IR 05000289/1979003
| ML19207B204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1979 |
| From: | Clemons P, Crocker H, Plumlee K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207B201 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-79-03, 50-289-79-3, 50-320-79-04, 50-320-79-4, NUDOCS 7908230565 | |
| Download: ML19207B204 (9) | |
Text
-
-
U.S~ HUCL' AR REGULATORY COMMISSION-d
,
.
OFF ( OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEA...
Region I 50-289/79-03
's u
,
F trE.7, ' d. Dnca
~~
o Report No. 50-320/79-04 J%
o 50-289
%w.d;,1*;r:s.y.,y/'lc%c Docket No. 50-320
'
cam ".
y.
OPR-50
" %8 vlo License No. DPR-73 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
fietropolitan Edison Company e
P. O. Box 542
...
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
-
Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 Inspection at: Middletown, Pennsylvania
--
t
.
Inspection conducted:
February 13-15, 24, 25, 28, and March 1 and 2, 1979
h
/1!7 @
Inspectors:
h
,
.
.
K. E. Plumlee, Radiati Specialist ca e' signed
_
bd%
l} /
YnDY P. [. Clemons, Radia d en Specialist d' * U " *
cate signed Approved by: _
/U-
>
/h
[
v H. W. Crocker, Ac:1.ng Chief, Radiation Support f - v e "' : n ed /
""'
Section, FF&MS Branch Ins:ection Su=ary:
\\
Inscection on February 13-15, 24, 25, 23, and t' arch 1 and 2.1979 (Ccmoinec Reccr: "os. 50-289/79-03 anc 50-32C/79-CA)
Areas Inscecrec:
Routine, unanncuncec inspection cy regional based
- ns
- :ectors of Uni 2 Biological Shield Surveys, effluent monitcring, and
' p ra69aste system operation, and the Units 1 and 2 radiation protection program during routine operation and during Unit I refueling, including:
qualifications of radiation prote.ction personnel; training; procedures; instruments and equipment; exposure control; posting, labeling, and con-trol of radioactive materials and radiation areas; surveys; and notifica-tions and repcrt.s.
Upon arrival, areas where work was being conducted were examined to review radiation safety procedures and practices.
This inspection involved 81 inspector-hours ensite by two regicnal based NRC l-
,
Of the twelve areas inspected, no items of nonccmpliance or
-
.
s
.gg
-
cevla:lons were identified in ten areas.
Two items of ncnccmpliance
were identified in two areas (Infractions:
High radiaticn area entries F
r sitncut adequate continucusly indicating dose rate instruments - paragraph
'
5, and f ailure to adhere to procedures - paragraph 6).
The neutrcn d
radiation levels in Unit 2 were substantiallv creater than indicated in W b93o5 the FSAR and tiis was caused by Icw water leveis in the neutron shield 73ON
~
- anks - paracrach 4.
,
_.
r
.
e
..M
..
..
m
...
.-
.-
u.
-
._
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted p
Metrocalitan Edison Comoany (Met-6d)
.._
J. DeMan, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 2 R. Dubiel, Supervisor of Radiation Protection and Chemistry E
E. Fuhrer, Engineer II, Nuclear
-
F. Huwe, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 2
- G. Kunder, Unit 2 Superintendent, Technical Support
- J. Logan, Superintendent, Unit 2 F
L. Landry, Radiation Protection Engineer
R. McCann, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 1 p
- *T. Mulleavy, Radiation Protection Supervisor F
W. Potts, Unit 1 Superintendent, Technical Support M. Ross, Supervisor, Station Operations, Nuclear
'J. Seelinger, Unit 1 Superintendent P. Velez, Radiation Protection Foreman, Unit 1
"
D. Weaver, Unit 2 I&C Foreman
'
Sabcock and Wilcox
[
J. Flint, Startup Test Engineer
- denotes those present during the exit interview at 5:00 p.m.,
March 2,1979.
In addition to the above, the inspector interviewed several indi-viduals regarding their conduct of work under radiation work cer-mits.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inscection Items (Closed) Infraction (320/78-31-01):
Failure to post and barricade a high radiaticn area.
Review cn this instection did not icentify any remaining problem in either Unit 1 or 2.
(Closed) Infraction (320/78-31-02):
Failure to survey adecuately to identify and post a radiation area.
Review on this inspection did not identify any remaining problem in either Unit 1 or 2.
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-31-03 and 289/78-18-02):
Review service histories and calibration records of effluent monitors and area radiation monitors.
Review cn this inspection
~
did not identify any recent problems involving these instruments.
~
300 wsar
!
f
,
-
-.
