ML20198J903

Insp Rept 70-7002/97-208 on 970915-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Training Program,Lightning Protection, Portable Fire Extinguishers,General Building Housekeeping, Operating Experience Review Program & Lube Oil System

ML20198J903
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	10/14/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198J867	List: ML20198J863 ML20198J903
References
70-7002-97-208, NUDOCS 9710220205
Download: ML20198J903 (14)

Text

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

y ,, m. ,- , <

~

j _. .[ -;  : ,-

L-l t,.- -

. r j

i g ' .a s

'\ --s 3  :,_

u

. _ j. j g j fi s

~

{:.,

- n _-, 3w

-U.S.

w m ,.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION -

l LInspection Rchrt NE 70'.7002/97 208 Docket No. -70 7062 ~  :

Facility Operator: United States Enrichment Corporation -

i Facility Name:. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant .

~

Obscwations At: Piketon,'OH

~

[ Inspection Conducted: September 15 - 19,1997 Inspectors: Yen-Ju Chen, FCOB  ;

Rex Wescott, FSPB .

Approved By: _ PhilipTing, Chief

' i

=

Operations Branch -

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS

.i 4

.l' t - Enclosure t

.9710220205 971014- I

- P DR . ADOCK 07007002:

C: PDR_ u;

.. . a.. .  : -- ...; ,.. _ ._ . . . . . . . - - . _ -. _ .- . ._ . _ - - . -

d EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

PORTSMOUTil GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT 70-7002/97 208 Introdudion NRC performed a fire safety inspection of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Portsmouth Gascous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) at Piketon,011, on September 15 - 19,1997. The inspection was performed by staff from NRC Headquarters. The focus of this inspection was to ensure compliance with the certificate holder's fire safety program commitments,in accordance with the transition schedule and actions stipulated in the PORTS Compliance Plan.

Major fire safety performance elements reviewed at PORTS included:

• Training program e Lightning protection e Portable fire extinguishers e General buildiag housekeeping e Operating Experience Review Program (OERP) e Fire alarm signal transmitter e Lube oil system o Facility walk-through project e inspector Follow-up Items (IFis) e Compliance Plan (CP)lssues \

Significant Findings and Conclusions e The inspectors concluded that the training program for fire lighters appeared to be adequate.

However, the classroom training material for fire watch needs to be updated. In addition, the frequency of fire statch hands-on training needs to be evaluated. These will be tracked as an IFI (Details 1.0).

e According to the SAR, the facility's buildings do not have lightning protection but are heavily grounded. Ilowever, the facility could not provide an evaluation of the adequacy of the grounding for lightning protection. la addition, the facility does not have a program for the inspection and maintenance of the grounding system. This will be tracked as an IFl (Details 2.0).

• During a walk through in building X-333, the inspectors randomly checked the surveillance and test aate; for carbon dioxide portable fire extinguishers and determined no apparent deficiencies. The inspectors noted that the criteria for the placement of portable fire extinguishers need to be i established and documented. This will be tracked as an IFl (Details 2.0).  !

2  ;

• The inspectors noticed that the lighting condition on the X 333 cell floor and in a stairway leading from the e,perating floor uere deficient. He lighting condition improvement should be prioritized and compensatory measures should be initiated for anticipated long-term problems (Details 2.0).

• The inspectors noticed that the collection of anti C clothing in X 333 resulted in concentrations of combustible material in the building. There seemed to be a lack of coordination between fire services (FS) and building custodians in evaluating the impact to fire safety (Details 2.0).

• The inspectors reviewed the facility's Operating Experience Review Program (OERP) process to ensure significant and generic issues are communicated between Paducah and Portsmouth. De inspectors considered the process adequate, llowever, some information may take longer to be forwarded to the other facility or may not meet the criteria for infomiation sharing due to insufficient information available. The facility management will take appropriate actions to address this matter (Details 3.0).

• The inspectors reviewed the information on the new signal transmitters for fire water flow alarms and determined that the new installation is consistent uith the current circuit supervision criteria (Details 4.0).

• The inspectors discussed with the facility staff a statement on the tube oil system in inspection report 97 202 (Details 5.0).

• As the result oflessons-leamed from Paducah, the facility is conducting a walkdown project for its sprinkler systems in the process buildings. Operability evaluations will be performed for deficiencies identified during this walidos.n. This project is scheduled to be completed in July 1998. He inspectors will review the results n future inspections (Details 6.0).

• The inspectors reviewed the closure packages nor IFis and closed three IFis. One IFl still remains open pending the completion of corrective actions (Details 7.0).

• The inspectors reviewed the closure pack ges for Compliance Plan issues. He inspectors closed issue 16, part 2 ofissue 17, and part i ofissue 18 (Details 8.0).

DETAILS 1.0 Training Program

a. Scope The inspectors reviewed the facility's training program for fire fighters and fire watchers. The inspectors reviewed the initial and refresher training requirements, training frequency, training modules for six training classes, and sample written exams for three training classes. The inspectors also reviewed the training records for 11 employees.

3

/

, b. . Observations -

FS currently has four shins and the day shift. Each shin is staffed with one fire chief / commander and six fire fighters. The day shift has four fire fighters. He four shins are on a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> schedule.

For each shift, the FS maintains at least four staff to meet the TSR requirement.

The inspectors noted that problem report PR PTS-96 6363 identified deficiencies in the FS training program. As part of the corrective actions, the facility had enhanced the FS training program to revise the training plan and training modules and to update staff training. The inspectors reviewed Procedure XP2 SS FS1031," Fire Protection Prograrr.," Revision 2,which describes the training

. program of FS. This procedure identifies the responsibilities of the Fire Chief and Training Commander, training requirements, and training frequencies.

He State of Ohio uses International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) Essentials h1anual as its bases for certifying fire fighters. The facility FS adapted IFSTA standards, a!:ng with other state and federal regulations, as bases for its training material and training frequencies. The _ _

inspectors reviewed the training modules for the following classes; EhtS Hydrogen Fluoride Exposure and Burns, Job Specific NCS Training, Portable Fire Extinguishers (for fire fighters),

hionthly inspection of Portable Extinguisher, CO Fire Extinguisher Hose Conductivity Test, and Annual hiaintenance Inspection of Portable Fhe Extinguisher. The inspectors also reviewed the sample exams for the first three alasses. The exams require satisfactory completion of written exams, and some require hands on demonstration. Based on the information reviewed, the inspectors considered the training material and frequencies for fire fighters to be adequate.

He inspectors reviewed training records for 1 I employees, including one fire commander and 10 fire lighters. tlc training records contained certificates of outside training classes and a list of training requirement for the individual. Some fire fighters have Ohio State fire fighter certification mate;ial in their training files. He training list, which was tracked and provided by the facility's central training, identifies the required training, dates of classes satisfactorily completed, training frequency, and the training classes due within the next 30 and 60 days. In addition, the FS Training Commander keeps her own training records. The inspectors did not identify any deficiencies in the training records. The inspectors considered the training recordkeeping system adequate to ensure that fire fighters receive the required training within the required frequency.

The classroom training for fire wmh is conducted by the facility's central training annually, and FS conducts the hands-on training every three years after the initial training. The training module for fire watch training was prepared based on Procedure XP2 SS-FS1033," Fire Protection Requirements for Welding, Burning, and Hot Work Practices," Revision 0. Revision I of this procedure became effective on February 18,1997, and it was revised again on September 15,1997,

- to include lessons-learned information from the Oak Ridge hot work related fatality and ,

IFl 97 202 04. He inspectors noted that the hot work training module needs to be updated to reDect changes in the revised procedure.

The inspectors also noted that OSHA regulation,29 CFR 1910.157(g), requires the employer to provide employees who have been designated to use fire fighting equipment with initial and annual training. He FS reviewed OSHA requirements and identified discrepancies in the regulation regarding fire watch hands on training. The FS has contacted OSHA requesting regulation 4

4 a I

. interpretation for fire watch training requirement The fire watch training module update and the hands-on training requirement will be tracked as IFl 97 208-01.

c. Conclusia ne inspectors reviewed the facility's FS training program for fire lighters and considered the training frequency and training materials reviewed to be adequate He inspectors also considered the training recordkeeping system adequate to ensure that fire fighters receive proper training within required frequencies, The inspectors noted that the training material for fire watch training needs to be updated. In addition, the hands-on training frequency for fire watch needs to be evaluated. %csc issues will be tracked as an IFl.

2.0 Facility Walk % rough a ESyg The inspectors conducted a walk through of process building X-333. During the walk-through, the inspectors evaluated the building lightning protection, conditions of portable fire extinguishers, and general housekeeping,

b. Obs-rvations Lightning Protectie During the building walk through, the inspectors noted that the lightning protection for structures above the roof such as lube oil vent lines and building ventilators was not apparent. The facility SAR Section 5.4.1.1, Description of Fire liarards, states that lightning protection is not provided but the buildings are heavily grounded. Ilowever, the facility could not provide details of the facility's lightning protection during the inspection. In addition, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 780 recommends an annual visual inspection for corrosion and a three to five year maintenance interval of the grounding system. With the large quantity oflube oil in the process buildings and the combustible roof, the inspectors considered the assurance of adequate grounding as very important. The facility staff acknowledged this finding and agreed to evaluate this matter. The evidence and assurance of adequate bui' ding lightning protection will be tracked as IFl 97 208-02.

Portable Fire Extinguishers During the walk-through, the inspectors randomly checked portable fire extinguishers for required surveillances, including hydrostatic testing (HST) of carbon dioxide (CO 2) portable extinguishers.

No discrepancy was found. The inspectors noted that t'ic facility uses a contractor to perform HST for its CO2 extinguishers. In addition, the facility has a database to track list expiration date for CO2 fire extinguishers. The inspectors considered the surveillance of the facility's CO2 extinguishers to be in accordance with the requirements of NFPA lo," Portable Fire Extinguishers."

5 i

. The inspectors noted that the placement of portable fire extinguishers on the cell oor w as not in accordance with NFPA 10, which requires travel distance for Class B extinguishers (oil fire) to be no greater than 50 feet and for Class A (ordinary combustible maerial fire) to be no greater than 75 feet. *Ihe inspectors noted that these criteria were not met at many locations on the cell Hoor, and the inspectors uere especially concerned about aisles between cells which terminated in a dead end. The FS manager informed the inspectors that the facility designates only certain employees as authorized to use portable fire extinguishers, and therefore, falls under the exemption of 29 CFR 1910.157(b)(2). Currently, the extinguishers appeared to be located so that they will be available to fire fighters when they approach the fire. The inspectors considered that the criteria for the placement of fire extinguishers need to be established and documented. He FS manager agreed with the inspectors and committed to evaluate this issue and establish a procedure. This issue will t,e tracked as IF197 208-03.

General Lightiny During the walk through, the hispectors noticed the lighting condition was poor on the cell Hoor.

The inspectors raised worker safety concems especially in two areas: one was at the stainvay from the opereiing floor to the cell floor, and the other was at the catwalk to the roof. Problem report PR-PTS 97-8159 was prepared for this observation. The inspectors noted that PR PTS-97-3715 was prepared on April 11,1997, as the result of FS building survey. PR-PTS-97-3715 identified several discrepancies in lighting conditions in X-333. The inspectors noticed many boxes of lighting components on the cell floor awaiting to be installed; however, the length of time for upgrade of the lighting condition appeared to be longer than expected. The inspectors noted that imnrovement and corrective actions of safety concerns should be prioritized and compensatory measures should be initiated for anticipated long tenn problems.

Combustible Loading in building X 333, workers are required to wear anti-C shoe covers md gloves while on the stairs leading up fron the cell floor and on the catwalks. Disposal of the anti C clothing requires placement of barrels near stairways and at staging areas for periodic collection resulting in a potentially signi0 cant accumulation of transient combustibles. He inspectors were concerned that the anti-C clothing collection operation was set up without any apparent coordination between FS and the building custodians. The FS should have been involved in evaluating the impact of the operation to fire safety of the building. In addition, criteria should be established for such operation in process buildings. FS agreed te take proper actions to address this issue.

c. Conclusions in general, the housekeeping in X-333 did not meet the inspectors' expectation and needs improvement. The inspectors raised two concerns: one was the building lightning protection and its inspection and main:caance, and the other was the criteria for the placement of portable fire extinguishers. Both items will be trxked as IFis. The certificate holder acknowledged these findings and will take appropriate actions to address these issues.

6

, 3.0 Ooerating Experience Resiew Program

. a. Scope During discussions with the FS manager, the inspectors raised a concern on infonnation sharing between Paducah and Portsmouth. The inspectors discussed the process with the OERP managers to ensure that signincant and generic issues are shared between facilities.

b. Obsen ations During discussions, the inspectors learned that the FS manager was not aware of a Paducah reported event which involved foreign material found in sprinkler piping. The inspectors raised a concern on information sharing between Paducah and Pertsmouth. The FS manager indicated that he holds regular conference calls with his Paducah counterpart every Thursday to discuss signincant regulatory issues and inspection items. The highlights of the Thursday conference calls are brought up in the Friday Plant Management Briefing.

The inspectors discussed the infonnation sharing process with the OERP managers to ensure that significant and generic is<ues are shared between facilities. An Operating Experience (OE) committee will review all event reports, SCAQ (Significant Condition Adverse to Quality) problem

- reports, investigation team reoorts, and management input to determine w hether they meet the criteria for OE items. All OE items will then be shared with Paducah for infonnation or response.

Based on the discussions, it appeared that a system has been established and the process is adequate. However, the inspectr,rs noted that some infonnation seemed to take longer to flow to the other facility and some information may not meet the OE item criteria (for information sharing) due to insufficient infonnation provided in the reports.

c. Conclusions Based on discussions with the FS manager and OERP managers, the inspectors considered that the facility has en established system and process for sharing information between the two facilities.

Howcrer, the inspectors noted that some information seemed to take longer to flow to the other facility and some information may not meet the OE item criteria due to insufficient information provided in the reports. The facility management acknowledged this concern and will take appropriate actions to address it.

4.0 Eire Alann Sulcm

a. Sssp.c The inspectors evaluated the recent replacement of signal transmitters in the fire water llow alanns to ensure that the replacement does not degrade the safety and perfonnance of the system.

b. Obsen ations During discussions with the FS manager, the inspectors found that the mechanical transmitters in the fire water flow alarms are being replaced by electric motor driven transmitters. The inspectors 7

. were concerned that the use of an electric motor may affect the class A supervised status of the McCulloh type signal circuit. The inspechts reviewed the vendor cut sheet for the Potter Coded Electric Fire Alarm Transmitter. According to the cut sheet, the transmitter is designed to provide a Class A supervised detection circuit for normally open devices (such a: a water flow alarm switch) on McCulloh type circuits He device contains rechargeable batteries and a built in charger to provide 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of standby operation in the event of a power loss. Thc device is listed by Underwriter Laboratories int, and approved by Factory Mutual.

c. Conclusions Afler reviewing the vendor cut sheet, the inspectors determined the new installation of the signal transmitters in the fire water flow alarms does not degrade the safety and performance of the system.

5.0 Lube Oil System Inspection Report 97 202, Scciion 1.0 (b), stated that "The risk of a tube oil fire has since been reduced by changing to a synthetic oil with a higher flash point." After discussing with the facdity's engineers, the inspectors learned that the specifications of the lube oil being used have not changed. %c oil specified is still 100% mineral oil with a flash point of 440'F. The risk as determined by Professional Loss Control (PLC)is not affected.

~

6.0 Facility Walk-Down Proied As the result of fire sprinkler system problems found at Paducah, PORTS FS prepared an action for the sprinkler system walkdown detailing the methodology of the walkdown, disposition of deficiencies, and the sch:dule for completion. NFPA 13 (1989) will be used as the criteria for identifying deficiencies during the walkdown. Operability evaluations will be performed for each deficiency. Deliciencies which affect operability will be identified and problem reports will be prepared. Deficiencies uhich do not affect operability will be listed together in one problem report.

A list of all deficiencies will be prepared at the completion of the walkdown. This project is scheduled to be completed by July 31,1998. According to the plan,if deficiencies of an

" operability" nature become evident, the walkdown process shall speed up as applicable. The inspectors found no dcliciencies with the action plan and will review the findings of the walkdown in future inspections.

7.0 Insnector Follow-un items IFI No. 97-202-01. As the result of construction modifications, an upright sprinkler was found to be less than four inches from the wall in the room containing lube oil tank X-31-3 in building X 330. This is a departure from NFPA 13 (1989) section 4 ~2.1.5 2, which states," Sprinklers shall be located a minimum of four inches (102 mm) from a wall." Subsequent to inspection 97 202, the facility researched the origin of the NFPA 13 requirement and found a refeience to NFPA 72E,

" Standard on Automatic Fire Detectors,"in the 1989 edition of the " Automatic Sprinkler Systems liandbook." NFPA 72E identifies the dead air space where heat detectors should not be located as a four inch distance from the ceiling on the wall or four inches from the wall on the ceiling. The sprinkler head in question was mom tbn four mehes from the ceiling. Because the same principles 8

.of convective heat transfer that govern heat detecto, activation also gos em sprinkler activation, the inspectors agreed with the facility's evaluation .md considered the sprinkler's location acceptable.

His IFl was clo>cd.

IFl No. 97-202-02, During inspection 97 202, the inspectors noted that,in building X 326, sprinkler heads supplied from the existing systems had been added under a canopied area where potential combustible materials wcre stored. The inspectors were concerned that these additional sprinklers could degrade the capacity of the existing system. Dunng inspection 97 208, the facility presented calculations, which provided the pressure and flow requirements of the sprinklers under and above the canopy. The inspectors reviewed these calculations and determined that they were done in accordance with acceptable assumptions and procedures. The calculations showed that the system could meet its flow requirements for a fire underneath the canopy and still provide adequate flow for protection of overhead and immediately adjacent areas. This IFl was closed.

IFl No. 97-202-03. During inspection 97-202, the iaspectors reviewed a problem report and plant change review (PCR) for a canopy that was constmeted on the operating floor of building X-330 and blocked flow from the pre-existing overhead sprinklers. The PCR included a recommendation that the canopics should either be removed or sprinklers should be installed underneath the canopics. During inspection 97 208, the FS manager informed the inspectors that a decision had been made to install sprinklers and the hydraulic design of the sprinkler system was completed.

The inspectors reviewed the design and determined that it meets NFPA 13 criteria. The facility is in the process of scheduling for the sprinkler installation. This IF! will remain open until the system is installed and detenuined to be operable.

IFl No. 97-202-04. During inspection 97 202, the inspectors found a sprinkler head covered by a welder's glove in building X 330. The inspectors noted weaknesses in the facility's llWP program.

apparently due to procedure deficiencies and inedequate coordination between FS and Maintenance for the preparation and implementation of HWPs. As the result, FS revised Procedure XP2 SS-FS1033 to include guidance regarding sprinkler protection during hot work. The inspectors reviewed the revised procedure and determined that it meets the NFPA S IB requirement in providing adequate guidance and information regarding hot work, in addition, Procedure XP4 SS-FS6090, Revision I, was revised so that the alarm room operator will record the notification of hot work / welding activities in a specific section on the Fire Station Joumal. Lessons-learned packages were prepared based on the recent Oak Ridge fatality and this !Fl. Rese packages were distributed to Maintenance managers and flowed down to woikers for review. The inspectors reviewed the records indicating that maintenance workers had reviewed the lessons-learned packages. The inspectors considered these corrective actions adequete to prevent recurrence. This IFl was closed.

