IR 05000266/1990017
| ML20059B651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1990 |
| From: | Foster J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059B643 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-90-17, 50-301-90-17, NUDOCS 9008290211 | |
| Download: ML20059B651 (11) | |
Text
p**e, p s
,
i
.O
.-
,
"
.
K*
-
m
P'
U.- S.-. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
<
a
.
REGION III
m fuports No. 50-266/900017(DRSS);50-301/900017(DRSS)-
'
' Docket No. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses-No. DPR-24; DPR-27 . Licensee:- Wisconsin E.lectric Power Company - 231 West Michigan ' . - Milwaukee, WI 53201 , ' l Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2' , Inspect' ion' At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, Wisconsin- ,, Inspection Conducted: August 13-17, 1990 - ' .- Inspector: JaTnrs. oster e/soho , Date ' . ' ibm Approved By: :Wi 1 am Snell, Chief t/a.o/Jo_ Radiological Controls and D_a te - ' , ' Emergency Preparedness Section ' , , Inspection Summary-i Inspection o'n August 12-17, 1990-(Reports No. 50-266/900017(DRSS); 50-301/900017(DRSS))- t ,;; Areas Inspected:- R6utine, announced inspection of the following areas'of the P) int. Beach Nuclear Power Plant emergency preparednest program: licensee.
-, . action on previously identified items (IP-92701); followup on; actual emergency- , plan activations-(IP_92700); and operatfor.al status of the emergency
- ,reparedness. program (IP 82701).
The inspection involved one NRC. inspector.- , Results:' No violations, deficiencies or deviations were identified during . _ thist;nspection. =The Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness ' program is being adequately maintained, and problems-identified during.the inspection were regarded as minor.
Emergency preparedness training was '! significantly improved from previous inspections, and minor corrective actions and improvements are still taking place. The overall program is now solid, i based on the continual, incremental-improvements that have been made to the
- program over the past several years.
. r ,
- e
. ' < '
r 1i y' : j ;i, e - ..t. < Q.
- ,
' \\,j's l , .,, .. , i DETAILS ' o 3,' y . . , El.. Persons Contacted ' , q u
- G. Maxwell, Plant Manager
" . R.'Laviolette,oQuality Specialist-Emergency Planning.
..
, , >
- R. Seizert,-Superintendent, Regulatory / Support
- T. Lucas,-QA-Engineer - Corporate
'
- D. Stevens,. Regulatory Specialist
- D. Abts, Sumer Student - EP
?
- J. Polacek,' Site QA.
. . ' H. Gleason,' Coordinator, Emergency Planning L:. Epstein, Emergency Preparedness Training
- The~above personnet attended the August 17, 1990 exit interview.
! iThe; inspector also co ~. acted other members of the licensee's staff during.
a the course of the inspection.
,j y, . 2.- Licensee' Action on Previously-Identified Items-(IP 92701)-
. , , a.
- (0 pen) Open Item No. F.266/90006-01
- ~ During the 1990 annual =
exercise, the license was very slow in obtaining air sample 'results from 'offsite' monitoring teams. This item will remain"open until-adequate demonstratice.:in an exercise.
'I b.
(0 pen) 0 pen Item No. 50-266/90006-02: During the 1990 annual: - exercise, the OSC Operations Director was ' observed performing a-number of tasks which could potentially-distract-him from his ' oversight dutiesiin the 0SC.
It was' recommended that the! scope - .of duties-and responsibilities assigned to the 0SC: Operations [ Director be reexamined. LAn-0SC Renovation Comittee has been.
formed to assess options for revising the layout and.orgenization
1 of the Operations Support Center,(OSC1 1Two meetings of the: > V- -committee have taken place as of this inspection. The comittee 'planstoaddressavenuesfor.improvementofthefunction,hs/ ' organization / staffing, activation / operation,=and faciliti equipment for the OSC.
This item will remain open,--pending. review ' , 'during an annual exercise.
! , Lc.
(0 pen)-Open Item No.'S0-266/90006-03: During the:1990 annual!
. exercise, dose projection data provided to the State of Wisconsin was not updated for a number-of hours. Dose projections were < trending downward, but updated projections should have been provided. This item will remain open, pending successful ,. performance in an annual exercise.
l 3.
Emergency Plan Activations (IP 92700) ' ( -Licensee and NRC records of actual emergency plan activations for the
period July 1989-through August 1990 were reviewed.
These records ' included-(asapplicable): sumaries generated by NRC Duty Officers; ,, Licensee Event Reports (LERs); initial notification message forms to State and NRC officials; followup message forms prepared by onsite F,
I M , ,
p + - , , k,
'% '
- . w < personnel; and evaluations of licensee records for each event.
During this time: period,'the. licensee declared one Unusual Event.
L On August' 20, 1989, an Unusual Event at Point Beach Ocit 2 was declared e"~ ' at 1644 hours due to loss of electrical load with the rer.ctor power?at greater than 50 percent. The event was terminated at 1856. hours on:the' ,, - same date.
This event was correctly' classified per the then current . revision of the licensee's Emergency. Action Level- (EAL) scheme.
Records generated by.onsite personnel for the declaration were sufficiently wel1~ .
detailed to facilitate later reconstruction of their emergency response activi ties.- The emergency declaration was made in a, timely manner following the~ initiating event.. Initial notifications :of -State,. local; . and NRC officials were completed within the. regulatory time limits.
' -following the declaration.
' Included in the previous (August 14',1989) NRC emergency preparedness routine inspection report (No. 50-266/89023) was a recommendation that the Emergency Action Level associated with loss of electrical load (with no other system failures or perturbations) be deleted. There is no
regulatory requirement or guidance on classification of such events 1 y ewed as normal, anticipated plant transients from an emergency ._p'eparedness standpoint. This EAL was. subsequently deleted-.from the'- < ._ cJrrent revision of the Point Beach EALs.
E'aluation of records associated with tha actual emergency plan.
a;tivation were'very thorough, including review of generated a accumentation. Licensee review of response events identified that no.
documentation was available to substantiate that update. notifications
- '~
to local authorities ~had.been made per the applicable procedure, and this discrepancy was the subject of a nonconformance. report.
c y Although the-above evaluation was wel1< done, discussion with licensee ' ~ .personnelLindicated that there:is no' procedure associated with the review of actions:taken during an Emergency Plan ' activation, and it q - -was recommended that this be proceduralized. Such a procedure would ,.L.
prescribe-the general timeframe for an activation review, items to be- > reviewed, format and distribution of the resulting report, and describe ' D Lany desired attachments (such as a chronology of actions, excerpts from l control room logs, notification forms, reconnendations for improvement, media reports, related nonconformance reports) to the report.
l, ,, ., No violations or deviations were identified; however, the following i, p item should be considered for improvement:
A procedure should be developed to govern the review of actual , Emergency Plan activations.
i m , i 4.
Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program (IP 82701) .1 a.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures f l~ Revisions to the Point Beach Emergency Plan have been provided I < ' to the~ assigned NRC reviewer on a timely basis.
Reviews.of the revisions made to the emergency preparedness program have either
indicated that major changes have not been made, or that major ) h {
e . - _
p , , . - K j- - , y .- - , , g* '
changes.had not adversely affected the'overall sta u of emergenev l < preparedness. :In a number of-cases -licensee ~ personnel, discussed- ' - proposed changes:with the' assigned' reviewer prior to' making the- , -change. Licensee personnel lwere' aware that changer to the Emergency Plan determined to decrease the effectiveness:of t w plan could not be implemented without' prior NRC _ approval.
. - Review and updating of the Emergency Plan is_ covered in~ general . fashion in Emergency Plan.Section EP 8.0, " Maintaining Emergency . Preparedness". Overall handling of site procedures is providet by.
procedure'PBNP 2.1..', " Classification, Review, and Approval of '~ -Procedures". The inspector reviewed the specific procedure (PBNP q 2.2.6 " Emergency Plan Manual, Implementing Procedures and J n Maintenance Procedures", Revision 14)' directing review, modification - l > and approval of changes to the licensee's Emergency Plan 'and ' Emergency Plan implementing procedures. This procedure also covers the various procedure appendices, forms and call lists, Emergency Plan Maintenance Procedures, TSC and E0F " guidebooks". This , - revision of the procedure references the General Superintendent.- Operations:as the " cognizant group head" for review of Emergency Plan and; Implementing Procedure revisions, although this position,no s longer exists. Discussion with licensee personne1' indicated that a- > change to.the procedure, correcting the above-and other items,. was currently in process. No other-problems were noted.
Site procedures prov_ide for the appropriate distribution of plan , modifications onsite, and plan change transmittal to the NRC within _e 30 days of approval.. Copies of the Emergency Plan and implementing , , procedures sent offsite are considered as " uncontrolled copies" since they cannot be! audited by the plant staff.
, The' inspector verified that current copies of the Emergency Plan and.
] Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs).were available in the.
e* ~ onsite Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the. Control Room.
A review of copies.of the Emergency Plan 'and EPIPs in the training . department indicated that the' documents were controlled copies, and " > were on distribution as'such. However, while both copies were >* " marked " controlled", they lacked a controlled copy number, update , tracking sheet, and.the EALs in the EPIPs were not the current revision.
Document control personnel indicated that copies of the Emergency Plan:and EPIPs are being replaced, and these copies had
, not been addressed as yet, Apparently, updating of the EPIP EALs had inadvertently been missed. All other copies of these documents-reviewed-contained the current revision of the EALs, and this appeared to be a singular oversight.
, No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs), Equipment, and Supplies The onsite Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs): Control Room, Technical Support Center, Operational Support Center, and Emergency Operations Facility, were toured and were as described in the Eme_rgency Plan and relevant Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures
) . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
gm q' , , !9 g
- L
, (C ' f ' g
. . , . .. . l . (EPIPs). All facilities appeared to be in an ~ acceptable state of- _ " ~ operational. readiness.
Emergency Notification System telephones.
, a
(NRC " Red Phones") were successfully tested in the E0F,nTSC, and' i ' . the~ NRC-room near the TSC.
- , inspection' of. a..small, representative sample of essential? equipment,- -instrumentation and supplies stored.1n the TSC, OSC Health Physics
- )
, , Room, and EOF. revealed 900' supply Taintenance,lwi1h one minor ,, ~
- problem area. An inspection of fivid monitoring eqsipment stored'.
. ' . in the' E0F revealed that~ the batteries were dead in % Bicron model RS0-5 survey instruments. These are subject.to a. quarterly ! inventor '(9-volt)y. More than adequate supplies of unused replacement batteries were present in the kits. Also, one Ludlum Model .; 3 survey instrument stored in the E0F was found to be left on; Lits .
batteries. registered at the-low end of the battery check scale..and i _, they were replaced. A large supply of replacement: batteries, in~ .t good condition, was available.
t
- v In both of,the above cases, procedures call for verification of'
, .
- survey instrument function prior to use and any battery problem
should be.quickly: identified and rectified utilizing the replacement.
" battery supplies.
Otherwise, equipment and supplies appeared in W good condition, without deterioration,istored batteries appeared =
- fresh and;useab.le, potassium iodide supplies had not passed.their-P expiration, dates, calculators wereLfu s tional, survey instruments d,
' i, 'were within calibration dates.and functioned whan-tested.
' It was noted that the.TSC decontaminatimi shower-(found to be . ' ' ' unusable during the March, 1990 exercise, is marked with a Mdefect ' tag"1(number 26016, dated March 15,1990)lindicating that the shower ' is. inoperable'and needs a' curtain or door : installed to help contain m $ postulated contamination.
Discussion.w P.h licensee personnel; i, indicated that no similar shower is.available in the women's-
- restroom, although provisions could be made for use.of the' shower
<in case-a female plant worker became contaminated.. ~ > , - A new. telephone, for use by security. personnel, has been added to
the TSC, and a'new filing cabinet has been procured for procedur'e s torage.
, New posters and telephone decals providing. siren response information for the transient population have been designed and - should be distributed in the near future.
! . A specification (PB-445) has been-written and approved for procurement of -a microcomouter based voice communications emergency < notification system, which is planned to be operational before 1991.
This system is intended to contact appropriate emergency responders via telephone, provide a message, request information,.and recognize ' touch-tone responses to questions regarding ability to respond.
~Per ?he design specification, if the contacted individual does not answer, or indicate < he is unable to respond, the system would i proceed to call alternate-responders.
, e' i
, h t
. -- - -
_ _ _ - -... -. -
.. t
. ' ' .. The Emergency Planning group utilizes the " emergency planning-callup" program to schedule periodic emergency preparedness activities suchlas equipment inventories.- Appropriate inventory checklists addressed periodic replacement of perishable items, verification of the current calibration of survey instruments.and air samplers, and functional tests of battery powered equipment.
Inventory checklists also specifiti minimum quantitics of items and. required verification of the supplies' locations: and completeness.
Inventory procedures inc?uded provisions for' conducting inventories after use of. the supplies or following discovery of an unsealed supply container, in-addition to the periodic inventory requirement.
A selective review of completed check 14 :ts for the period January-1990 through August 1990 indicated that the licensee had completed procedurally required periodic communications equipment checks, first aid supplies inventories, and inventories of Health Physics' and office supplies reserved for use by emergency responders.
Locations addressed in these checklists included: onsite ERFs such as the Control Room, TSC, OSC and E0F, and offsite supplies and ins trumenta tion.
Records' reviewed indicated that problems identified during . inventories and communications equipment checks had been corrected i n ' t. timely manner.
!ne licensee has proposed relocation of their backup Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As this involves an exception to Table 1 of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 relating to the maximum distance. emergency facilities should;be located from the plant, an exception to the requirements was-requested. The request for exemption was submitted on December 14, 1988, the Commission acted.on the request on May 16, 1990, and the licensee was advised by letter of July 20, 1990, that the exception-had been approved.
The new backup EOF will be approximately 88 miles from the plant.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that plans to relocate the facility are in progress.
Discussion with licensee personnel also indicated that consideration is being given to relocation of the Joint Public Information Center (JPIC) from its current location in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The JPIC is located within the ten-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ), and has the potential of being evacuated if that portion of the EPZ is evacuated.
A plant simulator is under deielopment.
It is intended that the simulator be utilized to " drive" future emergency exercises and drills, and the simulator's computer would also provide data for display on te:minals in the TSC and E0F. This should significantly increase the degree nf realism involved in emergency exercises and drills.
No violations or deviations were identified.
q l , . ..... - - -....... -. - - -... -
. .
. A c.
Organization and Management Control-Overall organization and management _ control of the Emergency Preparedness program has changed somewhat from the last routine insreetion.
% Coordinator, Emergency Planning, now. reports to the superint gulatory and Support Services,1who reports lto the Plar* However, no major changes have been made in the resp.
iues, authorities and staffing of key emergency response perw r < i, or interfaces and coordination betwcen onsite, offsite, and corporate organizations.
There are presently two individuals, the Coordinator-Emergency Planning, and a Quality Specialist-Emergency Planning, assigned" full-time duties in the onsite Emergency Preparedness group; Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that an additional-- ( two onsite positions are expected-to be opened in the near future.
The formal and informal corrective action tracking systems (such as the'EP "callup list") in place during the previous inspection "emained in use during 1990. The tracking systems encompassed one-time and periodic action items.
