IR 05000289/1976022
| ML19207B224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1976 |
| From: | Knapp P, Swetnam R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207B222 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-22, 50-320-76-13, NUDOCS 7908230621 | |
| Download: ML19207B224 (7) | |
Text
...:
,
.
.
.;:; *s'
. -.
-1
-
.' -..
u -Y." ^ :- S.F=.
.
.,
'
~ _...
.
.
'
- -.-
- - - '
---:,.
- u-
.
_
. _ =
NOTICE (Jan 75) (Rev)
- _.....
.
- _;
-
M 1 PAS NOT CSTAINED PROPRIETant
--
.
M IN MRDANCE orstH :a cra zig U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCIMISSION
....
[::...
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND CiFORCC-!ENT
' [..
-
REGION I
..=
50-289 f7"
'IE Inspection Report No:
50-289-76-22 and 50-320/7 6-13 Dochet No: 50-320
- DPR-50 Licensce:
Metropolit.an Edison Company License No: CPPR-66 C
P. C. Box 542 Priority:
B-1 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
Safeguards Group:
,
2ca tion:
Three Mi.le Island - Middletown, Pennsvivania Type of Licensce:
Unit 1:
Unit 2:
Type of Inspection:
Reutine, Unannounced
.
Dates of Inspection:
Septe=ber 8-9, 1976 August 30 - September 2, 1976
Dates of Previous Inspection:
September S-10, 1976 Reporting Inspector:
-
.k
.
9.7 N
'
Rcnald L. Sweenan, Radiation Specialist
/DAT/
Accompanyin;; Inspec tors:
NONE DATE DATE DATE Other /.co=panying Personnel:
_
DATE b~
N \\ . Knapp, Chief, Radi$ kien Support-( t s
.e /?
Reviewed By:
PeteI'J Section DATE Fuel Facility and Materials Safety 3 ranch
_
79004?,
-
.. _.... _.. -
_.
.
... _ _
._...._. 7. 9 0 8 2 3 0 2/
i
,_
.4
_.
. _.
_
.qt-fC '
- _
- ~ ~
_ :..
..-
-
_ -...._.:
.;zw
-
.
. +.
.,r_
,
,
_;...
- -.
.
'
- j L [ L._;. F.: $: h:t'ci.- 'T4.*c$ f % - :--.-- = - =~^
~~. ~
i~"~~
~
-.. - &_ _.
M*S-2 ?:_. :.x-5 G,~
~ **
.
,
-
,
W_f.[# _
.
_
_~.2
'"
-
.
,
-
-
._
-
_
^ -
- _.
-
_
._
-%
-
Ji -
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-
-
- -
M Enforcement Action
- - - - ' ~
.
kr-'
Itecs of Noneyliance
-
A.
Jiolations s
None.
~~~
B.
Infractions
.
Technical Specification 6.11 requires that procedures for per-sonnel radiation protection shall be prepared consistent with the require =2nts of 10 CFR 20 and shall be approved, maintained and adhered to for all operations involving personnel radiation ex-posure.
Contrary to Technical Specification 6.11 Health Physics procedure 1749 Rev. I was not adhered to on September 8, 1976 in that four portable radiation detection instruments were f ound to be out of calibration and in service in the Unit 1 Health Physics laboratory.
(Details, 4)
C.
Deficiencies None
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified. Enforce =ent Action Not applicable.
Desien Channes None.
Licensee Events None.
Othe.r Sienificant Findines A.
Current Findings
,
1.
Acceptable Areas
.
No inadequacies were identified during inspection of the following areas:
.
790043
.
___
... - _ _
....
_ _ _.
.. _ _ _ _. -. _. _ _..
.....
!
- - - - - - -
--
.; -..
... - - - _, -
-
.
. _..
.
...
..
--
..
,
. -....
..__
?,,'.. - k _ -
...
_,,. b'.,.
- a-[ h.
1. ~
.
.
- --
,
,
,
.
.. _
. ~
--
.
.
.
._
-2-
-~
_-
-
.
w e
a.
Thermoluminescent Posimetry System
_.
b.
Site Radiation Protection Manual
-
c.
ALARA Radiation Exposure Evaluation Program d.
High Radiation Area Key Control E
e.
Respiratory Protection Program f.
Monitoring and Sa=pling of.Potentially Centaminated Effluents s
g.
Initial and Refresher H. P. Training
.
2.
