IR 05000245/1989010
| ML20245A583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1989 |
| From: | Anderson C, Krosopoulos A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245A578 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-89-10, 50-336-89-12, NUDOCS 8906220074 | |
| Download: ML20245A583 (7) | |
Text
.
.
.
..
...
..
..
..
.
.. -- - _
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
REGION I
'
Combined Report Nos.
50-245/89-10 50-336/89-12 Docket Nos.
50-245
!
50-336 License Nos. DPR-21 Priority Category C DPR-65
!
l Licensee: Northeast Nuclegr Energy _ Company l
Facility Name: Millstone Unit 1 & 2 i
Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut
!
Inspection Conducted:
- E 15-19, 1989
..
r dI
[
Inspector:
Arti(/tidis G. Kr o oulos, Reactor Engineer date l
Approved by:
h
@
'
Cliff d J. Anderson, Chief, Plant Systems date Section, Division of Reactor Safety I_nspection Summary:
Inspection on May 15-19 1989 50-245/89-10and50-336/89-12_J(CombinedInspectionNos.
t Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the Fire Protection and
,
l Prevention program including:
Program administration and organization; administrative control of combustibles; administrative control of ignition sources; equipment maintenance inspection and tests; fire brigade training; periodic inspections and quality assurance audits and facility tours.
Results:
>
No violation were identified.
l
@MO622007k h h h f
hDR ADOC PNU g
l
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - - _ _.
_
.
.
.
,
Details 1.0 persons Contacted 1.1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO)
- S. E. Scace, Station Superintendent
- J. Stetz, Unit 1 Superintendent
- J. S. Kennan, Unit 2 Superintendent
- C. H. Clement, Unit 3 Superintendent
- K. Murphy, Unit 1, Engineering
- P. Blomberg, Unit Operations
- R. Ayala, Station Services Engineering j
,
- J. Kanaley, Station Services Engineering
- D. Leduc, Station Services Engineering
- J. Kelliher, Station Services Engineering
- K. D. Desalandes, Unit 2 Engineering
- J. Summa, Unit 1 Engineering
- M. Ross, Unit 1 Operations
- J. Maher, Supervisor Nuclear Training
- L, Chatfield, Nuclear Training
- L. Vava, Nuclear Training j
J. Nickerson, Fire Training l
R. Ccates, Jr., Fire Training 1.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W. Raymond, Sr. Resident Inspector
- S. Barr, Reactor Inspector
!
- P. Habighorst, Resident Inspector
-!
- L. Kolonauski, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
!
i 2.0 Followup of Previous Inspection Findings (Update) Unresolved Item (50-245/87-19-01) NFPA Code Conformance The NRC identified the concern that not all fire suppression and detection systems were installed in accordance ~with the guidance contained in various NFPA documents. The NRC identified examples of deviations from the NFPA guidance.
These deviations were such that they did not degrade the
'
capability to detect and suppress postulated fires.
!
)
t
.
The licensee performed a review of the Fire Protection System to identify deviations with NFPA guidance. These deviations were classified in one of four categories to achieve NFPA complaince:
1)
Deviations that can be justified "as is",
2)
Deviations that require procedure changes, 3)
Deviations requiring minor modifications, and 4)
Deviations requiring significant resources to modify or add to existing systems.
It was determined that the deviations from the NFPA guidance do not significantly affect safety and do not impact the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions in the event of a fire.
The deviations described in categories 1, 2, and 3 above have already been addressed by the licensee.
Item 4 has been included in the Integrated Safety Assessment Progrcm(ISAP). The ISAP will determine the importance of these deviations and prioritize any required modifications.
The inspector reviewed a sample of the deviations included in category 4 and agreed with the licensee's staff that the deviations did not constitute significant safety concerns.
This issue remains open pending the licensee's completion of the evaluations and corrective actions associated with the category 4 deviations.
{ Update) Unresolved Item (50-245/87-19-02) Fire Barrier Penetration Seal Program The NRC identified the concern that some fire barrier penetrations may not have been installed in accordance with the approved configuration.
The licensee acknowledged the concern and committed to evaluate and upgrade i
the penetration surveillance program.
The licensee committed to perform
walkdowns to verify penetration seal location and quality.
The licensee
'
provided that commitment in a letter to the NRC dated December 8, 1987.
The licensee also informed the NRC in a letter dated January 6,1989 that a penetration seal program evaluation and upgrade will be performed starting with the Connecticut Yankee Unit and continuing with Millstone Unit i and then Unit 2.
The licensee stated that they do not anticipate problems with this review.
For the penetration review at Connecticut Yankee, out of approximately 1500 penetrations inspected, only two penetrations were determined to be degraded.
This item remains open pending licensee completion of the fire penetration review.
t
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _. -
_ _ _ _. -
.
-
i
.
!
(Updated) Unresolved item 50-336/87-03-01 Appendix R Exemption Request i
i The NRC, in a meeting with the licensee on February 24, 1987, discussed j
potential Appendix R exemption requests. The licensee on April if, 1987 j
submitted the related exemption request.
During the week of July 18, 1987, the NRC conducted an inspection of the licensee's facilities for compliance with Appendix R.
Those items which were the subject of the exemption
{
request were not reviewed during the Appendix R inspection.
The inspector determined that the licensee is still pursuing resolution
.
of the subject Appendix R exemption requests with NRR.
This item remains
!
unresolved pending resolution of the subject exemption requests.
.(Closed)_UnresolvedItem.150-336/87-16-031 Improvements to the Communication System Used During Shutdown from Outside the Control Room j
The NRC identified the concern that the radio communication system used by the operators during shutdown may not be able to perform adequately because:
1)
The power source may not be available, or 2)
The repeater may be inadvertently unplugged from its power source.
l The licensee addressed this concern by handwiring the repeater and providing power to the repeater from an alternate source using offsite power from the Flanders line. The offsite power source of the Flanders line is a i
,
different offsite power source than the one supporting plant loads.
The above adequately addressed the concern.
This item is closed.
3.0 Fire Protection / Prevention Program The inspector reviewed documents in the following areas of the program to verify that the licensee had developed and implemented adequate procedures consistent with the Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA), Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and Technical Specifications (TS).
The documents reviewed, the scope of review, and the inspection findings for each area of the program are described in the following sections.
3.1 Program Administration and Organization The inspector rcviewed the document:
Nuclear Fire Protection Program Procedure NE0 2.14
--
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - -
.
-
.
,
The scope of the review was to determine if:
Personnel were designated for. implementing the program at the
--
site; and
Qualifications were delineated for personnel designated.to
--
implement the program.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
j 3.2 E _uiyment Maintenance, Inspection and Tests
)
The inspector reviewed the following documents to determine whether the licensee had developed adequate procedures which established maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for the plant fire j
protection equipment:
{
--
Procedure SP 680M Fire Pumps Operability Demonstration
-
Procedure SP 680T Diesel Fire Pump Monthly Run
--
Procedure SP 6808 Electric Fire Pump Monthly Run j
--
--
Procedure SP 680P Airflow Test of Gas-Turbine CO System and.
2 Damper Actuation Procedure SP 418H Gas Turbine Fire Detection Functional
--
Procedure SP 680N 18 Month Fire Barrier Penetration Inspection
--
In addition to reviewing the above documents, the inspector reviewed related maintenance /insnection/ test records, to verify compliance with Technical Specifications and established procedures.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.3 Fire Brigade Training 3.3.1 Procedure Review i
l The inspector reviewed the licensee's training program to verify i
that the licensee had developed administrative procedures and i
fire fighter training including:
Requirements for announced and unannounced drills;
--
)
!
--
Requirements for fire brigade training and retraining it
~
prescribed frequencies;
-
Requirements for at least one drill per year to be
--
performed on a "back shift" for each brigade; l
i
'
Requirements for maintenance of training records.
l
'
--
}
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
1
_
-__-m_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
,-
l
]
-
.
,,
'
(
)
3.3.2 Records Review i
The inspector reviewed training records of fire brigade members i
for calendar years 1988 and 1989 to determine if they had attended the required quarterly training and participated in a f
quarterly drill, and received the annual hands-on fire extinguishment practice.
In addition, the inspector observed a fire drill to observe the adequacy of the training given to the brigade.
.
!
The inspector did not identify any concerns requiring the training given to the brigade.
The fire fighters had received the required training. The training staff is knowledgeable in all aspects of the training' process.
One concern that was identified by the inspector was resolved by licensee management prior to the
.
q inspector leaving the site.
Specifically the inspector identified the concern that the licensee's training procedures allow for fire fighting personnel to be full members of the brigade without
,
d initial hands-on training.
This training can take place as long as a year after a person is on the fire brigade. 1The licensee
!
committed to revise the procedure to preclude personnel without
{
hands-on training from the brigade.
<
3.4 periodic Inspections and Quality Assurance Audits I
The inspector reviewed the following audit reports:
l
- Millstone Audit A60491
- Triennial Fire Protection Audit A24003
- Millstone Station Units 1, 2, & 3
.j The scope of the review was to determine if the audits were conducted i
in accordance with Technical Specification'6.5.4.7.d and 6.5.4.7.e j
and to determine if uudit findings are resolved in a timely and
!
satisfactory manner.
'
i No unacceptable conditions were identified.
j 3.5 Facility Tour The inspector examined fire protection water systems, including fire i
i pumps, fire water piping and distribution systems, post indicator
'
valves, hydrants and contents of hose houses.
The inspector toured i
accessible vital and nonvital plant areas and examined fire detection
'
and alarm systems, automatic 'and -manual fixed suppression systems, I
interior hose stations, fire barrier penetration seals, and fire -
doors. The inspector 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 attached to extinguishers indicated that monthly inspections were performed.
L---
- - - - _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
,q
]
>
.
I i
..
.
~
,
i
,
The inspector did not observe'any violations, however, the inspector questioned the practice of temporarily storing trash and combustibles against the auxiliary building wall.
I The licensee committed to review this concern.
'
4.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is. required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, viTlations or deviations.
5.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee management representatives (see Section
)
1.0 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection on_May 19, 1989.
>
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of'the inspection at that time.
The inspector also confirmed with the licensee that the report (
will not'contain any proprietary information. -The licensee agreed that, j
the ins acticn report may be placed in the Public Document Room without
prior in ensee review for proprietary information.
(10 CFR 2.790).
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
l
{
j i
!
!
.
.-
i
!
1
_ _._____.__ _ _