IR 05000289/1976020
| ML19207B220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1976 |
| From: | Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207B218 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-20, 50-320-76-11, NUDOCS 7908230611 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML19207B220 (16) | |
Text
C n* =-
,.,. = -..
.
.
NI-bk.
.-.,'.')_.
I
- __#~
,
_
-"r
'
--~~ %.: -;:.. _ - -. _ - -
.
(
,.
_::
=h~..-
3,...
u.. _ :Q4 __D. _.
.. _.. -
-
r
_
--
..
' % - %-.
.;72.t..r,
,_
.
-
..g.~
'
. --
u.
~
.
.,_
.-,::;y_ ' IE:I' Form 12
-
-
f
._
~~
_ _.,. (J an 7 5) (R,ev)
-.
.
'
-
_
~-
.t
..
.. _.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC:H{ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCD!ENT
REGION I
>
50-289 50-320 vg.
76-20 and 76-11 Docket No:
IE Inspection Report No:
DPR-50 Metropolitan Edison Company License No: CPPR-66 Licensce:
--
P.
O. Box 542 Priority:
' Unit 1 Unit 2:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
. Category:
Safeguards
--
- up:
Three Mile Island - Middletown, PA 17057 Location:
Unit 1: PWR, 2535 MJt, B&W Type of Licensce: Unit 2: WR, 27 72 MJt, B&W Routine - Unannounced - Emergency Planning Type of Inspection:
.
August 24-26, 1976 Dates o, 7.nspec t:.cn:
.
May 25-28, 1976
.
Dates of Previous Inspection:
f//8/7[
Reporting Inspector:
A, M
Mp
- DnTE '
D.' E. Donald [on, Radiation Specialist NONE Acco=panying Inspectors:
DATE DATE DATE N'ON#
"
Other Accompanying Persennel:
DATE
?
k [3 Reviewed By:
_ _
~
u
/ ' D A'FE J.
P. S[ohr, Chief, Environmental and Spacial Pr 'ects Section 7900,2,3 r 908 2 3 0 G//
.. s
...
--. -
-s _
- ..-
' ;-
- n. = -- -, - :.
__
-
-vmy.--
. _ _. - -
.. _. t.
- - -
-
.,
.~
--
-
-w---
.n
.
.
'
~ _
_
., - -
,.,a,.
~
~ ~ ~ '
,.
Y -.
24 - --i..
_.5,'-
.
"'._.7--w..
...
,. -
~
-
-
.~
.
,
J SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action
,
Items of Nonco=nliance s g.
A.
Violations
-
None identified.
B.
Infractions Contrary to Technical Specification 6.8.1, Radiation Emergency Procedure 1670.12 :nd Health Physics ?rocedure 1778, quarterly emergency equipment readiness checks were not "erfor=ed as re-quired.
(Detail 4.a and 4.f)
C.
Deficiencies
-
None identified.
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identifie'd Enforcenent Action No items with respect to E=ergency Planning.
'
- Renortable Events
~
None identified.
Other Sienificant Findinzs
-
A.
Current Findines 1.
Plant Ste us
.
I
'
' 'During the inspection, Unit 1 was operating and Unit 2 was
.-
runder construction.
-
._
...
.
_
_
,
-
.
..
--
.
-
...
--
-
_
-
.
_.
_-
.-. -
_
-
- _~
._
b e
m
%.
e m
-
..
_
_
g.*
.
s.
'N*
,O
- ,
,*
y
,
.*
-
... -
y
...
.. _
.
.
-
_
C;-
-
-
_
'
f
-
_. _ '- ~
- f-
-
~~
~ --
-
~
,
,
-: _
_
rg{}()g
...
-
~_ -
-. _... - ~
.
.
--
-_
...
,.
.-
__
_
_- - -
-
. _
_,
-
.:-
-
-
-
p
."
$
'
- *
_
- - -
__
_
-- -
,
.s g..
---a_
--
-
..
.
-
.