,.
..
~
,
v-
,
'
(0 pen) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-31-04 and 289/78-18-04):
A Review records of surveys on roof of containment.
The licensee (y representative stated that no Unit I survey records of the roof
'
were found and because no personnel were allowed on the roof of the containment during unit operation no recent surveys were made of ei
unit.
l==
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-19-01 and 320/78-04-05):
I Review resolution of gaseous effluent monitor tests (TP 360/l A).
[
Review on this inspection indicated that the only remaining item is F
to obtain, install, and test the replacement isokinetic sample p robe.
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-19-02):
Review records of tests of the reactor coolant waste evaporator.
Review indica Md that system heat tracing tests (TP 370/l) were ccmpleted and he functional tests (TP 230/3) indicated that the system is operaale; however, flow transmitter FQI-48 requires correction and a controller, LCV-44, is being reviewed to determine how to improve the operating cycle of a pump.
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-19-03):
Rsview of tests performed at 93% power including:
TF 500[3, Initial radiochemistry test
-
TP 8C0/3, Biological shield survey (parc. graph '
TP 800/35, Effluent systems and effluent me.,itoring Review of the above records indicated that testing and review was ccmplete, with only a few itemixed exceotions and test deficiencies remaining to be corrected, wnich did not prevent routine operaticn of Unit 2.
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (320/78-19-04):
Review of the ccm-pietion of maintenance on secondary chemistry fume hooc system, decontamination rocm ficor opening, decontamination rocm shcwer, other shcwer facilities, and a multipoint recorcer.
Cbservation during this inspection indicated that the hecd operated satisfac-torily, adequate shower facilities were provided and the recorder was in operation.
The licensee representative stated that a work order was issued to close up the ficar opening.
'/Ob3Uf i
.
-
'
'
.
- ~ _
. - -... -..
_
.
.
.
__
.
,
%=
_
-
(0 pen) Infraction (289/78-06-01):
Inadequate survey or steam generator.
Further information was being obtained on steam r
generator work durinq this inspection, which will be evaluated i=m in determining tra :Usposition of this item.
L
.
m (0 pen) Inspector Follow Item (289/76-26-05):
Temporary locks Eif and doors controlling entrances to high radiation areas.
Inspec-i" tion showed that two newly installed permanent gates could be opened fairly easily without a key.
The corrective action on one gate was reviewed and found acceptable but the other was not fixed by the end of the inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Bulletins
!
Bulletin 78-07, Airline Resoirators and Sucolied Air Hoods l
Observation of airline respirator, training, fitting, and use
.
on February 24 and 25, 1979, did not identify any problems.
The licensee informed the inspector by telephone on March 19, 1979, that the replacement regulators, expected during January,1979, had not arrived.
Respirator use will be reviewed again on a subsequent rcutine inspection.
4.
Unit 2 Neutron Dose R g Review of containment survey records dated February 10,17, and 24, 1979, when Urit 2 was at 93% pcwer, indicated that the neutron dose rate was substantially higher (by a factor of 5 to 10) than indicated in the FSAR description for areas near the entrance on the 282ft. 6in. elevation to the "D-rings," near the reactor cavity on the operating floor, and en the bridge between the cops of the D-rings (i.e., over the cavity).
The range of the available neutron survey instrument was exceeded in the above locations.
This is a Model PNR-4 Eberline " Rem Ccunter," maximum range 5 rem /hr.
The lack of an adequate survey instrument may have concealed the rate of change in conditions.
Previously, Inspection 320/78-31, paragraph 7, identified the neu-tren dose rate in Unit 2 as being as high at 40% power as in Unit 1 at 100% power.
+4
'/893Gk i
-
^
_
.
-
.
M G _h M n---~ M.Q C 't 2 2 K _~'~_-= r::S.R.
.
~
~
. ~.
~
~-
~~
~-
~
-
t M Y :. Z i '4 '. M ' " -~'~ " ( ~-
-- R.f~ ' ' ^ = - E ~ ~ i,:
.:
.i-v.-
~
2. m -. - L;:
4. :~~'S
- - 2-
- ~ ~ ' (.-_
_
_
-
"~
- -
..-
.
,
-
Review records of TP 800/3, " Biological Shield Surveys," indicate that after the measurement at 40% power the licensee discovered that the neutron shield (water) tanks were not filled.
The meas-urement at 40% power was determined not to be representative of the g
proper operating conditions.
The neutron shield tanks were filled r
and a survey on December 27, 1978, at 93% power (listed as 100%)
..
indicated reasonable agreement with the FSAR description and with
$..-
experience in Unit 1.
