IR 05000289/1974027
| ML19256D463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1974 |
| From: | Meyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D459 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-74-27, NUDOCS 7910180797 | |
| Download: ML19256D463 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _
.... _ _. _. _ _
.
-
._
,
,
f i
.
~
~
9^
U.S. AT0311C ENERGY COSCIISSION
.
.
DIRECTO?.iTC OF REdUL\\ TORY OPERATIONS
REGION I
RO Inspection Report No:
50-289/74-27 Docket No: 50-289 Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No: DPR-50 P.O. Box 542 Priority:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
B2 Three Mile Island 2.'uclear Station Location:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Typc of Licensee:
.
.
Type of Inspection:
Radiation Protection & Chemistry - Announced
, Dates of Inspection:
July 11, 12, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: June 24, 25, 1974 ICLW <g
)-
,,7 ([
Reporting Inspector;
/. e R
I Meyer, Radiatich Specialist DATE I
Accompanying Inspec tors:
None
.
Other Acconpanying Personnel:
.None 4 g! %
/
M 7. - 7[. 7e Revictred ny:
.
i l
.j.'h*ntpp,Chiof,F(cilitiesRadictina DATE
Protection Section 1449 223 39101807 7
_
-.
. -..
. - -,
.
..
.
'
.
r%
e SUM!!ARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action A.
Violations 1.
Failure to maintain positive control of individuals entering a high radiation area as required'by 10 CFR Part 20.203(c)(2)(iii).
(Details, Paragraphs Sa-g)
2.
Failure to follow established procedures as required by Technical Specification 6.2.3.
(Details, Paragraphs Sa-g)
B.
Safety Items None
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforce,nen,t Items None (Radiation Protection & Chemistry)
Design Changes None applicable Unusual Occurrences Unauthorized entry beyond primary shield area.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
Other Significant Findines A.
Current Findines A review of the radiation protection and chemistry program shesed that implementation is occurring consistent with assigned respon-sibility and reactor powcr escalation.
The staff ec=plement has been increased for the period during power ascension.
Temporary changes in responsibilities have been effected because of the loss (deceased) of the Radiation Protection Supervisor and the heavy chemistry load.
Shakedosm and revision of procedures continues.
B.
Status of Previousiv Recorted Unresolved Items None (Radiation Protection & Chemistry)
1449 124 g
_
.-.
- -
, _.
. - -... -
-_
_
__
.
.
.
-2-
-3
.
-
.
6\\
O
.
.
Management Interview The following individuals attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection on July 12, 1974.
J. Herbein, Plant Superintendent J. Colitz, Station Engineer, Unit 1 K. Beale, Radiation Protection Supervisor (Acting)
"
W. Potts, QC Supervisor T. Jenks, Supervisor Radiation Safety & Environmental Engineering (Reading Of fice)
G. Miller, Test Superintendent, GPUSC The following subjects were discussed:
A.
The inspector described the scope of the inspection and identified the apparent violations.
The inspector further stated that he had reviewed corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence.
(Details, Paragraphs Sc-g)
B.
Other areas of discussion are noted below:
9-1.
Organization (Details, Paragraphs 2a-c)
2.
Startup Surveys (Details, Paragraphs 3a & b)
3.
Program Implementation (Details, Paragraphs Sa-g)
4.
Startup & Power Ascension Tests (Details, Paragraph 6a)
1449 225
.
O
.
' 9MW
_
,
_. -. - -
.
_
.
'
<
)
On
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Herbein, Plant Superintendent
'
J. Colitz, Station Engineer, Unit 1 T. Baer, Station Engineer, Unit 2 (Acting Technical Supervisor,
Chemistry)
r K. Beale Radiation Protection Foreman (A: ting Radiation Protection 3 Supervisor)
K. Frederick, Staff Chemist M. Buring, Acting Radiation Protection Foreman 2.
Organization-Rad-Protection & Chemistry a.
The inspector's review of the existing organization and responsibilities remains consistent 'with that described in Section 12 of the FSAR.
Certain modifications have been effected for the period of startup and power ascension relative to responsibility for chemistry ad radiochemistry.
S>S As noted, the Unit 2 Station Engineer has assumed this respon-sibility. Additional support to this function is being provided by GPU Systems Laboratory, S. T. Powell Associates (consultant)
and B&W.
b.
The recent death of the Radiation Protection Supervisor has resulted in a vacancy in that position. One of the Radiation Protection Foremen is acting on an interim basis.
The licensee stated that considerations to fill the vacancy are under review.
Additional support to the radiation protection function is being provided by GPU and the Met Ed, Reading Group. P.adiation pro-tection foremen have been assigned to around the clock coverage.
The inspector's review showed that qualifications of respon-c.
sibic individuals are as described in Section 12 of the FSAR and consistent with Section C.l.c of Regulatory Guide 8.10.
3.
' Startun Surveys A review of the startup survey and shield survey records shoved a.
that they are being conducted on a basis consistent with power ascension and in accordance with approved procedures. A summary of surveys being conducted are noted below:
?449 226
_. _ _ _. _. _ _ _
__
__
_
__
,
,
-4 -
I T
.
,
.
On
'
(1) Shield Survey, Gamma & Neutron (TP 800/3)
(a) Background - completed (b) Zero power - completed (c) 40% power - completed
.
(2) Radiation and Contamination, Surveys (a) Accessible restricted areas (routine)
(b) Unrestricted areas (routine)
(c) Job related surveys (3) Surveys for airborne activity
.
