ML19256D562
| ML19256D562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1975 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910190530 | |
| Download: ML19256D562 (2) | |
Text
/
L,N CAP fllg;.y
' =, sa a nau
\\
TTROPOLl TAN EDISON COMPANY suestoraRyof GENERAUUBUCUnUHESCORPORATION
/,
i l'OST OFFICE BOX 542 READING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601
~-
'.i November 26, 1975 GQL 1758 9 N'.
i Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director i
Office of Inspection & Enforce =ent Region 1 U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission 631 Park Avenue, 19106 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 4
DOCKET # 50-289 OPERATIIiG LICEISE # DPR-50 THRIE MILE ISLAIiD NUCLEAR STATIC'I UNIT 1(D!I-1)
=, ;
DISPECTION REPORT 75-23 F
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
This letter and enclosure are in response to your inspection letter of November 5,1975 concerning Mr. J. Hannon's inspection
- of
(
TME-1 and the resultant findings of that inspection -
Sincerely, R. C.
.NOLD '
~
VICE PRESIDEiT RCA:C'viS :rk Enclosure File: 20.1.1/7 7 3 2.1 1451 276 791019o 6 3 0
l' Metropolitan Edison Co=pany (Met-Ed)
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Docket No. 50-289
(}f License No. DPR-50 Inspection No. 50-289/75-23 l
l Bestonse to Descrittion of Avtarent Deficiencies l !
Apdarent Deficiency A Contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification 6.1.1.1.c, official PORC business was conducted in the absence of a quorum.
Res'vonse The' PORC Chairman or Vice Chairman vill ensure that a quorum is present prior to commencing a scheduled PORC meeting.
Aptarent Deficiency 3 Contrary to the requirement of Technical Specification 6.1.1.1.d.7, the following violation of Technical Specification requirements was not reviewed by PORC:
1.
Failure to r ecord shift checks required by T.S. table 4.1-1 in
-+
accordance with T.S. 6.2.1.c and Surveillance Test 1301.1.
7-Restonse I
With reEard to-this deficiency, i==ediate corrective action was taken to review the missed surveillance.
It was deter =ined that the missed surveillance did not cause or threaten to cause an unsafe condition in that plant.
Preventative actions were taken to inform the personnel involved and to ensure that the surveinance engineer reports to the PORC for their reviev each instance of missed surveillance or surveillance vbich fails to meet its acceptance criteria.
As indicated above, ce=piiance has nov been achieved.
1451 277 e
.