IR 05000289/1976001
| ML19276H209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1976 |
| From: | Davis A, Kellogg P, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276H205 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-01, 50-289-76-1, NUDOCS 7910150510 | |
| Download: ML19276H209 (23) | |
Text
-
.. - _. - - -
__
.
,
- M:,I Form 12 ks e
4[Nclx -
s_an 75) (Rev)
'%
r,(
.
.
. 4?
.
%'t;/
U. S. liUCLEAR REGULiTORY CC:CIISSIO:1 y
%,, %';
.'r OFFICE OF I:;SPECTIO:: A iD E:iFORCDiE:iT
'0g? fo
'44y REGIO:1 I IE Inspection Report No:
50-289/76-01 Docket !!o:
50-289
.
Licensce:
Metropolitan Edison Cor.cany License lo:
DPR - 50
P. O. Box 542 Priority:
-
f Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
C Safeguards Group:
Loca tion:
Three Mile Island 1. Middletown, Pennsv1vania
.
pe of Licensee:
- ^
.,
l ~.)
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced
'
Dates of Inspec tion:
January 26-30, 1976
Dates of Previous Inspectier Novg-ker 25-26 1975
,
'
Reporting Inspector:
N,
/
.7 f 1,L e. e,(/
.M<.Nh %
-
' '
' D Al l, R.L.Speps,ard,'['eactorInspector
)
/
/j; 'I ' /-- 7e
.Q / 2. ;'. /'/.
'
s'
'
.,.
'
/
Accompanying Inspectors:
/~
h'ellogg._.Reac tor-Insp ec to r i pg7g
_
DATE DATE Other Accompanf ng, Personnel:
Nn,,,
i
_
DATE g
3 301 V:7/7 c'
' viewed By:
(
-
.
A. B. Davis, Section Chief D'ATi.
- 5/O w
c uA0
'
y
. _ _ _ _ _.
__
___
.. _ _ _
_ __..____
_ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
.. _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ _. _
.
.N l
,
.
.
SUNfARY OF FINDINGS i
Enforcement Action
.
A., Items of Noncomoliance
.
.
1.
Violations None identified.
2.
Infractions Contrary to Technical Specification 6.1.i.3.e.3, during a.
calendar year 1975 a GORB review of violations of Appendix A Technical Specifications and license requirements was not conduc'ted.for the Ite=s of Noncompliance delineated
~
/
-s in nine Region I Inspection Reports.
!V (Detail 13.b. (8))
I
.
.
3.
Deficiencies
,
.
None identified.
.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items A.
Corrective actions taken in response to Region I Inspection Report
.
50-289/75-14 were completed with the exception of one item.
(Detcil
,
5.a)
.
>
B.
Corrective actions taken in response to Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-15 were completed.
(Detail 5.b)
C.
Corrective actions taken in response to Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-23 were completed.
(Detail S.c)
D.
Corrective actions taken'in response to Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-27 were completed. (Detail 5.d)
,
Design Ch'anges
.
Not inspected.
1413 302 Unusual Occurrences None identified.
.
_
. _ _. _
-
- - - -
.
.
._. -
.
-- -.
-_
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
-2-
,
!
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings
l 1.
Acceptable areas.
(a)
Plant Operations (Detail 2)
.
(b)
Nonroutine Event Reports with the exception of A075-39 (Detail 3)
'
!
(c)
1. E.. Bulletin 75-3 (Detail 6)
I (d)
Station Manning Requirements (Detail 7)
'
(e) Minimum Operating Shift Staf f '(Detail 8)
(f) Moderator Temperature Coefficient (Detail 9)
(g)
Station Superintendent Change Review Responsibilities (Detail 10)
(h)
POEC Review of T.S. and License Changes (Detail 11)
'
!
(i)
Communications Equipment (Detail 12)
(j)
GORB Activities with the exception of review of violations of T.S. and License requirements (Detail 13)
(k) Corporate Technical Support Staff Activities with the
,_)
exception of review of PORC minutes and changes to procedures t
~~
(Detail 14)
,
2.
Unresolved. Items
,
Corporate Technical Support Staff Review of PORC Meeting l
a.
Minutes No. 312 (Detail 14.b. (2))
i I
b.
Corporate Technical Support Staff Review of Facility Procedure Changes (Detail 14.b (4))
.
i 3.
Licensee Identified Items of Noncompliance
!
a.
Infractions I
l (1) Contrary to Technical Specification 3.5.2.2.a., 2 control rods were inoperable during power operation.
(Detail 3b(1))
~
(2) Contrary to Technical Specification 6.1.1.2.b.1, the
, Corporate Technical Support Staff has not reviewed the evaluations of numerous proposed changes-to pro-cedur-accomplished.during 1974 and 1975.
(Detail 14.c.)
~
1413 303 b.
Deficiencies
1
>
i (1) Contrary to Technical Specification 6.1.1.1.c, a procedure was written and implemented without proper
-
PORC review and approval.
-(Detail 14.b. (2)(a))
.
-.
-
_.