Unresolved Items
'
The following ite=s will require additional information from the licensee in order to evaluate acceptability:
a.
Cc=pletion c f operating procedures for the folicwing areas:
(1)
Health Physics Procedures for Unit 2.
Q? e. ails,
5)
(2)
RadWaste Operating and D#.scharge Procedures tor Unit 2.
(Details, 5)
b.
Health Physics and Che=ist.rf Staffing for Unit 2.
(Details, 6)
-
c.
Installation and Calibration of RadWaste and H. P. Instru-mentation.
(Details, 7)
3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Licensee None.
4.
Deviations None.
B.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Itens None.
Management Interview A management interview was conducted at the site on September 9, 1976.
.
Persons Present J. Rocanski, H. P. and Che=istry Supervisor G. Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent 7900M J. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent
._ _
_
_
=w em.
.
. : 7, -
-.:
.
.
-
...,.
_
-._,
.n -
__.
- --
- - -
-
.. _.. -
_.
- 1.v
-.-
._;-.
--
.
--.
-
.
+,... 4 :n. g._
.
.
-
.. _ _..
. _
_.
_.
_
_
,
,.. _ _
-
..
..,
w
-- -.., -.
,
. _
.m.
c.
...... _.. _. _ _ - -
"
w _..,
. _ - -
.
s
-
--
c
,
,
,
p=- =
'
~
, y=:_..
-3-
.
.
I :!.._.
'
1 F,
.
m....
g
.
I i-
Items Discussed i t..
I p-~
A.
Ptzrpose of the Insoection I jf-----
i:!--~
The objective of this inspectica was to discuss the inspection program in the area of Health Physics and Radioactive Waste
[f...
'
Management, outH Mng the basi.), scope, frequency, and general
,
depth of the inspections in these areas. Also discussed during this
- ~~~
-
inspection were specific difficulties experienced at other facilities
- - - - - - -
during construction and plant startup in the areas being inspected.
,
B.
Acceptable Areas
_
The'ite=s discussed are as identified under the "Other Signif-icant Findings" section of this report.
,
i'
C.
Items of Noncomolim.g l
t The ite=s discussed are as identified under the "Inforcement Action"
.ection of this report.
.
e
..
.
W
. *
N
"-
D G
_
..
...
-
.
,
_.
e.
. *
N
g.
_ '-li i
.
ee -
-
e
.
.. _,, _..,
~
.
.-
- ' -- *
-
._ _.
.
~
. + -.
_
.,.
.. _.,
,
N*'-
ee#*
-*"-
,
..,
-
.w-
.
..
.
..
c
-
-
.
.....
.
.
-
'
, "
.e i
,_
g
-
.,.. _.
-
c.
. __.. _. _
_
-
-. - -
1;
.
_
-
.
.
.
. -
- -
.,
.
- -
_
. ;-
~
.,;~
.
.
., :.L n - -
'
'
. "-
- -.::-_ M _._.....
_z.;; ~
- -. ;- _ " :. -.. _.... - -
---
. -
-
..
_ --
' -
- - ::~~;--
. _ -:-- ;---. _.
__
- _
.. ~. - -. -
r N S-r-I:.. } h '2_.__~.=.5-5 -f
$
Y[ #.._i~--~' '--- -... _ - -
._;_;.---
- - - - - -
-
- - - -. - -
- - ' ~
'
=--
A
' ' '
" ~ ~ ~
.
.
..
.
.
..
l
,
_._, C..
.
-
(.
.
.
.
- m.
_
.
-
-
-
m. =
.
--
-
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS I:
-.. -
1, Persons Contacted E
T. Mulleavy, H. P. Foreman D. Dubiel, H. P. Engineer J. Romanski, H. P. and Chemistry Supervisor s
.
2.
Scone of the Inspection The scope of this inspection consisted of a reviu of the Radiation Protection Manual and Health Physics Procedures for Unit 1 and plans being for=ulated to codify them for Unit 2.
A review of.the facility and proposed equipment and H. P. staffing of Unit 2 was a'.so dis-cussed. The inspector and licensee representatives reviewed pro-cedured and policy weaknesses observed in Unit 1 procedures and discussed how these areas have been handled elsewhere at other facilities.
3.
Plant Records Not. applicable.
.
4.
Failure to Follow Procedures During a tour of the Health Physics laboratory and the Unit 1 control point the inspector noted that the following portable radiation detection instru=ents in and around a storage cabinet:
Tyne Serial Number E520 424 E520 520 RO-2 278-Teletector 58578 The indicated instruments were all tagged with calibration stickers indicating the instru=cnts were due for calibration during the month of July, 1976.
A licensee's representative verified that the instru-cents were in service.
A c'ieck of the licensee's records indicated conthly source checks had been done but the July calibratiions had not been conducted.
H. P. Procedure 1749 Rev. 1 requires that all E520, RO-2 and teletector type instru=ents be calibrated on a quarterly calibration frequency.
The instruments had not been calibrated for approx 1=ately five months.
...
790046
.
__. _ _ -
.
. _ _ _ _ _
. -. _
- - -
--
._..m;
. e.e. _.
..
.
.
..
.-.
...
. - -
,.
-...
.
=.......
.
.~l, ^
+
~
- }.j
~~ F
.E
~. - =
'."
~~.., '..%
[o -l..;,
.....'i
:.,
.
-
- :-
_
_
--
u..
.
.
...
?
-
"
~
~.
z
~
..=
_
.,
.
.
- =-
.
..
. _...
.
-... _ - -
-
_
~5-
=-,
. ~..
- -
-
.
-
....
-
=+
.
.._
. -..
When th1s item was ind!.cated by the inspector, the licensee removed
-.:&
the instruments from service and calibrations were doce on '.ne i2=.
.
"
instru=ents.
..i--i The apparent cause for not calibrating the instru=ents was the fact that these instruments were being repaired during the calibration
--
'
period and were not picked up by the licensee's calibration program.
A procedure review was cade and pror.edures modified to prevent this
..
item from reoccuring.
This item was corrected prior to the inspector leaving the site.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
This item of noncompliance is repetitive in that it was an item of nonco=pliance for Unit 1 in inspection 76-07 conducted in April, 1976.
...
This item of noncompliance is against Unit 1 and concerned the only Unit 1 item inspected.
5.
Procedure Completion Work has begun to modi fy the present H. P. and RadWaste procedures for Unit 1 so that they can be used on Unit 2.
Progress appears to be adequate in this area.
The inspector identified this as an unresolved item which will re=ain open until all procedures are complete for Unit 2.
6.
Unit 2 H. P. Staffing Currently 18 people are actively working at Un'.t 1 in the area of H. P. and che=is try.
Fro = observations the inspector =ade during the inspection it appeared that there were no personnel available to be assigned to the extra work which will result from the opera-tion of Unit 2.
In addition, the physical plant layout includes a separate control point for each Unit.
There presently is no avail-able projection of the need, if any, for additional H. P. personnel for Unit 2.
The inspector identified this as an unresolved item which will remain open until the licensee has deter =ined the need for additional H. P. personnel for Unit 2.
7 9 0 0 T,'
-
.
.e.
m. -
p.
e -
e..e-e=.
. -.
ee
,- p_ j -
'I
.
..
- ' - t
-
'
.
.
,
_ [l ~. '
.
\\
L _ -_ -
...
.
Q..*
- ~ -
.
-
.
.
..
..--.
-
_
.. - - -
,
,
,
.
.
-
.....
.
7.
Equipment and Facilities
- ;
A review of the licensee's present and projected H. P. equipment
'
!-
-
for Unit 2 indicated that adequate plans have been =ade in this area for Unit 2.
"
The licensee has been evaluating an in-house TLD system for the
,
past 9 months and comparing the TLD system against a vendor supplied film dosimitry system.
The results have indicated the in-house TLD system to be superior to the vendor film system.
An adequate quality control program is in effect and is currently being used for the TLD system. The licensee is proposing to establish the in-house system as the official dosimitry system.
The TLD system appeared to the inspector to be adequate.
A tour of the H. P. ard RadWaste facilities indicated facilities will be available to conduce an adequate H. P. program for Unit 2.
The RadWaste facility has been designed to keep radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable by using shielding, redundent equip-ment and placenent of equip =ent requiring maintenance in low exposure areas.
Rad"aste instrumentation had not been installed at the time of the inspection.
The licensee intends to install and calibrate the instru=entation just prior to the co=pletion of construction of the facility.
Fixed H. P. instrumentation will also be installed at the sa=e ti=e as the RadWaste instru=entation.
The installation of the above instrumentation will re=ain unresolved until installed and calibrated.
.
..
790048
-
_3-...------.
_
-.,
_ - -
-.
......
...~.-.