IR 05000373/1987027
| ML20239A371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Gardner R, Ulie J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20239A335 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-87-27, 50-374-87-26, NUDOCS 8709170294 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML20239A371 (15) | |
Text
l
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Heport lic9 50-373/87027(DRS); 50-374/87026(DRS)
Docket Nos.30-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Cunducted: July 13-15, August 10-11 and September 8, 1987 4 @ M . L gy Inspector: oseph M. Ulie Date
.
g d J f [-y v Approved By: Ronald N. Gardner, Chief 9H 07 Plant Systems Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on July 13-15, August 10-11 and September 8, 1987 (Reports N /87027(DRS);
No. 50-374/87026(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection to review action (s) taken by the licensee relative to allegations concerning the adequacy of training provided to fire brigade members and qualifications of certain staff members responsible for the licensee's fire protection program (54834, 92701, and 99014).
Results: Within the one area inspected, one violation was identified (Procedure inadequacy in that the procedure did not prescribe the need for fire brigade assistance upon receipt of an alarm in the control room - Paragraph 2).
8709170294 870911 PDR ADOCK 05000373 0 PDR
_ _ _ - l
_ _ _ - __ _- _ _ _- _ - _ _
l
...
..
DETAILS
.. Persons' Contacted Commonweatlh Edison Company (CECO)
- R. D. Bishop, Services Superintendent
. *D. A. Brown Quality Assurance Superintendent
, :*W. G. Collins, Assistant Fire Marshal
- R. Crawford, Training Supervisor C. J. Diaz, Support Service G. J. Diederich, Station Manager D. J. Enright Quality Assurance Engineer
- T. A. Hammerick, Technical Staff Services T. G. Hausheer, Station Support Services J. R. Kodrick, Maintenance Staff Engineer P. G. Kuhel, Supervisor of Station Support Services
, *J. C. Renwick,' Production Superintendent
'*M. H. Richter, Technical Staff
- Schaible, Fire Brigade Instructor
- W. A. Steffes, Fire Marshal
- D. G. Trager, Group Leader Training US NRC
- J. Jordan, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel during the inspection visi * Denotes persons attending the exit interview of August 11, 198 . Review of Actions Taken by the Licensee Regarding Previous Fire Protection Allegations On January 13-27, 1986, NRC inspectors performed inspection activities relative to allegations received by the NRC from an individual outside of the licensee's organization. These allegations pertained to the adequacy of training provided to fire brigade members and qualifications of certain staff members responsible for the licensee's fire protection program (at LaSalle County Station). Based on the NRC's direct inspection; review of pertinent fire brigade records and brigade training programs; and interviews with cognizant licensee personnel, this allegation was determined to be substantiate Further, as a result of that review, it was determined that no explicit regulatory requirements were violated, however, the concerns expressed by the alleger did possess meri L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - - _ _ _
.
,
Consequently this inspection visit (July 13-15 and August 10-11,1987)
was-performed to follow through in reviewing any reevaluation or corrective action (s) taken by the licensee. This included any resulting implementation actions-initiated by the licensee having an affect on fire-protection personnel, their training or their qualifications as related to applicable NRC referenced gu'delines or requirement Below are the conclusions of this inspection visit including a lead-in reference to each of the allegers' allegations and inspector review results as described in the initial followup Inspection Report (373/86004; 374/86004).
1 Training provided to members of the LaSalle fire brigade was !
not adequate to permit the brigade members to perform their duties as firefighter The alleger identified a fire drill in one of the ECCS rooms which apparently was not handled well by the station fire brigad During the January 13-27, 1986, inspection visit, the inspectors I described seven deficiencies determined as a result of the above allegation review and concluded that this allegation was substantiated. It is the licensee's response to these seven deficiencies that was evaluated and detailed during this inspection (July / August 1987) as follows:
(1) Fire brigade drill critiques were incomplete in some instances because they did not contain an adequate assessment of the drills. Specifically, none of the drill critiques examined made any assessment of individual fire brigade member performance during drills (i.e., physical, mental and emotional fitness to perform the required duties).
During this inspection, the inspector requested and was provided Crew No. 3 drill records dated March 1986 through July 198 Attached to these records were the applicable drill critique sheets. These drill critique sheets included the sequence of events; overall brigade performance; a list of recommendations; use of equipment; fire alarm effectiveness; response time of brigade personnel; performance of fire brigade personnel; assessment of brigade members knowledge; brigade members role in fire fighting operations including strategy; and the fire brigade leaders' direction, thoroughness, and accuracy of the brigade leaders' role. The inspector's review of the fire brigade drill records revealed that twenty-six (26) of the last thirty (30) drills held included handling and use of onsite fire hose (various sizes) equipmen According to the licensee's onsite fire protection personnel and as confirmed by the inspector through record review; of these 26 drills, nine (9) drills were conducted which included actual charging of the hose lines and the flow of water outside
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
of vital plant areas. This was done to provide the brigade members involved with a more enhanced drill exercise. Discussions between fire brigade members and the inspector identified this type of drill exercise to be an effective method in maintaining positive fire brigade moral During inspector review of the drill critiques, it was noted that the drill observers (Station Fire Marshal or his designee who critiqued the drill) made mention of the brigade members'
actions including their overall fitness (i.e., mental and physical status) in accomplishing the training drill (s)
objectives .
The inspector verified that the " Strategy and Tactics" lesson plan for the newly adopted " Training Standard For Nuclear Station Fire Brigade Members" does provide guidelines for the brigade leader in coordination with the shift engineer for determining the need for offsite fire department assistance. The inspector indicated that future drill critiques would be enhanced by specific observations on a periodic basis by the observer regarding the brigade leader's ability to determine the need for offsite fire department assistance. This is provided for in the
" Strategy and Tactics" lesson plan and through accepted fire protection industry practice. The licensee's staff acknowledged that this observation would be noted in future drill critique Further, the inspector encouraged the licensee's staff to develop a pre-printed fire drill critique checklist to aid the individuals performing fire drill critiques and so as to provide a more consistent review by these personne With regard to the fire brigade member's physical fitness to perform their required duties, the inspector selected three fire brigade members' names from a fire brigade roster and verified that these individuals had received an annual physical exa These physical exams are performed through a CECO program commonly referred to as the Health Evaluation Program (HEP).
During a conference call held on July 15, 1987, between the Station, Corporate CECO, and the inspector, the CECO Administrator - Medical Director specified that the HEP exam meets the annual physical examination requirement for determining the fire brigade member fitness. A subsequent telephone call on August 7, 1987, between the CECO Medical Director and the inspector confirmed that certain specific tests are administered during this exam such as a pulmonary function test, cardiological related tests and other tests that provide medical data in determining the fitness of an individual for fire brigade dut Based on NRC criteria and licensee commitments, the inspector determined the level of the exam in determining fire brigade member fitness to be satisfactory.
l
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._. - l
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .
- - _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
.
As part of another element in determining the. adequacy of fire brigade. training, the inspector requested the licensee -
l to conduct an unannounced fire drill of the on-duty operations shift personne As committed to by the licensee,- Section III.I of Appendix R indicates that fire brigade drills shall.be performed in the plant so that the fire brigade can practice as a team;,the drills shall be preplanned to establish the training objectives of the drill, and the drills shall be critiqued to determine how well the. training objectives of the ' drill have been me .
These requirements were also in the NRC document, " Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities,
-Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance," dated June 1977
-
>
committed to by the licensee as described in the original Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and SER Supplement No. The inspector requested a' fire scenario which would include an observation of the fire brigade demonstrating firefighting techniques (including fire hose handling) and also the adequac of communication interface between the fire brigade and radiation ~
tontrol technician (RCT) personne1' during fire emergency conditions. -
The fire drill postulated an electrical initiated fire involving 480V MCC.136Y-I in the Unit 1 Reactor Building. The postulated fire affected MCC cable insulation'and spread to six contaminated bags of anti-contamination clothing behind the panel. The inspector reviewed both the fire drill scenario and pre-fire plan-
~
which included a walkthrough of the " fire" area. prior to the dril In preparing to witness the fire drill, the inspector reviewed appropriate portions of licensee procedures which relate to fire discovery and subsequent fire extinguishment as follows:
(a) . LAP-900-17, Fire Drills, Revision 6, dated October 17, 1984; (b) LAP-900-14, Fire Protectics Program, Revision 11 dated October 27, 1986; (c) LZP-1340-2, Implementing Procedure For Fire: Fire Chief (Designated Shift Foreman), Revision 2, dated March 15, 1983; (d) LZP-1340-4, Implementing Procedure For Fire: Fire Brigade, Revision 1, September 17, 1981;
__ _-_-_ _- -
.
L '
.
p p
(e) -LZP-1220-1, Emergency Telephone Number, Revision 1, May 18, 1981; (f) LZP-1210-1, Hazardous Material Incidents Reporting, Revision 6, April 21, 1986; and (g) LOA-FP-01, Fire A'iarm Response, Revision 5, March 23, 198 This fire drill was an unannounced drill having been-initiated on July 14, 1987, at approximately 1700 hour0.0197 days <br />0.472 hours <br />0.00281 weeks <br />6.4685e-4 months <br /> The inspector .was stationed initially in the control room u to observe the actions taken by the Nuclear Shift Operator L (NS0) upon receipt of the fire alarm (a fire detector in the " fire" area was activated by licensee personnel).
Enroute to a fire brigade station (fire equipment cage) the inspector observed the arrival of the fire brigade leader at the postulated fire scene to' perform necessary size-up action lipon inspector arrival at the brigade station, seven members of the fire brigade were observed assembling and donning firefighting protective clothing. The inspector evaluated the fire brigade and support personnel actions in determining and observing-the .
following: (1) fire brigade members' conformance with established plant firefighting procedures; (2) an assessment of the fire
,
brigade leader's direction of the fire fighting efforts; (3) actual donning and simulated use of the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); (4) actual donning of protective clothing; (5) simulated use of two 11" fire hose st e io w (6) use of portable radio communication equipment;-(7) brigade timeliness in response and numbers of personnel responding with proper firefighting equipment and (8) brigade leader interaction with the RCT and other support personnel (e.g., security on scene). In addition, approximately five additional on-shift i personnel were observed aiding in auxiliary brigade activitie The inspector determined the above actions were performed satisfactorily. The overall inspector assessment of the drill, which was based on inspector observations and post drill critique discussions, concluded that the fire drill was performed satisfactorily. The inspector did, however, observe the following five discrepancies:
(a) Two brigade members on the back-up hose line failed to don their SCBA. The importance of wearing the breathing apparatus even during drill exercises needs to be emphasized to the fire brigade members especially where potential airborne radioactivity and contamination concerns exis An acknowledged difficulty duhing fire drill activities is the lack of products of combustion, yet this should not negate the wearing of full protective clothing including SCBA during fire drill scenarios. This is described in
L
"
..
' Attachment No.: b (Section e) of the NRC document, " Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities, Administrative Controls, and Quality Assurance."
-(b) One brigade member while donning his SCBA identified what was believed to be a defective regulator on-his unit causing a short delay in having this individual actively participate
'
in' the drill activities while a different SCBA was donned.
L (c) One of the RCT's respon' ding to the fire scene was unable to gain entry:to the Reactor Building due to two separate air lock doors having been .left ope (d) Although not part of the drill, the inspector in discussion with the fire brigade, learned that a clearer understanding of the Station Policy on the use~ of elevators during fire response (s) needed to be clarified or reemphasized (e.g.,
gaining control of the elevator and use of the elevator for transporting fire brigade equipment carts, etc.).
