IR 05000155/1990015
| ML20059C625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1990 |
| From: | Dan Barss, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C614 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-15, NUDOCS 9009050210 | |
| Download: ML20059C625 (5) | |
Text
-
=.
k
.
.
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
'
REGION-III
"
Report No. 50-155/90015(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-155
>
-
Licensee: Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
'
Inspection At:
Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, flichigan Inspection Conducted: August 14-16, 1990
. Inspector:
Da a
a44h.
Date (A$k$E SE Approved By: William Snell, Chief n/ad/#o Radiological Controls and Date Emergency Preparedness Section Inspection Summary Inspection on August 14-16, 1990 (Report No. 50-155/90015(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced. inspection of~ the following areas of the Big Rock Point emergency (preparedness program; licensee actions on revious identified items IP 92701); activations of the emergency plan IP 92700 ; operational status of the emergency preparedness program
,
IP 82701 limited to emergency response facilities, equipment, training and independent audits.
The inspection involved one NRC inspector.
Results: No violations, deficiencies or deviations were identified during this. inspection.
One open item was evaluated and remains open concerning emergency environmental sampling. The Emergency Preparedness program continues to receive adequate attention to ensure maintenance of appropriate emergency response capability.
,
g Q
.
_
-
.
yy i
.
. y n
,..k r
!
.
DETAILS I
1.
Persons Contacted E
"
- W. L..Beckman, Plant Manager N. Beer, Chemistry / Health physics Superintendent
- M. - A.. Hobe, Senior Emergency Planner
~*L. Monshor, Quality Assurance Superintendent
.
.
LJ K. Penrod, Emergency Planner P. Loomis, Emergency Planning Administrator
!1 D. Fugere, Senior Emergency Planner R. Backer, General Office Q. A. Supervisor of Audits s
- Denotes those attending the NRC exit interview held on August 10, 1990.
The inspector.also contacted other licensee personnel-during the course-(;
of the inspection.
L l 2.
Ljcensee Actions on' Previously-Identified Items (92701)
(0 pen) Open Item No. 50-155/89010-01: This item was identified during the annual Big Rock Point Emergency Preparedness Exercise conducted in May.1989 and concerned sampling techniques demonstrated by the
+
Environmental Monitoring Team, training of plant staff persoanel on environmental sampling under emergency conditions and the adequacy of procedure EPIP-5F, " Environmental Monitoring."
The licensee has revised EPIP-5F to include additional guidance for L
obtaining environmental samples. This guidance includes general instructions for each particular sample type, for example:- ' air samples, milk, well water, lake water, municipal water supplies, grasses, leafy vegetables, soil and snow samples, p
The' inspector reviewed this procedure with cognizant licensee personnel L
and identified several items that lacked clarity. Omitted from the procedural text were instructions to mark samples with dose rates and sample times.
Log sheets provided'with the procedure.do specify recording sample time, but this information should also be recorded on samples to ensure proper identification.
Log sheets do not provide for i'
recording of dose rates other than possibly in the remarks section.
The licensee is currently conducting training for emergency response personnel who would be called on to conduct environmental sampling during emergency conditions. Through discussion with licensee personnel, it was discovered that this training did not include an actual practical demonstration of sampling techniques.
The licensee conducted a mini-drill during the inspection to demonstrate i
emergency environmental sampling capabilities. The inspector noted the i
following observations during this drill:
'
Good contamination. control practices were demonstrated by the Team.
Tools were cleaned, wiped down and surveyed to ensure no cross i
contamination of future samples.
,
i
. -
['[
, :.
'
>
4'
'
'
Environmental TLD's were kept separdted from other potentially k]
radioactive saniples.-
L Environmental air samples were obtained in accordance with
'
procedural guidance.
'
Samples were' labeled 'in accordance with established procedural.
- -
i'
instructions and neatly recorded on provided log sheets.
-'
Radio communications were clear and concise and provided updated '
information as appropriate.
-'
Environmental sample kits generally had adequate supplies necessary to conduct assigned tasks.
The Team did not properly obtain sod samples as directed by the procedure.
o
- The Team did not properly obtain soil samples as directed by the procedure.
At the conclusion of the drill the licensee conducted a critique with controller personnel and players.
Players were given the opportunity to provide self evaluation and make comments and suggestions for improvements to the program, procedures and training needs.
Controllers also provided suggestions for improvement.
Positive and negative findings' of the controllers were discussed with the players.
The observation that the Environmental Sampling Team did not properly obtain soil or sod samples utilizing EPIP-5F is an indication that adequate training, including actual practical demonstration of sampling techniques, has not yet been accomplished. Also, the text of EPIP.5F was not-sufficiently clear to the personnel utilizing it. Th s item will remain open.
Emergency Plan Activations (IP 92700)
w
,
On January 17, 1990, at 1035 hours0.012 days <br />0.288 hours <br />0.00171 weeks <br />3.938175e-4 months <br /> the licensee declared an unusual Event in accordance with Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure 1 (EPIP-1) under Miscellaneous External Events, onsite toxic gas or flammable gas / liquid release, when a propane tank relief valve lifted due to an increase in pressure from atmospheric warming of the tank.
On August 3,1990, at 1440 hours0.0167 days <br />0.4 hours <br />0.00238 weeks <br />5.4792e-4 months <br /> the licensee declared an Unusual Event i
due to a limiting condition of operation (LC0) when a valve failed a
!
<
required stroke test.
For each of these events the iicensee has conducted a review and prepared a _ documentation file containing an event summary description, ' copies of
,
control room logs, completed notification forms utilized, and the shift supervisor's log. A review of these documents indicated that appropriate emergency action levels were identified and properly classified.
Required notifications were made in a timely manner and in accordance i
with established procedural guidance.
J
/
.
_
.
-
N 4 :.,
i
,
n.
.
.
px
No violations'or deviations were identified.
i
'4 N
4.
Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program (IP 82701).
>
i a.
Emergency Response Facilities. Equipment snd Supplies
_!
-
'
L.
An. inspection tour was taken of the licensee's emergency response-T facilities (ERF's) including the Control Room-(CR) and Technical
,
J Support Center (TSC) area the Operational Support Area, and the h
Emergency Operations Facility (E0F).
Each facility was clean
!
,
(,
orderly and ready to function as described in the Emergency Plan.
The TSC Emergency kit was opened and found to contain appropriate
_
sup)1ies as described-in the procedures.to 1 ave been 'left on and the batteries A surve
No spare-batteries were available in the kit. A pocket dosimeter was found-
.to be defective.
Both of these problems were corrected ininediately.
.
,
The OSC Emergency Kit was'also _ opened for inspection and was found to be in order as described procedurally.
Only one set of protective
!
,
clothing and one respirator is stored in the OSC. The respirator is-
L
,
Y not routinely. inspected to ensure operability.
en No violations or deviations were identified.
However, the following
';
items.should be considered for improvement:
,
.
S)are batteries for portab le survey meters could be stored in
t1e kits with the meters.
'
' Respirators in kits could be inspected regularly to ensure
'
their operability,
,
m'
.b.=
Training
,
The licensee is currently (Nuc Pass) to track the training of l':
using.a computer program called " Nuclear
[
Plant Admittance System"
_
i
"
_ personnel assigned to The Emerg' Master Training Plan" clearly ency Response Organization (ER0).-
i Administrative Procedure 1.7, identifies, utilizing _ a matrix format, the initial and annual
'
m L
retraining requirements for each ERO position.
'
A-computer printout of the current training status of each person.
.
assigned to the ERO was reviewed-and it appeared that initial and
,
annual retraining requirement had been met.
y No violations or deviations were identified.
,
c.
Independent Review / Audits The licensee conducts an annual overall audit of the Emergency I
Preparedness Program by completing four separate audits which focus on individual program areas. Only one of these audits had been
'
completed for 1990 as of the date of this report, the other three audits are scheduled as appropriate.
l
i j
/
c
.
h5[$
'
.
,
.
,
,
.
c. ~
>
.
k
Osto
.
.
P The completed audit focused on the Big Rock Point Emergency Planning.
.-;
,
,
This' audit was conducted by personnel.tnowledgeable in the licensee s emergency planning program.' Auditor's did not review areas for which
',
d
,
,
.
they were imnediately involved.with to ensure independence.
r r
t'
The audit was of-sufficient depth and treadth to provide' a good'
- i l
evaluation of the program. 'One item wts identified which was considered
'
. adverse to quality and required correc;1ve action. The licensee took i
prompt action to correct this item.
.
The audit.results'have been reported to both Corporate and Plant J
g Management personnel..
}
IL
.
..
n T:
No violations or deviations were identified..
,;
,
h l5.
Exit' Interview (IP30703)
o)
The;fnspectorl met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section l'
l
'
'
.on August 16,:1990..The-scope-and preliminary l findings were summarized.
M No violations were identified.
The status of the open item described in-
Section 2 was discussed in' detail.
.t
..
The licensee-indicated that none of the matters discussed during the exit i
interview were proprietary.
t
!
- !
.,
'
-
>
..y
'
'.
,
i
,
"
-.
Ia-r s
a i
If
.
,
e r
!
.
e
!
-
i I
f
!
'
-
s l
,
'
S l
., _.
-
i