-
- ]..
TP 800/3 exception and deficiency resolution 3E indicated that the
HP Department accepted the 100% power survey; and that monitoring
-
of dose rates would continue.
The inspection indicated that both of the above statements were
.
factual but did not identify the assignment of any responsibility.
The inspection indicated that the Radiation Protecticn Supervisor, Foremen, and Technicians were neither informed of any probl!m with the shield water level, nor given any specific instructions to follow in the event the neutron dose rate changed.
(These individuals
.
were acquainted with Unit I which does not use water in the neutron shield at the location where Unit 2 uses water tanks. )
The neutron shield tanks were rechecked on March 9,1979, following a reactor trip.
Several tanks were dry and the remainder had low water levels.
The licensee is investigatirq the cause and planning corrective action to prevent any further problem.
The licensee representative stated that no level indication and no provision to refill these tanks at power was included in the design.
This item will bc
.m iowed up cn a subsequent routine inspection (320/79-04-01).
5.
- ntries Into Hich Radiation Areas that Exceeded the Rance of the g :ron Survey instrument Unit 2 Technical Specifications in Secticns 5.12.1.a, b, and c, and 5.12.2, recuire that any indivicual or grcup of indivicuals permit:ed to enter a high radiation area shall be provided with or accompanied by one or more of the following:
a.
A radiation dose menitoring device which continuously indicates the radiation dose rate in the area.
b.
A radiation monitoring device which continuousl'. integrates the radiation dose' rate in the area and alarms when a preset
'
integrated dose is reviewed.
.
c.
An individuar qualified in radiation protection procedures who
'
is equipped with a radiation dose rate monitoring device.
~
'
~
g g [j h f._
-
._
- -
~
_.~
-
~~
..
-... -
~ - -.
-. :-.
~
3- _--. -
.._._ _ _ _ _ _ -.. L..-.. - g-" _
~~Tl.
_T~~_
_
_ _ _
... -.
._____7
;.., -
_.._:._.._..... _. _ _.
_ _,
. _ _ _
_
..., - -
--
...,
.
-.
.
- - - -
_(
g
-
w.. ;
.:
-
,
.
On Saturday, February 24, 1979, the inspector overheard cocuents and subsequently contacted individuals who apparently knew of, but L
did not participate in, entries into areas described in paragraph 4 where the neutron dose rate exceeded the range of the neutrons survey instrument.
g The inspector informed the Radiation Protection Foremen, who were
'
on site, of this item and stated that he would follow up as soon as i;
feasible.
The inspector reviewed numerous radiation work permits
!.
(RWP) records, the containment entry log, and survey records.
The inspec+or contacted personnel identified on these records as feasible.
p The inspector determined that on each of the following:
February
-
13, 1979, on RWP No.14529 and again on No.14535; February 16,
~
1979, on RWP No.14548; and February 18, 1979, on RWP No. 14555, one or more individuals apparently entered high radiation areas without any continuously indicating neutron dose rate monitoring device, alarming device, or individual who was equipped with such a device.
The areas that they entered had not been adequately surveyed because the neutron survey instrument range was exceeded.
A licensee representative stated that a factor of two was allcwed using a gamma radir. tion dose rate instrument.
The inspector noted that in these areas the neutron dose rate was unkncwn and uncredictable, which is evident in paragraph 4, and that the neutron radiation dose rate was, in scme locatiens, 5 times the gamma raciation dose rate.
The inspector identified these instances as examoies of noncompli-ance with the above requirements (320/79-04-02).
5.
Traininc. Qualificaticns, and Procedures Port of the inscection effort was to review the selec:icn of temocrarv personnel to fill responsible positions curing the Unit 1 cutage;
~
preplanning of work; procedures to be used during the cutage; and the tr:ining of personnel for radiation work.
Technical Specifications Section 5.11 requires the preparation of procedures for personnel radiation protection and adherence to acproved procedures for ali cperations involving personnel adi-ation protection.
,%p msacy i
<
!
...
,ema
+
,
_ _.
-
.
.
,
~. -
.-
_ _
~_
O
-e,*en.
Station Administrative Procedure 1003, " Radiation Protection Manual,"
in Section 2.9, " Radiation Work Permit," requires personnel to adhere to the instructions listed on the RWP; and in Section 3.0,
" Training and Indoctrination of Radiation Protection," requires training of all individuals to the degree required for tre efficient
"
perfomance of their work.
During a tour of the Unit 1 facility, at s3:00 p.m. on February 13, 1979, the inspector observed three individuals working in the hot machine shop under RWP No. 21088, " Testing RCU Valve," which required them to wear coveralls and rubber gloves on this job.