The above four discrepancies are considered an open item (373/87027-01; 374/87026-01) pending NRC followup of the licensee actions regarding the above discrepancie (e) Although ~ timely assembly of the fire brigade and response to the fire scene occurred during the inspector witnesse fire drill, an additional discrepancy was identified regarding a Station Policy as described in the " Fire Alarm Response" Procedure No. LOA-FP-01, Revision 5, dated March 23, 1987. When an unplanned fire alarm activation is received on the Control Room annunciator panel an operator is dispatched to the fire alarmed area to investigate whether an actual fire is present or no The procedure did not prescribe the need for brigade assistance upon receipt of an alarm in the control roo The fire detection system is installed to provide early notification of a fire conditioi; yet the licensee t as unable to provide justification for not relying on this indication upon initial receipt and assembling the fire brigad The present Station Policy creates the potential for a delay in alerting and assembling the fire brigade after an unplanned actuation of a fire alarm has occurred and allows the potential fire to freely spread unsuppresse As described in the SER and Supplemental No. 2, the licensee committed to the NRC " Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" document. Attachment No. 5 of this document identifies that the firefighting procedures should
- ---- - - - - - - - i
_ _
_ - _ -
,,
i identify actions to be taken by the control room' operator-and.the need for. fire brigade assistance upon' receipt of a fire alarm on:the control room annunciator panel. As previously mentioned, the licensee's " Fire Alarm Response",
' Procedure Number LOA-FP-01 did not prescribe the need for
'
fire brigade assistance upon receipt of an alarm in the~
L control roo The abov'e failure to prescribe the'need for brigade, assistance upon receipt of an alarm in the contro room is considered a violation (373/87027-02; 374/87026-02) of the Facility Operating License for Units 1 and 2 as is described in the Notice of Violation.
,
In addition, a-telephone conference call (requested by the
,
licensee) was held between members of the licensee's staff (Corporate and Station) and Region III staff (Messrs.
,
R. Gardner and J. Ulie) on September 8,1987, to further l discuss this inspector raised concer The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved the item (1) portion of the L identified deficiencies.
L (2) Fire hose stations-appear to have been used in the drill l simulations.but according to the licensee's staff, fire brigade training has been largely focused on the use of
~
,
portable fire extinguishers.
l l Duringthis' inspection,asmentioned'in(1)above, inspector review of the fire. brigade drill records dated March 1986
, through July 1987 revealed that 26 of the last 30 drills held included handling and use of onsite fire hose (various sizes)
equipment during those drills. In addition, according to the licensee's onsite fire protection personnel and as confirmed by tho inspector through record review of these 26 drills conducted, nine~ drills were conducted which included actually charging hose lines and the flow of water outside of vital plant area In addition, during the annual fire brigade training held during the Fall of 1986, all fire brigade members received hands-on hose handling training under live fire condition The inspector selected 15 fire brigade members' names from a fire brigade rcster and confirmed that each of these individuals names were listed showing that they had attended the 1986 annual fire brigade training sessio The inspector also witnessed this type of training for seven g members of the LaSalle Fire Brigade on August 10, 1987, held
'-
at the Braidwood Fire Brigade Training Facility. The inspector determined that adequate training is now being conducte _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, . _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
I
.
f I
The inspector's review concluded that.the licensee had l satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie (3) All fire brigade members have not been trained in the use of - {
handling fire hose streams at pressures found at LaSalle while fighting internal structure fire During this inspection the inspector determined, based on selected inspector review and according to the licensee, that all LaSalle fire brigade personnel were provided hands-on fire hose handling training under charged and flowing water conditions during live fire evolutions. This training was provided at the Braidwood Fire Brigade Training Facility in 1986 to satisfy the annual brigade training requirement. According to a member of the licensee's corporate fire protection staff, the Braidwood fire pump operating pressure is at least equivalent to or greater than the pressures the LaSalle fire brigade would experienc On August 10, 1987, while the inspector was at the Braidwood Facility, the licensee demonstrated this assertion satisfactoril In addition, when the LaSalle fire brigade members trained with the charged hose lines outside of vital plant areas at LaSalle, those hose lines were connected directly to fire hydrants which have pressures which are greater than or equivalent to that which the fire brigade would expect to experience with inside hose line Consequently, the inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie (4) No documentation was provided to verify that all fire brigade members received portable fire extinguisher training prior to becoming a fire brigade membe During this inspection, the licensee provided the inspector a copy of the firefighting evolutions conducted during the initial and annual training which does include hands-on practice using portable fire extinguisher Subsequently, the inspector selected 15 fire brigade members' names from a brigade roster and verified that those names were listed on the attendance list for the 1986 annual fire brigade training sessio In addition, the inspector also witnessed this type of training for seven members of the LaSalle Fire Brigade on August 10, 1987, held at the Braidwood Fire Brigade Training Facilit The inspector determined that adequate training is now being conducted.
I The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie l
. - _ _ _ _ - - _ .
..
.
(5) Enhancements are needed in the licensee's smoke house training facilit During this inspection, the inspector was informed that the licensee performed a reevaluation on a corporate-wide basis
.of the CECO Fire Brigade Training Program as described in an internal licensee letter from the CECO Corporate Division -
Vice President to CECO Nuclear Station Managers dated April 14, 1986. As a result, according to the licensee, an improved program entitled, " Training Standard for Nuclear Station Fire Brigade Member," approved on July 6,.1987, has been develope As part of this Training Standard a fire brigade member certification guide and instructor lesson plans have been developed and are considered approved for the CECO Fire Brigade Training Pilot Program (Interim). This program was nearing final approval and was planned to be fully implemented in the near futur On August 10, 1987, the inspector toured the Braidwood Fire Brigade Training Facility and observed fire brigade training exercises in progress. These training exercises included hands-on fire extinguisher and fire hose handling on live fires inside and out of the training tower (burn building). The inspector determined that the type of fire brigade training being provided at this facility is a significant improvement from past practice and meets NRC requirements as comitted to by the licensee. Presently, three CECO Nuclear Station Fire Brigades (Braidwood, Dresden, and LaSalle) are utilizing the Braidwoo6 Fire Training Facilit l The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie (6) No objective measurement is made of individual brigade member's comprehension of the fire brigade classroom training because written or oral qualifying examinations are not administered on any of the subject matter at any tim Furthermore, the initial 20 hour2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. classroom training session does not contain the quality and depth of training that is intended by the requirements of Chapter 4 of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 27 or NRC guideline During this inspection, the inspector was informed by the licensee that a policy change has occurred since the original inspection in that written exams are now being given at the completion of the initial training program. The inspector reviewed the written exam questions and determined that the !
fire protection level of understanding being required by the l exam is satisfactory. At the time of the July inspection visit, l one crew of brigade members had been tested under a pilot program
!
!
10 i
_ _ --- _ ---------- !
__
.
,
with subsequent implementation of this type of testing planned during the Fall of 1987. According to the licensee's staff, the initial fire brigade training program has been revised from a twenty (20) hour program to a forty (40) hour program, thereby, expanding and providing more instructional depth than in the pas The inspector performed a comparison review of the newly developed fire brigade instructor lesson plans, Revision 0, to the general guidelines of NFPA 27-1981 and to the nationally recognized fire service training manuals (IFSTA), and determined that the lesson plan subjects do incorporate the subject conten The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie (7) The licensee's' employment policy is not consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 3-2.3.3 of NFPA Standard No. 27, which states, "Only persons meeting physical, mental and emotional requirements should be considered eligible to serve on the fire brigade." The licensee has not established mental and emotional requirements for fire brigade member During this inspection, the licensee provided the inspector with a letter dated July 10, 1987, describing the testing process all employees are subjected to including specific tests given to potential fire brigade candidate These tests include a physical exam, psychological screening test, plant operator selection system test and the initial fire brigade training program (classroom and hands-on training provioed).
