ML20082K571
| ML20082K571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1991 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9108300119 | |
| Download: ML20082K571 (4) | |
Text
- -. - _ - - _ - _ _
Y
\\
i D ALTIMORE l
I GASAND i ELECTRIC 9
CHARLES CENTER
- P O. BOX 1475
- BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203-1475 Gt0 Hot C Cottt
,72[Or7/$,
^"E"St23'l99I m., w,.. ~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
70cument Coutrol Desk r
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 4
Unit Nos.1 & 2: Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50 318 lesues Itegnline Actinties at Cab;gLOlffs Nuclear Pown Plant 3
RliFERENCE:
(a)
Letter frem Mr. C. W, Hehl (NRC) to Mr. G. C, Creel (BG&E),
dated August 8,1991 Gentlemen:
In response to information piovided verbally on or about February 6,1991 by Mr. Curtis Cowgill of your staff and subsequently documented in Reference (a), an investigation into those concerns has been performed by the Qualhy Audits U..it in our Nuclear Quality Assurance Department. The issues concerned: (a) the possible improper ently of individuals into a liigh Radiation Area, (b) improper entry of containment without proper sampling of the air lock atmosphere, and (3) the inadcquate control of personnel who experienced radioga contamination. All three aPeged occurrences took place from February 1,1991 thiough February 5,1991.
Our review revealed some disparities between what was communicated verbally to our staff in February and what was written in Reference (a), We have alerted Ms. Daniele Oudinot of your staff and our Senior Resident inspector that an additional 30 days will be required to address these disparities. We are forwarding the results of our previous investigation into these issues in Attachment (1).
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleawd to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, f
cfl nf ',f
/
/ {)9 Mp j
n
/
~
3 g!
'h GCC/REF/ref/bjd Attachment M
m e wo m 9ta n 1
I\\
ADOCK0%3Q7 DR
r Docurnent Control Desk August 23,1991 Page 2 cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC D. G. Mcdonald, Jr., N RC T. T. Martin, NRC L E Nicholson, NRC R. I. Mclean, DNR J. I1. Walter, PSC l
i
v
~
KITACilMENT (1) lllifAll2i LSJi!!K1 Verbally communicated: Personnel were allowed access to Unit I containment without appropriate instruments.
On February 5, lu91, two individuah entered Unit I containment while a liigh Radiation Area sign remained posted at the air lock. The plant was shutdown in MODE 4 and by Calvert Cliffs procedure, such an ently normally would require a Radiation Safety Technician (RST) escort and dose rate meter.
The containment ait lock posting had not been properly revised from a Iligh Radiation Area access point following an earlier survey which was conducted on February 2. Following this surwy, the air lock's posting should have been revised.
At no time were persons allowed access to actual liign Radiation Areas without fol{owing appropriate procedure. The mvestigation into this case revealed it occurred through incomplete communications, lack of questioning attitude, and failure to comply with procedure. Due to unrelated matters, the RST who failed to both comply with the procedure and exhibit a questioning attitude is no longer employed at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
- Plant, Commur.icationa improvements between RadCon Supcivision and RSTs were instituted, and these events were briefed at unit meetings to ensure all personnel would benefit from lestons Icarned.
ISSUE ) -
Verhally communicated: Unit I containment doors were open to the atmosphere without appropriate samples.
On Februa y 4,1991, a Unit I containment entry was made via the Emergency Air Lock (EAL) for which no EAL atmosphere sample was taken, Unit I was shutdown in MODE 4 with a containment vacuum of.36 psig. At the time of the entry, Radiological Controls and Plant Chemistry supervision felt that a sample was not requited.
The gove ning procedure for this entry was Special Work Permi; (SWP)91-011 which did noi stipulate that Plant Chemistry be consulted prior to entry. Such a requirement would have resulted in the evaluation of the necessity for issuing a Release Permit before the fact.
Plant Chemistry conducted a study which showed the amount of potential activity which could have been released was not safety significant. The SWP has since been revised to correct this deficiency.
l 1
.m A'ITACllMENT (1)
Dl?i'All,S ISSUE 3 Verbally communicated: People who alarmed the half body counters, then alarmed portal monitors at Security - when asked if they worked in Unit 1, were allowed to leave.
On February 4,1991, two persons alarmed a Personnel Contamination Monitor at the 69 foot level of Auxiliary Building and again at the South Processing Facility, but were released by Security. The concern was that this war due to inadequate controls. In fact, the personnel involved were correctly handled per procedure.
Short-lived radiogas was the suspected source of contamination and the personnel were escorted out of the protected area to dosimetry for the purpose of conducting whole body counts. Once the contamination was verified by dosimetty to be radiogas, the appropriate level of management was consulted and the personnel were allowed to return home.
A concern was also verbally communicated to us as to the timeliness and adequacy of the subsequent corrective measures.
Quality Audits determined that our response to these problems was appropriate. There was however, a lack of expediency in identifying the problems to supersision on the part of terhnicians and contractors. Our concerns regarding this was communicated to them at unit meetings.
A copy of the investigation of these issues is retained in our files and is available for inspection.
Further investigation into newly raised issues is being pursued.
Your written details in Reference (a) included issues involving the detection of contamination on personnel entering the plant, and also of personnel passing between containments without frisking.
We will investigate these issues and respond in 30 days.
2 1