IR 05000289/1989008

Insp Rept 50-289/89-08 on 890401-0508.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations,Equipment Operability,Emergency Power Sys Operability & Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings

ML20246P366
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/12/1989
From:	Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246P351	List: IR 05000289/1989008 ML20246P347
References
50-289-89-08, 50-289-89-8, NUDOCS 8907200183
Download: ML20246P366 (10)

Text

.

..,

l

'

.

i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

REGION I

i Docket / Report No. 50-289/89-08

'

License: DPR-50 Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation i P. O. Box 480 l Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 -!

l Facility: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1

.

Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania Dates: April 1 - May 8, 1989

..

Inspectors: D. Johnson, Resident Inspector, TMI T. Moslak, Resident Inspector, TMI F. You , Senior Resident Inspector, TMI Approved by:

C. CoWJil1,

~

NEf, Reactor. Projects Section IA iljf T 9 Q D#t'e Inspection Summary:

]

Areas Reviewed: The NRC staff conducted routine safety inspections of power operations activities. The inspectors reviewed the following functional areas:

plant operations, equipment operability (maintenance.and surveillance), emer-gency power systems operability, and licensee action on previous inspection findings.

l

'

Results: . Plant operation activities were conducted in a safe manner. Operator response to the loss of the heater drain pump was good. Quick response averted a more serious plant transient. Maintenance activities were accomplished in a controlled deliberate manner. A review of emergency power. systems revealed no major problems. Minor problems with the emergency diesel generator were being  !

adequately tracked by licensee personnel. Licensee action on previous inspec-  ;

tion findings was completed in a timely manner and adequately documente ..

i

a ,t

J

_ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _

-

.

TABLE OF CONTENT,S_

PAGE 1.0 Introductiota and 0verview............................................ I 1.1 Licensee Activities............................................. 1 1.2 NRC Activities............................ ..................... 1 l 1.3 Persons Contacted................................................ 1 !

2.0 Plant Operations................................. .................... 1 l 2.1. Criteria / Scope of Review (NIP 71707)............................ 1 l 2.2 Heater Drain Pump Transient..................................... 2 l 2.3 Operations Summary..........-.................................... 2 3.0 Equipment Operability Review - Maintenance /Surve111aace.............. 3 3.1 Criteria / Scope of Review (NIP 62703/61726)...................... 3 3.2 EF-P-2B Minor Maintenance....................................... 3 3.3 Pressurizer Heater Repair / Modification.......................... 3 3.4 Station Battery Surveillance............................. ...... 4 3.5 Equipment Operability Summary................................... 5 4.0 Emergency Power Systems ESF Wal kdown (NIP 71710) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.0 Licen:ee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (NIP 92703). . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (289/86-09-04)......................... 7 <

l 5.2 (0 pen) Unresol ved Item (289/88-30-01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I 6.0 Management Meeting (NIP 30703)....................................... 8 i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

.d .

k l

-

.

e

i

. DETAILS 1.0 -Introduction and Overview l ' Licensee Activities j The licensee operated the plant-at full power during the report period. No major plant transients occurred. As of May 8,-1989, the TMI reactor was at 100 percent powe I 1.2 NRC Staff Activities-

'-

The purpose of this inspection was to assess licensee activities for reactor safety, safeguards and radiation protection. The inspectors made this assessment by reviewing information on a sampling basis-through actual observation of licensee activities, interviews with licensee personnel, or independent calculation and selective review of. applicable document NRC staff inspections are generally conducted in accordance with NRC ',

Inspection Procedures (NIPS). These NIPS _are noted under the appre- ;

priate section in the Table of. Contents to this repor )

l 1 1.3 Persons Contacted

'

'

\

l --

G. Broughton, Operations / Maintenance Director I l

--

• J. Colitz, Manager, Plant Engineering- I

--

J. Fornicola, tianager, Quality Assurance i

--

• H. Hukill, Vice President and Director, TMI-1 1

--

• W. Heysek, TMI-1 Licensing Engineer

--

• C. Incorvati, Audit Manager

--

M. Nelson, Manager, Safety Review 1

--

S. Otto, TMI-l' Licensing Enginaer 1

--

A. Palmer, Manager, . Radiological Field Operations' <

--

• M. Ross, Plant Operations Engineer '

--

• H. Shipman, TMI-1.0perations

--

• D. Shov11n, Plant Material Director

--

P. Snyder, Manager, Plant Materia 1' Assessment

--

C. Smyth, Manager, Licensing

• Denotes attendance at final exit meeting (see Section 6.0)

2.0 Plant Operations 2.1 Criteria / Scope of Review I The resident inspectors routinely inspected the. facility to determine I the licensee's compliance with the genera'6 operating requirements of-Section 6 of Technical Specifications (TS) in the following areas:

e ____-_a___-_-___-_ _ - _ _ _ -

-

,

.