Fire brigade members receive an annual physical examination thru the HEP which includes a pulmonary (respiratory) examination among other tests. Since no additional specifics regarding physical requirements are provided in Paragraph 3-2.3.3 of NFPA Standard No. 27, the depth of this physical exam was determined adequat In addition, according to NRC Operator Licensing personnel, those fire brigade members who are also nuclear reactor operators are also reviewed by the NRC against certain medical criteria as described in ANSI N54 According to a member of the licensee's fire brigade training ,
staff, instructors also observe fire brigade members during training activities for signs of physical inability or emotional l distres __ _ _ _ _ __
/
4 :
..
!
On August 10,31987, the inspector, while attending a fire brigade training session, observed the fire brigade members for any signs of apparent physical or emotional difficulty-(i.e., donning.and use of the SCBA, physical activities required during _firefighting). No unusual difficulty was observed during this training session.
. -
The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this portion of the identified deficiencie As a result of the above seven deficiencies having been satisfactorily addressed by the licensee, allegation (a) is considered resolve b.- Training department personnel were not qualified technically to give fire brigade training.
, During the January 13-27, 1986, inspection this allegation was substantiated because of the fire brigade training instructor's minimum qualifications, and because the outside firefighting training that satisfies the NFPA Standard No.'27 was not being provided to fire brigade member During this inspection, the inspector performed a review of those individuals' qualifications (regarding the Station Assistant Fire Marshal,. refer to Paragraph 2.d) who according to the licensee are assigned as the LaSalle fire brigade training instructors. In performing this review the inspector used the licensee committed to NRC document entitled " Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" which was described in two SERs dated March 1981 (Original) and February 1982 (Supplement No'. 2). Further,-the inspector used the NFPA National Fire Codes No. 27 - 1975 edition (in effect at the time the Station Construction Permit was issued) during this revie The inspector was provided a copy of the fire brigade training instructor qualification sheets. As specified in these sheets, this individual was in active status at a volunteer fire department during a three year period and reserve status for an additional three years. In addition., these documents show that over a seven year time frame this individual performed as a member of a Naval Damage Control Team including approximately three years as an Office-In-Charge of the Damage Control Team. This documentation shows further that this individual had attended several firefighting training program sessions over a fourteen year period. This individual had documentation to demonstrate that he is also a l- certified CECO instructo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ __
.
- .
'
In addition,Tduring discussions with this indiv'idual. the inspector learned that:this individual was scheduled to attend an Illinois' '
Certified Firefighter. Level II class-being conducted by the University _of _ Illinois during September and October 198 According to the licensee's staffi this. instructor, when giving
, hands-on fire brigade instruction, works in cooperation with the'
'
Station Assistant Fire Marshal. The Station Assistant Fire Marshal-has attained an Illinois Advanced Certified-Firefighter III Certification. ~On August 10, 1987,'during the training session-attended by the inspector at the Braidwood Facility, the designated Braidwood Fire Brigade Instructor and the designated primary' LaSalle
,. Fire Brigade Instructor provided all the fire brigade instructio while the LaSalle Assistant Fire Marshal performed more of a supportive role during the various fire fighting evolution The specific' wording in the NRC Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities document' only states, " personnel responsible for the training of the fi_re brigade should be qualified by training and-l experience for such work."
Based on the non-specificity of the NRC requirements as committed
.to by the licensee and the inspector's review including interviews with the. cognizant licensee personnel, the inspector concluded.that -
the licensee was meeting NRC requirements.= However, to enhance the qualifications of all fire brigade instructors, the inspector'
encouraged the licensee's management at the exit meeting on August 11, 1987; to support these individuals in attaining their. State Fire Service Instructor Certifications so as to better develop their skills and knowledge in the. fire protection are Consequently -this allegation was determined to be satisfactorily resolve Training department and station management have not supported fire brigade trainin '
During the January 13-27, 1986, inspection it was determined by review of fire brigade training records and through interviews with cognizant licensee personnel that this allegation was substantiated. During that inspection a review of selected fire brigade member training records revealed that fire brigade members were not receiving outside special hazards training in internal l structural firefighting. Furthermore, the licensee's training and management staff acknowledged the discontinuation of fire brigade training in the use of (li") line hose streams due to operations problems with the station fire pump l l
l
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ .
!
. _ __ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.
During this inspection, as already mentioned, the licensee now provides training in internal structural firefighting on an annual frequency for each fire brigade member. In addition, fire brigade training records dated March 1986 through July 1987 indicated that 26 of the last-'30 drills held included handling and use of onsite fire hose equipment. Nine of these drills included actually charging hose
. lines and the flow of water outside of vital plant areas. This type of training was encouraged by the inspector to be maintained by the license Also the inspector was provided an internal licensee memo addressed to CECO Nuclear Station Managers from the CECO Corporate Division Vice President dated April 14, 1986. This memo provided the Corporate Nuclear Station Division position in supporting interior structural live firefighting practice as part of the nuclear station's fire brigade training and requested this type of training be accomplished at each nuclear statio According to the fire brigade instructor, Station management has approved the brigade instructor's uttendance at a six week Certified 1 Firefighter II level course scheduled for the Fall of 198 The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily resolved this allegatio The Station Fire Marshal was not qualified technicall The NRC has not specified any formal qualification requirements for the position of Fire Marsiul; however, during the January 13-27, 1986 inspection, it was determined by review of the Station Fire Marshal's qualifications, and through interviews with cognizant licensee !
personnel that this allegation was substantiate During this inspection, the inspector learned from the licensees'
staff that changes in personnel have occurred in the Station Fire Marshal's positio The licensee's staff provided the current Fire Marshal's resume and the Assistant Fire Marshals' resume to the inspector for revie The Fire Marshal's resume indicated achievements as an Illinois State Certified Firefighter Level II certification, having attained special fire protection training while enrolled in several {
firefighting courses and more than six years service as a volunteer firefighter. The Assistant Fire Marshal's resume listed achievements including an Associate in Applied Science Degree in Fire Science Technology; a planned completion in the Fall of 1987 of a Bachelor of Science Degree in Fire Administration; seven years of service as a volunteer firefighter having approximately four of those years in l a fire department officer position; and also having attained an Illinois State Certified Advanced Firefighter III level certificatio j The inspector's review included interviews with the cognizant licensee personne __ __--__________ _ _ )
-. _ ._ _ _ _ - __ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - ___ - _ _ - __________ -______-__-____ _-_
i
,
?
,
The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily I-resolved this allegatio ! Tests were not administered after fire brigade trainin During the January 13-27, 1986, inspection it was determined that examinations were not administered on any subject at anytime.during the licensee's fire brigade training program. Based on the NRC inspection, this allegation was substantiate During this . inspection, a member of the licensee's training staff provided a copy of a 58 question written exam for review. This i exam is now being given to fire brigade members at the conclusion
'
of the initial fire brigade training progra The inspector performed a review of this exam and determined the test questions level of ;
difficulty to be appropriate for the level of understanding expected )
of fire brigade personne !
The inspector's review concluded that the licensee had satisfactorily l resolved this allegatio '
3. Housekeeping On July 14, 1987, an ir.::peetor, while accompanied by members of the i licensee's staff, performed a walkthrough of certain areas in the Reactor and Turbine Buildings to determine the adequacy of station personnel in maintainingtheStationcleanliness(housekeeping). These areas included ,
elevations 710', 740', and 761' for Unit 2 in the Reactor Building; elevations 786' and 820'.for both Units 1 and 2; and elevation 768' of the Turbine Building which is common to both Units. After a walkthrough 1 of these areas by the inspector, it was determined that the cleanliness ;
of those plant areas were being maintained in a satisfactory conditio . Open Item Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, or which involve some action j en the part of the NRC or licensee or both. An open item disclosed ;
during the inspection is discussd in Paragraph 2 of this repor . Exit Interview J The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on August 11, 1987, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any of the documents as proprietary. In addition, a telephone conference call (requested by the licensee) was held between members of the licensee's staff (Corporate and Station) and Region III staff (Messrs. R. Gardner and J. Ulie) on September 8, 1987, to further discuss the inspector raised concern regarding the adequacy of the Station
" Fire Alarm Response" procedur _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _