IR 05000289/1979006
| ML19276H192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1976 |
| From: | Martin T, Mccabe E, Sjostrom L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276H193 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-06, 50-289-76-6, NUDOCS 7910150424 | |
| Download: ML19276H192 (9) | |
Text
9
.
i
.
.
!
m
- *
2:1 Form 12 (Jan 75) (Rev).
E Yb REGION 1 HAS NOT CBT'.J4ED P30P2JETARY
U. S. !!UCLEAR REGULATORY C N ISSEdE P " * d # *
'
0FFICE OF I SPECTIO:: A!!D E TFORCD!E:;T REGIO:t I
.
.
50-289 IE Inspection Report !!o:
~
Docket I:o:
~
~
licensce:
Metropolitan Edison Company I.icense To:
,
P.O. Box 542
,
,
p i
l Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 C
Category.
i l
Safeguards Group:
-
Loca tion:
Three Mile Island Unit 1
'
i'
Iype cf Licensce:
Routine, Unannounced Type of Inspection:
March 12 and March 15-19, 1976
'
Dates of Inspection:
.
Dates of Previous Inspection:
March 9 - March 12, 1976
,
}
N
.
3/J/[7(
Reporting Inspector: '
/.
L."Sjo);trom, Reactor Inspector DATE Accompanying Inspectors:
.3[3 / 24 T. Martin, Reactor Inspector UAIE DATE DATE Other Acccmpanying, Personnel:
,_
DATE Reviewed By:
6/
1413 244 WT//7 (
'
E. C. McCabe, Jr., Section Chief DATE Nuclear Support Section No. 1 19101sc y. Y
.
-..
-. _
..-_. -
.
. _ _ - -. - -. -.
. _.
.
.
g_
.
_ _ _. _ _ _.
_
.
,
.
.
O SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Actions Items of Noncompliance 1.
Violations None.
!
2.
Infractions None.
.
.
3.
Deficiencies None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Ite=s
'
.
Not inspected.
Design Changes None identified.
Other Significant Findings
'
A.
Current Findings 1.
Acceptable Areas (These are areas which were inspected on a sa=pling basis and did not involve an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation or an Unresolved Item.)
a.
Preparations for Refueling.
(Details 2, 3)
,
b.
Refueling Activities.
(Details 4)
c.
Preparations to Return Systens to Normal Following Outage Activities, except as indicated under Unresolved Ite=s, below.
(Details 7)
d.
Containment Leak Rate Testing, except as indicated under
)
Unresolved Items, below.
(Details S)
'
1413 245
-
.-..
-_-
-.
_.
._
.._
._ -.-- -. --
.--._.
.. -. -
_
_
-.
.... _ -
,
.
.
.
- %
2-
-
,
2.
Unresolved Items
-
(These are items for which additional information is required in order to determine if the item is acceptable, a Deviation, or an Item of Noncompliance.)
j a.
Temporary Change Notices.
(Details 5)
'
b.
Surveillance Procedute 1303-5.1, Reactor Building Cooling and Isolation System Logic Channel and Component Test.
I (Details 6)
c.
Operating Procedure 1102-1, Revision 13, Plant Heatup to 5250F.
(Details 7)
d.
Test, Vent and Drains.
(Details 8.a)
_
l e.
Electrical Penetrations.
(Details 8.b)
l l
f.
Flow Meter Orientation.
(Details 8.c)
-
T
- ._j g.
Flow Meter Bypass.
(Details 8.d)
!'
h.
Pipes.
(Details 8.e)
i i
1.
Local Leak Rate Tests.
(Details 8.f)
!
l 3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by the Licensee Not inspected.
'
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not inspected.
Management Interviev l
!
A management interview was conducted on March 19 with Mr. J. Colitz, Mr.
J. Hilbish, Mr. G. Kunder and Mr. R. Su=cers.
Iters discussed are summarized below:
A.
The inspectors reviewed the scope of the routine inspection in the areas of preparations for fuel handling, fuel handling activities, controls for the return of systems to normal following the outage and the conduct of containment leak rate testing.
B.
Inspection Findings
-
The inspectors discussed their findings which are incluc ed in Ih46 listing of unresolved items above.
1Li3
~
N=m e
W**=
w,w 4-e _m ee-w e Gw-.=w-
--%e
__
.-
- -. -
- -. -
--
.
F
,
m
'
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Co.
