ML20205E865

Suggests Listed Guidelines for Conducting Two Performance Appraisal Team Insps After TMI-1 Restart.Effort Will Require Considerable Coordination Between Region I & Headquarters. Proposes Initial Meeting in Dec 1985

ML20205E865
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/28/1985
From:	Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20205E869	List: ML20205E865 ML20205J455 ML20206G402 ML20206G407
References
FOIA-86-293 NUDOCS 8510310601
Download: ML20205E865 (6)

Text

n. Octcber 28,1%5 C -

, , j;, ) ., .

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Richard W. StarostIcki, Director

(, $

Division of Reactor Projects g .

Region I P FROM:

James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs j4 4[9 Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

V 90 ,M PERFORMANCE FOLLOWING RESTART APPRAISAL TEAM (PAT) INSPECTION f ,,

The Executive Director for Operations, in his memorandum to the Conrnissioners c r '

of June 5,1985, comitted to performing two PAT inspections after TMI-I / /

restart, one at the six-month point and another at 12 months. In addition, ff f/

PAT report be issued at the conclusion of each inspection.theT m require considerable coordination between Region I and Headquarters.This effort 3 For this will purpose, of how toI bestpropose an initialthis accomplish meeting effort.in December 1985 to work out the details suggest the following guidelines for the conduct of these inspections:As a s 1.

It is assumed that the six- and twelve-month time periods will begin after initial startup of the unit. This would result in the two inspections being conducted in March 1986 and October 1986.

2.

It is assumed that Headquarters and Regional inspectors will be involved in both inspections. The enclosure suggests an inspection scheme that proposes how these inspection responsi-bilities might be divided between Headquarters and the Region.

3.

It is assumed that in each case the PAT report will provide input to the SALP evaluation. This will require that the SALP be r accomplished following completion of the PAT reports - two months after completion of the inspection.

Phil McKee or a member of his staff will be in contact with you to make arrangements for the meeting on this topic.

thoughts or comments please contact me or Phil.If Original you have any preliminary staned by:

James G. Partlett James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution:

DCS ORP8 reading P. F. McKee, IE DI reading R. L. Spessard IE D. J. Sullivan, IE J. G. Partlow, IE L. J. Callan, IE R. H. Vollmer, IE J. M. Taylor, IE h IE: A :0R IE:PkbORPB IE DJSullivan:jj LJCd11an PFMcKee RPB IE:DI:DD IE:b D 10/22/85 RLSpsssard JGPa low 10/22/85 10/yv85 10/ /85 10/g85 n / p

/ J 0 o3/0 "

( M _ _ -

er

l l

1 TMI Restart PAT Inspections

. Areas Inspector 6-month . 12-month

- Plant Operations HQ RI

- Maintenance HQ HQ

' L. censed and non-licensed HQ RI Operator Training J

' Quality Assurance RI HQ Radiological Controls HQ RI

• Fire Protection HQ RI T

• Emergency Preparedness RI RI

• Security and Safeguards RI RI

- Design Engineering and HQ HQ Plant Modifications i

. *These areas have not historically been inspected during a PAT inspection.

9 l

l 1

Enclosure i

!8 a

f i

Rev. 0 2/7/86 1

l l INSPECTION PLAN FOR TMI-I

! Inspection Obfective:

7 The objective of the IE team inspection at TMILI is to assess the operational

readiness of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) sistem and the integrated control i system (ICS). This assessment is to be comprehensive, including, but not j limited to, a determination of the following:

the capability of the system to perform all of the safety functions i

required of it by its design basis and safety analysis; whether the system has been adequately tested to demonstrate that it will perfom all of the safety functions required of it; l

! g [)

g#y,a o whether the system's components (with emphasis on pumps and valves) have been adequately maintained to ensure their operability under all i g l postulated conditions; - p 5 --

whether operator / maintenance technician training is adequate to

)

ensure proper operation and maintenance of the system; l whether the system initiating and control functions are effective and reliable.

1 whether the human factors considerations relative to the system j (e.g., accessibility and labeling of valves) and the supporting

! procedures are adequate to ensure proper operation under all i

accident conditions. *

Background:

i One of the major conclusions from the NRC investigative team that reviewed the June 9,1985 loss of all feedwater event at Davis-Besse (discussed in detail in NUREG-1154) was the extreme importance of adequate attention to detail by licensees with regard to care of plant equipment. Specifically, the opera-tional readiness of safety systems was found to be highly dependent on the

, quality of the maintenance, engineering design, testing of equipment, and evaluation of operating experience provided for system components. Many of 1

the specific safety system weaknesses that led to the June 9,1985 ' event at Davis-Besse had gone undetected by the NRC despite the aggressive implementa-j tion of the MC 2515 Program by NRC Region III.

l I

l h

• An innovative inspection method may prove to be more effecti.ve in identifying the type of problems that can degrade the operational readiness of safety systems. This type of inspection has been termed a Safety Systems Func-tional Inspection (SSFI) and has been performed at Turkey Point, Pilgrim and ANO-I. These inspections emphasized the combining of detailed programmatic and technical inspection expertise into one inspection team. The results have been encouraging. Specific safety concerns were identified that probably would not have been found by separate programmatic and technical inspection efforts. The TMI-I inspection will be based on the same basic approach as previous SSFI inspections.

Inspection Methodology: g

1. Review the design basis requirements for the selected system (s) and determine the operating function under accident conditions under which each or abnormal conditions.

vNi a

a. For valves: What permissive interlocks are involved? What differential pressures will exist when the valve strokes? Will the valve be repositioned during the course of the event? What is the source of control / indication power? What control logic

_ is involved?

b. For pumps: What are the various flow paths the pump will experience during accident scenarios? Do the flow paths change?

What permissive interlocks / control logic apply? How is the pump controlled during accident conditions? What suction / discharge pressures can the pump be expected to experience during accident conditions? What is the motive power for the pump during all conditions?

c. For instrumentation: Is the instrumentation of adequate range and accessibility for operations to control the system under normal and abnormal conditions? Do initiation and control systems function as designed?

2. Review the design of the selected system (s) as installed in the -

plant.

a. Determine if the as-built design of system modifications matches the current design basis requirements (e.g., are fuses and thermal overloads properly sized? are current D.C. loads within the design capacity of the station batteries?, etc.),

b. Determine if system modifications implemented subsequent to initial licensing have introduced any unreviewed safety questions.

3. Review the maintenance and test records for the selected system (s),

a. Determine if the system components have been adequately tested to demonstrate that they can perform their safety function under all conditions they might experience in an accident situation.

- ----- ~ - - ----

b. Determine if the system components are being adequately maintained to ensure their operability under all accident conditions (e.g., are limit and torque switch settings proper?

is the instrument air system adequately maintained to ensure the reliability of pneumatic valves? are fuse and thennal overload l sizes correct?, etc.).

T

4. Perform walkdown of selected systems.

I

a. Determine if components are labeled and accessible (can the components be operated locally / manually if required?

)9P AA i HP/ security interference?, etc.). is there j 4 j ( ,w,Md.

v~ ~

b. Determine if MOV operators and check valves (particularly plug- b@ @g '

type) are installed in the orientation required by the manufacturer.

i

c. Determine if system lineup is consistent with design basis weel 4 requirements. Included in this lineup should be considerations W > "" ~4 of the nonnal and backup power supplies, control circuitry, Gs o indication and annunciation status, and sensing lines for 7, . y

• instrumentation. ,

5. Review abnormal, emergency, and normal operating procedures; maintenance

procedures; and surveillance procedures for the selected system (s).

l a. Determine the technical adequacy of the procedures.

b. Determine if the procedural steps for normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions are consistent with the design basis,

c. Determine if operations and maintenance personnel receive adequate

training pertaining to the selected system (s) and if the degree of

training provided is consistent with the amount of technical detail j included in procedures.

6. Review the operational experience of the selected system (s) (LERs, NPRDS, 50.72 reports, enforcement, maintenance work requests, etc.).

• j a. Determine the historical reliability of the system and its  !

components.

l

! b. Determine if the licensee has aggressively pursued, identified.

and corrected root cause problems. l

]

c. Determine the extent of the maintenance backlog and ascertain if t

the licensee has a program to ensure that priority safety-

related maintenance is perfonned in a timely manner.

4 Inspection Team Composition and Assignments: Coverage of Items

\ Joe Callan - Team Leader l Tom Martin - Maintenance 3. b. S.a 6.c l George Morris - Design Changes and Modifications 1, 2 l Gary Overbeck - Design Changes and Modifications 1, 2 l

'. Al Saunders - Design Changes and Modifications 1, 2

- E. T. Dunlap - Design changes and Modifications 1, 2 Jim Smith - Training 5.c Don Caphton - Operations 5.a. b Dave Trimble - Surveillance 3.a. 5.a Dennis Sullivan - Quality Programs 6.a. b Art Howell - System Walkdown 4 Jeff Sharkey - System Walkdown 4 Dates of Principal Inspection Activities March 3-7 (Saunders, Dunlap, Morris, and Overbeck only), March 10-14, March 20-21, Mar 24-27.

Inspection Routine and Policy Working hours will start at 7:30 am daily with one hour for lunch.

Team meetings are expected to be held each Mon., Tues., Wed., and Thurs.

from 4:30 to 6:00 pm.

A double spaced typed draft of each inspection area must be submitted to the Team Leader by April 3. The finished report must be out by April 30.

Logistics Reservations for team members listed in this inspection plan have been made at Americana Host Inn, Harrisburg.

Travel wf11 be POV throughout the inspection, doubling-up from motel to site, as appropriate.

i J

t

_ . _