IR 05000410/1986021
| ML17055B821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | Anderson C, Kerch H, Krasopoulos A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B820 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-86-21, NUDOCS 8606160120 | |
| Download: ML17055B821 (22) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-410/86-21 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Priority Category B
Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Blvd.
West Syracuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point
Inspection At:
Scriba New York Inspection Conduc ed:
Ma 12-15 1986 Krasopoulos, Re ctor Engineer H.
erch, Reactor Engineer te Approved by:
A rson, Chief, Plant Sy ems Section te Ins ection Summar:
Ins ection on Ma 12-15 1986 Re ort No. 50-410/86-21 Fi Protection/Prevention Program readiness to load fuel.
The areas inspected included:
A review of the licensee's efforts to resolve Fire Protection related items of concern to NRC from previous inspections also the Fire Protection Program administration and organization; administrative controls of combustibles; administrative control of ignition sources; other administrative controls; equipment maintenance, inspection and test program, fire brigade training; requirements for periodic inspections and Quality Assurance (QA)
audits; and facility tours.
Also inspected were the licensee's actions to resolve items previously identified as unresolved in the NDE and welding areas.
Results:
Of the eight areas inspected no violations were identified.
8606160120" 860610 PDR ADOCK 05000410 PD e I
l f
'I E
DETAILS Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC AJ
- L 8'G
~R.
W.
"M.
- D
- A.
T.
AD B.
T ~
- M
"R.
- R*I Buckley, QC Supervisor Engel, Assoc.
Sr. Construction Engineer Fenton, Audit Group Leader Griffith, Licensing Engineer Hammelmann, Lead Project Engineer Hansen, Manager, Nuclear QA Ops Kammer, Fire Protection Engineer Kehoe, Training Klein, Engineering Kovac, Audit Supervisor Lee, Special Projects McNally, Fire Protection Morrison, Manager Quality Engineering Perkins, Operations Manager Radamacher, Licensing Ray, Manager, Special Projects Raymond, Supervisor Fire Protection Schulman, Project Engineer Weakley, Special Projects Stone and Webster En ineerin Cor oration SWEC
- J T
Dehart, Drake, Jr., Start-up Special Projects Supervisor Farrell, Assistant Support of Engineering Gallagher, Licensing Engineer
"M. Sheldon, Manager Administrative Services D. Sutton, Fire Protection Coordinator
"C. Terry, QA Public Service Commission PSC
- p K.
Eddy, Site Representative Roenich, Construction Auditor Nuclear Re viator Commission NRC R.
- J C.
Gramm, Sr.
Resident Inspector Stair, Reactor Engineer Marschall, Operations Resident Inspector Denotes those present at the exit intervie Closed IFI 83-18-48 Cable Tray Su ort Welds Undersized Cives Closed IFI 83-19-49 Undersized Cives Structural Welds Closed CDR 84-00-02 Undersized Cives Sho Welds Background:
During an NRC inspection, it was observed that several welds for the cable tray supports and structural steel exhibited unacceptable welding conditions.
The inspected welds were painted and had been fabricated in an off site shop (CSC).
The NRC inspector inspected a sample of the affected cable tray supports and structural steel installations.
This inspection involved a walkdown of the selected sample and a visual and physical examination to verify conformance to the NCIG-01 Rev 2 visual weld acceptance criteria (VWAC).
The cable tray supports inspected were SP108, SP130, SP131 abd CT56.
The structural steel supports inspected were B4981, B4977, B4976, B4978, B4984, A4980, B4979, A4988, A4975, A4983, E7775, D7775 and A7775.
The following drawings were used for providing location of supports, elevation and support details:
E-924, ES-719-4, ES-71E-6, E-601, ES-53W-7 and EE-3402-8.
The reinspected cable tray supports and structural steel welds verified that the licensee's corrective action provided an acceptable quality level.
Also reviewed was the corrective action taken by the licensee in its engineering evaluation of N and D's 6796, 6040, 6004 and 5986.
Based on previous NRC inspections on this subject (50-410/84-08, 84-18)
and this inspection, the inspector considers items 83-18-48, 83-18-49 and 84-00-02 closed.
Closed CDR 85-00-18 Interstate Tube Steel Dis la ed Linear Indication During an earlier field inspection of some safety-related electrical conduit supports, a linear indication on a tube steel seam weld was noted.
The extent of the condition was found to apply to two heat numbers of tube material which had lack of fusion in the seam weld and could have affected the support design.
The material (4 x 4 x 3/8 in.
ASTM A500 grade tube steel)
was purchased from Interstate Steel and fabricated by Unarco Levitt.
One hundred twenty (120) installed safety related conduit supports were identified as being fabricated from this materia Several N and D's were issued and finalized into two (2).
N and D 813211 accepted an engineering evaluation for all material heats except heat W2430 and 2433; N and D 814627 addressed the two (2) bad heats W2430 and W2433.
The licensee analyzed 120 conduit supports as open sections (no weld) for the two (2) heats W2430 and W2433.
Two of the 120 supports exceeded the allowable stress limits and were repaired.
Furthermore, there were 21 supports where studs were installed over the weld seam and a PT/MT detected an indication that required repair.
Repairs and PT/MT examinations were performed.
Based on this review of the licensee's corrective action, the inspector considers item 85-00-18 closed.
Closed UNR 85-29-01 Dis osition of NCR NMP-350 on Test Cou on Thickness In an earlier inspection, the measured thickness of test coupons from a sample of welder qualifications was found to be
.687 inch when the disposition to NCR NMP-350 caused the revised welder qualification documentation to indicate a thickness of.375 inch.
During this inspection the inspector reviewed revised welders'ualification documenthtion that indicated the correct test thickness of
.687 was documented.
Based on this review of the licensee's corrective action, the inspector considers item 85-29-01 closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 85-34-01 Su ression in the 20 ft. Fire Break Zone The inspector reviewed randomly selected sprinkler systems installed to provide 20 feet of fire break separation between redundant shutdown systems.
The review also included water curtain sprinkler systems, installed to provide protection from fire spread through floor openings such as hatchways etc.
This review was performed to verify that commitments made by the licensee in this area have been met.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This item is resolve Closed Unresolved Item 85-34-02 Fire Proofin of Structural Steel The licensee performed an analysis to identify structural steel members in need of 'fire proofing.
The inspector reviewed the methodology used for the analysis and also reviewed fire proofing work in progress.
The licensee stated that this work will be completed by fuel load.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This i tem is resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item 85-34-03 Installation of Fire Seals in Construction Joints The inspector observed work in progress and reviewed installed construction joint seals to ascertain the adequacy of the fire barriers.
The licensee has a program to seal all construction joints that are a
part of fire barriers by fuel load.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This item is resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item 85-34-04 Fire Detectors in Safet Related Areas The licensee stated and the inspector verified, on a sampling basis, that all safety related areas are provided with fire detectors.
Since not all of the detection systems have been tested, the inspector verified that a
preoperational testing program exists that would verify system operability prior to fuel load.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This item is resolved.
Closed Unresol ved Item 85-34-05 Instal 1 ation of Fire Wra to Protect Ductwork in lieu of Fire Dam ers The inspector reviewed the installation of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire wrap around the ventilation ducts within the diesel generator day tank room.
This fire wrap was installed in lieu of fire dampers.
The inspector also reviewed the design details and gC records for this installation.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This item is resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item 85-34-06 Licensee to Identif Deviations from NFPA Code Re uirements An inspection of the safe shutdown capability of NMP2 identified that certain Fire Protection features were not per NFPA code requirements.
In order to illustrate that a safety concern does not, exist when the NFPA requirements are not met the licensee has amended the FSAR to include a
listing of deviations from the NFPA along with a technical justification
for each deviation.
A review of this submittal by NRR and the region based inspector did not identify any unacceptable conditions.
This item is resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item 86-34-07 Emer enc Li htin The inspector reviewed the installation of the Emergency Lighting Units in the Control Room, Remote Shut Down Panel Rooms, in the path leading from the Control Room to the Remote Shut Down Panel Rooms and miscellaneous plant areas.
Additionally the licensee
"blacked-out" the Control Room and the inspector observed the adequacy of the emergency lights by verifying the illumination level using a light meter.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
This item is resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item 86-09-44 Fire Dam er Failure to Close Under Air Flow Conditions The licensee committed to establish a test program for all fire dampers at Nine t1ile Point 2.
The damper s failure to close is also the subject of a
CFR 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Report (CDR) to the Commission.
A final report, for the disposition of this CDR is forth coming by the licensee.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions in this area and did not identify any unacceptable conditions.
This item is resolved.
3.
Fire Protection/Prevention Pro ram 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 sections.
3. 1 Pro ram Administration and Or anization The inspector reviewed the following licensee documents:
Technical Specifications, Section 6, Administrative Controls Administrative Procedure No. AP-1.2, Revision 0, Composition and Responsibility of Unit Organization.
= Administrative Procedure No. AP-1.3 Revision 0, Personnel Responsibilities and Authority The scope of review was to ascertain that:
a.
Personnel were designated for implementing the program at site; and
b.
gualifications were delineated for personnel designated to implement the program.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.2 Administrative Control of Combustibles The inspector reviewed the following licensee document:
Fire Department Procedure No. N2-FDP-7, Revision 0, Control and Storage of Combustible and Flammable Materials AP-8.5 Revision 1 Housekeeping and Cleanliness Controls The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which included:
a.