(a) In-plant areas (routine)
(b) Job related as required ~
Of'h b.
The inspector determined, by observation and measurements on a spot check basis, that gamma radiation and beta gamma contam-ination levels were as described in survey records.
It was noted that survey results are being evaluated and radiation areas being identified as they develop with continued operation and power escalation, t
4.
Use of Instrumentation and Ecuipment The inspector's review showed that instruments and equipment a.
were in service and being used in accordance with established procedures. The review included observations, discussions and a review of records relating to the areas and items noted below:
(1) Instruments and Equipment (a) Malfunctions being identified and corrected (b) Procedures revised as necessary upon implementation (c) Supplies maintained (2) Interpretation of Results 1449 227 (a) Neutron doses (b) Camma doses
-
-
.
-
-5-
'
.
)
O(o
.
(c) Contamination survey *
(d) Air samples (c) Isotope identification 5.
Program Implementation
.
The inspector reviewed implementation aspects of the radiation a.
protection and chemistry program with respect to conformance w'ith the FSAR, Plant Procedures, Technical Specifications, Regulatory Guide 8.10 and ANSI 18.1.
The areas of the review included those noted below:
(1) Training (2) Procedure implementation
.
(3) Personnel exposure (4) # 2rveillance program f(
(5) Routine survey program (6) Housekeeping b.
It was noted that procedures continue to be revised as incon-sistencies are noted during implementation.
Changes to pro-cedures have been reviewed and approved in accordance with established review and approval requirements. Procedural changes selected by the inspector for revicu were noted to be documented in PORC recting minutes.
c.
An unusual occurrence involving an unauthorized entry by two individuals to the secondary shield area in the reactor building was reviewed by the inspector.
It was noted that the occurrence was detected, circumstances reviewed and corrective acticas instituted by the licensee in a timely manner.
Exposures received by the two individuals were 150 and 180 millirem respectively.
d.
As documented by the licensee, two contractor personnel were authorized to enter the rcactor building on July 3, 1974 at approximately 9:00 a.m.
for a valve inspection.
The entry was limited to the area outside the seccadary shield area as required by Radiation Cork Pernit (P.UP) 0331.
Radiation levels in the area trere less than 5 millirem per hour as recorded en the RL:?.
1449 228
.
_
___.
..
,
__ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
/
,
-6-
,
,
.,
.
.
s l
'
At approximately 10.26 a.m. the individuals exited the area.
Pocket dosimeter readings as read by the control watch showed readings of 150 and 180 milliroentgen respectively.
e.
Ic=ediate notification was made to the radiation protection supervisor and the event was reviewed.
It was determined that the individuals had entered beyond the secondary shield area.
Radiation surveys were conducted which showed dose rates to 3 rcentgen per hour (caximum). ' Exposure rates and exposure times were determined which were consistent with pocket dosi-meter results.
It was further determined that one of the individuals was not wearing a film badge, f.
The inspector's review of pertinent procedures, records and the licensee's documented review, showed the following violations.
(1) Section 6.4.1 of Health Physics 5'rocedure 1630, Reactor Building Entry, requires that a radiation protection technician must be included in the entry party. A technician did not attend the entry.
9'
(2) Radiation Work Permit (RUP) 0331 required that a film badge be worn.
One individual entered without a film badge.
(3) Section 5 of Security Procedure 1005.22.1 requires that cartain individuals must be authorized on an access list and must be escorted.
The individuals involved were not on the authorized list nor were they escorted.
(4) The licensee did not provide positive control over the individuals entering the reactor building through the normally locked access point as required by 10 CFR 20, 203 (c) (2) (iii).
.
g.
Corrective actions initiated by the licensee are as follows:
(1) Requirements of Health Physics Procedure 1630 reviewed with personnel.
(2) All jobs requiring an RWP must have a technician or auxiliary operator in attendance until job coepiction.
(3) Key to access hatches under control of shift supervisor.
(4) Reactor building entry and exit log maintained.
1449 229 y.
_
--
.
-
-.
- -
-
--
..
'
'
'
~7-
/
s
.
.
.
D"*
- D'9~
p
.
.,
b.
O
.
n
.
!
(5) Entry to secondary shield area requires approval of Plant Superintendent.
(6) Section 5 of Security Procedure 1005.22.1 reviewed with personnel.
(7) The individual that did not wear a film badge must interview with the plant superintendert prior to access list approval.
6.
Waste Manaccment Systems a.
The inspector's review showed that the startup and power ascension test program is continuine in accordance with that described in the FSAR, and as established by test procedures.
Evaluations of test procedure results are being made by the licensee as they are completed with power ascension. The review showed that test results, chemical analysis, radio-chemistry analysis, and primary coolant quality and radio-activity have been within the limits of test criteria, technical specifications, and other AEC requirements.
The areas of review included those noted below through the 40% power plateau.
_
(1) Chemical and radiochemical tests and results primary coolant.
(a) Base (b) Power ascension (2) Radioactive effluents (a) Releases (liquid and gaseous)
(1)
(b) Instrument calibration (pre-startup)
(3) Use of waste cleanup systems
.
(a) Filters (b) Evaporators (4) Solid waste - no disposals to date G._
ZTE : Cal Dration against lab analysis activities are required by TP S00/35. Activities to date have been below the sensitivities of the monitoring systcas.
Will acccmplish when activities increase.
1449 230
.-
_