IR 05000322/1987017

Insp Rept 50-322/87-17 on 870803-07.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Fire Protection/Prevention Program & Lers,Fighting Capabilities,Protection Equipment Maint,Insp Test & QA Audits & Facility Tour

ML20238E867
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/04/1987
From:	Anderson C, Krasopoulos A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238E849	List: IR 05000322/1987017 ML20238E847
References
50-322-87-17, GL-81-12, NUDOCS 8709150257
Download: ML20238E867 (10)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ - - - _

.

i \ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /87-17 Dacket N ] License N NPF-19 Priority - Category _C Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company P. O. Box 618 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Wading River, New York 11792 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station , Inspection At: Shoreham, New York Inspection Conducted: August 3-7, 1987 Inspectors: QU gn -

   ' tor Engineer, DRS

__ 9!Y[f7 da t'e A'Krasopopl ' Approved by: Dfl[[ ant Yk9 ~)

      'date
      '

C. J ."And/rsaa , -Offi e f , Pl ant Systems Section Inspection Summ yy: Inspection on August 3-7, 1987 (Report 50-322/86-17) Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the fire protection / prevention program including a review of: the combustible material control / hazard reduction program; programmatic administrative controls; installation, operability and maintenance of fire protection systeks; fire protection LERs; fire fighting capabilities; fire protection equipment maintenance, inspection and tests; periodic inspections and quality assurance (QA) audits of the fire protection program and a facility tou Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no violations were identified and one item remained unresolve l

       )

8709150257 DR 870908 ADOCK 0b00032g PDR

       )

_ _ -_- - . _ _ - -

*

i

l

       !

DETAILS l 1.0 Persons Contacted - Long Island Lighting Co. (LILCO)  ;

 *S. S. Skorupski, Assistant V.P. Nuclear Operations W. Steiger Jr. , Plant Manager
 *J. A. Scalice, Assistant Plant Manager
 *R. Crowe, Operations Staff Manager l
 *C. Seaman, Quality Systems Manager    '
 *R. Glazier, QC Operational Assurance
 *P Puttre, Licensing
 *P. Quinan, fire / safety Supervisor
 *M. Ennis, Compliance
 *R. Grunseich, Compliance
 *D. Dains, NED Fire Protection R. Perra, Section head QA/QC    
 *J. Carney, Corp. Fire Protection Engineer
 * Denotes those present at the exit intervie .0 Follow-up of previous inspection findings
 ,{ Closed) Unresolved Item (84-38-03) Non-Timely Resolution <of Audit Findings The NRC raised the concern that findings identified by the licensee's  1 Nuclear Review Board (NRB) audit are not resolved in a timely manne The licensee recognized the concern and has focused n'anagement attention to the problem. The plant manager has issued a memorandum dated March 3, 1986 to all Division Managers requesting that corrective action response to audit findings takes place within 30 days from the issuance of the audit report. To ensure cooperation in this regard the manager's and section head's performance is judged partly by the speed of response to QA finding Additionally,the licensee's QA Department currently prepares for management review a quarterly trend analysis report, to identify trends adverse to quality. One of the items being tracked in these reports is " timely response with timely and effective corrective action." The trending graphs in the reports reviewed by the inspector indicate improvement in this area. In conclusion, the strong management position with regard to the timely resolution of audit findings, along with the diminishing number of QA/NRB findings that remain unresolved, satisfy the NRC concern.

l This item is resolved.

l l l l l L_----------------- -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

 (Closed) Unresolved Item (84-46-06) Routing of Sprinkler System Control I Cables in RCIC and HPCI Areas of Reactor Building The NRC identified the concern that certain control cables required to actuate the HPCI and RCIC sprinkler systems are routed through the areas !

