ML19322D188
| ML19322D188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1979 |
| From: | Lanning W NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322D187 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8002100034 | |
| Download: ML19322D188 (13) | |
Text
fr. '
l.Annt &
.,. O '
yy TMIta]OB G TMI 1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE 1.
Enforcement Past problems have been identified in the areas c. radiation protection and physical protection.
Radiation protection problems were primarily related to identification and administrative control of radiation /high radiation areas.
The most noncompliances occurred in 1977 (ten infractions /one deficiency) and general improvement has since been noted in this area.
Physical protection inadequacies resulted in civil penalties of $3500 and $8000 being issued 1974 and in early 1976 respectively.
An additional noncompliance was found in June 1976 in the area of physical protection, which resulted in a management meeting.
In 1977 only one infraction was identified regarding TMI 1 physical protection.
No noncompliances were found in 1978 for either unit concerning physical protection.
Noncompliance in other areas has been scattered throughout various areas, and does not appear indicative of major specific or generic problems.
The trend of noncompliances has been down.with 32 in 1976, 29 in 1977 and 16 in 1978.
l 8e v.
8 0 02100 0 M
WE@F U. ;'. :.
,-,e y p..
y 2-I An Immediate Action Letter was issued to the licensee on Se 1977, that required the-licensee to evaluate the need to repair o replace the Decay Heat Removal Pump Shafts,and to perform ad testing, examinations and evaluations of the adequacy of the pu design for this application.
The other management meetings were programmatic meetin the issuance of the operating license.
.t 2.
_ License Event Reports (LERs)
The attached Table A contains a summary of LERs from the date licensing (April 9,1974) through 1978.
Since the unit was licensed for approximately two-thirds of 1974, the numbers in brackets ar e
extrapolations of the 1974 events for a full year.
The downward trend of events caused by personnel errors and d e
procedures should be expected as the nperating staff gains experie and the procedures are subjected to an on going review.The general trend of all LERs appears to be down.
i 3.
General l
The licensee had no major problems identified during. pre operation l
testing or first two years of facility operations.
TMI 1 had a relatively problem-free transition from time of fuel load through completion of power ascension testing.
Capacity factor has since been above average.
i
~
W9 sue
% See e
- +
g -3 f.
??- /.
3-During a recent refueling outage, the scheduled outage time was delayed about one week db_e to problems encountered with the fuel transfer carriage and main refueling bridge early in the outage
, and BWST dome failure found late in the outage.
e 9
4 f.
)
9 e
4 0
1 i
?
~
~
L
- i'..s _W17-EMU
--.45.)s'
~_
As/
/
I [7 TMI 2 OPERATING EXPERIENCE 1.
Enforcement Noncompliance has generally been scattered throughout various areas, and has not been indicative of significant specific or generic problems.
~
~
The total number of items of noncompliance for 1978 was 17; this is comparable to the number identified for Unit No.1 for 1978.
A management meeting was held on February 9,1979 to review the operating history since the issuance of the operating license on Feburary 8,1978.
M 2.
Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
The licensee event reports for Unit No. 2 are givan in Table A.
The numbers in the brackets are extrapolations to a full year from the elevent months of operating experience in 1978.
While no trend can be established, the total number of events for Unit 2 compares favorably with Unit No.1 for the years 1974 and 1975.
3.
General No significant problems occurred during preoperational testing, however, the following substantial delays occurred during startup testing.
e
'/-AT,#"
ia: #_'E
?:-==
f ECCS Actuation on 3/29/78 (LER 78-22/99X)
Ig About 2 week delay'due injection of Na0H
~
ECCS Actuation on 4/23/78 (LER 78-32/99X)
(Also LERs 78-33/1T, 78-34/IT)
Originally installed (first of a kind) Main Steam safety valves failed to properly rescat after lif ting, which led to rapid secondary / primary system cooldown and this ECCS actuation.
Corrective action for event included a 5 month outage for design change and replacement of the Main Steam safety valves.
Atmospheric dump valve bellows rupture on 1/15/79.
Two week delay due replacement of bellows.
/
S ee m
b
- c g..
'A. -
'A ;.ri t,
g s
TABLE A 1/2 RIM Unit No. 1 Unit No. 2 April 19 Feb 9 Cause 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 tili
'1978 g
Personnel errors 19 [29]
11 12 58'I 5
13 [14]
mit Design, manufacturing 7 [10]
16 5
10 """"
6 23 [25]
construction / installation lli External 0
4 5
3 1
0 si Defective procedures 11 [16]
13 4
3 Il 2
I 8 [9]
mini Component Failure 16 [24]
23 19 10 **
11 rth H 13 [14]
\\1ll.
Other 0
9 2
1 II 4
8 [9]
Total 53 [80]
76 47
$1 y
- t 7 1
65 [71]
\\
e O
ENFOR. CEMENT SU:'. MARY GENERAL AREA Of 1976 TMI I 1977 R41 I 1978 T.MI I 1978 E4I 2 NONCOMPLIANCE INF/DEF INF/DEF
,IjyDEF INF/DEF RA0TATION PROTECTION
.- 5/?
10/1 4/1 3/0 PHYSICAL PROTECTION 6/4 1/d 0/0 0/0 REVIEW AND AUDIT 4/2 1/0 0/1 0/0 OPERATIONS 2/2 4/1 1/2 1/1 TF5 TING / MAINTENANCE 0/0 3/0 2/1 4/2 ENVIRONMENTAL 1/2 0/3 1/2 0/0 EMFRGFNCY PLANNING 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 f!RE PROTECTION 1/0 2/0 0/0 2/0 QA/QC 0/0 0/2 -
0/0 3/0 EHFORCEMENT CO.MPARISON 1976 1977 1978 FACILITY _
INF70EF INF/DEF INF/DEF TMI 1 20/12 22/7 9/7 PWR A 13/13 18/11 10/9 PWP. U 29/10
5/1 9/3 14/3
- /
O l
c:
TMIl0 JOB H v
Rush to. Commercial Operation; TMI 2 The milestone of commercial operation is related to financial and tax accounting practices.
NRC has no oversight role in these areas.
TMI 2 received an NRC Operating License on February 8,1978.
Prior to issuance of this license NRC inspection had determined that thr plant was sufficiently completely built and preoperationally tested to allow safe operation.
Subsequent to receipt of the license, the reactor was loaded with fuel and startup testing began.
During the startup testing a five month outage was experienced to replace first of a kind main steam safety valves which did not perform satisfactorily.
On December 30, 1978 when Unit 2 was classified as in commercial j
i operation startup testing at about 95% power was underway.
Inspections did not indicate that short cuts were being taken.
/.-
Q p
}
o
~
Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation Results For Th'ree Mile Island (Unit 1)
The regulatory performance of the THI-1 plant has been evaluated in two ways.
First, quantitative ratings of THI-l and other operating plants were calculated as a function of the numbers and types of noncompliance and licensee event reports (LER's) for each licensee.
Second, IE inspectors were asked to provide subjective evaluations of the safety of each operating plant.
For 1976, the regulatory performance of TMI-1, as reflected in these two types of evaluations, can be summarized as follows:
Overall quantitative rating Average Noncompliance record Average Licensee Events Below Average
' Subjective Inspector Ratings Above Average The quantitative evaluation shows that:
In calendar year 1976 (CY76), NRC inspectors found no violations, nine infractions and four deficiencies in 858 hours0.00993 days <br />0.238 hours <br />0.00142 weeks <br />3.26469e-4 months <br /> of inspection.
The quantitative rating for TMI-1, based upon this noncompliance records, was 0.3 (The quantitative rating indicates the numbers of standard deviations that each plant's performance falls above or below the mean of zero).
The 0.3 ratiig means that the noncompliance record for THI-l was just slightly better than the average plant in CY76.
Similar calculations performed on this CY76 noncompliance data yielded ratings for THI-l ranging between minus 0.2 and p1'us 0.2.
In an update based on the noncompliance records of operating reactor licensees during the first half of 1977, the THI-l rating was minus 0.7.
(Any plant with a rating between minus 1.0 and plus 1.0 is considered average).
s
fl;[..[*v YI
~5 F v-
.g M*%
y.Y (
Based on the number of licensee event reports (LER's) accumulated during CY76, THI-1 was rated minui0.9 in personnel-related LER's, minus 2.2 in proceduralriilated LER's, and minus 2.2 in combined r
(personnel and procedural) LER's.
This means that TMI-1 was below average (i.e., had more of these LER's) than most of the other operating reactor licensees.
The overall quantitative rating for TMI-1, based upon both noncompliances and LER's in CY76, was minus 0.4.
Based upon this overall quantitative rating, the TMI-1 plant would be considered average.
Additional detail on the quantitative rating of THI-1 is provided as.
In mid-1978, NRC conducted a survey in which all inspectors were asked to rate the safety of each operating reactor.
The inspectors were asked to 2.
rate the overall safety (among other factors) of each plant on a scale ranging from " acceptable" to " exceptional." The results of this survey show that:
Based on the ratings of 14 inspectors, TMI-1 was considered safer than 12 of the 15 plants in Region I.
The overall safety rating for THI-1 ranks about No. 10 of the 45 sites considered in the survey.
Nineinspectorsth,[ougttthattherehadbeennochangeinthesafetyof TMI-1 in'the first 8 or 9 months of 1977; 1 inspector thought safety was slightly improved.
Additional detail on the subjective ratings of TMI-1, including narrative comments, are provided as Attachment 2.
4 g
P9' W - ##4 e
Ipl:K.;
~
c.w.-e-
.~m.,
g;7 Quantitative Ratings of iMI.)
Date of Rating Report _
Period _
Regulatory Perfonnance Measurement Rating Feb 77 1976 Noncompliance
+0.3
-2.2 LERs Overall quantitative
-0.4 (Noncompliance + LERs) 0.0 lI Sep 77 1976 Noncompliance
-0.2]
2
-0.2 Overall quantitative
-0.4 Noncompliance (excluding E
0.2 safeguards)
Oct 77 Jan-Jun E
-0.7 1977 Noncompliance
- O E sing " simplified" calculation method.
U 2_/ sing " detailed" calculation method.
U
/
9 e
k
, ' ' - -~~-
n
(($ldQ.
SITE Three Mile Island
./ :
Subjective Ratings of TMI-l m
5 x
DOCKET NUMBER 0-289 P.
ACCEPTABLE EXCEPTIONAL RATING CATEGORIES
.~
DVERALL SAFETY V
~
V c
m e
ATTITUDE TOWARD SAFETY O
cr--
COOPERATION WITH NRC 1
e TECHNICAL COMPETENCE; e
QUALITY OF DESIGN, ETC.
O O
O ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL "1
OPERATIONS 0
=
54ERGENCY PLANNING
/
0 RADIATION CONTROL
\\
c e
=
SAFEGUARDS C
-C QUALITY ASSURANCE
\\
O 0
w NUMBER OF PEOPLE RATING SITE =
14 O
FAti LIARITY OF RATERS klITH SITE (ON 7 POINT SCALE) =
L. = HARDLY AT ALL, / = EXTREMELY WELL)
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE RATERS' LAST INSPECTION =
6.6.
ST8/NGENCY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE (ON 7 POINT SCALE) =
4.7 l.
/ = MUCH LESS DEMANDING THAN THOSE OF OTHER SITES
=
INDICATIONS OF CHANGE IN SITE SAFETY SINCE JANUARY 1977 1 = NO CHANGE IN SAFETY..................
9 2 = SAFETY SLIGHTLY IMPROVED.............
I 3 = SAFETY SUBSTANTI ALLY IMPROVED........
O Il = SAFETY SLIGHTLY WORSE................
d 5 = SAFETY SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE.......~....
O
~
NARRATIVE STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN SAFETY AND OTHER SAhETY CONSIDERATIONS (see next page) u l
' n j,,,,,
s..
~
Power Reactors CY 78 (date inspection began)
Operating Power Reactor 62 Total items of noncompliance 1400 Total inspections 1959 Average noncompliance per reactor (Operating) 21.6 Average number of items of noncompliance per inspection
.7
~
Three Mile Island 2 (50-320) 36 inspections 17 items of noncompliance (Sev 1 = 0, Sev 2 = 14, Sev 3 = 3) 6Y7/A/C n
Three Mile Island 1 (50-289) 26 inspections 16 items of noncompliance (Sev 1 = 0, Sev 2 = 9, Sev 3 = 7) e
.--g, ea e
4 4
h