IR 05000302/1993012
| ML20045J118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | Barr K, Salyers G, Wright F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045J115 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-93-12, NUDOCS 9307230066 | |
| Download: ML20045J118 (11) | |
Text
r
--
-
.T
' stkB Cu UR5tTED STATES h(c 0,,.
NUCLEAR REGULAVORY COMMISslON
-
o af GION 11
$
101 M ARIETT A ST REET, N.W.
'*
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
\\...../
-
JUN 18 sg3 Report No.:
50-302/93-12 Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket No.:
50-302 License No.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River Inspection Condu ed:
ay 10-14, 19, afd teleconference on May 19, 1993-Inspectors: k
%
e~
-
06//V/93
~
G.W(Salyers
]
Date Signed s
&
R_
3 fc s /
N, O&f/7/M
.
F. ' H. Wripr31j _ __
/
(
Uate / Signed d!/8
Approved by:
/
m K. P/. Barf,-thfef Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch
-
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of. emergency preparedness, and included review of the following programnatic elements:
(1) Radiological Emergency Response Plan and its implementing procedures; (2) emergency facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies; (3) organization and management control; (4) independent reviews / audits; and (5) training.
Results:
In the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. The emergency preparedness program received adequate management support. The Emergency Preparedness Group was dedicated and knowledgeable. As a result, the emergency response organization was fully capable of being effectively implemented in the event of an emergency.
Emergency Preparedness Program activities were organized and adequately documented.
9307230066 930618 ~7*
PDR ADOCK 05000302 G
PDR]
e
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. Alberdi, Manager Nuclear Plant Operations
- R. Blume, Supervisor, Nuclear Special Training
- J. Buckner, Nuclear Regulatory Specialist
- S. Chapin, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist
- E. Froats, Manager, Nuclear Compliance
- R. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer
- J. Stephenson, Manager, Radiological Emergency Planning
- R. Thompson, Engineering
- R. Widell, Director, Nuclear Operations Site Support
- M. Williams, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included members of the emergency response organization, training staff, and
'
office personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commirsion
- R. Freudenberger, Resident Inspector P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview Abbreviations used th"oughout this report are listed in the last paragraph.
2.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16), 10 CFR 50.54(q), and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection, and to assess the -
impact of these changes on the overall state of emergency preparedness at the facility.
REP-10, " Radiological Emergency Planning Administrative Instruction,"
Revision 10, proceduralized the licensee's program'for making changes to the RERP and Administrative Instruction AI-4000, " Permanent Procedure Revisions" proceduralized the licensee's program for making changes to
,
the EPIPs.
REP-10 and AI-400C specified that the RERP and the EPIPs changes were subjected to a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation or review and a 10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation. The 10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation determined whether the change was consistent with other Emergency Preparedness Procedures and whether it was consistent with RERP requirements.
The inspector selected two EPIP changes for review:
EM-213, " Medical Emergency," Revision 21, and EM-220, " Violent Weather," Revision 2.
Also reviewed was Revision 12 to the RERP. The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation 'for each of the changes and verified that a
$
c
~
.
10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation had been performed. The inspector concluded that, for the changes reviewed, the licensee had properly implemented procedures REP-10 and AI-400C. A review of licensee records indicated that all of the RERP and EPIPs changes between May 1992 and May 1993 were approved by management and submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as required. No deficiencies were identified.
The inspector reviewed documents indicating that the EALs were presented to and reviewed by the State of Florida, and Levy and Citrus counties in 1992.
Neither the State nor local governments-recommend any changes to the EALs at that time.
The inspector reviewed the EAls as found in EM-202 and determined that
they were consistent with the RERP and with those in NUREG-0654. The EALs did not appear to contain impediments or errors which could lead to incorrect or untimely classification. The inspecter noted that the EALs were based on parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentation.
Controlled copies of the RERP, EPIPs, and the Emergency Telephone Directory in the Control Room and the TSC were audited for the most current revision of the procedures. No problems were identified.
