ML20244D536

Insp Rept 70-1151/89-02 on 890424-28.No Violations or Deviations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on Previously Identified Items & Review of Fire Prevention/ Protection Program Implementation

ML20244D536
Person / Time
Site:	Westinghouse
Issue date:	06/01/1989
From:	Decker T, Ward D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20244D530	List: ML20244D526 ML20244D536
References
70-1151-89-02, 70-1151-89-2, NUDOCS 8906190119
Download: ML20244D536 (8)

Text

.- _ _ - - - -

' t.[.;f . E.. h m) M ..'(.'.jge.ntog,p , 3 UNITED STATES .

' ;' '  % ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

r-[ .; .-

. 3 - REGION it -

g; -

j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

!g' g.l ATLANTA; GEORGI A 30323 5 _

.v TReport.Nos.-: 70-1151/89-02

' Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

= ATTN: Mr. E. P.. Loch, Manager-

, Columbia Plant.

CommercialiNuclear Fuel Division :

-Drawer R- s ,

' Columbia, SC '29250

. Docket No.: 70-1151 - <

License No.: -SNM-1107 Facility Name: Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Division' 'e >4 Inspection Conducted: . April-24-28, 1989 ' '

, f i

' Inspector:

D. Ward

[ -

M .

hY Date. Signed i

Approved by: Y nu<2 M/ dz- '

N /chf '

> T. Decker, Chief Date Signed Radiation Safety l'rojects Sections . .  ?

Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division 'of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i .

SUMMARY

Scope:

This routine. announced inspection was conducted in the areas of followup on previously identified items from'the Operational Safety Assessment Inspection

-(87-01) and review of the fire prevention / protection program implementation.

Results:

In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.

The licensee - has taken significant steps to resolve findings in the. fire protection area identified during the Operational Safety Assessment Inspection conducted in January 1987. The licensee has'gone to the expense of having an H engineering contractor conduct a detailed Fire Hazard Analysis at the facility which resulted in 8 number of recommendations which when implemented will significantly enhance the fire safety at the plant.

l 1

l f( DI.I K ,

l C i

i

l 1

I I

REPORT DETAILS i

1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees l

• W. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

• J. Hooper, Regulatory Engineer

• E. Keelen, Manager, Manufacturing

• P. Loch, Plant Manager

• E. Reitler, Manager, Regulatory Engineering Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included craf tsenen, engineers, operators, dachanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.

• Attended exit interview

2. Fire Protection / Prevention Program (88050)

a. Fire Prevention / Administrative Control Procedure I The inspector reviewed the following fire prevention / administrative procedures:

Procedure No./ Revision Title RA-102/Rev. 1 Plant Inspection Program for Regulatory Compliance RA-104/Rev. 2 Regulatory Affairs Review Requests SY-109/Rev. 3 Use of Aerosol Cans SY-206/Rev. 3 Safe Storage and Handling of Compressed Gas Cylinder l SY-207/Rev. 4 Cutting and Welding SY-300/Rev. 0 Housekeeping SY-301/Rev. 0 Hanaling and Storage of Zirconium and its Alloys SY-303/Rev. O Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Maintenance SY-305/Rev. 0 Fire Watch Safety

a 2

These procedures were compared to the guidance in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and were found to satisfy the minimum code requirements. The inspector noted that ee licensee has not developed a procedure for documentating and evaluating actual plant fires. The inspector discussed the benefits of trending and identifying unsafe work practices which can be achieved by providing fire reports for review by fire prevention personnel with the licensee's management during the exit meeting. The inspector recommended that such a procedure be developed.

In addition, the inspector reviewed the implementation of procedures SY-206, SY-301 and SY-404 during the plant tour. Housekeeping was found to be very good. Zirconium scrap was being handled in accordance with procedures and fire extinguishers were being maintained.

b. Fire Protection Surveillance Procedures The licensee has not developed detailed procedures which govern the testing and maintenance of fire protection systems. Procedures which cover the testing and maintenance requirements outlined in the NFPA

. codes are essential to ensure the operability of the system during an emergency. The lack of such procedures had been previously identified by the licensee's insurance carrier as a fire protection program weakness. This finding is discussed further in paragraph

2. e.

c. Emergency Brigade At the Westinghouse facility, the licensee has developed an Emergency Brigade (EB) made up of seventy-seven volunteers which are trained to respond to medical, hazardous material, and fire emergencies.

The training of the EB was reviewed during the inspection. The inspector reviewed the training records for ten of the EB members to ensure that the training requirements of Emergency Procedure CSEP-0015 (Rev. 4), Emergency Brigade Organization, were being implemented. This procedure requires each EB member to attend annual live fire training presently being conducted at the South Carolina Fire Academy and five annual fire training sessions on-site. The training records for 1938 showed that the licensee had only conducted four on site fire training sessions. The licensee's representative stated that the session scheduled for February 1988 was canceled and not rescheduled. The inspector faund that the training schedule required by plant procedures for the EB is not designed to ensure that all training requirements are satisfied. In addition, the licensee's training program is not clearly defined with necessary training topics in written lesson plans. The training program for the EB should be clearly defined such that each member receives the minimum training necessary for fighting structural fires and that this minimum training is repeated on a periodic basis. This it

I

- )

l I

identified as Inspector Followup Item 89-02-01, Improve Emergency I Brigade Training.

The inspector requested the licensee to conduct a fire drill in order to evaluate the EB's performance; f.owever, due to production interruption concerns, the licensee's mar:agement denied the inspector's request. An EB -drill will be witnessed during a subsequent inspection. '4

e. Fire Protection Audits The inspector reviewed two recent audits of the fire protection program. These audits were:

October 10-14, 1988; American Nuclear Insurers (ANI)

Fire Hazards Analysis Report (Rev. A); Impell Corporation The audit by ANI was conducted as part of the routine insurance carrier inspection program. This audit resulted in 42 recommenda-tions and four suggestions for improvement of the fire protection program.

The Fire Hazards Analysis Report represents the licensee's first attempt to quantitatively evaluate the fire hazards in various plant' areas. This audit resulted in approximately 88 individual recommendations.

The licensee is presently evaluating the recommendations made in these two audits. During the review of these audits, several recommendations were identified which the inspector also endorsed, based an observations made during this inspection. These recommendations were:

Maintenance and testing procedures for fire protection systems and equipment should be developed. This program is essential to ensure that fire systems are functional during an emergency.

Emergency gas shutoffs should be provided for all natural gas lines to plant equipment.

The licensee should evaluate the feasibility of providing gas detection devices in plant areas where natural gas and bydrogen l is used in process equipment.

l Fire barriers adequate to contain the fire hazards within the  !

controlled area emergency diesel room and the hot oil room l should be provided. This would include providing fire barriers, I

fire doors, fire rated penetration seals, and fire dampers to enclose the areas. In addition, diking should be provided in the room to contain the combustible liquids within the area.

j i

~-7--__ q

?.. .

4 g

Detection'should be provided throughout the ADU Control Room. A l

, detector is presently provided in'the manned area of the Control Room; however,- detectors should be provided behind -and within control panels.

The excess flow valve, bypass valves for- the hydrogen and natural gas lines should be locked closed and verified locked by periodic _ inspection.

The fire protection sprinklers over loading dock1 should be.

returned to service. These sprinklers were originally isolated due to criticality concerns in this area. These concerns appear to have been eliminated.

The licensee should evaluate all the recommendations in these two audits as well as those endorsed by the inspector and develop 'a corrective action plan. Inspector Followup Item 89-02-02, Review

_ Corrective Actions in Response to Fire Hazards Analysis and ANI Recommendations, is'being opened to review these corrective actions.

f. Plant Tour.and Inspection of Fire Protection Equipment (1) Inspection of Fire Brigade Manual Fire Fighting Equipment-The inspector performed an inspection of the EB fire fighting equipment, consisting of fire hoses, nozzles, tools and miscellaneous equipment, stored in the EB response truck located near the vehicle access portal.

A total of eight sets of fire fighting protective clothing, six sets of self contained breathing apparatus and six spare air cylinders were provided at this location.

Based on this inspection, the designated fire brigade equipment appeared to be properly maintained and stored in ready condition.

(2) Outside Fire Protection Walkdown The inspector verified that the two fire water storage tanks contained the minimum amount of water outlined in an October 13, 1987, memorandum of 170,000 gallons (26 feet) for tank 1 and 212,500 gallons (27 feet) for tank 2. The two site fire pumps were aligned to take suction from their respective storage tank and discharge into the site fire loop. The diesel fuel tank for each fire pump was found full.

The following sectional control valves in the outside fire protection water supply system were inspected and verified to be properly aligned and locked in position:

i

5 Valve Position PIV 11 Open PIV 12 Open PIV 13 Open PIV 45 Open Fire hydrants and fire hose equipment houses 3 and 4 were inspected. The equipment houses contained the minimum equipment required by plant procedures and that specified in NFPA-24, Private Fire Service Main and Their Appurtenances. The equipment appeared to be properly maintained.

During the tour of the exterior of the facility, the inspector noted ' that the licensee has established a hazardous ste storage area near the UFe cylinder storage area. The -.,te is stored in a diked area; however, the drainage from this area has been sealed off. Therefore, if a fire were to occur in the area the diked area may be overflowed rapidly by fire fighting water.

The licensee should evaluate the need to relocate this storage area away from the UFe cylinder area.

The inspector noted that the fire protection sprinkler piping in fire pump house 1 is not protected from corrosion. The inspector recommended that some protection be provided for this piping.

(3) Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of the facility to evaluate housekeeping and inspect fire protection systems installed within the facility.

Housekeeping was good. The licensee stored combustible trash in noncombustible waste containers with approved lids for containing a fire within the container. Flammable and combustible liquids in use were being handled in safety cans.

The inspector did note some areas where there appeared to be excessive storage of flammable and combustible liquids; however, the licensee took immediate corrective action to resolve these problems.

The fire protection sprinkler system recently installed in the UFe cylinder storage bay was inspected. This system appears adequate to protect the area.

During this tour, the inspector noted that stairwell doors were being propped open. The inspector discussed with the licensee's management the need to maintain these doors closed since they are fire exits.

.j 6

3. Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)

An Operational Safety Assessment (0SA)' Inspection was conducted at the licensee's facility in January of 1987. This inspection resulted in a number of items being identified in the fire prevention / protection area.

During this. inspection the following items from the OSA were reviewed.

a. .(Closed) 87-01-01, Placing the ' industrial safety audit functions -

under the Regulatory Compliance Committee. 'This item was opened to ensure that industrial safety and fire protection concerns were addressed by the Regulatory Compliance Committee.

The licensee had revised Regulatory Affairs' Procedures RA-102 and RA-104 to include reviews of all plant design changes and plant inspections for safety and fire protection concerns.

b. (Closed) 87-01-08, A comprehensive fire prevention / protection program based _ on a plant-wide fire hazards analysis performed by a fire safety specialist was not established.

The licensee had a Fire Hazards Analysis performed at the facility in 1987 by an engineering consultant. This analysis resulted in a number of recommendations which the licensee is presently developing corrective actions for. Therefore this item is considered closed.

c. (Closed) 87-01-10, Qualification and responsibilities for site fire prevention / control personnel had not been established.

The licensee has designated a Regulatory Engineer within the Regulatory Affairs group who has responsibility for the fire prevention program. This position has responsibilities established in plant procedures for conducting housekeeping and plant fire system inspections, review of plant design changes and program fire protection implementation.

d. (0 pen) 87-01-14, Developing site specific emergency plans to provide guidance to the Emergency Brigade. During the OSA, Pre-fire Plans had not been developed for the facility.

The licensee is presently developing Pre-fire Plans for each plant area. Work has not yet been completed; however, the licensee's staff provided the inspector with an example. Each plan will contain a plant drawing of the area and the following information in text form:

Area Description Entry Points Occupancy Areas of Trapped Occupants Fire Hazards

l

• [l a . :

. .. 4 l

7 i

l Salvage Considerations Smoke Evacuation Fire-Systems:In the Area Fire Fighting Strategy l This information ir. adequate for the Pre-fire Plan and it appears-l that plans developed in this format will be. acceptable once'all the plans have been developed.

e. (Closed)-' 87-01-19, Developing an' inspectiori and maintenance program for passive fire barriers.

The licensee has not designated any plant barriers as fire barriers.

L Therefore, there is presently no need for an inspection and maintenance program.

f. (Closed)- 87-01-33,, Fire potential evaluations lacked detailed consideration of sterage of flammable / combustibles in the workplace,

.. control room fires, hydrogen fire potential, and , adequacy of fire l . service main hydrant. locations.

The licensee has had a Fire Hazards Analysis performed at their facility which evaluated the fire potantial in all major plant areas.

This analysis has resulted in a number of recommendations which the u' licensee is presently developing corrective actions for. Therefore, l this item is considered closed.

4. Exit Interview

' The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 28, 1989, with l 'those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.

Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments'were not received from the licensee.

Item Number Description and Reference 89-02-01 IFI, Improve Emergency Brigade Training, paragraph 2.c.

89-02-02 IFI, Review Ccrrective Actions in Response to Fire Hazards Analysis and ANI Recommendations, paragraph 2.e.

l

__ -