IR 05000282/1989025
| ML19324B730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1989 |
| From: | Dan Barss, Foster J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324B726 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-89-25, 50-306-89-25, NUDOCS 8911080098 | |
| Download: ML19324B730 (9) | |
Text
c c'
'
[.-
-
.
f U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION III
r Reports No. 50-282/89025(DRSS); 50-306/89025(DRSS)
,
Docket Nos, 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee:
Northern States Power Company
<
414 Nicollet Mall
<
Minneapolis, MN 55401
,
f L
Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
/
Inspection At:
Prairie Island Site, Red Wing, Minnesota Inspection Conducted:
October 2-6, 1989 Inspector:
oster
/
_2 '7 0$8
/
!-
Accompanying tr.). d h Inspector:
D. Barss i
LJ.
Approved By:
W. Sn 1, Chief, i.A 9/s>
Radiological Controls and Date Emergency Preparedness Section Inspection Summary
Inspection on October 2-6, 1989 (Reports No. 50-282/89025(DRSS);
,
No. 50-306/89025(DRSS))
l'
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced team inspection of the following areas of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant emergency preparedness program:
,
(
followup on actual emergency plan activations (IP 92700); and operational l
status of the emergency preparedness program (IP 82701).
The inspection
!
involved two NRC inspectors.
Results: No violations, deficiencies or deviations were identified during I
this inspection. The Emergency Preparedness program is well maintained, and
,
minor improvement.s continue to be made at the plant and corporate level.
From
'
a facility standpoint, the Operational Support Center still needs improvement, and various actions to improve the facility are either underway or under consideration. The overall program continues to have strong management support. The onsite emergency organization has detailed procedures and an adequate training program.
,
.
l 8911000098 891030 "
gDR ADOCK O g
. --
L.
.i
'
.
t
.
,
,
i t.
DETAILS n
1.
Persons Contacted Northern States Power Company i
M. Pfeffer, Senior RPS, Prairie Island E. Watzl, Plant Manager, Prairie Island T. Beard, Senior Health Physicist, Prairie Island Trainirg Center
.
'
M. Agen, lead Production Engineer (EP Coordinator)
D. Schuelke, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
,
T. Amundson, General Superintendent, Prairie Island Training Center D. Martin, Coordinator, Agency Emergency Preparedness D. Mendele, General Plant Supt. Eng & Rad. Protection All of the above personnel attended the October 6, 1989 exit interview.
'
,
The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's staff during
!
the course of the inspection.
'
2.
Emergency Plan Activations (IP 92700)
Licensee and NRC records of actual emergency plan activations for the period January, 1989 through October 4, 1989 were reviewed.
During this time period, the licensee declared one Unusual Event at 2055 l
on March 22, 1989 due to the Unit I refueling water storage tank boron concentration being below technical specification limits, cquiring a unit shutdown. The event was termir.ated at 2133 hours0.0247 days <br />0.593 hours <br />0.00353 weeks <br />8.116065e-4 months <br /> when 'nsampling of the tank determined that the boron concentration was within technical specification limits. The situation was correctly classified, and the emergency declaration was made in a timely manner.
Records generated by onsite personnel following the emergency declaration
<
were sufficiently well detailed to facilitate later reconstruction of
'
their emergency response activities. These records included: initial notification message forms to State and NRC officials prepared by onsite personnel; followup message forms prepared by onsite personnel; and an evaluation of events during the activation.
Initial notifications of State and NRC officials were completed within the regulatory time limits following the declaration.
The EP Coordinator's evaluation of records associated with this actual emergency plan activation was thorough, including documentation of identified problems and assoc ated corrective actions. A March 24, 1989
,
l memorandum documented his review, which identified six problems.
Included in'the activation file folder was a printout of the EP Plan Project History tracking system which indicated that tracking and closecut of the above items.
It was noted activation records are not procedurally collected and reviewed, and it is recommended that this process be proceduralized.
l l
_
_
-
['
'
,
..
i
'
.
,
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable.
3.
Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program (IP 82701)
a.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures By letter dated September 20, 1989, NRC Region III staff approved the latest revision to the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant Emergency
Plan. The technical basis for one of the changes to the Emergency Action Levels (EALs) regarding " complete loss of any function needed for plant cold shutdown" was questioned.
During this inspection, discussions were held with licensee personnel regarding the EAL in question and other EALs.
It was indicated that additional review would be performed and additional changes made to the Emergency Plan
-
if warranted.
Changes to the emergency plan are normally initiated by the Emergency Planning staff, then reviewed by the Plant Manager and i
corporate personnel.
Changes are reviewed by the Plant Operations Committee prior to final approval.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that copies of Emergency Plan changes are distributed to the.NRC by corporate personnel in accordance with normal distribution procedures which insure that the NRC receives such plan changes well within thirty days of the plan change.
During a tour of the Headquarters Emergency Center (HQEC) and discussion of HQEC initiation procedures, it was observed that the facility lacks an augmentation (call list) procedure, such as that utilized to staff site response facilities.
A number of new procedures have been developed since the last inspection.
Emergency Preparedness Policy 4.1 (Revision 1), dated March 21, 1989, "EP Action Items", establishes a system for Nuclear Radiological Services (NRS) to assign and track the resolution of emergency preparedness problems.
An Emergency Preparedness Review Committee comprised of Prairie
,
Island, Monticello, and corporate representatives meets on a regular basis (with quarterly meetings ar a minimum) to ensure that the three organizations coordinate emergency response items. The requirements, responsibilities and membership of the committee is prescribed in Emergency Preparedness Policy 4.2, Revision 0, dated March 21, 1989.
,
Emergency Preparedness Policy 4.3, Revision 0, dated May 1, 1989 established the responsibilities and requirements for radiological emergency preparedness for both Prairie Island and Monticello plants,
'
The Site Drill and Exercise Manual (Revision 0) dated September, i:
l 1989, describes the activities needed to properly prepare, conduct and evaluate Prairie Island Emergency Plan drills and exercises.
l.
I l'
.
,
a-
- '
.
e
- '
.
This manual supplements the NSP Production Training Emergency Plan i
Drill and Exercise Program Manual, and provides for exercise i
L scenario preparation, scenario package format, exercise and drill co". duct and' documentation.
Prairie Island Radiation Protection Implementing Procedure 6010
" Emergency Response Organization Roster," and Procedure 6020,
" Emergency Preparedness Action Item Tracking" were both approved on September 3,'1989.
All of the above procedures were reviewed and found to be adequate.
Based upon the above findings, this' portion of the licensee's E
program was acceptable.
However, the following item is recommended for improvement:
The Headquarters Emergency Center (HQEC) should develop and implement an augmentation (call list) procedure, such as that
'
utilized to staff site response facilities, b.
Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs), Equipment and Supplies The onsite, nearsite, and corporate ERFs (Control Room, Technical Support Center, Operations Support Center, Screenhouse Assembly Area, Construction Office Assembly Area, Emergency Operations Facility, and Headquarters Emergency Command Center) were toured and were as described in the Emergency Plan and relevant Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.
Each appeared to be in an acceptable state of operational readiness.
Equipment in each ERF (survey and communications equipment, emergency kits, etc.) were examined and found to be operational.
Each telephone on the Emergency Notification System (ENS) was tested and found to be functional.
In the TSC, an additional auto-dialer has been added to the communications equipment, and two Emergency Response Computer System terminals are now available. The Emergency Notification System (red phone) has been relocated to a more central location, enabling an individual to better observe TSC actions and status boards for reactor paremeters. A Continuous Air Monitor (CAM) which pulls a suction on the ventilation system has been relocated so that pump j
noise in the TSC is avoided.
Discussion with licensee personnel l
indicated that the use of tone alert radios for emergency response
!
personnel is being discontinued, and pagers substituted.
The licensee is assessing the need for the continued use of tone alert
.
radios by nearsite residents.
J
An updated telephone system had been installed in the EOF.
Licensee personnel indicated that several facility improvements are in the planning stage: the Meteorological Sensor Data Terminal in the Control room is to be replaced with a personal computer which will enable hardcopy printouts; the Continuous Air Monitor and Air Conditioning equipment is to be relocated in the Operations Support l
..
.
.
'
i
'
Center; a new door is planned for the Emergency Operations Facility L
to make additional space readily available.
L Most storage containers for emergency equipment were sealed with tamper-indicating seals. The storage lockers in the OSC were labeled on the outside as to their general contents.
This is I.
worthwhile in an emergency situation, and precludes response personnel from having to search each locker for equipment.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that a reorganization of the OSC is planned, involving relocation of supply cabinets and j-f'
revision of the OSC status boards.
Recommendations for status board reorganization were provided during this and a previous inspection.
,
Review of completed checklists for 1989 indicated that the EP Coordinator and/or assistants 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:
the Control Room, onsite ERFs, gatehouse, and the Station's screen house.
Inventory checklists specified minimum quantities of items and required verification of the supplies' locations and completeness.
Appropriate checklists addressed periodic replacement of perishable items, verification of the current calibration of survey instruments ano air samplers, and functional tests of battery powered equipment.
SP 1034 (Revision 21), " Emergency Plan Instrument Test", was reviewed for July - September,1989. The procedure is much more complete than its title would suggest, and includes tests of instruments, calibration date checks, inventories of on and offsite emergency kits, battery checks, tests of communications (radies, public address systems and telephones), inspection of respirator equipment and verification of availability of the latest revision of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.
Documentation was available to indicate that the procedure had been completed and corrective actions taken when needed.
Inventory procedures included provisions for conducting inventories after use of the supplies or following discovery of an unsealed supply container, in addition to the periodic inventory requirement.
j Records reviewed indicated that all problems identified during i
inventories and communications equipment checks had been corrected i
in a timely manner.
'
Licensee personnel indicated that they had noted recent population expansions in several areas within the Emergency Planning Zone, and l
the need for additional sirens was being addressed. Two new sirens had been added in the city of Red Wing.
!
)
-
..
'.
<
.
.
The performance of SP 1728, encoder validation equipment weekly test, used to verify the operability of the siren systems in Dakota, Goodhue, Red Wing and Pierce Counties, was observed.
Primary and mobile / backup encoder units are tested per the schedule contained in the procedure. The test utilizes the Technical Support Center Encoder Validation Equipment unit which has lights and audible indication of siren encoder signals.
In conjunction with this test, a contractor surveys indicator lights at the siren locations to serify that individual sirens are functional.
The procedure was properly executed and the siren test was successful; however, the backup encoder for Dakota County failed to
'
operate.
The primary Dakota County encoder was then selected, and operated properly.
The encoder contractor (Nelson Radio)
immediately began troubleshooting problems with the backup encoder.
'
The procedure provides for the Plant Shift Supervisor to notify the NRC if greater than 30% of the sirens are nonfunctional.
Discussion with licensee personnel also indicated that a monthly " siren trend report" for both Monticello and Prairie Island sites is developed by corporate personnel from contractor siren performance reports.
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable.
c.
Organization and Management Control The overall organization and management Control of the Emergency Preparedness function has not changed since the last routine s
inspection. The Station's EP program has been managed by a Lead
.1 Production Engineer (EP Coordinator) whose assigned duties were almost exclusively (approximately 95%) in Emergency Preparedness.
l The Lead Production Engineer was a>sisted by a Senior Radiation Protection Specialist.
The formal and informal corrective action tracking systems in place during the previous inspection remained in use during 1989.
The tracking systems used by the headquarters and plant staff, plus the system used by the EP Coordinator, together encompassed onetime and periodic action items.
The corporate system now tracks major items, but there is some redundancy between the corporate and plant specific systems, but this has not been detrimental.
Adequate numbers of personnel have 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 informed of the formers' ERO membership.
The callout procedure for I
the onsite ERO has been updated on a quarterly basis by the EP i.
Coordinator.
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's i
program was acceptable.
l.
1,
a
.
d.
Training The licensee's emergency preparedness training program is unchanged from the last inspection.
The Production Training Center retains
,
overall responsibility for initial and annual requalifying training at each plant training center. A training matrix provides for the training needed for specific positions in the emergency response organization.
Overall training procedures, requirements, lesson
'
plans and training records were reviewed.
Determination that an individual's training was current was difficult in some cases, as the emergency response position descriptions and the training matrix do not always match. Also, some lesson plans provided for their equivalence with other lesson plans as qualifying training, and this was not always readily evident.
In some cases, discussion with the primary EP instructor was necessary to clarify questions as to the currency of an individual's training. No individuals were identified as having exceeded the training interval and allowed grace period without removal from the emergency response
,
rooster.
It was ir.dicated that the document control staff advises training center personnel when thers is a change to a plant procedure, so that any related changes can be made to relevant training modules.
,
'
A Shift Manager was interviewed.
Per the Emergency Plan, these individuals would assume the duties of Emergency Director (ED).
The individual interviewed demonstrated excellent knowledge of emergency preparedness principles and policies in general, was knowledgeable regarding site EP procedures, and adequately classified a series of hypothetical scenarios.
He was also aware of which facilities dCtivate at each emergency classification, and which duties he would assume as ED could or could not be delegated to others.
The following onsite EP drills were scheduled for 1989: annual medical drill; semiannual augmentation drill; semiannual Health
.
Physics liquid drill and semiannual Health Physics airborne drill.
,
Records indicated that all required EP drills had been successfully conducted, critiqued, and adequately documented during 1989.
Critique records were very detailed, indicating that each drill or exercise had been carefully reviewed for deficiencies. Critiques often resulted in several corrective actions.
Records of offsite training for 1989 were reviewed.
Documentation indicated that training was provided to offsite hospitals, ambulance services, State Emergency Operations Center personnel, Sheriff's offices, and fire departments. A seminar on the medical aspects of radiation accidents was held on September 21, 1989 in Red Wing Minnesota.
Six sessions were also held to provide training on the handling and transport of radioactively contaminated patients.
,,
,.
.
,
,
,
i A Media Seminar was held for the Prairie Island site on June 27, I
1989 (three media representatives attended), and for the Monticello
!
,
Site on June 29, 1989 (10 media representatives attended).
A
'
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representative attended
'
both of the media seminars.
'
,
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable.
However, the following item is recommended for improvement:
,
A review should be performed to ensure that the specified emergency response. position descriptions and the training matrix match.
,
e.
Independent Reviews / Audits l
Records of 1989 audit and surveillances of the Station's EP program were reviewed. All records were complete and readily available.
The 1989 audit satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t).
Records indicated that timely and adequate corrective actions had been taken on identified problems.
Licensee procedures provide for the conduct, documentation and
'
corrective action associated with audits. The Annual Review of Emergency Preparedness for 1989 (Audit AG 89-25-6) was performed during April 4 - June 6,1989.
This audit pertained to both the
'
Monticello and Prairie Island sites. The audit report was highly detailed and comprehensive, involving a lead coditor and two
.
auditors, and resulting in two Findings related to training records.
The adequacy of interface with offsite officials was determined by interviews with Minnesota and Wisconsin officials and review of exercise critiques and correspondence. This was considered an excellent method of making such a determination.
In addition to the two Findings, the audit report contained a number of insightful
'
comments and recommendations.
The nature of the questions, comments and Findings of the audit indicated that the auditors possessed an excellent understanding of the Station's EP program.
Findings in the audit had been tracked as provided for in the audit process.
Recommendations and comments contained in the audit report had been entered into the EP Project History tracking system for tracking of actions taken.
It was noted that the audit report, in several sections, referred to the " requirements" in NUREG-0654.
It should be clarified that this NUREG is a guidance document for licensee and NRC personnel involved in development and evaluation of emergency plans.
NUREG-0654 allows considerable implementation flexibility, and does not contain requirements, except to the extent that commitments have been made in an NRC-approved emergency plan which has been submitted in response to guidance in the NUREG.
- .
.
.
-
-
.
, :. ; *.
L
,.
.
Also reviewed were Surve111ances SR-89-01 and 89-049, involving
!
observation of portions of the annual emergency exercise and a
,
L liquid release field survey team drill,.respectively. Both i
i surveillances were considered adequate.-
i Overall, the audit effort was considered excellent, and demonstrated that the licensee can identify and correct emergency planning l
deficiencies, in addition, licensee personnel indicated that an
-
"outside contractor" would perform an independent evaluation of the i
'
station's emergency preparedness program in October, 1989.
.
,
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's
,
'
program was acceptable, o
4.
. Exit Interview (IP 30703)
{
-
~
.
.
!
f On October 6, 1989, the inspector met with those licensee representatives i
identified in Section 1 to present the preliminary inspection findings.
'
The inspector provided his evaluation that the emergency response program i
is in a. mature state, is effectively maintained, and continues to have
,
strong management support.
The onsite emergency organization has
'
workable procedures and an acceptable training program.
From a facility
'
i standpoint the Operational Support Center still needs improvement, and.
various actions to improve the facility are either underway or under-
':
consideration. The-licensee indicated that none of the matters discussed
~
during the exit-interview were proprietary.
_
l t
i
L f
k i
h l
l
--
. _ -.
.