IR 05000321/1989003
| ML20247M858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Conlon T, Ward D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247M823 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-89-03, 50-321-89-3, 50-366-89-03, 50-366-89-3, NUDOCS 8904060140 | |
| Download: ML20247M858 (12) | |
Text
-
.__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -..
.
'
[pn REo UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d' \\
REGION 11
-
hy
,
.
101 MAHIETTA STREET, N.W.
dr
"g ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
g%
j'
.....
Report Nos.:
50-321/89-03 and 50-366/89-03 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Docket Nos.:
50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.:
DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name:
Hatch I and 2 Inspection Conducted:
February 13-17, 1989 D. CT Ward ~
f/ Aocb h
~2///J/N Inspector:
.
-
Date Signed
'
Appro bV
/f?/
fl
/C l
T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Plant Systems Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of Fire Prevention / Protection Program implementation and follow-up on previously identified items.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no significant strengths or weaknesses were identified.
In the previous SALP report for Hatch, training and performance of
!
the fire brigade was identified as a significant weakness in the Fire i
Protection Program and the need for increased management attention in this area was emphasized.
After the SALP report was issued, the licensee made significant efforts to improve the brigade training program. Brigade performance in an unannounced drill witnessed by the inspector also showed significant improvement.
This program now appears to meet the minimum NRC guidance; however, in order to ensure continued improvement in this area, management attention should continue to be emphasized.
Within the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not
,
'
identified.
l l
HP868!BBS$y
!
l l
O C_ _ _ _ _ __ _ - __ _
j
-
- _ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _,
,
l
-
.
l l
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. Bennett, Superintendent, Plant Training
- M. Boone, Associate Engineer, Fire Protection
- C. Coggin, Manager, Training and Emergency Planning l
- 0. Fraser, Manager, Site Quality Assurance
- G. Goode, Superintendent, General Engineering
- J. Hammonds, Supervisor, Nuclear Safety and Compliance
- J. Lewis, Acting Manager, Operations
- C. More, Senior Method and Training Specialist
.
'
- J. Munno, Senior Plant Engineer
- T. Powers, Manager, Engineering Support
- L. Sumner, Plant Manager
- S. Tipps, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection incladed craftsmen, engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- J. Menning
- R. Musser
- Attended exit interview 2.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program (64704)
a.
Fire Prevention / Administrative Control P.)cedures The inspector reviewed the following Fire Prevention / Administrative Procedure No. 40AC-ENG-008-OS (Rev.1), Fire Protection Program.
This procedure appears adequate to implement the administrative controls of the Fire Prevention Program described in the licensee's Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA).
The requirements for the control of cutting and welding operations at plant Hatch are described in 40AC-ENG-008-0S.
These requirements include a prework fire safety inspection, issuance of a permit by a trained foreman and assignment of a trained fire watch to each cutting / welding operation.
The inspector reviewed a number of i
_.
_
_ _ -.
_
_ - _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
.
l
.
.
'
permits issued by the Mechanical Maintenance Department and verified that all the procedural requirements had been satisfied.
In addition, the training records for the supervisor issuing the permits I
and assigned fire watches were reviewed and found to be current.
b.
Fire Protection Surveillance Procedures l
l The inspector reviewed the following Fi re Protection System
'
Surveillance Procedures:
Procedure No. (Rev.)
Title 42SV-FPX-007-OS (Rev. 0)
Cable Tray Surveillance - KA0W001 Material 42SV-FPX-009-2S (Rev. 1)
Inspection and Testing of the Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing System Remote Shutdown Panel 42SV-FPX-021-0S (Rev 0)
Surveillance of Swinging Fire Doors
!
42SV-FPX-024-05 (Rev. 1)
Fire Hose Stations - Appendix B Areas 42SV-FPX-025-15 (Rev. 1)
Multiplex Fire Detaction System Safety Related Surveillance
-
Areas (62 Day)
42SV-FPX-026-IS (Rev. 1)
Multiplex Fi re Detection System Surveillance - Safety Related Area (6 Month)
42SV-FPX-028-0S (Rev. 0)
Raceway Surveillance - TSI Material 42SV-FPX-031 0N (Rev. 0)
Fire Fighting Equipment Surveillance The above surveillance procedures were reviewed to determine if the various test outlines and inspection instructions adequately implement the surveillance requirements of Appendix B of the Hatch FHA. In addition, these procedures were reviewed to determine if the inspection and test instructions followed general industry fire protection practices, NRC fire protection program guidelines and the guidelines of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Codes.
Based on this review, it appears that the above procedures are satisfactory.
)
_ - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _. __.
.. _
._
_
_J
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
,.
.
.
.
.
.
c.
Fire Protection System Surveillance Inspections and Tests The inspector reviewed the following surveillance inspection and test records for the dates indicated:
Proceoure No.
Test Dates 42SV-FPX-009-2S 3/24/88, 5/19/88, 7/19/88 9/16/88 42SV-FPX-021-0S 1/26/88, 7/1/88 42SV-FPX-024-0S 6/6/88, 7/7/88, 8/16/88, 9/5/88, 10/5/88, 11/5/88 42SV-FPX-025-IS 2/22/88, 4/21/88, 6/17/88, 8/17/88, 8/26/88, 10/27/88
42SV-FPX-026-1S 9/9/88 l
42SV-FPX-028-0S 11/1/88 (Validation Date)
42SV-FPX-031-0N 3/23/88, 4/20/88, 5/18/88, 6/24/88, 7/22/88, 8/24/88, i
9/24/88, 10/19/88, 11/21/88 The surveillance test record data end testing frequency associatect with the above fire protection system surveillance test / inspections were found to be satisfactory with regard to meeting the requirements of Appendix B of the Hatch FHA.
d.
Fire Brigade (1) Organization The total station fire brigade is composed of approximately 68 personnel from the Operations staff.
In addition, the fire i
brigade is supplemented by a Fire Emergency Support Group (FESG)
which is composed of approximately 31 personnel from the Maintenance, I&C and Engineering staff. The on duty shift fire brigade leader is normally one of the licensed operators and the remaining four fire brigade members are composed of plant equipment operators. The inspector reviewed the on duty shifts for January 1 through 13, 1983, and verified that sufficient qualified fire brigade personnel were on duty to meet the provisions of the plant's FHA.
(2) Training I
The inspector reviewed the trainino and drill records for four brigade leaders and nine brigcde members for 1988.
The records
- _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _
_ _ _ _ _
- _ -.
- _ _ _ _
._
_
__
.__ _ _
v
.
.
.
.
.
~
-
h
-
y
.
.
.
.
i reviewed indicated that each of these leaders and members had I
attended the required training and participated in the required number of drills. The fire brigade trairang records which were.
inspected were found satisfactory, j
In. addition, the inspector attended the fourth quarter leadership retraining lecture conducted by the plant. training department.
The training was conducted under lesson plan i
FP-H0-90401-00 and dealt with defensive fire attack strategies.
The objectives for the training were clearly defined and the instructor appeared very knowledgeable in the subject area. The classroom training was followed by an exam which tested the student's understanding of the subject material. The inspector found this training to be satisfactory.
The inspector also reviewed the Initial Leadership Training Handbook as part of the documentation to close a previously identified inspection finding.
This review is discussed in paragraph 3.e. of this report.
(3)
Fire Brigade Drill During this inspection, the inspector witnessed an unannounced fire brigade drill. During the drill, the fire brigade leader and fire brigade performance was evaluated in the following areas:
,
~
Brigade donning protective clothing and self-contained
-
breathing apparatus (SCBA) and response time.
Fire brigade leader command post activities, fire scene
-
management and communications.
-
Brigade members' proper use of fire fighting equipment, ef fective fire fighting tactics and communications.
The drill fire scenario was a fire in the northeast corner of the 130-foot elevation of the Reactor Building. The fire was apparently started by welding activities which ignited trash and scaffolding in the area. The drill scenario also assumed the t
primary fire hose station for the area was out of service for maintenance.
Ten fire brigade members responded to the pending fire emergency.
The brigade assembled at the airlock in the southwest corner of the 130-foot elevation in full protective fire fighting turnout clothing and five brigade members in self-contained breathing apparatus.
An initial size-up of the fire condition was made by the fire brigade leader and two 1-1/2 inch fire attack hose lines were advanced into the area.
The fire attack hose lines were placed in service on the fire and
-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - - -. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
'
.
.
.
.
'
the fire was placed under control in 30 minutes. In addition, the fire brigade initiated fire victim search and rescue, smoke control and water control operations.
The fi re brigade leader and brigade performance was satisfactory.. The brigade response was timely and the fire brigade utilized proper manual fire fighting methods and reacted to the fire drill scenario in an effective and efficient manner.
The fire brigade leader established a command post at a remote location and effectively managed the fire fighting resources and maintained communications between the fire scene, the control room and brigade fire attack teams.
e.
Plant Tour and Inspection of Fire Protection Equipment (1)
Inspection of Fire Brigade Manual Fire Fighting Equipment The inspector performed an inspection of the fire brigade equipment, consisting of fire hose, nozzles, tools, and miscellaneous equipment, stored at the fire brigade equipment response location on the 147-foot elevation of the Control Building.
The inspector found that the equipment required to be stored at this location by procedure 42SV-FPX-031-0N was in place and appeared to be properly maintained.
This equipment included eight sets of fire brigade turnout gear and miscellaneous fire fighting equipment and tools.
(2) Outside Fire Protection Walkdown The inspector verified that the two water storage tanks contained sufficient water to meet the requirements of Appendix B of the Hr.tch FHA.
The three fire pumps were inspected and found to be in service. The diesel fuel tanks for the diesel driven fire pumps contained approximately 450 gallonc l
(Pump 2) and 600 gallons (Pump 3) of fuel which met the requirements of the Hatch FHA.
In addition, the inspector verified that the fuel tank level indicators had been calibrated within the last year as required.
The following sectional control valves in the outside fire protection water supply system were inspected and verified to be
,
l prepa-ly aligned and locked in position:
Valve No.
Function Position 306E Fire Pump Header Cross Tie Open 306F Fire Pump Header Cross Tie Open 306G Fire Pump Header Cross Tie Open 307A Storage Tank A Isolation Open 307B Storage Tank B Isolation Open t
-
_. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _._.
i
- _ _ _
.
.
-
- - _ -.
_
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
,
.
.
J
.
The following fire hydrants and fire hydrant equipment houses were inspected:
Number Locatien
Auxiliary Boiler Switchhouse
Southwest of Service Building Annex
Southeast of Service Building Annex
Southwest of U2 Turbine Building
Southwest of U2 Condensate Tank
Northeast of U2 Condensate Tank
Southeast of U1 Condensate Tank
East of Fire Equipment Building The equipment houses contained the minimum equipment requirement of that specified by NFPA-24, Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, and plant procedures.
The equipment appeared to be adequately maintained.
A tour of the exterior of the plant indicated that sufficient clearance was provided between permanent safety-related buildings and structures and temporary buildings, trailers, and other transient combustible materials. The general housekeeping of the areas adjacent to the permanent plant structures was satisfactory.
(3) 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 related fire protection features were inspected:
Fire Area Location 0001 112-Foot Control Building 1003 2003 1104 130-Foot Control Building / East Cableway 2203 130-Foot Reactor Building 2205 2210 158-Foot reactor Building 2211 The fire / smoke detection systems, manual fire fighting equipment (i.e., portable extinguishers, hose stations, etc.) and the fire area boundary walls, floors and ceiling associated with the above plant areas were inspected and verified to be in service or functional.
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
,
.
.
'
.
The automatic sprinkler systems installed itt the Unit I and system installed Unit 2 Lube Oil Storage Tank Rooms and the CO2 in the Diesel Generator Building were inspected and found to be in service.
Based on this inspection, it appears that the fire protection features associated with the above plant areas are satisfactorily maintained.
During the plant inspection, the inspector noted that a temporary airlock had been constructed in the Unit I railroad airlock.
This structure was constructed of fire retardant lumber which satisfied the requirements of plant procedures for the use of wood in the plant.
The inspector found through di scussicr,s with plant personnel that this structure had originally been considered temporary; however, it had been in place for approximately three years and had recently been incorporated into the FHA as a permanent modification.
NRC guidance states that wood should only be used when a noncombustible alternative is not available and in these cases only fire retardant lumber should be used. The intent of this guidance is to limit the amount of wood used in the plant. The inspector discucsed the licensee's compliance with this guidance with plant management and recommended they evaluate the need to reconstruct the structure out of a noncombustible material.
This will be reviewed further during a future inspection.
The plant tour also verified the licensee's implementation of the fire prevention administrative procedures.
The control of combustibles and flammable materials, liquids and gases, and the general housekeeping were found to be very good in the areas inspected.
(4) Appendix R Fire Protection Features The inspector visually inspected the raceway fire barriers protecting the following raceways for compliance with Appendix R,Section III.G.2:
Fire Area / Location Raceways 1203-U1 Reactor Building ESS-I-658 South 130'-164'
ESS-I-3323 ESS-I-3324 ESS-I-3381 ESS-I-3402 ESS-I-3835 1104-East Cable Way TDA3-07 Control Building 112'
TD05-03 TMD7-01 TME7-01
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
- ~ ~ - - - - ----
-
.
.
.
'
.
O
.
Fire Area / Location Raceways (cont'd)
1412 - IE Switchgear Room ESA-108 Diesel Generator Building ESA-109 130'
ESB-156 ESB-167
ESB-168 l
TLA7-12 l
TLA7-12 Based on the inspector's observations of the above raceway fire barrier enclosures, it appears that the one or three hour fire barrier integrity associated with the fire barrier assemblies was being properly maintained in a satisfactory condition.
The inspector made a walkdown of the Appendix R related sprinkler protection in the following plant areas:
System Number Location IU43130W01 East Cableway Control Building IT43130WO6 130' Reactor Building NW Corner IT43130WO3 130' Reactor Building East IT43130W01 130' Reactor Building SW Corner Based on this walkdown, the inspector determined that the sprinkler protection provided for the areas indicated above provided sufficient protection vith respect to controlling an exposure fire.
The following eight-hour emergency lighting units were inspected:
Unit No.
Location 1R42-E006 130' Control Building 1R42-E007 130' Control Building IR42-E123 130' Control Building 2R42-E018 130' Reactor Building 2R42-E019 130' Reactor Building 2R42-E020 130' Reactor Building These units were in service, lamps properly eligned and appeared to be properly maintained.
f.
Fire Hazards Analysis Changes The Hatch fire protection license conditions for Unit 1 and Unit 2 allow the licensee to make changes to their approved fire protection program contained in the Hatch FHA. These changes are then to be reviewed by the NRC in subsequent inspections.
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,_
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
The inspector reviewed the following changes to the Hatch FHA:
-
Page - B-13 of FHA; Action statement b for an impaired fire suppression water system was revised to state that a special report to the NRC is only' required if the system is not returned to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Previously a special report was req; ired anytime this Action statement was entered. This change is consistent with the NRC guidance in Generic Letter' 88-12 which states only deficiencies in the Fire Frotection Program which meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 must be reported.
Pages 31,'32, 56 and 60 of Section 10 of FHA; Changes to the FHA
-
on these pages added additional operator actions for the following equipnent:
FHA Page Equipment
>-
E11-F006B
C71-P001 Bus A
C71-P001 Bus B
R25-S105
R22-S006 The inspector attempted to verify that these manual actions had been incorporated into plant procedures, but found most of the actions were not identified as necessary for response to a fire.
Through discussions with plant personnel and the licensee's Architect Engineer (AE), the inspector learned that these changes were the result of a revision to the Unit 1 and 2 10 CFR.
50.48 Appendix R - Safe Shutdown Analysis Report. Although the changes had not yet been fully incorporated into plant operating procedures at the time the AE identified that the revisions would have impact on plant operating procedures, a meeting was held between the AE and plant procedures group.
In this i
meeting, each change to operator actions was discussed to
determine if the action already existed in another plant l
procedure but was not yet identified as fire actions.
This l
r2 view determined that the majority of the manual operator
actions existed in procedures and recommended plant modifica-
)
tions for the actions not yet covered by procedures.