.. _. -
_
_
_
_
, _, _
__
.
..
...
_ _.
- _
-
, -,_
-
.-
-
-
.
-
. '. = ~..
.. ~
-
-
-
,
-
,
k_
_
v- - -
-.
c(
'
'
.
~
-
-2-
-
_
2.
Unresolved Items a.
Coordination with offsite agencies.
(Detail 3
)
b.
Review and updating of the amergency plan.
(Detail 7)
,
3.
Acceotable Areas
. ;-
-
a.
Facilities and Equipment.
(Details 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e and 4.g)
b.
Medical Treatment / Decontamination Facilities.
(Detail 4)
c.
Emergency Procedures Training.
(Detail 6)
d.
Implenenting Procedures.
(Detail 7)
e.
Emergency Drills.
(Detail 8)
B.
Status of Previous 1v Unresolved Items No unresolved emergency planning items previously identified.
Manacement Intcrviews
.
A.
Entrance Interview A preinspection meeting was conducted on August 24, 1976 with the following attendees:
Three Mile Island Mr. J. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. R. k'.
Dub'iel, Engineer II - Nuclear Mr. A.
Tsaggaris, Training Supervisor USNRC Mr. D. E. Donaldson, Radiation Specialist 790025
.
2'
-
.
.
.
.
-
v'
..
'_
_,..
.
f,
..
.
- -
.
-3-
.
During this meeting, the licensee was requested to identify /
address:
1.
recent plant problems including component failures, un-usual plant responses or radiological problems, e.g.,
'
[
excessive personnel exposures or release of radioactive effluents; and
.3
.
2.
itema of general interese, e.g., impending strikes, fires, facility publicity, etc.
The inspector addressed the following areas:
1.
general scope of the inspection, including estimated dura-tion; 2.
identification of records, procedures and documents to be reviewed; 3.
personnel to be interviewed; and 4.
recent experience at similar facilitier.
3.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted on ite at the conclusion of the inspection on August 26, 1976 with the following attendees:
Three Mile Island Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. J. Ro=anski, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry Mr. R. Dubiel, Engincer II - Nuclear Mr. G. Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent USSRC Mr. D. E. Donaldson, Radiation Specialist
"(80026
-~
.--
e
. b
~
,
.
b-[.
,
.-
'
,.~[
_
- -
.
-
.
. --
.
_4_
-
During this meeting the inspector discussed the item of noncom-pliance and the f ollowing unresolved items; 1.
Coordinaticn with Offsite Agencies (Detail 3)
The licensee stated that this program would be upgraded i
and formalized to insure that all offsite agencies are T-routinely recentacted for the purpose of coordinating planned response actions through training, drills or other-review methods.
This upgrading is to be performed con-currently with the review and updating of the emergency plan.
2.
Updatine of Emercency Plan (Detail 7)
The licensee stated that the emergency plan (Section 12A of thn FSAR) is to be reviewed and updated by the end of this year.
This update will involve the inc.lusion of provisions for Unit 2, correction of minor name chsnges a.d bringing the plan into conformity with the i=ple=enting re:edures.
Pre-sently, the plan contains certain Stailec
- ormation subject to frequent change.
Since this ii.
c=ation a also in the procedures, the updated plan will eliminate detail of this sort.
_
e s
e
%
e
m e
84,
-e
- * ^
e
'
-
%
f e
-
-.
.
_
- __
.
=
m
, *
O '
e--
,,
.4
"
W
.
-
e p
_
mm
,
~~-
_
. - -
__
._.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
(s.(.
.
( \\
.
.
-
.
_-
_
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
Three Mile Island
., y Mr. J. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. G.
Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent Mr. J. E. Rcmanski, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry Mr. D. E. Weaver, Instrumentation Forecan Mr. R. D. McCann, Radiation Protection Foreman Mr. A.
Tsaggaris, Supervisor of Training Mr. P. P. Veles, Radiation Chemistry Technician Mr. M. K. Gabner, Radiation Chemistry Technician Junior Mr. R. G.
Evans, Radiation Chemistry Techaician Junior Mr. R. W. Dubiel, Engineer 1 - Nuclear Middletown Police Decartment Mr. S. Mrakovich, Chief of Police Middletown Civil Defense Mr. D. B. Ryan, Chief of Middletown Civil Defense /Middletown Police and. Fire Dispatcher
-
Middletown Fire Department (telephone)
-
Mr. E. Lauer, Chief Iondonderry Township Fire Decartment (telechone)
Mr. D. Murray, Chief Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiolocical Health Mr. T. M. Gerusky, Director Ms. M.
Reilly, Chief, Operating Reactor Surveillance Branch Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Mr. K. L. Miller, Health Physicist
'/[jOf),136%
--
-
.
..
.
-
( ~
g".\\
,
3..
~
(;-
_
~~
-
'.
~ ~
"
,
u
._.
- -
_.
. _.
-_ _
_
__ _ '_R
_
,
-
.,
..
m
.
.-
._._;.
.,
-6-
-
2.
General The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's program for emergency preparedness and emergency response instir ted for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility.
Areas examined during this
,
inspection included agreements and coordination with offsite agencies, emergency facilities and equipment, emergency procedures training,
.E emergency drills, and implementing procedures.
A final area of
'
review involved discussion with licensee management concerning e=ergency planning requirements and' considerations relating to the development of a site emergency plan which would include Unit 2, scheduled for licensing next year.
3.
Coordination with offsite A2encies The inspector held discussions with the licensee and reviewed records, procedures and agreements furnished by the licensee for the agencies / persons listed in the Emergency Plan and implementing
'
procedures.
The inspector noted that several of the letters currently in effect were signed by offsite agency officials no longer with the agency.
The licensee stated that these letters would be updated in conjunction with a review and updating of the entire e=ergency plan.
The inspector held discussions, either in person or by telephone
- with responsible personnel of the following of fsite agencies listed in the licensee's E=ergency Plan and i=ple=enting procedures:
.
Middletown Police Depart =ent
^
a.
b.
Pennsylvania Depart =ent of Environ = ental Resources, Bureau of Radiological Health.
.
.
-q muun W
M
- "
-
=
,
.
-
-
o
Q
%_
.
===,
q
.
-
-
-
.
e
.-
.
f 3_,
.
.%
- *
M
.. -
,
.
~
(*
.
.
. ;--.
._.-
~ '
-
--.-
.
_ _
..
..
.
..
_
.
..
_
'=y
- _,
-w
,
"
_,,
g.
",
.
_m
,
. _ -_
.
.
... -:._
.
-
-
--
-
e
.
.
.-
..
(
C. h.-
_
_
_
-7-
'
.
.
c.
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.
d.
Middletown Fire Department.
e.
Londonderry Township Fire Department.
.
The inspector noted that the existing agreements between the licensee and these agencies remain in effect and that, generally, c;y the agency representatives understood their responsibilities and procedures in response to an emergency at the licensee's facility.
The inspector also noted that the representatives of the Middletown Police and Fire Depart =ents and Londonderry Township Fire Department expressed a desire for more frequent contact with the facility.
The inspector and licensee management discussed the nature end extent of the licensee's coordination with offsite agencies
.The licensee stated that they believed there was a need to establish a more formal program of contacting and coordinating the emergency plan with the various offsite agencies.
This program =ight include a schedule of contacts to be =ade, an outline of topics to be discussed training that may be desirable or needed, and provisions for coordinating the updating of the agreements.
Based upon the observations that; the licensee's program for in-plementing the requirements for coordinating with offsite agencies is not clearly defined in the implementing procedures; various offsite agencies expressed a desire for more frequent and meaniagful contact with the licensee; and the licensee's recognition that there is a need to upgrade communication and coordination with the various offsite agencies, this item is unresolved.
4.
Facilities and Ecuiccent The inspecto.r reviewed the licensee's f acilities and equipment at the locations and with respect to the specific criteria listed below:
a.
Emergency Kits The inspector conducted independent inventories and inspec-tions of the following emergency kits / equipment specified in the Implementing procedures.:
Y90030
-
.
-
... k_
(
'
-
.
-8-
,
(1)
Radiation Emergency Kits - 2.
(2)
Washdown Area Kits - 1.
(3)
Ambulance Kits - 1.
.
.
(4)
In Plant Radiation Emergency Kits - 3.
, :.
(5)
Control Room Emergency Kit - 1.
(6)
Emergency Repair Party Kit - 1.
The inspector noted that there were several items missing from the two Radiation Emergency Kits inspected.
In addition, the batteries of the portable air samplers in each kit were fully discharged.
A dosimeter charger in the Control Room Kit was also inoperable due to discharged batteries.
All other kits inspected were complete and associated equipment was operable.
The inspector and licensee representative discussed that condition of the various emergency kits.
(See Detail 4.f for related item of noncompliance.)
b.
Emereency Control Center The emergency control center located in the Nuclear Service Area of the Unit 1 Control Tower and its associated equipment were inspected.
The inspector's review indicated that the emergency contrrl
~
center was located and equipped as stated in the implementing procedures and that specified equipcent was available and operable.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
c.
Emereencv Communic; ions Ecuipment The following emergenc, ommunications equipment specified in the E=ergency Plan and implementing procedures was inspected:
.
'iboJ31
' '
t (
e
.
.
-9-
,
(1)
Telephone extensions (emergency control center) - 2.
(2)
Shortwave transceiver.
(3)
In-plant page system.
(4) Portable walkie-talkies (control room) - 4.
G.
The inspector verified that this equipment was available -
and operable.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
.
d.
Radioactive Release Monitoring Instrucentation The following plant instruments (effluent and meteorological)
for =onitoring the release of radioactivity which were speci-fied in the Emergency Plan, implementing procedures and technical specifications were inspected.
(1)
Area Radiation Monitors.
(2)
Process Radiation Monitors.
(3)
Wind Speed and Direction Strip Chart Recorder.
(4)
Ambient Air Temperature Strip Chart Recorder.
The inspector verified that this equip =ent was available and
~
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
e.
Calibration, Insnection and 0 erational Check Procedures /
Schedules
.
The inspector reviewed procedures and schedules established by the licensee for calibrating, maintaining and inspecting the emergency response equipment listed in the Emergency Plan and imple=enting procedures.
The follcwing procedures were
.
required to be perfor=ed at the noted intervals:
.
'(I3OOM
-
.
-
(.
(.
'
-
_
..
-10-
-
(1)
Emergency equipment inventory - Quarterly.
(2)
E=ergency Air Sa=pler Battery Recharge - Quarterly, (in conjunction with kit invento ry).
(3)
Emergency Air Sa=pler Flow Calibration - Annual.
' 13 (4)
Monitoring and Survey Instrument Calibration - Quarterly.
-
(5)
Meteorological Station Calibration - Semi-annually.
(6)
Area and Process Monitor Setpoint Verification - conthly.
(7)
Area and Process nonitor detector and setpoint calibra-tion - Quarterly.
(8)
E=ergency monitoring and Survey Instru=ent Battery Check -
Monthly.
(9)
In-plant controlled area First Aid /Deconta=ination Facility Inventory - Se=i-annually.
(10)
Evacuatic- *1ar= Test - Each Friday.
This review indicated that the afore=entioned operations were required to be performed at a specified interval and in accordance with established procedures.
The inspector identified no_ inadequacies.
f.
Records - Calibration, Insoection and Ocerational Checka The calibration, inspection and operational check records of energency related equipnent, instru=ents and f acilities were reviewed.
The inspector noted several discrepancies in the records related to e=ergency equipment inventories and checks con-ducted during the period July 1975 through August 1976.
While inspections had been perforced, there were indications that all e=ergency equipment was not checked, noted deficien-M __ had not been properly cleared and final review and ap-preval of the inspection results had not been obtained in all Cases.
bhhl
-
-;-
- - :-
-
--,.,.. - -., -
-
.-
,-
,-
.
...
_.
.
.
- ,_..
- ' ~
~
[
~ ' i ?~:~".'~~~~~- ~ --l
_
-_
-
-
.
._.
- _ - - - -, - -
_... -
-
--_
v_ _ ~.,, -
.
-11-The inspector also noted than ar. inventory record dated August 20, 1976 showed certain items to be present and operable in
-
the Radiation Emergency Kits.
The inspector's inventory and'
check of these same kits on Augusc 24, 1976 showed these ite=s to be either missing or inoperable.
(Detail 4.a)
,
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures
.,"'
be implemented. ' Three Mile Island Radiation E=ergency Proce-
'
dure 1670.12, Emergency Equipment Readiness ChecP, and Health Physics Procedure 1778 require'that quarterly inventoric-and operational checkr be performed on all emergency equipment, that noted deficiencies be corrected and that the Radiation Protection Fore =an approve all inspection results.
Contrary to the above, quarterly inspections and checks of e=ergency equipment were not performed as required.
The inspector identified this an an Item of Nonce:pliance.
During the evaluation of this item of nonco=pliance, the inspector noted that IE Report 75-08/75-04 docu=ented an iten of nonco=pliance relating to emergency equipment inventories.
The inspector determined that the current item of nonce =-
pliance was repetitive in nature, and that the licensee's previously instituted corrective action had been ineffective in insuring that e:ergency kits are maintained;in a state of
' readiness.
g.
Chanees in Ecuio=ent and Facilities
.
The inspector held discussions with licensee =anagement and inspected records and reports to deter =ine if any changes had been made in the emergency equipment, instruments or facilities since the last Emergency Planning Inspection con-ducted April 9, 1975, and if changes were made, that they were reported reviewed and approved, as applicable under 10 CFR 50.59.
The inspector noted that GSM-5 so vey instruments replaced
_
Victoreen III meters -in the emergency kits.
T.his change
-
had been properly reviewed, approved and reported.
..
-
_
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
,
-.
.-
-_
~
_
"
e
,eOO
-
a g
-
-
-
_
-
..
_
~
N)haj
.
~
_.
-
-
-
_,
-.
.
.
- _
=
~ ~
,
y
'e
~~ _-
-
- ..
-
~~ -
"
~
..,
_
~
' *
~
_
. -
.
'.
-
-
- 1
~ 3 )*Q
.
.
'
-
g,.
_
.
--
,
v--
--,..
,
- s.
. _
,
_ _
.
,
- - = " -
-
-
-
-
, '
.
y-
,
,
. - (_
_
-..
(
-
,
..
'
.
-
-
-12-5.
Medical Treatment / Decontamination Facilities a.
Onsite The onsite facility and the associated equipment for medical
,
I treatment and personnel decontn=3nction were inspected.
' 5I'
The laspector verified the avai.'.r.0111ty and operability of these facilities and noted thsc the required semi-annual inventories had been performed.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
h.
Offsite The plans and facilities for handling emergency m.edical patients at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center were reviewed by pe.sonal interviews with responsible of f site medical facility personnel, inspection of the facility and review of the agreement between the licensee and the offsite facility.
The inspector determined that the agreement rescias in effect and that the licensee had maintained contac-a t.d coordination.
,
-
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
c.
Emercency Transportation The availability and responsiveness of round-the-clock transportation for injured and/or contaninated individuals to the offsite medical treatnant facility were inspected by discussions with licensee canage=ent and responsible offsite personnel, and rev12w of the licensee's procedures, records, and agree =ents.
Emergency transportation is provided by various of the Rescue Hose Co=panies within the Middletown Fire Depart =ent.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
~
BOO l&
.
.
_
(
(
-
.
.
.
s
-~
.
-13-
..
N
~
- W d.
Physicians Services and The inspector held discussions with licensee management inspected agreements concerning arrangements for physicians to treat injured and/or contaminated individuals.
Docucented contractual arrangements for physician services ate with three local practitioners.
The inspector's review s ZL indicated that these arrangements remain in ef f ect.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
Changes in Medical Treatment / Decontamination Facilities e.
The inspector held discussions with licensee management and reviewed records and reports and determined that no changes had been made in the medical treatment facilities and arrange-ments fcr mcdi-21 treatment since the last Emergency Planning inspection.
The inspector identified no inadequa Aes.
6.
E:sercency Procedures Traininc
.
a.
Documentation Review
.
The inspector reviewed available training related documentation and procedures to verify that training required by the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures had been conducted.
The
-
inspector noted that the following trr. ing had been conducted since tne last Emergency Planning inspection:
(1)
General E=ployee Training (including emergency plan) -
2nd thursday of each month.
(2)
Emergency Team Training - March 17-April 4, 1976 (5 sessions)
June 9 - July 12, 1976 (7 sessions)
b.
Personnel Interviews Three personnel were selected and interviewed by tha inspector.
These discussions verified that the scope of the training was as represented by the licensee's records, the training was
'iSOG3G
.
.
_.. _ N
'
'
~
e
~
_
_14_
-
meaningful to the attendees, and the areas covered were accurately / definitively presented from the attendee's point
of view.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
7.
Plan and Implementine Procedures
' lE The inspector reviewed and evaluated the implementing procedures and any changes.
The controlled copy in the control room was
-
reviewed in this regard.
ihe inspector also reviewed records of the distribution of permanent and temporary changes.
The inspector deter =ined that the revised procedures provided the same or higher degree of preparedness as previous revisions.
In addition, the inspector verified that significant changes were reviewed, approved and reported and that controlled copy distribution of all changes had been made as required.
During the review of the licensee's i=plementing procedures, the inspector noted set al discrepancies in infor=ation con-tained in the plan when compared with sections of the i=plementing procedures.
The licensee stated that they were aware of these, and that the i=ple=entir.g procedures were correct in that they accurately reflect present policies, methods and hardware.
The emergency plan is scheduled to be updated in accordance with technical specifications by the end of this year. 'This update will encompass planning considerations for Unit 2, upgrading the program for coordinating with of fsite agencies (Detail 3. ) and revision of inconsistencies between the plan ;nd i=ple=enting procedures.
The inspector and licensee discussed the i=portance of having an up to date plan and completing the requ. red review and updating in a timely manner.
The inspector determined that,while the procedures were up to date and co=plete, there was erroneous information contained in the plan.
Based upon the observations that the necessity for a eview and update has been recognized and is to be co=pleted per established requirements within the next several conths, the inspector identified this item as unresolved.
8.
Emergency Drills a.
Documentation Review The inspector reviewed available docu=entation of drills conducted since the previous emergency planning inspection.
E OOO'Yg!
.
.
-
'
<
.
.
.
~
-15-This review indicated that drills were conducted on the following dates:
(1)
June 14, 1976.
'
(2)
June 18, 1976.
.
' lI'
(3)
June 23,1976.
(4)
June 24, 1976.
The Isne 24 drill was observed by NRC inspectors.
The
results are docu=ented in IE Report 76-14.
For those drills conducted but not observed by NRC personnel, the inspector verified that the licensee used qualified personnel to evaluate the organization's response; a critique was held which highlighted i=provement possibilities; and appropriate action had been initiated to correct any areas deter =ined to need i=provement.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
b.
Personal Interviews The inspector conducted interviews with three licensee drill participants and deter =ined that:
drills had been conducted; the scope were as represented; drills had been observed by qualified individuals; and results used as a basis for up-grading of the Emergency Plan and imple=enting procedures.
-
'iB0038