IR 05000302/1987023
| ML20237K410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1987 |
| From: | Decker T, Testa E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237K379 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-87-23, NUDOCS 8708270169 | |
| Download: ML20237K410 (9) | |
Text
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _ _. _. _. _. _ _
.
<
bRfTED STAVES :
p M90f.
h!UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
_.f
["-
-
o,'o.
REGION il
!
.g j~
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.WJ
- 5 I 2 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%
/
AUG 211987
' Report No.:
50-302/87-23-l Licensee: ' Florida Power Corporation
'
3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket-No.:
50-302 License No.:
DPR-72 Facility Name:
Crystal River 3 Inspection Conducted: August 10-14, 1987 Inspector:
[,9 P/h/ff E. D. Testa Da te ' Signed Accompanying Personnel:
W.' M. Sartor Approved by:
[
8//e
T. R. Decker, Section Chief Date' Signed
,
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine unannounced inspection was in the area of emergency preparedness.
i i
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
.l t
8708270169 870821 PDR ADOCK 05000302 Q
-
_
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. S. Mann, Nuclear Compliance Specialist
- J. D. Stephenson, Supervisor, Radiological Emergency Planning
- W. K. Bandhauer, Assistant Nuclear Plant Operations Manager
- M. R. Laycock, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist
- S. E. Chapin, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist
- R. E. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer
- S. G. Johnson, Manager, Site Nuclear Services
- R. Whittman, Nuclear Operations Superintendent W. L. Rossfeld, Nuclear Compliance Manager K. Wilson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing G. R. Westafer, Director, Quality Programs P. H. Pinney, Manager, Quality Audits D. W. Kurtz, Manager, Quality Audits R. Yost, Audit Team Leader M. Bellamy, Document Control Supervisor i
L. Lockhart, Shift Supervisor G. Sutter, Assistant Shift Supervisor A. Arnold, Nuclear Team Instructor W. Wilson, Shift Supervisor E. Gallion, Assistant Shift Supervisor
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 14, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the naterial provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.B and IV.C; and Section 8 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this program area was inspected to determine whether the licensee used and understood a standard emergency classification and action level scheme.
i
%-
L.
'
.
..
The inspector' reviewed the licensee's classification procedures.
The event.' classifications in the procedures were consistent with those required by regulation and the Emergency Plan.
The classification procedures did not appear to contain impediments or errors which could lead to. incorrect or untimely classification.
Selected emergency action levels (EALs) specified in the classification procedures were. reviewed.
The reviewed EALs appeared to be consistent with the initiating events specified in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0554 and the Emergency Plan.
The inspector noted that some of the EALs were based on parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentation.
q The inspector verified that the licensee's notification procedures
included criteria for initiation of offsite notifications 'and for
!
development of protective action recommendations.
The notification
!
'
procedures requireo that offsite notifications be made promptly after declaration of an emergency.
The. inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of i
EALs with State and local officials.
Licensee documentation showed that
the licensee had discussed the EALs during June 1987, with State and local
'
officials, and that these officials agreed with the EALs used by the I
licensee.
Interviews were held with two shift supervisors and two assistant shift supervisors to verify that the' understood the relationship between core status and such core damage Indic-Mrs as containment high-range
.
radiation monitor, inadequate-core-t ' ling l indicator, high-range effluent
!
monitor, fuel temperature indicator, containment hydrogen monitor, and postaccident primary coolant analysis.
All interviewees appeared knowledgeable of the various core damage indications and their relationship to core status.
The responsibility and authority for classification of emergency events and initiation of emergency action were prescribed in licensee procedures and in the energency plan.
Interviews with selected key members of the licensee's emergency organization revealed that these personnel understood their responsibilities and authorities in relation to accident-classification, notification, and protective action recommendations.
i Selected Emergency Operation Procedures (EOPs) were reviewed by the i
inspector and discussed with licensee personnel.
The E0Ps provided direction to users concerning timely classification of accidents.
All personnel interviewed appeared to be familiar with the classification information in the E0Ps.
'
Walk-through evaluations involving accident classification problems were conducted with two shift supervisors and two assistant shift supervisors.
All personnel interviewed promptly and properly classified the hypothetical accident situations presented to them, and appeared to be familiar with appropriate classification procedures.
_ _ _ - _
_
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Protective Action Decision-Making (82202)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) and (10); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
Section IV.D.3; and Section 14 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had 24-hour-per-day capability to assess and analyze emergency conditions and make recommendations to protect the public and onsite workers, and whether offsite officials had the authority and capability to initiate prompt protective action for the public.
