ML19210B675
| ML19210B675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1975 |
| From: | Gallina C, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B671 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-08, 50-289-75-8, 50-320-75-04, 50-320-75-4, NUDOCS 7911110142 | |
| Download: ML19210B675 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1975008
Text
.
.
.
'
IE:I Form 12
"in .75) (Rev)
'
.
.
f-
(
A
.
\\
/
"'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
. :.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEhT
.
.
.
REGION I
.
Unit 1: 50-2894
IE Inspection Report No:
50-289/75-08 and 50-32'0/75-04
Docket No: Unit
2-
50 ~1203
Unit 1: D P R- 5 " ...
M' t ro'n' li t a n Edison Companv (Met-Ed)
License No: Un i e 2:CPPR-6'
Licensee:
e
o
P.
O.
Box 542
Priority:
-
-
Unit 1: C
~
Reading, Pennsylvania
19603
Category:
Unit 2: B 21
Safeguards
'
Group:
Location:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Units 1 and 2
(TMI) Middletown, Pennsylvania
17057
Iype of Licensee:
B &tJ 871 Mwe (PtJR )
Hye of Inspection:
Routine - Announced (Emergency Planning)
,
...
Da/
'of Inspection:
April
9,
1975
..
Nj
,
..
2aus of Previous Inspection:
March 24-26, 1975
.-
Reporting Inspector:
& C.
IS~
/*n 7[
.
"
.
C.
O.
Galfina,
Ph.D.,
Radiation Specialist
DATE
tecompanying Inspectors:
None
-
DATE
-
DATE
DATE
)tlier Acco=panying Personnel:
None
""
DATE
// {/f~m
f3r 7.5'
leviewed By:
J. P/ S'tohr, ~ Chief,' Environmental Protection and
DATE
Special Programs Section
.-
1536.083
--
7911110/4'2
.
.
.
.
SUFetARY OF FINDINGS
V
Enforcement Action (Emergency Planning)
f,
A.
Items of Noncompliance
1.
Violations
++
None
2.
Infractions
.
a.
Contrary to Health Physics Procedure 1670.12, " Emergency
Equipment Readiness Check",
emergency equipment was not
checked and inventoried from April through November of
1974.
-
(Details, Paragraph 4)
3.
Deficiencies
.
None
B.
Deviations
m-
None
,
'
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items (Eme'rgency Planning)
None Identified
.
Design Changes
-
None
.
-
Unusual Occurrences
.
None
Other Significant Findings
A.
Current Findings
1.
Acceptable Areas
~
Inspection of the following areas did not identify any enforce-
ment items.
Emergency Control Center
^
Emergency Communications Systems
-/
15C6
034
.
.
.
-2-
.'
/
(
-
Means for Monitoring Release of Radioactivity
Medical Arrangements
Training
Implementation Procedores (Unit No. 1)
Agreements and Coordination with Offsite Agencies
Tests and Drills
.
2.
Unresolved Items
No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
.
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items (Emergency Planning)
None Identified
P.
Management Interview
m
A management interview was conducted at the Three Mile Is, land Nuclear Station
on April 9,1975 following the conclusion of the inspection and subsequent to
the conduct of an emergency training exercise.
The following individuals were
in attendance:
=
Dr. C. O. Gallina, Radiation Specialist, USNRC - IE:I
J
.
-x
Mr. J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent, Met-Ed
(
)
Mr. J. J. Colitz, Plant Superintendent, TMI-Unit 1,' Met-Ed
Dr. T. A. Jeneks, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering, Met-Ed
Mr. J. E. Romanski, Supervisor, Radiation Protection and Chemistry, Met-Ed
Mr. S. W. Porter, Jr., Consultant-Emergency Planning, Porter-Gertz Consultants
a.;
During this meeting the following items were discussed:
-
A.
Scope
?-
'5EiE[
The inspector reviewed the overall scope of the inspection, camely, the
."t"
licensee's emergency preparadness program for TMI Units No. 1 and 2.
=
Inspector stated further that items specific to emergency planning
- Ey
,
at Unit No. 2 would be reviewed as they became available.
(Details,
i
Paragraphs 2 and 3)
r=
B.
Review of Item of Noncompliance
..