-.. _
-.
- -.
,
.. _ -
- -..
-.
.
%
}
[
'
!
.
- 3-
.
(2) Contrary to Technical Specification 6.2.2, a work request was not adhered to by maintenance personnel.
(Detail 14.b. (2) (b))
I B.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items 1.
The following items have been r'esolved:
A074-13 Corrective Action (Detail 4a)
a.
!
b.
Control Switch Investigation (Detail 4b)
Initial Startup Test MCP-15 (Detail 4c)
!
c.
d.
Reactor Building Personnel Hatch (Detail 4d)
Ventilation System (Detail 4e)
l e.
f.
Report on Reactor Internals Vibration (Detail 4f)
i g.
Calibration of Crimping Tools (Detail 4g)
h.
E. S. Motor Control Centers (Detail 4h)
1.
Exhaust Pipe Supports (Detail 41)
j.
D. H. River Water Pump (Detail.4j)
,I")
k.
Pressure test of fire hoses (Detail 4m)
l.
GORB minutes (Detail 4n)
'
'
m.
Traceable DVM (Detail 4p)
Log book review (Detail 4q)
n.
2.
The following items remain unresolved:
.
a.
Reactor Building Environment (Detail 4k)
b.
50.59 evaluation by GORB (Detail 41)
-
c.
FSAR amendment (Detail 4o)
~
Management' Interview An exit interview was held onsite on January 30, 1976 at the conclusion of the site portion of this inspection.
The Unit Superintendent was informed of the results of the offsite portion of the inspection by tele-phone on January 30, 1976.
Personnel Attending Metropolitan Edison Company Mr. J. Colitz, Unit Superintendent Mr. C. Hartman, Electrical Engineer Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor Station Operat. ions Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Engineer, Senior I - Nuclear
'
'
~
Mr. M. Shatto, Engineer, A'ssociate I
.
'
1413 304
-
_...
- - _
. - _ _
..g
'
,
~,
-4-Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. P. Kellogg, Reactor Inspector Mr. L. Spessard, Reactor Inspector The following items were discussed:
.
A.
Review of Plant Operations (Detail 2)
B.
Review of Nonroutine Reports (Detail 3)
!
C.
Review of Previously Unresolved Items (Detail 4)
D.
Review of Corrective Actions for Previously Identified Items of Noncompliance (Detail 5)
E.
I. E. Bolletin 75-3 (Detail 6)
F.-
Station Manning (Detail 7)
~}
.
l
G.
Minimum Operating Staff (Detail 8)
-
'
H.
Moderator Temperature Coefficient (Detail 9)
.
I Station Superintendent Change Review Responsibilities (Detail 10)
J.
PORC Ac';ivities (Detail 11)
.
K.
GORB Activities (Detail 12)
L.
Corporate Technical Support Staff (Detail 13)
.
O e
e
.
o O
~
1413 305
.
.
+. - -
-.
_..,, -..... - -
-.
.
_..
. - _ - - _ _ _.
- -. - -
- *
.
.
f
-
-
.
.
l
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
,
i Mr. R. Arnold, Vice President
'
Mr. W. Brensinger, Generation Review Committee Secretary Ms. J. Brown, Clerk Ms. R. Brown, Technical Analyst
.
Mr. J. Colitz, Unit I Superintendent Mr. W. Cotter, Lead Mechanical Engineer Mr. D. Good, Tc: -hnical Analyst III l
Mr. D. Grace, Section Head - Licens'ing
!
Mr. K. Green, GORB Secretary *
!
Mr. F. Grice, Safety Supervisor f
Mr. C. Hartman, Electrical Engineer Mr. J. Hilbish, Engineer II - Nuclear Mr. J. Herbein, Manager, Generation _ Operations - Nuclear Mr. R. Klingaman, Manager, Generation Engineering Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor Station Operations
,
Mr. L. Lawyer, Manager, Operational Quality Assurance
{)
Mr. B. McCutcheon, Quality Assurance Engineer
,
Mr. I Mitchell, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor Ms. C. Nixdprf, Office Supervisor Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Engineer, Senior 1 - Nuclear
-
Mr. V. Orlandi, Lead I & C Engineer
'
'
Mr. R. Porter, Shift Supervisor Mr. W. Potts, Quality Control Supervisor I
Mr. R. Rice, Security Specialist GPU Mr. J. Romanski, Supervisor, Health Physics and Chemistry
>
Mr. R. Russo, Coordinator of Services GPU Mr. M. Shatto, Engineer Associate I Mr. D. Shovlin, Supervisor Station Maintenance Mr. J. Stacey, Security Supervisai Mr. J. Thorpe, GORB Chairman *
Mr. G. Wallace, Shift Supervisor
.
- Telephone contact only
-
2.
Review of Plant Operations Shift * Logs and Ooeratine Records a.
The inspector reviewed the records listed below, held discussions with plant staff members and inspected the main control room on
.
January 26 and 27, 1976.
i
.
1413 306
'
.
..
. _ -. -
--
-
.__
-
-. -
-.
