IR 05000289/1978025
| ML19241B014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1979 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Gage L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-78-25, 50-320-78-38, NUDOCS 7907110542 | |
| Download: ML19241B014 (9) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND EflFORCEMENT 50-289/76-25 Report No. 50-320/78-38__
50-289 Docket No. 50-320 DPR-50 License No. DPR-73 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee: Metropolitan Edison Company P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19640 Facility Name: Three Mile Island 1 and 2 Inspection at: Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: December 12-15, 1978 Inspector a:
/
N
/_- //- 79 L. W. Gage #,ReadtorInspector da te' s ign ad date sigfed
-
date signed Approved by: MYr
/6,., / /d/L&~o
~,)/w i S* 19 79 date' signed S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support
'
Scction No. 2, RC & ES Branch Insoaction Summary:
Inspection on December 12-15,1978 (Recort Nos. 50-289/78-25 and 50-320/78-38)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the fire prevention /
protection program including work control procedures, quality assurance surveillance, design change controls, fire + raining and drills, emergency shutdown procedures, fire inspection reports, technical specification surveillance documentation, Safety Evaluation Report implementation, and facility inspect' n.
The inspection involved 31 inspection hours onsite by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were iden-tified in sir creas; three apparen' items of noncompliance were identified in three areas.
(Infraction-failuim to control ccmbustibles - Para. 8; Deficiency - failure to fully implement procedures - Pcra. 9; and Infrac_t n-failure to implement a SER commitment - P ca. 10)
}$
negion I Form 12 7907110,57 1i Q (Rev. April 77)
.
pETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P_rincipal Licensee Emoloyees Mr. R. Barley, Unit 1 Lead Mechanical Engineer Mr. C. Hartman, Lead Electrical Engineer Mr. G. Kunder, Unit 2 Superintendent, Technical Support Mr. J. Logan, Unit 2 Superintendent Mr. T. Mackey,Jr., Supervisor, Quality Control Mr. F. McCormick, Group Supervisor, Technical Training Mr. T. O'Connor, Sr. Tech. Analyst, Unit 1 Mr. M. Ross, Supervisor of Operacions, Unit 1 (All present at exit interview).
2.
Work Control Procedures The inspector verified that there is a work-control procedure which defines requirements for operations personnel approval and centrol of modification activities.
It is Station Administrative Procedure 1021, " Plant Modifications," Revision 2, dated November 22, 1978.
Major / minor change / modification requests must have the Unit Superintendent's review and approval.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Quality Assurance Surveillance a.
Procedures The inspector verified that there are quality assurance pro-cedures that require periodic surveillance and audit of authorized modification and maintenance activities to verify cor liance with established controls.
The procedures include:
GP-4016, "OQA Audit Program," Revision 4, Change 2, dated
.
November 27, 1978.
GP-1008, " Systems Lists," Revision 2, Change 1, dated
.
December 1, 1978.
Q -[~
M2
.
The inspector also verified that there is a quality assurance procedure for performing an audit of the station's fire pro-tection program.
It is:
Operational Quality Assurance Plan for Nuclear Sta-
.
tion, Revision 7, dated December 6, 1977.
b.
Records The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation to deter-mine if the above procedures were being implemented.
He selected tht- 'ollowing work requests from the Log of Work Requests:
25341, 25342, 25518 and 25563.
(These are work requests whose short description indicated probable involvement with fire protection).
The inspector also reviewed the most recent licensee QA audit of the station's fire protection program, Number 77-21, for 1977.
(The 1978 audit, Number 78-28, wza in progress during the inspection.)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Desian Change Controls The inspector reviewed the status of unresolved item 77-29-02:
cable penetration seals of control-room cabino ts in Unit 1 (Reference IE Inspection Report No. 50-289/77-29).
The icensee stated that his Report No. IR-77-29-02 was being reviewed by his design engineering group; that it may result in a new procedure for sealing the cable penetrations using a Dow Corning silicone foam; and that the com-pletion date for the review was September 30, 1979.
(At present, the !! nit I control-room-cabinet cable penetrations are sealed only with Kaowool, while the drawing,C201-129) shows a typical floor seal to consist of a marinite board-Kaowool-marinite board sandwich; the Unit 2 cable penetrations are sealed with sili-cone foam, in accordance with Cheatrol Corp. procedure 3350, "In-stallation of CT-18 Silicone Foam.")
This item is still considered to be unresolved, pending review by an NRC inspector of new procedures, drawings and resealing during a subsequent inspection.
(77-29-02)
93k c
3\\,c
.
5.
Fire Fighting Procedures, Trainina and Drills a.
Procedures The inspector verified that the following procedures wera
.stablished for fire control:
>
AP-1004, " Fire Emergency Plan," Revision 3, June 20,
.
1977.
EP-1202-31, " Fire," Revision 8, November 1,1978.
.
OP-1104-45, " Fire Protection," Revision 22, September
.
22, 1978.
AP-1038, " Administrative Controls--Fire Protection Pro-
.
gram Plan," Revision 0, May 10, 1978.
b.
Training Records The inspector verified that all members of the station fire brigade received fire prevention / protection training in accord-ance with licensee procedures EP 1202-31 and AP-10J8.
(Ve ri,f-
.
ication was based on a review of the licensee's latest computer printout, " Staff Training Status," dated October 31,1978; a review of the training session attendance sheets (to verify the computer printout); and a review of the purchase requisition 100-0153-TG (to verify that the contracted training instructor was certified by the Pennsylvania State Fire School).
c.
Drills The inspector reviewed the licensee's fire-drill documentation (operations form CPS-S107) to verify that each shift took part in a fire drill at least once every 3 months, in accord-ance with licensee requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
nD" h
$\\
6.
Fire Inspection Report The inspector reviewed the most recent fire inspection report of the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), the licensee's fire insurer.
This report, number N-155, dated February 2 and 9, and March 3 and 13, 1978 contained one new reconTnendation for Unit 1 and one for Unit 2.
The licensee has agreed to implement the recommendations.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Emergency Shutdown Procedures The inspector verified that there are plant procedures that provide alternate methods for accomplishing an orderly plant shutdown and cooldown in case of loss of normal coolant-supply systems.
The procedures, for Unit 1, are:
--
1102-13, " Decay Heat Removal by 0TSG," Revision 4 (May 16, 1977)
--
1106-6, " Emergency Feed," Revision 11 (January 5,1978)
--
1202-2, " Station Blackout and Station' Blackout with Loss of both Diesel Generators," Revision 9 (March 31,1978)
--
1202-6, " Loss of Reactor Coolant /RCS Pressure," Revision 7 (May19,1978)
--
1202-14, " Loss of Reactor Flow /RC Pump Trip," Revision 3 (August 18, 1975)
--
1202-26A, " Loss o' Steam Generator Feed to Both OTSGs," Re-vision 3 (October 26,1976)
--
1202-268, " Loss of Steam Generator Feed to One OTSG," Revision 4 (September 25,1978)
--
1202-35, " Loss of Decay Heat Removal System," Revision 2 (August 27,1974)
--
1203-15, " Loss of RC Makeup," Revision 4 (September 27,1977)
3}2
.
The procedures, for Unit 2, are:
--
2102-3.3, " Decay Heat Removal Via OTSG," Revision 6, (Apri.
17, 1978)
2104-6.3, " Emergency Feedwater," Revision 4, (June 8, 1978)
--
2202-2.1, " Station Blackout," Revision 7, (June 21,1978)
--
2202-2.5, " Station Blackout with Loss of Diesels," Revision 6,
--
(September 22, 1978)
--
2202-1.3, " Loss of Reactor Coolant /RCS Pressure," Revision ll, (October 6,1978)
m ?02-1.4, " Loss of RC Flow /RC Pump Trip," Revision 6, (October
--
12,1978)
--
2202-2.2, " Loss of Steam Generator Feed," Revision 3, (October 13,1978)
--
2202-1 8, " Loss of Decay Heat Removal," Revision 2. (January 5,1973)
2203-1.5, " Loss of RC Makeup," Revision 2, (September 7,1978)
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Facility Inspection The inspector conducted an inspection, in each unit, of the Control Room, Cable Spreading Room, Battery Rooms, Diesel Generator Rooms, Auxiliary Building, Fire Water Pumping Station, and outside Hose Houses.
Items examined included the fire alarming system, control room cabinet interiors, and fixed and portable fire fighting equipment.
During the inspecdon of the cable spreading room in Unit 2, the inspector noted empty cardboard boxes stored in the area, recording paper stacked on temporary tables, and a hot soldering iron plugged into an outlet near the recording paper. The licensee did not have any personnel in the area at the time.
