ML19289F877
| ML19289F877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1979 |
| From: | Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMM NUDOCS 7906210006 | |
| Download: ML19289F877 (3) | |
Text
- h*
, g/ "8%qjo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
]' _ /[i
{
'e g
REGION il A
c 101 M ARIETTA STR EET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o,....../
s;
~
APR 2 61979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Boyce H. Grier, Director, Region I FROM:
Gerald L. Troup, Radiation Specialist, Radiation Support Section, FF&MS Branch, Region II
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AT THREE MILE ISLAND 1.
Arrived at TMI Site:
1700, 3/30/79 Departed TMI Site:
1805, 4/18/79 Times on Duty:
3/30/79 1700 - 1900 3/31/79 0700 - 1730 4/01/79 0645 - 1715 4/02/79 0700 - 1730 4/03/79 0645 - 1740 4/04/79 0645 - 1830 4/05/79 0650 - 1735 4/06/79 0645 - 1745 4/07/79 0650 - 1930 4/08/79 0645 - 1720 4/09/79 0645 - 1730 4/10/79 0655 - 1915 4/11/79 0645 - 1730 4/12/79 0655 - 1830 4/13/79 0655 - 1910 4/14/79 0645 - 1915 4/15/79 0705 - 1830 4/16/79 0650 - 1910 4/17/79 0705 - 1725 4/18/79 0700 - 1805 2.
Summary of Activities Performed:
Assigned to Unit 1 in-plant health physics coverage (3/30 - 4/18) and radioactive waste coverage (4/11 - 4/18).
Routine activities included periodically logging readings of process and area radiation monitors in Unit 1 and 2 control rooms, reviewing health physics practices in Unit 1 including resolution of identified problems, reviewing radio-active liquid and gasecus release permits (sample results, flow rates, dilution flow, etc.) and review of radioactive waste processing in Unit 1 (sources, sample analyses, processing method, disposal records).
Also periodically reviewed Met.
Ed's water management plans for processing sequences during the week of 4/15.
7 9 0 6 210cG6 g wn 241 109 P
y
. APR 2 61979
/
3.
Cormients Regarding Licensee Operations:
During the period at TMI, I observed the following deficiencies related to the licensee's health physics operations:
a.
Lack of coordination in the health physics organization.
For a period of time, a new health physics organization for Unit 2 was being promulgated almost daily, creating confusion about responsibilities and "who is in charge."
Additionally, Unit 1 health physics was left entirely in the hands of contractor personnel with no clear-cut lines of supervision early in the period, e.g., the contractor supervisor thought that he reported to the plant health physics supervisor but the health physics supervisor thought that the contractor reported to the Unit 1 shift foreman.
When Unit 2 activities impacted on or took place in Unit 1, such as the transfer of radioactive water from Unit 2 to Unit 1, the Unit 1 health physics organization was not informed of these activities. When water was transferred to Unit 1 on 4/15, the inspector was the one who informed the Unit I health physics supervisor that the transfer had started.
b.
Inadequate implementation of air-sampling program.
In carrying out the air sampling program, there was a continuing inability to coordinate the counting / analysis.
Sample turn-around often was greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, which made the results meaningless for implementing work permits or evaluating changes in gaseous releases.
Other problems identified in the air-sampling program were failure to include iodine retention efficiencies in air sample analyses and the use of too high flow rates in the collection of iodine samples.
c.
Inconsistent use of radiation work permits (RWP's).
In Unit 1, the requirement for RWP's fluctuated between standing permits good for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and requirina a new permit for each entry into the Auxiliary Building.
For the first week this condition fluctuated between shifts and even between jobs, creating confusion among workers, operators, and HP technicians.
4.
Comments Regarding IE/NRC Operations.
During the first week, in-plant IE personnel were performing independent reviews and evaluations of the licensee's operations and plant status.
IE personnel were effective in identifying problems to licensee management which required imediate attention.
However, after the first week, in-plant IE personnel were being called on to track down information for other NRC organizations which was 241 110
APR 2 61979 not related to the in-plant health physics function, even though personnel from these organizations were on-site and could have handled these requests.
For example, NRR requested that in rlant radiation specialists determine the type of transmitter installed in the Unit 2 temporary pressurizer level indicator system even though NRR had approved the instaliation procedure and NRR personnel were in-plant at the time.
Gerald L. Troup Radiation Specialist Radiation Support Section cc:
A. F. Gibson, RII i
i CONTACT:
G. L. Troup 242-5607 241 111
.