IR 05000275/1989004
| ML16342B535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1989 |
| From: | Brown G, Fish R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F023 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-89-04, 50-275-89-4, 50-323-89-04, 50-323-89-4, NUDOCS 8903140158 | |
| Download: ML16342B535 (12) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
License Nos.
Licensee:
50-275/89-04 and 50-323/89-04 DPR-80 and DPR-81 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Faci l ity:
Inspection at:
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Corporate Office, San Francisco, California Inspection Conducted:
January 20, 31 and February 1-3, 1988 Inspector:
Approved by:
G.
A. Brown, Emergency Preparedness Analyst Kc'~:7a R.
F. Fish, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section D te igned Da e S gned
~Summar This was an unannounced inspection in the areas of followup on previous inspection findings, operational status of the emergency preparedness program (procedures, facilities, and training),
and an independent review of the.
licensee's onsite emergency warning system.
Inspection procedures 92701 and 82701 were used.
Res ul ts:
No deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified in the three areas covered by the inspection.
One item, concerning warning signals in high noise and other areas, that appeared to meet the criteria in VG. 1 of Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2 was identified (see Section 4).
Two concerns were identified in the areas of procedure distribution (Section 3.b) and verification of the operability of the site emergency sirens (Section 4).
These concerns have been identified as open items.
g9Q31401 50002 c
39022+
Polk AQQCK po Q
DETAILS Persons Contacted G. Anderson, Shift Foreman J.
Bard, Shift Supervisor C.
Cox, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator A. Faulk, Administrative Clerk-Typist,,Biological Laboratory M. Freuland, Supervisor, guality Assurance, Technical Auditing J. Gisclon, Assistant Plant Manager, Support Services
~J. Harris, equality Assurance Supervisor R. Hendrix, San Luis Obispo County Administrator S. Joiner, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
"H. Karner, guality Support Engineer
"W. Keyworth, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor R.- Luckette, Shift Technical Advisor J.
Nei 11, Document Control Supervisor D. Newell, Document Services Supervisor D. Robertson, Sergeant, General Construction Security A. Trout, Security Officer, General Construction Security
"E.
Waage, Senior Nuclear Generation Engineer
- W. White, Emergency Plan Instructor
~Denotes those in attendance at the February 3, 1989 exit interview.
Follow-u on Previous Ins ection Findin s
Module 92701 Closed 0 en Item 85-24-02.
The licensee needs to evaluate the Emergency Response Facility Data System (ERFDS),to demonstrate its reliability.- Diablo Canyon performed an analysis to quantify the availability of the ERFDS using failure rate and mean repair time data from generic and plant sources.
EG8G Corporation's Reliability Analysis System was used to perform the fault tree reduction and reliability calculations.
Results of the analysis indicated the ERFDS to be reliable with a 95.92 assurance ratio.
This was reported in a memorandum dated January 21, 1986 and identified as File No. R311.06/414.2.
This item is cl osed.
0 en 0 en Item 87-15-01.
Revise the training tracking system and matrix to ensure personnel are current in their training requirements.
PG8E has developed and implemented a computerized tracking system for monitoring the status of corporate emergency response training.
While the tracking system appears to be working well, a significant number of the individuals needing training do not respond.
EP Training personnel estimate that approximately 10K of the corporate personnel do not respond to training requirements in a timely manner, even after several notifica-tions.
This item wi 11 remain open pending the development of a policy which provides a more positive response to training notice.
0 erational Status of the Emer enc Pre aredness Pro ram a.
Chan es to the Emer enc Pre aredness Pro ram The inspector reviewed this program area to determine if any changes to the emergency preparedness (EP) program had decreased the overall state of emergency preparedness.
There were no significant changes to the staff or organization since the last inspection.
The following changes to the the emergency plan implementing procedures were reviewed:
Procedure Revision Procedure Revision R-1 M-2 M-5 G-1 RB-15 RB-15A
14
10
6 RB-15B RB-15C RB-15D CERP 1.2 CERP 4.5 CERP 4. 6 4 (Temp)
0 Telllp Telllp Telllp The changes were determined not to have decreased the licensee's overall state of emergency preparedness.
All procedure changes had received the appropriate reviews required by Procedure NP AP E-4.
b.
Document Control This program area was reviewed to determine that all appropriate personnel and organizations receive procedure changes in an accurate and timely manner.
The inspector noted that the licensee had made significant progress in computerizing all procedures, having completed all but implementing the graphics capability to the system.
