IR 05000320/1978029
| ML19224A277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Coleman W, Haverkamp D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224A276 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-78-29, NUDOCS 7812010282 | |
| Download: ML19224A277 (15) | |
Text
-
-
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
Region I Report No.
50-320/78-29 Docket No.
50-320 License No.
DPR-73 Priority _
Category B2
--
Licensee:
Metrocolitan Edison Comoary P. O. Box 542 Readino, Pennsylvania 19603 Facility Name: Three Mile Island auclear Station, Unit 2 Inspection at: Middletown and Reading, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:. September 14-15 and 19-22,1978 Inspectors:
hY w d
,so//?l~?,9 amp,[eacto/Inspecta'r}
R. Ha e date signed rM
/C/E7W W'. E. 'Cbleman, Reactof Inspector date signed Ydsw
/d//7/78 L. H. Ba t
_n
, Reactor Ins ector date signed g
f, #1
/b - / ~7-78 i
[T.A. rem 6 ski,R or spector date signed
,
Approved by-h
/p- /g - pg R. K
.1
, Chi Reactor Projects date signed Section '. 1, NS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on Seotember 14-15 and 19-22,1978 (Report No. 50-320/78-29)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by 4 regional based inspectors of preoperational test results; startup test results; power ascension test (witness); administrative controls for safety committees; licensee followup to IE Circular 78-08; plant operations - tour of selected areas; and, followup to a previous inspection finding. The inspection involved 4 inspector-hours at the corporate office and 59 inspector-hours on site by three NRC regional based inspectors and one inspector-trained.
o-<ults:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
t 7812010 M }
!
I 2.237
-
-
.
%
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Comoany
- Mr. M. Bezilla, Unit 2 PORC Secretary Mr. K. Bryan, Unit 2 Shift Foreman Mr. J. Chwastyk, Shift Supervisor Mr. J Floyd, Unit 2 Supervisor of Operations Mr. D. Huffman, GRC Member Mr. S. Jules, Unit 2 Mechanical Maintenance Foreman Mr. G. Miller, Station Superintendent Mr. W. Potts, Supervisor of Licensing
- Mr. J. Seelinger, Unit 2 Superintendent - Technical Support Mr. R. Sieglitz, Senior Engineer - Unit 2 Maintenance General Public Service Corocration Mr. C. Gatto, Lead Mechanical Test Engineer Mr. T. Hawkins, Assistant Test Superintender.t Mr. J. Poje, Test Engineer Mr. R. Toole, Test Superintendent Babcock and Wilcox Mr. J. Flint, Startup Test Engineer The inspectors also interviewed several other licensee employees during the inspection. They included control room and plant apera-tors, technical and engineering staff personnel, licensing engineers and general office personnel.
denotes those present at the exit interview on September 22, 1978.
- 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinas (Closed) Inspector Followup (320/78-13-01): TP 200/11, TP 200/12, TP 330/5 and SP 710/2 have been rerun with four reactor coolant pumps.
The test results were reviewed by the inspector, as described in Para-graphs 3 and 4 of this report.
This item is closed.
(
l
.
I?.;2361
-
..
..
3.
Precoerational Test Risults Verificatien The inspector reviewed the results of the following tests.
TP 200/6, Reactor Coolant Pump Initial Operation (Retest)
--
(MTX 146.9)
SP 710/2, Cor.crolling Procedure for Post Fuel Load Precritical
--
Tasting (MTX 147.38)
ine tes.
..ults were reviewed to veri fy the following items.
Test summaries an; evaluations had been performed by the
--
cognizant engineer., and test results had been compared with established acceptance criteria.
Approval of the test results by those personnel charged with
--
responsibility for review and acceptance had been documented, and if the offsite committee has audited the test package, that their comments are included and corrective action has been taken if required.
The inspector used one or more of the following acceptance criteria for the above items.
Final Safety Analysis Report
--
Test Instruction 18, Test Procedure Documents
--
.
Regulatory Guides
--
Inspector Judgement
--
Quality Assurance Program
--
_
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Precoerational Test Results Evaluation The inspector evaluated the results of the following tests.
--
TP 200/11, Reactor Coolant Pump Flow Test (MTX 146.10)
--
TP 200/12, Reactor Coolant Puma Ficw Coastdown Test (MTX 147.6)
.
$
$
2.239
_
_
.
.
TP 272/1, Main Feed Pump Functional Test (MTX 67.12)
--
--
TP 330/5, Control Rod Drive Trip Test (MTX 38.7)
TP 600/5, Nuclear Chemical Addition and Sampling Test (MTX
--
15.7)
The results were evaluated to verify the following items.
Test changes had been approved in accordance with administrative
--
procedures, properly entered into the procedure, accomplished if actions were necessary, and did not change the basic objectives of the test.
-
Test deficiencies had ocen resolved, accepted by appropriate
--
management, retest conducted if required, and any system or process changes necessitated have been properly documented and reviewed.
--
Test summaries and evaluations had been performed by the cognizant engineers, and test res_Its had been compared with established acceptance criteria.
"As-run" copies of the test procedures contain completed data
--
sheets (sample), data are recorded when required and are within acceptance tolerances (sample), test deficiencies noted received appropriate review and evaluation, and individual test steps and data sheets have been properly initialled and dated.
Approval of the test r: ults by those personnel charged with
--
responsibility for review and acceptance has been documented, and if the offsite review committee has audited the test
_ package, that their comments are included and corrective action has been taken if required.
The inspector used one or more of the following acceptance criteria for the above items.
Final Safety Analysis Report
--
Technical Specifications
--
.
-
i E$. %?401
.
.
_
_
"
.
.
Test Instruction 7, GPU Startup Problem Report
--
Test Instruction 9, Conduct of' Test
--
Test Instruction 13, Test Interface Instructions
-
!
--
!
Test Instruction 18, Test Procedure Documents
--
Regulatory Guides
--
Inspector Judgement
!
--
Quality Assurance Program
--
,
Findings were acceptable, except as noted below:
i
-
TP 600/5, Nuclear Chemical Addition and Samolino Test
--
Problem Report 2700 requires completion to verify sampling flow from SN-20 on the outlet of the RC Evaporator.
This item is unresolved pending licensee closecut of Problem Report 2700.
(320/78-29-01)
TP 272/1, Main Feed Pumo
--
Exception E-27 requires additional information from TP's 800/7, 8 and 9 regarding flow data from the main feed pumps at greater than 1.3 X 106 lbs/hr.
The required information will be annotated in sections 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 of TP 272/1.
This item is considered unresolved pendino inclusion of this data.
(320/78-29-02)
TP 330/5, Control Rod Drive Trip Test
--
The acceptance of Exception E-13 in the procedure is based on stests performed prior to TP 330/5.
This exception involves operability verification of the in-limit lights for Control Rods 5-9 and 6-7.
No problem report was written to assure l
,
completion of testing these limit lights.
I
-
This item is unresolved pending licensee completion of appropriate testing.
(320/78-29-03)
\\
'
,
,
.
_
-.
,
%
5.
Startuo Test Results Evaluation The inspectors evaluated the results of the following test.
TP 710/1, Revision 0, Zero Power Physics Test, completed
--
April 17, 1978
,
TP 800/32, Revision 0, Loss of Off-Site Pcwer, completed May
--
19, 1978 The test results were evaluated to verify the following items.
Test changes were approved and implemented in accordance with
--
administrative procedures and did not change the basic objec-tive of the test.
Test deficiencies and exceptions were resolved and accepted by
--
appropriate management, retest requirements were completed, and any system or process changes have been properly documented and reviewed.
--
The cognizant engineering group has evaluated the test results and signified that the testing demonstrated that the system (s)
met design requirements.
The licensee specifically compared test results with established acceptance criteria.
"As-run" copies of the test procedures contain completed data
--
sheets and the results were within acceptance criteria.
Test holdpoints and signoffs were completed.
Approval of the test results by those personnel charged with
--
the responsibility for review and acceptance has been documented.
The following specific aspects of the Low Power Physics Testing Program were reviewed.
Source and intermediate range overlap
--
Moderator temperature reactivity coefficient at various rod
--
configuration; and boron concentrations Control rod reactivity worth determinations
--
.
i i
2.242
-
-
.
Boron reactivity measurements for the All Rods Out configura-
--
tion Pseudo stuck Rod Worth determinations at various control rod
--
configurations The inspector reviewed the data sheets and calculations for deter-mining the above parameters and compared the results with the licensee's acceptance criteria.
Licensee evaluation of test level plateau is contained in TP 800/21 with authorizations to proceed to the 15% plateau.
The inspector's findings were acceptable.
6.
Power Ascension Test - Witness
.
a.
Scoce and Purpose The licensee's performance of TP 800/36, Revision 0, Shutdown from Outside the Control Room, was witnessed on September 19, 1978. The inspectors verified that the appropriate revision of this procedure was available and in use by the test crew members, that the test crew manning requirements were met, and that special test equipment required by the procedure was in service. The inspe: tors also verified, on a sampling basis, that the test prerequisites were met and applicable technical specifications were satisfied.
_
b.
Overall Crew Performance The inspectors witnessed test crew performance of the test at the Control Room, the Startup Patch Panel, the Emergency Feed Pump local station and the Makeup System local station.
The
.
inspectors verified the-following items.
The test was performed as required by the procedure.
--
Test crew actions appeared to be correct and timely
--
during the test and there was adequate coordination.
.A short summary analysis was made that proper plant
--
responses had occurred.
All data were collected for final analysis by proper per-
--
sonnel.
\\
l 2.243
.
-
--
.
The inspectors noted that the initial station conditions were properly established and the procedural st eps were satisfac-torily completed.
During observation in the Control Room, the inspector moni-tored the test by means of the communict.tions circuit estab-lished for the test.
The inspector also verified that no control room manipulations were made that would invalidate the test results.
During observations at the Emergengy Feed Pump, and the Makeup System local stations, the inspector noted that designated plant operators arrived promptly and correctly p.erfcrmed their assigned functions.
During observation at the Startup Patch Panel, the inspector determined that crew emergency actions conformed with the test procedure requirements.
Instructions from the Shift Foreman were concise and proper. The test procedure and plant schematics were available and properly utilized.
Direct observation of unit parameters at the Patch Panel showed all values within predicted ranges for the duration of the test.
c.
Test Results The purpose of the test was to demonstrate the ability to remove sensible and decay heat from the reactor coolant system with control of all systems remote from the control room.
The test was initiated in accordance with the prerequisite condi-tions.
Review of test results showed that the reactor coolant system temperatura could be safely controlled from locations outside the control room.
The inspectors also compared recorder data with inspector-logged data for accuracy and compliance with acceptance criteria.
d.
Test Deficiencies The inspectors critiqued the. test with licensee representa-tives immediately after the completion.
Three deficient areas were addressed, as described below.
.
I 2.244
_
_
Several equipment deficiencies were found during the
--
test'and work requests were promptly prepared to correct them.'
A procedural error concerning the remote tripping of the
--
Reactor and Turbine was identified and a procedure change was prnperly initiated.
The local pu;h button station for MU-V-376 proved to be
--
relatively inaccessible, and a field questionnaire was issued to the AE for resolution.
e.
Findinas No items of noncompliance were identified during the test Wit-nessing.
7.
Administrative Controls for Safety Committees The inspector reviewed the Unit 2 Plant Operations Review Committee Meeting Minutes for meetings #254 (February 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10,1978)
through #271 (June 5, 7, 8 and 10,1978) and the Unit 2 Generation Review Committee Meeting Minutes for meetings 78-02 (February 22,1978)
through 78-18 (August 31,1978). The onsite and offsite Safety Re-view Committee Meeting Minutes were reviewed to assure that the com-mittees satisfied requirements for meeting frequency, quorum, subject matter and menbership.
Acceptance criteria for the inspector's review included requirements of applicable Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedures.
Finding were acceptable unless otherwise noted below.
--
Technical Specification 6.5.2.7 states that a quorum of GRC shall consist of the Chairman or his designated alternate and at least 4 GRC members including alternates.
Technical Speci-fication 6.5.2.4 states that no more than two alternates shall participate as voting members in the GRC activities at any one time.
During the seventeen (17) GRC meetings held since Unit 2 fuel loading, some inconsistencies with the above requirements were noted by the inspector.
Present at one meeting were the Chairman, only three GRC members and no alternates. At another meeting, there were two members and three (voting) alternates present, plus the Chairman. At three meetings there were four members and alternates present, plus the Chairman, however, a member and his appointed alternate were both present and included to satisfy minimum quorum requirements, i
2.245
-
-
.
.
Licensee management representatives stated that additional qualified members would be appointed to the GRC to assure that quorum requirements are met during future meetings.
The inspector statad that the items described above were consi-
'
dered isolated examples of nonconformance with specific require-ments or generally accepted practices concerning offsite committee quorums and the use of alternates.
Due to the frequency and scope of these meetings, and the fact that required reviews were conducted at meetings which met quorum requirements, this matter is not considered to be an item of noncompliance at this time.
This iten is unresolved pending NRC review of licensee actions to assure compliance with GRC quorum requirements (320/78-29-04).
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.; states that the GRC shall
--
review meeting minutes of the PORC.
Technical Specification 6.5.1.8 states that the PORC shall maintain written minutes of each meeting and copies shall be provided to the GRC Chairman.
Written minutes have been prepared and approved for PORC Meetings #254 through #271, covering each weeks meetings for the pericd of February 6 - June 10, 1978.
The GRC has reviewed the minutes of PORC Meetings #261 - #264, but has not yet reviewed the previous and subsequent minutes.
The rough notes of PORC meetings since June 10, 1978, were available for review at the site, but have not yet been formalized and provided to the GRC Chairman.
Technical Specification 6.5.2.11 states that minutes of each GRC meetin approved and forwarded (to management)g shall be prepared, within 14 days following each meeting. The inspector noted that there is no similar specified period for preparing and forwarding PORC meeting minutes, or for reviewing the minutes by GRC.
However, the existing delay in preparation and review of the minutes is considered to be excessive compared to generally accepted practices.
Licansee representatives stated that measures would be taken to prepare, submit and review the minutes of past PORC meetings and to continue the administrative processing and review of future PORC minutes in a timely manner.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of the licensee's actions during a subsequent inspection (320/78-29-05).
(
l l
2. 2 m
.
,
_
-.
.
.
8.
IE Circular 78-08 Followup a.
Scope and Puroose The inspector reviewed the licensee's followup actions re-garding IE Circular 78-08, " Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at Nuclear Power Plants,"
dated May 31, 1978.
The review included discussicas with licensee personnel and review of selected records at the cor-porate office.
The review was conducted to verify satisfactory completion of the following items.
The circular was received by appropriate facility manage-
--
ment.
A review for applicability was performed.
--
Responsibility has been assigned for reviewing referenced
--
material of the circular.
Plant circur.. stances have been compared, or scheduled for
--
comparison with the lessons identified in the referenced material.
Applicable corrective actions have been identified and
--
completed or scheduled for completion.
Acceptance criteria for the above review included inspector judgement and requirements of applicable Technical Specifica-tions and Administrative Procedures.
b.
Background IE Circular 78-08 described specific deficiencies in safety-related electrical equipment, and requested each licensee to ensure that they have appropriate qualification documentation for certain electrical components at their facility.
The circular and referenced material identified the following areas of special concern, as related to safety-related equip-ment under postulated accident conditions.
Connectors:
environmental qualification data.
--
environmental qualification of the penetra-
--
tion assembly.
I i
!
2.247
-
,.
-
.
.
--
Terminal Blocks:
environmental qualification of terminal blocks located within terminal block enclosures and without terminal block enclosures.
Limit Switches:
environmental qualification of valve
--
travel limit switches and stem mounted valve position limit switches on containment system isolation valves that provide valve position indication to the control room operator.
Cable Splices:
environmental qualification of electrical
--
cable splices inside containment.
Splices associated
~
with electrical penetrations and splices in any safety-related cables.
Environmental Qualification:
temperature, pressure,
--
humidity, chemicals, radiation values, duration of testing and other appropriate parameters used in the qualifica-tion program.
Electrical Transmitters:
electrical transmitters located
--
within containment such as those used for pressure, flow, level and tenperature that are required to be operable during and after the Postulated Accident, must be environ-
.
mentally qualified.
Motors: motors used on pumps, fans, valv; operators and
--
other components located within containment that are required to be operable during and after the Postulated Accident must be environmentally qualified.
c.
Findings IE Circular 78-08, and the material referenced therein have been received by the licensee, and a review fo. applicability including comparison with plant circumstances has been initiated for both Units 1 and 2.
Some component problems and appl'icable corrective actions, as a result of licensee review of IEC 78-
-
08, have been identified and reported via Licensee Event Reports to NRC:I.
During this inspection, the inspector informed licensee re-presentatives that the conclusion that their electrical equip-ment / component installation is acceptable requires quantitative support.
Examples of such support include the following i tens.
(
,
I 2.248
-
-___
,
-
-
.
,
.
--
Certified test data correlated t DBA environment Manufacturer's specifications, purchase specifications, and
--
manufacturer's certification of cor.formance Correlation of installation to qualified installations, in-
--
cluding comparison of enclosure and component size, materials, fieldwork and orientation (horizontal, vertical)
Representative inspection of "As Is" installation, documenting
--
the quality of terminations / splices and the integrity of en-closures (ex:
checks made for open boxes, missing bolts, multiple and cramped terminations on terminal blocks, inade-quate conductor bend radii, conductor jacket / splice / terminal lug integri ty, etc. )
Definition of expected effect of irradiation and of aging,
--
including quantitative supporting data Results of engineering review which document the specific
--
reasons for concluding acceptability History of performance (insulation resistance, instances of
--
shorting)
Licenses management representatives acknowledged these coments, and stated that their review of IE Circular 78-08 was scheduled for completion by November 30, 1978.
T inspector stated that the licensee's actions and responsivenes. are acceptable to date, and that a detailed review of the licensee's followup to the circular, including the basis for conclusions, would be :en-ducted during a subsequent routine inspection.
This item is unresolved (320/78-29-06).
9.
Plant Tour At various times during September 19-22, 1978, the inspector toured accessible plant areas, including the Control Room, Auxiliary Building, Control Building and Fuel Storage Tank Building. The tours were con-ducted to verify compliance with selected Technical Specification LCOs and Adminstrative Controls and facility procedure requirements for material storage, housekeeping, and fire protection.
acceptable, unless otherwisa noted below.
Findings were
,
,
_
i
-
,
l
l O
2. 2..
.
During a tour of the Control Building, on September 19, 1978,
--
the inspector noted that excess material was located in Switch-gear Room #2 and Battery Room #2.
The excess items included two UE&C CO2 fire extinguishers (last inspected March 2,1978)
combustible cloth material and rope and unused switchgear pro-tective covers. The items were removed from these rooms prior to completion of the inspection.
The inspector noted that material storage and cleanliness conditions in Switchgear Room #1 and Bat-tery Room #1 were acceptable and had no further questions con-cerning this item.
Several portable facility fire extinguishers were missing from
--
their assigned locations, as depicted on Burns and Roe drawing 2380, General Arrangement Control and Service Building, and Surveillance Procedure 2104-6.1, Revision 4, " Fire Protection System," Appendix C - Location of Portable Fire Extinguishers.
The inspector reviewed records of the last monthly portable fire extinguisher inspection performed August 30, 1978.
Some ex-tinguishers were identified as missir.g during that inspection and reportedly were replaced.
The inspector verified that some of these missing extinguishers were at the proper locations, but others were again missing at the time of this inspection. A recent QC audit identified similar problems regarding control of portable fire extinguishers. The audit findings have been scheduled for generic correction, but were nat yet closed.
Prior to the end of this inspection, a licensee representative stated that the monthly inspection was completed (earlier than scheduled)
and all missir.g extinguishers were located or replaced with sub-sti tutes. Additionally, measu es will be taken to ensure ade-quate control of fire extinguishers in the future.
-
This item is onresolved pending NRC review of the adequacy of the licensee's corrective actions during a subsequent inspection (320/78-29-07).
Durine i tour of the Fuel Storage Building, on September 20, 1978,
--
the ins?9ctor observed an unplugged piping penetration. Two fuel storage tanks are located in th2 building, separated by a one-foot high concrete dam. The dam is provided for fire protection.
In the event of rupture of one tank, and subsequent burning of fuel oil, the dam is designed to contain the fuel oil in the affected (
'
23. 2$55C)
~
_ -.
meee--e--
- - - - - -
,.!
-
-
.
half of the building and thus protects the non-affected tank.
The fuel oil storage tank cross-connect pipe passes through a hole in the dam. The area between the pipe and the dam penetration was not plugged, thus defeating the purpose of the dam.
During a telephone conversation on September 27, 1978, a licensee representative stated that GPU Field Questionnaire #2649 and Burns and Roe ECM S-9085 had been issued to correct this it.am.
The inspector hao no further questions concerning this item at this time.
.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 4, 7, 8 and 9.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 22, 1978. The in-spector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings. Additional findings were discussed during a telephone dis-cussion between the inspector and a licensee representative on September 27, 1978.
,
.
m 0. N$.