IR 05000302/1987036
| ML20236R404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1987 |
| From: | Decker T, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236R367 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-87-36, NUDOCS 8711230257 | |
| Download: ML20236R404 (4) | |
Text
. _.
.. _
....
... -.....
...
.
. ~....
.. -.
..
..
......
. -. -- =.
--
-
.
lI SCCicq.
.
UNITED STATES
)
.
Do-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
-
-p'
REGION 11.
g
,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
]
't ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 i
<<
- ..-
M'!!O1987 Report No.:.50-302/87-36
"
Licensee:. Florida Power Corporation s
3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733
]
.
Facility Name:
Crystal River 3
'
>
,
)
Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: ;DRP-72-
'
Inspection: conducted: October.20-21, and. November.2, 1987
d M 73. 87 j
Inspector:
W. M. Sartor Date Signed
. I Approved by:
/d
')[ta ' /3,R7 T. R. Decker, Section Chief
.
.
Date Sfgne'd Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
Reactive inspection to evaluate the licensee's implementation:of.its'.
Emergency Plan on October ~ 16,1987, when an Alert emergency condition was declared as a result of events accompanying the loss of offsite power. During -
the inspection, the scope was expanded to include.a similar.. event which ~
c vearred on October 14, 1987.
Results: One violation was identified that addressed a procedural?
noncompliance problem indicated by:
(1) the failure to classify an "all alarms lost" condition on October 14, 1987,.in accordance with the emergency procedures; (2) the failure to retain the annotated conv of the procedure used'
-
during the October 16, 1987, event in accordance with
- mergency procedures; and (3) the failure of the emergency procedures to i'
- ment the Emergency. Plan as noted in the different classifications for.the "ali alarms lost" condition.
t 8711230257 871116
. *
PDR ADOCK 05000302 G
4
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _
___.-m_ _ _. _
_
_
__
m
-_. -.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- P. F. McKee, Director, Plant Operations
- S. G. Johnson, Manager, Site Nuclear Services
- W. L. Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance
- M. S. Mann, Nuclear Compliance Specialist
- B. J. Hickle, Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations
- R. T. Wittmann, Nuclear Operations Superintendent
- J. Stephenson, Superviror, Radiological Emergency Planning
- W. Marshall, Nuclear Shift Supervisor
- E. C. Simpson, Director, Nuclear Operations Site Support
- K. R. Wilson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing E. W. Ford, Nuclear Safety Specialist T. Metcalf, Operations Technical Advisor G. P. Hebb, Nuclear Shift Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, security force members, and office personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!
l
- T. Stetka, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
'
l
.
2.
Exit Interview I
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 21, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The inspector noted two areas of apparent noncompliance:
(1) the failure of the. Emergency l
I Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP) to implement the Emergency Plan for i
i classifying an emergency with the condition of "all alarms lost" and
(2) the failure to classify the loss of alarms event on October 14, 1987,-
in accordance with Paragraph 5.g, Table 8.1 of the Emergency Plan.
l Licensee management stated that their remaining silent regarding the
!
inspection findings was not to be construed in any manner as expressing a
'
l position of agreement with the findings. The licensee did not identify as i
proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
On November 2,1987, the inspector informed Mr. W. L. Rossfeld of your staff that the failure to maintain the annotated copy of EPIP EM-202 for the October 16, 1987, Alert would also be noted in the report and Notice l
of Violation.
,
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92700)
i This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Onsite Followup of Events at Operating Power Reactors (93702)
!
,
This inspection was in response to the emergency declaration of an Alert at 9:30 pm (EDT) on October 16, 1987, when Crystal River Unit 3 sustained a loss of offsite power.
The loss of offsite power was caused by the accidental shorting out of the Unit 3 startup transformer by two contract i
workers.
The purpose of the inspection was to followup on the implementation of the Emergency Plan during the event. The NRC Region II Incident Response Center (IRC) was activated as a result of the Alert declaration.
While the IRC was activated, the exchange of information
,
between the licensee and Regional IRC personnel identified that an
{
inconsistency existed between the Emergency Plan and the EPIPs for I
classifying an emergency for the condition of "all alarms lost."
The apparent inconsistency was reviewed during the irspection.
The inspector reviewed the October 16, 1987, event chronology with the Senior Resident Inspector and selected licensee repres3ntatives.
Documents inspected included the Shift Supervisor's and the Operator's Logs in the Control Room, Notification Forms, the Sequence of Events Recording, and selected portions of the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
The annotated copy of EPIP EM-202, " Duties of the Emergency Coordinator," that was used during the event could not be located.
It was believed that the copy might later be found; however, it was confirmed by telephone conversation with a licensee representative on November 2,1987, that the procedure was not found.
The failure to maintain the annotated copy of EM-202 was not in accordance with Sections 6.1 and 6.3 of the procedure.
Section 6.1 requires all significant information, events, and actions
!
taken during the emergency period be recorded and retained for later evaluation.
Section 6.3 requires the time blocks in Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 be utilized to provide a reference to verify actions taken
for later use during accident reconstruction.
'
The inconsistency between the Emergency Plan and EPIP EM-202 for the classification of a postulated accident of the condition "all alarms lost" was discussed with key licensee personnel.
The inconsistency was:
Section 5.g of the Emergency Plan indicates the condition "all alarms lost" would be classified as an Alert or as a Site Area Emergency if the condition occurred with a plant transient or lasted for 15 minutes or longer; whereas, Section 5.g of Enclosure 1 to EPIP EM-202 states the condition "all alarms lost" would be classified as an Alert or as a Site Area Emergency if it lasted for 15 minutes or longer with a plant transient.
The reason for the inconsistency was readily discerned when a review of recent changes to the procedures and Plan revealed that the change was made to the procedure but inadvertently overlooked during the annual revision to the Emergency Plan.
The inspector noted the inconsistency between the Emergency Plan and the EPIP EM-202 as an apparent violation of Technical Specification 6.8.1.e which requires that l
l
- _ - _ _ - _ _
___ ____ -_ __ ___ _____
__
__
'
,.
written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained for Emergency Plan implementation.
During the course of the inspection it was brought to the attention of the inspector that a similar "all alarms lost" condition occurred on October 14, 1987.
Review of the Shift Supervisor's and Operator's Logs, the Nonconforming Operations Report, and interviews with key personnel confirmed the event.
It was explained to the inspector that an Alert classification was not declared because the event did not meet the class description, i.e., " Events are in process or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of the safety of the plant.
It was also emphasized that Section 1.2.2 of EPIP
"
...
EM-202 states that the listing of examples is to provide guidance to the Emergency Coordinator in making a determination of emergency classification.
The licensee stated that a Notification of Unusual Event was declared to bring the operating staff to an increased state of readiness because of the loss of the plant PA system and the diving operations that were in progress at the intake area.
The inspector indicated that the failure to classify the event in accordance with the Emergency Plan and EPIPs was an apparent violation.
In summary, the above areas of noncompliance were all identified as a result of two separate "all alarms lost" conditions that occurred during refueling operations.
The commonality of the three areas emanate from the maintenance and implementation of procedures that implement the Emergency Plan.
Specifically, the event on October 14, 1987, was not classified in accordance with the EPIPs; the failure to maintain the annotated copy of EM-202 for the October 16, 1987, event was not in accordance with the EPIPs; and the inconsistency existing between the Emergency Plan and EPIPs was a result of the EPIPs not implementing the Emergency Plan.
Accordingly, these findings are identified as a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) which requires that a licensee follow and maintain in effect emergency plans and Technical Specification 6.8.1.e which requires that the licensee establish, implement and maintain written procedures for Emergency Plan implementation (50-302/87-36-01).
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
--