IR 05000289/1973004
| ML19256D511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1973 |
| From: | Brunner E, Rebelowski T, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D509 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-73-04, 50-289-73-4, NUDOCS 7910180828 | |
| Download: ML19256D511 (15) | |
Text
'
,
.
I
.
.
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COSD!ISSION
i
-
.
._
'
'
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS REJION I
.
RO Inspection Report No.: 50-289/73-04 Docket No.: 50-289 Licensee: Metropolitan Edison Company License No..CPPR-40 Three Mile Island 1 Priority:
Category:
B.1
j Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania I
l Type of Licensee:
BW 831 I We PWR i
l Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:A ril 18 and 19 & May 9,1973 P
1,-
id Dates of Previous Inspection:
March 26-28, 1973 Reporting Inspector:
Y 6 X',Y.
-.
,[
/~', f J /f y/.
R.L. Spessard, Reacto[ Inspector
'Date l
Accompanying Inspectors:
Y 8 /(['d
/7 f [
'
T.A. Rebelowski, Reactor Inspector Date
-.'l ll,r,/..l
'
7'
, _,,,,.
],, (
R.H. Brickley, Reactor Inspector Data Other Accompanying Personne':
None l
f > //-, 3 Reviewed by:
/ 4 -
s E.J'.' Branner, Chief, Facility Testing and Dhte
,Startup Branch a
.
1451 056
'
~
.
,
-
_
_
_ _
.
yg3oiso M
-l
.
.
.
('^'
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action None
~
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Corrective action relative to the failure to establish a quality assurance program as required by Criterion II of Appendix B, 10CFR50, has been completed.
(Paragraph 6)
Design Chanrjs
.
None Unusual Occurrences None l
Other Significant Findings i
i A.
Current
!s
,q)
1.
The licensee has committed to incorporate additional require-ments for measurements and change the test procedure, as required,
when vibration data is taken on safety related rotating equip-ment.
(Management Interview Item E and Para. 7)
2.
The station battery discharge and charge test was completed, and j
satisfactory results were obtained.
(Para. 8)
!
i 3.
A significant personnel change has been male in the GPU Startup and Test Organization.
(Para. 3)
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 1.
Test program for primary coolant leak detection and measurement systems (R0 Report No. 50-289/72-17 & 73-01)-Not inspected 2.
Scope of the core flow flood test (R0 Report No. 50-289/73-01) -
Not inspected 3.
Functional testing of safety related alarms (R0 Report No. 50-289/
73-01) - Not inspected
-
1451 057
...-
.....
-
. -.. -
-
,
.
e
- -
e
. -..
.
f-2-
.
.
l
?
,u :
Management Interview
'
"'
A management interview was conducted with Messrs. Klingaman, Barton, Miller, and Nelson on May 9, 1973.
The following items were discussed:
A.
Quality Assurance
,
With respect to the previous violation regarding the lack of an approved quality assurance program covering testing and startup activities for Three Mile Island 1, the inspector stated that the licensee's corrective measures, described in their response letter of November 20, 1972 and
,
{
subsequently revised during the RO inspection conducted on January 9-11, 1973, had been completed.
The inspector stated that R0:1 considered all licensee commitments to be firm agreements, and that as such these
'
should be accomplished by the date committed.
The licensee representa-tivesindicated their understanding with respect to commitments made to RO:1.
(Para.6)
The inspector requested that RO:1 be provided a copy of the recently approved quality assurance program for startup and test activities
!
for Three Mile Island 1 and 2.
The inspector stated that this was j
requested to facilitate RO:I's inspection effort and that the docu-ment would be returned upon completion of RO:I's review.
The inspector further stated that following review by RO:1, the findings would be
_s)
discussed with the licensee and documented in an inspection report.
A
-
licensee representative stated that, based on discussions with his manage-
'
ment, he was not authorized to provide the inspector with a copy of this document and that RO:I would have to make this request in writing.
The inspector stated that a written request would be made.
During a subsequent telephone call on May ll, 1973, a licensee repre-I sentative informed the inspector that a copy of this document would be provided to RO:I.
,
B.
TP401/3 - Station Battery Discharge and Charee Test The inspector stated that the test procedure and the test results had been reviewed and that RO:I had no further questions on this preoperational test.
(Para. 8)
C.
Startuo and Test Program Schedule The inspector requested that RO:I be provided a detailed schedule for the startup and test program.
A licensee representative stated that the secondary plant schedule had been submitted to TWG, but the nuclear plant schedule had not.
He further stated that these schedules would i45i OLS8
.
.-.
e e
m.eese..
e
=w&-e.,--m*
. we.
- .*-q.-es-w
ms-.ew.
-, _
.----n-.--
.
~2 _ _ _ _..
.
_
_ _ _. _ _ _ _
.
'
.
-3-
,
\\
r-t be provided when the inspector returned to the site for a future RO inspection.
(Paragraph 4)
D.
Surveillance Test Procram
' The inspector stated that it was RO:I's position that the program for conducting all surveillance tests required by the Technical Specifica-
!
tions must be documented and implemented prior to issuance of an opera-ting license.
The inspector further stated that in those cases where surveillance tests could not be performed due to plant conditions,
'
these tests must be included in the initial startup phase program. A j
licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's statements on this
!
matter, and he stated that MET Ed planned to have their surveillance i
test program documented and implemented before the issuance of an opera-l ting license.
He further stated that surveillance and preventive maintenance procedures were currently being prepared.
(Paragraph 5)
J E.
Vibration Data on Safety Related Rotating Eauipment The inspector stated that, based on discussions with a licensee representative during this RO inspection, it was his understanding i
that TP 250/2 would be the implementing document.
The inspector stated that TP 250/2 required assurance that meaningful data be
,
l, T taken and the conditions of testing be repeatable.
The inspector
\\#
further stated that the item would remain open pending RO review of the system turnover packages.
A licensee representative stated that after further review of this matter, vibration tests in TF 250/2 would be modified to incorporate additional requirements for measure-ments when the procedure was used on safety related rotating equip-
<
ment.
He stated that individual check points would be marked to l
provide repeatability and that a more sophisticated IRD would be used to provide more meaningful data (amplitude and phase angle).
He further stated that TP 250/2 would be changed, as required, when the procedure was used on safety related rotating equipment.
The inspec-tor stated that the action taken on this matter would be reviewed during a subsequent RO inspection.
(Paragraph 7)
F.
Unusual Occurrences The subj ect of reporting unusual occurrences was discussed.
A licensee representative stated that the principal inspector or his Branch Chief rould be notified by telephone prior to the issuance of any formal.mport.
1451 059
.
_ _ _ _ _ _
._
_.. _ _ _.
_ _.
. _.. _
_ _ _.
.
.
h-4-
'
G.
Pre-operational Test Procedures and Test Instructions The inspector stated that RO:I review cf selected pre-operational test procedures and a test instruction had revealed certain deficiencies
-
which required resolution.
These deficiencies and their proposed
'
'
resolution, which had been previously discussed with licensee repre-sentatives during this RO inspection, were reviewed.
The licensee representatives concurred with the previously obtained commitments for
-
resolution for these deficiencies.
With respect to the question of whether the Decay Heat Removal System function of Fuel Transfer Canal i
fill and drain would be tested or remo' ed from the FSAR, a licensee j
representative stated that this matter sould be submitted to the TWG j
for resolution. The inspector stated that this matter remained unre-l solved pending final action by the licensee.
(Paragraphs 9 and 10),
,
(
During a subsequent telephone call on May 11, 1973, a licensee repre-
'
sentative informed the inspector that TWG review of the Decay Heat Removal System test procedures disclosed that Fuel Transfer Canal fill and drain operations would be tested during the performance of i
,
l test procedures TP 203/7 and TP 203/4.
The inspector stated that this matter would be reviewed during a subsequent RO inspection.
mu
,
.
1451 060-
f I
~
em.m==
4em+.e m_.-m.
--qum- * -
e.
ee---
w equuhes _. -.
-
--
DETAILS
,
lA)
i
'
l.
Persons Contacted
!
i Metropolitan Edison Company
- R.M. Klingaman, Superintendent J.G. Herbein, Assistant Superintendent J.J. Colitz, Station Engineer General Public Utilities Service Corporation i
!
J.J. Barton, Startup and Test Manager G.P. Miller, Test Superintendent i
'
R.J. Toole, Asst. Test Superintendent M.A. Nelson, Technical Engineer
'
2.
Principle Reactor Inspector Site Turnover
.
The licensee representatives were informed that the principle inspec-I tion responsibilities for TMI-l & 2 during the testing and startup phase l
had been assigned to Mr. R.L. Spessard.
The RO:I Test and Startup i
Program and the status of testing relative to.TMI-l were discussed.
A tour of the TMI-l' plant was made by the inspectors.
'
l u,N/
3.
Personnel Changes i
.
'
A licensee representative informed the inspector of the following gg change in the GPU Startup and Test Organization:
.
Mr. G.P. Miller was hired and assigned as GPU Test Superintendent.
!
As an interim measure, Mr. J.J. Barton, GPU Startup & Testing Mana-ger, had 'been serving in this position due to the resignation of the
,
i former Test Superintendent.
,
4.
Pre-operational Testing Planning and Scheduling Status The inspector requested a licensee representative to explain how his test start dates were derived.
The representative displayed a program that consisted of Critical Path Networks of all major test phases and
'
computer printouts displaying a summary bar chart and a manpower level analysis. The representative explained how this program was used to control testing sequences.
At the management interview a licensee representative committed to provide R0:I with a detailed schedule for the startup and test program.
The inspector discussed RO's policy regarding the need to witness certain preoperational and power ascension tests.
Licensee representatives acknow-ledged their understanding of this matter and stated that they would in-form the principle inspector in advance of the scheduled date for commence-1451 061
'
.-
_
-
.
-
-
-.
.
,
'
\\
\\
i
-
.
!
'
-6-
'
(b ment of each test of interest to R0:I so that the test could be witnessed by RO:1.
5.
Surveillance Test Procedures I
, The inspector requested information on status of the surveillance program development.
A licensee representative stated that as system equipment is tested and accepted by the licensee, a surveil-lance procedure is developed to insure proper development of the program prior to issuance of operating license.
The inspector stated that the surveillance program should be a progressive type, built on system turnovers, and that the complete surveillance program should be documented and implemented prior to the issuance of an operating license.
This matter was discussed at the management interview.
6.
Quality Assurance
,
!
The inspectors reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee, as committed during a previous R0 inspection,* to resolve the violation
,
concerning the lack of an approved quality assurance program covering testing and startup activities for TMI-1.
Based on a review of appli-
cable documents, the inspectors verified that the Test Manual was approved by the TWG on January 18, 1973, that Test Instruction No. 18 was approved
-
I_
by the TWG on March 1, 1973, and that the QA Program for Startup and l#)
Test, TMI-l and 2 was approved by GPUSC on March 3, 1973. According
- '
to a licensee representative, these documents were issued for use on
'
the dates approved.
The inspectors noted that this action was in accordance with the licensee's previous commitments with the exception that the committed date for approval and issuance of Test Instruction No. 18 was February 15, 1973, whereas the licensee accomplished this action on March 1, 1973.
The matter of timely accomplishment of licen-
see commitments was discussed at the management interview. Additional-ly during the management interview, the inspector requested that a
,
copy of the QA Program for Startup and Test, TMI-l and 2 be provided to RO:I.
7.
Vibration Data on Safety Related Rotating Eauipment The inspector requested licensee representatives to state the method of reporting vibration data of safety related rotating equip-ment.** The representatives stated that the generic test procedure TP 250/2, Testing and Checking of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment,
- RO Report No. 50-289/73-01, Management Interview Item E and Paragraph 5
- RO Report No. 50-289/73-01, Management Interview, Item D and Paragraph 8 1451 062
-_
.
__
. - -
y
.
.
-7-
,,
k
would be the impicmenting document. This matter was discussed at the
-
management interview, and a licensee representative committed to incor-parate additional requirements for measurements and change TP 250/2, as required, when vibration data is taken on safety-related rotating equipment.
8.
TP 401/3 Station Batterv Discharge and Charge Test The inspector reviewed the results of performance of Test Procedure 401/3 - Station Battery Discharge and Charge Test.
The following observations were made:
j a.
Procedure Deficiencies *
i
!
(1) A licensee representative presented data indicating that
'
the battery discharge curve represents empirical data.
!
'
(2) The prerequisites sign off have been codified on recently
{
reviewed test procedures.
The above items are considered to be closed.
b.
Test Review l {]])
The completed test procedure satisfactorily demonstrated:
(1) Battery Banks LA and 1B capacity to be greater than 100%
of rated amperage.
(2) Ability to recharge in specified ttme and to vary charger line ups.
(3) Ability to maintain specific gravities of cells over charge and discharge ranges.
RO action relative to this test is considered to be complete, and this was brought to the attention of the licensee representatives during the management interview.
9.
Preonerational Test Procedures a.
Status of Test Procedure Prenaration, Review, and Aporoval Preoperational Test Procedures Approved for Performance
- 31%
Preoperational Test Procedures Awaiting Final Approval
- 14%
Preoperational Test Procedures Under Review by TW' & DOT
- 12%
Preoperational Test Procedures Written and Undergoing In-house Review
- 16%
Preoperational Test Procedures Not Started
- 27%
The target date for completion is October, 1973.
1451 063
- RO Inspection Report 50-289/72-17, Paragraphs 4.a.2 and 4.a.3
,
_ _.
...
. - -
--
_. _.
.
.
,
-8-tu
'
(
j b.
Status of Preonerational Testing
~
'
Preoperational Tests Completed and Acceptcd
- 6%
Preoperational Tests in Progress
- 4%
Preoperational Tests Not Started
- 907.
.
c.
R0 Review of Preonerational Test Procedures The inspectors conducted a review of the following preoperational
'
procedures:
.
TP 203/4 Decay Heat Removal System Functional Test
!
TP 266/4 Nuclear Service Water Functional Test TP 276/3 Condensate System Functional Test TP 301/3A Nuclear Instrumentation-Preop. Calibration (Source Range)
TP 301/3B Nuclear Instrumentation-Preop. Calibration (Intermediata Range)
TP 401/1-2 Diesel Generator Startup Test
During-this review, the inspectors identified a number of apparent deficiencies which required resolution.
The deficiencies identified and the licensee representatives and inspector's comments were as
'
l follows:
,
l -s (1) TP 203/4 Decay Heat Removal System Functional Test
'V Deficiency - The TP does not ~ contain a valve position checklist for each test section.
(Sections 9,1.1.2, 9.1.2.23, 9.2.1.4, 9.2.2.15, 9.3.1.7, 9.3.2.6, 9.4.2.1, and 9.4.2.5)
These sections refer to the valve position checklist contained in OP 1104/4.
It was recommended that these checklists be made an enclosure to this TP.
>
Licensee Comment - Consideration would be given to incorporating these checklists as an enclosure to the TP.
Deficiencv - The Required Plant Status section does not specify the Operating Procedure (0P) to be followed to ensure that the plant system is operable.
(Sections 7.1 and 7.2)
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to include the specific OP.
Deficiency - The prerequisite section to the Decay Heat Removal during Reactor Cooling System Cooldown mode of operation states that the pressurizer level must be's 220" (Sec 9.2.1.3).
The operating procedure OP 1104/4 calls for a pressurizer level of me 265" for the same mode of operation (Sec 4.4.2.1.(3)).
There appears to be a conflict between these procedures.
Licensee Comment - The pressuriser level value will be reviewed and
,
the procedure will be revised to show the correct value, if necessary.
1451 064
-
.
.
_.
-
.-
. -. - -
-.-__
.
.
1
-
'
-9-j
-
,
(.
s..'
Deficiency - It appears that the Shift Test Engineer (STE)
has the option of installing or not installing the temporary
I level indication as a prerequisite to the Decay Heat during Component Repair Test (Sec. 9.3.1.3).
The operating procedure
- OP 1104/4 (Sec. 4.4.4.l(5) does not give him this option for the same mode of operation.
,
'
Licensee Comment - The intent was not to give the STE the option of installing or not installing the temporary level indicator but to give him the option of selecting either of the two existing positions. The procedure will be revised to clarify l
this intent.
Deficiency - Section 9.3.1.6 requires that a " sufficient" supply of demineralized water be available without defining what consti-tutes a sufficient supply.
1'
Licensee Comment - This section was intended to insure and
~
establish a f.ow path of demineralized water for makeup pur-poses, if required.
The procedure will be revised to specify this intent.
i l
!
Deficiency - Section 9.3.1.8 requires that sufficient volume be available in the Boron Water Storage Tank (BWST) for rejected (}
water without defining what constitutes a " sufficient" volume.
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify
the required volume.
!
Deficiency - Upon completion of Sec. 9.2.2.10 valve DH-4A is l
left in the open position.
I Licensee Comment - Valve DH-4A should be in the closed position.
lj The procedure will be revised so that this valve is left in the closed position.
i Deficiency - The Decay Heat Removal during Reactor Cooling Sys-tem Cooldown mode of operation test (Sec. 9.2) does not appear to demonstrate that the DHRS can lower the RC temperature from
!
250 to 1400F in 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />.
Licensee Comment - This will be demonstrated in the cooldown following the hot functional test and is contained in TP-600/24.
Deficiency - This procedure does not appear to demonstrate that the system can fill and drain the fuel transfer canal (FSAR 9.5.2.1).
Licensee Comment - Met. Ed. management does not intend to use this system to fill and drain the fuel transfer canal; therefore, the test was not included in this procedure.
1451 065
- -
_-
- -
- -.
..
.
. _.
. -.
-
i J
.
i
- 10 -
O
Manacement Interview Comment - The licensee representatives stated that this matter would be referred to the TNG for resolution.
During a subsequent telephone call, a licensee representative stated that TUG review of this matter disclosed that fill and drain of the fuel transfer canal would be
,
.
demonstrated during the performance of Decay lieat Ren.aval System test procedures TP 203/7 and TP 203/4.
i (2) TP 266/4 Nuclear Service River Water Functional Test
.
De ficiency - Sections 9.15.6 and 9.15.11 do not specify the instrument that indicates the flow ia the Nuclear Service River
,
j Water (NSRW) System.
!
j Licensee Comment - The flow will be measured at FI-291 The l
procedure will be revised to specify this.
Deficiency - There appears to be an omission to the note following j
Sections 9.19.22.2 and 9.20.8.2 This note should contain the same information as the note following Sections 9.19.1.2 and j
9.20.1.2 Licensee Comment - This will be investigated and the procedure s,)
will be revised if applicable.
s Deficiency - Sections 9.20.5 and 9.20.12 do not specify the a P
,
at which the backwash is terminated.
Licensee Comment - The oJP will be specified as soon as it is
!.
established.
!
Deficiency - Section 9.22.1.1 should specify the 0.P. to follow
'
in aligning the NSRW system for this test condition.
I j
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify the 0.P.
(3) TP 276/3 Condensate System Functional Test Deficiency - Sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8 do not specify the 0.P. that should be followed on each system.
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify the 0.P's.
Deficiencv - Section 9.4.1 does not specify the checks to be made to ensure the deionized water (DW) supply line is pressurized.
1451 066
...
-.
-.
-
..- -
-
i-11-
.
(",
'
' -
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify the checks eo be made.
Deficiency - Sections 10.3.3r 10.3.3b, and 10.3.3c should have the entry - CO-P2 remains run Ing yes no
.
.
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to incorporate this entry.
(4) TP 301/3A Nuclear Instrumentation-Pre-Oo Calibration (Source Range)
,
Deficiency - Sections 9.5.6 and 9.5.7 should indicate that the
,
j data is to be recorded on the data sheet (Enclosure 2)
'
i Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify j
that the data is to be recorded on the data sheet.
Deficiency - The sections that constitute a recalibration of the count rate amplifier should be specified in Section 9.5.16.
Licensee Comment - The procedure will be revised to specify the j
applicable sections,
-
t
'
-
Deficiency - Section 9.8, Reactor Building Evacuation Alarm Cali-
bration and Functional Check, is not in the procedure.
Licensee Comment - This section will be incorporated when the equipment design is completed.
(5) IP 301/3B Nuclear Instrumentation - Pre-op Calibration (Intermed-t iate Range)
Deficiency - There were no apparent deficiencies
'
(6) TP 401/1-2 Diesel Generator Startup Test Deficiency - Section 5 does not delineate all test equipment used in the procedure.
Items such as tachometers, strobes, barrels, etc. are not included.
Licensee Comment - Licensee will review Section 5 for inclusion of additional items.
Deficiency - Section 6a requires standard safety practices be followed without defining specific requirements.
Licensee Comment - Licensee will review for inclusion of defin-ative items in the procedure.
Deficiency - Procedure does not identif/ ore-operational checks such as blowdown of cylinders, checking fuel rack movements, sampl-ing of crankcase for water, check of blower lubrication, preliminary jacking of engine, setting of governor controls.
1451 067
- -.
-
.
. -
. -. -
-. -
i e
+
,
g
-
_
i r-
-12-Licensee Comment - The diesel vendor will run the diesels prior
,
i to the performance of the test procedure and his start-up items include items listed above.
The diesels will be in standby lll status following the vendors test.
.
Deficiency - The procedure (Sec. 8.k.) calls for removal of the alarm relay from the diesel generator control circuitry.
The inspector requested whether the removal of this relay deactivated any safety circuits.
Licensee Co= ment - The function of the alarm relay will not effect the safety circuits.
I Deficien.sv - The method of starting was discussed.
The procedure
,
does not indicate single solenoid cir starts.
The inspector
}
requested whether solenoid fails open or if there are provisions for bypass.
i Licensee Comment _ The lineup for air start will be reviewed
'
for one solenoid valve start.
Review of solenoid position on loss of power will be made as well as bypass provisions.
,
' - '
. Management Interview Comment - Licensee representatives stated
,
'
that the test procedure would be changed to incorporate single
. --
j soleraid air starts, that the solenoids, which are powered by sepa: ate sources, fail in the open position and thus a loss of i
power to the solenoids will not prevent diesel startup, and that there are no provisions for bypass; however, the solenoids (2 per diesel) are in parallel.
,
Deficiency - Fuel oil relief valve is not tested.
Licensee Comment - Licensee will review and the valve will be tested, if required.
Management Interview Ccmment - A licensee r presentative stated that this valve would not be tested since 1. was not a nop tyoe valve and was partially open during operation to provide back pressure. The inspector stated that there were no further ques-tions on this item.
Licensee resolution of the above deficiencies, as indicated by their ce=ments, will be verified during subsequent RO incpections.
1451 068
..
.
-
- - - - - ~.
- _ _,...
.,,,, - -.
.
. - -
- - - - - - -
---.
- - -,,
I l
-
-
! (~
-13-l
!
l i
10. Test Instructions
.
The inspectors conducted a review of Test Instruction No. 18, Test Proce-
' dure Documents.
During this review, the inspectors identified a number
'
of apparent deficiencies which required resciution.
The deficiencies identified and the licensee representative's and inspector's comments were as follows:
Deficiency - Section 3.1.4.2.1, Special Procedures - Preparation Review
,
l and Approval, states that the review and approval requirements for l
Individual Test Procedures shall be used as a guide. This should be stated as a requirement.
Licensee Comment - The Fbster Test Index (MTX) assigns the review responsibility for Category A ptocedures to the Test Work Grcup (TWG)
and Category B procedures to the Designer, Operator, Tester (DOT). The responsibility for minor procedures (not category A or B) will be assign-
,
'
ed at issuance.
Deficiency - Sections 3.2.l(3) and 3.2.l(4) of Enclosure 6, Format and Instruction for Retest Assignment of Individual Test Procedures and
,
Functional Verification Test Procedures, allows omission or lining out j'
of parts of the test method and data requirements without instructions t
as to the method to indicate that the change is authorized.
Licensee Comment - The established procedure (TI-18, Enclosure 2)
for indicating authorized changes will be followed.
Licensee resolution of the above deficiencies, as indicated by their comments, will be reviewed during subsequent RO inspections.
I451 069
_
e.*h..
-
mew-_sw
=.---m--g.e my. - - -
---=g-
- - -
-
-*
e.--.m--,
--w-
.
'
,
,
i
-
.
(~' N Li
.
u-q L
..
i
!
f,EfA0 ROUTE S'lP See me aeout this.
For concurrence.
For action.
Form AFC-93 ( Rev. Stu 14.1947) AFCSI 02 40
,
Ncte med retura F or tieasture.
For information.
TO (riamo and un6t)
EmilALs REMARx5
!
RO TNSPECTION REPORT N9 J 0-283/73-04 E'
FLSTROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY - TIIREE MILE ISLAND 1 i
i Chief' FS&EB
DATE DOCKET NO._.50-289 i
!
The subiect insoection report is forwarded for vour l
TO (Name and unit)
LMITI AL$
REMARKS l
information. Distribution will be made by this office i
ec:
RO:HQ,(5)
to the PDR, LPDR, NSIC, DTIE and State representatives
~
DATE ('
% entral Files
,V Reg Standards (3
'
j Dir of Licensinn (13)
after review by the licensee for proprietary informa-TO (Name and unst)
INiilALS REMARKS l
R0 Regional Dire tors tion,
i DATE FROM (Name and unet)
REMARKS E. J. Brunner RO:I PHONE NO.
DATE X-3942 5/29/73
!
WSE OTHER 540E FOR AOOITICMAL REM ARKS CfC : 1971 r1 44b4C1
.
1451 070'
f I yl
,
. k
-
- "g 42,
_ - - _ -
-
-._.
.
-
-