Five emergency declarations wc:a made by the licensee since the last inspection (May 1992):
April 8, 1992, NOUE Loss of offsite power
-
August 4, 1992, Alert Fire in "D" battery charger
-
March 13, 1993, NOVE Tide greater than 98 toot elevation
-
.
March 17, 1993, NOVE Precautionary classification due to
-
degraded 230 KV switchyard condition and inclement weather March 29, 1993, NOUE Loss of offsite power
-
The inspector reviewed the classification and conditions prompting the classifications for each of the above events. The inspector concluded that each classification was made correctly and offsite notifications were timely.
'
The RERP addressed the performance of a variety of required activities in Section 9, " Notification Method and Procedures," Section-'10,
" Emergency Communication," Section 11. "Public Information," and Section 18, " Exercises and Drills." Licensee procedure REP-06,
" Schedule For Radiological Emergency Response Plan Maintenance," was a-more detailed procedure specifying required maintenance and testing of equipment and functions. The procedure addressed a variety of topics including drills, educational information to the public, testing of communication _ systems, training for licensee and offsite emergency response personnel, and other program maintenance activities. The
~
.
inspector verified the maintenance of these activities by reviewing the licensee's documentation associated with the following areas:
Inspections and Audits
Drills; Fire, medical, and emergency preparedness
-
Emergency Communications Test Results (Control Room, TSC, and EOF)
-
Emergency Warning Notification System Test Results
-
Emergency Plan Augmentation Callout. An off-hours, unannounced
augmentation drill was conducted on December 18, 1991. The drill results were satisfactory.
Emergency Plan Radiation Instruments and Emergency Kit Inspection
-
and Checks The inspector's review of these audits and test results indicated they were comprehensive and conducted in accordance with the RERP and REP-06.
All of the required records were found to be satisfactory.
Administrative instruction AI-404B, " Review of Industry Operating Experience" proceduralized the licensee's handling of ins.
By reviewing i
documentation and discussion with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the following NRC ins applicable to emergency planning were reviewed by the licensee and distributed to cognizant personnel.
The inspector noted that corrective actions were taken when appropriate:
IN 91-72: Revision of EPA PAG Manual
IN 92-32: Problems' Identified With Emergency Ventilation Systems
.
for Near-Site (Within 10 Miles) Emergency Operations Facilities
and Technical Support Centers IN 92-38: Implementation Date for the Revision to the EPA Manual
of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents
IN 93-07: Classification of Transportation Emergency
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies (82701)-
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and (9), and 10 CFR 50.54(q), and Section IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's ERFs-and other essential emergency equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained in a state of operational readiness, and to assess the impact of any changes in this area upon the emergency preparedness program.
.
,
.
-
r-T
'
,
,
The inspector toured the licensee's TSC and E0F.
Except for new communication booths for the State, ENS, and HPN in the TSC, the facilities were relatively unchanged since the last inspection.
The licensee demonstrated the operability of the following equipment in the TSC:
Recall and REDAS computers, and SPDS and ERFIS terminals. The REDAS computer used the RAD DOSE 4 dose assessment program. The inspector observed a dose calculation demonstration. The licensee provided the inspector with a comparison docuinent dated March 1990 that compared RADDOSE 4 with the State of Florida and the NRC's dose assessment program. The document indicated that the. program test results were comparable. The SPDS functioned properly, but the inspector noted that the SPDS display can only be controlled from the control room. The ERFIS terminals in the EOF and TSC were successfully accessed and immediately available for use.
The inspectar reviewed SP-359, a quarterly operational test of the E0F EDG. The inspector concluded that SP-359 thoroughly tested the diesel and generator. The data sheets associated with the test indicated that the measured parameters were within expected ranges. The inspector did question the delta current between phases. The readings from the data sheets indicated approximately 15 percent current difference between phases [L-3 (62 amps),-L-1 (79 amps) and i-2 (79 amps)]. The data sheets did not indicate a delta phase current limit.
