ML19220C392
| ML19220C392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1978 |
| From: | Herbein J Metropolitan Edison Co |
| To: | Grier B NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement (IE Region I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C391 | List: |
| References | |
| GQL 433, GQL-0433, NUDOCS 7905010090 | |
| Download: ML19220C392 (2) | |
Text
,
.' M Lif L[-m METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY =.szw:m u ce:anavuucur:urasconcnarica i
/
POST OFFICE BOX 542 READING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 923-3601 GQL 0433 Pz. B. H. Grier, Director U. S. Nuclear Rrgulatory Con =ission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region I 631 Park Avent e King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (TMI-2)
License No. DPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Inspection No. 77-47 This letter is in response to the subject inspection report resulting from Messrs. Narrow's and Fasano's inspection of December 26-29, 1977; January 3-6 and 10-11, 1978, and the finding thereof.
Below is the response to the infraction referenced in the subject inspection.
Infraction 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Criterion V states, in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by dncumented instructions, procedures or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circu= stances and shall be accom-plished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings..."
Paragraph 17.1.5.3 of the Quality Assurance Program documented in the FSAR states, in part, " Quality oriented activities are contre.!1ed through adherence to the requirenents and directions documented in the project's instructions, procedures and drawings..."
Contrary to the above, as of January 4, 1978, pipe supports WDGH-109S, MUH-18, and MUH-1795 were not installed fully in accordance with the project drawings or instructions and these supports had been inspected and accepted by quality control inspectors.
9 501009e Corrective Action Taken Three pipe supports had been identified by the inspector which had been Q
accepted by the site inspectors but had not been identified or resolved by the designer.93-238
" Mr. B. H. Grier March 16, 1978 GQL Ch33 Corrective Action Taken (continued) 1.
It is stated that support WDG-H-109-S was modified by changing the sire of one leg of the north angle iron member.
A clarification is required here to state that the length, not the size of the angle was changed.
In June of 1977 the Architect-Engineer, Burns and Roe, issued a letter which permitted shortening of the hanger struts to allow proper hanger assembly as required by the field.
The identified condition fits this category and therefore is not considered to be a violation.
2.
The second infraction identifies 2 U-clamps on support MU-H-18 where one 's required by drawing.
Pipe support MU-H-18 as originally designed had only 1 U-bolt, hov :ver,
a Burns and Roe ECM was issued which revised the piping to add a branch connection at the location of the U-bolt.
The single U-bolt was re-coved to facilitate installation of the branch connection and two U-bolts were installed, one on each side of the branch.
This hanger was then identified for inclusion in the hanger "as-built" program which is an ongo ing program for obtaining the engineer's approval for field modifications to the pipe supports. At the tima of the inspection this "as-built" had not yet been drawn, however, it had been identified to be drawn.
3.
The third support identified was MU-H-179S which lacks a complete weld at the carbon steel to stainless pedestal.
The configuration hampered the installer frem making the weld as designed.
Subsequent to the NRC's inspection, the engineer was able to accept the weld as installed as providing sufficient strength to meet the design loads.
Corrective Steps to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations With regard to pipe support WDG-H-109S, the modification to the length of the angle iron member had already been approved by Burns and Roe so no further action was required. Pipe support MU-H-18 hau subsequently been drawn as part of the "as-built" program and is awaiting the engineer's final approval.
All actions required by site procedures have been followed and no further action is necessary. The lack of a ccmplete weld on hanger MU-H-J79S and its acceptance by QC generated a survey to determine whether or not this was an isolated case or a generic problem.
A total of 23 similar supports, those where part of the required weld was restricted due to con-figuration, were examined in the curvey and none were found to have a lack of weld.
Based on this survey, it is concluded that this was an isolated instance and not a generic problem requiring further corrective action.
Very trulv yours, k a: Dr.Ernst Volgenau, Director J. G. derbein
~
Office of Inspection & Enforcement Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission
3{g - ry g g
(
Washington, D. C. 20555 JGH:CW3rejg
-