I The inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action decision-making with licensee representatives and reviewed pertinent portions of the licensee's emergency plan and procedures.
The plan and procedures clearly assigned responsibility and authority for accident assessment and protective action decision-making.
Interviews with members of the licensee's emergency organization showed that these personnel understood their authorities and responsibilities with respect to accident assessment and protective action decision-making.
Walk-through evaluations involving protective action decision-making were conducted with two shift supervisors and two assistant shift supervisors, all of whom appeared to be cognizant of appropriate onsite protective measures and aware of the range of protective action recommendations
,
'
appropriate to offsite protection.
Personnel interviewed were aware of the need for timeliness in making initial protective action recommenda-tions to offsite officials.
Interviewees demonstrated adequate under-standing of the requirement that protective action recommendations be based on core condition and containment status even if no release is in progress.
The capability of offsite officials to make protective action decisions and to promptly notify the public was discussed with licensee representa-tives.
Licensee procedures made provisions for contacting responsible offsite authorities on a 24-hour basis.
Backup communications links with offsite authorities were available.
The inspector confirmed that offsite
<
decision-makers with authority for emergency response activities could be contacted by requesting the licensee make a telephone call using the Florida State Hot Ringdown Telephone System from the Control Room to the State Warning Point in Tallahassee, Florida.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Notification and Cormlunication (82203)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D; and Sections 9.0 and 10.0 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating (in the event of an
\\
_
_ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
emergency) among its own personnel, offsite supporting agencies and authorities, and the population within the EPZ.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures.
The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and EAL scheme used by the licensee. The inspector determined that the procedures l
made provisions for message verification.
i The inspector determined by review of applicable procedures and by l
discussion with licensee representatives that adequate procedural means existed for alerting, notifying, and activating emergency response personnel.
The procedures specified when to notify and activate the onsite emergency organization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencies.
Selected telephone numbers listed in the licensee's procedures for emergency response support organizations were checked in order to determine whether the listed numbers were current and correct.
No problems were noted.
The content of initial emergency messages was reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives.
The initial messages appeared to meet the guidance of NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3 and II.E.4.
Licensee representa-tives stated that the format and content of the initial emergency messages had been reviewed by State and local government authorities.
The licensee's management control program for the prompt notification system was reviewed.
According to licensee documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the system consisted of 33 fixed sirens. A review of licensee records verified that the system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the emergency plan.
Maintenance of the system had been provided for by the licensee.
The inspector reviewed recent siren test records and the records showed that tests were conducted as required.
Communications equipment in the Control Room, and TSC was inspected.
Provisions existed for prompt communications among emergency response organizations, to emergency response personnel, and to the public.
The installed communications systems at the emergency response facilities were consistent with system descriptions in the emergency plan and implementing procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16); 10 CFR 50.54(q); and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection July 1986, and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparedness.
...
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _,_ _
_
-
_
__
. _ _ _ _ - _ - _.
-
_
_.
e
l U
,
The inspector discussed the licensee's program for making changes to the emergency plan-and implementing procedures.
The. inspector reviewed the
licensee's system delineated in Section 20 of the Emergency Plan and Procedure AI-400 " Plant Operating Quality Assurance Manual Control Document," for review and approval of changes to' the plan and procedures.
The inspector' verified that changes to the plan ~ and procedures-were reviewed and approved by management.
It was also noted that all such changes were submitted to NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as required.
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that no significant
,
modifications to facilities, equipment, or instrumentation were completed
)
since the last inspection, j
The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were reviewed.
The inspector discussed the changes in the plant emergency j
planning staff since the last inspection.
A new position entitled i
Director of Nuclear Operations Site Support has been created and filled.
!
The former Supervisor, R6diological Emergency Planning has been promoted
'
to Manager Site Nuclear Services and the position of Supervisor Radiological Emergency Planning filled from experienced onsite personnel.
.
There were no personnel changes affecting corporate emergency planning i
functions.
The inspector's discussion with licensee representatives also j
. disclosed that there had been one change in the organization and staffing
{
of the offsite support agencies since the last inspection.
This change
)
involves Citrus County.
The Radiological Emergency Planner at the time of j
this inspection was vacant.
The inspector-reviewed the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the emergency plan and procedures.
Document control records for the period September 1986 to August 1987 showed that appropriate personnel and organizations were sent copies of plan and procedural. changes, as
required.
]
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82205)
.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, l
Sections IV. A and IV.C, this area was inspected to determine whether shif t
staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional
!
capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available and maintained to augment the emergency organization in a timely manner.
The inspector discussed emergency staff augmentation times with licensee
,
I representatives.
Licensee representatives indicated that drills, for the
,
1985 exercise were performed and had confirmed that Table B-1 augmentation
"ms could be met.
However, no drills have been performed since the i 2rcise to verify augmentation times.
I
___ -
-
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
l
.
,
l Inspector Followup Item (50-302/87-23-01) Verify 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> emergency
,
response personnel augmentation times by conducting periodic announced and i
unannounced drills.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
KnowledgeandPerformanceofDuties(Training)(82206)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F, this area was inspected to determine whether emergency response personnel understood their emergency response roles and could
!
perform their assigned functions.
The inspector reviewed the description (in the emergency plan) of the training program, training procedures, and selected lesson plans, and interviewed members of the instructional staff.
Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had established a formal emergency training program.
Records of training for selected members of the emergency organization for the past twelve months were reviewed. According to the training records, the type, amount, and frequency of training were consistent with approved procedures.
The inspector conducted walk-through evaluations with selected key members of the emergency organization.
During these walk-throughs, individuals were given various hypothetical sets of emergency conditions and data and asked to talk through the response they would make if such an emergency actually existed. The individuals demonstrated familiarity with emergency procedures and equipment, and no problems were observed in the areas of emergency detection and classification, notifications, dose calculation, and protective action decision-making.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Dose Calculation and Assessment (82207)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), this area was inspected to determine whether there was an adequate method for assessing the consequences of an actual or potential radiological release.
The inspector reviewed two dose assessment procedures EM-204(A), " Release and Offsite Dose Assessment During Radiological Emergencies at CR-3 (Initial Assessment Method)," and EM-204(B), " Release and Offsite Dose Assessment During Radiological Emergencies at CR-3 (Computer Method)."
The procedures had provisions for calculating doses for ground releases.
The procedures allowed for refinement of dose projections through incorporation of feedback from field monitoring.
The inspector discussed the dose projection models used by the licensee and the State of Florida. Two sample calculations using a steam generator
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
__-
..
-
-
_ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - -
,
!
tube rupture and a loss of coolant accident type 1 were reviewed and the
,
results from the two models were compatible and no major differences were
noted.
j
.
The licensee procedures made provision for timely incorporation of dose assessment results into the offsite protective action recommendation
process.
During interviews with key licensee emergency response personnel, they all appeared to recognize the uncertainties associated
)
with dose projections and the importance of making protective action recommendation based on plant conditions.
An inspection and operability check were made of selected equipment and support items used for dose assessment at the Control Room, TSC, and E0F.
No problems were observed.
The inspector requested and observed dose assessment walk-throughs by four selected licensee personnel designated as responsible for dose projection during an emergency.
Two individuals demonstrated the ability to make
manual calculations and two different individuals demonstrated the ability to make calculations using the computerized method.
Each individual t
observed was able to produce acceptable results by either method within l
15 minutes.
l
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Public Information Program (82209)
,
l Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.2, this area was inspected to determine whether basic emergency planning information was disseminated to the public in the plume-exposure-pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) on an annual basis.
The licensee has developed an emergency response information brochure for j
use by the public residing in or frequenting the 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ).
Licensee representatives stated that the brochure was updated annually.
Licensee procedures required a coordinated review
'
and annual update of the brochure.
Licensee documentation showed that development of the brochure was coordinated with the appropriate offsite l
authorities.
The inspector reviewed the current brochure and verified that it included the information specified by NUREG-0654,Section II.G.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12. Licensee Audits (82210)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program.
Records of audits of the program were reviewed.
The records showed that an independent audit of the program was conducted from March 9 to
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_
_.
-
_
j
.
..
March 27, 1987, and was documented in Audit Report No. 87-03-SSUP.
This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such cudits. Audit findings and recommendations were presented to plant and corporate management.
A review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee
!
'
complied _ with the five-year retention requirement for such reports.
However, the audit records did not indicate that the State and local government interfaces had yet been evaluated or made available to State and local government authorities for 1987.
Review of licensee audit i
reports for 1985 and 1986 indicated this interface had been previously i
evaluated.
Discussions with licensee audit personnel indicated the interface evaluation will be done for 1987.
It was identified to the licensee that this would be an inspector followup item.
Inspector Follow-up Item (50-302/87-23-02) Evaluation of State and local
)
government interfaces during the annual emergency plan audit.
-
f
'
The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise
findings was reviewed.
Licensee procedures required follow-up on l
deficient areas identified during audits, drills, and exercises.
The licensee had established a tracking system as a management tool in
!
following up on actions taken in deficient areas.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
I
)
l l
l l
__
_
__ _ _ __