IR 05000397/1994007
| ML17290B099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1994 |
| From: | Mcqueen A, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17290B098 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-94-07, 50-397-94-7, NUDOCS 9404150121 | |
| Download: ML17290B099 (12) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMHISSION
REGION V
Report No.
License No.
Licensee:
50-397/94-07 NPF-21 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
P.O.
Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project, Unit 2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspector:
Inspection Conducted:
Harch
25, 1994
~
fIaa. fA PXi~
c ueen, mergency repare ness na yst a ze(ey a
e
>gne Approved by:
o ert
.. ate, ie
,
a eguar s, mergency Preparedness, and Non-Power Reactor Branch ate sgn
~Summar:
Areas Ins ected:
This routine inspection by a region-based inspector examined the following portions of the licensee's emergency preparedness program:
Emergency Detection and Classification; Protective Action Decision Haking; Notification and Communications; Knowledge and Performance of Duties; Dose Projection; Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program; Followup on Open Items identified during previous emergency preparedness inspections and NRC Generic Letter 93-07.
During this inspection, portions of Inspection Procedures 82201, 82202, 82203, 82206, 82207, 82701, 92701, and 92703 were used.
Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's emergency preparedness program appeared generally adequate to accomplish its objectives.
Hanagement support of emergency preparedness objectives appears to remain a strength, as indicated in the previous routine inspection.
9404150121 940329 PDR ADOCK 050003'P7
NSP CTION 0 TAILS Ke Pers ns Cont c
e
- H.
- J
- p
- p.
~A.
W.
- M.
C.
- J
- D
- B.
R.
- H.
- D K.
- K H.
- J
- D
- G
- J
- S R.
L. Aeschliman, Principal Emergency Planner M, Baker, Manager, Nuclear Training T. Bagan, Technical Advisor, EP Scenario Development R. Bemis, Manager, Regulatory Programs G. Carlyle, EP Audit Team Leader, guality Assessments S. Davison, Manager, Plant Support Assessments P. Flasch, Director of Engineering R. Gallagher, Control Room Supervisor C. Gearhart, Director, guality Assessment B. Holmes, Senior Emergency Planner R. Hugo, Licensing Engineer E. Jorgensen, Emergency Planner, Training E. Kook, Manager, Licensing E. Larson, Manager, Emergency Preparedness (EP)
B. Lewis, Licensing Engineer P.
Meehan, Emergency Planner E. Hoy, guality Assurance V. Parrish, Assistant Managing Director of Operations
,
J.
Schumann, Principal Engineer, Operating Experience Assessment Review 0. Smith, Operations Division Manager H. Swailes, Plant Manager R. Telander, Manager, Support Services L. Webring, Technical Hanager The above individuals denoted with an asterisk were present during the exit meeting on March 25, 1994.
The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's emergency preparedness, administrative, and technical staff during the course of the inspection.
NRC Personnel at xit Interview A. D. Hcgueen, Emergency Preparedness Analyst; RV D. L. Proulx, Resident Inspector Functional or Pr ram Areas Ins ected The licensee appeared to be maintaining their previous level of performance in the following areas and their program appeared adequate to accomplish their objectives.
a ~
Emer enc Detectio and Clas ifi ation (MC 82201)
The emergency detection and classification scheme used by the licensee was reviewed.
The licensee is awaiting approval of proposed Emergency Action Levels (EAL) based on the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) guidelines forwarded to the NRC in January 199 The inspector monitored a training class on changes in the site emergency detection and classification system presented to a control room crew in requalification training.
guestions and discussions by the crew class members evidenced familiarity with the site emergency action level scheme and its interpretation.
No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
Protective Action Decision-Makin (HC 82202)
J Protective action decision making debriefing of a crew was observed by the inspector following a control room emergency response scenario in the plant training simulator.
See section d
below.
The crew was queried by a licensing examiner and exhibited general knowledge of the plant protective action scheme.
No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
Notifications and Communications (MC 82203)
The licensee tested emergency notification of and call-out of Emergency Response Organization members on February 3, 1994.
The drill (See section f.(3)(b) below) was assessed by the licensee as having accomplished stated objectives.
The inspector observed the licensee's quarterly test of the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) with NRC Headquarters on March 23, 1994.
The test was conducted from the Emergency Operations Facility and was accomplished as intended.
The test revealed a flaw in data transmission to the NRC.
'The licensee immediately initiated a Problem Evaluation Request (PER 294-0222)
which described the nature of the problem by indicating "that an ERDS data point had not been changed in the ERDS computer software to reflect a change*to the signal point for the high range stack monitor."
The PER further indicated that "The Supply System informed the NRC of the change to the data point library in compliance with lOCFR50, Appendix E,Section VI.3a on July 15, 1993, however failed to change the ERDS software to reflect that data point 406 was now 392.
Failure to change the ERDS software resulted in the NRC not being able to display radioactivity of released gas (high range stack monitor)."
With the PER, the licensee has initiated action to correct the problem.
No violations or deviations were indicated in this program area.
owled e
d e fo ance of Du s
(MC 82206)
On March 22, 1994, the inspector observed Operations Requalification Training involving one control room crew responding to a scenario of emergency events in the plant training
simulator.
The crew responded to events involving failed fuel elements, condensate booster pump failure, an operating basis earthquake and reactor water cleanup system (RWCU) leakage.
The scenario provided the basis for classification of emergency events at all levels from the Unusual Event through a General Emergency.
The scenario was for training purposes, and thorough and effective critiques were conducted at one "freeze point" during the scenario and following the scenario.
Control room personnel generally demonstrated knowledge of their emergency response duties and performed them in a quick and appropriate manner.
No violations or deviations were indicated in this program area.
Dose Calculation and Assessment (HC 82207)
The inspector observed demonstrations of the current Emergency Dose Projection System (EDPS)
and a new enhanced EDPS under development for the Supply System.
Both systems are computer based.
It is anticipated that the new system will be developed, documented, debugged, and personnel trained in its use prior to the annual emergency. exercise in September 1994.
The new system appears to be a substantive improvement over the former system and features high quality graphics and data which can be transmitted realtime to user emergency response elements, including offsite agencies.
No violations or deviations were indicated in this program area.
0 erational Status of the Emer enc Pre aredness Pro ram (HC-82701)
(1)
Emer enc Plan and Im lementin Procedures Of thirty Plant Procedures Hanual (PPH)
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP); which had been revised since the last routine inspection, nine were randomly selected and reviewed during this inspection against their previous revision.
No apparent degradations in site emergency preparedness were noted in the marked changes.
All revisions had been reviewed and approved by the Plant Operating Committee (POC) in accordance with Support Services Instruction (SSI) 9.2.4, titled
"Administrative Processing of Emergency. Plans and Implementing Procedures,"
Revision 0, dated January 1,
1992.
All revisions had been transmitted to the NRC within the required tim (2)
Emer enc Facilities ui ment nstrumentation and
~Su 1 1 as The Control Room (CR),
Emergency Operations Facility (EOF),
Technical Support Center (TSC)
and the Operations Support Center (OSC) were toured and inspected, to include response equipment, instrumentation and calibration, procedures, and supplies on hand.
Sample maintenance records selected randomly and a pending problem evaluation request were
, reviewed regarding emergency preparedness equipment and supplies.
EP corrective actions are now tracked in the Supply System PASSPORT Work Management System (a computer based system containing the Scheduled Maintenance System).
This system generates a plant Problem Evaluation Request (PER) for maintenance actions to correct problems or discrepancies.
A newly designed and upgraded Emergency Operations Facility was inspected and appears to be a substantive improvement over the former facility.
The new facility brings together in one work. area, a number of former dispersed elements.
A similar redesign and upgrade is under way for the Technical Support Center.
(3)
~Trainin
. Final Evaluation Reports and Critique Report for two Emergency Preparedness Drills were reviewed by the inspector.
(a)
Drill 93-2, conducted November 9 - 10, 1993.
The drill involved a scenario requiring identification and classification of emergency events from an Unusual Event through an Alert and Site-Area Emergency, to a
General Emergency.
Some offsite agencies also participated in the drill.
The exercise critique appeared appropriate for exercise activities and objectives.
(b)
Call-Out Drill 94-A, conducted February 3, 1994.
The licensee indicated this drill and evaluation were designed to test the entire classification and notification process and to provide a graded evaluation of response to Emergency Response Organization notification.
The critique indicated that all regulatory requirements and licensing commitments associated with the drill were me (4)
nde endent Reviews and Surveillance The inspector was provided a copy of the'994 ahnual EP audit plan which indicated names of audit team members, scope of the audit, activities and documents to be reviewed in the audit.
The audit team contains a former EP manager
'from another power reactor site; as well as representation from guality Assurance, health physics, operations, and engineering.
The team also includes two members from the Washington State Department of Health.
The audit plan appears ambitious and the team members appear diverse and well qualified.
The inspector also reviewed a guality Assurance surveillance of an emergency preparedness activity in the guality Assurance Audit 93-647, dated December 29, 1993.
This audit pertained to Training and gualification of WNP-2 Unit Staff."
The EP activity was the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) training and requali,fication program and resulted ia-one recommendation for improvement of the program.
No violations or deviations were indicated in these program areas.
3.
Follow u on Previous Ins ection indin s a ~
(Open)
Open Item (93-002).
Generi etter No. 93-07 By Generic Letter 93-07, All Holders of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors were issued guidance for changes to technical specifications (TS) to remove the audit of the emergency and security plans and implementing procedures from the list of responsibilities of licensee nuclear audit and review groups.
Also, this guidance allowed TS changes to remove the review of the emergency plans from the list of responsibilities of the unit review group and the requirements for the unit review group to review procedures, and procedure changes, for the implementation of the emergency and security plans; provided the licensee relocates these requirements to the respective emergency and security plans.
The licensee indicated during this inspection that the EP staff is preparing a recommendation for plant management on proposed implementation of Generic Letter 93-07.
This item will be closed when implementing decisions are made and action, if any, is completed.
b.
(Closed)
Open Item (93-05-02)
e i EPPPl it s
n ev 8 t Two issues were identified for clarification during the review of Revision 18 to EPIP PPM 13. 1.1, "Classifying the Emergency."
(1)
"Specific criteria to define the loss of fission product barriers had not been included in the Emergency Action Levels (EALs)."
The licensee had indicated a letter would be issued to Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) to provide examples of lost fission product barriers.
This was accomplished by memoranda dated December 16, 1993, and Harch 14, 1994.
(2)
"The two parts of (event)
A-32 threshold values for areas requiring continuous occupancy and threshold values for areas requiring infrequent access were incorrectly joined by an 'and'as opposed to an 'or')."
The licensee had indicated the "and" would be changed to an "or" in event A-32.
This was accomplished in Revision.19 to PPH 13.1.1, dated January 1,
1994.
This inspection follow-up item was reviewed prior to and during this inspection and it was determined that the licensee had taken appropriate action to implement commitments made to the NRC regarding Revision 18 to EPIP PPH 13.1. 1.
This item is closed.
(Open)
Open Item (94-06-01)
'ff'cultic in A co ntabi it Procedures Pr'or to Site vac ati During the last routine EP inspection
"The inspector reviewed Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure PPH 13.5.5,
'Personnel Accountability.'he inspector noted that the licensee directs that accountability be accomplished at an Alert or higher event classification.
The procedure does not require evacuation of nonessential personnel or that nonessential personnel go to assembly areas to use security card readers to locate themselves.
The current accountability procedure would only locate emergency response essential personnel at their respective emergency response facilities (ERFs).
The inspector noted that under conditions which the Plant Emergency Director (PED) directs accountability, with no evacuation, the list of names provided would list all nonessential personnel in the Protected Area (PA).
This would not be adequate, under these conditions, to 'ascertain the names of missing individuals',
as directed by NRC guidance in NUREG 0654 II.J.5.
The licensee and the inspector noted that accountability could be accomplished if the controlled PA evacuation procedure was also performed.
The inspector interviewed a
PED qualified member of the licensee's staff and that person was familiar with the procedures and recognized that evacuation would have to be preformed to accomplish accountability using current plant procedures.
Licensee management indicated that these procedures would be reviewed as a part of.the procedure review and upgrade currently in progress."
It was indicated at the exit interview that the NRC woul'd review the accountability procedure after the upgrades are complete.
A review of this item at the beginning of this inspection indicated that the licensee EP staff had not yet received the inspection report and therefore had
E not yet had an opportunity to fully evaluate and initiate corrective actions.
They subsequently were provided a copy of the report and indicated that a current project of revising all of the site emergency plan implementing procedures (EPIPs)'ill address this item.
Evacuation and accountability are covered presently in four different EPIPs.
It is intended to consolidate this material into one or two EPIPs to make them easier to use and understand.
This item will be reviewed in a future routine inspection.
Exit Interview.
On Parch 25, 1994, at the conclusion of the site visit, the inspector met with the licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 above to summarize the scope and the preliminary results of this inspection.
The inspector indicated the open item to be closed.
The licensee was provided with details of the inspection observations as discussed above.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.