IR 05000320/1978008
| ML19220B241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1978 |
| From: | Bores R, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220B228 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-78-08, 50-320-78-8, NUDOCS 7904250533 | |
| Download: ML19220B241 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-320/78-08 Docket No.
50-320 License No.
CPPR-66 Priority Category B-1
--
Licensee:
Metrooolitan Edison Comoany P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Inspection at: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Middletown, Pennsylvania and Metropolitan Edison Company offices in Reading, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: Janu ry 13-20,.978
.
Inspectors: '
[
/ /2 3[7,f l
,m R. J. Borest, Raciation 5pecialist
' date signed
~
'
j date signed cate signed Approved by:
/ !2 3 yf J. P. SWh/, Chief. Environmental and Special date' signed
~
Proje/ts Section, FF&MS Branch Inspection Sumary:
Insoection en January 18-20,1978 (Recort No. 50-320/78-08)
Areas Insoected: Routine, announced inspection of the environmental protection program (preoperational phase), limited to the detemination of f,tatus of pre-paredness to implement the operational environmental monitoring program includ-ing: management controls, program description, documents and procedures, and necessary instrumentation.
The inspection involved 17 onsite i1spection hours by one NRC inspector.
Resul ts: Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were identified.
t 74-CSO i
Region I Form 12 l
(Rev. April 77)
.
.
.
73042so 533
.
DETAILS _
1.
Individuals Contacted Metropolitan Edison Ccmoany, Readino Office
- T. A. Jenckes, Supervisor, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engi-neering (RS&EE)
- J. E. Mudge, Engineer III, RS&EE
- M. R. Buring, Senior Technical Analyst, RS&EE
- B. J. Beck, Engineering Assistant, RS&EE A. Roth, Engineer II, RS&EE
- C. W. Smyth, Licensing Engineer Metrocolitan Edison Comoany. TMINS
+G. P. Miller, Superintendent - Unit 2
+J. L. Seelinger, Superintendent, Technical Support - Unit 2
G. A. Kunder, Superintendent, Technical Support - Unit 1
++R. W. Dubiel, Supervisor, Radiation Protection and Chenistry C. A. Adams, Shift Foreman - Unit 2 P. P. Valez, Radiation Protection Foreman F. Huwe, Radiation Protection Foreman - Unit 2 N. K. Bennet, I&C Foreman - Unit 2 J. R. Gilbert, I&C Foreman - Unit 2 L. Landry, Rad Health Engineer Metropolitan Edison Comoany, York-Haven Station B. Koch, Superintendent
- denotes those present at exit interview at Corporate Office on January 18, 1978.
++ denotes presence at exit interview at TMINS at conclusion of inspection en January 20, 1978.
+ contacted by telephone on February 2,1978.
2.
General
'
This inspretien was limited to the review of the status of readiness The to impler 27t the environmental monitoring program for TMINS-2.
inspectio.s included the latest draft of the licensee's Program Description t
54' D 1
-
_
-
.
_
.
Document, selected imolementing procedures and administrative procedures relative to the environmental programs, and a determination of status of instrumentation reouired to implement the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for TMINS-2.
3.
Determination of Status of Preoaredness to Imolement the Ooerational Monitorina Procram a.
Monradioloaical ETS Recuirements The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee, review of the proposed ETS and the review of the licensee's Program Description Document and selected procedures, that pro-cedures had been prepared to implement the Program Description Document. The latter was about to be submitted to NRR for approval after incorporating previously received NRR comments.
Discussions with the licensee and NRR indicated several recent developments had
,
arisen reouiring some additions / modifications to the Program Des-
-
cription.
(These changes are not anticipated to require ccmpletion prior to issuance of the Operating License.)
.
The licensee stated that the implementing procedures had not yet been formally approved, but that this step was dependent on the approval of the Program Description Document by NRR.
Once this approval is obtained, Met-Ed management can make whatever changes are necessary in the implementing procedures and formally approve j
them.
l
!
