IR 05000289/1978011

IE Insp Rept 50-289/78-11 on 780516.No Noncompliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:B Spent Fuel Pool Mod Per Amend 34 to DPR-50

ML19276H241
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/05/1978
From:	Durr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML19276H236	List: IR 05000289/1978011 ML19276H235
References
50-289-78-11, NUDOCS 7910150867
Download: ML19276H241 (3)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

.

Region I

! Dor: No. En_9acno_11

_

Jocket No. go_ggo License ht DPR-50 Priority Category C

__

'icensee:

Metrocolitan Edison Comoanv

-

_

P. O. Box 542 Readinc. Pennsvivania 19603 Facility Name:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:

Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:

May 16,1978 Inspectors:

• /

,ibLj 6/7/> X j/J. E? Durr, Reactor Inspector cate signec

~

_

care signec

.

O

.

cate. signed Approved by-0 W }{n k t.

k<$.5 /9 '7@' '

7p/R. C. Haynes, CA%sf, Engineering

[j/

ca te/ signec Support Section No.1, RC&ES Branch

.

Insoection Summary:

Inscection on May 15, 1978 (Recort No. 50-289/78-11)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of the

"B" spent fuel pool modification authorized by amendment No. 34 to the Facility Operating License DPR-50.

The inspection involved 8 inspector-hours on site by one fiRC inspector.

Results:

No items of noncompliance were identified in the two areas inspected.

1413 549 c:. : y __ ;

-.a-

--

~

7 910150 96~j;

_

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Metrocolitan Edison Comoany

~~

"R. O. Barley, Lead Mechanical Engineer W. Cotter, Quality Assurance Supervisor

• C. Hartman, Lead Electrical Engineer T. O'Connor, Quality Assurance Assistant

• J. Principe, Quality Control Specialist NUS Corocration

• A. E. Caselli, Supervising Engineer

• denotes those present at the exit interview.

2.

Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinas

.

(0 pen) Unresolved Item (289/78-04-01):

Apparent cracks in the spent fuel pool storage rack welds.

The licensee examined the

.

questionable welds and determined the discontinuities were lack of fusion. The engineering disposition of the r.onconformance report No. 78-37 directed that the welds were accectable "as is" due to the fact that the discontinuities were locatec beyond the

" effective length" of the weld. This does not appear to satisfy the acceptance criteria of the NUS Specification 5098-M-203 nor the AWS Structural Welding Code paragraph 8.15.

This item remains unresolved pending completion of the licensee's review and cor-rective action.

3.

"B" Soent Fuel Pool Modification This inspection was performed to ascertain if licensee commitments and license requirements were being complied with for the spent fuel pool modification and is a continuation of IE Inscection

'

78-04.

The licensee has received the 21 fuel racks and has in-stalled 19 of them at.this time.

The folicwing documents we re reviewed for ccmoliance with the Scent Fuel Pool Modification acolication, NRR license anc safety evaluation recuirements, and the acclicacie coces inc s ecifications, i, ;3 3 5 0

.

';onconformance Report Nos. 78-27, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.

--

--

Selected material cartifications for rack assemolies SN 16430 and 26921.

Facility Procedure Nos. 1501-1, 1503-2, 1503-3, and 1507-2.

--

It was observed that Nonconformance Report No. 78-39 identified struc ural welds that were shorter than the specified length.

The licensee performed additional calculations to assure that the welds, although short, were adequate.

However, infomation was not available at the site to determine if the structural and seismic analyses data are still consistent with the 11RR acplication. The adequacy of the reduced stress margins were verified with the NRR project manager and found to be acceptable.

The inspector had no further questions concerning this matter.

A visual examination was perfomed of the welds en spent fuel

,

storage rack SN 26903, group 2, rack No.17.

The ins;:ector examined the welds for conditions similar to those identified in unresolved

.

item No. 78-04-01.

No items of ncnccmpliance were identified.

-

Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 16, T978.

He su marized the scope of the insoection and the findings.

The licensee's representatives acknowledged the inspector's findings.

A telephone conversation was held with the licensee on May 18, 1978, to further discuss the findings of the inspection.

1413 351