.
.
t ( ~%
'
-
-6-(1)
Shift Foreman and Control Room Logs: Entries for the periods of November 7-17 and December 7-17, 1975 were reviewed to verify the following.
(a) Log sheets are filled out and initialed.
(b) Documentation fnvolving ' abnormal conditions provide suf ficient detail to connunicate equipment status, lockout status, correction and restoration.
(c) Log book reviews are being conducted by the staff, i
Findings were acceptable.
(2) Auxiliary Logs: Entrees for the periods November 7-17 and December 7-17, 1975 were reviewed for completeness and detail to communicate equipment status.
Findings were acceptable.
- i (/
(3) Operating Orders:
No operating orders were in existence
,
at the time of this inspection.
Previously issued orders were incorporated into plant procedures and the orders cancelled.
.
.
(4) Jumper / Lifted Lead Log:
Documentation for November 1 -
January 27, 1976 relative to the use of jumpers and lif ted leads was reviewed and no discrepancies with Technical
.
Specification requirements were obs2rved.
This review
'
resolves the item identified in Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-25 Detail L7.c.
(5) Problem Reports:
Problem report sheets for the period of November 1 - January 27, 1976 were reviewed to verify there were no Items of Noncompliance with Technical Specification reporting or LCO requirements.
b._
Tour of Accessible A'reas The inspector observed operations in the Control Room and made tours of the Auxiliary Building, Turbine Building and River Water Building on January 26 and 27, 1976.
The following observations were made and discussed with accompanying personnel and the Unit Superintendent:
'
1413 307
-
-.
.
.
.
. _ _ _
. - -.
.__.
..
. _.
.
.
!(~h s
.
.
-7-
!
(1) Monitoring Instrumentation: Control Room indications for Reactor Building internal pressure, incore detector printout, Borated Water Storage Tank level, and core thermal power were compared with Technical Specifications.
,
m; i
No discrepancies wer,e noted.,
s
(2)
Radiation Controls:
Radiation control arcas in the Aux-111ary Building were inspected for proper posting, condition
l of step off pads and disposal of RWP clothing.
l Findings were acceptable.
(3) Plant Housekeeping Conditions:
Storage of material and
,
components was observed with respect to prevention of safety and fire hazards.
!
Findings were acceptable.
"
(4)
Existence of Fluid Leaks: The inspector observed several
i steam leaks during the tour.
These leaks had been iden-tified'by the licensee and were scheduled for. repair during
'
the refueling outage currently scheduled to coc=ence in
February, 1976.
-
i i
l (5)
Existence of Piping Vibrations:
No excessive piping i
vibrations were observed during this inspection.
-
C6) Pipe Hanger / Seismic Restraints:
Numerous hangers and seismic restraints on several safety related systems were observed during the tour.
Findings were acceptable.
(7) Valve Positions / Equipment Start Positions: The supply and discharge valves of the auxiliary feed pumps and the canual valves in the discharge of the Sodium Hydroxide and Sodium Thiosulfate Tanks were observed to be in accordance with Technical Specification require =ents.
(8)
Equipment Caution / Lockout Tag Information: The tag log was reviewed for the period of November 1 through January 27, 1976.
..
Findings were acceptable.
.
1413 308
. - - -
-.
-
-
..
_
.
.
.
'
< "N g (,/
.
.
g..
O (9) Alarm Indications:
Abnormal alarm conditions noted on the main control board were discussed with the Control Rcom Operator and Shift Supervisor.
They were cognizant of the cause of the alarms and the necessary actions to be taken for the alarming conditions.
-
,
I (10)
Plant Tours:
The inspector discussed the policy of plant
'
j tours with the Unit Superintendent.
The Unit Superin-i tendent indicated that plant tours were required by the supervisory personnel as well as the operations personnel.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(11)
Control Room Manning:
The inspector observed that the operating shift was staffed in accordance with the requirements of T.S. 6.1.F and 10CFR 50.54(K).
!
(12)
PORC Meeting:
The inspector attended the PORC ceeting held on January.29, 1976.
The subject reviewed was the new plant reporting requirements pursuant to License ()
Amendment No. 11 approved by NRR on January 27, 1976.
.
3.
Review of Nonroutine Event Reports
{
a.
Selected Event Reports were reviewed to verify that:
a
.
.
(1) The details were clearly reported to the NRC and facility management;
~
i (2)
Corrective action described in the licensee's report was taken to prevent recurrence;
.
(3)
Each event was reviewed and evaluated as required by Technical Specifications; (4)
Safety limits, limiting safety system settings and '.imiting conditions for operation were not exceeded.
This review included intoection of PORC minutes, operating logs, Change / Modification Requests, work requests, equip--
ment installations and discussion with various staff personnel.
.
.
%e 141.3 309 g
-
..
._ -
.
.
_ _.
-..
.
.
.
-9-
.
b.
The following Nonroutine Event Reports were reviewed.
Nonroutine 10 day reports (1) A075-39 Inoperable Control Rods During Power Operations.
