ML20079L927
| ML20079L927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1983 |
| From: | Otoole J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079L845 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302230498 | |
| Download: ML20079L927 (4) | |
Text
_ - -
John D. O' Toc
vc3 Prescent Consohdated Edison Cornpany of New York. Inc.
4 trying Place. New York, NY 10003 Telephone (212) 460-2533 January 28, 1983 Ret Indian Point' Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa.
19406
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
i This refers to Inspection 50-247/82-23 conducted by Messrs T.
Foley and P. Koltay on November 1-30, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-26 at Indian Point Station.
Your December 30, 1982 letter stated that it appeared that some of our activities were not conducted in full j
compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in the notice of violations enclosed therewith as Appendix A & B.
Provided herewith as Attachments A and B is our response to Appendices A and B of Inspection Report 50-247/82-23, respectively.
In accordance with Section 2.790 (d) and 73.21 of the NRC's Rules, Title 10, code of 74deral Regulations, correspondence and reports to or from the NRC which identify a licensee's control and accounting procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear materials or detailed security measures for the physical protection of a licensed facility are exempt from disclosure.
We, therefore, request that Attachment B be withheld from public disclosure.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact us.
trulyyour7, Ve W
e attach.
cc:
Mr. Thomas Foley, Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 l
8302230498 830214
~
PDR ADOCK 05000247 0
pop 0-
~
Indian Point Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE TO APPEhDIX A Notice of Violation 50-247/82-23 VIOLATION Technical Specification 6.12.1 6 requires that each high radiation area in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 1000 mrem /hr shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry into such areas.
Contrary to the above, on November 9, 1982, the hallway to the waste holdup tank area, a high radiation area with radiation intensity greater than 1000 mrem /hr, was not locked and did not prevent unauthorized entry.
This is a Severity Invel V Violation (Supplement IV).
RESPONSE
On November 9,
1982 a Nuclear Plant Operator was working in the high radiation area and left the door unlocked to provide an emergency exit.
The resident inspector was allowed to enter the area and was not asked l
for authorization.
'1h e procedures required an additional person to i
guard the door; however, the operator was working alone.
The operator involved was interviewed the next day by the operations l
Superintendent and the Senior Watch Supervisor.
The task which he was performing was brief but required him to leave the area where a direct view of the access gate to the high radiation area was possible.
He stated that he did not challenge the inspector because his stay was momentary and he observed him to have departed the area immediately.
l The operator then left the area shortly afterwards and secured the gate.
I l
~
Indian Point. Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE 'IO APPENDIX A Notice of Violation 50-247/82-23 VIOLATION Technical Specification. 6.12.1.6 requires that each high radiation area in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 1000 mrem /hr shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unaut;.horized entry into such areas.
Contrary to the above, on November 9,
1982, the hallway ' to the waste holdup tank area, a high radiation area with radiation intensity greater than 1000 mrem /hr, was not locked and did not prevent unauthorized entry.
This is a Severity Imvel V violation (Supplement IV).
RESPONSE
On November 9,
1982 a Nuclear Plant Operator was working in the high radiation area and left the door unlocked to provide an emergency exit.
The resident inspector was allowed to enter the area and was not asked for authorization.
'Ihe procedures required an additional person to i
guard the door; however, the operator was working alone.
The operator involved was interviewed the next day by the Operations l
Superintendent and the Senior Watch Supervisor.
The task which he was t
performing was brief but required him to leave the area where a direct view of the access gate to the high radiation area was possible.
He stated that he did not challenge the inspector because -his stay was momentary and he observed him to have departed the area immediately.
The operator then left the area shortly afterwards and secured the gate.
T;
?
50-247/82-23 Attachment A (Cbnt'd)
To prevent similar events from recurring, a letter was issued to all Senior Watch Supervisors and Support Facilities Supervisors on November 18, 1982 to reinstruct all Operations personnel to follow the two man rule for access gates to high radiation. area which are secured with padlocks.
.The November 18, 1982 letter, being a Unit Order, required written acknowledgement by these supervisors and filing of the same in the Unit Order Book in the Central Control Room.
4 i
F Indicn Point Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 ATTACHMENT B RESPONSE TO APPENDIX B Notice of violation 50-247/82-23 THIS PAGE, CONTAINING SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
i l
1
_