ML20210A532
| ML20210A532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1983 |
| From: | Poindexter T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C045 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705050108 | |
| Download: ML20210A532 (2) | |
Text
__
ATTACHiENT 5 DISTRIBUTION: '
. TMI HQ R/F TMI Site R/F TCPoindexter FAWeller Februa ry 24,1983VLBarrett LGage JWeibe .
MEMORANDUM FOR: Bernard J. Snyder, Program Director TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Thomas C. Poindexter, Project Manager - TMI-2 TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 23, 1983, INSPECTION OF BECHTEL NO. PDLAR CRANE FILES Introduction As a result of accusations made by GPU employees on the existence of certain calculations at Bechtel and the ability of the polar crane to safely perfom various lifts prior to and after the load test, I was asked by Les Gage (NRC) and Joel Weibe (NRC) from the TMIPO (site) to perfom a surprise inspection of the Bechtel calculations used to support their conclusions for the TMI-2 Polar Crane Load Drop Analysis.
The following is a summary of my visit to the Bechtel offices in Gaithersburg, MD on the subject date. ,
l Discussion .
At the request of the TMIPO (site) and concurrence by yourself, f. notified ,
Bob Rider of Bechtel No at 3:30 p.m. that I would be at his office at 4:15 p.m. Upon arriving at his office, I infomed him that I would like to see and discuss the load drop analysis (LDA) and rigging analysis (RA) referenced by the safety evaluation submitte,d to the NRC by GPUNC letter dated February 18, 1983 I was then referred to Rick Jackson, his deputy.
Mr. Jackson called in Ed Smith who had responsibility for the load drop analysis for the test load ar.d Ed Sutton who was involved in the rigging load analysis. After discussing the general thought process used in the ,
LDA with Ed Smith, I then discussed more specific logic paths with Wayne Smith. I saw hard copies of the record of these logic paths that had been developed.
Ed Sutton was the principal person involved in analytical verifications.
I reviewed verbally and visually the calculations that Bechtel had made for a missile shield drop, a test load drop and rigging stress. Although reconfimatory calculations were not made by myself at that time, the engineering approach looked reasonable with the numerical results being l l
h50gCK05000320 o8 8703o9-P omer > .T..M..I..PO..:.N
. R..R.
PDR euwauc h ..T..C..P..o..i j....... n..d e..x te r on> .2A271.83 , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
t
F Sertiard J. Snyder similar to those reported to the TMIPO at various meetings. Specific calculations made for a floor collapse from dropping a missile shield from 24' 4", a drop of a shield onto _another shield fro'm 1.5', and a drop of a missile shield south of the -reactor cavity were reviewed.
The latter concluded that a drop of a missile shield greater than 70 inches would fail the 347' elevation using nil ductility limits of 10 for structural steel. ' A load cell drop greater than 8" would fail the same elevation. A drop into the reactor cavity was not specifically reviewed; however, via discussions with Ed-Smith, a drop into the -
cavity from any height within the load: path is assumed to fail the floor. of the cavity. Mr. Smith stated that no TMI-2 " vital" systems are contained under the cavity fioor that would create problems outside
- of the bounds for leakage, isolati'on, criticality that were evaluated for other areas of the containment.
- I was also showed a telex from Dillon, the manufacturer of the load cell
- that states that the 200 ton rated cell has a factor of safety of 3 for yield and 5 for ultimate. A brief review of the computed vs. allowable stress for rigging members showed that the highest computed to allowable ratio was approximately 2/3 It should be noted that the allowable. values ,
The wire rope also have factors of safety associated with their values.
has a safety factor of 5 Rick Jackson also informed me that Bill Weaver, an ex-Whiting employee who was involved in the initial 500. ton certifi-cation of the polar crane was very pleased about the condition of the crane and its ability to perform the functions planned in the future.
This person has been retained as a consultant to Bechtel and is current a
chairman of the ANSI B30.2 subcommittee according to Mr. Jackson. . ,
. - l i Conclusion l
j I was generally impressed with Bechtel's ability to retrieve the records i in about 30 seconds without any hesitation in showing me anything I asked l' i
for . If NRC would like copies of the calculations or thought process records, Bob Rider requested that we make our requests via Jim Larson of GPU. ,
/s/
1 Thomas C. Poindexter, Project Manager - TMI-2 TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
1 l
l
, - - - - - -,-,------r -~.- ,-s-- - -,,-g n , gr---p- rme-,r, -e-*wy l
- ' l
. " / "% UNITED STATES I' .d Is NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMisstON ATTACHMENT 6
[ M(Y j necion i
- M, y 2 s31 PAnn AvENut .
., KING OF Pausst A. PENN5YLV ANI A 19806 Docket No. 50-320 MAR 141983 GPU Nuclear Corporation .
~
ATTN: Mr. B. K. Kanga Director of THI-2 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
. Gentlemen:
?
Su bject: Inspection 50-320/83-03
~
- f This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. J. S. Wiebe of this office on January 30 - February 26, 1983, of activities authorized by NRC License DPR-73 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Wiebe with Messrs. J. Chwastyk and J. Theising and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures anC representative records, interviews with personnel, measurements made by the.
inspector, and observations by the inspector. -
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Do'cument Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, withiri 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1). The telephone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any request for,un extension of the 10 day period which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.
3 l
t
- 1 * '
- a. .
t ,
GPU Nuclear Corporation- 2 ggg3 ,
No reply to this. letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated. ,
Sincerely,
, Richard . Star s i, Director-Division of Proje t and Resident-Programs E'nclosure:
NRC Region I inspection Report 50-320/83-03 cc w/ enc 1:
J. J. Barton, Deputy Director, TMI-2 J. J. Chawastyk, Acting Site Operations Director J. E. Larson, Licensing and Nuclear Safety Director -
J. J. Bryne, Manager, TMI-2 Licensing J. W. Thiesing, Manager, Recovery Programs E. G. Wallace, Manager, PWR Licensing J. B. Liberman, Esquire G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire --
Public Document Room (PDR) (LPDR) (NSIC local Public Document Room Nuclear Safety Information Center NRC Resident Inspector Comm.onwealth of Pennsylvania Ms. Mary V. Southard, Co-Chairman, Citizens for a Safe Environment (WithoutReport) i e'
P 1
1
. U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I m ICE 34. pR @
~
t,s or
.v;Ih - *: : ' " U:T.D P?D?KIETAM Report No. 50-320/83-03 *
. CLiuJ.Gci. iy =CLiu!Ji3 h'IDi lo CFR 50-320 8.7 80. - -
Docket No.
License No. DPR-73 Priority --
Category C ,
Li,censee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P.0: Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 F[cilityName: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:, Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: January 30 - February 26, 1983 Inspectors: M 3!?k3 J. iebe, Sdnior Resident Inspector (TMI-2) d(te/ signed
&bW K.4prr, R ia ion' Specialist J E3 d(te' signed 6O B. O'/eill / Rad /ation Specialist sh/n date ' signed U A A) A /~
Thonus, al,In ditd si ned ident/ Inspector (TMI-2)
Approved by: uA f[f if_7 K.Faspo, Chief,'ThreeMileIsland-2 Projects d4te/ signed Section, Projects Branch No. 2 Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted on January 30 - February 26, 1983 (Inspection Report -
Number 50-320/83-03) ;
Areas Inspected: Routine safety ins'pection conducted by site inspectors of licensee action on NRC circulars; periodic and special reports; routine plant -
operations; licensee event reports; polar crane; procedures; surveillance activiti'es; health physics review; reactor building entries; and radioactive j material shipments. 'The inspection involved 260 inspector-hours. '
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
i l i
N w l !
l J
i
. - l 1
1 1 i
DETAILS
- l. Persons Contacted General Public btilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation -
- B. Ballard, Sr., Manager, TMI Quality Assurance Modifications / Operations
- S. Chaplin, Licensing Engineer *
- J. Chwastyk, Manager,. Plant Operations
- W. County, Quality Assurance Auditor -
J. Dettorre, Decontamination and Radwaste Task Leader
- G. Eidam, Data Acquisition Manager -
J. Flanigan, Radiological Engineering Manager 4
, E. Gischel, Manager Plant Engineering C. Hansen, Licensing Engineer ., '
L. King, Director, Site Operations ~
- E. Kellogg, Quality Assurance Auditor
- G. Kunder, Manager, Safety . Review Group B. McMullen, Command Center Coordinator
- *J. Marsden, Quality Assurance Engineer J. Quinette, Plant Engineer J. Tarpinian, Decontamination and Radwaste Engineer
- R. Wells, Licensing Engineer -
2 Other licensee personnel were also interviewed.
- denotes those present at the exit interview. .._
- 2. Lic'ensee Action on NRC Circulars Closed 78-18, results of UL fire test. The licensee performed a review of sprinkler locations and actuation temperatures.. The ceramic fibre l blankets referred to in the circular.are not used at TMI-2. l l
Closed 79 '3, die'sel fire pump starting contactors.
The fire pumps.at TMI are of a different model than the types which experienced the contactor problems.
- 3. Review of Periodic and Special Reports
~
Periodic and special reports were reviewed for information relative to the safety of the plant in its current status. The monthly operating r reports for December 1978 through March 1979 and the series of three startup reports were reviewed. No conditions or occurrences adverse to current plant safety were identified. -
- 4. Routine Plant Operations I Inspections of the facility were conducted to assess compliance with ;
general operating requirements of TS 6.8.1 in the following areas: .
l licensee review of selected plant parameters.for abnormal trends; plant ' l 5 status from a maintenance / modification viewpoint including plant- l l
l
i
. i
, p -4
~
- c. It is not clear how administrative procedures AP-1043, " Work
~
Authorization Procedure" and AP-1047, "Startup and Test Normal",
4 should be applied to the refurbishment of the polar crane. The licensee's Quality Assurance. personnel are reviewing this matter.
This item will receive additional NRC r.eview following completion of the Licensee reviews (320/83-03-02).
- 8. Quality of Procedures Submitted for NRC Review The inspector reviewed procedures for reactor coolant system (RCS) draindown which were submitted to the NRC for approval pursuant to Technical Specification 6.8.2. The-NRC disapproved the procedures for the following reasons:
- a. Two procedures (2104-10.1, Operation of Secondary Plant System and .
2104-10.2, Primary Plant Operation Procedure), allowed secondary syst;em pressure to exceed RCS pressure. This situation would
- violate limits and conditions established in existing procedures and also allow plant conditions not permitted by the Safety Evaluation Reports for the RCS draindown.
i b. Procedure 2104-10.2, allowed RCS draindown to below the 328 ft. '
elevation. This is not permitted by the previously approved' Safety i
! Evaluation Report for the RCS draindown.
- c. Procedure 2202-5.5, " Loss of RCS~ Level Indicator", did not incorporate the new RCS standpipe ' level ind cf. tor nor properly
. compensate for RCS pressure on the existing level indicators. .
- d. Procedure 2104-10.1, contained an incorrect valve lineup. '
- e. Other errors included: omitted valve in valve lineup, -
inconsistancies in RCS water level elevations.and' required ,
- l. indications on water level instruments, and a dem'ineralized water i i
path was omitted when isolating demineralized water sources.
This item is considered unresolved pending further NRC evaluation and licensee correctiveaction(320/83-03-03). ,,
- 9. Routine Health Physics and Environmental Review .
- a. Plant Tours -
The NRC site radiation specialists completed routine plant .
inspection tours. These inspections included all radiation i protection control pointh and selected radiologically _ controlled i
areas. Licensee performance in the following areas was satis-factory:
l 1
-- Access control to radiologically controlled areas ,
- I
-- Adherence to Radiation Work Permit (RWP) requirements -
~;.
h
, h :
I j
- g. 5 ,
-- Proper use of respiratory protection equipment .
-- Adherence to radiation protection procedures
-- Use of survey meters including personnel frisking techniques ;
-- Cleanliness and housekeeping conditions ,
-- Fire protection measures.,
- b. Measurement Verification Measurements were independently made by the inspector to verify the
, quality of licensee perfonnance in the areas of radioactive material-l shipping, radiation and contamination surveys, and onsite environ-mental air and water sampling and analyses.
- 10. Reactor B0ilding Entries
- a. The site staff monitored reactor building (RB) entries conducted during the inspection period. The following items were verified on a sampling basis.
The RB entry was properly planned and coordinated to assure that task implementation including adequate as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) review, personnel training, and equipment testing. ,
. ~-
Radiologica,1 precautions were planned and implemented including the use of a Radiation Work Permit (RWP). -
Specific, procedures were developed for unique tasks and were properly implemented,
- b. The site staff reviewed selected documents, applicable procedures, l and RWPs concerning reactor building entries. I Entries 166 through 184 were conducted
- during this inspection period.
During reactor building entry 179, conducted on Thursday, February 17, 1983 command center personnel notified the NRC that two additional workers i were necessary in order to ::upport an in-progress " work package", (M037-
- installation of five ton electric hoist) and the work package had been changed accordingly. The NRC questioned whether the revised work package had undergone appropriate review. Based on the discussion with licensee ;
representatives, and observation reganiing other recentereactor building work activities, the NRC detennined that administrative controls for changes i to work packages are not well understood. The NRC will review the adequacy
- of.the new administrative procedure 4000-ADM-3000.01 TMI-2 Unit Work l'
Instruction, regarding current TMI-2 radiological work activities (320/83-03-04). .
i
- l. _ _ . - _ . _ _ - - , - _ , , . . _ _ . - - --
. , _ ~ _ _ - . _ , - ,
..- .~ .. . - - - - - -- .- ___-
I v.. .
6 .
(. ,
i.
- 11. . Radioactive Material Shipments The NRC site radiation specialists' ins'pected several radioactive material shipments during the inspection period to verify the items listed below.
i .- The licensee had complied with approved' packaging and shipping procedures.. , ,
- -- The. licensee had prepared shipping papers, which certified that the
. radioactive materials were properly classified, described, packaged, 4 and marked for transport.
-- The licensee had applied warning labels to all packages and had-
, . placa rded . vehicles.-
~
l . . .
The licensee had controlled the radioactive contamination and dose rates below the regulatory limits.
L ' Inspector review of this area consis't'ed of (1) examination of shipping papers, procedures,. packages,andvehicles,and(2)performanceof.
radiation and contamination surveys of the shipments which were
, inspected.
i . .
- 12. Unresolved Items, and Inspector Follow -Items Unresolved items are findings about which more information is needed to j ascertain whether it is a violation, a deviation,_or acceptable. An unresolved item is addressed in paragraph 8.
Inspector follow items are inspector concerns or perceived weaknesses in.
the licensee's conduct of operation (hardware or programmatic) that could lead to violations if left uncorrected. Inspector follow items are addressed in paragraphs 7 and 10.
- 13. Exit Interview 4 ,
On March 1,1983, a meeting was held with , licensee representatives .
(denoted in paragraph 1) to discuss the-inspection scope and . findings.
.'