IR 05000338/1990014
| ML20055H630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1990 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055H628 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-90-14, 50-339-90-14, NUDOCS 9007270106 | |
| Download: ML20055H630 (11) | |
Text
,__-,.
.
%
~
,.
- '
'
UNITE 3 STATES /
- .Ca*
/
'o,'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.' _ $
REGION il.
j h
101 MARIETTA STRtET N.W.
- g-.
ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 30323
- p*
vi Report Nos.:
50'-338/90-14 and 50-339/90-14 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Glen Allen, VA-23060
'
Docket Hos.:- 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.:- NPF-4 and NPF-7 -
Facility Name:
North Anna 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 4-8, 1990 h
4/22 )7 D-Inspector:
/M h-L m.
J. R. Harms
/
Date 51gtied-Approved b d [
c;/aw/ro w
w T. Conlon, Chief Date signed
,
Plant' Systems Section i
i Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
l
This unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of fire protection and
'
followup on an unresolved item 88-13-02 identified -during _ an Appendix R Triennial inspection conducted July 18-22, 198'-
l Results:
i The inspector identified the following strengths _ in _ implementation of the
licensees fire protection program.
>
Staffing of the firt protection _ group is very good.
The group appears-
.
-
knowledgeable of the fire protection issues and has adequate manpower to
'
implement the licensee's program.
The licensee management appears to be committed to the successful
>
-
implementation of the fire protection program.
,
,
The licensee has effectively implemented a program of controlling the
-
movement of' transient combustibles in and out of the plant which ensure
unsafe hazards will not be present.
This is evident based on the very good housekeeping in the plant.
'
The licensee took' proper corrective action on an Appendix R item
-
identified-during <an inspection conducted July 18-22, 1988.
No deviations or violations were, identified.in the areas inspected.
'
9007170106 900626 ADOCK 0500
{DR
,
n
i
['
'..
,
l
.
.
.
i L
REPORT DETAILS:
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-
- B. Bowling, Assistant Station Manager
- P. Cameron, Assistant Fire Protection Specialist
- G. Clark, Supervisor Quality Assurance
- R. Fleshman, Senior Fire Protection Supervisor
- G. Jones, fenior Fire Protection Specialist
- G. Kane, Station Manager
,
- P. Kemp, Supervisor Licensing.
- L. Leberstein, ticensing Engineer
- N. Locas, Safety Coordinator
- L. Martin, Staff Engineer l
'
- W. Robbins, Senior Engineer Corporate Loss Prevention l
- W. Timpano," Supervisor Administrative Services
'
'
NRC Resident Inspector
' !,
- M. Lesser, Ser.ior Resident
!
- Attended exit interview l
,
2.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program (64704)
The licensee's fire protection prevention' procedures are denoted in~
a.
<
the Fire Protection Manual entitled " North Anna Power Station - Fire Protection Program" dated = November'22,1989.
These procedures were
,
'
reviewed by the-inspector and - found' to meet'the provisions: of the
-
applicable NRC guidelines provided 'in Branch Technical position
-
'
AP-SCB-9.5.1, Rev.1, Guidelines for-Fire. Protection 1 for Nuclear--
Plants.
b.
Fire Protection Surveillance Procedures The inspector reviewed the following fire protection system i
survelliance procedures:
1 Procedure No.
Title j
1-PT-100.2 Fire protection pumps annual test.
1-PT-100.3 Fire suppression water system-
!
valve position verification, every 7 days
!
)
l
.
!
.
,
r1
..
.
i
2-
.
_.
s i
?
1-PT-103.1 First L protection deluge system,.
i post = indicator valves, hydrants i
and low pressure C02 tanks, every-
'
7. days-1-PT-100.5 Fire pump die'sel inspection, every l
18 months
.
1-PT-105.2.1 Hose station inspection, every 31 days
,
1-PT-105.1.4 Fire protection system fire i
barriers, every_18 months
1-PT-105.3 Hose house inspection, - every 31 days 2-PT-106.6 Fire protection Robert Shaw fire detectors inside Unit 2 contain-ment, every 6 months.
,
2-PT-107.1 Fire protection control room halon
- !
1301 system,~every_6 months 2-PT-109.1.3 Fire protection-deluge' and l
sprinkler system H2 seal. oil unit, every 12 months
-
The above surveillance procedures were reviewed to determine if the
'
various test outlines and inspection instructions' adequately:
implement the surveillance-requirements of.the1 plant's-fire protection Technical = Specification.
Jn addition, these~ procedures-
-
were reviewed to determine if the inspection and test ~ instructions-followed general industry fire protection practices, NRC. fire protection program guidelines and the guidelines of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Codes.
Based on 'this. review, it -
R appears that the fire protection system surveillance procedures are
.
,
satisfactory.
c.
Fire Protection System Surveillance. Inspections and Tests-
-The inspector reviewed the fc110 wing surveillance' inspection and test
,
records for the dates indicated:
1-PT-100.2 Fire protection pumps annual test.
P,eviewed. annual ' tests performed -
May 19-23,.1989 and.May 9,11,12 1990.
.
,-
i
-
.
- .
.
.
.
.
1-PT-100.3 Fire suppression = water system
-
valve position verification performed every-7 days.
Reviewed.
tests performed
' January 1990 to June 1990.
1-PT-105.2.1-Hose station inspection performed every 31 days.
Reviewed tests performed-January, - February, March, May and June 1990.
'l-PT-105.1.4 Fire protection systems fire
. barrier-inspections - performed every '18 months.
Reviewed. tests
performed November 1988. and
December-1989.
I
-
1-PT-103.3 Hose - House inspection performed; every 31 days, ' Reviewed tests performed. January, February, March, April and May 1990.
I 2-PT-107.1 Fire protection ' control room Halon 1301 system, performed every.
.
6 months.
Reviewed inspections
,
performed
. August 1989- _and-
!
January 1990.-
l 2-PT-106.6 Fire protectioni Robert Shaw fire
detectors :inside Unit 2 contain-i ment,. tests performed every 6 '
months or 'during an outage.
Reviewed
' tests; performed March 19841and. September 1989.
2-PT-109.1.3 Fire protection " deluge and
!
sprinkler system H ' seal oil unit.-
'
Performed-every. 12 months.
Reviewed tests
. performed
February.24, 1989.
'
i lhe surveillance-test record data' and testing frequency associated.
j
-
with the above fire protection system surveillance test / inspections.
!
-were found to be satisfactory'with' regard to meeting the requirements j
of the plants fire protection _ technical specifications.-
i d.
Fire-Protection Audits i
'
The following audits were reviewed:
,
!
'
.
i
.
.;
F
=,
..
'
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.!
Fire Protection Triennial Audit conducted November 6,1989 through
,
November 10, 1989, Audit Number N-89-23.-
l
,
The. audit resulted in five findings and one observation as:
summarized below:
Finding 01-One penetration seal configuration test ' report contained anomalies for. which adequate
justification. was ~ not documented.
Additional
,
concerns were noted' with three of the inspected penetration seals.
'
Finding 02
' An installed 3-hour rated fire wrap ~ was observed to be inadequately installed and in a degraded-
'
condition.
Finding 03 Several instances 'of degraded fire protection -
ecuipment, and ineffective measures were
,
icentified during a plant walkdown.
'
Finding 04 Drawing 1171-5-FAR.203 depicts a CO2 fire-suppression and thermal detection. system installed in the Unit 2 Rod Drive control. room-which, upon inspection, doesn't exist.
- Finding 05 An extension cord. was found draped over the exhaust manifold of.the diesel fire pump.
Observation 01-Several safety-related ~ conduits are installed in close. proximity to the - exhaust manifold of 1-FP-P-2.
This positioning may-cause premature aging. of the cable jackets; run' through these conduits.
Quality Assurance Audit conducted June 26-29 to September 8,1989, Audit Number N-89-21-8.
The audit resulted in six findings and one observation'as summarized below:
Finding 01 Various errors and minor defic encies in procedures, reported as observations in the previous audit of 1987 remained uncorrected.
Finding 02 Seven periodic test procedures. and-eighty four.
fire protection maintenance procedures selected-L for review were not completed in accordance with-
]
!
the requirements of the procedure itself or its i
controlling procedure.
l l.,
'
.c.
.
..
.
.
.
-
,
a Finding 03 Thirty-three periodic tests, 'eight maintenance tests and four fire protection maintenance procedures selected. for review had not been
!
reviewed within the'past twenty four months.
I Finding 04 Eight of the engineering work requests, selected'
for review, that performed design modificati.ons.
' to plant systems and components were not distributed to nor reviewed by the Loss Preven-tion Coordinator for their inpact on Fire Pre'vention, Fire Protection Systems, and Fire:
Hazards Analysis.
Finding 05 Two minor discrepancies.were noted where current practices do not. reflect the requirements stated in the Fire Protection Program.
Finding 06 Ten of the Fire Protection System Corrective Maintenance Work Order Packages selected for
,
reviewed exhibited some deficiency indicating-inattention to detail in the -completion of corrective maintenance documentation.
Observation 01 Operations offered an'd engineering accepted a verbal communique' that 1-FP-P-2 ' was out of service and 1-PT-100.1.2 could not be performed,-
rather than submitting a periodic critique sheet.
The inspector reviewed these items and verified that proper corrective actions were taken on these items.
e.
