ML19322C652
| ML19322C652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322C653 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR GQL-0340, GQL-340, NUDOCS 8001180270 | |
| Download: ML19322C652 (2) | |
Text
..c f g...,
. 4{
(,)...
f d4 = b,,,
u', f
,G, e. s Zwv -
U,,m..
- Lo /* PC' **.;>"of53 i
/
/
t METHOPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY : :. :u-
- u:.:ne.. w:v.i.imscom w m /
POST oF F1:E EDX M2 RE ADING, PENNSYLVANt A 19633 TELEPHONE 215 - 529-3601 Ma' ch 16,1977 G O 03k0 g @r / p 9
6 1..-~t.i '0ry poc :et File 9
- s.m v
c e - ?.
a C',ch' %'
n*
.v
..,..=. o ' =. 4 _' _, y D, #.
' ~.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Oc--4ssien Office of Inspection & Inforcemen.
"S, negion 1 N
7 e n it r a. venue y.e s L..:.nS of.' russia, ex.
19 %:o
- v. ' g D._. ei..
- r.,,.e e 4.__, e _ e la..
v.,.,,.,,.e.,,. e
- 4. c., U. : ' 2 ( '.'..'_'- 2 )
v, License I;o. CFFR-66 Docket Ec. 50-320 Inspection Report No. 50-320/77-02 Tnis letter is in respcase to the subdent inspection report resulting from M.
5arrev's inspection of 'anua y 10 th ough 13, 1977 and tht findings thereof.
Eesponse is given belov to the infractions identified in the report.
Anna *ent Infrsetien '77-02-01:
nonconferring conditions in I=ergency Feedvater and Main Steam Lines.
"Centrary to ICCFR50, Appendix E, Criterion I, Sections cf the emergency
.r...._.:..,.,..
c_. a
,,.1n.
.._a.,w g
yu.._.
,..=..,.. e _- s, c4
.n a
confer: to t.he d avings and specifica.icns."
Respense to Arnarent Infracticn (Imergency Feedvater):
Tne e.ercener feedvater line had been inspected fer phase 1 turnover and acee;;ed.
"ne ERC inspector found that hanger ITE-L53 did not have the clear: nee specifie:i on Bergen-Patersen Draving Ko.1691-1.
Eanger ::..-h55 had been previcusly inspected during QC phase I inspectics and was found to have been insta led in accordtnce v'.h the requirements of 3ergen-Paterson Draving No.
1691-1. However, ct the time of phase I inspectien, the piping was not eceplete in tnat certain spool pieces were missing (as do :cented on the phase I punch list).
Subsequent to the Q': phase I inspecticn, cut prior te the HRC inspee:icn, the piping depa-trent installed missing spool piece 2-IT-33 It is concludei
...., a..,.
.,g. 4..,, 4..
c_, 3
.w..... e,,.e..,,..... r...... _ _,... i-.n. e,0 w
. ---. 6 e s
..as c c_.nged.
w.g a
' 8001180 A O
')po9to3!3
4 aragraph 51 of the in:pecters detailed rep -. de: ribes the inspector's 5
.r' ct e tation that E0?-3-2 did no cenf0= to Eu-ns &.oe specification 2555 T0 and that calles in circuit HEICP had been accepted by the C inspector without
.,...... 4.,. e..,1 a.
n.,.,
s, In March, 1976, Eurns & Roe issued IOM 21.16 which established the re uirenent for the heat shrink insulation.
Erns & Roe specificaticn 2555-70 was not revised te incorporate this FCM until I;ovember,1976.
Tne ECF vas not revised when the ECM vas istued as explained above.
Eovever, e. coma.1 part of the QC e.
a,.
....ie.
ada
.^s
- a..s "- a. * ~~. a' a -~. ~~,.. l a e.. s p a.
' 4 - -
~
4 ry.
...2 4
3.,.
- 4. c.,
- 4...
c.
fare perferned to dete=ine cenpliance vith on standing ECM's.
At the phase I Inspection of circuit EE30P this was dene and the QC inspector had in fact rejected the circuit for lack of heat shrink insula. tion.
r.
- 4.,. n. s.1..,.
m r.
3 1.
ECP-8-2 has nov been revised to cenply vith Erns & Eoe specification 2555-70.
2.
ECF-3-2 vill be revised.o co: ply vith Eu m s & Ece specification 2555-70 by h,,,,.. m.,s, 191.
..n 3
An inspection for hea shrink insulatien has been added to.;he phase I QC checklist for electrical inspections.
Steps Taken to Avcid r tu--e ?.ecu rence u
Eene required.
As const uction activities focus = ore on tasks leading directly to fuel loading and eventually to co=ercial operation, ve are as concerned as the NRC that these schedule pressures not result in any degradation in the Quality Assurance progras at TMI-2.
Both Quality Assurance and P oject Manage =ent personnel are ec 4tted to see that degradation does not happen.
Since December 1976 ve have taken the fo11cving specific steps:
O'r *- -. d C"- :-
s'-----
k a"* a. k a. a. - a A_A..d +wo.vae A
- "e
-c" "a'
. o+._, C c. 9 -)
- e. _4 -.+ 1.*Ve1 a
n w
.co
.,.e._:_,,..,..,_.,._4.,,
.h,.
s,
-.. o.r..,.
.4 -
2....
s,,_..
e, e.,_
- c a,,i _a.. e...,_,.... < c
. e s a ).
ta u
.. a c.
2.
Cne additional Quality Assurance Engineer he.s been assigned to the phase
. a,,,,,...r.. a'.' ^r. *e v.' ev an ". " -" ove.
e.-.d...'~.,.
3 Overtime has been authcrized for Quality Assurs.nce Engineers to insure thercushness of review and =inicun quality risk frc= schedule pressures, b.
Specific pelicy guidance has oeen reiterated to QC ins 3 action, and site i n +o. " a.4. n, c *.
~ ~....e.. u a. ' 4 c.. c.'_ co.a. a.
- a. a..
'. un
- i o..e., ~ ~ - - - --
- e- ~_,. ct. a..
a..
e const =ction and test schedules with site quality control.
7nis policy
- o ~.".4 4.
- a. s a.k..a. ^. ' e ~,. a. s s". a o"..".'.."..'.'.a..a..
- ~.. n a... '. s u e.sC ne.
c....
. o.
r y
,\\
PDDR D E D_