The Hot
,
Machine Shop was posted as a High Radiation Area.
['
Two individuals wore lab coats but not coverals.
None wore rub-ber gloves.
The inspector identified these as examples of noncompliance with
- the above requirements (289/79-03-01 ).
The licensee representative stopoed the job and required full ccm-pliance with the tems of the RWP before resuming work.
Interviews with these individuals (contractor employees), indicated that they worked previously on the same job cn a RWP that did not require coveralls and rubber gloves and they failed to change their work practice on February 13, 1979, when the RWP recuired coveralls and rubber gloves.
The licensee representative instructed these individLals that they are to comply with all instructions on the RWP or get the RWP changed.
Review of training records indicated that each of these individuals had received the recuired training and had passed a written examina-tion before working on RWPs.
7.
Cualifications of Contract Radiation Protection Personnel part of the inspection effort was to determine the licensee's adherence to the qualificaticns required in ANSI N18.1-1971, Section a.5.2, for technicians in respcnsible positiens, who were hired to perform surveys and to man control points as well as to monitor certain radiation jobs during the outage.
Review of resumes and Form NRC-4 informatien, and interviews with individuals, did not identify any problems.
The inspector had no further cuestions en this item.
..
9'4$p 0o
<
gg vssac([
,
-
,.m,-
. --
_
-
-
.
.
-
,
=
g 8.
Advanced Plannino and Precaration for the Unit 1 Outace Part of the inspection effort was to review the planning and prepara-tion for the Unit 1 outage.
A factor in the outage was the necessity to start earlier than originally planned, because the Unit 1
- _
operating experience had not involved as much down time as expected W
during the preceding nine months.
This resulted in the fuel cycle y:
ending earlier than anticipated.
p y.
The licensee designated individuals to prepare procedures and train
[L personnel for each major job to be done.
Equipment and appropriate shielding were provided for these jobs.
Personnel having recent E'
experience at other facilities were hired to carry out jobs they were experienced in.
-
The inspector observed that on February 14, 1979, there were 20 or more survey instruments awaiting servicing or calibration.
ine Unit 1 personnel subsequently borrowed instruments frem Unit 2 and placed further effort on instrument repair.
The licensee also ordered a modification for th PNR-4 Eberline
" Neutron Rem Counter" to extend its range.
No shortages of protective clothing, respirators, dosimeters or instruments was identified during tot rs of the facilities.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
9.
Control of Lontaminated Ecuicment The insoecto-observed the control of contaminated ecuicmant and tools, the management of discarded protective clothing and resoir-ators, and the discosition of waste.
The insoector also observed the labels on containers of radioactive materials.
10.
Postinc of Radiation Areas, Hich Radiation Areas and Control of Access to Contamina:ec Areas The inspector made confirmatory measurements of radiation levels and observed.he posting and control of access. to Radiation Areas, High RadiaFan Areas, Contaminated Areas, and Airborne Radioactivity Areas.
>)
-
4$"J,%p h
wsacs
..$
'
%
,
.... _..
.....
...-
-
'
.
.
,
.
-
-
.
.
The inspector noted that smoking areas were designated at locations L'1ere there were no nearby friskers, this a smoker would have to g
walk past the smoking area to a frisker,100 to 300 feet distant e, ll if he wished to frisk before smoking.
One smoking area was identi-h fied in the Unit i Heat Excrriger '/ault and others in the Auxiliary
-
Building.
Moreover, there were posted contaminated areas in these vicinities
where there were no friskers.
An individual leaving one of these f
contamirated areas would walk through a smoking area en-route to F
the frisker.
[
.
The licensee representative stated that an insurance representative
required the establishment of no smoking and smokir; areas.
The licensee's disposition of this item will be followed uo on a subsequent inspection (289/79-03-02).
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 2, 1979 at 5:00 p.m.
The inspectcr reviewed the scope of the inspection.
The inspector reviewed the items of noncomoliance.
The inspector described regulatory guides and standards on ventila-tion controls, radiation hoods, and radiation work practices.
Smoking areas, the provision of friskers, and the need to frisk on leaving contaminated areas were reviewed.
The inspector stated that the FSAR indicated better control of the neutron dose rate in Unit 2 containment tnan was being :aintained on March 2,1979.
The l#censee representative stated that the neutron shield water would be checked as soon as feasible.
(A check was made on March 9,1979 and the tanks were low or emoty - paragraph 1. )
/DOg
[
.
og
'i8S3CE I
!
.
,+e.a.