they are designed to protect. Thus a fire in the area may damage the cable and disable the sprinkler system prior to sprinkler system initiatio Similarly, the NRC identified the concern that the heat detectors required to actuate the sprinkler system in the HPCI and RCIC areas were located above the heat collector shields of the sprinkler heads. Shielded from the rising heat flux, the heat detectors might have failed to properly i actuate the sprinkler system. The licensee was required to address these ' concerns prior to their receiving a 5% power licens The inspector verified that the licensee relocated the affected control cables above the detectors thus a fire in the area would be detected by the detectors before any damage to the cables occurred. Also, the licensee relocated the heat detectors so that they are unobstructed. This will aid in the prompt detection of fires. The inspector also verified that these modifications were completed prior to receipt of a 5% licens The above actions satisfy the NRC concerns in this area and this item is resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (84-46-17) Licensee Response to Generic Letter 81-12 The license committed to provide specific responses to the Gener'c Letter 81-12 guidance and to resolve this issue with NRR. The inspector reviewed the correspondence between the licensee and NRR. Specifically, letters dated November 7, 1986 and January 9, 1987 from the licensee to NRR and a letter dated February 25, 1987 from NRR to the licensee, indicating that item 84-46-17 will be resolved pending implementation of the proposed procedure changes discussed in the above mentioned letter The inspector reviewed the revised procedure " Shutdown from outside the control room" to verify that the commitments identified in the Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report transmitted to the licensee by the February 25, 1987, letter were satisfie These commitments included revising the procedure to verify that the MSIVs are closed by using the local main steam line flow differential pressure indicator in the reactor building and to specify that an operator be dispatched to the remote shutdown panel early upon detection of a fire in the control room. The review determined that the licensee made the changes requested by NR Since the licensee implemented these changes as agreed to with NRR, this item is resolve .

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ . l 4

,.

l (Closed) Unresolved Item (84-46-19) No Emergency Lights in Specific Locations The NRC determined that the emergency light in the 101 Diesel Generator room cannot properly illuminate the diesel generator pane The licensee relocated the existing emergency lights so that their beams illuminate this pane The inspector verified that the lights work properly and that adequate illumination from the emergency lights exists at the pane This item is resolve . Inspection Purpose and Methodology The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the licensee's fire * protection and prevention program (FPPP) and verify that the licensee has developed and implemented adequate procedures, consistent with the applicable Technical Specification (TS), license conditions, regulatory requirements and commitments made in the Final Safety Analysis Report and the Fire Protection System Evaluation Report (FPSER). The evaluation of the program consisted of a documentation and procedure review, interviews with licensee personnel and field observation ,. w Tne documents reviewed, the scope of review and the inspection findings for each area reviewed are described in the following section . Fire Protection Program Review 4.1 Review of Combustible Material Control - Hazard Reduction . The inspector toured the plant to inspect housekeeping conditions, work in process and activities or conditions that may present a hazard to the facilit The scope of review was to verify that the licensee: Maintains safety related areas and adjacent plant areas free from transient combustibles; Maintains flammable and combustible liquids under administrative control and stores such liquids in accordance with the guide-lines of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards; Performs periodic inspection for accumulation of combustibles; Uses wood treated with flame retardant for work inside plant areas; i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ - _ - L

.

.. Does not allow the accumulation of waste, debris, rags, oil spills, and other combustible materials resulting from a work activity to extend beyond the end of each work shift or the end of the activity, whichever is sooner; Maintains good housekeeping in all areas containing safety related equipment and components; Prohibits smoking in safety related areas except where " smoking permitted" areas have been specifically designated by plant management; and Requires special authorization (work permit) for activities '

involving welding, cutting, grinding, open flame or other ignition sources, and assures that these activities are properly * safeguarde In addition to the plant inspection, the inspector reviewed the following procedures to verify that a program to minimize fire hazards exists:

  --

Fire Protection Permits SP 29.501.01

  --

Conformance Fire' Protection Program PD-NE-11, Revision 1

 ,
  --

Station Housekeeping SP.12.023.01, Revisios,13 and i

  --

Station Fire Protection Program SP 12.500.01, Revision 2 ; During the inspection, the inspector did not identify any conditions that present a safety hazar However, the inspector noted that in the yard area the licensee did not properly restrain compressed gas I cylinders containing hydrogen and other gase In addition the licensee allowed grass and weed growth to develop I near buildings and hydrant hose houses. Unsecured gas cylinders may , pose a missile hazard to personnel and structures. Weed growth may ' present a fire hazard to buildings and when allowed to develop near hose houses may impede fire fighting activitie l The licensee corrected both of these conditions prior to the ) inspector leaving the sit l With the exception of the minor housekeeping concerns identified above, no other deficient conditions were identifie .2 Review of Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the following licensee document Technical Specification, Section 6, Administrative Controls - _ _ _ _ -

, . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ l' l

..
 --

Nuclear Management Control Manual, Corporate Fire Protection Program PD-NE-11, Revision GET - fire Protection

 --

Fire Protection Permits SP.29.501.01 The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed l administrative controls which require that: { Work authorizations, construction permits or similar arrangement are provided for review and approval of modifications, construction and maintenance activities; > Fire brigade organization and qualifications of brigade members ' are delineated; Fire reporting instructions for general plant personnel are developed; Periodic audits are to be conducted of the entire fire protection program; and I The fire protection / prevention program is included in the ~ licensee's QA Progra No unacceptable conditions were identifie .3 Review of Installation, Operability and Maintenance of Fire < Protection Systems The inspector reviewed the installation of randomly selected fire protection system In addition, the inspector made observations of the condition and operability of the fire protection equipment and reviewed the Fire protection Equipment Maintenance Request List to determine whether:  ; Fire protection equipment such as stand pipes and hose stations i are operable and accessible in all areas important to safety; Adequate portable extinguishers are provided at designated I places in each fire area; The condition of fire suppression devices is satisfactory; The system's valves are lined up in the proper position and are l protected from tampering; and l 1 The fire protection equipment is well maintaine .

  -- _ _ _ _ _ _

s

 .

l l The fire barriers and related components such as fire doors, ' fire dampers, and penetration seals have been installed and maintained properly to pre'/ sat fire propagatio As a result of this review the inspector made the following observations: The inspector noted that some valves of the fire water system are administratively controlled and supervised while others are no The licensee stated that the valve status is maintained in accordance with the engineering drawings (i.e., if the drawing specifies that the valve is locked open, the valve is locked in that position). The inspector verified that * the licensee has a procedure which reflects the valve position requirements of the engineering drawing The inspector questioned the accuracy of the drawings of the fire protection system regarding the vr.lve position control as a result of the following observation The inspector observed that the diesel fire pump fuel

  .. supply isolation valve, the diesel fire pump jacket cooling water isolation valve and the fire pump test header isolation valve were not locked. Tampering of these valves may cause the loss of fire wate The NRC, in Branch Technical Position 9.5-1, specifies that all valves in the fire water system should 3ither be electrically supervised or administratively controlle When valves are administratively controlled, :. hey should be locked or sealed open with tamper proof seals and visually inspected periodicall The licensee agreed to review the fire protection system drawings against this concern, in order to assess wnether additional fire water system valves need to be under administrative control This is an unresolved item (87-17-01). The licensee has declared a number of fire barriers inoperable and has established fire watches as an interim compensatory measure. The barriers were declared inoperable because fire dampers installed in the barrier penetrations would not close under air flow conditions or were improperly installe Some barriers were also degraded because of fire door concerns.

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

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

           ,
.

I 8

.

The inspector reviewed the compensatory measures taken by the licensee and the efforts under way to bring about full compliance. This review did not identify any unacceptable i condition .4 Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) The inspector reviewed six recent fire protection LER These were: LER No. 86-02, 86-13, 86-15, 87-04, 86-06 and 87-3 All of the LERs were generated as a result of missed fire watch surveillance required by the Technical Specifications. In two of the six LERs, the problem was that the fire watches were found asleep while on duty. In the other four cases, for unrelated reasons, the , fire watches did not complete their rounds within the required time.

l All were isolated incidents not expected to recur. All of these * T.S. violations were of minor safety significance and were corrected , by the licensee expeditiously. The inspector did not identify and l unacceptable condition .5 Review of Fire Fighting Capabilities The inspector visited the Suffolk county fire academy to observe

   . Shoreham firefighters eceive hands-on practice, ext 4aquishing fire The inspector also observed a fire drill, conducted interviews with firefighters and inspected the available fire fighting gear to evaluate the licensee's onsite capability to fight fires. The documents reviewed were individual fire fighters training files, miscellaneous lesson plans and drill ;