The inspector reviewed the Item of Noncompliance identifled during
= n.;
the course of this inspection with the licensee.
This item is
identified under enforcement action in the Summary of Findings in
this report.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
-N
f
t
i586
0C5
.
.
.
-
-3-
.
.
'%
i
a
j)
'
C.
Emergency Training Exercise
The inspector reviewed the details of the emergency training exercise
. . -
conducted ac the TMI alte during the course of the inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
.
. . . . .
-ses-
.
.
e,ee.s._
.
.
. . . .
,
\\
(
)
'
.t" E~i.i
-
-
.
\\
,,
1536 056
'
.
.
'4
O
.
.
.
-
~
.
A
)
[
'
er
\\
?
'
DETAILS
-
1.
Personnel Contacted
.
Mr. J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent, Met-Ed
Mr. J. J. Colitz, Plant Superintendent, TMI-Unit 1, Met-Ed
- Dr. T. A. Jencks, Radiation Safety and Environmental Engineering, Met-Ed
Mr. J. E. Romanski, Supervisor, Radiation Protection and Chemistry, Met-Ed
- Mr. R. Zechman, Administrator, Nuclear and Technical Training, Met-Ed
- Mr. J. L. Seelinger, Supervisor of Training, Met-Ed
Mr. K. E. Beale, Radiation Protection Foreman, Met-Ed
- Mr. D. Dubeil, Engineer - Radiation Protection, Met-Ed
Mr. T. Muleavy, Health Physicist, Met-Ed
- Mr. M. R. Buring, Engineer-Radiation Protection, Met-Ed
- Mr. R. Neidig, QC Assistant, Met-Ed
- Mr. M. Johnson, QC Assistant, Met-Ed
- Mr- E. Gee, QC Assistant, Met-Ed
- Mr. B. Heysek, QC Assistant. Met-Ed
- Mr. S. W. Porter, Jr. , Consultant-Emergency Planning, Porter-Gertz Consultant"
- Mr. D. Beaver, Office of Radiological Health, Commonwealth of Pa.
- Mr. J. Kopenhauer, Office of Radiological Health, Commonwealth of Pa.
- Mr. R. Cerstell, State Director of Civil Defense, Commonwealth of Pa.
- Mr. K. Malloy, Director of Civil Defense, Dauphin County, Commonwealth
^
of Pa.
,
}
- Mr. J. Brabets, Civil Defense, Dauphin County, Codmonwealth of Pa.
'
'
- Mr. P. Leese, director of Civil Defense, Lancaster County, Common-
~
-
wealth of Pa.
- Mr. F. Fishel, Director of Civil Defense, York County, Commonwealth
of Pa'.
.
2.
General
This inspection was a review of the Emergency Preparedness Program
instituted by the licensee for the TMI site, including both the
licensee's Emergency Plan and associated implementation procedures.
.
the Emergency Plan is set forth as Appendix 12A in the subject facil-
""
ities FSAR. -The Emergency Implementation Procedures are set forth
in a document prepared by Metropolitan Edison Company entitled
"Three Mile Island Emergency Plans and Procedures." *This latter
g
document is divided into two volumes, the first volume relating to
. Radiological Emergencies and the second volume relating to Non-
Radiological Emergencies.
Additional areas examined during this
inspection included agreements and coordination with offsite agencies,
facilities and equipment, means of monitoring the release of radio-
- 0bservers during the emergency training exercise.
-
1536
337
"
.
.
.
.
.
-5-
'.
h
-<
activity, medical arrangements, and training.
Within these areas
__
the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures,
and related documentation, interviews with plant personnel and
,
observations by the inspector.
As part of this inspection effort
an emergency training exercise was observed on April 9, 1975.
RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/74-10 documented three areas
-
relative to. Emergency Planning which were not totally completed
'
upon completion of that inspection.
These areas related to the
meteorology' readout in the control room, communications inter
connection to the vital bus, and letter of agreement from the
.
physician utilized under emergency conditions.
The inspector
reviewed these areas during the course of this inspection and
found that the three areas noted were resolved as per licensee
commitment in the aforementioned inspection report.
...y.._
3.
Overall Emergency Implementation Procedures
The inspector reviewed all changes to emergency implementation
procedures enacted subsequent to the last inspection in the area
of emergency planning.
