IR 05000275/1993015
| ML16342A262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1993 |
| From: | Good G, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342A261 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-93-15, 50-323-93-15, NUDOCS 9309290227 | |
| Download: ML16342A262 (10) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
Docket Nos.
License Nos.
Licensee:
Facil,ity Name:.
Inspection at:
50-275/93-15 and 50-323/93-15 50-275 and 50-323 DPR-80 and DPR-82 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Fr anci sco, Cal iforni a 94177 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and
Walnut Creek, California Inspection Dates:
Na 20 through August 12, 1993 Inspector:
G
>
N. Goo, rge r epare ness Ana yst Approved by:
Ro ert J.
Pate, C ref Safeguards, Emergency Preparedness, and Non-Power Reactor Branch Bl~a/ha g
d QZ4 vz DaeS>
nc SUNNARY:
Ins ection on Na 20 throu h Au ust
1993 Re ort Nos.
50-275 93-15 Areas Ins ected:
In-office inspection to review Revisions
)4 - 19 to emergency procedure EP G-l, "Accident Classification and Emergency Plan Activation."
Inspection procedure 82701 was used as guidance.
Results:
With the exception of a few minor editorial changes, most of the revisions involved changes to the radiation monitors referenced in Unusual Event emergency action level (EAL) number 7.
The changes resulted from a planned upgrade of the radiation monitoring system.
PG&E representatives discussed the proposed monitor upgrades during a management meeting at the Region V offices on September 10, 1992 (Inspection Report No. 50-275/92-29 and 50-323/92-29).
The EAL changes tracked the system upgrade through the interim and final system configuration.
Revisions 14 19 to EP G-1 continued to meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b)
and the requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during this inspection.
9309290227 930824 PDR ADOCK 05000275 PDR '
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- K.
- N.
D.
Hubbard, Regulatory Compliance Engineer Hug, Supervisor, Emergency Planning Fawcett, Consultant
- Denotes participation in the August 12, 1993, telephone exit interview.
2.
0 erational Status of the Emer enc Pre aredness Pro ram Ins ection Procedure 82701 a 0 Back round - Revision
.
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 14 to emergency procedure EP G-l, "Accident Classification and Emergency Plan Activation."
Revision 14 was submitted on June ll, 1992, in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The licensee implemented Revision 14, without prior approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
This review was conducted to address
CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B, which specifically requires that emergency action levels (EALs) be agreed on by State and local governmental authorities and approved by the NRC.
Regional emergency preparedness staff evaluated the changes to the procedure text and EALs to determine whether the changes decreased the effectiveness of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP)
Emergency Plan and,whether the changes continued to meet the standards in 50.47(b)
and the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
b.
Evaluation - Revision
Nost of the changes to Revision 14 were editorial/cosmetic in nature.
Examples of cosmetic changes included clarifying the timeliness requirements for follow-up notifications when there is a
change in event classification, modifying/updating several references, removing redundant instructions, and correcting several typographical errors.
These changes did not affect the intent or implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions generated during the review of Revision 14 were discussed with a member of the DCPP emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
As part of this review, the inspector verified that the licensee had met the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, IV.B.
Revision 14 was submitted to the State and local governmental authorities for review on September 16, 1992.
The licensee's submittal also included a
description of the existing, interim, and final configuration of the radiation monitors that were scheduled for replacement as part of an upgrade to the radiation monitoring system (RNS).
State and County concurrence was obtained on October 1 and October 19, 1992,
H E
C.
respectively.
The two letters indicated that the concu}rence applied to the EAL changes resulting from the modifications to the radiation monitoring system (both interim and final configurations).
The incremental changes between Revision 13 and 14 were considered acceptable.
Back round Revision
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 15 to EP G-l.
Revision 15 was submitted on October 29, 1992.
The effective date of the revision was September'l, 1992.
The licensee's transmittal letter stated that the updated procedure was not included with an October 15, 1992, submittal, due to administrative oversight.
The licensee implemented Revision 15, without prior approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
The regulatory basis for this review is described in Section 2.a above.
d.