H.0 Comnliance Ph3 .,x g Compliance Plan issue 16. CP issue 16 required the sprinkler systems be tested in accordance with the frequencio stated in SAR Section 5.4.4. The inspectors compared the committed inspection frequene.cs of fire protection systems and components in SAR Section 5.4.4 with inspection frequencies in Procedure XP4 SS FS1001," Fire Services Inspection and Testing Frequency." All equipment surveillance frequencie i were found to meet or exceed the SAR commitments, with the exception of the fire hose stored in the process buildings uhich was not listed in the procedure. The facility committed in the SAR to hydrostatically test these hoses es cry 9

three years (after the first five years for new hoses). According to FS manager, fire hoses stored in the process buildings are hydrostatically tested annually along with the hoses stored on the fire trucks. The FS manager committed to revise XP4 SS-FS1001 to specifically include the inspection frequency for hoses stored in the process building. He CP issue 16 was closed.

Se inspectors also compared the facility's inspection frequencies with NFPA 25," Standards for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water Based Fire ProtectWn Systems." The inspectors noted that some of the facility's frequencies do not meet NFPA 25 requirements, and some NFPA 25 requirements are not included in the facility's procedure. According to the S AR, the facility's inspection f requencies were developed by DOE Oak Ridge and are,in some cases, adjustments of NFPA requirements to meet site specific situations. The facility is not committed to NFPA 25, which is the recognized standard industry practice; however, the inspectors believe that there should be a rationale for the plant surveillance frequencies which takes into consideration plant specific conditions. The inspectors noted that, in particular, the facility committed to annually test each wet pipe sprinkle ptem alarm device by opening the inspectors test valve, while the NFPA 25 requires this test to be perfonned quarterly and a Factory Mutual Fire Protection Review recommended monthly tests (" Fire Protection Review Revision No. 2, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio," by Factory Mutual Research Corporation. dated June 1990, Recommendation 97 07, Section 2 3.2, Water Flow Alanns). The inspectors considered that the FS needs to establish crite.ia and bases for inspection and test frequencies of fire protection systems. He FS manager acknowledged this finding and will examine this issue.

Compliance Plan Issue 17. The second part ofIssue 17 required the revision of the HWP procedure and applicable training programs. The HWP proyram was reviewed during inspection 97-202, and IFl 97-202-04 was identified. This IFl was appropriately corrected. The inspectors considered the revised HWP procedure and applicable training meets the commitment in the Compliance Plan. He second part ofissue 17 was closed.

Compliance Plan issue 18. The first part of CP issue 18 required the facility's emergency packets to be updated to reficci the current facility configuration and conditions. During inspection 97-206, the criticality safety inspectors identified a deficiency that nuclear criticality safety (NCS) infonna* ion w as missing from the X 344 facility emergency packet located in X-300.

PR PTS-97-7666 and PR PTS-97-7678 were prepared as the result of this finding. As part of the corrective actions, the FS will(1) coordinate with the incident Commander and Fire Commander to identify the necessary fire safety information to be included in the emergency packets, (2) disseminate the information to emergency packet holders, and (3) ensure the required information is included in the packets in the July 1998 cmergency packet updates. The FS manager also indicated that he is considering to put such information together as the Pre-Fire Plan for fire fighters' use. in addition, the Emergency Preparedness will(I) ensure the emergency packets located in X-1020 and X 300 are the same as the masters maintained by the building custodians, (2) coordinate with FS, NCS, and PSS to identify the necessary NCS information for the emergency packets (3) brief the facility custodians on the requirements for NCS information in the packets,(4) make the emergency packets controlled documents, and (5) develop a procedure for the preparation of emergency packet and its document control. Currently, the preparation of emergency packet is described in Procedure XP2 EP EP1049," Emergency Management Program,"Isevision 1. The procedme outlines the responsibilities of building custodian in maintaining the emergency packets and the time to update the packets. Based on discussion with the Emergency Preparedness, the new 10 l

. -.- . = - .- - - . - - . ..

9 procedure will identify the requirements for controlled document and detail the responsibilities of FS and NCS staffin providing technical information to building custodians. The inspectors considered these corrective actions adequate to address the identified deficiencies and to meet the Compliance Plan commitments. He first part ofissue 18 will remain open pending the completion -

of these correctis e actions.

The second part of CP issue 18 required an analysis to be conducted to determine the maximum allowable combustible loadings within the process buildings. He inspectors reviewed the

" Combustible Fire Loading and Sprinkler Assessment" report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)in June 1997 for PORTS. The inspectors randomly checked some of the combustible storage areas on the operating floor of building X-333. No discrepancy was found. He recommendations of the SAIC report had been incorporated into Procedure XP4 SS FS1910," Fire Protection Engineering Building Surveys and it spections " as of August 18, 1997. This procedure, which was reviewed by the inspectors .vas derived from NFPA 30 criteria, analyses performed by PLC for Paducah, and the SAir :ccommendations. This procedare contained criteria specifying quantities, location, storage conditions, and separation distances for combustible storage. It did not specify maximum allowable quantities of combustibles for any of the process buildings. Training records indicated that process building custodians and facility managers had been trained on this procedure. The inspectors noted that the inventory of waste combustibles stored within the process buildings should be periodically monitored. Preferably, the overall combustible loadings within the process buildings will decrease, or as a minimum, the facility should take positive steps to assure that the loadings do not increase. His part of CP issue 18 was closed.

l I

f i

11

ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED. AND DISCUSSED Opened 97 208 01 IFl Fire watch classroom training material update and hands-on training frequency evaluation.'

97 208-02 IFl Assurance of building lightning protection and its maintenance and inspection.

97 208 03 IFl Establishment and documentation of the criteria for the placement of portable fire extinguishers.

Closed 97-202 01 . IFl Evaluation of a sprinkler uhich was less than four inches from the w 'I in building X 330. ,

97 202 02 IFl Evaluation of new sprinklers under a canopied area in building X 326.

97 202 IFl Weaknesses in the HWP program due to procedure deficiencies and inadequate coordination between FS and Maintenance for the preparation and implementation ofIlWPs.

CP issue 16 'Ihe facility's implementation of SAR commitments in fire safety system inspection and testing.

CP issue 17 Pt2 Revision of HWP procedure and applicable training programs to ensure FS involvement and oversight.

CP issue 18 Pt2 Analysis to determine the maximum allowable combustible loadings in the process buildings and the associated training for building cu.stodians.

Discussd 97-202 03 IFl 'Ihe installation of new sprinklers under a canopy in building X-330.

CP issue 18 Pti Update the emergency packets to include adequate NCS and FS information, and make the emergency packets controlled documents.

12 l

l

e- ,

e 9

, ,- - hiANAGEhlENT AfEETINGS

- Exit Meeting Summarv inspectors met with PORTS management representatives throughout the inspection. The exit meeting was held on September 19,1997. - No ci .ssified or proprietary information was involved. At the exit meeting, PORTS management and staff acknowledged the deficiencies identified, and ccmmitted to take appropriate actions. The following is a list of exit meeting attendecs:

R. Armstreng, USEC L Fink, USEC/SS&Q R. Lipfert, USEC -

. R. Geston, USEC/NRA S. hiartin, USEC hi. Ilasty, USEC -

J. Mure, USEC. ,, .

J, h1 organ, USEC J. Uorces, USEC -

K. Zimmermann, th1US N. Boesch, USEC C. Cox, NRC/NMSS Y. Chen, NRC/NMSS R. Wescott, NRC/NMSS LIST OF ACRONYhtS USED 1

CO2 Carbon Dioxide CP Compliance Plan FS Fire Senices HST hydrostatic testing liWP Hot Work Permit IFl - . inspector Follow-up Items IFSTA International Fire Service Training Association NCS Nuclear Criticality Safety NFPA National Fire Protection Association

.OERP Operating Experience Review Program PCR Plant Change Review PLC Professional Loss Control

, PORTS Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant SAIC Science Applications International Corporation i

SAR-. Safety Analysis Report USEC. United States Enrichment Corporation i

13 l

L

--