IR 05000155/1997007

Insp Rept 50-155/97-07 on 970426-0501.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Fire Protection Program

ML20148H684
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	06/06/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148H674	List: IR 05000155/1997007 ML20148H668
References
50-155-97-07, 50-155-97-7, NUDOCS 9706110024
Download: ML20148H684 (8)

Text

_.

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 Docket No:

50-155 License No:

DPR-6 Report No:

50-155/97007(DRS)

Licensee:

Consumers Power Company Facility:

Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant

Location:

10269 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, MI 49720 Dates:

April 26 - May 1,1997

-

Inspector:

D. Schrum, Reactor Engineer Approved by:

Rolf Westberg, Acting Chief Engineering Specialists Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety

'

.

9706110024 970606

~

PDR ADOCK 05000155 G

PDR

,

!

...__.

.

L

'

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant NRC Inspection Report 50-155/97007(DRS)

.

This regional inspection reviewed the licensee's fire protection program. The following strengths and weaknesses were identified:

Plant Sucoort Overall, the plant staff was knowledgeable of the fire protection program and had

taken appropriate corrective actions for most issues and problems (Sections F2.1 j

and F6).

Control of combustibles and material condition of fire protection equipment were

-

good (Section F2.1).

,

'

An Inspection Followup Item was identified for the lack of an acceptance criteria for

l failure of emergency lighting unit (ELU) batteries and not performing a timely review for a high failure rate of ELUs (Section F3).

.

.

Two weaknesses concerning fire brigade training were noted. The first weakness

concerned the lack of documentation of problems identified during fire brigade drills.

The second weakness involved the lack of participation of the fire protection staff g

]

in evaluating fire brigade drills (Section F5).

t

,

A program strength was a low backlog of fire protection work requests and no l

impairments requiring a fire watch (Section F3).

,

.

T

d

-. __

-

-

_

_ _

_

_

.

.

Report Details IV. Plant Suncort F2 Status of Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment F2.1 Routine Fire Protection Proaram Review I

a.

Insoection Scone (64704)

The inspector toured the containment, turbine building, and the screen house to observe control of combustibles, fire doors, hose stations, detection equipment, extinguishers, sprinkler systems, emergency lights, and housekeeping.

b.

Observations and Findinas Control of combustibles was good with few transient combustibles noted in the plant. Flammable and combustible liquids were stored appropriately in fire proof cabinets and safety cans. There was a minimal amount of oil below rotating equipment.

'

The majority of fire piotection equipment was well maintained. This included fire dampers, fire pumps, hose stations, and extinguishers. The material condition of the fire suppression and detection equipment was good. Fire brigade equipment was in good condition and was stored in convenient locations in the plant. Most fire doors in the plant were in good condition. Fire extinguishers inspected had a current inspection date. All emergency lighting inspected were correctly aimed.

c.

Conclusions Control of combustible materialin the plant was good. Maintenance and surveillance activities appeared appropriate to maintain the fire protection equipment.

F3 Fire Protection Procedures and Documentation a.

Insoection Scope (64704)'

The inspector reviewed fire protection surveillances, maintenance history of fire protection equipment, fire reports, hot work permits, deviation reports, work requests, safety evaluations, and controls to prevent biological fouling by zebra mussels. in addition, the inspector reviewed the timeliness of the licensee's corrective actions in the fire protection area.

b.

Observations and Findinas A review of fire reports for the past three years indicated numerous hot work fires had occurred early in 1996. The licensee had taken appropriate corrective actions for those fires. No hot work fires had occurred since that time. This was an indicator of good transient combustible control and safely performed hot work.

- - -

--

-

-

l

l l

.

l The inspector reviewed a sample of completed surveillance procedures for 1996 and 1997. The surveillances were performed accurately and on time, in addition, the surveillances indicated that the majority of fire protection equipment was in good condition.

Notable efforts were being made to prevent zebra mussels from entering the fire protection suppression systems. Since the previous fire protection inspection, a plant modification had been completed for an injection system for continuous l

addition of chloride into the water intake piping for the plant. It appeared that a proper level of concern was given by plant staff in an attempt to deal with the zebra mussel problem.

The inspector noted that the backlog of open fire protection deficiencies was low.

During the inspection there were no fire protection impairments which required a fire watch. Overall, corrective actions were very timely for fire protection work requests, except for emergency lighting units (ELUs).

A review of emergency lighting surveillances indicated that the licensee did not have an acceptance criteria for determining when an ELU battery would be considered failed. In addition, an evaluation had not been performed for a high failure rate of ELUs. The system engineer demonstrated that these issues had been previously identified by the licensee and were listed for future action.

c.

Conclusions Pending the completion of the corrective actions for the ELU problems and subsequent NRC review, this is considered an Inspector Followup Item (50-155/97007-01(DRS)).

There were good corrective actions for identified fire protection problems. Hot work was adequately controlled. Zebra mussel controls appeared to be effective.

F5 Fire Protection Staff Training and Qualification a.

Insoection Scooe (64704)

The inspectors reviewed fire brigade training, qualification records, and fire brigade drill critiques, b.

Observations and Findinas The training and qualification records for the fire brigade were adequately maintained and indicated whether the brigade members were qualified. A review of records indicated that the fire brigade was meeting its quarterly fire brigade training requirements. Fire brigade drill requirements had been met by all brigade members who were listed as qualified.

!

Two weaknesses concerning fire brigade training were noted. The first weakness l

concerned the lack of documentation of problems identified during fire brigade drills.

!

As a result, there was little information provided for future training to improve fire

_ _

!

,

i brigade performance. The second weakness involved the lack of participation of l

the fire protection staff in evaluating fire brigade drills.

The Charlevoix Township Fire Department was the main offsite responder to a I

potential plant fire. The fire department had participated in a fire brigade drill with the plant staff. A walkdown of the plant had been provided to the fire department, so they could correctly respond to a fire.

c.

Conclusions Fire brigade was meeting its training requirements. The inspector identified two weaknesses concerning fire brigade training.

F6 Fire Protection Organization and Administration a.

Insnection Scoce (64704)

Observations of duties performed by the staff involved in fire protection activities.

b.

Observations and Findinos The fire protection duties were shared by the operations, maintenance, engineering, and security departments. The responsibility for the fire protection program was not assumed by any one department. However, there was good communication

{

among departments. The diffusion of responsibility resulted in a sense of

.

ownership for the plant fire protection problems by each department. The fire protection staff was determined to be knowledgeable and proactive in dealing with fire protection problems. The inspector was concerned with the minimal staffing to respond to a fire on night shift. This situation allows very little fire brigade backup support during a fire. However, two members of the fire brigade responded quickly without wearing fire fighting gear which would allow the majority of fires to be extinguished during the incipient stage.

c.

Conclusions The staff was determined to be experienced, knowledgeable and proactive in dealing with fire protection issues.

F7 Quality Assurance in Fire Protection Activities (40500)

Audit investigations for fire protection had been performed in adequate detail to detect most plant problems. The licensee had taken effective ccrrective actions for those problems previously identified.

__

_

_

_

__.

.

i, V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary On May 1,1997, the inspectors presented the inspection results to licensee management.

The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection

'

should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

l l

l l

l

..

-

. ~..

.. -. -. -.... - _. -

~. - ~. _.

. _.. -.... -... -.. -. - - -.

. -..

..

.

v

'

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

.

.

.

i Licensee

,

a

l M. Bourassa, Licensing Senior Technical Analyst B. Corbet, Fire Protection Engineer T. Popa, Chernistry

'

B. Rabideau, Property Protection and OPS Supervisor i

M. Van Alst, Property Protection Supervisor

,

G. Withrow, Plant Safety and Licensing Director

The inspector also contacted other licensee employees during the inspection.

.

k

!

'

4 i

e i,

i

e

.

1

.

i i

i

i

7 s

,.

,.

__ _

_ _.

.,

. _ _ _ _ _. _

_.

-

. __

- _. _.. _ _...... _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _. _ _

,

!

.

'

,

l lNSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 64704:

Fire Protection Program

l IP 40500:

Licensee Self-Assessment Program

-

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened

,

50-155/97007-01 IFl No acceptance criteria for ELU battery failure /High Failure Rate ELUs.

-

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED l

CFR Code of Federal Regulations j

DRS Division of Reactor Safety l

ELU Emergency Lighting Units IFl Inspector Followup Item NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OPS Operations l

,

i

,

I l

r

I w

m

-

r

,

-

-

.y

.