IR 05000289/1975011
| ML19256D606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1975 |
| From: | Hannon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D605 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-11, NUDOCS 7910190568 | |
| Download: ML19256D606 (15) | |
Text
-
'
'
.
.
,
'
.
? * Torm 12
- *
.a 75) (Rev)
?
{
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?DiISSION
.
07 ICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDIENT
.
REGION I
50-289 E Inspection Report No:
50-289/75-11 Docket No:
icensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No:
P.O. Box 542 Priority:
_ _,
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Safeguards U
(nree Mle Island 1)
scation:
'
ee of Licensee:
h af Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
-
.
.
ste-sf Inspection:
May 21-23, 1975 m
of Previous Inspection:
May 8-12, 1975 eporting Inspector:
Mr%
2 7-
,
. 'N. Hannon, Reactor Inspector
/ DdTE A
=co=panying Inspec' ors:
NONE
!!
DATE
_..
...,
DATE
.
DATE
NONE ther Accompanying Personnel:
DA.'E eviewed By:
-7)7J
'
A. B. Davis, Senior Reactor Inspector DATE
'
Reactor Operations Branch 7910100 'E5 [
.
.
.
.
N
'
~)J SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,,
Enforcement Action
, =, -
None m
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items The licensee has taken th'e corrective actions specified in his letter dated Nbreh 3,1975, for the infraction identified in Report 50-289/
75-01 Detail 5.a.
This item is resolved.
(Detail 7)
Unusual Occurrences
,
A'
Failure of RR-P-1B to Start on an ESAS Signal
.
AO's 75-02 and 12, Met Ed letters dated January 13, 1975 and May 1, 1975, to Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c.(4))
B.
Failure to Declare a Control Rod Inoperable when Misaligned Greater than 9 inches u,.
,
.
.,
'
A0 75-05, Met Ed letter dated February 21, 1975 to. Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c(6))'
C.
Failure of RR-V-3C.in the Closed Position AD 75-06, Met Ed letter dated March 21, 1975 to Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c(1))
D.
Inoperative Hydraulic Shock Suppressors
.
AO's 75-08 and 09, Met Ed letters dated April 2,1975 and April 15, 1975 to Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c.(2))
E.
Reactor Criticality at 5050F AO 75-10, Met Ed letter dated April 21, 1975 to Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c(5))
.,,
.
F.
Improcer Reactor Power Trip Setpoint Settines
~
A0 75-11, Met Ed letter dated April 25, 1975 to Director, RL.
(Detail 3.c(3))
.
1452 106
)
,
-
l Y
.
-2-I Other Significant Findings
..
A.
Current Findi_ngs, 1.
Acceptable Areas - (These are areas which were inspected on
~
a campling basis and findings did not involve an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation, or Unresolved Item).
..
"i a.
Plant Operations.
(Detail 4)
-
b.
A0 Raview.
(Detail 3)
c.
Refueling Surveillance.
(Detail 5)
d.
Control Room Gaseous Activity.. (Detail 6)
c.
Licensee Corrective Actions.- (Detail 7)
'
2.
Unrosolved Items - (These are items for which more information is required in order to determine whether items are acceptable N
or Items of Noncompliance).
I
.
a.
Reactor Building Environment.
(Detial 4.b)
>
3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by Licensee
~~~'
a.
Contrary to Technical Specification 4.7.12, Group 6,
-
~)
Control Rod 6 was not declared inoperable when the mis-
,
aligdment with tuo Group 6 average position was greater
'
than nine (9) inches.
(Detail 3.c(6))
'
b.
Contrary to Technical Specification 3.1.3.1, reactor coolant temperature was not above 5250F prior to criticality on April 10, 1975.
(Detail 3.c(5))
..
c.
Contrary to Technical Specification Table 2.3-1, the
.
reactor protection system trip setting limit for the maximum Nuclear Power Trip was not maintained at less than 105.5% during the period from April 13 to April 17,
~
1975.
B.
Status of Previous Unresolve-Items
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's computerized listing of
,
commitments to NRC. No items were resolved during this inspection.
.,
.
1452 107
_
.
.
'
.
~~
-3-
_.
A)
~
-
\\
3anage nt Interviev
.
An e..it in:erview was held on-site on May 23, 1975, at the conclusion of the* inspection.
_ _ _..=
Personnel Attending
'
Mr. J. Herbein, Station Superintendent Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. W. Potts, QC Supervisor Mr. M. Shatto, Engineering Assistant The following su=marizes the items discussed:
_
r:
A.
Purpose of the Inspection.
(Detail 2)
B.
A0 Review.
(Detail 3)~
C.
Plant Operations Review.
(Detail 4)
D.
Refueling Surveillance.
(Detail 5)
~
E.
Control Rcom Gaseous Activity.
(Detail 6)
.
=
'
" " " " '
F.
Corrective Actions Reviewed.
(Detail 7)
iW
.
=
.
~:.'.'.'
..o.
1452 108
_
'%
g
\\
_
em
.
.
/ 'T l
}
./
DETAILS
..
_
.. _..
1.
Persons Contacted
'[
Mr. J. Herbein, Station Superintendent Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent
"~
Mr. C. Hartman, Electrical Engineer
-
Mr. E. Sheets, Electrical Engineer, Jr.
~
Mr. M. Shatto, Enginering Assistant Mr. W. Cotter, Lead Mechanical Engineer
.._..
Mr. D. Good, Surveillance Coordinator Mr. R. Harper, Instrument Superviant
.
.
.
Mr. M. Snyder, Maintenance Foreman Mr. A. Fredlund, Relief Foreman Mr. J. Romanski, Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry
=
Mr. R. Mc Cann, Health Physics Foreman Mr. T. Mulleavy, Radiation Protection Foreman J:f" Mr. W. Conaway, Auxiliary Operator
Mr. D. Horton, Auxiliary Operator
.:jf Mr. W. Desh, Shift Foreman Mr. D. Pilsitz, Control Room Operator Mr. G. Hitz, Control Room Operator
)
Mr. M. Beer, Shift Supervisor
....
,
.
'
Mr. H. Mitchell, Electrical Supervisor Mr. W. Peiffer, Electrical Fcreman
"
Mr. G. Kunder, Engineer-Nuclear
Mr. B. Smith, Shift Supervisor Mr. L. Noll, Control Room Operator Mr. R. Porter, Relief Shift Supervisor i
Mr. N. Brown, Relief Control Room Operator j
Mr. W. Zewe, Shift Foreman E
.
Mr. T. Acker, Control Room Operator Mr. D. Boltz, Control Room Mr. M. Ross, Shift Supervisor Mr. K. Beale, Radiation Protection Supervisor Mr. D. Curry, Nuclear Engineer
' Mr. J. Floyd, Supervisor of Operations
,
Mr. R. Barley, Operations Engineer Mr. J. Seelinge.r, Supervisor of Training
Mr. W. Potts, QC Supervisor 1452.109
-
.
-
.
.
,
-5-
)
2.
Purpose of the Inspection The inspector stated that the purpose of the inspection was to examine the licensee's corrective actions with respect to selected abnormal occurrences; conduct a sampling review of plant operations; and address previously identified unresolved items.
_
'"
The licensee acknowledged this informacion.
3.
Review of Abaormal Occurrences (AO's)
a.
Abnormal Occurrence review included inspection of plant records and logs, Technical Spacifications, Work Requests, Plant Opera-tions and Review Committee (. ORC) meeting minutes, correspondence to the NRC, and discussions with plant personnel.
b.
The below listed AO's were reviewed to verify that:
(1)
the cause was identified and details clearly reported; (2)
the corrective action described was taken to prevent recurrences; (3)
each event was reviewed and evaluated by the licensee; and
~~~
(4)
safety limits, limiting safety settings, and limiting
conditions for operation were not exceeded.
je System 75-02 Electrical 75-05 Core and Internals 75-06 Emergency Core Cooling 75-08 Power Conversion 75-09 Auxiliary
.
75-10 Reactor Coolant 75-11 Reactivity and Power Control 75-12 Engineered Safety Features
, c.
Findings
.
(1)
A0 75-06
~
The maintenance manual for the Limitorque Control Valve requires the lock nut to be staked in two places.
Work
1452 110
.
.
-6-
-
p)
.-.
Request 8158 had been completed on April 15, 1975.
The following valves were inspected under this WR and found
~
net to have been staked properly:
RR-V-3A
0-A
RR-V-4B
^
PR-V-4C RR-V-4D The inspector reviewed a memo from the Electrical K_d r-ter...nce Supervisor dated March 15, 1975, documentint :.c
~ fact that instruction had been provided for electrical
group personnel and foremen on the proper method of securing the lock nut. on Limitorque Operators.
..
i Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that i
the valves in question were properly staked during the i
performance of WR 8158.
Five additional valves were inspected and found properly staked.
Findings were acceptable.
,,,
.....
,
'
(2)
A0 75-08, 09
,
'
=
.
The inspector reviewed records indicating that snubbers with defective valve model BH-1226 had been replaced with Model 1224 or 1275.
Each replacement assecbly had been tested satisfactorily under WR 4438.
Corrective actions for A0 75-08 vere completed on March 28, 1975 and for A0 75-09 on April 11, 1975.
'
The licensee expects to complete the snubber seal rep 1 ace-i ment program in March, 1976.
The licensee reported 30%
complete to date.
Findings were acceptable.
(3)
A0 75-11
'
The inspector reviewed TCN No.75-111 dated April 24,
-
.
1975 for procedure 1303-4.1 RPS SURVEILLANCE.
The TCN
included a Procedure Change Request (PCR) and invoked the reader-worker (2 man) rule in addition to clarifying procedural steps.
1452 111
,
.
.
.
-7-
<,/
The licensee stated that the Engineered Safeguards Pro-tection System Surveillance Test procedure would be reviewed to determine if a similar potential for improper e:
setpoints existed.
This effort is in addition to that i
described in the licensee's report dated April 25, 1975.
j The inspector noted that this infraction had the potential
'.
.
for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to (.
health and safety.
However, corrective action was taken
=., 5 by the licensee prior to the completion of this inspection and no additional information on this infraction is needed at this time.
(4) LA0 75-2, 12
.
The licen9ee stated that safety related 4KV breakers ra-quired tre close on an ES Signal were checked, loose connec-
~~
tions t'.ghtened, the breakers functionally tested and
. _..
retu~.d to service by April 30, 1975.
The remainder of the 4KV safety related breakers will be inspected under WR 6710 by June 5, 1975.
The inspector reviewed Purchase Request No. 100-8971 to
)
GE for 2 spare control switches type SB-10 #208A6950G1X3
-
,
'
-
dated April 23, 1975.
In the interim until the spares are available, Special Operating Procedure (SOP) 180 RR-P1B CONTROL SWITC3 CHECK dated April 22, 1975, has been invoked to verify RR-P1B pull to lock (PTL) contacts are closed in the ES start circuit after operating the control switch in PTL.
WR 8596 dated April 25, 1975 had verified that the lateral contact in each of the control switches for DH-P1A, DH-P13,
==
RR-P1A, BS-P1A, and BS-P1B was in the proper position af ter PTL operation.
The inspector reviewed PO 11471 dated January 16, 1975
,
requesting Westinghouse services while investigating the 50 DPH-350 breakers.
Informal discussion with the vendor re :2tedly indicated that locking devices were not &_ quired
,
_or the breaker terninations.
1452 112 x
-
-8-f k
.
The licensee does not anticipate further problems with
,'
loose connections based on the corrective maintenance con-
_..
ducted.
5-Findings were acceptable, g... [i (5)
AO 75-10 The inspector reviewed the following. items relative to
=l; the licensee's corrective action:
j (a)
Met Ed correspondence te B&W dated April 25, 1975:
transmitting updated graphs for the Reactivity
?
Balance Procedure;.
(b)
OP 1103-15 Revision 7, REACT 1"ITY BALANCE dated January 2, 1975; (c) TCN No.75-105 dated April 18, 1975;
==
(d)
TCN no.75-117 dated May 9, 1975; (e)
OP 1102-1 Revision 7, PLANT HEATUP TO 525 F dated May 14, 1975;
-
,
,
__
(f) TCN No. 75-99 dated April 9, 1975; (g) TCN No.75-173 dated May 6, 1975;
==
(h)
OP 1103-4 Revision 4, SOLUBLE POISON CONCENTRATION CONTROL dated May 14, 1975;
.
(1) TCN No.75-100 dated April 9, 1975; and, (j) PORC Meeting #277 minutes which documented a special inquiry into the circumstances associated with this occurrence, and gave several recommendations.
The inspector noted that OP 1103-4 included a limitation that would have precluded deboration by feed and bleed
,
prior to reaching 5250F.
The licensee stated that OP 1103-4 was an ancillary procedure and OP 1102-1 had primarily i452 ll3
~
s
.
- ..__
.
..
_9_
=
/T
.~-
( )
-
governed the heatup.
The inspector stated that this did
""
not relieve the operators from the requirements for follow-ing procedural steps, but concurred with the ' licensee's
position that procedural inadequacies in OP 1102-1 permitted
~~
the permature c'_iticality.
sm The inspector noted that this infraction had the potential m=-i for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to
==
health and safety.
However, corrective action was taken by the licensee prior to the completion of this inspection,
"
and no additional information on this infraction is needed at this time.
-
(6) ~AO 75-05 j
.
_
The inspector reviewed SOP 151 issued by TCN 75-48 dated jgd February 10, 1975 and cancelled on April 30, 1975.
