IR 05000320/1975015
| ML19220C339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1975 |
| From: | Gage L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C338 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR 50-320-75-15, NUDOCS 7904300442 | |
| Download: ML19220C339 (8) | |
Text
-
.
.
.-
_,
.
,
.
IE:7 Fem 32 (J e a 75) (llev)
.
.
.
U. S.1;UCLEAR RECULATO:1Y CO:ttISSIO::
,
.
OFFICE OF I::SPECTIO 1 A1;V E iTORCCIE:TT
_
-
.
REGIO:I I k-SC-320
'
50-320/75-15 Docket l's:
IE Inspection Report No:
Metropolitan Edison Co=canY
_ License ::o:
. C"P?.d6 Licensec:
_
PrJority:
Box 542 A
.
-
19603
_
Category:
Reading, Pennsylvania
_
Saf egu::rd s Group:
Pa.
(Three Mile Island 2)
Middletosm, Dauchin Countv,
.
Location: __
.
FWR, 871 MWe (B&W)
. Type of Licensec: _
.
Routine, Unanncunced
__ _
Type of,In: pection:
December 16-18, 1975 I)ates of Inspection:
December 15-18, 1975 I)ates of Previous Intpcetion:
.
/[ f yh
'
&%
'
D' ATE Reporting Inspector:
L.W. Cake,RcactorInspector I
.
None DisTE Accomp:nying Inspectors:
DATE
-.
.
-
.
.
-
DATE
.
.
""
Other Acco=psnyin;; Personnel:
'
DATE -
.
'
^
/ / u /7 c C
NAIb
Pe. viewed By:
-
eader R. C. Haynes, Sect
-
c; r4,
'-
e.,
_.
.
.
.
M h
l
'
T904300Y/2 i
.
_
..
,
..
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF FI!;DI!;CS s
s Enforec=ent Action None Licensee Action On Previously Identified Enforce =ent Itens
-
Not Applicable
Design Chances None Identified Unusual Occurrences None Identified Other Sienificant Findines A.
Current Findine 1.
Accepteble Ite=s:
,
a.
Fire-Pre tentien Precedures
.
A review of the licensee's Safety Manual verified that contained procedures for:
(1) the storage, handlin;, t and place =ent of fla==able =aterials; and (2) the use a
.
control of ignition sources.
(Details, Paragraph 2.)-
b.
Fire Protection for the Ooeratine Plant An inspection of the site verified the physical separat between the operating plant (Three }!ile Island 1) and construction activities (Three Mile Island 2).
Details Paragraph 3.)
-
.
e
.
e
_
e D
.
W l
= -
j '
C* * * J
%
e
.
-
-
.
.
-2-Examination of Fire-Suupression Ecuipeent
c.
An inspection of the site verified that fire extingui-d main-shers and hose stations were being inspected an tained.
(Details, Paragraph 4.)
,
Statu_s of Previous 1v Identified Unresolved Items B.
Not Inspected
.
Mananenent Interview the site by At the conclusion of the inspecticn a meeting was held at he inspection the inspector with the f olicwing personnel to discuss t findings, which were acknowledged by the licensee.
(CPUSC)
General Public Utilities Service Corocratf.on R. F. Tenti. QA Auditor W. T. Gunn, Project Site Manager R. W. Heward, Proj ect Manager P. A. Levine, QA Auditor
.
C. Rosby, QA Engineer E J. Strceberg, $R. Site Auditor R. L, Wayne, QA Manager J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager (UE&C)
United Enrineers and Constructors G. M. Ahearn, Assistant Project Superintendent J. Carrabba, Field Supervisor QC
-
V. E. Cichocki, Construction /QC Coordinator Superintcndent-
~
D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor QC K. Herry=an, Saf ety Engineer Burns & Roe _
- W. P. Dornsif e, Assistant Project Engineer 7. S. Pindar, Jr., Lead QA Engineer
.
e e
.
M6
.
.-
-
-
t
.
--
l
.
_
.
.
-
-
_
-3-
.
,
Itetts Discussed _
.
-
.
Purpose of the Insucction_
?
A.
the purpose of this routine, unannounced I
The inspector stated that i
relative to inspection was to ascertain whether controls ex stfi
-
tion phase of the project.
.
Current Findints -Accettable Areas B.
_
(Details, Paragraph 2.)
(Details, ?ars gra h 3.)
Fire-Prevention Procedures.
Fire Protection for the Operating Plant.
(Letails, para-1.
FJ rMnation ci Fire-Suppression Iquipnent.
2.
3.
graph 4.)
\\
.
.
G
.
O e
e
.
t
,.
m.
t
.
.
- .
-
.
.,.
O
e
.
-
.
.
D_ETAILS i
_
Persons Contacted
'
1.
.
GPU SC_
'
W. T. Gunn, Project Site Manager M. J. Strenberg, Senior Site Auditor J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer UE&C_
R. File, Assistant Safety Engineer
K. Merryman, Saf ery Engineer Fire-Prevention Procedures _
2.
The inspector ers=ined the licensee's docu=entation to determine if he had procedures for control of the storage, a.
handling, and use of fin-able caterials during construction.
The procedures were contained in a docu=ent titled Manual."
Engineers and Constructers, and was last revised in Septeiber, The applicable sections of the manual vere titled:
1974.
" Stockpiling Yard and Warehouses"
-
d
" Chemicals
"Finm nble Liquids" The. nspector evnnined the licensee's docu=entation to determine if he had procedures f or control of the placement of fla==able i
b.
d materials relative to the location of ignition sources use
.
The applicable sections of the Safety during. construction.
Manual were titled:
.
"
" Fin-able Liquids
"Hous eke epin g"
" Cutting and Welding"
-
" Grinding Wheels"
-
" Manhole and Tank Ventilation"
,
..
.
.v
/
s
.
'
.
.
-
e
..
-
,
.
'
-5-
.
The inspector exa=ined the licensee's docu=entation to c.
determine if he had procedures for use and control of igni-
tion sources during construction. The applicable secticns of the Saf ety Manual were titled:
.
" Cutting and Ue'. ding"
.
'
"Crinding Wheels" The inspector noted that the procedure titled " Cutting and Welding" does not specify the use of a fire watch during velding. The licensee stated that it was site practice te have two welders assigned to the sa e location, and that the junior of the two acted as the fire watch.
The inspector observed welding and grinding activities inside the contain=cnt building.
The activi-ies vere condue:ed in accordance with the precedures for these activitics in the Safety Manual.
The inspector verified the licensee's statenent regarding fire watches:in all observed welding activities, a seccnd velder acted as the fire watch.
d.
The inspector asked the licensee if he had procedures for ccn-trolling the approval of, distribution of, and revisicn to the procedures contained in the Saf ety Manual.
The licensee stated that changes to the manual are distributed via rail from the architect-engineer's bene office.
The inspector had no further questions.
'
.
3.
Fire Protection f or the Operatine Plant
.
Since the site has a plant in operation as well as a plant under construction, the inspector asked the licensee if he had pro-cedures for reviewing construction work authorications and con-trolling construction -activities which could adversely affect the safety of the operating plant.
The licensee stated that he did not have such procedures, but such procedures were not needed since the operating plant and the con-
~
struction activities were physically separated by a security fence.
Further= ore, there was only one structure at the site which was co==on to the two plants: the fuel-storage building. The operating
.
e n3O
.
.
-
-
,') ;
u:i
-
.
'
l
_
-
_
l
_
..
,
.
.
..
.
.
-6-
.
plant's fuel-storage area was physically separated fro: the fuel-storage area of the plant under construt. tion by a con-i siderable distance within this building, and the possibility of fire travelling f ro= one area to the other was remote.
.
The inspector verified the licensee's state =cnt during an in-i spection of the construction activities, and had no further questions on this =atter.
-
4.
Examination of Fire-Sucoressicn Ecuirnent The inspector e:<a=ined the licensee's documentation to deter-ine if he had procedures f er use, testing, maintenance and identifi-cation of fire-suppressica etuipment.
Tha li:Ensee had a lirt of the fire-suppression eculpnent at the site, vnich iaant Ited the equipncnt and ncted its 1ccation.
The licensee stated that all portable fire extinguishers were visually inspected =enthly; that portable chemical fire e ctingui-shers were tested annually, by a vender at his facility; and that hydrostatic tests ct hose stations were conducted annually.
C'ain-tenance and repair of portable fire extinguishers were clso per-formed by the vendor.)
The inspector reviewed several inspection check lists for the site fire-suppressien ecuiprent.
- .11 but one of the lists were uninted.
The licensee stated that esch list represented a separate zenthly inspection. The lists indicated that inspections had been per-formed. The inspector reviewed a data sheet that listed the re-sults of hydrostatic tests and identified the hose stations at which the tests were conducted.
The inspector also reviewed several pur-chase orders, which verified that a vendor was perfer=ing =aintenance and repair of portable fire extinguishers.
The inspector toured the site and examined portable fire extingui-shers (both water and che=ical) and hose stations. The areas that he toured included:
(1) Containment building interior (2) Containment building done (3) Fuel-storage building (4) Stockpiling yard (fla==able liquids and gases)
(5) Garage (gasoline and diesel-engine =achinery)
-
(6) Control Roc =
.
O
-
.
-
-
( : -
p
~
-
l
.i
.
/.
t Jv
.
.
I
_ g
.
-
,
.
.
.
-7-
.
All vater-type fire extinguishers that he examined were filled; he exacined had been all chemical-type fire extinguishers that
h; all hose inspected by the licensee within the preceding centsta
,
hd, ion.
and none of the hoses showed evidence of deteriorat
.
G
.
9 e
e P
O O
a L
,,
e -.
j\\
E'
.
n
.
.
O