IR 05000289/1977008
| ML19209C704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1977 |
| From: | Keimig B, Stetka R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209C702 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-77-08, 50-289-77-8, NUDOCS 7910170876 | |
| Download: ML19209C704 (17) | |
Text
. _
_.
.._. _ __
-
.
IF ' Form 12 Q.4 75) (Rev)
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDENT
REGION I
IE Inspection Report No:
50-289/77-08 Docket No:
50-289 Licensee:
Mat,.nnolitan Tdisnn rnmnany License No:
OPR-50
'
D 0 Any 547 Priority:
-
Raading. Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
C Safeguards
Group:
-
Location:
Threa Mile Island 1. Middlatown. Ponns <1vania Type of Licensee:
Ty lof Inspection:
Routine. Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
March 14-18. 1977
Dates of Previous Inspection:
March 9-11, 1977
)
&
Reporting Inspector:
/
l f/77
_
cn f
T. F.' St'etka, Reactor Inspector
'DATE Accompanying Inspectors:
Nnna DATE DATE DATE Other Accompanying Personnel:
Nona DATE M
'
Reviewed By:
/
[R.Keimig,SewionCh'
, Nuclear Support
' DATE Section N, 2 eactor ; rations ar.d I lear j G 69 Support Branch i 7910170
- ( _-
. -. . '% . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Not inspected.
Design Changes None identified.
Unusual Occurrences None identified.
Other Significant Findings ! - A.
Current Findings i - 1.
Acceptable Items These are items which were inspected. on a sampling basis and findings did not involve an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation, or an Unresolved Item.
, a.
Administrative Control of Facility Procedures.
(Details, 3.a. b, c, e) b.
Procedure Revisions Resulting from Technical Specification Changes.
(Detail,4) c.
Procedure Revisions Resulting from Plant Modifications.
(Detail.,5.a) d.
Technical Content of Facility Procedures.
(Detail,6) e.
Inspector Witnessing of Chemistry Surveillance.
(Detail, 7.a) \\ h]() \\
_ ,
-
2.
Unresolved Items These are items for which additional information is required to determine if the item is acceptable, a Deviation, or an Item of Noncompliance.
a.
77-08-01 Revise procedure 1106-1, Turbine Generator, to require procedural step checkoff and pro-cedural section signoff.
(Detail,3.d) b.
77-08-02 Write alarm response procedure for alarm added by C/M 518.
(Detail, 5.h) c.
77-08-03 Revise procedure 1912, Determination of Boron, to change base and/or correction factor require-ments.
(Detail, 7.b) d.
77-08-04 Revise procedures 1302-5.27 and 1302-5.28 to provide for changing of alarm setpoints with tank concentration changes.
(Detail,8) 's B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items - Not inspected.
Management Interviews A.
Entrance Interview A management meeting was conducted on March 14, 1977, by Mr. T.
Stetka with Mr. J. Colitz at the facility to discuss the scope and objectives of the inspection and to identify the records, procedures, and documents to be reviewed.
B.
Exit Interview A management meeting was conducted onsite on March 18, 1977, by Mr. T. Stetka to discuss the findings of the inspection as detailed in this report.
)476 \\2\\
- .... __ ',
The following personnel were in attendance: Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor of Operations Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Unit Superintendent of Technical Services Mr. W. Poyck, Coordinator of Services
l ,/ ]476 122 .
. -- . . . ' ,
- 4 DETAILS
. 1.
Persons Contacted Ms. J. Brown, Clerk Mr. X. Bryan, Shift Foreman Mr. P. Chalecki, Control Operator Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. D. Deiter, Control Operator Ms. D. Gee, Clerk Mr. D. Good, Technical Assistant III Mr. R. Harper, I&C Supervisor Mr. R. Heilman, Control Operator Mr. J. Hipple, Chemical Technician Mr. G. Hitz, Shift Foreman Mr. E. Houser, Chemical Technician Mr. G. Xunder, Supervisor of Operations Ms. C. Nixdorf, Office Supervisor Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Unit Superintendent of Technical Services Mr. V. Orlandi, I&C Engineer Mr. J. Reed, Chemistry Foreman i _(') Mr. W. Sawyer, Maintenance Engineer , Mr. M. Shatto, Procedure Coordinator Mr. H. Shipman. Operations Engineer l Mr. R. VanStry, Administrative Nuclear Technical Training ' 2.
