IR 05000289/1974010
| ML19253B714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1974 |
| From: | Bores R, Gallina C, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253B711 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-74-10, NUDOCS 7910180701 | |
| Download: ML19253B714 (12) | |
Text
- _. _
_
i
-
,.-
.
~
.-
,
.
p
-* '
-,. -
U.. S. ATO.'!IC ENERGY CO.TIISSION
.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIO"S
REGION I
RO Inspection Report No.: 50-289/74-10 Docket No.:
50-289 Licensee:
Metrocolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed)
License No.:
CPPR-40
,
P. O. Box 542 Priority:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
B.1
.
.
,
.
,
Location:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Unit No. 1 (TMI)
,
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Type of Licensee:
B &W 871 MWe (PWR)
Type of Inspection:
Special - Announced (Emergency Planning)
,-(j Dates of Inspection:
February-25-27, and March 7,1974
Dates of Previous Inspection: February 21, 1974 Reporting Inspector:
.:A4/.44Jd.",/a//*e 3 *20' N l
C. O. Gallind, Ph.D., Radiation Specialist Date Accompanying Inspectors:
O-]O.1 /
I R. J. Bores, Radiation Specialist Date
,
.
.
,
.
Date
.
.
Other Accompanying Personnel:
Date
,
-
Reviewed By:
r 29 N
,,
J.
F.
tonr7 Lnier, r.nvironmental Protection and Spec al Programs Section
[
Date 1 Ann
, r.,
-
.ww
.).) c l44b b
b
"
.
-
il91018070/
/
..
-N
.
.
,
,,
i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,,
E'forcement Action n
None
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items (Emercency Plannine)
.
None
'
-
Design Changes None Unusual Occurrences None Other Sienificant Findincs
.
Current Findings No violations were identified.
-
Status of Previous 1v Reported Unresolved Items (Emernency Plannine)
s -
None identified
-
,
Management' Interview
.
A management meeting was held at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI) in Middletown, Pennsylvania on February 27, 1974, following a
,
combined inspection which covered the areas of environtental conitoring (TMI Units 1 and 2) and etergency planning (TMI Unit 1).
Details of all environ = ental aspects of this inspection effort have been documented in RO Inspection Report Nos. 50-289/74-07 and 50-320/74-02. The following
.
individuals were in attendance:
Dr. C. O. Gallina, Radiation Specialist, USAEC-RO:I Hr. R. J. Bores, Radiation Specialist, USAEC-RO :I Mr. R. L. Spessard, Reactor Inspector, USAEC-RO:I Mr. J. G.*Herbein, Station Superintendent, Met-Ed Mr. J. J. Colitz, Station Engineer - Unit No. 1, Met-Ed Dr. T. S. Baer, Station Engineer - Unit No.
2,* Met-Ed Mr. T. A. Jencks, Radtation Safety and Environ = ental Engineering, Met-Ed Mr. R. S. Deakin, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Met-Ed
.
- Acting Technical Engineer - TMI Unit No. 1
.
1445 082
..........
-
-
.
.
.. _
, _. _
..
__
__
_
_
i I
,
e
'
-2-
!
i l
!
'/
,,
,
-
-
,
}k. K. E. Beale, Radiation Protection Forecan, Met-Ed
'w,.
Mr. W. E. Potts, QA Supervisor, Met-Ed
)k. F. H. Grice, Safety and Training Ccordinator, Met-Ed Mr. R. L. Su==ers, Assistant Engineer, Met-Ed Mr. R. W. Heward, Jr., Project Manager, GPUSC Mr. M. A. Shatto, Quality Assurance Inspector, GPUSC Mr. J. J. Barton, Start-up and Test Manager, GPUSC Mr. M. J. Stromberg, Quality Assurance Manager, GPUSC Mr. G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Inspector, GPUSC During this meeting the following items pertaining to emergency planning at the TMI site were discussed:
A.
Emergency Imolementation Procedures
'
The licensee stated that the minor p~rocedural deficiencies in the areas of accountability, search and rescue and on-site release rate would be corrected prior to conducting the emergency training exercise.
(Repcrt Details, Paragraph 3)
<
.
B.
Meteoroloev
,'
,
.
,
The licensee stated that efforts would be intensified so that the
'-
required meteorology equipment capable of being tonitored and
-
recorded in the control rocm would be installed and operational as soon as possible.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
C.
Communications The licensee stated that additional communications equiptent would be purchased and that efforts to connect on-site base radios to the vital bus or some other source of non-interruptable
'
power would be intensified.
