f .-

.

4

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONREGION I

Report No. 50-289/88-06

Docket No. 50-289

License No. OPR-50

Licensee: GPU NuclearP.O. Box 480Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1

Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania

Inspection Conducted: February 22-26, 1988

2, . 7- 5/- SSInspectors:

yseph a, Re tor Engineer date.

ndMyaroldGregg, Seniory a -at-sLctor Engineer date

5 4fp 3-3/~UApproved t-

Vb P . K . D pe'n , C h t'gf Special Test datePrograms Section, EEr, RS

Inspection _ Summary: Inspection on February 22-26, 1988 (Inspection Report

No. 50-289/88-06)

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspettion of pump and valve inservicetest program implementation and review of procedures and test results.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified. Four open itemspertaining to inservice testing were closed. One unresclved item involving theclose-out of Information Notice 86-05, Main Steam Safety Valve ring settingswas identified.

880420006488090(89PDR ADOCK 05000.O DCD

r.

'.

.

OETAILS

1.0 Persons Contacted

1.1 GPU Nuclear

D. Atherholt, Operations Engine 3r (IST)"R. Barley, Manager, TMI-1 Plant Engineering*J. Bashista, Plart Engineer (IST)*J. Colitz, Plant Engineering Director*J. Herman, QA Lead /uditor*C. Smyth, TMI-1 Licensing Manager

1.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

"R. Conte, Senior Resident Inspector

* Denotes thuse present at the exit meeting held February 26, 1988.

2.0 Inspection Purpose and Scope

This inspectior. was conducted to review and assess the licensee'simplementation of their pump and valve inservice testing (IST) programcommitments and other activities associated with IST implementation.Verification of adherence to regulatory requirements, ASME Section XIrequirements and licensee's commitments as well as consideration of safe;sconsequences, and organizational structure were reviewed.

Also, four unresolved items pre /iously identified by the NRC pertainingto IST were closed.

3.0 IST Program History and Organization

The inspector reviewed the licensee's last IST pump and valve programsubmittal and background history. Discussions were held with cognizantIST personnel concerning the program, relief requests and resolutions ofreview concerns. The following inspector determinations were made:

The IST program is a separate and distinct program and not a*

subdivision of Inservice Inspection.

The licensee's second ten year interval IST submittal was nade to*

NRC on March 3, 1986.

,_ ._

.

.

3.

A meeting between the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR)*

and their consultant and the licensee was held in Bethesda, Marylandon October 27, 1986 to discuss the licensee's second ten yearsubmittal.

The licensee submitted a revised submittal on December 24, 1986.*

NRR issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) for the licensee's second ten+

year program on March 19, 1987.

The licensee submitted supplemental IST information on February 19,*

1987. A supplement to the SE was requested by the licensee.

The licensee submitted additional information concerning several*

diesel generator air start valves on September 17, 1987.

The licensee's second ten year interval is from September 1984 to*

September 1994.

The IST program is committed to ASME Section XI 1980 Edition through*

winter 1980 Addenda.

The inspector also reviewed the IST organizational status and determinedthat implementation of the IST effort is defined and controlled throughAdministrative Procedure 1041, titled IST Program Requirements. Thisprocedure defines responsibilities of personnel and provides an overviewon the types of testing and retesting to be performed and the conditionsfor testing. Each pump and valve in the program is listed together withthe test procedure number (s) of the IST required test. This procedurecontains the IST program implementation requirements and is maintained asa controlled document.

Within the organizational structure, the IST coordinator develops testprocedures and verifies that all IST components are included, and reviewsall unsatisf actory results. The IST Coordinator reporting chain isthrough the Plant Engineering Department. Operations performs thetesting, and an operations engineer reviews the results to assist withthe evaluation. The overall scheduling for all Technical Specificationsurveillances is handled through a computerized program under PlantMateriel.

The personnel involved with IST were knowledgeable and dedicated to theIST of pump and valves. Test result records were noted to be properlyrecorded and readily available.

Management was also cognizant and responsive to the IST implementationefforts.

No violations were identified.

, _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--__ _ ,

..

4.

4.0 Review of Surveillance Procedures and Test Resul y

4.1 Procedure 1300-3B A/B, Oecay Heat Removal System Pumpand Valve Operability Test

The inspector reviewed the Control room copies of the completedresults of the testing performed on 3/14/87, 6/19/87, 9/20/87, and12/21/87. This procedure covered the testing of both the pumps andvalves on a 92 day surveillance frequency when the system is inservice. The inspector's review of these test records concentratedon the valve stroke testing requirements and the test results. The3/14/87 records showed the stroke times for valve DH-VSA of 19.8seconds and for valve OH-V5B of 21.5 seconds to have increased greaterthan 25*. and the test deficiency sheet noted these valves as inoper-able even though the limiting stroke time was 24 seconds. The testresults also discussed that the observed stroke time was due toreplacements of 1/2 speed motors on the valve operators. The licenseeredefined the stroke time acceptance limits based on actual recordedstroke times of 19.8 seconds for valve OH-VSA and 21.5 seconds forvalve DH-V58.

The surveillance test results of 9/20/87 and 12/21/87 were reviewedby the inspector and found to be acceptable.

4.2 Functional Testing of Pumps

The inspector reviewed the following completed procedures for pumptesting from the most recent and two prior surveillances:

1300-35 Boric Acid Injection System Functional Test*

1300-38 A/B Decay Heat Removal System Pump and Valve+

Operability Test

1303-11.42 EFW Flow Test from CST.

The procedures included test acceptance criteria, prerequisites andprecautions, and step by step instructions to perform the tests.The procedures also required test instrumentation calibration duedates to be filled in. The inspector verified that the requiredparameters for pumps (flow, vibration amplitude, etc.) are beingmonitored and recorded per ASME Code Section XI requirements. Theinspector noted that all sign-offs and supporting documentation formaintenance anci retest work were completed properly. Adrai ni stra tivecontrol, t W efora, appeared adequate.

,_ ._____

*.

5.

4.3 Test Schedule Adherence

The inspectors verified that test surveillance intervals wern adheredto for the inservice testing of pumps and valves described t thesurveillance procedures in sections 4.1 and 4.2. This wasaccomplished by an audit of recorded test results which demonstratedadherence to the ASME Code Section XI requirements for the inservicetesting surveillance frequency of pumps and valves.

No violations were identified.

5.0 Main Steam Safety Valves

The inspector reviewed the licensee's activities related to NRC's

Information Notice (IEN) 86-05. This notice described potential problemswith Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs), where improper ring settingsadjustments could result in insufficient lift and insufficient capacity.

The inspector determined that the licensee has 18 Dresser MSSVs, 9 foreach of two steam generators (S/G). Sixteen of the valves, (8 on eachS/G) are 6" x 10" model 3707-RA ano two are 3" x 6" model 3747-A (one oneach S/G). The licensee had considerable documentation regarding the ringsettings of their MSSVs which included: internsi memoranda, (memos3310-86-0132 of June 17, 1986; 3310-87-0052 of April 6, 1987; 3310-87-0038of March 13, 1987), Drester letter dated March 27, 1986, phone conversa-tion record with Dresser on October 31, 1985, Inspection and RepairReports dated 3/13/87 and 2/11/87, a safety evaluation SE 000411-001 ofNovember 18, 1985, and GPU General Maintenance Procedure 1404-4 Repair ofMain Steam Safety Valves. The licensee's ring settings are known and arerecorded. Based on information from the vendor and licensee evaluationfollowed by some ring setting changes, the licensee considered theiraction to be sufficient to close IEN 86-05.

While the licensee has maintained extensive documentation and wasknowledgeable of the issues, the inspector expressed a concern that theacceptance of the current as left ring settings was somewhat judgmentalsince there is no available test result data to correlate with the actualsettings. Additionally, the settings of the 18 valves vary to a greatdegree and are not the Dresser generic recommended settings. Thelicensee's as left ring settings from the 6R outage varied from -3 to -9on the lower ring and from +104 to +248 on the upper ring (number ofnotches from the seat plane reference).

The inspector reviewed the Dresser letter of 3/27/86 which stated thatDresser 3707 RA valves have been full flow tested at Wyle Laboratories,and that full lift was obtained at virtually all ring settings. Ringsettings of -8 rotches (lower ring) and +160 notches (upper ring) wererer.ommended for model 3707 RA valves. In an earlier phone conversation

,

I

!

,

,.

>

'

,3

6.

,

record _of 10/31/85, Dresser recommended -5 to -6 on the lower ring and,

+200 on the upper r,ing for 3707-RA valves, and -8 for the lower ring and+160.for the "Q" or "No. 4" 3747-A valves.

The licensee had refurbished 15 valves during the 6R outage. There was afull power trip in September 1987 af ter two months of operation and thelicensee's representative viewed the stack discharges and described thefollowing MSSV operational aspects. All 18 valves appeared to nave a,

sharp' opening and reseated without relift. On trips prior to thisrefurbishment, they had to open steam dumps to lower the pressure toenable reseating.

During the exit meeting the licensee mentioned that they may have fullflow tested an MSSV and would try to locate the data. Subsequently, thelicensee determined that a full flow test was not performed. This itemis unresolved pending the licensee obtaining test result data or otherdata that can be correlated to their MSSV ring settings (50-289/88-06-01).

6.0 QA Involvement

The inspector reviewed the audit report for the 1987 QA audit of theTMI-1 IST program. This audit verified that procedures to properlyimplement the program were prepared and that testing was conducted perthe procedures. The audit also verified that pump testing procedures

.would include the measurement of pump parameters required by the ISTprogram and the ASME code. The audit concluded that, for the proceduressampled, testing was being done at the frecuencies committed to in theIST program. The audit identified two anomalies which were resolved bythe licensee.

Overall, the QA audit results showed improvement over previous audits ofthe IST program. Based on the inspectors review of this audit it is:oncluded-that the quality assurance department is giving adequate .

. attention to the IST program. No unacceptable conditions were identified.

7.0 Follow-up of Previously Identified Open Items

.{ Closed) Unresolved Item 50-289/87-09-17: Inservice Testing Program3elief Request "

NRR Required the licensee to procedurally incorporate the testing of somespent fuel pool cooling system valves into the IST program. Relief wargranted until the end of August 1987. Also, the licensee was required toincorporate the testing of diesel generator air start valves EG-V-17A/Barior to September 19, 1987, or provide justification for not testingthem.

:

,,v_., , . , . . - .,m. . -- r- - .,-.+m -y - ,~ 4 - - -

er.x . . -.

<.,

7>

.

e

With'regato to_the spent fuel pool cooling system valves, the inspectorreviewed revised table B-1 page 36 of 38 of the' Periodic InserviceInspection Program which lists valves in the program. The spent fuel

,

pool cooling system valves in question, have been incorporated into theIST program. The inspector verified this was done prior to August 1987.

With_ regard to diesel-generator air start valvos EG-V-17A/B, the inspectorreviewed the licensees documentation dated August 24. 1987, whi-S de-scribed their justification for not including these valves in the ISTprogram. The documentation provided reasoning that these valves do notperform a required safety function and therefore should not be requiredto be it..iuded in the IST program. The inspector found the licensee'sreasoning to be acceptable. This item is closed.

(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-289/86-12-09: Testing Two Hour Back-upSupply System and Valves

An NRC inspe: tion identified the need for periodic testing of the twohour backup air supply system and associated valves.

The inspector verified that the licensee had written a draft procedure to *

test the two hour backup supply air system. The system line up waschanged to resolve the single active failure concern that failure of onecheck valve could cause loss of the system.

Additionally, valves EF-V30A/B have been replaced with valves |.EF-V30A/B/C/D cf a different design and the procedure incorporatesstroking and fail safe position verification for these valves.

The inspector verified in the Control Room that operating procedure1104-25 was formally revised to include the draft revisions.

This item is closed.

(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-289/86-21-04: Engineering Evaluation ofWalworth Check Valves

The item pertained to the licensee's IST as-found condition of 6"Walworth check valve MS-V9A. The valve was found with its disc stillattached to the disc arm out the washer, nut and cotter pin were missing.'

This item was tnresolved pending NRC review of the licensee's engineeringevaluation of this matter.'

| The inspector reviewed the licensee's engineering evaluation memorandum; 3310-87-0131 dated August 5, 1987. The licensee utilized a conservative

approach and reviewed histories of all size Walworth check valves intheir. safety systems. A resolution describing actions to be takea to

|i

l

,

|

. . . . _ --- . - . . - . _ - , . - . - _ . - - - . . - , . - - - . - . _ - - . - , . . --

m'*

.,

..,

b

8.

prevent similar problems as made for each of.the valves. Actions in-. cluded tack welding of the nut to the stud on valves MS-V9A/B, recom-

mendations for disassembly and inspection for several valves, andinstallation of bonnet stops on other valves.

The inspector verified that valves MS-V9A/B are part stroked on aquarterly basis and disassembled and inspected each refueling outage in

.accordance with IST commitments.

This item is closed.

(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-289/86-17-03: IST Testing Requirementsfor Make-up System Check Valves

This item involved the type of testing to be performed and the frequencyof tests for valves MU-V68A/B, MU-V94, MU-V95, MU-V107A/B/C/0 and MU-V220.

The inspector reviewed the NRC Safety Evaluation (SE) dated March 19, 1987:of tha licensee's second ten year IST program. The SE granted thelicenee's relief request to full stroke exercise check valves MU-V86A/B,MU-V95, MU-V107A/B/C/0, and MU-V220 during refueling outages. For checkvalve MU-V94 the SE granted quarterly partial stroking of normal make upflows and full stroke exercising during refueling outage. This relief wasgranted to avoid additional thermal cycling of the injection nozzle.

The inspector verified that the licensee's admir.istrative procedure 1041,IST Program Requirements, and surveillance procedures reflected the SEgranted alternative tests.

This item is closed.

8.0 Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required inorder to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations ordeviations. A new unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 5.0 of thisreport. Four unresolved items were resolved as stated in paragraph 7.

9.0 Exit Meeting

Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspec-tion at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection wereperiodically discussed and were summarized at the exit meeting onFebruary 26, 1988. Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in section1.0 of this report.

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to thelicensee by the inspectors. The licensee did not indicate that theinspection involved any proprietary information.

._ .