Purpose of Insoection The inspector stated that the purpose of this inspection was to conduct an audit of facility administrative, operations. emergency, of alarm and maintenance procedures and to witness the c-ncucti ~ selected chemistry surveillance.
The licensee acknowledged this information.
3.
Administrative Control of Facility Procedures a.
The inspector reviewed administrative procedure 1001, Document Control, to verify that the licensee has administrative controls to change, revise, review and approve facility procedures.
As a result of this review, no discrepancies were identified.
T A7 6 W
V../
b.
The inspector reviewed facility procedures on a sampling basis to verify: (1) That the procedures, plus any changes, had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specifications and the licensee's administrative requirements.
(2) Tha't the overall procedure format and content were in conformance with the requirements of ANSI N18.7,1972, Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants and Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33.
(3) That checklists, where used, were compatible with the ! step-wise instructions in the procedure.
I (4) That appropriate Technical Specification limitations had ! been included in the procedures.
' c.
The following procedures were reviewed in accordance with item , ! b. above: (1) Administrative Procedures (a) 1001 Document Control, Revision 7 - (b) 1014 Recall of Standby Personnel to Plant, Revision 2 (2) Health Physics Procedure HP 1630 Reactor Building Entry, Revision 8 -- (3) General Operatina Procedures (a) 1106-1 Turbine Generator, Revision 15 (b) 1102-4 Power Operation, Revision 15 (c) 1102-10 Plant Shutdown to Hot Shutdown, Revision 10 1476 124 .- -
N
(4) System Operating Procedures (a) 1104-1 Core Flooding System, Revision 5 (b) 1104-2 Makeup and Purification System, Revision 17 (c) 1104-4 Decay Heat Removal System, Revision 12 (d) 1101-3 Containment Integrity and Access Limits, Revision 12 (e) 1104-30 Nuclear River Water System, Revision 8 (f) 1104-32 Decay Heat River Water System, Revision A (g) 1104-25 Instrument and Control Air System, Revision 8 (h) 1107-2 Emergency Electrical System, Revision 12 (1) 1107-3 Diesel Generator, Revision 6 (j) 1105-12 Communication System, Revision 1
Lj I (5) Alarm Procedures (a) 3-3 Turbine Runback, Revision 0 (Stator Cooling Water Panel) (b) G-2-6 C.F. Tank 1A/1B Pressure Hi/Lo, Revision 0 (c) J-3-8 L.P. Injection 1A Flow Hi/Lo, Revision 0 (d) D-3-3 0.H. Closed Cycle Flow Lo, Revision 0 (e) N-2-6 Reactor Building Personnel Emergency Access Door Open, Revision 1 (f) E-2-1 Nuclear Service Heat Fxchanger Outlet Temper-ature Hi, Revision 0 (g) D-1-3 D.H. Closed Cycle Coolers Temperature Hi, Revision 0 , 1476 125 _
b
(h) 3-7 Instrument Air After Cooler High Teperature, Revision 0 (1) B-2-1 4 KV/480V ES Transformer Temperature High, Revision 0 (j) S-3 Start Failure, Revision 0 (D-G Ann. Panel) (k) E-3-8 Sodium Hydroxide Storage Tank Level Hi/Lo, Revision 1 (6) Emergency Procedures (a) 1202-3 Turbine Trip, Revision 5 j (b) 1202-6 Loss of Reactor Coolant / Reactor Coolant Pressure, Revision 4 i (c) 1202-8 CRD Equipment Failures - CRD Malfunction i Action, Revision 7 i j (d) 1202-36 Loss of Instrument Air, Revision 3 (7) Special Operating Procedures (SOP's) The SOP's reviewed below are current procedures that are utilized by the control room operators.
(a) S0P 456 Purg ng Evaporators for Maintenance, (January 14, 1977 (.b) S0P 459 Addition of Anti-Foam Solution to Miscellaneous Waste Evaporator, (January 18, 1977) (c) 50P 461 Test of RR-PIB Control Switch, (January 19,1977) (d) S0P 463 Examination of Cycle 1 Lumped Burnable Poison Rods, (February 4, 1977) (e) S0P 467 Addition of NH30H to Waste Evaporator Condensate Storage Tank, (March 1, 1977) (f) SOP 468 Check Miscellaneous Waste Evaporator Steam Tube Leak, (March 3, 1977) 1476 126 - . _ _ _
]
(g) S0P 469 Operation In Case of Loss of Both Control Building Emergency Supply Fans AH-E 18A & B, (March 4, 1977) (h) SOP 471 Preparations for Leak Test of MU-V18, (March 14, i 1977) . (i) S0P 472 Helium Study of Auxiliary Building Ductworks (March 15, 1977) (j) S0P 473 Unclog Line Plugged With Boric Acid, (March 15, , 1977) (8) Maintenance Procedures
In addition to reviewing the following maintenance procedures for the items identified in b. above, the inspector reviewed administrative procedure 1016, Implementation and Control of Station Maintenance and Modifications, Revision 11, to deter- . i mine the administrative control over facility maintenance.
