IR 05000416/1988018
| ML20154A176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1988 |
| From: | Conlon T, Ward D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154A175 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-88-18, IEB-84-16, NUDOCS 8809120097 | |
| Download: ML20154A176 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
,/ p teg'q*
UMTED STATES
-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
/'
r REGION 11
,,,,
g j
101 MARIETTA ST;tEET. N W.
- ,
ATLANT A, G EORGI A 30323
%/
.....
Report No.:
50-416/86-18 Licensee:
System Energy Resources Inc.
Jackson, MS 39205 I
Docket No.:
50-416 License No.:
NPF-29 Facility Name:
Grand Gulf Inspection Conducted: August 8-12, 1983 Inspector:
.
.
4t h N
6 David Ward Date Signed
,
Approved b C L -
&
fV/
R-2 (- Y
'
i
. Conto, chief
-
Date Signed Plant Systems Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY t
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area:, of Fire Protection / Prevention.
Results: The insoector identified the following strengths in the implementation of the licensee's fire protection program:
l Staffing of the fire protection group is very good. The group
-
appears knowledgeable of fire protection issues and has adequate
manpower to implement the licensee's program, l
J The licensee's management appears to be committed to the
~
-
successful implementation of the fire protection program, This
{
is evident based on their responsiveness to correct the single weakness identified in this report and their approval of plant administrative procedures which effectively implement the fire protection program.
The licensee has effectively implemented a program of
-
controlling the movement of transient combustible in and out of the plant which insure unsafe fire hazards will not be present, j
This is evident based on the very good housekeeping in the plant, i
t I
IfDOCNC097 680829
>
,
05000414 O
'
-_. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ -_ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
s
.
.
The following potential weakness was identified:
The licensee's method for 1.15pection of one and three hour fire
-
rated raceway wraps has a potential weakness.
The present
,
procedure does not identify those raceways required to be protected, instead the procedure directs the inspector to visually inspect all fire rated assemblies in a given room.
Therefore, there is the potential that a fire rated wrap could be removed and not identified during the periodic inspection l
since the raceways required to be wrapped are not specifically (
identified in the procedure. This is identified as a potential
"
weakness because the inspector field inspected a number of required wraps and found them all to be intact.
In response to this potential weakness, the licensee's management committed to revise the periodic inspection procedure to include the identification of the raceways required to be protected as identified by the Grand Gulf Fire Hazards Analysis.
,
The remaining areas of the fire protection program reviewed appear to be adequate.
No deviations or violations were identified in the areas inspected.
!
t l
I l
.
V
r
,
I i
!
I
,
!
-.----
l
'
-
.
l
'
'
i l
j
.
l
,
.
i
!
i I
L REPORT DElAP.S l
A n
,
'
f i
1.
Persons Contacted i
j i
i
"
j Licensee Employees l
!
"W.
Brown, Assistant Fire Protection Coordirator l
l
- B.
Hicks, Assistant Fire Protection Corrdinator l
]
- C, Hicks, Operations Assistant
- V. Holmberg, Fire Protection Coordinater f
i l
- L. Moulder, Operations Superintendent i
i
- J. Reeves, Manager, Quality Services
!
- J. Summer, Compliance Manager l
r Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
!
craftsmen, engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personr.e1.
J j
NRC Resident Inspector
,
J. Mathis
- Attended exit interview t
2.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program (64704)
l l
a.
Fire Prevention / Administrative Control Procedures j
j
,
The inspector reviewed the following Fire Prevention / Administrative f
Procedures:
}
t
'
Procedure No.
Title j
[
i 01-5-10-01 (Rev 8)
Fire Protection Plan
[
l'
02-S-01-04 (Rev. 20)
Shift Relief and Turnover
10-5-03-01 ( Rev. 7)
Fire Protection Systen Inpairment i
10-5-03-02 (Rev, 9)
Respense To Fite
.
l 10-S-03-03 (Rev. 5)
Control cf Ignition Sources j
10-S-03-05 (Rev. 3)
Fire Investigation j
10-5-03-07 (Rev. 3)
Fire Protection Training Program f
Based on this review, it appears that the above procedures meet the NRC guidelines of the document entitled "Nuclear Plant Fire
,
Protection Functional Responsibilities, Acmin' =:rative Controls, and i
Quality Assurance" dated June 1977 and the intent of 10 CPR 50 Appandix R - Fire Protection programs f:r Nuclear Power Facilities.
l
\\
. -
.
t
.
b.
Fire Protection Surveillanca Procedures The inspector reviewed the following Fire Protection System Surveillance Procedures:
Procedure No.
Title 06-EL-SP64-SA-0002 Diesel G2nerator Building Deluge Systens Heat Detector Functional Test 06-EL-SP64-R-0002 CO2 Systems Functional Test (Rev. 23)
06-ME-SP64-R-0045 Venttiation System Fire Damper (Rev. 25)
Inspection 06-ME-SP64-R-0046 Fire Rated Assembly Visual Inspection (Rev. 25)
06-0P-SP64-A-0019 Sprinkler System Functional Test (Rev. 26)
,
06-0P-SP64-0-0044 Fire Door Check (Rev. 25)
06-OP-SP64-A-0010 Fira Suppression Water System Loep (Rev. 24)
Flow Test 07-5-12-103 General Inspection and Testing of (Rev. 3)
Emergency Lighting The above surveillance procedures were reviewed to deternine if the various test outlines and inspection instructions adequately implement the surveillance requirements of the plant's Fire Protection Technical Specifications.
In at 'ition, these procedures were reviewed to determine if the inspect., and test instructions folloucd general industry fire protection practices, NRC fir.
'
protection progran guidelines and the guidelines of the N'tional Fire Protectica Association (NFPA) Fire Codes, Based on this review, it appears that the above proc *dures are satisf actory. However, the inspector did identify a potential weakness in the rethod of perforning the 19-ronth visual inspection of fire rated assemblies, Procedure 06-ME-SP64-R-0046.
This procedure includes the inspection of one ar.d three hour fire rated wraps applied to electrical raceways to r,eet the intent of Section III.G of 10 CFR 50 Appendix R.
The procedure does not presently identify the specific raceways which are to be protected.
Inst tac the precedare instructs the inspector is si sucily inspect all fire rated assemblies in a given room, The inspector expressed
\\
~
- _. _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ - - - - - -
-
__
- _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _.-
{
.
l
'
'
i
e l
.
i
!
-
$
i i
I l
concern that by not specifically identifying the raceways required to
be wrapped in the procedure it is possible that missing wraps may not l
!
be identificd during the periodic inspection. The licensee agreed l
l with the inspector that the present inspection riethod does represent
'
l-a potential weakness and comitted to upgrade the procedure to
!
specifically identify those receways required to be protected by one l
cr three hour fire rated wraps.
}
c.
Fire Protection System Surveillance Inspections a.,d Tests
{
l The inspector reviewed the following serveillance inspection and test I
records for the attachments and dates indicated:
,
i Procedure No.
Test Results (
06-EL-SP64-SA-002 (Att. 1)
6/26/S6, 12/22/86, 6/19/87 i
12/9/87, 6/7/88
[
06-EL-SP64-SA-002 (Att. 2)
6/26/S6, 12/23/S6, 6/22/87 12/9/37, 6/7/88 06-EL-SP64-SA-002 (Att. 3)
6/26/S6, 12/23/S6, 6/22/87 12/9/S7, 6/7/SS j
06-ME-SP64-R-045 (Att, 6)
3/6/S5, S/27/S6, 7/29/87 06-ME-SP64-R-045 ( Att. 7)
2/14/65, 8/3/86, S/21/S7 f
06-ME-SP64-R-045 (Att S)
2/19/85, 8/9/S6, 7/30/87 i
,
06-ME-SP64-R-046 (Att. 1)
2/20/85, 11/12/S6, 1/19/SS I
'
l 06-ME-SP64-R-046 (Att. 2)
2/10/S5, 8/1/S6, 2/6/SS
[
06-ME-SP64-R-046 (Att. 3)
2/13/S5, 8/1/86, 2/7/53 i
06-0P-SP64-A-0019 3/6/S4, 6/4/S4, 9/1/84, 12/2/84, 9/1/S5, 9/24/S6, 9'5/S6, 1/22/S7 1/27/37, 11/26/87 C6-0P-SP64-D-0044 Daily 6/20/SS - 7/5/88 The surveillance test record data and testing frequency asstciated with the above fire protection system surveillance test /inspecticns were found to be satisfactory with regard to meeting the requirements of the plant's Fire Protection Tecnnical Specificat kns.
d.
Fire Protection Audit The rest recent audit reports of the Grand Gulf Fire Protection Program wera revie ed.
These audits were:
Annual QA Audit QSA-SE!0003 April 22, 1980
Nuclear Mutual Limited Insurance j
Inspection by M&MPC Fe0ruary 29 - March 3, 1938
'
These audits identified several fire protection program discrepancies and unresolved items, anc recc~enced several progran imprc vemen t s.
The licensee has either implerested the correctise actions associated I
p
!,
I t
f
-- --- - --- -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ __ _____ _
!
-
.
.
.'
-
with these audit findings or a scheduled date for ccmpletion of tLe
correction actions had been established. The licensee appears to be
'
taking the appropriate corrective actions on these audit findings.
.
e.
Fire Brigado
(1) Organi:ation The total station fire brigade is composed of approximately 84
,
personnel fr:m the Operations staf f, lhe on duty shif t fire
,
brigade leader is normally one of the licensed operators and the remaining four fire brigade members are composed of non-licensed operators. The inspector reviewed the on duty shifts for June
!
and July of 1983 and verified t, hat suf ficient qualified fire j
brigade personnel were on duty to meet the provisions of the j
plant's Technical Specification,
,
In addition, the inspector verified that sufficient personnel f
wore assigned to each shift to meet the minirum ocerating and l
fire brigade staf f requirements of the Technical Spec"ications.
[
Therefore, it appears based on the review of the duty rosters l
'
associated with the above dates, that there was sufficient maapower on duty to reet botn the cperational and the fire i
brigade requirements of the plant's Technical Specifications.
(2) Training i
The inspretor reviewed the training and drill records for seven
!
brigade leaders and ten brigade members for 1957 and 1993.
The
,
records reviewed indicated that each of these leaders and members had attended the required training and participated in
,
the required number of drills. The inspector ilso verified that
{
a fire brigade drill had beer conducted every 92 days for each
!
shift for 19S7 and 19SS.
The fire brigade training records l
reviewed were found satisfactory.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the licensee's periedic fire Drigade training modules.
These modules cover the following
'
areas:
Module 1 Self Contained Broatning Apparatus f
Module 2 Site Specific Information
Module 3 Gases l
Module 4 Fires In Energ?:ed Electrical Equipment r
M:dule 5 71res In Cables ar.d Cable Trays j
Module 6 Hydrogen Fires (
Module 7 Flammabla Liquid >
!
Module 8 Waste and Debris Fires Module 9 Ventilation
!
l i
!
l l
i
,- -r
. ~ -, - -
,
._ _. _
._,.__,,
_ _
,_,y__
.
__
_ _ _,
_,,,m_.-,,,4
- - = _ _ _ _
_
- ~ _ _ _
j
-
-
.
.
l i-l A
.
j
b
i f
I
,
j The present training cycle runs on a six week inte val and all
!
I members participate in all nine modules annually. Based cn this i
!
review, it appears that the licensee's initial fire brigade training program covers the above required training topics.
p (3)
Fire Brigade Drill p
}
[
During this inspection, the inspector witnessed an unannounced
'
i fire brigade drill.
The drill scenario was a fire in the
{
Division I Diesel Generater Roem which w3s apparently caused by l
a diesel fuel line break which sprayed fuel oil on the diesel
engir.e and igr.ited the fuel oil.
l
!
Seven fire brigade members responded to the pending fire
!
errergency.
The brigade assembled in the fresh air corridor i
l
'
cutside the room in full protective firefighting turnout clothing and five brigade members wore self contained brc>athing
,
j apparatus.
The fire brigade leader rade an initial size-up of
the fire and directed brigade rembers to advance two 1-1/2 inch d
l.
fire attack hose lines utilizing firefighting foan from the
'
plant fire truck into the area. The fire attack hose lines were
'
placed in service on 'he fire and thc fire was placed under f
control within 20 minutes.
Tha brigade leader also di ected brigade rerbers to isolate the source of the fuel oil leak.
l
!
The fire brigade utilized proper manual firefighting r ethods and (
reacted to the fire drill scenario in a satisfactory manner.
I During this drill, the inspector noted that tb fire alarm broadcast over the plant PA system could not be heard in the fresh sir corridor of the Diesel Generator Building.
In discussions with fire brigade members following the drill, the inspector was told that the alarm also could not be heard in the j
fire truck house. The inability to hear fire alarms announced l
over the PA system was also noted as a prcblen in 13 of the 35 fire brigade dril' critiques reviewed by the inspector.
Fire brigade r erbers present y carry radios which the control l
r room uses to advise members of fires in the plant. However, the irspector expressed concern to the plant rnanagement that since the fire alarm tray also constitute an evacuation alarn,
,
inabtlity to hear the alarm could potentially result in people
being trapped by a fire. This e ncern will be followed up on in
!
a faure inspection.
!
,
i I
!
,
-
- -.
- - -
- - -
-
..-
-
- - -. -
- -.... -. _. - _ - - - _ _ _ -
_..-
. -. -. -..
. - -
. _
.,. - _ _. ~...
.
j'
o.
j
,
.
,
,
$
k I
i
l
.
,'
,
l v
,
l l
f.
Plant Tour and Inspection of Fire Protection Equipment
l I
[
(1) Outside Fire Protection Walkdown i
!
The inspector verified that the two water storage tanks ccntained sufficient water to reet the requirements of tha
!
l Technical Specifications.
The three fire pumps were inspected l
and f ound to be in service.
The diesel fuel tanks for the I
i diesel driven fire pumps were approximately 7/S full of fuel, k
l In addition, the low pressure C02 tank was ;nspected and was
!
'
fcund to be 83*. full at 300 psi which raeet the requirements of (
{
the Technical Specifications.
}
!
The following sectioral,ontrol v lves in the outside fire l
j.
protection water supply syste/a were inspected and verifted to be j
i properly aligned and locked in position:
,
i
---ct. ion i
Fun Valve No.
Position
F001A Open Diesel Fire Pump A Discharge t
f
,
i Isolation
,
I
!
F003A Open Diesel Fire Pump A Suction I
Isolation
{
'
.
'
F001B Cpen Diesel Fire Pump B Discharge Isolation FC033 Open Olesel Fire PuTp B Suction l
Isolation
!
,
F103 Open Electric Fire eu,9 Suction Isolation i
.
F016 Open Electric Fire Pump Ot scharge Isolation j'
F023 Open Fire Loop Isolation i
i t
F024 Open Fire Loep Isciation
I
'
F025 Open Fire Leop Isolatien I
!
!
The folicsing fire hydrant ?quiement houses were inspected:
l D003
!
0009 j
0020 0021 l
D023
,
D024 i
!
0025
'
i
!
\\
......-
.-
.
.
.
..
.
. _ _ _ _, _ _.,. _
'
.
t j
d
.-
,
,
!
K
'
l
i t
3 j
i The equip 6ent houses contained the minimum (auf * ment requirerent
of that specif;ed by NFPA-24, Private Fire Service Mains and l'
Their Appurtenances, and/or the FSAR comnitments. The equipment appeared to be adequately maintaided.
A tour of the exterior of t*,e plant indicated that sufficient t
clearance was provided between permane"t n ftty-rylated i
'
buildings and structures and temporary buildings, trailers, and
!
other transient combustible materials. The general hcusekeeping
,
of the. areas adjacent. to the permanent plant structures was satisfactory.
I (2) Permanent Plant Fire Protection Features
!
A plant tour was made by the inspector. During the plant tour,
!
the following safe shutdown related plant areas and their i
!
related fire protection features were in p ected:
,
Fire Zone Description I
,
s
.
l OC 115 Corridor, 93' Control Building i
!
OC 12$
HBAC R,'on, 93' Control Building
[
OC 202 Dis. 1 Switchgear, 111' Control Bui'.d "g
j OC 203 Div II Hot Shutdown Fanel Rm. 111' Cor..rol i
Eu'Iding
OC 203A Div. I Hot Shutdown Panel Rm. 111' Control
'
'
Building
,
OC 215 Dis. 11 Switchgear, Ill' Control Eoilding
,
,
!
1A301, 1A316, Auxiliary Building 139'0"
[
1A321, 1A322,
!
and 1A314
[
'
1A417, IA424, Auxiliary Building 166'0" t
j 1A4;8, and 1A420 I
i I
l The fire /scoke detection systems, manual firef %hting eculpment l
,
(i.e., portable extinguishers, hose stations, etc.) and the fire f
l' '
area boundary walls, floors and ce' ling associated for the above
[
plant areas were inspected and verified to be in service or j
i functional.
>
>
<
jl The autematic sprinkler systens, N1P64152 and NIF6 0153, I
I
<
protecting the northeast corridors of the Auxiliary Building
!
129'0" and 166'0" elevations were inspected and founc to be in j
service.
j Based on this inspection, it appears that the fire protection i
features associated with the above plant areas are l
satisfactorily raintained.
,
I
]
I.
_.. - - _ _ _., _ -. _, -.,, - _.. _
..
..
.
._. - __
__._-..._.___._.____.___________q o,.
.
.
'
,.
.
i
!
l The plant tour also verified the licensee's implementation of i
!
the fire prevention administrative procedures, The control of combustibles and flarmable raterials, liquids and gases, and the
j general housekeeping were found to be very good ln the areas i
i inspected.
l l
(3) Appendix R Fire Protection features l
ihe inspector visually inspected the fire rated raceway fire
barriers required for compliance with Appendix R, L
Section III.G.2 in the following place areas:
l
'
1.
l Fire 2cne Location
!
!
!
{
1A101 93' Auxiliary Building i
IA212
!19' Auxiliary Euilding
!
l 0:302 133' Control Building i
>
l t
j
.. sed en the inspector observations of the above raceway fire j
barrier enclosures, it appears that the one and three hour fire
.
'
!
barrier integrity associated with the above fire barrier
(
assemblies was being pr perly maintained in a satisfactory
j condition,
,
.
i I
Tne inspector m.ade a n:lkdown of the Aopendfx R related
sprinkler protection in the following plant areas:
l
,
I
'
location Sy;tep No.
i e
l I
93' Auxiliary Building N1PC40150
,
l NE Corridar i
.
119' Auxil iary CL ilding N1P64D151 hE Corridor i
Based on this walkdown, the inspettor determined that the
{
sprinder prote:t kn providvi for the areas identified abova l
previded suf ficient protection with respect to controllirs an
'
evoosure fire.
{
r The following eight-hour e ergency lighting units were
}
!
ia rse tiet:
f
?
Unit No.
Location l
!
NIZ9251153 93' Centrol Euilding l
N12926302A 133' Control Pui' ding
}
012925202A 111' Control Builcir.a e
!
'
,
e
-
,
.
,
l
{
'
l s
I
.
Tnese units were in service, lamps properly aligned and appeared to be maintained. However, the inspector dt! note that sene of
<
the lights in the plant appear to be slightly out of align ent.
Although this is not a significant problem at this line the L
inspector recommended to plant nanagenent that the alignment of l
energency lights be added to the periodic inspection procedure.
l This wculd insure that lighting would be realioned if recessary,
,
,
l l
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were i
identified.
[
'
t 3.
Follo,vup On If ormation Notice > and Part 21 Reports (92703)
!
Inforuat on Notices on Autematic Sprinkler Corporation Vc.lves
.
i a.
i
!
]
w/ letter otted MJrch 2, 195', IE Informatf ur Motice No. e4-16, i
i Failure of Automatic Sprinkler System Valves to Operate, was issued.
i i
The notice identified that deiege valves nanuf actured by Autematic i
j Sprinkler Corpora:1on nay not open when reautred due to enessive
!
j friction in the operating mecha
- .sm.
Tnis riotice was followd up by
- etter dated March 24, 1930, which transnitted IE Inforration Notice i
j No. 86-17, Update of Failure of Autuutic Sprinkler Systen Values tn
[
i
!
Cperate, which provided additional ifermation on value failures, i
Grand Gulf was the plant which initially discovered the problem with l
tre Automatic Sprinkler Values. To resclve this problem t M licensee l
implemented a retrefit to their af fected valves and replaced the l
va ve
!
vahe clapper asserbly and latch ar* as directed by the
!
manufacturer,
,
f, r
The folluing maintenance work orders implemented the retrofit of the t
l l
valves for the affected sprinkler systent:
(
!
V,iG No.
Sy s t e.m N. _o..
-
M72456 Nip 640!!OA
l N1P64?l103
'
M72467 M724SS NIPC4011CC
'
J I
M72439 NIN4DII0D M7N90 nip 64D111 N/;491 N!P64Dl:2
!
N1P6(Dil7 M72493 C2495 N1P6401425
l N1p64D142A M72496
!
N',P6*D142C M7249/
l Eased en the cc plation of tne n:an;f acturer's re:c rended
l retrofit tN licer we's res;:nse ta the sudect IE
{
Infernation Notices it ec:aptable
'
i
.
I
$
\\
.
.. -
.. - -.
_ -
.
..
O g
i i
i I
.
l
,
t
.
These units ware in service, lamps properly aligned and appeared to be raintained. However, the inspector did note that some of the lights in the plant acrear to be sligntly out of aligrment.
Although this i t.
1ot a significant problem at this time the
>
inspector reco mended to plant r3nagenent that the alignient of emergency lights be acded te the periedic inspe: tion precedure.
This w uld insure that lighting would be realigned if recessary, Within the areas inspected, r) violations or ceviations were icentified.
3.
Folle,vup On Information Notices and Part 21 Reports (9270.~,)
a.
Informatien Notices en Autematic Sprinkler Corporation Valves By letter dated March 2, 19S4, IE Inferraticn Notice No. $4 16, Failure cf Automatic Sprinkler System Valves to Operate, was fisued.
The n;tice identified that deluge valves ranuf actured by Autcratic Sprinkler Corporation ray not epen when reyui red d..e to excessive friction in the operating rechan:tm. Tnis notice was fo11cw<d up by letter dated Marcn 24, 1956, vnich transnitted IE Inferratica Nctice No. $6-17, Urdate Df Fai'ure of Automatic $;~inkler System Values to
'
Operate, which provided additional informati 9 on salue failures, i
!
Grand Galf was the plant which initially discovered the problem with the Auto.atic Sprinkler Values. To resolve this prcbler, the licensee
~~
l irplenented a re rosit tu their affected valves ard rep. aced the I
valve clapper asserbly and latch a-m as directed by the valve manufacturer.
,
]
The fallceing maintenance work ceders inplenanted thc retrofit cf the Valve) for the affected sprinkler systehs:
.
S',,0 N n.
System No.
!
M72456 N1P64D110.;
M72457 N1P64D1103 M7243B N1P64D110C M724S9 N1PC4D1100 M72490 N10610111
!
M72491 N '. ? 64 D 112 h72493 N1P64D1'7 M72495 N1P64D1423 M72496 N1;64D142A M724t./
N1P6cD142C Eased :n the ccr letion of the ranuf acture r's re::.- erded retrofit the licersee's rese:nse to Fe subject IE Inferration Netices is accaptable.
t
_
__
..
. _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
r
-
.
.
.
b.
Part 21 On Ruskin Fire Dampers Ruskin fire dampars are the subject of a Part 21 report issued by the damper maruf acturer en ?Paember 6, 1954.
The report describes a deficiency with the dampers which ey result in the failure of the dampers to close 'nder normal dr t p essure.
During this inspection, the insp<cter vuified that the licenste does not ha', e any Ruskin fire dampers installed at Grand Gulf.
(he inspector reviewed Specification fio. 9645-M-617.5 and fourd ? hat only American Warning fire dampers were specM irJ to be inf +,alled at Grand Gulf, inerefore, this Part 01 report is not applictbit to the licensee's plants
Erit Interview
.
The inspect *on scope ord results were summarized on August ).2, 1533, with thoso persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The ir;3pectors described the
-
ar;as inspected a-d discussed in detail the inspection results.
In response to an inspector concern regarding a potential weakness in the the licensee's assemblies, lance procedure rethod used for inspcting fire rated
surveil to nanagement made a ccmmit-ent to revise this provide specific information as to tt.e raceitays required to be protected buy one and three hour fire rated wraps. Fr prietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not rettived from the licensee.
.
l
.
_.. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
__________________)_
______;