Special authorization for the use of combustible, flammable or explosive hazardous material in safety-related areas; b.
Prohibition on the storage of combustible, flammable or explosive hazardous material in safety-related areas; c.
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; d.
All wood used in safety-related areas to be treated with flame retardant; e
~
Periodic inspection for accumulation of combustibles; f.
Transient combustibles to be restricted and controlled in safety-related areas; and g.
Housekeeping to be properly maintained in areas containing safety-related equipment and components.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.3 Administrative Control of I nition Sources The inspector reviewed the following licensee document:
Fire Department Procedure No. N2-FDP-2, Revision 0.
The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which included:
a.
Requi r ements for special authori zati on (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 components; and b.
Prohibition on smoking in safety-related areas, except where
"smoking permitted" areas had been specifically designated by plant management.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.4 Other Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the following licensee documents:
Technical Specifications, Section 6, Administrative Controls; Administrative Procedure No. AP-3.0, Assurance of Safety; Administrative Procedure No. AP-3.5 Station Fire Protection Program; General Employee Training, Fire Protection gualification Program, Revision 2; The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative controls which require that:
Work authorization, construction permit or similar arrangement is provided for review and approval for modification, construction and maintenance activities which could adversely affect the safety of the facility; b.
Fire brigade organization and qualifications of brigade members are delineated; c.
Fire reporting instructions for general plant personnel are developed; d.
Periodic audits are to be conducted on the entire fire protection program; and e.
Fire protection/prevention program is included in the licensee's gA Program.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie.5 E ui ment Maintenance Ins ection and Tests The inspector verified that the licensee had established a
surveillance and testing program for the fire protection equipment.
The inspector also reviewed the following randomly selected documents to determine whether the procedures establishing the maintenance inspection and testing requirements for the fire protection equipment are adequate:
Procedure No.
N2-FPM-M001, Revision 1 Fire Protection system inspection of Portable Fire Extinguishers Procedure No.
N2-FPM-A006, Revision 0, Fire Detector Cleaning Procedure Procedure No.
N2-FPM-R008, Revision 0, Halon Puff Test, Non Tech Spec Areas Procedure No.
N2-CSP-8, Revision 2, Diesel Fuel Oil Chemistry Surveillance Interim Operations Surveillance Procedure No.
N2-OSP-FPW-W001 Motor Driven Fire Pump Operability Test Procedure No.
N2-FSP-FPW-W001 Revision 0, Weekly Fire System Valve Check No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.6 Fire Bri ade Trainin 3.6. 1 Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the following licensee procedures:
Site Administrative Procedure No. NTP-5, Revision
The scope of review was to verify that the licensee had developed administrative procedures which included:
a.
Requirements for announced and unannounced drills; b.
Requirements for fire brigade training and retraining at prescribed frequencies; c.
Requirements for at least one drill per year to be performed on a "back shift" for each brigade; d.
Requirements for maintenance of training records.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie.6.2 Trainin and Associated Records Review The inspector reviewed randomly selected lesson plans and witnessed a fire drill to verify the level of training and qualifications of the fire brigade members.
The inspector also reviewed training records of fire brigade members for calendar years 1985 and 1986 to ascertain that they had attended the required quarterly training and participated in a quarterly drill, and received the annual hands-on fire extinguishment practice.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.7 Periodic Ins ections and uality Assurance Audits The inspector reviewed the licensee's proposed T.ST to verify that the licensee has made provisions for audits of the Fire Protection Program.
(FPP)
Section 6 of the licensee's proposed T.S. contains the following requirements for audits of the FPP:
The Fire Protection Program and implementing procedures at least once per 24 months.
An independent fire protection and loss prevention program inspection and audit shall be performed at least once per 12 months utilizing either qualified offsite licensee personnel or an outside fire protection firm.
An inspection and audit of the fire protection and loss prevention program shall be performed by an outside qualified fire consultant at intervals no greater than 36 months.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.8 The inspector examined fire protection water system, including fire pumps, fire water piping and distribution systems, post indicator valves, hydrants and contents of hose houses.
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
I
~
~
C
~
evidence of periodic inspections.
No deterioration of equipment was noted.
The inspection tags attached to extinguishers indicated that monthly inspections were performed.
No unaccept,able conditions were identified.
4.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviations.
Section 2 of this report identifies items previously classified as unresolved, that have now been found acceptable.
5.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee management representatives.
(see Section 1.0 for attendees)
at the conclusion of the inspection on Hay 15, 1986.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that time.
The inspector also confirmed with the licensee that the report will not contain any proprietary information.
The licensee agreed, that the inspection report maybe placed in the Public Document Room without pri'or licensee review for proprietary information.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.