IR 05000373/1998003
| ML20203A751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203A723 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-98-03, 50-373-98-3, 50-374-98-03, 50-374-98-3, NUDOCS 9802240106 | |
| Download: ML20203A751 (14) | |
Text
__ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.
. - - _
.
l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli Docket Nos:
50-373;50-374 License Nos:
50-3i 18003(DRS); 50-374/98003(DRS)
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed)
Facility:
LaSalle Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location:
2601 N,21st Road Marseilles,IL 61341 Dates:
January 26-30,1998 Inspectors:
James Foste, Senior Emergency Preparedness Analyst Robert Jickling, Emergency Preparedness Analyst Done!d Funk, Emergency Preparedness Analyst Approved by:
James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety 9802240106 980218 PDR ADOCK 05000373 G
-___J
__.._
_ _.
- - - _ _ _ - - - -
.
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LaSalle Generating Station NRC Inspection Rep +s 50-373/98003; 50-374/98003 This inspection reviewed the Emergency Preparedness (EP) program, an aspect of Plant
'
Support. This report evaluated the quality of EP program related audits and reviews, reviewed the effectiveness of management controls, verified the adequacy of emergency response faciliues and equipment, reviewed EP training and qualification activities, and included follow-up on previous inspection findings. This was an announced inspection conducted by three regional inspectors.
Overall, the EP program had been maintained in an effective state of operational readiness.
Emergency response facilities, equipment, and supplies had been well maintained.
Management support to the program was strong and interviewed key emergency response personnel demonstrated competent knowledge of responsibilities and emergency procedures.
A non-cited violation was identified relative to training of maintenance personnel.
In an actual emergency plan activation, the emergency plan was effectively
.
implemented by conservative classification of the event, and the discretionary activation of the Technical Support Center. The event was reviewed according to the appropriate procedure, and responders were actively encouraged to provide critiques and suggestions to improve the emergency response program. (Section P1)
Overall, emergency response iacilities, equipmeat, and supplies were well maintained.
.
All emergency equipment requested to be demonstrated was verified operable. The prompt alert and notification t,ystem sirens were well maintained. (Section P2.1)
The Emergency Plan implementing Procedures reviewed were clear and easy to use.
.
Documentation reviewed was complete. The Public lnformation Brochure had recently been distributed. (Section P3)
EP training was effective, but tracking of completed training needed improvement.
.
Interviewed key emergency response personnel demonstrated competent knowledge of responsibilities and emergency procedures. Training records indicated that the program for tracking emergency responder qualifications was generally effective except relative to training of maintenance personnel. The ficansee had effectively addressed and corrected a number of issues identified in the EP self assessment which included the identification that maintenance personnel had not received training. Training modules were proper./ updated. (Section PS)
The licenseet 197 EP audits and surveillances, and 1997 EP Program Self-
.
Assessment ;
art were effective and satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t).
The audit and program self assessment were of excellent scope and depth. Identified issues were appropriately tracked and resolved. Problems had been properly entered into the Problem identification Form system when considered to exceed the threshold for entrance to the system. Corrective actions on several PlFs remained to be fully determined. (Section P7)
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - -
.
Reoort Details
-
IV. Plant Support P1 Emergency Plan Activations a.
Insoection Scone (82701)
The inspectors reviewed the single actual emergency plan activation which had occurred since 1996. Also reviewed was the procedure for documentation and analysis of real events, b.
Observations and Findings An Unusual Event was appropriately declared on March 11,1997, Cue to abnormally high (701.8 feet) cooling lake levels, classified under Emergency Action Level HU2,
" Conditions indicate a Potential Degradation in the Level of Safety of the Plant."
Appropriate notifications to local, state and federal agencies were made. Upon
declaring the Unusual Event, the Technical Support Center (TSC) was staffed a a precaution, but not formally activated. An action plan was developed to lower it.e lake level, and criteria formulated for termination of the Unusual Event. TSC staffing was discontlnued when determined as not further needed, as of March 15,1997. The Unusual Event was terminated on March 26,1997.
The licensee had reviewed the event according to procedure LZP-1540-1, " Review d Actual Generating Station Emergency Plan (GSEP) Events Revision 3. Interviews with many of the respondents from the TSC and control room were conducted, and questionnaires sent to responders who were unavailable for interview.
c.
Conclusions The emergency plan was effectively implemented by the conservative classification of the event, and the discretionary activation of the TSC. The event was reviewed according to the appropriate procedure, and responders were actively encouraged to provide critiques and suggestions to improve the emergency response program.
P2 Status of EP Facilities, Equipment, and Resources P2.1 Material Condition of Emergency Retoonse Facilities (ERFs)
a, insoection Scoce (82701)
The inspectors evaluated the material condition of the control room, Technical Support Center (TSC), Operational Support Center (OSC), and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF). The field monitoring team van and associated equipment (field monitoring kits)
were also irapected. The licensee demonstrated the operability of several pieces of emergency response equipment, including radiological survey instruments, dose
_
..
.
..
assessment and plant data computers, vehicles, and communications equipment.
Records of periodic inventories and equipment tests were also reviewed.
b.
Observat:3ns and Findinos Each facility was well maintained and in a very good operational state of readiness.
Copies of the Generating Stations Emergency Plan (GSEP), implementing procedures, and appropriate forms were available and current in each facility, as required. The l
inspector requested numerous pieces of equipment to be operated and other equipment and supplies were inspected. Dose assessment equipment and software was demonstrated operable in the EOF and TSC by the EP staff. The inspectors observed rubber items, including air sampler "O" rings, rubber boots, and rubber gloves, that were in excellent condition. Emergency lights were verified operable in all ERFs and observed to be in very good material condition.
The control room was well maintained and had current EP procedures available. The emergency notification system phone was verified operable. The OSC, TSC, and EOF were well maintained. The OSC was a dedicated facility, with LaSalle being the only Comed plant with a dedicated OSC.
Telephones, computer terminals, and other equipment were tested and found operable.
Current procedures were available in the facilities. The licensee provided demonstrations of dose assessment computers, and plant data computers.
The prompt alert and notification siren operability report for 1996 - 1997 was reviewed by the inspectors. Annual siren operability for LaSalle for 1997 was 97.9 percent with 94.8 percent reported for the lowest month's average. The operability report automatically highlights siren operability percentages of less than 95 percent for management attention.1997 siren operability for LaSalle consistently exceeded the Ft.deral Emergency Management Agency acceptebihty stanc:ard of 90 percent. The system average for all Comed plants was 98.0 percent.
The inspeciars reviewed the semi-annual augmentation drill records. Three drills had been conducted since the last routine NRC inspection and were reported as successful.
Quarterly inventory records of EP supplies in the TSC, OSC and locci hospital were reviewed from 1996 through January 1998. The records were found to be complete and indicated that sufficient supplies were available and that change outs were accomplished as necessary, c.
Conclusions Overall, the facilities, equipment, and supplies were very well maintained. All emergency equipment requested to be demonstrated was found operable. The prompt alert and notification system sirens were well maintained.
__________________- _-_-____ __ - _ - -
.
P3 EP Procedures and Documentation a.
Insoection Scoce (82701)
The inspectors reviewec' a selection of licensee emergency plan implementing procedures (EPIPs) and emergency plan sections. Also, the Public Information Brochure was reviewed.
b.
Observations and Findings The inspectors reviewed Generating Stations Emergency Plan, Section 8.2, " Training,"
Revision 7K. Section 8.2 clearly identified how personnel were selected for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions, % nnual retraining was on a calendar year basis, and that training for emergency plan 3 1. ages were to be completed within 120 days of change implementation. Sect;on 8.2.1 clearly identified that the Administrative Course Management Information (ACMI) manual listed the training requirements for ERO personnel. Also, ERO participation in a drill or exercise was required biennially to sharpen emergency response skills.
One of the emergency implementing procedures reviewed by the inspectors was implementing procedure LZP-1110-1, " Station Director (Acting Station Director),"
l Revision 21, which provided clear, sequential directions for the Station Directors and Acting Station Directors. Attachments to this procedure provided concise steps for the directors to follow for emergency response.
Discussion indicated that the "OSC benchmarking" process was complete. This process standardized procedures and documentation utilized in OSCs at each Comed site, facilitating sharing of OSC personnel from site to site.
The inspectors reviewed the LaSalle Emergency information Public Information Brochure. The brochure had recently been distributed.
c.
Conclusions The EPIPs reviewed were clear and ec.sy to use. Documentation reviewed was complete. The Public Information Brochure had recently been distributed.