The licensee stated that in this
.
.
@
~CA
.)
) T 1445 083
.
q,e--
weg>-e
,y eD 4 T
W--
)
- W#
4 %
- "
- * *
- * * * ' *
_-_ ___.
... _ _
.
_.
,- *
'
_3_
..
.
,-
o.
!
t
...J"
= latter case, the specific deadline for completion of the modification could nut be given at this tice due to the need for an evaluation of the codifications involved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 5)
D.
Letters of Acreecent The inspector noted that two letters of agreement were still outstanding at the time of the inspection. These letters in-cluded a let,ter from the licensee's plant physician and a letter from the Penn Central Railroad.
The licensee stated sede difficulty had been encountered in obtaining the appropriate letter from the Penn Central Railroad, but that it was the licensee's belief that the objectives of this letter (ability of the licensee to stop Penn Central trains from passing througn the site during e=ergency conditions) could be obtained through the cooperation of the Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police. The inspector stated tha't this catter would be investigated further with representatives of
,
the Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania.
With respect to the letter of agree =ent from the licensee's plant physician, the licensee stated that this letter would be forthcoming shortly and that no significant problems were foreseen in obtaining this letter
'
prior to the issuance of an operating license.
(Report Details,
-
,_)
Paragraph 6)
.
E.
General E=creency Planning
.
The inIspector reviewed with the licensee various details of the inspecticn as they pertained to general e=ergency planning at the TMI site as well as various items docu=ented in R0 Inspection
!
Report No. 50-289/73-17.
The inspector noted that some areas cf emergency planning did contain minor deficiencies which potentially could inhibit effective i=plementation of the TMI E=ergency Plan.
The licensee stated that these minor deficiencies would be rectified prior to the scheduled emergency training
'
exercise. These deficiencies included such items as air sa=pling equipment, emergency monitoring kits, first-aid training, area caps, overlays, phone lists, facility plot plan, and personnel training.
(Report Details, Paragraph 7)
'
F.
E=ercency Training Exercise The inspector and licensee reviewed various details relating to the ccergency training exercise which was scheduled by the licensee to be conducted en March 7, 1974.
The licensee stated that all appropriate on-site and off-site officials had been i445 084 i.UbWh
J-
-4-s%
'
l I
- ,n notified of the impending training exere.se and that represent-
'
-
atives from the Cc=conwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania
- !
State Police had been invited to observe the drill along with
'
various corporate representatives of Met-Ed and GPUSC.
(Report Details, Paragraph 8)
On February IS,1974, Mr. J. G. Herbein, DII Station Superintendent, was contacted by Mr. E. J. Brunner, Chief of Reactor Operations Branch, USAEC-RO:I to confirm Region.'s position that various critical areas (Items B, C. and D) would have to be completed prior to RO:I's recoc=endation that an operating license be issued.
Mr. Herbein confir ed his understanding
-
of this catter and stated that every effort would be made to co=plete the above items as soon as poss'ible.
The second management meeting was held at the TMI site on March 7, 1974
'
subsequent to the co=pletion of the emergency training exercise. The
,
',
following individuals were in attendance:
!'
'
'
Dr. C. O. Gallina, Radiatioa Specialist, USAEC-RO:I Mr. J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent, Met-Ed Mr. J. J. Colitz, Station En31neer - Unit No. 1, Met-Ed
.
!
Dr. T. S. Baer, Station Engineer - Unit No.
2,* Met-Ed Mr. T. A. Jencks, Radiation-Safety & Environmental Engineering, Met-Ed During this meeting the following items were discussed:
"
,
we A'
Emergency I=olecentation Procedures
.
'
The inspector stated that a review of emergency implementation procedures prior to the emergency training exercise had indicated that all outstanding procedures had been completed.
(Report l
Details, Paragraph 3)
B'
Meteorology
.
The inspector noted that construction work and cable pulling
-
operations had been initiated w!th respect to control room
.
meteorology equipment. The licenree stated that this operation was being expedited and was stated for cocpletion prior to the ter.tative target date for the issuance of an operating license.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
C'
Communications The inspector noted.that additional walkie-talkie radios had been provided by the licensee on an interim basis pending the arrival of additional units for use during e=ergency operations.
.
- Acting Technical Engineer, DfI Unit No. 1 1445 185
'
, _ _ _. -..
,
i l-5-
!
,
,
,
t
.
The licensee stated that upon evaluation of the codifications
*%
~
required to connect on-site base radios to the vital bus it was now possible to state that the modifications could be completed within 30 days.
(Report Details, Paragraph 5)
D'
Letters of Agreement The inspector noted that subsequent to conversations with officials of the Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania that a letter of agreccent would not be required from the Penn Central Railroad.
The inspector stated that Cc==onwealth representatives had the authority to prohibit Penn Central trains rom traveling
through potentially contaminated areas in the event that a radiation emergency required such action.
The licensee stated that the remaining letter of agreement from the plant physician
,
s'as due shortly.
(Report Details, Phragraph 6)
E'
General Emergency Planning The inspector stated that with the exception of intensive first-aid training for selected TMI personnel, that all minor (,
deficiencies with respect to emergency planning had been rectified.
The licensee stated that an intensive first-aid
training program was scheduled to be initiated on March 11, 1974, and would be completed prior to the issuance of an operating license.
(Report Details, Paragrah 7)
,
F'
. Emergency Training Exercise
.
The inspector reviewed with the licensee overall observations made during the emergency training exercise. The inspector stated that, although some deficiencies were noted, they did not
'
appear to be of a magnitude that would prevent TMI's emergency planning frcm adequately handling all contingencies.at the TMI
site.
(Report Details, Paragraph 8)
.
e Y
.
.
1445 386
..
_.. _.
-
'
.
/
,;
.
n s
'
REPORT DETAILS
-
1.
Persons Contacted Mr. J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent, Met-Ed Mr. J. J. Colitz, Station Engineer - Unit No. 1, Met-Ed
-
Dr. T. S. Eser, Station Engineer - Unic No. 2,* Me t-Ed Mr. T. A. Jencks, Radiation Safety & Environmental Engineering, Met-Ed**
Mr. R. S. Deakin, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Met-Ed Mr. K. E. Beale, Radiation Protection Foreman, Met-Ed Er. R McCane, Radiation Protection Foreman, Met-Ed Mr. W. E. Potts, Quality Assurance Supervisor, Met-Ed Mr. F. H. Grice, Safety and Trnining Coordinator, Met-Ed Mr. R. L. 5 - ars, Assistant Engineer, Met-Ed Mr. M. R. Baring, Health Physicist, Met-Ed**
Mr. R. Zechr:an, Training Specialist, Met-Ed**
Mr. R. W. Heward, Jr., Proj ect Manager, GPUSC Mr. E. A. Shatto, Quality Assn-ance Ins.pector, GPUSC Er. J. J. Earten, Start-up and Test Manager, GPUSC
-
Er. E. J. Stromberg, Quality Assurance Mnnnger, GPUSC Er. G. L.. Roshy, Quality Assurance Inspector, GPUSC Er. D. E. Reppert, Safety and Licensing Health Physicist, GPUSC**
Er. S. W. Porter, Jr., Vice-President, Fen 1 th Physics, Radiation Hana3 ment Corporation **
('
Sgt. C. Lanardi, Pennsylvania State Police **
-
Es. E. A. Raf fly, Chief, Enviro:= ental Radiological Survef f innce Section, Office of Radiological Rant th, Corr:auwealth of Pennsylvania **
-
2.
General
-
Areas - ined during this inspection included a detailed review
cf the current status of the T 4<-a eee's Fmengency Plan with associated i=ple=entation procedures for the EH site. The Emergency Plan is set forth as Appendix 12A cf the subject in flity's FSAR. The emergency impla-antation procedures are
,
set forth in a dar-n-ant prepared by Metropolitan Edison Cc=pany (Met-Ed} entitled, "Three Mile Island F-argency Plan and Pro-ced=res".
This latter document is divided into two volumes, Yale =e I denting with radiological erv gencies, and Volc=a II desting with non-radiological emergencies. Details of the initial emergency pinnning inspection for the DfI site are docn-ented in HD I=spection Report No. 50-289/73-17.
An in-plant inspection, was conducted in order to review the status cf e=ergency planning at the THI site. Areas covered included the Control Rocn with associated emergency eq=ip=ent and i=stru-
,, =entaticn, the E=ergency Control Statice, evacuation routes, e=er-gency c f estions, survey equip =ent, and all associated e-eqency equip =ent inventories.
g
,yn l 9 4. U JJU
-
- Acting Technical Engineer, TMI - Ucit 1 1445 087
- Observers during Radiation Emergency Drill
~7-
,I
.
/
An emergency training exercise was also observed as r'
inspection effort.
part of tLis
'.
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Stat various corporate officials from the Met-Ed and CPU organiz e Police, and (See Paragraph 8)
a ons.
% --
3.
Emergency Implementation Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's emergency impleme t procedures and noted that all deficiencies identified in RO n ation Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-17 had been corrected
'
licensee had removed all instances which involve The
-
.
subjective decision making and had provided pre-determined ve criteria which would enable the E=ergency Plan to be implem as effectively as possible under all potential emergency ented conditions.
vided covering the areas of toxic releases, acco personnel, and search and rescue phases of e=crgency action It was also noted that appropriate modifications had b
'
.
cowpleted on procedures for environ = ental sample collectio een ensure that appropriate samples would be collected foll n to site emergency in order to establish that radioactive mat owing a not been released beyond the limits of the TMI site boundar erial had y.
the licensee stated that an operating procedur se rates, the containment vessel following a serious ac was provided
,
rom
.-
quired.containcent pressurization.
c ent which re-from the facility during emergency conditions w se rate
"The inspector reviewed this procedurecould be used subsequently j
posures.
information was presented to meet and determined that sufficient this objective.
4.
.Me teorolo gy_
.
.
In inspecting emergency equipment at noted that meteorology equipment located in the Control Rthe TM inoperable.
had not been provided from the meteorology tower ace was r ng mentacion,in the Control Room.
e instru-effective imple=entation of the TMI Emergenc espect to in the areas of estimating off-site dose rates and
, especially The inspector stated that a recorrendation for the iair concentrations
were not operable. operating license would not be given if this critical ssuance of an Following discussions with varicus contractor trumen ta tion
.
.
J
\\
_
.
.,
.
.
1445 088
.._. -
._..
_
.
-.
_-
.
(
g/
_w
-
,
%Y
,
_
=
_
_
_m
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
,
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
._
_
_
_
- _
_
_
. _-.
. _.
_
.-
-'
_
_
__
_
_
._
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__.
__
.
.
.
.
.
1445 089
_
_ _.
.
p
,
-8-
'
.-
.
ry
.~
personnel, the licensee stated that the necessary cable pulling
"
and wiring required to place =cteorology equipment in an operable status would be initiated i==ediately and that co=pletion of this work could be accomplished prior to issuance of an operating license.
The inspector noted that preliminary phases of this operation had been initiated prior to completion of inspection.
5.
Co==unications The inspector noted that co==unications would have to be maintained between the Control Room and/or E=ergency Control Station and all monitoring tea =s (on-site and off-site).
In order to meet this objective the inspector reviewed the status of the licensee's communication system.
The inspector noted that only one portable walkie-talkie could be located during the initial phase of the inspection effort. The licensee stated that four additional radios were currently being used by Start-up and Test personnel but initial efforts to locate thesa devices were unsuccessful. The inspector stated that the number of co==unication devices (portable walkie-
talkies) was inadequate when compared with the broad scope of the licensee's monitoring team program.
In addition, the inspector stated that although emergency equip =ent could be used for routine operations, that strict control should be maintained'so that the whercabouts of this equipment could be known at all tices. The licensee stated that additional co==unication devices would be
~s purchased and that the per=anent location of these devices would
-
be transferred fron the Control Room to the E=ergency Control Station.
The licensee stated that logbooks would be maintained so that the location of these radios could be ascertained when they were being used for routine operation.
In reviewing further aspects of the co==unication system at the
-
TMI site, the inspector noted that the base radios located in the
,
Control Room and E=ergency Control Station, while the=selves con-nected to the vital bus, operated via a re=ote transmitter antenna system outside the primary reactor complex.
Further investigation
,
revealed that the transmitter had not been connected to the vital bus, therefore, the licensee could not guarantee co==unications during all e=ergency conditions when off-site power was unavailable.
The licensee stated that some form of reliable power would be provided to the transmitter and that this might involve connection to the vital bus or to a =otor driven generator.
The licensee estimated that this operation could be co=pleted within 30 days.
.
6.
Letters of Aereeeent
.
The inspector noted that letters of agreement had been obtained from all off-site agencies utilized by the licensee to i=plerer.t their E=ergency Plan with the exception of (a) a letter frco Pr.nn 1445 090
'
-
_.
.
/
y-9-
,
-
. Central Railroad restrictng access of trains to the site in the event of an c:ergency and (b) a letter from the newly acquired e
plant physician who_had agreed to report to the site to provide s
emergency first-sid assistance if needed.
The licensee stated that no significant delay was foreseen with respect to the letter from the plant physician but that several atte= pts to obtain letter of agree =ent from Penn Central Railroad had not been successful.
The licensee stated, however, that it was his belief that in event of an crergency, officials from the Conconwealth of Pennsylvania or Pennsylvania State Police could effectively pre-vent Penn Central trains from crossing the TMI site. The inspector
.
was able to verify fro = officials of the Co==onwealth of Pennsyl-vania that such actions could be effected under emergency conditions.
The inspector therefore stated that a letter of agreement would not be required from the Penn Central Railroad.
7.
General E=ereency Planning In reviewir; general emergency planning aspects at the TMI site the
.
inspector noted minor deficiencies w'th respect to equip =ent i
inventories, air sacplers, e=ergency monitoring kits, area caps and overlays, phone lists, facility plot plan and various training aspects of personnel.
The licensee stated that actions to eli=inate these deficiencies would be accelerated and the inspector noted that all the above deficienc,ies had been corrected prior to the
-- s emergency training exercise.
The sole re=aining deficiency at the
-
time of the e=ergency training exercise was the lack of intensive first-aid training for various supervisory licensee personnel.
The licenaee stated that this intensive first-aid training program was scheduled to be initiated on March 11, 1974.
The inspector reviewed the subject caterial for the training course. The licensee stated that the first-aid training program would be y
complete prior to the issuance of an operating license.
8.
Emercency Trainine Exercise
'
On March 7, 1974 at 5:00 p.m.,
a general e=crgency drill was
'
initiated at the TMI site.
In addition to the inspector, ob-servers included officials from the Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police and representatives of Met-Ed and GPU service organizations.
The inspector noted that the scenario for the drill included several reactor operating conditions which enabled the licensee to check operator response to emergency conditions prior to the actual declaration of a general e=ergency.
.
.
.
1445 09.1
..
.
i-10-
'
!
/
'
.
.
(
.
The general emergency itself involved not only a significant off-site release, but also included significant on-site reactor related problems thereby exercising not only the licensee's off-site monitoring team but also on-site monitoring teams and
s-.
eemergency repair parties.
The inspector observed that radiation monitor " readings" were injected into the problem and personnel were asked to calculate predicted whole body and thyroid doses at various locations.
In the absence of operating meteorological equipment, predetermined meteorology conditions were also pro-vided.
The Anspector noted that the meteorology conditions were
.
atypical in the sense that they were more complicated and variable then those one might expect to find under realistic conditions, thereby requiring additional response on the part
.
of licensee personnel.
..
The inspector noted that communications were exercised during this drill as well as contact with off-site agencies and no significant deficiencies were observed during this phase of the
,
exercise. A potential problem was identified subsequent t) the exercise in that off-site agencies encountered some difficulty in recontacting the TM1 site.
The licensee stated that this
,
catter was being investigated further and that additional unlisted a
phone numbers would be disse =inated to involved individuals in order to correct this deficiency.
o(,
The inspector noted that with the exception of those individuals
.
'
i and off-site teams, although provided with artificial dose rate.
'
and concentration readings, were noted to actually operate all air sampling and monitoring equip =ent.
-
.During the course of the drill various problems were inserted by
'
licensee personnel.
These problems included the rise of hydrogen concentration in containment with subsequent calculations to
,
I determine the allowable reactor building purge flow, estimates of doses to off-site personnel resulting from this flow, and other
'
similar emergency related proble=s.
One artifical condition was also inserted by the inspector and this involved the reading by an off-site monitoring team of 250 mR/hr at the start of the l
.
sampling run.
The licensee utilized this information to update
'
source term values, but failed to realize that under such dose rate conditions, that air particulate filters and iodine cartridges could not be counted in the field.
The inspector noted that under such conditions, the sampling run should be terminated and after appropriate information recorded as to time, location, and duration of sampling run, that'the monitoring team should proceed to a lower background level while retaining the sa=ples taken for counting at a later time.
1445 M2
.
?
i
!
__
..
. _ _
,#
-11-s i'c,.
.
-
,
(
,,
The drill was concluded after 7:00 p.m. and was followed by a detailed critique with all iavolved personnel and observers. The inspector noted that the overall evaluation of the etergency drill as was provided by licensee personnel, officials from the Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police and other observers was generclly favorable. The minor deficiencies identified during the drill by both the inspector and observers were noted and docu-mented. The licensee stated that action on these items would be taken as soon as possible. The inspector noted that none of these deficiencies were of any magnitude to be considered a serious or significant outstanding item with respect to emergency planning.
,
'
.
.
t
'~'
.
C
.
e t
.
g
.
f
.
.
V
%