IR 05000333/1988002

Insp Rept 50-333/88-02 on 880125-28.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Fire Protection/Prevention Program, Including Program Administration & Organization,Other Administrative Controls & Equipment Maint

ML20153B318
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	03/10/1988
From:	Anderson C, Krasopoulos A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153B317	List: IR 05000333/1988002 ML20153B313
References
50-333-88-02, 50-333-88-2, NUDOCS 8803220064
Download: ML20153B318 (9)

Text

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

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

,

I

,

, ..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION

REGION I

Report'N /88-02

. Docket N ~ License N DPR-59 Category C Licensee: . Power Authority t' the State of New York P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Facility Name: Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Scriba, New York

' Inspection Conducted: January 25 - 28, 1987 Inspector: k ~3- /O-4 P date p~Krasopoulos,RegtorEngineer Approved by: , & M C(/ Anderson, Chief # Plant Systems Section g -t o - f'8 date Irtspection Summary: Inspection on January-25 - 28, 1988 (Report No. 50-333/

- 88-02)

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the Fire Protection / Pre-vention Program including: program administration and organization; administrative control of combustibles; administrative control of ignition sources; other administrative controls; equipment maintenance, inspection and tests; fire' brigade training, periodic inspections and quality assurance-audits; and facility tour Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations were identifie h!k DO $3-G

,_ _ . , . . , _ . _ , _ - _ _ . _ , . _ , . . . _ - . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - , _ -

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

-

..

.

.

DETAIL Persons Contacted 1.1 NY Power Authority (NYPA).

• R. Converse, Resident Manager

• H; Keith, I and C Superintendent

• D. Lindsey, Operations Superintendent

• V. Walz, Technical Services Superintendent

• .

Fernandez, Superintendent of Power

• A.~ Tasick', QA Supervisor

• A. Tiner~, Training-

• R. Heath, Fire Protection Supervisor R.: Patch, QA Superintendent D. Holliday, QA Engineer

R. Baker, Maintenance Superintendent T. Teifke, Security Safoty and Fire Protection Superintendent T. Brais, Plant Engineer

. Ruddy, Senior Plant Engineer 1.2 -Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• A. Luptak, Senior Resident Inspector

-

• Denotes those present at'the exit intervie .0 Followup of Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) 85-20-01 (Violation) Inadequate Separation of Safe Shutdown Systems l

The concern identified by the NRC was the lack of adequate fire seals in wall penetrations in the Control Room, Cable Spreading Room and Relay Room, and the lack of adequate separation of cables affecting safe shutdown equipment. These cables were located in the East and West Cable

,

tunnels and their loss could affect the ventilation required for the

,

proper operation of the Emergency Diesels.

L The permanent' corrective measures taken by the licensee included the L replacement of the inadequate seals with seals that have a three hour fire rating and protection of the conduits involved with a fire wrap to provide l the required separation. The licensee also removed a conduit from the affected fire are The inspector reviewed the modifications made by the licensee and did not identify any unacceptable conditions. This item is l closed.

L

- , , _ , ~ . -

. . _ , .--. -- _ _ ._, - . . . _ - . , - - - . . , _ _ . . . , , - . . . _ _ . _ _ _ ., .,_..-_.--,____.._,._.._._,-,_,,,m ,

.

.

(Closed) 85-20-02 (Unresolved Item) Fire Protection Systems not per NFPA Guidelines The NRC determined that the fire detectors required to actuate the water curtains in the Reactor Building were not listed for fire protection service from any required listing organization such as the Underwriter Laboratories or Factory Mutua These Listings are required by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards, which the licensee committed to follow. The licensee committed to provide NRC with documen-tation supporting the use of the installed detectors as being equal to those listed by The licensee followed up this commitment by contacting the original supplier of the detectors to perform the tests required by U.L. to gain certificatio The tests were performed by U.L. and the detectors were certified. A letter from U.L. to the detector suppliers dated February 5, 1986 attest to this fac The actions taken by the licensee resolve this concer This item is close (Closed) 85-20-03 (Unresolved Item) Sprinkler System Installation not per (NFPA) Requirement This finding concerned the observations that some sprinkler heads appear to be misdirected and the heads were designed to protect wall and window openings yet were installed to protect cable trays raising the concern that the heads may not provide adequate protectio The licensee contacted the fire protection firm that originally installed tnese sprinkler systems to survey, inspect and reorient the sprinkler heads as necessary to provide the proper sprinkler coverag Additionally, the licensee provided the inspector with a Factory Mutual lab report which indicated that the spray pattern of the sprinkler heads in question, although not specifically designed to protect cable trays are adequate for the protection of horizontal surfaces such as those presented by the cable tray The inspector reviewed the existing installation e-d the report and concluded that the sprinkler installation will perform satisfactoril This item is resolve .

,

.

(Closed) 85-20-04 (Unresolved Item) Functional Testing of Fire Dampers The NRC identified the concerns that fire dampers are not tested under flow conditions and therefore the assurance that the fire dampers will function during a fire is lackin The licensee agreed with this concern and issued a procedure to test all fire dampers every 18 month The inspector reviewed this procedure titled "Fire Damper Operability Test" No. F-ST-76V and the results of the last fire damper surveillance and did not identify any unacceptable condition This item is resolve .( Closed) 85-20-05 (Unresolved Item) Exemption Request to Allow Temporary Core Uncovery In reviewing the shutdown methodology, the NRC raised the concern that by using the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) to depressurize the reactor, the core may become uncovered. This is contrary to the Appendix R, III.L.2.b. requirements to maintain the reactor coolant level above the top of the cor The licensee filed for an exemption from this requirement on the basis that no core damage would occur in thi s scenario. The analysis presented was that the core would be uncovered for a maximum time of 150 seconds in the 30 minutes required to initiate the Low Pressure Coolant Injection System and reflood the cor This analysis was reviewed by NRR and NRR subsequently approved the exemption request in a letter dated September 15, 1986 from R. Bernero, Director, Division of BWR Licensing, NRR to J. Brons, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation, Power Authority of the State of New Yor This item is resolve (Closed) 85-20-06 (Unresolved Item) Difficult Access for Fuse Replacement The NRC identified the concern that the operators effort to replace fuses may be hampered by poor access to certain fuse boxe In addition, the concern was identified that the box containing spare fuses by the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel 25 ASP-2 is located such that fuses may be lost if droppe The licensee addressed these concerns by installing additional emergency lighting in the areas and placing ladders nearby to facilitate acces The licensee also stated that fuse replacement was an interim shutdown metho Since this findings was identified, the licensee has completed

i

.

.

installation of the redundant control circuit fusing (parallel fuses) so that reliance on fuse replacement is no longer require This item is resolve (Closed) 87-19-03 (Unresolved Item) Unsealed Fire Barrier Electrical Penetrations The inspector reviewed the corrective measures taken by the licensee to seal the open fire barrier penetrations identified during the seal surveillance inspectio The inspector also determined that the open penetrations did not present a safety hazard and would not prevent an orderly plant shutdowr, in the event of a fire because of their small size and locatio The action taken by the licensee was to seal the affected penetrations with fire rated seals and place the penetrations on the surveillance for future inspection This item is resolve .0 Fire Protec'. ion / Prevention Program The inspector reviewed several 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 section .1 Program Administration and Organization The inspector reviewed the following licensee documents:

--

Technical Spc.lfications, Section 6, Administrative Controls

--

Fire Protection Program, Procedure No. AP 1.6, Revision 4 The scope of review was to ascertain that: Personnel were designated for implementing the program at site; and Qualifications were delineated for personnel designated to implement the progra No unacceptable conditions were identifis ,

?

.:

.. .

3.2 Administrative Control of Combustibles The inspector reviewed-the following document:

--

Control of Combustibles and Flammable Materials Procedure No.10.1.10, Revision- The scope of review was to verify'that the licensee had developed

. administrative controls-which included: Special authorization for the use of combustible,' flammable or explosive hazardous material in safety-related areas; Prohibition on the storage of combustible, flammable or explosive hazardous' material in safety-related areas;

' the removal of all wastes, debris, rags, oil spills or other combustible materials resulting.from the work activity or at the end of each work shift,.whichever is' sooner; All wood used in safety-related areas to be treated with flame '

retardant; e .~ Periodic inspection for accumulation of combustibles; Transient combustibles to be restricted and controlled in safety-related areas; and

. Housekeeping to be properly maintained in areas containing safety-related equipment and components.

'

No unacceptable conditions were identifie .

3.3 Adminirtrative Contrni of Ignition Sources The inspector reviewed the following licensee document:

. --

Control of welding and cutting, welding administrative procedure

<

WAP-4 The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which included:

Requirements for special authorization (work permit) for activities involving welding, cutting, grinding, open flame or other ignition

, sources and that they are properly safeguarded in areas containing

safety-related equipment and component .

i

!

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

l'

I l.

l

.

. ., ... - , , - - . - ,,-, -, - - - - - . - - . . . - - , . . - . , . - . . . ..,.--

r

.

'

3.4 Other Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the following licensee documents:

--

Technical Specifications, Section 6, Administrative Controls

--

Fire Protection Program, Procedure No. AF The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed adainistrative controls which require that: Work authorization, construction permits or similar arrangements are provided for review and approval of modification, construction and maintenance activities which could adversely affect the safety of the facility; Fire brigade organization and qualifications of brigade members are delineated; Fire reporting instructions for general plant personnel are developed; Periodic audits are to be concucted on the entire fire protection program; and Fire protection / prevention program is included in the licensee's QA Progra No unacceptable conditions were identifie .5 Equipment Maintenance, Inspection and Test The inspector reviewed the following randomly selected documents to determine whether the licensee had developed adequate procedures which established maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for the plant fire protection equipmer,t:

• F-ST-76A Fire protection system weekly checks

• F-ST-76B Electric fire pump operational check

• F-ST-76C Diesel fire pump operational check

• F-ST-76J3 Smoke and heat detector functional test -

recirculation system MG room

• F-ST-76J15 Smoke and heat detector functional test -

south cable tunnel

• F-ST-76E Monthly and annual fire hose station inspection

• F-ST-76J19 Smoke and heat detector functional test - south emergency switchgear room

_

. , . -. -- . - , . ~

.

.

• F-ST-76J20 Smoke and heat detector. functional ~ test rorth emergency switchgear room . . _

• F-ST-76J21 Smoke and heat detector functional test relay' room

-*F-ST-76J22- Smoke and heat detector functional test - diesel fire pump room

- *F-ST-76V Fire damper operability test

• F-ST-76W Mechanical fire barrier penetration seals visual inspection

- In addition to reviewing the above documents, the inspector reviewed the maintenance / inspection / test records of the items, marked with an asterisk to verify compliance with Technical Specifications and established procedures.'

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

j 3.6 Fire Brigade Training Records Review

'

The inspector, reviewed training records of fire brigade members for calendar years 1987.and 1988 to ascertain that they had attended the required quarterly training and participated in a quarterly drill, and received the annual hands-on fire' extinguishment practic ,

No unacceptable conditions were identifie .7 Periodic Inspections and Quality Assurance Audits

-

The inspector reviewed the reports of the following Technical Specification required audits:

--

1985, Triennial Fire Protection Audit performed oy an outside consultant, Professional Loss Control, Inc., dated November 11, 198 , Audit No. 605, Annual Fire Protectio ,' Draft Audit No. 639, Annual Fire Protection The scope of review was to ascertain that the audits were conducted in

- accordance with the Technical Specifications and audit findiags were being resolved in a timely and satisfactory manne No unacceptable conditions were identifie .8 Facility Tour The inspector examined fire protection water systems, including fire pumps, fire water piping and distribution systems, post indicator valves, hydrants and contents of hose house The inspector toured accessible

.

w &w"f'-*ew'--p+""u-4"' y" g--- y y ? TW"'WJgy 7"Tf TN'wP *7-a

• M V --+mw-ww w- "9M hg** "- v w7'E'=v* e'- F w--ye -www y w'y- wy v'71--1rw-=gw ww9 g- e

.

.

vital and nonvital plant areas and examined fire detection and alarm systems, automatic and manual fixed suppression systems, interior hose stations, fire barrier penetration seals, and fire door 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 performe No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they ar acceptable items, violations or deviation Section 2 of this report provides resolution to items identified in previous inspection .0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee management representatives (see Section 1.0 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection on Janaary 28, 198 The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that time. The 'nspector also confirmed with the licensee that the report will not contain any proprietary informatio The licensee agreed that the inspection report maybe 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 che licensee by the inspector.

!

l l

l l

l

.