ML20038A582
| ML20038A582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A580 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-81-25, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8111130630 | |
| Download: ML20038A582 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1981025
Text
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
~
Report No. 50-289/81-25
Docket No. ,50-289
License No. DPR-50
Priority
Category
C
--
Licensee:
Metrcpolitan Edison Company
P.O. Box 480
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1
Inspection At:
Middletown, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted:
September 8-11, 1981; September 21-25, 1981
Inspectors:
t ra2TdM/
tc/2 6/f/
S.~Chaudhary, Redctor Inspector
date signed
date signed
Approved By:
0 ',
>8
M !N df
.
()L.E.'Trp,IBChief, Materials and Processes
dad.e signed
Section, E
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 8-11, 21-25, 1981 (Report No. 50-289/81-25)
Areas Inspected: An announced inspection of the itcensec's activity in response
to IE Bulletins 79-7,2, 79-14, and 80-11.
The inspection involved 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> onsite
and 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> off-site by one regional based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
ADOhKO!
g
_ .
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
~
Met-Ed/GPU
- B.E. Ballard, Sr., Manager-TMI QA, Modifications / Operations
- R.O. Barley, Lead Mechanical Engineer, THI-1
- C.L. Incorvati, QA Audits
- J.F. Fritzen, Site Supervisor-Technical Functicns, THI-1
- C.W. Smyth, Supervisor Licensing, TMI-1
- C. Stephenson, Licensing Engineer
L. Lohnes, QA Lead Civil Engineer
L. Zubey, Supervisor-Construction
J. Fornico?:, Operations QA Manager
J. Faulkter, M&C Coordinator
C. Davis, M&C Group
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
J. Gronki, Structural Engineer
R. Ciemiewicz, Engineer, ISI Group (By Phone)
J.C. Herr, Lead Structural Engineer (By Phone)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A.N. Fasano, Chief, Site Operations Section
D.R. Haverkamp, Senior Resident Inspector
2.
Plant Tour
The inspector conducted a walk-through tour of the accessible areas of
the plant where modification / construction operations were in progress
and/or have been finished to asses; conformance to good construction
practice, availability of QC inspectors and conformance of finished
work to the drawing requirements. A licensee QC inspector accompanied
the inspector on this tour.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
,__,_.y
,
,.
_y
___-_
_ ,,.
. . - . ,, y
,
,
_ , , _ . - ,
, - _ - , , _-
, , , ,
-
.
3
l
,
i
3.
Follow-up of IE Bulletins
,
a.
IEB:79-02
The inspector reviewed records, held discussions with cognizant
licensee personnel, and inspected a random sample of completed
work to ascertain the licensee *s compliance to the requirements
of Bulletin 79-02. The inspector reviewed the following records:
Topical Report No. 002, dated 7/23/81.
--
Final Safety Analysis Report,
--
Chapters: 2.0; 4.0; and 5.0.
Section: 2.8; 4.1.2.5.1; 5.1.2.1.1.(a) and (b);
5.1.2.1.2.(a) and (b); 5.2.1.2.11.
Metropolitan-Edison letter to B.H. Grier, dated 1/10/80.
--
GAI drawing D-312-632, Revision 1, " Nuclear Services Cooling
--
Water."
GAI drawing 0-312-634, Revision 1, " Nuclear Services Cooling
--
Water 18" Supply to Heat Exchanger."
'
GAI drawing C-312-689, Revision 1.
--
GAI drawing B-312-756, Revision 0, " Nuclear Services Closed
--
Cycle Cooling to Fan Motor Coolers."
System ME-94 Package:
--
Piping Inspection Report, PIR-94, dated 12/4/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, ME-94, dated 7/8/80.
RFI's:
4412, dated 4/3/81, for Support #NSH-37.
4415, dated 4/6/81, for Support #NSH-26.
4422, dated 4/13/81, for Support #NSH-40,
and NSH-39.
4424, dated 4/25/81, for Support #NSH-33.
4479, dated 6/4/81, for Support #NSE-17.
Field Data Request, dated 6/23/81, for Support #NSH-32.
System ME-95 Package:
--
PIR-95, dated 12/5/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/10/80 for penetrations
1, 2, and 3.
RFI #4461, dated 5/21/81.
...
..-.
..
_
,
_ _
_ _
_
_
_ - _ .
.
.
4
Pre-drill Hole Data for Support #NSH-15, PDR.#06.
System ME-137:
--
PIR-137, dated 3/12/80.
~
PIR-137, dated 12/7/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/15/80.
RFI-4549, dated 6/29/81, for Support #SFH-88.
System ME-200:
--
PIR-200, dated 12/7/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/14/80.
Based on the review of the above documents the inspector determined
as follows:
The licensee has made extensive efforts to inspect, identify,
--
re-analyze and test the drilled-in concrete expansion anchors
used in pipe supports.
No discrepancies wa-c .1oted in identification and inspection
--
documentation.
Modifications to inadequate supports are in progress.
--
The re-analysis and test results are submitted in the final
--
report, " Topical Report #002."
However, from the licensee's final report for the bulletin, it
appeared that the SSE loads had not been used in developing the
maximum support loads for re-analysis, although revision 2 of the
bulletin clearly stated that the factors of safety were intended
for the maximum support load including SSE.
In the discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector was
referred to the licensee's engineering consultants, Gilbert
Associates, for further explanations in this regard. The inspector
discussed this matter with the site representative of GAI, who in
turn arranged for the inspector to discuss this matter on the
telephone with cognizant engineers in the GAI home office in
Reading, Pennsylvania. During this telephone conversation the
inspector was informed that although there was in fact a conflict
between the licensee's final report and the bulletin requirement,
the bulletin requirement of SSE was not applicable because the
design basis of the plant was '0BE', not 'SSE.'
The inspector
disagreed with this conclusion by the licensee regarding the
bulletin requirements, and informed the licensee that this matter
remains unresolved pending further justification by the licensee
and review by NRC. (79-BU-02)
.
-
.
.
. - - -
-. -
-_
_
.
..
5
b.
Visual Inspection of Completed Work
The inspector randomly selected two supports, which have been
modified due to re-analysis for a visual inspection and the
associated documentation review. The supports were visually
inspected for workmanship, conformance to design / drawing requirements,
-
and the accuracy and completion of documentation.
The following
supports were inspected:
Support # COE-25, Condensate Storage Tank Cross-connect, at
--
Elevation 297-0."
Support #COE-12, Condensate line.
--
The following records associated with the above supports were
reviewed:
PIR-Cs/30421/81.
--
MCG-13-69, As-built package.
--
WAN #271, Revision 0, Work Authorization.
--
IRR, Attachment #17.
--
The inspector determined that the support #C0E-25 had not been
turned over to QC for final inspection, therefore, QC had not
inspected the support for acceptance. The support #COE-12 was
inspected by QC and one item was found unsatisfactory. The
unsatisfactory item exceeded the dimensional tolerance as specified.
The matter was under resolution by the Modification Control Group
of the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
IE Bulletin 79
~_4
The inspector reviewed the licensee's final response to the
bulletin requirements, and held discussions with cognizant personnel
of the licensee and his engineering contractors. Additionally,
the documentation reviews for this part of the inspection were
performed in conjunction with the review of records for IEB:79-02
due to che interrelated requirements of these bulletins. Due to
the intensive inspection and re-analysis covered by the final
report, it needs further review by NRC to assess the adequacy of
this report. Also, the modifications necessitated by the re-
analysis are in progress. Therefore, the bulletin remains open,
and will be followed-up in subsequent inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
-
- , -
w--+
--
-,,
-
, - . - . - - -
.
.
-
.-
.
. . . .
6
d.
The inspector reviewed the final response of the licensee to the
requirements of this bulletin and held discussions with licensee
and contractor' personnel. The modifications necessitated by the
~
re-analysis have not been completed in the plant, therefore, the
bulletin remains open, and will be followed-up in a subsequent
inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,
or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is
discussed in Section 3.a of this report.
'
5.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted * in Paragiaph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the
purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
.,
e
t
Q
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
-. .
.
m
. .
.
-
b'
'
'
-r%
uniTro starts
[
I,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
k
o
REGloN I
L
!
sai PARx AvcNuc
KING OF PRUS$1 A, PcNNSYl.VANI A 19406
+....
OCT 2 91981
Docket No. 50-289
-
p
,
c
Metropolitan Edison Company
,
o)h
ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill
g
j/f) h, ~
Vice President and Director of TMI-1
S
r/
-
NOV2'o $vih ld
T
P.'O. Box 480
-
Middletown, Pennsylvania
17057
u,,%& man x1
- -
Genticmen:
k
&
/g
Subject:
Inspection 50-289/81-25
,
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mi . S. Chaudhary
of this office on September 8-11, 1981; September ?;-25, 1981 at the Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 located at Middletown, Pennsylvania of
activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-50 and to the discussions of
our findings held by Mr. Chaudhary with Mr. B.E. Ballard, Jr. of your staff
at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of Inspection
and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.
Within these areas, the tospection consisted of selective examinations of
procedures and representative reccrds, interviews with personnel, and
observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were observed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's
Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or
your contractors) believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4),
it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within ten
(10) days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request
for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter
a written application to this office to withhold such information.
Consistent
with section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an
affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the
document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement
,
p.or
N
e
i
7~7
o lii me
e _
(. ;
- -
_
. _ - _
.
.
Metropolitan Edison Company
2
of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should
be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the
statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated
as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not
hea?fromyouinthisregardwithinthespecifiedperiodsnotedabove,the
report will be placed in the Public Document Room. The telephone notification
of your intent to request withholding, or any reauest for an extension of
the 10 day period which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor,
Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.
5!o reply to this letter is recuired; however, should you have any questions
concerning this inscection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
.
.- --
R. R. Keimig, Chief
Projects Branch 40. 2, Division of
Resident and Projec
Inspection
Enclosure: Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection
.
Report Number 50-289/81-25
cc w/ encl:
R. J. Toole, Operations and Maintenance Director, TMI-1
C. W. Smyth, Supervisor, TMI-1 Licensing
E. G. Wallace, Manager, iWR Licensing
J. B. Liberman, Esquire
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire
Public Document Room (PDR)
.
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Ms. Mary V. Southard, Co-Chairman, Citizens for a Safe Environment
(Without Report)
.
,
.
. . . _ . _
_-
_
__
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_
. . . - -
-
,-
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Repert No. 5_0-289/81-25
. Docket No. 50-289
License No. OPR-50
Priority
Category
C
--
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company
P.O. Box 480
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1
Inspection At:
Middletown, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted:
September 8-11, 1931; September 21-25, 1981
Inspectors:
cvyMecV
/c/2 6/f/
S. Chaudhary, Redctor Inspector
date signed
-
date signed
/
M!86!i/
/.
x/$$
Approved By:
()L.E. TrK,IBChief, Materials and Processes
dare signed
Section, E
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 8-11, 21-25, 1981 (Report No. 50-289/81-25)
Areas Inspected: An announced inspection of the licensee's activity in response
to IE Bullet 1H 79-02, 79-14, and 80-11. The inspection involved 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> onsite
and 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> off-site by one regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
w .:
g;: ;n M
.-
.
.
.-
.
.
.
.
l
, DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Met-Ed/GPU
- B.E. Ballard, Sr., Manager-TMI QA, Modifications / Operations
- R.O. Ba-ley, Lead Mechanical Engineer, TMI-1
- C.L. Int:orvati, QA Audits
- J.F. Fritzen, Site Supervisor-Technical Functions, TMI-I
- C.W. Smyth, Supervisor Licensing, TMI-1
- C. Stephenson, Licensing Engineer
L. Lohnes, QA Lead Civil Engineer
L. Zubey, Supervisor-Construction
J. Fornicola, Operations QA Manager
J. Faulkner, M&C Coordinator
C. Davis, M&C Group
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
J. Gronki, Structural. Engineer
R. Ciemiewicz, Engineer, ISI Group (By Phone)
J.C. Herr, Lead Structural Engineer (By Phone)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A.N. Fasano, Chief, Site Operations Section
D.R. Haverkamp, Senior Resident Inspector
2.
Plant Tour
The inspector conducted a walk-through tour of the accessible areas of
the plant where modification / construction operations were in progress
and/or have been finished to assess conformance to good construction
'
practice, availability of QC inspectors and conformance of finished
work to the drawing requirements. A licensee QC inspector accompanied
the inspector on this tour.
!
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- _ . __
. _ - .
,
. _.
-
_
__
_
.--
.
_
- - _
_,
.
.
3
3.
Follew-up of IE Bulletins
a.
IEB:79-02
The inspector reviewed records, held discussions with cognizant
~
licensee personnel, and inspected a random sample of completed
work to ascertain the licensee's compliance to the reouirements
of Bulletin 79-J2.
The inspector reviewed the following records:
Topical Report No. 002, dated 7/23/81.
--
Final Safety Analysis Report,
--
Chapters:
2.0; 4.0; and 5.0.
Section:
2.8; 4.1.2.5.1; 5.1.2.1.1.(a) and (b);
5.1.2.1.2.(a) and (b); 5.2.1.2.11.
Metropolitan-Edison letter te B.H. Grier, dated 1/10/80.
--
GAI drawing 0-312-632, Revision 1, " Nuclear Services Cooling
--
Water."
GAI drawing D-312-634, Revision-1, " Nuclear Services Cooling
--
Water 18" Supply to Heat Exchanger."
GAI drawing C-312-689, Revision 1.
--
GAI drawing B-312-756, Revision 0, " Nuclear Services Closed
--
Cycle Cooling to Fan Motor Coolers."
System ME-94 Package:
--
Piping Inspection Report, PIR-94, dated 12/4/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, ME-94, dated 7/8/80.
RFI's:
4412, dated 4/3/81, for Support #NSH-37.
4415, dated 4/6/81, for Support #NSH-26.
4422, dated 4/13/81, for Support #NSH-40,
and NSH-39.
4424, dated 4/25/81, for Support #NSH-38.
4479, dated 6/4/81, for Support #NSE-17.
Field Data Request, dated 6/23/81, for Support #NSH-32.
System ME-95 Package:
--
PIR-95, dated 12/5/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/10/80 for penetrations
1, 2, and 3.
RFI #4461, dated 5/21/81.
. . . -
. . - _ .
. -
.
_
_.-
. - ,
_ .
..
-
- . _ .
.
.
.
4
Pre-drill Hole Data for Support #NSH-15, PDR #06.
System ME-137:
--
PIR-137, dated 3/12/80.
PIR-137, dated 12/7/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/15/80.
RFI-4549, dited 6/29/81, for Support #SFH-88.
System ME-200:
--
PIR-200, dated 12/7/79.
Penetration Clearance Report, dated 7/14/80.
Based on the review of the above documents the inspector determined
as follows:
The licensee has made exten'sive efforts to inspect, identify,
--
re-anasyze and test the drilled-in concrete expansion anchors
used in pipe supports.
No discrepancies were noted in identification and inspection
--
documentation.
,
Modifications to inadequate supports are in progress.
--
The e-analysis and test results are submitted in the final
--
report, " Topical Report #002."
However, from the licensee's final report for the bulletin, it
appeared that the SSE loads had not been used in developing the
maximum support 1 cads for re-analysis, although revision 2 of the
bulletin clearly stated that the factors of safety were intended
for the maximum support load including SSE.
In the discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector was
referred to the licensee's engineering consultants, Gilbert
Associates, for further exolanations in this regard. The inspector
discussed this matter with the site representative of GAI, who in
turn arranged for the inspector to discuss this matter on the
telephone with cognizant engineers in the GAI home office in
Reading, Pennsylvania.
During this telephone conversation.the
inspector was informed that although there was in fact a conflict
between the licensee's final report and the bulletin requirement,
the bulletin re'uirement of SSE was not applicable because the
4
design basis of the plant was '0BE', not 'SSE.'
The inspector
disagreed with this conclusion by the licensee regarding the
bulletin requirements, and informed the licensee that this matter
'
remains unresolved pending further justification by the licensee
and eview by NRC.
(79-BU-02)
..
--
. . -
. - - .
. . - - -..
. - - - - . - - -
.- - . -
. - , - -
, . ,
O
5
b.
Visual Inspection of Completed Work
The inspector randomly selected two supports, which have been
modified due to re-analysis for a visual inspection and the
associated documentation review.
The supports were visually
,
inspected for workmanship, conformance to design / drawing requirements,
and the accuracy and completion of documentation. The following
supports were inspected:
Support # COE-25, Condensate Storage Tank Cross-connect, at
--
Elevation 297-0."
.
Support #COE-12, Condensate line.
--
The following records associated with the above supports were
reviewed:
PIR-Cs/30421/81.
--
MCG-13-69, As-built packags.
--
WAN #271, Revision 0, Work -othorization.
--
IRR, Attachment #17.
--
The inspector determined that the support #COE-25 had not been
turned over to QC for final inspection, therefore, QC had not
inspected the support for acceptance.
The support #COE-12 was
inspected by QC and one item was found unsatisfactory. The
unsatisfactory item exceeded the dimensional tolerance as specified.
The matter was under resolution by the Modification Control Group
of the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Tne inspector reviewed the licensee's final response to the
bulletin requirements, and held discussions with cognizant personnel
of the licensee and his engineering contractors. 46ditionally,
the documentation reviews for this part of the inspection were
,
performed in conjunction with the review of records for IEB:79-02
'
due to the interrelated requirements of these bulletins.
Due to
the intensive inspection and re-analysis covered by the final
l
report, it needs further review by NRC to assess the adequacy of
this report. Also, the modifications necessitated by the re-
analysis are in progress.
Therefore, the bulletin remains open,
and will be followed-up in subsequent inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
t
- -, ,
-
.-
- - . , - .
e
- - -
w..
e.
, . - -
- - - , , -
--
, - . . - -
7
---e-
+---s
e
a
,
.
6
d.
The inspector reviewed the final response of the licensee to the
requirements of this bulletin and held discussions with licensee
and contractor personnel. The modifications necessitated by the
re-analysis have not been completed in the plant, therefore, the
-
bulletin remains open, and will be followed-up in a subsequent
inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,
or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is
discussed in Section 3.a of this report.
5.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted * in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspt :: ton.
The inspector summarized the
purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
_
,
1
,, ,,
,.
-..
- - -
-. - ,
,,
,
-n,
. . . . - , ,
.-.
,,_ .
- . . . -
p