This
_..
special procedure required the difference between indi-
._
vidual and group rod position indication to be computed by hand until the computer was programmed to provide the computation automatically.
The Control Rod Position Check
....
is currently required by the CR0 Log Sheet, and gives the
~~
deviation for both Absolute and Relative rod position, as
-
s
,
}
calculated by computer.-
'
.
The inspector noted that this infraction had the potential
"I for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to y
health and safety.
However, corrective action was taken
- .u.-?
-
by the licensee prior to the completion of this inspection
==
and no additional information on this infraction is needed
.....
at this time.
g
-
E 4.
},qview of Plant Operations a.
Shif t Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the records listed below.
The review was governed by the licensee's administrative procedure AP 1012 Revision 2 SHIFT RELIET A>:D LOG ENTRIES dated March.21, 1974.
... _
.
.
(1)
Shif t Foreman's Log, May 17-22, 1975.
~-
(2)
Control Room Log, May 11-22, 1975.
..
1452 114
.
s
.
.
l
[
uv u
\\
--
(3)
Standing Orders:
The inspector noted that all but the
'
following Standing Orders had been officially cancelled:
4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34.
The inspector noticed that some of the ones that had not been officially cancelled had been supercedcd; for example, j
- 34, REDUCTION OF BORON CONCENTRATION DURING PLANT HEATUP.
Also, #24 and #30, PLACING EQUISMENT.0UT OF SERVICE were apparently redundant.
(4) Operating Memer:
The inspector noted that all but the following Operating Memos had been officially cancelled:
18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
'*
The licensee stated that an ongoing program was in progress to incorporate standing orders and operating memos into
, _.,.,,
plant procedures, thus effectively cancelling them in total.
The licensee stated that this program would be completed by July 31, 1975.
j (5) Jumper (Bypass) Log.
.
(6)
Computer Printout, May 21, 1975.
Findings were acceptable.
b.
Reactor Building Tour The inspector received a briefing on HP Procedure 1613 RADIAT-10N
"
WORK PERMITS Revision 2 dated March 20, 1975.
A tour of the RB outside the secondary shield was then conducted in company with licensee representatives..The inspector observed that the PRP was adhered to throughout the tour.
Readings were taken on feed line pressure sensops and CRDM ti.creoccuple indicators.
Several feed line snubbers were in-spected visually.
The RB environment was noticeably hot and
,
humid, a condition reportedly brought about by poor performance
-
of the RB industrial cooling units.
The inspector inquired as to ahat evaluation had been done relative to equipment / component damage when exposed to the high humidity and temperature environ-ment.
.
1452 115
-11-
'
-
= - _ _
The licensee stated that Gilbert Associates had been requested
to evaluate potential problems with extended operations under high temperature and humidity conditions in the RB.
The licensee stated that a problem report would be issued to follow the contractor's involvement in this area.
The inspector stated this item would remain unresolved pending a review of the evaluation.
The licensee acknowledged this information.
c.
Control Poom (1) 'The inspector observed operations in the Control Room on May 21, 1975.
It was noted that at 5:03 P.M. the power level had been recorded at 100.6% (2550.5 W t).
The in-spector observed the operator's actions to bring power
~
back to less than 2535 W t.
At 5:42 P.M. a power level
=-
of 99.65% (2526.3 Wt) was achieved.
The inspector noted that the previous shift had 1ecorded a heat balance of 99.886% on Data Sheet 1 Power Range Channel Surveillance Calibration No. 1302-1.1 Revision 4, dated February 12, 1975.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
Findings were acceptable.
(2) Monitoring Instrumentation:
Steam Generator Levels, control rod positions, and Core Flood Tank pressures were observed to be in accordance with Technical Specification
.... ;;
limits.
M (3)
Annunciator Alarms o
The following alarms were present during the tour and were discussed with the shift supervisor and control room operator:
.
(a) Check Steam Relief Valve Supports. WR 8126 dated
April 8,1975 required weekly monitoring of the gaps.
,
on steam relief valve supports.
.
..
=su-1452 116'
-
-
....
-12-
.
(b)
Core Flood Tank 1A/13 Pressure Hi/Lo.
Channel B1 was in alarm at 620 psig.
Operators were monitoring
..
this condition to assure that the pressure did not
exceed the TS limit of 625 psig.
- -
(c) River Water Pump Strainer Differential Pressure Hi.
Pump strainers were being monitored by auxiliary operators.
(d) Heat Tracing Trouble.
Problem Report 141 dated May 17, 1975 had been issued to correct this alarm condition.