The system allows users instant access to the latest proce-dures throughout their computer network.
One concern was noted in the distribution of procedures.
The current method is for Document Control to forward procedure changes along with a cover sheet which is to be signed and returned after the procedure change has been placed in the manual.
Document Control uses this as a record that the procedure change was received and placed in the manual.
If the cover sheet has not been returned within a few weeks, Document Control follows up with a query.
If the sheet still is not returned, Document Control repeats and continues the cycle at progressively escalated management levels until the matter is resolved.
Because of the possible overlap in times when revisions may be placed in manuals, it is probable that some manuals may contain different versions from other manuals at a given time.
This method may not be adequate for key manuals in emergency response facilities such as the Control Room, Technical Support Center (TSC) and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF),
where they should be consistent at all times.
The licensee's actions regarding this concern is of interest andthis matter is
considered to be an open item.
This, item will be tracked as Open Item 89-04-01.
c.
Inde endent Reviews/Audits This program area was examined to determine compliance with NRC requi rements for an annual independent review of the EP program and whether licensee commitments and corrective actions were implemented in a timely manner.
The inspector reviewed Quality Assurance (QA) Audit No.
88825T (a report of the annual QA audit of the emergency program conducted July 25 - August 3, 1988)
and interviewed the lead auditor.
As a
result, it was concluded that they met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t) for conducting an annual independent review of the EP program.
d.
T~rainin The Diablo Canyon training program was reviewed to determine if the performance criteria of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15)
and requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Item IV.F. were being met.
Discussions with the EP training specialist and a review of the training records indicated that the training for Diablo Canyon emergency response personnel was current and consistent with the EP program.
The training provided appears effective with respect to meeting the safety objectives of the program.
Performance in this area was found to be acceptable and no violation of NRC requirements were identified.
Inde endent Ins ection Module 82701 The extent of PG8E management's commitment toward responding to its internally-identified problems was reviewed.
The inspector examined the particulars of an item in QA Report 88825T, dated August 25, 1988, which stated:
"The DCPP Site emergency signal was not audible in the General Construction Security Building.
This condition was identified by DCPP in 1986.
Corrective measures for this condition have not been timely."
The examination revealed that, in addition to the General Construction Security Building, five other areas existed where the emergency signal was inadequate.
The NRC and internal licensee organizations had advised management of the existence of these areas on several occasions over a
28-month period.
The licensee expects to have the alarm devices in place and operational by mid March 1989.
This completion date was confirmed by J.
Townsend, Plant Manager, during a February 6, 1989 telephone conversation with the inspecto The following additional areas were identified by DCPP as requiring al arms:
o Unit 2 Auxiliary Building Boron Injection Tank Room, 73'evel (siren and visual alarm)
o Securi ty Diese1 Room (visual al arm)
o Interior of Security Building (visual alarm)
o Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, 85'evel, area between secondary sample sink and pipe penetration (siren)
o Unit 2 Turbine Building, 119'evel, Travel Crew quarters (siren)
The licensee's documents identifying the inadequate alarms were:
Intra-Company Memorandum from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator to the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor dated June 13, 1986 Action Request No.
A0031280 to Engineering from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator dated August 7, 1986 Design Change Request Priority Designation from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator to Design Control dated September 23, 1986 Engineering Work Request No. 0-87-225 from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator to Nuclear Engineering and Construction Organization, dated June 4, 1987 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's guality Assurance Emergency Preparedness Program Audit No.
88825T dated August 25 1988.
After the item was identified in the guality Assurance report, management initiated aggressive steps to escalate the corrective actions and guality Assurance has maintained a track of the status of the corrective actions in accordance with their procedures.
Following the inspector's discussion of this matter, the licensee took immediate, interim corrective action by arranging for security personnel to sweep these areas when the emergency signal is sounded.
The licensee's actions concerning the gA identified untimely corrective action related to the emergency signal and its audibility in the General Construction Security Building appear to meet the criteria in VG. 1 of Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2.
Therefore a Notice of Violation concerning the matter has not been issued.
During this inspection it was noted that, while the licensee has procedures requiring testing and'epairing of the site emergency system, no provisions are made for verifying the operability of the sirens during testing.
The licensee's response to this concern is of interest and this matter is considered to be an open item.
This item will be tracked as Open Item 89-04-0.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held by the inspector on February 3, 1989 with licensee representatives.
Attendees of this interview are identified in Section 1 of this report.
The licensee was advised of the concerns identified as open items.
Also discussed during this interview were other items and observations described in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.