IR 05000320/1977043
| ML19220C429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1977 |
| From: | Mcgaughy R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C427 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-77-43, NUDOCS 7905010347 | |
| Download: ML19220C429 (7) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
iS 25 E Region I Report No.
50-320/77-43 Docket No.
50-320 License No.
CPPR-66 Priority Category B
--
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2
Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection condu ed:
N ember 8-10, 1977 Inspectors:
acum O
1//A A[77 l
L. Narrow, Reactor Inspector
,
/cate / signed
'
.
cate signec
I
-
i date signed Approved by:
b/ /Mrbu> A
//
I /> 7 R. W. McGaughy4 CXisf. Construction Projects
' cate signed
/
Section, RC&ES Branch Insoection Sumary:
Insoection on November 8-10,1977 (Recort No. 50-320/77-43)
Areas Inspected:
items and QC program for installation of pipe hangers and supports inspection involved 22 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-
t 770M
'
NS2"drl17F aoseioW7
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS i
Persons Contacted
.
Princioal Licensee Emoloyees J. Barton, TMI-2 Project Manager
.
- R. J. Kazebee, Engineer S. Levin, Project Engineer
- J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager United Enoineers and Constructors, Inc.
i,
D. C. Lambert, QC Supervisor
'
Burns and Roe, Inc.
- R. P. Brownewell', Site Project Engineer P. Cady, Project Manager
- R. D. Carmichael, QA Site Group Supervisor
-
Catalytic, Inc.
.
- J. W. Furlong, Project Engineer
denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also talked with several other licensee employees as well as employees. of the Architect-Engineer and the constructor.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinos
.
(Cloted) Unresolved Item (320/77-02-05):
Discrepancy between material specified for fire stops and seals in B&R specification 2555-70, and the FSAR had been identified as an unresolved item.
'
Speci fication 2555-70 has been revised to delete the fire stop material.
Specification 2555-138, " Penetration Seals" Amendment 2, dr.ted August 31, 1977, provides the requirements for material to be us.ed for fire stops and seals. This specification conforms to the requirements of Question 222.41 of Amendment 60 of the FSAR.
.
W c
e F,
,
,
,
)$.
'
k
'
.-
,
.
.
.
.
3.
"0-Deck" Installation During a tour of the building, the inspector observed installation of
"Q-Deck" adjacent to concrete block walls. This installation was added to provide anchorage for safety-related conduits, and to prevent damage to safety-related conduits or equipment in case of collapse of the walls.
During discussion of the work with the licensee's representatives, the inspector was informed that this work was not within QC scope for inspection. This work has not been identified as within scope in B&R Project Procedure TMI-SP-88, "Identi-fication of Structures, Systems and Components under the Met Ed Quality Assurance Plan." The inspector questioned exclusion of this work from QC scope.
The question was referred to B&R engineering.
This item is unresolved pending a change in classification of the
"Q-Deck" or provision of the rationale for its present classifi-cation.
(77-43-01)
.
4.
Licensee Internal Audits The inspector reviewed the GPUSC Audit No. 77-14, " Audit of Catalytic
!
Construction Activities". This audit was conducted on September 13-15, l
1977, shortly after Catalytic Construction Company assumed responsi-
.
bility for construction and maintenance activities at the site, in l
order to determine if construction and QA/QC procedures were being
-
properly implemented.
In the seven areas audited, seven findings were identified. The constructor was notified of these findings by letter dated September 23, 1977.
Corrective action had been taken on all except one finding and verified by Field QC as of November 10, 1977.
In addition, on September 19, 1977, a meeting was held by the auditors with GPUSC QA/QC to discuss corrective action and a follow-up audit to ascertain the effectiveness of the QC program. The in-
-
spector examined a letter dated, October *7,1977, from MPR Associates (GPUSC Consultant) which states that the follow-up audit had been conducted and that although specific deficiencies were found, in general, proper controls of construction activities were maintained.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
0A/0C Procet y es for Pioe Hanaer Installation
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's QA/QC implementing procedures for installation of pipe supports and restraints, with respect to inspection of installation, release for construction, control of design and field changes, verification and documentation of technical C
.
.
c m
.
u
-
3; g, t
!
t d
-
.
.
requirements and audits.
Documents reviewed included:
a.
Metropolitan Edison Quality Assurance Plan - Design and Construction, Revision 11, dated February 3,1976, including:
,
Section VII, Preparation and Review of Specifications
-
and Procedures.
Appendix B, Procedure for Performance of Construction
-
Site Audits.
Appendix E, Procedure for Review of Contractor Prepared
-
specifications.
b.
Quality Centrol 9 ocedure QC-10-2 for " Mechanical Equipment",
Revision 2, dated January 22, 1973, including:
Appendix B, Pipe Support Installation Practice, Revision
-
1, dated August 9, 1976.
i c.
Quality Control Procedure QC-2-2 for " Receiving Inspec, tion",
Revision 7, dated April 27, 1977.
The inspector also reviewed Burns and Roe (B&R) surveillance report s
and GPUSC audit reports concerning inspection of pipe supports and restraints during 1977.
-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Plant Tour
~
The inspector walked through various areas of the plant and ob-
-
served work in progress, adherence to QC requirements and protection of equipment. The inspector observed protective barriers installed at electrical penetrations of floors, fire stops at electrical wall penetrations and installation of "Q-Deck" at concrete block walls. The inspector questioned inspection of the "Q-Deck" instal-lation (Paragraph 3 above).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
L oa n--
/ L.
L * *
e
-
^
,
.
.
.
.
.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reoorted by the Licensee 7.
__
the licensee had reported as a significant On March 14, 1977, deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), that, as a result a.
of pressure losses in the duct work to the reactor vessel skirt, the design basis temperature of 150' F in the concrete reactor vessel support structure could not be maintained by the normal
-
ventilation system (77-00-03).
Documentation of installation-of equipment to provide additional air flow had been reviewed
,
However this item remained unresolved during Inspection 77-35.
because the additional equipment was not classified as Seismic Class I although the FSAR classifies the normal ventilation system as Class I.
,
'
Amendment 60 revises Paragraph 9.4.15 of the FSAR, to state that piping, ductwork and equipment required for post accident heat removal are designed as Seismic Class I except for two
!
seismically mounted 100% capacity centrifugal fans. B&R by Telex, dated November 9,1977, confirmed that the mounting details meet seismic I requirements. QC Inspection Reports No. CM-128 reported installation of the equipment conforming to FCR-2359.1.
The inspector had no further questions.
By letter dated, June 2,1977, the licensee had reported as b.
a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e),
that casing studs for Make-up Pump B had begun to yield while being torqued during a re-assembly of the pump (77-00-04).In-Yielding had occurred at about 1250 ft.-lbs. of torque.
vestigation and tests by B&W and GPU show that tne bolt material
-
meets specification requirements and should have been ad :quate for the i;. tended load.
The pump manufacturer revised the requirements to allow torquing of the bolts to 750 ft.-lbs. during assembly. Problem Report No. 2224 shows a new set of bolts to have been installed and torqued to.750 ft.-lbs.
.
This item is resolved.
.
L
C^9 L
-
/ (.
L,
=
.
.
.
..
.
.
By letter dated, August 28, 1975, the licensee had reported c.
as a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e)
to safety-related systems.that a failure of certain block walls coul (75-00-01) The status of the corrective actions was reviewed during inspection 76-08.
Change Memos (ECMs) No.ever, this item remained unresolved pe How-2833, 3214, and 3299.
The inspector closed out on Juneexamined QC docurentation and verifie 28, 1976, August 16, 1975 and October 31, 1977, respectively.
This item remains unresolved pending resolution of the required classificatien of "Q-Deck".
(Paragraph 3 above)
d.
By letter dated June 24, 1977, the licensee had reported as a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR
'
and Cooling System had been installed with manually operated isolation valves without position indication (77-00-06). This is contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 7.3.2.1.m of the
,
I FSAR.
-
Paragraph 7.3.2.1.m of the FSAR, has been revised by Amendment The inspector was informed by the licensee's re
.
Met Ed Administrative Procedure No. AP-1013 would provide this control, but was incomplete.
'
This item is unresolved pending completion of this procedure and the review by an NRC inspector.
8.. Licensee Action on IE Bulletins / Circulars
.
-
The inspector examined licensee records and interviewed licensee representati,ves to verify licensee action on the following:
IE Bulletin 77-01 ITE Pneumatic Time Delay Relay
l The licensee has reported, by letter dated June l
27,1977, that a field investigation had identified 14 of the defective relays to
!
have been installed, seven in eacn of the safety-related circuits for the Diesel Generators.
which identified the relays to be replaced and ECM verification
'
which verified completion of this work.
'
i This item is resolved.
L e0 0 '.
1 L.
.
_
i
.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 3 of this report.
,
10. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 10, 1977. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee had no comments.
.
l
,
-
\\
.
t e-/
-
c. )
k
,
s
/L v<