The scope of the review was to: verify that all personnel designated to take part in fire emergencies are trained in these actions and in the overall emergency plan; verify that the licensee has established a training program ) that ensures the capability to fight potential fires; ' verify that the licensee's training program consists of initial , classroom instruction followed by periodic classroom  ! instructions, firefighting practices and fire drills; verify that the licensee had developed fire fighting strategies for fires in all safety related areas and in areas in which a fire could present a hazard to safety related equipment; and verify that the fire fighters can fight plant fires with the equipment availabl No unacceptable conditions were identified.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ j

- _ _ _ _ ._ __ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..
.

4 4.6 Review of Equipment Maintenance, Inspection and Tests The inspector reviewed the following documents to determine whether the licensee had developed adequate procedures which establish maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements of the plant fire protection equipment:

  *

Procedure SP 34.500.01, 24V diesel fire pump A and B battery set, weekly, quarterly and 18 month surveillance

  *

Procedure SPF 24.502.01-1, Spray water system valve line up verification

  *

Procedure SP-74.017.01, Diesel fuel oil sampling and analysis

  *        *

Procedure SPF 24.503.01-2, Diesel Driven Fire Pump operability data test

  *

Procedure SP.34.503.04, Fire Protection Underground Piping Flow Test

  *

Procedure SP 44.504.13 Fire Protection Detector Channel Functional Tes , u In' addition to, reviewing the above documents, the inspector reviewed the maintenance / inspection / test records of the items marked with an asterick to veirfy compliance with Technical Specifications and established procedure .7 Periodic Inspections and Quality Assurance Audits The Licensee's T.S. 6.5.2.8 require audits of the fire protection , programmatic controls and implementing procedures every 24 months I and audits of the fire prolaction equipment and program l implementation every 12 month The licensee performs a QA audit once per year that encompasses the j scope of both T.S. audit requirements (24 month and 12 month). The / inspector reviewed T.S. audits NH 87-01 and NH-86-01. The review ascertained that these audits were performed in accordance with the guidance contained in Generic Letter 82-21 and that audit findings , are being resolved in a timely and satisfactory manner. No unac- l ceptable conditions were identifie I I 4.8 Facility Tour l- The inspector examined the fire protection water systems. This l i included fire pumps, fire water piping and distribution systems, post indicator valves, hydrants and the contents of hose house The inspector toured accessible vital and non-vital plant areas and , l l L . __ 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.
.

-
,

examined fire detection and alarm systems, automatic and manual fixed suppression systems, interior hose stations, fire barrier penetration seals, and fire doors. The inspector observed general plant housekeeping condition 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 perfbrme The plant tour however identified a deficienc 'O

       ., .

The inspector observed that the Emergency Diesel Generator ro' oms hhve 4 doors but the exits do not have exit signs to facilitate egress. . .

        ; ',

Since these rooms are protected with a CO2 fire suppression 'N - system, the quick evacuation of people in the rooms prior to -2 CO2 discharge is important to ensure personal safet ',0

        ,

The licensee agreed with the inspector's observations that exit signs will assist personnel egress during a room evacuation and committed to install the sign No other unacceptable conditions were identifie . Unresolved Items

 . u Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviation One unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in Section . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (see Section 1.0 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 7, 1987. 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 the inspection report may be placed in the Public Document Room without prior licensee review for proprietary information (10 CFR 2.790).

At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.

i l l l l_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - .

. . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _  . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _  _
       .1
       ) .,
       / ,
       .

a

i

 > %?'
 ,: +
        (
        [
 ?r' . . _ '   ">

cr-

 -

c.N['. . \;' $:r .j j f}t -)Jk;lm ? . j

        )

5,

 'p y qJQg og .4 l
 +jh : ty! Q ~ 4       ,
 - , . %.a        <

y. q;;<.~q c T~,.

   -y      .l f

M o

, '
  '

f f '

 ' '

n f  % $ - s-4 a

        ' j)

1 ;

        < I l !4
        -
        \\u i

l l' l l L }}