'
This is contrary to Technical Specification 3.5.2.2a in
'
that more than one contro,1 rod became inoperable during
,
j power operation.
I The cc.use of this occurrence was failure of a control rod drive stator.
A plant shutdown was cobmenced within
,
twenty minutes of dropping the Group 7 rod.
i i
The licensee's corrective action appears adequate and no response is required for this infraction.
(2) A075-40 Stuck voltage relay contacts of the "A" Diesel Generator.
Change / Modification Request 621 has been issued to change (.
the circuitry associated with these relays.
TCN's75-215,
'
,
216 were issued on November 17, 1975 to check these relays after diesel operation.
!
(3) A075-42 Inoperable Steam Cencrator Sample Line Containment Isolation Valve (CA-V5B).
-
l Operations personnel 'Jere instructed in the importance
-
!
of properly positioning the manual operator co neutral by memorandum dated DeceEber 12, 1975.
(4)
A075-43 Out of Specification Setpoint for a Reactor Building
'
30 psig Channel Pressure Switch (PS-290).
The other five pressure switches were in operation with conservative setpoints.
The switch was reset to within T.S. limits.
1413 310 4.
Previously Unresolved Items
.
a.
A074-13 Corrective Action References:
(1)
Report 50-289/74
'0, Detail 2 (2) Report 50-289/74-35, Detail 3.d (3) Report 50-289/75-04, Detail 6.d
.
The licensec has identified a suitably qualified replacement switch and has a supply on hand.
The installed switches will be replaced as their performance becomes questionable.
This item is resolved.
_
_
_ _ _ _ _.
_._
_
_.
_
.
.
I h
_lo_
b.
Control Swi:ch Investication References:
Report 50-289/74-32 Detail 11 Report 50-289/74-35 Detail 3.c RO Bulletin No. 74-15 Met Ed ler, dated January 8, 1975 Response to R0 Bulletin 74-15.
Report 50-289/75-01 *cto.A 8.e The licensee has new operators for the switches on hand and
,
will attenpt to install them during this refueling outage.
Installation will be completed by June 1, 1976.
This item is resolved.
c.
Initial Startup Test MCP-15 References:
(1)
Report 50-289/74-33 Detail I,3.o (2)
Report 50-289/75-04 Detail 6.g The licensee completed a review and accepted the test results
,on April 8,1975.
()
This item is resolved.
.
.
I d.
Reactor Building Fersonnel Hatch References:
(1) Licensee's Event Report A074-32 (2)
Report 50-289/75-01 Detail 3.b Change / Modification 237 to modify the Reactor Building Personnel
'
Hatch interlock indication system was completed on Jul'y 17, 1975.
'This item is resolved.
e.
Auxiliary aad Fuel Handling Building Ventilation Svsten References:
(1)
Report 50-289/74-31-Detail 2h (2)
NR 30-Day Report 74-01 (3)
Report 50-289/75-C5 Detail 4 An operations surveillance FM has been incorporated to check
-
the ventilation systems conthly.
This item is resolved.
-
f.
Report of Reactor Internals Vibration Measurements Reference:
Report 50-289/75-04 MI item 6
~
'
The report required by R.G. 1.20 on reactor internals vibration monitoring was submitted to the Commission on June 25, 1975.
This item i_s resolved.
.
.. _ __
_
_
. _ _... _.
_. _ _ _
.___.
_._
_ _....
.
.
t ')
t
-11-
.
.
g.
Calibration of Crimping Tools Reference:
Report 50-289/75-07 Detail 2 The licensee has purchased and celibrated four crimping tools which are included in his program for " Control of Measuring
'
and Test Equipment".
This item is resolved.
h.
Corrective Action for ES Motor Control Centers
, References:
(1)
Report 50-289/75-5 Detail 2 (2)
Report 50-289/75-7 Detail 2,3 l
(3)
Report 50-289/75-15 Detail 4,5.
The MCC spare units hav.e been tagged with QC hold tags and will remain tagged until inspected.
The PORC reviewed the results of the inspection during meeting #300.
An independent review by a staff engineer found additional omissions.
In all
'}
cases the wire diameter was measured and wire size was adequate.
The inspection of IC ES MCC #9BL was completed'on September 28, i s
,
1975. This item is resolved.
i.
Secondary System Safety Valve Exhaust Pipe Supports Reference:
Report 50-289/75-12 Detail 3
-
Cap measurements taken at various power levels above 5% of
-
full power indicated less gap th'an that measured at 100% power.
The PORC accepted the results of the evaluation during meeting
- 290.
This item is resolved.
j.
Decay Heat River Water Pum2 References:
(1)
A075-14
~
(2)
Report 50-289/75-12 Detail 5 The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the cracked concrete foundations.
The cause was determined to be design error in calculating the hydraulic loadings for some operating conditions.
The licensee's corrective action was to repair and strengthen the foundations and pump supports.
This item is resolved,
'
s e
1413 312
-
-
..
.
-
-
.
.
.
()
-12-
.
k.
