IR 05000263/1998010

Insp Rept 50-263/98-10 on 980427-30.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Plant Support

ML20248B064
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/26/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20248B056	List: IR 05000263/1998010 ML20248B052
References
50-263-98-10, NUDOCS 9806010163
Download: ML20248B064 (12)

Text

.

~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 Docket No: 50-263 License No: DPR-22 Report No:

50-263/98010(DRS)

Licensee: Northem States Power Company Facility:

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Location: 2807 W. County Road. 75 Monticello, MN 55362 Dates: April 27 - 30,1998 Inspector:

Robert Jickling, Emergency Preparedness Analyst Approved by: J. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety 9006010163 980526 PDR ADOCK 05000263 G PDR

_

-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant  !

NRC Inspection Report 50-263/98010 .

This inspection reviewed the Emergency Preparedness (EP) program, an aspect of Plant Support. The inspector selectively evaluated the quality of EP program related audits and reviews, reviewed the effectiveness of management controls, verified the adequacy of emergency response facilities and equipment, reviewed a number of EP training and i

qualification activities, and included follow-up on previous inspection findings. This was an announced inspection conducted by one regional inspecto Overall, the EP program had been maintained in an effective state of operational readiness. Emergency response facilities, equipment, and supplies had been well maintained. Management support to the program was apparent and interviewed key ,

emergency response personnel demonstrated appropriate knowledge of responsibilities and emergency procedure *

In an actual emergency plan activation, the emergency plan was effectively implemented by proper classification of the event. The subsequent self-assessment

. was detailed and provided good assessments of the event, plant response, specific improvement items, and recommended corrective actions. (Section P1)

.

The inspected emergency response facilities, equipment, supplies, and prompt alert and notification system sirens were well maintained. Semi-annual augmentation tests have been acceptably conducted by the licensee on a quarterly basis. (Section P2.1)

.

Reviewed sections of the emergency plan and implementing procedures were consistent with regulatory guidance. The emergency implementing procedures were very detailed and thorough. Shift Emergency Communicator notification packages and preprinted classification guideline labels were an effective enhancement to the progra (Section P3) -

The EP training program appeared effective. Appropriate knowledge of emergency l- responsibilities and procedures was demonstrated by selected key emergency response organization personnel. All personnel reviewed were qualified for their emergency response positions. Appropriate performance was observed during a Radiation Protection / Field Team drill. (Section PS)

* The licensee's 1996 and 1997 Quality Generation Services EP program audits and the ;

'

1998 program observation reports were effective and satisfied the requirements of 10

'

CFR 50.54(t). The audits were of good scope and depth and the 1998 observation '

reports indicated an improving trend in effectiveness for the EP program related to ,

offsite interface. (Section P7) i

- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

'

Report Details IV. Plant Support

'P1 Emergency Plan Activations i Insoection Scone (82701)

i The inspector reviewed records and documentation regarding plant response for an actual emergency plan activation which occurred in 199 Observations and Findinas An Unusual Event was declared at 3:00 a.m. on October 17,1996, when the plant I discharge canal radiation monitor alarmed. The shift manager appropriately classifed 1- the Unusual Event using Emergency Classification Guideline (ECG) number 1 of A.2-

'

101, emergency action level (EAL) 1a. Offsite notifications to the State local counties were made within the required 15 minutes and the notification to the NRC was made at approximately 3:37 a.m.. well within the required one hour. The Unusual Event was terminated at 4:27 a.m. on the same day when the canal monitor indicated less than the alarm setpoint. Offsite notifications for termination were also made within the required time The response to the event was reviewed by the licensee and a detailed analysis report was compiled by the emergency preparedness (EP) staff. Five areas for improvement

'

items were identified in the report, which included an evaluation that the EAL was unnecessarily restrictive, the shift emergency communicators (SECS) were not called to the control room simultaneously, the Radiological Emergency Coordinator and  !

Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) Coordinator were notified without being requested, the Emergency Manager did not contact the Vice President of Nuclear Generation and Northem States Power (NSP) Communications, and the SECS did not use the new Emergency Notification Report Form and Emergency Call List forms for the Unusual Event. These items were tracked and corrective actions, which included procedure changes which were added to continuing training, were completed in an effective and timely manner for all issues identifie j The assessment identified, with the exception of the minor areas for improvement, that plant personnel ermrgency response was effective, classifications were properly made, and offsite agency notifications were made in a timely manner. The report was detailed and effectively covered the plant's response to the event. Corrective actions were found effectively taken in a timely manne Conclusions The inspector concluded that the licensee appropriately implemented the emergency plan when declaring an Unusual Event. The emergency classification was made

_

h l

.

l correctly and offsite notifications were timely. The self-assessment of the event l identified some areas for improvement. Corrective action appeared effectiv P2 ' Status of EP Facilities, Equipment, and Resources P Material Condition of Emeroency Resoonse Facilities (ERFs)

1 - Insoection Scone (82701)

i l The inspector evaluated the material condition of equipment in the control room, I Technical Suppott Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and EOF. The licensee demonstrated the operability of several pieces of emergency response equipment, including radiological survey instruments, dose assessment and plant data computers, and communications equipment.

! Observations and Findinas The control room was well maintained and had current EP procedures available. The SEC notification form packages were effectively filed and easily accessible. The i- emergency notification system phone was verified operabl The OSC, TSC, and EOF facilities, equipment, and supplies were well maintained. The plant recently upgraded the plant radio system to an 800 megahertz system to improve the clarity of radio communications. This radio system was available in the emergency response facilities for inplant response teams and offsite field teams. The system was t

verified operable and communications were observed to be very clear by the inspecto Status boards in the EOF, TSC, and OSC were in good material condition and ready for use. All commercial, dedicated, and licensee phone lines checked were found operabl Prompt alert and notification system (PANS) siren records for 1996 and 1997 were :

reviewed by the inspector. The overall annual operability average for 1996 was 95.88 percent, with 88 percent for the lowest month's average. The 1997 annual operability average was 97.74 percent, with 94 percent for the lowest month's average. Annual siren operability exceeded the acceptability limit of greater than or equal to 90 percent and the monthly acceptability limit of 70 percen i l

The inspector reviewed records for the semi-annual augmentation tests. The tests provided off-hours calls to off shift emergency response organization personnel to determine the if they could respond to their ERFs in time to augment the on shift crew within specified times of an emergency declaration. The licensee was conducting augmentation tests on a quarterly basis instead of semi-annually. Appropriate records ;

were available for documentation of the tests.: Discussion with the licensee identified the i methods of testing performed by the plant as well as other licensees in the regio l

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ __ ______

.

c. Conclusions The emergency response facilities, equipment, and supplies were well maintained. The PANS sirens were well maintained. Semi-annual augmentation tests have been conducted by the licensee on a quarterly basis. Records indicated the licensee acceptably met their commitment P3 EP Procedures and Documentation a. Insoection Scoce (82701)

The inspector reviewed a selection of emergency plan implementing procedures (EPIPs)

and emergency plan section b. Observations and Findinas Emergency Plan Section 7.0," Emergency Facilities and Equipment," of Revision 17 of the Emergency Plan was reviewed by the inspector. Section 7.0 identified locations, purpose, and equipment available in the control room, TSC, OSC, EOF, and Back-up EOF. A change indicated that the plant telephone system is powered by an uninteruptable power source and backed up by a two diesel power supplies. Normal on-and off-site communication systems, dedicated telephones, and radios were effectively identified in this section. Safety Parameter Display System, Seismic Monitoring System, Meteorological Monitoring System, Fire Detection, Post Accident Sample System, and Process Radiation Monitoring System were also described in this sectio EPIP A.2-101, " Classification of Emergencies," Revision 23, was reviewed by the inspector. This revision included a change to the procedure to correct the unnecessarily  ;

'

restrictive EAL for declaration of an Unusual Event when the discharge canal monitor exceeded 20 counts per second. The change added: "when the Shift Manager believes that the increase in the discharge canal monitor is due to a release of radioactive byproduct materials from the plant." This change should allow the Shift Manager more time to determine whether the increase in the discharge canal monitor is due to natural or man-made isotope A.2-102, " Notification of. Unusual Event (NUE)," Revision 14, was revised to include <

directions that the SEC be directed to complete a new Emergency Notification Report Form and a new NUE Call List. This addressed the analysis report comment from the actual Unusual Event declared October 17,1996, when the new forms had not been use The SECS emergency forms were packaged together in complete sets and then shrink wrapped for each of the four emergency classifications, termination, and non-emergency notifications. Preprinted, self-adhesive labels which clearly and legibly identify the classification guidelines on the notification forms for the offsite notifications to the State and county agencies were also made available to the SECS to improve clarity in offsite notification ,

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____--_____ - _ _____ -_- _ __ _ __ ___- _._- __-

.

'

c. Conclusions Reviewed sections of the emergency plan and implementing procedures were consistent with regulatory guidance. The reviewed EPIPs were very detailed. SEC notification packages and preprinted classification guideline labels were an effective enhancement to the progra P5 Staff Training and Qualification in EP Insoection Scone (82701)

The inspector reviewed various aspects of the licensee's EP training program. Thit included interviews with selected key emergency response organization (ERO)

personnel, including a TSC Emergency Director, Shift Emergency Communicator, and control room Shift Manager / Emergency Director. Attendance records, examinations, and the current Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Telephone Directory were reviewed to determine whethcr ERO personnel were currently qualified. A radiation protection / field team drill was also observed by the inspector. Additionally, a status report of the respirator qualifications of plant personnel was reviewe Observations and Findinas interviews with three key emergency response personnel indicated appropriate knowledge of procedures and emergency responsibilities. Personnel were able to describe their response process in detail and use the EPIPs and forms. The control l room and TSC Emergency Directors demonstrated knowledge of a new protective action recommendation (PAR) flow chart. During the interviews, personnel commented on the general responsiveness of the EP staff, the improvements made to the equipment, and that facility drills used for requalification training were effectiv A review of selected records indicated that drills and training were formally critique Training records were compared with the Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Telephone Directory to verify that ERO personnel listed on the call list were qualified. All ERO personnel selected were currently qualified for their emergency response positions as indicated by their training record A review of the status of the respirator qualifications of plant ERO personnel indicated that 100 percent of Chemistry,93 percent of Radiation Protection,100 percent of Instrument and Control,83 percent of Electrical Maintenance,20 percent of Engineering, and 40 percent of Mechanical Maintenance personnel (including supervisory personnel) were qualified for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).

Numbers of personnel with full face respirator qualifications met or exceeded the number of personnel with SCBA qualification. Plant procedure 4 AWi-08.04.04, l " Respiratory Protection," indicated that for emergency response readiness, superintendents of each department should ensure that medically capable personnel maintain respiratory protection qualification as follows: full face respirators; Radiation t Protection, Chemistry, Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Security. For SCBA;

- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

.-

.

'

Radiation Protection, Chemistry, Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering. In the respirator status report, the licensee concluded that they were in compliance with all reguistions or commitments and that continued attention should be maintained to ensure compliance with Respiratory Protection 4 AWi-08.04.0 The inspector observed a radiation protection / field team (FT) drill. The scenario

. included simulated accident conditions, meteorological conditions, a radiation release from the plant, and a radiation plume beyond the site boundary. The inspector assessed one of the two FTs responding to this scenario. Both FTs were briefed prior to leaving the EOF and then dispatched in vehicles. The observed FT demonstrated proper radiological monitoring and effective communications with the EOF communicator as they searched for the simulated radioactive plum Field team communications were enhanced by the use of the plant's new 800 megahertz radio system. Back-up cellular telephone communications were also demonstrated when requested. The radiation protection 16chnician appropriately used survey equipment, procedures, and maps during the drill. The EOF personnel effectively directed and communicated the field team in an attempt to locate the radioactive plume. The field team capably communicated, located, and surveyed the plume during this dril Conclusions The EP training program appeared effective. Appropriate knowledge of emergency l responsibilities and procedures was demonstrated by selected key ERO personnel. All i personnel reviewed in the Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Telephone Directory were j qualified for their emergency response positions. Appropriate performance was j observed during a Radiation Protection / Field Team drill. Emergency response organization personnel respiratory qualifications were being appropriately tracke P6 EP Organi.'.ation and Administration The EP program reporting structure remained unchanged. The Superintendent of l Emergency Planning and General Training continued to report to the Training Manager  !

who reported to the Plant Manager. In the last two years job changes and retirements l left the program less than fully staffed. Changes in EP staff personnel included the j promotion of a senior technical instructor to the EP Superintendent position in July of 1997. During the first quarter of 1998, replacements, which retumed the EP program j staffing to its original compliment, were hired. These included two senior technical l

'

Instructors and one technical instructor. These three new staff personnel brought with L them 10 to 25 years sxperience with Northem States Power Company in engineering, L

radiation protection, and as a corporata emergency planner. The inspector found that

!- the EP program appeared to continue to be effective. Management support continued

!- to be strong as indicated by the replacement of EP staf ,

l

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

.

P7- Quality Assurance in EP Activities Insoection Scone (82701) -

l .

L The inspector reviewed the Quality Generation Services Audit Number AG 1996-S-1,

" Plant Support," dated May 25,1996, and Audit Number AG 1997-S-1, " Plant Support,"

dated May 5,1997. The observation reports for the AG 1998-S-1, " Plant Support," audit were also reviewed, however the final audit report had not yet been complete Observations and Findinos The Quality Generation Services 1996 audit, from January 1 through April 25,1996,'

conducted by a four person audit team, looked at plant support which included Monticello plant, Monticello Training Center, Prairie Island plant, Prairie Island Training

. Center, and the Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Department. This audit found Monticello's emergency insponse plan to be thorough and complete and the required aspects outlined in NUREG 0654 were present and appeared to be adequate. Using phone surveys or face-to-face interviews the auditors also concluded that NSP showed excellent effort towards fostering a close and trusting relationship with community and govemment agencies. - No problems were identified in this audi The format of the 1997 plant support audit was similar to the 1996 audit in that it included both Monticello and Prairie island plants and the Environmental Regulatory Affairs Department, but it also added the response agencies of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The audit team,15 auditors over a three month period, found the Monticello Emergency Plan to be implemented and well maintained. The EP personnel were found to be trained and knowledgeable for their assigned duties, drills were realistic, +

challenging, and demonstrated good teamwork.' EP equipment was found to be adequate and functional. ' The Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) was found to be in agreement with the emergency plan and the audit team concluded that the emergency plan was effectively implemented. Radiological Emergency Preparedness meetings with the plant, State, counties, and local city agencies, effectively addressed current issues and NSP provided community support and effective govemment interface I based on interviews with county officials. No adverse conditions were noted by the audit - ;

tea l The 1998 audit report had not been completed, however approximately three months of observation reports were reviewed by the inspector. More emphasis had been placed ,

i on the adequacy of offsite interface with the State and local counties by observing meetings and conducting phone calls to ask specific questions of the agencie ;

Monticello's emergency plan was found to be maintained and in agreement with the i USAR. Emergency personnel were found to be trained, facilities were maintained in a ;

state of readiness for emergency response, and PANS sirens were observed to be functional.- EP's self assessment process was effective through use of critiques during ;

drills, exercises, and the Unusual Event declared in 1996. Auditors also identified that j NSP continued to effectively interface with State, county, and local communitie i

'

- _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _

..

One change made in 1997 was the transfer of the stand-alone EP Deficiency Tracking Program to the site's issue tracking system (CHAMPS). This change was made to

'

increase awareness of management of EP issues, to increase efficiency in tracking and notifying assigned individuals, and link EP issues to a formal, plant-wide close-out proces Conclusions i The licensee's 1996 and 1997 Quality Generation Services EP program audits and the l 1998 program observation reports were effective and satisfied the requirements of 10

CFR 50.54(t). The audits were of good scope and depth and the 1998 observation reports indicated an improving trend in effectiveness for the EP program related to offsite interface. The change in the EP issue trackirg process appeared to be an '

effective enhancemen P8 Miscellaneous EP lasues P (Ooen) Insoection Followuo item No. 50-263/97016-01(DRS): During the 1997 emergency exercise, the Emergency Manager in the Emergency Operations Facility was uncertain of the need to declare a General Emergency. The lack of sufficient j

'

indicators in the Emergency Classification Guideline Number 28.B for determining the loss of the fuel clad fission product barrier was identified. Discussion with the licensee indicated that evaluation of this issue was in progress. This item will remain open pending completion of appropriate corrective action P8.2 (Ocen) Insoection Followuo item No. 50-263/97016-02(DRS): During the 1997 emergency exercise, an inspection Followup item was identified for problems the field monitoring teams encountered with determining their present location and assigned destinations due to their maps not accurately reflecting area roads. Discussion with the licensee indicated that evaluation of this issue was in progress. This item will remain open pending appropriate corrective action V. Management Meeting X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of the onsite inspection on April 30,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The inspector asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identifwx l l

I i

I

.

"

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED l

Licensee B. Day, Training Manager G. Holthaus, Emergency Preparedness Instructor L. Hoskins, Quality Specialist T. LaPlant, Emergency Preparedness and General Training Superintendent B. Leyk, Emergency Preparedness Instructor M. Offerdahl, Emergency Preparedness Planner NBC D. Wrona, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 82701 Operationsi Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program ITEMS DISCUSSED Discussed 50-263/97016-01(DRS) IFl Clarification needed to Emergency Classification Guideline 2 /97016-02(DRS) IFl Field team problem; communications, equipment handling, and map _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______ __ _ _

..

l .

!

' LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulations DPR Demonstration Power Reactor DRS Division of Reactor Safety EAL Emergency Action Level ECG Emergency Classification Guideline ED Emerge,cy Director EM Emergency Manager EOF- Emergency Operations Facility ,

E Emergency Preparedness EPIP Emergency Plan implementing Procedure ERF Emergency Response Facility ERO Emergency Response Organization FT Field Team IFl Inspection Followup Item NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSP Northem States Power Company NUE Notification of Unusual Event OSC Operations Support Center PANS Prompt Alert and Notification System PAR Protective Action Recommendation PDR NRC Public Document Room SCBA- Self Contained Breathing Apparatus SEC Shift Emergency Communicator

SM ' Shift Manager ,

TSC Technical Support Center j

!

!

)

i

~

I

- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ . _

.

.

PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Emergency Plan 7.0," Emergency Facilities And Equipment," Revision 1 Procedure A.2-101, " Classification of Emergencies," Revision 2 Procedure A.2-102," Notification of Unusual Event (NUE)," Revision 1 i i

!

, 12 l

).

I