IR 05000255/2010502
| ML101050504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/2010 |
| From: | Hironori Peterson Operations Branch III |
| To: | Schwartz C Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| References | |
| IR-10-502 | |
| Download: ML101050504 (15) | |
Text
ril 13, 2010
SUBJECT:
PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE INSPECTION 05000255/2010502
Dear Mr. Schwarz:
On March 5, 2010, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline emergency preparedness biennial exercise inspection at your Palisades Nuclear Plant. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on March 5, 2010, with members of your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, one NRC-identified finding of very low safety significance was identified. The finding involved a violation of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and because the issue was entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
If you contest the subject or severity of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector Office at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. In addition, if you disagree with the characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000255/2010502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
REGION III==
Docket No: 50-255 License No: DPR-20 Report No: 05000255/2010502 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant Location: Covert, MI Dates: March 1 through 5, 2010 Inspectors: Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector Robert Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector Thomas Taylor, Resident Inspector Approved by: Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000255/2010502, 3/1/2010-3/5/2010; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Baseline Emergency
Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection.
This report covers a one week period of inspection by two regional inspectors and a resident inspector. One Green finding was identified by the inspectors. The finding was considered a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of NRC regulations. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609,
Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.
NRC-Identified
and Self-Revealed Findings
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
- Green.
The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.
The independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009. The licensee entered the issue in their corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915.
The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness (EP) SDP. The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs. The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).
The finding has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. (P.3(a)) (Section 1EP5)
Licensee-Identified Violations
No violations of significance were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
1EP1 Exercise Evaluation
.1 Exercise Evaluation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the March 2, 2010, biennial emergency preparedness exercises objectives and scenario to ensure that the exercise would acceptably test major elements of the licensees emergency plan and to verify that the exercises simulated problems provided an acceptable framework to support demonstration of the licensees capability to implement the plan. The inspectors also reviewed records of other drills and exercises conducted in 2008 and 2009, to verify that those drills scenarios were sufficiently different from the scenario used in the March 2, 2010 exercise.
The inspectors evaluated the licensees exercise performance, focusing on the risk significant activities of emergency classification, notification, and protective action decision making, implementation of accident mitigation strategies, and correction of past exercise weaknesses in the following emergency response facilities:
- Control Room Simulator (CRS);
- Technical Support Center (TSC); and
- Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
The inspectors also assessed the licensees recognition of abnormal plant conditions, transfer of responsibilities between facilities, internal communications, interfaces with offsite officials, readiness of emergency facilities and related equipment, and overall implementation of the licensees emergency plan.
The inspectors attended post-exercise critiques in the CRS, TSC, and EOF to evaluate the licensees initial self-assessment of their exercise performance.
Later, the inspectors met with the licensees lead exercise evaluators and managers to obtain the licensees findings and assessments of their exercise participants performances. The self-assessments were then compared with the inspectors independent observations and assessments to evaluate the licensees ability to adequately critique their exercise performance. Documents reviewed are listed in the to this report.
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.01-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes
.1 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted a review of all the emergency action level changes and sampled the revisions to the emergency plan to evaluate whether the changes identified in the revisions may have decreased the effectiveness of the emergency plan. The inspection included a review of the 10 CFR 50.54(q) change process documentation.
Since the last NRC emergency plan change inspection and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plant, Revision 18, was implemented based on your determination that the changes resulted in no decrease in effectiveness of the emergency plan and the revised plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC review of the revisions does not constitute formal approval of the changes; therefore, the emergency action level and emergency plan changes remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
This emergency action level and emergency plan changes inspection constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.04-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed action taken to resolve Unresolved Item 05000255/20090005-02 identified during the 2009 biennial emergency preparedness program inspection. The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 through 2009 to ensure the licensee was able to assess the overall maintenance and effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program and to determine if the independent assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors reviewed the licensees evaluation of the adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments. The licensee provided a benchmarking summary report and audit program analysis that was reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors reviewed the documentation and conducted additional interviews with the Quality Assurance staff members. The inspection did not represent an inspection sample.
b. Findings
Introduction:
A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, was identified by the inspectors for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.
Quality Assurances independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups.
Description:
Palisades follows the Entergy Nuclear Emergency Plan Master Audit Plan.
The EP audit plan specifies the EP core scoping elements and the frequency of evaluation in each functional element. The evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments is listed as a mandatory core scope element and requires evaluation during the surveillance conducted every 12 months. The Entergy Nuclear Management Manual states the audits of the emergency preparedness program must review all elements of the program at least once every 24 months. If an audit is to be performed beyond 12 months from the previous audit, an assessment shall be performed to include performance indicators.
