IR 05000289/1974033
| ML19256D412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1974 |
| From: | Davis A, Napuda G, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D407 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-74-33, NUDOCS 7910180758 | |
| Download: ML19256D412 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _.
. _ _. _ _ ._ _ -a.. . . . g J,'P.7 D @O' 'O :1 Fo r:: 12
N 0cc 74) (1:ev) . - U.S. ATO: IC E';ERGY C0 OtISSIO:: DIRECTORATE OF REOUL\\ TORY OPER.iTIO:-:S REC 10:: I 50-289 RO Inspectica Report ::a: 50-289/74-33 Docket No: DPR-50 Licensec: Metropolitan Edisen Company License No:, ~ - Three Mile Island Unit 1 Priority: C Category: Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania Safeguards - . Group: PWR 871 We (B&W) Type of Licensec: ( ~ Type 'of Inspection: Routine, Announced ) ' Dates of Inspection: October 24-25, 1974 October 7-9, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: Reporting Inspector: (/ / lUl/7L 4/ //-/2-7 f Date / R. L. Spessard, Reac or Inspector // /z Pf/ Accompanying Inspec ors: f7 - / G.Oapuda,ReactorInspector / Da't e Date Date Date D. Prairie, AEC Censultant Other Accompanying Personnel: G. Bradley, AEC Consultant Date l[[f 3 / 7 d " Reviated ny: '- ' .B.
Davis, Senior Reactor Inspector Date . f Reactor Operations Branch , 1449 J51
. . m Ns
.
. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action A.
Violacions None identified B.
Safety , . None identified Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Items Not inspected Unusual Occurrences i None identified , ? / ~,' j (_/ Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findines 1.
Non-Deficient Areas a.
Plant Status (Details I, Paragraph 2) b.
Initial Startup Test Data (Details I, Paragraphs 3.c, e, f, h, j, 1, m, p, q, r and s) c.
Preoperational Test Program. (Details I, Paragraph 4) d.
GPUSC QA Audits (Details I, Paragraph 5) e.
Orifice Plate Erosion (Details II, Paragraph 4) 2.
New Unresolved Items Inspection program for Seismic Category I component support a.
bolts.
(Details II, Paragraphs 2 and 3) 3.
New Open Items a.
Completion of Initial Startup Test MCP-15 and acceptance of those results by the licensee.
(Details I, Paragraph 3.o) s - 1449 J52 _ -. .. ._ ..
. -. ._ . . - -m ' / . -2-B.
Status of Previous Items 1.
Unresolved Items Not inspected 2.
Open Items The following items are closed: i a.
Initial Startup Test Data.
(Details I, Paragraphs 3,a, b, d, g, 1, k, n, o and t) b.
Met Ed Corporate Technical Support Staff review of the design change which deleted the Turbine Trip Test at ' 100%FP from the Initial Startup Test Program.
(Details I, Paragraph 3.k) i Maname=ent Interview An exit interview was held onsite on October 25, 1974 at the conclusion of the inspection with Mr. J. Colitz, Unit Superintendent, Mr. W. Potts, QC Supervisor, and Mr. M. Nelson, Technical Engineer.
The following su=marizes the items discussed: A.
Status of the maintenance outage.
(Details I, Paragraph 2) B.
Preoperational and Initial Startup Test results including the licensee's plans for completing cpen items from the test program.
(Details I, Paragraphs 3 and 4) The licensee stated these items, which were being followed by the PORC, would be reviewed by the PORC when completed with outride technical assistance used on an as required basis.
C.
Deletion of the Turbine Trip Test at 100%FP from the Initial Start-up Test Program.
(Details I, Paragraph 3.k) D.
GPUSC QA Audits.
(Details I, Paragraph 5) E.
Licensee's Surveillance Pror, ram for orifice plate erosion.
(Details II, Paragraphs 2 and 4) 1449.)53 - . .. .
, ' . % % . . 3- . established in response to was informed t::st this Program Licensee's Inservice Inspection (Details II, Paragraphs 2 a d 3) The licensee AEC Bulletins 74-03 and 03A.
F.
d that unresolved item, atter would be reviewed an was an of this review.
The licensee stated that this mRO:I woul esults I O 1449 J54 t \\. \\ . I \\ \\ t, .
-. . . . ^ . , - n . DETAILS I Prepared by: R. L. Spessard, Reactor Inspector 1.
Pcesons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Company Mr. J. Herbein, Station Superintendent Mr. J. Colitz, Unit Sups'rintendent , Mr. J. O'Hanlen, Nuclear Engineer ' General Public Utilities Service Corporation Mr..~. Barton, Startup and Test Manager Mr. R. Toole, Test Superintendent . Mr. M. Nelson, Technical Engineer \\ Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Services , / '- \\-) Mr. W. Raymond, Shift Data Analyst ' 2.
Plant Status At the time of this RO inspection, the unit was in a shutdcun status for the perfor=ance of station maintenance.
The inspector reviewed the outage schedule and discussed the overall schedule status and work activities associated with selected jobs with cognizant licensee representatives.
Major jobs incluoed: overhaul and resetting of pressurizer code safety valves, overhaul of pressurizer electrematic relief valve, repacking numerous valves and repair of secondary system steam leaks.
According to the licensee representatives, the outage was on schedule and the unit was scheduled to be returned to service on October 30, 1974.
3.
Insoector's Review of Initial Startup Test Data The inspector verified by review of the official field copy of the completed test procedure and by review of TUG Meeting minutes (Meetings 127-130) that the test results for the procedures listed below had been evaluated by the licensee and that he had determined them to be acceptable and/or had taken proper corrective action on nonacceptable findings.
No deficiencies were identified, and the inspector's observations are included, where appropriate.
~.. 1449 J55
-- .-- -- -- - , . , l s -
-5-TP 500/3 Initial Radiochemistry Test a.
Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee s with the exception of the analysis for strontium-89 and 90.
This analysis is performed offsite and the results have not been returned to the licensee.
The results are expected to show background because no fission products were detected in the other analyses.
This item is closed.
(Report 50-289/ 74-29, Details 4.br(l)) b.
TP 800/2 Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration at Power Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
This item is closed (Report 10-289/74-29, De-tails 4.a. (1)). ! TP 800/3 Biological Shield Survey c.
I
Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
C d.
TP 800/5 Reactivity Coefficients at Power Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee. This item is closed (Report 50-289/74-29, Details 4.a.(2)). TP 800/6 Steam Bypass Testing e.
Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
f.
TP 800/7 Feed System Operation and Testing Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
g.
TP 800/8 ICS Tuning at Power Test is cocplete, and t'.e results were acceptea by the licensee.
This item is closed (Report 50-280/74-29, Details 4.b. (2)). 1449 056 '
.. _ - .-- _ __
. . l ' ' . -6-h.
TP 800/9 Turbine Generator Operation and Testing Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
1.
TT 800/11 Core Power Distribution Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee. This item is closed (Report 50-289/74-29, . Details 4.a.(3)). j.
TP 800/12 Unit Load Steady State Test , l Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
k.
TP 800/14 Turbine / Reactor Trip Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
The turbine trip at 100%FP was not performed, and '-f (_') this part of TP 800/14.was deleted pursuant to the require =ents of 10 CFR 50.59. The inspector reviewed documentation which indicated that the Met Ed Corporate Technical Support Staff reviewed and approved the written initial safety evaluation for this design change.
This item is c3osed (Report 50-289/ 74-29, Details 5).
< The licensee determined, based on plant testing following the resetting of the main steam safety valves, that the setpoints for these valves are adequate for continued operations; how-ever the licensee is reviewing the transients experienced drring the test program in an effort to determine means by which plant performance =ay be optimized. This item is closed (Reports 50-289/74-29, Details 4.b. (3) and 50-289/74-28, Details 2.a).
1.
TP 800/16 Reactivity Depletion vs Burnup Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
m.
TP 800/17 Unit Acceptance Test Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
~ 1449 057
.. _ _ __ , . ' , . i s_ -7-n.
TP 800/20 Rod Reactivity Worth Measurement Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee. This item is closed (Report 50-289/74-29, Details 4.a.(5)). o.
TP 800/21 Unit Startup and Power Escalation Test Test is complete and the results were accepted by the , licensee with the exception of the performance tests of the , Natural Draft and Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers and MCP-15 Mechanical Construction Procedure for pipe hanger settings and supports.
This item is closed (Repor.t 50-289/74-29, Details 4.a.(6)). The cooling tower performance tests are to be completed by , the licensee some time in the future. MCP-15 was essentially { complete, and the licensee expected to co=plete the test during the current maintenance outage.
Completion of MCP-15 ! '
and acceptance of the MCP-15 results by the licensee remains as an open item.
j ,, ' (_) p.
TP 800/22 NSS Heat Balance Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee. Additionally, the inspector observed the following: ' Data Sheets available and completed (at least 10% sampling);
raw data converted to test data; test exceptions and deficiencies identified; corrective action performed (none required); test analysis reviewed by appropriate persons; and test results demonstrate the desired performance criteria and/or predicted results.
q.
TP 800/23 Unit Load Transient Test Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
r.
TP 800/30 Power Escalation Checkpoints Test is co=plete and the results were accepted by the licensee with the exception of the portions dealing with the performance tests of the Natural and Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers.
Licensee plans to complete these items some ti=e in the future.
1449 J58
_ _ _ _ _. ~ i , , . , .
.- . -8-s.
TP 800/34 Generator Trip Test . Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
Additionally, the inspector obsecved the following: Data Sheets available and completed (at least 10% sampling); raw data converted to test data; test exceptions and deficiencies identified; corrective action performed (none required); test analysia reviewed by appropriate persons; and test results demonstrate the desired performance criteria and/or predicted results.
t.
TP 800/35 Effluent and Effluent Monitoring System Test Test is complete, and the results were accepted by the licensee.
This item is closed (Reports 50-289/74-29, Details 4.b.(6) and 50-289/74-27, Details 6.a. (2)(b)). ' 4.
Preoperational Testing Proeram ' ( Based on a review of TWG Meeting minutes (Meetings 127-130) and on discussions with cognizant licensee representatives, the following was determined relative to the overall status of the program.
This information updates the program status, as ider.:ified in previous RO inspections (Reports 50-289/74-25, Details 2, 50-289/ 74-23, Details 7, and 50-289/74-18, Details 2).
The TWG has been disbanded and the open ite=s from the Preoperational Test Program and the Initial Startup Test Program (Items 2.(a), (k), (o), and (r) above) are being followed by the PORC.
a.
Program Status Tests Co=pleted and Accepted 93% Tests Partially Completed and Accepted 4% Tests Not Performed 3% b.
Tests Comoleted and Accepted The following tests, which previously were partially completed and whose results were partially accepted by the licensee, have been co=pleted, and the results of these tests have been accepted by the licensee: (1) SP 254.33 Turbine Generator Initial Operation (2) TP 350/10 Computer Points verification (3) TP 230/8 Solid Waste Disposal System Test 1449 059 .
- . . m . ' i-9-c.
Tests Partially Comoleted and Accepted Six (6) tests were partially completed and the results of these tests were partially accepted by the licensee.
The licensee's action of these tests was reviewed during previous RO inspections, and the inspector has no further questions on this item.
These tests are as follows: (1) SP 102.6 Fire' Protection 5_ stem Checkout (2) TP 120/1 Fuel Handling System Operational and Functional Test (3) TP 120/2 Dry Fuel Handling Test (4) TP 120/3 Fuel Handling System Integrated Functional Test a (5) TP 272/1 Main Feed Pump Turbines and Auxiliaries
Functional Test (6) TP 350/2 Computer System - Field Verification Sof tware The open test requirements for Items (1), (5) and (6) are to be completed in accordance with the applicable procedure some time in the future.
The open test requirements for Items (2), (3) and (4) are to be covered by the performance of Met Ed surveillance procedures prior to the first refueling operations.
d.
Tests Not Performed Five(5) tests were not performed, and the licensee's action on these tests was reviewed during previous RO inspections.
The inspector has no further questier.s on this item.
These tests are as follows: (1) TP 230/7 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Functional Test (2) TP 600/25 Hydrogen Addition Test (3) TP 600/26 Degasification Test - . % 1449 J60
_.
. s . -10-(4) F1104/6 Spent Fuel Cooling System Functional Test (5) F1104/23 Cyc}e Makeup Demineralizers Functional Test Item (1) is to be performed in accordance with the procedure or equivalent checks made at some time in the future.
The test objectives for Items (2), (3) and (5) were demonstrated during plant operation using Met Ed operating procedures.
The test objectives for Item (4) are to be covered by the performance of Met Ed surveillance procedures prior to the first refueling operation.
5.
GPUSC QA Audits The results of the audits of Initial Startup Test activities were discussed with cognizant licensee representatives.
The inspector was informed that there were no open audit findings, and that the results of these audits are to be factored into the program for Unit 2.
The inspector reviewcd (random selection) documentation relative to Audit 74-36 which was conducted during the period (} , June 4-17, 1974.
The inspector observed that three (3) audit findings were made for noncompliance with Test Instructions and that corrective action to resolve these findings had been taken.
The inspector observed that the documentation associated with Audit 74-36 was consistent with Appendix A of the QA Plan For Startup and Test.
I449 J61 _ .
, s , , . DETAILS II Prepared by: G. Napuda 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Cocoany , Mr. E. Bul=er, Lead Engineer Mr. J. Colitz, Unit Superintendent Mr. W. Potts, QC Supervisor General Public Utilities Service Corporation Mr. J. Wright, Site QA Manager, Unit 2 2.
General kl The inspector reviewed and evaluated the anchor (hold down) bolt 'N , ' inservice inspection plan for seismic category I pressure vessels.
Since Section XI of the Boiler and Pressure code does not speci-fically address inspection of such support structures, AEC Bulletin 74-3, which described hold down bolt failures in an operating facility, requested the development and i=ple=entation of an in-spection plan for such items.
Gilbert Associates Incorporated (GAI) developed a procedure for Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) to implement a surveillance plan on these type supports.
AEC Bulletin 74-03A described seismic category I support structures fabrication deficiencies.
The bulletin requested that provisions to verify fabrication of these structures according to design specifications be incorporated into the inspection plan developed for anchor bolts.
The inspector also reviewed an inspection surveillance plan of orifice sections associated with the makeup pumps system piping.
This conitoring was implecented as a result of the licensee previously identifying an orifice erosion problem.
- 1449 J62
' _ _ _ _ , ')
- '
t_.
- , -12-3.
Support Bolts on Seismic Category I Cocoonents a.
The following GAI drawings were reviewed by the inspector.
(1) E-421-028 (2) E-421-052 (3) E-421-055 - (4) E-521-016 (5) E-521-017 r (6) E-521-018 (7) E-521-023 (8) E-521-024 , ' (9) E-521-025 (10) E-521-027 (11) E-521-028 (12) E-521-029 (13) E-521-045
(14) E-521-051 () (15) E-521-060 (16) E-521-389 The inspector reviewed procedure " Reactor Building Structural j Integrity Anchor Bolt Surveillance Program - TMI Surveillance Test No. 1300-2" (TMI 13002).
This procedure describes the ' use of a fixture in which prestressed bolts are located.
The bolts are made of materials similar to the =aterial used for the bolts actually anchoring support structures.
These simulated bolts are to be located in selected areas within the secondary shield.
Subsequently they are to be removed for ultrasonic examination.
b.
The inspector examined the locations of the steam generator , and pressurizer anchor bolts.
A portion of the steam generator skirt anchor bolts were visually examined.
The initiation of the simulated anchor bolts installation was observed.
c.
The inspector's findings were as follows: (1) Paragraph B.1 of Bulletin 74-3 states in, art "...Selec-tively examine a representative portion... including the bolting caterial..." Contrary to the foregoing, the inspector found that Pro-cedure TMI 1300-2 does not provide for any examinatien s, of the actual bolts.
Instead the subject inspection 1449 J63 -- - ..
_ _ _ _. .. . - .
" -13- . plan proposes that the examination of simulated bolts be substituted for examination of actual anchor bolts.
These simulated bolts do not appear to be subject to the same environ = ental and service conditions (e.g., vibration, temperature cycles) as the actual bolts encounter.
(2) Paragraph B.3 of Bulletin 74-3 instructs that bolt failures be reported as abnor=al occurrences. Also Para-graph 7.2 of IMI 1300-2 co=mits to Regulatory Guide 1.16 (RG), which requires that abnormal occurrences of this type must be reported to the AEC within twenty four hours by telephone and telegraph, followed by a written report within ten days.
Contrary to the above the inspector found that TMI 1300-2 Paragraph 7.2 directs that bolt failures be reported to the AEC within ten days (e.g., pro =pt notification is not included in the procedure,. (3) Section 4.4.1 of the licensee's FSAR commits to ASHE Section IX, 1970, which references ASME Section III.
, ' The inspector found that contrary to the nondestructive examination requirements of Paragraph N325 of ASME Section III, TMI 1300-2 describes an ultrasonic examination method that appears to be similar to that required by ASME Section III, 1971, Paragraph NB2585, but with the follow-ing less stringent acceptance criteria.
(a) Paragraph 8.1.6.4.5 of TMI 1300-2 describes one type of unacceptable condition as an indication four or more decibels above the reference level curve, which is calibrated from a three sixteenth inch artificial notch in a prepared reference bolt. A ratio factor of 1.59 to 1 in this instance predicts the existance of a.298 inch crack perpendicular to the bolt axis or one of greater length at an angle to the bolt axis.
(b) Paragraph 8.1.6.4.6 of TMI 1300-2 describes another unacceptable condition as an indication eight or more decibels above the reference level curve.
In this instance with a 2.51 to 1 ratio the indication predicts the existance of at least a.470 inch crack.
- 1449 J64 . _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ __ __ ___ _ _, . .. . x , _ -14-(4) Paragraph B of Bulletin 74-03A requires that "the inspec-tion program requested by Regulatory Operations Bulletin 74-3.... include provisions that could detect problems of the type outlined....". Contrary to the above the inspector found that no such provisions appeared in 131 1300-2.
It appears thdt the inspection program for seismic Category I component support bolts does not meet the in-tent of R0 Bulletins 74-3 and 74-03A.
This is an un-resolved item.
4.
Orifice Plate Erosion ' An orifice plate erosion problem had been previously identified a.
by the licensee, and a surveillance program has been established.
This program consists of weekly radiography of the affected - discharge orifice plates which are associated with makeup pumps A, B, and C and the letdown orifice.
Two negatives each are , ' t exposed at 0 and 90 locations.
The orifice section consists of a pipe length in which several plates (disks) have been welded at specified intervals.
The plates have had particular type openings (orifices) machined in them.
b.
The section (HT 2P4408, B-26555) that originally failed was examined.
Erosion had occurred from the orifice outward into the adjacent weld (MU 55All). There was no erosion of the pipe wall at the opposite end (Weld MU 55A32).
There was no plate erosion between welds MU 56136 and MU 56B7 of another section removed for comparison studies.
A third comparison section showed slight erosion of the plate between welds MU 54B6 and MU 54B7.
The erosion of the failed orifice section had occurred during the startup and testing phase.
An orifice section of the original design (design #1) was used to replace the failed section.
1449 J65 _ .. -
. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _
__ _ I
e e i , - ~ ' N..- . -15-When orifice sections of a later design (design #2) arrived at the facility the design #1 orifice sections that showed radiographic signs of significant erosion were replaced.
These included the B replacement and original A and C orifice . sections.
A shipment of latest design orifice sections (design #3) is ! Visual examination by receiving presently on QC " Hold'f.
inspection raised a number of questions and subsequent radio- , The matter is being graphy indicates unacceptable velding.
processed internally by the licensee.
The radiographs reviewed by the inspector are listed hereunder c.
along with pertinent cocsents.
The references to erosion in design #1 orifice sections apply , to plates number one which are furthest downstream from the ' The references to erosion in design #2 orifice sections pumps.
apply to plates number two which are the second furthest down-( Erosion of other than these plates is specifically stream.
mentioned.
Radiographs (6/7/74) of pump B original orifice section (1) (design #1) did reflect the gross erosion that caused failure.
Radiographs (6/10/74) of pump B replacement crifice section (2) The accompanying (design #1) show significant erosion.
reader sheet denotes a rejection of the orifice section.
Radiographs (6/4/74) of pump A orifice section (design #1) (3) show significant erosion that not yet reached the adjacent veld.
Radiographs (6/4/74) of pump C orifice section (design #1) (4) show slight erosion.
This pu=p was on standby.
Radiographs (6/4/74) of the letdown orifice section D (5) (design #1) shows slight erosion.
Radiographs (6/10/74) of the letdown orifice secticn D (6) (design #1) shew no discernible erosion beyond that noted previously (5).
I449 J66
.. _ _ _.
.. .. , - . (') - .- . -16-(7) Radiographs (6/27/74) of pump B orifice section (design
- 2) show erosion.
(8) Radiographs (6/27/74) of pu=p C orifice section (design
- 2) show no discernible erosion.
Pucp was on standby.
(9) Radiographs (7/3/74) of pu=p B orifice section (design
- 2) show no significant erosion beyond that previously
' noted (7).
(10) Radiographs (7/23/74) of pump B orifice section (design
- 2) shows erosion of plate number three.
Erosion of plate number two appears to have halted.
(11) Radiographs (8/7/74) of pump B orifice section (design
- 2) show continuing erosion of plate number two and marked
, erosion of plate number three.
(12) Radiographs (8/7/74) of pu=p A orifice section (design #2) show erosion occuring on plate numbers two, three and 't four.
(13) Radiographs (8/20/74) of pump B orifice section (design #2) show continuing erosion of plate number two and marked erosion of plate number three.
(14) Radiographs (9/24/74) of pu=p B orifice section (design #2) show continuing erosion of plate numbers two, three, and four.
Erosion of the weld adjacent to plate number two had not yet occurred.
(15) Radiographs (9/24/74) of the letdown orifice section D (design #1) show continued slow erosion.
(16) Radiographs (10/15/74) of letdown orifice section D (design
- 1) show continuing slow erosion but not yet to the plate outside dia=eter.
(17) Radiographs (10/15/74) of pu=ps A and B orifice sections (design #2) show continuing slowed erosion of plates numbers two and three.
Both plates number four are experiencing =arked crosion.
_ 1449 067
_ _ _.
._ _ _ - - _ - - - - . . , r~s, . . .. -
. -17-(18) Radiographs (10/15/74) of standby pu=p C orifice section (design #2) show no erosion.
(19) Radiographs (10/11/74) of four orifice sections (design #3) show lack of penetration, celt through, and a possible crack in one section.
The licensee is resolving the issue internally according to written procedures.
These ite=s are on a QC nonconforcing caterial " Hold".
(20) Radicgraphs (6/27/74) cf pump B intake orifice section (design #2) show no indication of erosion.
The licensee's surveillance plan included checking the possibility of erosion of intake orifice sections.
d.
The licensee has been radiographing the suspect orifice sections as planned.
The quality of the radiographs does af ford the . opportunity to monitor erosion rate.
Radiographs of the failed I section and of unused design #2 sections are being used as references.
The radiographs are being evaluated as evidenced , ' by the accompanying reader sheets.
Continuing evaluation and i design work is being accomplished.
m No noncompliance or unresolved items were identified.
1449 d68 . }}