IR 05000354/1989006

Insp Rept 50-354/89-06 on 890227-0303.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Adequacy & Implementation of Licensees Fire Protection Program,Combustible Matl Control, Housekeeping Conditons & Fire Brigade Training

ML20245B674
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/29/1989
From:	Anderson C, Krasopoulas A, Julio Lara NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245B671	List: IR 05000354/1989006 ML20245B668
References
50-354-89-06, 50-354-89-6, NUDOCS 8904260215
Download: ML20245B674 (6)

Text

. _ - - - _ _ _ __ _

,

.

,

'.

-

..

I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /89-06 Docket N License N NPF-57 Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name: Hope Creek Nuclear Station Inspection At: Lower Alloways Township, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: February 27 - March 3, 1989

'

Inspectors: f _7//P [ j k*/ ff C/

A'.~Krafoboulo's,'ReactorEngineer ' ~datd '

/Uk/&

J. Lara, Keactor'Eng'ineer a dn/n

' ~date~

Approved by: 8

'C' J. Anderson, Chief Plant stems Section /

'< fate /

Inspection Summary: Inspection on February 27, 1989 - March 3, 1989 (Report No. 50-354/89-06)

Areas Inspected: This routine unannounced inspection reviewed the adequacy and implementation of the licensee's Fire Protection Program. The inspection included reviews of the following program aspects: combustible material control, housekeeping conditions, review of the surveillance and testing performed on fire suppression and detection equipment, fire brigade training, walk down of fire suppression systems and a detailed review of the carbon dioxide suppression syste Results: This inspection did not identify any violation However, the method of testing the operability of the fire dampers in areas protected by carbon dioxide was found to be inadequate. The licensee committed to revise the applicable procedure in a manner acceptable to NR e904260215 890410 PDR ADOCK 0500 {4 O

C______ _

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

a: .,

.

.

..

r DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE and G1

• J. J. Hagan, Gener *. Manager - Hope Creek

• J. Lawrence, Licei.ing

• R. Basha11, Enginc3 ring and Plant Betterment

• J. Lin,- Engineering and Plant Betterment

• G..Schroeder, Engineering and Plant Betterment

• P. Eldreth, Site Protection

• Kerin, Site Protection

• P. Moeller, Manager, Site Protection

• H. Wcif, Site Protection - Staff Engineer

.

• R. Broddick, Fire Protection Engineer

• R. Cephas,' Engineer

• Sesok, Atlantic Electric - Site Representative

• J. Nichols, Technical Manager

• S. Funsten, Maintenance Manager

• R. Griffith, Principal Engineer QA

• C. Vonora, Operations Manager R. Swartzwelder, Sr. Licensing Engineer E' Devoy, Hope Creek

.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• Meyer, Sr. Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meetin .0 Followup of Previous- Inspection Finding (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-354/86-01-01) Functional Testing of Fire Dampers The NRC previously observed that the licensee was not performing functional

. tests of the fire dampers and the licensee agreed to functionally test 10%

of all dampers every 18 month The inspector reviewed the licensee's test records to verify that this testing is being performed adequately. The inspector observed that the

. licensee is conducting adequate functional tests even though they do not exactly meet the original commitment to test 10% of all dampers. The i licensee presently, tests 10!! of all accessible dampers. There are two

-

hundred accessible dampers out of 350 tota During a meeting with the u-_____ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ..

l L

j .

-:

l -

,

.

licensee, the inspector concluded that since damper failures were not observed during the performance of the surveillarces and since all dampers i are visually inspected every 18 months as required by a License Condition 11 and the functional testing is not required but is performed as a conservative !

measure, this practice is acceptable and the item is resolve L (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-354/86-01-02) Convenient Use of Fire !

. Fighting Strategies

]

<

The NRC observed that the licensee's fire fighting strategies are l contained in volumes that are unwieldy and possibly difficult to use in a ,

fire. To address this concern, the licensee developed in a booklet form '

a condensed version of the fire strategies for use by the fire brigad ,

This booklet contains a drawing of each fire area with the location of the

~

fire hazards and the fire fighting equipment available to.the fire fighters for each are This handy booklet is carried and used by all fire fighters. The inspector noted that in addition to the fire strategies and the booklet the fire fighters know the plant very well. This is i because.they. perform the-required surveillance on the fire suppression and fire detection equipment. The fire fighters interviewed by the inspector knew the hazards in the plant and knew what to do for a fire in the are The above licensee actions adequately address the NRC concern and this item is resolve ' Controls of Combustibles and Ignition Sources The licensee has in place procedures that control the use or introduction of combustibles and flammables in safety-related areas. The licensee also has procedures that control the use of ignition sources such as from welding, cutting or grinding operation The plant' inspection by the inspector did not identify any unacceptable condition .0 Housekeeping The inspector toured the plant to observe the housekeeping conditions and did not identify any unacceptable condition The plant was clean of combustibles and other trash is hauled away regularl .0 Equipment Maintenance Inspection and Tests The inspector reviewed several surveillance and testing procedures to determine whether the licensee has developed an adequate surveillance and maintenance program that assures the functionality / operability of the fire protection equipment.

- - - _ _ - __- -_ _ - - -_ - ___ - _ _- _ _ - _ _ - _ - - -_ - _-

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

<

'60 ( '

<

,

a

'

'

In addition; the inspector reviewed the test records to verify compliance with the applicable license requirements. No unacceptable conditions were . identi fied.- However, the inspector observed that the procedure which checks the operability of the Carbon Dioxide Automatic Suppression System is inadequate as follows:

Procedure M10-SHT-021 requires an operability test of the 17 ton Carbon Dioxide fire suppression system be conducted. The system is cons *dered operable when the following conditions are met: the fire detectors installed in the areas protected by the CO2 are operable; the CO2. discharge valves cpen when a signal is received from the fire detectors; the proper alarms sound; and the Fire Dampers in the room protected by the CO2 close when the CO2 discharge valves ope This design feature is in place.to assure that the CO2 concentration will remain in the area protected icng enough to extinguish the fire and prevent reignition. The fire dampers are held open by Electrothermal Links (ETLs). The licensee verifies operability by performing electrical continuity checks on segments of the system rather than actuating it. The inspectors found this practice accept-able, however, they noted that the licensee does not check system continuity from the fire panel to the ETL The ETLs hold the fire dampers open. When a signal of a. fire is received by the fire panel, the ETLs release and the fire dampers should close. The licensee until now did not' check the continuity of this part of the system because testing system continuity thru the ETLs, entails the risk of

' actuating the dampers. The inspector stated to the licensee that in order to assure system operability, this ' portion of the system should be tested and the dampers should be actuated. The licensee committed to revise the procedure to include a continuity check thru the ETLs and functionally test at least 10% of the dampers during each surveillance cycl No other unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Review The inspector did not review the QA audit because thi.s area was recently inspected and documented in combined inspection report 50-272/89-02 and 50-311/89-0 The above inspection was performed on the licensee's other facilities, Salem Urits 1 and 2. The licensee's QA department performs one audit of the fire protection program for all three units, ' Salem 1 and 2 and Hope Creek. The program is the same for all units and managed by the same peopl ' O . _ -- _ - _ _ _ _ _ ________._ _ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _

_ - _ - _

'

.

..

.

!

7.0 Fire Brigade Training 7.1 Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the fire Brigade Training program to verify that this program includes: . Requirements for announced and unannounced drills; Requirements for fire brigade training and retraining at prescribed frequencies; Requirements for at least one drill per year to be performed on a "back shift" for each brigade; Requirements for maintenance of training record No unacceptable conditions were identifie .2 Records Review The inspector reviewed training records of fire brigade members for calendar years 1988 ano 1989 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 In addition, the inspector observed a fire drill. The fire fighters responded to the drill promptly. The fire fighters' attitude during the drill was professional and enthusiasti Proper use of the available equipment was note .0 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 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 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 performe No unacceptable conditions were identified. However, the inspector observed the following condition that requires resolution by the licensee:

,

__.___2___.___-_____ a - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - _ - - - -- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

,.

t; ,

-

c. .

.. -

6 'i i

( ,

'

The licensee has committed'to install a Halon Extinguishing System in tha- i

. floor pit under the control room console. This system was installe because access for manual fire fighting inside the console is c.onfined and-difficul The licensee installed a Halon distribution system that was ' tested and found acceptable ir that.the Halon concentrations reach the design level The. problem. observed by the inspector was that the Halon supply for this system was not:readily available. The Halon is supplied by. compressed air bottles mounted on a cart. .These bottles are located in the janitors closet outside the control. room. In a drill conducted to familiarize the brigade with this equipment, it took approximately 25 minutes before the Halon supply was connected to the distribution system. The Halon cart must be wheeled thru doors and other obstructions prior to.being able to connect the Halon to the distribution system and this process is time consumin This inability to promptly connect the portable Halon supply to the

& distribution system was identified by the licensee's fire brigade organization as a weakness and it was referred to the engineering group for resolution. The engineering group stated that they did not receive-the request and somehow it was lost. Therefore, this request for unknown reasons was not acknowledged. The license committed to perform an engineering evaluation of this problem by June 30, 1989. At that time a completion date for any modifications to the system will be establ te .0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee management representatives (see Section 1.0 for attendees) at tne conclusion of the inspection on March 3,1989.

., The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that time. 'Tne inspector also confirmed with the licensee that the report

, will not contain any proprietary informatio The licensee agreed that the inspection report may be placed in the Public Gocument 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 inspecto ,

Two previously identified unresolved items were resolved and closed during this inspection (see Suction 2).

v'

l L

.

.

Le