With respect to the changes and/or additions
reviewed, no problem areas were identified.
The licensee stated that
the overall emergency preparedness program for the TMI site was
currently being reviewed in detail in order to effectively coordinate
,
)
emergency response actions for the separate facilties.
The licensee
-
"
stated that although the emergency control station would be common
for both units, some implementation procedures were unit specific
requiring that new proc _edures be written for TMI Unit 2.
The inspector
noted that the majority of these new procedures related to the
non-radiological area (e.g., flood procedures, etc.) and that no major
difficulty was forseen in this area.
The licensee stated that the
majority of emergency implementation procedures were equally appli-
"
cable to both units.
4.
Emergency Equipment Inventories
c:
The inspector examined various emergency kits in order to verify that
+
'all required equipment was present.
As a result of this inspection,
it was noted that minor items of emergency equipment were not in
the emergency kit, such as flashlights, pads, etc.
In reviewing
the documentation for these inventories the inspector noted that
although missing equipment was noted, corrective actions were not
?"
indicated.
In attempting to review earlier inventory documenta-
tion, the inspector noted that documentation was not readily available
prior to Janua.ry 1975.
The licensee stated that these records
could be provided but that inventories had not been initiated prior
to November 1974.
The inspector stated that failure on the part
of the licensee to conduct these inventories constituted an Item of
..
s
iSS6
0BB
.
.
.
.
.
.
-6-
-
,
.
.
7~
Noncompliance due to the fact that Health Physics Procedure 1670.12
'
" Emergency Equipment Readiness Check" requires that these inventories
_
be performed quarterly.
The licensee stated that emergency equipment inventory sheets would
be upgraded immediately with provisions included to ensure that (a)
~
equipment was inventoried quarterly as required, (b) contained
instrumentation would be checked for calibration and (c) that
correceive actions taken woeld be clearly indicated on the afore-
,,
mentioned inventory sheets.
5.
Emergency Training Exercise
The inspector observed an emergency training exercise conducted at the
TMI site on April 9, 1975.
The training exercise was initiated at
approximately 1700 hours0.0197 days <br />0.472 hours <br />0.00281 weeks <br />6.4685e-4 months <br /> with the simulation of a loss of coolant and
accident occurring during a containment purge operation.
Thn simulated
accident was further complicated by the inability to close the con-
tainment purge valve.
The inspector noted that the emergency training
exercise involved all segments of the licensee's emergency response
capability.
Control room emergency operating procedures were evaluated
by licensee personnel, offsite monitoring teams were dispatched, offsite
communications were tested, onsite radiation teams were utilized, as
well as the inplant emergency repair parties.
The inspector noted
'-
)
that during the course of the exercise, when a critical line of commun-
'
ication became inoperative (real condition), the licensee was able
-
to implement an alternate method of com=unication in a very'shott
time period.
.
In addition to the inspector, the emergency training exercise was
observed by various licensee personnel as well as those from offsite
agencies utilized by the licensee to help in the implementation of
the emergency plan.
A critique session was held subsequent to the
completion of the drill and the inspector noted that no problems areas
.
were identified other than minor, easily correctable, logistical
items.
6.
Letters of Agreement
The inspector noted that all letters of agreement required by the
licensee from offsite agencies utilized in conjunction with its
emergency plan were available at the time of the inspection.
=-
The licensee stated however that a review was underway in order to
determine if further letters would be required.
The licensee
1586
089
'
-
.-
.e
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-7-
.
' T
.r2.
f
.'
stated that at present letters of agreement were in existance
between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Civil Defense
Organization for the County within which the facility is located.
w
The licensee stated further that an inquiry was being undertaken
to determine if other letters should be acquired from those County
'=
Civil Defense Organizations adjacent to the facility. The licensee
stated that due to the fact that the Civil Defense Agencies operated
.
in close conjunction with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, there
._
was a possibility that letters would not be required from a County
iT=
Civil Defense Organization if the State letter was in effect.
The
-.;-
licensee stated that further information would be forwarded to the
Regional Office as it became available.
The inspector noted that
in either c,ase, the licensee had met all requirements with respect
-~
to the needed letters of agreement.
--
..
e
e
owee-
.
.
. . . . .
/
.