IR 05000289/1976027
| ML19291B659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1976 |
| From: | Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19291B656 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-76-27, 50-320-76-18, NUDOCS 7911110059 | |
| Download: ML19291B659 (7) | |
Text
"
.
-
.
IE:I Form 12 ( P 75) (Rev)
,
-
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCCiISSION I
i 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCCfE!TI
!
i
-
REGION I
50-289
,
l IE Inspection Report No:
50-289/76-27 and 50-320/76-18 Docket No:
50-320 DPR-50
Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Comoany License No:
CPPR-66
,
!
P. O. Box 542 Priority:
l Unit 1-C Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
Unit 2 - B.1
,1 Safeguards
,
Group:
,
i Location:
Three Mile Island - Middletown, Pa.
17057 l
~
'
Type of Licensee:
- B & 871 MWe (PWR)
!
S ecial,-Announce'd P
Ty-a of Inspection:
November 15, 1976 Dates of Iuspection:
Unit 1: October 27-29,1976
,
Dates of Previous Inspection:
Unit 2: November 9-12, 1976
Reporting Inspector:
[.
4 --
//"24*7h
'
D.'E. Donaldson[' Radiation Specialist DATE
'
NONE Accompcnying Inspectors:
'
DATE
.
DATE DATE Other Acco=panying Fersonnel:
NONE DATE
',
OD b
Reviewed By:
'
J. P. Stohr Chief, E&SP bect' ion DAIE
,
a 1582 305
-
-
_..
_
--
-we=s-a-e--me--
--
- * -.
.
.. _.
..
.
--.
-
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS j
l
's
.
'
~ ) Enforcement Action Items of Noncompliance
A.
Violations l
None identified
,
'
B.
Infractions
'
l
'
None identified
,
I C.
Deficiencies i'
None identified
!
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action Not applicable
',
Reportable Events I
Not applicable
_
!
-
I Other Sienificant Findings
,
A.
Current Findings i'
Unresolved Items
,
.
1.
76-27-01 and 76-18-01: Training program-offsite agencies (Detail 9)
.
2.
76-27-02 and 76-18-02: Re-training - offsite agencies (Detail 9)
!
3.
76-27-03 and 76-18-03: Re-training - construction personnel (Detail 9)
4.
76-27-04 and 76-18-04: Hydrant operability (Detail 9)
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection a meeting was held at the site on November 15, 1976 with representatives of tha licensee organization.
Attendees at this meeting consisted of personnel whose names are high-lighted (i.e., *) in paragraph 1 of the Details section of this report.
i582 506
,
_
. _...
. _ _.
. _,
. _.
-__
t
-2-
.
.
O The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection (Details, paragraph 2) and the results of the inspection as listed in the Summary of Findings. Additional information was provided by licensee management and/or commitments were made which related to the information gathered and conclusions reached as described in the Details of this report.
Specifically:
A.
Re-familiarization Training Program - Offsite Agencies (Details 3,7,8 and 9)
.
The licensee management stated that the program for training /re-training offsite fire companies would be reviewed and discussed with offsite
,
'
personnel in order to determine if any changes should be made. This I
program review and upgradiLd will be completed by January 1,1977.
!
'
B.
Re-familiarization Training - Offsite A2encies (Details 3,7,8 and 9)
,
i l
Licensee management stated that once the training program has been evaluated and/or upgraded, training of offsite fire companies would
'
be performed as expeditiously as the schedules of fire department personnel will permit.
C.
Re-familiarization Training - Construction Personnel (Details 3,4, and 9)
Meetings had been held with personnel responsible for construction
employees. Plans are being developed to re-train all construction
._/
personnel in proper procedures to be followed in response to fires.
'
Specisi emphasis is te be placed on proper notification.
This is to be completed by January 1, 1977.
D.
Fire Hydrant Operability (Details 3,6 and 9)
Licensee management noted that current schedules for maintenance of hydrants exceed the standards established by the National Fire
,
t Protection Association. However, the hydrants would be inspected l
to verify that their operability is in accordance with design l
characteristics. This will be completed by January 1, 1977.
The inspector stated that these items would be evaluated during subsequent inspections.
i5J2 507
.
