IR 05000440/1986024

Closeout Insp Rept 50-440/86-24 on 860903-1006.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Partially Wrapped Fire Resistive Matl on Cable Tray Supports

ML20203N871
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/10/1986
From:	Holmes J, Muffett J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203N869	List: IR 05000440/1986024 ML20203N867
References
50-440-86-24, NUDOCS 8610200088
Download: ML20203N871 (3)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-440/86024(DRS)

Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-45 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection Conducted: September 3 through October 6,1986 Inspector: Jeff Holme s %U M _19/IB!8 6 Date '

Approved By: Jim Muffett, Chief lo /tO[6(o

'

Plant Systems Section Date'

Inspection Summary tember 3 throug October 6, 1986 (Re 50-440/86024]DRS)1 Inspection Areas on Sep~A closecut Tnspection was ~ conducted ~ port No.by a reg %iiT Reviewed:

of the partially wrapped fire resistive material. on cable tray supports. The i inspection utilized the guidance outlined in NRC Inspection Module 9270 Resul ts: No violations or deviations were identified in the area reviewed.

1 8610200088 861010 PDR ADOCK 05000440 G PDR ,.

,

- . - - - _ -. __. - - - -- __ . . - .

.

.

DETAILS .

d 1. Persons Contacted

'S. Cashel, Licensing Engineer

• M. Hayner, Senior Licensing Engineer

. M. Makar, Fire Protection, Nuclear Engineering Department P. Russ, Lead Compliance Engineer Nuclear Reac_t_o LRqeguia_tions D. Notely, Fire Protection Reviewer (BWR)

Region III N. Chrissotimos, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety C. Williams, Assistant to the Director, Division of Reactor Safety

,

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on October 6, 198 ,

2. Action on Previous Inspection Findings

! (0 pen) Unresolved Item (440/85090-01(DRS)): In several areas of the plant, cable trays are wrapped with a fire resistive material to ensure one train of equipment necessary to achieve hot shutdown remains free of fire damage. Many of.the cable tray supports for the wrapped cable trays are only partially protected with a fire resistive materia In the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R,Section III.G. entitled, " Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability" Paragraph C., it indicates that cable and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of one redundant train should be protected by a one hour fire barrier in addition with fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system installed in the fire are In the Appendix R Questions and Answers of the document entitled

" Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements (Generic Letter 86-10),

it provides several alternatives regarding cable tray supports. One method provided in Generic Letter 86-10, allows an analysis which takes into account the fire loading and automatic suppression available in the area and which demonstrates that the unprotected supports will not fail and cause a loss of function of the cable tra The licensee provided the inspector with an internal memorandum dated July 30, 1986 from M. Hayner to Paul Russ with an attachment entitled

" Evaluation of Fire Exposure to Safe Shutdown of Cable Tray Support."

The document indicates that all areas are provided with detection and several areas with suppression. In areas that are not provided with suppression, the licensee indicated that an exemption request was previously granted for those areas. The licensee has been requested to perform an analysis for areas not provided with suppression highlighting the fact that the structural steel supports for the cable trays are unprotected. This item will remain open pending review of this analysis (0 pen Item 440/86024-01(DRS)).

. .. . - _ _ - _ . - - . - _ - . - - . . - - - _ - . . _ . .--.

'

l .

le Open Items Open items'are matters that have been discussed with the licensee, which

. will be reviewed further by the inspector, and involves some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. An open item disclosed during

'

this inspection is discussed in Paragraph . Exit Meetings The inspector discussed the inspection results with M. Hayner on ,

October 6, 1986. The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspector. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regards to documents reviewed

.

by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify j any documents as proprietar i a

f I I

i l

!

o

!

,

,

J

.

I i .n -., r,r-,- - , - . . - , , , , - - . . , , - ,_.n. . - . . . . . -,-em_.,.------,--_.--,.n -- -,,n...-- -

-- - , -n, , ,, . ,. -