IR 05000320/1977016
| ML19220B276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1977 |
| From: | Davis A, Fasano A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220B275 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-77-16, NUDOCS 7904250576 | |
| Download: ML19220B276 (7) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _
-
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
_
Report No.
77-16 Docket No.
50-320 License No.
CPPR-66 Priority
--
Category BI Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Comoany P. O. Box 542 Reading, pennsylvania 19603 Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Unit 2 Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:
May 4-6, 1977 Inspectors:
M
%
oe-5/20/7 7 A. N.V Fasano, Reactor Inspector date signed
!
date signed date signed Approved by:
.
C JMd
-}o! 77 A. B. Davi'd, Chief, Reactor Projects date' signed Section Nd. 1. RO&NS Branch Insoection Sumary:
Inspection on May 4-6, 1977 (Report No. 50-320/77-16)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of Safety Comittee Activities during the preoperational phase of the plant; followup on Items of Noncompliance; followup on previously identifled Unresolved Items; a tour of the site and Unit 2 buildings and discussions on pre-operational surveillance and Technical Specification coments. The inspection' involved 27 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were found.
.
(
79042505 %
Region I Form 12 WIN (Rev. April 77)
I
,
l
'
.
a.
=-
=e-e
- *- h
- e-*
=
-
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Company Mr. M.,Bezilla, Engineer I
Mr. W. W. Cotter, Supervisor of Quality Control Mr. G. P. Miller, Unit 2 Superintendent Mr. J. L. Seelinger, Unit 2 Superintendent of Technical Support
General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPUSC)
Mr. R. F. Fenti, Lead Site QA Auditor
Mr. S. Levin, Project Engineer
Mr. M. Nelson, Technical Engineer
United Engineer and Construction, Inc. (UE&C)
Mr. B. A. Bozarth, Phase 2 QC Engineer
- denotes those present at exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 2.
(Closed) Honcompliance 320/77-09-01, failure to establish / document measures and failure to correct conditions adverse to quality as soon as practicable.
Reference the following:
IE Inspection Report 50-320/77-09, Detail 18.a;
-
IE Letter dated March 23, 1977;
-
Licensee response letter dated April 22, 1977;
-
Procedure QC-29-2, QC Personnel Training and Qualification as
-
revised by Field Change QC-212; and, TMI-2 Project Organiza' ion and Responsibilities Document,
-
February 28, 1977.
Ik I
g 1Eh
.
--
.
.
.
-
-
The inspector verified that the licensee QA has reviewed the action taken to correct finding 4 and 12 of Audit 76-12.
Certifi-cation records located in the QC vault were reviewed by the inspector.
One of the certified Phase 2 QC Engineers was interviewed by the inspector on his documented qualifications.
The inspector reviewed TMI-2 Project Organization and, Responsibility Document, PCRD.
The actions taken by the licensee in certifying QC personnel and updating the PORD verify that corrective action as stated in the licensee response letter were completed.
Actions taken to prevent recurrence were reviewed.
The inspector reviewed the GPUSC Chief QA Auditor instruction contained in GPUSC letter dated April 15, 1977, File TMI-II-3984.
The inspector reviewed THI-? Audit Status Report, reference File TMI-II-3989.
Attachment-B of this report contained a column for the notation of number of working days since the date of findings transmittal which should alert the auditor with respect to late responses.
The report is circulated to the key QA personnel and contains remarks to alert responsible personnel of actions required.
The licensee has written a memorandum dated May 6,1977 File TMI-II-3991, that requires a notation on the Status Report for extensions or the completion of findings on a monthly basis.
The inspector had no further questions on this item at this time.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 320/76-17-08, Diesel Generator Test TP-401/1 does not verify all starting air flow paths (i.e., through each solenoid air valve).
TP-401/1 was revised to include the testing of the Diesel Generator using flow paths through each solenoid valve, reference paragraphs 1.1.d and 9.3.1 of TP-401/1.
(Closed) Unresolved Items 320/77-10-02, Functional and Sensitivity Testing of Chlorine Detectors.
The licensee's operations department has reviewed the surveillance requirements for the chlorine detectors, reference procedure 2302-R7, Chlorine System Calibration. The preoperational test procedure includes the testing required under procedure 2302-R7.
The measurement of the response time for chlorine detection and damper closure is addressed. The confir-mation of the chlorine detector sensitivity remains unresolved.
This is unresolved iten 320/77-16-01.
(
-
.
i
-
.
.
-
-
(Closed) Unresolved Item 320/77-12-02, Nuclear Chemical Addition and Sampling System Operational Test, TP 600/5.
This procedure has been changed, reference TCN-1.
The procedure addresses a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> hold time pe"iod, following solution transfer, before boron pre-cipitation determination.
The change establishes a flow of 0.4 gpm of primary water.
The flow rates are taken from in line flow meters. A maximum exit temperature for the primary water is specified to be 120 F.
The method of assuring this exit temper-ature appears to be lacking along with a reference to an operating procedure.
This is unresol,ed item 320/77-16-02.
3.
Safety Committee Activity - Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC Reference FSAR Chapter 16, Section 6.5 of the docketed Technical Specification.
The inspector reviewed the PORC meeting minutes for the period January 3 through April 8,1977.
The inspector also attended a PORC meeting in progress on May 4,1977.
The records indicate that PORC meetings have been conducted at a frequency of at least once per month.
The PORC minutes were reviewed against the FSAR program require-ments.
The inspector verified that the following elements were addressed as requirements:
Function of PORC;
-
Membecship listed by Job Fosition;
,
-
Appointment of Alternates;
-
Meeting Frequency;
-
,-
Quorum Requirements; Responsibility of PORC;
-
I Authority of PORC; l
-
t
_
i
,
- i
.
..
_
_
.
~
Retention of Meeting Minutes;
-
Distribution of Meeting Minutes;
-
Lines of Communication; and,
-
-
Followup Action on Disagreements.
A charter addressing the elements above is lacking.
The requirements placed upon PCRC as described in the FSAR appear to be most applicable to an operating plant.
A charter, as refer-enced above, is needed to clarify the function of this review group during the current preoperation phase of the unit.
The following requirements specified in the FSAR as PORC responsi-bilities to review did not appear in the minutes reviewed by the inspector:
Review of violation of applicable federal statutes, codes,
-
regulations and internal station procedures and instructions having nuclear safety significance.
There are requirements for the review of repurtable occurrence which again apply to an operating plant.
The intent of this requirement during the pre-license phase could be met by reviewing reports as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The following was discussed with the licensee:
The use of an agenda, including all the responsibilities of
-
DORC as included in the FSAR once per month, to assure timely coverage of items; The use of a followup item list; and,
-
Addressing old business for current status.
-
'The licensee has agreed to consider the items discussed when he is drafting a charter for PORC to fit the preoperation phast of the unit.
pending the completion of the charter, this is unresolved
item 320/77-16-03,
'
t M iES
.
.
_
-
.
4.
Plant and Site Inspection The inspector made unannounced visits to the following areas:
Turbine Building
-
-
Reactor Building
.
-
Control Building
-
Circulating Water Pump House The area just outside the Reactor Building and adjacent to the Turbine Building contained an excess of wood that did not appear to be scaffolding material.
Discussion with the licensee indicates that control over areas where jurisdictional tags on equipment are shared, remains with construction.
Once the building housing the equipnent is turned over to Met-Ed, inspection and cleanliness responsibilities will be under THI-2 and TMI-2 procedures will be u s ed.
i 5.
Initiation of Surveillance Program for Unit 2 Discussion with the licensee resulted in the following understand-ing with respect to early implementation of a surveillance program for Unit 2:
Once a major piece of equipment has been turned over to Met-Ed, the item, where possible, should be given surveillance to assure that it remains in equal or better condition as at time of turn-Once a system has been accepted, based on a satisfactory over.
functional test, appropriate surveillance, where possible, should be designated and implemented on a regular scheduled basis to assure the system remains in satisfactory condition.
Prior to licensing, appropriate surveillance procedures will have been written and approved.
Surveillance schedules will have been established.
Prior to entering mode 6, surveillance required will have been satisfactorily completed.
(
54 ~ ~I S9
-
.
,
-
-
.-
.
Preoperational tests when shown to meet surveillance requirements can be credited in meeting surveillance requirements.
6.
Draft Technical Specification Review
.:ere discussed with respect to the draft standard Techni-Comments cal Specification.
Similar comments regarding clarity of specif-ication requirements have been forwarded to NRR.
This is a continuing item of review which should be completed when the final Standard Technical Specification is issued for TMI-2.
7.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives, denoted in para-graph 1 by an asterisk, at the conclusion of the inspection on May 6, 1977. The inspector semmarized the scope and the findings of the inspection as described is paragraphs 2 through 6.
\\
-
!.
l I,
p} ' f!O
-
.
$