The inspector reviewed selected aquatic / ecological procedures, the Program Description Document and the corresponding ETS sections and discussed these areas with the licensee. The inspector determined, for those areas examined, that the licensee could implement the required aquatic / ecological monitoring programs at Unit 2 licensing.
The inspector also discussed several inconsistencies between
%,'
Procedure GP-1448 and the Plant Operating Procedures relative to the monitoring of the AT across the site when the primary monitor-ing system is inoperable. The licensee stated that Procedure GP-1448 would be rodified, as necessary, to be consistent with the Operating Procedures.
,
The inspector determined, through discussions with the licensee and by review of the drawings, that at the time of inspection the Unit 2 (
-
74 T'S?
.
_
Control Room had no indicati n of the aT across the site.
The installed instrumentation provided a ST from the heat exchanger inlet to the Unit 2 Mechanical Draf t Cooling Tower outlet.
Since the ETS and the NPDES set the aT limi s across the site t
(from the intake structure wingwall to the radiation monitoring pit), the inspector inquired as to the methcd of assuring Unit 2 operation within the thermal limits.
The licensee stated the Unit 1 Control Room currently had the required site AT instrumentation in operation and Unit 2 would be getting similar instrumentation within the next few months.
In the interim, the Plant Operating Procedures were being modified to assure that the Unit 1 Control Room personnel provide the necessary aT information to Unit 2.
In addition, the procedures i
I will require that Unit 2 inform Unit 1 of any changes in power-level or plant status affecting AT, such that Unit I can monitor those impacts on the site thermal restrictions and provide adequate feedback to Unit 2, such that both units maintain compliance with the ETS.
The licensee stated that the changes to the Plant Operating Procedures would be incorporated prior to Unit 2 rejecting any heat. This item is considered unresolved until completed by the licensee and reviewed by the inspector.
(78-08-01)
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's chemical neutralization system and procedures for operation and control.
The inspecto" had no further questions in this area at this time.
The inspector reviewed the status of the Unit 2 meteorological instrumentation and recorders in the Unit 2 Control Room..The inspector determined that this instrumentation was operable, was calibrated, and would be included on the surveillance testing prior to the issuance of the Operating License.
The inspector had no further questions in the above areas at this time.
b.
Radiolooical Environmental Monitorino The inspector verified by direct inspection that the composite water sampler at the York-Haven Hydro Station had been installed and was operating.
The inspector also examined the water compositer at the Columbia city water intake.
At the time of inspection the latter compositer had been temporarily removed from service to prevent damage or loss of the pump because of I
ice floes on the river. The licensee stated that this compositer would be returned to service as soon as the ice had cleared.
.
"i4-CE3
.
.
.
.
.
.
The inspector reviewed selected analytical proceduras and discussed with the licensee the review and approval process to
be used by Met Ed for these procedures and the control and l
distribution of approved procedures.
The licensee stated that at the present. time the radicanalytical procedures were reviewed by a member of the Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering staff, but that any approvals, documentation of reviews or changes, and distribution of approved or controlled copies of these procedures had not been addressed.
The licensee stated that this area woulo be addressed in the licensee's administrative procedures for management control of the radiological monitoring This item is considered unresolved until completed p rogram.
by the licensee and subsequently reviewed by the inspector.
(78-08-02)
The inspector detemined through discussions with the licensee and by review 'of selected analytical procedures, that the licensee could implement the required radiological environmental monitoring program for Unit 2.
The inspector had no further questions in the above areas at this time.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more informatian is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable ittins, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Two unresolved items were disclosed during this inspection. These items are discussed in Paragraphs 3.a and 3.b.
5.
Exit Interviews On January l8, '.978 the inspector met with the individuals denoted
'
in Paragraph 1 ot Reading, Pennsylvania and on January 20, 1978 with the individual deno'e.1 at TMINS. On February 2,1978, the inspector contacted the individuals denoted at TMINS. During these contacts / discussions, the inspector discussed we purpose, s' cope and the findings of this inspection.
(
,
,;,. - pg
'
i
-
.