IR 05000373/1990004
| ML20043B513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1990 |
| From: | Gardner R, Holmes J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043B510 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-90-04, 50-373-90-4, 50-374-90-04, 50-374-90-4, NUDOCS 9005300132 | |
| Download: ML20043B513 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:g+~ y , , b.
- S,
> . .. 4.y ' , , - ., . ,. p o U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - REGION 111 Reports No.: 50-373/90004(DRS); No. 50-374/90004(DRS) Docket Nos.: -50-373; 50-374 Licenses No.: NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 , Facility Name: LaSalle Nuclear Power Station'- Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Marseilles, IL 61341 Inspection Conducted: March 26 through 30, and May 7, 1990 Inspector: ._ h a8,m40 ' d.3.=Holmbs Date U ' i N - 5 /11!9 0 Approved By: . R. N. Gardner, Chief Date Plant Systems Section Inspection Summary . Inspection during March 26 through 30, and May 7, 1990 (Reports No.
50-373/90004(DR5); No. 50-374/90004(DRS)) Areas. Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection to. review the implementation of the-licensee's fire protection-program which included a review of the fire protection organization, administrative procedures, completed fire protection surveillances, fire protection audits, and minimum manning requirements with respect to a fire in the control room. The inspectc,r' utilized modules 30703, 64704, 92701 and 92702.
Results: Of the areas inspected, one violation was identified regarding the lack-of retesting of the "B" fire-pump af ter corrective actions were taken to replace its relief valve (Paragraph 3.c.(6)(b)). One unresolved item was identified (Paragraph 3.c.(6)) which concerned the need for testing the diesel fire pumps at shutoff as required by NFPA-20.
Strengths observed in the !' licensee's fire protection program included the following: During the third quarter of 1989, the Fire Marshal was added to the concurrence chain for revisions to fire protection procedures.
j@$5'3$$o!k Obb
0 a - - - -
& .. ..- -.. . .. .,. -;. . . . - - Management has been conducting weekly tours of selected plant areas, included in the tours are the Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance, Operations Engineer, Superintendent of Engineering'and Construction, , ' . Station Labor Foreman, and the Fire Marshal.- This practice began approximately two years ago.
- -
Overall implementation of-the routine fire protection program was good.
$ -o :
a pp j y , , , _ , A > ; , 9 ge ~ r ~ , y gw~ i - - ' ,
4 , y; . }y DETAILS i: ' Li.> Persons Contacted {h l l Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)! , i-i+*W. Huntington; Technical Superintendent: h c >
- J. Bell, Maintenance =
6 1 '+*G. Bucio, Technical; Staff. Engineer P +*W. Collins,sAssistant Fire Marshal ' ' - R. Crawford, Master Electrician
b' .. ++*T. Hammerich,(Regulatory: Assurance '*J. Gieseker,:Technica1' Staff-Superintendent ' , g
- HT Massin, Project Manager-
&
- T; 0'ConnorL Master Mechanic p'
- T.' Prendergast, Engineer,' Nuclear-Quality Assurance r
-
- D. Roberts, Fire Protection ' Engineer, Nuclear Engineering 'Departmenti
,
- J. -.SchmeM, : System Superintendent' of _ Operations
. L+*W.~'.Stiffes,; Fire Marshal . Illinois: Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) m
- J.; Roman, Resident Inspector
" Nuclear Regulatory Commission'(NRC) - +T. Tongue,: Senior Resident inspector- ~ *R.cKopriva, Resident. Inspector / h +R.: Gardner, Chief,l Plant Systemsisection, DRS y The-inspector'alsoscontacted other licensee personnel during the course of the inspectioni l -* Denotes those' attending the March 30, 1990, exit meeting.. + Denotes those participating in the May 7,.'19.90, telecon.
2. _ Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings , a '. (Closed)Unresolve'd' Item'(373/8204-05:-374/82022-05): Floor penetration seals in the control room exceeded the dimensions'of the
fire'stop designs actually tested.- L' In-response to this issue, there were meetings held at NRC Headquarters' , ~ with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Region III, and licensee personnel in the Fall of 1983.
Subsequent to'this, the i ort D ' licensee made several submittals to NRR'of fire test-data to.supp(GL)' ' penetration fire seal designs.
Since that time, Generic Letter l > - 86-'10, dated April 24, 1986, was developed which provided. guidance
approved by the Commission. GL 86~-10 was issued to a11' power reactors.
E: In Enclosure 2, Section 3.2.2, entitled " Deviations from Tested Configurations", the GL 86-10 indicated that where exact replication-of a tested configuration cannot be achieved, the field installation ' should meet all of the following criteria: . - .k ' .- ..,..
g j] , ,, , q =' - - m~ ' yux', l g L': }, ' ..- h%g W ~~ 11 ~ The continuity of the fire barrier'is maintained, ob-
- 2.
The thickness ofz the barrier is maintained.
4", 3.
~The nature of the support assembly is unchanged from the - 7 tested configuration.
LM Based-on review of fire seal installation drawings,Tdetails, and test b' ' : reports, the inspectorf determined thatithe continuity, thickness and I- ~ natureEof the sup) ort assembly-is unchanged from~the tested L configuretion.' Tlis item is. considered ~ closed.
.i y Ni
- b.
'(Closed):Unresolveditem(373/83044-01): The licensee was to-y, provide' instrumentation for the: Unit 1 and Unit 2-suppression pool Q level and-temperature' indications for alternative shutdown capability, r f(. _. . The licensee indicated that work request m oer L35015--(modification number 1-184-047) was completed.on June 20, 1986. This modification-gq rerouted cable providing suppression pool level and temperature k indication-'in:the control room and the remote shutdown panel so that-F a fire will not affect level or' temperature indications >at.both locations (control. room and remote shutdown panel). Based'on'the.
a . work request, this: item is considered closed..' , u k c.
(Closed) Violation.(373/83044-03b): The surveillance procedure'was not adequate to. ensure that the self-contained breathing apparatus sair;pakcylindersare_verifiedtobeinanacceptablecondition.
p iTheLlicensee.provided;the inspector with the surveillance. procedure entitled'" Monthly Inspection - Self Contained Breathing _ Apparatus".. Revision 5.
This procedure provides instructions to assure proper inspection'of the Scott Air Pak 4.5 pressure demand breathing apparatus'. This. item isz considered closed.
-d.
(0 pen) Violation (373/86004-01;374/86004-01(DRS_)): The licensee-s failedito install fire detection and alarm systems in accordance- ~ .with-their approved' fire protection program.in tha_t: 1.
Units 1 and 2 local fire alarm circuits are not electrically' supervised.- 2.
Units 1 and-2 control room fire detection system visual alarm annunciator circuits are not e_lectrically supervised.
. With regard to the first example of violation, the licensee, in lieu of supervising the local alarm circuits, proposed a combination i of administrative controls and training.to eliminate concerns that- ~ spurious-local alarms.may confuse and _ diminish employee and fire < brigade. member confidence in the fire alarm system.
This proposal j was' submitted to the'NRC on' March 30, 1990. This example of i violation will remain open pending completion of the NRC's review.
j With regard to the second example of violation, the NRC has < concluded that the alarm circuits as installed from the Auxiliary i a !
]
_ m w _.
-
- g p
~ -- + , R a.. ' :, ' , 7#- ( l^ o , S.
Electric Equipment Room'(AEER) to the control room without. electrical } L supervision-are acceptable based on the once-per-shift surveillance;
b of-the unsupervised circuits, the use of high qualityLcable, and the' l h general' absence of modifications or maintenance activities involving -
'the circuits. Therefore, this example of violation is with' drawn.- _ Y , W e.
=(Closed):OpenItem'(374/86004-03):- The' licensee committed to revise h x: the Fire Protection Flow Path Valve Cycling Surveillance Procedure,- . Ec LOS-FP-M3, to' insure that valves in the. fire protection system have . @ beenL properly lubricated, cycled, 'and locked in the proper position, d ,
i '
During this; inspection, the licensee provided.the inspector with the . - k revised procedure. The inspector observed that the procedure s contained a' sign-off_ sheet which' included provisions for documenting _ "; if the valves have been properly lubricated, cycled; and locked /seale'd.
' 'This-item is considered closed.
, .
- -
3.- Routine Fire Protection Program Review (64704) This inspection consisted of a review of the fire protection organization,- ' administrative-procedures, completed-fire protection surveillances, fire t - _ protection audits, and minimum manning requirements with respect to a fire-in:the-control room. The inspector also walked'down several fire protection systems and redundant safety-related cables.
- a.