For the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), Michigan Department of State Police Emergency Management Division is the leading state agency for emergency response planning and operations. The local governments in the EPZ include Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren counties. In the 2008 Quality Assurance audit report, the auditor evaluated the interface of the licensee with State and local governments as satisfactory. The auditor made contact with officials from the Michigan State Police, Allegan, and Van Buren counties. Berrien County was not contacted.
During the 2009 audit, the auditor made contact with Berrien County and also evaluated the interface as adequate. The State and the other two counties were not contacted.
Prior to the 2009 contact, Berrien County had not been contacted for a period greater than 24 months.
As a result of the inspection, the licensee performed a bench marking study to evaluate their audit program in comparison to other programs in the industry and evaluate the use of various methodologies and performance indicators. In addition, the licensee developed a white paper discussing the issue. The study found the licensees level of detail for monitoring performance and conducting surveillances could be improved to meet the rule criteria. The white paper found more effort should have been made when conducting the surveillances to evaluate the interfaces with all groups. The licensees Quality Assurance proposed courses of action to improve the audit process and corrective actions to meet requirements.
Analysis:
The inspectors determined the licensees failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program within the specified time periods as required by regulation was a performance deficiency.
Specifically, Quality Assurances evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments for all groups exceeded the 12-month and the extended 24-month audit period. The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness SDP.
The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs.
The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).
The finding involving the failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009.
(P.3(a))
Enforcement:
10 CFR Part 50.54(t) requires, in part, that all elements of the emergency preparedness program must be reviewed at intervals not to exceed 12 months. The review must include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments.
Contrary to the above, in 2008 and 2009, the licensee failed to evaluate the adequacy of interfaces with all appropriate offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008 (Berrien) and the interface with the State and two counties (Allegan and Van Buren) in 2009. The overall conduct and effectiveness of the EP program both onsite and offsite were not reviewed to ensure all program elements of the emergency plan were being properly implemented. Because the violation was of very low safety significance and was entered into the licensees corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915, the violation is being treated as an NCV, consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (NCV 05000255/2010502-01, Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments).
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification
.1 Drill/Exercise Performance
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled the licensees performance indicator (PI) submittals for Drill/Exercise Performance for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the number of reported drill and exercise opportunities and the licensees critiques and assessments for timeliness and accuracy of the opportunities. The inspectors reviewed the licensees documentation for control room simulator training sessions and other designated drills to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one drill/exercise performance sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Drill Participation PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records and ERO roster to validate the accuracy of the submittals for the number of ERO members assigned to fill key positions and the percentage of ERO members who had participated in a performance enhancing drill or exercise. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one ERO drill participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.3 Alert and Notification System
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled the licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the records of the licensees reported number of successful siren operability tests as compared to the number of siren tests conducted during the reporting period to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one alert and notification system sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (URI)05000255/2009005-02 Adequacy of Evaluation of
Interface with State and Local Governments The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 and 2009 to determine if the assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors determined a violation of NRC requirements had occurred. An NRC identified non-cited violation was documented in 1EP5 of this report and the unresolved issue was closed. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
4OA6 Management Meetings
.1 Exit Meeting Summary
On March 5, 2010, the inspectors presented the inspection results to T. Kirwin and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input items discussed was considered proprietary.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- T. Kirwin, General Manager Plant Operations
- A. Blind, Engineering Director
- D. Hamilton, Nuclear Safety Assurance Director
- D. Malone, Emergency Preparedness Manager
- G. Sleeper, Assistant Operations Manager - Training
- D. Corbin, Assistant Operations Manger - Shift
- P. Anderson, Licensing Manger
- M. Frato, Security Manger
- T. Mulford, Shift Manager
- C. Sherman, Radiation Protection Manager
- B. Ford, Maintenance Manger
- J. Ford, Systems Engineering Manager
- B. Kemp, Design Engineering Manager
- C. Scott, Human Resources Manager
- T. Shewmaker, Chemistry Manager
- J. Walker, Acting Quality Assurance Manager
- O. Gustafson, Entergy Continuous Improvement Manager
- B. Dotson, Licensing Specialist
- J. Fountain, Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
- J. Ridley, Emergency Preparedness Specialist
- N. Brott, Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- J. Ellegood, Senior Resident Inspector
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
- 05000255/2010502-01 NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
Closed
- 05000255/2010502-01 NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
- 05000255/2009005-02 URI Adequacy of Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments Attachment