P5 Staff Training and Qualification in EP a.
Insoection Scoce (82701)
The inspector reviewed var;ous aspects of the licensee's EP training program. This included interviews with selected key individuals including the Acting Station Director, Assistant Statior' Director, Technical Director, and Station Director. Also, records were reviewed for training which included course critique forms, class attendance records, and the current GSEP Call List of qualified emergency response organization (ERO)
- __
___
_ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ -__ - _ - _-_ - _-____-__-_ - - - - - - - -
-.
- - - - -
_
.
personnel. Records of the station emergency preparedness drills and exercises were reviewed. Additionally, select EP training lesson plans were reviewed. The status of the respirator qualification program was reviewed.
b.
Observations and Findinas Records appropriately indiccted that formal critiques had been provided for drills, exercises, and EP training. Discussions indicated that the primary methods for annual requalification training incorporated tabletop drills, classroor.1 training, simulator drills, and exercise participation.
Records from the training records tracking program were compared with the GSEP Call List. The comparison showed that most ERO personnelidentified for emergency response were qualified.
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section F, " Training," states in part that the EP program is to provide for the training of employees. The GSEP Section 8.2, " Training," Revision 7K, stated "the proficiency of emergency response personnel (as defined in 10 CFR 50 Appendix E) is ensured by the following means: Initial training and annual retraining on applicable generic and site specific portions of the GSEP and the corresponding implementing procedures < Annual retraining is to be conducted on a calendar year basis."
Licensee records identified that approximately 110 maintenance personnel had not received annual requalification training in 1997 and were not qualified for emergency
response in 1998. The failure to train maintenance personnel as stated in the GSEP Manual is a Violation. This non-repetitive, licensee-identified and corrected violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy. (NCV 50-37?/98003-01; 50-374/98003-01(DRS)).
The licensee had identified that annual GSEP training for bargaining unit personnel had not been completed in 1997 and initiated a problem identification form (PlF) number L1998 00667, dated January 27,1998. They determined that a decision was made to cancel annual training (that included GSEP training) to conduct restart training, with insufficient evaluation of the impact of canceling annual trrining on station programs.
This effectively caused GSEP training to not be conducted between 1996 and 1998.
Immediate corrective actions were initiated on January 28,1998 and 33 of the 110 maintenance personnel were trained. Additional training was scheduled for January 29 and 30,1998, to qualify the majority of maintenance personnei Long term corrective actions were initiated and included revision to the Administrative Course Management Information (ACMI) to add the GSEP training to the maintenance personnel required training matrix. This indicated that corrective actions and actions to prevent occurrence were adequate.
During the review of the GSEP Call List, a new, effective method of tracking and updating qualified ERO personnel was developed by the EP staff and in use. The GSEP Call List was being maintained on computer software instead of the usual
_.
_..
.
. -..
. _ _ _ -
.-
.
.
.
hardcopy directories. This provided instant information on day-to-day availability of ERO personnel. The database was observed by the inspectors to be updated on a daily basis by EP staff personnel. This was a significant improvement to the usual hardcopy directory which was updated on a quarterly basis and did not indicate ERO personnel which were unavailable to respond to an emergency due to sickness, meetings, or vacation.
l Interviews with four key emergency response personnel indicated appropriate knowledge of procedures and emergency iesponsibilities. Each individual was able to describe the response process in detail, and cescribe both their response functions and the applicable procedures they would utilize.
Discussion indicated that there had been a change in the meSodology utilized in operator simulator training. Simulator training had been modified to require event classification and notifications during event sequences. This modification was reported to have shown an improvement in operator classification and notification performance.
Documentation indicated that all 1997 communications, health physics, environmental, medical, augmentation, and assembly and accountability drills were preformed as required by the LaSalle GSEP. The 1997 annual GSEP pre-exercise and exercise was also preformed as required. The documentation related to these drills and exercises were thorough and self critical.
Th< Peer Review identified that certain parts of the EP training lesson plans needed to be upgraded to reflect the current state of the program. Also, some lesson plans did not contain all of the objectives listed in the ACMI and lacked some required information.
Additionally, the Peer Review identified that more specific "how to" knowledge needed to be added to position specific lesson plans. The comment reoarding adding more specific "how to" information to the lesson plans was being valuated.
Problem Identification Forms (PIFs) were written to address the lesson plan problems.
Corrective actions were promptly initiated and included revision of all EP training lesson plans that did not reflect the current program, corrected inaccuracies, and added the ACMI objectives and additionalinformation. Discussion with corporate personnel indicated that Comed plans to revise and standardize EP training programs at all operating nuclear stations.
Several training modules were selected and read; no problems were identifieo. A review of training module revision dates indicated that training modules had been reviewed and revised in 1997 and 1998.
The inspectors discussed the status ol the respirator qualification program and reviewed qualification summary documentation. The EP staff had been assigned to evaluate and determine the adequate number of respirator-qualified personnel needed to support OSC emergency teams staffing for required disciplines, with a goal that at over 50% of the responders be respirator qualified. The NRC is currently developing a position on
,
_ _ _
__
_
._
_
. _ _ _ -
..
. _ _ _ _. _ _ =__ _ _ _ _
..
respirator qualification for emergency teams, but this has not been finalized. The above
actions appeared to be a proactive effort to develop a program prior to the c'evelopmerit of regulatory guidance.
c.
Conclusions i
EP training was generally effective, but tracking of completed training needed F
improvement. Competent knowledge of emergency responsibilities and procedures was i
demonstrated by key ERO personnel. Interviewed key emergency response personnel j
demonstrated their knowledge of responsibilities and emergency procedures. Training records indicated that the program for tracking emergency responder qualifications was generally effective. The inspector noted that the licensee had effectively addressed and corrected a number of issues identified in an EP program audit and self assessment.
~
One Non-Cited Violation of GSEP Manual Section 8.2 was identifed. Training modules were properly updated.
,
P6 EP Organization and Administration No significant changes have been made to the EP organization since the last inspection.
The Emergency Preparedness Coordinator and the EP trainer continued to report to the Health Physics Manager, who reported to the Station Manager. The Station Manager, in turn, reported to the Site Vice President.
l P7 Quality Assurance in EP Activities a.
Insoection Scoce (82701)
The inspectors reviewed the 1996 LaSalle Site Quality Verification (SQV) Audit of Emergency Preparedness, QA A 01-96-09, dated October 22,1996, and the 1997 -
'
Quality and Safety Assessment (O &SA) 1997 annual audit QAA 01-97-08. Also reviewed were the 1997 and 1998 Emergency Preparedness Program Self-Assessment (" peer review") reports. Problem Identification Forms assigned to the Emergency J
Preparedness Group were also reviewed.
b.
Observations and Findinas 4-
!
The SOV audit " Emergency Preparedness" had been conducted by a five-person team
!
during September 16 - October 22,1996. This audit included the review of nine
surveillance reports related to emergency preparedness. The audit report was highly
detailed, and resulted in one Level 11 Corrective Action Recommendations (CARS), and six Level lli CARS. Included was the finding that SOV had not been verifying the
operability of the Mazon Emergency Opuations Facility during annual audits. This was corrected in the 1996 audit and the other stations were advised of the finding. The adequacy of offsite interface was verified as acceptable by interviews with individuals associated with seven off-site agencies, review of agreement letters, and attendarce at j
the annual off site agency meeting.
The Q&SA audit was conducted by a five-person team during,"eptember 15-10,1997.
The audit was comprehensive, and resulted in three Level 11 CARS and two Level lli
"
CARS. Only one of the issued CARS pertained directly to emergency preparedness,
-..
--
-
-
,,,.
_
_
_.
. _ - - - ___-__- _ - --
--
.
and was related to minor procedure deficiencics, none of which prevented the procedurc-from being performed as written. Q&SA personnel validated the effectiveness of offsite interface by interviews of individuais from local support agencies, satisfying the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). Discussion indicated that interviews of State of Illinois personnel would be conducted by corporate personnel so that Illinois personnel would not be interviewed a total of six times (once per nuclear generating sta:lon).
The 1997 Emergency Preparedness Program Self-Assessment (Peer Review) was conducted by four individuals during May 27-29,1997. The Peer Review concluded that the program was being maintained at an adequate level. Areas of concem identified in the report included maintenance of station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and resolution of EP corrective actions outside of the cognizance of the station EP group. The Peer Review also noted that NRC items were not being effectively tracked for corrective action by the station.