When questioned, the licensee's test engineer stated that the values were within accepted ranges, but as a rule the limit was approximately 15 percent.
The inspector requested documentation of testing for the TSC emergency ventilation system. The licensee provided the inspector with SP-188,
"TSC Emergency Ventilation System Testing," which was performed in September 1992. SP-188 was a test procedure for testing the efficiency of the charcoal banks and an inspection of the HEPA filters in the emergency ventilation system. The licensee stated that they did not have a procedure to specifically test or verify the emergency ventilation system operability (i.e., verifying proper damper operation and proper air flows). During their May 1991 annual exercise, the licensee's emergency ventilation system failed to maintain facility habitability. The habitability failure was discussed in Inspection Report 50/302-91-08 and was referenced as an example in IN 92-38.
In response to the failure, the licensee contracted a professional
,
ventilation company to analyze the system and make the changes necessary I
to improve the effectiveness of the emergency ventilation system in the TSC.
SP-188 was conducted on an 18-month frequency.
The inspector requested the licensee to conduct an operability test by-verifying proper damper positions and design airflow (500 cfm intake and 2500 cfm recirculation) through the emergency filter train..The licensee informed the inspector by phone on May 19, 1993, that on the initial test of the system, outside airflow was 243 cfm and recirculation airflow was 1652 cfm for a total of 1895 cfm, or 63.2 percent of the expected value. The licensee stated that they performed a damper alignment verification and found two dampers that failed to
.
-.-
--,
-
-
i
t properly position: AHD 115 and AHD 116. The licensee stated that when i
AHD 115 ana AHD 116 were placed in their proper positions, outside airflow increaseJ to 500 cfm and recirculation airflow increased to 2500 cfm for a total of 3000 cfm, the design airflow. The licensee's RERP
,
(Sections 12.1.2 and 12.3.2), NUREG-0696, and NUREG-0737,Section II.B.2
specify the habitability requirement of the TSC to be the same as.the i
control room. The inspector expressed concern regarding the lack of
testing of the ventilation system operation. The licensee stated that
!
they would develop and implement a surveillance procedure for verifying
proper damper operation and airflow for the TSC emergency ventilation
system. The licensee was informed that this matter would be tracked as an IFI.
IFl 50-302/93-12-01:
Implementation of a surveillance procedure for verifying proper damper operation and airflow for the TSC emergency ventilation system.
'
The inspector reviewed quarterly inventory records of the various emergency kits from May 1992 to May 1993. The records indicated that
'
the emergency kits were being properly maintained.
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation of required communications tests for *,e period of May 1992 to May 1993 for the EOF and TSC: (1) monthly communications system functional tests of government radios and NAWAS; (2) monthly communications drills involving message transmission to the state Warning Point via the Automatic Ring-i Down; and (3) monthly tests of the ENS and HPN. According to the records, prompt corrective actions were undertaken when equipment j
deficiencies were identified.
The EWNS consisted of 40 fixed sirens (12 in Levy County and 28 in Citrus County). A complete cycle test is performed weekly in both counties. Testing was performed under the jurisdiction of the respective county emergency management agencies, with test results forwarded to the licensee. The test results were satisfactory and indicated that siren system met the annual 90 percent operability criterion. Testing for the first quarter of 1993 indicated a
-
97.5 percent operability factor.
Except for the emergency ventilation system, the inspector concluded that the emergency response facilities and emergency equipment were
'
appropriately maintained.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Organization and Managemer.t Control (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and (16) and Section IV.A of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, this area was inspected to' determine the effects of any changes in the licensee's emergency response organization and/or management control systems in the emergency preparedness program and to verify that such changes were properly factored into the RERP and EPIPs.
i I
!
-
-
,
-
- -.
.-
~-..., _
.
r
.
.
.
I The licensee had regular meetings with the local governments.
Documentation of licensee response to community request indicated that the licensee supported the community.
