IR 05000289/1989014
| ML19325D899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1989 |
| From: | Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325D898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-14, NUDOCS 8910270133 | |
| Download: ML19325D899 (9) | |
Text
..
- q
,
-
,
+
"
'
.,
,;.
,
- .
,,;
,
i
'
.
,
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
, REGION 1
o i,
,
.
Docket / Report No. 50-289/89-14 License: 'DPR-50
.
(*
Licensee:-
GPU Nuclear Corporation j
~
P. 0. Box 480 i
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
,
Facility:
Three Mile Isla.1d Nuc, lear Station, Unit 1 i
,
Location:
J',iddletown, Pennsylvania
Dates:
July 15,1989 August 25, 1989
-
,
. Inspectors:
R. Brady, Resident Inspector, TMI
'
D. Johnson, Resident' Inspector, TMI T. Moslak, Resident Inspector, TMI F. Young, Senior' Resident Inspector, TMI
Approved by:
M 6t/ 6 /91'7
>
,
C. Cowgi'll,(hiyf Date l
.
i Reactor Projects Section No. 4B
!
Division of Reactor Projects
/
I
' Inspection Summajr :
Inspection on July'15 - August 25, 1989 (Inspection
,
Report No. 50-298/89-14)
.
Areas Reviewed: The NRC staff conducted routine safety inspections of power-operations activities. The inspectors reviewed plant operations and maintenance / surveillance as they related to safety.
Specific items reviewed included spent fuel ultrasonic examination, and licensee action on previous
+
inspection findings.
Results: Plant operations were conducted in a safe manner. Operator response
- to the event that resulted in the loss of the "1F" circulating weter pump was r
good.
Licensee initiatives to identify potentially leaking fuel pins to prec1ede their use in future refuelings was noteworthy.
Licensee action to
resolve previous inspection findings was timely and adequate.
~
,
8910270133 891010 PDR ADOCK 05000289 r
Q PDC
'
.
_ _ _
.
[2li
- , a?
l:
'
". ' "
i
'
'
.
<
.
.:
g
.
ik l
y
'
<
,,
V :
,
>
'
C: r
\\ \\I
'
L.
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
,
,
g Pagg
,
11~.0 Introduction and Overview
................
,
1.1 Licensee Activi ties.................
,1.2' NRC Activities
...................
1.3 Persons Contacted..................
I'
'
'2.0. Plant Operations......................
2-o
~2.1 Faci 11tyilnspection (NIP 71707)............
2.2:. Circulating Water Pump Motor Failure
........
,
1. 3.. Operations Summary
5
.................
3.0 Equipment Operability
..................
> -
3.1 Surveillance Observations (NIP 62726)........
'
3.2. Maintenance Observations (NIP 62703)
I
........
'4.0 Spent Fuel Ultrasonic Testing Examination (NIP 71707)
S'
..
5'0. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (NIP 92703)
.
.
5.1-f(Closed) NC4 Violation.(50a289/88-18-02) Technical
>
Specification Violation Involving Pressurizer
- Cooldown Rate In Excess of Limits..........
,
,
5.2'.(Closed) NC4 Violation (50-289/88-17-01) Failure to p
Review Temporary Procedure in Fourteen Days.....
,
L
.,
6.0 Managen,ent Meeting (NIP.30703)..............
e
,
,
(
l l
'
'
i u
l D
r-
.
-
-
r
,
'
'
.
,
.
'
'
<
.
,
,
.[ \\
'
DETAILS I
1.0 Introduction and Overview 1.1 licensee Activities The licensee operated the plant at full power during the report o'
period.. No major plant transients occurred. As of August 25,1W9, the TMI reactor was at 100 percent ponr.
(
1.2 NRC Staff Activities f
The purpose of this inspection was to assess licensee activities for reactor safety, safeguards and radiation protection.
Tne inspectors made this assessment by reviewing information on a sampling basis through actual observation of licensee activities, interviews with licensee personnel, or independent cciculation and selective review of applicable documents.
Inspections were accomplished on both normal and back shift hours.
NRC staff inspections are generally conducted in accordance with NRC-Inspection Procedures (NIPS). Thase NIPS are noted under the appropriate section in the Table of Contents to this report.
Back shift inspections were accomplished during the following periods:
s Day /Date Time Sunday, July 16 2:30 pm 9:30 pm
-
Sunday, July 23 8:30 pm 10:30 pm
-
Sunday, August 20 7:00 pm 9:30 pm
-
Tuesday, August 22 6:00 pm 8:30 pm
-
!
1.3 Persons Contacted
- G. Broughton, Operations / Maintenance Director
--
J. Colitz, Manager, Plant Engineering
--
J. Fornicola, Manager, Quality Assurance
--
- H. Hukill, Vice President and Di ector, TMI-1
--
- B. Knight, TMI-1 Licensi,3
--
1,
- M. Nelson, Manager, Safecy Review
--
- M. Ross, Plant Operations Engineer
--
H. Shipman, TMI-1 Operations
--
l
L l
l l
<
r
-
-, - -
-
,-
ww,
.
__
. l
,
~}
.
..
'
ss.
.
..
t.
,
D. Shovlin, Plant Material Director
'<
--
"P.:Snyder, Manager, Plant Material Assessment
--
- C, Smyth, Manager, Licensing
--
,,,
l J. Stacey TMI Security
--
b. Hassler, TMI-1 Licensing
--
- C. Hartman, Manager Plant Engineering
--
- T. Seaver, QA Auditor
--
,
- Denotes attendance at final exit meeting (see Section 6.0)
2.0 Plant Operations 2.1 Facility Inspection
The resident inspectors routinely inspected the facility to determine the licensee's compliance with the general operating requirements of Section 6 of Technical Specifications (TS) in the following areas:
<
review of selected plant parameters for abnormal trends;
--
plant status from a maintenance / modification viewpoint,
--
ir.rluding pihat 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 practicer;
--
imple;aentation of radiological controls; and,
--
implementation of the security plan, including acce-
.ntrol,
--
boundary integrity, and badging practices.
In general, the inspector determined that the licensee, from a housekeeping and fire protection pe rs ective, was maintaf ning the r
<
plant in good condition. Overall, management attention toward plant safety was noted.
Specific areas in the area of plant operations warranting closer review are addressed below.
2.2 Circulating Water Pump Follure On August 11, 1989, the plant experienced a minor electrical upset due to the loss of one circulating water (CW) pump.
Six CW pumps are employed at TMI-1 for main condenser coo'ing and normally, all are
.
running. At approxirately 1:06 am, the output voltage of the "B"
$
auxiliary transforroer momentard b cipped.
This transformer normally surplies one of two vital 4160 volt buses; the "D" 4160 volt safety a
.
, -
.c, w
4'[
+
,
,
i y
,
o
L
[
D related bus,.and the "C".4160 volt non-safety related bus. Several (
undervoltage relays on : he vital
"D" 4160 VAC bus tripped because of f
the voltage dip, however, voltage drop was not long enough or of a
. large enoug' magnitude to cause the associated diesel to start.
It is postulated tnat the. transient was less than 1,5 seconds.
The turbine automatically ran-back to approximately 95% power and seve.al
'
'
other pieces of plant equipment were also lost.
Several alarms were noted on secondary plant equipment such as'the main generate stator
.
-
coolant system, main generator hydrogen seal oil system, the station battery ground, and the IE inverter. Various ventilation system fans and the running spent fuel cooling pump stopped.
The operators i
assessed the problem and restored the equipment that was lost except for.the "1F".CW pump.
Subsequently, reactor power was restored to 100% at 3:00 pm on August 11.
,
Licensee review of the event revealed that the "1F" circulating water pump, (CW-P-1F) experienced a phase to phase sbt,rt. The CW pump failure caused the voltage drop noted above.
Licensee review
indicates that the. electrical distribution system responded appro-priately.
However, the licer see initiaten a review of this event
,
'
to determine the root cause of the eroblem and assess plant perfor-mance.
.
.
.The inspector attended the PRG meeting conducted to evaluate this event. The licensee preliminary conclusion is that ir.sulation
'
breakdown and the close proximity of 1 cad conductors in the motor was the probable cau::e of failure.
The inspector discussed the event with plant engineering personnel, i
It was acknowledged that the CW pump ($ non-safety grade load off a non-vital 4'60 volt bus) was a significant load and that a large overcurrent condition could cause such a voltage drop.
The inspector i
'
reviewed the.plar.t response with operaticns personnel and observed a
'
normal primary plant response to this transient.
It was also ob-served by the inspector and the licensee staff that an almost iden-tical transient occurred on the same pump when the motor developed a short in the motor wirings on November 8, 1987 with approximately the same result.
Licensee and NRC staff evaltution of this previous problem concluded that plant response was as expected.
Visual inspection of the damaged motor indicated that the motor was removed incorrectly. At one point all three phases had been wrapped to-gether.
Pump vibration had caused chafing of the wires at this point resulting in the pLase to phase short.
The licensee is planning to
,
visually inspect the remaining circulating water pump motors to L
ensure proper motor winding.
The inspectnr had no further ques'. ions regarding this event.
t
_
_
-.
D
- ,2 r
,,
,
,
'o O
,_
. :
l
,
,
l
...
i
.
.
2.3 Operations Fummary
I,
!
Operations continue to be conducted in a safe manner. Operator
'
response to the loss of the circulating water pump was good in that a i
major plant transient was avoided.
'
3.0. Surveillance and Maintenance Activities On a sampling basis, the inspector selected a surveillance and
..
maintenance activity to ensure tnat specific programmatic elements described below were being met. Details of this review are documented in the following sections.
3.1 Surveillance Observations c
.
.
The iaspector observed perforraance of the following su willance test to determine that: the test conformed to Technical Specification requirements; administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained before initiating the surveillance; testing was accomplished by qualified p?rsonnel in accordece with an approved pocedure; test instrumentation' was calibrated; limiting conditions for operations were met; test data was accurate and complete; removal and restora-
-
tion of the affected components was properly accomplished;. test
,
results met Technic 1 Specification and procedural requirements; deficiencies noted were reviewed and appropriately resolved; and the
'
surveillance was completed at the required frequency.
,
This observation included:
,
Surveillance Procedure SP 1303-5.1 RB Pressure ESAS Testing On
--
August 4, 1989 No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.2 Maintenance Observctions The inspector observed portions of selected maintenance activities to determine that the work was conducted in accordance with approved proctdures, regulatory guides, Technical Specifications, and industry codes or standards. The following items were considered during this revien: Limiting conditions for Operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and QC hold points were established where required; functional testing was performed prior to declaring the particular component (s) operable; activities were accomplisi.ed by qualified personnel; radiological controls were
.
implemented; fire protection controls were implemented; and the equipment was verified to be properly returned to seavice.
,
.
--
--
- -.
p'
~
l Q.-
w
,
,
,
a -
.
,.
.
.
1
"
e g
h These observations included:
--Repair of NS-V-ISA Motor Operator on August 1, 1989
'
No una meptable conditions were identified, d,0 Spent Fui. 1"trasonic Testing Equipment e
During this inspection period, the licensee contracted Babcock & Wilcox
.
Field Services to rwform ultrasound (UT) inspec+1ons of spent fuel stored
'
L in the spent fuel pool.
The UT technique is used to detect potentially E
failed or damaged fuel pins'.
This technique is based on sound attenua-tion. A damaged fuel pin will contain water in the cladding fuel inter-face.
The water in this area will absorb much of the generated sound i
puls;. such that the return signal will be necessarily weaker than that of
_"
an undamaged fuel pin.
The licensee intends to reuse nine. fuel assembliss during the cycle 8 refueling outage. The UT inspection ensured that the fuel assemblies being reinserted irto the cort were not leaking. The nuclear engineering
>
group has earmarked 26 assemblies from three batches, with keff ranging from 1.05 to 1.07, for potential reinsertion.
Tests done on these
,
assemblies showed no leaking fuel pins. The licensee tested an additional 127 assemblies 0 53 total) to collect more data to evaluate the fuel pin leakage model, and in conjunction with the B&W owners group core perfor-mance group, evaluate fuel performance.
'
Thirteen piris in ten essemblies were determined to be leaking.
The licensee plans to perform visual inspections of these assemblies. The licensee is developing a color camera with zoom capabilities for this task. Also, the licensee plans to perform UT fuel inspections of all fuel to be loaded in the cycle 8 refueling outage.
Inspector observations of the fuel UT-process found the licensee in control of the evoiution. Conditions required by Technical Specification (TS) for fuel movements in the spent fuel pool were in place.
Nuclear Engineering department verified all fuel movements.
Thc inspector concluded that the licensee's initiative to locate i aking fuel pins and t
evaluation of fuel performance is notable.
5.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The inspector reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings to ensure that the licensee took appropriate cction in response to the l
findings or by self-initiative and that the licensee's action wa: timely.
l l
.-
...
..
-
-
,
=
-
-
-
,
f
!.,
,6
,
y;;
'
,
[
%4 E
Q" ' s 5.1 (Closed) NC4 (50-289/88-18-02) Technict1 Specification
,
~
H, Violation Involving Pressurizer Cocidow'n Rate in Excess of
.
F
,Limiy
'
This violation concernea.an RCS heatup evolution where the allowable
>,
heatup rate was exceeded during a one hour period. The plant was
being heated up using three reactor coolant pumps following an outage on September 25, 1988.
The heet up rate was being calculated by both the centrol room operator and the STA sing the plant computer and
+
. control room indications. The problem was basically due to the STA
.
~ miscalculating the heatup rate using the compeer indications.
The problem was discovered after a shift turnover ar.d a re-review of
previous shift'cata.
The heat up rate had increased to 55.6 degrees F per hour which is in excess of the allowable F3 degrees F per hour.
'
Licensee corrective action iaciuded additional training to sensitize operators and STA to utilize more formal commur.ications when conducting plant evolutions that could potentially exceed setpoints.
Additionally, procedures for plant heatup and cooldown were revised to be more specific on how heatup and cooldown rates were to be calculated.
Finally, the computer displays were modified to display
,
heatup rates on 30.ninute averages and to specify the rates in degree
,
F per M er vice per minute to eliminate unnecessary calculations.
The inspector reviewed changes to the appropriate procedures OP 1102-1 and 1102-11 plant heatvp and plant cooldown, to verify that additional guidance was included. Additionally, the inspector
-
verified that the computer displays matched the procedures.
From
,
discussions with several license operators the inspector noted a good
'
understanding of the problem and the corrective action.
l Based on the above, licensee corrective action for the plant heatup
.
violation was adequately implemented and this item is closed.
5.2' (Closed) Violation NC4 (50-289/88-17-01) Failure to Review Temporary Focedure Change in Fourteen Days-Thi; violation concerned a change made to a maintenance procedure 1410-1.4 for work on reactor coolant pump seals, which was not reviewed and approved in 14 days as required by technical specifica-tions. The viciation also noted that licensee procedures permit this practice.
The licensee corrective action included retraining by maintenance personnel on the requirements of Aomini::trative procedure AP 1001 A " Procedure Review and Approval" whicr specifies the above technical specification (TS) requirements. This was completed and the records review by the inspector indicated adequate completion of this action. The licensee noted in the violation rerponse that the requirements for formal review and approval of changes is contained in AP1001A vice the maintenance procedure 1407-1. Therefore, no
.-.
-
.-.
.
.
-
.
e:-
sA.""I,t~
..
,
.
.
q:
,
.
procedure changes were necessary. The inspector considered licensee corrective action for this violation was adequate and this item is closed.
6.0 Management Meetino i
The inspectors dis ussed the inspection scope and findings with licensee management weekly ano at a final meetir.g on September 1,1989. Those personnel marked by an asterisk in paragraph 1.3 were present at the final
' management meeting.
,
b
i P
o p.,
,
I l
l l
l'
-...
_..
_