Reactor Building Environment References:
(1)
Report 50-289/75-11 Detail 4.b I
(2)
NR 30-Day Report 75-08 The evaluation of potential problems with extended operations under high temperature and humidity was completed on October 14, 1975. This evaluation indicated that no equipment problems would be experienced due to the building temperature and humidity.
This item remains unresolved pending review by NRR.'
l.
Review of 50.59 Evaluation by GORB Reference:
Report 50-289/75-14 Detail 7c A procedure change request to Administrative Procedure AP1016 is still in the review / approval chain and is to be incorporated by March 1, 1976.
This item remains unrecolved pending the
^()
incorporation of this PCR.
.
m.
Pressure Testing of Fire Hoses Reference:
Report 50-289/75-24 Detail 9
,
The pressure check of fire hoses was changed to an an'ual n
frequency by PCR 75-468 to Operating Procedure 1104-45.
The.
,
PCR was approved on November 24,1975.
This item is resolved.
n.
CORB Minutes Reference:
Report 50:
3/75-27 Detail 5 The minutes of the GORB eting held on September 10 and 11,1975 were available for revie..
This item is resolved.
o.
FSAR Amendment - Post Accident.Purce Svstem References:
(1)
Report 50-289/74-18 Detail 3.b. (1)(s)
(2)
Report 50-289/75-04 Detail 6.c The FSAR amendment to correct the as built design of the Post Accident Purge System will be submitted in the next amend-
,
ment. This amendment is anticipated to be submitted on March 1, 1976.
This item remains unresolved pending this FSAR amendment.
,
.
'
1413 313
.
..
.-
-
-
.
-
--
._
.
-13-(~
,
p.
Traceable DVM References:
(1)
Report 50-289/75-14 Detail 8g and 10.d(2)
(2)
Report 50-289/75-25 Detail 16b(2)
The data sheets for Surveillance Procedures 1303-11.19 and 1303-4.1 have been revised to include model and serial number of test equipment used in the surveillance.
This item is resolved.
!
q.
Log Book Review
n I
Reference:
(1)
Report 50-289/75-14 Detail 3.b (2)
Report 50-289/75-25 Detail 17b AP1012, Rev. 4, dated October 29, 1975 was approved and in use.
i
'
This item is resolved.
5.
Corrective Action For Previousiv Identified Items of Noncompliance-a.
Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-14, Region I Letter dated
'
August 19, 1975, and Licensee's response dated September 15, 1975.
_
(1) Apparent Deficiency B
. ()
The Technical Specification change (Amendment-3 to change 5)*
vas submitted to NRR on October 3, 1975.
The change was approved by NRR on January 27, 1976.
'Thiis completes the licensee's corrective action f,or this Item of Noncompliance.
.
(2) Apparent Deficiency C GP4012, Rev 2, dated October 10,.1975, GP4409, Rev 0, dated
.
October 22, 1975, and GP0029, Rev 1, dated January 5, 1976 were issued, This completes the licensee's corrective action for this Item of Noncompliance.
(3) Apparent Deficiency E Licensee action on this item had not been completed.
Procedure CP0013, Rev 1 (draft) was in the concurrence chain.
The Vice President stated the following action would be taken to resolve this item.
(a) GP 0013, Rev 1 (Draf t) following further review and evaluation will be issued by February 16, 1976.
(b) The Approved Vendo'rs T.ist will be reviewed and revised to delete sales offices from the list of approved vendors.
Additionally sales offices of
_ _.
_,.__1413 314
.
.
-14-( ')
qualified vendors will be used as suppliers in accordance with established procedures.
This action will be completed by February 16, 1976.
This item remains unresolved..
b.
Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-15, Region I letters dated July 25, 1975 and Sept. 5, 1975, and Licensee's response dated August 18, 1975.
An independent audit of the inspection data sheets was conducted.
!
,
Minor discrepancies were noted during this audit.
In each case sufficient data existed to verify satisfactory completion of the inspection.
QC Hold Tags have been placed on the spare breakers.
These breakers
'
will remain tagged until inspected.
This completes the licensee's corrective actions for the Item of Noncompliance,
!
c.
Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-23 Region I Letter dated
, November 5, 1975, and Licensee's response dated November 26,
,
k-1975.
'
(1) Discussion with the PORC chairman and review of subsequent
.
PORC meeting minutes indicate a quorum is present prior to commencing a cecting.
'
(2) The surveillance engine'er has been instructed to report to the PORC all surveillance. items that are missed or fail to meet acceptance criteria.
This completes the licensee's' corrective actions for the Items of Noncompliance.
.
d.
Region I Inspection Report 50-289/75-27, Region I Letter dated January 2, 1976, and Licensee's r_esponse dated January 28, 1976.
(1)
The. inspector reviewed docu=entation at the corporate office which indicated that the Corporate Technical Support Staff had reviewed the minutes of PORC Meeting No. 299.
Therefore, the apparent Item of Noncompliance did not occur. The inspector informed corporate representatives
-
that documentation for this item had been requested from
-
site personnel during the referenced inspection and that none was provided.