Review of organizational charts and discussions with the licensee
,
indicated there were no management or organizational changes and that
'
the ERO was basically unchanged since the last inspection. Based on the stability of the licensee's organization, the maintenance of the facility, and the emergency preparedness procedural process, the
,
inspector concluded that management was involved in and supportive of
!
the Emergency Preparedness Program.
.
<
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Independent Review / Audits (82701)
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 has performed an
,
independent review audit of the emergency preparedness program, and whether the licensee has a corrective action system for deficiencies and weaknesses identified during exercises and drills.
The inspector reviewed audit report, " Quality Program Audit 92-03-SSUP, Site' Support: Program Organization" conducted March 16 through April 3,
,
1992, and 93-05-SSUP Audit Checklist.
Audit report 93-03-SSUP provided the results of an audit in the areas of Emergency Preparedness, ALARA, Fire Protection, and Environmental Monitoring. The Emergency Preparedness portion evaluated-the adequacy of interface capabilities and procedures for emergency communication and drills, adequacy of interface during the 1991 exercise, support training by FPC, emergency support agreements / contracts, and readiness of emergency facilities. The audit summary determined the licensee's interface with various State and county governmental agencies in support of the RERP was very effective.
Audit 93-05-SSUP Checklist included questions related to events, such as:
"Have there been any emergency preparedness lessons learned from the March 1993 storm? Interview RERP management to Jetermine if there had been any review and use of information on lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew's effect on Turkey Point."
Both audits were adequate in depth and coverage of the program and met the requirements identified in 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspector verified that the audit findings were being tracked and adequately responded to
by the Emergency Preparedness organization. The inspector reviewed the qualifications of the auditors and conc 1':d. ', that the auditors'
qualifications were ratisfactory.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for follow-up of findings from audits, drills, and exercises. The licensee used two tracking
)
r
.
.
i systems:
Nuclear Operations Tracking and Expediting System
-
Nuclear Operations Commitment System
-
The inspector reviewed the tracking list and concluoed that the licensee was responsive in addressing and completing _ identified items.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Training (82701)
i Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and (15), and Section IV. F_of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's key emergency response personnel were properly trained and understood their emergency responsibilities.
The inspector interviewed the Supervisor, Nuclear Special Training and inquired about the emergency preparrdness training program and management support. The inspector <oncluded that the training program was well maintained and was receivirg management support.
'
The inspector reviewed lesson plans for Emergency Coordinator Initial Training and Dose Assessment Team.
Each lesson plan contained Terminal
Objectives and Learning Objectives. The Learning Objectives referenced
,
the applicable section of the RERP and identified where in the lesson plan the objective was covered. The inspector noted that the lesson
'
plan was well organized-and contained sufficient det til to enable the student to acquire the necessary knowledge to perform his/her ER0
,
function. A test was given for each lesson plan. After reviewing the
test associated with the lesson plan, the inspector concluded that the
,
test covered the lesson objectives and adequately tested the student's
'
knowledge of the subject.
The training records were computerized and' tracked on the licensee's NOTIS system. The inspector reviewed the Nuclear Operations Training System Report. The report listed each individual's name, ERO position, the date they completed the course, and his/her expiration date and signaled if their training was due to expire in 30, 60, or 90 days.
The inspector selected seven members of the ERO and reviewed their
,
training records. Procedure TDP 307, Nuclear Emergency Team Training Program, defined the training program. TDP 307, Attachment 1, " Training i
Requirements" was a matrix which listed the ERO position and referenced _
-i the reqJired training for the position.
Using TDP 307, Attachment 1 and J
the NOTIS system, the inspector verified the seven ERO members' training was initially given and that retraining was up-to-date.
The inspector also verified the computer listing against hard copies of individual
'
training documentation. No deficiencies were identified.
All of the records reviewed were current.
L
r
,
,
,
The inspector interviewed two individuals qualified as an Emergency Coordinator.
In order to assess the depth of Emergency Preparedness training, the inspector asked a variety of questions:
Discuss the philosophy, organization, and use of the EAL
-
EP organization and responsibilities
-
Facility activation and time and staffing requirements
'
-
Notification requirements
-
A progressive scenario with classification
-
PAR and a demonstration of the use of EPZ map
-
The inspector concluded that the interviewee's knowledge adequately demonstrated a sufficient understanding of Emergency Preparedness program.
REP-06, Schedule For Radiological Emergency Response Plan Maintenance,
'
was a thorough procedure which described many of the activities of the program. Attachment 5, " Drill and Exercise Requirements", of REP-06 identified the required frequency, implementing organization, response organization, and implementing procedures for communication, fire, medical, radiological, health physics, radiochemical sampling, and shift augmentation drills and the Annual Radiological Emergency Plan Exercise.
The inspector compared the drill documentation against Attachment 5, and noted that the licensee had satisfactorily completed the requirements.
Inspector review of the drill documentation indicated that the drills were critiqued and requirements were met when applicable.
The inspector noted that items identified needing correction or improvement were tracked on the appropriate tracking system.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
7.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
The inspector reviewed the following open items from previous inspections:
a.
(Closed) Violation 50-302/92-09-02: Coordinate actions with offsite interface in the area of public information and
<
notification for transient population.
The inspector reviewed a laminated, yellow 8.5" X 11" paper which contained emergency information. The licensee provided documentation that selected area motels and businesses had been provided the handout. The inspect ar selectively verified that the motels and businesses identified b, the licensee had received the handout and that the licensee and a county official had personally
E l
~
',
.,
,
O
4
delivered the information.
The licensee had placed a sign on a siren; however, the siren was not close to the beach area. The licensee planned to work with the county to place a sign at the beach area. Access to the beach was blocked for repairs due to recent storm damage, b.
(Closed) IFI 50-302/92-26-01: Review licensee's emergency procedures for guidance on downgrading emergency classifications and entering initial recovery phase of emergencies.
j The licensee revised EM-202, " Duties of the Emergency Coordinator" and added Paragraph 3.3.25:
When it has been determined that no further emergency situation exist, emergency phase actions will be terminated. As a minimum, criteria to be considered
when downgrading the emergency classification should include: Whether or not a release is continuing, whether the plant conditions are stable and expected l
to remain so, whether the full emergency response
organization is needed to support safe and stable operation, and whether radiological and other--
conditions permit resumption of normal access to the
plant and surrounding areas. A transition of
~
activities to the recovery phase will then begin.
-
8.
Exit Interview f
The inspection scope and results were summarized on May 14, 1993, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
There were no dissenting
.
remarks by the licensee. No proprietary information was reviewed during
'
this inspection.
Item Number Description and Reference
50-302/93-12-01 IFI - Implementation of a surveillance procedure for verifying proper damper operation and airflow for the TSC emergency ventilation system
.
(Paragraph 3).
'
9.
Index of Abbreviations Used in this Report CFR Code of Federal Regulations EAL Emergency Action Level EDG Emergency Diesel Generator EWNS Emergency Warning Notification System E0C Emergency Operations Center E0F Emergency Operating Facility EPIP Emergency Plan Implementing Proccdure EPZ Emergency Planning Zone ERF Emergency Response Facility (TSC, EOF, OSC)
..
.
._.
--
,
,c,.
- .
,
ERFIS Emergency Response Facility Information System ER0 Emergency Response Organization IFI Inspector follow-Up Item IN Information Notice INP0 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations NAWAS National Warning System NOTIS Nuclear Operations Training System NOUE Notification Of Unusual Event NUREG Nuclear Regulation OSC Operational Support Center PAR Protective Action Recommendation REDAS Replacement Emergency Dose Assessment System RERP Radiological Emergency Response Plan SP Surveillance Procedure SPDS Safety Parameter Display System TS Technical Specification TSC Technical Support Center
.
L
.
5