312 237
.
.
The inspector considered this contrary to the licensee's procedure AP-1034, " Control of Combustible Materials," (Rev. 0) which states in paragraph 6.3:
"Should it become necessary...to exceed the limits (of transient combustible material) for brief periods, the cognizant department head...must qualitatively evaluate any addi-tional portable or temporary fire protection measures which must be taken in the area...while the limit...is exceeded, the area must be manned, or a fire watch patrol...at least once per hour be established."
(The licensee had not performed an evale ion or established a fire watch patrol).
The inspector then cited the licensee for an Infraction to Appendix A to License No. DPR-73, paragraph 6.8.1, which states:
"Wri tten procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained..."
(78-38-01)
9.
Technical Specification Surveillance Tests The inspector reviewed the results of the surveillance test; per-formed on fire prevention / protection equipment in accordance with Appendix "A" to License Nos. DPR-50 and DPR-73.
He sampled the following test reports for the calendar year 1978:
1.^03-12.14, 1301-12.2,1303-12.13,1301-4.1. 2331-M1. 3301-W1, _2333-SA2, 2333-A1, 2331-SA2, 3301-W2 and 3303-A1.
(
~ '
The inspector noted that the September 18, 1978 issue of surveil-lance report 3303-M1 indicated a failure to complete steps 3.a, b and c (the manual I start functim test for the fire pump diesel engine).
Work Request No. 25237 was issued, which indicated that the diesel engine was repaired.
However, it did not indicate that steps 3.a, b and c were then satisfactorily performed.
The in-spector noted that neither the shift scpervisor nor the test coor-dinator had signed the front page of the >otember 18 report to indicate that they had evaluated the test results.
He thereupon rechecked the surveillance report file, but did not find any retest report for the month of September.
The inspector considered this contrary to the licensee's procedure AP-1010, " Technical Specification Surveillance Program," (Rev.12)
which states, in paragraph 6.6.1:
"A retest is required when initial test results fail to meet the acceptance criteria or when the test could not be entirely performed.
Retest results will be recorded on another set of data sheets or in the rete;t section of a Work Request.
Retest results will be... evaluated, along with the original data sheets, by the Test Coordinator to determine that the surveillance requirement has been satisfied."
312 238
.
The inspector cited the licensee for a Deficiency to Appendix A to License flo. DPR-73, paragraph 4.7.10.1.2(a)2, which states:
"Each fire pump diesel engine shall be demonstrated operable at least once per 31 days:
...The diesel starts from ambient conditions and operates for at least 20 minutes."
(78-38-02)
(The next (October,1978) surveillance report 3303-M1 indicated satisfactory completion of steps 3.a, b and c, verifying a satisfac-tory repair of the diesel enaine).
10.
Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Reoort (SER)
The inspector examined the implementation of the modifications for additional fire protection that were specified in the SERs for Units 1 and 2.
For Unit 1, the comoleted modifications that were examined included (Reference Amendment 44 to the Operating License DPR-50):
Administrative controls to prohibit smoking in safety-related
.
areas (Para 1raph 3.1.18 of SER).
Administrative controls to control combustibles (Paragraph
.
3.1.19 of SCR).
For Unit 2, the completed modifications that were examined included (Reference Paragraph G of Attachment 2 to the Operating License DPR-73):
Relocating existing fire detectors in the control room.
.
Providing a grease filter and portable extings:isher in the
.
control room kitchen area.
Prohibit smoking in safety related areas.
.
Provide fire fighters with protective clothir.g.
.
Provide additional emergency lighting.
.
The inspector noted that, although there were two emergency-light units in the cable spreading room (above the doorways), neither served to illuminate the remote shutdown panel.
The inspector considered this contrary to the requirements of the Operating License, which states in Attachment 2, paragraph G.9:
"By July 31, 1978:
Provide additional fixed sealed-beam emergency lights to facilitate emergency operation at remote chutdown panels and facilities..."
The inspector then cited the licensee for an Infraction to Attachment 2 to License flo. DPR-73.
(78-38-03)
7'
7h
.
11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Unresolved items reviewed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 4.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Pare-graph 1) at the conclusior of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and tha findings.
The licensee ackncwledged the inspector's findings, o40 312
-