The licensee acknowledged this infor=ation.
,
(2)
The PORC chairman,has been instructed to insure the PORC reviews and formally dccu mnts the review of NRC identified nontempliance with T.S.
.
1413 315-
-
-
-
..
-
"
e
/m j
's
-'
-15-
.
.
I I
.
This completes the Itcensee's corrective action for the Items of Noncompliance.
6.
I.E. Bulletin 75-3 Reference: Set Ed letter dated April 17, 1975.
The licensee has conducted a review of valves supplied to the facility.
A random sample of installed solenoid valves was also conducted.
No ASCO valves, series 8300 and 8,302 were found.
I The inspector had no further questions at this time.
',
7.
Station Manning Requirements The inspector reviewed the following records to verify that licensed operator.e wm c at the station during the time period of November 1 I
through December 31, 1975 as required by Technical Specification 6.1.h.1.
,
a.
Daily Attendance Sheets
-
b.
Monthly Time Reports for SRO's.and RO's
,
(3 Shift Foreman Log Book
/
c.
- d.
Control Room Operator Log Eook Findings were acceptable.
-
Additionally, discussions were conducted with licensed operators ard supervisors on January 28, 1976, and the licensce's yearly shift work schedule (6 operating shifts) was reviewed.
Based upon these discussions and review, the inspector determined that the station was manned as required by Technical Specification 6.1.h.1 on Jan-uary 26, 1976 and that procedures existed to insure continued com-pliance with this requirement.
8.
Minimum Operating Shift Staff The inspector reviewed the following records to verify that the facility operating shift's were staffed-during the time period of Hovember 1 through December 31, 1975 as required by Techn'ical Specification 6.1.f.
,
a.
Daily Attendance Sheets b.
~ Monthly Time Reports for SRO's and RO's c.
Shift Foreman Log Book d..
Control Room Operator Li - Book i
l Findings were acceptabic.
.
1413 316
-
-.
_
_-
,
.
.
- [D-16-
.
9.
Moderator Temperature Coef ficient The inspector reviewed temperature coefficient test data obtained during June.1975 following the control rod swap outage which occurred after 253 EFPD of operation. The data was obtained in accordance with procedure S0P 199 Post Rod Swap Test Program.
Temperature coefficient measurements were made at zero power for the all rods out and minimum rod index cases and at 80% of rated power.
The data indicated that the temperature coefficient was negative for
all cases, that the test acceptance criterion was met, and that
-
'
there was close agreement wi i the data obtained at beginning of life core conditions. Additionally, the inspector reviewed the reactivity depletion versus burnup curve (critical boron concen-tration vs. EFPD) covering the period 100 EFPD to 400 EFPD (present core burnup), and no abnormalities indicating a possible change in core operating characteristics were observed.
,
i Based on the aforementioned review, the licensee was in compliance
.
with Technical Specification 3.1.7.1 during the period July 1 through September 30, 1975.
.
l()
10.'
Station Superintendent Channe Review Responsibilities I
~
-
.
The inspector reviewed the follcwing records to verify that the Station Superintendent ensured that proposed changes to procedures, equipment, or systems which were initiated during the time period of November 1 through December 31, 1975 were evaluated as required by Technical Specification 6.1.C.2.
71 completed PCR's to Facility Procedures revised during No-s a.
vember and December 1975.
-
b.
TCN's 205 through 245 to Facility Procedures approved during November and December 1975.
Design changes CM 540 through s10 initiated during November c.
and December 1975
,
d.
Design changes CM441 and 499 completed during November and December 1975.
Eindingswereacceptable.
,
the The inspector reviewed the following procedures to verify that procedures contained implementation requirements for the Station Superintendent's responsibility regarding all. proposed changes to
,'
the facility and the procedures.
'
~
1413 317
.
.
.
._,*--e.
.%--
-%
--
-
-..
.
.
.
r ',
-17-
a.
Station Administrative Procedure 1001, Rev 3, dated 3/7/75.
b.
Station Administrative Procedure 1016, Rev 7, dated 11/3/75.
Findings were acceptable.
11.
PORC Review of Technical Specifications and License Changes The inspector reviewed the following records to verify that the PORC reviewed all proposed changes to the facility license and Technical Specifications that were submitted to the NRC during the
,
time period of November 1 through December 31, 1975 as required by Technical Specification 6.1.1.1.d.6.
a.
PORC Meeting Minutes No. 307 through 313 covering the period November 3 through December 20, 1975.
b.
Letter from PORC Chairman to Manager, Operational Quality
'
Assurance dated 10/29/75 for change 24.
c.
Letter from PORC Chairman to Manager, Operational Quality Assurance dated 1/27/75 for change 25.
.
!k During the period November 1 through December 31, 1975, a total f.
of 6 changes were submitted to the NRC.
- Findings were acceptable.
-
12.
Communications Ecuincent
-
-
The inspector reviewed plant records and examined equipment a.
to verify that the con =unications equipment described in
-
Section 3.2 of the TMI Industrial Security Plan was maintained an'd used during the period of July 1 through December 31, 1975 as required.
