ML19256D358
| ML19256D358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1977 |
| From: | Herbein J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D357 | List: |
| References | |
| GQL-0789, GQL-789, NUDOCS 7910170884 | |
| Download: ML19256D358 (3) | |
Text
.
0 y
A ~fiH J
'=;
/
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY sussiciaavorcenenat eusticuritiriesconposar:o?il POST OFFICE BOX 542 READING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601 June 8, 1977 GQL 0789 Mr. Eldon J. Brunner, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19hC6
Dear Mr. Brunner:
Docket No. 50-289 Operation License No. DPR-50 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Inspection Report No. 77-15 This letter and the enclosures are in response to your inspection letter of May 19,1977, concerning Mr. T. Stetka's inspection of TMI-1 and the resultant finding of two (2) apparent infractions.
Sincerely, J. G. Herbein Vice President JGH:js Enclosures 4910170 1687 274
^w,
. Metropolitan Edison Company I
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Inspection No. 77-15 Apparent Violation A 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented... procedures... appropriate to the circu= stances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these... procedures.
FSAR, Appendix 1A, Operational Quality Assurance Plan, Section 16 states in part, "Whenever testing is required to demonstrate that a =aterial, part, co=ponent, or system vill perform statisfactorily in service (whether it be prototype, preopera-tional, proof, or operational surveillance testing) a test program is instituted employing vritten and spproved procedures which are in accordance with basic re-quirements established in Technical Specifications... codes, standards, regulatory requirements, etc."
Contrary to the above, during the period of April 3,1977 through April 13, 1977, emergency diesel generator testing, performed as a result of a replacement of the diesel generator BFD control relays, was conducted using inadequate procedures.
In addition, personnel failed to adhere to the procedure in that steps of the
' procedure were signed off as satisfactory while in actuality the steps could not ce perfor=ed as written.
Response to Antarent Violation A The procedure errors were in the retest portion of the procedure. The incorrect procedure did not result in any viring errors and would not, in itself, have affected the operability of the diesel.
The procedure was revised to correct the errors. The cognizant engineer and lead engineer vere counseled regarding the careful preparation and review of procedures.
The maintenance personnel error in signing off steps that could not have been perfor=ed due to the procedure errors, or in failure to follow the correct sequence, did not affect the operability of the diesel.
The =aintenance personnel involved in the test were counseled. All portions of the test whose results were in question were repeated using the revised procedure and satisfactory results were obtained.
Full ec=pliance was achieved on Apr'.1 26, 1977 1687 275
,{ N.,
Metropolitan Edison Company Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Inspection No. 77-15 Apparent Violation B Technical Specification 6.8.1 states in part, " Written procedures and administrative policies shall be... implemented...that meet or exceed the requirements...of Section 5 1 and 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1972 and Appendix A of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.33..."
Ad=inistrative Procedure 1019. Technical Specification SurveilJ.ance Program, Revision 10, Section 6.k.1 states. "Upon completion of the procedure, the results shall be co= pared to the acceptance criteria.
If any parts of the results are unsatisfactory, corrective action must be taken as described in Section 6.5-Exceptions and Deficiencies."
Surveillance Procedure 1303-6.2, Hydrogen Purge Operating Test, Section 7.1 states in part, "If any problems exist or develop which renders the test or a portion of the test unsatisfactory, they shall be noted, the corrective action explained in the '9e= arks! section of the data sheet..."
Contrary to the above, on April 20, 1977, the hydrogen purge test was perfor=ed incorrectly, but was not so noted on the data sheet and subsequent reviews of the mdata by supervisory and quality control per.sonnel did not identify the errors.
)
Response to Apparent Violation B Although the calculation did not materially affect the operability chec'k of the Hydrogen Purge System, the calculational error was corrected.
Corrective action taken to avoid further items of nonce =pliance was to counsel the
~
individuals who performed, reviewed and cpproved the calculations to emphasize the requirements of the Hydrogen Purge Test, AP 1010.
Full compliance was achieved on May 2,1977 1687 276