Fire Protectiou Organization-Section 6.2 of the. licensee's Technical Specifications requires that detailed written procedures implementing the Fire Protection Program i , be prepared,. approved and adhered.to.. ' . (1) Fire Protection Engineer Procedure No. LAP-900-14, " Fire Protection Program", Revision'12,
- e indicated that the "Off-site Fire Protection Engineer"
.. responsibilities include-(but are not limited to) the following: (a) Conducts fire inspections.
.
(b)_Assesstheeffectivenessofthefireprotectionprogram.
(c) Assess the effectiveness of fire drills and fire brigade
training..
(d) Makes reports of assessments and recommends improvements j and corrective actions.
The corporate fire protection engineer's background consists of a , ' Bachelor of Science Degree in Fire Protection Engineering, three years
, experience as a fire protection systems engineer at a nuclear plant l L and approximately one year in the present position. The individual's a i qualifications appear appropriate for the position.
No discrepancies
-were noted in this area.
. t
3 , , ? i' j
y3 r;g ,' ' - ' .e y . qp ~
f."[[- if L(2)1: Fire Marshal f a , ' t, Procedure No LAP.900-14, " Fire Protection Program", Revision 12,. [ lists the Fire Marshal's duties and responsibilities which include a o.. _ the following: (a).Implementa'ndadministertheFire'ProtectionProgram.
L (b) Coordinate the surveillance and testing program for fire "< .... loss prevention.
(c) L Ascertain' proper operation, installation;and maintenance of fire fighting and fire protection equipment.
d Conduct and critique. fire drills, , a e Provide. fire brigade guidance.
~ f ' Purchase fire fighting / protection equipment.. ,
g Conduct housekeeping' inspections.
j , , p
- The station Fire Marshal's background consists of nine years as a-
" fire fighter and certification as a state Level III fire fighter. He-is ' currently.one course away from an associates degree in fire ~ science.
The Fire Marshal has; currently held his position for the last four- ~ _ years.. The individual's qualifications appear appropriate for the position.
No discrepancies were noted'in this area.
(3).FireBrigade. Instructor ' Procedure No. LAP-900-14, " Fire ~ Protection' Program", indicates
, that personnel; performing-the Fire. Brigade Training are qualified ! h.
Jby. experience.and training.. g . The station training ~ instructor qualifications consists of a
- Bachelor _ of. Science Degree in education, Associates Degree in-applied science / fire science technology, basic instructors ~
course, introduction to power plant operations at LaSalle . Station, certified Level III fire fighter, emergency medical '* - t, technician and CPR instructor.
The' fire brigade' instructor has ~ currently. held this position ~ for approximately two years..The individual's; qualifications appear' appropriate for-the position.
No discrepancies were noted in'this area.
.b.
-Administrative Procedures
, (1) Control'of Combustibles
~ Procedure No. LAP-900-18, "Use of Lumber and Other Combustibles l in the Plant", Revision 7, contained instructions for controlling
storage of flammable and combustible-liquids, storage of l compressed gas cylinders, and accumulation of waste materials J ' and. transient combustibles, such as wood scaffolding. The .y procedure specified the responsibilities to be followed by the employees. No unacceptable items were observed.
i
l
s + .t
.
. , 1.. .. - ,. .. . (2)'. Control-ofFlammableandCombustibleLiquids Procedure No. LAP-900-21, " Control of Flammable Liquids", Revision 6, provided instructions and guidance for use and control of flammable liquids during.all phases of plant operation, maintenance, and modifications. LAP-900-18 (previously discussed) referenced this procedure.
No unacceptable items were observed.
(3) Cutting and Welding Permit Procedure No. LAP-900-10 " Fire Prevention Procedure For Welding And Cutting", Revision 13, contained instructions for cutting and welding, brazing, grinding.and any activity which may require a fire watch. The procedure delineated the responsibilities to be followed by the employees.
A cutting and welding permit is utilized and a fire watch is required during the entire welding, cutting, grinding, or open flame work. The- . fire watch is required duirng breeks, lunch, and for at least 30 minutes after completion of the operation to detect and extinguish any possible fire.
No unacceptable items were observed.
(4) Fire Barrier Impairments Procedure No. LAP-900-16, " Fire Protection Equipment And Fire Barrier Impairments", contained instructions regarding the impairment of fire equipment and fire barriers. The Fire Protection Impairment permit is-required to be reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determines the compensatory measures such as fire watches and/or additional suppression equipment that may be needed. No unacceptable items were observed.