The records reviewed were the Security Log Book and Security Incident Reports covering July 1 through December 31, 1975.
Additionally, a test of the communications equipment was witnessed by the inspector on January 29, 1976.
Findings were accepthble.
-
b.
The inspector verified, during review of the records listed in subparagraph a. above, that there were no attempts to breach the securitf fencing during the period of July 1 through December 31, 1975.
Therefore, notifiication requirement's for such incidents as delineated in the Industrial Security Plan were not required to be implemented during the period of July l'through Decceber 31, 1975.
.
1413 318
-
. -
.
-
.
._..
.
.
f~)
-18-
.
13. General Office Review Board (GORB)
The inspector reviewed GORB activities for calendar year 1975.
a.
This review consisted of the follawing:
(1)
GORB Minutes of meetings 17 through 20 covering the period of February 4 through September 11, 1975.
,
(2)
Agenda for the GORB meeting conducted on December 16, 1975 (minutes not available for review).
.
(3)
Telephone discussions with the CORB Chairman and the l
GORB Secretary on January 29, 1976.
I (4)
Discussions with a GORB member on January 30, 1976.
'
l (5) Discussions with plant personnel who appeared at GORB meetings.
t b.
The inspector's findings with respect to adherence to technical specification requirements were as follows:
.
- (')
(1)
CORB membership, meeting frequency and quorum were in
'
accordance with the require =ents of Technical Specifi-
,
j cation 6.1.i.3.a b, and c during the period July 1 through
,
December 31, 1975.
(2) The Station Superintendgnt, PORC Chairman and Manager-Gen-eration Engineering did not deem it appropriate to refer any proposed changes to pr.ocedures, equipment or systems to the GORB for their review during the period of. July 1 through December 31, 1975.
Therefore, GORB review of this subject as delineated by Technical Specification 6.1.1.3.e.l. was not required to be performed.
(3) GORB review of the Generation Division Audit Program was accomplished as required by Technical Specification 641.i.3.e.8 during the period July,1 through Dece=ber 31, 1975. Additionally, this subject was reviewed during GORB meetings 17, 18 and 19 held on February 4, March 25, and June 11,.1975.
,
(4) CORB review of abnormalities and deficiencies of design
'
or operation of nuclear safety related equipment relative to an unreviewed safety question identified during the period July 1 through September 30, 1975, was accomplished as required by Technical S.pecification 6.1.1.3.e.5.
_
.
.
1413 319
.
'
'
-.-
.-.
..
.. -
- _ -.
_
. _ - -
'
.
(~s-19-
.
(5) GORB review and evaluation for adequacy of PORC minutes covering the time period of July 1 through September 30, 1975 was accomplished as required by Technical Specifi-cation 6.1.i.3.e.6.
(6)
The Chairman of the GORB did not deem it necessary to transmit to the Company President recommendations to prevent recurrence.of abnormal occurrences and/or improve the effectiveness of the plant and corporate organization during the time period of October 1 through December 31, 1975. Therefore, the requirement of Technical Specificatior 6.1.i.3.h.3 was not required to be performed.
.(7) CORB review of all proposed changes to the facility technical specifications (Appendix A) submitted to the NRC during the period of July 1 through September 30, 1975
'
I (Proposed changes 16,17 an'd 19) was acco=plished as required by Technical Specification 6.1.1.3.e.3.
(8) Appendix A Technical Specifications and license non-compliances identified in PORC minutes and Reportable Occurrences are 'being reviewed by the GORB.
However, s( )
Appendix A Technical Specifications and li' cense noncompliances
'
'
delineated in the following Region I inspection reports were not reviewed by the GORB.
Report.No.
Inspection Date No. Items of Noncompliance
.
50-289/75-01 1/6-9 & 17/75
50-289/75-04 2/24-27/75
-
50-289/75-06 3/12-14/75
50-289/75-08 4/9/75
50-289/75-13 6/16-17 & 7/10/75-
- 50-289/75-14 7/21-25 & 28/75
50-289/75-15 7/15/75
50-289/75-20 8/5-6/75
50-289/75-23 10/14-17/75.
The above finding is contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification 6.1.i.3.e.3.
This item is an Infraction.
.
e 1413 320
.
.
- _.
_
.-
__
-
- - _
.
.
.
I
.(
-20-
-
.
14.
Corporate Technical Support Staff (CTSS)
a.
The inspector reviewed CTSS activities for events occurring during the time period of November 1 through December 31, 1975. This review consisted of the following:
(1) CRC minutes of meetings 30 through 33 covering the time period of November 13 through December 23, 1975.
(2) Project Accountability checkli.st for Reportable Occurrences and NRC correspondence.
(3) Generation Engineering evaluations of proposed changes to facility procedures, equipment or systems.
,
(4)
Records for logging and controlling changes to procedures.
(5) Discussions with members of the CTSS.
b.