Adequate numbers of personnel h6ve been identified for specific lead.and support positions in the onsite ERO. Administrative systems were in use to ensure that ERO members and_ their supervisors were iaformed of the formers' ERO membership.
No violations or deviations were identified, d.
Training In.carly 1989, a number of problems with continuing training were identified from audits performed by the licensee QA and Training group, and NRC inspections. -In response to the findings-in NRC Inspection Report No.-50-266/89012; 50-301/89012, an-Emergency J Response Training Task Force was created on June 7,1989. -This Task Force developed a "punchlist" of items from the various audits of the emergency preparedness training program. Over 45 tasks were delineated by the Task Force, which met approximately three times a month between Jc..e and December of 1989. Major tasks involved determining continuing EP training needs, developing the " Emergency Plan Tracker" emergency response training tracking system, revising the initial training program, and creating qualification maintenance requirements. The Task Force determined in July 1990, that most . major tasks had been completed and it could be disbanded.
Current training commitments are covered in the Emergency Plan under EP 8.0 (Rev. 32, dated October 2, 1989) " Maintaining Emergency Preparedness". Section 3.0 " Organizational Preparedness" specifically addresses initial and continuing training. Section 3.1.1 describes the requirements for onsite employees, and section 3.1.2 describes the requirements for corporate support personnel.
-
E @ _ e
, p y y- - ,. m >r y, ~e N '
, - TheLrequired. annual'EP training program for m'mbers of-the'onsite
e Emergency Response Organization (ERO) consisted of either classroom '
, . _ sessions, or successful: drill participation; -T_he preferred method! ', t
_ of maintaining one's qualification is to alternate these two methods' ~ of qualification annually.--By design, the classroom training , . focuses on organizational matters. while_ drill participation focuses ' ' * on data analysis and problem solving.
. The Emergency Response Course (TRCR 80.h. Rev. 5,' dated May 5,1990) - providesdetailedinformationastowhichInstructional. Units (IU)' are requiredLto be completed in order to be' determined as initially.
qualified for. particular emergency response positions.. Seven j Instructional'Un:'.s are provided as a syllabus for,the Emergency ' > Response Course.
' i TRCR 80.0 references PBri 89-0664 " Emergency Response Qualification.
? - Maintenance Requirements"..This is a memorandum. written in July " 1989, proposing requirements for continuing training (qualification
$ maintenance) which had been developed by the_ Emergency Response i* Training Task Force. The memorandum is " approved" and currently. serves' as' the scheduling basis for ' ongoing qualification. This'is a < - regarded as an interim measure. until TRCR 80.0 itself 'is modified.
Alsecond Task Force has been-proposed to review the overall- + > structure of emergency preparedness land related training. and < modification of TRCR 80.0 has 'been delayed.
, The Emergency Plan Training Tracker (EPTT) list is currently - A utilized as the official list of those qualified for emergency ' response positions. The EPTT is a personal computer database , - -utilizing the Dbase.III Plus program. Comprehensive; programming , allows the user to sort the database several; ways,. display status reports of: individuals or groups, and provide' an " Emergency Response Organization Status" report. 1This report provides.the minimum staff h ' selected for each position, the number of individuals ~available for.- S " - the position whose training is 'up-to-date and the number of individuals available for the position who are currently qualified.
,
, The listing of. individuals whose training ist up-to-date can vary from the number of individuals qualified, as :here is a " grace period" (25%) allowed before an individual is considered as out of ' qualification.
j f In addition to the EPTT system,'a large sta'.us board has been ' designed and procured to track EP training, cut it has-not been i ' ' 1_ installed as yet. There is currently no retacionship between the r EPTT anc the emergency response callup listing. The EPTT system E ' allows, and has been used for rapid determination of thosc called into the plant for callup (augmentation) drills. Discussion with - licensee personnel-indicated that they were aware that the planned
microcomputer based callup system will require periodic verification ' of the qualifications of those included in the.callup database.
A full EPTT training report printout was reviewed.
Due to the ' . current state of the training program (and at least one position has been recently added) some personnel were listed as not qualified.
,
i ? i r r - , - m .,
TTC W- - i n . _.
l.%r .j e
- ,,
g , + - .. , g.
. ., j . , S ' Eachiituation-was-adequately explained by training departmenti b ' x
- personnel, As' drill' participation is a significant part of the.
>' present.EP training program, scheduling of. drill participation ~ , ,
E complicates qualification maintenance, especially,if an individual- .is unable.to participate in a pat ticular drill.
~
" i-r As a part of the increased oversight _of the. Emergency Preparedness ); (EP) trainir,g program, a quarterly report.on the status of EP.. l ' qualifications;is provided to the Vice-President, Nuclear, ' Plant - i Manager and other management personnel. The first of such reports z; -was generac * on July 9,1990.
,. . , The:overall emergency preparedness training-program-'is vastly ,! ' , improved over that in place during the. previous routine. inspection' :
Considerable resources had been expended.in' reviewing and defining' the program, and placing-corrective actic' programs in place. Some
t . additional work is still requfred. such1 review of the overall EP.
+ ' program needs, revision.of TRCR 80.0, ano some additional enhancing ' ti of lesson plans remains to be accomplished;'however, overall i g progress in this~ area.has been. excellent.
', ' One individual, assigned-to.an_. emergency position in the TSC l (Chemistry Director) was' interviewed to determine his knowledge i y of general emergency preparedness and his emergency. position in- ! .particular. This position.would be involved with dose projection, ~ J and the individual demonstrated an intimate' knowledge of.the' . personal-computer based dose projection system and the procedure for determining. a protective action recommendation.
i The_following onsite EP dr111s were to take place during 1990, per -
- l sectior, 8.0.of the Emergency Plan: semiannual _Haalth Physics _ drills,
-site, evacuation drill, annual-liquid sampling drill, medical drill-i (performed by the Kewaunee plant every other year);<and annual shift ' Laugmentationfdrill.
Records indicated that required EP drills-had q.
~ been either successfully conducted, critiqued, and adequately ' documented during-1990, or were scheduled to be comp 1eted:later u .. during.'the year.
- t
' x The inspector reviewed the licensee's March 1990 Emergency-Preparedness Exercise report. The report was detailed and complete,.containing critique items and references _to tracking
systems _for the items-tracked as possible corrective action or , program improvement items.
' ' Annual training for local ambulance services on dealing with g'r contaminated,-injured onsite persons is scheduled to be conducted during September 1990. Discussion with emergency planning u , personnel indicated that copies of the station's EALs used to
- <
classify abnormal plant conditions, would be provided to the State , . of Wisconsin, and the Counties of Manitowoc and Kewaunee during ' 1990, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E i-(IV.B).
.No violations or deviations were identified.
E
m ... M; [}
- j
- - j ' c - , F'[*' 4ys [3., - / > H , m p
4 e.
Independent Reviews / Audits , e ?- - Quility ' Assurance (QA)c Departmentirecords' of 1990 audits of the- , ! Station's EP program were review d.
The official file' copy of.the - ' annual audit-lacked the' audit summary,:which was. retrieved froms the M waukee office.-.The 1990 audits satisfied the' requirements .' of 10 CFR '50.54(t), including the requirennt _to make portions of
the ' audit dealing with'the interface:with offsite authorities .
y% available to offsite: authorities. Records-indicated that timely and ! .. adequate corrective actions' had been taken on -identified problems.
