IR 05000289/1980025
| ML19339B845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1980 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339B843 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-80-25, NUDOCS 8011100276 | |
| Download: ML19339B845 (3) | |
Text
__. - - -
_
_
.-
..
.
.
O u s auc'eaa accu'^toav co""tssto"
-
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
Region I Report No.
sn 2Ao/An 95 Docket No.
50-289 License No.
DPR-50 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, Nsw Jersey 07054 Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: August 25-29, 1980 Inspectors: NdtaDuch
'f/15' 80 S. K. Chaudhary,/ eactor Inspector dats signed R
date signed date signed
,
Approved by:
4-A4
- 7 4 !#O 5. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support
'date' signed Section No. 2. RC&ES Branch
.
Insoection Summary:
Inspection on August 25-29,1980 (Report No. 50-289/80-25)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by one regional based inspector I
of licensee's action in response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Walls.
The inspector reviewed documents, held discussions with licensee personnel, and conducted visual inspection of masonry walls.
Results : No items of noncompliance were identified.
!
,
t Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
l 801110o 1 7 6
.
.
.
.
.
-
._
,
u DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted GPUSC - Met Ed
- W. G. Heysek, Auditor, GPUSC
- L. R. Hillman, Gen. Engineer, GPUSC
- D. G. tiitchell, Licensing - Met Ed G. Schrader, Lead Electrical Designer
- fl. R. Shafer, Engineer Start-up/ Test - Met Ed
- R. L. Summers, fiechanical Engineer - tiet Ed J. L. Wright, QC fianager, GPUSC J. Zaldaris, Administrator, As-Built Program
- denotes persons attending exit interview.
2.
Follow-up Inspection to Review Licensee Actions in Resoonse to IEB 80-11 a.
Records Review and Discussion The insnector reviewed the licensee's actions taken in response to the above bulletin to verify that masonry walls that could affect safety-related systems or components have been identified, and the associated systems and components have been adequately described in the written response. The inspector also reviewed the priorities established for re-evaluation proaram, the schedule therefor, and the -
criteria developed for assigning priorities. The inspector held a
'
discussion with the responsible engineer and other licensee nersonnel to determine the adequacy of the methods used in identifying affected walls, and criteria for assigning priority of re-evaluation.
The inspector was informed by the licensee as follows:
(1) The walls were identified by physical walk-down of the systems in the plant.
(2) Most walls are un-reinforced and the licensee is treating all walls as un-reinforced, unless they can determine definitely the reinforcement design and installation of the wall.
(3) The priority of re-evaluation is based on the effect of wall failure on the shutdown capability of the plant.
(4) The effect of the wall's failure and its affect on shut-down of the plant are a matter of engineering judgment.
.
_
.
.,
-
'
(5) All walls in Auxiliary Building are assioned priority one because of the significant equipment in vicinity.
(6) Design loads on the walls cannot be directly determined from the existing design documents.
(7) Design loads are being developed by piping stress analysis reports, direct physical measurements, hand calculations, and other available load information in desian documents.
(8) The licensee expects to meet tne final response schedule of November 1980.
b.
Visual Verification The inspector. conducted a visual inspection of masonry walls identified by the licensee.
Following walls were visually inspected and the affected equipment was verified:
AB-1, AB-2, AB-3, AB-4 AB-5, AB-6, AB-7, TB-1 AB-11, AB-12 The inspector determined that the safety related equipment affected by the walls has been surveyed and reported by the licensee in his response.
Based on the review of documents, discussions with licensee personnel, and visual verification,the inspector determined that the licensee has taken adequate steps to comoly with the requirements of the bulletin for interim resoonse. However, in resnonse to the insnector's concern regarding unavailability of any documented criteria for assig.1ing re-evaluation priority;the licensee committed that such a document will be available for inspector's review by September 15, 1980.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection the inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) and the inspector :ummarized the scope and the findings of his inspection.