The licensee plans to update plant procedures to identify these actions as required for response to a fire.
A procedure revision to 34AB-FPX-053-25, Fire Procedure, was being processed at the time of the inspection to incorporate the manual operator actions into Unit 2 procedures. A similar revision to Unit 1 procedures is planned.
Therefore, the incorporation of these actions into plant procedures for a fire will be reviewed j
further during a future inspection.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
i
_ _
_ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
__
_ __.
__)
,
_
._
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _
,
,
,
.
.
-
_.
.
-
.
-
~
_
_
,.
,
.
-
e
_
3. " Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701 and 92702)
a.
(Closed) IFI 321, 366/87-30-01,. Inadequate Evaluations of Fire Protection Quality Assurance Audit Items. This item was opened after an inspector's review of the licensee's evaluation of QA audit findings 83-3 and 83-4 revealed that the evaluation was inadequate.
The audit findings identified deviations.from NFPA 20, Centrifugal Fire Pumps, with regards to the location of the pressure taps which provide the automatic start signal for the fire pumps.
Subsequently, the licensee reevaluated the findings and. initiated Site Design Request (SDR) 87-81 which rerouted the pressure taps to satisfy the code requirements.
The inspector conducted a field wal,kdown of the SDR and verified the as-built configuration of the new piping.
This SDR resolves the NFPA code deviations. Therefore, this item is closed.
b.
(Closed) IFI 321, 366/87-30-04, Additional Fire Brigade Training and Drills Required.
During two previous NRC inspections, 87-30 and 88-21, inspectors witnessed two unannounced fire brigade drills which were not fully satisfactory. Therefore, this item was opened.
During this inspection, another drill was witnessed.
The fire brigade performance was satisfactory and it appears, based on this drill., that brigade performance now meets the minimum standards.
This item is closed.
c.
(Closed) Violation 366/88-21-01, Failure to Conduct and Document Required Surveillance of the Remote Shutdown Panel Halon Suppression System.
This item was identified as a result cf the licensee's failure to perform an FHA Appendix B required surveillance.
The corrective action for this item included provisions for the Planning and Control group to begin issuing surveillance schedules to the department responsible for required surveillance. The schedule is issued monthly and identifies all surveillance due in the following month.
In addition, frequent reminders are issued to departments as the surveillance due date approaches.
The inspector verified that these schedules were being issued.
In addition, the inspector reviewed a number of required surveillance conducted by the same department which f ailed to perform the Rcmote Shutdown Panel Halon Suppression System surveillance. All of the required surveillance were performed in the rWred interval and the results were transmitted to Document Control as required. This item is closed.
d.
(Closed) IFI 321, 366/88-21-02, Failure to Provide Control of Assignment of Fire Brigade Members. This item was identified due to unqualified personnel being assigned to the fire brigade and because the Control Room personnel did not have a list of personnel qualified to serve on the fire brigade.
-
_ _ _ _
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
___. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _.
-
_
-,
_
- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - -
.- --- - _ - - - - - _ - -
_
--_-
-
- - - _
_. - - - - _ - - -. - - - - - - _ _ _,
.
.
.a.,.
-..,.
..
.
.
.:
.
.
...
.
I
.
~.. -.. ! ' '
_
~
_,
-
' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
~
-
..
.
_
.
.
'
Subsequently, the licensee began issuing a list of qualified fire brigade members to the Control Room. This list is maintained in the OSOS's office and was reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
In addition, the' inspector verified that five qualified fire brigade members were assigned on each shift between January 1 and 13, 1988. Therefore, this item is closed.
e.
(Closed) IFI 321, 366/88-21-03, Follow-up on the Implementation of Fire. Brigade Leadership Training.
This item was opened after inspectors reviewed the licensee's Fire Brigade Leadership Training and found it did not contain adequate plant specific information.
Subsequently, the licensee revised the Fire Brigade Leadership training lesson plan FP-IH-90001-01, Initial leadership Training FB/FESG, t c, include plant specific information.
The inspector reviewed this lessen plan and found the charges enhanced the program.
In addition, the inspector attended a quarterly retraining session for Fire Brigade Leaders. Therefoie, this item is closed.
4.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on February'17,1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
i