ML20199D769

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Corrected Page 139 of Ofc of Investigations Rept Re Polar Crane Hand Release Mechanisms
ML20199D769
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/13/1986
From: Phyllis Clark
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To: Taylor J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8606230056
Download: ML20199D769 (2)


Text

r' a

GPU Nuclear Corporation NUCIMr 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

June 13, 1986 (201) 263-6797 Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement UnitedE5tates Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Taylor:

SUBJECT:

THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT CONCERNING TMI-2 POLAR CRANE HAND RELEASE MECHANISMS My letter dated February 28, 1986 forwarded copies of the report by Mr. Stier of his investigation into the TMI-2 polar crane hand release matter. Those copies of the report mistakenly contained a duplicate page 138 and did not include page 139. Enclosed please find a copy of page 139.

Sincerely, l

l P. R. Clark President Enclosure cc: Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region I William D. Travers, Director, TMI-2 Cleanup Project Directorate, USNRC l

l 6230056 860613 g ADOCK 05000320 PDR fff,k 3 C;* 1 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubhc Utilities Corporation

The questions were clearly intended to identify any new equipment, both like and unlike-kind replacements, installed on the crane. In addition, brake operation was obviously of concern to the NRC. Rider responded to the Snyder letter by memorandum dated July 26, 1983.77 Hansen used Radbill's earlier notes and Rider's memorandum to prepare a response to the NRC. O A formal response to the NRC was submitted by letter dated August 16, 1983.79 Although the letter was signed by John Barton, Deputy Director of TMI-2, on behalf of Kanga, neither of them had any personal knowledge of the underlying-information.80 They relied on their subordinates to provide that information.81 Kanga's response to the NRC's questions failed to disclose the existence of the brake releases. It described the replacement if the main hoist brakes as follows:

b.(1) MAIN HOIST BRAKES The polar crane's two main hoist brakes were replaced in-kind. GPUNC QC performed a receipt inspection of the brakes on October 8, 1982.

These were the only replacement parts for the load bearing components of the main hoist. The brakes, manufactured by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, were installed by GPUNC maintenance personnel accord-ing to the manufacturer's instructions. Installation work was personally supervised by our most experienced crane inspector - a consultant from United States Crane Certification Bureau. This same inspector personally 1 - adjusted the brakes in accordance with Westinghouse printed instructions. These two brakes were each adjusted twice after checking their application while lowering the main block and hook. Finally, during the no load test,'QC inspectors visually checked both brakes and recorded satsifactory results. (82) 139 I__,...__. _ _ _ _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ . _ .,. __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - -