IR 05000280/1980004
| ML18139A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1980 |
| From: | Andrews D, Jenkins G, Perrotti D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A349 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-80-04, 50-280-80-4, 50-281-80-06, 50-281-80-6, NUDOCS 8006230202 | |
| Download: ML18139A353 (12) | |
Text
-f:
'
-r
._;.
- .,..
'*.
~
-
,*<<'~--*-*-- ***-. ---*. -----~-.................. -**. - - _........ ****----* -**--*-----....... _._.. :. *---**--***-- - - *-*----~--*........ : *--*.... -
.. _*,.,_
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
- Report Nos. 50-280/80-04 and 50-281/80-06 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 Inspection at Surry site, near Williamsburg, VA Inspectors: ~~
~vt,~t(;::
D. J.. errotti t2.c.v..wrf SUMMARY Inspection on March 10-14, 1980 Areas * Inspected *
1f/t1/ftl DateSigned 4/ti /J'o Date Signed
/fj;/p Date Signed This routine, announced inspection involved 60 inspector-hours on site in the areas of coordination with outside support agencies; emergency facilities,
. equipment and procedures; emergency organization; emergency training; emergency planning audits; emergency drills; followup on previously identified inspection findings and followup on IE Bulletin Results Of the eight areas inspected, no items.of noncompliance or deviations were
. identified *in seven areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area
- (infraction - failure to conduct emergency retraining for designated emergency directors - paragraph 7.d.)~
8 0082 3 0 '2.0.2--
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. Stewart, Station Manager
- J. Wilson, Superintendent, Operations
- T. Peebles, Superintendent, Technical Services
- R. Smith, Supervisor, Health Physics
- B. Garber, Health Physicist
- D. Greene, Health Physicist
- D. Kildoo, QC Engineer
- E. Dewandel, Staff Assistant
- M. Kansler, Supervisor, Engineering C. Crwnmey, Assistant Shift Supervisor F. Rentz, Resident QC Supervisor R. Blount, Performance Engineer D. Johnson, Coordinator of Safety and Training L. Edmonds, Supervisor, Operations Training 0. Vogtsberger, Nuclear Training Coordinator G. Kane, Supervisor, Operations M. D. Tower, Staff Engineer, Licensing and Quality Assurance Other licensee employees contacted included one technician, one mechanic, one security force member, and three office personne Other Organizations J. Holt, Chief, Surry Volunteer Fire Department R. Mitchell, Chief, Surry Rescue Squad C. Thompson, Emergency Services Coordinator (Acting), Surry County F. Pittman, Director, Civil Defense, City of Newport News C. Hinkley, Dispatcher, Sheriff's Office, Surry County A. Sutherland, M.D., Medical Consultant G. Walls, Director, Emergency Services, Isle of Wight County NRC Resident Inspector
- D. J. Burke
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 10, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov The licensee acknowledged the inspectors remarks regarding the item of noncompliance pertaining to retraining of emergency director *
- Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Unresolved Item (50-280, 281/78-28-02) Calibration of the alternate meteorological syste From discussions with licensee representatives and review of the system it was determined that a calibration and/or testing program has not been establishe Licensee management agreed to look into this matter (Paragraph 6.g.(3).
(Open) Inspector Followup Item (50-280/79-27-01, 50-281/79-44-01) Satisfac-tory completion of plant evacuatio No evacuation has been conducted since the bomb threat emergency in May 197 The licensee plans to conduct a drill, including a plant evacuation, during the summer of 1980 (Paragraph 8.d.). Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviation New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph.
Coordination With Offsite Support Agencies This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments to maintain contact and coordination with offsite agencies as described in the Emergency Pla The inspector reviewed the licensee's Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP), written letters of agreement with offsite support agencies and the list of offsite support agencies specified in the Emergency Plan to verify that:
(1)
Detailed procedures have been established describing methods for notifying local, State, Federal officials and other offsite support agencies in the event of a radiation emergenc (2)
Arrangements for the services of a physician and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies have been establishe (3)
Arrangements for the transportation and treatment of injured or contaminated individuals at a treatment facility outside the site boundary have been establishe The inspector contacted seven offsite agencies and met with offic1als of five of these agencies to verify that contact is being maintained by the licensee and that services, as described in the letter of agreement, can be provided.
_-_-_ -_.-_-__ -_.. ------ -----*====================*------------. *--*.. ----*-- -- -*--..... --* -* -
- The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area (1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph I (2)
Emergency Plan, Section 3.5 and Appendices 8.1 and (3)
EPIP - 21, Section (4)
EPIP - 1, Appendix Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Two concerns were identified by the inspector and are discussed in paragraph 5.e belo The inspector was informed that the licensee was in the process of establishing a letter of agreement with Isle of Wight Count The inspector verified that this was to be done in the very near future through discussions with licensee representatives and the Isle of Wight County Emergency Services Coordinato From a discussion with one of the alternate, offsite medical consultants (identified in Appendix 3 of EPIP-1), the inspector determined that the licensee had not fully informed the party of his involvement in the Surry Emergency Planning Progra The inspector informed licensee management that this matter should be taken care of as soon as possibl The licensee acknowledged the inspector's remarks and stated that the matter would be taken care o The inspector identified the coordination with outside support agencies as an open item to be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-280/80-04-0l, 50-281/80-06-0l). Facilities, Equipment, and Procedures Changes to Facilities, Equipment, and Procedures (1)
The inspector reviewed established management controls and inter-viewed licensee personnel to determine if changes had been made to the emergency plan, emergency implementing procedures, emer-gency facilities and equipment since the last inspectio (2)
The review of this area, with respect to changes, was conducted to verify that:
(a)
Changes did not constitute an unreviewed safety questio (b)
Changes did not alter the requirements set forth in the Emergency Pla (c)
Changes were reviewed and approved in accordance with established plant procedure (d)
The Emergency Plan notification roster (names~ telephone numbers) listjng personnel specifically qualified for coping with emergencies was updated at the required interval *
-4-(e)
Required plant committee review of the Emergency Plan was conducte (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area (a)
Technical Specifications 6.4.C and 6. (b)
Emergency Plan, Section 7. (c)
EPIP-21, Section Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Emergency Kits (1)
The inspector reviewed inventory records of emergency kits and equipmen (2)
The review of emergency kits and equipment was conducted to verify that:
(a)
The required periodic inventory, maintenance and calibration of emergency equipment and emergency kits were being conducted.
(b)
The emergency kits, supplies, and portable instrumentation are at various locations as required by the Emergency Plan and Emergency Implementing Procedure (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
Periodic Test PT-38.3 (b)
Emergency Plan, Appendix In the above areas, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Main Control Room Habitability (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to maintaining the main control room habitabl The Emergency Plan defines this area as the center for controlling activities during emergency condition (2)
The inspector reviewed surveillance test records to verify that:
(a)
The required operability tests are being performed on the control room emergency ventilation system at the required frequency, including system automatic start upon receiving a safety injection signal.
-5-(b)
The control room pressurization test had been performed at required intervals and surveillance data was satisfactor (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
FSAR, Section 9.1 (b)
Technical Specification Table 4.1-2, Item 1 (c)
Emergency Plan, Section 5. Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Remote Shutdown Panel (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to insuring that the required plant parameters and controls as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report can be used to perform an emergency shutdown of the plant in the event the main control room cannot be manne (2)
The inspector performed a physical inspection to verify that:
(a)
The specified Emergency Procedures were at the remote shutdown room and were up to dat (b)
The readouts for primary system parameters, controls for main plant components and emergency communications were availabl (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
FSAR, Section 7.7. Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Emergency Communications (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to licensee's commitment to maintain and have available various types of communication systems within the plant for both normal and emergency use as described in the Emergency Pla (2)
The inspector observed the physical location of communications in the main control room, control room annex, and emergency switchgear room to verify the availability of the communication systems are as required by the Emergency Pla (3)
The inspector reviewed records to verify that the plant emergency alarm tests and radio and telephone checks have been satisfactorily
- -- ***----**--****--*-*---
---*----~--
____,,._- h-~-*h***----~-----.. ***-.... :.
-6-performed at the required frequenc The inspector observed a successful test of the fire, first-aid and station evacuation alarms on March 12, 198 (4)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
Emergency Plan, Sections 5.1 and Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Emergency Lighting (1)
The inspector reviewed preventive maintenance schedules to verify that the DC emergency lighting system is being maintaine (2)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(3)
(a)
FSAR, Section (b)
Periodic Test, PT-47.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identifie One unresolved matter was identified by the inspector and is discussed in paragraph 6.f.(3) belo During a review of PT-47, "Emergency DC Lighting Test", completed on July 12, 1979, the inspector noted several deficiencies identi-fied by the test performers and recorded on the PT Critique Shee The PT Critique Sheet did not indicate that corrective action was either taken or initiated during the tes The PT was reviewed by the cognizant supervisors on July 12, 1979, and August 9, 1979, by the performance engineer on August 22, 1979, and by VEPCO QA on August 31, 1979. Time did not permit an examina-
,t;lon: e,f * the lighting.* areas in question to determine :*whether or not corrective action had been take In addition, the inspector was unable to determine if a Deviation Report for PT-47 was initiate The inspector discussed this matter at the exit interview and commented that he had been unable to confirm corrective action was take The licensee stated that the matte~. would be looked int The inspector identified this as an unresolved item to be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-280/80-04-02, 50-281/80-06-02).
-
(4)
Subsequent to the inspection, on April 16, 1980, the inspector informed the licensee via telecon that the above matter would remain unresolved until (1) a review of the corrective action on the emergency DC lighting system was completed, and (2) a determination was made as to whether or not the requirements of the VEPCO QA Manual had been me Meteorological System.
(1)
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan for determining the magnitude of a release of radioactive material and the criteria for deter-mining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundar (2)
The inspector performed an inspection of instrumentation in the control room and control room annex to verify that readouts for wind speed, direction and temperature were operable and available as required by the Emergency Pla (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(a)
Emergency Plan, Section 5. 3. (b)
EPIP-2, Appendix Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie The matter of calibration of the alternate meteoro-logical system, which was previously identified as an unresolved item (50-280, 281/78-28-02), was discussed with licensee personne The inspector pointed out that EPIP-2, Appendix 2 takes credit for the older system, in that one of the alternate methods of determining stability factor utilizes the wind direction readout from the control room annex strip chart recorde The inspector informed the licensee at the exit meeting that a periodic schedule for calibration and/or testing of the alternate meteorological system should be established in. order to maintain accuracy and reliabilit The licensee stated that this matter would be looked int The inspector had no further questions and stated that the matter would remain an unresolved ite.
Emergency Training for Licensee Employees and Offsite Groups This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan to conduct emergency training for licensee employees onsite, offsite employees who are assigned specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and other offsite groups whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radio-logical emergenc The inspector reviewed personnel training rec;:ords along with training schedules and training course content to verify that:
.(1)
Emergency training had been given to the following categories of personnel:
emergency director, emergency coordinators, emergency team leaders, emergency team members, general employees, contractor personnel, licensee offsite employees, and non-licensee offsite group * ! C
- ~
..
-
-,*-
-8-(2)
Personnel are informed of changes in Emergency Plan and Emergency Implementing Procedure (3)
Refresher training had been given as specified in the Emergency Pla (4)
The training courses covered the material specified by the Emergency Plan or Procedure The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area: (1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E,Section I (2)
Emergency Plan, Section (3)
EPIP-21 (4)
Technical Specification 6. In the above area one apparent item of noncompliance was identified as described in paragraph belo During a review of training records it was noted that the records did not adequately reflect the scope of training provided on the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure Due to this record keeping problem it could not be verified that individuals have been receiving training in their specific participating responsibilities as required by the Emergency Plan, Section 7. This record keeping matter was identified by licensee's Quality Assurance Audit Report S79-26 and the training records are being revised to more accurately reflect the training provide Additionally, the individual training records did not reflect any training in the Emergency Plan or Implementing Procedures for four of the five designated Emergency Directors since August 8, 197 Licensee management stated that the individuals in question had received training subsequent to that date through their review of changes to the Emergency Plan and Procedures in connection with SNSOC activitie The inspector stated that a review of changes did not constitute training in specific participating responsibilities as required by Section 7.1.1 of the Emergency Plan. This is an infraction (50-280/80-04-03; 50-281/80-06-03). Emergency Drills This area was reviewed with respect to licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan for the planning, execution and eval-uation of emergency drill The inspector reviewed records reports and discussed with a licensee representative the most recently conducted full-scale radiation emergency drill to verify that:
(1)
The required drill was performed at the prescribed frequenc...... _,. ________ -
---.
__________.. __
,___ ________ ~--------------------- --~ ~ --- --
_..,_..__. ____ -..
~ **-**.
-9-(2)
Appropriate corrective actions are being initiated to correct identified deficiencie (3)
Changes to the Emergency Plan or Procedures, as a result of deficiencies identified during the drill, have been reviewed and approved by licensee managemen (4)
Changes were issued to persons, organizations, and support organi-zation The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(1)
10 CFR SO, Appendix E, Item I (2)
Emergency Plan, Section 7.1.2 and 4. In the above area, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fie An open item from a previous inspection was followed up and is discussed in paragraph belo During an inspection on June 1, 1979 (Reference IE Report Number 50-280/79-27, 50-281/79-44), there was evidence of problems encountered in accountability of construction personnel during a site evacuation on May 9, 197 The inspector reviewed the evacuation and accountability procedures and discussed this evacuation with licensee representative A bomb threat on May 9, 1979, required site evacuation in which several of the construction workers on site did not follow assembly and account-ability procedure All evacuees were eventually accounted for by Security personne In order to resolve the problems encountered, the licensee implemented enhanced training in emergency procedures for construction personnel and developed Administrative Procedure 25 and Security Procedure 25.1, dealing with evacuation and accountabilit An evacuation drill has not been held since these measures were insti-tuted and this matter will remain open until the adequacy of the corrective actions has been demonstrate.
Emergency Organization This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitment as described in the Emergency Plan, for developing the organization for coping with radiation emergencie The inspector reviewed licensee's organization charts, Emergency Rosters, EPIP and interviewed licensee management representatives to verify that:
(1)
Specific authority, responsibilities and duties have been defined and assigned for the onsite emergency organization and specified outside support agencie *
. -~~-- -
-
~--.>.---
~.::.
_ __,,_. ___. __.:,,.....
..........
_...,..
---*
-10-(2)
The primary individuals assigned on the emergency call list is current as to names and telephone number > The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of this area:
(1)
Emergency Plan, Section (2)
EPIP-1, Appendix Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Audits The inspector examined the licensee's Quality Assurance Audit No S78-21 and S79-26, dated January 8, 1979 and February 22, 1980, respec-tively, which were inspections in the areas of Emergency Planning and Emergency Implementing Procedure Audit S78-21 identified three deficiencies which were either corrected or resolve This was verified through discussions with licensee employees and review of records maintained by the resident QC inspecto Audit S79-26 identified five areas of concer Items 1 and 2 were repeat items and concerned the updating of Emergency Plans and EPIP manuals for onsite personnel and offsite agencie The matter of distribution of changes and maintaining master revision lists has been addressed by the license The inspector reviewed documentation which indicated that corrective action had been taken for Items 1, 2, and 3, and that corrective action is scheduled for items 4 and 5 by April 15, 198 One area of concern with respect to conduct of the audits was identified by the inspector and was discussed with licensee personne The Audit Checklist used in both audits appeared to be out of date with current requirement The inspector pointed out that Part 5.2.1 of Section 18 to the QA Manual specifies, in part, that "maximum use should be made of preplanned standard audit checklists to.insure uniformit An index of all such standard audit checklists shall be maintained." The inspector reviewed the audit checklist index and noted the s_tandard checklist for Emergency Planning audits was listed for future developmen The inspector contacted a licensee representative from the office of the Supervisor -
Quality Assurance, Operations and Maintenance (QAOM) to discuss this matte The inspector stated that a standard audit checklist should be prepared for Emergency Planning inspection The.licensee represen-tative stated that a standard audit checklist would be prepared prior to the next annual audi The inspector informed the Station Manager at the exit meeting that a commitment had been made by the Supervisor, QAOM, to establish the standard checklis The matter of the standard checklist and the two remaining open items identified by Audit S79-26 was identified as an open item to be reviewed at a later date (50-280/80-04-04, 50-281/80-06-04).
..
-11-1 Follow-Up On IE Bulletins Licensee's response to Bulletin 79-18, "Audibility of Evacuation Alarm In High Noise Areas", November 29, 1979, and a supplemental response on February 28, 1980, were discussed with licensee representative Materials availability has delayed the correction of areas identified during a survey of Unit 1 until July 1980 and Unit 2 has not be~n surveyed for deficient areas due to an extended shutdow Licensee management agreed that interim measures should be employed to insure prompt notification of individuals in High Noise Areas of the emergency alarms until such time as a modification to the announcement system can be complete Licensee management stated that an interim procedure would be developed for Units 1 and 2 prior to either Unit start-up but not later than May 1, 1980 (79-BU-18).
------- - ---- - ---**,- -- ------*---~------~----~- -~-- ----
- ----
--- ~-
__.,.....,