ML20010A514
| ML20010A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1981 |
| From: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010A506 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-267-81-13, NUDOCS 8108110496 | |
| Download: ML20010A514 (4) | |
Text
i%yxA% Q '
LL ~J-j dww
/
Public Service Company NOTICE OF VIOLATION Fort St. Vrain of Colorado Docket:
50-267 Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted during the period of June 1-30, 1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66745 (October 7, 1980), the following violations were identified.
1.
Technical Specification LCO NR 1.1 states in part that "... The concentration of the specified chemical constituents in the station non radioactive liquid effluents at the diversion box to the Goosequill Ditch shall not exceed the following:
Constituent Maximum Concentration or Value C12 (Total Resid al) 0.5 ppm...."
Technical Specification LC0 7.5 states in part that "... The reportable occurrences discussed below shall be the subject of written reports to the Director of the appropriate NRC Regional Office within thirty days of occurrence of the event... Conditions leading to operation in a degraded mode permitted by a limiting condition for operation or plant shutdown required by a limiting condition for operation...."
Contrary to the above, on June 25, 1981, at 8:30 a.m. it was deterrined by the NRC inspector during a review of the weekly surveillances NR 1.1-W,
" Chemical Concentrations," that the concentration for the residual ihierine sample taken on February 3, 1981 was 0.7 ppm, exceeding the limit for chlorine (0.5 ppm) and was not reported to the NRC.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation.
(Supplement I.F.)
2.
Technical Specification SR NR 1.1(b) states in part that "... If ths analysis for constituent concentrations in the non radioactive effluent discharge indicates greater than 50% of the limit stated in LC0 NR 1.1 for any constituent, the sampling and analysis for that constituent shall be at the frequency of Action Level II of Table NR-1 until such time as the analysis for the constituent decreases or reaches a new equilibrium value (As defined by four consecutive daily analyses whose l
results are within - 10%) at which time weekly sampling may be resumed...."
Contrary to the above, on June 25, 1981, at 9:00 a.m. it was determined by the NRC inspector during a review of the weekly surveillances NR 1.1-W,
" Chemical Concentration," that the concentration for the total phosphate sample taken on February 24, 1981 of 7.814 ppm, exceeded the 50% limit (7 ppm), and the required daily samples were not taken.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation.
(Supplement I.F.)
l 8108110496 810723
{DRADOCK 05000267 l
PDR'
2 3.
Technical Specification SR NR 1.1(d) states in part that "... The conductivity and pil meters shall be calibrated using standard solutions weekly...."
Contrary to the above, on June 25, 1981, at 2:00 p.m. it was determined by the NRC inspector that Water Chemistry Procedure (WCP-8.5.3) requires a check of the conductivity cell monthly against a known standard for the calculation of the cell constant.
No weekly calibration using standard solutions is being performed by the licensee.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation.
(Supplement I.F.)
4.
Technical Specification 7.4.a, " Procedures, Administrative Controls,"
states in part that "... written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained...."
A.
Procedure ADM-13 (Rev. 19, January 10,1980), " Technical Specification Surveillance," paragraph 3.1.3.a) states in part that "... Section 4.0 requires the signature of the Department Supervisor and the Shift Supervisor on duty for permission to initiate the test.... "
Contrary to the above,17 of the 20 weekly surveillances, NR 1.1-W,
" Chemical Concentrations," reviewed by the NRC inspector had been started on a Friday but the Shift Supervisor signatures to initiate the surveillances were dated for the following Monday.
Three of the 20 had Shift Supervisor signatures dated for the fol'owing Tuesday.
All of the monthly surveillances, NR 1.3-W, " Turbine Building Sump,"
reviewed by the NRC inspector had been started at the beginning of the month, but the Shift Supervisor signatures to initiate the surveillances were dated at the end of that month.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation.
(Supplement I.F.)
8.
(1) Administrative Procedure P-1 (Issue 2, August 4, 1980), " Plant Operations," paragraph 4.5.2(e) states in part that "...A verification check is performeo at leadt once each shift to assure pens are inking and recorders reading properly...."
Contrary to the above, on June 25, 1981, at 6:30 a.m. the NRC x' ' '
4 inspector determined that the printer for Ri 93256, " Effluent
)
Activity Monitor," was not reading properly in that the printer had been secured since June 24, 1981, at 10:30 a.m.
(2) Procedure ADM-13 (Rev. 19, January 10, 1980), " Technical Speci-fication Surveillance," paragraph 3.1.3(b) states in part that
"... Section 5.0 requires an entry by the test conductor in each space provided in the body of the procedure.
In addition
7 3
each page of the procedure section 5.0 shall be initialed or signed and dated by the test conductor.
His initials or signatures are verification that:
The step marked has been comp;eted satisfactorily.
The page initialed has been completed with all required data entered...."
Surveillance SR 5.4.9-W, " Area Monitor Functional Test," states in part "..
5.1.9 verify all alarms are reset and all indi-cations are normal...."
Contrary to the above, on June 29, 1981, at 6:30 a.m., the NRC inspector noted that recorder RR 93254 " Area Monitor" had not been indicating as required since the completion of SR 5.4.9-W which had been signed off as complete by the inst Conductor at 3:30 a.m. June 29, 1981.
This is a Severity Level V Violation.
(Supplement I.E.)
C.
Procedure P-2, " Equipment Clearances and Operation Deviations,"
Issue 4 dated June 12, 1981, Section 4.1, " Equipment clearance Procedure," states in part that "...
REACTOR OPERATOR OR HIS DELEGATE
- 5. Hangs the white and hard copies of the clearance card at the main clearance point.
Hangs all auxiliary tags and checks off on the Standard Clearance Points form...."
Contrary to the above, on June 18, 1981, at 7:00 a.m., the NRC l
inspector noted nine Standard Clearance Points forms with auxiliary i
tags that had not been checked off as required.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation.
(Supplement I.F.)
5.
Technical Specification 7.4, " Procedures, Administrative Controls,"
paragraph d, requires that " Procedures for oersonnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and shall be approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure."
I Health Physics Procedure HPP-9 (Issue 3, February 25, 1981) " Establishing and Posting Controlled Areas," states in part that "... Controlled areas shall be clearly marked in accordance with the procedure...."
l
1 4
Contrary to the above on June 29, 1981, at 1:30 p.m. the NRC inspector noted that the north stairwell access to the refueling floor was not clearly marked in that ths Radiation barrier was not in place.
This is a Severity Level V Violation.
(Supplement I.E.)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.201, Public Service Company of Colorado is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
The responses directed by this Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
]b]h/
WGh w '
Dated
/
/
'G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Projects Branch
(
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - - - _ -