IR 05000333/1990015
| ML20042F329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Fox E, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F328 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-90-15, NUDOCS 9005080178 | |
| Download: ML20042F329 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ m j - t . - .. U.S. NUCLEAR-REGULATORY. COMMISSION ' REGION I' Report No. 50-333/90-15 Docket No. 50-333 lj License No. DPR 59 Licensee: New York Power Authority - m p.g [! Lyco,.ing. New York 13039 Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant i i Inspection At: Osweno. New York h Inspection Conducted: Anril 9-13,1990 ', - ! i '/[4 Inspector:
- r
' O E. F. Fox, Jr, Senior Emergency Preparedness / d' ate j Specialist, Facilities Radiological Safety and
Safeguards Branch (FRSSB), Division of Radiation - -, Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)_ l ! ! Approved by: I- '/ 24 f0 William J/ Lazarus, Chief C ' date Emergency Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS: ,
Inspection Sun) mary: Inspection on April 9-13.1990 (Report No. 50-333/90-15)
Areas Insnectedt Announced, routine, safety inspection conducted'on April 9-13, 1990, ! of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program,. emergency response facilities, j . actions on previously identified items,- management control and organization, training, ! and audits and reviews.
A Results: No violations or deviations were identified. One unresolved item was updated and one unresolved hem was identified. It was determined the emergency
preparedness program is being maintained in a state os operational readiness.
<
9G0508o178 900426 {DR ADOCK 0300o333 J > i PDC _ _ _ _ 1J
. _. . . _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _. _ - . - . .
- ,
>( - ~> .. DETAILS > J
, L 1.0 - Persons Contacted ! i The following Jamer A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant personnel were contacted during the inspectiom.
' D. Lindsey, Planning Superhnendent
- W. Fernandez, Resident Manger
- R. Locy, Operations. Superintendent
- M. Prarie, Associate Emergency Planning Coordinator G. Tasick, Supervisor, Quali:y Assurance -
!
- G. Vargo, Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent
- ( J. Wierowski, Technical Training Supervisor
- G. Wilverding, Chairman, Safety Review Committee
'
- A. Zaremba, Emergency Planning Coordinator t
The inspector also observed the actions of and. interviewed other licensee , personnel.
. The following NRC personnel were contacted: ' i R. Plasse, NRC Resident Inspector
- W. Schmidt, Senior NRC Resident inspector i
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting April 13, 1990.
' ' o l 2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings i
(50-333/89-11-03) Unresolved.
view the justification for deletion of initiating - condition (Initiation of ECCS - Unusual Event) from the Emergency Plan. The original approved FitzPatrick Emergency Plan dated January 1981, Figure 4.3,
contained initiation of ECCS as an Unusual Event. NUREG 0654, Rev.1,1980, Appendix 1 specifically gives this example as an initiating condition for an
Unusual Event. However, the plan (Rev 4) lists this initiating condition in- , combination with a loss of coolant accident at a Site Area Emergency. This is a
non conservative treatment of this initiating condition. During this inspection it- -! r appeared other initiating conditions may not be included in the event : classificntion scheme of the Emergency Plan. The inspector requested:the technical basis for exclusion of these initiating conditions. At the conclusion of the inspection, the licensee produced a document which reviewed the initiating-l conditions:as specified ia NUREG 0654 against the Emergency Plan. The
licensee stated that a proposed revision to the Emergency Pkus had been , t , ! ! ,. . . - .. . .
.. - _ - . - - _ - - -. N; . .
. .* . 13= > s presented to the Plant Operating Review Committee (PORC) and that the revision contains' the initiating conditions'as outlined in NUREG-0654.. The licensee committed to submit the rev'rion to the' NRC for review and approval
l prior to its implementation and to review the plan to assure all the initiating. conditions as specified in NUREG 0654 are included or provide the technical
basis for excluding any of the initiating conditions. The inspector st:Jed this item q ' ' would remain unresolved until the licensee submitted the revision along with the j reyw and the technical basis for excluding any cor.ditions as specified in the - NUREG-0654, if applicable.- It _would then be reviewed by the NRC for approval prior to its implementation.
, 3.0 Operational Status of th# Emergency Preparedness Program , s
3.1 Emergency Plan and Implemerping Procedures > , ' The inspector reviewed changes made to the Emergency Plan (EP) and ~ Irnplementing Procedures (EPIPs) with the licensee and it _was determined'that
no significant changes had been made since the last inspection and those changes , made did not-adversely affect the licensee's overall siste of emergency , preparedness.
These changes had been appropriately incorporated into the ' , licensee's EP and EPIPs, and had been reviewed, approved,'and distributed in-accordance with licensee procedures and NRC requirements prior to - implementation.
Current copies of the EP and EPIPs were verified to be available in all t Emergency Response Facilities, a
< t Notwithstanding the issue addressed in Section 2.0 of this report and based upon
the above review, this portion of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program i is acceptable.
3.2 Emercency Facilities. Eauipment. Instrumentation, and Supplies , a The inspector toured the Control Room (CR), the Operations Support Center (OSC), the Technical Support Center (TSC) and the Emergency Operations -
Facility (EOF) in order to verify that these facilities, equipment, instruments, and ' supplies are adequately maintained.
' , > It was noted that no changes affecting emergency response had been made to the CR since the Emergency Response Facility Appraisal in May,1988. The CR-
. - contains adequate emergency equipment, instrumentation 4and supplies. These -- .i !
! .
, , .+ . ,- -- .
m . _ _.._..._. __ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ -- _
. .' s .- '
$ L + , supplies, equipment and communication systems were verified to be maintained . E in a state of operational hadiness.
i k The TSC is a semi-dedicated facility. A portion is used by the Emergency i Preparedness Coordinator and his staff and part is used as a New York Power Authority lunch room. Procedures are in place for the' activation of the TSC
- and sufficient space is available for technical staff in the-event of an emergency - ,
as well as telephones, maps,. computers, etc. Status boards are available for- . tracking changes in plant con _ditions, off-s'ite actions and repair and survey teams.
The TSC contains controlled plans, procedures, drawings and other resources to l
7 aid the technical staff in mitigating the consequences of an acciaent.
> !' The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions with respect to correcting the problems associated with the routines and subrouti:nes in the Meteorological , Monitoring and Radiological Assessment System (MMRAS) - Dose Assessment f
Model. All issues relating to-MMRAS are of low' safety significance. It was i determined that the licensee had appropriately resolved some of the problems? - and appropriately d.~ wmined it will take longer to correct others.
' The inspector toured t ie EOF located near the Oswego County. Airport in ' Fulton, New York, approximately eleven miles from the site and outside the - i
Plume Exposure' Emergency Planning Zone. The EOF is a dedicated facility and
has adequate supplies, communications equipment'and space ftrr the licensee's j
response _ organization as well as the State, County, and Federal responders. This l facility now houses part of the completed siren verification. system which allows _ ' L the licensee to continuously monitor the~ status of the sirens in Oswego Couniy.
'3 ' The inspector reviewed hardware procedures for this system'as well'as
procedures for activation and monitoring the system. Activation of the system . . , L rests with the local authorities (Oswego County). The Oswego City Fire Station, t9 l manned 24 hours a day, has the ability to activate the. system'a'nd continuously N ' monitor it. The Oswego County Office.of Emergency Manageinent br , Emergency Operations Center has the ability to. activate the system and monitor it. Both the Niagara Mohawk (Nrne Mile Point) and FitzPatrick EOFs have-the capability to monitor the siren system.
! ! The licensee has installed a computerized accountability system and procedures - are being implemented. The inspector reviewed both the hardware and
procedures for the system and observed a demonstration. This system will , provide the' licensee the capability to rapidly account for personnel on site, s Based on the above review, this portion of th'e licensee's Emerpacy Preparedness Program is acceptable.
~ .
Y .
,; ~ , . . . .
l _\\1 -X , ' .; , .
m \\ ' ' - s a - ' .l u a 3.3 Ornanization and Manauement Control . The function of the Emergency Preparedness Progra'n both ori and off site are carried out.by the Emefgency Preparedness Coordhiator _(EPC)'aiid a staff of l two. There have been no changes in the Emergency Preparedness Staff. The. s , New York Power Authority (NYPA) Headquarters at White Plains, NY provides support wh'en requested. The' EPC reports directly to the Resident Manager.
t - y All functions of the emergency organization are properly staffed.
. l , ,, , 1-
- o
. s The Emergency Response Organization (ERO) is_ properly staffed and there are ' at least three qualified persons for each. key position. Training is ' discussed in
Section 3.4-of this report. The roster is maintained by the EPC and hhanges are done in accordance with procedules and after training as stated _in the\\EP. \\ j - l There have beenino_ changes in key off site support persons and/or methods of ' coordination.with them. Letters of agreements with off site organizations have L l _ '- , been updated and any chatiges have been appropriately in::orpora_ted into'the EP ' q and EPIPs. At the time _of this inspection, the annual review of the Emergency ' Action Levels as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.IV.B had not been . reviewed yet with_ Oswego County but is icheduled for June'of this year. The: EPC maintains daily to weekly coordination with the County Emergency Management Office.
. Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's Emergency j ~ ' > Preparedness Program is acceptable, 1 I i 3.4 Training .l tj The inspector interviewed the Director, Technical Training, reviewed selected emergency preparedness lesson plans, interviewed selected individuals of the - Emergency Response Giganization (ERO), and conductsd' walk-throughs witif a y representative shift.
l . . \\ ' i Training records and the licensee's compmerized Plant Tracking System, part of j which is dedicated to emergency response training, were reviewed. The current, listing of tne ERO was reviewed against required training as stated in the plan.' '! It was verified that persons who are assigned to.ERO iositions are currently
l trained 5 er those positions. The EPC formally documenta coordination with_thit ! Director. Emergency Preparedness Training (EPT) with respect tr persons being-l placed'on 'he ERO and with respect to changes made to the EP or EPIPs.
x q Persons are not placed in the ERO until training is completed for both initial 1; qualification and requalification. The Director, EPT iricorporates changes madet to the EP and/or EPIPs into the lesson plans such that peraom;in;the ERO
{
_ _... .. , A
, s, - , i
- .
. ,... ,
affeted by these changes are made awa e of_ them during the next training cycle.
It was determined that personnel have been effectively trained and understand .{ . their emergency responsibilities.
Walk throughs were conducted with a representative shift and it was determined l m that training being conducted is effective and persons are knowledgeable of the J EP and EPIPs. The licensee conducts walk-throughs and hands on training for the !?RO staff such that the person is trained on the. equipment they would q actually use in an emergency, y The. inspector observed the licensee's contractor conduct training for the q fire / medical persons at the Oswego City Fire Omter. It was well presented and effective. - This, and other licensee's efforts; demonstrated in the past year, shows )q a close'and an extremely well founded interface with the' local and state
- i governments.
Based upon the abche review, th's portion of the licensee's Emergency ! ' Preparedness Program is accepta@. 3.5 Independent Reviews &Ldja i The inspector reviewed the annual audit required by 10 CFR 50.54_ (t)lof the Emergency Preparedness Program. The licensee conducts this audit using both tne Qualhy Assurance (QA) Department in White Plains to' meet the basic 50.54(t) requirements and its Site QA Department to audit the program to meet l technical specification requirements. The Safety Review Committee (SRC)
reviews all audits. Site QA persons also observe and evaluate drills and exercises' independently of the Emergency Preparedness'Coordin'ator. ; It was H determined that audits done by both the White Plains QA Dephrtment:and the; ! U Site QA Department were comprehensive and complete in both scope and ! depth. Both audits were completed by persons who were verified to be i L independent of the emergency preparedness organization. The audits included f the assessment of the adequacy of governmental interface and then making.
available a copy of that determination to the local and stat _e governments. It was verified-that the SRC received and' reviewed.these aud{ts.
10 CFR 50.54 (q) in part states that licensee's may make changes to the EP ,~ without Commission approval only if the changer do not decteass the effectiveness of the plan and tl.e plans as changed continue to meet the
standards of 10 CFR 50.54 (b) and the requirements of Appendix E. In. order . to determine if an adequate review had been conducted with regards to the event classification scheme issue as discussed in Section 2.0 of this report, the ' ' I inspector. reviewed PORC meeting minutes which related to changes n' de to the. , a > y (l a , a .q ( ) '
- j i
e s .--: N y - , ' n --
. _ _ _
., -{ . p., o' ' ' i 7.
Emergency Plan and EPIPs since 198L The review of the PORC meeting , minutes did not provide either the bem for establishing the original' emergency. H action levels (EALs)-or provide any 'vis for the changes made to the EALs. In , that the original basis for the EALs a tid not be determined, the inspector could j not determine if changes that had been made were properly evaluated as to the' -
, effect of the enange.. Th!s item'is unresolved. (50-333/90-15 01).
' The inspector reviewed Exercise / Drill reports, audit records.and'other relevant [ ' documentation, as well as interviewed responsible personnel,-and determined that - the licensee has an adequate corrective action system in place.to assure that a deficiencies and weaknesses identified during drills and exercises will be promptly, ' m '. corrected. This was verified by a review of both Quality Assurance and; _ g . Emergency Preparedness Corrective Action Systems (EPCARs) which indicated.
that the licensee identifies deficiencies and weaknesses during drhls and exercises and that these are reviewed and receive appropriate corrective action in a timely . ~ - manner. Drills / exercises conducted by the licensee were adequate in scope and
number.
! Two items identified in the OA' audits / drill comments have resulted in the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator now trending EPCARs to assist in determining root cause, and tracking of objectives which are to be performed - during each annual exercise and those objectives to be demonstrated once'in a "
- .
five year period.
' ! Based on the above review and'notwithstanding the above unresolved-issue, this.
! ' l
portion of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program is acceptable.
!
4.0 Exit Meeting h An exit meeting was held with the licensee's staff members denoted in Sectioni ! L 1.0 of this report to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection as detailed l in this report. The licensee was advised that-there were no violations or
deviations. However, the two unresolved items as identified in'this report were -. ! l discussed and the licensee committed to provide the information'as requested . ' and stated in Section 2.0 of this report.
, .m; r i= ' ,, 'I ?
N i ?
- P y
m . , .. .' ' I g - -l j .. ...,. , .V a , , s, , , ] ' g , . ,'. ,., j$ -.
[ l71 hw 0 % $R l'<i M N W [ [ g.
[o q $. o: 'n - , ' ,, , . , , }}