O k.. '
lThis ye,nr. the licensee contracted with the Impe11 Corporation
_ to perform an audit of the Emergancy Preparedness program by a-d , < periormance-based review of the' February'14,~ 1990.dril_1.and.
p evaluation of programmatic requirements. - Two auditors performed
the audit.- ~ , The inspector reviewed audit report A-SP-90-01,"PBNP Emergency-
Preparedness Program", dated March 23, 1990. The audit had been conducted during~ February 12-16, 1990. The audit concluded that'
the program was " generally ' adequate in resources, personnel and , , ? planning", end resulted in seventeen Audit Finding Reports (AFRs).. d-Review of the related AFRs indicated that onlyisix remained open at: ! the time of the inspection. These were being addressed by on' going - activities.
The closure statements for eight audit relate'd-AFRs indicated: that-no' deficiency actually existed, upon review of relevant requirements q and' documentation. These determinations were correct, and indicate- - . that "ae auditor was-not adequately knowledgeable or thorough lin his .d
revies.s.
,
? Discussion with Quality Assurance Department personnel indicated the surveillances of'the Emergency Preparedness program did not? n , ,
E ' fall under their formalized surveillance program..However,-they indicated that they did provide additional personnel to observe / " evaluate the annual emergency exercises. Certain aspects of' t , . emergency planning do lend themselves to the performance:of
" W surveillances, such as-training, emergency kit inventories, ,
evaluation of actual activations, maintenance of procedures, , irelationships with offsite authorities, siren testing and
maintenance, or procedure. maintenance.
Inclusion of such areas '[ in the surveillance program should be considered.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- ,
'TNI Safety Issues Management System (SIMS) Items-y t .Un October 31, 1980, the NRC issued NUREG-0737, which incorporated into ! one document all THI-related items approved for implementatinn by the , - Commission at that time. On December 17, 1982, the NRC issued Supplement + 1-to NUREG-0737 to provide additional claritication regarding Regulatory-r - Guide 1.97, as well as other items. The status of the completion of these items are tracked internally by the NRC on the SIMS system.
" ' Q.
' .1 ' 4% ' a.
"
' $ i: ^ ' ., s ~ . . . .- -
e _ O ' ' a r a , a L,' jy j
- ,u
..- ' > ! , .. . .
- The-following provides.the basis.for. closure of the.SIMS items that
- ' - remain open. All other Point Beach emergency preparednessirelated-p . y SIMS; items. are-closed (complete) or no longer app 1icable.> ' . . a _.
=MPA-F-63 and-MPA-F-65: ' item MPA-F-63 involved a review of the TSC.
I . Item MPA-F-65! involved a review of the EOF.,
' Based on recent. verbal guidance-from NRC Headquarters; numerous exercise d , m evaluations,.the most recent being March 15, 1989 and March 14,-1990; > a .(Inspection Report Nos.;50-266/80008; 50-301/89008 and 50-266/90006,. ' 50-301/90006);andnumerousroutineprogramevaluations,themostrecent . , i) ' being May 22-26,zl989 and August 6-10,1990(InspectionRe tN ,1-50-266/89013, 50-301/890V' and 50-266/90017, 50-301/90017)por. os..these items #
' .are(administratively closed.
f
s 6.
' . Exit Interview (IP '30703) " s i
- t On~. August '17,1990,~ the inspector met with those licensee representatives '
l c < E . identified in Section 1 to present the preliminary inspection-findings.
t
- The inspector provided his evaluation that the Point Beach Nuclear-Power
Plant emergency; preparedness program is being adequately maintained, and problems identified during the inspection were regarded as ' ninor.
" Emergency 1 preparedness training was significantly improved from previous
faspections, and minor corrective actions are still 'taking place..;The
- .
overall pro 9 ram is now. solid, and continual, incremental improvements . ' Lto the program have been made over the past years.
_ d Thellicensee indicated that none of.the matters discussed during tile: exit
interview were proprietary.
~ N , ' ' a , -- j.1 - !) 1:, , ' . o , i{ 'l ~l , -: y3
1
- c
. .3 -
p , , n
- ];*-'
, , . . -- - - - - - - - - }}