The status of previously identified enforcement matters in Section II was discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 2-3)
,
The new unresolved item in Section III was discussed.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
The status of old unresolved items in Section IV was discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 5-6) The finding in Section VI was discussed with J. W. Anderson, Jr., ' Plant' Superintendent, by telephone on January 14, 1974. This item ' - was also discussed at the mana'gement interview on January 9, 1975.
. j (Details I, paragraph 7) i e -
L . , e ~ , -. - - -. - , - -, -- - ,,n e
--- . .
. . ! v) RO Rpt. No. 50-313/75-1 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by: b a G. L. Troup, Radiation Specialist Dat's Reactor Facility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch ! l Dates of Inspect on.
anuary 8-9, 1975 //7ot75 I Reviewed by: /l T 4/ ~ ' A. F. Gibson, Senior Health Physicist Date ' Reactor Facility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
1' 1.
Individuals contacted it J. W. Anderson, Jr. - Plant Superintendent , G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer T. C. Baker - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer R. G. Carroll - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer l J. L. Orlicek - QC Engineer . B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor Two Chemists t - 2.
Control of Portable Radiation Survey Instruments a.
This item was discussed in 20 Report No. 50-313/74-14, Details III, paragraph 2, and involved the lack of control of pottable radiation survey instruments, including a calibration progran for instruments, ' segregated storage for caliinted and uncalibrated instruments and e l failure to follow written procedures for the calibration of the Eberline Teletector instrunents. The licensee's response stated that segregated storage for calibrated and uncalibrated instruments - ,I had been established and that the calibration procedure for the Eberline Teletector had bean revised. However, the calibration program for the , portable instruments is not complete.
! '
b.
The inspector reviewed the instrument storage area 3 for calibrated and uncalibrated instruments and the revision to f he Eberline Teletector calibration procedure and had no furthur questions.
' j This item will remain open pending the establishn.unt of a formal j calibration program for portable radiation survey instruments.
I 3.
Completion of Form AEC-5 ? a.
This item was discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/74-14, Details III,
paragraph 3, and involved the failure to provide information on j the Form AEC-5 as required by paragraph 20.401 of 10 CFR 20.
The i licensee's response stated that the forms were to be reviewed and d completed as required.
I t -- - ,
_ __ _.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ . . .
- ...
. e' . J R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/75-1 I-2 . < f b.
The inspector reviewed the Forms AEC-5 on file for correctness and.
f , i ! completeness and discussed with licensee representatives actions to preclude future difficulties. The inspector had no further questions.
This item is considered closed.
[ E 4.
Effluent Monitoring System Test , Station Procedure Ne. TP 362.01, Effluent Monitoring System j a.
Check at Power, was written for the testing of the automatic
l closing of the liquid and gaseous waste discharge valves following l a high radiation alarm and to verify the calibration of affluent ! radiation monitors against an effluent sample which had been . anrJ.yzed for the radioactivity concentration in the laboratory.
The acceptance criterion for the effluent radiation monitor cali-bration was that.the laboratory analysis and the monitor results should agree within +20%. ' . The results of the tests indicated that the vaste discharge valves , b.
Of the operate properly in response to a high radiation alarm.
, ' total of twenty tests run on the monitors (five monitors each tested at four power levels), nineteen tests were unsatisfactory in that the laboratory analysis and monitor results were not l . within +20%. - Licensee representatives stated that this test procedure had not c.
yet been submitted to the Test Working Group (TWG) for review or to the Plant Superintendent for approval and that the TWG would review the test results and recommend a course of action.
i Licensee management stated that eny ratesting or other corrective , action would be initiated based' on the review and recossendation of the TWG.
5.
Radiation Levels Inside Reactor Containment ' This item was discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/74-14, Details III,
paragraph 4, and involved the radiation levels inside the containment The at 40% power exceeding the design basis values for 100% power.
licensee management stated that recommendations for the correction of this candition had been reaeived from the architect-engineer and
i are currently under review by AP&L. This item remains open.
i 6.
Contamination and Airborne Radioactivity Survey Forms ' This item was discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/74-14, Details III, a.
paragraph 6, and involved a general deficiency in the completion of the data required by the survey forms and a lack of data on the - - airborne radioactivity survey form concerning the individual who performed the survey and the individual who reviewed the survey.
A licensee represa.itative stated that the airborne radioactivity i b.
survey form had been revised to include signatures (or initials) j , j.
' . , - -. - _. ,_.. -.,. .,,, -.. _ . yL~. .., _-___,__,_-.,,_.,,-_,__r__, . -.,,,., _.-,.--w .
- .-- _ - - _ - - - - _ _ -.._., _ _- _ . .. . '% % .... . . R0 Ryt. No. 50-313/75-1-I-3 . , for the individual performing the survey and the individual who reviewed the survey. The inspector reviewed airborne, radiation and contamination surveys performed in December 1974 and January 1975 and noted that the required data was entered on the forms. The inspector hat no further questions. This item is closed.
7.
Authorization to Receive Occupational Radiation Exposure , a.
In reviewing the Forms AEC-5, the inspector noted that the forms for ten AP&L employees had no entry under "Whole Body Dose Status."
A licensee representative stated that this was due to the previous occupational radiation exposures for the individuals tot being available. The representative stated that Forms AEC-4 had been
completed for each individual and records of past exposure requested but the records were not yet available.
< b.
The inspector reviewed the monthly dosimeter cards for January 1975 s and noted that each of the ten individuals was authorized to receive , j an occupational radiation exposure of 300 mrem / week and 2500 mrem / j quarter. Paragraph 20.101.Cb) of 10 CFR 20 states, in part, that a licensee may permit an individual in a restricted area to receive a
l dose to the whole body greater than 1.25 rem / quarter provided that the licensee has determined the individual's accumulated occupational
dose to the whole body and record it on Form AEC-4 or equivalent. The licensee had not determined the accumulated dose for these individuals but had authorized them to receive a whole body dose greater than 1.25 rea/ quarter. None of the individuals had received an occupational expo-sure in the current quarter as dctermined by a review of the dosimeter records.
l ' l - c.
A license 3 representative stated that an administrative error had I occurred in this case and immediately corrected the monthly dosimeter cards to permit an occupational exposure of 100 mrem / week and 1000 mrem / i quarter, which is consistent with paragraph 20.101.(b) of 10 CFR 20.
.i
Licensee management further stated that as part of an overall review of Health Physics records, the procedure for authorizing exposure
- '
' limits would be reviewed and changes implemented as determined by the review to be appropriate.
8.
Other Areas Inspected In Which No Deficiencies Were Apparent a.
Controls for the shipment offsite of radioactive material for repair.
-b.
Liquid and gaseous waste discharge permits and release limits.
, c.
Reactor coolant chemistry sampling records.
d.
. Test procedures No. TP 500.01, Reactor Coolant System Chemistry . Test, No. TP 500.03, Initial Radiochemistry Test, and No. TP 500.02, Steam Generator Chemistry Test.
c ! (
.
- '
- -- -_.
. _, _ _.-, }}