i (a) 1430-EHC-1 Replacement or Calibration of Initial j ( ) Pressure Transducer IHC, Revision 0 s (b) 1430-EHC-2 CV 1 thru 4 Startup or Shutdown Test, Revision 0 (c) 1420-LTQ-1 Troubleshooting Linitorque Valve Operators and Controls / Removal and Replacement of Limitorque Valve Operators, Revision 0 (d) 1420-LTQ-2 Limitorque Operator, Limit Switch Adjust-ment, Revision 0 (e) 1420-LTQ-3 Limitorque Torque Switch Adjustment, Revision 0 (f) 1410-V-14 Valve Repacking Procedure for Borated Water, Revision 1 (g) 1402-1.2 Make-Up and Purification Pumps, Preparation for Maintenance, Revision 0 1476 127 ' ...
x g (h) M-42 Visual Inspection of Exterior and Intarior of Pressure Vessels, Revision 0 (i) 1410-Y-14 Change Bearing in Reacter Building Personnel Access Door Operating Mechanism, Revi-Jn 0 (j) E-26 Cleaning and Alignment of Inverters, Revision 0 (k) 1405-3.1 Diesel Generator fiaintenance, Revision 0 Except for the item discussed in d. below, no discrepancies were identified.
d.
During the inspector's review of procedure 1106-1, Turbine Generator, it was determined that the procedure does not have a requirement to initial or checkoff each step as it is per-formed nor the requirement to signoff sections of the procedure as they are completed.
Due to the complexity of this procedure, such checkoffs and signoffs are warranted.
- . (') The inspector discussed this issue with the licensee.
The ' licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and concurred that such requirements are needed in this procedure.
The licensee further stated that though there is no requirement in the procedure to checkoff steps and sign for section completion, this practice was being observed during the performance of this procedure.
The licensee also stated that they have revised their procedures to include the checkoff and signoff requirements but that this procedure had been overlooked.
This item (77-08-01) is unresolved pending completion of the licensee's revision to 1105-1.
The licensee expects to com-plete this revision within 30 days.
e.
In addition to the reviewed procedure changes identified in item b(1) and covered in item c., the inspector also reviewed current Temporary Change Notices (TCN's) included in the control room TCN book.
The inspector reviewed TCN's 77-2 thru 77-20 (except cancelled TCN's 77-6, 77-8, 77-10, 77-11 and 77-12) dated from January 7, 1977 thru March 15, 1977.
Based an this review no discrepancies were identified.
T A76 M . - .. . .
I)
1 4.
Procedure Revisions Resulting from Technical Specification Chanaes The inspector reviewed Technical Specification Amendments for the period February 9,1976 through September 15, 1976, wnich included Amendments numbered 12 through 17,19 and 21, to verify that these changes had been evaluated by the licensee for effect on facility proceduras and that the procedures had been revised where necessary.
Records consulted included selected facility procedures.
As a result of this review, the inspector noted that Amendment 17 ! which, in part, changed the variable low reactor coolant system pressure trip setpoint, had not been included in the licensee's setpoint procedure 1101-2. To insure that the affected instrumen- , tation had been realigned to comply with the Technical Specification, the inspector reviewed surveillance procedure 1303-4.1, Reactor Protection System and verified the necessary procedure changes were made and the inst,rument realigned.
,
Discussions with the licensee indicated that the licensee only uses - ! procedure 1101-2.as a reference procedure and the necessary procedure change was overlooked.
The licensee immediately issued a Procedure Change Request (PCR) to 1101-2 to revise the setpoint.
The inspector had no further questions.
! 5.
Procedure Revisions Resulting from Plant Modifications ! a.
The inspector reviewed Cnange Modifications (C/M's) to verify the.c the changes had been reviewed by the licensee for their i effect on fE.cility procedures and that, where necessary, pro-cedure changes were made.
The following C/M's were reviewed: I C/M No.
Date Work Completed Date C/M Comoleted 630 9/2/76 1/20/77 447 7/13/76 7/21/76 308 6/7/76 8/2/76 523 6/7/76 7/7/76 646 6/9/76 7/20/76 307 7/11/75 1/12/77 431 1/15/76 9/9/76 289 11/5/75 7/31/76 518 6/7/76 Not Completed 1476 129 - . -.
. . g ';
C/M No.
Date Work Completed Date C/M Comoleted 377 1/15/76 Not Completed 526 2/26/76 Not Completed 594 6/7/76 Not Completed 509 10/1/76 Not Completed 553 9/2/76 Not Completed 117 10/13/76 10/14/76 411 1/28/76 7/9/76 467 8/6/76 8/10/76 - 376 1/28/76 7/8/76 456 6/7/76 7/7/76 637 6/30/76 7/7/76 542 8/30/76 8/31/76 466 8/6/76 8/10/76 489 7/13/76 Not Completed ,
7/13/76 Not Completed 625 (Check List) 7/13/76 Not Completed ' 703 7/13/76 Not Completed , i The inspector expressed concern over the apparent lengthy time period involved between the time the work is completed on a r') C/M to the time the C/M paperwork is completed (i.e., the changing of drawings, procedures, etc.). The licensee acknowledged the inspector's concerns and stated that efforts were being made to reduce tnis period.
The licensee further stated that a QC Nonconformance Report (QC Audit #77-02 dated January 26,1977), a function of the licens-ee's internal audit system, had previously identified this problem.
With the exception of the Unresolved Item identified below, the inspector had r.o further questions.
b.
The inspector's review of C/M 518 revealed that not all the re-quired procedure changes had been made.
Part of this C/M added a new alarm annunciator in the control room,.but no alarm re-sponse precedure for this annunciator had been written.
The licensee stated that he will write an alarm response pro-cedure for this annunciator within 30 days.
This item (77-08-02) is unresolved pending verification by an NRC inspector that the subject alarm response proc-dure was written and implemented.
1476 130 __
_. - .. -. .. (3 4 /
, 6.
Technical Content of Facility Procedures a.
The inspector reviewed the following facility procedures to verify that, if followed, the evolution in question could be accomplished satisfactorily within system design considerations and Technical Specification requirements.
(1) 1102-4 Power Operation, Revision 15 (2) 1101-3 Containment Integrity and Access Limits, Revision 12 (3) 1104-32 Decay Heat River Water System, Revision 4 (4) 1105-12 Communication System, Revision 1 (5) 1202-8 CRD Equipment Failures - CRD Malfunction Action, Revision 7 (6) G-2-6 C.F. Tank 1A/1B Pressure Hi/Lo, Revision 0 . (7) 0-3-3 0.H. Closed Cycle Flow Lo, Revision 0 (8) B-2-1 4KV/480V ES Transformer Temperature High, , Revision 0 (9) E-3-8 Sodium Hydroxide Storage Tank Level Hi/Lo, Revision 0 (10) 1420-LTQ-1 Troubleshooting Limitorque Valve Operators and Controls / Removal and Replacement of Limitorque Valve Operators, Revision 0 (11) 1420-LTO-3 Limitorqua Torque Switch Adjustment, Revision 0 (12) 1420-1.2 Makeup and Purification Pumps, Preparation for Maintenance, Revision 0 1476 13I . -
_ _ _ _ _ __ __- . - _ _ _ _ -_.
. . . , m.
' b.
This review identified these findings: (1) Emergency procedure 1202-8, in the Followup Action, step 1 for the Asymmetric Rod Fault, does not fully cover the Technical Specification requirements.
The procedure directs operator action if rod group overlap is greater than 30% whereas the Technical Specification states that rod group overlap shall not exceed 25 + 5%. The procedure, therefore, does not specify operator action if the rod group overlap exceeds the lower limit of 20%. The inspector discussed this discrepancy with the licensee.
The licensee concurred with the inspector's comments and initiated a PCR to revise the procedure.
The inspector had no further question on this item.
(2) Operating Procedure 1104-32, valve lineup checklist specified the positioning of DR-V-23A & B (lubrication pump DR-P-2A & B discharge valves).
The inspector's review of piping and instrumentation drawings (P&ID's) ("i indicated that this valve did not exist.
Discussions with the licensee confirmed the inspector's finding. The licensee initiated a PCR to revise the procedure.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
7.
Inspector Witnessina of Chemistry Surveillance The inspector witnessed the sampling and analysis of the following Technical Specifications required chemistry surveillance requirements: a.
Secondary coolant activity, which is sampled in accordance with procedure 1301-4.5, Secondary Coolant Activity, Revision 5, and analyzed in accordance with procedure 1950, Determination of Gross Beta Gamma, Revision 2.
. ~ 1476 132 .
- - -.. -. . _ _ .. . . .\\
During witnessing of this analysis, the inspector noted,by review of the procedure and discussion with licensee personnel, that the 15 minute GROSS DEGASSED BETA GAMMA activity specified in Technical Specification Table 4.1-3 was r.ot applicable for secondary activity measurement as indicated below.
The specification of a 15 minute GROSS DEGASSED BETA GAMMA activity means that the sample should be analyzed approximately 15 minutes after the sample is taken.
The licensee stated, however, that due to the extremely low (less than minimum detectable activity (MDA)) activity present in the steam gen-erators, their sample size had to be large enough to allow counting and therefore took longer than 15 minutes to boil down (about 1 hour).
. The inspector queried the licensee as to whether a Technical Specification change had been requested.
The licensee stated that Proposed Change 64 had been initiated to change the require-ment.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
/ , b.
Core flood ' tank concentration is sampled in accordance with pro-cedure 1301-5.6, Core Flooding Tank Water Sample, Revision 0, j and analyzed in accordance with procedure 1912, Determination of Baron, Revision 2.
During witnessing of this analysis, the inspector noted that the procedure required i.ie " base" solution to be within i 10% of the sampl e.
This base adds or subtracts a correction factor to the final result.
When the licensee performed the analysis he used a base that was not within i 10% of the sample and, as a result of using an old base, caused the correction factor to be erroneous.
When the inspector queried the licensee on his methods, the licensee stated that due to the large variations in concentra-tions of the required boron samples, it was difficult to have a base within i 10% of each required sample.
The licensee further stated that the use of the old base, which could cause an erroneous correction factor as demonstrated here, was easily remedied by subsequent sampling of the base and therefore correcting the con-centration.
1476 133
, -. - - - . . - - . . ~ . i /N
! \\
The inspector concurred with the licensee's response and , verified the adequacy of the analysis.
However, the inspec-tor did not concur with the licensee's use of a procedure that was not workable.
i The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and will investigate procedure 1912 to determine what revisions are necessary to make the procedure workable,
i This item (77-08-03) is unresolved pending the licensee's investigations and subsequent procedure revision.
8.
Revision of Procedures 1302-5.27 and 1302-5.28 During the inspector's tour of the control room, the inspector nci.ed annunciation of the Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) tank high-low level alarm.
The inspector discussed this alarm with the control room operators and learned that the alarm had been in the alarm condition since a ,_ change was made in tank concentration on February 17, 1977.
Further () discussion with the operators revealed that the tank levels are monitored via control board installed level indication which is ' corrected for the concentration change by the use of high and low limit level notations made ijst above the indicator.
The inspector subsequently discussed this matter with licensee I&C personnel. These personnel revealed that the problem existed in the calibration procedure for this instrumentation because there is ! no method to reset the alarm setpoints without a total channel re-cali bra tion. The licensee also stated that this problem exists for the sodium thiosulfate tank.
' This instrumentation is calibrated in accordance with procedure 1302-5.28, Sodium Hydroxide Tank Level Indication, Revision 1, and procedure 1302-5.27, Sodium Thiosulfate Tank Level, Revision 2, on a refueling outage frequency.
TA76 134 -
....._.-.- - ---- -. . -. . . . /)
s The inspector stated that an annunciator that is in a continuous alarm state defeats its purpose to provide operator warning and therefore should be reset to the nonalarming state.
The licensee concurred with the inspector's comments and will investigate these procedures to determine how the procedures can be revised to accom-odate alarm setpoint variations.
This item (77-08-04) is unresolved pending tie outcome of the licensee's investigation on procedures 1302-5.27 and 1302-5.28 and their subsequent revisions.
t l i k () ! L 1476 13,3 i l
! . m e }}