Mr. R. Barley, Operations Engineer Mr. K. Beale', Radiation Protection Supervisor Mr. M. Beers, Shift Supervisor
.
Mr. M. Benson, Nuclear Engineer Mr. D. Boltz, Shift Supervisor Mr. N. Brown, Administrator, Nuclear and Technical Training
,
Mr. J. Colitz, Unit Superintendent
Mr. W. Cotter, Lead Mechanical Engineer Mr. J. Hilbish, Reactor Engineer Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor of Operations Mr. J. O'Hanlon, PORC Chairman
'
Mr. V. Orlandi, Lead I&C Engineer l
Mr. N. Shatto, Engineer Associate I
,])
Mr. D. Shovlin, Maintenance Supervisor i
-
Mr. R. Su=mers, Project Engineer, Mechanical Mr. G. Wallace, Shif t Supervisor
'
Mr. R. Washick, Senior Computer Analyst l
2.
The inspector exa=ined the contents of and verified that approved j
copies were available in the Control Room for the following procedures:
I a.
Procedure 1505-2, Defueling.
- b.
Procedure 1505-1, Core Assembly.
The inspector examined the core verification procedure, which was included within the
!
procedure for core assembly.
,
c.
Procedure 1103-2, Revision 12, Reactor Coolant System Fill and Vent.
-
d.
Procedure 1103-11, Revision 3, Draining and Nitrogen Blanket of the Reactor Coolant System.
3.
Fuel Sipoine Operations Fuel Sipping was performed by a contractor utilizing an apparatus named the " Super Sipper." The licensee stated that there was no data available on site frem the sipping operations and that there was no special sipping procedure due to the simplicity of the operation.
Normal fuel movement procedures were in effect.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
1413 247
-. -.
__-
-
-
._
-
!
.
.
s
,
-4-i 4.
Refueling Activities a.
Pre-Fuel Handling Ac*ivities The inspector verified that surveillance testing involving the following pre-fueling activities was completed:
(1) Technical Specification require =ents.
-(2) Refueling machine operation and indexing.
(3) Ventilation requirements in the Reactor Building.
(4) Refueling interlocks.
(5) Crane Testing.
(6) Refueling deck radiation monitors.
(7) Coenunication systems.
_
)
(8) Cooling capability for stored fuel.
b.
Fuel Handling Activities
.
.
The inspector verified that the following conditions existed
!
and that the identified activities were being conducted as l
required by Technical Specifications or approved procedures:
(1)
Fuel accountability methods during defueling were in
accordance with the approved procedure.
(2)
Core internals, leads, vessel studs, penetration closure bolts, etc. are being stored to prevent da= age.
(3) Boron concentrations are in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
c.
Special Operatine Procedure No. 313. Control Comoonent Shuffle The inspector reviewed the contents of the procedure and the documented results for conformance to Technical Specifications or approved procedures.
No inadequacies were identified.
5.
Temporarv Change Notices (TCN's)
During a review of selected surveillance procedures and their
-
associated TCN's, the inspector noted that a te=porary change within a procedure could not always be traced to a TCN.
In addition, it was not always possible to identify what changer 1413 248
-
. - - _.
-.
_.
.
.
.
=m
,
- 5-were effected by reading the TCN.
Utilization of the TCN. log did not always clarify which changes had been made.
The licensee acknowledged that tha TCN procedures should be reviewed.
This ites is unresolved.
6.
Surveillance Procedure 1303-5.1, Reactor Building Cooline and Isolation System Logic Channel & Component Test During a review of the ESAS Test of the Fluid Block and Penetration Pressurization valves, it was noted that the actual position of the following valves were not verified following the simulated ESAS:
I a.
Fluid Block Control Valves b.
Purge Inner-Space Supply Valves
,
c.
Penetration Isolation Valves d.
Electrical Penetration Post-Accident Pressurization Valves It was also noted that although visual indication of actual valve
positions are available in the Control Room, the procedure does not require the documentation of the valve positions.
This item is unresolved.
7.
Preparations to Return Svstems to Normal Followine Outage Activities The inspector reviewed Operating Procedure 1102-1, Revision 13, Plant Heatup to 5250F, and verified that systems disturbed or tested during the refueling outage would be returned to normal and that appropriate persons would review and verify that check lists are complete.
The inspector noted that Section 1.7, Local Leak Rate Tests, of Enclosure II to OP 1102-1, Refueling Startup Surveillance Test Checkoff, did not reflect the latest changes to SP 1303-11.18, Revision 6, Reactor Building Local Leak Rate Testing.
The licensee stated that a revision would be incorporated into OP 1102-1 to reflect this change.
This item is unresolved.
_
1413 249
-- -
_
.
___
-
-
-
_ _ _.
_.
._-
_
&
.
-6-8.
Containment Leak Rate Testing The inspector reviewed the licensee's test program for Containment Leak Rate Testing against the requirements of Appendix J to 1 CFR 50 and Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Technical Specifications, Section 4.4 (T.S. 4.4), and the commitments of Metropolitan Edison 'Co=pany letter to the Director of Reactor Licensing, USNRC, dated September 17, 1975.
The following Surveillance Procedures (SP's) were reviewed:
a.
SP #1303-6.1, Revision 2 R. B. Integrated Leak Rate Test Dated 1/16/76 i
!
b.
SP #1303-11.18, Revision 6 R. B. Local Leak Rate Testing i
i Dated 1/26/76 c.
SP #1303-11.23, Revision 0 Reactor Building Local Leakage - Fluid Block System
- lm Dated 1/26/76 d.
SP #1303-11.24, Revision 0 R. B. Local Leakage Penetration Pressurization Dated 1/16/76 Based upon this review and discussions with the licensee, the i
following items are unresolved:
a.
Test, Vents and Drains
!
Test, Vent and Drain lines, coming off lines penetrating the containment, between the contain=ent isolation valves, provide a path for flow to bypass containment isolation valves.
Valves in these lines constitute containment isolation valves in themselves.
These valves require local leak rate testing.
Connections, one inch in diameter or less, having a double leakage barrier (2 valves, valve and a cap, etc.), need not be tested, if:
(1) Both leakage barriers are in place and closed; (2)
The barriers are under administrative controls (lock, lock wire, tag, etc.); and,
"
(3)
The administrative controls are verified with at least
-
the frequency of local leak rate testing.
Presently, these valves are neither tested nor under the above administrative controls.
14i3 250
- -- -
-
_-
'
.
.
-
7-
-
b.
Electrical Penetrations Electrical Penetrations are continuously pressurized to
,
approximately 30 psig while the peak accident pressure is 50.6 psig. Inspector examination of these penetrations indicated that their design incorporates sealant compounds which would require local penetration testing at 50.6 psig per sections II.G.1 and III.B.2 of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
The licensee indicated that these penetrations were exempt from this testing.
This item is unresolved pending verification ot whether or not sealant coupounds are used in these penetrations.
,
c.
Flow Meter Orientation
!
The local leak rate test panel utilizes a rotameter for =easuring
leak rate flow.
The rotameter accuracy and sensitivity is j
affected if the rota=eter is not vertical.
The procedure for j
use of the test panel does not include a requirement to verify vertical orientation of the rotameter following each relocation of the panel.
!
~}
l
_.
d.
Flow Meter Bveass The local leak rate test panel uses a four way valve to bypass the flow meter, while pressurizing the test volume, and f.o force flow through the meter following pressurization.
This arrangement could allow four way valve leakage to bypass the
,
j flow meter and mask psrt of the test volume leakage.
The
procedure for use of the test panel does not require periodic
.
verification of no bypass leakage.
!
e.
Pipes
!
During an examination of containment penetrations, the inspector
noted 4 open ended pipes extending from the containment wall
.
immediately above the Steam Generator Sample Line penetrations
!
into the Turbine Building.
The inspector questioned their purpose, but information was unavailable on site to identify
,
j their function.
f.
Local Leak Rate Tests The inspector reviewed the results of local leak rate tests.
The combined leakage from all isolation valves tested per SP
- 1303-11.18 already exceeds 111,899 SCCM.
SP #1303-11.18
_
\\g[
1413 251
-%
e.,
m.
m.
..y.
eme m
.e<
-
-
..-. -
--
-
.
.
,
I t
i i-8-equates this leakage level with 60% of the maicimum allowable leakage (La).
T.S. 4.4.1.2.3 requires that "the combined leakage... shall not exceed.6 La."
The licensee is taking corrective action and no Limiting Condition for Operation has been violated as defined by the licensee's Technical Specification.
l The licensee plans to report the leakage in a subsequent j
Licensee Event Report.
i l
i
!
.
I l
~)
,
-.-
.
.
.
t i
!
e t
'
1413 252
--._.
..
. _..
.
.-_
.- -..