ML20235V050
| ML20235V050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1989 |
| From: | Durr J, Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V044 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-05, 50-289-89-5, NUDOCS 8903100011 | |
| Download: ML20235V050 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1989005
Text
._7,_
. - - - _ _ ..
__
. '4
)o
,
..
U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
. Report No.
50-289/89-05
Docket No.
50-289
License No. DPR - 50
Category
C
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation
P.O.
Box 480
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
Facility Name: Three Mile Island Unit 1
Inspeccion At: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted: February 14-15, 1989
Inspector: -
nfn
ish)3
db/hf
hcqt# P.
urr, CTIf f, Engi eeriffg I} #anch
Approved By:
b
Thomas T. Martin, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Insoection Summary: Insoection on February 14-15,1989 (Recort No.
50-289/89-05)
Areas Insoected: Special inspection to resolve questions relating
to the performance of the visual fire damper surveillance test.
The inspection. consisted of a review of surveillance test
records, an evaluation of security records of personnel access
and the witnessing of the surveillance test.
Results: The inspection disclosed that the fire damper visual
surveillance can be adequately performed within the times noted
in the March 30-31, 1989, licensee surveillance report.
8903100011 890222
DR
ADOCK 05000289
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - -
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
1.0 Persons Contacted
R.
Barth, Unit 1 Fire Protection Engineer
G. Broughton, Operations and Maintenance Director, TMI-1
J.
Enders, Site Protection Lt.
H.
D. Hukill, Director, TMI-1
T.
A. O Cannor, Lead Fire Protection Engineer
S.
Otto, Licensing Engineer
H.
B. Shipman, Operating Engineer Manager
l
The foregoing personnel attended the Exit Interview conducted on
February 15, 1989 with the exception of
H.D.
Hukill.
Other
personnel were contacted during the course of the inspection as
activities interfaced with their areas.
2.0 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the performance of
the visual fire damper surveillance test to ascertain the time to
execute the surveillance and the level of quality achievable within
that time.
The inspection covered all fire dampers listed in
Surveillance Procedure No. 1303-12.23, Revision 8.
2.1 Introduction
NRC Inspection Report 50-289/88-23 noted that the Visual Inspection
of Fire Dampers performed on March 30-31, 1988, was accomplished
in only 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> versus the previous surveillance which was
accomplished in approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />.
The licensee issued a
letter, C311-88-2157, dated November 17, 1988, providing additional
information in explanation of the differences in the times required
to perform the surveillance. Specifically, the licensee noted that
the previous surveillance was a combined functional and visual
surveillance versus a visual inspection.
2.2 Inspection
On February 14, 1989, the licensee provided an operating engineer
and 2 auxiliary operators to perform the surveillance test while
the NRC inspector witnessed the procedure.
This is the usual
complement used to perform this test; the operating engineer
observing the condition of the dampers and the auxiliary operators
assisting in moving ladders, removing access covers and grill
plates and providing aid in gaining access to difficult locations.
The NRC inspector observed the opening of the fire damper access
covers, the inspection of the interiors and fusible links, the
closing of the access covers and the general activities in gaining
access
to
perform
the
surveillance
test.
The
inspector
independently examined the condition of most of the fire dampers
to confirm that the fusible links were intact, the dampers were not.
blocked and that the condition of the dampers were indicative of
recent inspection.
No unacceptable conditions relative to the
dampers or the surveillance test were noted by the inspector.
- _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-
.
3
-
.
The
inspector
noted
the
times
required
to
perform
the
February 14, 1989, inspections, the areas requiring access and the
overall duration of the surveillance test. The total time required
to perform the surveillance test was approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
The
surveillance test began in the control room shortly after 1:00 p.m.
and was essentially complete at 4:00 p.m.
Further, the security
records for area access for the previous surveillance team were
reviewed to determine the relative times spent in each area and
compared to the times spent by the February 14, 1989, surveillance
team.
The times expended in each area by the March 30-31, 1988,
team compared favorably with the February 14, 1989 team. In almost
every case, the February 14, 1989, team took less time to perform
the test, indicating that the duration of the March 30-31, 1988
surveillance test was of sufficient length to adequately perform
the test.
2.3 Findings
Based on the independent visual inspection and the review and
analysis of the security records, the inspector concluded that the
March
30-31,
1988,
visual
fire damper surveillance test was
adequate and that sufficient time was expended to perform the test.
The inspector noted that the original surveillance test record
indicated, in some areas, that one inspector performed most of the
tests; however, the licensee's internal examination of this issue
disclosed that multiple personnel had performed the tests but the
tests were signed by a single individual without attribution to the
activity of other personnel. The licensee's review determined that
the original data sheet with the initials of the performer had been
contaminated and the information had been transferred to the record
copy of the surveillance test.
This practice is under review by
the
licensee
to
insure
a
consistent
policy
is provided
in
situations such as this to establish what the signatures represent.
The inspector observed that several of the fire dampers are in hard
to access areas.
In some cases,
the access
represents an
industrial
safety
hazard
to
the
individual
performing
the
inspection.
In
one
instance,
the
person
performing
the
surveillance is required to climb above the false ceiling in the
control room with a potential of falling into the control panels.
This creates an industrial and operating safety hazard.
The
licensee committed to examine the hazards associated with the
performance of this surveillance and take appropriate corrective
actions.
-
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
. ,
_
_-
- _ - _ _ - .
.
.
4
..
.
3.0 Exit Interview
I
On February 14, 1989, at the conclusion of the inspection, an exit
'
!
interview was held with members of the licensee's staff listed in
paragraph 1.0.
The inspector discussed the scope of the inspection
and the findings.
No written material was provided to the licensee during this
,
inspection,
'
j
l
1
- - - .
_ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a