(e)
4KV ES Motor Lock Out.- Surveillance testing vac in progress.
In each case the personnel were knowledgeable of the alarm
. l.
Conditions.
~j
= - -.
(4)
Shift Staffing: The inspector observed that the operating
_
shift was staffed above the minimum requirements of Tech-
"
nical Specification 6.F.
..
(5)
Plant Housekeeping Conditions:
Storage of material and
-
}
components was observed with respect to.the prevention of
.
safety and fire hazards, and no adverse conditions were f
identified.
(6)
Pipe Hangers / Seismic Restraints:
Several pipe hangers and snubbers on the main feed system were observed.
Findings were acceptable.
(7)
Equipment Caution / Lock Out Tag Information: Tag No.
_
6887 on SR-P-1B had been issued on May 21, 1975 to enable repacking the pump.
Findings were acceptable.
(8)
Plant Tour Shift Supervisor:
The inspector 'ias informed that the last tour made by the Shift Supervisor occurred
-
prior to assuming duty.
,
(9)
Panel Controls
.
The following controls were observed to be in Pull-to-Mck on the main control panel:
'
1452 117
.
-13-
-
c
_,
(a)
1B M/U Pump Bus D (b)
1A RB Spray Pump (c)
1B Nuclear Service River Pump Bus T (d)
1B Nuclear Service Cooling Pump Bus S (e)
2A and 2B Motor Driven Emergency Feed Pump Bus E (_ f)
2A and 2B Motor Driven Emergency Feed Pump Bus D
-
(g) Secondary Service Cooling River Pump SR-P-1B With the exception of item (b) and (g), the inspector
,
determined that the above conditions were normal.
Item (b) was due to surveillance testing and item (g) due to a maintenance activity.
Findings were acceptable.
5.
Refueling Surveillance Activities
?
The licensee stated that certain surveillance tests scheduled for conduct during the refueling periods could be run during plant operation prior to shutdown, thus serving to alleviate potential manpower problems during the refueling outages.
=
The inspector stated that this approach appeared to be satisfactory, provided:
'
a.
Proper testing intervals are adhered to; and, b.
Channels calibrated prior to shutdown and subsequently ad-versely affected (calibration disturbed) during the outage would be recalibrated prior to return to power.
The licensee acknowledged this information.
~
6.
Control Room Caseous Monitor Alarm The inspector noticed during review of control room logs that RMAl Gaseous monitor had alarmed at 0112 on May 17,1973 and 0150 on May 19, 1975, during let down sampling.
FRAl samples the air in the control room.
The licensee stated that steps had been taken to identify the source of leakage, including use of peppermint and bananna oil bombs in the ventilation system.
Findings at this point are inconclusive and further steps are being consid2 red to locate the problem.
-
1452 118
..
.
.s e d
~
)
The inspector reviewed the charts from the RMAl monitor for the
~
alarm conditions and noted that the maximum reading was around 500 cym.
T? e monitor alerts at 150 cpm and alarms at 300 cpm.
The alarm also places the control room ventilation on recircula-
"
tion.
.
~
Based on the instruments advertised sensitivity of 3.96 x 10
= =..
"
cpm /uC/ce, a reading of 500 cpm is equivalent to roughly 1.26 x 10-5 pC/cc.
.
The inspector reviewed records of a 1640 ml grab sample taken in the control room at 0120 on May 17,1975.
The sample was cotgt-
l using a GeLi detector on an HP 4000 96 channel analyser.
Xe '
-
activity was determined to be 1.3 x 10-6 pC/cc (less than MPC of 1 x 10-5).
D b
The inspector reviewed an Operations Planned Release Report that
~
had been prepared to account for the total curie rele ase on May 19,
~ j 1975, in accordance with EP 1202-12.
- - - -
Findtags were acceptable.
.
...
'3 7.
Licensee Corrective Actions
.-
a.
Failure to Control TCN's References: -(l) IE:I Report No. 50-289/75-01, Detail 5.a.
(2) Met Ed letter dated March 3,1975 The inspector reviewed AP 1001 Revision 3 DOCUMENT CONTROL dated March 7, 1975, Section 3.6.4:
Temporary, On-the-Spot, changes.
This procedure conformed to the licensee commitments.
The inspector reviewed the TCN log in the control. room.
The inspector noted that instructions in the front of this log
'
were out of date; however, it appeared that TCN's were being
==
handled properly and that the log was being audited on a weekly basis.
The instructions were removed from the TCN log book by a licensee representative.
Findings were acceptable; this item is resolved.
1452 ll9
-
$
O mm