--

review of selected plant parameters for. abnormal: trends;

--

plant status from a maintenance / modification viewpoint, includ-ing plant housekeeping and fire protection measures;

--

control of ongoing and special evolutions,. including control room personnel awareness of these' evolutions;

--

control of documents, including log keeping practices;

--

implemes.tation 'of radiological controls; and,

--

implementation of the security plan,. including access control, boundary integrity, and badging practice Specific findings are addressed belo . Heater Drain Pump Transient '

At approximately 9:30 pm on April .2,1989, t.he licensee received several control room alarms indicating the loss of the Heater Drain q Pump 1A (HD-P-1A). Indicati .; in the control room were high bearing temperature and' low motor. amp The control room operator immedi- .. -]

-

ately reduced reactor, power to approximately 82?s and manually stopped the pump. An auxiliary operator was dispatched to inver.tigate the situation. In conjunction, the third heater drain pump'was started, rt toring plant configuration to two operating heater' drain pumps (IB and IC). After the "C" heater drain pump was started, reactor power i was returned to 1009s at approximately 10:30 p Investigation of the pump revealed that the o tor to pump shaft / coup-ling had failed 2nd separated. This was subsequently found to hav been caused by the failure of the pump's inboard bearing assembl j The "A" heater drain pump was subsec,uently repaired and returned to I servic The inspector reviewed and discussed this event with control room personnel and observed plant parameters associated with the transient as indicated on control room' strip charts. All indications were ;

normal. The inspector noted that operator attention and initial re- {

sponse to the loss of the. pump resulted in preventing a more signi-

ficant plant transient. The inspector had no safety concerns rela- ';

tive to the licensee response to this transien j 2.3 Operations Summary Operations continue to be- conducted safely. Surveillance testing and maintenance activities were contrulled by operations personnel so as q not to affect plant operation. The pace.of activities continued to :

be adequately controlled. Operator response to plant upsets and at- l tention to plant parameter changes was viewed as goo . _ _ _ _ _ __

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ --_

3.0 Equipment Op gab _ility Review - Maintenance / Surveillance 3.1 Criteria / Scope of Review The inspectors reviewed selected activities to verify proper imple-mentation of the applicable portions of the maintenance and surveil-lance programs. The inspector used the general criteria listed under the plant operations section of this report. A more detailed review of equipment operability is addressed belo .2 EF-P-28 Maintenance The licensee completed minor repairs to one motor driven emergency l

feedwater pump, as well as a routine oil change. One repair activity l concerned an NRC inspector identified item on the inboard pump bear-ing oile The inboard pump bearing oil reservoir bowl was loose and rotated freely on the support to which it was attached. Addition-ally, the licensee repaired an oil plug on the outboard pump bearing drain line. The repair activities were accomplished without any problem. The oiler was satisfactorily tightened on its mounting pipe, such that the previous free movement, was eliminate The inspector reviewed the activities associated with these repairs, as well as witnessing the actual repair activities. The Job Tickets CR-977 and CN-284 were reviewed and found to be complete and accu-rate. The tagout for the job, No.89-414, was reviewed and several tags were checked to verify proper placement. No discrepancies were noted with-the tagou Maintenance supervision wa:, also present at the work site to assist in the repair activities. Generally, this repair activity was con-ducted satisfactorily in accordance with licensee procedures and ac-cepted practice No safety concerns were generated. The pump was returned to service within the required 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time limit per tech-nical specification .3 Pressurizer Heater Repair /Modifi .ation The licensee has experienced several pressurizer heater grounds in the past several months, which has necessitated removal of several heaters from service and use of electrical jumpers te utilize other heaters in the affected group The heaters that have been experiencing the grounds are in groups 3 and These heaters (nine per group) are normally continuously energized to maintain RCS pressure at 2135 to 2155 psi 'k

.