Fire Brigade (1) Organization The total station fire brigade is composed of approximately 80 personnel from the operations and security staff.
The-on' duty i
shift fire brigade. leader is one of the operators and the remaining four fire brigade members are composed of operators and' security personnel.
The - inspector reviewed ' the shif t I
brigade on duty for June 3, -4', 5,. 6 'and 7,1990 and verified.
that sufficient qualified fire brigade personnel were on dut meet the provisions of the plants Technical Specifications. y to The inspector also verified that sufficient operators were on duty.
E in the Units'I and 2 control room in the event of a fire.
(2) The inspector reviewed the training and -drill records for'all the brigade members.
The records indicated that each of the
'
members had received an annual medical review attended the required training and participated -in the required number of drills.
The fire ',rigade training' records inspected for> the brigade members were found to be satisfactoril..
.
.
. i
..
.-
e-4'
'..
<
,
Review-of! the shift ' drill records -indicated that each brigade shift had participated in at least one drill per cuarter in accordance with the licensee's Technical Specification and Fire'
,
Protection Program.
(3). Fire Brigade Fire' Fighting Strategies The. inspector reviewed the - following plant fire fighting strategies:
1-FS-AB-1 Auxiliary -Building >All-l Elevations 1-FS-AF-2 Auxiliary Feedwater.Pumphouse (
Unit 1 1-FS-S-1 Control Room Units 1 and' 2 Safe Shutdown Equipment
,
1-FS-BR-1 Auxiliary Boiler Room-1-FS-C-1-Containment Unit 1 1-FS-S-3
~ Service, Building 1-FS-10-1 Turbine Oil Room 1-FS-S-5
_ Battery Building-
\\
1-FS-S-6 Units 1. and 2 Cable Tray and Battery' Room.
2-FS-05-l'
-Quench Spray Building Unit'2 2-FS-MS-1 Main Steam Valve House Unit 2
.
L 2-FS-S-5 Battery ' Rooms 2-2. and 2-4
'
Service Building
2-FS-S-7 Unit 2 AirH Condition ' and Instrumentation - Rack Service l-Building Review of the ' above listed firefighting strategies by the insp~ector indicated that'the strategies adequately addressed the-hazards in the area, the types of fire extinguishants to be -
utilized, the direction of attack, systems in the room area to be managed in order to reduce fire damage, heat sensitive
_
-.
.-.
.
-
-.
.
.
.
-
-
-
..
-.
.
-
. - - - _-__ _ - _______
.
..
.
.
.
y.
..
.
,
equipment in the room area and specific fire brigade duties with
,
L regard to smoke control and salvage.
l (4) Fire Brigade Drill
-
-
During this insaection, the inspector witnessed an unannounced fire brigade drill.
The drilliscenario was a fire in the Unit 1
-
t Auxiliary. Motor Driven Feedwater pump room and an electrical fault on the motor of 1-FW-P-3A.
j The alarm was sounded at-1:02 p.m. and the operator pulled a 1-1/2 inch ettack line from House Hose F.
An equipment cart was pulled at 1:03 p.m.
A second 1-1/2 inch attack hosc was pulled at 1: 04 p.m.
The door was accessed by security at 1:05 p.m..
.The first aid team responded to the fire at 1:06 p.m.
Operators checked exposure for the steam' driven feedwater = pump at-1:07 p.m.
The scene leader and five additional members-responded-to the fireLwith a;1-1/2 inch attack hose and a 1-1/2-inch backup hose.
The 1-1/2: inch attack hose was used and the fire was declared out at 1:14 p.m.. Ventilation fans were used to remove the smoke.
The fire brigade utilized proper manual fire fighting methods and reacted to the drill scenario in-an effective-and efficient
<
manner, f.
Plant Tour and Inspection of Fire Protection Equipment
'
(1) The inspector verified that the motor. driven electrical and diesel fire pumps were in service.
The electric fire pump was inspected and all valves were found properly aligned for pump
,
service.
-The following sectional control valves in ;the' outside fire
<
protection water supply system were inspected and verified to be properly' aligned and locked in position:
,
1-FP-53 Open 1-FP-100 Open-1-FP-54 Open 1-FP-110 Open.
a 1-FP-55 Open 1-FP-122 Open-1-FP-56 Closed 1-FP-123 Open 1-FP-66 Open 1-FP-124 Open 1-FP-84 Closed 1-FP-239 Open 1-FP-86 Closed 1-FP-244 Open 1-FP-93 Closed 1-FP-245 Open 1-FP-95 Open-1-FP-252 Open 1-FP-97 Open-1-FP-253 Open, The following fire: hydrants and fire hydrant equipment houses
'
were inspected:
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, 1, and m.
..-
.
-
.
-
,
._.
. _
_
.
_
-.--
l
,
4-
.. '
i
,
i a
-
The - equipment hou'ses contained the minimum ~ equipment require-
' '
ments of that specified by NFPA-24,. private service mains:and.
their appurtenances and/or FSAR commitments.
The equipment-I appeared to be adequately maintained.n A tour of the exterior of the' plant. indicated thatl sufficient clearance was provided between permanent safety-related-
buildings' and structures and other transient combustible j
materials.
The general housekeeping of thel areas adjacent.to the permanent plant structures was satisfactory.
(2) Permanent Fire Protection Features A plant tour was made by the inspector.
During the plant tour the following safe shutdown plant areas and their related fire protection features were inspected.
Fire Area 2 Control Room Fire Area 3-1 Unit 1 Cable Vault and Tunnel.
Fire Area 3-2 Unit 2 Cable Vault and Tunnel-
,
Fire Area 6-1 Unit 1 Emergency Switchgear Room.
'
Fire Area 6-2 Unit 2 Emergency Switchgear Room Fire Area 11 Auxiliary Building - Component-
,
Cooling. Water Pump Area Fire Area 14-8-1 Unit 1 ' Auxiliary Feedwater Pumphouse-Fire Area 15-2 Unit.2 Quench Spray House
Fire Area 2C Service Water Pump House-Fire Area 32
. Service Water, Intake Structure
'
The fire / smoke-detection systems, manual firefighting equipment (i.e., portable extinguishers,' hose stations, etc.) and the fire area boundary walls, floors and ceiling associated for the= above plant areas were inspected and verif.ied to be in service or functional.
The inspector reviewed the fire barrier cable. enclosures and fire stop installation provided for the component cooling water (CCW) pump and charging pump separation'.
The barrier enclosures
.l and fire stops appeared to be functional.
The automatic sprinkler systems installed protecting CCW pumps -
and C02 systems installed-in the. Unit 2 Diesel Generator Rooms i
were inspected and found to'be in service.
The plant tour also verified the licensee's implementation of the fire prevention administrative procedures.
The control'of combustibles and flammable materials, liquids and gases, and the
general housekeeping were found to be satisfactory in the areas inspected.
"
'
^*
w n
T 4*
f
. -.
_
.
__
i.
..
.
.
,
Based on this-inspection, it appears. that' the fire protection features associated with.-the above plant-areas are satisfactorily maintained.
(3) Appendix R Fire Protection Features The inspector visually inspected the fire rated raceway fire barriers required for compliance _ with Appendix R,.
Section III G.2 in the CCW pumps and charging pump-areas of Fire Area 11. - Based on the inspectors observations of-the raceway _
fire barrier enclosure, it appears that the one hour fire
barrier assembly was being properly maintained in a satisfactory condition.
'
!
The. inssector made.a wal'kdown ' inspection of the Appendix R
!
automatic suppression : systems.in the following' areas and-l verified their operability._
j
Fire Area 3-1 Total Flooding-
-j Unit 1 Cable-Vault and Tunnel CO -
l
Fire Area ~3-2 Total Flooding
Unit 2 Cable Vault and Tunnel C02 i
Fire Area 11 Wet-Sprinkler
!
CC Pump. Area-System:
The following eight-hour emergency lighting units were d
inspected.
]
1-ELT-ES-002
!2-ELT-ES-003-
-1-ELT-ES-003
'2-ELT-ES-004-1-ELT-ES-004 2-ELT-ES-005-l 1-ELT-ES-005
-- 2-ELT-ES-007.
l 1-ELT-ES 017 2-ELT-ES-008 1-ELT-TB-018 2-ELT-ES-009
i The units were in service and appeared to be properly
'
maintained.
!
-i 3.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701).
-l L
Closed Unresolved Item 88-13-02, Entry, into. fire = area' for. manual
!
p operations of safe shutdown equipment.
!
During the triennial Appendix R inspection conducted by NRC' Region II on l
July 18-22, 1988, the inspectors identified.a concern regarding entry into x
l.
charging sump cubicles and Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Room,
!
'
within thirty minutes.
j
,;
l
I E
-
.
_
_
_
,
..
..
A
' -
The NRC inspectors did not agree that the reentry into a fire area in less than sixty minutes of a fire event-was feasible.
The licensee.has. agreed with th;s and-a; reed to extended _ the period
-
described from thirty to sixty minutes pr or to reentry into the affected~
.
area.
This was discussed with L. Engle and D. Notley of NRR-on April 4, 1990.
This item is closed.
4.~
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on June 8,1990, with I
those persons indicated in paragraph 1.-
The inspector described the areas-inspected and discussed in detail the~ inspection results.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
The. license did not:
identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
'
,
{
[..
I t
1, i
'
l
~
--
.-.
,,
.
.
.,
.-.