IR 05000344/1987022

Insp Rept 50-344/87-22 on 870601-05.No Deficiencies or Violations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings & Parts of Emergency Planning Program Re Shift Staffing & Augmentation

ML20236D636
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	06/25/1987
From:	Brown G, Fish R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236D625	List: IR 05000344/1987022 ML20236D622
References
50-344-87-22, NUDOCS 8707300556
Download: ML20236D636 (6)

Text

- -- --

p

,

. , # -e n

,. '

c '

,

.

,

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'

.

REGION V

F r-Report'N /87-22 Docket'No. 50-344 License'No. NPF-1 c License'e: Portland General Electric 121 S.'W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Plant Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon

' Inspect' ion Conducted. Jun 1-5, 1987 Inspected by: b G/A. Brown, Emergency Preparedness Date Signed Analyst Approved by:

R. Fish, Chief _

!Y/f7 Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Summary:

-Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of. licensee action on previous inspection findings, parts of the licensee!s emergency r.lanning' ,

program regarding shift staffing and augmentation, dose calculation and as- *

sessment, the public information program, and: quality assurance audits of the emergency response progra Inspection modules 82205, 82207, 82209, 82210 and 92701 were use Results: No deficiencies or violations of HRC requirements were identifie !

l

!

l l  ;

f u

l

'

8707300556 870625 PDR ADDCK 05000344-

- E G PDR ,_

I e - 1

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

,

DETAILS

_ Persons Contacted

• C. Brown, Branch Manager, Quality Assurance Operations

• N. Dyer, Manager, Radiological Safety S. Huntington, Coordinator, Cowlitz County Department of Emergency Management R. Jarman, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department T. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor S. Nichols, Training Supervisor

• D. Nordstrom, Compliance Engineer

• J. Reid, Manager,. Plant Services S. Sautter, Nuclear Energy Information Representative

• R. Sherman, Nuclear Engineer, NSRD

• J. Thale, Senior Engineer, NSRD

• Denotes attendance et the June 5, 1987 exit interview Follow-up On Open Ite.is (Closed) 87-03-01. Perform detailed analysis of training requirements for all emergency response organization (ERO) positions and complete it by April 30, 1987. The licensee has identified the functional tasks of each position in the ERO and analyzed each task to determine how it interfaces with other positions in the facility and in the organizatio Training modules 6re being set up to train each individual in fundamen-tals of the ERO, as well as specialized training for the individual position This training will include classroom, table top training, center and integrated drills. This item is considered close (Closed) 87-03-10. Evaluate performing all dose assessments at the EO The licensee has evaluated performing all dose assessment calculations in the EOF and eliminating that function in the TSC. The licensee concluded that this action would improve the overall performance of the ER Applicable procedures have been revised to reflect this change. This item is close ( Open ) 87-03-0 Clarify the Emergency Coordinator duties and respon-sibilities in the TS The licensee is currently in the process of making major revisions to most of the implementing procedures to the emergency plan and this item will be addressed in the course of these revisions. This item will remain open pending completion of the revised procedure . Follow-up on Information Notices The inspector verified that the following Information Notices were received by the licensee, reviewed for applicability, distributed to cognizant corporate and site personnel and corrective actions were taken where appropriat . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _

'

.

2 i L q (Closed)'IN-85-7 Possible loss of ENS due to loss of AC power.

l (Closed) IN-86-9 Emergency communications systems - ENS and HPN l

(Closed) IN-86-9 Offsite Medical Services j Shift Staffing and Augmentation i

, This program area was inspected to determine whether shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available and

.

i maintained to augment the emergency organization in a. timely manner. The i related requirements are found-in 10 CFR 50.47(h)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50,  ;

Appendix E, Sections IV.A and I '

i Shift staffing. levels and functional capabilities of al1~ shifts were re -

viewed and found to be consistent with the staffing indicated in Table ,

PGE 3-1 of the Trojan Emergency Plan and the guidance in Table B-1 of '

NUREG-065 The licensee has established a duty roster system and a-call-tree chart to execute a call in so that essential off-shift person-nel are available if needed. It was noted that the licensee had not conducted a staffing and augmentation drill in several years. The'  !

absence of drills conducted to test the capabilities of the " call in"-

system made it difficult to determine the effectiveness of the syste Conducting (telephone) staffing augmentation drills periodically would help to evaluate the effectiveness of this portion of the program and to identify any problem areas that may exist. This matter will be examined

'in a subsequent inspection and tracked as Open Item No. 87-22-0 No violations or deviations were identified in this program are I 5 .' . Dose Calculation and Assessment This area was inspected to determine whether there was an adequate method for assessing the consequences of an actual or potential radiological release. The related requirement is contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9). '

The inspector reviewed the dose assessment procedure EP-10, Revision 1 The procedure addresses computer programs that have provisions for calculating doses for monitored and unmonitored pathways such as the plant stack, building vents, containment leakage and steam releases. The computer programs also provide calculations for whole body, thyroid, ingestion and liquid pathway doses The procedures allowed for refine-ment of dose projections through incorporation of feedback from field monitoring. It was noted, however, that th9 dispersion model cannot provide for changes in wind direction or atmospheric stability. Since both events could occur during a real emergency, the dose assessment capabilities would be significantly improved by including these parameters. Licensee response regarding this matter will be examined in a subsequent inspection and tracked as Open Item No. 87-22-0 '

The licensee's proccedures provide for timely incorporation of dose assessment results into the offsite protective action recommendation process. During interviews with key licensee emergency response person-nel, all appeared to recognize the uncertainties associated with dose

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

!

projections and the importance of making protective action recommenda-

~  !

tions based on plant condition l l

The inspector conducted comparison tests with the licensee dose model, }

the State of Washington dose model, and the NRC Interactive Rapid Dose i-Assessment Model (IRDAM). Results were compared and discussed with the licensee. No significant differences were note No violations or deviations were identified in this program are l Public Information Program lj

.

This area was inspected to determine whether basic emergency planning information was disseminated to the public in the plume exposure pathway _ 1 emergency planning zone (EPZ) on an annual basis as required by 10 CFR I 50.47(b)(7) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV. i The licensee had developed an emergency response information brochure for use by the public residing in or frequenting the 10-mile EPZ. Licensee representatives stated that the brochure was updated annually. Licensee i documentation dated December 16, 1986 showed that development of the .)

brochure was coordinated with appropriate offsite authoritie The ,

inspector reviewed the current brochure, Revision 8, dated February 1987, i and verified that it included the information specified by NUREG-0654,. !

Section I According to the licensee's representatives, the means used by the !

licensee to inform the transient population of appropriate emergency response; measures and action included posted notices and dissemination of u public information brochures to motels, hotels and tourist attractions in d the_ area. A review' of licensee documentation, showed that the public j information brochure was also sent to'46,000 residents within the 10-mile EP l The public information brochure provided a point of contact for obtaining l-additional information. A telephone call was made to the designated j point of contact for Columbia County residents to determine the type of information to be provided and the individual's qualification to provide such information. Based on the discussion, the inspector concluded that the type of information to be provided was adequate and the individual .

had appropriate qualification !

l In addition to the public information brochure, licensee representatives indicated that the public information program included an annual media day for informing news media personnel, tours of selected plant facilities and lectures at local gathering The inspector also reviewed a description of the public information program in the licensee's '

emergency plan and procedures. Based on these reviews and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee's public information program continued to meet the applicable regulatory !

requirement No violations or deviations were identified in this program are l

- ._

i

• i

. 4

.

!

(; 7. Licensee Audits

This area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed (' <

an independen accordance review with the or audit of requirements of CFR the emergency)

50.54(t . preparedness program in j Records of' audits of the program were reviewed. The records showed that i

'

an indepradent audit of the program was conducted by the Quality Assur-ance Operations Branch of PGE during the period October 14 and 17-21, 1986. This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for suc audits. The audit records showed that the State and local government !

interfaces were evaluated, and that findings concerning the interfaces were made available to State and local government authoritie The inspector examined Audit Report No. AP 459 entitled, "PGE Audit of Trojan Radiological Emergency Response Plan", which was conducted in ,

October 1986. The scope and depth of the audit did not appear sufficient !

to provide necessary information to adequately assess the status of all ;

major areas of the emergency response program. For instance, the scope

'

of the licensee's audit of the emergency preparedness program is directed .

toward evaluating the performance of participants during the annual 'j emergency preparedness exercise, to the exclusion of other program areas, '

such as, changes to the plans and procedures, management review policy to ensure such changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the tmergency plan, the plan and procedure distribution system, and augmentation to staffing for an emergency. The licensee's audit team and NRC observers ;

both evaluated the same emergency response facilities during the 1986 i exercise. In comparing the results of both groups it was noted that the !

licensee had evaluated the performance of the staff of the Operational !

Support Center (OSC) as " adequate" while the NRC actually encouraged a i repeat drill of the OSC because of inadequate performance. Also, in the licensee's overall evaluation of the exercise there were no negative findings, while the NRC identified five significant areas of weakness and, at the exit interview, expressed concern over the "large number of (potential) radiological safety problems" identified during the exercise (see Inspection Report No. 50-344/86-41, Section12). The licensee's response to this concern will be examined in a subsequent inspection and tracked as Open Item No. 87-22-0 !

l'

The audit team was composed of four QA auditors, all with nuclear engineering background and several years of auditing experienc Although at least two of the auditors had examined the emergency preparedness program on previous audits, none of the auditors had any actual operational experience in emergency preparedness. A similar observation was reported in a previous NRC inspection report (see Report No. 50-344/86-34). The licensee's auditing of the emergency preparedness )

program would be significantly improved if persons knowledgeable in emergency preparedness were included in the team. The licensee's response to this concern will be examined during a subsequent inspection and tracked as Open Item No. 87-22-0 The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise findings was reviewed. The inspector reviewed current listings of ,

outstanding audit items. The results indicated that corrective action 1

__ - _-

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

t

'

,

was being taken'on identified problems, as appropriate, and that tne

,

tracking system was effective as a management tool in following up on ,

actions taken in deficient area '

No violations or deviations were identified in this program are . Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with the licensee's representatives at an exit interview conducted on June 5, 1987. The licensee's representatives attending this exit interview have been denoted in Section 1 of this report. The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified as a result of this inspection.