The licensee disconnected the affected heaters in groups 3 and 4 and substituted heaters from groups 12 and 13, respectively, using elec-trical . jumpers. This temporary modification was reviewed by the in-spector to assure that the aquired heater capaci'c has been main-tained. Technical Specifications for Unit I requirm that Group 7 and 8 heaters (ES powered) contain a minimum of 107 kilowatt (kw). As the group 7 and 8 heaters have not been affected, this temporary modification was verified by the inspector as satisfactor The licensee has postulated that the heater grounds may be due to excessive heat being generated at the heater' bank / connections. New insulation (more efficient) was installed during the last outage and may be causing excessive heat retention and subsequent heater fail-ure. The heaters that have been installed in the place of the failed heaters are being monitored for evidence of potential failure. The licensee speculates that, should additional failures occur, then in-sulation may have to be removed to correct the situatio The inspei. tor review of this problem revealed no safety concern The licensee adequately compensated for the failed heaters using ,

heaters from normally unused groups. The heater groups that must be !

maintained at a minimum kw value were not affected. No other safety concerns were generated as a result of this revie .4 Station Battery Surveillance

On May 4, 1989, the inspector witnessed the surveillance test per-formed weekly on the station storage batteries to verify that the batteries are maintained in a fully charged condition. The test is performed to comply with the requirements of Technical Specif'ication 4.6.2.0 in which measurements are made and recorded for specific gravity, cell temperature, cell electrolyte level, individual cell voltage and battery voltage for each station battery. The inspector )

determined that electrical maintenance personnel performing the sur- I veillance test implemented the latest revision (controlled copy) of Surveillance Procedure 1301-4.6, " Station Storage Battery Weekly."

In witnessing this test, the inspector verified that test equipment calibration dates were current, parameters being measured met ac-ceptance criteria stated in the procedure, and the test was performed .

in accordance with the procedural limits and precaution I This review identified one weakness. The gage used for determining the cell level specific gravity correction factor was difficult to read due to its poor reproduction on a plastic, transparency shee The inspector informed licensee' representatives of this weakness and was assured action would be taken to provide a more legible repro-duction. The inspector had no additional concerns regarding the per-l formance of the surveillance test or the cordition of the station

! batterie _ -_- -

-

.

.

5 3,5 Equipment Operability Summary Ma11tenance and surveillance activities were conducted in a safe manner. Administrative controls for maintenance activities were properly implements. No conditions adverse to nuclear safety were note .0 Eng' geered Safety Features (ESF) System (Emergency Power Systems)

The inspector assessed the operability of emergency power systems based on a review of licensee maintenance (preventive and corrective) and surveil-lance activities to verify that:

--

procedures required by Technical Specifications (TS) are being pro-r ly implemented;

--

surveillance: ~and preventive maintenance (PM) were conducted at the proper frequency; and,

--

machinery history records and related surveillance and preventive maintenance records were retrievabl In addition to discussions with cognizant licensee personnel (maintenance, operation, and engineering), the inspector reviewed selected portions of

-

the following licensee documents and records:

--

Surveillance Procedure (SP) 1301-8.2, ED-G-1A Annual Inspection com-pleted December 13, 1988

--

SP 1303-4.16 EDG Monthly Surveillance completed December 10, 198 Fairbiaks Morse Service Information Letter (SIL) Volume A, Issue 4, Rev. 2 dated 20 February 1989

--

Job Ticket CP-603 Corrective Maintenance Request for Station Bat-teries During the review, the inspector also walked down accessible portions of-the system to verify that system labelling was accurate,: and that systems

~

were lined-up as indicated in the appropriate Operating Procedures (0P),

specifically OP 1107-1 and 1107- The following items were noted during the review:

Two Surveillance Deficiency Reports (SDR) appeared to be unresolved after completion of the above referenced performance of 1301-8.2. One SDR was'

written to note tengine coolant antifreeze was apparently dissolving the paint on the individual cylinder liners. No resolution was noted. Sub-sequent questioning of licensee personnel revealed that the vendor had advised the licensee that the paint or coating on the cylinder liners was

. _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ -

-.

, _

-

)

used to prevent rust during storage or shipping and was not needed for inservice use. This concern was not a problem. The second SDR concerned ]

j a generator shaft to ground voltage measurement that was noted at .38 l volts where the minimum required was 1.0 volt. Only a procedure change 1 was referenced as resolution. Subsequent evaluation by the inspector re- 1 yealed that the above referenced SIL from the vendor had recommended new '

tolerances and measurement methods for shaft voltage. This voltage measurement is an indicator of degradation of the generator bearing in-sulation system. The new values in the SIL indicated that the .38 volt measurement was satisfactory. The next performance of the EW annual sur-veillance will confirm this valu The inspector was concerned that SDR resolution was not adequately docu-mented on SDR's filed in official surveillance procedures. The licensee committed to review their system for tracking unresolved SDR's to see if any improvement in the system can be achieve ;

