IR 05000344/1986034

Insp Rept 50-344/86-34 on 860825-29.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Program

ML20215B981
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/30/1986
From:	Fish R, Prendergast K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215B967	List: IR 05000344/1986034 ML20215B963
References
50-344-86-34, NUDOCS 8610100014
Download: ML20215B981 (4)

Text

y.-

,

, ,

-

.

' *

., ,

.

_U.iS.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION

REGION V

7 .

Report.No. 50-344/86-34 Docket No. 50-344 -

Licensee No. NPF-1 Licensee: Portland. General Electric Company 121 S./W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon

' ~

'

Facility Name: Trojan -

.

~.

~

Inspection at: Corporate Offices located in Portland, 0regon, and' the Trojan site located in Rainier, Oregon

- Inspection Conducted: August'25-29, 1986- - '

/

Inspector: hd b b 4_-M- AE 233%

K. M. Prendergast, Elbbrgency Preparedness Analyst' Date Sig'ned Approved by: v 9flokd>

>

R. F. Fish, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, Date Signed Summary:

Inspection on August 25-29, 1986 (Report No. 50-344/86-34)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced inspection of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program including: followup on open items, knowledge and performance of duties (training), licensee audits, and the public information progra . Inspection procedures 92701, 82206, 82209, and 82210 were covere Results: No violations of NRC requirements were identified with the scope of

, this inspection, 8610100014 861002 PDR ADOCK 05000344 G PDR

-

< ,

• - '

., ,

,

t

- DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• J. Lentsch, Manager,_ Nuclear Safety and Regulation Department

• T. Walt, Manager, Radiological Safety Branch

• B. Sherman, Nuclear Engineer D. Keuter, Manager, Technical Services

• J.'Thale, Senior Nuclear Engineer J. Picket, Unit Supervisor, Support Group Training S. Nichols, Training Supervisor J. Dunlop, Branch Manager, Quality Assurance D. Ferrell, Quality Assurance Engineer

• Indicates those attending the exit interview 2. Follow-up on Regional Outstanding Items List

~

Closed, IN-85-78: Event Notification Form. IE Information Notice 85-78 contained revised guidance for specific event notification information to be provided to the NRC Operations Center. A review of the licensee's file for this information notice indicated that the licensee had received it, evaluated its content, and incorporated the guidance contained in the IE Notice into their ' Administrative Procedure for notification of 50.72

~

events. This item is considered close Closed, IN-85-80: Timely Emergency Classification and Notificatio The licensee has evaluated the guidance contained in IE Notice 85-78 and incorporated this guidance in their Emergency Plan. The Senior Technical Advisor is now specifically tasked with the responsibility to insure the NRC is notified in a timely manner. This item is considered close Closed, IN-86-10: SPDS Malfunctions. The licensee has reviewed this IE Notice and, based upon their evaluation, concluded that the operation of the Safety Parameter Display System is: acceptable. No further actions are deemed necessary. This item is considered close Closed, IN-86-18: NRC On-Scene Response During a Major Emergency. A review of the licensee's file _for this information notice was performe The review indicated the licensee has reviewed this notice and determined no further actions are required. Discussions with the licensee indicate that the licensee considers the size of the modified E0F and TSC to be adequate in size to accommodate NRC response personnel during an emergency. Based on a walkthrough.of the'new. EOF, the inspector concluded that the size of this, facility inside the protective envelope would substantially limit the size of the NRC-Incident Response Team that would be stationed there. This issue was brought to the attention of the Region V emergency response personnel. This item is considered close . Licensee Audits The inspector verified that an independent audit of the emergency preparedness program had been-conducted on an annual basis in accordance

l '

[ '

. 2[s',"

@y,i[

y ,G ) [Qc:;h[ [Q) t Qe h. F

/<

~

+ ,y ,

1 ,

+

. - ' "-

.

, n c -

- -

,

, g '

>

' '

• -

g -

.(

-

s Af {

'

,

...

~

..

. .

-

, .

'

L tJd s 1- +

Ewith 10 CFR 50.54(t) and Section Eight of the licensee's Emergency Plant e

".' 5 7 Audit no.-CAO-149-85 was performed to meet-the requirements of 10 CFR

' '

t /'N 1 50.54(t). 'The' audit was performed by.the Nuclear Quality Assurance

. , . ('

.~ 4 Department on October 11-18,-1985. One corrective. action request (CAR)'. -

'

% and six suggestions'for improvement were issued as a result of this

?? paudit. . Follow-up documentation -resulting from the CAR and the C -

6 -

'

' suggestions for improvements were reviewed. This material. appeared to be=

, J' complete and appropriatie. A review of audit no. CAO-149-85 was performed .

and_ based upon this review thexfollowing are noted.

.

<

'A . * The, portion of the. audit that contained a description of the

'

{", a,

'

interface between the: licensee and' state'and local' agencies.should-be improved. The audit referenced an interface with state and local agencies'and stated that an interface was witnessed;.however,

~

-

there ,was no' evaluation or description of this . interface, i.e. .

cooperative, negative, positive, and etc., included within this audit.

B., The licensee should review the qualifications of personnel

.

-1 performing the audit of the Emergency Preparedness Program to insure

"

{

the auditors have experience in emergency preparedness. The auditors from the Quality Assurance Department.were noted to have  ;

many years of auditing experience and had attended many courses

"' 'on auditing. However, they did not appear to have;significant background or experience in emergency preparednes , The licensee should consider ~ scheduling.their annual audit of th emergency preparedness program ~at some time other.than during-their.

,

annual Emergency Plan exercise. This would allow more attention'to

"

,be focused on the emergency preparedness' program and provide greater-detail in the audi i.

No significant deficiencies or violations-of NRC requirements were identified during this part of this inspect. ion.

1 . Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)

A review of the corporate and site emergency preparedness training program was conducted. The inspector examined the licensee's

~

,5 implementing procedures'AP-27 and AP-28 (Training), examined trainin ,

records for onsite and corporate personnel, reviewed lesson plans for site training required for operations personnel, reviewed the licensee's 3

'

,

Emergency Plan, interviewed personnel involved in training, and held  ;

'

~, ,

discussions with emergency response personnel to ensure an effective

,,

training program was established and maintaine ,

, a 1-

'( o , '

Training records for-selected emergency response personnel, which

' included all Shift Supervisors, the-individual who would become the

' emergency coordinator during an emergency, were compared with the training

'

p7 / . , ,

,

i

,

requirements contained in the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures.

2 t The' inspection demonstrated that records were available to document 1p,'. -

appropriate training has been conducte !: .m, n

e #

,

{ k ~

,s  !

e ~y, ,  ;

'

> ,

'

-, ... . .,?,- _ . ...- , ,. , , - , _ . _ . , _ _ , , . . . . . - , . . _ , , _ . . . . , _ . , . . - . - . . . . , . . - -

.gx -

' -

q v. 7 - . ,

.

,

-

_

.

-,

Q f;&,V

,

" "'

-~

.

'

y ,3-

,

,3 # -

'

1-

.;3 ,

, _

s y _ e ,

',a_'

s ,

<-

. . , . > , .

" __

.,

-

m The review of,the Emergency Plan and~ implementing procedures,Treldted to:

.

i

-

Y training, indicated improvements could be made in the description'of ' 1 -

required training. 1Both the plan and the implementing procedure '

Hi, ,

l

,

'

I ' contained generalsrequirements:and the' phrase-"as appropriate" to- f -1 4 ' describe training requirements. During the exit,Lthe licensee.was asked'

-

~

I y to- consider adding more' detail to. the description of, individualized 2 1 Ltraining in.their implementing procedures. This sould clarify the

~

'

.k training required for each emergency response position and alleviate an confusion about which positt.ons_ require what trainin '

No significant deficiencies or. violations of NRC requirements were?

- identified:in'this portion of-the ; inspectio . Public Information Program The licensee's program for:the dissemination lof information to the public was reviewed. The review concluded that the licensee has' coordinated their? efforts. with the : local jurisdictions to develop an emergency

, .information brochure. entitled,'"Public Emergency. Instructions."' Revision 5 of this brochure, dated A'pril 1986, was noted.to contain specific

'

< tinstructions:on what to do if you hear.the emergency sirens. The t- brochure also referenced the radio station to. receive emergency instructions. The distribution of this brochure is performed by an-outside company that uses the postal zip-codes within the 10 mile emergency planning zone to insure this brochur~e is-disseminated to-

~

individuals residing within this zone. The: licensee hastalsoldistributed a condensed version of the emergency instructions to motels within thez '

10. mile-emergency planning zone. The brochure is updated annually and was noted to contain,information on notification, protective actions,

~ .

instructions on how to evacuate local schools, a map,of evacuation routes and evacuation zones, where'to inquire for further information, and the-current phone numbers for_ the Emdrgency Services Directors ,for Cowlitz

~

~

' County,~ Washington, and Columbia County, Oregon.' In additionyto reviewing the information brochure, discussions.were also held wit.h theflicensee and county emergency services personnelJconcerningithe' dissemination.of emergency information to the public. 1 Based;upon-the'results of.this

. inspection, the requir.ements.of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E are being; me , ,-

,

There were no significant deficiencies or violations observed in this

part:of the inspectio *

'

6.- Exit Interview

-

N ,

. ,

An exit interview was held ~on= August 29 for the purpose of discussing the preliminary findings of this inspection. . Licensee personnel present_at this meeting have been previously identified in paragraph one (1) abov , ;c The licensee was informed that no violations ~of NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspectio Items discussed during this meeting are contained'in Sections 2 to 5 of this repor ,

%

>

"

f d