Evaluation - Revision
In addition to a few cosmetic/editorial changes, Revision
included the first EAL change resulting from the upgrade of the RNS.
The change involved Unusual Event (UE) ¹7 on Attachment 7. 1; reference to RE-27 was removed and interim monitors RE-32 and
were added.
This interim configuration was consistent with the RNS upgrade plans discussed during a September 10, 1992, management meeting with DCPP personnel at the Region V offices {see Inspection Report Nos. 50-275/92-29 and 50-323/92-29).
The cosmetic/editorial changes, which included adding Unit 2 bus numbers to two EALs, correcting an attachment number, and changing the sponsor's name, did not affect the intent or implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions generated during the review of Revision 15 were discussed with a member of the DCPP emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
e.
The incremental changes between Revision 14 and 15 were considered acceptable.
Back round - Revision
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 16 to EP G-1.
Revision 16 was submitted on January 5,
1993, in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The licensee implemented Revision 16, without prior approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
The regulatory basis for this review is described in Section 2.a above.
f.
Evaluation - Revision
In addition to two minor editorial updates, Revision 16 included three basic changes; instructions duplicated in other procedures
ql
were deleted, additional guidance on recognition and analysis of emergency conditions was provided, and the 15 minute offsite notification requirement was clarified.
None of the changes affected the intent or implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions gener ated during the review of Revision 16 were discussed with a member of the DCPP emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
The incremental changes between Revision 15 and 16 were considered acceptable.
g.
Back round - Revision
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 17 to EP G-1.
Revision 17 was submitted on April 2, 1993, in accordance with
CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The licensee implemented Revision 17, without prior approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
The regulatory basis for this review is described in Section 2.a above.
h.
Evaluation - Revision
0
~
The following changes were included in Revision 17: the responsibilities of the Site Emergency Coordinator and Recovery Nanager were clarified; the reference to Appendix Z guidance was deleted (eliminated potential confusion resulting from inconsistencies between Attachment 7. 1 to G-1 and Appendix Z); and UE ¹7 was modified to reflect the current configuration (next stage)
of the RNS modifications.
The change to UE ¹7 was consistent with the planned upgrades.
None of the changes affected the intent or implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions generated during the review of Revision 17 were discussed with a member of the DCPP. emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
The incremental changes between Revision 16 and 17 were considered acceptable.
Back round - Revision
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 18 to EP G-1.
Revision 18 was submitted on April 8, 1993, in accordance with
CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The licensee implemented Revision 18, without prior approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
The regulatory basis for this review is described in Section 2.a above.
Evaluation - Revision
The following changes were included in Revision 18: the sponsor's name changed and UE ¹7 was modified to reflect the current
e
I e
configuration (next stage)
of the RNS modifications.
The change to UE ¹7 was consistent with the planned upgrades.
None of the changes affected the intent ot implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions generated during the review of Revision 17 were discussed with a member of the DCPP emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
The incremental changes between Revision 17 and 18 were considered acceptable.
k.
Back round - Revision
This in-office inspection included a review of Revision 19 to EP G-1.
Revision 19 was submitted on Nay 17, 1993, in accordance with
CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The licensee implemented Revision 19, without prior approval, under the provisions of'0 CFR 50.54(q).
The regulatory basis for this review is described in Section 2.a above.
l.
Evaluation - Revision
The following changes were included in Revision 19: the date of Attachment 7.1 changed and UE ¹7 was modified to reflect the final configuration of the RNS modifications.
The change to UE ¹7 was consistent with the planned upgrades.
None of the changes affected the intent or implementation of the procedure.
Specific comments/questions generated during the review of Revision 19 were discussed with a member of the DCPP emergency preparedness staff on August 9, 1993.
All comments/questions were satisfactorily resolved.
The incremental changes between Revision 18 and 19 were considered acceptable.
3.
Exit Interview An exit interview, via telephone, was held on August 12, 1993, to discuss the preliminary findings of the in-office inspection.
Section 1 of this report identifies the licensee personnel who participated in the conference call.
The licensee was informed that no violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The inspector summarized the findings described in Section 2 of the repor