IR 05000370/1982010
| ML20062J181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1982 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062J106 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-370-82-10, NUDOCS 8208160287 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML20062J181 (7) | |
Text
.
.....
-
-
,
.
,%fWog(
UNITED STATES
.;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
g REGION 11 L
- E 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W., SUITE 3100 e
ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303
.....
Report No. 50-370/82-10 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: McGuire 2 Docket No. 50-370 License No. CPPR-84 Inspection at McGuire site Charlotte, North Carolina bt 6 ~ 8 " o#L Inspector: __
JrT (
Date Signed s,
W. H. M 11 r d[
[ ' k ~~ N Approved b :_T.~E. Conlon Section Chief Date Signed
,
Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on May 11-14, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site in the areas of fire protection / prevention.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations were identified. Two apparent deviations were found (Failure to install fire detection system in fuel storage area prior to the receipt of fuel paragraph 6; and, Substandard fire protection QA program paragraphs 7.b and c).
"
8208160287 820805 PDR ADOCK 05000370 Q
-.
.
...-
. _.
.
..
-
y
-
.
.
.
<
x
,':
.
.
.
e s
. s
<
'v ;
i
- 4 REPORTDETAILs
.
.
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- i ~v
- M. S. Starnes, Senior Construction Engineer -
!
- J. W. Willis, Project QA Engineer
- E. B. Miller, Senior QA Engineer
- W. G. Go'odman, QA Representativ'e l
- D. F. James, QA Representative
!
- G.' T. Ford,'QA Representative
- R. M. Williams, QA Representative
'
- D. W. Grogg, MTS i
- M. Sample, Pr6jects & Licensing / Operations I
i
- D Mobly, Safety Supervisor /0perations i
'
- J.. R. Hendricks, Design Engineer
-
!
,
'
- J. A. Oldham, Design Engineer
'
J. Goodman, QC-Electrical
W. M. Newton, QA-Mechanical
'
_.,
W. Allgood, Technical Support-Electrical NRC Resident Inspector
?
P. Bemis
'
.
P. Hopkins
- /
/
- >
,e
!
I
- Attended exit idterview
~
i I
!
2.
Exit Interview,
,
s
!
,
,,13 t
t k
,
The inspection scops and findings were summarized on May 14, 1982.,with i
those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
~
,
,
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection. Findings
'j
.
a.
(0 pen) Ocviation Item (370/80-07-01) - Substandard Sprinkler System
~
i Installations: The inspector' did not' evaluate a sufficient number of
,
systems \\ to verify that.this item had been corrected. However, of those systems' inspected. two discrepancies were~noted. The sprinkler system
,
directly over the component cooling pump was obstructed by electrical, mechanf cal, and structura'l^ Eo~ ponents installed between the spumps !and :
'
m sprinkler nozzles and the sprinkler piping for the reactor'buildir[g
'
,
'
p,pe corridor did not appear to have a sufficient number of bipe
'
hangers.
Therefore,.this item remains open and' willc be evaluated t
during a subsequent NRC inspection.
i w,
e
,
.
,
,
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved I t.em (370/80-07-02) - Bat'teay Powered J.mergency
Lighting ' Requirements for Safety Related Pump ~ Rooms:f'The ' required
<
eight' hour einergency battery powered light ' units are currently under"'
I.
,,
p
- l,*
>
>
s s
'
a f
.
,
y
/!,
I y
}
.
,
ll^
- )'
i m
j
<
.
-
't.
.. a..!
r.
-
e
../
..
.
-.
-
-
-
-
-
--.
_ -
=-
.
.
-
_. _ -
._.
7 _
.j
,.
-
.
.
'
s design.
This item will remain open until these units have been
installed and inspected during a subsequent NRC inspection.
,
r c.
(0 pen) Infraction Item (370/80-15-02)
Failure to Follow Fire
-
,
'
Prevention Welding Procedures:
The licensee had revised the welding
'
procedure to conform to the work procedures normally followed on the
!
t job site and to assure that a satisfactory level of safety is provided.
l However, the inspector did not observe a sufficient number of welding
'
and cutting operations to assure conformance to the procedure.
This item remains open pending further review during a subsequent NRC
i'
inspection.
j
'
d.
(Closed) Deviation Item (370/80-15-03) - Inadequate Fire Barriers for Duct Shafts:
NRR's internal memorandum from V. Benaroya for B. J. Youngblood dated January 8,1981, stated that the design of the
.
duct snaft fire walls were acceptable. Therefore, this item is closed, i
'
e.
(Closed) Deviation Item (370/80-15-04) - Installation of Day Tank for Diesel Generators Does Not Meet NRC Guidelines: NRR's internal memo-randum from V. Benaroya for B. J. Youngblood dated January 8,1981, stated that the design and installation of the day tank was acceptable.
'
Therefore, this item is closed.
.
f.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (370/80-15-05) - Inadequate Fire Detection
'
Installation for Fuel Pool Area:
Additional detectors have been installed in the fuel pool area.
These detectors are not yet opera-tional but are scheduled to be placed in service in the near future.
i Refer also to below paragraph 5.
This item is closed.
g.
(0 pen) Deviation Item (370/80-15-08) - Fire Suppression Systems for Reactor Building do Not Meet Single Failure Criteria: The sprinkler systems and standpipe hose stations for the reactor building are
,.
!
supplied by a single supply pipe. This arrangement does not conform to
!
the FPR Sections A.4 (page 6) and E.3(a) (page 62) which states that a dual supply will be provided. This item is to remain open until the
'
,
fire protection system installation in the reactor building is modified
!
or the FPR is revised to conform to the actual installation.
h.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (370/80-19-01) - Evaluation of Emergency
,
Breathing Capability: The emergency breathing air refill system and
[
,
!
self contained breathing apparatus are common to both units. This item
>
was found acceptable for Unit 1 and closed by Report No. 369/81-03 l
Therefore, this item for Unit 2 is also closed.
'
,
,
'4.
Unresolved Items
-
i Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-
'
tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 7.c and 7.d.
i y..
'{
'
.
~,u: _
_
_ _
.
_ _
_
__ __- _
.
.
,
.
,
,
5.
Inspector Followup Item a.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (370/80-07-03) - Additional Fire Detectors Required for Reactor Building and Diesel Generator Building:
The licensee advised that the additional detectors required by the Fire Protection Review (FPR), Revised January 1979, were to be installed in the reactor building. The smoke detectors required by the FPR in the diesel generator building have not been installed due to the proba-bility of the detectors alarming each time one of the diesel engines is operated.
This change is apparently acceptable to NRR; however, no official confirmation correspondence has been sent to the licensee by NRR. This item is to remain open pending revision to the FPR.
b.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (370/80-15-07) - Inadequate Access Doors in HVAC Ducts' for Servicing Fire Dampers: The licensee stated that access doors or removable registers have been provided or are being provided to allow visual inspection and maintenance of the fire dampers. In a few special cases the ducts will have to be removed to service the dampers.
This arrangement conforms to NFPA-90A.
There-fure, this item is closed, c.
(Closed) Inspection Followup Item (370/80-19-02) Astragal Require-ments for Fire Doors:
The licensee stated that astragals were being installed on all double swinging fire doors. QA Procedure M-53A, Fire Doors and Frames, Item 5 requires that double fire doors be inspected for astregals.
The inspector noted astragals had been installed on several fire doors. Therefore, this item is closed.
6.
Fire Protection for Nucleae Material Storage The inspector conducted a tour of the permanent plant fuel storage area.
Fuel has been in storage in this area since February 1982 under the provi-sion of License SNM-1885 and on the date of this inspection approximately 130 fuel assemblies were on storage. The inspector found the fire fighting l
equipment required by the licensee to be available, in service, and receiving periodic inspections and tests.
Also, the general housekeeping was satisfactory.
However, the fire detection system installation for the l
fuel storage building was not complete and thus not in service.
The licensee's Fire Protection Review, Revised January 1979, states that the I
fire protection program, to include plans, personnel, and equipment for the fuel storage areas was to be operational before fuel was received at the site. The failure to instal 1 the fire detection system prior to the receipt
!
and storage of fuel does not conform to commitments made to the NRC and in l
identified as Deviation Item (370/82-10-01), Failure to Install the Fire Detection System in Fuel Storage Area Prior to Receipt and Storage of Fuel.
!
During the inspection the inspector noted that one of the fire detectors l
located in the fuel storage area was not connected to a supervised circuit.
l The licensee stated that this discrepancy was to be corrected. This item is identified as Inspection Followup Item (170/82-10-05), Unsupervised Fire I
s
.
.
.
,
,.
-
Detection for Fuel Storage Fire Detection System, and will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection.
Except as noted above, no violations or additional deviations were identi-fied in the areas examined.
7.
Fire Protection Quality Assurance Program The QA program commitments for tne fire protection systems are outlined in the licensee's Fire Protection Review (FPR) Revised January 1979 Section C.
The QA program for fire protection was to be effective January 1,1978. The inspector selected portions of the fire protection systems and evaluated the QA program applied to these systems. The items reviewed are as follows:
a.
