IR 05000289/1990009
| ML20043A354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1990 |
| From: | Anderson C, Woodard C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A348 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-90-09, 50-289-90-9, NUDOCS 9005210239 | |
| Download: ML20043A354 (6) | |
Text
.
>
, --
.
.,
,
t DIUC}I8 $ !RA
""
'
R flhso Q.66Lt d Q[.f ( E im) --
y.:0;?aus);
g
,
M O A h _ _..-
W...ip440-
'
( E **.c.c; '"a; (h2) *
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION I'
?
,y Report No,. 50-289/90-09 l
Docket No, 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation-P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Unit l'
.l
Inspection ~At: Middletown Pennsylvania
'
Inspection Conducted: ' April 4-6, 1990 Inspectors:
//
Afr/90-
!
C. H. Woodard,_ Reactor Engineer, PSS/EB
'
date
!
. Approved by:
Reis (1 LW 4&/10 C. J. Anderson, Chief, Plant Systems date--
Section, EB, DRS i
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 4-6, 1990 (Inspection Report No. 50-289/90-09)--
'
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection to address the licensee's I
t-actions taken to address unresolved items identified during ' previous NRC
!
Inspection 89-13.
These items ~ involved questions of operability,. testing and maintenance of motor operated valves and concerns for maintainingithe quality of the emergency diesel generators fuel oil.
j Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
<9005210239 900509
!
PDR ADOCK 05000289
,,
.,
O PDC
!
t
i
'
L
.
^
<
,
,
-
.
.
DETAILS-I 1.0, Persons Contacted
'
<
~
1.1 General-- Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) Corporation E. Fuhrer, Manager Plant Chemistry i
',
- D. Hassler, Licensing Engineer
-*H. Knight,' Licensing-Engineer
'
C. Kaylor,: Manager Planning
- L. Lucas,' Chemist
- R. Maag, Manager Plant Material
'*M.. Moore, Materials Engineer
- J. Stacy, Manager Plant Security
- R. Wells, Licensing Engineer
"
-
"R. Zimmerman, Plant Engineer-
'
1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
+
F.-Young
..,
- D. Johnson
'
- R. Brady d
- Denotes those present at the' exit meeting
'
.-
2.0' Licensee's Actions on Previously Identified Items i
,
2.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-289/89-13-01,- Controls For
!
Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Torque Switch Settings During inspection 89-13, the NRC inspectorLfound that=the-licensee _.
-
relies on previous test data to determine the requireditorque switch:
settings.
These results were not. documented'in a controlled document to ensure that the correct setpoints'are maintained. The4setpoints and the corresponding thrust values _were retained in uncontrolled
=}a files located in the maintenance shop. ~As a c'nsequence, this-o situation could lead to the use of obsolete setpoint values'during a
maintenance.
' During this inspection,. the inspector reviewe'dcthe: corrective' actions taken by the licensee to resolve' this-item. - The. inspector reviewed the steps, interfaces and controls used by maintenance in performing z
work on an MOV which could affect setpoints. The inspector also discussed with engineering and planning ~pers'onnel a current Work
~
'
-Request (#756501) which involves the installation _of new Belleville d
spring packs and MOV testing. The inspector found that the licensee.
>
has established control of the MOV setpoints by including the-main-
'
tenance of these MOVs in their GMS-2 computerized maintenance
_
. program. The setpoints were established and. confirmed by cognizant engineering personnel and entered into this program.
By being a part l
,
of the GMS-2 Program, MOV input data including setpoints are-l i-i-
]
u
&
-
'
^T fa
,
=f
m
.
.
,
.
,
+
w e
q
'
.
-
3;
<
?
j controlled. : Any changes require ~ approval by designated personnel l
- with GMS-2 access capability. _ Output in the form lof read-out and i
print-out are availablecto' maintenance,: planning and'others who haves
!
the GMS-2-terminals. Therefore, when,a MOV work request package isL
'
- generated, the GMS-2-system provides;the. current MOV data' including.
- i setpoints.
.The inspector considered the licensee's corrective actions adequate. This'
item is closed.-
'
"
'
.
-
..
2.2 (0 pen)-Unresolved. Item No '50-289/89-13-02-Demonstration of MOV Operability
!
Ouringinspe'ction89-13,theNRCinspectordetermthedthatftestinglof:
i the MOVs under conditions of_. maximum-differential pressure or certain d
other testing means with appropriate justification is, required to -
demonstrate MOV operability. -In addition, MOV operability anust be:
.
,
assured during conditions of. degraded. grid voltage.
The inspector determined that,the licensee was not' ready,to~ address;
-[
-close out of MOV operability under conditions of maximum differential #
t pressure.L Regarding operability-under conditions of' degraded grid!
voltage, the-licensee had completed calculations to, demonstrate'
-
operability with an. assumed minimum MOV termina1xvoltage of 75% off nominal.< This calculation was considered by the license'e to be.
conservative and was considered _ adequate to, demonstrate' operability.
However, a later calculation of the effects of degraded grid voltage; which reflected actual MOV terminal-. voltage.had not been-factored into the-MOV operability report. The above: items remain _'open pending the licensee's completion' of their-evaluation of these issues'
a
>
q 2.3 (Closed) Unresolved Item No. 50-289/89-13-03 Retesting Guidelines for Motor Operated Valves (MOV)
During inspection 89-13, the inspectors observedL that.-licensee pro- ~
I cedures do not identify the circumstances'which prompt the: retesting; of MOVs. Certain corrective'and preventive maintenance' activities-
'
can influence the as-left conditions of the MOV settings.-
..=
..
a Previously, the cognizant' engineers' determined the retestingLshould a
!
be based on the MOV. maintenance performed without' documented guide-L
" lines.
The inspector determined that the licensee has now established "MOV Retest Criteria" by Memorandum 3330-89-0047 'LAI-89-9134' dated July
!'
25, 1989. The following activities are included in the criteria which require retest:
,
e4
.
b
- '
. -
s,
.
.
--
-
-
3:
lS
,I..
,
,
-
,
,
%
r.,
..
s
,
s,_
.
,
,
L4
-
,
,
,
,
,
Repacking of the-valve l
Replacement of-the torque switch-
- -
- '
Any major. work on.the" valve itself Replacement of the worm gear-a Replacement or readjustmentfof the spring pack or: spring'
cartridge cap.
The inspector found.that the followinglMOV maintenance ~ procedures-have been revised.t'o. incorporate theLretest. criteria.-.
t 1420-LTQ-1, ReyL13_- Troubleshooting Limitorque Valve Operatbrs
- .
and. Control = Circuits,; Removal. and Replacement' of LLimitorquel.
Valve Operators _
'
>
.;
1420-LTQ-2, Rev 11 - Limitorque Operator, Limit Switch ancic
'f
Torque Switch Adjustments-1420-LTQ-8, Rev 2 - Limitorque Valve Operator' Disassembly and-
- Reassembly
'
E13, Rev. 19 - Limitorque Valves
~
,
The. inspector considered the licensee's' corrective' actions adequate.
This item is~ closed.,
j r
2.4 (Closed) Unresolved' Item No. 50-289/89-13-05,' Emergency Diesel'
Generator Fuel Oil Concerns l
The inspector questioned replenishing.EDG fuel oil by thel use of the local truck fill connection for; fuel storage tank 0F-T-1.
The-
concern was that the licensee's_ analysis of'new fuel takes approxi-mately two weeks. Fuel deficiencies could-lead _to' the common mode failure of the EDG units.
l The licensee addressed this item'in; Diesel Generator Operating Pro-cedure 1107-3, Revision 50.
It clarifies that.new fuel is not-L normally delivered into EDG storage tank DF_-T-1, but, into the 50,000-
- i
gallon buffer storage tank'F0-T-1.
Fuel:in this tank is=~ routinely'
L analyzed-each week and analysis is made 'for all; new fuel'within two
,
E weeks. By serving as a buffer storage tank, tank'FO-T-1 provides~
reasonable assurance of proper make up fuel to EDG' storage' tank DF-T-1.
Procedure 1107-3 provides an alternate method for filling the-tank using a local fill connection. Also, a precaution: statement is added,
l-in the procedure which requires analysis of the fuel oil prior-to filling the tank.
.
.
.
-
-
i
'
.
w
(,
>
..
...
-
.
,
,
'
.
a Z
Since fuel: oil degrades'with time-and'_. is subject'to contamination -
i from_ various sources, it is important to establish;a program which ensures the continuing quality of-stored EDG fuel oil, The-inspectorf
_
questioned the fact that the fuel oil Stored in the EDG fuel storage-tart DF-T-1 and in the EDG day' tanks is not periodically' sampled to'
ensure quality.: The licensee has addressed this-issue'by performingi~
initial sampling?and' analysis of fuel in these tanks, by taking
'
appropriate actions to : remove contaminants, and byLimplementing
-
Operations Procedure OPS-S393 to periodically sample and analyze fuel
in EDG storage tank DF-T-1.
Also, periodic;samp1_ing and ana' lysis of-
'
' the day = tanks are done in accordance with Procedure 1301-8.2~.
The-
,
L inspector confirmed that the? licensee-has evaluated the need to-use-
l antioxidant' and biocide fuel, additives in the. diesel fuel. and the.
' need for the periodic. recirculation / filtration of the stored EDG fuel
l'
to remove particulates. DRecirculation/ filtration was-performed-in
December 1989.
Fuel additives will:not:be used at-this; time.~ The inspector;had.no further questions in these areas.
l
'
This item is closed.
.
3.0 Emergency Diesel Generator Control Voltage Concern.
>
,
.The, inspector noted that there may be detrimental effects from the loss ~of i
125 Vdc~ control voltage upon EDG. operation orpossible equipment damage.
- under.certain modes-of operation of the EDG. units. The licensee has completed an evaluation of. the' effects of loss of the 125 Vde' control voltage and concludes.that there are no detrimental effects from-this loss ~ and there is little probability of equipment damage. = As a consequence, no changes are -contemplated.at the present time. The-
,
inspector had no further ' questions in this area.
.
l 4.0 Emergency Diesel Generators On-site Fuel Oil Supply Adeq'uacy
,
NRC Information Notice (IN) 89-50 alerted licensees! to the potential.
existence of an inadequate Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) fuel supply to.
_
meet the FSAR and Technical Specification (TS) requirements. The IN.also
>
noted that in several plants, there. were discrepancies between the FSAR
,
and TS basis for the amount of fuel oil required to be available for specific operational requirements for the EDG units.
-
The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation which-was made to address the concerns of.IN 89-50. This evaluation is included in the licensee's internal Memorandum LAI-89-9123, dated Se'ptember 26, 1989' entitled
" Inadequate EDG Fuel Supply." - The inspector determined-from the
,
licensee's evaluation that there is no discrepancy ~between the'FSAR and Technical Specification requirements.
The TMI-1 FSAR states that,
" sufficient fuel is stored to-allow one unit to supply post-accident power
-
requirements for seven days" and the TMI-I TS requires that the
" engineer' d safeguards diesel generators are operable and at least 25,000 e
gallons of fuel oil are available in the storage tank."
For these two
9
=
-
a,
I'
~;
'
-
,
'
. -f(
,
!..
.6
' '
,
r documents to be consistent, at least 25,000 gallonsiof fuel oil are
,
- required to allow one EDG unit to supply post-accident power-requirements.
for seven days,
'
The' licensee's evaluation includes the worst case seven day diesel
.-
generator loading, analysis.. It also assumes the, highest EDG fuel.
consumption rate. The evaluation shows a seven day fuel consumption of:
22,651 gallons which is approximately ten percent less.than the 25,000-gallon minimum fuel oil requirements for'the DF-T_-1-30,000 gallon fuel'
. storage tank.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this issue.
J T,$-NfATJil CEIN E
'
GKilEl LD D UT IGR ILE g!stic3W,11 is liiEil!01BilY LEFT ELAM.
i i
J[f;!-N "
l' 1 C ii. 33 f#E E U M
-
l gy: g,, a !i 12i [0!! ILLIC q
0!$Q0E!., ii iS lii!3iTF$!1tY-l s
LEFT 01Al"!.
6.0 Exit Meeting q
Licensee-management was-informed of the' purpose'and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview.
The' findings of the inspectio.n'
a
..
'
were periodically discussed and were summarized'at the exit meeting on
- '
. April 6, 1990.
'
Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of-this report.
l
'
At no time during the inspection was written material provided -to the~
. s licensee by the inspector. The licensee did not indicate that the inspection involved any proprietary information.
,
l
!
.
'