IR 05000289/1974017
| ML19253B753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1974 |
| From: | Meyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253B750 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-74-17, NUDOCS 7910180740 | |
| Download: ML19253B753 (7) | |
Text
..
-
.. -...
.
-.
-
.
'
. - -
... -
+
.
.
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
.
.
REGION I
RO Inspection Report No:
<;n_99o / 7s _3 7 Docket No:
50-289 Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No: CPPR-40
.
Reading, Pennsylvania Priority:
Three Mile Island - Unit 1 Category:
B Location:
Middletown, Ponnsylvania Type of Licensee:
-
Type of Inspection:
Routine Health Physics & Chemistry D'ates of Inspection:
March 20, 21 & April 17, 1974 uates of Previous In
,.
March.18, 19, 1974 O
Reporting Inspectors
\\
es-w c
-
(
90( 7 R. J. Meyer, Radiation 't'pecialyst Date Accompanying Inspectors:
None
"
Date Date Date
.-
Date
.
Other Acconpanying Personnel:
None Date
)
Reviewed By:
v -o x o M NP$( ~/ /
r. J. ratapp, Senior, Racylogical and Environmental Date Protection Branch Ikk 016
I
~
i
.
'
.-
..
,5
.'
<
6'-
,
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action
-
A.
Violations None
.
B.
Safety Items
.
None Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items None (Health Physics & Chemistry)
Unusual Occurrences
.
.
None Other Significant Findings
'
i A.
Current Findings
.
The health physics and chemistry program has been finalized, pro-cedures completed and staff complement brought to strength. Training remains' consistent with FSAR commitments.
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None (Health Physics & Chemistry)
Management Interview The following individuals attended the manage =ent interview held at the conclusion of the inspection on March 21, 1974:
-
' Metropolitan Edison Coccany - Three Mile Island Station J. Herbein, Plant Superintendent J. Colitz, Station Engineer, Unit 1 R. Deakin, Radiation Protection Supervisor M. Shutto, Project Engineer R. Su==ers, Staff Engineer
.
Metropolitan Edison Cocoany - Reading Office
.
.
g
.
.
'
'.
.
-2-
.
.
848
.
.
General Public Utilities
.
G. Miller, Startup Engineer M. Stromberg, Site Audit G. Roshy, Site Audit
.
The following subjects were discussed:
A.
General - The inspector described the scope of the inspection and
.
stated that no violations had been noted.
B.
Organization - The inspector described his understanding of the finalized health physics and chemistry organization and stated that it was consistent with the FSAR.
The licensee confirmed the inspector's understanding.
(Details, Paragraph 2a)
C.
Training - The inspector stated that he had reviewed the training
.
programs pertinent to general radiati'n safety and technician o
training and found them to be consistent with the FSAR and in accordance with established procedures. The licensee stated that this area would receive continuing review.
(Details, Paragraph 3a)
'
D.
Procedures - The inspector stated that his review of procedure s
status showed that procedures had been completed, approved and issued in accor<!ance with established indices.
(Details, Para-graph 4a)
E.
Pre-Op Tests - The inspector discussed his findings with respect to status and completion dates.
The licensee confirmed these findings.
(Details, Paragraph Sa-b)
F.
As Low As Practicable (ALAP) - The inspector discussed ALAP with respect to that described in Regulatory Guide 8.8.
The licensee stated that they felt their program was in keeping with the reference and would receive continuing review.
(Details, Para-graph 6a)
G.
Iodine Removal Efficiency Tests (Charcoal Filters) - In response to the inspector's questions, the licensee stated that this was still under consideration.
(Details, 2aragraph 7a)
1441 533
.
-
- -.. _ - -
-
.
.
.
.
.
e (
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Herbein, Superintendent J. Colitz, Station Engineer, Unit 1 T. Bear, Station Engineer, Unit 2 (Acting Tech. Eng. Unit 1)
R. Deakin, Radiation Protection Supervisor K. Beale, Radiation Protection Fore =an
'
R. McCann, Radiation Protection Fore =an R. Zeckman, Training Specialist R. Lentz, Instrunent Engineer, G.P.U. Startup G. Miller, Engineer, G.P.U. Startup 2.
Organization (Health Physics & Chemistry)
,
a.
The inspector's review of the organizational alignment showed
that previously discussed changes * have been made. The organi-zation as shown in Attachment 1 finalizes alignment and responsibilities as confirmed by the licensee. The existing organization has been expanded with respect to additional positions, staff personnel and capabilities from that described in Section 12 of the FSAR.
The backgrounds and experience of supervisory personnel remain consistent with ANSI 18.1-1971.