Procurement and Receipt Inspection The procurement and receipt records for the following items were reviewed:
ITEM NO.
DATE OF PURCHASE DATE RECEIVED Fire 47169-21 08-17-81 10-08-81 Detectors Valve IRF951 03-14-78 04-01-78 Valve IRF1139 10-03-79 11-14-79 Valve 1RF1143 10-03-79 11-14-79 The above items were purchased and receipt inspected as Safety Related ("QA Condition 3") items, except for valve 1RF951 which was apparently purchased prior to full implementation of the fire protection QA program. However this valve appeared to conform to the design require-ments.
b.
Inspection The inspection documentation records for the following systems were reviewed:
LOCATION SYSTEM DRAWING NO.
Reactor Building -
Sprinkler System MCM 2206-07-0025 Pipe Corridor Auxiliary Building -
Sprinkler System MCM 1206-07-0087 Component Cooling Pumps Auxiliary Building -
Sprinkler System MCM 1206-07-0083 Centrifugal Changing Pumps
.
_-
_
-
.-
.
.
.
,..
.
.
LOCATION SYSTEM DRAWING NO.
'
(Continued)
Auxiliary Building -
Fire Hose System MC 1418 06.41-00 716' Elevation Fuel Storage Building Fire Detection System MC 1762.01
!
!
An independent inspection by QC had not been conducted on the sprinkler
'
systems for the component cooling pumps and centrifugal charging pumps.
These systems were designed and installed after January 1978 and installations were required by FPR Section C.4 to be verified by the QA I
program. A QA/QC inspection of the fire hose system for the auxiliary i
building was not conducted but this system was designed prior to 1978.
A QA/QC inspection was made of the pipe corridor sprinkler system and
the fuel storage building fire detection system but the inspections
'
were not very comprehensive. The sprinkler piping was only inspected for general configuration. Important features such as pipe welds and
'
,
hanger were either not inspected or inspections were not documented.
,
The inspection of the fire detection system only consisted of verifying the location of the fire detectors. Important items such as wiring to the detector units and wiring configuration were not inspected. Also, the acceptance criteria for the location of fire detectors, Procedure Form M-53A, Item 2, permits an installation tolerance of +10 feet which could result in excessive spacing between detectors.
These inspections are not of sufficient detail to verify that the fire protection systems are installed in conformance with the design and installation documents as required by FPR Section C.4.
This is identified as Deviation Item
1 (370/82-10-02), Substandard Fire Protection QA Program.
c.
Test and Test Controls t
The following test data was reviewed:
DATE OF DATE OF t
i HYOROSTATIC FLUSH i
SYSTEM TEST TEST
'
Reactor Building Fire Protection Piping 11-04-81.
11-04-81 Component Cooling Pumps Sprinkler System 11-10-78 11-09-78 Centrifugal Changing Pumps Sprinkler System 11-03-78 11-03-78 Auxiliary Building 716' Elevation Standpipe 10-12-78 09-08-78
[
System The hydrostatic tests were cor. ducted at approximately 200 psi for two hours with the pressure measured at the lowest elevation.
This resulted in portions of the piping systems being hydrostatic tested at
'
less than 200 psi.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Standard 14, Standpipe and Hose Systems, Section 7-1.1 requires all
[
>
.
..
-.
_ _ _
__,,-
.--
_
_ _ _. _. _ _ _ _. - _ -
-
-
.
.
.
,
,
new systems to be tested at not less than 200 psi for two hours. The licensee is to request that the fire protection hydrostatic test data be reviewed by Duke's design and engineering group to assure that the systems were adequately tested. This item is identified as Unresolved Item (370/82-10-03) Evaluation of Hydrostatic Tests for Fire Protection Systems and will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection. This is not an enforcement item since these systems have not yet been turned over to the operations group.
Records were not available to indicate that the flushing and hydro-static tests had been audited by the QA organization as stated by FPR Section C.S.
This is another example of Deviation Item (370/82-10-02)
Substandard Fire Protection QA Program.
d.
Records The turnover work package for the fuel storage building fire detection system was reviewed. The final QC inspection for this system utilized Revision 4 to the construction documents, whereas the system was apparently installed to Revision 6.
Also, many of the fire detection devices had not yet been installed and this discrepancy was not indi-cated as an installation exception. This item is being reviewed by the licensee and is identified as Unresolved Item (370/82-10-04)
Licen-see's Reevaluation of Turnover Work Package for Fuel Storage Building Fire Detection System, and will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection.
Except as noted above, no violations or additional deviations were identified in the areas examined.
l l
\\
l I
l
.. -. -.
..
.
-
.
-