IR 05000289/1983016
| ML20024E543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Anderson C, Paolino R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E541 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-83-16, NUDOCS 8308150283 | |
| Download: ML20024E543 (6) | |
Text
,.-
.
o U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No. 50-289/83-16 Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
GPU Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 480'
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Parsippany, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
June 13-16,19R Inspectors:
?.h 7/$'/f3 R. J.(/PaolVno, Lead Reactor Engineer da'te signed date signed Approved By:
C. J. Anderson, Chief, Plant Systems date 'igned s
Section, EPB Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted on June 13-16, 1983 (Inspection Report No. 50-289/83-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by one region based inspector at the licensee's corporate office in Parsippany, New Jersey to ascertain whether the licensee has supporting QA documentation for the environmental /
seismic qualification of electrical systems or components procured for use in the TMI-1 restart prog.am. The inspection involved 30 inspection-hours.
Results: No violations were identified.
8300150203 030001 PDR ADOCK 05000209
PDR. m
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ___
____ _ _
_
-
-..
..
....
..
.
o..
e DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 GPU Nuclear Corporation
- P. Boucher, Equipment Qualification Engineer G. Braulke, Senior Electrical Engineer S. Deshmukh, I&C Engineer E. Drendall, I&C Engineer
- R. Guimond, Equipment Qualification QA Coordinator
"R. Harding, Licensing Engineer N. Kazanas, Vice President, QA J. Mahn, Project-Engineer
- F. Maus, Manager, Equipment Qualification A. Rochino, Manager, Engineering Mechanics R. Wayne, Manager, Quality Assurance 1.2 * denotes personnel present at exit meeting.
2.0 Equipment Qualification -- Document Review 2.1 The inspector examined equipment qualification records for modifica-tion tasks identified below to determine whether the licensee has adequate control in this area and to verify completion of commitments /
requirements to install safety grade equipment.-
2.2 Modifications tasks examined for this determination include:
2.2.1 RM-13E, Safety Grade EFW Initiation per DSN PID Para. 1036.
2.2.2 RM-13J,.0TSG Level Safety Grade per NUREG-0680, Supplement 3, Page 37.
2.2.3 RM-13B, Sonic Flow Devices Safety Grade EFW per NUREG-0680
.
Supplement 3 Page 38 and DSN PID Para. 1029, 2.2.4 RM-3B, Safety Grade Trip on Loss of Both Feed Pumps on Turbine Trip per NUREG-0680, Page C2-12.
2.2.5 RM-16,. Emergency Power Supply to Pressurizer Heaters per-NUREG-0680, Page C8-3.
2.2.6 LM-1,'T-Hot Wide Range per NUREG-0680, Page C8-16.
2.2.7-LM-2, T-Sat Meter per NUREG-0680, Page C8-18.
-2.2.8 LM-23, In-Containment Radiation Monitors per NUREG-0680, Supplement 3, Page 41.
.
'I
'r
+T
.
_m_ _ _ _
_- _.. _ _ _ _
.
e
2.2.9 LM-38/43C, Remote Shutdown Panel / Critical Plant Parameters Instrumentation per FSAR Section 7.3, Page 18.
2.2.10 LM-26A, Containment Pressure Wide Range Instruments per FSAR Section 7.3, Page 14 and 15.
2.2.11 LM-8C, Reactor Building Sump / Flood Level per FSAR Section 7.3, Page 15 and NUREG-0680, Supplement 3, Page 51.
2.2.12 LM-26B, Containment Hydrogen Monitoring per FSAR Section 7.3, Page 16 and NUREG-0680, Supplement 3, Page 52.
2.2.13 LM-21A/B, RCS Vent Control per FSAR Section 7.3, Page 20.
2.3 No violations were identified.
However, the inspector noted that not all of the procurement documents and purchase specification for items noted above required vendor compliance with 10 CFR 50, Part 21 or required supporting environmental / seismic test data for so called
"off-the-shelf" equipment purchases.
To correct for this deficiency the licensee has established an Equipment Qualification Prcgram to provide supporting data either by test or analysis to qualify all safety grade equipment.
2.4 For modification Task Nos. RM-13J (level transmitters), LM-2 (pressure transmitters), LM-38/43C (pressure transmitters / level transmitters),
LM-26A (pressure transmitters), LM-21A/B (differential pressure transmitters), qualification is based on a Utility Transmitter Qualification Group Test. The licensee indicates.that the report has been issued but a copy was not available for NRC review. This item remains open pending NRC verification of qualifying test data.
(50-289/83-16-01)
2.5 For Modification Task Nos. LM-1, LM-2 (temperature elements),
LM-38/43C (temperature elements), LM-268, and LM-8C, qualification is based on vendor test data as follows:
2.5.1 LM-1 (temperature element) per Weed Instrument Co.-Report No. 548-8854-2 and GPUN calculations reported in~ calc.
sheet no. 1101X5350-66.
2.5.2 LM-2 (temperature elements) per B&W Report No. ~77-1127001-00.
2.5.3 LM-38/43C (temperature elements) per Weed Instrument Co.
Report No. 548-8854-2 and National Technical Systems.
Seismic Test No. 548-8854-2-D/548-8854-3-D.
2.5.4 LM-26B (solenoid / position indicating switch) per Target Rock Report No. 2375D.
.
W
._.
_ ____ ___ ____ - _
_
_
..
.s l
2.5.5 LM-8C Reactor Building Sump / Flood Level Transmitters are qualified per Wylie Report No. 45700-1 dated December 8, 1982.
u No violations were identified.
2.6 The inspector reviewed the qualification data (test report 950.301)
for LM-23 In-Containment Radiation Monitors. The inspector noted that Section 1, Page 4 of the test report indicates that the cable assemblies (907341) are not qualified.
The report indicates that moisture leakage at the connection point causes excess drain of high voltage power supply and/or shunts current output of chamber resulting in failure of monitor. Specific instructions / design for a qualified cable assembly were not available.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review and verification of a qualified cable assembly for the In-Containment Radiation Monitor.
(83-16-02)
2.7 The inspector met with licensee engineering personnel to discuss adequacy of environmental / seismic qualification for EFW Flow Instru-mentation as described in licensee letter no. 5211-83-128, dated May 20, 1983.
The discussion raised additional concerns resulting in several questions (noted in Paragraph 3.3) to clarify the licensee response to IE Report No. 83-06.
2.8 For Modification Task No. RM-16, Emergency Power Supply to Pressurizer Heater.
The licensee was unable to procure a viable cable for use in the High Temperature / Radiation environment of the Dressurizer Heaters.
Clarification No. 7 of NUREG-0737 recognizes.that the pressurizer heaters are non-class IE loads, therefore, not required for LOCA or to be qualified for LOCA conditions. Class IE circuit breakers are
.used throughout the design and to isolate non-safety portions of the circuit from the emergency buses.
The inspector had no furtner questions in this. area.
3.0 Status of previously Identified Open Items 3.1 (Open) Unresolved Item 83-09-01 pertaining to Seismic Qualification data for Struthers-Dunn Relays.
Qualification data was not available to close out this. item. This item remains open.
-
-
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-
_
.
5 3.2 (Closed) Unresolved Item 82-BC-48 pertaining to the Reactor Building Sump / Flood Level Instrumentation (LM-8C) qualification data.
The inspector reviewed the Wylie Test Report No. 45700-1 which documents satisfactory Environmental / Seismic Test data for the Reactor Building Sump / Flood Level Instrumentation.
This item is closed.
3.3 (Closed) Unresolved Item 83-BC-(1 pertaining to the Seismic Qualification of the EFW Flow Instrumentation (Ril-13B).
The licensee has submitted correspondence (letter no. 5211-83-128)
dated May 20, 1983 in an attempt to clarify the differences between actual configuration installed at TMI-1 and the tests described in the two baseline reports (Dayton T. Brown and New York Testing Lab)
used to qualify the installation.
The content of the letter was discussed on June 13, 1983 in a meeting with cognizant GPU engineering personnel and it was determined that the letter needed clarification in several areas, as follows:
3.3.1
"G" loading of piping at the location of the transducer.
3.3.2 Bases for stating damping valves (3% and 5%) used in Dayton T. Brown (DTB) report are more conservative than 2%
and 4% stated in IEEE-344-1975.
3.3.3 DTB report only covers range from 4 to 25 HZ and not the required full frequency response of 1-30-HZ.
3.3.4 Purchase Specification (PD Nos. 86518, 86057, and 86316)
states transducers and associated components (connectors, cables, clamps, etc.) are expected to function in
" temperature vs time envelope" shown in Attachment I to P.O. 86057, Rev. 2, dated February 6, 1980. Attachment 1 shows maximum temperature of 350 F for 1/2 hour and 250 F continuous.
Cable manufacturer's technical data for the RSS-6-113 cable indicates continuous service temperatures of 110 C (227 F).
3.3.5 The analytical method used for environmental qualification of the EFW flow sensing transducer system.
3.3.6 Comparison of test configuration as shown in photo illustration in DTB Report;versus actual installation.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
___
..
-
O.
%
a
3.4 The licensee provided additional clarification of the above issues to the inspector on June 22, 1983. The inspector determined the response to be acceptable. This item (para.'3.3) is closed.
3.5 Unresolved Item 3.5.1 Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are identified in Details, paragraph 2.4 and 2.b.
3.6 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Details, paragraph 1) on June 16, 1983 and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of this inspection.
.
f'.
'
__
_
_-___
.;
_ _ _ _ _
-. - _ _ - - _