IR 05000289/1976023
| ML19209C332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1976 |
| From: | Davis A, Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209C331 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-23, NUDOCS 7910150062 | |
| Download: ML19209C332 (4) | |
Text
-
...
.
"
IE:I For'm 12 (Jan 75) (Rev)
V
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com!ISSION
!
l OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDIENT
REGION I
.
l IE Inspection Report No:
50-289/76-23 Docket No:
50-289
'
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company License No: DPR-50 P. O. Box 542 Priority:
-
Readina. Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
c Safeguards Group:
--
l Middletown, Pennsylvania (Three Mile Island I)
Location:
Type of Licensee:
T e of Inspection:
Management Meeting Dates of Inspection:
September 10, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection:
September 8-9, 1976 Reporting Inspector:
)
W? '
f!3 I
' 6 ATE P. J If neact ector Accompanying Inspectors:
NONE DATE j
.
DATE l
.
DATE Other Accompanying Personnel:
See Meeting Attendees 9/ 2/7'
Reviewed By:
o
' DAfE A. B. Davis, Section Chief, Reactor Projects C
Section No. 1 U'.
1413 553
.
7910150 (r 3
.
_..-.
. -.
-. -
- - _..
.__
_.
s
.
!
l
\\_/
l SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action None.
I
'
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings i
Not applicable.
'
I B.
Management Meeting A management meeting was conducted at the Three Mile Island site on September 10, 1976 to discuss the Trial Inspection Program.
,
The following personnel were in attendance:
Metropolitan 1. g_3 Company Mr. J. M. Cajigas, Licensing Engineer Mr. J. J. Colitz, Unit 1 Superintendent (]}
Mr. J. G. Herbein, Manager, Generation Operations-Nuclear Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon, Engineer, Senior I-Nuclear i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Mr. E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Mr. P. J. Kellogg, Reactor Inspector Mr. F. J. Nolan, Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist Purpose and Scoge
.
The meeting was held with Met-Ed managemeat to discuss the effect of the Trial Inspection Program on the facility.
Discussion Items Specific items discussed are summarized below:
,
1413 454
,_L w,mw-+pe.e
- gwe
.ymm p w e-e-----
---m+
e--
-
e-eiumsp wmeawg
-
__
.
fg
'
.
-2-
'
A.
Trial Inspection Program effect on the facility as compared to previous inspection efforts.
l Met-Ed indicated that the Trial Inspection Program involved key I
personnel less and clerical personnel more than the previous inspection program. This effect was evaluated by Met-Ed as being less desirable as it tended to decrease the inspector's and key personnel's effectiveness.
The inspector's effectiveness was felt to be reduced due to the large emphasis the statistical portion.
of the program placed on paper review.
Key personnel effectiveness was reduced by the increased effort required to ensure the paper record was perfect with an attendant reduction in effort expanded on systematic problem identification.
B.
Trial Inspection Program effectiveness compared to previous in-spection efforts.
Met-Ed indicated that the effectiveness of the Trial Program was less than that of the previous program.
This reduction in effective-ness had been previously indentified by the NRC and portiot.s of
,
the routine inspection program were added to the Trial Program to cover these areas. The Trial Program statistical portion was
evaluated by Met-Ed as less effective for the following reasons:
I O
1.
The amount of data (paper) reviewed had increased.
This tended to reduce the amount of time supervisory personnel expended on the investigation of potentially significant areas and increased the time spent on paperworl: errors such as
" filling in the blanks."
2.
The inspector's lattitude appeared to be decreased due to the increased amount of data and the yes or no findings required by the program.
The licensee acknowledged the need for inspection guidance, but also cautioned that lattitude was
.
required.
b 3.
The Trial Inspection Program appeared to have less effect due to the nature of the findings identified (i.e. failure to fill in blanks once out of 150 chances.) as compared to findings of a more generic nature of the previous program.
C.
General Comments by the licensee on the Trial Inspection Program.
- 1.
Met-Ed indicated that the statistical approach appeared to have several distortions which would have an adverse affect on the industry. These distortions were:
O 1413 ISS
_. _ -.
-
__
_.
k
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
._
._ _
._.
..
.
~
r
- =
"
,s
{
V-3-
.
a.
The yes or no nature of the findings (i.e. 99% of data reviewed was satisfactory, but 1% not satisfactory
would be a no finding).
I i
b.
The paper orientation leaves two important aspects of
',
an inspection program, personnel and hardware out of
the statistical portion. This paper orientation is
'
caused by the statistical approach of looking at histor-
,'
ical data and only at the equipment / operation if it is being performed at the time of the inspection.
.c.
The narrow focus of the program could cause areas significant to safety to be completely missed.
2.
Met-Ed indicated that the statistical approach did add more uniformity to the inspection program.
3.
Met-Ed indicated that an improvement in future inspection pro-grams could be garnered by giving the inspector an orientation at the site before commencing routine inspections.
The orientation would allow the inspector to be qualified en the licensee's health physics and security programs and learn how O
their personnel operate and their strengths and weaknesses.
The licensee was advised that his comments would be evaluated.
.
!
i 1413 556
,
'
.
...
.
.. _ - - _ - -
.-
%