IR 05000289/1975023
| ML19256D565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1975 |
| From: | Davis A, Hannon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D561 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-23, NUDOCS 7910190533 | |
| Download: ML19256D565 (11) | |
Text
.
':I Form 12 J-75) (Rev)
-
.
/
\\
)
'
\\.'
..
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUL\\ TORY CO:CtISSIO::
OFFICE OF INSPECTION CD ENFORCD!E::T
~
REGION I
.
Inspection Report No:
50-289/75-23 Docket No:
50-280 icensce:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No: DPR-50 P. O.' Box 542 Priority:
Rea ding. Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
e
,_
Safeguards ca tion:
Middletown, Pennsylvania (Three Mile Island 1)
_,,
.
,
ype of Licensce:
PUR, 2535 MWt (B&W)
y,.. of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
.
=.-
.
at!
f Inspection:
October 14-17, 1975
-
.
m
-
.
a of Previous Inspection:
September 30, 1975 g-
.eporting Inspector:
[8I 77 [ 7 )
/C
//7d~~
.
-
. 'N. Ifanrion, Reactor Inspector DATE
.cco:panying Inspectors:
None DATE.
DATE DATE
,
ther Accccpenyin;; Personnel:
DATE cviewed By:
h Lu
/4/I/[ 7y'
A. B. Davis, Senior Reacter Inspector DATE Reactor Operations Branch
51 281 7910190b33
.
.
.
.
f
\\
..
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
'-
-
5.i..
Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncomoliance 7"?~?*.*
1.
Violations
=
=..
None identified 2.
Infractions
~
=-
None identified 3.
Deficiencies
-
"
=.:=-
Contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification
[...
a.
6.1.1.1.c, official PORC business was conducted in the absence of a quorum.
(Detail 2)
b.
Contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification
~ ~ ~ '
6.1.1.1.d.7, the following violation of. Technical (
Specification requirements was not reviewed by PORC:
'
.
Failure to record shift checks required by TS Table 4.1-1
in accordance with TS 6.2.1.c and Surveillance Test 1301-1.
(Detail 8.c)
..
_
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Items Not inspected Unusual Occurrences When the inspector arrived onsite, the licensee was in the process of recovering from a dropped rod.
(Detail 6)
,1 Design Changes
~
.
Not inspected
.
1451 282
..
.
.
-2_
)
Other Significant Findines A.
Current Findines
..
1.
Acceptable Areas
,
-
(These are areas which were inspected on a sampling basis and findings did not involve an Item of Noncoupliance, Deviation, or Unresolved Item.)
..
PORC Reviews of Tests and Experiment Res.2.s.
(Detail 3)
a.
b.
Unit Manning Requirements.
(Detail 4)
Review Requirements for Violations by Technical Support c.
Staff.
(Detail 5)
d.
Unanticipated Rod Drop.
(deta'.1 6)
Reactor Coolant Pressure and Temperature Limits.
(Detail 7)
-
e.
f.
Security Requirements for NRC Inspectors.
(Detail 9)
2.
U resolved Items n
(These are items for which more information is required in order to determine whether items are acceptable or Items 'of
" '.
Noncomplianc e. )
,
None identified
.
3.
Licensee Identified Items of Norcomoliance Deficiencies
Contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification Table
..
4.1-3, Item 2, the minimum sampling frequency for the BWST
-
was not met.
This item was correctly identified and evaluated by the li-censee, and corrective action was taken.
No further response to this item is required.
(Detail 8.c)
B.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved (Ocen) Items
-
"
.
Not inspected
'
.
Manacement Interview An exit management interview was conducted at the site on October 17, 1975 with the following licensee personnel present:
/
_-
1451 283
.
.
.
..
~
.
-3-N.._ /
Mr. J. C. Colitz, Unit Superintendent Mr. C. E. Hartman, Vice Chairman, PORC Mr. W. S. Poyck, Coordinator of Services The following items were discussed:
1.
PORC Meeting Prequency Requirements.
(Detail 2)
"
2.
PORC Reviews of Tests and Experiment Results.
(Detail 3)
3.
Unit Manning Requirements.
(Detail 4)
4.
Review Requirements for Violations by Technical Support Staff.
(Detail 5)
!:
5.
Unanticipated _ Rod Drop.
(Detail 6)
6.
Reactor Coolant Pressure and Temperature Limits.
(Detail 7)
7.
PORC Review of Unanticipated Deficiencies.
(Detail 8)
8.
Security Requirements for NRC Inspectore.
(Detail 9)
ll
.
~)
1451.284..
'
..
<
s
\\
-.
e
."
.
e
..e.
t
..e
\\
\\
,
's_.
O
.
.
.
,-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
Discussions were held with the following persons either onsite or at Corporate Headquarters during the conduct of the inspection
,,.
activities documented in this report.
Mr. R. O. Barley, Engineer II
Mr. T. L. Book, Shift Forecan Ms. R. S. Brown, Technical Analyst III, Generation
"
Mr. K. P. Bryan, Shift Foreman Mr. J. J. Colitz, Unit Superintendent
-
Mr. J. R. Floyd, Supervisor, itation Operations Mr. J. F. Fritzer, Staff Engineer Mr. C. E. Hartman, Engineer III
-
Mr. J. G. Herbein, Manager, Generation Operations
Mr. G. A. Kunder, Supervisor, Station Operations Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon, Engineer, Senior I Mr. R. H. Porter, Shift Supervisor Mr. M. J. Ross, Shift Supervisor
-
'
'~'
-
Mr. M. A. Shatto, Engineer, Associate I Mr. H. B. Shipman, Engineer I, Generation m.m 1
y Mr. J. Stacey, Security Specialist
,
F
'~
2.
PORC Meetine Frecuenev Recuirements
_
The inspector reviewed the following records to verify that the frequency and quorum requirements for the Plant Operations Review Committee had been met during the period of July through August
""
1975:
_
7.-;
--
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 289 dated July 1-3, 1975.
~
a.
b.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 290 d'ated July 7-11, 1975.
c.
Minutes, ' PORC Meeting No. 291 dated July 14-18, 1975.
~d.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 292 dated July 21-25, 1975.
e.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 293 dated July 28-31, 1975.
-
f.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 294 dated August 4-8, 1975.
'
g.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 295 dated August 11-15, 1975.
'
h.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 296 dated August 18-22, 1975.
"
i.
Minutes, PORC Meeting No. 297 dated August 25-29, 1975.
j.
Superintendent's Operating Memo No. 6, Revisien 5, dated September 5,1975; Onsite Members of the PORC.
k.
Letter, Arnold to Herbein, Off site PORC Membership, dated December 5,1973.
1.
List of PORC Members and Alternates dated September 5,1975.
-
1451 285
..
.
.
y-5-
)
,
/
The inspector noted during his review of the cinutes, that some meetings were apparently being held sithout a quorum present.
Specific examples identified included meetings reported in Minutes Nos. 289, 291, 292, and 294.
By discussions with li-censee personnel, the inspector was advised that the meetings,
,
- ..
in question in Minutes Nos. 289, 291, and 294 were actually subcommittee meetings end did not require a quorum.
The li-censee stated that the procedures recommended for approval in the meeting under question in Minutes No. 294 were subsequently approved by the Unit Superintendent, who is a PORC member and fulfilled the quorum requirement, although he was not present at the meeting where the procedures were discussed.
The inspector also reviewed Reading NCR 75-01 dated August 26,
-
1975 and Reading NCR 75-06 dated September 29, 1975, where two of the above discrepancies (291 and 294) were identified.
=
Corrective action for the nonconformance reports has been to cor-
"
rectly identify subcocmittee meetings in the minutes, and attempt to insure that a quorum is present prior to conducting official.
PORC business.
~'
.
!
The conduct of official PORC business in the absence of a cuorum
e is contrary to the requirement of TS 6.1.1.1.c uhich states' in
'
,
part, "The Chairman or Vice Chairman with three other members shall constitute a quorum."
This item is a deficiency.
.
3.
PORC Revieus of Tests and Experiments Results The inspector reviewed a draft of the Semi-Annual Report for the
-
months of July and August dated September 17, 1975.
Ther were
apparently no tests or experiments conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(a) that would have been reviewed by PORC during July and August.
Unit Manning Recuirements The inspector reviewed the following records to verify that at
least two NRC licensed operators were at the unit during July and
~~
August, that one of the operators was in the control room, and
,
that one of the operators held a Senior Reactor Operator's License:
Daily Attendance Sheets, July 1,1975-August 31, 1975.
-
a.
b.
Shift Assignment dated August 11, 1975.
Control Room Operator's Log, July 1, 1975-August 31, 1975.
.c.
d.
Operator Licenses posted outside Control Room.
-
i451 286
-
-
.
~
.
<-
-6-O Discussions with operators on duty confirmed that the unit is and has been manned by the required licensed personnel.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
5.
Review Requirements for Violations by Technical Suecort Staff The inspector reviewed the following records and conducted inter-views with appropriate corporate personnel to verify that the corporate technical support staff reviewed items of noncompliance relative to applicable federal statutes, codes, regulations, orders and internal station procedures having nuclear safety
'
significance that occurred during July and August:
Item Review Date i
A0 75-20 f.
7/2/75
?
A0 75-21 7/3/75
?
.
NRR 75-03 7/3/75
!
NPDES Noncompliance Notification 75-61 7/9/75
~
' NRR 75-02 7/9/75 EI 75-04
.
7/9/75 GQL 1261 Dike Response
. 7/11/75
,
!
A0 75-07
7/15/75
~
A0 75-22 7/21/75 A0 75-23 7/25/75 A0 75-24 7/25/75 A0 75-25 7/30/7.5 A0 75-26 8/1/75 NPDES Noncompliance Notification 75-04 8/4/75 EI 75-05 8/9/75 EI 75-06 8/9/75 E
NRER 75-02 (30 day)'
8/10/75
~
IE Report 75-15 Response 8/18/75 NPDES Noncompliance Notification 75-05 8/21/75 EI 75-07 8/22/75 IE Report 75-19 Response 8/27/75 NRR 75-04 8/28/75 NPDES Noncompliance Notification 75-06 8/29/75
,
Additionally, the inspector reviewed the following General Review
._.
Counsel Meeting Minutes, where the above topics received an addi-tional review:
GRC 75-18 dated July 3, 1975.
~
GRC 75-19 dated July 14, 1975.
GRC 75-20 dated July 17, 1975.
1451 287
-
.
.
.
.
'~)
-7-i (
/
-
GRC 75-21 dated July 31, 1975.
'
GRC 75-22 dated August 14, 1975.
GRC 75-23 dated August 21, 1975.
GRC 75-24 dated August 28, 1975.
.
The inspector also verified that a mechanism was available to insure that the technical support staff reviews the draft semi-annual re-
?
ports.
The review of the July-August submittal was ia progress i
during the time of this inspection.
+ :.
The inspector verified that the following problem reports had been assigned for technical support staff resolution:
--
.
Task No.
Problem Recort Date
..
.
1266 162, RPS Indication 7/2/75 i-1312 167, Control Rod Drive 7/24/75
_.
1328 168, RMS 7/29/75
1340 170, Solid Waste Disposal 8/1/75 1377 173, Spent Fuel Pools 8/12/75 1352 174, Pzr Relief Valve Discharge Line 8/12/75 1354 176, Reactor Building Tendons 8/12/75
- _;
"v 1371 177, Emergency Diesel Generators,.
8/18/75
t
)
1391 179, Liquid Waste Disposal System 8/.20/75 1422 182, Decay Heat Removal 8/28/75 1423 183, Liquid Waste Disposal System 8/28/75 Findings were acceptable in the sample selected for review.
6.
Unanticinated Rod Drop During the course of this inspection the licensee experienced a rod drop from regulating group 7 while at full power on October 14,
[d 1975.
"
,
The inspector determined that the following sequence of events had
'
transpired:
'
At about 1500 cod 7-4 indicated approximately 7" out of align-a.
ment with the group average position, which was approximately
,
20% withdrawn.
"
=
b.
Shortly thereafter a Control Rod Drive Out=otion Inhibit and 9'.' Asyr: metric Rod alarm were received.
The operators, suspecting faulty position indication, placed c.
the S-2 switch for rod 7-4 in the Bypass position at approxi-mately 1505.
1451 288
.;
.
.
-8-
-3
)J d.
At approximately 1508, rod 7-4 indicated on the bottom.
Since
~
the automatic turbine runback' feature had been bypassed for the suspect rod, the operator attempted to manually reduce
. power with the load demand control.
When he noticed that Group 7 was not stepping in (due to the rod bottom interlock),
'
the operator chose to reduce power with the rods La manual to maintain the established Group 6/7 overlap.
The Group 7 In Limit was bypassed to allow Group 7 in motion.
The power reduction was secured when the asyemetric rod con-e.
dition cleared, at about 80% power.
f.
The licensee evaluated prospects for continued operation at this power level, and concluded that it would be safe to con-tinue. operation at or about 80%'until convenient to unload the unit, shut down, and repair the inoperable rod.
The shu'-
down occurred on October 15, 1975.
-
'
g.
The inspector stated that it appeared the licensee's actions were appropriate.
The inspector had no further questions on this item at this time.
'
7.
Reactor Coolant Pressure and Temperature Limits *
N The inspector reviewed the following logs and charts and conducted interviews with appropriate plant personnel to verify that the limitations on reactor coolant system temperature and pressure
[
were met during July and August 1975:
.
Control Room Operator Log, July 1-August 31, 1975.
[
a.
b.
Recorder Charts for T,y, and Pressure, July and August 1975.
Surveillance log sheets, July and August (random sample).
c.
Based on the sample selected for review, findings were acceptable.
8.
PORC Review of Unanticicated Deficiencies
.
The inspector held discussions with the PORC Chair =an and
~
a.
reviewed the following documents to verify that the PORC had
"
.
reviewed (for an unreviewed safety cuestion) significant s
operating abnormalities and indications of unanticipated.
deficiencies in nuclear safety-related structures, components or systems identified during July and August 1975:
1451 289
,
.
.
'
.
-9-
.
}
\\
/'
(1) PORC Meeting Minutes 289-297;
-J '
(2)
Problem Reports 162-183; and (3)
Semi-Annual Report, July and August (Draft).
b.
The licensee stated that with the exception of PR 173 on the
,
Spent Fuel Pool, which was addressed in PORC Meeting Minutes No. 299, none of the PR's had been considered significant enough to warrant PORC review for an unreviewed safety ques tion.
m The inspector stated that TS 4.4.2.1.4 requires a report to the NRC when the tendon or parts of the tendon and its anchor-age fail to meet criteria of the Inservice Tendon Surveillance Program.
It appears that PR 176 regarding the thermal break-down of tendon filler grease should have been reviewed for an unreviewed safety question and reported to the Co= mission, as an abnormal degradation of the containment structure.
__.
The licensee stated that GAI Report No.1880, " Reactor Con-
'
tainment Building Tendon Surveillance Test One Year After S.I.T.," had been submitted to the NRC on. September 30, 1975.
~
As noted on page 10 of this report, the less. viscous (than
_ _ _ _
t i
expected) condition of the grease has led t'o no observable
'
~"
detrimental effect on the corrosion protection capability of the bulk filler grease.
-
The licensee further stated that a Tendon Grease Leak Surve11-lance Procedure is currently being written and is espected to be PORC approved by December 1, 1975.
The inspector had no further questions on this item at this time.
iL The inspector noted three problems in the area of surveillance
~
c.
testing during review of the July / August semi-annual report (Draf t) :
(1)
Surveillance Test 1301-1; Pressurizer level, Temperature, and Thot had not been recorded as required on the,second
shif t on August 29, 1975.
Since the Instrument Channel Checks (as defined in TS 1.5.3) were not documented in accordance with ST 1301-1 as required by TS 6.2.1.c, compliance with Table 4.1-1, Instrument Surveillance Requirements, is not verifiable for this shift.
This event was not considered a PORC review item by the
_
licensee.
1451 290 i
h-
.-
.
.
'
- 10 -
./
The inspector stated that the failure to evaluate this occurrence in PORC was contrary to the requirement of TS 6.1.1.1.d.7, which states in part that the PORC is responsible to:
" Review...any violations of Technical Specifications...."
.
This item is a deficiency.
(2)
Surveillance Test 1301-4.4 was scheduled for August 28, 1975, but not completed until September 2,1975.
The mininum sampling frequency for the BWST as listed in TS Table 4.1-3, was not met.
This item was determined by PORC to be not reportable, as documented in Attachment E to PORC Meeting Minutes No. 299.
The failure to meet minimum sampling frequency as speci-fied in Technical Specification Table 4.1-3, Item 2, is an item of noncompliance, deficiency level.
The inspector verified that corrective actions had been x
taken to preclude recurrence.
The inspector had no fur-
,
i
)
ther questions on this item.
-
(3)
Surveillance Test 1301-4.1; RM-G6 and 7, did not meet test acceptance criteria on August 14, 1975 and August 21, 1975.
Compliance with Table 4.1-1, Instrument Surveillance
-
Requirements, Item 28, for the Reactor Building area moni-tors on the Ibin and Auxiliary Fuel Handliig Bridges was
~
demonstrated, although the acceptance criteria in ST 1301-4.1 for these two monitors was not met.
The licensee did not consider this a PORC review item, although difficulties with*this particular surveillance test had reportedly been discussed in PORC meetings and a change to the Technical Specifications is reportedly being sought.
The inspector had no further questions on this item at
this time.
'-
d.
The question of whether the BUST met minimum capacity require-ments was addressed in PORC Meeting Minutes No. 294.
TS 3.3.1.1.a s' tat es that the tank shall "contain a minimum of 350,000 gallons of water...."
'
1451 291
-
I hp -
.
.
_.
- 11 -
(
I/'
'
,
==
The inspector observed BWST level instrumentation in the con-trol room.
The actual level in the tank at the time of this observation was roughly 56.5 f eet.
The inspector determined
"
- (see calculation below) that the current tank volume appeared to meet requirements.
.
(56.5-2.7) 6,400 gal 4-24,048 = 368,368 gal
ft
.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
9.
Security Recuj 3ments for NRC Insnectors
=~
The inspector was allowed unescorted access to the admin _ strative
~"
areas only of the Service Building, Ehe Trailer Co:plexes, and Warehouses, in accordance with Visitor's Access to TMI-Unit 1 m..
dated August 12, 1975.
=-
The inspector stated that there may be times under 10 CFR 19.14 where the inspector may want to be afforded unescorted access to other areas of the plant.
Should this situation arise, the li -
~
censee would be asked to deviate from the established procedure.
--
'
The licensee acknowledged this information.
'
-
--
.
?"_Y_"-
e 1451 292
-
e+
!.
.
"w f
8