__ _ _.
_
_
_
_. _.. _..
._
_
_
.
.
.
,
,,
'.)
Details 1.
Persons Contacted
!
- Mr. J. Stacy, Security Specialist, THI
Mr. F. Grice, Safety Supervisor, TMI
'
- Mr. R. Ritthamel, Director, Safety and Security, GPU Service Corporation
.
Mr. W. Gunn, Project Site Manager, GPU Service Corporation Mr. D. Murray, Chief, Londonderry Township Fire Department
'
i 2.
General
,
!
.
The purpose of this special inspection was to review the circumstances surrounding a structure fire which occurred on the Three Mile Island
'
Site in the Unit 2 construction area. Within the scope of this in-
,spection, the inspector reviewed and analyzed the details of the fire,
,
including the response actions of various personnel and the coordina-
)
l tion between the responding elements. The inspector held discussions with licensee management, revieued signed statements of licensee and
,
I contractor personnel and held a discussion with the Chief, Londonderry ( Township Volunteer Fire Department in order to determine the type ! and chronology of actions taken in response to the aforementioned fire.
' ! 3.
Description of Event I j At 5:25 p.m. on November 11, 1976, a roving security officer observed
smoke coming from a temporary Butler-type building located in the
Unit 2 construction area.
The fire notification was radioed to the I senior security officer in charge of Unit 2 security. At approximately 5:30 p.m. the senior security officer placed a call for assistance to
the local fire dispatcher. Calls were received by the Middletown and Londonderry Departments at approximately 5:31 p.m. and 5:37 p.m. re-spectively. While awaiting arrival of the local fire department, personnel working on the Unit 2 side of Three Mile Island attempted to extinguish the fire using a hose system installed in the building.
These attempts were unsuccessful in that the hose system was a " dry-type" system, and responding personnel were not familiar with how to charge the systes with water.
Men and vehicles from the responding fire departments arrived at the North entrance to Three Mile Island by 5:38 p.m. they ware denied immediate access since the MET-ED security officer stationed there had not been notified of the fire. While the MET-ED security officer began attempts to confirm the existance of a fire with other MET-ED personnel on site, the Chief, Londonderry Township proceeded to the south gate of the Three Mile Island. Upon his 1582 308 - . . . .. - -
_ . . -4-
.I arri. 1 at the south gate (construction entrance) the Chief was informed by the construction security officer that the, fire was in the construction area of Unit 2 and not in the MET-ED controlled area of Unit 1.
Simultaneous with this confirmation (approximately 5:44 p.m.) the MET-ED security officer at the north gate received confirmation of the fire and proceeded to clear firemen and equipment through the north gate.
Firemen declined to enter at the north gate when they received orders from the Fire Chiaf, by radio, to proceed to the south gate for entry.
Upon arriving at the scene of the fire, the local fire department ex-perienced difficulty opening the valve to a hydrant situated dir-ectly in front of the burning structure. Three men working together werc able to free the valve.
In the interim, other fire department members connected hoses to their pumper truck and extinguished the ! fire. Before leaving the site, firemen utilized the aforementioned ' hydrant to refill the pumper truck.
I The fire was caused by a faulty thermostat and was limited to one office within the building. The inspector looked at the affected area and noted that damage had been repaired and that the only evidence of the fire was the lingering odor of smoke and scorching of wooden supports. , ~<N , l 4.
Response by Construction Personnel - The inspector reviewed the actions of construction site personnel in comparison with the actions outlined in the contractor's fire respouse procedures. The inspector noted ths' cui, procedure calls for sounding of the construction site fire alarm and ime.ediate noti-fication to MET-Ed personnel.
The inspector noted that construction personnel had not sounded the fire alarm and had not notified MET-ED until 5:44 p.m., approxisteely 20 minutes after the fire was first detected.
5.
Response by MET-ED Personnel The inspector determined that the north gata security cdficer had not received notification of the fire from construction personnel by the time the local fire departments arrived on the scene. Not having received proper clearance, the guard. initially dtnied access and proceeded to obtain verification and authorization for entry in accordance with MET-ED security procedures.. The inspectar deter-mined that the actions taken by MET-ED perconnel, i.e., denial of Lunediate access prior to verification of 1he existance and loca-tion of the fire were in accordance with e stablished, approved procedures for the Three Mile Island Unit I site.
The inspector identified no inadequacies.
1582 309 _ .- - -- - -,e . . i-5-6.
Equipment Operability, The inspector examined and personally operated the fire hydrant which was used during the firefighting effort and noted that, al-though a considerable amount of effort was required to turn the valve, the hydrant could be activated.
Licensee representatives ' stated that the resistance of the valve was a design characteristic and common to all hydrants on both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 sites.
The , l inspector operated one additional hydrant of the Unit 2 side and two additional hydrants on the Unit I side. The inspector noted that , all hydrants were approximately equal in the amount of effort needed to open them fully. With regard to the effort needed to open the ' hydrants, the licensee stated that they planned to evaluate and , { inspect the hydrants to verify that all hydrants were functioning as designed.
The inspector reviewed records of the hydrant maintenance and noted thrt pressure checks tad flushings had been performed as required on both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 hydrants.
With regard to the inability of the personnel to activate-the " dry-system" which serviced the' building which caught fire, the inspector examined this system. The inspector noted that this was a temporary ,
1 system designed as a dry system te preclude freezing of the water - line.
The origin of the water for this system was the main ring header which supplied the hydrant located outside the structure which caught fire. This dry-system is activated by turning a small , l valve in the system water line.
The unfamiliarity of personnel ' 'ighting the fire resulted in this valve not being turned.
' i The inspector noted that since the fire, licensee personnel had '
taken steps to heat-trace and insulate the supply line of the " dry-system" and maintainethe system in the full "on" position thereby converting it to a " wet-system".
7.
Offsite Agency Reiponse The inspector contacted the Chief, Londonderry Volunteer Fire Department to discuss the events.
The Chief stated that he had met with licensee personnel subsequent to the fire to discuss the response.
He stated that the only real problem he had experi-enced at the time of the fire was the failure of the MET-ED security personnel to permit access through the north gate. He further stated that he had been made aware of why the delay occurred but noted that the delay could have resulted in the total loss of the temporary offices in the area of the fire.
In response to the inspector's questions, the Fire Chief stated that, in his opinion, the fire posed no threat to the operating unit or to the unit under construction.
In conclusion, the Fire Chief stated that during 1SS2 310 - _. .- - . -. .-
. '* . . -6-his meeting with licensee personnel they had discussed the events fully and that they were working together to correct any noted difficulties.
8.
Training of Offsite Agencies The inspector reviewed records and attendance lists relative to training sessions conducted for the benefit of offsite fire companies.
By letter of invitation dated October 6, 1975, the licensee invited the following fire companies to a training session to be held on November 6, 1975.
a.
Middletown b.
Londonderry l c.
Union d.
Bainbridge . I e.
Friendship f.
Liberty i The inspector noted that the licensee subsequently made telephone conthet with each department to verify their intent to attend.
The Londonderry Fire Department was unable to attend due to scheduling i conflicts. During this training session the inspector determined that the following topics were covered: ' - a.
TMI fire protection system b.
Principles of radiation protection c.
Security procedures ' d.
Question and answer period , , 9.
Licensee Followup Actions The inspector held discussions with licensee personnel to determine what actions were planned by MET-ED to correct noted difficulties.
The licensee stated that; the contractor personnel of Unit 2 would be consulted concerning the procedures to be followed to include special emphasis on proper notification procedures; all hydrants
would be inspected and operability would be evaluated to verify that their condition and operational characteristics were proper; the training program for offsite agencies would be reviewed for possible upgrading; the offsite fire departments would be rein-ctructed concerning security procedures and would be given another The plant tour as part of the offsite agency training program.
licensee stated that 11 of the aforementioned actions would be completed by January 1,1976, with the exception of local fire department re-training which would be completed when schedules of the fire company personnel permit.
The inspector stated that these items would be unresolved and be evaluated during subsequent inspections. (76-27/76-18-01,02,03 and 04) )b0 . -- .. - _.
- - }}