With respect to health physics coverage on the back shif ts the licensee stated that rad / chem technicians are currently assigned to back shift coverage for test and startup.
3.
Training
'
.
a.
The '>nspector reviewed the training programs relative to radiation safety for plant employees and visitors and training for the rad / chem technicians.
It was no ted that retraining frequencies, a previously identified deficiency *, have been included in the defined training programs. The inspector re-viewed training records of randomly selected individuals from the various work groups.
The review showed that training is continuing in accordance with the licensee's defined program and procedures.
Training is consistent with Section 12 of the FSAR and ANSI 18.1-1971.
4.
Procedures (Health Physics & Chemistry)
a.
The inspector's review of procedure status showed that all procedures have been approved and issued in accordance with
- RO Inspection Report 50-289/73-29 (hkk b
a
._
,
-
l
.
-
..
4-
.
$6 (
-
established indices.
Previously identified deficiencies * have been corrected or procedures rewritten to resolve those defic-iencies.
Procedures now appear consistent with that needed to:
(1) implement the health physics program; (2) conform to technical specification requirements; (3) provide the mechanisms to =eet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, and (4) conform to FSAR
,
commitments.
5.
Pre-Op Test Status
.
a.
The inspector reviewed available test data and determined the status of testing as noted in the table below.
Status as shown is updated through April 17, 1974.
Meets Test.
Test Data Acceptance Test # & System Tested and In Service Reviewed Criteria
.
i TP 360/2 All stations except 12 & 14 Yes Yes Area Monitor System
!
TP 360/1C Liquid Waste Monitor Yes Yes
,-
Liquid Monitor Effluent Monitor Yes Yes
,
System
!
.
TP 360/lA
- RM-A13 Yes Yes Portable Atmos-l pheric Monitors f
!
.
TP 360/1B Stack Monitor Yes Yes Atmospheric Moni-Fuel Handling Bldg.
Yes Yes j
tors Fixed Systems Reactor Bldg. Purge Yes Yes
-
l TP 230/8 Solid Waste System * Complete Yes Yes
_ _ - - -
- TP 230/3 & 230/4 !
Liquid Waste System Complete Yes Yes t
- TP 231/3 i
.
Gaseous System Complete Yes Yes SP-2 f
Filter Systems
. Complete Yes Yes
!
-
- Test Procedure results accepted and approved by the Test Work Group (TRG).
1441 435
- RO Inspection Reports 50-289/73-08 & 73-29
____
, ---
'
-
. -
_5_
'
'
s i
b.
The inspector determined that systems not identified in the table above are not pertinent to control, minimization or evaluation of radiation or radioactive releases during fuel
,
loading.
According to the licensee all of the above systems will be completed and the results reviewed and approved by the TWG prior to reactor criticality.
6.
As Low As Practicable (ALAP)
.
a.
The 1:1spector reviewed the overall health physics and chemistry program for specifics to ALAP.
It was noted that a formal prograu has not been documented; however, the program has inherent features that provide mechanisms for ALAP. The licensee has not named an individual to be responsible for ALAP; however, certain position levels have this as an inherent responsibility. ALAP is also spoken to in the training programs.- One program, al-though not formally documented, i,s currently underway. This
.
program is oriented toward future maintenance and replacement of valves that are expected to present exposure problems.
Briefly, this involves identifying and photographing valves and their locations.
Photographs will be maintained for purposes of pre-planning maintenance' work on the valves.
The licensee stated that they will continue to revtew their program.
7.
Todine Removal Efficiency Tests (Charcoal Filters)
It Oss determined that the licensee did not assume credit for a.
iodine reroval when calculating doses resulting from postulated maximum c. edible accidents.
On this basis iodine removal efficiency tests as described in Regulatory Guide 1.52 were not performed by the licensee.
According to the licensee these tests remain under consideration.
.
.
1441
?36
--
---
\\/
.
..
,
'
-
-
.
..
,.
,,
!
-
.
.
..
SUPERINIENDENT THREE MILE ISLiND
.
-
..
a STATION STATION ENGINEER ENGINEER STAFF CHEMIST UNIT 2 UNIT 1
-
i
_
CHEMIST CHDi1 CAL RADIATION SUPERVISOR PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
.
RADIATION RADIATION PROTECTION PROTECTION g
FOREMAN FORDIAN
l
'
c
,
-I
-
.
-
RAD-CHEt TECHNICIANS (8)
.
RAD-CHDI TECHNICIANS-JR.
(11)
.
RADIATION PROTECTION-CHDIISTRY ORGANIZATION THREE MILE ISLAND ATTACHMENT 1 1441 537