ML20216J571

Notice of Violation from Insp on 870306-0424

ML20216J571
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/23/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216J568	List: ML20216J563 ML20216J571 ML20216J581
References
50-289-87-09, 50-289-87-9, NUDOCS 8707060193
Download: ML20216J571 (5)

Text

j l

l APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION

]

GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-289 Three Mile Island, Unit No. 1 Licensee No. DRP-50 1

As a result of an inspection conducted on March 6 - April 24,1987, and, in j accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix C), the follow-ing violations were identified.

A. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, and the licensee's (NRC approved) Operational Quality Assurance Plan, {

Sections 4.1, 4.2.8, and 4.2.9 require, in part, that measures shall be established and documented to assure that the applicable specified design requirements, such as design bases, regulatory requirements, codes and  !

standards, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, pro-cedures, or instructions. Further, design verification methods shall be established to verify design documents, subject to procedural control, and include specifications and calculations.

Contrary to the above, as of March 19, 1987, design modification WA A25A-53182, Pressurizer Platform Installation,.did not adequately incor-porate thermal expansion of the pressurizer, and subsequent licensee verifications did not identify the error. With the pressurizer hot at 50 psig, the subject platform was in contact with the pressurizer spray line.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

B. The 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make such surveys as may be necessary to comply with all sections of Part 20. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of condi-tions.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to perform an adequate survey (evaluation) of radiological hazards prior to worker entry to a letdown filter cubicle on March 7,1987. Specifically, the licensee's evaluation was inadequate in that it did not recognize the high potential for generating airborne radioactivity resulting from (a) worker presence and traffic in the highly contaminated cubicle and (b) the passing of a prefilter through the highly contaminated cubicle overhead access holes.

Contamination levels on the cubicle floor and lining the overhead access holes ranged up to 40 mrad /hr and 240 mrad / hour, respectively.

8707060193 870623 PDR ADOCK 05000289 e i'DR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR TMI-1 87 0005.0.0 06/19/87

1 l

)

l l

Appendix A 2 As a result, work performed in the makeup filter cubicle on March 7,1987, generated airborne radioactivity resulting in the unplanned exposure to j airborne radioactive material of several workers. 1 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).

[

2' l Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation is hereby I required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of the letter which transmitted this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the ~ results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and, (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given in extending this response time.

)

l 1

l I

i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR TMI-1 87 0006.0.0 06/19/87

1 TMI-1 Hearing Service List Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Bruce W. Churchill, Esquire Administrative Judge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 2300 N Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20037 ,

Washington, D.C. 20555  !

l Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety & Licensing Board i Administrative Judge Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Docketing & Service Section Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. Office of the Secretary 315 Peffer Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C. 20555 Louise Bradford Mary E. Wagner, Esquire 1011 Green Street Office of Executive Legal Director Harrisburg, PA 17102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1 i

Thomas Y. Au USNRC Assistant Counsel Commonwealth Resident Inspector of Pennsylvania Box 311 Dept. of Environmental Resources Middletown, PA 17057 Bureau of Environmental Resources Room 505, Executive House P. O._ Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 l

]

APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-289 Three Mile Island, Unit No. 1 Licensee No. DRP-50 As a result of an inspection conducted on March 6 - April 24,1987, and, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix C), the follow-ing violations were identified.

A. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, and the licensee's (NRC approved) Operational Quality Assurance Plan, Sections 4.1, 4.2.8, and 4.2.9 require, in part, that measures shall be established and documented to assure that the applicable specified design requirements, such as design bases, regulatory requirements, codes and standards, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, pro-cedures, or instructions. Further, design verification methods shall be established to verify design documents, subject to procedural control, and include specifications and calculations.

Contrary to the above, as of March 19, 1987, design modification WA A25A-53182, Pressurizer Platform Installation, did not adequately incor-porate thermal expansion of the pressurizer, and subsequent licensee verifications did not identify the error. With the pressurizer hot at 50 psig, the subject platform was in contact with the pressurizer spray line.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

B. The 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make such surveys as may be necessary to comply with all sections of Part 20. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of condi-tions.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to perform an adequate survey (evaluation) of radiological hazards prior to worker entry to a letdown filter cubicle on March 7, 1987. Specifically, the licensee's evaluation was inadequate in that it did not recognize the high potential for generating airborne radioactivity resulting from (a) worker presence and traffic in the highly contaminated cubicle and (b) the passing of a prefilter through the highly contaminated cubicle overhead access holes.

Contamination levels on the cubicle floor and lining the overhead access holes ranged up to 40 mrad /hr and 240 mrad / hour, respectively. j i

Appendix A 2 As a result, work performed in the makeup filter cubicle on March 7,1987, generated airborne radioactivity resulting in the unplanned exposure to airborne radioactive material of several workers.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).

Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation is hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of the letter which transmitted this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and, (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given in extending this response time.