IR 05000267/1990020

Insp Rept 50-267/90-20 on 901029-1102.Noncitable Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Insp of Fire Protection/ Prevention Program

ML20058J016
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	11/14/1990
From:	Murphy M, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058J014	List: IR 05000267/1990020 ML20058J012
References
50-267-90-20, NUDOCS 9011270048
Download: ML20058J016 (5)

Text

__

fl

... . . - .-

J

!

. l

!

• '

APPEt!D1X U.S. IlUCLEAR REGULATORY C0l'ttlSS10N '

REG 10ft IV NRC Inspection Report: 50-267/90-20 Operating License: DPR-34 Docktt: 50-267 Lict.nsee: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC)

P.O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840 Facility Name: FortSt.VrainNuclearGeneratingStation(FSV)

Inspection At: ;FSV, Platteville, Colorado In.spection Conducted: October 29 through November 2, 1990 Inspeetor: A .

W- ////+/ /fo ,

'

M. E. MurphD Reactor Ins @ctor, Test Programs Date /

Section, Division of Reactor Safety

'

Approved: M "

////+'/fo

.W. C. Seidle UChief, Test Programs Section Date ;

Division.of Reactor Safety '

Inspection Summary

. inspection Conducted October'29 throvah November 2,-1990 (Report 50-267/90-20)

Area Inspected: Routino, unannounced inspection of the fire protection / prevention

,

program.,

Results: Within:the area inspected, one noncitable violation was ider.tified involving the failure to follow procedures, which resulted in a missrd '

.

surveillance test required by the fire protection program plan. In the area of'

fire protection / prevention program implementation, the overall program is very well maintained,. administered, and implemented-in accordance with the' i licensee's commitment ;

, 1 iI 'N

-

pi ,

,a

- -.

.. . . - . _ --

1

.. .. , .

j

-

l

-2 l

l DETAILS ~

1 Persons Contacted l

'

PSC-

• H. Brey, Manager, Nuclear Licensing and Resources l

• S. Chesnutt, Nuclear Licensing D. Evans Operations / Maintenance Manager

'

• D. Frye, Senior Nuclear Licensing Analyst

• C. Fuller, Manager, Nuclear Production

• Gottschall, Nuclear Training Specialist

• J. Gramling, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing - Operations

• J. McCauley, Superintendent of Instrumentation and Control / Planning and Scheduling

• Przybyski, Nuclear Training Specialist

=* Rodgers, Nuclear Compliance Services Manager

• G. Schmalz, Fire Protection Program Manager C. Stolley-Faust, Nuclear Staff Training Supervisor

• M. Thiel, Professional Engineer

• P. Tomlinson, Sr., Manager, Quality Assurance D. Weber, Staff Assistant NRC-

• D. Garrison,. Acting Resident-Inspector

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting n November 2, 199 The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the inspectio . . Fire Protection / Prevent' ion Program (64704) '

This inspection was conducted to determine that the licensee had 3

'

established and was implementing an-approved program for fire protection and pre'Jention'in~ conformance with regulatory requirements and industry y'

guides and standard The inspector reviewed the licensee's " Fire Protection Program Plan." The I licensee had previously removed the fire protection program from the .

l

. Technical Specifications. A safety evaluation approving Revision 3 to the Program was received from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in ;

March 1990. This revision replaced three existing fire protection cooldown trains with two new trains and provided for the use of.one common ,

!

water supply, a single pond instead of the existing two storage pond Revision 4 to the program was submitted in July 1990. This revision does not contain any major. program changes and all changus were evaluated under 10 CFR Part 50.59 in accordance with Generic Letter 86-1 . . . -. . - -

-._. - - -

. . . +

l l

!

3-

'

This review of the fire protection program plan verified that the licensee had technically acceptable procedures to implement the fire protection 1 progra Procedural guidance was provided to control combustible material and reduce fire hazards. Administrative procedures provide for maintenance and surveillances of fire superession, detection, and support equipren Personnel training, qualif bations, and responsibilities were satisfactorily <

provided. Maintenance e';olutions that significantly increase fire risk were properly contro1 bd. ItwasnotedduringthereviewofProcedureF.P.6.1,

" Fire Protection Operability," that the " note' in paragraph 4.5, which !

rovides for surveillance schedule cycles, had an editorial error. The p' note" appeared to limit the applicability to only " suppression systems."