The second discrepancy noted was that some data for SP 1303-4.16 page E13-3 was circled in red which means out of specification data. No SDR was written or resolution provided. Subsequent investigation revealed that licensee personnel were tracking this out of specification dat Speci*. Ically, the engine crealant delta temperature was specified as "less than 10 degrees F" recommended range. For the two. hour test run, the tem-perature was,in the range of 13-17 degrees F. Th6 licensee responded that the 10 degrees F number was only a vendor recommendation and that more data was being accumulated by both t. is licensee and other Fairbanks-Morse users to revise this number. No resolution has yet been achieve The third item noted in this review was a job ticket work summary for JT CP-603. The summary noted that some discoloration of the positive battery posts for the station vital batteries was observed and it appeared that it was due to battery fluid escaping the battery container in very small quantities. A recommendation was made in the JT summary that possibly, an epoxy coating would be applied to the exterior exposed battery posts to prevent this problem. Subsequent review of the maintenance history re-vealed no other work on the battery post Discussion with licensee engineering personnel, revealed that the battery vendor, C&D Systems, had observed the subject discoloration (darkening)

and viewed it as not damaging to the battery function. They (the vendor)

did not recommend any further action except to take additional data for battery performance. This consisted of recording micro-ohm readings be-tween the positive battery posts. As yet, this data has not revealed a problem. The inspector was satisfied that no concern existed for poten-tial battery degradatio Generally, the inspector noted that surveillance and maintenance was pro-perly accomplished for emergency power systems. No major problems were noted. The only problems related to completely documenting the results of

- -

r ~

.

.

corrective action when discrepancies are noted during the course af main- a tenance or surveillance activities. The licensee will review this item

[ for potential improvemen The inspector had no safety concaras for emer- {

,

gency power system .0 Licensee Action on Pravious Inspection Findings The inspector reviewed. licensee action on previous inspection findings ~to 1 ensure that the licensee took appropriate. action'in response to the find- j ings or by self-initiative and that the l'icensee's action was timel i 5.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (289/86-09-04): Licensee Resolve Definition of Refueling Interval in the Technical Specifications This item-was opened due to the fact that confusing terminology ;

existed in the technical specifications concerning the actual length ;

of time that was to be considered for a refueling interval e refuel- ;

ing period. Technical Specifications Table 4.1-1 used " refueling j period" but the definition table, section 1, defined " Refueling In- I terval". The licensee submitted a technical specification change request and, subsequently, the -NRC staff issued technical specifi-cation amendment #137 on March 22, 198 This change removed the

" refueling period" terminology and added an additional surveillance ,

frequency (E) defined as every 18 months.- The " Refueling Interval" rema1ned at the 24 month duration. This notation is now coasistent throughout the technical specifications. This item is close .2 (0 pen) Unresolved Item (289/88-30-01) Iodine Sampling Technique at the Main Condenser Off Gas The inspector reviewed licensee progress in improving the operation-of the Condensor Offgas Continuous Iodine Sampling System (a stand-ardized equipment designator has not been assigned to this sytem).

The licensee has evaluated several factors that have contributed to inconsistent sampling results. This evaluation has resulted in the following actions:

--

Reducing sampler flow from i standard cubic foot per minute (scfm) to .18 scfm to assure representative sampling through the isokinetic sampling probe

--

extending heat tracing of the sampling lines through the sampler holder to the exhaust port to minimize.the amount of moisture that may infiltrate the sample medi installing additional gaskets in the sample holder to preclude bypass flow paths

--__ -

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

..

An evaluation is ongoing to characterize what effect the various chemical species, resulting from morpholine addition to feedwater, have on the charcoal sampling medi The licensee has also evaluated the degree of iodine breakthrough occurring on sampling cartridges locatei downstream from the primary srapiing cartridge. Test were run varying the sampling times and the amount of cartridges in series. Presently, the licensee is using two cartridges in series and changing samples every three day Upon optimizing the performance of the sampling system, the licensee will evaluate and correct, if necessary, off gas effluent data from TMI-1 start-up ir. October,1985 until such time samples are consi-dered representativ As a result of this review, the inspector concluded that the licen-see's actions were timely and appropriate to adequately resolve these issue .0 Management Meetings The inspectors discussed the inspection scope and findings with licensee management weekly and at a final meeting on May 8,1989. Those personnel marked by an asterisk in paragraph 1.3 were present at the final manage-ment meetin The inspection results, as discussed at the meeting, are summar.ized in the cover page of the inspection report. Licensee representatives dio not indicate any of the subjects discussed contained proprietary or safeguards informatio I

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _