IR 05000289/1981008
| ML20037D394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1981 |
| From: | Fasano A, Haverkamp D, Sanders W, Young F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D391 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-81-08, 50-289-81-8, NUDOCS 8107100183 | |
| Download: ML20037D394 (8) | |
Text
-. _.. _
-
-
._ _
_
_. _ _
50289-801126
-
-
'
50289-810117 50289-810130
-
50289-810210 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ?ND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-289/81-08 Docket No.
50-289 Category c
License No.
DPR-50 Priority
--
Licensee:
Metrooolitan Edison Company P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Middletown, Penrsylvania Inspection conductci: March _l, 1981 - April 30, 1961
[/
4// 7 /P/
Inspectcrs:
0. R. Haverkamp, Scion / Resident Inspector (TMI-1)
date signed M b ux 6hylei F. I. Young, g ident Inspector (TMI-1)
date signed dll?!
ds'
4 /.:.:. ///
W. F. Sanders eactor Ins ector date signed
[-//-[/
Approved by:
_ Chi ee Mile Island Resident date signed N. Fasano Section, of nch #2 Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 1,1981 - April 30,1981 (Report Number 50-289/81-08)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspecti by the resident inspectors and regional based inspectors (125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br />) of licensee action on previous inspection findings; plant operations during long term shutdown including facility tours and log and record reviews; and in-office review of licensee event reports.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
e 8107100183 910625 PDR ADOCK 05000289 g
PDR J
.-_.-
..
--_.-..- - - - - - _ _ _
.
.
,
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Company
'
- R..arbin, Technical Analyst Senior-I TMI-1 L. Harding, Supervisor TMI-l Licensing
!
D. Mitchell, Nuclear Licensing Engineer T. O' Conner, Lead Fire Protection Engineer TMI-l M. Ross, Manager Plant Operations TMI-1
- C. Smyth, Supervisor TMI-l Licensing R. Toole, Operations and Maintenance Director TMI-l P. Vele, Radiological Field Operations Manager TMI-l The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees during the inspection.
They included control room operators, maintenance personnel, engineering staff perscnnel and general office personnel.
- denotes those present at the exit interview on June 1,1981.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 289/80-06-05, Calibration of Calibration Blocks for Ultrasonic Testing.
Five calibration standards were initially rejected for dimensional variances from the requirements in the ASME B&PV Code,1974 Edision, with 1975 Sununer Addends.
The issue was based on the use of pipe calibration standards having side drilled holes with the horizontal axis located 1" from the edge rather than 1 1/2".
This was resolved by a demonstration per ASME Section V T.533.2.b, "However, other calibration reflectors may be used, provided equivalent responses to that from the basic calibration hole are demonstrated."
(Closed)InspectorFollowupItem 289/80-06-03.
Clarification of Inservice Inspection (I!
Procedure Addressir.g Organizational Responsibilities.
The initial issue of this document required clarification in the areas of organization and responsibilities.
The document has subsequently been revised.
This item is considered resolved based on Revision 1 to ISI procedure.
(Closed) 80-09-01 Inspector Followup Item 289/80-09-01.
Evaluation of Inservice Inspection Test Data and Project Organizational Responsibilities Document (PORD). The requirements for identifying, characterizing, evaluating, dispositioning, recording and reporting revelant indications, were not clearly delineated.
This is considered resolved based on Revision 1 to the PORD document and the development of a new procedure titled " Evaluation of Reportable Indications PROC 79 MT 02.
._ _
-
.
.
,
.
-3-3.
Plant Operations During Long Term Shutdown a.
Plant Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine the lii:ensee established requirements in this area in preparation for a review of selected logs and records.
Administrative Procedure (AP) 1002, " Rules for the
--
'
Protection of Employees Working on Electrical and Mechanical Apparatus," Revision 22 AP l'007, " Control of Records," Revision 4
--
AP 1010 " Technical Specification Surveillance Program,"
--
Revision 18 AP 1012, " Shift Relief and Log Entries," Revision 14
--
AP 1013, " Bypass of Safety Functions and Jumper Control,"
--
Revision 8 AP 1016, " Operations Surveillance Program," Revision ",
--
AP 1033, " Operating Memos and Standing Orders," Revision 2
--
AP 1037, " Control of Caution and DN0 Tag 3," Revision 2
--
AP 1044, " Event Review and Reporting Requirements,"
--
Revision 2 The inspector reviewed the following _ plant logs and operating records.
Shift Foreman Log and Control Room Log Book
--
Primary Auxiliary Operator's Log-Tour Readings, Secondary
--
Auxiliary Operator's Log' Sheets, and Auxiliary Operator Log Sheets - Out-Building Tour Unit 1 Operations Memo Book
--
Shift turnover checklists
--
Temporary Change Notice (TCN) Log Book
--
Active Tagging Application Book
--
Locked Valve Log
--
ISI Tag Book
--
'
j
.
.
,
.
-4-Night Order Book
--
Do Not Operate and Caution Tag Log
--
Jumper, Lifted Lead, and Mechanical Modifications Log
--
(active and cleared)
Plant logs and operating records were reviewed to verify the following items.
Log keeping practices and log book reviews are conducted
--
in accordance with established administrative controls.
Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient
--
detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction and restoration.
Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Specification
--
(TS) requirements.
Jumper log and tagging log entries do not conflict with
--
TS requirements.
Problem identification reports confirm compliance with TS
--
reporting and LC0 requirements.
Jumper / lifted lead / mechanical modification and tagging
--
operations are conducted in conformance with established administrative controls.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Facility Tours During the course of the inspection, the inspector conducted multiple tours of the following plant areas.
Control Room (daily)
--
Auxiliary Building
--
Reactor Building
--
Fuel Handling Building
--
Intermediate Building
--
Pump House
--
Vital Switchgear Rooms
--
I
,
.
.
,
.
-5-Diesel Generator Building
--
Yard Area
--
Site Perimeter
--
The following observations / discussions / determinations were made.
Monitoring instrumentation: The inspector verified that
--
selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification limits.
Valve positions: The inspector verified that selected
--
valves were in the position or condition required by Technical Specifications for the applicable plant mode.
This verification included control board indication and field observation of valve position (Auxiliary Feedwater System and Decay Heat Removal System).
Radiation controls: The inspector verified by observation
--
that control point procedures and posting requirements were being followed.
The inspector identified no failures to properly post radiation and high radiation areas.
Fluid leaks: No fluid leaks were observed which had not
--
been identified by station personnel and for which corrective action had not been initiated, as necessary.
Piping snubbers / restraints: Selected pipe hangers and
--
seismic restraints were observed and no adverse conditions were noted.
Equipment tagging: The inspector selected plant components
--
for which valid tagging requests were in effect and verified that the tags were in place and the equipment in the condition specified.
Control Room annunciators.
Selected lighted annunciators
--
were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken.
Control Room manning: By frequent observation through
--
the inspection, the inspector verified that control room manning requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k) and the Technical Specifications were being met.
In addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that continuity of system status was maintained.
The inspector periodically questioned shift personnel relative to their awareness of plant conditions and knowledge of emergency procedures.
J
.
.
.
,
.
-6-Fire protection: The inspector verified that selected
--
fire extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule (except as described below), that fire alarm stations were unobstructed, and that adequate control over ignition sources and fire hazards was maintained.
Technical Specifications: Through log review and direct
--
observations during tours, the inspector verified compliance with selected Technical Specification Limiting Conditions
~
during Shutdown Operation.
Plant housekeeping conditions: Observations relative to
--
plant housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions (except as described below).
Security: During the course of these inspections, observations
--
relative to protected and vital area security requirements were made, including access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort, and badging. No notable conditions were identified.
Licensee meetings: The inspector frequently attended the
--
licensee's Plan-of-the-Day (P00) meetings, held by licensee management and supervisory personnel at 9:00 a.m., each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, to assess licensee evaluation of plant conditions, status and problems and to review the licensee's plans for conducting certain major plant
'
operations and maintenance activities which require special department coordination and management review.
The inspector also attended Construction Status Meetings and Engineering Status Meetings to assess licensee progress and difficulties related to plant modifications required for restart.
Acceptance criteria for the above items included inspector judgement and requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k), Regulatory Guide 1.114, Technical Specifications, and the following procedures.
AP 1002, " Rules for the Protection of Employees Working
--
on Electrical and Mechanical Apparatus," Revision 22
'
AP 1008, " Good Housekeeping," Revision 7
--
AP 1037, " Control of Caution and DN0 Tags," Revision 2
--
No items of noncompliance were identified, however, the following specific coments apply to observations made during plant tour.
-
,
.
-7-The inspector toured the 'B' Decay Heat Removal (DHR)
--
Vault and 'B' Building Spray Vault area on March 24, 1981.
In the 'B' DHR Vault, the inspector noted that the area was poorly maintained.
Trash and loose pipe lagging were being improperly stored in the space.
The base of the
- 1R pump was covered with several layers of rust.
The floor drain of the space appeared to be clogged and the drain was in need of preservation.
Due to incomplete modification on the DH pump remote oiler system, spare pieces of piping and fittings were found laying loose in the vault..In addition, a fire extinguisher that appeared to come from another part of the plant was observed in the 'B' DHR vault with a past due inspection. sticker.
In the 'B' spray vaulf, it was observed that the walls and floor were in need of painting.
Conditions of both areas were noted to the Operations and Maintenance Director TMI-1, and a subsequent tour has shown improvements in both spaces' conditions.
During the inspection period the inspector noted that a
--
second portable fire extinguisher bottle had not been weighed within the proper time (i.e., every month).
The observation and location of the bottle was noted to the Lead Fire Protection Engineer TMI-l and the discrepancy was corrected.
The inspector then reviewed the monthly weight checks of a larger number of CO2 extinguisher bottles and concluded that the above findings were isolated cases.
The inspector observed and reviewed documentation associated
--
with Corrective Maintenance Job Ticket C2875 (Inspection and Replacement of Worthington Steam Driven Emergency Feedwater Pump Turbine Bearing EF-U-1).
The inspector discussed the maintenance activities with the two mechanics performing the work and found.both individuals to have a good knowledge of the Worthington Technical Manual W-9-C, diagrams being used at the pump and written procedures to be followed.
The inspector reviewed all maintenance documentation associated with the work and found it to be completed in accordance with plant proceduras.
The inspector observed and reviewed completed Surveillance
~
--
Procedure 1300-3KA/B, " Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Pump Functional Test and Reactor Building Emergency Cooling System Valve Operability Test," Revision 6, dated March 31, 1980.
The surveillance was reviewed for compl'eteness, that the test was beir.g reviewed in accordance with approved procedures and that appropriate corrective actions were initiated if necessary.
The inspector discussed the procedure with the operator performing the test and control room operators and found each individual demonstrated a good working knowledge of the procedure.
{
i
_
_ _ _ __
E
.
.
,
.
-8-The inspector had no further observations related to plant tours.
,
4.
In-Office Review of Licensee Even_t Reports (LER's)
The inspector reviewed the LER's listed below, which were submitted to the NRC Re'gion I office,' to verify that the details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of cause and the adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector determined whether further information was required from the licensee, whether the event should be classified as an Abnormal Occurrence, whether the information involved with the event should be submitted to Licensing Boards, whether generic implications were indicated, and whether the event warranted onsite followup.
The following LER's we re reviewed:
LER 80-13/03L-1, dated March 13,1981 (A pressurizer code
--
safety val *c e s tested and found to open at a pressure below the setpvint limit; the cause of improper lifting was undeter-minable by the licensee)
LER 80-019/03L-0 (The "A" and "B" battery room smoke detector
--
monthly surveillance test was not performed due to inadequate implementation of administrative controls)
LER 81-001/03L-0, dated February 18, 1981 (While in long-term
--
cold shutdown conditions, during a limited plant heatup, two leaks were found in the 1-inch bypass line around MU-V-17, which is an abnormal piping system degradation; one leak was caused by localized pitting attack and the other was due to cyclic fatigue propagation of an initial root weld defect)
LER 81-002/03L-0, dated March 3, 1981 (While performing
--
surveillance testings of snubbers, three failed to lockup; snubber failures caused by faulty parts were replaced)
LER 81-003/03L-0, dated March 30,1981 (A fire wall between
--
ESAS switchgear room and the relay room was breached as planned due to a core bore for containment isolat. ion modifications)
The above LER's were closed based on satisfactory in-office review.
5.
Exit Interview Meetings were held with senior facility management periodically during the course of the inspection to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 1,1981, and summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the findings.
t