ML19210B023

Evaluates RO Insp Rept 50-289/74-24 Re Lab,Effluent Monitoring Program & Test Sample Performance Capability

ML19210B023
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/26/1974
From:	Everett R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML19210B021	List: ML19210B020 ML19210B023
References
NUDOCS 7911010755
Download: ML19210B023 (2)

See also: IR 05000289/1974024

Text

-

- -. .

.

UNITED ST AT:~$

-

-

' .d

D

O

ATOMIC EN ER GY CO*.".11d

'

/

N

• [,1 M

.

DIRECTO R A T E OF H E GUL A TO st Y OPr H e

NS

.

REGION I

e.

k*g+./

,. l' *

~

631 P ARK AVENUE

C

KING OF PRUSS! A, PENN SYLV ANI A 19.:06

,Q,f

JUN % 61974

J. P. Stohr, Chief, ESSP Section

Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I

Inspector's Evaluation

,

RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/74-24

Three Mile Island Unit One

-

The nspection referenced above consisted of an initial Indeper nt

Measu cents inspection of the TMI laboratory, their Effluen

.fon-

itoring regram and their performance on capability test e

ples

.

'

submitted

IHSL.

Two violations ere found during the inspection an were against their

non-radiological

S.

The violation on the rate

. temperature decrease

of discharge water s believed to be caused b a combination of inexperi-

ence with the =echan al draft tower and t

fact that the service water

differential temperatu

conitor was ino

rative.

The second violation

for exceeding the free ch rine limit s being investigated.

It ic y

evaluation that in order to easure . lorine at the 0.1 PPM level, usir,g

present equip =ent at TMI, wil re ire careful calibration and considerable

skill by each operator.

.

The licensee's efflu .nt pyrg;.in is i good shape.

All analyses were in

agreement with the refer 4nce laborator-

This agreement is particularly

noteworth'y since they' se manual methods,

t present, to quantitate their

gn==a emitters.

Ce rary to this good per.

..ance by TMI, their TS's are

in poor shape, i. particular their effluent te

requirements.

Since I

have made thes same ce=ments repeatedly, I had h ed that standardized

TS would be or=ulated that would incorporate these

anges.

I obtained

a copy (f a the licensee) of DL's new standardi::ed TS

5-7-74 and to

my disma

the same co=ments are still needed.

I will try 'eain.

All cy

comme s are related to guide 1.21, guide 21 and good radioc. mical prac-

tice.

Table 1, Monitor tank releases.

'.alysis of each batch released, [

1.

In addition to the ga==a 1-

top

at

a gross beta analyses is nor..- ly performed as a ceans of control

over pure beta emitters not

ected in the gacma analysis.

This

should be included.

1564

256

.

2911010 7 $ F

.

-.

- .

-

.

,7

.

-

.

-2-

.

2.

Now if a gn=ma isotopic an lysis

s performed on each batch, a re-

quire =ent to censure dissol

radioactive gases once per conth has

already been accomplished s

e all the rad-gas activities are ga==a

emitters.

This requirene

is edundant.

3.

The requirc=ent to measure Ba-140, La-140, I-131 on a weekly co=posite

is redundant for the same. reason as 2 above.

4.

Disregarding the problems associated with storing composite solutions

for future analyses, I would like to point out that in order to

analyze for SR-89, one must first. isolate strontium chemically which

includes Sr-90.

Once isolated, the SR-89 activity is obtained by

difference between total Sr and SR-90, therefore, in order to do a

SR-89 analysis, one must do a SR-90 analysis.

This makes the quarterly

SR-90 requirement obsolete.

Table 2, Location D, Gaseous Waste Sampling .

1.

A monthly isotopic analysis is required at these release points to be

consistent with guide 21 and with this require =ent at other release

points at TMI.

2.

The particulcte filters shculd be changed and analyzed at least ve d~y

• *d"4 "; ^ r r: bat. ,ith gamma isotopic.

for g_:r

a

v

3.

I suppose the Ba-140, La-140, I-131 requirement listed under charcoal

sampics, belongs to the filters.

In any case, this require =ent be-

comes obsolete if a ga=ma isotopic is done weekly.

V.

.

4.

Since a SR-89 analysis cannot be done without a SR-90 analysis, the

quarterly SR-90 requirement beco=es obsolete.

p

5.

Since a gross alpha count o

fou filters would be ultra gross, I will

assume that this requirement we ld be satisfied by the sum of four

activities counted individual

If this is true then the gross alpha

.

becomes a weekly require =en

a d the licensee merely has to sum these

for the monthly co=posite equi cent.

f, .

"./

rjo

7q[

R. J. Everett

9 qqD

lil u ;\\c i y.. . o1-J

Radiation Spec'ialist

l

@u \\bUJUU'UJLo

pe

.

1564

257

_ -.-

---

-

--

UN T t:.0 S T A T E S

-

..

.

.

'3

' [ [IN ,,,

Q

/

ATOMIC ENERGY COMt.1!St _ N

s.f a

N j j

DI R E C T O H A T L O F H L G U LA T O H V 0 88 L R A T B O N S

I

- . d. g '

b.

• g

-

,

nc ciO~ ,

l

- i

631 P ARK AVCNUE

/g

KING oF PRUSSI A, PENNSYLVANI A 19406

SF

JUN 2 61974

Metropolitan Edison Company

License No. DPR-40

Attention:

Mr. R. C. Arnold

Inspection No. 50-289/74-24

Vice President

P.O. Box 542

Reading, Pennsylvania 19603

Gentlemen:

,

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Everett of this

office on May 29-31, 1974 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power

Station of activities authorized by AEC License No. DPR-40 and

to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Everett with Mr.

Baer and Mr. Herbein of your staff at the conclusion of the

inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Regulatory

Operations Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations

of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel,

and observations by the inspector.

During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities

appeared to be in violation of AEC requirements.

The items and

references to the pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure

to this letter. This letter constitutes a notice sent to you pursuant

to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice",

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 2.201 requires

you to submit to this office within 20 days of your receipt of this

notice, a written statement of explanation in reply, including: (1)

corrective steps which have been or will be taken by you, anc'. .he results

achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further

violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

With respect to item No. 1 in the enclosure, we have noted your corrective

and preventive action.

You need submit no further comment with regard

to this item.

With resper.t to item 2, we note that this item has been

discussed in your Environmental Incident Reports dated June 5, 11, 13,

14 and 20, 1974.

In your response to this item, you may use or reference

these reports as appropriate.

1564

258

e

m aw4

-

_

- - .

Hetropolitan Ed- ['inCompany

-2-

' *

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice",

Part 2, Titic 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this

letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the

AEC's Public Document Room.

If this report contains any information

that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is

necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to

this office to withhold such informatien from public disclosure.

Any such application must include a full statement of the

reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information

is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary

information identified in the application is contained in a

separate part of the document.

If we do not hear from you in

this regard within the specified period, the report will be

placed in the Public Document Room.

'

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will

be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

gj O' )' .

,,/'

Paul R. Nelson, Chief

Radiological & Environmental

Protection Branch

Enclosures:

1.

Description of Violations

~

2.

R0 Inspection Report No. 50-289/74-24

cc:

Mr. J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent

.

Mr. R. W. Heward, Project Manager, GPUSC

bec:

R0 Chief, FS&EB

RO:HQ (4 cpys. of ler. , 5 cpys. of report)

RO Files

Central Mail & Files

DL (4 cpys. of ltr. ,13 cpys, of report)

RS .(1 cpy. of ler., 3 cpys. of report)

PDR

Local PDR

NSIC

1564

259

DTIE

State of Pa.

Reg Reg Reading Room

R0 Directors (II, III, IV) (Report Only)

OGC

.

-

'

/.

-

f

.

/

.r

ENCLOSURE I

.

DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS

Metropolitan Edison Company

.

~

Reading, Pennsylvania

i

Docket No. 50-289

License No. DPR-40

}

'

The following items were found to be in apparent violation of AEC require-

ments as indicated below. They have been reported to the AEC as Environ-

mental Incidents. These apparent violations are considered to be of

Category II severity.

1.

Section 2.1.a.2 of the The Three Mile Island Unit one Technical Spec-

ifications limits the rate of temperature decrease of discharge

f

. water relative to river water to -2 F per hour.

'

Contrary to this requirement, the rate of decrease was -3 F per

,

!

hour on 1545 hours0.0179 days <br />0.429 hours <br />0.00255 weeks <br />5.878725e-4 months <br />, May.26, 1974.

2.

Section 2.2.1.a of the Three Mile Island Unit One Technical Specif-

1

ications limits the free chlorine concentration atrthe plant river

!

water discharge to 0.1 PPM.

Contrary to this requirement, the free chlorine concentration was

0.15 PPM on May 29, 1974.

In addition, subsequent to the inspection

the free and/or total chlorine concentrations at the plant river dis-

charge equalled or exceeded 0.1 and 0.2 PPM respectively on June 5,

6, 8, 13 and 19, 1974.

i

.

1564

260

-

km)nNTg

ff % u

m tu e t v v .L

,

-

- - -

?

'

'

,

<l

~

/

.

U.S. AT0511C ENERGY COFCIISSION

DIRECTORATE OF REGULSTORY OPERATIONS

REGION I

,

RO Inspection Report No:

50-289/74-24

Docket No:

50-289

Licensee:

Metropolitan Edison Company .

License No: DPR-40

Box 542

Priority:

-

Reading, Pennsylvania 19603

Category:

C

Location:

Three Mile Island "ucicar Power Station (TMT)

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17126

Type of Licensee:

-

Type of Inspection:

PkR, 831 MWe

Dates of Inspsction:

May 29-31, 1974

Dates of Previous Inspection:

Mav 20-24, 1974

Reporting Inspector-

CD'[

b!/ 2-!74[

,

R. J. Everett, Rac iation Specialist

Date

Accompanying Inspectors:

None

.

-

Date

Date

Date

Date

.

,

Other Accompanying Personnel:

None

,_

,

'

Reviewed By:

d,J 0.%./

g J. P.. Stohr[ Senior Enviro ..

Entire document previously

1564 26j

entered into system under:

'

Aso 79/o/ Wo773

'

of 'pages

No.