The inspector's. findings with respect to adherence to technical specification requi'recents were as follows:
,
1 (
\\
(1) Reportable Occurrences A0 75-39 through 43 were reviewed by the CTSS as required by Technical Specification 6.1.1.2.b.'6.
'
(2) Technical specification and license noncompliahces identified in Reportable Occurrences A0 75-39 and 41, Environmental Incident EI 75-09, and Region I Inspection Reports 50-289/
75-25, 27 and 28, were reviewed by the CTSS as required by
,
Technical Specification 6.1.1.2.b.6.
PORC minutes for Meeting 312 held on December 8-12 and 14, 1975 identified two Items of Noncompliance with technical specifications.
,
The CTSS review of these minutes had not been completed.
- This item is unresolved.
The two technical specification noncompliances were as follows:
(a)
S0P 264 Search For Auxiliary Building Leak was written and implemented without proper PORC review and
.
approval contrary to Technical Specification 6.1.1.1.c.
This is a Deficiency.
,
_
Administrative action was taken by the licensee to correct this item and to-prevent a recurrence.
The licensee's actions were acceptable; therefore, no response to this item is required.
.
1413 321
,;g,
_..
-
_
_
_.
-
-
.
-
..
~
i
/
-21-
.
'(b)
Work Request 12569 RM-L6 Decontamination was not adhered to by maintenance personnel contrary to Technical Specification 6.2.2.
This is a Deficiency.
Administrative action was taken by the licensee to correct this item and to prevent a recurrence.
The licensee's actions were acceptable; therefore, no response to this item is required.
(3)
CTS review of the facility design changes completed I
during this period (CM441 and 449) with respect to the.
involvement of an unreviewed safety question was accom-plished as required by Technical Specification. 6.1.1.2.b.l.
(4)
CTSS review of the facility procedure changes (PCR'S)
during this period (total of 71) with respect to the
'
involvement of an unreviewed safety question as required by Technical Specification 6.1.1.2.b.1 was accomplished on 9 changes.
Add'itionally, 9 were in the CTSS review
'
{
chain, and the remaining 53, of which 36 were received at the corporate office on January 30, 1976, had not been assigned.
This item is unresolved.
lk/
,s
'
The inspector reviewed CTSS activities relating to evaluation
-
c.
of facility procedure changes (PCR'S) completed prior to November 1, 1975.
This review consisted of discussions with CTSS member,s during the inspection and in subsequent telephone discussions on February 2 and 4, 1976.
The inspector.'s findings were as follows:
.
(1) During QA Audit 75-28 completed on September 30, 1975, the CTSS was found to be in noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.1.1.2.b.1 because several PCR'S generated
'
,
in 1974 had not been reviewed by the CTSS.
I (2) Action taken by the Manager-Generation Engineering to satisfactorily resolve the audit finding was as follows.
(a) A system to insure compliance with Technical Spec-ification 6.1.1.2.b.1 was established on December 8,
1975 and implemented on January 9, 1976.
(b)
In this system new PCR'S are assigned for completion on a timely basis.
Additionally, PCR'S in the existing backlog (received but not assigned for review) which apply to the snme procedure covered by a new PCR are assigned for review along with the new PCR.
Any PCR'S remaining from the backlog not completed by June _ 1977 will be assigned for review; this number should be zero because.of procedure review and update requirements.
1413 322
- _
_
-. -
.
..
-
-
.
.
.,
,
. -.,
-22-
-
(3)
QA is holding the audit finding open until April 30, 1976 at which time the Manager-Generation Engineering informs QA
of the audit finding status.
(4)
The PCR status as of February 4, 1976 for procedure changes completed in 1974 and 1975 was as follows:
(a)
For 1974, a total of 514 PCR'S were generated.
The CTSS reviewed 72 and has 12 more in their review chain.
A total of 377.have been received by the CTSS, but these have not been assigned for review.
The remaining 53 were not received by the CTSS and their status is unknown.
(b)
For 1975, a total of 542 PCR'S were generated.
The CTSS reviewed 46 and has 20 more in their review chain.
A total of 401 have been received by the CTSS, but these have not been assigned for review.
The remaining 75 were not received by the CTSS and their status is unknown.
(5)
The Manager-Generation Engineering made the following commit-ments to the' inspector relative to review of the PCR'S in the
f ')
existing backlog.
These commitments were in addition to the
-
action currently in progress as delineated in subparagraph ('
above.
(a)
A' review of the existing backlog will be*made to identify those PCR'S which may have a significant
'
affect on plant operations.
This review will be com-pleted by April 1, 1976, and those PCR'S so categorized will be assigned for review.
(b) An additional effort will be expended to reduce the remaining PCR'S in the backlog.
.
(6) Failure of the CTSS to review evaluations of procedure changes as described above is contrary to Technical Spes f-ication 6.1.1.2.b.l.
This is an Infraction.
The actions in progress to correct this item and to prevent a recurrence are acceptable; therefore, no resnonse to this it,em is required.
.
.
1413 323
'
-
-
.
_ -.
..