IR 05000244/1991012
| ML17262A587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1991 |
| From: | Anderson C, Taylor D, Woodard C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17262A586 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-91-12, NUDOCS 9108200007 | |
| Download: ML17262A587 (13) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-244/91-12 Docket No.
50-244 License No.
.Category C
Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Com an Facility Name:
Ginna Nuclear Station Inspection At:
. Ontario NY 2.
Inspectors:
Carl H. Woodard, Reactor Engineer date Donald R. Taylo
, Reactor Engineer 7 Zfg/
Approved by:
Cliff rd J.
Anderson, Chief Electrical Section a~ P date Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Ma 20-24 1991 Re ort No. 50-244/91-12 Areas Ins ected:
Routine announced inspection of the licensee's fire protection/prevention program activities.
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
However, a
weakness was identified with the fire diesel generator maintenance procedure.
The procedure does not clearly specify necessary diesel maintenance evaluations.
5'108 00007 91080
.
PDR ADOCK 05000244
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1. 1 Rochester Gas and Electric Company (RGEE)
"M. Cavanaugh, Fire Protection Engineer
- T. Harding, Modification Support Coordinator
- M. P.
Lilley, Nuclear Assurance Manager
- S. T. Adams, Technical Manager
- J. A. Widay, Protection Superintendent
- L. E. O'wyer, gA Surveillance/Testing
- R. -C. Mecredy, Production Vice President
"S.
R. Ersteniuk, Senior Instructor/Fire and Rescue
- E.
R. Smith, Lead Mechanical Engineer
- E. C. Edgar, Electrical/18C Manager
- T. H. Marlow, Support Services
- S.
M. Spector, Plant Manager J.
Fischer, Maintenance and Scheduling Manager B.
Freeman, Results and Test Coordinator R. Biedenback, Safety Coordinator 1.2 Nuclear Re ulator Commission (NRC)
T. Moslak, Senior Resident Inspector
"N. Perry, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit meeting on May 24, 1991.
2.0 Fire Protection/Prevention Pro ram 64704 The inspector reviewed documentation of the fire protection program to verify that the licensee had developed and implemented adequate procedures consistent with the Technical Specification requirements, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and licensee commitments.
The documents reviewed, the scope of review, and the inspection findings for each area of the program are described in the following sections.
2. 1 Pro ram Administration and Or anization The inspector reviewed the following documents:
Technical Specification, Section 6 Administrative Controls Ginna Station Staff Responsibilities for Fire Protection, Procedure A-202, Rev. 3.0 Ginna Fire Protection Plan, Revision 2.0 Support Services Organization, Procedure A-201.3, Rev.
The scope of the review was to ascertain that:
personnel. were designated for the fire protection program at the plant and that the qualifications of these persons were delineated.
The. inspectors noted that a recent significant organizational change had been made which involved creating and filling a position for a dedicated Fire Protection Engineer who
, reports directly to the Superintendent of Support Services.
The inspectors determined that the licensee had designated 75 specific plant security and operations personnel as fire brigade members whose training in accordance with the program is required in order to establish/maintain their qualification.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.2 Administrative Controls of. Combustibles The inspector reviewed the following document:
Bulk Storage of Combustible Materials and Their Use, Procedure A-804, Revision 10.
The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which included:
a.
Special authorization for the use of combustible, flammable or other hazardous material in safety related areas; b.
Prohibition on the storage of combustible, flammable or other hazardous material in safety related areas; c.
The removal of all waste, debris, rags, oil spills or other combustible material resulting from the work activity or at the end of each work shift, whichever is sooner; d. 'll wood used in safety related areas to be treated with fiame retardant; e.
Periodic inspections for accumulation of combustibles; f.
Transient combustibles to be restricted and controlled in safety related areas; and g.
Housekeeping to be properly maintained in areas housing safety related equipment and components.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie.3 Administrative Control of the I nition Sources The inspector reviewed 'the following licensee document:
Open Flame, Welding and Grinding Permit, Procedure A-905, Revision 16.
The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which included the following:
a.
Requirements for special authorization (work permit) for activities involving welding, cutting, grinding, open flame or other ignition sources.
Requirements that these activities are properly safeguarded in areas containing safety related equipment and components; and b.
Prohibition on smoking in safety related areas, except where
"smoking permitted" areas have been specifically designated by plant management.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.4 Other Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the following licensee documents:
Technical Specification Section 6, Administrative Controls Fire Protection Program Plan The scope of the review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which require that:
a.
Work authorization, construction permit or similar arrangement is provided for review and approval of modification, construction and maintenance activities which would adversely affect the safety of the facility; b.
Fire brigade organization and qualifications of brigade members are delineated; c.
Fire reporting instructions for general plant personnel are developed; d.
Periodic audits are, to be conducted on the entire fire protection program; and e.
The fire protection program is included in the licensee's gA program.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie '
2.5 E ui ment Maintenance Ins ection and Test The inspectors verified that Ginna,Station has developed and implemented procedures for periodic testing and survei llances of fire protection equipment.
This verification included an inspection of randomly selected documents used by the licensee to meet technical specification (TS) requirements.
The inspectors verified that the following TS requirements were being conducted in accordance with procedures within the required timeframes.
~
The 31 day fire suppression water system operability checks per PT 13, Rev 62, Fire Pump Operation and System Alignment;
~
Halon system bottle weighing and air flow tests per PT-13.4.33, Rev 10 Station Halon Systems Bottle Weighing and S07, S08 Air Flow Test.
~
Sampling of the diesel fire pump fuel oil day tank to ASTM-D975 recommendations per T-27.8, Rev.
0, Fuel Oil Sampling;
~
Yearly cycling of each testable valve in the flow path per PT 13.9, Rev. 8, Fire System Valve Cycling and; Diesel engine 18 month inspection per M38. 1, Rev.
18, Diesel Fire Pump'ngine Maintenance and Inspection The inspectors concluded that TS requirements were being met within the required timeframes.
However, a general weakness.
was noted with maintenance procedure M38. 1.
Specifically TS 4. 15.2.h requires subjecting the 'diesel engine to an inspection in accordance with manufacturers recommendation for the class for service.
This inspection is required at least once each 18 months.
The implementing procedure, M-38. 1, is vague in that it does not give specific requirements of the vendors manual, but rather, leaves it to the mechanics to interpret what maintenance is recommended.
Specifically step 5.7 of the procedure states to perform preventive and corrective maintenance as necessary utilizing the vendor manual.
Further, step 5. 10 requires the mechanic to verify that maintenance specified by the vendor manual is complete.
The inspectors compared the vendors recommendations to the documents associated with the last several times M-38. 1 was performed.
Certain checks recommended by the vendor were not documented as being performed.
In addition, the inspectors were concerned that different mechanics performing the task would have different interpretations of the require-ments of the vendors manual.
The licensee concurred in this observation and plans to address this issue.
No other concerns in this area were note.6 Fire Bri ade Trainin The inspector reviewed training documents arid procedures=to verify that the training given to the fire fighters includes:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Requirements for initial classroom and "hands on" training; Requirements for announced and unannounced drills; Requirements for fire brigade training and retraining at specified frequencies;
'equirements for at least one drill per year to be performed on the "backshift" for each brigade; Requirements for maintenance of training records.
The documents reviewed were:
Procedure TR 3. 1, Appendix 3. 1-10 Fire Brigade Drill Lesson Plan Format
,
Procedure A-102. 12 Fire Watch Training Procedure A-103.2 General Employee Training Procedure A-103.9 Fire Brigade Training Fire Brigade Training Lesson Plans as Follows Fire Brigade Initial Training, LP.
No.
FFB19C Hazardous Materials, LP.
No.
FFB17C Fire Brigade Captain Training, LP.
No.
FFB55C Fire School for Fire Brigade at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Facilities, LP.
No.
FFB56C Fire Brigade Responsibilities LP No.FFB31C Fire Brigade Communications LP No.FFB32C Fire Brigade Equipment Maintenance, LP No.
FFB33C Inspection and Inventory LP No.
FFB33C Fire Brigade Fire Prevention LP No.
FFB34C Industrial Hazards and Protection LP No.
FFB35C Fire Brigade Response LP No.
FFB36C Fire Chemistry LP No.
FFB37C Methods of Extinguishment LP No.
FFB38C Heat Scanner LP No.
FFB45C Use of Fire Fighting Hand Tools, Section 7.2 Maxiforce System LP No.
FFB48C In addition to the documents listed above, the inspector reviewed the fire brigade members training records to verify that the fire fighters receive all required training.
The inspectors found that brigade members training was current and that records were readily available for review/audit.
The inspectors noted that the training, program includes a one week course (LP No.
FFB56C) at the Niagara Mohawk facilities during which brigade members are trained extensively in hands-on-fire events.
The inspectors attended a brigade training class on the use of the "Maxiforce System" which was conducted in
accordance with the approved FFB48C lesson plan.
The lesson was presented well and it included a written examination to assess brigade members qualifications.
No unacceptable conditions were observed.
2.7 Periodic ualit Assurance Surveillance/Ins ections and Audits The inspectors reviewed the following surveillance/inspections and audits:
Fire Penetration Seal Tracking, Surveillance Report 90-057 LEO Annual Portable Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Monthly Trailer Fire Alarm Testing, QA Surveillance Report 90-048 LEO Fire System 2 Month Flow Al.arm Check, QA Surveillance Report 90-041 LEO Fire Barrier Penetrations AH-9A-P, AH-51-P and AH-4-P, QC Report 91-0036 Audit of the Ginna Station Fire Protection Program, QA Audit No. 90-24 Triennial Audit of Ginna Station Fire Protection, American Nuclear Insurers Inspection Report F1450990 Triennial Audit of Ginna Station Fire Protection, QA Audit No.
90-31 The scope of these reviews was to verify QA performance of surveillance/inspections in accordance with the licensee fire protection program plan and procedures.
The reviews were made also to verify that audits of the fire protection program both by licensee and by non-licensee personnel are conducted in accordance with Technical Specification 6 '.2.8.
No unacceptable conditions were identified during these reviews.
The inspectors examined portions of the fire protection water systems, including fire pumps, fire water piping and distribution systems.
The inspectors also examined portions of the Halon systems including Halon bottles, valves, controls and distribution system.
The inspectors toured accessible vital and non-vital plant areas.
They examined fire detection and alarm systems, automatic and manual fixed
'
suppression systems, interior hose stations, fire barrier penetration seals and fire doors.
The inspectors observed general plant housekeeping conditions and randomly checked tags of portable extinguishers for evidence of periodic inspections.
No deterioration of equipment was noted.
The inspection tags indicated that periodic inspections were performed on a monthly basis.
The inspectors observed fire door F507 for the control of relay rooms blocked open to permit the use of temporary test cables.
The door was properly labelled with a "Fire Door Under Surveillance" sign.
There was a surveillance fire watch posted on duty at the open door.
Responses to questions asked provided assurance that the watch was knowledgeable in her duties as required by Procedure FPS-15.
guestions to the plant security officer at the main gate and to the control room shift supervisor demonstrated that they were knowledgeable of fire brigade makeup and requirements.
The inspectors verified that each shift had a current fire brigade listing of brigade members for that shift (also listings for previous shifts).
No maintenance or other activities which would require a Procedure A-905 open flame, welding or grinding permit were observed during the inspection.
However, interviews with fire and safety personnel indicated a proper level of knowledge with the plant administrative procedures relative to these types of activities.
During the tour the inspectors observed a video presentation of the recent electrical main generator fire at another nuclear power station.
The inspectors learned that Ginna safety and fire protection management had been most responsive to this event in obtaining as much information as possible at an early date and then by continuing to follow the event analysis for any lessons learned that may be applicable to Ginna.
The tours identified the following conditions that warrant licensee attention:
Temporary modification scaffolding which was erected to address penetration sealing problems in the battery rooms and the control area air handling room has been in place for more than a year.
The inspector expressed a concern that the time to resolve this issue appeared excessive.
It is. understood by the inspector that removal is awaiting engineering resolutien of actions to be taken to resolve the penetration problem.
However, the scaffolding creates a fire hazard.
A large number of deficiency work order tags were noted on fire protection equipment (some more than a year old).
A review of the licensee's work order tracking system and current reports of fire protection related work orders revealed 148'work order
i,tems; all had been prioritized and most had been planned and scheduled for work;-
There were no obvious items of immediate safety concern.
With the exception of the items requiring additional consideration described above, no unacceptable conditions were identified during these plant'ours.
3.0
~Ei In concluding this inspection on May 24, 1991, the inspectors met with licensee management and other personnel denot'ed in Section 1 of this report.
The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the inspection observations and findings at this time.