IR 05000289/1975015
| ML19256D592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1975 |
| From: | Gage L, Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D590 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-15, NUDOCS 7910190557 | |
| Download: ML19256D592 (7) | |
Text
-
'
-
y.#
.
,
-
E-Form 12
.
an 75) (Rev)
,.
- /
c)
-
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- : _:
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDiENT
-
.
.
REGION I
-
.
~
' '
E Inspection Report No:
s n-?mo /7 s _15 Docket No:
50-280 icensee: ' Metropolitan Edison Company License No:
'
P.O. Box 542 Priority:
-
=-
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
C
-
-
Safeguards
_... _
Group:
_ ~~~
-
ocation:
Middletown Pennsvlvanis (Three Mila Teled 1)
, = =
yj 3.of Licensee:
>Te of Inspection *
Special, Announced
,
-
=-
i
'
a t, f Inspection:
T,,1 v 1s. So7s
.
.
,. =
ates of Previous Inspection:
June 18-20 and. July 10, 1975 ik
.
!#
eporting Inspector:
'
'
7,Re/-7f L. W. Gage /Reactdr Inspector DATE
.
ceompanying Inspectors:
None DATE.
,
DATE
.
-
.
,
~
DATE
-
.
..
ther Accompanying Personnel:
None DATE
_ J / W /k~,//,. / $.ll~9bhvxJ 7*-a S'-/f 7f Q
u. cued By:
,
R. C. Haynes, Senior / Reactor Insp/
DATE ector 557
.
.
-
(1452 023 7910190
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
,
_
-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
=
Enforcement Action
....
-
_. _.
_
""
A.
Items of Noncomoliance 1.
Deficiency
'
-=
.
a.
Implementation of the Inspection of Engineered Safecuards.
(ES) Motor Control Centers (MCCs)
.-
The licensee, contrary to his own inspection instructions, did not complete his inspection of the MCCs.
(Details,
. _.
,
Paragraph 5.)
-
.. _.
B.
Deviations
'
.
None
_.. _
Licensee Actica on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
~~
s
\\
Not applicable.
[
1::..= -
-
Design Changes p...
.
,
L;:..
7...
None identified.
_
l.:i Unusual Occurrences
-
.
None reported.
Other Significant Findines
.
A.
Current Findings
.
Not applicable.
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items The following previously reported unresolved item is considered resolved:
1452 024
-
@ie
.
-2-
.
-~
1.
Seismic Anchorine of AC Control-Rod Drive-System Trip-Breaker Cabinets Reference:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-09, (Details, Paragraph 2).
.
_
The following previously reported unresolved itecs are still con-sidered unresolved:
e.e:
1.
Calibration of Crimoing Tools Reference:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-07. (Details, Paragraph 3).
,
2.
Design and Construction of ES Motor Control Centers CfCCs)
,
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-07.(Details, Paragraph 4).
Reference:
Management Interview
-
At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspector held a meeting at the site with the following persennel to discuss the inspection findings:
Metropolitan Edison ComoEnv
.
Mr. J. Colitz. Unit 1 Superintendent Mr. G. May, Senior Staff Engineer Mr. E. Sheets, Engineer, Jr., Electrical The following items were discussed, and che inspector's findings were acknowledged by the licensee.
,
,
,
A.
Purpose of the Inspection
.
'-
~
.
The inspector stated that the purpose of this special, announced
. inspection was to examine the licensee's inspection efforts on the engineered safeguards (ES) motor control centers (MCCs), to review his actions regarding the purchasing and controlling of crimping tools, and to examine his modification of the seismic anchoring of the AC control-rod-drive-system trip-breaker cabinets.
B.
Review of Items of Nonconcliance
.
The item discussed is identified under Enforcement Action in the Summary of Findings in this report.
(Details, Paragraph 5).
C.
Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolved Items
.
The items discussed are identified under Other Significant Findings in the Sue =ary of Findings in this report.
(Details, Paragraph 2,3, and 4.)
1452 025
.
.
.
.
.
'
.-
.
DETAILS
.5
!.L
.
- -- :
~1.
Persons Contacted
..
.. _
Metropolitan Edison Company
,
Mr. G. May, Senior Staff Engineer
"
Et, E. Sheets, Engineer, Jr., Electrical
.
2.
Seismic Anchoring of AC Control-Rod-Drive-System Trie-Breaket ;{abinets
.(Reference:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-09)
The inspector examined the seismic anchoring for the AC control-rod-
~
drive-system trip-breaker cabinets.
He determined that the cabinets
==
had been re-anchored to the steel-reinforced concrete mounting pads
-
in accordance with the licensee's Work Request No. 6508, 1/2 - inch steel angles were used to anchor the cabinets to the mounting pad; they had 2-inch welds every 6 inches; and *he middle channel support was welded to the steel reinforcement in the mounting pad, *The
.,
'
^
Work Request was signed by the licensee's Supervisor of Maintenance,
[
'
to indicate satisfactory co=pletion, on 6/18/75.
.
3.
Calibration of Crimoing Tools
-
(Reference:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-07)
F
.
The inspector reviewed the s*.atus of the licensee's iniestigation of a new crimping tool.
The licensee stated that a vendor had been selected, but the tool had not yet been purchased.
The inspector reviewed the status of the licensee's study to determine if crimping tocis should be included in his Administrative Procedure No. 1022, " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment."
(This would establish a calibration interval for these tools.)
The licensee
'
s' ated that he had not yet made a dete(mination.
This item is still considered to be unresolved, pending a subsequent review by an NRC inspector of the licensee's actions on purchasing and controlling crimping tools.
.
1452 026
'N
)
s
'
mm
4_
.
.
-=
l T
4.
Design and Construction of Engineered Safeeuards (ES) Motor Control j
Centers (MCCs)
(Reference:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/75-07)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's inspection program for the MCCs.
The licensee had indicated, in a letter to the NRC -
No. GQL 1139, dated 6/10/75 - that "... with the exception of six units, we still anticipate completing the inspection and, if necessary, correcting any discovered deficiencies for all of the
._"
subject un'its by June 30, 1975." The licensee, in the letter,
stated that he did not plan to inspect the six units excepted, and that "... it has been determined that the highly unlikely 7.;_.
failure of any one of these (six) units and its associsted DB-50
!"
breaker would not in itself constitute a threat to the health and.
F safety of the public due to the redundancy that exists in plant I
safety systems."
The licensee identified the six units as:
(1) '1A ES MCC #3A ("A" Reactor Bldg. Vent Unit Fan AH-E-1A)
(2)
1B ES MCC #3A ("B" Reactor Bldg. Vent Unit Fan AH-E-1B)
.(3)
1C ES MCC #14A ("C" Reactor Bldg. Vent Unit Fan AH-E-lC)
l
)
(4)
1A _ES MCC #15A (Feeder Substation Control Power Transfer
'
'
Switch "A")
-
-
(5)
1B ES MCC #2D (Feeder Substation Control Power Transfer Switch "B")
-
.
(6)
1C ES MCC #9BL (480/120-208V. Transformer in Unit 6B, which feeds Panel AB-E)
The licensee indicated that the redunaancy referred to in his '
letter applied to the redundancy among units (1), (2), and (3)
and also to the redundancy between units (4j and (5).
However, the inspector determined that unit (6) did not have redundancy:
.
the licensee indicated that he did not inspect this unit because it would disrupt plant operations to shut off power,to it (which would be necessary in order to perform the inspection).
S ub.-
sequently*, the licensee reviewed his position and determined that
,
this unit could be inspected during a schedulec' plant shutdown, and scheduled the inspection during the next such shutdown, a re-fueling shutdown.
(If a scheduled shutdown should occur prior to this, the licensee will evaluate the feasibility of performing-the inspection at that time.)
- Telephone discussion, J. Colit:: (Petropolitan Edison Co=pany) and
'
-
<
L. Gage (NRC) en July 22, 1975.
1452 027
.
.
-5-
.
'
This item is considered to be unresolved, pending a subsequent
,
review by an NRC inspector at the completion of the licensee's
'
MCC inspection program.
5.
Implementation of the Inspection of the ES Motor Control Centers (MCCs)
The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's inspection of the MCCs, to date.
This inspection was conducted and docu=ented in accordance with the instructions contained in Work Request No. 7873,
"
Rev. 1.
The licensee's inspection summary indicated that there were 317 units: 311 of them were inspected and 6 were not (refer to Details, Paragraph 4 for the listing of units not inspected).
.
126 discrepancies were found during the inspection.
lie three
.... _
,
major causes of discrepancy, and the number of discrepancies associated with each cause, were:
Loose bolts or screws
-- 7 6
.
Lugs not crimped properly or m
. bad compression fit
-- 18 p
.
'
. Nicked conductors
-- 10 The inspector reviewd the instructions in the Work Request and sampled the inspection data sheets.
Paragrapi; S.4 of rhe Work Request states:
" Check the wiring between the bus stab and the line side of.the breaker.
(
']
Use a micro =eter to check the outside diareter of the insulated wire.
Compare the OD to the diameters listed on table'1 for each size wire.
"
'
'
Record the wire size on data sheet 1."
"
.
~
The wire-size comparisons required on the data sheet (pet Table 1)
.are: the actual wire, to the National Electrical Code requirement;
"
-
and the actual wire, to the vendor's design-guideline chart.
i The inspector found that the inspection data sheet for Unit lAR in I
the 1BES MCC (dated 5/30/75, signed by the inspector, and witnessed j
by the Quality Control representative) did not contain w4re-size l.
comparisons.
..
The inspector then requested evidence to substantiate that the
,
licensee had satisfactoilly monitored the inspection effort on the units which the licensee stated were inspected in his inspection j
~
sammary.
,
'
.
...
1452 028
-
.
9-
~~.
.
.
-6-f-
-
,
.
'
)
.
-'
~.
The licensee provided the inspector with a listing of all the units in the seven MCCs, which he used as a " tracking list"
..
to monitor inspection status. The inspector requested the data sheets for the inspections of several of the units which the licensee indicated had been inspected.
The licensee was unable to provide data sheets to substantiate in-
'
,
spection of units 9C, 9D, and 10E of the 1A ES SH MCC.
(These units, designated as spares, were not among the six units that the licensee had previously indicated were not inspected.)
Based on these discrepancies in the implementation of the in-
spection program for MCCs, the inspector cited the licensee
-
for a Deficiency to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, which states, in parc.
" Activities affecting quality shall be pre-scribed by documented instructions.. and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions.."
.
1452 029 s
(
)
'
.
..
~
.
.
e
=>
8