(5) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Procedure No. LRP-1310-5, " Monthly Inspection - Self Contained Breathing Apparatus", contained instructions to insure proper inspection of the Scott Air Pak.
No unacceptable items were observed.
c.
Fire Protection Surveillances The licensee's fire protection program required the fire protection-equipment ard systems be included in regularly scheduled station operating surveillance procedures. The inspector selected a sample of the licensee's completed surveillance procedures for review.
During the review, the inspector determined the following: (1) Six Month Fire Detection Test The smoke detector surveillance, Procedure No. LES-FP-05 (Units 1 and 2), verified that the fire detectors and the fire detector alarm circuitry were functioning properly.
yy ~ ~ l , , y j., :. . , ., e t The inspector reviewed the last three completed surveillances - for the following Fire Zones: ~ v a o-Fire Zone Surveillance Dates Unit 1 Unit 1 ' 1-30 1/13/88,7/19/88,1/18/89 1-31-1/13/88,7/20/88,1/18/89 1-32.
1/13/88,7/15/88,1/18/89,7/10/89 < 1-33 1/13/88. 7/19/88, 1/19/89 7/10/89-1-9' 12/29/87,7/6/88*,1/10/89,7/5/89
- 0ne detector failed, work request written and dispositioned.
Unit 2 Unit 2 2-30 8/9/89,3/28/89,9/24/88 2 31 8/9/89,3/28/89,9/24/88 2-32 8/11/89,3/29/89,9/24/88 2-33 8/11/89,3/29/89,9/24/88 , 2-9 8/2/89,3/23/89,9/26/88-The inspector reviewed the completed surveillances and no.- unacceptable' items were observed.
(2) =18 Month Sprinkler.- Preaction and Deluge System The Deluge System Surveillance, Procedure No. LTS-1000-13, verifies the automatic valves are in the correct position and , "; .hatsgrayheadsarenotblocked. The inspector reviewed the inst Diesel Generator Corridor U2. =Preaction Sprinkler . System" surveillance test dated June 8,1988. No' unacceptable-items were observed.
(3) Underground Fire Main Test & .The un'erground fire main surveillance, Procedure No. LTS-1000-30, d y = ensures that fire mains are not obstructed by closed valves and.
f foreign material. The inspector reviewed the surveillance dated Qf April 21, 1989.
No unacceptable items were identified.
. (4) Triennial Hose Station Blockage Test The interior fire hose surveillance, Procedure No. LMS FP-06, was developed by the licensee to verify valve operability-and that no blockage to flow exists for interior fire hose stations.
The' inspector reviewed the surveillance dated September 12, 1988.
' ' g-No unacceptable. items were observed, p ; s y, y - , , _.2__ -q
_ - _ _. _ ' .
.' ' . , . L (5) Semi-Annual Yard Hydrant Flush The yard hydrant flush inspection surveillance, Procedure No.
LMS-FP-04, was developed by the licensee to ensure hydrant valve operability and verifies that the hydrants will drain completely (to prevent damage to the hydrant due to standing water during freezing conditions). The inspector reviewed the surveillances dated October 12, 1988, April 19, 1988, and October 14, 1989.
, No unacceptoble items were observed.
(6) 18 Month Fire Pump Capacity Test NFPA 20/1983 requires an annual test of the fire pump assembly (pump, driver and controller) to determine its ability to
continue to attain satisfactory performance et peak loads. Any significant reduction in the operating characteristics of the fire pump assembly shall be repaired immediately.
% The NFPA 20 Formal Interpretation Number 83-2 indicates that flow tests should be conducted at minimum to rated and peak loads if field conditions permit. The interpretation also indicates that various other parameters such as suction pressure, net discharge, engine speeds and churn test (shut-off test) should be included in the ennual fire pump test.
During the inspection and in a telecon on April 4, 1990, the inspector informed the licensee that fire pump surveillance LTS-1000-34 did not incorporate the churn test (shut-off test) as required by NFpA 20/1983 (based on NFPA 20 Formal Interpretation Number 83-2).
At the time of the inspection and in the April 4, 1990 telecon, the licensee agreed to: 1.
Incorporate the shutoff test point into the 18 month fire pump surveillance as indicated in the NFPA Interpretations and the fire protection handbook-, 2.
Developcriteria(utilizingshoptestcurveandfield acceptance test curve) to determine when the fire pumps are considered to be inoperative.
' On April 6,1990, the licensee (regulatory assurance) informed the inspector that a letter dated April 24, 1984, A. Bournia, NRC, to Commonwealth Edison Company, stated that the LaSalle Station is not required to test the fire pumps at shutoff pressure conditions. This letter appears to conflict with the Unit 2 license (Condition 2.c(15)), Branch Technical Position 9.5-1, Safety Evaluation Report Supplement No. 7, and the licensee's letter dated November 23, 1983, which indicated that the fire pumps are to be tested in accordance with NFPA 20 (which includes the shutoff test point). On April 13, 1990, the .
.. . , , . . . inspector discussed this issue with the NRR Fire Protection Reviewer. NRR is currently reviewing this concern.
The absence of a shutoff test point as required by NFPA 20/1983 is considered anunresolveditem(373/90004-01(DRS);374/90004-01(DRS)) . pending resolution from NRR.
The purpose of the fire pump surveillance, Procedure No.
in part, is to verify (that each pump develops LTS-1000-34, at least 2,500 gallons per minute corrected to 1,760 RPM) at a discharge pressure of 135 psig (312 feet) (correct to 1,760 RPM) . and 3,750 gallons per minute (corrected to 1,760 RPM) at a discharge pressure of 89 psig (205 feet) (corrected to 1,760 RPM). The inspector reviewed the surveillance test for fire pumps FP-01-PA and FP-01-PB for 1987 and 1988. This surveillance test did not incorporate a churn test (shutoff test) as discussed in the previous Paragraph 3.b.(6). The results of this review , are as follows: (a) Fire Pump FP-01-PA - Surveillance test results dated July 29, 1987, were 1.
found to be acceptable at the flow / pressure points specified by the procedure.
2.
Surveillance test results dated September 15, 1988, - were found to be acceptable at the flow / pressure points specified by the procedure.
(b) Fire Pump FP-01-PB - Surveillance test dated August 13, 1987, was found to 1.
be unacceptable. The licensee did not demonstrate that the "B" diesel fire pump could develop 2,500 gpm at 135 psig. According to the licensee's evaluation, attached to the surveillance, the pressure relief valve on the "B" diesel fire pump discharge header remained open at a discharge pressure greater than 100 psig.
The evaluation indicated that the "B" diesel fire pump met Technical Specifications and adequately supplied any sprinkler system at the site. However, this surveillance test did not adequately test the "B" fire pump as required by the procedure.
LicenseCondition2.C.25(a)ofNPF-11(Unit 1)and License Condition 2.C.15(a) of NPF-18 (Unit 2) require the approved fire protection plan to be maintained and fully impleniented.
! . -
.
The LaSalle County Station FSAR, Amendment 39, dated October 1978, and approved in the NRC Safety Evaluation dated April 3, 1981, described the Quality Assurance Program for fire protection, in response to Question 421.1', the licensee's FSAR indicated that Quality Assurance procedures will provide coverage for station (fire protection) procedures related to recording nonconformances, deficiencies, inspections, followup and internal station review.
Section 10, entitled " Inspection" of the Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 57, states: " Rework, repair, or replacement performed after completion of inspection or test will require reinspection and retest to the extent necessary to establish acceptability to the original criteria."
As discussed previously, on August 13, 1987, the "B" diesel fire pymp did not provide at least 2,500 gpm at 135 psig as required by the station procedures (LTS-1000-34) due to an improperly functioning relief valve.
Contrary to Section 10 of the Quality Assurance Manual, on August 22, 1987, after corrective actions were performed which consisted of replacing the relief valve, the fire pump was not retested to verify that the pump could develop 2,500 gpm at 135 psig as required by the station procedures. The licensee's f ailure to retest to the extent necessary to' establish acceptability to the original criteria is considered a violation of the approved fire protection plan, LicenseCondition2.c.25(a)ofNPF-11(Unit 1)and License Condition 2.c.15(a) of NPF-18 (Unit 2) (373/90004-02(DRS);374/90004-02(DRS)). On November 11, 1988, during the next fire pump surveillance, the "B" diesel fire pump demonstrated that the pump could develop 2,500 gpm at 135 psig as required by the station procedures.
On May 7, 1990, after the exit meeting, the licensee committed to perform the following corrective actions:
Discuss with the entire technical staff the necessity of retesting equipment after rework or repair to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly and is functioning within established parameters (tentatively scheduled to be completed by May 21, 1990).
m , , ,
. , ' . The fire pump surveillance, Procedure No. 1000-34, will ' be revised to clearly state that all surveillance points should be verified to satisfactorily consider the test acceptable (tentatively scheduled to be completed by July 1990).
Based on the licensee's commitments, the inspector has no further concerns regarding this matter and this item is considered closed; consequently, no reply to this item is required.
- Surveillance test dated November 12, 1988, was found 2.
to be acceptable at the flow / pressure points specified by the procedure.
(7) Ten Year Fire Damper Operability Test The fire damper operability surveillance test, Procedure Ho, LTS-1000-35, required that operability tests be conducted for all Priority 1 and 2 fire dampers. The inspector reviewed the surveillances dated May 17, 1987, and June 14, 1987. No unacceptable items were observed.
(8) 18 Month Fire Damper Visual Inspection The fire damper visual inspection surveillance, Procedure No.
LTS-1000-36, required that a visual inspection be performed on all fire dampers to verify that no foreign object impedes the motion of the fire damper in the event it is needed. The inspector reviewed the surveillances dated August 18, 1989, and December 14, 1989.
No unacceptable items were observed.
(9) Semi-Annual inspection of Fire Doors The fire door inspection surveillance, Procedure No. LTS-1000-14, was developed by the licensee to inspect the automatic closing mechanisms and latches on fire doors separating sefety-related fire areas. The inspector reviewed the surveillances dated December 11, 1989.
The surveillance was found acceptable.
The following discrepancy was noted by the licensee: Work Request L91072 was written to reduce the gaps under several fire doors by installing door sills.
The inspector requested that the licensee provide the status of this work rcquest.
Upon further investigation by the fire marshal, it was identified that this work request was cancelled by a shift foreman and never added to a facility work request.
The impact to safe shutdown in the event of a fire due to cancelling the work request concerning the door sills is very low.
However, it is a concern that the shift supervisor cancelled a fire protection work request without concurrence of the fire marshal (or his designee).
c.
? 1s. _ -; - i
- ;.,
. . The licensee-took immediate corrective actions to prevent a - , recurrence of a foreman cancelling a fire protection work .! request lwithout the fire marshal concurrence.
The Operating.
' Engineers were forwarded a memo from the fire marshal's office.
. The letter requested that the fire marshal's office review work r requests' prior to cancellation to determine the following: , , "if the work request may be cancelled" " "does.the work need to be performed under a work request?" . "can the work request be transferred to the facility work '- - request?" 'Due to the. limited safety significance of this item, and the licensee's corrective actions, the inspector has no-further concerns regarding this matter.
d.
Fire Protection ~ Audits (1) Section 6.1.H of the licensee's Technical Specifications requires-an independent fire prctection and loss prevention inspection > , and audit be performed at laast once per 12 months utilizing 'either qualified off-site licensee personnel or an outside fire protection firm.
The inspector reviewed the last three Annual Fire Protection Inspection Reports (credit given for Triennial audit) dated November 1987, October 1988, and April'1989.
Concerns identified.
' by the annual inspections are either addressed or scheduled to be addressed by the licensee's staff. No problem:, were observed by the inspector in this area.
. (2)z Section 6.1.H of the. licensee's Technical Specifications requires an inspection and audit of th'e fire protection and loss prevention program'be performed by a qualified outside fire consultant at- , least once every 36 months.'. The. inspector requested and was = provided with the licensee's last Triennial Fire Protection c" . Report, dated April 1988.
The triennial inspection. identified several concerns which were; brought to management's attention, and were either resolved or.
are currently.being addressed by the licensee. No discrepancies were observed in this area.
e '. Personnel Required for Safe Shutdown and-Fire Fighting Activities " !- f[ In the event of-a disabling fire which requires evacuation of the control room when the unit is operating,.it would be necessary to provide sufficient personnel to shutdown the operating reactors and provide manual fire fighting capabilities.
,
- < b
. . - . [; . . ' . (1) Safe Shutdown Personnel A significant fire in the main control room (Fire Area 4C1) would require an alternative method of safely shutting down the reactor. The licensee indicated to the inspector that six personnel are required to shut down both units in the event i of a fire in the control room.
These individuals consist of the Shif t Engineer (SE), Station Control Room Engineer (SCRE), Unit 1 Huclear Station Operator (NS0), Unit 214uclear Station Operator (NS0), Center Desk Huclear Station Operator (CD NS0) and the Auxiliary Nuclear Station Operator (AUX HS0). The SE directs the shutdown from the alternative shutdown panel.
(2) Fire Brigade Personnel Condition No. 24 of Amendment No. I of Facility Operating License No. NPF-11 (Unit 1) and Condition No. 15 of Facility Operating License No NPF-18 (Unit 2) requires the licensee to maintain in effect and fully implement all provisions of the approved Fire Protection Plan.
In addition, the licensee is Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 (protec'. ion program set forth in required to maintain the f" e except for deviations described in the license).
Section Ill.H of Appendix R, requires a fire brigade of at least five members on each shitt.
(3) Conclusion The inspector requested records to demonstrate that the six personnel required to implement the control room evacuation procedure and the five personnel required for fire fighting activities were available for the three shifts on December 25, 1989 January 1,1990, and January 19, 1990. The inspector was provided with copies of the appropriate sections of the " Shift 14anning Log (Sheets)" which delineates aormal duties and also those assigned on the fire brigade.
The inspector verified, based on the " Shift lianning Log", that the appropriate personnel for the 6 positions were available to implement the control room evacuation safe shutdown procedure. The inspector also verified that, in addition to the staff required for safe shutdown, the licensee provided a 5 member fire brigade consisting of a fire brigade leader and four fire fighters.
Based on the inspector's review of the licensee's documentation, the inspector determined that on December 25, 1990, January 1 and 19, 1990, (all shifts), the licensee provided sufficient personnel for saf ely shutting down the reactors and to support any required fire fighting 6ctivities, f.
Fire Drill Condition No. 24 of Amendment No. 1 of Facility Operating License No.
NPF-11 (Unit 1) and Condition No.15 of Facility Operating License !
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - - - - - _ -. - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - _ - .- _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - o
, a f . . p- . No. NPF-18 (Unit 2) requires the licensee to maintain in effect and fully implement all provisions of the approved Fire Protection Plan.
In addition, the licensee shall maintain the fire protection program set forth in Appendix k to 10 CFR Part 50 (except for deviations U described in the license).
Section Ill.H of Appendix R requires a site fire brigade trained and equipped for fire fighting to ensure adequate manual firefighting capabilities in all safety-related and areas important to safety.
! The inspector inquired as to the feasibility of a fire drill being conducted during the inspection. The licensee informed the inspector that this could not occur because the drills for the first quarter were completed and that it was a critical time during the Unit 2 refueling outage. The licensee offered to contact the inspector before the next scheduled fire drill.
The inspector declined the licensee's offer to witness the next scheduled fire drill.
Instead, the inspector requested and was provided with the fire drill and critique for the drills conducted on January)13,1990 (Crew 3 - Shif t 3), February 14,1990 (Crew 4 - Shif t 1). No unac 12, 1990 (Crew 5 - Shift 3 and February items were identified.
g.
Fire Protection Water Supply Valve Walkdown The inspector randomly chose and observed several fire protection water supply valves. All valves observed were found in their proper position.
The valves obtc tved by the inspector were as follows: 2FP-049, 2FP-060, 2FP-088, 2FP-106, 2FP-110, 2FP-228, PlV-001, PlV-004, PlV-005, P1V-006, PlV-007, and PlV-114.
Post indicating valves (PlV) 76 and 96 which are normally required to be open were closed due to an impairment.
Impairment tags were provided on both closed valves. No unacceptable items were noted, h.
Walkdown of Redundant Safety-Related Cable On March 29, 1990, the Division 1 RCIC Control Cable (2R1059) and its redundant Division 3 HPCS cable were walked down to determine whether they were adequately separated as required by Appendix R.
No unacceptable items were ob mrved.
i.
Plant Tours The inspector toured several areas of the reactor building and turbine building. During this tour, the inspector visually observed several hose stations, extinguishers, sprinkler valves, emergency lights and housekeeping.
The inspector observed that the equipment was in an apparently well maintained condition. Housekeeping was good. The inspector also toured a portion of the outside grounds.
Housekeeping of the outside grounds was satisfactory, l
L- - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _
. . . . -,. . ..e _ 4.
Unresolved Item An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a deviation, or a violation. An unresolved item is discussed in Paragraph 3.c.(6) of this report.
5.
Exit Interview The Region Ill inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) et the conclusion of the inspection on March 30, 1990, and in a telecon on May 7, 1990. The inspector discussed the likely content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector. The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
l l }}