The inspectors reviewed the 1998 Emergency Preparedness Program Self Assessment dated January 16,1998. This " Peer Review" was conducted by six individuals during January 13-15,1998, utilizing NRC inspection precedure 82701 as the base document for the review. The assessment concluded that the emergency response program was being maintained at a good level. Concern was expressed regarding EP training materials and the resolution of EP issues asigned for action to persormel outside of the EP organization. The " Peer Review" has proven to be a useful tool in identifying and obtaining corrective action on EP program issues at this site and others.
A search of the PlF system and discussion with the EP Coordinator identified thirty-three LaSalle station PIFs related to emergency planning. Several of these PIFs were either closed or in the process of being closed. Review of the PlF documentation indicated that these problems had been properly identified as meeting the threshold for entering into the PlF system.
A number of problem identification forms were selectively reviewed by the inspectors including PIF # L1997-06448,"Some RPT and Chem Tcchs Respirator Fits Are Expiring and Expired," dated October 9,1997; PIF #1997-06624, " Training Lesson Plan Deficiencies," dated October 16,1997; PlF #1997-07197, "EP Implementing Procedures Were Not Receiving a 10 CFR 50.59 Review, Only Receiving a 10 CFR 50.54(q)
Review," dated October 30,1997; and PIF #L1998-00393, "O&SA Identified A Manager May Be Unavailable For GSEP Due To Respirator Qualifications Expiring or Expired,"
dated January 1S,1998. All of these PlFs were appropriately closed. Corrective actions taken appeared appropriate to prevent recurrences, and included prompt respiratory protection qualification of all appropriate radiation protection technicians and chemistry technicians, and immediate revision of the lesson plan deficiencies. A 10 CFR 50.59 review or screening was to be conducted on all revised EPIPs, and the manager was immediately respirator qualified.
PlF # L1998-00457, titled "PA System does not include Service Building audibility of assembly siren," dated January 19,1998, was reviewed and discussed with the system engineer. An upgrade to the public address (PA) system had been planned, but the vendor found that a newly designed unit did not function acceptably requiring use of an older design. The tone generator, which had provided the tones for the assembly siren,
___
,
,
was an integral part of the new design, and had not been prov4ad separately in the
-
design modification package. The older design for the system @ !nclude the tone generator (yet to be ordered as a separate unit). It was anticipateo hat the engineering reviews and approvals for the revised system would be complete by the end af February 1998.
Audibility of the assembly siren in the Service Building will be tracked as an inspection Followup Item (IFI) 50-373/374/98003-02.
Discussion indicated that the EP staff held periodic meetings with the Site Vice President to discuss the status of Peer Review items. This indicated upper management attention to the EP program.
The inspectors discussed audit and Peer Review findings and actions taken for the identified issues. Licensee evaluation of these items, documentation, tracking, corrective actions (where completed), and closure were effective and appropriate. Good practices were also identified in the reviewed reports such as the use of a dedicated OSC, and the computerized call out list system.
,
c.
Conclusions The licensee's 1996 and 1997 EP audits and surveillances, and 199/ and 1998 EP Program Self-Assessment Report were effective and satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The audits and program self-assessments were of excellent scope and depth. Identified issues were tracked and reviewed for resolution. Problems had been properly entered into the PIF system when considered to exceed the threshold for entrance to the system. Corrective actions on several new PlFs were continuing.
P8 Miscellaneous EP lasues P8.1 fClosed) Insoection Followuo item No. 50-373/94013-02: 50-374/94013-02: Need for root cause determinations. Guidance has been provided to Qual;ty & Safety Assessment personnel that Level I and ll Corrective Action Requests will contain a statement discussing the root cause(s) of the listed deficiencies. The site quality assurance program hLs been significantly modified since the originalissuance of this item, and CARS are now entered into the Problem Identification Form (PlF) system, and are reviewed by an Event Screening Committee. Licensee personnelindicated that a review of 30 Level I and il CARS processed during 1997 revealed that all properly contained root cause statements. The CAR format had not bean modified to include that root cause statement, but its inclusion on the CAR form was being tracked under PlF L1988-00402. This item is closed.
P8.2 fClosed) Violation No. 50-373/96004-03: 50-374/96004-03: Failure of the meteorological tower to meet UFSAR commitments. A new meteorological tower has been constructed at a location which is not influenced by the building wake effects of site buildings. The tower instrument is functional, but cabling to transmit meteorological data to the station has not been installed. Cable installation is planned for when minimum cabie pull temperatures (20 degrees F) exist. The location and height of the tower had been reviewed by the licensee's meteorological contractor and found to be acceptable. This item is closed.
.
P8.3 (Closed Insoection Followuo item No. 50-373/96004-04: 50-374/96004-04: EP audit
-
weakness in the evaluation of offsite interface. Review of the evaluation of the adequacy of offsite interface contained in the 1996 and 1997 site audits was acceptable, Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that the interface with State of Illinois personnel would be performed by corporate personnel so that this would not be done multiple times per year (once a year for each operating station). This item is closed.
P8.4 (Ocen) Insoection Followuo item I '. 50-373/97006 06: 50-374/97006-06: Cuiing the 1996 emergency exercise the decis.on to evacuate non-essential personnel from the site was untimely. This item will remain open pending appropriate demonstration during an exercise or drill.
P8.5 (Ocen) Insoection Followuo item No. 50-373/96006-07: 50-374/96006-07: During the -
1996 emergency exercise, inadequate concern was expressed for inplant radiological conditions. This item will remain open pending appropriate demonstration during an exercise or drill.
,
P8.6 (Ocen) Insoection Followuo item No. 50-373/96006-08: 50-374/96006-08: During the 1996 emergency exercise there was inadequate performance by controllers accompanying inplant teams. This item will remain open per ding appropriate demonstration during an exercise or drill.
V.
Management Meeting X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of the onsite inspection on January 30,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
l
)
__
_
_ _ _
_
._
_. _.
_
_
_ _..
_
_ __
. _ _
.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
-
Licensee
.
J. Arnould, Rapid Response Team J. Bailey, Site Business Manager P. Bames, Regulatory Assurance Manager C. Berry, Business Planning E. Carrol, Regulatory Assurance R. Chrzanowski, ISEG Lead F. Dacimo, Site Vice President G. Heisterman, Maintenance Manager J. Henry, SOS / OPS N. Highiower, Health Physics
'
T. Hodges, RP A. Howard, Health Physics, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator R. Jeffries, Health Physics, Emergency Preparedness Trainer C. Kelley, Lead Operations Health Physics S. Koval, Lead Technical Health Physics L. Lanes, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Zion Station P. Nottingham, RP Special Projects Coordinator
!
T. O'Conne, Station Manager M. Pavez, Licensing RPA D. Rhoades, Chemistry Manager B. Riffer, O & SA Manager L. Schneider, O & SA Auditor S. Smith, Restart Manager D. Stobaugh, Corporate Emergency Preparedness Supervisor
,
D. Trager, Office Supervisor M. Vonk, Corporate Emergency Preparedness Director T. Wojtulewicz, O & SA Auditor NdG R. Crane, Resident inspector M. Huber, Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 82701 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program
_
l
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
'
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Qk*4 Dad -
50-373; 374/98003-02 IFl Service building public address system capabilities.
Closed 50-373; 374/98003-01 NCV Failing to meet maintenance personnel trLining commitments.
50-373; 374/94013-02 IFl Lack of root cause review in corrective action program.
l 50-373;374/96004-03 VIO Meteorological tower not meet UFSAR commitments.
50-373; 374/96004-04 IFI Annual audit weak in area of offsite interface i
Discussed 50-373;374/96006-06 IFl Untimely decision to evacuate nonessential staff during 1996 exercise.
50-373; 374/96006-07 IFl Inadequate concern demonstrated for inplant radiation levels in 1996 exercise.
50-373; 374/96006-08 IFl Inadequate performance by controllers accompanying inplant teams in 1996 exercise.
_-
e
.
LIST OF ACh :NYMS USED
-
CAR Corrective Action Request CFR Code of Federal Regulations DRP Division of Reactor Projects DRS Division of Reactor Safety EAL Emer9ency Action Leve!
EOF Emergency Operations Facility EP Emergency Preparedness EPIP Emergency implementing Procedures ERF Emergency Response Facilities ERO Emergency Response Organization GSEP Generating Stations Emergency Plan IFl Inspection Followup Item NPF Nuclear Power Facility NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation OSC Operations Support Center PDR Public Document Room l
PlF Problem Identification Form
Q&SA Quality and Safety Assessment RPT Radiation Protection Technician SRI Senior Resident inspector SQV Site Quality Verification (now Quality & Safety Assessment)
.s