ML20058A068
| ML20058A068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1993 |
| From: | Mcmeekin T DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311300081 | |
| Download: ML20058A068 (3) | |
Text
,
Duke 1%urr Cornpany T C hicun:nN
- kicGuire Nuclear Generanan Department iice President 12700 llagers Terry Road (AfG01A)
(704)Si$-#00 lluntersville, NC2807&8985 (704)375-4809 Dx
~;
DUKE POWER November 15,1993 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-369, 370/93-18 Violation 50-369,370/93-18-01 Reply to a Notice of Violation Gentlemen:
Enclosed is the response to the Notice of Violation issued October 20,1993 concerning failure to follow procedure for fire watch requirements.
Should there be any questions concerning this response, contact Randy Cross at (704) 875-4179.
Very Truly Yours, lHdL T. C. McMeekin Attachment xc:
(w/ attachment)
Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. George Maxwell Regional Administrator, Region !!
NRC Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGuire Nuclear Station 101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 2000 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Victor Nerses U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation One White Flint North, Mail Stop 9H3 Washington, D. C. 20555 9311300081 931115 PDR ADOCK 05000369-
[
G PDR z g
d.
McGuire Nuclear Station Reply to a Notice of Violation 5
h Violation 369.370/93-18-01 Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be established, implemented and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2,-
February 1,978 which inc!udes administrative procedures to implement the fire protection program.
Contrary to the above, on August 12,1993, vendors replacing the roof on the Unit 1 fuel handling building failed to adhere to requirements to use fire extinguishers, obtain a hot work permit, or notify the control room of a fire, as was required by Licensee Procedure, MSD 462, Hot Work Authorization, Revision 1.
This is a Severity Level IV (Supplement 1) violation.
Rep!v to Violation 369.370/93-18-Q1 1.
Reason for the Violation:
When contractor personnel detected a roof fire while installing a new roof on the Unit 1 Fuel Building on August 12,1993, they responded by using a dry chemical fire extinguisher to put out the fire. This type extinguisher is normally used by the contractor to extinguish the type materials that were burning. The contractor did not recall from a Hot Work Training Class attended on May 10,1993 that Halon or CO2 are the only acceptable fire extinguishers for hot work.
At the time of the fire, the contractor had notified the Control Room they were doing hot _ work on the Unit 1 Fuel Building Roof and established an active fire. watch, which did detect the fire.
Mistakenly the contractor had obtained forms from the Control Room for a passive fire watch. In error, the contractor thought these " Passive" fire watch forms were a revised form for an " Active" fire watch and attempted to document the fire watch on the wrong form. The contractor did not.
question the use of these " Passive" fire watch forms in discussions with the job sponsor.
When the contractor detected the fire his first reaction was to extinguish it, instead of notifying the Control Room as instructed in Fire Watch Training. Since the fire was first detected by other.
. personnel inside the Fuel Building, the fire brigad3 arrived on the roof as the contractor was extinguishing the fire. The fire brigade instructed the contractor that they would take charge of the situation. The contractor believed the Control Room had already been notified since the Fire Brigade had responded, and did not make a follow-up call.
The contractor's use of a dry chemical extinguisher, failure to obtain a proper hot work permit and failure to notify the Control Room of a fire were all examples of failure to follow procedures.
2.
Corrective steps that have been taken and the resylts achieved:
A.
The contractor was prevented from working onsite on August 12,1993 and was not permitted to work again inside the protected area until October 27,1993. During this time period the contractor repeated the Hot Work Training Class and en overview of other r
- =.
- i?
applicable site procedures was provided to the contractor by the station sponsor The -
contractor is now fully' aware of applicable procedure requirements and the necessity for,
strict adherence to these requirements.
i B.
To further reduce the risk of negative station impact by contractor work,'a' roofing work ordsr was written and carefully reviewed. The roofing specification was also revised to use a cold process, C.
A station problem investigation process PIP No.1-M93-1078 was originated to determine the root cause and track the completion of all corrective actions.
3.
Corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations:
A.
The Lesson Plan for the Hot Work Training Class will be revised by December 31,1993 to provide additional instruction on hot work practices.
B.
A McGuire Site Directive concerning the control and interface of contractor personnel will
~
be implemented by December 31,1993.
~
4.
Date when full compliance will be achieved.
Full compliance will be achieved by December 31,1993.
I b
l i
1
!