IR 05000289/1977015
| ML19256E380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1977 |
| From: | Keimig R, Stetka T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D357 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-77-15, NUDOCS 7911020435 | |
| Download: ML19256E380 (9) | |
Text
.
-.. -.
-
-
-
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
'
Report No. 77-15 Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Priority Category c
--
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Comoany P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
Facility Name:
Three Mile Island 1
,
Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection condu ted:
April 2 27, 1977 I/6
~/ 7
,
_
N Inspecto s:
Thomas F. jidetka, Reactor Inspector Matt signed
.
,
!
date signed date signed M/-7 b i
A Approved by:
-
R. R. Keimig, Chief, Nucleaf Support date digned Section No. 2, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on April 25-27,1977 (Report No. 50-289/77-15)
Areas Insoected:
Rautine, unannounced inspection of Technical Specification surveillance test program including review of selected test procedures and completed test data; witnessing of surveillance tests, and review of tech-nician qualifications; witnessing of chemistry sampling and analyses; witness-ing of diesel generator testing following modification; licensee action on previously identified unresolved items.
The inspection involved 29 inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in two areas; two items of noncot.pliance were identified in two areas (infraction -
inadequate supervisory review of completed test data - Paragraph 4.d; infraction -
failure to adhere to procedures and inadequate testing procedures for diesel cenerator modification testing - Paragraph 2.b).
H 010Db
~r
-
'A Region-I Form 12 (Ray. April 77)
}b87 2Ol
,
.
-
-
.
..
-.
.
-.
.
,
.
i
,
()
_
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Princiole Licensee Employees Mr. R. Barley, Lead Mechanical Engineer
,
- Mr. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. R. Dubiel, Radiation Protection Supervisor Mr. R. Harper, I&C Supervisor
,
Mr. C. Hartman, Electrical Engineer
- Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor of Operations i
- Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Unit Superintendent of Technical Services
!
Mr. V. Orlandi, I&C Engineer Mr. J. Reed, Chemistry Foreman Mr. R. Zechman, Group Supervisor - Technical Training
,
The inspector also interviewed 13 other licensee employees during
the course of this inspection.
They included chemistry and HP technicians, I&C technicians, electricians, QA/QC personnel, reactor and auxiliary operators, and general office personnel.
i
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
i 2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findinos
,
a.
Upon the inspector's arrival onsite on April 25, and prior to conducting an entrance interview, the inspector toured the reactor containment building to examine the licensee's status with regard to the unresolved item identified in NRC:I inspection report 50-289/77-09 concerning hydraulic snubbers and piping spring hangers.
The results of this item follow.
(1)
77-09-07, 77-09-08, 77-09-09, 77-09-10 The licensee has initiated a program to examine and repair hydraulic snubbers within the reactor building.
,
'
The inspector witriessed the progress of the licensee's work on the snubbers.
The problems identified in the above items have not yet been corrected.
These items remain unresolved.
.
.
1687 282
-
_.
.
.
_ -.
. _ _ _
'
!
'
/
(2)
77-09-11 The inspector observed additional spring hangers that were outside their normal range as identified by this item.
The licensee has not yet initiated a program to correct the situation.
This item remains unresolved.
b.
77-11-04 The licensee completed retesting the "A" diesel generator in accordance with a new Addendum 5 to the test procedure.
This Addendum 5 incorporates Addendums 2 and 3 (that were written during the testing of "B" diesel generator to correct inspector identified procedural errors) and Adder.dum 4 (that was written to correct additional procedural errors identified oy the licensee). Adumdum 5 was written to be performed as a separate entity from the original test to prevent additional confusion.
i The inspector witnessed the performance of Addendum 5 on the
, ',
" A" diesel generator.
The test was performed successfully.
"
This test verified that the "A" diesel generator was properly wired.
As a result of this test, it appears that the electrician performing and signing off the incorrect procedural steps as
" passing" for the "A" diesel generator failed to follow the procedure.
In addition, due to the necessity to write Adden-dums 2, 3, 4, and 5 to provide a successful test, it appears that the procedure was inadequate.
This item is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, which requires that procedures appropriate to the circum-stances be provided and that the prescribed activities be accomplished in accordance with these procedures.
This item is elevated to an Item of Noncompliance (289/77-15-01) at the Infraction level.
1687 283
.
_ _.
. _..
_
._--_
.
.
i
,3
i ( _/
O c.
77-08-03
'
The licensee has initiated a procedure change request but the change has not yet been approved by the PORC.
In addition, the revised procedure will require the use of a boron standard which has not yet been obtained by the licensee.
The boron standard should be obtained by the end of April.
This item remains unresolved.
d.
77-08-04 Procedure revisions have not yet been initiated.
The licensee expects to ccmplete the necessary revisions by May 20, 1977.
This item remains unresolved.
3.
Surveillance Testing a.
The inspector reviewed surveillance tests on a sampling
,
basis to verify the following:
!
]-
(1) Tests required by Technical Specifications are available
.
and covered by properly approved procedures.
(2) Test format and technical content are adequate and provide satisfactory testing of related systems or components.
(3)
Test results of selected tests are in conformance with
!
Technical Specifications and procedure requirements have been reviewed by someone other than the tester or individual directing the test.
b.
The following surveillance tests were reviewed to verify the items identified in 3.a above:
(1)
1303-11.1, Control Rod Drop Time, Rev. 4 (March 8,1977);
Data reviewed for test performed May 21, 1976.
(2)
1303-11.19, Turbine Overspeed Testing, Rev. 3 (December 18, 1975); Procedure reviewed for Test E, Backup overspeed trip system test (performed at each refueling interval).
Data reviewed for Test E performed March 25, 1975.
(3)
1303-8.1, Reactor Coolant System Test, Rev. 3 (November 24, 1974); Data reviewed for test performed May 21,1976 and November 19,1976 (partial test).
1687 284
_
_
___
_.
_
__
__.
1.
. _. _
_. _ _ _ _
_
.
.
.
s
,
(4)
1303-12.4, Venting of DH Pumps and LPI Lines, Rev. 0 (October 26, 1976); Data reviewed for tests performed April 3,1977 for A and April 5,1977 for B.
(5)
1303-l?.11, Station Batteries Load Test, Rev. 4 (July 31, 1976); Data reviewed for test performed March 27, 1977.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
As a result of the review conducted in items 3.a and b above, the following unresolved items were identified.
(1) The licensee was unable to provide the data recorded during the conductance of 1303-11.19, Turbine Overspeed Trip, Test E performed on May 27,1977 (determined by turbine inspection report).
The licensee will attempt to find the necessary data.
This item (289-77-15-02) is unresolved pending the licensee's locating and the inspector's review of the necessary data.
'
(2)
During the inspector's review of procedure 1303-12.4,
"
Venting of DH Pumps and LPI Lines, for technical content it was noted that the decay heat pump suction vents (DH-V25 A&B) were not included in the procedure.
Discussion with the licensee revealed that the valves are additional high point vents that should be included in the pro-cedure.
The licensee imediately initiated a TCN to add these valves to the procedure and will subsequently repeat the test.
This item (289-77-15-03) is unresolved pending review of the procedure and conductance of the test.
(3)
During the review of the completed data for precedure 1303-11.11, Station Batteries Load Test, the inspector noted that two test change notices (TCNs) were written that added or deleted procedural steps.
These TCNs made extensive changes to the procedure by incorporating an Addendum 1 and on Addendum 2 in the procedure.
1687 285
.
.
-
-
-.
.
-.
.
!
-
.
-
.
<>'
l (
i The inspector stated that the methods used (TCNs) to incorporate these extensive changes made the procedure difficult to follow.
The inspector expressed his concern that such extensive procedure changes could result in personnel errors in attempting to follow the procedure as occurred during the performance of the diesel generator
'
testing procedures (described in item 2.b above).
The licensee acknowledge the inspector's comments and will issue a procedure revision for procedure 1303-11.11.
!'
This item (289-77-15-04) is unresolved pending completion j
of the procedure revision.
!
I d.
The inspector reviewed procedure 1303-6.2, Hydrogen Purge Operating Test, Rev. 2 (April 15,1977) and the data recorded
for this test performed on April 20, 1977, to verify the items described in 3.a above.
I During the inspector's review of this procedure, the inspector
!
noted the following discrepancies in the recording of data on
'
Cata Sheet II, Appendix III of Hydrogen Purge Procedure 1203-28:
Step 28.3.5.5: The verification of the controlling
--
isotope was incorrectly calculated (i.e., was recorded as 413 but should have been 405).
!
Step 28.3.5.5: The step states in part that "If less
--
than 2000 use I-131 activity from RM-A9 in equation 28.3.5.6A and the I-131 release rate from Appendix I in equation 28.3.5.A.
If greater than 2000 use Kr-85 activity from RM-A9 in equation 28.3.5.6B and the Kr-85 release rate from Appendix I in equation 28.3.5.78."
The operators used Kr-85 as the controlling isotope instead of the correct I-131 and proceeded to perform the subsequent calculations in equations 28.3.5.6B and 28.3.5.7B.
The inspector further noted that the test results were subse-quently reviewed by the shift supervisor and quality control supervisor and were signed off as satisfactory.
The inspector expressed his concern over the failure of the licensee's supervisory review system to detect incorrectly performed procedures.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's concerns and concurred with the findings.
1687 286
.
.
_. _ _ _. __
_..
.
-
.
.
A
!
s Procedure 1303-6.2 requires in section 7.1 that unsatisfactory test results be noted and corrective action explained in the
" Remarks" section of the report.
,
Administrative Procedure 1010, Technical Specification Sur-veillance Program, requires data results to be evaluated by j
the applicable supervisor by comparing these results with the j
acceptance criteria and if any parts are unsatisfactory, to take corrective action.
(Neither the requirements of procedure 1303-6.2 nor the j
requirements of administrative procedure 1010 were complied with.)
Failure to follow procedures is contrary to Technical Specification 6.8.1.
This item is considered to be an Item of Noncompliance (289-
!
77-15-05) at the Infraction level.
5.
Technician Qualification The inspector reviewed the qualification records of a technician p
having responsibility for surveillance testing of safety related components and equipment to verify that the individual's experience s
l level and training were in accordance with the guidelines of ANSI N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Inspector Witnessing of Surveillance Test The inspector witnessed the performance of surveillance test 1303-
.
!
4.11, High and Law Pressure Injection Analog Channels, Rev.12 (August 18, 1976) for channel RC2 to verify the following:
Surveillance test procedure was available and in use;
--
Special test equipment required by procedure was calibrated
--
and in use; and, Test prerequisites were met.
--
During performance of step 6.2.8.d.3 of this procedure, the tech-nician inadvertantly operated the wrong switch on the Main Control Board and caused a high pressure injection.
_
1687 287
__
_ - -.
-.-
..
. -.
.
-
.
.
.
%
! I
Due to the refueling shutti.Jn condition of the plant, the result of this injection was the opening of three valves and the injection of additional borated watcr into the reactor coolant system via the running decay heat r coval pump.
As a result of this happening, the technicians performing the
surveillance were reinstructed to verify switches on the Main Control Board with a reactor operator prior to operating the switches.
,
The inspector stated that an additional caution statement in the
" Limits and Precautions" section of the procedure specifying that I
the reactor operator be notified prior to operating control board
!
switches may prevent this event from recurring.
In addition, the I
inspector expressed his concern that similar problems could exist
in other instrument surveillance procedures.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's concerns and will inves-tigate the problem to determine what changes would be required to the surveillance procedures to prevent recurrences of this nature.
,
}
This itea (289-77-15-06) is unresolved pending the result of the
]
licensee's investigation and completion of his corrective action.
t 7.
Inspector Witnessing of Chemistry Surveillance The inspector witnessed the sampling and analysis of the Sodium i
Hydroxide Tank water.
Coincident with this witnessing, the inspector reviewed the following procedures:
1936, Determination of Sodium Hydroxide, Rev. 2 (July 7,1975)
--
l 1301-6.5, Sodium Hydroxide Tank, Rev. 4 (January 20, 1977)
--
1104-5, Reactor Building Spray, Rev. 7 (November 16, 1976)
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Unresolved Items Items about which more information is required to determine accept-ability are considered unresolved.
Paragraphs 3.c and 6 of this report contain unresolved items.
1687 288
- - * *
. - ~.
__
--
,.
..,
.
.
,
'
9.
Exit Interview At the inspection's end, the inspector held a meeting (see Detail 1 for attendees) to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
The noncompliance and unresolved items were identified.
!
i k..
.
1687 289 t