This was discussed with licensee representatives and the inspector was informed that the note- should have referenced " protection systems." The L inspector was informed that this error will be corrected in the next L procedure revisio The inspector conducted a walkdown of the fire suppression water system '

and verified that it was operable, as required by the fire protection i program pla A tour'of plant areas was conducted to assess general conditions, work activities in progress, and the visual conditions.of fire protection systems and equipment. Combustible materials and flannable and ,

o combustible liquid and gas usage were restricted or properly controlled in areas.containing safety-related equipment and component Items checked included positions of. selected valves, fire barrier conditions, hose s

stations, hose houses, halon system lineups, fire lockers, and fire extinguishers for type, location, and condition. The inspector was-

.'

informed that all hydrogen gas had been removed from the site and that all hydraulic systems had been draine There were no construction activities in process in the toured area ;

There was some maintenance work noted. General housekeeping conditions '

- were found to be-very-goo .

Fire protection systems and equipment installed for protection of .

safety-related~ areas were found to be functional. and. tested in accordance with requirements specified in the fire protection program plan. Fire brigade equipment, including emergency breathing' apparatus, was found'to be properly stored and maintaine The licensee informed the inspector that a surveillance test required by :

the fire protection prevention program, SR-FP-12A-SA3, had been misse This surveillance tests a section of the fire detectors for the reactor building radioactive waste storage area, turbine building hydraulic valve area, reactor building hydraulic power units, Turbino Building MCC2 and MCC3, service water pump building, and the circulating water makeup pump building. The surveillance test was scheduled to be completed on October 28, 1990, was identified as missed on October 29, 1990, and was perforned: satisfactorily on October 30, 1990. A fire watch was posted at the time the missed surveillance test was identified on October 29, 199 +

, +, - -

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _

_ _

'

h ;; ...:-.

p

@ .

m

-4-l The licensee had determined that the failure to perform the surveillance when required was due to misunderstandings and lack of attention on the l u part of the electricians' management, shift supervisors, and the compliance L reviewer. Prompt corrective action was taken and the individuals involved have been instructed in the importance of fire protection surveillances, particularly on performing them within the required intervals. Some procedure revisions were also identified as part of the corrective action This matter constitutes an apparent violation involving a failure to follow procedures. However, this licensee-identified violation is not +

being cited because the criteria specified in Section V.G. of the Enforcement Policy were satisfie Fire brigade. training and drill records were also reviewed by the inspecto The records are input to a computer program that only lists individuals I; and_their accomplished training and drill attendance. This program does not provide tracking capability to indicate an individual's present qualification status. The training is manually tracked by-individual, on a quarterly basis, in the training department. Drill attendance is not tracked and correlated by-individual'on a quarterly basis. This method does not appear to provide-a-real time status for an in4 vidual's-

-qualification since there is no alert that drills have been misse The-inspector discussed this observation with licensee representatives and

the licensee will determine what improvements can be mad Licensee quality assurance annual audits for the last 2 years were 3 reviewed by the. inspector. These audits were identified as Fire 89-01,

-

dated August 11, 1989, and Fire 90-01, dated August 15, 1990. These audits were found.to be comprehensive, in-depth, and performed by

. competent. auditors with good technical knowledg System and equipment

~

alterations, tests, surveillances, maintenance, records, and overall program procedures were addressed. Discrepancies identified were formally presented to the affected organizations. Responses were tracked to close out, and the actions taken were reviewed for adequacy. . ,

3. . Followup On previously Identified Item (92701-)

'(0 pen)'Unresolveditem(8821-06)

'

This item concerns the fact that the 125V DC' control power supplies were potentially vulnerable to failure due to multiple high impedance faults with no licensee procedural guidance for operators to perform nonessential

-

load shedding. Subsequently, the licensee engagea a consultant to conduct- 1 an evaluation of the vulnerability of these power supplies to multiple high impedance faults. The consultant made an assumption that was considered erroneous by the inspector and the issue was submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for evaluation. The response from NRR

. concluded that the licensee's-multiple high impedance fault arelyses was unacceptable. However, no action by the licensee was require.J because the licensee had stated that they did not intend to restart or operate Fort ,

St. Vrain. Since the licensee now has initiated two new fire protection l l

-.

,

. ......-

.

-5-

.

cooldown trains, it is not clear if the potential loss of 125V DC power ,

supplies would affect these trains. This was discussed with the licensee and'it was agreed that a review would be made and the results submitted in writing to Region IV in order to deteniine if this item can be close Exit Meeting

<

An exit meeting was held on November 2, 1990, with the individuals identified in paragraph 1 of this report. At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and the findings were summarized. The licensee did not u identify as proprietary any of the information provided to, or reviewed

'

by, the inspecto .

'1

-_

!

.

I'

!

f,

<

\

k lr .